My first day of law school, a person who turned out to be one of my favorite professors told me this: you’re not here to learn what the laws are, you’re here to learn what law is. I scratched my head and scurried off to the library – I was completely confused. As it turns out, his comment was probably the most valuable piece of insight I received in law school. That nugget alone is worth far more than the exorbitant tuition for three years of law school. So what was he talking about?
Laws do not exist in a vacuum. Anybody can go look up a statute or research precedent. Laws are useless without facts. If I tell you that Oregon law requires employers to provide a 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked, I am telling you what a particular law requires. That statement of the law is pretty useless on its own. Now, what if I tell you that Susie works for ABC Corp. every day from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. and ABC Corp. refuses to let Susie take a 10-minute break until 2 p.m. each day? Now the law is useful because we know ABC Corp. is violating it (even though Susie won’t be able to personally sue ABC Corp. in Oregon at the time this post was drafted – read here). “The law” is far more than just rules, regulations and theories. In the end, it is about being able to prove facts and being able to present those facts to a judge or jury in a manner that invokes or avoids application of certain rules, regulations and legal theories. The law is an interactive process, not a mandate.
How does this relate to investigation? In law, facts are things that can be established by the required burden using admissible evidence. It’s one thing to say “ABC refuses to let Susie take a 10-minute break until 2 p.m. each day.” It’s something completely different to be able to prove that. In most of the Oregon employment law cases I handle, the employee needs to prove that something is more likely than not using evidence. If Susie takes the stand and says, “I have not had a single rest break in the last 3 months of work at ABC Corp.” and ABC Corp. has 2 employees who each say that Susie took her 10-minute breaks each day during the same period, Susie runs a serious risk of losing her case. That’s why investigation is so important. If Susie had investigated and found: (1) a written ABC Corp. policy prohibiting rest breaks in effect during her employment; (2) video surveillance footage showing Susie working without breaks; (3) handwritten notes and email messages from her supervisor reprimanding her for taking rest breaks before 2 p.m.; and (4) testimony from 4 co-workers supporting her claim, then things would look better for Susie.
Regardless of which lawyer or law firm you choose to represent you, be sure that you are confident in your attorney’s ability to investigate the evidence and put that evidence to work for you.
