Daytona Law.jpgDavid W. Glasser, a local attorney in Daytona Florida, received a major benchslap from U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell. It is short, it is sweet, and it appears entirely deserved. Here’s the order from the court. Glasser is the plaintiff’s lawyer:

This matter came before the Court without oral argument upon consideration of Plaintiff’s, Carolyn Nault (“Plaintiff”), Response to this Court’s Order and Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (collectively, the “Motion”) (Docs. 21 and 22). Upon review, it is
ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice for failing to comply with
Local Rule 3.01(g), for failing to secure a stipulation of dismissal from Defendant pursuant to FED.R. CIV. 41(a)(ii), and for otherwise being riddled with unprofessional grammatical and typographical errors that nearly render the entire Motion incomprehensible.

Ouch.
Just for good measure, Judge Presnell also ordered Glasser to show the judge’s order to his client:

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel, David W. Glasser, shall re-read the
Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their entirety. Furthermore, Mr. Glasser shall personally hand deliver a copy of this Order, together with the Court’s exhibit attached thereto, to his client, Carolyn Nault, by no later than Monday, September 21, 2009. By no later than Wednesday, September 23, 2009, Mr. Glasser shall file with the Court a “Notice of Compliance,” certifying to the Court that he has fully complied with this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on September 15, 2009.

The “exhibit attached thereto” is presumably the judge’s corrected copy of Glasser’s memo. Let’s check it out after the jump.


Now, I’ve been known to make the occasional grammatical or typographical error. But Mr. Glasser has outdone even my best efforts:
Nault v Evangelical Lutheran 1.jpg
This thing really does look like a pro se complaint. You know you are in serious trouble when the judge’s main edit seems to be circling sections of your complaint and writing a huge question mark:
Nault v Evangelical Lutheran 2.jpg
For the grammatically inclined, there is a lot of good stuff here. Check out the full motion below.
David W. Glasser, who we believe to be one of the two partners of Glasser & Handel, is light on personal information. In fact, the firm’s website is light on information of any kind.
Are there any mitigating factors for Mr. Glasser here? Was this motion due during spring break in Daytona? Did he accidentally file a first draft because of a clerical error?
Here’s another question: if you are plaintiff Carolyn Nault, what do you do at this point? Do you just find another lawyer as quickly as possible? Sue for malpractice? Buy your attorney a Bluebook?
Click on the link below to read the full train wreck motion.
Nault v Evangelical Lutheran Full.pdf


comments sponsored by

100 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments