There was some ambiguity about the professional fate of Robert Somma, the Boston-based bankruptcy judge who was arrested for drunk driving while wearing a black cocktail dress, fishnet stockings, and high heels. At first he said he was resigning. But after a groundswell of support, Judge Somma reconsidered his resignation.

We were hoping for his return. Sadly, it looks like that won't be happening. From the Boston Globe:

US Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Somma, who resigned after his arrest on a drunken driving charge in February and then tried to rescind his resignation, will not be coming back, federal court officials said this afternoon.

"The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and Judge Robert Somma have agreed that he will not resume service on the United States Bankruptcy Court for Massachusetts but is leaving to pursue other endeavors," the Office of the Circuit Executive said in a one-paragraph statement.

We wonder: Was Judge Somma strong-armed into staying away from the bench, by those killjoys on the First Circuit? Stay tuned. Somma's lawyer, Robert Carpenter, told the Globe that "we may have our own statement to come out next week."

As for those "other endeavors," we're curious. Will he become a widely acclaimed drag performer? Or move to Florida and become a television judge? Or maybe combine the two, and become America's first cross-dressing TV judge?

P.S. We're all in favor of drag performance. In fact, we've been described as "the blogging equivalent of a very talented drag queen" -- one of our favorite compliments ever.

Update: Judge Somma is now in private practice in Boston. See here.

After drunken driving arrest, bankruptcy judge agrees to leave [Boston Globe]
Somma: On the Bench or Off? [Legal Blog Watch]

* Back in February, we did a mini-profile of Isaac Lidsky, an incoming law clerk to retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Now Tony Mauro takes a more detailed look at the child actor who will be the Supreme Court's first blind law clerk, including a very interesting discussion of how Lidsky will handle a "reading-intensive job that entails digesting hundreds of petitions and writing memos and rough drafts of decisions." [Legal Times]

* The WSJ Law Blog has a fun interview with Justice Antonin Scalia (posted in three parts). Some highlights:

PART 1: Nino's recommendations for Italian food in Washington: Tosca (although it's "a lot pricier than A.V. [Ristorante, now closed]"); Bebo, in Crystal City ("much less pricey," and the pizzas "are perhaps even better than they were at A.V.").

Also, here's a new nickname for the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel: "the Paladin of Presidential Prerogative." (We still prefer Finishing School for the Elect.)

PART 2: "[D]issents are just good. Look back at Korematsu. Isn't it nice to know that Robert Jackson - at least someone on the Court - saw how horrible it was? A dissent keeps you honest."

PART 3: Don't pick your nose. Also, on The Merchant of Venice: "Portia was a terrible judge. I mean, you know, if you write a contract to take a pound of flesh, then obviously you take whatever blood goes with it. That's implicit. That was terrible."

* And here's an earlier interview with Justice Scalia and his co-author, legal writing guru Bryan Garner. [ABA Journal]

* When Paul Clement (a former Scalia clerk) announced his resignation as U.S. Solicitor General, there was lots of speculation about where he'd be going next. Here's the answer. [National Law Journal]

Update: More about the Clement move appears at the BLT. Clement tells Tony Mauro that his GULC gig is "full-time, but temporary -- a full-time job until I get the next full-time job" (with a law firm).

It depends on whose side of the story you believe. From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

In a sensational legal filing (PDF), a former partner at Adams and Reese who is awaiting trial on charges that he stole $30 million from the firm claims that the firm has had a hand in scandals ranging from the WorldCom stock fraud to the abuse of Louisiana film tax credits.

The lawsuit also claims the New Orleans firm has made a practice of hiring former public officials, including former Jefferson Parish President Tim Coulon and former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial, and improperly using them to land clients with whom they had dealt as public officials. Coulon and Morial deny the claim.

The 73-page civil racketeering lawsuit reads more like a legal thriller than a court filing. It portrays accused thief Jamie Perdigao as a hard worker who was trying to stay within ethical boundaries while senior members of the firm pressured him into bending the rules to make money.

The suit does not make clear whether Perdigao has evidence to support his allegations. The law firm called the suit "the latest episode in Perdigao's continuing fantasy of blaming the government and our firm for his wrongdoing and lashing out at those who are holding him accountable for his actions."

Several tipsters alerted us to this article. Some viewed it as par for the course in Louisiana:

"[A] nice scandalous law firm story, though not entirely surprising coming from New Orleans. Adams & Reese is certainly one of the top firms in the Gulf area and largely considered to be the closest you will get to Biglaw down there."

"Most people don't know how corrupt New Orleans politics really are, but now we've got a suit filed against Adams & Reese (the largest firm in the city) for its involvement. The plaintiff is a former partner caught stealing $20-30 million a few years back.... Guess he figures if he goes to jail, he may as well bring his former partners with him. Pretty good stuff."

But another reader views Perdigao's account skeptically, summarizing the situation as follows:

"Attorney steals $30M, then blames former firm in mini-Grisham novel, 70 page-RICO suit."

This suit sounds like one to watch. We suspect that neither party will emerge smelling like magnolias.

Indicted lawyer says New Orleans firm steeped in corruption [NOLA.com / New Orleans Times-Picayune via ABA Journal]
Complaint: Perdigao v. Adams and Reese (PDF) [NOLA.com / New Orleans Times-Picayune]

What do Cadwalader, Cravath, and Fox News share in common?

Put your guesses in the comments.

Then click here to learn the answer.

May 2008 is almost over, and it's a month that Bingham McCutchen will probably be happy to put in the past. The month kicked off with Roofiegate. Then came this benchslap, reported by Legal Pad (in a post titled "Bingham Busted By Its Own Website"):

Almost every big law firm uses its website to tout its commitment to diversity and its global reach. For Bingham McCutchen, it may have cost the firm a bid for sanctions.

A Bingham employment law team including partner Wendy Lazerson and associates Jacqueline Bronson and Kristen Pezone was set to take a deposition in the wrongful termination case of Kim v. Poonsang Microtec Corp. on April 17. The day before the deposition, plaintiff's attorney Frank Mayo of Los Altos served additional discovery, including some documents that were in Korean.

Bingham's team insisted on postponing the deposition, saying they could not get the Korean documents translated in time. Mayo objected, saying his client had already flown up from Southern California. Things turned nasty and both sides moved for sanctions.

In a tentative order filed Thursday (see Page 31 of this pdf) , Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Socrates "Pete" Manoukian rejected both sides' request for sanctions.

"This court finds it difficult to believe that no one in the office of [Bingham] is able to speak Korean, given that the Bingham web[site] has many referrals to its commitment to diversity and its ability to service, among others, Korean clients," Manoukian wrote. [See, e.g., here (PDF).]

Ouch. As our tipster snarkily observed, "Live by the sword, die by the sword. For a firm that runs as much as this one does on pure PR, this is quite fitting."

Funny -- but fair? We contacted Bingham -- which we're not sure Legal Pad did, despite being an MSM blog -- and received this statement, from firm spokesperson Claire Papanastasiou:

To use this tentative ruling to question Bingham's commitment to diversity is misleading and false. Bingham has continuously been recognized as a leader in championing diversity in the workforce. More than 440 people at Bingham speak 51 foreign languages (including Korean), but this was not a simple matter of getting documents translated. This case involved the authentication of documents -- which would have required a court-certified translator -- and with a 16-hour time difference, the Bingham legal team wanted to confer with the client, who was in Korea, to determine the documents' authenticity and discuss next steps. Bingham informed opposing counsel of the decision not to go forward as a courtesy. And finally, Bingham offered to take the deposition in Orange County and ended up with an order that simply provides what our lawyers were already willing to do. Efforts to transform this relatively minor discovery dispute into something more profound simply are unjustified.

Interesting. As noted by a Legal Pad commenter, the ruling "[s]eems more like a political dig against diversity efforts by Judge Manoukian."

Speaking of diversity, Bingham has been honored as one of the best law firms for gays and lesbians, by Human Rights Campaign (Aaron Charney, holla); for Asian American lawyers, by Multicultural Law (Shinyung Oh, holla); and women, by Working Mother (pre-Roofiegate).

Alas, even if Korean Translation-gate was overblown, it wasn't the end of Bingham's unflattering media mentions in the month of May. Check out this National Law Journal article, which depicts Bingham as hemorrhaging talent and "troubled."

Was this piece evenhanded journalism? Bingham thinks not. They've issued a lengthy and detailed response, blasting reporter Sheri Qualters's article as "outrageous," "poorly reported," and "factually inaccurate by any objective measure."

It's kinda delicious. Read the whole thing, after the jump.

Today's Job of the Week is a lifestyle opportunity for a generalist attorney. Although the market may be slowing down, Lateral Link is successfully assisting hundreds of attorneys with their job searches. In the month of May, Lateral Link paid its members over $100,000 in signing bonuses and referral fees.

Position: Associate to work with religious organizations

Location: Washington, DC

Job Code: Position #9144

Description: This is a unique opportunity to achieve work-life balance while working exclusively with a litigation partner on client matters for religious organizations. The partner is seeking a generalist with strong qualifications who is looking for a 9-to-5 job and who is able to meet a wide variety of client needs without needing assistance from several practice groups. Tasks will include both transactional and litigation matters.

For more information, please visit Lateral Link, or contact your personal Lateral Link search consultant.

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

Happy Friday! Time for one of our quirky queries about style, usage, and grammar. On Fridays past, we have solicited your views on preferred email sign-offs, whether to refer to a marked-up document as a "blackline" or a "redline", whether to use "pleaded" or "pled" in legal writing, how to spell a certain naughty word, and how to pronounce "substantive".

Here is today's question, from a curious reader:

Lawyer v. Attorney: I have always wondered what the difference between these two monikers is. I am both (I guess).

Recently I introduced myself as an attorney at a party [in Austin, Texas]. My friend pulled me aside and said, "You should call yourself a lawyer; attorneys are ambulance chasers."

I'm an associate at an Am Law 100 firm, and would love to know definitively whether I am a lawyer or an attorney. Do you think you guys could make a post about this subject?

We mentioned this question to one friend -- not an attorney/lawyer herself, but the daughter of one. Her take:

Well, my dad refers to people he respects as attorneys, and people he hates as lawyers. We're from Alabama. That's the only distinction I've ever noticed.

So the Texans seem to like "lawyer," but the Alabamans seem to favor "attorney." Odd.

What do the dictionaries say? From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

attorney: one who is legally appointed by another to transact business for the firm; specifically, a legal agent qualified to act for suitors and defendants in legal proceedings.

lawyer: one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters.

From Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.):

attorney: In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another.... In its most common usage, however, unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended, this term means "attorney at law", "lawyer" or "counselor at law".

lawyer: A person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel, or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law..... See also Attorney....

The term "attorney" may emphasize the "agency" aspect of legal practice more. But this seems like a fairly narrow distinction. It's not surprising, then, that the Associated Press Stylebook declares that "[i]n common usage the words are interchangeable."

But the subjective, stylistic question of which term sounds better remains. How should practitioners of law introduce themselves at cocktail parties?

What's your view? Share it in the comments, and take our poll below.

LAWYER VS. ATTORNEY - Which do you use? [The PR Lawyer]

ATL is taking a gastronomical tour of the United States. We're stopping in different Biglaw cities to find out where lawyers go, and where summer associates should go, for the good eats. [FN1]

We've been to D.C. We've been to San Francisco. We've been to Chicago. We're going to Texas. We're going to Massachusetts. We're going to the Pacific Northwest. We're going to Pennsylvania... [Insert Howard Dean yeahhhhhhhh here.]

But right now, we're stopping to take a bite out of the Big Apple. Here is the eagerly anticipated open thread to discuss the many fine dining options in NEW YORK.

To aid the discussion, here are links to restaurants that have received four stars and three stars from the New York Times. And here is New York Magazine's list of best restaurants for 2008.

Attorneys: Where would you steer summer associates eating out? And where would you steer them away from?

Summer associates: Which places are the "hot tickets," the most coveted dining venues this year?

Update: Check out this cool new feature over at Eater, "Summer Associate's Diary."

Where To Eat 2008 [New York Magazine]
Four-Star Restaurants (NYC) [New York Times]
Three-Star Restaurants by Frank Bruni (NYC) [New York Times]

[FN1] This tour is more virtual than physical (which is a good thing for Lat, since he is publicly dieting).

Earlier: Summer Associate Lunch Suggestions in Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; and Chicago

There are two camps of people at the gym. There are the ones who quietly do their workout, bop to their iPod tunes on the elliptical, do some bicep curls, do some stretching, then go on their merry way, without trying to engage fellow gym users.

Then there's the camp that likes to attract attention. They're the ones who smell funny, wear weird workout clothing, hover over you until you're done using the machine they want, or make incredibly loud grunts and noises that manage to annoy you through your iPod headphones.

Our friends at sister blog Dealbreaker have been following the story of a New York stockbroker who decided he wasn't going to let that camp go unpunished. Now the case is being prosecuted. From the New York Sun:

On a summer night last year, the Studio Cycling Room at the Equinox Fitness Club on 85th Street and Third Avenue became the scene of a crime, prosecutors say, after two men, each ill-suited for group exercise in his own way, clashed over the appropriateness of making noise during a strenuous workout.

For Stuart Sugarman, 48, any amount of noise goes. From the witness stand in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday, Mr. Sugarman told a jury about grunting during a good workout and releasing exclamations of "you go girl," and "great song."...

The evidence suggests that Mr. Carter, a stockbroker, preferred a quieter workout than Mr. Sugarman was prepared to allow his fellow cyclists.... First he cursed at Mr. Sugarman. Then he got off his bicycle to go talk with a class instructor about getting Mr. Sugarman to quiet down. Finally, Dr. Sandel testified, Mr. Carter went over to Mr. Sugarman's bike and lifted the front end off the ground, then dropped it back down, with Mr. Sugarman atop it all the while.

Sugarman says he suffered a concussion, a herniated disc, and a sustained fear of exercise, and Carter is being tried for assault. Dealbreaker reports that in court yesterday, a witness testified that when "Christopher Carter (the thrower) told Stuart Sugarman (the throwee) to shut up initially, Sugarman responded, 'Make me.'"

You go, boy!

Details Are Spun in Spinning Class Rage Case [New York Sun]
Spinning Out Of Control Because The Guy Next To You Won't Pipe Down-- A-Okay? and "No, You Shut Up," "No, You Shut Up," "You Shut Up," "You Shut Up" [Dealbreaker]
Grunting in East Side Gym Class Leads to Hospital, and to Court [New York Times]

* Texas Supreme Court rules that seizure of kids from polygamist ranch was illegal. [How Appealing]

* Merck prevails on appeal in Vioxx cases from Texas and New Jersey. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Arkansas prisoner off death row thanks to 1940 ruling holding that you can't be convicted of aggravated robbery while trying to recover gambling losses. [CNN]

* Sentencing updates: Mel Weiss, Dickie Scruggs. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Divorce troubles: actor Bill Murray, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons. [AP; The Lede/NYT]

* OSU law school dean Nancy Hardin Rogers replaces Marc Dann (pictured) as Ohio AG. [Columbus Dispatch]

* Rising oil prices lead to.... a rise in theft of restaurant grease? [New York Times]

* Britney Spears is not yet fit to participate in court proceedings in her conservatorship case, according to her lawyer. [AP]

* More about New York Governor David Paterson and gay rights. [New York Times]

Time flies. It's hard to believe, but Above the Law turns two this summer. We started writing for ATL in July 2006, and the site went live in August 2006.

We're happy to report that things are going swimmingly -- so swimmingly, in fact, that we'd like to (and need to) hire another full-time writer. Law firms are firing, but ATL is hiring. This gig may not pay $160K, but we guarantee it's more fun than document review or due diligence.

This is a full-time position. The pay is quite competitive for a media/journalism job, and standard benefits -- health insurance, a 401(k), abuse from anonymous commenters -- are included. If you're looking to transition from law into the writing life, this is an excellent opportunity.

If you'd like to apply, please email us (subject line: "New Writer Application"). Please describe yourself and your background, and explain why you'd be a great addition to ATL. If you have a particular vision for the site or ideas for new features, do share. Feel free to include a résumé, a writing sample, a link to your own blog (if you have one), or any other information you think might be relevant to evaluation of your application.

We will take applications through Friday, June 6 (and will probably throw in another plug for this next week). Thanks for your interest; we look forward to hearing from you.

Our latest Judge of the Day is a family law judge from Sacramento, California. Judge Peter McBrien must be fed up with overseeing divorce cases. One of his recent judgments has been vacated, and a retrial ordered, because of his premature termination of proceedings.

Judge McBrien hurried the case along, threatening mistrials when the husband's attorney asked for -- the nerve! -- lunch and bathroom breaks. He was so impatient he ended the trial in the middle of a question to an expert witness. When the judge has to use the bathroom, it's okay to break, eh?

From the Recorder:

[A] three-justice panel ordered new proceedings in the divorce of a Sacramento-area couple whose original 2006 trial ended abruptly when Judge Peter McBrien left the bench just as a lawyer was questioning - in mid-sentence - a witness.

McBrien did not return - he said he had to handle an emergency protective order request - but did send word that he would decide the case on additional declarations and closing briefs limited to three pages.

"This method of conducting a trial cannot be condoned in a California courtroom," Justice M. Kathleen Butz wrote in the unanimous decision.

McBrien's walkout and subsequent ruling so infuriated the husband in the case, Ulf Johan Carlsson, that he has launched a recall drive against the judge. Carlsson and other McBrien critics have until late August to gather almost 30,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

From the sound of this Sacramento News & Review column, there may be quite a few people willing to sign the petition. The columnist calls the judge "Peter 'Chainsaw' McBrien," referring to a 1999 incident in which the judge allegedly "ordered a whack-job on a half-dozen oaks blocking his bluff-side view of the American River, knowing full well the trees were on public property, thus making the act of cutting them down felony vandalism. Unless, of course, you happen to be a judge with $20,000 on hand to bargain the crime down to a misdemeanor -- and keep your ass firmly planted on the bench."

Our general advice for staying on people's good sides: Let attorneys pee, and let trees stand.

We love that the opinion from the appeals court cites case law but vests the real authority in a Greek proverb: "Only judge when you have heard all."

Reversal for Judge Who Walked Out of Trial [The Recorder]
Sacramento judge denies 'disgracing the American Judiciary System' [Sacramento News & Review]

Back in December, we conducted a survey focusing on how busy those of you who work for large law firms were. The results were somewhat comforting. A majority of you said work at your firms was not slow, and 78 percent of you said you weren't afraid of losing your job.

That was about seven months ago. Have times changed? In addition to all the recent law-firm layoffs, here is some anecdotal evidence that they have:

Given the hard economic times, you guys should do a story about associates that have no work. And I'm not talking about light billable hours, but NO WORK.

I work for [a large firm] and I'm currently relegated to surfing the internet, reading ATL, and looking for new incarnations of ceiling cat. I've begged and pleaded with partners to give me work, but to no avail.

I'd be curious what other associates around the country who are slow are doing to drum up work or, better yet, kill time.

Have any suggestions for this frustrated reader? This person already knows about legal blogs as a procrastination aid. Given the uncertain economy, online shopping binges probably aren't smart. IM'ing with friends at other firms is fun, but not everyone has that option.

If you know of other ways to pass the non-billable time -- and please, safe-for-work proposals only -- feel free to share them in the comments. Thanks.

When you go on a vacation and it doesn't turn out well, it'd be nice to have it reimbursed. New York attorney Richard Roth, whose vacation to Argentina was ruined, has filed a suit against Delta Airlines to get them to reimburse him -- and then some. From Reuters:

A New York lawyer is suing Delta Air Lines for $1 million, saying his family vacation turned into a nightmare after they were stranded in an airport for days and treated disdainfully by airline employees. Richard Roth, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and his mother, said he planned the Christmas 2007 trip to Buenos Aires to celebrate his mother's 80th birthday. She had grown up in the city, but had not returned in years, he said.

Instead, Roth, his two teenage children, his wife and mother spent three days in airports, went days without their luggage, were treated rudely by airline employees and were forced to spend $21,000 on unused hotel rooms in Argentina, replacement clothes, and other costs.

"Through its gross negligence, malfeasance and absolute incompetence, Mr. Roth holds Delta responsible for ruining his vacation," said the lawsuit, filed in New York state court.

One million bucks is a ridiculous demand, but who knows what a jury might do? The general consensus among everyone we know: airlines suck.

Aviation litigation has been all the rage this year. Here's a legal round-up on why we hate flying:

Fellow passengers using your hair to join the mile-high club (Lawsuit of the Day: Overly Friendly Skies)

Being demoted from coach to "turd class" (Lawsuit of the Day: Forced to Fly 'Toilet-Class')

Not being able to wear a fake bomb on your shirt (From the Department of Dubious Defenses: Shouting Fire in a Crowded... Airport?)

Being really annoyed because of the security lines and delays but not being able to hit anybody. Unless you're Naomi Campbell. (Supermodel Campbell charged over 'air rage')

Lawyer sues Delta for ruining family vacation [Reuters]
Supermodel Campbell charged over 'air rage' [Breitbart]

No, that's not a direct quote. But Elliott Portnoy, chairman of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, was quite candid in discussing the role played by profitability in his firm's decision to lay off almost 40 lawyers and 90 staffers (a story we broke on Tuesday night). Portnoy spoke with Nathan Koppel of the WSJ Law Blog, who wrote:

Sonnenschein laid off lawyers whose practices have slowed, [Portnoy] says, to sustain the firm's profit margins and overall profitability. It takes financial heft to pay competitive salaries for top lawyers, he says, and the firm has been focused heavily on partner recruiting. It hired 42 lateral partners last year, and is on pace to exceed that number in '08. To hunt for big game, in other words, it can't afford to carry underperformers.

"Business as usual isn't an option, and we have to take the steps necessary to make sure we are competitive for talent," Portnoy says. "A small group of firms are positioning themselves to pull away from the pack" in terms of profitability, "and we intend to be in that small group."

For more on the Sonnenschein layoffs and what they reflect about the changing culture of law firms, see this Chicago Tribune article, by Ameet Sachdev.

Perhaps Sonnenschein's bottom-line focus explains why it's not paying severance to its "separated" lawyers. One of the affected individuals contacted us to complain about the lack of severance. We initially found that hard to believe, since the "market" severance package in Biglaw layoffs hovers around three months. But a firm spokesperson confirmed it for us.

