Ed. note: This post was originally published at 4:27 p.m. today. We have changed the timestamp to place it at the top of the page, but we will eventually return it to its original place.

We have confirmed the news of a Cravath bonus match with multiple sources at Cleary Gottlieb. One exchange went something like this:

ATL: Any good news today?

CGSH: No. Cravath news. Bonus FAIL.

So the 2009 bonus market is probably going to coalesce around the Cravath-level bonuses — unless S&C shows up and trumps CSM. Stay tuned.

The timing of the announcement is telling. Usually bad news is saved for Friday afternoons, so it gets lost in the pre-weekend shuffle. Did CGSH view its bonus numbers as potentially disappointing to the recipients?

Perhaps. In our reader poll on the Cravath bonuses, a majority of respondents said the CSM bonuses made them either “unhappy” or “very unhappy” (the most popular choice). Approximately 30 percent said the bonuses made them “neither happy nor unhappy.” Under 20 percent said the bonuses made them “happy” or “very happy.”

The Cleary memo and another READER POLL, after the jump.

* Congratulations to Marc Randazza, ATL’s counsel in Jones v. Minkin, on another successful representation. [The Legal Satyricon]

* Speaking of free speech, is a college acting unconstitutionally by banning so-called “empty-holster protests”? [Courthouse News Service]

* Maryland bar exam results are out. Congrats to all who passed! [Maryland State Board of Law Examiners]

* In the wake of the Maine vote, is there such a thing as “Gay Apartheid”? [Transracial]

* Remember the Notre Dame 1L impersonator? He may be “weird and unethical,” but he didn’t break any laws. [WNDU]

* The ATL running group will be meeting tomorrow (Saturday) at 10 a.m., at the East River 6th Street track. All are welcome. [Above the Law]

Associates at Cleary Gottlieb may not be starting their weekends on a happy note. But for legal secretary Kathy Henry, the weekend is off to a very good start.

Judge vacates $1.26B ruling against PepsiCo
[Associated Press]

Earlier: Legal Secretary of the Day: Pepsi’s $1.26 Billion Mistake

As we mentioned earlier this week, Steve Sanders — a fourth-year associate at Mayer Brown, no relation to the 90210 character — argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

When we emailed him on Wednesday to set up an interview, we received this rather straightforward Out of Office message:

I’ll be traveling on client and professional business Monday, 11/2 through Saturday, 11/7. I will have access to email, but my response may be delayed. Thanks.

How modest! If we had been in Sanders’s shoes, we would have used this Out of Office auto-reply:

Oyez, bitchez!!! Today I’m arguing before the freakin’ Supreme Court of the United States.
Later, haters!!!

But that’s not Steve Sanders’s style. He is dignified and professional, as we discovered when we caught up with him by phone after his argument.

Damian Bonazzoli is a senior staff attorney for the Massachusetts Appeals Court. According to the ABA Journal, he likely makes a five-figure salary. Apparently that wasn’t enough money for him. His entrepreneurial side business got him caught up in a journalist’s term-paper-trafficking sting operation.

Colman Herman wrote a piece for Commonwealth magazine exploring the “shadowy underworld” of college papers for purchase. The journalist went cruising on Craigslist for people advertising thesis-generating services. He e-mailed 66 people. Among the 62 respondents was Bonazzoli:

Damian Bonazzolli (sic), who promised a “quality grade” if he was hired to write the 20-page paper, responded to an initial inquiry by sending, unsolicited, his résumé. It indicated he is a senior staff attorney for the Massachusetts Appeals Court, a job that pays him $94,000 a year, according to state records. He wanted $300 to write the paper on physician-assisted suicide.

In an email exchange, Bonazzolli (sic) [FN1] said turning in a paper that he had written would not be illegal. “I am aware of no state or federal statute that prohibits such a practice. This is not the equivalent of, say, lying on a federal employment or tax form,” he said. “Could your school take disciplinary action? Of course. But that’s quite different from a criminal prosecution.”

We hope no law students have hired Bonazzoli to do legal analysis for them. His is not up to par when it comes to Massachusetts law.

As expected, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner easily won our October Couple of the Month poll. You can read all about Ivanka’s newlywed bliss here, here, and here (she’s already “gadding about the city ringless.”)

Now we plummet back to earth to turn the LEWW spotlight on more ordinary folk. This week’s contestant-couples:

1. Lisa Klein and Blake Sparrow

2. Sarah Goodstine and Laurie Levin

3. Rachel Moston and Garrett Ross

Get the scoop on these newlyweds, after the jump.

