This week has been fairly quiet in terms of associate bonus news. We started wondering: Are you, our readers, holding out on us? Have there been bonus announcements from major firms that you haven’t told us about?

Maybe not — at least not from West Coast firms. From an article by Kellie Schmitt for The Recorder:

Want to kill a conversation with a California law firm leader? Talk about bonuses.

Weeks after top New York firms started announcing lavish special bonuses on top of the usual year-end handouts, California’s firms have made no moves. This week, leaders at eight of 10 leading West Coast firms declined multiple requests to talk bonuses.

So no, it’s not our imagination. West Coast firms are still deliberating about bonuses. For example, we’ve heard that the relevant committee at O’Melveny & Myers recently met — but we’ve not heard about what conclusion they reached.

More discussion, after the jump.

As you’ve probably noticed, we’ve been experiencing some technical difficulties around here. And it seems we’re not alone.

From an ATL reader at NYU Law School:

More fun at NYU, and this one actually affects me. We had manhole fire near one of the two NYU law dorms (the one I live in), and this has cut the power to the building. Making this even more annoying is that I planned to outline a lot today (yes its nerdy, but one week until exams), and needed an active power source, and am now huddled in the overcrowded law library.

Here’s an official story about it: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5803017. We haven’t received any news from the Administration.

I realize it’s probably a small thing, but if a list-serve clusterf*ck can get on, why not a little power outage.

But since we received that email, the law school administration has spoken. More after the jump.

A reader alerted us to this informative article (registration-free) from the New York Law Journal. A summary from our correspondent:

This piece talks about the New York State bar passage rate, and specifically how the Tier 2 schools jumped up the ranks this year. Cardozo moved to the third-highest bar passage rate out of all the New York law schools, beating out both Fordham and Cornell.

I think with all the tier 2 trash talking on this site lately, you should give a post dedicated to the surprising accomplishment of those tier 2 bar takers in NY.

An excerpt from the article:

For as long as anyone in the legal academy remembers, the top three spots have shifted a few percentage points among Cornell Law, NYU Law and Columbia Law. And for the past several years, Cardozo Law, which opened its doors in 1976, has contended with St. John’s University School of Law and Fordham Law for the coveted fourth spot.

“I’m not deeply invested in bar pass rates,” said Cardozo Law Dean David Rudenstine. “But I have to confess, I’m really touched. This is a milestone for our school.”

Congratulations, Cardozo! Your grads rock the New York bar exam.

Law Schools Report Record Gains in Bar Exam Pass Rate [New York Law Journal]

Gracing the front page of today’s Washington Post is an article that will appeal to many ATL readers. It’s by Post reporter Ian Shapira, who previously wrote this interesting piece about summer associates. Here’s the headline:

Okay, not a terribly novel development. As one of several ATL readers who wrote us about this story observed, “it’s not exactly Man Bites Dog.”

But even if the article may not be earth-shattering, it’s a well-crafted, thought-provoking piece. We think it will get an interesting discussion going. Also, anything that gets a general audience to care about the niche topic of law firms, like a front page WaPo article, is a good thing in our book.

Excerpts and observations, after the jump.

Here’s the latest Job of the Week, courtesy of ATL’s career partner, Lateral Link. Check out Lateral Link’s completely revamped website and new features. Now you can find the Job of the Week listed below in the Featured Jobs section of your MyBio page.

Position: Counsel - Merchant Services Group

Location: New York, NY

Description: Major international credit card company is seeking a counsel to provide legal support to the company’s Merchant Services Group, which manages strategic relationships with merchants in the travel and entertainment and B2B industries. Responsibilities include contract negotiation, marketing and strategic relationship support, updates on applicable legal developments, and general business unit legal support, as the primary legal counsel for such groups.

Requirements: Minimum of 5-7 years experience practicing commercial law in an in-house department or law firm. Experience in the credit card industry desirable, but not required. Member of the New York bar in good standing. Extensive experience drafting and negotiating complex commercial agreements, including strategic alliances and marketing agreements. Business-oriented, financially sophisticated, proactive lawyer. Strong work ethic.

Job Code: 7293

Earlier: Prior Job of the Week listings (scroll down)

If you go to Thacher Proffitt & Wood, you might get laid off. Or you might get…. oh, never mind.

From Roll On Friday:

In an exciting development for lonely male structured finance lawyers, US firm Thacher Proffitt has recruited a former Playboy model to join its structured finance group.

The lawyer bared all back in 1999 while she was at university but has now joined the firm as an associate. However, she may yet be grateful for another career to fall back on: this week the firm warned 24 of its structured finance and real estate associates that they are likely to be laid off in the New Year.

Managing partner Paul Tvetenstrand (try saying that after a couple of pints) blamed the lay-offs on the slow market following the credit crunch. Putting a brave face on the news, he claimed that it would be “unfair” on the associates for them to keep their jobs as that would mean “putting their careers on hold”. RollOnFriday suspects the unfortunate associates might not see it that way.

Tvetenstrand declined to comment on whether or not he had previously had a modelling career.

In addition to the likely layoffs, TPW is encouraging first-year associates to depart voluntarily. But is giving them an ex-Playmate for a colleague likely to encourage associate attrition? We have our doubts.

Thacher Proffitt recruits Playboy model [RollOnFriday.com]

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Thacher Proffitt Announces Likely Future Layoffs

Because it’s much better to have a toy manufacturer as an enemy than an angry mob of club-wielding Sudanese. Here’s the latest news about the whole “Teddy Bear named Mohammed” controversy, from the Daily Mail (via Drudge):

Thousands of Islamic fanatics wielding clubs and knives are marching through the streets of Khartoum demanding the execution of teddy bear teacher Gillian Gibbons.

As the mother-of-two started a 15-day prison term, protestors left mosques across the Sudanese capital to denounce the “lenient verdict” and call for the death penalty.

For those of you who haven’t been following the story, here’s some background:

Mrs Gibbons, a divorced mother-of-two, was arrested on Sunday and on Wednesday charged with insulting Islam, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

It came after seven-year-old pupils chose to call a teddy bear Mohammed at the Unity High School in Khartoum, where she had worked since August.

During the court case behind closed doors yesterday it was revealed that the school’s office assistant, Sara Khawad, had complained to the education authorities - leading to the teacher’s arrest.

In a statement read to court, Mrs Gibbons tearfully stressed she had not meant to cause offence and pointed out that it had been her pupils who had chosen the name.

Executing someone for naming a Teddy Bear “Mohammed” might raise an Eighth Amendment issue. But we don’t think they have that over in Sudan.

Thousands of Islamic fanatics wielding knives demand jailed teddy bear teacher is executed [Daily Mail]

* Wow, you’re hanging around for that couch change Paterno? Why don’t you do us a favor and retire already? Seriously; it’s enough already with the being old and the sucking. [AP via How Appealing]

* Mas CAFE, por favor. [CNN]

* BP admits it has a little bit of a pollution problem. [Jurist]

* He shot a man in Reno…but not to watch him die, according to him. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice pays to settle ethics violaton claims. [Athens Banner-Herald]

We commend secretaries who don’t just cover the phones, but show some initiative and entrepreneurial spirit. From the Chicago Tribune:

A receptionist for the Cook County public defender’s office accepted delivery of almost 40 pounds of marijuana at her Loop office, prosecutors alleged Wednesday.

At her bond hearing Wednesday, prosecutors said Lamour Holloway, 40, accompanied by two children, carted the drugs to her husband as he waited in a car behind the Cook County Administration Building at 69 W. Washington St….

“I think it’s clear that not only is she committing a crime by accepting a package containing cannabis using the mail service, but as a public employee there is a sense of trust,” said Assistant State’s Atty Anna Demacopoulos. “She is an employee of the public defender’s office, working in a public building, and she violated the sanctity of that public building.”

Oh please. It’s not like she worked in the prosecutor’s office; she worked for the PD. If she wants to walk a mile in the shoes of a criminal defendant, like the ones her office represents, what’s wrong with that?

Bail set at $80,000 in drug arrest at county building [Chicago Tribune]

This actually happened quite some time ago — last month, to be exact. But we’re happy to write about it because (1) it hasn’t been blogged about elsewhere, as far as we know, and (2) with the passage of time, tempers have cooled. So maybe now people can look back on it with amusement rather than anger.

A summary, from one of the several tipsters who drew our attention to this:

A friend of mine at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama, sent me this. Apparently some girl sent out a mass email about President Bush’s veto of some health care legislation. This set off a whole clusterf**k of responding emails, with the debate devolving into one over race and class. From reading through the several threads, it’s almost frightening that some of these people are actually going to become lawyers.

[One of the more] recent post[s] is especially enlightening…. [T]he author states that “The powers that be count on sellouts to climb the ladder of success and refuse to help those underneath them. That way they can use you sellouts as tokens….”

However, the most hilarious part of this whole thing is where one of the black (1L) students responds to an Asian student by saying, “To the Asian…..u aint black.” Further idiocy follows.

The aforementioned “idiocy,” after the jump.

The ABA Journal just announced its Blawg 100: “the 100 best Web sites by lawyers, for lawyers, as chosen by the editors of the ABA Journal.” And we’re happy to report that Above the Law is among them. Very cool!

The ABA Journal has divided the 100 legal blogs into different categories. Readers can vote for their favorite website in each category. ATL appears, appropriately enough, in the Gossip category.

In the voting, right now we’re getting our clock cleaned by a site called That’s What She Said. Can you help us catch up?

To cast your vote, click here. Thanks in advance for your support!

The ABA Journal Blawg 100 [ABA Journal]

With the police, who pulled you over for a traffic infraction. But the good news is that you’re getting it back. From CBS:

Eight grams of medical marijuana seized from a Garden Grove man during a traffic stop must be returned to him, according to an appeals court ruling directing local law enforcement to uphold state, not federal law.

A three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal [in California] weighed in on the issue in a published decision that sets precedent for future cases on similar issues.

The marijuana, which belonged to Felix Kha, 22, was confiscated during a traffic stop on June 10, 2005.

The city of Garden Grove tried to argue “that to the extent state law authorizers or mandates the return of Kha’s marijuana, it is preempted by federal law.” The appeals court didn’t see it that way:

Kha’s attorneys argued that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution effectively prohibits federal interference with California’s medical marijuana laws, and the three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed.

The justices found that because, under state law, Kha was lawfully entitled to possess the marijuana, “due process and fundamental fairness dictate that it be returned to him.”

Indeed. Pass the bong, Your Honors!

P.S. The headline that CBS gave to the story is wrong. It was a state court, not a federal court, that issued the ruling.

Federal Court Rules Pot To Be Returned To Driver [CBS]

Compared to their colleagues in the trial court, appellate judges have a reputation for being delicate, academic creatures, with less in the way of “street smarts.” But don’t lump New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge Ira Robinson in that group.

From the Albuquerque Journal (subscription):

New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge Ira Robinson expected the worst Tuesday night when he fell to the ground as he tried to fight off a man lunging at him with a knife.

“I really thought the son of a gun was gonna stab me when I was down,” he said.

So how did it all unfold?

Robinson, 65, said in an interview Wednesday that the ski-mask-wearing assailant demanded valuables from him and two cousins visiting from San Diego as they walked to their car parked near La Fonda about 10 p.m.

But Robinson refused the robber’s demands:

“He said ‘Give me your money, (expletive)!’ I said, ‘I’m not gonna give you a damn thing!”’

Nice. But we do wish the judge had invoked his judicial office. Maybe he could have held his assailant in contempt?

A little more, after the jump.

In the absence of more associate bonus news — we’ve heard rumors of various committees at various firms meeting, but we have no new announcements — let’s move on to a related subject. What about bonuses for staff attorneys, the non-partnership-track lawyers employed by many large law firms?

Here’s what one of them had to say:

Staff attorneys who work at Biglaw read your blog, too. Most shops have a bonus tied to hours, but they do not specify what the payout will be at each tier (2000, 2200), claiming they’ll see where the market is at in December. I’m wondering whether other firms have a similarly vague policy (vague because the market for staff atty compensation isn’t as established as associates, but it still exists). It would be great if you could dedicate a bonus post to this.

I know staff attorneys will get slayed as third-rate, but that’s why we didn’t work as hard in law school to try to get recruited…. We don’t give a s**t!

Our jobs may be headed to India, as glorified contract attorneys, but we do handle the grunt work, so associates don’t have to. We make their jobs easier, I think. Yeah, I know, they have to answer to the partner — but see my last sentence in the preceding paragraph.

If any of you have information to share about bonuses for staff attorneys, please spill your guts in the comments to this post. Thanks.

The story of Cordero v. Epstein — the lawsuit filed by an aspiring model against prominent Wall Street financier Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that he took advantage of her when she was underage — gets weirder by the day.

The New York Post reported that the model, Maximilia Cordero, was actually born a man — one Maximillian Cordero, b. 1983. Cordero then sued the Post, filing as an exhibit with the court a birth certificate showing she was born a female. A number of you questioned the document’s authenticity, pointing out various irregularities. And such skepticism made sense: Cordero, despite filing the birth certificate with the court, is not including the Post’s claim that she’s a transsexual in her lawsuit.

But even if it may not be the gravamen of her complaint, Cordero still wants you to know she’s not a tranny. From a statement that William Unroch, her lawyer / roommate / possible ex-boyfriend, sent to the Daily Intelligencer (via Gawker):

Ms. Cordero will be happy to attend a televised nude settlement conference or celebrity charity benefit nude tea party with Rupert Murdoch and Lucifer Carne [a reference to Post reporter Lucy Carne] if the NY Post feels this would clear up the matter. Both Ms Cordero and Mr. Murdoch can appear nude and state their positions on this matter of grave public concern.

Hmm… Time for an ATL field trip?

More insanity, after the jump.

Our latest legal celebrity sighting: Justice Antonin Scalia, spotted at Georgetown University Law Center. He is believed to have been at GULC to speak to a con law class.

Of the current justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia clearly inspires the greatest amount of fanatical devotion. How many other justices have their own fansite?

(Okay, Justice Thomas has one too. And with his new, bestselling memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, he’s definitely building a fan base. But we still think that Justice Scalia has the most groupies of any member of the SCOTUS.)

And how many other justices are asked to sign students’ laptop computers? This student, who had his laptop autographed by AS, was proudly displaying his computer to his classmates, saying that he felt Scalia had “blessed” his laptop for the upcoming exams.

With such a large and devoted following, we have a feeling that Justice Scalia’s forthcoming book — Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, a guide to persuasive legal writing and oral advocacy, which he’s writing together with legendary legal writing teacher Bryan Garner — will sell pretty well too.

Scalia to Join Supreme Court Book Club [Legal Times]

* NWA has to pay pilots’ attorney’s fees. [AP via Yahoo! Finance]

* Morrisey’s not only a miserable bastard, he’s a xenophobe too! (Don’t sue us, Morrisey; we’re just kidding.) [Contact Music]

* Ford rolls over on Explorer suits. [AP via Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* HBO chickens out on trademark suit. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Georgia man with mandatory 10-year sentence in case similar to Genarlow Wilson’s (though different enough according to the Georgia Supreme Court that he was still in prison) given plea deal to get out of jail. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Yesterday the FBI executed a search warrant on the Scruggs Law Firm in Oxford, Mississippi — the shop of high-flying plaintiffs’ lawyer Dickie Scruggs. It wasn’t immediately clear what investigation the search was related to. Here’s some commentary on the situation that we enjoyed, from David Rossmiller (in brackets, following excerpt from news article):

“This is a surprise to everybody connected to the Scruggs Firm,” [lawyer Joey] Langston said, “but I’ve got to tell you people who are very high profile and very successful have to contend with unpleasantries and this is unpleasant, but we’ll contend with it.”

[I like the touch of noblesse oblige here — as if the FBI descending on one’s place of business is the same as, say, getting heckled by drunken lumpenproletariat while showing up in top hat and tails to receive an award for charitable giving.]

Now we have a better idea of what the office search was probably about. From the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger:

Multimillionaire trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs has been indicted on charges of conspiring to bribe a judge in the case involving $26.5-million in attorney fees involving Katrina claims….

According to the indictment, Lafayette County Circuit Judge Henry Lackey cooperated with the FBI in the investigation after reporting a bribery overture to authorities.

According to the indictment, Scruggs and others tried to influence Lackey by giving him $40,000 in cash to resolve the attorney fees’ dispute in favor of Scruggs’ law firm. Some of the conversations between Balducci and Lackey were captured on tape.

An interesting observation, from the WSJ Law Blog:

Down in Mississippi, there has been speculation of a connection between the FBI search warrant and this week’s surprise resignation of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Scruggs’s brother-in-law. Lott’s office told the Sun Herald the two events were but a mere coincidence.

Because, you know, it’s so much better to have people think you stepped down because of a gay sex scandal, as opposed to your brother-in-law’s indictment.

(For the record, the rumors about Sen. Lott and the gay sex scandal appear to be unfounded. See HuffPo and Wonkette — two sites that would, of course, love for the rumors to be true.)

Scruggs arrested on bribery charges [Clarion-Ledger]
More on FBI search of Scruggs’ law offices [Insurance Coverage Law Blog]
Dickie Scruggs Indicted On Federal Bribery Charges [WSJ Law Blog]

* Hey look! Biglaw partners have an ATL of their own, and it’s called, appropriately enough, More Partner Income.

Here’s a post about how to get associates to enter their hours in timely fashion — so partners can get themselves PAID, w00t. Helpful hint: Offer them CANDY! [MorePartnerIncome.com]

* “JD, No Job, Debt - What An Opportunity!” Here’s some advice about how to deal with your predicament. [Law and More]

* Boalt Hall — er, Berkeley Law — students discuss whether post-1L grades matter. For the record, Yale does have grades, and its system is pretty similar to Berkeley’s (except without “High Honors”). [Nuts & Boalts]

* Speaking of Yale Law School, Professor Ian Ayres — our small group professor, and a great teacher — has come up with a brilliant way to get people to lose weight. If you overindulged over Thanksgiving, you should check it out. [New York Sun]

Some of our prior coverage of Heller Ehrman has been a bit gloomy. We take it all back. Now that the firm’s Los Angeles office is under a magnificent new leader — Nancy Sher Cohen, whom we have previously praised in these pages — we see nothing but good things ahead.

Legal Pad conducts a very interesting interview with Nancy Cohen. Here’s an excerpt:

Legal Pad: How do you feel about “Above the Law” blog calling you “divalicious”?

Cohen: I found out about it from several associate who came to show it to me. Isn’t that funny? I just looked at it and howled. There is a lesson there. You just never know who is going to be writing about you, thinking about you, making comments about you. It’s a reminder that you should always do your best and always be sensitive and nice, civil.

We’re confused. Does Ms. Cohen think that we were speaking negatively of her? To the contrary, we had only good things to say. From our prior post:

When we were in private practice, our experiences with Heller Ehrman were quite positive. We attended several depositions defended by the diva-licious Nancy Sher Cohen, who protected her witnesses like a lioness protecting her cubs. We were most impressed by this badass litigatrix (who is also a community activist and cancer survivor; see this profile).

As for the “diva-licious” quip, let the record reflect that the term “diva” is ATL’s highest form of praise. Longtime readers are well aware of our obsession with strong-willed women — especially women who have managed to achieve tremendous success in a traditionally male-dominated field like law.

This is why we are such fans of Senatrix Hillary Clinton, who is a tough, smart, fearless leader. We have no clue why some of you seem to think we don’t like her. We think Senator Clinton is fabulous.

Why do you think we’ve snapped up so many domain names related to her? Visit HillaryClintonIsMyGirl.com, HillaryIsMyGirl.com, Hillarylicious.com, HillaryIsSexy.com, HillarySexy.com, or HillarySex.com. Where do you get redirected to?

‘Badass Diva’ Ready to Run Heller in L.A. [Legal Pad /CalLaw]

Earlier: Going to Heller in a Handbasket? (Part 2)

Ed. note: We have nothing against headhunters or legal recruiters. To the contrary, we’re generally big fans of them — especially the ones who advertise on ATL, making this website possible.

But it can’t be denied that some of them can be real pains in the a**. If you have a headhunter horror story to share, feel free to submit it by email (subject line: “Headhunter Horror Story”).

We’ll kick off the series with this fantastic story, which a reader just submitted. It’s long, but worth it — highly entertaining, suspenseful, and written with real panache. Enjoy!

********************
Sure, we’ve all had annoying recruiters call. Many of us have decided to accept a free lunch from these yahoos from time to time to garner some legal gossip. I was not such a person until yesterday, and it turned out to be an utter disaster.

Part 1: The romancing.
A recruiter, let’s call him Bob, has been calling me for over a year. I have blown him off 1000 times and told him I am happy at my mid-sized firm. My salary and bonus structure is good, and as a third-year lawyer, I’m really practicing law. (I’ve never even summarized a deposition.)

One day, we had plans to go to lunch at a nearby seafood restaurant, but I canceled at the last minute. Still, he calls every few weeks about some new position at some major firm looking for a person exactly like me (which is doubtful, considering my less than stellar law school grades).

Part 2: The lunch invitation.
Bob calls me Monday and says that Jones Day is interested in seeing my resume. Again, he tells me what amazing experience I have, blah blah, and asks me to give him my resume. He also says he still wants to take me to lunch. I say, “Let’s go tomorrow.” He says ok and that he will call me Tuesday morning to finalize plans.

Part 3. The planning.
First thing Tuesday morning, Bob calls and asks me where I’d like to go. I say that I have no idea, he presses me to choose, and I say, “Well, let’s redo our old plans and go to [the seafood restaurant]. I’ve never been there, so I don’t know if it’s good.” He says, “It’s…ok, that’s good. Let’s go there. I wouldn’t want to take you to Jason’s Deli or anything, and there’s not much more over there. Let’s meet at noon.”

Part 4. The falling apart.
At 11:30, Bob leaves a voice mail that he needs to move our lunch to 12:30. At about 12, he calls again to ask if I got the message. He then says, “I wish I could say that some big negotiation came up, but the truth is, I forgot my ATM pin number and it locked me out from getting cash after I tried three different numbers. So I’ll have to use credit for our lunch. But I’ll see you at 12:30.” He then describes what he’ll be wearing.

Read the rest, after the jump.

In the world of Biglaw, bad news and good news go hand in hand these days. Recall that Clifford Chance announced associate layoffs and generous bonuses in the same week.

And now Thacher Proffitt & Wood, on the heels of yesterday’s news about likely future layoffs, is raising base salaries for its senior associates. We haven’t seen the full memo yet, but here’s an excerpt:

“It has long been a primary principle of our attorney compensation philosophy in New York and Washington DC to have our base salaries and annual discretionary bonuses be competitive with the top firms in New York City. In that regard, we are announcing the following changes to associate compensation…”

Our sources describe it as basically a match for the class of 2002 and more senior: 2002 - $250,000, 2001 - $265,000, 2000 - $280,000, and 1999 - $290,000.

Update (2:55 PM): We now have the memo. It appears — together with additional discussion, including a word about bonuses — after the jump.

This Friday, at the Ninth Circuit courthouse in San Francisco, a ceremonial “passing of the gavel” will be held. The court’s outgoing chief judge, Mary M. Schroeder, will hand over the gavel to her successor, Alex Kozinski. Details about the ceremony appear in this press release (PDF).

From How Appealing (additional links collected below):

Judge Kozinski was able to sneak some humor into the news release:

“The chief judge of the circuit assumes the position based on seniority. The chief judge is the judge in regular active service who is senior in commission of those judges who are (1) 64 years of age or under; (2) have served for one year or more as a circuit judge; and (3) have not served previously as chief judge. Judge Kozinski also believes that looks count, though he can provide no support for that proposition.

That last sentence, we’re guessing, is a nod to Judge Kozinski’s victory in our Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary contest. With such a robust sense of humor, is it any surprise that Judge Kozinski has his own Facebook fan club?

The Ninth Circuit’s press release states that “still and video cameras will be permitted” at the gavel passing ceremony, which is taking place on Friday, November 30, at 4 p.m., in Courtroom One of the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse. If an ATL reader (or readers) would be willing to take pictures or videos and send them our way, we’d be most grateful. Thanks!

Ninth Circuit Attempts to Prepare Itself for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski [How Appealing]
‘Hottie’ Judge Kozinski Continues Joke in Press Release [ABA Journal]
Apochiefosis [Volokh Conspiracy]
Gavel Passing to Mark Changing of the Guard for Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (PDF) [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]

Before Thanksgiving, we put up an open thread devoted to discussion of the California bar exam. We’re surprised that nobody mentioned this interesting tidbit of news (which we learned about from a tipster via email):

High-powered Sullivan & Cromwell partner Eric Krautheimer, the alleged tormentor of gay associate Aaron Charney, took and passed the July 2007 California bar exam.

Congratulations, Mr. Krautheimer!

Back in April, at the height of the Aaron Charney controversy, it was rumored that Krautheimer was going to be transferred to S&C’s Los Angeles office. Some speculated that it was to remove him from the New York office, where Brokeback Lawfirm all went down. But if Krautheimer’s move to the West Coast is still going forward, despite the settlement of the Charney lawsuit, we’re guessing Krautheimer has his own personal reasons for wanting to move to L.A.

On our earlier post about the move rumors, a commenter called S&C LA wrote: “No truth to this at all. Sorry, this rumor is just that and nothing more.” Presumably this commenter thinks that Eric Krautheimer — a leading M&A lawyer, and a partner making millions of dollars a year, at one of the nation’s top corporate law firms — took California’s three-day bar exam just for fun.

It must have been strange for a veteran lawyer, almost 15 years out of law school, to be taking the bar next to newly minted law school graduates — including 18-year-old Kathleen Holtz. But then again, former Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan did it — twice.

On the S&C website, Eric Krautheimer is still listed as based in New York. But expect to see him in L.A. sometime soon, now that he’s a member of the California bar.

P.S. On the S&C website, the link to Eric Krautheimer’s bio was moved from here to here. Was the firm trying to render all of ATL’s links to his bio obsolete? If so, nice try — but nothing that a site-wide “Find and Replace” can’t fix.

July 2007 California Bar Examination Pass List [State Bar of California]

Earlier: Brokeback Lawfirm: Is Eric Krautheimer Headed for Hollywood?

A legal staffing agency put up an advertisement soliciting applications for a temporary paralegal position. Cover letters and résumés started rolling in. Like this one:

Hello there,

I am not a paralegal. But, I type 85 WPM and used to be [an] executive assistant and have multiple skillsets, easy to train, that honestly set me $1000 over the salary of a degreed political science bachelors degreed [sic] person. Sadly, she was aggressive and began reading Hitler’s methods and worked her way to stop my success with her deception.

The compliance lawyer finally figured out what she was doing and wound up getting rid of her. She now works in buying and selling electrical components somewhere.

So, I have no way to measure her value or mine within this paralegal field. I’ll let you be the judge.

A cover letter referencing Hitler? + 10 points. We don’t know what “Hitler’s methods” consist of, but then again, we never read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Nazis.

Read the rest of this long, strange, rambling cover letter — does the applicant need a paralegal gig, or a therapist? — after the jump.

Call us old-fashioned, barbaric, or unenlightened — but this strikes us as a bit ridiculous. From ABC News:

Massachusetts lawmakers say a proposed measure that would ban parents from spanking their children, even in their own homes, is a way to protect kids from abuse. But many parents believe it’s an example of government run amok.

In all 50 states, parents are legally allowed to spank their children. But in 29 states it’s illegal for a teacher to practice corporal punishment, including spanking.

A Massachusetts nurse is hoping to change that and make the state the first in the nation to ban corporal punishment at home.

“I think it’s ironic that domestic violence applies to everyone except the most vulnerable — children,” said Kathleen Wolf, who wrote the bill.

Massachusetts lawmakers will consider the bill today.

Ah, the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. If Willie Horton had gotten spanked more as a kid, maybe he wouldn’t have turned to a life of crime.

More discussion, plus the obligatory reader poll — yes, we really do care what you think! — after the jump.

Wondering where to spend New Year’s Eve this year? Well, if you’re in New York City, do you have any friends over at Skadden? Surely you must. Considering that the firm recently passed the 2,000 attorney mark, everyone has friends at Skadden (if they don’t work there themselves).

From an internal email by “New York office guru” Wally Schwartz, posted at the Skadden Insider blog:

Since our 4 Times Square office is located in such close proximity to New York City’s New Year’s Eve celebration many employees have rung in the New Year by viewing the festivities from our offices. For the most part these gatherings have been enjoyable and appropriate. However, during last year’s celebration there were several problems caused by an excessive number of guests, and, in some cases, excessive drinking.

[T]he following policies are being implemented for this year’s celebration:

Each employee is limited to inviting a maximum of three guests, each of whom must be registered with security….

Guests must be accompanied, or met, by their Skadden host in order to be admitted.

No alcohol will be permitted.

A New Year’s Eve celebration without booze? That sucks.

Moral of the story: If you’re spending New Year’s Eve at SASMF, get royally trashed before showing up at Four Times Square.

No vodka in the Skadden lemonade [Skadden Insider]

* Oral argument in New Jersey v. Delaware. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF) via How Appealing]

* I’ll have a Joey Bag of Lawsuits. [AP via Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* TB Andy didn’t hurt anybody. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Grandpa got screwed over by a lawsuit … [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Pakistan lets (almost) everyone go, but will the rule of law return? [Jurist]

This episode gives new meaning to the term “flip phone.” A cell phone that went off during court proceedings caused one judge to, well, flip out. From the NYT’s City Room blog:

The next time you pass through the city court system in Niagara Falls, N.Y., remember to turn your cellphone off.

Today, the Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended the removal of a judge in Niagara Falls City Court who had, what the commission’s chairman, Raoul L. Felder, called, “two hours of inexplicable madness” when a cellphone rang in his courtroom.

Specifically, on the morning of March 11, 2005, the judge, Robert M. Restaino, was presiding over a slate of domestic violence cases when he heard a phone ring in his courtroom. He told the roughly 70 people in the courtroom, according to the commission’s report, that “every single person is going to jail in this courtroom” unless the phone was turned over.

Look, we hate cellphones ringing at inappropriate times as much as the next guy. But was Judge Restaino’s reaction a tad over the top? We suggest — with respect, Your Honor — that you’re a few beeps short of a ringtone.

Read what happened next, after the jump.

* Paul Tvetenstrand, managing partner of Thacher Proffitt & Wood, talks to the Wall Street Journal’s Jamie Heller about the imminent associate layoffs (previously discussed here). [WSJ Law Blog]

* Our law school classmate, Professor Lior Strahilevitz, has a fascinating new article coming out in the Northwestern University Law Review: “Reputation Nation: Law in an Era of Ubiquitous Personal Information.” [SSRN via Concurring Opinions]

* Outgoing American Red Cross president Mark W. Everson would have been our Lawyer of the Day (except the former IRS commissioner is not a lawyer). [Washington Post]

* “The High Price of Meat Loaf.” [New York Times (second item)]

* Attention Loyola 2L: rising stars of legal academia are about to descend upon your law school. [PrawfsBlawg]

* For those of you old enough to remember Crocodile Dundee: “That’s not a Blawg Review — that’s a Blawg Review.” Here’s Blawg Review #136, courtesy of Aussie Peter Black. [Freedom to Differ via Blawg Review; see also Blawg Review (video plug)]

As regular ATL readers will recall, Judge Samuel B. Kent (S.D. Texas) is currently on leave from the bench (although still collecting his $165,200 salary). The Fifth Circuit suspended him after allegations of what it described as sexual harassment.

But Judge Kent’s troubles may not be over yet. From the Galveston County Daily News (via How Appealing):

A woman who has accused U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of unwanted sexual touching will have her case reheard by a disciplinary panel of the 5th Judicial Circuit, her attorney, Rusty Hardin, said late Monday.

Late that afternoon, Hardin gave the panel summaries of interviews his team did of 20 people who have had contact with Kent. Hardin claims those interviews show that Kent has misbehaved toward women since shortly after he was named to the federal bench in Galveston in the early 1990s.

Hardin said he and his client are asking that the panel refer the matter to the Judicial Council of the United States with a recommendation that Kent be impeached.

Additional discussion, plus a reader poll, after the jump.

At least it’s a better way to spend the firm’s money than a theme song (mp3). From The Recorder:

Nixon Peabody has appointed a chief sustainability officer, hoping not only to reduce the firm’s environmental impact, but to increase its impact on clients. Carolyn Kaplan, a counsel in the firm’s energy and environmental practice, will spend at least a quarter of her time in the new position.

So what exactly will Ms. Kaplan do in this new gig? Send around annoying firm-wide emails telling people to recycle those reams of useless Westlaw print-outs? Tell associates to turn off the lights when they leave their offices (even if it will tip off the partners to their departures)?

Kaplan said the position has two aspects: looking internally at ways to reduce the firm’s production of CO2, or its carbon footprint, and determining how attorneys can use the firm’s experience to better understand clients dealing with environmental regulation and related issues. Both of those could make the firm greener in the financial sense, too, she said.

More after the jump.

We had been hearing rumors this morning of associate layoffs at Thacher Proffitt & Wood. The rumor mill was claiming that somewhere between 30 to 40 associates were given pink slips by TPW.

As is so often the case, the truth is somewhat different, but the rumors not completely unfounded. Thacher Proffitt has not laid off any associates just yet, and certainly not as many as 40. The firm has, however, notified a smaller number of associates — namely, 24 non-first-year associates — that their being laid off in January is “a near certainty.” It is also encouraging first-year associates in its Structured Finance and Real Estate practice groups to look for other opportunities.

In response to inquiries from us, TPW issued this statement, through a spokesperson:

It is no secret that the credit crisis has deeply affected our Structured Finance and Real Estate practices, which are large practices in our Firm. Therefore, we have taken the painful step of notifying 24 associates in those practice areas that if we do not see a substantial improvement in the market, it is a near certainty that they will be laid off in January strictly for economic reasons.

These associates are good, hardworking lawyers that any law firm would be fortunate to have. Unfortunately, these associates are working in areas that are currently slow and that will not be active for some time to come. We are delaying a decision on economic layoffs for as long as we can; however, we believe it would be unfair to the associates potentially affected to give them no warning of this possibility. We are encouraging these associates to seek new opportunities and, should they leave the Firm, we will compensate them through the end of March.

In addition, we have offered first-year associates in our Structured Finance and Real Estate groups a four month severance package should they leave the Firm. They are under no obligation to take this offer, [which] is strictly voluntary; however, we feel it is in these associates’ interest to explore other opportunities as well, as we are concerned that we will not be able to provide them with the best work experience at this formative stage of their careers.

We thank Thacher Proffitt for getting back to us so quickly. And we commend the firm for its candor about the possible layoffs, as well as its praise for the affected associates as lawyers.

If you have any associate layoff news that has not been previously reported, please contact us, by email (subject line: “Nationwide Layoff Watch”). Thanks.

We’re confused. And we’re guessing we’re not alone.

We have provided extensive coverage of Cordero v. Epstein, in which model Maximilia Cordero alleges that high-profile financier Jeffrey Epstein took advantage of her when she was underage. To add to the suit’s salaciousness, the New York Post previously claimed that Maximila Cordero was born a man — to wit, Maximillian Cordero (b. 1983).

Now Cordero has turned around and sued the Post. She has filed an exhibit with the court casting doubt on the Post’s claim that she was born a man — but oddly enough, she’s not raising the gender issue in her lawsuit. From DealBreaker:

Cordero and her lawyer (and alleged sometime boyfriend) William Unroch have filed a lawsuit against the Post, claiming it engaged in a smear campaign coordinated with Epstein’s flack Howard Rubenstein (who is also the publicist for the Post).

Radar has all the dirt, but here’s the dirtiest bit:

“Conspicuously absent from the accusations is the Post’s revelation that Cordero was born a man. A source tells Radar that the initial filing of the suit by Unroch includes as an exhibit a birth certificate, which showed Cordero being born Maximilia Cordero, a woman. Reached by phone this weekend, Unroch (with Cordero commenting loudly in the background but declining to come to the phone), called the Post’s behavior ‘outrageous’ but refused to address Cordero’s birth gender or the authenticity of the birth certificate originally filed. ‘She’s a woman,’ Unroch tells Radar. So, why not go after the Post’s gender claims?

‘It’s a slam dunk case whether she was born a cat, a dog, or a space alien,’ Unroch says.”

You can see why we’re confused. And our confusion has only grown since someone sent us a copy of the exhibit mentioned by Radar — namely, a birth certificate showing that Maximillia Josephine Cordero, born on November 15, 1982, was born a “Female.”

You can check out the birth certificate for yourself — please note, we take no position on its authenticity — after the jump.

Epstein’s Accuser Accuses Page Six Of ‘Raping’ ‘Her’ All Over Again [DealBreaker]
Epstein’s Accuser Sics Law Dog On Page Six [Radar / Fresh Intelligence]

The law firm of Seyfarth Shaw cordially invites its associates… to toast their own obsolescence. Check out the invite below, for “a cocktail reception to welcome the group of attorneys visiting from Manthan Services in Bangalore, India.”

Our tipster wonders: “Why pay first-years $160,000 a year for legal research (or document review), when you can use a lawyer from India at a fraction of the cost?”

Earlier: Nationwide Worldwide Pay Raise Watch: Mumbai to $8,160?

To respond to yesterday’s question: No, it’s not all over. There’s still some gas left in the associate bonus watch tank.

Last night brought an a bonus announcement from Hughes Hubbard and Reed. It’s a somewhat complicated bonus system, based on a system of “tiers.” A tipster identifies these highlights:

Tier 1 = 1950 hours
Tier 2 = 2100 hours
Not certain about tier 3 or 4
Class of 2004, 2005, and 2006 get $7500 for reaching 1950, plus half of special bonus
No pro-rated bonus for class of 2007

The associates we heard from are unhappy with the bone Old Mother Hubbard has thrown them:

“HHR has managed to make the ‘special bonus’ tied to billable hours. That kind of sucks. Glad to see that they are increasing them for next year though.”

“It is a disappointing day for Hughes Hubbard associates, as bonuses are far below market. Still a great place to work, though.”

You can check out the Hughes Hubbard bonus memo, which announces the firm’s 2007 bonuses as well as its “enhance[d]” bonus system for 2008, after the jump.

Update: In response to the commenters, here’s a note on our methodology. If a firm is on either the Am Law 100 or the Vault 100, we’ll run their bonus announcement. HHR is #85 on the Vault 100.

* Apparently the President of the United States is somehow involved in the judicial nomination process. [The Weekly Standard via How Appealing]

* Too much litigation? Blame all those conservative trial lawyers. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Vick’s state trial date will be set today. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Nevada tries to smoke out some justice. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* How tough can you be on protestors at a free speech debate? [BBC]

Take this with a grain shaker of salt. It’s based on an anonymous, uncorroborated comment, which appeared on another blog.

But for what it’s worth, from Eric Turkewitz’s New York Personal Injury Law Blog:

The New York State Board of Law Examiners managed to foul up this year’s bar exam, as readers of this space know, by losing many of the essay answers that had been submitted on laptops….

[T]he results were made known 11 days ago, and the examiners claimed to have taken educated guesses on the missing results [by extrapolating from how affected exam takers did on other parts of the test]….

[O]ver the holiday weekend, this anonymous comment appeared on my site, claiming that credit was given for an essay with no answer, and the same credit was given for an essay with a great answer. And there was no indication that this person was told his/her essays were part of the missing ones:

“Here’s a fair summary (having taken the test, having intense problems down loading and uploading the test) and failed: I left one NYS essay blank. (Ran out of time) I received a 3/10. That’s odd… But then, on the essays I KNEW — KNEW so well that I was practically jumping for joy as I took the test — I received a 3/10 on those as well.”

“BOLE claims they have informed all those who had computer essays lost — I suspect not. I have written away for my answers and I will be intensly [sic] interested to see how that blank esay [sic] scored a 3/10… I suspect they were ALL blanks, because of the uploads.”

“If anyone else is in this prdicament [sic], please chime in. There are a few attorneys that specialize in this, and I’ve contacted a few.”

Very strange. Does anyone have a similar experience to share? Or is this commenter off his or her rocker?

How, Exactly, did New York Grade That Bar Exam? [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]

Law schools and lawsuits go together like peanut butter and jelly. When vicious infighting involves lawyers and law students, it’s only a matter of time before someone takes the matter to court. See, e.g., Ave Maria.

But at least Ave Maria is accredited. When the law school in question isn’t even accredited, is it still transfixing in that car-wreck sort of way? Or is it just too pathetic to bear watching?

Read about litigation involving the American Justice School of Law, after the jump.

Rapidly climbing the Most Emailed Articles list over at the New York Times is an op-ed entitled Taking Marriage Private, by Professor Stephanie Coontz. It includes an interesting history of the legal regulation of marriage (which Coontz observes is a fairly recent phenomenon):

Why do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families….

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

A prohibition on marrying fabulous Filipinos? Your loss. Everyone knows Filipinos are great lovers.

More after the jump.

In the comments to our post about Thanksgiving horror stories, an interesting (if somewhat off-topic) discussion developed. It started off with a law student complaining about having to study for final exams over the holiday, to which another commenter responded: Why bother? After a certain point, who cares about your law school grades?

The conventional wisdom is that law school grades don’t really matter after your first year. Once you’ve secured your summer associate gig in the fall of your 2L year, you can pretty much coast, according to this theory. Unless you’re hoping to graduate with honors, snag a feeder judge or Supreme Court clerkship, or become a law professor, you don’t need to worry about your law school transcript (as long as you don’t fail anything or lack sufficient credits to graduate, of course).

But in the comments, some readers suggested otherwise. They claimed that if you want to lateral from one firm to another, the firms you’re applying to may request your transcript and consider your grades. Some suggested that grades even matter in the context of partnership decisions.

Thoughts? If you have an opinion or, better yet, hard information, please provide it in the comments. Thanks.

Earlier: Thanksgiving Horror Stories: Open Thread

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s time as a summer associate may come back to haunt her. And not because she stripped down to her undies and took a swan dive into the Hudson.

Rather, it’s because she worked for a bunch of Commies. From a piece by Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun:

In a life marked largely by political caution, one entry on Senator Clinton’s résumé stands out: her clerkship in 1971 at one of America’s most radical law firms, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

One partner at the firm, Doris Walker, was a Communist Party member at the time. Another partner, Robert Treuhaft, had left the party in 1958, several years after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and labeled as one of America’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. The Oakland-based firm was renowned for taking clients others rejected as too controversial, including Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American militant group known as the Black Panthers.

To this day, Mrs. Clinton’s decision to work at the unabashedly left-wing firm is surprising, even shocking, to some of her former colleagues there and to those supporting her bid for the presidency. To the former first lady’s enemies and political opponents, her summer at the Treuhaft firm is yet another indication that radical ideology lurks beneath the patina of moderation she has adopted in public life.

Senator Clinton tends to be tight-lipped about Treuhaft. In her memoir, Living History, she gives her summer stint rather cursory treatment:

I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland, California and he announced that he would like to go with me. I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case.

Why doesn’t Hillary make more of her time at this ultra-liberal law firm, and embrace her past as a radical leftist? Might the Daily Kos krowd warm up to her, if they knew about her time as a fellow traveler?

Hillary Clinton’s Radical Summer: A Season of Love and Leftists [New York Sun]

Wow. It looks like we haven’t had associate bonus news to report in almost a week. Our last Associate Bonus Watch post was last Tuesday’s WilmerHale announcement. (We don’t count last Wednesday’s bonus post, since it dealt with bonuses for support staff.)

So does this mean it’s all over? Has bonus season, which started early thanks to Cravath, ended early as well? If a firm hasn’t announced by now, are its associates S.O.L.?

(And no, that doesn’t stand for “statute of limitations”; it stands for this.)

If you have unreported associate bonus news to share, you know how to reach us. Thanks.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch 2007 archives (scroll down)

Ladies (and gentlemen — manicures have gone manly, dontcha know):

Please see below. A picture is worth a thousand words — and this picture explains, better than any recruiting brochure or Vault write-up, why you want to work at Latham & Watkins.

P.S. Why wasn’t this quirky perk wasn’t featured in the recent New York Times piece on the blessings of Biglaw?

Here’s the latest Job of the Week, courtesy of ATL’s career partner, Lateral Link. Check out their new, redesigned website by clicking here.

(Since we didn’t post a Job of the Week last week, due to the abbreviated holiday publication schedule, we’ll give you two this week — one today, and one near the end of the week.)

Position: Transactional tax associate at international consulting firm

Location: New York

Description: International management consulting firm seeks associate to join its Transaction Tax Services group.

More details, after the jump.

* Will SCOTUS shoot down D.C.’s gun ban? [CBS Evening News via How Appealing]

* Willie Nelson takes a moment between tokes to ask Georgians to be nicer to dogs. [CNN]

* Brad Pitt may get sued for screwing over Universal. [One News (New Zealand)]

* Former legal counsel sings on Samsung. [Reuters via Yahoo! Singapore News]

* Former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice dies. [AP via Yahoo!]

It’s the Friday after Thanksgiving. The stock market is now closed — and so are we. We’ll be back with new posts on Monday, barring a surprise weekend announcement of “NY to 190.”

In the meantime, here’s some fodder for possible discussion, for the unfortunate few who are at work today (or were at work yesterday). From a reader:

I thought it might be interesting to get the best/worst stories from associates that had to work over the Thanksgiving holiday. I fortunately don’t have a terrible story to share that happened to me personally, but I have heard of bad things happening to others. For example, I heard of opposing counsel on the East Coast that scheduled a deposition on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, knowing that the counsel from California will likely have Thanksgiving plans torpedoed.

I also heard of a partner who told an associate that a party was moving for a TRO on the Monday following Thanksgiving. The associate worked on the case on Thanksgiving and the weekend. The associate later found out that the partner learned on Wednesday that the TRO was off-calendar, but the partner neglected to tell the associate — because the partner was preoccupied with getting out of the office for his own Thanksgiving plans.

These aren’t the greatest stories I realize, but I’m sure plenty of readers have some.

Have a tale of your own to tell? Please share it in the comments.

Happy Black Friday! And enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend.

Guess what’s at the top of the New York Times Most Emailed Articles list today? A piece entitled For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle, by Lynnley Browning.

We’re pleasantly surprised that an article about law firm perks, a niche topic that we cover obsessively around here, is so popular with readers of a general-interest publication. Or is it just that lawyers are the only poor saps at work today?

Among the more notable perks mentioned in the article:

1. Milkshakes and candied apples — yum! (Perkins Coie) [FN1]
2. Mortgage guarantees for the first $100,000 of associate mortgages (Sullivan & Cromwell)
3. Reimbursements for associates who buy a hybrid car or a certain brand of car (DLA Piper; Fulbright & Jaworski)
4. On-site yoga classes (O’Melveny & Myers)

It’s an interesting article; read the whole thing here. There’s additional commentary on the piece over at the WSJ Law Blog, by Jamie Heller (filling in for Peter Lattman, who is on his honeymoon).

P.S. Looks like an NYT correction may be in order, due to a slip-up concerning the amount of year-end bonuses:

The perks come on top of higher salaries and larger bonuses — this year, the top-offs have been doubled at some practices. At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to their year-end bonuses up to $35,000.

Our suggested rewording: “At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, some associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to year-end bonuses up to $60,000.” (The word “some” is needed before the word “associates,” because class of 2007 or “stub year” associates don’t get special bonuses.)

[FN1] The Perkins Coie milkshakes come from Potbelly Sandwich Works. Coincidentally, we enjoyed a PSW milkshake for the first time on Wednesday. It was Oreo, and it was delicious!

Update: One of you sent us this great comment, by email:

I thought the most poignant perk was Fried Frank’s: they offer psychotherapy (through what sounds suspiciously like a bulk discount deal) to help associates deal with stress, anxiety, depression, and divorce. I love it!

I can imagine the therapist’s notes: “Patient distressed re: possibility of negative performance review. Says he has not seen wife or child since, “let’s see … when was that holiday with the fireworks?” Is in constant pain from chronic papercuts and verbal caning associated with ongoing case. Patient noted gratefully that firm is paying for therapy. Possible diagnoses: Stockholm syndrome?”

For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle [New York Times]
Law Job Perks v. Law Job Woes [WSJ Law Blog]

* Feds use real-time tracking data from cellphones to locate criminal suspects. It’s like Dodgeball for the bad guys. [Washington Post]

* Barry Bonds to bulk up… his legal team. [New York Times]

* Spotlight on Justice Stevens — and the SCOTUS post-JPS. [Los Angeles Times via How Appealing]

* Interview with neo-Nazi triggers German lawsuit against Vanity Fair. [Jerusalem Post via Drudge Report]

* And you thought you ate too much yesterday. Try running for President! [New York Times]

Greetings, ATL readers. Please accept our wishes for a very Happy Thanksgiving!

We hope that you aren’t spending much time in front of the computer today. But if you are — for some depressing reason, like work — feel free to bemoan your fate in the comments.

Or, on a more cheery note, list what you’re thankful for. This year, we are thankful for ATL’s large and devoted readership. We are also thankful for our Best Law Blog award, which we won thanks to reader support. Thanks, everyone!

P.S. Apologies to ATL’s sizable readership in Canada; we’re taking off today. Why not just move your Thanksgiving so that it coincides with ours?

[Photo credit: yours truly.]

For those of you who followed the South Carolina bar exam controversy, previously discussed here and here, we bring you an update.

The South Carolina Supreme Court recently issued a supplemental statement on the matter. According to the Court, the elimination of the Trusts and Estates section from the scoring process had nothing to do with complaints from the kids of prominent public figures.

An excerpt from the court’s statement, after the jump.

In the Senate chamber yesterday, crickets were chirping. From the New York Times:

Who says the Senate cannot act quickly? It conducted a full day’s business in less than 30 seconds on Tuesday.

Of course, there was no real business to conduct. But fearing that President Bush would again use a Congressional recess to install disputed executive branch appointees without Senate confirmation, Democrats convened the Senate for the first of four microsessions to be held during the holiday break, precisely to thwart such an end run….

No legislation can pass at pro forma sessions, but they allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional requirement that, when not in recess, it meet on the day following three consecutive days off. Tuesday’s session was such a rush job that the traditional opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance were dispensed with. [Virginia Senator Jim Webb] was the only senator in the chamber, and even the otherwise ever-present teenage pages were absent, having been sent home for Thanksgiving.

Jim Webb has flashbacks to his 11th birthday party, when he sat all alone at the skating rink because none of the guests showed up.

Also, note the omission of the prayer and the Pledge. Godless Democrats!

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments [New York Times]

If a blog post is published on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, does anyone read it?

* Apparently the movie “Redacted” has nothing to do with document production. [Likelihood of Success]

* And you thought $1,000 an hour was expensive. Try hiring John Ashcroft’s consulting firm. [Newark Star-Ledger]

* We believe that Hillary’s experience as First Lady, during which she traveled the world and met with numerous world leaders, would help her conduct foreign policy as president. But Glenn Reynolds’s quip did make us chuckle. [Instapundit]

* Interesting professorial perspectives on the D.C. gun control case and its implications for the 2008 elections. [Balkinization; Althouse]

P.S. We are delighted to have one of our quotes featured in the banner at the top of Althouse. Thanks, Professor Althouse!

The woes of structured finance lawyers in the wake of the credit crunch have been extensively chronicled in these pages. Now they’ve migrated over to the MSM. One of our favorite young reporters, Lindsay Fortado of Bloomberg News, has this detailed report:

New York law firms are cutting associates for the first time since 2001 as the collapse of the subprime mortgage and credit markets causes private equity deal volume and structured finance work to slow.

Clifford Chance, the world’s highest-grossing law firm, dismissed six senior associates who worked on mortgage-backed securities in its structured finance practice on Nov. 5. At least two other firms asked associates, or salaried lawyers, to take sabbaticals or switch departments, a move that often precedes job cuts. Partners, about one-fourth of the attorneys at the biggest firms, may also face some belt tightening.

The subprime collapse and its effect on the credit market and the volume of deals have brought a slowdown in work, probably leading to job cuts. While structured finance practices have been hit the hardest, mergers and acquisitions and private equity practices also face a slowdown, legal consultants said.

Troubling. If the problem remains confined to structured finance, that’s one thing; but if it spreads to M&A, that’s another thing entirely. Since M&A work is such a big driver of firm profitability, troubles in the merger market could scuttle any chance of “NY to 190” in the foreseeable future.

More excerpts from Fortado’s extremely interesting (and long) article, plus additional discussion, after the jump.

It’s very quiet around here today. We’re guessing everyone is getting ready for Turkey Day and leaving early (or trying to get actual work done before leaving early, and therefore not visiting ATL).

But if you are looking for a way to kill time before your office closes for Thanksgiving, here’s some procrastination material for you: our latest column for the New York Observer. It’s about — surprise surprise — associate bonuses, and associate layoffs. The content of the column shouldn’t come as news to regular readers of ATL, but it does offer an overview of where we are now, as well as some thoughts about the future.

Also, while we’re in self-promotional mode (when aren’t we?), we were just interviewed by Rob La Gatta of LexBlog. You can check out the interview — in which we discuss future plans for ATL, unruly commenters, and the legal profession’s uneasy relationship with the blogosphere — by clicking here.

May It Please the Court? Massive Law-Firm Bonuses, Not So Much [New York Observer]
LexBlog Q & A: David Lat, Editor-in-Chief of Above The Law [LexBlog]

Considering the grim job prospects for graduates of non-top-tier law schools, maybe we should be shuttering law schools rather than opening them.

But the trend may be going in the opposite direction. From the National Law Journal:

State University at Binghamton in New York is in the early stages of planning to open a law school, which would be the third public law school in the state.

Binghamton University President Lois DeFleur said that she has been in ongoing talks with State University of New York (SUNY) officials and with the American Bar Association about the school. The proposal would need the approval of state’s education department and the governor.

The other publicly supported law schools in New York are the University of Buffalo, part of the SUNY system, and the City University of New York School of Law at Queens College.

Okay, maybe this wouldn’t be such a horrible idea. First, Binghamton is a well-respected university, so presumably its law school would be strong as well. Second, it would be a public school, with more affordable tuition. So even if its graduates have trouble finding jobs, at least they won’t be six figures in debt.

From a tipster:

There is really no great option for affordable legal education in New York (Buffalo?) and very few options at all outside of NYC (i.e., Cornell). Another thing to consider is that the closest schools to Binghamton (besides Cornell) are Albany and Syracuse, both of which are private schools. So, presumably there would be a market for this school.

Thoughts? To any Binghamton undergrad alums: Would you like your alma mater to launch a law school?

SUNY Binghamton makes a bid to create law school [National Law Journal]

We’re sorry we don’t have more associate bonus news to report. Unfortunately, we have to wait for it to happen; we can’t just make it up.

So while we wait for more announcements — it’s the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, so we’re hoping for some announcements in the afternoon — let’s talk about a related subject: staff bonuses.

In its bonus memo from earlier this month, Willkie Farr & Gallagher announced that it would be paying a special bonus to its administrative staff as well as its associates. And it turns out that Willkie is not alone. We’re hearing that Weil, Gotshal & Manges is paying its support staff a special bonus as well.

The Weil special bonus equals one week’s base salary. It will go to all support staff: “secretaries, paralegals, litigation support — the whole nine yards.”

The amount is not life-changing; at a week’s salary, the bonus equals about 2 percent of base. But it’s still a nice move, and something else for Weil paralegals to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.

What other firms besides Willkie and Weil are paying special bonuses to staff? Feel free to discuss in the comments.

* Former Press Secretary McClellan blames Bush, Cheney, Libby, and Rove in CIA-Plame leak case. [CNN]

* Polygamist Jeffs sentenced to 10 years. [MSNBC]

* Rich people rank their lawyers. [ABA Journal]

* Trainer really, really won’t testify against Bonds in BALCO case. [MSNBC]

* Dayton firm to acquire one of those leather chairs. [The Onion]

Sending chills up the spines of real estate finance casebooks everywhere.

Court agrees to rule on gun case [SCOTUSblog]
High Court to Take D.C. Gun Ban Case [Washington Post]
Justices to Hear Gun Control Case [New York Times]

* And don’t forget the inevitable obesity lawsuits. [West Virginia Record]

* Lawyers, swords and money — or, an interesting look at the specialty of nonprofit law. [Michael Gross]

* Surprisingly successful defense to meth charges: “I did it for my dog.” [Blogonaut]

* There’s more to south Florida than bikini-clad hotties — like a vibrant legal blogging scene. [National Law Journal]

* LLB vs. JD debate = Canadian email clusterf**k. [ReportOnBusiness.com]

* Bet you didn’t know: today is Transgender Day of Remembrance. [Rainbow Law Center; Transgender Workplace Diversity via Blawg Review]

Remember those strange radio advertisements about Hogan & Hartson? We discussed them here and here. The ads went something like this:

Did you hire a Hogan and Hartson senior partner for bet the company liltigation? Was your case handled by a junior lawyer instead of the senior partner you thought you were paying for? Call 800-759-8611.

Well, Peter Lattman and the WSJ Law Blog have gotten to the bottom of this oddness. It turns out the ads, which ran in print as well as on the radio, were financed by a company called General Steel. Earlier this year, General Steel sued Hogan, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. From the Law Blog:

In July a judge in Denver dismissed all but one of the claims against Hogan and sent the remaining claim — essentially a fee dispute — to arbitration. Hogan says General Steel owes the firm around $300,000; General Steel wants its money back and more. Click here for the judge’s order; and here for the judge’s order denying General Steel’s motion for reconsideration. General Steel is also appealing the judge’s ruling.

Hogan & Hartson says it’s not surprised by the Times ad, which has also run in D.C. newspapers (and on the radio). During the settlement negotiations, Hogan says that Knight had threatened a “shock and awe” campaign against Hogan if it didn’t pay General Steel money to settle its claims.

We are “shock[ed] and awe[d]” — by the tackiness of General Steel. If we’re ever in the market for prefabricated commercial steel buildings, they’re definitely not getting our business.

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Dissatisfied Hogan & Hartson Client [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Remember Those Weird Radio Ads Mentioning Hogan & Hartson?
Lawsuit of the Day: Have You Been Injured… By Hogan & Hartson?

Sorry, we don’t have any memo (and we don’t know if there will ever be one). But we can confirm for you that the New York office of WilmerHale announced bonuses yesterday.

We’ve been informed that the bonuses are at market levels (year-end and special). The announcement was made yesterday at a live meeting.

One tipster tells us that making the announcement at a meeting, rather than via memo, is firm tradition. But taking the meeting route does lend itself to this speculation:

I can only imagine WilmerHale didn’t distribute memos because they don’t want to create enmity in their DC/Boston offices.

The D.C. and Boston associates are going to find out anyway. So why not bite the bullet, and make a firm-wide announcement (a la Sidley)?

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch 2007 archives (scroll down)

This is old news. But since we covered the rumors of his possible nomination so extensively (here, here, and here), we thought we’d update you: Joseph Russoniello has been officially nominated to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).

An interesting angle on his nomination: Did it play any role in the timing of the Barry Bonds indictment? See here.

Joe Russoniello Appointed US Attorney for California’s Northern District [Blogonaut]
More White House Nominations For Top Justice Posts [WSJ Law Blog]
Timing of Bonds’s Indictment FeedsSpeculation [New York Times]

As we mentioned earlier, we’re paying a visit today to Columbia Law School. We’re giving a talk and then going to lunch. So we’ll be out of pocket for a while; some content may be posted in our absence, but it won’t be bonus-related.

Here’s an open thread for talk about bonuses. We’re getting close to Thanksgiving, and the week is beginning to slow down, so we’re expecting some movement soon. Law firms like to make these announcements when they think no one’s paying attention (which is why Friday afternoon is such a prime time for such news).

If you have bonus news or a memo to share, please contact us. We’ll follow up when we return. Thanks.

P.S. Yes, we’ve seen the rumors in the comments of a WilmerHale - New York announcement (supposedly oral, no memo). But we’re not putting it on the main page until some identifiable sources at WH contact us with details and confirmation. If the firm wants the world to think that it still belongs on the List of Shame, that’s perfectly fine by us.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch 2007 archives (scroll down)

Many tipsters have written in to ask us why we haven’t written about a certain delicious DOJ diva: U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose (D. Minn.), who has just been reassigned to Main Justice. From the New York Times:

The embattled United States attorney in Minnesota announced today that she would be stepping down to go work at the Justice Department in Washington on legal policy issues.

The announcement by the prosecutor, Rachel K. Paulose, 34, came in the wake of reports of new staff turmoil in her office, with at least one senior lawyer resigning from his management post in Minneapolis on Friday in a protest over her leadership. Three other managers gave up their administrative jobs in a similar protest in April.

Her resignation message appears here.

Some of you claim that we overuse the term “diva.” But diva is as diva does:

In an unusual public statement on a conservative blog last week, Ms. Paulose suggested that she was a victim of “McCarthyite hysteria that permits the anonymous smearing of any public servant who is now, or ever may have been, a member of the Federalist Society, a person or faith and/or a conservative (especially a young, conservative woman of color).”

For more evidence of diva-hood, see Eric Blank:

Paulose alienated most of the office staff with a leadership style that was described as insulting, an inability to listen respectfully to opinions that ran contrary to her own. Recently, she has been under investigation by two federal agencies for a series of alleged misdeeds, mostly involving the way she treated the staff but also her alleged improper handling of classified national security materials. She was also the subject of a very negative job review, based substantially on her management style.

One tipster writes, referring back to the controversy over her allegedly extravagant investiture as U.S. Attorney: “A diva reassigned. Will she have a coronation when she gets back to DC?”

Lots of links and more discussion, including disclosure about our prior interactions with Ms. Paulose, after the jump.

In terms of feeding his current crop of clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Judge Michael Boudin (1st Cir.) is batting 1.000. We received this tip from multiple sources, but here’s the most interesting iteration:

Moshe Spinowitz (HLS ‘06/Boudin) has been hired by Justice Scalia for October 2008. Spinowitz, or Spino, as he’s known, was originally hired by Judge Luttig before he left the bench.

Ah, that makes more sense. Boudin —-> Scalia is not a typical path. And with the addition of Spinowitz, half of the Scalia chambers for OT 2008 will have hailed from Boudinville.

(Justice Scalia previously hired Spinowitz’s co-clerk, Yaakov Roth. But with all due respect to Chief Judge Boudin, he may not deserve much credit for feeding Roth. When you’re the rara avis of an HLS summa, you can clerk on the Bergen County traffic court and still make it to One First Street.)

Another interesting factoid, considering Justice Scalia’s weakness for Catholic kids as clerks:

Spinowitz is the second orthodox Jew Justice Scalia has hired this term (the other being Yaakov Roth). I guess the moral of the story is: If you’re an orthodox Jew, try to clerk for Judge Boudin!

If his photograph (at right) is even vaguely accurate, and if he’s 5’11” or taller, the handsome Spinowitz has a promising career as a male model. But in the meantime, we’re sure that he’ll enjoy being a SCOTUS clerk. Congrats, Moshe!

The current tally of OT 2008 Supreme Court clerks, with Mr. Spinowitz added, appears after the jump.

* Detained AP photographer in Iraq finally accused of something. [CNN]

* Court-ordered test reveals sex scandal in Georgia megachurch. [MSNBC]

* Saudi attorney, disbarred for talking to media, seeks reinstatement to represent sentenced rape victim. [CNN]

* Khmer Rouge defendant appears in court 28 years later. [New York Times]

* Presidential candidates’ ties to lawyers. [WSJ Law Blog]

As many of you have pointed out to us, New York wasn’t the only state to release bar exam results last week. Another big state weighed in: California.

Several of you, accusing us of East Coast bias, have asked us why we haven’t put up a post for discussion of the California bar exam. We don’t really know what there is to discuss. After all, as far as we know, there were no massive technological screw-ups, a la Laptopgate in New York.

Also, Kathleen Holtz did not follow in the footsteps of Paulina Bandy. The 18-year-old law school graduate passed the big test, on her first try.

But prove us wrong. Maybe there is something interesting to say about the CA bar exam. The comments are your playground.

18-Year-Old Kathleen Holtz Passes the California Bar [WSJ Law Blog]

Remember James Sandman? Oh no, you don’t? Well, surely you remember the Arnold & Porter partner’s infamous essay, The High Price of Escalating Associate Salaries, which he wrote while president of the D.C. bar.

Jim Sandman’s article, dishing out harsh criticism of law firm associate pay raises, did not endear him to ATL readers. In a near comments clusterf**k, he was condemned as the greediest of greedy Biglaw partners (along with other epithets not fit for printing here).

Well, maybe Sandman has gotten a bad rap. After all, he was public-spirited enough to serve as president of the D.C. bar. When we met him at this party, one of many charitable functions he attends, he didn’t have horns growing out of his head.

And now we hear that he’s leaving his lucrative partnership, to toil in the considerably less profitable precincts of the D.C. public school system. He’s accepted a position as General Counsel for the District of Columbia Public Schools, and he’ll also be a member of Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s senior leadership team to the DC School Board.

Read the A&P memo announcing Sandman’s departure, from firm chairman Thomas Milch, after the jump.

A photo op with two of the nation’s most distinguished jurists: Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski!

(Judge Reinhardt seemed a bit skittish about the taking of this picture, but Judge Kozinski’s enthuasism was infectious. Or maybe it was just hard for Judge Reinhardt to say no to the incoming Chief Judge of the court.)

[Although legal in nature, this story is not typical ATL fare — it’s a bit too, well, substantive. But we suspect that some of you will have strong opinions on it. So we’re tossing it out for discussion, in the hopes of inspiring a comment clusterf**k.]

Does the death penalty serve as an effective deterrent to murder? Up until now, we’ve generally subscribed to the liberal view that its deterrence value is questionable. But a fascinating article by one of our favorite legal reporters, Yale Law grad Adam Liptak — who writes for the New York Times, no conservative hack publication — raises some interesting questions:

For the first time in a generation, the question of whether the death penalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law and economics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment.

According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.

The effect is most pronounced, according to some studies, in Texas and other states that execute condemned inmates relatively often and relatively quickly.

Check out this quote:

“I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”

More after the jump.

The American Lawyer just announced the results of its 2007 summer associate survey. Interestingly enough, the highest-scoring firms weren’t necessarily the biggest firms with the most lavish programs. From Paul Jaskunas’s article:

Small is beautiful, at least in the eyes of 2007’s summer associates. While respondents to our Summer Associates Survey liked big firms, they liked life at small to midsize firms even better. Students craved juicy assignments, friendly offices, and lots of attention, and the firms that best satisfied these needs tended to be medium-sized shops with relatively small summer programs.

Of the top 20 firms, only four had summer programs with more than 100 clerks, while nine hired 30 or fewer summer associates. Students most commonly cited firm reputation as a factor influencing their clerkship decision, but that doesn’t mean that the behemoths of the legal world always have the upper hand in winning over law students.

“They go out of their way to make you feel like a part of the family from day one,” wrote an enthused summer at first-ranked Nutter McClennen & Fish, which had only 11 clerks…. One of the 17 summer associates at second-ranked Fox Rothschild called it “a big firm where you can live a small-firm lifestyle.”

And a full-length firm photo, too!

Based on the proliferation of reader comments on today’s Morning Docket, where we linked to the survey in passing, it’s clear that many of you are dying to discuss the rankings. So here’s an open thread for that purpose. Have at it!

Size Does Matter [American Lawyer Student Edition]
National Rankings: Summer Associate Survey 2007 [American Lawyer Student Edition]
Results By City: Summer Associate Survey 2007 [American Lawyer Student Edition]

No, not law firm associates — associates at investment banks. In the absence of more law firm bonus news, let’s talk about your friends and classmates on Wall Street, who are still making way more money than you (assuming they haven’t been laid off; hey, bigger risk, bigger reward).

From Bloomberg News:

Shareholders in the securities industry are having their worst year since 2002, losing $74 billion of their equity. That won’t prevent Wall Street from paying record bonuses, totaling almost $38 billion.

That money, split among about 186,000 workers at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos., equates to an average of $201,500 per person, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The five biggest U.S. securities firms paid $36 billion to employees last year.

Discussion continues, after the jump.

Speaking of the Federalist Society, the Columbia Law School chapter has invited us to speak. We’ll be doing an event there tomorrow. It will be a pretty casual Q-and-A, less formal than last year’s appearance.

Here are the details:

Tuesday, November 20, 12:25 PM

A Q-and-A with David Lat, Editor of Above the Law

Columbia Law School
Jerome Greene Hall, Room 107
435 West 116th St. (at Amsterdam Avenue)

It’s free and open to the public. So if you’re a CLS student or otherwise in the area, please feel free to stop by. Thanks.

At the Federalist Society festivities: Ryan Bounds, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy; Deputy Associate Attorney General John O’Quinn; and Susanna Dokupil, Assistant Solicitor General for the Office of the Attorney General of Texas.

Last week, the Federalist Society celebrated its 25th anniversary, with a black-tie gala at Union Station. The official ATL report, by Laurie Lin, is available here; the account of the Washington Post appears here (via the WSJ Law Blog).

Since we were there also, we figured we might as well add our two cents. Some random tidbits about the evening, along with a few more photos, after the jump.

People who practice intellectual property law tend to be really, really smart. This is a good thing, since you’d have to be a genius to understand the new associate pay plan just announced by Fish & Richardson.

Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration. But we just couldn’t bother reading a document as long and complex as the Fish & Richardson memo, at least this early in the day; the caffeine from our morning coffee is still working its way through our system.

Fortunately, our sources offered some explanation:

“Attached is the new Fish & Richardson compensation plan. The basically cut salraries by taking around 20k of salary away from each year and then giving it back when you make 2000 hours. Pretty sh**ty for patent prosecutors. Everyone is pretty pissed off about this.”

“I am pissed. Not only are they effectively taking 10k from my pocket because I always bill over 2000 hours, but we don’t get the target bonus or the special bonus. In short, someone from my year will make at least $80,000 more at another firm for hitting 2000 hours.”

To see what’s causing such bitterness, check out the memo, after the jump.

* Summer associate survey released. [American Lawyer; ABA Journal]

* On the Bonds indictment. [Slate]

* Jeter sued over tax residency. [ABA Journal]

* Supreme Court stay upsets victim’s family. [CNN]

* Broadway strike continues. [MSNBC]

It appears that the situation we reported on earlier, concerning the plight of Mac users at American University’s Washington College of Law, has been resolved. Several of you forwarded us an email from the WCL administration outlining the steps they’re taking to address the situation, including “providing $12,000 towards the cost of laptop rental for all upper-level users of MACs that are incompatible with the exam software.”

Some reactions from students:

“At times it has felt like a modern PCU, sans George Clinton of course: ‘These, Tom, are the Causeheads. They find a world-threatening issue and stick with it for about a week.’”

“Although I am not a Mac user, and am fairly tired of hearing Mac users whining at school, it’s good to see my school do the right thing.”

“We just received this email from the Dean. Looks like your post helped us out. Thanks!”

You’re welcome. We aim to please here at ATL.

Read the full email, after the jump.

Earlier: American University MacGate
MacGate Update: An Explanation from the University of Kentucky

* So what are your legal remedies if she cheats on you anyway? [copyranter]

* While we’re visiting copyranter: another day, another animal kingdom law firm ad. [copyranter]

* Did the Fifth Circuit go easy on Judge Kent? There may be more here than meets the eye. [How Appealing]

* Eric Turkewitz delivers a New York City marathon-themed Blawg Review. Very cool! [New York Personal Injury Blog via Blawg Review]

P.S. Speaking of the NYC marathon, thanks to the many ATL readers who supported our efforts to raise funds for cancer research. Our fundraising goal was $2,500; thanks to you, we easily exceeded that goal. Our fundraising page will remain up through the end of the year, and your donations are still welcome. If you’re looking for more tax deductions after getting that big bonus check, just click here.

As for our performance in the marathon, we finished in 4:43:27 (good enough for inclusion in the New York Times marathon results supplement, which includes everyone who finishes in under five hours — sorry, Katie Holmes). We were slower this time around than when we ran it in 2005. But considering that we actually trained in 2005 — unlike this year, when the longest run we did before the marathon was a 10-mile run back in April — we were pleased.

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in Arar v. Ashcroft, a high-profile lawsuit arising out of the U.S. government’s rendition of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria.

We interviewed DLA Piper partner Joshua Sohn (at right), co-counsel to Mr. Arar along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, about this interesting case and his firm’s work on it.

For readers who aren’t familiar with the case, what’s it all about?

It’s about the federal government’s extraordinary renditions program, which sends “people of interest” to sites around the world for indefinite detention and interrogation under harsh conditions — in this case torture. Mr. Arar, who is a computer engineer, Canadian citizen, husband, and father of two young children, was pulled out of the immigration line at JFK when he was attempting to change planes, but not enter the United States. Mr. Arar was interrogated at the airport, detained and interrogated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and ultimately flown by private jet in the dead of night to Jordan and delivered to Syria. Mr. Arar was never charged with a crime, was not allowed to consult with an attorney for many days when he was first detained and both he and his attorney were lied to about what was going to happen to him and the fact that he was being sent to Syria.

Mr. Arar made plain to those holding him that he feared being tortured in Syria and that he wanted to be sent to Canada-where he lived and was a citizen. Those pleas were ignored and Mr. Arar was sent to Syria where he was tortured and kept in a grave-like cell for almost a year. This case seeks to hold the federal officials who are responsible for Mr. Arar’s treatment, responsible.

Read the rest of the interview, after the jump.

The rumors that we mentioned from this morning are true (as rumors so often are). The firm of Schulte Roth & Zabel has made its bonus announcement.

Schulte will pay year-end and special bonuses, according to the now-familiar scale, to associates with 2000 or more “Target Hours.” It will pay additional bonuses to associates who hit 2300 and 2500 Target Hours ($10,000 for the former, and $20,000 for the latter). As the SRZ memo notes, these overworked associates “will, therefore, be paid above market” — which is as it should be, for suffering that is extraordinary even by Biglaw standards.

Update: Okay, as some of you suggest in the comments, 2300-2500 hours may not be “extraordinary.” But it’s certainly higher than average, even in New York. Our basic point is that at least Schulte is providing additional compensation to associates who work longer hours than usual. It’s a nice move.

Check out the memo, after the jump.

Here is the latest Job of the Week, courtesy of ATL’s career partner, Lateral Link. Because Lateral Link does no cold-calling and is more efficient than traditional recruiting firms, successful candidates receive $10,000 upon placement.

Position: Corporate Transactional Associate

Location: London

Description: US based international law firm is seeking a junior attorney to join their London office to work on US capital market and international transactions.

Requirements: One year of corporate experience at a US law firm.

To apply for this position, or to learn about other career opportunities, please visit laterallink.com.

Earlier: Prior Job of the Week listings (scroll down)

We now yield the floor to Laurie Lin. Who better to report on one of the year’s biggest social events than the writer of Legal Eagle Wedding Watch? Over to you, Laurie.

****************
Ambition and Old Spice wafted sweetly through the air last night at the Federalist Society’s 25th Anniversary Gala at Union Station — a kind of right-wing Golden Globes. Nearly two thousand G-ed up conservative lawyers packed the main hall to hear President George W. Bush blast the Senate on judicial confirmations:

“Today, good men and women nominated to the federal bench are finding that inside the Beltway, too many interpret ‘advise and consent’ to mean ‘search and destroy,’” Bush said.

Tickets to the black-tie affair were $250 — actually $249, because there was a new $1 Madison coin at every place setting — but that was a small price to pay to breathe the same oxygen as Ted Olson, Antonin Scalia, and Laura Ingraham.

More on the conservative legal fabulosity — including pictures of the people who didn’t hide when they saw us coming — after the jump.

Here’s an open thread for discussion of law firm bonus news (and rumor). Our last bonus post has scrolled off the front page of ATL, leaving it bereft of bonus coverage — which is unacceptable, given the many firms that have not yet announced.

We’re hearing rumors of an announcement by Schulte Roth & Zabel. If they’re true, can someone please send us the memo?

Also, you can still vote in our poll about whether New York associates should receive higher bonuses than their non-NYC counterparts. We’ll keep the poll open through the weekend. To vote, click here.

Remember Kyla Ebbert, the comely young woman whose sexy outfit was deemed too revealing for flight by Southwest Airlines? We mentioned her story in passing back in this post (fourth link).

Well, it seems that Ms. Ebbert is back in the news — er, nude. From the AP:

A 23-year-old college student who was told by a Southwest Airlines employee that her outfit was too revealing to fly is wearing even less on Playboy’s Web site….

Kyla Ebbert appears in a series of pictures — some in lingerie, some nude — under the heading, “Legs in the Air.”

“They’re very tastefully done,” Ebbert told The Associated Press on Thursday. “I don’t see anything wrong with the female body.”

Indeed. And we’re big fans of Playboy, which we read strictly for the articles (and the ATL shout-outs).

So what does Kyla Ebbert want to do with her life?

Ebbert worked at a Hooters in San Diego but said she wants to become an attorney, and doesn’t think posing nude should get in the way of her professional aspirations.

“This was beautiful and classy. I don’t see why it would affect a professional position,” she said. “I’d do it again in a heartbeat.”

Ebbert is absolutely right — there’s a long and distinguished tradition of law students posing in various states of undress. See here.

So, when’s the application deadline for Miami Law?

Flyer told to change outfit poses nude [AP via Yahoo! News]

* Judge Mark Filip (N.D. Ill.) picked to be Mukasey’s deputy. [AP via How Appealing]

* SCOTUS stays Florida execution like I said they would. [New York Times]

* Hmm…Bush administration didn’t properly consider impact of climate change…. shocking. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* Hillary Clinton takes the gloves off, giving “her most commanding performance to date” in last night’s debate. [The Atlantic (Marc Ambinder)]

As we’ve stated before, we are very ignorant about sports. We don’t know anyone more ignorant than we are. Whenever a professional athlete’s name is mentioned, our typical response is, “He plays what again?”

Fortunately, there are people around who do know about sports. Like Matt Brown, who has an excellent and edifying post about the Barry Bonds indictment over at Bugs & Cranks:

So, what’s up with these charges?

Barry Bonds is being indicted in federal court for lying to a grand jury. He has been formally charged with 4 counts of perjury, and one count of obstruction of justice.

Is that bad?

Depends on your point of view. Does Barry play for your favorite team?

He’s not on a team.

Then it’s unequivocally good. F*** Barry Bonds.

That’s just an excerpt; read the full thing here. And here’s a copy of the indictment (PDF), courtesy of the WSJ Law Blog.

Please feel free to discuss the Barry Bonds indictment in the comments. But we probably won’t read any of them, since we know jacks**t about football.

Barry Bonds indicted by grand jury [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]
Bonds Charged With Perjury in Steroids Case [New York Times]
United v. Bonds: Indictment (PDF) [WSJ Law Blog]

* Seventh Circuit to lawyer: What is this, amateur hour? [TaxProf Blog]

* Some more full length attorney bio pics. [Groom Law Group]

* Speaking of the whole Mac-PC thing… [Choate Hall & Stewart LLP]

* Former Congressman blows by the cops while getting blown, then refuses to blow. [Times Union]

* Ah jeez, the nuns too? [New York Times]

Are you a law student in the D.C. area looking for a part-time job to help you pay for books and the “cheapest sh*t the liquor stores sell?”

Well, Skadden has a great opportunity for you. That is, so long as you don’t want to sleep. Our tipster passed along this listing from the GW Jobs Board:

Major international law firm is seeking a law student to join its overnight Legal Assistant staff. The ability to perform legal research, cite check, Blue Book, shepardize, proofread and use Lexis/Westlaw is required, in addition to providing general support to attorneys in various practice areas, as assigned. Individual must be flexible and able to work independently, follow instructions well, and have an eye for detail. A skills test will be administered. Competitive salary and excellent benefits package commensurate with experience. EOE.

The scheduled hours are: Monday night through Friday morning
Midnight - 5:00 a.m.
(20 hours per week)

We especially recommend this position for a 1L, because you might as well go balls-to-the-wall on sleep deprivation. It’s all about the experience, man. That’s what you’ll tell the grandkids about one day.

Wow. Sorry for the delay in new posts, but you guys have been going wild in the comments, and have thereby crushed our servers. We suck. Anyway, here’s some more on MacGate:

University of Kentucky law students received a memo earlier this week explaining the school’s decision to use Exam Soft (and thus impact Mac users in the same negative fashion as American University). The long and the short of it is that Exam Soft is better than the other two choices, and that putting Mac users out is a necessary evil. The other choices rejected by Kentucky were Secure Exam (the company responsible for the New York Bar Exam Laptopgate clusterf**k) and Extegrity. Extegrity works with Macs, but Kentucky memo’s description of the company makes it sound pretty fly-by-night:

The company itself is very small, however, and has a small number of users. When we asked the owner about addressing problems that might arise during the administration of exams, he suggested that he would give us his cell phone number and we could just call him on the west coast.

So what have we learned? First, if you’re going to law school, it’s probably going to be easier on you if you have a PC laptop instead of a Mac one (also, you might consider remembering how to use pen and paper; we did it for all of our law school exams and the bar exam). Second, some real company needs to write a program for taking exams on laptops that is compatible with Macs.

The full memo after the jump.

“Hello, I’m a Mac.”

“And I’m a PC. I may not be great at making newfangled new media graphics, but at least I won’t cost you extra when you’re taking law school exams at American University.”

Apparently American University is not the best place to go law school if you plan on using a Mac laptop. From a tipster:

My sister is a 2L and was told before she went to the school that a Macintosh would be compatible for test-taking. Turns out this is not the case and the students with Macs must either pay $200-300 to download the software to take exams or rent a non-Mac to take the exam. In essense, students with Macs must pay to take their exams.

This is an appalling situation as I am told that at least 1/3 of the students there have Macs. Also, when I called the Student Tech Support Analyst at the school and told them that I was a potential incoming student and was looking to buy a PC, they initially told me that as long as the Mac has XP, that exam taking would be fine.

Is this a huge injustice to Mac users, or should the Mac users just man up and pay, or take the exams on paper?

We’ve got a portion of an email exchange between an angry Mac student and a dean of the school after the jump to help you decide.

While we anxiously await word of new associate bonus announcements, it is in the meantime a quite slow news day. For those of you tired of talking about the New York Bar Exam Results, here is a brief diversion in the form of full-length attorney bio photos from the firm Fox Rothschild. Our tipster quips:

It’s back-to-school-photo time for law firms. What’s up with this Fox Rothschild’s cruel and unusual full-body photos?

We had a look at a few of the sampling of photos provided by the tipster and we totally get what he’s saying (Samantha Evans, pictured at right, is an exception). Interesting experiment, but stick with the head shots next time guys, alright? You don’t want opposing attorneys sizing you up that much.

Any other firms doing wacky things with attorney photos? Maybe some more artsy-fartsy stuff, a la Gibson Dunn’s Peekaboo? Send us anything strange that you come across.

Links to a few more examples of the full length photos are after the jump.

Samantha Evans attorney bio [Fox Rothschild]
Playing “Peekaboo” with Debra Wong Yang of Gibson Dunn

Lat is here (and apparently partying like a rock star), so you’ll have to put with me for the rest of the day.

The first order of the day is to announce that the New York Bar Exam results are up on the BOLE website.

We had anxious tipsters this morning who were quite worried (and can you blame them, really?) that there was another screw-up with the exam. The link was already there to go to the results page, but clicking on it produced a large, red-lettered “ERROR” message. It appears from later tips that we received, though, that the results were available promptly at 9:00 a.m. just as it was previously announced they would be.

Ok, so they managed to get the results up, but what’s up with Laptopgate? Anybody got any updates?

Earlier: Update: What’s Going on with the New York Bar Exam Results?

Update: In our haste to get the post up, we missed an update on Laptopgate in the BOLE press release. The relevant paragraph is after the jump. The quick and dirty version: about a third of the 47 exam takers who had essay answers that were not retrieved passed even assuming a 0 score on those essays; about another third failed even assuming a perfect score on the essays; and for the final third, they guessed based on performance on the rest of the exam.

The latest Biglaw bonus announcement to cross our desk is that of Proskauer Rose. The firm is paying year-end and special bonuses, according to the familiar scale, consistent with the firm’s “established merit and hours guidelines.” The non-New Yorkers among you will be pleased to see that the Proskauer bonuses are the same across the New York, Boston, and Los Angeles offices.

Also, congratulations to Proskauer’s eleven new partners (and four senior counsel), whose promotions were recently announced. A special shout-out to Jon Oram, our law school classmate, and a leading young sports lawyer. Jon’s clients include the NBA, the NHL, Major League Soccer, the Philadelphia Eagles, and the New Jersey Devils. Congrats, Jon!

P.S. For the record, Jon was not our source for the Proskauer bonus memo — which we’ve posted for your reading pleasure, after the jump.

* Gitmo manual available online. [Miami Herald via How Appealing]

* O.J. to face trial. [BBC]

* Murder and torture? Price of doing business in Colombia. [ CNN]

* House passes bill to protect corporate attorney-client privilege. [Jurist]

* BU = Law School of Rock. [NPR via WSJ Law Blog]

Guess it’s “Magic Circle” night here at Associate Bonus Watch. Fresh on the heels of Freshfields, we’ve confirmed the Allen & Overy bonus announcement.

Check out the memo, announcing year-end and special bonuses at market rates, after the jump.

From the London Times:

Lawyer aims for KO

A City solicitor who swapped the boardroom for the boxing ring is to make her professional debut. Laura Saperstein, 36, from Tottenham, North London, was a mergers and acquisitions lawyer with Freshfields, earning £75,000 a year. Three years ago she left to train full-time and won the British lightweight amateur title. Her bout, against a Swedish opponent at Tooting Leisure Centre, will be on November 18.

We’re guessing that Ms. Saperstein is enjoying her new career, in which she’s already encountered significant success. But perhaps she misses her old job, or at least the paycheck of her old job, this time of year.

Her former employer, the Magic Circle firm of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, just announced bonuses for its New York and D.C. “fee earners.” The memo appears after the jump.

* From the unintended consequences file: “[R]ecent ousters on Wall Street are likely to result in even higher pay for management. The risks of running a bank or a brokerage are greater now than they have been at any time in the past—risks of prosecution, lawsuits, and ouster—and the top managers will demand to be compensated for those risks.” [DealBreaker]

* Seventy-nine-year-old nun pleads no contest to sex abuse charges. Blogonaut observes: “my high school buddy claimed to have been traumatized for life by once seeing a nun naked.” [New York Times; Blogonaut]

* Law firm office as prison: not just a metaphor. [AP via Boston.com]

* Unless the food has made quantum leaps in the past few years, we don’t understand why undergrads are clamoring for access to the YLS cafeteria. We ate hummus wraps for lunch for three years. [Yale Daily News]

* Details about our CLS appearance next week. [Columbia Law School Federalist Society]

In our earlier post about the recusal motion filed by one Robert Seitz — a Florida pro se litigant seeking recusal of Judge Mary Barzee Flores, claiming that he once received a pre-judicial BJ from Her Honor — we noted that his claims were mere allegations.

We expressly disclaimed any independent knowledge of his claims. We were simply passing along allegations made in a publicly filed court document — which, by the way, has circulated widely via email. (It was forwarded to us by maybe half a dozen different tipsters.)

Now we bring you Judge Barzee Flores’s side of the story. From an omnibus order filed in the case, denying Seitz’s motion to recuse:

You can read the full order, after the jump.

Earlier: Legal Ethics Question of the Day: If the Court Has Gone Down on You, Is Recusal Required?

Two major law firms with origins outside New York, Sidley Austin and Covington & Burling, have announced special bonuses for their NYC associates. What bonuses they will pay to their non-New York associates is not yet clear. But we’re guessing that, at the end of the day, the New York associates will take home considerably more pay than their counterparts outside Gotham.

In the comments, debate has raged over whether or not it’s appropriate to pay bigger bonuses to New York associates. The trash talking can be fun to read. But we’d like a more systematic assessment of public opinion.

Please take our reader poll about bonuses. It’s rather unscientific, and it makes no assumptions about billable hours, cost of living, etc. That’s okay; interpret the question in whatever way you wish. We’re just trying to get a very rough sense of reader opinion. (We might run more specific polls later.)

Here’s the poll:

So how did yesterday’s rallying in support of Pakistani lawyers go? It depends on whom you ask.

It was a smashing success, according to Eric Turkewitz:

Hundreds of New York attorneys tuned out at 1:00 today to rally in support of Pakistani lawyers that were arrested for demonstrating against the firing of the Pakistani Supreme Court….

By my eye, the crowd looked to be about 300-400 lawyers, well in excess of what I had anticipated. Attorneys filled the steps of the courthouse and spilled out onto the sidewalk below.

It was a big disappointment, according to David Giacalone:

… [F]ewer than 800 hundred lawyers took part yesterday in the two Pakistan solidarity rallies. Sadly, I do not believe it was because no one knew (did Musharaff jam everyone’s Blackberries and cellphones?) or because the protests were “splintered.” Everyone just had higher priorities at lunchtime on a lovely autumn day in Manhattan. Seems to me, curiosity alone should have ensured more than a triple-digit body count.

Will D.C-area lawyers, and those congregating from around the country to the Nation’s Capital, make a better show of solidarity today around the U.S. Supreme Court at Noon today?

Good question. If you attended the D.C. march, feel free to share your observations in the comments.

New York Lawyers Rally By Hundreds In Support of Pakistani Lawyers [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]
not impressed yet by U.S. lawyers re Pakistan [f/k/a]
Attack of the Lawyers! (subscription) [TNR (Ben Wittes)]

Earlier: Something To Do on Your Lunch Break Today

We reiterate what we observed yesterday: “When it comes to generating ATL material, the University of Miami School of Law tops the rankings.”

It appears that the undergraduate school at UM also sees its fair share of shenanigans. Check out this motion to recuse (PDF), which has been making the rounds by email. It involves one UM alumnus seeking the recusal of a former college classmate, now on the state bench.

Pro se plaintiff Robert Seitz asks Judge Mary Barzee Flores (at right), of Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit, to recuse herself from hearing his case. The grounds for recusal are, er, interesting. Here’s what he alleges (alleges — we’ve undertaken no independent investigation of his claims):

You can read the entire motion by clicking here (PDF).

Update: For Judge Barzee Flores’s response to these allegations, in her ruling on the motion to recuse, click here.

Seitz v. Bareille: Motion to Recuse [PDF]

From an ATL reader going through the law firm recruiting process right now:

I’ve enjoyed reading about various law firm recruiting snafus on Above the Law over the last few months. I just never thought I would be lucky enough to encounter one of my own.

I recently came home to an unusually thick envelope from Arnold & Porter (DC). Inside there was a typical ethnicity request form (to be mailed back to them for recordkeeping), a return envelope, and finally, much to my surprise — a refrigerator warranty!

Yep, that’s right. While other firms are busy sending recruits bonsai trees, iPods, and designer cookies, Arnold & Porter sends its rejects their appliance warranties.

Our tipster sent along a scanned copy of the warranty registration form:

Earlier: Public Humiliation, Courtesy of Your Friends at Wilson Sonsini
Fall Recruiting Snafu Watch: You Know They Really Don’t Want You When…
Not Everyone’s A Winner at Nixon Peabody

Statutory interpretation is fun! Check out this wacky fact pattern, perfect fodder for a criminal law final exam, from Court TV News (via Blogonaut):

In a 5-0 ruling, the [South Dakota Supreme Court] overturned the conviction of Michael James Plenty Horse for indecent exposure because he didn’t attempt to arouse others when he tried to have sex with the mannequin in a dark, closed room at a YMCA in Sioux Falls, S.D.

On Nov. 14, 2005, Plenty Horse, then 19, went to the YMCA’s Alumni Room, which housed memorabilia and photos of local high school students, including a mannequin wearing a band uniform, on the second floor of the building.

Once inside the empty room, he closed the door, turned off the lights, took the mannequin over to a desk and began trying to have sex with it, according to court documents.

A security guard opened the closed door, turned on the lights and saw Plenty Horse on top of the partially undressed mannequin, his pants down and a wadded piece of paper in his hand, court documents said.

Plenty Horse immediately rolled off the mannequin and began adjusting his pants when he saw the security guard, according to the ruling. When questioned by police, he said he had not seen his girlfriend in a year.

Grounds for a temporary insanity defense? Wisely, his lawyers took a different approach:

Plenty Horse’s attorney argued throughout the legal fight that, while what the young man did with the mannequin would likely offend people, he did not “flash” his genitals “in hopes of being observed, thereby gratifying himself sexually.”

The defense succeeded in getting him off:

“Nothing establishes that his conduct was done with the specific intent to generate sexual arousal or gratification by the act of publicly exposing, displaying or offer to the public view, his genitals,” the ruling said. “Therefore, the defendant’s act, lewd though it may have been, does not fall within the purview of the indecent exposure statute.”

Good stuff. You can read the full opinion here (PDF, via How Appealing).

Sex with a mannequin? S.D. Supreme Court says keep it behind closed doors [Court TV via Blogonaut]
State v. Plenty Horse [Supreme Court of South Dakota (PDF) via How Appealing]

It’s good to be an associate at Covington & Burling these days.

There’s the cleaned-up Wikipedia entry. There are, for New York associates, spiffy new offices in the Renzo Piano-designed New York Times building. One Covington associate describes the new digs as “spectacular,” with views of the Statue of Liberty, George Washington Bridge, and Empire State Building. “They are a bit cold and impersonal, but we are a law firm, after all.”

Also for New York associates: special bonuses. Check out the Covington (New York) bonus memo, after the jump.

* Mysore to doc review! [The Times of India]

* We’ve got a J.D., yes we do! We’ve got a J.D., how ‘bout you? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Apparently Bush doesn’t plan on letting Congress spend any more money for the rest of his term. [CNN]

* Ingredients: High fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, hair. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Former McGuireWoods legal secretary’s wrongful termination trial begins in Baltimore. [Maryland Daily Record]

* Judith Regan, former book publisher and Bernie Kerik paramour, files $100 million lawsuit against HarperCollins and News Corp. [New York Times]

Sorry, we were out drinking (more than we should). That’s why we didn’t immediately post the bonus memo for Sidley Austin (New York).

Now we’re back — and tipsy. Fortunately, posting a bonus memo is not like operating heavy machinery.

The email announcing New York bonuses was forwarded to Sidley associates outside of New York, with this intro:

For your information, please find the message below to New York associates announcing a special bonus being provided in New York. As noted, the special New York bonuses are in addition to year-end bonuses, which will be the subject of a Firm-wide announcement in the coming days and which we expect will generally follow the pattern of prior years. We appreciate and value the work of all our associates.

But the work of non-NYC associates, not so much. Not surprisingly, Sidley associates outside of New York are not happy campers:

“Chicago morale should be wonderful after this…”

“Management committee forwarded the email to all other offices — how considerate.”

“Note that the Management Committee sent the bonus memo to the NY office only, and it took them an hour before they realized they’d better circulate it to all associates (so we don’t learn about it from you first). There’s going to be significant grumbling in DC, Chicago and LA about the yawning chasm between the bonuses we’ll likely get compared to the apparent total bonuses in NY.”

For the curious among you, the full Sidley Austin memo appears after the jump.

As we mentioned earlier, we don’t watch How I Met Your Mother. But maybe we should start, since lately it has been very topical for lawyers and law students.

From a devoted reader of ATL and watcher of HIMYM:

No snarky write-up of last night’s episode? Marshall anxiously awaiting his bar results figures prominently. He loses his password, so he can’t log into the NY bar site. Meanwhile, Doogie Howser (as he will forever be named in my mind) concocts an elaborate scheme to hack into the site to get his results — and shows Marshall a dog pooping on a baby, instead.

As an aside, Marshall graduated from Columbia Law School, my alma mater, so I’m feeling particularly sentimental about the show.

Recap: Episode 308 [How I Met Your Mother / CBS]

Earlier: How I Met Your… Partner?

Remember the alleged South Carolina bar exam shenanigans, which we discussed in these pages last week? There are some updates. See the links collected below, including a fairly barebones statement from the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Also, here’s what appears to be an interesting email that made the rounds in the wake of the results announcement. It was purportedly sent by one of the test takers who initially failed to other individuals who sat for the S.C. bar exam:

Hey Y’all,

First of all I’m so sorry about the bar exam. This sucks. I need to know if any of you failed the Wills part of the exam and your score.

My Dad and [redacted’s] dad have been on the phone with the powers that be, and if we can get a big enough group together that failed the Wills section they are going to take it to the Sup. Ct and see if they’ll regrade our exams. Apparently, the examiner for the Wills section has been asked not to come back. We have a slim chance, but I think that it is worth it.

So far I have a list of 10 people that have failed the exam. They are [names redacted]. If you all know of anyone else that failed the Wills section PLEASE let me know so that we add them to the list. The scores are important too because we need to show the court how outrageous they are. Again, I’m so sorry we all failed. I really can’t believe it.

[redacted]
Law Clerk

Please do not identify any individuals by name in the comments. Thank you.

South Carolina Bar Examination Weirdness [Feminist Law Professors]
S.C. High Court Responds to Bar Exam Flap [FITSNews]
Supreme Court Issues Statement Regarding July 2007 Bar Examination [South Carolina Judicial Department]
Bar exam appeal route urged [The State]
20 years ago, state official’s daughter got score changed [The State]

Earlier: What’s Up With the South Carolina Bar Exam?

What’s our favorite law school? Not Harvard, not Yale — at least not for blogging purposes. When it comes to generating ATL material, the University of Miami School of Law tops the rankings.

We previously addressed the U. Miami Law community as follows:

Thanks to your many mentions in these pages — in addition to this YouTube gem [a musical modeling montage by a current student], you’ve also given us an allegedly prostitute-soliciting professor; a train wreck of a People’s Court appearance, featuring a saucy current student and an even more saucy former professor; and UM alumna Oona O’Connell, now prominently featured on a site called Girls and Guns (look under the “Girls” tab) — you’ve been granted your very own ATL category tag. Congratulations!

And now we have another post to file under that tag…

It seems that Oona O’Connell : University of Miami :: Felix Frankfurter : Harvard Law School. Perhaps due to its tropical location, UM is apparently populated by more aspiring models than future lawyers.

First we brought you this would-be model, a current UM law student. And now we introduce you to “Jessica” (at right), a red-headed stunner who is currently a 1L at Miami. Check out the video clip below, “Bikini Pool,” in which Jessica and several other bikini-clad women shoot pool — to wit, “a hot, sexy game of Cutthroat.”

Correction: Jessica is not an “aspiring” model, she IS a model. She was on national contracts for both modeling and acting for two years before deciding to attend law school. Very impressive! How many law school students can make such a claim?

[Warnings: (1) As you might expect from a video clip entitled “Bikini Pool,” it features women in bikinis. Don’t play it if you’re in a location where such a sight might be deemed inappropriate. (2) This video features loud music. Turn off your speakers if necessary.]

Bikini Pool [YouTube]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of the University of Miami School of Law (scroll down)

Back in July 2005, shortly after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her resignation from the Supreme Court, Professor Orin Kerr wrote an L.A. Times op-ed about how the Court might be affected by her departure. Its provocative title: O’Connor’s Successor Will Likely Be a Swinger.

We were reminded of Professor Kerr’s op-ed when we read this piece, by SOC biographer Joan Biskupic, in USA Today:

Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s husband, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, has found a new romance, and his happiness is a relief to his wife, an Arizona TV report reveals.

The report, which quoted the couple’s oldest son, Scott O’Connor, focused on Alzheimer’s patients who forget their spouses and fall in love with someone else. Experts say the scenario is somewhat common.

[T]he report spotlighted John O’Connor, 77. He and the woman, referred to only as “Kay,” live at a Phoenix facility for people with Alzheimer’s.

A lesser woman might be troubled by the December-December romance. But Justice O’Connor, who understands the nature of her husband’s devastating illness, is fine with it — in fact, more than fine:

“Mom was thrilled that Dad was relaxed and happy and comfortable living here and wasn’t complaining,” Scott, 50, told KPNX-Channel 12 in Phoenix in a story that aired Thursday. The station is owned by Gannett, as is USA TODAY….

Scott compared his father to “a teenager in love” and said, “For Mom to visit when he’s happy … visiting with his girlfriend, sitting on the porch swing holding hands,” was a relief after a painful period.

In any event, Justice O’Connor is too busy with her own work to be consumed by petty jealousies. Her busy schedule of meetings and speaking engagements has kept her on the road, both nationally and internationally. Recently she was in Paris — c’est magnifique!

Earlier today, SOC spoke at Columbia Law School. A report on her visit appears after the jump.

Here is today’s law firm perk post. From a devoted ATL reader:

Here’s an idea for perkwatch: paralegals. As I’m sure most people can attest to, a good stable of paralegals can be invaluable in systematizing some of the more mundane routine tasks.

One of my old firms had a majority of snippy, incompetent paralegals in Corporate, which often led to first years needing to, for instance, directly call to order good standing certificates. A good paralegal is certainly a “perk” in my mind.

Indeed. Especially when you get to make out with them at the firm holiday party!

Please discuss your paralegal experiences, good and bad, in the comments. Thanks.

P.S. A shout-out to the paralegals at our former firm, who are widely regarded as some of the best paralegals anywhere. You get what you pay for, and Wachtell Lipton pays its paralegals very well.

(Also, they’re really good at Scrabulous.)