by Richard Prior
Staff Writer
As promised, U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan’s lecture on professionalism came from a “little different” direction.
The examples he used captured serious intent with a humorous bent. And each one was lifted from the “Funny File.”
That is, after all, where you would expect to find a document submitted by “Space Monkey”; where a litigant filed a Motion To Amend Facts; and where confusion abounds over the specific meaning of certain words — “seminole” instead of “seminal”; a “soul (instead of “sole”) practitioner”; and “this horrible court,” rather than “honorable court.”
“This is the kind of stuff we’re seeing every day,” said Corrigan. “That’s what makes the job so good.”
Corrigan led a lunch hour professionalism and ethics discussion at Thursday’s inaugural Hon. Ralph W. “Buddy” Nimmons Jr. CLE Seminar, sponsored by the Jacksonville Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and the Jacksonville Bankruptcy Bar Association.
“Judge Nimmons was many things to the bench and bar — jurist, colleague, advocate, scholar, mentor, friend,” said Phillip Buhler during opening introductions. “He was and is a guide for us in our development as skilled legal professionals.”
Buhler, president of the local chapter of the FBA, said the Nimmons seminar would become an annual event, featuring “lectures and panel discussions on critical aspects of federal practice and current legal issues.”
Attending the opening session were Penny Nimmons, the judge’s widow, and his daughter, Bonnie Gilliland.
“We hope that the dedication of this seminar will, in some way, demonstrate the respect and affection all of us in the bar, bench and the court system feel toward Judge Nimmons,” said Buhler. “We will endeavor to promote, every year, the professionalism and high standards that are expected of the members of this bar.”
Those who only knew Nimmons “from one side of the bench” missed an opportunity “to associate with a great individual,” said U.S. District Judge Harvey Schlesinger. “This was . . . a worldly man, a Renaissance man.”
Schlesinger knew his fellow district judge “as a loving and devoted individual: to his family, to his friends, to his church and to his job.
“I thank the local chapter for naming the seminar after a great jurist, a great individual and someone we sorely miss.”
Corrigan alerted his audience of judges and lawyers that he would be “poking a little bit of general fun and suggesting a few ways lawyers . . . can improve their level of professionalism. I want you to understand it is meant in a positive spirit.
“It’s certainly not meant to say we’re perfect, and you’re not. We know that is not the case.”
The “slivers” of material he highlighted have been submitted, over time, to the courts in the Middle District. Those that make it into the “Funny File” are items that are “out of the ordinary, unusual or, hopefully, humorous.”
One pro se litigant said his action was worth more than $22.3 trillion. Another filed a Notice of Laymanship, apparently hoping the court would hold him to a lower standard than it applies to bona fide attorneys.
One pro se prisoner offered “a creative argument . . . something you would think someone would have thought of before,” Corrigan said.
The order to dismiss claimed, “The petitioner would not have entered a plea of nolo contendere if he had known at the time that he would recover from his retrograde amnesia and remember he did not commit the crime.”
The government itself is not exempt from the occasional faux pas, Corrigan said. One example was an otherwise routine motion to dismiss an indictment against a person who died during the proceedings. But the request was to dismiss “without prejudice.”
“I tried to envision the circumstance under which the government would revive prosecution,” said Corrigan. “The only thing I came up with is they were guarding against the possibility of reincarnation.”
Corrigan urged those in attendance to follow the rules, get to the point and pay attention:
“I am sure that if lawyers and parties could see how the written product that they do present to the court actually looked to those who are charged with reading it, they would take more care in preparing it.”