Affirmative Defenses and….Chickens

Yes.  You read that headline correctly.

I’m not sure how to categorize this post, other than it’s perfect for a Saturday morning.

From the folks over at Above The Law, I found this story.

  • Plaintiff filed a complaint
  • Defense attorney’s affirmative defenses included a request that the court strike the complaint as violating the Ohi0 Rules of Civil Procedure “by containing run-on sentences, multiple allegations in the same paragraph, conclusions, verbose exaggerations, and ‘stream of consciousness’ rhetoric”
  • Plaintiff’s attorney responded with motion to strike the affirmative defense.
  • The motion was supported by a memorandum that spanned 3 pages and consisted of 1, long, run-on sentence.
  • Plaintiff’s attorney attached the famed “Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken” paper to his response.

And, as the ABA Journal reports here,  defense attorney thought plaintiff’s motion to strike was fantastic!  Here’s an excerpt from the ABA Journal’s post:

(Subashi is the defense attorney, Tim Chappars is the plaintiff’s attorney)

  • “Subashi tells the ABA Journal in an email that he really got a kick out of Chappars’ response. ‘As I have told Tim, I thought his motion was one of the funniest and wittiest legal documents I have ever read,’ Subashi said.“ ‘I had added the additional verbiage to the Sixteenth Defense to see if I could get a rise out of Tim (we have had cases against each other for years, and I have the highest personal and professional regard for him),’ Subashi says. ‘We lawyers tend to take ourselves way too seriously, so this was a welcome departure from that trend.’ ”

I LOVE Attorney Subashi’s last sentence.

Side note: 2 of the past 3 presidents of the Vermont Bar Association are from Ohio.



One thought on “Affirmative Defenses and….Chickens

Comments are closed.