Reference no: EM131161116

The Issue: In early January the law firm of Mendum & Mendum hired you a consultant at HK Communications, to explore the issue of substandard writing at the firm. The firm was concerned about a recent court ruling that was covered in The New York Times.

The Article Covering the Ruling: A federal judge in Philadelphia reduced a lawyer's request for fees last month because his filings were infested with typographical errors. The lawyer, Brian M. Puricelli, offered this vigorous but counterproductive defense: "Had the defendants not tired to paper plaintiff's counsel to death, some type would not have occurred. Furthermore, there have been omissions by the defendants, thus they should not case stones." The judge was amused. But he was not moved. "If these mistakes were purposeful," Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart ruled, "they would be brilliant."

In the time-honored tradition, Magistrate Hart supported his ruling with evidence. "We would be remiss," he wrote, "if we did not point out some of our favorites." In one letter, Mr. Puricelli wrote the magistrate's first name as Jacon, not Jacob. "I appreciate the elevation to what sounds like a character in 'The Lord of the Rings," Magistrate Hart wrote, "but, alas, I am only a judge." Moreover, in all of Mr. Puricelli's filings he identified the Federal District Court in Philadephia as the United States District Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania.

The magistrate was quick to add that in many ways Mr. Puricelli is a terrific lawyer, at least when he is on his feet at trial. "Considering the quality of his written work," the magistrate wrote, "the court was impressed with the transformation. Mr. Puricelli was well prepared, his witnesses were prepped, and his case proceeded quite artfully and smoothly." Indeed, Mr. Puricelli won the case he tried before Magistrate Hart.

The law under which the plaintiff sued allowed him to recover his legal expenses, too, and Mr. Puricelli sought more than $200,000. The defendants objected, saying the quality of the work had not been worth $300 an hour. Never mind the twos, Magistrate Hart wrote. Mr. Puricelli's prose was "vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, verbose and repetitive. Mr. Puricelli's complete lack of care in his written product shows disrespect for the court and his lack of care caused the court and, I am sure, defense counsel, to spend an inordinate amount of time deciphering the arguments." Judge Hart reduced Mr. Puricelli's fee for time spent writing legal papers from $300 an hour to $150 an hour. Mr. Puricelli said he regretted the mistakes but considered them minor. "There was no intention to be disrespectful to the court," he said.

In a separate case, the judge chastised another Mendum & Mendum attorney, Stephen G. Homer, for his "unrestrained and unnecessary use of the bold, underline, and 'all caps' functions of word processing and his repeated use of exclamation marks to emphasize points in his briefs." Hart continued, "While I appreciate a zealous advocate as much as anyone, such techniques, which really amount to a written form of shouting, are simply inappropriate in an appellate brief. It is counterproductive for counsel to litter his brief with burdensome material such as 'WRONG! WRONG ANALYSIS! WRONG RESULT! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"

Your Purpose: Ask yourself these questions:

1. Is there a problem here?

2. If the problem is real, how specifically is it hurting the firm?

3. What reasonable types of action, if any, could lead to a solution to the problem?

4. Are the benefits of any given solution worth the costs?

Your Task: Write a short memo report to Mr. Adalberto Emendare, Lead Partner, in which you explain the nature of the problem, indicate its impact on the firm, analyze the costs and benefits of at least two options for dealing with the problem, and recommend the best option.