Have Read the Bob Murray V. John Oliver Legal Papers?

You know how it is. There is no explanation how you come across something on the internet. Some source called the ACLU filing in this case the snarkiest legal brief ever. It is. Especially the photos.

Please enjoy.

“they clutched their pearls and filed this suit.”

this is one of the most entertaining legal paper i have read in quite some time.

Back in November Murray dropped the suit. Oliver reacted predictably. And it was good.


I also liked this bit:
"Anyone Can Legally Say ‘Eat Shit, Bob!’
This case is beyond meritless. It is offensive to the very ideals of free speech embodied in the First Amendment. The fact that Plaintiffs filed this case is ridiculous enough; but, to pour gasoline on the fire, plaintiffs’ counsel has also filed a motion asking the court to make John Oliver not say mean things about him anymore. See Pl.’s Mot. [Docket 1-1]. It is frankly shocking that Plaintiffs were able to find attorneys willing to file a lawsuit that is so obviously unconstitutional.

It is apt that one of Plaintiffs’ objections to the show is about a human-sized squirrell named Mr. Nutterbutter, because this case is nuts. Which also begs the question: is Mr. Nutterbutter one of the 50 Doe Defendants included in this action?"

I imagine that normally legal briefs are dry and really boring to draft, so being able to write something like this has to be fun.

I agree that the complaint is absolutely meritless. However, I am not a fan of these type of snark in a legal brief. It’s not because I’m old fashioned and think it should be more professional, but for practical reasons.

As an attorney, you don’t know the thoughts of the judge. Unless the judge is already 100% on your side, the judge may not appreciate you taking the process as your attempt at a comedy club. If the judge is already on your side, then the snark wasn’t necessary. Either way, you are potentially hurting your client just to take a jab at the other side.

Wasn’t this a friend of the court type, third-party brief?

Yes. But you still hurt your preferred side if the judge isn’t already on your side.

I’d be rather disappointed if a judge genuinely considers the style of prose when weighing a legal brief. I think your concern is unfounded.

The judge isn’t considering your “style of prose.” If the judge is balancing the competing arguments and attempting to come to a decision and you come along shitting all over and mocking the rationale of the other side as if a person has to be an idiot to even consider the argument, the judge, considering the argument, will think that you haven’t thought through all of the possible issues as you show a complete disdain for the other side.