Texas is known for having these crazy fights among lawyers. In law school I had a professor from Texas who delighted in showing us videos of depositions. In one of them the witness lost his temper, starting throwing things, and walked out of the deposition.
Oh, golly. My BFF's lawfirm was just bought/acquired/subsumed by these people.
Well, they fired the guy, which suggests it's not a firm norm. I'm trying to think -- the name rings a bell, so I've been up against them fairly recently... right. They didn't do anything bizarre on the case I had with them. Their client was epically dishonest in an entertaining way, and kept on switching lawyers. I don't know, but I suspect that they ditched him when they found out that he was lying about literally everything.
Best recent overheard exchange from a deposition:
(respected senior lawyer): Look, let's not act like little boys about this.
(young brash idiot lawyer): Dont call me a boy. I'm not your boy. I am not your boy, sir.
(rsl): I know. I you were, I'd kill myself.
That guy was probably just using all his willpower to not eat a cookie and he didn't have any left to stop himself from venting his id.
I had a court reporter start shouting at a witness in a depo earlier this year; she was reacting to an aside I hadn't caught and had to reconstruct later, so the sudden altercation hit me from out of the blue. That was a first IME -- I chat with court reporters on breaks, but while the depo's going I don't really think of them as participants likely to get emotionally engaged.
Follow up, better, Texas lawyer story today, with bonus bro code defense
I kind of like the implied invitation to trial by combat.
I should say that I've practiced in Texas a bunch, and while it's definitely more informal (in a good way) it's IME more civil about discovery disputes and the like than other states. This kind of stuff is definitely not the norm, again IME.
I haven't practiced in Texas, but maybe this is a failure mode of 'informal (in a good way)'? Informal works when everyone's sane, but informal norms might make the badly behaved feel more comfortable about acting out.
Maybe the guy just forgot that you could forward email?
That was an impressive bit about the email chain -- it didn't really escalate. Started crazy (he used the word 'pansy' right at the beginning) and stayed there, while the other lawyer was saying things like "That'd be swell".
Nothing like the above, but my favorite recent lawyer story was overhearing two lawyers on the courthouse elevator who seemed to be discussing their respective failed criminal defenses, "At least your guy used his gun."
17: Exactly. Reading through it was an odd experience, as I kept waiting for another level of crazy and trying to figure out how it kicked off in the first place.
And 11 makes a ton of sense as well. It's very weird how the name-caller totally crosses the line, and yet proceeds to schedule the reps, line up the representation, etc. I've never actually gotten into a professional email flamewar, but I would tend to treat one as the end of cooperation.
"Any time you think you're man enough, you know where to find me. I'll have drawings ready for you on Tuesday."
Guy went from NE Ohio (at least for college & law school) to Texas, a volatile combination. Apparently just about my age, so I spent a moment thinking through if I recognized the name.
So, talking about hostile interactions with other lawyers. It's not uncommon that I'm in a position where my client is absolutely inflexible on some point, and opposing counsel wants to negotiate. And to save time and effort, I generally want to get across the "My client won't budge on this, you could be spellbindingly persuasive and I still couldn't do anything for you, let's turn to other business or hang up now." And that conversation gets hostile, not all the time, but more often than I'd expect.
I'm not sure if I'm communicating "I can't negotiate this, my client says no," in an unfortunately irksome way, or if it's just the kind of interaction that pisses people off. Anyone else run into this pattern?
You might try acknowledging the opposing counsels feeeeeeeelings as the intro. "I can see why it'd be handy if we could [change that thing in some constructive way] but useful as that'd be, my client has already ruled out any negotiating on that point."
Texas lawyer Joe Jamail>/a> is kind of famous for getting into fights like this.
I liked his quote after the Delaware Supreme Court reprimanded him: "I'd rather have a nose on my ass than go to Delaware for any reason."
Huh. I've been opposite the firm referenced in the OP -- the NY office, not the TX office, and certainly not the particular guy involved in that e-mail exchange. I wasn't the main point of contact, but as far as I ever heard they were unusually easy to deal with.
Something like 23 is risky if the other party thinks you're giving them wiggle room, but can be useful. Since you represent a government, it's particularly easy to kick things upstairs -- "I'd discuss further with you personally, but the government just can't do it for x reason" is perfectly plausible and might help keep the conversation going to other matters. But that only works if (a) the person on the other side is reasonable and (b) the thing you're not negotiating on is something that might otherwise make sense to negotiate on.
That, I do all the time -- "I'd be reasonable if it were up to me, but state policy, you know what it's like, totally inflexible." That's particularly handy with arm-twisting judges.
This isn't a big problem, really, I just find it surprising that it's a repeated source of friction.
I'd imagine anyone who's getting upset about a message along the lines in 22 either (a) doesn't believe you when you say that you don't have authorization to negotiate the issue, or (b) just likes shooting at the messenger, whether it's reasonable or not.
25: Yeah, I wouldn't have called them unusually easy, but normal big-firm manners in the NY office.
Probably a client expectations issue.
Yeah, 28 is almost certainly right.
I thought they primarily did insurance defense/coverage stuff.
"...my client has already ruled out any negotiating on that point."
My client has already ruled out any chance of me not killing your pets if you don't negotiate.
I don't know anyone at the OP firm right know (apparently -- but maybe not everyone has updated their linked in), but have at various times. Bog standard Philadelphia lawyers.
Not at all like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjeen-Hl8uc
"Per client instructions, I'm going to give you all whatever hair style Nic Cage is wearing in his next movie."
33: They ate a boutique patent firm. Gulp.
"My client has instructed me to key every car parked at the courthouse."
"My client has instructed me to eat nothing but constipating foods for three days before our meeting and I'm much too terrified to ask why."
I like "gutless slut." It is almost as much fun as "gormless dwarves."
Speaking of hostile lawyers and NE Ohio, at some point we discussed the letter from a Cleveland Browns attorney to a fan (who was also an attorney) who had lodged a pretty foolish complaint. The letter allegedly read:
Dear Mr. Cox, Attached is a letter we received on Nov. 19, 1974. I feel you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.There was some discussion as to the likelihood of it being a fake, but the minor update is that the the principals have confirmed their roles and turns out both went to U of Michigan Law.
The minor update from over a year ago?
Maybe everyone was right about Michigan and had sound reasons for not giving a damn about the whole state.
41: How about "short-fingered vulgarian"?
Yes, I didn't say it was a timely update. This thread made me recall the discussion, and I searched and found the article with interviews which had come out after we had talked about it. I see no reason why the timing of an update to a story about something that happened in the '70s would matter one wit. But thanks for point it out just the same.
46 to 43.
44: The letter from the Browns' guy was great and it was apparently accepted in good humor by the "asshole" so your attack upon an entire state based on the incident is misguided and reflects badly on you. You pansy Well done.
I see no reason why the timing of an update to a story about something that happened in the '70s would matter one wit.
Fair enough.
Those are the worst lyrics to "The Old Gray Mare" I've ever heard.
Teo is no Moby Hick, as I think each would admit, but I still find it judicious to allow that, evidently, the timing of an update to a story about something that happened in the '70s evidently does matter to one wit.
Whether it is reasonable that it should matter, on that question I am silent—also judiciously.
Prove that Teo is no Moby Hick, that is. I have no idea about the rest of it.
I do not dispute that I am not Moby Hick.
I didn't say you were not Moby Hick. I said you were no Moby Hick. The assertions are not at all intersubstitutable.
Not at all intersubstitutable salva veritate, anyway. They are intersubstitutable in other respects.
55: I understand that. I don't dispute either assertion.
I am also flattered that you consider me a wit.
Unlike Katy Perry and that actress who looks pretty much the same as Katy Perry but whose name I can't remember, we've been in the same room.
In the role playing game know as the real world, wit male is the lowest difficulty setting.
I thought he was calling you a whit. Whitsunday is next weekend, though. Unless you're in Scotland. Which you aren't.
Whit Monday is a holiday in Germany. And, this year, in Alaska as well.
Baked Alaska would be a good name for a medical marijuana store in Anchorage.
Drat. I just wrote a complain/brag about something irritating that happened at work, looked at it, and realized I couldn't post it. To summarize, clients are unreasonable, but I at least salved my ego by being Lieutenant Colombo.
Also, I go years without having to talk to anyone important in our office. Today, I come into work in a knee-length dress with a skinned knee (shut up, I tripped jogging. Fell down so hard I rolled) and ended up having to talk to a serious honcho. I look fine from the hemline up, so hopefully the knee wasn't obvious.
"Uh, just one more thing, you ignorant slut."
Why didn't you just wear the trench coat?
If I come into work just wearing a trench coat, that poses its own problems.
70: Your knees would be covered. Or could be if you looked for a long coat.
If I come into work just wearing a trench coat, that poses its own problems.
You really need a fedora to go with it?
Having read the link in the OP: that guy sounds like he's having a breakdown of some kind. Substance abuse, or going through a terrible divorce, or sleep deprivation, or work overload. Something similar that leads to anger spinning out of control.
It's sort of painful to see.
74.1: maybe he comments at unfogged?
Unfogged is like puppy dog tails compared to the old days.
Parsimon, you ignorant, gutless slut.
I think you're supposed to include the 'no content' marker there, Halford.
74: I've had that happen after a few days of Lunesta. Entirely unexpected rage, scary as hell.
There is no such thing as a "no content" marker, nor could there be such a thing.
I'm about to go into a completely expected rage at a coworker who seems to think I'm his 24-hour tech support line.
74: Per LB's observation in 17 on how quickly the guy went ballistic, I had the same suspicion. Here's a guy in his late 50s who has held it together long enough to become a partner at a biggish law firm and suddenly he goes berserk with that level of provocation (basically none)? Maybe he has a brain tapeworm.
66 - I had a response involving a complaint/brag that I realized I couldn't post, but I will say this: I learned the whole Lt. Colombo thing too late in life, and I'm still not really good at it, but when it works, it's brilliant.
"No, I will not convert all of my PDF figures to EPS just because you are stuck in 1998 and find pdflatex frightening. Pansy."
80: Maybe they're all over the place and you just don't realize it.
80: I think I've seen such a convention in comment threads on, say, DKos. I don't really remember how you do it: you put "N/C", something like that. It generally means that you're just saying "yeah" or "right on" or "so-and-so sucks, for sure, just as you say".
Of course it is a joke in the context of this blog.
My understanding is that "no content" is indicated by the inclusion of the phrase "Posted by", but I'm prepared to be corrected on that.
Did somebody just say something?
Judgment of any system, or a priori relationship or phenomenon exists in an irrational, or metaphysical, or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself.
See. I'm not the only one who watches National Lampoon's Vacation when it's on cable.
89: Yes, I've said that many times.
76:I try my best, but it is probably just nostalgia.
|>
Scalzi Follow Up
From Polyani For the 21st Century
These different forms of resistance are not apolitical. They often involve demands to modify existing institutions and forms of state-society interaction. However, the types of political engagement that they present are of a nature to limit the scope of the change that they could bring about. They entail, for example, the danger of "balkanization of politics," whereby the political horizon of people is restricted in a way to preclude the formulation of wider transformative agendas beyond the improvement of specific communities' daily existence.
Deliberately limiting, deliberatelyprecluding
The key thing to understand is that the identity warriors don't want to lower the relative value of a Harvard Law Degree or a seat on the London Commodity Exchange. They do not want structural change, they just want to change who is in charge.
And on one level, I am ok with that. (As a Marxist not so ok) Hell, I would love, simply love, the US Senate to be comprised of 100 Black Lesbians, all taking campaign donations from multi-national corporations. Fuck yeah.
Thing is, I don't have to see this project as any kind of moral mission, or net moral improvement. It is just "Out with the old boss, in with the new boss."
And so it really isn't my fight.
|>
I think you're supposed to include the 'no content' marker there, Halford.
You think so? Me, I think is obvious Halford is no content. If he is content, he no say such things!
The irritating thing continues -- I had to take my Colombo act on the road to a BigLaw conference room. Felt like old home week being back in a room where the only women in sight were either support staff or associates under 35.
Just one more thing...it's "Columbo".
LB means she had to act like a Sri Lankan.
I assumed she was taking about the crime family.
I am too humble and trenchcoated to be able to spell.
94 made me smile. Ajay, I've always liked you.
While I'm talking about work here, I just got a promotion! (I realized after I heard about it that I've literally never been promoted before. I've gotten gradually more senior in jobs, and I've switched employment, but never a new job title at the same employer.) On the downside, more work, no more money (maybe, possibly, in the future, but no more now) and a very senior co-worker who was going for the same spot is seriously unhappy about it, which is going to be tricky given that I'm now in some sense supervising her. Expect hijinks to ensue.
Columbo might have been effective as an investigator, but as a Lieutenant he was presumably also the line manager for several other more junior detectives, a role in which I imagine he was terrible.
I suppose what I'm saying here, LB, is that I'm sure you'll do fine, or at the very least you'll do better than Columbo would.
Congratulations and good luck supervising the bitter one.
Also, I'm pretty sure that Columbo wasn't managing the junior detectives because you rarely saw one. There was probably another guy who did that work and they all knew to call Columbo when they got a tricky problem.
Ideally I won't really be supervising her -- she'll continue to work primarily with our mutual boss. And she's going to lobby for a job title that moves her sort of off to the side of the supervisory chain of authority.
Congratulations on receiving the same amount of money to do more work and have increasingly disgruntled employees!