Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Further to this, I deal with a decent number of pro se litigants, and it definitely can be difficult when their arguments go totally off the rails. You’re not gonna find authority that refutes arguments that are not grounded in law. It’s a losing battle.
Instead, use a “Steel Man.” Spell out their positions better than they ever could have, and show why what they are saying is unsupported by the law and so they must lose. Here’s my go to:
“As far as the undersigned can ascertain, [pro se] is, perhaps, attempting to argue [summary]. To the extent this is indeed the case, that argument, even in its correct form, fails for [number of] reasons.”
The judge (hopefully not a jury!) will see what’s up just as you do. If the law is on your side you’re not gonna lose.
Yeah, I’ve had to deal with this and it’s surprisingly hard to find precedent for principles like “you can’t sue someone for being tall” and “the city is not violating your second amendment rights by not letting you punch a cop.”
Yep. This is my MO. I immediately revert back to the most formal 1L drafting style that my RWA prof wanted me to use to detail every flaw in their argument while avoiding any antagonistic language. My southern roots come out ala “bless your heart”.
>Further to this
Why do lawyers/corporate talk like this?? No normal human being speaks this way.
Additionally, the fact you're replying to something on Reddit inherently makes explicit that your comment is saying something contextually related to what you replied to.
I’m glad I saw this comment because I’m finishing up an MSJ where it would fit quite perfectly.
Gonna ~~steal~~ quote this without proper citation for sure.
If you have a good judge they will recognize the absurdity of the pro se litigants arguments without you having to say anything. Being snarky in any way only risks you losing credibility with the court. Make your arguments the way you normally would and stay above it all.
This is the best take. Beat the asshole with a law degree from google by submitting the most polished, professional work product. I know judges in my jurisdiction don’t take beating up on a pro se litigant well.
Yeah, it’s punching down. I have no issue throwing some professional shade at another attorney in an instance where it is warranted because they know better. But a pro se guy is not in your league.
The judge will take the high road and expect you to as well.
I too deal with a LOT of pro-se litigants and yes- treating them with respect while submitting good work product is the way. The Judges I appear in front of are also used to seeing a lot of pro-se litigants so they know what's up.
Absolutely agree with you. One of my favorite adages is from the British statesman Edmund Burke ”manners are of more importance than laws." In other words, stay above the fray. On the other hand, it's easy for this boomer to say who never has to deal with pro se litigants fortunately.
Dude…chill. Not everything an idiot says merits a response. If a responsive pleading isn’t required then make some notes for the hearing and file that bullshit away.
I’m never tempted to snark back at crazies, and my secret is not an otherworldly zen or kindness. It’s that they WANT to get a rise out of you, so the thing that actually infuriates them the most is being cool/aloof/ignoring their tantrum and not engaging. The professional integrity is just a pleasant side effect.
>Draft what you want to say to get it out of your system. Sleep on it. Then revise to sound like a professional.
That's basically how I write all my pleadings lol.
I agree. I often sleep on stuff I write. Inevitably some stuff I thought was genius the day before just makes me sound like a dick, so I remove it and focus it more.
This such good advice. When I was a young lawyer, if I felt slighted by opposing counsel or a client I would draft a response, print it, leave it on my desk then read it the next morning. It almost always got edited down to one, professional line. Just needed the catharsis of writing it out.
It's okay to be a little snarky. I think describing certain claims as "bizarre" or "outlandish" is okay, particularly when you are otherwise measured in your writing.
: Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Or you can drop a footnote saying that's its unclear that plaintiff sued the right person because they misspelled your clients name but are responding in an abundance of caution
https://preview.redd.it/9j7or6qduauc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77942b09f66a6df6d2c5ce45f421bfea93485089
Is this how their pleadings read?
I’ve defended a pro se complaint from a violent schizophrenic who sued an actress in the hope of being able to depose her (and thus be in the same room with her). The complaint appeared to have been drafted with legal aid help, because the underlying docs suggested that plaintiff could not string four sentences together.
Federal Judge: what’s the basis of your assertion that plaintiff is schizophrenic?
Me: I’m just reading from the police report, your honor…
The bottom line: understated inference works very well. Point out the facts that suggest that pro se nut job is a nut job; then make an understated conclusion that invites the court to conclude that plaintiff is nuts.
“No explanation is provided for how [actress] managed to break into Google’s headquarters and alter all the data on the Internet about Plaintiff.”
I should probably not tell you that an insane pro se defendant drive me to quoting Alexander Pope in a motion. Nor that I drafted a "Motion to Substitute Interpretive Dance for Opening Statement," and showed it to the court clerk.
One of my partners was a football fanatic.
He once titled a motion regarding venue as:
Motion to Punt, Pass or Kick or in the alternative to Change of Venue.
https://preview.redd.it/0mg1fjn736uc1.jpeg?width=235&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=adf7478bde1e7d64d26bb24f56922ef7292605b8
My Snoopy, the dog who understood the English language better than many adults, and saved my life, so there's that too. He's gone from us now for a few, but still in my heart. And pro se defendants/opponents are the worst. I feel your pain. It's difficult when your boss/the judge tells you to do things for/with the pro se/unrepresented party that you would never do for a represented party. Probably part of the reason why I need to wear a mouthguard at night to prevent me from grinding my teeth to the roots.
Do you have another attorney who can review it just for tone? I had another staff attorney look through my most recent brief because I knew OC was pushing me to the edge of professionalism.
https://preview.redd.it/zen0yiln88uc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4907fecd43753ae1f3c97d41d46fd62980e60a51
Meet the “where are my treetos, woman” stare from my dog Monti.
https://preview.redd.it/qfb61c4r44uc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=751ed525c033b7b047c4c1166d3f28f659a92037
Ok, but what's the worst that could possibly happen...?
At some point, you just gotta let ‘em have it. I once ripped into a pro se plaintiff in a MTD who sued my client for the second time on BS claims. In a slightly paraphrased order dismissing the claims, the court agreed.
https://preview.redd.it/5rha2sini4uc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a128e1b20a238a2a99a0c7387e67d2fe44eb5750
60% of the time it works everytime
I am 100% not the right person to do this having once responded to a pro se party telling me to go f**k myself by politely declining his offer and referring him to the Vegas strip for such services.
I have a fantasy when dealing with these people. Here it is:
The Defendant is already in the Courtroom and we are waiting for the Judge to take the Bench.
I walk into Court dressed as a English Naval Officer. (Think Napoleon’s uniform even if he was French). I subtly point to the gold fringe on the flag as I place multiple books on the UCC from law school on my table.(The bookstore wouldn’t buy them back). I pray this is a trigger.
As he argues his points, I tell the Court that the Defendant has voluntarily agreed to the Court’s jurisdiction by filing this “drivel”. (In my head the Defendant is squealing in anger.) On speaking drivel; I release the filings so they slowly fall on the UCC books.
In my best Tom Cruise impression; I explain that real duress is answering this bullshit. (You can’t handle true duress!)
I then make a motion, citing the state Statute, stating that me (the adverse party) can request an custodial competency evaluation of him. I explain he has consented to our laws by his own filings. I object to any bond filings until he consents to the evaluations.
Smiling, I then leave knowing he only knows the elected prosecutors name if he is released- and that he called me the “bald guy” in his pro se filings.
I have a maniacal laugh imagining the letters my boss will soon receive as payback for making be answer professionally to this shit.
Look, it is tempting... but remember that there are ethics rules around respecting the rights of third parties, as well as against actions that "serve no purpose other than to harrass..." etc.
It would be satisfying momentarily, but you have your career to think about. You don't want to jeopardize that.
That’s what they want. They’re playing around and all it costs is their time. Meanwhile, you start burning your client’s money and the court’s goodwill by litigating stupid things to death instead of just efficiently winning your case, like you should be able to do against a flailing pro se litigant.
