Federal judge uses cartoon to display ire at BigLaw attorney's motion
The cartoon used by Judge Robert Jonker in his opinion.
Updated: A federal judge has inserted a cartoon in an order requiring a Jones Day lawyer to explain himself.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker of Grand Rapids, Michigan, targets Jones Day lawyer Michael Ginsberg of Pittsburgh in his opinion, Above the Law reports.
Jonker’s beef: Ginsberg filed a motion in New Jersey state court to enjoin federal court proceedings in a case involving Cooper Industries—on the same day Ginsberg discussed scheduling issues in Jonker’s federal courtroom. None of the parties at the case conference on Dec. 2 objected to federal court jurisdiction and Ginsberg “did not mention or even hint that he was planning to file a motion in New Jersey,” Jonker said.
“The court feels a bit like the character in the following cartoon,” Jonker wrote. The cartoon shows a man standing on his bed looking over a brick wall. “Well, was it something I said?” the cartoon character asks.
Jonker explained the comparison: “Nobody likes having someone build or attempt to build a brick wall in a bedroom or a courtroom overnight, especially without providing even the common courtesy of advance notice of the attempt—especially when the interested parties are already gathered in the courtroom. More than that, at least in the Western District of Michigan, this kind of behavior by counsel would—barring some explanation—likely fall below the expected standard of practice for candor with the court and the other parties. Of course, there may be explanations or circumstances of which the court is unaware. Maybe it really was something the court said. Or maybe there is some other misunderstanding. But at a minimum, prompt explanation is needed.”
Jonker cites a “bedrock rule” that state courts generally have no power to enjoin federal court proceedings. He ordered Ginsberg to file papers explaining why he filed the New Jersey motion and why he didn’t disclose it during the federal court status conference.
Above the Law has Jonker’s order here. ATL blogger Joe Patrice opines that it’s “a special kind of embarrassing when a federal judge feels words are not enough” to call out alleged inappropriate behavior.
Ginsberg and Jones Day did not immediately reply to an ABA Journal email seeking comment.
Ginsberg apologized to the court and the parties in a response to Jonker’s order. “As I prepared for the Dec. 2 conference, the preparation of and near-anticipated filing of the New Jersey motion completely slipped my mind,” he wrote. “Nonetheless, the failure to communicate with the court on the point was my fault, and I take full responsibility. It will not happen again.”
Ginsberg says the New Jersey filing was a response to the defendants’ efforts to avoid resolving issues in the New Jersey case by filing actions in Illinois and Texas. He has since arranged for the New Jersey motion to be withdrawn.
Updated at 1:20 p.m. to include Ginsberg’s response.
