Legal Writing

Judge Enters “Order Denying Motion for Incomprehensibility”

Several grounds exist for a judge denying a lawyer’s motion.  Now we have a new one: incomprehensibility.

Displeased with a lawyer’s inartful motion-drafting, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Leif M. Clark (W.D. Tex.) entered an order captioned “Order Denying Motion for Incomprehensibility.” The judge couldn’t figure out what the heck the defendant was requesting in a motion titled, “Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response Opposing Objection to Discharge.”

Judge Clark said: “The court cannot determine the substance, in any, of the Defendant’s legal argument, nor can the court even ascertain the relief that the Defendant is requesting. The Defendant’s motion is accordingly denied for being incomprehensible.”

Perhaps worried that the defendant might miss his point, Judge Clark appended a footnote in which he invoked the following quotation from the Adam Sandler movie, Billy Madison:

Mr. Madison [Sandler’s character], what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no point, and may God have mercy on your soul.

— Order Denying Motion for Incomprehensibility, In re King, Case No. 05-56485-C, Feb. 21, 2006. Thanks to Sharee Moser.

Should Judges Rhyme?

Should judges rhyme? A recent offering by Justice Michael Eakin (Pa. Sup. Ct.), one of the better rhyming judges, is submitted for your expert poetic analysis, preferably with reference to the late romantic period of Shelly, Byron and Keats.

Sung to the tune of the theme song from “Mr. Ed,” the television sitcom about the talking horse, here is part of Justice Eakin’s rhyming dissent from a ruling that the state’s drunk driving law does not apply to people on horses:

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,

but the Vehicle Code does not divorce

its application from, perforce,

a steed, as my colleagues said.

“It’s not vague” I’ll say until I’m hoarse,

and whether a car, a truck or horse

this law applies with equal force,

and I’d reverse instead.

To which we can add, with all due respect to Justice Eakin:

Justice Eakin, we love you, man,

for trying to do whatever you can

to spice up the lives of bar and bench.

But although it’s a dicey subject to broach,

could you please consider another approach?

‘Cause that latest rhyme gives off a bit of a stench.

Just kidding around, Justice Eakin. We love ya. Other Justice Eakin rhymes  can be found here.

— Commonwealth v. Noel, 857 A.2d 1283, 1291 (Pa. 2004) (Eakin, J., dissenting). Thanks to Kelly Jordan.

Wanted: Expert Witness in Nizzle Shizzling

In a copyright battle between two British rap bands, an English court ruled that rap lyrics should for practical purposes be considered a “foreign language,” requiring expert testimony as to their interpretation.

British band Ant’ill Mob sued another band, Heartless Crew, alleging the defendant disparaged the band’s copyright for its 2001 hit song, “Burnin’,” by remixing the song using lyrics the plaintiff considered objectionable because they allegedly refer to drugs and violence, including the terms “shizzle my nizzle,” “mish mash man,” and “string dem up.”

Even after playing the record at half speed and consulting the Urban Dictionary, Judge Kim Lewison said he could not determine the meaning of the phrases without an expert witness.

The amusing predicament of three uppercrust, white, middle-aged judges trying to unravel rap slang was not lost on Judge Kim, who commented on the “faintly surreal experience of three gentlemen in horsehair wigs examining the meaning of such phrases.”

According to the Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com), “shizzle my nizzle” means:

a bastardization of “fo’ sheezy mah neezy,” a bastardization of “for sure mah n—,” a bastardization of “I concur with you wholeheartedly my African-American brother.

— Confetti Records v. Warner Music UK Ltd, [2003] EWHC 1274 (Ch). Thanks to Cynthia Cohan, Elise Hendrick, and Catherine Seville for sending this opinion. Catherine is the Director of Studies in Law at Newnham College in Cambridge and reports that Judge Lewison is “a good Cambridge man.” Indeed.

Canada Has the Nicest Judges

There are plenty of cranky judges out there, but also some nice ones.

Have you ever noticed how nice people from Canada are? Well, it turns out that even the judges are super nice.

