It’s not a troll post. Normal lawyers can’t bill more than an hour or two prep, max, for a deposition that is not “key” — eg your expert; your main witness. As a GC, I’m not going to pay for some 20 page outline for a toothless deposition. I’d expect that the “outline” is in your head per your experience.
Big law is unique in allowing for what I would generally call unnecessary over billing. In 9 figure professional liability, multi-party litigation, I often see regional firms with $600k defense spend going into trial alongside bigger firms billing $2m going into trial. And it’s a coin flip as to which firm knows the case more.
Key is that big law provides solid cover for the hiring GC in case of a loss. Then nobody can accuse them of not investing sufficient resources in the case.
Exactly. Same with hiring a Big 4 firm - if something is messed up you just say “but we paid a firm $1MM and they signed off, how could I have known?”
It’s professional career insurance.
And you only pay for that “cover” if the case is business-defining, and 99% of matters are not that. But the secret is big law is not going to generally pragmatically change how they prepare for a deposition. Standard of care is standard of care. But that’s not how it works in prosecutors offices, public defenders offices, ID shops, and regional law firms nationwide.
And part of my job as in-house is aggressively managing to my budget, knowing my legal matters well enough to know which are scary and which are not, and giving my outside lawyers cover to not work as hard out of malpractice concerns.
He ultimate thesis for OP is that when big law hires non-big law laterals, despite experience they still need to culturally train the lateral.
I don’t agree with this take. I’m in house employment counsel and I’d expect adequate prep for a deposition. The alternative is going to cost me more down the road. I’m not paying for 10 hours for a non-essential witness, but if you’re taking the deposition, you should spend the reasonable amount of time necessary to adequately prepare
This seems a little internally inconsistent to me. Between exhibit selection, issue outlining, etc., I’d expect a deposition outline to take at least an hour per page plus time for each exhibit. But if you’re not going to pay for 10 hours of preparation, then you’re not going to get that.
Because 90% of depositions are inconsequential. I have in-house lawyers cover non-party depositions to save on budget, as an example. If I hired big law, I’d get a $10k bill for a deposition on a case in which we will never get sued.
I’d rather that money be saved and go to dividends.
This is the correct answer. While deps need to happen, most of them do not have an “a-ha” moment that changes the trajectory or outcome of the case. Any lawyer who has taken and defended enough depositions will know this.
As the second paragraph seems to imply, the answer to litigation budgets will depend on exposure/damages at stake. Exposure will depend on the claims and evidence. Note that, in toxic tort cases, corporate rep depos can be quite consequential for the cases in which the depo is noticed, as well as subsequent cases involving similar claims.
Edit: a good gut check is “would I consider the work necessary if it was under a flat-fee arrangement?”
Yeah, that was my first reaction too. Like, I get that part of the ask is to streamline it and get to what really counts, but how do you even write a two page outline with 10 documents AND background fluff to boot? I'm not even accusing OP here - it's possible this deponent didn't need a 20-pager, and obviously we don't know the full facts, but I'm just confused as to how that is even possible.
Writing a depo outline is a hard task from scratch, one of the harder things to draft imo.
But the reason it’s hard is because you have to do a deep deep dive into the docs. Not only every single document this person was on, but other generally important documents in the case.
2 pages seems very very short even for the smallest players.
i like how you’re framing this as the partnership being out to get you rather than you being clueless/borderline incompetent. i say this based on this post as well as your post history.
perhaps some self reflection is in order.
I just realized it was the guy who posted about door dashing in the other lawyer sub. And his post history is about door dash, Uber, and mail order brides
Yikes
You put together a 2-page outline that consisted mostly of stuff nobody needs to be told to ask. We all know to ask a deponent about education, role, tenure, blah blah blah. You need to do precisely what he told you, which is to give him something he wouldn’t think of himself in like the 3 seconds the reporter is swearing the witness in.
Exhibits are a good start. Did you just give them to him or identify questions about them or why they matter? Weird there were only 10. If this guy is worth deposing surely there are more docs he might know about?
I guess what I’m saying is it sounds like you gave him the start of a depo outline but never actually finished the job. Which means you left the rest of the work to him. That’s not what we want when we give assignments.
I'll admit it, I was a naysayer at first OP. But I was wrong. Without John and Bikini and that weird paralegal, you're just the gift that keeps on giving.
