* High-flying financier Jeffrey Epstein, no stranger to these pages, pleads guilty to soliciting prostitution from underage girls. [Dealbreaker]
* Bar exam candidates: stressed out by the big test, but not up for a therapeutic orgy? Watch a documentary about the bar exam experience instead. [Prettier Than Napoleon (Amber Taylor) via Volokh Conspiracy (Ilya Somin)]
* Senators David Vitter and Larry Craig: defenders of marriage. [Supreme Dicta]
* Mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York and Thomas Menino of Boston, founding co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, offer an optimistic take on the Heller decision. [City Room / NYT]
* News you can -- but hopefully will never have to -- use: 11 Things To Know When Arrested. [Attorneys Catalog]
This is a few days old -- but in light of today's tech problems, for which we again apologize, we're having one of those days. So please cut us some slack.
The Florida Bar is investigating whether newly appointed New York Court of Claims Judge O. Peter Sherwood -- the former New York solicitor general -- violated bar rules on the unlicensed practice of law by appearing in a Florida case without registering.
Jeffrey Picker, bar counsel at the Florida Bar, said Thursday that the bar is investigating a complaint made against Sherwood that he failed to register with the bar and pay a filing fee as required for out-of-state attorneys. "The file is confidential, but we can say that we are investigating," he said.
Picker did not say whether the bar was looking into the second part of the complaint, in which Miami attorney J.B. Harris alleges that Sherwood verbally abused his client and refused to reschedule a deposition even though she was recovering from surgery and heavily drugged.
Why reschedule? Depos when the client is all drugged up are the best kind. It might be interesting, when the lawyer conducting the deposition asks the boilerplate "are you under the influence" question, to have the witness answer "hell yeah" for once.
We received roughly 850 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you're afraid of losing your jobs, and things are looking pretty bleak.
Overall, associates are looking much more pessimistic than they were in December, with 28% of associates afraid that they could lose their jobs this year, in contrast to only 10% of associates in December. Summer associates are even more nervous, with roughly 37% afraid that they won't receive a permanent offer.
Are you afraid of losing your job? December 2007 vs. June 2008
December 2007
June 2008
Yes, and I'm afraid for others at my firm, too.
5.19%
16.36%
Yes.
5.12%
10.81%
No, but I'm afraid for others at my firm.
11.34%
17.35%
No.
78.35%
55.48%
Among law students, 18.58% of respondents said they were afraid they wouldn't receive a permanent offer, and another 18.58% said they were concerned for both themselves and others.
See breakdowns of who's nervous by practice area, market, and seniority, after the jump.
We realize that some of you really dislike Bar/Bri bar review class. But posting an online threat to prevent class from going forward seems a bit extreme, don't you think? See email below.
If you're really down about studying for the bar exam, just have a bar review orgy. It's more fun than posting anonymous threats on the internet, and it doesn't inconvenience your fellow students.
P.S. While we're on the subject, who's driving a Ferrari to BarBri in L.A.? Law firm bar stipends can be generous, but not that generous.
************
From: "BAR/BRI of MA"
Date: June 29, 2008 9:33:38 PM EDT
To: "BAR/BRI of MA"
Subject: BAR/BRI BAR Review - Harvard Law School - Urgent Announcement
Dear BAR/BRI Student:
We apologize if you receive this in duplicate or even triplicate.
We're writing to let you know that BAR/BRI classes held at HLS will be cancelled on Monday, June 30. Over the weekend, we learned of a threatening message concerning the LawSchool on an internet site and, while this kind of threat isn't uncommon, we decided it was best to use an abundance of caution and cancel classes for the day while HUPD continues to investigate the matter.
You will receive a follow-up email from your BAR/BRI rep indicating how this class will be made up. At this time, we expect all classes to resume on schedule on Tuesday.
As you might expect, we hear a lot of wild 'n crazy rumors in this line of work. We try to chase down as many as we can, and if we can confirm them, we report out in these pages.
One of the more interesting rumors we received, from multiple sources, was that Howard Rice, the prominent San Francisco -based law firm, was giving its incoming first-year associates two-year deferrals. Talk about a delayed start date!
Two years struck us as a bit insane. Why not just rescind the offers outright, and be done with it?
As is so often the case, however, the game of telephone distorted things a bit. We reached out to the firm for comment. Recruiting partner Jon Hughes explained:
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to address the information you heard about Howard Rice, and to respond to your questions.
Your instinct was correct: we are not deferring start dates for two years, and we are not deferring all of our incoming class. We had eight associates scheduled to start this fall - seven litigation associates and one business associate. We are deferring the start dates for three incoming litigation associates for one year. We will pay them a stipend and work closely with them to find opportunities that will be valuable to their development and their careers here. For example, we are looking for opportunities for these new attorneys to work with one or more of the many national and local public interest organizations with which we have a close relationship.
I think the confusion about the two years may be that one of the three associates has a clerkship for fall 2009 to fall 2010, so in that one instance, that incoming associate will start in fall 2010.
