[Ed. note: This post is by EXLEY, one of the finalists in ATL Idol, the “reality blogging” competition that will determine ATL’s next editor. It is marked with Exley’s avatar (at right).]

We apologize for the delay in bringing it to you; we received it later than the other submissions. Alas, the demands of Biglaw are not very conducive to covert participation in a legal blogging deathmatch.]

I saw this rather striking ad at the Bob Hope Airport in Burbank this morning (pre-quake):

The text on the right says: “Justice may be blind but she still sees it our way 92.3% of the time.”

Call me a sick nut but at first I thought it was an ad for the United States of America, to make me feel good about all the rigmarole a person has to go through at airport security these days.

But it turns out that Lady Justice was posing for another almost-all-knowing entity.

Find out who it is after the jump.

When you go on a vacation and it doesn’t turn out well, it’d be nice to have it reimbursed. New York attorney Richard Roth, whose vacation to Argentina was ruined, has filed a suit against Delta Airlines to get them to reimburse him — and then some. From Reuters:

A New York lawyer is suing Delta Air Lines for $1 million, saying his family vacation turned into a nightmare after they were stranded in an airport for days and treated disdainfully by airline employees. Richard Roth, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and his mother, said he planned the Christmas 2007 trip to Buenos Aires to celebrate his mother’s 80th birthday. She had grown up in the city, but had not returned in years, he said.

Instead, Roth, his two teenage children, his wife and mother spent three days in airports, went days without their luggage, were treated rudely by airline employees and were forced to spend $21,000 on unused hotel rooms in Argentina, replacement clothes, and other costs.

“Through its gross negligence, malfeasance and absolute incompetence, Mr. Roth holds Delta responsible for ruining his vacation,” said the lawsuit, filed in New York state court.

One million bucks is a ridiculous demand, but who knows what a jury might do? The general consensus among everyone we know: airlines suck.

Aviation litigation has been all the rage this year. Here’s a legal round-up on why we hate flying:

Fellow passengers using your hair to join the mile-high club (Lawsuit of the Day: Overly Friendly Skies)

Being demoted from coach to “turd class” (Lawsuit of the Day: Forced to Fly ‘Toilet-Class’)

Not being able to wear a fake bomb on your shirt (From the Department of Dubious Defenses: Shouting Fire in a Crowded… Airport?)

Being really annoyed because of the security lines and delays but not being able to hit anybody. Unless you’re Naomi Campbell. (Supermodel Campbell charged over ‘air rage’)

Lawyer sues Delta for ruining family vacation [Reuters]
Supermodel Campbell charged over ‘air rage’ [Breitbart]

Flying these days is an exercise in self-humiliation. You pack your bag knowing that someone is likely to go through it, possibly in front of others. You have to strip down as you go through security. And the airlines have no respect for you as they announce that your flight is continually delayed due to “mechanical problems” or “weather.”

All that’s bad, but Gokhan Mutlu had it much worse on a recent JetBlue flight. From WCBS TV:

Initially, Mutlu was told a flight attendant had taken the last seat on the plane, but then he was advised she would sit in the employee “jump seat,” meaning he could have the last seat, the lawsuit said.

The pilot told him 1 1/2 hours into the five-hour flight that he would have to relinquish the seat to the flight attendant, court papers say. But the pilot said that Mutlu could not sit in the jump seat because only JetBlue employees were permitted to sit there, the lawsuit said.

When Mutlu expressed reluctance to go sit in the bathroom, the pilot, who was not named in the lawsuit, told him that “he was the pilot, that this was his plane, under his command that (Mutlu) should be grateful for being on board,” the lawsuit said.

When the aircraft hit turbulence and passengers were directed to return to their seats, but “the plaintiff had no seat to return to, sitting on a toilet stool with no seat belts,” court papers say.

Mutlu is not taking it sitting down… this time. He’s filed a $2 million lawsuit against JetBlue.

There may not be seat belts in the bathroom, but at least there’s a decent amount of legroom.

Update: The New York Personal Injury Blog talks about how annoying this suit is for the rest of the personal injury law field.

Man Says JetBlue Pilot Forced Him To Sit On Toilet [WCBS TV via Drudge]

Our last installment of the Asia Chronicles introduced our readers to the financial advantages of working as a Biglaw associate in Asia. We told you of lower taxes, additional payments in the form of (sweet sweet) COLAs, housing allowances, and other assorted goodies.

