The League of Rogue Barristers - Chicago Chapter

High Theater

Many clients get upset when you, as their attorney, don't treat the other attorney as the Great Satan.  This is somewhat understandable, as most client's have never been involved in the legal process, have no idea about the procedures of law, and are depending on you for everything.  In short, they have given up control of their life to you; a hard thing.  They don't know that you may have gone to law school with opposing counsel, see opposing counsel at social events regularly, serve on boards or committees with opposing counsel, or know that opposing counsel is a reasonable person.  Most of us are familiar with this concept.

A less-discussed area is the above concept in relation to the attorney-judge relationship.  Even in a court system as big as Cook County, Illinois, over time one can get to know certain judges pretty well.  In the collar counties and surrounding areas, this can happen even more quickly.  Your area of law may only have four judges (or less!) in the division, and you may see them every day.  It's not unusual to have a hearing in front of a judge in the morning, sit next to that judge at a CLE or committee meeting in the afternoon, and then schmooze with the judge that evening at a bar association or social event.  You might wind up knowing the Judge much better than you know opposing counsel.  And the client has no way of knowing this.  The flipside of this relationship is that sometimes the judge will do things to you that he would never do to another lawyer, because he or she knows that you won't take it personally and that they will be able to explain the "why" of what they did later on at some social function.  That leads me to this tale, a typical example I offer for your reading pleasure, which occured in Basura Blanca County:

PART ONE:  9:00 am

I was in front of Judge Trigger, arguing for slightly more time to respond to a motion, on the basis that counsel had filed it two weeks before a hearing, hoping to shaft me by giving me insufficient time to respond (the nature of the motion is that it would have to be heard concurrently at the hearing).

Judge:  "Why would I give you more time?  The hearing's in two weeks."

Me:  "Your honor, we all know what opposing counsel's doing.  I'm entitled to 21 days, at a minimum, to respond.  If counsel wanted it for the hearing, he should have filed it earlier."

Counsel:  "Your honor, I have always zealously advocated for my client..."

Judge:  "I don't need your commentary, counsel." 
Judge:  (to me)  "what's the problem? You could get this done before the hearing date."

Me:  "That's not the point, your honor.  Theoretically I could clear my caseload, to the detriment of my other clients, for any reason under the sun.  The point is that you shouldn't reward opposing counsel's lack of planning, poor behavior, and blatant gamesmanship by hamstringing me in the interests of 'judicial economy' ."

Counsel:  "How dare you..."

Judge:  "Counsel, I don't need your input."
Judge:  (to me)  "Mr. Crane, I'm going to make you respond to this motion within seven days, no more."

Me:  "FINE."

Judge: "You don't seem happy, Mr. Crane."

Me:  "Your honor's powers of perception are, as always, beyond compare."

Judge:  "I don't want you leaving this room thinking you've been slighted."

Me:  "However, mind control is not in your arsenal."

Judge: "Mr. Crane, the court doesn't appreciate commentary."

Me:  "I'll file my response within seven days."

Judge:    "Mr. Crane, have you ever seen the inside of the county jail?"

Me:  "Only when we had to bail Judge Twerp out of his DUI."  (a VERY sensitive issue among this circuit)

Judge:  "Mr. Crane, the court is not going to put up with this."

Me:  "Thank you, your honor, I'll file my response within seven days; order to come."

Judge:  "Mr. Crane, I'm serious."

Me:  (nothing) (staring at judge)

Judge: (nothing) (staring at me)

Counsel:  (nothing) (looking back and forth between Judge and me)

Judge:  "Order to come."

PART TWO: 1:00 pm

The Judge and I are at a committee meeting, in line getting food.

Judge:  "That chicken sure looks good."

Me:   "yep."

Judge:  "I wonder if there's any dark meat left, I'm a 'thigh man'."

Me:  "That's funny, I always heard you were a tit man."

Judge:  "Very funny counselor."

(we're now at the end of the line)

Judge:  "why don't you come sit with me and (court reporters)?"

Me:  "Sorry your honor, I'm already sitting with people who won't send me to jail."

Judge:  "Oh, come on."

Me:  "See ya later."

PART THREE:  6:00 pm

We are now at a bar association social function at a local pub, with about 70 people in attendance.

Judge:  "Hey there, what's new?"

Me:  "What was that all about this morning?"

Judge:  "Don't get all bent out of shape, I can't have counsel thinking that he's getting home-teamed."

Me:  "What?  He was clearly playing dirty pool.  I should have won that, easily."

Judge:  "Maybe;  I know you'll get it done though, you always do.  I don't think you've ever blown a date in your life."

Me:  "What was with the jail stuff?"

Judge:  "Oh I was having fun with that, you should have seen the look on your face!"

Me:  "Oh thanks, glad I was able to entertain you."

Judge:  "Hey, the other two hearings I had scheduled both settled....I was bored."

Me:  (muttering)

Judge:  "I'll make it up to you, what are you drinking? Bourbon?"

Me:  "Maker's Mark---make it a tall one."

Judge: (on way to bar)  "If the waitress ever comes back, get us some food."

Me:  "mozzarell sticks?

Judge:  "Naw, get those awesome potato skins...all that cheese would plug me up for days."

If you run out of toilet paper, just use the constitution!

Greetings, my little minions!  I have for your reading pleasure an amusing tale from the Courtroom of the Chief Judge of Calavatra County.  I was there because opposing counsel (who resembles Vincent Price from "House of Wax", especially the part when his face starts falling off in pieces) had filed a ridiculous emergency motion to enter an Order for Witholding (for support).  Before I go any further, let me let you in on a few things:

1.  In Calavatra County, they hate emergency motions.  HATE THEM, even legitimate ones.
2.  In Calavatra County, if the parties can't agree on a payment schedule, the court will automatically issue an Order for witholding.

Now on with our story.  I talk to opposing counsel and tell him I have no problem entering the order, and I mention to him that I don't think this is an emergency.  He then hands me a Petition for Rule to Show Cause (his second such Petition), which he hasn't filed yet.  When I ask what the hell this is, he says that he'll file it after court.  So we step up:

Me:  Your honor, we're here today on opposing counsel's...

OC:    My emergency motion to enter an Order for Support, your honor.

Me:    We're agreeing to it your honor, so there's no need for a hearing.

Chief Judge:  Well, first of all, I don't know why this would be an emergency basis, counsel.

OC:  Well, you're honor, he's not paying...

Chief Judge:  So he's not paying.  Why is this an emergency?  You haven't put anything in this motion that indicates to me there's any emergency.  And it wasn't properly notice up.

