* Rest in peace, Benazir Bhutto; God knows you weren't able to live in it. [CNN]

* That seems like a pretty good starting point for liability against the zoo. [BBC]

* We don't know if you know Tom Goldstein, but he's a pretty big deal. [SCOTUSBlog]

* If he could only apply all of that genius to acquiring some money to actually make a mortgage payment... [WSJ Law Blog]

* NRA defends the rights of hurricane victims to shoot at the National Guard keep guns. [AP via How Appealing]

* French "aid" workers sentenced to eight years of hard labor in Chad "orphan" case. [Jurist]

* Apparently if you're a rapper you can show up at court when you damn well please. [Athens Banner-Herald]

* If you feel guilty about it, at least you can take comfort in the fact that you've helped set up an appeal. [CNN]

* Would a holiday search be unreasonable? [Findlaw via How Appealing]

* Is the DOJ passing up a chance to crack down on plaintiff's lawyers? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Nothing but a G string. [CNN]

* Toby Keith puts his boot in the defendant's ass in the form of a $2.8 million verdict for his family in a suit over the wrongful death of his father. [AP via Asbury Park Press]

We hope that you're having a wonderful holiday season and are getting some well-deserved rest -- as are we.

As was the case last year, we'll be on a reduced publication schedule between now and the new year. We'll return to a normal schedule on Wednesday, January 2, 2008.

To those of you who celebrate it, Merry Christmas! And a happy new year to all.

* Top legal stories of 2007. [CNN]

* Stop complaining, civil libertarians. Things could be much worse. [New York Times]

* A leadership vacuum at the Department of Justice. [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* And don't look to recess appointments to address the problem. [Washington Post]

* A different kind of "pole tax," which will divert five dollar bills from g-strings to g-coffers. But does it violate the First Amendment? [AP; TaxProf Blog]

* Union members: You've Got Mail. Oh wait, you don't -- at least not of the union-related kind. [New York Times]

* Adam Liptak asks whether a "Judicial Hellhole" is in the eye of the beholder. Also, a quote from Dickie Scruggs that maybe he wishes he could take back. [New York Times via WSJ Law Blog]

Let's send you into the holiday weekend with some associate bonus news. Here are some law firm bonus announcements that haven't been previously covered in these pages.

(Firms that previously announced their bonuses, but are being sneaky about the exact amounts and/or the percentage of associates getting them, will be addressed separately. This post is for completely new announcements.)

Some of this news is incomplete. If you can provide more details, please email us. Thanks.

1. Akin Gump (New York): Year-end bonuses, and special bonuses to "those associates and counsel who have performed in accordance with the Firm’s expectations regarding productivity, quality of work and Firm citizenship." Plus "discretionary merit bonuses" to associates and counsel "who performed in a truly exceptional manner."

One source at the firm characterizes it as follows:

Full match in NY, with extra bonuses in certain cases (generally to billers over 2400). There has never been an hours requirement, so if past practice is any indicator, anyone not being fired will get it.

Full memo, after the jump.

2. Akin Gump (outside New York): Each associate is allowed to make the case to the firm for a big bonus. A source tells us that this practice of asking associates to write up memos to justify their bonuses started a few years ago. "I wonder how this plays into the current bonus climate, or if anyone else has to do this."

3. Hogan & Hartson (outside New York): The 2007 bonus memo appears after the jump.

4. Hogan & Hartson (New York): We've confirmed the fact that Hogan announced bonuses in New York. It was described to us as a market match. But we haven't seen a memo or the fine print of the announcement, so we can't confirm that.

Update: The bonus memo for Hogan & Hartson's New York office appears after the jump.

5. Vinson & Elkins (New York): "V&E matched the New York market bonus (including this year's special bonus) for its New York associates, to be paid on January 15, 2008. No memo yet, a voicemail."

6. Sheppard Mullin: Details after the jump.

The late Pope John Paul II was an expert skier. Even after he became Pope, and into his 60's, the Holy Father would slip away from the Vatican for secret ski trips.

So, although we'd like them removed from all interstate highways, we have no problem with oldies on the slopes. This, however, is more troubling:

A 60-year-old man is taking an 8-year-old boy and his dad to court, claiming the boy caused a ski-slope collision that left the older man with a shoulder injury. David J. Pfahler of Allentown, Pa., sued in federal court in Denver, claiming Scott Swimm, then 7, was skiing fast and recklessly when they collided in January, the Vail Daily reported Thursday.

Looks like Pfahler is making a federal case of it (literally). He claims -- quite conveniently, for diversity jurisdiction purposes -- losses in excess of $75,000.

Scott's father, Robb Swimm, said that he saw the crash and that Scott was skiing slowly and in control. "It wasn't a violent collision or anything; Scott just kind of tapped his ski boots," he said this week.

Scott's mother, Susan Swimm, said her son weighs 48 pounds and couldn't have been going more than 10 mph. "Who in the world sues a child?" she said.

Scott: How much do you have in your piggy bank? Pfahler is nearing retirement age -- and Social Security doesn't cover many ski trips.

