Thanks for your responses to our recent call for memos. Here are two more firms that have announced associate pay raises:
1. Crowell & Moring: Starting salaries to $160,000, effective August 1. Minimum billables to 1900 hours, effective September 1. Associates who do not wish to meet the new minimum are invited to reach “alternative arrangements” with the firm.
2. Dow Lohnes: No, Rupert Murdoch is not trying to buy them. Dow Lohnes is an AmLaw 200 law firm with a significant presence in Atlanta. Will their move to the $160K scale encourage other Atlanta firms to follow suit?
Okay, this is kinda random. But it’s Friday, so please give us some latitude.
(Also, we have previously covered this subject, in a way that connected it to the legal world. So there.)
As you all know, today is I-Day: the first day that Apple’s coveted iPhone will be available for sale to the general public. At 6 PM, Apple and AT&T stores will open their doors, and the masses will flood in. Long lines have already formed in different cities around the country.
We were just IM’ing with one ATL reader standing outside an AT&T store waiting for his iPhone. If you’re curious, you can read portions of our exchange after the jump.
It’s fitting that on this, the last week of the Supreme Court term, LEWW is considering a major test case. The issue: One couple has a Rhodes Scholarship, one has a SCOTUS clerkship, and one has two YLS degrees. How do we rank them?
Throw in a divorce, a famous grandparent, a couple of PhDs, a blog, three Courts of Appeals officiants, and a dash of “flava”, and we’ve got lots of credentials to chew up and spit out.
After yesterday, we thought they were all done for the Term. We thought wrong.
Some notable news from the Supreme Court today. Lyle Denniston of the invaluable SCOTUSblog reports:
In a startling turn of events in the legal combat over the war on terrorism, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to reconsider the appeals in the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases. It vacated its April 2 order denying review of the two packets of cases. The Court then granted review, consolidated the cases, and said they would be heard in a one-hour argument in the new Term starting Oct. 1.
Such a switch by the Court — from denial to rehearing and new argument and decision — may not have occurred since 1947, in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, legal sources said Friday.
So they’ve changed their mind about a cert grant for the first time in 60 years. What a neat little factoid!
But hey, being a Supreme Court justice means being able to change your mind. And never having to say you’re sorry.
(For more on the likely import of this change of heart, see Orin Kerr.)
[Thumbnail image. Click to enlarge. Photograph courtesy of Oona O’Connell.]
There should be a law — against this kind of hotness in a U.S. law school classroom!
As you may recall, lawyer cum Playboy model Oona O’Connell was not pleased by our prior coverage of her. She recently sent us an angry email, taking us to task for publishing malicious gossip.
Our response to Oona O’Connell, followed by her reply, after the jump.
Back on Wednesday, we reported that Howrey LLP plans to chuck lockstep compensation for its associates. Starting in 2008, the firm will employ a “competency model,” in which it would “determine salary based on individual evaluations and various forms of progress indicators.”
In a radical departure from the status quo, Howrey is getting rid of lockstep compensation for its associates….
While Howrey first-years will start at the market rate — the firm recently raised them to $160,000 — all other associates will advance through different levels based on personal evaluations instead of seniority. Each level has a salary range, and [partner Henry] Bunsow said top performers would be paid more than market, while some could make less.
“The goal is not to have associates make less than their counterparts at other firms,” Bunsow said. “If poor performers can get a better deal somewhere else, that may be a marketplace reality — we would hope that this system wouldn’t promote that.”
“The goal is not to have associates make less than their counterparts at other firms” — sounds a bit defensive, but whatever.
This system will be highly customized, but complicated:
The evaluations will be based on performance and experience, which could shorten the partnership track for some and lengthen it for others. Since Howrey is a litigation-focused firm, factors like writing, deposition, trial practice and client presentation skills will be considered, Bunsow said. Although there will be bonuses based on hours, that will be just one of many considerations in the evaluation, he added….
Associates will be assigned to partners who will be responsible for their development and their individual evaluations. A full-time staff person will be hired to oversee the program and to make sure that associates feel they are being treated fairly, Bunsow said.
Okay, we’re getting a headache. This sounds like the brainchild of a Soviet bureaucrat.
And this is just the simplified version. If you’re interested in the dirty details, an internal Howrey email — which includes mention of a “Competency Czar” — appears after the jump.
Here’s a quick follow-up on Wednesday’s post, reporting on Supreme Court clerk hiring for October Term 2008. That’s not the Term whose clerks will start showing up for work next month — the October Term 2007 clerks are listed here — but the Term after that.
Interestingly enough, the two justices thought most likely to leave the Court next, Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, are both done with their clerk hiring for OT 2008. And we also hear that RBG has hired at least one clerk for OT 2009 — very CT-esque of her to hire that far into the future.
Thanks to everyone who submitted SCOTUS clerk hiring info, by email and in the comments. We’ve folded them into our evolving list of OT 2008 law clerks. Check it out, after the jump.
A quick reminder: We want your memos. We hear rumors of associate pay raises at particular firms all the time, but we generally don’t treat the news as official until we see a memorandum (assuming there is one). Please send them to us by email.
We reprint below two memos that arrived in our inbox not too long ago. First, there’s a memo from LeBoeuf Lamb, placing their associates in Hartford — recently covered here — on the $160K scale.
Second, there’s a memo from Foley & Lardner. It has raised its starting salary to $160,000, but not effective until September 2007, and it’s not following the standard $160K scale all the way up the ladder. Our source wrote:
Attached is the memo Foley & Lardner circulated today regarding adjustments to compensation. This was circulated a day after a separate memo from management announcing the increases and advising that management would review compensation prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year and would consider making modifications to amounts and structures at that time.
Management also referenced in the memo “exploring alternative career paths for associates,” but provided no additional information as to what that means.
Sounds a tad Orwellian to us. “Alternative career paths” = flipping burgers in the Foley cafeteria? But maybe we’re just being paranoid.
If you’re interested, you can check out the memos after the jump.
* Mr. Quarterman is a popular defendant in SCOTUS cases this term; he loses this one, because the state courts did not sufficiently consider whether the convicted killer was insane. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]
[Thumbnail image. Click to enlarge. Photograph courtesy of Oona O’Connell.]
WOW. Wouldn’t sitting next to this hottie in Torts class be just a wee bit distracting?
We rarely hear from people about whom we’ve written. This is generally a good thing.
But every now and then, one of them drops us a line. And sometimes they’re none too pleased. Like Oona O’Connell, the superhottie lawyer who posed for Playboy, as discussed back in this post.
You can read Ms. O’Connell’s email, which we reprint with her permission, after the jump.
* Not planning on reading almost 200 pages of opinions in the school assignment cases, but afraid of sounding like an idiot at the next cocktail party? Here’s a handy primer. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Not putting stock in that JP Morgan “farewell email” now making the rounds by email? Pat yourself on the back. [DealBreaker]
* Not as catchy as 24601, but federal prisoners can’t be choosers. [Associated Press]
* Not a fan of Justin Timberlake’s version of “Summer Love”? Check out Ovid’s. [PrawfsBlawg]
* Not remembering that Dr. Miles case from Antitrust class? Fughetaboudit. [Legal Times]
* Not happy with how you look on camera? Try focusing your camera on the background, to place yourself in “a flattering soft focus.” [Althouse]
It’s not easy to be a two-time winner of our Lawyer of the Day award. But after reading this post, we think that you’ll find Colorado lawyer Alison Maynard more than worthy of this honor.
Longtime readers of ATL will surely recall Alison “Sunny” Maynard from our priorcoverage. But in case you don’t, here’s a refresher. Once upon a time, she filed this with a court:
And now she’s come up with another winner of a filing. Who says lightning doesn’t strike twice?
Check out Alison Maynard’s latest handiwork, after the jump.
We thought we were done with our series of posts profiling various “secondary” legal markets. But then several of you reminded us about Pittsburgh.
So sure, Pittsburgh. From a recent Pittsburgh Business Times article:
[S]tarting pay for law school graduates entering the local work force is increasing this year….
Pitt grads joining Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and Duquesne University School of Law alums tapped by Pepper Hamilton LLC, both Downtown [in Pittsburgh], will earn $145,000, according to the schools and the firms, which are both based in Philadelphia. Top dollar for a local firm was $125,000 in 2006.
This is an improvement from 2006. Back in November 2006, the Pittsburgh Business Times reported on top starting salaries in Pittsburgh of $135,000, from national firms, and $110,000, from local firms.
Will law firm associates in the Steel City see further increases anytime soon? Or will things stay as they are for a little while? Feel free to discuss in the comments.
Are you here in Washington, DC? And are you by any chance free this evening?
If so, then please consider attending Banding Together 2007. It’s a battle of ten D.C. law firm bands — good stuff. And even if you have doubts about the music, remember: it’s for a good cause!
Kirkland & Ellis partner Walter Lohmann, chair of the firm’s diversity committee, contacted ATL with this information:
Kirkland is a major sponsor; 32 Firms are sponsoring and bands from Sidley, Constantine Cannon, McDermott, Alston, Finnegan, Crowell, Paul Hastings, Sutherland, Miller Chevalier, Greenberg, Gibson, Hogan and Patton Boggs are playing.
100% of proceeds go to purchase clothing, blankets, other essential items to be distributed through DC shelter system. Zero overhead organization, totally lawyer run. More details at www.gfth.org.
(Tony Snow’s band is playing but Tony’s been called away to Maine with POTUS.)
We have a prior commitment, but we may try to stop by on the later side. Perhaps we’ll see you there!
Update: Alas, we weren’t able to make it. But we hear the event was a huge success. Walt Lohmann reports:
“We had an amazing night. Ran like clockwork, the 10 bands were GREAT and so passionate and we had a great crowd. I’d expect that, when all is said and done, we could exceed $70,000, a 70 percent increase from last year, to purchase clothing, winter items and other essentials for DC’s homeless community.”
Congratulations to everyone involved in this most worthwhile endeavor!
Ed. note: Today we’re pleased to present a guest post by John Carney. He’s the editor of our sibling site, DealBreaker, and a non-practicing attorney.
Please note that the views expressed in this post are those of John (and John alone). Unlike John, we HAVE met Dahlia Lithwick, and think she’s fabulous — one of the sharpest and funniest writers about the Supreme Court working today. We admire many members of the SCOTUS press corps — e.g., Jan Crawford Greenburg, Tony Mauro, Lyle Denniston — but we don’t know of another writer who marries insight and humor the way that Lithwick does. As you can see from our Facebook profile, we are proud members of the We Love Dahlia Lithwick group.
Okay, enough disclaimers. John has a different view — and since we value viewpoint diversity here at ATL, here it is. Enjoy.
*****************
By JOHN CARNEY
Slate has been running its usual end of term round-up, a back-and-forth between Dahlia Lithwick (at right) and Walter Dellinger. Except for Dellinger’s defense of political speech against the slippery opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, it’s a deeply disappointing discussion. Lithwick, who I have never met, comes off as a deeply frivolous person.
It’s almost hard to write about Lithwick’s view of the school speech case, Morse v. Frederick, without sounding foolish. The case arose when a student unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Lithwick chastises Roberts for reading this as “clearly advocacy of a ‘pro-drug’ message.”
“In Morse, Roberts goes to great lengths to insert meaning into the silliness of the words on the student banner. He insists the phrase ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’can be read as ‘celebrating drug use’; indeed to get there he needed only insert the imaginary words, ‘bong hits [are a good thing].’ When did we enter into the era of constitutional interpretation through inserting pretend words? The sign could have as easily been read to say ‘bong hits [will kill you],’” Lithwick writes.
The most difficult question raised by Lithwick here is whether she’s a liar or a fool. That sounds a bit harsh. But I can’t come come up with any other credible explanation for that paragraph. Anyone of normal intelligence understands that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” is drug advocacy. The only question is whether it’s a command that would mean “Do Bong Hits For Jesus” or a confession meaning “I Do Bong Hits For Jesus” or even an offer, as in “I Have Bong Hits Available For Jesus.” In any case, it’s undoubtedly pro-drug.
We recently wrote about the two-tier associate compensation system just announced by Thelen. Associates who work 2,000+ hours a year are paid on the $160,000 scale, while associates who work less remain on the old $145,000 scale.
Sounds sensible and fair, right? Well, maybe not so much. What if you WANT to be on the faster track, earning a market-rate salary, but the firm won’t let you? We hear that Thelen is effectively telling some of its associates, “Please, guys, don’t work so hard — ‘cause we can’t make it worth your while anyway!”
Here’s one source at the firm on how the two-tier system is being received:
Most people seem cool with it because it included hours-based bonuses for hitting 2000, 2100, and 2200. But there are some slow practice groups in certain offices where a decent number of associates got put on the lower tier, and those people are less happy.
Indeed. We received an email from one of those less-than-happy campers. It’s pretty scathing — but deservedly so.
From the opinion of Chief Justice John “Sordid Business” Roberts:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
From Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent:
“John, John, John, you don’t even — you’re glib. You don’t even know what Brown v. Board of Education is. If you start talking about school integration, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how schoolchildren are affected by racial segregation. That’s what I’ve done. Then you go and you say that no member of the Court at the time of Brown would have agreed with today’s decision.”
Enough quoting from the opinions. How should we react to this ruling?
1. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!
2. Brown v. Board has been eviscerated!
3. American schoolchildren will soon be getting after-school milkshakes at lunch counters with Robert Bork!
(Note to diner owners: Keep those floors dry — or at least have a warning sign up while you’re mopping. If Judge Bork slips and falls, he WILL sue your ass.)
Before those big Supreme Court opinions start drifting in, let’s put in a quick word about clerkship bonuses.
As several commenters suggested yesterday, we contacted Latham & Watkins to find out about their clerkship bonus policy. We confirmed that the firm effectively pays a clerkship bonus just shy of $50,000, which does not vary depending upon which office you work in, and we learned some additional information as well:
* Latham & Watkins pays federal clerk bonuses at approximately $50,000, which comprises a $35,000 bonus plus a $13,333 bar study / bar exam and review fees bonus.
* Clerks to federal magistrate judges do receive the federal clerkship bonus.
* Latham & Watkins paid its 2006 U.S. Supreme Court clerks a ‘signing bonus’ of $200,000. In 2006, six Supreme Court clerks joined Latham & Watkins in the firm’s Washington, D.C., San Diego and San Francisco offices.
* “As a leading global law firm with a diverse national presence in the U.S., Latham & Watkins regularly evaluates its compensation.”
We thank Latham for furnishing us with this helpful information.
Update: As for multiple clerkships or years of clerking experience, the firm does not have a fixed and easily summarized policy, since more factors come into play. If you’re in that boat, you should consult with Recruiting.
Further Update: Don’t shoot the messenger. If you don’t like Latham’s clerkship bonus policy, that’s fine, but don’t blame us for communicating it to you.
Commenters, you’ve ticked us off. We are no longer going to reach out to firms for information about their clerkship bonus policies, because (1) it doesn’t affect that many people, at least compared to base salary increases or year-end bonuses, and (2) we’re tired of your ingratitude and abuse.
We will still cover clerkship bonus news, by posting information that tipsters send in to us. But we’re no longer bothering with affirmative outreach to firms on this front, since such “sua sponte” efforts are not appreciated. In light of all the other things we cover, it’s just not worth our time and effort.
* It’s nice to know that you can neglect your caseload, fabricate documents, and still get reinstated to the bar. [Boston Globe]
* Law firm ranking schemes are kind of like blogs. If everyone has one, who’s supposed to read them all? [WSJ Law Blog; Wall Street Journal (subscription)]
* Don’t forget: Paris Hilton will be on Larry King tonight (9 PM Eastern time). [CNN]
As associate salaries climb (further) into the stratosphere, will firms start experimenting with different compensation schemes? Is lockstep compensation for associates headed for the dustbin of history?
As we mentioned yesterday, Thelen Reid just moved to a two-tier system. And now we’re hearing that Howrey LLP may have something odd up its sleeve.
Today the firm had a meeting / conference call about compensation matters. Here are two reports:
“They are planning to adopt a sweeping salary change that amounts to ‘it depends.’ It seems that they will determine salary based on individual evaluations and various forms of progress indicators. Who knows what this means. They said that “market rate” is not the upper cap, and that all-stars could make more than market. This plan is basically final, but they will be speaking to people in focus groups to fine tune the policy.”
“Switching to a ‘competancy’ model as of 2008. First years at 160 but from there based on skills - some above and some below market. Details not released yet as focus groups will be used to fine tune the program.”
Interesting, albeit vague. We’re eager to see what results from this process.
Is Howrey adopting an innovative approach, one that will result in a more flexible and/or meritocratic associate compensation structure? Or is it just an attempt by the firm to get away with paying below-market salaries?
The Supreme Court hasn’t yet finished up for October Term 2006 (which should end tomorrow). The law clerks for October Term 2007 will start arriving next month. But many of them have already started hiring clerks for October Term 2008.
We reported on some of those hires back in this post. And now we have more to add:
1. Conservatives hoping for his retirement will be disappointed. Rumor has it Justice John Paul Stevens has hired all of his clerks for OT 2008. The only one whose name we have, however, is Lindsey Powell (Stanford 2007 / Garland).
2. Justice Antonin Scalia has hired Jameson Jones (Stanford 2007 / Sutton). Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a judicial superhottie, is turning into quite the feeder to his former boss.
3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hired at least one clerk for October Term 2008 — Miriam Seifter (Harvard 2007 / Garland) — and perhaps more.
So in terms of OT 2008, Stanford Law School and Judge Merrick B. Garland are off to a good start.
If you have more SCOTUS clerk hiring news to add, please email us (subject line: “Supreme Court clerk hiring”).
A list of OT 2008 law clerks thus far appears after the jump.
Maybe blood oaths work in the Mafia. But outside organized crime circles, they may be harder to enforce. From the AP:
A Nietzsche-quoting judge said a promise penned in blood by a businessman was not an enforceable contract. Superior Court Judge Corey S. Cramin ruled Monday that Stephen Son could not be forced to repay Kim Jin-soo more than $140,000 that Kim provided to Son’s companies, not to Son himself.
Son punctured his finger and drafted the promise in a restaurant after his companies accepted cash from Kim but failed to turn a profit.
Son was not required to guarantee those transactions, the judge said.
“Blood is the worst of all testimonies to the truth,” Cramin said, paraphrasing German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
To all ATL readers currently studying for the bar: Whaddya think? How would you argue in favor of holding the blood contract enforceable, despite the apparent absence of consideration?
We’re more or less done with our series of posts profiling various “secondary” legal markets. We thought about putting up the Portsmouth thread that some trolls commenters have been demanding, but we decided against it after reading this.
So now we’re going to loop back to a city that we previously covered, to wit, Miami. We have a news hook for this post: a recent story, from the Daily Business Review, about how 2006 treated South Florida’s top law firms.
While we’re on the subject of judicial clerkships (or clerkship bonuses), and with clerkship application season not that far off, we’d like to put in a quick plug for the Clerkship Notification Blog.
We’ve mentioned it in these pages before. It’s a great resource for clerkship applicants.
But it can’t go on without your help. The blog’s former editor, Katherine McDaniel, is leaving — to clerk, naturally. So she’s looking for two people to take over the site from her.
We encourage you to apply. For details, please click here. Thanks.
Some good news for law clerks heading to the New York office of Covington & Burling after their clerkships. A source at the firm directed us to check out this updated section of their website:
We reward judicial clerks who come directly to the firm following their clerkship(s) with credit for purposes of both salary and partnership consideration, together with a $50,000 bonus for one clerkship and a $70,000 bonus for two clerkships for those who have clerked for a federal judge, or for the highest court in any state or the District of Columbia.
So add a new member to the $50K/$70K Club. But note that Covington is taking the Ropes & Gray approach: the new and improved clerkship bonuses are paid out in New York only. In Washington and San Francisco, the firm still pays a $35,000 clerkship bonus.
Update: Also noteworthy, per a commenter: “This is different from the other $70K bonuses in that it only applies to people with two-clerkships, rather than one two-year clerkship.”
In addition, we’ve heard a rumor that Willkie Farr & Gallagher has raised its clerkship bonus to $50,000. But we haven’t seen the email, and Willkie’s website and NALP form don’t reflect this info. If you can confirm, please drop us a line.
A “List of Shame” for top firms paying below-market clerkship bonuses, after the jump.
The typical Lawyerly Lairs post offers a voyeuristic peek inside the luxurious residence of a prominent lawyer. Today’s post, in contrast, is about an office building. But since lawyers at Cravath, Swaine & Moore pretty much live in the office, the home/office distinction doesn’t matter.
Cravath is staying right at home in their Death Star.* The white shoe law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore has signed a 15-year renewal at the Worldwide Plaza at 825 Eighth Avenue that will cost the firm $900 million….
Bloomberg reports that Cravath will retain its nearly 600,000 square feet at a little less than $100 per square foot, a far cry from the $39 per foot it paid for a lease it signed in 1989. When Cravath moved to the Hell’s Kitchen building back in the 1980’s, it was a risk for a high-powered law firm to move that far west, even if it was in a brand-new tower. Twenty years later, with the West Side firmly established, the deal was clearly a steal, especially over the last few years.
We offer some additional observations of our own, after the jump.
* We’ve been over this before, people. The Observer has it right. Skadden hasn’t been referred to as the Death Star ever since they moved into the Conde Nast Building at Four Times Square, home to dozens of fashion models — who walk on real runways, not the Skadden support staff runway.
In addition to handing down some big opinions, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a number of cases. As noted by SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, the Court denied certiorari in a significant antitrust case, as well as a pair of test cases raising constitutional issues in the immigration context.
But the most important cert denial was surely Aisha v. Madonna, No. 06-1389. A blurb about this battle of the mono-monikered musicians, from a reader:
Why nothing about this crazy diva? Her case is discussed by Marty Lederman over at SCOTUSblog.
Aisha Goodison seems right up your alley. She’s more than a little nutty, “strong,” fearless, and with a bad attitude. (Gotta love the pictures of Madonna and Gwen Stefani on her website).
I glanced over her cert petition and she’s pro se. Does that mean she wrote her own complaint? If not, who is helping her out? Just how crazy is she?
Working as a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice offers many advantages over toiling as a law firm associate. Greater responsibility. Better hours. Nicer bosses (with some exceptions).
But working for the DOJ has disadvantages too. Lower pay. Less support staff. No Aeron chairsworking pens.
And maybe rats snacking on your toddler. From a tipster:
Cadwalader may have bed bugs, but the Justice Department’s child care center has rats. The center is… managed by a board of directors, mainly middle aged DOJ lawyers.
Here’s an email making the rounds. My favorite line is “They will stay upstairs for play the rat of the day.”
And Bingham McCutchen (above) was, first, a lion-chasing zebra (where does the Dykema giraffe fit into this equation?) and now, a baby-coddling grizzly bear. Hey, if any of you crows want to see an idea using puffins, drop me a line.
(All ads scanned from the Wall Street Journal, the bear ad from yesterday’s edition.)
A commenter at Copyranter offers some great suggested captions for the Bingham ad. To read them all, click here. Our personal favorite:
Remember Niki Black’s “Funniest Law Blog” contest, over at Legal Antics? The results have been announced, and Above the Law won second prize. Woo-hoo!
Thanks to everyone who heeded our desperatepleas and voted for ATL. And congratulations to Phila Lawyer, which took first place, and QuizLaw, which came in third.
We’re delighted by our second-place finish. The winner gets to pick any single item sold by The Billable Hour — but excluding their coveted luxury watch line. We, on the other hand, get three signed copies of Saira Rao’s roman a clef about clerking for Judge Dolores Sloviter juicy new novel, Chambermaid — which is a very fun summer read.
Hooray! And thanks again to everyone who voted for us.
Associates at Thelen Reid were clamoring for a post shining the spotlight on their firm. Here are some representative emails:
“Since your posting on Bingham worked so well, how about starting one on Thelen? The silence from OTC [Office of the Chair] is deafening, and people are super-disgruntled.”
“We’ve waited long enough here, and they haven’t said anything. We’ve come up badly in who knows how many articles. We’re the highest ranked firm (#17) on the Cal Law 25 not to raise, and several below us already have. And several firms that would be below us on the AmLaw 100 (we would be #69, but AmLaw refuses to count firms as merged unless the merger happened by a certain date, and our merger was officially Dec 1, 2006) post-merger have raised, and we haven’t. And our PPP [profits per partner] is quoted in one article as $860K and in another as $850K, $15K-$25K behind Pillsbury who has raised.”
“[A]lthough management hasn’t said anything, popular opinion is that they will raise first years to $160K and compress everyone else across the board, mainly because that’s what they always do. I don’t quite understand how they feel they have “matched market” without lockstep salaries.”
We meant to do a Thelen Reid post some time ago, but we never got around to it. And perhaps now one is no longer needed, since the firm has matched — sort of.
We’re going to be offline for a bit. We’re taping a segment of Bloggingheads TV, in which we’ll be chatting with one of our all-time favorite bloggers, Ann Althouse.
We’re planning to discuss a variety of fascinating topics — including that famous (or infamous?) Hillary Clinton campaign video, a parody of the final episode of “The Sopranos.” Here’s an excerpt from Professor Althouse’s post:
Bill says “No onion rings?” and Hillary responds “I’m looking out for ya.” Now, the script says onion rings, because that’s what the Sopranos were eating in that final scene, but I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that, coming from Bill Clinton, the “O” of an onion ring is a vagina symbol. Hillary says no to that, driving the symbolism home. She’s “looking out” all right, vigilant over her husband, denying him the sustenance he craves. What does she have for him? Carrot sticks! The one closest to the camera has a rather disgusting greasy sheen to it. Here, Bill, in retaliation for all of your excessive “O” consumption, you may have a large bowl of phallic symbols!
When we hear him say “No onion rings?,” the camera is on her, and Bill is off-screen, but at the bottom of the screen we see the carrot/phallus he’s holding toward her. Oh, yes, I know that Hillary supplying carrots is supposed to remind that Hillary will provide us with health care, that she’s “looking out for” us, but come on, they’re carrots! Everyone knows carrots are phallic symbols. But they’re cut up into little carrot sticks, you say? Just listen to yourself! I’m not going to point out everything.
Brilliant? Insane? Or a little bit of both? We can’t wait to chat with Professor Althouse about her Freudian analysis of the video — and the intensereaction it generated within the blogosphere.
What the heck is going on in the Washington office of Skadden Arps? First we read about the firm’s food stamp recipes, in the hallowed pages of the Washington Post. And now we read about the firm’s in-house fashion show, also in a Post piece:
Legal secretaries, receptionists and an accounting supervisor strutted their stuff on a black runway last week, looking all shades of chic at the Washington headquarters of a major corporate law firm.
In a twist on the seasonal reminder that flip-flops and T-shirts are considered inappropriate summer business attire, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom hosted a lunchtime fashion show on the 11th floor of its downtown offices to inspire employees.
Wearing styles on loan from nearby Filene’s Basement, 12 staff members posed to “Glamorous” by Fergie, and Madonna’s “Vogue.” The clothes, from Claiborne to Klein, were chosen to fit each office personality.
We share the reaction of this reader:
It is a bit troubling that a law firm is giving any sort of fashion advice. It is even more troubling that they think an appropriate source of fashion is the discount retailer Filene’s Basement. Skadden apparently doesn’t share the wealth with its support staff.
Sadly, having seen some Skadden partners who bring home $3 million+ per year, I can attest that they too look like Filene’s Basement regulars.
Query: Was this article, as well as the earlier piece about the food stamp recipes, possibly planted in the Post’s pages by publicists? If so, Skadden might want to think about retaining a new PR shop.
P.S. It’s too bad this fashion show didn’t take place at Akin Gump. We would have loved to see photos in the WaPo of the Akin Gump Escort, strutting her stuff on the runway.
Two Louisiana lawyers, Michael Fawer and Joseph Bartels — the brawling brothers-in-law we wrote about here — have been disciplined for their altercation. From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
After hearing about two hours of testimony, state Judge Raymond Childress found brothers-in-law Michael Fawer and Joseph Bartels in contempt of court for their brawl in the hall outside his courtroom May 7.
“It sounds like something a second-grade teacher would have to break up on the playground,” Childress said. Citing the parking lot across the street, he added, “If you all want to go roll on the gravel, that’s where you need to do it, but not in my courthouse!”
Childress fined each man $100, gave each a suspended sentence of 24 hours in jail and ordered them placed on probation for 90 days. He also required them to attend an anger-management class and perform four eight-hour days of community service.
Meanwhile, on a much more serious and sad note, former judge Larry Manzanares — previously discussed here — took his own life last week. More details are available from the Denver Post.
* Paris is once again free to flash her vag and make us wonder why she’s famous. Except that we hear she’s changed her life or something. What a drag. [CNN]
* The EPA doesn’t have to consult with the FWS about the ESA before handing over the NPDES program under the CWA to a state. Got it? [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]
We hear that Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft is a tough place to work these days. Over the past few years, CTW’s profits per partner have skyrocketed — but such growth has come at a price.
Today the firm is much more of a business, and much less of a partnership. Collegiality is down, and billable hours — as well as associate dissatisfaction — are up.
But these aren’t the only problems plaguing Cadwalader. A source forwarded us an internal CWT email, with this introductory squib:
Just received this from a friend over there. As if the crushing leverage and abuse weren’t enough, CWT has BED BUGS….
Don’t believe us? The office-wide email, sent out about an hour and a half ago by firm chairman Robert O. Link Jr., appears after the jump.
* “This is the type of case that a mentally challenged pro se plaintiff would file.” And no, this has nothing to do with Judge Roy Pearson’s $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. [New York Times]
* Speaking of which, we previously linked to the legal defense fund for the Chung family, the defendant dry cleaners sued by Judge Pearson. If you’re in D.C. on July 24th, you can attend a fundraising event for them. [Support the Chungs]
Are you a Texas law firm associate who is sick of tired of working long hours for low pay? Are you looking for a more creative position, one that would offer you more “hands-on” experience?
Then you might be interested in working for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — still for low pay, but probably for better hours. And we’re not talking about some run-of-the-mill law clerk gig.
The circuit is looking for an in-house interior designer. How fabulous! And no, we’re not joking. Check out the job posting by clicking here (PDF).
Okay, so you don’t have the requested “bachelor’s degree in interior design.” But surely a J.D. from an accredited U.S. law school, plus the requested ability “to move light furniture,” would be just as good.
Yeah, you’d have to move to New Orleans, but that’s not too far — still within the Fifth Circuit. In terms of specific job responsibilities, the most difficult one is probably “procuring furniture and furnishings utilizing federal procurement guidelines.”
That should be construed as “decorating courthouse spaces in halfway decent fashion, using furniture manufactured by federal prison inmates.” And remember — Martha checked out of the Big House a long time ago.
If that’s not worthy of an episode of Top Design, we don’t know what is.
We did a post on associate salaries in the Texas markets last month. But since a number of you have been clamoring for another, and we haven’t done one as part of our recent series on various non-New York markets, here’s another post going out to the Lone Star State.
In our last Texas post, we included some starting salary information for various Texas offices. Today we’re going with a different theme: compression. From a Texas tipster:
Leaving aside the fact that the large Texas-based firms (and many national firms with large Texas presences) are playing a game of petrified chicken on the latest round of raises, I have seen no coverage at all on the massive compression resulting from the last round of raises. These firms at issue are some biggies: Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins, Akin Gump, Fulbright, etc.
Here’s how it worked after last year’s round of national raises: First years in Texas got a big increase, from about $110k to $135k. 2nd and 3rd years also got around a $15k increase. And that’s pretty much where it stopped. 7th years received a $5,000 raise, to about a $185,000 base. To put that in perspective, it’s about 50% less than a 7th year currently makes (at the same firm or a national that pays a uniform scale) in LA, NYC, DC, etc. That is, a 7th year at BB in Texas makes $185,000; a 7th year at BB in NYC makes $275,000. Sheeeeeit! And don’t look for explanations in billing rates. The vast majority of work done in Texas by these firms is billed at national rates — the same charged in DC and LA (though maybe 10% less than in NYC).
The point: screw the first years! They now make only $50,000 less than the folks up for partner. Not that partnership chances have increased.
Counting on you to get the ball rolling!
Franky, relatively broke and senior in Texas
Feel free to bitch and moan — or, if you’re not from Texas, to remind them that they pay no state income tax and have a relatively low cost of living — in the comments. Thanks.
The plummeting ratings of Katie Couric aren’t the only problem for CBS these days. The network just got slapped with a $50 million lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation. From Towleroad (pronounced “toll road,” for those of you not familiar with it):
Dick Jefferson, the CBS News producer who was gay bashed with a group of friends in St. Maarten in April 2006, has filed a $50 million lawsuit against CBS, according to Kenneth Walsh of Kenneth in the 212.
Jefferson says that after the incident he was warned by CBS News Senior Vice President Linda Mason not to speak out about the incident because it was too controversial. After Jefferson suggested to Mason that she was violating the network’s anti-discrimination policies, by “controlling what he wrote in his e-mail messages from his personal account, requiring him to ask for permission to testify in open court against his attackers (they were eventually caught and convicted) and banning him from having contact with his friend and colleague, Ryan Smith, who was still hospitalized from the attack,” he says she engaged in a systematic campaign of retaliation which eventually led to his being fired.
We’re surprised that Linda Mason (above right) isn’t more sympathetic to gay rights. Guess you can’t judge a book by its cover.
For those of you who are interested, a little more on this story appears after the jump.
While we were away last week, Jonas reported on a fabulous new addition to the S&C legal team:
Sullivan and Cromwell partner Sharon L. Nelles filed a notice of appearance yesterday in the Aaron Charney v. Sullivan and Cromwell case.
Do we overuse the term “fabulous” around here? Oh maybe. But Sharon Nelles has been certified as “fabulous,” by the mainstream media:
Perhaps most important point about this development, Ms. Nelles was selected by The American Lawyer as one of “The Young Litigators Fab 50” — 50 litigators under 45 who are expected to be “leading the field for years to come.” Since this case will be around for a long time, a very long time, Sullivan was smart to select a lawyer predicted to have staying power.
So Charney’s lawyers had better watch out. Charney’s legal team, which includes Dan Alterman and Michael Kennedy, consists of experienced and well-regarded attorneys. But we don’t know if we’d call them “fabulous” — especially in light of their unfortunate fashionchoices.
(If you’re really into this case — we’ll admit we’re getting a little bored, in the absence of new allegations about “bending over,” fabricated evidence, and Nazis — check out Jonas’s summary of the parties’ squabbles over discovery. It’s available over here.)
Because why else would the justices rule against noble, crusading students, and in favor of the mean old school officials, in Morse v. Frederick — aka the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case?*
But free speech proponents shouldn’t despair. Over at SCOTUSblog, Marty Lederman notes:
Morse is a very limited holding — essentially limited to the drug context. The Alito concurrence, joined by Kennedy, is controlling. He writes:
I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as ‘the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.’”
In other words: Hey liberals, this Alito guy might not be as bad as you thought.
* As we previously observed, petitioner Deborah Morse, one of the prevailing school officials, is “a curvaceous, dark-haired beauty.” But we would hope that Supreme Court justices would decide cases based on the merits, not on the attractiveness of the parties.
Of course, sometimes both factors point in the same direction. See, e.g., Marshall v. Marshall — the Anna Nicole Smith case.
Who cares about all those fancy-schmancy Supreme Court decisions that just got handed down? This morning brings news of a far more important legal development.
The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out today what he’s going to get for all his troubles:
Nothing.
And the plaintiff, ALJ Roy Pearson (at right), will also have to pay the defendants’ court costs.
A link to the opinion and judgment are available via the WSJ Law Blog.
David Souter is signing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s yearbook. Sam Alito is hoping he’ll get a better locker next year. Nino Scalia is mapping out which European restaurants he’s going to hit this summer. Yes, that’s right: today is the last scheduled day of the Supreme Court’s Term.
The justices are handing down opinions as we type. We’ll have coverage and links pertaining to today’s decisions in a subsequent post.
Will there be any surprises? Or will the paramount importance of Justice Kennedy simply be further confirmed — as if this fact, noted by the astute Jim Ho, wasn’t revealing enough?
Check back soon for more.
Update / correction: Today was, according to the Court’s OT 2006 calendar (PDF), the last scheduled non-argument session. But because the justices didn’t hand down all of the Term’s opinions today, they will issue more decisions on Thursday.
We can’t publish all (or even most) of the announcements like this that we receive. But since we give those Harvard Law School kids such a hard time, airing lots of their dirtylaundry, we figure we might as well do something nice for them for a change.
We pass along this announcement, on behalf of an HLS organization aimed at encouraging charitable giving:
I am writing on behalf of a Harvard Law School organization called One Day’s Work. The organization started this spring and the concept is simple: encourage law students around the country to pledge one day’s summer salary at either a law firm or public interest legal job to a charitable cause. We thought that with your extensive coverage of law firm salaries, you might be interested in giving us some attention and helping to promote this worthy effort.
Students can pledge and get more information at our website, http://www.OneDaysWork.org. To date, over 65 law students have pledged nearly $40,000 to the effort. These students represent over 40 firms and public interest/government organizations. Additionally, while the group started at Harvard, students from law schools across the country have joined in the effort. About half of the participants are from Harvard, but participants thus far have come from over a dozen other schools.
While the group’s name gives a suggested donation amount - and your readers, of all people, should know what a summer associate in a major American city makes in a given day - the goal is really to promote a culture of giving. As such, we just ask students to give what they feel comfortable with. One Day’s Work does not advocate any specific charitable cause or organization, but the website does feature seven charities that we’ve chosen to highlight.
The efforts of One Day’s Work will culminate on June 27—the “Day” from which students are pledging their earnings.
LEWW is so devoted to you, dear readers, that we haul out our scanner every week so we can show you pictures that the Times doesn’t post in its online edition. But this week the NYT was showing no photographic love for the lawyers. All three of our featured couples are picture-less!
We hate it too, but to borrow awayoverusedline from recent TV criticism, “Whaddya gonna do?” Just try to picture them in your minds or something. Here are our finalists:
Ok, one last plug for ATL in the Funniest Law Blog Contest. For those of you who followed the link earlier, you will have noticed that the gap between us and Phila Lawyer has narrowed, although it is still quite wide.
Luckily for us, there are now prizes for second and third places: three signed copies of Chambermaid(we failed to mention the signed part earlier) for second, and two signed copies of Martha Kimes’Ivy Briefs: True Tales of a Nuerotic Law Student. It appears that this prize will go to Quizlaw, who incidentally has declared shenanigans on Phila Lawyer’s commanding lead (we agree with you Quizlaw, except for the part declaring shenanigans on us being in second; ok, that part’s right too we suppose).
The voting ends Monday, so you still have the weekend to try to get Lat some Billable Hour bling.
For your enjoyment on a slow-news-day-summer-Friday afternoon, here’s a hilarious bit from Muffie Benson-Perella at our sibling site Dealbreaker.com:
Ask Muffie: Cause and Effect
Muffie Benson-Perella (muffie AT dealbreaker.com) is an Associate in the Investment Banking Division of a “Bulge Bracket” bank. She holds a B.A. in French and Art from Vassar College and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Her regular column “Heard in the Suite” is a probing (and, ahem, fictional) weekly look into the secret lives and behind the velvet curtains of the investment banking world.
Dear Muffie:
I am considering going to law school in order to be a “deal lawyer” but I am worried because I hear there is a lot of discussion of “cause and effect” in law school. These are concepts that are foreign to me. Can you help with a female perspective on “cause and effect” and how it impacts the banking profession?
Betsy “Boom-Boom” Baylor
Dear Boom-Boom:
The best way for me to teach you is by example, so I am including some real-life cause and effect examples from investment banks that involve a legal element.
Example #1: Email from work account
Cause:
——-Original Message——-
From: associate@prestigiousbank.com
Sent: May 20, 2007 4:35 PM
To: associate2@prestigiousbank.com
Subject: test
hey - iwas wondering if you knew anything that could help me pass a saliva/mouth swab test? i think I’m pretty screwed.
Effect:
From: dirhr@prestigiousbank.com (Director of Human Resources)
Sent: May 20, 2007 7:36 PM
Required: Associate; Cindy Reardon (Vice President, Human Resources); Robert Moss (Office of the General Counsel); Richard Fossbath (Managing Director, Investment Banking Division)
When: May 21, 2007 8:00 AM-8:30 AM
Location: Conference Room A, Human Resources, 35th Floor
Accept | Tentative | Decline | Calendar…
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Example #2: AIM conversation from work wireless
Cause:
12:50:43 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Hi beth!
12:50:51 PM ohheyitsbeth: hello
12:50:57 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Hey, what are you wearing?
12:51:12 PM ohheyitsbeth: may i ask who i’m speaking to
12:51:23 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Sure, if you tell me what you’re wearing.
12:52:08 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Are you wearing ripped jeans?
12:52:49 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: If not, I’ll rip them for ya!
12:53:04 PM ohheyitsbeth: hah
12:53:07 PM ohheyitsbeth: uh
12:54:11 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: That’s hot, by the way. I’m in the bathroom, and I’m hard.
12:54:24 PM ohheyitsbeth: where do you work
12:54:36 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Prestigious Investment Bank, duh.
12:54:44 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Wanna cyber?
12:54:58 PM ohheyitsbeth: you are in the bathroom at PIB? my IM’s are monitored by carney
12:55:05 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Yeah! So?
12:55:15 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: The IT guy here gets off on it!
12:55:16 PM ohheyitsbeth: so that would be uncomfortable
12:55:24 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: You bet it will, I’m HUGE!
12:57:31 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Hello?
12:59:32 PM AllNgtLngBanker045: Hello?
Effect:
From: dirhr@prestigiousbank.com (Director of Human Resources)
Sent: June 3, 2007 7:36 PM
Required: Associate; Cindy Reardon (Vice President, Human Resources); Robert Moss (Office of the General Counsel); Richard Fossbath (Managing Director, Investment Banking Division); Craig Ballows (Information Technology)
When: June 4, 2007 8:00 AM-8:30 AM
Location: Conference Room A, Human Resources, 35th Floor
Accept | Tentative | Decline | Calendar…
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Example #3: Conference Call
Cause:
-bew beep-
Announcer: “Now attending… Associate.”
-bew beep-
Announcer: “Now attending… Associate 2.”
Associate 2: “Hey, anyone on?”
Associate: “Hey man, it’s Associate.”
Associate 2: “Anyone else on?”
Associate: “Not yet I don’t think.”
Associate 2: “Man, what happened to you last night?”
Associate: “Oh fuck, after you left we went to Tina’s with all that blow I had.”
Associate 2: “No way! That chick is smoking too!”
Associate: “She was smoking it alright, trust me.”
Associate 2: “What time did you get home?”
Associate: “Fuck that, we did blow all night. I haven’t slept yet?”
Associate 2: “Aren’t you supposed to be finishing the deck for Bob “The Castrator” Lindgom?”
Associate: “Lindgom? Are you kidding? His reputation is all bullshit. I’ve snuck half-assed work by that guy for months. He doesn’t care at all. Seriously. He loves me. He couldn’t find his own ass with GPS coordinates, but whatever, I’m almost done with this rotation anyhow which is so bonus because, have you seen his daughter? Todd met her in NA so you know she likes the blow. I got her number from Lindgom’s datebook. I’m totally gonna tap that hot ass.”
-beep bew-
Announcer: “Now departing… Bob Lindgom.”
Effect:
From: dirhr@prestigiousbank.com (Director of Human Resources)
Sent: June 9, 2007 3:36 PM
Required: Associate; Cindy Reardon (Vice President, Human Resources); Robert Moss (Office of the General Counsel); Richard Fossbath (Managing Director, Investment Banking Division); Bob Lindgom (Managing Director, Investment Banking Division)
When: June 9, 2007 5:00 PM-5:30 PM
Location: Conference Room A, Human Resources, 35th Floor
Four women who worked for a private cosmetics contractor, Makeup Art Cosmetics, in a Belk department store in our hometown of Athens, Georgia have each won six-figure verdicts this week after being watched undressing by security guards using a hidden camera in the stockroom of the store.
Store managers installed a hidden camera in a stockroom in 2005, catching the women on tape while they changed clothes before and after shifts.
Lawyers for Belk argued that it installed the camera to catch thieves and said the employees should have known it was there.
The employees suffered from sleeplessness, anxiety and paranoia due to the invasion of privacy, one of their attorneys, Jay Lewis, said during his closing argument Thursday.
He asked the Superior Court jury for “seven figure” actual and punitive damages for each of the plaintiffs.
But apparently the jury only found the security guards six-figures-worth of creepy.
As the State Legislature slouched toward adjournment late Thursday with no breakthrough on the issue of pay raises for judges, an infuriated judiciary began to contemplate an escalation in the salary wars.
For many that might mean new or expanded litigation. Some are even whispering “strike.”
New York judges haven’t had a raise in 9 years, and they’re getting pretty pissed about it:
“Judges don’t need to hire lobbyists or public relations people, we need to hire an FBI hostage negotiator,” said Montgomery County Family Court Judge Philip V. Cortese in an interview — distilling the judges’ collective belief that the Legislature essentially held salary negotiations captive to other legislative priorities.
Of course, there are some slight problems with a judicial strike, such as the fact that they can’t legally do it:
Just like the transit workers, judges are explicitly prohibited from striking under New York’s labyrinthine Taylor Law — a statute governing labor organizing of state public servants.
According to Jerome Lefkowitz, chairman of the Public Employment Relations Board, the law treats judges as “management” whose members are not allowed to unionize. At the same time, it prohibits them from striking.
In other words, judges have even fewer options than transit workers or other public employees. “The law says that managerial employees are excluded from the Taylor Law, except Part 210 which says: ‘Thou shalt not strike,’ ” Lefkowitz explained.
In the stern language of that section, no judge can “cause, instigate, or condone a strike.”
So one judge suggested they all just get really lazy instead:
“Another idea is to review all papers submitted very carefully for any errors — typos, misspellings, matters left out — particularly orders and decrees. No handwritten corrections or having your own secretary retype to fix them up. Return them to attorney for correction, and return them again until they are totally correct. Particularly for any firms with legislators in them.”
The book is an abomination, one of the worst novels I have ever read, both artistically and morally. The affected style, which runs the gamut from “cutesy” to “bench memo,” would be forgivable if the substance weren’t so dreadful.
Don’t hold back, James. Tell us what you really think.
He accuses Rao of making much ado about nothing:
But as the novel progresses, something odd happens. The character assassination against Judge Friedman becomes just too much. Raj’s life is pretty good, all things considered. Her hours aren’t particularly bad as clerkship hours go, the work itself is interesting enough, and while she may or may not get that dream job with the ACLU, even she acknowledges that it would be a rare accomplishment to land it. Her family loves and supports her; she always has at least one good friend nearby; she’s never threatened with any serious corruption of her values. Nor, beyond living in a slightly skeevy neighborhood, does she ever risk forfeiting her educational, economic, and social privilege. The indignities of life in Friedman’s chambers come to seem like just so much white noise, nothing one couldn’t endure for a year with a half-grin and a lot of shrugs. Which, actually, is more or less what Raj does.
We haven’t read it yet (maybe Lat will give us one of the three copies he’s gonna get for finishing in second place in the Funniest Law Blog contest; more on that later today), but we understand Lat is looking to do a review of his own (see earlier discussion of that here), so it will be interesting to get his take. Lat, of course, has unique experience in exposing the inner workings of a judge’s office.
To wrap up the week, we stay in the West and move up the coast to Portland, Oregon. Portland is the nation’s 23rd largest city, and probably the greenest one. We hear the quality of life is pretty good, but what about the money?
Perkins Coie is raising to market in California, with a catch. To get the raise, associates must 1) be “on pace” of 1900 hours; and 2) have “no outstanding timesheet penalties.”
In his dissent today from a order denying rehearing en banc in the case of United States v. Ziegler, Kozinski basically calls the rest of the panel morons, or at least hack magicians. The best part is this paragraph:
By plucking consent out of its judicial top hat, when neither
party has argued it and the district court made no findings to
support it, the panel gives the unfortunate impression that it
is seeking to vindicate a result it has reached on other (nowrepudiated) grounds.
It is not our business to reach particular
results, nor may we jiggle the rules of procedure to achieve
an outcome we prefer. Our responsibility is to apply the law
in an objective and impartial manner, and let the chips fall
where they may. Here, the government lost the one issue on
which it chose to make its stand—Ziegler’s expectation of
privacy in his own office. At that point it was our responsibility
to reverse the district court and vacate the defendant’s sentence.
Appellate review is not a magic wand and we
undermine public confidence in the judicial process when we
make it look like it is.
But he basically rips the panel a new one throughout the dissent.
This one’s a vicarious “Eyes of the Law” through a source in New York. According to the source:
“Since we’re getting close to the end of the Supreme Court’s Term, people might be wondering: Are we going to see any retirements this year? Will Justice John Paul Stevens finally pack it in? Or what about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was described as looking somewhat frail earlier this year?”
“Well, I wouldn’t count on RBG stepping down anytime soon. At the Second Circuit conference a few weeks ago, I saw Justice Ginsburg dancing a jig — with Judge Pierre Leval of the Second Circuit, another prominent judicial liberal.”
“I tried to take some video with my camera phone, but it came out unusual. That may be for the best.”
We wonder if it was “for the best” because of the dancing being anything like this:
At any rate, it sounds like Ginsburg is definitely still kicking.
Dean Barkley, fomer U.S. Senator from Minnesota (Nov. 2002-Jan. 2003) as a member of the then Minnesota Reform Party (he was appointed by Gov. Jesse Ventura after the death of Paul Wellstone in a plane crash), is apparently looking for love online. Here is his profile from Match.com.
Girls, don’t worry about getting hurt, because as Barkley puts it:
I am honest and do not play games.
He’s kinda in between jobs, but he plans to rev up his law practice again soon:
I just returned from Texas where I ran the Governor’s race for Kinky Friedman. He did not win so I have to re-invent myself once again. I am going to start my old law practice up because driving a metro mobility bus is not my dream job.
I’m not sure he really understood the question here, but is ethnicity important anyway?
my ethnicity:
My 23 year marriage ended about a year ago. I did not want the divorce but have finally gotten over it and I am ready to rejoin the human race. I would like to meet someone that is smart, funny, likes to be spontaneous and passionate.
And don’t think he’s an asshole just because he’s a lawyer. In fact, he hates lawyers and the law:
I have a law degree but dislike most lawyers myself. I have spent most of my life trying to find a way not to practice law. I have run a car wash, drove a school bus, started a political party and recruited Jesse to run for Governor to escape law.
He’s just doing what he’s gotta do. Give ‘em a shot, ladies.
We missed this separate benchscuffle from the Tellabs opinion in our haste to look at all three earlier, but Scalia and Stevens, the lone dissenter, went at it as well. Stevens told Scalia that he was “clearly wrong”, and Scalia responded with “it’s you who is ‘mistaken’”. Steven then said “nun uh”, and Scalia said, “unhuh”.
Read the relevant excerpts and commentary at the WSJ Law Blog.
At issue in the SCOTUS’s decision today in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.[SCOTUSblogvia How Appealing] was the definition of the term “strong inference”, and therefore what the standard is for determining whether a plaintiff has met the pleading requirements as to scienter in a securities fraud case. Some mildly saucy benchslaps insued.
Justice Scalia expressed his disdain for the majority’s resolution to this issue (authored by Justice Ginsburg) this way in his concurring opinion:
If a jade falcon were stolen from a room to which only A and B had access, could it possibly be said there was a “strong inference” that B was the thief? I think not, and I therefore think that the Court’s test must fail. In my view, the test should be whether the inference of scienter (if any) is more plausible than the inference of innocence.
Well, I don’t know. If a Supreme Court justice uses a really bad analogy from an old movie, could it possibly be said that he had made a “strong argument?”
But Ginsburg wasn’t taking this lying down. Her benchslap back from n.5 of the majority opinion is after the jump.
Also, the SCOTUS issued two other opinions today:
Rita v. United States [SCOTUSblog via How Appealing]
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy [SCOTUSblog via How Appealing]
From Vegas we take a short drive through the desert into the beautiful state of California.
Since Los Angeles, San Francisco and Silicon Valley are regularly covered on ATL, this open thread will be for the rest of California: San Diego, Sacramento, or any other not-regularly-covered market in the Golden State that you care to discuss. Feel free to discuss associate salaries in these markets or any other issues of interest in the comments.
We have a ruling in the HappyMealGate case (prior coverage here, here, and here of Wiliam P. Smith, the McDermott Will & Emery partner who told Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff that she was “a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal”). And it’s surprisingly lenient.
“There is no jurisdiction in the U.S. — including the district where Mr. Smith regularly practices — where the expression and tone Mr. Smith used on May 7 would fall in the bounds of acceptable behavior,” a solemn Isicoff said from the bench in front of a packed courtroom.
and ordered him to take an online professionalism course administered by the Florida Bar.
Smith brought McDermott chairman Harvey Freishtat with him to beg and plead for mercy from Isicoff. Apparently it worked.
Isicoff said she accepted the apologies of both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery chairman Harvey Freishtat, the head of the Chicago-based, 1,000-lawyer firm, who also appeared in front of her to beg her pardon.
Looks like the fry guy got off relatively easy, and we’ve all learned something: don’t stoop to middle-school insults while arguing in front of a federal judge, especially if you’re appearing pro hac vice.
* Yeah, because that’s why Motley Crue fizzled…bad management. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Justice Scalia on Jack Bauer. We can only hope that this discussion was filmed in real time from dramatic camera angles and they spoke with urgently raspy voices. [More Law Blog]
Ok, that’s not exactly right. Technically, he’s not ok with torture, he just defines torture in a manner that allows him to be ok with stuff that most of us would call torture. Would you expect anything less of a CIA lawyer?
John Rizzo, acting GC for the CIA and Bush’s nominee for the permanent job, is facing opposition in the Senate because of his
decision to sign off on the controversial 2002 “Bybee Memo” in which the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) defined torture as physical pain equivalent in “in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death.”
Days after a federal judge ruled that the family of Ron Goldman could pursue the copyright to O.J.’s confession “fictional” account of how he would have murdered his wife Nicole Brown and Goldman entitled “If I Did It,” a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee is seeking to have TMZ.com held in contempt for posting the entire manuscript yesterday.
Since we’re already directing you to TMZ, we’ll forego a direct link to the manuscript itself, lest we be held in contempt as well (shut up; we know what you’re thinking.)
Ok, at first we didn’t care, but now we’re getting jacked around (along with everybody else in the contest) by Phila Lawyer! This aggression will not stand, man! Don’t hold Lat’s momentary absence against us; vote for ATL now as the funniest law blog.
The New York Observer has their annual summer associate article out today. Aquagirl is heavily discussed, including a shoutout to ATL for coining the nickname. Also referenced, of course, is the $3,000 Skadden summers’ after-party. But then they had to go and get all touchy-feely with the bit about charity and how “chic” being green is. Yuck.
But my favorite is the last paragraph about the meat market that is the associate-summer associate dating game. I love this line:
“[A]ssociates don’t get out of the office much, so when the new summers arrive, it’s like the buffet at Denny’s.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:17 PM - By Billy Merck
This from a source:
Jenner has gone to $160,000 for first years in its Chicago, DC, and Dallas offices. The NY office will remain at $160,000. More senior classes will be determined and communicated individually. The raise was communicated this morning by individual memoranda and is effective August 1, 2007.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:29 AM - By Billy Merck
Just because Lat isn’t here doesn’t mean we can’t continue talking about salaries. Today the Nationwide Pay Raise Watch goes to Sin City. The transformation of the Strip continues unabated, most notably with the Aladdin becoming Planet Hollywood and the demolition of Stardust in favor of Echelon. So how much of the house’s take is making it into the pockets of Vegas associates?
Our initial research puts Vegas in the $110,000 range. Is this accurate, and is it going up anytime soon? Let us know in the comments.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:00 AM - By Billy Merck
Hi, Billy Merck here once again, hosting through the end of the week so that Lat can take another brief vacation. No intro post this time; check here or here if you don’t know who we are. But enough of that, let’s get right to it.
The Wall Street Journal has this article about the extremely high demand from employees for and the equally strong reticence on the part of businesses, including of course large law firms, to give access to corporate email services on the soon to be released Apple iPhone. From the article:
While millions of consumers are eagerly anticipating Apple Inc.’s launch of its iPhone next week, Bill Caraher is bracing for the worst.
Mr. Caraher, technology director of von Briesen & Roper, a Milwaukee law firm, says he is being besieged by inquiries from employees wondering whether the office’s email system can be used with the device.
His answer, at least initially, has been no. The main problem is that the iPhone can’t send and receive email through the company’s corporate BlackBerry email servers. He says he is unwilling to look into workarounds, because they might compromise the company’s security. “It’s another hole in the system people can exploit,” he says.
Despite concerns about opening up email systems, Apple is apparently pushing to grab some crackberry market share:
All this may change later this month when Apple plans to unveil the iPhone. According to a person close to Apple, the company is expected to fight for this market, currently dominated by players like BlackBerry’s RIM, Palm Inc. and, increasingly, Nokia Corp. and Motorola. If Apple comes up with an acceptable strategy for integrating with business software systems, many companies might change their tunes.
At least one law firm is open to the idea:
Other businesses are taking a wait-and-see approach. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP of New York has been getting hit with a range of iPhone inquiries, according to spokeswoman Claudia Freeman. The law firm may try to support the device once it is launched, she says.
So we have three questions we’d like to throw out there to open up discussion:
1) Will law firms open up their email systems to the iPhone?
2) If they do, will the iPhone grab a substantial chunk of the crackberry market?
3) Will whether a firm integrates the iPhone into email services become a factor in the compensation wars?
* “Crackberry” is used in the context of this post to refer to any device similar in function to a Blackberry, and is not limited to the Blackberry.
Stella Q is on hiatus from Non-Sequiturs. So we’re going to be doing our own end-of-day linkwraps for the time being, unless one of you would like to help us out (in which case, please email us).
Also, we’re in the process of cleaning out our email inbox. Some of these links are old — things that we meant to write about ages ago, but never got around to. We’re sorry that if upsets some of you, but just deal.
* “A One L for the next generation,” per Jeremy Blachman. [Martha Kimes]
* As if guys wearing bluetooths were not annoying enough on their own. [Newsday]
Remember those Bingham McCutchen associates who took buyouts and left the firm? They’re royally p.o.’ed about this article, and they want to set The Record[er] straight about the circumstances surrounding their departures.
Check out their angry letter to The Recorder, plus additional information from an ATL tipster concerning how these buyouts were mishandled, after the jump.
Yesterday we declared ourselves “all Jenner-ed out.” But based on the comments and emails we’ve received, it seems people are still interested in hearing about Jenner & Block.
We have a little more to offer you. A second source confirms what we previously reported:
Your post about yesterday’s meeting was accurate. [Managing partner Gregory Gallopoulos] went through 3 areas: (1) associate compensation (expect a raise announcement later this week), (2) financial health of the firm (doing great, regardless of the temporary slowdown in litigation), and (3) the partner de-equitizations (no further waves of de-equitizations are expected).
And we’re pleased to report that rumors of an Above the Law shout-out are apparently true:
Greg mentioned that since so many people have sent him links to ATL, he’s become somewhat of an ATL aficionado.
For those of you who are still interested — maybe there are a handful of you — there’s a little more after the jump.
Yesterday we passed along the rumor that Joseph Russoniello, of Cooley Godward Kronish in San Francisco, would be returning to a post he held years ago: U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California.
We remain fairly confident in this tip. But for the record, there is nothing official to report just yet. Mr. Russoniello kindly got back to us, but only to advise that he has no comment at this time and can neither confirm nor deny that he has been offered the U.S. Attorney position.
Meanwhile, our friends over at Legal Pad picked up on our post. Check out their analysis, in which they refer to Russoniello as “the frontrunner” per “conventional wisdom,” by clicking here.
In our recent New York Times op-ed piece on Supreme Court clerkship bonuses, we argued that “[f]rom a narrowly economic point of view — focusing on the actual work the clerks will perform, and setting aside the law firms’ quest for prestige and bragging rights — it is difficult to understand why firms fight for the right to shower 26-year-olds with cash.”
One of the contentions we thought about offering in support of this claim was that Supreme Court clerks don’t stick around their law firms for very long after getting their huge bonuses. This was our sense of things, based admittedly on “anec-data.” It seemed to us that SCOTUS clerks go to law firms, stay for maybe two years, and then leave to become law professors, or government or public interest lawyers.
But then we decided to go back and look at the data. We thought it would be interesting to see how many Supreme Court clerks from October Term 2002 and October Term 2003 are still in private practice. The OT 2002 and OT 2003 clerk classes were ideal for the purpose of assessing the effect of bonuses because (1) law firms were offering gargantuan bonuses by this point in time, and (2) enough years have passed to allow for meaningful assessment of the clerks’ career paths.
We undertook this research, and it ended up showing that a reasonably high percentage of clerks — about 50 percent — are in private practice, a few years down the road. It’s not an overwhelmingly high percentage (in which case our argument that the firms effectively subsidize other quarters of the profession would be undermined). But it’s also not as low as we expected. We revised our argument accordingly, omitting any suggestion that a majority of clerks “take the money and run.”
Anyway, having done all this research, we felt like we should put it to some use (since it ended up not being reflected in the final version of the op-ed piece). Posting it on ATL seemed worthwhile enough.
Are you curious about what Supreme Court clerks from a few years ago are up to nowadays? Check out the lists, after the jump.
Now some of you might be saying, “Delaware — WTF???” But if that’s your reaction, you don’t know very much about corporate law.
Delaware is, after all, our nation’s capital of corporate law. Numerous top corporations are chartered in Delaware, and the state’s Chancery Court hears some of the biggest-ticket corporate cases around.
