This is an actual event which occurred in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and has become a local legend. The names have been changed to protect the innocent and not so innocent.

The term "Fifth Streeter" is a derogatory term used when referring to attorneys whose practices are located very near the Superior Court in the District of Columbia, most of which are on Fifth Street. Many of these practitioners perform the necessary functions of taking court appointments and servicing clients with small matters. Due to the large governmental, corporate, and lobbying presence in the District, such small practitioners are not held in high regard.

A certain Fifth Streeter was involved in a trial. The opposing counsel is a local practitioner who is blind and uses a seeing eye dog to safely guide himself. During the trial, the Fifth Streeter moved to admit a document into evidence. The Judge asked if he had shown the document to the opposing counsel. Taken aback, the Fifth Streeter was unsure how to comply with the Judge's request. Not wasting a moment or an opportunity, the Fifth Streeter approached the opposing counsel's table and placed the document under the nose of the seeing eye dog. Neither the Judge nor the opposing counsel appreciated the gesture, but this courthouse urban legend remains.

A now retired administrative law judge from the Social Security Office of Hearings and Appeals was well known for his bombastic demeanor. All too often he would deliberately bait and berate Claimant's during hearings. On one particular day the Judge was particularly irascible when one of our clients entered the hearing room. The client walked with jerking motion and was chewing as he sat down. Not wasting a moment to intimidate, the Judge bellowed: "Sir, are you chewing gum in my Court!" The client calmly replied that he was chewing his tongue.

Since the Judge had not fully reviewed the file prior to hearing, he failed to learn that the client suffered from schizophrenia and had been medicated with haldol for many years. During this time, the long term use of haldol had resulted in tardive dyskinesia, also known as "Fly-Catch," a condition which is characterized by uncontrollable muscle twitches and movements.

Recognizing his mistake, the Judge quietly ended the hearing within a few minutes without any other insensitive comments and benefits were granted.

A Social Security client suffered from terrible panic attacks which were aggravated by entrapment in closed surroundings, especially elevators. The Office of Hearings and Appeals for which she was scheduled to have her case heard was located in a secured building where the stairwells were locked. The Administrative Law Judge in the case refused to hear the case in the lobby or at a remote location, insisting that the Claimant would need to use the elevator or the matter would be dismissed. After much cajoling, the Claimant consented to enter the elevator along with her boyfriend, one of our attorneys and a Social Security employee. The panic attack started as soon as the elevator door closed and the Claimant remained in a nonresponsive state for the entirety of the hearing. Fortunately, her boyfriend was able to provide helpful testimony. In order to buttress the case, our attorney called the Social Security employee to testify. Never hearing such a request before, the Judge asked if he could acquire the testimony later when the employee was on break. The Judge did so and the client received her benefits.

At a medical malpractice trial, a trial attorney was faced with an unfriendly and experienced medical expert. The expert was known to the trial attorney, who had faced him before. The attorney was familiar with the expert's tendency to tout his experience by reminding juries that he was involved in the autopsy of Elvis Presley. In addition, the expert was seemingly unflappable and spoke with an authoritative monotone. In order to win the case, the attorney knew he had to rattle this expert. But, how?

At the last minute, the trial attorney decided to utilize a new line of questioning as follows: