Archive for November 2006

Non-Sequiturs: 11.30.06

By Stella Q

* Jurors go wild… kind of. [AP via Yahoo! News]
* This could be your fate if you have sexual relations with any animal, dead or alive, regardless of law: you could be the posthumous star of a Sundance documentary. [Editor and Publisher]
* Do not think you can know go about suing the various characters in your dysfunctional family. [Seattle Times]

Dispatch from One First Street: The Greenhouse Gas Case

By David Lat

Linda Greenhouse nude naked shirtless pics pictures photos photographs Above the Law.JPGThis post has nothing to do with the gastrointestinal tract of a certain Supreme Court reporter. Rather, it’s about Massachusetts v. EPA, the greenhouse gases/global warming case, argued before the Supreme Court yesterday.
We’re relatively late in covering this — you’ve probably read about it already elsewhere — so we’ll be brief.
Questions Presented:
(1) Can the EPA (read: Bush Administration) get away with refusing to regulate carbon dioxide in automobile emissions, even though a bunch of states, cities, and environmental groups want it to?
(2) Do these entities have standing to object to the refusal?
(3) Has President Bush been reading too much Michael Crichton?
Money Quote(s): Eh, there weren’t any. This argument was no KSR v. Teleflex.
And are you really surprised? It’s an administrative law/environmental law case, concerning the proper construction of the Clean Air Act, with a big threshold question about standing. Not exactly a barrel of laughs.
Likely Outcome: Who knows? We agree with Tony Mauro and Lyle Denniston: It all comes down to Justice Kennedy.
Roberts may be the Chief, but it’s Kennedy’s Court. And everyone else is just sitting on it.
Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120 [On the Docket / Medill]
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming [New York Times]
Massachusetts v. EPA oral argument transcript [Supreme Court (PDF)]
Eyes on Kennedy as Supreme Court Debates Global Warming Case [Legal Times]
EPA argument 11/29/06: Major precedent looms? Maybe not [SCOTUSblog]
Analysis: Kennedy key to global warming challenge [SCOTUSblog]
Today at the Supreme Court: Preemption and Global Warming [WSJ Law Blog]

Judges of the Day: Wilbur Mathesius and James Brooks

By David Lat

foot in mouth.gifToday we have TWO judges of the day. Both win the prize for their honesty and fearlessness. These jurists aren’t afraid to speak their minds, and for that we salute them.
First, there’s Judge James Brooks, of “the O.C.” — Orange County, California.

An Orange County judge with a sharp tongue and a history of making insensitive comments about ethnic minorities was publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

The commission cited [a] contempt hearing where litigant Arnold McMahon told Brooks that he didn’t attend a scheduled Oct. 15 deposition because he had gone to the hospital with chest pains.

“Gee,” Brooks responded. “I wonder what’s going to happen when we put you in jail, Mr. McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?”

Come now — that’s a bit tepid. We’ve heard harsher words from federal appellate judges at oral argument. This was more compelling:

[T]he commission noted that Brooks had been privately chastised three times since 1996 for similar conduct. The commission-cited punishments include: a 1996 advisory letter for referring to Hispanic defendants as “Pedro,” and issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for “ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand yen”…

Second, there’s Judge Wilbur Mathesius, a Superior Court judge in Mercer County, New Jersey.

New Jersey’s Supreme Court on Thursday handed Judge Wilbur Mathesius a one-month suspension without pay for making shoot-from-the hip comments that undermined the judicial system….

[Judge Mathesius allegedly] berated a jury for acquitting a defendant of illegal handgun possession. According to the complaint, Mathesius went to the jury room and said, “What the hell were you thinking?” He then told the jurors the defendant had a prior criminal record and chose to not testify because of that record; that another witness would have testified for the prosecution had he not been threatened; and that the prosecution’s principal witness was the most credible he had ever seen.

This was only one of several incidents for which Judge Mathesius was disciplined. He also made some over-the-top comments about the death penalty. When criticized for these comments before the New Jersey Supreme Court, he responded as follows:

Mathesius observ[ed] that Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner “has written on many of the same subjects,” [and Mathesius] suggested that members of the New Jersey judiciary do the same.

Judge Mathesius, we know Judge Richard Posner. We have corresponded with Richard Posner. And you, sir, are no Richard Posner.
You are a state court judge. In the trial court. In New Jersey. In a word: ICKY.
(We mean no disrespect to the Garden State, from which we hail. But the “state court” and “trial court” aspects are proper subjects of disdain.)
Vociferous Judge Is Suspended a Month Without Pay [New Jersey Law Journal]
Judge Scolded for Insensitive Remarks [NYLawyer.com]

Musical Chairs: 11.30.06

By David Lat

musical chairs 2 Above the Law legal blog above the law legal tabloid above the law legal gossip site.GIFAt the White House:
Positions in the White House Counsel’s office are some of the most prestigious and interesting jobs in the entire legal profession. And now two new lawyers are coming on board as associate counsels to the president:
* Christopher Oprison, formerly of Skadden Arps (Washington, DC); and Cheryl Stanton, a former law clerk to then-Judge Alito, and most recently of Olgetree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart (Morristown, NJ).
The arrival of Oprison and Stanton will mean that the lawyers in the office will reshuffle their portfolios for judicial nominations. We hear that Stanton will be in charge of Fifth Circuit nominations — a subject of great interest to us.
* Also, a third lawyer — Alan Swendiman, previously general counsel of the GSA, everybody’s favorite government agency — is joining the White House staff. He’ll serve as special assistant to the President and director, Office of Administration.
At Google (which is arguably more powerful than the White House these days):
* John Kent Walker Jr., formerly deputy GC of eBay, joins the search engine giant as general counsel.
Unusual structure: Walker will report to David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president of corporate development, who will take on the title of “chief legal officer.” But hey, Google is an unusual company.
Biglaw moves, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Musical Chairs: 11.30.06″

Dispatch from One First Street: KSR v. Teleflex

By David Lat

invention polish dictionary Above the Law.jpgOn Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of KSR International v. Teleflex. Here’s our quick-and-dirty summary of the proceedings.
Subject Matter / Question Presented: To qualify for patent protection, an invention must be novel, useful, and not “obvious” to a person of “ordinary skill” in the field. So how do you determine “obviousness” when you have an invention that combines already-existing products? And is the Federal Circuit’s three-part “teaching-suggestion-motivation” test for obviousness a bunch of moronic nonsense?
Money Quote(s):
From the NYT:

When [veteran SCOTUS litigator Tom] Goldstein noted that “every single major patent bar association in the country has filed on our side,” the chief justice interjected: “Well, which way does that cut? That just indicates that this is profitable for the patent bar.” And when Mr. Goldstein referred to experts who had testified that the Teleflex patent was not obvious, the chief justice asked: “Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something’s not obvious? I mean, the least insightful person you can find?”

From the Legal Times:

“Three imponderable nouns,” is how Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the test, also calling it “gobbledygook” for good measure.

Likely Outcome: The Federal Circuit will probably get benchslapped by the SCOTUS. As Tony Mauro notes:

[W]hen Justice Stephen Breyer said he had read the briefs in the case “15 times” and still could not understand the “motivation” prong of the test, Scalia chimed in, “Like Justice Breyer, I don’t understand.”

The implied message to the Federal Circuit seemed to be: If two of the brainier justices on the Supreme Court don’t have a clue what you are talking about, a new test might be in order.

For those of you looking for a substantive, eyewitness account of the argument, we reprint below the report of Joseph (Jay) R. DelMaster, Jr., a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in Washington. His account includes advice about how to proceed in patent prosecutions while we await the Supreme Court’s decision.
Check it out, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Dispatch from One First Street: KSR v. Teleflex”

  • 30 Nov 2006 at 2:51 PM
  • Weddings

Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: November 26, 2006

By David Lat

Legal Eagle Wedding Watch NYT wedding announcements Above the Law.jpgThe weekend of November 25-26 was shockingly short on lawyer weddings.
Call us paranoid, but we began to wonder: Were the editors of the New York Times wedding pages trying to starve us of material? Did they reject almost all wedding announcements for that week in which at least one spouse was an attorney?
This explains why, instead of the usual three, we have only two couples in competition this week:

1. Virginia Lazar, David McAuliffe

2. Ilyssa Lieberman, Stephen Steinlight

Scores and commentary for the newlywed couples, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: November 26, 2006″

Peter and Ashby,

By David Lat

Don’t give up on your day jobs.
This is our haiku.
We Haiku. Do You? [WSJ Law Blog]

Play That Funky Oral Argument Tape, White Boy

By David Lat

supreme court 1.jpgThe Supreme Court heard a number of interesting oral arguments this week — and we’re way behind in our coverage of them. We’re working on catching up.
On that note, it’s too bad that audio recordings of this week’s SCOTUS arguments aren’t available. As noted by the WSJ Law Blog, the Court released same-day printed transcripts in Watters v. Wachovia Bank and the greenhouse gas case — but no audio broadcasts or same-day recordings.
This was pursuant to the Court’s policy of selectively releasing recordings based on whether there is “heightened public interest” in a case — i.e., whether it involves a hot-button issue. And these two cases, despite their major implications for business, environmental law, and federal-state relations, didn’t make the cut.
We’d like to echo Dahlia Lithwick’s recent call for the Supreme Court to revisit this policy of selective audio-casting:

If the Supreme Court justices really want the public to recognize that what they do is subtle and legal, as opposed to ideologically driven, why would they release the audio in precisely those cases in which they are most stridently split? Why reinforce the stereotype of a partisan 5-4 court that splits along the most-basic liberal/conservative lines?

(Oh, and Howard Bashman is with us on this — which means that of course we’re right.)
Releasing same-day audio tapes of ALL Supreme Court oral arguments, regardless of the level of “public interest,” would take a clean, bright-line approach to the issue. It would allow the public to learn more about the workings of the Court, but without the intrusion of cameras in the courtroom. Justice Breyer wouldn’t have to worry about television close-ups of his wattle; Justice Scalia could leave his eyebrows au naturel.
Finally, same-day audio release would save the Court — or the Court’s Public Information Office — from having to determine whether a case is “sexy” enough to merit broadcast. Because do you really want Kathy Arberg deciding what’s sexy?
(Speaking of Kathy Arberg, a few weeks ago the Supreme Flacktress put up a “help wanted” sign at One First Street. Out of curiosity, does anyone know whether the position is still open?)
Listen Up: The Supreme Court’s hot/cold audio-casting policy [Slate]
Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? [Law.com via How Appealing]
Listen to Today’s Supreme Court Oral Arguments… Not! [WSJ Law Blog]

The Democratic Takeover of Congress: A Full Employment Act for White-Collar Defense Lawyers

By David Lat

Capitol building Above the Law Legal Blog 2.JPGWhen they take over Congress next year, expect the Democrats to launch investigations up the wazoo — of big business, the Bush Administration, the Iraq War, and other things they don’t particularly like.
These investigations will be a pain in the hindquarters for Republicans. But they’ll be a boon for Biglaw. From TPMmuckracker.com:

In a recent memo to its clients, the white-shoe law firm of Covington and Burling warned of the increased investigative activity soon to come from the Dem-controlled Hill — and touted its credentials for representing corporations and individuals who may find themselves under scrutiny….

Are you an executive at a telecom involved in the NSA’s wiretapping program? Did your company get a sweet no-bid contract in Iraq? Well, Covington’s soon-to-be booming “congressional investigations practice” boasts such luminaries as Lanny Breuer, who was President Clinton’s Special Counsel during impeachment proceedings, and Robert Kelner, who has represented the RNC in the New Hampshire phone jamming case.

Gentlemen, start your retainers.

Interestingly enough, a number of the top white-collar shops in Washington are left-leaning. In addition to Covington, there’s Williams & Connolly and WilmerHale, both well-stocked with former Clintonistas.
Expect partners at these firms to make generous donations to Democratic candidates in the next few election cycles. They’re getting tired of being the “Administration-in-Exile” — and they have high hopes for 2008.
(On that subject, we’re still interested in getting your views on which leading liberal lawyers would be in the running for top jobs in a Democratic administration. We have our own thoughts on this, but we’d love to hear from you.)
Crusading Dems Mean Big Profits for Corporate Defenders [TPMmuckracker.com]
Memo from Covington Burling on Congressional Investigations [Talking Points Memo Document Collection]

More Fifth Circuit Scuttlebutt: Lee H. Rosenthal

By David Lat

Lee H Rosenthal Judge Lee Rosenthal Above the Law.jpgBefore the Thanksgiving break, we wrote a fair amount about some possible nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We’ll now pick up where we left off, and continue with more detailed profiles of some of the potential nominees we mentioned.
But first, a request. A number of ATL readers have expressed interest in speculation about nominees for the open seats on the Third Circuit (Justice Samuel Alito’s old seat) and Fourth Circuit (Judge J. Michael Luttig’s old seat). If you’ve heard anything interesting on these subjects, please do share.
Today’s possible Fifth Circuit nominee: Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, of the Southern District of Texas. Here are some things we’ve heard from our readers about Judge Rosenthal:

“Best judge on the S.D. Tex. bench, which is actually passably deep. Sweet, rational, bright and tough all in one package.”

“The country could not do better, and I think even hyperpartisan Democrats would be able to see that. She’s my pick if Bush wants to avoid spending any significant political capital.”

“A stellar trial judge who would make a superlative appellate judge. And those two don’t always go hand in hand. See, e.g., Ann Claire Williams of the 7th Circuit (who should have remained an excellent district judge instead of becoming a thoroughly mediocre appellate jurist).”

(Judge Williams, if you’re reading this, please note that these are simply opinions from ATL readers. They do NOT represent our own views.)
More comments about Judge Rosenthal, from the readers of Grits for Breakfast:

“Several readers identified Rosenthal… as an] exceptional, fair, and qualified judge[].”

“One reader feared losing Judge Rosenthal or Judge Elrod as trial judges, and suggested Rosenthal deserved a 5th Circuit appointment and Elrod should fill her federal district court slot.”

“Lee Rosenthal is by far and away the most learned Judge I have ever practiced before. She seems to be fair, well-reasoned and straightforward.”

So given all this praise, why did we place Judge Rosenthal in the second tier of possible nominees — an “outside possibility” for the Fifth Circuit?
Well, to make a long story short, we hear that some conservatives are concerned about her “reliability” (i.e., her ideological consistency). And even though the new Senate will be controlled by the Democrats, the White House and the Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee do not feel compelled to put forward nominees whose conservatism is even slightly in question.
(At least not yet. It remains to be seen whether the scrappy Chuck Schumer, aided by Nan Aron and friends, will wear them down over time.)
What do you know about these potential 5th Circuit nominees? [Grits for Breakfast]
Earlier: More Fifth Circuit Scuttlebutt: R. Ted Cruz
Some Fifth Circuit Scuttlebutt

Lawsuit of the Day: We Hope She Gets Punitive Damages

By David Lat

avocados Above the Law.jpgRemember Ralph Paul, the Florida man who almost went to jail over his refusal to pay for a seafood pasta that was light on the seafood?
Now a Los Angeles woman is suing over insufficient avocado in her guacamole. From the Los Angeles Times:

The guacamole sold by Kraft Foods Inc., one of the bestselling avocado dips in the nation, includes modified food starch, hefty amounts of coconut and soybean oils, and a dose of food coloring. The dip contains precious little avocado, but many customers mistake it for wholly guacamole.

On Wednesday, a Los Angeles woman sued the Northfield, Ill.-based food company, alleging that it committed fraud by calling its dip “guacamole.” Her lawyer says suits against other purveyors of “fake guacamole” could be filed soon.

We take guacamole very seriously. We especially love super-fresh guacamole that’s prepared tableside (e.g., at Rosa Mexicano in D.C. and New York, or Mama Mexico in New York).
So we hope that plaintiff Brenda Lifsey prevails in her lawsuit. We once tried the Kraft “guacamole,” and it was absolutely disgusting — green goop with barely a hint of avocado. We threw it out after about three chips’ worth of nastiness.
Lawsuit stirs up guacamole labeling controversy [Los Angeles Times via Drudge Report]
Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Skimping on the Scampi?