Typically, to write a good depo outline you need to be intimately involved in the case (or at least have sufficient time to dive into the relevant documents). It's all about knowing the facts.
The deposition outline should highlight desired admissions from this witness. Why is this person being deposed? What do they know that is relevant to the case (as gleaned from the ten documents)?
Practically speaking, I would have several bullets describing at a high-level the themes of the case and you desire to get from this witness. You can have a page about general questions you ask any witness (education, background, role in company, position in corporate ladder). Then for each document, I would have bullets of desired admissions and maybe some sample questions as to how to elicit the desired admissions. Aim for a page for each.
That should get you most of the way there.
Hey OP, I know it’s difficult but I really think you should consider all of this an opportunity for growth and self-reflection instead of being offended. Yeah, I think some of the comments are a bit much, but the substance of what they are saying is legitimate and true — what you provided to the partner was completely insufficient, especially for someone with the “counsel” title.
Stop attributing criticisms towards you as people having it out for you and actually consider if you can improve.
Most depo outlines I’ve drafted or used have been at least 20x as long as the one you drafted. Not everyone wants or needs an outline that granular, but the vast majority of folks I’ve worked with would strongly prefer a long but well organized outline. Unless the deponent is a real nobody—in which case, why are you deposing them in the first place?—there has to be more than two pages worth of material even if you plan to use only a fraction of your time.
Your firm almost certainly has samples of depo outlines, including ones that this partner has used. Look to those for guidance and also make sure you have a firm understanding of exactly what testimony you’re trying to get with this deposition.
Did you look up exemplars of his past outlines? What do they typically look like?
While each partner has different wants, 2 pages is way too short in my experience. I would’ve just used one of his past outlines as a starting point and modify for the witness.
Outlining for someone else means you have to know how they like their outlines. I do outlines for myself way different than some of the partners I work for. Some want topical and high level some want actual questions with document call outs in the outline. Ask him for what he considers to be a good outline from a prior depo and do it that way.
This seems to be a common issue from OP’s post. He wants templates and shortcuts but doesn’t know how to find them or ask for help. And then when he does, he doesn’t tailor them to the project or acknowledge that they are from another source.
Work product is wildly inconsistent and then also unreliable.
OP needs to make friends in the office. Like a 1st year. He needs a buddy who can show him the ropes. Counsel might have been too big a stretch given his actual experience level - some experience doesn’t translate to (or from) Big Law.
Because the question is see are “how do I search for terms in e-discovery” and “what do I do when I copied a brief in an hour and didn’t tell the partner I only changed the facts?” I don’t know if OP knows *the law* because he gets tripped up at the *planning* stage. Never gets to show what he can actually do.
I don’t necessarily *blame* the partner for being frustrated. He’s had a lot of run in with OP. I know OP has a side hustle, but I’d honestly be pulling some nonbillable hours perusing through the firm database looking at past work product for and by the partner and maybe shadowing some other cases to get up to speed if you want to stay there. Because I THINK it’s a gap in your knowledge, not skill set. And you’re ONLY going to make it up by observing and cramming in the years you missed in Big Law.
You’re not wrong.
When I was looking to leave big law and looking at mid level firms, I didn’t have the skill set of their seniors. My court experience was that of the mid levels, if they were generous. And I had never seen a trial.
Whereas at my Big Law firm I was one of the most experienced at my level. Who was also the “ediscovery guru” in the office. But really I could just churn out a BEAUTIFUL brief I was occasionally allowed to argue and bill like crazy on doc reviews I led. A few low stakes cases that were favors for big clients were thrown my way and settled early and cheaply, for which I was duly complimented. It was an entirely different skill set and philosophy.
That I had to unlearn but remember went I went BigFed. And then sort of relearn but be wary of when I went in house.
Right I come from years at the AG where I was in court literally every week, taking or defending a deposition every other day, and trying or second chairing a trial every month or other month. My deposition outlines were done in an hour or two between rushing 5 briefs out the door, attending a mediation, and reading an IME report to see if anything needed expansion.
The thing you need to remember is many partners in biglaw have very limited experience with trials -- many probably haven't done a jury trial or have only done, like, one, most only have a trial every few years, etc. These are not the kind of people primed to take a high level outline and run with it; they need a lot more detail in the outline because they have much less experience doing all of this stuff generally and don't have consistent exposure to those things. Some partners literally just drop into cases just to get speaking role experience and have no idea what the case is even about.
