One attorney is learning the hard way that calling a judge names isn’t really a winning strategy.

It all started when Benjamin Pavone requested more than $160,000 in attorneys fees for a sexual harassment case. Judicial Commissioner Carmen Luege of Orange County Superior Court denied the request as the submitted time sheets contained entries for a 25-hour day and multiple 15-hour days, saying:

“These entries raise serious questions about the accuracy of counsel’s alleged reconstruction of the time he spent working on this case.”

Pavone appealed the decision, and it was during the appeal when things really got off the rails. Pavone wrote that the judge made a “succubustic adoption of the defense position.” Yikes. Analogizing a judge’s decision to a sex demon is not a good look for anyone.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the appeal, and went a step further, finding Pavone’s name-calling was misconduct and demonstrated gender bias. And they published the decision “to make the point that gender bias by an attorney appearing before us will not be tolerated, period.” Nice flex.

Law.com reached out to Pavone about the case, and his first instinct was to blame the judge:

“As to the panel’s state bar report, the trial court drew first blood when it accused me of fabricating entries on a fee application—accused me of dishonesty,” Pavone wrote. Pavone contended that accusations that he fabricated billing records fell apart on appeal, but the panel “conveniently” ignored that issue.

Welp, that’ll happen when you submit a bill for a 25-hour day.

He went on:

“Notably, there is no indication the panel will refer the trial judge for discipline in light of its, now provably, false accusations, ones far more serious than a vague sexual reference technically attacking the ruling, not the judge,” Pavone wrote. “It is not reasonable to assume a self-respecting lawyer will stand for being unfairly accused and morally impugned and not fight back.”

And regrets, he has a few. Well, kinda:

When asked whether he regretted his choice of words, Pavone responded: “Were I to be given the opportunity to rewrite that sentence, the criticism would have been more strictly academic in nature.”

Taking “succubus” out of your brief-writing repertoire seems like a good step.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).