Ed. note: We gave this a shout-out last week in non-sequiturs (second item), but it’s egregious enough to merit more discussion.

Biglaw attorneys frequently complain about how hard it is to date given the amount of hours they devote to work. Attorneys at a small immigration firm in Chicago may have encountered a similar dilemma.

Perhaps inspired by Maggie Gyllenhaal’s cinematic portrayal of a sex-enjoying legal secretary, Samir Zia Chowhan of Chowhan Law allegedly advertised on Craigslist, in the “Adult Gigs” section, for a secretary with benefits. From Legal Profession Blog:

Loop law firm looking to hire am [sic] energetic woman for their open secretary/legal assistant position. Duties will include general secretarial work, some paralegal work and additional duties for two lawyers in the firm. No experience required, training will be provided. Generous annual salary and benefits will be provided, including medical, dental, life, disability, 401(k) etc. If interested, please send current resume and a few pictures along with a description of your physical features, including measurements. We look forward to meeting you.

Many of you will recall that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan waged a war against Craigslist’s “Erotic Services” section earlier this year, claiming that there was rampant prostitution there. By her doing, the section was taken down and replaced by this “Adult Gigs” section, which is supposedly more closely monitored for illegal activity. But in our surfing of the section, we saw quite a few ads like Chowhan’s, including ones like this: “I’m seeking a young lady who would like to have some fun with me, possibly on a regular basis, in exchange for some help with bills or whatever.”

At least Chowhan was a little more discreet in his May 2009 ad. But when one woman responded, he made it clear why he had listed the job in the Adult Gigs section.

He defines “additional duties,” after the jump.

Allen Feingold, a former Pennsylvania attorney, really loved practicing law. Even after being suspended and eventually disbarred, he continued to service clients — and went to extraordinary measures to do so.

From Gina Passarella of the Legal Intelligencer:

[Feingold] created letterhead in the name of attorney Jeffry Stephen Pearson, another attorney who apparently handled some of Feingold’s files once Feingold was suspended. Feingold would use that letterhead, unbeknown to Pearson, to file pleadings and legal correspondence to lawyers, clients and judges, according to the complaint. Once Pearson learned of this, he changed his password for electronic filings with the court, but Feingold learned of the new password and continued making filings under Pearson’s name, the ODC alleged in the complaint.

To put a stop to his misconduct, a judge ordered the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to lock Feingold out of his offices.

Pretty bad — but it gets worse….

Gary Appelblatt, 58, a California divorce lawyer, was a bit too thorough in his interviews with his clients. From the Associated Press:

Prosecutors say Appelblatt would tell clients that he had a pharmacy degree and touched them under the guise of performing medical procedures during divorce case consultations.

Appelblatt has admitted to improperly touching five of his clients — we assume they were female — and has been convicted of four counts of sexual battery and one count of attempted sexual contact. Apparently he offered one of his clients the $5,000-off-your-bill-if-you-sleep-with-me discount.

According to his website, Appelblatt is a “registered pharmacist.” He’s also a “certifid [sic] flight instructor.” We think we’d rather not have him in our cockpit.

Divorce lawyer pleads no contest to sexual battery [Associated Press]

Yesterday we heard from legal ethics experts about whether Elizabeth Wurtzel’s referring to herself as a “lawyer,” despite not having passed the bar yet, could get her in trouble. The two we consulted, Professors Steven Lubet and Stephen Gillers, did not see it as a big deal.

There’s an interesting follow-up over at Gawker, which obtained the following comment from La Wurtzel herself:

This is my understanding: if you graduate from law school/receive a JD, you are a lawyer; if you are licensed, you are an attorney. That’s what I’ve always been told.

Not too many nice things to say about the Bar Exam. Every year, some very gifted people fail it (Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School)—and every year, a lot of real idiots pass it. Hard to know what to make of that ;-)

Regarding Wurtzel’s understanding of the difference between the terms “lawyer” and “attorney,” other folks have been told that too. See the comments to this post from last year on the subject.

