Total Pageviews

Sunday, April 13, 2025

Chapter 5:Food First, Facts Later

One noisy day in a courtroom, a lawyer stood up.
But he didn’t look angry or serious.
He looked... hungry.

His tummy made loud growling sounds.
He had skipped breakfast. He skipped lunch.
Now he was starving — and still waiting for his case!

He stood up, pointed his finger, and said:

"Your Honor, I’ve been waiting all day!
My case is old, don’t throw it away!
I’ve been waiting since the crack of dawn,
My lunch is gone, my energy's gone!"

The judge looked up slowly, then rubbed his forehead and sighed.
"Mr. Lawyer," he said, "do you think this is a restaurant?
This is a court, not a food court!
You can’t chew on my brain just because you’re hungry!"

The lawyer chuckled and gave a little bow.

"But Your Honor," he grinned, "justice is like food.
Too late, and it's cold. Too early, it’s rude. 

The judge sighed and said,
"Forget it! Court is over. I’m going to eat before someone eats me!"

And the lawyer shouted: But My Lord, Justice delayed is justice denied. 

Judge responded:That is true. But this is also true.  

" LUNCH DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED!"

Moral of the Story:

Don’t skip meals, no matter how big,
Even if you're wearing a lawyer’s wig.
Justice and food must both align,
Don't Argue case, when it’s launch time!

Written by Ajay Amitabh Suman,The Lawfing Lawyer
Patent and Trademark Attorney, Delhi High Court
[Lawfing Tales of Law, Lawyers and Litigants]
[Inspired from True Life Events]

Chapter 6:Collision of Vision

It was a normal morning in the courtroom. The Judge was sitting on his big chair. Everyone was quiet and serious. Well… almost everyone.

Two lawyers, Mr. A and Mr. B, were asking questions to a man called Mr. C. Mr. C was very nervous and kept looking around like a squirrel lost in a shopping mall.

Suddenly, Mr. A stood up, pointed at Mr. B, and shouted,“My Lord! Mr. B is looking at the witness Mr. C too much! Mr. B is sending secret messages with his eyes! That’s not fair!”

Everyone in the room turned and stared at Mr. B.Mr. B stood up slowly and said,

“My Lord, I’m just looking! I’m not sending any messages. But Mr. A can not stare at me at my staring at Mr. C. Any way , My stare is strong, yes—but that’s just how I look! In fact, when I stare at people, they look away. Even my cat avoids me!”

The courtroom went silent.The Judge sighed and rubbed his forehead.“There is no rule about staring,” said the Judge. “You two are not in a staring contest. If this is a battle of eyeballs, maybe you should go look in a mirror and not at me.”

The whole courtroom started laughing. Even Mr. C smiled nervously.

The Judge put on his sunglasses and said with a smile,“Court is closed before anyone goes blind!” And as he walked out, he added:“Next time, bring a good case… not just a scary face!
Moral of the Story:

Don’t fight with your eyes, it’s a silly show,
Judges want proof, not a staring glow!
If you're in court, make your case bright,
Not a laser battle with eyeball light! 

Written by Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, Patent and Trademark Attorney, Delhi High Court
[The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Lawfing Tales of Law, Lawyers and Litigants by The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Inspired from True Life Events]

Chapter 8:Reserved Chairfully

It was lunchtime at court.
Lawyers ran out like school kids when the bell rings.
Everyone wanted food, water… and a place to sit!

One hungry lawyer came in first.
He spotted an empty chair next to a table.
There was just one lonely bag sitting on it.

He looked around, saw no one coming, and said,
“Chairs are for people, not handbags!”
He moved the bag gently to the side and sat down with a big smile.

Just as he opened his tiffin…

BOOM! Another lawyer marched in—looking like he’d just lost a case and a samosa.

He pointed and shouted,
“Hey! That’s my seat! I kept my bag there!”

The first lawyer looked up calmly and said,
“Well, your bag had a seat. You didn’t.”

The second lawyer replied,
“I went to get water! That bag saved my seat!”

The first lawyer grinned,
“Next time, send a notice with your bag. I’ll reply with a counter claim!”

The second lawyer was fuming.
He turned to the crowd and yelled,
“Who moves someone’s bag like that? That’s illegal lunch practice!”

The crowd laughed. Even the peon by the water cooler giggled.

Then the first lawyer stood up, raised his half-eaten roti like a mic, and said:
“Objection overruled! The seat has already been occupied—by me and my paneer roll!” In any case, I am in possession of this chair and hence I can not be dispossessed without due process of law. 

The second lawyer picked one piece of paneer, and said loudly,
“Fine! But this will go to the Bar Association... lunch committee!” Do not blame me, for I am following due process of law. 

Moral of the Story:

If a chair is free, don’t just delay,
Or someone else will sit and stay!
A bag’s no lawyer, no right no claim,
Lunch is at war in the chairs name. 

Written by Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, Patent and Trademark Attorney, Delhi High Court
[The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Lawfing Tales of Law, Lawyers and Litigant by The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Inspired from True Life Events]

Justice got dipped in detergent

Two lawyer friends met for lunch on a bright sunny day.
One looked like a classic lawyer—black coat, black pants, black shoes.
The other? He looked like a tub of vanilla ice cream—white shirt, white trousers, even white shoes!

The lawyer in black looked at him and laughed,
“Are you going to court or a wedding? You’re glowing like a tube light!”

The man in white smiled proudly,
“Why not? Everyone wears black—so boring! I like to shine like justice in sunlight!”

His friend chuckled,
“You look like justice got dipped in detergent!”

Just then, the waiter brought two cups of hot tea.
He looked at the white lawyer and said,
“Sir, your outfit is brighter than my future! But be careful—tea loves white shirts!”

The white lawyer grinned,
“Don’t worry! I’ve got tea-handling skills. This shirt won’t even smell the splash!”

He slowly lifted the cup like a delicate trophy…

Plop!

One sneaky drop of tea jumped out—and landed smack in the middle of his shirt. A big, brown stain on all that clean white.

Gasps. Silence.

Then laughter.

The black-clad friend burst out laughing,
“You just lost your whiteness case in one sip!”

The white lawyer looked at the stain, then at his friend, and said with a grin,
“Well, now I have evidence that tea attacks the innocent too!”

Moral of the Story (in 4 funny lines):

Wearing white might win some cheer,
But stains will find you—far or near!
In court, be smart, not just polite—
Wear black, sip tea, and dodge the fight!

Written by Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, Patent and Trademark Attorney, Delhi High Court
[The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Lawfing Tales of Law, Lawyers and Litigants by The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Inspired from True Life Events]

Chapter 7:In case a Pigeon decides the case

It was just another day in court.
The fans were spinning slowly, the clerk was yawning, and the judge looked like he had already seen a hundred files—and wished he hadn’t.

Then came Mr. Fancy Lawyer.

His coat flew behind him like he was walking a red carpet. His shoes shone like mirrors. He walked in, holding a big file like it was a treasure chest.

He stood tall and declared with pride,
“My Lord! I have learned so much in this courtroom while arguing the case. My Lord knows more and more!”

The judge looked up calmly and replied,
“That’s good. I’ve also learned something…”
He paused, looked around, and added,
“I’ve learned that the more lawyers speak, the less I understand!”

The courtroom chuckled.

The lawyer laughed too and said,
“True, My Lord! We know more and more of less and less… while My Lord knows less and less of more and more!”

The judge grinned,
“Don’t worry. Half the time, we’re all just pretending to understand less and less of what lawyers speak, more and more!”

Just then, drama struck!

The lawyer opened his grand file to make his next big point when suddenly—
SPLAT!
A pigeon flew in from nowhere and dropped a perfect poop right in the middle of his paperwork!

The courtroom gasped.

The lawyer stared at the mess, looked up at the proud pigeon on the window, and said with a grin,
“Looks like even this pigeon has given its judgment!”

The judge chuckled and replied,
“Yes—and unlike us, the bird didn’t take hours to decide!”

The whole courtroom burst into laughter. Even the clerk stopped yawning.

Moral of the Story:

When Lawyer’s logic flew high and wide,
A pigeon dropped the truth with a pride!
No delay, no latches , no courtroom drama, 
Just a flying verdict… with perfect karma!

Written by Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, Patent and Trademark Attorney, Delhi High Court
[The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Lawfing Tales of Law, Lawyers and Litigants by The Lawfing Lawyer]
[Inspired from True Life Events]

Saturday, April 12, 2025

Gandhi and Buddha Were Not Wrong—We Wronged Them

Gandhi and Buddha Were Not Wrong—We Wronged Them

History often remembers great souls with reverence, yet forgets the burden their teachings place upon us. Lord Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi did not merely advocate non-violence, compassion, and truth—they embodied them. They walked the earth not to be worshipped as saints, but to be followed as guides. However, as generations pass, we have selectively admired their legacies while conveniently ignoring the difficult path they laid out. It is not their teachings that have failed us; it is we who have failed them. Gandhi and Buddha were not wrong—we wronged them.

Selective Veneration, Avoided Application

Mahatma Gandhi’s message of ahimsa—non-violence—was not a passive withdrawal from conflict, but an active force of moral resistance. When he said, “If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer him the other,” he was not glorifying submission but offering an alternative to the endless cycle of vengeance. His Salt March of 1930 was a testament to how this principle could shake the foundations of an empire. Thousands joined him to break the unjust salt laws, enduring brutal beatings without lifting a hand in retaliation. Yet today, we praise Gandhi’s courage without embracing his discipline. We admire his outcomes but ignore his process.

Similarly, Lord Buddha’s profound compassion transformed not only individuals but entire communities. The story of Angulimala, a dreaded forest bandit who murdered hundreds, is well-known. When Buddha met him, he radiated such serene compassion that Angulimala’s hardened heart melted. The killer became a monk, a seeker of peace. The lesson is clear: even the most violent soul can be transformed through love—not force. And yet, in our time, we recite these stories in spiritual gatherings, while dismissing the idea of rehabilitation or forgiveness in real life. We turned Buddha’s compassion into mythology, rather than morality.

The Convenience of Worship Without Imitation

We revere Gandhi and Buddha as ideals beyond reach, placing them on pedestals so high that their teachings become irrelevant to the common person. This is a comfortable way to avoid responsibility. By declaring, “Their path is not practical today,” we absolve ourselves of the effort needed to walk it, even partially.

Mahatma Gandhi lived an extraordinarily simple life. He spun his own cloth, fasted regularly, and constantly examined his inner motives. He didn’t ask others to follow what he himself would not do. Yet we wear khadi on commemorative days and preach Gandhian values in lectures, while justifying corruption, intolerance, and violence in daily life. We quote Gandhi, but do not embody him.

Buddha taught mindfulness, detachment from greed, and compassion toward all beings. His spiritual aura was so powerful that even wild animals, it is said, would not harm him. But he was not a miracle-worker; he was a disciplined seeker who spent years in meditation, cultivating a mind so pure that it could calm nature itself. Instead of practicing his path, we have commercialized his image—selling his statues as décor, not as reminders of inner work. We commercialized Buddha, but not his teachings.

Misunderstanding Their Strength

The modern world often views non-violence as weakness. But Gandhi and Buddha proved the opposite. It takes immense strength to stand unarmed in front of a soldier, or to respond to hatred with love. Gandhi’s fasting was not escapism—it was moral warfare. Buddha’s silence in the face of insults was not fear—it was mastery.

Yet, when we encounter even minor insults, we retaliate. When threatened, we rush to dominate. We say, “This is the real world, not Gandhi’s or Buddha’s time.” But the world they lived in was not gentler than ours. Gandhi faced colonial brutality. Buddha confronted deeply entrenched social hierarchies and the ignorance of a warring world. The difference is, they chose the harder path—and we rarely do.

Wisdom, Not Blind Imitation

This is not to say their teachings must be followed blindly. Even great spiritual figures acknowledged the need for discernment. A story from the life of Swami Ramakrishna Paramhansa illustrates this balance. When a scorpion was found in the temple, he asked his disciple Premananda to kill it. Premananda, embracing non-violence, threw it into the grass instead. Ramakrishna reminded him, “If God appears as a scorpion, He must be treated accordingly.” Compassion does not mean foolishness. One must respond with wisdom.

This reflects the need to adapt their teachings with understanding—not rejection. Loving a snake does not mean embracing its bite. Non-violence must be tempered by self-preservation and context. But adaptation is not abandonment. In the name of realism, we have often abandoned the very ideals that could elevate us.

The Path Forward

It is tempting to believe that Gandhi and Buddha were exceptions—that their spiritual aura protected them, and ordinary people cannot aspire to such heights. But this belief lets us remain spiritually lazy. They did not descend from the heavens. They worked, struggled, failed, and rose again. Gandhi admitted to his faults. Buddha tried multiple paths before enlightenment. They were not perfect by birth—they became powerful through persistence.

If we believe we cannot follow them because we lack their greatness, then we must at least begin by cultivating their values in small ways. We may not face British colonizers or forest bandits, but we do face dishonesty, cruelty, and injustice in our everyday interactions. Can we speak truth in our workplace? Can we forgive our neighbor? Can we avoid harming with our words?

Even a small commitment to truth and compassion can be a revolutionary act. In doing so, we stop dishonoring Gandhi and Buddha by our selective admiration and begin to honor them by our actions.

Conclusion: The Responsibility Lies With Us

Gandhi and Buddha were not wrong. They showed us what is possible when a human being chooses love over fear, truth over compromise, and discipline over indulgence. If their teachings seem impractical today, it is because we have chosen the easier path. We expect peace without paying the price of inner transformation. We want the change without becoming the changemakers.

In worshipping them as saints rather than following them as teachers, we have not just failed to live up to their ideals—we have betrayed them. The burden of irrelevance does not lie on their shoulders, but on ours.

It is time to stop asking whether Gandhi and Buddha were too idealistic for the world. The real question is: Are we too cynical for their truth?

Ajay Amitabh Suman:Patent and Trademark Attorney:Delhi High Court

Friday, April 11, 2025

Borrowed Words, Broken Trust: Justice on Trial

Borrowed Words, Broken Trust: Justice on Trial

A Blow to Judicial Dignity: A Moment of Reflection for the Indian Legal System:

In the democratic fabric of India, the judiciary is not merely an institution—it is the moral compass that steers the nation when other branches falter. Revered as the ultimate guardian of constitutional values, the judiciary enjoys unparalleled public trust, precisely because it has, over the decades, consistently risen above political tides to uphold justice, equity, and the rule of law. However, when allegations or findings of ethical lapses emerge—not from fringe actors, but from the very individuals who once helmed the highest judicial offices—the damage reverberates far beyond the confines of any individual’s reputation. It questions the sanctity of the institution itself and unsettles public faith in the impartial machinery of justice.

The Singapore Shock: A Sobering Reminder:

The recent ruling by the Singapore Supreme Court, which annulled an arbitral award co-authored by former Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, has sent ripples through the Indian legal ecosystem. The Court held that 212 out of 451 paragraphs—nearly half of the award—were directly copied from a previous arbitral ruling. This was not brushed aside as clerical or accidental oversight; rather, it was found to constitute a grave breach of diligence and impartiality, undermining the very integrity of the arbitral process. When such conclusions are drawn by a foreign judiciary about a former head of India’s apex court, it is not just an international embarrassment—it is an institutional indictment.

A Legacy Tarnished by Post-Retirement Conduct:

Justice Misra’s tenure as Chief Justice of India was undeniably transformative. His judgments on Section 377, passive euthanasia, and honour crimes were milestones in the liberalization of Indian jurisprudence. Yet, this post-retirement controversy casts a long shadow over that legacy. It underscores an uncomfortable truth—that judicial dignity is not confined to tenure. The mantle of constitutional authority does not expire with retirement. On the contrary, those who have held such esteemed positions are expected to embody the same principles in every sphere of public engagement thereafter. The moral authority once wielded within courtrooms must also illuminate conduct in conference rooms, arbitral panels, and public forums.

A Cultural Indifference to Originality: An Unspoken Compromise:

What this episode unveils is not merely an isolated failing but a broader cultural complacency. In India, the problem of intellectual replication—whether in academic submissions, bureaucratic work, or professional opinions—is too often met with indulgent shrugs or procedural silence. Unlike in global institutions where academic and professional plagiarism carries immediate consequences, India lacks a unified ethical framework governing post-retirement conduct of jurists, arbitrators, or legal professionals. The absence of such a framework creates a grey area where professional slippages occur, unchecked—until they are caught by more exacting standards abroad.

When Ethics Outpace Legality:

The most disconcerting element in this episode is that the conduct, while ethically indefensible, may not even constitute a violation of Indian copyright law. But this is precisely where the conversation must mature. The standards for those who occupy or have occupied constitutional posts must rise above bare legality. The exercise of judicial reasoning—especially in arbitration—demands original application of mind, independent analysis, and the exercise of discretion rooted in fairness. Reproduction without attribution, even when legally permissible, betrays a deeper ethical failure. When former judges fall short of these expectations, the fallout is not personal—it is institutional.

Toward a National Ethical Framework:

It is now imperative that India reassesses its laxity toward ethical accountability beyond judicial office. What is needed is not piecemeal regulation but a comprehensive national code of conduct that spans students, academics, bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges—serving or retired. In arbitration, specifically, it is time to mandate plagiarism-detection software and enforce disclosure norms regarding sources and inspiration. Just as academic institutions have embraced originality audits, arbitration panels too must incorporate technological and procedural safeguards that preserve their credibility.

Reclaiming Public Confidence Through Education and Transparency:

We must resist the temptation to focus solely on punitive measures. What India requires is a paradigm shift in public values—one that begins in the classroom and extends into professional ethics. Original thought must not only be expected but celebrated as a democratic virtue. The judiciary, in particular, would benefit from structured ethics workshops, mandatory post-retirement conduct guidelines, and transparent declarations in any quasi-judicial role assumed thereafter.

A Moment of Reckoning, Not Retaliation:

Justice Misra’s contributions to Indian constitutional law cannot, and should not, be erased. But neither should this moment be trivialized as a harmless aberration. It is a reminder that ethical leadership is a lifelong obligation, especially for those who have once donned the robe of constitutional authority. This controversy offers India a chance to introspect, recalibrate, and reaffirm its commitment to the moral compass that its judiciary represents.

Let this episode be a turning point—not in condemnation, but in reform. The dignity of the judiciary, once shaken, can only be restored through consistent integrity, unwavering transparency, and systemic transformation. The choice is not between legacy and accountability—true legacy is built on the foundation of both.


Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, High Court of Delhi

Friday, April 4, 2025

Chapter 9:The Calm Flight

There were two well-known politicians in the country.One was always seen wearing a red tie.The other one always wore a blue tie.They belonged to different political parties.They had different ideas about how to run the country.Because of that, they argued all the time.

People often saw them on TV, shouting during debates.They pointed fingers, raised their voices, and blamed each other.Sometimes, it even looked like they would throw things!

People at home watched them like it was a show.Some students joked, “These two should get their own TV series!”

One day, both politicians had to attend a meeting in another city.They both booked flights to get there.

When they arrived at the airport, the airline told them something surprising:“Sorry, sirs, only two business class seats left… and they’re next to each other.”

Uh-oh.Everyone around expected trouble.

The flight attendants got nervous.One whispered, “Should we separate them?”But the seats were already fixed.

The two politicians didn’t say anything.They just nodded and walked onto the plane.

Once they sat down, something very unexpected happened.

Nothing. Happened. At all.

The man in the red tie quietly sipped green tea.The man in the blue tie opened a puzzle book and started solving Sudoku.They didn’t shout.They didn’t even frown.

They just sat peacefully. Like two strangers on a calm bus ride.

A lawyer sitting in the row behind them kept watching.He had seen both of them yelling on TV the night before.Now, here they were—quiet, calm, even polite.

He couldn’t understand it.

After a while, he leaned forward and asked politely,“Excuse me, sirs. I don’t mean to bother you, but…
Aren’t you two always fighting? What happened?”

The man in the blue tie smiled.The man in the red tie chuckled.

Then one of them said, “We only argue during work. That’s our job.”

The other nodded and said, “Just like you lawyers. You fight in court, but then have coffee together.”

The lawyer was surprised.

He thought about his own job.Yes, it was true. He often stood in court and argued with other lawyers.
He shouted “Objection!” and said strong things.But after the case ended, he and the other lawyer would sometimes go out for lunch.

He smiled and said, “You’re right. I never thought about it that way.”

The two politicians nodded.They didn’t hate each other. They just had different roles, different opinions.
But outside of debates, they could still be friendly.

By the end of the flight, they even shared a pack of cookies.One of them joked, “Next debate, I’ll argue better if I eat a cookie first.”The other laughed, “Only if it’s chocolate chip!”

Everyone on the plane smiled.Even the lawyer.

Moral of the story:
They shout and fight on TV screens,Then laugh and share snacks behind the scenes!

Ajay Amitabh Suman, Patent and Trademark Attorney,Lawfing Lawyer

Chapter 4:The Missing Senior

It was a quiet afternoon in the courtroom.The fan was buzzing, papers were shuffling, and people looked a little sleepy. Then, suddenly…

The Judge returned from lunch.
He sat down, looked serious, and said, “Next case.”

Everyone sat up straight. Something was about to happen.

A young junior lawyer stood up. He looked very nervous—like he had just seen a ghost hiding inside his case file.

No one knew it yet, but something funny was coming.

This was the second time today the junior lawyer was asking for more time.

At 11 AM, he had stood up and said,
"My Lord, my Senior is stuck in traffic. Can we take the case at 2 PM?"
The Judge smiled and said, “Okay. Come back at 2 PM.”

Now it was 2 PM. Everyone was waiting. The room was full of quiet hope and hidden popcorn energy.

But the Senior Lawyer was still missing.

The Judge raised an eyebrow and asked,
“Where is your Senior now?”

The junior lawyer gulped and said,
“My Lord… now he is stuck in another court.”

The Judge looked surprised.
“First traffic, now another court?”

The junior nodded quickly.
“Yes, My Lord. He got stuck again.”

The Judge leaned back and said,
“This is not a train station. I can’t keep waiting all day!”

The courtroom giggled.

The Judge said,“I came back from lunch. Maybe he went for dinner?”

The Judge then asked,
“So, when will your Senior come now?”

The junior gave a nervous smile and said,
“Tomorrow, My Lord. 

The Judge further asked, at what time?

The junior replied hesitatingly ,
"at 2 PM My Lord."

The Judge squinted and asked,
“And what is the guarantee he will come tomorrow at 2 PM?”

The junior replied,
“If he doesn’t, I will disappear!”

Moral of the Story:

Excuses in court don’t fly too far,
Even if your Senior’s stuck in a car.
Bring your case, not a traffic tale,
Judge might catch you even by mail! 