Howard Rice has not taken any other actions with respect to more senior classes of associates (that was one of the questions you asked). [Ed. note: We asked about whether the firm had laid off or offered buyouts to any more senior associates.]
Just a few more words to put this decision in context. Our primary goal in making this decision is to ensure that the very bright, hard working and talented attorneys who join us have an experience in their first year of practice that is challenging and interesting. Counting last fall and this coming fall, we have a disproportionately high number of incoming first-year associates who want to join our litigation practice. One of the reasons we attract the best litigation associate candidates in the country is that we give our them more responsibility earlier in their careers than their peers get at many other firms. We concluded that this decision would help us keep that commitment, to our current junior associates and those will be arriving at the firm this fall and next.
We thank Mr. Hughes for the clarification. Deferring incoming first years for a year is obviously not ideal (and it's one of the most delayed start dates we're aware of; prior coverage of start date changes is collected below). But it's a far cry from a two-year "deferral," which is laughable.
Are you aware of a major (i.e., Am Law 200) law firm that is pushing back its start dates for first-year associates? If the news hasn't been mentioned here before, feel free to drop us a line. Thanks.
The New York Times had a piece last week about college graduates being seduced by the large salaries offered by investment banks and consulting companies (Big Paycheck or Service? Students Are Put to Test). The theme of the article is that the best and the brightest are choosing McKinsey over PeaceCorps. Lawyers certainly face a similar seductress in the form of Biglaw.
There were a slew of letters written in response to the piece, including one from New York Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman. Goodman is no stranger to ATL's pages. She wrote to us last year about the need to up the ante for state judges. Though there's finally been a move to increase New York judges' salaries, Goodman is not a happy camper. She writes to the NYTimes:
To the Editor:
After a career in public service, I regretfully say, I would not do it again.
Philosophy and point of view led me to doing good instead of doing well, so I never expected to become rich. But now that I'm in my 10th year of a frozen judicial salary -- less than summer students are being paid at law firms -- I have concluded that whatever I may have accomplished for the public, I have wasted 25 years of my life by serving on the bench.
Emily Jane Goodman
New York, June 23, 2008
Congratulations, Biglaw associates. At the end of the day, it really is all about the Benjamins.
A commenter recently noted that "[t]he LEWW posts are marked with a logo to make it easy to avoid them." Ouch! In fairness, we note that the same commenter also called us "one [of] the best, funniest, most well-written features on ATL" (thanks!). Whether the sight of the LEWW logo makes your heart sing or sink, the please note that the logo has changed to something a bit more festive.
In other business, we certainly made the right call when we decided to include an extra couple in May's Couple of the Month poll! The "write-in" candidates were your favorites by far, running away with over 60 percent of the vote.
We caught up on our wedding-watching backlog this weekend, so stay tuned, LEWW lovers. There's more coming this week, and it includes some of our readers' favorite acronyms.
* A look back on the Supreme Court Term just ended. (Also: Is this Linda Greenhouse's swan song?) [New York Times]
Update: No, it's not. Greenhouse informed us by email that she'll be at the Times until July 18 and will be writing a few more pieces between now and then.
* "Mini Me" has a sex tape, and he's suing TMZ for using it to "titillate readers." [Courthouse News Service]
* Biglaw associate/experimental filmmaker Brian Frye can add SCOTUS citation to his resume. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Aitzaz Ahsan, President of Pakistan's Supreme Court Bar Association and "Lawyers' Movement" leader, will be in New York next week. Have breakfast with him and be inspired. [New York City Bar]
* Anthrax probe ultimately yields nothing but a big government payout. [BLT]
We can't make Ted Frank, of AEI and Overlawyered, our Lawyer of the Day. First, we just bestowed that prize on George Bush. Second, since he's a former ATL guest blogger -- see his celebrated posts on the Obama tax plan (here and here) -- there might be a conflict of interest.
Third, ATL Lawyers of the Day usually do stupid s**t embarrass themselves, while Frank is doing some good. As reported earlier this week, by Jonathan Glater in the New York Times, Frank is objecting to the highly dubious Grand Theft Auto class action settlement. In recognition of his efforts, we'd like to name Ted Frank our Honorary Lawyer of the Day.
Earlier this week, Ted trekked up to New York for the fairness hearing before Judge Kram. We caught up with Ted the other day. He described for us his mishap-laden trip to the courthouse:
The hearing is scheduled for 10:30. I decide to time myself to arrive at 9:30. Good thing, too: the 6 train sits at Bleecker for 5 minutes, and then at Canal for 10 minutes (during which time I read the entire NY Times Business section twice, especially pages 1 and 4) before they tell us to switch trains. I mistakenly switch to the J rather than simply going above ground and walking from Canal Street, and then try to find my way to the courthouse from the Chambers Street stop.
Ok, I know I'm going to 500 Pearl. I'm on Centre Street, going North, I see the big marble facade of the US Courthouse, on the corner of Centre and Pearl, so I assume I'm going there. I absent-mindedly walk past some construction as I think about my argument, and go up the steps of the first courthouse I get to. Long delay through security, and then there are no signs anywhere. I ask a guard where Judge Shirley Wohl Kram's chambers are. He says there's no such person there. I say yes there is. No there isn't. Of course there is, I impatiently respond, I have a noticed hearing at 500 Pearl in front of Judge Shirley Wohl Kram. The guard, with pure New York sarcasm dripping from his voice, happily informs me that thank-you-very-much I'm in the middle of the state courthouse at 60 Centre Street. D'oh!
I run back outside, and cross the street to where the construction is. I circle the building, but don't see an entrance not blocked off. I ask another guard. The U.S. Courthouse is not in the building labeled U.S. Courthouse, but is further down Pearl Street, I am told. I make it through security, and even make it to the right floor on my second try reading the directory. Fortunately, I wasn't confused when Judge Kram's courtroom had a big sign on the outside saying "Judge Leonard B. Sand," and I safely entered at 10:10.
This is why law firm partners need associates.
Thankfully, the hearing went better than Ted's trip did. Check out his firsthand account over the fairness hearing at Overlawyered. The upshot: Judge Shirley Wohl Kram has taken the matter under advisement.
We wish Ted luck. We'll keep you posted on the progress of his challenge.
No, not that George Bush (although when George W. Bush was young and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible). Meet George deVallon Bush, a prominent criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia. From the Augusta Chronicle:
[George Bush] was taken into custody at a Broad Street bar as the result of an ongoing investigation, Sheriff Ronnie Strength said Monday night.
He is charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, according to jail records. Sheriff Strength said the arrest was part of a two-week investigation by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency and Richmond County sheriff's narcotics agents.
"Mr. Bush was arrested without incident about 5 p.m. at Ballroom Billiards, 978 Broad Street, with a half-ounce of cocaine in his pocket," Sheriff Strength said.
"That's a little more than typically used for personal use," said Richmond County sheriff's Sgt. Greg Meagher.
Sergeant Meagher, you're talking about an attorney, dammit. Please revise your blow consumption estimate upward.
Mr. Bush is a graduate of Vanderbilt University and the University of Georgia. He opened his Fourth Street law practice in 1994.
In November 2000, Mr. Bush was featured in Mademoiselle magazine in a beef-cake style election spoof about the Republican presidential candidate who shares his name.
And now perhaps they share more than just a name. Congratulations, Mr. Bush -- you're our Lawyer of the Day.
We suspect that law school deans will bitch about the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings no matter what. But it's still interesting, and perhaps encouraging, to learn that the magazine is contemplating some tweaks to its ranking methodology. From rankings czar Robert Morse:
The first idea is that U.S. News should count both full-time and part-time entering student admission data for median LSAT scores and median undergraduate grade-point averages in calculating the school's ranking. U.S. News's current law school ranking methodology counts only full-time entering student data. Many people have told us that some law schools operate part-time J.D. programs for the purpose of enrolling students who have far lower LSAT and undergrad GPAs than the students admitted to the full-time program in order to boost their admission data reported to U.S. News and the ABA. In other words, many contend that these aren't truly separate part-time programs but merely a vehicle to raise a law school's LSAT and undergrad GPA for its U.S. News ranking....
Another idea was proposed in the 1998 report "The Validity of the U.S. News and World Report Rankings of ABA Law Schools" commissioned by the Association of American Law Schools. The proposal calls for U.S. News to compute our bar passage rate component (school's bar pass rate/jurisdiction's bar passage rate) using only the data of first-time takers who are graduates of American Bar Association-accredited schools. Currently, our "jurisdiction's bar passage rate" uses the rate of all first-time test takers from a state regardless of the ABA accreditation of their law schools. This distinction is perhaps most meaningful for the state of California, which has a large number of non-ABA-accredited schools....
So, folks, whaddya think? To kick off the discussion, check out Professor Christine Hurt's views -- she seems critical of proposed change #1 -- over at Conglomerate.
As noticed by some of you in the comments, the other day we made a brief radio appearance on the Brian Lehrer Show (WNYC), to chat about the DOJ Honors Program hiring scandal. Our participation in the segment is brief (and mercifully so, since we could have been better prepared; it was on fairly short notice).
Most of the questions were fielded by Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times, who has done some excellent reporting on the controversy. It's an interesting interview. To access it, click here.
We recently discovered that the folks over at Lateral Link are giving away free coffee. Anyone who registers with Lateral Link before the end of the month -- that's Monday -- will get a free Starbucks gift card. The catch is that you have to register through a special, super-secret link. (Hint: it is www.laterallink.com/java.)
