Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Anonymous Tip: Worst Lawyer Ever

Anonymous Tip: Worst Lawyer Ever

Last updated on: October 28, 2016 at 5:00 am by Libby Anne

Anonymous Tip: Worst Lawyer Ever 2016-10-26T15:12:57-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 413-416

To start out, we have a very short section covering a phone conversation between Peter and David Humphrey of Heart of America. Peter breaks the news that they lost the case in the Ninth Circuit and that they’re appealing to the Supreme Court. David is glad Peter lost the case—though he doesn’t let him know that—because it means more money for Heart of America. After all, they can send out a new mailing, and what with the case going to the Supreme Court, David figures it will bring in even more money than the previous mailing’s $300,000.

Peter and David start talking about how much this will cost. Peter says that “our out-of-pocket costs will be about fifteen thousand dollars” but that “it would be nice to get some money for our attorney’s fees.” David is noncommittal on that front, but lets Peter know that “for sure we can cover the fifteen grand.” The rest of the money, presumably, will go into David’s pockets.

Farris tells us that Peter is working on the cert petition from 5 to 7 every evening. While doing research, Peter finds a case he hadn’t seen before—it’s Hill v. City of New York, decided in 1993. In it, the Second Circuit “held that while judicial immunity for social workers certainly applies to everything that happens during a trail; social workers were not immune from filing the initial papers if they contained information they knew to be false at the time of filing.” That is criminal semicolon use. That aside, you can see where Farris is going with this. Donna knew her initial papers included false information when she filed them.

Peter calls “Professor French” to ask about this case. (I use scare quotes because it’s interesting to note those who get honorariums and those who don’t—so far I think only French and Peter’s pastor do.)

“Ah, yes,” French said. “I was wondering when you were going to find that case.”

WTF? Least helpful law professor ever! French should have asked Peter whether he’d read Hill v. City of New York during their first conversation! If I were Peter, I’d be pissed! What, was French just going to let it go unmentioned if Peter didn’t find it on his own? Oh wait, French answers that question:

“I was going to tell you about it in a week or so, but I’m glad you found it. You know how important this case is, don’t you?”

Do you, sir, know how important Peter’s case is? Too important for games like this! Or at least, too important to Peter and Gwen for games like this. I’m less invested.

“Sure,” Peter replied. “It gives us a high-level case which announces a rule of law which is a lot more favorable to us.”

“That’s true,” the professor said. “But it’s a lot more important than that. One of the best ways to get the Supreme court to take your case is to argue that your case will solve what they call ‘a split between the circuits.'”

And this is why French should have led with this last week. Anyway, French explains what a split between the circuits means—if the Ninth Circuit has granted social workers full immunity and the Second Circuit has only given them limited immunity, it would behoove the Supreme Court to step in and sort it out. That French feels the need to explain all this to Peter is weird, because I knew this and I’ve never been to law school, but then I probably keep up with the Supreme Court more than most and I get that the point of this section is exposition for the reader, not for Peter—wait.

“Wow. Why didn’t they teach us this stuff in law school?” Peter asked.

I could make some deprecating joke about Gonzaga, Peter’s alma mater, but then I think Farris would write it this way even if Peter had gone to Yale.

“They probably did. But most wannabe lawyers never pay that much attention because it is well known that there is not much money in constitutional law.”

“They were sure right about that.”

“Peter, there’s one other argument that I think you have been missing in this whole case.”

“Yikes. What’s that?”

“Let’s see if you can figure it out. I’ll ask you some questions, OK?”

“Sure, I’m game. I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer.”

And that is why you should have passed this case on to an actual constitutional lawyer, Peter!

“At what point in the process did they falsify the computer records?”

Peter thought for a moment. “Uh . . . It was after the state case was all over. It was after we had filed the federal civil rights suit.”

“Do you get my—”

“Oh, my goodness! I’m an idiot!”

“I take it that you understand my point,” the professor said.

“Yeah, they have immunity for perjury done during the trial. When the state trial is over, the immunity is over. We should have been able to clean their clocks for document tampering they did during the federal trial.”

“You got it.”

And, this is why Peter should have passed the case on to someone who actually knew what they were doing.

“Well, at least I learned it now. We just tell that to the Supreme Court and that will take care of it, right?”

“Not exactly. You’ve got a little problem.”

“What kind of problem?”

“You can only bring up issues in the Supreme Court if you previously raised some of those issues in the district court at the trial level, and in the circuit court at the appellate level.”

“Does that mean I can’t make this argument at all because I didn’t say it until now?”

Why is he asking these questions, and why didn’t he know that you can’t make an argument before the Supreme Court that you haven’t made already as you worked your way up through the courts? Once again, I knew this. I have never been to law school. Peter is in so far over his head right now that this should be a wakeup call to go find a constitutional lawyer to turn the case over to. But you know it won’t be.

French says that Peter may be able to make these new arguments if he makes it clear that they’re extensions of the same issues he’s been arguing the entire time. He says that this make make his case less likely to be taken, though, as the law clerks who look at his cert petition may feel that the case would have been resolved at an earlier level if he’d just raised these arguments then. And if they were to decide that, they’d probably be correct. But French didn’t say that. I did.

“I feel really bad. Have I committed malpractice?”

“No way. And besides, I don’t think your fiancé is likely to sue you for it anyway.”

A pox on you and your entire old boys network!

Seriously, though, this is why his behavior toward Gwen has been a problem since the very beginning.

“When do you think you’ll have your draft of the cert petition done?”

“Next Tuesday. That’s three days before the deadline you gave me.”

What was the point of that last line? I’m serious. The point is probably to let the reader know that Peter is a Really Good Lawyer Who Always Works Ahead, despite all evidence to the contrary, but as it is, it reads as if it’s Peter trying to show off to French. But you know what? If Peter has it done and submitted before French’s deadline, French will know that whether or not Peter reminds him that it’s before deadline. Peter’s remindingness comes off as him trying to prove something.

Poor Gwen.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Uncategorized

Anonymous Tip

Previous Post

October 27, 2016

Robert Saunders' Race Problem, and the Republican Party

Next Post

October 28, 2016 Mixed-Race, How Does It Work? Mark Kirk Edition

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Esther risk by approaching the king without being summoned?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Her fortune Her reputation Her citizenship Her life