Today is Friday, so this news is timely. Some of you may recall the case of Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy. Norman Schoenfeld, an observant Jewish lawyer who once worked in A&O's New York office, sued the elite "Magic Circle" law firm, alleging that it discriminated and retaliated against him as a result of his observing the Sabbath.

For counsel, Schoenfeld retained Anne C. Vladeck, the superstar plaintiffs-side employment lawyer who successfully represented Anucha Browne Sanders in her sexual harassment case against Isiah Thomas and MSG. After Vladeck and Sanders won at trial, the parties settled the case -- including all appeals -- for a cool $11.5 million.

Back to the Schoenfeld case. Sources close to the case inform us that the parties have resolved the case, and it will be formally closed in the near future. It hasn't been dismissed yet, as you can see when you check the S.D.N.Y. docket (1:07-cv-11431-HB), where the last entry is the pretrial scheduling order. But the parties have an agreement in principle to settle, and it will be papered up soon.

We reached Todd Girshon of Jackson Lewis, counsel to Allen & Overy, by phone. He offered a "no comment" (although we detected a faint hint of amusement in his voice as he said it). We've left telephone and email messages for Anne Vladeck, counsel to Norman Schoenfeld. We haven't heard back from her yet, but we'll let you know if and when we do.

We must confess that, although we're happy to see the parties resolve their differences, we're sad that we won't get to write more about this case. As you may recall, when the story first broke, we thought that it might turn into "the Jewish version of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell." It looks like that won't be happening. No tales of "bending over," boiled hard drives, or boasts of representing Nazis -- just a quiet settlement. What began with a bang has ended with a whimper.

In other Allen & Overy news, the New York office has a new managing partner. Congratulations to Kevin O'Shea, who assumed leadership of the New York office effective May 1. Presumably he's glad to have this lawsuit behind the firm as he takes the reins at A&O - NY.

Update: The firm has confirmed news of the imminent settlement. See here.

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: The Jewish Version of Charney v. S&C?
Schoenfeld v. Allen & Oy-vey-ry: We've Got Close to Bupkis
Schoenfeld v. Allen & Oy-vey-ry: A&O's Answer

We were tempted to give you a scandalous photo of a Catholic schoolgirl with this post, but we thought a heavenly Will Ferrell was funnier. Now, on to Catholic School News.

We've been following the trials and tribulations of Ave Maria School of Law for some time now. The school even has its own category tag on ATL.

In the latest news, reported by Julie Kay in the National Law Journal, more than a dozen faculty members have left since the February 2007 decision to move the school from Ann Arbor, Michigan, to Ave Maria, Florida (a town founded by Domino's founder and school head Thomas Monaghan):

The brain drain at the school has been devastating, [tenured professor Richard Myers] said.

"There were 20 full-time people on the faculty a year-and-a-half ago," he said. "Next year there will be five of that group left teaching full-time. That's a dramatic change."

The law school has been actively trying to recruit new teachers, Myers said, with only limited success. The school recently hired a tax professor and a visiting professor, he said.

Prospective law school students may want to steer clear until Ave Maria gets back on track. The extensive list of the departed faculty members is available below the fold.

In other Catholic law school news, we reported earlier this month on St. Thomas's decision not to let students complete their pro bono requirement at organizations with missions that conflict with Catholic values. If you choose to go to a Catholic school for its ranking and not its religious mission, don't expect sympathy if you gripe to your friends about the school imposing its values on you. In our poll, over 57% of the 1,726 voters supported St. Thomas's decision.

More discussion, after the jump.

This is slightly off the legal beat. But these days, everyone is talking about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- including lots of law professors (like Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds). And we also know how much you enjoy controversy over commencement speakers, especially at Northwestern University (where Jerry Springer is speaking at the law school's commencement this year).

So, with those connections in mind, here's some interesting news from late last week:

In a highly unusual move in the academic world, Northwestern University in suburban Chicago has publicly disinvited the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright from its June commencement ceremonies, where he was to receive an honorary degree.

It's another indication of the rolling repercussions of the retiring African American pastor's inflammatory comments on America, 9/11, race relations, the AIDs epidemic and Illinois' junior senator, Barack Obama.

From Northwestern's statement:

Dr. Wright was quoted as saying that his invitation to receive an honorary degree was withdrawn by Northwestern President Henry Bienen because Dr. Wright “wasn’t patriotic enough.” If Dr. Wright was quoted accurately, that statement is not true. In his conversation and correspondence with Dr. Wright in March, President Bienen never characterized Dr. Wright’s views or made a judgment about them. The letter said, “In light of the controversy surrounding statements made by you that have recently been publicized, the celebratory character of Northwestern’s commencement would be affected by our conferring of this honorary degree. Thus I am withdrawing the offer of an honorary degree previously extended to you.”

So, readers, any thoughts -- on Northwestern's withdrawn invitation, or on Reverend Wright more generally? Might he have a cause of action against Northwestern arising out of his "dis-invitation"?

(No, we don't seriously think that. But we're trying to give this post some connection to the law, however tenuous. And we figured that those of you who are studying for final exams might appreciate the challenge of trying to come up with a legal theory for such a lawsuit. Go ahead -- spot those issues!)

Collected Jeremiah Wright coverage [Althouse]
Statement Regarding the Rev. Dr. Wright [Northwestern University]
Jeremiah Wright axed from honorary degree by Northwestern U. [Top of the Ticket / Los Angeles Times]
Clyburn Blasts Wright for 'Knee-Capping' Obama [The Trail / Washington Post]

Catholic law schools uphold two legal regimes: the laws of the U.S. legal system, and the laws from the big guy upstairs. Some students are just there for the former, and discomforted by the influence of the latter.

A tipster writes to us about a debate at Minnesota's St. Thomas School of Law. We notice that in their motto -- "Faith, Reason, Community" -- faith comes first. So students probably should have expected something like this:

At Minnesota's new law school, St. Thomas, the students have a 50-hour pro bono requirement. The school just announced that students can't get credit if they do pro bono work for an organization that supports birth control or abortion. It seems kind of goofy.

The Minnesota Post (via Minnesota Lawyer Blog) has an article about a St. Thomas student who tried to fulfill her pro bono requirement at Planned Parenthood. Though she got approval from the student board, Dean Thomas Mengler shot it down:

Mengler announced in a campuswide letter that students would not receive credit for volunteering at Planned Parenthood or any other organization "whose mission is fundamentally in conflict with a core value of a Catholic university."

"As a Catholic university, we have a right and a responsibility to be Catholic," Mengler said in an interview on Tuesday. "Certainly, one of (the church's) core values is sanctity of life."

See also today's Minnesota Star-Tribune (via Mirror of Justice, a leading Catholic legal theory blog).

St. Thomas isn't the only law school struggling to balance secular influences and religious traditions. We recently received an e-mail from a Georgetown alum who tried to direct his donation to the school's pro-choice campus group. They turned him down -- see the e-mail exchange after the jump.

UST Law has unplanned controversy over volunteer credits [Minnesota Lawyer Blog]
Quote of the Year [Mirror of Justice]
Volunteer-credits decision sparks debate at St. Thomas law school [Minnesota Post]
Student's volunteer mission is latest row at St. Thomas [Minnesota Star-Tribune]

The Florida Senate has its eyes on the road this month. A few weeks back, they passed legislation imposing a $60 fine on truck nutz. Now, they're denying Christians the right to their own vanity license plates. No nutz, no crosses... what fun is left for Florida drivers?

The vanity plates are being nixed because of that whole pesky separation of church and state thing. From CNN:

A license plate that would have become the first in the nation to prominently feature a religious symbol is unlikely to be on the road any time soon after state lawmakers did not include it in a bill Tuesday.

The plate, which included an image of a Christian cross, stained-glass window and the words "I Believe," is not in legislation passed late Tuesday that's now headed to the governor.

Opponents of the plate said approving it would result in a court challenge because it violated the separation of church and state and gave the appearance the state was endorsing a particular religious preference.

Supporters of the religious license plate say that not allowing it is restricting free speech. We say, just get a decal!

In other license plate news, Missouri's planning to roll out license plates with a grammatical error, because "the people want it that way," according to the Missouri Department of Revenue. Instead of the "Show-Me State," the state's nickname reads "Show Me State." Maybe they should change the state's nickname to "Show Me How To Use a Compound Modifier."

Florida's 'I Believe' plates hit roadblock [CNN]
I BELIEVE tag hits speed bump (rejoice) [Legal Satyricon]
New plates lack hyphen in Show-Me [News-Leader]

The law firm of Latham & Watkins has lots of things going for it: eye-popping profits, ample prestige, and a promise of no layoffs. What more could you ask for?

