Oral Arguments

I really hate bad-mouthing Hawai'i and its legal profession.  I truly look for lawyers here that I can compliment and say that they're not an embarrassment to the profession or should be disbarred for their incompetence.  I have a few theories on why the quality of legal services here in Hawai'i is below average, but perhaps I'll save that for a different day.  Today, I want to talk about something I saw yesterday.  I wish I recorded it because...well...it's going to be hard to visualize.

Yesterday the Intermediate Court of Appeals held oral arguments for two cases at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law.  The ICA normally holds oral arguments at the Supreme Court courtroom, but every once in a while it's held at UH to give law students the opportunity to get free lunch see attorneys argue an appellate case.  Afterwards there is a Q & A where students can ask the judges and law clerks questions about their jobs.  It's also a way for students to start thinking about clerking after law school.  Of the 12 clerks at the ICA only 3 are non-UH law graduates.

Anyway, yesterday involved two cases.  The first dealt with a fairly interesting search and seizure case involving the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.  The case was really well-argued on both sides of the case, which made it both enjoyable and interesting to watch.  I thought the attorneys were well-prepared, articulate, and made well-reasoned arguments.

That's not the case I want to talk about.  No, the case that the world needs to know about is the second one. First of all, it was a traffic case about the calibration of a radar gun.  In Hawai'i you can be arrested for "excessive speeding."  It is a crime.  From the beginning this argument was a nightmare and a circus.  The Appellant's attorney (i.e. the defendant lost in the lower court and is appealing) was absolutely the worst attorney I have ever seen.  His behavior was inappropriate and disrespectful and completely undermined the legitimacy of the court (well, as much legitimacy as there can be when you listen to traffic cases...but stick with me).  His behavior (and argument) was so bad that it was laughable.  I feel the need to bring this up as a warning to any future (or current) lawyers who may do some of these things.

First, he drifted off topic several times and started "lecturing" rather than "arguing."  An oral argument should generally go like this:  brief summary of facts, point of error one, argument; point of error two, argument; etc.  During this time the judges will barrage the attorney with questions challenging the arguments.  This guy omitted the facts altogether (not terribly important as the judges read the briefs), but when asked the first question, the attorney literally said, "judge, I don't want to answer that, or go into that, because that point hurts my case. I want to talk about this grave injustice."  The attorney then turned around to the audience (i.e. turned his back on the judges) and started lecturing the audience.  He said, "see, this is what happens when you're caught speeding, you have to come up here and answer tough questions. don't speed."  He turned his back on the judges AT LEAST 3 times to address the audience.  At one point, he used the edge of the counsel's table to demonstrate "a cliff" that you fall off when you speed and then told the audience that they should never plead guilty unless they want "ridiculous" and "unjust" minimum penalties.

Second, he objected during the other side's argument.  For anyone not familiar with appellate arguments, you can't do that.  You can't say anything when the other side is speaking.  Both sides get 30 minutes.  When your time is up, you remain silent.

Third, when the other side made their argument, this guy banged his head on the table.

I wish I could recount more accurately the specific things this guy said, but suffice to say there were several times the judges themselves were laughing.  In my opinion, the lawyer should be sanctioned.  However, the judges never gave him a warning or tried to reign him in, so it's hard to sanction someone without putting them on notice.

That is sort of my point, though.  What kind of message are the judges sending to attorneys when they let them get away with this sort of spectacle?  In front of a room of future lawyers, the judges sent the message that it's okay to be unprepared.  It's okay to disrespect the court.  It's okay to interrupt the other side.  It's okay to not make a coherent argument.  In short, their silence made it okay for this guy to provide bad representation to a client.  I'm sure the judges didn't want to embarrass the lawyer.  In fact, afterwards one of the audience members remarked that they felt sorry for the lawyer because he clearly had no idea what he was doing.  My immediate reaction was that we should feel sorry for the client!  Someone paid this guy to represent him in court.  It looked like the lawyer was having a great time giving his lecture and making his gestures and making absurd comments, but at the end of the day someone needs to remember that this guy represented someone accused of a crime.  Someone's life, and criminal history, was in this guy's hands.  What are we saying, as a profession, when we fail to prevent people like this from becoming a practicing attorney?

