Guys at my high school used to charge twice the market rate for complex legal services all the time, it was no big deal.

Not bad. Just the right amount of snark.

Brilliant! And what a nice way to take those smug bastards down!

Pretty good post. Not as good as the real ATL. But pretty good.

Boo

Excellent post, Frolic. I had been squarely in Sophist's corner, but I'm now back on the fence.

Good post, F&D, don't let the douchebag commenters get you down.

That's right, F&D, don't let douchebags like 8 give you a false sense of hope.

Nicely done! Way to rally back!

Wilmer's a TTT

Wow. I thought I was reading a post by Lat. Very well done.

Good stuff. Now if only Sophist would pick up the pace...

Holy crap! An actual article about Biglaw gossip! And it's good!

And here I was getting all excited about the ripening potential for snarky goodness hidden in "AboveTheShamePole.com"...

I second 12. Best post of the season!

"only worth 100%" --> "worth only 100%"

$750 an hour for H.S.? Maybe a few years ago....

That was great! I forgot it was by a ATL Idol contestant while I was reading. Good job, keep it up.

$750 an hour for H.S.? Maybe a few years ago....

Terrible writing...

I couldn't care less about this topic...

A touch on the long side (could have split up the artcile with a well-placed jump), but very nice over all.

A-

oooh I see the F&D Defenders that made themselves known in yesterday's post are back on the prowl...

"only worth 100%" is snarkier and better than "worth only 100%"

16 should keep his powder dry.

Wow, F&D's friends are really working overtime here. "Excellent" and "brilliant"? Please...

Nice.

wow i guess F&D has been reading the comments and paying attention to what the readers want to see.

GOOD JOB

FAIL... Wilmer Hale isn't even Big Law

Good post, interesting topic, and nice note of judicial slamming of WilmerHale. Of course, if Lamberth (who I like) were efficient, it wouldn't have taken him 169 pages to slam WilmerHale. Maybe that particular clerk didn't get an offer from WilmerHale and so was looking for some payback (at only the market rate, of course).

F&D Defenders Unite!

Yawn. I don't care about this.

F & D needs to follow proper web etiquette and cite the Legal Times story she no doubt got this from.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423774049

She tries too hard to give the impression that she's engaging in real journalism and fact-finding in her posts. This would have been fine with proper credit.

This was surprisingly boooooring... yawn

28 -- you are an idiot.

14 -- I don't see how this constitutes "gossip." She summarized publicly available information.

Too little, too late #27.... I mean who knows which F&D will actually show up Day 1?

11 attorneys to do a deposition?! Come on... a well educated high school kid could do a deposition. All this horn blowing is going to back-fire eventually and people will see through the ruse.

25-- couldn't agree more... are these converted Marinheads or some new plague we have to deal with?

Oh, F&D, I had such hopes for you to turn this around. Why do you let me down?

Meh. It's a fine post, nothing special. I can't criticize it but "brilliant!" is hardly the term

Exley ghost-wrote both these posts.

This is a vast improvement over earlier F&D posts - certainly seems like she's not trying as hard to be funny, which is a welcome change. Still too long, though. 100 words, then a jump - that formula has served Lat pretty well.

Plus, why even bother linking to the 169 page opinion? No way anyone's going to read that. Should have dropped a couple more choice block quotes after a jump and then this would have been a lot better.

Sophist > F&D for this round.

23=Sophist

This wasn't terrible. I guess now I understand the term 'damning with faint praise'

This is an improvement for F&D. At least she has learned how to use spell check...

Not bad for a double Harvard grad.

In case you have not heard, F & D is also double Harvard.

Or so she informed me via email when I asked her:

"Funnily enough, I'm double Harvard, just like Sophist."

Feel free to email her at the address she provided in one of her posts and ask him/her yourself.

frolicndetour.atl.idol@gmail.com

Before you launch into the shtick that I am an "ardent" F & D "supporter" please allow me to preempt.

I am leaning toward Sophist, but I believe my judgment may have been colored by his Harvard-Harvard degrees.

I enjoy this site immensely, and think this decision is an important one. So why not be informed about it?

That is all.

Was this written by someone else? Actual improvement to the point where I could read the whole thing. So the Shame Pole and parade of other unspeakable horrors thus far from F&D served what purpose?

47 -- you're kidding, right?

12 captured my thoughts. I was surprised to look up and see the tagline was F&D's. Good work on a routine story.

Maybe that's part of the problem with this competition--a lot of the rounds have consisted of Lat picking some horrendous story with no good angles on it, and then the contestants staggering through an awkward three-paragraph summary or takeoff on it. Perhaps the whole ATL Idol thing has been a giant ego trip for Lat, tripping his contestants up in order to get the irascible ATL commenters to cry out with one voice for his continuance as EIC?

There is nothing odd abut seeking a lodestar multiplier of 2 in a common fund case. See, e.g., In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 362 F.Supp. 2d 587, 590 (E.D. Pa. 2005)(order approving multiplier of 6.96).

Statutory fees=no multiplier.

Otherwise the fee agreement (standard 1/3 contingency) should apply.

Sooo, without having actually looked at the case, it would seem that the industry standard would be for Wilmer to get 1/3 (contingency rate) of 25% (relator's cut) of $90 million (judgment), i.e. $7.5 million.

Wilmer does plaintiff-side FCA work?? It's nice to see a law firm take whichever meritorious clients present themselves. "Positional conflicts" has always been a b.s. excuse for firms not to piss off their corporate masters...

47: I'm confused by your post. Maybe it's because I'm not Harvard-Harvard; but still, what is the point of your post.

47: Couldn't get into Princeton UG?

This may be F&D's best effort yet, but I don't think it's enough to make up for the last 3 weeks. I have no confidence that this is what we will get if she wins this contest. If only she had tried this hard from the beginning.

This post is much better than F&D's previous body of work on ATL, but not enough to change my vote. Sophist's posts have been consistently good, or at least consistently much better than the other contestants.

This competition was over last week though. Sophist is going to carry the voting this week at least 2:1 over F&D.

Editors,
Can we channel discussions about this stupid contest to designated threads where people can post their blather about who they want to win. It would be nice to limit comments to things germane to the topic (or, failing that, gratuitious references to TTT, WGWAG, frat stud, etc.).
Thanks.

No, that is the frustrating part. I am NOT joking. F & D claims to have double Harvard degrees as well.

But who is going to listen at this late stage?

If true, it is an amazing coincidence.

Of course, Lat winnowed 100 resumes down to 6, so maybe it is not hat much of a coincidence, but still.

57 = TTT Grad / Bigot of Asians

Dear 57:

This IS the designated thread for "post their blather about who they want to win".

57: Germaine to the topic? Like what. This post is pointless like all the rest. The only interesting thing about it is that unlike all previous F&D posts it is not completely unreadable. Oh, and F&D = TTT.

um, have any of you actually READ the opinion F&D is blogging about? It doesn't match up with F&D's salacious writeup at all -- in fact, it says almost exactly the *opposite*, generally lauding WilmerHale for doing an excellent job.

See, e.g., page 22: "Defendants balk at the 'mega-law firm rates' relator seeks. But these rates reflect counsel’s 'mega-law firm'-quality representation. Having observed more than a few attorneys in the past twenty years, this Court is well-suited to judge the quality of counsel’s representation, both in the courtroom and in written submissions. By this Court’s assessment, relator’s counsel – particularly the more junior trial team members – acquitted themselves admirably. Their zealous, polished, and astute advocacy justifies, and is reflected in, their established billing rates."

And with respect to the fifty-two attorneys and thirty-two paralegals: "Moreover, defendants’ attack on the number of Wilmer Hale attorneys who assisted the government with the 'overwhelming[ly] demand[ing] [] discovery' rings hollow. Wilmer Hale’s ability to leverage additional human resources as the case’s demands changed may actually have rendered its representation *more* efficient." See pp. 63-64. The sentence F&D quotes is the Court explaining the defendant's objection, which he then REJECTS.

Also, it's not a 169-page opinion, it's a 95-page opinion. And most of those pages are fluff that has little to do with the analysis relevant to this story.

Entertaining as this post is, it's inaccurate and dishonest. Def not suited for new ATL EIC -- seriously, Lat has enough trouble getting people to talk to him when he does responsible journalism; no one will talk if posts are as careless and wildly inaccurate as this one.

47/58 = desperation

What the heck is going on here? Harvard or any Ivy is that hard to get in to. Mommy and Daddy only needs to fork over a few thousand to the school's favorite cause.

um, have any of you actually READ the opinion F&D is blogging about? It doesn't match up with F&D's salacious writeup at all -- in fact, it says almost exactly the *opposite*, generally lauding WilmerHale for doing an excellent job.

See, e.g., page 22: "Defendants balk at the 'mega-law firm rates' relator seeks. But these rates reflect counsel’s 'mega-law firm'-quality representation. Having observed more than a few attorneys in the past twenty years, this Court is well-suited to judge the quality of counsel’s representation, both in the courtroom and in written submissions. By this Court’s assessment, relator’s counsel – particularly the more junior trial team members – acquitted themselves admirably. Their zealous, polished, and astute advocacy justifies, and is reflected in, their established billing rates."

And with respect to the fifty-two attorneys and thirty-two paralegals: "Moreover, defendants’ attack on the number of Wilmer Hale attorneys who assisted the government with the 'overwhelming[ly] demand[ing] [] discovery' rings hollow. Wilmer Hale’s ability to leverage additional human resources as the case’s demands changed may actually have rendered its representation *more* efficient." See pp. 63-64. The sentence F&D quotes is the Court explaining the defendant's objection, which he then REJECTS.

Also, it's not a 169-page opinion, it's a 95-page opinion. And most of those pages are fluff that has little to do with the analysis relevant to this story.

Entertaining as this post is, it's inaccurate and dishonest. Def not suited for new ATL EIC -- seriously, Lat has enough trouble getting people to talk to him when he does responsible journalism; no one will talk if posts are as careless and wildly inaccurate as this one.

This post = F&D grabbing Sophist's post in the morning by the balls and squeezing. Hard.

I simply don't want to hear some person blather on and on about how great her shitty survey is while the ATL editor (Sophist) dutifully takes notes. I DO want to read about judicial bench-slaps and pompous-ass lawyers, especially when delivered with a dollop of sarcasm.

32 - I had forgotten where I already read this and realized there is nothing new in F&D's take on this. Thanks for nothing F&D.

I hear Wilmer's taking the $7 mil and opening up a Scranton office. Can anyone confirm?

66, maybe, but look at what 62 is saying... that is NOT what happened... Is F&D cut out to be EIC? This makes me wonder...

62 here. See also p. 81 of the opinion:

"This Court heartily agrees that relator’s counsel generally, and the more junior team members in particular, performed at a consistently high standard throughout this litigation. Nothing in this Opinion should be read as dismissing the Wilmer Hale associates’ outstanding written and oral advocacy for their client. They are to be commended. Similarly, young partners O’Connor and Cedarbaum acquitted themselves creditably in their leadership roles."

#66, Of course you're right, nobody on ATL cares about rankings... Oh wait YES WE DO

68 - maybe you should email F&D and ask her. i hear she's giving out lots of info that way.

wow, the sophist groupies are a defensive bunch.

Those Elect guys are amazing. AMAZING. Starting an equity fund before Law School and raising two million? Pursuing a PhD. in Philosophy after graduating from a top LAC?

I have no idea how I'm going to compare to my classmates. I have almost nothing but a few years of state school and a good LSAT. Any advice on how to not be intimidated?

I'm sorry, 65 (or should I say Sophist?), but reply briefs have to be submitted to the court, not to ATL.

Anyway, what you say just makes F&D's post all that much more impressive - she squeezed water from a rock, you might say, which bodes well for her ability to highlight (and exaggerate for comic effect, of course) every little bit of legal salaciousness, even on a day when there are no major scandals. Which is exactly what an ATL editor is there for.

75-- I don't think that 65 is Sophist, more like a Wilmer Hale groupie

ATL editors are "there" to give us interesting material to rant about - sensically and non-sensically. To date, NO ATL editor has been impressive for his/her ability to squeeze anything from any story. The posters are what make the website mildly entertaining (though more often annoying). Just give us good news, ATL, and we'll take care of the rest.

Oh, I forgot to mention: suck it Lat.

71 - the "survey" was not a ranking of firms. It was a "here are 50 firms listed in alphabetical order that claimed in their responses to our survey to be nice places to work for women." There was no 1-50 ranking, no info on how many firms even responded to the survey (could have been 51 for all I know), and no objective criteria.

Brief was too long, didn't bother to read it, and just skimmed instead.

Good thing I wasn't supposed to write an intelligent article on the subject.

/snark

F&D coming on strong in the home stretch. About halfway through reading this post I had to look up to see who it was written by because it was so much better than anything F&D had done before. I'm still leaning toward Sophist, but this post is making me take a closer look at F&D.

Wilmerhale = Cravath Assis Wipus.

81 = Judge Halverson

Great post F&D! I'll have to remember this next time I'm at a beauty contest competing against Wilmer Hale. 11 attorneys working on one deposition is ridiculous.

81 = Tony Danza

F&D must be pretty far removed from Big Law. $750 isn't that high anymore. Most of the top firms have partners billing out near $1,000/hour now.

"Sophist leaners" = F&D supporters thinking they're being crafty

If what 62 says is true (I'm too busy doing stellar work at WilmerHale to read the opinion), then it explains why F&D wants to be ATL editor rather than having a real legal job - F&D can't read a judicial opinion. Perhaps F&D is upset that F&D cannot get a job at WilmerHale.

Bleh, F&D was done long ago. Only got this far on the strength of not being Marin.

81 = asshat. My work here is done.

I used to have great respect for Cravath, but after reading comments on this board, I'm left with the only impression possible: Cravath is an institution that rests completely on past success and empty credentials, but doesn't actually do anything of significance except for its daily significant act requiring ass wiping.

JT don't play the F&D game like F&D wants him to play. JT plays the game the only way JT knows how to play the game. Straight up cold down crakalackin!

If I was one of the "superstar" associates praised by the court I'd be putting that on my firm profile/resume.

92: WilmerHale lawyers don't even have resumes...they merely show their business card and that's all they need to do.

WH lawyers cower before the likes of Cravath and Munger. They cower like broken down dogs.

interesting ...i didn't even know it was part of the competition! - felt like a regular post.

F & D has my vote.

Sophist is good, workmanlike, and straight ahead.

F & D has shown glimpses of the creative vision necessary to run this blog.

And having a woman at the helm for a change might not be much of a change, but it would be nice.

F & D please.

F&D is not worth the paper she wipes her ass with. This is not Cravath Material.

Nice topic and well written piece. You did quite a bit of additional research, but managed not to "over-link."

I like this topic better than Sophist's choice -- this is more ATL worthy.

I didn't even notice this was part of the comeptition. Well done.

Nice post.

So funny because it's so true. Why do we think like this?

F&D -- thanks for a great post. Just what I needed to read on a Friday afternoon.