There’s nothing that says you have to like opposing counsel. It’s true that most adversaries are reasonably pleasant people paid a healthy amount of money to serve as your temporary intellectual sparring partner and you can and probably should grab a drink with them after the matter ends. Still, some lawyers have the social graces of a rabid pit bull at a KinderCare, and it’s perfectly fine not to like them. But you nonetheless have to treat your opposite number with professional courtesy, and if you don’t, then you’re probably the one that deserves to be put down.
Bankruptcy Judge Charles E. Rendlen III — who is no stranger to benchslaps — hurled a broadside against a lawyer last week for refusing to play well with others.
When attorney David Oetting learned from opposing counsel that a hearing on June 1 had been rescheduled to June 8, he could have accepted the news with courtesy. Or he could pitch a public fit on June 1 to set up a motion accusing the other side of lying to him.
Beyond Recall And Precision: Strategic Oversight Of AI Managed Review
AI can accelerate document review, but metrics alone aren't enough. Learn how Managing Attorney oversight turns AI-driven review into a more adaptive, strategic and defensible process.
Judge Rendlen feels that Oetting took the latter approach.
Instead, he showed up at the courthouse on June 1, 2016, ostensibly for the hearing. But when he observed that the courtroom was dark and that court was not in session—and that, indeed, the Trustee’s counsel had not lied to him—he did not leave. And he did not go quietly. Instead, he made a series of telephone calls to Clerk’s Office staff—as if he did not know why the courtroom was not open. Eventually, a member of the Clerk’s Office staff had to physically meet Mr. Oetting, to help him arrive at the utterly obvious conclusion: there was no hearing that day. Then, after Mr. Oetting left the courthouse, he filed his obnoxious Motion, making insinuations against the Trustee’s counsel and demanding that the matters scheduled for June 1, 2016, be reset for a different time.
Judge Rendlen characterizes the allegation that Oetting could not trust his adversaries as, well, ridiculous:
Moreover, it is a ridiculous notion that an attorney—who practices before this Court as a major part of his practice and has a stellar record of candor and good faith before this Court, such as the Trustee’s counsel—would lie to opposing counsel about a hearing date, just to maliciously mess with him and, in the process, jeopardize his own reputation before this Court. The Court does not believe that Mr. Oetting actually thought he was being lied to.
PI Firms Don’t Need More Tools. They Need Fewer.
Every new tool a PI firm buys solves one problem and connects nothing. The real fix isn't another purchase — it's keeping the whole case in one place, from accident to resolution. Here's how.
Or this is some seriously elaborate viral marketing for case management software. Did you ever think of that, Judge?
In addition, the court gives NOTICE to Mr. Oetting: before you file a pleading in which you attempt to malign the reputation of another attorney, think first.
One would hope that advice would apply to filing pleadings generally, but maybe beggars can’t be choosers down at the Eastern District of Missouri Bankruptcy Court.
(Check out the full opinion on the next page.)
Earlier: These Guys Ticked Off The Wrong Bankruptcy Judge
Joe Patrice is an 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.