Samsung attorney argued in court without proper license to practice

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It was discovered Thursday that Samsung lawyer Susan Estrich represented the company in Apple v. Samsung despite not having the proper license to practice law in the suit's jurisdiction of the Northern District of California, a mistake seen as yet another gaffe in the South Korean company's case management.

According to the case's official minutes, Estrich, a law professor at the University of Southern California and Fox News commentator, was part of Tuesday's hearing regarding evidence spoliation despite lacking a notice of appearance and more importantly not being admitted to the Northern District of California bar.

Presiding Judge Lucy Koh, in a previous order, said "ALL TRIAL LAWYERS must make appearances in this case and must be admitted in this District" (emphasis in order). While Estrich said she presented the so-called "me too" motion in good faith, the Court may still decide to sanction Samsung for the oversight.

Judge Paul Grewal first questioned the attorney on the matter, with Estrich subsequently confessing the court records were correct and takes full blame, saying that she thought she had already been admitted to the district since 1986. In actuality, Estrich is only licensed to practice in the Central District of California, notes Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, which generally comprises the greater Los Angeles area. To remedy the situation, the attorney "immediately applied for and [has] been admitted to practice before the District Court of the Northern District of California."

In her statement, Estrich wants "the Court not [to] hold these inadvertent omissions on [her] part against the merits of [her] client's case."

As far as her appearance on Tuesday is concerned, Estrich said her current law firm Quinn Emanuel asked her to argue the evidence spoliation claims on Saturday due to increased pressure on the team's other members. The adverse inference jury instruction claims Samsung is being held to evidence spoliation standards over the company's automatic e-mail deletion protocols, a system it argues is similar to e-mail deletion steps taken by Apple.

Estrich Appearance
Susan Estrich's notice of appearance on Thursday. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Samsung has been criticized for certain missteps including a recent "leak" of excluded trial documents to the press. John Quinn, the party's lead counsel, claimed the dissemination of the sensitive material was both legal and ethical.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 105
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member


    I couldn't help but chuckle a little bit. If Samsung wins this case, I'll be very surprised.  Not much going right so far...

  • Reply 2 of 105


    Could this potentially be grounds for a mistrial or make appeals easier for Samsung since their lawyer breached the law?

  • Reply 3 of 105


    Sounds like Samsung has the 3 Stooges for attorneys. Just end the trial now and give Apple what they want.

  • Reply 4 of 105


    This is like the Marx Brothers representing the Three Stooges...   I mean, Mongolians would call this a 'California Cluster F**k'

  • Reply 5 of 105
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,991member


    "Honest officer, I thought I had a license to drive this car here, I'll just go get one."


     


    One rule for the average Joe, why should there be another one for lawyers?

  • Reply 6 of 105
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,154member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bdkennedy View Post


    Sounds like Samsung has the 3 Stooges for attorneys. Just end the trial now and give Apple what they want.



     


    Two giant corporations with more money than they know what to do with. What did you expect anyway?

  • Reply 7 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post


    Could this potentially be grounds for a mistrial or make appeals easier for Samsung since their lawyer breached the law?



     


    Only Apple would have to move for a mistrial.   They can keep their powder dry on this round.  


     


    As for appeal... The only appeal would be Samsung firing current counsel and having new counsel raise the point that prior counsel was incompetent.  If not granted, then they have grounds to appeal that ruling.

  • Reply 8 of 105
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    The entire story of the trial would make for a spectacular buddy comedy movie, and it isn't even anywhere near done! Follow the exploits of the Samsung lawyers as they bumble their way through failure after failure, just stacking on the incompetence.


     


    It's like a pie truck crashing into an international clown convention. Horrible, but still hilarious.

  • Reply 9 of 105
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,415member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    It was discovered Thursday that Samsung lawyer Susan Estrich represented the company in Apple v. Samsung despite not having the proper license to practice law in the suit's jurisdiction of the Northern District of California.

     


    Uh...I don't get it...couldn't she just copy someone else's license???

  • Reply 10 of 105
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    It was discovered Thursday that Samsung lawyer Susan Estrich represented the company in Apple v. Samsung despite not having the proper license to practice law in the suit's jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. ...


     


    The other sites reporting this (yesterday) are saying that if true, it would cause the whole case to be collapsed and decided in Apple's favour.  I hope that's not true.  I want Apple to win, but to win on a technicality without the central issue being decided would be a bad thing for everyone really.  


     


    Also not mentioned in this article ... the lawyer in question is a Fox news commentator.  Can't make this stuff up!

  • Reply 11 of 105
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    ...


    It's like a pie truck crashing into an international clown convention. Horrible, but still hilarious.



     


    Or a guy dressed as a peanut being crushed to death by an Elephant. 

  • Reply 12 of 105
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bdkennedy View Post


    Sounds like Samsung has the 3 Stooges for attorneys. Just end the trial now and give Apple what they want.



    Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

  • Reply 13 of 105
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,991member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The entire story of the trial would make for a spectacular buddy comedy movie, and it isn't even anywhere near done! Follow the exploits of the Samsung lawyers as they bumble their way through failure after failure, just stacking on the incompetence.


     


    It's like a pie truck crashing into an international clown convention. Horrible, but still hilarious.



     


    Unless all this stuff is a tactical ploy to get this case to drag on as Samsung continues to make money selling stuff.


     


    Wouldn't a mistrial set things back a few more years?

  • Reply 14 of 105


    This is hilarious.  Totally an epic fail.  Curious to see what the android kids theory on this one will be. 

  • Reply 15 of 105
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,281member


    That wretch of a woman is a law professor at USC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but should she not be sanctioned and get her ABA status to practice law disabled until she complies?

  • Reply 16 of 105
    xrcxxrcx Posts: 117member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The entire story of the trial would make for a spectacular buddy comedy movie, and it isn't even anywhere near done! Follow the exploits of the Samsung lawyers as they bumble their way through failure after failure, just stacking on the incompetence.


     


    It's like a pie truck crashing into an international clown convention. Horrible, but still hilarious.



     


    Rofl, seriously though, Samsung is so pathetically hilarious that every time I read another of these articles in disbelief it feels more like im reading the onion than actual news, I have to stop and tell myself against my own intuition that this is actually real.


     


    How did this even make it to trial? Is anyone else here as awestruck at how lopsided and ridiculous this whole thing is? Even die hard samsung fans have to be struggling internally with supporting this nonsense.

  • Reply 17 of 105


    Samsung, a company full of lies and corruption. What can we expect? By the way, did you all see the Samsung copycat video on Conan O'Brien Show? It's really funny. 

  • Reply 18 of 105
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,293member
    boredumb wrote: »
    Uh...I don't get it...couldn't she just copy someone else's license???

    LMAO
  • Reply 19 of 105
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,293member
    That wretch of a woman is a law professor at USC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but should she not be sanctioned and get her ABA status to practice law disabled until she complies?

    I'd agree she should be seriously punished. Deportation to Korea would seem fitting! LOL
  • Reply 20 of 105
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    That wretch of a woman is a law professor at USC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but should she not be sanctioned and get her ABA status to practice law disabled until she complies?





    No.


     


     


    Quote:


    To remedy the situation, the attorney "immediately applied for and [has] been admitted to practice before the District Court of the Northern District of California."


Sign In or Register to comment.