We know a lot of our readers come here via a desperate attempt to put off billing hours. We encourage so-called “procrastination” on the “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” theory.

But we must ever be vigilant against those who would intrude on our precious zoning-out time with false promises of increased productivity and happier living. Stanford philosophy professor John Perry is one such individual. He has a website devoted to making the most of your procrastination time. The Wall Street Journal reports Perry’s core message:

[S]tructured procrastination involves doing small, low-priority tasks to build a sense of accomplishment and the energy to tackle more important jobs. Mr. Perry, a chronic procrastinator, suggests followers choose an important task, but defer work on it while tackling others. “Don’t be ashamed of self-manipulation,” he says.

If Perry really is “a chronic procrastinator” then how the hell did he motivate to publish his own website? Sounds like Perry needs to do a little more work, and a little less butting into other people’s free time.

Unfortunately, Perry is not alone. After the jump.

We offer those who passed the Illinois bar (and those that sadly did not) a chance to come together to share their stories of triumph and consequence.

Find out your score (or the scores of your friends or enemies) here. Though be forewarned, the site will not load until the exam takers have been notified over email.

Have at it in the comment threads.

* Would somebody please design an appropriate scoring system so we can gamble on this bracket? [TechCrunch]

* Corporette continues their ongoing series of things every girl needs in her office. Apparently, one pair of panties isn’t enough for today’s working woman. [Corporette]

* Congratulations to Allyson Newton Ho, a member of the Elect (OT 2002 / O’Connor) and wife of Texas Solicitor General Jim Ho, who joins Morgan Lewis as a partner — the latest addition to former Texas SG Ted Cruz’s appellate litigation dream team. [Morgan, Lewis & Bockius]

* The first duty of an in-house counsel really needs to be CYA. [Law and More]

* xoxo, Yale. [Gawker]

If you’ve been reading ATL for a while, you may recall our copious coverage of Shanetta Cutlar. She’s the high-powered chief of the Justice Department’s Special Litigation Section, and she has a reputation — perhaps deserved, perhaps not — for being challenging to work for.

In case you don’t remember Ms. Cutlar, this message from a former underling, not previously published, sums things up nicely:

I laughed when I saw Shanetta on your blog. Of all the bosses that I have ever had, I probably could not remember any of their names — except for Shanetta. On the first day, [one female intern] got on the elevator with several people, including Shanetta. She had not yet been introduced to anybody except for the intern superivisors. When she got back to her cubicle/office, she was called to Shanetta’s office, where she was thoroughly reamed out by Shanetta for not acknowledging her presence in the elevator. The poor girl was practically traumatized and afterwards was crying at her desk….

The entire office — and it was a large one — had a childish atmosphere that was similar to an elementary school playground. Shanetta was the bully/popular girl who was constantly surrounded by her clique, and who was constantly embarrassing other people merely for her own amusement. She called an entire staff meeting in order to publicly reprimand one person for going shopping during their lunch break.

She called [another intern] into her office once in order to berate him about not filling out a form correctly in preparation for an out-of-state trip…. Is it really necessary for the Section Chief to micromanage intern travel forms? All-in-all, Shanetta has something akin to the “little man syndrome,” only it would be more aptly named entitled “big-mean-ass-woman syndrome.”

Anyway, in response to reader requests for updates on SYC, we finally have some news to report. Shanetta Cutlar has been sued by one former DOJ employee, Ty Clevenger, in federal court (D.D.C.).

Clevenger’s pro se lawsuit, filed against Cutlar and several other current and former Justice Department employees, makes claims under Bivens, the Rehabilitation Act (disability discrimination), RICO (a DOJ section as a RICO enterprise = awesomeness), invasion of privacy, libel, and civil conspiracy.

Our favorite part is this tidbit from paragraph 15: “Defendant Cutlar publicly berated a new attorney…. [because that attorney] used a paperclip on a document instead of a binder clip.” You can check out the full complaint via the link below.

Clevenger v. Cutlar: Complaint [PDF]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)

Mock in-house counsel if you want to (and apparently many of you “want to”), but those jobs still pay great money. A new study says that the average pay for in-house attorneys is $236,000.

Maybe that is what CNBC was talking about when they promised aspiring law grads $200K salaries.

The numbers were even better at the top. According to the ABA Journal:

The average cash compensation, including bonuses, amounts to about $700,000 for general counsel and more than $900,000 for chief legal officers, according to a survey by the legal consulting firm Hildebrandt International. Long-term incentives increased the average total compensation to nearly $1.5 million for general counsel and nearly $2 million for chief legal officers, according to a press release summarizing the survey.

It seems that even as companies are shedding in-house counsel jobs, the attorneys that hang on are making good money.

Unfortunately for those working for law firms, corporations might look to save money by decreasing their reliance on outside counsel. The National Law Journal reports:

Most companies — 67% — said they expect no change in the number of law firms they plan to use in 2008, but nearly a third — 29% — said they anticipate decreasing that number.

The report doesn’t contain an analysis of the hours in-house counsel have to work for their salary. But law firm associates usually cannot claim that they work less than their in-house counterparts.

So while the jobs might be harder than ever to get, in-house still seems to be a great exit option. Unless you were in-house at: Bear, Lehman, WaMu, AIG, or whichever company spits the bit next.

Average Pay is Up In-House Lawyers, as their Numbers Dwindle [ABA Journal]
Global corporations slowing their spending on legal fees, study finds [National Law Journal]

Earlier: Open Thread: Is In-House Still Worth It?

Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric last week made me … happy. But the McCain-Palin campaign appears nonplussed with the post-interview spin.

Maybe the campaign feels pressured by the latest “global electoral college poll.”

Regardless, the campaign is set to “re-introduce” Sarah Palin. Palin, and McCain this time, sat down with Katie Couric again. (I guess Mel B was unavailable.) The new interview that will air sometime after the debate.

The McCain-Palin ticket is apparently pumped about how the new interview went. They want CBS to air the full interview, unedited. But the campaign is mad that CBS leaked a snippet of last week’s Couric interview that did not air:

Of concern to McCain’s campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin’s interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how “infuriating” it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

I’ll pause for criticisms about the liberal media, northeastern elites, and my mother.

More after the jump.

Last week we brought you the rumor that Seyfarth Shaw and Squire Sanders were thinking of merging into “The Super S4 League of Justice.” Seyfarth has declined to comment on the rumor, but they have added a whole slew of attorneys in Los Angeles. Ken Youmans, managing partner of Seyfarth L.A., announced the new hires:

We are pleased to announce that our partnership voted today in favor of welcoming a group of attorneys to join our LA office. The group includes three equity partners, three income partners, four associates and two secretaries. While the group needs to act upon the partnership offer and the associates need to be offered an opportunity to work with us, the group is expected to start October 1, or soon thereafter. With the addition of these attorneys, we continue to strengthen our Corporate and Real Estate presence on the West Coast. We will share more specific information about our newest Firm members in the days and weeks ahead.

But where did these equity partners come from? Unfortunately all we have for you is more rumors, but tipsters tell us that Seyfarth’s new hires are Sonnenschein’s defectors.

As we know, it’s not a great time to be losing equity partners in California.

Seyfarth offered the following about the various rumors surrounding the firm:

In the course of running our business, we regularly explore a variety of strategic options for the firm. As a matter of policy, we do not comment on these matters.

There is a whole lot of whispering concerning Seyfarth. If you’d like to add your rumor to the mill, please feel free.

We reported last month that the ABA made it easier for law firms to outsource legal work. But as many commenters pointed out, there would need to be a reason for firms to do that and risk a reputation hit.

Perhaps the market crisis has given firms the perfect opening to begin using low cost legal workers outside the United States.

The Hindu Business Line reports that India is “lawyering-up”:

At a time when the off-shoring industry is plagued with instances of employee lay-offs, companies providing legal process outsourcing (LPO) services are on a hiring spree as demand for litigation services from the US rises.

In the next six months to a year, several LPOs have plans to at least double headcount in order to cater to the increased work flow resulting from the recent turmoil in the US that has seen several financial institutions collapse.

The Wall Street crisis has resulted in increased litigation related to bankruptcy, mergers & acquisitions and other related aspects.

We’ve said before that the first front of this outsourcing battle would be fought over document intensive litigation, when clients demanded the lowest possible costs. Does that sound like a bankruptcy proceeding to anybody?

Indian businesspeople watch CNBC too:

For US companies and law firms, the pressure to put a throttle on costs is immense. By outsourcing to Indian vendors, companies can save about 70 per cent in costs vis-À-vis law firms in America.

After the jump, how Indian firms save 70 cents on the dollar.

Last week we told you that Harvard and Stanford law schools were enacting sweeping grade reform. Reactions came in from students and alumni from many top schools. One close friend emailed:

If Harvard had this when we were in school, I’d be emailing you from DPW right now.

Suffice it to say, the friend emailed from a little further down the Vault list.

But to be clear, HLS doesn’t have anything just yet. Dean Kagan announced, “the new classifications, much as at Yale and Stanford, will be Honors-Pass-Low Pass-Fail.” She did not speak on the crucial question of how honors would be determined.

On the other hand, Stanford did announce precisely how their honors would be determined (“book prizes”). Some commenters criticized the decision because it could not be mapped onto a traditional four-point system:

The important issue with any grading system is whether the grades can be aggregated into one number—the GPA—and the students ranked on that basis. The A-F system is mapped onto the 0-4.0 scale (or 0-8, at HLS, until now). The HP-F system is not mapped onto any numerical scale. This makes it impossible to precisely rank students (without developing your own formula).

HLS could still end up with a four-point system of some description. As one reader pointed out:

Honors = A
Pass = B

Low Pass = C

Fail = Elie

Unless you believe the deans’ quest for “pedagogical excellence,” there is an open question as to why two top institutions would radically change how law students are judged.

Possible answers after the jump.

Those of you who follow science news are likely well aware of the Large Hadron Collider deep beneath the earth near Geneva. For the uninitiated, it’s a scientist’s wet dream: an $8-billion particle accelerator built to test the Big Bang Theory by smashing protons together at the speed of light. They fired it up this month, but it malfunctioned and is out of commission until next year.

For some, the machine is more nightmare than wet dream. Critics worry that it could create a sub-atomic black hole ending the world as we know it. In March, two guys filed suit in Hawaii to save the world. From the New York Times:

Last spring, Walter Wagner, a retired radiation safety officer who lives in Hawaii, and Luis Sancho, a science writer and professor in Barcelona, filed the lawsuit, claiming that the collider could produce a black hole that could eat the Earth or cause some other calamitous effect.

The federal judge who got the case chose to punt, “dodging the issue of whether it could actually cause the end of the world.”

The judge, Helen Gillmor, said in her ruling Friday that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Large Hadron Collider, which is located on the Swiss-French border and was built by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, with help from the United States and dozens of other countries…

Mr. Wagner and Mr. Sancho sued CERN, the United States Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Federal District Court in Hawaii. The Energy Department and the science foundation have contributed about $531 million of the collider’s estimated cost of $8 billion.

Judge Gillmor decided that the fraction paid by the United States was too small for the collider to constitute a “major federal action,” as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act, and so the court lacked jurisdiction on environmental grounds.

We hope someone else steps in to consider the possibility of a “planetary apocalypse.” At least it puts the cosmic crisis on Wall Street in perspective.

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit to Halt Operation of Particle Collider [New York Times]

* Alberto Gonzales and pals cannot rest easy just yet. AG Michael Mukasey has chosen Nora Dannehy, acting U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, as special prosecutor to determine whether criminal charges should be brought in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. [Associated Press]

* Many of us are tempted away from work during the day by Facebook. Lucky Kirkland and Ellis partner Ted Ullyot gets to go do the Facebook thing full-time. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Heath Ledger’s former lawyer sues for payment on a $10-million life insurance policy on behalf of Ledger’s daughter. [Canadian Press]

* Ladies, rejoice. Judge rules in favor of “ladies’ nights” in Manhattan. [CNN]

* Thirty-three pastors started a crusade against federal tax law this weekend. Slamming Sen. Barack Obama from the pulpit, they hope to start a legal battle that will lead to the end of a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship. [Washington Post]

* Which law firms lose out in the Wachovia sale to Citi? [AmLaw Daily]

Last week, we tangentially touched on the issue of California’s Proposition 8, which is titled: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” The issue touched off a firestorm of comments, with many strong opinions for and against the measure.

Apparently, senior attorneys at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe also hold strong opinions about Prop. 8. Political divisions at the firm came to a head when Dean Criddle, a tax partner in the San Francisco office, made a $5,000 contribution to the Yes On 8 campaign. Upon learning of Criddle’s contribution, his colleague in the tax department and San Francisco office, of counsel Cameron Wolfe, sent out this email:

Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:57 PM

To: SF ALL ATTORNEYS; SV ALL ATTORNEYS; SC ALL ATTORNEYS

Subject: Orrick and the Proposition 8 Campaign

The publicity attendant to the $5,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 Campaign by an Orrick partner damages the reputation of Orrick as a progressive law firm supportive of equal rights for gay and lesbian people. This can adversely impact the firm in many ways, including hurting our ability to attract gay and lesbian recruits; turning off clients, existing and potential, that support equal rights for homosexuals; and making our current gay and lesbian work force feel like second class citizens.

