The PSLRA Nugget flags the interesting securities litigation opinion from Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C. (Burman v. Phoenix Worldwide Industries, August 30, 2005). The opinion is interesting not for any securities-related reason but rather because of Judge Walton's Footnote 1, in which he expresses his displeasure for the type of condescending and simply unnecessary "argument" that is all-too-common in litigation today:

....Based upon the papers thus far submitted to this Court, it is clear that this is a highly contentious litigation. Despite the apparent animosity between the parties, counsel are reminded that they are expected to treat each other, and every other individual involved in this litigation, with "dignity, respect and civility, both in court and in out-of-court conference, meeting and discovery proceedings." Judge Walton's General Order and Guidelines for Civil Cases at 1, available at http:// www.dcd.uscourts.gov/rbw-general-civil-order.pdf. This includes civility in the papers submitted to this Court. The papers submitted by the defendants do not demonstrate the dignity and respect the Court expects of litigants appearing before it. See, e.g., Def.'s Reply at 7 ("Defendants agree that a review of the Amended Complaint is a 'painstaking' endeavor."); 18 ("If Plaintiffs do not appear to understand their own claims, how can Defendants?"); 29 ("Defendants are not obligated to teach Plaintiffs how to properly plead their complaint. However, we will give Plaintiffs a clue."). Such condescending invectives do nothing to advance a party's position. As members of the Bar, counsel surely know how to vigorously advance their respective party's position without being disrespectful or mean spirited. The Court will look with disfavor on any further circumstances that warrant such a reminder, and if warranted, will take appropriate action to sanction such behavior.

Amen to that. I'm sure the timing is coincidental, but check out the article cited in this August 31, 2005 post by Evan Schaeffer on this very point. Schaeffer writes:

Step #3 Adopt the Right Tone

It's at this point that many veer wildly off course.

Tone can be defined as the underlying attitude we take towards our opponent and our opponent's arguments. This attitude isn't explicitly spelled out, but shows through the fabric of our legal arguments.

Tone comes in all varieties—objective, respectful, or professional on the one hand; condescending, self-righteous, or bitter on the other.

Too often we pull out all our guns and attack, either rudely mocking the arguments of opposing counsel, or even worse, rudely mocking opposing counsel.

This approach seems to add an extra oomph to the force of our legal argument.

Yet all too often, what actually happens is that we alienate the reader—that is, the court. An angry, defiant tone just doesn't add a lot. Ever met someone whose response to every difficult situation is a sarcastic retort? Amusing for a few minutes, but then listeners get bored or disgusted, and want to leave the room.

Remember: The judge already knows you disagree with your opponent's position.

Begin by rationally stating why you disagree. An objective, reasonable tone is usually the most persuasive.

So kudos to Judge Walton for attempting to preserve civility in his courtroom and for reinforcing that angry sarcasm is almost never a persuasive or appropriate tone for legal argument.

By the way, this is the same Judge Walton who earlier in August was written up in this Washington Post article for single-handedly stopping an assault he witnessed in a DC traffic circle while driving his family to the airport. The 56-year-old judge reportedly wrestled another man's attacker to the ground and subdued him until the police came.  Police spokesman Kenny Bryson was quoted in the article as saying "God bless Judge Walton. I surely wouldn't want to mess with him. He's really to be commended for jumping in."