Earlier this year, we wrote about a puzzling situation involving Jeremy Pitcock, a successful young IP litigator in New York. Pitcock left Kasowitz Benson, where he served as head of the intellectual property practice, and joined Morgan & Finnegan. After Morgan's hiring of Pitcock was touted as a coup -- in IP Law360, and in a Morgan press release -- Kasowitz issued a statement claiming they fired him for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct." The following month, Pitcock left Morgan & Finnegan, under unclear circumstances.

Now Jeremy Pitcock is back on the legal scene, this time as a plaintiff. From the American Lawyer:

[Pitcock] filed a defamation lawsuit against the [Kasowitz] firm Thursday seeking more than $90 million for what he calls the "malicious and unwarranted smear campaign" that followed his dismissal.

The lawsuit, Pitcock v. Kasowitz Benson, was filed in the Southern District of New York. It has been assigned to Judge John E. Sprizzo.

So what exactly was the allegedly inappropriate conduct by Pitcock?

Find out, after the jump.

* Spitzer may -- or make that will -- resign today. [CNN; New York Times]

* Obama wins Mississippi, picks up more Texas delegates than Clinton. [CNN]

* Gitmo war-crimes tribunal to hear detainee's case. [MSNBC]

* Houses passes proposal to create independent ethics panel. [Washington Post]

* Another French trader taken into custody in connection with gigantic trading scandal. [AP]

* Irish appeals court chews up, spits out, libel ruling against restaurant critic. [AFP via Drudge]

In last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey, we asked you to submit your nominations for Lawyer of the Year. Today, you get to vote!

The nominees, and select comments explaining why, are below:

Aaron Charney

For both the attention focused, success of action, and for the visibility [he] brought to the secondary issue of partner/associate relations (but not those kinds of relations).

Alberto Gonzales

Exemplifies why lawyers are so mistrusted in this country.

Barack Obama

The man had the credentials to do Biglaw. He chose public service instead. Although he is obviously politically ambitious, he at least appears to be in it for the people. He's almost as hot as Judicial Hottie Jeffrey Sutton. I mean, did you see the Obama Girl videos? We've all got a crush on Obama. And he just might be president next year.

Hillary Clinton

She's fabulous.

Loyola 2L

He's generated the most thoughtful discussion of law school. That, and perhaps the publicity will help him get a job.

Ray Beckerman

For his tireless defense and continuous commentary in countless RIAA cases.

Whoever helps Chipmunk lady.

Because.

We know that last one should really be a 2008 Lawyer of the Year, not a 2007 Lawyer of the Year, but we just don't care. You demanded the nomination right now.

So who should win? Cast your vote below.

There's news to report in the lawsuit filed by two female Yale Law School students over various allegedly defamatory and threatening comments posted about them on AutoAdmit.com. The amended complaint, which was delayed in arriving, has finally been filed. You can check it out here.

For some thoughts on the amended complaint by Professor Dave Hoffman, who has established himself as the expert on all things AutoAdmit-related, see here. As Hoffman notes, the most significant change is the dropping of Anthony Ciolli as a defendant.

In response to this news, Ciolli issued this statement:

I am pleased to see that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed me from this suit. Including me in the suit in the first place was legally unsupportable. I never posted a single defamatory or invasive statement. I told the plaintiffs that from the start, and I provided them with a sworn declaration to that effect.

Had I remained as a defendant, the only theory could have been rooted in a desire to overturn Section 230. As I was merely an employee of AutoAdmit, leaving me in the suit would have been akin to suing a Google employee for anything found on a web page hosted by that company - even if Google was not responsible for the content. The weakness of that theory was apparent to me from the beginning, as were the ramifications of its unlikely success — an explosion of liability for every internet service provider in America.

You can read the whole thing over at Professor Marc Randazza's blog, The Legal Satyricon. Congratulations to Ciolli and to Professor Randazza, who was representing him, on the good news.

Former Penn Law Student Dropped from Autoadmit Lawsuit [Concurring Opinions]
Anthony Ciolli Dropped from Auto Admit Lawsuit [The Legal Satyricon]
Doe v. pauliewalnuts et al. [Amended Complaint (PDF)]

Earlier: What the Heck Is Going on with Doe v. Ciolli?
Has AutoAdmit Been Pwn3d?

