They work on the most significant -- and glamorous -- legal cases of our time. They get $250,000 signing bonuses when they leave the marble palace at One First Street for private practice. They dominate when it comes to Legal Eagle Wedding Watch.

But at the end of the day, Supreme Court clerks are just like us. Some of their storybook weddings end unhappily.

From Robert Ambrogi, over at Legal Blog Watch:

It is the dream of so many Biglaw lawyers: To simplify, to downsize, to forgo big bucks in favor of personal fulfillment. And it was the dream the former Washington, D.C., Biglaw partner had pursued -- at least until his plans were foiled by last week's Massachusetts Appeals Court opinion in the case, C.D.L. v. M.M.L.

The unidentified lawyer had it all, graduating from law school near the top of his class, clerkships with a federal circuit court and then the Supreme Court, a private practice in energy law with the D.C. office of a large Wall Street firm, average annual income of $700,000, a large house in Maryland and private schools for the kids.

Eventually the travel and stress got to him and he began to contemplate downsizing. He and his wife came up with a plan for him to leave his firm and seek an alternative career, but still earn sufficient income to keep their lifestyles comfortable.

Seems reasonable. But things didn't turn out quite as they expected.

Read more, below the fold.

The inanity of Kevin Federline's fame never ceases to amaze. He has achieved widespread recognition by shacking up with Britney Spears, making some babies, and creating some bad music.

K-Fed has garnered enough media attention that there's some excess for his attorney. Mark Vincent Kaplan is interviewed by the AP this week. He talks about the custody proceedings over Spears and K-Fed's two children and how the case has helped his career:

The case is arguably among the most significant in the attorney's 34-year career, and Kaplan said it has inspired personal satisfaction and professional growth.

"Very few lawyers get the opportunity that this case has presented on every possible issue you can think of," he continued. "Even fewer lawyers recognize the opportunity, and even a smaller percentage of those have the (guts) to go for the opportunity."

Of course being around celebrity has perks of its own.

"It's made it possible to not have to make reservations at a restaurant," he said, "but that too shall pass."

Celebrity divorces and custody battles seem like a nice niche. No reservations needed at restaurants. He gets to use the paparazzi to do his research instead of hiring private investigators (like that no-good Pellicano guy).

His quote seems a little defensive, though. Maybe because there's a good percentage of attorneys who wouldn't want their name followed by "aka K-Fed's attorney."

We spotlighted Kaplan previously as a Lawyer to Layabout Lovers. He also served as counsel to Chris Judd, another back-up dancer turned celebrity husband, in his divorce from Jennifer Lopez.

Federline Lawyer Candid About Spears Custody Case: 'There's Never Been Anything Like This' [Associated Press via Law.com]

If we hadn't already bestowed our Lawsuit of the Day prize, this bizarre tale might have taken the cake.

Meet Donna Campbell (pictured; she looks like a non-green Princess Fiona). When the ex-beauty queen married Arnim Ramdass, she didn't take his name -- and one can hardly blame her.

But she's happy to take his money (which may really be "their" money; more on that below). From the Miami Herald:

Some husbands shower their wives with gifts when they win the Lotto. Arnim Ramdass kept the good news to himself. And when Donna Campbell found out on her own, her husband went AWOL, leaving the former beauty queen emotionally drained and financially desperate.

So she sued.

Campbell v. Ramdass, the lawsuit, comes to a Miami-Dade courtroom this week. It's a tale of luck and betrayal, a case study in how a financial windfall can make a seemingly stable marriage go sour in a hurry. At stake: $600,000 in winnings, Ramdass' cut of a $19 million jackpot he split with 16 other mechanics at Miami International Airport.

Discussion picks up after the jump.

When a Biglaw partner is accused of domestic violence, we can't help but honor him with ATL's Lawyer of the Day. But we must note that this article from the New York Daily News drips with lawyer hatred, in describing a case where the attorney was not convicted.

They didn't even spell Cadwalader partner Ira Schacter's name correctly. We've put the perceived lawyer hatin' in bold:

A high-powered Manhattan lawyer was cleared of wife-beating charges Tuesday -- even though cops said his estranged wife was hurt in a scuffle last fall at the couple's East Side townhouse.

Ira Schachter, a partner at the white-shoe firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft, was freed despite dramatic photos that appear to show him causing a commotion outside the pricey brownstone on E. 78th St.

Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Larry Stephen also scrapped an order of protection against Ira Schachter, 48, after prosecutors said they couldn't prove the case against him....

Ira Schachter walked out of court surrounded by an entourage of powerful lawyers, including divorce lawyer Raoul Felder and Ira Sorkin, former head of enforcement at the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

Not to say that beating your wife is okay. His wife claims he choked her, and police photos showed bruises on her head and neck. Schacter claimed it was self-defense after his wife bit his finger "to the bone."

One tipster tells us that Ira Schacter is "awkward, very messy, constantly touching himself, a general slob. But not violent." This tipster opines that Mrs. Schacter is "nuts" and that neither spouse is blameless, but that she was the one who ended up filing charges.

More about Ira Schacter, from a second source:

Very strange guy and hard to describe -- everyone suspected he had Asperger's. He has very quirky mannerisms and a speech impediment.... But he has a ginormous book of business and is probably the only rainmaker in corporate outside of Dennis [Block]....

Not a particularly likable guy. Very controlling of his little fiefdom, and very nasty to anyone perceived to be hitting his bottom line.

I am loathe to blame what may be the victim or defend anyone at CWT, but his wife was known around the firm to be extremely abusive to everyone she came in contact with. [She] could be heard screaming obscenities at undeserving secretaries and Ira over the phone.

They sound like they were meant for each other. Now we are going to watch War of the Roses.

Upper East Side wife reels after judge clears husband of wife-beating charges [New York Daily News]

The divorce trial of James and Dina Matos McGreevey gets under way today. Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey resigned from the governorship in 2004, announcing that he was a "gay American," who had carried on an affair with a male advisor. The McGreeveys returned to the headlines earlier this year, when a different male aide claimed Mrs. McGreevey had gotten in on some three-way action with him and her husband.

From the New York Post, back in March:

"We called it the Friday Night Special," [former aide Teddy] Pedersen said. The "intense" escapades, he said, usually began with a "couple of drinks" at a local T.G.I. Friday's and culminated in "a hard-core consensual sex orgy" between the three of them at McGreevey's Woodbridge condo.

The three-way action, if true, complicates Dina Matos's claim that she was not aware of Jim McGreevey's homosexuality. From WCBS TV:

The first order of business are closed door proceedings concerning their six-year-old daughter. Jim McGreevey is seeking equal custody.

Dina Matos McGreevey wants $600,000 as compensation for time she would have spent in the governor's office had her husband not resigned in disgrace. She claims she was not aware of his homosexuality.

McGreevey is apparently studying to become an Episcopal priest right now, while his wife was recently called upon to offer analysis of the Eliot Spitzer scandal. So she didn't get to spend those years in the Jersey governor's office -- but now she's a scandal expert and talking head. Isn't that worth something?

McGreevey Divorce Trial Underway Tuesday [WCBS TV]

Earlier: New York and New Jersey in Competition for Dirtiest Governor Sex Scandal

Heather Mills was awarded nearly $50 million yesterday in her divorce from Paul McCartney. CNN has video of Mills speaking with reporters after the verdict. Mills says:

It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter’s future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with.

The funny way Mills says "obviously plan on helping" in the video made us surf over to her official website and look at her charities. The charities seem like a collection of photo opportunities: Heather in a hard hat with a landmine sign, Heather with limbs, etc.

We also discovered a bizarre "Heather's Friends" section, which includes video testimonials from Richard Branson and Hillary Clinton. Weird.

Mills spends a good amount of time ranting about the law courts' conspiracy against litigants who represent themselves:

Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it’s against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they’re never going to make it look in favor.

We would just like to point out that Mills requested nearly $251 million and only received a fifth of that. And now her daughter has to fly coach. We hope her daughter does not ever have to use American Airlines.

Paul McCartney-Heather Mills Divorce Saga Ends in $48.6 Million Settlement [Law.com]
£700 for every hour of the marriage ... and Heather Mills is STILL moaning [Daily Mail via Drudge]
Judge awards Heather Mills £24.3 million in divorce ruling [Overlawyered]

* "Are we headed for another Great Depression?" [McClatchy]

* Quelle surprise: Bear Stearns shareholder lawsuit (filed in S.D.N.Y. by Coughlin Stoia). [Bloomberg; WSJ Law Blog (PDF of complaint)]

* Speaking of Bear Stearns, here are some law firms losing out on BSC business. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Tenth Circuit reverses convictions of former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio. [AP]

* Harvard Law School will pay the 3L tuition of future students who agree to work for nonprofit organizations or government for five years following graduation. [New York Times via Tax Prof Blog; Harvard Law School (news release)]

* Settlement in Paul McCartney-Heather Mills divorce (more on this later). [Legal Week]

* SCOTUS to hear Second Amendment / D.C. gun control case today (more on this later too). [New York Times; Reuters]

And now, no lawyers? From the AP:

Britney Spears' lawyers in her custody battle with ex-husband Kevin Federline are quitting. The law firm Trope and Trope asked a court Wednesday to be relieved as Spears' attorneys. The firm says there's been a "breakdown" in communication with the pop princess that makes representing her "impossible," according to the filing, obtained by CelebTV.com.

Structured finance lawyers, it's time to put down those securitization agreements and pick up Us Weekly. Representing the embattled pop star is a growing practice area:

On a separate legal front, an attorney for Spears wants the city attorney's office to prove that the pop star is a permanent California resident and is subject to state laws that require her to have a valid California driver's license.

Spears faces up to a year of probation if convicted in a misdemeanor case of driving without a valid license, a charge to which she has pleaded not guilty. The case stems from a videotaped fender-bender in a parking lot in August. A hit-and-run charge has been dismissed.

Spears attorney J. Michael Flanagan earlier Wednesday requested that prosecutors be required to demonstrate that Spears, who owns homes in Louisiana and Florida, intends to make Los Angeles her permanent legal home.

Of course she does -- Britney Spears is the quintessential Californian.

Now if only the judicial system would just leave... Britney... alone!!!

Spears' Lawyers Ask to Quit Custody Case [Associated Press]

Rapidly climbing the Most Emailed Articles list over at the New York Times is an op-ed entitled Taking Marriage Private, by Professor Stephanie Coontz. It includes an interesting history of the legal regulation of marriage (which Coontz observes is a fairly recent phenomenon):

Why do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families....

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

A prohibition on marrying fabulous Filipinos? Your loss. Everyone knows Filipinos are great lovers.

More after the jump.

In the latest issue of the Legal Times, Nathan Carlile has a somewhat salacious story about Beveridge & Diamond. Perhaps you haven't heard of this D.C.-based environmental law boutique -- which might be mistaken for a livestock brokerage, thanks to the sheep photos on their website. But a livestock brokerage probably has fewer hijinks:

[A] sordid story... has ensnared partners at 95-lawyer Beveridge & Diamond in allegations that include adultery and forgery. The dispute stems from a bitter divorce battle between firm partner John Guttmann and his wife, Nancy Lasater, a nonpracticing attorney who was previously co-chairwoman of the Law Practice Management Section of the D.C. Bar and a solo practitioner who often represented firms on ethics issues.

Some highlights and commentary, after the jump.

* Al Gore, law school dropout, wins Nobel Peace Prize. [WSJ Law Blog; Washington Post; New York Times]

* Houston crime lab drops the ball, again. [CNN]

* Iraqi families sue Blackwater in U.S. court. [CNN]

* Lithwick's take on the interesting SCOTUS case, Medellin v. Texas. [Slate]

* McCartney-Mills divorce settlement could break records. [MSNBC]

* After typo, infants in Arkansas can't not be allowed to marry. [CNN]

You mean old judge! From the AP:

Britney Spears was ordered Monday to surrender custody of her children to ex-husband Kevin Federline.

Superior Court Judge Scott M. Gordon ruled that Federline will take custody of Sean Preston, 2, and Jayden James, 1, beginning Wednesday "until further order of the court."

If Judge Gordon took Britney's VMA performance into account, Britney should move for reconsideration. We agree with Chris Nashawaty: she wasn't as bad as everyone (predictably) claimed she was.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! [YouTube]
In Defense of Britney Spears [Entertainment Weekly]
Spears ordered to give kids to Federline [AP]
Britney Spears Has Lost Her Kids [TMZ.com]

* It wasn't me. [Legal Blog Watch]

* Well, I'm a pretty famous celebrity, so I got that going for me... [CNN]

* Divorce for Shaq. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Look what you've done, Specter. [CNN]

* Should we file RICO charges against Tom Cruise? [Jurist]

The tipster who sent this to us wrote:

"It's a bit grim, but since it's a slow news day, perhaps you can use this story about a man who apparently murdered his wife, after he failed the Texas bar 4 times. As noted in the article, the alleged perpetrator had lobbied the Texas Supreme Court to lift the rule that limited law graduates to five attempts to pass the bar exam."

You can say whatever you like about her, but Paulina Bandy handled her thirteen bar exam failures in a much more healthy manner.

Man who killed wife failed bar exam four times [Houston Chronicle]

Earlier: The Bar Exam: If At First You Don't Succeed...

Sure, the divorce proceedings of Leroy Greer won't be pretty.

But hopefully it won't get as ugly as Nancy Tauck v. Peter Tauck. That litigation, which has dragged on for some two years, has earned these dubious distinctions:

-- a new national record for the longest divorce trial ever (some 86 days and counting);

-- $12 million in legal fees and expenses;

-- allegations that the husband molested the kids and downloaded child pornography on his computer; and

-- allegations that the wife made up said allegations about her husband, and planted the kiddie porn on his laptop to incriminate him.

Twelve million in legal bills, for a divorce? Maybe our late grandmother was on to something when she urged us to go into matrimonial law.

Tauck Divorce - Day 86 [Hartford Courant]

As many of you know, we're guilty of federal judicial snobbery here at ATL. We frequently mock state court judges, whom we regard as "icky," and contrast their regular misadventures -- ethical lapses, brushes with the law, messy personal lives -- with the generally upright lives of their counterparts on the federal bench.

But federal judges are people too -- people who get themselves into highly embarrassing situations. From Colorado's 9News.com:

Court documents obtained by 9Wants to Know show Colorado's top federal judge was too drunk to remember how he spent more than $3,000 at a strip club in two consecutive days. He also used an Internet dating service while he was married.

Judge Edward Nottingham is the chief federal judge in Colorado and he is held to the highest standards of personal and professional conduct.

Umm, yeah, this story is all kinds of awesome. Some of Judge Nottingham's conduct would make a drunken summer associate blush.

More after the jump.

Here's some follow-up on our Lawsuit of the Day, Greer v. 1-800-Flowers. Plaintiff Leroy Greer is suing the online florist for revealing to his wife that he had flowers delivered to his girlfriend -- resulting in said wife divorcing his sorry ass.

Some readers who have seen the complaint offered these comments:

1. "I've never heard of these lawyers [Kennitra M. Foote & Associates]. They're definitely not powerhouses of the Houston bar."

2. In terms of damages, "the guy is asking for $1 million (it's in the demand letter)."

3. "Please note on page 25 (the receipt) that the delivery "MUST INCLUDE... Cuddly Plush/ Stuffed Animal" (emphasis in original). The occasion for the flowers was "Love & Romance."

Yup, that's right. Take a look at the receipt for yourself (Exhibit D to Greer's Complaint):

Note the handwritten scrawl at the bottom of the receipt, presumably from Greer's wife: "Be a man! If you got caught red handed then don't still lie. Your tmobile has her number so why still lie."

Interesting. Could this furnish a possible defense for 1-800-Flowers? If there was already ample evidence of Greer's infidelity, can 1-800-Flowers really be blamed for his marriage unraveling?

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Greer v. 1-800-Flowers

If you're a married man planning on sending flowers to your mistress, we have a tip for you: do NOT use 1-800-FLOWERS (as if you needed to be told).

Check out this interesting case, filed in the Southern District of Texas (Houston), and included in this morning's Courthouse News Service (subscription):

Leroy Greer v. 1-800-Flowers.Com Inc.
8/6/2007
H-07-2543 (Houston)

Breach of contract action in which the defendants agreed to keep the plaintiff's order of flowers for his girlfriend private, with no record of the transaction mailed to him at his home or office.

Months later, the defendants sent a thank you card to the plaintiff's home, and his wife called the defendants for proof of the purchase. The defendants faxed the plaintiff's wife proof of his order of flowers for his girlfriend, which resulted in a divorce being filed.

Oh crap. In terms of tales of infidelity getting exposed, this one is definitely up there.

If plaintiff Leroy Greer prevails, what would be the appropriate measure of damages? Will 1-800-FLOWERS reimburse him for his divorce settlement, as a form of consequential damages?

And what about alimony -- will they pick up the tab for that? Or can they just send his ex-wife a bouquet of carnations each month, for the rest of her life?

Update: More details about the lawsuit appear here.

Correction: Thanks, commenters. Scratch the reference to "alimony," and replace it with "spousal support."

Leroy Greer v. 1-800-Flowers.Com (subscription) [Courthouse News Service]

* Martha steps into the minefield of political incorrectness once more. [Racialicious; The Mercury]

* There's nothing I like more than old-fashioned, non-partisan fun. Hill interns, this is your chance to make a buck from an illicit affair or two, without resorting to Jessica Cutler antics (because prostitution can tarnish even the best CV). [Taegan Goddard's Political Wire]

* You haven't heard anything since they filed for separation, and you won't hear anything now that they've filed for divorce. And that's what makes them worth mentioning. (Plus, I have a total girl crush on Catherine Keener and just a regular crush on Dermot Mulroney.) [Yahoo! News]

* An ice cream man in 2007 is a different breed from his 1953 counterpart. (Although a co-worker once did this to me to drive home the point that he was lost without the former girlfriend who used to do his laundry.) [KOCO]

* Yawn... [MSNBC]

* Job opportunities for the disbarred. [ABANet]

* Libby sentencing today. [CNN]

* Advice for Paris. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Polsky divorce settlement hits $184 million. [CNN]