firstrom

Man, UVA really blows.

Since when did Camryn Manheim join the bench?

From TV lawyer to real-life judge - nice!

I had a racist white grandmother, and, let me be clear, I did have to slap the white privilege out of her once in a while. Never with a closed fist though, so it wasn't a big deal.

I'm Barack Obama?

ATL readers appear to be choking the innocence project servers.

Does anyone else see a stunning resemblance between her honor and a certain disney character?

http://images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/lg/5/9/Disney-Quasimodo-5929.jpg

This is not overly surprising, if O'Brien is in the trademark litigation group. They are not one of the more respected groups within Sidley (same as in many firms).

It does read a bit like a Scalia opinion or Nancy Grace monologue. Probably not reprimand-worthy, though.

Yeah, like I'm going to read this brief.

As if the usual crap that's filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County is of such high scholarly quality...

"all the leaves are brown..."

menopausal former prosecutor judge + unprofessional, unprepared federal prosecutor = "equal justice" for all

It is so outdated for an attorney to include something like, "The State, by and through its attorneys . . ." Sidley introduced themselves appropriately at the end. This Judge obviously doesn't read briefs like this too often. While it did cut into the other side a bit, it wasn't reprehensible.

It is so outdated for an attorney to include something like, "The Defendant, by and through its attorneys . . ." Sidley introduced themselves appropriately at the end. This Judge obviously doesn't read briefs like this too often. While it did cut into the other side a bit, it wasn't reprehensible.

Judge Quasimodo was out of line.

Sometimes, state judges are just like fucking cops. Power hungry pieces of shit with superiority complexes.

3 = a very subtle Chicago troll

15th

I'm more of a boxer type, but as briefs go....this one's pretty darned good. I would not have used the word "nonsensically" but the judge is totally smoking dope if she thinks the brief is inappropriate, impolite, etc. This episode only demonstrates the judge's foolish behavior. I like the partner's gentlemanly statement that he can work just fine with this judge. Klassy.

I read the brief, and this is not even remotely over the line, which raises interesting questions.

Quasimodo banged the princess and that is all I have to say.

The sense I get from perusing this brief is that both sides are represented poorly. The Sidley brief is badly written, and does in fact adopt a childish and intemperate tone that was bound to produce eye-rolling at the least, and an irritated judge at the most.

The first sentence of the brief basically calls opposing counsel stupid ("The State's response brief evinces a surprising lack of comprehension ...") and goes on to say, not just that the other side disagrees about the content of the relevant statute, but that the prosecutor must not like the First Amendment ("... and an equally surprising lack of affinity for the important First Amendment values that underlie the Act ...."). Elsewhere, the brief accuses the state of "a disturbing lack of sensitivity to [those values] and the role of investigative journalism in our society," and again vaguely calls the opposing side stupid ("The State must not understand the respective roles of government and the media in our society.").

This is just poor brief writing. The fact that it appears to be an accurate account of the State's brief (and probably even its attitudes) doesn't make it any less poor. Briefs filled with adverbs, adjectives and other emphasized characterizations of opposing counsel's motivations and "comprehension" are TTT lawyering. There are ways to convey this point subtly. Sidley may not have acted unethically, but adopting this angry tone was never the best way to help their clients, which you would have thought a Sidley partner would know.

Maybe she was complaining that the signature block says "One of the Attorneys for Northwestern University and David Protess" but doesn't say which one and the signature is illegible?

Also, the opening is a little to egregious in bashing the state. However, that appears that is the case because the state is very wrong on the merits. However, it in no way seems sarcastic. Sarcasm involves using wit, irony, and/or satire to ridicule. The brief ridicules the state, but is direct, not sarcastic about it.

Also, the quotes from the state's brief shows really horrible writing and pandering to the judge. Who really puts "Honorable" before every time you say "Court" in a brief? It almost seems like the state's brief was written by a foreigner or someone who is clinically retarded.

Overall it makes Chicago courts seem as embarrassing as Chicago elections.

This judge is crazy. I didn't find a single sentence in that brief that was even slightly "sarcastic."

Sarcastic means that you say one thing, and mean another, in a demeaning way. This brief said exactly what it meant...hence NOT sarcastic.

You gotta love it when stupid people get power trips.

To make the judge's actions seem even stranger, it is worth noting that this brief was from:
- Attorneys working pro bono...
- on behalf of a bunch of scared college students who...
- are trying to get an innocent guy out jail...
- who was wrongly imprisoned due to prosecutorial misconduct in the first place.

I could understand a judge being harsh to a prosecutor who showed up late to court and informally submitted a brief when his office's reputation is already sullied by the earlier misconduct. Making fun of the public interest attorneys? Really? I would the standards for them would be so low as to make almost any action beyond reproach. I guess I just don't understand Chicago...

Why are women with two last names always so bitchy?

Michele Caruso-Cabrera's breasts are looking absolutely lovely this afternoon.

This isn't even close to any line of impropriety. This judge is insane. I skimmed the first 7-8 pages of the brief. It's not the best thing I've ever read but it's not bad. It persuaded me that the State lawyers are idiots. And based on some of the language quoted from the State's brief (referring to heavily cited and supported arguments as "an insult to the People and this Honorable Court"), it seems like the blow-up over melodrama in a brief should have gone the other way.

I'm so glad I practice patent lit and never have to step foot in state court.

I am also in the camp that says that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that brief. Looked like a typical reply brief that I've received or written. Sure, maybe it's a bit strong, but maybe the state's brief was so lacking that such a response was well within its bounds.

22--

Also correct...but Sidley is prone to do things like that...a lot.

Even so, one needs to distinguish between sarcasm and inappropriate bashing of the other side.

Sarcasm is not the right word...idiot judge.

And no one's getting fat except Momma Cass

I stopped reading the brief after the first sentence but that alone was a turn-off. You see briefs like that all the time, and although that sort of stuff isn't sanctionable or anything, it will rub a lot of judges the wrong way.

The state is so wrong in this case it's ridiculous. If that came through in the brief, well who cares?

This judge needs to go to the judge's equivalent of confessional or something.

What a complete psycho, and a moron.

I thought the brief demonstrated a lack of professionalism at the very least. There are other ways to say the other side's arguments are wrong than starting off your brief by accusing the other side of being incompetent in their understanding of the law.

When you submit a brief like this, you stand the risk of not only pissing off the other side, but also of pissing off the judge. Good job Sidley Austin. You did both.

I want to take a closer look at the Assara model's briefs.

Briefs filled with adverbs, adjectives and other emphasized characterizations of opposing counsel's motivations and "comprehension" are TTT lawyering. There are ways to convey this point subtly. Sidley may not have acted unethically, but adopting this angry tone was never the best way to help their clients, which you would have thought a Sidley partner would know.

_________________

Bingo

The brief reads like some junior associate threw together an outline of the relevant caselaw, and then some partner spent minimal time on it by filling it out with snarky comments. The tone is grating. Other than that, it's really not bad considering that it's pro-bono.

Judge Cannon = TTT

The descriptions of the brief sound a lot like the tone of many of the comments on this board.

Sidley Austin is a festering toilet in decline. This event only symbolizes that fact.

22 nailed it. Nice job 22.

- Fersty McFersterson

The brief was definitely over the line. There are better ways to snark your opponent's errors than piling on unkind characterizations.

There isn't anything sanctionable in the brief but it's just not good persuasive writing. I've seen judges warn counsel about briefs with tones similar to this one. I am surprised though to see this judge come down so hard on someone working pro bono.

look, this is a state court judge in a podunk state who has nothing better to do than let it be known she's in the bag. this is the highlight of her career - she has nothing else to do after this than go to the waffle hut. she wants her 15 minutes any way she can get it.

@14: I think the traditional boilerplate "Comes now, the petitioner [name], by and through his counsel [name and name]" at the beginning of briefs, besides being old-fashioned, is silly and pointless, but it's the standard practice in a lot of state courts. When in Rome, probably best to do as the Romans (Chicago state-court practitioners) do as to matters of form. Particularly if you're a BigLaw firm purporting to come down from Mount Olympus to edumacate the less-intelligent judges and lawyers whose obvious lack of education and talent consigns them to the purgatory of icky state-court practice.

It sounds as if the judge thought the brief was unnecessarily snarky and rude and thought "if you want to write a fairly rude, sarcastic, and patronizing brief (which I know is standard BigLaw practice) arguing not only that the State's position is wrong but that its representatives are obviously talking out of their rear ends, you should put your names conspicuously and at the front of the brief -- rather just in the signature block at the end -- so the brief starts off by noting explicitly which attorneys are coming out and telling the court that the State's attorneys are not only wrong but were obviously absent the day they taught law in law school.

