* Are Biglaw’s boom times over? Not necessarily. [Law and More]

* On the other hand, the people who cover Biglaw are cutting back. American Lawyer Media just laid off 42 staffers. [Gawker]

* Berkeley Law — don’t dare call it Boalt — makes an exciting new faculty hire. [Is That Legal?]

* Could GMU Law sue the ABA? [PrawfsBlawg]

* Ex-judge Donald “Penis Pump” Thompson is back on the streets (but must register as a sex offender). [KTUL.com]

* Maybe Judge Thompson would have stayed out of trouble if a colleague had forced him to take estrogen. And that wouldn’t have constituted sexual harassment. [Dealbreaker]

Associate Dean Walter J. Dickey, of the University of Wisconsin Law School, is no stranger to these pages. Back in 2006, ATL named him America’s hottest law school dean (male, B-bracket).

Now he makes these pages for less positive reasons. From the Badger Herald:

The University of Wisconsin Law School canceled an event with controversial sexual content last Wednesday, and some students are calling the action a possible First Amendment violation.

The Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice had planned an event called “Sex Toys 101” to promote safe alternatives to sex, educate about sexual health and pleasure, and discuss law concerning sex toys, according to the group.

As long as you’re outside Alabama, a Tupperware party for dildos should be just fine, right?

Well, maybe not. From a tipster:

[Dean Dickey] cancelled a sex toy party, sponsored by a pro-choice student group, because he found the sex-positive subject matter offensive. And he did it 2 hours before the event, without explanation. Then he hid behind adminstrative rules, then it became clear that he just didn’t like it. First Amendment violation, sex toys, Dean Dickey… You have to run this!

Dean Dickey’s dictat displeased the students:

Members of the organization submitted a formal complaint to Law School Dean Ken Davis Friday, requesting a formal apology, refund of event expenses and clarification of student organization event rules.

In an interview Monday, Law School Associate Dean Walter Dickey said the event was canceled for content-neutral reasons, pointing to a Student Organization Office policy that prohibits the promotion or sale of commercial products by a private company.

Professor Marc Randazza’s take: “That sure sounds reasonable, and it might be if it wasn’t bulls**t!”

Why does Professor Randazza view Dean Dickey’s defense as BS? Find out, after the jump.

Any story that gives us the chance to deploy our Lesbians category is a good thing. Here’s the latest Lawsuit of the Day, from the AP:

A Greek court has been asked to draw the line between the natives of the Aegean Sea island of Lesbos and the world’s gay women.

Three islanders from Lesbos - home of the ancient poet Sappho, who praised love between women - have taken a gay rights group to court for using the word lesbian in its name.

One of the plaintiffs said Wednesday that the name of the association, Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, “insults the identity” of the people of Lesbos, who are also known as Lesbians.

“My sister can’t say she is a Lesbian,” said Dimitris Lambrou. “Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos,” he said.

Leggo my… lesbo?

More lesbianic discussion, after the jump.

ATL broke the news earlier this month that Northwestern Law School selected Jerry Springer as commencement speaker for its May 16 graduation.

ATL got a shout-out in the Chicago Tribune, which described the controversy around Springer’s selection. Despite some students’ dissatisfaction, the decision is final:

Last week, the students who selected Springer announced in an e-mail to classmates that their decision had faculty approval and was final, emphasizing that he also was an Emmy-winning news anchor and political commentator who had drawn large crowds at previous speaking engagements.

On Sunday, Springer, a 1968 graduate of the law school, confirmed that he will deliver the address.

“The students invited me, and I’m honored,” Springer said through his publicist, Linda Shafran. Although he has spoken on numerous college campuses, Shafran said, this will be Springer’s first commencement address.

We had a poll last week asking, “Do you support Northwestern Law School’s selection of Jerry Springer as its graduation speaker?” Here are the results. Springer had your overwhelming support, with over 76% voting in favor of the selection.

There was extensive discussion on our earlier post. We chose a few of your comments to highlight, after the jump.

Controversy surrounds choice of Jerry Springer as commencement speaker at Northwestern University Law School [Chicago Tribune]

Earlier: Jerry Springer to be Commencement Speaker at Northwestern Law School

O happy day! The AmLaw 100 rankings are out. For the rankings, click here; for commentary by Aric Press and John O’Connor, click here. (Note: registration / subscription may be required.)

We’re surprised that the WSJ Law Blog’s post on the release of the rankings has garnered so few comments (just four as of the time of this posting). The Am Law 100 is a big, big deal. As Ashby Jones explains:

The AmLaw 100, or the American Lawyer magazine’s annual list of the top-grossing law firms for the year previous, represents not only a boatload of work for AmLaw staffers. For law firm heads, it’s a report card of sorts. For law students and lawyers looking to move laterally, it’s a handy reference guide to who’s hot and who’s not. For GCs and other industry watchers, it’s a snapshot of BigLaw as a whole.

Membership in the Am Law 100 depends on a law firm’s total revenue. The top five firms all chalked up double-digit increases in revenue, and the top two broke the $2 billion mark. Here are the top five (which are in the same rank order this year as last year):

Although the Am Law 100 firms are ranked by revenue, industry watchers generally pay more attention to the hallowed metric of “PPP,” or “profits per partner.” More data and discussion, about PPP and other subjects, after the jump.

The late and great Judge Jerome Frank (2d Cir.) is credited with the quip that “a court’s decision might turn on what the judge had for breakfast.” It’s often cited as a neat shorthand for the legal-realist view of judicial decisionmaking.

So, what did the judge have for breakfast? We may know the answer, at least in the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. Check out this clever project, reported in Radar:

In the late ’90s, pop-culture historian Bill Geerhart had a little too much time on his hands and a surfeit of stamps. So, for his own entertainment, the then-unemployed thirtysomething launched a letter-writing campaign to some of the most powerful and infamous figures in the country, posing as a curious 10-year-old named Billy.

To his surprise, replies soon started pouring in. Everyone from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (on tree-fort diplomacy) to Oprah Winfrey, Mister Rogers, Janet Reno, and members of the Supreme Court had words of wisdom for Billy.

To wit, Justice Thomas. When “Billy” asked him for his favorite McDonald’s food, CT responded: “I like the Egg McMuffin. Actually, I like almost everything there.”

Perhaps that explains the post-SCOTUS weight gain of Justice Thomas (a former marathoner, as he recounts in his memoir, who was noticeably well-built at the time of his nomination to the Court). It seems that law firm associates aren’t the only folks putting on the pounds.

The handwritten letter from “Billy,” and Justice Thomas’s response — a typewritten letter, but with a handwritten note at the bottom confessing a weakness for McDonald’s fare — are pretty cool to look at. Check them out by clicking here.

The Billy Letters: Introduction [Radar]
The Billy Letters: Justice Clarence Thomas [Radar]

We received over 1,600 responses to yesterday’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on your law firm weight gain. Overall, you’ve gained a ton. Or more.

As one commenter put it:

NY to 350!

…lbs. that is…

Well, ok, it wasn’t quite that bad, but two thirds of you who are currently practicing law have gained weight:

  * 13.78% of respondents gained 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 13.36% of respondents gained 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 14.13% of respondents gained 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 6.78% of respondents gained 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 6.71% of respondents gained 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 4.59% of respondents gained 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 7.35% of respondents — and roughly a fifth of respondents who graduated in 2002 or earlier — gained more than 30 pounds.

Just under 12% of you stayed the same. And a fifth of you are bastards reported that you lost weight:

  * 5.72% of respondents lost 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 4.73% of respondents lost 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 3.82% of respondents lost 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 0.71% of respondents lost 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 2.69% of respondents lost more than 30 pounds.

Most respondents are eating in the office, grabbing food from restaurants, and enjoying a sedentary lifestyle:

  * About three quarters of respondents who are currently practicing law eat at least five meals a week at their firms.
  * About two thirds get at least five meals a week from restaurants.
  * Although roughly two fifths of respondents said their firms have gyms (25% have free gyms, 15% are at firms with subsidized gyms, and 2% are at firms with no discount), 60% of these respondents “never” use their firm gym, and 20% work out only once or twice a week.

Law students fared better, but still not that well, with roughly 55% gaining weight, and just under a third losing weight. Law students were just about as likely as practicing attorneys to gain 15 or fewer pounds, but a bit less likely to gain more, and a bit more likely to lose 15 or fewer pounds. Clearly, there’s room for more recruiting lunches.

So, overall, don’t you feel better about yourself now?

Last week, we reported on rumors of layoffs in the Atlanta and D.C. offices of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. The post has amassed over 400, um, informed comments.

The fact of layoffs has now been confirmed by the firm. Although Sutherland never responded to ATL’s inquiries, it did talk to Meredith Hobbs, who has this article in the Fulton County Daily Report. The number of firings was lower than rumored, with maybe 8 attorneys let go from the Atlanta office and maybe 7 from the D.C. office. (Managing partner Mark Wasserman uses a lot of modifiers: “fewer than,” “about,” etc.)

The legal tabloid AbovetheLaw.com sparked a firestorm of rumors when it reported Friday that Sutherland Asbill & Brennan was laying off 30 to 40 associates firmwide.

Sutherland’s managing partner, Mark D. Wasserman, acknowledged that the 480-lawyer firm has cut its associate ranks. But he said the firm has asked fewer than 15 associates to leave, with about eight associates affected in the Atlanta office.

Wasserman said the cuts were based on “several factors,” “including the slowing economy, plus associate and practice group performance.”

The firm says it still plans to bring in all of its summer associates and attorneys starting in the fall. But there’s this warning about the future from legal recruiter Melba Hughes:

“I think we’re going to see law firms tighten their belt throughout the region. It’s a natural course of events given the period we’ve just gone through,” she said.

That could mean law firms reduce head count through layoffs, attrition, more cautious hiring and “by looking for new and creative ways to manage their workloads,” said Hughes, which could mean using more contract and staff attorneys instead of partnership-track associates.

The firm did not comment on the herpes rumors.

In The Trenches: Sutherland trims associate ranks [Fulton County Daily Report]

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan

* Good news: the economy apparently didn’t slip into recession in the first quarter. That’s what the second quarter is for. [AP]

* Election-year inertia hits Congress. [New York Times]

* Al Franken’s accountant is a big fat idiot. [AP]

* Not your ordinary family reunion. [CNN]

* State appellate court affirms jury verdict against Port Authority in case arising out of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. [New York Times]

For the second installment of the Asia Chronicles, we’re going interactive. Please click on this Youtube link, minimize, and read on.

Come with us, won’t you, to a world of your imagination. Imagine that you’re an associate at a major U.S. law firm in Asia, paid the same salary and bonus as your colleagues back home. Imagine further that $87,500 of your salary is excluded from federal income tax. Imagine that your firm pays your rent, and, even though this would normally be considered taxable income, it is excluded from taxation as well.

One of the ACLs who lived in this “world that defies explanation” paid off his entire $120K+ law school debt in one year and is on track to put away over a quarter million during the next two years. How? With extra salary and a much lower tax burden, he takes home approximately 15% more cash than he would in the U.S. He has no car or other transportation expenses (walks 10 minutes from home to office), usually works late enough to expense his dinners, and pays no rent. He takes so many business trips that frequent flier miles and hotel points take care of most of his vacation expenses. At least 80% of his paycheck goes straight into his 401K and other investments. The rest goes to magnums of Cristal (he admits he could do better).

Before we jump into the details, let’s set out some assumptions:

Assumption #1: There are tons of U.S. firms in Asia; some pay less, some pay more. A sizable group of firms pays competitive packages (yes, we said “packages”) at or near the top of the market. This entire discussion focuses on that group because, let’s be honest, for most of us “the law” isn’t our calling. We don’t sit up at night thinking about Section 4(2) of the U.S. Securities Act or wonder about the components of a conversion formula in a share purchase agreement (wait, maybe someti… ok, no … never). So, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s just assume that it’s mostly (almost entirely) about the Benjamins. (Or Maos? Lees?)

Assumption #2: There are U.S. lawyers in Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. But, to borrow from XOXO/Greedy Associates lingo, this discussion focuses on “BIGLAW” in the major Asian markets (i.e., Tokyo, Singapore and the greater China region) at “Vault”-listed firms. HTH.

On to the main event. Salaries. Three words: New York levels. Bonuses. Three words: New York levels. That’s right. When you guys over in New York rejoice over the raises, so do we. But, there’s more. A few years ago, there was this evil little SOB of a concept called “tax equalization” whereby firms, for whatever reason (well, we know the reason; you do the math), decided to pay their overseas U.S. associates an amount in salary that was equal, after tax, to what an associate in New York would be paid. Yes, that means poor little Billy in Asia was “theoretically” paying New York city and state tax. Firms have since moved away from this model. In a low-tax region like Singapore or Hong Kong, this means associates can take advantage of the low tax rates. What’s that, you say? The U.S. taxes on worldwide income? Fear not. Certain provisions in the tax code are geared towards providing tax breaks for U.S. citizens working worldwide. Bottom line, associates in Asia at U.S. law firms also pay less in taxes each year.

Ohhh, and it doesn’t stop there. Remember the reference we made to “packages” above? Firms in Asia (except in, only God knows why, Singapore ) foot the bill for their associates’ housing expenses. Many firms pay this housing allowance in cash each month, some pay the rent directly to the landlord. Many firms then let associates keep the difference between the rent and the allowance. The word on the street is that a certain Wall Street law firm whose name begins with an S and ends with a T pays top of the market at about $80,000 a year. So, if you’re an associate at this unnamed Wall Street firm that rhymes with Pimpson Cratcher and your rent is $40,000 each year, you’re pocketing an extra $40,000. It’s the “special bonus” that never stops giving.

According to Evan Jowers of Kinney Recruiting (who has eyeballed perhaps more offer letters from the major US and British firms in Hong Kong / China than any other person in the industry), “The housing / expat packages at the top U.S. and British firms in Asia are likely to go higher in the next year or two. Many of these firms have substantially raised their packages in only the past 6 months, with there now being many more firms in the what I consider to be competitive housing allowance range in Hong Kong, $65,000 to $80,000, than a year ago. In fact, the number of firms with housing packages over $70,000 in Hong Kong has more than doubled in the past six months.”

More delicious details, after the jump.

* Hit on a woman and get a free haircut. Saudi Arabia, is that the best punishment you can come up with? [ABC News]

* Vault and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association have created a new database for measuring law firm diversity. [Vault.com]

* Media turning to the Illinois Supreme Court to get into R. Kelly’s case records. Really? More is needed than “R&B star,” “sex,” “videotape.” and “13-year-old girl?” [Law.com]

* In other celebrity news, Spitzer’s lady friend is back in the news with a $10 million suit against “Girls Gone Wild.” [Law.com]

We don’t want to ruin any surprises, but we’ve got some high-quality material for you this week at Legal Eagle Wedding Watch. There may even be a sparkly credential or two that we haven’t seen in this space in a while. (Cough — Rhodes — cough.)

Behold, our outstanding finalists:

1.) Keira Driansky and David Simon

2.) Maya Nath and Benjamin Curtis

3.) Alexa Davidson and Marc Suskin

4.) Francesca Harper and Eric Cohen

More about our featured couples, after the jump.

Here’s an update to a story we’ve covered previously: defendant Victor Wright’s attack upon Assistant U.S. Attorney Carolyn Pokorny (E.D.N.Y.). With a razor. In a Brooklyn courtroom, in the middle of a sentencing hearing.

Fortunately, Wright was subdued by the court reporter and defense counsel (among others). We posted a (profanity-laced) transcript of the proceedings here.

Now we have a copy of the video, which was leaked by someone in the U.S. Marshals Service. It’s not the greatest quality, and it has a certain Charlie Chaplin-esque quality. But it’s still worth checking out, for an eyewitness view of the chaos.

Bonus factoid, from the New York Post: Wright “likely hid the blade in a body cavity.” ICK.

To access the clip, click on the image below, then click again on the video on the right side of the page. Enjoy.

SHOCK: Razor Blade Attack Inside NYC Courtroom [WCBSTV.com]
VIDEO OF RAZOR ATTACK LEAKED [New York Post]

Earlier: ‘Whereupon there is screaming’
Lawyer of the Day: Harry Batchelder (And Court Reporter of the Day: Ron Tolkin)

We have a longstanding obsession with Judge Janice Rogers Brown, the diva-licious D.C. circuit judge who frequently surfaces as a Supreme Court contender. We first wrote about her almost four years ago, and we’ve been JRB groupies ever since.

When we attended a lunch talk by her last year, she struck us as quite fashionable. We described her outfit (see blurry photo at right) as “an elegant, impeccably tailored, black wool-knit suit, with gold buttons and trim. The skirt was demure, falling below the knee. We’re going to guess it was a St. John.”

But maybe we overestimated Judge Brown’s sartorial sense. Check out the opening paragraph of her opinion in Aktieselskabet AF v. Fame Jeans Inc. (PDF), an important trademark opinion construing a recent SCOTUS ruling:

BROWN, Circuit Judge: For some reason, a pair of jeans labeled Jack & Jones will sell for the equivalent of $96. Clearly there is magic in the name, and Fame Jeans tried to capture that magic by registering Jack & Jones as a trademark in the United States. Aktieselskabet (Bestseller), which generated the magic by selling Jack & Jones jeans elsewhere in the world, opposed Fame’s trademark application.

Complaining about $96 jeans? “Sounds like something Andy Rooney would say,” quipped Natalie Hormilla, associate editor of ATL’s sister site, Fashionista. In this day and age, hundred-dollar jeans hardly qualify as “magic[al].”

If Judge Brown finds the notion of $100 jeans offensive, Her Honor should steer clear of 18th Amendment — the jeans maker, not what ushered in Prohibition — and sass & bide (an Australian fashion label, not a law firm). Their jeans can retail for as much as $300 a pair, according to Fashionista assistant editor (and resident denim expert) Britt Aboutaleb.

Then again, who needs $300 jeans, when you get to hide the judicial booty underneath a black robe?

Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001, v. Fame Jeans Inc. [U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (PDF)]

Richard Peltz teaches torts and con law at the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Within Arkansas, he is a well-known expert on freedom of speech, cited by the Arkansas Supreme Court. In 2005, he exercised his freedom of speech while talking about affirmative action during a con law lecture. From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

In that class, Peltz displayed a satirical article about the death of Rosa Parks and made comments about friends who weren’t admitted to law school because of affirmative action, according to a letter students wrote about a year and a half later to law school Dean Chuck Goldner. The students also said Peltz promised to give black students who scored as high as white students an extra point on the final exam.

Apparently, the satirical article was Now We Can Finally Put Civil Rights Behind Us, from the Onion.

Though the issue was resolved in 2005, the allegations of racism reemerged in 2007, during a controversy over there being no black students on the Law Review. (The admissions website says the school has 440 students, and that 30% of the 2007 entering class was “of color.”)

From this description, it sounds like there’s a race war brewing at the UALR’s Law School. And Professor Peltz just put himself in the middle of it, suing his black students and Arkansas’s black law association for defamation:

In a nine-page lawsuit filed last week, he complains that the defendants, students Valerie D. Nation of Little Rock and Chrishuana L. Clark of Pine Bluff, who are officers or former officers with the university’s Black Law Student Association, and attorney Eric Spencer Buchanan, president of the W. Harold Flowers Law Society, have been making false accusations against him around the law school and statewide legal community since the fall of 2005. In the lawsuit, he asks for unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.

Ironically, if Peltz’s suit is successful, it may limit speech on campus, says Jonathan Knight, director of programs on academic freedom and tenure at the American Association of University Professors in Washington, in the Gazette.

Getting sued by your law professor? Worst. Homework. Ever.

Read about another professor-versus-student lawsuit, after the jump.

Today’s ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on weighty matters. Literally.

In an interesting counterweight (as it were) to Kash’s post about prison weight loss litigation yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had a story on a proposed law in Massachusetts that would ban discrimination based on weight. (Apparently, Michigan, the District of Columbia, San Francisco, and Madison, Wisconsin already have similar anti-discrimination provisions in place.)

Since Daily Kos has already “stolen” a poll on whether the law’s a good idea, I won’t ask that here — although those of you with an appetite for debate can weigh in in the comments. But while weight debates hang heavy in the air, what I will ask is whether your time in law has expanded more than just your acumen.

So, have your salad days as an associate or law student yielded a beefier frame?

Has partnership given you more substance?

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.

—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this survey.

* New study shows “that the race of the defendant by itself plays a major role in explaining who is sentenced to death.” [New York Times]

* GI Bill fails to deliver for some veterans. [Washington Post]

* Day in court for Austrian who held daughter captive for 24 years and fathered her 7 children. [CNN]

* French prisons full of Muslims. [Washington Post]

* Karl Rove gives campaign advice to Barack Obama. [CNN Political Ticker]

Time for a shout-out to this writer’s home state. Over in New York, Biglaw lawyers tend to look down upon their cousins across the river. Dismissive jokes about “Jersey firms” are commonplace.

But large-firm lawyers in New Jersey are doing just fine, thank you very much. From a tipster:

As a Jersey guy, you may find this interesting: According to the NJ Law Journal, Lowenstein Sandler just became the first NJ firm with profits per partner in the seven figures: $1,102,700. Average compensation per partner is not far behind, at $977,500.

And it’s not just Lowenstein Sandler that had a good year. Although New Jersey firms slowed their hiring and trimmed equity partner ranks in 2007, showing signs of being affected by the dire economic times, they still did pretty well. From the New Jersey Law Journal (subscription):

Growth in total revenues and net profits [among the New Jersey Top 20 firms] thus slowed in 2007. Revenue rose by 7.67 percent to $1.53 billion from $1.42 billion in 2006, compared with a 9.6 percent hike in last year’s survey.

Profit growth was even slower, up only 5.62 percent to $519.3 million from $491.6 million, compared with a 9.9 percent bump the prior year.

When fewer lawyers produce more revenue, it means each is working harder. Indeed, revenue per lawyer showed a pronounced spike: up 5 percent to $517,650, more than three times the 1.4 percent rise to $493,000 reported last year.

Likewise, since there were fewer equity partners sharing the bottom line, profits per partner growth enjoyed an eight-fold increase, rising 6.62 percent to $594,100, compared with a sluggish 0.8 percent to $557,200 in last year’s survey.

By New York standards, PPP of $600K is small potatoes. But it’s still a handsome income — and grows more appealing if the hours, cost of living, taxes, and partnership prospects are better over in Jersey. [FN1]

Time for New Yorkers to think about jumping to the other side of the Hudson? Or time for another round of pay raises for Garden State associates?

[FN1] These matters are open to debate, of course. Some New Jersey firms, such as the super-profitable Lowenstein, have reputations as sweatshops for demanding a lot of their associates.

Streamlining for Austere Times [New Jersey Law Journal (subscription)]

* Federal regulators shoot down “Try Legal Weed” as a beer slogan. [Snark Hunting]

* Torture chic? [Agenda Inc.]

* Blawg Review #157, on Canada’s National Day of Mourning (in memory of “those workers whose lives have been lost or who have been injured in the workplace”). [Thoughts from a Management Lawyer via Blawg Review]

* It’s the day you’ve all been waiting for: Records from Backstreet Boys litigation unsealed! [Courthouse News]

* PETA’s not going to be happy about this one. Dolphin killed during a Sea World performance. [Local 6 News via Drudge]

* Sexual assault via telephone? [Quizlaw]

This suit points to an upside of being in federal prison county jail for capital murder: weight loss!

But this inmate is not happy about it and is suing the prison. Broderick Laswell entered prison at 418 pounds and says he’s “literally being starved to death,” losing about a half-pound per day. From the Arkansas Democratic Gazette:

Broderick Lloyd Laswell says he isn’t happy that he’s lost 105 pounds over the past eight months and is down to 308 pounds.

Laswell is an inmate in the Benton County Jail and has filed a federal court suit complaining about the diet he’s been fed by the county.

Facing a possible death penalty, this seems like the least of one’s concerns. But food is one of life’s great pleasures… even prison gruel.

“On several occasions I have started to do some exercising and my vision went blurry and I felt like I was going to pass out,” Laswell wrote in his complaint. “About an hour after each meal my stomach starts to hurt and growl. I feel hungry again.”

If the lawsuit doesn’t work out, maybe he could work out some kind of weight loss spokesperson deal with the prison system, like Jared of Subway fame.

Murder-case defendant complains about jail diet, resulting weight loss [Arkansas Democrat Gazette]
Broderick Lloyd Laswell suit: I’m only getting 3000 calories a day [Overlawyered]

We inquired into this topic previously, and one of you even put up a Community post. What’s up with those supplemental bonuses for senior associates over at Sullivan & Cromwell?

This gossip has been circulating:

Rumor has it that S&C put out a memo about the special senior bonuses [last week]. Apparently, the $2.5 million they “put aside” [mostly] went to cover the Cravath special bonus. The actual amount of the bonus was unknown as of last night as far I could tell.

The memo, which I don’t have, seemed to suggest that the money was spent, but that they were going to give a small amount because they had promised. If S&C senior associates are lucky, maybe they’ll get a gift certificate to Chili’s.

And it’s true. We couldn’t get our hands on the memo, but we have confirmed with sources at the firm that S&C paid out its special “senior associate bonuses” last week. We don’t know the numbers for all years, but word on the street is that current fifth-years received around $2,500.

Three grand is small compared to the whopping year-end bonuses that Sullivan already paid to its senior associates. But contrary to our tipster, it buys you more than a few meals at Chili’s. Maybe the Cheesecake Factory?

Update (12/18/2008): According to Am Law Daily, the numbers were better than $3K: “[A] source within the firm told The New York Law Journal the additional bonus ranged from $15,000 for fifth-years to $30,000 for eighth-years; those numbers have never been confirmed by the firm.”

In related news, the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times has an interesting article entitled “Not-So-Personal Finance.” It’s all about how among young people — say, folks in their twenties and thirties — open discussion of salaries and compensation isn’t as taboo / tacky as it is among older folks. Lawyers get a shout-out:

Several workers under 35 said that greater salary transparency among friends only makes sense in an age when there is so much information freely available online. Young professionals, in fact, have all sorts of ways to find out how much their friends make, even without asking. Associates at law firms anonymously report their own salaries to Web sites like www.greedyassociates.com.

Greedy Associates? That’s a bit “five years ago.” If you check out their front page now, you’ll see it’s overrun with spam and postings about lawyer salaries in Kiev (no offense to our Ukrainian brethren).

We realize that the readership of Above the Law isn’t exactly a random sample, but please take our poll:

Not-So-Personal Finance [New York Times]

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Sullivan & Cromwell Matches (and More)

There’s been a lot of good news lately over at Morrison & Foerster. E.g., bigger bonuses; enhanced parental leave.

But if you’re hoping to work for the widely admired firm in Orange County, you’re out of luck. The firm is closing its Orange County office as of June 30, 2008. The closing was announced last week by firm chairman Keith Wetmore, via email.

For those of you who follow MoFo’s fortunes, the closing shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. Back in February, we reported on how the firm was essentially dissolving its summer program in Orange County. (To its credit, the firm offered incoming OC summer associates the chance to work in another office for the summer or financial support for pro bono work.)

Update: More here from The Recorder, which reports that the MoFo-OC closing was triggered in part by “the departure of its office leader and another partner to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.”

The email announcing the Orange County closing, after the jump.

Last week, we posted Part Three of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses (which covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Proskauer Rose). We got quite a few tips in response, as well as quite a few comments in person, at the NALP conference in Toronto.

Find out whether today’s installment will at last make it to Wachtell, Weil, WilmerHale and beyond … after the jump.

But before we get there, let’s quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a “stub bonus”) for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. Also feel free to let us know whether these stipends and bonuses are subject to repayment if you leave, and whether your firm helps out with relocations, both topics of surveys last week.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the fourth batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses. Check it out, after the jump.

We know you all love rankings!

Earlier this month, Leigh Jones of the National Law Journal reported on which schools sent the highest numbers of 2007 law school students to the 250 top-ranked law firms:

Columbia Law School landed in the No. 1 spot again as the school that sent the greatest portion of graduates to NLJ 250 law firms, with nearly 75% of its students in 2007 taking jobs among the nation’s largest law firms. The school ranked No. 1 last year, when 69.6% of its graduates went to NLJ 250 law firms. Boston College Law School rounded out the list of the top 20 go-to law schools, with 36.8% of its 261 juris doctor graduates in 2007 heading for full-time jobs at NLJ 250 law firms.

All together, the top 20 law schools that NLJ 250 law firms relied on most to fill their first-year associate ranks sent 54.9% of their graduates to those firms, compared with 51.6% in 2006.

Northwestern won the most improved award. It moved from number 11 to the number 2 spot, sending almost 74% of its grads to top law firms. Two newcomers to the list were UCLA and Boston University. Texas and Fordham fell off the list.

Columbia “won” in terms of the number of students sent to the top 250 law firms, but NYU sent the most grads to firms ranked in the top 20.

Note the NYC and Chicago rivalries in the top four spots. So exciting!

Over at Empirical Legal Studies, Professor Bill Henderson analyzes the data in more detail, focusing on a chart showing the percentage of students at each law school that were hired by a NLJ 250 firm (which he dubs the “funnel cloud” — fun stuff!). He concludes:

[The] chart has at least two takeaways: (1) the funnel cloud formation shows large law firm employment payoffs are non-linear and that the vast majority of schools offer similarly modest, but not insignificant, entree to this sector; (2) based on the volume of green and red at the top of the chart, most large firms prefer to recruit deeper into the class at a Top 20 school (and will pay a price premium of $160,000 per year) rather than shifting their model to lower ranked schools. 53% of all new NLJ250 jobs between 2005 and 2007 went to Top 20 biggest feeder schools from 2005.

For additional data — including PDFs showing the employment outcomes of different law schools by region (e.g., NLJ 250 firm, other law firm, clerkship, unemployed) — check out the links collected at the end of Professor Henderson’s post.

Hiring more deeply into top schools [National Law Journal]
Large Law Firm Hiring — Introducing the “Funnel Cloud” [Empirical Legal Studies]
What rankings don’t say about costly choices [National Law Journal]

The Supreme Court once again wades into the choppy waters of election law. Yeah, you know you love it.

From SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may cast a ballot. Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge – and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters. Three Justices dissented.

The decision, in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and a companion case, was the only ruling of the day. The Court also issued new orders, but granted review of no new cases….

Here is Lyle Denniston’s take:

The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters.

(But not those six-figure-earning, Ivy-League-educated Obama types, of course. They have multiple forms of ID, including passports, which they use for ecotourism visits to Costa Rica.)

Later today — there’s nothing up now except a link to the opinion — check out Election Law Blog, for the analysis of election-law guru Rick Hasen.

Update: Rick Hasen’s write-up appears here. Professor Hasen predicts:

It will encourage further litigation, because it relegates challenges to laws imposing onerous burdens on a small group of voters to “as applied” challenges, but those challenges will be difficult to win. The lack of a majority opinion, moreover, injects some uncertainty into the appropriate standard for reviewing other challenges to onerous election laws.

Breaking News: Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law [Election Law Blog]
Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants [SCOTUSblog]

What’s with Oklahoma judges and indecent exposure? Our only other Oklahoman Judge of the Day, State Judge Donald Thompson, was sentenced to four years for indecent exposure (and using a penis pump) in the courtroom in 2006.

Today’s honoree is a Tulsa County district judge from the criminal division. He too seems to have trouble keeping the goods under wrap, and is facing felony charges for it:

Judge Jesse Harris was charged Thursday with two counts of indecent exposure resulting from a March 9 incident involving an ex-girlfriend and her friend in a parking lot at an east Tulsa motel. He was arrested and after being booked at the Tulsa Jail, he was released on his own recognizance. Harris denies the allegations.

Tulsa World refrained from giving a graphic description of the encounter. But the arresting officer spilled all the dirt in the affidavit [PDF]:

Victim one is Harris’s ex-girlfriend, Kali Nolen. According to Tulsa World, she and Harris met when she was a process server during a 2002 lewd molestation trial. Such a romantic story…

Details revealed in Tulsa County judge’s indecent exposure case [Tulsa World]
Judge’s accuser offers details [Tulsa World]

* Sen. John McCain defends his use of his wife’s private jet for campaign trips. [CNN Political Ticker]

* Mortgage industry resists greater regulation. [New York Times]

* 60 Minutes with Justice Antonin Scalia. [CBS via WSJ Law Blog]

* From the M&A front lines: Mars to snap up Wrigley’s for $23 billion; Yahoo! lets Microsoft deal deadline pass; Continental ditches merger talks with United. [New York Times; AFP; New York Times]

* Dirty old man: 73-year-old Austrian confesses to holding his daughter captive in the basement for almost 24 years — and fathering seven children by her. [CNN]

The Atlanta office of Paul Hastings suffered a tragedy last week. Jermaine Acevedo, a temp worker in Paul Hastings’ record department, shot and killed Raven Buckley, a Paul Hastings secretary, and then killed himself. The murder-suicide happened Friday afternoon outside of Paul Hastings’ building.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Buckley had worked as a legal secretary there for about a year. Both were working Friday, said police.

They dated at one point, but it wasn’t clear to police if they were still dating when the confrontation took place Friday afternoon about 3:30 p.m.

According to police, Buckley was in the courtyard in front of the Bank of America Plaza with a friend on break when they believe Acevedo encountered her, though police don’t know the exact circumstances.

At some point, according to police, Buckley and Acevedo were talking while sitting at a picnic table in the courtyard when their conversation escalated into an argument.

Buckley jumped up to leave, according to police. Acevedo grabbed her and held her down. He pulled out a handgun and shot her three times, at least once in the head. He then shot himself in the head.

On Friday night, law firm spokesperson Lapiano released a brief statement that the firm was “deeply saddened and shocked by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims’ family and friends. Please be assured that we are cooperating fully with local authorities on this ongoing investigation.”

Lapiano said Saturday the firm planned to bring grief counselors in Monday to help the staff deal with the killings.

Acevedo was 30 and Buckley was just 25.

‘Awful’ tragedy: Law firm rocked by murder-suicide [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
Paul Hastings Secretary Killed in Apparent Murder-Suicide Outside Atlanta Office [Law.com]

* We’re not the only ones obsessed with Nina Totenberg. NPR sold out of their first run of Nina Totin’ Bags. [NPR Shop]

* Will it be as marketable as a book on how NOT to get sued? [What About Clients?]

* “Your Honor, I Move To Strike Your Mother For Cause” [Deliberations]

* The winning bid for the Red Sox shirt buried in Yankee stadium was $175k, with the proceeds going to The Jimmy Fund. But what if the 174k over the asking price isn’t actually tax-deductible? [TaxProf Blog]

* Musical Chairs: UVA hires constitutional law expert Frederick Schauer away from Harvard. [Virginia Law]

* This was too dirty for a full post, even for Kash. NY law firm Bivona & Cohen is pre-emptively suing a secretary who gave a partner a lap dance with a happy ending, and kept the “towel of proof.” [Law.com]

Two venerable institutions are working on re-branding.

In this new promo video, Venable wants to clarify that its name starts with a “V.”

From their marketing firm’s website comes this insight into the new image:

Working with Greenfield/Belser, we sought to create a visual identity for our firm that best represented our firm’s personality:

* proud but not boastful
* self-assured but not cocky
* confident and competent but not arrogant
* decisive and resolute but flexible and adaptable
* enduring, built for the long haul but evolving with changing needs

We also sought to reinforce to existing clients and convey to prospective clients, the attributes that we are known for (in the view of our clients):

* a firm that gets what’s really important to me
* the best of both worlds, quality and excellence at a fair price
* real human beings, not robots
* genuine interest in me, my business and my concerns
* they tackle our problems like they’re their own
* they’re confident, determined, authentic, resolute, innovative and respected

Our New Brand

V is the first letter in the word “Venerable,” and “Victory,”and “Vision,” and…Venable. We have made very minor modifications to our logo. But we will now also incorporate a strong visual element throughout our materials – The Venable “V.” “V” is a powerful letter and we want to own it. It is strong and unique.

Very vinteresting.

The second re-branding campaign has been discussed before in these pages. Berkeley has issued a press release clarifying their name. An excerpt:

Names

* Our official name is the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. With external audiences, we will use our official name in full or in one of two abbreviated forms: UC Berkeley School of Law or Berkeley Law.
* We will continue to use the name Boalt Hall with alumni and with the internal law school community.

Approved
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
UC Berkeley School of Law
Berkeley Law
Boalt Hall (within the “family”)

Discouraged
Berkeley School of Law
Berkeley Law School
Boalt Hall School of Law (or other permutations)

Please notice the Boalt logo at the top of the press release page. Mixed messages… we’re confused…

Berkeley paid a public relations firm $25,000 to come up with the brilliant new moniker, UC Berkeley School of Law. We wonder why they didn’t take ATL readers’ (free) advice and call it the White Guys With Asian Girls School of Law.

Rumors are circulating about layoffs in the D.C. and Atlanta offices of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. We reached out to the firm for comment, but they have not responded yet. This is what we have heard.

One ATL tipster says:

Just curious about whether ATL had heard that Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan had laid off a bunch of folks (expected to be between 32 and 40, when it’s all said and done) in the Atlanta and DC offices. Apparently it’s been handled pretty poorly and has obviously left a lot of associates in the lurch, both those fired and the remaining people who are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Another tipster says:

I’ve heard a few rumors (well, verified facts rather) about massive layoffs in Sutherland’s DC and Atlanta offices recently. Rumors put the number at over 30 attorneys, including very junior attorneys. Put out the call and reveal the mystery that is the Sutherland Slaughter!

If you have any info to share, please email us. Thanks.

Heading into the weekend, a post on those looking for love seems appropriate.

A tipster sent us this Craigslist missed connection that emerged from a SCOTUS hearing this week:

cute tall blond at supreme court argument - m4m - 36 (dc)
Reply to: pers-655332634@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-04-24, 10:46PM EDT

on 4/23. Me short with dark hair with woman. You sat behind me.

The tipster reports that “on 4/23 the court heard METRO. LIFE INS. CO. V. GLENN and MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LAB. Which one attracted the unrequited?”

ERISA conflicts of interest and employee downsizing programs… We can see why the Craigslist poster might have been looking for distraction.

This isn’t the the first time sparks have flown at the Supreme Court, though Desperately Seeking ‘The Supreme Court Clerk of My Heart’ got points for greater creativity in his missed connection ad.

Another tipster sent us this law school student’s posting:

law student looking - 25 (williamsburg)
Reply to: pers-607649012@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-03-15, 10:14PM EDT

hey ladies!

I am 25, from San Diego, and in Williamsburg to study law… I have been here for two years and am newly single…

I have been here for two years, but all the law school girls are like friends/sisters to me - so NOT dating prospects in any way

so… I am on here seeing if any ladies want to meet up for coffee, go on a date, and get to know one another

you be: attractive, open, talkative, and intelligent
I am: same

NOT, NOT, NOT trying to use this as a sex service (If I wanted JUST sex, believe me I could get that - and so could you - easily)

Since this dates back to March 15, maybe a love connection has been made. If said Williamsburg law student wants to update us on his search for a non-law-school-lady-friend, send us an e-mail.

Last week’s Job of the Week was extremely popular, so we are offering up another in-house gig, this time a little further south. Here is the latest Job of the Week, brought to you by Lateral Link.

Position: In-House Counsel (Labor & Employment)

Location: Memphis, TN

Description: This multi-national company’s legal department is seeking an experienced employment attorney who will provide legal counsel in the ordinary and special activities of the corporation to ensure protection of the corporation’s legal rights and compliance with the law. Attorney must have a JD and at least 5 years’ quality experience running and overseeing a Company’s side of a union organizing campaign. Must be a member of the TN Bar or willing to sit for the TN Bar upon joining the Company. The Company offers competitive compensation with the possibility of relocation assistance.

Skills: Union avoidance training experience, NLRB and/or NMB case handling experience, Corporate campaign experience (a plus), Transportation industry experience (a plus).

For more information, please see job #8511 over at Lateral Link.

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

You gotta love South Florida. It’s such a fun, crazy place. It has South Beach, the nightlife, the fashion, the wild news-making Broward judges… Joining the ranks of Judges of the Day from Broward County (Jay “Soul Glo” Spechler, Cheryl “Beelzebub” Aleman, and Jeffrey “Wide Receiver” Levenson) is Circuit Judge Ana Gardiner.

The Broward-Palm Beach New Times has a story accusing Gardiner of flirting, partying, and getting it on with defense attorneys and prosecutors.

Defense attorney John Cotrone stood before Broward Circuit Judge Ana Gardiner in her marble-laden courtroom and dropped in what seemed like a jab at her honor.

It came after Gardiner, the chief criminal judge for the 17th Judicial Circuit, asked for an amended file on Cotrone’s case. The lawyer pointed out that she had asked for the file “every time I’m in court on this.”

Gardiner, a petite woman whose dark hair is tinted an artificial red, might have been displeased at being shown up by Cotrone. But instead she looked away and smiled.

“Is there a point to reminding me of that?” she asked Cotrone in her slight Cuban accent.

Gardiner shuffled through some papers on the bench before smiling again and goading Cotrone: “I may not have as good a memory as you — even though you are older than me.”

It sounded almost like… flirting.

Like awkward high school flirting.

Neither Gardiner nor Cotrone was willing to comment for the piece, but one of Coltrone’s friends stepped in to “help out:”

[W]ell-known defense attorney Fred Haddad, a longtime friend of Cotrone’s, contacted New Times in an attempt to dissuade the newspaper from publishing the story. He claimed he was calling of his own volition. “She’s one of the good ones,” he said of Gardiner. “This is going to cause [Judicial Qualifying Commission] investigations, and nobody needs that.”

He didn’t deny that his friend was involved in a romance with the judge. Instead, he argued that judges and prosecutors and defense attorneys have been drinking together and having sex with one another for years in Broward County.

“What’s the big deal so long as it doesn’t affect their decisions?” he asked.

This guy is a “well-known defense attorney,” and that’s the best defense he could come up with. Really?

Judging Ana [New Times via JAABLOG]

As reflected in our prior coverage, we are strangely obsessed with Nina Totenberg, the distinguished legal affairs correspondent for NPR. She’s the subject of our latest “Eyes of the Law” celebrity sighting.

Okay, seeing Nina Totenberg at the Supreme Court may not sound super-exciting. But bear with us. From a tipster:

[On Tuesday] I was sworn in as a member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court…. I was first in the row of seating. Six inches, literally, away from me were the desks of the press covering the case.

At about 9:54 AM, in comes a lady in an extremely bright orange suit, who takes her place in the press row directly facing me. She is now about six inches away from me, though I am facing forward, and she is facing my profile (she’s pretty good-looking in person, actually).

Totenberg has an uncanny ability to enter the courtroom just in the nick of time. See here.

Anyway, the first case for argument was Davis v. FEC. Representing Davis was a dude named Andrew Herman (or something like that). [Ed. note: That’s right; see Tony Mauro’s report.]

I learned a bit more about him as, upon arrival and settling in, Nina leans over to her seatmate and says ‘Andrew Herman must be scared s**tless. This is his first time arguing a case here.’ Her seatmate must have murmured some sort of concurrence, at which point she says, ‘He truly must be s****ing himself.’”

I suspect Ms. Totenberg was correct, as Mr. Herman’s performance was nothing short of horrific. But who am I to judge — I was just getting sworn in.

Not sure if it is newsworthy, but it made me chuckle to hear a lady whose voice I have listened to on the radio for the past fifteen years use such colorful language — 15 feet from the bench.

A great story — but is it accurate? We contacted Totenberg, who confirmed in part and denied in part:

Well, part of [this story] is true. I did not say, nor would I ever say: “s***ting himself.” That is a truly disgusting expression. And my assumption is that anyone arguing for the first time must be pretty scared. But usually, though not always, a first appearance does not have a full gallery.

Maybe Totenberg described Herman as “scared witless” and “hitting himself”?

In any event, murmured profanity at One First Street is no big deal. Those justices have been around the block a time or two. But a bright orange suit? That may be another story.

Law school commencement speakers have a tough gig, coming up with original pearls of wisdom for people who already know it all. We wish this year’s crop of speakers luck! The TaxProf Blog has a list up of the chosen few here (also available after the jump).

ATL has a top ten list for you, with the reason he or she made the cut. In no particular order:

1/2/3. Stephen Breyer, at American University / Samuel Alito, at Catholic University / Stephen Breyer, at Northeastern

Breyer- 2. Alito- 1. The rest of SCOTUS- 0.

4. Jerry Springer, at Northwestern

For the ability to generate a comment clusterf*ck. Our question: Will there be midgets?

5. Timothy Finchem (Commissioner of PGA Tour), at UVA

Maybe he’ll offer golf swing advice. That’s probably more useful than the usual commencement speech wisdom.

6. Scott Turow (legal novelist), at Loyola-New Orleans

As suspenseful as his novels are, we bet he can craft an exciting graduation speech.

7. Sandra Day O’Connor, at William & Mary

As good as a sitting justice? Maybe better, since she can spill more dirt.

8. Ted Turner, at Baltimore

Perhaps the CNN founder will talk about how Nancy Grace has changed the face of justice reporting. Her report on an 18-month-old forced to smoke a marijuana pipe. Wow. Inspirational.

9. AG Michael Mukasey, at Boston College

No Founder’s Medal for you!

10. Ohio AG Mark Dann, at Case Western

We hope he rolls up in the “Sunshine Express,” his SUV with flames down the side. And brings his trouble-making posse.

Law School Commencement Speakers [TaxProf Blog]

Some of this information is — or soon will be — reflected in Justin Bernold’s nifty tables of maternity leave and paternity leave. But in the spirit of positive reinforcement, we thought that we should separately highlight — and commend — the following firms for recent enhancements to their parental leave policies:

1. Akin Gump: Now at the industry-standard 18 weeks for “[b]irth or adoptive parents who serve as primary caregivers.” Memo after the jump.

2. Andrews Kurth: Also now at 18 weeks. More details in this press release.

3. Morrison & Foerster: They moved to 18 weeks last month, actually, but we haven’t noted it until now. Several MoFo tipsters wrote in requesting a shout-out, including one who pointed out:

[T]he new policy has something I’ve not seen elsewhere: an automatic option to go on reduced hours for the first year after a child is born. Can’t say whether that’s the de facto policy elsewhere, but it is the first time I have seen any firm put it in writing.

Memo and more details, also after the jump.

* Wesley Snipes gets maximum three-year sentence in tax evasion case. Civil suit continues. [CNN]

* Bill Cosby and Marvin Arrington, a recent Judge of the Day, team up. [CNN]

* FDA to get a better look at LASIK. [Washington Post]

* Verdict expected in trial of police alleged to have shot and killed man after bachelor party. [New York Times]

* Veterans’ care firm ordered to pay back $100 million. [MSNBC]

We don’t usually get lots of “news from Israel” tips, but we have this week. Okay, we received two links to stories from Israel, but that seems like a lot compared to the usual zero.

The first story speaks to the dangers of Facebook. Sweet, seductive Facebook, you get us into trouble by making us want to constantly update our status message, addicting us to Scrabulous, and tempting us to post inappropriate photos that compromise national security:

A soldier from the elite Intelligence Corps unit “8200” was sentenced to 19 days in prison for uploading photos taken on his base without approval to the popular social networking site Facebook.

This is the first time the Israel Defense Forces has sentenced a soldier to military jail for an offense of this sort.

Maybe it’s time to confiscate cameras from military personnel. Photos seem to get these folks into trouble. E.g., Abu Ghraib.

On to the second story. Beyond the Israeli link, there’s really nothing in common. So let’s just move on to the nudity.

Our tipster sums this story up well:

I’m not sure if you are aware of the Passover legal hubbub that occurred in Israel earlier this month, but it caused quite a stir among all Israelis and many American Jews. There was a long-standing ban against selling non-kosher-for-Passover food (“hametz,” or leavened bread) on Passover in public places, which meant all supermarkets and restaurants. A couple weeks ago, the Israeli Supreme Court, which in my opinion is way too activist for its own good, did away with the law completely by taking away its only application: it ruled that supermarkets and restaurants are not public places.

All this is only mildly newsworthy to the general public, not necessarily ATL material.

But yesterday, some (arguably) legally savvy protester pulled a brilliant and hilarious move to get the attention of the courts. He stripped naked in a supermarket (wearing only a strategically placed sock) and called the police on himself and demanded they arrest him for indecent exposure. He wants this to go to court and he already has his argument: according to the Israeli court, supermarkets are not public places.

Happy Passover! Enjoy the matzah!

IDF soldier jailed for posting sensitive photos on Facebook [Haaretz]
Man strips in protest of bread sale during Passover [YnetNews]
Israeli Orthodox Jews angered over Passover ruling [Reuters]

* To anyone who has ever been criticized harshly or mocked — e.g., in anonymous comments on the internets — consider the wise words of Judge Richard Posner: “[P]eople do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or for that matter their way of life.” [Box Turtle Bulletin]

* What are the best — and worst — state lawsuit climates? [Institute for Legal Reform (press release); Institute for Legal Reform (rankings)]

* Lawrence Hurley wonders: “Do associates feel pressure to give political donations to candidates supported by senior partners?” [Washington Briefs]

* Forget about abortion-themed “art projects.” THIS is why we have a First Amendment. [Legal Satyricon]

* A bar review question: What are the elements of “penis theft”? [Reuters]

Update: See also PrawfsBlawg. (Gavel bang: commenter.)

Starting salaries for new associates in the London offices of U.S.-based firms can be quite generous. They often exceed the New York going rate of $160,000, approaching $200,000 at top shops. See here (noting that Weil and Cleary pay newly-qualified lawyers the equivalent of $180K, and Latham pays NQs the equivalent of $190K, in London). [FN1]

But top U.K. firms, known collectively as the “Magic Circle,” aren’t quite as generous to their London associates. From the ABA Journal:

[W]hile some magic circle firms may up the ante at least a little this year, some partners are complaining that junior lawyers already are overpaid…. Says an unnamed Clifford Chance partner: “People should be grateful for having jobs in the current market. I could easily see the rises not happening now and being deferred until later in the year.”

Currently, starting lawyers at leading London firms reportedly make between 63,500 pounds and 65,000 pounds. That translates to a range of about $125,000 to $128,000 in U.S. dollars.

Additional detail, from Legal Week:

Partners with City giants including Linklaters and Clifford Chance (CC) - normally early movers - told Legal Week they are not expecting to see significant increases this year, as they feel the impact of the credit crunch.

Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Allen & Overy (A&O) are all in the process of reviewing their salary bands, with partners conceding substantial rises are unlikely. Increases at the junior end are thought to be particularly unlikely.

Insofar as the market for legal services is becoming increasingly global — London has been gaining on New York as a global financial capital, and competing with it for talent — pay stasis in London is bad news for those seeking pay raises in New York.

NY to 190? As the Brits like to say, “Not bloody likely.”

[FN1] These figures are generated by converting pounds to dollars. But yes, we know that London is even more insanely expensive than New York.

Firms to hold off on major pay hikes after crunch [Legal Week]
London Partners to Associates: At $125K, We’re Paying You Too Much [ABA Journal]

Here’s some follow-up on yesterday’s write-up of a recent Fifth Circuit opinion (PDF). In its per curiam opinion, the court benchslapped one Roger Phipps, counsel for the appellant, for being utterly unprepared at oral argument. The argument included this exchange:

Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?
Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.
Judge: At Tulane, is it?
Phipps: Loyola.
Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.
Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.

But which Loyola Law School is lucky enough to call Mr. Phipps an alumnus? Loyola of Chicago, Los Angeles, or New Orleans? Professor Alan Childress wrote the following at the Legal Profession Blog:

A commenter below states that the ‘Loyola’ in question (Mr. Phipps’s alma mater) is Loyola-Chicago, not New Orleans, citing the Martindale-Hubbell Directory which indeed says so. But all other internet evidence (and an email to me from a colleague who went to school with him) strongly suggests that Roger Dale Phipps is a graduate, J.D. 1990, of Loyola-New Orleans.

But down in the Big Easy, they beg to differ. Earlier today, the career services office at Loyola - New Orleans sent out this email:

To: [Loyola New Orleans students]
Subject: RE: Trivia
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:48:44 -0500

There is a US 5th Circuit case that is being circulated nationally about an attorney. In the footnotes — the transcript excerpts between the judicial panel and the attorney — the attorney mentions a certain law school by name.

Students and local attorneys have been emailing me concerned that this nationally circulated document will precede their applications for job search purposes and/or is an embarrassment to our school.

The bad news is that, “yes, this is embarrassing representation on behalf of the attorney.”

The GOOD NEWS is that the attorney mentioned is NOT a Loyola New Orleans graduate.

Good Luck on Your Exams!

Career Services

Professor Childress remains unconvinced. Read his response, after the jump.

Dr. Marty Klein is a sociologist and therapist who writes a blog on sex and some other stuff, called Sexual Intelligence. He was asked to testify in the trial of Dominic Jones, a University of Minnesota football star accused of rape, but the judge turned him away.

Jones was found guilty of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct earlier this month, but his defense attorney, Earl Gray, plans to appeal the verdict, and here’s why:

Hennepin County District Court Judge Marilyn Rosenbaum did not allow Gray to call a sexual behavior expert, or to present evidence that the woman had sex with three other players that night, or describe what Jones was told by his upstairs neighbor Alex Daniels or to call a sexual behavior expert.

“The next time we try it, we will be able to give the jury a full picture of what happened that night,” Gray said.

Did the Star Tribune mean to repeat “call a sexual behavior expert” out of sheer disbelief, or was that a typo?

Apparently, Judge Rosenbaum pooh-poohed the whole sexpert field, and Dr. Klein is not happy about it. Here’s an excerpt from his blog:

Former University of Minnesota football player Dominic Jones is accused of sexually assaulting a woman by, among other things, ejaculating on her face while she was drunk.

Despite eyewitness accounts that the woman asked to be “rained on,” the State says it must be rape because no sane, sober woman would actually consent to such a perversion.

Jones’ attorney requested I testify as an expert witness about the many ideas and practices regarding ejaculation and semen (and faces) that have developed over the centuries.
…

[The judge] said even if I were an expert, such expertise wouldn’t be relevant to the case—that is, wouldn’t involve any special knowledge beyond what a typical jury member already knows.

In a single judicial gesture, Judge Rosenbaum dismissed an entire profession and its field of study.

We think Judge Rosenbaum was just acknowledging that we are all experts in the bedroom.

See Dr. Klein’s full rant after the jump.

Former Gophers player Jones acquitted of rape charge [Star-Tribune]
Minnesota Justice Paralyzed By Facial [Sexual Intelligence]

If Winston & Strawn ends up merging with Heller Ehrman (or any other firm), here’s a question to consider: Whose instant-messaging policy will prevail? A tipster tells us:

“Winston has blocked Meebo, Gchat, and all other possible chat clients.”

We checked with sources at Winston, who report that this policy is nothing new. Instant messenger programs have been blocked at Winston for quite some time (at least several months).

But we still found the policy interesting, especially in light of recent blogosphere discussion of website blocking. It got us wondering: What other law firms prevent their employees from using instant messaging?

Instant messaging can be a huge time suck. Workplaces that ban IM’ing, at least between their employees and outsiders [FN1], are probably more productive. Most people would rather IM with a law school classmate about the evilness of Katherine Mayfair on Desperate Housewives than plow through a stack of sale/leaseback agreements.

But a ban on instant messaging — especially if accompanied by other measures, like preventing people from accessing non-work email accounts from the office (hello, Goldman Sachs) — could lower employee morale. We’re reminded of how Allen & Overy faced a mini-revolt after banning Facebook in its London office (a policy it quickly reversed).

ATL readers: Any thoughts? Does your firm prevent you from using an instant-message client? If so, does it tick you off? If not, do you wish it did, à la Odysseus wanting to be tied to the mast?

[FN1] We’re not counting the internal IM systems that some firms — e.g., Kirkland & Ellis (if memory serves) — have in place. These networks probably still transmit a lot of gossip, of the “omg have you seen the new para’s outfit” variety. But when you’re limited to IM’ing with your co-workers, a lot of your talk will be about…. work.

Next week in Lausanne, Switzerland, the Court of Arbitration for Sport will hear the appeal of double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius (previously blogged about here). Pistorious is challenging the International Association of Athletics Federation’s ruling that he cannot compete in the 2008 Olympics because his j-shaped, carbon-fiber prosthetic legs allegedly violate an IAAF rule against “use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage.”

As of recently, Pistorius has been represented by Dewey & LeBoeuf (disclosure: my previous employer) and the firm’s acclaimed sports attorney, Jeffrey Kessler. The thrust of Pistorius’s appeal will be that his prosthetic legs do not provide any advantage over real legs. Although a victory for Pistorius in this appeal would not make him the first amputee to compete in the Olympic Games (American George Eyser already has that title, having won three gymnastics gold medals on a wooden leg), it would pave the way for Pistorius, if successful in his trials, to become the first Olympic track and field runner to compete on prosthetic legs.

While Pistorius and his lawyers are pushing for the Court of Arbitration for Sport to rule him eligible to compete using his choice of prosthetics, a few recent lawsuits filed by disabled American athletes have requested far more drastic accommodations.

Read about one such suit, plus more commentary on Pistorious’s case, after the jump.

So far this year, our ATL / Lateral Link survey results have produced tables on clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses and bar expenses, and relocation benefits, as well as parental leave (kudos, by the way, to Akin Gump and Andrews Kurth for moving to 18 weeks maternity leave recently).

But for many of these charts, there’s a worrisome question lurking in the background: will you have to pay the firm back if you leave?

We received almost 400 responses to last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on payback policies, and the most common answer appears to be “yes, but only if you leave relatively quickly.” Most of you reported that your firms would require you to return clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses, bar stipends and expenses, and even moving expenses if you left your jobs within a year after starting. But relatively few firms imposed longer terms, and a fair number reported no payback requirement at all.

Find out which firms fall where, after the jump.

A Chicago Bulls fan brings us a new reason not to fraternize with sports mascots. After a high-five gone wrong, Don Kalant suffered an arm injury, and now he’s suing the team.

Dr. Don Kalant Sr. alleged he was sitting near courtside on Feb. 12 when he raised his arm to get a high-five from Barry Anderson, who portrays the exuberant mascot in a bright red fuzzy costume.

But Kalant, an oral surgeon, may now wish he had settled for a fist-bump instead.

Instead of merely slapping Kalant’s palm, Anderson grabbed his arm as he fell forward, hyperextending Kalant’s arm and rupturing his biceps muscle, according to the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

This isn’t the first time Benny has seen red and attacked. In 2006, he was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery for punching a sheriff’s deputy.

How can something so cute and furry have so much rage?

Kalant stayed for the rest of the game but later had surgery and could miss as much as four months of work, Kasserman said. Kalant is seeking unspecified damages for medical bills, physical pain and lost earnings. The lawsuit claims Anderson was negligent in either “falling forward while grabbing a fan’s hand” or “running out of control” through the crowd.

Can Benny defend himself by saying that “running out of control through the crowd” is a mascot’s job?

C’mon, a real fan would just take the injury like a man, enjoy the time off, eat the medical expenses, and not sue his team. Sheesh.

Oral surgeon says in suit that he was injured in high-five with Chicago Bulls mascot [Chicago Tribune]

* Maybe new work for employment lawyers? Congress moving on genetic discrimination law. [CNN]

* But pay disparity bill stalls. [MSNBC]

* Did Rezko try to get Rove to get Fitzgerald fired? [New York Times]

* Magistrate rules against FBI’s withholding of watch list names [New York Times]

* Wiseguys infiltrate international energy business. [CNN]

* A new dean for the University of Houston Law Center. [University of Houston (PDF)]

* Study confirms dangerous levels of mold in Miami courthouse. [National Law Journal]

[Ed. note: Our search for Asia columnists is complete. We are pleased to present their inaugural post.]

Welcome to the first edition of The Asia Chronicles, a weekly column about the careers and lifestyles of American corporate lawyers in Asia. The column is collectively written by an intimate cabal of high-flying, hard-charging corporate associates working throughout Asia, each sworn to secrecy and known to each other only by smell. As long-time readers of ATL, we are honored to join the ranks of its writers. Over the next few months, we will do our best to give you a full download of our experiences working and living in this part of the world.

Let’s start our column with a basic question: What brings U.S.-qualified lawyers to Asia? Some might say it’s the opportunity. As businesses across Asia continue to grow in size and sophistication, U.S. lawyers are often presented with novel and challenging legal issues.

For others, the money is the draw. In most of the major cities in Asia where U.S.-qualified lawyers are in demand, firms often pay at New York levels, and also throw in sizable housing packages. It’s not uncommon for associates in Hong Kong, for example, to receive monthly rent allowances in excess of $5,000.

For still others, Asia is home. The ranks of American law school graduates hailing from Asia continues to swell, and many jump at the opportunity to practice U.S. law in their home countries, close to family. These lawyers are also typically fluent in two languages, allowing some to enjoy better long-term career prospects than they otherwise would in the U.S.

According to Evan Jowers, managing director of the Hong Kong office of Kinney Recruiting (and, in full disclosure, sponsor of this post), there are many reasons for U.S. associates to seek Asia positions, going even well beyond the obvious financial benefits and geographical considerations. Evan has placed over 40 U.S. associates in Asia in the past 15 months (and Robert Kinney and the rest of Kinney Recruiting’s Asia team, including Steven Holzman and Joanne Kim, have also made numerous Asia placements of U.S. associates, partners and in-house counsel).

There are a number of benefits to moving from a U.S. law firm to a smaller Asia overseas office, according to Evan. These include “the opportunity to work in a small group, much more responsibility than in a large U.S. or London office, and, in many cases, one-on-one mentoring by a senior partner. Such an experience is not for everyone, but for the U.S. associate with strong entrepreneurial drive, then an Asia move — even if just for a few years — can greatly advance one’s career prospects, in both major law firms and in-house opportunities down the road, in both the U.S. and Asia.”

Over the next few months, we’ll write in more detail about these and other topics related to practicing law in Asia. We hope to both inform and entertain, and we welcome your feedback. Please leave a comment or email us at asiacorporatelawyers at gmail dot com. Thanks!

* If you love your property casebook, let it go. If it comes back to you, it’s yours forever. [TJ’s Double Play]

* Economist and Yale Law prof John Donohue defends the honor of YLS clerks, laying the econometric smackdown on Royce de Rohan Barondes. [Balkinization]

* Are you a Sprint customer? Do you feel that customer service isn’t listening to a darn thing you’re saying? They’re not. [Consumerist]

* 244 oysters in one hour? Someone make this guy a summer associate. [Dealbreaker]

* “When blogs get blocked.” We don’t believe ATL has been blocked anywhere, but if we’re wrong about that, please email us. [Overlawyered; Law and More]

That’s the title of our column in this week’s New York Observer. It got a shout-out this morning in the NYT’s DealBook:

Nearly a year after an Australian law firm went public, many in the legal profession are still tittering over whether any American players would follow suit.

By necessity, law firms are fairly tight-lipped about much of the work they do. That would have to change if any were to become a publicly traded company, what with the disclosure requirements and the probing questions of shareholders.

In the midst of earnings season, Above the Law’s David Lat pens a mostly tongue-in-cheek piece for The New York Observer speculating on what a quarterly earnings report by an American firm would look like. (A hint: It wouldn’t say much.)

You can read the column over here, plus reactions from Professors Stephen Bainbridge and Larry Ribstein.

The column was inspired by last week’s very interesting symposium, The Future of the Global Law Firm, held here in Washington at Georgetown University Law Center. It was sponsored by GULC’s Center for the Study of the Legal Profession, overseen by Professors Mitt Regan and Jeff Bauman, and was attended by lots of leading lawyers and law professors (partial list of presenters and attendees here).

Here are some links to conference coverage from some of the law professors and bloggers we had the pleasure of meeting last week:

* Lawyer and law-firm consultant Bruce MacEwen, at Adam Smith, Esq., here (overview of the proceedings) and here (summarizing attendees’ reactions).

* Professor Larry Ribstein, at Ideoblog (proffering predictions on the future of legal practice).

* Professor Gordon Smith, at Conglomerate (summarizing conference consensus points; his more touristic take on D.C. appears here).

* Professor Bill Henderson, at Empirical Legal Studies (not strictly conference commentary, but extremely interesting, and related to the paper Professor Henderson presented).

Cravath, Inc.: What If New York’s Law Firms Went Public? [New York Observer]
Imagining a Public Law Firm’s Earnings Report [DealBook / New York Times]

Here’s an update to yesterday’s post about rumors of possible merger talks between Heller Ehrman and Winston & Strawn. Remember, of course, that these are just rumors — nothing more. Neither firm has offered any substantive comment. So please don’t get too excited.

First, as reported by Legal Pad, the domain names of WinstonHeller.com and HellerWinston.com — previously snapped up by an anonymous buyer — are available once again. Legal Pad speculates:

Does the unURLing mean any merger is off? Dunno. If we were going to engage in unfounded speculation (one of the main reasons the Internet gods created blogs), we’d say low-grade talks had occurred, so someone grabbed the URLs, then decided to un-grab ‘em just to quiet all the, um, unfounded speculation. Working great so far!

Second, just this afternoon, the following email from Winston’s managing partner, Tom Fitzgerald, went around the firm:

From: Thompson, Nadja On Behalf Of Thomas Fitzgerald
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:49 PM
To: All Business FIRM
Subject:

This morning you may have noticed on the W&S Update an article published referencing the purchase of the domain names “WinstonHeller.com” and “HellerWinston.com,” along with rumors of a potential merger between the two firms. W&S Update is an online service that reports all articles about W&S, regardless of content or veracity.

We feel it is important to notify our employees and attorneys that the firm did not secure, nor was it involved in securing, any domain names, including those referenced in the article. We are constantly contacted by other law firms, attorneys, and professional search firms to look at business opportunities which we explore as appropriate. As a matter of policy the firm does not acknowledge or otherwise comment on rumors regarding internal firm business or its clients.

Our tipster’s take: “[A] rather shady explanation. They don’t address the substance of the rumors, just that they didn’t secure the domain names.”

Right now we have nothing more than rumors. When we have something more substantive to report, we’ll let you know.

Who Dumped WinstonHeller.com … and Why? [Legal Pad / Cal Law]

Earlier: Law Firm Merger Mania: Winston and Heller, Sitting in a Tree? M-e-r-g-i-n-g?

Yesterday we posted an open thread on Administrative Professionals’ Day. We hope your secretaries don’t read this blog — the comment thread on that one was a bit disturbing.

A tipster from Richmond sent us this update on what Hunton & Williams is doing to mark the “holiday”:

Thought you might appreciate this… It’s Staff Appreciation Week at Hunton & Williams, and this morning’s fun staff activity was a floor-by-floor breakfast and a cute version of The Price Is Right, where we had to guess the price of a bottle of detergent, a box of Polident, Rice-A-Roni, Centrum Vitamins and a can of Maxwell House coffee. We were told that there would be prizes for those who guessed closest to the actual retail price of the item. Not that anyone expects anything fabulous, but maybe a certificate for an hour off of work, a Starbucks gift card, etc.

Or maybe not?

An email just came out announcing the winners and their prizes… which were the items that they guessed the price of. So, approximately 60 H&W employees will be walking out to their cars with random groceries (and Polident) as a thank you for their hard work over the course of the year.

I know that ATL doesn’t focus too much on support staff, but this seems ridiculous enough to merit a mention. And if you need a lawyer-related angle, you can mention that the attorneys have to wear enormous ribbons all week that say THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF.

Winning a box of Polident? Rather than expressing appreciation, this seems mildly awful and embarrassing. And on the Price is Right, someone always wins a car.

H&W, where’s the car? To quote from Happy Gilmore, “the price is wrong, b*tch!”

It’s kind of cute that H&W tried, though. Is your firm doing anything special to celebrate this week?

We’ve been covering the University of Chicago Law School’s decision to ban internet in the classroom. Courtesy of another law school, here’s some evidence to support denying internet access to law students while in class.

Over at American University Washington College of Law, some students are apparently taking full -frontal advantage of their internet privileges:

From: David Jaffe
Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Classroom Incident
To: undisclosed-recipients

It has been brought to my attention that several students in the second-year part-time division were viewing pornography online during a recent class, in plain view of a portion of the class and with no attempt to disguise their behavior. This conduct not only reflects poorly on the students involved but also may serve to create a sexually hostile environment. Such conduct violates federal law, the rules of professional conduct, and the American University Code of Student Conduct.

WCL expects students to act with integrity and to maintain high personal and professional standards. This expectation is called into question by the inappropriate behavior that I have described. I call on those students who were involved in this incident to present themselves to me with an explanation for their actions, suggesting in the strongest terms that they do so before I am forced to follow a specific course of action through the WCL Honor Code and the American University Code of Student Conduct.

David Jaffe
Associate Dean for Student Affairs
American University Washington College of Law

Solitaire wasn’t doing it for them, apparently.

We contacted Dean Jaffe for comment (and to learn the fate of the purported pornaholics). He issued the following comment:

I received in response to the foregoing email a communication from a student who acknowledged opening in class an email forwarded to his non-law school account containing what was meant to be humorous pictures, which he described as having the potential to be taken inappropriately. The student indicated that while someone could have thought the email was in bad taste that it was not pornographic. The student expressed that he did not intend for anyone to read his screen, and asked for the chance to personally apologize to anyone who may have been offended. The student added that he holds himself to a higher moral standard than the email portrayed, but accepted full responsibility for opening the email while at school.

We intend to take the necessary and appropriate steps to resolve this matter and to ensure that other students are not affected in the future.

Was the email in question pornographic? We don’t know, since we never saw it. As Justice Potter Stewart famously observed, when it comes to porn, you know it when you see it.

We received almost 500 responses to last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on relocation benefits, and it seems like another table-worthy set of results.

As with our running tables on clerkship bonuses, maternity leave, paternity leave, and signing bonuses and bar expenses, the moving-expenses table is a work in progress that will be updated from time to time, based on your greatly appreciated tips.

Is your firm missing? Spot an error? Please let us know.

In the meantime, last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you might have to pay everything back is still open.

Check out the full table, after the jump.

When judges preside over law school moot court arguments, like the one at Columbia Law School last week, they often dish out this compliment to the student advocates: “You’re better than most of the practicing lawyers who appear before us.”

And maybe they’re not just being nice. If we had gotten to this item a bit earlier — it’s from last week — Roger Phipps would have been a Lawyer of the Day. We’re happy to declare him our Lawyer of Last Week.

Over at the Legal Profession Blog, Professor Alan Childress draws attention to this per curiam opinion (PDF) by the Fifth Circuit. Here’s an excerpt:

[W]e would be remiss if we did not comment on the conduct of Roger Phipps, counsel for Hartz, during oral argument in this case on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Phipps’ conduct towards the Court during argument was unprofessional. Even more serious was his admission that during his work on the case (including his preparation for argument), he had not read a key Supreme Court case. His cavalier disregard for his client’s interest and for his obligation to the Court was both troubling and disgraceful. [FN4]

Accordingly, we are ordering Phipps to provide his client, Hartz, a copy of our opinion immediately after it is released. In order to ensure compliance, we are further directing him to supply our Court with proof of service.

Ouch. So what did Phipps do to incur the court’s wrath?

Read the text of footnote four, after the jump.

Update: For a postscript to this story, see here.

The scandal of Jack Abramoff (pictured) may be ancient history, but it continues to yield up legal news, as the fallout rains down. There was Guam’s lawsuit against Abramoff’s former firm, Greenberg Traurig, which was recently dropped. And now there’s this, from today’s Washington Post:

A former high-ranking official in the Justice Department pleaded guilty yesterday to accepting thousands of dollars worth of meals and sports tickets from Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping a variety of Abramoff’s clients.

Robert E. Coughlin II, the former deputy chief of staff of the Justice Department’s criminal division, became the latest of more than a dozen public officials, lobbyists and congressional staff members to be convicted or to plead guilty in the wide-ranging federal investigation of Abramoff’s activities.

As part of his plea agreement, Coughlin, 36, agreed to cooperate with investigators, making him a potentially important witness in the ongoing scrutiny of Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). Coughlin acknowledged performing a variety of official acts for Kevin A. Ring, a key member of Abramoff’s lobbying team at Greenberg Traurig and a former legislative aide to Doolittle. Coughlin and Ring are longtime friends who worked together on Capitol Hill a decade ago.

More discussion, after the jump.

This would also have made for a good posting in ATL’s new Community section. But since we’ve actually received several inquiries into the topic, we’ll toss it out for discussion here. A representative email:

I’ve been searching for positions in large law firms in Labor & Employment. I’m discovering that many firms are getting rid of those practice groups because they are not profitable, and work is going to boutique places like Littler Mendelson and Jackson Lewis.

Given that employment work in general seems to be booming in some states, it’s surprising that these big firms are rolling back work. I’d be curious what people’s experiences have been on the inside. Would you consider doing an open thread on this issue?

Sure! Here you go.

This reader’s report is generally consistent with what we’ve been hearing. Labor and employment work tends to be fairly sensitive to rate pressure from clients, and as a result, profit margins can be relatively low (at least compared to, say, M&A work). Over the past few years, some firms have been cutting their labor groups loose.

On the other hand, as noted by our tipster, the area is busy right now. In our recent survey of which practice areas are busiest, respondents in Los Angeles, for example, identified labor and employment as one of the three most active areas at their firms. With the economy — and deal flow — slowing down, perhaps firms will be happy to have labor and employment work, even if it’s not super-lucrative.

So, ATL readers, any advice for our tipster? Are Biglaw gigs available for labor and employment lawyers? Or should this reader focus instead on specialized labor and employment shops?

* Clinton takes PA by about ten points, and so it goes on. [New York Times]

* American octogenarian charged with spying for Israel. [Washington Post]

* Cousin and advisor of Colombian president arrested in connection with paramilitary death squads investigation. [MSNBC]

* Justices may trim McCain-Feingold’s “millionaires’ amendment.” [Washington Post]

* States resume executions by lethal injection. [Washington Post]

* U.S. leads other nations with over a quarter of world’s prison population, and we jail them for longer too. [New York Times]

Okay, you already knew that hiring Allen & Overy isn’t cheap. Remember their European fee schedule?

So why was this U.K. judge so upset over an eight-figure bill from the firm? He really ought to know better. From the FT (via WSJ Law Blog):

A High Court judge has blasted a top City of London law firm for charging nine years’ worth of man hours on a five-day trial over BlackBerry patents, in a judgment that will fuel the growing controversy over lawyers’ billing practices.

Lawyers from Allen & Overy racked up nearly £5.2m [$10.32 million] in costs representing Research in Motion, the maker of the popular BlackBerry device, in a dispute with Visto, a US-based wireless technology company.

In a scathing judgment, Mr Justice Floyd said he would expect the firm’s associates to be able to recite “all the documents in the case by heart” given the amount of time they claimed to have spent on the dispute.

Try them, Your Honor. Those two poor associates billed over 4500 hours on the case over 15 months.

“The picture summoned up by this bill of costs is one which is totally unfamiliar to anyone who has been involved in economically conducted patent litigation,” the judge said. In refusing to award Research in Motion its full costs, he said he was bound to prevent a party from recovering “unnecessary and unreasonable’’ expenses.

Ten million bucks is a hefty sum — but it’s not unheard of in the world of high-stakes litigation. And when Blackberries are involved, legal bills balloon. Recall how Wiley Rein scored a $200 million payday for representing NTP in its litigation against RIM (on a contingent-fee basis).

And more Blackberry-related litigation may be on the way. See this piece from the National Law Journal, about how the devices may initiate “a new wave of wage-and-hour litigation,” based on claims of unpaid overtime.

Biglaw associates are out of luck. But paralegals who had Blackberries bestowed upon them might have meritorious claims.

Judge lambasts lawyers’ fees [Financial Times via WSJ Law Blog]
U.K. Judge Rails at Allen & Overy’s $10 Million Bill in BlackBerry Patent Case [Legal Week via WSJ Law Blog]
BlackBerrys may spur overtime suits [National Law Journal via WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Charging $1,000 an Hour Is For Chumps

* Nationwide Layoff Watch: Credit Suisse. [Dealbreaker]

* Senator Debbie Stabenow’s husband gets caught in a prostitution sting. And check out the name of the town location of his arrest. [Nasty, Brutish & Short]

* Fun factoid: What’s the most frequently cited law review article of all time? [PrawfsBlawg]

* Professor Alice Ristroph asks: “What is a judicial fiat, anyway?” Hint: not a cute Italian car. [Concurring Opinions]

* U. Penn. student newspaper endorses Clinton over Obama, sending Penn Dems into a tizzy. [Instapundit]

Times have been tough for former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But maybe his luck is about to change. Here’s our latest “Eyes of the Law” celebrity sighting, submitted this afternoon by a Texas tipster (in a style reminiscent of Gossip Girl, which we adore):

Spotted: AG AG, at the Four Seasons in Austin, with a well-dressed old white guy. Was this a job interview?

[Gonzales] was walking out as I was walking in. He is somewhat diminutive. He was wearing standard (former) government employee attire: dark suit, white shirt, cheap tie. The white guy looked important.

But don’t they always?

Want to book the former Attorney General for a speaking engagement? You can do so through the Greater Talent Network. If Gonzales goes back into private practice, he’ll probably have less time to spend on the lecture circuit. So act now, before it’s too late!

Earlier: Alberto Gonzales Continues to Wander in Unemployment Wilderness

You’re already discussing the rumors in the comments to an unrelated post. So we figure we should probably give you a proper forum for such discussion.

In an earlier post, we alluded to merger rumors involving Heller Ehrman. We didn’t name the supposed merger partner at the time, but Legal Pad just did:

Last Friday, wondering about continuing rumors of a Heller Ehrman merger with Chicago’s Winston & Strawn, we decided to check whether anyone had registered any interesting new domain names like, saaaay, www.hellerwinston.com or www.winstonheller.com.

Turns out that only the day before, both were registered to Domains by Proxy, a company which allows privacy-seeking customers to register sites using the company’s contact information. A commenter on Above the Law noted the same discovery Saturday, so when we got to work on Monday, we made some calls. A spokesman for Heller said the firm was not involved.

“We did not authorize any Web company or outside third party to purchase any particular domain or register any Web site,” he said.

Not them? Isn’t cyber-squatting so 1998?

Why the interest in domain name registrations? As you may recall, ATL broke the story of the Dewey Ballantine / LeBoeuf Lamb merger based on a domain name registration. They can be a useful clue to possible law firm combinations.

More discussion, after the jump.

(At right: Chief Justice John Roberts and Christopher M. Hogan, CLS 2008, and winner of the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court competition. Chris Hogan appeared in the finals alongside Mollie Kornreich, David Scherr, and Jordan Connors. ATL congratulates all four on a job well done!)

For many years, Harvard Law School had a virtual monopoly on Supreme Court justices judging law school moot court finals. One of the nine robed ones would happily make himself or herself available every time the Ames Moot Court Finals were held up in Cambridge. Other law schools, even highly ranked ones, had a much tougher time scoring SCOTUS members. [FN1]

In the past few years, however, Columbia Law School has managed to wrangle judicial celebrities of the highest order for its Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court finals. For last year’s competition, which we covered extensively, the panel consisted of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Judge Susan P. Graber, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

This year, CLS outdid itself. Not content with a mere Associate Justice, they went for the Chief himself. From Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column, in today’s New York Times:

For three days last week, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. heard arguments in a real court in Washington. Then he came to New York to preside over a fake one — the finals of the moot court competition at Columbia Law School. Though he looked a little weary, Chief Justice Roberts’s questions were deft, and his wit was dry.

We like Liptak’s description of moot court:

Moot court is a funny institution, part debate club and part “American Idol.” Students are assigned a case, often loosely based on a real one, and they pretend to be appellate lawyers, writing briefs and making arguments. The best advocate wins.

The four students who presented arguments on Thursday had been winnowed from a field of 55. After they made their pitches, Chief Justice Roberts and the three stars of the appellate bench who sat with him gave brief critiques and then selected a winner.

“I particularly liked your rebuttal, Mollie,” said Judge Diana Gribbon Motz of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. “Jordan, I liked the way you started your argument.”

That’s “Jordan” with an “a,” as in Jordan Connors — not to be confused with reigning American Idol Jordin Sparks (one of the best Idols ever; but in vocal jeopardy, so please pray for her).

Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Motz — a Supreme Court short-lister in a Democratic administration, and described as “assuredly attractive” — were joined by two other high-powered jurists: Judge Michael McConnell (10th CIr.), characterized as a “deserving longshot” for the Supreme Court, and Judge Diane Wood (7th Cir.), known for being “wicked smart…. In short, she is a liberal version of Nino; and that’s what makes her so freakin’ scary…”

Both Judge McConnell and Judge Wood have been mentioned as possible Supreme Court nominees (in Republican and Democratic administrations, respectively). With the exception of Judge Motz, the panel was composed entirely of members of the Elect. A more luminous moot court bench would be difficult to compile.

(A digression on Judge Wood. If offered a Supreme Court spot, she obviously wouldn’t turn it down. But we hear that she’s not one of those types who has lived her entire life pining and planning for One First Street. She enjoys her life in Chicago, where she’s a beloved (and highly esteemed) member of the legal community. She plays the oboe and English horn in the Chicago Bar Association symphony orchestra. She and her husband, a successful doctor, have a rather large house out in the suburbs, as well as a swanky apartment downtown. Her life is complete without being a SCOTUS justice.)

Oh sorry, we were talking about the CLS moot court! We lost ourselves for a moment there.

Additional discussion, after the jump.

We received 3,846 responses to this month’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on your student loans, mortgages, and credit card debt, and one thing’s pretty clear: an awful lot of you owe an awful lot of money.

Roughly 40% of respondents owed at least $100,000 in outstanding student loans. Broken down by class, here’s what your student loan debt looks like:

Survey Results: Student Loan Debt By Law School Class

Even as the amount of student loan debt begins to subside for members of the Classes of 2004 and 2003, mortgage debt starts to creep up:

Survey Results: Mortgage Debt By Law School Class

Credit card debt, in comparison, is relatively tame. Sixty-four percent of respondents had no credit card debt, and 21% had less than $10,000 in credit card debt. About two percent held $40,000 or more.

But how much does all this debt affect your career choices? Find out, after the jump.

Several tipsters informed us that Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal was trimming its summer associate program to 10 weeks (as Pillsbury Winthrop previously did). We reached out to Sonnenschein’s chairman, Elliott Portnoy, who apprised us of some changes to the firm’s program:

We have made two changes to the structure of this year’s Summer Associate Program. There is considerable overlap between the group of Summer Associates to whom these two policies apply.

First, we have confirmed a uniform, firm-wide policy of a 10 week maximum for the Summer Program. As our firm continues its migration towards a greater practice group orientation, we felt it necessary to make policies such as this one uniform throughout the firm.

Second, we have made a general policy decision to end the Summer Program on August 1st firmwide (with a few exceptions). We believe that the August vacation season for our attorneys is simply not a period that is conducive to a positive Summer Associate experience.

Collectively, these two decisions will affect approximately one-half of our Summer Associates in Chicago who had originally indicated an interest to be with us for more than 10 weeks this summer. They may also affect some other Summer Associates in other offices, but if so (again, I working from memory) I believe that would be relatively isolated.

If you have other questions about our Summer Program, let me know.

These changes make sense to us, considering how dead August is (although maybe we’re biased ‘cause we’re in D.C., which basically shuts down for the whole month). We thank Mr. Portnoy for this detailed and helpful information, as well as for getting back to us so promptly.

The changes made to the summer associate programs of Sonnenschein and Pillsbury raise a broader question: When it comes to summer programs, is Biglaw cutting back? In light of the faltering economy, have firms made material changes to their SA programs — e.g., in terms of summer class size, length of the program, or overall lavishness of events?

Will Skadden Prom be moved from Rockefeller Center to Dave & Buster’s? Will farewell dinners at Per Se or Citronelle be replaced by brown-bag lunches in the firm cafeteria? Will the top-shelf booze get removed from the “booze cruises”?

We’d like to prepare a comprehensive report on notable changes to summer associate programs nationwide. If you have information that might interest us, please email us (subject line: “Summer Associate Program Changes”). Thanks.

Earlier: Endless Summer? Not at Pillsbury

This week is chockful of holidays: Earth Day, Passover, and tomorrow, Administrative Professionals’ Day. (We apologize for putting Passover in the same sentence as the other two.)

Many of you are wondering what to do for secretaries, administrative assistants, and/or paralegals:

Administrative Professional’s Day is coming up this Wednesday. I found your column on gifts for secretaries on Christmas to be invaluable. Could you run something similar for Administrative Professional’s Day?

According to Wikipedia, “the day is often ‘celebrated’ by giving one’s assistant flowers, candy, small gifts, lunch at a restaurant, and time off.”

This is an open thread to allow you to discuss your plans. Will you do gifts for your secretary? For your paralegals? What gift, and what price range, are you planning on?

As a side note, the best gift Kash received as a paralegal was a gift card for Banana Republic. Clothing gift cards are cooler than bookstore gift cards.

The company that has a patent on trademarked “Very Sexy” has been hit with a lawsuit accusing it of stealing a bra design. A Long Island paralegal claims that she came up with the original design for the Very Sexy 100-Way Convertible Bra, and has a patent to prove it:

The bra is, according to the lawsuit, the intellectual creation of Katerina Plew, a Long Island paralegal, who registered it under United States Patent No. 6,733,362 in May 2004. Ms. Plew, who is 38, is now contending that Victoria’s Secret stole, then mass-produced, her specialized design.

“The first time I thought of it I was getting ready for a christening,” Ms. Plew said in a telephone interview from her home in Selden, N.Y. “It was an idea that just popped into my head in — don’t know — like March of ’99.”

The bra, with its various hooks and eyelets, is something like the Micronaut of the undergarment world. By a complicated series of maneuvers, it can be worn in as many as 100 different ways.

What kind of outfit was she wearing to that christening?

Plew claims she had a meeting scheduled with Victoria’s Secret designers in 2006, but that the appointment was canceled at the last minute.

Victoria’s Secret, have you fallen so low as to steal your designs? It’s time to come up with some better stuff — VS merchandise has been subpar in the last few years. But that’s a topic for a different blog.

Is Victoria’s Secret a Stolen Bra Design? [City Room / New York Times]
Complaint: Plew v. Limited Brands, Inc. [PDF]

* South Carolina considers “homewrecker liability” — “a proposed law that targets a third party member in breaking up marriages.” [CNN Video]

* Do clothes make the man — or the lawyer? [National Law Journal via WSJ Law Blog]

* Trial over veterans’ health care begins. [New York Times]

* State-level energy regulation spurs alternative energy research. [Washington Post]

* Ex-cons on the increase in the Army. [Washington Post]

* A law professor’s struggle with Lou Gehrig’s disease. [St. Petersburg Times; see also PrawfsBlawg]

A fascinating article in the Washington Post explores new uses for DNA tests in the legal system. (We mentioned it yesterday in passing, but thought we’d say a bit more.)

Everything that’s written on genetics has an obligatory section on eugenics. But after getting that out of the way, the piece turns to the more interesting possibilities for DNA. One is as a predictor of criminal behavior:

Rather than simply proving, for example, that the blood on a suspect’s clothes does or does not match that of a murder victim, these “second generation” DNA tests seek to shed light on the biological traits and psychological states of the accused. In effect, they allow genes to “testify” in ways never before possible, in some cases resolving long-standing legal tangles but in others raising new ones.

Already, chemical companies facing “toxic tort” claims have persuaded courts to order DNA tests on the people suing them, part of an attempt to show that the plaintiffs’ own genes made them sick — not the companies’ products.

In other cases, defense attorneys are asking judges to admit test results suggesting that their clients have a genetic predisposition for violent or impulsive behavior, adding a potential “DNA defense” to a legal system that until now has held virtually everyone accountable for their actions except the insane or mentally retarded.

For example, researchers have identified a genetic mutation in a brain enzyme that causes increased violent behavior. Could genetic predisposition towards violence one day be a possible defense by excuse?

As Vanderbilt’s Nita Farahany — an expert in behavioral genetics and the law, who has previously appeared in these pages (second photo) — rightly points out, finding the cause for a behavior does not excuse a crime. But it could influence sentencing. [FN1]

Another possibility for DNA test applications is measuring life span, to determine awards in civil cases:

Many genes contribute to longevity; just last month, researchers announced the discovery of more than a dozen genes newly suspected of helping determine a person’s life span. Even if all of them were known, they could at best provide a probabilistic estimate. But as those estimates become more accurate, said Hoffmann, the Maryland associate dean, they will force judges and jurors to think hard about a question that has long dogged legal scholars: Should damage awards be linked to projected life span at all?

“If it’s for compensation, then yes, that means you’d want to fine-tune it to the details of the individual and their personal life expectancy,” Hoffmann said. “But if damages are about deterrence, then that says you don’t get off the hook just because you were lucky enough to hit someone who had a short life expectancy.”

It’s all speculative for now, as these tests are still in their early stages and not yet at the level of admissibility. But when they get to that point, there will be some interesting new possibilities and challenges for legal application.

[FN1] Earlier this month, Professor Farahany wrote an extremely interesting opinion piece for the Washington Post , imagining a world in which “police officers can read the minds of potential criminals and arrest them before they commit any crimes.” It’s not as far-fetched as it might sound: “various government agencies are funding the development of technology to detect brain activity remotely and are hoping to eventually decode what someone is thinking.”

DNA Tests Offer Deeper Examination Of Accused [Washington Post]
The Government Is Trying to Wrap Its Mind Around Yours [Washington Post]

* Twinkie lovers, be grateful for Chapter 11. [Law and More]

* Lawsuit of Last Week? Daniel Schwartz’s post title says it all: “Court Flushes Away Disability Claim; Finds Toilet-Training Book for Kids Not Enough to Create Hostile Work Environment.” [Connecticut Employment Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]

* Have you ever been punched by a client? [f/k/a via What About Clients?]

* How To Blog Like A Rock Star Canadian. [Stem Legal, also via What About Clients?]

* Barack Obama brushes it off — literally. [YouTube (extended, non-PC version) or
YouTube (abbreviated, PC version); Washington Post]

* Speaking of Obama, this “top story” headline is not from the Onion: “Obama Questioner Explains Why She Finds Him Annoying.” [McClatchy Newspapers]

* A shout-out for ATL from Benjamin Duranske, in Blawg Review #156. [Virtually Blind via Blawg Review]

One subject that we’ve covered extensively here at ATL is parental leave. If you’re lucky enough to be blessed with children, presumably you want to spend time with them, despite the demands of law-firm life.

But what about individuals who want to have kids, but are having difficulties? A few readers have submitted inquiries about infertility treatment. This one is representative:

Your posts on maternity and paternity benefits are interesting; thanks for posting. One benefit that I don’t think you’ve touched on — if you have and I’ve missed it, I apologize — is the availability of coverage for infertility treatment. Not the sexiest topic, I know, but certainly significant.

How significant? Some details:

For example, one IVF (in vitro fertilization) cycle might cost $15,000 or more, and many people have to to go through several tries before any success (everyone’s always hoping for success). Some firms offer this coverage as a part of their insurance packages. Baker & McKenzie in Chicago, for example, is a firm I’ve heard of that has this coverage available. [Ed. note: This is just hearsay, which we haven’t confirmed with the firm. If it’s important to you, you should verify it before acting upon it.]

If you’re unfortunately in the position where you have to seek infertility treatments, they are ridiculously expensive. Doctors visits, fertility drugs, IVF, etc. Ridiculously expensive. My firm does not offer the option of insurance coverage for these expenses, meaning that I may be out $20k to $50k (who knows how it will go) over the next year, whereas an associate at Baker might have full coverage (in addition to what is probably a higher salary in the first place).

It might be an interesting piece of info for folks to know. Not one that everyone needs to consider in law firm decisions, but maybe more than you’d expect. People don’t like to advertise infertility.

True enough. So here’s an open thread, where you can discuss the subject of infertility — and which firms will cover the cost of infertility treatment — on an anonymous basis, in the comments.

Okay, not literally; they’re almost-but-not-quite anagrams. But it’s certainly the case that economic woes are leading employers to retract job offers, left and right.

So rescission is no longer just an equitable remedy; it’s a hot new trend in the world of employment. Over the weekend, this report appeared in the New York Times:

Thousands of people are losing their jobs on Wall Street — some before their first day of work.

They polished résumés; they sweated interviews; they landed dream jobs. But now a small group of college and business school students are discovering that their careers at Bear Stearns ended before they began. JPMorgan Chase, which bought the beleaguered investment bank last month, rescinded many of their job offers.

Yashoda Khandkar, a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, is among 250 Bear hires who now find themselves unemployed in one of the worst financial job markets in years.

“The worst part about the entire situation is that it’s a really hard market for us to look for other jobs,” Ms. Khandkar said. “We probably can’t get as good of jobs as we would have had.”

Compared to the rescinded offers on Wall Street, what we’re seeing in law firm land looks like small potatoes. This makes sense. If finance offers richer rewards than Biglaw during good times, Biglaw should offer reduced risk during bad.

But could it be the case that we don’t know the full extent of rescinded job offers in the legal world? From a tipster:

Why aren’t you doing anything about law firms rescinding offers to 2L summer associates?

[Firm X] apparently rescinded 15-20 offers in Chicago. [Firm Y] rescinded 15 offers in their DC office. Apparently Charlotte is getting hammered…

Please look into this, and if it’s true, hammer these firms and protect the rest of us!

We are following up with the firms mentioned by our tipster, and if we can confirm the rumors, we will report them in these pages. In the meantime, if you have definite knowledge of a firm rescinding offers of summer or full-time employment — e.g., your own offer was rescinded — please email us (subject line: “Rescinded Job Offer”). We will investigate and report back. Thanks.

Update: A commenter points out this helpful article on the NALP website, Rescinded Offers: Mitigating the Effects of Rescinded Offers (“adapted from an article published in the August 2001 NALP Bulletin”).

Bear Stearns’s New Hires Become Job Seekers [New York Times]
Law Firms Curtail Associate Programs As Economy Slows [Wall Street Journal]

We are not referring to crocodiles, though they are certainly ugly and dangerous too. Instead, we refer to the ubiquitous footwear. The company made headlines over the weekend, because the Japanese Trade Ministry has formally requested a redesign. Because Crocs are just that ugly.

Okay, no — it’s not because Crocs offend the eyes. The redesign has been requested for safety reasons:

Japan has asked the maker of Crocs to look into changing the design of its footwear after complaints that children wearing the colorful plastic clogs have had their feet injured on escalators.

The Trade Ministry said Friday it issued the warning after receiving 65 complaints about Crocs and similar products getting stuck in escalators between June and November last year. Most of the cases involved young children.

A $7 million suit has already been filed against the company in New York this year, on behalf of a three-year-old whose toe was mangled on an escalator. And the company has other trouble on its hands, in the form of shareholder lawsuits.

All this is to say: Crocs are dangerous. And ugly. Do not wear them.

Japan Asks Crocs for Redesign [Washington Post]
Suit: Crocs shoe led to 3-year-old girl’s toe accident on JFK escalator [New York Daily News]
Crocs faces shareholder lawsuit [Denver Business Journal]

Earlier this month, a tipster sent us the following suggestion with respect to Mayer Brown:

You might consider a post about all the recent departures from Mayer Brown’s Chicago office. Of course, several partners were forced out of Mayer Brown (and other firms) over the last couple of years, as you’ve covered, but these recent departures are different. They’re either completely voluntary or those leaving are taking much more business with them than the Firm would like. In a down market, that’s not good for the Firm.

There have been several small groups moving lately from different transactional groups. I know of at least three, but there are probably others. This is only in Chicago; I think that there have been others in other offices as well. Many of the defections probably arise out of continued grumbling about the ways in which the (relatively) new Managing Partners are running the Firm. Even high-producing partners with lots of clients aren’t seeing the compensation benefits from the harsh cuts the Management Committee has been making.

Perhaps our tipster contacted the National Law Journal, too. In the latest issue, Lynne Marek reports (subscription):

Mayer Brown slowed repayment of departing partners’ capital investments in recent months as the firm faced unpaid client bills and an outflow of money tied to exiting U.S. partners.

Last summer, Mayer Brown leaders changed firm policy to take up to six months to return departing partners’ capital investments — which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars per lawyer — instead of handing it back immediately, said former partners who asked not to be identified.

The firm declined to comment, saying only that capital is returned in accordance with the partnership agreement.

Interesting — although it’s probably premature to shed tears for the outgoing Mayer Brown partners. If they’re leaving one of the country’s most prestigious and profitable firms (2006 PPP: $1.135 million) to join a similarly situated firm, they probably have enough in the bank to tide themselves over until their capital contributions come back. Furthermore, as noted later in the piece, some firms take as long as two years to return capital investments to departing partners. Six months doesn’t seem like such a big deal by comparison.

More discussion, after the jump.

The story of a lawyer-turned-journalist is a familiar one. See, e.g., Jeffrey Toobin, of the New Yorker and CNN; Jan Crawford Greenburg, of ABC News; Adam Liptak, of the New York Times (recently anointed as successor to Linda Greenhouse on the SCOTUS beat); and ATL’s very own David Lat.

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz penned an interesting profile last week of Megyn Kelly, Biglaw attorney turned national Fox News anchor:

Four years ago, Kelly was a Washington lawyer pleading with WJLA-TV for part-time work. Now she’s the co-anchor of two Fox shows, including a new 5 p.m. hour on the presidential campaign.

“When I was practicing law and had to do these 13-, 14-, 16-hour days, I was miserable,” she says. Now, “you get off the set, you have that post-show high.”

What about the high you get from 10 hours of document review? C’mon, you know you miss it…

According to her Wiki bio, Kelly got her law degree from Albany Law School, then worked for Jones Day before joining the Fox team.

“Here is this woman who was strikingly attractive but has tremendous air presence and a very strong voice,” [Fox’s Washington managing editor, Brit Hume] says. “We were knocked out. It was screamingly obvious that this was someone with tremendous potential.”

What’s more, says Hume, “she seemed to get what we’ve talked about with ‘fair and balanced news’ … She came in believing there was a left bias in the news. That’s not common.” He quickly created an opening for her.

The lesson to be taken from Kelly’s story: if you’re a hot, conservative attorney with a strong voice, Fox may have a place for you.

For more on Megyn Kelly, check out this incredibly random interview on Mediabistro’s Fishbowl DC. Apparently, her favorite letter is “x” and her favorite American Idol candidate is Taylor Hicks.

Update: We have updated this post with Megyn Kelly’s law school facebook photo.

Megyn Kelly, Fox News’s Fast-Rising Anchor [Washington Post]
Megyn Kendall: The Fishbowl DC Interview [Mediabistro]

Last week, we posted Part Two of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, and covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Kirkland & Ellis (or K&L Gates, depending on how you choose to alphabetize). We got quite a few tips in response, as well as quite a few comments in person at the NALP conference in Toronto.

Find out whether today’s installment will make it to O’Melveny, Pillsbury, Quinn, Skadden, or all the way to Weil and beyond … after the jump.

But before we get there, let’s quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a “stub bonus”) for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. Also feel free to let us know whether these stipends and bonuses are subject to repayment if you leave, and whether your firm helps out with relocations, both topics of surveys last week.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the third batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, after the jump.

When it comes to law school graduation speakers, it’s hard to please everyone. Earlier this year, controversy erupted at Boston College Law School when U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey was announced as the commencement speaker. Some students, faculty and alumni voiced opposition to AG Mukasey, based on his involvement in the waterboarding / torture controversy (extensive coverage collected here; resolution of the situation described here).

Now we report on commencement controversy news of a rather different (and somewhat less highbrow) sort. It arises out of the decision by Northwestern University School of Law to invite Jerry Springer to serve as this year’s commencement speaker. Springer got his law degree there in ‘68, worked as a campaign aide to Robert F. Kennedy, and served as mayor of Cincinnati. But he’s perhaps best known as the ringmaster of scandal and vulgarity on the Jerry Springer Show (and an unsuccessful contestant on Dancing With the Stars).

Some Northwestern students are not happy about Springer’s selection. From a tipster:

There is a current uproar in the graduating class at Northwestern Law. The graduation committee thought Jerry Springer would be an appropriate speaker for this year’s convocation. Most of the student body is opposed to this, but this administration is sticking by the committee’s decision.

Maybe he’ll bring Northwestern students with secrets and unresolved conflicts up on stage, then have them confess and brawl. That might be more fun than the usual staid graduation ceremony.

We contacted the school for comment, which issued the following statement, from Dean David E. Van Zandt:

In keeping with the spirit of our community, our commencement speaker annually is selected by a student committee, approved by the administration, and invited by both.

Mr. Springer is an alumnus who has held public office as a city council member and mayor of Cincinnati. He has had a very successful career in the news and entertainment industries.

We look forward to Mr. Springer’s participation at commencement.

At least one LLM candidate is trying to prevent Springer’s speaking. See the protest letter circulating at Northwestern, and vote in our reader poll, after the jump.

Update: Also after the jump, a defense of Jerry Springer’s selection as commencement speaker, which went out over the NU law school listerv.

* ACLU steps up for TX compound children. [CNN]

* Is crime in your genes? [Washington Post]

* Tampa borrowed $300 in 1961 1861; lawsuit against city seeks $22.7 million. [St. Petersburg Times]

* DOJ struggles with underdeveloped terror cases. [Washington Post]

* Zimbabwe election results challenged and delayed… again. [BBC]

When state senators weigh in on matters of fashion, they are often pooh-poohed, as was the Virginia Senate when it considered a fine for underwear-revealing baggy pants.

The Tampa Tribune reported last week on legislation being considered by the Florida Senate that deals with car ornaments. Specifically, car ornaments shaped like part of the male anatomy. We don’t tend to see this type of ornamentation in the District, but apparently it’s a problem down in the Sunshine State.

In some parts of Florida it has become fashionable to attach [replica bull testicles] to the back of pickups, and at least one person, Sen. Carey Baker, is offended.

Baker is sponsoring an amendment that would allow police to give drivers a $60 ticket if they had the object hanging from a vehicle. The amendment was added to a bill Thursday after an awkward discussion in which the Senate tried to debate the issue without being too graphic - with several schoolchildren watching from the galleries.

The provision was attached to a highway safety bill (SB 1992), but earlier this week there was an effort to take the language out of the bill. The discussion got a bit graphic, and Senate President Ken Pruitt told members that if the issue were going to come up again he wanted the discussion a bit more refined.

If any schoolchildren read ATL, we apologize for the graphic photo.

The debate does raise the important issue of freedom of speech. For now, the amendment has been dropped from the bill.

One senator was particularly defensive about the measure. He actually used to have testicles hanging from his vehicle, according to the Florida Sun-Sentinel:

Among those who have had the auto ornaments is Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville. Decorated in the garnet and gold of his alma mater, Florida State University, they hung on the back of his Suburban until his wife, Linda, demanded they be removed.

We were relieved to discover that Sen. King got his MBA from FSU, and not a JD.

Bill May Clip Truck Testicles [The Tampa Tribune via The Legal Satyricon]
Legislator crusades to ban rude ‘truck-nutz’ from bumpers [The Florida Sun-Sentinel]

* Hiring Yalies as clerks = recipe for reversal? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Adam “Bulletproof” Reposa speaks — or maybe comments on a blog? [Fagistan]

* Professor Kaimipono Wenger wonders: “How should the law deal with the end of the world?” [Concurring Opinions]

* John McCain releases his 2006 and 2007 tax returns. [TaxProf Blog]

Some of you may recall William Smith, the bankruptcy partner at McDermott Will & Emery, who ticked off a judge by suggesting — “with respect,” mind you — that she might be “a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal.”

Well, Smith is in the news once again. From the National Law Journal:

The bankruptcy trustee of St. Vincent Catholic Medical Centers of New York has filed a $200 million legal malpractice suit against McDermott, Will & Emery and three of its lawyers, William P. Smith, Stephen B. Selbst and David D. Cleary, over advice given in the months before and after its 2005 bankruptcy.

“This case is about deceit, divided loyalties, gross violations of fiduciary duties and breaches of professional standards of care committed by attorneys who put their personal relationships and selfish economic concerns above the interests of the charitable institution they were entrusted to protect,” the suit alleges.

Ouch. And would you like fries with that?

$200M malpractice suit filed against McDermott [National Law Journal]

On Tuesday, we wrote about staff attorney layoffs at Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy. As a commenter on our post noted, yesterday the firm sent around an email disputing our account:

From: David R. Gelfand
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:20 PM
To: #Litigation Non Partner Attorneys US; #Litigation Partners US
Cc: Sikora, Michael; Green, Valerie
Subject: Discovery Attorney Program

Several of you have asked about rumors that we have disbanded our Discovery Attorney Program. The rumors are absolutely not true.

If you need assistance from our Discovery Attorneys, please contact [xxxx].

Thanks.

David

We would have appreciated it if Milbank had responded to the multiple inquiries we made of them prior to running the post, instead of responding indirectly and after-the-fact. But it’s not the first time we’ve seen passive-aggressive behavior on the part of a law firm.

(We often reach out to law firms about rumors we hear — and we often kill stories when firms explain how and why they’re inaccurate. This happens almost every day around here. But if firms don’t avail themselves of the opportunity to comment on a reasonably credible rumor, then we view it as fair game.)

Anyway, we ran David Gelfand’s email by our original source, who responded:

“Milbank let go of all of the permanent discovery attorneys except for two. They kept on temporary discovery attorneys — those who are working through staffing agencies and not on Milbank’s payroll.”

“Notice in Milbank’s response [how they say] they did not dissolve the Discovery Attorney Program. That’s very different from saying that they did not fire all or nearly all of the attorneys in that program.”

Our earlier report, in stating that all the permanent discovery attorneys were laid off, was erroneous, since two were spared. We regret the error (and have appended a correction to the original post).

Could this latest report be erroneous as well? Quite possibly; we’re honest about our fallibility. But we once again reached out to Milbank, yesterday and today, and neither David Gelfand nor a firm spokesperson responded to our inquiries.

If you have knowledge of what’s really going on over there, feel free to drop us a line. Thanks.

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Milbank Cans Staff Attorneys

The National Law Journal and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported this week on the University of Chicago Law School cutting off internet access in the classroom. For more background on this story, check out our posts from March 25 and March 26. Ahem. Three weeks ago.

We did a poll way back in March. Over 63% of the ATL voters favor internet access in the classroom. These folks won’t be happy about this tidbit from the National Law Journal:

[Chicago Law School Dean Saul Levmore] has received inquiries from about 10 other law schools interested in possibly following suit on the move, he said.

The Conglomerate Blog makes a good point:

[I] do believe that shutting down the wireless signal is a short-term fix, at best. I have become convinced that the problems accompanying laptops in the classroom are behavioral, not technological.

So, University of Chicago students, how’s it going? Have you found other means of distraction— doodling, passing notes, daydreaming? Hope you didn’t miss our tattoo in exchange for legal services post this morning.

University of Chicago Law School blocking access to Net in classrooms [National Law Journal]
Internet Access in the Classroom? Not at Chicago Law [WSJ Law Blog]
Internet in the Classroom [Conglomerate Blog]

Earlier: Update: Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids (and Their Internet) Alone!
Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids (and Their Internet) Alone!

Marc Dann has had a rough tenure as Ohio’s attorney general. When the media start crafting timelines of your troubles, the end may well be nigh. One of Dann’s biggest problems seems to be judgment calls. Such as when choosing staff members. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a write-up on this stellar Dann staffer:

One of Attorney General Marc Dann’s top managers, who is accused of sexual harassment, has a history of problems with cars and alcohol, including a drunken driving arrest months before he was hired and a smashed state car after.

Dann knew about the arrest because, according to State Highway Patrol records, he was the one who picked Anthony Gutierrez up at 2:30 in the morning at the Canfield post after Gutierrez blew a .149 on a blood-alcohol test nearly twice the legal limit.

Aren’t staffers supposed to be the ones picking their drunk bosses up, and not the other way around?

Reflecting another poor hiring decision, Dann had to discipline his communications director for sending a “profane, abusive e-mail to a co-worker.” His COMMUNICATIONS director.

The list of poor staffing choices goes on.

Dann’s staff is not entirely to blame for his troubles. From the timeline:

June 2007: Dann, standing on a street in an upper-middle class neighborhood, spots a reporter who had written a story he didn’t like. Dann says, “Hey Steve, write this down: Go (expletive) yourself!”

Maybe Dann’s communications director suggested that.

Dann picked up his aide after DUI arrest [The Cleveland Plain Dealer]
Timeline of Marc Dann’s troubles [Dayton Daily News]

Corporate work may be a bit slow these days, but deal lawyers are still in demand — and moving around. Reported yesterday over at Legal Pad:

Four corporate and securities partners are leaving Heller Ehrman for DLA Piper in San Diego. The office has been plagued by instability — and defections — in recent years due to the addition in recent years of attorneys from Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison and the Venture Law Group.

Three of the departing attorneys — Michael Kagnoff, Jeffrey Thacker and Ross Burningham — were among a handful of former Brobeck partners considering leaving Heller’s San Diego office after clashing with a managing partner there, Cal Law reported last May.

Heller Managing Partner Rob Hubbell confirmed on Thursday that the trio, and Brobeck veteran Martin Nichols, had announced their exit. “These guys are leaving, but we have a strong practice in that office and we’re quite confident in that office,” he said….

At least 13 attorneys, nearly all partners, have left the firm in 2008, including four sitting practice chairpersons and one former practice head.

In other Heller news, we’ve heard rumors of possible merger talks involving the firm. But they’re a bit vague right now, so we will refrain from mentioning the few specifics that we have heard. If you have any details, feel free to email us. Thanks.

Heller’s Tempestuous San Diego Office Loses 4 [Legal Pad / Cal Law]

Here is the latest Job of the Week, brought to you by Lateral Link. Lateral Link continuously adds new in-house positions to its database, so check in regularly to peruse great opportunities in your area.

