The madness ends: lawyer Charles Carreon to pay $46,100

Not-so-solid lawyering transforms $20,000 demand into $46,000 payout.

by Nate Anderson - Apr 12 2013, 5:40pm EDT

Charles Carreon, self-described "counsel to the good and the good-looking."

Charles Carreon

FunnyJunk v. The Oatmeal

• Charles Carreon: Internet is so mean I can't “keep my cool” in court
• "Rapeutation": Charles Carreon still not done with The Oatmeal
• Carreon claims victory, drops his lawsuit against The Oatmeal et al.
• Former allies turn on Carreon, sue to halt his threats
• The Oatmeal fights back, snaps photo of cash, sends money to charity

View all…

Last summer, Tucson lawyer Charles Carreon dashed off a letter requesting that the creator of popular webcomic The Oatmeal "deliver to me a check in the amount of $20,000," as payment for some things Oatmeal creator Matt Inman had said about a site called FunnyJunk. Carreon didn't get his check, though. Instead, Inman drew a crude picture of woman—who might or might not have been Carreon's mother—seducing a bear. "There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon told Ars in an interview last summer. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother."
Inman also raised $200,000 online and said he would photograph it for Carreon before sending it off to a pair of charities. Carreon responded by suing The Oatmeal's creator, the National Wildlife Federation, the American Cancer Society, and 100 anonymous "Does" who had allegedly mocked or bullied him online.
The entire Carreon affair became a long and bizarre story that only got weirder as it lurched along. By the end of it:

• Carreon had threatened to subpoena Ars Technica
• He wrote a song about Inman that included the lines, "Your humor's scatological / Your mind is pathological / Did someone drop you on your head / When you were in your baby-bed?"
• His wife called critics "Nazi scumbags," among many, many other names
• "Satirical Charles" created a website designed to mock Carreon; Carreon exposed the man behind it and began threatening libel action and warning that "I have the known capacity to litigate appeals for years"
• Satirical Charles sued Carreon for a declarative judgment that his site was legal
• Carreon voluntarily dropped his lawsuit against Inman et al., telling Ars: "Mission accomplished"
• Carreon set up his own website, claiming to be the victim of a "rapeutation" attack and putting up a video for a song called "Psycho Santa" (which was, naturally, about Inman)
• Carreon took extreme measures to avoid being served in the Satirical Charles case—a lawyer eventually had to track him down outside a federal courtroom as he emerged from a hearing
• In December 2012, Carreon gave Satirical Charles everything he wanted, admitting that the site was legal and agreeing to pay "costs" of $725
• When Satirical Charles' lawyer then demanded $77,765.25 in compensation for his time, Carreon tied the matter up in paperwork for months, objecting vociferously to just about any further payout and finally agreeing to cough up... $200

All of which brings us to today, when the federal judge overseeing the Satirical Charles litigation finally handed down his order on fees. "While defendant [Charles Carreon's] threatened claims were not 'exceptional' at the outset of this case, defendant’s actions throughout the litigation certainly transformed this case into an 'exceptional' matter, deserving of an award of attorney fees," concluded the judge. "Evidence supports a finding of malicious conduct during the course of this case."
The judge was displeased with the way Carreon "went to great lengths, imposing unnecessary costs on plaintiff, to avoid service" and that he "engaged in unnecessary, vexatious, and costly tactics" in objecting to pay the other side's attorneys' fees, amounting to "a mini-trial on plaintiff's motion for fees." In fact, $37,650.25 of the $77,765.25 bill was added up after Carreon admitted defeat. Carreon even deposed the opposing lawyer, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, but the judge ruled that this only created "additional frustration for plaintiff and his attorneys."
Carreon's basic gripe was that he had already agreed to the initial $725 payment, and he thought that took care of everything in the case. As the judge noted, however, the documents weren't clear and "defendant cannot now escape the consequences of his inartful drafting."
As for Carreon's final pitch that he should pay only an extra $200, the judge laughed it off. "Defendant nowhere explains how he arrived at this figure or why such an award would be appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances," wrote the judge. "Indeed, such an award would contemplate an hourly rate of less than $70... As there is no basis for defendant’s proposed award, it must be rejected."
Carreon won't have to pay the whole bill, however; the judge did some calculating and chopped things down to $46,100.25
And with that, the Carreon/Oatmeal saga completes its strange journey from a request for $20,000 to a payment of $46,100.25—a $66,000 swing, due entirely to Carreon's own reactions to the very situation he helped initiate.
Ars has contacted Charles Carreon and will update with any comments as we receive them.