During the life of Simple Justice, I have occasionally been slightly critical of the decisions of some judges.  Not them personally, of course, as I admire each and every one enormously.  Just the occasional decision.  And only a little critical.  Maybe a smidge.

I now want to apologize if I’ve offended any judge anywhere at any time.  Yes, I know that you’re big boys and girls, and taking a little criticism of your decisions is part of the job, and you have broad shoulders and can handle it.  But still, I’m sorry.

The problem, you see, is that by posting things that don’t make some judges love me dearly, I have made a grievous error that has cost me in ways I didn’t foresee.

From Judicial Reports,

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo should investigate where Feinberg’s millions ended up, The New York Daily News suggests. The scathing editorial includes developments in the case of former Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court Judge Michael Feinberg. While the Surrogate has been professionally punished, the paper thinks Cuomo could use the 13,000 page removal proceeding as grounds to chase his money. The paper explains: “In 2002, the Daily News exposed how then-Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court Judge Michael Feinberg improperly okayed $9 million in fees for his lawyer pal Louis Rosenthal, some $2 million over and above what Rosenthal was due for his work on estates. Feinberg was charged by a state commission with misconduct and bounced from the bench in 2005. Last week, he was disbarred and Rosenthal’s law license was suspended for two years.”

The key words here are “lawyer pal.”  I want to be a lawyer pal too.  Can I be yours?

Up to now, I haven’t been a very good lawyer pal.  I have said things that might have hurt some feelings, ruffled some feathers, made a judge or two not look nearly as good as I should have.  I don’t know what came over me.  I was blinded by this inexplicable desire for integrity, a suicidal concept that likely did nothing to bring us closer together.  I want to make amends.

So what if you can’t be Learned Hand everyday.  And what’s with that name anyway?  It’s not like they are paying you what you’re worth, and we both know how true that is.  Why should you be expected to worry about the inadvertent use of logical fallacy, or maybe just reading only the headnotes instead of the whole decision.  Do the lawyers care how many of their horrendously written motions you have to read?  Sure, they get to bill them out pound for pound, but do they ever think about what all that weight does to you?  No. Of course not.  Lawyers don’t appreciate the burdens they lay on the judge, who (did I mention?) isn’t being paid enough to put up with their inability to structure a basic sentence.

See, I’m trying here.  I appreciate you.  I understand you.  I’m your lawyer pal.  At least, I could be.

I’m not hoping for much.  Not like that Rosenthal guy.  I mean seriously, how good a lawyer pal do you have to be to get an extra $2,000,000 above and beyond the $7,000,000 he (theoretically) was due.  Nobody is that good a lawyer pal.  I think.

I won’t be greedy, I promise.  And whenever you need a lawyer pal to talk to, to hang out with, whatever, I’ll be there for you.  And from now on, mums the word on any bone-headed decisions.  In fact, I might even come up with a few decent excuses, not to mention change my position on “harmless error” and (dare I say it?) lack of preservation.

No need to thank me.  These are the sort of things that one should expect from a lawyer pal.  So when can I expect the check?