The Curmudgeonly Clerk blogs about judicial attacks on lawyers, citing infamous language from Judge Kent (S.D. Tex.). Wrote Judge Kent:
Manifestly, any person with even a correspondence-course level understanding of federal practice and procedure would recognize that Defendant's Motion is patently insipid, ludicrous and utterly and unequivocally without any merit whatsoever.
Fans of Judge Kent will enjoy this excellent - albeit critical - article entitled "Bullying From the Bench." There the author brings us several Kentian gems, like the one noted below:
Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. 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 heir utter dearth of legal authorities in their brieing 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.
Law professor Steve Lubert suggests that my enjoying Judge Kent may be "[s]chadenfreude," which Lubert says, "runs deep." I disagree. As a group, lawyers are the most arrogant subset of society. How many times have you heard someone say, "This is what we lawyers call a 'brief.'" And, "This book is written with the layman in mind." Imagine if your doctor said, "This is what we doctors call an 'aorta.'" Most lawyers are arrogant and annoying. [However, most blogger-lawyers are very congenial and interesting. Quite a divide.]
Lawyers need to be reminded of their mortality: It is good medicine. Besides, behind the "gravy-stained paper place mats" were clients. If these clients were being prejudiced by imcompetent lawyers, they - and perhaps the whole legal world - should know about it. Maybe Judge Kent is doing what the state bar neglects, namely, censoring lawyers for violating the first duty to clients - competence. ABA Model R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 (2003) ("A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.")
