SMU Dedman School of Law in Texas has turned out at least one charmer. We now have evidence that it can produce the not-so-charming type as well. Multiple readers alerted us to this thread on Reddit.com: How to Get Kicked Out of Grad School Before You Even Start.

It’s an email conversation between Jonathan Eakman, an SMU Dedman law school student, and the admissions office of the SMU Cox School of Business. Eakman was supposed to start the MBA portion of a JD/MBA joint program this fall. Before starting classes, MBA students must complete three mandatory online tests. These emails track Eakman’s series of excuses for not taking the tests. They include “having too much fun this summer” and “a car wreck, computer problems, stupid family issues and a kidney stone scare.”

He asks the admissions office to “be cool on this” since, in a previous job, he “dodged having to take responsibility for a billion dollar budget, so [he knows] what [he’s] doing.” It only gets more hilarious from there.

We contacted Jonathan Eakman by Facebook. After the jump, we give you the email thread as well as the postscript. SMU Cox Business School did not greet Eakman with open arms on the first day of school.

Ed. note: This post has been updated from the original version. Please see below.

The only thing worse than being tied to your BlackBerry at all hours is missing something important because you were not tied to your BlackBerry the hour you were needed.

Wait, this just in. There is something worse than missing a crucial request because you weren’t checking your BlackBerry. That would be when the partner you are working for emails all of the firm’s associates reminding them to compulsively check their BlackBerries because of your mistake.

Welcome to the world of a Quinn Emanuel associate. The associate apparently didn’t send a fax because he hadn’t been checking emails after business hours. QE partner Bill Urquhart decided to use the incident as a teaching moment for the entire firm:

From: A William Urquhart.
To: Attorneys.
Time: 9:21 a.m.
Re: CHECK YOU [sic] EMAILS OFTEN

Now more than ever there are many talented lawyers and law firms competing for our business. Doing really good legal work is not enough. Clients expect that and well they should given what we charge for our services You must all realize that we are in a service business. In this day and age of faxes, emails, internet, etc. clients expect you to be accessible 24\7. Of course, that is something of an exaggeration—but not much.

LESSON NUMBER ONE: You should check your emails early and often. That not only means when you are in the office, it also means after you leave the office as well. Unless you have very good reason not to (for example when you are asleep, in court or in a tunnel), you should be checking your emails every hour. One of the last things you should do before you retire for the night is to check your email. That is why we give you blackberries. I can assure you that all of our clients expect you to be checking your emails often. I am not asking you to do something we do not do ourselves. I can assure you that John Quinn, Peter Calamari, Mike Carlinsky, Faith Gay, Fred Lorig, etc. all check their emails often.

Yesterday I was working with a relatively new associate on a project which both he and I knew was a rush. It was for a relatively new client whom we were trying to impress. The associate did a nice job under pressure. Before I left the office at about 7:30 I sent an email to this associate asking him to perform a task—fax a draft letter for review and comment. I assumed the task was done. Turns out the associate left the office and did not check his emails until this morning. I assumed the task had been completed. It had not been. In this case it was no harm no foul, but I think we can all imagine scenarios when this could be a disaster.

CORRECTION: The original version of this post had a line in the blockquote that was not in the Urquhart email. (It was actually commentary on the email from a source.) That line has been removed. I apologize for posting an incorrect version of the email.

That’s harsh. But is it fair?

Thomas O’Brien is the former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. He recently joined Paul Hastings, which trumpeted his arrival in a press release. Tom O’Brien is a public figure — he used to be the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate — so he’s used to a little public scrutiny.

But O’Brien couldn’t have been prepared for what happened when his girlfriend’s estranged husband took an unauthorized stroll through her email inbox. The husband found emails between O’Brien and his wife, and they didn’t make him happy.

Instead of handling the situation like a rational adult, the husband — we’ll call him “Ken” — decided to bombard the professional networks of both O’Brien and his wife (also an attorney) with the “pillow talk” emails he discovered. Ken attempted to cast the relationship between O’Brien and his (Ken’s) wife as an affair.

This is not the first time such a thing has happened. Back in 2008, the New York Times reported on a husband’s similar vendetta against a successful Wall Street banker, carried out online. Earlier this year, as Above the Law readers may recall, a cuckolded husband emailed sexting messages between his wife and a White & Case attorney to all of the lawyers at White & Case in Miami.

Ken took this aggressive strategy one insane step further, apparently emailing every lawyer he could think of. You may have already received Ken’s emails, especially if you’re in California, from Ken himself or via email forward.

Is spamming an entire professional network the new revenge of the spurned lover? Are lawyers, as members of a profession that is surprisingly small and highly reputation-conscious, especially vulnerable to this tactic? Does this approach actually work?

After the jump, let’s look at the offense and the (over)reaction.

A couple of days ago, an attorney sent in an email to the New York State Bar Association listserv. Like many people, the attorney was looking for a job. He decided to ask the listserv for some helpful tips:

Subject: [nysba-nonres] (somewhat) new attorney still seeking first FT position From: [Redacted] To: nysba-nonres@lists.nysba.org

Its a difficult time for new lawyers graduating with gigantic student loan debts and a bad economy. I’ve been searching for two years sending out hundreds of resumes and applying for an online jobs every chance I get but it now seems hopeless.

I’m a Fordham Law School graduate and have an internship working at a small bankruptcy/divorce/immigration firm and also have been doing debt collection in state court and attending 341 hearings as a per diem attorney. I also have an interest in criminal law and litigation and therefore took hands on courses in law school: civil litigation drafting, trial advocacy, fundamental lawyering skills, criminal procedure.

I want a full time position but contract work would be helpful also.

If anyone has any suggestion as to where to apply or what to do please advise.

Everybody tells you to network to find a job in this economy. But what if you don’t know anybody? One can understand how the state bar association listserv could seem like a viable option to a recent Fordgam graduate.

Were the employed attorneys helpful to the young Fordham ram? What do you think?

I’m sure you all remember the Stepford Secretary. She is the secretary that praised lawyers at her firm for their CHARACTER. She was fired, and then she lawyered up.

But the President’s speech on health care last night inspired her. Well, at least it inspired her to email Above the Law:

In his speech tonight the President made reference to the “character of our Country.” I chuckled and said “Watch it, Mr. President, using the word character got me fired.”

Tonight after sitting and watching the President’s address I thought it would be time to give you an update.

I went to [my firm] asking graciously for six months severance (approximately two weeks salary for each of my ten years there). The firm’s decision to terminate me for an attempt (albeit, poor judgment) at giving certain props to colleagues was not persecution enough. They denied my request (shocking) and offered a twisted view of both me and the reasons for my termination. Sadly, there is no hope of taking these well educated, uncouth individuals to Court. I just do not have the bank roll or emotional tolerance for the extended crap they will surely put me through. I know that my original statement came from a place of despair. For now, there is just a file containing numerous accounts of misconduct on the part of the company, and the facade continues.

Stepford

You lie!

Seriously though, emotional bankroll is something that a lot of people are losing during the recession.

Earlier: Stepford Secretary Responds to Above the Law
Stepford Secretary Lawyers Up
Bingham McCutchen’s ‘Stepford Secretary’ Has Left The Building

Ed. note: Have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com.

ATL -

I will soon leave my biglaw job for greener pastures. My time at the firm has been awful — soul-crushing work, very low morale among associates, distrust of management, and stealth layoffs (luckily I’m not one of those). Recently a lot of those given “forced attrition” have been leaving, and they all say goodbye with falsely upbeat, suck-up emails, full of “I have been grateful for world-class colleagues,” and “I have grown into a well-trained attorney,” and even “I’ll miss my time here.”

I would like nothing better than to send a real, honest email — calling management out for their greed and mismanagement of the firm, stealth layoffs that decimate careers and reputations, and the low morale fostered by bad leadership. Is that career suicide?

Blazing Saddles

Dear Blazing Saddles,

Messages of rage, despair and other unseemly emotions clog the draft sent box of nearly every person’s email account. Most people have the self-restraint to “save as draft” the please die/FYI you were horrible in bed anyway emails. Others have learned from their accidental send mistakes and now draft all break-up and rot in hell emails in MS Word. And still others — the Jerry Maguires among us — press send, and set into motion a parade of horribles.

