Highlights and Lowlights – Yesterday

Lowlight

For a week, I’ve had a protective order sitting on my desk.  The most verbose, explicit, and poorly worded protective order in the entire Seventh Circuit.  The verbose part is my fault, as is to some extent the poorly worded part.  I’ve had to take three of our drafts, one draft from opposing counsel (which was mostly unacceptable as it treated nothing as confidential), and input from four individuals. I also had to satisfy to the letter all Seventh Circuit law, which is extreme on protective orders ("to safe- guard public access" my ass, Mr. P the public doesn't care). Afterwards, it had been sitting, waiting for review.  This all had to be done yesterday because we are having a face to face with opposing counsel today.

Knowledgeable Partner, who was left in charge of the case, said he’d review it.  He was busy, though, with other cases. I knew that even with placing it under his nose once a day, it was going to be last minute.  He finally agreed to take it home last night (the night before this meeting).

Now, it is last minute and I needed those changes.  I found him working in the conference room on matters for Partner #1. I poked my head in for a minute to see if he had the changes. He did, in his brief case. He wanted to highlight a couple of things. This is when Partner #1 came in.  He was mad. “What are you doing in here? YOU are an associate; YOU do not interfere with the work of a PARTNER!” “I came in here to get...” “NO, YOU do not talk to while you are in here.” He went on for a little while longer on the subject of my interference.

What the hell?  I understand you do not want me “poaching” him. I understand that I am the lowest associate here, and I don’t give work but only receive it. Counsel your berating was, in a term I have been using often in responding to discovery, “premature.” Ah well, he will probably forget by tomorrow.

Highlight

So, we met with opposing counsel, Mr. Clients R. Losers, to discuss the protective order and other deficiencies with discovery.  Such as I guessed, the meeting degenerated into him repeatedly stating that we have no case.  I get the nod from the Knowledgeable Partner. Okay, game time, my turn to tell this guy how it is.  “Listen, you don’t get to pick the issues to litigate, we do. You would just like to litigate the software issue. First, you have not been completely informed by your clients as to what the technology is. Second, we (by ‘we’ I mean ‘I’) know more about the technology involved in this case than you ever will.” I followed that with a short analogy the gist is: yes, we know they use Windows, the misdirection by your clients does not confuse me, and we know you took something to make your Windows do something than just sit there. “Finally, your clients are sloppy and were sloppy, so far we have evidence in every category defined by law and we have yet to receive any ‘meaningful’ discovery from you.”

Okay he is noticeable stirred at this point.  It is clear that we know more than he does. “Okay we want an expert to look at our software and compare it.” Damn right you do. “But afterwards I think we can come to some solution without going to trial, because you’ll see we don’t use your stuff.” I am thinking, OH YES, the evidence points to it we just need someone to confirm it. Then the Knowledgeable Partner gives him the biggest scare: “What happens if we are right? What kind of settlement would you take?” And it hits Mr. Loser, “I guess you’d put my client out of business.” Classically, Knowledgeable Partner leans back in his chair.  Now you know, I coming for you.

Highlight #2 

I was pulled aside by my Mentoring Attorney after the meeting. “Um, I’d like to let you know that the firm is giving you a raise effective at the start of this year.”

Three months and I get a raise. Do they know what I did for the last three months? Let’s not tell them.  Things are looking up. DRINKS ARE ON ME !! (that is if they let me out of the office before 8pm)

*Prophet