Gearing up for the holiday weekend, we thought it necessary to revive the blog’s legal humor category. With that, we’ve compiled 9 Seinfeld-related lawsuits, five fictional and four real, to commemorate the 9 years the 90′s mega-sitcom fantastically mocked most aspects, significant and mundane, of real life. And the show’s take on the legal industry was no different.

Fictional Lawsuits

1.) Kramer v. Java World

When Kramer spills coffee on himself in a movie theater, friend and Johnnie Cochran-inspired attorney Jackie Chiles encourages Seinfeld’s eccentric neighbor to sue the fast-food company. The chain agrees to award Kramer free coffee at any franchise store and $50,000, but before they can mention the cash, Kramer agrees to the free coffee–having erased all evidence of his injury by applying a topical Chinese balm recommended by Bob Cobb a.k.a. The Maestro.  Chiles exclaims “I am outraged!” and calls the settlement “lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous.”

The episode is a clear reference to the misunderstood 1994 lawsuit Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, in which a jury awarded 79-year-old Stella Liebeck $2.86 million for burns sustained by coffee spilled at a drive-thru window. Due to the high verdict, Liebeck became a symbol for unnecessary lawsuits, even after the award was reduced to just over $600,000. But in reality, the lawsuit was not as frivolous as the legend.  The court found that McDonald’s kept its coffee at 180 degrees Fahrenheit, much higher than home-brewed coffee and temperatures at other restaurants. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her body and spent eight days in the hospital.

2.) Kramer v. Big Tobacco

Indulging in the joys of smoking cigars, Kramer experiences the side effects of smoking cigars: a leathery and “hideous” face. Naturally, Kramer seeks legal advice from Chiles, who concludes, “your face is my case.” While discussing the lawsuit with Marlboro, a tobacco lawyer tells Kramer that the skin change gives him a “rugged masculinity.” Without consulting Chiles further, Kramer settles the case in return for his face on a massive Marlboro billboard in Times Square. Chiles calls the settlement “the most public yet of my many humiliations.”

3.) Kramer v. Mischke

After Kramer begins taking golf lessons from Stan the Caddy, he begins to consider a professional golf career. That is, until his hopes are dashed by injures sustained in a car accident caused by staring at a shirtless Sue Ellen Mischke, Elaine’s rival and “bra-less wonder.” Yet again, Kramer hires Chiles, who takes Mischke to court for “flouting society’s conventions” by refusing to wear a shirt. At the caddy’s suggestion, Chiles asks Mischke to try the bra on in open court, understanding that it must fit “like a glove,” another clear Johnnie Cochran reference. When the bra doesn’t fit, the judge acquits.

4.) Claire v. Play Now

Kramer’s company, Kramerica Inc. develops a new form of oil tanker bladder which must be tested before it’s put into circulation. What better place to test the bladder than Play Now, George’s company which now knows that George had faked being disabled for the extra benefits? Thanks to a one-year contract, though, the company can’t fire George. While testing the bladder from the Play Now roof, Jerry’s girlfriend Claire crosses below, on her way to meet Jerry and discuss his insatiable need to attribute a voice to her belly button. At this point, Jerry had used the voice so much his friends no longer found it funny. But the oil bladder exploding on Claire below revives the humor. Unfortunately, Claire sues Play Now for damages, putting the company out of business and George out of a job (again).

5.) Massachusetts et al. v. Seinfeld et al.

While attempting to fly to Paris for a “last hurrah” before Jerry and George move to California, Kramer’s antics cause the flight to land unexpectedly in Latham, Massachusetts. Waiting to get back on their flight, the crew witnesses an overweight man getting carjacked and begins to crack jokes about the man’s size. When the carjacked man alerts an officer about their behavior, the four are arrested under the a state law that requires bystanders to help if they witness a citizen in danger. To win the case, the police officer wants to gather as much information on the four as possible, setting off a massive legal battle that includes statements from a long list of characters, most of whom loathe Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer. Even Jackie Chiles can’t bust the crew out, and they are eventually sentenced to one year in prison.

Real Lawsuits

When you’re in the media spotlight, you get a lot of attention. For the most part, this attention was kind to the Seinfeld stars, but in a few key cases, the foursome learned the hard way that it can backfire. Here are four real lawsuits against Seinfeld and the show’s stars:

1.) Costanza v. His Own Personality

In 1998, Jerry Seinfeld’s college buddy Michael Costanza sued the comedian $100 million for harming his reputation by clearly using him for the basis for the show’s bizarre, spiteful character George. “George is bald. I am bald,” he said. “George is stocky. I am stocky. George and I both went to Queens College with Jerry. George’s high-school teacher nicknamed him ‘Can’t stand ya.’ So did mine. George had a thing about bathrooms and parking spaces. So did I.”

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division dismissed the case because no episode included Michael Costanza’s “name, portrait, or picture,” and the plaintiff even agreed to a brief cameo in one episode. The court also ruled that the statute of limitations had run out since the suit was not filed within one year of the show’s 1989 debut. Seinfeld continues to claim that the character is based on the show’s co-creator Larry David, which if you’ve seen his HBO show “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is not at all difficult to believe.

2.) Sneaky v. Deceptive

In April, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Jerry’s real-life wife Jessica Seinfeld had not ripped off a cookbook idea from Missy Chase Lapine. Lapine said that Seinfeld’s book, “Deceptively Delicious” stole the idea of disguising healthy food for kids from her book “The Sneaky Chef.” The judges were unconvinced, and ruled that “stockpiling vegetable purees for covert use in children’s food is an idea that cannot be copyrighted.”

3.) Sneaky v. Bad Jokes

While this legal battle waged, Jerry got himself into some trouble during a taping of “The Late Show with David Letterman.” Referring to the lawsuit against his wife, Jerry told Letterman, “one of the fun facts of celebrity life is wackos will wait in the woodwork to pop out at certain moments of your life to inject a little adrenaline into your experience…If you read history, many of the three-name people do become assassins. Mark David Chapman. And you know, James Earl Ray. So that’s my concern.” Lapine took this opportunity to sue Jerry himself for claiming she may be a murderer or someone with “potentially violent or, at a minimum, hostile, tendencies, proclivities and activities.” The federal appeals judge declined to rule on the defamation claim, saying it was a state matter.

4.) Political Correctness v. Very Bad “Jokes”

When audience members recorded a racist tirade by Michael Richards on their cell phone at the New York comedy club The Laugh Factory in 2006, his reputation was irreparably harmed. The men Richards insulted, Frank McBride and Kyle Doss, quickly hired attorney Gloria Allred to coax Richards toward a public apology and (maybe) payment of damages. Kramer apologized to the men in addition to civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Allred did not seek monetary damages. In 2009, when Richards appeared in the Seinfeld “reunion” on Curb Your Enthusiasm, he attempted to mock his behavior. After a black man makes Richards look foolish before studio executives, he exclaims “if only there were a horrible name that I could call you that would make you as angry as I am!” while bystanders capture the exchange on their cell phones.

If we missed anything, let us know in the comments.

Photo credits: wallyg, Alan Light, GreyHawk68

On a certain level, the urge to inflate grades is understandable. “If somebody’s paying $150,000 for a law school degree, you don’t want to call them a loser at the end,” says grade inflation researcher Stuart Rojstaczer. “So you artificially call every student a success.” But it’s still unclear whether the academic up tick will fool employers, since so many frequent the popular blog Above the Law, which keeps track of schools engaging in academic inflation through leaked student memos.

Needless to say, the Times story set off a firestorm in the legal blogosphere. Bruce Carton of Legal Blog Watch wonders what other numbers we can alter to make ourselves feel better. For example, “why should people have to wear blue jeans that say ‘Waist 38′ on them? Blue jeans marketers should deflate the size written on each pair (so size 38 now becomes 32) to make their customers ‘look more attractive in a competitive dating market.’”

On his blog Law Prof on the Loose, Jon Siegel writes that firms will not be deceived as long as Universities continue to list class rank. “You could call all the grades A, B, and C or you could call them Apple, Fire Engine, and Giraffe, and it wouldn’t matter as long as you had class rank,” he writes.

But class rank doesn’t solve the expectations problem, writes Howard Wasserman for PrawfsBlawg. Wasserman implies that some of the blame lies with the employers, who are only interested in students who are off-the-charts academically. “As a relatively new, lower-tiered school, firms are interested only in our very top students,” he writes. “But many firms seemed to say that a 3.3 GPA was not high enough for them to look at, even if that person was #3 in the class.”

Weighing the complex angles of this debate, I can’t get over Siegel’s view that when it comes down to it, grade inflation “amounts to deception.” If you want to make it more difficult for employers to judge graduates, it’s more honest to follow the example of top ten schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley, which have each implemented pass/fail systems to reduce competition without redefining As, Bs, and Cs.

Photo credit: j_mills

I’m thankful that the internet has made it possible to speak to other legal bloggers across the country from the comfort and convenience of my office. But there are times when I want to meet the names on my Google Reader face to face. Santa Clara University professor Eric Goldman has assembled a few meet ups of Bay Area Blawgers over the past few years. And Kevin O’Keefe’s blog has promoted Beer for Bloggers in different cities across the US. From all accounts I’ve heard and read, these events have been well received and succeeded at putting human faces on familiar local bloggers.

On Thursday June 3 at 6 pm, I hope you will meet me at Thirsty Bear Brewery in San Francisco’s SOMA neighborhood to grab a post-work beer and talk about… well… anything. Here are the details:

Date: Thursday June 3

Time: 6:00 pm

Location: Thirsty Bear Brewery (quick walk from Montgomery St. BART Station)

661 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3915

(415) 974-0905

You can reach me by email at benb@gjel.com or call me at 925-253-5800 if you have any questions. And feel free to invite other bloggers, lawyers, and colleagues who might be interested.

I hope to see you there!

Photo credit: magerleagues

First, a relevant and funny story:

Lowering the Bar has a great story about a driver who was talking on the phone while driving. But not just one phone, two phoness! And not just driving any car, but a tow truck! I thought this was particularly appropriate given the number of posts I’ve been making about the dangers of talking or texting while driving. Fortunately, no one was injured in this particular case, and though it was funny this time, it’s still never a good idea to text or talk and drive. See Lowering the Bar’s full story for details, or just look at the picture I’ve included for a laugh.

And now, for the video:

Our first video is a “stress toy abuse” ad made by Westlaw, the legal research company. I used to work for Westlaw when I was a law student, and they gave us free stress toys like the ones in the video–they were going for some sort of marketing campaign built completely around those creepy looking things. Apparently it failed, but the video is still pretty amusing. Especially if you’re familiar with how stressful legal research can be.

As long as we’re doing the legal research service humor thing, let me also bring you this video, of a sketch put on by some law students. For those who are unfamiliar, there’s Westlaw and Lexis student reps who fight for the attention of law students. To be clear, the Westlaw girl in this skit is portraying the same job I had as a student. I sincerely hope I wasn’t that annoying…

And finally, because I promised a story, vidoes and more

Hope everyone has a great weekend!

Senator Sessions, somewhat offhandedly said, “Mr. Henderson, It’s good to work with you. Senator Leahy and I are talking during these hearings; we’re going to do that crack cocaine thing that you and I have talked about before.”

Henderson paused for a minute and then laughed to himself and said, “Thank you, Senator, I appreciate that.”

Of course, Sessions was speaking to Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who has suggested that the penalties for crimes involving crack cocaine are out of balance to the penalties for crimes involving the powdered variety. Apparently realizing his mistake, Sessions clarified his statement so that everyone knew the “crack cocaine thing” was his way of saying he plans to bring the penalties for both types of offenses in line with one another.

Particularly interesting to me is that Sessions is one of those Republican Senators who just wouldn’t let the “wise Latina” comment die this week. Though it was taken out of context and Sotomayor has admitted that it was a failure as a piece of rhetoric, she has been grilled for it over and over again. I’m curious to know who will be grilling Sessions about his “crack cocaine thing.” It doesn’t seem fair that Sotomayor’s remarks are taken out of context and used against her and Sessions’ aren’t. Perhaps a hearing for Sessions is in order as well.

But this one story isn’t enough for me. I did a little internet research to find some other ridiculous law-related tales…

The Stella Awards

Many people are probably familiar with the Stella Awards, but for those who aren’t: A Stella Award is earned by a lawsuit when that lawsuit is outrageous or ridiculous, and usually is seen as an abuse of the legal system. While abusing the legal system is pretty serious, these stories are still pretty funny.

The Stella Awards were named after Stella Liebeck, who spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee on her lap, resulting in some serious third degree burns. She sued McDonald’s and was awarded $2.9 million by a jury (though the judge knocked down the ridiculously high punitive damages). Rather than chance an appeal, McDonald’s and Stella negotiated a secret settlement after the case, in which McDonald’s paid Stella some unknown amount (it was a secret settlement, after all), to not appeal the case.

Though the Stella Awards take their name from Stella Liebeck, her case is not the most ridiculous case on the Stella Awards website. Not even close. If you visit the Stella Awards website you can read more, and even subscribe for email updates. There’s also a Stella Awards book that’s available.

And Because Stories Aren’t Enough…

Jokes! Just a few one-liners, from the selection at comedy-zone.net:

Q: Why won’t sharks attack lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.

Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A: His lips move

I hope you’ve all been sufficiently entertained for today. I’m sure I’ll hear another ridiculous legal tale soon enough, and when I do, I’ll be sure to pass it on.