Writing poorly: name calling and worse
In re First City Bancorporation of Tex. Inc., 270 B.R. 807, 813–814 (N.D. Tex 2001).
A lawyer engaged in personal attacks against opposing counsel. As the court put it--
If opposing counsel’s arguments are weak, they are to be challenged on the merits; the arguments can be characterized as wrong or incorrect without referring to them as “garbage” or “legal incompetence” or referring to the attorneys are “various incompetents,” “inept,” or “clunks.” Characterizing an attorney or firm as a “puppet” or “stooge” of another adds nothing to a determination of the merits of their arguments.* * *
In the briefs, he emphasizes that an opposing attorney attended Brooklyn Law School (Greenfield graduated from Harvard Law School) and offers the two schools’ respective rankings by U.S. News & World Report, apparently as evidence that the other attorney is inferior