Written by Ajay Amitabh Suman,The Lawfing Lawyer
Patent and Trademark Attorney, Delhi High Court
[Lawfing Tales of Law, Lawyers and Litigants]
[Inspired from True Life Events]

11 AM Vs 2 PM

It was a quiet, serious afternoon in Courtroom.he Judge had just returned after his short break.The clock struck 2 PM—time for the next matter.A young junior counsel stood up nervously.Earlier that morning, he had asked for time.He had claimed—quite seriously—that his Senior Advocate was stuck in a traffic jam. The Judge had kindly granted time till 2 PM.But now, as everyone looked around… the Senior was still missing.What excuse would the junior give this time?

The Judge looked down with a patient frown,
"You're here again... but where's your gown?"

"Oh, I’m here, My Lord," the junior said,
"But my Senior’s missing—I’m filled with dread."

“At 11 AM, you sought some time,
that traffic stopped him, like nursery rhyme.”

"Yes, My Lord," the junior replied,
“The jam was thick—he almost cried!”

The Judge leaned back, calm but stern,
“I gave you time… now it’s your turn.”

The junior coughed and looked around,
Hoping his Senior might be found.

"My Lord,” he said, “it’s not the street—
This time, he's in a courtroom seat."

“He's trapped again,” said the young man,
“In another case, with a different plan.”

The Judge sighed deep, rubbed his face,
As silence swept across the place.

"You want more time? How many tries?
Should I wait here till pigs can fly?"

The junior, red with shame and sorrow,
Said softly, “Just… until tomorrow.”

“Tomorrow, My Lord! Please don’t be grim,
At 2 PM, we shall surely begin!”

“Tomorrow at 2?” the Judge gave a glare.
“Will he appear—poof!—out of thin air?”

The courtroom laughed, the moment was tight,
The Judge just sighed, “Fine. One more night.”

Moral of the Poem:

If your Senior’s missing once or twice,
Make sure the third excuse sounds extra nice.

Ajay Amitabh Suman

Patent and Trademark Attorney
Lawfing Lawyer


Thursday, April 3, 2025

Half Pay Vs Delay

A tense client rushed in, asking, “Where’s Advocate Sir? The matter’s about to be called!”The junior counsel replied coolly, “Don’t worry, Senior Advocate is briefed.”The client muttered, “He may be sharp, but your boss is like family to me.”Just then, the door creaked open everyone turned—Was it him… or another delay. Where’s My Advocate?  

A Client ran fast, all in a haste,  
"Where’s your boss? No time to waste!"  

Junior smiled, calm and free,  
"Senior’s briefed, just trust in me!"  

Client huffed, shook his head,  
"My nerves are high, my heart is dead!"  

Junior laughed, "Why this fear?  
Senior’s great, he’s almost here!"  

Client sighed, "I know he's best,  
But my guy? He beats the rest!"  

"Experts talk, they make it grand,  
But your boss? He understands!"  

Clock went tick, doors went bang!  
Senior spoke—the client sank.  

Then it happened, loud and late,  
Boss walked in—no sign of hate.  

Client asked, “Why the delay?”  
Boss just smiled, “Half the pay!”  

Client gasped, then laughed in glee,  
“Next time, full—just bill it to me!”  

Ajay Amitabh Suman
Patent and Trademark Attorney
Lawfing Lawyer


Present My Lord Vs Future My Lord

In court, a lawyer questioned the judge’s ability to hear a case, pointing out that the judge had once defended it. The judge simply replied, “No, my Lord, I stood where you are… soon, you may stand where I am.” The lawyer froze. Was it a joke—or a prediction?

In court one day, a case was set,
Defendant’s counsel, bold and met.
He cleared his throat, then raised his face,
"My Lord, will you still hear this case?"

The Judge sat back, his smile was wide,
He shook his head, and then replied,
"No, my Lord, I must decline,
This case was once a fight of mine."

The counsel blinked, his brow now tight,
Something here just wasn’t right.
"My Lord? But why address me so?
I’m just a lawyer, this I know!"

