If
I
had
to
wager
a
guess,
I’d
say
Pillsbury
Winthrop
Shaw
Pittman
partner
Mark
Krotoski is
still
smarting
over
the
benchslap
he
got
from Judge
Cristina
D.
Silva
of
the
District
of
Nevada
on
September
3rd.
Because
Silva
absolutely
*slammed*
Krotoski
over
behavior
exhibited
over
the
course
of
an
antitrust
trial.
And
Judge
Silva
thinks
she
knows
the
root
of
the
“unprofessional”
conduct:
entitlement.
The
straw
that
broke
the
camel’s
back
was
a
representation
made
repeatedly
by
Krotoski
that
an
expert
witness
was
traveling
on
a
particular
date.
But
when
the
witness
returned
to
court,
the
witness
told
the
judge
she
was
running
errands
on
the
date
in
question.
“Stated
otherwise,”
Silva
wrote,
“Krotoski’s
representation
that
the
witness
was
‘traveling’
was
a
lie.”
And
that’s
not
the
only
bone
the
judge
has
to
pick
with
Krotoski.
Judge
Silva
said
the
lie
was
“exacerbated
by
other
unprofessional
trial
conduct
from
Krotoski,
such
as
delaying
the
proceedings
by
lackadaisically
retrieving
witnesses
and
not
providing
direct
answers
to
direct
questions
in
the
days
leading
up
to
his
misrepresentation.”
In
responding
to
the
incident,
Krotoski
wrote
he
was
“saddened
and
shocked”
by
the
order
to
show
cause.
He
argued,
“[t]he
record
and
facts
do
not
demonstrate
an
effort
‘to
mislead
the
court’…
and
do
not
support
a
finding
of
subjective
bad
faith.”
And
chalked
it
up
to
“a
poor
choice
of
words
in
communicating
with
the
government
concerning
the
unavailability
of
the
expert.”
But
Judge
Silva
sees
that
as
a
veneer
hastily
slapped
on
the
problematic
tactics
at
play.
“Krotoski
writes
that
he
has
profound
respect
for
the
judicial
system
and
the
rule
of
law
and
details
his
prior
professional
experiences,
which
includes
two
clerkships,
a
decorated
career
with
the
Department
of
Justice,
and
other
public
service
roles,”
Silva
said.
And
then
the
judge
goes
for
the
metaphorical
kill
shot.
“The
court
has
spent
considerable
time
contemplating
why
someone
with
as
much
experience
as
detailed
in
Krotoski’s
23-page
response
would
engage
in
the
unprofessionalism
this
court
has
observed,”
Silva
wrote.
“Indeed,
the
details
of
his
experience
are
wholly
at
odds
with
his
actions
during
the
trial,
which
candidly
saddened
and
shocked
the
court,
as
well.
Unfortunately,
the
court
has
come
to
the
only
logical
explanation
for
his
conduct:
entitlement.”
Harsh.
Silva
continues,
“As
defined
by
Merriam-Webster,
entitlement
is
the
belief
that
‘[he]
is
deserving
of
or
entitled
to
certain
privileges.’
The
record
here
reveals
Mr.
Krotoski
believed
he
was
entitled
to
misrepresent
[the
expert
witness]’s
availability
in
an
email
to
the
government,
writing
she
was
‘traveling’
when
she
was
not.
And
he
apparently
felt
entitled
to
maintain
that
representation
in
open
court.”
The
Merriam-Webster
definition
is
a
classic
rhetorical
flourish
that
really
brings
down
the
hammer.
It’s
pretty
clear
the
judge
is
well
and
truly
tired
of
the
bullshit
she’d
been
getting
during
the
course
of
this
case.
You
can
read
Judge
Silva’s
full
admonition
of
Krotoski
below.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].