not first.

Guys in my high school used to post pix of hot attorneys all the time.

2:06 must be a poser he left off "It was no big deal"

"I think we should sue them."

WE? The collective we the people? Does she have multiple personalities? Is she speaking of all the women as a class?

Maybe she's confused because she went to Syracuse Law.

i think we should sue the women for gettin upset

Erin Foster is amazingly hot in real life. Seriously.

I hope she isn't offended by this comment.

Hey, no dissing Syracuse Law. I don't go there but I did for undergrad. Syracuse is a fine establishment. Its law school suffers from being in a depressed city and/or local area, that kills it in terms of recruitment and getting solid potential candidates. Syracuse is awesome though.

-Newhouse Alum

Depending on whether the site was generating ad revenue, the featured lawyers might have a potential right of privacy claim.

2:16 - indeed and straight out of barbri. the lawyers could have a claim for appropriation.

Guys in my high school used to spank it to V-Cards and headshots all the time.

It was no big deal.

appropriation of name or likeness? Did the website use the photos for commercial advantage?

Davis Polk, renowned in NYC legal circles for its Lake Wobegon associate pool, eliminated photos from its web site long ago after a similar incident, on greedy associates site, I seem to recall.

...nobody has a right to privacy, save Cali.

on different note, don't these female associates realize the additional attention and consequently the additional "demeaning and sexist" comments their public outcry will draw? If they file suit they'll be surely subject to misogynistic commentary throughout the blogsphere as they’re firm pictures and profiles are still readily available through their respective firm websites.

Paging KVN to ruin someone's life

I seem to remember something from Barbri about a tort of unwarranted publicity given to a private individual. Any 3Ls studying for the bar want to chime in?

And Lat, even though a "declaration of hotness" is a compliment, it opens these women up for a public discussion of their appearance, which inevitably means that people are going to start dogging on them (as has already happened in this thread). It's intrusive and nasty to do it to people that would otherwise not have their names being thrown about on the gossip blogs. Now as for the reality show lady, she obviously wants to be discussed at all costs.

Of course the Google cache lives forever:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Pyd8riU0dzoJ:hotattorney.wordpress.com/+http://hotattorney.wordpress.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

2:32 - It's opinion. It is not fact. It can never be fact when you say someone is good looking or bad looking.

Appropriation does not cover "newsworthy" uses of a person's likeness. We need a court ruling that "hotness" is not newsworthy under these facts.

The women should be named defendants in a case filed by all visitors to the website: attractive nuisance.

Ha. *gag*

2:35: no-one said that it was anything other than opinion. I think the point is that these people selected private individuals at random and touted them as appropriate targets for public discussions (and attacks) about their appearance.

2:48 - The point is that opinion, which is not fact, cannot be the basis for defamation or public disclosure of private facts (emphasis on "facts").

Just because something is "nasty" or "not nice" does not make it actionable in a court of law.

2:48 - That would make anyone subject to your imposition of tort liability whenever they see a "good-looking" person in public and make note of their opinion to a close friend. It may invite their friend to disagree with them and further discuss (attack) their appearance.

- 2:35
P.S. Nice try Abby.

2:32 (+ 2:48?) - I don't think you are a lawyer.

2:51: I was not talking about defamation OR public disclosure of private facts, I was talking about unwarranted publicity, which I seem to remember as a cause of action based on PUBLICITY, not false facts. Which is why I asked about that tort in particular, not torts based on false facts. Thanks, though.

Why don't you give us a statute or case law citation for this "unwarranted publicity" tort you keep talking about?

2:52: clearly you do not understand the english language, which contains the word "publicity." If you can't really see the difference between someone making a comment to a friend and someone purposefully inviting strangers to write in comments about a particular individual, you are retarded.

3:00 - What is the difference between (1) the comments section of a website or message board and (2) a comment you make in person to a friend about third party X?