The Judge then chuckled, eyes so bright,
A knowing grin, a look so light.
"Because, my friend, not long ago,
I stood right there—I’ve walked this road.

I fought this case, I knew the fight,
Now here I sit, a Judge in white.
The path ahead? Oh, can’t you see?
Soon this bench will call for thee!"

The counsel gasped, the crowd amused,
The courtroom filled with laughter loose.
A Judge today was once like you,
And soon, my friend, you'll wear the shoe!

Ajay Amitabh Suman
Patent and Trademark Attorney
Lawfing Lawyer

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Cooling Tech Vs Heating Effect

It was a tense day in court. A major patent case on cooling technology was being argued. The judge, known for his sharp mind, listened carefully. But soon, something unexpected happened—his head started feeling hot! Was it the complexity of the case, or was the cooling technology failing right in front of him?

A case was heard, a patent fight,
On cooling tech—was it new, or trite?
The judge sat high, with furrowed brow,
Scratching his head—"It’s hot in here now!"

"Mr. Counsel, I must confess,
This cooling tech has made a mess!
My head is heated, thoughts unclear,
Explain it well—I need to hear!"

The lawyer bowed, and with a grin,
Said, "Cooling tech heats up within!
Even ACs, while cooling air,
Throw out heat—it’s only fair!"

The judge then gasped, "Well, that is plain!
Your client’s claim is all in vain!
No new step, no bright delight,
Just old tech in a different light!"

And with that word, the case was tossed,
The lawyer sighed, the client lost.
The courtroom laughed, the ruling done—
Cooling tech had warmed no one!

Ajay Amitabh Suman
Patent and Trademark Attorney
Lawfing Lawyer

Fight Vs Flight

Imagine two fierce political rivals, always at each other’s throats, suddenly sitting side by side on a flight, calm as can be. How is that possible after all their fiery debates and dramatic showdowns? A puzzled lawyer asks, only to get an answer that reveals a hilarious truth—not just about politics, but about lawyers too!

A leader of red,
A leader of blue,
Fighting all day,
With much ado.

They shout, they roar,
They throw the blame,
Yet on a flight,
They're just the same.

One sips his tea,
One takes a nap,
No chairs are thrown,
No angry clap.

"How is this so?"
A lawyer inquires,
"After such heat,
No more fires?"

The other laughs,
With knowing cheer,
"It's just like us,
With wine and beer!"

We fight in court,
We clash, we yell,
We twist each word,
We weave a spell.

But once it's done,
And battle's through,
We sip our tea,
Like old pals do.

We joke, we chat,
We laugh, we tease,
The war was just,
A legal breeze!

For court is stage,
A grand debate,
But outside doors,
No need for hate!

And if one wins,
The other grieves,
But buys the tea—
With lawyer’s fees!

Ajay Amitabh Suman
Patent and Trademark Attorney
Lawfing Lawyer

Tuesday, April 1, 2025

Thunder Vs Wonder

One day, a curious law student met a seasoned IPR lawyer and, with a spark of excitement, asked, "Sir, what’s the eighth wonder of the IPR world?" The lawyer smirked, adjusted his glasses, and leaned in as if revealing a deep legal secret. Let's see in this poem, what he finally finally narrated to the student. 

A law student, curious and bright,
Asked a lawyer, wise and right—
"Sir, what’s the wonder, tell me true?"
"Listen up, O boy I’ll give a clue!"

A man who steals tradename old, 
Sells his goods, makes some gold.
When gets sued—oh, what a sight!
He shouts, "you’re stealing my right!"

Like thunder, he roars, loud and wild,
"My brand is gone! I’ve been defiled!"
and we just laugh, shake our head,
"His ‘wonder’ claim is storming dead!"

So, every pirate , time and again,
Cries "I’m the victim!"—but in vain.
Their stolen brand, their final plea,
A thunderous wonder for all to see!

Ajay Amitabh Suman
Patent and Trademark Attorney
Lawfing Lawyer