#Civil Procedural Rules

[lexlawuk]

Cryptocurrency Litigation Success: Assessing Compensatory Damages in Lieu of an Injunction for Specific Performance

London, UK – 2 July 2024 – In a significant victory for our client, Mr. Southgate, the Chancery Division of the High Court, has issued a favourable ruling in the case of Southgate v Adam Graham [2024] EWHC 1692 (Ch). Our successful litigation case centered on a dispute arising from a loan agreement involving a cryptocurrency. The initial court decision found Adam Graham in breach of the…

[lesbian-thespian-paladin]

anyone else so so afraid all the time for no reason? Just me?

[celine-deyonce]

If I had this kind of memory recall for anything important I’d rule the world

[catchascatchcn]

the beautiful rule 23 …

[macro-pulse]

CLASS ACTIONS: THE LAST HOPE (AND WHY IT'S NOT ENOUGH)

the supreme court left one door open. let's see if we can squeeze through.

the Supreme Court killed nationwide injunctions but said class actions are still okay. let's talk about why this "solution" is actually a nightmare.

WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?

Basic concept:

One lawsuit representing MANY people

All with similar injuries

Too many to sue individually

Court treats them as one group

Any relief covers the whole "class"

WHY THE COURT ALLOWS THIS

The key distinction:

Nationwide injunction = protecting non-parties

Class action = all class members ARE parties

Technically follows their new rule

Barrett specifically mentioned this option

THE REQUIREMENTS (RULE 23)

To certify a class, you need:

Numerosity - Too many to join individually

Commonality - Same legal questions

Typicality - Representative plaintiffs typical of class

Adequacy - Good lawyers and no conflicts

Plus for injunctions:

23(b)(2) - Party acted same way toward whole class

THE TIMELINE PROBLEM

Regular lawsuit:

File complaint

Get TRO (days)

Get preliminary injunction (weeks)

Protected immediately

Class action:

File complaint

Extensive briefing on class cert

Discovery about class

Hearing on certification

Wait for decision

MONTHS before protection

THE NOTICE NIGHTMARE

Many class actions require:

Notifying all potential members

Giving opt-out rights

Publishing notices

Massive expense

Delays everything

For undocumented plaintiffs? Good luck finding everyone.

THE CURRENT SCRAMBLE

Since June 27, 2025:

Filed class actions:

N.D. California (June 28)

N.D. Illinois (June 30)

S.D. New York (July 1)

E.D. Pennsylvania (July 2)

More daily...

Proposed classes:

"All children born in US to undocumented parents"

"All pregnant women without legal status"

"All babies born after July 27, 2025"

THE CERTIFICATION BATTLES

Government's arguments against certification:

Too diverse (different countries, statuses)

No typical plaintiff (each situation unique)

Unmanageable class (how to identify?)

Notice impossible (undocumented = hiding)

Courts are split on these arguments.

THE ALITO WARNING

Justice Alito's concurrence specifically warned:

"Lax enforcement of requirements for class certification would create significant loophole"

Translation: We'll be watching. Don't try to cheat.

Lower courts got the message - scrutiny is INTENSE.

THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS

Problem 1: Geographic Limits

Class actions usually limited to circuit or district

Nationwide classes are rare and hard

Might need 50 separate class actions

Problem 2: Mootness

Named plaintiff gives birth

Baby gets citizenship (as plaintiff)

Case moot? Need new plaintiff?

Musical chairs litigation

Problem 3: Conflicts

Different immigrants have different needs

Temporary visa vs undocumented

Different home countries

Hard to represent all fairly

THE FAILED ATTEMPTS (SO FAR)

California attempt:

Judge certified class July 15

9th Circuit stayed it July 18

"Class definition too broad"

Back to square one

Texas attempt:

Conservative judge (!!) certified class

Limited to Texas residents

5th Circuit reviewing

Likely to reverse

THE COST EXPLOSION

Regular injunction case: $50-100k Class action: $500k-2M

Expert witnesses on class issues

Extensive briefing

Notice costs

Administrative expenses

Years of litigation

Who pays? Nonprofits already stretched thin.

THE TIMING DISASTER

By the time class certified:

Thousands of babies born stateless

Families in limbo

Irreparable harm done

Maybe win in 2027?

Justice delayed = babies denied.

THE COVERAGE GAPS

Even successful class actions miss:

People who don't know about suit

Those afraid to join

Future babies not yet conceived

New immigrants arriving daily

Always someone left out.

THE ENFORCEMENT MESS

Say you win class certification. Then:

How does hospital know who's in class?

Database of class members?

Privacy concerns?

Verification process?

More delays and confusion

THE SUPREME COURT TRAP

Even if class certified and injunction granted:

Government appeals to Supreme Court

Same 6-3 majority

"Class certification was improper"

Back to nothing

It's a house of cards.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

Requiring class actions:

Forces people to identify themselves

Creates lists of undocumented people

Requires coming forward

Many too scared

Self-deportation through fear

THE HISTORICAL IRONY

Brown v. Board of Education was a class action

Took YEARS to implement

Massive resistance

Still fighting 70 years later

Now imagine that for millions of babies.

THE BANDWIDTH PROBLEM

Limited number of:

Immigration lawyers

Civil rights orgs

Federal judges

Court resources

Can't handle hundreds of class actions simultaneously.

THE WHACK-A-MOLE EFFECT

Win in California? Government enforces in Texas Win in Texas? Enforces in Florida Win everywhere? Changes the policy slightly Start over

THE REAL SOLUTION NEEDED

What would actually work:

Congressional action

Supreme Court reversal

Constitutional amendment

Mass political mobilization

Class actions are band-aids on bullet wounds.

THE BITTER TRUTH

Sotomayor was right to call this "cumbersome"

It's not a solution. It's an obstacle course designed to fail.

But it's what we have.

So we run it.

Because what else can we do?

GOTO NEXT POST -> CLICK HERE

GOTO FIRST POST -> CLICK HERE

[yourreddancer]

sSoeondrtpf4c522l9fl918h5a1ug65713ugmu731utgh0hllg84l47c2lc6  · 

Elizabeth MacDonough doesn’t give fiery speeches on the Senate floor. She doesn’t pound podiums, tweet clapbacks, or beg for airtime on cable news. Most people couldn’t pick her out of a photo lineup. But this week, she did more to derail Donald Trump’s legislative fever dream than any Democrat in Congress. With nothing but a binder, a brain, and a spine forged from 230 years of procedural precedent, she calmly gutted the “Big, Beautiful Bill” — and sent the Republican Party into a frothing, incandescent rage.

Here’s the part that should terrify the GOP: she’s not even elected. She’s the Senate Parliamentarian, the nonpartisan referee responsible for interpreting the arcane rulebook that governs the world’s most dysfunctional deliberative body. She doesn’t write laws. She doesn’t vote. She doesn’t grandstand. Her job is simple: enforce the rules, no matter who’s in charge. And when Republicans tried to use reconciliation — a fast-track process meant for tweaking budgets — to shove through a far-right wishlist of land seizures, healthcare rollbacks, and anti-trans cruelty, she read the fine print and dropped the hammer.

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” was supposed to be Trump’s magnum opus: a tax-slashing, Medicaid-burning, land-devouring beast of a bill that would reshape America in his image. It included everything from selling off millions of acres of federal public land to states and private developers, to gutting Medicaid for low-income families, immigrants, and trans people, to defunding Planned Parenthood and hacking away at environmental protections like they were weeds in a billionaire’s backyard. It was grotesque. It was rushed. And it was entirely dependent on sliding past Senate rules without a fight.

Elizabeth MacDonough was the fight. She reviewed the bill’s contents and ruled — piece by piece — that major provisions violated the Byrd Rule, which bars unrelated ideological junk from hitching a ride on budget bills. The land sell-off? Not budgetary. Out. The Medicaid provider tax cap? Out. The bans on gender-affirming care, immigrant coverage, and ACA subsidies? Out. The GOP was left holding a gutted husk, their legislative trophy reduced to a few tax cuts and a pile of redacted dreams.

This wasn’t sabotage. This was MacDonough doing her job — the job she’s held since 2012, appointed under a Democratic majority, and respected by both parties until it became inconvenient. She is the Senate’s quiet guardian of process, a civil servant who doesn’t answer to polls, Super PACs, or social media mobs. Her loyalty is to the rules — even as the people around her treat those rules like a hotel minibar. She doesn’t flinch. She doesn’t yield. She simply reads the law and applies it, with the precision of a scalpel and the force of a freight train.

And oh, how the GOP hates her for it.

Mike Lee, who tried to shove his public lands fire sale into the bill like it was a foreclosure listing, is already scrambling to rewrite the language and sneak it back in. Trump, fuming from whatever taxpayer-funded golf course he’s currently defiling, is screaming about “deep state rule tyrants.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune is getting asked uncomfortable questions about whether it’s time to “review” the Parliamentarian’s role — a polite way of saying, “Can we fire her for being smarter than us?”

Because that’s the rub. They didn’t lose because the Democrats outmaneuvered them. They didn’t lose because of public pressure or media backlash. They lost because a woman they barely understand said, quite plainly, “You can’t do that.” And when they asked why, she handed them the rulebook. And when they tried to argue, she pointed to precedent. And when they blustered, she didn’t even blink.

Elizabeth MacDonough has no political agenda. That’s what makes her so dangerous to people who do. She exists outside their theater. She answers to no party. And yet, she is currently one of the most powerful people in Washington — not because she makes the laws, but because she refuses to let anyone break them.

So no, she didn’t kill the Big, Beautiful Bill. The GOP killed it themselves — by trying to use budget procedure as a battering ram for authoritarian fantasy. MacDonough simply told the truth. And in 2025, that might be the most radical thing anyone in government can do.

Let the Republicans rant. Let them plot her removal. Let them rewrite their monstrosities and try again. But remember this: when the bulldozers were revving, when the Medicaid cuts were inked, and when Trump’s wrecking ball of a bill was barreling toward the American people — it wasn’t a senator who stopped it. It wasn’t a protest. It was a woman with a binder and a backbone.

We see you, Elizabeth. And we thank you.

[study-hall-hq]

This White House memorandum, dated March 11, 2025, emphasizes the enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to prevent activist organizations from obtaining sweeping injunctions against federal policies without financial accountability. It directs executive agencies to request courts to enforce the security bond requirement in cases where an injunction could result in costs to the government. The goal is to deter frivolous litigation, ensure taxpayers are not burdened with unnecessary legal expenses, and uphold judicial integrity.

[lexlawuk]

When Stalled Litigation is an Abuse of the Proper Process of the Court

The proper administration of justice hinges on the timely and efficient resolution of disputes. However, the phenomenon of stalled litigation presents a significant challenge to this ideal. When litigation is deliberately delayed or prolonged, it not only clogs the judicial system but also undermines the principles of fairness and equity that courts strive to uphold. This Article explores the…

[anachronisims]

I'm not saying don't panic, because the Supreme Court is who they are right now, but these arguments have been advanced without success since 1935, when the NLRA was passed.

NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 US 1 (1937) is illustrative and through the agency's now 89-year history been considered definitive.

Sure, this is the first time the arguments to dismantle the administrative state have been advanced by corporations with this unimaginably bottomless well of resources, but the WORST CASE scenario here is that the NLRB continues investigation of unfair labor practices in house, continues running representation elections, and has to move all adjudication to federal district court, where the agency already goes for injunctive relief (see, e.g., reinstatement of the Memphis 7), enforcement of Board orders these same companies don't voluntarily comply with, and subpoena enforcement. Plus, the NLRB process for appointing administrative law judges is qualitatively different from the SEC method found unconstitutional by this SCOTUS, so it's not a hopeless suit to defend.

If you want an actual worker uprising, just fucking do it because "at-will employment" and "right to work state" are used as a fucking excuse to do ANYTHING and most people don't know the actual limits on the meanings of those terms. Do it because there are still thousands upon thousands of small and medium businesses with "don't discuss compensation" rules in their handbook. Do it because of the flagrant disregard for the NYC pay disclosure in job ads ordinance. Do it because these companies EACH spend more per year on their anti-union consultants than the entire NLRB budget. Do it because every single business still has "Now Hiring" signs out and labor power is stronger than ever.

vice news

ironically i am working right now so i can’t do a full post on this like i would really prefer to do… but these are the most cartoonishly evil people that you could possibly imagine, even in a society as flawed as the one we’ve built for ourselves. these are bedrock groups devoted to protecting the american worker and consumer. massive huge giant waving red flags 🚩

[mariacallous]

In February, several Justice Department officials resigned rather than obey a directive to drop their corruption case against New York City Mayor Adams. After they did, another DOJ official signed the order to avoid people being fired.

Complying or resigning are not the only options. Federal employees sometimes have another: In the words of Mrs. Reagan, sometimes they can “just say ‘no.’” In fact, sometimes that’s their duty.

The Trump administration has begun a broad attack on many activities of the federal government it now controls. It has acted aggressively to implement its agendas, to stop programs it disagrees with, and to fire members of the civil service on allegations of “poor performance” without evidence. Some of these actions are lawful implementation of the president’s agenda. However, as various court decisions show, many are not.

Under federal law, employees who call out violations of law, fraud, waste, or abuse receive whistleblower protections. Agencies cannot legally fire them, demote them, or remove them. Those same statutes provide a “right to disobey.” They protect employees who refuse an order because doing so would violate the Constitution, laws, agency rules, or federal regulations. Federal employees need not resign or comply. They can just say “No.”

The law doesn’t permit civil servants to disobey solely because they disagree with a policy. However, when federal employees join the federal service, they sign an oath to “… well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office … So help me God.” That oath doesn’t change from administration to administration. It clearly includes complying with the nation’s laws. If directed to do something that violates the Administrative Procedures Act, federal personnel statutes, published federal procurement rules and regulations, or an appropriation enacted by Congress and signed into law, federal personnel may legally refuse to obey and, under their oath of office, arguably must.

That right to disobey was what Congress sought to protect when it unanimously passed the Follow the Rules Act during the first Trump administration. During the first Trump administration, Congress strengthened these protections—unanimously. The original statute covered only orders that would “violate a law.” In 2017, Congress expanded that protection to include refusal to obey “an order that would require the individual to violate a law, rule, or regulation.” President Donald J. Trump signed the Follow the Rules Act into law.

Some federal officials have taken the third option and just said “No.” Before Kash Patel was confirmed as FBI Director, then-acting Director Brian Driscoll refused to fire agents guilty of no offense, other than obeying an instruction to investigate Jan. 6 rioters.

What should federal employees do when faced with an order that would violate their oath and that they reasonably believe to be unlawful? Many advise consulting a lawyer. However, faced with an immediate order, most federal employees don’t have the time or money to consult legal counsel. They must rely on their own knowledge, experience, and reasoned judgment to decide for themselves.

This administration has proven that it will fire federal employees who disobey an instruction that would have them violate the law—even though that firing would be illegal. So, many will comply even when they know they should not. However, as Mr. Driscoll shows, some will stay true to their oaths. If their legal protection—the right to disobey—were better known, more might do so. Each person who did so would slow or stop implementation of unlawful orders.

Furthermore, law-abiding-but-fired federal employees have remedies. Career civil servants who were fired, demoted, or reassigned because they have refused an order can appeal to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), created by Congress to investigate violations of personnel law and rules. In cases where OSC believes there has been an unlawful “prohibited personnel action,” it will advise the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Congress chartered the MSPB to police the federal personnel system. It can require reinstatement into the job, retroactive back pay, and payment of legal fees.

These protections are more than just theory: Only a few days ago, the MSPB, acting on a recommendation from OSC, temporarily reinstated six provisional employees who had been fired in an apparent violation of federal rules. It’s worth noting that the Trump administration has attempted to undermine both the OSC and MSPB by removing their leaders. However, Congress by law required good cause before either can be removed, and thus far courts have overturned most of these dismissals.

So, why don’t more federal employees just say no? The main reason is that many employees cannot afford to lose their jobs and wait for reinstatement. The remedies for wrongful personnel actions can take months, even in normal times, and these are not normal times. It’s also important to note that some believe that it’s important they continue to do the other parts of their job.

But there are other reasons. Based on conversations with lawyers, advocacy groups, and public interviews, there are many:

Some who do disobey see no benefit in publicizing that fact, as public whistleblowers can and do become public targets.

Many don’t know they can say “No.” As of this writing, there are no descriptions of the right to disobey on the websites of major federal unions or the Partnership for Public Service.

Advocacy groups fear being seen as giving legal advice. Some educational webinars actually start with a notice that “this is not legal advice”.

Even some lawyers representing federal employees in wrongful personnel action cases are unaware of the law, focusing on the more widely discussed protections for whistleblowers who disclose rather than employees who refuse to act.

Federal employees confronted with orders they believe are illegal must make their own decisions—with or without legal counsel—about how to comply with their oath to the public they serve, despite the genuine personal risks. That’s a part of public service, too.

[homoquartz]

while this is good news, i wanted to tell folks a bit about what this means:

. maine and the usda reached a settlement, with the usda saying it won’t freeze funds for violations of title ix without going through legal requirements first. with that promise, maine dropped their lawsuit for the unlawful funding freeze. funding will be immediately unfrozen and released to maine now.

. essentially, the government CAN still freeze maine’s funding for having trans athletes, but it’s going to have to go through legal procedures to do it.

. this is still a victory for rule of law. it means the government can’t just halt funding to a state for whatever reason it likes. it also means that there will be further opportunities to address whether these title ix restrictions are legal or reasonable in court. this slows down the regime and gives us more time and resources to fight unlawful encroachments on our civil rights and liberties.

[good-fwiend-in-wome]

i think the posts that are going around saying like "trump's executive actions are illegal, they have no power" are missing the point in a very liberal way. an action by a government official is only illegal and illegitimate if someone chooses to punish them for it, and we're past that. they have stopped caring about what is or isn't legal or enforceable because there is no longer a mechanism to stop them. they have filled every corner of the government with loyalists who will take the orders no matter their validity or legality, and those parts of the government that haven't been captured will get DOGE'd. the coup came and went right before your eyes and there's no way to stop it now because you're no longer living in a civil democracy that gives a shit about "rules" and "procedure". DOGE isn't an official government department? who gives a shit? they're out there tearing everything down. something trump wants to do requires an act of congress? lol. lmao. get the idea that congress exists out of your mind at this point. the fascists are on the south bank of the rubicon, act accordingly.

[itsallpoliticsstupid]

What is the criteria for a dictatorship?

Suspension of elections and civil liberties cross

Proclamation of a state of emergency

Rule by decree

Repression of Political opponents

Not abiding by the procedures of the rule of law ✅

Existence of the cult of personality centered on the leader ✅

Control of Media ✅

Use of Propaganda ✅

Well...by my reckoning America are definitely well on their way to cementing their dictatorship.

Give them another month and they'll probably hit all the markers.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Law-Related Vocabulary

for your poem/story (pt. 1/4)

Acquiescence - acceptance, compliance, or submitting tacitly or passively

Act of God - an extraordinary natural event (as a flood or earthquake) that cannot be reasonably foreseen or prevented

Amicus curiae - friend of the court

Bad faith - intentional deception, dishonesty, or failure to meet an obligation or duty

Bill of pains and penalties - a legislative act formerly permitted that imposed a punishment less severe than death without benefit of a judicial trial

Blackacre - a fictitious piece of real property

Causa mortis - made or done in contemplation of one's impending death

Cool state of blood - an emotional condition in which a person's anger or passion is not great enough to overcome his or her faculties or ability to reason—often used in statutory definitions of murder

Depraved-heart murder - a murder that is the result of an act which is dangerous to others and shows that the perpetrator has a depraved mind and no regard for human life

Dereliction - an intentional abandonment

Executrix - a woman who is an executor

Expunge - to cancel out or destroy completely

Extraordinary remedy - a procedure for obtaining judicial relief allowed when no other method is available, appropriate, or useful

Ferae naturae - wild by nature; not usually tamed

Fighting words - words which by their very utterance are likely to inflict harm on or provoke a breach of the peace by the average person to whom they are directed

Fifth degree - the grade sometimes given to the least serious form of a crime

Fruit of the poisonous tree - evidence that is inadmissible under an evidentiary exclusionary rule because it was derived from or gathered during an illegal action

Gift causa mortis - a gift of especially personal property made in contemplation of impending death that is delivered with the intent that the gift take effect only in the event of the donor's death and that it be revoked in the event of survival

Hot blood - heat of passion; an agitated state of mind (as anger or terror) prompted by provocation sufficient to overcome the ability of a reasonable person to reflect on and control his or her actions

Inveigle - to lure by false representations or other deceit

Lucri causa - intent to obtain a gain

Mystic will - in the civil law of Louisiana; a will signed, sealed, witnessed, and notarized according to statutory procedure; called also mystic testament, secret testament

Naked promise - gratuitous promise

Obligor - one who is bound by an obligation to another

Penumbra - an area within which distinction or resolution is difficult or uncertain

Quaere - question—usually used to introduce a question

Recusant - refusing to submit to authority

Solatium - compensation for grief or wounded feelings (as from the wrongful death of a relative)

Third degree - the grade given to the third most serious forms of crimes

Uberrimae fidei - of the utmost or perfect good faith

Vitiate - to make ineffective

Word of art - a word having a particular meaning in a field; also called "term of art"

X - a mark used in place of a signature when the maker is incapable of signing his or her name (as because of illiteracy or a physical ailment)

Year-and-a-day rule - a common-law rule that relieves a defendant of responsibility for homicide if the victim lives for more than one year and one day after being injured (Note: This rule dates from at least 1278, and is frequently criticized as anachronistic since modern medicine makes pinpointing cause of death easier than it was formerly. However, the rule still exists or is reflected in the law of some jurisdictions.)

Zone of danger - the area within which one is in actual physical peril from the negligent conduct of another person

If any of these words make their way into your next poem/story, please tag me, or leave a link in the replies. I would love to read them!

More: Law-Related Words ⚜ Word Lists

[foundfamilywhump]

as someone who loves legal whump but is totally clueless on legal procedure, do you have any info you could share for writing it accurately (or some things i would never know to include)?

OH GOSH let me think about that i would be so happy to share

so for a few disclaimers, obviously, i practice in a particular jurisdiction, with particular practice directions and customs. i am a criminal defence attorney but i am by no means an expert. these are just things i think about a lot. also, in the tradition of lawyers everywhere, nothing here is legal advice (tho idk how anyone could even think it was lmao), and this is all hypothetical for fiction purposes.

the primary like, focal point of legal whump for me is in the dehumanization of the legal process and in retraumatization. this goes for if the whumpee is accused/charged or if they're the victim or if they're proceeding through a civil court process for like a restraining order or family court issue or civil suit. it's humiliating and horrible and any time you end up in a situation of cross-examination you're put on the spot to be vigorously challenged and, depending on the approach of the lawyer, bullied about what you say happened to you and the exact details.

some specifics under the cut that might be inspirational/helpful. i am always happy to chat about this sort of stuff with people, answer what questions i can, and generally put my legal education and professional experience to use for evil :)

everyone is talking in jargon they don't understand and not stopping to slow down and explain. everything about this process is terrifying but most of the professionals around them can lose sight of that pretty easily - this is after all just tuesday for them.

they're being forced to talk about what happened to them over and over again in a sterile and hostile environment. police statements. depositions. interviews with their lawyer, practice depositions. testifying on stand. cross-examination on the stand. how specific it all has to be. there's no dancing around any of it, no euphemisms, no 'i don't want to talk about that'.

cross-examination deserves to be a bullet point all on its own. there are rules (depending on jurisdiction obvs) about what you are and aren't allowed to ask people on cross, especially when the witness is a complainant (alleged victim) of particular types of crime. those rules are OFTEN not followed and there's often a lot of quibbling and wiggle room. however bad you think it can be on cross, it's worse. it can get brutal. you would not believe some of the things i have heard lawyers say to witnesses on cross. if you misspeak it's used against you. if you get upset it's used against you. you're under a microscope talking about some of the worst things that ever happened to you or trying to defend or explain yourself. everything you say is fair game. everything about you is fair game, to a point. (and even past that point, often enough. again, the rules don't protect people. they do... sometimes. sort of. but not enough, and there is always a way to try it anyway.)