Let’s say you send a firm-wide email, informing the firm that they’ve robbed you of 5 years of your life and that you’ll see them all in hell. For about 3 seconds, you’ll feel liberated. You sure showed them! Unfortunately, the flipside of liberation is exile. You won’t be seen as a folk hero, carried out on the shoulders of paralegals because even your co-workers who share your FU sentiments will perceive the mere act of sending the email as 100% insane. They’ll immediately forward it on to everyone they know with captions like “HAHA - OMG,” and “Bellevue.” ATL will procure a copy, we’ll do an entire post on it, and then your law career will really be over. The minute you send the email, you’ll be liberated, alright — from your next prospective job, and the one after that, and the one after that, and so on and so forth until a thousand years have passed.

You don’t have to be a complete nerd and send one of those ludicrous “I feel privileged to have worked here/I hope our paths will cross again/please keep in touch” eulogy emails. Don’t send anything at all and proceed immediately to a pub where you turn your rage inwards and abuse your body with alcohol and onion rings.

If you do send the email, pls bcc tips@abovethelaw.com.

Your friend,

Marin

I reprise the role of Elie, who’s on vacation, after the jump.

Jones Day has escaped a lot of the worst side effects of the recession. The firm hasn’t had massive layoffs, it hasn’t cut associate salaries, it hasn’t canceled its summer program. That is something to be proud of.

And Jones Day seems very proud. Above the Law has obtained an internal newsletter from Jones Day that was aimed at its California office. The message was written by partner Joe Sims and it’s slated as a “midterm report” about the firm. Much of the letter is the kind of standard stuff you are used to seeing from slick, firm sponsored content:

The reality is that we are feeling the same reduced demand that is facing all law firms; I think it is clear — and as the results from other firms become visible, it is going to be even more obvious — that we are dealing with those circumstances better than most. So we have our challenges but, ironically, this difficult economic climate is also producing the best opportunity we have ever had in California to really separate ourselves from most of our peer competitors, and to move toward the position we aspire to — being universally recognized as one of the leading firms in California.

But what makes this newsletter extraordinary is that the message gets very specific about just why Jones Day is poised to separate itself from its peer competitors. And the newsletter offers Sims’s analysis of precisely where the firm’s California competitors went wrong.

More details after the jump.

Last summer, Winston & Strawn only had a 90% offer rate for summer associates. Last year, that was worrisome. This year, summers would likely injure baby seals for a 90% offer rate.

Summers are getting nervous, and it appears that a video conference from Winston’s managing partner, Tom Fitzgerald, didn’t help matters. Here is one tipster’s report of the proceedings:

The entire Winston summer class watched a video-conference speech given by Tom Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald explained that we would be notified of offers during Labor Day weekend. We were also told that the demand for legal services has plummeted, and that we were very talented and would do well no matter whatever field or firm we joined. He even talked about some past Winston summers who went on to do great things … Overall Tom seemed to be preparing us for a slaughter come September. He also mentioned at the end of his address that those who did get offers would start January 2011 at the earliest. Needless to say the summers were feeling pretty s****y.

We haven’t been able to confirm that Winston & Strawn will be instituting a mandatory deferral for summers that receive an offer to return full-time.

Of course, it’s not all bad news for the firm. Just last week, Winston hired Thomas Cottingham III and a number of other attorneys from Hunton & Williams. The move should bolster Winston’s Charlotte office — good news for the firm, as well as the city of Charlotte.

But expanding during a recession is always a difficult thing to do. After the jump, take a look at one attorney’s thoughts about how Winston’s expansion in China is going — thoughts apparently intended for the firm’s former and current chairmen, but accidentally disseminated firm-wide.

UPDATE AFTER THE JUMP (1:00 P.M.): One Winston tipster says the “attorney” weighing in on the Chinese expansion is just a spammer.

Here’s a blast email that went out last night to journalists who regularly receive updates from the U.S. Department of Justice. This particular press release was issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana.

Pay special attention to the subject line.

Fifteen minutes later, a corrected version went out. It was identical to the original version, except for a new subject line: “CORRECTED: FEDERAL GRAND JURY RETURNS INDICTMENT ON INTERNET BOMB THREATS.”

If you’d like to read the full press release, notwithstanding its manifest suckiness, we’ve posted it after the jump.

This morning, we mentioned the University of Illinois College of Law admissions scandal. It appears that former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich pressured the University of Illinois Chancellor, Richard Herman, and Heidi Hurd, former dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, to admit underqualified students who were politically connected. In exchange for admitting those students, university officials attempted to obtain jobs for graduates of the College of Law.

The Chicago Tribune reports the results of its investigation into the law school:

The documents show for the first time efforts to seek favors — in this case, jobs — for admissions, the most troubling evidence yet of how Illinois’ entrenched system of patronage crept into the state’s most prestigious public university.

They also detail the law school’s system for handling “Special Admits,” students backed by the politically connected, expanding the scope of a scandal prompted by a Chicago Tribune investigation.

The paper has published the incriminating emails (PDF) it has uncovered. Warning, these emails are not safe for naive people who are unaccustomed with the “Chicago style” of getting things done. Here’s an exchange between the Chancellor and the Dean about what jobs would be appropriate in exchange for admitting politically connected students:

I suppose there are worse things than a dean trying to aggressively secure employment for her law graduates can’t pass the bar and can’t think. Of course, you’d hope that the dean would be even more focused on educating students so that they can pass the bar and, you know, think — but why cry over spilled milk?

In fact, some Illinois law graduates we spoke with had a very positive impression of Dean Hurd. Depending, of course, on what you mean by positive.

Some student impressions of the dean, and more emails, after the jump.

As we mentioned last night, there is an interesting debate over what White & Case should have done in response to the adulterous sex scandal involving its associate, “Miami White.” The Daily Business Review takes a look at some of the competing theories for crisis management:

For White & Case, the unwanted publicity raises a question all law firm managers and public relations professionals should consider: If an employee’s dirty laundry gets a public airing, how can a law firm respond to minimize the damage?

When asked about the matter, White & Case spokesman William Sancho in Miami offered a brusque “no comment.”

Hours later, an official firm statement came out: “This is a personal matter for the individual involved, and we cannot comment on it.”

It wasn’t really surprising when White & Case declined to respond to the affairs of SexyLexus. But I wonder if Miami White was told by the firm that he couldn’t comment in the press? Cuckolded in Canada said his piece, SexyLexus called in, but multiple phone calls and emails to Miami White have not been returned.

Regardless of the particular plight of Miami White, should White & Case have gone in a different direction? Let’s get into it after the jump.

The Bingham McCutchen “Stepford Secretary” has decided to speak out about her termination from Bingham and her decision to hire a lawyer.

In an email she sent to Above the Law, the Stepford Secretary describes her firm wide CHARACTER email as “totally harmless.” She also describes the way in which she was fired from Bingham:

I panicked prior to my termination. Bingham disconnected my computer, took my identification and escorted me out of the building.

She also explains why she hired a lawyer:

Why a possible lawsuit? Bingham terminated me for violation of policy. There is no written policy regarding NOT being able to send mass internal emails. It says to use discretion. I’m sure that policy has been or will quickly be updated.

Stepford claims that she always intended her email to be an internal communication with in the firm. She writes that she didn’t even know Above the Law existed before she sent her email.

She does now.

Read her full email after the jump. She has requested that we maintain her anonymity to the general public.

Yesterday, we told you about a bizarre love triangle — or perhaps pentagon — between a husband, a wife, and an associate in the Miami office of White & Case. Today, the wife (a.k.a. “SexyLexus”) called us to explain her side of the story and her relationship with her husband (a.k.a. “Cuckolded in Canada”) and the White & Case attorney (a.k.a. “Miami White”). We once again ask that commenters refrain from using real names in the comments.

SexyLexus called to make one thing clear. She told us, in no uncertain terms, “I am not a whore.”

In his email to Miami White’s colleagues at White & Case, Cuckolded in Canada claimed that SexyLexus was a porn star. She disagrees with that characterization:

It’s a camera-site. That is all it is. I am not in contact with anybody, there is no contact between me and anybody on that camera-site.

