Awful things seem to be afoot today. So let’s talk about an awful thing.
Earlier this week I sort of criticized a federal judge in Mississippi for trying too hard to find something nice to say about a lawyer who was having to be disqualified for dropping a client like a hot potato when the Court called the lawyer’s actions in not delving too far into the new client’s case without first terminating the existing client relationship “commendable.”
That seemed overly generous to me, as I explained in that post about at tuber of elevated temperature here.
But perhaps it is all a matter of what sort of lawyer conduct you compare it to because if you compare that lawyer’s behavior to the behavior of the Tennessee lawyers necessitating this post, the Mississippi lawyer’s conduct does seem commendable.
Here is s link to the Shao v HCA order entered by a Tennessee circuit court judge in Nashville reprimanding lawyers for what is really, truly pretty vile litigation behavior. I’ll just pull from the opinion because Judge Brothers says it pretty succinctly (for context, the motions being referenced below are the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, defendants’ motion for extension of time to file an answer, and defendants’ motion for extending time to respond to discovery):
These motions are unfortunately clouded by the untimely and unexpected death of Michael Geracioti, who was counsel of record for these defendants. Mr. Geracioti died in the early morning hourse of March 16, 2017, and one of his associates, Linda Natheson, advised counsel for plaintiff of his passing. On that same day, at 12:48 pm, counsel for plaintiff, Brian Cummings, sent an email to Ms. Nathenson expressing his condolences and alerting her to outstanding items due in several cases. Three hours and ten minutes later, at 3:38 pm, counsel for plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment. Four days later, on March 20, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel, Brian Manookian, sent a letter to Ms. Nathenson threatening to assert a claim of $8,000,000.00 against her clients, her law firm, and the estate of Mr. Geracioti.
This Court is profoundly disappointed in the conduct of plaintiff’s counsel and the timing and manner in which the Motion for Default was presented. Being a zealous advocate does not mean that one abandons all sense of professionalism, courtesy and common decency. It is clear that counsel for plaintiff was attempting to gain a tactical advantage by aggressively pursuing the claim for default on the very day of Mr. Geracioti’s death; despite the fact that all parties had been actively engaged in pretrial proceedings and plaintiff’s counsel never complained after striking the original motion. Such behavior operates as an estoppel to the current claims of prejudice.
It is with regret that this Court must reprimand all of plaintiff’s counsel for conduct that is unbecoming members of the Bar and officers of the court. Hopefully counsel will apply this constructively and thereby avoid such reprehensible behavior in the future.
I’ve written it before that a lot of jams lawyers get themselves are avoidable by trying to stick to the principal of Don’t.Be.An.Ass. This is another one of those situations and, as a reminder of how that rule is entirely reconcilable as Judge Brothers’ hints with being a zealous advocate, here are the words of Comment  to RPC 1.3 explains:
A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client.
Comment  to that same rule further explains:
A lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer’s client.
Now, I understand that the litigation at issue appears from the caption to be a wrongful death lawsuit, and it is certainly possible that these lawyers’ client was the primary force pushing for these actions, but you would hope that most lawyers would have the ability to explain to a client pushing for such actions that the repercussions of an order such as this from the judge overseeing their suit is far more prejudicial to their case than simply not pursuing such tactics would have been.