How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

« | Main | »



Hah. Hah hah. Hahahahahahahahahahah.


hahah i love it--no 40/50 year old stuck up parnter would ever say that :)


It's a standard tactic for litigators to attempt to cow junior associates on the opposing side by being so hyper-aggressive and outraged at the junior associate's reasonable request or deposition question that the junior associate backs off out of uncertainty for fear that he or she's violated some unknown norm or rule. I imagine Evan can tell similar stories; I know I can, including the time a U.S. Attorney tried to back me off of what became a successful challenge to his failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(f). Some time in 2010, Stan will be defending a deposition being taken by a junior associate from T, U, V & W, and he will issue a lengthy speaking objection that successfully intimidates the opposing counsel from pursuing the line of questioning.

Eh Nonymous

uncouth, but hilarious. well played.


It may be a standard tactic, but it's pretty stupid. What advantage is gained by refusing to produce the plaintiff for deposition? It's not like you can hold off forever. I suppose I could see the advantage of a lengthy objection during a deposition, just to throw the other guy off of a promising line of questioning. But if the attorney doesn't catch on from the timing and strength of your objection that he's on the right path, then he was probably too tone deaf to ask the right questions anyway. (The good follow up question probably isn't in his outline.)

And I don't think the Partner's objection was to the use of vulgar language - just that it was such an awkward use. "eat a dick"? Where'd Stan learn to curse -- a first tier school?

Shark Attack

I laughed. Hard.


this is like the gary benchley (rock star) of law firms. in other words, entertaining fiction.


That was a great read.


Hi, Ted. I thought it was obvious that I posted my comments here because you posted your incorrect information here. This was not a discussion until you made it one - I posted one time.

You are correct that the minutia of how a wiki works is best discussed elsewhere, which is presumably where you should hairsplit over unilateral editing versus editing by consensus.

May I close by suggesting that your discourse here and on Wikipedia suggests that you would benefit from a crash course on netiquette?


Stan owes me a new keyboard - the, shall we say, pivotal moment caught me enough by surprise that I dropped my soda right onto (and into) the keyboard.

WOW, that was funny!


Apologies - I meant to post here.


I'm kind of surprised that Stan's co-workers, at least, did not warn him about Bigelow ahead of time. Keeping everyone up-to-date on which opposing counsel are professional and can be negotiated with, and which are asshats, is an important part of associate life.


No freakin way! This was priceless.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Search Beyond the Underground