We previously wrote about pro se litigant Julio Mora, who asked the members of the Florida Supreme Court to "kiss his a**hole every time the justice[s] will retire going to their den." The requested relief was denied, and Mora was sanctioned.

Everyone thinks of Canadians as darn so "nice" -- but defendants up there can get saucy too. From the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:

A psychiatric assessment has been ordered for a homeless man who dropped his pants in a Halifax courtroom Friday and invited the judge to perform oral sex on him.

Motion denied. If only he had appeared before this judge.

Joel David Arseneau, 40, was being arraigned in Halifax provincial court before Judge Barbara Beach on two charges of breaching probation or court orders when he let his pants fall to the floor, displaying his underwear.

Sheriff’s deputies hustled Mr. Arseneau out of the courtroom. As they were taking him downstairs to the holding cells, they received word that Judge Beach was prepared to proceed with the arraignment as long as the defendant was willing to keep his pants up.

Glad to hear they have some standards of courtroom decorum up in Halifax.

Hopefully Mr. Arseneau was wearing boxer shorts. Briefs come perilously close to male Speedos.

Man drops his pants in court [Halifax Chronicle-Herald]

Earlier: Pro Se Litigant of the Day: Julio Mora
If the Court Has Gone Down on You, Is Recusal Required?

* Calling all cougars -- and the young studs who love them. If you're a single female who earns more than $500,000 a year (e.g., a Biglaw partner), you should check out this event. [DealBreaker]

* Canadian lawyers are horndogs, too. [Legal Blog Watch]

* "Though I did not think Judge Kopf owed me anything, I was not about to refuse a beer from a federal judge." [Sentencing Law & Policy]

* Hillary Clinton as Tracy Flick? [Slate TV via Althouse]

* Survivor winner Yul Kwon, with whom we went to law school, contemplates a congressional run. Go Yul! [Washington Examiner]

In an homage to the start of the NHL conference semifinals today, the Lawyer of the Day is James Creighton. Creighton, a Canadian lawyer in the late 1800s, helped found and popularize modern ice hockey while he was a law student at McGill University in Montreal. Here is his stub bio from Wikipedia:

James George Alywin Creighton (Born: 1850 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada - Died: 1930) was one the men originally responsible for the early popularization of ice hockey. Creighton developed the game from a similar game known as shinney in Halifax, where (according to some historians) it was developed out of an Irish game called hurley. In 1873 Creighton moved to Montreal to work and eventually attended McGill University, graduating in 1880 with a law degree. There, on March 3, 1875, the first organized game of ice hockey was played and the game's popularity grew significantly. He practised law with a firm in Montreal. In 1884 Creighton moved to Ottawa to become a law clerk in the Canadian Senate. He formed a team called the Rideau Hall Rebels, and became friends with teammates William and Arthur Stanley, sons of then Canadian Governor General Lord Stanley.

Creighton would happy to know that his sport has been taken over by the American Southeast (the last two Stanley Cup Champions are the Carolina Hurricanes and the Tampa Bay Lightning). Fortunately for you hockey purists out there, the Southeastern teams have already lost this year, and Canada has two chances (Vancouver and Ottawa) to take the Cup back.

[Insert pro forma "dumb Canadians" joke here.]

(And if you're a plaintiffs' lawyer who would love to turn this into a class action, you're too late -- a class action lawsuit was filed last week.)

Woman Sick After Eating Recalled Pet Food [Canadian Press]
Class action suit filed against Menu foods [CNN]

Former media magnate Conrad Black is currently on trial in federal court in Chicago. Lord Black (at right) stands accused of fraud, racketeering, tax violations, obstruction of justice, and money laundering -- serious stuff. He's being defended by Edward Greenspan, one of Canada's most colorful trial attorneys.

Greenspan -- who went to law school with Black, by the way -- can already claim the distinction of being "among Canada's most famous lawyers." And now "Fast Eddie" can add a new prize to his mantle: ATL Lawyer of the Day!!!

Greenspan recently got benchslapped in open court by a judicial hottie -- and he clearly deserves some recognition for this achievement. For the gory details, we refer you to our big sibling, DealBreaker.

Congratulations, Mr. Greenspan! We look forward to more antics from you as the trial progresses.

Conrad Black Defense's Routine Needs Tweaking [DealBreaker]
Où est Monsieur Black? [DealBreaker]

We previously issued a request for any and all information, however trivial, about Gera Grinberg -- the mysterious Sullivan & Cromwell associate who worked closely with Aaron Charney, plaintiff in Charney v. S&C. We received a few responses.

The tidbits we received are rather insignificant. But considering how secretive Gera Grinberg appears to be -- neither we nor the many MSM reporters on the scene have managed to dig up anything major on him -- we regard these factoids as a minor coup.

The answer to the question "What's Gera Grinberg really like?" is a more closely guarded secret than the identity of Valerie Plame. Okay, bad example; but you get the point. Anyway, here are our five factoids:

1. People who have worked with Gera Grinberg describe him as "a nice guy." Normally this wouldn't be worth mentioning. But considering the high a**hole quotient in S&C's M&A group, it's significant.

2. Gera lives in a luxury apartment development in Jersey City’s Hudson River waterfront district -- a relatively easy commute to S&C's downtown offices.

3. Grinberg went to school in Canada -- Kwantlen University College in British Columbia, followed by the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law -- but he was born in Eastern Europe (Ukraine, upon information and belief).

4. Gera is heterosexual, and he has -- or at least he had (we don't know the current status of the relationship) -- a girlfriend. Said girlfriend is also a lawyer; we don't know where she works.

5. As far as we know, Gera Grinberg is still on paid leave from Sullivan & Cromwell -- and apparently remains on the payroll, since he's still on the S&C website.

(Recall that when Aaron Charney was finally fired by S&C, well after he filed his pro se lawsuit, his bio was removed from the firm website faster than Alexandra Korry can hurl a stapler.)

Are these earth-shattering revelations? Hardly. But considering Gera Grinberg's status as International Man of Mystery, we deserve credit for unearthing even these measly scraps.

If you have any more information about Gera Grinberg to add, you know where to reach us. Thanks.

Gera Grinberg bio [Sullivan & Cromwell]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Gera Grinberg (scroll down)

According to the recent lawsuit filed by Aaron Charney, Sullivan & Cromwell thinks that Canadians are "irrelevant."

We have a different view of our neighbors to the north. We think Canucks are horny. And pretty damn funny.

This music video, Promiscuous Firm, is from the 2007 University of Alberta Law Show. And it's far more entertaining -- and well-produced -- than any video we've seen from a U.S. law school's annual show or roast.

(Yes, even the Tim Wu video.)

Here's the clip. It's great from about 1:30 onwards (or 3:00 if you're watching "backwards"):

Best double entendre, from the attractive female hiring partner (around the 2:20 mark):

I'm a big firm, I can handle myself
But if I have an opening, I may need your help.

Indeed.

Promiscuous Firm [YouTube]

If Aaron Charney's lawsuit against Sullivan & Cromwell is to be believed, some S&C lawyers think that Canadians are "irrelevant."

Feel free to debate the relevance in Canadians in the comments. One thing that can be said for them, though, is that their lawyers have pretty good sex scandals.

From an article in the Toronto Star, by the provocatively named Tracey Tyler (who is a guy for all we know):

The former head of the governing body for Ontario lawyers has been suspended from practising for 60 days after admitting to a sexual affair with a client. George Hunter, 59, offered an emotional apology to his colleagues, family and ex-lover yesterday after pleading guilty to professional misconduct.

The irony here is too rich. Maybe all those years of administering slaps on the wrists to lawyers who improperly slept with clients got Hunter thinking, "Maybe I should give this a whirl?"[FN 1]

The relationship ended abruptly after Hunter asked X.Y. to meet him at an Ottawa restaurant, where he informed her that during the time they had been sexually involved, he had also had affairs with two other women....

In a move that might be worthy of entry in the annals of unromantic gestures, Hunter, just before disclosing those affairs, presented X.Y. with a copy of section 2.04 of the law society's Rules of Professional Conduct.

It deals with conflicts of interest between lawyers and clients. Hunter wanted X.Y. to acknowledge that she had read it....

And THIS is why George Hunter is ATL's Lawyer of the Day. Say what you will about Hunter, but the man was a LAWYER -- to the bitter and embarrassing end.

[FN1] We say "improperly" because, as noted by the Globe and Mail, "[t]here are no professional or statutory rules in Canada which prohibit lawyers from having sexual relations with clients. [There are simply] conflict of interest codes which restrict lawyers from sexual relations with clients without informed consent and when the relationship might harm the client's interests."

In this case, Hunter admitted to misconduct. So there's no claim that his affair -- or the two other affairs he had while having affair #1 -- were above board.

Sex with client sinks top lawyer [Toronto Star]
Ex-Law Society official suspended for affair with client [Globe & Mail]
Law Society of Upper Canada investigates former Treasurer [The Lawyers Weekly]
George D. Hunter bio [Borden Ladner Gervais]

We've been running the same still photo of Aaron Charney, the plaintiff in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, over and over again. You're probably sick and tired of seeing his mug (appealing though it may be).

But now we have more to offer you. If you'd like to see and hear an animated Aaron Charney, to make your own judgment of his credibility, you're in luck.

Aaron Charney has given an on-air interview to Report on Business Television, Canada's leading business news television channel. The segment was titled "Aaron and Goliath." Check it out here (around the 44th minute of the broadcast).

It's quite interesting. And, of course, they go into the subject of anti-Canadian animus.

We'd like to hear your thoughts on the video. Please place them in the comments. Thanks.

SqueezePlay [RobTV.com (video)]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Are you a gay law student or lawyer? Are you thinking about possibly working at the New York powerhouse law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell?

Before you apply to S&C, you might want to first check out this complaint, filed today in the New York Supreme Court (a trial court, despite the misleading name).

Allegations of discrimination against gays AND Canadians (there's a difference); a headshot of the handsome plaintiff; and a link to the full complaint. All this and more awaits you, after the jump.

We tend to think of Canadians as such softies progressives. They have universal health care. They allow same-sex marriage. They don't have the death penalty, and their criminal justice system is kinder and gentler than ours.

At least most of the time. Sometimes individual judges go off the reservation. Last year, a judge in Canada instructed a jury "to retire to the jury room... and then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."

Now we get this story, via Criminal Review, a Canadian criminal law blog:

There are jury instructions, and then there are jury instructions. Shades of Krieger (comment).

The accused had been charged with robbery and abduction of a child after hijacking and then driving off in the complainant’s car with the complainant’s child still strapped in the back seat. Apparently the trial judge thought this was enough to demonstrate the offences proven “as a matter of law.”

Not surprisingly, the appellate court saw things a little differently. From their opinion, ordering a new trial:

After the trial judge charged the jury, the jury returned with a question. It could be inferred from the jury’s question that they were concerned that [defendant] Maharaj was not aware of the baby in the car and that he did not have the requisite intention to commit the offences of abduction. However, the trial judge instructed them that “intention is proven,” thereby removing this element of the offence from their consideration.

Trial by jury isn't the only way to run a criminal justice system. But if you're going to bother with a jury, and drag citizens' asses into court for it, you might as well give them something to do while over there (besides the crossword).

R. v. Maharaj [CriminalReview.ca]
R. v. Maharaj [Court of Appeal for Ontario]

Earlier: Criminal Justice, Canadian Style

* Thou shalt not kidnap your child to keep her from getting married. [CNN]

* This really happened? [CNN]

* Supreme Court takes antitrust case involving investment banks. [New York Times]

* Specter introduces legislation designed to blunt the effects of the Thompson memo. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Same-sex marriage still legal, eh? [Reuters via Yahoo!]

At the White House:

* On the heels of Christopher Oprison and Cheryl Stanton, former Wilmer Hale partner Paul Eckert joins the White House Counsel's Office.

Lateral Moves:

* Nicholas H. Politan, to Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (NY), from Bingham McCutchen, where he served as co-head of the project and structured finance group.

(Wild guess: He's the son of former federal judge Nicholas H. Politan (D.N.J.).)

* IP litigator Duane David-Hough, to Fish & Richardson, from Ropes & Gray (NY).

A few more moves, plus links, after the jump.

* A rather innocuous profile of New York’s new first lady, ex-attorney Silda Wall Spitzer (who was an up-and-coming corporate superstar at Skadden, but aren’t they all). She was previously married to a Harvard Law classmate for 29 days. Another HLS classmate, Jim Cramer, thinks she’s pretty, and the journalist probably does not understand the notion of billable hours. [New York Times]

* They’re much stricter about using office services for personal use up north. [The Globe and Mail]

* A headbutt is fined $15,000, and a groin-kneeing $25,000. If I were a pro athelete, I’d say that was an extra $10,000 well spent. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

* You can still stand firm and refuse to hand over your taxes. After all, you have balls and they don’t. [Washington Post via TaxProf Blog]

The United States and Canada are playing "hot potato" with sex offender Malcolm Watson. Here's the latest development in the story (which we've been following):

An American teacher allowed to serve probation in Ontario for a misdemeanour sex offence was never "exiled" to Canada as was widely reported, the U.S. judge who approved the deal said yesterday.

Even before hearing a motion seeking to amend Malcolm Watson's probation terms, Judge Thomas Kolbert made a point of addressing the political firestorm ignited by reports that a U.S. sex offender had been "banished" to Canada.

"This court never banished nor exiled Mr. Watson to Canada," Judge Kolbert said.

Nevertheless, because of the resulting media uproar, the prosecution filed a motion seeking to amend Watson's probation terms -- to make him do his probation in Erie County, New York. The motion is under submission; the parties have three weeks to provide the judge with more information.

How does Mr. Watson feel about possibly having to serve out his sentence in the United States?

Outside the court, defence lawyer Tom Eoannou warned that if Mr. Watson is forced to stay in the U.S., he might yet force a trial.

So Watson hates us. He's a Canadian, all right.

Sex Offender Not 'Exiled' to Canada, Judge Says [Canada Press via How Appealing]

Earlier: Canada to U.S.: Please Send Your Pervs to Mexico
Because Canada Is Suffering from a Pervert Shortage

Last week we asked you for funny Halloween-related stories, including descriptions of wacky costumes or festivities. We were disappointed by your responses.

So we had to turn to our neighbor to the north. These days, Canada is ascendant. Canadians are beating out Americans for jobs at top U.S. law firms. They have Supreme Court justices cool enough to take nude cruises.

And now they're winning the Halloween costume arms race. Check out this photo:

Who are these people? Why, they're none other than the costumed clerks of the Tax Court of Canada. An explanation of their attire, from TaxProf Blog:

Back Row (from left to right): Captain Income Splitting, Canada Revenue Agency Collections Agent, the Proposed Tax Credit for Child Fitness, Scientific Research Deduction, and Farmer Gunn (of Gunn v. R., 2006 FCA 281).

Front Row (left to right): Valuation Day 1971, Tax on Royalties, and the Competent Authority for the Canada-Barbados Tax Treaty.

Canada: Even their tax lawyers are cooler than our tax lawyers.

Halloween and Taxes, Part II [TaxProf Blog]

Earlier: Prior Above the Law coverage of Canada (scroll down)

We've been on a bit of a Canada kick here at ATL. What can we say, those Canadians are teh funny.

Check out this story (robe swish: Paul Horwitz of PrawfsBlawg):

Some [Canadian] Supreme Court judges seek relief from work stress in the comfort of their families. Others love nothing more than to curl up with a good book. And could it be, for at least one of them, a nude romp on the high seas was just the ticket?

The anonymous judge's alleged unconventional vacation choice -- a nude cruise -- came to light in a San Francisco Chronicle travel article in the spring. It quoted a co-owner of the Bare Necessities cruise line, Nancy Tiemann, as saying that its clientele include: "actors, bus drivers, Fortune 500 CEOs, soccer moms, doctors, teachers, priests and at least one Canadian Supreme Court justice." * * * * *

The story came to the attention of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who swiftly launched an investigation into which, if any, of her eight colleagues was the alleged unrobed sailor.

Can Canadian judges, like our federal judges, be impeached for violating the norms of "good behavior"? Because we agree with Ann Althouse: "[A] naked cruise? It's just so perfectly awful."

Alas, the Chief Justice's investigation ended inconclusively:

Speaking to an audience at the University of Toronto law school last week, [Justice Marshall] Rothstein read a tongue-in-cheek memo which Chief Justice McLachlin circulated to her Supreme Court colleagues on May 12.

Entitled "Re. Nude Cruising," the memo said: "I made inquiries into the identity of the judge, but was rebuffed [by the article writer] on a claim of journalistic privilege. . . . All this is to say, that our secret is safe."

Judge Rothstein assured his audience that, having been appointed only in March, he cannot be considered a serious suspect in the nude-cruise inquiry.

If the justice who likes to vacation in the buff is ever discovered, we can't really blame him or her for wanting to go au naturel. Here's what Canadian justices look like in their ceremonial robes (also via PrawfsBlawg):

In case you're wondering, the robes are "of bright scarlet, trimmed with Canadian white mink."

Your Honors: Eager to supplement your judicial incomes? The West Edmonton Mall is still interviewing Santa Claus candidates. And the Salvation Army is looking for sidewalk fundraisers right now. Christmas is less than two months away!

Underneath Their Robes? The Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada [PrawfsBlawg]
Which Supreme Court Justice went on a nude cruise? [Althouse]
Did Supreme Court judge throw away briefs? [Toronto Globe and Mail]
Finally, the Naked Truth Aboot Nude Cruises [San Francisco Chronicle via How Appealing]
Aboot the Court [Supreme Court of Canada]

Earlier: Law and Order: Fashion Victims Unit
Prior ATL coverage of Canada (scroll down)

Yesterday we implied that Canada isn't tough on crime. Maybe we should take that back. Check out this interesting case:

"Return to the Court With a Verdict of Guilty." That's what a Canadian judge told the jury in a marijuana possession case, where the defendant claimed he possessed the marijuana for medical reasons (though he apparently didn't qualify for some reason for Canada's medical marijuana exemption).

The judge instructed the jurors "to retire to the jury room to consider what I have said, appoint one of yourselves to be your foreperson, and then to return to the court with a verdict of guilty."

Alas, the Canadian Supreme Court overturned the conviction. We're kinda disappointed. The Canadian criminal justice system would be so amazingly efficient if they ditched this whole "jury trial" business and allowed directed verdicts of guiilt.

"Return to the Court With a Verdict of Guilty" [Volokh Conspiracy]
R. v. Krieger, 2006 SCC 47 [Supreme Court of Canada]

Okay, they didn't quite say that. But they might as well have. A quick update on a story we previously wrote about:

An American schoolteacher sentenced to three years' probation -- to be served in Canada -- [was] detained at the border, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has confirmed.

Malcolm Watson, who was convicted of a minor sexual offence concerning a 15-year-old girl, was arrested by Canadian border guards while returning from a court appearance Thursday in Buffalo, N.Y.

"We don't want to see Canada become a haven for pedophiles or anyone else committing a serious crime," Day said outside the House of Commons.

Ooooh, Canada's going to get tough on Malcom Watson. Maybe they'll take away his free health care!

Of course, it didn't take long for Watson to get off:

An Immigration Review Board official [on Friday] freed Mr. Watson on a $5,000 bond, saying he poses little danger to Canadian society. The 35-year-old, earlier convicted of minor sexual offences in Buffalo and allowed to serve his three-year probation in Canada, is required to reside with his Canadian wife and children in their St. Catharines, Ont., home.

Canadian officials will try to get him shipped out of the country, but it may be an uphill battle:

[I]f a [Canadian] resident [like Watson] is convicted of a crime outside the country, the government must find an equivalent offence under Canadian law, according to Toronto immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman. That could prove tricky in Mr. Watson's case, because his crime involved his relationship with a 15-year-old girl, and the age of consent in Canada is 14.

Only fourteen? Forum-shopping child molesters, nota bene.

Canada, stop fighting this; you know you want it. And if you're really well-behaved, we'll send you Mark Foley after he gets out of reheab.

PM unhappy after U.S. sex offender freed [Toronto Globe and Mail via How Appealing]
Day Says U.S. Sex Offender Arrested at Border [CTV.ca]

Earlier: Because Canada Is Suffering from a Pervert Shortage

The lawyers among you should know: Little things matter a lot.

Earlier this month, we told you about the missing "L" that cost a county $40,000. But $40K is chump change compared to the million dollars that turns upon an allegedly misplaced comma:

[A] dispute between Rogers Communications of Toronto, Canada’s largest cable television provider, and a telephone company in Atlantic Canada, Bell Aliant, is over the phone company’s attempt to cancel a contract governing Rogers’ use of telephone poles. But the argument turns on a single comma in the 14-page contract. The answer is worth 1 million Canadian dollars ($888,000 U.S.).

Citing the “rules of punctuation,” Canada’s telecommunications regulator recently ruled that the comma allowed Bell Aliant to end its five-year agreement with Rogers at any time with notice. Rogers argues that pole contracts run for five years and automatically renew for another five years, unless a telephone company cancels the agreement before the start of the final 12 months.

(Gavel bang: blah blah blog.)

Canadian lawyers are being hired in significant numbers by major American law firms. They claim it's because of their superior training and lawyering skills. But Canucks make drafting mistakes too, eh?

Now it's time for you to play judge. Here's the contractual language at issue:

“This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

The regulator concluded that the second comma meant that the part of the sentence describing the one-year notice for cancellation applied to both the five-year term as well as its renewal. Therefore, the regulator found, the phone company could escape the contract after as little as one year.

What do you think? We don't have a strong view. (But the fact that Rogers is attempting to bolster its position by relying upon the French version of the contract makes us lean in favor of Bell Aliant.)

The Comma That Costs 1 Million Dollars (Canadian) [New York Times via How Appealing]
Million-Dollar Comma May Aid Canadian Company [NPR via bla blah blog]
Why is grammar so very important? [blah blah blog]

Earlier: Our Kingdom for an "L"
Didn't Get a Biglaw Job? Blame Canada!