Kalman posted:

Also TBH it might just have been a “gently caress you for defending these shitbags” at Jones’ counsel.

ActusRhesus posted:

We have a private defense attorney we get along with who we know will put on the dog and pony show and bang the table when his client is around. But when it’s just us he chills out.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

quote:

9. On December 15, 2016, the parties appeared before Judge Valderrama for a presentment hearing on the motion to compel, described in paragraph 7, above, in case number 15 CH 12061, at which time Judge Valderrama granted Respondent’s request to file a written response to the motion to compel, set forth a date certain by which that response should be filed, and admonished Respondent for the statements he made, including the statements referenced in paragraphs 3 and 5, above, and his conduct during the November 10, 2016 deposition.

10. On December 22, 2016, Respondent filed Green’s response to American Freedom’s motion to compel in case number 15 CH 12061. In the response, Respondent set forth his position that the statements he made during the November 10, 2016 deposition were in reaction to KH’s "bullying and improper questions," and "general angry tone." In the response, Respondent also made the following statements:

a. "In fact, I would have apologized when the Court raised the issue of these comments on December 15, but the court, in its anger, refused to let this counsel speak and further made comments attempting to hold me to the statement made in the deposition."

b. "However, on December 15, 2015 [sic], Judge Valderamma [sic] flew into a rage of his own at this counsel for what was said in the deposition."

c. "While Judge Valderamma [sic] had made some favorable rulings to the plaintiff regarding other defendants in this case in the past, in light of recent events, and particularly the ‘robe rage incident’ of December 15, 2016, it is unclear to this counsel whether the client, who has a meritorious case and said nothing inappropriate at his deposition, will now suffer because of the anger this court holds against his counsel."

d. "In this case, the judge saw an angry situation develop in a deposition and reacted in anger. It is always preferable if a judge is able to put out fires rather than pour oil on the flames."

e. "On the other hand, such temper as was displayed by the Court calls into question the impartiality of the tribunal."

Eminent Domain posted:

Sanctions like you wouldn't believe.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

I assume this is a reference but actually I guess this is just the state ODC referring those charges to the disciplinary board.

EwokEntourage posted:

Law Megathread: Certify your own stupidity

disjoe posted:

https://twitter.com/associatesmind/status/1075029519977902080

Should've followed up with "govern yourself accordingly" imo

Look Sir Droids posted:

Time paradox episode of Better Call Saul where Jimmy hires Jessie Pinkman as an associate.

Soothing Vapors posted:

Also the argument that got me past summary wasnt even in my response brief, it was some dumb poo poo I thought of in the hallway 5 minutes before the hearing

Soothing Vapors posted:

Also opposing counsel's face was beet red after the hearing and I'm pretty sure his client was crying

I'm sorry for the triple post but I'm basically edging at this point

Vox Nihili posted:

The system (whereby attorneys enrich themselves on the suffering of others) works.

ulmont posted:

I once won a summary judgment motion on an argument we literally only put in a footnote.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Tomorrow I have a summary judgment hearing against a guy whose lawyer withdrew after I filed the motion. IT WAS THAT HOT. He hasn’t filed an opposition or otherwise taken any action. Hopefully in the spirit of Christmas the judge will throw his dumb rear end out on the street and warm my black heart.

Discendo Vox posted:

This kind of makes me want to see a Phil/Vapors superlawgoon team-up.

Soothing Vapors posted:

I'm pretty sure if we joined forces we could make opposing counsel kill themselves

I guess that makes us job creators?

Soothing Vapors posted:

I'm pretty sure if we joined forces we could make opposing counsel kill themselves

I guess that makes us job creators?

ulmont posted:

I once won a summary judgment motion on an argument we literally only put in a footnote.

ActusRhesus posted:

Wow. Just... wow.

Someone tried to have me sanctioned once for “fraudulently certifying documents.” I signed a certification July 1. Didn’t realize Secretary was taking the day off. Then 4th of July happened. And a weekend in between. So postmark was not until like the 6th or so.

Demanded a hearing on it too.

Judge was like “wtf. Is it your position a lawyer needs to personally walk to the post office?”

ActusRhesus posted:

There was no point. The cerification is basically “on such and such date I mailed a copy of this to opposing counsel.” So if you sign it and don’t ever actually mail it yeah. Problem. But everyone who has heard about this little tantrum of hers just rolls their eyes. She’s known for this.

Ironically. Her main argument involved screeching about the practice book. Strict compliance Bc integrity of the legal profession. And demanding the court order in hand service.

“Your honor, I’ll leave it to the court’s discretion how to address the substance of this claim. However, I would note that if the court is considering a supervisory order, the practice book requires service to the address on the appearance absent mutual agreement. I can’t hand serve a PO Box.”

*judge suppresses snicker*

“Ok. One question. On what date did you submit this to your clerical staff for mailing?”

“The date on the certification page.”

“Ok. I’m ready to rule.”

Spoiler: no supervisory order was issued. And my clerk spies tell me 10 min later every judge was eyerolling about what a psycho OC is.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Many federal courts don’t require it on pleadings because they are electronically filed and served on everyone automatically with a formal time stamp notification from the court.

quote:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the ____ day of ______, 20___, I electronically
filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which
will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all attorneys of record in this case.

ulmont posted:

FRCP 5(d)(1)(B) was recently amended to drop the requirement of a certificate of service for anything filed with the court's electronic-filing system. Before that everyone used to include a certificate of service that said "I e-filed this":

ActusRhesus posted:

Yeah. And general practice of that court is to accept “late” filings within reason if there’s no objection. So the way a normal human would have handled that:

“Hey. You signed it this date. But I just got it today. I need time for my response. Do you object?”

“Huh. Weird. Yeah no objection. . Let me know when you file.”