Now here's the Job of the Week -- which, conveniently, is also free from Lateral Link:
Position: Mid-level Corporate Associate
Location: Chicago
Description: Although the lateral market in Chicago has been slow of late, this top Chicago-based firm is growing and is actively seeking a mid-level associate with general corporate experience, including M&A, securities and private equity experience. In addition to any bonus paid by the firm, this position qualifies for Lateral Link's standard $10,000 signing bonus.
For more information about this position or to apply, please see Position 9277 on Lateral Link. Current members can also contact their personal search consultant directly to discuss this position. Membership in Lateral Link is free and you can apply at www.laterallink.com.
Last week, the National Hockey League filed a counterclaim in the Southern District of New York, seeking permission to sanction Madison Square Garden, L.P. ("MSG") -- the parent company of the New York Rangers -- for violating the NHL Constitution by failing to follow league rules, including a rule against suing the league. According to an MSG spokesperson, the NHL's counterclaims are just "bullying tactics," intended to intimidate Rangers ownership into dropping its original lawsuit.
As some of you may remember, back on September 28, 2007, MSG -- through its attorneys, Jones Day -- filed a 35-page antitrust complaint, arguing that the NHL had acted anti-competitively by voting to implement a New Media Policy that required all teams to turn over control of their independent websites to the NHL. MSG contended that it uses the Rangers website "as a competitive tool to generate and maintain fan interest in the Rangers in competition with other NHL teams," and that by seeking to control competition in Internet and new media markets, "the NHL has become an illegal cartel."
Ironically, MSG has not sued the NBA, which for years has enforced a nearly identical policy. (Note: MSG also owns the NBA's New York Knickerbockers.)
MSG's antitrust lawsuit has already led to its share of rulings in favor of the NHL. First, on November 2, 2007, Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.; the same judge from Cleary Gottlieb fame) rejected the Rangers' motion for a preliminary injunction against the NHL, finding that under antitrust law's Rule of Reason, "it is far from obvious that [the New Media Policy] has no redeeming value." On March 19, the Second Circuit affirmed her ruling. The Rangers have now proceeded toward a full trial on the merits.
This is not the first time that a professional sports club has sued a league under antitrust law for purportedly encroaching on club-based property rights. In the mid-1990s, the Dallas Cowboys, New York Yankees, and Chicago Bulls each brought separate antitrust lawsuits against their respective leagues for attempting to reallocate property rights. The Cowboys and Yankees claims involved the use of club trademarks for sponsorship purposes. Meanwhile, the Bulls' suit involved an attempt to limit the club's television broadcast rights. Ultimately all three cases settled out of court, although the Seventh Circuit first issued several rulings in the Bulls case. In none of these cases did the league then seek to punish the plaintiff club.
Here, the NHL is seeking the court's permission to vote on at least the following three sanctions: (1) fining Rangers ownership; (2) requiring MSG to sell the Rangers; and (3) terminating altogether the Rangers franchise. Although these remedies are purportedly each allowed by the NHL Constitution with a three-fourths vote of approval, actually enforcing the two latter sanctions would cross into nearly uncharted territory.
So, what are the NHL's chances of being allowed to impose these sanctions?
Long Island has been riveted by the case of a well-to-do couple convicted late last year of forced labor, harboring aliens, and peonage (yes, peonage). We briefly mentioned the story here (last item).
The wife, Varsha Sabhnani, 46, was sentenced yesterday. From the AP:
A millionaire who inflicted years of abuse on two Indonesian housekeepers held as virtual slaves in her Long Island mansion was sentenced Thursday to 11 years in prison....
The victims testified that they were beaten with brooms and umbrellas, slashed with knives, and forced to climb stairs and take freezing showers as punishment. One victim was forced to eat dozens of chili peppers and then was forced to eat her own vomit when she couldn't keep the peppers down, prosecutors said.
U.S. District Judge Arthur Spatt called the testimony "eye-opening, to say the least -- that things like that go on in our country."
Absolutely horrific offense conduct. What kind of mitigation case did Mrs. Sabhnani put on?
Defense attorney Jeffrey Hoffman said that 175 letters were submitted to the court detailing Sabhnani's charitable acts around the world. He called her "a woman who spent a lifetime doing good deeds."
Like beating the help with brooms and making them slurp up their own puke. A veritable Mother Teresa.
Hoffman said that around 2004 or 2005, Sabhnani's weight plummeted from 325 pounds to 135. "She did it by starving herself," and that resulted in a chemical imbalance and significant malnourishment. "She had become a very different person."
Look, everyone gets a little grumpy when they're dieting. But this may be a bit of a stretch.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Kelly MacEachern is no longer listed among the judges on the court's website, but you can still Google her bio. We suspect that only in California would a judge list "rollerblading" as her number one interest.
MacEachern was removed from office yesterday for filing "false and misleading expense claims for a legal conference in San Diego," then lying about it when she got caught. Oh, the tangled webs we weave.
The conference didn't get off to a good start for her. From the L.A. Times:
[MacEachern] tried to enroll in two classes -- "Excellence in Judging" and "Statements of Decision" -- during the weeklong San Diego conference, according to the commission.
About a week later, she was informed that she was denied entry into the "Excellence in Judging" course, held Monday through Wednesday, because she lacked the required experience of eight years or more on the bench.
Denied entry into "Excellence in Judging?" How odd.
She was, however, accepted into the one-day "Statements of Decision" class and was told the state would directly pay the Hyatt Regency for one night's stay, up to $110.
MacEachern decided to stay at the hotel for a week anyway, and included the three "unauthorized nights" in her reimbursement request. Perhaps she needed the time to rollerblade in San Diego.
In a series of e-mails with the court's travel coordinator, Rick Valadez, MacEachern reported that when she arrived at the conference, "there was a mix-up with my registration," so she "just sat in on the Judicial Excellence class on Monday." She also said she sat in on a domestic violence class Thursday.
MacEachern, confronted by Orange County Superior Court Presiding Judge Nancy Stock after an investigation by her office, conceded that she had not attended either of the classes and that her e-mail to Valadez was misleading, according to the commission. She then withdrew her claim.
"Mix-up" is a great catchall phrase that usually allows for back-pedaling. Unfortunately, it's hard to back-pedal out of trying to bill the state for your personal vacation. Oh well, more time for rollerblading!
* As a result of yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court in Heller, expect more gunfights and duels -- in lower courts and in legislatures. [New York Times; Washington Post]
* What, there were cases other than Heller decided yesterday? In other news, the Court struck down the so-called "millionaire's amendment" to McCain-Feingold. [New York Times]
* A statistical round-up of the SCOTUS Term just ended. [SCOTUSblog]
* Speaking of campaign finance, the Obamas, and some of their advisers and top fundraisers, have "maxed out" to the Clinton campaign. [CNN]
* I wish they all could be California.... air regulators. [Washington Post]
* Celanese sues Kaye Scholer for malpractice. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Gun enthusiasts are cheering the SCOTUS decision striking down the D.C. handgun ban. Indeed, it was a "call to arms" for the Illinois State Rifle Association-- they filed a suit challenging Chicago's handgun ban just 15 minutes after SCOTUS ruled. [CBS2Chicago]
If you're a full-fledged lawyer, your summer schedule probably doesn't change much from the rest of the year. But for law students, summer is a chance to get away from all our fellow type-A classmates and do something different, potentially more fun, and preferably not in the food service industry.
Some SEN cohorts are using their summers to spend time abroad, doing programs in Switzerland, Australia and the Philippines. But the two classmates inspiring the most jealousy this summer include one who is working at the Pentagon and got to meet Justice Alito, and another who is working for a movie studio and got to eat lunch next to George Clooney. Hmm, what if you had to choose between Alito and Clooney? It'd probably come down to your political leanings and other, um, preferences.
We know you guys probably got to travel to exotic places or meet judicial superstars during your summer jobs. Spill the details about your best law school summer experiences in the comments.
With the Dow Jones hitting new lows and many a company struggling to keep stock prices up, corporate types are challenged to get their businesses back in good shape.
Some do this by firing replacing those at the top. Some do it by streamlining (e.g. layoffs) and cutting back on expenses. Some do it by threatening the lives of executive officers and their families if they don't keep quiet about the company's troubled finances...
Well, at least one Canadian board chairman chose that last questionable tactic. From Courthouse News:
"Beginning in or around June or July 2007, and contrary to the corporation's public reporting, Garda World Security Corporation was apparently experiencing serious financial problems. The operating results with respect to the corporation's cash logistics business were apparently so at variance with its public reporting that defendant Stephan Cretier, the Chairman of the Board of Garda World Security Corporation and its largest individual shareholder, threatened Richard Irvin and other top executives of the company at a meeting in late November 2007, that if any of them leaked the true facts, he would use the corporation's security operatives to investigate the leak and would kill any executive and the family of any executive found responsible for the leak," the complaint states.
"As a result of this death threat, plaintiffs Richard R. Irvin and his wife ... have lived in fear for their safety and the safety of their family, and seek compensatory, emotional distress and punitive damages incurred as a result of this threat."
Unlike the crazy, homeless man in Tampa who will be facing jail time for threatening the President, it sounds like Cretier had seriously thought out his chilling death threat. We're more media than business types at ATL, but we think death threats aren't the best tool to use in negotiations.
According to Cretier's bio, he's a very successful entrepreneur: "Being a true visionary, he takes risks, seizes opportunities within the security field and motivates the people around him to outdo themselves." ...Or he'll have them killed?
Here in Washington, DC, there's a non-governmental organization on every street corner. So it should come as no surprise that our latest Career Alternatives post focuses on working for an NGO.
Several tipsters suggested the NGO career path as an appealing alternative to BIglaw life. Here's what one had to say:
Many staff, particularly executive directors, of international development/human rights NGOs are attorneys. In many instances, having a law degree now seems to be a prerequisite for success in this field.
While other degrees may lend themselves more obviously to certain types of NGO work -- e.g., master's degrees in international relations or public policy -- a law degree also confers a significant amount of credibility, according to a second source:
If you're looking for alternatives to practicing law, working with an NGO is a good alternative for lawyers (or bar failers who want to market themselves as having decided not to practice). It helps if you have previous experience in the field you want to work in, but a JD generally can be marketed as giving you experience in legal or policy analysis.
Interested in learning more? Additional detail, after the jump.
A friend who's working for the summer at the AG's office in Montgomery, AL, had the chance to work on a case in which the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed Circuit Court Judge Stuart DuBose from the bench. From the Alabama Press-Register:
DuBose, 51, faced 60 ethics charges, stemming from a series of incidents in which the judge verbally abused attorneys and subordinates, attempted to influence fellow judges in matters of personal benefit and made statements that put his impartiality into question.
Sixty charges! And that description understates the insanity of this ex-judge's behavior. More on the alleged antics of this bizarre former jurist, after the jump.
Last summer, we wrote about the stinging benchslap that Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.; pictured), the highly regarded Manhattan trial judge, administered to Cleary Gottlieb, the highly regarded Manhattan law firm. Judge Preska sanctioned the firm for what she viewed as the improper attempt by one partner to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition. At the time, Cleary announced its intent to appeal.
It was a matter of honor that brought Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday morning. Several lawyers from the firm, led by managing partner Mark Walker, were present in the ceremonial courtroom of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse.
A matter of honor. Will there be a duel? Guns all around, says SCOTUS.
Well, maybe not a literal duel. But Cleary's counsel, the distinguished Roy Reardon of Simpson Thacher, did mix it up with opposing counsel, Kevin Reed of Quinn Emanuel. As did the Second Circuit panel:
The 2nd Circuit judges asked [Reed] whether Kensington had been unreasonable in insisting that the deposition be held on Feb. 4 in Washington when a Paris deposition seemed a reasonable compromise.
"Everything would grind to a halt if lawyers couldn't accommodate each other," said Judge Miner.
"Everything would grind to a halt if everyone resorted to self-help as Cleary did here," Reed replied. He later added: "You don't go to the witness and say the sort of things [Cleary partner Jean-Pierre] Vignaud said, which can only have the effect of intimidating a witness and shaping his testimony."
So the alleged attempt by Cleary to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition arose out of a familiar dispute over depo location. Perhaps the parties should have taken a page from Judge James Nowlin's playbook, and taken it to midfield. Anyone up for a depo on a north Atlantic cruise ship?
Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:36 AM - By Kashmir Hill
Homeless people on the East Coast seem to follow a migration pattern similar to that of birds. Florida in the winter, and D.C. and New York in the spring and summertime. (Washington is especially welcoming of the homeless, especially if they're running for president.)
Speaking of the homeless and the presidency, "mentally ill homeless" Timothy Wade Pinkston was still in Florida last August -- which is crazy in itself -- when he issued threats against President Bush. Despite his bipolar disorder and a substance abuse problem, he was taken seriously.
Now he's headed to federal prison for five years. From Breitbart (sh, don't tell the AP):
Timothy Wade Pinkston threatened in August to go to Washington and shoot Bush. At the time, the 48-year-old was committed to a hospital psychiatric unit.
Court records say he repeated the threat to Secret Service agents, saying he didn't like the president's foreign policy or his handling of the war in Iraq.
Pinkston told a federal judge in Tampa on Wednesday that he is HIV-positive and bipolar and has a substance abuse problem. He said he'd been taking drugs and drinking when he made the threat and didn't know what he was saying.
After a few drinks, we've been known to do things that were not knowing and willful. But we're wise enough not to do so when the Secret Service is around.
On the upside, Pinkston will no longer be homeless.
Update: The Court released its opinion in Heller, and it upheld the lower court's ruling that the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, with Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg dissenting. You can read the full opinion here. For excellent, ongoing analysis, see SCOTUSblog.
As you probably know, today is a big day for SCOTUS-watchers. The Court is expected to issue its three final rulings for this term today. The Justices won't return until October 6th.
Of today's three decisions, the most significant is District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. gun control case. The constitutionality of the District's 32-year old law banning the ownership of handguns is being challenged. The Court will decide whether to affirm a 2007 appeals court ruling that overturned D.C.'s ban on Second Amendment grounds and, by implication, whether such bans violate the Second Amendment's right "to keep and bear arms" by keeping individuals, as opposed to state militias, from owning handguns. The opinion should be released at any minute.
Here's the AP's sparse background summary of the case, and here's CNN's more thorough discussion. If, however, you want minute-by-minute coverage, SCOTUSblog has a running feed set up so you won't miss a thing.
