Ramblings of a Jackhole

The marketing department of Coke apparently punk’d a few of its in-house attorneys and shared it on You Tube. They had to use in-house counsel as they couldn’t afford outside counsel’s legal bills.

First Punk’d Attorney
Second Punk’d Attorney
Third Punk’d Attorney

Viral marketing is nothing to sneeze at.

Lawsuits filed by the overweight against those fast-food restaurants have peaked the interest in a lot of lawyers.

The obese are much easier to chase than ambulances, and some obese need all the money they can get.

Mrs. Applebee, the 6th grade teacher, posed the following problem to one of her arithmetic classes:

“A wealthy man dies and leaves ten million dollars. One-fifth is to go to his wife, one-fifth is to go to his son, one-sixth to his butler, and the rest to charity. Now, what does each get?”

After a very long silence in the classroom, Little Morris raised his hand. The teacher called on Little Morris for his answer. With complete sincerity in his voice, Little Morris answered, “A lawyer!”

Allegedly this is from a federal law clerk who Vinson & Elkins declined to hire. He sent the below e-mail asking V&E to reconsider him for a position. In particular the second-to-last paragraph is my favorite. I believe all law school classes have at least one member like this. Another reason to avoid the knee-jerk reaction and shoot off an email. Write a formal letter and make sure you really know what you want to (and should) say.

From: Chatman, Carliss
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:42 AM
To: Rumbaugh, Holly; Dennis, Patrick; Lankau, Tim

Subject: FW: request to reconsider George Luce

This is a guy I interviewed last week. WTF?

—–Original Message—–

From: George_Luce@lamd.uscourts.gov [mailto:George_Luce@lamd.uscourts.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Johnson, Loreatha
Cc: Schick, Robert M.; Davidow, Jennifer; Harvin, David; Pipkin, Emily; Kornegay, Nancy; Mehta, Persis; Murphy, George; Hodge, Justin; Reeder, James; Chatman, Carliss; Held, Kenneth; Lawson, Corey; Powers, Jason; Omar, Amin

Subject: request to reconsider George Luce

Dear Loreatha,

I received your letter dated May 11, and I am extremely disappointed that Vinson & Elkins has chosen not to extend me an offer. I remain convinced that V&E is the right firm for me. While it is hard to quibble with the verdict of a panel of 14 people, I believe that a real mistake was made, and I ask that my application be reconsidered.

I assume that V&E’s chief objective in hiring new associates is to get the best people it can get. Please consider the fact that in law school, I earned the top score in my section on EVERY PAPER in both of my legal writing courses. (The grading was done anonymously.) My article was selected for publication in the Northwestern Law Review, which is one of the top law reviews in the country. Judge Amy St. Eve, a federal judge with whom I externed, will tell you that I was the best extern she ever had (and her externs were mostly cream-of-the-crop Northwestern students, many of whom went on to federal appellate clerkships). The Judge I work for now, as well as other people with whom I have worked, will tell you that I have unusual talent as a legal analyst. I suggest that before you conclude that I don’t measure up to V&E’s standards, you ask people with whom I have worked what they think about my work and my abilities. At risk of sounding arrogant, I submit that I would be a standout performer at V&E, even though V&E is an elite firm that can select from among the best candidates.

I sensed that some of my interviewers were uncomfortable with the fact that I am not committed to a specific substantive area of law. I would argue, however, that the tools that we bring to the table as lawyers are far more important than the direct, “relevant” experience we bring. “Practical” experience is no substitute for creative intelligence, intellectual sophistication, and pure tenacity. The career clerk in my judge’s chambers has 20+ years of experience, so she knows a lot of things that I don’t know. But she is not in my league as a legal analyst and writer. I have seen enough during my clerkship to say with confidence that I am capable of better work – far better work – than most of the “experienced” attorneys who practice before my judge.

As a judicial clerk, I have been deeply immersed in all sorts of cases at every phase of the litigation process. There are many procedural issues that are common across all different substantive areas of law. There are many connections and overlaps between the different substantive areas. Even within a given substantive area, every case is different, turning on its own facts. The relatively inexperienced associates who specialize in a particular area will have only seen a small part of the universe of possible issues that may arise in their area. Given these facts, I am highly skeptical that, say, a 3rd-year associate who has specialized in “oil and gas” is going to be light years ahead of me in that field. The hypothetical 3rd-year associate will certainly know a lot more than I know about the art and practice of lawyering. But it is highly doubtful that her substantive oil and gas knowledge (which of course exceeds mine) will give her a significant advantage over me when it comes time to analyze the next oil and gas case (which will no doubt involve issues that neither of us have seen before). I want to work on interesting, challenging cases, but I don’t believe it would be rational for me to arbitrarily limit myself to a specific substantive area of law at this point in my career. I’ll find my niche down the road. I would think that V&E would prefer that their new associates be open-minded enough to try different things.

I would also add that there are intangible factors to be considered. I left a lucrative job in my mid-thirties, working hard to score in the top 1% nationwide on the LSAT so I could go to an elite law school. (I was the oldest guy in my class.) When I was a computer programmer, I was a one-man consulting firm, saving my employer (the state of Louisiana) millions of dollars in costs and making the lives of thousands of people (the system’s users) easier. Often, I would go to bed at night, half dreaming, half awake, obsessing over a thorny problem that I encountered. When the creative inspiration would come in the morning, those were the greatest thrills of my life. I know what its like to work 80-hour weeks for months on end. I know what’s it like to be considered the expert of last resort – the guy they call in the middle of the night when the data gets corrupted and no one else can figure out what to do. I take my work SERIOUSLY and I take great pride in what I do. I would submit that these are the qualities that can make me a “franchise player” at V&E.

I recognize that the chance that you will reconsider and extend me an offer are very slim. (Lawyers tend to be extremely risk-averse and unwilling to do things differently than they’ve done before.) But please give this request some serious consideration. I suggest that you begin by talking with some of the folks who have worked with me.

Finally, if you are not willing to change your verdict on me, would you please do the favor of giving me some honest feedback about why you were not impressed enough with me to make an offer? Is it my age? (I’m 39, but I’m healthier than most 25-year-olds.) Is it that I’m losing my hair? (I am willing to undergo transplants!) Is it the fact that I wore a pink shirt to my interview? (My wife picked it out.) Is it the fact that I took the Louisiana bar exam before taking the Texas bar exam? (I took the Louisiana exam because I wanted to get licensed in my home state, and I wanted to get it out of the way first because I had to learn all that civil code stuff.) Is it because I have spent most of my life in Louisiana? (Houston is only a 3-hour car ride or a 40-minute plane ride from Baton Rouge.) Is it because I have a minor speech impediment (a “lacerated S”)? Is it because I am introverted? Do I come across as arrogant? Too timid? Is it because I’m not committed to a specific substantive area of litigation?

You judged me as a qualified candidate based on my paper credentials, as evidenced by your willingness to expend the resources to bring me in for an interview. I assure you that I am a much better lawyer than even my paper credentials suggest! Please give me another look. It would be a shame if V&E and me are deprived of a mutually profitable relationship because I failed to present myself well in person on May 8.

Sincerely,

George Luce

One afternoon a lawyer was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the roadside eating grass. He ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate.

He asked one man, “Why are you eating grass?”

“We don’t have any money for food,” the poor man replied. “We have to eat grass.”

“Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I’ll feed you” the lawyer said.

“But sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree.”

“Bring them along” the lawyer replied. Turning to the other poor man he stated, “You come with us also.”

The second man, in a pitiful voice then said, “But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!”

“Bring them all, as well,” the lawyer answered.

They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine was.

Once underway, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said;

“Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you.”

The lawyer replied, “Glad to do it. You’ll really love my place. The grass is almost a foot high.”

Below is an actual ruling by Federal District Judge Gregory A. Presnell of Orlando, Florida. Defense attorney D. Lee Craig, of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, wanted thedeposition to be in his office, but plaintiffs’ attorney David J. Pettinato of Merlin Law Group wanted it at the court reporter’s office down the street. Instead of dealing directly with two bickering attorneys on where to hold a deposition, the Judge untangled this “Gordian knot” by requiring them to “engage in one (1) game of ‘rock, paper, scissors’” to determine who got to choose where to hold the deposition. And in case the parties couldn’t decide on a neutral ground to hold this game, the judge ordered that “If counsel cannot agree on a neutral site, they shall meet on the front steps of the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602.”

Always planning this judge.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

AVISTA MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Avista Plex, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

______________________________________

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to designate location of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (Doc. 105). Upon consideration of the Motion, the latest in a series of Gordian knots that the parties have been unable to untangle without enlisting the assistance of the federal courts, it is

ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit: at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, June 30, 2006, counsel shall convene at a neutral site agreeable to both parties. If counsel cannot agree on a neutral site, they shall meet on the front steps of the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602. Each lawyer shall be entitled to be accompanied by one paralegal who shall act as an attendant and witness. At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of “rock, paper, scissors.” The winner of this engagement shall be entitled to select the location for the 30(b)(6) deposition to be held somewhere in Hillsborough County during the period July 11-12, 2006. If either party disputes the outcome of this engagement, an appeal may be filed and a hearing will be held at 8:30 A.M. on Friday, July 7, 2006 before the undersigned in Courtroom 3, George C. Young United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 80 North Hughey Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on June 6, 2006.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Here’s not a good way to start your legal career in a new town.