How about.... a powerful and glamorous client, with deep connections in Hollywood? Reported over at Radar Online:

Recently, Radar reported on Scientology's short-lived attempt to beat its Guy Fawkes mask-clad antagonists "Anonymous" at their own game: scary YouTube videos. A clip posted by a Sciento associate under the name "AnonymousFacts" displayed the names and personal information of several supposed Anonymous members and accused the group of violent threats and terrorism. YouTube quickly took the video down and suspended AnonymousFacts. But the hassle for at least one of the three men shown didn't end there.

A little more than a week ago, Jonathan (he asked his last name not be repeated again), who'd joined a Facebook group called "I Support Anonymous" and attended their protests, answered a knock at the door of his parents' L.A.-area home, where he lives while attending community college. A mustachioed man in a suit and claiming to be from the law firm of Latham and Watkins was holding a "file" and asked to speak to Jonathan's parents by name, he recently told Radar. He told the mystery man his parents weren't available and offered to take the package for them. "No," the man said. "I can't legally give this to you." Jonathan shrugged and told him to come back later. That's when things got weird.

Later a friend of the family came over and said Mr. Mustachio was hanging out in front of the house and had asked her if she was Jonathan's mom. When she said no, he waited until Jonathan's parents did arrive, then handed them the file and said, "This is a courtesy letter. No charges are being filed yet. But your son may be involved in terrorist activity." And then he left. Inside the package was a letter accusing Jonathan of terrorism and a DVD copy of the YouTube video, he says.

Sounds like a pretty fun assignment for a junior associate -- anything to get out of the office. But the "Church" denies this ever happened:

A Church of Scientology spokesperson says the group does employ various lawyers across the country to deal with what she tells Radar are "acts of violence, terrorism, and death threats," but adds, "It is not true that lawyers from any firm representing the Church have visited anyone. If anyone is suggesting otherwise, that is false."

We've contacted Latham for comment. We'll let you know if and when we hear back from them.

Update: We have our doubts about the firm's involvement. Writes a commenter:

It is highly unlikely that the person hounding this kid is actually from Latham. Scientologists have a policy (called the "Fair Game" policy) that allows them to lie, cheat, impersonate, physically threaten/assault, etc. if it will further the aims of the "church". Although that policy was ostensibly cancelled at some point (in name only), scientologists continue to live by it in practice. It's pretty much guaranteed that the man with the file was not from Latham but was instead a scientology poser.

Seriously--would an associate from Latham actually serve papers on anyone? F**k, no. We use process servers!!

We feel bad for Latham. Some imposter is going around making it look like they represent the Church of Scientology. And their lawyers have mustaches.

Further Update: Or maybe Latham DOES represent the Church of Scientology? See here. (Gavel bang: commenter.)

We have reiterated our inquiry to Latham concerning whether or not the firm represents the Church of Scientology. We'll let you know what we find out. (They did not respond to an earlier request for comment on this subject.)

Final Update: Read more in this update.

'Anonymous' Kid Outed by Scientologists Gets House Call [Fresh Intelligence: Radar Online]

Palm Sunday is this coming weekend, and Easter isn't far away. So please indulge us as we go on a little religious digression.

The Vatican just rolled out seven new deadly sins. From the Telegraph:

Failing to recycle plastic bags could find you spending eternity in Hell, the Vatican said after drawing up a list of seven deadly sins for our times.

The seven, which include polluting the environment, were announced by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a close ally of the Pope and the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Roman Curia's main court....

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, mortal sins are a "grave violation of God's law" and bring about "eternal death" if unrepented by the act of confession.

One ATL reader, who sounds a bit like a sentencing geek, observes: "In addition to providing Nino with a new tranche of doctrinal fodder, it takes the average soft-core sinner right out of sinner-safety-valve territory."

So what are these seven new, deadly sins?

Mgr Girotti said genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs were all mortal sins.

Some Biglaw partners "carry[] out experiments on humans," i.e., hapless associates. Some lawyers -- e.g., Biglaw partners, top trial lawyers -- "becom[e] obscenely wealthy." Many lawyers, as well as paralegals, "pollut[e] the environment" -- remember all the times you didn't recycle Westlaw print-outs? -- and "tak[e] drugs" occasionally (or regularly).

But since not all of you are Roman Catholic, you might not put much stock in the Holy See's list. So we've tried to adapt it, by coming up with a "Seven Deadly Sins" list for law-firm life.

Check it out, after the jump.

The Magic Circle law firm of Allen & Overy, defendant in Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy, has just filed its Answer (PDF). They're hoping to make Norman Schoenfeld's claims disappear. Schoenfeld, an observant Jewish lawyer who once worked at the firm, alleges that A&O discriminated and retaliated against him as a result of his observing the Sabbath.

We contacted the firm for comment. Here is their statement:

Allen & Overy denies all allegations of discrimination. This person's employment was terminated based solely on performance within his orientation period, a trial period of time mandated for all employees. He also failed to disclose to Allen & Overy the fact of his previous employment at another law firm.

Our firm has a strict written policy prohibiting any form of discrimination, and we provide all new employees and partners training in both diversity awareness and harassment prevention. Over the past several years, we have also instituted live diversity training for all of our existing attorneys and managers. We will vigorously defend our proud reputation of diversity and inclusion and are confident of a positive outcome for Allen & Overy with respect to these allegations.

More discussion, including interesting information from tipsters, after the jump.

Update (5/9/08): The case is settling. See here.

Back in December -- around the holidays, so many of you may have missed it -- we wrote about Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy. It's a lawsuit brought by Norman Schoenfeld, an observant Jewish lawyer who once worked in the New York office of Allen & Overy. Schoenfeld claims, among other things, that A&O discriminated and retaliated against him as a result of his observing the Sabbath.

Since then, we've received many requests for updates. This message is representative:

"Is there any news on this lawsuit? As a Sabbath observant 2L, this is of interest to me and many of my friends. A post on ATL providing an update would be appreciated. Love the site. Thanks."

We're not aware of any procedural developments in the case. And we sadly didn't receive much in response to our request for firsthand information about Norman Schoenfeld or Allen & Overy in New York. Here's the most interesting tip we received -- some opinions from an A&O associate:

"That this suit goes on is beyond anyone here at A&O. I did not know this Schoenfeld guy much for the five minutes he worked here and don’t know if his complaint has merit. I will say this though: associates don't want to work with Mark Wojciechowski and are asking not to work with him."

"He told A&O he was bringing associates from Mayer Brown; MB associates refused to come work with him. Better to stay on a sinking ship like MB NY than work for a nightmare like Mark Woj...."

"No one can understand how firm management let this happen (rumor is that A&O already fired their first outside counsel). Recruitment of NY lawyers is badly affected and we just wait to see how much this costs the firm in damages (and associates of course since all s**t gets passed down – you know the partners won’t take the hit in their pocket)."

We contacted the firm for comment, but they didn't have anything to add.

If you have any firsthand information to pass along about the events in question, please email us. Thanks.

Complaint: Norman Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy (PDF)

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: The Jewish Version of Charney v. S&C?

Our favorite bride this week is one we don't get to write about. Rachel Berkowitz is a professional organizer who "helps individuals and businesses to organize closets, filing systems and offices and to move and pack." And if you're not a little bit turned on by that, we want to see your underwear drawer.

On the legal-eagle front, three Fordham JDs (at least) and a Sunday school teacher make this our first Catholic-themed week here at LEWW.

The contenders:

1. Sandra Zucker and Joshua Bennett

2. Mari-Claudia Jiménez and Steven Coffey

3. Laura Brown and Brian Vogt

More about these couples, after the jump.

We have to step out for a bit (company holiday party). We've only skimmed this Complaint (PDF), just filed in the Southern District of New York, by a Jewish lawyer against his former employer, Allen & Overy.

Check out the Complaint for yourself, by clicking here (PDF), and offer your thoughts in the comments. We look forward to reviewing your reflections when we return.

P.S. A special request: nicknames for this lawsuit, a la "Brokeback Lawfirm" for the Aaron Charney case, are especially welcome.

Complaint: Norman Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy (PDF)

Update: Here is the firm's statement, emailed to us by a spokesperson:

Allen & Overy denies all allegations of discrimination. This person's employment was terminated based solely on performance within his orientation period, a trial period of time mandated for all employees. He also failed to disclose to Allen & Overy the fact of his previous employment at another law firm.

Our firm has a strict written policy prohibiting any form of discrimination, and we provide all new employees and partners training in both diversity awareness and harassment prevention. Over the past several years, we have also instituted live diversity training for all of our existing attorneys and managers. We will vigorously defend our proud reputation of diversity and inclusion and are confident of a positive outcome for Allen & Overy with respect to these allegations.

We'll write more about this later. If you have any firsthand information to pass along about the events in question, please email us. Thanks.

(Yes, this is old news. But as we explained earlier, today is Remedial Blogging Day at ATL.)

Surely you recall Adam M. Key, the 2L at Regent University School of Law who's engaged in a public battle with the law school administration over free speech issues. For background on his story, in case you haven't been following it, read this ABC News story. Or ATL's two-part interview with Mr. Key, available here and here.

Anyway, even if Adam Key isn't in law school right now -- he's been suspended -- he is back in the news. From the ABA Journal:

A Regent University law student has sued the school for suspending him after he posted an online photo of school president Pat Robertson with his middle finger extended [above right]. Robertson was scratching his face with his middle finger in the photo, posted on student Adam Key’s Facebook page, but the gesture appeared to be obscene.

The suit, filed in federal court in Houston where Key lives, claims the school suspended Key without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Virginian-Pilot puts the period of Key’s suspension at one year while the Tex Parte blog says it is two years.

More after the jump.

(We realize this is old news, but we're declaring this Remedial Blogging Day at ATL. We have a few other slightly stale stories that we may write up later today, if it continues to be a slow news day.)

Judge Harold Baer (S.D.N.Y.) was once nominated as a hottie of the federal judiciary. Alas, he didn't win.

But in a competition for hotheadedness rather than hotness, Judge Baer might fare better. From a very interesting article by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal:

A Manhattan federal judge has delivered a lengthy manifesto against declining civility in the legal profession in the course of sanctioning law firm Dorsey & Whitney and two of its partners.

Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer opened his 129-page decision with a discussion of how "naked competition and singular economic focus of the marketplace have begun to infiltrate the practice of law, subordinating the high standards of service, collegiality and professionalism as a result."

He ended it with his observation that "partners are at times made and retained for their rainmaking skills and not for their legal skill, that the number of billable hours is not only the alpha and omega of bonuses but that these hours -- or at least the ones that count -- often exclude pro bono hours, or that who gets credit for originating a piece of business can throw a firm into turmoil and prompt internecine struggles, or that the bottom line has eclipsed most everything else for which the practice of law stands or stood to the extent that the practice of law is now frequently described as a business rather than a profession."

Usually when a federal judge tears you a new one, you just grin and bear it. Or maybe go out and buy some Preparation H.

But the lawyer who was the subject of Judge Baer's ire actually struck back. Read more, after the jump.

Because it's much better to have a toy manufacturer as an enemy than an angry mob of club-wielding Sudanese. Here's the latest news about the whole "Teddy Bear named Mohammed" controversy, from the Daily Mail (via Drudge):

Thousands of Islamic fanatics wielding clubs and knives are marching through the streets of Khartoum demanding the execution of teddy bear teacher Gillian Gibbons.

As the mother-of-two started a 15-day prison term, protestors left mosques across the Sudanese capital to denounce the "lenient verdict" and call for the death penalty.

For those of you who haven't been following the story, here's some background:

Mrs Gibbons, a divorced mother-of-two, was arrested on Sunday and on Wednesday charged with insulting Islam, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

It came after seven-year-old pupils chose to call a teddy bear Mohammed at the Unity High School in Khartoum, where she had worked since August.

During the court case behind closed doors yesterday it was revealed that the school's office assistant, Sara Khawad, had complained to the education authorities - leading to the teacher's arrest.

In a statement read to court, Mrs Gibbons tearfully stressed she had not meant to cause offence and pointed out that it had been her pupils who had chosen the name.

Executing someone for naming a Teddy Bear "Mohammed" might raise an Eighth Amendment issue. But we don't think they have that over in Sudan.

Thousands of Islamic fanatics wielding knives demand jailed teddy bear teacher is executed [Daily Mail]

* Seventh Circuit to lawyer: What is this, amateur hour? [TaxProf Blog]

* Some more full length attorney bio pics. [Groom Law Group]

* Speaking of the whole Mac-PC thing... [Choate Hall & Stewart LLP]

* Former Congressman blows by the cops while getting blown, then refuses to blow. [Times Union]

* Ah jeez, the nuns too? [New York Times]

Late last night, we conducted an interview (over instant messenger) with Adam Key, a 2L at Regent University School of Law who's now engaged in a public battle with the law school administration over free speech issues. For background on his story, in case you haven't been following it, see here and here.

We enjoyed our conversation with Adam Key, who impressed us as a highly articulate, intelligent, and thoughtful individual. Here's the first half of the interview; the second will appear this afternoon.

Thanks for agreeing to chat!

You're totally welcome.

What’s the current state of play between you and Regent? The last we read, they were making you undergo this mental health evaluation.

The current state is that Regent has suspended me and banned me from campus pending a forced psychiatric evaluation, but only by a physician approved by them. This move is reminiscent of tactics used by Hitler and Stalin to discredit those who opposed them with legitimate arguments by declaring them insane.

Wow, so they pick the physician? Seems pretty dubious. But are you going to agree – what choice do you have?

That's correct. Keep in mind, this is the same school that published law review articles relying on sources like Paul Cameron, the man kicked out of the American Psychological Association for deliberately falsifying data in order to further his cause. I would gladly consider an evaluation by a legitimate psychiatrist that is entirely unaffiliated with Regent.

However, as I have repeatedly emphasized, I will undergo this psychiatric exam after Regent forces Pat Robertson to undergo one. Truly, what's crazier... disagreeing with the administration, or hearing voices that tell you about hurricanes that don't happen, and the impending apocalypse?

Ha, excellent line (re: Robertson).

Yeah, I can't believe Pat thinks I'm crazy.

More after the jump.

Last week, we brought you the tale of Adam Key, a heavily tattooed 2L fighting the powers that be at Regent University School of Law.

Now, here's an update, from the Virginian-Pilot:

A Regent University law student who posted an unflattering photo of Regent President Pat Robertson on his Facebook page has been indefinitely suspended pending a psychiatric evaluation.

Adam M. Key was told by a dean in an e-mail Friday that he was concerned about Key's "emotional well-being" and that several students have recently expressed concern about Key's "interpersonal behavior."

The students "have reported, among other things, that you said that you brought a gun on campus, which is a violation of University policy," said the e-mail, signed by L.O. Natt Gantt, the law school's associate dean for student affairs.

But Key -- who, by the way, appears to have commented on our last post -- says this is a bunch of b.s. completely untrue:

Key said he has never brought a gun on campus or told fellow students that he had. "I've never owned or carried a gun," he said....

"This is an effort to discredit me by drawing attention draw away from" the free-speech issue, Key said Friday. "It's insulting to imply that someone who has different opinions from the university is emotionally unstable."

A little bit more, after the jump.

The most famous student or graduate of Regent University School of Law, the conservative law school founded by the American televangelist Pat Robertson, is probably the fabulous Monica Goodling. If you're on Facebook, you can join her fan club here.

But a husky, heavily tattooed freak-show 2L is giving La Goodling a run for her money. From the Virginian-Pilot:

Regent University officials have threatened to discipline a law student for posting on his Facebook page an unflattering photo of Regent President Pat Robertson.

The student, Adam M. Key, defended his action as constitutionally protected free speech in a 14-page legal brief he presented to the dean of the law school.

Regent officials gave Key two choices: publicly apologize for posting the picture and refrain from commenting about the matter in a “public medium,” or write a brief defending the posting. He faces punishment that could include expulsion.

Key, a second-year law student, said he refused to apologize and “be muzzled” by the university, so he composed the document, which includes citations from noted First Amendment cases.

More after the jump.

It's not as great as this lawyer ad. Nor does it rise to the level of the Nixon Peabody non-theme song.

But this lawyer advertisement, spotted in a Houston area convenience store, is pretty cute. And in a world in which software license agreements have choice-of-law clauses like this one, who's to say that it won't be effective?

(The attorney behind the ad is Wayne Heller, who appears to be a solo practitioner focused on criminal defense work.)

Trust me, I know... [Flickr]
Wayne A. Heller [FindLaw Lawyer Directory]

Time for a quick update on a recent Lawsuit of the Day -- the case filed by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, against God. Yes, God.

From the AP (via TaxProf Blog):

A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response.

One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.

"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here -- poof!" Friend said.

Or maybe the court clerks didn't notice when it was dropped off, since they were too busy gabbing about why Tyra picked a chick with Asperger's for America's Next Top Model.

More after the jump.