In regards to this week's assignment, there's not really a set amount of questions to prepare. Most of the written assignments require at least one page. The instructions just say a series, so that should include enough questions to glean the information you need for your supervising attorney. The text below, has great information about types of questions. It gives the following for open-ended questions. • Open Questions An open question is one designed to elicit a narrative response. This type of question is particularly effective at the beginning of an interview but may be used at any time that a narrative description or explanation is sought. Examples of open questions include the following: • ▸ Starting from the beginning, what do you remember about the accident? • ▸ Tell me something about _______________ (your business, your marriage, your son's problems at school, the way you want your property divided after your death). • ▸ How did you happen to be in Cincinnati that weekend? Here is a link to help you as well: • https://youtu.be/61aFHm81pas Open Questions An open question is one designed to elicit a narrative response. This type of question is particularly effective at the beginning of an interview but may be used at any time that a narrative description or explanation is sought. Examples of open questions include the following: o ▸ Starting from the beginning, what do you remember about the accident? o ▸ Tell me something about _______________ (your business, your marriage, your son's problems at school, the way you want your property divided after your death). o ▸ How did you happen to be in Cincinnati that weekend? • • Closed Questions A closed question is one which seeks a specific, narrow answer. Closed questions generally are used in combination with open questions—and much more sparingly—to obtain specific details or to verify details previously provided by the client. Examples of closed questions include the following: o ▸ What color was the traffic light when you first noticed it? o ▸ Have you and your wife ever seen a marriage counselor? o ▸ Were you in Cincinnati on business? • • Leading Questions A leading question is one which either (1) suggests the answer desired by the questioner or (2) suggests a fact not stated previously by the client. Leading questions may be used to good effect during cross-examination of a witness at a deposition or at a trial. However, their utility is limited in a client or witness interview, where the objective is to elicit facts and information. Examples of leading questions include the following: o ▸ Of course, you were wearing your seat belt at the time of the accident, weren't you? o ▸ Surely you don't believe that your wife is having an affair, do you? o ▸ Where did you and your girlfriend stay while you were in Cincinnati? (The client did not say that he had a girlfriend or that anyone accompanied him to Cincinnati.) • • Silent Questions A silent question is not a question at all; rather, it is a questioning technique by which the interviewer maintains an extended, expectant silence after an answer is given. The implication is that the interviewer is waiting for the rest of the answer. Faced with this situation, a client or a witness often will supply further details or explanation without being asked a specific question. This technique can be extremely effective in the right circumstance; however, because it creates some anxiety, it should be used judiciously. Of all the questioning techniques described, open questions generally are the best method to obtain the most details about the facts known to the client. A. Flexibility A successful interviewer adapts to the communication style of the client or witness as much as possible. The sensory terms used by the client during conversation reveal his communication style. For example, if he uses the phrase “I see what you mean,” he probably is a visual communicator. The most effective questions for this type of individual are those phrased in terms of vision, such as “When you recall the accident, describe what you see.” If a person uses a phrase such as “I hear what you say,” the interviewer should try to ask questions in auditory terms whenever possible, for example, “Did you hear anything unusual in the way he spoke?” or “What sounds did the pump make before it stopped operating?” Imitating the communication style of the client or witness minimizes misunderstanding of both the questions asked and the answers provided. A person is more comfortable and open with an interviewer when they both use the same communication style. Flexibility also includes the recognition that the words of a question can mean different things to different people. The legal assistant must be able to tailor questions to the background, cultural circumstances, and vocabulary of the client or of the witness. For example, a witness may not have perceived anything, even though he saw the entire incident. He may have no acquaintances; however, he may know many people. The questions should be phrased simply and clearly. Avoid multiple-part questions and limit those questions that which can be answered by a “yes” or “no” or by a single word. Above all, beware of using leading questions. Leading questions can turn a credible, honest person into an untrustworthy witness. Questions such as “You did see John Blackhart deliberately crash into the department store window, didn't you?” or “You saw John's pals looting merchandise from the store, right?” create an obligation to agree with the questioner rather than to provide an answer based on personal knowledge. Leading questions such as these plant ideas in the client's mind and put words into his mouth. The end result is that the interviewer supplies the facts, and the client merely agrees. The better practice is to use open questions as much as possible to obtain facts during the interview. Open questions produce narrative answers, which include fact details known by the client. The more details that are obtained, the more successful the interview and the easier it is to secure corroboration from other witnesses and sources. Finally, prepare for the unexpected. Although ultimate control of the interview rests with the legal assistant, she should allow the interview to take a natural course. This flexibility sometimes produces unanticipated, revealing information with tremendous impact on the case. B. Seeking Sensitive Information As valuable as tact is to an interviewer, legal assistants and lawyers alike sometimes take this attribute too far when dealing with topics such as death, suicide, or sexual activities. Taken to its most extreme level, tact becomes evasion. An evasive question indicates the interviewer is uncomfortable with the subject matter or that the topic cannot be discussed candidly. Moreover, the most typical response to an evasive question is an evasive answer, which does nothing to advance the purpose of the interview. To illustrate, it is more direct to ask, “How do you want your assets distributed at your death?” than it is to ask, “If you should pass on, how should your property be distributed?” It is apparent that everyone will die one day. The client would not visit an attorney to discuss his estate plan unless he knew this to be true. The more direct question reinforces the client's perceived need for legal services and paves the way for a frank discussion of his specific situation. Direct questions are most effective when they are combined with the interviewer's sensitivity to a particular client's emotional state. The topic of death, for example, evokes a very different emotional reaction when a client discusses his own death in relation to an estate plan than it does when he discusses the situation which led to the death of his child. The death of a child is a traumatic experience. When a person has difficulty describing a traumatic experience, acknowledge the difficulty and move to a more neutral topic until the person regains enough composure to return to the difficult—but necessary—topic of the interview. It may be necessary to take one or more breaks during an interview related to a traumatic experience or to conduct the full interview in more than one session. The best way to gauge a particular client's emotional state during the interview process is to let the client talk. C. Let the Client Talk Every individual has her own chain of beliefs concerning facts and events as well as her own, unique way of describing them. Allowing a client to describe a sequence of events freely and without interruption is an efficient way to measure her testimony in terms of both substance and style of presentation. It also permits a client to tell her story, very possibly for the first time, to someone who she is reasonably certain will be on her side. Many people are reluctant to discuss their most personal affairs or their financial situations even with close friends for fear of criticism, ridicule, or rejection. This may be especially true if they believe that they may be at fault in some way or if they believe that they have an obligation to protect someone close to them. While the client tells her story listen for and note those facts that require further clarification or verification. Encourage the client or witness to continue her narrative with active listening techniques (see below), with additional open questions, and with supportive comments such as, “Please go on,” “That must have been difficult for you,” or “Anyone would have been worried at that point.” A narrative allows the legal assistant to evaluate the client and her testimony style in a way that cannot be done with a series of closed questions. The legal assistant should assess the client's familiarity with details and her level of articulation: logical or rambling, composed or nervous, self-assured or shy, and so forth. Note any extraordinary physical characteristics (stuttering, a noticeable birthmark, a limp, extremely long hair on a man) or mannerisms (popping of knuckles, tugging at an ear, fidgeting) that may distract a juror from the client's testimony during a trial or that may create unfavorable bias or prejudice in a juror. These types of features generally are noticed when the lawyer or legal assistant first meets a client but are overlooked and quickly forgotten after a very short time. Noting them tactfully in the interview memorandum (discussed below) ensures that whoever prepares the case for trial will be reminded to address them during jury selection or during the opening statement. Long hair can be cut; but if the client stutters, for example, a jury is certain to notice it at trial—just as the legal assistant notices it during the initial interview. Some jurors may be so distracted by it that they will not hear the substance of her testimony. To avoid this result, a trial attorney might say during jury selection, “My client, Mary Jones, is very embarrassed about this—and she probably will be a little upset with me for mentioning it—but Mary sometimes stutters when she gets nervous. I just want Mary to be reassured that you could render a fair verdict without being affected by her stuttering if it happens. Do you think her stuttering would affect your final verdict in the case?” Of course, no one will answer “yes”; but the real advantage is that the jurors will expect Mary to stutter, will not be distracted by it, and may be even more supportive of her as a result of the explanation. If her stutter is not included as part of the original interview memorandum, it might be overlooked in the trial preparation. D. Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why Encourage the client or witness to supply details through supportive questioning. After the initial story is told fully, questions are phrased to authenticate the details of the narrative. Brusque, interrogation-type questioning likely will result in brusque answers. Even if a witness is aligned with the opposing party there is no justification to alienate the witness further by terse questions or by an argumentative style. Tactful, carefully phrased questions will produce more information and a more cooperative spirit. After a case has been concluded, adverse witnesses—and sometimes adverse parties—have been known to seek assistance from the lawyer's office where they were treated well as adversaries rather than return to the lawyer who represented them originally. Questions phrased in terms of who, what, when, where, how, and why are more likely to produce detailed, narrative answers. This type of question encourages a storytelling atmosphere: “Who delivered the box to the Trade Center?”; “What was the messenger wearing when the box was delivered?”; “When did you first meet your wife?”; “Where were you when you first noticed the messenger?”; “How would you describe the messenger?”; or “Why were you at the Trade Center that day?” This form of question also may be used to ask follow-up questions to verify some previous answer. If statements seem to conflict, ask the client's help in resolving the misunderstanding. The client or witness never should have the sense that the legal assistant believes he is lying. Asking for clarification because of the legal assistant's (not the client's) confusion likely will produce the needed information. If the client senses that his integrity is being questioned, an opposite result can occur: he may recoil quietly or he may become obstinate and refuse to answer further questions. Use Checklists to Stay on Track Checklists should be designed and used to facilitate, not inhibit, the interview process. Used correctly, they serve as a map to a specific destination, allowing frequent side trips along the way. The legal assistant should be flexible enough to ask pertinent questions not listed on the checklist as the dialogue progresses. If the client or the witness wanders too far from the subject, however, the checklist provides focus to put the interview back on track. Forms or questionnaires completed by the client sometimes provide an efficient method to gather facts. They work best, however, after the working relationship already has been established between the lawyer and the client. A prospective client who has no previous working relationship with the law office may be offended understandably by forms or questionnaires sent to her for completion before the initial client interview. In this situation, the prospective client justifiably may conclude that she will be just another form in a vast sea of forms located somewhere in the lawyer's office. Each client prefers to believe her case is the most interesting one that the lawyer has, and she expects the lawyer and the legal assistant to feel the same way. A pre-interview questionnaire makes this belief difficult to maintain. If a follow-up form or questionnaire is given or sent to a client for completion after the client relationship has been established, it should be client friendly. It should be constructed simply with ample “white space” to provide answers. Questions should be phrased in a clear and concise way and should be couched in terms which demonstrate sensitivity to the typical situation addressed by the form. A bankruptcy questionnaire, for example, might include the following: POOR List the name and address of each creditor holding a disputed, contingent, or nonliquidated claim against the debtor's estate: BETTER Give the name and address of anyone who claims you owe money if you think the claim is wrong (1) because you do not owe the money or (2) because you do not owe as much as the creditor says you owe (do not include claims that are part of a past or present lawsuit): POOR List all debts for which you have defaulted in payments: BETTER List each of the bills for which payments are not current: The second question in each group is better, because it states the instruction in simple English and because it avoids words that imply the client is to blame for his situation. Corroboration of Facts All relevant facts obtained during a client or witness interview must be corroborated. Corroboration is the process used to substantiate or to verify the accuracy of a particular fact. It assures the attorney of the client's (or witness’) credibility; it also provides supporting evidence