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.
* 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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.'"
* 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?
[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."
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:
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')
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.
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]
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]
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.
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."
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?
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.
Today, in honor of David Lat's Above The LardProject 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?
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.?
* 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]
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 with the story. We've added some line breaks for your reading pleasure:
The girl claims that police watched the video in her presence "while laughing," and that they put a camcorder in her face and "mockingly" asked her questions about the explicit video as it played. She also alleges that a Harrison detective told her, "I should beat your ass for this. I hope your parents beat your ass."
The teenager claims that the investigator also retrieved anal beads from a bedroom, put them in her face, and asked, "What do you do with these -- put them in your mouth?"
The girl charges that cops subsequently played the video "sufficiently close to the cell in which the boyfriend was incarcerated so that he could hear the audio component of the video," and that they laughed about the video and made "repeated references by name to his girlfriend as she was depicted on the video."
She also contends that the Harrison officers "thereafter played the video for other members of the department to watch for their amusement, sexual gratification, and to further degrade Plaintiff."
Yet another reason not to make a sex tape.
We might have left the little anecdote about the anal beads out of the complaint. That's just plain embarrassing.
Another leading law firm has announced lawyer and staff layoffs. Elliott Portnoy, chairman of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, has confirmed to ATL the personnel changes that were announced to Sonnenschein lawyers and staff earlier today.
"We separated 75 staff and 49 timekeepers," said Mr. Portnoy, reached by telephone. "Of the 75 staff, 41 are secretaries are 34 are other support staff. Of the 49 timekeepers, 37 are lawyers, and 12 are non-lawyer timekeepers such as paralegals."
(To put the numbers a different way, the firm laid off 37 lawyers and 87 staff, if the 12 non-lawyer timekeepers are added to the 75 other staff members).
Most but not all of the affected lawyers are associates. According to Mr. Portnoy, of the 37 attorneys, six are partners, four are of counsel, and 27 are associates. The affected associates range from first-year to senior associates, with the reductions "spread pretty widely across the seniority ranges, from junior to senior."
The separations were also spread across practice groups and offices. "Real estate and litigation were the practices most directly affected," said Mr. Portnoy. "They're two of the firm's largest practices, so numerically this is not surprising."
* The post title says it all: "Grand Theft Auto Class Action Settlement: $26,505 for the unrepresented class, $1 million fee request." Blogger Ted Frank, a class member, is objecting. [Overlawyered]
* More hiring data from legal academia. An interesting finding: some law schools ranked 30 and below do better than some top 20 schools when it comes to producing law professors. [Concurring Opinions]
* Also courtesy of Professor Solove, "10 Tips for Law Students Who Want to Pursue Careers in Legal Academia." [Concurring Opinions]
* Unlike Professor Solove, who takes a middle-of-the-road approach in his book, we don't believe in privacy -- not for you, and not for ourselves. [ABA Journal]
* The Harvard Law Avenger gets a shout-out from Glenn Reynolds. [Instapundit]
The Wall Street Journal has been writing about Mattel's lawsuit against Bratz and has a rundown on the upcoming trial on the WSJ Law Blog. Bratz, "the only girls with a passion for fashion," knocked Barbie from her throne when they hit stores in 2001. At issue in Barbie's suit is whether the man behind the Bratz concept was at Mattel when he dreamed up the attitude-laden dolls.
Allegedly, the person who broke the news to Barbie about the designer's possible betrayal is now a blogger at Jezebel. In 2003, when she broke the story, she was writing as Maureen Tkacik at the Wall Street Journal. Now, she's Moe at Jezebel and she's ignoring her summons for the trial!
Her Jezebel post starts off, "I'm supposed to be in court in Riverside County, California right now." She's totally got the Bratz spirit:
[Mattel] finally convinced me and seven or eight lawyers to show up in a conference room someplace downtown for a few hours of grilling about a story about which I couldn't have ethically provided any information even if I remembered it, which I of course did not. As we left, my lawyer, the in-house counsel of Dow Jones, marveled at the billable hours that had been assembled for our presence alone. It was enough to fund a reality show-worthy bar mitzvah. And they'd been at this case for years!
Today the case is supposed to go to trial and I am apparently, according to an email from the Gawker office manager, to be there, although I am not, because I don't leave my house to buy toilet paper if there is perfectly decent newspaper lying around, and the thing is going down in California.
Last year, Viacom filed a $1 billion suit against Google-owned YouTube, asserting widespread copyright infringement. We predicted a smackdown, and that day has come.
Viacom filed an amended complaint [PDF] last month, saying it had found over 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. In its answer [PDF], Google says YouTube responds properly when made aware of copyrighted content, and said Viacom's suit threatens our way of life... pretty much. From the Associated Press:
A $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube's ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said.
Google's lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.'s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to "an explosion of copyright infringement" by YouTube and others.
The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
It's sad that MTV no longer has the spirit of rock-and-roll rebellion and has officially become The Man.
Bless us, Father, for we have sinned. Last night we watched the Bachelorette.
It was for journalistic reasons -- really. We wanted to do an update to our prior post, about a lawyer competing for the hand of the Bachelorette, DeAnna Pappas.
Or make that "lawyers"? He's not identified as a lawyer in his bio, which refers to him merely as a "senior analyst," but Eric Papachristos, 31, apparently works in the Boston office of Ropes & Gray.
In addition, according to the Boston Herald (which confirms his Ropes & Gray connection), Eric co-owns Gypsy Bar, Victoria's Diner, and The Breakfast Club. We aren't familiar with these fine establishments, but if you are, feel free to chime in.
Sadly for him, Eric might want to keep his day job(s), since he was eliminated last night from the Bachelorette. He tried to bond with DeAnna over their shared Greek heritage, but she was having none of it. As he was sent home, Eric confessed that "it hurts to be rejected" and that he's "never had to compete for someone's affection before."
Correction: Whoops, sorry about that. Although Eric works for Ropes, he is not a lawyer; he handles "Financial Planning and Analysis" for the firm. See his LinkedIn profile (via a commenter).
But another legal eagle, Jeremy Anderson, fared much better. He's now viewed by his fellow contestants as the frontrunner, having racked up two roses. Here's how he succeeded, from EW.com:
In the Dodger dugout, he told DeAnna that both of his parents are dead and that he's had a hard time opening up because he's trying to protect himself and his family. DeAnna, whose mother died of cancer when she was 12, now has someone who knows what she's experienced. Jeremy's position on the show, and maybe even in DeAnna's heart, seems secure. Is he for real?
Real or not, he's quite a hottie (with ample upper-body strength -- he came in second fared well in the push-up contest). Furthermore, when Jeremy and DeAnna got their smooch on, he looked like a good kisser.
But Eric, who got the boot, isn't bad-looking either. He got sent home, even though some less attractive gents (in our opinion) were allowed to stay on.
Who's hotter, Eric or Jeremy? Compare their headshots at the top of this post, then take our poll below.
Update: As noted in the comments, there is a second lawyer on the show: Fred, a 30-year-old lawyer from Chicago. If you know more about his professional background -- for example, where he went to law school or where he works -- please enlighten us (in the comments or by email).
A recent exchange from the Job Chat column of the Washington Post:
I'm a recent law school graduate who has yet to secure my first job. I'm growing desperate. I've sent out 330 résumés to the Hill, feds, nonprofits, trade associations, campaigns and law firms. I've even applied for bartending and waiting tables, only to be told I'm overqualified. What do I do?
Are you just mailing (or e-mailing) résumés blind? Or are you networking through professional associations, your law school's alumni group, etc? You need to think quality, not quantity.
Completing a single federal job application can take a full week, so I have a hard time believing you're putting the right level of effort behind pursuing jobs at carefully selected employers.
And no one is overqualified to wait tables and tend bar in Washington . . .
Hmm.... On the one hand, we aren't terribly impressed by this advice. The correspondent basically wrote: "Help! I'm trying really hard, and I can't land a job." And columnist Mary Ellen Slayter responded: "Try harder! Or get a job flipping burgers at Five Guys."
On the other hand, we don't have any better advice. The job market is grim -- and given this individual's batting average thus far, we suspect that their credentials may be less than stellar.
Readers, any advice? Or, if no advice, sympathy or commiseration?
Some people question whether large law firms do enough to make the world a better place. These people wonder: Are Biglaw partners letting Third World babies die, just so they can enjoy their Ferraris?
Or is the "Baby vs. Ferrari" choice a false dichotomy? Here's another way of looking at it. Lawyers at large law firms, by providing top-notch legal services to large corporations -- corporations owned not just by fat cats but also by ordinary Americans, through mutual funds and similar investment vehicles -- create value that otherwise would not exist. Some of this surplus value makes its way into the pockets of partners (and their Ferrari dealers). But some of it makes its way to charitable causes (as well as federal and state government coffers, in the form of tax revenue).
Last week we commended the firms of Dewey & LeBoeuf and Heller Ehrman for their generous donations in support of China earthquake relief efforts. And it seems that supporting relief organizations, just like raising associate salaries, may be contagious within Biglaw.
Several other leading law firms have donated to support China earthquake relief efforts (and a number of these firms, including Orrick and Weil, acted within a few hours of last week's ATL post). Here are some that we know of:
We commend the foregoing firms and their employees for their generosity. If your firm has taken action and isn't mentioned above, feel free to post a shout-out in the comments.
For those of you who are curious -- perhaps your firm would like to start a similar initiative, and you'd like to lift some language for the announcement -- the Orrick and Weil memos appear after the jump.
Memorial Day is behind us, marking the unofficial start of summer. Many summer associates kicked off the season last week, descending on cities around the country to get a taste of Biglaw -- and a taste of the nicest local restaurants, during leisurely firm lunches.
Summers, we don't want you to miss out on the best cuisine that your city has to offer. We're launching a series of open threads in which you can discuss your favorite dining spots in summer-associate destination cities. We'll cover a different city each day.
The series opens with your ATL editors' home base of WASHINGTON, DC.. Here is Washingtonian Magazine's list of the 100 best restaurants in the city. Which eateries make your list? Which places are overlooked -- or overrated?
If you have tips on SA lunch etiquette, feel free to throw those in. In case you missed the Table Manners 101 class, here's a dos and don'ts list from Corporette.
Over the holiday weekend, Adam Liptak had this interesting New York Times article looking at how judges are selected, in the United States and the rest of the world. He points out that judicial elections, widely used in state judicial systems in the U.S., are a rarity in the rest of the world:
The question of how best to select judges has baffled lawyers and political scientists for centuries, but in the United States most states have made their choice in favor of popular election. The tradition goes back to Jacksonian populism, and supporters say it has the advantage of making judges accountable to the will of the people. A judge who makes a series of unpopular decisions can be challenged in an election and removed from the bench....
Nationwide, 87 percent of all state court judges face elections, and 39 states elect at least some of their judges, according to the National Center for State Courts.
In the rest of the world, the usual selection methods emphasize technical skill and insulate judges from the popular will, tilting in the direction of independence. The most common methods of judicial selection abroad are appointment by an executive branch official, which is how federal judges in the United States are chosen, and a sort of civil service made up of career professionals.
Selecting judges based on.... skill? Silly rabbit, judgeships are for politicians (with law degrees).
Sigh. We hate it when news breaks late on a Friday before a holiday weekend.
But we won't let the timing stop us from giving this the attention it deserves. We'll do an update post next week, after everyone is back from the Memorial Day holiday weekend. We've also contacted Phil Telfeyan -- we've known he was the Note author for quite some time, thanks to our Harvard Law School sources -- and requested an interview.
We have to head out now. If you're still stuck in front of your computer, instead of enjoying the long weekend, check out the links below.
* Pro Se Litigant of the Day? Actor Dylan McDermott, who plays a lawyer on TV, is representing himself in his divorce proceedings. [Slog / The Stranger]
* A dispatch from the R. Kelly trial, and some advice: "[W]hen you're trying to help your niece launch a music career, perhaps it's best to widen the search for mentors beyond the man who sings 'It Seems Like You're Ready' and 'I Like the Crotch on You.'" [Slate]
Two Texans are competing for the honor of ATL Judge of the Day. We'll let you vote for the winner.
Mary Alice Robbins reports in the Texas Laywer on warnings issued by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct to a Fort Worth county judge, Brent Keis, and an Amarillo district judge, Hal Miner.
Judge Brent Keis got in trouble for alleged racial insensitivity:
In April 2007, Keis attempted to engage Nuru Witherspoon, a partner in Dallas's Kelley Witherspoon, in a conversation about the transportation of enslaved Africans to the Americas in what is referred to as the "Middle Passage." Keis broached the conversation about slavery after learning that Witherspoon's first name is African in origin, but Witherspoon declined to discuss that topic with the judge.
There's also something about Judge Keis telling Witherspoon -- while she was considering a settlement offer made to her client, the plaintiff in a personal-injury case -- that he was a Republican, and that "Tarrant County juries are predominantly made up of Republicans." Sounds like Keis does not have the best judgment when it comes to appropriate courtroom conversation.
Our other Texan, Judge Hal Miner, has a problem with alleged "gender sensitivity and sexual harassment:"
While attending a December 2006 holiday party hosted by a local firm, Miner approached a female attorney and "slapped" her buttocks. Miner approached the same female attorney a second time and "his hand made contact with her buttocks again." A witness said Miner joked about the attorney's height, "commenting to the effect that he intended to slap her on the back, but her 'ass' was at hand level."
Nothing good ever comes of office holiday parties. Ask Bingham.
The D.C. attorney general's office told 10 lawyers and a manager this week that they are being fired to help close a $3 million deficit in the office's fiscal 2009 budget.
The cuts are also being made because of the workers' poor performance and as part of an effort to transform the agency into what interim Attorney General Peter Nickles called a "first-rate law firm" with "strong, young, able stars."
Our tipster quips: "[Nickles] is trying to turn the Office of Attorney General into a law firm. What better way to make government attorneys feel they are working in a law firm than by firing 11 of them? The only problem: Nickels doesn't realize these government attorneys are in a union."
The purge, Nickles said, is only the beginning and is part of his overhaul of the $101 million operation. Lawyers are required to wear jackets at all times, must submit reports to him each week about their casework and will soon have to clock in and out, he said.
A Biglaw environment, for government pay? Where do we sign up?
Update: As noted in the comments, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles is a former partner at Covington & Burling.
We commend the fast-acting webmaster of Queller, Fisher, Dienst, Serrins, Washor & Kool. The firm website, which occupies the valuable cyber real estate of accidents.com, no longer features Dienst's bio on the Our Lawyers page.
But Dienst, one of the firm's founders, is also a name partner. Fixing that may take a little longer.
Update: Via a commenter, here is Richard Dienst's bio.
Here's news of a prominent professor's move, plus an interesting pattern of legal academic defections. From the BLT:
Ronald Rotunda, former George Mason University law professor and an expert on legal ethics and constitutional law, has signed on to join the Chapman University School of Law's faculty as a tenured professor on Aug. 1. Rotunda will be joined by his wife, Kyndra Rotunda, an expert on military personnel and disability law.
The Rotundas' move to Chapman, located in Orange, California, marks the third major defection to the university from GMU in the past year.
Chapman is fast becoming the West Coast outpost of GMU. What's behind the Rotundas' move?
Rotunda said his decision to leave GMU was in part because "sadly, the university has some problems." Rotunda couldn't elaborate further because he was boarding a plane to Istanbul.
We think we have a guess about the "problems" -- and we can understand why Professor Rotunda wasn't eager to chat with the Legal Times about them.
We might have made this Las Vegas personal injury attorney, Adam S. Kutner, our Lawyer of the Day for his nifty website alone. His initials, A.S.K., provide the site's dominating logo, and when you surf in, Kutner turns to look at you.
Via this Nevada legal blog, Wild Wild Law, we came across this article in Las Vegas City Life, which portrays Kutner as the worst boss ever. Wild Wild Law has compiled a list of the alleged abuses from the story. Some highlights:
menacing secretaries with a golf club;
calling support staff "Fat b**ches," "F***ing dumb-asses," "C**ts," and "Morons";
saying Hispanics were lazy and stupid to his mostly Hispanic staff;
bragging about his sexual conquests to support staff;
getting in screaming fits when he doesn't get the right type of water on his desk (Fiji);
having employees occasionally shave his neck;
punching a hole in the drywall with a door knob in a fit of anger.
That's a scrubbed and abridged version. Read the complete list over here.
Sounds like the man has some anger management issues. Lots of discrimination complaints, law suits, and counter suits are in the works.
What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.
Today's Job of the Week is a unique opportunity for a mid-level tax attorney. And don't forget about Lateral Link's $10,000 guaranteed signing bonus when making your next career transition.
Position: Mid-Level Tax Associate
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Job Code: #8983
Description: This Los Angeles-based firm, one of the most selective firms in the market, seeks a mid-level tax associate with 3-5 years of general tax experience. The firm's tax group handles work in the following areas: transactional, executive compensation and employee benefits, controversy, estate planning, and tax-exempt organizations.
For more information about the requirements for this position and other ones, please visit Lateral Link.
Now for the next set of entrants, and it's a crowded field. We think this week's column sets a record for total number of Ivy League JDs. Here's our latest crop of outstanding newlyweds:
C'mon, guys. You may be a "blog," but you're still part of the Wall Street Journal, a major news organization, and part of the so-called "mainstream media." Shouldn't you leave chronicling Biglaw's every last burp and hiccup to us, and swoop in only once you see a trend emerging?
Even we don't know if we would have written up this item. From a WSJ commenter: "Wow, five secretaries? HOLY COW! Write a blog about it! Come on, guys. This is getting ridiculous. The layoff of five staff people is not newsworthy."
P.S. We intend no disrespect to the five Kaye Scholer secretaries, for whom this is big news, and we're sorry to hear about their job loss. We're just sayin'....
* Cool pic. Should Ann Althouse quit her day job and become a professional photographer? [Althouse]
* One reason (among many) that Glenn Reynolds doesn't have comments on Instapundit. [Instapundit]
* Some reflections, from a trio of law professors, on the controversy over Washington University awarding an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly. [PrawfsBlawg (Howard Wasserman); PrawfsBlawg (Rick Hills); PrawfsBlawg (Paul Horwitz)]
"Unfortunately, she doesn't have good people skills when she's being attacked. But she did the heavy lifting in that court. When judges had complex issues, they came to her to write their memos. And they got Harvard Law Review-quality work."
Clark County attorneys are quick to call out jurists they believe lack superior legal knowledge.... A staggering 84 percent of respondents questioned how District Judge Elizabeth Halverson exercises the law, far and away the poorest rating of any jurist evaluated. Halverson's retention score of 8 percent was also at the bottom.
The Bodies Exhibition has caused quite an uproar since it started touring the U.S. in 2005. Beyond it being kind of gross, one of the controversies is that the bodies may have come from executed Chinese prisoners.
Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri introduced the bill that would prohibit the importation of any "plastinated" human body part into this country. Atlanta-based Premier Exhibitions uses "unclaimed" Chinese bodies infused with silicone through a process called "plastination" for display across the nation in an exhibit called, "Bodies...The Exhibition."
"This is a human rights issue about affording human dignities to people around the world," said Rep. Akin, adding that he is concerned that the Chinese people in the exhibit did not give permission for their bodies to be on display. "We cannot verify the source of each body coming from China, so we decided the best approach was to say that in our country, you cannot import plastinated bodies," he said.
Congress is not weighing in on the grossness factor. Home-grown plastinated bodies would still be okay. The issue is whether legal consent was given.
California and Pennsylvania state representatives have introduced bills requiring the exhibitions to provide documentation proving that each body on display comes from a person who legally consented. The Pennsylvania bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee while the California bill is on the State Senate floor.
Guaranteeing plastination for American cadavers: a blow in the fight against outsourcing?
The nation's newspapers have been full of "doom and gloom" about the economy lately -- and perhaps it's infectious. A pessimistic business outlook has seeped into ATL, with lots of posts devoted to lawyer and staff layoffs, attorney pay cuts, downsized summer associate programs, and the like.
Some readers have accused us of being alarmist. We plead guilty, at least in part; this is "a legal tabloid," after all. As we previously wrote: "In these pages, we alternate between sensationalistically fanning the flames of greed (NY to 190) and despair (Nationwide Layoff Watch)."
But there is good news to be had. From a tipster at Sullivan & Cromwell, reporting on remarks that chairman H. Rodgin Cohen recently delivered to the summer class:
Rodge Cohen promised the S&C summer associates that we'd all have jobs at the end of the summer and that the partners would take any [financial] hit [necessary]. He said that the firm would not be altering its summer hiring policy.
The events are insane, and they're still spending a fortune on food, etc. They also gave us Blackberries (not sure they normally do this). They claim to be fairly busy.
Earlier this month, the American Lawyer reported on a similarly sizzling summer over at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, S&C's uptown rival:
At a time when several firms are cutting back their summer programs, Cravath, Swaine & Moore is taking the opposite approach, boosting its program's size by more than 75 percent. Cravath is bringing in 161 summer associates, up from 91 last year. The additional recruits are part of an expansion plan, says managing partner Evan Chesler....
Cravath doesn't look to be cutting back on perks either. Among the events anticipated by incoming summers are a party at the Central Park Zoo and several Broadway shows, including "Jersey Boys," "Young Frankenstein," and "Spring Awakening."
Another firm often mentioned in the same breath as Cravath and Sullivan, Wachtell Lipton, is also hosting one of its largest summer classes ever.
