: The Blawgraphy
Life of a Law Student, University of Houston Law Center

Please note: I'm no longer updating this particular blog, but keep it around for archival purposes. Visit me at the current blog at

Plaintiff Moves for an Erection

By: Luke Gilman | Other Posts by
Go to Comments | 3 Comments

As hard as it is to believe, this motion was actually argued in an actual court –

New Haven attorney Rob Serafinowicz opened his civil case against former Middlebury First Selectman Edward B. St. John by asking Judge Jane S. Scholl to force St. John to submit to a photograph of his penis, fully aroused.

Who needs Boston Legal when you’ve got Rob Serafinowicz?

Above the Law: The Plaintiff Moves for an Erection

Bookmark this Page:
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Ma.gnolia
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
  • e-mail
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Category: lawyers behaving badly, the law bizarre


3 Responses

  1. Rob Serafinowicz says:

    I can offer the following as to why I filed this motion. The defendant denied ever being naked in front of my client, he did this in the press and in his deposition. My client gave a detailed description that the defendant’s penis is circumcized and bent to the left when aroused. This description was given to police and in deposition testimony taken by the defendant. It this description is not accurate pictures would save everyone time and money. I did ask the defendant if his penis was bent, his response, in open court, “I don’t remember”.

  2. lukegilman says:

    Now this is why I love the internet – speak of the lawyer and he appears. I should clarify my hastily written post that it’s the circumstances, rather than filing the motion, that I find outrageous – zealous advocacy is zealous advocacy regardless and unusual cases no doubt call for unusual tactics. I’d love to hear more about this when it concludes, if it hasn’t already.

  3. It is a bench trial and will require briefs, so it will not conclude in the near future. It will likely be a month or two until a decision is rendered. We will sum up on tuesday. I am glad you have made a post of this it is an interesting case as CT has the most progressive statute in the country, it gives the plaintiff until age 58 to bring a claim. I feel this motion was necessary as if the defendants penis was not bent, these pictures could have avoided a trial and cleared his name. The defendant decided instead to object, then say under oath that he could not remember if his penis was bent. This is a cutting edge case because of its subject matter and the statute. I will keep you informed of all developments. I do believe many states will follow Connecticut’s lead in regard to allowing these causes of action. I am impressed with your site and feel others in lawschool should follow your lead.

Leave a Reply