Morning Docket: 11.30.06

By B Clerker

* Judge: Paper money violates the Rehabilitation Act because blind people cannot distinguish between bills. [CNN; USA Today]
* John Turley digs into recent comments by (presidential candidate?) Newt Gingrich on freedom of speech. [MSNBC]
* “Oregon Lawyer Wrongly Arrested After Madrid Bombings Settles Lawsuit for $2 Million.” [Law.com; New York Times; Washington Post]
* Louis Vuitton sues Chewy Vuitton Vuiton… [WSJ Law Blog]
* … and Ringling Bros. sue Louis Vuitton. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Former Illinois governor and convicted felon George Ryan gets bail pending appeal from the Seventh Circuit. [Chicago Sun-Times]
Fantasy football after the jump…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Morning Docket: 11.30.06″

Associate Bonus Watch: The Milbank Memo Is REALLY Fake

By David Lat

stack of bills cash money.jpgYesterday we requested tips from you about associate bonuses: leaked bonus memos, juicy rumors, etc. Please send this information to us by email, to tips AT abovethelaw DOT com (subject line: “Associate Bonus Watch”).
Please send us tips that you believe in good faith to be true. Because if you send us stuff that’s fake, we’ll find that out when we do our fact-checking.
Take the supposed “bonus memo” of Milbank Tweed. It was purportedly sent out by Christine Wagner, Milbank’s director of legal personnel.
We contacted Ms. Wagner by email. Here’s her response:

From: Wagner, Christine
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:27 PM
To: David Lat
Subject: RE: Milbank “bonus memo”

It is not authentic. No such memo has been issued.

Don’t f*** with us, fellas. This ain’t our first time at the rodeo.
Update: Looking for the REAL Milbank Tweed bonus memo, issued on Friday, December 8? To view it, click here.
Memorable Quotes from Mommie Dearest [IMDb]
Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: The Milbank Memo Is Fake
Welcome to ATL Associate Bonus Watch

Associate Bonus Watch: The Milbank Memo Is Fake

By David Lat

stack of bills cash money.jpgWe tend to think that fact-checking is overrated. But sometimes it pays dividends.
This afternoon, a document purporting to be a Milbank Tweed bonus memo appeared on the oh-so-reliable message board of AutoAdmit.com, aka xoxohth. It sparked frenzied discussion at both AutoAdmit and Greedy Associates.
We checked with our sources at Milbank. The “bonus memo” is phony. But we give the prankster credit for decent execution.
Update: Looking for the REAL Milbank Tweed bonus memo, issued on Friday, December 8? To view it, click here.
In case you’d like to see the fake “bonus memo,” in all of its fraudulent glory, we reprint it for you after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Associate Bonus Watch: The Milbank Memo Is Fake”

Non-Sequiturs: 11.29.06

By Stella Q

* After being subjected to Prince Charles’s tampon metaphors, is there really anything more to know about the Royal Family? [The Guardian]
* Pussy. Labia. Vagina. (Yeah, I too know way too much about Britney’s and, thanks to the above, Camilla’s.) Salary? Buzz! That word is taboo. [Feminist Law Professors]
* But I think in Virginia, it’s still okay to give the homeless transfat. [Southern Appeal; Washington Post]
* Let me save you the trouble: they all taste like the industrial cupcakes moms have been buying for grade school birthdays since the post-war era. So to protect such cupcakes would be like trademarking sawdust. [Madisonian]
* Professor Slater wants you to know that the interviewing-as-dating analogy is inaccurate. Unless you get drunk and end up in the apartment of the interviewer after he tells you he’s in a band. [PrawfsBlawg]

Wherein We Receive An Email from Celebrity Judge Morris Arnold

By David Lat

Morris Arnold Buzz Arnold Judge Morris S Arnold Above the Law.jpgWe’re on a roll today in the correspondence department here at ATL. This morning we brought you an email message from Professor Tim Wu, aka “Genius Wu,” young superstar of the legal academy.
And this afternoon, we proudly present this cyber-missive, typed by Article III fingers:

From: Judge Morris Arnold [email address redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:28 PM
To: AboveTheLaw Tips
Subject: AboveTheLaw Tip

Thank you so very much for the good wishes. I am on the mend and expect to be back up to full speed in very short order.

M. S. Arnold

First, we’re delighted to hear that Judge Arnold is doing so well. Second, we’re delighted that he wrote to us. How awesome is that?
After we put down our inhaler — we started hyperventilating from excitement! — we emailed Judge Arnold to check if it would be okay for us to post his message. And he graciously agreed. Thanks, Judge Arnold!
Earlier: Wishes for a Speedy Recovery to Judge Morris Arnold

  • 29 Nov 2006 at 4:07 PM
  • Weddings

Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: November 19, 2006

By David Lat

legal eagle wedding watch david lat above the law legal blog law blog david lat david lat atl.JPGThe weekend of November 18-19 was a strong one for lawyer weddings (even if not as strong as November 11-12). Once again, we had to make cuts in deciding whom to write about. Here are the three couples on today’s docket:

1. Carlynn Magliano, Patrick Sweeney

2. Stefanie Silverman, Keir Ashton

3. Jessica Tisch, Daniel Levine

Ratings and reviews, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: November 19, 2006″

Wishes for a Speedy Recovery to Judge Morris Arnold

By David Lat

Morris Arnold Buzz Arnold Judge Morris S Arnold Above the Law.jpgEarlier this month, Judge Morris Arnold, one of the most respected federal appellate judges in the country, suffered a heart attack. From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

Morris S. Arnold of Little Rock was hospitalized Wednesday night in St. Louis, where he is a judge on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after having a heart attack. Arnold, 65, officially took senior status less than a month ago. That designation reduces his caseload while he continues to serve on the court that hears appeals from federal courts in seven states including Arkansas.

U.S. Circuit Clerk Michael Gans said Thursday from the court’s St. Louis office that Arnold went to the hospital on his own after returning to his hotel at about 10:30 p.m. Wednesday and experiencing pains in his chest and arm that kept him from falling asleep.

Arnold had the heart attack while at the hospital, and doctors then surgically implanted a stent, Gans said.

We’re advised that the heart attack was minor and that Judge Arnold — known to some by his nickname, “Buzz” — is doing well. We wish this distinguished jurist, revered by the bench and bar and adored by his former clerks, a fast and full recovery.
Little Rock Appellate Judge in St. Louis Hospital [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]

Interview Horror Stories: Wait ‘Til You Have the Offer Before Busting Out the Piercings

By David Lat

nose ring nosering Above the Law.jpgOver the years, law firms have become more relaxed about the attire and appearance of their associates. But there are limits. From the National Law Journal:

“It’s really hard,” said [hiring partner Matthew] Jones, with Duane Morris. He recently interviewed 18 University of Virginia School of Law students in about six hours. He had 15 minutes to eat lunch.

Still, sometimes making a decision is not too difficult. “I had someone come into an interview with a nose ring,” Jones said. “I liked her, but how could I present her to a senior partner?”

To paraphrase Alicia Silverstone in Clueless: “Dee, when you have a Biglaw interview, take out your nose ring.”
(Query: Should the NALP promulgate a rule protecting job applicants with noserings?)
National Firms Digging Deeper Into Class Ranks and on New Campuses Too [NYLawyer.com]
Memorable Quotes from Clueless [IMDb]

Musical Chairs: 11.29.06

By David Lat

musical chairs 2 Above the Law legal blog above the law legal tabloid above the law legal gossip site.GIFFrom Biglaw to business:
* Another Wachtell Lipton partner is leaving the firm. Corporate partner Mitchell Presser recently left to join Fox Paine. We now hear that WLRK real estate partner Michael Benner may be leaving to become general counsel at real estate giant Tishman Speyer.
New Partners:
* Dorsey & Whitney: Banking lawyer Mark Jutsen.
Lateral Moves:
* Speaking of Dorsey & Whitney, they’re closing their San Francisco office. Ten IP lawyers from that office are joining Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
* With the Brown Raysman-Thelen Reid & Priest merger about to become official, two entertainment and IP lawyers are leaving Brown Raysman’s L.A. office. Partner Brian Pass and associate Kevin Straw are joining the Century City office of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.
NY Lawyers On the Move [NYLawyer.com]
As Firm’s Outpost Sinks, 10 IP Attorneys Jump Ship [NYLawyer.com]
Firms’ Merger Spurs More Exits [NYLawyer.com]