I can understand why judges sometimes get frustrated with overly complex claims. From my own experience as a litigator (solicitor, clerk in various courts, occasional court appearances), it is extremely annoying when a claim doesn’t sort the wheat from the chaff, and just puts every single little allegation (relevant or irrelevant). No one has bothered to work out what is relevant. Note to litigators: the whole point is to persuade the judge of your point, not bore him/her to death.
Obviously, one particular judge had it up to there.
When a lawyer in Tacoma, Wash., filed a lawsuit 465 pages long — with an eight-page title — the judge had enough. Referring to a rule requiring “short and plain” allegations, Judge Ronald Leighton issued a short and plain limerick:
“Plaintiff has a great deal to say,
but it seems he skipped Rule 8-a.
His complaint is too long,
which renders it wrong.
Please rewrite and refile today.”
I’ve said earlier that I don’t think humour is appropriate from judges, but I reckon can almost forgive this. An eight-page title? That’s crazy.
Seriously, however, sometimes if a claim is very complex, there’s no option but to file a long complaint. The trick is to get a happy medium: enough information so that the defendant knows what the claim is, and what allegations he/she has to defend, but not so much information that the defendant and the court are drowning in it, and can’t work out what the claim is.
As I have theorised before, I think some lawyers (and law students) think that the longer a document is, and the more complicated words it contains, the better it is. This is not actually the case. In my opinion, all lawyers should sit back and think, “What is this case really about?” before filing a complaint. The important thing is to bring the heart of the matter to the attention of the defendant and the judge, so that they can understand it. True brilliance is expressing a complex claim in a simple way.
(Via PrawfsBlawg)
11 Comments
Got to give him credit for expressing the error in such a humorous and yet direct fashion. Nothing wrong with light humour so long as it doesn’t give rise to the perception of some kind of prejudice.
I think you’re right, Nanu.
My husband was suggesting that this kind of response might encourage the plaintiff to hire a new lawyer who could better express his claim…
Reminded me of the punchline from an old sci-fi short story where a person (named Stein) is arrested after emerging from a time machine 7 years and one day after robbing a bank. The question put before the judge was whether the use of the time machine got around the statue of limitations or not. The judgement, in total, was
Andrew, that’s a classic (particularly if you are a lawyer). Must have been a lawyer and a sci-fi author who wrote it…
Found it. The line “A niche in time saves Stein” is from the short story “A Loint of Paw” which is found in “Asimov’s Mysteries”.
Michael Crystal and co in the Thyssen family trust case, opening statement lasted well over a year!
http://www.davidrowan.com/2002/03/evening-standard-thyssen-family-feud.html
Can barely be said to be an opening statement if it lasts that long. And it all settled in the end!!! (sigh of relief from all except the lawyers, I suppose)
LE,
I think the lawyers would have been laughing, not thinking “ahh, its all over”. If the opening statement had lasted that long it means some of the senior QCs there would have been paid over GBP1m and not even said a word to the court, all while staying in excellent accomodation on an island where the police wear shorts. I am also sure they found a way to make the earnings non-taxable, having been off shore for a long time. What more could you really ask out of life?
The only sadness for them would have been that it didn’t last longer…
An example of poor judgment on the humour stakes…
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24024153-953,00.html
Darwin magistrate Vince Luppino chastised Leary for his poor choices - heavy drinking and his taste in beer.
”(That is) poor judgement on two counts there - drinking that much and drinking Melbourne Bitter,” Mr Luppino said, sending chuckles through the gallery.
Yeah, not a fan of that kind of humour in the court room - seems kinda like jock humour to me.