Why Must Read Winning at Deposition: (Winner of ACLEA's Highest Award for Professional Excellence)?

The overwhelmingly positive reviews for this book are pretty clearly from the author's network who likely have never actually read the book and who will heap praise upon pretty much anything for a friend ... or those who have little or no experience taking depositions. The first part of the book makes clear that it is geared towards those who have little to no experience taking depositions because it even says that if you have taken depositions, you should ignore the first section (which go over basic logistics and rules). After that, the author addresses pretty basic topics, such as theme, by using three pretty famous / high profile cases as examples (the author writes, "We will mainly analyze three famous depositions, those of 1) President Bill Clinton, 2) Bill Gates and 3) O.J. Simpson. These witnesses are the smartest and most difficult you will ever find."). And, therein lies a MAJOR problem for this book - those are WAY TOO SPECIFIC AND LIMITED to have broad application. The author seems to try to make those three depositions work for examples in an artificial and contrived and forced manner. Of particular note is that the author misuses a lengthy exchange in the O.J. Simpson case (the civil wrongful death case) to try to make the point that, as the deposing attorney, we should "keep our cool and continue asking needed questions despite an attorney's objections." The problem, which will be obvious to any experienced attorney (and even likely totally inexperienced attorneys who read with a critical eye), is that the portion of the deposition that the author relies on makes VERY clear that Simpson's attorney (Baker) didn't prepare Simpson like he should have and that Baker did not have control over his client and the deposition. The line of questioning addressed Simpson's drug / cocaine use in 1994. Baker didn't make timely or strong objections and he did not adequately or timely instruct his client (Simpson) not to answer the questions. He basically just kept letting Simpson answer questions in this regard. He didn't take a break. He didn't do his job. He just lets Petrocelli run over him (and Simpson) ... and that really helped Petrocelli (but, it wasn't because Petrocelli did something particularly well or great ... it was because Baker was so bad). So, the point that the author SHOULD have made via use of this line of questioning is NOT really that Petrocelli did a great job keeping his cool and asking questions despite Baker's objections, it's that Petrocelli did a good job of exploiting how badly Baker did his job (and how arrogant Simpson was / is) ... and how significant a lack of preparation of the witness and of the attorney can be. Also, by way of example, in chapter 2, where the author addresses theory, he writes, "To arrive at a theory, you must successfully answer this question: 'At the end of the trial, what conclusion must the jury be compelled to reach based on the law after hearing all of the important good and bad fact?'". Any experienced trial attorney (which is VERY different from someone is only a litigator because a trial attorney actually tries cases ... and thus the trial attorney should understand how discovery can be used (and used effectively) during trial) will know that juries don't base their decisions on ALL of the facts, that jurors almost never hear or remember the vast majority of the evidence, that juries certainly don't base their decisions on "all of the ... fact[s]," that juries usually don't base their decisions on the law, and that juries really cannot "be compelled to reach" any particularly conclusion. The actions and decisions of a jury (and each member of the jury) are much more complicated than the author indicates. A better question would be "At the end of the trial, what decision will the jury likely make after hearing the story presented by each side?" Juries make decisions based on their "gut feelings", more in line with a view of the case as a gestalt. What is particularly concerning here is that the way the author addresses "theory" in this regard is how a brand new attorney, straight out of law school might address the situation ... with just enough education and information to be dangerous. Now, that is not to say that this book does not have some good things to offer. The author does have SOME basic things to offer (perhaps reminders to those who have experience), but the author's perspective and voice is repeatedly off ... it's even actually BAD advice / information in many respects. I had high hopes for this book ... but the author and this book quickly lost credibility that really cannot be overcome. If you buy this book, do so because you are brand new ... or because you want a reminder about some basic topics (which you probably don't need to be reminded about if you actually have experience taking depositions and litigating). IGNORE the book reviews and artificial / fake praise for this book (which is likely mostly by people who have not even read the book), and DO NOT take the information / advice as gospel. Read it with a critical and skeptical eye. Make a game of it to figure out where the author maybe misses the mark ... or where you can modify or improve on what the author offers. Also, just FYI: this book is based on the FRCP (Federal Rules) - which is fine and which makes sense to appeal to a broad base.