Back in March 2008, we named Daniel Hynes our Lawyer of the Day. Hynes was convicted of theft by extortion after trying to shake down at least 19 New Hampshire hair salons by accusing them of gender and age discrimination (in the form of pricing haircuts differently for men, women, and children).

Now, a quick update, from the ABA Journal:

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld the extortion conviction of a lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord hair salon for charging women more money for haircuts than men or children.

Daniel Hynes is identified as a Manchester lawyer and a 2006 graduate of the Western New England College School of Law in a story published by the Concord Monitor in March last year. A jury convicted him of theft by extortion after deliberating for only 1 ½ hours.

One and a half hours? Ouch. And Hynes didn’t fare better on appeal.

An excerpt from a deposition taken last month in Dallas, Texas:

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Remember we still have a trial. There will be some more of it come up then, but no reason to go over it all now. Can’t have it all. You’ll have cut your hair by then, you know.

Witness: You have a thing about my longer hair, don’t you? Are you jealous or what?

(Off-the-record discussion.) (Exhibit No. 25 marked.)

Witness: Well, you’d probably look better if you shaved it. Anyway, go ahead.

Counsel: I know you would be. I know you would look better if you shaved yours.

Witness: Do you really think so?

Counsel: Yeah, I really do.

Witness: That’s amazing. Your wife doesn’t think so.

Charming. You can read an extended excerpt — which also includes this line of testimony, “Come on, old man. Say something about my hair.” — over here.

Gretidog Field Day: Oral and Videotaped Deposition of Darwin Deason [Infirmation / Greedy Texas]

Young New Hampshire lawyer Daniel Hynes, who is just 27, has earned a place among our Lawyers of the Day for extorting hair salons.

Feel free to use the Power of the Law Degree to ensure that your landlord heats your apartment adequately. But using it to threaten beauty parlors… that’s just wrong. From the Concord Monitor:

A Manchester lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord salon for pricing haircuts differently for men and women and then took money to settle the matter was found guilty of theft by extortion.

A jury took about 1½ hours to convict Daniel Hynes, 27, on Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Baker said Hynes sent letters to at least 19 salons in the state.

One arrived Dec. 20, 2006, at Claudia’s, the North Main Street hair salon owned by Claudia Lambert. In the letter, Hynes said prices should be based on the time a cut takes or on the length of hair, instead of on gender. He wrote: “I demand payment in the amount of $1,000 in order to avoid litigation,” according to court documents.

Since he was not representing a client, Mr. Hynes defended his right to extort by citing the First Amendment and the right to petition the courts. We are surprised it took the jury an hour and a half to deliberate on this.

Hynes would have been wise to enlist a female friend to play his client in this fiendish plot. His reasoning comes across as a bit weak:

In one court document, he argued that the price structure that he saw as discriminatory had caused him stress and mental anguish, despite the fact that prices for men were less than those for women. He said he was being denied an “inherent benefit in being treated equally.” He pointed to a woman’s right to vote and said he benefits from her right, even though he is a man.

If Mr. Hynes is not disbarred, we’d like to talk with him about how we can get a haircut for under $100.

Update: Find out how Daniel Hynes fared on appeal.

Lawyer guilty of salon extortion [Concord Monitor]

* Professor Eugene Volokh wonders: Does engaging in a three-way with a current client and the client’s girlfriend count as having sex “with a current client” — a practice forbidden by state bar rules? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Professor Ann Bartow wonders: Why call it “law porn”? [Feminist Law Professors via Blawg Review]

* Paralegal of the Day? [TPM Muckraker]

* A way for that Cleary Gottlieb Glamour editor to earn some extra cash on the side? [City Room]

* “Law school grads: burnt by the job search process? A journalist wants to hear about it.” [JD Underground]

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]

Lawyers aren’t known for being the most stylish of professionals. So Cleary Gottlieb brought a fashion magazine editor in for a luncheon talk, to give some fashion and style pointers. From Jezebel:

[A] recent slide show by an unidentified Glamour editor on the “Dos and Don’ts of Corporate Fashion” at a New York law firm shed some light on the topic, according to this month’s American Lawyer magazine.

“First slide up: an African American woman sporting an Afro. A real no-no, announced the ‘Glamour’ editor to the 40 or so lawyers in the room. As for dreadlocks: How truly dreadful! The style maven said it was ‘shocking’ that some people still think it ‘appropriate’ to wear those hairstyles at the office. ‘No offense,’ she sniffed, but those ‘political’ hairstyles really have to go.”

