Unsurprisingly, the lawyer who thought his emails packed with F-bombs, threats and personal insults would be a good "confidential negotiating tactic" found himself in some trouble when the parties appeared for the show cause order.
He even managed to annoy the judge further by slipping in late and failing to announce his presence at the beginning of the hearing. Now, he can pretty much count on responding to an ethics complaint filed with his state's disciplinary authority by a federal judge.
I actually considered putting this in a "Never Have I Ever" column, as the ostensible "negotiating technique" here is one that would never be used by an experienced litigator (at least, not without some serious mental/chemical problems).
First, as a "negotiating technique," it was dead on arrival. Insurance defense counsel are defending claims in litigation all day, every day. Their technique for evaluating a case is going to be based on the applicable law, their analysis of the facts, and recent jury verdicts entered in similar cases. Insults, obscenities, threats and crazy settlement demands are going to have no impact. Zero.
Second, Mr. Bowl of Dicks failed to realize he was communicating the exact opposite of what he was trying to communicate. A good plaintiff's trial counsel has no need to engage in this sort of bluster. If this guy was any good, and really thought he had Allstate on the ropes, he would have simply gone forth to do, in discovery, in pretrial motion practice, and at trial. While thinking he was convincing defense counsel of his toughness and sick litigation skills, what he was actually telling them was that he was clueless, inexperienced at litigation, desperate to settle the case without trial, and in fact, unable to even conceive a strategy by which he might obtain a favorable outcome for his clients at trial. If Allstate's counsel had considered making any settlement offer before Mr. Bowl of Dicks began his "negotiating tactics," they would have put that on the shelf as soon as he showed them they really didn't have anything to worry about (hence, the perceived "stonewalling"). It would have been a two-second analysis, along the lines of, "Wow, this guy knows he can't try a case, so we don't have to offer him anything."
It amazes me that any lawyers still try to do this kind of thing. If they thought it through at all, they should realize why it isn't going to work. Ever. It also flags them as not only clueless in their own right, but such an asshat personally that no senior colleague is willing to stop them to explain why that isn't the way.
In this particular case, Bowl of Dicks, Esq. is going to be getting that lesson from a federal judge and a disciplinary case. I doubt it will end in his direct and immediate disbarment, as he apparently (by some miracle of fate) has no prior disciplinary record. However, I think he is probably looking at a suspension of at least 1-3 years, and a whole lot of shit-wading after that to show that he is ready to be reinstated. There's the easy way and the hard way to learn the trade, and Bowl of Dicks has gone strictly for the hard way. I'm sure we'll be seeing additional stories as his efforts to retain licensure roll along.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/this-profession-doesnt-need-you-judge-tells-lawyer-who-sent-bowl-of-dicks-emails
No comments:
Post a Comment