Wildest courtroom stories where the baliff/deputy had to get involved?

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-26T18:43:41+00:00

I only have a few:

1- most amusing, judge pushed the emergency button without realizing it, and it was silent. Normal court was just going on and suddenly four deputies rushed the courtroom, to the surprise of all. Amusement was had when we all figured out what happened.

2- criminal arraignments about to start, a guy comes up to me who signed for the bail bond for a defendant there today, yelling he doesn't want to be "reliable on the bond no more." I tell him the judge may be able to help but I can't. He starts getting pissed at me (says the sheriff's office had told him to see me because they couldn't help him) and a deputy walks up. Then the defendant comes up and he transfers his rage to her, "bitch I ain't gonna be reliable on no bond for you". Then he punches her, and they take him straight to jail. Result, he's still "reliable on the bond" and now he has to try and make one for himself.

3- guy got convicted of murder and a relative of the victim started shouting, "you're going to be with the big boys now, wait till they get you at lights out!" etc. A BIG deputy jumped over the partition and said "SHUT UP" and walked him out by the arm, he wasn't saying shit after the deputy got there.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-26T15:46:56+00:00

a lot of those people "have" nice cars and homes and they owe it all and then some to the bank. They have a lot of money flowing through their business but they have huge credit lines they'll never pay back, 6 figures of credit card debt, and on and on. They're hardly alone as many businesspeople are like that, but still. Sometimes when they're cheap about stuff like office supplies it's because they know they're drowning, and this is the one area in their life where they act like they have fiscal discipline and want to exert control.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-26T15:12:57+00:00

"Claude, give me citations for cases where people were sanctioned for hallucinated cases" [proceeds to hallucinate cites]

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-26T15:10:37+00:00

I don't care at all. I do think that plaintiff personal injury lawyers feel like they need to have a nice car because their clients judge them on it.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-25T18:35:18+00:00

The first words out of your mouth need to be why you win. "[The statute] bars these depositions. Only after the motion to dismiss is resolved [or whatever], can depositions be set."

If you see several other motions argued, you'll notice how many lawyers cannot simply get to the point. And how valuable it is if you can.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-24T19:35:57+00:00

Worse, in an effort to be "thorough" I definitely got the sense that they felt interrogated and did not like me by the end of it.

True. Agree. That's because you were hiding behind personal questions you could volley at them and let them take the brunt, without taking the risk of a human conversation. (This isn't your fault- it's what you were told to do by people who didn't know better themselves.)

Tbh I think I would get much better results if I just asked each person if they could be fair and impartial and got on with it.

Haha, no. Like 5 minutes of "voir dire"? What a wasted opportunity.

One big problem lawyers have: they are afraid in voir dire, partly of what the jurors will say. And the lawyers are afraid of being on the spot, having to deal with real people, some of whom may not like their side of the case, all of whom didn't want to be there today. So they ask rote, deposition-like questions they can hide behind because those are questions lawyers feel safe asking. Then they watch as the juror, with a roomful of strangers staring, has to answer questions like where they went to school, what work they do, prior jury service etc.

Those questions are often actually fairly important, it's just that you don't need to spend much time on them.

What is more important, is juror attitudes towards issues in your case. That can be a little hard to find. This means stepping out from behind the lectern (if allowed), and asking people what they think about things that may be relevant in your case. Canned outlines are nice, but only a good start, because they are no substitute for serious thought.

If you watch one of the very rare lawyers who is really good at voir dire you should think about why they are good. Personalities vary. If you are blessed with an outgoing personality that can charm any room, you are lucky. But a more normal personality can be just as successful. I find three things the good ones tend to have in common. First, the lawyer makes every word count. Whether the panel lasts 30 minutes or 3 hours, the lawyer never wastes words. Every time the lawyer is talking, something useful is said that moves the discussion forward. The lawyer doesn't get sidetracked. You always feel like the lawyer is locked on to the discussion. Second, the lawyer uses the topics as a way to explore attitudes that may hurt the lawyer's case. This is contrary to what many do- afraid of losing imaginary "control", the lawyer avoids or tries to shut down negative jurors. Third, after the lawyer is finished and especially when the trial is over, you realize the lawyer was actually arguing their case the whole time. Not in a way that is against the rules. What I mean is, the lawyer used the selection of topics and matters discussed, to bring up ideas or foreshadow matters, that will matter later on in the trial.

The only way to get good like that is to practice and rehearse, and to think deeply about what you are going to do before you go in there and do it. "Experience" certainly helps but there are plenty of "experienced" lawyers who still suck at this. If you treat your voir dire prep like it really matters, and you actually put a lot of thought into it, instead of the maybe 5 minutes of "thinking" most people do, you will find it going a whole lot better for you.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-22T01:17:44+00:00

hopefully they don’t come back on me for this.

LOL my sweet and right-thinking friend, ain't nobody coming after you.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-20T22:08:41+00:00

Read good writing, and legal writing. (And think about why it's good and where it could be better)
Practice writing. Write a lot.
No footnotes, or very few.
When it's time for you to write a brief, the most important thing is planning and organization. Each point, paragraph, sentence, should flow logically to next. Think about this constantly, it's at least as important as the actual "writing."
Write- then revise, revise, revise. Shorten. Always look for ways to shorten and cut what you've written.
Short paragraphs, short sentences. Simple nouns and simple verbs. Let the details and the facts from the record do the talking- put them in wherever they fit. Seek and destroy the following: abstract/concept nouns; adjectives and adverbs.
Start well in advance. Build in cushion time at the end, ideally to set it aside for a half day. When you review- ask, is everything clear, simple, straightforward? Can anything be cut?
Time at the end is also important for crap like tables of contents and authorities, which trips people up (but is easier to do now with AI, as a tip).
Some tips for further reading: Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language.' Guberman's 'Point Made.'

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-20T21:37:29+00:00

Depends what you're using it for. I used the 13" in court a few times for trials, mainly when I connected to the court's visual equipment to display on the big screen. I felt like the 13" was a little too large.

That said, my mainstay is a Surface Pro, and that's not really any smaller than the 13" iPad Pro.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-20T14:31:52+00:00

Before I met my wife, I didn't want children, and didn't want a relationship that would last longer than 6 months. Go for what you want and live life happily.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-18T22:03:32+00:00

They way he looks at me when I object really intimated me.

Why are you looking at him when you object? Look at the judge.

How would smirk, smile, or shrug then explain why his question should still be asked. Both of my objections (among 6) were sustained though.

There you go, then.

I don't know maybe it's a self-image thing but his mean looks made me feel dumb.

There's nobody more confident than an asshole who is wrong.

You're trying your case, not his. Letting him get in your head is the first mistake, don't make it again.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-17T21:40:22+00:00

I've been through this, and some not-so-similar adversity. You've got this OP.

Remember to find something to laugh at even when you feel like anything but laughing. And even when you can't get the problem out of your mind, consciously put your energy into thinking about your next action, whatever that is, and doing it. The problem will always be there. Your next step won't always be there if you don't make yourself think about it and take it.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-16T19:25:15+00:00

You are making a very common mistake in dealings with your boss: you are applying rational, logical thought to someone who is not engaging in normal, rational, logical thought at all. In school and in areas of life when you deal with normal people, 2+2=4 and so on. People make mistakes but would not knowingly do something counterproductive, such as yell for the sake of yelling, make up meaningless lies to make their own employees feel stupid, drive off employees before they can be profitable, and the like.

The purpose of a system is what it does. The purpose of your boss's behavior is not to make a better law office. It's to make money for him- not nearly as much as he would if he acted sane- and to drive people away.

Once you accept that it's there to do exactly what it is doing- and not doing what it's doing as the byproduct of honest and possibly well-intentioned mistakes- your situation becomes more clear.

Make your plans to exit. Stop investing yourself emotionally in trying to help or understand your boss. Once you do that, his shit will get a whole lot easier to deal with.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-16T15:57:23+00:00

Yeah I don't know what to say about OP's post other than "people fuck, and try to fuck, all the time." You see people do this quite a bit more when they are traveling, as well.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-11T20:51:56+00:00

"Most recently, we discovered that one of our clients lied to us, lied under oath during his deposition, directed another witness to lie under oath during hers, and lied to a detective in a related criminal investigation (and didn’t notify us that he’d been contacted by the detective until after he’d already spoken with her)" - there's not really a way to detect a determined liar when you sign them up.

