Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
THIS IS ONE BRIDE WHO GETS THE MOST OUT OF HER DRESS Molly McKay has probably gotten more mileage out of her wedding dress than any woman alive. The San Francisco attorney has sported her nuptial gown everywhere from the steps of City Hall to the California Supreme Court and has become a recognizable, if not iconic, image in the debate over gay marriage. “It gives me a competitive advantage because whenever someone first looks at a bride, they can’t help but smile, regardless of political affiliations,” McKay says. McKay quit her job as an insurance defense attorney at Gordon & Rees last month to devote herself full-time to the gay marriage cause. The firm had been incredibly supportive of her pro bono activities (she kept the dress on the back of her office door in case she needed to dart to a spontaneous protest), but ultimately McKay decided it became impossible to work the equivalent of two full-time jobs — although she still managed to exceed her hourly billing requirements. McKay is now the director of Marriage Equality of California, an all-volunteer organization focused on increasing acceptance of gay marriage throughout the state through a grassroots approach. The group currently counts 30 California chapters, where local community members can foster dialogues with their neighbors about gay marriage. “There’s a big difference about how to talk about marriage equality in Berkeley and how to talk about marriage equality in Ukiah,” McKay says. For McKay, the job has meant traveling to protests, fairs and speaking engagements up and down the state — always in full regalia. At the Supreme Court oral arguments on May 25, McKay spent 15 hours in her wedding outfit, starting off with pre-hearing interviews early that morning and speaking at a dinner later that evening. The busy schedule has taken its toll on McKay’s wedding dress, which is showing signs of stress, with pins holding several parts together. In fact, McKay has had to amass a wardrobe of multiple wedding dresses in order to keep up with the fast-breaking developments in the gay marriage movement. “I’m now rotating five different wedding dresses, and still half of them are in the dry cleaners at any time,” she says. — Alexei Oreskovic COMMISSIONER RESIGNS A Napa County court commissioner who was implicated in the ethical violations of one of her bench colleagues has resigned. Kelly Boyd, a former deputy district attorney who had served as commissioner for three years, left the Napa bench earlier this month. She did not return calls seeking comment. No one at the court, including Presiding Judge W. Scott Snowden, will talk about her departure, except to confirm that May 13 was her last day. Earlier this year Boyd was caught up in a scandal investigated by the Commission on Judicial Performance, although the CJP’s report never mentioned her by name. The CJP ended up publicly admonishing Napa County Superior Court Judge Francisca Tisher, who remains on the bench. According to the investigation, Tisher “repeatedly” made misleading statements about the timing of an order written by Boyd that gave another state jurisdiction in a messy child custody case involving parental abduction. Boyd was late sending the order, and when it finally went out it was back-dated by several days. It’s unclear if that was done on purpose to cover somebody’s mistake, but Tisher ended up getting in trouble for misleading parties in court about the date of the order. After the CJP’s admonishment was made public, the Napa district attorney asked Attorney General Bill Lockyer to look into the matter. The Napa Valley Register also wrote several stories and editorials about Boyd and Tisher. — Jeff Chorney AND THE FIGHT GOES ON On May 25, four days after two State Bar governors got into a spitting match at a San Francisco board meeting, one of them was still in rare form in an e-mail conversation initiated by fellow governor Matthew Cavanaugh. Cavanaugh, chairman of the Committee on Member Oversight — at which the verbal slugfest occurred — suggested that floor time generally be limited to five minutes per person to avoid “embarrassing situations” in the future. On May 21, Roderick McLeod, a partner in the San Francisco office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and Sheldon Sloan, of counsel in the Los Angeles office of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, engaged in a heated clash over floor time. State Bar Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley finally stopped them by shouting at them to “knock it off.” On Tuesday, McLeod responded to Cavanaugh’s time-limit suggestion favorably, saying it would give everyone a chance to talk. “Will you be looking for a five-minute egg timer to use?” he wrote. “I’ll chip in.” But Sloan, a former municipal court judge, took offense. “It is the chairman’s responsibility to control order,” he snapped. “You cannot abdicate that by a flip statement telling me that I am trying to evade responsibility. “I had not spoken for 15 minutes,” he continued. “That was just Rod bloviating. I will not brook his bullshit any further, nor yours.” Sloan later wrote that he had counted eight e-mails on the subject that day. “You guys need to get a life,” he said. In response, Cavanaugh told Sloan he would take his message “as �thank you for working through this difficult situation, and I agree with the proposed rules.’” — Mike McKee THIS IS A STICKUP Note to would-be robbers: Don’t stick up the place where you used to work. Don Allen was a former employee at Starz Bowling Alley in Vacaville but stopped by now and then to hang out with his old co-workers. One night in August 2001, Allen was depressed about his spiraling personal problems, and he drank at Starz until closing time. The bartenders shut down for the night and were relaxing by the bar when a masked man with a gun appeared. “This is a stickup,” he said. “Don, is that you?” one bartender asked. The robbery quickly unraveled �� Allen unloaded his gun, left his weapon behind and left. When Allen returned, demanding money and his gun, the bartenders called the police. In the unpublished opinion People v. Allen, A101086, the First District Court of Appeal weighed whether the trial judge improperly ruled against a defense Wheeler motion and excluded evidence for a state-of-mind defense. Justices James Lambden, Paul Haerle and Ignazio Ruvolo upheld both rulings. “Clearly one can rob, murder or otherwise assault people in a �cry for help,’ yet still be guilty of those crimes,” Lambden wrote. — Jahna Berry

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.