The Special Litigation Tactics Needed When Combating The Narcissist – By Patrick J. D’Arcy, Irvine, CA Attorney

A narcissist presents a special challenge to trial lawyers. The direct answer to this topic is as follows: the narcissist thrives on conflict, drama and positive and negative energy. The harder you push on them, the more direct attacks you launch against them, the more they relish the fight. Because they have a personality disorder, your standard arsenal of litigation tactics do not work upon them. What does work is this: starve them out of all emotion and drama. Do not speak about the evils of their ways, the pain they have caused your clients, and the conflict that has disrupted your client’s life, etc. These statements give the narcissist his dose of supply (or “fuel”), which keeps them going. Instead, you must think and act differently – remove all of the drama from your pleadings, your questions and your litigation tactics. Be robotic in dealing with them. Be indifferent. Ridicule their accomplishments. Ignore them. These approaches pay rich dividends. The narcissist has no answer for this. Starving them of this “fuel” causes immediate problems, as they feed off of your energy to sustain themselves. They are emotional vampires, which is why you feel drained dealing with them. Cutting off this “fuel” causes them to explode, and ignites their rage and fury. They wind up expending their own precious fuel while receiving little to none in return. The narcissist cannot function in this manner. Fighting them head-on is like smashing up against iron gates. Weaken the support for the gates by softening up the soil, cracking the cement holding the support posts, and then watch the strong gate collapse under its weight.

Narcissists all have the same general traits and behaviors. Since they know they are evil to the core, and are always looking to screw you over, to get revenge or to just control your life, you cannot believe anything they say, nor can you believe any of their fake apologies. Let’s first describe these devils before discussing how to deal with them.

Narcissism is a personality disorder. The “narc” is very much ashamed of themselves. They are emotional toddlers. Perhaps they were toilet trained in an abusive manner, maybe daddy didn’t give them enough attention, or maybe mommy’s expectations were too high. Whatever the reason, the narc cuts off these feelings of shame and humiliation, and creates a “new” (and fake) person that they present to the world. This fake person is what you see, unless you happen to catch the narc in its primal state. When you do, or when the mask that they are wearing momentarily slips, you will see a face of true evil. The fake person is a walking contradiction. They demand loyalty from you but give none in return. They demand their freedom while trying to control you. They preach about the values of marriage, while secretly cheating on you.

Here are the warning signs you are dealing with a narc: 1) they have an absolute need for control; 2) they refuse to ever admit they are wrong; 3) they blame you for everything, including evils acts they do to you (e.g., when they slugged you, it was your fault for provoking them); 4) they will engage in a unrelenting smear campaign to destroy your name and reputation; 5) they seek revenge, regardless of how many years have passed; 6) you cannot freely speak your mind around them, as they have hair-triggered personalities; 7) they can fly into a wild rage at a moment’s notice; 8) they are compulsive liars; 9) they suffer from addictions; 10) interactions with them leave you emotionally drained; 11) they think they are smarter than you; 12) they think very highly of themselves (and many are quite accomplished); 13) they lack any empathy or feelings of remorse; and 14) they cannot compromise, as everything must be on their terms.

The “narc” uses you to fulfill its needs and desires. You are not a person, but a “thing” to be owned and possessed. What the narc needs for its survival is emotional fuel, or “supply” from you. Cut that off, and the narc quickly discards you, and then embarks on a vicious smear campaign. Narcissists are pathological liars, have high opinions of themselves, and span the gamut from dumb to intelligent, from an incompetent to very capable, and from unemployed loser to a captain of industry.

Narcissists don’t see you as a co-equal human.

They do not care about you, even when they lie and claim they’ll change. The narc has limited emotions: fear, jealously, greed, envy and idolization. Since you are not a person to the narc, but a “thing,” you are like a brand new stove that was just installed in your kitchen. Like with anything new, the narc expresses great joy over this shiny new possession. Over time, that new awesome stove becomes (in the narc’s eyes) an old burner, to something that produces small amounts of fuel, but only in rare instances. The narc’s perception and treatment of you steadily declines until the narc wants to get rid of you. Or, think of this “relationship” as the strong oxen that plows the field, does what it is told, becomes weary and abused from the constant strain of heavy work of tending to the narc’s needs and wants, to being disfavored in old age as it can’t keep up any more, and then used as leather and food for the owner. The narc doesn’t have a “relationship” with you (even if married to one, or a “best friend” with one). The narc simply uses you through manipulation, deceit and threats to get that precious emotional fuel. Narcs seek reactions from you. Cut off the reaction, and the narc dissolves like the Wicked Witch of The West did. Remember, to the narc, you are a thing, not a person.

Your “relationship” with the narc is like the poor oxen. The owner makes sure their basic needs are met. You are clean, housed, properly fed, and given medical attention. Beyond that, you are muzzled, and forced to do work for the narc (where the narc sets the terms and conditions, and really doesn’t give a shit about how you feel about it). When these oxen get too old to do this backbreaking work, the narc still finds a way to have his needs met: he will butcher them, keep their hides, and turn them into a delicious meal.

What Is A Narcissist?

Today’s need for instant “likes” and “shares” promotes narcissism on a grand scale. You take a photo from Switzerland, as you vacation in the Swiss Alps, and then post it on Facebook. (By the way, the “friends” on Facebook can tell a burglar to go hit your house while you are away). While I appreciate some selfies, especially if it to capture a really great moment, it has gone overboard. That “duck lips” or “trout pout” face bothers me – a lot. People are taking selfies at funerals to show off their new outfits, taking selfies while driving, and post to social media for the “high” from many “likes.” Here’s a few of the stupid selfies that encourage narcissism. Doing these things doesn’t make you a narcissist, but it encourages it.

Narcissists are wounded assholes who create nothing but drama and conflict in your life, as well as lie, cheat and steal. They have no empathy, and present special problems in the courtroom. Because they will lie on command, and have no fear of lying (and will be very convinced of their own lies), they must be dealt with differently. A narcissist will never “settle” in a lawsuit. They must destroy you. The longest and most draining lawsuits involve narcs.

Narcs all come from the same playbook: they are the ones who never admit that they are wrong, always find reasons to blame you for things, have no moral conscience, will quickly unload on you with all of their problems, pretend to know everything, have a need to control people, to intimidate them and then destroy reputations, while maintaining this carefully guarded and fake image of themselves. You will find that the narcissist will react strongly to any criticism, and will take great delight in destroying your name and reputation when the time suits them.

Narcs are the product of a wrecked childhood, caused by parental neglect, continued bullying or other emotional trauma that makes them horribly insecure, and deeply ashamed. Because this wounded moron cannot accept that they are a loser and a pile of crap as a human being, they seek out prey to fill their egos, needs and desires. They are predators. To avoid this “true” person (their real self), the narc represses these emotions. In its place is a “fake” persona that the narc creates and shows to the world. The narc is the person that only got a C grade on an exam, yet forges the “77” into a “97” and then lets others see the score to impress them. The narc goes to extreme lengths to protect this fake self image. You will see it on their social media – pictures of them at church, a charity for the homeless, or working at an animal rescue. These things are part of the false self the want you to see. They will be polite to you when you first meet them, engaging, charismatic, etc. This is all to throw you off so that you do not do the one thing that terrifies the narc – EXPOSING THEM. Anyone who attempts to expose the narc, and bring them face-to-face with their “true” self, will see a massive eruption of anger and violence. The narc cannot face themselves, and they literally self-destruct. Getting them to see their “true” self is all about inflicting narcissistic injury.

A narc cannot manage their own emotions, so they use you to feed their need for “fuel” (or “narcissistic supply”). Consider what is meant by “fuel” (and I give full credit to this term to H. G. Tudor, and his amazing videos on Youtube). I learned a great deal about narcs from H. G. Tudor, a self-admitted narcissist who explains what you must do to avoid getting entangled with narcissists. What H. G. Tudor said was true, and counter-intuitive to my approach as a trial lawyer. I am always confronting people with their lies. I live for the lie (as all trial lawyers do). The narc is a compulsive liar, but they think they are smarter than you, and that you will believe their lies. The truly “gifted” narcs blend lies with the truth, to make for a fascinating BS story. What H. G. Tudor said turned out to be very true: the narc lives for the drama, including the escalating conflict in the courtroom, and the high stakes emotion from cross-examination causes them to draw “fuel” from the interaction. You are playing their stupid game. Instead, you must starve them of any emotional reaction, and thus starve them from any “fuel.” The point of H. D. Tudor is that the drama from direct confrontation backfires when used against the narcissist. You must remove all drama and charged energy, since the narc feeds off of it.

You cannot reason with a narc, nor can you stay in their good graces. To “win” against the narc, you must simply cut all ties to them. Narcs, if left unchecked, will guilt you into doing their work for them, will emotionally manipulate you, will scream and cry about how they need you, and put on any act to keep control over you. Narcs eventually try to ruin anyone that has crossed their path. Like any parasite, the narc is very vocal if you try to claim your freedom and break free. While projecting confidence, the narc is a scared individual who cannot be alone, and needs the interaction with people held emotionally captive to feed their stupid instincts and desires.

Did You Unmask The Narcissist And Get “The Stare”?

A narc is a demon. I really believe they are possessed with dark energy and are completely evil. When you have unmasked them, when they realize that you know what they truly are, they reveal to you the stare of evil. Yeah, read up on it like I did. This stare is meant to intimidate you, to regain control, and, for the malignant narcs out there, could actually be eyes of black. You won’t forget it should you see this stare first-hand.

Narcs can be very dangerous persons, and can threaten to hurt or kill you. They will become enraged if you expose them for their true self, or if you have confronted them with who they really are. For that moment in time, the mask comes off, and you see the real demon. If you will be in physical danger, then do not provoke the narcissist. This is especially true if you live with a narc. I have watched first-hand (and read and heard the stories) of when the narc got exposed, and the violent reaction from them, including physical violence.

People discuss the other reptilian stare that narcissists have which resembles a snake about to strike, or an insect about to capture its prey. That “trance” or “reptilian” stare is them sizing you up and studying you. Like I said, these are sick people. In unmasking them, they now put you on their forever shit list.

The Narcissistic’s Demonic Phases – Recognize Them Early

Phase 1 Of The Narc Demon – “Love Bombing”

The “love-bombing” stage is when the narcissist tells you how great you are, how much they look up to you, how much you and they are alike, and how much you have in common with them. They bring you gifts, shower you with attention, and make it look like you have found your soul mate. This first phase is meant to suck you in. It’s all fake. During this phase, you think the narc is the greatest person ever. The narc is a demonic asshole. Never forget this. The narc demon does not experience emotion like we do. Instead, he manipulates, lies and bullshits his way into your life SO THAT YOU WILL SERVE HIS NEEDS. THINK OF THAT STOVE. THINK OF THOSE OXEN. Narcs are emotional vampires that suck your energy from you.

Phase 2 Of The Narc Demon – The Devaluation Phase

The second phase is the devaluation phase. This is where the narc starts finding fault with you, even when you are not at fault. They will blame you for shit you didn’t do, insinuate you lied (when you didn’t), and demand accountability from you (while flouting the same rules themselves). They no longer show that much interest in you, leaving you puzzled and confused. You will get the silent treatment. They get passive-aggressive for no reason. They disappear for spells at a time. You catch them in lies, and they lie about the lie. You are to blame for everything.

a) They Cut You Off From Friends And Family

During the devaluation, the narc works overtime to cause problems with your family. Your dad is “overbearing,” your mom “is nasty,” your brother is “too nosy.” At family gatherings, they pick fights, start arguments and cause trouble. After awhile, they start driving a wedge between you and your parents, trying to sever this critical link. The narc starts hitting on your friends, and then lies and says they hit on him. Over time, if successful, all that is left is you and the narc, and they use this isolation to further control you. This is why you NEVER let a narcissist EVER watch your children or family members.

b) They Gaslight You And Make You Believe You Are The Problem

In the movie Gaslight, the husband sets up a plan to get his wife to think she is crazy. This is where the phrase “gaslighting” comes from. Narcs gaslight nonstop. The narc husband tells her she left the car engine running. She says “No, I didn’t.” He then points to the car, and she sees the engine is running. Confused, she can’t understand how that happened. (It happened because the narc went out and started the car). Then, he’ll tell her the dentist appointment is at “10:00 a.m.,” and the next day, at 8:30, say, “The appointment is at 9:00 a.m., why aren’t you ready?” You respond, “You said it was at 10.” The narc says, “No, I told you the appointment with the vet was at 10, and you got them confused.” This is really how narcs think!

c) They Point Out Your Mistakes, Even When You Didn’t Make Them

During the devaulation phase, the narc starts pointing out your mistakes, or starts creating trouble over nothing. There is a “correct” way to eat steak, only “idiots” watch football, your friends are “morons,” you failed to cook the steak correctly, etc. The narc is deliberately creating negative energy in you because the positive fuel you once gave is now drying up.

d) The Silent Treatment

These demented assholes feed off of energy, both positive and negative. While they prefer positive energy from you – where you say how great they are – they’ll take negative energy too, as it is “supply” or “fuel” for their sick minds. The use of the silent treatment is meant to put you on edge. You’ll think, “What did I do wrong?” “What happened?” “What did I say?” The narc demon takes delight in your discomfort, and draws fuel from your hurt and confused look, and your emotional reaction. The narc loves giving you the silent treatment. They want you to feel upset, angry or anxious.

e) Passive Aggressive Behavior

In addition to the silent treatment, the narc gets off on being passive aggressive. They ask if you want coffee, only to give it to you cold. They offer to pick up your kids from school, only to tell the teacher you couldn’t pick up your kids because you felt hungover. The narc tells you about a “great job” at another company that they know is a shitty place to work with no advancement, just to derail your career and make your life a living hell. The narc only does things for you because it helps them, not you.

Phase 3 Of The Narc Demon – Discard

The narc eventually grows tired of you. The positive fuel you once emitted is gone, and the negative fuel doesn’t pack much punch. Your narc is now on to a new source of narcissistic supply, and is busy love-bombing your friend, while telling your friend what an awful person you were, while lying about things you never said about your friend. The discard phase happens when the narc has locked up new (and “better”) supply from somewhere else.

The Narc And Litigation

A direct frontal attack against a narc during cross-examination is usually a mistake, except where you can pin them down to “yes” or “no” answers. The narc doesn’t back down too much, and has an answer for everything. The narc is braced to fight back. They have outward supreme confidence. Taking the narc head-on and getting pissed off at them during cross-examination is a serious mistake. They are not wired correctly, so they “take” the positive fuel (compliments) and negative fuel/supply (anger) and drink it up. Normal people start to shut down after a constant barrage, but the narcissist continues with the fight. When the narc thinks they have the upper hand, or thinks you are “losing,” they smile and smirk at you. When you nail them, they will know it. In those moments, a blank stare comes across their face, followed by “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know” answers. Continue pressing. When given the “I don’t remember” answers, or the “I believe….” or “It’s my understanding….” tell them, “Great, you don’t recall. The reporter has recorded that as your answer under oath. At trial, you will not be allowed to now testify to this, since you don’t remember today, then you cannot now remember at trial!” The narc will once again get that look of bewilderment, meaning you are scoring hits.

Step 1: Remove All Emotion From Your Cross-Examination Questions

The narc feeds off emotional energy. Starve them of this energy, and you defeat the narc. Do not use emotional tactics or questions. Keep it neutral and robotic. Do not show anger, sorrow, hurt or surprise. The narc uses up energy through answering questions (as does any person), but will NOT get renewed energy from the fight, since no fight is being offered! It works magically.

Step 2: Inflict Narcissistic Injury!

Getting key admissions requires inflicting narcissistic injury, which is very easy! Narcissists are thin-skinned and highly sensitive to even the slightest criticism. They are paranoid, and on guard. Narcs get pissed off when you IGNORE them, when you INSULT them, when you QUESTION THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, when you make them feel UNIMPORTANT and when you call out their bragging as IRRELEVANT. Like the emotional toddlers that they are, continued “hits” to their fake persona pushes them into full blown narcissistic RAGE. They act just like the four year old kicking and screaming on the supermarket floor when he can’t get candy.

One narc I battled (because I didn’t realize she was a narc) seemed to enjoy the barrage of questions I hurled her way. Her brother said, “You need to understand that she likes it when you get angry with her.” I then switched gears, and inflicted narcissistic injury, to test whether she as a narc. She was. The shift in the deposition was noticeable. She was now confused, and lost her confidence. Attacking her directly was a mistake.

Use Their “Intelligence” Against Them

Narcs will tell you that they are highly intelligent, and will often brag about being smarter than you. When you speak to a narc, they have a bemused face of “How dare you think you are on my level.” Use this smugness against them. Play into it. Go along with their premise that they are smarter than you. Allow them to think they can talk their way out of anything. Open up with softball questions to “confirm” what an idiot you are. Later, you pin them down on minute details. Keep track of those details, and then confront them when they forget their lies and get confused.

Examples Of Inflicting Narcissistic Injury

During the questioning, ask them about anything, then follow up with sarcasm. You could start with their academic achievements. “So, you graduated from UCLA?” Narc: “Yes, I graduated with a degree in Physical Education.” “Oh, so you chose one of the easy majors.” They won’t like that. Narcs, more than others, begin to ignite with such questions. “Did you get bad grades at UCLA, you know, C’s and D’s?” Narc: “Why is this relevant?” “Well, I’ll take your refusal to answer as a ‘Yes.'” “I will repeat the question……” Then ask again. Then ask if they were on academic probation, etc. Get them to brag about their work accomplishments, and then find reason to criticize it. “It shows here you were an office manager.” Narc: “Yes.” “And you were the office manager for several years, I see.” Narc: “Yes.” Now comes the injury: “Most jobs with the title of ‘office manager’ means that you worked alone in a one-person office. Is that what happened to you?” “So you weren’t invited to the concert?” Narc: “No.” (fuming) “These things happen to you regularly, correct?” Narc: “No!” “I am sorry, what is your name again?” You get the idea. These questions prevent the narcissist from gaining control over the deposition, and allow you to get the information you are looking for. Once you hit pay dirt with a narc, they get really pissed off, and start saying all kinds of things because nobody is allowed to mess with their fake image.

In defense of themselves, they will start spewing out all sorts of information. In the interim, they are getting angrier and angrier. Like a bomb with a short fuse, they suddenly explode.

Avoid The Narcissist’s Traps – They Love Playing The Victim.

The narc doesn’t believe in the truth. They are liars of the first division. They will refuse to answer your questions, while “projecting” your “bad behavior” back on to you. This is the weird quirk of a narcissist. They always play the victim. The narc turns the conversations back on to you, and something you have done, which is the basis for their blame. The narc could have been the one who left the keys in the ignition (probably on purpose), so that your car got stolen. You confront them: “I told you to never leave the keys in the ignition.” Narc: “Why are you yelling at me? Why are you so mean and cruel?” See the blame shift? The narc turns it around and questions your behavior toward them, while ignoring that they caused your car to be stolen. They never apologize, and instead lie about you, how you acted, etc. Narcs never accept responsibility, and think the rules don’t apply to them.

During cross-examination, the narc blames your client for everything that happened. They have rehearsed these lies many times, and even recruit people to back up their lies. You can use the victim blaming to draw out their “defenses” to what they did, which is useful, but do not allow them to control the questioning. The narc probably spent many hours perfecting their answers, looks and responses well before the deposition or hearing. They are practiced liars.

If you have made it this far, get out of any “relationship” with a narc. These toxic assholes leave you feeling emotionally drained, and demand everything from you while giving you nothing in return. Block them, and go no-contact. If contact is necessary, keep it in writing and at a bare minimum and without any emotional reactions.

January 28, 2019April 3, 2024

Be Careful When Firing Off That Bad Review Or Fake Review On Yelp Or Google: You Can Be Sued For Defamation. By: Patrick J. D’Arcy, Irvine, Attorney

Thinking of Slinging Mud With A Bad Review On Yelp? Brace Yourself For Nasty Litigation.

Let’s say you go to a restaurant, and the service is terrible. I mean, really bad. It took two hours to get your pizza, it was cold, and the waiter was rude as hell. You decide to leave a 1 star review, and write the following:

“Horrible experience. I hated the place. It took 3 hours to get my pizza, and it had a dozen dead cockroaches in it, and the waiter called me a “jackass,” challenged me to a fight, and then called my wife a whore. I told the manager about it, and she called me an “idiot” and a liar.”

Now, some things you say are pure opinion, and not defamatory. There is no such thing as a defamatory opinion, but there are defamatory facts. Saying you “hated the place” cannot be proven true or false, as it is your opinion. You could have liked it until now. Warning – saying something is “just my opinion” isn’t likely to save you. If you say, “In my opinion, Gary is a liar,” you have admitted facts by implication, which means you defamed him. You can’t save your defamatory statements by calling it your opinion.