Pro Bowl

That's right, be jealous.  While Blizzard 2011 was wreaking havoc on some 100 million people across the U.S., I was sitting on the 45 yard line of Aloha Stadium watching the worst football game in history Pro Bowl.  It started with a 9:30am tailgate.  The game wasn't until 2pm, but my co-worker "Joe," my roommate "Alan," and a guy we met upstairs, "George," went to the game.  Now, to be honest, only George, Joe, and I drove out to Aloha stadium at 9:30am.  Alan, the drunkard that he is, got drunk the night before and passed out at some poor unsuspecting woman's house and didn't get up in time.  He came later during the tailgate.  Anyway, I made my world famous (and of course by world famous I mean my mom likes them) turkey burgers.  I marinated steak and chicken to make shish kebobs.  We brought hot links. We bought humus, jalepeno dip, guacamole, pita chips, tostitos, coronas, and bud light.  We loaded up the back of my SUV with utensils, plates, cups, etc.  And we brought our gas grill.

When we got there and started setting up, a group of military guys and their wives/girlfriends pulled up right across from us and starting setting up tables, chairs, tents, and their own spread of beer and food.  It was pretty hilarious to watch them set up.  We were convinced they had a pre-determined game plan where everyone had assigned tasks because their tailgate was up in about 10 minutes.  I'd say there were maybe 10-15 of them in 3 pickups.  Anyway, Joe, George, and I started setting up and I threw on some burgers and kebobs.

We had a little mishap with one of the burgers

Well, at some point within the next 45-60 minutes one of the guys at the tailgate across from us asked if he could borrow our grill.  Apparently, their grill guy fell through.  See, I love tailgates because everyone is friendly, outgoing, and ready to party.  So we obviously told them that our grill was their grill and to just throw whatever they wanted on there.  The grill was plenty big enough.  Plus, we wanted to play beer pong, which they had set up.  Additionally, they had several coolers of beer whereas we only had one.  It's all about planning ahead.  Plus, we had far more food than the 3 (and eventually 4) of us could possibly eat.  So handing out my famous burgers and kebobs was a great way to make friends.

Walking into the Stadium

A few hours later we had met all of the people from the other tailgate, made plans to hang out the following week, shotgunned a few beers, played some beer pong, and gotten sufficiently intoxicated that it was time to see the game.  Joe and I had tickets on the 45 yard line.  Alan (who had finally shown up) and George had tickets 5 rows from the field but in the corner of the endzone.  Everyone had good tickets, just not together.

From Our Seats

Joe and I went in and let me just say trying to get into the stadium was a complete and total cluster f*ck.  The security guards operating the gate clearly had no concept of efficiency or logic.  There were five gates available, but they were only utilizing three.  They made everyone go past the security gate before wrapping around to come through.  We finally made it in, though, and the stadium is really nice.  It's where the University of Hawaii plays their games.  There really isn't a bad seat in the stadium.

The game itself was...well...the NFL All-Star game.  These guys really look at the Pro Bowl as a free trip for them and their families to come to Hawaii.  They don't take the game seriously AT ALL.  It was actually kind of humorous (more so b/c I was drunk).  When the ball was snapped, the linemen just stood up and sort of held each other up.  When Adrian Pederson would run into a tackle, he just fell down.  It was clear they were playing not to get hurt.  By the end of the second quarter, the NFC was winning like 45-0.  So Joe and I decided to see the halftime show and go back to the parking lot.  The truth is, once the tailgate got going, we didn't really want to leave.  It was too much fun.  It was even fun during the 20 minutes of rain we had before the game started.  So we went back to the parking lot, found the guys tailgating still (they didn't actually have tickets to the game) and just kept eating and drinking.  Eventually we met up with Alan and George and went home.

Halftime Show

It was a pretty fun day and I was definitely happy that I got the chance to go.

New Adjunct Professor

I guess I'll have to stop verbally bashing the GW alumni network - well, at least as much as I do now.  As I have previously written, a few weeks ago, I contacted one of the professors who teaches trial practice at the University of Hawaii law school.  We went to the same college (a few decades apart, obviously).  Normally GW alums don't offer each other much support, but he seemed thrilled to talk to someone from him alma mater.  Anyway, the trial practice class is taught by him (let's call him Professor C) and a former state-level trial court judge (let's call her Judge M).  Professor C said he would talk to the judge and get back to me.  I honestly expected that I would have to call him back after New Year's when the semester started in order to remind him.  I was wrong.  He called me back two days ago to schedule a meeting between the three of us.  Well all met at Professor C's office this morning and talked about what I wanted to do, what my interests were, my qualifications, and the reasons I wanted to help.  The meeting lasted about an hour (wherein the judge talked A LOT about how awesome she is...I liked her right away!).  They gave me a copy of the syllabus and case file they use for class and said if I was willing to commit to the entire semester that they are happy to have a third.  In fact, it actually works out well because Judge M won't be there for the first 3 weeks so they needed the extra help anyway.  The class starts January 18 and as of that day, I think it's safe to cross off something on my list of things I want to do before leaving.

So how does the class work!?  I knew you'd want to know, so I will tell you.  There are 12 students in the class.  Each student is given the same case file, which includes several deposition transcripts/statements, a few exhibits, stipulated facts, and jury instructions.  It is a civil medical malpractice case about a guy suing a hospital for injuries he suffered from a procedure (I haven't read the whole case yet).  The class is then divided in half (6 Plaintiff/6 Defense) and they are expected to prepare each aspect of trial from start to finish. The first week the students conduct voir dire (jury selection).  The next week they do opening statements.  This continues until the end of the semester.  Unlike some schools, there is no final trial at the end where they are expected to put everything together.  It is more of a weekly exercise class and is graded pass/fail.

Trial Practice at University of Hawaii

Prior to this morning, I thought the University of Hawaii law school did not offer its students a Trial Advocacy class.  I was wrong.  They do.  They offer a class in both the Fall and Spring semesters.  What does that mean for my goal of teaching trial practice at UH?  Well, it certainly doesn't make it any easier.  However, I took the first step in getting involved today.  There is a different professor each semester so I contacted both of them.  The current semester is almost over so they don't need any more help right now.  I figured that would be the case and so didn't have high expectations, anyway.  However, my conversation with the second professor went decidedly better.

First off, he graduated from my alma mater - George Washington Univ.  He also got his Master's Degree there before going to law school at Berkeley.  He was much more willing to talk to me when he found out I was a fellow Colonial.  So we discussed the format of the Trial Practice class, the textbook and case file they use, and where he thought I could be of some assistance.  It sounds like I wouldn't be useful all that often, but on certain weeks I will come in, play a witness, and provide feedback to the students.

Essentially, it sounds like they have a much smaller class size than what I had in mind and they are not nearly as thorough as I would have expected, but it still sounds like a class I would enjoy participating in.  The spring semester is co-taught between a civil litigator and retired judge.  The civil litigator is the one who pretty much runs the program and is also the GW alum I talked to.  He said they use one case, which he tried himself years ago, and they stick with that case all semester.  They take the case from start to finish, including voir dire of a jury at the beginning.  Then they do weekly assignments for learning how to do directs, crosses, opens, closes, etc. They also have certain people come in who have been witnesses in trial and give a lecture on witness preparation.  Overall it sounds like a great experience if I can get involved.  

In the interest of fairness, I should say that I rail on GW as a school all the time.  I constantly say that they have a horrible alumni network and the school was (and probably still is) worthless when it comes to helping its students or alums with...well...anything.  They were terribly mismanaged when I was a student and the President (who has since retired) was a money-hungry ass who didn't give a damn about the students.  If this guy actually lets me take part in his class, even if it's not because I am a GW grad, I am willing to be at least a little nicer about other grads from now on.  We'll see.