It makes you wonder

It seems that a common thread through our posts includes a lambasting of opposing counsel for their various degrees of incompetence, stupidity, and questionable hygiene.  One could ask, why the hell do these neophytic attorneys think that they so arrogantly know so much more than their esteemed and experienced colleagues.  Let me try to give you some insight. 

I am currently working on a case in which my client was bent over and screwed sideways with a light pole in a fraudulent scheme in which his house was basically stolen out from under him.  In our first motion on behalf of this client we kindly informed the court that the other side’s attorney, Scumbucket At Law #1 (SAL), had previously been suspended from practice for orchestrating a fraudulent real estate transaction.

SAL didn't even show up for the next status hearing.  In fact, SAL moved to withdraw from this case so quickly you’d swear that he happened upon a convention of old retarded quadriplegic ladies full of money burning holes in their ‘oops I crapped my pants’ diaper pockets.  Today, I had the joy of learning the name of Scumbucket At Law #2 (we’ll call him SALLY).  On a whim, I decided to run SALLY through the attorney registration site, and lo and behold, to my utter shock, amazement, and disbelief, SALLY has also been previously suspended from practice.. For what you may ask….wait for it…that’s right!  SALLY stole money from his client in a real estate transaction!  I’ve happened upon the rare trifecta: a truly bad opponent and TWO different attorneys who have had their licenses taken away for doing the same kind of thing that was done to my client.

So you see, we might be young, reckless, and cocky rogue barristers, but that’s a lot better than the senile, reckless, and moronic opposing counsels with which we regularly cross swords.

-Hunc.