Insults vs. Defamation – Insults Can Still Get You Sued

Like everything else, the law has a lot of exceptions. Generally, insults can’t result in any damages, unless you say something outrageous to a young child, or a person with a medical condition, etc. While you could be sued for anything, being sued for an insult can result in the case being dropped. Calling someone a “jackass” is an insult, and doesn’t count as defamation. Things change when you call a woman “a whore” – that is defamation per se (automatic defamation, unless of course, she is, then you have the “truth” defense). Same with calling someone “a liar.” Unless they are a liar, that too is defamation. False facts will get you into trouble. Saying you waited “3 hours” (when it was 2) is a false fact, as are stating that there were “cockroaches” in the pizza. You can be sued for falsely implying something negative: “Isn’t this diner subject to health regulations?” Well it’s a question, and not a statement, the “take away” isn’t good.

The restaurant gets wind of this post, and pulls up the videotape to show you lied, and then sues you for defamation. A good defamation lawyer will get you into instant trouble. Your recourse could be to file an anti-SLAPP motion – a motion that says what you did was essentially free speech on a public issue. That will not hold for false facts and false implications that harm the restaurant. Those will be disputed facts, so you lose the motion. The Court when viewing the evidence essentially gives the win to restaurant for facts in dispute for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP motion. If you win the anti-SLAPP, the case is over and you’re done. You also get your legal fees. In the interim, your hastily posted review has burned you for at least $10K in legal fees.

California Has A One-Year Statute of Limitation For Defamation

If more than one year has elapsed since the post went up, you are in the clear in California (unless it was published in a seldom or archaic journal that is not publicly accessible). They only have one year to bring the defamation claim.

Even though I have experienced terrible service, or even gross shit (such as a waiter coughing and sneezing right on a table with dishes), I do not write bad reviews. The legal trouble – which I could deal with as a trial lawyer – is not worth it. Your bad review could mean two or more years of legal wrangling, plus the potential damage award and the legal fees that pile up. There’s nothing wrong with informing the manager, and then kindly inform them that you are not going on Yelp to make the matter public. You will see a sigh of relief on the manager’s part. Legitimate businesses really want to do the right things, and see you come back as a customer. Bad reviews, especially FAKE ONES inflict damage on a restaurant’s reputation. Rather than “Yelp” them, see if you can calmly tell the manager what happened. I am positive they’ll want to fix the problem. And if you are nice about it, and not there to nuke the place, you’ll get even better service when you show up next time.

Now, are there exceptions? Sure. If I saw restaurant employees spitting in food, I’d sure as hell write a bad review. Otherwise, if you are going to leave a bad review, leave out the person’s name (because you add more plaintiffs against you). When you say “Brenda at The Musty Bucket Of Chicken….,” you have defamed Brenda and the Musty Bucket. That’s two defamation lawsuits. My point is that leave bad reviews for those times when it is really deserved. And, when you mention an employee’s name at the store, understand the emotional trauma you put upon that person. Each day that review is up, she is reminded of what you said, probably got into trouble as well, and feels embarrassed. You have the power to hurt people with bad reviews. Exercise that discretion wisely or you could wind up a defendant in a lawsuit, and calling a guy like me to figure how to get you out of trouble. Or, the restaurant owner will call a guy like me and tell me to sue you.

February 2, 2018April 3, 2024

The Law School Scam – You Won’t Know Anything About Being A Lawyer – By Patrick J. D’Arcy

My name is Patrick J. D’Arcy, and I am a trial lawyer in Irvine, California. After more than a decade of handling cases, jury trials and everyday litigation, I wanted to give an honest perspective to those considering law school, and what litigation (and being a lawyer) is like. For some, it’s the right call. For many others, it is a ticket to non-dischargeable student loan debt and years of financial misery. There’s too many lawyers, and not enough good-paying jobs. All I’m saying is to make an informed choice. Law schools are now feeling the pinch, as fewer applicants apply. The law schools will be forced to market themselves more aggressively, since as a business, they must survive by putting asses in seats. The law professors working at these law schools have seen the layoffs, and to remain employed, will push the narrative about how law school will open up a veritable choice of great careers. Without asses in seats, they lose their jobs. What this tells me is that capitalism works, even if the legal educational system does not.

This blog is my contribution to the marketplace of ideas. If you have a burning desire to work long hours under great stress, deal with serious issues and solve problems, then the law is for you. I come from this without an agenda other than to provide you with information from “the inside.”

While I attack the law professors generally, I want to clarify that it is aimed at: 1) those without relevant experience who instead teach; 2) their stubborn adherence to a “learning model” that penalizes and stifles learning through the “Socratic Method,” the time-honored tradition of wasted time through open-ended questions between the “law professor” and the students; 3) and this horrible lie put out by law schools that their primary responsibility is to “teach you to think like a lawyer” rather than to teach how to be a lawyer.

I’ve met great law professors who have real-world experience, and then bring that experience into the classroom. Then, there are the others: pure academics without real experience who teach to those with even less. Legal education in its present form – sucks.