And if I were a judge, I'd find this reply brief annoying, too. Not as annoying as this judge did, but annoying nevertheless. It elides at least one of the most critical issues. Although it makes the pedantic point that the prosecution and defense don't have equal and opposite disclose responsibilities (something I assume the judge already knew), we're not talking about trial here. The trial is over, and after trial, the conviction is strongly presumed to be valid unless and until shown otherwise. The defendant is now affirmatively seeking extraordinary affirmative relief. The state's argument here is "hey, wait a minute -- this person has been duly convicted; it can't be right that we have to just accept the petitioner's 'evidence' without being able to ask how and under what circumstances it came into existence." In the kind of regular civil litigation that Sidley handles regularly, its attorneys would rightly cry foul -- with considerable justification -- if the other side said it was entitled to judgment on the basis of evidence, with Sidley's attorneys not being able to make a Daubert challenge about how the sausage was made. In short, the case isn't a laughing matter, and filing of briefs calling the other side ignorant idiots, while apparently not really grappling with the main issue, aren't that helpful.

The tone makes the writing less credible. The style pulls down the substance, and that's why it's bad. The judge might be misguided or out of her mind, but those of you who see nothing wrong are even more insane regardless of where you went to school.

The prosecutors are really grasping at straws with all their actions in the innocence cases.

First, they filed these absurd subpoenas, trying to get a bunch of information that they aren't entitled to, and they submit Mickey Mouse briefs to do so. Then, they claimed that the students or the investigators had been paying witnesses to lie, but all they could come up with is thast some investigator gave some cabbie some money to take a witness home, and the cabbie recorded the amount in a way that make it possible that some of the money had been given to the witness.

Everyone knows that the fix is in in Illinois state courts. The thing that makes it pathetic is that, when it's revealed, like when someone has spent years of his life in prison for a crime he didn't commit, and everyone can see that he didn't commit it, the system still tries to fight all the obvious evidence that the guy didn't commit the crime, just because of blind ambition and incompetence.

My wife is always telling me crazy stories about the things that judges do - most of them don't know the law very well and just get elected because they are politically connected. It's patently absurd that judges are elected here - the state court system in Chicago especially is even more corrupt than the rest of Chicago.

39 FTW.

16=DOBA

I have heard other judge scold attorneys when the signature on a pleading or motion is illegible. I dont know why it pisses judges off, but if they cant read your signature some judges will get pissed.

I have heard other judges scold attorneys when the signature on a pleading or motion is illegible. I dont know why it pisses judges off, but if they cant read your signature some judges will get pissed.

The judge should learn to stay off the bench while she's on the rag. No one wants to hear her yammer on about the sand stuck in her vagina.

I have a question for the editors:

How do I get my own screen name for ATL?

If you are encouraging racist, bigot and outlandish characters to make comments,

Lets open it up a bit and give all the other bigots a chance.

this is what happens when state court clerks who graduate from Depaul get to take a shot at Northwestern Students. Like judges even read briefs.

46--

We know where most of the chickenhawks on this blog come from--anti-meritocratic FTT incest houses. In their world, snarky, argumentative statements are even better than actual legal analysis. Hardly unexpected, given that none of them ever received a legal education but nonetheless were given incessant praise as being the "best and the brightest" the legal profession had to offer. The revolving door keeps on turning...

Any case involving two FTT firms eventually devolves into a pissing match, where the real fights become over who is being more disrespectful of "clearly" established law rather than the merits of their respective clients' positions. I wouldn't entrust a client's case to an FTT any more than I would to my cat. Correction: I would rather entrust it to my cat, because at least my client wouldn't look like a nefarious bloodsucker on account of blithering counsel.

Look, the takeaway is pretty simple. If you're in BigLaw and the judge you're litigating in front of is a former over-worked, underpaid prosecutor, don't submit a brief that basically calls the over-worked, underpaid prosecutors you're litigating against morons.

This isn't rocket science. If you're not smart enough to understand this, you shouldn't be in BigLaw.

ATL are idiots. The judge wanted to know who signed the brief because under the signature line - on page 14 as ATL pointed out - it says "one of the attorneys for..."

Then the signature was incomprehensible. IOf course the judge wanted to know who signed that ridiculous brief. 'd suggest ATL re-write their story. I realize it sounds better if you try to pain the judge as incompetent...but come on...I think some of the incompetent people here is ATL.

Over/Under on is this judge's weekly food budget? I say $250 at least.

41 = 22

While I think the judge overreacted, the tone of the brief was insulting in a way that was not constructive. A wise lawyer sticks to the facts and attacks the reasoning, not the people articulating it. There is a difference - e.g. saying a prosecutor does not understand the First Amendment could easily be taken as condescending as opposed to just saying that the prosecutors' First Amendment arguments do not correctly state the law on the subject and are erroneous and then provide counter reasoning. Same point - less chance of getting heat for it. Taking gratuitous pot shots at opposing counsel does not win points with the judge and in this case seems to have pissed her off. One can be a zealous advocate by making arguments with a respectful tone. It tends to make the arguments more convincing.

This judge is nuts. That brief is not particularly well written, but I've seen more sarcasm is appellate briefs.

@47: Perhaps you should run for judge. (Or, if you live in a jurisdiction where appointments to the bench are made on the basis of "merit," cultivate close friendships and/or raise money for the elected officials who make the appointments or key recommendations.) Unlike the current state-court judges, who are obviously all corrupt, willfully blind, or painfully stupid, it's obviously easy enough for you to tell who's really actually innocent, and who isn't. There should definitely be more judges who make decisions based on your "everyone can see" standard.

59 shows a surprising lack of affinity for the truth.

- 41 (not 22)

Look, judge pigface is obviously irritated that her earning potential will never approach that of a sidley austin associate. I've done these pro bono cases in front of state court judges and while they should be grateful that someone is willing to take dogshit cases as a freebie, they are not. No, they like to make power plays to make themselves feel better about essentially being a middling paper pusher in a shitty state court.

Judge PIGFACE! I hope she reads this and cries herself to sleep tonight while wolfing down a pint of ben and jerrys.

The constant use of words like "wrong," "of course," "utter," "utterly," etc. is not persuasive, and is grating after reading it every other sentence. Thou doth protest too much...

64, pint? bitch needs a barrel

57, there is a full signature block under the signature line, listing both attorney names. Those are the attorneys who submitted the brief.

To the extent it's relevant who actually signed it (I don't know why it would be since we all know that generally has nothing to do with who did the majority of the drafting), the signature obviously starts with "L," so it's clear which of the two possible attorneys signed it.

More to the point, this brief is completely par for the course and not remotely out-of-line (though I do share the view that the word "clearly" should never appear in a brief).

With today's topic being judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, here is another good read: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-11-nov11,0,1832804.column

Brief - could have been short and sweet and a lot more effective.

Judge - not unbiased. Gotta a chip on her shoulder. Clearly is reactionary - going back to her days as an Cook County prosecutor.

Yeah, this is Chicago - love it or hate it.

64 here. 66 you are right, more like a barrel.

Also, I bet if sidley austin digs into its recruiting records, they will find that judge pigface applied for and was rejected from a summer associate position.

Former prosecutors and state court flunkies are all the same. They like to think what they do matters, but if anyone gave a shit and if it did matter they would be paid accordingly. supply and demand, pigface, your honor!

I bet she has ugly little piglet kids too.

I get why she stated that it was an unnamed brief. On page 14 it states "one of the attorneys..." yet it has two lawyers listed. At my firm it is practice to write John Doe, one of the attnys... not simply one of the attnys

Overall, the brief was a bit over-the-top with sensationalism. It reminds me of how I used to write when I was a clerk. You get so excited because you find case law on your side and you think no matter what we're right and they are wrong and their lawyers are scum bags, blah blah

It wouldn't surprise me if a law student wrote that, simply because of how sensationalized it is.

heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysssssssss

- judge sloth

What is the difference between TTT and FTT

I read snarkier briefs every day as a bankrtupcy court clerk (Chapter 11s). They can be annoying if they're really petty, but this was just typical fiegned incredulity at the other side's supposed ineptitude. Run of the mill.

Many (but not all) top tier law firms foster a culture of arrogance and disrespect to opposing counsel, particularly those from more “lowly” callings, like public officials and lawyers from boutique firms.

The remarkable fact here is that the Sidley brief IS IN THE NORM for big-law briefs, and not that the brief is remotely acceptable by any reasonably objective standard of civility.

One would do well to become aware of end to emulate the firm cultures of, for example, Farella Braun + Martel and the boutique (highly profitable high end) Keker & VanNest, who espouse a firm culture of interpersonal respect and civility that springs from self confidence and not fear of losing.

"Snark" has no place among trial lawyers--as opposed to the trial deprived who self-describe as "litigators".

71, see 67.

Here is the catch 22. So long as judges are drawn disproportionately from the public sector they will always tend to favor public sector attorneys. Basic human nature. But, since judicial salaries are not comparable to that of Big Law partners (or even associates, in most cases), very few successful private attorneys will take the salary hit to don the robes.

I'd be curious if anyone can think of a solution to this problem, other than to radically increase judicial salaries.

