Always Be Nice to Your IT Guy.

It's Monday, a day where there is so much to do and so little interest in doing it.

What to write about?

We have Carlos Loumiet and several others leaving Hunton for DLA Piper.

This is my favorite part of that story:

A Hunton attorney who did not want to be identified said that no announcement had been made by the firm about the departures. The departing attorneys' names and biographies were removed from Hunton's website.

Of course!  Your fellow partners and associates are always the last to know.

Better start checking your firm's bios daily.

But at least macher Marty Steinberg had a quick retort and was fully prepared to address the mighty Julie Kay on the unannounced departures:

Marty Steinberg, Hunton's managing partner in Miami, declined comment on the departures, saying, "you'd have to ask the lawyers themselves."

I would, but their emails are down!

In other news, here is a truly inspiring story about Judge Altonaga returning to her high school to talk about grad night, dating, how to properly apply an iron-on to a tee shirt, and what going to high school in Miami in the late 70s was really like (hint:  it involved lots of Foreigner):

Wait -- David reports that she apparently talked about important topics such as race, discrimination, gender issues, and tolerance.

Kudos Your Honor for paying it forward.

Lawyers Who Missed Answer Deadline Accuse Opposition of Making "Bricks Without Straw."

Bricks Without Straw

Wachovia's counsel comes out swinging and gets downright Biblical:

Defendant stresses that it has given a true and legitimate explanation for the default. As set out in the Declaration of Carl S. Burkhalter (Exhibit B to the Motion), the February 17, 2011 deadline was not docketed due to the unique confluence of an associate's resignation and a computer problem.

Plaintiff quibbles with this explanation, asserting that it does not explain the failure of two other attorneys to take action: Inge Selden (with Maynard, Cooper & Gale) and Jay Thornton (local counsel with Hunton & Williams). Regarding Mr. Selden, Plaintiff misses the point: Ms. Escalona and Ms. Juarez were responsible for sending a notification of the February 17th deadline (via Microsoft Outlook) to all the Maynard, Cooper & Gale attorneys on the file – that is, to both Mr. Burkhalter and Mr. Selden. In other words, Messrs. Burkhalter and Selden were in the same boat; the deadline was on neither attorney's calendar for precisely the same reason.

As for Mr. Thornton, he has submitted his own declaration (attached hereto as Exhibit A) explaining his actions. In it, he states (under penalty of perjury) that the deadline was marked as "completed" by his docketing department. He also notes that, to avoid duplication of effort, his firm has not been involved in many aspects of this case. He adds that Plaintiff's counsel never once mentioned the failure to file an answer to the amended complaint.

Exactly -- it was the Plaintiff's fault!

I don't know, this is a mighty aggressive way of asking the Court to undo something that it acted on sua sponte when you already accepted responsibility for the problem in the first place.

What happened to old-fashioned groveling?

That said, I don't see how this motion is not granted (which is perhaps why the defendant could have dialed it down a notch).

Judge King Defaults Wachovia for Blowing Deadline -- Time to Take REALLY Deep Breath.

Mere hours after Judge Gold's excellent FBA speech on mindfulness, Judge King reminded counsel -- including heavyweights at Hunton & Williams and Birmingham's Maynard Cooper & Gale, that it's probably a good idea to double or triple calendar dates to respond to an amended complaint -- even if someone else is supposed to be handling it.

Why, you might ask?

All the Judge did was sua sponte enter a default against Wachovia for failing to respond to the Amended Complaint in an auction rate securities action!

The next day, after much deep breathing exercises I am sure (ed. note -- and possibly a call to the carrier), Birmingham lawyer Carl S. Burkhalter took one for the team (he also referenced his secretary and departed associate):

Defendant has not filed a timely answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint. The reason for that failure, as explained below and in an accompanying declaration, is that the deadline date for answering Plaintiff’s amended complaint was not entered on the calendar of Carl S. Burkhalter, the undersigned attorney and primary defense counsel in this matter. The undersigned attorney depends on an associate and his secretary to docket deadline dates, but the associate in question (Ms. Prim Formby Escalona) left the firm in January 2011, whereas the undersigned’s secretary was unaware of the deadline and, thus, failed to make a calendar entry. Having said that, it is the undersigned’s duty to meet court-imposed deadlines. He accepts complete responsibility for this failure and he is profoundly sorry for the oversight.

Note to Carl -- your secretary does not get CM/ECF emails, you do.  Did you forward it to her?

Here's what he says happened:

Ordinarily, the February 17th deadline would have been docketed on the undersigned’s calendar by either or both of two persons: the associate on the file or Ms. Laura Juarez, the undersigned’s secretary. See Burkhalter Declaration. Unfortunately, these redundant systems failed in this instance, something that has never before happened in the undersigned’s twenty-year practice of law. The associate, Ms. Prim Formby Escalona, had left the firm in early January 2011 to become Chief Deputy for the Alabama Solicitor General. Id. In the undersigned’s federal court cases, any e-mail notices he receives are usually “auto-forwarded” to Ms. Juarez, who then makes the relevant deadline notation on the undersigned’s calendar. However, for some unknown reason, the “auto-forwarding” rule did not function in this instance, meaning that Ms. Juarez did not make a deadline entry on the undersigned’s calendar.

Oh boy.

Life happens, as they say.

Let's see what the plaintiff has to say about all this:

While Mr. Burkhalter’s efforts to take responsibility for Wachovia’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order appear sincere, they ignore the fact that two other current Wachovia lawyers were served with the Order and Amended Complaint. Thus, the Motion sets forth no good cause for their – or Wachovia’s – failure to timely respond. Moreover, the Motion fails to provide evidence in support of its purported defenses to STLA’s claims. Meanwhile, STLA is prejudiced by the delay. For these reasons, the Motion should be denied.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Who says being a litigator ain't stressful?