Not surprisingly, such un-PC sentiments didn’t go over too well at Cleary:

The story ends happily, with the law firm Cleary Gottlieb’s managing partner Mark Walker, who wasn’t at the lady luncheon, sending everyone an email pointing out the stupidty of the Glamour editor and of fashion magazines and yeah pretty much all the things we here at Jezebel hold so near and reviled.

So whose bright idea was it to bring in the Glamour editor anyway?

If you’re at Cleary Gottlieb and have more details on this episode, please email us. Thanks.

‘Glamour’ Editor To Lady Lawyers: Being Black Is Kinda A Corporate “Don’t” [Jezebel]

Fashion news from across the pond: English judges and barristers are leaping willy-nilly into the nineteenth century, shedding the curly horse-hair wigs that have symbolized the British legal system for centuries.

(Memo to Lat: Explore possibility of haircut for ATL logo-thing.)

The wigs are being removed despite their popularity with the public, who like to be represented by “a proper lawyer with a wig.”

But many others despise wigs as hot, smelly, and more to the point, elitist - they make all too obvious the caste system in British law, dividing the more numerous solicitors, who do most of the day-to-day work of representing clients, from the more prestigious barristers, who for centuries had a monopoly on the right to speak (and to wear a wig) in court. These days the functional distinction between the two kinds of lawyer is eroding, and the solicitors, at least, want the sartorial distinction to vanish as well.

We’re torn. Elitism is of course fabulous, but “smelly” is not.

Judges in criminal cases will keep their wigs, because … well, we have no idea why, really.

Next time you hear a cell phone go off in a movie or at the theater, and think to yourself, “What an a**hole!”, remind yourself: Someday YOU might be that a**hole.

Watch this video, from the start of the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court finals, which we attended at Columbia Law School earlier this week. Pay special attention to what happens around the 18-second mark:

Yes, that’s right. The judges entered the room, their robes billowing out behind them. The court crier made the very formal and grandiose announcement: “Oyez, oyez…” The room fell into a solemn silence. And then, at that precise moment, our computer — which was in the process of turning on — made that annoying Windows start-up noise. Loudly.

One could feel a wave of horrified embarrassment sweep through the audience. Justice Alito chuckled, so hopefully he wasn’t too offended. But we were mortified (and rightfully so).

In our defense, this was a complete accident. We were in the process of setting up and turning on our computer, and we didn’t know when exactly the judges would be arriving. We turned our computer on, and it began the start-up process (which can take a little while). Unfortunately, just seconds after we turned it on, the judges made their entrance. And even more unfortunately, as the silence settled over the room, our computer made that colossally loud cyber-fart.

In any event, our apologies, Your Honors! Please do not blame the CLS audience for this rudeness. It was completely our fault.

We took some rough notes on the proceedings. They will probably interest you only if you attended the Moot Court finals yourselves. Or if you care about the hairstyles of Article III judges.

If you want to see our commentary, it’s available after the jump.

In a post from last week, we solicited your tips about two major players in the Charney v. S&C saga:

(1) litigation partner Gandolfo “Vince” DiBlasi, who allegedly intimidated Aaron Charney at a settlement meeting; and

(2) M&A partner Stephen Kotran, cited by Aaron Charney as an ally of his at the firm.

The post generated lots of comments, plus a few reader emails. We collect the highlights after the jump.

Our reader poll on Janet Reno’s hair is now closed. Here’s how you voted:

We were impressed by the strength of the sentiments you expressed on the subject of Janet Reno’s hair. Here’s the view of “Team Janet With a Part”:

Are you people blind??? Why is “Janet With a Part” not winning this in a landslide? It’s simple, elegant, and unfussy. The perm is messy-looking. The bangs are “trying too hard.” Go Janet With a Part!

Here’s a rebuttal from a partisan of the bangs:

12:12—unbelievable. I can’t believe anyone voted for Janet with a Part. The AG was never the femme de la femme, but with a part, she’s all man. It really draws out that jaw line in a way that makes me uncomfortable (though that’s probably really just a function of which WSJ artist was on call that day).

Finally, some wise advice from a third:

None of the above…she should go with a nice medium length, long bangs (cheekbone level) and tapered to her neck…It would soften her forehead and that prominent jaw.

Our take: Thank you for not voting for “Janet With a Perm.”

