This week’s Vows column is a jaw-dropper. Twelve-year-old girl has crush on doorman (“‘He looked like the guy from Tiger Beat,’ she recalled”), stalks doorman for over a decade, and finally marries him. And he’s still the doorman!

Also, don’t miss this Skadden associate’s unorthodox proposal: He had his girlfriend served with a “complaint” while he was in the men’s room.

On to this week’s couples:

1. Florence Davis and Anthony Gooch

2. Alexandra Seggerman and Stephen Poellot

3. Marin Levy and Joseph Blocher Jr.

Read all about this week’s featured newlyweds, after the jump.

* An Illinois judge sentenced Clifton Williams to six months in prison for yawning. Good thing Williams didn’t set off a yawn waterfall. [Chicago Tribune]

* Second Circuit reverses Judge Jed Rakoff’s decision to grant New York Times access to the Emperor’s Club wiretaps. Further embarrassment of Eliot Spitzer is not sufficient “good cause.” Here’s the decision. [Courthouse News Service]

* Layoff litigation for Linklaters? [Legal Week]

* Where the work is: practice areas that are still booming. [ABA Journal]

* Lawsuits say smartphones force hourly employees to work off the clock. [Wall Street Journal (subscription)]

* Hot recession trend: Pro se. [Los Angeles Times]

The current online front page of the NYT weddings section is worth a click. The head blurb leads with “Despite their differences in age … ” underneath a picture of a 20-something bride embracing a “groom” who appears to be about nine years old. “Differences in age,” indeed. Somebody alert Morality in Media! (Of course, when you click on the link, you learn that the real groom is 40-something. Still yucky, but not illegal.)

Our spotlighted weddings this week feature couples who are well-matched not only in age, but in accomplishments. Here they are:

1. Robyn Maslynsky and Paul Goldschmid

2. Stacy Humes-Schulz and Matthew Frazier

3. Courtney Dankworth and Russell Capone Jr.

Read more about these couples, after the jump.

We’ll bottom-line this week’s contest, folks: The SCOTUS clerk wins. Yep, after a long absence, LEWW’s favorite credential makes a welcome appearance in the NYT weddings section, and we’ve got the details for you.

But first, congratulations to Sabrina Charles and Jamie Dycus, who readers overwhelmingly voted Legal Eagle Couple of the Month for May, demonstrating that — in the words of one commenter (and apparently, in the minds of ATL readers) — “Wachtell > Sotomayor > Olympic medal.”

Here are our finalists:

1. Kathryn Whitfield and Adam Fotiades

2. Christina Krause and Peter Henderson

3. Pamela Bookman and Jeffrey Perlman

More about these couples, after the jump.

We were dying to write about this wedding announcement, featuring a slutty Strawberry Shortcake costume (WTF?) and a wacky/tacky proposal story. But alas, commenters would have crucified us for elevating comedic potential over excellence.

So behold, this week’s finalists. They include five Harvard degrees, five Yale degrees, and OMGOMGOMG the best Article III officiant ever. Enjoy.

1. Jessica Richman and Matthew Smith

2. Jessica Hertz and Christopher Angell

3. Ashley Lynn and Kenneth Leonczyk Jr.

The scoop on these legal-eagle weddings, after the jump.

Before we discuss this week’s finalists, here’s a peek at some of the weddings we can’t feature due to space constraints: a former Kirkland & Ellis partner marrying the youngest-looking 62-year-old we’ve ever seen, the creator of the Anonymous Lawyer blog marrying an anonymous doctor, and a Rhodes Scholar marrying an ordinary person.

The fact these couples couldn’t make the cut should tell you a little something about the quality of the field as we near the summit of the wedding season. Here are the three lucky couples who’ve reached the finals this week:

1. Kate Adamick and Kay Diaz

2. Sabrina Charles and Jamie Dycus

3. Jessica Chilson and Franklin Reece

Read more about these newlyweds, after the jump.

