Keeping Abreast of Trial: Chicago Lawyer Moves To Exclude Opponent’s “Large Breasted” Assistant

Thomas W. Gooch III of Gauthier & Gooch in Chicago has achieved a degree of national notoriety in a motion to force his opponent Dmitry Feofanov to get rid of a “large breasted woman” who has appeared with him at counsel’s table. Gooch suggests that Feofanov is trying to use something erotic to defeat his client, Exotic Motors. He insists that the woman has no known legal function and is meant to distract the jurors, but Feofanov insists that she is a trained paralegal. The dispute is over the car dealership’s warranty on a used Cadillac.


Here is part of the motion as shown on Jezebel below:

Now Comes your Defendant, Exotic Motors, by and through their attorneys, Gauthier & Gooch, and as for their Motion as aforesaid states to the Court as follows:

1. That Defendant’s counsel is anecdotally familiar with the tactics and theatrics of Plaintiff’s counsel, [redacted]. Such behavior includes having a large breasted woman sit next to him at counsel’s table during the course of the trial. There is no evidence whatsoever that this woman has any legal training whatsoever, and the sole purpose of her presence at Plaintiff’s Counsel’s table is to draw the attention of the jury away from the relevant proceedings before this court, obviously prejudicing the Defendant’s in this or any other cause. Until it is shown that this woman has any sort of legal background, she should be required to sit in the gallery with the rest of the spectators and be barred from sitting at counsel’s table during the course of this trial.

I am not sure of the proper term for such a motion but a motion in limine Lingerie would appear the closest option. This Dolly Parton motion has little chance of success unless judges want to start setting guidelines on trial-appropriate body ratios. While the firm bills itself as “aggressive litigators,” this may have been a bit too aggressive and suggestive for the tastes of the court.

Source: Jezebelas first seen on ABA Journal

30 thoughts on “Keeping Abreast of Trial: Chicago Lawyer Moves To Exclude Opponent’s “Large Breasted” Assistant”

  1. Mr. Gooch has forgotten the first principle of natural law, that all men (and women) are endowed by their Creator, some more than others. As a trained professional, he should be able to ignore silly distractions and place his trust in the bosom of the law.

  2. big boobs, no known function, she must be the fox news correspondent.

  3. “This real B of a lawyer who got him to dismiss my claims and order me to pay her $29 K with no finding of fraud on my part and no opinion came to court in a tight skirt with a slit way up in back.”~Kay S
    ————————————
    Kay It’s a pretty poor judge that falls for that kind of crap…don’t you think the sleezy overuse of visual sexual
    connotation is just a tad overdone to be truly effective in something as serious as a lawsuit?

  4. What next, no double-breasted (law/pant) suits for women, and the gals must also reduce the ‘cup size’ of their courtroom coffee mugs commensurate with their natural contours…

  5. In some countries lawyers and litigants are given robes to wear and I think that is a good idea. As some know, I had a bad bad experience with former judge Naughty Nottingham. He was married three times, hung out at the Diamond Cabaret lap dance club, was a customer of the Denver Players brothel, and according to the 10th Circuit was calling prostitutes on his court issued cell phone.

    This real B of a lawyer who got him to dismiss my claims and order me to pay her $29 K with no finding of fraud on my part and no opinion came to court in a tight skirt with a slit way up in back.

  6. hmm…. If Mr. Gooch couldn’t go so far as to complain about “excessive décolletage” or claim that this paralegal was gratuitously dropping items on the floor, then bending over to pick them up, then I suspect that the paralegal isn’t doing much.

    Could it be that Mr. Feofanov is familiar enough with Mr. Gooch to know that it’s Gooch, not the jury, who can’t stay focused on the relevant proceedings? I now know that if I must face Mr. Gooch in a court here in town to select my representation based on a mix of courtroom prowess and ampleness of bosom – he couldn’t very well complain about the modestly presented anatomy of opposing council, could he?

  7. “…they still are the Grand Tetons, and there’s not much to be done about it. I do love the image of those French trappers out there. ‘Sacre bleu, look at the size on dem things, ah?’ It’s a good thing, if you think about it, it’s a good thing those mountains were named by French trappers, rather than modern-day snowboarders, for instance. We would today have the Bodacious Wam-Wam National Park. It just wouldn’t be the same.” – Tom Rush [Trolling For Owls]

  8. I want Strauss Poled….

    Then again…some womens right probably do as well….

  9. ‘I am not sure of the proper term for such a motion…’article
    ———————–
    OMG! that looks like a tit referret ad
    which kinda makes boobs out of everyone…..

  10. Keeping abreast of the news can be such an interesting and eye opening experience.

  11. I’m certainly not a lawyer,but I guess this is a motion you use when you know you are losing.

  12. Thomas W. Gooch III of Gauthier & Gooch in Chicago has achieved a degree of national notoriety in a motion to force his opponent…

    What’s in a name, anyway…

  13. No, the judge can’t possibly touch this one, lol. After all, what would follow? The banning of male lawyers for having distractingly large equipment? And no, it won’t show under the suit, but I’m guessing some assumptions could be made from behavior under the “Do you gotta act like one just cause you’ve got one?” rule!

Comments are closed.