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?

Full memos, after the jump.

* Did John Carney's guest post attacking Dahlia Lithwick tick you off? Then read this, it's funny. [QuizLaw]

* Is having a personal injury lawyer in your "hot yoga" class a wise idea? Not as bad as you might think. [The Recorder]

* Could admin law be turned into a computer game? Quite possibly -- although satisfaction not guaranteed (sorry, Roy Pearson). [Concurring Opinions]

* Should Aaron Charney move to Miami? Give him a lifetime supply of SPF 45, and send him on his way. [Daily Business Review]

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.

Here are the candidates:

1. Jean Galbraith and Jeremy Tobacman

2. Damara Crawley and Kevin Chambers

3. Catherine Roach and Joshua Chafetz

Read on to see which couple will emerge with the sweaty flush of victory!

Our email correspondence with the super-hot lawyer turned Playboy model, Oona O'Connell, continues.

A brief question-and-answer session, plus an uncropped version of this Oonalicious photo, after the jump.

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.)

Court switches, will hear detainee cases [SCOTUSblog]
Supreme Court Agrees to Take Guantanamo Bay Cases [Volokh Conspiracy]

Earlier this month, we posted about the laptop policy of the New York Bar Exam. A lot of you weren't fans:

But this story, like the Oona O'Connell saga, also has a happy ending.

For those of you who care, details appear after the jump.

[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."

Today our scoop was picked up by The Recorder (and then by the WSJ Law Blog). From The Recorder:

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.

* This whole thing is just out-of-control weird. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* I was very wrong; it is going away. [NYT]

* You would think that a suicide attempt might be good enough for a mistrial. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Court overrules per se rule on price fixing. [U.S . Supreme Court(PDF)]

* 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 prior coverage. 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.

Starting salaries for Pitt, Duquesne law school grads on the rise [Pittsburgh Business Times]
Lawyers' starting salaries rise 7 percent as local firms try to keep up [Pittsburgh Business Times]

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!

Banding Together 2007 [Gifts for the Homeless]

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.

Read the rest, after the jump.

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.

Check it out, after the jump.

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.)

Court strikes down school integration plans [SCOTUSblog]
Schools Must Ignore Race in Placing Pupils, Justices Say [Associated Press]

And we're not speaking metaphorically, about the remaining decisions from October Term 2006.

We're talking about the shoes of celebrated Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, of ABC News. Will a pair of Manolos fall from the sky?

So, what happened to JCG's footwear? Was it a case of sabotage, by an increasingly threatened rival?

Go Home Already: Missed Connections [DCist]

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.

* That was quick. [CNN]

* Linda G. says Scalia is calling Roberts a puss. [NYT]

* Wow, these guys got rid of the death penalty before us. [Jurist]

* Is it weird to anybody else that the WWE lawyer is looking into this? [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Does working for free pay? [WSJ Law Blog]

Our Bloggingheads TV appearance with the fabulous Ann Althouse, previously discussed here, is now online:

David Lat & Ann Althouse [Bloggingheads.tv]
"Bong Hits 4 Lawyers" [Althouse]

Earlier: Programming Note: Ready for Our Close-Up?

* Who says Loyola 2Ls can't land good jobs? [SCOTUSblog]

* Lobster rolls. And Chipwich. Yum. [Gawker; Althouse]

* 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]

See here. And another one is going to prison.

Just another day here in the nation's capital.

P.S. Best name ever for a paramour involved in a corruption case: Italia Federici.

Senate Subpoenas White House, Cheney House [Wonkette]
White House, Cheney's Office Subpoenaed [Associated Press]
Ex-Interior Aide Is Sentenced in Lobbying Case [New York Times]

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?

Judge: Blood promise can't be enforced [Associated Press via Yahoo! News]

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.

More details about this market, after the jump.

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.

Now Accepting Applications [The Clerkship Notification Blog (2007-2008 Season)]

Following up on yesterday's post about law firm advertising campaigns, here's another interesting ad:

Commentary after the jump.

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.

From the New York Observer:

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.

* He killed, but it was a tough crowd; they crucified him. [CNN]

* Jeez, all sorts of shenanigans going on with convicted murderers. [CNN]

* It's not going away folks. [Jurist]

* Yep, it's still constitutional in Georgia. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Is this going to lead to people who suck at it not even being allowed to play golf? [WSJ Law Blog]

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?

Plenty crazy. More discussion, after the jump.

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 chairs working 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."

Check out the email, after the jump.

An interesting and odd observation about law firm ad campaigns, from Copyranter:

What The F**k is up with all the law firms using goofy animal symbolism? Dykema thinks it's a giraffe amongst zebras. Zuckerman Spaeder says I'm a canary threatened by a lion.

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:

"Bear lawyers who accept babies as payment."

What, no sharks or leeches? [copyranter]

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 desperate pleas 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.

And, the winner is... [Legal Antics]

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.

More details, after the jump.

We're going to be offline for a bit. We're taping a seg