Chief justice George’s eloquent exposition of the reasons why same sex marriage is a right that should be guaranteed to all gay and lesbian people need not be elaborated upon here. Obviously, the partner who made the $5,000 contribution had a right to believe the Chief Justice to be wrong and to make the contribution he did. It can be debated whether he should have foreseen that this action could damage Orrick. What can’t be debated is that we should try to counteract the damage that has occurred.

One thing that we as individuals working at the Orrick firm can do is to make personal contributions to the No on 8 Campaign. If enough of us do so, that may be newsworthy enough to generate positive publicity offsetting the present negative impression in the community on this important issue.

I urge each of you to make a contribution to No on 8, which can be sent as follows:

No on 8
Equality California
2370 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94114

And be sure to indicate your affiliation with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

Thanks for your help.

Cameron Wolfe, Jr.

We can argue about whether gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution, but isn’t it a little bit odd to be advocating one right while trying to step on a separate Constitutional protection?

Another Orrick lawyer weighs in, after the jump.

* If I loiter outside my polling place dressed as black Jesus, does that count as electioneering? [The Sable Verity]

* If you thought the Farnsworth Invention was must see theater, you won’t want to miss Flash of Genius. It’s a riveting story about the patent litigation surrounding the first intermittent windshield-wiper, starring … wait a minute. Did somebody just make a movie about windshield-wipers? I have to finish editing my screenplay. [Patent Baristas]

* Let’s see exactly who voted against the bailout. [Dealbreaker]

* Of course there is going to be a special prosecutor in the DOJ firing scandal. I’m not entirely sure why we needed a 392-page report to figure that out, but it’s nice to see that our government still has some money to throw around. [BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times]

* Somehow, there has to be a way to save the New York Sun. [Point of Law]

* Blawg Review commemorates the invention of the ball-point-pen — 70 years old, and still a great self-defense weapon in a pinch. [Securing Innovation via Blawg Review]

Given the economic Armageddon happening right in front of our eyes, you might think that even your investments in your own education are depreciating faster than the Congressional approval rating.

But you’d be wrong. According to Karl Okamoto over at the Conglomerate:

Is law school a good value? That’s the question I ask my students to figure out, hoping to teach them a bit about finance. Using crude numbers, the answer looks like a resounding “yes.” As they say in the investment business, it looks like a “three bagger.” Even if you have to put $230,000 in, you get over $700,000 back!

That’s a cool $470,000 in net present value — a much better return than any American bank is likely to offer you this lifetime. The methodology is based on the Department of Labor’s statistics:

[T]he Wall Street Journal reported recently on salary statistics. While the median salary for persons holding just a BA has slipped to $47,240, those of us with professional degrees have gone up to $89,602. Even better, recent Labor Department numbers show the median salary for lawyers at $106,120. So, as I say to my students, think of your law degree as an annuity. It represents a payment stream that lasts for a career (say 40 years) that equals the spread between what you would have earned without your law degree versus what you can with it. Using the median salary numbers, that spread is almost $60,000. Discounted at 8%, the annuity has a present value of over $700,000. The present value of three years of tuition (at $40,000 a year), books and foregone salary (at the median) is about $230,000. So, as your stockbroker used to say about Lehman bonds, a “no brainer!”

Nice. Of course, that median salary is largely dependent on top firms paying their lawyers large salaries, based on the huge fees charged to wealthy clients.

Should a major economic collapse send the American economy back to the antebellum period, wealthy corporations might not be able to afford… well, everybody here understands we’re totally screwed the worst-case scenario.

If you are considering going to law school, it’s still probably a safe bet. At least it’s a better bet than being an I-banker right now.

What is the NPV of a JD? [The Conglomerate via TaxProf Blog]
Undergrads: Listen Up —Time To Think About Law School! [Millennial Money / CNBC]

We like to think of ATL as a place where lawyers can get together and discuss the compelling news of the day.

Well, the news of the day is that Wall Street will apparently not be receiving $700 billion dollars to cover their bad investments. The House rejected the bailout plan. The Dow is down by over 400 points as of this writing. And I think I just saw Jimmy Stewart beating the crap out of Mr. Potter.

Really, anytime Robert Reich and Newt Gingrich are agreeing on television, times are strange.

If they’re not going to pass this bailout, then what do you think is going to happen?

This post serves as my official request to start receiving my paycheck in gold bullion.

Update (3:30 PM): The Dow is now down by over 700 points, just over 6 percent. The S&P 500 is now down by almost 100 points, just over 8 percent.

Bailout plan rejected [CNN]
Cantor Blames Pelosi, Boehner Blames Jews [Dealbreaker]

[Ed. note: This post is authored by Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting — sponsor of the Asia Chronicles, and an ATL advertiser. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years. You can reach them by email: asia at kinneyrecruiting dot com.]

Evan here, writing from Dubai at my suite in the Burj Al Arab, in the first week of another month-long visit this stunning city. I just finished perusing through my usual daily go to websites for industry information, such as ATL and LawDragon.com. To my surprise, LawDragon.com just published a top 100 law firm consultants list, and named me as one of 15 recruiters, and the only Asia and Middle East focused recruiter, on the list (my shameless plug for the day). This tops off what has been another great day, here in Dubai.

Ever have one of those days when everything seems to go right? If you want to improve your chances for the perfect day, I suggest you check into the Burj Al, for pampering fit for a king. A few days ago, my wife and I checked into the smallest category of rooms at the Burj - a two story suite no less, complete with grand staircase, 6 person hot tub, two living room areas, two bathrooms (each big enough to be small hotel rooms) a fully equiped office, stunning views, and oh yes, the 24 hour butler (complete with tuxedo and coat tails), and BMW 7 and driver at your disposal.

To give you an idea of why this hotel deserves its claim of 7 star service, here is one example of many: Last night my wife and I invited over for drinks some of my associate friends from Gibson Dunn’s Dubai office (who are very happily employed, by the way, which is no surprise as the managing partner of their office is one of the most well regarded and nicest people in the business), as well as an old college buddy who happens to be in town. We met at the Sky View lounge on the 27th floor and had some drinks. After being there for about an hour, a bathroom attendant shows up to our table with a small package of breath mints. Strange, I thought, but no big deal, right?

Later, I found out that one of our guests had asked the lounge restroom attendant for a breath mint. No? No biggie. Turns out, the restroom attendant had a different take on the importance in this mint request and promptly made a call to our butler down on the 19th floor, who went down to the lobby to find some mints. Being that it was after 1am (and the middle of Ramadan) there was not much open down there, so the butler called up our suite’s chauffeur on call and the driver promptly drove off to pick up some mints from the nearby Jumeirah Beach sister hotel. The butler then gave about the nicest looking package of mints I have ever seen to the restroom attendant up in the lounge, so he could finally offer a mint to my friend.

But you have to hear about the suite, after the jump.

What’s going to happen to Thelen? That is the question many are asking in the wake of Heller Ehrman’s untimely demise.

As we have previously reported, Thelen has not yet been able to merge with another firm, while suffering through a slew of partner defections. They’ve even canceled their 2009 summer program.

Today brings more bad news for Thelen. Pillsbury announced that they have acquired Thelen’s China practice group:

[A] group of approximately 20 attorneys, including partners Tom Shoesmith, Meg Utterback, Joe Tiano and Lou Bevilacqua, to be based in Pillsbury’s Shanghai, Washington, DC and San Francisco offices.

This may not be as crippling as losing a rainmaking IP practice group like Heller did. But the losses are adding up for Thelen.

Thelen’s attempt to quell the rumors, after the jump.

It takes two lawyers to schedule a deposition. And while a third-year associate might view a deposition as the most important event scheduled in a calendar year, most seasoned attorneys can be expected to show some flexibility when it comes to scheduling conflicts.

After Hurricane Ike struck Texas, attorneys at Markland Hanley and Tekell, Brook, Matthews & Limmer tried to reschedule a deposition. But the people at Markland Hanley wanted Tekell to reimburse them for travel expenses.

Hilarity ensued when Tekell attorney Jeff Murphrey responded to Markland Hanley’s request for reimbursement fees:

I am sorry that a hurricane hit Houston

I am sorry that upon returning to my home Monday, September 22, 2008, I discovered a roughly 50ft. x 6ft. swath of human excrement, used condoms, and all the other niceties that come with a raw sewage leak into one’s backyard which drains into one of the main bayous in Houston.

I am sorry that I had to threaten City of Houston officials with lawsuits and local news exposure in order to get them to even agree to meet with me about cleaning up the problem.

I am sorry that these city officials chose a date that interfered with our deposition and gave me no other options.

Murphrey goes on to explain the extraordinary steps that were taken to cleanse his backyard. He also claims that he agreed to pay reasonable travel expenses.

Murphrey then adds:

I am sorry that you think the judge should be involved in this matter. I wonder if the judge will be sorry about that, too.

We don’t know all the details of the back and forth between Markland Hanley and Tekell. But maybe they need to add a “hurricane aftermath” section in the MPRE.

Read the full memo after the jump.

We have some bad news for this year’s incoming associates. Based on last Wednesday’s ATL / Lateral Link survey, attorneys at your new firm like you even less than they liked summer associates.

We received 765 responses, and the number of practicing attorneys who said “First-year associates, hate ‘em” beat the number of practicing attorneys who said “First-year associates, love ‘em,” by a margin of 25.55% to 21.88%. In comparison, summer associates had managed a more even 25.06% to 24.82% love-hate response in an earlier survey.

Like ‘em or not, respondents sure did think there were a lot of ‘em.

• Overall, 58% of practicing respondents said that their firms had hired too many new associates, with 29% saying “way too many.”
  
• Only 10% thought their firms had hired too few.
  
• And just under a third of respondents, 32%, thought their firms had hired just the right number.

Alarmingly, the people most likely to think there are too many first-years were also the people most likely to be making hire-and-fire decisions. While 57% of second-year associates thought their firms had hired too many new associates, that number exploded to 74% among attorneys who had been practicing since before 2000.

So, if you think that partner you’re working with right now might really want to fire you, you’re probably right. Have fun at work today!

Similarly, the more seasoned the respondents, the more likely they were to actually dislike their newest colleagues. 30% of second-year associates actually said “love ‘em” to the new first-years, and only 15% said “hate ‘em.” But among attorneys who had been practicing since before 2000, only 11% said they liked first-years, while a whopping 48% declared, “hate ‘em.”

So, if you think that partner you’re working with right now might really want to fire you, you’re probably right. Seriously, have fun at work today!

Read more, below the fold.

The Office of the Inspector General has released its final report on the removal of nine U.S. attorneys from the Department of Justice.

The 392-page report can be downloaded here.

This morning, the New York Times reported:

[O]fficials with knowledge of the inspector general’s investigation and defense lawyers who have been involved in it said they did not expect that the investigation would recommend that criminal charges be pursued at this point against Mr. Gonzales or other officials. The report was expected to recommend that investigators continue to pursue some elements of the case, meaning that the legal questions around Mr. Gonzales would continue.

Enjoy your hard working tax dollars.

An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 (.pdf) [DOJ]
No Charges Expected in Dismissal of Attorneys [New York Times]

Since the last time we took a look at fall recruiting there have been a few interesting economic developments: Lehman collapsed, Heller Ehrman collapsed, and apparently we now live in a socialist republic.

But is all the dour economic news affecting law students in search of summer employment?

Yes. Big time. One tipster reports:

Harvard OCI is NOT going well. People with good grades are not getting callbacks from mid-level firms (e.g., White [& Case]) and people with average grades aren’t getting callbacks from blah firms (Proskauer [Rose], Clifford [Chance], etc.) Chadbourne canceled their whole Harvard OCI program. And people with great grades are getting callbacks at, say, Cravath but not Simpson.

Correction: Apologies. From a Chadbourne spokesperson:

In an item on Abovethelaw.com today headlined “Open Thread: How is the Fall Recruiting Season Shaping Up?” you say that Chadbourne & Parke has cancelled “their whole Harvard OCI.” This is wrong. We are continuing to recruit for our summer program at Harvard Law School. In fact, Chadbourne recruiters are at the Harvard OCI taking place today.

The California market is dealing with its own kind of callback hell. See, e.g., Heller Ehrman.

What are your experiences out on the trail? Last summer, firms claimed that their summer programs were oversubscribed. Are they “correcting” the problem, or is it last call at the Overlook Hotel?

Share your stories in the comments.

