Last month we updated you on the apparent difficulties that Jessica Cutler, a.k.a. Washingtonienne, has been encountering in paying her lawyers. Those difficulties persist.

On Friday, Judge Paul Friedman, who is presiding over the invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against Cutler, ordered the following:

[O]n or before July 7, 2006, defendant Jessica Cutler must personally respond in writing to her counsel’s motion to withdraw and/or advise the Court of her retention of new counsel or her intention to proceed pro se.

The judge issued this order after Cutler failed to respond to her lawyer’s motion to withdraw (for nonpayment of fees). So Jessica, if you’re out there reading this, please get back to the court — ASAP.

Personally, we would give multiple body parts to watch Jessica Cutler represent herself. It would be the greatest pro se performance since Anna Nicole Smith. We suspect Judge Friedman would become very sympathetic to Cutler after having an ex parte conference with her in chambers.

For all you law geeks out there, the text of the full order appears after the jump.

Here’s Judge Friedman’s order, in full:

On May 22, 2006, counsel for the defendant filed a motion to withdraw from this case pursuant to Local Civil Rule (“LCvR”) 83.6©, citing defendant’s failure to pay attorneys’ fees. In accordance with LCvR 83.6, counsel’s motion to withdraw is accompanied by a certificate of service listing the defendant’s last known address and stating that the attorney has served upon the defendant a copy of the motion to withdraw and a notice advising her to obtain other counsel, or if she intends to conduct the case pro se or to object to the withdrawal, to notify the Clerk of this Court within five days of the motion.

As of this date, the Court has received no notification from the defendant expressing either her intent to conduct the case pro se or objecting to the withdrawal, nor any other communication from the defendant personally.

Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that on or before July 7, 2006, defendant Jessica Cutler must personally respond in writing to her counsel’s motion to withdraw and/or advise the Court of her retention of new counsel or her intention to proceed pro se.

SO ORDERED.
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge

DATE: June 23, 2006

Earlier: Prior coverage of Jessica Cutler (scroll down)

Now, courtesy of the Legal Times, a quick update on a case that’s far more interesting than Enron: Steinbuch v. Cutler.

The article speaks for itself — res ipsa loquitur — and it’s well worth reading in its entirety. If you’re wondering about whether Steinbuch has a case and what Jessica’s best defenses are, they’re laid out in the piece, which features analysis from law professor and blogger Daniel Solove (among others).

Here’s our favorite excerpt, proving that truth can be stranger than fiction:

It’s hard to know why anyone would care to set the record straight about whether he is able to ejaculate with or without a condom or whether he likes to spank or be spanked. But [Steinbuch attorney Jonathan] Rosen says that’s exactly what Steinbuch intends to do.

“There are graphic and intimate details which are not true,” he said in a telephone interview. “Those are facts that are going to be litigated.”

To summarize the Legal Times piece: Steinbuch v. Cutler represents Robert Steinbuch’s attempt to clear his name. He wants the world to know that he’s good in bed. Really good.

Very well, Professor Steinbuch: you’re GREAT in bed. There, it’s established. It has been printed. In a blog.

Boy, that was an easy problem to solve. Did you really have to go make a federal case out of it?

A Man Scorned [Legal Times]

(For those of you who can’t get enough of Jessica Cutler, we share a random story about a reading she did last month in New York, after the jump. Note: It’s not for the squeamish.)

Here’s an account of the reading from our eyewitness correspondent:

You may be tired of Jessica Cutler, but unfortunately, I’m not. I saw her read at this:

IN THE FLESH EROTIC READING SERIES
TRUE SEX CONFESSIONS NIGHT
WEDNESDAY APRIL 19 at 8 PM
AT HAPPY ENDING LOUNGE, 302 BROOME STREET
(B/D to Grand, J/M/Z to Bowery, F to Delancey, http://www.happyendinglounge.com
Admission: Free
Happy Ending Lounge: 212-334-9676
http://inthefleshreadingseries.blogspot.com

She read a very entertaining piece about leaving a tampon in for a week. It had to do with a guy (a reporter, who apparently claims to have slept with Colin Powell’s daughter), who had a huge dick, and had shoved a forgotten tampon all the way up, where it stayed for a week, the stench growing and growing, until she finally went to the gyno to have the stench taken care of… at which point she told him, when he was breaking it off with her, that she didn’t really want to kiss a guy who had been eating out a rotting tampon all week. Oh, and he was doing her best friend. Because, what would a Jessica story be without the betrayal of a best friend?

Anyway, it was very amusing.

Well, so is Judge Paul L. Friedman, who is presiding over the invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought against Jessica by Robert Steinbuch, one of her former lovers. This afternoon Judge Friedman issued a testy memorandum opinion and order (PDF), in which he bench-slapped the lawyers in the case for their ridiculous and embarrassing conduct in the case, as well as their repeated violations of court rules.

Okay, it’s late in the afternoon, on a Friday before a holiday weekend. So forgive us for the somewhat half-assed treatment of an opinion that deserves more thorough scrutiny.

After the jump, excerpts from the ruling, along with our commentary.

Judge Paul Friedman’s opinion begins with a dry recitation of the procedural history of the case. Pretty boring, although we did enjoy this sentence: “Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the defendant’s notice of deposition.”

Uh, if plaintiff had done a little less “quashing” of the defendant, then maybe we might not be here.

Judge Friedman: “As for plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, it essentially requests that the Court place a gag order on the defendant…”

Gag order? Who said anything about gags? We thought Steinbuch’s thing was hair-pulling. (But hey, they’re not mutually exclusive.)

Judge Friedman: “[P]laintiff is distressed by the fact that this lawsuit has drawn media attention. Perhaps the plaintiff should have considered that fact before he filed suit.”

Ouch. No additional snark necessary. As they say in the law trade, res ipsa loquitur.

And, in closing, this final salvo from the court:

Since counsel have shown themselves unable to abide by the Rules of this Court or refrain from engaging in unnecessarily litigious behavior, counsel for both parties are ordered to read the Local Civil Rules of this Court and Appendix B to those Rules — the D.C. Bar Voluntary Standards for Civility in Professional Conduct — and to abide by them in the future.

Double ouch. Counsel for both parties are also ordered to go to their rooms, without dinner.

The Court also briefly considered spanking both parties, but declined to do so — because the parties might actually like that.

Steinbuch v. Cutler [D.D.C. (PDF)]

Earlier: For the Record: William Bode Too ‘Busy’ to Represent Washingtonienne
A Spinoff from Her Sitcom: Jessica Cutler’s Legal Drama