 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
It is hereby ordered that you do lunch.
In the Alabama case of McCullers v. Koch Foods of Alabama, apparently the two lawyers were not getting along too well throughout. Defence counsel moved to amend his pleading and plaintiff’s counsel opposed the request unless defendant agreed not to later bring a motion to dismiss. Chief District Court Justice David Proctor quickly got annoyed at the lawyers for not being able to work things out, noting that there is no way an amendment would not be granted.
He told them they were acting petty and wasting the court’s resources. He then ordered the lawyers to get together and have lunch, during which they were to discuss how they can act professionally. The order requires the plaintiff’s lawyer to pay the lunch bill and defence counsel to leave the tip. The lawyers are then to file a joint report describing the conversation that occurred and the amount of the tip. Et voilà!
I Googled Koch Foods and apparently they are a food giant, processing all sorts of farm and meat products, especially chicken. For a number of years they also owned Purina Mills, as in Purina Dog Chow.
I don’t know what happened thereafter with the lunch. It would not surprise me if both lawyers could not agree on implementing same in accordance with the order. Maybe they each filed separate reports with each blaming the other for breachng the order.
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT
1. Defence counsel was egregious and unco-operative in setting up said lunch which I had to pay for.
2. He was somewhat overreaching suggesting we fly to Paris and have lunch at Maxim’s.
3. I offered a comparable alternative, namely Denny’s. The tuna fish salad is to die for.
4. After lengthy discourse he agreed to lunch locally, offering to have his client cater the meal at wholesale cost in the social hall of the local St. Augustine Catholic Church. I thought we reached a comprised agreement. However, when we met for the lunch, I chose not to eat his client’s food as I became suspicious when I noticed the dish he gave to me had written on it “Max.”
5. My “learned friend” failed to act professionally. He even failed to leave a tip of at least 15 per cent, based on the value of the doggie bag. He was certainly not a friend of the server.
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff’s counsel did not take Your Honor’s order seriously. He was uncompromising throughout. He insisted that the best place for lunch would be Gary’s Grits.
2. We finally agreed to have the lunch catered by my client at St. Augustine’s Catholic Church.
3. Plaintiff’s counsel acted strangely. When we shook hands, he squeezed my fingers so hard it caused the powder to spill out of my ring.
4. Actually he was very mistrustful. He asked that I take the first couple of bites. When I refused to do so, he summoned Father Arnold, who happened to be hovering in the hall, over to our table. We asked for his thoughts on the situation, and he said, “I can’t say. All I know is the bishop asked me to come by as someone might need to receive his last rites.”
5. I complied with the order fully and more, not only leaving a tip but even dropping a five-dollar bill onto the collection plate.
2. We finally agreed to have the lunch catered by my client at St. Augustine’s Catholic Church.
3. Plaintiff’s counsel acted strangely. When we shook hands, he squeezed my fingers so hard it caused the powder to spill out of my ring.
4. Actually he was very mistrustful. He asked that I take the first couple of bites. When I refused to do so, he summoned Father Arnold, who happened to be hovering in the hall, over to our table. We asked for his thoughts on the situation, and he said, “I can’t say. All I know is the bishop asked me to come by as someone might need to receive his last rites.”
5. I complied with the order fully and more, not only leaving a tip but even dropping a five-dollar bill onto the collection plate.
I commend the judge for his efforts to get lawyers to act more professional and civil. The question is, can a judge compel them to do so? Don’t know. As the expression goes, “You can bring a dog to the table, but can you make him eat?”
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe, is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.