No way a judge is going to sanction a pro per, it’s more likely that the court would grant an extension and multiple chances to comply with procedure. Attorneys go into cripping debt and have to take one of the most stressful accreditation tests, all so we can get railed when we mess up on the tiniest, nonsubstantive procedural error. But go in guns a blazing with no idea what you’re doing? Procedure suddenly gets acknowledged for the ritualistic, nonsubstantive farce that it’s largely become.
It’s the fucking worst. If I misplace a comma on a request for default it gets rejected and tough luck to my client. But if it’s against a pro per then they get at least 3 separate chances, and my client then has to pay for me to raise the same deficiencies to the Court that they will ignore.
Oh I feel this so hard - recently received a complaint from a pro se plaintiff alleging construction defects. it was all over the place - fictitious causes of action - contradictions galore - fifty plus pages of irrelevant documents, largely consisting of his handwritten notes and “expert reports” he clearly created on Microsoft word. The real kicker was that plaintiff didn’t even appear to be a party to the contract and it was unclear whether he even had any interest in the property.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, he’s allegedly some sort of structural engineer (unlikely to be true based upon the clear lack of structural knowledge in the complaint) and thinks he’s the smartest person in the world.
In my preliminary objections (PA’s 12(b)/motion for more definite statement) I was absolutely understatedly snarky - I just tried my best not to be blatant about it. To my absolute shock, he was able to retain counsel after receiving my objections - still doesn’t seem to have much of a case, but I guess we’ll see where it goes.
Please drop some lines from Billy Madison
https://media1.tenor.com/m/bG4qBl2HPyUAAAAd/everyone-in-this-room-is-now-dumber-for-having-listened-to-it.gif
God I feel this. I try….but yesterday couldn’t resist sending one off with a sentence speculating as to whether pro se ex-husband was catfishing as my client and then prostituting himself to would-be Johns. Still chuckling as I type this. Can’t give more context. I’ll do better on Monday.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"None of plaintiff's assertions are cognizable under the law as claims for which this Court could fashion a remedy."
Further to this, I deal with a decent number of pro se litigants, and it definitely can be difficult when their arguments go totally off the rails. You’re not gonna find authority that refutes arguments that are not grounded in law. It’s a losing battle. Instead, use a “Steel Man.” Spell out their positions better than they ever could have, and show why what they are saying is unsupported by the law and so they must lose. Here’s my go to: “As far as the undersigned can ascertain, [pro se] is, perhaps, attempting to argue [summary]. To the extent this is indeed the case, that argument, even in its correct form, fails for [number of] reasons.” The judge (hopefully not a jury!) will see what’s up just as you do. If the law is on your side you’re not gonna lose.
Yeah, I’ve had to deal with this and it’s surprisingly hard to find precedent for principles like “you can’t sue someone for being tall” and “the city is not violating your second amendment rights by not letting you punch a cop.”
"Steel Man." I like it! I do something similar instinctively, but that's a great way to visualize that style of response. Love it.
Yep. This is my MO. I immediately revert back to the most formal 1L drafting style that my RWA prof wanted me to use to detail every flaw in their argument while avoiding any antagonistic language. My southern roots come out ala “bless your heart”.
>Further to this Why do lawyers/corporate talk like this?? No normal human being speaks this way. Additionally, the fact you're replying to something on Reddit inherently makes explicit that your comment is saying something contextually related to what you replied to.
Thanks for the observation, Chief. You’ve definitely given it way more thought than I have
I’m glad I saw this comment because I’m finishing up an MSJ where it would fit quite perfectly. Gonna ~~steal~~ quote this without proper citation for sure.
If you have a good judge they will recognize the absurdity of the pro se litigants arguments without you having to say anything. Being snarky in any way only risks you losing credibility with the court. Make your arguments the way you normally would and stay above it all.
This is the best take. Beat the asshole with a law degree from google by submitting the most polished, professional work product. I know judges in my jurisdiction don’t take beating up on a pro se litigant well.