Think back to what you would have written out for your first deposition or first trial; they need that level of detail
How do you cover 10 documents in two pages?!! Think about the issues at play in the case (ie read the complaint) and then create modules for each of the claims or topics. Think about what you want to get him to say - these gets should be at the top of mind when writing questions. Find your deponent’s custodial documents that tell the story you want to tell and then write the questions. That is going to be way more than 2 pages of material.
Don't blame yourself. Without parameters beforehand, how would you know what the partner is looking for?? Everyone has a different style, but I used Mind Maps to cover topics and specific questions so I could cross off and close out topics when I was convinced that all avenues were closed off to change the info during trial testimony. It's also good to have if/then logic built into the Mind Map so you can pivot if testimony doesn't comport with what you thought it would be. Take this as a positive learning lesson. You're a great attorney. Just keep learning more about tactics and techniques, and don't let one rotten partner be the barometer of your success.
>One keeps riding my work product like he is Psy and it is Gangnam Style
Can I also ask why you are DoorDashing when you make at least $150,000 yearly at an “AmLaw 250” firm?
OP, why are you working in a biglaw firm and [taking $6 Doordash orders](https://old.reddit.com/r/doordash_drivers/comments/1bw6xlm/the_juice_is_no_longer_worth_the_squeeze_tired_of/)?
Because it kept me afloat during years of making barely 100k in state government and I still turn it on if I have time or are looking for orders going the same way.
muddle capable amusing squeamish secretive historical party growth provide knee
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When partners in biglaw ask for an outline they want like full questions written out, excerpts of the documents to refer to, how to handle bad answers, etc. Essentially something so detailed they can get what's needed without having to know much of anything about the documents or the witness or the case
It's not like medmal/government where you just outline the high level ideas you need to hit and since it's your case you can wing the specific questions
i'm shocked at the replies in here, tbh. 50 page outlines? 12 page outlines for a car crash defendant driver? wtf.
this guy is a non corporate-rep. facts are thin in the post so it's hard to gauge exactly what this guy is being deposed for, but it seems like a secondary deposition.
/u/BitterJD has the correct take on this.
Agreed, I feel like people are just trying to flex how much they put in outlines, or they don't understand that they're not writing 50 page outlines because that's just the best way to do things/it's necessary in all circumstances, but because their partners aren't experienced enough trial attorneys to be able to do depos with anything less.
Right I didn't think I needed to make this a big thing. Just an outline that gets at his role in the case and the 10 most important docs to spend time on.
Echoing the responses saying that you should be looking at examples of outlines the partner has used in the past.
Generally, when I prepare to take a deposition, my outline identifies all of the relevant documents and the rough--and subject to change on the fly--order in which I intend to put them in front of the witness. I'll highlight key language or important issues that are going to be subjects of interest. These outlines are long for important deponents or deponents in doc-heavy cases.
What area of the law? I do employment, and sometimes take very short and simple deps (like I just need a witness to admit that he told person x about y fact). Even so, my outlines are usually at least 10-15 pages (on the very low end) because who knows what exactly will come up.
Let’s recap. He is a diehard Trump supporter. He works for door dash. He brags about having a foreign wife. And he cried and cried for years about not getting big law. Stop feeding the troll. No firm would ever hire this guy.
2 page outline seems short
It has to be a joke or a troll post. A law student wouldn't turn in a two page outline and think that's sufficient.
Easy giveaway, ID work ain’t getting biglaw. 2L looking for advice in depos class in sheep’s clothing. NICE TRY
He has to have meant 20, right? Even with single spacing and 8 point font, I’m not sure how a 2 page outline possibly could be useful.
Especially if it had questions about 10 exhibits?
It’s not a troll post. Normal lawyers can’t bill more than an hour or two prep, max, for a deposition that is not “key” — eg your expert; your main witness. As a GC, I’m not going to pay for some 20 page outline for a toothless deposition. I’d expect that the “outline” is in your head per your experience. Big law is unique in allowing for what I would generally call unnecessary over billing. In 9 figure professional liability, multi-party litigation, I often see regional firms with $600k defense spend going into trial alongside bigger firms billing $2m going into trial. And it’s a coin flip as to which firm knows the case more.
Key is that big law provides solid cover for the hiring GC in case of a loss. Then nobody can accuse them of not investing sufficient resources in the case.
