Yikes, it’s already February, Groundhog Day has come and gone. Punxsutawney Phil predicted six more weeks of winter, but apparently not here in California. Rain? What’s rain?

If you have never seen the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day, you need to stream it. How many times do you have to rewrite responses to interrogatories before they meet with senior lawyer approval? Way too many times, I would imagine; at least, that was my experience many years ago.

So, I thought that this would be a perfect time for this year’s first “what were they thinking?” column. Were these lawyers thinking at all? The answer is “obviously not.”

First, the story of an attorney in the Eleventh Circuit who thinks that “no” is not “no,” and that you won’t be burned if you play with matches. Remember that admonition from childhood? I would expect that his firm will not allow this lawyer to appear in the Circuit again any time soon, or maybe even forever. When a court says that “no means no,” I don’t think there’s any other possible meaning.

And then there’s the one about the associate who filched funds from the firm’s (alliteration unintentional) cost account. But wait, there’s more. An employee’s credit card was also stolen and then used to purchase some sex toys. Perhaps the associate wasn’t being paid enough? Don’t try this one in an effort to get a raise. That’s not what you’ll get.

Here’s something that should be pretty elementary: don’t peddle information to companies in order to curry favor with them as prospective clients. Sounds pretty basic, doesn’t it? However, a new Biglaw partner, anxious to impress, does exactly that. Would those facts make a good question on the bar exam? Ethics and criminal law, perhaps? We all know about the necessity of business development, but this one takes creative business development way outside of any legitimate scope.

What sets me off about this particular story is the outdated and untrue notion that attorneys in Biglaw, who have the ostensible pedigrees that Biglaw firms drool over, are made of the “right stuff.” They love telling that to attorneys who don’t measure up to their exacting standards.

However, Biglaw lawyers can and do fall just as far, if not farther, than the solo who practices “door law” in a storefront office in a “flyover town” in a “flyover state.” I don’t feel sorry for him. Highly educated, he threw away an opportunity that so many lawyers would kill for — err, perhaps not kill, not even steal — and who would never have that opportunity because they lacked the pedigree. I’m sure many, if not all, of those Biglaw rejects understand right from wrong. And what does this say about the business development pressure that he obviously felt?

And there’s this one that won’t promote harmony either at home or in the office. The wife pleaded guilty to multiple counts of fraud.

So, what would you do in this situation? Which is worse? Censure by the state bar disciplinary authority or censure by your disbarred wife when you prevent her from coming in to the office? Husband chose to fall on the disciplinary sword. Perhaps it’s time to rethink the concept of partners (both in and out of the office) practicing together? Who now sleeps in the guest bedroom at home?

Another judicial officer bites the dust. A Nebraska Supreme Court justice, Max Kelch, resigned as he faced an ethics investigation. One woman said that he once asked a petite female staffer in a public hallway how she had sex with her bodybuilder boyfriend. I am not making this up.

No wonder firm Christmas parties may be a thing of the past, if this is any example. The facts are pretty astonishing: London solicitor pours beer over a woman, calls her a slut, slaps her on her bottom, and you can read the link for the rest. No surprise, thank goodness, that a jury convicted this turkey of racially aggravated assault and sexual assault, one count each. He lost his job (duh) and had to register as a sex offender for five years. Is five years long enough?

A Baltimore lawyer used the threat of deportation to try to prevent a rape victim from testifying against his client. Intimidating a witness? Obstruction of justice?

We know that ICE agents have been lurking around courthouses. California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote ICE last summer and told the agency to knock it off around the state’s courthouses. Do you think ICE has now deputized attorneys to assist it in rounding up the “usual suspects,” a la Casablanca style?

Last, but certainly not least, there’s the example of a district attorney threatening two lawyers in front of a district judge. Where to start here? It’s bad enough to threaten two lawyers, as that’s outside the bounds of “zealous advocacy” permitted by the rules by which we lawyers practice. However, this flying off the handle was in front of a district judge. Whoops. The judge recused herself and testified on behalf of the two threatened lawyers. A witness’s credibility can’t get much better than that. Would you like to have a district judge testify against you? Not me, thank you. Would you say that a course in anger management might be appropriate?

In fact, I think a course in anger management might be a good idea for a lot of us. Learn how not to slam down the phone or hang up on someone when you’re irritated, learn how to respond to phone message, texts, faxes (does anyone still fax?), and emails when you’re irritated, learn how to be civil, even when you’re irritated.

Remember how we were taught to “count to 10”? Does anyone still do that, or, in these days of everything at warp speed, would 10 be enough? I don’t know whether an anger management course would qualify for credit for ethics, competence, elimination of bias, or a combination of all three, but such a course sure wouldn’t hurt.