Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. 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 gravy-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 briefing 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.
Thanks for the link – there’s lots more in the full judgment. Example:
Defendant begins the descent into Alice’s Wonderland by submitting a Motion that relies upon only one legal authority. The Motion cites a Fifth Circuit case which stands for the whopping proposition that a federal court sitting in Texas applies the Texas statutes of limitations to certain state and federal law claims … That is all well and good – the Court is quite fond of the Erie doctrine; indeed there is talk of little else around both the Canal and this Court’s water cooler. Defendant, however, does not even 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. Finally, Defendant does not even provide a cite to its desired Texas limitation statute. A more bumbling approach is difficult to conceive – but wait folks, There’s More …
I think maybe the judge is trying to follow in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia, although if so he’s kind of missing the point. Scalia, despite his reprehensible legal opinions, was fairly adept with the English language and, outside the court, would sometimes engage in playful linguistic banter with William Safire. But AFAIK he didn’t engage in that kind of sarcastic ridicule of those making arguments before the Court; he was mostly known for using biting and picturesque language in his dissents.
I rather appreciate a judge using playful language, but I do agree that he’s abusing his authority with his gratuitous put-downs of counsel on both sides. It’s pretty funny, though!
Yes, putting on the record for anyone to see that you think a couple of lawyers are incompetent, using your position as a public officer, appointed to be fair to everyone who comes before you, to mock them mercilessly, in a way that you are immune from any sanctions, is a real knee-slapper.
We had a judge here who issued a similar derogatory judgment, supposedly humourous, denigrating counsel for a minor procedural slip-up. Two weeks later he issued an addendum, essentially apologizing. Rumour at the bar was that if he hadn’t issued the apology, there would have been a complaint to the Judicial Council. I don’t know if that was true, but it was circulating.
The tone is certainly mocking. Unprofessionally so.
But what are the alternatives? Dismiss Phillips’ motion for summary judgement for failure to adequately support their legally correct position? That seems only to reward the plaintiff for an equally inadequate response. File Bar complaints against both for something akin to abuse of process or contempt of court for very lousy workmanship? Bring both parties into chambers and yell at them together (or separately) in private off the record?
IANA attorney so have no idea of what’s the “going rate” for judicial response to stand-out shoddy workmanship. Perhaps our judge laid it on too thick, but his intent may have been a rebuke that, although on the record, was intended to be so over-the-top as to be seen as genuinely humorous, not merely splenetic, and best of all was not part of a Bar disciplinary process. Further, the plaintiff’s attorney was now thoroughly on notice to up his game for the real trial to come.
“Critique the post, not the poster” is just as valid for a judge as a poster on the SDMB. The judge can explain the defects in the materials, why they don’t comply with the rules, why they don’t raise a justiciable cause, without engaging in mockery of sarcasm.
We had a judge in our High Court who loved dissing om Counsel. He enjoyed asking you if you realised that you had a weak case, (no, My Lord, I had a sleepless night for no reason ) and the more he could dish it the better. He once reduced a female Advocate to tears on the rostrum, which led to a very senior Counsel standing up and calling him out in an open Court.
Eventually he was assigned by the Chief judge to purely administrative duties, which turned out to be an even bigger disaster.
I don’t mean to be defending the judge as such. Mostly trying to find some way he might, against all odds, not actually be the power-mad douchebag he appears to be.
The judge does come across as an ass, and a bully. But he isn’t alone. Judges Posner and Easterbrook on the 7th were complete asses.
One of the toughest thing about being a judge is developing a thick skin, and learning to keep your damn mouth shut. Any competent lawyer might have difficulty comprehending the challenge and frustration of having lazy, incompetent lawyers appear before you - especially if they are frequent fliers in your jurisdiction. Your judicial ethics constrain your commenting honestly on their efforts. And you are rightly concerned about penalizing the party for their lawyer’s actions.
Depending on the jurisdiction, a judge may be limited in their responses to insufficient, unclear, or even burdensome pleadings, submissions, and presentations. This judge probably should have written something like, “The attorneys’ efforts were of no assistance to the court.” And left it at that. If permitted, he could have reported them to the bar association, but I have little/no respect for my state’s bar association in addressing such matters. Finally, some jurisdictions have procedures to bar practitioners from practicing in that jurisdiction.
But this clown wanted to be noticed. I empathize, but he was wrong.
The advice I’ve given to friends appointed to the bench: “For the first six months, before going into court in the morning, write ‘STFU’ on your pen hand where you’ll see it: ‘Shut the Fuck Up’. “
Counsel can sometimes get their own back, over here at least. FE Smith was noted for his bluntness, and it is said that once, having been reminded of the formal courtesies, he addressed a dithering judge with “IF… Your Lordship would be pleased to make up what Your Lordship is pleased to regard as Your Lordship’s mind…?”