Silly Lawyer Tricks XXIV. There are appropriate places for a haiku or to quote Bugs Bunny, but an appellate brief is not one of them

• Author: Tom Donlon
• Pages: 16-20

Appellate Practice

Summer 2021, Vol. 40 No. 3

© 2021 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be

copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent

of the American Bar Association.

16

June 03, 2021

Silly Lawyer Tricks XXIV

There are appropriate places for a haiku or to quote Bugs

Bunny, but an appellate brief is not one of them.

By Tom Donlon

Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. Bennett, 989 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2021)

The full title of this case, which identifies the defendants as “Judges of the Tennessee Court

of Appeals” is an early indication that something odd is going on. As the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lays out the history of the case, that is strikingly confirmed.

The matter began with a Tennessee state court action involving the dissolution of a

partnership. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s result, the losing partner (Strong) fired her

original attorney and hired the Parrish Firm to bring a malpractice action. The Parrish

Firm’s performance had its own issues, including failing to comply with the deadline to

identify experts, which ultimately led to summary judgment against Strong.

In the interim, Parrish, the attorney, convinced Strong to assign some of her rights in the

original dissolution action. Id. at 454 (citing Larry E. Parrish P.C. v. Strong, 2018 WL

6843402 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018)). Subsequently, the Parrish Firm filed suit against Strong to

enforce the assignment, and Strong cross-claimed for malpractice. Strong eventually

recovered almost $2.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, a three-

judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, after noting that “the procedural nightmare

and associated complications of this litigation cannot be overstated,” affirmed. Strong, 2018

WL 6843402, at *1. The Tennessee Court of Appeals “made factual statements that

[Parrish’s] claims were false.” Bennett, 989 F.3d at 455. There followed “a string of appeals

and dilatory motions concerning the same underlying case.” Id. During these proceedings,

two judges of the Tennessee Court of Appeals referred Parrish to the Board of Professional

Responsibility “after concluding that he had made statements impugning the integrity of

the Tennessee legal system.” Id. at 455 n.1.

Undeterred, in 2020—15 years after Strong retained it—the Parrish Firm brought an

action in federal court. It claimed that the Tennessee judges had denied the firm a fair trial,

in violation of due process, and access to justice, in violation of equal protection. Id. at 455.

The district court dismissed the action based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and on lack

of jurisdiction. Id. at 455–56. The district court also granted attorney fees against Parrish,

finding he “had not met his obligation to review relevant law before filing suit” and “had