**Original Message**

From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:23 PM
To: William Korman
Subject: Thank you

Dear Attorney Korman,

At this time, I am writing to inform you that I will not be accepting your offer.

After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you. I have decided instead to work for myself, and reap 100% of the benefits that I sew [sic].

Thank you for the interviews.

Dianna L. Abdala, Esq.

** Original Message **

From: William A. Korman
To: “Dianna Abdala”
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Dianna -

Given that you had two interviews, were offered and accepted the job (indeed, you had a definite start date), I am surprised that you chose an e-mail and a 9:30 PM voicemail message to convey this information to me. It smacks of immaturity and is quite unprofessional. Indeed, I did rely upon your acceptance by ordering stationery and business cards with your name, reformatting a computer and setting up both internal and external e-mails for you here at the office. While I do not quarrel with your reasoning, I am extremely disappointed in the way this played out. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

- Will Korman

** Original Message **

From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:01 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Re: Thank you

A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so.

Again, thank you.

** Original Message **

From: William A. Korman
To: “Dianna Abdala”
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:18 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Thank you for the refresher course on contracts. This is not a bar exam question. You need to realize that this is a very small legal community, especially the criminal defense bar. Do you really want to start pissing off more experienced lawyers at this early stage of your career?

** Original Message **

From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:29 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Re: Thank you

bla bla bla

While Ms. Abdala has every right to turn to a position she finds pays too little, 1.) you don’t want to burn bridges and 2.) If you can’t get along with another defense attorney, just WAIT until you have to deal with a prosecutor!

Due to increasing products liability litigation, American liquor manufacturers have accepted the FDA’s suggestion that the following warning labels be placed immediately on all varieties of alcohol containers:

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell happened to your bra and panties.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think that you are whispering when you are not.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like an idiot.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell your friends over and over again that you love them.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to think that you can sing.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe that exs are really dying for you to telephone them at four in the morning.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think that you can logically converse with members of the opposite sex without spitting.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol is the leading cause of inexplicable rug burns on the forehead, knees and lower back.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher, smarter, faster and better looking than most people.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to think that people are laughing WITH you.

WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause pregnancy.

The Jackhole is still looking for an icon, so if you have a good one, please send it my way.

Until then, I’ve learned that in Idaho a rabid jackalope may bite an attorney. Of course, that’s probably HOW the jackalope became rabid.

Federal Judges Can Be Funny Too!

Federal Magistrate Steven Crocker not only rules that Microsoft should not be sanctioned, but lambastes opposing counsel for bringing the motion in one of the funniest rulings I have ever read in my years of practice.

Ironically, most of the disparaged opposing counsel is from Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, the very same firm Rockwell Automation, Inc. sued last December for allegedly filing “baseless, sham” patent infringement suits. With a record like that, one might begin to wonder if someone up there doesn’t like some lawyers.

I guess it’s the 90% that give the other 10% of us bad names.

A young couple were driving down the road one day, happily, deliriously in love and due to be married the next day. Suddenly, a large truck swerved from the oncoming lanes into their car! BOOM! And they both died.

At the Pearly Gates, the young couple confronted St. Peter. “Sir, you have to help us! We were to be married tomorrow. Is there any way we can be married in Heaven?” “Hmmm,” replied St. Peter, “I don’t recall there ever being a marriage in Heaven. Well, let’s take it up with God and see what he says.”

So they approached God with their plea. God sat for a moment, pondering the request. Then he looked down and said, “Come back in five years and ask me again.”

Five years later, the couple approached God again, even more in love than ever and pleading that he allow their marriage. God paused for quite a while, musing over their request. Then he spoke, “Come back in five years and ask me again.”

And once again, five years later, the couple was again in the presence of God, more in love than ever and begging God’s permission for the third time to marry.

This time God smiled broadly and thundered, “Yes my children, you may marry!”

Well, the wedding went off beautifully, the reception was huge, everyone thought the bride was simply breathtaking and the groom was soooo handsome, and everyone was happy! Until…

Two years later, the couple was back before God, and things were not looking so good. The couple had come to the realization almost immediately that marriage was not what they were made for, and in spite of their struggles to come to terms with the situation, they had decided there simply was no alternative but to get a divorce.

Black clouds fractured by lightening rolled across the sky, and the ground shook with explosive thunder.

