Sounds like your client got the better lawyer.
Most definitely. Opposing counsel was not well-prepared, and complained repeatedly about the documents I had delivered (he wanted my whole file, so he got all 800+ pages, many of which were 19th and early-20th century deeds that were hard to read when magnified on screen, and almost impossible to read when printed full size). His questions didn't seem to follow any strategic plan, bouncing all over the place, and my client's attorney objected to probably 50% of them ("assumes facts not in evidence" and "calls for speculation" being the most common). I didn't realize how stressful it was until it was over. I took the rest of the day off.
I know of one attorney who is so arrogant he actually believes his words will turn all sorts of valid evidence into blither. He does not grasp numbers or anything substantive that might be used to argue a case. That's why he loses so frequently.
He really ticked me off when he went to trial several years ago without consulting me whatsoever while the opposing attorney used common sense survey facts to win his case. The opposing attorney apparently referred to my survey repeatedly while the entity I did the work for was the entity being sued. Had I been present I am certain the result would have been reversed. There was nothing faulty about the survey, but it sure came in handy for the opposing attorney who used data instead of BS.
Good stuff. lol... keyboard commando lawyers having a pissing match on zoom. Yup, still 2020.
I used to prepare easement and right of way documents for several of our clients. Occasionally they would have to condemn property and I would have to appear at a Special Master's hearing. The attorney for one of our clients was impressed with himself also. I met with him on several occasions to go over my testimony. He was always more emphatic about my dress for the occasion that he was with my actual testimony. It was always, "Wear a dark suit, white shirt and a conservative tie". I almost always followed his advice but finally got a little fed up with it. My children had given me a bright yellow tie with Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse on it so I wore it to a hearing one time. I thought the attorney was going to choke. The funniest thing was that the Special Master smiled and complimented me on my tie.
The trial was even more entertaining than the deposition. It was a Zoom trial, so the only one actually in the courtroom was the judge. Plaintiff's attorney never did get the hang of Zoom over the two days I was on the stand. He was 15 minutes late on the first day of my testimony, later claiming that he could see us but he wasn't able to make himself seen or heard (we think he logged into the live stream on YouTube instead of the Zoom meeting). About half the time we could only see the top of his head, and sometimes we only saw him from the mouth down. He was unable to figure out how to share his screen, and had to ask the defendant's lawyer to put up documents so we could all see them. His client was in the room with him, and several times we got to see him, his assistant and his client all looming over his computer trying to figure out which button to push. The judge admonished him several times for delaying the hearing, and at one point the attorney abruptly left the meeting during questioning. After about 10 minutes the judge noted that this was sanctionable behavior, but allowed some more time for him to return, which he eventually did. The judge calmly but firmly told him that the court has been operating successfully over Zoom since the pandemic hit, and that if he is going to participate he has to learn how to operate over Zoom.
As in my deposition, he didn't seem to have any clear strategy. His questions would start going in one direction, then he'd drop that line and head off another way without leading to any conclusion on the first line. And he was forever shuffling paper trying to find exhibits.
I think his client must have shopped for an attorney based on fees. He didn't get a bargain, in my estimation.
The best thing about the remote participation is the live YouTube stream. My son, who's in Michigan, was able to watch my testimony, which he though was pretty cool.