Civil Court - three-ring circus?

This morning I visited Judge Bolger's courtroom at the McHenry County Courthouse. From the sheer number of cases there being conducted by Jack Franks (representing plaintiffs against others, many of whom owed money to Jack's clients), there ought to be plaque on the door, "Welcome to Jack's Place." Whew! As one woman said later, 59 people and two lawyers!"

Jack should have had a little tape recorder with a pre-recorded tape asking for a body attachment for all the defendants who didn't show up. He was running on automatic and twice asked Judge Bolger for a body attachment while a defendant was walking up to the bench.

Maybe a lawyer reading this will explain "body attachment" to the readers here. Is it like a warrant issued in criminal court? Is it an order for the Sheriff (well, for one of his deputies, since he is likely up in Minocqua) to pick up someone and to jail that person until the bond is posted?

Why wouldn't a person show up in court? Maybe he didn't know about the court date? Maybe he is like a friend of mine who got a notice that he was to be in court for this case last Friday and showed up, only to learn that the case was not last Friday and was not in the courtroom where he was told to appear. The case was today and in a different courtroom. Could that cause a person to fail to appear?

Or the guy in court today because he got a subpoena but the case wasn't on the court call? He got sent out of the courtroom to view the monitor in the hallway and come back with his Case Number. How's that for organization? And he told the judge that he was on time for all payments and was halfway through settling his debt, only there was no Payment Order in the judge's file. The man claimed to be current in his regular payments to Jack Franks' law office.

When cases were called by Judge Bolger, he'd swear in the defendant and then say, "Have a seat. Counsel (Jack Franks) will talk to you in a few minutes."

Only Jack didn't talk to anyone "in a few minutes." In case after case, Judge Bolger repeated that instruction. And so the defendants sat there and sat there. During one 30-minute recess Jack sat at the lawyer's table, busily writing out orders. When defendants attempted to ask him how much longer they were going to have to wait, Jack must have had writer's cramp that provoked him to answer somewhat testily, "Does it look like I'm wasting time? I haven't taken a break."

When there were only people waiting for the last three cases of Jack Franks, he left the courtroom, leaving the final dirty work to his younger associate, who had neither authority or very much knowledge about the cases. Twice the judge asked where Jack Franks was and sent the bailiff to find him. The bailiff came back empty-handed, and he didn't get on the phone to order Franks back to the courtroom.

Maybe Judge Bolger will tell Jack to stick around to the finish and not abandon the cases to someone with incomplete knowledge. It was classic tradecraft. Bail out and leave the case in the hands of someone without complete knowledge and authority, so that it would have to be continued.

The judge did give direct orders in two of the cases for Jack Franks' law firm to create paperwork that would reflect payments by defendants. It may be wonder how many other similar cases there could be at Jack's law firm. (Recall earlier this year that it took over a year for that firm to release a $131.00 check to its own client. The check had been received from another law firm, and I'm sure that fact that it was written on a lawyer's trust account was the only reason that the bank cashed a year-old check.)