an honest rant
I didn’t think of it at the time, but it occurred to me that for a full understanding of the absurd implications of the preceeding post, one might benefit from a brief introduction to American Jurisprudence.
That jumble of numbers and letters after the case name means that it’s a reported case. These so-called “reported cases” consist of the decision of an appellate court regarding a case that has already been through trial. With a few highly technical exceptions, the opinions of trial courts are not reported, and they are not relied on as authority like these reported cases.
So let us consider this: This guy was so upset about the dog not being able to travel that he filed a civil lawsuit ($300 filing fee), proceeded with trial ($20,000 in legal fees), and then proceeded with an appeal ($10,000 more in legal fees). All because this guy was so upset that he couldn’t put his beloved canine on an airplane instead of in the mail like everybody else.
Sometimes people ask me what I dislike the most about being a lawyer. First of all, I find this to be a curious inquiry, as it assumes that being a lawyer is so inherently loathsome that surely my dislikes must be legion. Why don’t you just go ahead and say it:
Surely you must hate your job as much as everyone else hates you for doing it.
Well, I don’t hate my job - being something of a contrarian by nature - but if you’re asking what I dislike most about being a lawyer, the first answer that comes to mind is: other lawyers.
And the dog thing is a perfect example. It pains me to imagine the kind of attorney who can look across his desk and proclaim with a straight face, “Nibbles has been denied his fundamental right to travel! This is a miscarriage of justice!” By the way - we love that phrase.
And now I’ve got this opposing counsel trying to pull a fast one on me. But he doesn’t know that I’m from the streetz, mmkay? This guy - this. guy. - files a motion that includes a declaration (sworn under penalty of perjury, no less) stating that he served it via the U.S. mail service on July 17, 2008. He swears! So I’m wondering how he’s going to explain to the judge how one of the attachments to this motion is a letter dated July 18, 2008. And it’s got one of those fax machine timestamp thingies that says “07182008” up at the top left. And you mailed it to me on the 17th? Really?
Is that really what you want to do when your client’s defense consists exclusively of: “I totally swear that I didn’t sign that document. I’ve never even seen that document. What’s a document? That’s totally not even my signature. See how I signed this other thing and my signature totally doesn’t even look like that? Oh yeah, I swear. Penalty of perjury and all that.”
And this is exactly why you will never offend a lawyer by telling us a lawyer joke. Because we know they’re all true. But at least most of us still stick with representing primates.
