You may remember my post a few weeks bank (OK, a rant really), about how the rules apply, except when they don't. On Friday, I had the opportunity to argue that an order should be vacated because the other side did not play by the rules. I knew that if I won, the other side would simply walk downstairs and file a different motion, but the right way. Still, what they did was wrong, it hurt my client, and placed her in an untenable procedural posture. The other side took the position that the ends justified the means. As you might remember in the post linked above, the judge who heard that type of argument a few weeks ago, bought it. Not Friday's judge. He heard the argument, understood what granting my motion would mean in the long run, and decided the rules meant something. It restored my faith in the law, but drove home what we tell our clients here in the Trenches: it's not the law but the judge who decides your case, and do you really want to leave it to them?
No comments:
Post a Comment