“My Cousin Vinny” Meets Zoom

vinny

Once again I have to say “I don’t understand this story at all.

If you recall “My Cousin Vinny,” as almost all lawyers do (and fondly), Joe Pesci’s fish-out-of-water defense lawyer annoyed imposing Southern judge Fred Gwynn by first appearing in court wearing a leather jacket, and then showing up in the suit above because it was the only one he could acquire at short notice.

At least he tried.

While Ethics Alarms has taken the unalterable position that when children are forced to attend school via Zoom, what may appear in their homes are not, in fact, “in school,” a lawyer who appears before a judge via Zoom is still, in fact, “in court” and before a judge. Why? Because the judge says so, that’s why. And as Vinnie soon learned, when a judge says “Jump!” the only responsible response is “How high, Your Honor?”

Perhaps a Delaware lawyer named Weisbrot has never seen the movie. He complained to Delaware Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III i ex parte “that [the court] would not consider an application from him because he “was not wearing a tie.” The Vice Chancellor responded, “That is true, as the record reflects.” BUT…

What the record also reflects is that Mr. Weisbrot appeared in court for trial (via Zoom) on Tuesday in either a printed tee-shirt or pajamas (it was difficult to discern).

In other words, “It’s true you weren’t wearing a tie, but a greater problem is THAT YOU WERE WEARING FREAKING PAJAMAS!”

Mr. Wiesbrot responded by channeling his inner (and outer) Vinnie by, in his next appearance via Zoom before the same judge, in something less than the kind of attire he had to know the judge expected:

Mr. Weisbrot ignored that direction; he appeared in a sport coat and open-collared shirt; I refused to hear his “application” and then directed that he go off camera. He then refused the Court’s direction.

As I said at the beginning, I don’t understand this at all. Judges have nearly total power to dictate that a lawyer (or a party) appear and comport themselves according to that judge’s whims. If a judge ordered me to talk like Donald Duck, I would do it. What’s the big deal about wearing a tie? Why would it ever be competent and responsible to fight a judge about that? In the end, it’s the client who is likely to be harmed, and that is a breach of a lawyer’s ethical duty.

It gets worse, believe it or not. Weisbrot claims that a “medical condition” prevents him from wearing a tie. Right. Would it prevent him from wearing a tie with his collar unbuttoned? Since my mind is on Danny Kaye today, as I am preparing the 2020 version of the Ethics Guide to “White Christmas,” i recall that New York actor and good friend Brian Childers went on stage as Danny while suffering a painful shingles attack. Danny Kaye always wore a sports jacket and black tie, and Brian did too, though the fabric touching his neck was excruciating. That’s because he was and is a professional.

The judge was both dubious and unimpressed with Mr. Weisbrot’s excuse:

Finally, Mr. Weisbrot reports for the first time in his ex parte email that a medical condition prevents him from wearing a tie. He states that “he had hoped to explain this but was not given a chance.” That is inaccurate. If the condition existed as of the pretrial conference (held a week before trial), Mr. Weisbrot could have raised it then. He did not. If it existed at the start of trial, he could have raised it then, particularly when the Court inquired of counsel whether there were any “housekeeping matters” to address. He did not. Most importantly, he could have raised his medical condition at the start of yesterday’s trial session in response to the Court’s admonition to counsel the night before to be properly attired for Court. Or he could have raised it in response to the numerous instances during the course of yesterday’s trial session where the Court inquired of counsel whether there were “housekeeping matters” to address. Again, silence. Instead, as noted, Mr. Weisbrot chose to activate his camera (and thereby appear in the trial) at the end of the trial day, interrupting a witness’ examination so he could make “an application.” He was dressed in a sport coat and open collared shirt. I reminded him of my admonition and advised him he could not participate in the trial. I then directed that he go off camera. He refused. All the while he said nothing of a medical condition.

The lawyer was granted a medical exemption from the court’s rules pending the submission under seal of proof of his condition.

I can’t wait to learn what he comes up with.

_____________________________

Pointer and Facts: Above the Law

16 thoughts on ““My Cousin Vinny” Meets Zoom

  1. Walter Koenig of “Star Trek” fame once showed up at a convention I attended while he had Bell’s Palsy.

    He didn’t want to disappoint his fans.

    That lawyer has no excuse.

  2. In Vinnie’s immortal words, “You were serious about that?”

    Sounds like there is more to the Weisbrot Story. I suspect that the good Mr. Weisbrot has annoyed this judge on many, many occasions.

    jvb

  3. I am a male attorney; I have always worn a suit or at least a coat and tie when I’m making an appearance in court. I do note however that there is not a similar requirement for women attorneys. I’ve never seen a woman attorney appear in court in a sundress, but I’ve seen some that come awfully close. I think that if women are not required to wear a tie, neither should I be. However, I have other hills to die on.

  4. This is to bring into the question whether a biological male who identifies as a female could show up in Zoom court with attire consisting of an attractive dress. Ed Wood would probably like to make a movie of this scenario if he was still around.

  5. “While Ethics Alarms has taken the unalterable position that when children are forced to attend school via Zoom, what may appear in their homes are not, in fact, “in school,””

    Even a massive playboy centerfold poster hanging up in the background?

    A Nazi flag?

    Mom and Dad’s sex harness?

    I agree that *objects* should not get a child *actually disciplined*, like the fools in the BB gun case. I wonder if *objects* can result in a censure that requires those objects not appear in view…and *that’s* the trouble a child gets into, not the object itself.

  6. There was just a thread in the AITA (Am I the Asshole) subreddit about a company worker having a complaint lodged against him with his boss because the edge his Christmas tree was visible onscreen. It soon disintegrated into a ‘Christmas used to be Saturnalia, so Christmas is pagan’ ‘No, it isn’t’ type discussion, but the final verdict was Not The AH.

Leave a Reply to Michael West Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.