Uh oh, sounds like somebody’s got a case of the Mondays!!! Hopefully our law links provide the antidote. (Note: Loyal readers recall Caryn Tamber writing last week that Danielle Ulman would take over the blog round-up. Danielle will, but today she is getting situated in her new business-of-law chair, so you’re stuck with me.)

“Is there a legal angle to the WikiLeaks story?” The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog asks — and answers that it’s unlikely the government can successfully prosecute anyone connected to the leak.

• Who knew pomegranate juice had so much bite? A D.C. judge prevents the National Law Journal from publishing details from documents it legally obtained in a lawsuit involving Hogan Lovells and POM Wonderful.  (HT: ABA Law Journal)
• Above the Law wishes good luck to everyone taking the Bar Exam this week. (As do we. But really, shouldn’t you be studying?)
• Word-of-mouth marketing is one of the best ways to recruit clients, and here’s a study that proves it. (HT: LawMarketing Blog)
• First Mel Gibson. Now Oliver Stone? Oy!

The lawyer has become the client.

Baltimore attorney Paul W. Gardner II, who has made headlines as counsel for alleged White House party-crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi, has now himself retained a lawyer.

The lawyer, Mark R. Dycio of Fairfax, Virginia, tells me that when the Salahis told the Today show that Gardner had invited them to a Congressional Black Caucus dinner in September–another event they were accused of crashing–Gardner became a witness in their case. As such, Gardner no longer represents the Salahis, Dycio said.

Stay tuned for a full story on the Gardner angle.

My expense report consists primarily of parking receipts and courthouse document copies. So I was impressed when I read a former legal secretary charged more than $46,000 on a company credit card to finance her side business – male exotic dancers.

Jarriette Richie, 41, was charged in Washington, D.C. federal court with fraud last week, according to The Washington Post. Richie worked at Saul Ewing LLP’s Washington office for three months in 2007, according to court filings. The credit card belonged to a lawyer whose firm merged with Saul Ewing, and all information related to the card was kept “in a locked room near Richie’s desk at Saul Ewing,” according to court filings.

Richie’s side businesses was Show N Tell Entertainment, which catered to female audiences and was based out of Richie’s Clinton home. The fraud charges stem from her planning an August 2007 trip to a Puerto Rican resort featuring the male performers. She used a personal credit cart to cover a $5,000 deposit, but then charged more than $21,000 on the company credit card for airline tickets and more than $25,000 for expenses at the resort, according to court filings.

Richie was released on her own recognizance following her initial court appearance Sept. 4, and her next hearing is scheduled for Sept. 18.

The American Bar Association has made good on its threat to sue if the FTC didn’t exempt lawyers from its Red Flags Rule, Kimberly Atkins writes for our sister paper, Lawyers USA.  The lawsuit was filed today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

The rule is designed to prevent identity theft from creditors and financial institutions, but, as our own Steve Lash reported, the FTC delayed implementation for a third time last month. The current effective date is Nov. 1.

Deep in today’s WaPo story about the deadliest crash in Metro history is this nugget:

The first lawsuit against Metro as a result of the crash was filed yesterday, and more are expected. The parents of Davonne Flanagan, 15, of the District sued in federal court, charging “negligent operation” and “negligent maintenance” on the part of Metro and the train’s operator.

Imhotep Yakub and Dawn Flanagan are seeking $950,000 for Davonne’s fractured leg and his pain and suffering. They are represented by Lawrence Lapidus, of the D.C. office of Karp, Frosh, Lapidus, Wigodsky & Norwind. (The firm also has offices in Rockville and Alexandria.)

A search of the PACER system shows no other suits filed against WMATA this week in D.C. or Maryland’s federal courts.

We’ve documented the struggle for funding of legal services in Maryland, but there’s been news in the last week about federal funding for legal services.

It began Thursday when the House approved $440 million in funding for the Legal Services Corp. for Fiscal Year 2010, a $50 million increase from the current fiscal year. The bill passed after an amendment to eliminate LSC was defeated 323-105, according to LSC.

Rep. Allan B. Mollohan, D-W. Va., said the amendment was “the wrong place to try to balance the budget,” echoing Maryland Sen. Bobby Zirkin and Del. Jon Cardin, the Baltimore County Democrats who led the fight to prevent a $500,000 cut to the Maryland Legal Services Corp.

The U.S. House measure also removed a restriction barring lawyers paid by legal services from collecting attorneys’ fees from opposing parties. As the U.S. Senate begins discussing LSC this week, the The Washington Post and The New York Times editorial boards both urged the Senate to lift two additional restrictions: one prohibiting legal services clients from participating in class-action lawsuits; the other extending the federal restrictions to money legal services providers receive from other sources. 

Incidentally, the Senate subcommittee that will be first to take up LSC funding is chaired by Maryland’s own Barbara Mikulski. Stay tuned. 

Thomas C. Goldstein had a busy day yesterday at the Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in Ocean City.

Goldstein, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauser & Feld LLP in Washington D.C. and founder of the popular SCOTUSblog, spoke at two educational sessions. One was about the U.S. Supreme Court under President Barack Obama; the other, which I attended and wrote about, was on effective appellate representation.

Goldstein has argued 21 cases before the Supreme Court and offered advice on how to get a petition for writ of certiorari granted and, if you’re lucky, how to argue your case before the high court.

I say “lucky” because Goldstein estimated the court grants approximately 1 percent of the 7,500 cert petitions it receives.

“They’re looking to deny cert,” he said.

Goldstein said the cert petitions granted answer four questions:

• Why this question?  (And it must be a clear question of law);
• Why this court: Can the issue be resolved by Congress or a regulatory agency instead?
• Why this case: What makes this case the perfect vehicle to resolve this question? And,
• Why now: Is there a sense of urgency to decide this case?

When it comes to arguing a case before the high court, Goldstein prepares through moot courts, practicing as many as a half-dozen times before the real deal.

He has two strategies: the principle of relative advantage (what can I bring to the conversation?) and the art of the possible (realizing you will not convince all of the judges to change their minds). Sometimes Goldstein will focus on one judge and discuss only one issue.

“Think modestly about what you can accomplish at oral arguments,” he said.

The NFL released its entire 2009 schedule Tuesday, but it’s eight specific games on the calendar that are the focus of a courtroom hearing in Washington, D.C. this week.

The octet of games will air later this year on NFL Network, which is owned by the league. Comcast has put the network on its premium sports tier, which costs extra on top of the standard digital package, where the league wants its network to be.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, claims it put the network in the premium tier because of high costs associated with carrying the channel; the NFL says Comcast put the channel there so as not to compete with Comcast’s own sports channels. 

An administrative law judge with the Federal Communications Commission will make a ruling that could have implications beyond sports:

It is the first big test at the FCC of a 1992 federal law that prohibits cable companies, such as Comcast, from favoring their own entertainment content over that of independents, such as the NFL Network. …[A ruling in favor of the NFL] could make it easier for independent programmers to gain access to cable systems, experts say.

This case is one of three that will be heard in the next few months by Judge Richard L. Sippel; another one, interestingly enough, involves MASN, the Orioles’ and Nationals cable network. After settling a separate federal suit against Comcast (over “split feed” advertising in the Baltimore and D.C. region) a little more than a year ago, MASN now wants Comcast to carry the channel in several southern Virginia markets.

I blogged Friday about D.C. lawyer DeMaurice F. Smith, one of four men vying to become the new executive director of the NFL Players Association. Smith is a business lawyer with no connections to the National Football League. At the end of my Friday post, I wrote:

[Former player Troy] Vincent is the front-runner, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the union decides to tap the outsider offering a fresh perspective.

My prediction came true yesterday. Now, if only I can be so accurate in my NCAA Tournament bracket…

Representatives from the NFL Players Association are in Maui this weekend to select a new executive director for what the AP calls “North America’s most powerful sports union.” Three candidates have football and football-related experience: Troy Vincent and Trace Armstrong are ex-players and former NFLPA presidents, and Georgia lawyer David Cornwell is a well-known sports agent and lawyer.

It’s the fourth candidate to replace the late Gene Upshaw, however, that I find most interesting. He’s DeMaurice F. Smith, a partner with D.C. law firm PattonBoggs. He is a business lawyer, not a labor lawyer. (He’s also a Redskins fan, but I don’t think voters can hold that against him.)

The union is looking at Smith because he is an outsider, and Smith told The Washington Post earlier this month he thinks his combination of fan and business expert makes the executive director position a perfect fit.

Smith should be careful what he wishes for, however. The new executive director inherits two big, lingering issues. The first and most important is re-negotiating a labor deal with the league after the current one expires following the 2010 season. Failure to reach an agreement could lead to owners locking out players in 2011. The second issue is the ongoing criticism from retired players who feel the union does not adequately address their medical and financial needs.

Vincent is the front-runner, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the union decides to tap the outsider offering a fresh perspective – shades of another candidate and election result from November.