We’ve recently encountered an unusual number of unconventionally-formatted court documents. To name a couple, there was that graphic novellette of an amicus brief, and the Emily Dickinson-inspired judicial order.
Today we’ve got another brief that wouldn’t appear out of place on a Reddit thread.
It’s not high-quality art by any means, but there’s (maybe) something to be said for illustrating your points with clip art of crying babies and crickets chirping.
AI + legal workflows: 5 plays that actually move the needle
Unsure where to start with AI? Learn 5 law firm workflows that can improve intake, conflicts, drafting, docketing, and time tracking—plus prompts, ethics tips, and steps for real ROI.
And besides, isn’t humor the best way to win an argument?
The case in question is Smoot v. Hopper, out of Oklahoma. I’d like to think the eccentricity of the filing has something to do with the state’s overall weirdness, but it doesn’t really matter.
This particular motion, from the end of last week, is apparently a continuation of sparring each side’s alleged problems with filing court documents in a timely manner. After defense counsel apparently complained about plaintiffs’ alleged tardiness, the plaintiffs had a little something to say.
Chrometa: Turning Time Into Billable Value For Modern Lawyers
Adoption of Chrometa represents more than a technological upgrade; it reflects a professional philosophy that values accuracy, transparency, and efficiency.
Attorney Jasen Corns has taken the admirable, ‘Don’t get mad, get funny” tactic:
Ah yes, the sound of silence and unfiled court briefs. But hopefully not his joke falling flat in front of a judge.
Corns’s motion is only a few pages (crazily, this isn’t a pro se document. He’s a real lawyer with a legit website), but it’s also got these two gems:
Effective? Who knows. Professional? Eh. Awesome? Definitely.
Response: Smoot v. Hopper [District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma]