Archive for the ‘Intriguing Legal Theories’ Category

Kyocera wanted a pitchman for some electronic product they are selling. They approached Ben Stein, who was in a funny scene in a movie 26 years ago, had a Comedy Central game show that launched the career of Jimmy Kimmel, and who has otherwise been a colossal embarrassment to all that is intellectually honest. They offered him $300,000 to appear in some commercials or something. Somehow, it took Kyocera three months to figure out that Ben Stein holds positions that are rather counter to the scientific mainstream (but that make him a darling, I’m sure, on the Republican cocktail party circuit) on the non-question of man-made climate change. So they withdrew their offer to him.

I have a few concerns about Kyocera here, in that they are an electronics company that apparently does not know how to Google someone.

The bigger issue is this: faced with the withdrawal of a proposed contract still under negotiation, Ben Stein sued, claiming not only breach of contract but violation of his religious liberties.

The complaint, filed on January 11, 2012, alleges that a valid contract exists between Stein and Kyocera because there had been both “offer” and “acceptance.” He claims that, although the parties had not signed a final contract, their agreement is nonetheless legally binding, in part because he had already changed his plans to accomodate Kyocera.

This sounds more like promissory estoppel to me than breach of contract, but that wouldn’t get him the full $300,000 value of the contract in damages. Still, any first-year law student will tell you that “offer” and “acceptance,” in addition to “consideration,” are fundamental components of a binding contract. (Second-year law students might tell you that it is a little more complicated than just that, but go with me here.) I therefore cannot categorically or snarkily dismiss a breach of contract claim in this case.

I can, however, snarkily dismiss his claim for “wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental public policy,” in which he claims that Kyocera’s withdrawal of their offer discriminates against him for his religious beliefs. He is basically asking the government to tell a business what to do on a matter (in his mind) of religious conscience. Don’t Republicans generally oppose that?

At least Stein has the honesty to admit that his questioning of anthropogenic global warming is based on religious doctrine and not any sort of scientific knowledge. I wonder if that was a deliberate admission on his part.

He throws in a claim for “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” because adhering to basic scientific knowledge obviously hurts his fee-fees.

This case has the hypothetical potential to put global warming denialism on trial, given that Stein either has to demonstrate that Kyocera dishonestly discriminated against a legitimate difference of scientific opinion, or he has to come right out and say it’s a religious doctrine and therefore not subject to the court’s (or Kyocera’s) review. Either way, science is likely to have a good day.

(h/t PZ Myers for the story)

“Why are people hating me for having my own opinion?”

Spend any significant amount of time engaging in discussions (arguments) on the internet and you will hear this. This is different from a situation with two people reaching an impasse between two opposing viewpoints. This refers to a person who basically refuses to defend their position, preferring to demand respect for an opinion because dammit, it’s their opinion.

I have yet to encounter a situation where it is not a craven attempt by someone who cannot defend their position to cast the attention back on the person who is kicking their butt. “No, I can’t defend what I am saying but you’re being mean!!!1!!!” is mostly how it goes.

I signed up for a Disqus account last week, and my third comment left on a blog thread garnered this response. I think this must be a record, but I do not expect any sort of prize.

It bothers me as an attorney (albeit an infrequently-practicing one), a blogger, a writer, and one who just enjoys a good argument now and then. It bothers me because it’s dishonest. No one hates you for having your own opinion, so don’t be so damn dramatic.

It bothers me because it is lazy. The argument is not going your way, so you are going to punt back to the other side.

Most of all, it bothers me for reasons that go beyond dishonesty. Trying to end an argument by appealing to some equitable notion that “everyone is entitled to their opinion” does not even deserve to be called “wrong,” because (and I cannot say this adamantly enough) not all opinions are created equal, and opinions are not worthy of respect or consideration if the opinion holder cannot or will not make an effort to defend them rationally and objectively.

This is why there can be no “honest” differences of opinion over the scientific theory of evolution versus ideas like creationism or its bastard stepchild, intelligent design, because their proponents are either ignorant of, or choose to ignore, highly relevant facts.

Let me be clear: people are free, thanks to the First Amendment, to state nearly any opinion they want, however crazy or groundless it may be. They are not free from challenge or criticism. In fact, challenge and criticism are essential to anyone learning anything, ever. Should those critics be polite? Sure, but honesty and integrity are much more important.

In a certain lawsuit brought against me and a number of media companies, lawyers, and bloggers by a certain young lawyer who Shall Not Be Named, news of a new settlement has surfaced. Back in December, an apology of sorts appeared on the blog of one Martha Sperry, along with some none-too-subtle swipes at people who would dare to use their blogs to call things as they see them and fight against frivolous lawsuits (an earlier almost-retraction appeared in October 2011). Other legal bloggers have addressed this quite admirably–I would direct you to Crime and Federalism‘s take-down of her apology for some excellent commentary.

Sperry’s blog post, aside from demonstrating a remarkable unwillingness to stand up for herself, also includes commentary from a few of my co-defendants taking her to task. Her responses invariably return to “I have my opinion and you have yours, so can’t we all just have ice cream?” I’m paraphrasing. Here’s a bit of what she actually said:

At this point, the matter seems more about tearing things down rather than building things up. And I fail to see the point of that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I honor that.

I don’t know Martha Sperry, and I am sure she has her reasons for curling up in a ball and whimpering in response to a frivolous, meritless, groundless, jurisdictionless lawsuit, whatever those reasons may be. Her most recent comments to her blog post suggest that she remains a defendant in the lawsuit by He Who Shall Not Be Named (which makes her post all the more puzzling). At the end of the day, I don’t care if she settles with the plaintiff, or if she sells off all the assets of her business, moves to the South Pole, and tries to live as a penguin. I only care to the extent that it makes fighting for my own First Amendment rights (and by extension, hers) more difficult.

I also only care to the extent that pretending that an acknowledgment that “different people have different points of view” counts as an argument. It is actually laziness of the highest order. I disagree with every fiber of my being that we should always focus on “building things up.” We should, however, always focus on truth. When our opinions do not help us come to a greater understanding of the truth, then they are worthless.

The always-intriguing and entertaining Popehat has put out his nominees for the “Censorious Asshat of the Year,” and the field is indeed proud. I am of course reblogging this for reas0ns, but I invite my reader(s) to take a look at the whole list and marvel at the human capacity for inanity.

To those who would use our hallowed legal system to try to quiet the voices of  those who would dare to hurt their fee-fees, intentionally or not, I simply have this to say:

Photo credit: The Thinker… by law_keven on Flickr.

Caveat emptor. Just look it up.

Seriously, though, few things in life are probably as important as good wedding photos. Possibly food, and maybe oxygen, but wedding photos are a very close third.

So it should come as no surprise that, in the face of sub-par wedding photos, a groom would seek legal redress.

[O]ne groom, disappointed with his wedding photos, decided to sue. The photographers had missed the last dance and the bouquet toss, the groom, Todd J. Remis of Manhattan, said.

Actually, yes, it does come as a bit of a surprise, and here’s why:

[W]hat is striking, said the studio that took the pictures, is that Mr. Remis’s wedding took place in 2003 and he waited six years to sue. And not only has Mr. Remis demanded to be repaid the $4,100 cost of the photography, he also wants $48,000 to recreate the entire wedding and fly the principals to New York so the celebration can be re-shot by another photographer.

If that were all, this might be an amusing footnote to the history of human weirdness. But of course that’s not all.

Re-enacting the wedding may pose a particular challenge, the studio pointed out, because the couple divorced and the bride is believed to have moved back to her native Latvia.

In case you are wondering, Latvia is outside of the subpoena power of any New York state judge. I think it’s in Europe somewhere. A judge has already dismissed most of the claims, but will allow the breach of contract claim to continue. The photographer therefore likely has little risk of actually having to re-stage the wedding. Who could say what the damages would be for a breach of contract here, though? How does one put a price tag on an 8 year-old wedding that led to a divorce three years ago, with the wife moving to the other side of the planet?

History will decide. In the meantime, if you are looking to recapture memories of yore, bring your own camera and leave the courts out of it. Sheesh.

The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has fined Brewvies Cinema Pub in Salt Lake City $1,627 for violating “attire and conduct” regulations. The offense? While serving alcohol, the bar showed the move “The Hangover Part II,” which features nudity, sexual content, and so on.

It’s tempting to mutter “crazy Mormons” under your breath and move on, but this merits a bit more examination. Also, I don’t know that this has anything to do with the peculiarities of Mormonism in particular, and I’d rather make this about dumb laws being enforced in a dumb way than about any sort of religious thing.

See, here’s the thing that sticks in my craw: the fine levied against Brewvies is $400 more than the fine levied against another Salt Lake City bar, Jam in the Marmalade [Ed.: Huh?], for serving alcohol to a minor.

Yes, serving booze in the presence of two-dimensional boobs can carry a greater penalty than serving alcohol to someone not of legal drinking age. Something is amiss here.

To their credit, the officials in charge of assessing and enforcing the fines seem less than thrilled with the situation (although that did not stop them from issuing the fine in the first place):

“I’m struggling with the concept that an adult beverage may be served but an adult movie cannot be shown at the same time,” said newly appointed [liquor-control] commissioner Constance White.

Commissioner David Gladwell said he had concerns with the “grave” offense levied against Brewvies. He noted that Jam in the Marmalade restaurant was slapped with a lesser “serious” offense involving service to an underage drinker.

So, maybe there is a chance at either leniency in this case after a little hue and cry, or maybe some basic common sense regarding future incidents of people daring to watch an R-rated movie with a beer. I would also point out that Brewvies describes itself as a “cinema pub,” and its name appears to be a mashup of “brew” and “movies.” This is what they do. If you make it so they can only show Disney movies, you’ve sort of missed the point of a cinema pub.

To the many people in Utah who are not crazy (you know who you are), I invite you to come visit Austin’s Alamo Drafthouse. They have good burgers, beer, and more nudity than you can shake a stick at. Interpret that last sentence however the hell you want.

The world is full of bad parents. Some parents give their daughters a new car that’s the wrong color. Others lock them in the basement and father multiple children by them over decades. There is obviously a vast, yawning gulf between those two examples, but I think it is fair to say that the legal system only needs to intervene in cases closer to that utter waste of genetic code from Austria.

Others may disagree with me.

Others like Steven A. Miner II and Kathryn R. Miner, feeling dissatisfied with a childhood free of basement imprisonment but also devoid of clever birthday cards, may decide to sue their mother, Kimberly A. Garrity, for the emotional distress caused by  such omissions (h/t Geri Dreiling).

What horrible acts gave rise to their claim? The Chicago Bar Tender blog reported at the time the suit was filed:

- Garrity will invite one child to an event without inviting the other.

- Garrity would purchase things for Kathryn without purchasing anything for Steven.

- Garrity offered to provide college financial assistence to Steven and not Kathryn.

- Garrity did not provide Christmas or birthday gifts to Steven from 1996 through 2005 or Kathryn in 2007.

- When Steven took back a popsicle jewelry box he made Garrity, she called the police because she asserted there was a diamond necklace in it.

- Garrity told Steven that if he didn’t wear his seatbelt, she would drive to a local police station and tell the cops.

- Garrity smacked Steven on the head for no reason in 1994.

- Garrity did not provide “so much as a care package to Steven while he was away at college, while other parents send their children items and packages on a continuous basis.”

- Garrity “refused to assist Kathryn with the purchase of a dress but, provided Kathryn with the use of an automobile for homecoming; and then proceeded to contact her at midnight while she was with her friends and made her return the automobile.”

I read the complaint, and while it sounds like there was certainly a strained relationship between the children and their mother, nothing sounds too different from the thousands (if not millions) of other children of divorced parents around America. Some of the allegations relate to payment of child support and reimbursement of medical expenses, claims usually made by the other parent or the state (but maybe Illinois is different). Lest you wonder where their father has been through all of this, don’t worry. He’s one of the kids’ lawyers.

Maybe their childhood really was pretty awful. I know for a fact that it is hard to view one’s own childhood through a perfectly objective lens. We tend to remember our childhood with a child’s mind, not a rational adult mind, no matter how old we are. Still, once you are an adult, you are supposed to be able to deal with life on life’s terms, or to seek help from those qualified to offer it. A crappy childhood is not an excuse for misbehavior as an adult (except in some pretty extreme circumstances). The plaintiffs in this case are adults–barely adults, but adults nonetheless. They don’t need a lawyer to confront their maternal abandonment issues. They clearly need better therapists. However bad their childhood may have been, this is not the way to deal with it.

This is really, I suspect, just a case of a post-divorce parenting plan that did not work out very well. Happens all the time. It doesn’t sound like Garrity would have ever won any mothering awards, but that’s not exactly actionable. They allege some abuse by the mother but never really delve into it. Is this some contorted way of confronting real childhood demons, or a couple of teacup children acting out? I guess we’ll never know.

And what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks was their dad doing helping with this???

The case was dismissed, and the plaintiffs appealed. No, really.

An appellate court dismissed the appeal this week, renewing some semblance of my faith in our judicial system.

“Such alleged actions are unpleasant and perhaps insensitive, and some would arguably fall outside the realm of ‘good mothering,’ but they are not so shocking as to form a basis for a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” said Judge Kathy Flanagan in a court statement, adding that ruling in favor of the children ”could potentially open the floodgates to subject family child rearing to … excessive judicial scrutiny and interference.”

Garrity’s lawyer had some choice words as well:

In court papers, Garrity’s attorney Shelley Smith said the “litany of childish complaints and ingratitude” in the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by Garrity’s ex-husband to “seek the ultimate revenge” of having her children accuse her of “being an inadequate mother.”

“It would be laughable that these children of privilege would sue their mother for emotional distress, if the consequences were not so deadly serious” for Garrity, Smith wrote. “There is no insurance for this claim, so (Garrity) must pay her legal fees, while (the children) have their father for free.”

On very rare occasions, “loser pays” doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

Law is a conservative profession, in that it is rarely given to huge leaps of fancy or whimsy. English common law has given us a system based on precedent, where the challenges and disputes of the present are resolved using the solutions of the past. Innovation comes slowly, and the writing tends to be both precise and ponderous. No one reads legal briefs or law journals for the lulz.

Every so often, though, a judge comes along who challenges the notion of a staid, unflappable jurist. Today, I take a moment to salute the Honorable Sam Sparks, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. (Full disclosure: I am licensed to practice in the Western District of Texas, I think, but I do not have any cases in Judge Sparks’ court and do not intend to file any. Therefore, there is really no need for full disclosure. Never mind.)

Lawyers who practice in federal court in Austin generally know that Judge Sparks does not abide tomfoolery in his courtroom. Despite conventional wisdom, every so often lawyers who should really know better decide to bring questionable motions in his court, and his responses and resulting orders ought to be forever recorded in the annals of legal history.

Above the Law, as with so many stories, has a good overview of some Sparks gems. In 2004 he compared bickering lawyers to kindergarteners, and in 2007 he issued an order in rhyming couplets, complete with this conclusion:

There will be a hearing with pablum to eat

And a very cool cell where you can meet

AND WORK OUT YOUR INFANTILE PROBLEM WITH THE DEPOSITION.

My personal favorite story out of his courtroom comes from recent news and involves litigation over Texas’ new ultrasound-before-abortion law. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in federal court in June seeking to block the new law from taking effect (read the original complaint). The defendants in the case are the individuals and agencies that will be charged with enforcing the new law: David Lakey, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services; Mari Robinson, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board; and David Escamilla, County Attorney for Travis County. Seems pretty straightforward–group opposes a new law, so sues the state officials in charge of enacting it–and uncontroversial, at least procedurally, right?

Oh, silly, silly reader(s)….

Have you forgotten that this is Texas?

Not content to allow this lawsuit to proceed in the same fashion as any other lawsuit filed in America, the two sponsors of the bill, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, and Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, asked leave of the court to file amicus briefs supporting the law. On August 9, 2011, Judge Sparks said no (PDF):

Both parties in this case are well-represented by competent and diligent counsel, and neither they nor this Court needs assistance from Senator Patrick or Representative Miller–particularly when much of their “assistance” is nothing more than thinly-veiled rhetoric. This is a federal lawsuit about the constitutionality of a statute, not a soapbox for politicians or a sounding board for public opinion. The Court is confident counsel in this case can protect their clients’ interests all by themselves.

Judge Sparks did not even have to make that rhyme to make it sting. A mere three days later, on August 12, he similarly rejected an attempt by other Texas legislators to intervene in the case (PDF):

[C]ounsel for the parties are more than capable of advocating for their clients’ positions without outside input. This is especially true where, as here, that input comes in the form of, among other things, commentary by legislators on “the clear legislative intent of H.B. 15′s severability clause.”

If the severability clause is as clear as the Representatives indicate, their interpretive assistance will not be required. And if it is not, it would be unhelpful, if not improper, for the Court to look to statements made by a subset of the Legislature, in a document prepared for the purposes of litigation, to determine legislative intent. (Citations omitted)

Thankfully, that put an end to the chicanery, and the case has been able to proceed according to normal court procedures. Just kidding! San Antonio attorney Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation (I’m not linking to them) also requested leave to intervene in the case, and he decided to do a little show and tell with his motion (specifically a picture of a “first-trimester aborted child” according to his own list of exhibits.) On August 23, Judge Sparks took his polite gloves off and went right to it (PDF, of course):

The Court has already turned down two extremely tempting offers to transform this case from a boring old federal lawsuit into an exciting, politically-charged media circus. As any competent attorney could have predicted, the Court declines the latest invitation as well.

However, the Court is forced to conclude Allan E. Parker, Jr., the attorney whose signature appears on this motion, is anything but competent. A competent attorney would not have filed this motion in the first place; if he did, he certainly would not have attached exhibits that are both highly prejudicial and legally irrelevant; and if he foolishly did both things, he surely would not be so unprofessional as to file such exhibits unsealed. A competent attorney who did these things would be deliberately disrespecting this Court and knowingly shirking his professional responsibilties, offenses for which he would be lucky to retain his bar card, much less an intact bank balance.

I have no involvement in this case at all, and yet my stomach did a few lurches reading that part of the order because I can imagine the horror of having a federal judge that mad at me, and the possible implications of that. Yes, Judge Sparks called the man incompetent, and he did it a lot. Moral of the story: if you come into Judge Sparks’ courtroom with weak arguments that he has already dismissed, you will not leave with your dignity. You might not leave with your bar card. You might not leave as financially whole as when you arrived. You might not leave at all.

Okay, that last part was an exaggeration. You’ll get to leave eventually.

This week, we have a different case (h/t Mike Johnson), involving two attorneys who may have just done something really dumb, or may have had the misfortune of doing something kind of dumb with a judge fresh off of his Allan Parker-fueled disdain for shenanigans in his courtroom. Either way, the hammer dropped on attorneys Jonathan L. Woods and Travis Barton, who have been invited ordered to attend Judge Sparks’ “kindergarten party” on September 1 in his courtroom, covering topics such as how to properly plan and schedule depositions and how not to waste a federal court’s time for being “unable to practice law at the level of a first-year law student.”

Courts have a pretty specific purpose, and they have limited resources to achieve that purpose. The purpose is to resolve disputes, and to do so as efficiently as possible. Many Austin lawyers have horror stories about Judge Sparks (and no, I’m not telling any here),  but I applaud the effort to keep idiocy out of the courtroom, and to do it with some flair. I salute Judge Sparks and his brand of don’t-*******-with-me-in-my-courtroom jurisprudence.

That said, I know full well that if I ever argued a case in his courtroom, he would eat me for breakfast and use my bones for toothpicks at lunch. And I’m okay with that.

From the annals of silly lawsuit history comes the case of Bill Kaysing versus Jim Lovell, circa 1997. A handy timeline of the case is here.

You may Know Jim Lovell as the commander of the 1970 Apollo 13 mission, who was later played by Tom Hanks in the movie of the same name.

Bill Kaysing was a purveyor of moon hoax theories, and is often credited as starting the moon landing conspiracy movement. He was the author of books like We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.

In 1996, after an encounter with Kaysing and some correspondence, Lovell was quoted in an article by Rafer Guzmán in Metro, a weekly Silicon Valley-area newspaper:

Speaking from his office in Illinois, Lovell said of Kaysing: “The guy is wacky. His position makes me feel angry. We spent a lot of time getting ready to go to the moon. We spent a lot of money, we took great risks, and it’s something everybody in this country should be proud of. His problem is, he saw that movie Capricorn One and now he thinks that’s really the way it goes.”

Eager to defend his legacy of bravely standing up to mountains of peer-reviewed scientific evidence, sued Lovell for libel on August 29, 1996, specifically for calling him “wacky.”

Keep in mind that truth is a defense to defamation.

Kaysing, who wrote a book called We Never Went to the Moon, filed what amounts to a nuisance suit against the astronaut last year following a Metro article in which Lovell called the writer “wacky.” Legal experts who were contacted agree that calling someone “wacky” does not a successful libel suit make. If anything, Kaysing’s wild accusation that Lovell is a liar who participated in a government conspiracy to fool the public is more harsh than being called wacky. (Source)

I don’t see how one can argue that calling a person “wacky” is anything other than a statement of opinion. I also don’t see how it is any worse than what Kaysing said about Lovell in the same article:

Kaysing considers Lovell almost a comedian. “He’s essentially a sort of comic Manchurian Candidate,” he says. “He’s been either brainwashed, hypnotized, programmed or whatever to present this spurious story of having gone to the moon.”

Is it defamatory to say someone has been brainwashed? Not particularly. Nor is it defamatory to call someone “wacky.” Fortunately a judge agreed and dismissed the suit on September 25, 1997.

It makes for a fun example of the limits of using the courts to fix your public image. If someone says you are wacky, demonstrate how they are wrong (if you can), or determine if you really are wacky and try to fix it. If you are a conspiracy theorist, public opprobrium from an establishment figure like an astronaut ought to boost your image among the conspiracy-minded. Unless someone has said something blatantly and demonstrably false that has harmed you, don’t ask the courts to fix it for you. Even then, it’s a tough row to hoe.

Bill Kaysing passed away in 2005. Since a deceased person has no cause of action for defamation, let me just say this: the guy was wacky. Wacky, wacky, wacky. He was also absurd, bugged out, crazy, daft, deranged, dotty, foolish, harebrained, idiotic, loony, nutty, odd, and silly. (Yes, I borrowed Eric Turkewitz’s thesaurus).

Liam Gallagher is suing Noel Gallagher for libel. The two brothers were in Oasis, a band that was big in the ’90s, but I can’t remember which brother did what in the band. I never thought that much of the band. I honestly felt like listening to them made me simultaneously dumber and a bigger d-bag. Many, many people loved them for whatever reason, though. Anyway, they broke up, one or more members started new projects or solo careers, blah blah blah. Then one mouthed off about the other to reporters in July:

While the London press conference was set up for [Noel] Gallagher to talk about his solo career, it did not take long for reporters to ask about the state of his relationship with Liam.

The pair fell out two years ago just before a gig in Paris and have not spoken since.

“I had a sweepstake on how long it would take,” Gallagher laughs, when the first question was put to him just two minutes into the event.

The guitarist explains how the brothers’ row escalated after Liam cancelled their V Festival slot “because he had a hangover”, although the official reason given at the time was that he was suffering with laryngitis.

Oh, snap! A rock star was hungover before a show? That’s hardly implausible, but who knows what actually happened that specific morning? Anyway, fast-forward one month, and a lawsuit ensues:

Former Oasis frontman Liam Gallagher is suing his brother Noel over his claims the band once cancelled a gig because the singer was hungover.

Noel Gallagher told journalists at a press conference in July that it was the real reason why the band pulled out of the V Festival in 2009.

The official explanation at the time was that Liam Gallagher had laryngitis.

In a statement, he said he had “tried to resolve this amicably but have been left with no choice but legal action”.

“All I want is an apology,” he added.

I’m no expert on UK law, but I have to wonder if it is wise to involve the courts in a demand for an apology a mere two months into a dispute. Also, if your brother refuses to apologize to the point that you feel you have to sue, do you really think an apology will ever be forthcoming? These two don’t seem to have ever been a portrait of brotherly harmony.

Remember that generational clash among lawyers? It’s here. The front line combatant in this conflict is Gregory Berry, a New York attorney who until recently worked as an associate at Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman. Apparently he made a few whistleblower-type complaints and engaged in some self-aggrandizement within the firm, and now is no longer employed there, according to Reuters and a lawsuit Berry filed:

Gregory Berry, a former first-year associate at Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, accused the firm of unethical behavior and lying about its work culture in a lawsuit filed on Monday in Manhattan state Supreme Court.

Two partners are also named as defendants in the suit. Berry accuses them of interfering with his job, inflicting emotional distress and trying to thwart his career prospects.

Berry claims he “immediately began doing superlative work” when he started working at Kasowitz last September after attending law school at the University of Pennsylvania.

But he ran into trouble after a few months when he e-mailed partners asking for more responsibility, he said in the lawsuit.

“It has become clear that I have as much experience and ability as an associate many years my senior, as much skill writing and a superior legal mind to most I have met,” his email said, according to his complaint.

He was informed by a partner at the firm that his email had “burned bridges” in the office, and he was fired a few days later, according to the lawsuit.

“There’s simply no room in a big law firm for an intelligent, creative lawyer with real-world experience, and I had to find that out the hard way,” Berry told Reuters.

In the lawsuit, he also said he was fired for comments he made about “possibly fraudulent” billing practices at the firm.

Is Berry out of his “superior legal mind”? Perhaps. Law school produces many innovative and creative legal minds. Big law firms, with their strict business models and general aversion to risk, stifle such innovation and creativity most of the time. I had never heard of Kasowitz before this morning, but a cursory review of the interwebz suggests they have a reputation as a “benevolent dictatorship.” Maybe Berry was fired for threatening to expose dirty secrets, maybe he was fired for having an ego, or maybe it was something else entirely. The truth may or may not come out in his lawsuit. The point is that we have a brand-new lawyer butting heads with his firm’s culture and getting the boot for one reason or another. Bring your own popcorn.

Now that he is free of the corporate yoke of BigLaw, he did what every young attorney who is too smart for the strictures of old-school legal culture should do: he started his own practice. And he did it with a bit of flair: his website states that:

[Berry] graduated from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and began his legal career at the “big-law” firm of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, where he quickly discovered that the emphasis in “big-law” firms on generating billable hours rather than on applying creativity and intelligence to devising unorthodox and cutting-edge legal strategies left Mr. Berry wasting his talents. Mr. Berry became a lawyer to fight for justice and to use his powers for good. He started this law firm to lend his abilities to clients who need the highest legal talent possible.

Here is a screengrab of that page, in case he has to edit any statements contained therein. I look forward to seeing what “unorthodox and cutting-edge legal strategies” Berry develops in his new position. Just watch out for those pesky ethics rules–they’ll come at you from all over.

I for one welcome this opportunity for NewLaw (I now claim credit for coining that term, even if someone else has the website) to put itself up against BigLaw. The new versus the old.The small versus the big.  The innovative versus the time-tested. Let the battle royale begin.