Striking the Balance Between Interview and Interrogation

• Author: John Hollander
• Pages: 5-33

striking the balance between interview and interrogation



chapter one

Striking the Balance

Between Interview and

Interrogation

   watched a television interview in which a

network journalist grilled an unpopular public gure? If

poorly handled, you may nd yourself cheering the one

being skewered.

One of the best interviewers I can recall was the late

Peter Gzowski, for many years the “Voice of Canada” on

his CBC Radio show, Morningside. I always felt that he

genuinely liked the person he interviewed. at person

always had the chance to express the opinion or point

of view that made the interview topical in the rst place.

In short, the interview was about the person, and not

about the journalist. Lawyers can learn much from Peter

Gzowski. Essentially, the lawyer must know how to let

the client do the talking. is chapter starts with basic

interview techniques to show the lawyer how to speak

with clients, not at them.

Open Questions Versus Leading Questions

   lawyer of over thirty years, I have many scars

from judges reminding me of the rule against asking lead-

    



ing questions. I can hear the repeated growl, “Try a ques-

tion to which the answer is not ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ counsel.” I

well recall my own humble reply, “Yes, Your Honour.

ank you for your helpful reminder.”

“Of course,” I mumbled sotto voce, “it would help if

the witness could remember the lines we so carefully re-

hearsed just yesterday!”

The problem

   the discussion often directs that discus-

sion. is is as true for discussions between lawyer and

client as it is for those between lawyer and witness. is is

part of the process by which the lawyer gathers informa-

tion. Perhaps the purpose is to help the lawyer form an

opinion, or perhaps it is to form the basis for an argument.

Even a cross-examiner in a courtroom setting has to pose

questions to obtain desired information. It is usually the

lawyer who sets the ground rules for the discussion, and

it is for the client or witness to supply the information.

e interviewing lawyer and the client being inter-

viewed are both interested in an exchange of informa-

tion and the lawyer may need information to provide the

client with advice. Usually, the client trusts the lawyer to

lead the conversation, but that trust can quickly erode if

the discussion turns into an interrogation. If this happens,

the client can feel intimidated. In the case of the witness,

however, intimidation may be intentional as a means to

an end set by the lawyer. Lawyers have to be able to do

both: interview and interrogate.

Few people enjoy the process of being interrogated;

clients who are being interrogated often become defen-