So what do law firm associates in Delaware earn these days? We received some helpful information from a tipster:
“Skadden and Fish & Richardson pay NYC market. At Skadden, at least, that includes an NYC market bonus.”
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Detailed salary charts for local firms, plus your comments, appear after the jump.
What’s that you say? You want to get us a gift? Oh really, that’s not necessary!
But if you’d like to do something nice for us, here’s one suggestion. Head over to Niki Black’s Legal Antics blog, and vote for Above the Law as “funniest law blog.”
(Another nice thing you can do: support us in this year’s New York Marathon. It’s for a good cause — cancer research. And it’s tax-deductible.)
P.S. Are we shameless and self-promoting? Sure. But that’s part of our job description, y’know….
P.P.S. We’re going to offline for a little while — taking a long lunch. If anything major happens while we’re gone, please email us, or note it in the comments. Thanks.
Judge Larry Seidlin is best known for tearfully presiding over the Anna Nicole Smith proceedings in Florida state court. But perhaps it’s the American people who should be shedding tears right now. From the Daily Business Review:
Broward Circuit Judge Larry Seidlin – the weeping probate judge who presided over the recent legal fight for custody of Anna Nicole Smith’s body – announced today that he is leaving the bench at the end of this month.
“It is now time for me to devote more of my daily life to my own young family and to pursue the many opportunities that have been offered to me outside the judicial system,” Seidlin wrote in his resignation letter to Gov. Charlie Crist.
So why should we shed tears over the departure of this fine jurist?
It has been rumored that Seidlin has a television show in the works.
Update: The rumors appear to be true. Seidlin reportedly has reached a deal with CBS.
One possibility (for a small portion of the haul): Pay off the $1.25 million fine that Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) just slapped them with, for allegedly withholding information about an insurance policy in the World Trade Center insurance coverage litigation.
A Washington Post article about members of Congress trying to live on $21 a week — the average amount food stamp recipients receive as income supplements — features a source you wouldn’t expect to see quoted in such a piece:
Rick Hindle, executive chef for the Skadden, Arps law firm in Washington, showed recently that you don’t have to spend hours in the kitchen to prepare healthful food for $1 or less per meal….
As part of the launch of a new USDA Web site for food stamp recipients, Hindle cooked colorful quesadillas (60 cents per serving), spinach and meat cakes with brown rice (92 cents) and orange banana frosty (52 cents)….
Hindle, who trained at the Culinary Institute of America, plans to add the quesadillas and some of the other recipes to his regular repertoire.
Guess the Skadden summer program in D.C. doesn’t match up to New York. There’s a big difference between an “orange banana frosty” and a flute brimming over with Cristal.
Yes, there was a big associates’ meeting at Jenner & Block earlier today. Here’s what happened, according to a source:
1. We’re going up this week. No word on whether there will be compression or whether it will be retro to a certain date. The delay was apparently due to the fact that (a) clients get pissed (they don’t want rate bumps and can’t compete for their own in-house recruits — if solely the former then I’m concerned about our client base), (b) we have a “diffuse” management system (sold as a positive in that not just two people run the firm), and (c) they are running the numbers mid-year. It will NOT be accompanied by any billable increase and no other form of comp will raise.
2. We’re apparently stronger than ever — living on cash (as opposed to loans — apparently most firms run negative in the beginning of the year), litigation is indeed slow, but this is apparently a nation-wide phenomenon and our transactional practices are booming.
3. Partner de-equitizations were “pruning” of old remnants. Still no mention of the fact that this was motivated by the desire to drive up PPP.
He also mentioned that there will be some big lateral additions to the NYC office soon.
All in all, a positive meeting, but it’s still strange that they have taken so much longer than other firms.
Okay, we’re all Jenner-ed out now. Do you work at a Biglaw shop and have some interesting dirt about your workplace to share? If so, please email us.
We’ve received a number of interesting responses to our recent NYT op-ed on Supreme Court clerkship bonuses. We’ll probably respond to some of them in a subsequent post. For now, we’ll just share with you this one reader email:
HERE’S A TIP Re “BONUS BABIES” LOVE THOSE BONUS BABIES WHO WERE CLERKING FOR THE COURT AND HELPED DELIVER THE ELECTION TO BUBBA BUSH. MAYBE THOSE BONUS BABIES WANT TO SIGN UP FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD SO THEY CAN GET THEIR HEADS BLOWN OFF IN IRAQ. YOU DESCRIBE THE BONUS BABIES AS “GENIUSES” - LOVE IT. IS THIS THE SAME SUPREME COURT THAT DOESN’T WANT TO GIVE OVERTIME PAY TO NURSES ASSISTANTS? HEY, WHAT THE F***, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE LAWYERS. SURE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF HONEST LAWYERS BUT NO ONE HAS EVER MET ONE. LOVE IT.
As those of you who run blogs well know, whenever you get an email in ALL CAPS, it’s gotta be good.
According to rumor, the law firm of Jenner & Block — one of the largest and most prominent shops that hasn’t raised starting salaries to $160K yet — is holding a big associates’ meeting today. We’re following up with our sources and will keep you posted. If you have info to share, please email us (subject line: “Jenner and Block”).
Recently we wrote about the partner demotions at Jenner. In that post, we promised you a later post “focused on the plight of associates rather than partners.” Now we deliver on that promise (although perhaps this information will be superseded soon by the meeting).
Yes, it’s true — we swear! This is not just another wild rumor. You can take this one to the bank!
The Bank of London, that is. From TheLawyer.com, a U.K.-based website:
Weil Gotshal & Manges’ London associates now earn more than their counterparts in New York after a 20 per cent pay hike in London.
The US-headquartered firm is now offering some of the most generous pay packets in the City with newly qualifieds (NQs) now receiving £90,000, representing a 20 per cent jump from £75,000. First-year associates who qualified in September 2006 will receive an average of £95,000.
If you enter the figure of £90,000 into this currency converter, you get the sum of $178,441, based on the current exchange rate. And Weil isn’t even the most high-paying firm in the city:
This puts Weil towards the top of the market in terms of US firms in London. Latham & Watkins still offers NQs the most, with £96,000, and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton offers them £92,000.
Latham’s salary of £96,000 for new lawyers translates into $190,341. Cleary’s £92,000 comes out to $182,411.
So should U.S. associates pack it all in and jump across the pond? Or does London’s high cost of living, plus the crappy food — Gordon Ramsay and good Indian joints notwithstanding — make the move not worth it?
Feel free to discuss associate compensation in London in the comments. This will constitute the open thread on London and the U.K. that some of you have been asking for. Thanks!
Update: This is kind of random, but click here for Google Maps directions from New York to London. We especially like step #21.
Further Update: A reader notes that if you get recruited by your firm’s New York office for a London position, you could do even better. More details after the jump.
O happy day! Our New York Times op-ed piece, praising the lavish bonuses bestowed upon Supreme Court clerks, has made the Most Emailed Articles list:
Thanks to all of you who have visited the NYT homepage and emailed this article to your friends and loved ones. And thanks to the bloggers who have linked to our piece and shared their thoughts. E.g.:
Veteran litigator Joseph Russoniello, of Cooley Godward Kronish in San Francisco, was recentlyrumored to be a contender for the post of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California.
We’re now hearing that the job — which Russoniello previously held, from 1982 to 1990 — may be his once again. From a tipster:
I have on good authority that Joe Russoniello was offered and accepted the US attorney position for the N. District of CA. I don’t think its been announced yet.
If Russoniello does get the job, it would be very “Fred Fielding”-esque: bring back an elder statesman, from the Reagan Administration, with impeccable credentials. At least the Dems won’t be able to give him a hard time over a lack of prosecutorial experience.
We’ve contacted Joseph Russoniello, but we haven’t heard back from him yet. We’ll let you know if and when he gets back to us.
P.S. We’re sad that the fabulous Eumi Choi apparently didn’t get the nod.
It’s official: Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred over the weekend. From the AP:
The five-day ethics trial ended Nifong’s three-decade legal career, which he spent entirely as a prosecutor in Durham County. He was generally viewed as an honest lawyer before taking over the case of a woman who told police she was raped at a March 2006 lacrosse team party where she was hired to perform as a stripper.
Is it any wonder that a Google search for “honest lawyer” generates results like this?
(Oddly enough, the top result for “honest lawyer” is the Honest Lawyer hotel, in Durham — but a different Durham.)
We’re beginning to wonder whether this “NY to 190” business is just a big practical joke. But even though no real information has emerged, and the co-chair of Simpson’s personnel committee told us his firm is “not currently considering an increase in associate salaries,” the rumors continue to swirl.
Here are two email messages we’ve received that are representative of many others:
“NYC big firm starting salary may be increasing to $190k in the coming weeks. My source was a recruiter whose friend at Sidley told him the news. Have you all heard anything or is this bs?”
“[A] friend of mine, who is a partner at a big Chicago firm, with a large presence in NYC, mentioned that pay raises are likely in NYC and that the firm has budgeted $190k as the starting first-year salary.”
Such gossip is not far removed from this commenter’s parody:
My dad’s step-mom’s estranged aunt is a janitor at Cravath, and she said she found a scribbled note on the floor of a partner’s office saying “damn, looks like we have to go to at least $175k soon; call wife re: can’t add second pool to home in Nantucket this summer.”
We wish we had more to tell you right now. We’ll continue to dig.
But at this point, your guess is as good as ours. So feel speculate to discuss in the comments. Vote in our reader polls, if you haven’t done so already.
Will any of this chatter make associate pay raises happen — or happen faster? Unlikely. But hey, there are worse ways to pass the time.
Guess the Durham district attorney isn’t the only prominent government lawyer named Mike (and embroiled in controversy) to announce his resignation on this Friday afternoon.
Has the U.S. Attorney firing controversy claimed another victim? Maybe (assuming he’s not leaving for other reasons). From the AP:
A senior Justice Department official who helped carry out the dismissals of federal prosecutors said Friday he is resigning.
Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, is the fifth Justice official to leave after being linked to the dismissals of the prosecutors….
Elston is taking a job with a law firm in the Washington area, according to the statement.
We told you to expect some high-level departures from the DOJ. Anyone know where Elston is headed?
P.S. Oh, and here’s the latest in the U.S. Attorney affair: the news that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will also be investigated.