Man, 60, sues boy, 8, over ski collision [Associated Press]

Check out this continuance motion (PDF), filed yesterday in Louisiana state court. It's pretty great -- especially the footnotes.

Update: As noted in the comments, there is precedent for this motion in Louisiana state court. See Danos v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (unpublished order).

P.S. We're still accepting applications for the position of ATL "Sports and the Law" columnist (details here). If you've already applied, thank you for your application. We are reviewing the many excellent submissions and will announce a decision in the new year. Thanks!

Motion to Continue Trial Due to Conflict with the LSU Tigers National Championship Game
[Joseph Harrell v. Fred Spencer and Imperial Casualty Insurance Company]

We're still gathering responses to Monday's survey, which asks you how big your bonus was (or is going to be). At last count, around 1,250 of you had responded, and you can still add your two cents (which is reportedly close to "market" at MWE) over here.

About a third of you still haven't heard whether your firm will pay bonuses, and that's clearly a source of deep frustration. But many of you have reported that the wait for your numbers is nowhere near as frustrating as the wait for the actual check. So here's an open thread for discussion of the subject.

To kick off the discussion, here's a tip we received from an associate in Washington, DC:

How about a story on mid-sized firms (who recruit from T14 schools) who intentionally wait until February-March to give bonuses? By doing so, they must know that the bulk of lateral openings will have come and gone by the time bonuses are given out -- so if an associate waits for his bonus to lateral, it's too late.

Today's featured survey, brought to you by ATL and Lateral Link, is on the same topic. It appears below.

In the spirit of delayed gratification, the next batch of results from Monday's survey will appear after you complete the survey. So far, we've revealed the bonus and salary responses from New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC. Yesterday, Los Angeles and San Francisco were neck and neck in the number of responses, while Boston made a proud showing in the comments.

Which city will we reveal next? Fill out the following survey to find out.

Time for some quick follow-up on yesterday's intriguing email about "an exciting, transformational event" for Mayer Brown. As we speculated, the big news is a merger announcement.

From an article by Ameet Sachdev the Chicago Tribune:

Mayer Brown plans to announce Friday an agreement to join forces with a large Hong Kong firm in a deal that would dramatically expand the Chicago law firm's Asian presence, the Chicago Tribune has learned.

Mayer Brown is teaming up with Johnson, Stokes & Master, one of Hong Kong's oldest law firms known for its stellar reputation in banking and finance, also a strength of Mayer's.

Note that it's "Stokes," not "Strokes." A firm named "Johnson, Strokes & Master" surely would have made this list of funny law firm names. In Asia, the firm will be known as Mayer Brown JSM (which mercifully contains no "i"; but note that "jism" is a legitimate word, and a good way to get rid of your "J" if you enjoy online Scrabble, as we do).

An ATL source at the firm reports:

We just got out of the worldwide meeting they had for associates and counsel, and I thought it was pretty exciting. In its presentations in the past, it has always mentioned that it wanted to have a significant Asia presence. They said that JSM was one of the top law firms in Asia, and the complementary mix of practice groups and clients will lead to lots of "synergies" (that was the big buzz word).

Something you might find interesting -- they put up a new chart ranking law firms by worldwide revenue. We jumped from 13th (with $1.1bn) to 10th (with $1.35bn). JSM last year had about $130 million in revenue on only 41 partners. I'm pretty psyched about it....

Despite $1.3 billion in revenue and 1800 lawyers, the merged firm plans to expand further. From the Financial Times:

The firms expect to grow substantially after the merger. Mr Holzhauer projects annual revenue to hit $2bn ”very quickly” and Ms Lo predicts earnings of $4bn within two to three years. ”This kind of growth cannot be obtained by just organic growth alone,” said Ms Lo.

Up to now, Mayer Brown’s Asia presence has been limited to one office in Hong Kong and a representative office in Beijing. JSM, whose clients include HSBC, Bank of China and Cathay Pacific, has 200 lawyers in mainland China, but none outside Asia.

Meanwhile, in other MB news, the firm just announced New York bonuses. Memo after the jump.

Mayer Brown to merge with big Hong Kong firm [Chicago Tribune]
Mayer Brown merging with Hong Kong’s JSM [Financial Times]

Earlier: Mayer Brown Is A Woman Now

We've previously reported on improved parental leave policies at Latham & Watkins, Davis Polk, and Simpson Thacher. We predicted that "with respect to maternity leave for birth mothers, 18 weeks will become the new 'market rate.'"

Perhaps it already is. Tipsters have written in to advise us that Sullivan & Cromwell and Weil Gosthal & Manges went to 18 weeks some time ago -- S&C back in August, and Weil in September.

For anyone who is interested, more details appear after the jump.

As you may recall, the reaction of ATL readers to the bonus announcement of O'Melveny & Myers was decidedly unfavorable. Now the Daily Journal (subscription) -- in an article entitled "O'Melveny & Myers' Below-Market Bonus Disappoints Associates," by Maya Meinert and Rebecca Cho -- has taken notice:

This week's bonus announcement from Los Angeles-based firm O'Melveny & Myers has caused much dismay among associates in the firm's California and Washington, D.C., offices - the law blog AboveTheLaw.com's post on the subject generated more than 200 comments - because the standard bonuses remain unchanged from last year and are well below what is considered "market," based on New York numbers.

Should other major players in California pay more, O'Melveny could feel the impact among its associate ranks, industry observers said.

According to a memo obtained by AboveTheLaw.com, O'Melveny's standard bonuses range from $27,500 for first-year associates to $45,000 for those in their seventh year and beyond. The bonuses are tied to a rating system based on the firm's expectations and a minimum billable-hour requirement of 1,950.

More excerpts and discussion, including the firm's reaction when contacted by the Daily Journal, appears after the jump.

* CIA to cooperate with investigation of alleged torture tapes. [Newsweek]

* The Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy and statutory rape laws. Discuss. [CNN]

* California may face an uphill battle in taking its bid to limit greenhouse gases to the D.C. Circuit. [Los Angeles Times via How Appealing]

* Manslaughter trial that allegedly originated from MySpace messages goes to jury. [CNN]

* Interesting issues arise in New Jersey gang cases. [New York Times]

* Milberg Weiss trial will stay in L.A. [New York Sun via How Appealing; WSJ Law Blog]

We have to step out for a bit (company holiday party). We've only skimmed this Complaint (PDF), just filed in the Southern District of New York, by a Jewish lawyer against his former employer, Allen & Overy.

Check out the Complaint for yourself, by clicking here (PDF), and offer your thoughts in the comments. We look forward to reviewing your reflections when we return.

P.S. A special request: nicknames for this lawsuit, a la "Brokeback Lawfirm" for the Aaron Charney case, are especially welcome.

Complaint: Norman Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy (PDF)

Update: Here is the firm's statement, emailed to us by a spokesperson:

Allen & Overy denies all allegations of discrimination. This person's employment was terminated based solely on performance within his orientation period, a trial period of time mandated for all employees. He also failed to disclose to Allen & Overy the fact of his previous employment at another law firm.

Our firm has a strict written policy prohibiting any form of discrimination, and we provide all new employees and partners training in both diversity awareness and harassment prevention. Over the past several years, we have also instituted live diversity training for all of our existing attorneys and managers. We will vigorously defend our proud reputation of diversity and inclusion and are confident of a positive outcome for Allen & Overy with respect to these allegations.

We'll write more about this later. If you have any firsthand information to pass along about the events in question, please email us. Thanks.

* Who says lawyers can't be stylish? [Fashionista]

* Guess this makes Judge Porteous officially worse than Judge Kent. [New Orleans Times-Picayune]

* Should federal judges be barred from reading blogs? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Of course not. Unless they're written by robots. [Overlawyered]

Following in the footsteps of Latham & Watkins and Simpson Thacher, whose moves were first reported in these pages, Davis Polk has just adopted a new and improved "Primary Caregiver Leave" policy.

We predict that, with respect to maternity leave for birth mothers, 18 weeks will become the new "market rate." One tipster quips: "Four and a half months of paid time off almost makes me want to have kids."

Here's the email, which went out around half an hour ago:

From: **** On Behalf Of Management Committee
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:07 PM
To: all.lawyers
Subject: Primary Caregiver Leave Policy

We are pleased to announce that, effective immediately, the firm has adopted a new Primary Caregiver Leave policy, which will provide lawyers who are primary caregivers to a newborn or newly adopted child with up to six weeks of paid leave within the first six months of the birth or adoption of a child. This leave is in addition to the other parental and disability/maternity leaves offered by the firm. For example, a Davis Polk associate who gives birth and is the child's primary caregiver will now be eligible for up to 18 weeks of paid leave.

For additional information about the new Primary Caregiver Leave policy and the policies on Parental Leave and Disability/Maternity Leave, please consult the Lawyers' Handbook.

Thank you.

So far we're up to around 1,200 responses to Monday's ATL / Lateral Link survey, which asks you how big your bonus was (or is going to be).

So far we've told you about New York and Washington, DC. Today, we're adding a third city. It was a close call between L.A., San Francisco, or Chicago, but we got a few more responses from Chicago, so it's today's new city.

We're still accepting responses to the survey, and the more (valid) responses we get from your city, the more likely it is to be the next city we reveal. To participate, click here.

Check out the results, after the jump.

Still no bonus announcement from Mayer Brown. But check out this intriguing email, sent out in the last hour:

From: D'Esposito, Jr., Julian C.
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:41 PM
To: FW-Assocs; FW-Cnsl
Cc: Holzhauer, James D.; Geller, Kenneth S.; Maher, Paul; Favoriti, Gail A.; Pepper, Margery; Madden, Emilie S.; Dabrowski, Heidi M.; Reichert, Kathleen S.; Harris, Robert; Staiano, David; Couleur, Nancy Jo; Belic, Indira; Burdett, Shannon T.; Burkes, Eugenia; Corby, Candice; Harris, Russell; Holthaus, John H.; Kennedy, Clinton D.; Kislow, Connie; Ku, Alice; Loessl, Angela-Katrin; Tulic, Vesna; Watson, John; Wells, Stephen R.

Subject: Firmwide Meeting on Friday, December 21

Please plan to attend a Firmwide video presentation by the office of the Chairman on December 21 that will describe an exciting, transformational event for the Firm. The meeting will begin promptly at 8am PST, 10am CST, 11 am EST, 2pm BRST, 4 GMT, 5 CET and 12 am Saturday HKST. The Director of Administration will inform you of the location of the meeting in your office. If you are out of the office, there will be a limited number of dial-in lines, the number for which can be obtained from the DoA. You should receive an Outlook calendar notice of this meeting later today.

____________________________________________
Julian C. D'Esposito
Mayer Brown LLP
71 S. Wacker
Chicago, IL 60606

What could this "exciting, transformational event" be? We assume it's not the recent indictment of partner Joseph Collins, since that's already public.

Maybe a merger is in the works? It wouldn't be the first in the firm's history. The firm's former name, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, reflected the merger of U.S.-based Mayer, Brown & Platt with U.K.-based Rowe & Maw.

Update: One tipster speculates:

I have no idea, but it is of course intriguing. Maybe we're going public. (That would apply only to the English LLP of course. I think that it may be possible in the future but hadn't seen any change in the law that would allow it now.)

So maybe it's a merger. Or possibly the "exciting" change is that they are not going to give bonuses any more.

That would be "exciting" news -- to rival firms, looking to raid the ranks of Mayer Brown lawyers.

Further Update: We've learned that tonight is the holiday party for the New York office. And still no word about bonuses...

The judicial fiefdom of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is about to expand. From today's Recorder (via How Appealing):

An extra seat for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared Congress on Tuesday and is headed to President Bush's desk.

The U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Court Security Improvement Act on Monday night, and the House of Representatives approved it on a voice vote Tuesday. Buried in that bill is language that removes one seat from the D.C. Circuit and moves it to the 9th.

Makes sense to us. Any court that takes the summer off, as the D.C. Circuit essentially does, isn't exactly overwhelmed. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit is by far the nation's largest and busiest federal appeals court. It's so huge that it has been the subject of repeated attempts at a split (so far unsuccessful, perhaps because of the Ninth Circuit Curse).

As Dan Levine's article notes, "the seat won't materialize until Jan. 21, 2009 -- the day after President Bush leaves office." We have no doubt that President Hillary Clinton will be able to fill it with a distinguished jurist.

Indeed, President Clinton may be able to reshape the Ninth Circuit, in the same that President Carter reshaped it -- in a way that still endures today, as reflected in the court's strong leftward tilt. Many of the liberal lions who are eligible for senior status but have declined to take it, such as Judges Harry Pregerson and Stephen Reinhardt, may finally be willing to do so, once they know that the court's future is in President Clinton's capable hands.

Congress OKs Extra Seat for 9th Circuit [The Recorder via How Appealing]

Our earlier open thread, about exam time "care packages" from law firms, remains active -- over a week after it was posted. So we thought we'd do a follow-up, on what law firms are sending recruits for holiday gifts.

From one tipster:

How about a piece on what law firms are offering law students as Christmas gifts? I received a package from Nixon Peabody (where everyone's a winner). It was a gray scarf, made in the USA with imported polyester (no s**t!) -- and, of course, Nixon Peabody's logo imprinted on it. I can always use a scarf, even if it is polyester, and the logo comes off with a knife (scraping).

And, of course, the market leader in swag -- Sullivan & Cromwell, provider of the famed bonsai trees -- is getting into the holiday spirit:

Attached are some pictures of the S&C holiday / exam swag (above right; thumbnail image, click to enlarge). It all came in a comically large box which I was hoping would lead to much jealousy from my roommates. Unfortunately, inside was a quite standard mug, hot chocolate, cookie combo - and, in a box of its own, a large, reversible fake wool blanket. On the reverse the blanket is a kind of synthetic raincoat material. Strange.

So what did your law firm, a former and/or future employee, send you to welcome the holiday season? Feel free to share in the comments.

(A picture of the "comically large" packaging, after the jump.)

Earlier: Does Your Law Firm Love You? An Open Thread on Exam Time Swag

* Associates, rejoice. Congress passes AMT legislation. [New York Times]

* Guitar Hero injunction denied. [Detroit Free Press]

* White separatist group sues over Jena march. [MSNBC]

* U.S. executions on the decline. [Washington Post]

* New Holloway evidence to be revealed. [CNN]

Information is now trickling in about bonuses at Kirkland & Ellis. Last week we had heard -- through the grapevine, from a social acquaintance of a K&E share partner -- that they would be good. It appears that the scuttlebutt was correct.

A K&E source in Chicago, class of 2006, reports hours of 2050 and a bonus of $45,000. That would be market in New York ($35K year-end + $10K special). But in Chicago, it's definitely above market.

A K&E source in New York advises as follows about New York bonus levels:

Overall bonuses were well over market. Exact numbers are hard to give... but about 60% were over market, with the rest mostly being with the market.

Out of the first years (class of 2006), 21 out of 36 people were above the market. After that, the ratio really increased as to the number of people who beat the market.

Congratulations, Kirkland associates, on your bountiful bonuses!

If you work at K&E, feel free to provide your bonus info in the comments. When it comes to bonus data points, the more the merrier. Thanks.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: A Pre-Announcement from Kirkland & Ellis

* If you want to run a "pump and dump" scheme, this is how you do it. [DealBreaker]

* She was only carrying the knife to defend herself -- from the bullies who would beat her up for having a brown bag lunch containing steak. [Overlawyered]

* If you ditch the law for the lucrative land of private equity, maybe you too can someday plunk down $21.3 million for a copy of the Magna Carta. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Blawg Review 139, this week replete with "sphincter-tightening." [Legal Literacy via Blawg Review]

* A shout-out to ATL form the ABA Journal, in an item about lowball bonuses. [ABA Journal]

* Speaking of the ABA Journal -- we don't want to get complacent, lest we get ambushed. Please vote for ATL! Thanks. [ABA Journal]

Monday's ATL / Lateral Link survey, which is still open, asks you how big your bonus was (or is going to be).

We're still accepting responses to the survey -- to participate, click here -- and now we're at around 1,100 participants. So we've made slight updates to the New York numbers to reflect fresh data.

After New York, the most responses have come from Washington, DC, so today's chart includes that city. Not surprisingly, the bonus ranges in Washington generally fall somewhere between New York and the national average.

Check them out, after the jump.

We see that the WSJ Law Blog has beaten us to this subject. We've had this post ready for a while; unfortunately, technical difficulties have prevented us from posting for the past hour.

The WSJ folks have already presented some of the cards that we were going to cover. But here are a few firm holiday greetings not on their list (click on each firm name to see their card):

1. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: Trying too hard, sort of like their Wild West-themed holiday party? Then again, it must have been fun for those underemployed structured finance associates to try their hand at web design.

2. Dewey & LeBoeuf: Not trying hard enough? This may take subtlety and understatement too far, to the point of banality. But at least the card's not signed "Sieg heil."

3. Schottenstein Zox & Dunn: This firm, which has about 110 lawyers in three Ohio cities and Raleigh, NC, explains in its cover email that it "strive[s] to approach life and law from a different perspective." So they designed not one but TWO holiday videos. You can view them, and vote for your favorite, over here. We're partial to the video of the skateboarding attorneys, which must have been a challenge to film.

For each vote, the firm will donate $1 to Project Mentor Big Brother Big Sisters of Central Ohio. How nice! (But it's too bad you have to provide your name and email address to vote, which will probably depress voter turnout.)

Update: It appears that the WSJ's link to the holiday card of Grodsky & Olecki, an entertainment law boutique, is broken. We've posted the card, which we also received, after the jump.

Law Blog Law Firm Holiday Cards Of the Day [WSJ Law Blog]

It's the end of the year, and the partnership announcements are trickling in. Some are being made externally, on law firm websites. Others are being made internally, with external announcements to follow in January.

Although many of them are sent to us, a specific firm's partnership announcement isn't typically of interest to us (unless there's something independently interesting about the person making partner -- drop us a line a few years from now, when Aquagirl or Loyola 2L makes partner). But we are interested in what people think generally about partnership prospects these days. So here is an open thread for discussion of the subject.

To kick off the discussion, here's a tip we received about Paul Weiss, which recently announced its new partners:

You should do an open thread about associates who have been told year after year that they were "on track" and then were totally screwed and passed over for partner. For example, for the second year in a row, Paul Weiss passed over people who were the "shoe-ins" for partner and told for years that they would make it. Two of the most egregious examples in the past two years involve women. Both women are extremely talented and have outstanding track records so it came as a complete shock to the associates. In fact, as a female mid-level associate, it makes me think, why the hell am I staying here?

(We contacted the firm for comment, but they did not get back to us.)

We're also curious about how many associate readers of ATL think they'll make partner. So here is today's featured survey, brought to you by ATL and Lateral Link:

Results to follow, later in the week.

Last week, the ABA Journal named former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales its 2007 Lawyer Legal Newsmaker of the Year. Now we bring you news of two more Lawyers of the Year.

The National Law Journal went highbrow and international. The NLJ selected Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, as its Lawyer of the Year:

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is not exactly a household name to the legal profession in the United States. We think he should be.

Chaudhry, the chief justice of Pakistan who was dismissed from office by President Pervez Musharraf after the imposition of emergency rule, has been a strong voice for the preservation of the rule of law in Pakistan — one of the United States' key allies in the war on terror.

Meanwhile, the WSJ Law Blog stayed domestic. Their honoree may be, for better or worse, more well-known that former Chief Justice Chaudhry (at least to readers of ATL). Their pick: celebrity commenter Loyola 2L!

