Opinion ID: 1421857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Majority Opinion Utterly Fails to Address the Evidence

Text: The most distressing aspect of the majority opinion is the utter absence of any analysis of the actual evidence in this case. Instead of a factual analysis, the majority opinion sets forth two dispositive conclusions, both of which were unequivocally contradicted by the record. The majority opinion erroneously asserts: It is clear that neither Hammer nor Schiavoni represented Ogden during the course of their representation in any employment discrimination litigation. This assertion plainly was made without any examination of Ogden's evidence. In fact, the evidence submitted by Ogden easily refutes the majority's conclusory statement. Additionally, the majority opinion concluded that there had been extensive changes in the law over the nine-year period since Mr. Schiavoni and Mr. Hammer represented Ogden. Yet, the majority opinion fails to present any facts or discussion regarding the extensive changes in the law. Unfortunately, when reading the majority opinion, one cannot determine exactly what law is at issue and how that law has changed. In the final analysis, it is clear that the majority opinion was merely seeking a specific result which can be supported neither by the record nor by the applicable law. Therefore, to achieve the desired outcome, the majority opinion completely avoids any discussion of the evidence or the law. With this irreverent approach to judicial scholarship, I strongly disagree.