“QUOTE UNQUOTE”
October 7, 2011 § Leave a comment
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” — Dr. Seuss
“Find your place on the planet, dig in, and take responsibility from there.” — Gary Snyder
“The question is not ‘Can you make a difference?’ You already do make a difference. It’s just a matter of what kind of difference you want to make during your life on this planet.” — Julia Butterfly Hill
Q & A WITH JUDGE GAMBRELL
October 6, 2011 § 1 Comment
Chancellor Deborah J. Gambrell presides in the 10th District (Forrest, Lamar, Marion, Pearl River and Perry). Here’s an interview she provided for 12 CCDM.
Q: Tell us some of your personal preferences that lawyers from outside your district need to know before they come before you.
A: Please bring the court file from the respective county. Pre-Trial conferences shall be held prior to trials. They are scheduled on Fridays and you should contact the Court Administrator for a setting. We do not schedule hearings that require a court reporter on Fridays.
Q: What are the 3 attributes that you would consider to set the good lawyers apart from the bad ones?
A: Good lawyers represent their clients zealously and in doing so are prepared, knowledgeable, and courteous. Lawyers that are not deemed “good” are ones that appear in court unprepared, without necessary documentation for the court to properly determine the disputed issues, and are rude or argumentative. Arguing and screaming is not impressive to me. I have raised six (6) daughters; three (3) of whom lived through sharing the same room without maiming each other. I sat as a Justice Court Judge for thirty (30) years hearing litigants’ disputes without the benefit of counsel so just tell me what you need me to know. Do not interrupt, and do not get upset if I’m not impressed by the bickering back and forth.
Q: What is the main thing lawyers should know to avoid doing in your court room during a trial?
A: DO NOT ANNOUNCE “READY FOR TRIAL” IF YOU ARE NOT. Being ready for trial means: 1) having three (3) copies of all proposed Exhibits; 2) having presented a copy of the proposed Exhibits and Exhibit List to counsel opposite; and 3) having all necessary parties present. I’d rather hear, “Judge we’d like to proceed but realize that we are missing a few things that would assist the court in resolving the matter.”
Q: What part of the job do you enjoy the most?
A: I enjoy serving my community by seeking to bring litigants to a win-win resolution of disputes. I know that cannot happen all of the time, but when it does, I feel good and have my faith restored in “seeking the good” in people.
Q: What is your pet peeve as a judge?
A: I get extremely upset when lawyers are not truthful with me!!! If you have weaknesses or advantages over the other attorney, spit them out in “Pre-trial.” Do not withhold information that will ultimately come to light. It makes me wary of you.
ALL COMMENTS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL
October 5, 2011 § Leave a comment
Comments are most welcome on this blog. I encourage you to question, react or add your opinion. The law is an art, not a science, so ideas and interpretations can vary.
Having said that, though, I have to say that all comments are not on a level playing field. There are some subspecies of comments that are, well, different.
For one, there are the so-called “spam comments,” which apparently are generated either by machines or by humans with the linguistic skills and intelligence no greater than that of machines. Here are three recent examples:
Im a blog crazed person and i appreciate to read cool blog like yours.
Wow! This can be 1 particular of probably the most valuable blogs Weve ever arrive across on this topic. Basically Good. I am also a specialist in this subject so I can understand your effort.
Seriously been searching all around you with information regarding that. Truly thank you a large amount.
And how about this whopper:
Certainly, your post is unquestionably by far the most fantastic during this beneficial issue. Certainly with the results and can thirstily watch out for your own foreseeable future improvements. Announcing cheers won’t just do, for any increadible clearness in the document. I most certainly will easily snap up a person’s rss to remain seated privy for any messages. Great do the job and a lot accomplishment in your business dealings. Could god thanks a lot, [Yes, it ends with a comma, but in all fairness the punctuation is only a small part of the problem.]
The foregoing specimens were trapped in my spam filter, which claims to have snagged 4,608 of them over the life of my blog, which is now 16 months old. That’s an average of 288 spam comments a month, or 9.6 per day.
The above are exemplars of the English-language variety spam. Spam comments also arrive in Russian (in Cyrillic, no less), French, Italian, Bulgarian and Romanian (I know the latter two only from the suffix on the name of the web site, since those languages are beyond my ken). These comments may actually have been intelligent commentary on something I posted, for all I know. For lack of knowing, I send them the way of spam.
Spam comments are intended by the sender to plant a link on your blog that will either generate traffic for the sender or allow the sender to inundate your blog with ads and other unpleasantries. I delete all spam comments and send them to spam hell, wherever that is.
Another genre of comments is the disgruntled litigant. I have had several proposed comments from litigants critical of their judge (in one instance me as judge), the legal system, their attorney, and the appellate courts. Most come from outside Mississippi. A major reason I moderate comments is to screen those out.
There are also commentors who ask for legal advice. Sorry, judicial ethics preclude me from doing that. Besides, that’s not the purpose of this blog.
Then there are the commentors who ask for a slot on my blogroll. One proposed commentor asked me to add a link to his blog, but I politely declined because it was a blog promoting dissolution of the legal system, abolition of the legal profession, and encouraging self-representation until the courts can be done away with. Anybody who has read this blog for any length of time will recognize that those topics are somewhat inconsistent with what I am doing here. He was very polite, though; I’ll grant him that.
So, all of you “blog crazed persons” out there, keep your comments coming. For all your comments, I “Truly thank you a large amount.”
FATHER FOREVER
October 4, 2011 § 7 Comments
I posted here about the new statutory procedure to disestablish paternity.
One of the interesting aspects of the new code section is that it enumerates the reasons that would disqualify a father from attempting to prove he is not the father.
The flip side of the coin, then, is that these are the bases that conclusively establish paternity and preclude the mother or anyone else from denying his parentage. From the statute, the man is the father if he did any one of the following:
(a) Married or cohabited with the mother and assumed parental obligation and support of the child after having knowledge that he was not the biological father;
(b) consented to be named as father on the birth certificate or signed an acknowledgment of paternity and failed to withdraw within the time periods mandated by MCA §§ 93-9-9 and 93-9-28, unless he can prove fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact;
(c) signed a stipulated agreement of paternity that has been approved by order of the court;
(d) signed a stipulated agreement of support that has been approved by order of the court after having knowledge that he is not the biological father;
(e) had been named as legal father or ordered to pay support after he declined to undergo genetic testing; or
(f) failed to appear for a genetic testing draw pursuant to a valid court order.
I am not aware of any other place where these bases for paternity have before been listed in such a handy form.
KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD
October 3, 2011 § 1 Comment
What you thought would be a simple irreconcilable differences divorce has proven to be anything but. You’re bone-weary of your client’s whining. The other party is an intransigent j*ck*$$ over every minor detail. Counsel opposite has been an uncommunicative pain and no help at all with his client. Getting all the issues nailed down has taken a monumental effort. And now, with the final draft of the property settlement agreement nearing the finish line, all that remains is to settle the personal property.
But, that is where the parties are stuck. Husband wants this and that. Wife wants this and that. Counsel opposite is no help at all. You could spend some more time insisting that the parties resolve the personal property issues, but you don’t want to make the effort, especially without any help from the other attorney.
So you say to yourself, “What the heck; let someone else deal with it,” and you draft some language to fill in that pothole in the agreement. Parties sign and judge signs the judgment.
Deal done. Case closed. For now.
Only problem is, the parties will likely be back in court sooner or later battling over that pothole.
I call that “kicking the can down the road (KCDTR).” You do enough to get by, but in the process you draft a ticket back to court for your clients. You kick the can down the road where the next person coming along will have to pick it up and deal with it.
Of course, case weariness is only one source of the KCDTR phenomenon. Some lawyers KCDTR out of sheer laziness, others out of lack of drafting skills, others from haste, and others from oversight or lack of care.
Consider a recent case I had in which the property division read, “Husband shall have ownership of the former marital residence, and wife shall have ownership of the furnishing [sic].”
Wife moved and took with her all of the furniture and her personal effects. She also took the light fixtures and window blinds, along with a barbecue grill, a fountain (she left the base), a yard sweeper implement and various other items in the yard. Husband punched his ticket back to court.
After three days of trial (there were other issues involved), it was left to me to determine whether all the stuff that wife took was “furnishing.”
No need to go into detail about my ruling. You can probably guess how it came out. My point here is that if the drafting lawyer had said, “No, I am not going to put this PSA in final form unless and until you can give me a list of all the items that you two agree that wife will remove,” we would have avoided having to try that issue later.
Incidentally, the COA case of Aegler v. Gambrell, decided April 26, 2011, offers an insight into what exactly are considered “furnishings,” “personal things,” and fixtures.
Some other KCDTR examples:
- “The former marital residence shall be sold at a price to be agreed between the parties.” What if the parties can’t agree?
- “Husband shall be responsible for one-half of the school expenses.” Husband thinks this means he will pay for daughter’s cheerleading expenses. Wife thinks it means that husband will pay one-half of the private school tuition and assessments.
- “Husband and wife shall each pay one-half of the child’s extra-curricular activities.” What activities are included, and who decides?
I could go on and on, but I hope you get my point. A lawyer is paid to draft an agreement that will avoid future problems. If you are not accomplishing that in the instruments you draft, you are taking your clients’ money and not delivering what was paid for.
FYI … you can read some tips for PSA drafting here and here. A post on some hidden dangers in some commonly-used PSA language is here. A post on the hidden costs of divorce is here. An object lesson in the ramifications of drafting is here. A few tips from Ernest Hemingway that may help improve your legal writing are here.
Draftsmanship is one of the hallmarks of a good lawyer. The good ones draft PSA’s that are clear and unambiguous, address all that needs to be addressed without unnecessary prolixity and fluff, and are not only enforceable on their own terms, but also are stout enough to withstand attack.
Good lawyering = good draftsmanship. Not-so-good lawyering = KCDTR.
DICTA
September 30, 2011 § Leave a comment
- The Dead Sea Scrolls, at least some of them, are now online, thanks to a collaboration between the Israel Museum and Google.
- So you’re one of the dinosaurs (like I) steadfastly resisting the seemingly inevitable transition from WordPerfect to MS Word. Legal Office Guru is a blog where you can find tutorials, tips and instructions.
- Lawyerist makes a case for pro bono work as a “win-win” for lawyers.
- In this rugged economy, have you considered door-to-door practice?
- Ever wonder why the public looks askance at the legal profession? A good recent starting point is this class-action lawsuit against Proctor & Gamble claiming that the company makes it impossible for consumers to squeeze the last 20% of toothpaste from the tube, and so are entitled to damages. True story.
- Using Google Places to market your law practice — free!
- A picture that is worth a thousand Euros, or dollars, or yuan. National Geographic’s interactive map showing world distribution of wealth.
- Are you Spotify-ed yet? Download and use it to make playlists of popular and even the most obscure music. There’s a free version and a premium without the occasional ads. I’ve used my Spotify to make playlists of blues, folk music, jazz and classical that I can listen as I do computer chores like updating this blog.
Q & A WITH JUDGE FENWICK
September 29, 2011 § Leave a comment
Chancellor Edward Fenwick of Kosciusko is one of two chancery judges who preside in the Sixth District (Attala, Carrol, Choctaw, Kemper, Neshoba and Winston). Here is our interview with him.
Q: Tell us some of your personal preferences that lawyers from outside your district need to know before they come before you.
A: From the calls I get on procedural matters, most involve the handling of a few routine matters. For example, in ID divorces where there are children, we require the custodial parent to be present for the hearing, and ask the jurisdictional questions as well as a few questions about how the visitation is working. Sometimes there are also questions about property division if it is not clear or looks problematical. We also allow wills to be admitted to probate before the clerk so long as the named fiduciary is beingappointed and bond was waived.
