So it all comes down to this: an apology and a bottle of wine.
What, no flowers? No chocolate?
And guess what — those vituperative responses was all borne from frustration:
B. The Responses Are the Product of Frustration. 14. Attorney Gleason’s responses are the product of frustration due in large part to the
Court’s mistaken conclusion that his client had assented, pursuant to an agreed order, to the turnover of his commission to the plan administrator. The proper method to seek redress in such circumstances is to file an appeal, which Attorney Gleason did. During the pendency of the appeal, which was filed on November 4, 2010, the Court issued the Show Cause Order and later submitted the order for publication with Westlaw. This unfortunate turn of events escalated what was initially perceived as a mere legal conflict into something more personal in nature. The Responses, while intentional, do not reflect a dishonest or selfish motive.
I see — the old “Westlaw-as-provocation” defense.
In other words, the judge should have kept quiet about the whole thing, but he had to go and blab about it to all our neighbors!