Blawgletter thinks we can all agree that no lawyer wants to see this sort of reference to him or her in a court ruling:

The failure to [do something important] was entirely and indefensibly the fault of [litigant's] counsel.

Communications Network Int'l, Ltd. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. (In re WorldCom, Inc.), No. 10-4588(l), slip op. 3 (2d Cir. Jan. 24, 2013).

The mis-step in question involved a failure to file a timely notice of appeal from an order awarding MCI $2.4 million from CNI for telecom services. Why did it happen? Because CNI's lawyer changed his email address, listed the new one in papers he filed with the district court, but didn't tell the ECF system to update its records so that notices it sends our electronically would go to the new address.

The dissenting judge felt the majority's decision unduly punished a client for a "garden variety" lawyer error.

What do you think? Did the majority (per District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan) get the ruling right? Or do you agree with the dissent (per Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch)?

We note that the lawyer-in-error appears to have argued the case to the court. And we bet it wasn't pretty.