Welcome Back, Plebes!

So how was your New Year's break? Mine was the usual, I won't bore you with all the gin-soaked cinematic details, but let me say this -- never, ever agree to go to a yoga class with the sports-intensive Alan Fertel.

That's all I'm gonna say about that.

Anyways, so what did we miss -- you already know the incredibly poor grudgeholder Judge Labarga is our new Supreme Court pick.

But did you know he really likes pictures of himself hanging in inappropriate locations:

Labarga joked that his commission on the 4th DCA takes effect Tuesday at 12:01 a.m. and his Supreme Court Commission takes effect exactly 24 hours later, so he will be a member of the 4th DCA for one day before he resigns.

He said he knows that the appellate court has photographs of all its judges on the wall of the court library and said “I want mine there” alongside the others, even though he will only be a judge there for a single day.

Umm, ok Judge, whatever you say. Would you settle for a caricature of yourself at The Palm? It doesn't cost the taxpayers anything and it's probably more fitting.

What else -- NEWS FLASH -- Models are better looking than most lawyers.

Perhaps news to some, though all you Carvermaniacs saw that one coming a mile away.

Of course, there is always the exception that proves the rule, as Sandy D'Alemberte pens an op-ed that does not cite or otherwise refer to his lovely and talented daughter. It did say some wise things about reforming the absurd process that led to a nearly chronic number of Jimenez posts on this crappy blog, but I know most of you don't care about all that law and policy mumbo-jumbo.

More coming. folks -- welcome back, everybody!

Judge Labarga Sorry About That Time He Publicly Vowed To Hold Ten-Year Grudge Against Combative Lawyer

Hey there folks, here's hoping you are enjoying all those holiday gift baskets I keep seeing in everyone's offices around town. Don't you just love court reporters?

Anyway, a tipster who has asked to be referred to as "Fascist Bob" has repeatedly inquired of my view of this story:

''When you pick a fight with a judge, ultimately, you are gonna lose. Not today, but five years from now, 10 years from now, six years from now. That judge is going to remember you, always, always,'' Labarga said.

``And, you know, when you do -- there is an old saying that if you go after a judge, you better kill him. Because, like I said, it's true.''

Hmm. Let's see what the context was:

The court's recording system was running in May 2007 when Kollin appeared before Labarga on behalf of a client accused of selling counterfeit merchandise.

Labarga announced at the outset that he was stepping down from the case because his former law partner, David Roth, represented a co-defendant.

But when a prosecutor's concern about meeting the law's speedy trial requirements prompted Labarga to start issuing instructions to a clerk, Kollin objected. And Labarga got annoyed.

''Your Honor, I -- since you recused yourself, I would object to you making any directions to the clerk because you can't make any more rulings on it,'' Kollin said.

''I know that,'' Labarga responded. ``I appreciate you coming here and educating me. I'm just a little country guy. I just got here off the boat a few months ago. I understand those things.''

''I don't appreciate the sarcasm,'' Kollin replied.

Kollin left the courtroom, and didn't come back.

But about an hour and a half later, Labarga started talking about him again, saying Kollin wanted to ``pick a fight.

''But you know, five years from now, he may have an attorney's fees hearing in front of me, he may have this in front of me then. And you are always going to remember those guys,'' Labarga said. ``He's very combative. I have to be honest with you. I kind of wish I would have kept that case 'cause he would have been fun.''

I don't know about this. On the one hand, those remarks were clearly out of line and should not have been said. On the other, I am sure that some judges do think that way sometimes, though one would hope they wouldn't act on such emotions years down the line.

Here's Judge Labarga explaining his remarks:

Labarga said Sunday that he remembered the 2007 case, but did not recall making the specific statements.

''I go through 50, 60 cases a day,'' he said. ``If it's on the transcript, I said it. Judges are human. I had a bad day.''

Labarga said the average person could read the statements and question his ability to be fair and impartial, but he said his record shows that is not the case.

''I've been a judge 13 years, and there is no evidence that I hold a grudge,'' Labarga said. ``I have a really good record. To pick one negative incident out of my whole career is not an accurate portrayal of my overall job performance.''

While I would have liked a more straightforward apology or expression of regret from the Judge, I'm willing to accept this as a moment of frustration and give him the benefit of the doubt, in the absence of other similar incidents. Plus I do not know Judge Labarga or his reputation.

What do you all think?