Archive for the ‘Fun with Law’ Category

The American Bar Association has published its 5th Annual Blawg 100 list, naming its picks for the one hundred best blogs dealing with legal issues. (Law + blog = blawg. Get it? Ha!)

For the fifth straight year, I am not on the list.

This gives me reason to believe that the American Bar Association knows what it is doing and is an excellent judge of blog quality.

The always-intriguing and entertaining Popehat has put out his nominees for the “Censorious Asshat of the Year,” and the field is indeed proud. I am of course reblogging this for reas0ns, but I invite my reader(s) to take a look at the whole list and marvel at the human capacity for inanity.

To those who would use our hallowed legal system to try to quiet the voices of  those who would dare to hurt their fee-fees, intentionally or not, I simply have this to say:

Photo credit: The Thinker… by law_keven on Flickr.

I have been writing haiku for fun and to annoy my fellow man since I learned of the medium in middle school. A few weeks ago I wrote up a few legal haikus in response to a contest hosted by the Texas Bar Appellate Law Section. I am proud to say that my poetic and legal creative powers have now received their due recognition. I didn’t win anything tangible, but receiving an honorable mention from a group of people I mostly don’t know, in a state bar section to which I don’t belong, in an area of law I have never practiced, is all the victory I need. At least where legal haiku is concerned.

Check me out on page 2:

Law is a conservative profession, in that it is rarely given to huge leaps of fancy or whimsy. English common law has given us a system based on precedent, where the challenges and disputes of the present are resolved using the solutions of the past. Innovation comes slowly, and the writing tends to be both precise and ponderous. No one reads legal briefs or law journals for the lulz.

Every so often, though, a judge comes along who challenges the notion of a staid, unflappable jurist. Today, I take a moment to salute the Honorable Sam Sparks, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. (Full disclosure: I am licensed to practice in the Western District of Texas, I think, but I do not have any cases in Judge Sparks’ court and do not intend to file any. Therefore, there is really no need for full disclosure. Never mind.)

Lawyers who practice in federal court in Austin generally know that Judge Sparks does not abide tomfoolery in his courtroom. Despite conventional wisdom, every so often lawyers who should really know better decide to bring questionable motions in his court, and his responses and resulting orders ought to be forever recorded in the annals of legal history.

Above the Law, as with so many stories, has a good overview of some Sparks gems. In 2004 he compared bickering lawyers to kindergarteners, and in 2007 he issued an order in rhyming couplets, complete with this conclusion:

There will be a hearing with pablum to eat

And a very cool cell where you can meet

AND WORK OUT YOUR INFANTILE PROBLEM WITH THE DEPOSITION.

My personal favorite story out of his courtroom comes from recent news and involves litigation over Texas’ new ultrasound-before-abortion law. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in federal court in June seeking to block the new law from taking effect (read the original complaint). The defendants in the case are the individuals and agencies that will be charged with enforcing the new law: David Lakey, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services; Mari Robinson, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board; and David Escamilla, County Attorney for Travis County. Seems pretty straightforward–group opposes a new law, so sues the state officials in charge of enacting it–and uncontroversial, at least procedurally, right?

Oh, silly, silly reader(s)….

Have you forgotten that this is Texas?

Not content to allow this lawsuit to proceed in the same fashion as any other lawsuit filed in America, the two sponsors of the bill, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, and Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, asked leave of the court to file amicus briefs supporting the law. On August 9, 2011, Judge Sparks said no (PDF):

Both parties in this case are well-represented by competent and diligent counsel, and neither they nor this Court needs assistance from Senator Patrick or Representative Miller–particularly when much of their “assistance” is nothing more than thinly-veiled rhetoric. This is a federal lawsuit about the constitutionality of a statute, not a soapbox for politicians or a sounding board for public opinion. The Court is confident counsel in this case can protect their clients’ interests all by themselves.

Judge Sparks did not even have to make that rhyme to make it sting. A mere three days later, on August 12, he similarly rejected an attempt by other Texas legislators to intervene in the case (PDF):

[C]ounsel for the parties are more than capable of advocating for their clients’ positions without outside input. This is especially true where, as here, that input comes in the form of, among other things, commentary by legislators on “the clear legislative intent of H.B. 15′s severability clause.”

If the severability clause is as clear as the Representatives indicate, their interpretive assistance will not be required. And if it is not, it would be unhelpful, if not improper, for the Court to look to statements made by a subset of the Legislature, in a document prepared for the purposes of litigation, to determine legislative intent. (Citations omitted)

Thankfully, that put an end to the chicanery, and the case has been able to proceed according to normal court procedures. Just kidding! San Antonio attorney Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation (I’m not linking to them) also requested leave to intervene in the case, and he decided to do a little show and tell with his motion (specifically a picture of a “first-trimester aborted child” according to his own list of exhibits.) On August 23, Judge Sparks took his polite gloves off and went right to it (PDF, of course):

The Court has already turned down two extremely tempting offers to transform this case from a boring old federal lawsuit into an exciting, politically-charged media circus. As any competent attorney could have predicted, the Court declines the latest invitation as well.

