Law Humor

Yeah, legal research is for losers.

By NBlack

Via the Legal Profession Blog comes this unbelievable exchange set forth in a footnote in this opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 

Thanks to Edward Wiest for pointing this out to me.

Phipps: . . . so that?s about all I have to say, Your Honor. I don?t have anything other
than that. You know, my client lives in Chicago. ... She continues to earn a living, and she?s generally unavailable if you call her because she, she?s sort of a traveling doctor.

Judge: That?s not much of thing you come in here and tell us, I guess.
Phipps: Well, my attitude is, the [district court] judge got it right . . . . And as far as
whether even Ricks should apply, I don?t think it should.

Judge: What do you do about Morgan?

Phipps: I don?t, I don?t, I don?t know Morgan, Your Honor.

Judge: You don?t know Morgan?

Phipps: Nope.

Judge: You haven?t read it?

Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh,
Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night.
I don?t know if that?s not Ledbetter, I can?t remember the name of it. Ricks is the
one that I go by; it?s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn?t apply. I don?t
think it applies.

Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you
representing the Plaintiff to get up here?it?s a Supreme Court case?and say
you haven?t read it. Where did they teach you that?

Phipps: They didn?t teach me much, Your Honor.

Judge: At Tulane, is it?

Phipps: Loyola.

Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.

Phipps: That?s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.

Judge: Alright. We?ve got your attitude, anyway.

Full post as published by Legal Antics on August 05, 2008 (boomark / email).