Unlike Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, all of this is real, but some of our readers commented that it all sounded like some kind of marketing ploy, “B-grade Asian job porn,” and otherwise too good to be true. Perhaps we came across as too enthusiastic, or maybe we sound like one big recruiting column. Whatever the case, we really do think Asia is the most exciting place in the world to be right now, and not just because the money’s better (additional advantages to be discussed in the weeks to come).

Still, it’s not for everyone. For any of you considering a move to Asia, here are some questions to consider:

1. Are you willing to spend time away from your family, friends, and familiar places? Flight time from most places in Asia back to North America is at least twelve hours each way (and could be double that if you have to make connections). Add in getting to and from the airport, layovers, and getting over jet lag, and you may be spending four days on each trip just traveling or recovering from it. Not to mention that even economy airfares are well over a thousand bucks and rising, and business class is usually four times that (although arguably worth it for the fifteen-hour flight from Asia to New York). As a busy corporate associate, you will likely only visit home once a year (but at least it’ll be a free trip home). Obviously if you are married and/or have children, the question gets even more complicated.

2. Can you handle frequent travel? Nervous fliers should steer clear of Asia (with the possible exception of Tokyo, where the majority of work is domestic). Lawyers out here commonly travel several times per month to wherever the deals are, from India to the South Pacific. We have seen longtime Asia lawyers with passports as thick as the stack of 1000s in our pockets when we come back from Macau. Though the clients always pay for business class, and Asian airlines, airports and hotels are generally rated the best in the world for service and comfort, some people find travel and time away from home too stressful.

3. Do you have a flexible sleep schedule? American lawyers in Asia are often working with U.S. and European offices of the banks and law / accounting firms on their deals. New York is about twelve hours behind China / Japan, and 10 p.m. Friday conference calls or 4 a.m. closings are not uncommon. Or, given the workload of many Asian offices, you might just be up that late working. Very hot market + small office = lots of billable hours.

Read more, below the fold.

Flying has become a hated means of travel. Ridiculous security lines, the forced strip down, shrinking leg room, paying for on-board sustenance, massive delays…. the list could go on for quite a while. No wonder being a pilot isn’t what it used to be.

But we should move on to the law part of this. This week, American Airlines canceled 2,400 flights, leaving many stranded in cities across the U.S. It must have included some congressmen’s relatives, because Congress is pissed. They are threatening to finally pass the two-year-old air travelers’ bill of rights.

“There are no excuses. Congress has run out of excuses,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, one of the bill’s original authors. The bill would require airlines to let passengers leave a plane after it has sat on the runway for three hours. It also establishes minimum standards for food, water, and toilet facilities for passengers in planes stuck on the ground for long periods.

New York State passed a similar law, but it was struck down last month when an appeals court said such matters must be addressed by the federal government, not individual states.

Hello, federal government? Get on it!

Unfortunately, the legislation does not address canceled flights that never board. We’re sure loyal ATL readers were not grounded this week, since we’ve warned you before about flying American Airlines.

Lawmakers Try to Help Airline Passengers [Associated Press]

Random, but interesting — and topical, given current events. From a reader:

I ran across this article today. I know it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the law, but I figured that all of the Loyola 2Ls out there may appreciate this.

Another glamorous and high-paying job is, in fact, not what it appears. The price of admission is quite staggering, yet people continue to chase the “dream” (read: $$$).

But many of them don’t end up with that prestigious, six-figure gig. Instead, they wind up six figures in debt — many of them after abandoning secure and successful jobs in other fields. One financial planner, who works with many people in this profession, says that “you’re much better off going into plumbing, from a purely financial perspective.”

The job in question? No, not lawyer — airline pilot. Details here.

What can an aspiring pilot do to maximize their odds of landing a “Big Air” gig — one of the lucrative but increasingly rare jobs flying for a major airline? It’s not clear. Alas, U.S. News doesn’t rank flight schools.

For Pilots, Dreams Run Into Reality [New York Times]

In the wake of our recent post about a dubious defense, here’s another one:

A lawyer for an MIT student held at gunpoint after she walked into Logan International Airport wearing what authorities believed was a bomb asked a judge to throw out the charges Friday, saying the device was a legitimate form of free speech….

Thomas Dwyer Jr., a lawyer for Simpson, said his client didn’t think her shirt would scare anyone. He said she’d been wearing the shirt for several days on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus, and it had not alarmed anyone….

“People make these objects part of their identity. It’s a part of their personal expression,” he said. “They are legitimate forms of First Amendment expression.”

Writes Blogonaut:

[A] 9mm round from an airport police handgun might be a legitimate “free speech” reply to a person with a battery-powered rectangular device on their chest with flashing lights and apparent plastic explosive in their hands.

The marketplace of ideas. Ain’t it grand?

P.S. Is the Tom Dwyer involved in this case the well-regarded Thomas E. Dwyer, Jr., of Dwyer & Collora (formerly Dwyer, Collora & Gernter, before Nancy Gertner was appointed to the federal bench)? If so, we’d expect a former state and federal prosecutor to offer a more compelling defense.

P.P.S. In fairness to Dwyer, another argument he’s making — that state law does not clearly define a “hoax device” — seems stronger.

Woman charged with wearing fake bomb says device was free speech [Worcester Telegram via Blogonaut]

Earlier: From the Department of Dubious Defenses

Remember Kyla Ebbert, the comely young woman whose sexy outfit was deemed too revealing for flight by Southwest Airlines? We mentioned her story in passing back in this post (fourth link).

Well, it seems that Ms. Ebbert is back in the news — er, nude. From the AP:

A 23-year-old college student who was told by a Southwest Airlines employee that her outfit was too revealing to fly is wearing even less on Playboy’s Web site….

Kyla Ebbert appears in a series of pictures — some in lingerie, some nude — under the heading, “Legs in the Air.”

“They’re very tastefully done,” Ebbert told The Associated Press on Thursday. “I don’t see anything wrong with the female body.”

Indeed. And we’re big fans of Playboy, which we read strictly for the articles (and the ATL shout-outs).

So what does Kyla Ebbert want to do with her life?

Ebbert worked at a Hooters in San Diego but said she wants to become an attorney, and doesn’t think posing nude should get in the way of her professional aspirations.

“This was beautiful and classy. I don’t see why it would affect a professional position,” she said. “I’d do it again in a heartbeat.”

Ebbert is absolutely right — there’s a long and distinguished tradition of law students posing in various states of undress. See here.

So, when’s the application deadline for Miami Law?

Flyer told to change outfit poses nude [AP via Yahoo! News]

* 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.”

Here’s the latest Job of the Week from Lateral Link, ATL’s career partner:

Company: Eclipse Aviation

Title: Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

Description: This Albuquerque, NM-based company, which makes personal passenger planes, seeks a General Counsel to head overall management of the legal and regulatory functions within the Company and to oversee all legal aspects of its anticipated public offering, including legal compliance with SEC and NASDAQ/NYSE registration and all subsequent reporting requirements. Company is willing to relocate qualified candidate from anywhere in USA to Albuquerque, NM.

More details, after the jump.

Some fashion advice for Arab-Americans traveling by plane: leave the Arabic-slogan t-shirts at home.

Unless you want to become the plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit. Consider this recently filed case:

The American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit charging that a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) official and JetBlue Airways illegally discriminated against an American resident based solely on the Arabic message on his t-shirt and his ethnicity.

JetBlue and the TSA official, identified as “Inspector Harris,” would not let Raed Jarrar board his flight at John F. Kennedy Airport until he agreed to cover his t-shirt, which read “We Will Not Be Silent” in English and Arabic script.

According to the complaint, Harris told Jarrar that it is impermissible to wear an Arabic shirt to an airport and equated it to a “person wearing a t-shirt at a bank stating, ‘I am a robber.’”

Oy. Gotta love those enlightened TSA officials. Should Jarrar have worn a burqa instead?

Okay, seriously — if Raed Jarrar were a terrorist intent on wreaking havoc, would he really have worn such a t-shirt on to an airplane? Isn’t that just a recipe for extra-special scrutiny from the federal air marshal?

(On the other hand, perhaps one could argue, under a “reverse psychology” rubric, that a terrorist might don such a t-shirt because everyone would think: “Only the most dumb-ass terrorist would call attention to himself with his outfit!”)

ACLU Sues TSA Official, JetBlue for Discriminating Against Passenger Wearing Arabic T-Shirt [American Civil Liberties Union]
“We Will Not Be Silent” [ACLU (lawsuit homepage)]
The Airline Screening Playset: Hours of Fun! [Concurring Opinions]
After 5 Years In U.S., Terrorist Cell Too Complacent To Carry Out Attack [The Onion]

Yesterday’s Lawyer of the Day here at ATL, Andrew Speaker, is a 31-year-old personal injury lawyer from Atlanta. He is currently infected with a drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis. He got married and honeymooned in Europe, then returned home — initially flying into Canada, from which he drove back to the United States — to have his TB treated.

His critics argue that Andy Speaker, in traveling despite being urged not to by the CDC, endangered his fellow passengers, exposing them to a potentially fatal illness. His defenders point out that he is not symptomatic — and that many of us might have done the same thing in his shoes.

Anyway, enough commentary. You’ve all read a great deal about this story already. Time for a pair of (unscientific and imprecise) reader polls:

* Will Yalies respond with an NYU-esque gimmick? [Balkinization]

* And some people say raising kids and taking care of the house is a full-time job. Looks like the monetized value of a stay-at-home mom is not always so inflated after all. [Christian Science Monitor via CrimProf Blog]

* You just know that after a few minutes of official union matters, they’re going to be laughing it up about the stuff they see in our bags, and body parts that accidentally (or not) get felt up during pat-downs. [Yahoo! News]

* Another argument in favor of stronger Second Amendment rights? [MSN]

* I know these are the kinds of stories you want, so occasionally, you’ll get them. [WTHR Indianapolis]

Some time ago, we posted an anecdote about the family travel mishaps of Judge Marsha Berzon, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Many ATL readers enjoyed the story. But Judge Berzon’s colleague, Judge Alex Kozinski — one of the federal judiciary’s most brilliant thinkers and talented writers — was less pleased. He sent us an open letter criticizing the story and our decision to publish it.

We posted Judge Kozinski’s letter here, and we promised a more detailed response.

We intended to publish a response much earlier. But having to respond to a benchslapping at the hands of a brilliant federal judge tends to induce “writer’s block.” Who’d have thunk it?

Anyway, we finally got over our writer’s block. Our response appears after the jump.

What is it about being 30,000 feet in the air that makes people so horny? First this. Then this. And now, this disturbing news story:

An off-duty Northwest Airlines employee was arrested after a woman on a flight from Seattle complained that the man had ejaculated on her.

The FBI identified the man as Samuel Oscar Gonzalez, 20, of Lakewood, Wash. He was charged in federal court with simple assault, a misdemeanor.

It happened on the redeye Monday morning from Seattle to Minneapolis. The woman was headed back to college.

Near the end of the flight, the FBI said Gonzalez sat next to the woman as she was trying to sleep. He touched her, which she described as spooning, lifted her shirt and then got up and left. Court documents said she felt a warm fluid on her back, clothes and seat after he walked away.

Nasty. Well, at least he wasn’t a state court judge.

The woman told the flight attendants about the incident. They moved her to another seat and called police from the air. The crew also moved the man to a seat near the front of the plane until the end of the flight.

He just wanted to sit in first class. Is that so wrong?

Or maybe he was just having trouble falling asleep on the red-eye flight. We’re sure that he slept quite soundly after this encounter.

Off-Duty NWA Worker Charged With Assault On Flight [CBS via Drudge Report]
United States v. Gonzalez: Criminal Complaint [PDF]

* Jurors become instant BFF over testimony of an intimate and sexual nature. [Los Angeles Times]

* Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

* Turns out you actually can’t dance if you want to. [Newsday]

* As kids, my brother and I were familiar with only this constitutional amendment because of the “Second Amendment = Two arms” mnemonic aid. (We knew other things, okay?) [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Faux fur is, more often than not, real fur. As in real dog fur. So who is going to cast the first stone (or, rather, paint bucket) at Anna Wintour now? [San Francisco Chronicle]

* It’s getting hot in herre. [MSN]

* “Innocence most often is a good fortune and not a virtue.” One thing’s for sure — if you’re being tried for a crime, you’re SOL. [PrawfsBlawg]

* A flight attendant was suspended for merely taking a bathroom break. Of course, this “break” involved Ralph Fiennes’s penis. Wrongful termination or not, it would have been worth it. [The Daily Telegraph]

* Was this a way out of CLE requirements? [San Francisco Chronicle]

* Too many lawyers, not enough nuts, fruits or flakes. [Professor Bainbridge; Point of Law]

* How many times have you wondered what a producer actually does? And how many times since last year’s Oscars have you wondered why Crash won best picture? (Once for me, but the moment was intense and fraught with anger.) [Madisonian]

We feel a bit like Senator Joe Biden must feel right now, after his ill-advised comments about Senator Barack Obama. In case you haven’t heard, Sen. Biden paid Sen. Obama’s presidential candidacy some backhanded compliments:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Take foot (or, in our case, keyboard). Insert into mouth. Then push, as far as it will go.

Yesterday we published a post about a recent plane trip made by Judge Marsha Berzon, of the Ninth Circuit, and her family. It was supposed to come across as playfully irreverent (and yes, slightly snarky). But instead, it turned out to be rather mean-spirited, at least in the eyes of some readers — such as Judge Alex Kozinski.

In a later post, we will explain various aspects of that original post (and vigorously defend the decision to publish in the first instance). But for now, we would like to point out that the timing of our post could not have been worse.

The following email is representative of others we’ve received. It’s from a former clerk of Judge Berzon (who, by the way, thinks very highly of her and enjoyed the clerkship):

Judge Berzon’s brother passed away Tuesday quite suddenly and unexpectedly. So, whereas I would be bothered by such a post about someone I so thoroughly revere as a general matter, I wouldn’t normally object to its very existence — I’d just fight back. Given current circumstances, however, I do think it is in especially poor taste this week, a point you might want to consider as you post further on the subject.

Point well-taken. Obviously we had no idea of the passing of Judge Berzon’s brother at the time we published our post. It was a story we had on hand for a while — non-time-sensitive stuff, or what we in the biz call “evergreen” material — and we didn’t get the chance to write it up until yesterday. So it was pure (and unfortunate) coincidence that it appeared at such a terrible time for the Berzon family.

We send our sincerest condolences to Judge Berzon on the passing of her brother. And we apologize if we have in any way made such a difficult time for her family even more trying.

Update: Some interesting comments here. Please be sure to read our clarification of the point of this post. Thanks.

Earlier: Flying the Friendly, Federal Judicial Skies: An Open Letter from Judge Alex Kozinski
Flying the Friendly, Federal Judicial Skies

Yesterday we put up a post about the mishaps of a federal judge and her family on a recent plane trip. You can read that post by clicking here.

A number of you found it amusing. But not everyone was so pleased.

This morning we received an email from Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Kozinski is one of the most highly respected members of the federal judiciary. He is a brilliant thinker, a great writer, and a colorful character. He is a top-ranked feeder judge, and a former Supreme Court clerk himself. Most importantly, he is the reigning Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary.

We reprint Judge Kozinski’s letter below (and after the jump). We are running the letter without interruption, in unredacted form. In a later post, we will reprint his letter again, but with our paragraph-by-paragraph commentary.

And now, Judge Kozinski:

Dear David:

I’ve been a long-time fan of your efforts to demystify and humanize the federal judiciary. Which is why I was so shocked and disappointed by your recent posting about my colleague, Judge [Marsha] Berzon. The part dealing with the incident on the airplane is a vicious and wholly gratuitous personal attack on Judge Berzon and her family. Assuming it bears some nodding resemblance to the truth, which I seriously doubt, it is so laden with pejoratives and half-witticisms that it seems designed only to wound and deride, rather than to enlighten. Federal judges may be public figures who must endure whatever criticism is leveled at us for our work product, but what possible justification is there for holding up members of our families for public ridicule?

Will a single one of your readers have been enlightened or helped in any way by learning what a lawyer who may be nursing a grudge against the judge based on his appearances before her, thinks about her family’s airplane demeanor?

The story we’re about to share with you is great, gossipy fun. But we must warn you that it’s not for everyone. It’s on the long side, and it’s aimed at a rather narrow demographic.

It’s most likely to entertain (1) current or former Ninth Circuit clerks and (2) people who follow the federal judiciary very, very closely. If you were a reader of Underneath Their Robes back in the day, then this story is for you.

In recognition of its “inside baseball” nature — and so as not to inflict it upon people who just want Biglaw salary info — we’ve placed the complete story after the jump.