Position: Hedge Fund Attorney (in-house)

Location: New York, NY

Description: Prominent, well-established, multi-strategy hedge fund, with approximately $15 billion under management, seeks an attorney with hedge fund experience. This position will report to the General Counsel. Candidate will have the opportunity to work on a number of hedge fund matters, such as private equity, PIPE deals, fund formation, fixed income and bond offerings, drafting and review of organizational documents, and review and negotiation of ISDA and prime brokerage agreements. Extensive interaction with the trading desk, internal lawyers, and outside counsel, in an extremely collegial, intellectually stimulating environment.

Skills: 2-5 years experience, strong interpersonal skills, and previous hedge fund experience, either in-house or at a law firm, required. The fund offers a much better work-life balance than most large law firm environments.

For more information, please see job # 8602 over at Lateral Link.

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

Last week, speaking before a class at Harvard Law School, we vowed that we would track down the two missing Alito clerks for October Term 2008. As President Bush might say, “Mission Accomplished.”

These two gents will be clerking for Justice Samuel A. Alito in October Term 2008:

1. Michael Park (Yale 2001 / Alito)

2. Andrew Oldham (Harvard 2005 / Sentelletubby)

For those of you keeping track at home, the list of OT 2008 Supreme Court law clerks is now complete. Jaynie Randall, identified as a future Alito clerk, has been moved to October Term 2009 (which is when she’ll be clerking for SAA, we’ve been told).

Both Park and Oldham are currently attorney-advisors at the DOJ’s super-powerful and prestigious Office of Legal Counsel. They don’t call OLC the Finishing School for the Elect for nothing!

Yesterday we raised the possibility that Messrs. Park and Oldham, in laying low as SCOTUS clerks, were being a bit “precious.” We have nothing against preciousness — it’s our stock in trade here at ATL — but we take back the suggestion with respect to Park and Oldham. The reason the word about them took so long to get out is that they were initially told to keep the good news to themselves — which they did, showing the discretion to be expected of Supreme Court clerks.

While we’re on the subject, we reiterate this recent request, related to our attempt to build a demographic portrait of the incoming clerk class:

If you know of either (1) a clerk who is a racial or ethnic minority or (2) a clerk whose gender is not revealed by their name (we already know that incoming AMK clerk Ashley Keller is a guy), please let us know, preferably by email (subject line: “SCOTUS clerk demographics”). Thanks.

The corrected OT 2008 and OT 2009 SCOTUS clerk lists — with Michael Park and Andrew Oldham added, and Jaynie Randall moved to OT 2009 — appear after the jump.

* Texas polygamist ranch probe expands to Colorado. Were the phone calls reporting abuse a hoax? [CNN]

* Biglaw attorneys love to complain about their brutal hours. But outside those rarefied precincts, the problem may be too few hours, not too many — and it’s hurting the economy. [New York Times]

* Another sign of the grim economic times: bankruptcy begins to boom. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Pope Benedict XVI meets and prays with victims of sexual abuse. [Washington Post]

* A closer look at the business ties and dealings of former HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, now under federal investigation. [New York Times]

* More about that Yale senior’s “abortion art” project (discussed yesterday in Non-Sequiturs). [Washington Post]

For all of you Chicago law students who are strapped for cash and in desperate need of a tattoo or two, we have the craigslist ad for you:

I am searching for a student lawyer who is familar with the divorce laws of Illinois. Someone who is studying family law and would help assist me in my situation. Thus far I have written out my petition and obtain documents to be filed. But, I need someone to review my petition and statement before it is presented to the court. As a token of appreciation I will issue a check of $45.00 and two tattoo needles for two free tattoos(black and grey). Check out my work on www.myspace.com/grandmas26tattoos.

We were hoping for a cool granny on MySpace, but it’s actually a young woman.

Our University of Chicago tipster says:

I’m not studying family law, but if I was, I don’t think I would accept payment in tattoos.

Not even “Biglaw” on your bicep?

In Search For Student Lawyer Who Is Studying Family Law (Brighton Park/ Midway) [Craigslist]

* Inter-circuit benchslappery: Judge Stephen Reinhardt goes after Judge Richard Posner. [Drug and Device Law]

* And this is why we have the First Amendment. [Wonkette]

Update: See here. As one of you notes, the art project was a hoax of sorts.

* Most Screwed Victim in Caselaw History: time to vote! Yes, Mrs. Palsgraf is on the ballot — but maybe you should go for a less obvious choice. [PrawfsBlawg]

* So where should blame be placed for the subprime mortgage meltdown? One possibility: the repeal of Glass-Steagall. [Consumerist]

* If you’re an aspiring media type, here’s a fellowship opportunity that might interest you. The deadline is May 8, and the application requires a bit of thought. So don’t delay! [Atlantic Media Company]

A reader recently prodded us about the new bonus policy of Morrison & Foerster:

Love your site. However, I am very disappointed that there has not been a post on the recent MoFo bonus announcement. I don’t work at MoFo, but I heard from a friend over a week ago that they raised their bonuses. I saw a little bit about this in the comments, but there was never an official post. As you well know, public dissemination of this information is extremely important because it puts pressure on other firms to raise their bonuses. Please, for the financial benefit of all associates, do a post on the MoFo bonus increase.

We got our hands on the Morrison & Foerster bonus announcement. The changes are a little complex; our tipster summarized:

MoFo always announces its bonus policy prospectively, early in the year, so folks can set their expectations. We’ve recently done so for 2008, and it has some changes over 2007. The changes are regarded as a move to an “LA model” of bonus compensation — significant $$$ available once you make 1,950 hours, plus significant $$$ available for increased hours or favorable merit review, topping out at something like $135k. The changes also move away from hours-based bonuses (though we still have those), to a system that depends more heavily on the results of individual evaluations.

Everyone should see an increase over last year’s bonuses, typically $10-$30k more. Nice to see an advance commitment of this kind given the current economy.

The transmittal email and full memo, including a table of bonus ranges, appears after the jump.

Senator John McCain learned this week that his campaign spending may be investigated by the FEC due to a DNC lawsuit, but he now has a bigger crisis on his hands. The Washington Post reported on the newest presidential candidate scandal yesterday. Cindy McCain yoinked the “McCain family recipes” on the campaign website from the Food Network. OMG! GASP! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?

Our scandal radar barely went off, as we’ve become desensitized by adultery, prostitution, and tax fraud. But one of our tipsters pointed out a legal tie-in. The woman who discovered the recipe plagiarism was a New York attorney, Lauren E. Handel of McDermott, Will & Emery:

A blogger for the Huffington Post, freelance writer David Weiner, first reported the plagiarism, mocking the incident as “Farfallegate? The Rosemary Chicken Dome Scandal?” He attributed the discovery to Lauren Handel, a New York lawyer who had been searching the Internet for recipes and found identical ones on the Food Network and McCain campaign sites.

We’re a little suspicious of this story of Lauren Handel doing recipe research. We can’t believe a Biglaw attorney in NYC actually has time to cook.

Bloggers Find Something Fishy In McCain Site’s ‘Family Recipes’

Justice Antonin Scalia is often wrongly viewed as being a knee-jerk conservative. If you survey his entire jurisprudence, you’ll notice many cases in which he sided with the criminal defendant over law enforcement. His view of the Sixth Amendment, as articulated in the line of sentencing cases starting with Apprendi and moving forward, is generally pro-defendant.

And just the other day, in Begay v. United States (PDF), Justice Scalia once again sided with the criminal. Why? An observant ATL reader offers this speculation:

In Begay v. U.S., the Court decided drunk driving was not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Nino concurred, saying the following: “because I cannot say that drunk driving clearly poses [a serious risk of injury to another], the rule of lenity brings me to concur in the judgment of the Court.”

Weird for two reasons. First, does Nino really think a DUI is not dangerous? And second, how often do we hear Nino invoke the rule of lenity?

But maybe not so weird after all. Recall Nino’s daughter, Ann Banaszewski, getting busted for DUI, which was all the more shocking because she had her kids in the car. Hmm.

In other recent Nino news, a different reader reports:

Did you read Scalia’s concurrence in Baze v. Rees? He pretty much gave Stevens a rhetorical beatdown; guess Nino won’t be getting an invite to Stevens’ birthday party this weekend….

Here’s one part we especially liked (citations omitted):

The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” It is Justice Stevens’ experience that reigns over all.

Or maybe Justice Kennedy’s. Ain’t judicial review grand?

(That’s just one excerpt; the opinion as a whole is quite the benchslap. Check it out in full over here.)

Court: Drunk driving not a violent felony [SCOTUSblog]
Begay v. United States [SCOTUSblog (PDF)]

The Hartford Advocate had an article Wednesday entitled The Case of the Bent Penis.

Sexual abuse cases don’t usually make their way on to ATL. But given the nature of the motion, we couldn’t help ourselves:

It was a bizarre scene that unfolded last week in Waterbury Superior Court as New Haven attorney Rob Serafinowicz opened his civil case against former Middlebury First Selectman Edward B. St. John by asking Judge Jane S. Scholl to force St. John to submit to a photograph of his penis, fully aroused.

The jaw-dropping request, made forcefully but without dramatic flourish by the 29-year-old Serafinowicz, came nearly three years after his client, Westport firefighter Neil Perrotti, filed a lawsuit against St. John for allegedly sexually assaulting him in a cottage in Charlestown, R.I. when Perrotti was 17 years old in 1987.

Serafinowicz explained that the photograph was crucial to his case because Perrotti, in a statement he gave to State Police about the alleged incident, claimed that St. John’s penis bent to the left when aroused.

Not surprisingly, the defendant did not want to comment on which way he bends, nor submit to a photo session.

Veteran defense attorney Hugh Keefe of Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, also in New Haven, began his response by noting that when he attended law school he never dreamed he would find himself in this position. Questioning whether Judge Scholl even had the authority to enforce such an “unbelievably preposterous motion,” Keefe said things had only gotten worse in the last 10 minutes, thanks to Serafinowicz’s remarks that his client could “use porn” to get aroused.

“There is not a single case not only in the state of Connecticut but in the world that a court has ordered a defendant to get in a state of arousal,” said Keefe. The precedents Serafinowicz offered were in criminal cases, and therefore not applicable in this case, according to Keefe.

The judge agreed with the defense, saying the exam would be “overly intrusive.”

Too bad. It could have offered the opportunity for a new take on “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

The Case of the Bent Penis [Hartford Advocate]

While we continue to update our ATL / Lateral Link tables on clerkship bonuses and signing bonuses and bar exam fees, a few of the clerks I have been working with lately have asked an interesting, but often critical question: “Do I have to give it back if I leave?”

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.

In the meantime, a quick shout-out to two firms making nice strides lately: Hogan & Hartson now offers a $50K clerkship bonus in all of their offices, and Fried Frank has increased their paid maternity leave to 18 weeks.

Both of our running tables have now been updated to reflect the good news.

—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this survey.

For a society that has embraced litigation and the digital age, there will soon be a new website to love, SueEasy.com. It’s like Match.com for lawyers and litigants.

The site promises to revolutionize legal service. There are three easy steps:

1. Register your case.
2. View attorney responses.
3. Choose an attorney.
4. Instant legal bliss.

We are not making step four up. “Instant legal bliss” sounds pretty sweet to us. These guys know how to market their stuff.

Tort reform advocates are not fans of the idea. From UPI:

Darren McKinney, spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association, said the site is the “latest distillation” of an attitude promoted by trial lawyers.

“It’s an attitude that runs against personal responsibility and seems to promote the notion that whatever negative happens in your life somebody else can be blamed and thus sued,” McKinney told Legal Newsline.

There are some interesting class action suits up on the site now. They include Hot Dog and Bun Mismatch filed by oscarmayer and Circumcised without Anybody’s Consent filed by Frank OHara on behalf of one million infant boys.

Oscarmayer’s complaint: “Currently buns are sold in packages of 10 but hotdogs come in packages of 8.” While certainly annoying, does it really warrant a lawsuit?

Web site makes suing easy [United Press International]
SueEasy — Hey Tort Reform, This One’s For You [WSJ Law Blog]
SueEasy.com [Overlawyered]

Here are a few items about U.S. Supreme Court clerk hiring:

1. The justices have completed their hiring for October Term 2008. They’re all done (including retired Justice O’Connor). If you were hoping to land a SCOTUS clerkship for OT 2008 and haven’t heard anything, our condolences — that ship has sailed.

2. Here are two hires not previously reported in these pages:

(a) Clerking for Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (Term not determined): Jaynie Randall (Yale 2006 / M. Patel (N.D. Cal.) / Cabranes).

(b) Clerking for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (for October Term 2009): Scott Keller (University of Texas 2007 / Kozinski).

We don’t know whether Randall will be clerking for Justice Alito in OT 2008 or OT 2009. We have reason to believe that she’s an OT 2009 clerk. But that would leave two unknown spots for OT 2008 in SAA’s chambers, which strikes us as strange. So we are listing her as OT 2008 for the time being, until the mysteriously missing Alito clerks are identified.

(On that subject, if the outstanding Alito clerks for OT 2008 are deliberately trying to conceal their identities from the world — perhaps thinking their fellow clerks are fit to be listed on ATL and Wikipedia, but they are somehow too “special” to be revealed — that strikes us as rather precious and self-important. Also, their names will appear on the Court’s official list of law clerks in a few weeks, making the cloak-and-dagger secrecy even more unwarranted.)

Keller, a current clerk for Judge Kozinski, will do a Bristow Fellowship in between his Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court clerkships. To the ATL readers who asked about whether Bristow Fellows had been announced, there’s your answer.

3. The Clerkship Notification Blog, a tremendously helpful resource for those in the clerkship hunt, is up and running for the 2009-10 clerkship season. The main page is accessible here, and the SCOTUS clerk section is accessible here.

4. Finally, we’d like to pose the same question to you about SCOTUS clerk demographics that we posed last year:

We’re interested in figuring out how many law clerks for the upcoming Supreme Court Term are women or minorities. But we don’t know all these folks personally (much as we might like to). So we need your help.

If you know of either (1) a clerk who is a racial or ethnic minority or (2) a clerk whose gender is not revealed by their name (we already know that incoming AMK clerk Ashley Keller is a guy), please let us know, preferably by email (subject line: “SCOTUS clerk demographics”). Thanks.

(Some of you might find this inquiry crass. But racial and gender diversity among Supreme Court law clerks has been discussed on Capitol Hill and in the pages of the New York Times and the Legal Times. So please don’t get upset at us for being curious about something that members of Congress and the mainstream media are already interested in.)

The latest lists of the OT 2008 and OT 2009 law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court, with Randall and Keller added, appear after the jump.

No, not on your taxes. As far as we know, he still wants to raise them. See here and here, from Ted Frank.

We’re talking about his taxes. From Professor Paul Caron:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yesterday released his 2007 tax return [PDF]. For the first time (perhaps after reading Why Didn’t Obama Save for Retirement?), the Obamas contributed the maximum $45,000 to a SEP-IRA to shelter some of their book royalties.

For a chart showing more details — including the Obamas’ hefty adjusted gross income over the past few years, as well as how much they gave to charity (hint: way less than the Clintons) — see here.

Obama Releases 2007 Tax Return [TaxProf Blog]

* Splintered Supreme Court upholds lethal injection as method of execution. [How Appealing (mother of all linkwraps); SCOTUSblog]

* Federal government to expand its DNA database, to include samples from arrestees as well as convicts. [Washington Post]

* Dan Slater is more obsessed with Harry Potter than most 13-year-old girls. Here’s his dispatch on the last day of trial. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Internet commenters go wild in China, as the government censors the web with a somewhat lighter hand. [Washington Post]

* Former Newark mayor Sharpe James convicted on federal fraud charges. Honorary Lawyer of the Day? (In 1988, he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Montclair State University.) [New York Times]

We mentioned this story in passing a few times. But we probably should have given it a more prominent place in these pages, since it involves one of our favorite legal celebrities: the high-powered Monica Goodling, who held top positions at the U.S. Department of Justice, and who came to prominence during the U.S. Attorney firing controversy.

Here’s an update, from NPR: