The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama turned a mundane procedural dispute into an unexpected lesson in professionalism, ordering opposing counsel to share a lunch and discuss how to uphold civility throughout the case.

The plaintiff's counsel was ordered to pay for the meal, while the defendants' counsel was instructed to leave the tip. The court further required both parties to file a joint report within ten days of the meeting, detailing the conversation and specifying the tip amount. As stated in the order:

“Further, the court ORDERS that, on or before December 31, 2024, counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants are to go to lunch together. Plaintiff's counsel will pay the bill; Defendants’ counsel will leave the tip. The parties will discuss how they can act professionally throughout the rest of this case. Within ten (10) days of the lunch, the parties SHALL file a joint report describing the conversation that occurred at lunch and the amount of the tip."

This directive arose in the context of a dispute where the defendants had filed a motion to extend the deadline for their responsive pleading. The plaintiff's counsel opposed the extension, conditioning their consent on a promise that the defendants would not file a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint. The court found this condition inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly as it coincided with the Thanksgiving holiday.

In its order, the court sharply criticized the plaintiff’s stance, describing it as "wholly inappropriate" and stating that such behavior "wastes time, damages professional relationships, and makes the lawyer withholding consent (or conditioning it) appear petty and uncooperative." It further observed that denying or conditioning procedural extensions rarely offers any strategic benefit, instead fostering unnecessary conflict and undermining the principles of professionalism.

The court’s frustration was evident as it reminded counsel of their ethical obligations. It invoked the "Golden Rule," emphasizing that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The court expressed concern over a growing trend in which attorneys fail to extend basic courtesies in procedural matters, noting that such "petty gamesmanship" detracts from the merits of a case.

The ordered lunch was a practical attempt to bridge the gap between opposing counsel and encourage a more collaborative approach to litigation. As the court aptly concluded, "Professionalism demands that lawyers pick their battles wisely, and minor extension requests simply are not the place for unnecessary posturing."

Court Order of the United States District Court, Alabama