LOL

First. Guys in my high school used to comment about breats at depositions every day. It was no big deal.

The witness is kind of a wise-ass: "Do me a favor, wear it to court."

I bet Kozinski wishes he was at this deposition.

From what I can tell, she looks kinda cute too. I would have not commented and hoped that she DID wear that outfit again in court- would have made the afternoon much more enjoyable.

If her attire actually distracted him to the point where he could not properly focus on the deposition, then he should have raised the issue sooner. Otherwise, it's ridiculous to save it for the end of the deposition as some kind of cheap shot.

Oh we HAVE to know what she was wearing -- anybody have any inside info?

damn, i need to see a video of this

The prior 165 pages of the deposition are all him mumbling "yes...yes..." in response to all of her impeaching questions, so it was a pretty smart move, all things considered.

"Ms. G, you can't see my breasts."

"Well, I can. And that was what he was referring to."

WE NEED VIDEO!!!

"Ms. B." = the "B" stands for "breasts"

I agree with 3:46. She looks hot.

Wow... Lat's pulling back the punches by not identifying this lawyer

The headshot looks like a Quinn headshot, it's black and white with the same background.

This does indeed happen to men Kash. Luckily it's not that big a deal if you can see my undershirt.

I for one think visible titties should be required by all women...

People that I went to high school with used to make up lame FRAT STUD jokes and mess up the proper format on a regular basis; I didn't really care about it.

when i start up a depo, i usually flop my dong out on the table just so people know what kind of girl they are dealing with

Doesn't match any of the female Quinn associates who have pictures up.

I heart FRAT STUD! And would so make myself visible for him!

3:53: hear, hear!

Enough of this nonsense. When's the next installment of the Asia Chronicles?

Whateva, whateva, I do what I want!

3:59....."i usually flop my dong out on the table just so people know what kind of girl they are dealing with".

You flop your DONG on the table so they know what GIRL they are dealing with....

Interesting...

3:59: hilarious

4:10, yeah, that's the joke. Congrats on keeping up with the pack, there, champ.

What are these "breasts" opposing counsel speaks of? Yes, Moron, women have them.

Really, how stupid.

What was this witness an 'expert' on, Mormonism? Fundamentalist-Baptist-snake-dancing-roll-on-the-ground religious practices?

And in what geographic locale did the deposition occur?

Frankly, if counsel was showing cleavage, it’s stupid.

A nipple shot would be an (unprofessional) entirety different matter, but I very much doubt that was the case.

Last, only a total asshole and his total asshole counsel would “make a record” on that subject.

someone should put her on this site:
http://hotattorney.wordpress.com/tag/litigation/

"A nipple shot would be an (unprofessional) entirety different matter, but I very much doubt that was the case."

A see-through top is pretty clearly what this is about, dumbass.

4:19 -

You seem like a good candidate.

Is that the mom from "Growing Pains" in the photo?

The relevant items to redact were not the eyes, but rather the breasts in question. I can recognize them from anywhere.

Note that the other attorney "Ms. G---" is also a woman. Catfight?

"A see-through top is pretty clearly what this is about, dumbass."

I don't think that is at all clear.

It certainly is not clear from this deposition record.

Or maybe you have inside information?

what kind of gay _complains_ about being able to see titties??

Pretty funny exchange.

But I'm pretty sure that deposition with Joe Jamail from several years back was actually crazier than that youtube video linked in the original post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxmrvbMeKc

(if link is down, just search youtube for "Texas Style Deposition" and Joe Jamail

I respectfully disagree that the embedded clip is the "Craziest Deposition Ever." I'm regionally biased, but I consider the clip below to be the best/craziest depo ever.

This clip's made even better by the fact that the attorney about to resort to fisticuffs with the witness and opposing counsel is none other Joe Jamail, who still holds the record of the largest domestic verdict ever upheld on appeal ($8.53 billion in actuals and punitives). See Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 729 S.W.2d 768, 774, 866 (Tex. App.–Houst. [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxmrvbMeKc

Kash, in lieu of video can you post a dramatic re-enactment of the scene for us?

hahah, you people are way off base, nothing beats the following, titled "ghetto deposition"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAIN_w026aY

At first I felt a little sorry for Kash, seeing as how every post she makes gets a bunch of "show us your ****!" comments, but now I think it's kind of funny.

Does this bother you, Kash, or do you find it all amusing?

That's BS that you've posted her photo, even with the band over her eyes. She's done nothing to put herself out into the public -- have some dignity.