Patrick J. D’Arcy’s Blog Is Featured In The University of South Dakota Law Review And Other Websites

Apparently my “contribution” is pissing off law professors (and their cush lifestyle) – in a big way. Jonathan Van Patten, a law professor at the University of South Dakota, wrote a law review article (“Skills For Law Students” 61. S.D.L. Rev. 165 (2016)), which prominently quoted my blog, and my criticism (or attack) on legal “education.” In fact, my blog looks to be the centerpiece of his article. He never contacted me about being “featured” in his magnum opus (which he admittedly didn’t have to do). But, it is kind of weird to not even inform me that I am about to be the subject of discussion in the legal community. You’d think he would understand that point. I doubt it had anything to do with an urgent deadline, since law professors don’t look too busy to me.

Law Review Articles Are Mostly Worthless Reading By Academics, For Academics. Trial Lawyers Ignore These Articles (Except To Criticize Them)

Few people read these law review articles, and even fewer people care what is written in them. Having written hundreds of motions, I can tell you that a law review article being used as persuasive authority in a brief is pretty rare. Umm, wait a second. You are a law student applicant, right? Then, I apologize, I am using terms you won’t know the meanings of. A “motion” is effectively a request for the Court to “move” on something, such as moving the Court to make an order. I am now going to tell you something you’ll never learn in law school – a motion must be by way of notice (there are exceptions), and depending on your state’s rules, heard at least 16 court days later (not calendar days), plus five calendar days more for mailing, two business days for FedEx, and no extra days delay for personal service. When a motion is filed, a trial lawyer first checks to see if proper notice was given. If not, then the motion can be temporarily defeated on those grounds. In response to a motion, the other side files an “opposition,” and then you file a “reply” to that opposition. Ok, back to the story….

Rarer still (in fact, about as rare as discovering a 10 legged moose) is a Court’s citation to a law review article for any authority at all. I’d feel ridiculous if, during oral argument, I told the judge about this “great law review article” that is on-point. Law review articles – like the schools from which they reside – largely take a smattering of cases and concepts from different jurisdictions, and there is a standing rule that you NEVER cite to out of state jurisdiction (since it isn’t binding). Even then, the judge will be sure to do his own legal research, and figure you to be a dolt if you can’t find at least one case from your state that addresses the issue.

My article was circulated at another law school (Lewis & Clarke). Here’s a link to this very informative law review article, and you’ll notice that the law professor takes aim at me right out of the gate (starting on the top of page 2). Van Patten Skills for Law Students_stamped

The good professor quoted me with an obvious disdain for my thoughts and beliefs (page 2, footnote 6), which he is certainly entitled to do:

“As a trial lawyer, I am constantly reviewing the latest cases (as other lawyers do). We NEVER refer to our casebooks or our lecture notes to help us out. They are irrelevant. To prove what BS the “Socratic Method” is (the main learning device used by law schools), watch how fast these same “law professors” simply give you the information during a condensed bar review session, when they did nothing of the sort during your time in law school. Explain to me how the Socratic Method fosters learning when the “law professor” leads a class filled with students with no background in the subject, and peppers them with open-end questions chock full of wrong answers. All that results is mass confusion. What a huge waste of time. If medical schools worked this way, the doctors would have no practical training. Instead, they put them on rotations, and the professors are practicing surgeons. Not law schools- they put someone in charge who typically couldn’t hack it in court. Law schools are fine with it. They graduate functional idiots who do not know how to draft a complaint, take a deposition, know the rules of evidence, serve a complaint, file motions, etc. I learned all of this for the first time after I graduated. Law school is an extended liberal arts education. I tell you this so you can be aware of the problem you will encounter thinking graduating from law school is enough to start your own practice. When law schools speak of”practical training,” just do what I do and laugh your ass off.”

Be sure to read his criticisms of what I wrote. I’m trying my best to get at least 200 people to read this article outside of the law school itself.

I can understand why Professor Van Patten is upset. My blog (and those of other trial attorneys who actually earn a living practicing law) are unmasking legal academia and a threat to their livelihood. We have crossed over to the other side, and see what is wrong with legal education. You would think intelligent people such as law professors would just immediately reinvent themselves to address their failings. Nope. They have an agenda of self-preservation.

Law Schools Need To Replace Decaying Faculty Without Practical Experience With Trial Lawyers And Judges

Imagine if the law schools actually did something revolutionary, and started hiring trial lawyers to teach Civil Procedure, Torts, Contracts, Real Estate (Property), etc., and fire the law professors who lacked legal skills, teach from stale books, and get their hard-earned pay asking law students such thought provoking questions, “And, what do you think about Stacy’s answer?” The first thing we’d do is toss your useless casebooks – an archaic invention of old cases cobbled together and put into one book. About 200 years ago some law professor figured it would be a great idea to assemble cases together from different fields to increase learning. The world has moved on – we are searching for cases (for our jurisdiction) on line with Lexis, Westlaw, etc. Next, we will make the law students spend several hours per week working with outside attorneys to learn about the job, under the tutelage of real lawyers.

Imagine this scenario – the law school hires people like me to teach Civil Procedure (which are the rules of litigation in state and federal court, each with their own specific rules), Evidence (something we live and breathe in court), Torts (the personal injury lawyers will line up to teach this), Contracts (litigation attorneys are always suing over breach of contract claims), etc. You get the idea. Bringing in trial lawyers and practicing attorneys would create a healthy chaos – the students will be forced to actually learn something. The typical “law professor” has been out of circulation for many years (or never been in circulation in the first place). A problem with my approach (although a huge improvement over the current system), is that today’s practicing attorneys will get “stale” in their skills, and start to fall off the wagon. Rules and procedures change.

