Court Opinion

ID: 9745194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:41:05.406251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.482501
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’BRIEN, dissenting: The Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that the 15-day rule from which the waiver was sought was not "unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome.” The Office has not demonstrated that the 15-day filing rule was "unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome” in this particular case. The Office admits that it failed to file its answer on time because of negligence and inadvertence, nothing more. In common parlance, the Office "dropped the ball.” There are no reported cases that hold that the negligence of counsel is prima facie evidence that rules based upon time limits, e.g., statutes of limitation, jury demands, notices of appeal, this 15-day answer rule, are "unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome.” It was not an abuse of discretion for the Board to deny the Office’s request for a waiver upon these facts. Additionally, the majority asserts that the status of the Office as a public entity entitles it to deferential consideration not afforded private counsel. This assertion affords an office of hundreds of attorneys an exception not afforded a solo practitioner and is not reflective of our judicial tradition. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.