Thanks to commenter “legal beagle” for drawing our attention to what currently graces the Drudge Report. Our annotations appear in red.

Matt Drudge, you are a genius.

Exclusive: Diane Sawyer Speaks to TB Patient [ABC News via Drudge Report]

The Atlanta lawyer who has been quarantined with a case of drug-resistant tuberculosis, Andrew H. Speaker, has become an overnight celebrity of the legal world. And we’re happy to bring you more information about him.

First, from a fellow alum of the University of Georgia Law School, who knows Andrew Speaker personally:

He was a generally well-liked, pretty gregarious fellow, who did reasonably well in law school as far as I know.

I like it when a product of UGA Law makes the national news, but not this way!

Second, from the Denver Post:

[T]he patient, who had hastily left Rome earlier this week after CDC officials begged him to go into isolation at a hospital there, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Tuesday that he thought the security was excessive.

“I’m a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person,” he told the paper. “This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I’ve cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing.”

Third, as several commenters pointed out, Speaker’s wife, Sarah Cooksey, appears to have a personal website.

A screencap, plus links and more discussion, after the jump.

May and June are the peak months for law school graduations. And you know what that means: dreadful graduation gifts.

So we’ve decided to embark upon a quest to find America’s most egregious graduation gift. If you have a nominee, please send it to us by email (subject line: “Worst Graduation Gift”). Please include a photograph of the gift if possible.

Pictured at right, the current frontrunner: a New York City snow globe, given to a recent Columbia Law School grad, by his out-of-town aunt (who was very proud of her find). Our tipster wondered: “I LIVE in New York. What do I want with an NYC snowglobe?”

P.S. We assume that the two tallest buildings in the snow globe are supposed to be the Twin Towers. If so, they’re not a very good likeness. They look more like 125 Broad Street — the not-so-happy home of Sullivan & Cromwell.

Here is the annotated engagement announcement for Andrew Speaker — aka “The TB Guy,” whom we just named our Lawyer of the Day — and his wife, Sarah Cooksey.

It’s a tale that’s abounding in irony. Check it out:

Engagements: Sarah Cooksey — Andrew Speaker [Appen Newspapers]
New Father-in-Law a Microbiologist [Associated Press]

By email and in comments, readers have expressed significant curiosity about associate compensation at Williams & Connolly, the elite, Washington-based litigation boutique. We’d like to help; but we don’t have anything to report at the current time.

Here are some questions that we’d like your thoughts on:

1. Base Salaries. Historically the firm has paid above-market base salaries, but no bonuses. Back in March, Williams & Connolly raised to $165K. At that time, when homegrown D.C. firms were paying 145/155/170, a starting salary of $165,000 was well above the market.

But now that Washington-based firms have raised to 160/170/185, will Williams & Connolly raise again to stay ahead of the competition? Or might they stay at $165,000, but start paying bonuses?

2. Clerkship Bonuses: Speaking of bonuses…. The last we heard, Williams & Connolly paid a clerkship bonus of $25,000. Is that still correct? Do they differentiate between district and circuit court clerkships? What about people with two years of clerkship experience? Inquiring minds want to know.

Update: A current offeree confirms that the W&C clerkship bonus is still at $25K.

3. Summer Associates. A rumor, from a tipster:

The word is that summers aren’t being paid the first-year associate rate. They’re getting $2500 a week, while other DC summers are getting $3100.

Is this whiny? Sure. But whining about minor salary differences is our stock in trade here at ATL.

If you can shed any light on these matters, please email us (subject line: “Williams & Connolly”). Thanks.

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Williams & Connolly Weighs In

LEWW is delighted to bring you the first all-Jewish edition of Legal Eagle Wedding Watch! The MOT really represented this week. Mazel Tov to all the happy couples and their proud parents!

Here are the finalists:

1. Rebecca Kristol and Elliot Silver

2. Talia Milgrom-Elcott and Aaron Dorfman

3. Lisa Gordon and Michael Kanner

More about these couples, after the jump.

The strikingly handsome Andrew Harley Speaker (at right) is a graduate of UGA Law, and a member of the Georgia bar. Earlier this month, he got married, and flew to Europe for his honeymoon. Congratulations, Andrew!

Andrew Speaker practices personal injury and family law in the Atlanta area. This doesn’t sound like a recipe for fame. So why have we named him our Lawyer of the Day?

Well, Mr. Speaker has the potential to become one of the most influential lawyers of our time….

Update: More on Andrew Speaker appears here.

Tuberculosis Patient an Atlanta Lawyer [Associated Press]
Extreme TB Patient Taken To Denver [CBS News]
Andrew Speaker bio [The Speaker Law Firm, PC]

We realize our coverage of law firm salary news focuses very heavily on certain major legal markets, primarily on the East and West Coasts: New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco / Silicon Valley.

So we’re going to mix it up a little. Each day, for the next two weeks or so, we will create an open thread devoted to compensation coverage in a legal market outside the “usual suspects.”

Today’s target: Denver, Colorado. Here’s an article from earlier this month, which appeared in the Denver Post:

At least four national law firms with offices in Denver have raised their entry-level attorney pay to $160,000, forcing some local firms to reconsider what they’re offering this year’s new recruits. Pay for first-year associates, fresh out of law school or clerkships, jumped to $160,000 at some New York firms earlier this year and in California over the past few weeks….

Four national firms with Denver offices - Cooley Godward Kronish, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Morrison & Foer ster and Hogan & Hartson - confirmed they’re raising first-year pay to that level at their U.S. offices.

The largest Denver-based firms are paying $105,000 to $110,000, and some out-of-state firms with offices here pay in the $120,000 range.

Denver lawyers quoted in the Post article talk about the advantages of working for local rather than national firms. The plusses include lower billable hours, more client contact, greater community involvement, and the opportunity to develop their own practices more quickly.

But are these advantages worth a cool $50K a year? The article suggests that local and regional firms in Denver, even if they can’t raise all the way to $160K, will increase associate salaries a little bit, to make the pay gap less enormous.

If you have information or insights about legal salaries in the Mile High City, please discuss away in the comments. Enjoy!

(Non-Denver or national salary discussion should continue in last night’s post about Covington & Burling. Thanks.)

Law firms woo grads with high pay [Denver Post]

Earlier this month, we wrote about how William P. Smith — a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and head of its bankruptcy department — landed himself in the deep-fat fryer. Smith unwisely told a bankruptcy judge, in open court, that she was “a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal.”

Well, Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff didn’t respond so well to that colorful statement. She issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause, directing William Smith (hereinafter “the Fry Guy”) to explain why he shouldn’t be suspended from practicing in her court.

Several tipsters have directed our attention to this delightful article, from the Daily Business Review, about the Fry Guy’s “super-sized gaffe.” It describes the fallout, for both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery, from L’Affaire Happy Meal — and includes a shout-out to Above the Law.

Excerpts and discussion, after the jump.

If so, then please take this survey.

Please note that the survey is for WOMEN LAWYERS ONLY (sorry, boys). It’s being conducted by the ABA Journal and the Center for WorkLife Law, at U.C. Hastings. The goal of the study is to find out how women lawyers treat each other in the workplace.

(We could offer a few editorial thoughts of our own on that subject. But we should probably refrain, so as not to skew the survey results — or get ourselves in trouble….)

To take the survey, please click here. And please feel free to forward the survey link to your female lawyer friends. The survey will be kept open through the end of June.

Thanks!

Women Lawyers Working Together [Survey Monkey]

Time for some celebrity DWI news. It’s like your morning coffee: you can’t get your day started without it.

First, troubled underage starlet Lindsay Lohan (near right) — who is back in rehab, after a drunk driving arrest over the Memorial Day weekend — allegedly suffers from OxyContin addiction, according to her estranged dad, Michael Lohan.

On the one hand, Lohan’s felonious father may not be the most reliable source. But on the other hand, we’re talking about Lindsay Lohan.

Second, an update on someone whose misadventures we have followed quite closely in these pages: Ann Banaszewski (far right), daughter of Justice Antonin Scalia (far right). From the Chicago Tribune:

A daughter of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pleaded guilty Wednesday to drunken driving in Wheaton in February….

Banaszewski accepted a plea agreement with prosecutors and was sentenced by DuPage County Judge Daniel Guerin to 18 months of court supervision. She also was ordered to perform 140 hours of public service (of which 40 hours must be beneficial to children), attend counseling and treatment sessions, attend a victim-impact panel and pay $1,500 in fines and fees.

Will his daughter’s brush with the law turn the crustily conservative Nino into a bleeding heart for criminal defendants? Stay tuned.

(Yes, we know — Justice Scalia has handed down numerous rulings favorable to criminal defendants. E.g., Blakely v. Washington; Crawford v. Washington. But he’s far from the most pro-defendant member of the Court.)

Lohan’s Dad: Lindsay Hooked on OxyContin [Associated Press]
Justice’s daughter pleads guilty to DUI [Chicago Tribune]
Scalia’s daughter pleads guilty to drunken driving [Journal-Gazette / Times-Courier]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Ann Banaszewski (scroll down)

* Cleared Duke lacrosse players given extra year of eligibility. [New York Times]

* ACLU v. Boeing over alleged CIA torture flights. [Jurist]

* Save it for the field, fellas. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Milberg partner may plea in class-action kickback case. [WSJ Law Blog]

The rumors were correct (as they so often are). Before the Memorial Day weekend, Covington & Burling raised associate salaries to the $160K scale. The raise is retroactive to May 1, and summer associates are in on the fun.

Alas, it took us a while to get our hands on the memo. We obtained it only after threatening people with Gitmo making affirmative requests of multiple sources at the firm.

C’mon, folks — show us a little love. We can’t accurately track law firm salary developments without your help. If you have a pay raise memo we haven’t previously posted, stop holding out on us. Please send it to us by email.

The fruit of our labors, namely, the Covington memo, after the jump.

Today’s Lawsuit of the Day comes to us from Davenport, Iowa, courtesy of the Quad-City Times (via How Appealing):

First came a puddle of vomit and a fall, then a classified advertisement and now a lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

June and James Medema of Blue Grass, Iowa, filed the suit May 22 in Scott County District Court, alleging that negligence led to June Medema suffering severe personal and permanent injuries in a June 13, 2005, fall at the Wal-Mart SuperCenter on West Kimberly Road in Davenport. The couple is asking for at least $5,000 in damages, according to the suit.

The facts, while colorful — think puke green — are pretty straightforward. What we really enjoyed were the amusing reader comments appended to the original news article.

Check them out, after the jump.

Well they guess it would be nice
If they could touch his body…

And soon they may have their chance.

George Michael Faces Jail: Michael ‘was on drugs’ court told [BBC News via Drudge Report]

To follow up on our earlier post, as well as this post from before the holiday, here are more confirmed pay raise announcements not previously mentioned in these pages:

1. Munger Tolles & Olson: They’ve raised to the $160K scale, according to The Recorder.

(The same article also mentions Pillsbury Winthrop going to $160K in its California offices; we previously reported that news before the holiday.)

2. Winston & Strawn: We previously posted about their raising salaries in their Washington office. But they have also gone to $160,000 in their home office in Chicago, according to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription).

3. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz: They now pay $165,000 for first years. We’re not sure of what they pay higher up the ladder, but we’re looking into it.

Pillsbury, Others Hit or Exceed $160K Mark for Associate Salaries [The Recorder via Law.com]
Rising associate salary tide washes over more firms here [Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription)]

The front page of today’s Washington Post has an interesting article about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent yesterday in Ledbetter v. Goodyear:

The court ruled 5 to 4 that Lilly Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The decision moved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to read a dissent from the bench, a usually rare practice that she has now employed twice in the past six weeks to criticize the majority for opinions that she said undermine women’s rights.

Speaking for the three other dissenting justices, Ginsburg’s voice was as precise and emotionless as if she were reading a banking decision, but the words were stinging.

Justice Ginsburg’s style of delivery should come as no surprise to regular visitors to the Court. She’s generally regarded as the most soporific when it comes to reading opinions from the bench.

But Justice Ginsburg’s decision to dissent from the bench is interesting. A number of more hard-core liberals — e.g., Judge Stephen Reinhardt, of the Ninth Circuit — view RBG as insufficiently liberal (or insufficiently outspoken in defense of her liberal views). They see her as something of a disappointment on the SCOTUS, given her pre-robescent background as a crusading lawyer for the ACLU and feminist legal scholar.

But RBG’s vociferous dissents in Ledbetter and in Gonzalez v. Carhart, the partial-birth abortion case from earlier in the Term, raise a question: Could Justice Ginsburg finally be flowering as liberal leader of the Supreme Court?

P.S. To be sure, “flowering” is not a term usually applied to Justice Ginsburg. But you know what we mean.

P.P.S. Among the federal appeals courts, we’d say the Eleventh Circuit has the greatest track record of producing liberal lionesses. E.g., Rosemary Barkett; Phyllis Kravitch.

But there are some noteworthy liberal judicial divas on other circuit courts. E.g., that New England ice queen, Sandra Lynch, of the First Circuit; that luscious Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, of the Second Circuit; the frighteningly brilliant Diane Wood, of the Seventh Circuit; the ancient yet energetic Betty Fletcher, of the Ninth Circuit; and the magically delicious Marsha Berzon, also of the Ninth Circuit.

Over Ginsburg’s Dissent, Court Limits Bias Suits [Washington Post]

We’re a little behind in our coverage of associate pay raises at large law firms. This post will attempt to bring everyone back up to speed.

Listed below are firms for which we have announcements that have been (1) confirmed and (2) not previously posted on ATL. We treat an announcement as confirmed only if we have received an email about it, from a source that we can verify as working at the firm in question. You don’t have to email us from your work account (and probably shouldn’t); but if you email us from a personal account, please tell us your real name, so we can look you up on the firm website. (We will keep you anonymous, unless you request attribution; but we do need to know who you are so we can verify your identity.)

If you have some pay raise news that you’d like to be reported in these pages, you need to email us. Rumors reported in the comments — which we no longer read through completely, due to their sheer volume — are not treated as confirmed. If we see an interesting rumor in the comments, sometimes we will nostra sponte reach out to our sources for confirmation; but we don’t always have the time to do that.

New and Confirmed Pay Raise Announcements (in alphabetical order)

1. Dechert LLP (Palo Alto)

2. Katten Muchin Rosenman (Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC)

3. Morgan Lewis & Bockius (Chicago, Washington, DC, and San Francisco)

Update: Please note the addition of Morgan Lewis in Chicago to the list. It was not mentioned in the first version of this post, but we have now confirmed their move to $160K.

Surely this list is incomplete. But we’re not adding to it until we get confirmations by email (preferably with memos, if available). We have been burned before by false information, and we would rather be slow and accurate than fast and wrong.

Memos for the Dechert and Katten announcements appear after the jump.

We wrote about them previously here and here. Now, an update on the “Biglaw Boys Gone Bad,” from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Two Chicago lawyers accused of raping a Wisconsin woman in 2005 could lose their law licenses as a result of a disciplinary complaint filed against them last week.

Stephan Addison and Benjamin Butler face penalties that include censure and disbarment, said James Grogan, chief counsel of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

“Criminal conduct involving violence — where proven — involves substantial sanction,” Grogan said.

“Where proven” presents the tricky part. Addison and Butler claim that the sex was consensual, and they didn’t plead guilty to rape charges. Instead, they pleaded to lesser charges of reckless endangerment of safety. And Addison also pleaded guilty to sexual gratification in public (an offense more aimed at the Pee Wee Hermans of the world, but whatever).

A moral of this story: It’s nice to have your own law firm, just like Addison & Butler. That way nobody can fire you — as Seyfarth Shaw and Schiff Hardin did to the two men, in the wake of the accusations.

(But if they get disbarred, of course, then they’re SOL. And we’re not referring to the statute of limitations.)

2 accused in ‘05 rape could lose law licenses [Chicago Sun Times]

Earlier: Even More Prestigious Than Gallion & Spielvogel?
Biglaw Boys Up To No Good

* My credit card bills are killing me too. [Sixth Circuit (PDF) via How Appealing]

* Will immigration reform screw up New York? [New York Times]

* Cert granted for 4 cases next term. [Jurist]

* Zoellick to replace Wolfowitz at World Bank. [Wall Street Journal]

* Wow. CNN is apparently using the expression “baby daddy” in headlines now. [CNN]

An inquiry from a curious reader who will be starting at a Biglaw shop in New York in a few months:

It seems my friends starting work for Latham & Watkins this fall have received stipends (i.e. signing bonuses) of more than $13,000! And I thought I had a good deal when my NY firm was generous enough to offer me a “salary advance” of $10,000 (which I won’t receive for some time)…

I’m wondering if this bar stipend is common among other firms. In other words – how much am I being screwed? My friends in LA will effectively make a base salary of $173,000 their first year! That’s more than most NYC 2nd years! Wondering if you could post something and get to the bottom of this?

Thoughts? Please feel free to describe your firm’s policy on bar stipends / signing bonuses / salary advances in the comments. Or send us information by email (subject line: “Bar Stipend”). Thanks.

Update: With respect to Latham specifically, a source advises:

It’s true LW gives a bar stipend that equals one month of salary, but they do NOT give a stub bonus. [For the uninitiated, a “stub bonus” is a year-end or holiday bonus, but prorated to reflect the number of months you spent at a firm in your first year (since you weren’t there for all twelve months).]

To say that LW people get more than the NY firms is disingenuous, since a lot of NY law firms give a bonus in December equal to the bar stipend LW gives. I’ve heard that there are some firms that do both - that’d be awesome.

* Crazy Georgia woman loses her bid to de-Harry Potter-fy Gwinnett County Schools. [Fulton County Daily Report]

* For a man with a rare and deadly form of TB, he sure was getting around. [ AP via Yahoo! News]

* FTC not sure about Google buying Doubleclick. [Jurist]

* Roddick sucks, and gets pretty pissed about it. [New York Times]

We’ve gotten a flurry of updates on the email war. Here’s a sampling:

At the risk of incurring the wrath of everyone…, I have decided to throw myself out in front of the train in an attempt to alleviate the inevitable eruption of spiteful emails that continually come forth over a list serve designed to meet the needs of a specific population. When said list is overbroad and incorporates those to whom the subject matter is inapplicable, the first response is generally, “interesting, glad this does not affect me and good luck to those people.” As the first response or two arrives to the PAC solicitation, those in the nilist camp think, “oops, looks like someone accidentally hit the ‘reply all’ button instead of reply. Well, good luck to those people.” Eventually, ten to twenty replies appear, making an inbox look like a gathering of lemmings - yes the electronic communitcation apocalypse is rapidly approaching. Mildly annoyed, those who were involuntarily drafted into this convention think, “everyone has started to make my inbox their soapbox. I hope someone suggests to everyone that they should not hit the ‘reply all’ button, because i don’t want to come across as the person who forgot to have coffee this morning, was shafted out of a fun memorial day vacation, and just got a 30 page handwritten pro se summary judgment motion with 12 counts in it. I still wish those people well, good luck to them.”

No, that’s not the whole message. It continues, after the jump.

An email from a federal district court clerk regarding a pending proposal that would harm career clerks vis-a-vis non-career clerks has apparently touched off an email war between the career clerks and the non-clerks. The original email, and every subsequent email, is being sent to every single district court clerk in the country. According to one of our tipsters, about 40 shots have been fired over the last couple of hours. This is the only one we have so far:

Because the cause of career law clerks apprently takes precedence over the rules of decorum, professionalism, and email etiquette, and because numerous (earnest) pleas to cease sending unsolicited emails to the the “all reply” list have gone unheeded, I have decided to share with the law clerks of the country a list of some of my favorite tater-tot recipies. As my first installment, here is the recipie for my world famous Tater Tot Casserole:

TATER TOT CASSEROLE

1 can cream of mushroom soup
1 bag tater tots
shredded cheese
1 lb of ground hamburger meat
serves: 6 or 7

Brown hamburger meat. Add cream of mushroom soup and stir together continuously.

Let simmer on low heat for 15 minutes.

Place mixture in the bottom of a casserole dish. Lay tater tots neatly on top of the mixture.

Place in oven on 350’ and let the tater tots brown.

Sprinkle with cheese; melt it in the oven and ENJOY.

Delicious!

If you’re a federal district court clerk, or if you’ve been forwarded any part of this war, please send it to us.

The original email, which is boring and contains multiple typos, is available for explanatory purposes only, after the jump.

In yet another 5-4 decision with Kennedy casting the deciding vote, the Supreme Court today limited the ability to sue under Title VII for pay decisions made prior to the 180-day EEOC charge period. That’s about all we got out of the very small portion of the opinion that we had the time or inclination to read. Feel free to send us any snarks, snipes, or otherwise benchslappy comments that you find noteworthy.

The opinion can be accessed here.

Michael K. Brandow, of the Chicago firm of Brady Connolly & Masuda, P.C., is an irresistable-force, immovable-object, Chuck-Norris-like-awesome worker’s compensation attorney. How does he do it? By sucking the life force out of his opponents and anyone else who might stand in his way with his creepy stare.

So mighty is he that in the 26 years since he graduated from John Marshall Law School, he has managed to try

multiple cases before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission and has also successfully prosecuted cases through and including the Circuit and Appellate Courts of Illinois.

So watch out, Illinois worker’s compensation plaintiff’s bar. Because there is no Worker’s Compensation practice section of the Illinois Bar, just a list of worker’s compensation attorneys that Michael K. Brandow allows to live.

According to one of our anonymous tipsters, that’s the case in the New York office until July, when the associate raises will kick in. When the associates complained, what were they given as the reason? “That’s the market. We have to pay our summers the market rate.” But they don’t have to pay the associates the market rate?

Our tipster suggests that perhaps the summers in the New York office ought to take the associates out for lunch.

The Carl’s, Jr. fast-food restaurant chain has sued competitor Jack in the Box over commercials that it says implies that its Angus burgers are made from, shall we say, the least desirable area of the cow.

When asked for comment on the suit, Jack of Jack in the Box had the following to say:

Jack: Relax, fella. Look over there! It’s a Carl’s, Jr. assburger. Hey, relax guy!

Us: Um, you kinda just did it again.

Jack: What? Hey, relax guy. Have a Bacon ‘n’ Cheese Ciabatta Burger. Look over there!

We don’t know about you guys, but Carl’s, Jr. and Jack in the Box both kinda taste like that part of the cow to us. It’s all about the In and Out Burger.

For those of you who, like us, don’t live in Jack In the Box’s advertising range, the ads are after the jump.

Jane Ann Morrison, columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, had a column yesterday that put quite a smackdown on two-time Judge of the Day Elizabeth Halverson (see her previous honors here and here). Along with some catty renditions of some of the facts we already knew (like the fact that Judge Halverson’s pre-judicial legal experience apparently consists of 9 years as a state court law clerk, getting FIRED from that job, losing her first election, and then somehow winning her second), Morrison provides some of the juicy details of the hefty judge’s outrageous behavior that led to her needing her own security force in the first place.

From the column:

Halverson spent nine years as a fairly lowly law clerk. (I always assumed the 425-pound woman, according to her driver’s license, stayed as long as she could for the county’s health insurance coverage.)

Zing!

After she was fired, she ran for one judgeship, lost, but in 2006 won on her second try.

Before long, stories started coming out of the Regional Justice Center about her contemptuous behavior toward her staff, particularly her bailiff, Johnny Jordan. Halverson, who had never had real power, was relishing it, throwing a pencil on the floor and ordering him to pick it up. Jordan was ordered to give her foot rubs and back massages. He has since filed a complaint against his former boss alleging discrimination based on sex and race. He is black and says she treated him like a “house boy.”

Yikes.

Apparently the other judges in the courthouse felt the need for a judicial intervention with Halverson:

Court officials realized they were going to be slapped with multiple lawsuits alleging hostile work environment if no action was taken. Three judges were asked to help Halverson, Family Court Judge Art Ritchie and District Judges Stewart Bell and Sally Loehrer.

A memo details an April 6 meeting between Halverson and the three judges:

• She’s told it’s inappropriate to have staff rub her feet or her back. Her answer: She’d told the bailiff to stop that, that he’d become too familiar with her.

• She’s told she should not require staff to show up at 6:45 a.m. to wait for her arrival at 8 or 8:30 a.m. Her answer: She’d told the bailiff not to come early, but he wouldn’t listen.

• She’s told she should not have staff make her lunch. Answer: The bailiff wants to make her lunch.

• She’s told there are 20-25 orders missing. Answer: She’s shocked.

• She’s told it’s unethical to make statements showing bias against attorneys, particularly those who didn’t give to her campaign. Answer: Yes, she said it, but since nobody gave her money for her campaign, she’s not discriminating against anyone.

• She’s told the demeaning way she talks to her husband, Ed, referring to him as a “bitch” (and worse), is offensive to staff. Answer: She doesn’t know why that would upset the staff, but the solution is to have him not come to her chambers.

• Told she should treat people with dignity and respect, Halverson said she didn’t know specifically what she was doing wrong.

After she answered every allegation made against her, Judge Bell told her, “If you can’t see it, you can’t fix it. Get some psychological help.”

On April 12, the three judges tried to meet with Halverson again at 4:30 p.m. She was in a civil nonjury trial. The three judges waited until 6 p.m. before leaving. Later, the judges said they confirmed her trial was over, but she waited in the courtroom until she confirmed they had departed. The judges said Halverson will “falsely” claim she was in trial. Essentially, the judges called her a liar.

We also have it on good authority that she told her doctor she was just “big-boned.”

But despite all of this, Las Vegas voters will have to wait 18 more months to get rid of the behemoth they so nonchalantly voted into office. That is unless a complaint is filed with the Judicial Discipline Commission; the article says that investigators are working on putting one together.

Oh yeah, did we mention that she’s huge?

We’re coming to you from Athens, Georgia once again (hopefully with a better map this time). While Lat makes his way back from losing his ass at the blackjack tables his friend’s wedding in Vegas over the weekend, we’ll be holding down the fort.

We’ve got some good stuff in the pipeline, but feel free to keep the helpful tips coming as always.

* Umm, is this really that surprising? Would be kinda scary if it were the opposite… [Jurist]

* No driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs: California Rule! [CNN]

* Alabama latest to say “our bad” on slavery. [ Fulton County Daily Report]

* Pakistani lesbian couple jailed for being gay perjury. [Jurist]

* CSI: Hollywood. [CNN]

* Women’s unmentionables are pricey, but even the total value of 1,300 pairs of 100% cotton granny panties would amount to a felony. (Yeah, I hate the word “panty” too.) [ABC News (Denver)]

* The bad news is that you’ll never eat your greens again. The good news is that he is STD-free. [Daily Herald]

* I’d rather be jowl-free than Macacca’s kid. [Contact Music]

* The devil makes work for idle hands—I know this is Kansas, but doesn’t Phelps have something better to do? [KFDA]

It’s the Friday before a major holiday — and firms are scrambling to get their pay raise announcements out the door. It’s a nice way to send your bedraggled and overworked hardworking associates into a three-day weekend (assuming they don’t need to come in on Monday).

We’re about to sign off for the weekend, and we won’t be back until Wednesday. (Billy Merck, who has filled our shoes in the past, will be your guest editor on Tuesday.)

Before we go, here are the latest salary announcements that we’ve confirmed:

1. McDermott Will & Emery

2. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (Hat Tip: Lateral Link)

But the Manatt “raise” has a catch. Its effective date? January 1, 2008.

HA. That’s kind of funny, in a sick sort of way — provided you’re not at Manatt.

Memos appear after the jump. And we’re out the door. Have a great holiday weekend!

Update (2:50 PM): We’ve verified the Pillsbury Winthrop raise news. Memo below.

Update (3:25 PM): Jeez, you’re going to make us miss our flight to Las Vegas. Memo from the D.C. office of Winston & Strawn, added after the jump.

Here’s a development that has Colorado prosecutors saying “oh crap” — quite literally. From the Rocky Mountain News:

A former Democratic Party activist who left dog feces on the doorstep of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s Greeley office during last year’s 4th Congressional District campaign was found not guilty Wednesday of criminal use of a noxious substance.

So what happened? Did the prosecution fail to establish the element of noxiousness?

Ensz’s lawyers never denied that their client left a Musgrave campaign brochure full of feces at the front door of the congresswoman’s office. But they argued that Ensz was making a statement protected by free speech - the poop was a symbol of what she thought of Musgrave’s politics.

“Her only intention of going over there was to make a political statement that Marilyn Musgrave’s politics stink,” attorney Shannon D. Lyons said after the verdict.

Is feces flinging the flag burning of the future?

Woman acquitted of illegal poop use [Rocky Mountain News]

Okay, commenters, break it up. There’s no need to come to blows over the propriety of discussing clerkship bonuses in a salary post.

Here at ATL, there’s enough cyberspace for everyone. We’re putting an end to the turf wars, by giving you a new, dedicated thread for talking about clerkship bonuses.

We’ll kick things off with some news. First, a reader alerted us to a change made to Cahill Gordon’s website:

Sign-on Bonuses: The firm pays sign-on bonuses of $50,000 to judicial clerks and $15,000 to LL.M. (tax) graduates when they start at the firm.

Second, from a law clerk tipster, about Paul Weiss:

I’m clerking for two years. Paul Weiss just notified me, by phone, that they will be giving $70K bonuses to all two-year clerks. Hurray!

Congratulations, law clerks! Your Memorial Day holiday weekend is off to a good start.

Compensation & Benefits [Cahill Gordon & Reindel]

As promised, here’s the first installment in our series about infighting at America’s top law journal: the Harvard Law Review. Some HLR editors are unhappy with the Review’s new fearless leader, president Andrew Crespo, and have been expressing their concerns.

We’ve been leaked a number of HLR internal emails that some of you may find amusingly ridiculous. But we should warn you that they’re not for everyone. If you don’t share our appreciation for tempests in teapots, you may have a “So what?” reaction.

But if you do enjoy the hilarity of petty law school squabbles, then check out the emails — after the jump.

It’s a busy morning, right before the big Memorial Day holiday weekend. There’s breaking news of associate pay raises from Sidley Austin, Arnold & Porter (hi James Sandman!!!), and Brown Rudnick.

The Sidley Austin memo appears after the jump. The raise to the $160K scale covers Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington. It’s retroactive to May 1.

The Arnold & Porter news was reported by The BLT: Blog of Legal Times. If you have the A&P memo, please email it to us.

We learned of the Brown Rudnick raise by email. We don’t have the memo, but our source sent us a salary table, which also appears below the fold.

Discuss.

Those of you who read our extensive liveblogging of Monica Goodling’s testimony on Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee know how deeply impressed we were.

Goodling was poised, intelligent, and articulate. She showed flashes of wit, as well as consistent honesty and forthrightness. She looked like a million bucks.

On a scale of 0 to 10, we’d score Monica Goodling’s performance on Capitol Hill as a 9.3. It wasn’t a perfect 10; Rep. Artur Davis landed a few punches in the eleventh round. But Monica “Hurts So” Goodling ultimately emerged victorious from the boxing ring of the Rayburn House Office Building, with barely a glove laid on her.

We weren’t alone in our assessment. Distinguished legal commentators, including law professors like Orin Kerr and Adam Gershowitz, also raved over La Goodling’s star turn.

And this morning, via Howard Bashman, we come across more praise of Goodling, from an unlikely source. Check out this great online essay (registration required), by Eve Fairbanks of The New Republic — no bastion of conservatism.

Discussion continues after the jump.

Like ATL’s most recent Summer Associate of the Day, our latest honoree is also a hottie. And that’s not a matter of opinion; it’s a certified fact.

On the heels of yesterday’s Miss Connecticut International turned litigatrix, we learn of another beauty pageant winner who has turned in her tiara for a stack of BNA looseleafs. From a tipster:

This summer, the Miami office of Shook, Hardy, & Bacon is graced by the presence of a former Miss Pennsylvania, Victoria Bechtold Kush. She is currently a law student at Florida International University School of Law.

Check out her website. Needless to say, she is a bit of a distraction!

Very impressive. And Victoria Kush isn’t just beautiful; she’s also brainy. From her bio:

Victoria pursued her undergraduate degree at Duquesne University, in Pittsburgh, PA, where she obtained a B.S. degree in Business - Information Technology. As a member of the Honors College, she graduated as Valedictorian after completing her degree in 3 years while maintaining a cumulative 4.0 GPA.

WOW. So we’ll ask what you’re all thinking, but are too polite to say out loud: What the heck is she doing at FIU Law?

More after the jump.

As you may recall (from yesterday’s Morning Docket), Eliot Disner is the McGuireWoods partner who criticized the settlement negotiated by his firm in an antitrust class action against Bar/Bri, the giant bar exam prep company.

Actually, make that “former McGuireWoods partner.” From today’s New York Law Journal:

Mr. Disner, who was a partner in the Los Angeles office of McGuireWoods, said the firm fired him May 23. “I was terminated because [McGuireWoods] said that my work on the BAR/BRI case had hurt the [firm’s] reputation,” he said. His concerns about the proposed settlement with West Publishing Corp., which offers BAR/BRI bar review courses nationwide, surfaced in an objection to the class settlement that was filed last week by three lead plaintiffs (NYLJ, May 21)….

A hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real on whether the $49 million settlement will become final is scheduled for June 18. Mr. Disner’s brief, which was not supported by McGuireWoods, argues that the firm ought to press for at least $400 million from West Publishing, as well as for the breakup of BAR/BRI.

We titled an earlier post about the settlement You Are Probably $125 Richer Right Now. But if Eliot Disner is right, maybe another zero belongs on the end of that figure.

Study questions: Is the Bar/Bri settlement fair? Or has Bar/Bri screwed us yet again?

Law Firm Fires Partner Who Questioned BAR/BRI Settlement [New York Law Journal]
Bar/Bri Class-Action Objector is Fired [WSJ Law Blog]
The Intrigue Grows in Bar/Bri Class-Action [WSJ Law Blog]
Lawyer Who Sued BAR/BRI Now Questions the Settlement [American Lawyer]

* Former Montana State football player accused of leading drug ring. [SI]

* Ken Lay’s widow seeks to keep money after husband’s death resulted in vacated conviction. [MSNBC]

* Father of Cardinals pitcher in fatal car accident files suit. [SI]

* Paternity suit against Paul McCartney dropped. [CNN]

* Goodling’s Regent University School of Law, where she was in the top 10.5% of the class, scrutinized. [WSJ Law Blog]

We’re a little tardy with this memo. It was issued on Wednesday, but we didn’t receive it until late yesterday.

Anyway, better late than never. The Mintz Levin pay raise announcement appears below the fold.

* It is my calling to keep people’s self-esteem in check when out of wack with reality. And to yet again point out the dangers of using MySpace if you’re over 21 or not a musician. I am also in a pissy mood today. [Gawker]

* The recent approval of a pill that stops menstruation has sparked much non-legal discussion on legal blogs, but I really just wanted to show you these funny stuffed tampons. [Law and Letters]

* Kids do the darndest things! A child-director, a lawsuit — and, of course, Kevin Bacon. [UPI]

* Claims of anorexia are just code for “Damn, she looks good!” and subsequent lawsuits code for “We need some free press” and “Don’t hate me because I’m hot.” But Keira, in life as in Star Wars, you remain the mere handmaiden to the Queen of Naboo. [Yahoo! News]

* If my boss asked me if he had a chance of eatin’ good in my neighborhood, I’d file a complaint as well. Unless he were hot, in which case I’d tell him to wait until after my wax. [Rockford Registrar Star]

* Old mothers, teen mothers, gay mothers… Just keep them out of high schools, please. End of PSA. [New York Times]

The associate pay raise memo for the D.C. office of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, authenticated for us by a source at the firm, appears after the jump.

We have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the memos, posted in the comments, that appear to be from Mayer Brown’s offices in Los Angeles and Chicago. So it would seem that the firm has raised to the $160K scale in Washington, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

But if you can confirm them for us, please do so by email. Thanks.

(You don’t have to email us from your work account. A message from your personal, non-work email account — but disclosing your real name, so we can look you up on the firm website — is sufficient confirmation.)

P.S. Hopefully the firm won’t have to drop the ax on more deadweight partners to pay for these raises.

Update: The Mayer Chicago memo has been authenticated. We have posted it after the jump.

Further Update: The Mayer L.A. memo is legit. It’s also posted after the jump.

It’s time for a quick update on Judge Elizabeth Halverson. As you may recall, Judge Halverson — a Nevada state court judge, with her chambers in Las Vegas — was recently named our Judge of the Day. She achieved this honor after being banned from the courthouse by the chief judge.

Anyway, we’re pleased to report the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson is now back at work. Congratulations, Your Honor!

Also, she is still really large.

P.S. Speaking of Las Vegas, we’re going to be out there over Memorial Day weekend, to attend the wedding of a friend (no, not Britney).

If you’ll be in Vegas at the same time, and would be interested in shooting craps grabbing drinks with us, please drop us a line. If there’s enough interest, maybe we’ll hold another ATL happy hour, or office hours. Thanks.

Halverson returns to court [Las Vegas Review-Journal]

Earlier: Judges of the Day: Elizabeth Halverson and Fred Axley

Yes, that’s right. In its New York office, Ropes & Gray has upped its clerkship bonus to $50,000 (and $35,000 in its other offices). If you have two years of clerkship experience, you’ll get $70,000 — no matter what office you’re in.

From the firm website:

Our annual salary for first-year associates, in all of our offices, is $160,000. Associates joining Ropes & Gray from one or two years of clerking are treated as members of their law school class for compensation purposes. Associates joining our New York office receive a bonus of $50,000 if they clerked for one year and $70,000 for two years of clerking; associates joining our other offices receive a bonus of $35,000 if they clerked for one year and $70,000 for two years of clerking.

We haven’t heard much clerkship bonus news lately. If you know of a move that we haven’t previously reported on, please email us. Thanks.

Compensation & Benefits [Ropes & Gray]

The latest Biglaw combination brings together more “L”s than you can shake a stick at. From the Texas Lawyer:

Locke Liddell & Sapp, based in Houston and Dallas, and Chicago-based Lord, Bissell & Brook have agreed to merge, and will form a 700-lawyer firm named Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell.

Hmm, that’s a mouthful — the marketing people might want to rethink things. The alliteration and internal rhyme make the firm name far too “busy.”

Correction: Based on the comments, it appears that we’re wrong about the internal rhyme. But we still think the new firm name is unwieldy.

Some reactions to more substantive aspects of the deal, after the jump.

Do we exaggerate the rivalry between Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times’s veteran Supreme Court correspondent, and comely up-and-comer Jan Crawford Greenburg, who covers the Court for ABC News?

Maybe. We have a weakness for the dramatic, in case you haven’t noticed. But even if exaggerated, there’s no denying the tension between these two formidable female journalists.

Linda Greenhouse recently spoke at a litigation department luncheon at Willkie Farr in New York. And in her remarks, she threw down the gauntlet before Jan Crawford Greenburg.

Here’s what La Greenhouse had to say about Supreme Conflict, the bestselling book penned by her young rival (emphasis added):

“In her book, Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote, I think quite improbably and without any evidence, that Justice Thomas is the ideological heavyweight anchoring the conservative side of the court…”

“Jan Crawford Greenburg got a lot of mileage out of that statement in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but I just don’t think it’s true.”

WOW. What did Willkie Farr feed Greenhouse for lunch? Fancy Feast?

An interesting account of the rest of Greenhouse’s remarks, from an ATL reader who was there, after the jump.

We recently were sent this pay raise announcement, which we reprint with the permission of the sender:

I will pay my first year associate $175,000.

I just need to generate the income to hire someone at that pay level.

Frank M. Feibelman
Attorney at Law
5206 Markel Road
Richmond, VA 23230

Okay, here’s Mr. Feibelman’s real point, which is a fair one: “Bear in mind that not all of your readers are Big Law lawyers; some are sole practitioners.”

And here is one other thing to keep in mind. Biglaw attorneys, be thankful for your deep-pocketed clients, who allow you to practice law without too many cost considerations.

To be sure, even big corporate clients are becoming more cost-conscious — and complaining about high fees. But they’re still not as cheap cost-conscious as small businesses and individuals, the typical clients of sole practitioners, who freak out over legal bills when they reach into the five figures.

P.S. Speaking of solo practitioners — how much does the typical one earn? Their incomes can vary widely, but we’d be interested in a random sampling. If you’re a sole practitioner, please describe the nature of your practice and how much you earn, by posting in the comments. Thanks.

Frank M. Feibelman: Attorney at Law [official website]
Associate Salary Wars: The GCs Strike Back [WSJ Law Blog]

Or even in chambers, for that matter. But open court is worse. From a tipster:

In a bankruptcy case here in the Southern District of Florida, William P. Smith — a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and the head of its bankruptcy department — actually told a judge she was “a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal.”

Literally. In open court. Amazing.

Don’t believe us? Check out the transcript:

In fairness to Bill Smith, please note that he let fly this insult “with respect.” Nice touch, counsel.

Alas, Judge Isicoff didn’t take kindly to a lawyer questioning the completeness of her “Happy Meal.”

Find out how she responded, after the jump.

* Slate wrap-up of Goodling testimony. [Slate]

* You’ve heard of custody disputes becoming a dog fight… [ABA e-Journal]

* Vegas City Council pushes dealer on huge flag issue. [CNN]

* Developments in Barbri class action. [WSJ Law Blog]

* DC Madam and her attorney host Q&A in Georgetown. [BLT]

He’s not a judge yet, so we can’t bestow our coveted Judge of the Day award upon him. But he has secured the Democratic nomination for a judgeship, in Philadelphia — which means he has a decent shot of being elected.

Then again, whether Willie Singletary gets elected to the bench may depend upon how much the electorate appreciates irony. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Willie Singletary won a Democratic nomination for Traffic Court last week despite being a scofflaw of major proportions.

As of primary day, Singletary, 26, owed $11,427.50 for 55 violations, including reckless driving, driving without a license, careless driving, driving without registration, and driving without insurance.

In fact, a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest - a fact made public after the election by Bernard Strain, who lost in the Democratic primary for Traffic Court but who won a Republican nomination.

A little more discussion, after the jump.

Well, maybe not quite. But we do find it interesting that, in the recent wave of publicity over Aaron Charney’s amended complaint, Sullivan & Cromwell’s public relations team at Sard Verbinnen reached out to us. They emailed the following statement to us:

“This is just a rehash of his original, now dismissed, complaint with the addition of some unsubstantiated allegations. We will continue to defend the Firm vigorously against these same baseless claims. Sullivan & Cromwell remains committed to fostering an inclusive workplace environment for all of its lawyers and staff and is proud of our track record of promoting diversity.”

It’s not a particularly exciting statement; but we were excited to receive it. Although they’ve been working extensively with the mainstream media over the past few months, Sard Verbinnen — which S&C hired specifically for L’Affaire Charney (a different media relations shop handles the firm’s general publicity) — had never contacted us before.

And we weren’t the only “new media” types to get the message. The PR gurus also emailed their statement to two leading Charneybloggers: Lavi Soloway and Professor Arthur Leonard.

Not to be outdone, Aaron Charney’s lawyers spoke to us on the phone. We had a quick conversation the other day with Dan Alterman, of Alterman & Boop, who had this to say:

“The amended complaint is a wonderful opportunity for us to get this case focused back on the main issues — especially the discrimination and retaliation claims.”

Public relations firms reaching out to us; lawyers talking to us on the telephone. We feel so… legitimate!

Charney v Sullivan & Cromwell, Take 2 [Arthur Leonard / Leonard Link]
I Received This Email, Moments After Posting About Charney’s Amended Complaint [Lavi Soloway]

It’s been all over the comments, so it’s not exactly breaking news. But we have verified it with a source at the firm.

The DLA Piper memo, from your pals Larry, Moe and Curly Frank, Lee and Terry, appears after the jump.

P.S. We intend no disrespect to the work that Frank Burch, Lee Miller, and Terry O’Malley are doing as joint CEOs of DLA Piper. We just think the informality of signing memos as “Frank, Lee and Terry” is a bit forced.

C’mon, guys. You’re the heads of a major international law firm — not three guys we met down at the track.

* When the backdrops for crazy shootings tend to be God-forsaken backwaters (or suburbs), it’s reassuring to know that New York City is still home to plenty of wackjobs. [Gawker; Village Voice; Braunstein recap here]

* I love it when a guy makes good on the “You can’t make me!” threat. [QuizLaw; The Smoking Gun]

* Silly little lawsuits do not suit hip hop. Bring back the thuggery, I say. [All HipHop News]

* The CHiPs guys would never do this, but things are different down South. [Chicago Sun-Times]

* He’s short, a biter and, in all likelihood, soon to be single—single line, girls. [CNN]

We have to step away from our computer now, to go meet our running group. We are training for the New York City marathon. If you’d like to support our efforts with a tax-deductible donation to fund cancer research, which is almost as worthy a cause as the Monica Goodling Legal Defense Fund, please click here.

This means we’re going to miss the last ten minutes or so of Monica Goodling’s testimony. If anything insane happens, please note it in the comments, or email us.

Also, we’re not the only ones who were impressed by Goodling’s performance today. Distinguished legal analysts concur in our assessment that La Monica acquitted herself very well before the House Judiciary Committee.

By way of example, check out these posts at two leading law blogs:

1. Monica Goodling’s Testimony [Volokh Conspiracy (Prof. Orin Kerr)]

2. Rounding Out My Monica Goodling Obsession [PrawfsBlawg (Prof. Adam Gershowitz)]

Sorry, Monica haters. The experts have weighed in. You lose.

Have a nice day!

Some more good news on the associate pay raise front:

1. Kirkland & Ellis: “The Firm Committee has approved increases to our associate base salaries in our California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. offices, retroactive to May 1, 2007.”

So K&E is now on the $160K scale — not just in California and D.C., which was inevitable, but also in Chicago. Expect the other Chicago shops to follow suit

2. Sheppard Mullin: The firm has raised to the $160K scale in California and Washington. Not super-exciting; but it’s always nice to welcome a new member to the club.

Associate pay raise memos from Sheppard Mullin and Kirkland & Ellis, verified by multiple sources at both firms, appear after the jump.

BREAKING: Is the cool and collected Monica Goodling starting to crack, under the persistent and probing questioning of Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL)? Details after the jump (around the 3:25 mark).

3:08: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) employs a too-clever-by-half strategy to try and get Monica Goodling to say that Alberto Gonzales should be fired. It falls flat.

3:12: Rep. Artur Davis asks Goodling specific questions about whether she believes various statements by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the firings were incorrect. He gets her to admit, multiple times, that the Attorney General’s statements were inaccurate. Sometimes the simplest questions are best.

3:14: Oooh, Rep. Davis is definitely making inroads. John Dowd objects and asks to see the AG testimony being referenced. Rep. Davis slaps Dowd: “As I recall, you are not a participant in these proceedings.”

Rep. Lungren (R-CA), clearly disturbed by the points that Davis is scoring, protests through a point of order. The Chair — Sheila Jackson Lee, filling in for John Conyers — overrules the point of order.

3:15: Rep. Lungren appeals the ruling of the chair. He is smacked down.

WOW, this is DEFINITELY heating up. More after the jump.

If congressional testimony over the U.S. Attorney firings were American Idol:

Alberto Gonzales = Sanjaya Malakar

D. Kyle Sampson = Blake Lewis

Monica Goodling = Jordin Sparks

Goodling is, far and away, the best Department of Justice witness to appear before Congress on the U.S. Attorney firings thus far. If one were to compare her performance to that of Kyle Sampson or Alberto Gonzales, we’d paraphrase what Simon Cowell said last night to Jordin Sparks: “You wiped the floor with him.”

BREAKING: Monica Goodling is paying her own legal bills — and will be establishing a legal defense fund. YAY!!!

