Some of you may be wondering what happened to the ex-Snell & Wilmer associate who was involved in the Timestampgate scandal from last year.

Anyway, several tipsters wrote in to us to update us. If you followed the scandal and are curious, find out, after the jump.

When judges preside over law school moot court arguments, like the one at Columbia Law School last week, they often dish out this compliment to the student advocates: "You're better than most of the practicing lawyers who appear before us."

And maybe they're not just being nice. If we had gotten to this item a bit earlier -- it's from last week -- Roger Phipps would have been a Lawyer of the Day. We're happy to declare him our Lawyer of Last Week.

Over at the Legal Profession Blog, Professor Alan Childress draws attention to this per curiam opinion (PDF) by the Fifth Circuit. Here's an excerpt:

[W]e would be remiss if we did not comment on the conduct of Roger Phipps, counsel for Hartz, during oral argument in this case on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Phipps’ conduct towards the Court during argument was unprofessional. Even more serious was his admission that during his work on the case (including his preparation for argument), he had not read a key Supreme Court case. His cavalier disregard for his client’s interest and for his obligation to the Court was both troubling and disgraceful. [FN4]

Accordingly, we are ordering Phipps to provide his client, Hartz, a copy of our opinion immediately after it is released. In order to ensure compliance, we are further directing him to supply our Court with proof of service.

Ouch. So what did Phipps do to incur the court's wrath?

Read the text of footnote four, after the jump.

Update: For a postscript to this story, see here.

Some of you took the MPRE recently -- and we're gathering, from your comments, that you'd like a place to talk about it. Here is an open thread.

To be totally honest, we're not really sure how much there is to say about the MPRE. It's not a super-difficult test, and it hasn't exactly achieved the mythical status of the bar exam as a rite of passage for aspiring lawyers.

But perhaps you'll surprise us. Back in December, an open thread on MPRE results generated over 200 comments. So maybe there's more to say about the MPRE than one might think.

Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) [National Conference of Bar Examiners]

Earlier: MPRE Results Are Out: Open Thread

Pity the poor partners of McDermott Will & Emery. Sure, their firm is highly regarded and highly profitable. But when they head off to try cases in far-off places, they often get benchslapped silly.

You may recall the case of bankruptcy partner William Smith, who found himself in the deep-fat fryer after telling a judge she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." Although the judge was upset, in the end Smith got a slap on the wrist.

Things didn't end as happily for Terrence McMahon and Vera Elson, MWE partners based in Silicon Valley. Judge Richard P. Matsch -- the tough, well-regarded trial judge who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing case -- sanctioned McMahon and Elson for "cavalier and abusive" misconduct and a "what can I get away with?" attitude during trial. From the Denver Post:

A federal judge recently got so infuriated by the conduct of two highly regarded trial attorneys that he overturned a jury's $51 million verdict, then ordered the lawyers to pay the fees and costs of the opposing lawyers, a sum that could total several million dollars.

Ouch. So is that coming out of their partnership draws?

Or maybe the firm will find other ways to cut costs. Read more, after the jump.

Update: Please note that this post has been corrected since it was first published. The correction appears after the jump.

* Hot lawyers make more money. And we needed a study to tell us this? [Legal Blog Watch via ABA Journal; WSJ Law Blog]

* A truly insane murder case. And yes, Debra Opri -- who has represented Michael Jackson and Larry Birkhead, among other boldface names -- is on the scene. [DealBreaker; HedgeFund.net]

* Ann Althouse wonders: "We've already seen every possible permutation of Hillary, haven't we?" (And this is why we adore HRC -- she's the Madonna of modern American politics, constantly reinventing herself.) [Althouse]

* When it comes to law firm partnership, breaking up is hard to do. Especially when criminal charges are involved. [National Law Journal via Blogonaut]

This next story is not new; it was reported last year by CBS. But we have an update to bring you, via YouTube, which is why we're revisiting it.

For those of you who missed it, here's a quick recap:

[A] woman was referred to a lawyer to represent her in a car accident case. But what she experienced in the meetings with that 72-year-old attorney later led her to file a formal criminal complaint with the NYPD....

The 47-year old woman -- who has asked CBS 2 not to reveal her identity -- claims that during her initial visit to lawyer Allen Isaac, he asked her for oral sex as part of his fee for taking her personal injury case.

"He said I'm going to want oral sex from you. I'm going to want it twice before the case begins, then I'm going to want it every week after if I get you a very good result," she said.

Now that's what we call a "success fee."

More discussion, plus the recently uploaded YouTube clip, after the jump.

San Antonio lawyer Mary Roberts is attractive, enterprising, and creative. She knows how to think outside the box.

These qualities make her a shoo-in for Lawyer of the Day. From WOAI.com:

A San Antonio attorney is on trial, accused of stealing money from her lovers. Prosecutors say Mary Roberts would have affairs with men. Then her husband would extort money from them.

Ted Roberts was convicted and sentenced to 5 years for extorting $155,000 from four men. He's appealing his conviction.This week, it's Mary Roberts turn to face a jury.

Her past was relived during opening statements as the prosecutor described the affairs Mary Roberts had, the men she had them with, and how those affairs ended. The prosecutor explained that one man wrote a $70,000 check to the Roberts Foundation for Children. Prosecutors said it's all a sex scandal both Ted and Mary Roberts were in on.

Is your marriage in the doldrums? Perhaps you and your spouse should start a sex-and-extortion scam together, to rejuvenate your marital union:

The first person to take the stand Monday was Ted Roberts' legal assistant. She told the court, "Before [the alleged plot began began], there was just very little interaction. Um, just rarely saw Mary in the office. And once all of this came about, um...Just, all of a sudden, they were much more, I guess, lovey-dovey. They just became a lot closer."

Watch video footage of the trial here. Both the prosecutor and the legal assistant are highly attractive, in a C-list actress sort of way. Casting the made-for-TV movie will be a cinch.

Sex, Lies, and Blackmail: The Secret Life of a San Antonio Attorney [WOAI.com]
Mary Roberts Trial Begins [WOAI.com (video)]

To our surprise, yesterday's open thread on the MPRE generated over 200 comments. Who knew that this topic would incite such interest?

Since you're all so interested in talking about the MPRE, here's more. A reader sent us a long but entertaining story about the test -- which you can read in full, after the jump.

(We realize this is old news, but we're declaring this Remedial Blogging Day at ATL. We have a few other slightly stale stories that we may write up later today, if it continues to be a slow news day.)

Judge Harold Baer (S.D.N.Y.) was once nominated as a hottie of the federal judiciary. Alas, he didn't win.

But in a competition for hotheadedness rather than hotness, Judge Baer might fare better. From a very interesting article by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal:

A Manhattan federal judge has delivered a lengthy manifesto against declining civility in the legal profession in the course of sanctioning law firm Dorsey & Whitney and two of its partners.

Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer opened his 129-page decision with a discussion of how "naked competition and singular economic focus of the marketplace have begun to infiltrate the practice of law, subordinating the high standards of service, collegiality and professionalism as a result."

He ended it with his observation that "partners are at times made and retained for their rainmaking skills and not for their legal skill, that the number of billable hours is not only the alpha and omega of bonuses but that these hours -- or at least the ones that count -- often exclude pro bono hours, or that who gets credit for originating a piece of business can throw a firm into turmoil and prompt internecine struggles, or that the bottom line has eclipsed most everything else for which the practice of law stands or stood to the extent that the practice of law is now frequently described as a business rather than a profession."

Usually when a federal judge tears you a new one, you just grin and bear it. Or maybe go out and buy some Preparation H.

But the lawyer who was the subject of Judge Baer's ire actually struck back. Read more, after the jump.

Congratulations to everyone who passed the MPRE. Results were made available online earlier this afternoon.

As for those of you who failed, we could subject you to some good-natured ribbing in these pages. But we will refrain.

Instead, we're delegating that task to the commenters, on this open thread. As one reader noted in an email, "people love comparing scores and condescending to, or commiserating with, those who failed."

The MPRE: Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination [official website]

* Professor Eugene Volokh wonders: Does engaging in a three-way with a current client and the client's girlfriend count as having sex "with a current client" -- a practice forbidden by state bar rules? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Professor Ann Bartow wonders: Why call it "law porn"? [Feminist Law Professors via Blawg Review]

* Paralegal of the Day? [TPM Muckraker]

* A way for that Cleary Gottlieb Glamour editor to earn some extra cash on the side? [City Room]

* "Law school grads: burnt by the job search process? A journalist wants to hear about it." [JD Underground]

* It's hard to believe this car was parked in Brooklyn, of all places. [Althouse]

* The law school hiring process privileges glibness -- and is that a bad thing? Law professors are hired (1) to train lawyers, of all people, and (2) to write articles that sound like they're saying a lot, even when they're not. Glibness would seem to be a BFOQ. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Once our Surgeon General starts getting on our case about drinking, it's time to leave the country. But don't move to the U.K. [Charon QC: The Blawg]

* Speaking of emigration, Tonga says: "Give us your tired, your poor, your disgraced and disbarred lawyers, yearning to breathe free." [Blogonaut]

* Good news, Pennsylvanians. According to Professor Orin Kerr, "you can scream at your overflowing john all you want without violating the state's disorderly conduct offense." [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Martindale-Hubbell ratings: Pay to play? We find them less useful than they might otherwise be because so many lawyers aren't rated. Will charging a fee for inclusion exacerbate the problem? [Real Lawyers Have Blogs; HireTrade Blog]

* Thoughts on the Eighth Circuit fantasy baseball ruling (mentioned in Morning Docket), from Professor Neil Richards. [Concurring Opinions]

* Dionne Warwick is a tax deadbeat? Say it ain't so! [TaxProf Blog]

* Have a favorite New York blawg / blawger? Vote for them here. [Sui Generis]

Tomorrow is a very big day for almost 20 California lawyers. From Blogonaut:

A federal district court has ordered 14 California lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for their “exceptional misconduct” on behalf of Qualcomm in a lawsuit that the San Diego wireless company lost. All of the lawyers subject to the order were from the Cupertino law firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder or the Heller Ehrman law firm's offices in Menlo Park and San Diego, the San Diego Tribune is reporting.

Five additional lawyers have been drawn into the proceedings since the order was issued, so the fate of 19 attorneys rests on the outcome of an October 12, 2007, 9:30 a.m. hearing before U.S. Magistrate Barbara Major, the newspaper reports.

We previously wrote about the underlying discovery snafu over here.

Both Heller Ehrman and Day Casebeer have been the subject of gossip recently. Last month, Heller Ehrman was rumored to be carrying out staff layoffs in California (believed to affect up to 90 people). If you know anything about this, please email us.

Update: Oops, sorry, don't know how we missed this article from The Recorder, reporting on Heller axing 65 administrative staff positions nationwide. No attorneys were laid off.

As for Day Casebeer, rumor had it that they were rescinding offers to incoming associates. But it appears that this was inaccurate, as rumors sometimes are. When we contacted the firm, they had this comment:

We are delighted that eight new associates will join us this Fall and that two have already started work. It's a record class for us. Far from rescinding any offers, we remain very interested in resumes from others interested in joining our practice.

Especially if you're experienced in electronic data discovery.

Federal Court Brings Written Charges of “Exceptional Misconduct” Against 14 Lawyers [Blogonaut]
19 lawyers face sanction hearing [San Diego Union-Tribune]
Recovered Emails Bedevil Qualcomm in Court [Wall Street Journal]
Heller Says Slowdown Not Behind Layoffs [The Recorder via Law.com]

Earlier: Benchslap of the Day: The Qualcomm Debacle

Just like Justice Anthony Kennedy, Bankruptcy Judge Paul J. Kilburg (S.D. Iowa) does his own internet research. This is a lesson that Peter Cannon, Esq., learned the hard way.

From TaxProf Blog:

Mr. Peter Cannon, a West Des Moines, Iowa attorney, represented Defendant John Petit in an adversary proceeding initiated by Trustee to uncover assets of the Theodore Burghoff bankruptcy estate....

After reading both briefs filed by Mr. Cannon, and concluding that both contained an extraordinary amount of research, the Court directed Mr. Cannon to certify the author or authors of the two briefs. On December 22, 2006, Mr. Cannon certified that while he had prepared both briefs, he had "relied heavily" on an article written by others. The article upon which Mr. Cannon relied is Why Professionals Must Be Interested in "Disinterestedness" Under the Bankruptcy Code, May 2005, ("the Article") by William H. Schrag and Mark C. Haut, two attorneys of the New York office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. The Court located this article on the internet. Mr. Cannon fails to acknowledge or cite this article in either brief.

To be sure, our job involves heavy use of ctrl-C and ctrl-V. But what Mr. Cannon did -- "seventeen of the nineteen total pages in the pre-hearing brief are verbatim excerpts from the Article" -- went a bit far.

You can find out how much Mr. Cannon charged his client for this plagiarism, and what happened to him next, over here (TaxProf Blog) and here (Volokh Conspiracy).

Judge Orders Attorney to Take Professional Responsibility Course [TaxProf Blog]
Attorney Sanctioned for Plagiarizing Article in His Brief [Volokh Conspiracy]
In re Burghoff [U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Iowa]

Judge Loretta K. Preska (S.D.N.Y.) has it all: a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, a rich husband, and killer shoes.

As well as, it appears, no patience for lawyers who play fast and loose with the rules. From the WSJ Law Blog:

Cleary Gottlieb conjures images of Ivy League bookishness and international savoir faire, not bare-knuckled litigation tactics. But last week a federal judge sanctioned the firm and found them to have acted in bad faith. “Civil litigation is not always civil,” began a ruling by Loretta Preska, a federal judge in Manhattan. Here’s the opinion (PDF).

The judge concluded that Cleary tried to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition, in part because of a concern the witness would testify adverse to the firm’s client. Preska ordered Cleary to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs ─ an amount to be determined ─ and ruled that “the sanction is imposed as a formal reprimand and should be circulated to all attorneys at Cleary.”

And Cleary partner Jean-Pierre Vignaud was ordered to write "I will not interfere improperly with the discovery process," five hundred times, on a dry-erase board in a firm conference room.

Cleary Gottlieb -- which, by the way, picked fellow white-shoe law firm Simpson Thacher to represent it -- said in a statement that it intends to appeal.

Judge Sanctions Cleary: “Civil Litigation Is Not Always Civil” [WSJ Law Blog]
Kensington Intl., Ltd. v. Republic of Congo [WSJ Law Blog (PDF)]

We briefly mentioned that Carol Lam, one of the controversial U.S. Attorney firing victims, is now the interim general counsel of Qualcomm. If you'd like to know about the scandal that caused her predecessor, Lou Lupin, to resign, check out the WSJ Law Blog:

It’s something no lawyer wants to get — a ruling from a federal magistrate saying, essentially: “come on down to court and explain to us why you don’t think you should be sanctioned for your behavior.” But that’s what lawyers at Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder, based in Cupertino, Calif., received earlier this week from San Diego federal magistrate Barbara Major.

The ruling was essentially a follow-up to a separate ruling made last week by San Diego federal judge Rudi Brewster. Judge Brewster held that wireless giant Qualcomm and its trial counsel, which included lawyers from Day Casebeer, committed “gross litigation misconduct” by withholding crucial evidence in a patent dispute brought by Broadcom. He ordered Qualcomm to pay legal fees to Broadcom, which could amount to $10 million.

Maybe the judge was biased against a firm whose name is a little too close for comfort to "case of beer."

L’Affaire Qualcomm: Day Casebeer Asked to Defend Itself [WSJ Law Blog]

Even if you have a possible justification for doing so -- 'cause it might be illegal. From the ABA Journal:

Proceedings have been delayed in a California misdemeanor case in which the defense is claiming that police brutalized their client with a stun gun during his arrest at a shopping mall last year.

That's because the defense team is now being criminally investigated for allegedly violating human experimentation laws by repeatedly using a stun gun on their client themselves during an evidence-gathering effort in a law office.

Additional details here. Our tipster, a criminal defense lawyer, observes:

"I can't decide which I like better:

(1) imagining those nervous, sweaty-palmed, study-group types from law school, wringing their hands and saying, 'C'mon, guys, we have to be PREPARED! How are we gonna know what he looked like when he was writhing in agony unless we shock him AGAIN?' or

(2) the idea of defense lawyers seizing the opportunity to taser a client -- which we have ALL dreamed of doing."

Shocking Case: Legal Team Tasers Client [ABA Journal]

We just learned a new word today: "tomcatting." From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Chehalis, Washington -- The tomcatting of the elected prosecutor in this conservative rural town has jeopardized as many as four cases brought by his office and prompted a complaint to the state bar association.

Liam Michael Golden, a Republican who ran unopposed for Lewis County prosecutor last November, is facing allegations that he did not properly disclose past sexual relationships with the mother of a victim in one case and the mother of a defendant in another. His office also charged someone with cyberstalking a woman Golden had slept with, though Golden recently turned that case over to a prosecutor from neighboring Thurston County.

Maybe Golden should start looking for dates in "neighboring Thurston county." It's tough being a lothario if you're the top prosecutor in a small town.

"Mike's got a lot of explaining to do," said Mark Anders, chairman of the county Republican Party. "I have some heartburn about him having affairs here, there and yonder, just from a personal moral standpoint. But in this post-Clintonian era, your personal life is your personal life, and you have to ask, 'Well, was it legal? Was it ethical?'"

And was it as good for them as it was for him?

Wash. prosecutor's sexual relations raise ethical questions [AP via Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

Quite literally. From TSG:

In a pathetic end to the Mike Nifong saga, the disgraced North Carolina prosecutor who handled the Duke rape investigation has turned in his law license, noting that he never framed or displayed the document because it had been damaged "by a puppy in her chewing stage."

Additionally, in an August 7 letter to the North Carolina State Bar, Nifong noted that the law license also contained a misspelling of his middle name (which is Byron).

From the tipster who drew this to our attention: "Astounding." But sadly appropriate, too.

Nifong: The Dog Ate My Law License [The Smoking Gun]

Actually, this is a two-for-one. We can also get a Benchslap of the Day out of this item. From the Miami Herald:

Prominent attorney Hank Adorno -- already under Florida Bar investigation for his role in Miami's fire-fee scandal -- on Wednesday was blasted by the Third District Court of Appeal for what the judges called his ''reprehensible conduct'' in the now infamous case.

In a unanimous opinion that upheld a lower-court decision invalidating Miami's $7 million fire-fee settlement with just seven people, the appeals court ripped into Adorno, who had represented the so-called ''lucky seven.'' The Adorno & Yoss firm stood to earn a $2 million share of the $7 million payout, while some 80,000 taxpayers got nothing.

Huh? How did that almost come to pass?

More discussion, plus the benchslap-worthy language from the court's opinion, after the jump.