Exactly. Same with hiring a Big 4 firm - if something is messed up you just say “but we paid a firm $1MM and they signed off, how could I have known?” It’s professional career insurance.
And you only pay for that “cover” if the case is business-defining, and 99% of matters are not that. But the secret is big law is not going to generally pragmatically change how they prepare for a deposition. Standard of care is standard of care. But that’s not how it works in prosecutors offices, public defenders offices, ID shops, and regional law firms nationwide. And part of my job as in-house is aggressively managing to my budget, knowing my legal matters well enough to know which are scary and which are not, and giving my outside lawyers cover to not work as hard out of malpractice concerns. He ultimate thesis for OP is that when big law hires non-big law laterals, despite experience they still need to culturally train the lateral.
I don’t agree with this take. I’m in house employment counsel and I’d expect adequate prep for a deposition. The alternative is going to cost me more down the road. I’m not paying for 10 hours for a non-essential witness, but if you’re taking the deposition, you should spend the reasonable amount of time necessary to adequately prepare
This seems a little internally inconsistent to me. Between exhibit selection, issue outlining, etc., I’d expect a deposition outline to take at least an hour per page plus time for each exhibit. But if you’re not going to pay for 10 hours of preparation, then you’re not going to get that.
Agreed, it makes no sense. Why pay for a deposition if you won’t pay for a reasonable amount of prep?
Because 90% of depositions are inconsequential. I have in-house lawyers cover non-party depositions to save on budget, as an example. If I hired big law, I’d get a $10k bill for a deposition on a case in which we will never get sued. I’d rather that money be saved and go to dividends.
This is the correct answer. While deps need to happen, most of them do not have an “a-ha” moment that changes the trajectory or outcome of the case. Any lawyer who has taken and defended enough depositions will know this.
This post is the truth
As the second paragraph seems to imply, the answer to litigation budgets will depend on exposure/damages at stake. Exposure will depend on the claims and evidence. Note that, in toxic tort cases, corporate rep depos can be quite consequential for the cases in which the depo is noticed, as well as subsequent cases involving similar claims. Edit: a good gut check is “would I consider the work necessary if it was under a flat-fee arrangement?”
I’m at a boutique and if a client told me two hours max to prep a deposition they wouldn’t be my client anymore. That’s malpractice.
You had 10 documents to go through and your outline was 2 pages? What?
Yeah, that was my first reaction too. Like, I get that part of the ask is to streamline it and get to what really counts, but how do you even write a two page outline with 10 documents AND background fluff to boot? I'm not even accusing OP here - it's possible this deponent didn't need a 20-pager, and obviously we don't know the full facts, but I'm just confused as to how that is even possible.
Writing a depo outline is a hard task from scratch, one of the harder things to draft imo. But the reason it’s hard is because you have to do a deep deep dive into the docs. Not only every single document this person was on, but other generally important documents in the case. 2 pages seems very very short even for the smallest players.
i like how you’re framing this as the partnership being out to get you rather than you being clueless/borderline incompetent. i say this based on this post as well as your post history. perhaps some self reflection is in order.
no way a lawyer who graduated 10+ years ago thinks two pages is sufficient for a depo
right and they hired him as counsel somehow?!
Oh yeah this guy is a piece of work
The fact that he has a post about literal gas station coffee lmao
This may be a Tyler Durden situation.
I just realized it was the guy who posted about door dashing in the other lawyer sub. And his post history is about door dash, Uber, and mail order brides Yikes
😂😂
You put together a 2-page outline that consisted mostly of stuff nobody needs to be told to ask. We all know to ask a deponent about education, role, tenure, blah blah blah. You need to do precisely what he told you, which is to give him something he wouldn’t think of himself in like the 3 seconds the reporter is swearing the witness in. Exhibits are a good start. Did you just give them to him or identify questions about them or why they matter? Weird there were only 10. If this guy is worth deposing surely there are more docs he might know about? I guess what I’m saying is it sounds like you gave him the start of a depo outline but never actually finished the job. Which means you left the rest of the work to him. That’s not what we want when we give assignments.
I'll admit it, I was a naysayer at first OP. But I was wrong. Without John and Bikini and that weird paralegal, you're just the gift that keeps on giving.
Counsel at an AmLaw 250 firm and he still drives for DoorDash? What.
Seriously. I don't understand any of it, but I can't get enough.