Lawyers are receiving 60 days' notice of their termination, but they are not receiving a formal severance package. Unlike some other firms -- Paul Hastings, holla -- Sonnenschein is not asking its lawyers to sign releases (which the laid-off lawyers probably wouldn't sign anyway, since they're not getting severance payments).

What's the difference between two months of severance pay and 60 days notice? With the former, you get paid without having to work. "If you get severance, you can go out and get a contract job or take [another] lower paying position," explained one laid-off Sonnenschein lawyer. "Severance makes it a little less painful."

Staff members do have a formal severance plan. "Our staff are eligible for a severance package that is linked to their tenure with the firm and, accordingly, varies by individual based on service," explained Mr. Portnoy. "All staff are also, of course, eligible for outplacement and related assistance." Outgoing staff members must execute releases to receive payments under the plan, according to a firm spokesperson.

More about the Sonnenschein layoffs -- some readers thought we went too easy on the firm, so we'd like to present their (harsher) side of the story -- after the jump.

Back in February, we wrote about more students at Stanford Law School taking classes on a pass-fail basis. This development fed into a discussion about possible changes to SLS's grading system, which would replace its fairly standard grading system with a more bare-bones one (like that of Yale Law School, similar to Stanford in the size of its student body, as well as its overall ranking).

When we spoke at Stanford in March, most of the students we met seemed to support grade reform. They will be pleased by this news: the Stanford law faculty has approved the broad outlines of a reform proposal. From an email just sent out by Dean Larry Kramer:

From: Larry D Kramer
Date: Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Subject: Grade Reform

Dear All:

Yesterday afternoon, the faculty voted to adopt a grade reform proposal which will change our grading system to an honors, pass, restricted credit, no credit system for all semesters/quarters. The new system includes a shared norm for the proportion of honors to be awarded in both exam and paper courses. No grading system is perfect, but the consensus is that the reform will have significant pedagogical benefits, including that it encourages greater flexibility and innovation in the classroom and in designing metrics for evaluating student work.

As you may know, we spent all year studying the issue and discussing the likely advantages for recruiting students, placing our graduates in practice and clerkships, reducing the disparity between on-mean and off-mean courses, and, above all, enhancing the intellectual environment of the law school. I am extremely grateful for the student input we received, not only from the student liaison committee but from countless others who wrote emails, met with faculty, and spoke with me directly. We benefited immensely from your contributions.

Yesterday, the faculty agreed only on the basic proposal. We have not yet voted on the timing of our transition to the new system or a number of other details. For now, then, the decision does not and should not affect your course planning or anything else. We are working to settle the transition questions as quickly as possible and will inform you as soon as they have been resolved.

Best,
Larry

If any of you are thinking of filing a transfer application with Stanford, this may be of interest to you. But note that the details, including timing of implementation, have yet to be determined.

Additional discussion, plus a reader poll, below the fold.

This is the third post in an open thread series on recommended restaurants for summer associates. We started in Washington, D.C., and then went to San Francisco.

San Franners suggest Kokkari, Greens, Boulevard, Aqua, and Ozumo, among others, and pointed folks to the San Francisco Chronicle's 100 Best list. There was a spirited debate about whether Slanted Door is overrated. If the firm's not paying, readers recommend In-N-Out Burgers, El Castillo burritos, Mixt Greens, and Wichcraft.

The ATL summer associate national restaurant tour is moving on to a new destination, to that lonely, windy city in the heartland: CHICAGO.

This is the Chicago Reader's list of the 50 best restaurants. What's on your list?

50 Best Restaurants (2007) [Chicago Reader]

Earlier: Summer associate lunch suggestions for San Francisco and Washington, D.C..

This is the type of topic we'd expect to see posted in our new Community section. But since that section hasn't really caught on yet, we're happy to post it here. From a law student at the University of Chicago:

The quarterly U of C student newspaper came out [last week], and the Student Body President (of all people) wrote a snarky poem about transfers. [Ed. note: The poem -- "Phenomenal Transfer," perhaps inspired by Phenomenal Woman, by Maya Angelou -- is posted after the jump.]

[T]he poem isn't terribly offensive, but it's indicative of a general attitude to transfers that original / "regular" students often have (and the way I understand it, it's worse at some schools than others). "Regular" students often snark transfers because transfers "don't deserve to be there" -- meaning that LSAT scores are apparently the only acceptable measure of deserving to attend a law school. It's also fairly well known that transfer students do as well as or better than "regular" students with grades -- maybe that's where part of the problem comes from.

Update: According to several commenters, the publication that the poem appeared in is a satirical, Onion-esque newsletter.

Apparently anti-transfer prejudice varies from school to school. According to our Chicago tipster:

I've heard bad things about how GULC [Georgetown University Law Center] treats its transfers. Apparently at orientation last year, the current students booed the new transfers. It'd be interesting as students start preparing transfer applications for them to have an idea (from an open thread or comments) how they'll be treated at the schools they're considering transferring to.

Now is a good time for such a discussion, says our source:

Schools start accepting applications May 1, usually through the summer, with applications completing when grades come in (from the first school -- so right about now). Acceptances go out throughout the summer, and some schools have rolling admissions. So I think it's most topical right now, especially given that students generally send out relatively few transfer applications (usually 2-4 tops) as compared to initial law school applications.

In fact, some prospective transfer students have already heard back. From a different correspondent, who wrote us last month:

[H]ave you ever done anything on law students transferring schools? Georgetown is in the process of sending out decisions to their early action applicants. I just got accepted as a transfer from John Marshall in Chicago with a 3.93, which puts me in the top 3%. The Yahoo TransferApps group and the transfer board at lawschooldiscussion.org have been blowing up over the last few days with people getting accepted/rejected. Maybe you could get some good info for the law-student readers that are pondering a transfer.

If you have thoughts on being a transfer student or on the transfer application process, please share them in the comments. You can also check out the "Phenomenal Transfer" poem, after the jump.

* New York Governor David Paterson directs state agencies to revise policies to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. [New York Times; CNN]

* Trial of lawyers accused of bilking clients out of millions in Fen-Phen settlement proceeds has been postponed, due to hospitalization of one of the defendants. [WSJ Law Blog]

* A surprise witness for the defense in the R. Kelly trial. [CBS]

* No prison time for CSI star Gary Dourdan. [CNN]

* Should you buy or rent? Here's some advice. [New York Times]

Is bar review class not doing it for you? Sure, BarBri property instructor Paula Franzese is a hottie. In the words of one bar review student, "I wouldn't mind doing some adverse possession on her!"

For most of you, however, bar review is more stressful than erotic. If this is the case, we have a solution. From a sexually adventurous tipster:

I thought you might find this interesting. [Caution: NSFW]

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/cas/698614951.html.

I'm a lawyer, and my wife and I swing -- I wish I knew about something like this to help me de-stress back when I was taking the bar!

For those of you who can't click through -- the Craigslist ad has an explicit graphic -- here is the text of the post:

DE-STRESS B4 THE BAR EXAM -- WEEKLY ORGY FOR RECENT LAW SCHOOL GRADS - - 25 (Manhattan)
Date: 2008-05-28, 4:03PM EDT

The NY bar exam is coming... It's a time of intense study for recent law school graduates with a phenomenal amount of stress involved. Stop studying for a few hours and de-stress at a weekly orgy!

Every week, my girlfriend and I will be hosting an orgy for those studying for the bar and/or their partners. [We assume "partners" is a reference to significant others, not future bosses.]

We realize that the law profession is very much about one's good name and reputation, so we will host with the greatest of care and anonymity. Don't use your real name, don't talk about your school or your firm, just come and have fun.

For the love of God, do NOT discuss your law school or law firm at an orgy. Contrary to what some of you might think, Vault rankings are not the ultimate aphrodisiac.

But you will have to disclose your law school upon arrival, since it will determine your specific role in the proceedings. Tier Four grads, bring kneepads. And lots of lube.

More dirty details, after the jump.

These aren't the best of times for Biglaw, in case you hadn't noticed. The most recent evidence: staff and lawyer layoffs at Sonnenschein, news that we broke last night (and might write more about, so feel free to email us with info).

But here is a tiny sliver of good news. In response to our open call for information about delayed start dates for incoming associates, which some law firms have been using to reduce expenses, we received very little.

First, we learned that DLA Piper has instituted a nationwide start date of October 1. This isn't terribly exciting, since October 1 isn't that late. Other firms that have announced delayed start dates have gone for late October or even January.

The change also doesn't appear to be economically motivated. From DLA spokesperson Jason Costa:

The changes were made to provide a uniform start date across all our offices. The new collective date allows us to have a uniform orientation process. We think it will also be good for the associates, since the shared start date will probably lead to a tighter knit class.

Our tipsters mentioned the availability of pay advances if needed, which Costa confirmed: "We are more than happy to give pay advances to any incoming associates who had planned to start earlier than October, and who may need the extra cash."

Second, we received more details about Pillsbury Winthrop, which previously said it was spacing out start dates "over several months."

Read the rest, after the jump.

This is the second post in a series of open threads on great restaurants in summer associate destination cities.

Commenters on the D.C. thread recommended Oceanaire, Bobby Van's Steakhouse, Oyamel, Zaytinya, and Blue Duck Tavern, among others. If the firm isn't paying, folks suggested the chains Potbelly and Five Guys. If you go to Potbelly, spring for a milkshake. So yummy.

Now we are taking the thread west, to the city of sourdough bread and Ghirardelli chocolate.

The San Francisco Magazine restaurant guide doesn't have a ranking of local restaurants like Washingtonian does. That seems very San Fran. Instead, we'll rely on you readers to name the top ten or so.

What's on your list of must-eats in SAN FRANCISCO? What's overrated? What's underrated?

Earlier: Summer Associate Lunch Suggestions: Washington, D.C.

We heard through the grapevine that Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit gave ATL a shout out during a Federalist Society lunch earlier this month. According to our tipsters, "his biggest advice to any summer associates in the audience was 'don't show up on David Lat's blog, Above the Law.'"

Well, the first summer associate tale of 2008 has made its way into our tips inbox from Atlanta. A summer associate at Alston & Bird decided to share his quirky sense of humor and alter ego with the rest of his summer class. Our tipster explains:

[This e-mail] was sent by an Alston & Bird summer... (as his cross-dressing alter-ego Divljan Shatterhand Steele) to the entire Atlanta summer class. The email, besides being super weird, is pretty innocuous. However, the pictures on his Facebook account could give him some serious trouble -- besides the multiple pictures of him dressed in drag as his alter-ego, there is a picture of a pie with a gummy-bear swastika...

Needless to say, the email has already been widely circulated. A&B has a progressive reputation, but this might be a bit much. Given the current state of the market, Alston might be regretting hiring such a huge summer class (look at the recipient list, which likely only includes the summers who are working the first half) in Atlanta. This guy isn't doing himself any favors.

The bizarre e-mail, involving tarot cards and multiple personalities, is available after the jump. If you've been wondering about the history of neckties, you'll definitely want to check it out.

We have redacted the SA's name and ask that you not identify the person in the comments. Feel free to refer to him as "Divljan" only. Thanks.

We'll be doing a more detailed follow-up on the Harvard Law Review Note controversy "in due course" (to use a favorite expression of a former boss).

There has been lots of new blog commentary on the Note that we have not yet fully digested. E.g., Volokh Conspiracy (David Bernstein, via Instapundit); Concurring Opinions (Dave Hoffman). There are also hundreds of new ATL comments that we need to catch up on. So it may be a while.

