In an incident that ESPN sports reporter Erin Andrews later called a "nightmare" , she was secretly videotaped while nude in hotel rooms.  After the peeping tom posted the video online, it reached nearly 300 million views before her attorneys saw to its removal.

Andrews has now filed a lawsuit  against several different hotel chains, including Marriott and Raddison, for failing to "adequately protect her privacy."  The damages she seeks are for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.  The suit alleges that hotel staff provided her room numbers to her stalker, who then checked into connecting rooms and was able to modify door peepholes in order to videotape her.

In filing the suit, Andrews is holding the hotels responsible for putting her personal safety at risk and allowing for a gross invasion of her privacy.  If hotel employees did indeed not only provide her room number without her consent and then allowed a request to book the connecting room without informing Andrews, then it is very possible they could be held liable for the consequences.

This case brings to light the issue of what duty of care hotels owe their guests, particularly when it comes to privacy.  Did the hotel breach that duty when it provided Andrews' room number to a third party?  And should hotels exercise even more care in protecting the privacy of their high-profile guests?  Andrews has stated that though she cannot erase the impact of the incident on her own life, that she hopes the hospitality industry will learn from the experience and be more vigilant in protecting guests.

 The media has been buzzing with the details of actress Lindsay Lohan's July 6 court appearance, in which a California judge sentenced her to 90 days in jail , followed by an additional 90 days in a rehab facility.  The sentence was imposed as a result of Lohan missing court-ordered alcohol counseling sessions, a violation of her probation from a 2007 DUI.  After the ruling, Lohan insisted that these missed classes were due to her confusion about the program, emphasizing her respect for the judge and the legal system.

But now there is speculation about whether there was in fact disrespect displayed not by Lohan's words but by her appearance – specifically, the appearance of one fingernail, on which a zoomed-in video of her sentencing reveals an expletive clearly painted.   Though Lohan stated later on Twitter that the words were simply a joke and not intended as a message, there is a chance that if the design was determined to be an insulting and obscene message directed at the judge, Lohan could be considered to be in contempt of court.

Criminal contempt of court covers conduct that hinders or obstructs justice.  Though contempt charges typically come up in cases of direct disobedience, threatening, insulting or disrespecting a judge can also be grounds for contempt.  Though it is unlikely that Lohan's sentence would be influenced by the ill-advised "joke" at this point, this is certainly the sort of behavior that lawyers should warn their clients against. 

Many consider Lohan's sentence to be proof that not even celebrities are above the law.  Others wonder if the justice system was harsher because of the spotlight put on the case.  But in the case of her potentially hidden message, this spotlight has certainly done her more harm than good.  After all, the court most likely would never have known about what was painted on her nails if the media and bloggers alike had not been scrutinizing every second of the tape of her court appearance.