Mark Levison, The Levison Group
As a board member, I was invited to a presentation by our city’s development corporation that was designed to convince a large government agency to build a proposed $1.75 billion facility within our city limits. The agency, which has been located here for decades, had outgrown its headquarters. The new location proposed by our city was a blighted area adjacent to the site of a former disastrous federal government housing project. Three other jurisdictions are competing for the agency location, and one of the competing sites is across the state line in farm country. That site requires no land clearance (other than maybe corn). It’s a flat, wide open space adjacent to an airport, highways, rail lines and a military base. In an attempt to woo the federal agency away from our city and state, the neighbor offered to give the government the land for free. It then pointed out there are no issues of eminent domain on their site, while some of the parcels in our urban area may have to be obtained through eminent domain. I took my best friend from high school, Errol, with me to the presentation.
Errol is neither a lawyer nor a politician. He is a scientist and data based empirical thinker, both by inclination and occupation. He listened to the presentation, and then informed me our city did not have the slightest chance.
When the decision was announced last week, we won. Errol was almost speechless. So much for science.
Then, over the weekend, I met some more old friends for drinks. It seems like it was only yesterday when Errol was picking me up in his 1959 Corvette so we could drive to High School in style, but it must have been the day before yesterday. Yesterday, Cal Polo, Dick Slickster, Joe Avergeen and I were first year law students, involved in our own study group. As 1-L’s, we were eager to take on the world.
The older people get, the more time they spend talking about how fast time goes by. (That is a fact.) All of my study group buddies are still practicing law, but our paths have diverged over time. Polo joined the silk stocking Armstrong, Scarsdale firm. One of the largest firms in town at the time, it boasted about 80 lawyers and impressive regional and national clients. Over the years the firm merged, some of its lawyers changed firms or left the law; the firm merged again with an even bigger law firm. When that happened, more lawyers left but Polo stayed. For those like Cal who negotiated the internal politics of the changing firm, the clientele got fancier and fancier. So did the cars the attorneys drove as they “advanced” to junior partners and so on.
Dick Slickster, on the other hand, started in a tiny personal injury firm. He cut his teeth with a couple of guys that perhaps pushed the envelope a little bit. Before long, he founded his own firm, and did better than some of us anticipated. As time has gone on, his sartorial acumen has improved. The plaid pants and wide (too often beer stained) ties have yielded to a more conservative approach. Today, his suits don’t look much different than Cal Polo’s. In fact, they probably cost more. Having made a good living, Dick has become active in the Plaintiffs’ bar, lobbying for the rights of the injured and unfortunate, and the positions of the lawyers who represent that constituency.
There have been some changes over the years for Cal, and Dick, but Joe Avergeen is still just Joe. I mentioned to my old study group that Errol was dumbfounded by the decision to keep the government agency in our town. Joe’s response was, “Well, our side must have worked harder.”
When it comes to trials, I have always thought of Avergeen as your Average Joe. He started his own practice straight out of law school. Joe probably didn’t have the grades (and maybe the desire) to be offered a job at Polo’s firm. Still, he seemed to have common sense and the grit to get things done. In law
school, and thereafter, Joe could throw down his ration of Budweiser with the best of them, but didn’t spill as much as the more effusive and charismatic Dick Slickster. Joe took everything in stride without getting too wound up. He got along well with people. Some might describe him as plodding. I would describe him as methodical.
Referring to the government’s decision, and to probably his life as a trial lawyer as well, Joe postulated that the decision, like most, was grounded upon a theoretical basis and a bushel full of facts, as seen through the eyes of the decision maker. He told us the theoretical arguments for locating the agency within the city relate to the importance of jobs and vitality within the urban core, and the economic importance of the city to the entire region. He offered that in regard to the farm site there are arguments about ease, convenience and maybe even initial cost savings. Joe emphasized that each one of the proposals certainly had facts that were argued and urged on its behalf. Then, after taking a swallow of rye – he’s drinking more rye these days than beer – Joe opined, “but in the end it usually comes down to intense preparation and very hard work.”
If life as a trial lawyer has taught me anything, it has taught me to never be absolutely certain: not of my case; my witnesses; or the deciders of the facts. Often it seems easy to view a particular set of facts and draw what appears to be an unalterable conclusion. Yet, sometimes, despite our thought process and beliefs, the facts we rely upon do not prove out to be exactly true, and the conclusions we draw from those facts sometimes get improperly influenced by our own biases and perspectives.
Hard work, often wins the day, whether it is an attempt to influence the government, a judge or the jury, even when law or facts may appear to indicate a contrary decision. Average Joe once put his perspective on the law to me this way: he said, “You know, Mark, I can be beaten, but I cannot be out prepared.” When it comes to betting on a lawyer, my money is usually on Joe.
—————
Under Analysis is a nationally syndicated column of the Levison Group. Mark Levison is a member of the law firm Lashly & Baer, P.C. Contact Under Analysis by e-mail at comments@levisongroup.com.
©2015 Under Analysis LLC