For the commenters who yearn to see more “ordinary” couples in the Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, we commend this pair to your attention. The groom is a radio personality, and the bride has a JD from Loyola. They seem likable and … ordinary. Is this the type of couple our readership craves? Should we devote one slot a week to a Tier-II couple? Designate one column a month as Ordinary Week? Please advise. (This is actually a serious question. LEWW recognizes that we can’t satisfy everyone, but we do aim to please.)

For now, we’ll to continue to celebrate the extraordinary. Our finalist couples have degrees from Harvard, Yale, NYU, Chicago, and other elite schools, some with athletic programs. All three brides toil in Manhattan law firms, and all three grooms serve humanity in important-sounding public-sector jobs. Here they are:

1. Jessica Buturla and Caswell Holloway IV

2. Sarah McDonald and Patrick Egan

3. Johanna Greenbaum and David Newman

More on the couples below, including photos.

Good news for Legal Eagle Wedding Watchers: LEWW will be returning to a more frequent and timely posting schedule! Beginning next week, we’ll once again feature our gold standard of three fabulous couples per week to ogle and dissect.

We’ll bring you more hot August weddings tomorrow and Friday, but for now, it’s time for our readers to vote on a Couple of the Month for July. Although their write-up wasn’t in the NYT and therefore didn’t run in our normal LEWW column, we’re including celebrity professors Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein, whose union merited LEWW bonus coverage last month (as well as a shout-out in the Washington Post’s Reliable Source column).

For more information on these newlyweds, click on the link below. When you’re ready to vote, here’s the poll:

This installment of the wedding watch is a bit of a hodge-podge. We’ve got old people, Communism, Skadden, HLS, organized crime, a SCOTUS connection, and a midriff-baring bride. But the common thread, as always, is lawyers in love (though not necessarily with other lawyers; there’s just one dual-JD pair in this group).

Here are this week’s nominees:

1. Deborah Ellis and Hal Strelnick

2. Rachel Hershfang and Wesley Williams

3. Katherine Wagner-McCoy and Jacob Goldstein

4. Andrea Connor and Evan Hudson

More about these envy-inducing newlyweds, after the jump.

Last summer, we wrote about the stinging benchslap that Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.; pictured), the highly regarded Manhattan trial judge, administered to Cleary Gottlieb, the highly regarded Manhattan law firm. Judge Preska sanctioned the firm for what she viewed as the improper attempt by one partner to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition. At the time, Cleary announced its intent to appeal.

And appeal it has. Writes Anthony Lin, in the New York Law Journal:

It was a matter of honor that brought Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday morning. Several lawyers from the firm, led by managing partner Mark Walker, were present in the ceremonial courtroom of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse.

A matter of honor. Will there be a duel? Guns all around, says SCOTUS.

Well, maybe not a literal duel. But Cleary’s counsel, the distinguished Roy Reardon of Simpson Thacher, did mix it up with opposing counsel, Kevin Reed of Quinn Emanuel. As did the Second Circuit panel:

The 2nd Circuit judges asked [Reed] whether Kensington had been unreasonable in insisting that the deposition be held on Feb. 4 in Washington when a Paris deposition seemed a reasonable compromise.

“Everything would grind to a halt if lawyers couldn’t accommodate each other,” said Judge Miner.

“Everything would grind to a halt if everyone resorted to self-help as Cleary did here,” Reed replied. He later added: “You don’t go to the witness and say the sort of things [Cleary partner Jean-Pierre] Vignaud said, which can only have the effect of intimidating a witness and shaping his testimony.”

So the alleged attempt by Cleary to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition arose out of a familiar dispute over depo location. Perhaps the parties should have taken a page from Judge James Nowlin’s playbook, and taken it to midfield. Anyone up for a depo on a north Atlantic cruise ship?

Update: As noted over in the Community section, the sanctions against Clery Gottlieb were upheld by the Second Circuit. For more, see the New York Law Journal and the WSJ Law Blog.

Cleary Seeks Vindication in Appeal on Sanctions [New York Law Journal]

Earlier: Benchslap of the Day: Judge Preska Reprimands (Wait for It)… Cleary Gottlieb?

Today is Friday, when we present for your consideration quirky queries about style, grammar, and usage. E.g., how to pronounce “substantive”; is a marked-up document a “blackline,” or a “redline”; and do you prefer “pleaded” or “pled” in legal writing.

This latest poll may seem a little edgy (especially since today is Good Friday). But it actually presents a serious and legitimate question now facing Second Circuit judges (and their law clerks). Legal research reveals a split of authority; the courts have been inconsistent.

For background, read this post, including all the updates and comments. Now, the question:

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Second Circuit Gets That ‘Not So Fresh’ Feeling

Here’s an interesting factoid. According to a quick search we ran over at the Public Library of Law (powered by Fastcase), the word “douchebag” has yet to appear in the pages of F.3d. [FN1]

That may be about to change, if the Second Circuit decides to publish in a case that was just argued. From the AP:

A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn’t have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court…. [Ed. note: an “Internet blog” — not to be confused with all those Non-Internet blogs.]

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school’s annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: “‘Jamfest’ is canceled due to douchebags in central office,” and also referred to an administrator who was “pissed off.”

In the district court proceedings, there was some extensive discussion of the whole d-bag remark:

When [the school board’s lawyer] pressed [student council treasurer Pat] Abate on whether he had ever seen the famous douchebag posting, Abate’s responses included: “I haven’t seen it on my computer monitor, I haven’t seen it in my dreams.”

Guess he isn’t very imaginative.

[A lawyer] asked Abate and [senior class vice president Jackie] Evans to define douchebag.

“Stupid, moron, idiot, Abate said.

“Jerks,” Evans said.

Hmm…. They’re in the vicinity, but haven’t hit the definitional g-spot. We respectfully submit that the term “douchebag” carries a stronger sense of condemnation than the terms proffered by Abate and Evans. See UrbanDictionary.com (defining “douchebag” as “[s]omeone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and a**hole, however not yet reached f**ker or motherf**ker”). [FN2]

[FN1] Maybe someone with free Westlaw or Lexis access can confirm for us that F.3d is douchebag-free.

[FN2] Alternate definition of “douchebag” from Urban Dictionary: “A student or instructor at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities.” Well, as long as it’s not the law school….

Update: Thanks, commenters — F.3d is certifiably douchebag-free.

Further Update: Oh wait… As this commenter notes, if you expand the search to include “douche bag” and “douche-bag,” you’ll see that F.3d has been thoroughly defiled.

Appeals Court Weighs Teen’s Web Speech [AP]
Defense Crumbles as Students Weather Cross-Examination [CT News Junkie]
douchebag [Urban Dictionary]
douche commercial [YouTube]

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in Arar v. Ashcroft, a high-profile lawsuit arising out of the U.S. government’s rendition of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria.

We interviewed DLA Piper partner Joshua Sohn (at right), co-counsel to Mr. Arar along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, about this interesting case and his firm’s work on it.

For readers who aren’t familiar with the case, what’s it all about?

It’s about the federal government’s extraordinary renditions program, which sends “people of interest” to sites around the world for indefinite detention and interrogation under harsh conditions — in this case torture. Mr. Arar, who is a computer engineer, Canadian citizen, husband, and father of two young children, was pulled out of the immigration line at JFK when he was attempting to change planes, but not enter the United States. Mr. Arar was interrogated at the airport, detained and interrogated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and ultimately flown by private jet in the dead of night to Jordan and delivered to Syria. Mr. Arar was never charged with a crime, was not allowed to consult with an attorney for many days when he was first detained and both he and his attorney were lied to about what was going to happen to him and the fact that he was being sent to Syria.

