JEEZ. What a tool.
An administrative law judge, Roy L. Pearson, is suing his dry cleaners. Over a missing pair of pants (subsequently found). For the insane sum of $65 million.
We kid you not. More details here.
Okay, we’re not completely shocked. Clownish antics from an ALJ? Heaven forfend.
No, we don’t have the highest opinion of administrative law “judges.” Roy Pearson should be flattered that news stories about his idiocy identify him as a “judge,” instead of a “petty and lame-ass federal bureaucrat.”
The defendant dry cleaners are represented by one Chris Manning. Is he Christopher C.S. Manning, of Manning & Sossamon, or Christopher N. Manning, the newly-minted Williams & Connolly partner? We’re guessing the former; but we’re hoping for the latter. We like the idea of the mighty Williams & Connolly steamrolling this
prick pseudo-judicial moron.
More commentary from Overlawyered, here and here, and the WSJ Law Blog, here and here.
The second Overlawyered post provides a link to a reported opinion arising out of Roy Pearson’s divorce. The opinion reveals that Pearson and his ex-wife were having sexual relations very infrequently. Guess Pearson decided to go screw his dry cleaners instead.
And screw them he has. The Chungs have been so traumatized by the ordeal that they are thinking of closing their dry cleaning shop and moving back to Korea. Happy now, Your Honor?
Judge Sues Cleaner for $65M Over Pants [Associated Press]
Roy L. Pearson, Jr. [Office of Administrative Hearings]
The $65 million pants: Judge Roy Pearson [Overlawyered]
Judge Sues Dry Cleaners for $65 Million [WSJ Law Blog]
Posts by David Lat
JEEZ. What a tool.
Earlier today, a source advised us as follows, by email:
“Skadden has raised its clerkship bonuses: $50,000 for one clerkship, $70,000 for two years. Applicable to all offices”
Excluding anonymous commenters, we’ve heard this news from just this one source (although a source who claims to have heard the news from multiple offerees). We don’t like to treat such rumors as confirmed until we have direct confirmation, by email, from multiple sources.
(Of course, a single source will suffice if that source is a firm website or a firm spokesperson.)
We’ve emailed Skadden for comment, but we haven’t heard back from them yet. We also don’t see clerkship bonus info on their homepage.
If you can confirm this news, please email us (subject line: “Clerkship Bonus”). As always, we will keep you anonymous, unless you request otherwise. Thanks.
Imus has hired one of the nation’s premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted….
The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of – making off-color jokes. The source described it as a “dog-has-one-bite clause.” A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.
We’re curious: What do ATL readers think about the Imus firing?
(The Pew Research Center also conducted a poll to gauge public attitudes towards Don Imus’s firing. It will be interesting to see how their poll results compare to the ATL poll results.)
P.S. We love Wikipedia. Check out their entry for HoHos:
HoHos are cylindrical, frosted, cream-filled cakes that are made by the Hostess company and are distributed in the United States and Egypt. The Interstate Bakeries Corporation owns the Hostess company. HoHos are similar to Yodels, which are made by Drake’s (also a brand of Interstate Bakeries Corporation), and Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls.
Imus won’t go quietly [Fortune]
Poll: Most Americans say Imus’ punishment appropriate [Associated Press]
Earlier: Don Imus Hires “Ferocious” Litigator
The sticklers among you object to our using the cute pun “Skaddenfreude” to refer to our compensation coverage. After all, there’s really no “taking malicious satisfaction in another person’s troubles” when reading this column (unless you take perverse pleasure in thinking about how hard Biglaw attorneys must work for their six-figure salaries).
If you’re one of these sticklers, then you may be gratified by this Miami Herald article on lawyer salaries, which truly DOES capture schadenfreude. Its full title: “In debt, young lawyers struggle to make it: Young prosecutors and assistant public defenders are struggling to pay for even the bare necessities.”
If you’re an associate at a large law firm, bitter because your firm pays a below-market bonus, stop whining. Things could be much worse. Consider these stories:
For Allison Haney, it’s a good thing Publix takes credit cards. By the end of the month, she often doesn’t have enough money left from her salary as a prosecutor to buy food.
Ayana Harris turns to Mom and Dad for help with the basics every month, and knows her parents will have to chip in even more when the brakes in her car go, or the dog needs to go to the vet. As an assistant public defender, she’s also strapped for cash each month.
