The Pants Judge Files Suit Again! But only for one measly “mil”.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. After being canned last year by the (in part for filing the infamous $54 million lawsuit over his pants), Roy Pearson is suing the District of Columbia for wrongful termination, seeking damages of a mere $1 million. Pearson claims that he is a protected whistleblower who was fired for exposing corruption within the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Never at a shortage for words hyperbole, Pearson claims to have suffered “‘humiliation’ and ‘physical illness’ as a result of his former employer’s ‘wrongful actions.’”

Between this suit and the appeal of the $54 Million Pants case, he’s the busiest unemployed lawyer in America.

I Made the Cut for Alltop!

In case you haven’t noticed the new “badge” over in the left hand column (likely because you read the RSS feed), my humble blog has been added to the “Law” Category on Alltop, a website that collects “stories from “all the top” sites on the web and aggregates them to a single page. They call this “single-page aggregation.” The founders of Alltop, Will Mayall, Kathryn Henkens, Guy Kawasaki want you to think of Alltop as “a “dashboard,” “table of contents,” or even a “digital magazine rack” of the Internet.”

I’m honored to be listed among the heavyweights of the ADR blog community, such as, Mediation Channel, World Directory of ADR Blogs, Settle It Now Negotiation Blog , Mediator blah…blah…, Conflict Zen, Engaging Conflicts, and Idealawg; as well as some of the best law blogs out there, such as Overlawyered, The WSJ Law Blog, and Above the Law.

Thanks to Alltop for letting us crash the party.

This is Why You Let That Letter Sit on Your Desk Overnight.

I don’t know about you, but over the years I’ve come across many an opposing counsel I found so irksome, so irritating that I’ve wanted to slap them write that perfectly sarcastic and derisive letter that puts them in their place. Truth be told, I often wrote the letter, but had the sense to print it out, and let it sit on the corner of my desk for a few hours or even over night before pitching it and writing a more restrained version. I felt better for having vented, and maintained a professional appearance.

Oklahoma lawyer Gerard Pignato evidently never learned that trick. A Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma recently found Mr. Pignato to be “‘highly unprofessional’ in his correspondence with plaintiff’s two counsel.” and ordered him to write and publish an article “pertaining to civility and professionalism as they relate to adversary proceedings.”

Among the sardonic barbs Pignato threw at his opposing counsel: “Can you not say anything in a page or less? Who are you? You’re just a broker who refers difficult cases to experienced lawyers. You’re a witness in this case. Be like a potted plant and sit quietly in the corner.”

Ironically, (and I think this is truly ironic and not “Alanis Morrisette ironic“) according to the bio on his website, the AV-rated Mr. Pignato has already published a paper on legal ethics in the Oklahoma Bar Journal.

What Happens to Agreements to Mediate after Advanced Bodycare Solutions?

Last week, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Advanced Bodycare Solutions, LLC v. Thione International, Inc., No. 07-12309, (April 21, 2008), that for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mediation is not arbitration; therefore a party cannot use §3 of the FAA to enforce an agreement to mediate or mediation clause.* While I do not disagree with this specific, limited holding, I am still left to wonder about the enforceability of mediation clauses in light of the court’s obiter dicta.

On the one hand, the Court goes to great lengths to note that “[t]his opinion should not be read as denigrating mediation,” that they “encourage parties to make liberal use of [mediation],”** that they “encourage district courts to liberally employ any authority . . . to order mediation sua sponte.”

Despite all the pleasantries and platitudes about mediation in the final paragraph, the Court seemed to go out of its way to suggest that mediation is little more than a speed bump on the way to the courthouse, even stating that “agreements to mediate are [not] per se unenforceable.” That sounds like judicial doublespeak for “the Court really doesn’t think that mediation clauses are enforceable, but we are leaving open the possibility that there may be very limited circumstances where we may enforce them.”

More after the jump