For those of you who were feeling especially bitter on Valentine's Day, don't worry; "Inside Legal Blogs" has got your back. Marriage isn't always all it's cracked up to be. For example, take this couple that was discussed on the Volokh Conspiracy. Apparently, their New York Times wedding announcement told the story of their fairytale meeting. The groom and bride met (and hooked up) in Vegas...and if that isn't romantic enough for you, when they met, the groom was married...and had been for 30 years. Say it with me people: "That's classy." I don't know if there's anything else in the world that would make you feel more like you're better off single than that story. (By the way, I swear I'm really not a bitter hag.)
Moving on to sarcasm that stems from a legal place, every litigator knows what it's like to be frustrated by a judge. So it's no surprise that judges are sometimes annoyed by...other judges. Such was the case in the case I read about on Law.com. Apparently, in a fit of frustration and rage, trial court judge XYZ referred to an appellate court as...a kangaroo court!?! Now, usually when I'm upset with someone, there are a few other words that come to my mind before "kangaroo." But that's just me...
And on a final note, on Practice Source, I read about more attorney antics. According to Practice Source, real estate attorney Rachel Bannikoff claims that she will name her unborn child after a law firm—for the right price, of course. Now, there are so many questions that came to my mind when I read this: Shouldn't attorneys be above these kinds of things? Why would anyone want to name their child after a law firm? Why would a law firm pay to have a child named after it? But for some questions, I guess there are just no answers. I'll leave you to ponder this one until next week!