In law school, you read a whole bunch of cases in really big casebooks. One could build an effective exercise program by utilizing casebooks. They probably weigh five or ten pounds each so one could get an effective workout. Most of them are pretty dull, except for the ones written by judges who let loose standards of decorum taught in most Lawyering classes. The "fair and objective" standard of writing that tries to avoid sounding too confrontational or overbearing. This is an area that I tend to have problems with, as I tend to stray towards the "objectionable" side of legal writing. I always want to insert in snide comments. Which makes my only outlet the Brief-Brief at this moment. Or this blog.
I recently stumbled onto some cases that read like Simon Cowell of American Idol fame wrote them. One justice in particular, Judge Samuel Kent of the US District Court writes some real zingers. For instance, in Labor Force, Inc. v. Jacintoport Corp., 144 F. Supp. 2d 740 (D. Tex. 2001), he writes:
His opinion in Bradshaw v. Unity Marine, Corp., 147 F. Supp. 2d 668 (D. Tex. 2001) is loaded with scathing quotes that make both lawyers look like total fools:"A]ny person with even a correspondence-course level understanding of federal practice and procedure would recognize that Defendant's Motion is patently insipid, ludicrous and utterly unequivocally without any merit whatsoever. Worse, it is just plain blatantly wrong in light of the unambiguous language of a decades old federal statute and veritable mountains of case law
addressing venue propriety."
Here is his view of the Defendant's Motion:"Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact--complete with hats, handshakes, and cryptic words--to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gray-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefings would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor's edge sense of exhilaration, the court begins."
He lambasts the Plaintiff's counsel with equal vigor. Apparently, the counsel did a lousy job of doing proper legal research:"Defendant begins the descent into Alice's Wonderland by submitting a Motion that relies upon only one legal authority…. Defendant, however, does not cite to Erie, but to a mere successor case, and further fails to even begin to analyze why the Court should approach the shores of Erie…. A more bumbling approach is difficult to conceive--but wait folks, There's more!"
"Naturally, Plaintiff also neglects to provide any analysis whatsoever of why his claim versus Defendant Phillips is a maritime action. Instead, Plaintiff 'cites' to a single case from the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiff's citation, however, points to a nonexistent Volume '1886' of the Federal Reporter
Third Edition and neglects to provide a pinpoint citation for what, after being located, turned out to be a forty-page decision…. The court cannot even begin to comprehend why this case was selected for reference. It is almost as if Plaintiff's counsel chose this opinion by throwing long range darts at the Federal Reporter (remarkably enough hitting a nonexistent volume!)."
"…[T]he Court commends Plaintiff for his vastly improved choice of crayon--Brick Red is much easier on the eye than Goldenrod, and stands out much better amidst the mustard splotches about Plaintiff's briefing. But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call if Florence, a pig is still a pig."His footnotes are even better:
"n3 Take heed and be suitably awed, oh boys and girls--the Court was able to state the issue and its resolution in one paragraph…despite dozens of pages of gibberish from the parties to the contrary!"
"n4 In either case, the Court cautions Plaintiff's counsel not to run with a sharpened writing utensil
in hand--he could put his eye out."
Pure genius. Or this paragraph from US v. Martin, just decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which looks questionably on government lawyers. There is no cite available at this moment:
"In fact, at oral argument counsel for the United States was asked if he could explain to the Court what types of offenses or common planning the government would concede to be related for the purposes of sentencing. Counsel had no idea. Instead, counsel spoke of such sophisticated planning that it believes is required under our case law that, in my opinion, only two types of criminals would be able to benefit from it: (1) perhaps a white collar criminal who keeps detailed records of the entire plan or (2) the James Bond movie villain, who prior to carrying out some grand scheme of world domination/annihilation, feels compelled to explain to anyone who will listen and in great detail (with intermittent villainous guffaws), each of the steps necessary to achieve his plan."
But snide remarks are not limited to the opinion. Footnotes, as seen above, can be a goldmine, especially when they quote movies. This lovely opinion from the US Bankruptcy Court has a footnote quoting from the classic Adam Sandler film, Billy Madison. What will they think of next?
That's all for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment