Comment by KGIII | Hacker News Reader

Comment by KGIII | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not a lawyer but I ended up having to take a number of courses on law. One of the most heavily covered topics is procedure. Courts love their procedure.

This isn't something I'm clear on. Maybe someone here is a lawyer and can offer some insight.

Yes, he's a badass but under what rules can the judge completely disallow courtroom access for specific individuals doing representation work? I can see malfesience, disruption, or ethics being reasons - but being illprepared resulting in sanctions (? maybe, not sure of the right word, perhaps censure) against specific individuals seems like it might require a high standard, as choice of representation is a pretty solid privilege.

Like you said, a badass. Judges have awesome powers in their courtroom, but I'm not sure I've seen anything quite like this and I'm unsure of the rules surrounding it. I'm sure there are rules. Courts love their procedure. They've got rules for everything.

>"At the end of the hearing, Uber's lawyer Arturo Gonzalez made a last-ditch plea that he had a scheduling conflict. He is scheduled to pick a jury in a different trial on November 27, the Monday after Thanksgiving."

The judge told Arturo he wouldn't reschedule for him. He's not barring him from the courtroom; the judge is simply saying he's not making any more accomodations for Uber.

Ah, okay. Thanks.

A judge can kick a specific attorney out of the courtroom, but I think the standards are pretty high for doing so. I don't know if that's just custom or an established rule.

Judges have some awesome powers inside their courtrooms. I find law to be a pretty fascinating subject but that is a long post for another day.

Yes that, and Alsup seized the opportunity be an asshole right back to Uber's counsel for all their douchebaggery in this case. I'll bet they were laughing it up at Judge Happy Hour this evening

Sure but presumably, two judges scheduled events pertaining to the same attorney at the same time.

I took the question to ask more or less, "Is their any judicial obligation to avoid scheduling conflict, when the attorney is already obligated to be present at a different court-related function".

I assume this is usually granted by courtesy, but a fed up judge has no obligation to do so.

Where did you get that that particular attorney is "obligated to be present"? He's not being sued, Uber is. Uber obviously has to be there in some capacity, but they have no shortage of lawyers, both inhouse and external counsel. (That particular one is external, he works for Morrison & Foerster).

IANAL.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com