Thursday, May 16, 2013

Greene v. Bank of America (Cal. Ct. App. - May 16, 2013)

Not too long ago, I litigated an appeal in which the attorney for the defendant (Jan Chilton) was the same one as in this appeal. l.  I found Him to be reasonable, sophisticated and smart.

I do not think that these qualities in an opposing counsel uniformly exist.  Far from it.

I ended up (partially) winning my appeal.  Mr. Chilton loses this one.

But I mention the identity and qualities of the respondent's counsel because it perfectly explains, in my view,what happens here.

This appeal is a no-brainier.  Appellant is totally right.  The trial court clearly got this one wrong.  Justice Armstrong's opinion persuasively and concisely explains why appellant's arguments are both basic and entirely right, and why respondent's are wrong.  It is a totally simple case.

But it is nonetheless a mark of a good lawyer that s/he is able to make totally erroneous arguments look at least plausible and/or facially appealing.  That's what Mr. Chilton does here.

Sometimes ou lose and there's nothing to be ashamed of.  Your side was wrong.  Nothing you could do about that but put the best possible, albeit losing, argument forward.

And be proud even in defeat.