Racial Justice, Ltd. v. Sexual Libations, Inc.
Today a group of wide-eyed 1L’s walked into Federal Court for a class assignment to view a motion, and were officially deflowered as to courtroom antics. We learned several important factors about the way American Justice™ works. (1) The most important issues often have the most incompetent counsel argue for them, (2) Federal Judges get very angry with unprepared lawyers, and (3) giant dildoes are an issue of genuine public concern.
We heard two motions. The first was a Title VII case in which the defendant was filing a summary judgment motion. The Defendant attorney may be good, I’ll never know. He never really had to open his mouth, because the lawyer for Plaintiff quite possibly was the worst lawyer in the history of ever. No cases on point, couldn’t answer the most basic question from the Judge, and most importantly, didn’t even know if she was appealing from a lower court or instead filing a separate action.
The second motion is what made me truly understand some of the misfirings of the judicial process. The motion was for a preliminary injunction with regards to two different corporations. The lawyers were elegant, prepared, and thoughtful. They raised important issues about utilitarianism, artful beauty, and intellectual property. They were talking about massive dildo sculptures.
Is this really how society should work? The best lawyers often are arguing the most useless (yet hilarious) issues, while the mail worker that was the subject of racial discrimination, in his 15th year of litigation, was represented by someone that could not put together a coherent statement on a single legal issue. I suppose it must be true that skill goes where the money is, but I hope that some of my fellow Boalties decide to embark on the path of greatest resistance, and help those that need it the most. And after today, I am more certain than ever that they need it.
We heard two motions. The first was a Title VII case in which the defendant was filing a summary judgment motion. The Defendant attorney may be good, I’ll never know. He never really had to open his mouth, because the lawyer for Plaintiff quite possibly was the worst lawyer in the history of ever. No cases on point, couldn’t answer the most basic question from the Judge, and most importantly, didn’t even know if she was appealing from a lower court or instead filing a separate action.
The second motion is what made me truly understand some of the misfirings of the judicial process. The motion was for a preliminary injunction with regards to two different corporations. The lawyers were elegant, prepared, and thoughtful. They raised important issues about utilitarianism, artful beauty, and intellectual property. They were talking about massive dildo sculptures.
Is this really how society should work? The best lawyers often are arguing the most useless (yet hilarious) issues, while the mail worker that was the subject of racial discrimination, in his 15th year of litigation, was represented by someone that could not put together a coherent statement on a single legal issue. I suppose it must be true that skill goes where the money is, but I hope that some of my fellow Boalties decide to embark on the path of greatest resistance, and help those that need it the most. And after today, I am more certain than ever that they need it.
Labels: Law School
posted by McWho at 7:50 PM
4 Comments:
Ah, civil rights litigation. A beautiful statute, weighed down by so much abuse. There's a reason the lower courts tried to raise the pleading standard before the Supreme Court smacked them down for misapplying Rule 9...
I actually distorted things a bit, mostly because I didn't know most of the facts in the case we saw, and wanted to make a touchy-feely message of the day. It was reverse-discrimination, and I'm not sure whether the claim was valid or not.
Either way, no one deserves a lawyer as bad as this one.
how is bad lawyering "abuse" of the "beautiful" civil rights statute? And how might a heightened pleading standard remedy poor lawyering? whether intentionally or not, Tom, I think you've confused meritorious advocacy with meritorious claims.
Anon-
You're correct in part. I suggest though that poor advocacy often comes from trying to reconceive or dress up poor claims. It's hard to be a bad advocate when you have a prima facie case. It's when you're stretching the law that advocacy really matters.
But yes, a heightened pleading standard does little directly to remedy poor advocacy. If anything, it would just require a lawyer to gather more facts in front of them first. From that core of facts, they may be able to advocate better.
You also homed in on another correlation I was making subconsciously. Usually, if you have a great claim, a good lawyer will take it (because it'll be an easy win for them). You only find yourself turning to crappy lawyers when all the good lawyers have turned you away.
Well played Anon. Well played. I'll be more precise with my words.
Post a Comment
<< Home