THE ROBING ROOM

It is a sad abuse of what should be an objective and useful rating/evaluation system when a disappointed lawyer instead spills bile on a fine judge. I will disclose up front that I am the opposing counsel in 7592’s case. Without litigating the merits of that case here, I can offer that the manner of Judge Brown’s decisions is presented incompletely and unfairly. First, Judge Brown made a number of rulings against my client and in favor of 7592, including a ruling that they must produce sensitive information on their profit structure – thus, the statement that she ruled for defendants in “all” discovery matters is simply not true. Second, the statement that Judge Brown “did not issue rulings until the eve of trial” is also untrue. The rulings were issued in the Fall of 2008; trial is scheduled for late April 2009. Third, Judge Brown was dealing with motions of a highly personal and indeed venomous nature: the attacks made by 7592 on opposing counsel were as extreme as is his likening here of Judge Brown to Julius Hoffman. In one instance, 7592 asked that the entire case be dismissed because of what he alleged to be discovery “abuses.” In another motion, 7592 sought to invoke the “crime/fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege on the basis that my co-counsel and I had sought to destroy and conceal evidence. In two extensive opinions, Judge Brown denied the motions and found that they were without any evidence at all. So extreme were the attacks that Judge Brown inserted a cautionary note into her opinion warning that counsel who practice in the Seventh Circuit have a duty not to make “unfounded accusations of impropriety” about opposing counsel. The district court upheld both decisions. There are two sides to any litigation and I am likely biased here toward that of my client, but for readers of this site, I can state only that having both won and lost motions before Judge Brown, I thought her to be balanced, fair, and most of all careful in consideration of every argument made. This is a jurist who reads the briefs, thinks hard, and tries to strike the correct balance.