There, a plaintiff in a Title VII sex discrimination action appears to have been poorly represented. The memorandum plagiarizes Defendants' memorandum in significant part, copying the legal portion of it on all counts except for Count III virtually verbatim. On Count III Plaintiff's counsel has cited no legal authority. Throughout the brief, Plaintiff's counsel has inserted his own facts and conclusions, contrary to those written by defense counsel, but it is clear that he did no legal research and remained content to let defense counsel do all the work. The court, however, cannot let it pass without condemnation.
Plagiarism is unacceptable in any grammar school, college, or law school, and even in politics.
It is wholly intolerable in the practice of law. The court has obviously disregarded the memorandum submitted by Plaintiff's counsel, first for its untimely filing under Local Rule 19, and second, because it does not represent any additional contribution on the part of plaintiff's counsel to the court's understanding of the law. Since Plaintiff's counsel appropriated the work of defense counsel, submitting it as his own, he should, at the very least, pay for the services unwittingly rendered. We note to our considerable dismay that the government, rather than endeavoring to fulfill its responsibilities to this court, has eschewed both independent effort and reasonable candor. It has instead, thrown professionalism to the winds and brazenly plagiarized the district court's opinion, without attribution. . . .