A U.S. District Court judge in Alabama took an unconventional approach to resolving a dispute over a deadline extension, ordering opposing counsel to have lunch together and discuss how to work professionally moving forward.
Chief U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor granted a motion by the defendants, Koch Foods of Alabama LLC and others, to extend the deadline for filing their responsive pleading to Jan. 6, 2025. The dispute arose after the plaintiff, P.M., conditioned her consent to the extension on an agreement that the defendants would not file a motion to dismiss.
Judge Proctor sharply criticized the plaintiff’s counsel for what he described as an unnecessary and unprofessional stance on the issue. “There is generally no good reason that an extension such as this should be opposed, let alone denied,” Proctor wrote, calling the opposition “wholly inappropriate” and a departure from the professional courtesy expected in the legal profession.
The ‘Golden Rule’
The judge invoked the “Golden Rule” — do unto others as you would have them do unto you — stating that it is not only a principle for daily life but also a cornerstone of legal professionalism. He expressed concern over the diminishing adherence to this rule, noting that the refusal to grant simple procedural requests “wastes time, damages professional relationships, and makes the lawyer withholding consent (or conditioning it) appear petty and uncooperative.”
Judge Proctor’s ruling went beyond simply granting the extension. He ordered both parties’ legal counsel to meet for lunch by Dec. 31, 2024.
“Plaintiff’s counsel will pay the bill; Defendants’ counsel will leave the tip,” Proctor directed. The unusual mandate includes a requirement for the attorneys to discuss how they can act professionally throughout the remainder of the litigation. Within ten days of the lunch, the parties are to jointly file a report outlining their conversation and the amount of the tip.
“The court’s job is to address the merits of the case, not to navigate a world of technicalities,” the ruling stated. Proctor called minor procedural disputes such as this one “not the place for unnecessary posturing” and emphasized that extending professional courtesy “really costs nothing.”
Tension in litigation
The case, which revolves around claims filed by P.M. against Koch Foods, highlights the tension that can arise in litigation over procedural matters. In this instance, the plaintiff’s opposition to the deadline extension, which the judge deemed meritless, escalated to a judicial intervention designed to encourage collaboration and mutual respect between the parties.
In his closing remarks, Judge Proctor underscored the importance of fostering goodwill in legal practice, stating that even small gestures of cooperation can yield benefits in future dealings with opposing counsel. By agreeing to short extensions, lawyers can preserve relationships and enhance the overall professionalism of their practice, he noted.
The court’s directive to have lunch together is an unusual move, but one that reflects Proctor’s broader commentary on the need for professionalism and civility in litigation. “Judges rightly expect lawyers to handle minor procedural issues like extensions without unnecessary conflict,” he wrote, characterizing the plaintiff’s refusal to grant the extension as “unprincipled.”
Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants will now not only have to navigate the complexities of the legal dispute but also come together over a meal to discuss their professional conduct moving forward.
