Judge refuses to delay hearing set during lawyer’s maternity leave, then scolds her f


Goober
#1
Judge refuses to delay hearing set during lawyer’s maternity leave, then scolds her for bringing baby to court | National Post
An immigration judge in Atlanta denied an attorney’s request to delay a hearing that fell during her six-week maternity leave and then scolded her in front of a packed courtroom when she showed up with her 4-week-old strapped to her chest and the infant began to cry, the attorney said.

When Stacy Ehrisman-Mickle took on two young brothers as clients in early September, she immediately filed a request to postpone their next hearing, which was set for a month later, she said. In an order denying her request, Immigration Judge J. Dan Pelletier Sr. wrote, “No good cause. Hearing date set prior to counsel accepting representation.”

Reached by phone Thursday, Pelletier said immigration judges can’t make public comment and referred questions to the public affairs office of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the branch of the Department of Justice that oversees immigration courts. That office said in an email it couldn’t comment on the judge’s action and that a complaint had been filed and was being processed.

Ehrisman-Mickle’s clients came to her in early July for a consultation, but they couldn’t afford to hire her right away, she said. They went to their first immigration court hearing on Sept. 2 without a lawyer and then came to Ehrisman-Mickle’s office with their mother four days later, on a Saturday, to hire her.

Ehrisman-Mickle told them she would take their case but that their next hearing on Oct. 7 fell during her maternity leave. She told them she’d have to file a motion to delay the hearing but that it shouldn’t be a problem because two other immigration judges had already granted similar motions based on letters from her doctor, she said.
 
SLM
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
So she accepted these clients and gave them the impression that she could represent them based on an assumption. Not that I think it would be that big of a deal to postpone 6 weeks but there is a reason why they call it a "request".....the outcome is not a sure thing.
 
Goober
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

So she accepted these clients and gave them the impression that she could represent them based on an assumption. Not that I think it would be that big of a deal to postpone 6 weeks but there is a reason why they call it a "request".....the outcome is not a sure thing.

Assumption or past experience?
 
SLM
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Assumption or past experience?

Someone can have past experiences where they've parked in front of a fire hydrant. That doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on if they should ever get a ticket, lol

It was an assumption. Whether it's based on past experience or not, it's still a request, it's not a demand that goes before a judge. Bottom line is she was playing the odds and she lost the bet.

And bringing her child to court? That I take as an 'in your face' kind of move....you can't tell me she couldn't find a sitter for one afternoon.
 
Goober
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Someone can have past experiences where they've parked in front of a fire hydrant. That doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on if they should ever get a ticket, lol

It was an assumption. Whether it's based on past experience or not, it's still a request, it's not a demand that goes before a judge. Bottom line is she was playing the odds and she lost the bet.

And bringing her child to court? That I take as an 'in your face' kind of move....you can't tell me she couldn't find a sitter for one afternoon.

True, but was this case so urgent?
 
SLM
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

True, but was this case so urgent?

Does it matter? I mean, the whole point of a request to delay is that delays are allowed 'with good reason'; discretion being the judges as to what qualifies as a good reason. The judge wasn't out of bounds with his statement that it wasn't a good reason because the date was set prior to her accepting the case. That's a reasonable assessment, likewise it wouldn't be unreasonable should a judge grant such a request because the discretion is his (or hers) as to what qualifies. But you can't really argue against it based on the reasoning "that every one does it" which seems to be the entirety of her position.
 
Goober
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Does it matter? I mean, the whole point of a request to delay is that delays are allowed 'with good reason'; discretion being the judges as to what qualifies as a good reason. The judge wasn't out of bounds with his statement that it wasn't a good reason because the date was set prior to her accepting the case. That's a reasonable assessment, likewise it wouldn't be unreasonable should a judge grant such a request because the discretion is his (or hers) as to what qualifies. But you can't really argue against it based on the reasoning "that every one does it" which seems to be the entirety of her position.

From the article
In an order denying her request, Immigration Judge J. Dan Pelletier Sr. wrote, “No good cause. Hearing date set prior to counsel accepting representation.”

The judicial systems partially works based on changes in - or conflicts in representing clients.
Yes she did accept after knowing the date.
But the judge saw no good reason the reschedule- an idiot She also qualifies as an idiot for pulling the stunt with her child in the courtroom.

The lawyer had other avenues open, including having another lawyer appear.
The judge, with "no good reason to change" well he is an idiot.
Perhaps he was tired of schedule changes.
Both had better ways to respond to this issue.
 
BaalsTears
+1
#8
Contraception is the friend of female lawyers.
 
taxslave
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

True, but was this case so urgent?

Was there any reason to delay it other than a lawyer felt like some time off? There are other lawyers in the country that could have made the court date. Justice delayed is justice denied.
 
gopher
+1
#10
The term continuance is used when requesting a delay in a trial or hearing. Usually it is granted as a matter of routine especially under extenuating circumstances. This was the lawyer's expectation. I suspect that the judge will answer for his court room outburst as the usual protocols call for proper decorum and it would appear that he may have violate the usual tenets. We shall see ...