I have seen much much worse and her honor, to quote EPMD, gots to chill.

But one point missing so far here is that judges justifiably loathe reply briefs. Most are pointless rehashes of the original briefing with unnecessarily hostile rhetoric. I didn't see the original brief here, but something tells me the lawyers had already raised and analyzed the reporter privilege statute and the First Amendment. To feel the need to nonetheless file a 14-page pile of paper means these lawyers were ultimately wasting everyone's time. (Maybe they wanted to puff up their hours and piled them into this pro bono case.)

That is all.

For all the problems with professionalism among attorneys, I think there is an equal problem of professionalism among the judiciary. I would love to see the judiciary take up this banner, but it will never happen.

Is Judge Cannon the same woman who cut down 47 lbs. of stomach fat in a month by obeying one old rule in the banner ad at the top of this story? What a wild coincidence.

@75 - have you ever read a Keker brief? They're a fantastic firm, but to suggest that those guys don't get their snark on is to deny reality.

How ironic that Judge Cannon's last position in the prosecutor's office was supervisor in the arson unit.

http://cookcountyjudges.net/judgeBios/CannonFull.html

#22 nails it. I hate briefs like this. They are "utterly" unconvincing and irritating to read.

This is full of satire.

An Illinois state's attorney issues an overly broad subpoena on overeager, privileged Northwestern students that want to act like private investigators in a criminal court. Students who want to act under the cover of newsreporters--but with the force of lawyers.

BigLaw, privileged civil attorneys from Sidley oppose the subpoena in a circuit criminal court. A place where they loathe to practice.

A judge who gets paid less than either the associate
or the partner, and who appreciates their mislaid advocacy.

All for the "justice" of evaluating a wrongful conviction. Class act.

Three points that the Sidley lawyers may not have been aware of:

1. State court judges sitting in criminal departments look to The People for guidance, since their ethical obligations (in theory at least) is truth seeking and not pure advocacy.

2. Those same judges do not even require a written opposition by The People to a motion, in recognition of the fact that most prosecutors are manning a courtroom from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm and have limited time to be typing away on the word processor. In the rare case where a state court prosecutor musters a late written reply of any kind, or asks for an opportunity to file a written reply, the continuance to consider The People’s position is virtually automatic.

3. I have practiced BOTH criminal and civil trial work. The criminal courts are indeed the last bastion of civility, and the boorish behavior that has become de rigueur in civil law and motion is not tolerated in a criminal department.

This poorly written brief appears to be drafted by an inexperienced but arrogant big firm lawyer who wrote it knowing that the odds of her ever having the States Attorneys as adversaries in the future are between zero and none. I would bet you would not see this style (if you can call it that) and attitude if there was another big firm on the other side who is also paid by the word, because what goes around comes around. Having said that, I disagree with the judge's assessment of the brief.
This opinion is true, and is no more true if I called it plainly true or clearly true.

Didn't this judge choke to death on ham sandwich?

uchicago grad--taught the 'garner style' of legal writing. i try to use it, but i get told constantly that the old way wins. garner would have a heart attack over some of the stuff i draft.

75...

What the hell?

This brief is condescending and dripping with hyperbole. That pisses off judges, as it should. Those who practice in Chicago know that this tone is VERY common among BigLaw attorneys in Chicago, particularly of certain firms. To all of those who made insulting statements about the judge in this case, go f**k yourselves running you stupid arrogant pricks.

88...

Need to have some more practice at using the garner style effectively, I would guess. Garner doesn't say lose all sophistication and subtelty of argument, just to make as clear and short as possible for your needs.

It's sad that so many of the commenters here don't understand what is wrong with this brief. It demonstrates a lack of professionalism. From the first line, it has a tone of a personal attack, which is inappropriate (and hurts credibility). Even if this type of tone is typical in briefs in that jurisdiction, the judge did the right thing by calling the lawyers out on it.

They should be embarrassed to have submitted something like that. Poor lawyering, period.

This judge is an ass.

Putting crap like that in a brief may not be persuasive to a bunch of law students on this board, but it works on a lot of state court judges. Practice more. Post less.

Dear Judge Diane Cannon,

You're a local judge -- get over your self. And if you're gonna spend time reading briefs, do so on a treadmill because you need to lose a few pounds.

Very truly yours,
Sidley

76, why should 71 see 67?

-71

Agree the brief didn't cross the line but also agree it reflects poor form and poor lawyering to suggest that the opposing party is stupid and insensitive (especially if your opponent is the State). It's unprofessional and, of course, if the Judge sides with the State, the assumption going forward is that you also think the Judge is stupid and insensitive.

