Canada: An “outspoken Hamilton judge blasted warring parents for squandering $500,000 on their bitter child custody battle. ‘How did this happen?’ asked exasperated Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz. ‘How does this keep happening? What will it take to convince angry parents that nasty and aggressive litigation never turns out well?'” [Toronto Sun]
“A federal judge in Manhattan is ordering lawyers in a United Parcel Service lawsuit to file new pleadings that are short and plain, in keeping with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. … UPS ‘launched its relatively straightforward claims with a sprawling 175-paragraph complaint, larded with more than 1,400 pages of exhibits,’ [U.S. District Judge William Pauley III] wrote. Lawyers for former franchisees responded with a 210-page answer with counterclaims and ‘voluminous exhibits,’ later expanded in an amended answer to a ‘breathtaking’ 303 pages that ‘brims with irrelevant and redundant allegations,’ Pauley said.” [ABA Journal]
“A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is demonstrating her impatience with pretrial document battles with a ruling titled ‘Order on One Millionth Discovery Dispute.'” [ABA Journal]
A successful whistleblower, he’s featured on the reality-TV show “Real Housewives of New Jersey” and one can only commend his pacific spirit, at least as regards physical combat:
I don’t fight. I think it’s stupid. I’m trained as an attorney. If I want to hurt you, I’m going to sue you. I’m going to leverage your house. I’m gonna give you three years of hell in a courtroom. I’m going to bleed you dry financially, and I’m going to humiliate you as I depose you for eight hours and make you my bitch.
Wait a minute. You took my profanity-laden, violence-suggestive tirade seriously? Attorney Hanson “said he had not meant to threaten the man, but simply convey that he would gather all relevant evidence to defend his client.” [ABA Journal]
Chris Fountain brings us a truly over-the-top California lawyer website: “For us, the other side is not merely an opponent—they’re the enemy! For us, litigation is war. We’ve given the term ‘scorched earth litigation’ new meaning … We carpet bomb the other side with discovery, and our deposition questions are like hellfire missiles.”
And the sequel he finds on Facebook is even funnier.
According to Paul Secunda at Workplace Prof Blog, a monstrously overgrown employment discrimination dispute recently ruled on by a California appellate court helps explain “why people like Walter Olson rightly believe in some cases that litigation is just plain overlawyered“.
John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum finds much to unpack in a lawyer’s statement defending his zealous advocacy in a California discovery dispute.
Noted by Terry Teachout in his “Almanac” feature:
“He recognized that common, much litigated type of human disagreement in which each party to it insists on reducing his opponent’s position or contention to its bare essentials–yes or no; did he, or did he not, still beat his wife?–while asserting the right to state his own position or contention with every circumstantial distinction preserved. High indignation and conflicting strong senses of righteousness resulted.”
James Gould Cozzens, Guard of Honor