This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2005, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
You might think a judge would appreciate some plain talk as a break from legal jargon and esoteric arguments. But court filings have gotten so foul in one Utah dispute that a federal judge is calling a timeout.
Christopher W. Livingston, a North Carolina attorney, accused a Draper law firm of being an "ass." A lawyer with the Utah firm, Riddle & Associates, said Livingston was full of - well, you know.
U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell has had enough.
"Frankly, if the matter goes to trial and the plaintiffs prevail, the court seriously doubts whether a jury would award damages which will come anywhere near covering the costs of this case," the judge wrote - politely - last week. "But since the case has been filed and both parties appear eager to prosecute it until it is dead, the court cautions both sides to be respectful in the process."
Jesse Riddle concedes his firm has been aggressive, which he attributes to being attacked with falsehoods. "The court's right that you have to tone the language down," he said Monday.
For once, Livingston, the North Carolina attorney, agrees with Riddle.
"We have kind of vented our spleen and several other internal organs," he said. "We are going to try to be more civilized."
The war of words began last year when Riddle & Associates (R&A), a debt-collection law firm, attempted to get payment from two North Carolina women, who hired Livingston to defend them.
In a 2004 telephone conversation with a R&A lawyer, Livingston contended the debts were fabricated. The Utah attorney ended the conversation by telling Livingston he was "full of s---."
Livingston then sued the firm on the women's behalf, accusing it of violating the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The attorney also posted portions of the lawsuit on a consumer Web site about debt collections, along with gripes about the firm.
R&A and Riddle - dubbed the "Riddler" on the Web site - were furious. They especially hated Livingston's sarcastic use of quotation marks when referring to their "law firm," his capitalization in a remark about "Riddle & ASSociates," and a claim it did not follow federal debt-collection law.
R&A and Riddle sued Livingston in Utah in May 2004, accusing the North Carolinian of libeling them - and noting they stood by the blunt opinion expressed by their attorney in the phone conversation. Livingston fired back that while his own statements were "rhetorical hyperbole," the comment about him should be deleted from the lawsuit.
"Invocation of the fecal expletive in this manner establishes a new low of incivility, by quite some margin," he wrote.
Livingston's lawsuit has been dismissed, although R&A is still seeking sanctions against him. In Utah, Cassell has ruled there can be a trial over whether R&A was libeled by Livingston. However, both sides now are trying to settle the matter.
The judge probably would be happy if they did.
He wrote in last week's order: "This case appears to be little more than a forum for thin-skinned debt collectors to air their grievances against an overzealous consumer advocate who, in turn, appears more than happy to have a forum to snipe back."