which can be used during trial to assure the jury of the credibility of a particular witness or of the justness of the overall claim or defense raised by the client. After any interview, the legal assistant must verify the information gathered, distinguishing facts of personal knowledge from conjecture, opinion, or gossip. Clients and witnesses frequently are confused or mistaken about dates, times, events, distances, and other specific details (unless they are among those rare individuals who record everything that happens during the course of a day). Investigate outside sources for corroborating evidence to substantiate the client's recollection of facts and the lawyer's legal theory. Corroboration is essential for every factual statement made during the interview. A. Identity of People Obtaining the complete name, address, telephone number, and place of employment of any person mentioned during a client or witness interview is important to the investigative process. For example, if a client relates that her neighbor was present when the defendant threatened her, the legal assistant must obtain as much identifying information about the neighbor as possible. After the interview, the neighbor is contacted to corroborate the client's story. A witness interview may reveal that a particular witness has little or no firsthand knowledge about the case. Although a witness may not offer the strong statement hoped for, she may be able to provide leads to others who have relevant information. Every lead must be checked. The person thought least likely to have relevant information may become the star witness in a case. In conducting the investigation, the legal assistant should determine why a particular person was in the area at the time of the event or incident, whether he frequented the area, how he may know the client, the person's relationship (if any) to the client or any witness, and whether he has given this or similar information to others. If a person seems to have useful information, a background check should be conducted to assure his credibility and reliability. Careful scrutiny of witnesses eliminates surprises at trial. B. Identity of Documents The client generally is the first source of documents connected with a case, which he often brings with him to the initial interview. If there are other documents which may be relevant to the case but which the client does not have, the legal assistant must obtain as many details as possible about those documents from the client, including their location and the identity of the person who has them. If geography, weather conditions, technical structure, or similar conditions are relevant to an issue in the case, the legal assistant may need to obtain plat drawings from the city or county engineers, weather maps from the weather service, evaluation reports from technical engineers, or other documentation from appropriate specialists. If there is a charge for any of the information, authorization must be obtained from the supervising attorney. Keep documents produced by the opposing party separate from those supplied by the client. Compare documents in the two groups to determine if there is a “smoking gun” among the documents which may be detrimental to the client's case. Listen The legal assistant or lawyer must listen actively throughout the interview, which means more than simply hearing and recording the facts. Gathering facts is only one small part of active listening. Active listening requires the legal assistant to visualize the situation as the client relates it. This means being quiet and letting the client speak; it also means being actively engaged with the storyteller. An active listener places himself into the story and imagines being there as the events are described. This sometimes is called imaginative listening or empathy. An active listener feels what the client feels, and he is able to express those feelings in objective terms. The way to understand the meaning of words and the feeling behind them is to listen closely to the client. The client's story is central to the fact-gathering process. It delineates the experiences and expectations of the client. By allowing the client to talk freely, the legal assistant is able to see the situation or the problem from the client's vantage point. Equally important to active listening is the client's nonverbal communication (body language). The way she presents herself (relaxed or nervous, pleasant or angry) frequently communicates messages much more loudly than her words. If the client appears wary, distrustful, or guarded, the legal assistant needs to work harder at gaining the trust necessary for a good working relationship. Recognizing the client's unwillingness to talk or unwillingness to talk about a particular subject requires the legal assistant to be flexible enough to discuss more neutral topics until the client is ready to move back to the issues at hand. Active listening results in signals from the interviewer to indicate that she hears and understands what the client or witness is saying and that she wants to hear more. The signals include an attentive posture, the proper amount of eye contact, approving nods, and supportive comments such as “please go on,” “I see,” “of course,” “it must have been very hard for you,” and so forth. A. Is That a Fact? As part of the interview process, the legal assistant records information, sorting it into broad