* Who saw an episode of Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" and didn't anticipate a lawsuit? [CNN]
* SCOTUS may heart child rapists, but Obama wants you to know that he doesn't. Not anymore, at least. [New York Times Politics Blog]
* A decision in the D.C. gun control case, Heller, is expected today. [Washington Post]
* Democrats in the Senate failed to get enough votes to filibuster a bill that would protect telecommunication companies from lawsuits over the warrantless-wiretapping program. [CNN]
Today, barring some unforeseen development, the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down its decision in the D.C. gun control case, District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller is truly a blockbuster case, and the ruling -- the Court's first major pronouncement on the Second Amendment in 68 years (or arguably ever) -- is one of the most eagerly anticipated of the entire Term.
When Heller was argued back in March, numerous people camped out overnight to secure seats in the courtroom for the historic proceedings. As you may recall, we took an ATL Field Trip to visit them (see here and here). We now revisit that day, in advance of the opinion hand-down later this morning, and pass along some photos we took of the Heller campers (and neglected to share before).
The mood among the crowd in front of One First Street was festive. The group included law students and recent alumni from Harvard, Duke, Georgetown, and GW law schools. The first seven people in line had camped out the night before our visit, meaning that they wound up sleeping in front of the Court for two consecutive nights to snag their coveted seats. There were also numerous members of the media present (e.g., a Swiss TV crew).
We took an informal survey of the first 20 campers, to find out their views on the case. Fifteen of the 20 supported Heller and an individual right to bear arms (although their views differed somewhat on what might constitute reasonable regulation). Four were in favor of the D.C. gun ban in its current form. One described himself as a "swing vote," a la Justice Kennedy.
We also took some photographs. The picture appearing at the top of this post is of Richard Hohensee, previously introduced to ATL readers here. You can see the rest of the pics, which together constitute a photo essay of sorts about the Heller case, by clicking here (or on the Picasa web album link below).
* An excellent online chat with Tom Goldstein, of Akin Gump / SCOTUSblog fame, about today's rulings. Thanks for the shout-out, Tom! (Scroll down to the query posed by "Blogs.") [Washington Post]
* Is calling a judge an "evil unfair witch" who is "seemingly mentally ill," in comments posted to a blog, protected speech under the First Amendment? We certainly hope so. [JAABlog]
* Guys at my high school got jailed for 48 hours all the time, it was no big deal. [National Law Journal]
* Lawyer reprimanded for conduct "so ignoble as to bring the legal profession in disrepute." [Sack Bagley]
* The New York Sun editorial board defends the free-spirited Chief Judge Kozinski. [New York Sun]
Summer associates, hopefully this thread has no relevance for you. But for everyone else out there, here's a question for your consideration: What should you wear to work on the weekend?
That's the subject of discussion over at Corporette:
It's the Aughts, and Blackberries and the Internet mean most work can be done from home. Still, there are times when there's just no way around it and you've got to go in. This presents a special challenge: you want to look cute, cool, hip -- but you've also got to look professional. If the hours are long you're going to want to be extremely comfortable. Odds are good the air conditioning will be at full blast, so you also want to be warm.
We've found a bunch of great jackets that have a structured look to them, yet they're made of fleece, jersey, and other fun fabrics -- they're almost as comfortable as your old reliable sweats. With a nice (non-ripped) pair of jeans, and a cute pair of closed-toe shoes (or even nice sneakers) these can maintain your dignity, broadcast your cool, and protect your comfort.
To see the super-cute ensembles they've assembled, click here.
Alas, the Corporette outfits are just for ladies (and maybe Divljan Shatterhand Steele). What about for men?
Our view would be that "extra-casual" business casual would be acceptable if you have to go into the office on a summer weekend. For example, you can probably get away with khakis or cotton trousers -- even if normally business casual means dress pants or wool slacks -- and a polo shirt. Just err on the side of a shirt with a collar.
We wouldn't recommend ripped jeans and a t-shirt. You never know what workaholic partner might be prowling the halls on a Sunday afternoon. Rodge Cohen, holla.
But that's just our view -- and maybe we're out of touch, since we've been working from home for the past few years. Feel free to agree or disagree, in the comments.
Update (4:55 PM): Kids these days. They have sexually explicit IM chats on public computers. They enjoy wrastlin' with the partners. And based on the comments thus far, they wear whatever the heck they want when they go into work on the weekend.
Television jurist Judith Sheindlin, aka "Judge Judy," is one tough customer. No matter what you do, don't pee on her leg and tell her it's raining.
But it seems that there's a real-life "Judge Judy" who may be similarly difficult. From the ABA Journal:
A Seattle-area judge has been accused of routinely interrupting litigants and lawyers and addressing them in a manner that is "angry, disdainful, condescending and/or demeaning."
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct claims in a statement of charges (PDF) that Judge Judith Eiler treated lawyers and self-represented litigants in a way that is "rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating," the Tacoma News Tribune reports.
Eiler underwent behavior therapy with an emphasis on sensitivity training after she received a reprimand in 2005 for impatient and rude behavior, the story says.