Professor Van Patten’s Resume Fails To List Actual Trial Experience

I don’t know Professor Van Patten. However, when I reviewed his resume, I didn’t see anything about jury trials, cases he won, notable appellate victories, etc., which is something I argued in my blog regarding law professor qualifications. http://www.usd.edu/faculty-and-staff/Jonathan-VanPatten Perhaps there is a different resume which lists this stuff? If so, great. Then get on board with me!!

What I did see (and what I ironically complained about in my blog) were articles that law professors churn out like Professor Van Patten’s important work, “Storytelling For Lawyers.” This title is up there with the movie, Bedtime For Bonzo. I did mention in my critique that law professors are driven to put out such articles, rather than solve real-world problems facing real lawyers. I will allow the good professor to show me his litigation experience, and I am fairly hopeful he has some. I would think that he does.

Professor Van Patten takes a few pot shots at me (and that’s ok). But his criticisms are ineffective and ironic. For instance, he chides me by stating: “Don’t trust a trial lawyer who uses ALL CAPS or snarky quotations to make a point.” Well, Professor Van Patten, YOU used ALL CAPS throughout your headings to make your points, right? And if you equate a lack of trust in a trial lawyer with the use of the ALL CAPS approach, then you’ll need to exclude A LOT of lawyers.

If you wrote briefs, you would notice that ALL CAPS is for headings (as you used in your article) or for emphasis. Besides, the comparison is illogical. What does ALL CAPS have to do with honesty and knowledge about trial law? As for using ALL CAPS, we do this ALL THE TIME (just sparingly). Another thing, Jonathan, your writing style is patterned and predictable.

Jonathan Van Patten says not to “confuse” the “third and fourth years” of medical school and their “four years of residency” with “the first two years of law school.” Actually, I’m not confused at all. You are. You see, there are only three years of law school, so years two and three (not one and two) are for the “advanced” training of the law students. In medical school, the “advanced training” takes place after the first year as well (but they actually learn how to be doctors). It’s an analogy that was lost on you.

My Observations (Criticisms) Of Professor Van Patten’s Law Review Article.

More Is Less – Trial And Appellate Courts Want Brevity, Not Long-Winded Articles That Fill Up Space

Point 1: This law review article is too long, and bores me. A judge and her clerk (if it were a brief) would be pissed reading this. A practicing lawyer knows that all briefs have page limits (including rules on font size, spacing and pagination). Long winded articles (or briefs) are ineffective, unimpressive, and cause the reader to lose focus on the important points. Excessive footnotes take away from the art of persuasion. Effective writers know when to scrap arguments for brevity and clarity. Law professors tend to think that a weighty and lengthy article is impressive, when a busy judge thinks just the opposite. The attitude of the court system is if it takes you a long time to make your points then you haven’t thought them through. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the 43 page appellate brief I filed to defend my trial court victory, but that’s because it dealt with 13 witnesses.

Law School Courses Are Not “Foundational,” But A Foundation Of Ignorance

Point 2. Van Patten argues that first year courses are “foundational.” Huh? What the hell does that even mean? A foundation of ignorance? Practicing lawyers know to avoid ambiguity in their phrases. Storytelling For Lawyers, based upon the ambiguous title, could be, for all I know, Professor Van Patten’s attempt to cure lawyer insomnia by presenting a series of really boring cases for required reading at night. I mean, any time you can get your hands on a toxic tort case where the amount of phenylananline bifurcate 23 diboxyl exceeds 0.1 deciliters per nonliter, and the thousands of pages of data by EPA scientists in dispute with their published results, you are sure to be snoring loudly by page three. I’m not going to lie, a “good” case will do that and get you off your sleeping meds quickly. The first-year courses are taught so as to block learning, ok? The “foundation” is really more like a wall of professionally prescribed ignorance.

Professor Van Patten Cites To A 1965 Study That Legal Education Sucks.

Point 3. Van Patten cites to a 1965 article stressing the failure of legal education. He makes my point for me: 50 years is enough time to know when something isn’t working. The problem is that change will only occur in legal education when the “law professor” agrees to give up his cush lifestyle to benefit the students. But asking a law professor to sacrifice for the greater good is, well, as the last 50 years has shown, not going to happen. In 2065, a new “law professor” will write yet another useless law review article citing to Van Patten, and argue that legal education needs revamping.

Watch This Youtube Video Of A Law Professor Speaking To A Law School Graduate Working At A Gas Station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhjhHuMKqgs

We Need Law Review Articles Of Value

What practicing lawyers secretly dread are the undiscovered cases out there that doom their position. In federal court, I represented a Burger King franchisee in a hotly disputed real estate lease case, where the landlord wanted $450K in damages. I won the case because – surprise – I didn’t turn to my casebook, call my law professor or review my notes from law school. Instead, I did what real lawyers do – research on Westlaw and Lexis and found a recently handed down case that destroyed the other side. Van Patten says about me, “Don’t trust a trial lawyer who uses ALL CAPS or snarky quotation marks to make a point….” Well, Mr. Van Patten, trust this – I filed Rule 12b(6) (that’s Civil Procedure Rule 12b(6)) challenges and got the owners and four of the six claims against their company dismissed, and then dismissed the case through a seldom used Rule 56 opposition to their motion for summary judgment (a motion to end the case in their favor without the need for a trial). My clients never even appeared at one hearing. I never learned any of that shit in law school. Incredibly, when I started work at Sheppard Mullin in Orange County upon graduation, I didn’t even know what an “opposition” or a “reply” was. Thanks for your observations, but my clients trust me. And this isn’t “Rate My Professor” type shit. These are real world problems that are serious and in need of resolution. If my clients thought I sucked as a lawyer, you can be damn sure I’d be out of business. This rule doesn’t apply to law professors – no matter how little information you impart, you get paid and work few hours to do it. None of this is real world.

Could you have obtained such a result – full dismissal? My actions saved them $450K in damages and perhaps $400K more in legal fees (including, had the other side won, potentially $500K in attorneys fees added to the $450K they sought). In other words, the $450K damage claim, had we gone to trial and lost, was really about $1.4 million, and against the owners personally. Instead, they got out for about $50K in legal fees. How about the $3.7 million jury verdict I just obtained on a complex stock fraud case where I single-handedly represented 22 plaintiffs, and did the direct, re-direct, cross and 776 examinations for every witness, including the defense expert, a person with 40 years of experience and over 400 trials under his belt? I got their expert to admit my clients were defrauded. Do you realistically think that you would stand any chance at all against me if we faced off in open court – assuming you have limited or no trial experience? While law professors perfect their law review articles, I am working hard figuring out how evidence could be excluded, the missing evidence needed to prove my claims, how to trap witnesses at depositions, what questions not to ask a fact witness, etc. How many law graduates could handle any part of this with a worthless legal education? And again, in fairness to the professor, if he has “real world” litigation experience, then I completely respect him for it. However, then why is he fighting my suggestions?

Law School Graduates Are Being Ripped Off When They Learn How To Become A Lawyer After Spending $200K On Their Education.

Point 4. Van Patten cites (correctly, which makes my point again) that law firms (and not law schools) are the training grounds for new lawyers. Law firms simply charge $350 hour for me (in 2006) to learn on the job. I spent a fortune on my legal education and was a functional idiot upon graduation. The top litigation firms give the scut work to the new lawyers, such as tracking down documents, writing memos, and doing basic research, while charging the client a fortune. Then, that work gets reviewed by a more senior associate (at a higher billing rate). Besides the firm itself, who actually benefits from this? Not the customer. The “law professors” put me (and all graduates) in the embarrassing situation of having to get real questions from clients, and not having any idea how to answer them. Oh, that’s right, I was still taught “how to think like a lawyer,” just not how to be one. Got it. Picture a real world situation – I had to defend a client on federal mail and wire fraud charges, involving millions of dollars. A conviction on one charge alone could land him a 20 year sentence. A law school graduate – who holds a doctorate – that cannot do basic legal work is hardly better off than the person seeking the help. Thinking like lawyer means absolutely nothing when a client looks at you with, “Is any of this registering, or should I go elsewhere?”

Law Schools As Trade Schools? Yes!

Point 5. I agree with Professor Van Patten that law schools must function more like trade schools. The three years of “instruction” needs to be three active years of actually learning by doing. As it stands now, law students sit in the class room, tune out, and listen to a lecture that has no value.

But, Law Schools “Teach You To Think Like A Lawyer,” Right? BULLSHIT. Teach Us Instead To Be Lawyers.

Point 6. Well, Mr. Van Patten, like those who drink the Kool-Aid of academia for too long, gets back to the tired line, “…law school is ultimately not about information. It is primarily about how to think like a lawyer. No lie.” Actually, that’s the biggest damn lie that law schools put out. I am not calling Mr. Van Patten a liar. He is entitled to his opinion. If this is his belief, well, good for him. Of course, the disaster that is legal education (cranking out functional idiots without any skills) should be proof that Van Patten is wrong. But, he doesn’t walk in our shoes. Instead, as a law professor, he drives from his home, gets to the office twice per week, works six hours (per week) or so teaching courses, and then plans his weekend, with large breaks of time in between. He, like law professors in general, will work hard a couple a days a semester grading exams, but people doing document review have it much worse, and it’s every day (for lower pay). The ABA has a rule on teaching loads, so it’s not his fault he must work so few hours per week. Like I said, it’s a great job! I don’t recall him addressing this aspect of his working lifestyle in the law review article.

Professor Van Patten Admits That You Won’t Know Much When You Get Your Law Degree – A Doctorate, No Less. Thanks!

Point 7. Professor Van Patten goes off the rails again, with “It is an important skill to recognize one’s lack of knowledge, to recognize what one does not know and to figure out a way to understand and integrate new information.” First, as the lovely Marisa Tomei stated so eloquently in My Cousin Vinny (in response to Joe Pesci saying “I’ll learn as I go”), “Learn as you go?” How do you know what it is that you don’t know.” That’s right, Marisa. Checkmate. I can tell you from first-hand experience, that you won’t know what you don’t know, at least not initially. In law school, I knew nothing about law and motion practice, the 16 court days advance notice (with five calendar days for mailing, etc.). When a motion landed on my desk, I was like, “Uh, what do I do?” I remember reading it a few times (since I learned to “think like a lawyer”), but I was a total dud on what to do in response. So, I “Googled” “motion” and learned a lot of things. Then I had senior associates telling me what NOT to do, and finally, a partner, who scrapped all of my work and started over. Yeah, law school education is so great.

I won’t re-read and analyze this article any further, I have to get back to actual work.