Just a quick reminder about an interesting event, previously mentioned in these pages, which is taking place in a few hours. The ABA Journal, which just profiled U.S. News "rankings czar" Bob Morse, is hosting a live chat with him this afternoon. From Edward Adams of the ABA Journal:

Morse will be taking questions from the public on ABAJournal.com on Friday, April 11, from 3 to 4 p.m. ET. We hope you and your readers will participate.

More from the Journal:

Robert Morse, the man who created the law school rankings for U.S. News, offers an olive branch to law school deans who have long complained about the effect of the rankings on legal education. “Deans are welcome to call me or come by my office in Washington,” Morse says. “I want to work with them to improve the rankings.”

Some deans and former deans think they should engage the magazine, rather than just complain about it. “I think rankings need to be changed, and the only way that will happen is if law school deans sit down with Bob Morse for honest discussion,” says Nancy Rapoport, who resigned as dean of the University of Houston Law Center after her school dropped almost 20 points in the rankings. “I would attend a meeting like that without hesitation.”

So unhappy law school deans, here's your chance. You can already submit "questions" -- defined in academia as rambling screeds, concluded with "and what do you think of all this?" -- by clicking here. Or just visit the ABA Journal's home page at 3 PM Eastern time.

Additional links about the U.S. News rankings not mentioned in our earlier coverage, after the jump.

As we reported earlier this week, the latest U.S. News & World Report law school rankings are out. And some schools are flipping out over their falling rankings. A tipster at the University of Iowa College of Law writes:

[B]elow is an email the Iowa law students received yesterday from Dean Jones about the new US News & World Report rankings. Apparently our dean is setting up small group meetings with the students. No faculty. No other administration. Methinks this may be somewhat of a divide and conquer strategy. These meetings may be in part a result of the newly formed Facebook group "Stop the Bleeding at Iowa Law."

My favorite part, though, is that the "faculty" have dubbed their concern about the rankings "Project Apollo." Well, if they're not going to do anything about it, at least they can come up with a secret, clever code name, so it looks in hindsight like they've been planning D-Day part 2. Bravo profs and administration, you've really impressed me this time.

Dean Jones's email appears after the jump. Meanwhile, a source at University at Buffalo Law School reports:

For the return on investment -- a Biglaw job for $13k a year in tuition (for the top of the class) -- many students were OK with the shortcomings of this law school. [But] with T3 looking over our shoulder, some fellow students are contemplating jumping ship....

It's hard to justify leaving for debt-ridden T25 greener pastures when L. Rev. and a market-paying job in the City are likely. No one likes to be on the Titanic, though.

The message sent to the Buffalo student body by interim dean Makau Mutua, after the jump.

Update (10:50 AM): Add the University of Minnesota Law School to the list of institutions whose deans are sending out school-wide emails about their declining rankings:

Students at the University of Minnesota Law School received this email today from the two interim co-deans. It's pretty hilarious that they try to claim we are still a top 20 school even though we are now ranked #22. It's particularly amusing that they have decided to "address the particular factors that caused a decline this year."

The email from the school's two interim co-deans, after the jump.

Update (11:10 AM): From a source at UNC School of Law:

Since you're posting panicked USN&WR reactions, add this one to your list. You know it's bad when you have to respond in Latin.

Dean Boger's email, after the jump.

Relax, folks. We are aware that the 2009 law school rankings of U.S. News & World Report have leaked, in advance of their official Friday publication date. They're all over the blogosphere and the message boards (links collected below).

We've been sitting on this item for a little while -- coordinating with our other posts this morning, taking into account our traffic patterns, etc. There is a method to our madness.

Ideally we'd hold this item even longer (which would allow us to do a more detailed write-up). But it's clear that you're all dying to talk about the rankings RIGHT NOW. And we don't want to get any more emails and comments of the "why aren't you writing about U.S. News" variety.

So here you go. Rankings and discussion, after the jump (i.e., click on the "Continue reading" link below).

As many of you may recall, from our prior coverage of him, Jonathan Lee Riches is in a South Carolina prison until 2012 for wire fraud and conspiracy. He's killing his time by filing a ridiculous number of ridiculous lawsuits in courts across the country, nicely summarized in this overview of his oeuvre, in the Fulton County Daily Report:

Thirty-nine percent of the 491 cases filed so far this month in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia have been filed by one man: Jonathan Lee Riches.

Among the defendants to his 192 suits are former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his wife, Silda; the firms Pepper Hamilton and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Hooters of America; Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc.; and investment banker Bruce Wasserstein. Riches' celebrity targets include actors Anne Heche, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones; musicians Cyndi Lauper and Eddie Van Halen; and Braves pitcher Tom Glavine.

