Judges Really Don't Like This

From Judge Jamal Whitehead (W.D. Wash.) yesterday in Wright v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.:

This matter comes before the Court on several discovery-related motions ….

Counsel for the parties have traded barbs in their briefs and during oral argument about each other's lack of professionalism and motives, and they offer competing accounts about their meet and confer efforts and who is to blame for a breakdown in communications. Counsel must act with "a high degree of professionalism and collegiality" during any meet and confer. LCR 1(c)(6). Regardless of whose story is to be believed, counsel fell short of this standard here.

Expletive-laden phone calls, hang-ups, backing out of prior agreements without explanation, and misleading emails purporting to "memorialize" phone calls demean the integrity of the legal process and show disrespect to all concerned, including the Court in having to resolve petty disputes. Let it be clear: the Court will not tolerate such conduct moving forward and it expects all attorneys to adhere to the highest standards of professionalism, civility, and ethical practice moving forward.

Setting aside the parties' hyperbole and bluster, the various phone calls, letters, and emails submitted into evidence show that the parties have discussed the issues raised in their respective motions and that they've hit an impasse, requiring judicial intervention. Thus, the Court finds that the parties have satisfied the meet and confer requirement with respect to the motions for a protective order and to compel, even if just barely.

Comments

[apedad]

This has been brought up before, but the attorneys are in an odd position; they're employed by private companies but must meet certain govt standards - almost like employment standards although they're not employees of the govt.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

What's so odd about that? Barbers have to go to school for a year full time and pass licensing tests. Doctors, nurses, interior decorators, farmers, all sorts of occupations require following government guidelines.

Lawyers are not some downtrodden exploited minority. They built the system, the occupational licensing, the bar associations. They limited the number of accredited lawyer vocational training schools.

And the rest of us are supposed to feel sorry for them?

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

those occupations should not be so regulated as they are.
THat just is a clumsy way to keep people OUT of work.
Those teachers you don't question are like Doctor Jill, the worst examples of the very thing you are describing

“In short, some of the least qualified students, taught by the least qualified professors in the lowest quality courses supply most American public school teachers.”
― Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education

“The availability of federal grants and loans to help students meet rising tuition costs virtually ensures that those costs will rise. A college which kept tuition affordable could forfeit millions of dollars annually in federal money available to cover costs over and above what students can afford, according to a financial aid formula. "
AND THAT"S THE FACTS

[CommentMonkey]

The thing about judges issuing these finger-wagging admonitions about collegiality is that the party best able to create a disincentive for obstreperous lawyer conduct is the judge. True, there are cases in which both sides are equally bad and there's nothing to be done but admonish both. Maybe this is such a case. But most of the time, one side is more blameworthy than the other, often substantially so. When judges don't step in and impose some consequence, but instead lecture both sides, they essentially reward the side that created the problem. This emboldens the worst lawyers - if they can bait the other side into responding in kind, they turn the case into the kind of ugly mess they prefer anyway. If judges really want to reinforce collegiality norms, they should be quicker to impose sanctions on the more culpable party, especially in discovery disputes.

Anyway, it certainly appears this judge was unhappy with both sides. In response to a mutual request to move all the SJ briefing deadlines past the holidays, he imposes a response deadline of December 27 and a reply deadline of January 2. Happy Holidays!

[Roger S]

Judges don't like having to make tough decisions. They would be happier if everyone settled most issues out of court. Sometimes lawyers have to do things that the judges do not like.

[Bored Lawyer]

Maybe this is such a case. But most of the time, one side is more blameworthy than the other, often substantially so. When judges don't step in and impose some consequence, but instead lecture both sides, they essentially reward the side that created the problem.

+ 1000. I have seen this many times.

[Malvolio]

True, there are cases in which both sides are equally bad and there's nothing to be done but admonish both.

Admonish, hold in contempt, fine, imprison, report to the State Bar...

[tuphat]

"Here comes the judge!"

[Daddyhill]

I can't know which and how many of the parties' exchanges fit the judge's description posted here. I do know that if any of it fits, it's behavior that would have gotten you sent to the principal's office (or perhaps some sharp ruler whacks) when I was growing up. Why is it that these lawyers are apparently getting away with things they probably wouldn't have tried when they were in school themselves, even after corporal punishment of students was abolished?

[Dan Schiavetta]

You saw a lot more of this when I was starting out. My favorite (from the 1990's) was when someone threatened his adversary with "the litigation equivalent of a proctology exam". Threats to "ream you" were heard, or "you'll get ass-f*****d"! The more macho the lawyer, the more fixated they seemed to be on homosexual anal sex.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Judges Really Don't Like This"

From the title, I thought the article would be about One Weird Trick that Judges Hate!