Judge Sam Sparks Does It Again
Remember Judge Sam Sparks, of the Western District of Texas? He's a colorful judge with a robust sense of humor, as well as a low tolerance for lawyer shenanigans and quarrels.
Back in 2004, Judge Sparks compared bickering lawyers in his court to kindergarteners. His saucy order made the email rounds, first in Texas, then around the country.
And now he offers up this poetic order, in rhymed couplets:
The rest of this judicial ditty, including the punchline, appears after the jump.
PAGE TWO
(As regular ATL readers know, we just got back from vacation. We did a preemption check before posting this item, but it was cursory. So if this federal judicial poem already appeared on another website or blog, we apologize. If you wrote about it previously for your site, send us a link to your post, and we'll append it here.)
'Antagonistic Motions' Spark Retort From Judge [Texas Lawyer]
(23) Comments
Looks like judge made a mistake. I highly doubt the motion was filed on April 23, 2001.
Also, is this about a Motion for Protection (mentioned in first paragraph) or a Motion to Dismiss (mentioned in last paragraph)?
Did the judge do a cut-and-paste job from an earlier order but not make the conforming changes?
There is precedent for judges taking, ahem, poetic license, in their opinions and orders. Judge Becker's masterpiece in Mackensworth v. American Trading, 367 F. Supp. 373 (E.D. Pa. 1973) is definitely worth the read.
Sucks to make an error like that after acting like a complete smarta**.
My favorite part about Becker's piece is that the Westlaw headnotes are also in verse. E.g.:
[5] KeyCite Notes
92 Constitutional Law
92XII Due Process of Law
92k304 Civil Remedies and Proceedings
92k305 Actions
92k305(4) Jurisdiction and Venue
92k305(6) k. Foreign Corporations. Most Cited Cases
A New York shipowner who
Once sent its vessel over the blue
For loading in Philly, in '72
Could be sued there, to its rue
In accord with process due
Under International Shoe.
"The parties are advised to chill." - Hon. Kozinski
What a disgrace. Judge Sparks could have easily accomplished the same result with a terse statement that the parties' arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
Instead, he chose to make an already regrettable situation even worse by joining in on the stupidity.
Adjudicating legal claims is not a game, and judges should not treat it as such. Any guess as to whether the paying litigants in this case were amused by the judge's little poem?
Judge Sparks and those who engage in similar shenanigans, make a mockery of our legal system and cheat litigants of their absolute right to have their claims adjudicated with dignity.
If a judge is truly repulsed by the behavior of counsel, the judge should punish them through sanctions. This scornful attempt at a riposte accomplishes little other than to subject the entire profession to ridicule.
agreed. judge is a douche.
Unfortunately the motion the incurred the judge's scorn is sealed. So we don't know if the judicial scorn was warranted.
But the judge does not subject the entire profession to ridicule. There are plenty of assclowns in this profession that do that just fine.
Well "for shame," you can make it all better once you are appointed to the federal bench, where you can be Mr. Serious, and encourage your colleagues to do the same.
I shall.
And you should aspire to the same.
Unfortunately the motion the incurred the judge's scorn is sealed. So we don't know if the judicial scorn was warranted.
But the judge does not subject the entire profession to ridicule. There are plenty of assclowns in this profession that do that just fine.
Posted by: phidda | May 1, 2007 12:23 PM
===============
judge = assclown
I am not amused by the judge's little poem.
This is funny. If you don't think so, it's because you are lame and you need to lighten up.
This is hardly a poem. There's not even a consistent meter or rhythm to it. It's one of those "it's a poem if the last words rhyme" kind of poems that you see on bad greeting cards.
Plus, this strikes me as a "leave me alone" type of order. Yeah, leave me alone so I can work on bad poetry and dig into my book of naughty limericks.
My favorite is still RB Ginsburg's "There Once Was a Justice from Nantucket"
@For Shame: you do, indeed, need to lighten up. It would be different if this were a sentencing order, or even anything directed at the actual litigants in the case. But it's not: it's a reprimand to two d!ckhole lawyers who I'm sure have been bickering like eight year olds over a meaningless deposition for the sake of gamesmanship. Justice will survive this injury.
That said, I agree with the above comments that this ain't much of a poem.
"And you should aspire to do the same."
What a bunch of self-important nonsense. Here's a tip: if we all aspired to be federal judges, there would be too much competition for the humorless, small-minded and prestige-obsessed to have much of a shot. So you should aspire to be alone in the field while others pursue equally meaningful jobs in the law. The system you're so eager to have everyone take seriously requires all kinds, dumbass.
Also, if a federal judge like Sparks can't be a little eccentric, what is the point of giving him his little fiefdom? More power to him, I say.
We are very not amused at Judge Sparks's scornful attempt at a riposte! He has subjected his entire profession to ridicule! We, as paying litigants, are very angry!
Begone J. Evans Pritchard!!!
I gotta hand it to Judge Shakespeare here. This opinion will totally work in my favor when I: (a) refuse to play my lawyer's next bill, and (b) sue him for malpractice.
Damn, you people need to loosen up. This was funny.
It would have been funnier if the judge had not fucked up the date (2001 instead of 2007?) and the motion he was acting on - it wasn't a motion to dismiss, but a motion for a protective order.
Having been involved in silly discovery disputes, I can see why the judge wrote what he did. If a bunch of supposedly sophisticated lawyers cannot work out a detail as simple as the mechanics of taking a deposition (which is what it seems the motion was about), they have no business practicing in Federal court. I have no problem with the judge telling them to go fuck themselves and work it out, or get held in contempt.