After the case scheduled for trial this week settled, I had some trouble digging into the stack of mail waiting for me on my desk. I admit I did my best to ignore it, making no more progress than to reshuffle the stack once or twice. A minor crisis ensued when I finally got around to hooking up the DSL I mentioned a few weeks ago, then learned it knocked out the office's intercom system. It took two hours to figure out the reason for the problem, which I discovered on a single-page insert wedged inside the phone system's user guide: "Important: Do not place DSL on line 1." It will be a week before the phone company can reset the DSL feed to line 2. Other than that, I did this:
1. I saw Peter Jackson's The Return of the King at a matinee with a former law partner. Jackson's movie was as magnificent as many have reported, but it brought to mind something my music theory professor once said about Beethoven: "One of the greats, but he just couldn't figure out how to end a symphony."
2. I made a nuisance of myself in the comment section of David Giacalone's ethicalEsq, in addition to a few other favorite blogs. (Perhaps "nuisance" is the wrong word. It implies I don't want comments here, when exactly the opposite is true. In fact, I've been meaning to express my thanks to everyone who's left the great comments the past few weeks.)
3. Back in the office, I did something I rarely do, which was to ask for more time from opposing counsel to file a brief I should have filed yesterday. These requests for extensions are always granted--and I'm always willing to grant them for others--but I hate to ask for more time because I'm afraid it will develop into a habit. I'll get extension after extension, the deadlines will pile up around me, and finally I'll suffocate under all the work. So this week was an exception. I promise not to do it again.
"Nuisance" isn't exactly the right term. How about "(undeserved) guilt-generator" cum "useful prod to self-reflection"?
About your movie companion: Are we to assume, given your current habits, that the companion was also a former spouse? Curious nuisances want to know.
Posted by: David Giacalone | February 21, 2004 at 09:40 AM
Let's theorize that my former partner, with whom I attended the movie, is also a former spouse. Now let's try to prove the theory with some deductive reasoning. Is it likely that my present partner, who is also my present spouse, would appreciate my attending a movie with a former partner who is also a former spouse? Answer: no. So the theory must be wrong. And it is. My former partner is not a former spouse.
Posted by: Evan | February 21, 2004 at 01:18 PM
On the subject of extentions and continuances:
The Friday before my Saturday wedding, a surprise call to appear for a jury trial the following Monday had me at the courthouse, sweating bullets even though my continuance motion was unopposed. The presiding judge peered over his bifocals at me from the bench, whereupon the following proceedings ensued:
"Mr. Dyer, is this your first motion for continuance in this case?"
"Yes, your honor!"
"Mr. Dyer, is this your first marriage?"
"Yes, your honor!"
"Very well, motion granted. But don't ever let me see you in my court making a continuance motion on this same ground again!"
The judge was, of course, yanking my chain. But as it turned out, I picked a jury in the case two days after my honeymoon ended.
Posted by: Beldar | February 21, 2004 at 10:49 PM