When keeping it real goes wrong, lawyer edition
- Thread starter wazzuFreddo
- Start date
aminalmutha
Well-known member
Probably did a couple lines of blow before the depo and Leroy Jenkinsed that shit. :cool
Sharky
Well-known member
More like his level of stupidity. Generally, the dumber the attorney, the louder they shout trying to use intimidation and bullying to get their way.
jdhu
Well-known member
So, this doesn't rise to Mr. Hook's level, and I hesitated a bit to share, but........
The below is from an email sent by counsel for a co-defendant to contest a tentative ruling. These responses came after the court's clerk or research attorney asked this attorney for specifics, as to which portions of the tentative ruling the attorney wants to contest. I highlighted a few gems:
I will be there in the court tomorrow. Thanks for being so nice to the plaintiff on everything. Last time the plaintiff did not even inform me that he was contesting the tentative and the court was ok with it. As the rules required I informed the court I was contesting the tentative but it appears that’s the judge never read papers and rely on the clerks to run the courts and make fulfilling.
Mr. Clerk, it is abomination of law that your department is such a shame that doesn't care about even the well established rule of law and the judges rule through the clerks. This is not North Korea sir. Either you believe in the constitution of this country or your are a traitor. And that goes to the judges of this court too, who don't read anything and rule blindly based on people who couldn't even find a good job. It is unfortunate that the judges leave the common people on the mercy of people like you who doesn't know anything about the law and the constitution. You are just a clerk, you can't make decisions. Follow the law. I notice you never do that. When the plaintiff contacts you, you don't even ask if they have contacted me first. It is shameful. In August the plaintiff contested a tentative ruling. The rules required them to inform me but nobody ever informed me, hence I dind't appear the next day. It is shameful how this court and the judges function in the Alameda court. You and the judge should be ashamed of crushing fundamental rights of defendants. The opposing counsel never contacted to find a good date for the motion but your type of people didn't bother. Every time I contacted you, you were full of acid but I am sure you were so nice to the frivolous plaintiff because you never asked them if they consulted me about a suitable motion dates. This stupid court is so biased in the favor of frivolous filers, including the judge. The judge has been sitting on a motion from another defendant and keep continue it since the last 9 months or so. This type of stupid judges. They should not be judges if they can't make decisions. Oh I am sorry, there was a tentative against the plaintiff but the next day the judge continued it, and then continued it again. NO change. If this person doesn't want to be a judge, she should resign instead of fucking up the defendant because she wants to favor the frivolous plaintiff. Nobody is forcing her to be a judge in this country. What the hell. Its been almost a year.
I suggest that you become acquainted with the California Local Rules of Court. Your statement that information required by the Court in addition to notice of intent to contest is required for purposes of establishing a hearing on a tentative ruling is a violation of the California Local Rules of Court. This Court is without power to refuse to entertain the hearing once a notice of intent to appear has been provided when contesting a tentative ruling. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. 3.1308(a)(1). That provision provides, in pertinent part, “[o]ral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 P.M. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear.” That is not permissive language. It is mandatory. Moreover, this provision is cited by the Alameda Local Rules of Court. See Alameda Loc. Rules section 3.30(d). Finally, there is nothing in the California Local Rules of Court that requires any additional information to be provided to a Court in order for the Court’s constitutional duty to hear the argument arises. In so far as this Court seeks to do that, it is not permitted. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. section 3.20( preemption of local rules). If you need further clarification I suggest that the matter be taken up with the presiding judge. I and several of my colleagues have become vexed by other departures from the California Local Rules of Court that this court has imposed one that can be described as nothing less than an Alameda tax by forcing counsel to provide courtesy copies at great expense, which is also not permitted by the California Local Rules of Court, which I personally consider a taking of property without compensation under Article 1, section 19 of the California Constitution.
So I will suggest, Mr. clerk, that you stop stumbling on litigants' rights. If you are an American, you should start seeing that people have the fundamental rights to the courts. Your type of people and the research clerks that the stupid judges rely on are the reason people find that the courts here are just like courts in North Korea. So I suggest you take your head out of your ass and follow the fundamental rules set forth by the constitution instead of sucking into frivolous filer that this Court and clerks and bogus research clerks who couldn't even find a good job favors.
It unfortunate that judges disregard the fundamental rules as set forth by the constitution. If you are really an American, follow the constitution. Don't fuck up this country and it goes to your judge too, who blindly signs the orders what her so called "research attorney" has her sign.
I will be in the court tomorrow.
I suggest that you become acquainted with the California Local Rules of Court. Your statement that information required by the Court in addition to notice of intent to contest is required for purposes of establishing a hearing on a tentative ruling is a violation of the California Local Rules of Court. This Court is without power to refuse to entertain the hearing once a notice of intent to appear has been provided when contesting a tentative ruling. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. 3.1308(a)(1). That provision provides, in pertinent part, “[o]ral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 P.M. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear.” That is not permissive language. It is mandatory. Moreover, this provision is cited by the Alameda Local Rules of Court. See Alameda Loc. Rules section 3.30(d). Finally, there is nothing in the California Local Rules of Court that requires any additional information to be provided to a Court in order for the Court’s constitutional duty to hear the argument arises. In so far as this Court seeks to do that, it is not permitted. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. section 3.20( preemption of local rules). If you need further clarification I suggest that the matter be taken up with the presiding judge. I and several of my colleagues have become vexed by other departures from the California Local Rules of Court that this court has imposed one that can be described as nothing less than an Alameda tax by forcing counsel to provide courtesy copies at great expense, which is also not permitted by the California Local Rules of Court, which I personally consider a taking of property without compensation under Article 1, section 19 of the California Constitution.
The below is from an email sent by counsel for a co-defendant to contest a tentative ruling. These responses came after the court's clerk or research attorney asked this attorney for specifics, as to which portions of the tentative ruling the attorney wants to contest. I highlighted a few gems:
I will be there in the court tomorrow. Thanks for being so nice to the plaintiff on everything. Last time the plaintiff did not even inform me that he was contesting the tentative and the court was ok with it. As the rules required I informed the court I was contesting the tentative but it appears that’s the judge never read papers and rely on the clerks to run the courts and make fulfilling.
Mr. Clerk, it is abomination of law that your department is such a shame that doesn't care about even the well established rule of law and the judges rule through the clerks. This is not North Korea sir. Either you believe in the constitution of this country or your are a traitor. And that goes to the judges of this court too, who don't read anything and rule blindly based on people who couldn't even find a good job. It is unfortunate that the judges leave the common people on the mercy of people like you who doesn't know anything about the law and the constitution. You are just a clerk, you can't make decisions. Follow the law. I notice you never do that. When the plaintiff contacts you, you don't even ask if they have contacted me first. It is shameful. In August the plaintiff contested a tentative ruling. The rules required them to inform me but nobody ever informed me, hence I dind't appear the next day. It is shameful how this court and the judges function in the Alameda court. You and the judge should be ashamed of crushing fundamental rights of defendants. The opposing counsel never contacted to find a good date for the motion but your type of people didn't bother. Every time I contacted you, you were full of acid but I am sure you were so nice to the frivolous plaintiff because you never asked them if they consulted me about a suitable motion dates. This stupid court is so biased in the favor of frivolous filers, including the judge. The judge has been sitting on a motion from another defendant and keep continue it since the last 9 months or so. This type of stupid judges. They should not be judges if they can't make decisions. Oh I am sorry, there was a tentative against the plaintiff but the next day the judge continued it, and then continued it again. NO change. If this person doesn't want to be a judge, she should resign instead of fucking up the defendant because she wants to favor the frivolous plaintiff. Nobody is forcing her to be a judge in this country. What the hell. Its been almost a year.
I suggest that you become acquainted with the California Local Rules of Court. Your statement that information required by the Court in addition to notice of intent to contest is required for purposes of establishing a hearing on a tentative ruling is a violation of the California Local Rules of Court. This Court is without power to refuse to entertain the hearing once a notice of intent to appear has been provided when contesting a tentative ruling. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. 3.1308(a)(1). That provision provides, in pertinent part, “[o]ral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 P.M. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear.” That is not permissive language. It is mandatory. Moreover, this provision is cited by the Alameda Local Rules of Court. See Alameda Loc. Rules section 3.30(d). Finally, there is nothing in the California Local Rules of Court that requires any additional information to be provided to a Court in order for the Court’s constitutional duty to hear the argument arises. In so far as this Court seeks to do that, it is not permitted. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. section 3.20( preemption of local rules). If you need further clarification I suggest that the matter be taken up with the presiding judge. I and several of my colleagues have become vexed by other departures from the California Local Rules of Court that this court has imposed one that can be described as nothing less than an Alameda tax by forcing counsel to provide courtesy copies at great expense, which is also not permitted by the California Local Rules of Court, which I personally consider a taking of property without compensation under Article 1, section 19 of the California Constitution.
So I will suggest, Mr. clerk, that you stop stumbling on litigants' rights. If you are an American, you should start seeing that people have the fundamental rights to the courts. Your type of people and the research clerks that the stupid judges rely on are the reason people find that the courts here are just like courts in North Korea. So I suggest you take your head out of your ass and follow the fundamental rules set forth by the constitution instead of sucking into frivolous filer that this Court and clerks and bogus research clerks who couldn't even find a good job favors.
It unfortunate that judges disregard the fundamental rules as set forth by the constitution. If you are really an American, follow the constitution. Don't fuck up this country and it goes to your judge too, who blindly signs the orders what her so called "research attorney" has her sign.
I will be in the court tomorrow.
I suggest that you become acquainted with the California Local Rules of Court. Your statement that information required by the Court in addition to notice of intent to contest is required for purposes of establishing a hearing on a tentative ruling is a violation of the California Local Rules of Court. This Court is without power to refuse to entertain the hearing once a notice of intent to appear has been provided when contesting a tentative ruling. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. 3.1308(a)(1). That provision provides, in pertinent part, “[o]ral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 P.M. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear.” That is not permissive language. It is mandatory. Moreover, this provision is cited by the Alameda Local Rules of Court. See Alameda Loc. Rules section 3.30(d). Finally, there is nothing in the California Local Rules of Court that requires any additional information to be provided to a Court in order for the Court’s constitutional duty to hear the argument arises. In so far as this Court seeks to do that, it is not permitted. See Cal. Loc. Rules of Ct. section 3.20( preemption of local rules). If you need further clarification I suggest that the matter be taken up with the presiding judge. I and several of my colleagues have become vexed by other departures from the California Local Rules of Court that this court has imposed one that can be described as nothing less than an Alameda tax by forcing counsel to provide courtesy copies at great expense, which is also not permitted by the California Local Rules of Court, which I personally consider a taking of property without compensation under Article 1, section 19 of the California Constitution.
HappyHighwayman
Warning: Do Not Engage
Sharky
Well-known member
Yeessh. What department was that?
I had a plaintiff oppose a dispositive motion I wrote (which was a masterpiece, albeit unsuccessful) that called my client a Nigerian Price with camel hair coat jacket and a bunch of other offensive stuff in the opposition.
jdhu
Well-known member
Probably shouldn't share the department, but oral argument is this afternoon, lol. I'm not appearing since the tentative doesn't involve my client, but the fireworks should be interesting...:laughing
I have no idea what this attorney was thinking. I'd be scared to appear after sending out that email, but my guess is he doesn't give a shit.
Cyclesuzy
Proud Pissant Squid
It's probably my old fashionedness, but my goal is to make the clerk my friend. For me, they're the best conduit to getting something accomplished. I in no way try to piss them off like that.
jdhu
Well-known member
Yeah...perhaps sounds cheesy, and hopefully not holier-than-thou, but I try to treat everyone with respect, in court and out. We are all people, with problems, goals, moments of anxiety, etc. etc. etc. It's of course speculative, but perhaps a mass shooter or other person overcome by anger and hatred could have been calmed/soothed by a kind word or act.
Even if our focus is purely in self-interest, it makes sense to be nice to court clerks, etc. (as you say). Clerks can be very helpful as far as local custom/procedure, the judge's preferences, etc. A friend of mine was once excoriated in court for being less than nice to a clerk (it was a misunderstanding, but obviously judges interact with their clerks, communicate about counsel being a dbag, etc.).
I'll add...I find "kill them with kindness" tends to work well with opposing counsel. We aren't friends, and our clients have competing interests, but respect and cordiality have served me well.
Last edited:
Eldritch
is insensitive
His new Office shall be named Honey Badger and Honey Badger, Attorneys at Law.
Climber
Well-known member
I've always treated everybody with courtesy and decency in the office, it's just the way I was raised. I've also noticed that the clerks do things for me that they don't do for everybody and I've never lacked for office supplies as others have. Also, many have gone out of their way to help me out where they wouldn't have for others.
I didn't set out to get better treatment, it just worked out that way.
I did have a few uncomfortable times where women thought I wanted to date them because I treated them well, mostly a reflection on how many people didn't treat people decently because they felt they were below them.
Personally, I've gotten insight into the true character of a lot of people by how they treated people who were at a lower professional level than themselves.
mercurial
Well-known member
If opposing counsel didn't notice that they intended to argue the motion and the clerk/court lets them get away with that, that is bullshit. The "courtesy" copies of filings for court clerks is also bullshit. Also don't even get me started on how Alameda locks their drop box during normal hours, so if you want to drop, you have to come between 2:30-4. Just a real punk ass thing to do.
All that being said, prob not a good idea to bash the court/clerk like that.
All that being said, prob not a good idea to bash the court/clerk like that.
Last edited: