From the ABA Journal.

7th Circuit Slaps Lawyer* for 345-Word Sentence and Briefs Full of 'Gibberish'

The plaintiff and concert goers "were stunned on the day of the family-oriented event, when an even more menacing law enforcement presence was created when [the sheriff's] armed deputies, without prior consent or permission, warrant or probable cause, arrived, not a part of any agreement and a surprise and upset when it arrive, uninvited, on and entered and trespassed on Plaintiff property with drug-sniffing ‘K-9’ dogs, obviously and unfortunate that Defendants were ‘looking for trouble’ where there was none as distinct from 'looking to serve.' "

Hey, sometimes I try to pack too much info into a sentence too, but if you read it slowly, generally it makes sense. And then, this is a blog, not a brief. And it's not my third try to get it right either...

A federal appeals court is so aggravated by the quality of an Illinois lawyer’s legal writing that it has ordered him to show cause why he shouldn’t be barred from practicing before the court.

Lawyer Walter Maksym was “unable to file an intelligible complaint,” despite three tries given him by the trial court, according to the opinion by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Each iteration of the complaint was generally incomprehensible and riddled with errors, making it impossible for the defendants to know what wrongs they were accused of committing,” the appeals court said. In addition, “Maksym’s appellate briefing is woefully deficient, raising serious concerns about his competence to practice before this court,” the court added.

Now surely he could afford a proofreader, or freelance editing help, what with the unemployment rate these days... Maybe, it's the odd spelling of the last name (presumably pronounced Maxim?) that makes it genetic? Or ... who would have thought it? -- health issues?

Maksym had filed the suit on behalf of an outdoor concert promoter who claimed the county sheriff was forcing him to hire his deputies for security, report the Chicago Tribune and the Legal Skills Prof Blog. He was also one of the civil lawyers for Drew Peterson, a former police officer accused of murdering his third wife. Peterson’s fourth wife is missing.

Maksym told the Tribune that the problems were related to his treatment for cancer. "It was an isolated period where I was suffering from health problems that affected my ability to practice," he said. Over 38 years of practice, Maksym said, he has an “impeccable record.”

The 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal of Maksym's complaint with prejudice, issued the order to show cause, and directed the court clerk to send its opinion to Illinois lawyer ethics regulators.

The district court was well within its discretion when it refused to accept Maksym’s second amended complaint, the appeals court said. “Though the complaint was far longer than it needed to be, prolixity** was not its chief deficiency,” according to the appeals court. “Rather, its rampant grammatical, syntactical, and typographical errors contributed to an overall sense of unintelligibility. This was compounded by a vague, confusing, and conclusory articulation of the factual and legal basis for the claims and a general 'kitchen sink' approach to pleading the case.”
...
Maksym has represented Drew Peterson on civil matters, but he has never been affiliated with the criminal case, according to a statement by lead criminal defense lawyer Joel Brodsky. Maksym did excellent civil work for Peterson, Brodsky says, but Peterson has asked Maksym to temporarily step aside "while he focuses on his personal issue.”

And on that note...

Have a great Friday and a wonderful weekend. Enjoy autumn!

------------------

* No. They didn't literally slap him...
(Though if he'd had a good nun in his background, he'd never be in this mess now.)
;-)

ADDED:
** Prolixity? Well, nobody likes their pages pre-licked, afterall. Could easily catch something that way, I think...