Lawyers Take Courtroom Antics to a New Level

An attorney from a well respected mid-size Chicago firm recently filed one of the most ridiculous pre-trial motions to date.  What is especially shocking is this pre-trial motion was successfully filed and responded to.

Frivolous motions are not uncommon in litigation.  What a person has to take away is the harsh truth that at times, the judicial system is less about justice and more about useless games and malicious strategies.

Defense counsel from the firm Gauthier & Gooch filed a motion objecting to a particular person sitting at the plaintiff’s table.  Was this person violent or disruptive?  Not at all.  However, this individual woman seemed to have a large chest.  Defense counsel argued the following in his motion:

Defendant’s counsel is anecdotally familiar with the tactics and theatrics of Plaintiff’s counsel, [redacted]. Such behavior includes having a large breasted woman sit next to him at counsel’s table during the course of the trial. There is no evidence whatsoever that this woman has any legal training whatsoever, and the sole purpose of her presence at Plaintiff’s Counsel’s table is to draw the attention of the jury away from the relevant proceedings before this court, obviously prejudicing the Defendant’s in this or any other cause. Until it is shown that this woman has any sort of legal background, she should be required to sit in the gallery with the rest of the spectators and be barred from sitting at counsel’s table during the course of this trial.

What defense counsel is essentially saying is that the other side was using the woman to distract the jury from paying attention to the defense’s argument, therefore hurting the defendant’s chances of winning.

If you feel this may have been one of those rare, awkward occurrences, you are wrong.  In a 2009 trial defense counsel objected to the plaintiff’s attorney because he wore “hole-ridden Cole Haan loafers.”  The defense attorney argued that by wearing such shoes, his opponent was trying to appeal to the jury members by showing them that he was just a “humble and simple guy.”  The logic behind this claim is based on the fact that most people have their own ideas about attorneys, often not favorable ones.  Therefore, an attorney who can disprove such negative stigmas, perhaps by showing a simpler, more humble side, can therefore help his or her case by appealing to a jury member.

In both these instances, while defense counsel writes motions to claim that the other side is using malicious strategies to win over the jury; can the other side not argue that the defense is using their motions to distract the court proceedings?  Both sides are playing games and using cheap tactics to try to help their side.  However, neither side is using legally-oriented strategies to win their case.  In law school, we are taught to argue based off of merit and substantive facts.  Yet, courtroom antics seem to stem far from these principles of justice.

I guess the lesson to take away is to think before taking someone to court, because it may be that your lawyer gets carried away in issues that have nothing to do with your case.