Lawyers offer a lot of legal writing advice, but the best might be “discretion is the better part of valor.” In other words, “maybe don’t write down every thought that comes into your head.” Usually this advice is aimed at keeping filings within page limits, but it’s surprisingly good advice even for short pieces.
Like a 13-word state supreme court concurrence that definitely should never have been written.
Justice Jefferson Hughes of the Louisiana Supreme Court, sorry, le Cour suprême de Louisiane couldn’t pass up lending his two cents to a recent opinion about expert witness limits. And his two cents focused on the importance of telling women “Don’t have sex!” As noted by attorney Morgan Lamandre on Twitter, “What has happened to the judiciary?!”
A Career In Legal Services: Practising Law Institute Honors Toby J. Rothschild
PLI honors Toby J. Rothschild with its inaugural Victor J. Rubino Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Training, recognizing his dedication and impact.
You’d be forgiven for thinking this is some sort of abstinence-only nonsense from a state that all but bans abortion. That’s certainly the first thought most folks had when a male justice wrote sex advice in a context-free concurrence about OB/GYN care. However, in reality Justice Hughes is trying to make a fair point.
But still not an advisable one.
It seems that this lawsuit involves a couple who suffered complications from having sex during an ectopic pregnancy. While the majority opinion kicks the case back down to allow the defendant clinic the opportunity to call more witnesses, Justice Hughes seems to be expressing frustration that the defendants used medical jargon when they could’ve just said “don’t have sex,” with or without an exclamation point.
Take Control Of Your Firm’s Finances With Tools Built For Success
Position your firm for long-term growth with better financial visibility and control. Learn how to track performance, manage spending, and plan strategically—download the full e-book now.
Hmm… I wonder why people might feel leery about using frank language to discuss sex in a state rushing to police porn?
While the message is fair, the blunt two-line concurrence reads as a hissy fit, reflecting poorly on the justice’s temperament and overall professionalism. Also, why in the world is he mouthing off about the merits of the case at all? The question before the court is about expert witnesses, inserting his thoughts about the substance of the allegations feels inappropriate at this juncture.
Maybe sit this one out, mon ami.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.