Add RSS RSS

Lawyer of the Day: David Ayers

When this answer in a Texas personal injury suit dropped into our tips inbox, our jaws dropped. Overlawyered also noted it yesterday. Here's an excerpt from the Defendant's Original Answer in Henry v. Maersk Line Limited:
Excerpt.jpg
d_ayers.pngThe full non-redacted answer is available after the jump. We called up the filing attorney to find out how this became an actual filing. Turns out it didn't. Houston partner David Ayers is being honored with Lawyer of the Day for being able to take a joke.

Discover the story behind the f***ing filing after the jump.

Ayers tells us that the filing was actually a joke and was never filed. The file stamp is photoshopped on. Someone at Werner Ayers e-mailed it to him saying, "I hope you really wanted this filed."

Ayers is friendly with the plaintiff's attorney in the case and forwarded it to him. As is wont to happen in the electronic age, it "seems to have grown and taken on a life of its own," says Ayers. He's gotten calls and e-mails from the media and people as far away as Alaska. The actual vanilla answer was filed at Harris Country Court yesterday.

Here's the full text of the prank filing:

henry-v-maersk-answer[1]-1.jpghenry-v-maersk-answer[1]-2.jpg

Why a law-firm partner should be careful about to whom he grants signature authority [Overlawyered]

Comments
1 Posted by Forrest Gump | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 11:29 AM

Am I first? Momma said if I worked hard, some day I would be in first place. You know what, she was right, I think.

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 11:29 AM

This is awesome.

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 11:31 AM

first?

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 11:36 AM

Latest!

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 11:38 AM

Cue 'this is so unprofessional' comments in 3...2...1...

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 11:39 AM

Prediction: This will not end well for Mr. Ayers. Clients already can't stand the fact that we lawyers are "chummy" with our adversaries from time to time. To take it to the next level and participate in a mockery of our clients' interests???!!! Are you fucking kidding me???!!!

Not smart. Plain and simple.

PS - I'll be at Brickwall in Asbury Park tonight for icy cold beers! Who's in?

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 11:41 AM

Right on time, 11:39. Thank you for making my day.

-11:38.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:02 PM

Sure thing 11:38! Hey, lemme ask you something: Do you find that people come around from time to time to check whether you're breathing?

Is that weird for you?

- 11:39

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:04 PM

He said it was stupid, 11:41, not unprofessional. I hope tomorrow is better for you.

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:13 PM

Seriously, it is pretty unprofessional.

11 Posted by Fusille Jerry | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:14 PM

My George isn't clever enough to hatch a scheme like this.

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:19 PM

Honestly there are so many silly lawsuits filed in courts in the US that every lawyer wishes they could file something like this at some point.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:50 PM

the forrest schtick has yet to not make me smile.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 12:51 PM

fixed: the forrest schtick has yet not to make me smile.

yw

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 1:09 PM

Aw come on 11:39. It's a harmless joke. The answer was not even filed. The client probably thinks exactly what he wrote anyway.

I can't wait until I'm old and ready to retire so I can start filing some crazy shit with the court.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 1:30 PM

Comment left on Overlawyered:

This was never filed. It was a joke within our office: this fake answer was created and doctored to make it look like it had been filed. It was then forwarded to Ayers, the partner on the case. Once David recovered from the shock and realized it was in jest, he forwarded it to the plaintiff’s lawyer (an old friend of his back when they were at Fulbright & Jaworski together) to share in the joke. The plaintiff’s attorney called Ayers to confirm that it was, indeed, a prank. There is no such filing in the case.

Scott Raynes
Werner Ayers, L.L.P.

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 1:37 PM

"malingering dips##t"

I promise to one day use this. But only when I'm a judge and have control over my courtroom.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 1:39 PM

And how do we know it's a joke? Because Texas is a comparative negligence jurisdiction, not a contributory negligence jurisdiction. Any halfway competent lawyer should know that. It's almost de rigueur for passing the bar.

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 1:39 PM

Professional or unprofessional, a little risky. Especially in this age where gullible news outlets will cite a story from The Onion because they didn't realize it was satire.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 2:15 PM

"Because Texas is a comparative negligence jurisdiction, ... Any halfway competent lawyer should know that. It's almost de rigueur for passing the bar."

Yeah, except for the fact that torts isn't tested on the TX bar...

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 2:18 PM

1:39: Get off your high horse. You still plead the affirmative defense of "contributory negligence." Read the fucking rule book. (TRCP 94, in case you're too inundated with document review to have any knowledge of basic trial procedure.)

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 2:20 PM

Texas procedure IS tested on the Texas bar.

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 3:57 PM

who the hell says, "de rigueur"? especially in Texas...

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 3:59 PM

hilarious - love it ! !! (from a legal secretary, new york)

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 4:21 PM

I love it!!!! It made my day and only people with a sense of humor knows this is funny, especially in law. If you are not one of them then get a life. Seriously!

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 4:40 PM

Whether it's funny or not (calling your opponent a dumbass and a fucking idiot, while maybe worth a chuckle, does not strike me as particularly "hilarious"), mightn't this give rise to a defamation claim?

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 4:55 PM

4:40 hit the nail on the head. If I were the "malingering" plaintiff, I might view a defamation case against a prominent law firm as somewhat bigger meal ticket than the current complaint. Or, better yet, both. Joke or not, Mr. Henry has been called a "dumbass" and a "fucking idiot" publicly.

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 5:19 PM

4:40 and 4:55. go home. it's friday.

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 5:23 PM

4:40 and 4:55 must be the same person. There can't be 2 people reading a law blog on 5pm on a Friday who have such a profound misunderstanding of what defamation actually is. Can there?

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 5:26 PM

4:40/4:55: assuming you are two different people, you are both dumbasses and fucking idiots for thinking that calling someone either gives rise to a claim for defamation. If you disagree, feel free to subpoena my IP address and sue me for defamation so we can test your theory in a court of law.

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, June 6, 2008 6:05 PM

LMAO...for those who don’t know what that means: Laughing My Ass Off...those will also be the people with out a sense of humor

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, June 7, 2008 1:00 PM

The sad thing is that instead of enjoying the humor and appreciating the joke, most of us start to worry about "how it will look" - we lawyers really need to get over ourselves and learn to actually enjoy life.

33 Posted by Jackie Chiles | Permalink Monday, June 9, 2008 11:52 AM

I submit answers like this all the time.

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, June 9, 2008 7:37 PM

Friday, June 6, 2008 3:57 PM said, "who the hell says, 'de rigueur'? especially in Texas...".

Silly! Nobody in Texas SAYS it because we can't pronounce it. We can spell it, though, and we know what it means.

Post Your Comment