Scheiderer Law Firm, LC

Available here.

I get asked about this one every now and then, here is a very interesting take on what Shakespeare wrote from Howard Nations’ website:

Ironically, the rallying cry of the lawyer bashers has become Shakespeare’s quote from Henry VI: “THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET’S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.”

Those who use this phrase pejoratively against lawyers are as miserably misguided about their Shakespeare as they are about the judicial system which they disdain so freely.

Even a cursory reading of the context in which the lawyer killing statement is made in King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2, reveals that Shakespeare was paying great and deserved homage to our venerable profession as the front line defenders of democracy.

The accolade is spoken by Dick the Butcher, a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as “the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant,” who sought to overthrow the government. Shakespeare’s acknowledgment that the first thing any potential tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to “kill all the lawyers” is, indeed, a classic and well-deserved compliment to our distinguished profession.

Charles E. Gunter v. William J. Morrison, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Case No: 06-3625, August 15, 2007.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the district court erred in ruling employee’s lawsuit did not address a matter of public concern. The court found that the evidence that Mr. Gunter’s successful lawsuit, the state appellate court’s finding that the city’s conduct was truly irrational, lack of evidence of disharmony in the workplace, and comments that the employee was denied promotion because of the lawsuit, all warranted reversal of summary judgment. Denial of a civil conspiracy claim was also reversed. The mayor of the City of St. James and utility board members were found not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official would have known that refusing to promote an employee because he sued the city violated the First Amendment right of access to the courts. Mr. Gunter was represented by Bryan D. Scheiderer, Scheiderer Law Firm, LC, Rolla, Missouri.

Link to the opinion from the Eighth Circuit website.

Bryan Scheiderer was recently honored to be admitted to the highest court in the country…the United States Supreme Court. Bryan is also admitted to practice in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and all state and federal courts in Missouri.

Available here.

Reported in the Daily Dunklin Democrat, Sunday, December 10, 2006:

Mediation process results in $70,000 settlement (by Steve Hankins)

“A mediation process resulted in a $70,000 settlement in favor of two former Dunklin County deputy clerks who filed a lawsuit in federal court against the county and its assessor. The lawsuit, filed against Dunklin County and Assessor Brenda Dicus by plaintiffs . . . claimed the former clerks were terminated from their positions wrongfully. Both plaintiffs said Dicus fired them ‘on behalf of Dunklin County’ because the former clerks discovered Dicus allegedly cashing checks for sums charged to patrons for photocopying costs, the lawsuit stated. Dicus fired [the deputy clerks] on August 29, 2005, the lawsuit indicated. That action was an alleged violation of the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights to free speech, and amounted to little more than retaliation by Dicus, the suit stated. . . The plaintiffs were represented by Rolla attorney Bryan Scheiderer.”

Reported in the Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly, July 12, 2004:

“Four female custodians sued the University of Missouri-Rolla for sexual harassment, claiming that the lead custodian, a male, created a hostile work environment. The plaintiffs said that the lead custodian used vulgar and sexually explicit language on a daily basis, and that they complained to their department supervisor. No action was taken for several months in the case of two of the plaintiffs, and for two years in the case of the other two.

“UMR denied that the lead custodian was a ’supervisor’ for the purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII, and denied that the verbal harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. In addition, UMR claimed that prompt and appropriate action was taken to discipline the custodian once it was made aware of the plaintiffs’ complaints.

“The parties settled for $100,000 after mediation. Attorney for Plaintiffs: Bryan D. Scheiderer, Rolla.”