Jeez, this is depressing. Skaddenfreude, indeed.
In debt, young lawyers struggle to make it [Miami Herald]
We realize this news broke last week. But we were on vacation — and it’s just too good to omit from these pages. From Metro.co.uk:
A father in Arkansas is looking for $20,000 in compensation for his teenage sons, after they found a book in a public library called The Whole Lesbian Sex Book.
According to Earl Adams, his sons – aged 14 and 16 – were ‘greatly disturbed’ by Felice Newman’s classic lesbian sex manual, described by its publishers as ‘the most comprehensive sex guide available for lesbians.’
And now he is demanding $10,000 from the city of Bentonville for each boy. The volume has already been withdrawn from the library shelves, and the director of the library has resigned – although she is adamant she left for personal reasons, not in response to the complaints.
So what’s the basis for the $20,000 damages claim? Per Overlawyered:
[This incident] happened, Adams said, while [his sons] were browsing for material on military academies (titter ye not!). The shock to their sensibilities from exposure to the “immoral” volume resulted in the boys being “greatly disturbed” and undergoing “many sleepless nights in our house.”
Simply ridiculous. Ask these boys in five years whether they still find lesbians “greatly disturb[ing].”
Also, The Whole Lesbian Sex Book has been critically acclaimed. Check out this review:
Cure for cancer? End to world hunger? What’s left to do after the publication of Felice Newman’s definitive guide to lesbian sex? Drawing on a wide range of published sources as well as her own notoriously graphic questionnaire circulated by e-mail… Newman has compiled an exhaustively thorough how-to guide for practices as exotic as play piercings and as pedestrian as oral sex.
Umm, who describes oral sex as “pedestrian”? Sounds like mistakes are being made in this reviewer’s household.
(Also, why are we not surprised that The Whole Lesbian Sex Book has been effusively praised on, of all websites, Amazon?)
Saw sex book by mistake; $10K apiece demanded [Overlawyered]
Man seeks compensation for lesbian trauma [Metro.co.uk]
The Whole Lesbian Sex Book [Amazon.com]
(We suspect that Justice Scalia’s daughter handled herself much better during her recent DUI incident.)
DUI suspect does $1,100 worth of damage with his head [KSTP.com]
The delightful site Overheard in New York, which collects humorous bits of overheard conversation, has a collection of law-related “overheards” up today. Here’s our favorite:
Ditzy Chinese chick: So, I went on this job interview with this law firm, right? And this lawyer who was interviewing me was really cute, ya know? So at the end of the interview he stood up, and I wasn’t sure what to say so I said, ‘Well, I don’t know whether you’re going to hire me or not, but I’d really like to f**k you.’
So he came to my apartment after work and f**ked me. Then I get a letter two days later telling me I didn’t get the f**king job! Do you think that’s sexual harassment?
1. YES. He should totally sue.
2. So she “didn’t get the f**king job.” Guess he didn’t like her “audition” for the position.
(Or maybe, just maybe, he thought she had bad judgment. What on earth would have given him that idea?)
3. She should stop complaining — at least she got something out of the interview process. Most of the time, all you have to show for a half-day of boredom is a bunch of business cards. And maybe a nice lunch, if you’re lucky.
The rest of the funny, legally-themed “overheards” — although none as good as this one — are available here. Enjoy!
Wednesday One-Liners, Esq. [Overheard in New York]
The typical ATL “Lawyer of the Day” is a solo practitioner or small-firm lawyer. But today’s lawyer of the day hails from a large law firm, one that you’ve probably heard of — and one that gets the definite-article treatment in the New York Times wedding pages.
Meet Mark Fischer, from the Denver office of Faegre & Benson, the well-known Minneapolis law firm. Here’s what Fischer did to earn a place in the pages of ATL. From the Rocky Mountain News:
A prominent Denver law firm is being sued after one of its attorneys forged a federal judge’s signature on a legal document.
The forgery allowed one of Faegre & Benson’s clients to obtain a loan and pay the firm for work, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S District Court in Colorado.
The attorney, Mark W. Fischer, admitted in a two-page letter that on April 25, 2005, that he “fabricated a false document which purported to be an order” signed by Judge Philip Figa to release a lien against his client’s property.
Fischer was suspended by the state supreme court on April 11. His ultimate fate will be decided at an upcoming disciplinary hearing.
One of the tipsters who brought this to our attention wrote: “I can’t believe it backfired; it seems like such a good idea to forged a federal judge’s signature. I’m guessing the firm’s collections department was really hounding that attorney about those unpaid fees.”
So what did the powers-that-be at Faegre & Benson think of all this?
“What Mr. Fischer described in his letter is inconsistent with the way Faegre & Benson has practiced law for over 100 years,” [partner Dave] Stark said.
Thanks for the clarification, Dave. We’re glad to jear that forging federal judges’ signatures isn’t usual policy or practice at Faegre & Benson.
Interestingly enough, even though the firm is now being sued by the client for failure to “supervise” Fischer, it turns out that he was a PARTNER at the firm — not some wet-behind-the-ears associate. From his Martindale-Hubbell bio:
Mark W. Fischer (Partner) born Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1956; admitted to bar, 1991, Colorado. Education: Grinnell College (B.A. 1978); University of Colorado (J.D. 1991). Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation; Intellectual Property Litigation.
It’s nice to see some innovative thinking from a lawyer who has been practicing for over 15 years. Good work, Mr. Fischer!
Law firm sued over forgery by attorney [Rocky Mountain News]
Faegre & Benson sued over forged document [Minnesota Lawyer Blog]
In case any of you were wondering, last Friday’s news about Weil Gotshal clerkship bonuses has been officially confirmed. Here’s a statement from a firm spokesperson:
“Weil will pay $50K for a one-year state or Federal clerkship and $70K (i.e., the current amount) for a two-year clerkship.”
So there you have it, from the horse’s mouth. And there’s the answer to this commenter’s question: “Is that flat, or does Weil still double for two years?”
Okay, so Weil won’t give you $100K for two years of clerking experience. But $70,000 is still, as far as we know, the top of the market for two clerkships or years of clerking. Three cheers for Weil — and Cravath, which also pays $70,000 for two clerkships.
Does anyone know what S&C, Simpson, Paul Weiss, and Cleary Gottlieb — the other members of the $50K Club — pay for multiple clerkships or years of clerking? If so, please email us. Thanks.
Check out this posting, currently on the “Missed Connections” section of Craigslist:
My words come to you by ‘Writ of Certiorari’ from my heart. I have an ‘Opinion’: You are without a doubt the most perfect girl on the Hill. I look forward to argument days just so I can see your smile and say hello as you pass me in the Courtroom hall.
Some days you are in your Clerk uniform tails and some days you are not, but you always look stunning. When I see you across the way during arguments it is hard to concentrate on keeping the record.
Now that this session of Oral arguments is over I am bummed because I never really had the chance to talk with you. So here on Craigslist I am bringing an ‘Appeal’ to take you out to coffee sometime?
On ‘habeas review’, my heart is doing time and you have been found guilty.:0)
But this CL poster is not in search of a Supreme Court law clerk, since the object of his desire wears a “Clerk uniform — tails.” The law clerks generally wear standard business attire.
So which SCOTUS employees show up to oral argument in tails? A knowledgeable source tells us:
The reference may be to the Marshal of the Court Pamela Talkin, who does wear tails to oral argument. See here (Talkin describing her uniform as “a formal morning suit with tails, pinstriped slacks, and a vest”).
The Clerk of the Court is William Suter. He also wears tails to oral argument.
But Bill Suter is a man. And our lovesick poster is an “m4w” (man seeking woman).
Oyez, oyez! Pam Talkin, it seems that you have a secret — and considerably younger (30) — admirer. And he’s very interested in “drawing near” and “giving attention” to you, at a neighborhood cafe.
Update: One commenter wonders whether the woman in question might work in the Solicitor General’s office, since the morning coat is the official uniform of that office. But we’re not so sure, since (1) there are very few women in the SG’s office right now, and (2) our understanding is that female members of the SG’s office generally wear dark suits to oral argument (as opposed to the full-blown morning coat outfit of their male colleagues).
But look, we can’t rule out this possibility. Does anyone familiar with the current membership of the SG’s office have thoughts on this matter?
Further Update: Check out this excellent comment:
Denise McNerney, the Merits Clerk, is often in the courtroom in tails. And she’s very attractive. It is highly unlikely that Deanne Maynard, Patricia Millett, or Lisa Blatt from the SG’s Office is the object of the Craigslist poster’s affection. None wears tails. All are married.
The Supreme Court Clerk of my heart – m4w – 30 [Craigslist]