The League of Rogue Barristers - Chicago Chapter

Rogue Barrister with a Torch

I’ve been practicing law for seven months. When I started, I set out to be that idealistic lawyer. I wanted to be that lawyer that always did the right thing, but still utilized the law to his full advantage. I strived to practice the law well, ethically and to the best of my ability. I wanted to be the perfect lawyer that counsels clients, tells them the good, the bad and the ugly of case. However, in those seven months I’ve already been: threatened with disqualification (by a crazy attorney), accused without basis of personal unethical conduct before a court, and scolded by the other side in a public document that explicitly states that my client should be ashamed for hiring me. The gloves are off.

As the song goes… “You don’t even know me and you are talking s@#$ about me… but one of these days I'm gonna catch you in the act in the act, red-handed caught up in the act, punk and that'll be the day the one and only day to step up and say right to my face and you'll get knocked out, ‘cause your mouth is writing checks that your @$$ cannot cash…”

That “day” was today.

I found evidence.

It is irrefutable evidence.

I know your defendant’s secret.

I’ve got the torch now.

I have the fire to burn...

*Prophet

ATTENTION ALL LAWYERS:

I write to you today on a serious subject-----your lazy asses.

When exactly did "doing nothing" become a way to practice law?
Don't get me wrong, there are times when just sitting back and letting things happen, or waiting for the other side to do something and then react are good strategy.  What I'm talking about here is when a lawyer (through lack of care or plain laziness) makes this their "style of practice".

GET.....OFF......YOUR.....ASS!!!

Don't you know I'll take every opportunity to point out your lack of effort to the Judge?
Don't you know I'll take every opportunity to hit you with motions and 201(k) letters?
Don't you know your client will wind up paying my client's fees for that time?
Don't you know I'll speak very loudly in the hallway, and thus let the other lawyers (as well as your client) know what a worthless slouch you are?
Don't you know that your strategy is, quite possibly, the worst possible strategy to take with an attorney with my practice style?

Maybe you're doing it simply to piss me off, or maybe you're doing it because this is always the way you do it, and you haven't faced someone willing to go with the nuclear option yet.

Well, welcome to J.D. Crane, bitches.

Let us never forget.

Remember.

No Shock Here

If you have ever seen the show, then you knew this was coming.

Remember, I don't get paid until you pick up that phone and give me call

*Prophet

Law: A Job to Die For

And you thought Alaskan crab fishermen had a dangerous job.

When depositions go bad

I wonder how many motions came out of this exchange

*Prophet

A dangerous line...

Today started out as a typical day in Knickertwist County.  I was there for a hearing on Interim Fees.  The Judge, former bigwig on the local bar scene, was on the bench.  After waiting for nearly an hour for opposing counsel to show up, we stepped up in front of him.

After it became apparent what we were there for, the Judge shook his head and said,"I'll set the matter over for a hearing, but there won't be a hearing today."  I started to respond and the Judge cut me off.  He then said (in a loud voice, to all the lawyers in the room) "Listen up, all of you.  You people keep motioning up hearings on days when I have status calls.  I'm not doing it any more.  I'll only do hearings on Mondays and Tuesdays, so plan accordingly." 

Bear in mind two things:  Number one, this judge does status calls almost every day, so his admonishment is dumb.  Number two, it's not like he sent out a memo, or the court posted the days he would hear matters.  We lawyers have not way of knowing he's decided to only hear things on mondays and tuesdays.  Bottom Line:  a judicial dick move, and a lecture we didn't need.

Today this Judge had an extremely light call.  In fact, there were only nine things on it, and we were the last.  It was also only 9:50am.  I said, "Judge, I understand.  However, in the interest of judicial economy, and so we don't have to come back again on the same issue and waste our client's money, may we have ten minutes or so in chambers to get your thoughts on fees?  Then perhaps once we know your feelings, we can do this by agreement and avoid a hearing all together."  It was now 9:55 am.

Opposing counsel, who is much farther away from Knickertwist County than I am, readily agreed.  The Judge thought for a second, and said, "No."  "No?" I said.  "Nope", the Judge said. 

At this point, I decided to walk a dangerous line.  For all of you law students out there, I would not recommend that you do what I did.  I did so today only because: #1, he was really pissing me off; #2, he was being incredibly ungracious, not just to me but to opposing counsel as well; and #3, I already knew what his answer to my next question would be.

I raised my voice slightly, let my file fall onto the table in front of the bench, and said "Why not?"

The Judge, looking confused, said, " 'Why not?' "  and I responded, "Yes, your honor, why not?"

The Judge quickly regained his bearings and leaned over the bench and, looking me square in the eye, stated, "Counselor, are you asking me why I won't give you ten minutes?".  I responded with, "No your honor, I'm asking you why you won't give US ten minutes when we're the last case on your call, opposing counsel had a long drive to get here,  and it's only 10:10am."

The Judge's eyes narrowed, probably wondering whether or not to dress me down or something worse.  After a pause, he stated, "Because I'm leaving on vacation at 3 o'clock this afternoon, counselor."

Bear in mind that everything in Knickertwist County is digitally recorded.  If I wanted to get a transcript of this exchange, I could.  And the Judge knows it. 

At this point, I simply said," Oh really?  OK, thank you Judge" in a very pleasant manner and quietly exited the courtroom.

This could have easily blown up in my face, but I wanted to accomplish several things, which I did:

1.  I let the Judge know that he was not going to keep acting poorly without being challenged.

2.  He now knows that if he does act poorly, he will be put in a position of having to sound like a tyrant, or embarrassing himself on the record (like today).

3.  This particular Judge has done this sort of thing to several members of my firm.  I did what I did today to begin building a record, because if this keeps up we'll be filing an official complaint with the chief judge (who doesn't like this Judge anyway) down the road.

Please note that I would not have done this if I had not known that he was going on vacation (a nugget gleaned from his clerk before he came out on the bench).  This was a calculated move that only proved necessary once it became clear he was going to be unreasonable.  It is somewhat of a sad day when attorneys have to start turning the heat up on Judges, instead of vice-versa, but if you have read some previous posts (here and here), you'll see that this type of behavior is becoming all too common amongst the judiciary.

Legal Term of the Week (TM)

Logical-cause doctrine -- The principle that, if the plaintiff proves that an injury occurred and proves a logical cause of it, a party desiring to defeat the claim cannot succeed merely by showing that there is another imaginable cause, but must also show that the alternative cause is more probable than the cause shown by the plaintiff.

This week's term is courtesy of Black's Law Dictionary.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO FOR A KLONDIKE BAR...?

Would you:

1.  Bark like a dog?

2.  Waddle like a duck?

3.  Honk like a goose?

4.  Go in front of the judge and blatantly lie, only to be caught by yours truly, who then hands a copy of your correspondence exposing your lie to the judge, who then dismisses your case with prejudice?

If you said #4, you're in good company, as the not-so-esteemed Mr. XXXXXXX XXXX of XXXXXXXXXX, Illinois did exactly the same thing this morning in Pokeagoat County Court.

Hey, at least you'd be doing it for a chocolate treat!

(and Mr. XXXX, in case you missed the memo, you're in the 'getting f*cked by me business'.)

Easter Bunny

This clip is down right funny.  But as much as REDACTED, REDACTED and REDACTED check out this site for the "eye-candy," you probably missed this.

http://www.break.com/index/easterbunny1.html

*Prophet

Congratulations All Around

According to CNNMoney, attorneys have the 37th best job in the country.  See the top fifty here.  Lawyers also had the second highest average salary of any job in the top 50 with an average of $153,923, behind only doctors.  Surprisingly, paralegals were ranked ten spots higher at 27 with an average salary of $61,204.  Apparently, the rankers forgot that paralegals have to work with attorneys on a daily basis, drastically reducing their quality of life.

You be the Judge

This is the first installment of “YOU be the Judge.”

Your clerk hands you a motion for sanctions.  The motion accuses the other party of unethical behavior because they filed a previous motion.  Now at the time the motion for sanctions was filed, you haven’t ruled on the previous motion and the briefing schedule for the previous “unethical” motion wasn’t even complete.  In fact, the side accused of “unethical” behavior argued in their final brief that the motion for sanctions is a clear attempt to re-brief the issues of the pending motion. But you may or may not have read that brief. Nevertheless, the previous motion is now ripe for a decision.  To sanction the accused party, practically, you first have to deny the previous motion and then deem it unethical for the accused party to have brought it.  What do you do?

A)    Grant the Motion for Sanctions without a hearing

B)    Enter the Motion for Sanctions without a presentment hearing and set a briefing schedule, but do not decide the previous motion until the briefing for the motion for sanctions is complete

C)    Decide the underlying motion before the presentment hearing on the Motion for Sanctions

D)    Don’t decide the previous motion yet, but sanction, sua sponte, the party that filed the Motion for Sanctions as being untimely and presumptuous and strike their motion.

E)     Don’t enter the motion for sanctions and do not decide the previous motion until one of the parties seeks a writ of mandamus.

F)     Stay the Motion for Sanctions until you decide the previous motion.

G)    Strike the Motion for Sanctions regardless of any argument.

H)    Purposely decide the underlying motion incorrectly based on the law hoping that one of the parties will win on appeal, and the case will be reassign to a different judge based on Local Rule 38. Don’t rule on the Motion for Sanctions

I)  Write a very well thought out and reasoned opinion addressing both the previous motion and the motion for sanctions.

J)   At the presentment hearing you deny without a written opinion the previous motion but state that it had not reached the level of a sanctionable action.

K)    None of the Above. I’d ___________________________________.

YOU BE THE JUDGE

Not Trademarked. Trademarks are for… well... you know… because the congregate in Virginia

*Prophet

JC on Immigration

Keeping with the recent events theme, the other day thousands of people marched in cities across the country in support of pro-immigration legislation.  This may come as a surprise to many of you out there reading the LORB, but JC is a staunch supporter of lessening immigration requirements.  JC supports allowing illegal immigrants to become legal residents of this country and start on the road to citizenship.  I feel this way for two main reasons.

Reason #1
This country is a country of immigrants.

The United States of America would not be where it is today if there was not a steady supply of immigrants.  This country was founded by immigrants and the descendants of immigrants.  Every single one of us has a member of our family who emigrated to this country.  Who are we to say that someone seeking a better life is not allowed to come here because of her socio-economic status or country of origin?  It is very hypocritical of us to put limit the ability of others to come here when all of us have descended from immigrants.  I see no problem allowing those seeking to better there lot from coming here and being given the opportunity to do so.  If a man or woman wants to come here and work hard in a job that most natural born citizens feel is beneath them in the hope that their children might have a better life, then there is no good reason why we should close the gates to this country and deny them that opportunity.

Reason #2

Legal residents pay taxes.

It is estimated that 11 million people are currently in this country illegally.  Most of these illegal residents are working in jobs where they are paid in cash and not having income or Social Security taxes deducted from their earnings.  I will venture to guess that these folks are not filing any tax returns either (I don't blame them; if I was paid in cash, I would not file any returns).  It is obvious that we cannot deport all of these illegal residents and we cannot prevent more people from coming here illegally.  The country needs to respond to this situation by allowing them to become legal residents with Social Security numbers who will leave a paper trail when they do not pay their income taxes.  Given the size of the deficit, I cannot see why Congress would not want to do something that might increase revenues.

Congress needs to enact legislation that loosens restrictions on immigration and gives illegal immigrants the ability to become legal residents.

The Court of Public Opinion

Unless you live in a cave, or are a law student, you have probably heard about all that is going on with a stripper who claims that three members of the Duke University lacrosse team assaulted, raped, and sodomized her.  You have also probably heard that no DNA evidence was found linking any of the white lacrosse players to the alleged crime (I say this because the one African-American member of the team was spared from having to submit a DNA sample based on the alleged victim's claim that her attackers were all white).  Click here for one of many stories on the matter.

I am not so much concerned with the media coverage as I am with the propensity of the DA jumping on every chance to make a public appearance and give the country his two cents.  Generally, rules of ethics prohibit lawyers from publicly discussing pending and on-going litigation.  I am deeply perturbed that sanctions for violations seem to always be placed on criminal defense attorneys and not on prosecutors.  Yet prosecutors, more often than not, will be the first in front of a camera discussing many details and tainting the possible jury pool.

The DA in North Carolina, Michael Nifong, is using as much of his fifteen minutes has he possibly can.  His rantings about how he is certain something has happened and why not one team member has come forward to say what happened have convicted these 40-some young men in the eyes of the public.  If any charges are brought against any member of the team, then it will be impossible for them to receive a fair trial.

The lack of DNA evidence has only bolstered my argument that Nifong should have kept his mouth shut.  He is now trying to persuade everyone that DNA evidence is not necessary.  This is near impossible given the weight our society places on scientific evidence, especially in court.  Nifong has created a terrible situation because of political ambitions.  Most of what he has said has already been blown out of proportion, to the point that he had to correct an attendant at a "town hall" meeting who asserted that the victim had positively identified her attackers (she has not).

This whole situation both angers and amuses me.  I am angered at how the DA is ruining an on-going investigation and disclosing information that will prejudice any potential jury.  Yet I am also amused by the lack of DNA evidence and how it has forced the DA to backpedal and save his own ass.

I am wondering what all you lawyers, soon-to-be lawyers, and non-lawyers think about this.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY BABY BARRISTER!

One of our very own is celebrating their birthday today - I think it makes them all of 21 years old or something. 

So, happy birthday!  Here's to many more years of crushing opposing counsel scumbags with a single blow!

Legal Term of the Week (TM)

quiet enjoyment--the right to enjoy and use premises (particularly a residence) in peace and without interference. Quiet enjoyment is often a condition included in a lease. Thus, if the landlord interferes with quiet enjoyment, he/she may be sued for breach of contract. Disturbance of quiet enjoyment by another can be a "nuisance" for which a lawsuit may be brought to halt the interference or obtain damages for it.




This week's term is courtesy of Law.com.

TIIIIIIIMMMMMMM---BER!

Century-old tree falls on group of deaf tourists; 1 man dead.

ROME, ITALY -- A century-old tree fell on a group of deaf tourists in central Italy on Sunday, killing a man and injuring seven people who were unable to hear a bus driver's shout of alarm, police said.

The Italian tourists had finished a day of sightseeing and were about to board a bus in a square outside the L'Aquila train station to return to their homes near Rome, police said.

"The bus driver shouted to warn them, but they couldn't hear," said Angelo Cardelli, an official at police headquarters.

A 47-year-old man from Valmontone, a suburb of Rome, was killed instantly when struck by the horse chestnut tree, police said.  In related news, Pope Benedict issued a papal edict, stating that he has received a vision from the Lord, and the vision stated God hates deaf people.

Special thanks to the associate press--J.D.

The real Dick Chaney

Check out these quotes from Cheney during the first Gulf War.  Dick Cheney, hippocrite or misunderstood genius?  You make the call.

"What kind of government are you going to establish?  Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Shia government or a Sunni government?  You will have, I think, by that time lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."

"The question...is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?  And the answer is not very damned many."

I'm convinced...

Virginia is really a Latin word meaning "land of retarded drivers."

Pardon me brother, can you spare a foot?

RABBITS SUE TO KEEP THEIR FEET ON THE GROUND
. . . And Off Key Chains!

RABBIT HASH, Ky. -- They are a familiar sight in animal shelters and pet shops across the nation: Rabbit amputees, their limbs sacrificed by the millions every year in the name of good luck.

"Bad luck for their poor little missing hindquarters," sneered Harvey P. Dowd, an attorney representing Help Outlaw Paw Pruning Sadists, an organization devoted to ending the barbaric human practice of cutting off rabbit's feet and carrying them for good luck.

"The foot of the Leporidae -- which is the Latin name for rabbits -- has been used as a good luck charm since before 600 B.C. These trinkets grew from ancient superstitions about fertility and pacifism. But there is nothing peaceful about this grisly practice."

In criminal papers filed in U.S. District Court, H.O.P.P.S. seeks an injunction against the "foot fetish peddlers," as they call them. Not only does the suit claim "cruel and unusual punishment," it also accuses the defendants of trafficking in stolen goods.

H.O.P.P.S. has also filed a separate class action civil suit seeking monetary compensation for the many millions of victims of the powerful rabbit's foot industry.

"This is an abuse of the legal more merciful if D'Argent and his fellow sadists did just kill them," Dowd said bitterly. "Instead, they leave behind wounded, wretched ruins with nothing to look forward to but more bad hare days." Dexter Palomino and his wife, Satin, run a rabbit rescue farm outside Fresno, Calif. It's system," said Dutch D'Argent, spokesperson for the plush animal and trinket-industry giant Fun Fur All.

"Owning a rabbit's foot is part of the rite of passage in America. It's like your first jackknife or BB gun -- which, frankly, is one reason a kid needs a good luck charm.

"I mean, we're talking about rabbits," D'Argent went on. "People slaughter billions of animals every year for food. Heck, we take the rabbit's feet but at least we leave the animals alive!"

Alive and at the center of an expensive health care crisis.

"It might be more merciful if D'Argent and his fellow sadists did just kill them," Dowd said bitterly. "Instead, they leave behind wounded, wretched ruins with nothing to look forward to but more bad hare days."

Dexter Palomino and his wife, Satin, run a rabbit rescue farm outside Fresno, Calif. It's located in a quiet, rustic setting on Bunny Lake.

"Most of our guests are victims of the good luck charm industry," Dexter said. "Our farm is crawling with bunny amputees. Well, not crawling. Most of them get around on those little carts with wheels. Unfortunately, our financial resources are stretched to the absolute limit. I even have a waiting list of rabbits who are dying to get in." "That's why we're also suing for funding," said Mr. Dowd. "The bill should be footed, so to speak, by the people who crippled these poor creatures in the first place." The rabbits foot industry claims not to be worried by the lawsuit. "These rabbits don't have a leg to stand on, legally or otherwise," said Mr. D'Argent.

"We'll see about that," Dowd told us. "We'll also see something else -- whether a few hundred thousand rabbit's feet can actually bring a heartless businessman any luck."

---Thanks to Paul Kupps.

Reason #38 to crack down on Immigration.

3 Arrested at Mass. Baby Shower Brawl
By Associated Press
Published April 5, 2006, 3:26 PM CDT

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- An argument at a baby shower escalated into a brawl in which one man was shot and the pregnant guest of honor was beaten with a stick, police said.

Three people were arrested after the fight, described by police as a "baby shower gone bad."

Authorities said the shooting victim, Aristotle Garcia, got into a fight with a man who is dating his ex-girlfriend. The argument, over whether the woman let their 5-year-old daughter drink beer, escalated and drew in two other people -- Jazz Rivas and Juan Velazquez, said Police Lt. Cheryl C. Claprood.

When the baby shower's hostess tried to intervene, Rivas began hitting some of the guests, including the 22-year-old mother-to-be, with a large stick, she said.

Velazquez fired a gun in the air, then fired it into the crowd, hitting Garcia in the stomach, according to police. Garcia, 26, was in stable condition at Baystate Medical Center. The mother-to-be, who was seven months pregnant, was treated after the incident Saturday and released.

Velazquez, 19, was arrested Tuesday and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed assault with intent to murder. He pleaded innocent Wednesday and was ordered held on $100,000 bail.

The man Garcia was initially fighting with, Antonio Santiago, 25, pleaded innocent to similar charges Tuesday and was ordered held on $50,000 bail.

Rivas, 22, pleaded innocent to three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and one count of assault and battery on a pregnant female. His bail was set at $10,000.

Ethical Question of the Week

Greetings, my little bedbugs!  I, being J.D. Crane, already know the answer to the following question, but it's been generating lots of water cooler chatter around my firm.  Thus, I shall spring it on you, and see what you might make of it:

A client comes in and wants you to represent him in a particular matter.  He makes a good income.  In going throught the course of gathering all the financial data regarding your client, your client makes a startling confession.  He has a side job.  A side job that makes him more than the president of the USA makes.  A side job selling drugs.  And I'm not talking about Sudafed, either.

Here are some helpful parameters:

1.  He's already retained you, having signed the agreement and paid the retainer.

2.  His "side project" has nothing to do with the matter you've been retained for.

3.  As it pertains to the matter you've been retained for, his income is not really relevant, and won't come into play in the matter.

4. Yes, he'll be paying you in cash.

5.  No, he's not Bill Clinton, Jack Abramoff, George Sotos, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Tom Delay.

So, what say you, kiddies?  Let the deliberations begin...

I'm done playing with you.

1.  I told you that there was an investigation.  I didn't have to.
2.  You repay me with an emergency motion.

3.  I provide you with documentation; documentation that completely undercuts your motion.
4.  You proceed anyway.

5.  I get in front of the judge, and I try to appear fair.
6.  You get in front of the judge, and decide to act foolishly.

7.  He shoots you down.  I let you write the order.
8.  You take forever to do it.

9.  You try and spin it as a win for both of us.
10.  I point out that you forgot to include your motion was denied in the order.

11.  We talk afterwards, about other issues I think we can address without litigation.
12.  You slip and say something, something which means you have been lying to me about an particular issue this whole time.

You are a cock-smoking, deceitful, pig-fucking son of a bitch.

And I'm about to introduce you to a world of pain you can't begin to imagine.

Way to Stick It to Those Pompous, Arrogant Bastards

You doctors wanted med-mal caps.  You pissed us lawyers off.  Now feel our wrath.  Here is a summary of an appellate case that was in the March 2006 issue of ISBA Bar News:

IDPH v. Wiley, No. 98763 (1/20/06).  Appeal, 1st Dist. Affirmed.

Physician, who entered into installment agreement with State for repayment of her scholarship, was subject to assessment of treble damages pursuant to the Family Practice Residence Act because Act was incorporated into scholarship agreement, and installment agreement was not settlement of all claims.  Act was incorporated in scholarship contracts, and there is no question of fact that defendant was not practicing full time as primary care physician.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2006/January/Opinions/Html/98763.htm

The new firm theme song

In a close race, the previous official law firm theme song, The Billing Song, has been replaced by that 20th Century masterpiece, Another One Bites The Dust.  In honor of the changing of the guard we have composed a terrible bastardization in memory of the fortunate many who have moved on.

Rogue walks warily down the street
With the case law under his arm
Yells overtake the sound of his feet
That partner’s causing some harm

Are you ready, are you ready for this
Are you hanging on the edge of your seat
Out of the office walks the fired man
To the sound of the beat

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, you’re going to get canned too
Another one bites the dust

Why do you think we’ll keep working here
With your never ending jeers
You’ve lost so many how can’t you know
Lost jobs we no longer fear

Are you happy, are you satisfied
How long can you stand the heat
Out of the office walks the fired man
To the sound of the beat

Chorus

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
There are plenty of ways you can fire a man
And make him leave the firm
You can work him
You can sue him
You can treat him bad and all his brain cells
He will burn

But I’m ready, yes I’m ready for you
I’m standing on my own two feet
Out of the office walks the fired man
To the sound of the beat

Legal Term of the Week (TM)

Rencounter -- A hostile meeting or contest; a battle or combat; one of J.D. Crane's motion calls.

This week's term courtesy of Black's Law Dictionary and J.C.