A question: Could the grim economic times be a recruiting boon for firms like Wachtell, Cravath, and S&C? These firms are known for being "hard core" and intense; they're not the easiest Biglaw shops to work for. They're all known for punishing hours, especially Wachtell; Cravath has those bedbugs; and S&C has those lawsuits, filed by allegedly abused associates.
But these firms are unbelievably profitable, extremely stable financially, and so invested in their institutional prestige that they'd rather take a hit to their sky-high profits per partner than to their reputations. This makes it highly unlikely that they'd ever lay off associates or cut salaries (or, in Wachtell's case, dole out bonuses below 50 percent of base salary).
Will such super-elite firms become the "hot" firms in the next recruiting cycle, as law students with their pick of offers opt for their relative safety? Sure, there may be firms out there that are "cooler," "kinder and gentler," or more "lifestyle-oriented" than Cravath, S&C, and Wachtell. But are they worth the downside risk?
We'll see what law students think, when they "vote with their feet" come recruiting time. If you have examples of other firms that are flourishing despite the terrible economy, feel free to give them a shout-out in the comments.
If this post had a theme song, it would be the Velvet Underground's Waiting for The Man, in which Lou Reed sings about waiting for his heroin dealer. In this Lawyer of the Day version, though, it would be a murder suspect waiting in a prison cell for his lawyer to deliver the goods.
Nathan Billmaier, a Chicago attorney, allegedly tried to smuggle drugs to his client in a Cook County jail. From the Chicago Tribune:
Attorney Nathan Billmaier, 34, of the 1900 block of West Potomac Avenue, was found Monday with nine flattened tinfoil packages that contained 4 ounces of marijuana, 4 ounces of contraband tobacco, six Ecstasy tablets and 40 matches, Sheriff Thomas Dart said in a news release.
Billmaier, who was charged with one count of bringing contraband into a penal institution and one count of possession with intent to deliver, was released on $150,000 bail after a Tuesday hearing, Dart said.
The drugs and cigarettes were intended for inmate Donald Jordan, who is in custody for murder, violation of parole and a previous charge of possessing contraband in jail, he added.
On its website, Billmaier's firm, Stanley L. Hill & Associates, promises a "multi-ethnic, multi-cultural group of hard-working, highly qualified, dedicated professionals, each with a personal commitment to client satisfaction and personal touch that distinguishes us from other firms." Billmaier may have taken the commitment to client satisfaction a bit too far.
Almost 2,000 votes were cast in the first round of our poll for the best legally-themed race horse name. We've winnowed the full field of 20 horses down to the top ten.
Now we're in the final round. The polls will remain open through the Memorial Day weekend. Let the race begin!
In the last three installments of the Asia Chronicles, we've written about the perks and the (possible) disadvantages of working as a lawyer in Asia. We have been trying to give you a better idea of what it's like to work over here and to help you decide if moving to Asia might be an option that you would like to explore.
But many of you have contacted us saying that you need to hear no more, you're already convinced. You want to know what kind of skills American firms in Asia are looking for, and how to go about finding a job in this part of the world.
The most common question we get on this topic is about language ability: "How much of a difference will language skills, or lack thereof, make in the marketability of a job candidate?" As lawyers, none of you should be surprised that we can only answer this question with more questions:
1. How high is your language level, really?
We've seen a lot of job seekers come into our offices with resumes that describe their language skills as "proficient" or even "fluent," but when we ask them even a basic question in that language, they often struggle to answer. In general, a few years of college language classes does not a fluent speaker make, and even people who have spent significant time immersed in a language environment rarely have learned the legal and business terminology that would be needed for common tasks such as reading due diligence documents, participating in a drafting session, or negotiating a comfort letter. Unless you are a native or legitimately fluent speaker, your language skills will honestly not be of much use to a law firm, and therefore will not balance out deficiencies in the core strengths of a candidate, such as graduating from a top-ranked law school with high grades or having valuable work experience.
That said, a glance at the attorney roster of many selective law firms in Asia reveals some lawyers with lower than average credentials but strong language and culture experience (time spent in the U.S. State Department is a common theme) that seems to have gotten them hired. However, having some lesser level of language ability could make a marginal difference with an otherwise qualified candidate because it may help convince a law firm that you are interested in and capable of living in a certain country and interacting well with people from that culture.
2. Do you really want to be hired based on your language ability?
One of the first hard truths that we learned after spending some time working in Asia is that having language skills might not always be something you want to advertise. We've seen many native and fluent speakers relegated to countless hours of foreign language documentary due diligence or translation because no one else in the office was capable of doing it. One of our colleagues has even been keeping her language ability a secret so that she can avoid being staffed on such mind-numbing projects. Lawyers who can speak and understand but cannot read or write (or at least pretend they can't) have the advantage of being able to participate in the comparatively more interesting client meetings and negotiation while avoiding less enjoyable tasks.
Four years ago, Alan Plofsky, the head of the Connecticut State Ethics Commission, was fired in response to an "anonymous" letter from a "parking lot attendant." The attendant's letter was a laundry list of complaints about goings-on in the ethics office. The simple-minded attendant claimed to "patrol the building where the ethics is" and cutely misspelled "anonimus." The attendant noted that ethics folks worked strange hours and seemed to take a lot of holidays.
Turns out the "attendant" was a big ole fabrication, by one of the attorneys working for Plofsky. From the Hartford Courant:
Now, newly uncovered legal documents show that the letter was concocted by Maureen Duggan, a staff lawyer who worked for Plofsky.
Duggan dropped a bombshell of an admission concerning the letter during a Jan. 15 deposition:
"I drafted this," she admitted under oath.
"But you had intentionally disguised it so that it would appear that it wasn't written by you?" Plofsky's lawyer, Gregg Adler, asked later.
"That's true," said Duggan, whose married surname in 2004 was Regula. She has since divorced.
Duggan said in her deposition that her then-husband, lawyer Steven Regula, mailed the letter she had written. Duggan said she told him "I couldn't go through with" sending it, but he "took that to mean ... that I couldn't do it and I needed his help. So he sent the letter."
The admission raises ethical, perhaps even legal, questions about the behavior of Duggan, who now works as a staff lawyer at the state Department of Children and Families for $105,180 a year.
Questionable ethics, Duggan. But when all else fails, blaming the ex-husband sometimes works. Good luck with that.
Daniel Schwartz has more discussion over at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog. He offers some caveats about relying upon anonymous complaints, arguing that they should be viewed "with a dose of healthy skepticism."
But we still like anonymity at ATL. It allows for good story tips and hilarious (though sometimes disturbing) comments.
In January, after the Harvard Law Review published a rather embarrassing, bleeding-heart Case Comment, we wrote:
Last year, we ran a popular series of posts on the Harvard Law Review. The gist of the coverage was that the Review's new, left-leaning leadership "is running the journal into the ground with a cabal of radical ideologues, making the outgoing editors nervous about the future reputation of the journal."
We got some flak for our HLR coverage. But in view of what the Review is publishing these days, as discussed extensively in the blogosphere -- see, e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy and PrawfsBlawg -- we can't help gloating. Just a little.
Or a lot. A tipster draws our attention to a Note that was just published in the latest issue of the HLR:
I think you should break this story. It is a guaranteed comment clusterf**k.
This Note (PDF) basically says that anyone who doesn't go in to public interest work is immoral and is killing babies in third world countries (most of this analysis is in section 4 of the article). I think it just came out in electronic form today, so you should get a jump on anyone.
Our correspondent's summary is shockingly accurate. Check out the article for yourself by clicking here (PDF).
As it turns out, we're not the first to take note of the Note. We believe that would be Professor Paul Horwitz, over at PrawfsBlawg. After alluding to the notorious Case Comment from several months ago, Professor Horwitz writes:
I am reading the latest issue of the Harvard Law Review [which contains] a Note titled, after an inscription on a statue in Cambridge Common, "Never Again Should a People Starve in a World of Plenty." It's unusually thinly sourced for a Harvard Law Review Note -- not that I'm encouraging people to use more footnotes! And it has a certain voice ("There is injustice everywhere. The last place there should be injustice is in the justice system.") and theme that . . . . well, I find myself wondering whether we have found our anonymous author once again.
I don't mean to be unduly gossipy about this sort of thing; it's worth a two-paragraph blog post and not more. And I am not knocking the observation that injustice is bad; heaven forfend. Just the same, I'm curious whether this is the same author.
We don't share Professor Horwitz's shyness. We're happy to write more than two paragraphs about the Note (ha -- we already have). And there's no such thing as being "unduly gossipy" in our book.
So gossip away, in the comments. Do you think this Note was written by the same author as the prior Case Comment? Do you feel that the Harvard Law Review -- once headed by Senator Barack Obama, its first black president -- is tilting too far to the left?
Or, if you prefer, don't gossip; engage substantively with the arguments in the Note. Clearly the author wants associates and partners in large law firms to sit up and take notice, to think about whether what they're doing professionally is worthwhile -- or even morally defensible.
We're sure the anonymous author will be grateful to us for bringing his or her work to the attention of ATL's many readers in Biglaw. Whoever you are: you're welcome!
That's the title of our latest column for the New York Observer, which reflects upon recent television and film portrayals of women litigators.
It touches upon some of the same themes highlighted in Amy Kolz's excellent American Lawyer article from last year, but it's more focused on fictional female litigators, as opposed to real-life ones. Here's how it starts:
Whatever happened to Ally McBeal? If recent movies and television shows are any guide, the life of a female lawyer has gotten a lot less pleasant since the carefree, charmingly neurotic days of dancing babies and bathroom kisses. But today's portrayals may be more accurate, and certainly more critically acclaimed.
Last January, Glenn Close won a Golden Globe for her compelling performance as Patty Hewes, a fearsome and wildly successful plaintiff's lawyer, on the addictive TV show Damages. The following month, Tilda Swinton snagged an Oscar for stepping into the pumps of Karen Crowder, a hard-charging in-house litigator, in Michael Clayton.
In March, Julianna Margulies (of ER) returned to television as aggressive defense lawyer Elizabeth Canterbury, the title character of Canterbury's Law. Even Katey Sagal, who embodied the famously vulgar Peggy Bundy on Married With Children, reincarnated herself this year as Marci Klein, the sleek, powerful, and ruthless founding partner of the law firm on Eli Stone.
Herrera's complaint -- "for discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and fraud" -- reads like a reality tv show pitch about the lives of paralegals. Herrera has been a paralegal in Weil's Silicon Valley office since 2004. In his complaint, he talks about:
a female paralegal who thinks men are inferior to women
a male paralegal who thinks women are inferior to men (and referred to a co-worker as "milky creamies" in honor of her breasts)
a paralegal who expressed prejudice against Latinos
good old inter-office gossip about who liked and hated whom
the use of the "pimp hand" and the "mojo hand" to intimidate and cajole:
(For those who don't know, Matt Powers is one of the most feared, respected and successful patent litigators in the country.)
(Also for those of you don't know, the ever-useful urban dictionary defines "pimp hand" as "the hand used to smack your ho's around," but has no definition for "mojo hand")...
Reached Friday at Weil Gotshal where he still works, Herrera told Legal Pad he sued because he was out of options for resolving the problems. He has yet to serve the firm, and said he was contemplating Friday just how to do it.
Wikipedia says the mojo hand is a kind of magic charm. We still don't know what a mojo hand is, but we want one!
As a former paralegal, Kash was most amused by Herrera's complaint that he was given "repetitive, unchallenging and un-enriching tasks." Welcome to being a paralegal!
That's a question that our friends at the ABA Journal are planning to tackle in a forthcoming article. Perhaps you can help?
Some background, from reporter Richard Acello:
We're looking to do a story on law firms' tech savvy or lack thereof. At a recent technology conference, some IT people complained about how their technological requirements were just not accepted by the older partners. But the young lawyers, used to more advanced technology, had no problem adapting when changes were made.
We're looking for some examples from associates, as well as suggestions for new associates who come in and are appalled at how backward the tech is at their law firms. Yes, we will allow anonymity.
You can email Rich Acello, the writer on the story, at richace at cox dot net. Also feel free to comment on this post if you have some thoughts on law firms and how "with it" they are when it comes to tech.
The bad news continues to roll in. Becker & Poliakoff, which just announced across-the-board pay cuts for its lawyers, isn't the only Florida firm that's hurting.
In another sign of the hard times facing the legal industry, particularly in real-estate heavy South Florida, two local law firms -- Holland & Knight and Shutts & Bowen -- have laid off non-lawyer staffers.
On a day that could be dubbed Black Friday in South Florida legal circles, Tampa-based Holland & Knight, one of Florida's largest and most venerable firms with 1,150 lawyers, laid off 70 staffers Friday, including legal secretaries, IT and accounting staff. No lawyers were laid off.
The layoffs of about four employees in each of Holland's 17 offices represented 5% of Holland's non-lawyer workforce.
Shutts & Bowen, a 200-lawyer, Miami-based firm, Friday laid off nine people, all entry level file clerks or paralegal clerks. No lawyers or legal secretaries were affected.
Holland & Knight spokeswoman Susan Bass told the Daily Business Review that the firm "had some redundancies and inefficiencies." Seventy staffers is a whole lot of redundancies.
Read more -- about prior layoffs at H&K, and the situation over at Greenberg Traurig -- below the fold.
Ah, those inscrutable transcripts from the University of Chicago Law School -- gotta love 'em. They're chock full of numbers, but they don't use the standard "As = 90s, Bs = 80s" scale. For example, if your grades are all in the 80s, you're a rock star.
Nobody can make heads or tails of the U. Chicago transcripts. So what's wrong with a little "tweaking" here and there? From the ABA Journal (via TaxProf Blog):
A lawyer who attended the University of Chicago Law School has been accused in an ethics complaint of lying about his grades when he applied for a summer position at Sidley Austin.
Loren Elliotte Friedman is accused in a complaint filed May 6 by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. He was listed as an associate at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in New York on the firm's website earlier Tuesday, but his name was removed by the afternoon.
Joseph Pizzurro, managing partner of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, told ABAJournal.com that Friedman, a bankruptcy associate, disclosed the bar complaint to the law firm on Friday and submitted his resignation.
The complaint says Friedman altered transcripts of his law school grades in 20 classes to reflect better grades than he received. Friedman worked at Sidley Austin the summer of 2002, and the firm extended an employment offer for him to begin work as an associate in 2003.
The complaint also alleges that Friedman failed to reveal he flunked out of medical school in his application to law school, and that he failed to disclose the altered law school transcripts in his bar application.
It looks like medicine, and now law, haven't worked out for Loren Friedman. What's next?
For law students, trimming the summer programs -- or at least the summer salaries -- would be a critical financial blow:
[L]aw School tuition is fucking EXPENSIVE. I take out 55k per year in loans here at CLS (45k of which goes to tuition + fees). Luckily, I have no undergrad debt. The financial aid office suggests that the average student take out 64k per year in loans. In sum, you misers need to talk to school adminstrations before cutting pay.
But once they've achieved permanent (or not so permanent) employment status, some associates would prefer to see a slimmer summer experience:
It's not right that in a market where good associates are being kicked to the curb for economic reasons we're throwing buckets of money at a bunch of kids who don't know anything and just teaching them how to be (more) entitled. Shorten the summer and pay them a salary that has some correlation to what they're worth - they are mere interns.
Other associates, however, are still in favor of lunch:
I thought ATL was on our side. The open budgets and free lunches are a perk to associates too.
And one tipster wonders just how free those lunches are from firm to firm:
Might be a good time next week or two weeks from now to do a post about summer lunch budgets. I just heard on the grapevine that we're having $25/person limits, with anything over it coming out of the associate's pockets. I know some other firms have a $30 or $50 limit.
So, today's ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on both lunch and morale. How much can you spend on lunch with the summer associates, how often do you do lunch, and would associates at your firm be upset if the summer program went away?
Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.
Judge Carlton Vines presides over traffic violations and DUIs in Chattooga County, Georgia. It's a tiny county with a population of just over 25,000. The local newspaper, The Summerville News, has an ongoing investigative series examining the county's drunk-driving phenomenon and growing number of DUI arrests.
Unfortunately, Judge Vines has become a part of the phenomenon. He was arrested in November of last year for driving drunk and leaving the scene of an accident after swerving into another car. The coppers just released the dash-cam video from the arrest. The man was trashed, slurring, and stumbling... though still cogent enough to refuse the breathalyzer.
Vines pleaded guilty to DUI charges in April. He has since spent three nights in jail, paid fines, done community service and was on house arrest.
On the tape, Vines can be heard admitting he has had "over the limit." At one point on the tape, an officer asks, "Do you remember the wreck you were involved in?" Vines can be heard responding, "I'm not going to admit or deny it but I will take responsibility."
A nolo plea -- or just good drunken logic? Vines is under voluntary suspension, and the Georgia State Judicial Commission gets to decide whether he returns to the bench.
Judge Vines makes some bizarre comment about sharecropping at the end of the YouTube video. Can someone from rural Georgia please explain?
Bingham McCutchen just confirmed to us that it laid off staff last week in at least two Bay Area offices -- 12 in San Francisco and five in Silicon Valley.
San Francisco Managing Partner Geoffrey Howard said the S.F. layoffs constituted between 5 and 10 percent of the staff there and affected three departments: support services (e.g. copy/fax, mail room, catering, etc.), accounting and records.
They laid off people in catering? One might expect Bingham to pay increased attention to food and beverage, in the wake of Roofiegate.
* A summary of jury selection in the R. Kelly kiddie porn case: "I haven't heard of jurors this stupid since the O.J. trial." [Supreme Dicta]
* Really, there's no cause for alarm. ATL comes in peace. [Tex Parte Blog]
* Cisco GC Mark Chandler feels the heat on Capitol Hill. [Washington Briefs]
* Recent Fantasy Baseball rulings by the Honorable Marc Edelman, ATL's resident sports columnist. [SportsJudge Blog]
* For those of you who deal with the Malaysian judiciary (all three of you), take note: "[B]usiness as usual in Malaysia is no longer acceptable." [Wall Street Journal Asia (subscription)]
We're not the only ones obsessed with layoffs these days. So is the New York Times, which has published two meaty articles on layoffs in the past few days -- one in the Business section, and one in Sunday Styles.
The upshot of the business piece: Wall Street firms are increasingly relying upon "stealth layoffs" (like their brethren in the law, as we've discussed). Louise Story and Eric Dash report:
[E]xactly how many jobs have been or will be eliminated [on Wall Street] is unclear. In the past, banks typically made sharp reductions all at once. After the 1987 stock market crash, for example, employees were herded into conference rooms and dismissed en masse.
This time, companies are making many small cuts over the course of weeks or even months. Some people who have lost jobs, and many more struggling to hold them, say banks are keeping employees in the dark about the size and timing of layoffs.
When traveling abroad for the first time, it seems every American is struck by the brilliance of creating paper money with a correlation between the size of a bill and its value. "That must be nice for blind people," we think.
Well, the D.C. Circuit thinks the same way. In a 2-1 ruling (PDF) issued today, it affirmed a district court decision holding that the U.S. discriminates against blind people with its uniformly-sized bills.
The American Council for the Blind sued the Treasury Department six years ago. If the decision stands, vending machines everywhere will have to be redesigned!
That seems like a better defense than the one the Treasury Department used. From the Associated Press:
The U.S. acknowledges the design hinders blind people but it argued that blind people have adapted. Some relied on store clerks to help them, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish between bills.
The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.
Apparently, that huge ugly number five on the new five-dollar bill was the Treasury Department's first stab at meeting the needs of the blind. Unfortunately, it discriminates against good aesthetic taste.
We realize that we're constantly sending surveys and polls your way. That's because blogging is an interactive medium -- which is a good thing. We talk to you, and you talk back to us. We couldn't do our jobs without all the tips and info we get from you, via email, comments, and yes, surveys.
Anyway, we hope that one more survey won't kill you. Please take a few seconds to fill out our anonymous reader survey, which gives us a sense of our readership demographics. You can access the survey by clicking here.
And please don't overlook the final question, in which you can offer us editorial feedback -- what you like, what you dislike, and what you'd like to see more or less of in these pages. Thanks.
P.S. In case you find the educational categories a little confusing, "post grad work" means you've done some post-graduate work, but aren't done yet (e.g., you're in law school). "Post grad degree" means that you have completed at least one post-graduate degree. If you have one such degree, like a JD or a master's degree, but are in the process of getting another, like an LLM or PhD, check off the "post grad degree" box.
Props to our friends over at Dewey & LeBoeuf. Sure, Denim Day is great at all, and their wine-and-cheese events sound like a lot -- maybe too much -- fun.
But DL also thinks of the less fortunate. From an internal email that went around recently:
As news of the devastation in China and Myanmar spreads, and in support of our colleagues and clients in Asia, we recognize a responsibility to support and assist the many thousands of individuals and families in need at this time. Current news reports suggest that the massive earthquake in the Sichuan province of China has already claimed the lives of more than 20,000 people, with numbers that could soar to as many as 50,000. The deadly cyclone of the Myanmar delta region has already claimed over 75,000 lives, with more than 55,000 people still missing and over 1 million people in need of aid.
The firm will match all donations made by our lawyers and administrative staff up to $200,000 to the following four funds designated for relief in China and Myanmar....
Perhaps other law firms are undertaking similar efforts? If your firm is, feel free to note that in the comments.
The complete Dewey & LeBoeuf email, including links to four relief organizations that you can support, appears after the jump.
Update: As noted in the comments, Heller Ehrman is one of the firms stepping up to the plate. The firm is matching employee donations to the Red Cross up to a total of $50,000. Memo after the jump.
Procrastination is a terrible habit, and the internet is truly the great enabler. How many hours of productivity are lost to YouTube each year?
Judging from Law Firm March Madness traffic, lawyers are definitely among the office workers looking for distraction. Slate has gathered "procrastination rituals" from various professionals. One of the contributors is Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. His ritual is not to procrastinate:
Procrastination is very unhealthy. It causes problems for the people who are counting on you to complete things in a timely fashion and it makes your own life more difficult.... It helps to be a little compulsive. Then you feel uncomfortable if something is hanging over you -- that's the opposite of procrastination, a compulsion to complete things and get rid of the albatross hanging over you.... I have that compulsion.
And that's why he's Richard Posner: circuit judge, law professor, author of almost forty (40) books, prolific blogger, and one of the world's top 100 public intellectuals. And he even manages to sleep, about six hours a night on average.
"Don't procrastinate." Like so much good advice, it's hard to follow. But we'll try. Just after we're done reading this article about a scientific formula for procrastinating, searching the videos that come up on YouTube when you search "procrastinate", listening to the Posner-Lat podcast, and playing our turn in Scrabulous...
Earlier this month, there was some discussion in the comments about law firms possibly cutting associate salaries to cope with the economic downturn. The scenario sounded far-fetched -- but maybe it's not as far-fetched as some might have hoped.
Look, we aren't saying that the sky is falling. There's a world of difference between a law firm based in Fort Lauderdale, with 128 lawyers and extensive exposure to Florida real estate, and the giants of Biglaw, with hundreds of millions (or even billions) in revenue, profits per partner well into the seven figures, and diversified practices.
Attorneys at Becker & Poliakoff are being hit with a 12 percent pay cut for the foreseeable future to help the real estate-dominated firm deal with a drop in profitability and delays in collections.
Becker & Poliakoff is the first major South Florida firm to turn to its lawyers to make cuts to help it deal with the economic slowdown and real estate downturn. Other firms have trimmed staff jobs, including paralegals and secretaries, and cut back on other expenses to help cope with the economic landscape.
Alan Becker, the firm's managing shareholder, informed attorneys and support staff about the pay deferment plan via podcast Wednesday. The cut took effect Thursday and affects only lawyers. No layoffs are expected.
So that's the silver lining to the proverbial cloud. You've suffered a 12 percent haircut on your salary, but at least your job is secure.
We don't know what the Becker & Poliakoff pay scale is, but we're guessing it's well below the $160K scale. Back in 2003, it looks like their starting salaries were in the $63K-$70K range.
But just out of curiosity, what would Biglaw salaries look like if they were trimmed in this manner? If a 12 percent reduction were applied to the first three steps of the standard New York pay scale, salaries would go from 160-170-185 to 141-150-163.
The inanity of Kevin Federline's fame never ceases to amaze. He has achieved widespread recognition by shacking up with Britney Spears, making some babies, and creating some bad music.
K-Fed has garnered enough media attention that there's some excess for his attorney. Mark Vincent Kaplan is interviewed by the AP this week. He talks about the custody proceedings over Spears and K-Fed's two children and how the case has helped his career:
The case is arguably among the most significant in the attorney's 34-year career, and Kaplan said it has inspired personal satisfaction and professional growth.
"Very few lawyers get the opportunity that this case has presented on every possible issue you can think of," he continued. "Even fewer lawyers recognize the opportunity, and even a smaller percentage of those have the (guts) to go for the opportunity."
Of course being around celebrity has perks of its own.
"It's made it possible to not have to make reservations at a restaurant," he said, "but that too shall pass."
Celebrity divorces and custody battles seem like a nice niche. No reservations needed at restaurants. He gets to use the paparazzi to do his research instead of hiring private investigators (like that no-good Pellicano guy).
His quote seems a little defensive, though. Maybe because there's a good percentage of attorneys who wouldn't want their name followed by "aka K-Fed's attorney."
We spotlighted Kaplan previously as a Lawyer to Layabout Lovers. He also served as counsel to Chris Judd, another back-up dancer turned celebrity husband, in his divorce from Jennifer Lopez.
Interest in horse racing is running high these days. Over the weekend, Big Brown, the Kentucky Derby winner, won the Preakness by a comfortable margin. This gives him the chance to become only the 12th Triple Crown winner in history, when he runs in the Belmont Stakes on June 7.
Thanks to everyone who responded to our call for legally-themed racehorse names -- like Affirmed and Citation, two past Triple Crown winners. The post received 400 comments before we closed the thread. We have reviewed your excellent submissions. Now it's time for the first round of voting.
We'll give you 20 contenders to start, just like the Kentucky Derby. Then we'll hold a runoff between the top ten vote getters.
The poll appears below. For those of you who are interested, the fine print about how we came up with this slate appears after the jump.
Update: And an ATL shout-out to K&L Gates partner John Garda. We hear that he's an owner of "Macho Again," which finished second to Big Brown in the Preakness. Congratulations, Mr. Garda!
Details about how we settled on our twenty race horse names, after the jump.
Twelve Angry Men, move over; now there's someone meatier. A juicy judicial celebrity sighting, from the Las Vegas Sun:
Suspended District Judge Elizabeth Halverson returned to the Regional Justice Center on Friday -- for jury duty.
While waiting for an assignment, Halverson, who can't roll through the courthouse on her motorized scooter without attracting attention, turned quite a few heads, including those of several prosecutors at the district attorney's office, which is on the same floor as the jury service room.
Las Vegas lawyers: If you're hoping to have Halverson on your jury, sorry. Her Honor wound up being assigned to a civil trial that was subsequently postponed, "bringing an abrupt halt to her brief public service on the other side of the bench."
Last week, the California Supreme Court struck down that state's statutory ban on gay / same-sex marriage. The court was closely divided, issuing a 4-3 decision. Six out of the seven justices were appointed by Republican governors, interestingly enough.
Here's a potentially more accurate way to explain the result in the marriage cases than party affiliation. From an observant -- and self-confessed elitist -- tipster:
I found this breakdown amusing:
Law schools of judges in the majority: Stanford, USC, Berkeley (Boalt) / GW (first in her class at both schools), Stanford.
Law schools of dissenting judges: Hastings, USF, Hastings.
Correlation or causation? I'm just sayin'....
Correlation or causation is a fair question. Did the four pro-gay-marriage justices reach a "better" decision because they went to "better" law schools? Or did their attending elite (read: liberal) law schools make these justices more sympathetic to what Justice Antonin Scalia has decried as the "homosexual agenda"? Feel free to opine, in the comments.
P.S. Ah, who cares about where these judges went to law school? Which ones are the hottest -- or, to put it more crudely, more "do-able"? For some thoughts on this subject, see 23/6 (which has evaluated these judicial hotties in a manner reminiscent of Underneath Their Robes).
Thanks to the worsening economy, law firms don't have enough work for the lawyers already on their payrolls. Some firms have decided to save money by having incoming first-year associates start later than originally planned. What's the point of bringing new kids on board, at starting salaries of $160,000 each, if you don't have enough work to give them?
The latest Biglaw shop to push back start dates: K&L Gates. The original firm-wide start date was September 15; the new start date is October 20.
We contacted K&L Gates for comment. The firm's director of recruiting, Roz Pitts, explained that the change was made not for any economic reason, but due to "crazy scheduling." She explained that the firm's partner retreat in Phoenix is taking place in early October, and they didn't want the first-years to start work only to have the entire partnership disappear a few weeks later. She added that the firm stands by all its offers -- i.e., no offers have been rescinded -- and that all incoming associates will be notified of the start date change by today. (Some offices started notifying associates on Friday, which is when we learned of this change.)
But even if K&L Gates were making this change for economic reasons, would there be any shame in that? Other prominent law firms have already announced postponed start dates:
1. Pillsbury Winthrop: start dates pushed back, possibly as far back as January 2009 (the firm told the Wall Street Journal that it "is staggering start dates over several months").
2. Thacher Proffitt & Wood: the start date for non-litigation first-years has been pushed back to October 20.
3. Thelen Reid: start dates for first-year associates pushed back from September 2008 to January 2009.
Do you know of a Biglaw shop that has announced it's pushing back start dates? If so, feel free to drop us a line. Thanks.
P.S. When it comes to start dates, maybe there's no way to please everyone. Back in February, some Sidley Austin associates complained about excessively early start dates.
I previously wrote (here and here) about Oscar Pistorius, the Olympic hopeful who was ruled ineligible to compete in the Beijing Games by the International Association of Athletics Federations ("IAAF") because he uses Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetic legs. With help from Dewey & LeBoeuf (disclosure: my previous employer) as his pro bono counsel, Pistorius recently challenged the IAAF's ruling in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
On Friday, a three-person arbitration panel ruled in Pistorius's favor, finding that Pistorius's prosthetics do not provide him with "an overall net advantage" in violation of IAAF Rule 144.2(e). This opens the door for Pistorius to compete in South Africa's Olympic trials using his prosthetics. The panel reserved the right to change its ruling if new scientific evidence emerges.
With this matter resolved for now, let's take a look at the big winners and losers from the litigation:
Big Winners
Oscar Pistorius: Finally eligible for South Africa's Olympic trials, the Blade Runner is a step closer to competing against the world's finest. In addition, he is also a step closer to earning the kind of endorsement dollars that would make even Dan & Dave envious.
Ossur HF Company: The Iceland-headquartered supplier of the Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetics is gaining all kinds of free publicity. Most of us have now heard of the Cheetah Flex-Foot. Can anybody name a competitor prosthetic? I didn't think so.
Dewey & LeBoeuf: Forget the goodwill that comes with pro bono representation. By winning this case, Dewey & LeBoeuf has expanded its sports-law footprint across the Atlantic Ocean, as well as opened the door to secure new business in international sports arbitration.
Debevoise & Plimpton: Real kudos goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for their gutsy and articulate 18-page decision that does not pull its punches with the IAAF. David W. Rivkin, a partner in the New York and London offices of Debevoise & Plimpton, was one of the three named arbitrators in this dispute. His work could only look good for the firm.
While responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on summer associate programs continue to flow in (add your 2 cents here), let's pause to consider what last year's summer associates are going to experience over the next few months: bar exams (sorry), relocations, and sweet, sweet signing bonuses (or not).
So today, we're updating the table to fill in some more blanks.
The table below now shows six things for each firm:
* which bar exam expenses the firm will reimburse (send us tips to fill in the blanks),
* whether the firm pays new associates a summer stipend or 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,
* whether the firm provides any particular relocation benefits,
* 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, and
* whether the firm will make you pay it all back if you leave. As a general rule, payback requirements will apply to everything but a stub bonus, and will include clerkship bonuses.
