At first we were of the opinion that Balenciaga’s “Lego shoe” was too hideous to merit copying. But then we learned that Beyonce has been spotted in a pair. If it’s good enough for Beyonce, it’s good enough for the rest of us, right?

That was apparently the thinking of Steve Madden, which produced a very similar-looking shoe. Balenciaga’s original is on the left; the Madden version is on the right.

But Balenciaga’s not taking this sitting down. Earlier this week, the company sued Steve Madden.

What claims are being made in the lawsuit? Come up with some guesses. Then read more (and comment) over at our sister site, Fashionista.

Balenciaga Sues Steve Madden [Fashionista]

Sensible shoes are for liberal chicks. Say hello to fabulous Federalist footwear!

As you may have noticed, from our two posts late on Monday night and one from Tuesday morning, we’re engaging in some after-the-fact blogging of last week’s Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention.

As in past years, the social highlight of the conference was the Thursday night banquet (black tie optional; and many availed themselves of the option, ‘cause that’s how conservatives roll). The speaker at the dinner was none other than Justice Samuel A. Alito, who delivered an insightful and hilarious speech that was a delight to listen to. Just as one might say of, say, a newscast by Jon Stewart, much of the entertainment value was in the delivery — Justice Alito is so dry and deadpan, and yet his remarks make you bust out laughing.

Interestingly enough, we haven’t come across many news accounts of Justice Alito’s speech. There was also no video recording allowed at the address. So we feel we can add some value with this write-up, despite its belated nature.

There may have been some confusion over the ground rules governing reporting about the speech. From the BLT:

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. spoke to the Federalist Society [last Thursday] night, but photos of him doing so are hard to come by. That’s because photographers other than the Federalist Society’s own were barred from the event. Keith Appell, a spokesman for the Federalist Society, said cameras were prohibited by Alito’s security detail….

Kathy Arberg, the court spokeswoman, said “The justice’s policy was that the event was open to still cameras and pencil press,” and that the Federalist Society was informed of that policy before the event.

Well, photos from the event aren’t hard to come by on Above the Law. Nobody told us that we couldn’t take photographs — so we did. And, as members of the “pencil press,” we jotted down notes in our reporter’s notebook. (We left the laptop at the hotel that night.)

Check out a slideshow of our pictures, along with a discussion of Justice Alito’s highly engaging and entertaining address, after the jump.

We are not fans of Crocs here at Above the Law. We stand by this position, even though First Lady Michelle Obama — aka She Who Can Do No Wrong — has been spotted in them.

Apparently we are not alone in our opposition to Crocs. It seems that the people at Porsche — yes, the luxury sports car maker — have sued the footwear folks. In Germany.

Seriously? Yup. The lawsuit was mentioned in the Crocs (CROX) third quarter 10-Q, which is how it came to the attention of our sister site, Going Concern (via Footnoted).

So what is Porsche suing Crocs over? Find out at the links below.

Deadline Watch: Porsche Suing Crocs For ‘Cayman’ Use [Going Concern]
Porsche vs. Crocs… [Footnoted.org]

Earlier: Crocs: Ugly and Dangerous

What should a female Solicitor General wear to the U.S. Supreme Court? It’s a hot-button issue. For some excellent analysis, see Dahlia Lithwick.

The topic of SCOTUS-appropriate attire for a Solicitrix General keeps coming up. It popped up yesterday in Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s interview with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Monterey.

From an attendee (who stayed at the conference longer than we did; we left the day after our panel):

In case you are not here, David: the solicitor general was just asked what she will wear at the Court, and she declined to say. But Judge Kozinski followed up to ask — expressly on your behalf [David Lat fka Article III Groupie] — whether she would be wearing Jimmy Choos. She said “no,” because the heels are too high to stand in while she argues.

Thought you’d want to know this breaking fashion news!

Shoe groupies: a little bit more, after the jump.

Whoops. Sorry we missed this article, noted by a commenter, which we should have read before publishing this post yesterday.

So here’s what happened to the Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial, filed in Lenkersdorf v. Sorrentino. Defense counsel Michael Robb got to wear his hole-ridden Cole Haan loafers in court; plaintiff’s motion to compel proper footwear was denied.

Despite this setback, plaintiff’s counsel won a $2.2 million verdict for his client. But then he lost it, after a Palm Beach Post article about the silly motion came to the attention of the jurors, causing a mistrial.

Bill Bone, who represented the plaintiff, is presumably kicking himself — with non-hole-ridden shoes, we’re guessing — for filing that motion. One-third of $2.2 million would have bought a lot of Manolos for the missus (or John Lobbs for him).

Cerabino: Story behind controversial court column [Palm Beach Post]

Earlier: ‘Holier’ Than Thou: Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial

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.

Superstar litigatrix Kathryn Ruemmler, a litigation partner at Latham & Watkins and an Enron prosecutor before that, has been picked to serve as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Obama Justice Department. That title is a mouthful, but lawyers inside the Beltway know it’s a Big Deal.

The revolving door between the DOJ and Latham swings again. Ruemmler has traded places with another fierce female litigator: Alice Fisher, who rejoined the firm after heading up the Criminal Division.

As for Ruemmler, the government’s gain is Latham’s loss. Says one LW tipster: “She’s a really good lawyer, and a genuinely nice person. We’re very sorry to lose her.”

Kathy Ruemmler isn’t just a genial genius; she’s stylish, too. From the WSJ Law Blog, reporting on a day of the Ken Lay trial:

Speaking of footwear, the boldest fashion statement of the day — possibly rivaling O’Melveny paralegal Bill Evans’s goth getup for the gutsiest sartorial move of the week — came from the government’s Ruemmler. The deputy director of the Enron Task Force, who won convictions against four Merrill Lynch bankers in the 2004 Nigerian Barge case, paired a conservative gray suit with stunning 4-inch bright pink stiletto spikes.

Litigatrix indeed. Just because you work for the DOJ doesn’t mean you have to shop at DSW.

There’s a lot of diversity in Obama’s Department picks so far. Eric Holder, nominated to serve as Attorney General, is African-Amercan. Elena Kagan and Dawn Johnsen, nominated to serve as, respectively, Solicitor General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, are women.

The full memo about Ruemmler’s move, after the jump.

No, the message below did not come from Winston & Strawn partner Thomas Mills. But our correspondent seems to share some of Mr. Mills’s concern over the way that professional women dress these days. The focus is on footwear:

Can we talk about “commuter shoes”? During Barbri, I took the Metro to GW [in DC], and last week I attended some of the sessions at the Mother Hub at 1500 Broadway [in New York]. I have noticed that women have no fear of wearing any old, non-matching, disgusting, flip-flops, shower shoes, running shoes or slippers to work. (My favorite look is the black pantyhose, mid-calf socks, and bright white running shoes.)

I saw these women then walk into buildings of prominent law firms, sometimes without even changing their “CS’s” first. Is this acceptable? I understand the need for comfort, but damn, they look terrible.

Well, at least they’re not as bad as Crocs.

The last time we offered fashion advice, on the subject of appropriate attire for weekend work, we got lambasted for being out of touch. Also, unlike paralegal / drag queen Jenna Saisquoi, we lack expertise in women’s footwear (although we’re working on it).

So this time around, we turned to an expert. We presented the reader’s inquiry to Natalie Hormilla, editor of ATL’s sister site, Fashionista.

Read her response, and offer your own opinion, after the jump.

We are not referring to crocodiles, though they are certainly ugly and dangerous too. Instead, we refer to the ubiquitous footwear. The company made headlines over the weekend, because the Japanese Trade Ministry has formally requested a redesign. Because Crocs are just that ugly.

Okay, no — it’s not because Crocs offend the eyes. The redesign has been requested for safety reasons:

Japan has asked the maker of Crocs to look into changing the design of its footwear after complaints that children wearing the colorful plastic clogs have had their feet injured on escalators.

The Trade Ministry said Friday it issued the warning after receiving 65 complaints about Crocs and similar products getting stuck in escalators between June and November last year. Most of the cases involved young children.

A $7 million suit has already been filed against the company in New York this year, on behalf of a three-year-old whose toe was mangled on an escalator. And the company has other trouble on its hands, in the form of shareholder lawsuits.

All this is to say: Crocs are dangerous. And ugly. Do not wear them.

Japan Asks Crocs for Redesign [Washington Post]
Suit: Crocs shoe led to 3-year-old girl’s toe accident on JFK escalator [New York Daily News]
Crocs faces shareholder lawsuit [Denver Business Journal]

So it looks like no bail for Stephen Yagman, the colorful and controversial civil rights lawyer who was convicted last year of tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud and money laundering. Yagman will start his three-year prison term later this month.

Yagman asked to remain free on bail while appealing his conviction (to the Ninth Circuit — a court with which Yagman has a long and tortured history). But the district court denied his request.

Perhaps the court didn’t want Yagman out and about, dropping $2,000 on shoes and $262 on dinner — as he allegedly did just hours after filing for bankruptcy, as part of a scheme to avoid paying more than $200,000 in state and federal taxes.

High-profile LA lawyer denied bail [Associated Press]

And we’re not speaking metaphorically, about the remaining decisions from October Term 2006.

We’re talking about the shoes of celebrated Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, of ABC News. Will a pair of Manolos fall from the sky?

So, what happened to JCG’s footwear? Was it a case of sabotage, by an increasingly threatened rival?

Go Home Already: Missed Connections [DCist]

Do you work for a law firm in Midtown Manhattan? If so, feel free to drop in and say hello to your undersigned writer.

Last night we drove up from our regular base of operations, Washington, DC, to the Big Apple. Right now we’re hanging out, and working from, the Starbucks on the northeast corner of 51st and Broadway.

If you have some gossip you’d like to share — stuff that’s too juicy to send us by email — please swing by. Or just come by and say hi. (And do leave us with one of your business cards, so we can add you to the list of tipsters we use to verify information about specific firms.)

Hope to see some of you later today, when you’re on a lunch or coffee break. Thanks!

(After the jump: A random photo we took this morning, while walking through Rockefeller Center, of Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira, of the Today show, with Antonio Banderas.)

Back in August, we named Judge Deborah Tyner our ATL Judge of the Day. The Honorable Debbie ditched her judicial duties to go shopping, which struck us as absolutely fabulous.

Now Judge Tyner has a kindred spirit. Meet Cynthia Garris, a Virginia defense lawyer. From the Virginian Pilot:

A local lawyer has been disciplined by the Virginia State Bar for telling a judge she had to postpone a case because of a commitment in another court when in fact she went shopping instead.

Defense attorney Cynthia D. Garris received a public reprimand from the State Bar, according to an announcement Friday. The reprimand does not affect her law license.

Garris, whose office is at 132 W. Olney Road, told a Norfolk Circuit Court judge last summer that she had to postpone a case because of a court commitment in Williamsburg.

The judge later found out she had gone on a shopping excursion instead. The judge found Garris in contempt and fined her $250.

The judge may have acted hastily. What was Garris shopping for? If shoes were involved, the contempt finding was unwarranted.

Garris should get her $250 back. That money could buy a decent (but not fabulous) pair of shoes.

P.S. Cynthia, if you’re looking to join a big firm, take a look at Bryan Cave…

Norfolk lawyer rebuked for delaying case to go shopping [Virginian Pilot]

Earlier: Above the Law Judge of the Day: Deborah Tyner

If “attorney-client networking” conjures up images of bars and baseball games, prepare to give those expectations the boot. The shoe is on the other foot at Bryan Cave:

For the 53 shoppers who attended a “shoe event” sponsored by law firm Bryan Cave LLP on a recent Tuesday evening — all of them female lawyers and their female corporate clients or friends — getting to know one another while browsing designer shoes was a refreshing change from being the lone woman at a client dinner or sports event.

“The shoes were an icebreaker for starting conversations,” says Elizabeth DaSilva, managing director, Global Trust Services, Americas at Bank of New York. She mulled a pair of high-heeled evening pumps but quickly turned her attention to the other shoppers. “It was the first opportunity I’d had to talk to lawyers my firm uses about something other than an immediate work assignment,” adds Ms. DaSilva.

It’d be easy to mock this kind of thing, and we’re not above that. (Firms, embrace the girly! The Pillsbury Winthrop Bake-Off! The Stroock Stitch ‘n’ Bitch! Quilting with Quinn Emanuel!)

But in all seriousness, we’re totally in favor of some girl-on-girl bonding action.

In a perfect world, all of us would enjoy the same androgynous pastimes, but the reality is that men and women often gravitate toward different activities (see, for example, this article positing that 90 percent of golfers are male because the game is “the modern version of Pleistocene hunting on the savanna”). There’s nothing wrong with firms recognizing that business development needn’t always involve liquor and/or ritualized combat.

Move over, Bryant Park. The real fashion show was going on here: New York Supreme Court, 60 Centre Street.

Last week, of course, was New York Fashion Week. Our little sister, Fashionista, covered the events extensively.

Meanwhile, downtown from the tents in Bryant Park, we too had fashion on the brain. But instead of watching runway models strut their stuff, we assessed the sartorial choices of lawyers — namely, counsel at last week’s hearing in the litigation between gay lawyer Aaron Charney and his former employer, Sullivan & Cromwell.

You’re dying to know:

— Who was the best-dressed attorney in Courtroom 540 — and who was the worst?

— Who sported the nicest footwear?

— Who had the most problematic hair?

The answers to these questions, and more, after the jump.

* We’re several days late on this; but it’s just as well. We’re not touching this controversy (see photo below) with the proverbial 10-foot pole. [Althouse; Feministing; Althouse; Feministing]

But just out of curiosity, ATL readers, what’s your first reaction to this photo of Bill Clinton and a group of bloggers? Please place your responses in the comments to this post.

* HP looked into having spies infiltrate the offices of CNET and the Wall Street Journal by posing as clerical employees or cleaning crew members. This scandal gets more insane by the day. [DealBreaker]

* Have an iron stomach? Looking for a quick way to make $75,000? [TortsProf Blog]

* We agree with Professor Dimino’s students — we’ll take a statutory class over Con Law any day of the week. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Lawyers don’t have a monopoly on mumbo jumbo. [Securities Litigation Watch via DealBreaker]

* It’s about time: Washington women get on the footwear bandwagon. [Washington Post]