depositions, of course, a lawyer (“L”) asks a witness (“W”) whether s/he
contacted another person for some important purpose. Here are some examples–
you contact Physician Jack about your child’s problem?
that were trying to negotiate a deal that day, did you call Fellow Fred?
that Friday was so important, did you email Edmund about it.
- · Given
that you knew that the information was important to Isabella did you go over to
Isaac’s office to see if he could get the information to her, since you did know where she was to be
are other ways to formulate them using the phrase “reach out.” Some
you reach out for your child [to help the child] by calling Physician
order to finish negotiating the deal, did you reach out and get a hold
that Friday was so important, did you reach out to Edmund?
- · Did
you reach out to Isaac so that maybe Isabella could get what she needed?
Or, did you reach out to help Isabella by getting to Isaac?
use of the phrase “reach out.”
environment. Traditionally and still customarily, the phrase “reach out”
carries within it the idea of obligatory helping, or at least obligatory
attempts to help. Here is a paradigm of
the usage, “Did you reach out to help that fellow what was having a stroke on
the floor.” Here’s another: “Did you
reach out and comfort William as he tried to overcome his weed addiction
it is something one must do. . . something one is blameworthy for not doing.
Not reaching out is somehow worse than a mere mistake, if one has the
opportunity to do so?
becoming ambiguous and picking up simple contacts as being cases of reaching
out. I don’t think so.
deposition and trial testimony. The
question becomes how to object and alert the jury, judge, or deposition reader
to the prejudicial underpinning of using this idea in the wrong contest. If
Allen makes a mistake and doesn’t call Griffin when he could, this is not as
bad as a failure by Allen to reach out, at least in lots of contexts.
matter, the lawyer objecting will look like an unattractive overly-picky stickler.
I think one might wish to take the chance, sometimes. At the same time, the objection must be
worded simply and minimalistically, especially if it will have to be done
as failing to reach out. Reaching out is a concept of moral evaluation; the
first three, taken by themselves, are not.
accusation of not-reach-out is
misleading and prejudicial.
not agree to a slowing objection should just be:
Misleading, as already stated.
others know that “reach out” has the virtue of altruism, helpfulness, and love
built into it, then none of the matters. But there are lots of people who know
what I am talking about, and that makes the misuse of the phrase a product of
ignorance or sneakiness, neither of which are lawyerly.
The Law Firm of Michael Sean Quinn et
Quinn and Quinn
1300 West Lynn Street, Suite 208
Austin, Texas 78703
(512) 344-9466 – Fax
Originally posted on 10/27/2015 @ 9:18 pm