Well, at least that’s one theory cited by a DUI defense lawyer on behalf of his Connecticut client. (Defending PeopleA Public Defender, Nov. 20, via Above the Law)(blog misattribution corrected).

A judge had overturned the conviction of the former Norwich, Ct. substitute teacher (Jul. 15, Mar. 14 and Jun. 10, 2007, etc.) over the episode in which her computer (almost certainly infected with unwanted malware) displayed a stream of dirty popup windows while her students were watching. To the amazement of many, prosecutors refused to drop the charges and moved to hold a second trial. Now Amero has agreed to resolve the episode by pleading down to a single misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, as opposed to the 40 years she could have gotten on the original charges. (Rick Green, “Misdemeanor Plea Ends Norwich P0rnography Case”, Hartford Courant, Nov. 22).

More: “What I’d like to see come of it is a computer forensics innocence project.” (Joe Windish, The Moderate Voice; see also Balko/Reason “Hit and Run”, Bill Jempty @ WizBang, Rick Green @ Courant followup).

• “Forensic Experts Aren’t Team Players. Nor Should They Be.” [Balko, Reason "Hit and Run"]
• Australia high court reverses 2 crim convictions, judge snored loudly a lot (not just your innocent-error naplet) [Lowering the Bar]
• Hear that V-3 hum: preview of 2012 post-bailout car from Congressional Motors [Iowahawk satire]
• California Supreme Court gets a Prop 8 amicus brief from “Divine Queen of the Almighty Eternal Creator” [Box Turtle Bulletin]
• Bristol, CT mulls ban on smoking on public streets [Connecticut Employment Law Blog]
• “Singers Sue Label For Failing To Sue Others For Infringement” [TechDirt; Hall & Oates, Warner/Chappell; h/t @tamerabennett]
• Lawyer must spend half her time deflecting jokes about her name [Sullivan & Cromwell]

Phrased thus (at Legal Ethics Forum) it seems like a rather loaded question, doesn’t it? Who’s supposed to come down in favor of haunting? (The controversy arises from the suit filed by Greenwich attorney Barbara Shea to force a Connecticut grievance committee to remove online records of disciplinary run-ins she had between 1997 and 2002). A contrasting way of posing the same question might be: how far should we go in letting lawyers curtail the public availability of embarrassing information about events that 1) really did happen; 2) were a matter of public record at the time; and 3) are of natural and legitimate interest to at least some clients?

I’m not sure I have an entirely satisfactory answer to that question, but I’m pretty confident that it’s an unsatisfactory approach for grievance committees to have to fear getting beaten up in court actions if they don’t strike the balance as leniently as lawyers might like. (Douglas S. Malin, “Trying To Make The Past Disappear”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Sept. 29; Elefant/Legal Blog Watch, Oct. 3).

P.S. Many interesting reader comments of which my favorite was this one from z0l0ft:

The year is 2020 –

Hey Honey, I was checking the internet and I found all this great information about a true pioneer of the fight against the corruption of our youth by the videogame industry. His name was Jack Thompson. I could find nothing negative about him, so he must have been great.

In Connecticut; legal discipline

• Litigants’ “not about the money” assertions: Mark Obbie has further thoughts on reporters’ uncritical deployment of this cliche, and kind words for our archive of posts on the subject [LawBeat]
• Lawyer on the other side of that much-circulated “I’m sorry” deposition-dispute letter has his say [Markland and Hanley via Turkewitz and Above the Law]
• Local authority in England tells gardener to remove barbed wire from wall surrounding his allotment, thieves might get hurt on it and sue [Never Yet Melted, Steyn/NRO Corner]
• Same-sex marriage in Connecticut through judicial fiat? Jonathan Rauch says no thanks [IGF]
• Lawyers are back suing despite reform of FACTA, the credit-card-receipt “gotcha” law, but insurance might just dry up [Randy Maniloff at Point of Law]
• “Racing to the trough” — auto lenders latest to ask bailout though original TARP rationale of liquidity fix seems remote [Naked Capitalism]
• “To be a green-certified property (pretty important in crunchy Portland) there must be an absolute prohibition on smoking, including outdoor spaces.” [Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason "Hit and Run"]
• (Failed) claim in trademark case: “the term ‘electric’ is not commonly used by the general public to describe a source of power for watches” [TTAB via Ron Coleman]

Reacting to a case from Connecticut, Scott Greenfield deplores the apparent decline of standards among double-dealing criminal defense attorneys: “For God’s sake, man, if you are going to engage in flagrantly unethical behavior, at least avoid being a moron while doing so.” (Oct. 13; Hilda Munoz, “Attorney Found Guilty Of Bribing, Tampering With Witness”, Hartford Courant, Oct. 10).

• Don’t miss Roger Parloff’s tour de force coverage in Fortune blowing whistle on that dodgy suit in Moscow against Bank of New York Mellon, adorned by participation of lawprofs Dershowitz and Blakey [PoL overview, main article]
• Digital remixes and copyright law [Lessig, WSJ]
• Surgeon at Connecticut’s Greenwich Hospital revealed as drug abuser, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder now pressing suit on behalf of general class of patients, which sounds like it means “whether harmed or not” [Greenwich Time, Newsday via TortsProf weekly roundup]
• Chicago sheriff halting foreclosures, or maybe not, reportage is confused [Reuters, big discussion at Steve Chapman blog] And is Obama taking the idea national with bid for 90-day moratorium on foreclosures? [AP]
• Foie gras-style financial gavage? “None of banks getting government money was given a choice about it, said one of the people familiar with the plans.” [Bloomberg, Bernstein @ Volokh] More: Ann Althouse, Kuznicki/Cato at Liberty.
• Trey Allen law firm in Dallas agrees to pay $840,000 restitution after profiting from staged car crash scheme, but Allen’s lawyer says client wasn’t aware of any fraud [ABA Journal]
• Smoking bans, alcohol taxes contributing to steep decline of English village pubs [Newsweek]
• Bias-law panel rules Wal-Mart within its rights not to hire a female applicant for Santa Claus position [eight years ago on Overlawyered]

When guestblogging at this site not long ago, Daniel Schwartz of the Connecticut Employment Law Blog contributed a highly popular post about the class-action lawsuit filed by three professional wrestlers (”Raven”, “Chris Kanyon”, and “‘Above Average’ Mike Sanders”), a lawsuit based on the theory that the three had been improperly categorized as independent contractors while in reality standing in the position of employees to Connecticut-based World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Now he’s posted a couple of substantial updates at his blog (Oct. 4, Oct. 8) introducing the litigants, attorneys and judge, describing how the suit can be expected to unfold, and explaining why its outcome might turn out to be important for those other than wrestlers and their fans.

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Stratford, Connecticut woman against the cosmetics firm L’Oreal, saying she hadn’t proven her contention that the company had put dark brown dye in a box labeled as blonde. “I can never go back to my natural blonde hair,” complained Charlotte Feeney, who said that she ended up going on medications for depression as well as wearing hats. “I feel fake about that. Also blondes do get more attention than brunettes, of course, emotionally, I miss that.” (Daniel Tepfer, “Woman sues over wrong hair color”, Connecticut Post, Oct. 7)(via ABA Journal).

Last year a Connecticut court convicted Illinois contractor Mark R. Koch of larceny and ordered him to repay nearly $40,000 given him by Connecticut businessman Mark Poveromo to construct a building to house the latter’s pet food shop. So why did a Missouri bankruptcy judge order Poveromo to pay the money back to Koch? (John Christoffersen, AP, “Bankruptcy judge orders victim to pay back thief”, Sept. 22).

Many thanks to Daniel Schwartz who has been filling in over the past week. Check out his work at his Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

A U.S. District Court judge threw out the lawsuit of an Amtrak railroad passenger who claimed he injured himself when he jumped from a train that he had boarded in error.  If you guessed that alcohol would somehow be involved, you are correct.  You can download the whole decision here.

The facts are even more interesting with confusion from the plaintiff as to who sold him his ticket and how he boarded the wrong train, proving once again that you can’t make this stuff up. The Court’s decision has the details:

On the evening of May 19, 2005, the plaintiff consumed approximately five large tequila-based margarita cocktails [note to court: don't all margaritas have tequilla?] at a New Haven restaurant before walking to the New Haven Railroad Station. …

The plaintiff testified that the ticket agent told him that the train was on track number eight, that it was already there, and that it was the last train  so he “better hurry.” Without looking at the announcement board in the train station, the plaintiff walked to platform eight and boarded out-of-service Metro-North train number 1570. The train’s doors then closed and the train traveled for between seven and fifteen minutes before stopping at the New Haven Train Yard.

When the train doors opened, the plaintiff noticed that the train was not stopped at a platform, and he walked throughout the train and yelled for assistance but was unable to find anyone. Unable to see the ground below the train, the plaintiff jumped from the train car and injured his ankle. He then called 911 with his cell phone. Metro-North police responded, and the plaintiff was transported to Yale New Haven Hospital.

And then, of course, he sued….

What would Andre the Giant have thought about a new lawsuit just removed to federal court on Friday?  Three wrestlers, Scott Levy (better known as Raven), Christopher Klucsarits (known as Chris Kanyon) and Michael Sanders (“Above Average” Mike Sanders), have brought a class-action lawsuit against the Connecticut-based World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. company alleging that they have been misclassified as “independent contractors” instead of employees. They are seeking unspecified “financial benefits” that would have come with being an employee.  WWE has denied the claims in a 10-Q filing but has not filed a formal response yet.   Of course, Overlawyered has chronicled lawsuits like this before — previous a group of strippers also claimed that they were not independent contractors.   (You can read more about the claims and download the lawsuit directly at my site here.)

Ever wonder who that “Schwartz” is listed under the “Other Law Blogs” links on the right of this page is? (Go ahead and check, I’ll wait.)

Well, it’s none other than me, Dan Schwartz, your guest blogger for the week.  I’m honored to be guest-blogging here for the week — nearly one year after I started my very own Connecticut Employment Law Blog.  When I’m not blogging, I’m a lawyer for Pullman & Comley, a terrific medium-sized firm that represents lots of businesses in Connecticut and beyond.   I’m a mere cub next to Overlawyered’s grizzled vets, but I’ll try to keep up with the pace this week.

So what do I blog about? Well, the blog’s title is that obvious, but it’s a little more than that too.  Crazy laws and strange cases are always ripe for discussion, but so does the item that passes beneath the radar.  Too often, employment cases are given short shrift with important details left out.   Litigation is much more complex than just winners and losers and sometimes the “loser” of the case may actually be the “winner” if they’ve done better than a settlement demand, for instance.

What’s on the agenda this week? You’ll just have to check back.  But keep forwarding those tips, suggestions and feedback.  And my sincere thanks to Walter and the Overlawyered team for the opportunity.

One Westport split cost the divorcing couple an estimated $13 million. It differed in degree, but not really in kind, from many lesser domestic catastrophes: “Divorcing couples in Connecticut regularly rack up bank-busting legal bills that can put the lesser earning party — and there often is an economic imbalance between warring couples — into bankruptcy. … the most expensive and sought-after divorce attorneys are commonly referred to as ‘junkyard dogs.’” Then there are the hefty sums you may be forced to hand over to lawyers who get themselves appointed guardians ad litem, to represent your kids against, well, you and your ex (Daniel D’Ambrosio, Hartford Advocate, Jul. 24).

Second grade teacher Marie Jarry called in sick one day to her job at the Southington, Ct. public schools, which perhaps was not strictly accurate, since the next day she and her husband won first prize in a “Hottest Wife, Ugliest Husband” contest on the Howard Stern show. Now she’s suing over being pressured to resign from her job; school authorities invoked a school “morality clause” and were really mean about the little sick day fib (The Smoking Gun, Jun. 27, with copy of complaint). Writes Daniel Schwartz: “In thinking about this case, I can’t help but think of the irony of this case compared with a case down south last month which held that a female employee was subjected to a ‘hostile work environment’ because of the ‘vulgar radio programming’ in her workplace. And what was that vulgar programming? The Howard Stern show of course … While the particulars of this case will play out in court, what is striking about the complaint is the unwillingness to acknowledge that the teacher bears any responsibility for what occurred.” (Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Jul. 2).

This particular dispute, over noisy kids’ recreation in an otherwise quiet neighborhood of famously expensive Greenwich, Connecticut, might have led to legal ramifications in almost any day and age. Opponents of the wiffle ball, though, get a lot of mileage from everyone’s awareness of the case a few years ago in which the town was ordered to pay $6.3 million to a doctor who broke his leg while sledding on town land with his 4-year-old son. (Peter Applebome, New York Times, Jul. 10; Patrick Healy, “Town’s Downhill Pastime May Face an Uphill Fight”, New York Times, Apr. 26, 2004). More: Giacalone.

The paper’s editorial quotes this site on the legal-reform-friendly Senate record of Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman. (”The logic of Lieberman”, May 19).