Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
JUDGE CAN’T KEEP HIS STATIONERY STRAIGHT The Commission on Judicial Performance on Tuesday publicly admonished a Los Angeles County judge who used court stationery in a letter to city officials about alleged code violations on his private property. On Dec. 29, 2004, Superior Court Judge Joseph Di Loreto wrote a Downey city building official to say his plans to remove a trailer from his vacant lot would be delayed until mid-2005. The letterhead included the superior court’s seal, the courthouse’s address and the judge’s name with the word “personal” underneath. Di Loreto told the commission the letterhead was irrelevant because the building official already knew he was a judge. “The propriety of using judicial stationery in personal disputes does not turn on whether or not the recipient already knows the author is a judge,” the commission said in its report. “Rather, the use of judicial stationery is prohibited under the canons in question because, in such circumstances, such use involves lending the prestige of office or the judicial title to advance personal or pecuniary interests.” This wasn’t the first time Di Loreto crossed the line with his stationery. In 2001 the judge used court stationery in a personal dispute over ownership of a racing car. The commission sent him an advisory letter after he invoked the same argument he tried to use this time � that the recipient already knew he was a judge. � Cheryl Miller SEX BLOGGER SUIT MAY BE DISMISSED WASHINGTON � For several weeks in 2004, Jessica Cutler blogged about her sexual escapades with a former co-worker, divulging tawdry details about his alleged affinity for “spanking” and “submissive women.” But because the raciest anecdotes appeared on the former Capitol Hill staffer’s infamous Washingtonienne blog more than a year before Robert Steinbuch sued for invasion of privacy, Cutler’s lawyer says the suit should be dismissed because a one-year statute of limitations precludes all but one harmless blog entry from being considered. “The May 18 blog entry states unremarkably that RS, nowhere identified by name, and the anonymous blog author had sexual relations in a missionary position using birth control,” D.C. solo practitioner John Umana writes in a motion to dismiss filed June 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. But Steinbuch’s lawyer, Jonathan Rosen of Clearwater, Fla., notes in court papers filed June 8 that Judge Paul Friedman previously determined “there is enough there” to move forward with the suit. � Legal Times

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]


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.