God glared down at the tiny couple before him, his face becoming dark and angry, and he roared; “Divorce?! It took us ten years just to find a priest in Heaven! Do you have any idea how long it will take to find a LAWYER?!!”

Proofreading is to the practice of law what meeting your future in-laws is to marriage. It can be a pain in the butt, but if you screw it up, you’re out on your own.

However proofing shouldn’t be limited to only lawyers (and their assistants) but everyone should learn to proof.

Many say the simply act of proof shows how much you care about the reader. If this is true, my readers can clearly see how much I care about them.

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter “the House”) a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g., stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick AKA/St. Nicholas AKA/Santa Claus (hereinafter “Claus”) would arrive at sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e., the children, of the aforementioned House were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e., dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as “I”), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the parts of the second part (hereinafter “Mamma”), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g., kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter “the Vehicle”) being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter “the Deer”). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional coconspirator named “Rudolph” may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute “gifts” to said minors pursuant to the applicable provisions of the US Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as “lookouts.” Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:

“Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!”

Or words to that effect.

NOTE TO THE READER: I wrote this during my final semester of law school. I hope you enjoy it.

I’m sitting here, avoiding finishing my bar application, wondering if I really learned enough to take it. While I realize I can graduate the bottom of my class and still become governor, or even Vice-President, I need to pass the bar to become a lawyer. As it’s never too early to start studying for the bar, I’d like to share what I’d like to call ” The Jackhole’s Legal Lines.”

Contracts
Contracts can be summed up in two words, offer and acceptance (I guess that’s actually three words). This is pretty easy.

For instance, when I ask an attractive woman, “So, would you like to join me for dinner tomorrow night?”, that is an offer. When she says, “Sure, it’s better than reading a Bennett opinion” — (Let me have my dreams, okay?) — that is an acceptance.

However, a meeting of the minds must occur for there to be a contract. Now, my “phantom” date assumes I’m asking her to join me for a dinner at 801 Steak and Chop. I assume we’ll have some left over Hometeam Pizza I got last week that’s starting to curl at the edges, located under the two cans of Miller Genuine Draft which Brian Bentler left in my fridge sometime last year. This would not be a meeting of the minds.

Consideration must also be present for a contract to exist. Not all promises are enforceable. For instance, when dropping off my date and she says; “If you ever call me again I’m going to knee you in the groin… Again…” would not be an enforceable contract. That would be a gift. (I take it where I can get it).

However, while dating me may be an act of charity, there is consideration, albeit minimal on my part. Heck, professors are found of saying a single peppercorn is sufficient consideration to buy the Empire State Building. Personally, considering property taxes in New York City, I think the one with the peppercorn is getting ripped off.

I think there’s some stuff about breach of contract, unenforceable contracts and extrinsic evidence we should know about, but I left those notes at Zimm’s or Welman’s or somewhere like that.

Property
Every lawyer should know about “real property.” This includes two main categories: 1) land, earth, soil, dirt. Essentially everything like this except for the stuff you find in your navel and the stuff in which several local discount stores pot their plants; and 2) “fixtures” (e.g., buildings and other immovable objects that are part of the land. This includes my old truck, Sally Struthers, and several law students at local bars). There are a lot of terms to memorize. If I buy some beach front property in Nevada (just wait until the “Big One”) it’s not just “my land”; but I “hold a fee simple absolute interest.” Now get this, if I decide to give my land to my brother and I want to ensure it then will go to his daugther, my niece, I wouldn’t just give him my land, I would give him a “fee tail interest” in the land. Terms like these continue on in perpetuity in property law.

Speaking of, the Rule Against Perpetuities was announced in 1681 by William of Notingham as; “A contingent future interest which, by any possibility, may not vest within twenty-one years after some life in being, is void in its inception.” After establish this nearly intelligible rule (the California Supreme Court has ruled that not knowing this Rule is NOT malpractice, but neither is a lot of things in California), the law students of that era promptly planted Notingham’s butt six feet into the ground. This is the first time a “fee tail simple” was “touched by the land.”

Torts
Torts provide a means for “quick” money in the minds of many law students. But the road to tort money tends to be lined with many ambulances, pictures of yourself on the back of phonebooks, and changing your name to Harley.

To sue for a tort, one must be able to recognize a tort. It’s been alleged going on a date with me constitutes a tort. TV shows like Beavis and Butthead, The Simpson’s, and South Park also provide great examples of torts. For instance, when Mr. Garrison shoots your client Kenny instead of Kathy Lee, he and Mr. Hat (I’ll ignore respondant superior for now) could get into trouble three different ways.

