CHANCERY COURT IN DAYS OF YORE, PART ONE

June 29, 2010 § 3 Comments

Last week in Clarke County I took the bench one day in a dark suit and dispatched the day’s business in that attire because my robe was in chambers with a Circuit Judge whom I did not wish to bother.  The Chancery Clerk pointed out later that the younger lawyers were abuzz about it.  They had never seen such a thing.  Imagine — a judge adjudicating sans black robe.

Down through the decades it was a hallmark of our courts that the Chancery Judge did not wear a robe.  The Chancellor presided in his (yes, in those days there were few female Chancery Judges) dark suit, dispensing equity like an ancient Titan loosing thunderbolts.   

Long after Circuit Judges donned the robe, Chancellors continued unrobed.  It was not until the late 80’s, as far as I recall, that Chancellors donned robes in our part of the state, and then not every Chancellor did.  Judge John Clark Love in District Six never wore a robe until the day he retired in 2005.  Neither did his counterpart, Judge Ed Prisock. 

The philosophy behind the robe is that it instantly lends authority and recognition of office to the wearer, but Chancellors in those pre-robe days didn’t really need a cloak to lend them weight.  Authority emanated from them like deadly radiation from a chunk of uranium.  For those of us who practiced before some of the really great old lions of the Chancery bench, there was no question of authority.  A wilting glance or stabbing remark could inflict a wound in one’s case that would bleed to a fateful conclusion.  Heaven help the unprepared lawyer.   

Billy Neville of Meridian was the commander of his court room.  He sat on the bench, pipe jutting MacArthur-like out of his face, whittling on a cedar plug until he carved an eye-shaped piece — rounded in the middle and sharp on each end — whence he would start another.  A lying witness never escaped his ire.  “Suh!” he would thunder, “Do you expect me to believe that?”  You knew that was coming because only a few questions before he had begin running his hand across his forehead and then over his scalp as first his cheeks and then his temples and then his forehead changed hues from peach to crimson to scarlet.  “Mr. Bailiff, suh!  Take this man upstairs!” 

Judge Neville was also a master at communicating subtly to the attorney the futility of one’s case.  “Yes, suh, I will sustain the objection because this has nothing to do with the case, and even if it did there is no law in Mississippi that would permit me to do what the Complainant has prayed for.  Now you may proceed, suh.”  Okay, how do you frame the next question when the judge has just let all the air out of your case?

Judge Ed Cortright of Yazoo City was a gentleman of the first order and a scholar of note in his long career on the bench.  He was reversed on appeal only once that I know of, and that by Frank Coleman, now County Judge Coleman, of Meridian.  As gentlemanly as he was, there was a steely side to Judge Cortright, and he could communicate his displeasure at a lawyerly gaffe in no uncertain terms.  His disdain for the illogical argument or a position unsupported by the law was unmistakable. 

Judge Mike Sullivan of Columbia was so revered and respected that he was elevated to the Supreme Court, where he made his mark as a voice for Chancery Court in the appellate court.  His calm demeanor and measured speech left no doubt who was in control of his court room. 

Judge John Clark Love of Kosciusko had a way of eviscerating lawyers who wandered ill-prepared into his lair. 

Judge Ray Montgomery of Canton could shrink your head two to three sizes from his tirade if you wound up on his wrong side or if your case did not impress him.        

There were many robeless Chancellors, too many to mention, some great and some forgettable.  We sometimes quaked in their presence, but in the crucible of their courtrooms we were molded into better lawyers.

“HIGH WATERS” AND BURLAP SUITS

June 16, 2010 § 6 Comments

Philip Thomas, a lawyer in Jackson who publishes the MS Litigation Review & Commentary blog, has a clever piece about effective attire for the trial lawyer.  You can read it here

What interested me was the emphasis that jury-trial lawyers place on image and the subtle appearance clues that can influence jurors.  Jurors have certain expectations bred from experience, years of watching dubious tv dramas about the law, and John Grisham novels.  I remember years ago an expert at a seminar telling his audience in all sincerity that a lawyer should never wear green in the court room because it is an insincere color.  If you want that billion-dollar verdict, you need to dress like a billion dollars.  With so much at stake, who can blame a lawyer for striving to attend to even the smallest detail that could conceivably influence the outcome of a case?   

Still, I almost laughed out loud at Mr. Thomas’ references to “high waters” and a burlap suit.  My trial experience has been primarily in Chancery Court, where, of course, juries are empanelled as often as total solar eclipses.  Chancellors are just not as susceptible as jurors to appearances, probably at least in part because Chancery Judges can’t afford to dress much better than the lawyers who appear before them.  And anyway, Chancery Judges are mostly a jaded lot who have so many factors to weigh and consider in even the simplest case that we just don’t have the luxury of paying much attention to what the lawyers are wearing.  Oh sure, a jacket and tie for males and “professional attire” for females in the court room are still de rigeur in Chancery.  But that is required to preserve decorum, not to create a fashion show. 

If it is true that “Clothes make the [man/woman],” I can say emphatically that in Chancery Court, clothes do not make the lawyer.  In my many years of practicing and judging in mostly rural counties in Mississippi I have seen many a lawyer in “high waters” and burlap suits.  I have worn them myself.  I have seen lawyers in poplin suits, boiled white shirts with short sleeves, clip-on ties and galluses who were wizards in the court room.  I have seen rumpled country lawyers in laughably poorly fitting suits send nattily dressed lawyers back to their sleek offices in the city rubbing equitable knots on their sore heads.  I once tried a case in a country court room against a lawyer who had yet to remove the sewn-on tag from the sleeve of his sport coat, and I was glad to escape that trial with a squeaky victory.      

Now, I am not trying to put down Mr. Thomas or other trial lawyers who navigate the rarified atmosphere of public interest and multi-district litigation, class actions, toxic torts and other legal train wrecks with billions on the line.  You have to do what you have to do to make it work.  I understand that.  I just marvel at how sophisticated some of us have become over my nearly 40 years in bench and bar.  

As I write this, I sit at my computer in my “professional golfer” attire (even though I don’t play golf).  Nothing on the docket today, so I can relax and work on getting out an opinion that addresses five or six sets of those factors I mentioned above.  Lawyers who pop in to open an estate are free to dress as they please as long as we remain in chambers and they don’t have a client tagging along.  If we do have to head to the court room, I will be costumed in my robe, and the lawyers may feel free to wear their “high waters” or burlap suits. 

And I’ll be thankful for our relaxed atmosphere where we can focus on the essentials.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Humor category at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.