We have reported on the proposed merger of Southern New England School of Law with the University of Massachusetts, which would bring the first public law school to the state. At the time, I wrote:

I mean no offense by this, but isn’t the Southern New England School of Law not a very good law school? There’s a reason the school isn’t accredited, right? I just don’t see how raising the profile of bad law schools is the right way to go.

Apparently, Southern New England School of Law took offense. The Boston Globe reports:

“My students and faculty have been maligned,” the school’s dean, Robert Ward, said during a recent tour of campus, a 75,000-square-foot three-story building next to an outlet mall in North Dartmouth.

Ward acknowledged his school has a way to go to meet national accreditation standards, but said it is far from the crumbling, financially destitute failure critics portray it to be.

He noted a retired appeals court judge — a Harvard Law graduate, no less — among his 13-member faculty.

Putting aside the question of whether or not Southern New England is a good school, can we get back to the question of whether Massachusetts needs a public law school?

The Houston Press has written an exposé on the kind of lawyer that makes drunk Texans proud. DWI specialist Tyler Flood is revealed in all his glory as the Press discusses why he is so skilled at helping drunk drivers in their time of need:

“Listen, most of the people we get off are intoxicated. But that’s the justice system,” [Tyler Flood] says. “I’ve always thought people would be very concerned if they knew what we were doing.”

Really? You think people would be concerned by your practice of setting drunk drivers free to careen down the streets of your city? Who would have a problem with that?

More from Flood after the jump.

Did you just pass the bar in Texas? Congratulations! Maybe now is a great time to find a job.

The Job of the Week, brought to you by Lateral Link, is with a stellar boutique that is looking for a superstar associate to join its growing ranks. Even in a strong economy, great opportunities like this one don’t come along very often.

Title: Litigation Associate

Location: Houston

Description: A high-end litigation boutique is seeking a 2007 or 2008 grad with general commercial or IP litigation experience. The firm requires stellar academic credentials and writing skills, and the ability to manage cases by yourself. Clerkships are preferred but not required. The firm is open to relocators.

For more information about this position, please contact Lateral Link’s Texas Director, Gary Cohen. Current Lateral Link members can also view Position #5397 on Lateral Link. Membership in Lateral Link is free and you can apply at www.laterallink.com.

In addition, we are still collecting salary data for the Career Center so please take a minute to tell us about compensation at your law firm — AFTER THE JUMP.

When ex-associates sue their former firms, a fun time is had by all — with the possible exception of the litigants. Dirty laundry is aired, often for the amusement of onlookers. Here are some classics:

• Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (gay associate who accused partner of directing him to “bend over”);

• Jennifer Braude v. Maron Marvel (allegations of lesbianic / girl-on-girl sexual harassment); and

• Charlene Morisseau v. DLA Piper (African-American female associate filed $250 million lawsuit against her former firm; firm accused plaintiff of rudeness and insubordination, e.g., throwing a partner out of her office).

Today’s Lawsuit of the Day, Alan Levy v. Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP (PDF), is a similar suit. Alan Levy (pictured), a former associate at Sedgwick, alleges that his employment was terminated on the basis of disability — to wit, severe depression and a breakdown, brought on in part by the abusive treatment he received at the hands of a partner, Scott Haworth.

So, what was the alleged abuse inflicted upon Levy by Haworth?

Back in July, Orrick told people exactly what it was going to do regarding recruiting for its 2010 summer program. Here is the crucial part of Orrick’s July announcement:

[W]e believe it would be irresponsible to recruit a class for the summer of 2010 - a class that would normally join us in late 2011 or early 2012, the same time our current class of summer associates would be joining us after the one year deferral - until we know how many of our 2009 summer associates accept their one-year deferred offers. We need to prioritize the interests of our current Orrick summer associates over the law students whom we have not yet met and who would otherwise be competing for the same positions.

For these reasons we have decided to shift our on-campus recruiting efforts from the normal time-frame to November 15, 2009 through March of 2010. After the November 15th NALP deadline, we will know how many of our current summer associates accept their deferred offers, and we will be able to better assess our needs for recruiting 2L associates for a 2010 summer program. We expect to reach out to 2L and possibly 1L students during this shifted time frame to meet our summer 2010 recruiting needs.

Well, we’re getting pretty close to November 15th. And Orrick has been placing recruiting ads at a law school near you. But some Above the Law tipsters are surprised that Orrick is doing exactly what Orrick said it would do:

I assumed that was BS though and figured it was just a way to avoid saying they weren’t recruiting at all. Given how things are going, why would they basically go to recruit fromt the bottom half of the class?

You know, when this whole recession is over, we are going to need to have some trust building exercises between firm management and employees.

Orrick didn’t lie back in July. They really are recruiting. Check it out after the jump.