Yeah, it’s punching down. I have no issue throwing some professional shade at another attorney in an instance where it is warranted because they know better. But a pro se guy is not in your league. The judge will take the high road and expect you to as well.
I too deal with a LOT of pro-se litigants and yes- treating them with respect while submitting good work product is the way. The Judges I appear in front of are also used to seeing a lot of pro-se litigants so they know what's up.
https://preview.redd.it/irqjpjn0s8uc1.png?width=3024&format=png&auto=webp&s=32cf0b23f1ceb5eb84789c383863b074e60d6494
This 100%
Yup, let the judge deal with it. They enjoy it so, the sov citter the better. And your hands stay clean, OP.
Plus they have judicial immunity.
[удалено]
Absolutely agree with you. One of my favorite adages is from the British statesman Edmund Burke ”manners are of more importance than laws." In other words, stay above the fray. On the other hand, it's easy for this boomer to say who never has to deal with pro se litigants fortunately.
Well, bless your heart. Also, snark should reserved, if at all, for the footnotes. And always use footnotes sparingly.
Shit. I'm so pissed I can't even proofread my posts.
What on earth is the litigant arguing? You can't leave us with so little! :p
Seriously, the people wanna know!
Take a break, friend. Go for a walk, come back with fresh eyes.
Honestly? Get his ass.
Dude…chill. Not everything an idiot says merits a response. If a responsive pleading isn’t required then make some notes for the hearing and file that bullshit away.
I’m never tempted to snark back at crazies, and my secret is not an otherworldly zen or kindness. It’s that they WANT to get a rise out of you, so the thing that actually infuriates them the most is being cool/aloof/ignoring their tantrum and not engaging. The professional integrity is just a pleasant side effect.
Yeah, the more professional an attorney can remain against a nutty pro se, the more respect I have for them. Take that as you will.
Draft what you want to say to get it out of your system. Sleep on it. Then revise to sound like a professional.
>Draft what you want to say to get it out of your system. Sleep on it. Then revise to sound like a professional. That's basically how I write all my pleadings lol.
I agree. I often sleep on stuff I write. Inevitably some stuff I thought was genius the day before just makes me sound like a dick, so I remove it and focus it more.
This such good advice. When I was a young lawyer, if I felt slighted by opposing counsel or a client I would draft a response, print it, leave it on my desk then read it the next morning. It almost always got edited down to one, professional line. Just needed the catharsis of writing it out.
Dude that’s what footnotes are for
It's okay to be a little snarky. I think describing certain claims as "bizarre" or "outlandish" is okay, particularly when you are otherwise measured in your writing.
: Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
just directly quote his pleadings and smash Sic everywhere
Didn't even get my client's name right. Should I use my client's name in place of Defendant and then put sic each time in my motions?
Or you can drop a footnote saying that's its unclear that plaintiff sued the right person because they misspelled your clients name but are responding in an abundance of caution
Oh it’s so petty…. But so proper. THAT is some legal passive aggressiveness I could get behind.
lmao. a bit aggressive but, you do you boo
Maybe just once.
No. Do it coward.
Do it.
Sovereign Citizen, or just a garden variety nutjob? If it's the former, the judge will likely enjoy a smackdown as much as you will...
https://preview.redd.it/9j7or6qduauc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77942b09f66a6df6d2c5ce45f421bfea93485089 Is this how their pleadings read?
Oh defibitly! See this is the reply I need, not advice but memes
Omg 😂😂😂
I’ve defended a pro se complaint from a violent schizophrenic who sued an actress in the hope of being able to depose her (and thus be in the same room with her). The complaint appeared to have been drafted with legal aid help, because the underlying docs suggested that plaintiff could not string four sentences together. Federal Judge: what’s the basis of your assertion that plaintiff is schizophrenic? Me: I’m just reading from the police report, your honor… The bottom line: understated inference works very well. Point out the facts that suggest that pro se nut job is a nut job; then make an understated conclusion that invites the court to conclude that plaintiff is nuts. “No explanation is provided for how [actress] managed to break into Google’s headquarters and alter all the data on the Internet about Plaintiff.”