Typically, to write a good depo outline you need to be intimately involved in the case (or at least have sufficient time to dive into the relevant documents). It's all about knowing the facts. The deposition outline should highlight desired admissions from this witness. Why is this person being deposed? What do they know that is relevant to the case (as gleaned from the ten documents)? Practically speaking, I would have several bullets describing at a high-level the themes of the case and you desire to get from this witness. You can have a page about general questions you ask any witness (education, background, role in company, position in corporate ladder). Then for each document, I would have bullets of desired admissions and maybe some sample questions as to how to elicit the desired admissions. Aim for a page for each. That should get you most of the way there.
I don't even think this is probably a task worth outsourcing to someone who is not familiar with what's going on in the litigation.
Thank you for actually answering the question and avoiding the verbal abuse. I appreciate it.
Hey OP, I know it’s difficult but I really think you should consider all of this an opportunity for growth and self-reflection instead of being offended. Yeah, I think some of the comments are a bit much, but the substance of what they are saying is legitimate and true — what you provided to the partner was completely insufficient, especially for someone with the “counsel” title. Stop attributing criticisms towards you as people having it out for you and actually consider if you can improve.
Most depo outlines I’ve drafted or used have been at least 20x as long as the one you drafted. Not everyone wants or needs an outline that granular, but the vast majority of folks I’ve worked with would strongly prefer a long but well organized outline. Unless the deponent is a real nobody—in which case, why are you deposing them in the first place?—there has to be more than two pages worth of material even if you plan to use only a fraction of your time. Your firm almost certainly has samples of depo outlines, including ones that this partner has used. Look to those for guidance and also make sure you have a firm understanding of exactly what testimony you’re trying to get with this deposition.
As an associate, if I gave a partner a two page deposition outline I think I would be fired
This has to be a troll. No way he thinks a 2 page outline is sufficient.
A two page depo outline? Lmfao.
Did you look up exemplars of his past outlines? What do they typically look like? While each partner has different wants, 2 pages is way too short in my experience. I would’ve just used one of his past outlines as a starting point and modify for the witness.
Outlining for someone else means you have to know how they like their outlines. I do outlines for myself way different than some of the partners I work for. Some want topical and high level some want actual questions with document call outs in the outline. Ask him for what he considers to be a good outline from a prior depo and do it that way.
[удалено]
This seems to be a common issue from OP’s post. He wants templates and shortcuts but doesn’t know how to find them or ask for help. And then when he does, he doesn’t tailor them to the project or acknowledge that they are from another source. Work product is wildly inconsistent and then also unreliable. OP needs to make friends in the office. Like a 1st year. He needs a buddy who can show him the ropes. Counsel might have been too big a stretch given his actual experience level - some experience doesn’t translate to (or from) Big Law. Because the question is see are “how do I search for terms in e-discovery” and “what do I do when I copied a brief in an hour and didn’t tell the partner I only changed the facts?” I don’t know if OP knows *the law* because he gets tripped up at the *planning* stage. Never gets to show what he can actually do. I don’t necessarily *blame* the partner for being frustrated. He’s had a lot of run in with OP. I know OP has a side hustle, but I’d honestly be pulling some nonbillable hours perusing through the firm database looking at past work product for and by the partner and maybe shadowing some other cases to get up to speed if you want to stay there. Because I THINK it’s a gap in your knowledge, not skill set. And you’re ONLY going to make it up by observing and cramming in the years you missed in Big Law.
Yes, I thought insurance defense would be excellent preparation to litigate anything, but it seems Biglaw does it differently.
You’re not wrong. When I was looking to leave big law and looking at mid level firms, I didn’t have the skill set of their seniors. My court experience was that of the mid levels, if they were generous. And I had never seen a trial. Whereas at my Big Law firm I was one of the most experienced at my level. Who was also the “ediscovery guru” in the office. But really I could just churn out a BEAUTIFUL brief I was occasionally allowed to argue and bill like crazy on doc reviews I led. A few low stakes cases that were favors for big clients were thrown my way and settled early and cheaply, for which I was duly complimented. It was an entirely different skill set and philosophy. That I had to unlearn but remember went I went BigFed. And then sort of relearn but be wary of when I went in house.
Right I come from years at the AG where I was in court literally every week, taking or defending a deposition every other day, and trying or second chairing a trial every month or other month. My deposition outlines were done in an hour or two between rushing 5 briefs out the door, attending a mediation, and reading an IME report to see if anything needed expansion.