Best line: "I'm done for the day."

I agree with 4:37 Kash. Inquiring minds want to know. Flash bush if yes, boobs if no.

Ms. G was out of line and unprofessional to put that on the record.

San Francisco Bay Area civil defense lawyer Mars Craddock once came over the deposition table to exchange blows with plaintiffs counsel.

Now THAT was awesome.

Second, in my experience deposition attire has gotten preatty informal-especially for week-end depos.

I have seen plenty of Levi's and tees.

My bottom line is that I am flabbergasted by putting it on the record of a deposition that a witness could "see" counsel's "breasts"--whatever that means.

It is utterly irrelevant to the proceedings--especially as a gratuitous aside at the conclusion of the deposition. To bring this issue up at that point is nothing more than a pimp move—perhaps motivated by the witness’ poor deposition performance.

Which brings me to my last point:

This legal world is populated with a great many "litigators" but few "trial lawyers".

A litigator is a litigation attorney who has never actually picked a jury, examined witnesses, given a closing argument, and received a jury verdict. Instead, they waste $5.00 page after $5.00 page of deposition folios trying to "one up" opposing counsel with asinine colloquy that no one will ever read.

A trial lawyer quietly assembles the building blocks for his/her case at deposition.

BOTTOM LINE: If the fireworks ain’t in front of the jury, its wasted energy.

"a witness could "see" counsel's "breasts"--whatever that means."

Uhh... is the statement "I can see your breasts" ambiguous?

I think the photo should be of Ms. G. She was the one who snarkily put the comment on the record. Way to support other female attorneys there! Ms. B may have made a poor fashion choice, but unless she did this on purpose, does not deserve to be called out like this.

thanks for that, 4:46(2), you massive tool.

4:23, yes, it's pretty clear. First, they say "breasts," not "cleavage." Second, the attorney says, "you can't see my breasts," to which the reply was, "Well, I can." That exchange indicates that whatever it was that was visible, the attorney wasn't aware of it. She obviously would have been aware if her cleavage were visible, but she probably wouldn't have been aware if her breasts were visible.

So hold off on your outrage.

Her blouse is apparently what was "pretty clear."

4:46, you must not be a very good litigator or trial lawyer. If something could potentially have affected the deposition, you put it on record.

"Uhh... is the statement "I can see your breasts" ambiguous?"

Yes, it is.

Unless the breasts "flopped out" or she was topless, one must presume some out-line of the breasts were visible, or that some portion of the breasts (such as cleavage) were visible through some portion of the top garment. This is a matter of degree of course, but the degree operative in this case is not clear at all.

Moreover, I have attended over a 1000 depositions.

Just because some jag-off (read as "litigator") at the deposition "notes" something for the record, or purports to place on the record some purported “observation” (e.g., the classic, you are "raising your voice" or you are "shouting" at the witness") does not make it so.

Generally speaking, I find Kash's posts quite arousing. She really has a knack for this kind of subject matter.

hey 4:46, I can see YOUR breasts... no, wait, that's just your massive ego popping out of your shirt.

um...4:57..., it could also mean that her top was sheer. Which is exactly what probably happened.

You are too stuipd to live.

There never was a good trial lawyer who lacked "a massive ego".

But you paper pushing, motion to compell filing, "oooh, I got you at thre depositon", big firm types would not know a trial lawyer if....never mind.

5:01 -- if you're going to call someone stupid, it helps to spell stupid correctly.....

wow, 5:02, stupid AND carrying a chip on his/her shoulder.

I'm sorry you didn't do well in law school.

Ms. G should have taken the high road and alerted Ms. B to this oversight via blackberry or even discreet note...seriously, this kind of thing does happen, especially if you have shitty lighting in an apartment that already gets no natural sunlight.

Is the male version of this the wifebeater-under-dress shirt look? Maybe not analogous, but just as bad.

And, ps, I think Ms. B's toothy smile and long face giver her a smidge of Liv Tyler

LOL 5:02-- ever heard of Rule 56? That's why big firm lawyers make the big bucks and you "trial lawyers" are stuck on CJA panels.

Why are so many people calling out Ms. G? The witness is the one who brought it up, and as he said, he hasn't been to many depos. It wasn't like Ms. G brought it up to score points. Read the transcript. Particularly you, 4:46.

