The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (1 Viewer)

[Sweet J]

Well, I think they're trying to give you some credit by admitting that its ambiguous.  So they're just trying to remove the ambiguity.  They seemed to intend the order to allow further discovery.  Your interpretation, that this would be limited to a untimely corporate deposition is certainly plausible.  But it apparently wasn't what they intended to convey.  So they just strike the sentence.  That seems a reasonable solution (I understand that you may feel that allowing the additional discovery in the first place isn't reasonable).

Not just that, but your client was just found to be shady (at best) with respect to discovery.  In my experience (at least on the federal level), judges get *extremely* testy about that.  And frankly, I don't know why you aren't more abashed by it, even in the post.  The last thing I would want to do, immediately after being found to be shady w/r/t discovery, is argue that you shouldn't have to produce discovery. (your client, I mean, not you of course).

Do you really want to shine a flashlight on this particular episode?  Take the loss and move on.  If your client balks, tell him this is what happens if you don't follow the rules. 

 

[Sweet J]

Involved in administrative proceeding where we were subject to sanctions for not properly responding to outstanding discovery requests.  Order requires us to respond to discovery requests.

Order also says-

In addition, the Board will extend discovery for (other side) only (my emphasis) to make sure that (other side) has the opportunity to depose a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness after all written discovery responses have been produced.

Bad Guy serves more discovery.  We say "No, see order containing above statement."

He seeks relief saying he is entitled to more discovery, and administrative body says he can have more discovery and specifically states "To avoid potential ambiguity as to the unrestricted discovery period for (other side) reset at the end of the order, the Board strikes the following sentence from the order".  (The one quoted above.)

So the Board issues an order with an unambiguous sentence, we rely upon the unambiguous sentence, and then the Board says, effectively, "Oops our bad, that's not what we meant, so just strike the sentence you relied on."

What?!?!?

I realize my last post was a little harsh, so I'll try again.

I've been with a client for the last 8 years or so that is notoriously horrendous with responding to discovery.  Mostly because it is a huge entity and doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle discovery resulting from large scale litigation.  We've been sanctioned, we've been threatened with Sanction, we've been found in contempt.  It's a sh^t show.  Once the Plaintiffs smells blood, it's even worse.  They will ask for things that you know they don't want or can't really use -- they just want you to fail at producing the documents.  It's all part of the game.  It sucks, but if we could produced the documents they wanted in a timely manner, we wouldn't be in this position. 

So I understand.

But at the end of the day, you gotta do what the judge says to do.  Sounds like the Board wanted to give your opponent a chance for more discovery, but wrote the order in such a crappy and in-artful way, that it gave you some hope.  When asked to clarify, the Board clarified, saying, "whoopsie, we didn't mean to give you the impression that you won't be obligated to give more discovery; we'll just strike this sentence here."  And that's that.

One way to deal with your client is to remind them that they majorly screwed up by not complying with discovery, to the extent that they had to be sanctioned.  Do they really want to continue playing games?  If I was the Board, and I ALREADY sanctioned your client for something discovery related, I would be *extremely* perturbed to have to hear that same client b^tch at me about the extent of my order sanctioning them.  

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I realize my last post was a little harsh, so I'll try again.

I've been with a client for the last 8 years or so that is notoriously horrendous with responding to discovery.  Mostly because it is a huge entity and doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle discovery resulting from large scale litigation.  We've been sanctioned, we've been threatened with Sanction, we've been found in contempt.  It's a sh^t show.  Once the Plaintiffs smells blood, it's even worse.  They will ask for things that you know they don't want or can't really use -- they just want you to fail at producing the documents.  It's all part of the game.  It sucks, but if we could produced the documents they wanted in a timely manner, we wouldn't be in this position. 

So I understand.

But at the end of the day, you gotta do what the judge says to do.  Sounds like the Board wanted to give your opponent a chance for more discovery, but wrote the order in such a crappy and in-artful way, that it gave you some hope.  When asked to clarify, the Board clarified, saying, "whoopsie, we didn't mean to give you the impression that you won't be obligated to give more discovery; we'll just strike this sentence here."  And that's that.

One way to deal with your client is to remind them that they majorly screwed up by not complying with discovery, to the extent that they had to be sanctioned.  Do they really want to continue playing games?  If I was the Board, and I ALREADY sanctioned your client for something discovery related, I would be *extremely* perturbed to have to hear that same client b^tch at me about the extent of my order sanctioning them.  

I think this is about right.  It seems as if we are being given very little rope because of prior conduct.  I was always of the view that each matter in a case should viewed on an incident by incident basis, and the previously quoted language seemed fairly clear to me,  but it is only human nature to view the present dispute in the context of the bigger picture, which is what I think happened here.

I have no objection to being required to provide more discovery in the abstract, but this is a first for me when I have been involved in a dispute where the deciding body struck its own language from the record in order to justify a later ruling.

 

[Thorn]

I realize my last post was a little harsh, so I'll try again.

I've been with a client for the last 8 years or so that is notoriously horrendous with responding to discovery.  Mostly because it is a huge entity and doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle discovery resulting from large scale litigation.  We've been sanctioned, we've been threatened with Sanction, we've been found in contempt.  It's a sh^t show.  Once the Plaintiffs smells blood, it's even worse.  They will ask for things that you know they don't want or can't really use -- they just want you to fail at producing the documents.  It's all part of the game.  It sucks, but if we could produced the documents they wanted in a timely manner, we wouldn't be in this position. 

So I understand.

But at the end of the day, you gotta do what the judge says to do.  Sounds like the Board wanted to give your opponent a chance for more discovery, but wrote the order in such a crappy and in-artful way, that it gave you some hope.  When asked to clarify, the Board clarified, saying, "whoopsie, we didn't mean to give you the impression that you won't be obligated to give more discovery; we'll just strike this sentence here."  And that's that.

One way to deal with your client is to remind them that they majorly screwed up by not complying with discovery, to the extent that they had to be sanctioned.  Do they really want to continue playing games?  If I was the Board, and I ALREADY sanctioned your client for something discovery related, I would be *extremely* perturbed to have to hear that same client b^tch at me about the extent of my order sanctioning them.  

does that client rhyme with shank of bomerica?

 

[Sweet J]

I think this is about right.  It seems as if we are being given very little rope because of prior conduct.  I was always of the view that each matter in a case should viewed on an incident by incident basis, and the previously quoted language seemed fairly clear to me,  but it is only human nature to view the present dispute in the context of the bigger picture, which is what I think happened here.

I have no objection to being required to provide more discovery in the abstract, but this is a first for me when I have been involved in a dispute where the deciding body struck its own language from the record in order to justify a later ruling.

I've told this story before, but my crowning achievement as a lawyer (a little depressing to admit I think of it as so after 18 years of practicing) was getting away with a Big Lebowski quote in the middle of a discovery argument.

I was about 4 months on the job, at the DOJ no less, once again defending my client, who could NOT find a snowball in a f^cking blizzard, once again was late with producing the documents, after multiple orders and delays and excuses.  So we have a status conference to discuss.  Telephonic, thank god.  And I'm in a conference room with the client agency, a general counsel's attorney from the client agency, and a first year attorney at DOJ, with the Judge and the opposing counsel on the phone.  The judge is beyond pissed, and says something along the lines of.  "Counsel, what in the world is going on?  Where are the documents???  Why is there a delay?  WHY IS THIS SO COMPLICATED?"  And I have nothing, but a bunch of buffoons in the room looking at eachother. My client's general counsel was the worst.  My client looks at me and shrugs.  They don't know. I've got no real courtroom experience at this point, because I've been a lawfirm grunt for the previous 7 years, and I've been given no real training at DOJ.  I'm kind of terrified.

So I freeze.  And then I say, "Well, it's a complicated case, your honor.  Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous. Lotta strands to keep, ah . . . . ."  And I just kind of drifted off.  The phone was silent for about five or ten of the longest seconds I've ever lived through.  I think I broke the judge's brain.  She barked at me some more and gave us another stern warning and scheduled another status conference for the following week.  

It was EFFING GLORIOUS.  After the confused and baffled clients left, the first-year attorney and I were high-f^ucking-fiving in the hallways and left early to get drunk. 

Needless to say, I didn't last with the DOJ too long. Another couple years I think.  I used to have a framed prinout of the transcript because nobody believed me when I told the story, but I've moved a couple times since then and I think I lost it.

EDIT:  I know that my dates seem off, because I said that I was only at the DOJ for a couple years, but earlier I said I was with the client for 8.  That's because I moved from doj to the client agency   Best move I made in my life. 

 

[Sweet J]

does that client rhyme with shank of bomerica?

LOL.  More like Flapartment of Shinferior.

 

[thecatch]

I've told this story before, but my crowning achievement as a lawyer (a little depressing to admit I think of it as so after 18 years of practicing) was getting away with a Big Lebowski quote in the middle of a discovery argument.

