Update: Motion to Compel Appropriate Footwear Causes Mistrial
Whoops. Sorry we missed this article, noted by a commenter, which we should have read before publishing this post yesterday.
So here’s what happened to the Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial, filed in Lenkersdorf v. Sorrentino. Defense counsel Michael Robb got to wear his hole-ridden Cole Haan loafers in court; plaintiff’s motion to compel proper footwear was denied.
Despite this setback, plaintiff’s counsel won a $2.2 million verdict for his client. But then he lost it, after a Palm Beach Post article about the silly motion came to the attention of the jurors, causing a mistrial.
Bill Bone, who represented the plaintiff, is presumably kicking himself — with non-hole-ridden shoes, we’re guessing — for filing that motion. One-third of $2.2 million would have bought a lot of Manolos for the missus (or John Lobbs for him).
Cerabino: Story behind controversial court column [Palm Beach Post]
Earlier: ‘Holier’ Than Thou: Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial
(28) 
Comments
First!!!
My first, first, thank you very much. Eat it ATL readers.
No big deal. There will be a second trial, probably with the same result.
DOH!!!
2 = asshat
MOAR BAREBACK
The author of that article sounds like a real asshole. He said that the plaintiff's lawyer asked him to hold off on his article for A COUPLE OF DAYS because they were getting ready to get a judgment, and the author told him no. So now, because this asshat wouldn't wait a few days to run a fluff piece, the plaintiff's lawyer got his judgment tossed. I'd be pissed.
I relay a message from Bill Bone's wife aimed at Mr. David Lat:
The shoes on my feet
I've bought it
The clothes I'm wearing
I've bought it
The rock I'm rockin'
I've bought it
'Cause I depend on me
If I wanted the watch you're wearin'
I'll buy it
The house I live in
I've bought it
The car I'm driving
I've bought it
I depend on me
(I depend on me)
All the women who are independent
Throw your hands up at me
All the honeys who makin' money
Throw your hands up at me
All the mommas who profit dollas
Throw your hands up at me
All the ladies who truly feel me
Throw your hands up at me
2 = owned
So - was filing the motion legal malpractice?
There are no attractive women posting here. Why are there only horny guys?
@7 So if the article was a fluff piece (and I agree it was), then what was the motion? The article did nothing more than report on something frivolous that the plaintiff's attorney wilfully did on the record. That attorney has no one but himself to blame.
If only shoes with holes had allowed me to win too.
Bill Bone left his wife for a man, who, yeah, prolly would like some new shoes.
This is what we call a 'real boner.' Well done, Bill.
Shoeless Bill Boner
The author of the post really thinks that the court/judge is going to (a) get his message and (b) contact jurors over a weekend? Yeah, that's a lot of time over the internet, but not for government courtrooms. If it doesn't happen between 9am and 3pm weekdays (4 most days, but 3 on Fridays), it doesn't happen for the government.
RETARDED LAWYER IS RETARDED
Lat, please come back forever.
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Bill Bonehead will forever live in lawyer folklore as a sad cautionary tale. If I were the client, I would take my Salvatorre Ferragamos off and beat Bill Bonehead to a pulp.
I have 3 pairs of John Lobb prestige shoes, and they are sublime.
Education:
University of Florida College of Law, Gainesville, Florida, 1984
J.D., Doctor of Jurisprudence
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1981
B.S.B.A., Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
Major: Finance
Bill Bone = TTT
22: *cough*cough* http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/meet_phil_telfeyan.php *cough*cough*
Say what.
The odd thing that nobody's commented on is that Bone doesn't seem to know the difference between a motion in limine and a motion to compel.
I don't understand how the mere fact that jurors saw this article vitiates the verdict. This is a VERY costly "remedy" for something that probably had nothing to do with the case's outcome.
#2, you are either a student, or a troll. Probably the case will now just be settled. They're not going to spend another 100 grand between costs and attorney time trying this case again, if they can even get a trial date by mid-2010. Meanwhile the plaintiff is surely pissed off and will eventually blame his lawyer, meaning he may fire the lawyer if it drags out any longer . . . you get the picture.
As for Lat's "One-third of $2.2 million" reference-- a lot of lawyers charge more than 1/3 for litigated cases. My firm's fee is 40% if the case goes to litigation-- but we usually reduce the fee unless the case goes to trial, in which case we do charge the full fee.
23, what?
You'd think someone with as much prestige as PE could afford something a bit better than Ferragamo. Are you one of those trendy guidos I see with the fake spray tans?