It seems that Her Honor may be something of a rudeness recidivist. Is this proof that "sensitivity training" is just a big old waste of time? Or is Judge Eiler just auditioning for a TV judge gig of her own?
P.S. Compliments to the crew at Wired on their photoshop skills, which you can see by comparing the two photos at right.
An observant tipster directed our attention to a fascinating excerpt from the Inspector General's report (PDF) about the politicization of hiring at the Justice Department's Honors Program. From page 59:
The Civil Rights Division had 24 of its 52 candidates deselected, and appealed 1. That candidate was a student at Harvard Law School with an A- grade average, had interned at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of California, and was strongly recommended by an attorney in the front office of the Civil Rights Division who knew him.
Rena Comisac, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, told us that after the appeal was submitted, [Michael] Elston informed her that the Screening Committee had found an article on the Internet in which the candidate was quoted as expressing regret that he had not participated in the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle. According to Comisac, Elston said that if the candidate wanted to participate in the Seattle WTO protests, which in Elston's opinion were close to a riot, then the candidate would not hesitate to chain himself to the front steps of the Department if he did not like the way something was being done. Comisac told us that it was clear to her that "any additional appeals would not be productive" and that she decided not to pursue the matter further."
Now we wonder who that might be. A Harvard Law School student with an impressive academic record, who has ties to the Sacramento area (E.D. Cal.), and who has publicly expressed regret about missing the 1999 WTO protests....
This week brings more law firm merger news. These two deals are hardly earth-shattering, but they are noteworthy (and coincidentally both involve firms with "Sanders" somewhere in their name -- the Colonel would be proud).
One of them may create a new Am Law 100 firm, as noted today by the American Lawyer:
The recently merged Husch Blackwell Sanders has merged once again, this time with Chicago-based intellectual property litigation boutique Welsh & Katz, the firms announced Monday. If ranked today, the combined firm, now called Husch Blackwell Sanders Welsh & Katz, would place 88th on The American Lawyer's Am Law 100 list, according to their combined gross revenues.
Firm co-chair David Fenley says the gross revenue will "be a smidgen beyond $300 million" in 2008, which, if ranked today, would place it above Pepper Hamilton's current $297 million, the firm with the 88th-highest revenue in 2007, and below Littler Mendelson's $305 million, which placed 87th.
The shops sound well-matched:
Both their personalities and the firm cultures meshed, adds [managing partner A. Sidney] Katz. For one, neither firm maintains any debt. And both firms focus on attorneys' quality of life above profitability, he explains. Further, profits per partner at both firms are in the $600,000 to $700,000 range and Husch agreed to take on all of Welsh's 14 equity principals (the firm is organized as a corporation) as equity partners.
Ah, the elusive "quality of life." Our second featured merger, combining Troutman Sanders (Am Law #75) and Ross Dixon & Bell, led one tipster to express concern on that front:
It just seems a little alarming that all the mid-size and smaller firms are getting gobbled up. Makes me wonder if it's even possible to have a smaller "quality of life" firm (which is how Ross Dixon billed itself when it spun off from Hogan). (See also Kelley Drye buying out Collier Shannon Scott in DC).
From this morning's press release announcing the deal:
The law firms of Troutman Sanders LLP and Ross, Dixon & Bell, LLP announced today they will merge, creating a 750-attorney firm with national and international reach and unparalleled depth.
The merger, approved by the partnerships at both firms and effective Jan. 1, 2009, combines Troutman Sanders' multi-faceted corporate, finance, litigation, real estate and public policy practices with Ross, Dixon & Bell's exceptional insurance, professional liability and commercial litigation practices, among other synergies.... The merged firm will be named Troutman Sanders LLP and will remain headquartered in Atlanta. It will have about 1,700 employees.
More opinions on the Troutman Sanders / Ross Dixon combination, plus links to articles and press releases, below the fold.
Back in February, we found that about 13% of associates would like to go in-house "as soon as possible," and another 38% hoped to do it "eventually."
Hours were, by far, the most cited reason for associates to go in-house:
• Over 82% percent of associates viewed the lack of billable hours as a tempting aspect of in-house life.
• Better hours and better quality of life were also each cited by almost 80% of associates.
• Almost a third of associates liked the idea of "being part of the company", and about a quarter thought that the ability to work with just one client was appealing.
• Only twelve percent of associates thought that in-house work would be more interesting, and less than nine percent expected better pay.
With transactional work continuing to slow down, today's ATL / Lateral Link survey asks whether things have changed.
Are you more eager to go in-house today, or do you think that the cat picture to the right pretty much sums it up?
(7) Comments
We realize that some of you 
A 
Congratulations to 
* A look back on the Supreme Court Term just ended. (Also: Is this Linda Greenhouse's swan song?) [
Last summer, we 
Well, maybe not a literal duel. But Cleary's counsel, the distinguished Roy Reardon of Simpson Thacher, did mix it up with opposing counsel, Kevin Reed of Quinn Emanuel. As did the Second Circuit panel:
