Idiot Lawyers Forced by Judge to Play Rock, Paper, Scissors to Solve Dispute
The lawyers in question are four floors apart in the same building, but couldn’t agree where to hold a freaking deposition. They are now ordered to resolve the dispute by playing “rock, paper, scissors.”
Then they have to go next door to the Starbucks, sit in the corner next to the half and half, and complete a five-minute “time-out.”
Okay, I made that last part up. But the first part was true. Here’s the order.
What do you want to bet one of them tries to use “dynamite“?
(Via Howard Bashman — who else?)
Blog is a perfect example of a “satire”. Interesting one! ):
Comment by Mak (681bce) — 6/9/2006 @ 10:28 pm
I like that judge.
Comment by nk (35ba30) — 6/9/2006 @ 10:39 pm
Maybe it’s because I’m not an attroney, but I can’t see one thing wrong with the judge’s solution.
Comment by Dana (3e4784) — 6/10/2006 @ 5:37 am
If I were the judge, I’d have orderd them to buy each other coffee at Starbucks, and warned them they’d be held in contempt if they attempted to cheat by calling the coffee small, medium or large, thereby forcing the baristas to translate for each other.
Comment by Xrlq (3eed8d) — 6/10/2006 @ 6:00 am
I would have added something to the Order: Both must wear only diapers whilst playing the game.
Comment by Old Coot (caf903) — 6/10/2006 @ 6:13 am
LOL Good one! I agree with the judge on this, when you act like children, you’ll be treated like children.
Comment by Ray (be81f9) — 6/10/2006 @ 8:27 am
What do you want to bet one of them tries to use “dynamite“?
Personally, I would use the “Nuclear Option!”
Comment by Ray (be81f9) — 6/10/2006 @ 10:43 am
How do you do “dynamite?” What gesture is used? I may need this information for future depositions.
Comment by Federal Dog (49ba76) — 6/10/2006 @ 10:45 am
What happens if they both choose scissors? Does that count as one game – for a lawyer?
Comment by Amphipolis (346a88) — 6/10/2006 @ 11:33 am
What happens if they both choose scissors? Does that count as one game – for a lawyer?
Here’s what the judicial order says:
These fools will probably sue each other anyway…after their timeout in Starbucks.
Comment by Paul (c169e9) — 6/10/2006 @ 11:48 am
The judge should have included a dynamite ban in the order.
Comment by Paul (c169e9) — 6/10/2006 @ 11:51 am
Te Judge should dismiss both lawyers and appoint new ones that won’t be so confrontational. That’s within the law, isn’t it?
Comment by Ray (be81f9) — 6/10/2006 @ 12:10 pm
The beauty of the order lies in its simplicity. The judge doesn’t have to resolve ancillary issues such as who flips the coin, who calls it, and do you catch it or let it fall. RPS involves both lawyers equally, and makes each of them look equally silly.
I hope the television cameras are on hand to record the outcome.
Comment by Mike S (d3f5fd) — 6/10/2006 @ 12:35 pm
For Federal Dog’s information, “dynamite,” so far as I am aware, is simply the index finger held out while all other fingers, and thumb, are tucked in. Like “we’re number one.”
Comment by Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/10/2006 @ 12:46 pm
[...] Patterico has a knee-slapping interesting post about two Tampa lawyers who can’t agree on a deposition location ordered by a judge to resolve it by playing rock, paper, scissors. Even though their offices are in the same building! NEW YORK (FORTUNE) – Faced with the inability of two bickering attorneys to resolve even the most innocuous scheduling questions without his intervention, a Florida federal judge yesterday ordered the two to meet on the steps of the federal courthouse and resolve their latest quarrel by playing “one (1) game of ‘rock, paper, scissors.’ ” [...]
Pingback by Reality and Sanity » Blog Archive » Rock-Paper-Scissors Now A Legal Method of Resolving Disputes (52f6b9) — 6/10/2006 @ 1:36 pm
Patrick, do you think that this order will be added to the curriculum at prestigious law schools?
Comment by Paul (c169e9) — 6/10/2006 @ 1:49 pm
Thanks, Anwyn. This is going to take some getting used to, and at least one CLE course.
Comment by Federal Dog (49ba76) — 6/10/2006 @ 2:15 pm
The service list includes “counsel of record” and “unrepresented party”, but the Court’s Order is directed at the lawyers (plural). To me, unrepresented party usually means someone is acting pro se. Is that what this means and, if so, who is it?
Comment by DRJ (860f91) — 6/10/2006 @ 2:23 pm
To be more precise, since the CNN article identifies the lawyers in this dispute, what does “unrepresented party” mean in the service list?
Comment by DRJ (860f91) — 6/10/2006 @ 2:25 pm
as a veteran of numerous depositions in enemy law offices in california, this one left me scratching my head. as long as the location is within the bounds of the code of civil procedure, doesn’t the party noticing the deposition get to pick, subject to a motion for a protective order? “your honor, i don’t want to have the deposition in mr. jones’ office, i want to have it at chuck e. cheese!” **ducks**
Comment by assistant devil's advocate (70d396) — 6/11/2006 @ 11:53 am
one more thing: i hope they aren’t billing their clients for this shit.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate (70d396) — 6/11/2006 @ 11:56 am