Civil Trial Judge Excesses and Leo Strine’s AIG Slur

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Max Kennerly says:

    You’ve grossly misread the meaning of that quote.

    The question on a motion to dismiss is if the plaintiff’s alleged facts — assumed to be true — state a viable claim for relief. Strine’s point was that the facts alleged did far more than state a viable claim: they were so strong as to allege criminal activity. Strine was thus lambasting the defense lawyers for wasting the court’s time in filing a motion to dismiss that obviously could not be granted on the facts alleged.

    Do you think defense lawyers should be praised for filing frivolous motions? That judges should remain absolutely silent when lawyers file wasteful, unnecessary motions that obviously cannot be granted?

  2. Lawrence Cunningham says:


    Thanks for your explanation, which does not require or justify Strine’s reference to a criminal organization. Judges can, and routinely do, rein in lawyers without making gratuitous slurs against defendants in civil cases. Strine was wrong.


  3. N.B. says:

    I think the point is that Judge Strine did not say that the defendants led a criminal organization. He said that the plaintiff’s complaint contains plenty of facts sufficient to lead one to conclude that defendants led a criminal organization. He’s commenting on the allegations, not on the defendants.

  4. George says:

    I thought the point of the post was how the defendants and their lawyers took Strine’s statement. It reinforced their sense that he was was biased, even if Strine was merely commenting on the allegations.

    No one seems to contend that Strine had no choice but to say what he said. It was unnecessary and so one wonders: why did he choose to say that, especially stressing the “strength” of his statement.

    Moreover, the allegations were entirely false. No criminal case against any of the defendants or AIG was ever filed, despite investigations by the DOJ, SEC and NYAG.