Mr. Arar made plain to those holding him that he feared being tortured in Syria and that he wanted to be sent to Canada-where he lived and was a citizen. Those pleas were ignored and Mr. Arar was sent to Syria where he was tortured and kept in a grave-like cell for almost a year. This case seeks to hold the federal officials who are responsible for Mr. Arar’s treatment, responsible.

Read the rest of the interview, after the jump.

* As a judge, Michael Mukasey cited Shakespeare in snarking on — and striking down — the federal sentencing guidelines. [AP]

* Speaking of district judges, the well-regarded Judge Paul Cassell (D. Utah — at right) is resigning from the bench — partly due to low judicial pay. [Sentencing Law & Policy via WSJ Law Blog]

* What not to wear when you go to the airport. [Boston Globe]

* Unlike, say, the Ninth Circuit, the Second Circuit follows on-point Supreme Court precedent. [TaxProf Blog]

* Your submissions for Blawg Review #127 are respectfully requested. [Deliberations]

Update: The citation for the Mukasey opinion is United States v. Mendez, 691 F. Supp. 656, 663-64 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).

Back in this post, in which we incorrectly predicted that Mukasey wouldn’t get the AG nomination, we wrote: “We’d also add that Judge Mukasey probably isn’t solidly conservative enough for the White House. See, e.g., his views on the federal sentencing guidelines.”

* Lawyer opinions solicited: Is this an effective ad for malpractice insurance? [Copyranter]

* Another ugly day for the stock market. [Volokh Conspiracy]

* On that subject: Is the vast family fortune of Rachel Kovner, ATL’s official It girl, in jeopardy — as recently rumored by our sibling site? Not exactly. But if Bruce Kovner’s legendary fund is up only 3 percent year-to-date, things could certainly be better. [DealBreaker]

* What? The iPhone is not God’s greatest gift to man? Bite your tongue! [Althouse]

* Ignoring a handslap will get you a benchslap. See page 15, footnote 7. [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (PDF)]

* Washingtonienne, the sequel? But this time around, blame the “backdoor action” on the Spicy Mussel Soup. [Medill Reports]

* A compelling defense of Judge Dennis Jacobs’s “look ma, no eyes” approach to dissenting. [ProfessorBainbridge.com]

* “My friends said to me, ‘It would take a murder trial for you to meet the right person.’” [Associated Press]

* Because we need to use the “Weirdness” tag at least once a day. [Underbelly]

Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals engages in some impressive benchslappery in a dissent released today. He’s not attacking the court’s majority opinion, just ignoring it:

I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it.

Ouch! (We take particular pleasure in pointing out that the majority opinion is by Judge Guido Calabresi, LEWW’s favorite elfin jurist.)

Click below to read more about the case, plus more from Judge Jacobs’ delightfully disdainful dissent.

We now interrupt your regularly scheduled programming of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell to bring you some embarrassing news about another ultra-prestigious New York law firm: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

From Decision of the Day:

From the “it can happen to anyone” file, the Second Circuit dismisses a cross-appeal by Travelers Insurance Company because its law firm filed the notice of appeal one day late. After the losing party in the district court filed a notice of appeal, Travelers had 14 days to file its notice of cross-appeal. However, the firm calculated the 14 days from the date it received the notice, not from the date the notice was actually filed. The district court denied Traveler’s motion to extend the deadline by one day, explaining that this was a case of “garden variety attorney inattention” and not excusable neglect. The Second Circuit affirms (PDF).

The law firm that made this rookie mistake was one of the whitest of the white shoes, the venerable Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. The partners on the brief have stunning resumes, and the fifth-year associate has done plenty of litigating, given that he is admitted to practice in three jurisdictions and thirteen courts. So, yes, it can happen to anyone. (And in case you’re wondering, no, STB did not reject me.)

