That's the title of our latest column for the New York Observer, which reflects upon recent television and film portrayals of women litigators.

It touches upon some of the same themes highlighted in Amy Kolz's excellent American Lawyer article from last year, but it's more focused on fictional female litigators, as opposed to real-life ones. Here's how it starts:

Whatever happened to Ally McBeal? If recent movies and television shows are any guide, the life of a female lawyer has gotten a lot less pleasant since the carefree, charmingly neurotic days of dancing babies and bathroom kisses. But today's portrayals may be more accurate, and certainly more critically acclaimed.

Last January, Glenn Close won a Golden Globe for her compelling performance as Patty Hewes, a fearsome and wildly successful plaintiff's lawyer, on the addictive TV show Damages. The following month, Tilda Swinton snagged an Oscar for stepping into the pumps of Karen Crowder, a hard-charging in-house litigator, in Michael Clayton.

In March, Julianna Margulies (of ER) returned to television as aggressive defense lawyer Elizabeth Canterbury, the title character of Canterbury's Law. Even Katey Sagal, who embodied the famously vulgar Peggy Bundy on Married With Children, reincarnated herself this year as Marci Klein, the sleek, powerful, and ruthless founding partner of the law firm on Eli Stone.

You can read the full column over here.

Farewell, Ally McBeal; Enter the Litigatrix [New York Observer]

Some of you may recall the strange tale of Jeremy Pitcock, a successful IP litigator in New York. As we previously reported, he recently left Kasowitz Benson, where he headed the intellectual property practice, for Morgan & Finnegan. That's par for the course, in this age of increased lateral partner movement. The weird part was that Kasowitz issued a statement, apparently in response to Morgan's trying to tout Pitcock's move as a hiring coup, in which Kasowitz said they fired Pitcock for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct."

The plot thickens. A source informed us that Jeremy Pitcock is no longer at Morgan & Finnegan, which we have confirmed. His bio is no longer on the firm website, which has also been scrubbed of the press release touting his hire. If you try emailing him at his Morgan & Finnegan email address, which is the one provided in his LinkedIn profile, as we did, your message will bounce back to you.

We tried calling Jeremy Pitcock at the Morgan & Finnegan phone number listed in his profile. The nervous-sounding woman who answered the phone told us that he's no longer with the firm, that she didn't have forwarding information for him, and that his last day in the office was "last week."

Did Morgan & Finnegan get rid of Pitcock after investigating the alleged "inappropriate personal conduct"? One source said it would be surprising. First, Pitcock is a superstar IP lawyer. Rumor has it that "when he left Simpson, he had a $6 million book of business, as a 6th or 7th year associate. He decided he wanted to be a partner [immediately, rather than waiting a few years,] and Kasowitz took him up on that."

Second, some claim Morgan & Finnegan has a reputation for tolerating a certain degree of inappropriate personal conduct. One source tells us that "they aren't known for being friendly to women -- or in some cases, they're known for being too friendly. There were partners who asked female associates on dates repeatedly and others who referred to female associates as 'pretty young girls.' Still others simply refused to work with women."

We contacted the firm's spokesperson to inquire about Pitcock's departure; she wasn't in, so we left a message. We haven't heard back from her yet, but if we do, we'll let you know.

If you have the 411, feel free to email us. Thanks.

Update (2:30 PM): We just heard back from the Morgan & Finnegan spokesperson. She stated that the firm generally does not comment on internal firm matters.

Update (6/6/08): Jeremy Pitcock has filed a $90 million defamation lawsuit against Kasowitz Benson. See here.

Earlier: Musical Chairs: Kasowitz Attributes IP Head's Departure to 'Extremely Inappropriate Personal Conduct'

An interesting article in today's New York Times -- by Lynnley Browning, author of the earlier Biglaw perks piece -- focuses on the subprime mortgage mess and current investigations into the adequacy of disclosures to investors.

Investigators are focused on Wall Street, but lawyers involved in the securitization process may also face scrutiny. Government investigation is the last thing these struggling law firms need, as they try to retool in the face of a grim outlook for structured finance and real estate work.

The article focuses on McKee Nelson:

McKee Nelson burst onto the scene in 1999 and quickly grabbed lucrative Wall Street work from long-established rivals. William F. Nelson, one of its co-founders, said the firm, which is known for its sophisticated tax work, did not employ any special legal maneuvers to outflank its competitors. “There’s no secret, magic elixir that we sprinkled,” Mr. Nelson said.

In any case, the mortgage turmoil is now hitting the highly regarded McKee Nelson hard. The firm recently pared its structured finance department to 80 lawyers from about 115 through buyouts, sabbaticals and transfers to other departments. More cuts are unlikely, a spokeswoman said.

So that's good news. And the firm is trying to take lemons and make the proverbial lemonade:

[A]fter profiting from the mortgage boom, McKee Nelson is now positioning itself to profit from the bust by riding the coming wave of lawsuits. In January, the firm flew its partners and their spouses to Charleston, S.C., aboard four Delta commuter jets, to map out its strategy.

“We’re heavily committed to doing more litigation,” Mr. Nelson said. The firm hopes to represent investment banks, hedge funds and other financial companies, as well as their executives, in a variety of litigation, he said.

And maybe law firms, too, as lawsuits and investigations proliferate? See, e.g., Cadwalader, facing a $70 million lawsuit arising out of a securitization deal gone bad.

Small Law Firm’s Big Role in Bundling Mortgages [New York Times]

If we hadn't already named a Lawyer of the Day, the prize might have gone to Jeremy Pitcock of Morgan & Finnegan. From the American Lawyer:

The former head of intellectual property at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman was fired in December for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct," according to the firm.

Not merely "inappropriate" conduct, but "extremely inappropriate" conduct. We're guessing it was strenuously objectionable.

Jeremy Pitcock, 35, joined Kasowitz in March 2006 after being wooed from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, where he was a senior associate. Kasowitz named him head of IP not long after. But after less than two years, Pitcock left the 200-plus-lawyer firm for 52-lawyer New York IP boutique Morgan & Finnegan.

Morgan touted Pitcock's hiring as "an outstanding addition to our successful litigation practice" when it announced his move on January 8. But the Kasowitz firm says he was forced out following an unspecified incident.

"Mr. Pitcock was terminated for cause by Kasowitz, Benson in December 2007 because of extremely inappropriate personal conduct," name partner Daniel Benson said in a statement.

So what prompted the firm's statement?

Kasowitz's statement followed the publication of an article in trade publication IP Law 360 last week, which reported that Morgan had lured Pitcock from Kasowitz. In his statement, directed toward the publication, Benson said, "It was inaccurate to use 'nab' in your headline, or to use 'jump ship' in your opening paragraph."

"We were not looking to publicize this incident, but because of those incorrect news items, we felt compelled to set the record straight," Benson said in a press release that the firm distributed online.

We're intrigued -- and the full article in the American Lawyer doesn't offer much more. If you have details on the alleged conduct, please email us. Thanks.

Update (6/6/08): Jeremy Pitcock has filed a $90 million defamation lawsuit against Kasowitz Benson. See here.

Kasowitz Fired its ex-IP Chief for Inappropriate Conduct [The American Lawyer via Law.com]
Jeremy S. Pitcock bio [Morgan & Finnegan]

This site tends to focus on large law firms when it comes to compensation coverage. There are several reasons for this. First, Biglaw shops tend to be more public about how they pay their people. Second, there's a larger audience for information about their pay scales. Third, even when firms don't make salary and bonus information publicly available, it's easier to get information out of a firm with several hundred lawyers -- there are more potential tipsters, and the risk of a leaker being discovered is much lower.

But many of you are curious about what pay is like at smaller shops. Here's a representative request from one reader:

How about getting the scoop on bonuses as smaller firms? My particular interest is in white-collar boutiques -- e.g., Morvillo, Lankler, Stillman, Zuckerman Spaeder, etc.

There's no info online, and those firms tend to be pretty quiet about how much they pay. This should be right up your alley.

So here's an open thread -- although we're not sure how successful it will be. As our tipster notes, smaller firms tend to be tight-lipped about compensation matters.

If you have information to share on the bonuses doled out by smaller firms, including but not limited to white-collar criminal defense shops and litigation boutiques, please share in the comments. It would be optimal if you could identify the firm by name; but if you can't, please provide as much information as possible (e.g., "a 25-lawyer, white-collar criminal defense firm in New York"). Thanks.

Here is the latest Job of the Week, courtesy of ATL's career partner, Lateral Link. To refresh your recollection:

"Because Lateral Link does no cold-calling and is more efficient than traditional recruiting firms, successful candidates receive $10,000 upon placement."

Position Title: Trial Attorney

Position Description: An innovative, New York-based litigation boutique seeks a well-credentialed, mid-level litigation associate. This firm has 14 attorneys and is well-known for its select group of prestigious private and institutional clients, including celebrities, executives and directors at Fortune 100 companies, top-tier investment banks, and prominent private equity firms. The scope of the firm's work includes complex civil litigation as well as regulatory and criminal investigations.

Requirements: Top 10 law school; law review and/or federal clerkship is a plus.

To apply for this position, or to learn about other career opportunities, please visit laterallink.com.

Earlier: Prior Job of the Week listings (scroll down)

Hi all, this is Billy Merck once again (for those regulars out there who already hate know me, check out the link anyway, 'cause the site's been revamped), mostly filling in for today and tomorrow, though Lat is probably going to poke his head in a time or two.

We're going to be continuing Non-Top-Tier Law School Week, but first this morning we have a bit of biglaw advertising. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP want you to know that they're real trial lawyers who, you know, like, actually go to trial and stuff. The creative way that their advertising agency came up with to express that idea follows the jump.

Here's our latest Non-Top-Tier Law School Graduate of the Day, an alumnus of a Tier 3 school. And he didn't even get an LLM from NYU!

Name: Daniel Petrocelli

Law School: Southwestern Law School, J.D., 1980

Current Position: Partner, O'Melveny & Myers

Why He's Our Winner: The reader who nominated Petrocelli says it all:

You should consider featuring Daniel Petrocelli on your non-top-tier success series. This is the same Petrocelli who brought in the civil verdict against O.J. Simpson and represented Jeffrey Skilling. Petrocelli is now pulling in gazillions as a partner at O'Melveny & Myers in L.A.

From whence did he come? Southwestern University Law School. But wait, there's more. It's not featured on his bio, but he went to night school!!!

So whether to illustrate the heights to which non-top-tier graduates are capable of reaching, or to show how one doesn't need to have their parents get them into Yale to succeed, you really should feature him.

Indeed -- Dan Petrocelli is a worthy winner. But one caveat: he did graduate first in his class, and served as editor-in-chief of the law review. So his job prospects were considerably better than those in the middle or at the bottom of the class.

Daniel Petrocelli bio [O'Melveny & Myers]
The Inside Story of How O.J. Lost [Time]

Here's a sign of changing times: lawyers are picking up luxury real estate holdings that hedge fund guys can't afford to keep.

From the Daily Business Review:

A high profile Miami litigator is expanding his real estate holdings on Key Biscayne.

Attorney Eugene E. Stearns and his wife, Diana, purchased a two-story home at 250 Cape Florida Drive for $8 million Aug. 31 from United Real Estate Ventures owned by trader D. John Devaney.

The 7,852-square-foot house has eight bathrooms, six bedrooms and a first-floor master suite. The house built in 1985 features cathedral ceilings.

Who says the Miami real estate market is dead? A thousand bucks a square foot, for a single-family house not on the island of Manhattan, doesn't sound half-bad.

Discussion continues after the jump.

We received an interesting email about a month ago. We meant to write about it back then, but never got around to it. But since we haven't read about it elsewhere (please correct us if we're wrong), we figure it's still fair game for discussion.

Here's the start of the email. It's from John Quinn, name partner of litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel.

From: John Quinn
To: Associates
Cc: Partners
Date: 6/18/2007

we have a possible solution to a problem that we want to run by all of you. its controversial--or has the potential to be such--so we don't want to consider it further if it will be a problem.

our firm desparately needs more patent litigators with electrical engineering degrees. its not just that we have more and more cases calling for that expertise. we also have clients who insist on staffing their cases with electrical engineers. we are beyond capacity limited in this area. its to the point that we are being instructed to off load some work to other firms that have ee degrees. the truth of the matter is that we could probably put a dozen of these people to work right now if we had them.

we have constantly been looking for people with this credential. unfortunately, so are alot of other firms. the demand clearly exceeds the supply.

You can probably guess where this is going. Read the rest of John Quinn's email, after the jump.

Disorder in the court, disorder in the court! From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

St. Tammany Parish deputies took two defense attorneys into custody on contempt of court accusations Monday after they got into a fight at the parish courthouse in Covington, Sheriff Jack Strain confirmed.

Michael Fawer of Covington and his brother-in-law, Joseph Bartels of New Orleans, tussled outside state Judge Raymond Childress' third-floor courtroom at about 10:30 a.m. As a result, the judge ordered both men held, Strain said.

Fawer, 71, claimed Bartels made a profane reference to his religion, and Bartels, 56, claimed Fawer injured his neck.

And you thought you didn't get along with your brother-in-law. Well, at least these guys are zealous advocates.

A little more about this incident, after the jump.

Here are two quick updates to our earlier coverage of Akin Gump, the prestigious D.C. law firm, where an assistant to alleged D.C. madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey worked as a legal secretary. The second of these updates is nothing short of mind-blowing.

1. As a commenter pointed out, Tom Goldstein, the head of Akin Gump's Supreme Court practice, just posted an "opening" for a "special assistant." This led some to wonder: Could the madam-in-training have worked for the Supreme Court superstar?

It wouldn't be THAT suprising. The job announcement (PDF) mentions that an appreciation for poker is helpful. And we're guessing that the secretary-cum-escort has some familiarity with that game -- or a certain variant thereof.

Sadly, however, it turns out that there is no relation between these two events. According to a source at the firm, "this opening is completely unrelated to that situation.."

2. We believe our source. We've learned that the Akin Gump temptress worked for someone even more senior at the firm -- and even more powerful.

We have confirmed, with knowledgeable sources, what was previously rumored in reader comments. The Akin Gump Escort worked for John M. Dowd, the high-powered head of the firm's criminal litigation group. From his firm bio:

Mr. Dowd has prosecuted and defended significant criminal matters at trial and in parallel proceedings before Congress and regulatory agencies for more than 30 years. His practice focuses on the trial of complex civil and criminal cases.

Mr. Dowd is noted for his representation of a U.S. district judge, a former U.S. attorney and two U.S. senators. In addition, he represented a U.S. governor in a lengthy, high-profile criminal trial involving 23 counts charging false statements, wire fraud and attempted extortion.

A judge, a U.S. attorney, some senators? YAWN. John Dowd currently represents one of Above the Law's favorite celebrities: MONICA GOODLING!!!

Does this mean that telephone and/or face-to-face conversations took place between (1) the Magnificent Monica Goodling, of U.S. Attorneygate fame, and (2) the Akin Gump Escort? Presumably Monica Goodling had to interact with the Akin Gump Escort, whenever she called John Dowd on the phone, or came to his office for a meeting.

Please excuse us for a moment. Our head is about to explode, due to fabulosity overload!!!

More discussion, after the jump.

A draft copy of Don Imus's complaint indicates that the fired radio show host will be suing CBS, his former employer, for $120 million. Details here.

That's a hefty chunk of change. It's three times the total value of his $40 million contract.

But look at it another way. A hundred and twenty mil is still less than the cost of two pairs of pants. If you're an exalted Administrative Law Judge, for the District of Columbia.

Exclusive: Imus Says CBS got what it bargained for [ABC News]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Don Imus (scroll down)

Okay, not exactly. But Martin Garbus, the legendary litigator now representing former CBS radio host Don Imus, is coming out swinging.

Yesterday Garbus announced that Imus would sue CBS Radio for the unpaid portion of Imus's $40 million contract. He said to expect the lawsuit by the end of next week.

Garbus cited a clause in Imus's contract acknowledging that his show was "unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial." This language may be part of the contract clause we discussed back in this post.

This morning's news includes another argument we'll probably see in the eventual lawsuit. From the AP:

CBS Radio and MSNBC had delay buttons, but didn't use them when Imus made racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team, lawyer Martin Garbus said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"That means CBS and MSNBC both knew the language that was going out, and both knew the language complied with (Imus') contract. ... It was consistent with many of the things he had done," Garbus said.

Interesting. It sounds like CBS may have a real fight on its hands. And if the matter goes to a jury trial, there may be some sympathy for Imus. Here are the results of our recent ATL poll:

And this poll was taken before we learned about the exact wording of the contract clause, as well as CBS's alleged failure to use its delay buttons.

Hey Yul Kwon -- CBS wants its million dollars back...

Imus Lawyer: We'll Sue for Full Contract [Associated Press]
Imus Lawyer: Bosses Could've Cut Remarks [Associated Press]

Earlier: Is the Nappy-Headed Don Imus Entitled To One Free Bite of the Hoho?

Don Imus has hired a prominent litigator, prompting speculation that the dismissed DJ may be plotting legal action against his former employers (CBS and MSNBC).

The lawyer is Davis & Gilbert partner Martin Garbus, named by Time Magazine as “legendary, one of the best trial lawyers in the country.” According to BusinessWeek:

A brief sentence on Garbus' personal blog, late Friday afternoon, noted that Garbus "represents Don Imus in a dispute with CBS"—a sentence that was later removed from the blog.

A ferocious litigator who has received numerous media citations as one of America's leading trial lawyers, Garbus has represented clients as diverse as the comic Lenny Bruce, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Nancy Reagan, and pioneering rap group Public Enemy.

Even cooler than the thought of Nancy Reagan and Public Enemy eyeing each other from opposite sides of the Davis & Gilbert lobby: Garbus' bio notes that he "won what is arguably the most important due process case of the 20th century, Goldberg v. Kelly (397 U.S. 254)."

He also blogs at The Huffington Post.

Sounds like Imus is in good hands.

Sunday's NYT sports section features a short interview with our favorite NFL referee, Ed Hochuli. Hochuli is a minor celebrity among football fans for two things: his brawny physique and the commendably detailed on-field explanations he gives when announcing penalties and other calls.

He's also a partner in the Phoenix law firm of Jones, Skelton, and Hochuli.

From the interview:

YOU WORK AS A REFEREE AND A LAWYER?

I am a full-time civil litigator and a full-time referee. I go and defend in court. The two jobs have a lot in common.

YOU APPEAR TO TAKE WORKING OUT SERIOUSLY.

I do. I do cardio, at least an hour, sometimes more, every day. I lift weights four days a week for another hour.

If you want to feel like a total slob, read all the details of Hochuli's diet and workout regimen here. And for the next time you're debating whether to go for a run or merely dash down the hall to the vending machine, you can buy "What Would Ed Hochuli Do?" merchandise here.

Is it any surprise that this strapping specimen of manhood has fathered six children?

We wonder what Hochuli is like to work for. Are there any JSH associates out there who'd like to give us a report?

When we wrote about her amusing court filing earlier today, we redacted her name. But since she has shown that she has no problem with being identified, even going so far as to comment on our prior post, we're happy to shout her name from the blogospheric rooftops: ALISON MAYNARD.

Alison Maynard, who ran unsuccessfully for Colorado Attorney General as a Green Party candidate, is known in some circles as "Sunny" Maynard. And with her hilarious motion, Sunny Maynard has brightened the days of thousands of lawyers around the country.

This is why we're naming her our Lawyer of the Day. Congratulations, Ms. Maynard!

For those of you who didn't read our prior post, here's the relevant excerpt from Maynard's motion:

In the hours since we posted it, we've been bombarded by several lengthy email screeds from Maynard. Because most of them contained the words "water rights" and "bill of costs," they were initially banished to the "Boring Stuff" subfolder of our "Junk Mail" folder.

But we dutifully rescued them, and we even read them. Some excerpts, as well as links with biographical information about Alison Maynard, appear after the jump.

As you learn on your first day of law school, there are two sides to pretty much every case (or rather, every interesting case, or any case worth including in a casebook).

It seems that Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell is no exception. In response to our email request for comment, we were contacted by S&C partner Theodore O. Rogers, Jr., a prominent and highly respected labor and employment litigator (pictured at right).

Mr. Rogers forwarded us a copy of this email, from the legendary H. Rodgin Cohen, Chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell (and a god of the banking M&A bar):

-----Original Message-----
From: Cohen, H. Rodgin
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:56 PM
To: *AllUsers.WorldWide
Subject:

Today an associate of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Aaron Charney, filed a complaint against the Firm, representing himself, alleging discrimination and retaliation on the basis of sexual orientation. Mr. Charney chose to post his Complaint on the greedyassociates.com web site before serving the Firm.

The Firm categorically denies Mr. Charney’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation. Mr. Charney first raised assertions of this sort in May 2006 through a lawyer, and his assertions were followed by a multi-million dollar demand. The Firm promptly investigated his assertions at that time, and rejected Mr. Charney’s money demand. Mr. Charney chose to remain associated with the Firm thereafter.

Sullivan & Cromwell is widely recognized as welcoming to all persons without regard to sexual orientation. We are proud of our record of hiring and advancement of individuals irrespective of their sexual orientation, as well as of our lawyers’ representation of organizations and individuals who protect the rights of individuals to be free from sexual orientation discrimination.

Rodgin Cohen

Shortly after we received Cohen's email, we received this interesting message from a reader (who is not at S&C):

"I gotta say, I was suspicious of the pro se thing (and posting the complaint on his website) before your interview. He's right that any competent employment counsel is going to try to quietly settle it. As a gay m&a attorney in nyc, I'm glad he is drawing attention to their behaviour, but if I were in his place I'd likely have retained counsel, settled for two years' salary and moved on."

"Do you think they will pay him more now to make him go away? On the one hand, they can't terminate him now because it would be de facto retaliation but on the other hand it makes it more difficult for him to prove damages because he is still working there and continuing to get 'big deals.'"

Earlier: Prior coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

We love lists: the Forbes 400, the U.S. News college and law school rankings, or Washingtonian magazine's list of 40 top lawyers under 40. We love lawyers -- which is good, since we spend all day writing about them. And we love fabulous things.

So you can imagine our delight upon seeing this feature from The American Lawyer: The Young Litigators Fab Fifty. It's a list of 50 top litigators from around the country, all under the age of 45, whom the magazine "expect[s] to see leading the field for years to come."

You can check out the list here. Regular readers of ATL will recognize many of these youthful luminaries. Here are some highlights:

-- Latham & Watkins partner Sean Berkowitz,* the former prosecutor who rose to fame durring the Enron case;

-- Paul Clement, the U.S. Solicitor General (who was very nice to us);

-- Weil Gotshal partner Gregory Coleman and Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz, two top Texas lawyers (and possible Fifth Circuit nominees);

-- Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, the delectable DOJ diva;

-- Jeffrey Fisher, of Davis Wright & Tremaine, SCOTUS lefty litigator extraordinaire (he's a Bleeding Reinhardt and former JPS clerk);

-- Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, Chief Justice Roberts's former l'il buddy (from his Hogan & Hartson days);

-- Professor Neal Katyal of Georgetown Law, the "Paris Hilton of the Legal Elite";

-- Alabama's Solicitor General, Kevin Newsom (amusing story about him here); and

-- Eugene Scalia, the Gibson Dunn partner and fabled ERISA hottie (and son of Nino).

On the whole, it's an excellent list. We can think of a few questionable omissions (and a few dubious selections). But with something this subjective, reasonable minds will differ.

Congrats again to the Fab Fifty!

* Does anyone know if Sean Berkowitz and Bethany McLean, the Fortune reporter who covered Enron, are still an item?

The Young Litigators Fab Fifty [American Lawyer]

A lot of our humor is kinda juvenile. So now we'll throw some erudition into the mix. Recently we learned of this fun fact:

A partner at a big New York law firm, a litigator, has the following quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein on his wall. "The world is all that is the case."

Those of you who majored in philosophy should already be laughing.

For those of you who didn't, here's an explanation (which we provide at the risk of sounding pedantic):

In that context, it completely warps the meaning of the quote. Witty meant it as: "The world is composed of all facts." To the litigator it meant: "The case is the entire world."

The story actually came to us sans the identity of the litigator; we didn't redact anything. If you know who it might be, feel free to drop us a line.