OC:    Well, your honor...

Chief Judge (pointing at me):  Why did it even have to come to this?  Why couldn't you work this out between yourselves?

Me:     Your honor, we are in agreement.  I don't know why they filed it, either.

OC:    Your honor, I also have a petition for rule to show cause that I'd like to give counsel time to respond to. (hands it to the Chief Judge)

Chief Judge:  You haven't even filed this, counselor.  Have you ever heard of due process? 

OC:  I was going to file it after, your hon..

Chief Judge:  (Looking at the Petition)  You didn't even notice this up for today!  Did you get notice? (pointing at me)

Me:  Nope.

Chief Judge: (something unintelligible)

OC:  I'll file a notice right after....

Chief Judge:  After?  After?!  Counsel, I can't even begin to count how many constitutional rights we're trampling all over today.  Maybe you should attend the CLE on civil procedure I'm giving next week.  I'll send you the info AFTER it's over.

Me: (desperately trying not to laugh out loud)

Chief Judge:  Gimme the Order for withholding.

OC:  (hands it up)

Chief Judge:  What is this?  We have a specific form for this counselor, I'm not accepting your "draft" of one. (hands it back)  Order to come.....

OC:  Your honor, could we put in there that, until the withholding starts, he'll pay her directly?

Chief Judge:  Counsel, there's already an order in place stating that.  That's what you're alleging in your improperly-noticed, non-filed, repetitive Petition.  You remember that Petition, right?  The one you just handed up to me?  I'm not used to issuing orders that I've already issued counsel!  What do you think this is?  Burger King?  You can't have it your way!  Order to come...

Me:  Here's the form, you need to fill this out and then hand it up.

OC:  Why don't you fill it out, I have something in another court.

Me:   (looking at him like he just said he's Elvis Presley) "I don't think so." (I leave)

Epilogue:  Another associate at our firm had a hearing that afternoon in front of the same Judge.  After this hearing, the Judge hands an Order for Withholding to him, and tells him to give it to me.  When the associate asks why, the Judge says he's not signing it because the other attorney didn't fill it out right.

Running tally:

Constitutional rights violated: 4
Possible malpractice claims opposing counsel's client has against him: 3
Odds that I'll alert opposing counsel of his mistake and mail the form to him before monday: 0

J.D. Crane!

Songs for the Damned

Today I offer up several musical numbers, inspired by recent events in court...Poke-a-Goat County Court to be specific.

The Courthouse
(Sung to the tune of "El Paso", by Marty Robbins)

Deep in the old Poke-a-Goat County Courthouse,
I had a hearing in front of Judge Droid....

He passed my case seven times without blinking,
Making my afternoon appointments void,

Aye, Aye, what can I do?
Aye, Aye, cranky old shrew!
Aye, Aye, what more can I doooooooooooo...
To escape this g*dd*amn filthy Courthouse.......

Finally after an hour's seclusion,
My case was called, and I was quite annoyed.

I went on to win it (a foregone conclusion)
Then lambasted the Judge for with me having toyed.

Aye, Aye, what can I do?
Aye, Aye, cranky old shrew!
Aye, Aye, Next time I'll SOJ yoooouuuuuu.....
And escape this hometown, biased Courthouse.......

Divorce Man
(Sung to the tune of "Ice Cream Man" by Van Halen)
...

(dedicate one to the ladies...)

Your dissolution's here babe, need someone to keep you cool
Oh your divorce is here babe, need someone to keep you cool
Better look out now though, your attorney's got somethin' for you
Tell ya what it is

I'm your Divorce Man, stop me if you're gettin fleeced,
Oh my my, I'm your Divorce Man, stop me if you're gettin' fleeced,
Pay my retainer and you'll get half of his paycheck at least........
Hold on a second baby....

I'll get you maintenance, ah, insurance,
The whole house and his retirement too
I'm your Divorce Man, stop me if you're gettin fleeced,
Pay my retainer and you'll get half of his paycheck at least........
Hold on, one more

Well, I'm ususally in court, kicking ass and takin' names....
Uh huh, I don't play games, I'm usually in court, kicking ass and taking names...
And if you want me to bed you, we'll have to wait a year (no shame!)
All right ladies..

I'll get you maintenance, ah, insurance,
The whole house and his retirement too
I'm your Divorce Man, stop me if you're gettin fleeced,
Oh my my, I'm your Divorce Man, stop me if you're gettin' fleeced,
Pay my retainer and you'll get half of his paycheck at least

Can't imagine he gets many motions to reconsider

A warning to all of you wanna be rogue barristers out there, make sure you know your judge before reminding him what an utter moron he and his decisions may be.

Hunc

Reality Check

One of the most interesting things about practicing family law is that you are never quite sure if you have "the good guy" or "the bad guy".  Sometimes it's cut-and-dried, but more often then not the truth is hard to fathom.  Sometimes you think you have the bad guy, and then realize at the end that it's really the good guy, or vice-versa.  The point is, this phenomenon (common in family law, where both parties frequently feel like they're the 'victim') keeps the lawyer interested, entertained, and allows for some humor in an otherwise high-stress environment.

Then, once in a while, you get a client like Bluto.  Bluto feels like he has been wronged by his ex-wife.  He probably has.  However, the proportion of the offense compared to the outcome desired is just ridiculous.  But make no mistake, Bluto is a dangerous client, the kind of client who wouldn't think twice about beefing you to the boys in the Prudential building.  In fact, Bluto carries nearly ALL the hallmarks of a dangerous client:

1.  He really feels, deep down in his soul, that he's right.  Facts have no place in Bluto's world.

2.  Bluto is gambling with someone else's money.  His wealthy sister is financing his litigation and is prepared to go carte blanche.  Money is truly not a problem in this case.

3.  He is still in HATE with his ex-wife.  Usually the vestigal feelings, be they love or hate, fade over time.  In this case, the passage of days has only served to stoke the fires of his rage.

4.  Bluto wants to make a minor, run-of-the-mill issue into a three week trial, complete with depositions, requests to admit, and all the topping.

5.  Having realized that he will spend more than he could ever recover before the case is half over, Bluto wants to proceed anyway.

6.  Despite the fact that yours truly is not generally considered to be amicable nor friendly in the confines of the court, Bluto thinks that I'm not being agressive enough.

7.  Bluto has given members of his family instructions to contact me directly and ask for updates in the case.

8.  After every court date, when I explain what the Judge just did and why, Bluto becomes angry and tells me how wrong the judge is and how I didn't call out the judge for the judge's "bias towards women".

