by Richard W. Millar, Jr.

Courthouse security can be annoying, particularly because of its capriciousness. Since different agencies handle different courts, the procedures lack consistency. Shoes off in federal court; shoes stay on in state court. Phones okay in superior court, but not in the court of appeal.

I have two belts that I refer to as my courthouse belts because the buckles are relatively small, i.e., less metal. Four days out of five I can breeze through, but on the fifth day, buzzers and bells go off even though it is the same courthouse and the same belt. I suspect gremlins jigger the settings overnight.

But, we are lawyers and we are used to rules, including different ones in different courts. It is, in a way, a mental cost of doing business.

At least one lawyer does not agree.

Robert Ward is a lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia. He is self-described “lead counsel” in a particularly contentious piece of litigation against Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. involving “timeshares.” The lawsuit is pending in District Court in Tampa, Florida where Mr. Ward was admitted pro hac vice, a phrase subject to almost as many pronunciations depending on locality as sine die although the latter wins because it is one word shorter.

A good example of the tenor of the case is contained in the title of Mr. Ward’s effort to seek leave to respond to an attempt to oust him from the case: “Attacked Lead Counsel’s Request for Leave to Respond to Wyndham’s Untoward Comments.”

Or, as he explains in the body of his request, “it is clear that the covert purpose of Wyndham’s continuing attack on Lead Counsel is for the untoward purpose of seeking unfair advantage over, and prejudice against, the Lawyer Defendants that Wyndham has unaccountably sued.”

Perhaps, but the phrase “self-inflicted wound” also comes to mind.

On February 21st of this year, District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell sua sponte issued an Order to Show Cause to Mr. Ward as to why his pro hac vice status should not be revoked because of his behavior on January 30th.

I don’t know if there are statistics on the number of sua sponte Orders to Show Cause issued annually against lawyers, but my guess is that they are somewhat rare, and this one may be unique. Or, at least, I hope so.

On January 30, 2020, Mr. Ward came to the United States Courthouse in Tampa to appear for a scheduled hearing before a Magistrate Judge. Like everyone, he had to pass through security where he was asked for identification and to put his belongings in a bin to be x-rayed. He was also asked to remove his belt and add it to the bin. He “verbalized disagreement” and said words to the effect that attorneys should not have to do that. I have observed over the years that law enforcement personnel do not generally cotton to an “attorney’s exception,” and it is not generally a fruitful response, but I digress.

Rather than remove his belt, Mr. Ward went a step further and removed his pants, or as my always effervescent late partner would have said, “dropped trou.”

At least he put them back on after walking through the metal detector, but the damage, as they say, was done. Word of the “incident” quickly reached the Magistrate Judge before the hearing, who admonished Mr. Ward suggesting that the behavior did not “reflect well on the profession” and questioned whether Mr. Ward should “be allowed to practice here.” Mr. Ward was then “escorted out of the courthouse.”

Ultimately, the “incident” and the security video, which fortunately was not attached to reports I read, reached Judge Honeywell and resulted in the Order to Show Cause. Opposing counsel, not surprisingly, jumped on the no-pants bandwagon, urging that Mr. Ward, with or without pants, should be removed from the action.

As I write this, there has been no ruling, but one thing is clear: a courthouse is not a place where you want to be, as the idiom goes, caught with your pants down.

Richard W. Millar, Jr. is Of Counsel with the firm of Friedman Stroffe & Gerard in Irvine. He can be reached at rmillar@fsglawyers.com.