Showing posts with label Hotties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hotties. Show all posts

Monday, March 24, 2014

What Else Dewey Know About Zachary Warren?

  • 21 Mar 2014 at 2:21 PM
  • 6th Circuit, Biglaw, Clerkships, Dewey & LeBoeuf, Hotties, Securities and Exchange Commission, White-Collar Crime, William and Mary School of Law, Williams & Connolly
  • What Else Dewey Know About Zachary Warren?


    For a while, interest in the Dewey drama seemed to be flagging (at least according to our traffic statistics). But lately it has revived, thanks to the recent criminal charges against the firm’s former leaders, plus the arrival on the scene of Zachary Warren — a total Dewey & LaBoeuf-Cake.
    Interest in Zach Warren has been keen — and not just because of his good looks. His tale seems to resonate with Above the Law readers because, as Matt Kaiser recently noted, “he seems like one of us.” Although Above the Law’s readership is expanding, with more than a million unique visitors a month, it’s still fair to say that a young lawyer, recently graduated from a top law school, is within ATL’s demographic sweet spot.
    Over the past few days, we’ve learned more about Zachary Warren. Dewey want to share this knowledge with you? Of course we do….

    Here’s an interesting perspective on Zach Warren from one tipster (who hasn’t met him):
    [T]here seem to be some parallels in the stories and actions in the case of Zachary Warren and Amanda Knox. Both grew up sheltered and were eager to please. Both ended up saying stuff under pressure that they would later regret. Both never saw themselves as the target of an investigation until it was too late. Both will be misunderstood and maligned unfairly by people who know nothing about them except for what they read in the press. Both will face a lifetime of negative consequences not because of anything they did, but for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and for being too naive.
    And both are total hotties. But I suspect Zach Warren never did splits and a cartwheel after getting arrested — although if he did, I’d like to see the video footage. (For the record, Amanda Knox denies the infamous gymnastics.)
    Here’s more about Zach Warren, from someone who knows him (although not well):
    He’s really nice and charismatic. Thoughtful and very smart (even by clerk standards). A wonderfully sweet, kind, fun guy.
    This is consistent with what Warren’s former boss, Judge J. Frederick Motz, told James Stewart of the New York Times: “Zach is a wonderful person, a decent, fine young man. I’m so sorry he’s being put through what’s happening.”
    Finally, here’s an assessment from a third tipster, a family friend of the Warrens:
    Your article was well done and fair for someone with so little personal knowledge of Zach. Our families have been close at times over the years, and there is not doubt that Zach is the real deal, a good person who would never knowingly participate in any fraudulent activity. Anyone who believes that a kid just out of college would have been allowed to participate in the financial planning of such a major law firm knows nothing about the business of law. The prosecutor has the power to charge and bring a calamity on a good family — a half-million dollars or more to defend through trial. One would hope that clear thinking and the fair and appropriate exercise of discretion will bring an early end to this nightmare for a family of dedicated public servants.
    The cost of a good defense lawyer raises another interesting point that has emerged in our recent conversations with sources about Zachary Warren. Why did Zach Warren talk to law enforcement without a lawyer? Matt Kaiser floated some excellent theories yesterday, but we’ve also heard that Warren might have been concerned about money. The theory is that because Warren didn’t think he had done anything wrong and possessed significant knowledge about the legal system (as a lawyer himself), he didn’t think it necessary to drop a four- or five-figure sum on a retainer.
    We’ve previously described Zachary Warren as being “well-to-do,” but let’s refine that a bit more. As a Sixth Circuit law clerk, Warren is probably earning between $60,000 and $70,000 (depending on the COLA for Memphis, which I’m guessing is low). He won’t start earning the big bucks until he joins Williams & Connolly (which has an above-market starting salary of $180,000 — and if he gets credit for his two clerkship years, he’d be looking at $210,000). If you focus on his current, reasonable but relatively modest salary as a law clerk, plus the possibility of debt from law school, Warren probably wasn’t eager to go out and hire a macher of the white-collar bar.
    What about family money? After all, Zach’s parents, Judge Roger Warren (retired) and Professor Christie Warren of William & Mary Law School, were apparently wealthy enough to help Zach buy a home when he moved to D.C. for Georgetown Law.
    Well, let’s not put too much stock in that. It was a relatively modest home, just $399,000, and it’s possible that the Warrens saw it as an investment, not just throwing around loose change. (It would have been a smart investment; D.C.’s real estate market has done well since September 2009.)
    We’ve done some poking around online, and it seems the best description of the Warrens would be upper middle class, but not rich. In 2012-2013, Professor Warren earned $76,200, according to a database of Virginia state employee salaries. As for retired Judge Warren, in 2012 he earned $67,400, as a special consultant to the California Judicial Council. He has had better years; in 2010, for example, he earned $123,125 from the National Center for State Courts, an organization he used to lead (go here, click on the Form 990 for 2010). But even in their best years, the Warrens were probably not breaking the $250,000 barrier. And I tend to agree with Elie Mystal on this: earning $250,000 is nice, but it doesn’t make you rich.
    Given his finances and his parents’ finances, one can understand why Zach Warren might not have wanted to hire a lawyer until it was 100 percent clear that doing so was absolutely necessary. And in further defense of Warren, how much could a lawyer have helped?
    I dealt with many excellent defense lawyers when I worked as a prosecutor, but there’s only so much a defense lawyer can do if the prosecution holds a tough line. I previously wondered whether Zachary Warren was given the opportunity to cooperate with the Manhattan DA’s office on the Dewey investigation in exchange for more lenient treatment for himself, like the Dewey secret seven. What we’ve been hearing lately is that there were some vague and preliminary discussions between Zachary Warren and Cyrus Vance’s office about a negotiated resolution, but they didn’t get very far because the kind of plea the DA’s office required would have wiped out Warren’s professional future.
    We don’t know all their identities, but most of the Dewey secret seven seem to be finance folks. They can plead guilty, even to a felony, and still find work somewhere — maybe not in the securities industry or in public accounting, but somewhere. Zachary Warren, however, is a lawyer, barred in D.C. and California. A guilty plea carries bigger consequences for him, as noted by Steven Harper:
    [A] plea deal poses special problems that don’t affect non-lawyers. Reportedly, Warren passed the bar last July. Among other things, a guilty plea could end forever his ability to practice law. That would be a tough way to close out an investment of five years (law school plus two clerkships) and $150,000 in tuition.
    So, in fairness to Zachary Warren, not bringing a lawyer with him to that fateful interview might have been a case of “harmless error.” It probably couldn’t have saved him from indictment, since it seems that the Manhattan DA’s office has a hard-on for him — in the non-sexual sense — and wants to see him go down.
    Why might this be the case? Some folks we’ve communicated with, noting that the Warren prosecution is being handled by a state DA’s office rather than a U.S. attorney’s office, have wondered whether Zachary Warren’s professional pedigree — Stanford, Georgetown Law, two federal clerkships — might have engendered resentment of him on the part of the assistant district attorneys working on the case.
    I’m generally a sucker for tales of status anxiety (affiliate link), but I’m skeptical of this theory. The Manhattan DA’s office is, as Kaiser noted, arguably the most well-regarded state prosecutor’s office in the country. It isn’t some rinky-dink local prosecutor’s shop; its prestigious prosecutors often go on to U.S. attorney’s offices (or, heck, the U.S. Supreme Court). The main ADA on the Dewey case, Peirce Moser, isn’t some random, inexperienced Touro Law grad; he’s a seasoned prosecutor and a graduate of UVA Law. (Yes, both Touro and UVA are in our March Madness contest for America’s worst law school — but it looks like Touro is making it to the next round and UVA is not.)
    Two other random tidbits about Zachary Warren. First, we hear that he’s straight, single, and “a real sweetheart” (so start your engines, ladies). Second, some have looked with suspicion on how quickly he got promoted to his $100,000 job as a client relations manager at Dewey, wondering if perhaps he got fast-tracked because the powers-that-be sensed he might be corruptible. But we’ve heard a different explanation: he got a “battlefield promotion” a few months after arriving at Dewey, because his predecessor in the post quit. (As you may recall, Dewey was a place with a lot of turnover.)
    Yes, our coverage to date has been fairly pro-Zach. For a less sympathetic take, see, e.g., Death Throes of Innocence (or, for that matter, the reader comments on some of our prior posts). In addition, we’ve heard rumors that in the coming weeks the DA’s office will show more of its hand — in ways that could materially affect our perception of Zach Warren. We reserve the right to change our opinion of him after additional facts emerge.
    So we’ll keep you posted. If you have information to share about Warren, including comments on or corrections to what we’ve previously written, please email or text us (646-820-8477). Thanks.
    DEWEY & LE BOEUF: MORE COLLATERAL DAMAGE [The Belly of the Beast]
    History, Class, and White-Collar Crime [Death Throes of Innocence]
    Earlier: Why Did Zachary Warren Talk To Law Enforcement?
    What Dewey Know About Zachary Warren, Defendant No. 4 In The Criminal Case?
    Dewey Finally Have Criminal Charges Against Ex-Leaders Of This Failed Firm?

    Thursday, March 20, 2014

    Oy Vey! Dueling Calendars Of Jewish Hotties Trigger Trademark Throwdown

  • 19 Mar 2014 at 2:49 PM
  • Gay, Hotties, Intellectual Property, Jews, Reader Polls, Trademarks
  • Oy Vey! Dueling Calendars Of Jewish Hotties Trigger Trademark Throwdown


    Earlier in the week, I came across an interesting intellectual-property fact pattern in the New York Post. The Post reported on a calendar conflict in which the creator of the Nice Jewish Guys Calendar, an established brand, alleges trademark infringement by a newcomer, the Naughty Jewish Boys Calendar.
    I must now confess to a weakness for the Chosen People. I admire them not just for their socioeconomic and educational attainment but for their sex appeal. So I was more than happy to investigate.
    Let’s check out the competing calendars, the cease-and-desist letter, and the response thereto — along with some Hebraic hotties, of course….

    The word is already out about hot Jewish women like Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson; it’s the men who need greater exposure.
    The New York Post is diversifying nicely beyond gossip, sex, and scandal (a strategy we can appreciate here at Above the Law). In addition to book reviews, the Post now offers coverage of IP disputes:
    A battle to define male Jewish sexuality is playing out on two competing wall calendars — one filled with mensch after mensch, another that’s decidedly less kosher — and now, the battle’s gone legal.
    In 2011, a television producer named Adam Cohen founded the “Nice Jewish Guys” wall calendar, featuring pictures of smiling, fully clothed young Jewish men that any Jewish mother would be proud to call mishpacha (family). The calendar is now annual, and growing in popularity. The 2014 edition has sold more than 10,000 copies, and Cohen even secured a cross-promotional deal with the popular Jewish dating site JDate.
    But not everyone is onboard with Cohen’s version of how nice Jewish men should be — or how they should be portrayed. When Astoria playwright Duncan Pflaster placed a Craigslist ad in February for models for a “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar, he called it an alternative to the “emasculating ‘Nice Jewish Boys’ [sic] calendar currently out,” claiming that his would “show the sexy side of Judaism.”
    Pflaster soon received a letter from a lawyer representing the other calendar — actually called “Nice Jewish Guys” — claiming that “Naughty Jewish Boys” was close enough to their trademark to confuse consumers and requesting that Pflaster stop using the name.
    You can read the cease-and-desist letter — sent by Michael L. Lovitz on behalf of Jumbo Jet Inc., owner of the “Nice Jewish Guys” trademark — over here. This is the core of its kvetshing:
    Our client is understandably concerned. The Infringing Name [of "Naughty Jewish Boys"] being used for your wall calendars is highly related to our client’s registered trademark [in "Nice Jewish Guys"]. The common interplay of the terms “naughty” and “nice” makes it likely that consumers and potential customers would believe, in error, that the Infringing Name is being used in connection with products that are related to, affiliated with or under license from JJI, a belief that is reinforced by your continued reference to and comparisons with JJI’s Calendars. The products you are promoting under the Infringing Name are a natural expansion for JJI of its line of wall calendars, and therefore the use of the Infringing Name in connection with your calendar products would interfere with JJI’s prospective business opportunities, to JJI’s detriment.
    You can read the response of Duncan Pflaster — creator of the “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar, and a fan of naughty Jewish boys himself — over here. His response, which he accurately describes on his website as “polite,” is sadly not snarky (unlike such classics as the C&D responses sent to West Orange, the American Bankers Association, and Starbucks). It seems that Pflaster is taking the situation seriously.
    What’s the gist of his defense? He articulated it when he spoke with the Post:
    “I don’t think there’s any way our calendars can be confused,” he says. “I’ve tried to make that clear on the Web site and on all of the materials.”
    The calendars take a very different approach to Jewish men.
    Indeed. This side-by-side comparison prepared by the Post shows the divergence (click to enlarge):

    This image captures the contrast in approach. The “Nice Jewish Guys” calendar features mensches you can “take home to Mom.” The “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar boasts shirtless (and presumably brised) men you can take straight to bed.
    I’m not an IP lawyer, but I’m hoping that Pflaster and his “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar prevail. I really want to get my hands on that calendar (which you can pre-order through this website).
    For those of you who are IP lawyers or who take an interest in these issues, who is in the right in this mishegas? Read the full Post article, the C&D letter, and the response, then comment on this post and vote in our reader poll:


    Does the owner of Nice Jewish Guys have a valid trademark infringement claim against Naughty Jewish Boys?

    Loading ... Loading ...
    Sexy Jewish pinup calendars in ‘naughty vs nice’ holy war [New York Post]
    Naughty Jewish Boys™ Calendar [official website]
    Nice Jewish Guys™ Calendar [official website]

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013

    Reema Unchained: Attorney Who Pleaded Guilty To Prostitution Sues A Slew Of Local Lawyers

    Editor's  note:  Go Reema!


    Attorney Misconduct, Crime, Hotties, Legal Ethics, Pornography, Prostitution, Sex, Sex Scandals, Small Law Firms, Solo Practitioners

    Reema Unchained: Attorney Who Pleaded Guilty To Prostitution Sues A Slew Of Local Lawyers


    Reema Bajaj
    In June 2011, we brought you the story of Reema Bajaj, a lovely young lawyer in Illinois who was accused of prostitution. I expressed a belief in her innocence, although my faith was somewhat shaken by the nude photos of her that circulated on the web. And then, in June 2012, Bajaj pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of prostitution.
    After covering her guilty plea, we thought we had seen the last of her. As I wrote, “The post you’re now reading could very well represent the final story we write about Reema Bajaj…. We will miss writing about this colorful young woman, but we wish her the best in getting on with her life and her law practice.”
    I spoke too soon. Now Bajaj is back — with a vengeance….
    Note the UPDATE at the end of this post, based on comments from Bajaj’s counsel.

    It appears that Bajaj had difficulty getting on with her life and her law practice in the wake of her prostitution plea. Although she kept her Illinois law license, as a legal ethics expert we interviewed predicted she would, Bajaj had trouble attracting clients.
    Earlier this month, she dissolved her law practice. And yesterday she sued three local lawyers: a former prosecutor who worked on her case, Calvin Campbell; one of her own former defense attorneys, Timothy Johnson, who is now law partners with Campbell; and a “John Doe” defendant. Bajaj alleges that the three lawyers circulated nude photos of her, causing her emotional distress and hurting her ability to generate business (for her law practice). From the DeKalb Daily Chronicle:
    The lawsuit, filed Monday in DeKalb County court by Reema “Nicki” Bajaj, 27, alleges that Campbell and local lawyer Timothy W. Johnson, who was acting as her defense attorney, showed nude photographs of her to other lawyers at the DeKalb County Courthouse in June 2011. The complaint also identified an unnamed “John Doe” lawyer working for the state’s attorney’s office.
    Bajaj is seeking more than $50,000 from Campbell, Johnson, and [John Doe] in the suit for emotional distress and economic damage.
    Bajaj is represented by Kevin D. McHugh and Amanda T. Adams, two 2007 graduates of Bajaj’s alma mater, Northern Illinois University College of Law, who now have their own law firms. McHugh, who appears to be taking the lead on the case, is a litigator, while Adams focuses on family law.
    We heard about Bajaj’s complaint from multiple readers. This tipster plays for Team Reema:
    Hi Guy! I’m a big fan of the BEAUTIFUL Nicki or Reema Bajaj. That’s how I found your site! I even requested you forward some of her pictures to me. Sadly, you didn’t. :(
    (Though you mentioned me in one of your articles. Hee-hee, yes I’m a dirty old man.)
    ANYWAY! I just heard on WBBM NewsRadio 78 that Miss Bajaj is in the news again! Since you like her too you might want to look into it. I guess she dissolved her law firm…. And she’s suing people….
    DERP!!!!
    A second source expressed skepticism towards her lawsuit:
    Reema is back for revenge! She is suing the former State’s Attorney and her defense attorney for distributing nude photos of her. She claims intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with her business. Of course, her conviction for prostitution might limit her damages….
    Reema Bajaj’s civil case is captioned — wait for it — Bajaj v. Johnson. I wouldn’t bet against her in this litigation. She has plenty of experience eating Johnsons for breakfast.
    UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): An earlier version of this story bore a headline stating that Bajaj had been “convicted” of prostitution. We’ve spoken with her lawyers, who declined to comment on her new lawsuit but stated that although Bajaj pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of prostitution, she was not “convicted” of prostitution as a matter of Illinois law. We have amended the headline accordingly.
    (You can check out the full complaint in Bajaj v. Johnson on the next page.)