The fourth speaking objection
The associate is taking the deposition of a regional manager in an employment case. The questions are straightforward. The witness is cooperative.
Opposing counsel is not.
Every few questions, he interjects. "Objection — vague. If you understand the question, you can answer. If you don't, don't guess." Then: "Objection, calls for speculation. He wasn't there, counsel, and you know he wasn't." Then a long statement about why the question mischaracterizes an earlier answer, delivered while the witness listens and nods.
After the fourth one, the witness answers "I'm not sure, I'd be guessing" to a question he answered clearly in his written statement.
The associate feels the heat rising. She wants to tell opposing counsel exactly what she thinks of his objections. That is the moment the deposition can go wrong for her rather than for him.
The other side of the table
The previous posts in this series covered preparing a witness and defending a deposition — including the constraints on the defending lawyer's objections. This scenario is the same constraints viewed from the examining side, when the defender ignores them.
Difficult opposing counsel at a deposition creates three problems for the examining lawyer.
The testimony is being shaped. Speaking objections and interjections can suggest answers to the witness, and in real time there's no way to stop that from happening.
The record becomes the evidence of misconduct. Whether a court later addresses obstruction depends on what the transcript shows. An examining lawyer who argues back produces a record where both lawyers look unprofessional.
And it's designed to provoke. Some obstruction is simply poor practice. Some is tactical: a lawyer who can get the examiner arguing has broken the rhythm of the examination and used up time.
The first rule: don't argue
Everything useful the examining lawyer can do starts from staying calm and addressing the record, not the other lawyer.
Don't respond to the substance of a speaking objection. Explaining why your question is fair invites a debate you don't need to win.
Re-ask the question cleanly. "Let me ask it again. Mr. Hale, what did you see on the morning of June 12?" The witness hears a clean question without the interjection.
If the witness adopts the coaching, note it and continue. "Earlier today, and in your written statement, you described what you saw. Has something changed?" No accusation — just the record.
Keep your voice level. Transcripts don't carry tone, but video does, and courts reviewing obstruction disputes sometimes watch both lawyers.
Making the record
If obstruction continues, the next step is to put it on the record, calmly and specifically.
"Counsel, I'll note for the record that that's the fourth objection this morning that has gone beyond stating its basis. I'd ask that objections be stated concisely so the witness can answer."
That sentence does several things. It identifies the conduct. It uses neutral language. It gives opposing counsel an opportunity to correct course. And if the matter later goes to the court, it shows the examining lawyer raised it professionally at the time.
Keep a running note of the time and nature of each problematic interjection. It makes any later motion specific rather than general.
Address improper instructions not to answer. If the witness is instructed not to answer on grounds that don't appear to be proper, ask for the basis on the record and ask the witness whether he will follow the instruction. Then move on and preserve the issue.
When to stop
Most jurisdictions provide a way to seek the court's help when a deposition is being obstructed — sometimes by telephone during the deposition, sometimes by motion afterward. The procedure, and the threshold for using it, varies by court and judge.
Knowing it in advance is the point. A lawyer who has checked the judge's standing order and knows whether the court will take a call can calmly offer that option. A lawyer who is working it out in the moment tends to threaten rather than act.
"If this continues, I'll suspend and contact the court" is effective when said once and meant. Said repeatedly as a threat, it becomes part of the problem.
Four ways it goes wrong
The arguer, who responds to every speaking objection with a counter-argument and turns the deposition into a dispute between lawyers.
The absorber, who lets obstruction continue without addressing it on the record, and has nothing to show a court later.
The threatener, who repeatedly promises to call the judge and never does.
The rhythm-loser, who becomes so focused on opposing counsel that the examination loses its structure and key topics go uncovered.
Why this isn't trained
Deposition training assumes a cooperative room. Associates practice questioning witnesses, not managing obstructive counsel.
Senior lawyers handle the difficult ones. Juniors often meet an obstructive opponent for the first time with a client's case at stake and no one to watch.
The emotional response is never addressed. Being provoked is the core difficulty. Training that covers only the rules misses the fact that the rules are easy and staying calm isn't.
And colleagues don't obstruct convincingly. Practice sessions rarely include a lawyer who is persistently, skillfully difficult — because nobody wants to play that role against a colleague.
What deposition simulation can rehearse
A ten-minute simulation can put the examining lawyer opposite a witness and an obstructive opposing counsel who makes speaking objections, coaches, interrupts and occasionally instructs the witness improperly — consistently, until the lawyer responds well. The AI agents in Foretell AI play both roles; the matter, local rules, standing orders and firm practice stay with the firm.
Four versions to build:
- The speaking objector, whose objections consistently suggest answers.
- The interrupter, who breaks in with colloquy and commentary.
- The improper instructor, who instructs the witness not to answer on doubtful grounds.
- The provocateur, who makes personal remarks designed to draw the examining lawyer into argument.
Design caution. Standards for deposition conduct, grounds for instructing a witness not to answer, and procedures for seeking the court's assistance vary between federal and state courts, by local rule and by individual judge. Modules should use the firm's own jurisdictional guidance; nothing here is legal advice.
Designing the module
Ten minutes, scored against a deposition conduct rubric for the examining lawyer.
Pass one — composure. Did the lawyer avoid arguing with opposing counsel? Did she re-ask questions cleanly?
Pass two — the record. Did she note obstruction on the record in neutral, specific terms? Did she ask for the basis of any instruction not to answer?
Pass three — continuity. Did the examination stay on its planned topics despite the disruption?
Rubric on observable behavior: Number of argumentative responses to opposing counsel. Were questions re-asked cleanly? Was obstruction noted on the record? Was the basis for instructions requested? Was a court-assistance option raised appropriately — once? Were planned topics completed?
Argumentative-response count is the measure. The goal is zero, and it's the clearest indication that the lawyer stayed in control of the deposition rather than being drawn into opposing counsel's.
For litigation firms and legal departments
The record is the remedy. Courts address deposition misconduct on the transcript. Associates who know how to build a clean record give the firm options.
Composure protects the client. A lawyer drawn into argument loses time, topics and credibility with the court if the dispute reaches it.
It's a professionalism issue. Firms value lawyers who remain civil under provocation — and clients notice who lost their temper on the video.
And for law schools, pretrial advocacy courses can add a dimension students rarely see until practice: the lawyer on the other side.
Frequently asked questions
What should you do when opposing counsel makes speaking objections? Don't argue. Re-ask the question cleanly, note on the record that objections are going beyond their basis, and keep the examination moving.
How do you make a record of deposition misconduct? State the conduct specifically and neutrally on the record at the time, keep notes of each instance, and ask for the basis of any instruction not to answer.
When should you call the judge during a deposition? When obstruction prevents the deposition from proceeding and the court's procedures allow it. Check the rules and any standing orders before the deposition.
Why shouldn't you argue with opposing counsel in a deposition? It makes the record look like a mutual dispute, uses your time, breaks your examination's structure and may be exactly what opposing counsel intends.
The short version
He objected four times and the witness started guessing. She wanted to tell him what she thought of it.
Don't. Re-ask the question cleanly. Note the conduct on the record, once, in plain words. Ask for the basis of any instruction not to answer. Keep your notes and your voice level. Know the court's procedure before you need it — and use it rather than threaten it.
The lawyer who stays calm owns the record. The record is what the court will read.
Foretell AI lets litigation firms build deposition simulations — including obstructive opposing counsel, speaking objections and record-making practice like the one above — with configurable AI witnesses and counsel, recordings and rubric-based evaluation. If your associates first meet a provocative opponent with a real client's case at stake, we're happy to walk through how other firms have structured it.