Going to use tumblr to shameless brag on myself, because I had one of those perfect hearings today, the ones that you live for as a trial attorney.
I was in total control of the hearing the entire time, the judge was with me for all my arguments all the way, and I got an even better result than I had hoped for.
I was pretty confident that I would win going into the hearing (one of my arguments literally boiled down to, "8 is less than 30"), but I was in front of a judge who can be very unpredictable (and not tenant-friendly). And this was a really critical hearing for my client - they would be in a REALLY bad position if I lost.
But from the moment it started, I was in total control of the hearing. We had had a different judge last hearing, and the docket was a bit confusing. So I started off being able to helpfully frame the status for the judge and bring her up to speed - always a great way to start (because it puts you in a position of knowledge and control).
From there, I made my argument, and the judge was with me the whole way. Then the landlord's attorney spoke, and she was so out of her league (not to be mean, but...) it wasn't even funny. (She is very nice, but rather desperately needs some more training and supervision.) It was so clear the whole hearing the judge was going to rule in my favor, and she did.
The landlord's attorney made a request, citing a recent change in the law. This would, if granted, potentially put my client back in the bad position I was trying to avoid. I should have been prepared for this request, but the landlord's attorney surprised me (she hadn't raised this in her filings).
Normally this would be really bad, but...
As I said, she was citing a recent change in the law. And this particular change has been an Issue for the last couple months. Landlords' attorneys keep suggesting that it should be read in a way that would be a huge advantage for landlords, and the courts (including this judge) have been going along with them. (Mostly in either cases against pro se tenants, or in hearings where the issue is not squarely in front of the judge, they are just speculating at what could happen further down the line in a case, so there hasn't - to my knowledge - been a ruling squarely on the issue.) But I think the way the landlords' attorneys are reading this change is completely incorrect. I've been trying to get people to argue against this interpretation (again, for months) to try to get a good ruling on point, and have just been waiting and hoping for a chance to argue it myself.
And again, it was perfect, even though it was on the fly. I felt so good and in control the entire time, laying out my argument without a single hitch, like effortlessly skating over the ice. And again, the judge was with me all the way. She was literally sitting there nodding along and taking notes as I hammered it out. She gave the landlord's attorney an opportunity to respond, of course - but it was already done and we all knew it. (Except maybe the landlord's attorney? Based on her response I'm not genuinely unsure if she was even able to understand what I was arguing about, let alone follow my argument. Again, very nice, but seriously needs supervision.)
It was so good, I had multiple tenants' attorneys who happened to be in the same courtroom text me after to tell me how good it was to watch.
So not only did I win for my client, I convinced (at least this) judge to start reading this change in the law the right way.
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
stormborns
pixelskylines