9.  After telling Bluto that a stunt like that would probably get us both in a cell, he responds that it shouldn't matter to me, because "sometimes you just have to stand on principle."

10. After telling Bluto (for the tenth time) that no, I won't be doing this or that, and if he doesn't like it he can fire me, he contacts one of our partners, and complains that they feel I'm mishandling the case.

11. After going through the case history with the partner, the partner, now completely on my side, sends Bluto a letter telling him, in essence, to calm the f*ck down and get a grip.

12. Bluto then calls me up and complains that he doesn't think the partners at our firm (combined 40 years of experience in family law) are any good, and he might have to think about dealing only with me from now on.  Yippee.

So today I had "the talk" with Bluto.  For those of you who don't know me (and why would you, this is an anonymous blog:)  "the talk" is where I strip away all the veneer of lawyerdom, abandon all vestiges of civilized behavior, all the rules and decorum of polite society and talk to someone the way I talked to people back when I was a bouncer --- right before I threw them out on their face.
I told Bluto that he needed a reality check, that he was headed for disaster, that he was a moron (yep, I said it) and that he was going to (in my best Obi-wan) let his anger consume him.

After a therapuetic twenty minutes of yelling and screaming, we reached that point where the bronco stops bucking, the puppy stops biting, and the bull becomes docile forever.  I had broken him.  We have a settlement conference later this week.  Hopefully we'll be done then.

Bluto had been cultivating this post-decree scenario, nurturing it, caring for it, feeding it, like one would a prized pet.  It had become his life.  To contemplate it being over was like contemplating a move across the country, new job, and name change for him.  His denial of reality had become the only thing that shielded him from the catharthis and life-change that everyone experiences when they get divorced.  By not allowing himself to to go through it, he ensured that he would never get past it.  Fortunately, he will now experience the denoument of the matter and the conclusion of this part of his life.  Bluto needed a reality check.  If you don't let yourself feel, then you'll never feel anything different ever again.  You'll be trapped in an familiar, but unchanging state of mind.  And you'll eventually wither and die emotionally.

When's the last time you gave yourself a reality check?

This is why people hate lawyers...

A recent filing in the case I'm working on caught my eye. It seems that the court issued an order and we (plaintiffs) thought the order slightly ambiguous. So, as I think any good lawyer would, we filed a motion for clarification of the order. The defendants, however, thought that the order was perfectly clear, and interpreted it to be wholly in their favor. Apparently worried that a clarification of the order would make it clear that the order was not in their favor, they filed a motion captioned:

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of the Court's December 29, 2006 Order

How can a lawyer, in good faith, move that the record should remain ambiguous or muddy? Clearly, if the order were truly favorable to the Defendants, then they would have no reason to oppose it's clarification.

Though the court has not yet ruled on this motion, to do anything other than clarify the motion would be asinine, in my opinion. What do others think? Would it indicate a problem with the system? Does anyone find it problematic that such a motion (opposing clarification) could be filed at all?

(Yes, I am trying to start a thread...this place has been fairly dead lately.)

QV.

Overheard in Court Today...

Attorney One:  "Your Honor, my client needs more time to respond to the Defendant's motion."

Attorney Two:  "Your Honor, it's only a two-page motion, and he's already had 28 days.  We object to any further time being granted.  Plaintiff thinks he is above the law,  he's unmotivated, and would rather spend more time gambling and drinking with various women than obeying this court."

Attorney One:  "Your Honor, I object to counsel's remarks.  My client is a reputable businessman, not some nefarious character.  Counsel makes it sound like my client is a pimp or something."

Attorney Two:    "Maybe you should give him more time then, your Honor.  I mean, we all know pimpin' aint easy."

(laughter from the gallery and a dirty look from the Judge)

And you thought we had it bad.

I think one of the most overlooked court personnell is the court reporter.  Sure, they make a really good wage for doing nothing but typing, and they usually have an attitude, but then every once in a while you see something like this, and you actually feel sorry for the poor bastards.  Just imagine trying to transcribe that......

Hold the maple syrup.

It was a cold day...

    The kind of day day when you raise a glass to the man who invented the remote start feature for automobiles, the kind of day where a stray gust of wind goes up your pantleg and makes you question the existence of the loving God...
    I arrived at the courthouse early, to prepare my client for the foolishness to follow.  It was the other side's hearing on a Petition for Rule to Show Cause.  My client had left his half of the court-ordered expenses on her table a day or two after he should have, but well before the bills were due.  Needless to say, it was a technical violation of the court order, but there was no injury.  This Petition was brought simply to harrass my client.
    An issue complicating this case is the presence of two minor children.  No, strike that.  The issue complicating this case is the presence of quite possibly the worst Children's Representative I've ever seen.  The Rep has made some recommendations, which I actually laughed at in open court.  The Rep has also been doing everything in his power to make us settle this case--not because it should be settled, but because if it goes to the next step, a court-appointed evaluator, the evaluator will almost certainly make recommendations that contradict the Rep's.  This would make the Rep look like an idiot.
    So we're at court (in DisDatDese County), and my opponent, Ima Weasel, attempts to step up in front of the judge without me.  Apparently she did not see me sitting in the back with my client, and thought to get the jump on me.  She stepped up almost an hour before our hearing was scheduled.  When she started talking, I walked up behind her and let her go on for a little bit, and then the Judge looked up and asked me to comment.  After the inevitable flinch by Ms. Weasel, I told the Judge that since we were speaking off the record, as all ex parte communications are, (another flinch), I might as well give my side of things.
    After things were all said and done, no rule issued, my client was not found in contempt, and we worked out an agreed order.  So, a waste of our time.  The not so amusing thing was the Rep, who took us aside no less than four, four times and, in a long, sprawling, pointless, redundant lecture, tried to order us to settle the case. 
    I'm not sure how my fellow roguebarristers operate, but when I say, "No", I mean no.  It's not rocket science, Rep.  I don't agree with you, and it's because you are wrong.  Earth to Rep, get your head out of your ass and order a spine, because now that the case is going to evaluation, you're flip-flopping on your earlier recommendations in an attempt to avoid almost certain embarrassment.
    After we had worked out the agreed order, we step up in front of the Judge to ask for his suggestions on an Evaluator.  The lawyers agree that evaluation is necessary (way to back me up, Weasel), but then the Rep starts his "diarrhea of the mouth" routine, stating that he thinks the parties can work this out (they can't agree on what day it is, for Pete's sake), that maybe mediation would help (they've been through mediation twice, no agreement on any issue), and that evaluation is expensive (my client is willing to front the whole amount.)
    At this point, I've had enough, and it's time to de-pants someone.  So the Judge looks at me for a response, and I reply, from the bottom of my icy black heart:

"Your honor, the only impediment to the swift resolution of this case is standing to my left.  The Children's Representative, whom you appointed, has made several recommendations in this case, none of which we agree with, and has continued to force us to settle, despite the fact that the parties agree on nothing, and despite the fact that it is not his function to do so.  In fact, I would suggest that the Child's Representative pursue a career at IHOP, as (he/she) is the biggest waffler I've ever seen."