The fact that third party X doesn't overhear the in-person comment, but can read the online comment about her (maybe when she Googles herself), can't have legal significance.

2:56 - "Unwarranted publicity" is not a tort in and of itself. It is merely an element or aspect of other privacy torts - none of which would cover a website like Hot Attorney.

Thanks, though.

How about negligent infliction of emotional distress? Might that work?

2:29- Not only cali, but women who kill infants as well...

Negligent infliction of emotional distress = My life as a Biglaw associate.

In New York, by statute a person's likeness cannot be reproduced without their written consent. Failure to obtain that consent subjects the reproducer to civil and criminal liability.

3:26 - What is the statutory cite for that?

Then why did that Borat lawsuit get kicked?

I think copyright infringement may be the most viable cause of action. A de minimus defense would not work, as the court looks to the amount of the infringed work taken - not the extent to which it was used in a resulting work. Since the site would be using the entire copyrighted image of the attorney, de minimus would not apply. And as for fair use - to the extent the website was a for-profit operation (and I am assuming it was), and as it was not featuring the picture as part of an educational or parodic use - that would not seem to apply either (or would be a very risky defense, at best).

I imagine a strongly worded C&D letter from a law firm, owning copyright to its associates pictures, could have led to the website's abrupt takedown.

3:31-

See New York Civil Rights Law Sec. 51.

3:45 is meant to be directed at 3:28, not 3:31.

Although I think the Borat suits got kicked because the individuals had executed consents.

Am I the only one who is totally over attractive people complaining that other people find them attractive?

Bitter Ugly Dude

these guys were tools, they got caught, end of story.

Note: this is not like Lat's UTR sight, which was tongue in cheek and dealt with public figures to boot. These are private citizens trying to maintain dignity, not be pieces of meat.

Was this a Skadden Insider spinoff after the partners put the kabosh on its "hot attorney" contest?

http://skaddeninsider.blogspot.com/2008/02/not-so-hot.html

It is interesting that the girls complaining about being included in the site probably spend at least an hour a day "getting ready" and otherwise working to make themselves attractive...

If we can't call hot attorneys hot, then the terrorists have already won.

I didn't get a chance to look through the entire site, but if they didn't take the opportunity to examine the women of Bracewell in Houston, they missed out on some good candidates.

4:24: nice...

By the way, does anybody care that they took the site down if all the content is cached and still available for access? Once on the web, always on the web.

The paparazzi takes candid pictures of celebs and write a headline saying something like "She's not really hot". They get away with it and make money off it as well. I think the issue is whether or not the respected firms websites are considered public or private domains.

@ 4.24 - Actually, that's not interesting at all. And it certainly doesn't prove the point you're trying to make.

Right of Publicity claim under some state's laws (not all of them recognize the claim). Not sure that it applies to this though because there usually needs to be a harm to the plaintiff's "publicity interest." Not sure that anyone other than the woman who appeared on a reality tv show could claim any such interest and, even then, there has to be some implication of commercial use of the image. I never saw the web site, but it sounds like simple commentary without a commercial aspect, which is the real question.

Nah Lat. Women have enough trouble being respected as lawyers. In my capacity as a lawyer, I don't want to be complimented on my looks, I want to be complimented on my skills. It seems like it's just another attempt to not take female lawyers seriously. A compliment on looks may be appropriate at a bar on friday night, but such compliments aren't appropriate in the work environment.

221, if the site sold ads, then yah, they used another's likeness without permission for commercial advantage.

Thanks Barbri.

The people who need to grow a thicker skin are Lat and the guys who put up the "Hot Attorney" site. Boo hoo, you're not twelve years old anymore and there are consequences for mixing up how you behave at Hooters with how you behave in real life. Waah, you have to act like female co-workers are colleagues, instead of rating them on how much they make your dick jump. Get over it, whiners.

424, if they're lawyers, they don't have time to spend "half the day getting ready," asslick.

