The trial bar lost a giant on July 14, 2020 - "Big Daddy" Steve Susman has left us for that big courtroom. Ellen lost a loving husband. Harry, Stacy, and family lost a great Dad and
Grandpa. The SG family and the entire
legal industry lost a great trial lawyer and innovator of many things that we take for granted
today. I lost a father figure and
mentor. As anyone who spent any time in
Steve Susman's orbit will tell you – friend or foe – he was not just a great trial lawyer. Arguably the greatest. He was a great man. In the months and years to come, much will
be written about Steve’s body of work. To borrow a theme from the play “Hamilton” – Those
of us who spent any time in his orbit, must “tell his story”. I personally owe much of who I am today to
Steve’s teachings and early influence on me as a young man.
Much has been and will be written about this trial or
that. Tales will be told of Steve’s bravado, hubris and
daring methods. Stories like the famous Samsung
vs. TI trial that settled on the eve of closing arguments with Samsung (the
PLT) agreeing to pay TI $1.1 B for a new licensing agreement, settling
multiple cases filed all over the world.
Steve was so disappointed he would not be able to deliver that closing argument
we spent literally all night preparing, that he tried to get opposing counsel to
agree to let the case go to the jury just to “see who would have won”. Oh, and there was a small wager that would
have been involved. Of course, the judge
would not allow it even if opposing had agreed to the wager. Or the Sunrise vs. Xerox case where
Steve’s direct examination of our client was so persuasive that at the
conclusion of 2 days of direct and cross examination, that Federal Judge asked our PLT
rep a single question: “So, Mr. Pfeffer, to sum up your testimony; Xerox got you out on a limb
and sawed it off behind you?” Mr Pfeffer, of course, answered - “Yes.” The balance of the trial did not go well for Xerox. Or, the time Steve had me “fax” opposing
counsel his cross-exam Q&A because they had complained the prior day about “being
surprised”.
Those stories are not myth.
I was there. They really
happened. What made Steve a great trial lawyer
came down to honesty. Yes, Steve was brilliant,
and highly skilled at the mechanics of trial work. But Judges and Juries liked Steve because he
was honest. When he made a mistake in
front of a judge or jury, he would immediately admit that mistake once
known. He was adamant with everyone
around him the importance of transparency and honesty in everything you do. You cannot fool most juries, Steve would
contend. Juries loved Steve.
The story I will remember most, however, and the one that to
me tells most about who he was, had nothing to do with a trial directly. It is a story I retell frequently to demonstrate
“innovation”. One day around 1990 I was
in Steve’s office. Like most days then, I
was surrounded by boxes of paper over in the corner, staying busy, and waiting
on Steve to complete a revision to a Q&A, so I could do my thing with his “document
chron”. I sat quietly as few words are
spoken during these prep sessions. There
was no need for words as everyone knew precisely what was expected. Everything was scripted by that Q&A.
“Walker, do you know how to type?”, came a question from Steve’s
desk. Taken aback by the odd question, I
answered: Yes, I took typing in the 7th
grade and was a “Clerk Typist” in the Army.
Well, I need to learn how to
type, he exclaimed. Is there something
wrong with David, I say. (David was his secretary at the time). No, he replied, this process is very
inefficient. Too slow. I am wasting time, he says. Alright, I say, as busy as you are, how does
you taking the time to learn to type going to make YOU more efficient? Our job is to make YOU more efficient, not the other way around. He explains the current process for preparing
a Q&A.
- I “dictate” my Q&A into a device and hand a tape to David.
- David listens to the tape and transcribes my words into a document.
- David prints the document and places in my in-box.
- I then take a red pen and make handwritten revisions.
- I give the marked-up paper document back to David.
- David makes revisions, prints a new copy and hands to me for another round of revisions.
- After multiple revision rounds, a final product is created.
If I learn to type, Steve opines, I can eliminate 6
steps. I do make myself more efficient
and save a ton of turn time. What did
Steve do? Not only did he learn to type,
he issued a proclamation to the firm that all lawyers and legal assistants
would learn to type, and everyone will have computers on their desks. Secretaries and only some lawyers had
computers on their desks in those early days. The Dictaphone eventually went
the way of the dinosaurs. I do not know
for sure, but I would be willing to bet that every lawyer at SG today types
their own first draft. Does anyone
really use a Dictaphone anymore?
That story is a great example of how Steve thought, taught
and innovated. He did not just talk efficiency,
he lived it and expected everyone around him to live it as well. It did not matter whether the case compensation
was hourly, or contingent, Steve handled a case the same way – get in front a
judge or jury just as fast and efficiently as possible. Out lawyer and out work the opposition. Avoid discovery disputes and go to trial “by agreement”.
Those of us who spent any time in Steve Susman’s orbit must
tell his story and pass down what he took the time out of his busy days to teach us. I personally owe it to Steve to show others
what I have come to call the “SDS way”. Do you have story to tell?
Rest in Peace Big Daddy.
You WILL be remembered. We are
better today because of you.