And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the aggregated table of bar reimbursements, stipends and bonuses, salary advances, moving expenses, stub bonuses, and payback requirements. Check it out, after the jump.
Now that the wedding season is in full swing, it's time for a poll to crown a Legal Eagle Wedding Watch couple of the month. We have two outstanding entries for April:
* Microsoft proposes a new collaboration with Yahoo. [New York Times; CNN]
* Obama administration would pursue more aggressive antitrust regulation. [Reuters]
(But Sen. Obama maintains a monopoly on 80,000 person rallies. See MSNBC.)
* Judge orders arrest of terror operative in Yemen. [Washington Post]
* Previews of the Obama, McCain, and Clinton Justice Departments. [WSJ
Law Blog]
* National Museum of Crime and Punishment opens in DC. [MSNBC]
* Outside companies allow Facebook users to access their data through other sites -- but Facebook isn't happy about it. [Techcrunch via Washington Post]
Some folks, including Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, think that we've seen the worst of the credit crisis. Let's hope that they're right.
But the business climate is still less-than-fabulous for finance lawyers. Here's another sign of the times: at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, the Global Finance department, a former powerhouse within the firm, has been folded into the Corporate department.
From a tipster at Cadwalader who sent along the announcement:
See below re: CWT's recent departmental merger. This has also affected the way summers will receive offers. In the past, summers received department specific offers. While this will remain true for litigation, tax, and IP, those wishing to pursue a transactional practice will receive a transactional offer. It is unclear at this point whether new transactional associates will then be placed into one pool from which any transactional department can draw or whether there will be a departmental rotation.
If you're interested, the memo appears after the jump.
Several loyal ATL readers (and Bachelorette watchers?) tipped us off to a lawyer being among the 25 bachelors competing on the ABC reality TV show this season.
The eligible bachelor is 30-year-old Texan Jeremy Anderson. ABC cites his profession as "real estate attorney." He's a December 2007 grad of SMU Dedman School of Law.
A first-year Dallas associate (who took the February 2008 bar) was placed on probation by Hunton Williams after asking for a leave of absence to do The Bachelorette. The firm is apparently waiting for the season to air before making a final decision, although they obviously plan to fire him. Who has the gall to ask for a leave of absence during their first year, especially to do a reality TV show? But assuming it's a legitimate reason to request time off, is Hunton's reaction reasonable and fair?
His name is Jeremy Anderson... There's a rumor that he makes it to the final three. His bio was taken off Hunton's website.
When we called Hunton about the layoff rumors in Charlotte, we also asked about Anderson. The only comment we got from their spokesperson was, "On a personal note, I love the show."
We appreciate your sending this along, ATL readers. As one of you predicts, we will "enjoy covering Jeremy . . . and his abs."
Veteran Supreme Court litigator Thomas Goldstein, who founded Goldstein & Howe (and SCOTUSblog) before taking the helm of Akin Gump's Supreme Court practice, has a lot to crow about. He's one of the country's most celebrated appellate advocates, with 18 SCOTUS arguments under his belt.
But he hasn't let success go to his head. Instead, he's prepared this funny, charming, and self-effacing video advertisement. Check it out (via SCOTUSblog):
We wonder if law firms think of our Nationwide Layoff Watch feature like the Eye of Sauron, from Lord of the Rings. If so, "The Eye" has come to rest on Charlotte.
We hear rumors that Hunton & Williams is laying off associates down in CLT. From a tipster:
Hunton & Williams in Charlotte is conducting layoffs, including first-years [from the class of 2007]. The first-years may work until June 30, but then they must leave the office; however, they will have access to email and phone and pay until December 31.
Pay through December 31? Seems odd. It would amount to six months of severance, even though "market-rate" severance in recent law-firm layoffs hovers around three months. Is Hunton raising the bar?
In addition, we hear that two incoming H&W first-years in Charlotte had their offers rescinded. If true, it's not surprising; other firms have previously rescinded offers to CLT associates. See, e.g., Sonnenschein.
Layoff talk centered on Hunton's Charlotte has also surfaced at Infirmation / Greedy South, here and here. Back in January, there were rumors of firings in Atlanta (labor and employment).
We contacted Hunton & Williams. Their comment: "We don't comment on rumors." C'mon, really? What do you comment on, then?
If you have any more information on the H&W situation, please send us an e-mail (with Hunton & Williams in the subject line). Thanks.
Update: No layoffs -- yet -- according to managing partner Walfrido Martinez, who spoke to Am Law Daily. But he acknowledged that the firm is "redeploying" an unspecified number of asset securitization lawyers in Charlotte to other practice areas: "Option number one is always redeployment. If redeployment does not work, we will talk about transition arrangements."
If you're tired of reading about Shinyung Oh, the former Paul Hastings associate who sent a now-famous farewell email, fear not. The story is on its last legs.
We just wanted to tie up a loose end. Earlier this week, we wondered about whether she was still at Paul Hastings. Here's the answer, courtesy of Shinyung Oh herself:
I'm no longer with Paul Hastings. Because I didn't sign the release, my termination was effective as of sometime last week. If I had signed the release, I would have technically stayed on (on an inactive basis) until the end of July.
We wish Shinyung the best of luck in her future endeavors.
We also contacted the firm for comment; they had none. (An aside: Contrary to what some folks apparently think, we welcome hearing from the law firms that we write about. We often reach out to them for comment, especially on sensitive items, but they should also feel free to contact us sua sponte.)
One final thing. In the comments on our various Paul Hastings posts, there was occasionally a "piling on" quality, with lots of commenters lambasting PH (and some attacking Shinyung Oh as well).
But the comments are not necessarily representative of the ATL readership at large. Please take our two quick polls. Feel free to take whatever considerations you want into account when casting your vote (i.e., the polls aren't based solely on the recent controversy).
A 16-year-old girl posted a cry for help on YouTube two weeks ago. She was allegedly drugged and raped by a 23-year-old man. In the video, she does not name the rapist, but instead focuses on her disappointment that the Florida state attorney's office refused to prosecute the case.
CNN picked up on the story this week. Their take is that young people are using social networking sites to talk about sexual assault. From a legal perspective, we think using YouTube as a forum to criticize the justice system is the more interesting aspect. CNN touches on that as well:
But counselors said survivors are going to look wherever they can to find help and comfort, particularly when they don't get it through the court system.
Fewer than 5 percent of reported cases in Florida make it to a prosecutor's office, Dritt said. Whether because of lack of forensic evidence or because many are he said/she said accounts, rape cases can be very difficult to try.
"What you hear from every rape crisis center from Pensacola to Key West is that there are hardly ever any prosecutions," she said. "Most sexual violence is acquaintance rape, and unfortunately, a lot of juries still think that if a victim had a relationship with their attacker, then they cannot be raped by that person."
According to CNN, the case was dropped because the victim and the accused had an ongoing sexual relationship and the prosecutor concluded that their sex was consensual. Jezebel points out that the victim was just 15 at the time, and unable to give consent according to Florida law. We wonder how this will play out for Lawson Lamar, the state attorney for this district.
Today's Job of the Week is a unique opportunity for a senior corporate attorney looking to make partner in New York. Although the market may be slowing down, Lateral Link is successfully assisting hundreds of attorneys with their job searches. All attorneys that Lateral Link places in law firm positions (like the one below) will be entitled to a $10,000 guaranteed signing bonus.
Description: Prominent boutique law firm with prestigious investment banking and hedge fund clients seeks a senior securities associate or counsel to work directly with their large hedge fund and investment bank clients, to provide securities law advice relating to their investments in public securities and secondarily to resale of private securities. This position is not focused on securities offerings but instead involves designing and implementing an entire disclosure regime. This is a partnership-track position for a candidate who shows s/he is capable.
For more information about the requirements for this and other positions, please visit Lateral Link.
Here is a statement we received from Ms. Reifinger (who, for the record, is an incoming law student at Fordham; she hasn't even started there yet):
I would like to send a sincere apology to friends, family, colleagues and members of the Fordham community who have been offended by this poll and would like to confirm that I have officially withdrawn from the contest.
What started as a silly dare has garnered more attention than I ever thought it would. There are no nude photos of myself, online or elsewhere, nor did I ever intend for there to be. I had no expectations of winning in a pool of 25+ contestants, nor did I plan to actually go through with the shoot if I had won. It was purely the thrill of participating in such a contest and trying to get out the last bit of "wild child" in me while I'm still a student, before facing the reality of "becoming a grown-up."
This just happened to be the wake up call I needed to make me realize that I should already be acting like an adult and that, even though I never posed for nude photographs, this sort of behavior is unacceptable.
It was a stupid thing to do and I take full responsibility for it. I can only hope that those close to me whom I have offended will forgive me for my serious lapse in judgment.
Personally we think it's ridiculous that she even feels the need to apologize. Laura Reifinger did nothing wrong by entering herself in the contest. And because she withdrew, she won't end up posing nude in TONY's pages.
But even if she had been photographed in the buff, what would have been wrong with that? Posing naked in a magazine is neither criminal nor unethical (provided it's not kiddie porn). Appearing nude would not have precluded her from being admitted to the New York bar. See, e.g., Regina Usvjat.
So why did Laura Reifinger -- who, as noted, isn't even in law school yet -- feel the need to take herself out of the running in the "Naked Poll"? Is the legal profession so conservative, stuffy and Puritanical that even future lawyers-in-training can't bare their bodies if they please?
Look, people: the world is a changin'. In our nation's largest state, men can now marry men, and women can now marry women. Freedom is the order of the day. So why get your proverbial panties in a wad because a beautiful young woman wants to pose naked in a magazine?
Update: "[O]ur nation's largest state" is a reference to California, which is the largest state by population. What would be the relevance of land area in a sentence focused on the ability of gay people to marry each other? Given such a reference, population is the relevant metric. And are there even gays in Alaska?
* This very easily could have been a Lawsuit of the Day. [Overlawyered]
* And Judith Holtz could very easily have been a Judge of the Day. "Novi jurist regrets telling offender to kill himself." [Detroit News]
* More thoughts on Paul Clement's departure as Solicitor General, from law professor (and former Bristow Fellow) Andy Hessick. [PrawfsBlawg]
* More thoughts on the California Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, from Scott Olin Schmidt (aka the Boi from Troy). [Spot-On]
* Who says Supreme Court clerks are overworked? The late William Rehnquist, during his clerkship for Justice Jackson, had time to write a parody of a Gilbert & Sullivan song. [Concurring Opinions]
Willie Campbell has been sentenced to 35 years for assault with a deadly weapon. What makes this case interesting is that the deadly weapon was his HIV-positive spit.
Campbell was being arrested in May 2006 for public intoxication when he began resisting and kicking inside the patrol car, Dallas police office Dan Waller testified.
"He turns and spits," Waller said. "He hits me in the eye and mouth. Then he told me he has AIDS. I immediately began looking for something to flush my eyes with."
Campbell, who was convicted of harassment of a public servant, has a history of spitting at police officers and biting fellow jail inmates, The Dallas Morning News reported.
We wonder about the science behind finding the spit deadly. The science guys say you can't get HIV from saliva. Oh well, Campbell sounds like a jerk anyway.
Meet Laura Leigh Reifinger, pictured below, a member of the class of 2011 at Fordham Law School (and a bona fide hottie, at least in our opinion). She's currently featured in the pages of Time Out - New York, as part of this contest:
THE HORNY ISSUE Naked Poll (Women)
TONY readers want to strip for you. Read their stories, and vote on whom you want to see in her birthday suit. One winner will appear, in all her glory, in a future issue of our magazine.
Says the (female) tipster who sent this our way: "This girl obviously hasn't heard of ATL. I'm sure she would say she's a feminist. Sigh."
Here she is -- Laura, not the tipster -- for your viewing pleasure. If you want to support her candidacy, click on the image, which will take you to the voting page:
Update (5:15 PM): As a commenter notes, contestant #3, Tonya Canada, is a "word processor at a corporate law firm." So it looks like the legal profession has at least two competitors in this race.
Update (6:39 PM): As another commenter points out, it looks like Laura Leigh Reifinger has been removed from the contest.
Update (5/16/08): For Ms. Reifinger's statement explaining why she withdrew from the contest, click here.
Last summer, a senior associate pulled me aside to tell a joke. The joke involved a young man who, while alive, was mistakenly whisked away to hell. Upon arriving in hell, the man found it warm and sunny. So, he spent the rest of his life trying to get back.
Many years later, the man died. As expected, he was sent back to hell -- this time for real. Upon his return, however, the man found that hell had become scorching hot. The man, now old, was shocked by this change. The devil's explanation: "Before, you had only seen hell's summer associate program."
Summer associates, beware: your law firm careers might not be filled with the same bread and circus as you will enjoy this summer. However, the future also does not have to be hellish. This summer is a great time to seek out work you find interesting. For those of you considering a career in sports law, here are five summer tips to consider:
1. Sports law is not just for jocks. Many summer associates shy away from sports law because they are not athletes. Really, there is no need to do so. Although most big firms have a few stereotypical jocks hovering around sports assignments, the two most accomplished sports attorneys that I have encountered are close to the opposite -- Jeffrey Kessler (Dewey & LeBoeuf) and Shepard Goldfein (Skadden, Arps). As Jeffrey Kessler once told me, the first thing he looks for in a sports attorney is a good litigator that understands antitrust. At the end of the day, being an athlete may help you to enjoy sports, but it is not needed to become a successful sports lawyer.
2. It is not all about the formal assigning process. When done politely, letting partners and senior associates know about your interest in sports makes perfect sense. Although big firms generally have a summer assignment person, this person only knows as much as is conveyed through weekly paperwork. As you will soon learn, many attorneys are bad about completing their paperwork. This means the formal channels are not always the best way to get interesting sports assignments. It is best to talk to people directly and try to build relationships.
3. Sometimes working hard is worth it, even as a summer. Although summer associates rarely need to overachieve to get their offers, getting into a top sports practice group is a tad more competitive. Because sports assignments are rare, try to grab any sports work available -- even if the work does not come at the best time for your social calendar. This shows dedication and commitment, as well as could help get you into the loop to receive future and more opportune sports assignments.
4. Beware of the "bait and switch." Just because you are getting sports work as a summer does not mean you will get the same work when you return. In fact, many firms give summer associates assignment preference over junior associates. Before locking yourself into any firm or practice area, try to talk to junior associates about what work they are really doing, and whether they are reasonably happy. Be especially skeptical of firms that lump sports work together with less desirable areas of practice such as antitrust due diligence and Hart-Scott-Rodino filings. If you are not going to get sports work as a first year associate, at least try to find an opportunity where you can build your litigation skills. A sound litigator can always transition later into sports.
5. Keep an open mind. When choosing a practice area, keep in mind that eventually the glamour of big-name sports clients will subside, and what will be left is the underlying legal practice. If you choose sports law as a career, make sure you actually enjoy antitrust, contracts, labor and IP. If not, you may want to explore another area. It is always easier to explore new areas during the summer than as a first-year associate. According to some, that was the original purpose behind law-firm summer associate programs.
* * * * * Marc Edelman is an attorney, business consultant, published author and professor, whose focus is on the fields of sports business and law. You can read his full bio by clicking here, and you can reach him by email by clicking here.
In five minutes, at 10 AM Pacific time, the California Supreme Court will hand down its ruling on same-sex marriage. We will update this post -- and fill in the blank in the post's title -- once we have the substance of the ruling.
Update: The opinion is here (PDF -- and thanks, commenters, for the link and excerpts). Reversing the appeals court, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. Slip op. at 12:
Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
Slip op. at 120:
[T]he language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and... the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings. The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion....
The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
BIG announcement. A magazine designed for paralegals is launching next month. It's called KNOW -- a strangely generic title. The full name is "KNOW: The Magazine for Paralegals." It's not to be confused with KNOW: The Science Magazine for Curious Kids.
As a former paralegal, I am fairly certain I would not have read this magazine. But I was one of those fresh-faced university grads trying to figure out whether I wanted to go to law school, and was not planning to be a career paralegal gal.
According to the promo, KNOW is an "outside-the-box, informative magazine balancing workstyle and life balance for paralegals." Here are some of the articles planned for the first issue:
Famous TV Stars: What Fans Don't Know About These Former Paralegals
Work Less, Earn More: Can You Ditch the 24/7 Stressful Routine?
The 10 Most Influential Paralegals in the Country
Trends Guaranteed to Change the Paralegal Profession
Diversity's Little Secret: Are Caucasian Paralegals Doing Enough to Support African-American Paralegals?
Paralegals Succeeding Against All the Odds
Navigating a Male-Dominated Industry
In terms of industry niche publications, they've hit all the hot topics in the first issue: celebrities, diversity, and gender. Where do you go from there? We suggest an article ranking paralegal schools.
We're skeptical. But we'll pose the question to our paralegal readers. What do you think? Have you been wondering about how to succeed against all odds? Or whether Caucasian Paralegals are doing enough to support their African-American comrades in arms?
Update: We invite you to suggest article subjects for future issues of KNOW magazine, in the comments. E.g.: "Life beyond Paralegaling: Turning that Senior Partner's 'Stain' into a Multi-Million Dollar Child Support Settlement."
Word about Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe's rather odd commencement address at New York University is spreading rapidly throughout the blogosphere. It's already been picked up by Gawker and Instapundit. Here's an eyewitness account from an NYU alum:
Larry Tribe just gave a seriously weird commencement address at NYU -- especially the end, where he turns an amalgam of cosmologist / 60s love child, and tells all the grads to thank their mom and dad for screwing instead of watching TV, and thereby conceiving them....
Not to be too tough on Tribe, but I think the basic theme of the speech was that he's really, really smart and well read, and knows how to turn creative, even strange, phrases. (I thought we already knew that.)
How did Tribe get picked? Some speculation from our source:
I really think the only reason Tribe was honored, and got to speak, is that he was a key mentor to John Sexton, the president of NYU. Tribe probably recommended Sexton to be the NYU law dean, and then the NYU president, so this looks like payback.
Tribe has accomplished enough to have gotten the degree on his own merits, and I don't begrudge him it, but I'm sure the audience would have loved to have his co-recipient, Michael J. Fox, speak instead of Tribe -- Fox is vastly better known, and liked. On this point, see here.
Posted below is the "thank mom and dad for bonking" clip. A more detailed write-up from our tipster, after the jump.
Liptak's answering questions from readers this week, so the NYTimes has a feature on him:
He first joined The Times as a copyboy in 1984, after graduation from Yale University, where he was an editor of The Yale Daily News Magazine, with a degree in English. In addition to clerical work and fetching coffee, he assisted the reporter M.A. Farber in covering the trial of a libel suit brought by Gen. William Westmoreland against CBS.
Mr. Liptak returned to Yale for a law degree, graduating in 1988. During law school, he worked as a summer clerk in the The New York Times Company's legal department. After graduating, he spent four years at Cahill Gordon & Reindel, a New York City law firm, as a litigation associate specializing in First Amendment matters.
In 1992, he returned to The Times's legal department, spending a decade advising The Times and the company's other newspapers, television stations and new media properties on defamation, privacy, newsgathering and related issues, and he frequently litigated media and commercial cases.
In 2002, Liptak gave into the writing itch and joined the news staff. For those of you aspiring to make the jump from law to journalism, you can draw inspiration from Liptak's interesting career path.
The Times readers have lots of serious questions for Liptak, about the SCOTUS voter id ruling, the death penalty, the question of balance, etc. No gossipy questions about Biglaw vs Bigmedia salaries, or filling Linda Greenhouse's heels. Oh well, there are two days of questions left...
* Former UVA literature major pleads guilty to charges related to her role as chief booker of the Emperors Club VIP -- and is cooperating with the government. Watch out, Eliot. [New York Times]
* SEC charges Broadcom founder and others in stock-options backdating case. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Justice Sandra Day O'Connor talks to Jan Crawford Greenburg about Alzheimer's Disease and its impact on her life and family. [Legalities / ABC News]
Well, if the name is "Wolfgang" and you're in the restaurant business, maybe a lawsuit. Celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck, owner of the famous Spago restaurant in Beverly Hills, is taking legal action against a new neighbor.
Wolfgang Puck is filing a lawsuit, claiming another Wolfgang has screwed him over....
Puck claims a guy named Wolfgang Zwiener opened a rival restaurant, Wolfgang's Steakhouse, just blocks from Spago in Bev Hills. According to the suit, one of the owner's of Wolfgang Steakhouse had a license to use the Spago trademark, but that expired last year.
In L.A., Wolfgang Zwiener may be just "some guy." But in New York, he's an esteemed veteran of the legendary Peter Luger steakhouse (popular for summer associate outings), who has now embarked upon his own restaurant career.
Wolfgang Puck's lawsuit, which seeks injunctive relief, claims trademark infringement and unfair competition. The TMZ.com editors seem unsympathetic:
A frustrated Puck says, "The most common reaction is, 'It says Wolfgang's Steakhouse and you are Wolfgang." We're thinking Mozart might have one up on him. Dude, you make pizzas.
Will the courts be more supportive? If Puck's first name were more common -- say, "John" or "Bill," with the competitor calling itself "John's Steakhouse" or "Bill's Place" -- then his claim might not satisfy the distinctiveness requirement of trademark law. But with a name as unusual as "Wolfgang" -- not as unusual as Omarosa, to be sure, but certainly uncommon -- maybe he has a better shot. "Wolfgang" is not in the top 1000 baby names in the United States (although it does crack the top 3000 in Belgium).