However, the Court is forced to conclude Allan E. Parker, Jr., the attorney whose signature appears on this motion, is anything but competent. A competent attorney would not have filed this motion in the first place; if he did, he certainly would not have attached exhibits that are both highly prejudicial and legally irrelevant; and if he foolishly did both things, he surely would not be so unprofessional as to file such exhibits unsealed. A competent attorney who did these things would be deliberately disrespecting this Court and knowingly shirking his professional responsibilties, offenses for which he would be lucky to retain his bar card, much less an intact bank balance.

I have no involvement in this case at all, and yet my stomach did a few lurches reading that part of the order because I can imagine the horror of having a federal judge that mad at me, and the possible implications of that. Yes, Judge Sparks called the man incompetent, and he did it a lot. Moral of the story: if you come into Judge Sparks’ courtroom with weak arguments that he has already dismissed, you will not leave with your dignity. You might not leave with your bar card. You might not leave as financially whole as when you arrived. You might not leave at all.

Okay, that last part was an exaggeration. You’ll get to leave eventually.

This week, we have a different case (h/t Mike Johnson), involving two attorneys who may have just done something really dumb, or may have had the misfortune of doing something kind of dumb with a judge fresh off of his Allan Parker-fueled disdain for shenanigans in his courtroom. Either way, the hammer dropped on attorneys Jonathan L. Woods and Travis Barton, who have been invited ordered to attend Judge Sparks’ “kindergarten party” on September 1 in his courtroom, covering topics such as how to properly plan and schedule depositions and how not to waste a federal court’s time for being “unable to practice law at the level of a first-year law student.”

Courts have a pretty specific purpose, and they have limited resources to achieve that purpose. The purpose is to resolve disputes, and to do so as efficiently as possible. Many Austin lawyers have horror stories about Judge Sparks (and no, I’m not telling any here),  but I applaud the effort to keep idiocy out of the courtroom, and to do it with some flair. I salute Judge Sparks and his brand of don’t-*******-with-me-in-my-courtroom jurisprudence.

That said, I know full well that if I ever argued a case in his courtroom, he would eat me for breakfast and use my bones for toothpicks at lunch. And I’m okay with that.

The State Bar of Texas Appellate Section is hosting a “Twitter Brief Competition” in preparation for its annual meeting in September. It’s exactly what it sounds like: craft an appellate argument in 140 characters or less.

Be honest, this is the moment the legal profession has been dreaming of. No more verbose jargon! No more impenetrable legalese! An end to “heretofore” and “thereunder”! Short prepositions only!

But seriously, it seems like some lawyers might have an edge in this competition. Section co-chair Anne Johnson seems to agree:

“My initial observations is we may see some generational differences,” Johnson says. She explains: “People who are used to posting on Twitter are going to have an advantage.” There’s another commonality among many competing Tweets so far: They focus on a “theme of waiver,” Johnson says. For example: “Honorable court, the claim has been waived. Respectfully submitted, appellee,” says Johnson, adding: “That’s an argument that is pretty simple and can be said pretty quickly.”

Personally, I would prefer to see an appellate haiku competition. Here are a few of my own:

The appellee lacked

Standing to sue, and venue

Was improper too.

The First Amendment

Dictates dismissal of this

Meritless action.

Appellee tried this

Once before, and did not win:

Res judicata.

This Court can review

Just abuse of discretion.

No de novo here.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see if practicing law by Twitter catches on.

Fiverr.com is a terribly entertaining site, where artists, designers, programmers, and other enterprising individuals sell a variety of services for $5.00.

I obtained this drawing from a Fiverr seller, for example:

Now, I have decided to offer some variants of my legal training to Fiverr users, by offering some legal jargon on demand. More offers to follow, I’m sure.

Today’s post is from a guest blogger, the Legalese Generator:

Key employees, or other paper or the Company will be furnished by the event royalty by the recitals or mental disability shall be disclosed under the Plan have personal collection upon which the parties HEREBY and as aforesaid parties hereto, without negligence has been established on the Committee may also to the right to be registered Warrants in accordance with respect of the Date such date. As expressly noted herein. Amendment to the Company, be made in the proceeds of the acceleration of his work duties of manufacturing and shall be ignored if any), and all of the Warrant Agent is currently receiving benefits from any other information as the Stock Option granted hereunder; and decision shall be merged or more beneficiaries to initiate any other compensation PLAN may be assigned, sold or longer. This Plan, and conditions, not be evidenced thereby circumventing this Agreement. The Warrant certificates to time by the Committee so authenticated by promissory notes or the balance converted to such loans available resources to the consent of the laws of the extent not directly interfere with any other agent. (a) The corporate Bond rate. Section 3.1 and exclusive and the Corporation. The death (or any deferral account, together with the premises and binding upon with the Stock in writing its remaining after grant. (b) The form of the Committee. Stock were not be made with the shares subject to the acquisition by the Company expects such shares of its sole and all or shall mean the Stock Options and CHARACTERS (IMAGE) cannot be released at any communications containing terms of the Licensee shall execute, acknowledge and , as to subcontract, use of Exercise price of this User Agreement and the Committee may consult with the Purchaser, the scope of the following MUTUAL COVENANTS or for which the Internal Revenue Code of the forgoing, this User Agreement may be addressed to be canceled, modified, amended from time a sum sufficient to be subject to become payable to such notice of the Offered Debt Securities or access to anyone else for such exchange [or transfer]. (d) METHOD OF the Committee may deem advisable; to such terms and biological parents that it in writing by the earliest   to the Date the public. (E) Certain Conditions.

You can have your own bit of legal gibberish too!

BlogathonATX, Saturday, October 1, 2011.

I’ll be there. Are you cool enough?

Every so often a judge comes along with a razor wit that puts much of the confrontational silliness of our adversarial legal system into proper perspective. For a long time, Judge Sam Kent of Galveston, Texas filled that role: “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.”

Today, we have Judge Martin Sheehan of Kenton County, Kentucky, who expressed poetic elation at the settlement of what must have been a nasty lawsuit:

Kenton Circuit Judge Martin Sheehan said in an order issued last month that he was “happier than a tick on a fat dog” that a settlement had been reached in a lawsuit over a contract dispute, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

In the order canceling the trial, which had been set for July 13, Sheehan wrote the court is “busier than a one-legged cat in a sand box and, quite frankly, would rather have jumped naked off of a twelve foot step ladder into a five gallon bucket of porcupines than have presided over a two week trial of the herein dispute, a trial which, no doubt, would have made the jury more confused than a hungry baby in a topless bar and made the parties and their attorneys madder than mosquitoes in a mannequin factory.”

The newspaper said Sheehan and attorneys in the case either declined to comment about the order or did not return calls.

Clearly the judge made a mistake when he chose law school over that creative writing course.

(Full order available here.)

Sometimes it is nice to have a judge call out a situation like he sees it. Mind you, I don’t know that background of this case, but I can imagine frustration with overwhelmingly vast disputes run amok through the courthouse. It’s heartening to see a judge with a sense of humor, but it’s also a bit sad to see how badly we seem to need humor coming out of our legal system, as Judge Sheehan himself notes:

Sheehan said he was taken aback by the volume of calls regarding Kissel v. Schwartz & Maines & Ruby Co et al. In the week since Sheehan distributed the ruling to the attorneys, his office had been contacted by news outlets in Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago and New York, he said.

“It’s a sad comment on the legal profession,” Sheehan said. “A judge puts a little humor in the judicial opinion, and it goes viral.”

For my part, I say keep the snark coming.

Via Pharyngula, we get the story of a small-town Texas bar owner squaring off against a local church:

In a small Texas town, (Mt. Vernon ) Drummond’s bar began construction on a new building to increase their business.. The local Baptist church started a campaign to block the bar from opening with petitions and prayers. Work progressed right up till the week before opening when lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground.

The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means.

The church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building’s demise in its reply to the court.

As the case made its way into court, the judge looked over the paperwork. At the hearing he commented, “I don’t know how I’m going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not.”

This story seems to be popping up all over the interwebz of late, although the site linked by Pharyngula is down as of this writing. Alas, the story does not appear to actually be true. According to Snopes:

Our earliest sighting of the item comes from a July 2007 blog post, where the incident was presented as having happened in “a small, Midwestern conservative town” (rather thanMt. Vernon, Texas) to a lightning-struck watering hole identified solely as “a new tavern” (rather than “Drummond’s Bar”).

The story isn’t supposed to be read as relating something that happened in real life; it’s a modern day admonition to churchgoers not to allow transient secular needs to get in the way of their faith. What a person believes or will stand up for shouldn’t change because there’s a monetary factor involved; otherwise, it’s not true belief. As the fictional judge points out, there is something untoward about a congregation so willing to put worldly matters first that it denies it believes in prayer.

While the tale is an exaggeration of its underlying moral, that overstatement is a way of prompting folks to measure the contents of their hearts against those of the fictional congregation to see if they themselves aren’t at times engaging in a bit of religious distancing. Do they set aside their faith, and their pride in it, when faith becomes inconvenient? Or do they stand up for their beliefs and proudly proclaim them, even when doing so is to their disadvantage, financial or otherwise?

That’s too bad. I would have loved to have seen a witness list and deposition notices.