categories according to whether it is a fact or not. Clients frequently inject opinions, speculation, conjecture, or assumptions as they relate facts. Without interrupting the natural flow of the narrative, the legal assistant segregates the facts and obtains as many details as possible about those facts during subsequent questioning. A fact is a situation, event, or occurrence which is within the personal knowledge of the client or witness. With the exception of an expert witness, clients and most other witnesses are permitted to testify about only those things they know personally; they cannot testify about their opinions, impressions, or assumptions. This distinguishes fact witnesses from expert witnesses. For example, a fact witness could not testify at trial that a particular thing tasted like dirt without first establishing that he had tasted dirt. Likewise, a fact witness generally could not testify that the defendant was intoxicated, because few fact witnesses are experts in the area of intoxication. The witness could testify about only what he saw, heard, smelled, and the like. He could testify that the defendant was unsteady on his feet (the witness could see this), that the defendant's speech was slurred (the witness could hear this), or that the defendant reeked of alcohol (the witness could smell this). Although it may be profitable to pursue a client's opinion statements during an interview to determine their factual basis, the legal assistant's ultimate objective is to obtain as many facts and details about facts as possible from the interview. A more complete discussion of segregation of facts is contained in Chapter 4 on judgment and analytical ability in this Review Manual. B. Does It Make Sense? Active listening means listening critically to what the client or witness says to determine if it makes sense. Sometimes people simply make errors or misstate the facts when they relate them (see below). Frequently, however, people determine ahead of time what it is that they think the interviewer needs to know; and that is the narrative they give. Generally speaking, facts obtained through this type of filtering must be explored by the legal assistant to ensure that all facts are exposed and to evaluate credibility of the facts provided based on principles of logic. Understanding the client's communication style is helpful in recognizing her pattern of logic. During an interview, answers fall into a pattern which tends to reveal more than their factual content. If the client talks in circles, the message may be that she is reluctant to face the issue. For example, a driver who hits a child pedestrian may have difficulty describing the sequence of events because of guilt feelings, even though the accident was not his fault. A battered woman who explains in detail how she acquired bruises through her clumsiness may not even mention her abusive husband's behavior toward her. The facts must be pieced together carefully to re-create an accurate chain of events. This is particularly important for jury trials, where the jury must be able to relate to a logical sequence of events. Showing how the pieces fit together is the lawyer's job, with the help of the client and the witnesses. Every interviewer has an obligation to practice active listening techniques. Devoting less than full attention to the dialogue is a disservice to the client. Attentive listening exposes not only the facts, but also groundless beliefs, false interpretations, misconceptions, and fears. When several people are interviewed about the same incident, their stories may contain inconsistencies even though all of them point to the same ultimate conclusion. All inconsistencies must be investigated to determine the true details and sequence of events. Contradictory Statements Stories filled with contradictions or inconsistencies present challenges to the legal assistant. The legal assistant must (1) recognize the inconsistency and (2) analyze the motive of the client or witness who is telling the story. Some inconsistencies may be simple misunderstandings or misperceptions; others may be deliberate deceptions. A. Error Clients and witnesses frequently become confused about specific details of facts and events unless they can identify the event with a special occurrence. The confusion leads to errors or to misstatements of fact. For example, a client may be certain of the date of an accident because it happened on his birthday; his recollection that the day was a Wednesday may be wrong, however. The interviewer always should ask if there is anything special about the date that causes the client to remember it. If there is no special reason to remember it, be skeptical about details related to dates, times, and so forth. Most people cannot remember what they had for lunch last Wednesday unless there is a special reason to remember. They become confused and then convince themselves that it must have happened on a particular day or in a particular way. Interviews conducted soon after an incident provide the most accurate information. Memories fail after a period of time—the longer the time between the incident and the interview, the weaker the recollection of the witness. If the witness cannot remember the facts surrounding an incident, or if he knew only part (but not all) of the facts in the first place, he may engage in presumption and conjecture about what he thinks must have happened