* Who is this really protecting? Do women really need someone to tell us we can’t date this guy? Judging by an unscientific sample of good women dating assholes, kind of. [Feministing]
* Angelina’s lawyer self-deprecates; Angelina doesn’t disagree with his bone-headedness; even Jon Stewart is not immune to her charms. [Legal Profession Blog]
* ABC and Fox look the same to me right now. [BreitBart]
* If 22-year-old graduates with little (if any) teaching experience are fortunate enough to get a coveted, resume- and Ivy-worthy job with Teach for America, they will get health benefits — plus a free pass to say things like “I found my fellow teachers intelligent, caring and effective” and “I have no idea why so many low-income parents make sacrifices to send their kids to private schools” (to peers who did indeed survive public schools) — before bailing for law school. [Citizen-Times]
* And because I am grateful to live in the free world, I encourage everyone to voice his or her opinions whenever given the chance. Of course, these bloggers do so with full disclosure of their identities in the face of harsh political consequences, but we can’t help that we’re cowardly, coddled, self-obsessed risk-averse lawyers living in the U.S. [All Africa]
It’s a Friday afternoon in June. Of course it couldn’t pass without a high-profile resignation. From WRAL:
Mike Nifong made the announcement at the end of his testimony Friday at his State Bar ethics trial to the surprise of the families and defense attorneys of the cleared lacrosse players.
“Throughout the years I have served as a prosecutor I have always tried to do the right thing,” a tearful Nifong said. “In this case, I was trying to todo the right thing. Much of the criticism directed to me in the is case is justified. The allegations that I’m a liar, however, are not justified.”
But is Michael Nifong… a plagiarist?
(No, of course we’re not serious. We just like to connect every story to Monica Goodling.)
Regular ATL readers know that the venerable Harvard Law Review is something of a shark tank. See here, here, and here.
So maybe the rough-and-tumble world of Gannett House is where Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), a former HLR president, learned how to campaign. From the NYT:
Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information [about a blind trust], the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline.
The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.
“D-Punjab”? Not very politically correct of the Obama campaign.
We bet that Senator Obama — who tries to cast himself as Mr. Sweetness & Light (and Hope, The Audacity Of) — will try to stay above the fray. He’ll leave the dirty work to his staffers (a la Geffengate).
But we wanted to bring this to your attention. We think it’s unfair that ourgirl Hillary gets attacked for being allegedly conniving, but equally devious competitors don’t get called out on such things.
Update: You can view the Barack Obama campaign memo, entitled “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)’s Personal Financial and Political Ties to India,” by clicking here (PDF).
You graduate from Harvard Law School. You head off to a good-sized but not enormous city, thinking you’ll be a big fish in a smaller pond. You make it on to the local bench; you can see a federal judicial appointment in the distance. What could go wrong?
Well, lots — if you allegedly load up a state-owned computer with porn, then allegedly steal it. Meet Larry Manzanares:
Manzanares, 50, was charged with three felonies Wednesday in the theft of a state-owned computer from the courthouse. Investigators found “massive” amounts of pornography on the computer, which Manzanares tried to delete before turning the computer over to police.
“This is a hard fall for a person whose career appeared to be on a rapid rise to even greater achievement, said Denver lawyer and former prosecutor Craig Silverman.
“It’s a sad and tragic situation. Larry Manzanares had a wonderful reputation. I think it’s going to be tough for him to resume a legal career in Colorado even if he’s acquitted,” he said.
“Even if” he’s acquitted? Somehow we doubt Judge Manzares will have trouble getting off.
P.S. We rolled our eyes at the mention of “massive” amounts of pornography on the allegedly stolen laptop. What exactly qualifies as “massive”?
Everyone with a wank collection wants a certain amount of diversity in the materials. Does a stack of Playboys under the bed constitute a “massive” collection of porn?
Update / clarification: Sorry if the foregoing was unclear. As a commenter explains, the allegation is that Larry Manzanares stole a state-owned computer, THEN filled it to the gills with porn.
It’s the “stealing” part that’s potentially criminal, NOT the downloading of porn. Last time we checked, Denver was not governed by Sharia.
We realize that most “secondary” legal markets get only one bite at the apple — i.e., one dedicated post. And we already covered New Jersey.
But the Garden State is our home state, where we practiced for a number of years, so we will show some favoritism (as is our prerogative). And the news we’re about to share was sent to us directly by the firm’s public relations firm. Since many large law firms try to pretend we don’t exist avoid communicating with us — unlike, say, our more fortunate colleagues at MSMoutlets — we are favorably disposed towards law firms that do show us courtesies. [FN1]
So good news, New Jerseyans. A New Jersey-based firm, as opposed to an out-of-state firm with an NJ presence, is now paying $140K. From the press release:
Lowenstein Sandler announced a salary increase to $140,000, effective January 1, 2008, for new associates joining the firm beginning in September. This increase will also be taken into account during the regular year-end process setting compensation for more senior-level associates.
Lowenstein Sandler broke from the pack of New Jersey’s home-grown firms Thursday and announced it would pay first-year associates $140,000 next year, a $15,000 increase.
The 250-lawyer Roseland firm also said salaries for some first-year associates in its New York office might be even higher, depending on practice area and performance….
Lowenstein Sandler’s announcement could exert pressure for pay raises at the other New Jersey firms that are pegged at the $125,000 level: Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross, Gibbons and McCarter & English, all in Newark.
So will the competition follow suit? Can they really afford to? Lowenstein, with profits per partner last year of $781,600, is one of the state’s most profitable shops.
(Yep — PPP of almost $800K. It’s not New York, but Jersey doesn’t do too badly for itself. Just ask TonySoprano.)
For those of you who are curious, the full text of the Lowenstein Sandler press release appears after the jump.
[FN1] Okay, we should stop bitching about our lack of access. In the past few months, it has improved — greatly. Now many Biglaw partners and spokespersons will actually deign to respond to our emails and return our phone calls.
Holy never-used bread machine, Batman — none of this week’s couples has a Williams-Sonoma registry! What the hell? Is the engaged set abandoning the yuppie respectability of W-S for the groovier vibe of Crate & Barrel?
We continue our series of posts examining the nation’s less-than-gigantic legal markets. Some of the markets we cover are scorned by the New York and L.A. types. But since the posts continue to generate lots of comments and discussion — over 160 comments on yesterday’s post on the Upper
Thanks for your responses to our recent call for memos. Here are two more firms that have announced associate pay raises:
Continue reading "Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: More Announcements, and Weekend Open Thread"
(52) Comments
Okay, this is kinda random. But it’s Friday, so please give us some latitude.
It’s fitting that on this, the last week of the Supreme Court term, LEWW is considering a major test case. The issue: One couple has a Rhodes Scholarship, one has a SCOTUS clerkship, and one has two YLS degrees. How do we rank them?
After yesterday, we thought they were all done for the Term. We thought wrong.
Earlier this month, we 
Back on Wednesday, we 
Here’s a quick follow-up on 
It’s not easy to be a two-time winner of our 
We thought we were done with our series of posts profiling various “secondary” legal markets. But then several of you 
Are you here in Washington, DC? And are you by any chance free this evening?
*****************
We recently 
From the opinion of Chief Justice John “Sordid Business” Roberts:
Before those big Supreme Court opinions start drifting in, let’s put in a quick word about clerkship bonuses.
* Who says Loyola 2Ls can’t land good jobs? [
See 
Maybe blood oaths work in the Mafia. But outside organized crime circles, they may be harder to enforce. From the 
We’re more or less done with our series of posts profiling various “secondary” legal markets. We thought about putting up the Portsmouth thread that some 
While we’re on the subject of judicial clerkships (or 
Some good news for law clerks heading to the New York office of 
The typical 
* He killed, but it was a tough crowd; they crucified him. [
In addition to handing down some 
Working as a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice offers many advantages over toiling as a law firm associate. Greater responsibility. Better hours. Nicer bosses (with some 
Remember Niki Black’s 
We’re going to be offline for a bit. We’re taping a segment of 
What the heck is going on in the Washington office of Skadden Arps? First we read about the firm’s 
Two Louisiana lawyers, Michael Fawer and Joseph Bartels — the brawling brothers-in-law we wrote about 
We hear that 
Are you a Texas law firm associate who is sick of tired of working 
We did a post on associate salaries in the Texas markets 
The plummeting ratings of Katie Couric aren’t the only problem for CBS these days. The network just got slapped with a $50 million lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation. From 
If you’re looking for the latest scoop on 
They prefer crack, thank you very much.
Who cares about all those fancy-schmancy Supreme Court decisions that just got handed down? This morning brings news of a far more important legal development.
David Souter is signing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s yearbook. Sam Alito is hoping he’ll get a better locker next year. Nino Scalia is mapping out which European restaurants he’s going to hit this summer. Yes, that’s right: today is the last scheduled day of the Supreme Court’s Term.
We can’t publish all (or even most) of the announcements like this that we receive. But since we give those Harvard Law School kids such a hard time, airing lots of their 
Perkins Coie is raising to market in California, with a catch. To get the raise, associates must 1) be “on pace” of 1900 hours; and 2) have “no outstanding timesheet penalties.” 
We have a ruling in the HappyMealGate case (prior coverage 
Ok, at first we didn’t care, but now we’re getting jacked around (along with everybody else in the contest) by Phila Lawyer! This aggression will not stand, man! Don’t hold Lat’s momentary absence against us; 
The New York Observer has their 
This from a source:
Hi, 
Remember those 
Yesterday we 
Now some of you might be saying, “Delaware — WTF???” But if that’s your reaction, you don’t know very much about corporate law.
Hey, guess what? Today is our birthday!
Judge Larry Seidlin is best known for tearfully presiding over the Anna Nicole Smith proceedings in Florida state court. But perhaps it’s the American people who should be shedding tears right now. From the 
So what’s 
Yes, it’s true — we swear! This is not just another 
It’s Friday night, and we’re off the clock. So we’ll keep it short and sweet.
Guess the 
* Who is this really protecting? Do women really need someone to tell us we can’t date this guy? Judging by an unscientific sample of good women dating assholes, kind of. [
It’s a Friday afternoon in June. Of course it couldn’t pass without a high-profile resignation. From 
Regular ATL readers know that the venerable Harvard Law Review is something of a shark tank. See 
You graduate from Harvard Law School. You head off to a good-sized but not enormous city, thinking you’ll be a big fish in a smaller pond. You make it on to the local bench; you can see a federal judicial appointment in the distance. What could go wrong?
Why is 
We realize that most “secondary” legal markets get only one bite at the apple — i.e., one dedicated post. And we already covered 
We continue our series of posts examining the nation’s less-than-gigantic legal markets. Some of the markets we cover are scorned by the New York and L.A. types. But since the posts continue to generate lots of comments and discussion — over 160 comments on yesterday’s post on the