Wardrobe malfunction

could also be a case of unfortunate button hole gaping. guy is a jerk to bring it up at the END.

and it seems possible that he would have asked his lawyer at the break before putting that on the record.

No, not a shouldered chip, just a bone to pick with the waste of time most depositions turn into, because we no longer groom trial lawyers.

Instead, we have endless depositions that result in transcripts that 60% consist of counsel bickering and "putting things on the record"—which usually turns out to be some form of personal attack.

It is really quite tiresome. That's all
.

5:05(1): I usualy detes all thoes poeple whoo piont out litle speling errrs, but in ths casse...hystericl!!!

I would like to see her breasts.

4:46/5:02 has been crushed by BigLaw on summary judgment and in discovery disputes a few too many times. He's developed an inferiority complex as a result. It's the short-man's syndrome of the legal profession. Happens all the time.

@5:11 PM:

Exactly.

The plaintiff's counsel is known to wear very conservative, grandmaw attire when deposing females and wears cloths so revealing and one could honestly describe as indecent when deposing males. She has a history of leaning across the table to the point that her entire breast are exposed and a rock forward would place them on the tongue of the witness. She tries to use her looks to distract the wittness however there has been some much plastic work that she has taken on the look of "Ms Plastic"

ms. b obviously didn't know. if ms. g had a brain she would have asked ms. b to step out of the room and advised of the problem, woman to woman, before the deposition even started.

4:50--

By all means, one female attorney has a duty of loyalty to all other female attorneys well before she has a duty to her client, herself, or even God (if she were to so believe). Heaven knows Ms. B must have been so vulnerable and incapable of taking care of herself that the Code of Female Attorneys should have kicked in and Ms. G should have called off the deposition the second she saw Ms. B's attire. In fact, I'm surprised that Ms. G wasn't at Ms. B's residence that morning making sure they were both presentable and professionally attired for the event. Doesn't the Code require it? Really, it's such a sad state of affairs when Ms. G would even take a case against another female attorney.

@5:14 PM:

I once bragged to a friendly trial judge who asked how things were going that I had jury tried 16 civil cases.

He replied: Talk to me after you have tried a hundred.

I have now earned the right to say the same to you.

PS: I cannot recall a single occasion wherein an interrogatory answer--compelled or otherwise--affected a jury trial one way or the other.

5:19/4:46: Go home. You're embarassing yourself.

5:25, that took long enough... now, how long until the ATL readership overloads that firm website...?

She can present me with Exhibit T anytime!

This one's even crazier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Nice work 5:25

5:19/4:46:

While I’m sure your insurance defense practice in Omaha offers you a wonderful opportunity to delve into the intricate world of slip-and-falls and fender benders, I’d don’t think your war stories will garner much respect on this particular blog. Thanks for playing.

5:14

Florida State grad. At least it's not Miami.

she was hotter when the bar was across her face.

Sorry about the delay. Some of us have actual law stuff to do in addition to our ATL-stalker activities.
Best,
5:25

5:31. I'd rather do insurance defense and actually "practice law" than be a BigLaw paper pusher whose career ends in five years. Enjoy your document review, fuckstick.

re 4:46 - I'm trying to decide what kind of "trial lawyer" we're dealing with here. I'm guessing PI or DUI cases. Maaaaaybe public defender if he/she is having a rough day.

show charlie murphy ya titties

How is the resolution of her photo sharper here than on her firm's own web site?

@5:31:

1. I was born and raised in California, and have never practiced in any other jurisdiction.

2. I have never handled a case by appointment from any insurance carrier;

3. I never tried a ‘slip and fall” or other personal injury case;

4. God forbid that anyone on this site would have any respect for a lawyer who has actually tried a case.

180
I would hire that expert in a second!

5:40: I've tried 594 cases. Have respect for me when I tell you that it's hard to have respect for someone bragging about their accomplishments anonymously on the internet.

Back in my day, we had respect. Now get off my lawn.

Let me just say, wow. I rarely ever read the comments section. But let me just congratulate you guys/gals on going from a funny article about see through clothing to a pissing match between "big law" and "trial lawyers" GO attorneys we are awesome!

"Let me just..." No.

"Frankly, this lawyer is a former prosecutor and looks preatty straight laced."

Must have been a corset.

She has the crazy eyes. Like that runaway bride girl from Georgia.

No, this obviously wasn't a button that popped open. The witness was describing her OUTFIT, not cleavage or a wardrobe malfunction. Jesus, some people are so retarded.