I was about 4 months on the job, at the DOJ no less, once again defending my client, who could NOT find a snowball in a f^cking blizzard, once again was late with producing the documents, after multiple orders and delays and excuses.  So we have a status conference to discuss.  Telephonic, thank god.  And I'm in a conference room with the client agency, a general counsel's attorney from the client agency, and a first year attorney at DOJ, with the Judge and the opposing counsel on the phone.  The judge is beyond pissed, and says something along the lines of.  "Counsel, what in the world is going on?  Where are the documents???  Why is there a delay?  WHY IS THIS SO COMPLICATED?"  And I have nothing, but a bunch of buffoons in the room looking at eachother. My client's general counsel was the worst.  My client looks at me and shrugs.  They don't know. I've got no real courtroom experience at this point, because I've been a lawfirm grunt for the previous 7 years, and I've been given no real training at DOJ.  I'm kind of terrified.

So I freeze.  And then I say, "Well, it's a complicated case, your honor.  Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous. Lotta strands to keep, ah . . . . ."  And I just kind of drifted off.  The phone was silent for about five or ten of the longest seconds I've ever lived through.  I think I broke the judge's brain.  She barked at me some more and gave us another stern warning and scheduled another status conference for the following week.  

It was EFFING GLORIOUS.  After the confused and baffled clients left, the first-year attorney and I were high-f^ucking-fiving in the hallways and left early to get drunk. 

Needless to say, I didn't last with the DOJ too long. Another couple years I think.  I used to have a framed prinout of the transcript because nobody believed me when I told the story, but I've moved a couple times since then and I think I lost it.

EDIT:  I know that my dates seem off, because I said that I was only at the DOJ for a couple years, but earlier I said I was with the client for 8.  That's because I moved from doj to the client agency   Best move I made in my life. 

 

[-fish-]

I do almost all my basic research on google scholar these days and then use Westlaw for cite checks. Thanks, @Woz Think I may pull the trigger on ending Westlaw.

why not get a free trial of fastcase and compare?

 

[Henry Ford]

why not get a free trial of fastcase and compare?

I have fastcase free through the Louisiana Bar already.  But I just found out about bad law bot, my contract with Westlaw is up for renewal this week, and I don't have time to find out if it's really comparable.  Just looking for an opinion from someone who uses it regularly.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Checking in with the group on this one...

Received document production including meeting minutes.

Minutes say...

Spoke with attorney (and the rest is redacted)

Said attorney is not at the meeting.

Question is this...Is a non-attorney employee's characterization of a conversation with an outside attorney to other employee non-attorneys a privileged communication?

 

[Christo]

Checking in with the group on this one...

Received document production including meeting minutes.

Minutes say...

Spoke with attorney (and the rest is redacted)

Said attorney is not at the meeting.

Question is this...Is a non-attorney employee's characterization of a conversation with an outside attorney to other employee non-attorneys a privileged communication?

I wouldn't accept it as gospel. Ask for more information.

 

[Henry Ford]

@Thorn

In order to acknowledge a previously signed document in this State, a separate acknowledgement, crafted to "acknowledge" the original document, notarized by the notary, and signed by two witnesses is necessary.  Or a couple of other ways - an affidavit of acknowledgement, etc.  And even then, if it's required by law to be an authentic act, it isn't one. You can't just let someone sign and then notarize it.  Doesn't work that way, I don't know about where you are.

Good discussion if you care as much as you seemed to in the thread where you wanted to explain to me how Louisiana notary law works.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=notary+acknowledgment&hl=en&as_sdt=4,19&case=10767449879647591136&scilh=0

 

[El Floppo]

YES.. was hoping the lawyer-fight was going to spill into here... getting VISCOUS...  

 

[Henry Ford]

YES.. was hoping the lawyer-fight was going to spill into here... getting VISCOUS...  

One of the things people don't realize about Louisiana law - and it's normal not to realize it, that's why one should never practice here from another jurisdiction - is that because we don't have judicially-created law (common law) we generally have multiple statutes that address the same issue and intertwine.  On confusing subjects, there's usually a Code article (Code of Civil Procedure or Civil Code) a statute (Revised Statutes) and often a second or third statute. In this case, he's likely looking at La. R.S. 35:511 ("forms of acknowledgement").  But really, that's just the signature block for an acknowledgement.  It has to also include an acknowledging act itself (and likely other authentication) that takes the form(s) required under La. R.S. 35:12, La. R.S. 13:3720, and/or La. Civ. Code Art. 1836.

Also, I hope you mean vicious.

 

[El Floppo]

One of the things people don't realize about Louisiana law - and it's normal not to realize it, that's why one should never practice here from another jurisdiction - is that because we don't have judicially-created law (common law) we generally have multiple statutes that address the same issue and intertwine.  On confusing subjects, there's usually a Code article (Code of Civil Procedure or Civil Code) a statute (Revised Statutes) and often a second or third statute. In this case, he's likely looking at La. R.S. 35:511 ("forms of acknowledgement").  But really, that's just the signature block for an acknowledgement.  It has to also include an acknowledging act itself (and likely other authentication) that takes the form(s) required under La. R.S. 35:12, La. R.S. 13:3720, and/or La. Civ. Code Art. 1836.

Also, I hope you mean vicious.

viscous. I know words. 

 

[Henry Ford]

viscous. I know words. 

 

[El Floppo]

reread your previous post. I stand by it.

eta: I mean... the defense rests

 

[Henry Ford]

reread your previous post. I stand by it.

"I plead the third."

 

[Thorn]

@Thorn

In order to acknowledge a previously signed document in this State, a separate acknowledgement, crafted to "acknowledge" the original document, notarized by the notary, and signed by two witnesses is necessary.  Or a couple of other ways - an affidavit of acknowledgement, etc.  And even then, if it's required by law to be an authentic act, it isn't one. You can't just let someone sign and then notarize it.  Doesn't work that way, I don't know about where you are.

Good discussion if you care as much as you seemed to in the thread where you wanted to explain to me how Louisiana notary law works.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=notary+acknowledgment&hl=en&as_sdt=4,19&case=10767449879647591136&scilh=0

You're not offering a google search to prove your point, are you?  

 

[Henry Ford]

You're not offering a google search to prove your point, are you?  

Sorry, let me explain. 

Google Scholar is a case search system.  It's discussed above in the thread.  I'm offering you a case that explains Louisiana law on the issue.  If you'd like to continue to educate me on what I do for a living, though, I'll be here.

 

[El Floppo]

YES

 

[Thorn]

Sorry, let me explain. 

Google Scholar is a case search system.  It's discussed above in the thread.  I'm offering you a case that explains Louisiana law on the issue.  If you'd like to continue to educate me on what I do for a living, though, I'll be here.

I thought I was to trust an experienced practitioner, not a google search.  Although it would be the same practitioner who contends that "everyone should know" that a document cannot be notarized if it was not signed in the presence of the notary (false, at least as a blanket statement, and probably as to most states), and yet at the same time contends that no one can know what he knows about his state's laws.

 

[Henry Ford]

I thought I was to trust an experienced practitioner, not a google search.  Although it would be the same practitioner who contends that "everyone should know" that a document cannot be notarized if it was not signed in the presence of the notary (false, at least as a blanket statement, and probably as to most states), and yet at the same time contends that no one can know what he knows about his state's laws.

A case search isn't the same thing as a google search.

People should know that if they need something notarized they should sign in front of a notary.  Importantly, because any form document that needs to be signed in front of a notary doesn't have room to create a new signature block for acknowledgement, which means the notary has to put together a new form for acknowledgement purposes if that's what's happening.

I didn't say no one can know whether to sign in front of a notary, I said a lawyer from outside my jurisdiction taking a glance at a statute won't know that it isn't the complete picture and therefore might become a belligerent dunderhead trying to explain things about Louisiana law to me and just be flat out wrong.

 

[El Floppo]

LINK

 

[TakiToki]

Link

 

[Thorn]

A case search isn't the same thing as a google search.

People should know that if they need something notarized they should sign in front of a notary.  Importantly, because any form document that needs to be signed in front of a notary doesn't have room to create a new signature block for acknowledgement, which means the notary has to put together a new form for acknowledgement purposes if that's what's happening.

I didn't say no one can know whether to sign in front of a notary, I said a lawyer from outside my jurisdiction taking a glance at a statute won't know that it isn't the complete picture and therefore might become a belligerent dunderhead trying to explain things about Louisiana law to me and just be flat out wrong.

The bolded just isn't true, at least not universally.  

And Belligerent Dunderhead is the name of my Fartbarf tribute album, please only use it with permission, TIA.  

 

[Henry Ford]

The bolded just isn't true, at least not universally.  

And Belligerent Dunderhead is the name of my Fartbarf tribute album, please only use it with permission, TIA.  

I'm not really concerned with whether it's necessary on Mars, as I only practice in Louisiana. 

