Here’s a news flash for you: Judges don’t like it when lawyers can’t get along. And when judicial intervention is sought to resolve minor procedural issues, judges get even more frustrated with the lack of professionalism exhibited by one or both sides in a case. Judges tend to vent that frustration in different ways. Fortunately for us, Chief Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Eastern Division) recently decided to express his feelings in an entertaining and down-to-earth order, directing the two quarreling attorneys to go to lunch together.

The facts are pretty straightforward. In the case of McCullers v. Koch Foods of Alabama, the defense counsel asked for an extension of the deadline to file an answer or responsive pleading. The plaintiff’s attorney conditioned any consent on the defense attorney’s agreement not to file a motion to dismiss. Unwilling to do so, the defendants’ lawyer filed an Opposed Motion to Extend the deadline. At this point, Chief Judge Proctor stepped in. In a Nov. 26 order, he observed that such a condition to be a routine extension was “wholly inappropriate” and amounted to “nonsense” that “wastes time, damages professional relationships, and makes the lawyer withholding consent (or conditioning it) appear petty and uncooperative.” As Chief Judge Proctor described, the Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—is “a critical component of legal professionalism.” To deny or condition consent to an extension, he added, “rarely provides any legitimate strategic advantage” and is just “fiddle faddle” that “stinks of petty gamesmanship.” Not surprisingly, Chief Judge Proctor granted the extension requested.