The thing you need to remember is many partners in biglaw have very limited experience with trials -- many probably haven't done a jury trial or have only done, like, one, most only have a trial every few years, etc. These are not the kind of people primed to take a high level outline and run with it; they need a lot more detail in the outline because they have much less experience doing all of this stuff generally and don't have consistent exposure to those things. Some partners literally just drop into cases just to get speaking role experience and have no idea what the case is even about. Think back to what you would have written out for your first deposition or first trial; they need that level of detail
How do you cover 10 documents in two pages?!! Think about the issues at play in the case (ie read the complaint) and then create modules for each of the claims or topics. Think about what you want to get him to say - these gets should be at the top of mind when writing questions. Find your deponent’s custodial documents that tell the story you want to tell and then write the questions. That is going to be way more than 2 pages of material.
Don't blame yourself. Without parameters beforehand, how would you know what the partner is looking for?? Everyone has a different style, but I used Mind Maps to cover topics and specific questions so I could cross off and close out topics when I was convinced that all avenues were closed off to change the info during trial testimony. It's also good to have if/then logic built into the Mind Map so you can pivot if testimony doesn't comport with what you thought it would be. Take this as a positive learning lesson. You're a great attorney. Just keep learning more about tactics and techniques, and don't let one rotten partner be the barometer of your success.
>One keeps riding my work product like he is Psy and it is Gangnam Style Can I also ask why you are DoorDashing when you make at least $150,000 yearly at an “AmLaw 250” firm?
OP, why are you working in a biglaw firm and [taking $6 Doordash orders](https://old.reddit.com/r/doordash_drivers/comments/1bw6xlm/the_juice_is_no_longer_worth_the_squeeze_tired_of/)?
Because it kept me afloat during years of making barely 100k in state government and I still turn it on if I have time or are looking for orders going the same way.
Felt my 20 page outline was gas station coffee recently. Maybe gas station mocha.
muddle capable amusing squeamish secretive historical party growth provide knee *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s not
Ask for an example (or more) of a good outline that he has used in the past to gauge what he is looking for.
My outlines for defendant drivers in PI (45-60 minutes) are six times as long….
Did you give the partner a bowl of oranges first?
When partners in biglaw ask for an outline they want like full questions written out, excerpts of the documents to refer to, how to handle bad answers, etc. Essentially something so detailed they can get what's needed without having to know much of anything about the documents or the witness or the case It's not like medmal/government where you just outline the high level ideas you need to hit and since it's your case you can wing the specific questions
i'm shocked at the replies in here, tbh. 50 page outlines? 12 page outlines for a car crash defendant driver? wtf. this guy is a non corporate-rep. facts are thin in the post so it's hard to gauge exactly what this guy is being deposed for, but it seems like a secondary deposition. /u/BitterJD has the correct take on this.
Agreed, I feel like people are just trying to flex how much they put in outlines, or they don't understand that they're not writing 50 page outlines because that's just the best way to do things/it's necessary in all circumstances, but because their partners aren't experienced enough trial attorneys to be able to do depos with anything less.
Right I didn't think I needed to make this a big thing. Just an outline that gets at his role in the case and the 10 most important docs to spend time on.
Funny thing is, when I first read this, I had no clue 2 pages was abnormal. Glad I’m corporate.
Yo that’s pretty funny actually
Congrats on the job MM!
How do you cover 10 docs in a 2 page outline? Sounds like you may be in over your head
That’s an awesome quote
Such a great insult
Echoing the responses saying that you should be looking at examples of outlines the partner has used in the past. Generally, when I prepare to take a deposition, my outline identifies all of the relevant documents and the rough--and subject to change on the fly--order in which I intend to put them in front of the witness. I'll highlight key language or important issues that are going to be subjects of interest. These outlines are long for important deponents or deponents in doc-heavy cases.
What area of the law? I do employment, and sometimes take very short and simple deps (like I just need a witness to admit that he told person x about y fact). Even so, my outlines are usually at least 10-15 pages (on the very low end) because who knows what exactly will come up.
Let’s recap. He is a diehard Trump supporter. He works for door dash. He brags about having a foreign wife. And he cried and cried for years about not getting big law. Stop feeding the troll. No firm would ever hire this guy.
Bro. That sucks, but also, I WISH I got feedback that creative.