So these Biglaw firms claim to hire only the best from the top schools, yet this is the crap they churn out ?It is not difficult to point out the weaknesses of opposing counsel's stance without making statements that are demeaning and snobby.

i would *probably* do judge cannon. can't say for certain. depends on the circumstances.

Who made the decision to re-hire Judge Halverson?

This was not an $800/hr piece of work by any means, but I am not sure what's worse - the personal attacks in the brief (which I do not find to be particularly egregious or uncommon) or the judge's dim-witted decision to make a big deal (or any kind of deal) out of them. Should have just ignored the style and addressed the substance - obviously, this was a piece of pro bono work by an associate without much time to write the brief. To call out a pro bono lawyer on the style of the brief is inappropriate. Her Majesty should recuse herself from the case.

94: As a former state trial clerk, I can say without hesitation that this kind of superfluous windbaggery does nothing but irritate the judges. It makes your argument appear weak on its merits. If the Court finds in your favor, it is because in the time we had to research your issue (due to statutory deadlines) your take appears to be correct (much to our chagrine).

As an aside, you idiots need to stop hating on state trial judges. They are generalists. They must rule on ALL issues (not just those certed for appeal), deal with oppressive case loads, filter through ridiculously long-winded and unnecessary reply briefs (and replies to the reply brief), and rule as correctly as they can in far less time than is allotted to the appellate courts. The role of a state trial judge is to rule as correctly as possible in the time allowed, while preserving a fair and efficient process for the litigants.

102 - cry me a freakin river.

"The role of a state trial judge is to rule as correctly as possible in the time allowed, while preserving a fair and efficient process for the litigants."

Sadly, because state trial judge's are all incompetent, "as correctly as possible" means mostly erroneous.

Agree w 22 & 92.

Not sanctionable. But stupidly written. And the tone is terrible -- sanctimonious and condescending.

Too much printer toner wasted on words that make the writer look unreasonable. If you have good arguments, stick with the arguments. If you don't have good arguments, don't put in a reply.

The "one of the attorneys" sig block also surprised me. My signature is fairly legible, but I always type my name under it, so that there's no question.

The lawyer who signs the brief is ultimately the one most responsible for its content. This "one of the attorneys" approach looks like an attempt to evade that accountability.

Did I miss it or did someone already note that the associate who signed (and certainly drafted) the brief in question clerked on the 7th Circuit for Judge Diane Wood? As noted by most everyone, this was a poorly written brief. The associate should have known better. Not that the judge was right to berate her.

it's pro bono, you get what you pay for. piggy judge should be happy that lawyers are willing to do shit for free, god knows its not within our nature to do so. piggy judge should try working pro bono, see how 'sarcastic' she gets.

Come on, y'all know you love the piggies. piggy body, piggy nose, oink oink!

The judge is an idiot.

What's wrong with saying the other side--the people who are trying to keep your client in prision--are really, really wrong.

She needs to know what is like to face prison time. Sorry, not gonna be polite all the time here, my freedom is at stake.

The signature block is unremarkable to me. I often see that format in Illinois state court. The lawyers' names are typed legibly, and both would be on the hook regardless of which one actually signed it, as with a more "conventional" signature block, which does not necessarily indicate which lawyer of several on a brief has signed it. Also, the brief does not strike me as sarcastic, or even terribly written in the world of briefs in civil suits.

Sidley is right. Judge Porker is a mope.

Post 100 actually made me laugh out loud.

Well played.

Isn't it alright to call the states attorneys morons when they show up thirty minutes late for a hearing blaming computer issues?

come on y'all even big girls need love too

this fat toad needs to become a real judge, ie federal level--then she can benchslap. until then, stfu.

I'm a civil litigator, 13 years of practice, and this brief WAS rude and unprofessional. A good writer can be forceful, persuasive, and keep the reader's attention, without being abusive. If you can't do that, you should get another job.

That a lot of firms operate this way, does not excuse it.

I see this kind of trash often. I hated it as a law clerk and I hate it as a lawyer.

I'm glad to see a judge call someone on the carpet for it. Most of them don't have the balls, or they might claim the time, to do so. When I get some crap like this from opposing counsel I grit my teeth and try hard not to take the bait of responding in kind.

Gotta' agree with the majority of the comments. Bad writing, bad advocacy, in a way that's really common though. You'd think clerking would clue the authors of the brief into why this kind of thing pisses judges off -- it doesn't help them resolve the case in any way ("The court concludes that the State's ignorance of the First Amendment is 'astonishing' and 'surprising,' and therefore holds for. . .") This one may have been pro bono, but it also shows that with the changes in biglaw over the last decade, as a client you get nothing for your extra $.