More discussion — including a blow-by-blow account of the hearing, which is back underway — after the jump.

If you’re an associate at a top Chicago law firm, hoping that Sidley Austin LLP will kick off a round of pay raises in the Windy City, we have some advice for you:

Don’t hold your breath.

(On the other hand, sometimes law firms boost associate pay to distract from bad publicity. Might Sidley take that approach here?)

Sidley agrees to $39.4 million penalty to IRS [Chicago Tribune]
Sidley Austin Settles Government Tax Shelter Investigations [Business Wire (press release)]

First, how delectable is that Tiffany engagement ring currently being advertised all over the NYT wedding pages? So big, so sparkly, so inevitably overpriced! We pity the poor guys who’ll be shelling out their clerkship bonuses for that one.

Second, memo to the New York Times: Since when does summer employment merit mention in the wedding pages? If we once spent Christmas break shoveling David Souter’s driveway, would that get us a write-up? Or is it just that the word “Skadden” makes you all trembly?

Here are this week’s couples (no summer associates here!):

1. Alexis Krock and Grant Mainland

2. Emily Sheehy and Reed Carey

3. Jessica Rodriguez and Emile Lisboa

More on this week’s couples, after the jump.

12:25: We’re back from that “five minute” recess. (They run a tighter ship over on the Senate side of the Hill.)

12:27: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is up. This is gonna be GOOD.

SJL is one of our favorite Capitol Hill divas — and she qualifies as a diva under even the most stringent definition of the term. From our days of blogging at Wonkette, we have enough stories about her to fill volumes.

Jackson Lee to Goodling: “We have limited time, so I ask that you keep your answers as cryptic as possible….”

Cryptic? JEEZ….

Of course she starts off interrogating Goodling about the Howard grad whose hiring Goodling delayed. So predictable.

She also asks Goodling to state the name of the Deputy Attorney General (Paul McNulty). Was that a question? WTF???

More after the jump.

The House Judiciary Committee is taking a five-minute recess in the Monica Goodling testimony. We will resume our liveblogging of the hearing in a fresh post. Our two prior reports appear here and here.

Meanwhile, we can confirm the rumor from the comments that Goodwin Procter has raised associate base salaries to the $160K scale, in Boston, California, and Washington, DC.

The memo appears after the jump.

This is a continuation of our earlier post, in which we kicked off our liveblogging of the Monica Goodling testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

11:00: Some friendly questioning from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ranking Republican Member of the Judiciary Committee. We once sat next to him at a dinner party; he’s a very nice man.

11:05: Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) is a style nightmare. White blazer, red tank-toppy-looking blouse. Congresswoman Sanchez: this is the United States Congress, not a July 4th booze cruise.

11:07: In terms of her demeanor, Goodling is not going down the diva route. She’s very polite and helpful, interspersing her remarks with self-effacing or nervous smiles. It seems that she’s trying to be as forthcoming as possible as a witness.

Discussion resumes after the jump.

The Democrats have gotten a lot of political mileage out of the U.S. Attorneys firing “scandal.” But their luck is about to run out. They never should have messed with the Magnificent Monica Goodling.

We’re liveblogging the Monica Goodling’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, which is just getting underway. Our commentary will be added continuously to this post (until we eventually migrate to a new post). So just refresh your browser for the latest.

10:19: WOW. Girlfriend looks FANTASTIC. A bona fide hottie. She has definitely shed a few pounds since the red Solo cup photo — which needs to be tossed in the dustbin of history, stat.

10:22: Monica Goodling is wearing a sober black suit, which strikes just the right note for congressional proceedings. Her dark blonde hair is immaculate: lustrous, straight but not flat, with the perfect amount of volume. The look is finished off with demurely curling tendrils — elegant and feminine, but still businesslike enough for Congress..

Goodling is in her early 30s; but today she looks like she’s in her 20s. For those of you who aren’t watching this on television, who wait for the photographs in tomorrow’s newspaper, take our word for it: you will be struck by the totality of her “makeover.”

Discussion continues after the jump.

A news flash for criminal defendants, courtesy of a helpful tipster: “Apparently punching out an elderly juror is no longer a surefire way to get a mistrial in your case.” Or as a second reader quipped: “Did you see this? Defendant punches a juror. Mistrial? Not so much.”

From the Boston Herald:

A tough-as-nails judge yesterday sent a message to courtroom clowns seeking to disrupt their trials, denying a defendant who cold-cocked a juror a mistrial and instead ordering him chained to the floor.

“It is becoming increasingly common for violent” offenders to try to “derail” their trials by creating chaos, said Suffolk Superior Court Judge Patrick F. Brady. But accused cop shooter Richard Glawson, 46, would not prevail as a martyr of mayhem.

Though “they saw everything that transpired” Friday when Glawson laid out a male juror as the others tried to run or were trapped trembling and weeping, Brady refused to release the remaining panelists or question them as to whether they could still decide the case without prejudice.

Good for Judge Brady. We just hope they don’t give him too a hard time on appeal.

Update: Judge Brady subsequently reversed himiself, and declared a mistrial. That was lame, Your Honor!

But it sounds like the appellate mandarins of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court — who don’t have to deal with violent offenders day in and day out, safely ensconced in the SJC’s ivory tower — may have forced Judge Brady’s hand.

Case continues despite attack: Judge refuses to let courtroom chaos end in mistrial [Boston Herald]
Mistrial declared in chaos case [Boston Herald]

* The gem of this article is the last paragraph. [SI]

* Doctors and lawyers…so happy together. [Health Law Blog via WSJ Law Blog]

* Congressman seeks $880,000 in attorney fees from another Congressman. [BLT]

* Monica testifies today! [CNN]

[Ed. note: Of course we’ll be liveblogging Monica Goodling’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. The hearing starts at 10:15 AM; check back with us around that time.]

Okay, this isn’t as amusing as the Alexandra Korry haikus that have been unleashed in the comments. But then again, few things are.

Courtesy of ATL reader “Josef Stalin,” here’s a Lolcat graphic, in honor of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell:

Lolcat [Wikipedia]

P.S. Please vote for Jordin Sparks in American Idol!!! Call 1-866-IDOLS-02, or text “VOTE” to 5702.

Even Professor Althouse, a diehard Blake Lewis fan, kind of agrees: “So, okay, let Jordin win. Blake will be fine. It will be better this way.”

* Duke, race, and why the honor code is harder to understand than “Fuqua” is to pronounce. [CNN; The News & Observer]

* When a woman rushes into the bathroom and emerges with no powder of any kind on her nose, it means she’s stealing your identity, fool. [Los Angeles Times]

* If models can insure their legs, surely this guy could have insured his nose. But I’m glad I now know that Zicam can make you oblivious to the smell of pee and chemical fires. [Charleston Daily Mail]

* Another travesty on an unsuspecting public? We seemed to have accepted the whole bottled water thing with little outcry. [Consumer Law & Policy Blog]

* I can really hear Madonna’s Frozen playing over a future Dateline segment on this troubled mother. [The Pittsburgh Channel]

We reiterate last year’s request for funny or interesting stories about summer associates. We’ll use them for our new feature, Summer Associate of the Day. Like ATL’s Lawyer of the Day and Judge of the Day columns — which may be somewhat misnamed, since they don’t appear daily, but whatever — we’re most interested in people making damn fools of themselves.

For today’s Summer Associate of the Day, though, we’re going for “notable” rather than “embarrassing.” From a source:

Judging from your recent post on Shane Chase, it appears you may have a soft spot for interesting or controversial summer hires.

How’s this? The New York office of WilmerHale has hired Elizabeth Wurtzel as a summer associate. You may remember her as the controversial author of Prozac Nation and Bitch, as well as a former music critic/wild card for The New Yorker and New York Magazine. She’s also a looker — see here. She’s at Yale, almost 40 now, and still looks as good.

Who knows, maybe she’ll use Wilmer for fodder for another article/book!

Indeed. Prozac Law Firm, anyone? It seems that commenter WilmerNY could use some antidepressants.

Or maybe Wurtzel could pen a sequel to her 1998 book, Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women? The world of Biglaw should provide ample fodder.

Elizabeth Wurtzel [Wikipedia]

Earlier: Low-Hanging Fruit: Summer Associate Stories, Please

Two great gals that go great together. From the Examiner’s delightful Yeas and Nays:

First, we learned that adult movie star Jenna Jameson supports Sen. Hillary Clinton’s run for president of the United States.

Now, we learn that another, um, Taboo Titleholder backs the New York senator’s White House ambitions: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, aka, the D.C. Madam….

Palfrey admitted that she’s pulling for Hillary in 2008. “I think she’s great,” she said. “She’s bright and articulate.”

But is this really newsworthy or surprising? That the D.C. Madam has a soft spot for a ho?

D.C. Madam for Hillary! [Washington Examiner / Yeas and Nays via Wonkette]

Preemptive clarification: WE don’t think Hillary Clinton is a ho. To the contrary, as we’ve stated multiple times, we think she’s fabulous.

We are merely referencing the familiar criticism of Senator Clinton, voiced on both the left and the right, that she’s willing to say or do anything for votes — i.e., that she’s a political whore.

This morning we drew your attention to Lavi Soloway’s analysis of the amended complaint in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. See here.

Now our other favorite Charneyblogger, Professor Arthur Leonard, has chimed in. You can access Professor Leonard’s substantive, detailed, and thoughtful post by clicking here.

Update (2:45 PM): Some excerpts and discussion, after the jump.

Okay, make that yesterday. A reader email drew our attention to the saucy conclusion of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Roper v. Weaver:

The greatest harm is that done to AEDPA, since dismissing the writ of certiorari leaves the Eighth Circuit’s grossly erroneous precedent on the books. (That precedent, by the way, cannot be explained away—as perhaps the Court’s own opinion can—as the product of law-distorting compassion for a defendant wronged by a District Court’s erroneous action. As noted earlier, the Eighth Circuit was not informed of that erroneous action. It presumably really believes that this is the way AEDPA should be applied.)

Other courts should be warned that this Court’s failure to reverse the Eighth Circuit’s decision is a rare manifestation of judicial clemency unrestrained by law. They would be well advised to do unto the Eighth Circuit’s decision just what it did unto AEDPA: ignore it.

WHACK! As our correspondent notes: “Scalia manages to benchslap both the majority opinion and the 8th Circuit all in the same paragraph.”

Some of Justice Scalia’s colleagues get cheeky on occasion. Another tipster drew our attention to Part IV of Justice Stevens’s Bell Atlantic v. Twombly dissent — which Justice Ginsburg expressly declined to join, perhaps due to its ‘tude.

But at the end of the day, there’s no disputing this truth: When it comes to benchslaps, nobody does it like Nino.

Roper v. Weaver [FindLaw]
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly [FindLaw]

Former Sullivan & Cromwell associate Aaron Charney is now unemployed. But should you feel sorry for him? No.

Tons of Columbia Law School grads land Biglaw gigs. But very few CLS grads achieve what Aaron B. Charney has already secured, just a few years after his graduation: FAME.

Aaron Brett Charney is probably the most well-known member of his law school graduating class. After all, how many of ABC’s classmates have made thinly veiled appearances on final exams at their alma mater?

And how many of them have achieved the coveted distinction of being recognized in a public place — the New York City subway? From a tipster:

“Yesterday a friend of mine saw Aaron Charney on an uptown 2 train. He was reading some legal documents from the lawsuit.”

“My friend told me: ‘I bet Charney thought I was checking him out, cuz I kept staring at his crotch where the papers were….’”

Yeah right. He just wanted a peek at Charney’s, er, case caption. And those New York Supreme Court docket numbers are just… so… long…

The crew over at La Bouche LeBoeuf Lamb, who recently showed some love to law clerks, just raised salaries in their California offices.

They’re now on the $160K scale. The raise is retroactive to May 1, 2007.

Memo appears after the jump.

(If your firm recently raised associate base salaries and/or clerkship bonuses, and hasn’t been covered already in these pages, please email us to let us know. Thanks.)

The indefatigable Lavi Soloway has posted an excellent summary of the juiciest parts of the amended complaint just filed by Aaron Charney.

The best stuff is in the lede (all caps in the original; emphases added):

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT INCLUDES ALLEGATION THAT ON JANUARY 31, FORMER S&C ASSOCIATE, EDWARD GALLION, WHO HAD BEEN HIRED TO REPRESENT ASSOCIATE GERA GRINBERG, REVEALED TO CHARNEY AND GRINBERG THAT HE, GALLION, IS “A HOMOSEXUAL.”

GALLION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE DISCLOSED THIS FACT IN GALLION’S APARTMENT (???) AS GRINBERG, CHARNEY AND GALLION AWAITED THE ARRIVAL OF GALLION’S PARTNER, STEVEN SPIELVOGEL, WHO WAS TO ACCOMPANY THEM TO A SCHEDULED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. ALLEGEDLY, GALLION ALSO TOLD THEM THAT HE HAD NOT MADE PARTNER AT S&C BECAUSE OF ANTI-GAY DISCRIMINATION AND THAT WHILE HE WAS AN ASSOCIATE THERE HE HAD BEEN NICKNAMED “THE FAGGOT” BY A PARTNER AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

You can read Soloway’s full post by clicking here. Good stuff!

Charney Files Amended Complaint Against Sullivan & Cromwell [Soloway]

We’re going to be doing a series of posts about the world’s premier journal of legal scholarship: the Harvard Law Review. We’ve learned that there are some unhappy campers over at Gannett House (at right), who are less than thrilled with the Review’s new leadership.

Here’s a preview of what’s on the way. From a tipster:

As you might remember, Andrew Crespo was recently elected president of the Harvard Law Review. Since then, he has taken a decidedly fascist approach to leadership and he is running the journal into the ground with a cabal of radical idealogues, making the outgoing editors nervous about the future reputation of the journal.

Some have taken to calling him “Crespolini,” after [Benito Mussolini]. In short, there is a crisis of confidence at Gannett.

As noted in some of the news coverage of his selection, Crespo is the first Latino to serve as HLR president. Fortunately, Mussolini was Italian.

More to come in subsequent posts (including internal HLR emails). If you’re at the Harvard Law Review and have information to share, whether pro- or anti-Crespo, please email us. Thanks.

Crespo Elected First Latino President of Harvard Law Review [Harvard Law Record]
First Hispanic To Lead Harvard Law Review [Harvard Crimson]
Harvard Law Review elects Crespo as new president [Harvard Law School (press release)]

Yesterday Aaron Charney, the former Sullivan & Cromwell associate now suing his former employer for sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation, filed an amended complaint against the firm. To download copies of Charney’s latest filings, follow these handy instructions.

Some background about the new complaint, from an article by Anthony Lin in this morning’s New York Law Journal:

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried dismissed Charney’s original pro se complaint without prejudice earlier this month, ruling that some of the ex-associate’s allegations and attachments were irrelevant and potentially violative of disciplinary rules. The judge gave Charney leave to replead his case.

Though Charney, now represented by four lawyers, excised the material cited by the judge, he added new allegations concerning events that took place after his initial complaint was filed, in particular a Jan. 31, 2007, settlement meeting.

Discussion continues after the jump.

* Coverage of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Winkelman v. Parma School District. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]

* Microsoft accuses open-source programs of 235 patent infringements. [MSNBC]

* Alabama board nixes big Sunday football game. [SI]

* “A Million Little Refunds” — nice.[WSJ Law Blog]

* Everyone wants some of the booty, but they might lack the jurisdiction. [CNN]

We’ve confirmed with sources here in DC that WilmerHale has raised associate base salaries in its Washington office. Associates were notified individually earlier this afternoon. Accordingly, there was no memo. (But if we’re wrong about that, or if a memo later materializes, please send it along.)

Because associates received individual notification, we don’t have salary numbers for all classes. But the sources we’ve spoken with have provided us with figures for their class years that are consistent with the $160K scale. So it’s safe to assume that WilmerHale in Washington is now on par with the two D.C. firms that previously raised: Akin Gump and Hogan & Hartson.

WilmerHale’s move leaves Arnold & Porter and Covington & Burling as the most prominent members of the DC List of Shame. Feel free to add others in the comments.

We don’t have confirmation for raises at WilmerHale in Boston yet. But rumor has it that (1) WilmerHale has raised in Boston too, and (2) the pay raise is effective June 1.

Please send us any additional details by email. Thanks.

* Nothing good can come from gossip. Except a bearable work day and an entertaining blog or two. But I’ve tried the experiment from that terrible teen flick and can confirm that things did go awry. [Out of the Jungle; Boston Globe]

* The cops’ defense: We don’t see people “that way.” “That way” meaning in black or white, not naked or clothed. [Yahoo! News]

* I Pity the (Slide) Fool. [New York Post]

* Gone but not forgotten (if you’re over 25). [Mashable]

* The Happy, Dazed & Confused Meal—pot is way better than a dead rat. [The Web Times]

In his recent post summarizing three new cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog mentions the docket numbers for two of them, as is his usual practice.

But he omits the docket number of one of the cases that was granted certiorari today:

Could someone be a little superstitious?

May 21 Orders [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]
Court to hear three new cases [SCOTUSblog]
Supreme Court Grants Cert in Davis, Which Prohibits Tax Exemption for In-State Municipal Bond Interest [TaxProf Blog]
Court to Review Municipal Bond Case [Associated Press]

If you’ve done any significant amount of appellate work, surely you’ve argued before one of THOSE judges. A judge who asks questions at oral argument just for the sake of asking questions. A jurist in love with the sound of his or her own voice. They can be entertaining or exasperating, depending upon whether you’re in the gallery or at the podium.

But surely there must be a happy medium between showboat judges and Justice Clarence Thomas. From the AP:

Justice Clarence Thomas sat through 68 hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s current term without uttering a word.

That’s saying something — or not — even for the taciturn justice.

In nearly 16 years on the Court, Thomas typically has asked questions a couple of times a term…. But the last time Thomas asked a question in court was Feb. 22, 2006, in a death penalty case out of South Carolina. A unanimous Court eventually broadened the ability of death penalty defendants to blame someone else for the crime.

Impressive. Is CT trying to set some sort of record?

A few more words — more than you’ll get out of Justice Thomas, at any rate — after the jump.

We’ve previously brought you a number of video clips from various law school parody shows. E.g, Columbia; NYU; UVA.

But what about “the world’s premier center for legal education and research”? What can we expect from the parody show of the legendary Harvard Law School?

Someone emailed us this clip:

Our source proudly touted this clip as follows: “Harvard Law School takes it up a notch!!!” We say: It depends on what the meaning of “it” is.

But regardless of our quibbles with the number as a whole, we have nothing but praise for the scene-stealing songstress who appears at around 2:45. If that “JD/MRS degree” doesn’t work out for her, she should look into “American Idol.”

(If you liked this video clip, you’re in luck — more clips are available here. Knock yourself out!)

Harvard Law School Parody Love It (Harvard) [YouTube]
TheBendAndSnap’s Videos [YouTube]

Several commenters drew our attention to the Supreme Court’s quasi-amusing decision today in Los Angeles County v. Rettele (PDF). We also received reader email about it:

“In the per curiam opinion in LA County v. Retelle (PDF), we get a nice discussion of racial harmony in the context of naked white people being awakened early in the morning by cops executing a search warrant on a house that was previously owned by black criminal suspects.”

From the Court’s unsigned opinion, joined by seven justices:

“Because respondents were of a different race than the suspects the deputies were seeking, the Court of Appeals held that ‘[a]fter taking one look at [respondents], the deputies should have realized that [respondents] were not the subjects of the search warrant and did not pose a threat to the deputies’ safety.’ We need not pause long in rejecting this unsound proposition.”

“When the deputies ordered respondents from their bed, they had no way of knowing whether the African-American suspects were elsewhere in the house. The presence of some Caucasians in the residence did not eliminate the possibility that the suspects lived there as well. As the deputies stated in their affidavits, it is not uncommon in our society for people of different races to live together. Just as people of different races live and work together, so too might they engage in joint criminal activity. The deputies, who were searching a house where they believed a suspect might be armed, possessed authority to secure the premises before deciding whether to continue with the search.”

The SCOTUS reverses the Ninth Circuit? Happens multiple times each Term. Boring.

The SCOTUS summarily reverses the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion? Happens a few times each Term. Uninteresting.

The Supreme Court benchslaps the Ninth Circuit, for not being politically correct enough? PRICELESS.

(For more substantive analysis of Rettele, check out this post, by Orin Kerr.)

Los Angeles County v. Rettele [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]
Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit in Out-of-Bed-Naked Search Warrant Case [Volokh Conspiracy via SCOTUSblog]

Readers of ATL disagree vehemently over the existence of God. But if God does exist, he has a delightfully sick sense of humor. From ABC News:

Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a 3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don’t know which is which. Or who is who. The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having sex with the same woman. And according to the woman’s testimony, she had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other.

When the woman in question, Holly Marie Adams, got pregnant, she named Raymon the father, but he contested and demanded a paternity test, bringing his own brother Richard to court.

But a paternity test in this case could not help. The test showed that both brothers have over a 99.9 percent probability of being the daddy— and neither one wants to pay the child support. The result of the test has not only brought to light the limits of DNA evidence, it has also led to a three-year legal battle, a Miller family feud and a little girl who may never know who her real father is.

Très trashy — but there’s an actual legal issue here. How was it decided?

Find out, after the jump.

Late last month, we wrote about how Jack Weiss, a media and entertainment lawyer in Gibson Dunn’s New York office, was under consideration to head LSU Law School. Despite his dazzling resume, Weiss lacked faculty support — which Laurie Lin found surprising.

Now, a brief update. From the New Orleans Baton Rouge Advocate:

New Orleans native Jack Weiss will become chancellor of LSU’s Paul M. Hebert Law Center this summer after his unanimous selection Friday by the LSU Board of Supervisors.

Weiss, a New York partner for the Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher firm, which has about 800 lawyers, will take over for retiring Chancellor John Costonis as early as July 1, but at least before fall classes resume, Weiss said by phone from New York.

P.S. Weiss, who clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger and John Minor Wisdom, joins a sizable club of former Supreme Court clerks who now occupy leadership positions in academia. For other examples, see here.

Weiss to head law school [The Advocate]
From the High Court to the Ivory Tower [Empire Zone/New York Times]

Earlier: LSU: Practitioner Versus Professoriate

Over the next few weeks, hordes of summer associates will arrive at top law firms around the country. And many full-time associates — or at least the less harried and/or curmudgeonly ones — will rejoice, delighted by the opportunity to take summer associates out to fancy lunches, on their employer’s dime.

But maybe not at Pillsbury Winthrop. Earlier this month, someone posted as follows, over at Infirmation/Greedy NY:

If you think things are tight in NYC, listen to this: Pillsbury Winthrop (NoVa/DC) just sent out a memo limiting associates to one meal per week, “and in no event should meals cost more than $15/person.”

I s**t you not, they actually sent out that memo this afternoon!!!!!

We haven’t verified this rumor; maybe it’s apocryphal, or a joke. But if it’s true, please file it under “hilarious” and “pathetic.”

On a budget of $15 a head, you can maybe dine at Au Bon Pain or Cosi. Just don’t indulge in (1) a cold beverage with your meal, AND (2) a post-meal coffee drink.

If you can confirm, or have a copy of the memo to share, please email us (subject line: “Pillsbury Winthrop Is Cheap”). Thanks.

(We wouldn’t be completely surprised if this rumor is true. After all, Pillsbury Winthrop is one of the firms that is publicly dragging its feet on associate pay raises.)

Update: Lots of dispute in the comments over the accuracy of this rumor. We will gladly accept corrections and clarifications by email. Please provide us with your real name; we keep our sources anonymous, but we need real names so we can confirm that you actually work at Pillsbury.

One thing we can confirm, from a verified source in Pillsbury’s San Francisco office:

I am an associate at Pillsbury and just read the posting about Pillsbury lunch limitations to $15 once per week. It’s not true! Of course, we can take summer associates to lunch as often as we like, and they ask that we keep it to $25 per person, but can exceed that for special occassions.

But the rumor in question concerns Pillsbury’s offces in northern Virginia and Washington, DC — not San Francisco. If you work in one of those offices, we would be especially interested in hearing from you. Thanks.

Further Update: The consensus in the comments appears to be that the rumor of a $15 lunch limit IS true, but ONLY for northern Virginia (Tysons Corner).

Cheapest Lunch Date EVER? [Infirmation / Greedy NY]

Earlier: Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: In a Holding Pattern?

Zzzzzzzzz…

Guess this is the calm before the storm. The Supreme Court cranks out lots of important-but-boring opinions in May, so it can clear the decks and focus on the 5-4, “It’s All About AMK” barnburners that it dumps on the nation in June. Nino starts saving up his energy for penning those trademark zingers of his.

The most interesting of today’s quintet of decisions would appear to be Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (05-1126). Per Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog:

“The Supreme Court, in the first of five final decisions, ruled on Monday that claims of parallel business conduct are not sufficient to prove an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”

In other words: If you’re thinking of filing an antitrust lawsuit against Biglaw, ‘cause large law firms engage in “parallel business contact” with respect to associate compensation — good luck with that.

(True confession: we doubt we’ll be reading these five slip opinions anytime soon. But if you happen to check them out, and come across anything amusing — funny footnotes, bitchy benchsaps — please feel free to let us know.)

Update: A post on Los Angeles County v. Rettele, which has its amusing aspects, appears here.

Court issues five rulings [SCOTUSblog]

We do not recommend following the example of “Spazzed customer,” as related in this anecdote.

(But his description of preparing for the bar exam — “I have to take a really big test, and then I can forget it all” — isn’t half-bad.)

Where Lawyers Come From [Overheard in New York]

* Cash kickbacks, booze, and politics mixing in Nevada? Come on! [MSNBC]

* Wearing a plaid shirt saves Lindsay Lohan from theft charges. [CNN]

* “Attorneys general” v. “attorney generals” battle heats up. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Australian authorities determine nude carwash is legal. [MSNBC]

* Landis’ attorney blasts doping case at arbitration hearing. [SI.com]

If you are still participating in any of the bizarre discussions from Friday morning’s open thread — which covered such diverse topics as open houses in Houston, childhood sleepover experiences, and the hipster quotient of the New Yorker — please don’t let us stop you. You can join in the fun by clicking here.

But if you’re looking for a forum for discussing subjects that are a bit more germane to ATL, such as associate pay raises and clerkship bonuses, then this new open thread is for you.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend; we’ll see you on Monday.

* A rabbi, a nun and Christopher Hitchens walk into a bar… [PrawfsBlawg]

* Unlike other 15-year-olds who appreciate toilet humor, this girl felt victimized by the inside joke. [Pensacola News Journal]

* Anne Heche continues to entertain/disturb, plus we haven’t had a cautionary divorce tale in some time. Stay tuned… [Nasty, Brutish & Short]

* Who knows? The junior associate who sent out that crazy email some time ago could end up the next Kafka. [Legal History Blog]

* Forget fashion mags, frenemies and Paris — this is the real harm perpetuated by women against other women. [Red Orbit]

We highly doubt this. But instead of logging off as we originally planned, we’ll stick around for another fifteen minutes, on the off chance that it proves true.

P.S. Speaking of Wonkette, where we used to blog, congratulations to Ana Marie Cox on the dismissal of Robert Steinbuch’s lawsuit against her!

(To be sure, it was on statute-of-limitations grounds; bloggers might have preferred a broader ruling. But hey, a dismissal is a dismissal.)

Friday Night News Dump: Alberto Out At 5? [Wonkette]
Reliable Source: This Just In… [Washington Post via Wonkette]
Suit Dismissed Against Founding Wonkette Editor Ana Marie Cox [Associated Press]
“American Idol” — results — America, don’t take my Blake away! [Althouse]

We have a new favorite catchphrase: “You have a Monica problem.” We’ve added it to our favorite quotations, and we may put it in our email signature file, too.

As explained here, the words “You have a Monica problem” were typically uttered to Justice Department job applicants whose credentials might be deemed insufficiently conservative by Monica Goodling — the uber-powerful ex-DOJ official who played a key role in hiring.

But these days, “You have a Monica problem” might also apply to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. From Jason McClure of the Legal Times:

Now it’s all about Monica.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales emerged mostly unscathed from last week’s face-off with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee over his role in the U.S. attorney firings….

But there’s one big wild card that’s yet to be thrown into play, and that’s Monica Goodling, Gonzales’ former White House liaison.

If you don’t share our Monica obsession, you can stop reading here. But if you find her as fascinating as we do, there’s more after the jump.

Law school snobs — or “tierists,” as some call them — should check out this interesting article, by Lindsay Fortado of Bloomberg News. It’s about how high demand for summer and permanent associates is pushing large law firms to expand their recruiting efforts, to include law schools outside the “top 10.”

When Josh Kleiman, a student at Brooklyn Law School, interviewed at 17 law firms for a summer position, 12 called back. He joined New York’s Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobsen, one of the city’s most profitable.

The competition has increased for Kleiman and other students at so-called second-tier law schools for jobs that pay more than $3,000 a week, plus free lunches and cocktail parties. New York’s largest law firms have hired record numbers of summer associates to deal with an abundance of work and defections of lawyers to banks and private equity clients.

Kleiman was also offered summer positions at Sullivan & Cromwell; Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker; White & Case; Shearman & Sterling and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel. He said he chose Fried Frank, ranked 14th in the city in revenue per partner, because the attorneys were “diverse and interesting.”

Presumably Kleiman chose Fried Frank over the conventionally more prestigious S&C sometime this past fall (pursuant to the NALP deadlines). But if similarly situated law students turn down S&C in higher-than-usual numbers this coming fall, we’re blaming it on this guy.

(To whom, by the way, law clerks may owe their newly improved bonuses. Some speculate that S&C raised its clerkship bonus to $50,000 because it feared a tough recruiting season this fall, due in part to L’Affaire Charney. Eventually Simpson Thacher followed suit, followed by many other top shops. And the rest is history.)

Lawyer Search Spurred by M&A Sends Manhattan’s Best to Brooklyn [Bloomberg]

If you want to get a raise to the $160K pay scale, but without a corresponding “adjustment” to your bonus. Or if you want to bill only 1800 hours a year, and still make a decent living.

From a source at the firm:

Fenwick & West raises. Keeps bonus structure the same.

I know the partners are relishing embarassing our biggest competitor WSGR with this move.

Check out the memo, after the jump.

Today’s Judge of the Day hails from the other side of the pond. From Reuters:

A British judge admitted on Wednesday he was struggling to cope with basic terms like “Web site” in the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet.

Judge Peter Openshaw broke into the questioning of a witness about a Web forum used by alleged Islamist radicals.

“The trouble is I don’t understand the language. I don’t really understand what a Web site is,” he told a London court during the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws.

These internets can be so confusing…

So is this Judge Openshaw positively ancient? Actually, no:

Prosecutor Mark Ellison briefly set aside his questioning to explain the terms “Web site” and “forum.” An exchange followed in which the 59-year-old judge acknowledged: “I haven’t quite grasped the concepts.”

Jeez, Judge Openshaw — get with the program. Even Justice John Paul Stevens uses email. And he’s getting close to 90!

Judge to prosecutor: So what’s a Web site? [Reuters via MSNBC]

In an earlier post about the legal secretary at Akin Gump who worked for the alleged D.C. madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, we described the secretary as “no Miss Popularity.” A source at the firm told us that “[m]ost people don’t like her,” due to her supercilious attitude. Various commenters echoed these views.

But a different source has more positive things to say about the Akin Gump Escort:

She was a secretary (never a paralegal) to partner John Dowd (attorney/author behind the Pete Rose gambling investigation and Rose’s subsequent ban from baseball and the HoF).

[Ed. note: We previously pointed out that fact, as well as the coincidence that Dowd is now representing the fabulous Monica Goodling, back in this post.]

She was a moderately friendly, attractive woman, late 20s/early 30s, with dark blonde hair. I think she lived on a farm in southern Maryland and liked horses.

First, of course she lives in Maryland. Do you think the Akin Gump Escort would be a Virginia gal?

Second, a weakness for horses — how clichéd. Does she enjoy long walks on the beach too?

Earlier: OMG: The Akin Gump Escort Worked For… Monica Goodling’s Lawyer!!!
The D.C. Madam’s Akin Gump Apprentice: She’s No Miss Popularity
Akin Gump: Truly A ‘Full-Service’ Law Firm

Sorry, we have nothing new to report concerning either associate pay raises or clerkship bonuses. The best we can offer is yet another non-announcement announcement (like these two).

Today’s email, which actually made the rounds earlier in the week, comes from McDermott Will & Emery:

As you are probably aware, over the last two weeks there have been a number of developments in various of our markets in the US with respect to associate salaries. It is very clear, for example that the market in California has increased to a level of $160,000 for first year associates with commensurate increases in more senior classes.

The Firm intends to continue our practice of paying competitive compensation in all of our markets. Rather than taking action on a serial basis, we are continuing to monitor the relevant developments and plan to make a final decision by May 30 with retroactive effect back to May 1.

Thank you for your patience in the interim.

Dawna Butala for Donald A. Goldman, Esq.
McDermott Will & Emery LLP

One source’s gloss on this: “A likely bump for the california offices, but looking grim for Chicago, Boston and D.C.”

We have to step away from the computer for a little while. Please discuss compensation issues, and post the text of any new announcements, in the comments. Thanks.

* No confidence in Gonzalez. [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* That’s f***ing faking retarded. [CNN]

* Yep, it’s official: Wolfowitz is stepping down on June 30. [BBC News]

* Really? Cause I thought she had a good case on appeal (eyes rolling). [CNN]

* Sorry Tancredo; there went your issue. [Jurist]

Earlier this week, we reported on the unexpected early promotions of four corporate associates at Cahill Gordon. According to various comments, the four soon-to-be partners, whose promotions will take effect in July, are Doug Horowitz, Corey Wright, Bill Miller, and Jonathan Frankel.

As some speculated, this quartet was promoted early to prevent them from leaving for greener pastures. Here are more details:

The way it apparently went down is that all 7th and 8th year litigators were sat down individually by a partner and told, a week or so ago, that 7th and 8th year corporate associates — corporate associates only — were going to be voted on this summer. The given reason was to prevent these people from leaving to go to i-banks.

Litigators were apparently told that they should not consider this to be a negative commentary on their value to the firm, and that they would be considered in the normal course, either end of this year (8th years) or end of next (7th years). Their chances of making it were described as “the same as they were yesterday.”

It’s my understanding that there is a growing rift between corporate and litigation at the firm. Each group — partners included — increasingly resenting the other. Corpies think litigators are lazy, don’t have to work nearly as hard for the same amount of money. Litigators resent being treated as second-class citizens.

Very interesting. Some food for thought:

1. Several top law firms have struggled to deal with the problem of star associates leaving for investment banks, hedge funds, and other opportunities in the world of finance. Will other Biglaw shops start employing this strategy of early promotion to retain their best associates? Could we be witnessing the start of a trend?

2. According to conventional wisdom, corporate lawyers generally have “better” — or at least more lucrative — exit opportunities than litigators. As a result, law firms face more outside competition for them. Could we eventually see a system in which partnership tracks are shorter for corporate associates than for litigation colleagues, in reflection of the different markets for the two practice areas?

Please feel free to discuss in the comments.

Earlier: Some Premature Promotions at Cahill Gordon?

* There’s an 80s French pop song that translates as “She made a baby herself,” and clearly this happens a lot (accidentally or by design). But for a man? It looks like the law has you covered too. [Baltimore Sun]

* Holiday tipping protocol is complicated. I thought the worst that could happen as the result of a less than generous trip was having to hail a cab yourself, but I’m obviously wrong. [UPI]

* Judge gets all game-theory on their ass. [The Plain Dealer (Cleveland)]

* Lawyers, nannies… They always screw things up, don’t they? But Mom always does know best. [Daily Mail]

In the next few weeks, summer associates will be arriving at large law firms around the country. And they’ll get treated to lavish, three-hour lunches, paid for by Biglaw shops that want to win them back on a permanent basis.

But the summer lunches may be a trifle rushed over at Dewey Ballantine. Here’s a rumor (unconfirmed) that’s making the rounds:

The word on the street is that Dewey Ballantine announced today that summer activities/lunches/etc. won’t count towards the billable hours minimum of 2000 for a bonus (cliff effect: 1999 you get nothing, 2000 you get market).

This sounds like a recipe for recruiting suicide. Do most firms with minimums exclude summer associate activities from the total? I like lunch at Nobu57and karaoke as much as the next guy, but I’m not giving up $40,000 for it.

We see our tipster’s point. But we think that many (if not most) firms don’t count such activities towards billable minimums. Did Dewey count them in previous years, as this rumor implies?

Update: We are getting some vague rumblings from sources that the Dewey rumor above is incorrect (although they won’t spell out how). We warned you to take this gossip as unconfirmed. Anyway, the real point of this post is what appears below…

In any event, our correspondent isn’t actually at Dewey, whose Los Angeles office will be hosting this comely young law student (as profiled in Stuff Magazine):

A quasi-racy picture, after the jump.

No, not that Bjork. We’re talking about a different idiosyncratic Scandinavian, who also harbors musical aspirations.

By way of introduction:

This email was sent to the whole of Linklaters by one of their Swedish assistants associates!

Brilliant.

Oh those crazy Swedes…

Check out the email — which has made the rounds worldwide, is still being forwarded as we speak, and was going to wind up in your inbox eventually, so we feel no qualms about posting it — after the jump.

It has been a while since our last update on associate pay raises. That’s because we have nothing to report. If you hear of anything, please email us.

In the meantime, here’s something from a Texas tipster:

Thought I would pass along information I’ve compiled over the last few days re: Texas associate salaries.

First, here’s an article where all the big Texas shops basically give the finger to the idea of pay raises any time soon.

Second, here’s the list of firms (that I know of) with offices in Texas that have raised to $150K or higher (current big firm average in Texas right now is $135K). The name of the city and number of associates in the offices in those cities is also listed (source, NALP). There may be others that have gone up that I don’t know about. Please use your vast network of informants and resources to find out.

The rest of the message, including the list, appears after the jump.

This past weekend witnessed an historic event: the first annual BLUEBOOK INVITATIONAL!!!

And we were on hand for the competition. On Saturday, May 12, the four august publications that publish the Bluebook — the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal — vied for supremacy.

When we first learned about the “Bluebook Invitational,” we could barely contain our excitement. We imagined a contest to determine which law review’s editors were most proficient in the rules of legal citation. It would be like the law review version of the crossword puzzle contests featured in the movie Wordplay. Editors would be given sample pages of incorrectly Bluebooked prose. They would then have to edit them, under time pressure, before being scored on both the speed and accuracy of their Bluebooking.

Sadly, as we later learned, the “Bluebook Invitational” has nothing to do with actual Bluebooking:

WTF? Why would we want to watch a bunch of law review gunner-types toss a pigskin around?

As it turned out, though, we had a fun time. And some of the players were actually very good.

A report on the proceedings, plus pictures, after the jump.

Many of you have expressed interest in the latest developments in the continuing litigation between gay lawyer Aaron Charney and his former employer, Sullivan & Cromwell. It has been quite some time since our last post about this case.

Unfortunately, as far as we know, nothing is going on right now. We have a Google Alert set to notify us of all things Charneylicious, and it has been silent lately. This morning we checked the docket, as well as the blogs of two top Charney watchers, Professor Art Leonard and Lavi Soloway. Nada, zilch, zip.

To tide you over, here is one little rumor (unconfirmed, so take it with a grain of salt). It’s so minor that we hesitate to share it. But, for what it’s worth, we hear that Gera Grinberg — the S&C associate who had a relationship with Aaron Charney that partner Alexandra Korry allegedly described as “unnatural” — is back in the office.

(We tried to confirm this by emailing Grinberg. We didn’t receive a response; but we also didn’t receive an “Out of Office” notice, either.)

Observers of this case will recall that Gera Grinberg was placed on a leave of indefinite length by S&C, shortly after the lawsuit was filed. He was on this delightful vacation paid leave for a period of at least several weeks. But now we hear that he’s back at 125 Broad Street, working away like a good corporate lawyer.

Boy that must be awkward — for both Grinberg and S&C. After all, Grinberg is at the center of some salacious allegations about possible misconduct in this case.

If you have any information about new developments in Charney v. S&C, please drop us a line. Thanks.

Update: In response to this comment: Yes, we called Gera Grinberg too. The call went straight to voice-mail (which makes us wonder whether maybe he still is on leave, since no secretary was covering his phone). We left a message.

Even in these dark days, as an anxious nation awaits the latest dispatch from the associate salary wars, the wedding machine grinds on. We salute the brave couples who choose to go ahead with their ceremonies in the face of all this uncertainty — after all, how crushing would it be to return from your honeymoon and find your employer on someone’s List of Shame!

Honorable mention this week goes to this couple. (The father of the bride, William Barr, was once Attorney General under George H.W. Bush.) Unfortunately, those two did not make the cut. Here are the lucky lovebirds who did:

1. Michele Molfetta and Carolyn Wolpert

2. Eliza Harrington and Minor Myers III

3. Jennifer Merzon and Christopher Evans

More on this week’s couples, after the jump.

Earlier this week, a California judge tossed out a lawsuit brought by a high school student who was disciplined by her school, and teased by her classmates, for using the phrase “That’s so gay.” From the Associated Press:

Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing said she sympathized with 18-year-old Rebekah Rice for the ridicule she experienced at Maria Carrillo High School. But, the judge said, Rice’s lawyers failed to prove that school administrators had violated any state laws or singled the girl out for punishment….

The case filed by Rice and her parents in 2003 brought widespread attention to a three-word phrase that some teenagers use to mean “stupid” or “uncool,” but has come under attack as an insensitive insult to gay people.

The Rices argued that a teacher violated Rebekah Rice’s First Amendment rights by sending her to the principal’s office and putting a note in her school file. During a trial in February, Rebekah Rice testified she said “That’s so gay” as a response to other students asking her rude questions about her Mormon upbringing.

Regardless of the legal merits, it seems that young Rebekah could learn a little sensitivity. How would she feel if a classmate derided an ugly outfit of hers by saying, “That’s so polygamous”?

Update / Clarification: We are NOT making fun of Mormonism. Please recall that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually REJECTS polgamy. Rather, we are making fun of the idiocy of playground insults (e.g., “That’s so polygamous” — which makes absolutely no sense).

Judge Rules in ‘That’s So Gay’ Case [Associated Press]

* Yay for Google porn thumbnails! [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* Stop coming to Canada and taking all of our escort hooker jobs! [CNN]

* Can a copyright-infringement complaint itself be the subject of a copyright-infringement complaint? I think I just blew my mind. [ WSJ Law Blog]

* Looks like Wolfowitz is out. [CNN]

* Mine your own business, New York Times. [Jurist]

We’re a little late on this (and blame our tardiness on associate pay fixation). But here are two interesting tidbits of Supreme Court gossip, from Tony Mauro of the Legal Times:

1. Carter Phillips’ Kin Is Alito Clerk [Legal Times]

One of Justice Samuel Alito’s incoming clerks, Jessica Phillips — who has been described as “beautiful and brainy” — is the daughter of renowned Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips. This means that Jessica “will have no involvement in cases in which her father’s firm, Sidley Austin, participates” — which has ranged as high as 20 percent of the Court’s docket.

(Btw, Jessica Phillips is not the first female clerk whose father also clerked for the Court. Mauro ticks off a list of five daughters of male clerks who went on to become clerks themselves. Check it out here.)

2. New Job for Mrs. Roberts [The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times]
More on Jane Roberts’ New Job [The BLT]

Lawyer Jane Sullivan Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has a new job — and it’s not at a law firm. The leading legal search firm Major, Lindsey & Africa announced this morning that Mrs. Roberts is leaving Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman’s D.C. office to become leader of the In-House Practice Group in Major, Lindsey & Africa’s D.C. office.

Inquiring minds want to know: Will Jane Roberts continue to earn more than her husband in her new position?

(That was surely the case in her old job, when Jane Sullivan Roberts was a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop. Even though her most recent post at the firm was Executive Partner for Talent Development, which probably didn’t involve a lot of client-billable work, it would be shocking for a Biglaw partner to earn less than her hubby’s $212,100 salary as Chief Justice.)

* It’s a sign of the times when smoking laws have a better chance than public urination laws in justifying Operation Homeless. Or, Berkeley officials can ask Giuliani what he really did to clean up Times Square. [San Francisco Chronicle]

* Does anyone remember the dystopian Strange Days? Let that be a warning. [Feminist Law Professors]

* That ice cream girl/boy better not lean against or press down on the scale though. [Signs On San Diego]

* Why? Because I love the ongoing Brooke/Tom feud/reconciliation bit, and because I find it amazing that someone who has always been and is the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen inexplicably has absolutely no charm, warmth or grace. [AOL Entertainment]

* He’s a lightweight but he’s no lightweight. I’m rooting for this guy, because I’m a sucker (heh) for these kinds of inspirational stories. (If you’ve seen/read Friday Night Lights, you’ll know that one of the players went to Harvard before returning to Texas for law school and Odessa to practice.) [Yahoo! News]

On the heels of our recent post about Judge Noel Hillman (D.N.J.), here’s another shout-out to our home state and its judges. It concerns Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, of the New Jersey Supreme Court, who is ATL’s Judge of the Day.

From the New York Times:

[Justice] Rivera-Soto is a New Jersey Supreme Court justice, and he now faces an ethics complaint charging that he abused his position when he contacted several local officials in an attempt to help his son, who was having trouble with a teammate on his high school football team.

In a rare action against a member of New Jersey’s highest court, the state’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which filed the complaint on Friday, accused Justice Rivera-Soto of violating court rules, including engaging in conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

So what’s the basis for the complaint? More discussion, after the jump.

With apologies for the lack of details — if you have more to share, please email us — we’ve learned of some interesting news at Cahill, Gordon & Reindel:

1. The firm, which usually announces partnership decisions in January, just announced the promotion of four lawyers to the partnership.

2. All four are in the corporate department.

3. Two of the four new partners are seventh-years, which makes their promotions very early — a year and a half ahead of schedule. The firm historically has had an eight-year partnership track.

ATL congratulates this quartet of soon-to-be millionaires. A Cahill Gordon partnership is quite a nice prize. According to the recently released AmLaw 100 rankings, Cahill is the sixth most profitable law firm in the country, with profits per partner (PPP) of $2,575,000.

As noted above, if you have more info — e.g., the names of the new partners, why Cahill promoted them ahead of time, etc. — please email us (subject line: “Cahill Gordon”). Thanks!

Update: More information is available here.

The D.C. Circuit’s administrative law-heavy docket can be a total snooze-fest less than thrilling. But at least that uber-prestigious court is stocked with some interesting personalities.

Like the prominent, conservative, and temperamental Judge Laurence H. Silberman. From a tipster:

How about giving a shout-out to the latest Silbermannerisms? Yesterday Judge Silberman served up these two gems in a completely run-of-the-mill case, Menkes v. DHS (PDF):

“In response, the government raises a number of threshold jurisdictional arguments. Frankly, we do not think them worth a tinker’s damn.”

“This argument [is] unworthy of the government.”

OUCH — but not out of character for Judge Silberman. More from our source:

[H]e’s badass. The all-time greatest Silbermannerism:

“If you were ten years younger, I’d punch you out!” [Silberman to Abner Mikva, in conference with Ken Starr, as recalled by Mikva — New York Times, 9/1/1998]

Someday I’ll start a blog on the DC Circuit, and when I do I plan to make Silbermannerisms a regular feature. But in the meantime, I hope you put those quotes to good use! He’s surely the greatest Judicial Divo of all time.

Judge Silberman is certainly in the running for that title. But what about his liberal counterpart, Judge Harry T. Edwards? No shrinking violet, he.

Menkes v. DHS (PDF) [U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]