The Kind of Judge We Need to Clone

The New York Times has this story about a federal judge in Kansas who granted a continuance of trial to accommodate counsel's desire to not have the trial occur at the moment he expected to become a father for the first time.  Opposing counsel objected.  Among other things, the objections were rooted in speculation about when the moving counsel should have known the due date of his child.  The judge declined to enter into that speculation "[f]or reasons of good taste which should be (but apparently, are not) too obvious to explain."  Another objection was that the moving party had plenty of lawyers, but apparently the objecting attorneys were just as numerous, causing the judge to observe that "perhaps Plaintiffs are ill-equipped to argue that Defendants have too many attorneys."  But the best line is near the end:  “Certainly this judge is convinced of the importance of federal court, but he has always tried not to confuse what he does with who he is, nor to distort the priorities of his day job with his life’s role. Counsel are encouraged to order their priorities similarly.”   Here's the judge's order.  It's short; it's worth reading in its entirety.    

Comments

[James Grimmelmann]

Wait, I thought this was a story abut the imprtance of childbirth. But now you're telling me that it's really about the importance of cloning? I'm confused.

[Jennifer Hendricks]

Shortly after announcing my pregnancy to friends & family, I was on the phone with a federal judge's law clerk. I told him that my due date fell on the date we had scheduled to start trial, some six months off, so I would be moving for a continuance. He responded, "Well, I guess you'd better settle."

Two notes: The clerk was definitely predicting his boss's likely response, not just speaking for himself, and my firm at the time consisted of myself and one other lawyer.

Glad to see the times are changing.

[t1]

I don't know anything about the underlying case but I assume that the plaintiff has waited months, if not years, to get a trial date. Then one of the 5 or 6 defense attorneys waits until a few weeks before requesting a continuance?

I've lost track of the number of times I've been before a federal judge with scheduling problems and the response was "tough luck." If you are going to practice nationally in the federal courts, you are going to miss births, birthdays, anniversaries, etc. That's the way it is.

The defense attorney needs to man up and grow a pair or start doing probate work or something if he wants to be on the mommy track.

[Joe]

"I don't know anything about the underlying case but I assume that the plaintiff has waited months, if not years, to get a trial date. Then one of the 5 or 6 defense attorneys waits until a few weeks before requesting a continuance?"

It was more like a few months before, but this is actually a good point. If she's due 7/1, that means they probably knew in mid-December, early January at the latest. Unless the trial setting was held in late February or after (not impossible), defense counsel better have a pretty good reason why he waited months to raise this.

[Former strategic delayer]

I'm not so sure we ought to fire up the cloning machine. One associate (probably not the first chair lawyer) on a multiple-firm, many lawyer trial team has a scheduled birth within the time frame of a lengthy trial and the judge not only rolls over but mocks the plaintiffs who want their day in court - I smell possible strategic delay maneuvers and definitely a conservative judge who doesn't like plaintiffs.