In National Leasing Group, Inc. v. Top West Ventures, the plaintiff sued to collect a debt and the defendant filed an intelligible counterclaim drafted by a friend consisting of 97 paragraphs and 26 pages.  As you’ll read below, the Supreme Court of British Columbia could argue just cause for launching into the guy, but Master Bolton, the writing judge, responded to the bizarre pleading with kindness and an abundance of decorum. Here’s a taste of the court’s opinion:

On the face of the document, I had difficulty discerning any cause of action while the matter was being spoken to in chambers, but in view of its length and complexity, I concluded that I should reserve my decision in order to consider it in more detail. The first paragraph reads:

1. For the [DE]FENDANT with the knowledge of the David-Wynn:Miller; Language-Procedures (http://www.dwmlawprocedures.com; http://brucestellar.tsx.org) is with the damage: damage by the utilization of the fictitious-language/scribble as the foundation for the authority for the action/claim against the DE[FENDANT] damage by the criminal-rate of the interest [section: 347: Criminal-Codeof the Canada]; damage by the false-statements [section: 397.1(a); Criminal-Codeof the Canada]; damage by the completion of a fraud: constructive or actual [section: 380.1 of the Criminal Code of the Canada]; damage by the completion of a mail-fraud [section: 381 of the Criminal-Code of the Canada; damage by the bad-faith; by the PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT by the COUNTER-CLAIM.

What did the judge have to say about this gobbledygook? With a generosity of spirit unparalleled in recorded judicial history, he said: “This is not too bad.”

However, he added that, unfortunately, he could not recognize anything “in any of its remaining 96 paragraphs.”

— Nat’l Leasing Group, Inc. v. Top West Ventures, 2001 BCSC 111 (Can.). Thanks to David Cheifetz.

This Judicial Humor Resulted in Censure

The Kansas Supreme Court publicly censured a rhyming judge in a 1975 case for a tasteless piece of doggerel in which he publicly humiliated a woman arrested for prostitution. His poetic order was deemed to be in violation of the judicial ethical canon that “[a] judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity.”

We won’t  perpetuate the misdeed by setting forth the offending rhyme here. Suffice it to say the judge repeatedly called the young woman a “whore” (in addition to showing bad judgment, he should be chastised for being a lousy poet; that’s what he came up with to rhyme with “1974” — the year of defendant’s arrest).

The most interesting aspect of the case was the Kansas Supreme Court’s commentary on judicial humor. In defense to the disciplinary proceeding, the censured jurist cited to several poetic judicial opinions and argued he should not be censured for following in this grand judicial tradition. The court observed:

Judges have long been enjoined from the use of humor at the expense of the litigants before them for reasons which should be apparent. Under the heading of “Ancient Precedents” in the canons of judicial ethics adopted in 1924 by the American Bar Association this appears:

“Judges ought to be more learned than witty; more reverend than plausible; and more advised than confident. Above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue ….”

“Patience and gravity of hearing is an essential part of justice; and an over speaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal ….” — Bacon’s Essay “of Judicature.” (198 Kan. xi.)

In 1967 a long time member of the supreme court of Arkansas in advising new judges on opinion writing had more to say on the subject. We quote:

“. . . Judicial humor is neither judicial nor humorous. A lawsuit is a serious matter to those concerned in it. For a judge to take advantage of his criticism-insulated, retaliation-proof position to display his wit is contemptible, like hitting a man when he’s down.” (Smith, A Primer of Opinion Writing, For Four New Judges, 21 Ark. L. Rev. 197, 210.)

Judges simply should not ‘wisecrack’ at the expense of anyone connected with a judicial proceeding who is not in a position to reply. … Nor should a judge do anything to exalt himself above anyone appearing as a litigant before him. Because of his unusual role a judge should be objective in his task and mindful that the damaging effect of his improprieties may be out of proportion to their actual seriousness. He is expected to act in a manner inspiring confidence that even-handed treatment is afforded to everyone coming into contact with the judicial system.

— In re Rome, 542 P.2d 676, 685 (Kan. 1975). Thanks to Lihwei Lin.