229, shut your filthy mouth. If I were them, I'd sue anyway. The perps will be Ciolli pwned.

@ 4:24 -- these "girls" are actually women, and women attorneys. Dismissing their anger by saying they have no cause to be upset because they "probably" spend "at least an hour getting ready" is ridiculously sloppy thinking: on what are you basing this? Do you know them? Have you lived with any of them or seen them get ready? Or are you simply imagining these attorneys, because they are women, must match the stereotype that all women spend hours in front of a mirror? Nice.

5:08-

Concur.

Seriously, people, grow up. If you don't understand why it is demeaning to randomly select private individuals in a certain profession and subject those individuals to childish remarks about their physical attractiveness, for no other reason than their gender, then you are in desperate need of remedial classes. People like the site administrators (who, notably, won't identify *themselves*, even though they're more than happy to identify and talk about women who did nothing to merit the unwanted publicity other than to exist), quite simply, suck at life. EPIC FAIL.

2:29---Are you for real? People shouldn't call out legally actionable, demeaning conduct, because more people will demean them?

I can just see your advice on ending school segregation---but people will say mean things!

Good god, stay away from employment law. And women. If you are a woman, stay away from yourself.

Lat, you seem unable to see things from another's perspective, so let me put it to you this way.

Imagine we're back in the time when asians were just beginning to break into the field. Someone starts a website called "Slantiest Eyed Asian Lawyers" or "Yellowest Skinned Asian Lawyers," and right at the top of the page is your lawyer profile.

Now Lat, how flattered would you be by that? Are you telling me you wouldn't mind being featured on a "Slantiest Eyed Asian Lawyers" website?

I just realized Lat, they probably wouldn't be tactful enough to say Asian. Imagine the same thing, except the website is called "Slantiest Eyed Chinamen Lawyers."

Now, how do you like having your lawyer profile featured on that website?

8:29, your "slantiest eyed" analogy sucks. There's certainly no stereotype that all women are hot. Hotness is a factor by which women are, unfortunately, severely judged.

Yes, what these people did was sleazy and aweful. The fact that they included no male associates supports their mysogonistic (sp?) agenda (or at least attitudes). They're horrible people. But horribleness isn't a cause of action, nor should it be.

Any claim fails for lack of damages me believes.

Link to Google cache was bad, try:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:http://hotattorney.wordpress.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Guys in my high school used to link to Google caches all the time.

It was no big deal.

Doesn't "hot" refer to professional acumen as opposed to physical appearance? I know of a few business magazines featuring "hot lists" and, invariably, entrepreneurial achievements are lauded. Also in sports, "being red hot" describes an outstanding ability to perform a given task with unparalleled excellence. Under these circumstances, the site in fact discriminates, yet against men, as I cannot believe that "red hot" legal excellence can exclusively be achieved by women as the site suggests.

If a site listed "studs" would featured male attorneys link to it on their law firm bio?

849, your distinction is idiotic at best. i hope to god you aren't actually a lawyer.

If any sleazeball punk included my wife on this site, I'd punch him in the face. No need to establish damages.

Out of sheer curiosity – what would prevent an individual in a country that doesn’t extend comity to US courts from hosting this kind of material or even actionable defamatory content?

849, now you're saying that YOU get to decide what should offend people.

One of the ways men undermine women in the working world is by objectifying them and evaluating them based only on their looks and value as sex objects. One of the ways whites have undermined minorities is by making fun of their physical characteristics, and some behavioral stereotypes.

So the "Slanty Eyed Chinamen Lawyers" website is a perfect analogy. Please kill self now, tyia.

Hey, Denis Gitsham is a GULC grad, not GW, as the hotties website would have you believe. Maybe that's why they took it down- slandering a T14 grad.

How 'bout intentional interference with a business relationship *if* there's causation between a cognizable loss of clients/business and the Web site [mis]appropriation?

5:59 - if lawyers are too overworked to have time for primping, why are there so many idle lawyers posting comments on this site throughout the workday?

Can't it just be plain old IIED? Many lawyers are shy, retiring types who went into the law to be behind the scenes. Even if they aren't, it's one thing to be catcalled on the street (it's over in a second - even though it blows), it's another thing entirely to have your appearance dissected, even if all of the observations are complimentary.

Those of you still studying for the Bar, ignore 99% of what is posted here under the guise of law. Either the posters never knew or have forgotten what the law in NY really is.

Appropriation of a photo can be actionable when that photo is used to advertise a product or service - think a photo of Michael Jordan during a car advertisement with a voice-over. Appropriation of a photo (or name) - even if not "newsworthy" - is not actionable merely because it generates profits. If the website sold ad space only, it is fine. If it advertised a service it offered where it would set up dates with the hot associates (for ex.), it is actionable.

A cause of action for interference with a business relationship requires intent on the part of D to interfere with that relationship. Good luck proving that under these circumstances.

The intent requirement is also what makes the prima facie tort (which I am surprised no one mentioned) difficult to prove here.

I didn't take the time to note that this took place in New York and, moreover, don't know New York statutes or case law. As I recall, New York (or is it New Jersey) is the *only* state that recognizes the so-called "prima facie" tort?

All of the people here who think that merely pointing out someone's physical attractiveness is sleazy, illegal or morally wrong, are uptight assholes and probably have serious gender-based anger issues.

It is adolescent? Sure, but that's about it. So what, get over your ridiculous selves.

This is why people hate lawyers. Because they encourage lawsuits against someone for publicly saying someone is nice looking. Fucking pathetic losers.

12:11: This goes well beyond merely pointing out somebody's appearance.

12:19 - like what? Give examples please.

12:11 needs to grow a thicker skin and get a sense of humor. Some people just can't handle it when their adolescent, asinine behavior is mocked by others, or when their actions have consequences. Get over it, 12:11.

Haha!! You stupid asshole bitches who think this is actionable are pathetic. And even if you find some theory that'll get past a motion to dismiss, there's no jury in the world that would give a plaintiff attorney one stinking penny because someone posted on the web their opinion that the attorney was attractive.

And don't think that some of the attractive women lawyers out there were not hired because of their looks in the first place, In that stack of resumes you're competing with, there's always someone just a little smarter than you and all other things being equal, the better looking candidate will get the job, You're deluding yourself if you think physical attractiveness does not play into hiring decisions. It's simply part of the human condition and you assholes screaming "sue the bastards" need to get over yourselves.

And you wonder why people hate lawyers. Get a clue, you uptight losers.

Haha!! You stupid asshole bitches who think this is actionable are pathetic. And even if you find some theory that'll get past a motion to dismiss, there's no jury in the world that would give a plaintiff attorney one stinking penny because someone posted on the web their opinion that the attorney was attractive.

And don't think that some of the attractive women lawyers out there were not hired because of their looks in the first place, In that stack of resumes you're competing with, there's always someone just a little smarter than you and all other things being equal, the better looking candidate will get the job, You're deluding yourself if you think physical attractiveness does not play into hiring decisions. It's simply part of the human condition and you assholes screaming "sue the bastards" need to get over yourselves.

And you wonder why people hate lawyers. Get a clue, you uptight losers.

http://images.google.com/images?ndsp=20&um=1&hl=en&client=news&q=hotattorney&start=60&sa=N

http://images.google.com/images?ndsp=20&um=1&hl=en&client=news&q=hotattorney&start=60&sa=N

Another website called www.BankruptcyMisconduct.com makes reference to the attractiveness of a Ms. Grassgreen as being one of the few bankruptcy lawyers who is comparably attractive as Martha Stewart. While the site has numerous details of misconduct on alleged conspiracy and fraud upon the court, the mention of Ms. Grassgreen was clearly not alleging any misconduct on her part.