Riches has alleged that Eliot Spitzer "used the fines [from corporate convictions] to pay for prostitutes," that the MacArthur Foundation froze Riches' inmate account and funneled the money to Spitzer; and that Pepper Hamilton took a $1 million retainer from him and other inmates, but used the money to gamble on the New York Giants.

We wonder if the suit against Cyndi Lauper was about the mental anguish suffered when "Time After Time" gets stuck in your head.

Federal district courts across the country are annoyed at the waste of their man hours and money in processing the complaints. Is he crazy or crazy like a fox? He's garnered a great amount of media attention, as detailed in his Wikipedia entry (and we've written about him extensively in these pages). We surmise that he may be setting himself up as a media commentator on frivolous lawsuits.

Some of Riches' prior complaints have been dismissed, including a $662 trillion suit filed in the Northern District last summer against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. The suit alleged that Vick was attempting to "kidnap" Riches' mind and to force him to lose weight, and demanded that the $662 trillion be delivered -- in "British gold" shipped via truck -- to the front gates of the prison where Riches is incarcerated.

Noting that a trio of other Riches' suits -- in federal courts in Michigan, South Carolina and Florida -- had been dismissed as frivolous, Senior U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. dismissed the suit against Vick in August. He cited 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), the "Three Strikes Rule," which says a prisoner is prohibited from bringing federal civil actions in forma pauperis if, while incarcerated, he has had three other suits dismissed on the grounds of frivolity, malice or failure to state a claim.

There is, however, an exception. The prisoner may file, the statute says, if he's in imminent danger of physical injury.

"[T]his Court finds that none of Plaintiff's farcical assertions in the complaint, including his claim that Michael Vick threw snowballs at his car, qualify as a claim of imminent danger of serious physical injury," Hunt writes in Riches v. Vick, No. 07-13940-J.

Don't worry. We are amused, but we promise not to bring him on as a guest blogger at ATL.

Inmate's Frequent Filings Take On Targets Ranging From Spitzer to Van Halen [Fulton County Daily Report via Law.com]

Marc J. Randazza fills us in on the Texas sex toy ban, just struck down by the Fifth Circuit. According to Marc, the arguments for outlawing the sale of toys for your pleasure-parts are thus:

(1) If the Texas dildo law is invalidated as an improper encroachment upon personal liberty, this will open the floodgates, and laws on bigamy and incest will be struck down too.

(2) Striking down the law “impermissibly overrides state lawmakers’ settled ‘authority to regulate commercial activity they deem harmful to the public’” (naturally citing a dissenting opinion from the 11th Circuit).

Marc slams the arguments for his own well-articulated reasons at the link. To us, the first argument is a slippery (heh) slope argument, which is usually a weak logical tactic. The second argument is stronger, although we’d like to see a list of reasons why sex toys are so harmful.

It is still illegal to sell sex toys in Alabama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an Alabama case in 2007 on the subject, so the lower court’s ruling (upholding the ban) remains intact. This quote, from Alabama store owner Sherri Williams (the store’s name is “Pleasures”) sums up the passion of people across the Southland who find the ban ridiculous:

“My motto has been they are going to have to pry this vibrator from my cold, dead hand. I refuse to give up,” she said.

You go, girl. By contrast, guns are perfectly legal in both states.
Texas -- Still Obsessed With Dildos [Legal Satyricon]

We respectfully submit that the powers-that-be at O'Melveny & Myers need to "chill" (as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) recently told former President Bill Clinton).

The folks at OMM apparently have some totalitarian tendencies. We heard they no-offered a summer associate from last year based on this individual's personal blogging about the summer associate experience (which didn't even mention the firm by name). And now we hear this rumor (by phone and by email, from multiple sources):

[T]he firm is furious about (true) comments sent to ATL about the firm's poor performance and underhanded layoffs. Apparently, the fire rages so much so that OMM is dead set on a witch hunt to find the associate(s) who leaked the goings on to ATL.

Both the firm's tech department and outside techies have been enlisted to figure out which associate's computer the comments were sent from. OMM associates are now scared to even check your site while at work (though of course are keeping in the loop through home computers).

We contacted the firm for comment. We haven't heard back from them as of the time of this posting.

We know next to nothing about labor and employment law. But to the labor lawyers among you, here's a hypothetical:

You're a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You're a lawyer -- a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn't have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us. Or if you're a labor and employment lawyer, feel free to opine in the comments.

P.S. We're experiencing mysterious technical difficulties this afternoon, so this may be our last post in a while. Maybe OMM is hacking ATL?

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of O'Melveny & Myers (scroll down)

Okay, it's not a "layoff," since it's not due to economic pressures. Rather, it's due to his being a total asshat judicial record and temperament -- and maybe a certain infamous lawsuit he filed.

From the Washington Post:

Roy L. Pearson Jr., whose $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry-cleaning shop was rejected in court, is about to lose his job as an administrative law judge, sources said last night.

A city commission voted yesterday against reappointing Pearson to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings, which hears cases involving various D.C. boards and agencies. Pearson, who was up for a 10-year term, had tried to hold on to the job.

Expect the litigious Pearson to fight any refusal to reappoint him:

If the panel carries out its decision against reappointing him, Pearson, 57, could take the case to the D.C. Court of Appeals. In a separate filing, he is asking the appellate court to overturn the decision in the dry-cleaning case.

The sources said that had Pearson's term not ended this May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners, he might have kept the job. His term has expired, but Pearson has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Judge Set to Lose Job, Sources Say [Washington Post]

First the case of the $54 million pants was dismissed. And now another ridiculous but amusing lawsuit, previously covered here and here, bites the dust.

From a piece by Sheri Qualters for the National Law Journal:

The federal court battle over a Massachusetts bar examination question about homosexual marriage has ended with the court accepting the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case.

On Oct. 9, a Massachusetts federal judge granted Stephen Dunne's request to dismiss his case against the bar examination testing agency, the state Supreme Judicial Court and four individual justices over a question on the state's bar exam concerning homosexual marriage.

In a lawsuit filed in June, Dunne claimed he failed the Massachusetts bar examination because he didn't answer a question about homosexual marriage.

The website Stephen Dunne launched to help fund the case, www.christianlawsuit.com, has been taken down. Will refunds be issued to the people who donated money to the cause -- all three of them?

P.S. You can view the court's fascinating dismissal order here (PDF, via Keeping Up With Jonas).

Plaintiff withdraws complaint over bar exam's gay-marriage question [National Law Journal]
Stephen Dunne's Long Legal Nightmare Is Finally Over [Keeping Up With Jonas]
Dunne Wishes He Could Quit His Lawsuit [Keeping Up With Jonas]

Earlier: Fail the Bar, Blame the Gays, Sue for Millions!
Update: Fail the Bar, Blame the Gays, Solicit Donations for Lawsuit!

This email exchange, between two law students at Washington University Law, took place late last month. It's reminiscent of that Greenberg Traurig email exchange from the other day -- which, in our book, is high praise.

Some background, from our tipster:

I'm an avid reader of ATL. Although I don't see much law school coverage on your site, I thought you might find this email string between a couple Washington University in St. Louis law students amusing.

Note that the email string starts as a solicitation sent to the entire school, marketing a washer/dryer for sale. The proceeding communications are also copied to the ENTIRE school of law (including professors, deans, etc.).

Check it out, after the jump.

Sadly, the humorless crew over at Nixon Peabody has had their fabulous law firm song -- which, mind you, is NOT a theme song -- pulled from YouTube. See here.

Even if it's gone from YouTube, you can still access "Everyone's A Winner" as a plain-vanilla MP3 file. Just click here. We incorporate by reference all of our prior commentary on the song.

This memorable tune will also live on in the blogosphere. Numerous fine websites and blogs picked up on the story of the Nixon Peabody song controversy. Here are a few links:

1. Law Firms, the Blogosphere, and Unexpected Attention [Volokh Conspiracy (Orin Kerr)]

2. That ridiculous Nixon Peabody “theme song” was for real [Daily Intelligencer / New York Magazine]

3. Wow. Big law is so lame. With a capital "L" [Legal Antics (Nicole Black)]

4. Nixon Peabody Throws Fantastic Tantrum: Threatens Blogger Over Leaked Song [Keeping Up With Jonas]

5. Blogger contends posting silly leaked law firm song is fair use [ZDNet (Denise Howell)]

6. Everyone's a Winner (or, Friday Music Blog) [PrawfsBlawg (Liz Glazer)]

7. Sorry, but no one involved is a winner [IPTAblog (Andrew Raff)]

8. Best/Worst Law Firm Song. Ever. [the (non)billable hour (Matt Homann)]

9. OMG...The Worst Song Ever [Two Guitar Heroes and a Cat]

10. Everyone Is A Winner At Nixon Peabody [The Dish Daily]

11. Nobody Is Above the Law [Galley Slaves (Jonathan Last)]

If you know of a link that's missing, feel free to email us, and we can add it. Thanks!

Update: Additional links:

12. Sure, your firm just gave you a $25k raise, but do you have a theme song? [Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog]

13. Law Firm Going Crazy to Keep Its Corporate Song Off the Internet [The Startup Lawyer]

14. Law Firm Freaks Out That Ridiculous Corporate Song Leaked Out To Blogs [Techdirt]

15. Re. Nixon Peabody [YouTube (ChurchHatesTucker)]

Everyone's A Winner at Nixon Peabody (mp3 file)

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Nixon Peabody (scroll down)

Since the last coverage of her on ATL, the Energizer-bunny-esque Judge Elizabeth Halverson has been ordered on the inactive list by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.

Following an emotional plea by Halverson in a rare television interview, and a similar public plea by two sexy ex-Halverson staffers (a law clerk and a secretary), the hearing transcripts have been released by the Nevada Supreme Court.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal published a story this morning that basically places the final nail in the 425 500 lb jurist’s cavernous coffin career:

District Judge Elizabeth Halverson's former bailiff testified that she fell asleep daily in court and frequently told him to shoot her husband, according to transcripts of a closed-door hearing that were made public Wednesday.

Yes, you read that right: "frequently told him to shoot her husband."

(Dozing off on the bench is no big deal. Some highly regarded judges do it all the time.)

The balance of the insanity, after the jump.

Here's a story about a rather strange (and weak) recusal motion, from the Daily Business Review:

Fort Lauderdale, Fla., attorney Loring Spolter is accusing U.S. District Judge William Zloch of bias in two employment discrimination cases, citing his deep religious beliefs, and wants the judge removed from the cases.

In a 110-page motion for recusal filed last month, Spolter cited Zloch's hiring of several law clerks from Ave Maria Law School, a donation to the Roman Catholic school and his attendance at several junkets for judges sponsored by conservative organizations.

A 110-page recusal motion? Maybe Judge Zloch will recuse to avoid having to read it.

One local lawyer came to the judge's defense:

Arthur Schofield, a West Palm Beach, Fla., attorney, said Zloch exhibited no bias when he ruled for his client -- a stripper -- last year. She was suing her employer, Platinum Showgirls, for listing her as an independent contractor and refusing to pay her an hourly wage. Zloch ruled she was entitled to hourly pay.

Well, that doesn't prove much. The Bible teaches: "Render unto strippers the things which are strippers'."

Federal Judge Accused of Religious Bias [Daily Business Review]

The story of ALJ Roy Pearson and his $54 million pants isn't over just yet. From the Washington Post:

[T]he small-business owners sued by D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson withdrew their demand that he pay nearly $83,000 for their legal bills, saying that enough money had been raised from supporters to cover the expenses and that they want to end the fighting.

The cleaners want Pearson, who could soon be out of a job, to do the same....

It would make for an ironic conclusion to the case: Pearson effectively benefiting from the generosity of some of the very people who vilified his suit and came to the aid of the Chungs.

No comment from Pearson on the latest news:

Pearson has not responded to requests for comment on developments in the case. Early last night, he could not reached by telephone, and he did not respond to a message sent to his personal e-mail address.

Any guesses on that "personal e-mail address"? Crazypants at hotmail dot com? Or is Judge Pearson cool enough to use Gmail?

Update: Thanks, Mr. and Mrs. Chung, but no thanks. Roy Pearson has filed his notice of appeal.

Dry Cleaners Cut Plaintiff Some Slack [Washington Post via How Appealing]
Pearson to Appeal Pants Verdict [Washington Post]

Summer associate stories. Wacky farewell messages. Two great tastes that go great together.

Some brief background, from a tipster:

This kid was a summer at Davis Polk, and his farewell email has made the rounds in both DC and NYC. For anyone who knows him, it is no surprise....

[He] believes that we should not have a republic, but that an autocratic state would better suit everyone. He usually speaks in latinate phrases like "Hail, brother, farewell," and he would send out emails all summer about obscure historical books to recommend to his fellow summers.

Check out the farewell email, and vote in our poll, after the jump.

To follow up on our earlier post, here's an update on L'Affaire Linda, from the Columbia Journalism Review:

Linda Greenhouse has written a letter in response to C-SPAN in which she defends herself against their accusations. In it she claims that the "issue is not one of 'open media access to public policy discussions,'" as C-SPAN's Terence Murphy wrote in his letter, but "one of communication and simple courtesy."

Ignoring the question of whether she received an email warning her that C-SPAN was going to be present, Greenhouse writes, " I learned about the plan to cover the Supreme Court panel only when I showed up and saw the cameras. Prof. Gajda told me yesterday that she had only learned at 5:00 p.m. the day before that C-Span intended to cover our panel."

Read the rest -- plus a bonus Linda Greenhouse Rap!!! -- after the jump.

We feel better. We're not the only folks who have been rudely dissed by Linda Greenhouse, the longtime op-ed columnist Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times.

From Jim Romenesko's widely read media blog, Poynter Online:

NYT's Greenhouse demands that C-SPAN turn off its cameras
Columbia Journalism Review

The Times' Linda Greenhouse became upset when she realized that C-SPAN planned to broadcast a panel discussion featuring Supreme Court reporters. "I told [the event organizer] she had a choice, either she could have me on the panel speaking candidly or she could have C-SPAN there," Greenhouse tells Gal Beckerman. "I didn't want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience."

C-SPAN's programming veep is unhappy: "All the participants were notified the night before, and no one objected. Then, five to ten minutes beforehand, we were told we couldn't cover it. Having a five-person crew unable to work for a day was a major hit on us."

Wow. To the commenters who have questioned our characterization of Greenhouse as a diva, please reconsider your views.

So why did Linda Greenhouse throw a hissy fit over possible C-SPAN coverage? We have some (quasi-informed) speculation.

Some thoughts and some links, plus the complete protest letter sent by C-SPAN, appear after the jump.

After we put up our post this morning about how Roy Pearson, of $54 million pants fame, might not get reappointed as an administrative law judge, a reader sent us this:

"Note this help wanted ad for a new DC ALJ (from the July 9 edition of the Legal Times)."

"I ask you: Coincidence, or just good planning?"

Hmm... A salary pushing the six-figures, and the ability to call yourself -- or at least make restaurant reservations under -- "judge"? That gig doesn't sound half-bad...

Earlier: Roy Pearson: From Pseudo-Judge To Ex-Pseudo-Judge?

Last week we alluded to the possibility that Roy Pearson, plaintiff in the notorious $54 million pants case, might not be reappointed to his post as an administrative law judge. That possibility is now one step closer to being realized. From the Washington Post:

A city commission has voted to formally notify Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson that he may not be reappointed to the bench, according to a government source.

In a letter sent to Pearson yesterday, the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges cited not only Pearson's infamous failed lawsuit against Custom Cleaners, but his work as a judge the past two years.

So it's not just about the pants. Pearson was also talking trash about his chief:

Concerns about Pearson's temperament as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity about the lawsuit this spring....

In e-mails sent to his fellow judges and cited in the letter, Pearson's contempt for Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone T. Butler was evident. In one of the missives, he spoke of protecting himself from any attempt by Butler "to knife" him. In another, he questioned Butler's competence and integrity.

Talk of a knife fight? Is Roy Pearson a judge, or a summer associate?

David Nieporent, at Overlawyered, sums up the situation nicely: "Apparently trying to destroy a business by using the legal system to extort millions from the owners isn't his big sin; his big sin is being rude to his boss."

Litigious Judge's Future Unclear [Washington Post]
Updates - August 8 [Overlawyered]

Earlier: Roy Pearson: No Justice, No Pants... No Job

Every now and then, we offer you some ATL Practice Pointers.

Today we bring you a legal writing lesson. This is how you write a preliminary statement:

Our tipster wonders:

"Frustrated writer, or just a d-bag? Unfortunately, he did not continue the pirate theme throughout the brief, or even bring it back in the conclusion."

Update: In case you're wondering, this is an excerpt from a brief recently filed in federal district court (District of the Virgin Islands).

Earlier: ATL Practice Pointers (scroll down)

See the Associated Press and the WSJ Law Blog. From the AP:

The $54 million pants, as they've come to be known, were the subject of a widely mocked lawsuit that garnered international attention. Now, they have their own security guard....

On display [at a fundraiser last night] were what the Chungs say are the pants that Roy Pearson brought in, were misplaced, and were later found. The guests had appetizers and cocktails, and under the stern gaze of the security guard, some posed for photos with the pants.

Quips reader Melissa Zawadzki: "Don’t ya just love happy endings?"

The Smithsonian famously dissed Monica Lewinsky's blue dress. But how can they say no to a pair of $54 million pants?

$54M Pants Star in Fundraiser [Associated Press]
The Great American Pants Suit Fundraiser [WSJ Law Blog]