First, killing someone is a crime and prosecutable unless you’re a senator from Massachusetts, a star athlete, a rap musician, or the president.

Second, if Mr. Garrison made a contract with Kenny promising not to shoot him, you could sue him for breach of contract. (See supra, or is that infra? Heck, just look back a few of paragraphs.)

Third, you could sue Mr. Garrison for causing the death of Kenny, which lead to his decapitation and his head to be drug away by rats. This would be the tort of conversion of ones head.

Another tort commonly found in Des Moines is that of false imprisonment. Ask a customer of a major hardware retailer or one checking out a trunk at a local car dealership. Professors enjoy asking students if one can be falsely imprisoned if they don’t know they are being imprisoned falsely. It’s like the question; “If Helen Keller falls in the forest . . . .” For example,

“A law student enjoys himself too much at an FAC, passes out in a room. Another student locks him in that room but unlocks it six hours later, but before the first student comes to. Is it false imprisonment?”

Personally, I say sue. A jury very well might say; “What if he woke up and needed to pee?” and award the big bucks.

One last thing to think about is proximate cause. For example, if your parents buy you Rollerblades(tm) for Christmas and, while using them, you are injured. If the law teaches us only one thing, it’s that, most certainly, you are not to blame for your own injury. You need to look at who else or what else caused your injury. For instance, was it due to a defect in the Rollerblades? Was it due to the fact Des Moines only fills its potholes during full moons on the second Tuesday of each month? Was it due to the fact that a pizza delivery guy almost ran you over trying to deliver a pizza in 30 minutes or less? Was it due to the fact your parents never taught you how to tie your shoelaces? There could be a multitude of proximate causes, and each may be your next deep pocket victim, er, defendant. Only Jesus Christ, whose birth is the basis of Christmas, and the ultimate reason you received the gift, could not be sued. But that’s only due to the inability to gain service on Jesus. See U.S. ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1974) (finding service upon Satan was not possible). Personally, I think Mayo could have simply served an agent of Satan. Bill Gates comes to mind.

Civil Procedure
That, of course, brings us to Civil Procedure. “Civil” is really a misnomer procedures involving lawyers. Just watch an SBA meeting. For the most part, civil procedure is done simply by following the recipes in the legal cookbook. In the federal courts, this is called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It tells you to do A when you want to sue, to do B when you want to resist a suit, and to do C when you want to get disbarred. One can make a motion for about anything. An inmate even made a “Motion to Kiss My Ass.” See Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp. 1395, 1396 (S.D. Ga. 1996). The prisoner moved for “all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you.” Id. This is a very good example of what receives Rule 11 sanctions. See id. at 1400. This is the judicial equivalent to the penalty box in hockey. There are four important aspects of civil procedure to consider.

Standing is an important aspect, even though you are allowed to sit down when in court. To have standing you need to have personal interest in a case. For instance, if Congress passed a law preventing anorexics from hearing music in their heads and seeing unicorns in their offices, Ally McBeal would have standing.

Jurisdiction is a second aspect. When I was a kid and I broke a window or set the house on fire, I was placed in Dad’s court. When I didn’t eat all my food or ripped the clothes I was wearing, I landed in Mom’s court. (Considering I was wearing Mom’s dress, it wasn’t surprising). Our court system is similar to that, but don’t ask me which is federal and state court in that example. You can only get into federal court if the case 1) involves a federal law, or 2) if the”parties” are from different states; this is a “diversity suit.” Another example of a diversity suit is the red, green, and purple plaid suit my Uncle Elmo wore at his funeral. Aunt Mary said; “That was the only way to get rid of that hideous thing.” I sure hope she was talking about the suit.

The good news for those of you practicing law in state court, is us patent geeks are forced to stay out of state court. This works out well, as federal judges are much better suited for sleeping during court proceedings.

Service of Process is the third aspect. While it may be fun to hire Guido to beat down an opponent’s door until they suffer a heart attack (See Torts, infra), simply using the U.S. Postal Service is a viable and cheaper option as they provide their own weapons for free.

Class Actions are the final aspect. However, “class” is not present in most legal proceedings. This is a good one to know about, as except for representing a 20-year old lottery “co-winner,” class actions can be one of the most lucrative endeavors for attorneys. For instance, you could sue a major airline for $30 million on “behalf of” the class of “persons using that airline,” make a phone settlement for $3 million a few days later and take $1 million home without leaving your office (well, $400, 000 after taxes). Well, that is only if you live at your office. But we can talk about being a first year associate next issue.

Good luck to all of you getting ready for the bar. (No, not Grounou’s Bentler). Like attorneys say; “I’ll see you in court!”