Decision of the Day is too nice to name the STB lawyers on the brief, but we have no such qualms. These are matters of public record. The attorneys who screwed up here are partner Barry R. Ostrager, partner Andrew T. Frankel, and associate Robert J. Pfister.

Barry Ostrager, by the way, is routinely named as one of the country’s top business litigators and trial lawyers. See, e.g., here, here, and here. He’s not particularly nice; as one litigator diplomatically observed, Ostrager “doesn’t suffer from the need to be loved.” But he has been very successful for his clients.

Given Ostrager’s stellar reputation, this latest defeat is particularly embarrassing. It’s one thing when you litigate a case as best you can, then lose because the law just isn’t on your side. It’s another thing when a federal trial judge finds you guilty of “garden variety attorney inattention,” and then an appeals court affirms, holding that your “attorney inadvertence” — a charitable phrasing — does not constitute “excusable neglect.” Great litigators, after all, are supposed to be careful, attentive, and detail-oriented.

But this is not Barry Ostrager’s only lapse. His failure to pay attention to detail extends to the men’s room — as we have had the misfortune of observing, firsthand.

Read all about it, if you dare — don’t say we didn’t warn you — after the jump.

Some people, like the Overlawyered crew, can’t stop bitching about our ridiculously litigious society. They complain that here in the United States, people sue at the drop of a hat, for the most stupid or frivolous of reasons.

But there may be an upside to our culture of litigation. From the AFP:

The leading association of US fashion designers said it would issue guidelines this week on the issue of skinny models. The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) will issue its findings to designers, modeling agencies and production companies by the end of the week ahead of castings for fashion week, which begins on February 2….

The former president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, Stan Herman, last year ruled out a ban on skinny models in New York, saying such rules would expose the organizers to possible legal action.

“It would be the same as banning somebody who’s too fat,” he told AFP in September. “Those people could sue… I wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.”

Indeed. And who’d want to be on the receiving end of such a class action, filed on behalf of every runway model with a sub-18 BMI? If liability is established, damages could be astronomical. As Linda Evangelista famously quipped, those girls “don’t wake up for less than $10,000 a day.”

So when Anna Wintour says her bedtime prayers tonight, she should thank God for the trial lawyers. They’re the only ones standing between her and a bevy of big-boned beauties.

Update: And models aren’t afraid of going to court to vindicate their rights. Check out this lawsuit, the subject of a recent Second Circuit ruling.

Doctors Fault Designers’ Stance Over Thin Models [New York Times]
New York fashion group to issue guidelines on skinny models [AFP]
NYC Fashion Week to Ban Twig Girls? [Gawker]

(Yes, this is ridiculously late. But we hope, for the love of God, that you don’t rely upon us for real legal news. News aggregation is not our primary purpose, and there are many other sites that do it better and faster.)

* Now that President Ford has passed away, everyone must write the obligatory article about his long-lived SCOTUS appointment, Justice John Paul Stevens. [Chicago Tribune, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, WSJ.com; all via How Appealing]

* State bars tend to give government lawyers a wide berth. So when a bar brings ethics charges against a prosecutor, you know something stinks to high heaven. [Associated Press]

* Videotaping an execution is pretty grotesque. But then again, it’s probably no more disturbing than this video. [CBS News]

* You can accuse the Catholic Church of many things; but selective application of their teachings is probably not one of them. The Vatican opposes the death penalty even for Saddam Hussein. [Associated Press]

* Speaking of death penalty cases, the Supreme Court’s incredible shrinking docket may be getting even smaller. [SCOTUSblog]

* Biglaw + Racial Issues = Lively Blog Comment Threads. [Overlawyered; WSJ Law Blog]

* Tax lawyers at Cravath aren’t the only ones with a weakness for underage girls. [Associated Press]

* Oyez, oyez: Interested in an administrative gig that pays over $150K? The Second Circuit is seeking a new Clerk of Court. [2nd Circuit (PDF) via How Appealing]