At this point, the Judge's eyebrows shoot up in suprise, opposing counsel starts laughing out loud, and I just stare at the Rep, whose face is rapidly turning a deep purple.  I continue:

"If the Rep hadn't already received a retainer, I would probably bring a motion for their removal.  I can't seem to find in the Child Rep statute where it directs the Rep to try and settle the case, or to give counsel for each party directives regarding matters other than the children.  Quite frankly, yesterday the children told my client that the Rep doesn't return their calls and doesn't let them talk for very long when he does see them.  This case needs to go to evaluation, your Honor."
    At that point, I thought the Rep was going to pass out, so we asked for an Evaluator, and the Court gave us one.

If you ever have a case with a Child's Representative, Guardian ad litem, or attorney for the child, keep them in line.  They have a limited role, and they have no authority to intervene in matters not involving the children directly.  Feel free to crack the whip on them.  You have my explicit permission. 

Overheard in Court today...

Lawyer one:  Hey there counselor, I tried to get a hold of you all day yesterday...

Lawyer two:  I was in a murder trial all day.

Lawyer one:  Oh....who'd you whack?

    (...)

Lawyer three:  Oh man, I just had the worst hearing ever

Lawyer four:   What happened?  Bad ruling?

Lawyer three:  No, (such and such) was on the other side....

Lawyer four:  Eewww, she's disgusting, and that's when she showers.

Lawyer three:  No kidding, I started daydreaming that I was trapped in the hair growing out of her mole....

Pot, meet Kettle.....discuss

Dear Dipshit, ESQ,

    Thank you for your correspondence dated September 19, 2006.  It has been forwarded to my client for their review.  Please allow me to comment on the substance of your letter.

Thank you for pointing out that a four-way conference should be a good-faith attempt to discuss issues in a reasoned and calm environment.  As an attorney whose practice is 100% domestic relations, and who engages in said conferences all the time, this was a huge, HUGE, wake-up call for me.  Based on my previous four-way conferences, and specifically the three conferences I HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD WITH YOU, I was under the impression that four-way conferences were a chance for douchebags like yourself to belittle the other client, behave in a condescending manner to me, and generally showboat and make no progress towards a resolution of the issues.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Additionally, thank you for pointing out that "civility" is something that needs to be on both sides of the case.  It is a great relief to hear that from you.  One can imagine that, after your client "keyed" my client's car, left the kids alone at my client's house with no key, used the children as couriers for your nasty messages, and announced to them that their mom is a "unrepentant, ungrateful, responsibility-shirking cunt" in a crowded Burger King, I had some hesitations about his ability to be civil.

Also, thank you for your ethical guidance regarding my alleged "lathered" tone and "saber-rattling" in previous correspondence.  I know that in today's world, more than ever, ethical behavior is imperative.  That's why our Bar has attorneys like you, who have never been sanctioned for filing a false pleading, or suspended for innappropriate contact with their own clients.  Oh wait, that was you.  Oh yeah, now I remember, it was us who filed the motion for Rule 137 sanctions against you....that's right....It's all coming back to me now....and Judge Good 'Ol Boy, who hasn't sanctioned anyone since the Reagan Administration, actually thought you were a big enough liar that you needed to be "taught a lesson".

I will indeed call your secretary to set up a time for the conference, at which time we will discuss, AT LENGTH, why your client cannot comply with the terms of the Marital Settlement Agreement, and why he feels "cheated" and that the terms are "unfair" and "not right", despite the fact that YOU AND HE DRAFTED THE F*CKING DOCUMENT WHILE MY CURRENT CLIENT WAS PRO SE AT THE TIME.

Looking forward to pounding you into the ground like a tent peg,

J.D. Crane

P.S.  Please let me know in advance if you plan on bringing your own crow to eat, or if I should order one for the conference.  Also, you'll be relieved to know that you may, in fact, refer to me as your 'daddy' during the conference without offending me, as I plan on demonstrating that fact during said conference.

When the rubber hits the road.

Greetings, eager readers!  It is I, J.D. Crane, back with another pointed tale regarding what NOT to do to a judge under normal conditions.  As you've almost certainly inferred from my previous posts, J.D. Crane is not a friend of normalcy.  In that vein, I give you the following anecdote:

I had a hearing today in Eatshitanddie County, a hearing that should have been a slam dunk for anyone, not to mention yours truly.  Apparently, this judge was also covering another judge's call (which happens from time to time).  This judge was supposed to have cleared his call for the judge I was in front of today.

The judge had not cleared his call for "my" judge.

Needless to say, my judge was furious, was refusing to hear hearings, giving everyone contest numbers, and acting in an unprofessional manner.  So opposing counsel and I step up, and the judge tells us "There won't be a hearing today."  At which point I interject that my client is in dire straits and needs a resolution of this issue in an expedient manner.  So we adjourn to the judge's chambers for a brief conference.  The judge is completely out of control.

During this "conference", and I use that term as loosely as possible, the judge did the following:

1.  Told opposing counsel (who is a decent guy and has back problems which necessitate him standing up from time to time) to Sit Down.
2.  Told me to shut up.  (contrary to some readers inevitable conclusions, that NEVER happens to me.)
3.  Went on some rant/tangent about some funeral they went to yesterday.
4.  Went on some rant/tangent about their father in law and nursing homes.
5.  Would not listen to either of us make our case.
6.  Finally just vomited up a ruling, which happened to give my client the proverbial "shaft".

I then have to explain to my client what happened and why, and listen to my client tear up and become despondent.  A true injustice.

I go back into the courtroom a while later to get my files, and it's just me and the judge, who is getting ready to leave for lunch.  I ask the judge, who I've known for several months, what I'm doing wrong.  The judge asks me what I mean.  So I tell the judge (in a joking manner) that i've had umpteen cases in front of this court, and I've never received a favorable ruling on anything.  I ask the judge if perhaps I need to get a new tie or something.  The judge laughs and says that they just call them like they see them.  I then tell the judge that it would be one thing if I simply disagreed with their rulings, but it's another when I can't even remotely understand them.

