Mercy Me

Do you know how some competitive sports require good opponents in order to really work? Like tennis - it is a fact that you will play better tennis against someone who challenges your abilities rather than a rank beginner. You'll hit better shots, you'll be pushed farther, and your game will be elevated by the caliber of the competition. If, on the other hand, you play against a first-timer - one who hits soft balls, imprecise shots, without much speed or challenge - it's harder to play a good game yourself because you have less to work with.

Lawyering is like that too. Against someone who is smart and tough, it is easier to perform well. And the inverse is also true - against someone who just doesn't get it, defending or prosecuting a suit will be ten times harder because you have to wade through all of the stupid stuff, which is just clutter, to make sure that the real issues appear before the court.

It's like in that movie Clueless, where Alicia Silverstone gives a class presentation on Haitian (pronounced "Haiti-an") refugees where the main thrust of her argument revolves around garden party, some uninvited guests, and the fact that it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statute of Liberty. The classmate who is supposed to present the opposition goes "How can I respond to that?" It's just so far off the mark that a response seems impossible.

Opposing counsel in a case I've got is like that. Over the past couple months, I've been trying to figure out whether he is dim, lazy and ignorant, or intentionally does not work or play well with others. He takes legal theories which are so far off that even a first-year law student would understand why they are completely inapplicable and then he briefs them for pages on end. This of course requires me to do unnecessary research to find case law pointing out how far off the mark he truly is - a pointless waste of time and money. And he's done this so many times that I am strongly leaning away from thinking he's difficult and strongly leaning towards the opinion that this man is simply not fit to practice law.

I get phone calls asking me what papers I've sent him say (he could try reading them). I get emails where he tries to trick me into waiving procedural rules ("will you waive all of your objections in next week's deposition" is going to get back a resounding "heck no" each time). I got a 90-page motion, via fax (considered impolite - something of that length should be emailed and sent by courier or dropped in the mail), which is completely ridiculous. He overlooks the single issue that he should be concentrating on in order not to lose and just parties it up with the Haiti-ans.

We have a hearing in a couple weeks which should, if the judge is paying attention, end this case. I can't wait. It will be nice to focus on the next items on my docket, where I have worthy adversaries. Too many more like this guy and I'm afraid I'll get dumber.

Wish me luck. Or better yet, wish me patience. I could use it now.