 

[El Floppo]

link

 

[-fish-]

Since this is an offshoot of the "everyone should know" thing, shouldn't all lawyers know that everything may be applicable except in Louisiana?  I would just assume that everything I know about law and common sense doesn't apply there.  If HF told me a notary had to spin around counterclockwise three times before acknowledging a document or that it could only be stamped with ink made from the blood of a chicken sacrificed during a full moon, I'd just defer to him and move on.

 

[Christo]

Yeah, Looziana civil law is one step removed from voodoo.

 

[Henry Ford]

Since this is an offshoot of the "everyone should know" thing, shouldn't all lawyers know that everything may be applicable except in Louisiana?  I would just assume that everything I know about law and common sense doesn't apply there.  If HF told me a notary had to spin around counterclockwise three times before acknowledging a document or that it could only be stamped with ink made from the blood of a chicken sacrificed during a full moon, I'd just defer to him and move on.

I live for having opposing counsel admitted pro hac vice in this state. 

 

[Zow]

I know that Louisiana has a completely different system, but, (surprisingly?) Woz, who has been to Law School, did not

What's this now? When did I say this? 

ETA: I can't imagine that I've ever suggested that LA was not a code law state or significantly different from other jurisdictions. Not following why all of a sudden I'm being tossed into this. 

 

[Zow]

I live for having opposing counsel admitted pro hac vice in this state. 

Surprised it's even allowed. 

 

[Zow]

You're not offering a google search to prove your point, are you?  

What's so wrong with google scholar?

 

[Zow]

Definitely an ancient thread where you whiffed on realizing LA had the Napoleonic code. Seems to be archived or lost to the purge though, but, it happened.

Edit: Found it here :notebook:

Can't argue with the notebook. I concede I was kind of a moron from 2006-2008. That had to be like a day or too before the bar, too. I do see a couple posts later I said I forgot. I'm sure that was the case, despite my initial reaction. 

Also, you're video guy?

 

[-fish-]

I concede I was kind of a moron from 2006-2008.

props.  self-awareness needs to start somewhere.

 

[-fish-]

Semi-related:  any of you ever look at old motions you wrote like 10 or more years ago?   I had an issue come up recently that I vaguely remembered briefing long ago.  I found the case, downloaded the briefing and holy hell I overbriefed the living #### out of the thing. It was thorough, but I had citations for everything and made the argument way overly complicated based on my fear of missing something.  Today it would have been half as long and twice as persuasive.

 

[Henry Ford]

Semi-related:  any of you ever look at old motions you wrote like 10 or more years ago?   I had an issue come up recently that I vaguely remembered briefing long ago.  I found the case, downloaded the briefing and holy hell I overbriefed the living #### out of the thing. It was thorough, but I had citations for everything and made the argument way overly complicated based on my fear of missing something.  Today it would have been half as long and twice as persuasive.

Yeah.  I pulled a maritime brief on appurtenances to a vessel for Jones Act purposes from 2008 the other day.  It was about 20 pages. Could have been argued in three for that case.  Oops.

At least I have a representative brief for any issue dealing with appurtenances ever. 

 

[Zow]

Semi-related:  any of you ever look at old motions you wrote like 10 or more years ago?   I had an issue come up recently that I vaguely remembered briefing long ago.  I found the case, downloaded the briefing and holy hell I overbriefed the living #### out of the thing. It was thorough, but I had citations for everything and made the argument way overly complicated based on my fear of missing something.  Today it would have been half as long and twice as persuasive.

I wrote some really detailed, long motions and briefs ten years ago as an intern/student practitioner.  I'd include footnotes, references to treatises and articles, etc.   Really enjoyed the work, actually.  

A couple days ago I wrote a full motion to suppress in under two hours.  It was basically "cop saw her driving and thought she was speeding because her car leaned around a turn, but that's not reasonable suspicion for a stop because he didn't radar her, pace her speed, or even visually estimate her speed, and she didn't swerve out of the lane; so suppress all the subsequent DUI evidence because fruits of the poisonous tree" with a few cases on point tossed in.  I think it was maybe three pages.   Oddly enough, I'm pretty confident it gets the point across and the judge will appreciate its brevity and limiting of the issues. 

 

[mrip541]

Moved into my new place yesterday. Immediately noticed the whole building vibrates when the express subway goes by every few min. Realized the sellers only gave us access during times that particular train wasn't running (weekends plus one weekday where service happened to be suspended). The vibration is strong enough that everything in the cabinets and one of the window frames rattle. I'm incredibly pissed at them and at myself.