In fact, SexyLexus claims that not only did Cuckolded in Canada know about her online presence, but that he encouraged her to do it in order to make money for the family:

He told me to get back on the camera-site. I was out of the business, but Cuckolded in Canada told me to get back on to make money for the family … I think it turned him on, me doing it. … He loved it.

Despite her showing off the goods on camera and pursuing liaisons of late, SexyLexus was vehement about the paternity of her children not being in doubt:

Yes, the kids are Cuckolded in Canada’s. They are all his.

Above the Law once again reached out to Cuckolded in Canada and Miami White, but neither responded to our multiple inquires. But SexyLexus has more information on both of those guys, which she shares with Above the Law after the jump.

As noted even in the New York Times, the global mega-firm of White & Case has been hit hard by the recession. But allegedly one of the firm’s associates has been hitting it up — with another man’s wife.

The supposedly cuckolded husband has no intention of allowing this White & Case attorney to get away with an affair. The husband sent two accusatory emails to dozens of recipients who know him and / or the White & Case attorney. The emails have bounced around White & Case’s Miami office — and beyond. Due to their wide circulation, many of you have probably seen them already.

We’ve replaced the names of the participants with pseudonyms, but you’ll get the gist. Here is the initial email sent out on Sunday afternoon from “Cuckolded in Canada,” addressed to (1) his wife, “SexyLexus” (the origin of that name will become clear later); (2) the White & Case associate she was allegedly cheating with, hereinafter “Miami White”; and (3) dozens of third parties:

From: Cuckolded in Canada

Subject: When [Miami White] from White & Case Cheated with my Wife [SexyLexus] in May and June 2009

Miami White,

Families, wives, young children are valuable things. I work hard to take care of my family - a wife, 4 small children under the age of 6. It is the most valuable thing in the world to me.

When you decided to start sleeping with my wife while I was out of town over the last few weeks (May 27 - June 7 2009), you threatened my way of life, and you really hurt a lot of people - most notably the lives of my 4 very young children.

You are a securities lawyer at White & Case, so you know how to do due diligence. Perhaps you thought it was clever or fun, but attending a school recital with my wife who you’ve just met and started sleeping with over the last few weeks is extremely poor judgement. Sleeping with other mens wives, is alone, perhaps the poorest taste and the worst judgement all on its own. It implies a very low moral character. Perhaps you wish to plead ignorance, but a simple search on my name on the internet would indicate that I take a great deal of pride in my family. But after reviewing the text messages between you and my wife it would appear that you did the due diligence, that you knew she was spending the summer with me in Canada starting last week, and that we had small children and you were jeopardizing my family with your actions.

I have tried to contact you numerous times this week to address the situation and ask you to step aside… to let me address the issues now faced in our house. I have contacted your mobile at [Redacted] and your house at [Redacted] but you are too much of a coward to answer. You need to be made aware of your actions and the consequences they bear.

Miami White, and SexyLexus… what follows below are the text messages of your affair over the last few weeks as it unfolds. I would like to especially thank those at [my kids’ school] that watched this unfold at the school concert last week, and did nothing to alert me or defend my family. That is certainly a church and a school I want my children to grow up learning from. You have all seen me drop my kids off and pick them up there every single day for the last year. Did you think to mention anything when I showed up there last Monday June 8 at my kids ceremonies? You know how important they are to me.

And for all of you that think running around with other mens wives or husbands behind their spouses backs is acceptable behaviour - recognize that there are consequences and that many of us that will fight for our families and ferociously defend our home and children.

How’s that for an opening salvo? Wait until Cuckolded starts revealing the text messages between his wife and her purported paramours, after the jump.

We’ve been following the trials and tribulations of the former Bingham McCutchen “Stepford Secretary” who sent out a mission statement to the firm about CHARACTER. After the email, the secretary was fired by Bingham.

Now, she’s lawyered-up. No complaint has been filed, but we understand that the secretary has hired an attorney and is considering her options.

What possible claims could she have?

We understand that the Stepford Secretary was let go for violating the firm’s email policy, and insubordination. But she had been with the firm for over ten years. According to some of our sources, the Stepford secretary doesn’t see her email as “insubordinate,” because the email didn’t disparage the firm. As one tipster puts it:

Bingham never bothered to ask why she sent the email or what provoked the cry for help.

Spokespeople for Bingham McCutchen declined to comment about Stepford Secretary.

But we’ll ask the question: Why did she send the email and what provoked the cry for help?

We’ve been trying to get in touch with the Stepford secretary to hear her side of the melodrama. In case you are wondering, the best way to reach us is at tips@abovethelaw.com.

Earlier: Bingham McCutchen Staffer Doesn’t Want to be a ‘Stepford’ Secretary
Bingham McCutchen’s ‘Stepford Secretary’ Has Left The Building

A couple of days ago, we brought you the story of a Bingham McCutchen secretary who believed that her firm had great “CHARACTER,” despite these tough economic times. She closed her remarks with this:

So, although I am grateful for my job and middle class life, I realize that living daily in fear and conforming to play a Stepford role will not ensure either. Besides, I value and respect too many of the people at Bingham. I’ll stick with good old CHARACTER.

As we — and many others — anticipated, that secretary is no longer employed at Bingham.

The firm would not comment about its internal decision, but multiple sources independently tell us that she has been let go. As we understand it, she was fired on Wednesday.

One of our commenters had this insightful response to the Stepford Secretary’s situation:

I think this and eekboy’s “rant” is a reflection of our times. Everyone thinks their opinion is important and should be heard. While I don’t doubt this secretary has a beef on her mind, I believe she and eekboy have no concept of boundaries. This is part of the facebook/twitter/blog phenomenon where everyone thinks they can say WHATEVER they want, WHENEVER they want, WHEREVER they want.

She should’ve sent that to close friends and peer colleagues. Sending it to the entire firm is just selfish and egotistical.

But it could be that the secretary had more to say.

Details after the jump.

Don’t call it a memo, call it a mission statement.

This afternoon, just before lunch, a secretary in the New York office of Bingham McCutchen decided to express her feelings about the recession to her law firm colleagues. All of them. All Bingham partners, counsel, associates, and staff, in every office, received this message to ponder over lunch:

Character

In recent times we read and talk primarily of those who have lost their jobs. Those of us that remain employed, specifically for this content, in the field of “Corporate America”, are clinging so tightly to the stability and familiarity of ones’ employment that we are losing, in my opinion, an already underrated quality, CHARACTER (for some that may be assuming that they had any in the first place, and likely they are clueless to who they are).

Many years have passed now since I joined the legal profession. I can remember meeting a first year associate, and sinking into my chair when I realized I was older than my assignment. I have been truly fortunate during my many years. I have worked with ground-breaking woman and bright young associates who eventually became partner. I have experienced co-workers get married, have babies, even cried with them over loss of dear friends (R.I.P. Howie, Mike and sadly several others).

As I look around lately, I see nail biting and unshowered attorneys (more driven than ever), which is another great concern - the lack of recognition for the importance of Quality of Life. But that’s another story). In conversation with colleagues I hear in whispers “well, we have our jobs”. Some of these people, now unrecognizable to me, I have known for countless years. It is as if their zest is gone, overshadowed by their fears, desperate to justify their worth to the company. These were some of the brightest and most innovative people I have ever professionally known.

Good. Good. Keep typing. I am unarmed. Keep writing this email and take the Quinn Emanuel associate’s place by my side.

Crack open a beer and watch the train wreck continue after the jump.

Yesterday, we reported on an associate at Quinn Emanuel who had strong views about the firm’s recent victory in the Pro Football v. Harjo case, in which the D.C. Circuit upheld the Washington Redskins trademark in the moniker “Redskins.” We, along with many readers, speculated about whether the first-year associate would be able to hold onto his job after yesterday’s publicity.

We are now able to report that the Quinn associate was let go from the firm yesterday — but not because of the various “reply-all” emails.

Instead, the associate was let go because he failed the California bar exam. For a second time.

(Thus, as noted in the comments, any email indiscretions by him essentially amounted to harmless error.)

The firm declined to comment about individual personnel matters, but multiple sources report that it is the standing policy of Quinn Emanuel to part ways with associates who fail the bar multiple times.

But we shouldn’t necessarily look at the emails as an attempt to go out in a “blaze of glory.” As we understand it, the associate sent the first reply-all email — the one that was not meant to “rouse some rabble or down some debbies or outcrunch some crunchies” — before he found out that he failed the bar for a second time.

As for the rest of the emails, that might be a different story. More details, and a colorful “no comment” from the associate himself, after the jump.

Here’s a post devoted to the perils of “Reply All” and idealism among first-year associates. Brought to you by the attorneys of Quinn Emanuel.

The firm just celebrated a victory in its Washington Redskins case, reports the Washington Post:

A federal appeals court yesterday handed the Washington Redskins another victory in their long-running legal dispute with Native American activists over the team’s name.

The appeals court did not address whether the name was offensive but upheld a federal judge’s ruling last year that a Native American man had waited too long to challenge six Redskins trademarks.

AmLaw Daily reports that Quinn attorney Robert Raskopf, who has been working on the case for as long it has been since the Redskins have seen a Superbowl stadium, was pretty psyched about the victory:

Raskopf was in a good mood when we spoke with him about the appellate win. He’s been on the case since it started 17 years ago. “It’s a great win for the team,” said Raskopf, who had help from Quinn partner Sanford Weisburst on the brief. “I’m so happy for the Redskins and their fans.”

Raskopf was so happy on Friday that he sent out a firm-wide victory e-mail. But not everybody was thrilled. After bouncing around the firm and racking up some responses, the victory chain made its way to our inbox via a tipster:

This is too good not to share. This was sent to all Quinn attorneys.
—-
The First Year Associate Who Shat All Over Raskopf’s Victory Email OR The First Year Associate Who Repurposed the Redskins

After the jump, see the chain that culminates in a (soon-to-be-fired?) first-year associate’s plea for idealistic litigation at Quinn.

Last week, we wrote about Villanova University School of Law running out of work-study funds. Over the weekend, we received several copies of an interesting follow-up email — one that went to every 1L and 2L at Villanova, as well as every dean.

Some background, from a tipster:

This email is sent as-is, with typos and random, misplaced sentence pieces intact (“ing we put on email …” ?). Dean Sargent gives ATL a shout-out and echoes Professor-Blogger Jim Maule’s excitement as well.

And the email:

From: Mark Sargent
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Barron; 2010dist; 2011dist
Cc: William James; Doris Brogan; Felicia Hamilton; Lori Bogish; Jennifer Nguyen; Christine Stango
Subject: RE: Work-Study funds for summer 2009

Wendy, we need to be careful with this kind of mass communication, helpful as it is. As I am sure you saw, this ended up on Above the Law. I did not get nearly as excited about it as Maule, and I know other schools will have the same problem, but readers naturally (albeit idiotically) put a bas [sic] spin on it for us.

This is what we get for being transparent and helpful! The internet really is a type of hell!
________________________________
ing we put on email or elsewhere can go viral almost instantly.

Mark A. Sargent
Dean and Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law

From a second tipster:

I had to forward this. It is the email equivalent of the scene in Billy Madison where Chris Farley gets on the school bus and yells, “NO YELLING ON THE BUS!”

Our observations:

1. Thanks for the shout-out, Dean Sargent! We’re glad to have you as a reader.

2. You’re right — other law schools are having the same problem. For example, there’s no more work-study money at Rutgers - Camden (email after the jump).

3. “[R]eaders naturally (albeit idiotically) put a bas [sic] spin on it for us.” Oh, Dean Sargent, don’t read the comments — they will only cause you grief. We’ve helpfully hidden them, so they don’t display by default; you have to affirmatively seek them out.

Finally, this is not the first time Dean Sargent has had problems with that pesky “reply all” button. Remember the saga of Peanut Girl? Back in the fall of 2007, Dean Sargent complained about having to deal with a student with a very severe peanut allergy — in an email he sent to the deans of all ABA-accredited law schools. In a subsequent apology to the listserv, he described his gaffe as “the oldest mistake in the history of email.”

We reached out to Dean Sargent for comment on his latest email error. Read more, after the jump.