- Quickdraw McLaw
- Job Tips
- 40 Comments
- 330 Views
Is it okay to be funny at work? Do you avoid jokes of any kind? Do you only talk to certain people? Do you ever joke in a courtroom with the judge? Is there a place for humor in the legal profession?
Job Tips: Humor At Work
- Job Tips
- Posted on 8 years ago
I make jokes at work, to judges in open court, etc–all in good taste though. nothing inappropriate. our jobs are hard enough that we shouldn't make things worse by being all up tight.
From what I can tell, people still respect me and my abilities, even though I joke around a lot. I did have an older female lawyer call me "unprofessional" once–but that was an exception.
So yes, please inject a little levity into the stressful but also boring stuff we do every day.
I agree, I like to keep a sense of humor at work, although I make sure it doesn't get into the areas that will get one in trouble. Joking with judges is a bit more difficult and you have to know the personality of the judge before going there, but I don't have a problem with it.
Like you said, this profession can suck sometimes but if we can be a bit kinder with each other and learn to joke around a bit, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Remember, there are a lot of well-respected attorneys around who aren't a-holes.
No jokes or humor are any longer tolerated since, no matter how innocuous the jokes may seem, some group of people will be offended.
If such group makes it clear they are not offended, some enlightened, witch-hunting left-wingers will instruct such group that they are to be offended by such humor.
If the humor is so seemingly harmless that such group cannot be convinced that such humor is racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever, such group will be instructed that at the very least such humor marginalizes them or objectifies them.
Holy cow, 8:55, take the broom stick out of your butt! (LOL)
That's homophobic, 9:02! Check your privilege! Aaaaaarrrrrggghh!
I completely agree with 8:55 AM. The effort and torture that people put into searching for things about which to be offended is simply astounding. It is at a point where some micro-aggression can be inferred from any single sentence someone utters. And here in Las Vegas it is a relatively minor issue when compared to such political correctness meccas as San Francisco and Seattle.
The remedy is to remain completely silent, especially if you are not aligned with some supposedly oppressed constituency. Saying anything to anyone about anything is always a risk.
8:55 sounds like he (given the use of "enlightened, witch-hunting left-wingers," I'm almost certain that 8:55 is male) is the life of the party at any given gathering or function. News for you, 8:55 – just because you caught flack for telling some awful racist/sexist (or possibly just crappy) joke you inherited from your uncle doesn't mean attorneys are humorless. It just means your jokes are bad, you are bad, and you should feel badly.
That applies to you, too, 10:03. Knock it off with the Polack jokes (or whatever it is that you're using to suck at being funny). They weren't funny even when they were marginally socially acceptable.
11:45 AM must be an oppressed snowflake. What are you wasting your time being offended by today, honey?
I have never found being offended to the point of wanting to quash humor to be exclusive to one side of the aisle. We all have oxen which we do and do not want gored. There are funny people on the left. There are funny people on the right. Humorous is humorous. Humorless is humorless.
11:45 here. I'm not offended. I am, however, sort of disappointed by the facts that a) you, (who are probably moving your lips while reading this response) are more likely than not an attorney and b) you think "oppressed" and "snowflake" constitute sick burns.
To: 11:45. This is 8:55. You don't know me, which proves one of my points–leaping to wild, highly disparaging and condemning conclusions about what people must be like based on very tiny bits of info. and very limited bits of input.
First,sorry, you're wrong. I'm not a right -winger. I'm a democrat who classifies himself as moderate to liberal, although most of my friends classify me as liberal. But that does not keep me from recognizing when those politically aligned with me are going way too far with political correctness and other matters.Second, yes, I'm a male, so you are right about that one. Third, you could not be more wrong about your characterization of me. I don't tell crude, drunken, insensitive jokes, nor do I ever tolerate such in my presence. If anything, my friends think I am too proper and hyper-sensitive about matters. You describe people who I condemn, but you absolutely do not describe me.
Now that you have(highly erroneously I might add) told me what's wrong about me, I will tell you what's wrong about you. It no longer has much to do with political leanings.Although all negative behavior or classifications based on gender, race, religion, sexual preference and other matters should absolutely not be tolerated, you don't recognize a certain clear phenomenon.
That phenomenon is that you close your eyes to current reality. Current reality is that even when certain groups of people are not offended, "well-meaning" types tell them they ought to be offended as they are being objectified, etc.
For example, very few Native Americans ever complained about a sports team being named the Braves, Indians, or Red Skins.It is always privileged, entitled, often hyper-educated, sheltered, WASPy types who so condescendingly insult such groups by informing them if when they are required to be insulted and marginalized.
So, please go take a hike. You could not be more wrong about me.
Non offensive jokes exist. You can broaden the scope of viable jokes if you include jokes that are self-effacing (only offensive to the individual telling the joke).
Perhaps you know a lot of clever witty jokes you are concerned about coming off as offensive, and don't feel like replacing the tried and blue jokes with something that fits in with the situation at hand.
Regardless, if non-offensive jokes do exist. or, in the alternate, there exist jokes you don't know that would be fine in the courtroom. Then, you may have an understandable resentment about the world changing around you and your disappointment about having to adapt. it could just be that you're lazy or unwilling to learn something because you liked how it was before.
if non-offensive jokes don't exist, then you're right.
I'm guessing that 11:45 (1) has mountains of student debt to repay from his/her days at Thomas Jefferson Law, (2) deeply resents those of us who paid back our student loans, and (3) thinks the government should repay/forgive his/hers.
Jokes in court that tend to be very well-received by the bench generally center around how incredibly stupid and misguided the judge's rulings are.
It's hard to go wrong with such an approach.
Ha! I've tried that, but not by design. I got really frustrated and upset with the rulings and it just kind of spilled out.
I'll try it again and see if this time it turns out really well, since you are convinced it will. After all, one thing I've learned about our District Court Bench is that all the judges are really humble and eager to admit when they are wrong, and learn from it.
See? That was super funny without being offensive. It's not that hard, people.
I am a white, flaming liberal male and I go out of my way to be as inappropriate as possible. Court is too sterile and I think people appreciate a little levity. The key is to be funny, not malicious. And Aziz Ansari is a victim. And Harvey Weinstein should be in prison. We should all appreciate the difference.
Justin?
That is who I thought it was.
10:03 — 9:02 here: Lighten up, person. Broomstick only means the person is so stiff he/she can't bend at the waist. No homophobia intended. It was a JOKE.
Well-placed humor can be an excellent way to break the tension that often builds in a court room. The joke must be witty, not blue, and quick, however.
I'm having one of those days where I'm thinking about becoming a contract attorney. Writing and researching on an hourly basis, making court appearances for other people, etc. From the outside, it seems so easy — bill a few hours a day, no overhead, enjoy life.
Do any of you folks do that (now or in the past), and if so, what do you think about that life?
I did contract work in the past. It has both advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages are the fact that once the assignment is over, you are done with that case/client (no on-going obligations); greater control over the scope of duties and the types of issues; greater control over your schedule, etc.
Among the downsides, much lower hourly based income, periods of undesirable or no work, getting work that the contracting attorney doesn't like/want to do, etc.
Contract work is great for an attorney that 1) only wants to work part-time; 2) is transitioning or starting a new solo practice; 3) has a practice that is suffering from a slow patch; 4) Doesn't want a long-term attorney-client relationship with the client; 5) wants significant variety in their work, etc.
I have done contract work for years. If you are a low overhead person (single, free wheeling), it is fantastic. If I had a wife, kids, mortgage, it would scare the pants off of me. The dry spells would cause me to be concerned about ends being met. The other problem is that the periods of feast are difficult because you are inundated and feel like none of your "bosses" has any appreciation for all of the other work on your plate (because they don't).
Jokes at work? This job IS a joke. It's just not a very funny joke.
I have a weird question: Do any of you use your status as an attorney to file suit on your own behalf in situations where you normally wouldn't because it would be cost-prohibitive?
I ask this because I just got screwed over by Sprint on a new contract I signed where it was represented to me that I'd get a $20 credit/month on the new plan. I know I sound like a crazy client right now, but I honestly think the sales guy intentionally misrepresented what credits he could apply just to get me to sign the bill. Now, if a potential client came to me and told me this story, I'd say, "Yeah, that sucks, but do you want to spend thousands on legal fees over this?"
But because I'm a lawyer and I'm pretty pissed about this, I'm contemplating filing an action for fraud to get the contract invalidated. Have any of you lawyers done something as petty as this? Did you regret it?
Not only am I not more likely to file suit, I am far LESS likely to file suit on my own behalf. Yes the whole "fool for a client" thing. But I know how expensive litigation is (especially against a behemoth like Sprint). I know how slow it is. I know how quickly I would eat through $720 in my time ($20 a month x/ 36 months for the plan= $720). And I know that I might lose. Throw my weight around with a Customer Service Rep as an attorney? Sure. Write a nastygram on the firm letterhead (or my P.C. letterhead)? Yeah sure. But actually subject myself to litigation? Not a chance.
I had the reverse happen. I was sued in small claims court because I pulled the "sue me card" and someone called my bluff. I ended up paying the $1,000 that I didn't owe to the jackass just to make it go away. I'll never let things escalate like that again.
Interesting–Clark Seegmiller who filed to run against Cynthia Dustin-Cruz in Justice Court Department 5 has since withdrawn his candidacy–leaving her unchallenged.
Any time somebody withdraws, my pocketbook sings. When one of my friends, I'm looking at you Tierra, doesn't draw an opponent I'm happy for them and me. Now with Rogan and De La Garza going against each other and the overwhelmingly competent Elena Graham running against the wildly incompetent, wearing pajamas in the RJC James Dean Leavitt, I know I'm going to be paying through the nose. And with JDL dropping the "bombshell" that Elana is getting money from defense attorneys, I sure hope he starts attending church at whatever ward he is associated with because he is getting nothing from me. Flipping guy isn't even a real Leavitt.
Interesting question. I'm one of those people who is always light hearted and jokes around, but I am coming to the realization that people truly are sometimes offended by well-meaning jokes, especially political jokes. It baffles my mind. I used to just motor through and not let it alter how I behave but lately I find I'm biting my tongue more and more so that I don't offend someone with my Pelosi jokes. I actually really hate that about myself lately – I've let other people's sensitivities impact what I say and don't say but I have a real concern in this political climate that saying the wrong thing – even if it's a funny joke – could actually cost me my job. It's a real bummer.
Haven't you ever heard that you never discuss politics, religion or sex? At least that is what some Catholic Mayor who was hanging with a bunch of hookers told me.
When you make a political joke, it is by definition offensive to the other side.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't make the joke, but I don't think you should expect people to just roll with it. You are essentially mocking their beliefs, which rarely goes over well.
You just can't tell jokes.
When the joke is always on you, it gets old, fast.
Speaking of jokes, another Nevada Supreme Court joke. On Friday, Nevada Supreme Court finally issued a decision after 4.5 years for a Suspension of 4 years. In other words, by the time they leveled the sentence, the suspension had ended 6 months prior. No discipline case should take 4.5 years. And I don't care who the attorney is, if the Nevada Supreme Court cares so little for due process than to issue suspensions before they have expired, they make mockery of the process.
Who and for what?
Ian Christopherson, for tax evasion. He pled guilty, served time, and was released in the amount of time it took for the slow wheels of discipline to grind him all the way down. Judging from the briefs, the reason it took so long was because of some serious shenanigans with OBC. They stipulated to 2 years suspension, and when they got to the panel, they suddenly started arguing that 2 years wouldn't be accepted, so 4 should be imposed. So, keep that in mind if you have any dealings with OBC. You agree to something, in writing? Better hope they don't renege and bend you over when you get before the panel, because the panel and NSC won't care that they're arguing against what they stipulated to.
Ian Christopherson. Tax Evasion. But you cannot tell the public and professionals that the system works when it takes 4.5 years to give out a 4 year suspension and that the extra six months should just be written off. Supreme Court did the same thing to Paul Wommer last year. Gave him a 36 month suspension 44 months after they suspended him.
2:08: Ask Asa Ginapp how that worked out for him. OBC asked for disbarment from the Panel because of a client claiming that Ginapp ran off with her money as her attorney, or so the OBC told the Panel. Never called the Complainant to testify. Never told the Panel that Ginapp (or his ex-wife) had been in contact with the State Bar regarding him having disability issue precluding his participation; instead told the Panel that Ginapp refused to cooperate. Turns out the Complainant never told the State Bar what the OBC says she said, never claimed she was his client at the time or anything other than she wanted help getting in touch with him. So Ginapp got a disbarment on charitably incorrect (arguably false) testimony.
Supreme Court remanded to give him the chance at a hearing. Now that he is participating, the OBC has stipulated to dismiss the entire Complaint so long as Ginapp signs a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging that he did not timely respond to the OBC. He is going to go from a disbarment to a probable reprimand. Our OBC was going to irrevocably destroy this guy's career on wrong/false information. It is the Fred Steese of the OBC.