I have a good enough relationship with the judge to ask this, so long as it appears I'm trying to seek better understanding.  The judge asks me what I mean, and I give them a few examples.  I pointed out that it seems to be a phenomenon in this court that when my client is a man, I have problems.  The court, still in a joking mood, tells me, "Well, I only have a couple of months left in this division, and then I'll be gone."

(Courts routinely shuffle judges between divisions every few years.  This particular judge is moving in January.)

So I decided to let the judge know that it was not just me who had a problem with this "phenomenon", in as nice a way possible.  In response to his quip, I responded with "I'll have to throw a party."

The judge said "Wow, you'd throw a party for me?"

And I replied, as I walked out the door: "No, for all the lawyers with cases in this room."

I got your tip right here!

In the spirit of Rock, Paper, Scissors, and Motion for a Fist Fight; it would appear that lunch IS served.

Overheard today in court:

Attorney: "Now your Honor, I don't mean to sound stupid, but..."

Judge:  "Too late."

Good and welfare

For the good and welfare of LRB and all its members, I'd like to send out a hearty thank you to our very own JD Crane who gratiously lent his revered courtroom presence in Ohnoyoudidn't County so members of my firm would not need to traverse the barren wastelands known as the suburbs to attend court. 

What my firm has failed to realize is that they have made a crucial mistake in becomming indebted to JD, for one day Mr. Crane will come a callin', ready to cash in the debt he is owed...and there will be hell to pay.

A little advice...

...to the jurists of Cumoneyewannalaya County:

1.  Before you go down the call, ask if there are any agreed orders first. (dipshits)

2.  If you come back from a recess and the room is packed with attorneys, but none of them step up on any case you call, why don't you ask if there are any agreed orders? (assholes)

3.  If it's an agreed order, ENTER IT.  The bench is not a forum for your bloviated pontifications on what the parties should do, especially if it's not against public policy. (shut the fuck up and do your jobs)

4.  An amusing anecdote is all well and good, but not when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and the attorneys are lined up 24 men and women deep. (jackass)

5.  Your courtroom is not the only one in the universe.  If an attorney has checked in not once, not twice, but THREE times and the court isn't ready for the matter, don't throw a fit when your royal highness is ready to hear arguments but the attorney is in another room, having a hearing in front of a jurist who actually gives a damn. (mother f*ckers)

6.  No, we actually don't care what you're wearing under the robe.  (shudder)

That is all...further bulletins as events warrant.

Temper, Temper...or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Respondent.

  Greetings, minions!  It's been a while since I've posted, mainly because most attorneys now tremble in fear of the force of nature that is J.D. Crane, and simply capitulate on the spot.  However, I have an entertaining and valuable anecdote to share, which happened recently in the hallowed halls of Crotchrubber County:

I'll be honest, I was already pissed off when I arrived at court.  Someone had dumped the case on me at the last minute, leaving me no time to truly prepare for the two hearings that were up in the same case that day, a Petition for Fees and a Petition for Rule to Show Cause.  I was additionally pissed because opposing counsel is someone I dislike intensely.  Adding fuel to the fire was the presence of his client in court, a true novelty, and someone I also came to intensely dislike within, oh, about 10 seconds of meeting him.  Most irritating of all was the fact that the client is H-O-T, has all the bits and pieces where God meant them to be, and has been flirting with me, hardcore, for weeks.  If she were not a client, we would have been engaged in the hippity-dippity in the parking lot that very morning--I shit you not.  (We're talking ANIMAL magnetism here....Jesus.....)

Moving on, opposing counsel is 20 minutes late, and then, when he does show up, speaks to his client for 20 minutes.  At this point, every last milliliter of bile in my body is ready to spew forth in sheer and unapologetic venom.  I storm outside and walk up to where Butch Wouldyablowme and the Dipshit Kid are in conference, and I speak up loudly, stating "Are you guys ready?  Let's do this!"
Opposing counsel takes me aside and asks if we can talk before the hearings and I say, "sure".    He pulls his client over into a vacant office and says "aren't you going to get your client?"  I say, "No, she doesn't want to talk to you two.  Now are you going to make me an offer I won't laugh at, or should we go inside and let the fucking begin?"

Please bear in mind that I am NEVER, never this abrasive under normal circumstances.  I firmly believe, with the perspective of hindsight, that the factors I mentioned previously had contributed to such a foul mood on my part that I had ceased to care at that point.  His client, who is in law enforcement, and considers himself above the law, looks at me with a smirk and says, "Fucking?  Who's gonna get fucked?"  That's when I lean over to within a foot of his face and yell "YOU'RE THE ONE ABOUT TO BE FUCKED, AND I'M THE ONE THAT'S GONNA BE STICKING IT IN!!!"
Predictably, at this point his client goes berserk, and after taking ten minutes to calm him down, they make me an offer for approximately one-third of my fees, they specifically perform the terms of a previous agreement, and I withdraw both Petitions with prejudice.  I laugh in their face and proceed to tell them, in detail, exactly how they will be going down like the Titanic.

(Side-note:  one of the specific things they were to perform was to retain another, well known lawyer to represent them in another matter.  They had failed to do so.  Unbeknownst to them, I was going to call this lawyer as a witness.)

His client goes berserk again, and this time his client is ready to go to the mat; all offers rescinded, we're trying this thing--which is fine by me.  At this very moment, literally at the very second they decide to proceed to hearing, the attorney I planned to call as a witness walks around the corner, greets me, and asks if I'm ready.  My opponent's eyes go wide, and his client's go wider.  They ask what he's doing here.  I say, "I'm going to be calling him as my second witness, so he can tell the judge how you've utterly and completely failed to live up to your obligations."  His client's head drops into his hands, and I walk into court.  My client was thrilled with their first offer, but the mood I was in, I'd as just as soon tried it up, so I convinced her we could do much better. (which I thought we could.)

Five minutes later, opposing counsel comes into court and wants to make me another offer.  I go outside, and they counter with 75% of my fees, specific performance on one of the two things, and I withdraw both Petitions with prejudice.  I shoot up off of the desk corner I'd been sitting on and say "You'll perform BOTH things you were supposed to do, I'll withdraw both my Petitions WITHOUT prejudice, and you'll pay ALLLLLLLLL my fees, including the hour of my life I've just wasted sitting here listening to your bullshit.  Final offer."

Then I just sit there, watching his client's humiliation as his attorney busts his balls (in front of me) and basically makes him take the offer. (I put the fear of God into opposing counsel, apparently.)  So they take the offer.