The brief is very condescending and creates a perception problem by constantly referring to the underfunded state employee's lack of comprehension and use of "sic" when quoting the response.

I think this is stupid more than anything else. An attorney should know his or her audience above all else.

When you go before a former prosecutor in criminal court, treat the prosecutors with some respect while shredding their arguments, and if the court wants to find out if the mighty Sidley Austin misquoted the State's brief, the Judge can go look at the Response to see whether grammatical errors were in the original.

I agree with 110 about 100.

I stopped reading after the introduction ran three pages, and was pretty insulting. It was poorly written.

My practice writing appellate briefs is to stick to the professional advocacy, and use one or two footnotes to take what I would call "pot shots" at opposing counsel's arguments. The only problem is if you're in a jurisdiction which prohibits footnotes in briefs (and there are those out there). I've had the distinction of an opposing counsel spend their entire brief responding to one of my footnotes (needless to say, it was an amusing oral argument).

Bottom line, I think this memorandum was a little over the top. I think you need to respect the advocacy of your opposing counsel, and respond to it professionally.

I should add (118) that I have been to numerous CLEs with appellate judges on the panel where they complain about the practice exhibited by this brief. They hate it -- they just want to see professional responses.

It makes me sad that, no matter how lop-sided the merits of the topic, there is always a substantial number of people who post on the other side on ATL. The Judge was out of line and ought to recuse herself given her bias. The brief could be better written, but in no way was it improper. To the at-the-moment over 10% who responded to the poll indicating that the brief exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy, I really hope you're not lawyers, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I would have been proud to submit that brief. Wonder what had Judge Cannon's panties in such a wad that she had to flip out like that.

120, I hope you are not in a position to file briefs on your own without supervision.

That brief was caustic and contained gratuitous insults. Is it the worst I've seen, no; but that just speaks to the low standards of civility in our profession. The judge was right to stand up to these lawyers.

These lawyers wanted their brief, with its windbag language, to get them some attention in a high-profile case.

Well they got it.

Being an asshole to counsel over a brief that is, at best, in a gray area, is hardly a great way to promote professionalism and courtesy.

This is a lesson to all of us: cut the rhetoric. It's painful to read.

That brief was offensive because:

* It's caustic and redolent with disdain.

* It's saturated with the kind of elitist, supercilious, rhetoric that makes lawyers, especially BigLaw litigators, contemptible.

* Of the string cites, footnotes, and other pseudo-analysis that's that's become the hallmark of what often passes for "advocacy."

* Of the authors' poor usage: "somewhat unique" on page 12. This is almost as bad as saying "very unique." Something is either unique, or it isn't. There's no degrees of uniqueness. Unique is derived from the Latin root meaning one. I know, this is picayune. But if you're going to write something as patronizing as that brief, your usage must be above reproach. This miscue put me over the edge. If those masters of rhetoric had just written "very unusual" instead, I probably wouldn't have bothered to write this comment.

Just because you're ferocious doesn't mean you're effective.

That brief crossed the line of good quality. Judge Canon should have found a subtler way to pillory the lawyers who wrote it.

People,

Can't all parties have been wrong here?

Nonsense. This was par for the course for a reply brief, IMHO.

If the prosecutor was really taking the positions described in the brief (i.e., if the writer was not grossly misrepresenting the position advocated by the state), the writer here was perhaps a little gratuitous in his descriptions, but not by much - the prosecution's positions vis-a-vis the breadth of the requests and the applicability of the Act are simply outrageous. Fishing expedition indeed.

The judge's response after it was the prosecutor who was extremely late to the hearing and offering up new allegations at that moment causes me to question her impartiality here, and the fact that 90% of ATL's readership seems to agree that the brief is in bounds suggests that perhaps she should recuse herself.

Former prosecutors on the bench can be a mine field for all involved, and this is a prime example. While prosecutors are supposed to be searching for the truth rather than going for the win at all costs, anyone with any experience in criminal court knows this is often NOT the case in real life, and if the judge gives the prosecutor more weight or leeway than the defense on this basis as per the suggestion of 85, this does not a fair trial make. When you're a former prosecutor, a blow up like this in favor of the prosecution causes people, rightfully, to question your biases, which is not good for you, and not good for the system. The judge's opponents in the next election may very well call her on the carpet over this.

Of course, all of that said, the substance of the prosecution's latest allegation might in part explain the flare up - if what they are suggesting is true, that a witness was bribed, this is a serious crime and the students in question may be doing jail time rather than studying for the bar. If it's false or wildly exaggerated (e.g., they paid a cab fare), well, then the prosecution has some serious 'splainin to do - trying to cover up a bad conviction with an unsubstantiated accusation of witness tampering is way, way over the line.

O’Brien’s brief is sophomoric in tone, but it would have been better for her to make a more general comment about what she expects.

Did she not have any words for the prosecutor, who is portrayed as more incompetent than juvenile?

From O’Brien’s brief:

“After its 10 years of existence, the Innocence Project has uncovered 11 instances of wrongful convictions that have freed men from prison, five of them from Death Row.”

Wrongful convictions free men from prison? Huh?

More at http://misterthorne.org/?p=1256

The judge's outburst says more about her than O'Brien and his brief. The 'justice' of this situation is that no one will give a shit about Sidley, O'Brien, or this case in the near future, but everyone will remember what a bitch the judge can be for a long time.

Imagine if a doctor worked for free on an injured patient, and the Board of Medicine then gathered to criticize the stitches. Makes you want to run down and volunteer for a little more pro bono publicum work, doesn't it? The Illinois Bar should have a prayer meeting with the judge to 'splain a few things.

There is not a thing in the brief that should have caused anyone's eyebrows to raise. The commenter who said that Judge Cannon in in the tank for the State is spot on.

Reading the quotes from the State's brief (at least those that are comprehensible -- what does "purveyor of its own inadequacies to the public" even mean??), it appears more offensive than Sidley's.

Briefing techniques that probably set the judge off:

1) criticizing the opponent's competency (not just persuasiveness) in the first sentence,

2) misplacing "[sic]" behind "Honorable Court" instead of behind the grammar error,

3) not typing the signer's name in the actual signature block.

On point 3, yes, the signer's name is typed elsewhere on the page, but not where judges look. Illinois state courts are sensitive to signature blocks -- for many years "law firms" would sign briefs, but that practice was abolished by rule so now people must sign.

These may explain the explosion of anger, but I doubt most judges would have reacted this way.

Brief is poorly outlined and a little too snarky for my taste but it hardly crosses any lines. We cannot expect pro-bono replies to be works of art considering they are drafted by paralegals or first-years.
The only rule broken is the ad hominem argument - dissect the rationale, not the guy.

This bland brief should not have raised the slightest concern from any judge in her right mind. She must have already made up her mind to deny due process to the actual litigants. It is the height of disrespect to the litigants for the judge to pay more attention to perceived peccadillos of attorneys on the other side of HER case than they do to the issues of concern to the parties. Please be sure to report on the ultimate decision she comes to. Maybe she'll work through her personal issues and come to a just conclusion.

Marc Randazza would give this lady an aneurysm!

Some of the language from the state's briefs quoted in the Sidley brief suggest that this one has been bitter for awhile, and the Sidley guys were left holding the bag for both sides' bad behavior.

Whatever. What gets me is all the vitriol, presumably from young full-of-themselves BigLaw associates, about state judges. Kids, just wait until you get in front of some of the more colorful members of the federal judiciary, like Sam Sparks down in TX or Claude Hilton in EDVA. There is NOTHING like life tenure to stir the innate passion some lawyers have for psychological ass-rape.

And then, kiddies, most of you will be told "it isn't working out" and you'll end up "in house" or -- teehee -- working as a government lawyer.

Some of the language from the state's briefs quoted in the Sidley brief suggest that this one has been bitter for awhile, and the Sidley guys were left holding the bag for both sides' bad behavior.

Whatever. What gets me is all the vitriol, presumably from young full-of-themselves BigLaw associates, about state judges. Kids, just wait until you get in front of some of the more colorful members of the federal judiciary, like Sam Sparks down in TX or Claude Hilton in EDVA. There is NOTHING like life tenure to stir the innate passion some lawyers have for psychological ass-rape.

And then, kiddies, most of you will be told "it isn't working out" and you'll end up "in house" or -- teehee -- working as a government lawyer.

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-short-c-63.html] Ugg Classic Short Boots [/URL]

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-46.html] Ugg Classic Tall Boots[/URL]

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-56.html] UGG Classic Cardy [/URL]

I practice in State and Federal Court in Illinois (Chicago) and the tone of this brief is fully consistent with many, if not most, briefs I see filed every day. This Criminal court Judge must seldom deal with issues on this level. The Judge should be ashamed of herself.