Skip to main content

That's Some Scrivener's Error!

 Oh the poor legal scrivener.

Saddled with $200k in loans, working 16 hour days, not exactly thrilled with the partners but not sure where else to turn, this poor young lawyer is given the grunt work of "papering" important muckety-muck deals made by big shots who barely acknowledge their lowly existence.

All that bad karma has to find an outlet somewhere!

And it sometimes does -- right in the "paperwork" itself:
The parties entered into settlement negotiations which occurred in part over email. Plaintiff's counsel had technical difficulties saving the various drafts of the settlement agreement and consent judgment that were emailed back and forth between counsel.  On April 15, 2013, Defendants emailed Plaintiffs counsel a significantly revised draft of the consent judgment which contained a monetary judgment for the full amount demanded of $ 176,019.31 . (DE 50-71). The cover email stated that Defendants "agree not to contest the entry of money judgment against them in the amounts claimed by the Secretary.'' Id   Sometime thereafter, what was then Paragraph 7 concerning damages, was inexplicably omitted from the working draft, although none of the parties' email exchanges addressed the omission. Consequently, the parties' proposed order of consent judgment submitted to the Court did not include a provision requiring Defendants to pay damages.

Plaintiff asserts that the paragraph was inadvertently omitted, perhaps due to technical problems with saving the drafts. Plaintiff contends that during settlement discussions it never wavered from its position that the damages were not negotiable because they were not owed to the United States but to the field laborers who earned them .'' Pl. Mot. at 2. Nevertheless, Defendants maintain that upon discovering the missing paragraph "it was not obvious . . . that a mistake had been made.'' Def. Opp., at 3.  Instead, Defendants' position is that the paragraph containing the money judgment was excluded because Defense counsel "believed'' the Government had reconsidered the Defendants ' circumstances and unilaterally dropped the requirement that Defendants pay $176,019.3 in back wages and damages. See id.  Though "pleased'' that the provision was removed, Defendants did not call Plaintiffs counsel about it much less attempt to confirm the believed change in Plaintiffs position.

Huge bank error in your favor and not even a phone call or email to confirm?

No one is that lucky.


  1. Did you see the last footnote? The defendants' counsel's acts "sullied the reputation of the entire firm"? Which firm?

  2. How can i read the order without those annoying ads?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.