We were hoping to bring you an interview with Note author Phil Telfeyan, but he has not responded to our multiple interview requests. Perhaps he prefers to address the public through Do the Right Thing At Every Moment, which purports to be a blog authored by him.

Update: There have been suggestions, in the comments here and elsewhere, that Phil Telfeyan is not the author of "Do the Right Thing At Every Moment." The blog appears legitimate to us (and we note, with interest, the 5:05 PM comment on this Concurring Opinions thread). But we have contacted Mr. Telfeyan, through messages to his Harvard email address and through Facebook, to invite him to issue an on-the-record denial of authorship, if he is not in fact the author.

In other Harvard Law Review news, that august publication is taking up new quarters. Move over, Gannett House. Say hello to.... the Law Review Lounge:

Okay, no, the HLR isn't actually moving into these dumpy digs -- they're pretty far from Cambridge. For the real story behind the Law Review Lounge, read below the fold.

We've received over 900 responses to our ATL / Lateral Link surveys on the lengths and lunches of summer programs.

Today, in honor of David Lat's Above The Lard Project Truman Show, let's focus on the caloric part of the results: lunch.

Associates seem to be of two minds on the summer associate lunch. Some commenters view the lunches as a positive perk . . . sort of:

The perks are important. Lunches and events are how you meet and get to know the associates and partners at the firm. Anyone who has ever lateraled can tell you how hard it is to meet the people around you when all you do is work (and forget about meeting anyone in another practice group). I don't know if it's a good investment, but it at least brightens the miserable halls of the firm for a couple weeks a year. All the lawyers pretend that working at a law firm is really like what we hoped it would be when we were law students. It's nice.

Others, however, view the care and feeding of summer associates as an unwanted drain on their time:

As an associate, I don't want to be obligated to take summers to lunches, and I don't care about free lunches myself.

What I do want is to be left the hell alone during those daytime hours so that I can do the work I am being paid to do, which will allow me to leave two hours earlier than I otherwise would each day.

Summers are a hassle. They all want to go to lunch for two hours each day, and then when they go to happy hour or whatever event each night at 6:00, the associates get to stay in their offices billing the time that the summers stole from them earlier in the day.

Whether they're good or bad, though, one thing's clear: summer lunches are pretty pricey:

  * About a third of respondents said that their firms had a budget of more than $50 per person when lunching with summer associates, and seven percent of respondents said their firms imposed no limit at all.

  * Ten percent of respondents said that their firms impose a $50 per person budget.

  * Ten percent of respondents said that their firms will reimburse $40 or $45 per person.

  * Seventeen percent of respondents may spend $30 or $35 per person.

  * Twelve percent of respondents may spend up to $25 per person.

The rest have lower budgets or no budget at all. On the bright side, though, their clothes are more likely to fit at the end of the summer.

Despite the expense, summer associates expect frequent feedings:

  * Roughly nineteen percent expect to have lunch with their firm's lawyers five times a week.

  * A quarter plan on lunching four times a week. The same number expect lunch three times a week, and another quarter will settle for lunch a mere two times weekly.

  * Five percent of summer associates think they'll only have lunch with the attorneys once a week.

  * A lonely one percent of summer associates don't think they'll have lunch with the firm's attorneys at all.

As the comment above would suggest, however, full-time associates are not nearly as enthusiastic about all that lunch time.

  * Eleven percent don't expect to have lunch with the summer associates at all.

  * Fifty-four percent expect to do lunch once a week.

  * A quarter will have lunch twice a week.

  * Seven percent will have lunch three times a week.

  * Only three percent will have lunch four or five times a week.

Perhaps the firms should budget coffee runs instead?

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

It's hard pleasing everyone at Kirkland & Ellis. Sure, K&E offers oodles of prestige, cutting-edge work, and above-market bonuses. When we asked our associate readers what firm other than their own they'd most want to work for, Kirkland took third place.

But people will always find something to be upset about -- and often there's a political component to the K&E complaints. For example, some people think Kirkland tilts too far to the right, thanks to its association with prominent conservatives like Ken Starr and John Bolton.

Others think the firm tilts too far to the left, bowing down before the forces of political correctness. These critics object to the firm's Diversity Networking Forums, its Big Gay Cocktail Parties.... and, most recently, its just-circulated "Diversity Census," asking lawyers for their demographic data.

From a tipster:

Many of us at K&E find this [Diversity Census] offensive. Clients who inquire about the race or sex of the attorneys working on their matters should be told it's none of their business and that the firm does not staff its matters in accordance with the racist or sexist quota requirements of its clients. If a client asked that no blacks work on its matters, presumably the firm would fire the client, but when the shoe is on the other foot, K&E partners are all too happy to oblige.

But is this really the purpose of the Diversity Census? No, according to the firm. We contacted Walt Lohmann, co-chair of the Firmwide Diversity Committee at K&E, who explained that "participation in the Kirkland Diversity Census is voluntary and anonymous (unless a respondent chooses to self-identify for purposes of receiving materials and event notifications)." Furthermore, "responses are not used in staffing decisions."

Fair enough. But what if they were -- would that be problematic? As reported last year by the American Lawyer:

Over the last few years, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and others have raised the stakes for outside counsel, pressing firms to increase diversity in their ranks or risk losing clients. In one case... Wal-Mart dumped an outside firm that didn't adequately adhere to the company's diversity program.

Do efforts like Wal-Mart's merit commendation or condemnation? Feel free to opine in the comments.

More information about the K&E Diversity Census, plus a copy of the Census, below the fold.

In this fifth installment of the Asia Chronicles, we continue with our theme from last week. You've decided that you want to practice law in Asia... So now what?

