Gosh golly gee

Back in 2018 a case entitled Campasano v. Koster went to trial in an Illinois state court in Cook County (home of Chicago). It was one of many unremarkable cases, probably thousands, that went to trial in Illinois that year.

But the case has gained some notoriety, not because of the legal issues at stake between the parties, but because of the misbehavior of the attorney for one side. The plaintiff, presumably Campasano (the record doesn’t give either of the parties’ first names) was represented by a David Thollander. During the trial, which lasted from May 21 to 24, 2018, the trial judge noted that she had had to “repeatedly admonished Mr. Thollander to obey the Court’s rulings, and further admonished him several times that if he continued his improper courtroom behavior, consisting among other things of shouting, behaving in a hostile manner, interjecting during Court rulings, that Mr. Thollander would be found in direct criminal contempt.”

And on August 28 (it’s not clear why it took so long for the ruling), the trial judge did just that. Her final ruling specified that Thollander, “Refused to comply with Court Orders; continually muttered under his breath throughout the trial; interrupted the Court yelling, ‘Gadzooks!’ after the Court ruled; and behaved in other rude, hostile, and unbecoming manners to the Court.” She fined Thollander $1,000.

What seems to have gotten everyone’s attention is that part about Thollander having yelled “Gadzooks!” in response to the judge’s rulings. Lawyers have gotten into trouble for things like wearing clothing that the judge didn’t like (once, famously, for wearing a turban). Or for continuing to argue when a judge has already ruled against them. And so on.

So there was plenty to justify a contempt ruling against Mr. Thollander (especially the part about, despite repeatedly being admonished, he interrupted the judge and violated previous court orders).

But “Gadzooks!”?

Well, despite what you might have thought you learned on

The Flintstones, that’s not a quotation from “Romeo and Juliet.” The earliest recorded use of “Gadzooks” is only from the midseventeenth century, whereas “Romeo and Juliet” was one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays, having been written in the 1590s. “Gadzooks” isn’t a particularly objectionable word, either — in fact, many dictionaries cite it as a mild, if archaic, oath.

So it must have been that part about Thollander yelling “Gadzooks!” Judges really dislike it if you yell at them.

Always remember that a courtroom is not a school board meeting.

Thollander appealed his contempt fine, and managed to get the Illinois appeals court to stay the fine while his appeal worked its way through the system. He also asked for permission to file transcripts of the trial, which were not part of either the court’s ruling or the trial court’s own record, because transcripts have to be requested from the court reporter and paid for.

But as the court of appeal explained, while Thollander filed various other documents and, eventually, legal arguments, he never did get around to filing the transcripts despite having asked for, and being given, permission to do so.

So, another good rule: Don’t yell “Gadzooks!” at the judge, then promise the court of appeal that you’re going to provide transcripts . . . and then not do it. Judges hate that kind of thing, too.

Actually, though, it’s a little hard to see why, even if Thollander had submitted the transcripts, they would have done much good. Would they have shown things like:

“PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Objection. Hearsay.

“JUDGE: Overruled. “PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: ‘Gadzooks!’ (spoken in a gentle, respectful manner)”?

Or perhaps:

“May 22. Day Two of the trial. Still no muttering under his breath whatsoever by Mr. Thollander.”

No . . . no, I don’t think so. Hence, the court of appeal’s ruling starts off by explaining that, “Where the appellate record contains no report of proceedings and a limited common law record, we have no option but to affirm the trial court’s order of criminal contempt.”

In other words, because Thollander didn’t provide a good reason for the court of appeal to depart from the trial court’s ruling, the appeals court upheld the finding of contempt and the fine. But if nothing else, Thollander provided a new way (or at least a new word) for lawyers to get in trouble with trial judges.

And in the future, he’ll know that if he wants to convince the appeals court he was right, he’ll have to get a court reporter who includes stage directions in the transcript.

Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.