HATE is easy…love takes COURAGE

The third hearing was a “limited objection to a request for substitution of counsel.”

There were three attorneys, we’ll call them A and B [plaintiff's counsel] and C [defendant's counsel].  Plaintiff wanted to substitute B and his law firm for A and his law firm.  C submitted his limited objection, i.e. he didn’t object to the substitution, he just wanted to make a couple of things clear.  First, when the judge was asking why they were there, C said, “I hope it doesn’t take too long.” The judge said, “Well, y’all announced for 15 or 20 minutes so that’s how long it’s going to take.”  Then the judge asked him what his issues were with the substitution, and he said (1) he wanted to make sure that just because counsel was different, that the original counsel would not refuse to turn over relevant documents because they [lawyer and firm] were no longer an agent of the plaintiff and (2) he wants to maintain the right to sanction A if necessary even though they don’t represent the plaintiff anymore.

As to (1), the judge told C that she didn’t really understand why his claim was necessary because A would still have to turn over the things they were originally obligated to turn over.  As to (2) she said she wouldn’t sign an order saying he maintained the right to sanction any more than she would sign one saying he couldn’t do that.  If A had done something worth sanctioning, the fact that they were no longer representing the plaintiff would not matter.  At this point, I have written in the notes I took: “New plaintiff’s lawyer’s statement NOT NECESSARY.” I wrote this because just before the judge finished talking to C, B felt the need to interrupt her and say, “Your honor, look, I just wanted to say that I think it’s ridiculous for us to evenbe here today and I don’t even understand why C is making these objections.  Counsel will clearly oblige all the necessary rules and standards of procedure and conduct.” The judge made a why-are-you-wasting-my-time face.  I hope B noticed.  She kindly said, “B, I understand what you’re saying, and while I tend to agree with you, I also understand why C is here and that he wants to make a point and have this on the record.” They wrapped things up, and all the lawyers left.

I remember B’s little comment at the end there gave me a bad impression of him.  It made him seem like one of those lawyers who just likes to hear his own voice.  His comment wasn’t necessary, it was rude, and it was a bit arrogant.  [I parsed his statement a bit.] I still think the best quality a lawyer can have is the ability to listen.  I think B failed, and I wrote that down as something not to do when I’m in front of a judge.

Anyway, after they all left, the last lawyer was dealt with.  It was the perma-frown lady from the beginning.  Since she hadn’t properly announced her case, she had to wait until everyone was done.  She got lucky in that there was time remaining; if the others had taken until 5pm, she’d have been out of luck.  The judge pointed out again that she needed to learn the local rules, and then she asked what the lawyer’s issue was.  The lawyer explained that she’s not primary counsel on the case and that she was filling in for one of the other lawyers at her firm in Dallas.  She said she was seeking an order of contempt against X.  Apparently, they’d been trying to get information from him and trying to get him to appear at things, and he just wouldn’t communicate with them and wouldn’t show up.  They started trying to make appointments with him back in May and had still been unable to get him to appear.  Somebody [I don't know what their title was] went and called X for the judge.  He came back and told her and the lawyer that X was not present because “he’d failed to schedule it on his calendar.” The judge said since the lawyer had failed to announce her case properly, she wouldn’t do anything that day, and she explained to the lawyer the process she needed to go through and where to go [which I thought was very nice of her to do].  Then the lady thanked the judge and left.

