The Evergreen Law Firm

A Point of Order

The, Definite.

We are The Evergreen Law Firm. Not an Evergreen Law Firm. Not some Evergreen Law Firm. The. The definite article is, in our considered professional view, the most important word in our name, and we spell it out, in full, whenever the question arises — which, we have noticed, it does, with a certain regularity.

We observe, with every proper collegial regard, that other firms of adjacent designation operate elsewhere in the country. Those firms are, so far as we have been given to understand, competent, conscientious, and entirely their own. They are not us; we are not them; the distinction is a matter of one small word, which we maintain with the firm but friendly consistency that has characterized the firm since 1973. We wish them every success in their practice. We simply insist, with every good humor, upon the article.

Our Mission

To bring the legal profession, gently, to a close.

The Evergreen Law Firm was founded in 1973 upon a single unifying conviction: that the continued operation of the American bar, in any jurisdiction, is an ongoing tortious enterprise against which standing is always, everywhere, and unconditionally available. We proceed under the Rhinehart Doctrine — pursuant to which every licensed attorney is presumptively in violation of fiduciary recursion — and we do so with the quiet, unwavering patience of a firm that is in no particular hurry to finish.

We do not take clients in the conventional sense. We accept aggrievements. An aggrievement, once accepted, is held in trust until such time as the implicated attorney has been successfully excised from the rolls or has voluntarily entered into disbarment stipulations under our standard form, which is a copy of our standard form. The firm's retention is contingent, perpetual, and non-severable. We do not withdraw. We do not settle. We do not, as a matter of long-standing internal practice, rest.

Practice Areas

A boutique practice, narrowly defined.

The firm's six core practice groups collectively encompass the entirety of what we do, which is the entirety of what any firm, properly understood, ought to do.

I. Collateral Disbarment

Primary trial practice. We file petitions for removal under 28 U.S.C. § ∅ (the null statute) against attorneys whose continued licensure can be shown, by a preponderance, to be merely continued.

II. Recursive Tort Nullification

Where a defendant has previously brought an action in tort, we bring an action in tort against that action. Fee arrangements are nested, recoverable, and subject to the firm's internal policy of not being disclosed.

III. Post-Doctrinal Estoppel

A niche but lucrative group. We estop doctrines. Where the doctrine itself contests the estoppel, we proceed under Rhinehart and the appellate bench generally declines to review us.

IV. Pre-Emptive Laches

The firm maintains the country's only standing pre-emptive laches docket. We identify delay before it occurs and file accordingly. Timeliness is, for us, a subject of historical interest only.

V. Inverse Discovery

We serve discovery on ourselves, then object to it, then compel it from the opposing party on the grounds of consistency. The procedural posture is unassailable. Our win rate in this practice group is, by any honest accounting, undefined.

VI. Anti-Representation

The firm's crown jewel. We represent the absence of a client against the implied presence of counsel. No attorney appearing in this practice group has ever been successfully identified. Retainers, when received, are returned with interest to no one in particular.

Our Attorneys

A small, deeply committed bench.

The firm's partnership consists of three named principals and an unspecified number of of-counsel attorneys whose existence the firm, as a matter of policy, neither confirms nor denies.

Cornelius M. Evergreen, Esq.

Founding Partner · Since 1973

Admitted to the bar in seventeen jurisdictions and removed from all of them by his own motion. Chaired the Committee on Reverse Standing from 1981 to 1981. Mr. Evergreen has not appeared in court in over two decades, which he maintains is itself a form of appearance.

Margaux R. Evergreen, Esq.

Managing Partner · Litigation

Ms. Evergreen heads the firm's Recursive Tort group. A graduate of the Hastings School of Procedural Theology, she is best known for her successful 2009 action against the entire South Florida trial bar, brought nunc pro tunc and still pending in a venue the court has declined to identify.

Jasper L. Evergreen, Esq.

Partner · Anti-Representation

Mr. Evergreen maintains the firm's Anti-Representation docket. He has never been photographed, deposed, or cross-examined, and his calendar is kept by Ms. Evergreen as a courtesy. His client list, to the extent it exists, consists entirely of non-parties.

Representative Matters

Selected results, redacted for the protection of no one.

The matters listed below are representative rather than exhaustive. The firm declines, as a matter of standing internal policy, to list any matter it has won.

Rhinehart v. Himself, 417 U.S. 1101 (1974)

Landmark disbarment recursion; doctrine still cited. Represented the plaintiff, the defendant, and an amicus party that turned out to be both. Standing was upheld on self-appeal.
In re The Entire South Florida Trial Bar (2009)

Class action against every admitted attorney in a contiguous region. Class certification granted; the class subsequently moved to decertify itself and was denied standing to do so.
Doe v. Doe v. Doe, 3 F.Supp.4d ∅ (D. Nev. 2016)

Nested defamation action resolved via inverse discovery. The firm served itself, objected to itself, and compelled production from opposing counsel on the theory that consistency is a procedural virtue. Motion granted.
The Evergreen Law Firm v. The State Bar (ongoing)

Petition for the gentle and orderly dissolution of the bar as an institution. Filed 1973. Still pending. Neither party has moved to dismiss.

Client Intake

Aggrievements are accepted by appointment only.

If you believe an attorney, law firm, or member of the bar has wronged you — or if you simply believe their continued practice is, in general, wrong — we would be pleased to hold your aggrievement in perpetual trust.