Thanks to the Lowering the Bar blog, we have more evidence to support Judge Quam’s observations about lawyers behaving badly and hurting their own cause.

A case was scheduled to go to trial when the defense requested a postponement because the wife of one of its lawyer’s  was due to have a baby about two weeks after trial started.  Plaitiff would not agree to delay, bringing the issue before the judge.  ”Well, every party is entitled to file an opposition to a motion,” the court wrote in this order, saying it had been hoping that the rumors it had been hearing of said opposition were exaggerated. But the brief arrived on Monday, the court said, “and it was, sadly, as advertised.”

The lowlights of the opposition: (1) it argued that “utilizing simple math,” the due date should have been known some time ago (the court declined to speculate on the date of conception for “reasons of good taste which should be (though, apparently, are not) too obvious to explain”; and (2) it pointed out that the movant’s side had five attorneys (and so could spare one), which would have been a better argument if the opposing side did not also have five attorneys.  (Which raises the obvious question: why are five lawyers needed to try a case?)

Thankfully, this judge has his priorities in order: “Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. The [new parents] are CONGRATULATED.”