It’s over a hundred today, way too hot, almost flammable. Speaking of flames, my recent post about what Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (b) can and cannot do to save clients from lawyer folly, reminded me of the following gems. These do not necessarily have to do with attorney mistakes but they might provide a little humor. So if you can’t just drop your briefs (legal, that is) and jump in the pool or join the kids at the ice cream truck just yet, perhaps these will provide a little laughter to get you through a long, hot afternoon.
Dark Roast: “At the hearing, the trial court deemed [defendant’s] argument ‘gamesmanship,’ ‘disingenuous,’ and worthy of the ‘chutzpah award.’ The trial court commented concerning the motion [to vacate the judgment], ‘When I finished reading this, I had a foul taste in my mouth and it wasn’t from the old Starbucks coffee I was drinking.’ ” (Diamond Game Enterprises, Inc. v. Whipple 2009 WL 921676 at *2.)
Learned Profession: “This is an argument only a lawyer could love; it rests on semantics rather than on reason.” (Gallo v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1375, 1380.)
Invigoration: “After this mind-numbing journey through RCRA, we return to the provision that is, after all, the one before us for examination.” (American Mining Congress v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al., (D.C. Cir. 1987) 824 F.2d 1177, 1189.)
Try, Try Again: Taken as a whole, defendant’s reply brief reads like an entirely new opening brief rather than as a response to plaintiffs’ brief. [FN3. Defendant’s opening brief is only 39 pages long including 17 pages of facts and no footnotes. In contrast, his reply brief is 50 pages long . . . The reply brief contains 48 footnotes and each page of his reply brief contains more than 10 percent more text than the pages of his opening brief . . . In all, defendant’s reply brief contains about twice as much appellate argument as his opening brief.] (Riechardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 767, fn. 3.)
Now, isn’t that better?