If I'd known being a judge was this much fun I'd have gone to law school. Does this kind of thing happen outside of Texas?
Does one go to law school with the specific intent of becoming a judge? Or does one become an attorney and later, by dumb luck and connections, get promoted to judge?
Or does one become an attorney and later, by dumb luck and connections, get promoted to judge?
I suspect this is almost almost always the case. Or at least it must be pretty rare to go to law school intending to be a judge. There are jobs you can take--Assistant US Attorney, for example--that are typical roads to being a judge, and I imagine that people get themselves on that road because they want to be a judge, but even then, I suspect that connections and luck (in addition to wanting the job, of course, because many would not) are the main factors.
"Now, alas, the Court must return to grownup land."
But why? Why?
"FN3. Take heed and be suitably awed, oh boys and girls--the Court was able to state the issue and its resolution in one paragraph ... despite dozens of pages of gibberish from the parties to the contrary!"
I am suitably. No matter that my copy lacks the inexplicable odor of wet dog.
I've read some snappy bits in decisions before, but District Judge Kent definitely gets a nomination here for something or other.
"...I suspect that connections and luck (in addition to wanting the job, of course, because many would not) are the main factors."
Then there are the elected judges, including, say, Roy Moore.
I Do Not Endorse This Style Of Writing Opinions
I, on the other hand, completely endorse that style of writing opinions and believe that, henceforth and forthwith, everybody should issue opinions like that. Sadly, any judges who did that regularly would get kicked out of the lawyer's monopoly union.
max
['So much for good law.']
Lawyers are strange. Reminds me of the response to a motion by opposing counsel to reject a christmas vacation request, written as a parody of How The Grinch Stole Christmas.
That is mighty mighty great. I often wonder, with so much to write in such a boilerplate style, one must develop a great sensitivity for language, which could then be employed for highly nefarious and delicious purposes.
That one went around when it was handed down, but it's definitely worth reading again. I think that if I were one of the lawyers involved I'd do worse than curl up and whimper. If nothing else, it reminds us yet again that the little voice that's always asking if we're missing something obvious is not to be ignored.
I don't mean I would have gone to law school intending to be a judge, but that with my measly fine arts degrees I can never hope to have a job where I can amuse myself by making lawyers writhe, and get paid for it.
This judge is nationally notorious for this kind of opinion. He has one about from lawyers who complained about how hard it was to get to the courthouse in Galveston (they were trying to move a case) that talks about the modern things like highways that lead there.
All your motion are belong to us. Counsel for both parties are pwned. It is so ordered.
If you think the lawyers are curling up in a little ball and whimpering, imagine how their poor clients feel.
9: Can't we just aspire to do that here? There are lawyers enough and time.
13: Scratch that. Forgot. Not getting paid. Not particularly desirous of making lawyers here writhe, not that I could.
Our clients should be doing that in just a moment or two (big presentation, they're due to show up at 9:00.)
There's an essay in The Green Bag about why judges should not write opinions like this. I haven't read the essay, and therefore give a neutral recommendation along with this link.
This kind of rhetoric would have been far to kind if it was the dissent in Bush v. Gore...
What do you have against David Boies?
To Tom F - THAT motion (for a change of venue, I'm assuming) that you refer to was genius. I still remember that as he quoted, "Sun is rose, sun is set, and we is still in Texas yet," as an indication of how large indeed Texas is.
I'm warmed to learn it's the same guy. My fear was that this was just a Texas thing. Like guns and BBQ.
(To be clear, the targets in my hypothetical would be the majority opinion as opposed to Gore's lawyers...)
To be clear, 18 was a joke. And hey, at the end of Ginsburg's dissent, se said, "I dissent," rather than, "I respectfully dissent." You can't hope for harsher rhetoric than that!
16: The essay's good, and it's right. I linked the opinion because it's funny, but it really is wrong to write opinions like that. First, because the case isn't about the lawyers -- it's about the claims of the parties -- and however bad the lawyering is, the judge should keep their eye on the ball and treat the parties, rather than their advocates, with respect. Second, there's no recourse. Kent was hitting people with their hands tied behind their back. Maybe he was right about the quality of their work, maybe he was wrong, but they have no way of defending themselves. Public humiliation (and I wouldn't be surprised if the publication of that opinion wasn't career-changing or ending for the lawyers involved) is not a fair means of discipline for that sort of bad lawyering. I've had a judge laugh in my face (I was, on instructions, taking a very aggressive position on a discovery motion, including requesting that plaintiffs pay our costs on the motion because their position was frivolous. The judge found my chutzpah entertaining. I was actually worrying that he might stroke out -- he's an old guy.) and that's okay, but publishing an opinion with this kind of rancor, in a forum where the lawyers can't possibly respond, is out of line.
Public humiliation (and I wouldn't be surprised if the publication of that opinion wasn't career-changing or ending for the lawyers involved) is not a fair means of discipline for that sort of bad lawyering.
As opposed to hammering a TAPPED intern? Color me unconvinced.
Dude, comments written by some bloggers on another blog is not the same thing as a published opinion by a fucking judge.
Clients might often have less of an ability to judge a lawyer's work than readers of a magazine, and more reason to need information about that quality. Generally, I think beating up on people as a first step is never the way to go. But I'm a lot more comfortable with lawyers getting pounded than interns.
Should have had the word "publically" somewhere in the last two sentences. Private poundings, while not good, are not so bad.
As opposed to hammering a TAPPED intern? Color me unconvinced
The thing is that the intern had an equal or better forum for defending himself, and the work product he was being judged on was public.
A lawyer doesn't have any effective way of responding to a judge -- the criticism could have been completely fair, or it could have been because Kent had a grudge against one of them, or it could have been because he wanted to publish a funny opinion. (and I strongly suspect the last. The odds of running into two lawyers who deserved that sort of treatment on the same case are really low. I would guess that one was awful, and the other was just unimpressive: Kent wanted to tear the awful one to pieces, but couldn't do it to just one party without looking biased. So the unimpressive, but not ghastly, lawyer got sacrificed for Kent's ego.)
Private poundings...are not so bad.
ATM.
I think 27's exactly right. Bad lawyers abound, but an instance where both sides are represented by two equally and - oh, dear, I seem to have found myself quoting the opening narration of Law & Order.
In other news, my father - a JUDGE, no less! - has been bugging me to write an episode of Law & Order. He feels that if I'm going to write for television, I may as well put the very fancy J.D. to good use. (Perhaps a judge is murdered and it turns out a now-disbarred attorney is the culprit. He was the subject of a damning motion and never found work again...)
If you write one, it'll probably get filmed in my neighborhood (Inwood looks very 'generic NY residential streets' and doesn't have a lot of traffic). So do stop by for coffee.
"If you write one, it'll probably get filmed in my neighborhood (Inwood looks very 'generic NY residential streets' and doesn't have a lot of traffic). So do stop by for coffee."
Just invite her over for coffee; it's not as if the writer of a tv episode is necessarily or commonly invited to sets or locations.
It was a joke -- she's on the other coast.
I am so FARRRR away. I do love that about L&O. Actually shot IN NYC. Ditto the Closer - at least they acknowledge it's shot in LA, as opposed to other shows where it's impossible to believe they're actually IN - for example - Connecticut (hello, Gilmore Girls and your throat-exposing v-necks in the middle of 'winter').
"Actually shot IN NYC."
I ran across them filming near Grand Central, and on a couple of other locations at other times, back in the 20th Century, when I lived in NYC.
Not that this is unusual if one lives in the city.