Key West heat–
the kitchen staff’s
chained bicyclesafter the storm
he is rich in umbrellas–
the homeless mancredits: “Key West heat” – edge of light; wha; Frogpond XXII:3 (1999)
“after the storm” – wha; Point Judith Light (Fall 1998)
-
-
Denise Howell likes Ernie Miller’s IT Conversations. We’re waiting for the transcript — easier to skim.
Gupta’s “
Re the cursing associate. The recipient of that voicemail and a blogger who published it on the Net both say, now, that the issue has been blown out of proportion. I listened to the voicemail, and I disagree. The voicemail is outrageous not only in how unprofessional it is but also when you consider the context. What reason could Mr. Gupta possibly have for acting this way, given that the idiot is a transactional lawyer? It’s not that litigators can hide behind litigation as an excuse, but at least in litigation there is an inherently hostile, adversarial relationship between counsel.
Gupta gets what he deserves.
Comment by UCL — August 27, 2004 @ 12:06 pm
Re the cursing associate. The recipient of that voicemail and a blogger who published it on the Net both say, now, that the issue has been blown out of proportion. I listened to the voicemail, and I disagree. The voicemail is outrageous not only in how unprofessional it is but also when you consider the context. What reason could Mr. Gupta possibly have for acting this way, given that the idiot is a transactional lawyer? It’s not that litigators can hide behind litigation as an excuse, but at least in litigation there is an inherently hostile, adversarial relationship between counsel.
Gupta gets what he deserves.
Comment by UCL — August 27, 2004 @ 12:06 pm
I agree, UCL, that the behavior was outrageous, but I don’t believe it is evidence of increasing lawyer incivility (but, perhaps of societal brutishness in general). It’s funny that you imagine there is far less stress or antagonism in the realm of “transactional” lawyering. Your belief that litigators live a significantly different life in the law is, um, cute, and a little parochial.
Comment by David Giacalone — August 27, 2004 @ 12:52 pm
I agree, UCL, that the behavior was outrageous, but I don’t believe it is evidence of increasing lawyer incivility (but, perhaps of societal brutishness in general). It’s funny that you imagine there is far less stress or antagonism in the realm of “transactional” lawyering. Your belief that litigators live a significantly different life in the law is, um, cute, and a little parochial.
Comment by David Giacalone — August 27, 2004 @ 12:52 pm
I don’t think it’s evidence of “increasing” incivility either. It is evidence of an unprofessional gasbag.
I’m not sure where I suggested that litigators live a “significantly different life in the law”. In the context in which this voicemail was sent, however, it’s safe to assume that the 2 lawyers’ respective clients were involved in a cooperative effort of some sort, involving a particular transaction that required the assistance of attorneys to properly execute. That context is slightly different from a situation in which two clients have been so unsuccessful at resolving a dispute that they’ve decided to plunge thousands of dollars into law firms in order to duke it out against one another before a judge or jury. You would deny the differences between those scenarios?
Incivility in a litigation context is not excused, in my eyes, but it is explained by the circumstances. Incivility in a transactional context is not even explained. It is irrational to a greater degree.
Comment by UCL — August 27, 2004 @ 1:27 pm
I don’t think it’s evidence of “increasing” incivility either. It is evidence of an unprofessional gasbag.
I’m not sure where I suggested that litigators live a “significantly different life in the law”. In the context in which this voicemail was sent, however, it’s safe to assume that the 2 lawyers’ respective clients were involved in a cooperative effort of some sort, involving a particular transaction that required the assistance of attorneys to properly execute. That context is slightly different from a situation in which two clients have been so unsuccessful at resolving a dispute that they’ve decided to plunge thousands of dollars into law firms in order to duke it out against one another before a judge or jury. You would deny the differences between those scenarios?
Incivility in a litigation context is not excused, in my eyes, but it is explained by the circumstances. Incivility in a transactional context is not even explained. It is irrational to a greater degree.
Comment by UCL — August 27, 2004 @ 1:27 pm
David:
It’s rare for someone using this kind of language to get caught – but I think it’s more common than many will admit.
Hope your are doing well – I’ve noticed a proliferation in your postings lately.
Carolyn
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — August 27, 2004 @ 10:38 pm
David:
It’s rare for someone using this kind of language to get caught – but I think it’s more common than many will admit.
Hope your are doing well – I’ve noticed a proliferation in your postings lately.
Carolyn
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — August 27, 2004 @ 10:38 pm
Incivility is certainly common, but not to this degree. I’ve only experienced anything that bad a single time. A senior biglaw partner at another firm, who I suspect had personal problems going on in his life, called me on the phone one day and began cussing at me. It lasted for about 5 seconds before I interrupted him to say “If you don’t control your language I’m hanging up.” He continued swearing. I hung up without a word. He wrote me an email the next day to apologize.
Comment by UCL — August 29, 2004 @ 8:26 pm
Incivility is certainly common, but not to this degree. I’ve only experienced anything that bad a single time. A senior biglaw partner at another firm, who I suspect had personal problems going on in his life, called me on the phone one day and began cussing at me. It lasted for about 5 seconds before I interrupted him to say “If you don’t control your language I’m hanging up.” He continued swearing. I hung up without a word. He wrote me an email the next day to apologize.
Comment by UCL — August 29, 2004 @ 8:26 pm
Like UCL, I don’t think this type of conduct is very common among lawyers: I have personally riled a lot of lawyer’s in my day, but I have never had this kind of incivility (crude, inarticulate anger) aimed at me. Only once did I have a lawyer direct a swearing hissy-fit at me — it was over a real estate closing; I had never spoken to the man before and he started the phone conversation with yelling and profanity, although he knew that I was only covering the matter for an attorney on vacation. Needless to say, I also told the (not-so)gentleman that he had to cool down before I would speak with him. He hung up and never apologized. (A few years later, he was disbarrred for using an elderly client’s credit cards.)
Comment by David Giacalone — August 29, 2004 @ 8:46 pm
Like UCL, I don’t think this type of conduct is very common among lawyers: I have personally riled a lot of lawyer’s in my day, but I have never had this kind of incivility (crude, inarticulate anger) aimed at me. Only once did I have a lawyer direct a swearing hissy-fit at me — it was over a real estate closing; I had never spoken to the man before and he started the phone conversation with yelling and profanity, although he knew that I was only covering the matter for an attorney on vacation. Needless to say, I also told the (not-so)gentleman that he had to cool down before I would speak with him. He hung up and never apologized. (A few years later, he was disbarrred for using an elderly client’s credit cards.)
Comment by David Giacalone — August 29, 2004 @ 8:46 pm