In a brief and stern order, U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz (D. Minn.) lowered the boom on counsel for insurer Hartford Insurance when, after a hearing, counsel submitted supplemental briefing. Judge Schiltz quoted himself in a “closely related context:” ”This is akin to lighting a cigar and then asking, ‘Is it okay if I smoke?’ It betrays a lack of respect for the rules of this Court and for the client who is required to pay for a brief that the Court has not yet agreed to permit.” Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., No. 04-CV-3394 (PJS/RLE), Order at 2 (D. Minn. Sept. 13,2006).
Most unusually, Judge Schiltz ordered that the client not be billed for the supplemental briefing (appearing to overlook the possibility that the decision to file was client-driven or, alternately, with the client’s “informed consent” about the SWOTs (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) about the strategy?)).