If you’ve seen it, please contact me so that we can arrange to have it delivered to him.
That way we can help Continental Airlines, the City of Houston, and a restaurant at the Houston airport avoid a costly lawsuit.
You see, Bill is an attorney and he lost his coat. If he doesn’t get it back, some-fuckin-body gonna get sued!
By RSS Feed
Someone should look this guy up and drop off a package of diapers and baby wipes at his office. What a whiny little tittybaby.
[...] The Legal Satyricon points us to this post: If you’ve forgotten why lawyers have approval ratings as low as [...]
Someone should tell this guy that those absurd Torts class hypotheticals weren’t suggestions.
Slap him with a rule 11 violation.
He has not filed anything. Rule 11 sanctions would not be appropriate.
This is the only intelligent post I’ve seen on this entire tempest in a teapot. Lawyer’s aren’t all bad and the letter is legally correct. He was a business invitee and was owed a high duty of care. However, cities, in general, wouldn’t know the meaning of being careful if it jumped up and bit them in the ___.
I am afraid that you may have misunderstood my post. I am making fun of him.
Harden the fuck up Mr Ogletree, your coat, you left behind, dumbass!
Um, wow. Time for me to write a letter to the last airport/city/food court I was in and claim I left, oh, I dunno, a laptop, and it would have been their responsibility to, er, make sure some random person not affiliated with said city, airport, or food court didn’t simply walk off with it? Sheesh.
Ignorant people. What he says in his letter is true and correct legally but you morons don’t care about the law only hating groups of people like lawyers.
James,
1) I am a lawyer.
2) Most of my readers are lawyers.
3) What he says in his letter is not “legally correct.”
4) You know how we know that? Because we’re lawyers, you dipshit.
If you’re so smart then tell me why you commented on Rule 11 when it’s a Federal Rule and not applicable in this situation. In Texas Rule 11 applies only to reducing agreements between parties to writing and there are no sanctions involved. Care to comment?
Strange. Your post came from an IP address registered to the (wait for it) Ogletree Abbott Law Firm, LLP. (12.177.41.11)
Anyhow, to answer your question, the commenter above stated:
Slap him with a rule 11 violation.
I would imagine that, given the Texas Rule 11′s scope, that nobody would say to “slap him with a Rule 11 violation” for a failure to adhere to Tex. R. Civ. P. 11. In fact, the mere suggestion that “J” might have been referring to Tex. R. Civ. P. 11 is pretty moronic.
So that is my comment. You are a moron. You are posting from Mr. Ogletree’s law firm. Accordingly, I presume that you are his secretary or some other flunky at the firm. His letter was pretty stupid and ill-advised. You have just managed to make him look worse.
Care to continue?
Moderators don’t like it when you post his email here (or anywhere else). I don’t think he’s gotten the jacket back yet, tho. You can easily look him up and ask him yourself – just search Bill Ogletree.
I am sorry about that. I very infrequently delete comments. However, I felt that your comment went a little over the top in trying to Google bomb the guy. He made a judgment error. We laughed about it. I don’t see a need to do a whole information-pile-on. I hope that you understand. We like to make fun of people here. Ogletree deserved to be made fun of. However, there is a line – and it is a blurry line at that – but lets not turn it mean-spirited.
It’s hard to directly reply to you. I apologize for going over the top. I just thought it would be funny to fill his inbox with “Got your coat back?”
I understand how that could be exponentially disturbing on the internet. I would never want to be on the receiving end of that. Although, I don’t think I’d ever sue over my own error. Alternatively, without all information, it could have been misconstrued, like the McDonald’s lady who actually received SEVERE burns from a cup of coffee.