BREAKING NEWS: ITS RAINING OUTSIDE.
An annoyed reader writes:
If your clients get the same attention you give this blog, you have to be F. Lee Bailey.
Rumpole notes, that we are not F Lee. We in fact are licensed to practice law in this State.
As to our attention to the blog, the heat of the summer has apparently dampened our clients desire to drink and act disorderly. Careful readers of the blog know that our practice is devoted almost exclusively to the drunk and disorderly, with an occasional murder thrown in for fun. Our knowledge of blood spatter and stains is almost legendary. Almost.
Good news to report: Several alert readers are working feverishly on an opinion as to whether or not we can make wry comments on the members of our beloved judiciary.
Condemning us to a career of pounding Bennett “the Banner’ Brummer is our idea of literary hell.
While we are on the subject:
BRUMMER BANS LAWYERS AND WILL NOT SPEAK ABOUT IT.
WHEN WILL BRUMMER ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF BANNING LAWYERS?
IF YOU WANT TO BE BANNED BY BRUMMER, SEND AN EMAIL TO RUMPOLE AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM AND WE WILL ADD YOU TO THE LIST.
Lawyers banned by Brummer get a 10% discount at participating Barnes and Noble bookstores, and are entitled to one free CAFÉ BANACHINO (like a Frappuccino except the whip cream is banned) at all Starbucks. Simply present your “Banned By Brummer” ID card, say something nice about Gabe Martin, and the drink is yours to enjoy compliments of this blog.
QUERY: WHAT WILL HAPPEN FIRST: CASTRO’S DEATH, OR BRUMMER SPEAKS?
We finish on a disquieting note: the tenor of the posts today seems to indicate a certain joy, or schedenfraude (rapidly becoming our favourite word) in the possibility that we are not allowed to post funny comments that do not give the Judiciary the respect they have earned by their hard work on and off the bench.
(It hurt so much to write that last sentence that we may need to take a break and go drink a BANACHINO)
Why so much joy in Rumpole’s disquiet and concern?
Do we not serve the public with our comments and providing a forum for disgruntled lawyers to anonymously vent their feelings and frustrations?
OK. We admit we once said that Shelly Schwartz dresses in a manner that he is always ready if a gin rummy game breaks out. But he knows that when he wears the purple tie with the yellow shirt and green slacks that a certain amount of commentary occurs.
Are we by virtue of our lofty position in the Florida Bar (member, grudgingly admitted around 1985 or so) estopped from writing what everyone else thinks?
When Judge Thomas bravely follows the law and issues a motion to suppress, we can certainly express out admiration. But some Judge denies a motion for continuance on a case that is up for the first time and the lawyer has vacation plans with his children, can we not comment on the rudeness of that ruling?
And when a Judge in the middle of a heated election is “shocked” to find out that “someone” placed an ad in a newspaper that violated the rules of Ethics, are we gagged and otherwise silenced from making any comments about the fact that the offending party turned out not just to be his campaign treasurer, but his own wife?
Stay tuned as these and other equally important questions are answered.
See You In Court.
PS: A DeLuna Dilemma, as we remember it, is a situation in a multi-defendant case, where one defendant testifies, and another defendant does not, and the attorney for the defendant who testifies wants to comment on the fact that the other defendant did not testify. Had it happen in a case once. Cy Gaer was one of the attorneys.