The Lawyer's Lunchbox

from our erstwhile family lawyer Robert A. McHugh

The running of a legal practise specialising in family law is not normally associated with uproarious laughter, frivolity and good humour. Unfortunately the emotions on display tend towards the darker side of the human existence such as anger, bitterness, greed, revenge, humiliation, bloodletting and…well I think you get the picture and if you have had the misfortune of having gone through the process you would have a sober awareness of these harsh realities.

On the other hand if you enjoy any, some or all of the aforementioned and believe that they are exactly what your erstwhile beloved richly deserves well by all means give me a call…it can be arranged (of course for a most reasonable fee).

However I am not going to dwell on the uglier side of divorce or of litigation as a whole. No what follows is a look at the inane, the wonderously incompetent, the clever and most of all the amusing side of legal practise.

Now in presenting a few amusing stories of (mal)practise in the courtroom I shall not be paying any favourites. All parties to the judicial process, be they judges, lawyers, witnesses, litigants in person will be treated in the same manner, that is with mocking contempt and so we begin.

One of the classic sayings for lawyers is that the person who acts on his own behalf in court has a fool as a client. Now whilst you may say that that is a typically self serving comment for a lawyer to make the reality is that it is also a truthful statement, as the following example amply demonstrates.
A defendant representing himself against a charge of armed robbery and having entered a plea of not guilty commenced his cross examination of the victim:

Defendant: Did you get a good look at me when I stole your purse?
(About as bad an opening question as you could get).

Victim: Yes, I saw you clearly. You are the one who stole my purse.
By then our star defendant cum lawyer has realised that things aren’t going quite as well as he had hoped and having lost his temper now takes incompetence and breathtaking stupidity to an even higher level...

Defendant: Why I should have %#@* shot you while I had the chance!!
(It having finally dawned on him that this outburst didn’t sit well with his plea of not guilty he sheepishly added)
….that’s…that’s.. if it had been me who was the guy there at the time.
Then of course there is the defendant who whilst refreshingly honest, unfortunately allows this to get in the way of tactical wisdom:
Crown Prosecutor: Did you kill the victim?

Defendant: No, I did not.

Crown Prosecutor: Do you know what the penalties are for perjury?

Defendant: Yes, I do. And they’re a hell of a lot better than the penalty for murder.

Then there are the individuals who find the experience of answering questions in the courtroom pushing them somewhat beyond their intellectual comfort zones. The following being examples of either a too literal approach to the question or the sin of too much information, or in the worst cases a combination of both.

Solicitor: Are you sexually active?

Witness: No, I just lie there.


Crown Prosecutor: What did the defendant say?
Witness: He said “Open the #%@! door”
Crown Prosecutor: Which door?
Witness: The #%@! door!

Judge: Is there any reason you could not serve as a juror in this case?
Juror: I don't want to be away from my job that long.
Judge: Can't they do without you at work?
Juror: Yes, but I don't want them to know it.

Of course there are those witnesses who shine in the courtroom and who emerge victorious in their sparring with the lawyers:

Lawyer: (In a sneering tone) You seem to have more than the average share of intelligence for a man of your background.

Witness: If I wasn’t under oath, I’d return the compliment.


Kathy(an eight-year-old being questioned before testifying):

Lawyer: Kathy, do you know what happens when you lie in court?

Kathy: Uh huh, you go to Hell.

Lawyer: Is that all?

Kathy: Isn’t that enough?



Barrister: Mr Wilson, at any time during your life did you consider that you had developed a drinking problem?

Mr Wilson: I never thought it was a problem. I think that drinking is one of the easiest things I have ever done.


Now see what happens when the clever witness combines intelligence and wit with the lawyer who is just a bit too sure of himself:


Barrister: Sir, do I understand you that before you signed the death certificate you didn’t take the man’s pulse?

Coroner: That’s right.

Barrister: Did you listen for a heart beat?

Witness: No.

Barrister: Did you verify whether or not he was breathing?

Coroner: No.

Barrister: So when you signed the death certificate you had not taken any steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?

Coroner (with a sigh): Well, let me put it this way. The man’s brain was sitting in a jar on my desk, but for all I know he could be out there practising law somewhere in Melbourne.


And to finish off a few more satisfying examples of the lawyers emerging with the proverbial judicial egg on face:


Prosecutor: Did you observe anything?

Police Witness: Yes, I did. I found the vehicle with several unusual items in the rear of the vehicle. There was what appeared to be a Molotov cocktail.

Defence Counsel: Objection. I’m going to object to that word Molotov cocktail.

Judge: What is the basis for you objection?

Defence Counsel: It’s inflammatory, Your Honour.


And finally the woman being questioned in a slander case:

Barrister: Please repeat the slanderous statements you heard, exactly as you heard them.

Witness (hesitating): But they are unfit for any respectable person to hear.

Barrister: Then just whisper them to the judge.

posted by brett hayton @ 6:00 PM