I leave the courthouse, with H-O-T walking me to my car (down boy......DOWN!) and the opposition walking away dejected.  I felt a little embarrassed by my behavior afterwards; as I said before, I'm not usually like that.  However, in hindsight, I've gleaned some life lessons to share with you:

1.  If you're feeling righteous, don't be afraid to blow your top.  Give in to your rage, let it consume you, BECOME a blazing pillar of righteous fucking fire and destroy anything that ventures into your presence.  You'll feel great.

2.  Don't be afraid to take it to the judge.  If you start to feel relieved that they made you an offer, you've either not prepared, are not cut out for trial work, or are a spineless little shit.

3.  Try to get retained by really H-O-T clients.  It makes all the difference....;)

-J.D.

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.

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.

J.D. Crane's Island (Yar!)

Juuuuuuuuust……….

Sit right back and you’ll hear a tale,

A tale of J.D. Crane,

That started with some pro se schmuck,

And finished with his pain!

The pro se schmuck was very loud,

His arguments were crap,

So J.D. Crane (that fearless champ),

Began to spring his trap…Began to spring his trap!

So J.D. started getting tough,

He baited pro se schmuck,

So pro se schmuck then took the bait,

And then his hopes were sunk…And then his hopes were sunk!

The hearing’s over, J.D. won, and now the pro se schmuck:

1. Must get a jooooooooooooob,
2. Give J.D. caaaaasssshhhhhhh,
3. Pay child suppoooooooorrrrt,
4. Or do some tiiiiiiimmmeeeee,

And don’t forget…..

Can you say:  All your backpaaaaaaaaayyyyy,

Goes to J.D. Crane’s cliiieeeeeeeennnnnnttttttt!!!!

Overheard in Court Today, or, God Bless Pro Se Litigants.

In Bangyasista County this morning, the judge had just finished explaining to some pro se litigants what a hearing was, and what they needed to do as far as calling witnesses and asking questions.  So the two litigants go up in front of the judge, obviously fuming, get sworn in, and then the judge directs the movant to begin asking the respondent questions:

First Question:  "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?!!!!"

(at which point the judge steps in and tells the movant that is not the kind of questions the court appreciates)

Second Question:  "DO YOU RECALL THE EXACT MOMENT YOU BECAME OVERCOME WITH JEALOUSY AND LOST YOUR MIND?"

(judge again intervenes, this time with more than a little anger)

Third Question: "WHY ARE YOU BEING SUCH A BITCH?!!!!!"

(at which point the judge tells the movant "you're done" and then threatens to send the movant to jail)

it gets better.

Because the movant has blown his chance, it's now the respondent's turn.

First Question:  "WHY COULDN'T YOU JUST GIVE ME WHAT I WANT?  WHY COULDN'T YOU JUST DO WHAT I ASKED?!!!"

(judge intervenes)

Second Question:  "YOU'RE NOT A MAN, ARE YOU?  YOU'RE NOT ACTING LIKE A MAN, ARE YOU?"

(the judge is PISSED, and lays into the respondent, at which point the respondent...)

...asks the Third Question (which really isn't a question, although it's a statement I've longed to make):

(directed at the judge) "STAY OUT OF THIS, I'M THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTIONS HERE!"

At this time, part of me wants to stand up and cheer.  However, the part of me that keeps that part of me in check suddenly clinches up, with a feeling of dread.  Sure enough, the respondent gets a "time-out" with some of the Bangyasista County Sheriff's finest guests.

The moral of this story is, of course, if you want to say things like that to a judge, get a blog.

J.D. Crane strikes again

Greetings, television viewers!  J.D. Crane is back, and he's got stories...

One of the partners is on vacation this week, and, realizing how much J.D. Crane has his shiznit together, gave J.D. Crane all her cases to cover this past week.

So I'm in court, and I'm supposed to stop opposing counsel from entering a financial document.  As I'm sitting there, waiting for opposing counsel (to whom we already told to enter it, nonetheless) I realize several things:

1.  One of our attorneys (currently on maternity leave) spent months negotiating with opposing counsel to draft this thing.
2.  Another one of our attorneys actually wrote the damn thing.
3.  The plan requires approval from a regulatory agency, AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

So I'm sitting there, in front of Judge Grumpy no less, with my head in my hands, wondering WTF the partner wants to stop this thing for.

Opposing counsel shows up, and she's a major league hottie (Judge Grumpy is known to be partial to hotties, and hey, who can blame him?).  I tell her the partner wants another status date, to which she flatly refuses to acquiesce.  So we get up in front of Judge Grumpy and opposing counsel (and rightly so...it's what I would have done) just lays into me.  After she's finished, Judge Grumpy looks at me with a confused grimace, as if to say "WTF counselor?"

As they say in the parlance of our times, "That's when the magic happened."

Not knowing anything about the case, and having only the facts in front of me, I stated these things:

-Your honor, the attorney who negotiated this is out on maternity leave.
-Your honor, the attorney whose case this is, is on vacation.
-Your honor, the regulatory agency is not a client here, and this is about the clients
-Your honor, we're only asking for a very, very short status date to review this document
-Your honor, to the best of my knowledge, our client hasn't even seen this final draft (true, actually)

The Judge goes quiet for a while, looks at me, then looks at opposing counsel and states, "Continued til Monday, over your objections, counselor"

And that, my little snuggle-bunnies, is how you prevent a document that you negotiated, you drafted, and that's already been approved, from being entered.

I'll be here the rest of the week, tip your waitress.

Republish: the judge debate, cushy vs. respectable

In response and support of JD's last post, here is a posting from 12/15/05 from LRB's life before we entered witness protection and took up residence in typepad:

One of the attorneys I work with was trying out arguments on me which he was planning on using for a motion this morning (part of which was fighting opposing counsel's motion for additional time), and he comes back from court and says that the Judge didn't show up to his motion call today.

No explanation, no substitute, nothing.

So, a new date is scheduled which basically is the amount of time opposing counsel was looking for in the first place.

What I think is screwed up, is that so much of the non-legal world has this incredible amount of respect for judges, and we as attorneys are expected to bow down and flay ourselves so that we ought not to offend the all powerful demi-Gods sitting on their ply-wood thrones. This may just be musings from someone forced into litigation against his will whose letting his bitterness cloud his otherwise perfectly objective and fair judgment, but WTF!? Who do I have to know to get enough signatures so I can get a job where I show up when I want, screw up as much as I please, and can treat more intelligent and knowledgeable people like utter crap without having any repercussions whatsoever (unless they want to spend thousands of dollars and try to appeal that my decisions by overcoming a huge burden of proof).

This has been my rant of the morning, please return to your normal course of business.

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.

NOW I'VE SEEN IT ALL

I received something in the post this morning, having already reached its usual state of openness via my (nosy, good-for-nothing, all-up-in-everybody-else's-business bitch) secretary.  It was a motion, much like any other than comes across my desk, with one exception.

A few weeks ago, opposing counsel filed a petition.  Not a particularly unexpected petition, not an outrageous petition, just a petition.  A week later, we filed a motion to strike, mostly due to a technical defect in the pleading, but also to piss the other side off a bit:)  (hey, I'll admit it)

Due to some other foolishness on the part of one of the parties, the Fellatio County state's attorneys are in this matter as well.  A week after we filed our motion to strike, they actually filed a motion to strike OUR motion to strike, because something in the other side's petition would play right into their hands, basically.  Citing obscure, inapposite caselaw and using that last refuge of authority (your honor, I really REALLY FEEL that you should do this...) they are trying to get our motion bounced. 

That is not the motion I'm referring to, however.  As bizarre as a motion to strike a motion to strike may be, I have seen them before.  No, what I'm referring to is the next motion file in our case.  There is a fourth party in our case.

Apparently, someone has had a lien on opposing counsel for a looooooonnnnnggggg time.  Opposing counsel is seeking some money in his petition, because he doesn't want to borrow money from other sources.  The problem lies in that if he borrows money from other sources, it's income, and the lien kicks in; but if it is court-ordered (support, payments, contribution to fees, etc, etc...) then it's not "income", and he avoids the lien.  Naturally, the lien holder wants to see opposing counsel's petition denied, so that money will have to come from lien-friendly sources.

So, I'm sitting here at my desk, at 2:18pm, looking at a motion to strike Fellatio's County's motion to strike my motion to strike Petitioner's Petition.  Accompanying this lovely gift on my chair is a letter from the senior partner (who has been practicing for longer than I've been alive) stating: "What the hell is this?!!  Have you ever seen this before?!!  Write a Response or Motion to Strike---Talk to me."

At this point, words simply fail me.

When in Rome...

Actual Exchange this morning in the Spittoon County Courthouse:

Lawyer:  "Pardon me, but where would I go to get an attorney identification card?"

Deputy:  "You'll have to go to the Spittoon County Bar Association Office"

Lawyer:  "Do you know how much it is?"

Deputy:  "Oh, the card is free, but you have to join the Spittoon County Bar Association to get one"

Lawyer:  "You're kidding, you can't just get the card?"

Deputy:  "Nope.  And it's expensive as hell to join, something like 400 bucks"

Lawyer:  "!!#^%#%*&^%$(*&&^!!!!"

Deputy:  "Most people just join the Spittoon County Women's Bar Association instead"

Lawyer:  "Why?"

Deputy:  "You get a discount then.  I think it's only like, 50 bucks"

Lawyer:  "Well, that's not so bad"

Deputy:  "Yeah, the catch is, the WBA card is a cherry color, almost pink.  You'd have to be crazy to pay the 400 bucks for the other one, though"

Lawyer:  "So a lot of guys have the pink cards?"

Deputy:  "Oh yeah, it's how we tell the fruits from the nuts, so to speak."

Mr. Clients R. Losers

Congratulations... YOU ARE A LOSER

Walking to the courthouse, the air was crisp.  The temperature was mild for a morning in late January.  In my left hand was my binder or as I like to call it my “bible for the next hour.”  I was going have to pull my five-minute sermon and subsequent responses from these documents. As I approached the courthouse, there was a smell in the air. Thanks to the EPA it was not chocolate. Now, I think what I smelt was victory.

Motion call is at 9’oclock, but thankfully, I arrived early.  I did so to review some of the case law cited by Mr. Losers.  Like a fire-and-brimstone preacher giving his homily, Mr. Loser pulled several less applicable passages and one-liners from the case law to support his outrageous position.

Knowledgeable Partner walks into the courtroom and sits down.  “I don’t think we are going to need the case law in this one.”  He was right for the most part.  The failures of opposing counsel stemmed mainly from the content of his motion and protective order and not the actual law. Do not get me wrong, Mr. Losers misquoted the law. Our position was that even if he was right on the law, he was wrong on everything else.

“Should we start by explaining the opposing counsel’s end-run around us,” I asked.  Mr. Losers brazenly attempted to submit to the court a very narrow protective order, which only covered items Mr. Losers wanted to allow and gave the parties (mainly the Defendants) the ability to completely redacted information from documents. “Let’s see what the judge says.” Okay, I could wait.

The court deputy stepped into the court from behind a door that stretched from floor to the 20-foot high ceiling. “Are there any attorneys here for the Good Guys v. Thieves?”

“Yes, we are here, for the Good Guys,” replied Knowledgeable Partner.  Mr. Losers at this point has not yet made an appearance.

“Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order along with the attached protective order is granted.  Defendants’ motion is DENIED.”

Wait, did he just steal my thunder?

“Should I call Mr. Losers to tell him?” “Don’t gloat,” said Knowledgeable Partner.

I called. “I got his answering machine." “He’s probably on his way.” “Okay, leave a message later; let’s get back to the office.” We were not in the mood to sit and wait for him after the stunt he pulled.

Flash forward. The lead associate on the case with us stopped by the courtroom to listen to the motion.  He must have missed us by minutes.  On his heels was Mr. Losers. “I noticed we were no longer on the motion call,” said Mr. Losers.  “Well, I didn’t know that,” said associate. At that point, associate gave me a call on my cell phone.

 

“I am outside the courtroom, where are you?”

“Walking back to the office.”

“Why?”

“Our motion was granted, his was denied. The deputy came out to tell us.”

“Mr. Losers is here sitting in the front row.”

“Could you tell him his motion was denied?”

“With pleasure.”

At that point, I was envious of lead associate.

He came back to tell us that he approached Mr. Losers while he was analyzing our response to his motion and making notes.  Associate said that when he gave Mr. Losers the news, there was this “million-dollar stunned look on his face.”

I only wish I were there to see it.  I am not sad, though. I think there will be other times I’ll get to see that “stunned-look.”

*Prophet

J.D. Crane: personal power, part 3

I have a case where our client gave guardianship of children to a neighbor while they got their life together, got a new job, moved, etc.  To cut to the point, the guardian wouldn't give the kids back, there was a fight, the police were called, etc.

At the last court date, I got our client the children back, terminated the neighbor's guardianship, and set the date for 30 days, because CASA (court appointed special advocate) wanted to do an evaluation of our client.

To cut even shorter to the point, I worded the order last time so that even if CASA gave my client a negative evaluation, they would have to file a petition and have a full-blown hearing to even start the process to remove the children.  I basically locked them, and the former guardian out, and got them to sign it:)  So now we flash to today, in Poughkeepsie County Probate Court:

Me:  Your Honor, I'd like to strike this case from the call.

Judge Trigger:  It's over then?

Me:  Yes, for all practical purposes.

CASA rep: We object, your honor, we think that this case needs to have our evaluation heard first.

Judge Trigger:  Counselor?

Me (addressing CASA rep):  Have you been able to contact my client?

CASA rep:  No.

Me:  Me neither.  Have you been able to contact the former guardian?

CASA rep:  No.

Me:  Me neither.  And didn't you, in fact, write this letter (handing it to the judge) that states that CASA doesn't see any reason to stay involved in this matter?

CASA rep:  Well...yeah....but...

Me:  That's all I've got, your Honor.

Judge Trigger:  Hmmmm, I seem to remember that both parties were to appear, and that guardianship would still be determinable at today's date.

Me (handing the Judge a copy of the Order I worded carefully): No, your Honor, guardianship was terminated last date, and (my client) has resumed possession of the kids.  As you can see, CASA's evaluation was just to humor them, and has no bearing on guardianship at this time.

CASA rep:  What?!  That's not true!

Judge Trigger (reading the Order):  Ummmm, yes it is, actually.

CASA rep (looking at me, stunned)

Judge Trigger:  I see no reason to keep this on the call then, in light of the last order and the current state of affairs.  This cause is hereby stricken.

Me:  Thank you, your Honor.

And that's how I accomplished the rarest of triple-doubles. Getting the case stricken when:

1.  The Court appointed special advocate objects.

2.  Neither one of the parties, who were ordered to appear, actually appear.

3.  I admit in open court that I have no idea where either party is.

The icing on the cake was getting to, basically, interrogate the CASA rep in front of the Judge....priceless.

WHEN A MAAAAAAN MEETS A CLIENT.....

...BUT THE CLIENT IS NOT HIS OOOOOOOOWN.....

As I was walking down the hallway towards Judge Frumpy's courtroom in Whattsammattayou County today, I was focused on an Emergency Motion.  Then, something happened to me that had never happened before. (and NO, three midget hookers did not proposition me for a four-way, I said this had NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE......gosh......)

My opponent's client was there and, having recognized me from previous court dates, began to launch a verbal tirade at me.  I guess because the other party, my client, has not been coming for every status date, this client felt the need to vent at someone.  She picked J.D. Crane.  I realized as soon as it started that she had no idea who J.D. Crane was, that she was ignorant of J.D. Crane's fearsome reputation and zero tolerance for yapping little bitches.  Naturally, my response was:

A)  Beat them about the face and head until they start receiving casting offers for "Night of the Living Dead 7--Litigants Attack!"

B)  Look at them as if they were speaking in another language for a while, then call for an old priest and a young priest.

C)  Fart very loudly and then yell out "Why did you DO THAT?!"

As no one was in the hallway, I chose D)  Wait until she was done venting, then sit with her on a bench and state the following:

"I can see that you're upset.  Divorce is probably the worst thing you'll ever go through, so I don't blame you for being upset.  I can tell you two things.  The first is that I'm a pretty nice guy, you can even ask your attorney.  The second is that you are not my client.  I have to advocate for my client, just as your attorney has to advocate for you.  Nothing I do or say in the courtroom is personal, please understand.  We each have a job to do and mine is to defend my client.  God willing, it will all work out in the end.  Neither one of you are bad people, you're just going through a bad time."

At this point, the other client starts bawling, just weeping.  As would be my luck, at this point my opposite walks around the corner, takes in the situation, and angrily asks me what I did. This started a long explanatory bullshitting conversation, which cost me time and my client money.

The moral of this story is, of course, never be nice.  Rather than look around to see if anyone was watching and then be nice, I should have looked around and then punched her right in the ovaries.

Bitches!

J.D. Crane--Adventures in Emergency Motions

A while back, I had an emergency motion for temporary custody set in Buttafuco County.  It turned into a nightmare.  It was exhausting.  Here's the story.

I arrive at 8:30ish to talk to my client beforehand.  Things are going well.  The other side recently acquired two DUI's, with the child in the car.  We give the clerk in Judge Dour's courtroom notice that we're here and ready.  We wait.

An hour later, after Judge Dour goes through his call, the clerk informs us that the case has actually been switched to another room.  So we trudge up there, only to find out that our motion is, in fact, not in that room either.  So we consult the Oracle (a.k.a. the scheduler) and discover that we are in front of judge Minestrone.

The Judge calls us up, we each present our sides, the Judge takes our pleadings and tells us that he has a pretrial conference, and he wants to read our pleadings (how nice!) before getting back to us.  He directs us to stick around for a half hour.The pretrial winds up lasting an hour, at which point the judge comes out and says, "I'm going to lunch, come back at 1:30pm."  It is now noon.

We come back at 1:30, at which point we argue back and forth for 45 minutes whether or not this is actually "an emergency" for the purposes of an emergency motion.  Finally, the Judge agrees that this is an emergency and we proceed to hearing instanter.  (For all you non-legal types, instanter is Latin for 'right fucking now'.)

The Judge then asks us to call our witnesses.  I look at opposing counsel with a bewildered expression on my face, only to find the same expression looking back at me, albeit on a much less handsome facade.  As we had basically given our whole arguments, TWICE, at this point, we agree to just proceed by standing on our affidavits.  The judge then grills me for almost an hour, asking me all sorts of stupid questions, such as:

"what if (the other client) beats the DUI charges?" "How much progress would (the other client) have to show to earn back the custody?" "Are you asking this court to punish (the other client) for their affliction?"  "What's the average rainfall in the Amazon basin?"  "Who shot J.R.?" etc, etc...

Then the Judge goes through the whole schpeal with the other guy.  We are now, technically, 3 hours into this emergency motion. Then the Judge directs us to make closing arguments.  So we each go through our schtick AGAIN.  Then the Judge goes back in his chambers for twenty minutes, in order to (gamble online, call his golf buddies, adjust his "judicial restraints") allegedly deliberate.  When he comes back out, he declares that my motion is granted, (C'mon, it's J.D. Crane we're talking about here!  What did you think would happen?!) and that it was "really a close call".

Dear Judge Ravioli:  "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND?!!!!!"  Apparently, a DUI with the child in the car is not serious enough endangerment to justify a temporary change of custody,  but the second one was just enough to tip the scales.....Perhaps Judge Spumoni will reconsider his outlook on such matters when some child that he's entrusted to an alcoholic gets wrapped around a tree.