O-O-o-o-o-h SNAP!!!
Tell me the man did not say that!
A funny thing happened to me on the way to Court the other day. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas conducts its case management hearing by telephone conference call. You are given a number and told to call in a few minutes before the hearing. I did this only to find, once I was patched through, that opposing counsel and his local counsel were already connected. I was about to tell them hi and exchange some pleasantries, but opposing counsel started talking to his local counsel about me. It obviously did not dawn on him that I might be connected and could hear everything he was saying. Needless to say his comments were not only not amusing, but they were personal and insulting. His tone was condescending. When the judge came on the line I made my announcement. I am not sure opposing counsel opened his mouth and insert his foot at this point, but he should have. Too me it would have been kind of like asking a lady how far along she was with her pregnancy only to be told by her she was not pregnant.
I probably should, but will not, share the name and location of this tactless person, but that might be embarrassing to him. I am certainly embarrassed for him.
The moral of the story might be to be careful what you say in public or on the phone because you really do not know who is listening. But, the truth of the matter, to be effective legal counsel you need to be more taciturn and mind your thoughts and your speech at all times least you stick your foot in your mouth as this attorney did.
Litigating automatic stay and discharge injunction violations can be interesting. Financial institutions, especially small community banks and credit unions, often cannot conceive how they can be sued or found liable for simply making a mistake. This, of course, is a discussion for another post. I understand the sentiment and try to deal with it in our adversary proceedings and negotiations.
The problem, however, involves attorneys who somehow find themselves morally offended by these lawsuits. Now, I have to admit, I have never understood this. I can certainly understand attorneys advocating for their client's position, but personal moral outrage on the part of the attorney, I have often found, is (1) nothing more than an excuse to bilk his own client for fees and costs when to do so is not otherwise justified given the financial and legal consequences of the situation; and, (2) usually a substitute for not having a proper defense available in the first place. These two usually go hand-in-hand. All of us attorneys could probably trend this way if we are not careful, and I do not consider myself a saint. We all just need to be on guard. I have always taken the position that we are all sinners and I have tried to conduct myself and views (and mouth) accordingly. Needless to say, there are those defense attorneys who take the position that their client is more infallible than the Pope, and they, as attorneys, are so much better than everyone else that it is beneath them to do even deal with you as a mere attorney for a consumer debtor. Their words and actions are contemptuous of the law, the debtor and the court, and they take it out on you, the debtor's attorney. It is truly unfortunate, it happens with too much frequency, and it makes the practice of law uncomfortable.
(Beware the enter button before entering a comment. haha. Sorry about that)
There will always be people who like to make fun of and irritate others to boost their own ego. Gossip hurts and I try to stay out of it, both in speaking and hearing. I'm sorry this lawyer needs to go back to kindergarten to learn how to play nice...you're much stronger than he is.
(I sound like you, Dad. :) You taught and continue to teach me well :D )
Posted by: Mary Newton | March 12, 2006 at 06:58 PM