rather than report only what he knows to be the fact. It is more difficult for the legal assistant to separate fact from conjecture when statements are taken long after the incident because by then, the witness will have convinced himself that all of it is fact. A corollary to this problem is the witness who knows only a few facts and fills in the gaps with information that he thinks the interviewer wants to hear or that he thinks make his story more believable. This sometimes is called confabulation. Faced with a thorough and tactful interviewer, this witness may be able to back away from the fictional parts of his statement without losing face. This type of witness generally is somewhat easier to deal with than one who has become convinced that his conjecture is fact (see above). B. Misperception Misperception and differences in perception sometimes occur because people perceive things differently. The differences in what two different people perceive may stem from the fact that each was located at a different vantage point when the incident occurred. If two different witnesses were standing on opposite corners of an intersection, for example, a comparison of their statements likely would show inconsistencies or contradictions. What each witness saw genuinely could be different, because each saw a different side of the accident scene. Even if both witnesses were standing on the same street corner, they may give different accounts of the accident. A classic illustration of how this phenomenon works is used in evidence classes across the country. Shortly after the class begins, an unidentified person darts into the room, grabs something from the professor's podium or desk, and darts out again. Everyone is startled except the professor, who arranged for the incident to occur. The professor asks the students to write a description of the thief. None of the students has any reason to misrepresent the facts (who would not want to get a good grade?); yet, if there are 15 students in the class, there will be 15 different descriptions of the thief. He might be described variously as wearing a blue jacket, a black jacket, a navy blue jacket, or no jacket at all. The balance of the thief's description will be just as diverse as the information reported about his jacket. When the “thief” returns to the classroom for inspection, students generally are astounded to see for themselves how inaccurate most of their descriptions are. This type of inconsistency or contradiction occurs all the time, particularly in connection with a startling event. It has nothing to do with lying; different people simply perceive things in different ways. C. Deception Occasionally, a legal assistant encounters a witness who misrepresents facts and events intentionally. The best efforts to establish rapport with a witness may not prevent her from telling distortions and lies. Probing with diplomatic questions will not accomplish much if the witness is intent on concealing the truth. The motive for such behavior may never be known, but this witness should not be dismissed lightly. An unscrupulous witness may align himself with the opposing party and can create havoc, at least for a short time. When such a witness is discovered in the investigation of a case, a second interview may be warranted—preferably conducted by the attorney and conducted with recording equipment. If it becomes clear during an initial interview that a client or witness deliberately is lying, the legal assistant should excuse himself tactfully and advise the lawyer immediately. If the lawyer is not available, the alternative is to end the interview on some pretext and to advise the lawyer when she returns. Verify Accuracy Factual contradictions and inconsistencies can arise through error, misperception, or deception. Because of this, every factual account must be verified. Those factual accounts provided by clients must, in addition, be corroborated through written documentation and the testimony of witnesses. A. During the Interview During the interview and after the client has concluded her initial narrative, the legal assistant asks questions designed to verify what the client said and to fill the factual gaps left by the narrative. Empathetic questioning, rather than showmanship, reaps the greatest rewards in this process. For example, a question that begins, “Isn't it true that …?” is the worst way to obtain additional information. This type of leading question may be appropriate in a cross-examination during trial, but it serves no beneficial purpose in the interview process. If it is asked during an interview, the client or witness may become defensive and refuse to provide helpful information or may refuse to provide further information of any kind. Instead, phrase the question as a request for help or clarification. For example, questions that begin with “Let me see if I understand …” or “I am confused about …” are less intimidating and are more likely to be answered freely. Questioning has two purposes: (1) to obtain specific information and (2) to guide the discussion to meaningful details concerning that information. The client or witness usually is more willing to cooperate by helping if the interviewer is confused than if the interviewer seems to think that he (the client or witness) is confused or— even worse—that he is lying. The process of verifying facts and details with the client or the witness during the interview is sometimes called internal verification. In addition to probing gently for further facts to verify details previously supplied, the legal assistant may misstate a detail purposely. This gives the client an opportunity to correct the error, which tells the legal assistant how certain the client is about the facts. This technique is quite effective if it is used in moderation. Overused, the client may infer that the legal assistant was not paying attention at all while he was relating his problem. B. After the Interview Once the interview is concluded, the legal assistant prepares a list of potential documents to acquire as well as a list of agencies, companies, and other witnesses to contact for supplemental information and documentation. In addition, external verification is used to check outside sources to verify the facts obtained from the client or witness. Accounts reported by newspapers and other media may verify or corroborate the client's claims. Other sources might include hospital records, photographs, police reports, employment records, business records, school records, military records, driving records, court records, and vital statistics records. If a case involves a personal injury claim related to employment, investigation of the employment background of the claimant may reveal a history of job-related personal injury claims. Investigation of the claimant's medical records for similar injuries previously sustained also may be useful. Even if these sources are not accessible early in the case because the claimant is the opposing party, anyone can check the records of those courts where prior cases would have been filed. If this type of information exists, the lawyer certainly will want to have it as early in the case as possible, without regard to which side she represents. The public also has access to weather maps, geography maps, demographics of a city, census information, engineer plats and surveys, real estate records, and similar types of official records. Depending on the issues involved in a particular case, this type of documentation can be helpful. Obtaining official records from a government agency or from a private organization can test the patience and perseverance of the most experienced legal assistant. Writing or telephoning the agency and asking for the record is the most direct approach. However, because some records are privileged, it may be necessary to obtain signed authorizations or releases from the client. Even with the client's written authorization, some information may not be available to the law office. Certain government agencies will release documents and information to the client only. One such agency is the Social Security Administration. Obtaining public and private records has its price. Agencies normally charge a fee for information. Always check with the supervising attorney first to determine if the record's benefit to the case justifies its cost. Clients generally are not happy about being charged to stockpile useless documents. Any individual named by the client or the witness should be contacted to learn what information this person has. Each lead needs to be thoroughly checked because the next lead could produce a key witness in the case. Some leads will be dead ends; a few will be worthwhile pursuing. The legal assistant searches for verification (whether internal or external) of every factual detail related to him. Gentle probing of the client or witness is necessary to seek additional information or to raise the client's awareness to remember other details and other witnesses. During the questioning and at the conclusion of the interview, the issues raised by the client or the witness are separated between personal knowledge and conjecture. The legal assistant has the responsibility to confirm (corroborate) those items of personal knowledge through witnesses and documentation. Complete All Required Forms Before the client leaves an interview, the legal assistant should have any appropriate forms available for the client's signature. Bringing anticipated forms to the initial interview reflects the organization, efficiency, and professionalism of the lawyer and her staff. These forms might include medical authorization forms, powers of attorney for tax information, or releases to obtain financial information from banking institutions. If the required forms are signed right away, work on the client's case can begin more quickly. Conclude the Interview The legal assistant should end the interview cordially, outlining any responsibility that either she or the client has to furnish supplemental data. An agreed deadline is set so that each knows the time frame, and the date is recorded on the calendar. If the client is to bring or to send additional documents to the law office, list them on a separate sheet of paper so the client can take the list with her when she leaves the office. If a deadline cannot be met, the legal assistant should inform the lawyer as soon as that fact is known. An explanation also may be necessary to the client if she is involved. Keeping the client informed and involved throughout the case is important in maintaining a positive attorney-client relationship. When the interview is over, accompany the client or witness back to the reception area of the law office. Abandoning visitors in the hallway is a poor practice (see above).
Purchase answer to see full attachment