DOJ today filed this very brief reply to Mr. Partington’s opposition to DOJ’s request for Judge Scullin to reconsider the TRO he issued on 18 November.  Of course, by its own terms, the TRO expires at 1530 on Friday, so at this point, the fight seems to be over no more than a day of a stay of Mr. Partington’s suspension.  It doesn’t appear that Mr. Partington has requested an extension or even attempted to meet the TRO’s “good cause” shown requirement for an extension beyond 2 December.

5 Responses to “The latest Partington filing”

  1. McMurphy says:

    So basically the litigation strategy can be summed up thuswise:

    “You’re dumb”
    “Nuh-uh”
    “Yuh-huh”
    “Nuh-uh”

    Wow.

  2. Bill C says:

    Oh yeah? Says you.

  3. stewie says:

    Which one of them is rubber?

  4. Socrates says:

    There is no dispute that the rder of suspension occurred on November 9, 2011.  And both parties agree that the rule states that compliance with the must be completed by ten days after the order of suspension, not the effective date of suspension.  The Government has merely pointed out an inconsistency in the Hawaii rules – that the 10 day time limit is inconsistent with the illusory 30 day time limit.  First, there is no doubt that Partington is acting in good faith with this argument.  He has a letter from the CLERK of the Hawaii Supreme Court, for Pete’s sake.  Second, when in doubt between two deadlines, any reasonable attorney would go with the SHORTER deadline.  So with Partington’s reasonable reliance on the 10-day “notice to clients” requirement, he was right to “rush” to get the TRO without notice.  The Government’s argument dissolves at this point.  In any event, even if you closely read these confusing rules, the Government (located in Washington, DC) seems very arrogant in positing an “authoritative” interpretation of the Hawaii rules, a jurisdiction where they don’t practice.  And speaking of ethics, which this whole matter is about, as officers of the court, the Government should have been more honest to the tribunal about a possible tension, contradiction, or confusion about the wording of these rules, or at least conceded that the rules are not a model of clarity.  The Government asserts that “nothing was due on November 21.”  Basically, “screw what the Clerk says.”  Arrogant.  This may not be true – and it would have been foolish for Partington to risk that interpretation.  Finally, the Government is still wasting its time and underscoring its vindictive position.  The Government’s bottom-line, as I understand it, is “hurry up Partington, we can’t wait a few extra days to effectuate the disbarment of your ass.”  And, given these compressed timelines, even if you buy the Government’s argument, the undertone is: “we are so SMART.  We read the rules better than you.  Nani nani pooh pooh.”  Congratulations.  Put a sticker on your refrigerator.  And thanks for wasting our time just because you make the classic lawyer mistake of “he says X” so I must “respond with Y.”  Tit-for-tat – but there is no strategic or practical consequence.  Just like sometimes it’s better to let something go and not object.  So I reiterate my point that the Government should have just stayed its hand.  The moral high ground sometimes requires confident silence.  Squealing like this undermines the Government position.  They seem vindictive and mean…and I hope this federal judge takes note of how disgracefully this whole matter was handled.

  5. McMurphy says:

    Socrates,

    Government’s actions vindictive and mean.  In other news, water is wet.  Details at 11.

    But I agree with everything you’ve written here.