After that, the judge looked up and noticed me and my classmates, all 10 or so of us.  She said, “so, are y’all students…?” We all nodded. “UT…or…?” We said, “We’re 1Ls!” At that point, she got all excited.  ”Oh you’re law students! That’s so cool! Well, do you have any questions? What’d you think?” Then she talked to us for about 30 minutes and entertained our questions about what she does and what the day to day process is like.  She explained that in the first case, things like that are hard because even though she may think the person is making a mistake, if they say they’ve entertained their options and they’ve made up their minds, it’s not up to her to decide for them.  In the second, she said it’s hard with pro-ses because she recognizes they’re at a disadvantage and that things can be difficult for them, but that has to be balanced with her role as a judge; she can’t be their attorney.  She said, “I mean, you do what you can.  That’s why I told [the State's lawyer], ‘You know I’m going to have to continue him right?’” She said it can be frustrating, but that’s the way it is.  I asked her if there are a lot of pro-ses and she said there are because a lot of people just can’t afford lawyers.  On one level, this wasn’t a surprise to me, and on another it was.  I forget that there are a lot of people out there who don’t have access to the kind of help I’m going to school to learn to give.  It’s just a hard thing to wrap my head around.  I can’t imagine trying to wade through all of this stuff on my own.  She said of the third case that things like that take up time, but that she understood that C just wanted to have things on the record to preserve that he’d made the point.  And with the last lawyer, she said that should be a lesson to all of us to learn the local rules before we went anywhere, to call ahead and find out if the judge requested anything specific or had any special rules.

After she explained some other things, we all thanked her and left.  I decided I’m going to be making more trips to the courthouse.  For one thing, my little 1L heart found it all very fascinating.  For another, I think it’s the kind of learning experience I should take advantage of while I can.  As a student, I can go and observe lawyers doing what lawyers do, observe the way they interact with judges, and watch what judges get mad at and what they don’t get mad at.  I’ve heard that one of the main complaints about law students is that though we have J.D.’s, we’re pretty useless as far as any relation with the real-world goes.  I won’t get any “experience” per se, but I think I’ll learn a lot.  It would be worth it just not to be terrified of walking into a courthouse or a courtroom.  I’ll update you on any courthouse adventures I take in the future.

This entry has been a work in progress since last Thursday, 11/12.  Apologies for its length.  I want to preserve as much as I can about my first trip to a courthouse so in the future I’ll have something to look back on to remind me there was a time I entered and observed with awe.  I have split the entry into two parts just because of length.

I went to a courthouse for the first time today.

Yeah, I went to a courthouse.  FOR THE FIRST TIME.

It was epic.

Of course, that might be due to the fact that I find adventure in everything I do.

You might be wondering to yourself why I went.  Backstory: my civil procedure professor split our class [of about 25] into small groups of 4 or 5 people.  Each week, we are supposed to write a 2 page [double spaced] journal entry on the week’s reading and email it to our group members.  That journal entry is due by class time on Monday.  Then, by 3pm on Thursdays, we have to write a 3 page “response” and again email it to our group members.  The responses can be about anything – the reading, class, what our group members said, etc.  The journals are supposed to focus more on the week’s reading and the issues and questions that we have.  Well, in lieu of giving us that assignment this week and next week, she gave us a different task.  We were to go to a courthouse – it didn’t have to be here, it could have been anywhere else – and listen to a hearing.  Her words were, “Rather than have you write your journals about the reading, I am asking you to go to a civil court and journal about what you see.  You can go to state or federal court; Travis County or any other County–but I want you to watch something in a civil, not criminal, case.  You should stay for at least an hour, or however long it takes to have seen something interesting. ”  So that was my task – go see something cool, and write about it.  About half of my class went on Tuesday, and the rest of us went this afternoon.  Here’s my adventure:

At 1:30, I head downtown.  I get to the courthouse around 1:45, and have to find parking.  Parallel parking and I are arch enemies, and rather than have that fight today, I decided to suck it up and pay the epic parking fee for one of the bank parking garages that was near by.  Once I parked my car, I started walking the two blocks to the courthouse.

Today was absolutely gorgeous – nice and cool, clear skies, crunchy fall leaves on the ground.  Yes, I go out of my way to step on crunchy looking leaves.  I even saw a butterfly gliding along on the breeze.  Then, I approach the courthouse.  I see two signs.  One: “Do not use above entrance.  Doors locked.  Use lower entrance.”  Two: above the two lower entrances with arrows pointing down saying “Enter here.” I figure okay, that’s simple enough.  [The upper entrance was for the fancy wooden double doors that I imagine many important buildings have but don't use.] So, I walk through the entrance….and immediately, all the happiness and chirping birds go away.

My first impression is that it was very dreary.  The entrance leads you about 10 feet forward, and then you have to turn to the left [or to the right if you're coming from the other entrance] where you’re greeted by automatic sliding doors.  After that, the first thing you see is a metal detector.  A lady who I imagine to have been a lawyer, if only because she was wearing a very pretty cream colored suit, put her things on the conveyor belt and made the machine beep as she walked through.  The guard waved her down with his magical detector wand, didn’t find anything interesting, and let her go.  He came back to the conveyor belt and I asked him if I should just put my purse there.  He said yes, and to just walk through the metal detector.  I did, it didn’t beep, and I was free to grab my bag and go.  The only problem – I had no idea where to go or what to do.

That being the case, I just started walking.  Luckily, I couldn’t walk very far.  About 20 feet ahead of me was a wall, so in turning to the right to avoid smashing into it, I saw a sign that said, ”Information.” Breathing a little sigh of relief, I approached the woman behind the desk.  She was on her cell phone having what seemed to be a very entertaining discussion, but she put it down long enough to ask what I needed.  “Can I hel’ you?” – “Hi! I’m a law student, and my civil procedure professor sent me  here…” – “Do you want civil or criminal?” – “Civil” – “Okay, you need to go up to 435 and they’ll help direct you from there.” – “Okay.  I’ve never been here before, how do I get there from here?” – “Elevator or the stairs.  ::picks up cell phone:: Now, what I was sayin’ is…”

Excellent.  Elevator or the stairs.  Really? I’m so glad she told me.  I was totally going to try to spiderman my way up there.  That probaly would have caused a bit of a scene.  I managed to find the elevators, which were near the information desk, and I pushed the button for the fourth floor [luckily most buildings are logically organized].  I got off on the fourth floor and proceeded to look for room 435.  After a couple minutes of looking lost and confused, I managed to find it.  It was the court administrator’s office.  Luckily, when I opened the door, I saw one of my classmates.  A lady was explaining the docket to him and telling him where he could go to see interesting things.  He asked if I just wanted to follow him, and I said that would be a fantastic idea.

On the docket were many many things,  but we went to the 200th to see what we thought would be just a few motions for summary judgment.  We figured it’d be good to see a few different things from different lawyers rather than sit through a hearing that was scheduled for an hour or more.  We got just outside the courtroom and saw the rest of our classmates waiting for the hour long hearing.  My friend and I told them we planned to go to the other courtroom, we talked to them for a bit, and then we left.  And by left, I mean we walked the 15 feet to our courtroom and went inside.

Walking inside was like walking into a church.  Now, you have to appreciate that I’d never been in a courtroom before.  When I say it was like walking into a church, I mean it had the same sort of heavy silence that curches have, the same sense of importance, and formality, regardless of what kind of church it is.  The first thing I noticed was the size.  In my head, all courtrooms look like the wood-paneled Law and Order courtrooms.  Now, I knew that’s not what they all looked like just from watching the local news and random bits of court tv, but that didn’t prevent the epxectation from emerging in my head.  The room that I entered was small.  It was probably about the size of the classroom my civil procedure class is in.  Immediately to the right of the doors were the chairs for the spectators [other lawyers, random people, confused law students, general observers] to sit.  And so, I sat.

We were there a couple minutes before 2 o’clock when things were scheduled to begin.  In addition to my friend and I were the 6 lawyers who were waiting for their various motions to be heard.  Not long after I sat down, the rest of my classmates began filing in.  The courtroom they were waiting for was locked and no one had come to open it, so they figured they’d just come to watch with us.  The expressions on the face of the lawyers were priceless.  The confusion was totally worth it.

While we were waiting for things to begin, I started to look around the room.  First, I looked at the lawyers.  One of the ladies there had a bit of a perma-frown, which I thought was sad.  I’m sure she was a very pleasant person, but she didn’t quite give that impression.  She looked young too, in her 30s or so and she was very pretty, with dark brown hair and a crisp navy blue pant suit.  The other lady there looked a bit younger and was a bit more awkward once she was allowed to speak.  I got the impression that she was new.  Three of the men that were there introduced themselves to one another and then sat in silence; they were on opposite sides.  The last man was sitting in a chair off to the side; he was representing the State of Texas against various parties in several motions for summary judgment.  There was nothing particularly remarkable about the way any of them were dressed, which I imagine is a good thing.  The tally was 2 navy blue pantsuits, one black skirt-suit [on the new lawyer], one gray suit, one gray suit that had a faint black tweed-looking pattern on it, and one blue blazer with khaki pants.  [In case anyone was wondering what real live lawyers wear.]

After that, I took notice of the room.  The walls were a creamy-beige color, and the walls were covered in fabric, the way walls are covered to make them absorb sound.  There were 12 chairs for a jury, and I had all the accompanying profound thoughts about juries, and their importance, and how cool it was that actual jurors had sat there before and made decisions [okay, it's sort of cool when you're a law student].  I did look at the chairs and wonder if they were comfortable to sit in for an extended period of time.  They looked soft enough, but I wasn’t sure.  There were a couple maps on the walls, one of Texas, one of the colony of Austin.  To the right side of the judge’s bench [that's what they're called right?] was a giant color-coded calendar.  I think what I found the most remarkable was how simple a room it was, and yet how important.

All of this happened in about 3 minutes.  At two, a man came in and spoke with the lawyers, asking them what their names were, confirming what they were there for, and asking about how long they would need.  Once he’d done that, he left.  A minute after that, the judge entered.  Again, in my head – though I know it’s not true – when I picture judges, I picture crabby looking old men.  I know there are all different kinds of judges, male and female, but I tend to picture the ones in our casebooks [who somehow all take pictures looking very crabby].  The judge I saw today looked nothing like that.  She was a pretty lady with really long blonde hair.  She looked young too, and my guess would again be in the 30s.  She proceeded to go through the cases she had before her, to check that the lawyers and parties were all there.  At the end, she asked if anyone’s name had not been called.

The perma-frown lady stood up.

Judge: “And you are?”

Atty: “[name I can't remember].  I’m here for [company I can't remember].”

J: “Is this your motion for contempt? Did you announce your case?”

A:   ::blink blink::

J: “I don’t have that you announced your case.”

A:   ::more blinking and staring::  “Uh…”

J: “You’re not from here are you? Hm.  Okay, well the first suggestion I have is, if you’re going to practice in someone else’s court, you might want to read the local rules.”

I couldn’t help a chuckle.  A soft one, but still.  Travis County [where Austin is located] uses what they call a “central docket” system.  I’d never heard of it before, and I’m not sure if they use it anywhere else outside of Texas.  As far as I know, Travis is the only county that does this.  What happens is that you sign up for a hearing, and it’s put on the docket, and assigned to a judge.  Essentially, they round up all the cases, divy them out based on which judge is free, and send the lawyers off accordingly to the different courts.  Everywhere else, they assign the case to a specific judge, and that judge here’s the whole thing all the way from beginning to end.  The central docket system is much more time efficient and people are able to get their cases and motions heard more quickly, but since we’re the only ones who do this, lawyers from out of town tend to think of it as a pain or as something that throws them off.  To each his own, I suppose.

Anyway, once the new lawyer’s mistake was out of the way, thejudge began with the proceedings.

The first was a lawyer whose client was seeking authorization for a lump sum payment of a structured settlement.  At least, I’m pretty sure that’s what was going on.  They just stood in front of the judge, and the lawyer quietly asked her to to state her name for the record.  He then asked her a bunch of questions that they’d clearly rehearsed, the answers to which were all “yes.” The story that was heard through the questions is that she’s a single 28-year-old mom with a 7 year old child, she has a college degree, is currently unemployed, and is looking to change careers and get a teaching certificate to find work and better care for herself and her child.  She needed the lump payment to pay bills, student loans, and the mortgage.  The judge was hesitant to sign off on the order because the “discount rate” [I'm still not sure what that means] was very high and the mom could get a better deal by shopping around.  In the end, this mom was giving up $75,000 over three years to have $22,000 now.  The judge asked if the mom was sure she wanted to do this, “because once I sign off on this order, it’s done.  You can’t come back to me later saying, ‘Oh no judge, I found a better deal somewhere else.’ Do you understand?” The mom responded that she was “under a bit of a time crunch as far as money is concerned” because her house was facing foreclosure and she needed to make these payments immediately.  The judge just shook her head, signed the order, said she thought the mom was making a big mistake, and wished her luck.  Watching that scene was a bit sad.  It made me wonder how many other people are in similar positions, making decisions they might not otherwise make because they’re ressed for time or money or both,because they’re unemployed, because they have family to feed.

The next hearing was the lawyer for the state and his motions for summary judgment.  There were three of them.  Two were uncontested and the judge signed off on them.  The third was in the case of a pro-se [self-representing] defendant.  The defendant [we'll call him Mr. H] was about 15 minutes late.  He walked in the door right after the lawyer finished telling the judge that he’d received no response from Mr. H.  After Mr. H walked in, the judge asked the lawyer if Mr. H was the defendant.  The lawyer looked confused, and said he supposed so but wasn’t sure.  The judge asked if the lawyer had ever seen Mr. H before and the lawyer replied that he didn’t think so, but that he might have spoken on the phone with Mr. H once.  Maybe.  The whole exchange was a bit awkward.  After that, the judge asked whether Mr. H had a response [he didn't].  She was mostly going through the motions, because before Mr. H arrived she told the lawyer, “I mean, you know I’m going to have to continue this right?”  That is, she was going to have to grant Mr. H a continuance to get his act together.  Mr. H told the judge that he had filed a response earlier, and that he thought he didn’t have to again, and that his understanding was that he just had to show up.

Judge: “Well Mr. H, your understanding is wrong.  I understand that you are representing yourself and that can be difficult, however, you are held to the same standard that [the lawyer for the state] and myself, and everyone in this room is held to.  Now, it can be hard because you’re not a lawyer, and nobody taught you these rules.  But, I highly suggest that you either learn them or get a lawyer.  Now, Mr. H, do you want time to file a response, or do you want me to go ahead and make a judgment?”

Mr. H: ::blink blink:: “Well, I’m not sure.  I mean, I guess you could go ahead and…”

J: “Do you want time to file a response or do you want me to make a judgment? It’s a simple question, Mr. H.”

H: “Well, if you want me to file a response, I’ll file a response.”

J: “I am not telling you to file a response.  I am not asking you to do anything.  I am just telling you that you need to make a decision.  I am not your lawyer, and I cannot give you advice, but there are certain rules and procedures that you need to learn and understand otherwise things will be very difficult for you.  A summary judgment is a procedure where the judge is asked to make a decision on the case based on the written evidence presented before him or her.  This is not a hearing, and I cannot take anything you tell me right now into consideration.  On top of that, you haven’t given me any written evidence.  SO, with that being said, do you want time to file a response?”

H: “Okay, so what you’re saying is, if I don’t do this, then…”

J: “Mr. H, what I’m saying is you either file a response or you lose.”

H: “Well, if that’s the case then I guess I need to file a response.”

J: “I guess you do.”

The judge was getting frustrated with Mr. H, but I don’t really blame her.  He was representing himself, so she wanted to help him have a fair shot, but at the same time she’s a judge and not his lawyer, so she can only do so much.  Luckily, he got the point.  As soon as things were over, the lawyer left, and Mr. H went to sit back down in the chairs were me and my classmates were sitting.  After a couple minutes, the judge noticed he was still there and informed him that he could stay if he wanted, otherwise he was welcome to leave.  He looked surprised, said thank you, and left.  I couldn’t help but look after him as he walked out and feel a bit sad.  I imagine that he’d been nervous and confused and overwhelmed.  I wondered why, with so many lawyers in the country, it’s so hard for people who need us to get to us.