PROFESSIONALISM CORNER
PROFESSIONALISM CORNER
Professionalism by Cooperation
MARK R. OSHEROW
Professionalism has always mattered in litigation. Deadlines have always existed. Judges have always expected lawyers to be prepared, truthful, and respectful. The difference now is not that Florida lawyers suddenly have enhanced compacted time frame calendars to manage. The difference is that civil practice increasingly depends on early, meaningful lawyer cooperation to make those calendars work.
That is the important shift. Professionalism is no longer best understood as something separate from procedure, reserved for ceremonial speeches, award presentations, or annual CLE programs. It is becoming part of the operating system of civil practice. Active case management, proportional discovery, required conferrals, initial disclosures, and more specific discovery obligations all assume that lawyers will communicate clearly, identify real disputes early, and avoid turning every disagreement into motion practice. In that environment, professionalism is not simply a virtue. It is a litigation skill.
The change can be summarized in three words: earlier, narrower, and clearer. Lawyers are expected to understand their cases earlier, tailor discovery more narrowly, and communicate objections and disputes more clearly. That does not eliminate advocacy. It changes where advocacy begins. A lawyer must now be prepared at the front end to assess the case, identify the information truly needed, evaluate proportionality, preserve and produce relevant materials, confer in good faith, and explain to the court what remains genuinely disputed. While these have always been considerations at least to some extent, the degree to which they are mandated as the fabric of the litigation process is now manifest.
That is different from a culture in which lawyers could too often allow cases to drift, and determine the timing and pace at which most cases progressed. State court litigators in Florida may no longer serve broad discovery first and refine later, or rely on boilerplate objections while waiting for the other side to force the issue. The newer model expects lawyers to make judgments earlier and to make them responsibly. It rewards preparation and candor. It disfavors reflexive obstruction.
Professionalism should not be confused with softness. Civility does not require a lawyer to concede a disputed issue, ignore a missed deadline, or compromise a client’ s position. It requires the lawyer to advocate without unnecessary personal conflict. There is nothing inconsistent about being firm, prepared, and respectful. In fact, the best advocacy usually depends on all three.
Clients sometimes expect litigation to look like combat. They may equate sharp language, refusal to cooperate, or aggressive correspondence with strength. One of our responsibilities is to explain that effective advocacy is not measured by the volume of an email or the number of adjectives in a motion. The better question is whether the conduct advances the client’ s objective. A professional response often does. An inflammatory one often does not.
This is particularly true in discovery. Few areas of practice reveal professional habits more quickly. A vague objection, an incomplete production, a refusal to identify what is really being withheld, or a deposition marked by unnecessary speaking objections can turn a manageable case into a costly and overly contentious one. By contrast, a lawyer who states objections with specificity, produces what should be produced, responds fairly, accurately and honestly, protects legitimate privileges, and narrows disputes before seeking relief, serves both the client and the legal system.
The discovery rules now reflect what good lawyers have long understood: discovery is not supposed to be a contest of endurance. Its purpose is to identify the facts, narrow the issues, and allow disputes to be resolved on the merits. When lawyers use discovery to obscure rather than clarify, they increase cost without increasing justice. When lawyers use it carefully, they strengthen the case, reduce avoidable conflict, and preserve credibility. They also enhance their own credibility and professional reputations, minimizing unnecessary conflict and tension.
The Florida Supreme Court’ s 2026 amendments to the Professionalism Expectations, In Re: Amendments To Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Professionalism Expectations, SC2025-1347( Fla. March 19, 2026), underscore this daily-practice focus. The amendments address subjects lawyers encounter constantly: billing unnecessary expenses, timely service of documents, instructions not to answer at deposition, discovery objections, disorganized discovery responses, support-staff conduct, and prompt communication with clients. None of these topics is ceremonial. Each affects the cost, pace, and fairness of litigation. Professionalism is revealed less often in grand statements than in ordinary decisions made under pressure.
Professionalism also protects credibility. Every lawyer has a reputation before the court long before argument begins. Judges notice who is accurate with the record, who overstates the law, who meets deadlines, and who treats opposing counsel fairly. Opposing lawyers notice who keeps promises, who grants reasonable courtesies, and who uses procedural tools for their intended purpose. Those impressions matter. A lawyer’ s word is working capital. Once spent carelessly, it is difficult to restore.
( Continued on next page)
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 20