Don't Be A Boob And Let Theatrical Opponents Rope-A-Dope You

Print This Post

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Scott Jacobs says:

    I'm afraid I have to see a picture of the paralegal before I can comment further…

  2. Ken says:

    I'm not your Google-bitch.

  3. Chuck says:

    Even better, per Above the Law, she's Feofanov's wife (who handles paralegal, receptionist, and bill-paying duties in his solo office). Gooch looks worse and worse with every new detail that comes out.

  4. PeeDub says:

    I couldn't find a decent picture of her, but surprisingly, I found several pictures of boobs.

  5. Nancy says:

    There's a picture of her on Above the Law. She's an attractive woman, but she's not stunning enough to disrupt the trial.

  6. Brian Dunbar says:

    She’s an attractive woman, but she’s not stunning enough to disrupt the trial.

    It's all in the presentation.

    I sat on a jury. Civil thing, a redneck hit a mexican's truck, the mexican hired (I am not making this up) Matlock. The redneck's goose was fried: he was going up against _Matlock_. Plus he oozed 'bigot' and 'liar'.

    It's boring as all get out and I couldn't even pull out a book to read. They wouldn't let me bring my laptop in, the heathens.

    It wouldn't take Miss America to distract me, just a well-dressed female with generous proportions.

  7. mojo says:

    Does Feofanov get a notation in the "Annals of Table Pounding"?

  8. Assman says:

    You have the parties backwards in the Bill-Bone-hole-in-the-shoes thing. Bill Bone was the plaintiff's lawyer and he's fairly well-known in South Florida. Michael Robb was the defense lawyer.

  9. David T says:

    So what *is* a good strategy, when opposing counsel is distracting the jury with some theater? Just ignore it? Joke about it? Use counter-theater?

  10. MOG says:

    Since when are law clerks or paralegals permitted to be at counsel table. She can sit in the audience along with everyone else who hasn't passed the bar.

  11. Ken says:

    I'm starting to lean much more strongly towards the sexist narcissistic prick theory.

  1. May 28, 2011

    […] Claims Buxom Woman with Opposing Counsel Is Intended as Jury Distraction" [ABA Journal] More: Ken at Popehat, Lowering The Bar, Above the […]

  2. May 29, 2011

    […] So was the "large-breasted woman" at counsel's table an unethical distraction? Even by my minority view of 3.5 violations, it is hard for me to see why. I know of attractive female trial lawyers who employ their pulchritudinous assets to  entrance male judges and juries, and that is no more unethical than a male lawyer with a sonorous speaking voice using it to his best advantage. I have a hard time understanding Gooch's point, in fact: if the woman was that so spectacular, wouldn't she distract the jury from the presentations of both sides of the case? As Ken points out over at Popehat, even if having the voluptuous woman at counsel's table was a stunt, it was the kind of stunt that it doesn't pay to object to. "Protip: if your conduct of your client’s affairs requires you to make a statement reassuring the media that you are not per se opposed to large breasts, you’re doing it wrong," he writes. […]