Tremayne Durham has some serious food issues. In 2006, he decided he wanted to enter the ice cream business, so he ordered an $18,000 ice cream truck from a company in Oregon.

When he changed his mind about selling popsicles, the company refused to give him a refund. Durham traveled from New York to Oregon to confront the company. Apparently, he has anger issues as well -- he shot and killed an employee.

Now he's making headlines for his unusual plea bargain. From the Guardian:

His craving for a decent bit of nosh was so intense that he agreed to pay a high price - a life sentence.

Durham, 33, struck a plea bargain last month in which he was guaranteed a meal of KFC chicken, Popeye's chicken, mashed potato, coleslaw, carrot cake and ice cream - in return for pleading guilty to murder.

As part of the deal, and after receiving a life sentence this week in court in Portland, Oregon, Durham will also get a second feast, this time on an Italian theme, with calzone, lasagne, pizza and ice cream.

The judge, Eric Bergstrom, is understood to have accepted the bargain because it would save the state of Oregon thousands of dollars in hosting a trial and possible subsequent appeals.

One of the tipsters who sent this story our way was inspired:

The next plea deal I negotiate will contain a heart wrenching narrative about my client's woeful circumstances, a § 3553 analysis, and a demand for a footlong sub, a sack of White Castle, and a Fudgie the Whale cake. I can't wait for Durham's habeas petition, based on the Government's impermissible substitution of pizza bagels and chicken fingers, in violation of the plea agreement.

New Yorker agrees to life sentence in exchange for fast food feast [The Guardian]

We've all heard of the phrase DWB, or Driving While Black. How about PUPWB -- Picking Up Pizza While Black?

From an article by Leigh Jones in the National Law Journal (via Paul Caron):

An African-American tax attorney who was held at gunpoint and handcuffed by police officers after a Papa John's employee allegedly accused him of pulling a gun while buying a pizza has won an appeal in the Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Attorney Sanford Kelsey can move ahead to trial with his claims of false imprisonment, defamation, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the pizza chain.

Kelsey, who holds an LL.M. degree from Georgetown University Law Center, is a former attorney at Greenberg Taurig and at Indianapolis-based Ice Miller. He currently works as in-house counsel for a major packing and shipping corporation. The other plaintiff in the case is Thomas Williams, Kelsey's friend, who is also African-American and was with him at the restaurant when the incident occurred.

The allegations are quite disturbing:

The July 11 decision by a three-judge panel overturns a trial court decision that granted summary judgment to Papa John's and employee Kelly Tharp. ... The decision stems from a February 2005 incident, when Kelsey and Williams went to a Papa John's in Westfield, Indiana to pick up a pizza they had ordered. They paid for the pizza with a credit card. Kelsey, an attorney with the IRS at the time, was visiting Williams while in Indianapolis to interview for a job at a law firm there.

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, the employee, Tharp, falsely reported that the two men had brandished a gun and took money from the cash register. ... [A]n unmarked police car was waiting for the two men when they arrived at Williams's house after picking up their pizza. Several police cars arrived quickly upon their return and surrounded their car. The police ordered them out of their car at gunpoint, ordered them to their knees and handcuffed them. They were detained for about 90 minutes while their family and friends watched. No gun was found.

The Papa John's motto is "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza." Better employees, not so much:

Tharp had worked at two other Papa John's, where he was previously terminated for theft, rehired under a false name, and rehired again using his father's name, according to the decision.

We can't blame Tharp too much. If you were a guy named "Kelly," wouldn't you go by a false name too?

African-American attorney held at gunpoint will get his day in court [National Law Journal]
African-American Tax Lawyer & IRS Attorney Held at Gunpoint by Police After Buying Pizza Proceed With Lawsuit [TaxProf Blog]

The latest post in our occasional series on career alternatives for attorneys -- i.e., things you can do with a law degree that don't involve working for a law firm as an associate or contract attorney -- is inspired by a profile in yesterday's Washington Post. The subject: Larry Feldman, "the Subway King of the Mid-Atlantic," who just opened his 1,019th sandwich shop in the region.

The economy may be grim, but Feldman's Subway franchises are doing swimmingly:

Business, says the 58-year-old, is excellent.

"In this economy, people can always withhold from the white-tablecloth restaurant, from the more expensive meal, and eat at Subway for $5," said Feldman, relaxing in a leather chair at one of his busiest stores, at the corner of L Street and Connecticut Avenue NW in downtown Washington. "It's an ideal time for our products. Average unit volume is up about 20 percent."

You're probably not going to Subway as a summer associate (Cosi, maybe). But most people don't have the luxury of being summer associates. So these are good times for Subway shop owners.

Here are some of the rewards for being a successful businessperson:

Feldman is the classic entrepreneur, a lawyer who found his niche in fast food. He came from Brooklyn and became a multimillionaire, gives generously to Democratic politicians and has a weakness for Bentleys. He has a primary home in Boca Raton, Fla., and spends summers at his residence in Vail, Colo. Feldman visits Washington for about a week every month to oversee his burgeoning empire.

Read more about this lawyer-turned-entrepreneur, after the jump.

The late and great Judge Jerome Frank (2d Cir.) is credited with the quip that "a court's decision might turn on what the judge had for breakfast." It's often cited as a neat shorthand for the legal-realist view of judicial decisionmaking.

So, what did the judge have for breakfast? We may know the answer, at least in the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. Check out this clever project, reported in Radar:

In the late '90s, pop-culture historian Bill Geerhart had a little too much time on his hands and a surfeit of stamps. So, for his own entertainment, the then-unemployed thirtysomething launched a letter-writing campaign to some of the most powerful and infamous figures in the country, posing as a curious 10-year-old named Billy.

To his surprise, replies soon started pouring in. Everyone from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (on tree-fort diplomacy) to Oprah Winfrey, Mister Rogers, Janet Reno, and members of the Supreme Court had words of wisdom for Billy.

To wit, Justice Thomas. When "Billy" asked him for his favorite McDonald's food, CT responded: "I like the Egg McMuffin. Actually, I like almost everything there."

Perhaps that explains the post-SCOTUS weight gain of Justice Thomas (a former marathoner, as he recounts in his memoir, who was noticeably well-built at the time of his nomination to the Court). It seems that law firm associates aren't the only folks putting on the pounds.

The handwritten letter from "Billy," and Justice Thomas's response -- a typewritten letter, but with a handwritten note at the bottom confessing a weakness for McDonald's fare -- are pretty cool to look at. Check them out by clicking here.

The Billy Letters: Introduction [Radar]
The Billy Letters: Justice Clarence Thomas [Radar]

We received over 1,600 responses to yesterday's ATL / Lateral Link survey on your law firm weight gain. Overall, you've gained a ton. Or more.

As one commenter put it:

NY to 350!

...lbs. that is...

Well, ok, it wasn't quite that bad, but two thirds of you who are currently practicing law have gained weight:

  * 13.78% of respondents gained 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 13.36% of respondents gained 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 14.13% of respondents gained 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 6.78% of respondents gained 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 6.71% of respondents gained 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 4.59% of respondents gained 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 7.35% of respondents -- and roughly a fifth of respondents who graduated in 2002 or earlier -- gained more than 30 pounds.

Just under 12% of you stayed the same. And a fifth of you are bastards reported that you lost weight:

  * 5.72% of respondents lost 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 4.73% of respondents lost 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 3.82% of respondents lost 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 0.71% of respondents lost 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 2.69% of respondents lost more than 30 pounds.

Most respondents are eating in the office, grabbing food from restaurants, and enjoying a sedentary lifestyle:

  * About three quarters of respondents who are currently practicing law eat at least five meals a week at their firms.
  * About two thirds get at least five meals a week from restaurants.
  * Although roughly two fifths of respondents said their firms have gyms (25% have free gyms, 15% are at firms with subsidized gyms, and 2% are at firms with no discount), 60% of these respondents "never" use their firm gym, and 20% work out only once or twice a week.

Law students fared better, but still not that well, with roughly 55% gaining weight, and just under a third losing weight. Law students were just about as likely as practicing attorneys to gain 15 or fewer pounds, but a bit less likely to gain more, and a bit more likely to lose 15 or fewer pounds. Clearly, there's room for more recruiting lunches.

So, overall, don't you feel better about yourself now?

We thought the whole point of Ave Maria Law School, founded by Domino's pizza founder Thomas Monaghan, was that with enough money, you can do whatever you want. E.g., establish a very conservative, Catholic law school, and not care if the liberal legal academy raises its eyebrows -- 'cause you could buy and sell them, several times over.

So doesn't it defeat the whole point if Ave Maria requires funding from sources beyond Monaghan's pile of pizza dough? From Julie Kay's article in the National Law Journal:

Got $20 million? If so, you could have a law school building named after you.

Ave Maria School of Law is selling naming rights to the new law school facility it's building in southwest Florida.

"We'd like to find someone who would want the opportunity to have their name associated with the school, to help us with the construction costs," said Dean Bernard Dobranski. He said the school is rapidly moving forward with its controversial plan to relocate from Ann Arbor, Mich., to Ave Maria, Fla., and has even obtained architectural renderings of the new school.

Ave Maria is already in turmoil: controversy over its move from Michigan to Florida, lawsuits filed by three professors who claim they were wrongfully terminated, an ongoing investigation by the American Bar Association. A suggestion that Tom Monaghan's coffers are not infinite could not come at a worse time.

Meanwhile, in other Domino's news, they're trying to return to the glory days of their 30-minute delivery guarantee -- without getting sued. Delivering delicious pizza in under half an hour is a noble mission. We wish them the best of luck.

P.S. Tom Monaghan no longer owns the pizza chain. He sold his controlling interest to Bain Capital in 1998 for about a billion dollars, which he plowed into launching Ave Maria University.

Ave Maria still looks to move, puts name on block [National Law Journal]
Domino's Pizza and the Law [WSJ Law Blog]
Will a Twist on an Old Vow Deliver for Domino's Pizza? [Wall Street Journal]

* Oral argument in New Jersey v. Delaware. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF) via How Appealing]

* I'll have a Joey Bag of Lawsuits. [AP via Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* TB Andy didn't hurt anybody. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Grandpa got screwed over by a lawsuit ... [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Pakistan lets (almost) everyone go, but will the rule of law return? [Jurist]

Words to the wise: be extra careful when preparing food for law enforcement officers. From the Associated Press:

A McDonald's employee spent a night in jail and is facing criminal charges because a police officer's burger was too salty, so salty that he says it made him sick.

Kendra Bull was arrested Friday, charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct and freed on $1,000 bail.

Bull, 20, said she accidentally spilled salt on hamburger meat and told her supervisor and a co-worker, who "tried to thump the salt off."

Police Officer Wendell Adams got a burger made with the oversalted meat, and he returned a short time later and told the manager it made him sick.

Clearly it was Kendra Bull's fault -- 'cause people never get sick after eating McDonald's.

Also, did Officer Adams eat the whole darn burger? If so, why, if it truly was insanely salty? If not, could he really have gotten sick from a bite or two of super-salty hamburger? Regular customers of McDonald's presumably have a high tolerance for sodium.

Bull ended up getting charged with a misdemeanor. But what about when employees, to retaliate against customers who piss them off, add "extra-special sauce" to Big Macs? Would that be a felony?

(Gavel bang: commenter.)

Oversalted Burger Leads to Charges [Associated Press via Drudge Report]

The rail-thin Judge Richard Posner (7th Cir.), who favors grapefruit for dessert, has this to say about fat people over at his blog:

It makes sense, as the recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine finds, that friends' fatness would have an influence distinct from that of the culture as a whole....

In my own ingroup of 16 judges (11 active members of my court, 4 senior members, and 1 nominee, who will replace an active member who will be taking senior status), only 2 are overweight (12.5 percent), compared to a nationwide average of 66 percent. Among my other friends, judicial and otherwise, the percentage who are overweight is probably no greater than 12.5 percent.

When we read this, we guessed that one of the two overweight judges was Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. After all, a fondness for Arby's Melts is not a recipe for thinness. But one ex-Seventh Circuit clerk we contacted disagreed:

Actually, Easterbrook has lost a lot of weight. I am not sure who [Posner] meant. Also query whether he used the rigorous BMI > 25 test.