But there is disagreement. Read more, and take a READER POLL, after the jump.

To those of you getting ready to take the bar exam this week, here’s some reassurance for you: even if you fail, life goes on. Consider this list of famous failures, people who didn’t pass the bar exam but went on to tremendous success anyway.

And here’s another boldface name who failed the bar: Elizabeth Wurtzel, the bestselling and critically acclaimed author, who graduated from Yale Law School last year and sat for the New York bar in July 2008 (and maybe in February 2009 too). In an interview with the New York Observer, Wurtzel shrugged off her bar failure.

In a more recent interview with Bitter Lawyer, Wurtzel once again breezed past that fact. From Gawker:

Wurtzel granted an interview recently to Bitter Lawyer, talking about how much she loves the law and how awesome it is being a lawyer and working at David Boies’s law firm. Except she’s not a lawyer! At least not in New York, where it seems to be unlawful to claim to be a lawyer if you haven’t passed the bar exam. Which she hasn’t.

In the Gawker post, John Cook parses Wurtzel’s Bitter Lawyer interview against the backdrop of New York rules and statutes regulating the legal profession. Cook suggests that Wurtzel describing herself as a lawyer violates New York Judiciary Law § 478, “Practicing or appearing as attorney-at-law without being admitted and registered.”

We forwarded the Gawker link to a pair of legal ethics experts, Professor Steven Lubet of Northwestern and Professor Stephen Gillers of NYU, and asked them to assess the situation.

Read what they had to say, after the jump.

Lawyer fight! The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that competition for clients is heating up in the bayou:

Two attorneys competing for clients, prestige and a bounty of legal fees opened a hearing at Orleans Parish Civil District Court on Monday with a schoolyard brawl that shocked the buttoned-up crowd and ended with one led away in handcuffs on charges of contempt.

The best thing about lawyer fights are the clever euphemisms that the combatants use to explain just how badly they got their asses kicked. Remember this Louisiana throw down between attorneys who were also in-laws?

“I said, ‘You just bought yourself a ticket to a bar (association) complaint.’ He grabbed me by the neck and started swinging me back and forth. .¤.¤. He hurt me substantially. I became woozy and fell.”

This time, both battling attorneys (Madro Bandaries and J. Robert Ates) offered competing explanations as to how they were so easily and quickly defeated.

The case of Glass Joe versus Captain Inaction continues after the jump.

Here’s a little shopping rule that I live by. If Jack Thompson starts screaming about a video game destroying the moral fabric of America, I immediately go out and purchase that video game. Back in September, Thompson was disbarred for annoying and harassing the video game industry over “pornographic” titles. It was a great victory for those who enjoy shooting (virtual) Manhattan residents from stolen police helicopters.

But Jack Thompson, who blames the Grand Theft Auto series for teaching children how to kill cops, wants to avail himself of a “reset” button. He sent around the following — I don’t even know what you would call this — angry missive to members of the Florida bar:

I have just been permanently disbarred by The Florida Bar after being a lawyer in continuous good standing for 31 years. No client complained. My sin was accepting Ed Bradley’s personal request to go on CBS’ 60 Minutes to expose the reckless and harmful marketing of adult-rated, violent, and pornographic Grand Theft Auto video games to kids. One of these teens killed three Alabama cops after training to kill them on this “cop-killing” murder simulation game.

Just to be clear, Thompson was not disbarred for going on 60 Minutes with a stick shoved so far up his ass he could choke on it. Instead, Thompson was deemed too contentious to even be a lawyer. The referee’s recommendation for his disbarment said:

Over a very extended period of time involving a number of totally unrelated cases and individuals, [r]espondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes.

He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior, but rather uses other means available to intimidate, harass, or bring public disrepute to those whom he perceives oppose him.

Just because Thompson learned his legal strategies from GTA doesn’t mean that American children are so addled as to think that they can pull off video carjacking skills in real life.

Thompson’s due process argument and his full email after the jump.

Back in July, we were the first to wonder about the mysterious departure from Sullivan & Cromwell of Carlos Spinelli-Noseda, a rising star at the über-prestigious (and profitable) law firm. Some commenters viewed our interest in his departure as unseemly, prying, or reflecting bias against S&C.

We don’t mean to gloat — okay, maybe just a little — but we’ve been vindicated by recent revelations. From a report by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal:

A former Sullivan & Cromwell partner has resigned from the bar for billing his clients and firm more than $500,000 in fraudulent travel and entertainment expenses.

Carlos J. Spinelli-Noseda, a banking and finance specialist who joined Sullivan & Cromwell straight out of Harvard Law School in 1994 and became a partner in 2003, was facing a disciplinary investigation over a pattern of improper billing dating from roughly July 1998 to February 2008.

In a June 3 affidavit of resignation he submitted to the disciplinary committee of the First Department, Mr. Spinelli-Noseda admitted he could not successfully defend himself against charges of professional misconduct. Such resignations are frequently tendered when further proceedings are almost certain to lead to disbarment.

Read more, after the jump.

Update / Clarification: Some commenters have complained about a formatting problem in an earlier version of this post. If you encountered this formatting problem, it’s time for you to enter the 21st century, ditch Internet Explorer, and adopt a better browser, like Firefox (download it here). Or get a Mac.

But just for the record, the formatting error was your editor’s fault, not that of FROLIC & DETOUR. We apologize for the mistake (which you should not hold against F&D).

*******************
After Tuesday’s discussion, readers submitted some beautiful examples of the bureaucratic glory that is character and fitness:

On my 2003 application I reported that I had lived in one location until “June 1996” and another location starting “July 1996.” I got a call saying I had failed to account for where I lived for almost two months. When I asked them what they meant, they said they were missing addresses for the period between June 2, 1996 and July 30, 1996.

I got grief from C&F for failing to disclose a citation for failure to wear a seatbelt. It was a $10 ticket that I got 6 years before applying to the bar.

And my personal favorite:

When asked why I left the Dean campaign I wrote “Iowa, the Scream.” They asked for more details.

Thanks for the stories. But since this is the last post of ATL Idol, I’m cutting to the chase. It was clear from Tuesday’s comments that readers were more interested in my character than in character & fitness. So let’s talk about that.

To clear up some misconceptions, I’m not Miss Alli/Linda Holmes. I have a B.A. and J.D. from Harvard, and I don’t know whether I know Sophist. I really did interview fired biglaw partners who knew I was writing for ATL (Lat knows who they are). I’m done with legal practice whether I’m the Idol or not. And whatever happens this weekend, I’m grateful to all the voters who think my garbage stinks a little bit less than the competition’s garbage. I feel like a bacterium that survived a three-week penicillin bath.

Finally, I have to address the reader accusation that I am an anti-Semite. I have to admit, this one is true. Those schmucks in my mishpocheh give me nothing but tsuris.

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

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

It’s puzzling that lawyers have a reputation as a bunch of thieving shysters. After all, we have to prove our character and fitness before joining the profession. Unlike, say, doctors, lawyers’ unique responsibilities demand high moral standards as well as professional skill. Only the pure in heart can be allowed to carry the briefcase.

Yes, 3Ls, for a mere $815 (0r more), expert bureaucrats will judge your moral merit. Along with the occasional white supremacist, state C&F committees weed out sinners great and small. Unpaid parking tickets? They’re on it. Remember that security deposit on your 1999 summer share? They do.

Maybe you didn’t think that a drunken tailgate from sophomore year would come back to haunt you. But we’ve already heard from several C&F veterans about the long-forgotten dramas that stood between them and their legal dreams:

I worked as a paralegal at a small New York firm in between college and law school. After six months, I got sick of picking up sushi and making copies, so I quit. The firm was furious that I was leaving, and they threatened to do whatever it took to keep me out of the bar. Sure enough, three and a half years later, they told California that I was a liar and not to be trusted. California admitted me anyway. Later in my career, I moved to New York. This firm again told the bar that I was a liar and made as much trouble as they could — almost six years after I quit.

I skipped a lot of class in high school and ended up with a bunch of Fs. I graduated from college with honors, then made it to a top-6 law school, with years of work experience along the way. I was 26 when I took the bar. C&F gave me huge problems over my high school academic record. They made me write a long apology and promise never to do it again. For real.

So readers, what vomit blotches stained your bar applications? How did you have to pay penance? Share in the comments or at frolicndetour.atl.idol@gmail.com, and we’ll discuss on Thursday.

No, there’s no decimal point missing. Computer virus fighter McAfee Inc. wants to quarantine the legal fees of WilmerHale, alleging that the firm overbilled the company. It finds WilmerHale’s $12 million bill to be simply unacceptable.

From Niraj Chokshi of The Recorder:

The Santa Clara, Calif., company is embroiled with Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr over $12 million in legal fees incurred in the trial of former McAfee Chief Financial Officer Prabhat Goyal. The company is accusing WilmerHale of fraud, theft, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

“[WilmerHale] intentionally overworked and churned the representation of Goyal; shamelessly employing over 100 WilmerHale timekeepers in the feeding frenzy,” McAfee alleged in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas earlier this year. “Defendant’s bills reflect at least 16 partners, 34 associate attorneys, 10 legal assistants and 49 staff personnel — how else could they amass this enormous trove of cash?” the complaint read.

On the one hand, $12 million is a sizable chunk of change. Did William DiSalvatore bill time to this matter?

On the other hand, big cases are, well, big. And part of the reason you hire Biglaw shops to tackle them is the ample supply of warm bodies to throw at the problem. Racking up an eight-figure legal bill is not unheard of in a long-running, large-scale white collar case involving top corporate executives.

More after the jump.

Since L.A. Judge Charles Lee was our Lawyer of 1984, we’re giving a different attorney Lawyer of the Day honors. Joseph Levine of New York is helping to give a bad name to both lawyers and gamblers.

He’s pleaded guilty to second-degree grand larceny, after stealing more than $400,000 from his clients, including money that was to be used for heart surgery for his client’s daughter. That’s cold.

From Newsday:

“I think this case underscores the pitfalls of compulsive gambling,” said Levine’s attorney, Michael Soshnick of Mineola.

A spokesman for District Attorney Kathleen Rice said Levine advised one of his clients to accept a $300,000 settlement in a personal injury lawsuit. He then asked her insurance carrier for the money immediately, saying she needed it to pay for her daughter’s heart surgery.

After getting the check, Levine returned to New York, forged the signature of his client and her husband and deposited the check in his own bank account, police said.

By the time the client notified the DA’s office, Levine’s bank account stood at -$139.44. Having an account with a negative balance after stealing almost half a million dollars? That’s just embarrassing.

Disbarred attorney pleads guilty to grand larceny [Newsday]
DA: Lawyer Pocketed $300k from Clients [Nassau County District Attorney’s Office]

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?

Who is Howard Kieffer? Well, if you Google him, this bio on the Association of Federal Defense Attorneys will be one of your first hits:

Howard Kieffer is a nationally-recognized BOP and post-conviction specialist based in Santa Ana, California, just south of Los Angeles. He frequently works as a consultant with defense attorneys nationwide and has lectured at numerous conferences, including programs presented by NACDL, the ABA and AFDA.

Mr. Kieffer is the founder and moderator of BOPWatch, a Yahoo-based online news service that provides daily coverage on BOP topics and general news pertaining to federal criminal enforcement. To visit or sign up for BOPWatch, go to the following web address: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BOPWatch/

According to the Denver Post, Kieffer’s expertise on the Bureau of Prisons comes from being inside one… serving time for grand theft and filing false tax returns. He may be headed back to prison soon for misrepresenting himself as a licensed attorney.

Kieffer claimed to have a law degree from Antioch School of Law (nope), claimed to be a member of the ABA and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (nope), and claimed to be admitted to practice law in North Dakota (nope). He did manage to gain membership to the Federal Bar Association.

A California man misrepresented himself as a licensed attorney in at least 16 cases at 10 federal courts since 2004, including the case of an NHL player who pleaded guilty to hiring a hitman to kill his agent and a murder-for-hire trial involving an Aspen woman, according to records obtained by The Denver Post.

Clients and lawyers knew Howard O. Kieffer, 52, as a capable attorney specializing in federal sentencing and plea negotiations through the Santa Ana, Calif.-based Federal Defense Associates legal office, where he worked as executive director.

Sometimes practicing law is more about balls than a law degree. More on how Kieffer duped just about everybody, after the jump.

Ah, those inscrutable transcripts from the University of Chicago Law School — gotta love ‘em. They’re chock full of numbers, but they don’t use the standard “As = 90s, Bs = 80s” scale. For example, if your grades are all in the 80s, you’re a rock star.

Nobody can make heads or tails of the U. Chicago transcripts. So what’s wrong with a little “tweaking” here and there? From the ABA Journal (via TaxProf Blog):

A lawyer who attended the University of Chicago Law School has been accused in an ethics complaint of lying about his grades when he applied for a summer position at Sidley Austin.

Loren Elliotte Friedman is accused in a complaint filed May 6 by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. He was listed as an associate at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in New York on the firm’s website earlier Tuesday, but his name was removed by the afternoon.

Joseph Pizzurro, managing partner of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, told ABAJournal.com that Friedman, a bankruptcy associate, disclosed the bar complaint to the law firm on Friday and submitted his resignation.

The complaint says Friedman altered transcripts of his law school grades in 20 classes to reflect better grades than he received. Friedman worked at Sidley Austin the summer of 2002, and the firm extended an employment offer for him to begin work as an associate in 2003.

The complaint also alleges that Friedman failed to reveal he flunked out of medical school in his application to law school, and that he failed to disclose the altered law school transcripts in his bar application.

It looks like medicine, and now law, haven’t worked out for Loren Friedman. What’s next?

Maybe betting on horse races? The Legal Profession Blog has dubbed his three alleged omissions a “trifecta.”

More details, after the jump.

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.

We mentioned this story in passing a few times. But we probably should have given it a more prominent place in these pages, since it involves one of our favorite legal celebrities: the high-powered Monica Goodling, who held top positions at the U.S. Department of Justice, and who came to prominence during the U.S. Attorney firing controversy.

Here’s an update, from NPR:

The Justice Department’s inspector general confirmed Tuesday that he is looking into whether a department lawyer was dismissed over a rumor that she is a lesbian.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie A. Hagen was informed in 2006 that her contract working on Indian affairs in the Justice Department’s Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys would not be renewed for a second year — despite receiving the highest possible performance reviews….

Glenn Fine of the Inspector General’s Office and H. Marshall Jarrett of the Office of Professional Responsibility said they are looking into whether Hagen was “discriminated against in employment decisions on the basis of alleged sexual orientation or other improper factors.”

Some claim that Hagen had “a Monica problem” — i.e., that she was not in favor with the powerful Goodling, due to these sapphic whisperings.

Now, if the allegation were that Monica Goodling fired a DOJ lawyer because of a rumor that he might be gay, we’d dismiss it out of hand. In light of her overall fabulosity, as well as her status as “a survivor” — someone who has successfully weathered serious political storms, while still looking poised, polished, and perfect — Goodling will be hailed as an icon by future generations of gay male lawyers.

But this allegation involves a rumor that a lawyer was a lesbian. That’s a whole different kettle of fish. So we’ll wait and see what the DOJ probe reveals.

Justice Inquiry Centers on Dismissal, Gay Rumors [NPR]
Confirmed: DoJ Investigators Probing Whether Goodling Fired Lawyer Due to Gay Rumors [TPM Muckraker]

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.