Anything Goes : What kind of writing is the most lucrative? by Stephen Mitchell

H.N. Swanson, literary agent to the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald, James M. Cain, William Faulkner, Elmore Leonard, Joyce Carol Oates, Paul Theroux and Joseph Wambaugh, was renowned for having said, "Whenever I am asked what kind of writing is the most lucrative, I have to say ransom notes." He is quite right, of course, but to his answer I would add: A good turn of phrase in a legal filing is worth its weight in gold. When a friend was on the verge of being evicted with a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, I took pen in hand and wrote a complaint preempting the landlord's action. I included the following language (dialogue?) in a supplementary filing subsequent to the service of a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit: "This filing by the Plaintiff in the instant case is retaliatory and an undisguised effort to do an end-around of a lawsuit previously filed and served upon the Plaintiff in an unlimited jurisdiction case (see attached) wherein the exact same issues stated in the instant case make up part of the causes of action in the related case. To file a new case duplicating some (but not all) of the issues in the related case after having already been served can only be an attempt to waste the court's time while avoiding other causes of action brought in the related case where the defendant in the instant case is the plaintiff. It can only serve to create a confusion of justice to have two judges hearing the same issues simultaneously. I am informed and believe that this is a retaliatory action filed within days on my own case filed and served against the Plaintiff in the instant case after many months of trying to get Plaintiff to render the dwelling in question into a habitable condition. I strongly object to the filing of this action and the instant case should be dismissed with prejudice or, in the alternative, stayed until after a disposition in the related case. Should the court choose to hear this action already filed and served elsewhere, the following would constitute the affirmative defense..." A lovely collection of thoughts, you might agree. Anyone familiar with the limited jurisdiction of landlord/tenant law knows that a tenant customarily appears in the courtroom in the role of a tethered goat ready for the slaughter. The brief I authored and which was filed in an unlimited jurisdiction upset the apple cart and was cause for consternation all 'round. On the day of trial in the eviction action, there were three law firms appearing for the other side(s)--one for the landlord in the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit action, another for the landlord in the unlimited jurisdiction action of the counter-complaint I had authored (though it was not calendared for another month) and a third representing an insurance company in the unlimited case. To say the least, an unlikely crowd for what is usually a quick and perfunctory execution after a 'guilty with an explanation' defense that normally constitutes an eviction hearing. For two of those law firms, I'd wager it was the first time they had ever appeared for such proceedings. Negotiations were interesting and somewhat unorthodox, to say the least. We were given an audience with a judge in camera whose courtroom was dark that day to assist one and all in trying to discern one railway car from another in this legal train wreck. From my perspective, after years of buying and selling exotic cars and navigating the oxygen-rich milieu of show business, this confirmed that we were bang on the desired landing path with the optimum rate of descent for our chosen runway. It seemed that none of the opposing attorneys were anxious to appear before the judge and we took over a conference room so that the parties could confer. The cross-complaint had created a sort of legal impossibility on which none of the opposing attorneys could get a grip. For reasons that are not taught in law school, they were all eager for me to suggest remedies though I was not a party to the action. And, suggest I did. I will never forget the look on the judge's face that afternoon in Santa Monica when she read the settlement agreement looking up from the bench repeatedly to verify with the parties that what she was reading was actually correct--two months free rent and $7,500 in cash for the defendant/cross-complainant along with lesser considerations like no negative credit reporting or other consequence. This was not how a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit hearing was supposed to go. Sometimes, a job well done is thanks enough. In some cases, it is the only thanks.