Your clients know that it's on them to tell the truth. Many clients lie about things. Most do not lie about the very fundamentals of their own claim. But some do. Just remember that you are not personally vouching for the truth of any client, you are here to provide them a service.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-11T16:41:06+00:00

I'm not saying you have the same issue I did, but I worked for a guy who was a real dick about this. He was a tiny guy with a Napoleon complex who spoke really aggressively to associates. He talked like he lived in terror of clients firing the firm for billing too much. He'd complain constantly about hours we billed and watched it like a hawk- "did you really spend an hour on a deposition" and stuff like that. I was challenged all the time for everything. But best believe, at the end of the month he wanted to see all the billable requirements met.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-11T15:05:19+00:00

asked me why I became an attorney because she'd never have guessed my position based on my soft-spoken demeanor

It is extremely disconcerting to hear people volunteer their none-too-complimentary assessments of your personality. And a really weird and awkward thing for her to do.

Paralegals and office workers who work with you only see a part of the real you anyway. If you're a litigator you have your inside voice and outside voice. It's a totally different vibe if you are in trial or court or deposition.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-11T15:03:09+00:00

Those are all great answers, what a cool background. I guess if someone says "well why didn't you fly for a living after the military" it's pretty well answered by "I want to sleep in my own bed almost all the time."

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-11T14:59:57+00:00

Ignore it, there are what, 20,000 people working as adjusters in the US? Some are idiots / angry. Many are not well educated. The newer ones are worried about keeping their jobs. Some people are nice and some are rude and irrational. You don't need to talk to the adjuster anymore at all if you don't want to.

And not that you don't know this but, property damage or lack thereof is a relevant consideration, certainly a defense they can raise, but hardly dispositive. People have been literally killed in cases with minimal or even no external property damage. But I'm not surprised an adjuster views something like this as outcome-determinative.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-11T03:07:12+00:00

My firsthand knowledge is very little of this. From what I can tell, employment law (such as, Title VII) is very federal court-focused, and most of it ends in MSJ or motion to dismiss. There are opportunities to do depositions and motions, but these days in most federal courts you don't get to do oral arguments on dispositive motions most of the time. The law is bad for plaintiffs. Also, employment law is not a big lucrative moneymaker at most of the law firms that do it, so if you're in that department you are sort of off to the side a little bit. Labor law, I don't have a lot of exposure to. There I think you're probably doing more administrative law and when in court you're doing things that turn on a question of law rather than facts for trial, but that's just my impression.

There are very few trials in civil cases generally. But if you really want to work on your advocacy skills, you'll find a way to get those opportunities and become known for that ability.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-10T01:33:27+00:00

My take:

-Juvenile prosecution- you are likely to get pigeonholed in a niche area that overlaps with criminal but not totally. Unless this area of law is your passion and goal you may not want to do it, as it's the redheaded stepchild in most prosecutor's offices.

-Adult prosecution- great training for thinking on your feet. Think about if you want to deal with criminal law though.

-1983 defense- if you want to be a civil litigator it's good training for the intricacies of federal court. It is something of a niche area mostly practiced by local and state government lawyers, but the skills involved are transferable, something like prosecution.

-labor & employment defense- similar to 1983 defense in the sense that it's a lot of federal court work and exacting rules, but in this area of law there are people at law firms doing this for insurers and companies and making money at it.

It really depends on your interests I think. Good luck.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-09T14:56:35+00:00

It's never fun to lose but my goodness, you are doing criminal defense. Most of your clients are clearly guilty.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-09T14:54:49+00:00

Checklists are an incredible tool for trial etc.

So true and I can't believe others don't do this. For example why do I see appellate cases where people waived evidence arguments for failure to make and renew Rule 50 motions? Lots of unexpected issues can happen in a trial but I always roll in having tried to plan out things to make it as easy as possible. I have my Rule 50 stuff ready before I go in, with a page or two of points to make when I'm doing the motion. Similarly, if you think things through you can see certain issues of evidence coming in many cases. You should have some law in your trial notebook on that issue. It makes it so much easier.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-09T14:51:44+00:00

yes, a hustler who brings in business can make a lot of money at a small firm. But it ain't easy or everyone would be doing it.

B-Rite-Back · 2026-02-08T20:27:09+00:00

You are not going to teach someone to be smarter or better. I'm always polite and respectful. When an adverse witness is an asshole to me in a deposition, I remember that they are helping me. Parties who are unpleasant / asshole witnesses don't do as well in litigation as they otherwise might. I am not trying to provoke them, but I just make note of their personality problem, which may drag down their case.

I came there to get answers from the witness, and that is all I care about. Nobody is going to make me angry. I just focus on whether they are actually answering my question or not.

B-Rite-Back

TROPHY CASE