Q: What are three attributes that you would consider to set the good lawyers apart from the bad ones?
A: 1. A good working knowlege of the law that applies in their case. As contrasted to:”You’re the judge–you can do whatever you want to.” A modicum of law is helpful. 2. Knowledge of the file contents. As contrasted to: “File…what file…the clerk should have the file, right?” 3. Cool deliberateness under pressure. As contrasted to: “Let’s take this outside and settle it.”
As a practitioner I did not always have an adequate grasp of the law in my case. More times than I care to remember, my lack of familiarity with my case file left me with egg on my face. I also lost my temper once or twice which was less than helpful. Now that I think about it, these three attributes would stand in good stead for both the bench and the bar. I’ll try to do better.
Q: What is the main thing lawyers should know to avoid doing in your courtroom.
A: I am by nature an easy going person. In the courtroom this can be an asset at times; but, it can also be something of a handicap at times. Lawyers should keep the conversation at counsel’s table to a minimum, and hold the volume down so that my hearing aids do not pick up on what you are saying. The hallway, on the other hand, is an excellent place to talk.
Q: Share your innermost thought and feelings about MRCP 81.
A: This one used to give me fits. Over time I think I have finally gotten used to it though. I have to say that I agree with Judge David Clark that the best rule would be to have all process returnable to a date certain.
Q: Tell us your favorite court room movie.
A: My favorite court room movie. Breaker Morant is about a case where the fix was in and the defense attorney was picked to be a potted plant in the courtroom and was supposed to lose. He ends up doing a great job. Judgment at Nuremburg is an old classic. I saw this one again recently. It illustrates powerfully the importance of an independent judiciary.
THE POWER OF NOW FOR THEN
September 28, 2011 § Leave a comment
Unlike mere mortals, chancellors have the power to reach back into the past and take action as effectively as if had actually been done back then. It’s called nunc pro tunc — Latin for now for then — and here is how it works:
“This Court has stated that ‘[n]unc pro tunc signifies now for then, or in other words, a thing is done now, which shall have [the] same legal force and effect as if done at [the] time when it ought to have been done.’ In re D.N.T., 843 So. 2d 690, 697 n.8 (Miss. 2003) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 964 (5th ed. 1979)) (emphasis added). This Court has further articulated that
[n]unc pro tunc means ‘now for then’ and when applied to the entry of a legal order or judgment it does not refer to a new or fresh (de novo) decision, as when a decision is made after the death of a party, but relates to a ruling or action actually previously made or done but concerning which for some reason the record thereof is defective or omitted. The later record making does not itself have a retroactive effect but it constitutes the later evidence of a prior effectual act.
Thrash v. Thrash, 385 So. 2d 961, 963-64 (Miss. 1980) (emphasis added).”
The above language is from the MSSC decision in Irving v. Irving, decided August 18, 2011.
We’ve talked here before about Henderson v. Henderson, another nunc pro tunc case that reached back two years to effectuate a divorce judgment that had erroneously never been entered with the clerk.
Years ago I tried a consent divorce case in Wayne County involving only property issues between an elderly husband and wife. Chancellor Shannon Clark rendered an opinion from the bench at the conclusion of trial and directed me to draft the judgment, which I did the next day and mailed to counsel opposite in Waynesboro. Before the other attorney could approve the judgment and return it to me, my client suddenly died. Judge Clark later signed a judgment nunc pro tunc, and the other side appealed. In White v. Smith, Admrx of Estate of White, 645 So.2d 875, 882 (Miss. 1994), the MSSC upheld the trial judge’s action, quoting a Florida case that held, ” … recordation of a final decree is a procedural and ministerial act, that a decree when recorded is but evidence of judicial action already taken and that a failure to perform the act of recording may be remedied by an order nunc pro tunc.”
I’ll leave it to you to conjure up some situations in which you can ask the chancellor to act now for then to pull your irons out of the fire.
“ASK NOT FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS …”
September 27, 2011 § 3 Comments
Cell phones in court rooms have given rise to some pretty funny situations.
I have seen judges fly into a blind rage at the sound of a ringing cell phone during a trial. And I have seen judges act benignly, at most emitting a resigned sigh to the techno intrusion. The range of reactions is almost infinite.
In the early days of cell phones in our district, Judge George Warner was in the more-or-less rageful category. Since people were unaccustomed to the new contraptions, it happened fairly often that they neglected to turn them off before entering the court room. So it was that chirping cell phones could be heard as witnesesses droned on in trials. The high frequency ringtones irked Judge Warner the most. He would stop the witness, demand to know whence the intrusion arose, and direct the bailiff to confiscate the offending instrument forthwith. Since it never happened to me or my client personally, I never discovered what became of all those seized phones. I imagined that there was a warehouse with stockpiles of them, some buzzing or beeping merrily along unanswered, with no human to put them to rest.
In time, as people became used to the electronic marvels and the instruments became more sophisticated, we learned to put our phones on “vibrate.” We males also learned not to carry them in our pants pockets in the court room when the phone was on vibrate, lest sudden vibrations in that region cause a surprised yelp or leap into the air inconsistent with court room decorum.
And so the practice became to place the vibrating phone on counsel’s table, where it could vibrate away without consequence. Or so we thought. In one trial I had, I was cross examining the witness at the only court room podium in Judge Mason’s court. The podium was next to counsel opposite’s table. As I questioned the witness, I was distracted by a sound akin to a swarm of bees to my right. After a minute I looked over and there was Robbie Jones’s cell phone lit up like a Christmas tree, vibrating loudly on the oak table. The table was amplifying the sound. Every time the phone vibrated, it inched across the table like a buzzing, manic seventeen-year locust. Jones sat there and watched the creature head toward the edge of the table. Right before it lurched off into oblivion, I snatched it and handed it to Jones with a flourish. We two lawyers were quite amused. Judge Mason not so much.
When I took the bench, it became my practice not to react to the mere blirping of a cell phone in my court room. Most callees react with mortification at their oversight, and commence with comic spasmic desperation to put a stop to the interruption. I figure their embarassment is punishment enough. Of course, my reaction would be different at the second offense by the same person, or if the offender began a cell phone conversation in the court room.
Most judges nowadays react by taking up the phone and holding it until the end of the day or the trial. Judge Gene Fair of Hattiesburg related his woeful experiences:
On one Friday afternoon in Poplarville, early in my first term as a judge, it was announced by me just before beginning of a trial that ringing cell phones during a trial would be considered, as allowed and provided by a Uniform Chancery Rule, to be contempt of court punishable by a fine of $50.00.
Forty (40) minutes into the trial my phone rang. I recessed Court, wrote a check for $50.00, put my phone in chambers and announced that future fines would be $25.00, and would be paid at the close of proceedings, when the offending phone would be returned to its owner by the bailiff. .
It was funny to almost everyone in the Courtroom, as was my payment of $25.00 the following Monday in Purvis, when two lawyers joined me in paying the Clerk a total of $75.00. As Justice Mike Sullivan pointed out when he showed up significantly late for a trial because of having gone to the wrong courthouse and wrote a $100.00 check to the clerk for his contempt, “I have learned a lesson. I hope someone else has also.”
I have had to pay only $25.00 this year, and it is September.
So far in my time on the bench I have paid a total of $250 in four of five of my counties. There are only one or two other offenders who have gone as high as $100.00. In Perry County, the smallest county and the one of which my great-grandfather was a Justice of the Peace, I have a pristine record. It is probably the result of only three one week terms and a few ex-parte days schedule for my presence there.
That oh, so convenient cell phone with its pleasant bell-tone. Will it toll for thee?