Also, to the AMAZING trial lawyer, I've never been in a depo with significant bickering. Maybe you just practice third tier law at your firm?

As a Florida State alum, I have seen some hot Noles brandishing some breasts. She was probably completely topless. Awesome.

How can this post turn into a series of comments correcting spelling errors and talking about someone getting "crushed on summary judgment" (you're a tool 5:14). Reading these comments makes me hate all of you. Whether a trial lawyer or a Biglaw lawyer, you should all kill yourselves. Thank you.

As a litigator for two years, I tried only one case, which was a bench trial for chump change, and I got slaughtered. Now I write patents all day for oodles more money than I ever got doing "civil litigation". I know career "litigators" who have never actually tried a case.

Let the record reflect Dwight Shrute has taken off his pants!

"I've never been in a depo with significant bickering".

How many have you attended?

Sadly, bickering is the norm.

David when you report back that the "boss" was dressed in tight jeans and a sports bra, which she was....according to many sources, some from her own firm, these individuals will realize what the BigP firms do to try and get answers which can be misconstrued at trial.

I once wore a single tube sock to a deposition and no one questioned my attire on the record.

5:56 -True; great catch.

What are you BigLaw kids doing looking up from your document review anyway?

I would hit it like the fist of an angry god.

1. If the lawyer in question was attired in "tight jeans" and a "sports bra"? do you mean a bustier style top, or an actual sports bra. If the latter, her breasts were definitley not visible. "sports bras" are not sheer.

2. "BigP firms do to try and get answers which can be misconstrued at trial"--meaning what, that she was a siren, right out of Ulysses, and that professional witnesses were powerless in her gaze but to stammer dumb responses harmful to their side of the case in her mere presence?

On both scores, I am a tad skeptical.

Lat/Kash: Totally uncool to post her pic

6:07(1),(2),(3): Making fun of you.

I feel sorry for this poor chick. She is a slave to two individuals who are obviously mental. She had to pull out all stops, to include her breast, just to make sure to keep her job. When your boss walks into the office and sends 21 associates and support walking in one day then you have to always be ready for the next occupation. She is probably trying to get her body in shape for a modeling career.

4:46(2) - with you 80% of the way, but... I've seen (well, done) things just to mess with opco's head. If it distracts opposing counsel from their agenda, and if it won't embarrass my side too much if the judge sees it, it's cool. I would have liked to have seen the whole transcript to see if Ms. B took the deponent to the cleaners. The comment does seem classless, on first look.

-- ET

6:07, why are you so angry? I don't have a problem with small firm lawyers because they don't affect me. It's odd that you don't feel the same way about big firm lawyers. It's just a choice of working situation, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. I used to think one of the benefits of small law was a more laid back lifestyle, but you're evidence against that theory.

The milk's gone bad!

6:14...awesome.

It was not a sports bra stupid...they are called halter tops!

Is Florida State University a good law school?

@6:16 PM:

It is not a question of small firm vs. big firm lawyers.

It is "litigator" vs "trial lawyer". Both species exist in firms big and small.

Maybe 6:07 is frustrated with the hubris if the generation Y types on this site that have not yet paid their dues, and doe not see the value of having done so.

I am not talking about transactional lawyers.

But many of the baby lawyers who wind up on depo duty are ass wipes.

Now, back to the breasts.....

Wow, so the black bar across the eyes was not to protect HER identity, but rather US from her crazy-eye stare? Good lookin' out, ATL!!!

Back to the breasts indeed.

6:22, let me help you out with a little editing here...

"many of the [] lawyers . . .are ass wipes"

There, that's better: a lot shorter, and no less accurate.

6:22: Generation Y types understand the forum. You're posting anonymously on the internet. Get over it.

We really need to see the rest of the deposition to appreciate what set the witness off. Is he a professional expert?
A savvier lawyer would have gone off the record before addressing the witness.
Let's know the names of the others in attendance.

6:22, I suppose. But if someone's position requires that others recognize its value, then it doesn't seem all that valuable. I'm happy to be a litigator, and my happiness doesn't depend on others thinking their status is inferior to mine.

What is wrong with you people? Here you have an example of a MAN making a complete and total ass out of himself and who do you immediately start picking on? The women in the room.

I don't care if she came into that deposition room buck naked. For him to wait until the END of his deposition and THEN decide, "oh, hey, I think I will be a total misogynist and try to discredit her by saying she dresses like a slut. That way people won't notice how sucky of an expert I am, they'll just be wasting their time worrying about what opposing counsel was wearing" makes him a Grade A Shit-Sucking, Lard-Brained Asswad.

