CA: a heartbreaking brief of staggering chutzpah

Have Opinion, Will Travel brings us the cautionary tale of a California lawyer who lost a juvenile / dependency hearing and took it very, very badly. The appellate court did not care for the therapeutic outlet used by this lawyer - a 76,235 word screed - slash - brief. Some highlights:

While exaggeration may not violate rules of court and standards of review, it is not an effective tool of appellate advocacy...

Counsel should never misrepresent the holding of an appellate decision. Not only would that be a violation of counsel’s duty to the court... it will backfire because the court will discover the misrepresentation, particularly when it relates to a decision issued by that court...

Aside from counsel’s apparent attempt to mislead this court, the only discernable claim of legal error... is the assertion that “...it would be impossible to find any of the allegations of the petition ... supported by substantial evidence.” Not so.

(T)here is no excuse for the uncivil, unprofessional, and offensive advocacy employed by appellant’s counsel, which is all the more unconscionable because it falsely attributes offensive language to others...

Spread out over 81 pages is a contemptuous attack by appellant’s counsel on the mental competence of appellant’s daughter. The attack is stunning in terms of its verbosity, needless repetition, use of offensive descriptions of the developmentally disabled minor, and misrepresentations of the record...

Appellant’s counsel also describes the minor’s testimony, and her responses during the MDIC interview, as “jibber jabber,” “meaningless mumble,” “mumbles, in a world of her own,” and “little more than word salad.” Not only are all the words used by appellant’s counsel offensive, they are inaccurate...

(A)ppellant’s counsel sets forth what seems to be a rambling stream of consciousness of repetitious venting about various aspects of this case...

...(T)he Clerk/Administrator of this court is directed to send a copy of this opinion to the State Bar of California.

Yow! The opinion is In re S.C. / Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services v. Kelly E., Cal. App. (3rd District) 04/07/2006 (pdf file)

Google suggests that this lawyer is private, not a p.d. Dear colleague, perhaps it's as the sign says:

"It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

Update: I posted this before reading Reports from Poisonville, which got the news from Law.com's "Calif. Court Shreds Lawyer for 202-Page Brief".