Earlier: Evolving Standards of Decency… in Janet Reno’s Hairstyles?

* Strippers always have day jobs, so this is no small victory. [Des Moines Register]

* Why the premium you pay for Fiji water (“untouched by man until you unscrew the cap”) is worth it. [Trentonian]

* (Commercially successful) hipster writer gives it away for free, but will anyone want it? [Sivacracy.net]

* But you still have to read everything. Did you ever get to the five commercial outlines and study guides you bought for evidence? [Discourse.net]

* How mooning can bite you in the ass. [St. Petersburg Times via How Appealing]

A friendly warning to Peter Lattman and the WSJ Law Blog: “Hey guys, step off our turf!”

In a post this morning comparing President Bush’s purge of U.S. Attorneys with President Clinton’s, the WSJ Law Blog includes the graphic at right, showing three different WSJ “hedcuts” of former Attorney General Janet Reno. They pose the following “Law Blog Bonus Question”: “Which of Reno’s three dot-drawings do you prefer?”

Despite the attempt to mask the inquiry as focused on “dot-drawings,” we see this post for what it really is. It’s a clear incursion into our blogging territory: evolving hairstyles of legal celebrities (e.g., Judge Janice Rogers Brown).

So back off, guys! We leave the options backdating and Vioxx litigation to you. Why can’t you leave the hair and make-up of former AGs to us?

WSJ Law Blog readers agree with us. Right now there are a ton of comments to the post, but only two address the “Bonus Question” — which one of them criticizes as “rather inappropriate.”

Inappropriate for an MSM blog about “law and business, and the business of law”? Sure. But certainly not inappropriate for an online legal tabloid.

Time for a poll. We know that ATL readers are very knowledgeable about hair. But just to be perfectly clear, in the graphic at right, the hairstyles are (left to right) Janet With a Perm, Janet With a Part, and Janet With Bangs.

Bush’s U.S. Attorney Purge Vs. President Clinton’s … Discuss [WSJ Law Blog]

* Maybe you read this over Sunday brunch. I was going to make a crack about barely educated sorority girls in schools I’ve never heard of in states I’ve barely heard of, but then I thought of this, or this, or this. You know who should shed some light on this? Tyra. [New York Times]

* As culturally valuable as Britney’s hair? [Yahoo News]

* Man was “more than” friends with Man’s Best Friend. (You also don’t need to explicitly define “cheating” to know he was also cheating on his girlfriend… although that’s the least of her concerns.) [Bay City Times]

* Because we’re not all Wiki fans. [Conservapedia via Discourse.net]

Here’s an update on the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline legal drama. The emergency court hearing that was supposed to take today, requested by K-Fed to discuss custody of their two children, was canceled.

The reason, according to various media and tabloid reports, is that Spears is back in rehab. She has reportedly checked back into Promises rehabilitation center (which she had fled earlier in the day).

Earlier this week, Spears was photographed sporting a shaved head. Here’s some food for thought from a tipster:

So Britney Spears shaved her head. People think it’s because she’s crazy. But some have speculated it is because her ex-husband threatened to subpoena hair samples from her. And hair samples can show drug use going back years. Like backdated blood samples.

Is this comparable to obstruction of justice? Is it like shredding documents when you’re afraid you might be under investigation, or those documents might be subpoened? Is it a form of spoliation of evidence?

Thoughts?

Britney in rehab for 3rd time in a week [Reuters]
Britney Back in Rehab [TMZ.com]
Federline Court Appearance Canceled [Associated Press]

The other day we were thinking about getting a massage. We consulted our trusty Washingtonian magazine, which has a “Spas We Love” article in its February 2007.

One appealing option was Andre Chreky. Washingtonian picked it as a top choice for the “busy executive” (that’s us). And it’s only a few blocks away from our apartment.

But now we’re wondering whether to take our business elsewhere. From the AP:

Andre Chreky, a prominent Washington hairdresser who used to cut first lady Laura Bush’s locks, is the target of his second sexual harassment lawsuit in a little more than four months.

An ex-employee said Chreky routinely demanded sexual favors, grabbed and touched her and made humiliating comments about her appearance and her husband’s sexual prowess. When she rebuffed him, Chreky retaliated by taking away clients, refusing to accommodate her during her pregnancy and ultimately firing her, the plaintiff, Ronnie Barrett, said in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Huge, huge news. There’s a straight male hairdresser? In DC?

Chreky allegedly has a pattern and practice of engaging in such harassment of his employees:

Lawyers for Chreky and his salon denied Barrett’s allegations. Chreky is fighting similar charges by another former employee, Jennifer Thong, who sued in September.

Civil actions are also expected from Pamela Pasties and Gina G’String, former employees who left the salon late last year.

P.S. As reported by the Washington Post, Chreky was previously ordered by the state of Virginia to pay child support to yet another former employee, after a paternity test found a 99.99 percent probability that he was the father of her son. But he took the matter to court, where he challenged the accuracy of the test and ultimately prevailed.

Hairdresser to the Elite Faces New Lawsuit [Associated Press]

As we mentioned earlier, on Friday we headed downtown to Georgetown Law School for “On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried,” of Harvard Law School. We were invited to this event by Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal (whom we thank for his hospitality).

Yesterday we shared with you our photos from the event. Now, the first half of our write-up — after the jump.

The AEI panel discussion on Watters v. Wachovia Bank that we were liveblogging earlier has ended. Our quick thoughts on the question-and-answer session, after the jump.

The televised event that we put in a plug for earlier today is now underway, on C-Span. And it’s actually not just a conversation with Ted Frank (at right), much as we’d enjoy that. It’s a full-blown panel discussion, sponsored by AEI, on Watters v. Wachovia Bank, to be argued before the Supreme Court tomorrow.

The topic — preemption of state banking regulation by federal banking law — is technical, complicated, and perhaps dry-seeming to some. But we’re tuned in, and finding it interesting. (Caveat: We may not be the typical viewer. We’re geekily fasincated by preemption, just as we are by ERISA, a statute that frequently raises preemption questions.)

We’re also enjoying the occasional camera shots of the audience. E.g., the woman in Kermit-the-Frog green, who was vigorously scratching her nose (and whose facial expression suggested she was oddly intrigued by the nasal itchiness).

When television cameras are in the room, you really must be on your best behavior.

More observations, after the jump.

Last week we asked for your input on the most flattering hairstyle for Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the exceedingly prestigious D.C. Circuit. Judge Brown, a high-powered and conservative jurist, may someday be the first African-American woman to sit on the Supreme Court.

We offered you a choice of two looks: “Bangs Janice” and “Perm Janice.” And “Bangs Janice” won in a landslide, with 92 percent of the vote.*

We can see why. Consider this reader email (with photographic support):

This is an easy one: “Bangs Janice” all the way. With bangs, Judge Brown looks like the hip and attractive comedienne, Wanda Sykes:

“Perm Janice,” on the other hand, calls to mind a different black woman:

We agree; Judge Brown should steer clear of that second look. Left-wingers already try to reduce Judge Brown to a racial stereotype (as BlackCommentator.com did when it published an offensive cartoon of her). Judge Brown doesn’t need to help them do it.**

Do you know of a prominent figure within the legal profession who sports two (or more) divergent looks? If so, please let us know. We’re always seeking other candidates to go before the jury in ATL’s Courtroom of Style.

* One reader objected to our hairstyle terminology. But even if our terms were erroneous, we provided photographs to make clear which hairstyle was which. So voters should not have been confused.

** Conservatives were outraged by the JRB cartoon. In the words of Byron York, the cartoon depicted Judge Brown “as a fat black woman with huge lips, an unruly Afro, and an enormous backside.”

Earlier: A Random Friday Poll: The Hairstyles of Judge Janice Rogers Brown

* Gay marriages legally-cognizable-relationships-that-will-probably-get-called-civil-unions are coming to New Jersey.

* Superstar lawyer Ted Olson, who is not gay, got married — to a lovely lady named Lady. And ATL has the exclusive photos to prove it.

* Law firms are tying the knot too. The latest to head for the altar: Dewey Ballantine and Orrick.

* Things are going less smoothly for celebrities. Country music star Sara Evans is getting divorced. Jane Pauley is filing suit. Naomi Campbell is getting arrested. And Foxy Brown is getting sentenced.

* Paralegal pay ain’t half bad, as long as you work for Biglaw — and put in lots of overtime.

* Think grammar and punctuation are silly and useless? Listen to the cautionary tale of the costly comma.

* Justice Scalia: You like him, you really like him!

* As for your Least Favorite Supreme Court Justice, we’ll keep the polls open over the weekend. To vote, click here.

* And if you’d like to cast a ballot in a more frivolous poll, help Judge Janice Rogers Brown pick a hairstyle. To vote, click here.