Many people, including the Asia Corporate Lawyers, started law school thinking that they might someday like to work in Asia, but didn't understand how to achieve that goal or what kind of work such a career would really involve. As 1Ls, convinced that law practice was all about not confusing impleader and interpleader, we had vague ideas of becoming jet-setting international arbitrators or prosecutors for INTERPOL. As 2Ls, our job search was conducted in the same spirit of blissful ignorance, as we simply printed out the Vault prestige rankings and eliminated any firm that did not have an Asian office (allowing us the pleasure of summarily rejecting Wachtell), giving extra points to lower-ranked firms with strong international presence. We still shudder to think that one of our most coveted offers at the time was Coudert Brothers, as it had 28 offices worldwide (Hanoi, Jakarta and Almaty, oh my!).

Now, as sadder but wiser mid-level corporate associates, we hope to enlighten job-seeking law students or lateral attorneys with some hard-won advice when it comes to choosing a law firm with the goal of someday making it to Asia:

1. Number of international offices does not equal stronger international practice or more opportunities for American lawyers to work abroad. When selecting law firms that you want to interview with, don't just look at where they have offices; also look at who is working at those offices. Check the attorney roster on the website. Are the only U.S.-qualified lawyers in the firm partners, with most or all of the associates being foreign-qualified attorneys? Does it seem that most or all of the associates are native speakers of the local language? If you don't see many attorneys with backgrounds similar to yours, there's a good chance that the firm won't be able to use you in that office.

2. Is the firm a "franchise" firm, or one with a uniform and centralized structure? Firms vary in the way in which they manage their international offices. Certain firms, like the top New York firms, are fairly involved in the management of their overseas operations. Payroll and hiring in Asia at these firms all run through New York at some point. For other firms, the international offices act more like self-contained units.

Why does this matter? Little things like technology upgrades/solutions and expense reimbursements may take longer or be more frustrating to deal with at New York-centric firms. On the other hand, a less integrated firm may not offer its lawyers the opportunity to easily access the resources of the entire firm.

3. Should you work for a British firm? Many British law firms have historically been involved in the Asia market longer than their U.S. counterparts. This may mean that some British firms have a broader or more established practice in your area of interest. You should be aware, though, that there are distinct cultural differences between British and U.S. firms. For starters, U.S. lawyers working at British firms in Asia are usually compensated on a different (higher) payscale than their colleagues at the same firm, which can lead to some friction between the U.S. and non-U.S. lawyers. As a U.S. lawyer at a British firm, you may also be completely shut out from certain types of deals. For example, in the capital markets realm, U.S. lawyers for British firms work mostly on the limited Rule 144A/Regulation S aspects of securities offerings. British firms would almost never be hired to work on U.S. IPO mandates.

For some perspective on these points, as usual, we turned to Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting. According to Evan, "The U.S. prestige rankings of firms, although important for any lateral candidate to consider, do not necessarily carry over to Asia, as many variables are involved in whether a firm is well-positioned in a particular Asia region. Also, the length of time an office has been in place and the number of attorneys in an office can be misleading with regard to how established a U.S. firm is in an Asia market and its future potential there. Some other important factors to consider are a firm's expansion plans in the region, whether there is a senior partner in place who is well-connected in the country at issue, and the quality of support in the U.S. for primary practice areas."

Robert adds, "Keep in mind that most firms are structured such that if an associate is well-regarded and his or her practice group in the U.S. is busy, an internal move out to Asia is not likely to be supported by the partners immediately responsible for that associate, so a lateral move may be necessary anyway." Thus, according to Evan, "it may not be prudent for a law student to try to choose a U.S. office based in large part on a potential down-the-road internal move to Asia. Relevant training is more important."

Regarding the "British vs. American" debate, Evan points out that he knows U.S. groups within the British firms that are thriving, making their own hiring and partnership decisions, and a great choice for the right candidate. At the same time, he says, "there are a couple of the top U.K. firms whose first question to us is sometimes whether a candidate is expecting to get a U.S. salary and housing allowance. It's those firms where I think the cultural gulf is wider."

So how can you tell where you will find a fit? According to Robert, "It is often the case that looking at the website bios of attorneys at a firm can give you some notion of who might be willing to consider you. But we also have clients who are looking to add a different sort of lawyer to the mix of attorneys within their firm. These days we are seeing clients transfer attorneys from their U.S. offices because they are underutilized there. The attorneys that they transfer sometimes have completely different backgrounds from what might be considered ideal by the partners in the office they transfer to."

Next week we will discuss a question that confronts many law students and junior associates thinking of working in Asia. Is it better to go straight out of law school, or to get a few years of experience practicing in the U.S.?

You know where to find us: asiacorporatelawyers at gmail dot com.

*****************
Kinney Recruiting has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years.

[Disclosure: Kinney is the sponsor of this post.]

* Supreme Court rules in favor of employees, holding that the ADEA and Section 1981 provide protection from retaliation to workers who complain about discrimination. [New York Times]

* The wheels of justice turn slowly: man with multiple sclerosis remains on death row despite appellate court rulings in his favor, with no new trial date set. [AP]

* Two voter rights cases roil Texas. [New York Times]

* Dude, you're getting.... ripped off? Judge rules against Dell in suit brought by New York AG Andrew Cuomo. [CNN]

* Legendary litigatrix Amy Schulman, aka the $6 Million Woman, is leaving DLA Piper, to become general counsel of Pfizer. [WSJ Law Blog]

A teenage girl has filed a lawsuit against Harrison, N.Y. police officers for violating her civil rights. According to the complaint, the police came to arrest the girl's boyfriend for marijuana possession. While conducting a search of the house, they got overly friendly with the girl during her patdown, seized her sex tape, and played with her anal beads.

The Smoking Gun has the filed complaint along