[W]hen the nominees were put to an unscientific vote, Loyola 2L won in a landslide.... And before you start whining, “But he’s not even a lawyer!,” we never said we were strict constructionists!

So who — or what — is Loyola 2L? For the non-cognoscenti, he, or she, is purportedly a second-year student, or “2L,” at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. And his claim to fame? For over a year, Loyola 2L has beaten a loud and consistent drum of discontent around the Web by posting in online forums about the job prospects for graduates of nonelite law schools.

If you're hoping that this honor will bring Loyola 2L to unmask himself (or herself), don't hold your breath:

[W]hile he’s presumably a “3L” by now, he still clings to the moniker. And anonymity. In responding to a call to identify himself he said, “Outing myself . . . would only add to the current difficulties in my life.”

For today, L2L, put the complaining on hold, and bask in the limelight. You've earned it!

P.S. Thanks for all of your nominations for ATL's own Lawyer of the Year contest. We'll put up the poll shortly.

The Lawyer of the Year: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry [National Law Journal]
The Law Blog Lawyer Of the Year: Loyola 2L [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: ATL Lawyer of the Year: Nominations, Please

Okay, she didn't quite say that. But, for the record, the woman accused of groping Santa Clause denies the allegations, claiming that she never ever sat on his lap:

"I don't know what's going on. I don't know if he was confused, it was a false report," Sandrama Lamy, 33, said this morning.

Lamy said she was window shopping at the mall Saturday with a friend when she decided to get a picture with a man playing Santa Claus.

A woman -- apparently working with the mall Santa -- made a comment after the picture was snapped, Lamy said.

"I did not sit on his lap. A woman there said 'Be careful, that's my husband.' I said 'What does that have to do with the picture?'" Lamy said. "That's all I said, and I left."...

"Why would I do this? There were so many people there. If he (Santa) needed a few extra bucks I would have given it to him," Lamy said. "I've never been involved in a crime or anything. This is shocking to me."

Selected amusing comments from readers of the Danbury News-Times, after the jump.

Every now and then, we like to highlight super-crappy especially unappealing job opportunities. See, e.g., this one (perfect for those of you who think sleep is overrated).

A reader at the University of Texas Law School recently sent a great job posting our way. A teaser:

Where to begin? First, what the heck is "Associate Attorney II"? Second, workday commences at 8 AM, and work week is 50-60 hours, Monday through Friday (not including possible weekend and holiday work). Third, anyone who cannot sit for two hours, or requires use of any ADA accommodations, need not apply. Fourth, everything is at the partners' discretion. Oh, and just in case you thought otherwise, "[t]his description is for recruitment purposes, only, and does not constitute a contract."

We noticed a few other less-than-appealing aspects of the job:

1. Pay is $4K a month. (This is a lawyer's job, right? At a law firm?)

2. The job requires a current Texas driver's license and "the ability to drive long distances unaccompanied during daylight and nighttime hours."

3. One of the practice areas is "water / wastewater / solid waste" law.

4. The job requires the ability to "carry[] loads of up to 35 pounds (such as books, binders, and files)." (To repeat: this is a lawyer's job, right?)

5. Yes, there are bonuses -- for associates who "produc[e] stellar work product and exceed[] billable hour goals," and "at the discretion of the partners."

Well, at least they're honest. No pretending to match the Cravath bonus scale, while in reality giving market-level bonuses to only a handful of associates.

Read the full job listing, after the jump.

* White House lawyers discussed destroyed CIA tapes. Harriet, holla. [New York Times]

* Meanwhile, Judge orders hearing on the destroyed tapes. [CNN]

* Defense contractor KBR employee alleges rape, testifies before House Judiciary Committee. [ABC Local]

* Teen convicted of murder when he was 12, who unsuccessfully invoked Zoloft defense, seeks cert. [MSNBC]

* Charges dropped in Holloway case again. [CNN]

O'Melveny & Myers just announced associate bonuses for its offices in California and Washington, DC. One of the tipsters who sent us the memo is not pleased:

Attached is the memo that O'Melveny & Myers associates just received. The figures for the "class bonus" appear to be far below the standard bonus at other comparable firms such as Gibson Dunn.

Memo after the jump.

Update: Based on the reactions thus far, this announcement is not going over very well. But maybe OMM is okay with that. Opines one commenter: "Expect a big exodus. It's probably what they are hoping for."

Colorado judge Grafton M. Biddle has been the subject of a prior ATL shout-out. But he has never been officially named a Judge of the Day. We think it's about time.

From the Rocky Mountain News:

A former Douglas County judge who had an affair with a prosecutor that included a rendezvous in his chambers and in the women's courthouse showers was suspended for three years Monday.

Grafton M. Biddle's punishment comes almost a year after he resigned his judgeship in a short Dec. 18 letter signed simply, "With regrets," that gave no reason for his decision.

But by then, rumors of his affair with Deputy District Attorney Laurie A. Hurst — who used the last name Steinman at the time — had been circulating in the courthouse.

