Philly Judge Orders Taming of the Lawyers

[WSJ_law_blog]

And do as adversaries do in law, Strive mightily but eat and drink as friends.
— From William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew

We wonder, after reading this admonition from the Bard, just how many lawyers these days manage to live up to it. Lawyers, let’s toss it over to you. Give a quick mental rundown of your opposing counsel and tally up the number of those people with whom you’d “eat and drink as friends.” We’re betting it’s few, if any.

Putting aside the applicability of the line to modern-day practice, it nevertheless inspired a federal judge in Philadelphia, Gene E.K. Pratter, to rule recently that, as part of a lesson in civility, two opposing lawyers must sit down and have a meal together. Click here for the story, from the Philly Legal Intelligencer.

In her opinion, Judge Pratter ruled that attorney Lewis P. Hannah must take a CLE class on “civility and professionalism” and nosh with his opponent James E. Ellison “in an effort to facilitate the repair of their professional relationship.” In her opinion (link not available), Pratter said she was inspired by the Taming of the Shrew quote. According to Intelligencer writer Shannon Duffy:

The bard, Pratter said, “apparently believed that the legal profession provided a useful example for achieving civility.” By ordering Hannah and Ellison to go to a Dutch treat lunch or dinner together, Pratter said, she hoped that “perhaps the adversaries in this case can be reinspired to achieve the Shakespearean vision and the aspirational goals of the very rules of professional conduct by which counsel have pledged to abide.”

In the motion for sanction, Hannah was accused of using the word “a——” four times during the deposition when referring to Ellison.

Ellison, who is black, also said in the motion that Hannah referred to him as a “boy.” Hannah, who is also black, conceded in a Intelligencer interview that he had used the word “boy” to refer to Ellison, and that he recognizes it was wrong to do so, but also said that “the context is different when one black man is saying it to another black man.”

When asked about Pratter’s order that the two lawyers share a meal and try to repair their professional relationship, Hannah said, “I think it’s an excellent idea.”

Ellison, in a phone interview, said the shared meal could lead to settlement talks and that he doesn’t anticipate “any more problems” in getting along.

As part of the sanction, Pratter ordered that after the meal, “counsel then will submit a joint status report to inform the court of their efforts to restore their conduct in this case to a level of professionalism for attorneys practicing before this court that more closely approximates the conduct espoused by the civility codes and enactments referenced in this memorandum.”

For what it is worth, a comment from an Australian lawyer, practising in a town of 100 000 people ... the higher courts travel to my city on circuit, running trials for a month at a time. The Judge and their Associate (clerk in US terms) and Tipstaff (court security/dogsbody type) stay in town for the month, as do those representing my opponents, the insurers (normally an insurer from time to time, and always an instructing solicitor, and at least one if not two advocates. My side comprises my firm and a couple of barristers.

It is common for the lawyers involved to eat and drink together most nights, and for the Judge and their staff to join all of us at least once.

The cases are hard fought, but the dinners a pleasure.

Livin' it up Shakespeare style in Australia!