The answers to these clichés are simple, that is, you have more experience, so you have confidence; you are somewhat familiar with the program, so you can focus on the content; you know something about your opponent, so you know that the opponent will object without even knowing it. It’s seven twenty-one. But if you think about it carefully, that's not the case. When I was doing court trial practice, I was also very nervous the second time, but it was not much better than the first time. So I feel like these cliche answers are definitely not the answers I want.
So why did I feel so much better and more confident the second time I took evidence than the first time? I closed my eyes and thought about it. I think all of these sound like inevitable reasons, but they are not the real reasons. Like those cliché answers I just wrote, they are just reasons given by people who do things and think without thinking. That's the thing about people, they think they're safer in numbers. Again, people are the way they are because what everyone says is right. And my situation is just a case. If the so-called correct axioms are inevitably given, it will make it impossible for me to recognize myself clearly and calm down. On the contrary, it will make the mess in my head become even more confusing. A mess.
So, I want to try to analyze why my second topic selection is much more confident than the first one?
During my first deposition, I called a good friend of mine at another law firm. She told me a lot of things like, "You're going to be okay," which seemed to calm me down a bit. However, I can be very hypocritical at times. I was obviously not scared, but I had to pretend to be scared so that I could find opportunities to talk to others, let them comfort me, or get some encouragement from them. In fact, I am not timid about standing in front of the judge or the opposing lawyer. When I was timid before, I would either act aggressively or be too taciturn, but as long as I can speak calmly and in my own way, I am not timid at heart. But outwardly, I always like to appear a little unsure. Is this deliberately putting yourself down to make your relationships better? Is it to make others think that I am a person they can get close to? Is it to make others think I am a more approachable person? Is it so others can say I have a good work attitude and am very humble? Choosing how to present yourself to others can be a dilemma.
Another level is English. I like to joke about my lack of English, but frankly, my English is not bad. I can also ask for flowers if there are holes in a witness's testimony. There were definitely times in law school when I wasn’t very confident in my English, and I could feel that when I was practicing in court. But after working, I am less and less confident in English, and I am no longer afraid to use English to give evidence to the other party, no matter what prison guard or staff member the other party is.
Although I am not afraid, what is certain is that my second testimony yesterday was much more confident than my first testimony. I chose to be a bit weak in my performance in this law firm, because I thought that having too many certificates from prestigious schools would give people a so-called "cow" feeling. At this time, it would be easier to act tough. Being called arrogant or something. As a result, this weak performance created a certain amount of negative feedback, causing me to have reservations about many things.
But before the second deposition, something very interesting happened. There were two potential witnesses with the same surname. We were originally going to choose J1, but we got confused and wrote J2. So two days before the evidence collection, I sent an email to the other party’s lawyer saying that we were going to choose J1, but she said she couldn’t. J1 was guaranteed to come; but she would cancel J2 and five minutes later I sent her an email saying I insisted on canceling J2 and we needed to discuss it.
I sent her an email 15 minutes later saying we decided to go ahead with J2, which was around 1:30pm. A day later, at 4pm the day before deposition, the other attorney emailed back to say that J2 had been cancelled, and said her plane had landed late the night before, so she had not seen my email until then.
My colleagues and I were absolutely furious. We had a confrontation before and knew that she could be unreasonable at times. So, I sent an email saying that even if you arrive late at night, no matter what flight you’re on, you shouldn’t go five minutes without checking your email. Also, you can't tell us that the witness canceled the deposition at 4pm the day before the deposition; you should have asked the witness to be there immediately because you saw the email the night before. So you have to produce one of J1 or J2 or I'm going to the judge. She replied: "Besides canceling the witness, is there any other way to understand the email you sent me before? I asked her back: "Of course, if J1 does not show up, we may choose J2; besides, I don't want to lie to you. money, but it is unreasonable for you to notify us so late to cancel the witness, you must produce the witness.
Then, with all my anger, I realized that tomorrow maybe J1 is coming, maybe J2 is coming, maybe both are coming, maybe neither is coming. But I only prepared the materials for J2, and the materials for J1 were just drafts. So I immediately prepared the materials for J1, thinking that no matter who comes tomorrow, I will wait. When I walked out of the office building, I said to myself angrily: "I'm so angry, I'm so angry."
But this anger actually led me to come up with all the evidence of my self-confidence the next day. The witness said, I don't understand what you said, and I said, OK, I'll explain it again. The witness didn't understand his answer, so I asked again. The witness looks puzzled, I will just stare at you and wait for you. The voice collecting evidence is no longer timid, but has a resonant little voice. It completely gets rid of the "I speak English because I'm a foreigner and confuses people" conceit, and this time, I'm here to listen to you.
Before taking the driving license test, I chatted with my friend David, and he said to me, I have never seen you so angry. I said yes. From the time I started working until now, this is the most angry moment I have ever had. But this kind of anger wipes away my inertial mentality of wanting to save some mercy for the other party. When the evidence is solid, I become very domineering.
David and I refused to provide lunch to the other party's lawyers.
When we first collected evidence, we happened to be picking up trash at an event in Taiwan for one night. I was very frustrated that night, and that frustration carried over into the first deposition, which made me seem a little timid. When I received my certificate for the second time, I had just said goodbye to the past. My ambition for this job came back, and I could focus more on preparing for my work.
This is the first time we collect evidence. We don’t know many aspects of the case, and we are afraid that important questions will not be asked. After collecting evidence for the first time, I had a basic understanding of the case. When collecting evidence for the second time, I could roughly guess what the three witnesses would say. This certainty also makes me feel more confident, so I feel relaxed. If we have no way of grasping the witness testimony of the second testimony, then I may still be in a state of suspense.
If a lawyer says, "This is a public interest case, so it doesn't matter," it sounds like he has no moral sense. But I would totally understand if some lawyers said that to me. With the exception of major criminal cases, class action lawsuits, or cases that will really impact someone's life, pro bono cases aren't really high stakes for attorneys. And, without a very sophisticated client pushing your buttons, you have no external pressure and very little internal pressure. As far as this case is concerned, I also have a vague feeling that the stakes are not high. Our client was a man behind bars who wrote every day to sue every police officer he knew around the world; his own crime was domestic violence against his wife, resulting in her death.
As an attorney, I should have defended him to the best of my ability, but frankly, when you don't have much respect for a man, and it becomes increasingly clear as our investigation progresses that there's something wrong with his accusations, you It wouldn’t be as passionate as representing a real domestic violence victim. Therefore, evidence collection is more like a training for ourselves to discover the truth rather than forcing the witness to say what our client wants to hear.
Here are five reasons I can think of. Re-reading these reasons, I feel like each of them answers my question better than the stupid reason "the second time is more experienced than the first". So, be sensible! You can't follow the crowd, you have to experience it yourself, summarize it yourself, fail it yourself, execute it yourself, and then stand firm on your own.
Jisana recorded on June 15, 2017.