John G. Browning, a Partner at Spencer Fane LLP. (Courtesy photo)

At a time when people are battling a global pandemic and coping with the "new normal" of social distancing and working from home (if you're still working), it helps to keep things in perspective. If you don't, you might get a reminder from someone like District Judge Steven Seeger of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, who issued a blunt rebuke to a plaintiffs lawyer seeking a TRO to halt sales of knockoff unicorn and dragon art.

Seeger reminded the lawyer that, "The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not." Seeger's benchslap went on to call the plaintiff's proposed order "bloated" and "insensitive to others in the current environment."

For the plaintiffs and their beloved fantasy art, the judge noted the importance of keeping "in perspective the costs and benefits of forcing everyone to drop what they're doing to stop the sale of a knock-off unicorn product, in the midst of a pandemic." Sick burn, judge; not since William Shatner exhorted an audience of "Star Trek" fans to "move out of your parents' basements" have so many geeks been read the riot act.

Of course, sometimes judges get creative with their benchslaps and borrow from pop culture. For instance, when it came time for Cleveland Court of Common Pleas Judge Nancy Fuerst to punish attorney Anthony Baker for contempt, she found inspiration from "The Simpsons."

Baker had engaged in what Judge Fuerst called "reprehensible" behavior during the February 2020 trial of a former police officer accused (and ultimately convicted) of assaulting his wife. He  had defied the judge's order to sit down at defense counsel's table to engage in what Fuerst described as a "tantrum." So she ordered him to write out, 25 times each, the following sentences: "I shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal or engage in undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal," and "I will not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or in any other conduct that adversely reflects on my fitness to practice law."

To help Baker absorb this Bart Simpson-like lesson, Fuerst also tacked on a $500 fine. This could give "sentencing" a whole new meaning.

When you're not a judge, sometimes you have to get creative when telling off opposing counsel. Sure, you could rant and throw down with obscure Latin phrases, but why not display the benefits of that great liberal arts education? That's what Vanessa Wu, general counsel of software company Rippling, decided to do when she received a cease and desist letter from a rival, Gusto, in response to claims made during a recent Rippling billboard advertising campaign.

Channeling her inner Shakespeare, Wu responded with a letter written entirely in iambic pentameter. She included such legal couplets as:

"Our billboard struck a nerve, it seems.

And so you phoned your legal teams,

who started shouting, 'Cease!' 'Desist!'

And other threats too long to list";

and

"Your brand is known for being chill.

So this just seems like overkill.

But since you think we've been unfair

We'd really like to clear the air";

and finally

"So Gusto, do not fear our sign.

Our mission and our goals align.

Let's keep this conflict dignified—

And let the customers decide."

But if your rhyme game needs work, or if you're missing "Game of Thrones" just a bit too much, you might be tempted to follow in the footsteps of 40 year-old David Zachary Ostrom. The Paola, Kansas, man made headlines recently for filing a motion in his ongoing custody battle with his ex-wife seeking a REALLY alternative form of dispute resolution: trial by combat.

Arguing that duels are still legal in the U.S., Ostrom claimed that, though his ex-wife's lawyer had "destroyed [him] legally," Ostrom wanted the court to give him the chance to meet the ex and lawyer Matthew Hudson "on the field of battle where [he] will rend their souls from their corporal [sic] bodies."

Ostrom asked the court for 12 weeks of "lead time" to procure or forge katana and wakizashi swords for the ritual combat. Hudson filed a response to the motion, pointing out that "Just because the United States and Iowa constitutions do not specifically prohibit battling another person with a deadly katana sword, it does prohibit a court sitting in equity from ordering same." Hudson also suggested that, in light of the whole "trial by combat" thing, that perhaps Ostrom should lose his visitation rights entirely and receive court-ordered psychotherapy.

So there you have it, folks. In these challenging times, keep some perspective, be kind to each other, and remember that we're all in this together. No matter how upset you may be over knock off unicorn art or toilet paper hoarding, don't challenge anyone to trial by combat. Send a nice email—maybe even in iambic pentameter.

John G. Browning is a Dallas-based attorney who handles a wide variety of civil litigation in state and federal courts.