Faithful Coca-Cola drinkers can laugh about this one. PepsiCo is having a rough month, reports the National Law Journal. PepsiCo’s purified water brand, Aquafina, has cost it a pretty penny.

Charles Joyce and James Voigt of Wisconsin sued PepsiCo earlier this year for stealing their idea of bottling and selling purified water. They claim that they had confidential discussions with distributors about the idea in 1981 and that the distributors passed those trade secrets along to Pepsi. It sounds like a bit of a ridiculous lawsuit; PepsiCo calls their accusations “dubious.”

But the Wisconsin men won. They won big. They won $1.26 billion dollars.

How did they win? By default judgment. PepsiCo’s lawyers never responded to the complaint, and the judge awarded the Wisconsin plaintiffs a default judgment.

Why did the Pepsi people never respond? Meet PepsiCo legal secretary, Kathy Henry.

Stephen Snyder is a Maryland trial attorney who has been called “one of the nation’s top litigators.” When you surf into Snyder’s website (www.snyderwins.com), it contains a warning:

Please note: This website may, at first blush, strike you as a bit over-the-top. But it’s not designed to give you pause, or scare you away. It’s simply a reflection of Stephen L. Snyder, the man. His unique personality, creative imagination, and willingness to take risks, has resulted in multiple $100 million-plus recoveries for his clients.

If creating an animated movie featuring yourself as a legal superhero might be considered “a bit over-the-top,” then yes, “Snyderman” is guilty as charged.

“Stephen Snyder, Litigator for Hire,” Website

Tuition at Columbia Law School this year is $48,004 (which doesn’t include $1,638 for health insurance and a $95 “transcript fee”). The estimated living cost for an academic year is $21,263. Putting it all together, students are looking at more than $70,000 for a year of legal education, during the worst recession in the legal industry most people can remember.

You’d think all of that would at least buy you a plastic fork at lunchtime. But you’d be wrong. Tipsters report that Columbia is now charging $.15 for plasticware in the law school cafeteria.

I’ve been doing this job for over a year now, and in that time some pretty petty cutbacks have scrawled across my inbox. But this might be the most outrageous “reverse perk” of all.

Let’s take a stroll through some other recession cutbacks.

Is there something about living in Virginia that gives people an exaggerated sense of self-importance? First, the Lile Moot Court Board at UVA Law appointed itself the résumé police. Now we’re finding out that the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners is drunk with its own power in anticipation of Friday’s release of the July Bar Exam results. Check out this message on the VBBE website:

As a service to Virginia Bar applicants, the Board of Bar Examiners posts the results from the most recent Bar Examination.

This office is working hard on the July 2009 Bar Examination results. Provided no one calls to inquire about the results, we anticipate the results will be posted Friday, October 16, 2009.

A “service”? Isn’t it their job to post bar results? Since when did doing your job quickly and efficiently become a favor?

Meanwhile, why is VBBE threatening to delay the results for everybody if one person simply inquires about the exam? I imagine it’s annoying to have lots of people call in requesting their scores, but why the threats? Threats, especially really petty ones, are bad. Why is this so hard for people in Virginia to understand?

Here’s my advice to the VBBE: post the scores, don’t answer your phone, and then congratulate yourself with a nice bottle of champagne for successfully operating the scantron machine yet again.

Earlier: UVA 3Ls Threaten to Eat Their Young

Our colleagues over at sister site Fashionista aren’t alone. Lawyers also get worked up over shoes.

Some, like former Enron prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler, show up to court in four-inch pink stiletto spikes. Others hate on commuter shoes and Crocs. Attorneys have strong opinions about attire, and that extends to footwear.

So we can’t say we’re completely surprised by a motion recently filed by plaintiffs’ counsel in the case of Lenkersdorf v. Sorrentino, now pending in Florida state court.

Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial — we kid you not — after the jump.

Thomas M. Cooley Law School’s tenth annual Judging the Law Schools rankings are available. (Hat tip: ATL commenters.)

I was not aware that this school list existed. But now that I’ve seen it, I can’t stay the same. The rationale behind this list is rigorous and powerful:

Imagine that college football teams are ranked each year by the quality of the freshman recruits and the pre-season polls of the press and the coaches. Games don’t count, only what people expect, based upon the potential of the high school players and the pre-season assessment of two groups with some involvement in football. Imagine as well that the rankings for the year are determined just once, before the season begins and those players are tested by competition.

Dude, totally. Keep talking, I’ll roll the next one:

That unimaginable scenario is pretty much what happens when law schools are ranked. The quality of the incoming class and the reputation of the schools according to the academics and lawyers control the rankings.

This is just like that time when we were on that thing, and we saw all those little dudes. And they were running man, remember? But where? Where were they going, man? So fast:

Legal education is one of the last places in America where ignorance is used as a basis of judgment (I never heard of it, so how good can it be?) and where subjectivity and bias are actually valued over objectivity and fair-mindedness (this or that school has a good or bad reputation).

I’m totally wigging out.

You will be shocked to learn that Cooley Law School’s “objective” and “fair-minded” list ranks Thomas M. Cooley Law School 12th best, among the 197 ABA-accredited law schools.

See the top 20, plus some notes on Cooley’s methodology, after the jump.

One of the best things about getting a law degree is that you can really help people. People in need who are being railroaded by the system. People in power who are creating jobs for the economy. And occasionally, people suffering from perma-drunk on craigslist.

WANTED FRESH BARRED VA ATTORNEY just graduated college and I was charged with a bull **** drunk in public and vandalism charge in the City of Fairfax. … What I need is an attorney to come with me on my court date Aug 27 to try to talk to the prosecutor and have him drop the charge or lessen it, since this is the first time I have ever been charged with anything and I have paid back the person and there was no way to prove I was legally drunk since I was not tested. … I am looking for fresh attorneys or recently barred attorneys.

I’d make a joke but I am so terrified of getting “barred.”

Ad reprinted in full after the jump

This just in, from a West Coast tipster who has been following L’Affaire Halverson obsessively:

Halverson passes out at hearing; adjourned due to medical reasons. Based on live observations…

Update: More details from the AP:

A disciplinary hearing for a suspended Nevada state judge has been postponed, after she reported she felt ill.

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline suspended the hearing in its fifth day after Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s lawyer said the diabetic judge experienced a hypoglycemic, or low blood sugar, episode.

The hearing is due to resume next Thursday and Friday in Las Vegas.

Further Update: More from our Halverson-obsessed tipster, after the jump.

A reader sends us this party invitation from Hogan & Hartson’s New York office. Perhaps they should move the happy hour to Atrium XXX.

For the clueless among you, see the Urban Dictionary.

Last week, we brought you a dramatic farewell e-mail from Shinyung Oh, who was fired from Paul Hastings after a miscarriage.

This week, we have another farewell e-mail, but this one is light fare for amusement value only. Our tipster says:

A friend at Reed Smith sent me this. It’s AWESOME. Author is staff/office clerk. And yes, he really did start it with “My fellow Americans.”

The Reed Smith staff member is leaving for grad school and e-mailed the entire San Fran office to say goodbye, and share his plans for the future. There are a few JFK quotes. The full e-mail is available after the fold, but here’s a taste:

As you all know, this is my last day with the firm. It has been a very interesting two and a half years and I have gained a lot of insight on the workings of a big corporate law firm. I have found newfound respect and admiration for all the work you do every day in a high-stress, fast-pace environment. However, I feel that this is the right time to move onto a new opportunity and challenge…

In our nation’s current state of affairs, there are many things that need to be changed, such as our diplomacy and image abroad, and I plan on being part of the solution….

I know that my future words and actions will not only represent the U.S., or American University, but also Reed-Smith LLP…

The interests of the American people will become my top priority and someday, I will be looking out for all of you…

Pompous, much?

Former Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson, who infamously sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of pants, is a plaintiff once again. From the Washington Examiner:

The former D.C. judge who was fired after becoming a symbol of runaway litigation for suing over lost pants has claimed he suffered “humiliation” and “physical illness” in a new lawsuit seeking reinstatement and at least $1 million in damages.

In a 52-page lawsuit filed in the D.C. federal court, Roy Pearson claimed that the District and a city judicial commission wrongfully dismissed him for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings, the department where he worked.

Exposing corruption? When it comes to abuse of power, ex-judge Pearson would seem to be Exhibit A. As for the claimed “humiliation,” Pearson brought that upon himself:

During the dry-cleaner trial, Pearson broke down on the stand when he tried to describe how he learned that he’d never see his pants again. The judge ruled in favor of the dry cleaners.

We agree with our friends at DCist: “Does Roy Pearson not have anyone in his life, say a family member or a friend, to smack him upside the head and tell him to stop being so crazy?”

Former judge from ‘pants suit’ sues for $1 million, old job back [Washington Examiner]
Roy Pearson Sues for $1 Million and His Job Back [DCist]

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]

Poor Clifford Chance. It seems they just keep on getting sued. First this. Now this, from the New York Sun:

A Haitian woman is suing one of the world’s largest law firms for $75 million, claiming that the firm used her only as window dressing because of her race, fired her for complaining about it, and finally blacklisted her in the New York law community.

Caroline Memnon, who is black, says in the lawsuit that despite her $125,000 salary as an associate at the New York office of London-based Clifford Chance LLP, she was never given any real work….

After firing her in 2002, Clifford Chance, known at the time as Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, “surreptitiously ‘blackballed’ [her] within the community of New York law firms,” the suit says….

“We believe this claim to be without merit and will be contesting the case,” a Clifford Chance spokeswoman said.

Did Clifford Chance “blackball” her? Or did they just give her a less-than-stellar job reference, which employers are certainly entitled to do? [FN1]

Two other law firms, Chadbourne & Parke and Manatt Phelps & Phillips, both offered Ms. Memnon employment and then withdrew their offers, according to the lawsuit….

[Ms. Memnon] was hired by Sullivan & Worcester’s New York office and began working in February 2007. Sullivan & Worcester terminated her employment that March, though she billed 143 hours in her first three weeks there, which is above the firm’s expectation of 150 hours a month, the suit says.

The shortness of her stay at Sullivan makes one wonder if other issues are at work here. Could Caroline Memnon be another Charlene Morisseau — although probably less fabulous, since the divalicious Morisseau is in a class by herself?

[FN1] Does anyone else remember that Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry David “recommends” someone for a job with Richard Lewis? Larry intends to make the recommendation a tepid one — “recommend,” in scare-quotes — but Richard doesn’t pick up on that. Law firms may be more attentive to such nuances.

Woman Sues Law Firm Over Blacklisting [New York Sun]

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!