Good point. Did Judge Posner run around the Dirksen Courthouse with a pair of body-fat calipers? Or did he just eyeball his colleagues in the robing room, to see who was sporting muffin tops?

To Seventh Circuit groupies: Which judges are packing a few extra pounds underneath their robes? Please enlighten us, in the comments. Thanks.

Social Obesity -- Posner's Comment [The Becker-Posner Blog]

* This may come as a surprise to some of you, but Chambermaid isn't the only law-related book that has been published in the past six months. Check out Nicole Black's enthusiastic review of Ivy Briefs, by Columbia Law School grad Martha Kimes. [Legal Antics]

* Harvard Law School snags Bill Rubenstein, a prominent gay law prof. So why are they keeping it on the down low? [Leonard Link]

* Justice Alito thinks some of his colleagues need to shut their pieholes. We think their first names rhyme with "Beano" and "Even." [Legal Times via NYM Daily Intelligencer]

* Sarbanes-Oxley: Hot or Not? [DealBreaker]

* More advice for Loyola 2L: If your non-Biglaw job doesn't pay you enough, try dumpster diving! [ABA Journal]

* Willkie gets sued -- and we're reminded of this lawsuit. State and local governments don't seem to like Biglaw much these days. [San Diego Union-Tribune]

* Hold the cheese. Or get sued for lots of cheddar. [Charleston Daily Mail]

Last night, a tipster preparing for the New York bar exam sent us this message:

I ordered a pizza and Diet Coke earlier....

Dominos called to say they're out of Diet Coke. I immediately started running through the UCC Article 2 analysis of imperfect tender w/ notice...

I decided then and there I deserve to die.

We welcome more "you know you've been studying too much" stories, in the comments.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of bar exam-related issues (scroll down)

We have a ruling in the HappyMealGate case (prior coverage here, here, and here of Wiliam P. Smith, the McDermott Will & Emery partner who told Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal"). And it's surprisingly lenient.

Judge Isicoff basically gave Smith a stern talking to:

“There is no jurisdiction in the U.S. — including the district where Mr. Smith regularly practices — where the expression and tone Mr. Smith used on May 7 would fall in the bounds of acceptable behavior,” a solemn Isicoff said from the bench in front of a packed courtroom.

and ordered him to take an online professionalism course administered by the Florida Bar.

Smith brought McDermott chairman Harvey Freishtat with him to beg and plead for mercy from Isicoff. Apparently it worked.

Isicoff said she accepted the apologies of both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery chairman Harvey Freishtat, the head of the Chicago-based, 1,000-lawyer firm, who also appeared in front of her to beg her pardon.

Looks like the fry guy got off relatively easy, and we've all learned something: don't stoop to middle-school insults while arguing in front of a federal judge, especially if you're appearing pro hac vice.

Surely you all recall William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and head of its bankruptcy department -- who recently told a Miami bankruptcy judge, in open court, that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." We broke the story here (with follow-up here).

The "Happy Meal" comment royally pissed off Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff (and not 'cause she's a Burger King partisan). She benchslapped Bill Smith via an Order to Show Cause, directing the Fry Guy to explain why he shouldn't be suspended from practice in her court.

The firm has now filed a motion in response to the OSC. From the Daily Business Review:

Chicago attorney William P. Smith says he’s very, very, very sorry for telling U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff she was “a few French fries short of a Happy Meal” during a May 7 court hearing in Miami.

The chairman of McDermott Will & Emery, the Chicago-based firm whose bankruptcy practice Smith heads, is ready to prostrate himself before the judge as well.

According to a recent motion filed by the law firm, Harvey Freishtat, who heads the 1,000-lawyer firm, plans to fly to Miami for a hearing on Smith’s comment. The motion states Freishtat will personally express “on behalf of the entire firm, to this court, to the other lawyers in this case, and to the other honorable judges of this District Court, [his firm’s] sincere and deepest apology for the words used by Mr. Smith.”

And would Her Honor like a side of fries with that?

More discussion after the jump.

Earlier this month, we wrote about how William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and head of its bankruptcy department -- landed himself in the deep-fat fryer. Smith unwisely told a bankruptcy judge, in open court, that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal."

Well, Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff didn't respond so well to that colorful statement. She issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause, directing William Smith (hereinafter "the Fry Guy") to explain why he shouldn't be suspended from practicing in her court.

Several tipsters have directed our attention to this delightful article, from the Daily Business Review, about the Fry Guy's "super-sized gaffe." It describes the fallout, for both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery, from L'Affaire Happy Meal -- and includes a shout-out to Above the Law.

Excerpts and discussion, after the jump.

* Inmate's last request: pizza for homeless. [CNN]

* Iraqi death row inmate claims innocence, confession by torture.[CNN]

* Brit convicted for leaking secret Bush-Blair memo. [AP]

* AG Gonzales feels he has weathered the Attorneygate storm... [New York Times]

* ... Meanwhile, another US Attorney firing is revealed. [Washington Post]

* Justice Kennedy profile: "The Sphinx of Sacramento." [Slate]

* NBA refs give a new meaning to DWB. [SI]

* Imus plans lawsuit based on contractual language that acknowledged irreverence. [MSNBC]

* Trans fat lawsuit against KFC deep fried, disposed of properly. [CNN]

* Indian judge who issued Gere warrant transferred. "Routine"? [MSNBC]

* North Dakota legislators are not comfortable with these sitcom-like living arrangements the kids (and senior citizens) are doing these days. [MSNBC]

* If they think college students are vain, imagine how a study of law students would fare. [CNN]

* Hillary Clinton selects general counsel. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Is Big Food the next Big Tobacco? [ Law.com]

* Filet-O-Fish creator never got a dime off his religion-inspired fish sandwich, yet remains grateful for all he did achieve. That is the spirit of Lent (which starts tomorrow!). [Cincinnati Enquirer]

* No one disses Nike. [The Guardian]

* Inventor of the Electric Slide says Teri Hatcher is doing it all wrong. [MSN Technology via Sivacracy.net]

* Flasher invokes the “These pants always do that” affirmative defense... [IndyStar.com]

* …while Peeping Tom sticks with the less creative “What? This is the women’s bathroom?” defense. [The Milwaukee Channel]

* EMI and Warner Music -- on again! [The Daily News]

That's the provocative question Professor Stephen Bainbridge poses in his TCS Daily Column. We say: Don't give the clients any ideas.

(Of course, if the dying lawyer writhes on the floor in agony for six minutes before expiring, expect to get billed for that tenth of an hour.)

Professor Bainbridge asks this rhetorical question: "[W]hy does anybody hire transactional lawyers?" After all, frequently they "giv[e] advice that could be given by other professionals." Plus, they're annoying. And expensive.

He outlines two competing hypotheses for explaining the work of corporate lawyers: the "Pie Division Role" and the "Pie Expansion Role." Under the former, which takes a zero-sum view of the world, lawyers try to maximize the gains of their own client. Under the latter, which does not take a zero-sum view, "the lawyer makes everybody better off by increasing the size of the pie."

Bainbridge argues that training of transactional lawyers should focus more on the "Pie Expansion" model. To demonstrate the limitations of the "Pie Division" role, he gives this example:

You and a friend go out to eat. You decide to share a pizza, so you need to agree on its division. Would you hire somebody to negotiate a division of the pizza? Especially if they were going to take one of your slices as their fee?

But isn't this exactly what corporate lawyers do -- and how they earn their seven-figure paydays?

We offer our own, somewhat cynical take on Professor Bainbridge's pizza example, after the jump.

* Chickens help us cope with "chronic anxiety" too. After they're ground up and turned into McNuggets. [Nasty, Brutish & Short]

* "DO NOT put any person in this washing machine." Unless they're really smelly -- and small. [Overlawyered; Associated Press]

* Eliot Spitzer has a man-date. In more ways than one. [New York Daily News]

* Joan Biskupic gets a book deal. For a bio that writes itself. [How Appealing]

* Judges should too. 'Cause most of them couldn't do their own Westlaw research if their lives depended on it. [TaxProf Blog]