Law Refresher : Judge Instructs Attorneys on Do’s and Don’ts in Courtroom

Day after day the wheelchair-bound plaintiff in the elevator accident case sat in the courtroom without moving a muscle. When it was her time to testify, court attendants struggled for five minutes to help her onto the witness stand.

Then, recalled Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harvey A. Schneider, who presided over the trial, came a case-shattering surprise, a moment of courtroom melodrama worthy of a television script.

The defense, he said, produced a recent videotape showing the accident victim “doing everything but sky diving.” To the judge’s amazement, the plaintiff’s attorney apparently had never thought to ask if any videotapes or photographs existed.

Experiences such as this persuaded Schneider that many lawyers who appear before him in civil court lack basic lawyering skills, and have prompted him to, as he phrased it, “put my time where my mouth was.” Schneider last year started conducting voluntary night courses designed to improve the skills of working lawyers.

Each Tuesday evening after court hours, about 80 lawyers of varying ages troop into the Los Angeles Superior Court building’s largest courtroom--the one most closely resembling a law school lecture hall--to hear the 54-year-old judge, a former U.S. magistrate and veteran criminal and civil lawyer, teach them the techniques of their trade.

Speaking from behind a lectern rather than from the bench and clad in shirt sleeves instead of a judicial robe, the bald and mustachioed jurist dispenses a combination of factual information, strategy and avuncular advice. He also brings in guests, such as medical experts, to demonstrate how they should be examined.

He tells the attorneys what to expect in a pretrial conference. “You’d be surprised how many lawyers show up on that day and they haven’t really talked about settlement at all,” he says. He informs them how to question prospective jurors and then how to keep from boring the panel or embarrassing themselves with their opening statements.

Some of these insider tips amount to common sense. Ascertain the idiosyncracies of the judge who will hear your case, he exhorted them at a recent lecture, the third in a series of six. Find out if your judge is a stickler for formalities like Schneider himself, who becomes annoyed when lawyers pace the floor Perry Mason-style.

Don’t be “a fool” and alienate the court staff, he told them. “Those are your potential friends,” he said. “You ought to cultivate those people.”

Impress jurors by memorizing their names, he urged. But, he quickly added, “don’t try to do this at your first trial, when you have so many things to think about.”

In fewer than three years on the Superior Court, Schneider has handled two high-profile cases--columnist Art Buchwald’s suit against Paramount over the movie “Coming to America,” and a whistle-blowers’ lawsuit against Lockheed that resulted in a $45-million verdict, which is being appealed.

He has developed a reputation as a skillful and exacting judge who insists on keeping his cases moving. He is constantly amazed, he said, by lawyers’ “lack of preparation and (failure to recognize) that they’re there to please the jury, not to irritate it.”

He admits to being “somewhat of a perfectionist” but adds: “I suspect lawyers who are prepared and follow the rules have no trouble with me.”

Even so, Schneider is not unsympathetic to novices. “When you’re a beginning lawyer, it’s like doing open-heart surgery with a shovel and a fork,” he said, recalling for the class his gaffe during his first trial, when he got confused and objected to his own client’s testimony on the grounds that it was hearsay.

As Schneider spoke, the students--some of them looking weary after a day of work--listened attentively, only rarely interrupting him with questions. During the break, a few wanted to talk about specific matters. “I’m not going to give any legal advice relating to a case,” he told one lawyer sternly.

Some of the student-lawyers are recent law school graduates, while others have not been in a classroom for years. They say Schneider’s lectures are invaluable.

Eulanda Matthews completed Hastings College of Law in 1984 and practices law in West Los Angeles, but has yet to find herself in a jury trial. “Every time I feel I might there’s this anticipation of uneasiness,” she said. Taking Schneider’s course has helped build her confidence. “It has eased my mind to actually hear the judge walk you through things you may not have thought about.”

Jeanne A. Lowell, who practices law by herself in Santa Monica and who graduated from Southwestern University School of Law six years ago, said: “Unless you’re in a situation in a firm where you have a mentor, you have to learn by doing. It’s hard. You make mistakes.”

Schneider said the idea for the course sprang from a meeting held by the Bench-Bar Committee, a group of lawyers and judges. The course was offered free of charge last year, but now there is a $125 fee, with the proceeds to go to an as-yet undetermined charity.

The judge said he hopes that the State Bar will agree to certify his course so that the students will get credit toward newly mandated continuing legal education requirements. Starting next February, lawyers in California will be required to earn 36 hours of credit every three years.

Although Schneider donates his time, he said he has a “particularly selfish motive” for teaching.

“Good lawyers make the judge’s life so much easier,” he said. “Good lawyers usually settle their cases. Good lawyers try cases expeditiously. It’s the lawyers who don’t know what they’re doing who cause all the problems.”