Remember the lawsuit filed by two female Yale Law School students over various allegedly defamatory and threatening comments posted about them on AutoAdmit.com? The plaintiffs are in the process of amending their complaint, and they've sought extra time in which to do so. From a tipster:

[T]he third motion for an extension of time was requested October 4, and it asked for 30 days. I can't imagine them going to a fourth motion, so the deadline should be fast approaching around this weekend.

That said... it appears from the first couple of motions they didn't have any real leads and were still investigating, and now they may have a real lead.

Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al [Justia]

Earlier: Has AutoAdmit Been Pwn3d?

* SCOTUS to hear some pretty interesting cases next term. [Washington Post; New York Times; CNN]

* Apparently, Ross Perot owns the Magna Carta, for now. [CNN]

* Jack Bauer arrested for DUI, was allegedly speaking in an urgent, raspy tone. [MSNBC]

* Attorney sues Larry Birkhead for defamation. [MSNBC]

* Calls for campus paper editor to resign. [CNN]

There has been some discussion already, but here's a dedicated thread for a topic that there's no shortage of opinions on: Rutgers basketball player Kia Vaughn's defamation lawsuit against radio host Don Imus.

Thus far, reactions seem to be similar. From our tipster:

It seems like a likely loser, because I don't see a false statement of fact. I don't think anyone really believes Imus was trying to impute unchastity to the Rutgers basketball team (i.e., calling them prostitutes); rather, he was making a really inappropriate and racist joke, and everyone understood it as such.

Nevertheless, although it's a legal loser, I predict Imus will settle as a gesture of goodwill. Perhaps a scholarship will be set up.

Professor Ann Althouse is dubious:

It's hard not to be distracted by Imus's large pile of money. Would it kill him to share? But I'd hate to think one could win defamation suits on a theory like this.

David Nieporent concurs:

Imus's comments might have been nasty and uncalled for, but calling someone a 'nappy headed ho' is not defamatory unless it is interpreted as an actual accusation that the person is a prostitute.

Fine, the claim based on "ho" may be a no-go. But what about the allegation of nappy-headedness? As one commenter notes: "[A]ll of the women on the Rutgers team had straightened hair."

Good point. And to some people -- e.g., Glamour editors -- alleging that someone has nappy hair is defamatory per se.

Don Imus Sued by Rutgers Basketball Player [ABC News]
Rutgers basketball player sues Imus [AP via MSNBC]
"Don Imus referred to my client as an unchaste woman. That was and is a lie." [Althouse]
Imus in the Courtroom, Update [Overlawyered]

* Vick counsel divided over plea. [CBS 46]

* Crooked NBA ref may also plead. [SportsLine.com; SI.com]

* Rutgers player sues Imus for defamation. [MSNBC]

* While passenger sues Lohan in alleged angry car chase. [CNN]

* Interesting article on "De-Criminalizing Mental Illness" in courts, legislature, and streets. [Time]

* Who is this really protecting? Do women really need someone to tell us we can't date this guy? Judging by an unscientific sample of good women dating assholes, kind of. [Feministing]

* Angelina's lawyer self-deprecates; Angelina doesn't disagree with his bone-headedness; even Jon Stewart is not immune to her charms. [Legal Profession Blog]

* ABC and Fox look the same to me right now. [BreitBart]

* If 22-year-old graduates with little (if any) teaching experience are fortunate enough to get a coveted, resume- and Ivy-worthy job with Teach for America, they will get health benefits -- plus a free pass to say things like "I found my fellow teachers intelligent, caring and effective" and "I have no idea why so many low-income parents make sacrifices to send their kids to private schools" (to peers who did indeed survive public schools) -- before bailing for law school. [Citizen-Times]

* And because I am grateful to live in the free world, I encourage everyone to voice his or her opinions whenever given the chance. Of course, these bloggers do so with full disclosure of their identities in the face of harsh political consequences, but we can't help that we're cowardly, coddled, self-obsessed risk-averse lawyers living in the U.S. [All Africa]

The blogosphere is ablaze with discussion of the AutoAdmit lawsuit. We collect and summarize the commentary in this linkwrap.

(We read all the blogs, so you don't have to! You can thank us later.)

1. Students File Suit Against Ex-AutoAdmit Director, Others [WSJ Law Blog]

If you haven't done so already, read this post first. It contains the most detailed factual background about the case. You can also access the Complaint itself by clicking here (PDF).

2. Yale law students sue over "the scummiest kind of sexually offensive tripe" at AutoAdmit [Althouse]

Professor Ann Althouse has her doubts about this lawsuit:

So this is the 21st century? Where courts award punitive damages for offensive words and pictures? Isn't "the scummiest kind of sexually offensive tripe" exactly what we always used to say people had to put up with in a free country? Man, that was so 20th century!

3. Suing Autodmit [Instapundit]

Professor Glenn Reynolds -- who kindly links to our post, by the way -- largely agrees with Professor Althouse. He sarcastically observes: "Stuff that offends dumb hicks in the heartland is constitutionally protected. Stuff that offends Yale Law Students must be stamped out!"

More links, after the jump.

* So what's the solution here? Let another state's appellate court hear the appeals? [AP via Kane County Chronicle via How Appealing]

* Come on, you can get the man a bond hearing earlier than three weeks from now. They're killing me with this; let him go, damnit! [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Mississippi sues State Farm for bad faith. [Jurist]

* Texas is uncharacteristically deliberate about executing somebody. [CNN]

* What is it with lawyers and sports tickets? [WSJ Law Blog]

Anthony Ciolli, the former Chief Education Director of the AutoAdmit.com website, and various posters on that message board have been sued. A civil action has been filed against them in federal district court in Connecticut.

The claims made against defendants are as follows: copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; appropriation of another’s name or likeness; unreasonable publicity given to another’s life; publicity that places another in a false light before the public; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and defamation.

For more details, check out this thread at AutoAdmit.com. There was some debate over at AutoAdmit concerning the authenticity of the posting. But we emailed David Rosen, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case, and he confirmed:

We did post something giving notice of a lawsuit. I'm not available for comment for the moment. You can check with Dorothy McLaughlin at Keker & Van Nest -- they are lead counsel.

We have contacted Dorothy McLaughlin Sachs and will let you know when we hear back from her.

Our speculation is that the "Doe I" and "Doe II" plaintiffs are two of the individuals interviewed in this Washington Post article about AutoAdmit. The individual attacked on AutoAdmit.com who figures most prominently in the Post article is a female Yale Law School student. Plaintiffs' counsel, David Rosen, is an alumnus of Yale Law School who also teaches at YLS.

This is a developing story. We'll bring you more information as soon as we have it. If someone might be able to send us a copy of the summons and complaint, we'd be most grateful. Thanks.

Update: The WSJ Law Blog has a detailed post, including lots of additional information, over here.

For those of you who are curious, the full text of the AutoAdmit.com posting appears after the jump.

(Gavel bang: commenters.)

Notice of lawsuit pending vs. certain AutoAdmit posters [AutoAdmit.com / Xoxohth]
Students File Suit Against AutoAdmit Director, Others [WSJ Law Blog]
Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web [Washington Post]
David N. Rosen bio [Yale Law School]
David Rosen & Associates [Best Lawyers in America]

* It is my calling to keep people's self-esteem in check when out of wack with reality. And to yet again point out the dangers of using MySpace if you're over 21 or not a musician. I am also in a pissy mood today. [Gawker]

* The recent approval of a pill that stops menstruation has sparked much non-legal discussion on legal blogs, but I really just wanted to show you these funny stuffed tampons. [Law and Letters]

* Kids do the darndest things! A child-director, a lawsuit -- and, of course, Kevin Bacon. [UPI]

* Claims of anorexia are just code for "Damn, she looks good!" and subsequent lawsuits code for "We need some free press" and "Don't hate me because I'm hot." But Keira, in life as in Star Wars, you remain the mere handmaiden to the Queen of Naboo. [Yahoo! News]

* If my boss asked me if he had a chance of eatin' good in my neighborhood, I'd file a complaint as well. Unless he were hot, in which case I'd tell him to wait until after my wax. [Rockford Registrar Star]

* Old mothers, teen mothers, gay mothers… Just keep them out of high schools, please. End of PSA. [New York Times]

Law-related stories are proliferating over at our big sibling site, DealBreaker. Here are three from yesterday afternoon alone:

1. Goldman Sachs Acquitted of All Charges. It's good to be Goldman:

"In an effort to uphold the rule that the Masters of the Universe can pretty much get away with anything simply because they’re the Masters of the Universe (see, also: Jobs, backdating), a federal judge has ruled that Goldman cannot be included in a lawsuit by Fannie Mae shareholders."

2. Dow Jones Insider Trading Watch: Two Charges, Dow Jones Director Scutinized. Hmm, this sounds a wee bit fishy to us:

"[T]he SEC filed a lawsuit against a Hong Kong couple, Kan King Wong and Charlotte Ka On Wong Leung, accusing them of insider trading. The couple had purchased $15 million of Dow Jones shares prior to the May 1st announcement."

They liquidated the position after News Corp.'s unsolicited offer to boy Dow Jones, for a tidy profit of $8.2 million. More details here.

3. In the Future of a Defamation Lawsuit, Dimon Is the Law. Here's a teaser, concerning the lawsuits that are flying between Dow Chemical and a former executive and board member: "It’s the legal equivalent of a John Woo action scene."

You can check out the full post here.

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... an ATL post not related to law firm pay raises!

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued a somewhat saucy opinion in a libel case brought by a state court judge, Ernest B. Murphy, against a New England tabloid, the Boston Herald. No, we don't know who is more icky.

Given the demanding "actual malice" standard, libel cases can be tough to win -- but in this case, the plaintiff prevailed. Judge Murphy won a $2 million verdict against the Herald. This verdict, as modified by the trial judge, was just upheld by the SJC.

Yesterday we sat down with the folks over at Gawker to chat about the case. Check out our IM conversation with them by clicking here.

Understanding The 'Boston Herald' Libel Case [Gawker]
Judge’s Libel Victory Against Paper Is Upheld [New York Times]
Murphy v. Boston Herald [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (click on "Opinions" in lefthand column)]
Case Report for Ernest B. Murphy v. Boston Herald [MoreLaw.com]

"And I'm going to mention it in my restaurant review -- 'cause if you sue me, your chances of prevailing are low."

That's the gist of this interesting NYT article by Adam Liptak. Money quote:

These rulings, from about a dozen over the past three decades, were all in favor of the reviewer.

¶ “Trout à la green plague”? Ruling: “An ordinarily informed person would not infer that these entrees were actually carriers of communicable diseases.”

¶ “The fish on the Key West platter tasted like old ski boots”? Ruling: “Obviously, that was hyperbole used to indicate that the reviewer found the fish to be dry and tough.”

¶ Peking duck pancakes “the size of a saucer and the thickness of a finger”? Ruling: “An attempt to inject style into the review rather than an attempt to convey with technical precision literal facts about the restaurant.”

¶ “Bring a can of Raid if you plan to eat here”? Ruling: “The techniques of humor and ridicule were protected.”

Harsh, yes. But we're not sure if any of them are as bad as what A.A. Gill had to say about Jean-Georges Vongerichten's Asian restaurant in Tribeca, 66:

Mr. Gill likened the shrimp and foie gras dumplings at 66 to ''fishy, liver-filled condoms'' and called them ''properly vile, with a savor that lingered like a lovelorn drunk and tasted as if your mouth had been used as the swab bin in an animal hospital.''

Ouch. Seems like Mr. Gill was trying too hard. We dined at 66 once, and we found it perfectly pleasant -- not as impressive as Mr. Vongerichten's other culinary outposts, but certainly not worthy of such vitriol.

(And yes, we did try the dumplings. We enjoyed them -- as did William Grimes of the Times, who listed them as a recommended dish.)

Serving You Tonight Will Be Our Lawyer [New York Times]

Last week there was some speculation over what happened to certain particularly delicious reader comments posted over at the WSJ Law Blog, concerning Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

As explained here:

"[N]o work is getting done [at S&C]. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings)..."

Over at the WSJ Law Blog itself, there was some meta-commentary about the deletion of these comments:

"Why are comments being deleted from the board? There were definitely a few on here that were posted since 7:35 AM today."

"[O]ne of my finest writings was summarily removed by the WSJ Law Blog thought police. Why don’t we all keep parallel logs of our writings as each is entered, and if the law blog continues with its caprice in 2007, et seq., we loggers can then start a class action against WSJ law blog. Coul[d] be fun!"

"I am a gay blogger and WSJ expunged me without my consent. It felt GREAT."

"A post regarding the attractiveness of one of the attorneys mentioned in complaint ([Melissa] Sawyer) was removed, I know that much because I remember it being there. And after looking up her profile myself . . yes, she is a fox."

We followed up with Peter Lattman of the WSJ Law Blog, to find out why certain S&C-related comments were getting zapped. We received a response from Bill Grueskin, managing editor of WSJ.com.

We reprint Mr. Grueskin's response, and explain ATL's own policy on reader comments, after the jump.

* All may not be genetically sound with Suri babies of holoprosencephaly sufferers. (But does genetic perfection really exist?) And once again, wordplay gets us out of the woods of potential litigation by a crazy actor midget. [Overlawyered]

* Jack Abramoff has been hitting the books in the prison law library and will represent himself in two lawsuits filed against him by Indian tribes. I think “kitchen duty and carpentry” is prison-speak for “shower activities.” [Law.com]

* Off-ensive or just off-menu? Not brought to you by the people who brought you this refreshing drink. [Vivir Latino via Racialicious]

* Remember when we used to de-contract words (e.g., “does not” for “doesn’t”) to inch our way towards the minimum word requirement? [FN1] Apparently, this is the only way law school is not like high school. [PrawfsBlawg]

[FN1] Enough already! law professors lament. And yes, smart aleck, footnotes do count toward the word limit.

* Running with Scissors writer Augusten Burroughs is being sued for libel, not for his part in the adaptation of his memoir into the abysmally bad film version. [Vanity Fair]

* Any future husband of mine should be so lucky as to take on “Q” as their last name, or our combined last name. But for the record, could it be that “Buday” is pronounced “booty”? [ACLU of Southern California via PrawfsBlawg]

* I think I may be the only New Yorker who regularly watches local channel NY1 -- I just can’t get enough of Pat Kiernan’s deadpan delivery, especially of the more frivolous items. What would he say (and too bad he can’t) about this doctored photo of his colleague “BBB”? [New York Post via Gothamist]

* Because monkeys are people too. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* The lesson learned is to move if you live near a dam. (I am amazed at my restraint in the face of such a punnable word, but hey, this is pretty serious.) [New Orleans City Business via Ernie the Attorney]

* Anyone who hasn’t been ripped on in cyberspace is either in a coma or hasn’t come out of his Y2K bomb shelter. I bet these guys would love to be able to claim a cause of action. [Findlaw]

* Woo-hoo!!! Good news for online rumor-mongerers like ourselves. [Volokh Conspiracy; Instapundit]

* And a bit of bad news, too. [Concurring Opinions]

* We weren't the only ones who had fun at Federalistapalooza. [Southern Appeal]

* "Conservative civil war": Not just at the Federalist Society. [Andrew Sullivan; Instapundit; Ryan Sager]

* When the subject of gay marriage comes up, social conservatives bring out a parade of horribles -- including polygamy. Now Ann Althouse wonders: Is it really so horrible? [Althouse]

* While we're linking to contrarian thinking, here's a different take on L'Affaire OJ.: "Rupert Murdoch's relevant anatomy shrunk to the size of two shriveled peas." [Crime & Federalism]

* Some food for thought: "If the [anti-burqa] legislation is enacted, a Dutch woman could marry her lesbian partner, spend her life smoking a little hashish now and then -- and when the time comes, get a doctor's assistance in pulling the plug -- all well within Dutch law. But she couldn't ride the subway with a veil over her face. What an odd country." [PrawfsBlawg]

* Actually, Will, we think this is really cool. Who wants to tour Civil War battlefields when you can visit these instead? [Crescat Sententia]