If he had a problem with what she was wearing, the PROFESSIONAL thing to do would have been to bring it to her attention, OFF THE RECORD, before the deposition began. Or if he didn't notice until later, to ask for a break and discreetly point out her problem. He accuses HER of being unprofessional??

And if someone is so "distracted" by an attractive woman that he can't concentrate on his own testimony, then he doesn't deserve to be a paid expert. Professionals are paid to do a good job at what they're hired for -- not to do a good job only if acting under ideal laboratory coniditions. If I turn in a shitty draft of a brief and tell the partner "oh, sorry, I was too distracted by the clothes the associate down the hall was wearing," do you actually think the partner is going to buy that as a legitimate excuse? Do you think he gives a SHIT what some associate he doesn't even know is wearing?

I mean. Jesus H. Christ, how fucking unprofessional. I want this expert's name so I can make sure no one I know EVER hires him for ANYTHING.

6:22, you are clearly 6:07

6:30, it's not his job to help her dress herself appropriately for his deposition. His placing her inappropriate attire on the record is the correct thing to do, and waiting until the deposition is otherwise concluded is the professional way to handle that. Get the questioning done and only then put something that the lawyer taking the deposition will be pissy about into the record.

As for distraction and attractiveness, I'm pretty sure great breasts or nasty man-boobs being clearly displayed at a depositon are distracting for the same reason: their display, whether attractive or not, is unprofessional.

6:19(2): Based on my experience with FSU law grads, I'd say the school's degrees would be more useful if printed on toilet paper.

I am not so sure why her bare breast are such a big deal. There are depositions out there where she has really showed herself.

A little research will show you that this chick is a total fake and cares about nothing or no one but the two who control her purse strings.

Sympathy is not in her vocabulary and being nice and trustworthy is absolutely a NEVER. She is the first cousin of the diamond back raddle snake.

um, 6:30...it's one thing to be "distracted" by an attractive professional, it's another to have visible boobs pressed up against your face.

The fact that your opinion wouldn't even change were she to come into the room "buck naked" reveals that you are a boob yourself.

What was the point of putting what counsel was wearing on the record?

@6:30 PM: Well said. But it is still far from clear that the lawyer in question was inappropriately dressed to begin with. The accusation seems at odds with her professional background (i.e, state prosecutor) and her skill level (at least two jury verdicts over $1 M).

"What was the point of putting what counsel was wearing on the record?"

At the end of the deposition, none other than to express the witness's frustration at having screwed the pooch.

"it's another to have visible boobs pressed up against your face"

What planet are you from?

Who said anything about close personal proximity?

6:35, precisely. It is NOT his job to help her dress, which is why it's completely inappropriate for him to switch hats and suddenly play "daddy" once he's been humiliated at his deposition. How on earth is HIS opinion of her clothing POSSIBLY relevant or appropriate to have on the record???

You're also assuming that he and opposing counsel were correct that you could see her breasts, and that what they meant was that the breasts themselves were actually visible, rather than being, say, emphasized (I know it's a shocker, but most women have breasts and, like, can't completely hide them all the way under their clothes).

6:36, sorry, I didn't see where in the transcript it was pointed out that she walked over to the deponent and pressed her breasts up against his face. If she did that, I would absolutely agree that it was inappropriate, as well as illegal (battery).

The buxk naked example, genius, was to point out that if something WERE that blatant NO reasonable person would have waited until the end of the deposition. The ONLY reason for calling her out on what was likely slightly revealing attire is to make her look foolish on the transcript. It is vindictive, it is immature, it is sexist, and it is one hundred percent unprofessional.

is 6:36(2) implying that the lovely and talented ms. b has shown her va-jay-jay at other deps?

6:35 is 100% correct.

Now, can we have the additonal names and details?

6:45, I'm a woman. We know how to read teh internets and everything! We even get to vote!!

6:30: FINALLY, someone with half a brain who isn't distracted by such trivial things. You should hire me as your expert witness. I always wear one of these:
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2666062

"A little research will show you that this chick is a total fake and cares about nothing or no one but the two who control her purse strings.

"Sympathy is not in her vocabulary and being nice and trustworthy is absolutely a NEVER. She is the first cousin of the diamond back raddle snake."

What are you smoking?

Either you are an ex-spouse or ex-boyfriend with an axe to grind or are completely insane.

I just saw Lat on CNN Headline News talking about Kozinski.

I just saw Lat on CNN Headline News talking about Kozinski.

Good policy, 6:49. Never know when torrential rains might seep into the deposition room.

You saw him twice?!

Poor Kozinski. By all reports he is good to his clerks and does not take himself too seriously. Talk about embarrassing.

Notwithstanding his 1968 appearance on the Dating Game with Squiggy from Laverne and Shirley.

See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdjCdbGucCU

Wow! Kozinski must be under seige--the You Tube dating game video has been removed since this morning.

6:22 (aka 4:46, etc.):

Maybe it’s not hubris that you’re detecting. Maybe it is resentment at the condescending way you suggest that capable young attorneys from good schools are “baby lawyers” who should “come talk to you when they’ve tried over a hundred cases.” People who treat others with respect get it back, regardless of whether they’ve tried a bunch of the bullshit cases you’ve certainly been working on. What kind of practice did you say you have that lets you handle so many civil trials? Not sure you mentioned that.

@7:03 PM:

I have a broad general trial practice. I generally handle disputes that preexisting clients have become embroiled in.

Those past clients include professional associations (law firms, accounting firms, general partnerships), to large real estate developers and home builders, small ($1 million to $20 million net worth) real estate investors, real estate brokers, loan brokers, architects, mortgage companies, small (under $ 20 million gross) family businesses, as well as individuals.

The types of cases are varied but include, fraud, trade secret litigation (in state court) partnership dissolution, real estate secured transactions, lender liability, breach of fiduciary duty, real estate litigation, construction litigation, easement disputes and other real estate title issues, legal malpractice, malicious prosecution, commercial disputes, business torts and (only very occasionally these days) white collar criminal defense.

In the past I have also defended individuals accused of murder, attempted murder, vehicular manslaughter, bank robbery, securities fraud, grand theft and other crimes, but most of my practice currently consists of civil trial work.

I also do pro bono work.

Thank you for asking.

No fair! All the comments containing her name got deleted.

7:37=summer with a lot of time on his soft, sweaty hands

5:17 - HILARIOUS

6:30. Thank you for being awesome. :)

So...I hear there's a lot of cutting edge work in Buffalo.

7:37 = Kozinski. Too much time on his hands today without his trial or his stash.

The "respectfully" is the best part of Ms. G's catty comment to Ms. B:

"Respectfully, I think he's just referring to the fact that he can see your breasts."

Face it, a lot of professionals need a refresher course in appropriate work attire. I've seen plenty of cleavage (and other things) in court, and it's embarrassing and distasteful.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1625083929

Best deposition I have ever seen.

Object to form

10:03 - That depo is disturbing (when not incomprehensible).

Why should men have to see a woman's breasts just because they are in a deposition? Men don't show their private parts. There is a time and place for everything.

I hope "MS. X" comes forward and posts a link to a photo of what she was wearing.

I strongly suspect that her breasts where not showing at all. Just some humiliated expert trying to save face and his attorney for a nursing home that probably dropped some old people on their heads or something to get sued covering for him.

I have seen lawyers in jeans and tee shirts at depositions--even shorts on a Saturday during the summer--and no one to my recollection has ever "made a record" about that. And why do it at the end. Naw, the expert was just lashing out cause he tripped over his own whatever.

PS: To 11:16:

Breasts are generally highly regarded by men, and if this expert was a man it is totally strange that he would object to seeing them. If he saw them. Which I doubt..

"I've seen plenty of cleavage (and other things) in court, and it's embarrassing and distasteful."

You know what else is embarrassing and distasteful? 9-year-old boys with "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" treehouses in their backyards being given unsupervised access to the internet like you were. Where are your parents? No wonder we have kids shooting up their schools.

On the off-chance you're actually an attorney *masquerading* as a child, I hope you don't try making unfunny jokes like that around the office. You're begging for a sexual harassment suit. By your reasoning, men should be required to wear poofy skirts so we aren't involuntarily subjected to unsightly crotch bulge.

"Why should men have to see a woman's breasts just because they are in a deposition"

If by "see a woman's breasts" you mean "stare at the contours of a woman's body, which are on some level impossible to completely hide under clothing," then your question was answered by Title VII, years ago. Douchebag.

The last two posts are awsome.

She was five foot, seven, svelte with piercing eyes. Her legs, slender and sexy in her stilettos as she stepped towards the deposition room. With each step, I could feel her muscles contracting, her heart palpitating and her eyes scanning the two other individuals in the room.

As I was catching my breath, her eyes locked onto mine. What was a second felt like an eternity. My heart, it stopped. By the grace of god, my heart found its beat once again but only when she decided to break eye contact. She slowly sat down in her chair, crossed her right leg over her left and unbuttoned her suit...

I swallowed the knot that was building in my throat as I quietly noticed her blouse. Light blue, fluffy and fitting the contours of her body. The blouse must have been made for her. My eyes slowing travelled from her neckline, down her shoulders, and further down towards her hips.

My eyes quickly darted towards her breasts. The blouse, so form fitting and magnificiant, revealed to me its secret. Her breasts were moving up and down as she breathed in rythmic fashion. Up and down, up and down.

The deposition room was closing in on me. I could not breath any further. I asked my witness to step outside so as to speak to the opposing counsel in private. As the witnesses stepped outside, I closed the door. Turned off the camcorder. Then, gathering all the strength I had left in me, told her that her blouse...no, that how she carried herself in her blouse, that was distracting me.

She smiled, and without a word, slipped on her suit once again.

/Mr. Imaginative
//Didn't want it to be R rated.
///But I will take suggestions =)

She was five foot, seven, svelte with piercing eyes. Her legs, slender and sexy in her stilettos as she stepped towards the deposition room. With each step, I could feel her muscles contracting, her heart palpitating and her eyes scanning the two other individuals in the room.

As I was catching my breath, her eyes locked onto mine. What was a second felt like an eternity. My heart, it stopped. By the grace of god, my heart found its beat once again but only when she decided to break eye contact. She slowly sat down in her chair, crossed her right leg over her left and unbuttoned her suit...

I swallowed the knot that was building in my throat as I quietly noticed her blouse. Light blue, fluffy and fitting the contours of her body. The blouse must have been made for her. My eyes slowing travelled from her neckline, down her shoulders, and further down towards her hips.

My eyes quickly darted towards her breasts. The blouse, so form fitting and magnificiant, revealed to me its secret. Her breasts were moving up and down as she breathed in rythmic fashion. Up and down, up and down.

The deposition room was closing in on me. I could not breath any further. I asked my witness to step outside so as to speak to the opposing counsel in private. As the witnesses stepped outside, I closed the door. Turned off the camcorder. Then, gathering all the strength I had left in me, told her that her blouse...no, that how she carried herself in her blouse, that was distracting me.

She smiled, and without a word, slipped on her suit once again.

/Mr. Imaginative
//Didn't want it to be R rated.
///But I will take suggestions =)

Mr. Imaginative, while I, for one, appreciate that your protagonist has the good sense and decorum not to sexually harass an attorney on the record, I must admit I find your conclusion wholly unrealistic. Perhaps this is simply the result of the all-too-human fantasy that everyone to whom we find ourselves irresistibly attracted, is equally attracted to us. Having been on both sides of this almost-never sound equation, I can assure you that virtually the opposite is true.

I'm five foot seven and often wear a blouse under my suit, and I can pretty much promise you my response at being told, outright, that the way I wore my blouse was "distracting," would not elicit a smile so much as a suspicious raised eyebrow and an icy request for clarification. (To ward off the inevitable, laughably bitter "you must be ugly" comments... no, never mind. They aren't even worth dignifying).

6:44--don't be an idiot. It's not battery. Even gay men enjoy a good pressing of breasts against the face. Any 1st year can tell you that bettery requires the touch to be unwelcome by an objective standard. Just because you are an asexual twat doesn't mean the rest of us are.

I love the fact that there are still people posting. It's 1:11 am in LA and I'm still working. I assume that those who are posting are also working as well.

Ahhh.... There is nothing like BigLaw lifestyle.

I love the fact that there are still people posting. It's 1:11 am in LA and I'm still working. I assume that those who are posting are also working as well.

Ahhh.... There is nothing like BigLaw lifestyle.

1. This is amusing. Some commenters need to develope a sense of humor!

2. I've seen lawyers dressed inappropriately (usually overly casually) even in court, and the judge "officially" called the lawyer on it. Obviously, not having been at the deposition, I have no idea whether or not by "objective" standards the attire was "inappropriate" but it's possible, and if so while I might disagree with the tenor of the comment or making a point of being on the record with it, if it was stated in the deposition it would be reported and it would be arguably be wrong for the witness to say anything to the lawyer on the opposing side after the deposition ended. Also, if "true", I think the witness was free to comment (though unwise to do so, possibly especially if annoyed by the deposition the urge was uncontrollable?).

3. As for waiting too long to comment, I've never been in this situation but sometimes something gradually annoys you more and more until you feel compelled to speak out. Also, if the witness had said something at the beginning of the examination (as some commenters suggest) then those same critics would be alleging it was an attempt to throw the examining attorney off her game before examination and in any event it would have unwisely annoyed her at the outset, etc. Better to wait until the examination was over to say anything if one feels an uncontrollable urge.

3. Even assuming inappropriate comments by the witness, why criticize the witness' lawyer? She said nothing except and until she made a comment intended to defend the witness.

4. Isn't it hypocritical of the examining lawyer to spend her own time (and the client's money) to lecture the witness on how he's being paid to be a witness and not criticize her attire? She was being paid to be the examining attorney, not to lecture the witness. I hope she deducted 0.1 from the client bill to reflect the time spent engaged on a personal matter, lecturing the witness on propriety, which was unrelated to the case and her duties to the client...

5. All that aside, even with female friends, to alert them (out of friendly concern) to a problem with their attire with which they are presumably unaware is fraught with peril...let alone trying to alert a hostile lawyer on the other side of a case!

The expert witness was a dick. 'Nuff said.

"don't be an idiot. It's not battery. Even gay men enjoy a good pressing of breasts against the face. Any 1st year can tell you that bettery requires the touch to be unwelcome by an objective standard. Just because you are an asexual twat doesn't mean the rest of us are."

Actually, retard, battery (not "bettery") is when you touch someone, without their consent, in a way that is harmful or offensive. If the asswad spoke up -- as he did -- then clearly it was not welcome or unoffensive. Thus, if touching was involved, it was battery.

Get back to your remedial summer studies, 1L. You stink of fail.

6:15 - I think you might be taking that commenter a bit too seriously. I mean, just look at the time he/she posted. There's no way he/she was sober.

I didn't post the original comment, but 6:15 you're incorrect. There is an objective element to the offensiveness of the contact for the tort of battery. For instance say I tap you on the shoulder to get your attention. You're a man; I'm a woman. You are of a religion that believes any physical contact between genders is wrong. You are offended I tapped you on the shoulder. It is not an actionable battery because by an objective standard it is not offensive or harmful conduct.

Um, all this discussion aside, tell me again why seeing a beautiful woman's breasts are disturbing?
There is NEVER a bad time for a hottie to let the girls out for some air in fact it should be encoruaged and enthusiastically supported. Come on guys, even the gays appreciate a perky pair. Get over it!!!

I bet she has nice ones! Shes' hot- even with a black bar across her eyes!

I bet she'd be even hotter with a black bar across her mouth. She is an attorney don't forget.

10:55, if you click on the link I helpfully provided at 10:45, you can test your hypothesis without the black bar!!!

/greatest contribution to ATL ever. So proud.

4:57 -

Use of the word "moreover" in this setting = you're a douche

Well, she does specialize in NURSING home litigation.

It's too funny that the witness' name is Dr. Peek.

this is precisely why i wear a manssier and opaque shirts.

"this is precisely why i wear a manssier and opaque shirts."

That's just wrong.

"this is precisely why i wear a manssier and opaque shirts."

Um, yeah, like thanks for sparing us that disturbing image.

"this is precisely why i wear a manssier and opaque shirts."

Well, if you need one of those, then I'm sure everyone around you appreciates your not letting the boys run free.

Of the three video depositions linked, I'm going with the Texas one. Ghetto Disposition is unwatchable. Why don't you put them all together so we can vote?

Where's the name/firm info people???

"Where's the name/firm info people???"

It was posted, then deleted.

I was hoping that the maligned attorney would have responded by posting a photo of how she was really attired by now.

damn it i knew i should have bookmarked the firm!

I wonder if it was one of those fancy, put you on the spot, videod depos?? Teee Heeeee

I move that this proceeding be adjourned. Enough already.

looks like "ghetto deposition" deponent, aka Gidget Lewis, is getting out of the slammer in a few days and is looking for love:

http://christiangays.com/personals/prison.shtml

she's id'ed as ms. lewis here: http://nylawblog.typepad.com/legalantics/2007/06/gidget_lewis_te.html

ATL has closed comments on this post.

--The Management