Judges who hold people in contempt, or even jail them, for letting their cellphones go off in court -- e.g., Robert Restaino, Diane Boswell -- may be overreacting.

The same can't be said for Judge Janet Booth, of Garrard County, Kentucky. Judge Booth just sent a woman to jail, for three days, for wearing short shorts to court.

This was completely justified. Short shorts do not belong in court. Nor do they belong in the office.

Fashion lesson over. Class dismissed.

P.S. And if you're a guy, don't forget to wear a tie to court -- especially if you're arguing before the Federal Circuit.

Judge jails woman for wearing short shorts [On the beat in the Bluegrass]
Note to West Coast Lawyers: The Federal Circuit Requires a Tie [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Shorts Crack the Code [Dealbreaker]

[Ed. note: This post is by MARIN, one of the finalists in ATL Idol, the "reality blogging" competition that will determine ATL's next editor. It is marked with Marin's avatar (at right).]

Does this sound like your supervising partner?

[He] aggressively and rapidly advanced...with clenched fists, piercing eyes, beet-red face, popping veins, and screaming and swearing. Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 794 (Ind. 2008).

A recent ABA article, "Beyond Traditional Tort Law, 'Desk Rage' is Now a Potential Claim," suggests that in a few "avant-garde" jurisdictions you can sue your boss for being a world-class a**hole. Er, the ABA might want to sign itself up for one of its CLE refresher courses, because the jurisdictions that recognize the new tort are so avant-garde that they do not yet exist.

The article cites Raess as evidence of a "desk rage" cause of action. But in Raess, the court granted judgment for the plaintiff on a traditional assault claim, and merely noted that a jury instruction about workplace bullying was appropriate. Deduct 3 skills credits.

Of course, you can still sue office tyrants under existing legal theories like Title VII (for racist and sexist jerks), intentional infliction of emotional distress (vindictive jerks) and assault (scary jerks). Unfortunately, there's no tort for run-of-the-mill partner jerks who ignore emails or scream at associates.

On that note, stop reading this post and get back to work, you worthless sacks of sh*t.

In case you missed the big news, last week Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft laid off 96 lawyers. This is, as far as we know, the largest lawyer layoff of the current economic cycle.

When combined with the January layoffs, which hit around 35 lawyers, CWT has axed upwards of 130 attorneys. This makes it "America's firingest law firm." (We can't claim credit for that turn of phrase, which was coined by a tipster, but we will try to popularize it through frequent usage.)

As we reported earlier this week, résumés from Cadwalader refugees are flooding the market. But will they find a welcome reception?

Maybe not. Here's an email that a boutique law firm in New York sent to a legal recruiter who tried to submit CWT résumés for an opening:

CORRECTION: Actually, the email was sent to the recruiter UNSOLICITED, not in response to anything. It was apparently sent, out of the blue, to a group of legal recruiters.

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008
To: [Legal Recruiter]
Subject: FW: Resumes

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for staying in touch with our firm. Please note that we are not going to be accepting resumes for Cadwalader candidates.

Thank you,

[Recruiting Contact]
Duval & Stachenfeld | 300 East 42nd Street New York NY 10017

Ouch. Are Cadwalader lawyers now the Untouchables of the law-firm caste system?

Note that this slap in the face comes from Duval & Stachenfeld LLP, which is far from snobby in its hiring practices. It draws heavily from non-top-tier law schools and pays $60,000 starting salaries to its associates.

(It should be noted, however, that the Duval firm is more elitist when it comes to its lateral hiring. As discussed here, for entry-level hiring, the firm looks well beyond the top-tier law schools. But for midlevel and senior associates, it tends to poach from the Skaddens and Lathams of the world -- and pay accordingly.)

P.S. For a more upbeat take on Cadwalader, see Ashby Jones's Legal Beat column in the Wall Street Journal (via the WSJ Law Blog).

UPDATE / CLARIFICATION: We have received a letter from Bruce Stachenfeld, founding partner of Duval & Stachenfeld, clarifying the situation. An excerpt:

When I (the managing partner of D&S) heard about the CWT layoff news my immediate reaction was that I felt very bad for my friends at CWT. It is a great firm suffering from some market turmoil and all of us running law firms know that adverse market forces can happen to any of us.

My other reaction was that since we are hiring junior lawyers a possible win/win/win would be for us to talk to CWT directly about whether we could hire some of their adversely affected people. This would permit us to find some super-star-high-quality associates - would permit CWT to help its people locate new jobs - and would permit some of the adversely affected associates to get new jobs promptly.

So I did the logical thing and contacted one of my friends at CWT to discuss this. After my discussion I sent a letter to be sent to some of the associates who had the requisite background to fit into our real estate group. It remains to be seen if we will end up hiring CWT associates. My hope is yes.

Since resumes had started to come in (through legal recruiters) I instructed our recruitment coordinator to inform legal recruiters that I would not be accepting resumes through legal recruiters due to our close relationship with CWT. I thought it appropriate to let the legal recruiters know this promptly to avoid misunderstandings with them about recruitment fees.

You can read the full letter after the jump (or click here).

Earlier: Attention Tier Two Grads: Duval & Stachenfeld Wants You
Prior ATL coverage of Cadwalader (scroll down)

Cadwalader and Lawyer Cuts: Pursuing a Clear-Eyed Plan? [WSJ Law Blog]

When you've been wronged, there's a part of you that wants the whole world to know. Maybe you think exposing the evildoer's misdeeds will bring solace, revenge, sympathy... But more often than not, it brings scorn. People just don't like tattletales.

Several tipsters sent along such an exchange from the University of Michigan's law school list-serv. Here's the catfight one law student sent out to the list-serv with the subject line, "not sure how to handle this:"

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:22 PM, TATTLETALE wrote:

EVILDOER,

Listen, I tried to be nice and understanding about all this but now it's just ridiculous! I did you a favor and now I've been stuck hounding you for my phone for months and months as if you're doing ME the favor! I bought that phone for $120, so either send me a check for that amount or return the phone ASAP...

I'm not going to lecture you about how this is no way to treat a law school class mate and definately [sic] no way to start making your reputation in the legal community -- hopefully you realize all that. Just return the phone or the money so I can finally forget about this after half a year!

-TATTLETALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:01:52 +0200
From: EVILDOER
Subject: Re: phone
To: TATTLETALE

You f***ing nasty b****,
My sister is gonna give you a f***ing check that you can f***ing hold onto until I come back from rome.
EVILDOER

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:54 AM, EVILDOER wrote:

I AM INF ***ING ROME YOU STUPID W****. I SAID I WILL MAIL IT TO YOU ONCE I
GET BACK. NO REASON TO BE A F***ING B****.

Is bar exam stress driving Michigan students over the edge?

Full exchange (warning: unredacted profanity), plus a bevy of responses, after the jump.

(We've redacted identities -- and appreciate your protecting anonymity in the comments. Thanks.)

An excerpt from a deposition taken last month in Dallas, Texas:

Plaintiff's Counsel: Remember we still have a trial. There will be some more of it come up then, but no reason to go over it all now. Can't have it all. You'll have cut your hair by then, you know.

Witness: You have a thing about my longer hair, don't you? Are you jealous or what?

(Off-the-record discussion.) (Exhibit No. 25 marked.)

Witness: Well, you'd probably look better if you shaved it. Anyway, go ahead.

Counsel: I know you would be. I know you would look better if you shaved yours.

Witness: Do you really think so?

Counsel: Yeah, I really do.

Witness: That's amazing. Your wife doesn't think so.

Charming. You can read an extended excerpt -- which also includes this line of testimony, "Come on, old man. Say something about my hair." -- over here.

Gretidog Field Day: Oral and Videotaped Deposition of Darwin Deason [Infirmation / Greedy Texas]

So far this summer has been a little slow in terms of juicy summer associate stories. Are SAs this year just too well-behaved for their own good? C'mon, kids -- lighten up, have some fun, drink a little (or a lot) at firm events....

Almost three weeks have passed since our last summer associate tale. So we were delighted to receive this gift in our inbox today, pertaining to a summer at Schulte Roth & Zabel in New York:

[A]t a summer event last night, one the Schulte summers -- let's call him Randy Savage -- unaware of the identity of a particular stranger, put him in a headlock and called him a (homophobic insult redacted) for wearing a Yankees jersey.

The stranger then asked Randy Savage: "Do you know who I am?" Randy Savage replied: "No, you punk."

Said "punk" turned out to be a Schulte partner. The fate of Mr. Savage is currently unknown.

Clearly it's the partner's fault for not looking sufficiently partner-like. It happens; we know some junior partners who still get carded. We hope the SRZ folks cut the guy some slack and keep him around, so he can proceed to embarrass himself at future events.

We reached out to the firm this morning to see if they might have any comment. They haven't gotten back to us as of the time of this posting.

As always, please don't name this summer associate or provide more biographical detail about him (e.g., his law school). If you do, we may ban your IP address from further commenting. Thanks.

Update: This comment from Dr. Gonzo says it all: "SNAP INTO A PARTNER!!!"

This is the type of topic we'd expect to see posted in our new Community section. But since that section hasn't really caught on yet, we're happy to post it here. From a law student at the University of Chicago:

The quarterly U of C student newspaper came out [last week], and the Student Body President (of all people) wrote a snarky poem about transfers. [Ed. note: The poem -- "Phenomenal Transfer," perhaps inspired by Phenomenal Woman, by Maya Angelou -- is posted after the jump.]

[T]he poem isn't terribly offensive, but it's indicative of a general attitude to transfers that original / "regular" students often have (and the way I understand it, it's worse at some schools than others). "Regular" students often snark transfers because transfers "don't deserve to be there" -- meaning that LSAT scores are apparently the only acceptable measure of deserving to attend a law school. It's also fairly well known that transfer students do as well as or better than "regular" students with grades -- maybe that's where part of the problem comes from.

Update: According to several commenters, the publication that the poem appeared in is a satirical, Onion-esque newsletter.

Apparently anti-transfer prejudice varies from school to school. According to our Chicago tipster:

I've heard bad things about how GULC [Georgetown University Law Center] treats its transfers. Apparently at orientation last year, the current students booed the new transfers. It'd be interesting as students start preparing transfer applications for them to have an idea (from an open thread or comments) how they'll be treated at the schools they're considering transferring to.

Now is a good time for such a discussion, says our source:

Schools start accepting applications May 1, usually through the summer, with applications completing when grades come in (from the first school -- so right about now). Acceptances go out throughout the summer, and some schools have rolling admissions. So I think it's most topical right now, especially given that students generally send out relatively few transfer applications (usually 2-4 tops) as compared to initial law school applications.

In fact, some prospective transfer students have already heard back. From a different correspondent, who wrote us last month:

[H]ave you ever done anything on law students transferring schools? Georgetown is in the process of sending out decisions to their early action applicants. I just got accepted as a transfer from John Marshall in Chicago with a 3.93, which puts me in the top 3%. The Yahoo TransferApps group and the transfer board at lawschooldiscussion.org have been blowing up over the last few days with people getting accepted/rejected. Maybe you could get some good info for the law-student readers that are pondering a transfer.

If you have thoughts on being a transfer student or on the transfer application process, please share them in the comments. You can also check out the "Phenomenal Transfer" poem, after the jump.

We previously wrote about pro se litigant Julio Mora, who asked the members of the Florida Supreme Court to "kiss his a**hole every time the justice[s] will retire going to their den." The requested relief was denied, and Mora was sanctioned.

Everyone thinks of Canadians as darn so "nice" -- but defendants up there can get saucy too. From the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:

A psychiatric assessment has been ordered for a homeless man who dropped his pants in a Halifax courtroom Friday and invited the judge to perform oral sex on him.

Motion denied. If only he had appeared before this judge.

Joel David Arseneau, 40, was being arraigned in Halifax provincial court before Judge Barbara Beach on two charges of breaching probation or court orders when he let his pants fall to the floor, displaying his underwear.

Sheriff’s deputies hustled Mr. Arseneau out of the courtroom. As they were taking him downstairs to the holding cells, they received word that Judge Beach was prepared to proceed with the arraignment as long as the defendant was willing to keep his pants up.

Glad to hear they have some standards of courtroom decorum up in Halifax.

Hopefully Mr. Arseneau was wearing boxer shorts. Briefs come perilously close to male Speedos.

Man drops his pants in court [Halifax Chronicle-Herald]

Earlier: Pro Se Litigant of the Day: Julio Mora
If the Court Has Gone Down on You, Is Recusal Required?

What is it about Florida that causes its lawyers and litigants to misbehave so egregiously? Just last week, the Florida Supreme Court sanctioned colorful attorney Jack Thompson. And now they've expressed their displeasure (PDF) with pro se litigant Julio Mora.

What did Mr. Mora do to upset the court? From its opinion:

Mora has filed pro se pleadings containing scandalous and obscene language. Specifically, in his “Petition to Inhibit Jurisdiction From this Very Supreme Court of Injustice,” Mora maintained that through its show cause proceedings with DOC, the Court has proven itself “to be a pack of incompetent cowards, without balls, testicles, courage or valor.” Further, Mora urged this Court to

"take this case and the ultimate decision, if ever, and please shovel it to the chief justice and every other justice’s a**hole, in order to have a common place to store the justices’ crap, together with the justice crap from their’s mind, properly disposed through the sewer system, in order to prevent the contaminants to reach the citizen of Florida, and also kiss Julio Mora’s the idiot seeking justice, kiss his a**hole every time the justice will retire going to their den. . . . Please kiss my a** one more time."

The court declined to grant Mora the requested relief. Instead, it sanctioned him, directing the clerk of court to reject any future filings from Mora "unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar."

In a court of law, it's the parties who do the ass-kissing -- not the judges.

Mora v. McNeil (PDF) [Supreme Court of Florida]

That statement was made by Samantha Power, a top foreign policy aid for Obama and new-ish love interest of Professor Cass Sunstein. Sunstein recently accepted a position at Harvard Law, leaving behind in Chicago his ex, philosopher Martha Nussbaum. Bossman David Lat posted all the gossip about the academic love triangle here.

Power, pictured, let her words slip during an interview in London with The Scotsman yesterday. Other tasty bits from that interview:

"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted.

"You just look at her [Clinton] and think, 'Ergh'.

Apparently, Ms. Power was under the impression that her remarks were "off the record," and therefore couldn't be attributed to her. The interview was actually totally on the record, and The Scotsman gives an explanation at the bottom of the link.

Update: Power has resigned from the Obama campaign, effective immediately. See here (AP article) and here (follow-up post).

'Hillary Clinton's a monster': Obama Aid Blurts out Attack in Scotsman Interview [The Scotsman]

Here's an interesting factoid. According to a quick search we ran over at the Public Library of Law (powered by Fastcase), the word "douchebag" has yet to appear in the pages of F.3d. [FN1]

That may be about to change, if the Second Circuit decides to publish in a case that was just argued. From the AP:

A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn't have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court.... [Ed. note: an "Internet blog" -- not to be confused with all those Non-Internet blogs.]

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school's annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: "'Jamfest' is canceled due to douchebags in central office," and also referred to an administrator who was "pissed off."

In the district court proceedings, there was some extensive discussion of the whole d-bag remark:

When [the school board's lawyer] pressed [student council treasurer Pat] Abate on whether he had ever seen the famous douchebag posting, Abate’s responses included: “I haven’t seen it on my computer monitor, I haven’t seen it in my dreams.”

Guess he isn't very imaginative.

[A lawyer] asked Abate and [senior class vice president Jackie] Evans to define douchebag.

“Stupid, moron, idiot, Abate said.

“Jerks,” Evans said.

Hmm.... They're in the vicinity, but haven't hit the definitional g-spot. We respectfully submit that the term "douchebag" carries a stronger sense of condemnation than the terms proffered by Abate and Evans. See UrbanDictionary.com (defining "douchebag" as "[s]omeone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and a**hole, however not yet reached f**ker or motherf**ker"). [FN2]

[FN1] Maybe someone with free Westlaw or Lexis access can confirm for us that F.3d is douchebag-free.

[FN2] Alternate definition of "douchebag" from Urban Dictionary: "A student or instructor at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities." Well, as long as it's not the law school....

Update: Thanks, commenters -- F.3d is certifiably douchebag-free.

Further Update: Oh wait... As this commenter notes, if you expand the search to include "douche bag" and "douche-bag," you'll see that F.3d has been thoroughly defiled.

Appeals Court Weighs Teen's Web Speech [AP]
Defense Crumbles as Students Weather Cross-Examination [CT News Junkie]
douchebag [Urban Dictionary]
douche commercial [YouTube]

Florida lawyer Jack Thompson, who is completely crazy somewhat colorful, has surfaced in these pages before. But he has never been an ATL Lawyer of the Day.

With this post, we officially bestow the honor upon him. From Game Politics:

[T]he Florida Supreme Court alleged [last] week that controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson has "abused the legal system by submitting numerous frivolous and inappropriate filings in this Court."...

The Daily Business Review reports that a December document was specifically mentioned in the Court's show cause order (PDF) to Thompson:

"The court described one of Thompson's recent filings in detail. [Thompson] dubbed it a 'children's picture book for adults,' interspersing images with text in his motion due to 'the court's inability to comprehend' his arguments."

Seriously. Check part of the filing out by clicking here (Word document). It sure is purdy, ain't it?

Despite that order to show cause from the Florida Supremes, Thompson is unrepentant. As he told the Daily Business Review:

I have a right to file anything I want with the court. It is beyond bizarre that they think they can tell me I can't seek relief. They can deny relief, but they can't tell me I can't seek relief.

So go ahead, Jack, and file "anything [you] want" with the court. Remember the time you filed gay porn in federal court? That went over really well...

Did This Document Bring Florida Supreme Court's Wrath Down Upon Jack Thompson? [GamePolitics.com]
Anti-porn crusader may face sanctions for 'meritless filings' [Daily Business Review]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Jack Thompson (scroll down)

Although many tipsters emailed us about it, we never wrote about this buzz-generating Wall Street Journal article, reporting on how many older lawyers are displeased by the overly informal, even sloppy attire of their younger colleagues. We didn't write about it earlier because we felt preempted: the piece received lots of online attention, from such widely read outlets as the ABA Journal and the WSJ Law Blog, where it generated heavy comment traffic.

But now we have a new angle on it. Focus on these portions of Christina Binkley's WSJ article:

[Winston & Strawn D.C. managing partner Thomas Mills] says he is partial to well-fitted Brioni suits for himself. He notes that the going rate for new associates in New York, Los Angeles and Washington is $160,000 a year -- enough to buy suits while paying down school loans. Yet all too often, associates show up at work in jeans -- attire that he doesn't condone "unless it's moving day."

Winston & Strawn brought in a personal shopper from a local department store last year to address associates on how to shop and dress for work. Mr. Mills says that when some associates do make an effort to dress up, they seem to base their look on Hollywood. "You get the TV-woman lawyer look with skirts 12 inches above the knee and very tight blouses," he says. "They have trouble sitting and getting into taxis."

These remarks apparently didn't go over too well back at Winston:

W&S DC office's managing partner comes off as a total a**. His comments re: his custom suits are one thing. But his comments re: the way women in the office dress have created a stir....

People are seriously pissed, particularly the women. Man comes off as a total pig.... Read the article, you'll see why.

This is prime ATL material. Firm has called impromptu associates meeting for 9:30 Monday, no topic given. But the guess is it is damage control.

The guess was correct. More about the meeting, after the jump.

Any trial judge with the Gall to benchslap the Supreme Court has a serious set of cojones.

Accordingly, Judge Richard Kopf (D. Neb.) -- who sent beer to Professor Doug Berman, as recently noted -- is our Judge of the Day. See links collected below.

We agree with Tony Mauro: Judge Kopf's irreverent "top 10" list of lessons learned from the high court's sentencing jurisprudence is "a provocative jaw-dropper that may get Kopf scratched off the holiday card list at the Supreme Court."

Judge Kopf's "Top Ten" take on SCOTUS sentencing work [Sentencing Law and Policy]
The Top Ten Things I Learned from Apprendi, Blakely, Booker, Rita, Kimbrough, and Gall (PDF) [Sentencing Law and Policy]
Federal Judge's 'Top 10' List Takes On Supreme Court's Sentencing Decisions [Legal Times]
Richard G. Kopf bio [Federal Judicial Center]

Earlier this month, we posted an open thread on the law school gunner. It generated a spirited discussion -- perhaps too spirited -- and we eventually closed it to new comments.

We're going to try this again. Here's another open thread to share your gunner stories. But please keep the discourse civil, and please don't call out anyone by name. If you're mentioned in a story and want to defend yourself, come up with a pseudonym for doing so. You really don't want ATL to come up when someone Googles you (e.g., around recruiting season).

As is our practice, we'll kick things off with a story. From a tipster at a law school in New York:

last semester a 1L decided to spread a little rumor. he said he knew what was going to be on one of the finals (civ pro) -- actually he dropped another person's name who people trusted and said that the prof told her what was going to be on the exam. word spread pretty quickly that the last question of the exam would be a policy question, and that preclusion wouldn't be covered. it was a complete lie; he just made it up. most people studied everything anyway, but there were definitely a bunch who spent a lot of extra time trying to study "policy" issues and less time on preclusion (which of course ended up being a question on the exam).

p.s. this guy studies with a small group who call themselves the "dream team" - haha

some other things that i was told later on but didn't experience first-hand:

1) he allegedly conspired to mislead the class for weeks about this

2) his facebook status said "[his name] is exploiting situations like Geraldo Rivera" after he spread the word about what was supposedly on the test

Earlier: Law School Gunners: Open Thread

Last week was a busy one in terms of bonus news. In addition, we were prevented from publishing as much as we wanted by technical difficulties (which lie outside the jurisdiction of your undersigned blogger, a mere writer and not a tech person).

Our recent neglect of the "misbehaving lawyers" beat has given rise to a backlog of possible Lawyers of the Day. We've decided to clear the backlog by tossing out five nominees and having you vote on who should get the honor.

Click on each lawyer's name to read more about their alleged misadventures. Then vote on who should be our Lawyer of the Day.

1. Todd Paris: This North Carolina lawyer was held in contempt after a judge caught him reading Maxim [quasi-NSFW] in court. "When [Judge Kevin] Eddinger gave Paris a chance to respond he apologized and 'stated in his view the magazine was not pornography, was available at local stores and that he did not intend contempt,' the [contempt] order said."

2. Beth Modica: "A former suburban prosecutor and PTA president had sex with two underage boys, joined many other teens in booze and pot parties and kept it all a secret from her police chief husband, officials said Tuesday. Beth Modica, 44, was indicted on 35 counts alleging statutory rape, criminal sex acts, sex abuse and endangering children. Wearing an olive-gray suit and handcuffs, she pleaded not guilty at her arraignment in Rockland County Court and was ordered held on $75,000 bail."

3. Mikal Hanson: "Pierre police early Thursday morning arrested an assistant U.S. attorney, who is accused of drunken driving and speeding. Mikal Hanson, 52, an assistant U.S. attorney in Sioux Falls, was stopped by police shortly before 1 a.m. for speeding, said Pierre Police Chief Elton Blemaster. The arresting officer could smell alcohol on Hanson and asked him to perform field sobriety tests, Blemaster said. 'Mr. Hanson didn't complete them as instructed,' he said."

4. Canadian Senator Mobina Jaffer: "Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer is under investigation by the Law Society of British Columbia for allegedly overbilling one of her legal clients, including charging for 30 hours of work in a single day.... Jaffer has been called before the law society to account for more than $6 million in legal bills charged to her former client, a Catholic missionary order known as the Oblates of Mary Immaculate."

5. Jay Grodner: From the Chicago Tribune (via Blackfive.net):

Jay Grodner, the Chicago lawyer who keyed a Marine's car in anger because the car had military plates and a Marine insignia, finally got his day in court last week. Grodner pleaded guilty in a Chicago courtroom packed with former Marines. They came to support Marine Sgt. Michael McNulty, whose car Grodner defaced in December, but who couldn't attend because he's preparing for his second tour in Iraq....

"You caused damage to this young Marine sergeant's car because you were offended by his Marine Corps license plates," said Judge [William] O'Malley....

"That's because there is a little principle that the Marine Corps has had since 1775," the judge continued. "When they fought and lost their lives so that people like you could enjoy the freedom of this country. It is a little proverb that we follow: "No Marine is left behind.

"So Sgt. McNulty couldn't be here. But other Marines showed up in his stead. Take him away," said the judge and former Marine.

So those are the five contestants. Here's the poll:

We were pretty lucky in the law school roommate department. During our 1L year, we lived with a high school friend who was in New Haven doing medical research. During our 2L year, we roomed with a friend from college: the brilliant Steve Engel, a former law clerk to Judge Kozinski and Justice Kennedy, who currently serves as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel (and who recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in that capacity, on the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees).

Both were highly considerate roommates. Neither tried to purloin our silverware, which is the allegation made in this angry letter from a University of Alabama 2L to his former roommate. It begins:

Dear Roommate:

This is a letter regarding your use and possession of my silverware and tableware. I regret that I have to tell you this in writing, but all of my attempts to speak to you in person were thwarted by your unwillingness to speak directly to me.

I wish to be as tolerant as possible so we can live together peaceably. However, your impermissible possession and misappropriation of the bulk of my silverware, as well as my stoneware bowls, is no longer acceptable.

The silverware in question was purchased entirely by me for my use. It is relatively new, bought in 2007, and cost approximately $75. The silverware in questions [sic] consists of Oneida’s “Journey” (4 setting) and also an Oneida Silverplate (2-setting which is coated in actual silver). I did not object to you using it at first (although you never asked for permission), but I reasonably thought you understood that your use had to be within some bounds of reason. You have continually used silverware without returning it to the kitchen. This has meant there is insufficient silverware for me, the owner, to use. This is unacceptable under any condition. Placing dishes and silverware in the kitchen does not waive my right to have reasonable possession or use of it.

The letter gets more over-the-top as it goes along. It culminates with a threat to bring a civil action for the tort of conversion.

Read the rest, after the jump.

An oldie but a goodie (and the sheer age of this item makes it pretty safe to use). This archived entry was recently located inside the database of a temporary staffing firm. It's a description of a temp accountant's less-than-successful stint at a law firm he was farmed out to:

12/13/00 -- Terminated from assignment at [redacted] for "creeping out" the staff by excessive talking, staring at the female employees, eating candy canes off the office Christmas tree, and inspecting other people's food in the refrigerator. Brought into the office and counseled.

If you have your own funny anecdote about an idiosyncratic temp, feel free to post it in the comments (but without identifying info, per standard ATL policy).

Today's open thread focuses on someone who is near and dear to all of your hearts: the law school gunner. He's sitting on your left; he's sitting on your right; or maybe he is you. If you don't know who the gunner in your class is, then look in the mirror.

We asked the tipster who suggested this topic to us to provide us with some fodder to kick off the thread. Here's what we got:

It all begin at Admitted Students Weekend last spring, when this particular individual had to be shushed and told to "STOP TALK-ING" by a professor running a mock class. This was after he interrupted another admitted student and said, "Well, he gave a BAD example, but what he was clearly trying to say was..." There was other bizarre admitted students weekend behavior, but that should give you an idea.

Then, we arrived at school in August and there he was...ready to embark on a semester full of interrupting other students and professors, sharing awkward personal stories, and even telling professors that material they assigned from casebooks was "irrelevant."

For finals, he decided that typing on his laptop keyboard would not allow him to type quickly enough to get all of his thoughts down in EBB, so he got special permission from the Registrar to use an external keyboard and a stand for his laptop. The whole contraption takes up lots of desk space and looks like he is sitting at the controls of a spaceship. From what I hear, he also used it for the last week of classes to "practice" for the exams.

He also once asked a particularly well-known professor to autograph his casebook...

And, finally, the event that precipitated my message to you. During a lunchtime speaker event, this individual pulled out a set of nail clippers and started clipping and then filing his fingernails! The entire room heard and was staring at him--naturally this got around the law school pretty quickly. Did I mention this individual is older and should know better (not that a 22 year old straight from undergrad shouldn't...but he's significantly older)?

So there's a few examples for you.

Have gunner horror stories of your own to share? Please do so, in the comments (without naming any names, per our standard operating procedure around here). Thanks.

Gunner [Wikipedia]

A recent trend: judges who are touchy about courtroom attire. Last week we wrote about Judge William Sosnay, who is no fan of ascots. Now meet Judge Holly Hollenbeck:

Bev Williams of Richland wears a knitted beanie cap to cover her hairless head everywhere she goes, but not in Judge Holly Hollenbeck's courtroom.

The District Court judge told Williams, 43, to take her cap off or leave his court in the Benton County Justice Center on Friday morning.

"I was embarrassed. It made me cry," said Williams, who recently underwent six months of chemotherapy for cancer.

But Judge Holly Hollenbeck -- who's a man, by the way, so he ain't no Hollenbeck girl [FN1] -- has a rebuttal:

"I ask everybody to remove hats," he said, noting the only reason he has allowed one — once — was for a religious reason.

Hollenbeck said, "I am very understanding with people who battle with cancer. My own mother died from cancer. I've had hundreds of cancer victims come through my court, and I've never had one not remove their hat, ever."

He added, "Refusal to remove shows contempt for the court and for the judge."

So what do you think? Is Judge Hollenbeck's position reasonable? Or is this s**t bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s?

By the way, with respect to our earlier poll, almost 55 percent of you don't think an ascot is appropriate courtroom attire.

[FN1] Nor should Judge Holly A. Hollenbeck be confused with motivational speaker Holly H. Hollenbeck, author of Sex Lives of Wives: Reigniting the Passion, and proprietress of PassionSeekers.com.

Judge's strict no-hat rule upsets cancer patient [Seattle Times]