Although the plaintiff was represented by counsel at the pre-trial hearing, Rule 7.1 of the Family Court Domestic Rules for Judicial District 3A states, in part, that "[a]ttendance at pre-trial conferences is mandatory for all attorneys of record and all parties."
The district court judge, upon noticing one of the attorneys' absence from the hearing, admonished the lawyer for her failure to appear. The lawyer countered with a motion to recuse the judge, which was not met kindly by the district court.
The district court, sighting the above local rule, noted that the attorney had failed to appear despite having actual knowledge that her attendance was required. The reason given for missing the hearing? The attorney was meeting a contractor to have work done at her house. In her motion to recuse, however, the attorney argued that her absence was acceptable because the plaintiff was represented by a licensed attorney. No reference to the local rule was made.
Not surprisingly, the attorney's "reason" for missing the hearing didn't sit well with either court, especially when the attorney was aware that her attendance was required. As a result, the imposition of sanctions were affirmed on the basis that the motion to recuse contained an inaccurate recitation of facts.
Today's picture is a personal favorite:
