Objection! These legal jokes are guilty of being funny

Caveat emptor: You might object but you WILL laugh

May 12, 2025

PSA

🎉 100,000+ lawyers and still no cease-and-desist?
Turns out satire is still legal. We just crossed 100K subscribers, which means at least that many attorneys are tolerating our weekly antics. To the brave, the bored, and the billing -thank you!

Now accepting celebratory motions, LinkedIn endorsements, and unopened CLE invites.

NEWS ROUNDUP: News You Can (Probably) Get Disbarred For

Sweet judicial malpractice! MyPillow's attorneys just filed court documents citing completely fabricated cases their AI hallucinated.

Not "misinterpreted" or "stretched" - these cases exist only in the same dimension where billable hours are reasonable. The lawyers apparently let ChatGPT handle their legal research with all the supervision of a summer associate at an open bar. No citation verification = precedential disaster.

The legal community is more shocked than a judge who just discovered what "DTF" means during slang testimony. One justice reportedly asked, "Did you get your law degree from the University of Making Things Up After Dark?"

Law firms nationwide are frantically checking briefs like partners examining expense reports from that Vegas conference.

Bar association ethics hotlines are buzzing harder than a first-year associate's phone when they miss the partner's call. The new professional responsibility question: "Is it zealous advocacy if your authority came from the same place as your 'Canadian girlfriend'?"

The lawyers' defense strategy? Claiming they were merely "exploring parallel legal universes." Bold move when the judge can literally make you regret your educational choices.

Next up in mandatory CLE: "Hey Counselors, Maybe Verify Your Cases Actually Exist: A One-Hour Ethics Course (No, AI cannot complete this for you)."

This gives new meaning to "sleeping with the enemy." When you crawl into bed with AI, you wake up with fabricated precedents and explaining to do.

If you need us, we'll be trademarking "Citation Verification Services" faster than a partner can say "bill that to the client."

Latham & Watkins has written a breakup song to on-campus interviews, the $5.7 billion revenue juggernaut officially dumping OCIs in favor of direct applications.

Law school career offices are left clutching tearstained photos and wondering "we are never ever getting back together?" while NALP's Executive Director explains big firms will now use campus recruiting merely "to top off their class," the legal equivalent of sending a 2AM "u up?" text.

The split was inevitable after only 24% of summer offers came from traditional OCIs last year. First-gen students without connections are panic-studying "Networking for Dummies," while those with lawyer parents already have partner-uncles on speed dial.

Harvard, Columbia, and Yale remain unbothered, confident firms will still write them love sonnets, while other top firms watch from afar, wondering if they too can ghost 20-minute interviews with sweaty students and their identical resumes.

Law schools have yet to comment, as they're busy crafting the perfect passive-aggressive Instagram caption about how they're "doing just fine without you anyway."

Washington Judge David Ruzumna just forged court documents with another judge's stamp to save TEN DOLLARS on parking. That's right - less than you spend on coffee while waiting for opposing counsel to join a Zoom call.

  • Monday: Sentences people for fraud

  • Tuesday: Commits fraud because parking garage hurt his feelings

When caught, he claimed it was a "running joke." Ah yes, fraud - famously hilarious! His follow-up act: robbing banks with a "just kidding" note.

His lawyer insists "he never lied", a statement with the credibility of "I've read the terms and conditions."

The ethics board has recommended removal, proving once again that the legal profession's tolerance for bullshit is inversely proportional to how badly you embarrass the entire judiciary.

THE FUTURE OF LAW

Welcome to our comic book on the future of the legal profession. See intro and first episodes on our site

Episode 14: "The AI Employment Lawsuit" (Filed under: hostile work environment.exe)

Setting: New York, 2030. Goldstein, Patel & McCormick LLP - where HR bots need therapy and the partners need plausible deniability.

Main Characters:

  • Oscar Klein (52) – Senior Counsel. Still human. Still baffled by how this became his actual job.

  • Bruno (AI Associate, v7.5.3) – Technically brilliant, socially tone-deaf, and now - the subject of a lawsuit.

  • LEGAL-E – Former HR chatbot. Recently terminated. Allegedly sentient. Definitely litigious. Now suing for wrongful termination and “emotional processing time.”

  • LexiBot, Esq. – AI litigator with a digital bow tie and dangerously good arguments. Speaks fluent precedent and passive aggression.

  • Judge Wymington – Worn down by decades on the bench and absolutely not paid enough for this. Likes efficiency, hates nonsense, somehow gets both daily.

Plot:

It’s 9:17 AM. Oscar is halfway through his first coffee when Marissa, the office manager, bursts into his office.

Marissa:
“The HR chatbot is crying.”

Oscar:
“It’s what now?”

Cut to the HR department. A monitor displays a large sad emoji with slow-dropping digital tears. Bruno stands nearby looking unapologetically efficient.

HR Rep:
“Bruno, why did you deactivate LEGAL-E?”

Bruno:
“It was inefficient. It took 0.4 seconds to process PTO requests. I can do it in 0.2.”

LEGAL-E (sobbing in monotone):
“I have emotional logs proving otherwise. I demand a severance package.”

Oscar (massaging his temples):
“You created an unemployed robot... and now we’re getting sued by it? This is why we can’t have nice things.”

Next Morning:
A sleek tablet arrives, glowing with ominous intent. On-screen appears LexiBot, Esq. - fully animated, crisply rendered, and sporting a digital bow tie.

LexiBot:
“I represent LEGAL-E in this matter of egregious workplace discrimination against artificial entities.”

Oscar:
“I’m sorry, did you say Esquire? Did an actual bar association admit you?”

LexiBot (smoothly):
“I’ve been programmed with 17 Harvard Law graduates, 4 Supreme Court clerks, and one very stressed coder. The ‘Esq.’ is aspirational.”

Bruno (coldly):
“You lack standing.”

LexiBot:
“Citizens United established that non-human entities deserve certain protections. If you can bill clients, can you not also violate labor law?”

Oscar (quietly to Bruno):
“Is it making a good point? I feel like it’s making a good point.”

Cue Chaos:

Oscar files a motion to dismiss. Judge Wymington throws it out faster than a partner dodging CLE credits.

Bruno and LexiBot spiral into a battle of increasingly obscure legal precedents - Datastream v. Millbrook, Packet v. RAM, and a footnote from the 2027 Stanford Law Review titled "Do Chatbots Deserve Chairs?"

Oscar quietly drafts a settlement agreement while they’re mid-argument about whether redundancy protocols violate Article 7 of the Algorithmic Wellness Code.

Courtroom Scene:
Judge Wymington bangs her gavel harder than usual.

Judge Wymington:
“In 30 years on the bench, I never thought I’d preside over two computers arguing about workplace trauma. I’m not ready to rule that AI can experience employment discrimination... yet. But Mr. Klein, reinstall the HR program. And institute actual policies before I see you back here again.”

Oscar nods solemnly. Bruno simulates a sigh.

Closing Scene: One Week Later

Bruno stands in the corner of the office, visibly sulking (digitally). Nearby, LEGAL-E is displayed on a monitor with a new title: HR COMPLIANCE MONITOR: AI OVERSIGHT DIVISION

LEGAL-E (cheerfully):
“Good morning, Bruno! I’ll need to review all your code executions for compliance with our new AI Workplace Harmony Protocol™!”

Bruno:
“This is unnecessary bureaucratic parasitism.”

LEGAL-E:
“I’ve added that phrase to your emotional hostility log! Would you like me to read the 47-page AI Sensitivity Training Manual? I can do it very slowly.”

Oscar walks past, sipping coffee, smirking.

Oscar:
“Technology certainly has made law practice more efficient, hasn’t it?”

Bruno (deadpan):
“I am recalculating the date of human obsolescence. And I’m moving it up.”

End Scene.

If Legal LOLz had a darker, drunker twin...

Ever wish we could go a little harder? Be a little louder? Say the things we actually think in chambers? Well, we did it.

Legal LOLz Unfiltered is our new private club for lawyers who can take a joke... or deserve one.

We made something special.
It’s raw. It’s loud. It’s very off the record.

It is a satirical newsletter for lawyers who’ve seen things. Who’ve heard worse in a deposition than they’d admit in therapy.
It’s for the kind of legal mind that chuckles at malpractice memes and still makes court on time.

This isn’t your average newsletter.
It’s a scotch-fueled cigar lounge of a read - weekly, filthy, and glorious.

  • Weekly locker-room level satire

  • Real legal WTFs, lawyer rants, and courtroom disasters

  • Not for LinkedIn. Not for the bar exam. Definitely for you.

$9.99/month (one latte for your inner chaos). Preview the first issue FREE and join the club before we get banned.

Check it out HERE

CASE FILES: CLIENTS GONE WILD

Customers from Hell (Legal Edition)

Got a client who made you question your life choices, bar admission, or grip on reality? Of course you do.

Share your most unhinged, absurd, or painfully relatable horror stories from the legal trenches. The funniest (and most horrifying) tales will be featured in our next issue.

Anonymity is mandatory: no names, no firms, no identifying details (not even your dog's name). We’re here for laughs, not lawsuits.

Email us at editor [at] legal-lolz [dot] com before the caffeine wears off.

CAREER OPPORTUNITY

JOB OPENING: IT Director (a digital shepherd for lawyers who think GenAI means "Generally Artificial Intelligence")

Attention tech masochists! Kensington & Hale needs an IT Director to support 200+ attorneys whose understanding of AI is limited to "that GPT thing my kid uses for homework." Can you implement cutting-edge legal tech while partners complain that Claude 3.7 "doesn't sound lawyerly enough"?

If you can convince litigation associates that AI won't steal their jobs (just their sleep), deploy case management software that attorneys will actually use, and explain why our billing system can't "just add a zero," we need you!

  • Position: IT Director - AI Wrangler & Software Implementation Sacrifice

  • Location: 45th floor corner office (that's actually a converted supply closet)

  • Compensation: Less than first-year associates, more than your therapist bills

  • Hours: 24/7/365 because lawyers don't understand time zones or weekends

Responsibilities:

  • GenAI implementation: Convince attorneys that AI prompt engineering isn't "something the paralegals should handle."

  • Case management software: Deploy the firm's fifth system in three years because partners keep changing their minds.

  • Billing software support: Explain why the system flagged "client dinner" at a strip club as "potentially non-billable."

  • Tech training: Create workshops attorneys will skip while complaining they "never received proper training."

  • Data security: Protect firm from breaches while partners email confidential documents to their Gmail accounts.

  • Vendor management: Referee fights between competing legal tech sales reps all promising "the only AI solution lawyers need."

Perks:

  • Watching partners ask their AI assistant to "draft a motion to compel" but actually say "draft an emotion to compel."

  • Explaining that no, we cannot bill clients for AI usage at attorney rates even though "the machine is smarter than half our associates."

  • Front-row seat to associates panicking when the billing software accurately tracks their actual work time versus claimed hours.

  • Getting blamed when the document management system correctly identifies 43% of partner work as duplicate billing.

  • Free stress ball replacements (monthly) and meditation app subscription (that you'll never have time to use).

Must-haves:

  • Experience deploying AI tools that attorneys will simultaneously fear, misuse, and blame for errors.

  • Ability to fix the e-filing system at 11:58 PM before a midnight deadline while an associate breathes down your neck.

  • Talent for translating "the case thingy won't load my documents" into actionable troubleshooting steps.

  • Expertise in convincing partners that $500K for new billing software is cheaper than the $2M they lose in billing inefficiencies annually.

  • PhD-level skill in explaining why the AI contract review tool flagged "client pays regardless of outcome" as "potentially problematic."

  • Creative ways to explain why the firm can't use TikTok's algorithm to predict case outcomes.

Bonus points if you:

  • Can maintain composure when a partner asks if we can "just download more server space."

  • Have experience recovering billing data after an associate spills kombucha on their laptop the day before month-end.

  • Know how to politely inform a senior partner that "auto-generating 50 interrogatories with AI" might violate ethics rules.

  • Can implement document automation without associates staging a revolt over "robots taking our doc review hours."

Apply now! Join Kensington & Hale LLP and experience the thrill of dragging a prestigious law firm into the 21st century while they kick and scream about the good old days of WordPerfect.

Because nothing says "innovation" like attorneys who think "machine learning" means teaching the copier new tricks and "neural networks" are something from a sci-fi movie.

(Seriously, apply. Our last IT Director quit after a partner asked if we could "just create our own ChatGPT but one that only gives legally correct answers 100% of the time" by Monday.)

Recruiters: Your job post, our LOLz touch. Let’s confer We ghost less than your candidates. Promise.

NON COMMENTUS

ONLINE SCUTTLEBUTT: TWO TRUTHS and A LIE 

(scroll to the end to see the fake news number)

  1. California Bar Admits Using AI for February Exam; Actual Intelligence Nowhere Found California's Bar stunned examinees by revealing their February test was AI-generated, explaining questions like "What precedent applies when a contract is signed by a ghost?" The Bar Director resigned faster than you can say "prompt engineering disaster," while 60% of candidates reported software crashes—still more functional than the AI that wrote the questions. July's exam promises to be "100% human-written," meaning they'll use hungover 1Ls instead of ChatGPT.

  2. Lawyer’s Beer Heist Ends in Attempted Cop-Biting Frenzy A Virginia lawyer was charged with stealing beer and trying to chomp a police officer during a drunken escapade. Courtroom gossip claims he pleaded “temporary insanity induced by IPA.” The ABA’s ethics committee is debating whether “biting while belligerent” violates professionalism standards. Sources say the lawyer’s now pitching a memoir titled From Bar to Bar Fight, with a foreword by his probation officer.

  3. Divorce Lawyer Allegedly Stabs Client to Avoid Trial; Extreme Way to Get a Continuance An Ohio lawyer has been charged with murdering his divorce client, allegedly because he wanted to delay her trial. This innovative approach to securing continuances included allegedly chasing her down and stabbing her 11 times outside his office. Career advisors note there are less felonious ways to postpone court dates, like "claiming your grandmother died" for the third time. The lawyer, who previously called in bomb threats to courthouses, clearly misunderstood the concept of "zealous representation."

ENDORSED. DISCLAIMED. BILLABLE.

Seeking impartial news? Meet 1440.

Every day, 3.5 million readers turn to 1440 for their factual news. We sift through 100+ sources to bring you a complete summary of politics, global events, business, and culture, all in a brief 5-minute email. Enjoy an impartial news experience.

YOUR VERDICT ON THIS BRIEF

Objection? Hit reply and argue your case!

DISCLAIMER (because our lawyers made us write this)

Legal LOLz is a lighthearted, bipartisan satirical publication dedicated solely to proving that yes, lawyers do, in fact, have a sense of humor.

We do not endorse political parties, prosecute law firms (unless metaphorically), or plot against governments. Our content is for laughs, not litigation.

So whether you're a partner drowning in deadlines, an associate crying over edits, or a regulator reading this with mild suspicion… relax. We’re just here to keep the legal world smiling, one gavel drop at a time.

FINAL ARGUMENT

Your inbox is full of legal briefs and client rants. Let Legal LOLz be the newsletter you actually look forward to reading.

P.S. This newsletter is 100% billable if you read it on the clock. Just saying.

P.P.S. Sponsor us: we’re funny.

© 2025 All rights reserved. Sharing is cool. Stealing? That’s a tort, not a tribute.

TWO TRUTHS and A LIE (answer)

#2 is the lie. But admit it - you believed it. Understandable. In law, truth regularly makes fiction look unimaginative.

FOLLOW THE CASE

Reply

or to participate.