 

[Zow]

Moved into my new place yesterday. Immediately noticed the whole building vibrates when the express subway goes by every few min. Realized the sellers only gave us access during times that particular train wasn't running (weekends plus one weekday where service happened to be suspended). The vibration is strong enough that everything in the cabinets and one of the window frames rattle. I'm incredibly pissed at them and at myself.

John Doe has the upper hand now. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Lesson for all you youngings and people going to law school....

When your adversary calls your office to leave a message at 4am in the morning because his wife is having emergency surgery and he will be missing the court appearance in the morning, the correct response is to call the court and back up your adversary no matter the case and consent to an adjournment. 

The inappropriate response is to call your adversaries office and say too bad I'm doing the hearing without you and he can appear by phone from the hospital.

Because the second response makes you an ####### of the highest order and will come back to bite you in a big way. And you will deserve it.

 

[Christo]

Lesson for all you youngings and people going to law school....

When your adversary calls your office to leave a message at 4am in the morning because his wife is having emergency surgery and he will be missing the court appearance in the morning, the correct response is to call the court and back up your adversary no matter the case and consent to an adjournment. 

The inappropriate response is to call your adversaries office and say too bad I'm doing the hearing without you and he can appear by phone from the hospital.

Because the second response makes you an ####### of the highest order and will come back to bite you in a big way. And you will deserve it.

WTF? Can you imagine what the judge thought of the guy? 

>Your honor, my opponent has the temerity to be with his wife while she's undergoing surgery. But I'm prepared to proceed.

>Do you want to re-think your position, counselor?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

WTF? Can you imagine what the judge thought of the guy? 

>Your honor, my opponent has the temerity to be with his wife while she's undergoing surgery. But I'm prepared to proceed.

>Do you want to re-think your position, counselor?

I think that is how it went. Almost verbatim.  Although I'm pretty sure my adversary doesn't  have the vocabulary necessary to use a word like temerity. 

 

[Zow]

Lesson for all you youngings and people going to law school....

When your adversary calls your office to leave a message at 4am in the morning because his wife is having emergency surgery and he will be missing the court appearance in the morning, the correct response is to call the court and back up your adversary no matter the case and consent to an adjournment. 

The inappropriate response is to call your adversaries office and say too bad I'm doing the hearing without you and he can appear by phone from the hospital.

Because the second response makes you an ####### of the highest order and will come back to bite you in a big way. And you will deserve it.

Had I not previously known that you did family law, I would have now correctly guessed that your main area of practice is family law. 

Actually had a client nearly fire me a few months back in this almost exact same scenario because I wouldn't do the bolded (except it was the attorney himself in the hospital - and the guy nearly died and hasn't practiced since).  

 

[Zow]

WTF? Can you imagine what the judge thought of the guy? 

>Your honor, my opponent has the temerity to be with his wife while she's undergoing surgery. But I'm prepared to proceed.

>Do you want to re-think your position, counselor?

I once appeared as courtesy for a colleague on an after-the-restitution hearing.  That colleague was in the Cancer Treatment Center of America.  I, of course, update the court, move to withdraw on behalf of the attorney, and request continuance and appointment of counsel for the defendant.  Young prosecutor wants to proceed forward and suggests the defendant merely stipulate.  Judge looks at prosecutor with one eye brow raised and asks whether the prosecutor caught that the defense counsel of record was literally in a cancer treatment center of America and asked the prosecutor what he expected coverage counsel (me) to do since I didn't know the case. Kid wised up and got the message and withdraw his position and agreed to continue. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Had I not previously known that you did family law, I would have now correctly guessed that your main area of practice is family law. 

Actually had a client nearly fire me a few months back in this almost exact same scenario because I wouldn't do the bolded (except it was the attorney himself in the hospital - and the guy nearly died and hasn't practiced since).  

 Yup family case

 

[Zow]

I think that is how it went. Almost verbatim.  Although I'm pretty sure my adversary doesn't  have the vocabulary necessary to use a word like temerity. 

That's crazy.  Some attorneys need to learn that we aren't just mouthpieces hired to yell and scream but use more intelligent words while taking the same unreasonable positions as our clients. Especially in family law. 

 

[Zow]

 Yup family case

I would have bet every dollar I have and will ever have that it was.  

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I would have bet every dollar I have and will ever have that it was.  

It really is remarkable.  I have another adversary in a contract case that heard what is going on.  We have a trial call in a week.  He emailed me and said if I need any kind of extension he will write letter.