Judges can be a testy sort. And lawyers can be the sort that sometimes test testy sorts. Here, in no particular order are a handful of cases from The Recorder's coverage over the past year where lawyers have tested jurists' patience.

'Stop With the Invective'

Administrative Law Judge Richard Clark this summer let lawyers from the U.S. Labor Department and Oracle Corp.'s outside counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe know that he was tired of their "confrontational" approach to meet and confers in the federal agency's pay-discrimination suit against the enterprise software giant.

"Whether intentional or not, the parties are shifting the responsibility to the court for resolving what appear to be issues well within their capabilities to figure out on their own," Clark wrote. The judge added: "I have mentioned this before—stop with the invective and contentious email communications, get on the phone or meet in person, and get these issues resolved."

A Choice Word Choice

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in March referred San Diego attorney Benjamin Pavone to the State Bar, finding that he committed misconduct and demonstrated gender bias by labeling the ruling of a female trial judge who denied him attorney fees as "succubustic." A succubus, the appellate court noted in a published opinion, is a demon who assumes female form and has sex with men in their sleep. The court wrote that it chose to publish the decision in part "to make the point that gender bias by an attorney appearing before us will not be tolerated, period."

Pavone, for his part, maintained that the trial court's ruling was based on the faulty conclusion that he'd fabricated billing records. "It is not reasonable to assume a self-respecting lawyer will stand for being unfairly accused and morally impugned and not fight back," he said in an email to The Recorder shortly after the appellate ruling was handed down.

Keep Confidential Material Confident or Face a Loss of Confidence

It's always nice to be called one of the "best lawyers in the country" by a judge, as Joseph Cotchett and Mark Molumphy were by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose back in May. But, given the context in which Davila paid the compliment, it was a bit less nice: a hearing on a sanctions motions against the two principals at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

Apple accused the two lawyers of violating a protective order in the case by quoting from documents labeled "highly confidential—attorneys' eyes only" in open court during the litigation accusing Apple of intentionally slowing data speeds for older iPhones.

Davila in June stopped short of removing Cotchett and Molumphy from the case as Apple asked. He did, however, say that the company's cost of bringing the sanctions motion would be deducted from any potential attorneys' fee awarded in the case and that Cotchett, who had read directly from the protected material, must get court permission before arguing any more motions in the case.

Getting Off on the Wrong Foot With the Judge

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria had plenty of problems with the opening statement that plaintiffs lawyer Aimee Wagstaff of Andrus Wagstaff gave in the first case to go to trial in the multidistrict litigation accusing Monsanto's Roundup herbicide of causing cancer. Chhabria repeatedly interrupted Wagstaff and said that she was deliberately violating his pretrial orders to stick to scientific evidence about whether Roundup causes cancer in humans in the first trial's phase. Chhabria held a hearing after the second day of trial to determine whether to sanction Wagstaff for what he said was a "premeditated" effort to defy court orders.

The judge ultimately sanctioned Wagstaff $500 for what he called "obvious violations" and forced the rest of the team of six lawyers who helped her prepare for openings to explain why they shouldn't face the same penalty. Chhabria later sanctioned Wagstaff's co-counsel, Jennifer Moore of the Moore Law Group, the same amount finding she "intentionally joined the bad faith conduct." After the sanction order was handed down, Moore said via email that the judge had "no legal or factual basis for sanctioning Ms. Wagstaff or me and we are considering our options."