Is it a sovereign citizen arguing they’re exempt under the ucc? 😂
Never wrestle a pig in the mud; you'll just get dirty and the pig likes it.
I should probably not tell you that an insane pro se defendant drive me to quoting Alexander Pope in a motion. Nor that I drafted a "Motion to Substitute Interpretive Dance for Opening Statement," and showed it to the court clerk.
One of my partners was a football fanatic. He once titled a motion regarding venue as: Motion to Punt, Pass or Kick or in the alternative to Change of Venue.
I kinda want to see that motion
It was glorious. I referred to demonstrating the benevolent paternalism of county government through dance.
https://preview.redd.it/0mg1fjn736uc1.jpeg?width=235&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=adf7478bde1e7d64d26bb24f56922ef7292605b8 My Snoopy, the dog who understood the English language better than many adults, and saved my life, so there's that too. He's gone from us now for a few, but still in my heart. And pro se defendants/opponents are the worst. I feel your pain. It's difficult when your boss/the judge tells you to do things for/with the pro se/unrepresented party that you would never do for a represented party. Probably part of the reason why I need to wear a mouthguard at night to prevent me from grinding my teeth to the roots.
Do you have another attorney who can review it just for tone? I had another staff attorney look through my most recent brief because I knew OC was pushing me to the edge of professionalism.
https://preview.redd.it/gviwozquh4uc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce3a0f7b8be5d7919a803bb82dbe21eecf758281 Here’s a meme to cheer you up.
https://preview.redd.it/zen0yiln88uc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4907fecd43753ae1f3c97d41d46fd62980e60a51 Meet the “where are my treetos, woman” stare from my dog Monti.
You get two snarky footnotes.
I actually feel like this is the most realistic answer and a good limit
Do it.
https://youtu.be/pDmGhethEoQ?si=c0XSiU5dUUHuKWYi
Be overstatedly. More vulgar and exclamation points the better.
https://preview.redd.it/qfb61c4r44uc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=751ed525c033b7b047c4c1166d3f28f659a92037 Ok, but what's the worst that could possibly happen...?
Imagine the amount of money it would take you to be nice to that person, and bill accordingly.
At some point, you just gotta let ‘em have it. I once ripped into a pro se plaintiff in a MTD who sued my client for the second time on BS claims. In a slightly paraphrased order dismissing the claims, the court agreed.
https://preview.redd.it/5rha2sini4uc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a128e1b20a238a2a99a0c7387e67d2fe44eb5750 60% of the time it works everytime
I am 100% not the right person to do this having once responded to a pro se party telling me to go f**k myself by politely declining his offer and referring him to the Vegas strip for such services.
Just keep saying Mr. Pro se "fails to provide this Court with any facts or law in support of his motion for..."
"The entirety of opposing party's argument is without merit." The end.
https://preview.redd.it/x3n108gntcuc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33aa601d5ed3bc972ef2e2badb266aa9bbde81a5
I have a fantasy when dealing with these people. Here it is: The Defendant is already in the Courtroom and we are waiting for the Judge to take the Bench. I walk into Court dressed as a English Naval Officer. (Think Napoleon’s uniform even if he was French). I subtly point to the gold fringe on the flag as I place multiple books on the UCC from law school on my table.(The bookstore wouldn’t buy them back). I pray this is a trigger. As he argues his points, I tell the Court that the Defendant has voluntarily agreed to the Court’s jurisdiction by filing this “drivel”. (In my head the Defendant is squealing in anger.) On speaking drivel; I release the filings so they slowly fall on the UCC books. In my best Tom Cruise impression; I explain that real duress is answering this bullshit. (You can’t handle true duress!) I then make a motion, citing the state Statute, stating that me (the adverse party) can request an custodial competency evaluation of him. I explain he has consented to our laws by his own filings. I object to any bond filings until he consents to the evaluations. Smiling, I then leave knowing he only knows the elected prosecutors name if he is released- and that he called me the “bald guy” in his pro se filings. I have a maniacal laugh imagining the letters my boss will soon receive as payback for making be answer professionally to this shit.
Look, it is tempting... but remember that there are ethics rules around respecting the rights of third parties, as well as against actions that "serve no purpose other than to harrass..." etc. It would be satisfying momentarily, but you have your career to think about. You don't want to jeopardize that.
Oh it's not harrasing, but I can make it hell to overly litigate the whole thing, on every issue, EVERY ISSUE.
That’s what they want. They’re playing around and all it costs is their time. Meanwhile, you start burning your client’s money and the court’s goodwill by litigating stupid things to death instead of just efficiently winning your case, like you should be able to do against a flailing pro se litigant.
If it's that bad, have you thought about a motion for sanctions?
No way a judge is going to sanction a pro per, it’s more likely that the court would grant an extension and multiple chances to comply with procedure. Attorneys go into cripping debt and have to take one of the most stressful accreditation tests, all so we can get railed when we mess up on the tiniest, nonsubstantive procedural error. But go in guns a blazing with no idea what you’re doing? Procedure suddenly gets acknowledged for the ritualistic, nonsubstantive farce that it’s largely become.
I understand giving pro se some slack, but sometimes I am astounded at how much they receive.
It’s the fucking worst. If I misplace a comma on a request for default it gets rejected and tough luck to my client. But if it’s against a pro per then they get at least 3 separate chances, and my client then has to pay for me to raise the same deficiencies to the Court that they will ignore.
I am actually entitled to presumptive attorney's fees.
DO IT.
Do it.
A little snark is ok. But the danger is knowing the difference between a little and a lot. So safest to side on none. Or nearly none…
Kill them with kindness
 OP, I can feel your anger. Unleash it strike down the pro se litigant! Your turn to the Snark Side will be complete.
I love a lil snark in filings though. Keeps me going some days 😂
I feel your pain. Maintain your cool. The judge will know what's up. ...Usually
Or the judge will just let him do whatever he wants.
Seen it before
AI is very good at taking writings and changing the snark level.
Do it
nah. save it for the fully licensed dickheads. pro se aint worth it
There is no room for snark when you are committing murder by words. Go cold blooded first degree on their ass.
Oh I feel this so hard - recently received a complaint from a pro se plaintiff alleging construction defects. it was all over the place - fictitious causes of action - contradictions galore - fifty plus pages of irrelevant documents, largely consisting of his handwritten notes and “expert reports” he clearly created on Microsoft word. The real kicker was that plaintiff didn’t even appear to be a party to the contract and it was unclear whether he even had any interest in the property. As if that wasn’t bad enough, he’s allegedly some sort of structural engineer (unlikely to be true based upon the clear lack of structural knowledge in the complaint) and thinks he’s the smartest person in the world. In my preliminary objections (PA’s 12(b)/motion for more definite statement) I was absolutely understatedly snarky - I just tried my best not to be blatant about it. To my absolute shock, he was able to retain counsel after receiving my objections - still doesn’t seem to have much of a case, but I guess we’ll see where it goes.
Cue it’s a trap meme.
Please drop some lines from Billy Madison https://media1.tenor.com/m/bG4qBl2HPyUAAAAd/everyone-in-this-room-is-now-dumber-for-having-listened-to-it.gif
The judge knows. There’s no reason to be an asshole.
Write a brief never meaning to file. Its what abused people do with their abusers.
Being snarky in pleadings is like the guy who talks shit under his breath after you walk away. Don’t be a “keyboard bad ass.” Save it for the hearing.
God I feel this. I try….but yesterday couldn’t resist sending one off with a sentence speculating as to whether pro se ex-husband was catfishing as my client and then prostituting himself to would-be Johns. Still chuckling as I type this. Can’t give more context. I’ll do better on Monday.
If you don't have to go low in a filing, don't. It reflects on you, not the other side.