We're not experts in this area, so we'll stop rambling. Any IP lawyers care to weigh in?
* In case you're not tired of the whole "laptops in the classroom" debate, watch Ann Althouse get snarky on Ian Ayres (our former contracts prof -- back in an age when only one or two students in a class would have a laptop, and there was no wireless internet). [Althouse; Freakonomics]
* The MSM reports what we reported last week: Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy is settling. [Legal Week]
* Obama addresses a female reporter as "sweetie." [Blogonaut]
* Says our source: "I don't know what the drink-form of HLS should taste like, but an HK scorpion bowl would certainly be a much better start than this nonsense." [The A.V. Club]
Marc Dann's had a good run on ATL. Last month, he was our Lawyer of the Day. That led to our Party is Over post, when heads started rolling in the Ohio AG office. Yesterday, we bid him Hasta La Vista, when rumors of his resignation hit the press as the Ohio General Assembly threatened impeachment.
Well, now it's really over. Dann has finally resigned as Ohio's AG. Dann the man may not know how to run the AG office, or how to keep it in his pants, or how to choose staff, but he does know how to draw out a resignation for all it's worth.
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Jonathan Adler reports on a possible FBI investigation into Dann's ties to gambling interests. Gosh, we thought his hands were full, conducting an extramarital affair with his scheduler, picking up staff arrested for DUIs, handling office sexual harassment complaints, and tapping state property for personal use.
If you haven't been following Dann's misdeeds, you can catch up with this little ditty, Marc Dann's Party Pad song. It's pretty catchy and includes a shout-out to the "big dogs in Columbus."
This is really political rather than legal news, so we will keep our commentary to a minimum. But it's big news that we thought you'd like to know right away.
Of course, all three of the involved candidates / ex-candidates -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama -- are lawyers. And John Edwards, whose endorsement was coveted by the candidates and assiduously pursued, was a very successful practicing lawyer -- one of the country's top trial lawyers -- and not just a politician with a law degree. So there is a sufficient legal nexus here.
The federal government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, Paul D. Clement, is stepping down as U.S. Solicitor General. The brilliant and affable Clement was confirmed as Solicitor General on June 8, 2005; his last day as SG will be June 2, 2008. (Prior to his confirmation, he served as SG in an acting capacity.)
A superstar of the Justice Department and the Supreme Court bar, Clement was discussed as a possible replacement for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. Widely praised for both his prowess as an appellate advocate and his leadership of the SG's office, Clement was named to the American Lawyer's list of 50 top litigators under 45. He is, of course, a member of the Elect (OT 1993 / Scalia), as well as a graduate of Georgetown and Harvard Law School.
No word yet on where Clement is heading. He practiced previously at Kirkland & Ellis and King & Spalding, so perhaps he will return to one of those shops. The AP reports that Clement "[does] not have any immediate plans other than spending the summer with his children."
Update (11/20/08): Clement is returning to King & Spalding.
Ah, the old "spend more time with my family" rationale, so popular here inside the Beltway. But why is Paul Clement invoking it? He's leaving covered in glory, not scandal.
The official DOJ press release, issued about half an hour ago, after the jump
That's what our colleagues over at Dealbreaker are reporting. But we just checked in with them, and they don't know whether it was an in-house lawyer at JP Morgan Chase or someone at Wachtell Lipton, JPMorgan's outside counsel on the deal. If you have more details, please email us.
P.S. If you're not familiar with what's going on here, read this earlier ATL post and this earlier Dealbreaker post, which supply the necessary background.
Update: A source at our former firm reports that "everyone at WLRK who worked on JPM/BS is still very much 'with the firm.'" This is consistent with the chatter in the comments, to the effect that the lawyer in question works in-house at JPMorgan Chase.
As law school students wrap up the first year and get their grades, a tough decision must be made by a few. If your grades suck are not competitive, should you slog on?
We're not encouraging you to jump ship, but check out this list of famous law-school dropouts. Those who leave law school midstream are not doomed to failure. The list of law-school dropouts includes six presidents, a vice-president, successful businesspeople, some philosophers, and a member of The Doors. Not too shabby.
Renowned economist Greg Mankiw, now a professor at Harvard, talks about his decision to drop out of law school here. He explains: "[W]hile in law school, I decided, rightly or wrongly, that I had more natural ability in econ than law." Some people are just called to other things -- and there's nothing wrong with that.
Professor Paul Caron of TaxProf Blog has a list of schools with the highest and lowest percentage of 1L dropouts. Here's an excerpt:
The highest attrition rates can be found at:
1. Whittier (51.5% 1L attrition, #161 in U.S. News)
2. Touro (37.4%, #171)
3. Golden Gate (36.9%, #174)
4. Western State (32.6%, not ranked)
5. Jones School of Law (32.3%, not ranked)
The lowest attrition rates can be found at:
1. Yale (0.0% 1L attrition; #1 in U.S. News)
2. Stanford (0.0%, #2)
3. Ohio State (0.0%, #32)
4. Arizona (0.0%, #38)
5. Case Western (0.0%, #63)
The less-than-shocking lesson from the rankings: students with low grades at lower-ranked schools tend to seek out other opportunities.
The WSJ Law Blog asked the question after the first semester. But now may be a more logical time to consider it, since a full academic year has passed. If their grades haven't improved, should students stay or should they go? Here's an open thread to discuss.
Washingtonian magazine has a fun little piece on lawyers profiting from congressmen going after one another.
If you're interested in the intersection of law and politics, and we know many of you are, you'll enjoy this story. Here's how it starts:
Of all the angles played by Washington law firms, few can bring as much joy as having clients who aren’t playing with their own money.
Take the battle between two congressmen, John Boehner of Ohio and Jim McDermott of Washington: In a near-decadelong fight over McDermott’s leak of the contents of privileged and illegally taped conversations involving Boehner, the two ran up legal bills of about $1.6 million.
So who ended up covering that seven-figure legal bill? Find out, after the jump.
It's been a while since we last wrote about Kumari Fulbright, the University of Arizona law student accused of kidnapping and torturing her ex-boyfriend. What's up with her? Is she summering at a large law firm?
(Not as far as we know. One recent news report mentions that, after being suspended from UA law school, she moved to Texas.)
Although things have been quiet on the Fulbright front, it appears that negotiations have been taking place behind the scenes. From KTAR.com:
After striking a plea agreement, state prosecutors said they hope a Tucson man will help them convict a former Tucson beauty queen and suspended University of Arizona law student accused of kidnapping, robbery and assault....
[Larry Bruce] Hammond, 40, pleaded guilty Monday in Pima County Superior Court to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class 3 felony that carries a prison sentence of two to 8.75 years.
In agreeing to testify, the Arizona Attorney General's Office is dropping charges of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, armed robbery and another aggravated assault charge against Hammond.
A generous deal, it seems -- and therefore not good news for Kumari. To quote our tipster, "things are looking almost as bad as her mugshot."
Now that the summer associate season is upon is, ATL has been devoting a bit more coverage to summer programs, and the ATL / Lateral Link surveys will do the same.
But does David Lat secretly hate summer? Here's a snippet from one of his recent columns over at the New York Observer:
When you stop and think about it, the summer associate programs at New York's largest corporate law firms are a shockingly inefficient way to recruit talent.
The top firms pay their summers over $3,000 a week--a week!--to enjoy three-hour lunches and surf the Web, and do a little bit of work on the side, but just a little, on the firm's most interesting and sexy matters. Don't forget the cooking lessons, wine tastings, pool parties, a clambake or a cruise--all of it carefully designed to create in these future lawyers a Pavlovian association between Big Law and Big Pleasure.
Cutting back on these perks would seem to be an easy way for firms to save money without causing too much uproar. In fact, firms might earn brownie points with their clients for showing such restraint.
Oh noes! Did the Chuck Norris of Legal Gossip just deliver a roundhouse kick to recruiting tradition?
And he's not alone. Firms like Sonnenschein, Pillsbury, and Thelen Reid have decided to cap their summer programs at ten weeks or, in Thelen Reid's case, eight. And the NLJ has pointed out that some of the biggest firms in Big Law are hiring smaller summer classes. Worse yet, as Lat observes in the Observer:
A few midsize and regional firms, such as Gibbons Del Deo in Newark, have abandoned summer programs altogether in favor of focusing on poaching experienced attorneys from other firms.
Scrooge season has come early to Big Law and Regional Law alike.
But are they right? Should firms focus less on summer programs, and use the funds to hire laterals instead? Or perhaps provide signing bonuses or higher pay?
Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on whether summer programs should be trimmed. Add your two cents -- and decide if that should be next year's summer budget -- after the jump.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:12 AM - By Kashmir Hill
Maryland Associate Judge Bruce Lamdin likes to run his court in the model of a mean-spirited stand-up comedy routine. He has spouted off nasty comments about defendants, judges, and Maryland's Circuit Court. Yesterday, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities sanctioned him [PDF], suspending him for 30 days without pay.
Here are some of Judge Lamdin's comic stylings offending statements from the bench:
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.
(0) Comments
* Back in February, we did a mini-profile of 
What do Cadwalader, Cravath, and Fox News share in common?
Time flies. It's hard to believe, but Above the Law turns two this summer. We started writing for ATL in 
Back in December, we conducted a survey focusing on how busy those of you who work for large law firms were. The 
These aren't the best of times for Biglaw, in case you hadn't noticed. The most recent evidence: staff and lawyer layoffs at 
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).
It's hard pleasing everyone at 
I'm a recent law school graduate who has yet to secure my first job. I'm growing desperate. I've sent out 330 résumés to the Hill, feds, nonprofits, trade associations, campaigns and law firms. I've even applied for bartending and waiting tables, only to be told I'm overqualified. What do I do?
Over the holiday weekend, Adam Liptak had this interesting New York Times 
The D.C. attorney general's office told 10 lawyers and a manager this week that they are being fired to help close a $3 million deficit in the office's fiscal 2009 budget.
From 
Clark County attorneys are quick to call out jurists they believe lack superior legal knowledge.... A staggering 84 percent of respondents questioned how District Judge Elizabeth Halverson exercises the law, far and away the poorest rating of any jurist evaluated. Halverson's retention score of 8 percent was also at the bottom.
Props to our friends over at 
Earlier this month, there was some discussion 
Thanks to the worsening economy, law firms don't have enough work for the lawyers already on their payrolls. Some firms have decided to save money by having incoming first-year associates start later than originally planned. What's the point of bringing new kids on board, at starting salaries of $160,000 each, if you don't have enough work to give them?
Further Update: From the 
Word about Harvard law professor 
* In case you're not tired of the whole "laptops in the classroom" debate, watch Ann Althouse get snarky on Ian Ayres (our former contracts prof -- back in an age when only one or two students in a class would have a laptop, and there was no wireless internet). [
The federal government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, 
That's what our colleagues over at Dealbreaker are 
Maryland Associate Judge