Tuesday, November 3, 2009

When You Have a Fool for a Client

I don't know about you, but for some reason all these pictures of Scottie make me hungry for a bacon double cheese burger.

Anyhoo, remember years ago when University of Miami Law School Professor D. Marvin Jones was arrested and falsely accused of picking up hookers, when the "hooker" was an undercover cop? No, me either. Until now.

That's because D. Marvin, going at it pro se, advised his client to sue the popular Big Law Blog "Above the Law" for 100 billion dollars for a "viciously rascist series of rants." (Okay, okay: he sued for 22 million.) Professor Jones filed the suit on October 27, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and named David Lat, the Blog's managing editor, publisher David Minkin, and the parent company as defendants. (Why doesn't he have a parent company? What would the parent company be named, if he had one?)

So, now this is news all over again.

Above The Law even posted a sort of commemorative montage (that's French), re-posting today what was buried in almost three year old posts. (The blog apparently disabled comments on its montage. In my transactional mind, that strikes me as an ill advised move resembling an admission. But I'm not smart like those Big Law heroes.)

Begging the question: why do this now? Maybe I am not that smart and am too conservative and scared and not a litigator, but where is the wisdom and sound judgment in bringing this up again? Did the Professor bounce this off experienced practicing lawyers, or even his colleagues? And, why did no lawyer in the community want to take this case? Even pro bono?

Perhaps the answers to these questions and others can be found in this great article.

N.B. The case drew Judge Marcia Cooke.


  1. The suit guarantees at least one or two more media cycles, so nice work there Perfesser!

  2. Further evidence (as if any more were needed) that those who can, do, while those who could never in a million years, teach.

  3. The idiot prof alleges a count for false light... something that was soundly reject by the Florida Supreme Court almost a year to the day of his filing his lawsuit. (jews for jesus v. rapp)

    great job...

  4. Hey Law - nice catch, particularly on the anniversary of justice pareinte's opinion. Any viability to a false light claim in federal court? The whole thing seems ill conceived.

  5. "Any viability to a false light claim in federal court?"

    Uh, sure, reasonable shot. Would just need to overturn Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, and then state law would not govern.