So this is a signature Raffi-Stapled-to-his-Pompous-White-Horse moment, but the more I do this work, the less likely I am to actually voice the unkind thing about my opponent that I'm thinking in an email or in person, even in private.
A couple of things. Yes, sometimes OC really is a chickensh$#. That's even true if they are a really good lawyer who you are cordial with and get along with. I am sometimes to. It's a given.
Nonetheless, I think you should try to limit this stuff. And it's not just 2/
because sometimes what you said slips out in a reply-all or maybe the person you said it to repeats it to someone else.
I'm having trouble explaining it exactly, but I feel better about my practice when I'm not mad in that way at OC. Yeah, they're representing their client
And they just said I'm full of it, and I'm not, so I'm mad. But in the end it's all so much water under the bridge. Try it.
Why'd I start this mini-thread the way I did? Because someone is going to shortly tell me, "But what if my opponents are doing evil stuff?"
Well, all I can say is that my practice is pretty mundane. I mostly represent people, both plaintiffs and defendants, in disputes about money. I can't tell you how to feel in other kinds of practice. Those are important cases, but 99.9% of the things my opponents say
are well within the range of things I would be happy to say if I was representing the other side. I completely understand that other practices are different.
OK, soap box over.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was listening to a podcast tonight, and the guest said, in explaining that he thought Rudy’s out of court statements were worse than what he said in court, that it’s ok if a lawyer makes outlandish arguments in court because those are subject to dispute and testing 1/
I think that’s a common thought - that a lawyer representing a client should say whatever to help their client, and if they’re lying the other lawyers will catch them.
No. Yes, you can make arguments that are not 100% winners. One lawyer word we use for that is colorable.
But you can’t go in there and make up lies. You have an independent obligation as a lawyer not to lie to the Court, even if the lie helps your client. What Rudy and co. were doing was not zealous advocacy. It was deeply offensive to the way law is supposed to work.
The first argument is the mootness problem we've all been discussing. The DNC makes neat work of Trump's claim that the case isn't moot because you can just "decertify" - not a thing, the DNC says.
Why was the district judge correct to deny leave to amend a second time? Because Rudy/Trump (Rump?) themselves created chaos and delay.
So, first immediate thing: we’re now back to the only issue on appeal being the denial of the motion for leave to amend, it seems.
This confirms my previous tweet. Note, this is their only shot on appeal. There's not like, some other brief where they can challenge the trial judge's decision on the First Amended Complaint. By filing this brief, they are done on that.
Ok, so the 3rd Circuit is adopting the briefing schedule. Time for fun!
My reaction: I’ve said this before, but Courts are quite likely to give the President a lot of procedural leeway. That’s why Judge Brann let Rudy babble for 2 hours before ripping him apart. They don’t want to be seen throwing the President out on technicalities. /2
So of course, they could just have denied the motion to expedite, but then they’d be criticized for not giving the President a chance. Instead, they’re saying “oh you want to file a brief today? Have at it.”