With the Fourth of July falling on a Saturday this year, it pains us to contemplate all the tacky red-white-and-blue themed weddings that will be taking place tomorrow in VFW halls across this great nation. Please, people: A little bunting goes a long way. And it should never go on the bridesmaids.

But we'll tackle the Independence Day weddings next week. Today, we've got the last batch of June weddings. Here are the finalists:

1. Heidi Lee and Steven Hwang

2. Ahsaki Benion and Richard Habersham II

3. Kristin Campbell and Robert Samuelson

Read more about these newlyweds, after the jump.

ATL won't be publishing today -- or publishing much, anyway (we've already done one quick post) -- in observance of Independence Day.

Not everyone seems to have the day off. From one tipster:

While the rest of downtown Chicago is dead, away on vacation or taking the day off, Katten employees are hard at work today. The office demeanor is less than pleasant. Just another way for Katten to thank their hard working employees. Maybe we shouldn't complain since those of us that work there still have jobs. Happy 4th of July!

Are you in the office today? Feel free to complain, in the comments.

If not, enjoy the three-day weekend. We'll see you on Monday.

It appears that Mark A. Sargent's abrupt resignation as dean of Villanova Law had nothing to do with the Peanut Girl controversy, or his more recent email faux pas.

It's more likely that it had to do with an Eliot Spitzer problem: patronizing prostitutes. But at least the public-minded dean helped the police crack a local prostitution ring!

Ex-dean helped police, report says [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Earlier: Farewell, Dean Sargent: 'Peanut Girl' dean resigns at Villanova.

* Is the Urban Dictionary Above the Law? Not in America, baby! [True/Slant]

* How much of your taxpayer dollars goes to fund lawyers in the White House Counsel's Office? Not much. Relatively speaking, not much at all. [The BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times]

* What kind of 4th of July parties is your firm sponsoring this year? [Legal Toast]

* Here are the 100 best blogs for those who want to change the world. [Best Universities]

* Now the DEA is involved in Michael Jackson's death. What do you think you will hear more of this weekend, The Star Spangled Banner or Billy Jean? [Popsquire]

* Lori Drew has something extra to celebrate this weekend. [WSJ Law Blog]

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 3L Dave Johnston recently made a good showing on the online game show, "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"

He's not a millionaire, but thanks to his performance, and a little help from TruTV (formerly Court TV) anchor, Ashleigh Banfield, he is $50,000 richer. She was the celeb expert the show offered him for his "ask the expert" lifeline. He used it when he didn't know the answer to "'One woman writes a novel, another reads it, and the third lives it' is the premise of what movie?"

His answer options were "A: Cold Mountain, B: The Hours, C: Memoirs of a Geisha, D: Atonement." From the New York Post:

Banfield correctly told Johnston it was "The Hours," which won him $16,000. He went on to win $50,000 and promised to take Banfield to lunch. Banfield told us, "He took me to Gus' Place in the Village today and brought along friends from the office where he's a summer intern. But since he's using his winnings to pay the nearly $40,000 tuition for next semester, I picked up the check."

We're not impressed by Johnston's lack of familiarity with chick flicks, but we are impressed by his finagling a celebrity lunch out of the experience. The moment was captured by his BlackBerry in the photo at right.

Johnston notes that Banfield was slightly off. His 3L tuition will be $44,000, not "nearly $40,000." So he appreciated the free lunch even more. He tells us about it, after the jump.

Since we saw a surge of interest in response to last week's post, here is a Southern trifecta for you, given the long three-day weekend. Remember, Lateral Link pays its members $500 for a successful referral, i.e., it sometimes pays to have friends.

1. Position(s): Mid to Senior Level Litigation associate (2002 - 2005 grads)

Location: North Carolina

Description: This Southeastern ­ based firm seeks a business litigation associate with at least 4 years of experience to handle a variety of complex litigation matters. Candidates must have outstanding brief writing experience at the appellate and trial levels. Exceptional oral communication skills, excellent academic credentials and prior affiliation with a substantial litigation practice are essential for this position. Candidates should also be licensed in North Carolina or be willing to take first available bar exam. Federal clerkship experience is preferred.

Information about how to apply for this job, plus two more positions in the south, after the jump.

Yesterday, we reported that Orrick has decided to end lockstep compensation in 2010. Today, the Orrick effect claims its first soul. Above the Law has learned that Squire Sanders & Dempsey also intends to do away with lockstep compensation in 2010. They just aren't quite sure what they will replace it with.

But why let the details of the new system stay the execution of the old system? Yesterday, SSD associates received this email from the firm:

As you will recall, when we addressed the issue of associate compensation adjustments earlier this year, we indicated that a re-thinking of our approach, generally, to associate compensation would also be in order and that we would focus more broadly on supportive associate growth and development underlying compensation decisions. We are pleased to report to you that efforts in this direction are well underway.

To provide an overview of this important initiative, we are sharing with you the enclosed memorandum summarizing our efforts to date and projected next steps. In doing so, we would appreciate your respecting the confidential nature of this internal memorandum. As emphasized in the memorandum, this initiative will be, and needs to be, a collaborative effort. We welcome your comments and suggestions, and your participation as we move forward.

Above the Law has also obtained the "enclosed memorandum." It's heavy on the ills of lockstep, light on the benefits of the new compensation regime.

More details after the jump.

The New York Times has a fascinating story about Robert Bowman. Bowman took the bar exam four times and racked up $400,000 in student debt on his quest towards becoming an attorney, only to be denied admittance to the bar based on character and fitness. He sounds like a cross between Don Quixote and Jimmy Berluti.

He put himself through community college, worked and borrowed heavily to help pay for college, graduate school and even law school. He took the New York bar examination not once, not twice, not three times, but four, passing it last year. Finally, he seemed to be on his way.

In January, the committee of New York lawyers that reviews applications for admission to the bar interviewed Mr. Bowman, studied his history and the debt he had amassed, and called his persistence remarkable. It recommended his approval.

But a group of five state appellate judges decided this spring that his student loans were too big and his efforts to repay them too meager for him to be a lawyer.

The thing is, the appellate panel didn't really explain why Bowman's debt load made him unfit to be a lawyer:

"Applicant has not made any substantial payments on the loans," the judges wrote in a terse decision and an unusual rejection of the committee's recommendation. "Applicant has not presently established the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law."

Mr. Bowman, 47, appears to have crossed some unspoken line with his $400,000 in student debt and penalties, accumulated over many years.

Is $400,000 simply too much debt for a lawyer to carry? More details after the jump.

Someone's July 4th weekend is off to a good start. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, has been cleared of misconduct by the panel of Third Circuit judges that was tasked with investigating him. As you may recall, Chief Judge Kozinski called for an investigation of himself, after it was revealed that he had a "website" -- which wasn't really a website, for reasons previously explained by the judge's wife, Marcy Tiffany -- containing some sexually explicit material.

The Third Circuit Judicial Council's unanimous opinion, authored by Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, is available here (PDF). It was actually filed on June 5, but only made public today. It's thorough and lengthy, weighing in at 38 pages, and describes in detail the extensive investigation conducted by the council (with the assistance of outside lawyers, from Dechert and Morgan Lewis, and a technology consultant).

To those with a deeper familiarity with the facts of the case, as opposed to just the headlines, Chief Judge Kozinski's vindication is not surprising. The judge violated no law; rather, the "website" -- actually just a private family file server, although imperfectly secured for a period of time, as explained in the opinion -- was a personal matter unrelated to his judicial duties. To the extent that the (overblown) public controversy created a problem in an obscenity trial that Judge Kozinski was presiding over at the time, any problem was obviated when the judge recused himself. And let's not forget that the whole controversy was originally kicked up by a disgruntled litigant, Cyrus Sanai, who tried peddling the story for months before someone finally bit -- and who "has been targeting Kozinski for years," as noted by Ted Frank.

So congratulations, Judge Kozinski, on putting this matter behind you. We look forward to catching up with you at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference later this month.

A few updates and links, after the jump.