From one of the paper's online commenters:

"Just another black mark on the Colorado Judicial System...... Would this be prostitution??? You know, lawyers have billable hours for everything they do... Screw the judge or screw the neighbors... Someone is paying the price for getting screwed, and an attorney is involved."

If you use the Douglas County courthouse showers, wear flip-flops.

Judge suspended over affair [Rocky Mountain News]

Earlier: Let's Get It On, Counselor!

What kind of sick society do we live in? From the Danbury News-Times (via Drudge):

A 33-year-old woman was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault Saturday after allegedly groping a man playing Santa Claus at the Danbury Fair mall.

Sandrama Lamy, 33, of Danbury, is charged with fourth-degree sexual assault, according to Danbury Detective Lt. Thomas Michael.

She sounds like a total.... ho ho ho.

Details leading up to the alleged fondling are sketchy. "I don't know what the deal was. It was just bizarre," the mall Santa told a reporter...

The mall Santa told police that Lamy touched him inappropriately while sitting on his lap. "The security officer at the mall said Santa Claus has been sexually assaulted," Michael said.

Put Ms. Lamy on the "naughty" side of the ledger.

2007 has not been a great year for mall Santas. Earlier this month in Missoula, Mont., a mall Santa was assaulted with a pumpkin pie. Meanwhile, a department store Santa in Australia claims he lost his job earlier this month because he said "Ho, ho, ho." (His bosses had asked him to say "Hi, hi, hi.")

"Santa Tim" Connaghan is the president of RealSantas.com and teaches hundreds of people a year how to be Santas. He said the Danbury Fair mall incident, if true, is one of kind. Santas usually have to worry about kids tugging beards and teens throwing pennies from the mall rafters.

"I've had some very nice ladies sit on my lap," Connaghan said.

Over at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Daniel Schwartz offers an analysis of potential employer liability under this fact pattern.

Sexual Harassment of Santa Claus - What's An Employer To Do? [Connecticut Employment Law Blog]
Police say woman groped Santa [Danbury News-Times]

So far, we've received about 1,000 responses to yesterday's ATL / Lateral Link survey on bonuses.

So far, we've discovered that around 40% of associates receiving bonuses think their bonus is too low, which is just slightly higher than the percentage of associates who think their hourly rates are too high. Coincidence?

Since over a third of you still don't know what your bonuses will be, we're going to leave the survey open for the rest of the week. Please fill it out if you haven't already done so. To access it, click here.

In the meantime, we're going to post the national results and breakdowns on a city by city basis. Since we have the most responses from New York, that's where we'll start. See the results after the jump.

Many of our Lawyers of the Day tend to be solo or small-firm practitioners from non-major cities. Not so with today's honoree, Joseph Collins. He's a partner at Mayer Brown, one of the country's biggest and most prestigious law firms, and he maintains offices in Chicago and New York.

From an article by Nathan Koppel in the Wall Street Journal (subscription; but also covered at the Law Blog):

In a rare case of a lawyer being charged in connection with the alleged wrongs of a client, Chicago lawyer Joseph Collins was indicted today on fraud and other charges in connection with the 2005 collapse of commodities and derivatives firm Refco Inc.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan on Tuesday announced 11 counts against Mr. Collins, of the law firm Mayer Brown LLP, in connection with legal work he did for Refco, including documenting a series of "round trip loans" between related entities and outside investors that Refco completed to shift bad debt off its books from the late 1990s to 2005. The discovery of the transactions led to one of the swiftest collapses in Wall Street history.

Phillip Bennett, the former chief executive of Refco, and others have been indicted in connection with the Refco collapse.

"Acting hand-in-hand with Bennett, Collins made affirmative misrepresentations, material omissions, and told deceptive half-truths, all to assist Bennett's scheme to steal more than $2.4 billion from potential investors," the indictment said.

Yikes. And the indictment is coming out of the S.D.N.Y. -- those guys are badass.

Neither Mr. Collins nor the firm got back to the WSJ in time to comment. But we were able to get a statement from Mayer Brown. Check it out, after the jump.

We've heard complaints from numerous associates claiming that their law firms are using vague bonus policies to lowball them on bonuses. While we understand why these associates are upset, we can't say we're surprised. The whole point of a bonus policy that contains an element of discretion is the ability to pay some associates less than others -- for whatever reason, justified or not.

This is why we regard only a lockstep, non-hours-based match of the Cravath year-end and special bonuses as a "true match." If a firm reserves the right to tailor associate bonuses -- based on billable hours, quality of performance, or any other factor -- expect the firm to exercise it.

So we don't expect to write much about how firms are using slippery bonus memos to pay low bonuses (although we will bring you the results of yesterday's bonus survey). The intricacies of an individual law firm's bonus policy tend to be of interest only to people at that particular firm.

We are, however, interested in bright-line distinctions. For example, what firms have rejected special bonuses entirely? It turns out there are a few of them. Last week we received this info:

DLA Piper litigation associates in New York just left a "Coffee Meeting" with Joe Finnerty III, head of New York litigation. He "unofficially" announced that the bonus structure and amount will be exactly the same as last year and that there will be no market "special bonuses."

Hmm. Did the firm not get paid enough for the Mitchell Report?

And today we received this info:

I'm an associate at McDermott, Will & Emery in the Boston office. We have all just heard through department heads that not only will the firm not issue special bonuses this year, but bonuses this year will be less than half of years past and well well below market.

For example, a 6th year associate (class of 2001) billing between 2000 and 2100 hours will get approximately $5,000. eedless to say, this is less than a first-year associate gets for simply showing up at any other firm. There is not a large or probably even a midsize firm in Boston whose bonuses are anywhere near this low.

We're guessing that DLA Piper and McDermott, Will & Emery are not alone in nixing special bonuses. Many of the firms that have remained mum until now probably have no plans of paying special bonuses, a la Cravath.

And to be perfectly (and brutally) honest, does it make sense for firms with profits per partner that are a fraction of Cravath's to pay bonuses at Cravath levels? Of course associates want bigger bonuses. But they also want jobs.

Nevertheless, we have no doubt that many of you are unhappy about your firm's bonus policy. Feel free to engage in bonus bitchery in the comments. Thanks.

We thought the whole point of Ave Maria Law School, founded by Domino's pizza founder Thomas Monaghan, was that with enough money, you can do whatever you want. E.g., establish a very conservative, Catholic law school, and not care if the liberal legal academy raises its eyebrows -- 'cause you could buy and sell them, several times over.

So doesn't it defeat the whole point if Ave Maria requires funding from sources beyond Monaghan's pile of pizza dough? From Julie Kay's article in the National Law Journal:

Got $20 million? If so, you could have a law school building named after you.

Ave Maria School of Law is selling naming rights to the new law school facility it's building in southwest Florida.

"We'd like to find someone who would want the opportunity to have their name associated with the school, to help us with the construction costs," said Dean Bernard Dobranski. He said the school is rapidly moving forward with its controversial plan to relocate from Ann Arbor, Mich., to Ave Maria, Fla., and has even obtained architectural renderings of the new school.

Ave Maria is already in turmoil: controversy over its move from Michigan to Florida, lawsuits filed by three professors who claim they were wrongfully terminated, an ongoing investigation by the American Bar Association. A suggestion that Tom Monaghan's coffers are not infinite could not come at a worse time.

Meanwhile, in other Domino's news, they're trying to return to the glory days of their 30-minute delivery guarantee -- without getting sued. Delivering delicious pizza in under half an hour is a noble mission. We wish them the best of luck.

P.S. Tom Monaghan no longer owns the pizza chain. He sold his controlling interest to Bain Capital in 1998 for about a billion dollars, which he plowed into launching Ave Maria University.

Ave Maria still looks to move, puts name on block [National Law Journal]
Domino's Pizza and the Law [WSJ Law Blog]
Will a Twist on an Old Vow Deliver for Domino's Pizza? [Wall Street Journal]

Veteran litigator Joseph Russoniello, recently nominated to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, previously served as senior counsel in the San Francisco office of Cooley Godward Kronish. If he's confirmed, which is looking likely, one would expect him to take a big pay cut as he moves from private practice to government service. The current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, earned $1,993,367 over 21 months while at Patterson Belknap; now, as AG, he takes home $186,600 a year.

But Joe Russoniello won't be taking such a huge pay cut. A reader observes:

Buried at the end of a Recorder article (subscription) about a DOJ report about Joe Russoniello’s possible conflicts or interest due to his $1.5 million stock portfolio is Joe’s last year’s compensation from Cooley Godward. This is the part that I found interesting. Why? Because it’s so low.

What do you think Cooley Godward was paying the ex-U.S. Attorney to serve as counsel to the firm? Half a million? A million? No.... $244,802!

In light of that paycheck -- which, while handsome by normal standards, is a pittance by Biglaw ones -- we hope that Russoniello's Cooley gig was super-cushy, with minimal billing required. His paycheck is pretty much equal to that of a third-year associate at Cravath, all in (base of $180,000, year-end bonus of $45,000, and special bonus of $20,000). But how many Cravath third-years can claim to have served as U.S. Attorney in a major city for eight years, as Joseph Russoniello did (1982-1990)?

Fighting Crime May Not Pay [The Recorder (subscription)]
Taking Stock of The DOJ's Next Targets [Legal Pad]

Leave it to lawyers to complicate everything they touch. Over at New York Personal Injury Law Blog, Eric Turkewitz has this update on the New York bar exam fiasco:

The New York State Board of Law Examiners has confirmed to me that they will hear appeals regarding the July 2007 exam. That exam was plagued by malfunctioning software for those that submitted essays on laptop computers, only to see all or part of the answers disappear. The BOLE subsequently said that they approximated the answers if they were incomplete, based on how the examinees did on other answers. Those grade approximations were subsequently called into question based on an anonymous tip in this blog.

More details in the full post.

New York Bar Examiners Will Entertain Appeals Over Laptop Problems [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]