The Scott Murksy Exclusive

I interviewed Scott Mirsky a corporate attorney at Bromberg Rosenthal LLP, and what I learned from this interview was the wide scope of cases attorneys have to solve biased on their clients’ needs. For example Scott not only focuses on small business but also to large corporations and also down to the individual level. Communication is a vital tool in Scott’s career and I believe that I’ve gained a better understanding of how lawyers communicate the law to not only clients but to themselves when interpreting and arguing the law. The most important question that I asked him was, “how does he explain legal terms to people who don't have a good understanding of the law.” He answered by relating the terms to the people’s field of work as examples to try break down the legal jargon to people. He also assigns lawyers strategically to cases that would benefit both the lawyer and the person who needs it. The biggest problem of people that don’t understand the legal jargon is the fact that they cannot comprehend the risk, because everybody thinks that they can win any case and don’t understand when to cut their losses and move on. Communicating risk is difficult to convey to people who refuse to acknowledge it .People also under estimate the knowledge that comes with experience as a lawyer, and believe their case to be the exception to all other similar cases even when strongly advised not to purse certain cases. Experience is also something difficult to communicate with people because it’s based on personal trials and cannot be shared directly with a client without using an example that relates back to the client. For the rest of the interview we talked about how technology was changing the way we communicate with people in relation to law through how we deliver messages to clients, or to other lawyers or to the judge. Technology has made communicating bad news much more accessible with advances in email, texting, and cell phones. In difficult cases Scott likes to email the outcomes of a trial so a person can think and reflect then respond. He also likes to give phone calls with an experienced attorney to answer difficult questions a person might ask. As we began to ease into the interview I began to look for some verbal and non verbal communication in Scott as he was answering my questions and I tried to respond to them accordingly. I noticed that my tone of voice or paravocalic’s had changed dramatically throughout the course of the interview as did his but both leveled out in the end. I also noticed that he took long breaks in between his answers and often repeated my questions then answered them according to what he believed to the best answer. This did not occur with many of the direct questions that I asked him, but with the ones that I felt he could give me some insight to that dealt with communicating the law. I did try to probe at some of his answers by asking him to clarify his answers or just by nodding my head, but felt it was mostly unnecessary because he went at great lengths to answer all of my questions to the fullest. Scott was a great interviewee and I learned a lot from him and how the entire felid of law was changing to adapt into the modern age of communication.

For the picture and for more information on Bromberg Rosenthal and Scott Mursky please visit their website

http://www.brsglaw.com/