On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit benchslapped a gaggle of lawyers for filing briefs with excessive acronyms. The court’s per curiam order directed the parties to “submit briefs that eliminate uncommon acronyms used in their previously filed final briefs.”
Alas, attempts to comply with this order have raised a new problem — a problem that some readers saw a mile away….
* Federal district judge who thought he was one of the Hardy Boys gets a benchslap from Judge Rakoff. [Josh Blackman's Blog]
* The dean of the DePaul College of Law, Gregory Mark, is stepping down at the end of the academic year. Administration issues are never fun, but this is better than another story about Augustus Sol Invictus. [Chicago Sun-Times]
The defendants’ appeal brief is a gaunt, pathetic document (there is no reply brief). Minus formal matter, it is only eight and a half pages long. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that, but still: the first seven and a half pages are simply a recitation of the history of the Georgia lawsuit, the settlement negotiations, and the present suit, along with questionable and irrelevant facts; and the tiny argument section of the brief — 118 words, including citations — states merely, without detail or elaboration, that the defendants do not possess the settlement funds and therefore can’t restore them.
People can be so unreliable. Especially if those people are Biglaw litigators in a high-stakes intellectual property dispute. With a scheduling order set months in advance, with no warning as to the volume of disagreement, these lawyers dumped “joint” pretrial filings “so rife with disputes that the documents amount to two separate proposals” and a metric tonne of motions on the court to resolve in two weeks.
Scratch that. With less than two weeks, because they filed all this late. Oh, and they filed a bunch of them redacted and under seal without permission, just for good measure.
If that would make you a very angry judge willing to rip both sides for posterity, you wouldn’t be alone….
So federal judges should be keenly interested in the insights of young legal minds — especially minds being cultivated at the Yale Law School, the nation’s #1 law school (according to both the U.S. News rankings and the Above the Law rankings). Right?
Well, just because a judge wants your advice as a law clerk doesn’t mean he wants to hear from you as an expert witness. A current Yale law student recently learned this lesson the hard way….
You can take your analogy and shove it right up your [expletive], judge.
– Kenneth Conley, a convicted bank robber, at his sentencing for having masterminded a daring escape from the Chicago MCC in 2012. Judge Gary Feinerman could only respond with a “thank you,” making this a rare “defendant-slap.”
The term “daring” is no understatement when it comes to this escape. Conley and his accomplice cut a hole in a concrete wall and then used a rope fashioned from bed sheets and dental floss to scale down the prison’s outer wall in the middle of the night.
(If you’d be scared scaling a two-story wall suspended only by dental floss, check out a picture of the wall they actually scaled down.)
Judges can usually keep it together even when the lawyers deserve a paddlin’ for their disrespectful behavior. And I cannot imagine how a judge summons the depth of patience required to deal with a pro se litigant without constantly losing their composure. While lawyers may privately think of judges as arrogant and imperious from time to time, when you really look at the job, judges spend most of their time holding their tongues.
Which is why a uncontrolled outburst from a federal judge is such a rare treat.
Now you may think, “This is probably a minor rebuke blown out of proportion.” To that I quote David Frank, the managing editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: “I have heard judges raise their voice. I’ve heard judges get tense. I have never heard something as loud as that.”
I guess this was less of a benchslap and more of a benchpunch….
Yes, benchslaps are great fun to read about, especially if you enjoy a little schadenfreude. But benchslaps are not fun to receive — and they’re not always justified.
Because of the prestige of judicial office, judges generally get the benefit of the doubt when dishing out benchslaps. But sometimes judges go too far. For example, some observers felt that Judge Richard Posner crossed the line when interrogating a Jones Day partner during a recent Seventh Circuit argument.
This brings us to today’s benchslap — directed at a lawyer for the federal government, no less. It’s harsh, but is it warranted?
When a divided state Supreme Court issued its opinion, one of the dissenters went further than registering disagreement — he wrote a scathing dissent labeling the majority “untruthful” and guilty of crafting a decision “based solely upon whom they want to win or lose” without regard for the law. This is off-the-rails stuff. And the rest of his opinion only goes further.
Well, this will make for an uncomfortable elevator ride….
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
Whether you’re fresh off the bar exam or hitting your stride after hanging a shingle a few years ago, one thing’s for certain: independent attorneys who start a solo or small-law practice live with a certain amount of stress.
Non-attorneys would think the stress comes from preparing for a big trial, deposing a hostile witness, or crafting the perfect contract for a picky client.
But that’s nothing compared to the constant, nagging, real-life kind, the kind you get from the day-to-day grind of being a law-abiding attorney.
Connecticut plaintiffs-side boutique litigation firm (12 lawyers) seeks full-time associate with 2-4 years litigation experience, top tier undergraduate and law school education. Journal or clerkship experience a plus; highest ethical standards and strong work ethic required. Familiarity with Connecticut state court legal practice is preferred, but not required.
The firm handles sophisticated, high-end cases for plaintiffs, including individuals and businesses with significant claims in a wide array of matters. Our cases often have important public policy implications, and are litigated in state and federal courts throughout Connecticut. Representative areas of practice include medical malpractice, catastrophic personal injury, business torts, deceptive trade practices and other complex commercial litigation, and products liability.
Additional information can be located on our website, at www.sgtlaw.com.