I have just drafted an application for discovery and interrogatories. It is for an insurance claim. Not a “runner’s” case insurance claim, but for a trade credit risk insurance claim. It is not complicated. Conceptually, at least, it is in fact quite simple. However there is a dearth of precedents on stuff like that and especially for firm out in the suburbs, precedents to assist my present task is as scarce as truffles in my backyard. We don’t subscribe to any forms and precedents except some vague references in Lexis Nexis. They are all Supreme Court stuff and deal mainly with personal injury, property damage etc. Mine is, should I say, just a wee bit off that track and it’s in a County Court.
So I just dreamt up something, did what I thought should be done and gave the boss a set of drafts for the application. He just threw it back at me. Too wide, not crisp enough, no need for an affidavit, interrogatories not there? I recall telling him I had never conducted litigation of even the smallest case in my entire legal career. I had not even seen a full set of discovery or interrogatory documents. I know what they are for (I recall doing Civil Procedures in Law School) and how they should be shaped but that is as far as I could go.
Anyway, me – a banking/securities/corporate lawyer chipping away at an application in a County Court in Victoria, working with little more than blank pieces of paper (or blank screens). I don’t mind doing all of this, but it simply isn’t efficient and could be downright unfair on the client if they get stuck with the bill for it.
So I now plug away, not knowing if the application is any nearer the correct (or expected) form. I still feel like I should be learning how to write poetry instead of learning a new language. But, until then I guess I have to learn the ancient language of courtspeake.