As Justice Holmes famously wrote in his Lochner dissent, "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics." But does it enact, say, Mr. Alan Flusser's Dressing the Man?

This doesn't affect us, since we usually don't put on pants before 5 p.m. But for those of you who do get dressed and leave home in the morning, check out this story:

Pine Lawn, a mostly black municipality outside St. Louis, is among a growing number of U.S. cities enacting laws that ban low-slung pants.

Critics say the bans amount to government attacks on youthful fashion that some find offensive. And constitutional scholars say they may not be lawful.

"People have a right to express their identity through speech and action," said Neil Richards, a First Amendment expert at Washington University in St. Louis. "On the other hand, municipalities have a vague power to control the health, safety and welfare of citizens.

Discussion continues, after the jump.

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

Some readers who have seen the complaint offered these comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: More details about the lawsuit appear here.

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

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

Over at the Washington Post's Offbeat blog, Emil Steiner is liveblogging Pearson v. Custom Cleaners -- aka "The Case of the $54 Million Pants." Check it out by clicking here (and scrolling down -- no, farther down).

Here's Steiner's account of the plaintiff's testimony:

If I had $54 million in my pocket, I'd almost give it to Roy Pearson to end this thing. Pearson took the stand this afternoon in his trial against Custom Cleaners, and it wasn't exactly spellbinding.

Pearson went into seemingly every minute detail of life: his history of community service, his weight gain as a middle-aged man, his financial woes and his painful divorce. Even the opposing defense counsel was rubbing his eyes and suppressing yawns.

But the judge let Pearson tell his story, taking occasional notes, always with a somewhat bemused expression on her face. I could almost see the thought bubble over her head: Take as much time as you need to orchestrate your circus. (Though if circuses were this slow, Barnum & Bailey would be out of business.)

Then, just before 3:30, Roy L. Pearson broke down, appeared to almost cry, and quickly requested a break. Would it be heartless to ask whether he had been bored to tears?

Jeez. Should we lay off Judge Pearson? Until now, he struck us as a raging asshole rather unsympathetic plaintiff. But now it sounds like he may have... issues.

Does Roy Pearson need $54 million? Or does he just need a good therapist -- and the right combination of prescription drugs?

Pearson v. Custom Cleaners: The Plaintiff Testifies (and Breaks Down!) [Offbeat]
Offbeat Blog [Washington Post]

Forget about all that Vioxx litigation -- this is far more troubling. From the AP:

A man has sued the maker of the health drink Boost Plus, claiming the vitamin-enriched beverage gave him an erection that would not subside and caused him to be hospitalized.

The lawsuit filed by Christopher Woods of New York said he bought the nutrition beverage made by the pharmaceutical company Novartis AG at a drugstore on June 5, 2004, and drank it.

Woods' court papers say he woke up the next morning "with an erection that would not subside" and sought treatment that day for the condition, called severe priapism.

Okay, maybe Novartis needs to fine-tune the formula a bit. But clearly they are on to something.

Watch out, V1agra; Cia1is s0fttabs, your days are numbered. Boost Plus is hot on your tail!

Man Sues Health Drink Maker Over Erection [Associated Press via Fox News]
Boost Plus [official website]

(Gavel bang: commenter.)

We've previously brought you a number of video clips from various law school parody shows. E.g, Columbia; NYU; UVA.

But what about "the world's premier center for legal education and research"? What can we expect from the parody show of the legendary Harvard Law School?

Someone emailed us this clip:

Our source proudly touted this clip as follows: "Harvard Law School takes it up a notch!!!" We say: It depends on what the meaning of "it" is.

But regardless of our quibbles with the number as a whole, we have nothing but praise for the scene-stealing songstress who appears at around 2:45. If that "JD/MRS degree" doesn't work out for her, she should look into "American Idol."

(If you liked this video clip, you're in luck -- more clips are available here. Knock yourself out!)

Harvard Law School Parody Love It (Harvard) [YouTube]
TheBendAndSnap's Videos [YouTube]

In our recent post about an alleged D.C.-madam-in-training -- a legal secretary at the powerhouse firm of Akin Gump, who allegedly serviced clients and worked the phones for Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the alleged D.C. madam -- we asked you for more information about this hardworking and multitalented young woman.

We are still accepting your tips. We'll kick things off with this info, from a source who knows the alleged junior madam:

First, she's not a paralegal. She's just a legal secretary.

This answers the question we raised yesterday about whether she might be a paralegal rather than a secretary. In one of her emails to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the Akin Gump employee said it would be easy to balance her work for Palfrey with her "paralegal duties."

Our tipster continues:

Second, she has the 'tude in the office that she's better than the rest. Most people don't like her.

Third, in terms of her appearance, she has the typical Barbie look: blonde, shapely, busty.

Based on this description, we're guessing that this individual worked for a high-powered partner at Akin Gump. In our experience, legal secretaries fall into two categories: the total hotties, and the total notties, with precious few in between. They're straight out of either (1) the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or (2) a bingo hall.

The top dogs -- name partners, major rainmakers, etc. -- got the hottie secretaries. Everyone else had to just cross their fingers. So if Palfrey's right-hand-woman is blonde and busty, she probably had a powerful boss at the firm.

More discussion, after the jump.

On its official website, Akin Gump proudly bills itself as a "full-service" law firm. And it boasts: "Our growth has come by understanding client problems and solving them with a unique combination of... practical... skills."

Truer words were never spoken. From ABC News:

A legal secretary at one of Washington's most prominent and well-connected law firms, Akin Gump Strauss Houer & Feld LLP, has been suspended after telling her bosses she secretly worked at night for the escort service run by the so-called D.C. Madam, Jeane Palfrey.

The woman both serviced clients and, at times, helped to run the business, Palfrey told ABC News in an interview to be broadcast on "20/20" Friday.

The firm said it would not make her name public.

But do YOU know the name of this enterprising employee, or anything else about her? If so, we'd love to hear from you, by email (subject line: "DC Madam").

A few more comments, after the jump.

Well before Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was ever filed, the venerable law firm was dealing with some serious issues. As aptly summarized by New York Magazine's Intelligencer, "Sullivan & Cromwell lost about 30 percent of its associates in 2004 and 2005. It might take more than a raise to fix that."

From a fascinating rather interesting Wall Street Journal article by Peter Lattman (which we meant to write about yesterday, before we got swamped by all the pay raise news):

Faced with a surge in turnover of its associates, the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has been putting on a charm offensive to hold onto junior lawyers.

The crash course in etiquette went into high gear at a partners meeting last February. To deal with low associate morale and high attrition, a confidential slide presentation reviewed by The Wall Street Journal urged partners to say things like "thank you" and "good work" to associates they supervise.

What else should partners do? "Return associates' phone calls as quickly as you would a partner's or client's," said one bullet. "Be sensitive to not canceling associates' vacations," said another.

Additional bullet-points made these helpful suggestions:

"Don't tell gay associates that they like taking it up the ass (because they might be tops rather than bottoms)."

"Refrain from subjecting associates to profanity-laced tirades in which you tell them they should be fired."

Guess Eric Krautheimer and Alexandra Korry missed that meeting.

Discussion continues after the jump.

In about fifteen minutes, the Supreme Court will start hearing oral argument in two big-ticket cases about the use of race as a factor in assigning students to public schools. One case comes from Louisville, Kentucky, and the other from Seattle, Washington.

Expect a packed courtroom -- the cases are sexy enough to merit same-day audio -- and some less-than-stellar advocacy. From Tony Mauro of the Legal Times:

[T]he suspense will [also] focus on Teddy Gordon, the Louisville solo practitioner who will argue against using race. His nine-page merits brief was attacked as “extremely weak” by Columbia Law School professor Michael Dorf, a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy who wondered in a Findlaw column why Gordon should be allowed to “waste everybody’s time” at argument.

The Court may feel the same way. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who sides with Gordon, asked for 10 minutes of Gordon’s half-hour argument time. The Court gave Clement 15 instead, an unusual move. Top practitioners could not persuade Gordon, who has handled the case since 1999, to step aside.

Ouch. At that point, Gordon should have taken the hint. But then again, he can't be blamed for wanting to tell his grandkids that he once argued before the SCOTUS.

[A spokeswoman for Gordon] acknowledges that he “has never been inside the [Supreme Court] building,” but adds that he did buy a suit for the occasion “from the famous French designer Jacques Penney.”

If that was a joke, it wasn't funny.

(Yes, we know that David Boies used to wear Sears suits to court -- which is almost as bad as wearing J.C. Penney. But that's David Boies.)

Schoolyard Bullies: Landmark Race Cases Come Before High Court [Legal Times]
Chief Justice Roberts Advocates the Passive Virtues, Even as the Supreme Court's Docket Reveals their Subtle Vices [FindLaw]
Schools argument 12/4/06: Could this be "Brown III"? [SCOTUSblog]

[Ed. note: This post is on the vulgar side. It's a bit like Borat: funny to some, distasteful to others. If you're a person of delicate sensibilities, please exercise discretion in deciding whether to read further. Thank you.]

Last week we reported some top law firms involved in billion-dollar deals:

Biglaw shops are involved in all of these transactions. The lucky law firms: Sidley Austin, Simpson Thacher, Cleary Gottlieb, Howard Rice, Wachtell Lipton, Davis Polk, Debevoise & Plimpton, Covington & Burling, and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.

One of these things is not like the others. Yes, you guessed it: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.

The obvious response: Schwabe, a regional law firm based in the Pacific Northwest, is the least "Biglaw"-ish of these shops.

The less obvious response: Schwabe provides services the other firms do not. Check out the retention letter below, which has been making the law firm email rounds.

(Normally we'd challenge you to find the typo in the second paragraph, but today we've made it easy for you. After all, it's the Monday after a holiday weekend.)

This typographical error gives unfortunate new meaning to the SW&W "diversity logo," featured prominently on the firm's website:

(Query: What's up with the green hand? Title VII doesn't protect martians.)

Earlier: Legal Fee Voyeurism: Merger Mania Moolah

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt [official website]
Define:Fisting [Google Search]

From the Fox News homepage:

And he liked it, too.

(Yes, this is a slight digression from hard-core law; but the Mark Foley story does have a legal angle. The claim that Foley may have been molested by a clergyman was made by Foley's civil lawyer, Gerald Richman. Furthermore, law enforcement authorities in Florida have commented on Foley's allegations. They've stated that no criminal charges will be brought against the priest, unless other alleged victims appear, because Foley does not wish to press any charges.)

See also The Things They Carried [Wonkette]

Priest Who Fondled Foley Probed by Diocese [Fox News]
Mark Foley’s Legal Team: Part II [WSJ Law Blog]

You may be wondering how the number of votes tallied in our Law School Dean hotties contest, on the women's side, went from about 1,000 to over 7,000 -- basically over the weekend. The answer, in a word: Fark.

Fark is a hugely popular website, started by a fellow named Drew Curtis, that collects weird news and humor. It can be very funny, as long as you don't mind juvenile jokes, and a little -- or a lot of -- vulgarity.

(Yes, Fark is even more juvenile and vulgar than ATL. Think of it as the xoxohth message board, but without the ambition.)

Anyway, Fark linked to the Law School Hotties contest, and the rest is history.

Fark has a large and active community of commenters. A number of them had some, er, interesting things to say about the candidates.

Check out some selected excerpts from their comments, after the jump.

Typos happen. Each day we make tons (although we try to correct them as soon as we notice them).

Even especially embarrassing typos are made by the best of us. As Howard Bashman has noted, published opinions by the Second and Third Circuits have featured a highly unfortunate typo.

But usually typographical errors aren't quite so costly:

A typographical error on Ottawa County's Nov. 7 election ballot will cost $40,000 to reprint 170,000 ballots.

The error — a missing "L" in the word public — was identified Oct. 3, said Ottawa County Clerk Daniel Krueger. It was in the text of Proposal 06-02 regarding a proposed state constitutional to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to individuals or groups based on race, gender and other items.

"My first thought was, 'Oh crap,'" Krueger said.

Oh crap, indeed.

Might it be possible to let the typo slide? Maybe not. Here's the text of the proposal in question:

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for pubic [sic] employment, education or contracting purposes.

"Pubic" employment? Let's not go there.

("Pubic" would also modify "education" and "contracting purposes." Not good.)

Error on November ballot costs county $40,000 [Grand Haven Tribune via How Appealing]
Nude Prosecutors Take Note [How Appealing]
County to Pay $40,000 To Fix Typo on Election Ballot [Obscure Store]

* Bill Childs disses AEI's parties. He just doesn't appreciate a good formal gala. [TortsProf Blog]

* FAA regulations: comply with weirded-out flight attendant at all times, no matter how irrational she is. [Prettier Than Napoleon]

* Apple claims right to word "podcast"; next: all soundwaves between 4500 and 6000 MHz. [Overlawyered]

* Blogs can be used against you in court. Duh. [Boston Globe via Elefant]

* Soon to be issued to all incoming associates. [The Billable Hour]

* The first judicial citation to CuteOverload.com. [Volokh]

* Two new books attack string theory; class action lawsuit against Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" inevitable. [New Yorker]

* "I keep forgetting how women are disadvantaged by having to write a research agenda, but I am sure they have to be. Somehow. Always disadvantaged." [Kate Litvak comment on PrawfsBlawg]

* Dom Deluise is not only still alive, but can legally sue his litigious ex-daughter-in-law's lawyer. [Overlawyered]

* Weird Al Yankovic also alive, has aspirations of Jeremy Blachman-dom. [Overlawyered]

* Some might call it clever marketing of E. coli lawsuits, but I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it. [Wall Street Journal]

* It's not too late to download my law review article, and move me higher on the dowload rankings. [SSRN]

* Protest demands recognition of zombie legal rights: "What do we want?" "BRAINS!" "When do we want it?" "BRAINS!" [Boing Boing]

* Upcoming deadline #1: The statute of limitations for suing Merck over Vioxx expires for many many putative plaintiffs today. Court clerks will be busy as attorneys forum shop. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Upcoming deadline #2: The Days of Awe end Sunday, and Yom Kippur starts Sunday night. Stephen Colbert offers a toll-free number, 1-888-OOPS-JEW, if you wish to atone to him. The recorded disclaimer alone (and Colbert's addendum afterwards) makes it worth it, but you get what you pay for. [News From Me]

* It has nothing to do with the law, but how can we avoid mentioning this important press release on Kazakh-Uzbek relations? [Borat.tv]

We are guilty of dereliction of duty. We've neglected to write about the Hewlett-Packard leak investigation scandal, now unfolding in all of its glory before Congress. (Yes, that Congress: a body that knows all about unethical behavior, illegal conduct, and mind-blowing stupidity.)

We've been avoiding this scandal for two main reasons. First, it's a story that Peter Lattman and the WSJ Law Blog have really owned from the get-go. In fact, today Lattman is hanging out in Washington -- our usual base of operations -- to cover the House committee hearings on Capitol Hill. (Guess we've traded places; we're up here in New York, a few blocks away from Lattman's office.)

Second, L'Affaire HP has been such a total s**t show -- from the very start, but somehow managing to get worse each day -- that blogging about it presents no challenge. There's very little opportunity for us to add value. Reading wire reports about the scandal is already pretty mortifying (and entertaining). Do you really need a side order of obnoxious commentary when the entree itself is so rich?

But HP is the big news story of the day. It's one that our big brother is covering extensively. And we've received a bunch of emails asking for our thoughts on it. So fine, we will write about the HP spying scandal.

Actually, guess what? We just did. Fancy that!

DealBreaker's HP coverage
WSJ Law Blog's HP coverage
House Pursues Inquiry as H.P. Counsel Quits [New York Times]

For those of you in the New York area, our current location -- we're up visiting from Washington, DC -- here's an event next month you might be interested in:

Sunday - Tuesday, October 22-24, 2006
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Three-day conference: "Jews and the Legal Profession", at 55 Fifth Avenue at 12th Street.

Participants include Alan Dershowitz, Stuart Eizenstat, and many others. For more information and registration, please e-mail xxx@yahoo.com or call 212-xxx-xxxx.

Other conferences you might enjoy:

-- "Japanese Chefs and Sushi Preparation"

-- "Koreans and the Dry Cleaning Industry"

-- "Filipinos and the Domestic Arts"

We're sticking to the Asians 'cause, well, that's what we are.*

Here is the conference's website. We suggest that the organizers reach out to the "Jews and Web Page Design" crew.

Jews and the Legal Profession [Cardozo Law School]

* Three notes of preemptive defense: (1) it's not "racist" to note that certain racial or ethnic groups make up a disproportionate percentage of a particular profession or industry; (2) this is less objectionable than a lot of material you'd see on The Daily Show, SNL, etc.; (3) we are not commenting, negatively or positively, on the contributions Jews have made to the legal profession. We're merely suggesting that, in the grand scheme of things, there are more urgent topics out there to hold conferences about. Thank you.