Bruce's timely post reminded me that (former) Judge Samuel Kent was notorious for lambasting counsel if they annoyed him. Furthermore, he would do so in publsihed judicial opinions with names and all. The one many of us have heard by now is his:
Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact – complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words – to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by t heir c hild- like efforts that t heir utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor’s edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins.
147 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
These remarks may seem funny to law students (at least they were to me), but they are painful for both lawyers involved. On the one hand, one courld argue that good lawyering is important, and judges with huge dockets have no patience for bad arguments. On the other hand, many times the submissions are driven by the clients (the case above was a civil case), and sometimes there are no good legal arguments. At the very least, it serves as a cautionary tale for lawyers.
The one author, I know of, who looked at this issue and took a different approach is Steven Lubet. He authored a piece on Kent's writings many years ago (long before his resignation) titled Bullying from the Bench. It is a quick read and very easy to follow, so I would commend it, especially to those interested in legal ethics.