affidavits are an underutilized avenue for this when discussing legal whump imo. the affidavit is where you write out what your evidence is, and it's a type of evidence used in many court proceedings. seeing it all laid out in such a strange way, in print on paper, formatted to fit court standards, is surreal. they'd have to write it themself or work with a lawyer to get the information together to write it and get all the info down. they'll have to review it. they'll have to read those words over and over again, see the language used, the way it's all put together.

the court process drags on for a long, long fucking time. that's the thing i think people understand the least about the general thing. even getting TO a trial is a matter of months or even more than a year, sometimes years plural. i don't mind this so much as a realism thing bc that's like, tedious to write about sometimes haha, but i think it could be an interesting thing to explore whump wise. like now you have to wait so long as this drags out farther and farther. there's an appearance or a hearing every so often. a motion.

the way that other people get pulled into it. their friends and family members needing to testify. needing to write affidavits of their own. be cross-examined. the lawyers will pick apart so many parts of their life, and their own lawyers will have to do that, too. you have to tell your lawyer SO much and you're often not given much time at all to get comfortable with them beforehand. i will have met someone a couple of minutes ago and then be asking them to tell me about some of the most traumatic parts of their lives. i don't have TIME to be as careful and sensitive as i'd like to be, and i try to emphasize as much as i can when talking to people that i know this is hard and i know it's embarrassing and i am in no way judging them, but that doesn't make it easy and a lot of people don't take that time.

there's also how... public so much of it is. stuff can be restricted access or limited as to what can be published or reported on, but there's still a sense in the courts i've been in that there are so many people around watching. other people in court. the court staff. members of the public, often. my court had a high profile criminal trial recently and they had a whole separate court room set up just as an overflow observation room where they set up feeds to the primary court room. imagine them having to see the articles published, the speculation online. if their identity is public, being mobbed by journalists coming to and leaving court. in this day and age we get live twitter feeds sometimes during trials of journalists updating moment to moment what's happening and being said.

yeah. i have a lot to say about legal whump and how traumatizing the legal process is, how dehumanizing, and how it's often RE-TRAUMATIZING for all involved. i often think about wanting to write fic that's all like - epistolary documents. affidavits, court filings, trial transcripts, etc. most whump doesn't get into like, practical consequences of what would happen if whumper was arrested and went to trial in a contemporary setting, or whatever the equivalent is, or what could happen if whumpee ended up charged with something or otherwise was involved in a court process of any kind, and it's some pretty rich territory imo.

in a nutshell, it's fucking horrible. it's awful, and endless, and emotionally violent in a way that's hard to describe. as a professional, it's one of the hardest parts of my job, seeing what that does to people and making sure that i stay alive to that and aware of it and do what i can to validate and mitigate that whenever possible. as a writer however and a whump writer? hot dog it's a smorgasbord of options and opportunity that's little explored for how genuinely terrible and traumatizing it can be.

[diamonddaze01]

tarararara my love! for your drabble game i wanna do prompt no. 6 but with a twist-

Do you like me? Check yes or yes

the ball is in your court now bub!

do you like me?

pairing: wonwoo x reader, law school au | wc: 944 prompt: "Do you like me? check yes or yes" | warnings: none a/n: dedicated to both @svtiddiess and @tusswrites bc the greatest minds think alike

The library was quieter than usual, the usual hum of stressed-out law students replaced by the rhythmic scratching of pens and flipping of pages. You and Jeon Wonwoo had somehow claimed a table near the window—a rare truce in the ongoing cold war of your academic rivalry.

You weren’t entirely sure how it started. Maybe it was the time he answered a question in Contracts class before you could, perfectly articulating the rule of consideration in a way that had the professor beaming. Or maybe it was the time you aced your Civil Procedure exam, and he shot you that unreadable glance as he exited the lecture hall, his graded paper tucked discreetly under his arm. Somewhere along the line, though, it became a thing: Jeon Wonwoo vs. You.

You were loud, unabashed, and utterly relentless in debates. Wonwoo? Quiet, methodical, and terrifyingly sharp. It was as though the universe had handpicked you to be polar opposites, with one mutual goal: finishing top of the class.

It wasn’t just about ego—though you’d never admit how much satisfaction you felt when you won. For you, being at the top meant proving that your voice mattered, that you could command a room even in the cutthroat world of law. For him, you suspected it was different. Wonwoo worked with a quiet precision that seemed to come from something deeper, something you couldn’t quite place. He was impossible to read, and maybe that’s what frustrated you the most.

The rivalry only grew fiercer with time: whispered debates in the hallway after class, stolen glances at each other’s grades, the occasional sarcastic jab when you passed in the library. It had become a fixture of your law school experience.

So why were you here, sitting across from him in the library? That was another story.

It started two weeks ago, when the Professor of Legal Ethics—who clearly took pleasure in student suffering—had paired you two for a moot court assignment. The project was simple: argue a mock case against each other, with grades determined by individual performance.

You’d scoffed at the announcement. “Of course,” you muttered under your breath, just loud enough for him to hear.

He’d glanced at you, an amused glint in his eyes. “Don’t sound too excited.”

The idea of working with him—of watching him meticulously dismantle your arguments before you even had a chance to deliver them—should have been unbearable. But instead, you’d found yourself suggesting, “We should prep together. You know, scope out the competition.”

Wonwoo had hesitated, his lips twitching in what might have been amusement. “You’re offering to help me beat you?”

“Who said I’m helping you?” you’d shot back, grinning. “I just want to see if you’re as good as everyone says.”

Now here you were, begrudging study partners, buried under stacks of legal texts and sharing a tense but surprisingly comfortable silence. Except you couldn’t focus. Not because of the assignment—your case brief was flawless—but because of him.

Wonwoo, with his quiet determination, his maddening focus, and his infuriating ability to make your heart race with just a glance. You didn’t know when it started—when the rivalry began to feel less like competition and more like curiosity. When his sharp intelligence stopped annoying you and started fascinating you instead.

Maybe it was last week, when he had stayed late after your prep session, walking with you to the parking lot under the glow of the streetlights. The conversation had been light, easy—unexpectedly so. You’d caught him smiling, not his usual smirk but something softer, almost shy. It had lingered with you far longer than it should have.

Or maybe it was the other day, when you’d caught him lost in thought, glasses slipping down his nose as he scribbled something in the margins of his notebook. He had looked up at you then, catching you staring, and raised an eyebrow in question. You had blurted something incoherent about “legal precedents” before burying your face in your notes, your cheeks burning.

You were doomed.

Tonight wasn’t any better. He was scribbling furiously in his textbook, his pen tapping softly against the edge of the page. You should have been working on your counterarguments, but instead, you were folding a piece of notebook paper into an origami crane.

After a few moments, you slid the crane across the table to him. Wonwoo didn’t look up at first, too engrossed in his notes, but when the crane nudged his hand, he paused. His sharp eyes flicked to yours, and you gave him your best innocent smile.

He carefully unfolded the crane. Inside, in your bold handwriting, were the words: “Do you like me? Check yes or yes.” Below, you’d drawn two boxes, both labeled “yes,” along with a winking face for good measure.

Wonwoo blinked at the note, his expression unreadable. But then, his ears turned a shade of red so deep you could practically hear your heart screaming.

You stared, waiting, your pulse thundering in your ears. And then, to your surprise, he smirked.

Pulling out his pen, he checked one of the boxes. Then, with deliberate care, he tore off the bottom half of the paper, scribbled something, and slid it back to you.

You unfolded it, your chest tight with anticipation. Written in his small, neat handwriting was: “Can you quiet down now? I’m trying to focus.” Below it, he’d drawn a tiny, lopsided heart.

You laughed softly, shaking your head. “You’re impossible,” you murmured.

Wonwoo didn’t respond, but the pink flush creeping up his neck and the faint twitch of his lips told you everything you needed to know.

Somehow, the rivalry didn’t feel like a competition anymore.

send me an ask for my drabble game!