We’re liveblogging the Kyle Sampson testimony. Our commentary will be added continuously to this post, so just refresh your browser for the latest.
We have high expectations — and we’re not alone. From the NYT:
“I think it will be the most interesting testimony we have heard since Professor Hill,” Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said as he recalled Anita F. Hill’s appearance in the confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas for a Supreme Court seat. “I can’t think of anyone else who has quite the drama.”
(Of course, some are trying to dial down expectations. Sen. Chuck Schumer is warning us that the Sampson testimony probably won’t produce the proverbial “smoking gun.”)
Our commentary on the hearing, plus links to various news accounts, will appear after the jump.
* Pitcher Urbina sentenced to 14 years in Venezuelan prison. [ESPN]
* Son of N.C. St. coach facing multiple criminal charges. [SI.com]
* Barry Bonds’s trainer says he’s “never going to speak” in steroid investigations. [MSNBC Sports]
* Nine Bengals have been arrested in the past year, and one of them is Chris Henry. [ESPN]
* Titans cornerback “Pacman” Jones is the NFL’s latest problem child. [SI.com]
* NFL Commissioner Goodell will meet with Jones and Henry about their disciplinary problems with a new disciplinary policy forthcoming. [MSNBC Sports]
* Former NBA star Michael Ray Richardson wants you all to know he has “big-time Jew lawyers.” [ESPN]
From the New York Times home page, as of 11:30 PM on Wednesday:
Is this, like, a racial slur or something? Granted, it’s a buffalo-buffalo, not a water buffalo; but still…
The NYT subsequently fixed this photo screw-up (but not before an enterprising ATL reader took a screenshot). The Timesfolk replaced the buffalo-and-snowmobiles photo with a sinister-looking Kyle Sampson, accompanying Alberto Gonzales on an earlier visit to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sampson’s testimony begins at 10 AM today. We’re looking forward to it! Former Key Aide Testifies Today on Gonzales’s Statements [New York Times]
* Since charges have been dropped, we can only hope nothing more severe than spray painting occurred. Those poor goats and sheep, always such pervert-magnets. [LoHud.com (The Journal News)]
* I think the Vietnamese president lost a bet to our president. [Jurist]
* This, hopefully, will not offend anyone. [New York Times]
* The upside is that such drama is indispensable to country song-writing, so better her than me. [AP via Yahoo! News]
We just announced the results of ATL March Madness: Round 1. And you know what that means: Round 2! Update: Two of the four polls appear below. For formatting reasons, we are moving the other two polls to a separate post.
Hey, guess what? Seyfarth Shaw held some “focus groups” with its associates, and the focus groups told them: WE WANT MORE MONEY!!!
And Seyfarth Shaw, despite prior expressions of reluctance, decided to go along. Their memo, announcing associate pay raises, appears after the jump.
The first round of ATL MarchMadness is over. And we have some exciting results to announce — including a number of big-time upsets.
(If we had started the contest just a little bit later, we could have based it on the brand-new U.S. News & World Report law school rankings. But we didn’t, and there’s nothing to be done about that now.)
To see the current state of the brackets, click on the thumbnail image at right. Here are quick summaries of the eight match-ups that just took place:
1. Texas defeats Yale, 54-46
Oh well — upsets happen. Our alma mater gets sent home in the first round of the tournament. Ouch!
(But yeah, New Haven kinda does suck. The sky overhead was grey for all three years we were there.)
2. Michigan defeats Berkeley (Boalt Hall), 51-49
This one was a squeaker that went well into overtime. But in the end, the Wolverines devoured the sandal-wearing hippies of northern California.
3. NYU defeats Northwestern, 68-32
A veritable rout. Northwestern has been doing pretty well lately in terms of getting Supreme Court clerkships for its graduates. But the Biglaw placement opportunities available to NYU grads can’t be beat.
4. Columbia defeats Cornell, 71-29
An even bigger defeat. It’s tough to compete with the Manhattan heavyweights — but NYU and Columbia will face each other in the next round. Who will prevail in this enduring rivalry?
5. Chicago defeats Duke, 56-44
The weather sucks in Chicago; but you do get a pretty decent legal education. And the Duke campus was shaken by controversy earlier this year. (No, not THAT controversy…)
6. Georgetown defeats Harvard, 52-48
This battle of the behemoths concluded with a major upset: Georgetown took down the #3 seed, Harvard Law School. Perhaps HLS was hurt by the embarrassingantics of its LLMs?
7. UVA defeats Penn, 69-31
Want a Wilkinson clerkship? Go to UVA. Also, Penn probably wasn’t helped by that whole shooting incident.
8. Stanford defeats UCLA, 63-37
Northern California versus Southern California is one of our nation’s great regional rivalries. And this time around, the Bay Area prevailed.
After being ejected from March Madness in the first round, UCLA grads will have to content themselves with L.A.’s beautiful weather and plastic-surgery-enhanced population — and their school’s great track record of turning out judicial divas, like Judges Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Cir.) and Kim McLane Wardlaw (9th Cir.).
We’re putting together the polls for round 2, which should be available shortly. So check back soon! Earlier: ATL March Madness: Law Schools, Round 1 (Part 1) ATL March Madness: Law Schools, Round 1 (Part 2)
When we were drawing up our LIST OF SHAME (latest version here), Squire Sanders & Dempsey got dropped along the way. To make the list more manageable, we limited it to firms with a significant New York presence.
Some readers appealed that decision. These two comments are representative:
“The updated List of Shame doesnt include some firms like Squire Sanders and others anymore. I wonder if that’s because they matched (I dont think they did) or because they don’t have big NY offices, so supposedly they shouldn’t be on the list to begin with. If it’s the second explanation that’s right, then we have to get them returned to the List of Shame”.
“PLEASE add Squire Sanders to the list. They’re actively seeking a larger New York presence (currently 2 associates). And they certainly suck as much as any of the other firms on the list. Give them the credit they’ve worked so hard to achieve. Pretty please.”
We’ve also heard, through the grapevine, about a general lack of transparency at SSD concerning associate compensation. So we thought that it might be worth poking around — especially in view of this recent comment:
A post on the Greedy Ohio website indicates that Squire Sanders has raised first year salaries outside of Ohio. Can anyone confirm or deny? Any add’l information?
Is this correct? Do you have any other information about Squire Sanders & Dempsey? If so, please comment on this post, or email us (subject: “Squire Sanders & Dempsey”). Thanks. Re: any info on JD salaries [Greedy Ohio]
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
Whether you’re fresh off the bar exam or hitting your stride after hanging a shingle a few years ago, one thing’s for certain: independent attorneys who start a solo or small-law practice live with a certain amount of stress.
Non-attorneys would think the stress comes from preparing for a big trial, deposing a hostile witness, or crafting the perfect contract for a picky client.
But that’s nothing compared to the constant, nagging, real-life kind, the kind you get from the day-to-day grind of being a law-abiding attorney.
Connecticut plaintiffs-side boutique litigation firm (12 lawyers) seeks full-time associate with 2-4 years litigation experience, top tier undergraduate and law school education. Journal or clerkship experience a plus; highest ethical standards and strong work ethic required. Familiarity with Connecticut state court legal practice is preferred, but not required.
The firm handles sophisticated, high-end cases for plaintiffs, including individuals and businesses with significant claims in a wide array of matters. Our cases often have important public policy implications, and are litigated in state and federal courts throughout Connecticut. Representative areas of practice include medical malpractice, catastrophic personal injury, business torts, deceptive trade practices and other complex commercial litigation, and products liability.
Additional information can be located on our website, at www.sgtlaw.com.