Earlier: Fall Recruiting Open Thread: 3Ls
More on On-Campus Interview Cancellations

*The bailout plan was hammered out this weekend, and will be voted on this week. Lawmakers will give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson a bunch of money to clean up the mess that is our economy. Hopefully, Pennsylvania Avenue fares better than Wall Street. [Washington Post]

*No criminal charges expected in DOJ attorney firings. [New York Times]

*Williams & Connolly’s $180k starting salary announcement last year is the last increase we should expect to hear about for quite a while. Pay will stay stagnant… but hours are a different matter. [Legal Times]

*It’s the Italian legal version of The Parent Trap. A part-time judge in Milan had her non-lawyer twin sister step in to advise clients. [Reuters]

*Lawyer going after Wal-Mart in Massachusetts over missed meal breaks wakes the state up by telling it the megastore owes $600 million in back fines for the lunch-denying practice. [Boston Herald]

*Good news for celebs with legal problems. [New York Times]

*Model sues magazine because he wants to be a “dapper college man” and not a gay pin-up boy. [Daily News]

* Shana tova. Happy Rosh Hashanah.

While everyone spent the weekend talking about who bested whom in the McCain-Obama match-up, the New York Times magazine turned away from all that to focus on the really important policy makers in Washington: the Supreme Court. SCOTUS played cover model for Sunday’s NYT magazine, with HLS prof Noah Feldman’s lengthy piece, When Judges Make Foreign Policy.

We love the Star Wars-esque article preview: “When the next justice is appointed, our place in the world may well hang in the balance.” In case you didn’t get the magazine this weekend, and don’t feel like clicking through ten pages online to read it, we’ve got a rundown for you.

Feldman writes that the justices have become “the oracles of our national identity.” We like this analogy. The Greek oracles wore white. The Justices wear black. Advice seekers went to temples to consult Greek oracles. People go to the white gleaming temple at One First Street to address the Justices. The Greeks had hallucinogenic fumes rising from the earth, enhancing their prophetic powers. The Justices have caffeine and the sweet, sweet smell of the pages of the Constitution. But we digress.

Feldman says the defining issue of our time is globalization, and that SCOTUS wields incredible power as it establishes the place of the U.S. in the world through its rulings on international law. Listen up, law school folk, perhaps that international law class is not such a waste of time after all. Conservatives and liberals feel differently, of course, about how the Constitution applies internationally:

In recent years, two prominent schools of thought have emerged… One view, closely associated with the Bush administration, begins with the observation that law, in the age of modern liberal democracy, derives its legitimacy from being enacted by elected representatives of the people. From this standpoint, the Constitution is seen as facing inward, toward the Americans who made it, toward their rights and their security. For the most part, that is, the rights the Constitution provides are for citizens and provided only within the borders of the country…

A competing view, championed mostly by liberals, defines the rule of law differently: law is conceived not as a quintessentially national phenomenon but rather as a global ideal. The liberal position readily concedes that the Constitution specifies the law for the United States but stresses that a fuller, more complete conception of law demands that American law be pictured alongside international law and other (legitimate) national constitutions.

Feldman argues that new appointees for SCOTUS spots that are sure to open should be evaluated based on their thinking about the Court’s role in shaping American foreign policy. The SCOTUS newbies will determine whether the Constitution will be a shield, or will be a blanket shared around the global campfire while everyone sings Kumbaya.

More on this after the jump.

As the old saying goes, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a lawyer to be hired as a lateral partner at Williams & Connolly.” The last lateral partner to be hired by the super-elite litigation shop, which people and corporations turn to when they’re in the deepest of doo-doo, was Gerald Feffer, brought into the fold over two decades ago.

So this latest move is fairly big news. Appellate superstar Kannon Shanmugam, one of Washington’s top 40 lawyers under 40 (see #21), is leaving the Solicitor General’s office, where he has served for the past four years as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. He’ll be joining Williams & Connolly — as a partner.

“It’s very hard to leave the Justice Department, but I’m excited about the challenge of helping to build the appellate practice at Williams & Connolly,” Shanmugam told us. “It’s arguably the best firm for litigation in the country, but what ultimately attracted me to the firm is its distinctive culture.”

“We are thrilled to have Kannon join us,” said Robert Barnett, a member of the firm’s Executive Committee (and author rep to the stars — he’s negotiated book deals for the Clintons, Barack Obama, Bob Woodward, Lynne Cheney, and Alan Greenspan, among others). “He’s our first lateral partner in 22 years, which is indicative of how rarely we have lateral partners join us.”

“Almost everyone at the firm is homegrown, coming up through the associate ranks and making partner,” explained Barnett to ATL. “Kannon, because of his exceptional qualities, is going to be a rare exception to that pattern. On a personal level, he’s a terrific individual. But we are also extremely respectful and welcoming of his legal skills.”

Word on the street is that Shanmugam received offers from about half a dozen other firms. “He was sought by many firms, and being as competitive as we are, we’re pleased to have won the Kannon sweepstakes,” said Bob Barnett.

Additional discussion, after the jump.

In the interest of completeness, here are a few quick postscripts to stories that we previously covered in these pages, but didn’t get around to mentioning during the craziness of last week. They come from the National Law Journal and/or the WSJ Law Blog.

1. Judge Robert Somma: The cross-dressing former bankruptcy judge (at right), who resigned from the bench after a drunk driving arrest, has joined the bankruptcy practice of Posternak Blankstein & Lund, a midsize firm based in Boston, as senior counsel. [National Law Journal; WSJ Law Blog]

2. American Justice School of Law: This defunct Kentucky law school, which in 2007 was hit with a class action filed by some of its students, has filed for bankruptcy. [National Law Journal; WSJ Law Blog]

3. L’Affaire Kozinski: The panel of federal judges from the Third Circuit investigating Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (at right) has retained Robert Heim, head of litigation at Dechert, to oversee the probe (which will be staffed by lawyers from Dechert and Morgan Lewis & Bockius). [National Law Journal; WSJ Law Blog]

4. University of Michigan’s Wolverine Scholars Program: Sarah Zearfoss, dean of admissions at UM Law, has defended the program against allegations that it’s an attempt to game the U.S. News rankings. She pointed out that the program is small, likely to result in the admission of just five to ten students (out of a class of 360), and that very few UM undergrads (about 200) would even be eligible for it. [WSJ Law Blog]

It’s official: Heller Ehrman is dissolving. We have no desire to pile on, but major firms don’t close their doors everyday.

So, how does the dissolution process work exactly?

The first thing Heller is required to do by law is to give notice to all their employees under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). Heller complied with this requirement this afternoon:

I regret to inform you that The Firm has adopted a plan of liquidation and will shut down substantially all of its operations on or about November 28, 2008. At the time of the shutdown, the employment of The Firm’s employees will be permanently terminated. Until then, please be aware that The Firm has work for you and expects you to report to work. Employees will be paid full salary and benefits until the shutdown. Where applicable, employees with accrued but unused vacation time may be scheduled for vacation prior to November 28.

You do not have displacement or bumping rights for other positions within The Firm. However, in order to conduct an orderly liquidation, The Firm may continue to employ a very limited number of employees after the date of the shutdown. If you wish to be considered for such work, please notify me by email; The Firm will let you know about past November 28 work within the next few days.

This letter constitutes notice to you pursuant to statute. As a terminated employee, you may be entitled to certain benefits, which will be the subject of a separate communication. The shutdown is being treated as a plant closing under relevant law, and includes the termination of employment of employees employed at 333 Bush Street, San Francisco, California 94104.

In the event you require additional information, please feel free to contact [redacted]

Additional analysis of Heller’s breakup, after the jump.

* The rise and fall of Heller Ehrman. [Adam Smith, Esq.]

* Homoerotic novelist > SEC attorney. [Legal Blog Watch]

* The best presidential debate is the one you give yourself. [f/k/a]

* Why should Wall Street tycoons be the only ones getting a bailout? [Every Day Should Be Saturday]

* What do lawyers and prostitutes have in common (other than taking-it-hard from older men for money)? They are both recession proof! [Slate]

If you have ever wanted to utilize corporate law skills on technology matters, then the Job of the Week may be for you. As always, the Job of the Week is brought to you by Lateral Link, and as with other Lateral Link law firm positions, this job qualifies for a $10,000 guaranteed signing bonus.

Position: IP Transactional Associate

Location: Chicago, IL

Description: The Chicago office of a top international firm is seeking a mid-level attorney with general corporate skills to join their IP and Technology Transactional practice. The attorney will have the opportunity to work on a wide range of key tech matters, including outsourcing (ITO and BPO), strategic alliances, software and systems (development and licensing), R&D and technology transfer, licensing (patent, trademark, copyright), biotechnology, e-commerce, and financing and tech company M&A deals.

For more information about this position or to apply, please see Position 9529 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.

Lawyer turned Survivor contestant Charlie Herschel, right, with your above-signed writer (in the yellow Survivor do-rag).

As previously reported in these pages, Charlie Herschel -- a 29-year-old, openly gay associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges in New York -- is a contestant on Survivor: Gabon, which had its two-hour season premiere last night. We're pleased to report that Charlie is still in the running for the one million dollars. To read more about our handsome hero, including details of his friendship with fellow gay Clay Aiken, check out this interesting interview with Herschel in The Advocate.

Last night, we headed over to Professor Thom's in the East Village, to attend a "Survivor" premiere party in Charlie's honor. It was hosted by his employer, Weil Gotshal -- which is doing well in the downturn, thanks in large part to its top-flight bankruptcy practice.

Correction: The party was not officially hosted by Weil, although many WGM attorneys were in attendance.

More discussion, plus a slideshow of party pics, after the jump.

We just brought you news of Stanford Law School changing its grading system. Now Harvard Law School is following suit.

Dean Elena Kagan just sent this message out to the HLS student body:

To all students:

I am writing to let you know that the faculty decided yesterday to move to a grading system with fewer classifications than we have now. The new classifications, much as at Yale and Stanford, will be Honors-Pass-Low Pass-Fail. The faculty believes that this decision will promote pedagogical excellence and innovation and further strengthen the intellectual community in which we all live. The new system will apply to students entering HLS in fall 2009; yet to be determined is whether it also will apply to some or all classes of current students.

The faculty began consideration of this issue last year, and has consulted with groups of students, alumni, and other employers in the course of our discussions. Before making a decision on whether to implement the system now, for all or some of our current students, I want to make sure that any interested student has a chance to express his or her views. To provide this opportunity, I will hold a “town hall” meeting on Thursday, October 2 from 2:30 to 3:30 in Austin North. I look forward to seeing you some of you there.

Best,
Elena Kagan

Was there an epidemic of A’s that caused these sweeping changes at Harvard and Stanford?

Like Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer’s message back in May, Kagan’s message leaves open the question of what kind of honors HLS will be doling out. Don’t count on Harvard’s system being any less complicated then Stanford’s. Remember, Harvard is moving away from a ridiculous 15-point system that nobody understands anyway.

But the crucial question is whether this new system will be applied retroactively to the classes of 2009 and 2010. If I were in either of those classes, I’d stop worrying about the economy and show up for the debate, on October 2nd.

Update: Harvard Law School also just announced changes to its grading system that will make it more like the Yale and Stanford systems. See here.

In May, we reported that the faculty of Stanford Law School voted to change their grading system. The school went from the traditional “A, B, C, Die” system to a Yale-esque pass/fail hybrid. From the May message of Dean Larry Kramer:

[T]he 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.

We noted then that the school was still working on the exact meaning of “honors.”

“Honors” has now been defined. “Watch that first step … it’s a doozy.” From Dean Kramer:

[W]e will no longer use or award Order of the Coif or “Graduation with Distinction,” honors we have in the past recognized and given out at or after graduation. Instead, prizes will be awarded in individual courses to recognize outstanding student performance. Tentatively called “book prizes” (after the fashion of some other schools that use this system), one book prize may be awarded for every 15 students, and this will be true in all classes, whether the basis of evaluation is an exam or a paper. In first-year required classes, 2 prizes will be available in small sections, and 4 in large sections. In advanced classes, professors have discretion about whether and how many prizes to award, though within the same maximum guideline of one per every 15 students (faculty may round up at 8). Discretion is meant to signal that faculty are recognizing genuinely outstanding performance, not just the event of receiving a high grade. Prizes will be registered on student transcripts when grades come out at the end of each term and you will be free to list them on your resumes. The policy is effective beginning this term….

[T]he faculty also concluded that we should award book prizes to students in the class of 2010 for their 1L classes last year, following the standard set forth above. (It will take some time for these retroactive prizes to be calculated and incorporated onto student transcripts.)

The full message is reprinted, and students weigh in, after the jump.

Even as the national economy teeters on the brink of collapse, Wall Street’s elite continue to flock to the altar. Click here, here, and here, and imagine what this month has been like for these people. Getting married is stressful enough; we can’t imagine doing it while at the center of a financial meltdown.

In other random New York observations, both of the city’s baseball stadiums will close their doors this fall. Last Sunday’s final game in Yankee Stadium was celebrated with a Sports Illustrated cover and wall-to-wall coverage on ESPN. This Sunday’s game could be the last in Shea Stadium, and the New York Times marks the occasion with a gripping piece on how pilots landing at La Guardia won’t be able to use the place as a landmark anymore.

Here are this week’s couples:

1. Jean Park and Albert Cho

2. Trinity Jackman and Joshua Harlan

3. Edward Pierce and Robert Saltzman

More about our finalists, after the jump.

A Kentucky man is suing his doctor, his anesthesiologist, and their medical practice after the worst operation ever. From WLKY:

According to the lawsuit, Philip Seaton, 61, went to have a circumcision last October as part of treatment for a medical condition. Seaton said when he woke up from the procedure, he realized his penis had been amputated.

Seaton has suffered mental anguish, pain, and has lost the enjoyment of life, according to the lawsuit.

The doctor says he amputated after he found cancer. But that’s definitely a call you want to run by the patient first. It’s not like you’re just removing a random mole.

An AP article suggests that Seaton will see big money. An Indianapolis man who suffered a similar fate was awarded $2.3 million in 1997. Certainly a hefty sum, but there are some things money can’t buy. Like enjoyment of life. Or a new penis.

Man Sues Doctors After Penis Amputated [WLKY]
Man claims penis amputated without consent [Associated Press]

It is still way too early to get hard numbers on what Biglaw bonuses will look like for 2008. But because of the economic downturn, we expect it will be a rocky bonus season.

As readers of The Shock Doctrine will note, it is important to be aware of fundamental changes to the way bonuses are paid out. You don’t want something to slip in under the guise of a (massive) market correction.

Yesterday, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati announced that 50% of their bonuses would be paid out based on performance evaluations. According to the firm, the change was made in response to associates’ concerns:

To: All Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Associates, Of Counsel, Special Counsel, and Staff Attorneys
From: John Roos
Date: September 25, 2008
Re: FY09 Associate Bonus Program

As always, the firm is committed to providing a competitive compensation package to our associates. We also are committed to listening to feedback from our associates and making adjustments to our approach to compensation as appropriate. Recently, the firm’s associates have voiced concerns about the bonus program’s heavy emphasis on billable hours. In response to those concerns and after a long and careful review of the associate bonus program, we’re pleased to announce a new component to the bonus program focused on qualitative performance factors.

[Redacted] will be sending out a memo shortly with more details on the changes, but I’d like to give you a brief rundown on the changes, as well as the process that led to them. In essence, the total bonus opportunity will consist of three independent components:

— a basic level of bonus paid at 1,900 hours;
— an adder paid at 2,100 hours; and
— a variable bonus based on work quality and overall contribution to the firm.

You’ll note that the new bonus program allows us to continue to reward high-billing associates for their hard work—a factor that many associates pressed us to maintain—but it also allows us to reward those who are exceptional performers in other ways.

More from the memo, including explanation of the qualitative bonus component, after the jump.

Clients want associates to remember who pays their salary. As we have previously reported, the authors of What About Clients are trying to start a “Value Movement” which, among other things, asks whether associates should pay their firm for the privilege of working.

Unfortunately, this idea just won’t die. And Holden Oliver thinks that the market meltdown is a perfect opportunity to reexamine the structure of the business of law:

Hopefully, there’s this silver lining in the Down Economy: a renewal of the notion that workplaces exist to serve and give value to Customers and Clients, and the companies organized to help them. Not to serve and cater to Employees. As we see it — and most states have traditionally seen it—it’s a privilege to work. Not a right. And it’s a special honor to learn and practice the law.

More people jump on the bandwagon, below the fold.

Welcome to BACK TO THE FUTURE. In this occasional ATL feature, we’ll step into a time machine and take a look at what the legal profession looked like at some point in the past.

In a post about staff layoffs at Fried Frank, a commenter drew our attention to this fascinating 1990 article from the New York Times. It seems that the commenter was trying to challenge the recent claim by firm chair Valerie Ford Jacob that the firm has never laid off attorneys. The NYT piece — by David Margolick, former national legal correspondent for the Times, now at Portfolio (and also one of Kash’s journalism professors at NYU) — mentions Fried Frank as a firm that may have engaged in “stealth layoffs.”

Margolick’s article doesn’t use the term “stealth layoffs,” but the phenomenon it describes is essentially identical to what we’ve been reporting in the pages of ATL lately. The article begins:

They were the legal profession’s gilded generation, an army of lawyers without limits. As law students, they were wined and dined and wooed by the most prestigious law firms in New York. Once hired, they began settling into a frantic but fantastically lucrative life. It was a life of glamour, prestige and, they assumed, stability.

Now, only a few years later, dozens of these lawyers have had a crash course in the realities of modern Wall Street practice. For the first time in their lives - lives of success atop success - they find themselves in an unusual position. They have been fired.

As the sour corporate climate reaches large law firms in New York and to a lesser degree cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, a bubble has burst. With business down, particularly in corporate work, real estate, and mergers and acquisitions, several of the most famous law firms have dismissed substantial numbers of lawyers, particularly those in the early years of their careers.

This article could have been written yesterday. But it was actually written over 18 years ago; the dateline is August 12, 1990. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

More excerpts and discussion — including a brief comment from Margolick, plus information about what junior associates earned back in 1990 — after the jump.

* The bailout is not on. Talks imploded at 10:30 p.m. last night. Congress is back at it today. [New York Times]

* Two-time ATL Lawyer of the Day Jack Thompson, the crazy controversial video game crusader, has been permanently disbarred. [Crave / CNET News]

* Words to live by: Don’t make sex videos. And don’t store said sex videos on your cell phone. [Courthouse News Service]

* A whistleblower suit against Medtronic for perks paid to doctors was filed by the company’s own lawyer. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune]

* The young Indiana Jones has a crushed hand, but no misdemeanor. No DUI charges for Shia LaBeouf after all. [People]

At a firm-wide meeting held at 1 p.m. Pacific time, Heller associates were informed that there would be an “orderly dissolution” of the firm, starting on Monday.

Associates have been given 60 days’ notice, with pay.

But it’s not a severance payment. Associates are expected to show up and participate in the “orderly dissolution.” As one tipster puts it:

[O]ver the next 60 days the focus will be collections, finding employment for associates and shareholders, ethically transitioning client matters from Heller to other firms when associates and shareholders take their clients with them, and general administrative clean-up. There will be a small core staff that remains after the 60 days in order to deal with finance matters, etc.

Another Heller insider tells us:

Everything is contingent on the vote tomorrow which needs 2/3 of the Shareholders to approve dissolution. And banks control all cash.

Individual meetings are still taking place. We’ll bring you updates as we have them.

We hope that everybody lands on their feet.

Update (7:45 PM): More Heller information appears here. It looks like getting paid for accrued vacation time will be the next battleground.

* If you lie to get sex — and succeed — is that rape? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* What are the best case names ever? [Supreme Dicta]

* I’m still waiting for somebody to give me one good reason for the third year of law school. Anyone? All of my loan repayment checks say, “For 1L year only.” (Yes. The vast majority of them bounce). [The Shark]

* What to watch for during today’s associate video conference at Heller Ehrman. [Heller Highwater]

You’d think Skadden attorneys would have better things to bill Citigroup for than running around after small-time advertisers. But, then again, there are an awful lot of Skadden attorneys.

Citi-Mobile is an advertising company that utilizes trucks as mobile billboards. Citigroup is a large commercial bank that is trying to ride out the current economic downturn. Skadden wants you to know the difference:

The much bigger Citi, which Skadden rather optimistically describes in court docs as “one of the largest and most renowned” banks in the world, is a little bit concerned that the public will think the financial giant decided to buy a bunch of trucks, paint them crazy colors, and make money by marketing roast beef subs and cameras to innocent pedestrians. So they’re asking a court to prohibit Citi-Mobile (and its parent company Citi-Advertising) from using the hallowed “Citi” name.

For those playing along at home, that means Citi wants no part of a mildly annoying advertising campaign, yet they are willing to pay $20M/year for 20 years to lord their name over the New York Mets? How long before Skadden sues Mets owner Fred Wilpon for non-performance based on the theory that Citi contracted to name a “baseball field,” instead of a cute park where little boys go to choke themselves to death?

Or maybe they’ll just sue City Wok?

Read the full complaint here.

Citi’s Lawyers Never Sleep [Citylife]

No real legal angle here since Paulson, Dodd & Co. stopped talking to the lawyers long ago.

But in case you haven’t heard, the $700 billion bailout is going to happen.

Boy, aren’t you glad you elected a Democratic Congress that could stand up to Bush when he goes on television, terrifies millions of Americans, and then intimidates the opposition party into giving him a blank check?

Feel free to defend/slam the bailout in the comments.

Lawmakers Agree on Outline of Bailout [New York Times]

We mentioned that litigation boutiques would likely be big winners from the market collapse. Some small firms are already cashing in. The bankruptcy boutique of Luskin, Stern & Eisler has merged with Hughes Hubbard & Reed.

There was enough room on the Hughes Hubbard bandwagon for everybody at Luskin. All 8 lawyers will be joining Hughes Hubbard’s bankruptcy practice, with name partner Richard Stern becoming the co-chair of the group.

The merger makes perfect sense if Hughes Hubbard is trying to position itself to capitalize on creditor actions coming out of the Wall Street meltdown. Of course, that is not what Hughes Hubbard says they are doing:

Hughes Hubbard says it is merely a coincidence that the deal was finalized after a week of heavy financial turmoil.

“We had wanted to do this for a while,” James Modlin, co-chair of the firm’s lateral hiring committee, tells The Am Law Daily. “Starting last summer, we realized the time was right to bolster our bankruptcy practice. Bankruptcy goes in cycles, and we were thinking this might be a boom time.”

Maybe Hughes Hubbard does own the world’s best Magic 8 Ball. However they planned this acquisition, they got the execution exactly right.

Hughes Hubbard Makes Timely Acquisition of Bankruptcy Boutique [Law.com]

I think we can all agree that this is not the best year to be running as a Republican. When your party’s leader is a lame duck — clocking in with a sub-thirty percent approval rating — it’s only prudent to keep your distance.

But did Washington gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi go too far in trying to escape the Republican brand? On ballots that have already gone to the printer for the November election, Rossi listed his party affiliation as “GOP Party.” As we’ve previously mentioned, Democrats sued Rossi to force him to use the more common “Republican” label on the November ballots.

Democrats didn’t sue because calling yourself a member of the “Grand Old Party Party” is redundant and annoying. They have actual polling data that shows:

[M]any people don’t know that GOP and Republican mean the same thing. One recent [Stuart] Elway poll indicated Rossi did better among voters if he used the “GOP” label instead of “Republican.”

“There’s no question we were shocked by the Elway poll,” state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz said, adding that an internal poll by the party had a similar finding.

While the Democrats have an interesting political argument, their legal argument … does not exist:

A new state law allows candidates to identify their party on ballots as they please (up to 16 characters long), but Sam Reed, Washington’s secretary of state, said he had encouraged candidates “not to do silly things.”

Mr. Reed, a Republican and the defendant in the Democrats’ lawsuit, said G.O.P. — for Grand Old Party — had been used for years and was acceptable.

Game, set, match.

But how “off-message” are Democrats in Washington State? If you are an incumbent Democratic governor, and you think that the GOP is going to take you down in a year where even the Republicans are calling their brand no better than “dog food,” you have serious problems — problems that a naming convention isn’t going to fix.

Leave the courts out of your campaign. It’ll be better for everybody.

Democrats Sue Over ‘G.O.P.’ on the Ballot [New York Times]
Smith v. Reed (pdf) [Ballot Access]

We know you legal folk struggle with your weight. Nearly 70 percent of respondents to Justin’s weighty April survey admitted to putting on the pounds since embarking on the legal track. Maybe it’s because you’re such deep thinkers!

Thinking makes you hungry, says Science Daily. A Canadian research team has found that intellectual work, that stuff lawyers do so much of, causes a substantial increase in caloric intake:

The research team, supervised by Dr. Angelo Tremblay, measured the spontaneous food intake of 14 students after each of three tasks: relaxing in a sitting position, reading and summarizing a text, and completing a series of memory, attention, and vigilance tests on the computer. After 45 minutes at each activity, participants were invited to eat as much as they wanted from a buffet.

The researchers had already shown that each session of intellectual work requires only three calories more than the rest period. However, despite the low energy cost of mental work, the students spontaneously consumed 203 more calories after summarizing a text and 253 more calories after the computer tests. This represents a 23.6% and 29.4 % increase, respectively, compared with the rest period.

Perhaps you can fight the bulge by thinking less hard. Another option is to get an in-work work-out with a treadmill desk — Quinn Emanuel’s Aaron Craig logs five to six miles a day at the office.

If resolved to keep the paunch, the intellectual fatties can at least take comfort in knowing that the thin lawyers are the dumb ones. [Ed. note: There was no substantial increase in caloric intake as a result of coming up with that bit of logic.]

Thinking People Eat Too Much: Intellectual Work Found To Induce Excessive Calorie Intake [Science Daily]

Honestly, we are not trying to pile on Michigan. We know how obsessed some of their students are with their U.S. News law school ranking. But perhaps the law school administration has taken things too far in their attempt to make Michigan the “champions of the west.”

From TaxProf Blog:

Michigan’s new Wolverine Scholars Program — in which [University of] Michigan undergrads with a minimum 3.80 GPA are admitted to Michigan Law School if they agree to not take the LSAT. The rankings benefit is that there is no LSAT score to report to U.S. News, while the minimum 3.80 GPA will boost Michigan’s median 3.64 GPA, which counts 10% in U.S. News’ methodology.

Look Michigan, if you are going to try to rig something, at least have the decency to do it under the cover of darkness.

To a UM college student with a 3.8, the Wolverine Scholars Program looks like an interesting example of game theory. But to the rest of us, it looks a straight bribe. It’s like Michigan Law School is saying: “Please, please, please don’t take the LSAT. Because if you get a 167 we probably have to accept you anyway. And if you get a 175 you will better deal us for a lobster dinner.”

The Big Ten strikes back, after the jump.

We here at ATL are big believers in push-back. Tell the partners and your colleagues about your personal needs and desires, and try your best to take some control over your work schedule. The firm can survive without you.

But the theory behind successful push back is that you are not the most important person at the firm. It seems that one first-year associate didn’t learn that lesson. He sent out the following “vacation memo,” after just three days at the firm:

1. I will depart for vacation on Wednesday, November 26th (the Wednesday before thanksgiving). I plan to return to the office on Tuesday, December 2nd (the Tuesday after Thanksgiving).

2. In case of emergency, I will be staying at [redacted]. I can best be reached on my cell phone at [redacted]. I will be visiting my parents, and their house has a landline [redacted].

3. The secretaries in my pool will open my mail. These are [redacted].

4. I will be answering my own phone at the numbers listed above.

5. I currently have received no matters, though this will undoubtedly change by Thanksgiving.

6. I will send out an update and official vacation memorandum with this information a week before Thanksgiving.

Some helpful advice, after the jump.

[Ed Note: This is the third and final installment in the Curious Case of Randy, a rather eccentric law firm partner. You can read Part 1 over here and Part 2 over here.]

Weeks pass, and Randy continues to be randy. Stopping by my office no less than three times a day. Gawking at the summer associates as they get their lunches downstairs. I kind of just check out.

I decide to ignore him, figuring that eventually he’ll go away. I do, however, find myself staring at his chest each time he comes in and interrupts me. I’m looking for milk. Or the emergence of breasts. But I don’t recall seeing anything. I think the pills must have gotten that problem under control — but not the other thing. He’s so antsy and manic — sometimes I thought he might start touching himself in my office. Anyway, here it comes, and I’m not lying.

Several weeks later, as February approached — the month that I have always contended is the cruelest month (not April, as T.S. Eliot alleges) — Valentine’s season begins. I tend to ignore all this heart/love crap because I think it’s stupid. I was never one to send out Valentine’s Day cards, even in elementary school. I rejected it. I mean, I can barely say I love you to my parents or my boyfriend; I’m certainly not going to say it to some random person. And I doubt my meatball (non-lawyer, a big plus) boyfriend will do anything anyway.

So I walk into my office at 9:00 a.m., maybe 9:30 actually, on February 14th. There is a large, blood orange, inter-office envelope on top of my desk. I figure it’s my expense report or the report of my billable hours, which I haven’t met for two months. As I open it, however, a pink something falls out. I turn it over. It is a homemade Valentine, constructed out of pale pink construction paper, topped with an old-school white doily, and on it, there is a poem written by a dark purple crayon. My first thought is, how cute; it must be from my partner’s daughter, Rose.

Find out what the poem is about, after the jump.

* President Bush wants lawmakers to hurry up and pass the $700 billion bailout plan. Sounds like taxpayers are going to be paying back those $600 economy stimulation rebates and then some. The Dems agree to drop the provision giving greater authority to bankruptcy judges. [New York Times]

* Democrats sue in Washington to force “G.O.P.” gubernatorial candidate to embrace his “Republican” identity. [New York Times]

* Guantanamo prosecutor quits, citing ethical concerns. [Washington Post]

* Kudos to these four law firms. Covington, Arnold & Porter, Katten, and Pillsbury make Working Mother magazine’s best employers list. [National Law Journal]

* Who would have thought a gas mask would be needed for a DUI arrest? [WSAZ]

* Gibson Dunn’s Ted Olson will appear before SCOTUS for the 50th time this fall. One secret to his success: St. Michael the Archangel. [Legal Times (subscription req.)]

* ATL’s former bling-bling lawyer of the day, Gabriel Schwartz, was robbed of property worth only $63,000, by his random-lady-friend-turned-thief. [Associated Press]

At yesterday’s shareholder video conference, the leadership of Heller Ehrman assured the partnership that their line of credit was still open. That doesn’t mean that they can survive, just that they still have some time to make their next move.

Meanwhile, after the meeting, Heller Chairman Matthew Larrabee finally communicated with associates and staff:

To: All-Hands

I am profoundly sorry that I have not been in direct communication with you recently. We realize that there has been a lot of news coverage about our firm, and it is wrong to have that be your source of information. We have been focused on urgent and significant issues that are facing the firm and carefully considering our options. We also have been focused on trying to get answers to the many questions that we know need to be addressed.

While that may explain some of the private meetings and small-group discussions that have been held recently, we know that there has been a lengthy gap in communication that needs to be filled as soon as possible.

To that end, we are planning to hold meetings with everyone before the end of this week via video conference and/or local, in-person discussions. You will receive an invitation to participate as soon as we can finish gathering important information we know you seek.

Again, I apologize for not communicating with you sooner. We realize the anxiety that you are feeling and we are doing everything we can to find answers to your questions.

Matt

But what is left to say? As one tipster put it:

[T]he whole place here is nuts. I’m kinda soaking up a salary until a decision gets made, but we’re operating under the assumption that we’re gonna fold.

Pour a shot on the ground for Heller? Probably in a few weeks for sure.

A wise man once said, “The waiting is the hardest part.” Take heart Hellerites, the long dark of dissolution is almost at an end.

Are you still stuck at the office, settling in for a long evening of work, and thinking about what to order from SeamlessWeb? Maybe you goofed off all day because you have nobody to go home to at night.

(We know what that’s like. It’s why we’ve been covering the ATL night shift lately.)

Fellow single people, we wish you a Happy National Singles Week (September 21-28). From the San Francisco Chronicle:

There are 92 million unmarried Americans, and this is their week.

Since the 1980s, the third full week of September has been National Singles Week. Started by Ohio’s Buckeye Singles Council as a way to recognize the role singles play in society, it is now known as National Unmarried and Single Americans Week. According to the U.S. census, the adjusted name acknowledges that many unmarried Americans do not identify with the word “single” because they have partners or are widowed.

Many of them are also rejecting the stereotyped notion that they’re living in hope of the perfect spouse appearing, a Disneylike vision in a reality-show world. They’re creating a grassroots effort to obtain equal rights in health care access, taxation and other areas while demanding that they be seen as living their lives in full.

And equal rights in law offices, too. Single lawyers: How many times have you had to pick up the slack or hold down the fort for a colleague who left work early for an anniversary dinner, daughter’s ballet recital, or Valentine’s Day celebration?

Read more — plus take a reader poll, concerning whether single people or married people make better Biglaw employees — after the jump.

It looks like the shareholders of Heller Ehrman will finally get the latest information about what’s going on at the firm. We just received this message:

To: All Shareholders

We are holding a FW SH VC today to provide you with as much information as we can. Although we will not have answers to all your questions, we plan to update you on our “bank discussions, plans for an orderly transition (or wind down) of our business and larger opportunities for our people”.

We realize all of you are very busy. Please make every effort to participate in today’s meeting. Thank you.

Heller is starting to look like a supernova that happens in slow motion.

The email has caused some members of the Heller community to speculate on the obvious question: are we getting paid this week?

Whether it’s “an orderly transition” or a “wind down,” the future of Heller could be known in the next few hours.

Will We Get Paid This Friday? [Heller Highwater]

* McCain is suspending his campaign — and trying to back out of Friday’s debate — so he can focus on the economy. We’ll go with that until Sarah Palin figures out how she can drop McCain from the ticket entirely. [Dealbreaker]

* The ABA is launching a new magazine directed at IP attorneys, blatantly pandering to the only attorneys that have stable futures these days. [ABA]

* I wish I had the stones to say this to my parents … yesterday [Ridiculum]

* Man farts on police officer and gets charged with battery. What’s next, resisting arrest via halitosis? [WSAZ.com via Drudge]

* Bar results are out in Florida. [TaxProf Blog]

* O.J. nemesis David Cook (who represents the Goldman family) has been barred from testifying against Simpson in his current armed robbery trial. The prosecution had hoped to use Cook to establish Simpson’s motive. [AP]

Memo to prospective 2009 Heller summer associates: you might want to disregard that summer offer you received. While the firm has not officially canceled it’s 2009 summer program, this email is exemplary of the chatter we are hearing at ATL today:

Three weeks ago, I interviewed for a summer associate position with … Heller Ehrman. A week later, I received an offer. Although I harbored concerns about taking an offer from Heller, I liked many of the people I met … A few days ago, I got a call from their recruiting department. They said that although they could not officially rescind their offer, they “strongly encouraged” me to decline their offer, and accept an offer from another firm. They said that, looking ahead, they are now uncertain about the viability of a summer program in 2009. I can’t imagine that bodes well for the future of the firm…..

With Heller Ehrman’s future still up in the air, no job or offer is safe. Prospective summers should beware. Current employees are already telling you that things are not looking good.

But there seems to be one dominate question in the minds of our readers:

[T]he firm’s management should get together and write a book on how to run a profitable 119 YEAR OLD LAW FIRM that has survived Black Tuesday and the great depression, survived Black Monday, the S&L Crisis of the 90’s and every other low point in American financial history until now into the ground in just one year.

During this interregnum between the signs of distress and the official announcement of … whatever, the blame game seems like the only appropriate distraction.

The San Francisco Chronicle has one take on how Heller lost its way:

The closest recent parallel is the demise of another venerable San Francisco law firm, Brobeck Phleger & Harrison, which filed for bankruptcy in 2003. But the end of Brobeck, founded in 1926, was tied to the collapse of the dot-com boom in 2000. Brobeck’s lucrative specialty in technology IPOs and tech company clients imploded.

Heller Ehrman, by contrast, foundered while it shared with other law firms a challenging economy and an intensely competitive mutual effort to attract top lawyers who can bring in business.

But many readers felt that management — not the market— was to blame for Heller’s woes:

It was Heller Ehrman’s continued attempts to LOOK LIKE a big NY Law Firm that brought all of Heller Ehrman down.

I just wonder what law firm in NY would take on lawyers from Heller’s NY Office who spent the last 5 years destroying a 100+ year old SF Law Firm?

Of course, Tupac is no fun without a Biggie response:

I am so sick of the West Coast blaming all of this on NY. The NY associates, paras and staff didn’t have a vote and/or a say about Heller setting up shop in NY. We are in the same boat you are. So back off!!

One associate decided to move beyond assigning blame and instead skipped straight to the eulogy. Though the firm deleted the message in short order, it lives on thanks to a few quick-saving people and appeared in our comments thread. We applaud the writer’s attempt to stress the positives as Heller remains incommunicado.

Memo re-posted in full after the jump.

Maria Dominguez knows that Diddy samples songs, but maybe she thought her boobs were off limits?

Dominguez, a hedge fund manager at an undisclosed firm, sued Diddy and Vibe magazine for publishing topless photos of her in a pool taken at Diddy’s 2003 “White Party” in the Hamptons. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan tossed the $3 million invasion-of-privacy suit yesterday. Ling-Cohan felt that there was no expectation of privacy when you are with Diddy:

“Sean Combs and his renowned annual White Party are subjects of tremendous public interest, attracting the steady attention of the public and many news organizations,” Ling-Cohan wrote.

Dominguez argued that she didn’t know pictures were being taken, and didn’t give anybody permission to publish her endowments.

Vibe’s lawyers countered with:

If you need to call Mr. Gorbachev to ask permission, you’ll never get anything published.

Gorbachev was pretty progressive. Maybe he would have given his blessing to publish naked pool pictures. I’m almost positive Yeltsin would have been down.

But Diddy’s lawyers articulated an excellent “fair use” policy that all future White Party revelers should commit to memory:

When you come to a party and you dress provocatively and you see a swarm of photographers there, you would know what you’re getting yourself into.

I did it before, I’ll do it again.

Maria Dominguez’s topless ‘Mermaids Gone Wild’ photo lawsuit against Diddy, Vibe gets tossed [Daily News]

Chen Chih-chung was kicked out of UVA Law before he could start his 1L year for missing the school’s orientation meeting.

At least that is UVA’s official response.

No ordinary 1L would be kicked out of school for missing one meeting — but Chen is no ordinary 1L. As Virginia Law Weekly reports:

[Chen] is the son of Taiwan’s former President, Chen Shui-bian, who served from 2000 to 2008. After leaving office in May, he was indicted for his alleged role in a large-scale embezzlement and money laundering scheme.

The younger Chen missed the Law School’s orientation when he flew home to cooperate with an inquiry into whether he played a role in the alleged criminal enterprise. Chen Chih-chung has since been added as a defendant in the investigation.

The family denies any wrongdoing.

Why Chen missed the mixer, after the jump.

[Ed Note: Yesterday we learned that Hope’s partner pal, Randy, was taking testosterone pills to treat his “lactating man-boobs.” Today we learn about the downside of hormonal supplements.]

“Testosterone pills? Like, how many do you have to take?”

“Well, right now three. One with every meal.”

I wanted to end this conversation and finish the bloody filing so I could go out and get wasted.

“Well, I hope it helps and you feel better soon!” I gathered my papers and stared at my laptop.

“Well, my chest isn’t hurting as much, but there’s this other problem.”

Good Lord.

“What?”

“Well…” Randy leaned forward and whispered, “I can’t stop thinking about sex. I’m like obsessed with it. I can’t do my work. It’s all I think about — I feel like I’ve turned into a teenage boy again.”

Okay, this is weird. Really weird. And, weird is what I sought to escape. I found myself longing for the hairy armpits, unbuckled trousers, and pool parties back at Pants Down.

“I mean… I can’t even go to lunch in public without staring at every girl that walks by.”

This proved to be true. I later witnessed this at a lunch with some summer associates. Each time a remotely attractive girl walked by, his neck moved more rapidly than the ducks I fed stale bread to at our lake house. Clearly he was hungry — and not shy.

“Well, I really think you need to talk to your doctor about this. Maybe they can lower the medication.”

“Well, he has lowered it. Still. All I think about its sex! Even my wife is sick of me — I want it like three times a day.” My mind flashed back to the photo of the blond trophy wife on his desk. Please. She probably doesn’t even want to do it with him three times a year.

“I’m really sorry about your problem. But, I do have to get this filing done in an hour.”

I get him out of my office — and fast. I mean, what does he want me to do here? Service him? Well, he can try the self-service island. I wanted to tell him to go whack off and leave me alone.

Hope tries to finish the task at hand, after the jump.

Five women embarked on Starline’s Haunted Hollywood Tour, expecting to hear celebrity tales of sex, drugs, and depravity. But it sounds like they inadvertently signed up for an immersion tour, with a guide who was drunk, high, and verbally and sexually abusive. Now they’re suing.

From Courthouse News Service:

Five women say their host on a Starline Tours of Hollywood sexually pawed them while drunk or on drugs, called them “ni***rs” and “bitches,” urinated in a man’s front yard, lay down in the street with his shirt off, sexually attacked one woman while the other four yelled at him to stop, and assaulted them.

Maybe they should have been tipped off when their guide showed up in a “run-down, smoking Cadillac.” They claim they thought the car and depraved behavior were all part of the Halloween theme of the tour. Until the guy started to sexually assault one of them.

TMZ [PDF] got its hands on the complaint [PDF]. We’ve posted some choice excerpts after the jump.

In today’s ATL / Lateral Link survey, we turn our attention to first-year associates.

Last month, we reported that a lot of practicing attorneys don’t really like summer associates:

The number of practicing attorneys who said “Summer associates, hate ‘em” narrowly beat the number of practicing attorneys who said “Summer associates, love ‘em,” by a margin of 25.06% to 24.82%. And while that edge may not be statistically significant, it still has to sting a little.

Among lawyers who had been practicing for more than two years, the gap widened considerably, to 30% vs. 22%.

And in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and Miami, associates of all ages hated summer associates most of all, to the tune of at least 40%.

But now the summer associates of yesteryear are arriving at law firms around the country (unless their start dates have been delayed). How will they be received?

Will they be welcome colleagues, greeted as liberators from document production?

Or, now that their days of free lunch are behind them, will they consume precious billable hours and leave older associates hungry for work?

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

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

We have extensively covered the law firms shaking and baking thanks to the market collapse over the past few weeks. But the M&A and bankruptcy lawyers are only half of the clusterf&^%. Which litigators will get work as old Wall Street business models die spectacular deaths?

LegalTimes reports that O’Mel­veny & Myers is set up to have a huge litigation year:

[L]itigators at O’Mel­veny & Myers must be doing cartwheels in the hallways. Since Bank of America—a loyal client of O’Mel­veny’s litigation department—took over Countrywide earlier this year, O’Melveny has already begun to pick up extra work generated by the beleaguered mortgage company. With Merrill about to become part of Bank of America, O’Melveny might just be the best bet for out-of-work securities litigators looking for someplace to send their résumés.

More litigious winners after the jump.

[Ed Note: Pls Hndle Thx is a new weekly advice column in which ATL tackles your toughest law firm problems and provides you with debatable advice. Got a question? Send it here, and we’ll pick the best ones for future posts].

ATL -

My secretary is an idiot. She means well but can’t do basic things like collate, input edits correctly or cover for me when I leave the office early. She’s in her late 40s and a single mom, and while she tries hard, she really sucks. The secretary supervisor has been pestering me to review her because that’s how they determine pay levels, but I know if I’m honest in my review she’ll get penalized and potentially be fired. What should I do?

Secretary Purgatory

Dear Secretary Purgatory,

Take heart: the good news is that your secretary doesn’t have to be a law firm charity case. The bad news is that you have to implement the following three step system before you give your damning review:

1. Um, try talking to her. If you’d like your secretary to edit more carefully, simply snatch the offending documents from her hands and snarl, “Next time can you try not making 10,000 mistakes so that I don’t have to do everything myself? Great, thanks.” Or, just casually mention that she is doing a horrendous job and needs to shape up or else.

2. Set traps in order to determine whether any improvement in your secretary’s work is real or a false positive. For instance, you might ask her if she sent that fax that you specifically asked her to send. If she replies in the affirmative, triumphantly reveal that there IS no such fax and that she’s a filthy liar. Proceed immediately to Step 4. If she doesn’t know what you’re talking about, grudgingly admit that you were testing her but that you’re nevertheless onto her dirty tricks.

3. Regale her with stories about assistants who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, like Renee Zellweger in Jerry Maguire. Renee risked it all for her boss, you should mention ominously as you sit on the edge of her desk. Does she want to be a Renee? Don’t wait for her answer - walk toward your office and when you reach the doorway, pause, turn back and say, “I don’t know… I just don’t know.”

4. If you’ve implemented Steps 1-3 and your secretary still shows no signs of progress, give her an honest review. Frankly, if you suck at your job, the partnership won’t hesitate to give YOU a bad review (unless you work at Davis Polk, in which case you won’t be told anything until you’re fired). The hallowed pyramid structure of law firms can only be maintained if shit rolls down hill. Just as senior associates must throw you under the bus when you screw up, so too must you throw your underlings under the bus so that we may preserve this cycle of abuse for our children and our children’s children.

Your friend,

Marin

See Elie’s response after the jump.

* Can Warren Buffett save Wall Street? [New York Times]

* Everyone’s scrambling to get involved in cleaning up the financial industry meltdown. Even the F.B.I. [Los Angeles Times]

* Warning to travelers in Muslim countries: Please refrain from having sex on the beach. [Reuters]

* “Dude, FGM is not cool.” Okay, maybe that’s not a direct quote… Attorney General Michael Mukasey rebukes the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals in an asylum case. [Washington Post]

* Former ABA president Alfred Carlton, Jr. ruminates on what the bailout means for law firms. More jobs, more work. Yay! [The American Lawyer]

* Ex-Judge Donald “Penis Pump” Thompson is out of prison but has been disbarred. [Tulsa World]

* Judge says Dan Rather can go ahead and sue the heck out of CBS. [Austin Business Journal]

Back in July, we were the first to wonder about the mysterious departure from Sullivan & Cromwell of Carlos Spinelli-Noseda, a rising star at the über-prestigious (and profitable) law firm. Some commenters viewed our interest in his departure as unseemly, prying, or reflecting bias against S&C.

We don’t mean to gloat — okay, maybe just a little — but we’ve been vindicated by recent revelations. From a report by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal:

A former Sullivan & Cromwell partner has resigned from the bar for billing his clients and firm more than $500,000 in fraudulent travel and entertainment expenses.

Carlos J. Spinelli-Noseda, a banking and finance specialist who joined Sullivan & Cromwell straight out of Harvard Law School in 1994 and became a partner in 2003, was facing a disciplinary investigation over a pattern of improper billing dating from roughly July 1998 to February 2008.

In a June 3 affidavit of resignation he submitted to the disciplinary committee of the First Department, Mr. Spinelli-Noseda admitted he could not successfully defend himself against charges of professional misconduct. Such resignations are frequently tendered when further proceedings are almost certain to lead to disbarment.

Read more, after the jump.

* Can you enforce a relationship exclusivity contract? And what kind of loser couple would sign such a contract? [Overlawyered]

* Florida Law Review just discovered audio recordings. Next up for the tastefully named “FlaLaw Online,” the editors tackle the mysterious telephone that doubles as a phonograph. [How Appealing]

* I wish somebody would have told me, back when I was a 1L, that three years later my law school would actually expect me to pay them money. In lieu of that, I suppose these three suggestions for 1Ls are pretty good. [Ms. J.D.]

* A woman was ordered to stop having children as a condition of her probation. No, it’s not Sarah Palin. [Volokh Conspiracy]

Here is yet another rumor — somewhat better sourced than the Thacher Proffitt / King & Spalding rumor, but a rumor nonetheless — about a possible law firm merger.

Word on the street is that Seyfarth Shaw is seeking a merger partner. This should not come as a shock, since Seyfarth has been stumbling a bit due to the downturn. As previously reported, the firm has pushed back start dates and trimmed its lawyer ranks.

The Seyfarth partnership recently returned from its retreat, where strategic opportunities were discussed. The scuttlebutt is that the firm is in “serious” merger talks with another firm of roughly equal size. Upon information and belief, that firm is Squire Sanders.

Both firms hover around the 800-attorney mark. The product of their merger — nicknamed “S4” by one tipster, standing for either “Seyfarth Shaw Squire Sanders” or “Squire Sanders Seyfarth Shaw” — would be a 1600-lawyer behemoth. The combination would give Seyfarth a coveted foothold in Bratislava.

Associate meetings were held in all Seyfarth Shaw offices earlier this afternoon. Associates were briefed on the retreat and told about ongoing merger talks with another firm. Details are scarce; the confidential nature of the merger talks was stressed to the associates “about a dozen times.”

Whether these talks will bear fruit is anyone’s guess. Lately law-firm merger talks have been falling at a high rate.

We’ll keep you posted. If you have any info to share, please email us. Thanks.

We like the occasional poo-poo joke here at ATL, but we’re torn between amusement and disgust in the case of Cornell Tyler, 37, who is being tried for murder in Markham Courthouse in Illinois. His actions give new meaning to Freud’s anal-sadistic phase.

Tyler used sandwich bags from lunch to create excrement bombs on Thursday. He tried to use them on Circuit Judge Kathleen Panozzo, but her deputies took the hit. From the Chicago Tribune:

“The judge said, ‘Is your name Cornell Tyler?’ ” [Assistant State Atty. Ted] Lagerwall said. “He said, ‘My name is Self Destruction, but you can call me Smitty—well, I mean [expletive].’”

Tyler then quickly reached down the front of his pants and pulled out the baggie but the deputies beside him pounced on him.

“In that scuffle, he did throw the excrement toward the front of the courtroom,” Mateck said. “The judge was not injured, but unfortunately our deputies were … adversely affected.”

Poor deputies. The courtroom had to be cleared because it “stunk to high heavens.”

It seems likely that Tyler’s nickname will change from “Self Destruction” to “No More Fiber For Me.”

Defendant tosses excrement at Markham Courthouse judge [Chicago Tribune]

Remember that scene in Ferris Bueller where Ferris’s mom is home a little early and gently opens the door to his room? With the pulleys and the mannequin and the sound system Ferris is able to convince his mom that he is in his bed comfortably sleeping.

With a little ingenuity Perfect Plush could give associates the necessary cover for the long lunch. According to the company, this plush doll already has many of the skills of a successful associate:

He’s at your firm. He’s the guy who walks around late at night to make sure he’s the last one there, and will do the same an hour later if someone else is still working. He sends unimportant emails at 1 a.m., just to let everyone (especially the partners) know he’s still billing. He will corner the summer associates and tell them a war story about his latest deposition (even though he has only taken four in his six year career). He will be sure to let everyone know just how many hours he billed last month and where he stands for the year.

If it comes with a fake-laugh track, we’re pretty sure partners won’t know the difference.

Perfect Plush

Coming into this week, Harvard Law School had placed 58 federal clerks, leading all law schools. That is not altogether surprising, given the Cretaceous size of HLS classes. Yale is only clocking in with 14 (9th place) clerks. But it’s early yet. It’s just important that Eli-the-bulldog doesn’t drop his bone in the river trying to grab another one.

The real news from the Federal Appellate Judicial Clerks 2009 blog is that the University of Michigan Law School is currently tied for second (with Stanford).

Way to go, wolverines. We told you that stealing cell phones and sandwiches wasn’t going to adversely affect the school’s reputation when it came to anything important.

But look at how difficult it is to get a clerkship coming from a school outside of the top 14:

* T14: 71.3%

* Others: 28.7%

Those numbers are worst than last year for those outside the top 14.

At least if you are still in the top tier you have a fighting chance to get a clerkship. The path to clerking is all but blocked for those outside tier 1:

* T1: 94.2%

* T2: 3.6%

* T3: 1.4%

* T4: 0.8%

The lesson, as always, get into the best school you can and don’t look back.

Federal Appellate Judicial Clerks 2009

Remember the Davis Polk “internal memo” from last week, touting the firm’s success at navigating the perilous waters of Wall Street? Other firms are following DPW’s lead, taking the opportunity to toot their own horns about how well they’re doing despite — or perhaps because of — the financial system meltdown.

From a firm-wide email that was sent around this morning at Debevoise & Plimpton, by corporate department chair Michael Blair:

[W]hile the turmoil in the marketplace has caused dislocation and real pain for many with whom we have worked over the years, it has also given rise to opportunities for us to provide advice and counsel to existing and new clients as they chart their way at this challenging juncture….

In addition to the work of the last two weeks, much of which is ongoing, we are seeing a surge in related work, involving M&A transactions that grow out of likely restructurings of these companies as well as Lehman-related bankruptcy work and financings and restructurings occasioned by the recent changes in the financial institutions landscape.

We have also been engaged in a wide range of litigation work relating to the credit crisis in the past year….

Moral of the story: 2Ls, Debevoise is the place to be. They’ll have more than enough work to keep you busy.

Read the full memo, after the jump.

Grade inflation happens at lot of schools. Maybe even most of them. But when a prominent professor and alumna calls your grading system “such a fraud,” well that is a school we should all be lucky enough to attend.

Some highlights for people that cannot watch YouTube at work:

Van Susteren: Have you ever graded? It really is disturbing that it affects people’s lives the way it does when it is so … subjective.”

It is “disturbing” that you know how important it is, yet throw up your hands and just “give everybody A’s”

More highlights after the jump.

Not that anybody asked them, but Wachtell has decided to weigh in on the financial crisis. According to Am Law Daily, Wachtell wants short-selling to stop:

So say several memorandums penned during the past week by executive committee cochair and banking transactions rainmaker Edward Herlihy, 14-year SEC veteran and firm of counsel Theodore Levine, and associate Carmen Woo.

“In today’s markets, short sales continue to be at record levels, there are false rumors in the marketplace about the demise of financial firms, bear raids and abusive short selling are taking place, and there is significant disruption in the fair and orderly functioning of the securities markets,” said Herlihy and Levine in their first memo on September 16. “The markets are in crisis.”

Generally, we like our political power brokers to be elected or at least appointed by somebody who was elected. However, with everybody else in government waiting for Mr. Paulson to come and save America, maybe it is not a bad thing to have professional lawyers suggesting a strong course of action.

We don’t know if the SEC was listening. But we do know that Wachtell told them to ban short-selling on September 16th, and the SEC banned short-selling on September 19th. Post hoc ergo propter hoc …

Wachtell’s next gambit after the jump.

First of all, never ever shoot your cerebellum up with botulism two days before a deadline. God. My head hurts. Yet, I rise …

Here we go.

“Listen, go work somewhere where people like you… I mean, really like you. Then, you can screw up, and it doesn’t even matter. Hope, just go somewhere where people like you, and you’ll be in. Nothing else matters.”

Sage advice given to me from a senior associate at the Pants Down law firm. I mean, he was forced to eat white buns at his desk, the only staple stashed in desk drawer, because he never, ever left his office — not even to get lunch. But he was brilliant, the golden child of Litigation. And he knew this firm was pure evil. He wanted me to escape while I was still young enough.

So, after putting in a few years at Pants Down, I decided to leave. In addition to fending off the advances of creepy middle-aged male partners, I had become increasingly fed up with the partners there, in general.

Plus, at the end of every single day, I was so completely drained. Had I been a mother required to feed a child, my breast would have just dried up. I just had nothing left to give. Anyone.

I was ready to jump.

So, I decided to go to a firm that was less prestigious and international, but that was fine by me. I liked it better anyway when the world was round, not flat. And I was really sick of reading The Economist. There are just way too many countries. More importantly, I was excited to go to a place where the partners actually cared about me and what I wanted to do with my life. And my friend Molly, who had recently left the firm, was really happy now.

She e-mailed me from her new firm: “Listen, Hope. I came to Pants Down because I thought the people were kind of eccentric, interesting — not the super stuffy lawyers you usually find. Now, actually, after seeing all their erratic crazy behavior, I want boring, dull, bland. That’s fine by me.”

I e-mailed her back: “I know. These people are nuts. I mean, who goes to a ‘pool party’ and jumps in the pool in a bikini in front of their colleagues - especially with unshaved armpits? So gross.”

Query: What woman doesn’t shave her armpits? And, if you opt not to shave your pits because you fancy yourself some Nicaraguan rebel leader, then please, keep your arms down. The summer associate pool party was my breaking point — I had to get the hell out of here. These people were just too weird. And the partner for whom I worked was mean as hell and had an old school mustache. That also was weird.

Well, the new firm proved to be everything I expected. They cared about me. Too much.

Read more, after the jump.

* Charges against porn producer stand despite the Alex Kozinski controversy. [San Jose Mercury News]

* You get ripped off by some guy. You sue the guy. You’re awarded damages. The guy starts paying you back. The guy declares bankruptcy. You have to pay the guy back. Huh? [Associated Press]

* Wisconsin inmate is awarded $295,000 in suit against prison guard who made him sleep on a moldy bed. It’s going to be a while until he can spend it though. He’s serving a 23-year term. [The Smoking Gun]

* University of Tennessee sophomore who hacked Sarah Palin’s e-mail account is under FBI investigation and has hired a lawyer. Was it really worth it? The hacker wrote upon posting the e-mails, “there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped.” [WBIR]

* Wachtell calls for action against short sellers. [American Lawyer]

Prominent litigator Raoul Kennedy, a partner in the San Francisco office of Skadden, stuck his head in the lion’s mouth — and lived to talk about it. Legal Pad reports that Kennedy went to a Federalist Society meeting in San Francisco to defend gay marriage, where he didn’t pull any punches:

“How are any of us adversely impacted,” Kennedy asked, “when same-sex couples get married?”

The issue of gay marriage, he added, “is to the 21st century what slavery was to the 19th century.” Years from now, Kennedy insisted, the average person will look back and say, “How could people be so backward-oriented?”

He told the crowd there are so many problems in the world that gay marriage — in which two people only want to commit to a life together — shouldn’t be a problem. “You’ve got to have something better to do with your lives,” he said.

It’s easy to praise Kennedy for defending gay rights in front of a hostile audience, but how about the Federalist Society even existing in San Francisco? That’s like starting a Bill Maher fan club at Sunday school.

Kennedy presumably had the support of some of the Society’s more libertarian members. His debate opponent, Glen Lavy of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, was the flag bearer for the social conservatives:

Lavy also said that only those “who oppose democracy” would try to challenge Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 ballot measure that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, if it passes. He also argued that a defeat of Prop 8 would lead to legal attacks — on the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages and on pastors who preach that same-sex relationships are immoral based on biblical teachings.

It would be interesting to hear what Kennedy’s fellow partners thought about their colleague pissing off the Federalist Society.

Californians: Care to predict the fate of Prop 8?

Attorney Defends Gay Marriage to Tough Crowd [LegalPad]

* McKinsey & Co. doesn’t care about your law firm’s operations, but these 100 people do. [Lawdragon]

* Bruce MacEwen explains exactly why the era of Wall Street is over. New York City is going to have to find a new tax base. [Adam Smith, Esq.]

* Taking a picture of Jamie Lynn Spears breast feeding shows incredibly poor taste. But is it also child pornography? [TMZ]

* Should shareholders really be that important? [Prawfs Blawg]

* Blawg Review comes from a land down under. You better run, you better take cover. [Freedom To Differ via Blawg Review]

One of the “perks” of working in Biglaw is the ridiculous amount of money that gets direct deposited into your account every two weeks. Even if you work for a firm that pays below market rate, your earnings still beat the bag out of what they pay at the local 7-11.

Can you imagine having to take a second job to make ends meet?

Welcome to the world of an assistant prosecutor or public defender. The National Law Journal has some disturbing stories of attorneys putting in double duty to pay off their loans:

“I have lawyers delivering pizzas, I have another lawyer umpiring and another bartending,” said Frank de la Torre, chief assistant at the Broward County Public Defender’s Office. “Many of us could be making more money in private practice, but obviously those of us who make a career in the field of indigent defense do it because we love it and we believe in the Constitution.”

The sad thing isn’t just that they have to take these jobs, it’s that they make more money — bartending or whatever— than they do in the legal profession.

We’ve covered the craptistic pay for government lawyers in the past. Many public attorneys used to be able to pick up some real estate or T&E work on the side. Today? Not so much.

Keep on grifting ‘till you drop, or it’s back to the crumbs from the table after the jump.

This is just a rumor, so take it with a grain — nay, a shaker — of salt. But we hear that Thacher Proffitt & Wood — which has been badly bloodied by the mortgage meltdown and Wall Street crisis, and has gone through multiple rounds of layoffs — is in “serious” merger discussions with King & Spalding.

The idea that TPW might be seeking a white knight shouldn’t be that surprising. Back in July, Thacher’s managing partner, Paul Tvetenstrand, had to deny rumors that the firm was headed for dissolution.

In his email, Tvetenstrand acknowledged that “[l]ike many firms in this unusual market we have had to take steps to adjust to the credit crisis.” One such step, of course, is to take refuge in the arms of someone who’s weathering the storm better. See, e.g., Merrill Lynch / Bank of America.

We reached out to both firms for comment. TPW didn’t get back to us. Kimberly Brooks, public relations manager of King & Spalding, had this comment:

It is our responsibility as a law firm to offer clients the highest level of service possible. As such, King & Spalding regularly explores opportunities that might provide for additional expertise and accessibility.

As a matter of policy, we do not comment on rumors in the market.

So they won’t comment on “rumors in the market” — but maybe some of you would like to? If you have additional insight into this rumor — it’s true, it’s false, it’s somewhere in between — feel free to email us. Thanks.

A few weeks ago we pointed out that 95% of law professors that have made a campaign contributions donated their money to Barack Obama. Those professors teach at some of the top law schools in the country.

But what about the 5% of professors that have contributed to John McCain? It has been previously reported that only Northwestern faculty favored McCain over Obama (regional rivalary between Northwestern and the University of Chicago?). Paul Caron over at TaxProf Blog tells us where to find law professors for McCain:

* Pepperdine: 100% ($3,250) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* South Texas: 100% ($1,020) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* Liberty: 100% ($555) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* Faulkner: 100% ($350) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* Marquette: 100% ($303) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* Oklahoma City: 100% ($255) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* Chapman: 100% ($250) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* Ohio Northern: 100% ($250) to Republicans, 0 to Democrats

* George Mason: 81.7% ($4,450) to Republicans, 18.3% ($1,000) to Democrats

* Duquesne: 78.9% ($1,500) to Republicans, 21.1% ($400) to Democrats

* St. Louis: 77.3% ($850) to Republicans, 22.7% ($250) to Democrats

* Syracuse: 50.2% ($700) to Republicans, 49.8% ($695) to Democrats

* Alabama: 50.0% ($250) to Republicans, 50.0% ($250) to Democrats

A few tipsters offered an explanation for why the Northwestern faculty favored McCain:

The Northwestern numbers are so skewed to the GOP side because of two profs, Calabresi and McGinnis. The former was my 1L Con Law prof and, despite being incredibly wrong on many issues, is one of the nicest professors I’ve ever had. The latter is moonbat insane.

What about these other schools? Pepperdine professors have contributed more than the maximum individual contribution, so there are at least a couple of McCain supporters out in Malibu. Any idea why the 3-1-0 skews towards McCain?

McCain Law Schools [Tax Prof Blog]

Earlier: Birds That Look Like Law Professors Flock Together

Associates often complain that managing partners are elevated because they are excellent lawyers, whether or not they know anything about running a business.

But what happens when lawyers become CEOs of Fortune 500 businesses? According to Corporate Counsel, it’s more poop on a different stick:

Two lawyer-CEOs who were hired amid fanfare a few years ago saw their tenures end during the past year — each with a distinct thud. Last November, Charles Prince III, Citigroup Inc.’s chairman and CEO (and, earlier, its GC), resigned under pressure after four years at the helm. In January, Michael Cherkasky, the CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. (and a former prosecutor), ended his three-year reign. Both were hired to tackle their companies’ ethical crises, and their legal expertise was cited as one of their virtues. They were praised for their handling of the legal quagmires, then hounded for months by investors demanding profits. So much for lawyers in red capes.

That sounds like classic American corporate culture. Making “money” for “shareholders” trumps playing it safe and covering your backside.

In fairness, it seems odd to take lawyers schooled in the ancient art of risk-aversion and then ask them to play corporate craps with the best CEOs.

Lawyers’ first, best use after the jump.

Sometimes it’s a lonely, lonely world, and you have to grasp at any little flicker of love. Thus exists Craigslist Missed Connections. A tipster noted this recent post from CLMC of the legal love variety. Location: DC Superior Court.

You: Plaintiff - m4m - 33 (DC Superior Court)
Reply to: pers-847863619@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-09-20, 12:02AM EDT

You were one of like three guys in the room (fifth floor courtroom) who were under 50 this morning. Curious to know what your case was about. Coffee? (Name the judge to be sure we were in the same room.)

We wonder if the connection has been made and if M33 has explored all the details of the plaintiff’s “case.”

You: Plaintiff - m4m - 33 (DC Superior Court) [District of Columbia Craigslist]

Earlier: ATL Coverage of Craiglist Postings

We received 964 responses to our ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you’re looking for work, and one thing is pretty clear: if you’re a 2L right now, there’s a pretty good chance that the associates you meet in your callbacks don’t actually want to be there.

A whopping 45% of respondents who had been practicing for at least a year said that they were either already looking for a new job or about to start their search.

Specifically,

• 27% said they were looking for a new job right now,


• 12% said they were getting their resumes ready, and


• 6% plan to get their resumes ready just as soon as they receive their bonus checks.

But not everybody’s looking to leave right now. Another 14% of practitioners said that they weren’t planning on looking for a new job … because they had just started one.

Even among incoming associates, there was a surprisingly strong tendency toward jumping ship. 14% of respondents in the Class of 2008 are already looking for new jobs, and another 2% are getting their resumes ready.

And third-year law students are also looking around, as 28% of 3L’s said they were interviewing again this fall. Of these, 62% said they were no-offered, and another 5% said they received a cold offer from their summer employer.

Are You Looking For A New Job Right Now? Breakdown By Class

Additional discussion, including a breakdown by practice area, after the jump.

Last week we brought you the tale of lunchtime thievery at the University of Michigan Law School. Two months ago we told you about the international cell phone caper.

Well it’s time to show that ATL can get as good as we give. Our reporting has provoked an angry response from some Michigan Law School students:

I have one question to ask the ATL e-mail forwarder: Why would you want to make a laughingstock out of *the school you attend? In case you overlooked that fact, you go here, friend. As in, you are affiliated with this school, and when ATL and a bandwagon of commentators talk smack about this school, they’re talking about you by affiliation.

It’s not humorous, because—believe it or not—there are actual people with actual jobs centered around fostering good PR about this school. When there are people forwarding embarrassing, curse word-filled e-mails to ATL, or e-mails denigrating poor people, it kind of goes against the grain and makes all of us look bad.

So, maybe you could stop?
Thanks.

Just to be clear, we are fans of Michigan. You will not find a sweater-vest among us. It just never occurred to us that the law school student body had been conscripted into the University Spin Team.

But apparently some students believe that one bad apple spoils the bunch:

Gossip magazines and gossip e-magazines fall short (understatement) of the student body here at Michigan Law. As a student and recipient of AbovetheLaw interview requests, I feel strongly that any contributors from our student body to a gossip column make us ALL look bad. Our allegiance should lie with our Law School (as our future jobs depend a great deal on the University’s prestige) and I encourage my peers to rise AbovetheLaw for the sake of our collective good. We are Michigan Law and We will one day have “the province and duty… to say what the law is.” —- Chief Justice John Marshall.

“Son, it’s not about what you are called, it’s about what you answer to.” — My Mom.

A curious dissent from a Michigan law student after the jump.

Just to give you fair warning, O.J. Simpson could get off again.

The Juice is on trial for storming into the Palace Station hotel in Las Vegas and “liberating” some sports memorabilia at gunpoint. The prosecution would like to make the case about the largely inescapable facts that O.J. and his friends stole the goods and had guns.

O.J. and his lawyer Yale Galanter would like the case to turn on some other factor: persecution, “justifiable” larceny, wookies.

After the train wreck that was Mark Fuhrman, you’d think that any cop investigating O.J. would be on his best behavior. But there seems to be something about police officers losing their collective minds when it comes to O.J.

In testimony last week, detective Andy Caldwell essentially admitted that he turned into the great Cornholio when he found out that O.J. Simpson was prominently involved:

Jurors who have been told to refrain from judging O.J. Simpson on his past heard a recording Thursday of a police employee exulting: “This is great. … California can’t get him. … Now we’ll be able to.”

The recording was made by Thomas Riccio, the star witness for the prosecution.

Nice.

Maybe this will still work out for Vegas PD. After all, finding 12 people who have not already pre-judged Simpson is practically impossible. But the heart of Simpson’s first brush with the law was shoddy and untrustworthy police work.

Here we go again.

Update (10/04/08): See here.

Vegas police talked of ‘getting’ O.J. on recording [My Way News]
In Session [CNN]

* Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will be converted into traditional bank holding companies. With all the turmoil in the financial services industry, some attorneys think in-house is the new outhouse and are running back to law firm employment. [National Law Journal]

* “Merchant of Death”/ “Lord of War”/ Russian-guy-who-loves-selling-guns faces extradition hearing in Thailand for U.S. terrorism charges. [CNN]

* Kirkland & Ellis partner sues his wife, her alleged lover, and her dad for giving him herpes. [New York Post]

* There Will Be Blood in the trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. In a matter of speaking. Big oilman to testify in corruption case against Stevens. [New York Times]

* Prison escapee and Purpose Driven Life convert Brian Nichols is finally going on trial in Atlanta. Perhaps they should let him sell his story and use the proceeds to pay off all the debt he’s racked up for the Georgia legal system. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Maybe I’m a prude, but I really don’t understand how lap dances are socially acceptable. Somebody walks by and puts their butt in my face. If I give them money, they keep doing it; if I slap it away, I get in trouble? At the very least, shouldn’t it work the other way around? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Yes, NYU Law professors, we are laughing at you. No, not with you. At you. [TaxProf Blog]

* Good job, ATL readers. Our collective level of panic forced the eighth-richest man in America to tell his company “get back in there and chill them n***$$ out!” [Bloomberg.com]

* This should be an interesting weekend out in Heller-land. [Heller Highwater]

Buzzing around the internet today is a ridiculous study from the Chicago Sun Times:

A new survey found that about 35 percent of professionals would pick their PDAs over their spouses if they had to choose.

A surprising 87 percent take their personal digital assistants into their bedrooms, and 84 percent check them just before going to bed and as soon as they wake up, according to a work-life survey from Sheraton Hotels & Resorts. Another 85 percent say they look at their PDAs in the middle of the night.

Sounds to me like 35 percent of professionals do not fully understand the ramifications of losing half their stuff.

But what’s worse is that many readers have emailed the story to ATL contending that the numbers for professionals “in the law” would be much, much higher.

Let’s settle this after the jump.

The treadmill desk of Aaron Craig, a litigator at Quinn Emanuel in Los Angeles.

Comparing Biglaw life to a treadmill is a cliché. But to some attorneys around the country, it's truly the best description of how they pass their days (and nights, and weekends). From the New York Times:

Terri Krivosha, a partner at a Minneapolis law firm, logs three miles each workday on a treadmill without leaving her desk. She finds it easier to exercise while she types than to attend aerobics classes at the crack of dawn.

And she's not alone. From our law school classmate, Aaron Craig, at litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel in L.A.:

I'm now spending the majority of my billable office hours walking on my treadmill. I set up a monitor directly in front, and hooked up an arm with a keyboard and mouse tray to the frame of the treadmill....

I find that 1.5 mph is best speed if I'm typing -- slightly faster if I'm just reading. Billing by the mile, not by the hour....

Check out our interview with Aaron, plus a slideshow of treadmill-desk porn, after the jump.

Am Law Daily reports that H. Rodgin Cohen of S&C is making serious money as the markets collapse.

Cohen has been the man in demand by companies struggling to ride out the latest subprime-related rollercoaster roiling the capital markets. His work this past week alone includes advising Lehman Brothers on its limited options prior to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Monday and counseling AIG in its $85 billion bailout by the Federal Reserve on Tuesday. The longtime S&C partner was on a roll even before these events unraveled last weekend—Cohen advised Fannie Mae on its seizure by the federal government on September 7.

Does that “H” stand for “hurricane?” We’ll see if Cohen brings rain to associates come bonus time.

We’ve covered a lot of the law firms that are dancing in the ashes of Wall Street. But new winners are emerging everyday. Simpson Thacher advised the AIG board of directors. Millbank, Paul Hastings, Cravath, and Kelley Drye are just some of the firms that are in on the party known as “creditor actions.” And Clifford Chance handled part of Barclay’s acquisition along with Cleary.

Even government lawyers will get in on the fun, now that Andrew Cuomo doesn’t know the difference between New York State and the power of God.

It looks like there is going to be a lot of work floating around this fourth quarter as people try to make their hours.

But it’s not all candy and coke for big firms these days.

Read about the downside after the jump.

This week’s Lateral Link Associate Life survey suggests that many of you are concerned about your jobs. Why not get out of the US job market altogether and take a position in London?

So the markets are going a bit crazy, down a bit, down a lot, up a lot, up some more (as of this posting). This week’s Job of the Week, brought to you by Lateral Link, is a rare opportunity for a US corporate lawyer to lateral into a position in London. As with other Lateral Link law firm positions, this job qualifies for a $10,000 guaranteed signing bonus (or £5,000 if you’d prefer).

Position: Corporate Associate

Location: London

Description: This international law firm is seeking a junior to mid-level US trained corporate associate with public or private M&A experience and/or mainstream equities experience. Must be admitted to the New York State Bar.

For more information about this position or to apply, please see Position 9823 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.

Today is the day that the U.S. Department of Justice emails applicants to set up interviews for the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Each division is sending out its own letter.

If you didn’t receive one of these emails, well, then you probably didn’t attend the Nobody F**** With the Jesus School Of Law:

Congratulations! You have been selected for an interview by the [redacted] for the Attorney General’s Honors Program.

The Department of Justice is issuing separate Email messages, component by component, to the candidates selected for interviews. Please note that your application was referred to all components you designated as employment preferences. If you do not receive a message from any specific component, then you were not selected by that hiring component for an interview.

Once all component notification messages have been issued, we will send a separate Email message providing instructions on how to schedule your interview. Please follow the instructions in the notification Email message and review the Travel Memo posted at www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/hp/hpinterview.htm.

Thank you for your interest in the Department of Justice and good luck in your interview.

We expect this year’s hiring process to be heavily scrutinized. What should an interviewee do as they walk into that charged environment? Wear a McCain button? Waterboard the receptionist? Or maybe go the other way and give her a hug (and then bus her halfway across town to a superior school district)? Either way, be sure to talk about “change” a lot.

We kid the Justice Department because they’re not nearly as scary as the IRS.

But seriously, what should these interviewees do to secure these important positions? Please share helpful advice on ways that I can kill myself how to ace the interview in the comments.

Earlier: The DOJ Honors Program Hiring Scandal: The ‘Harvard Law Avenger’ Strikes Again?

Michigan people, I feel your pain. The seven fumble loss to “The School That God Built, Then Abandoned” was terrible. You guys are trying to enjoy these last days of summer before the arctic wind sends you into underground bunkers. And clearly, you can’t lend out a cell phone/ask for your cell phone back without getting dragged into a heated exchange that is mocked by all.

I understand how in that environment petty slights can turn into glorious insults. You demand satisfaction! But you justice seekers might want to turn somewhere other than the University of Michigan’s law school list-serv. The following email was sent by a 1L who has been on campus for approximately 11 minutes and 6 seconds:

Dear Student Body,

Whoever the SLEAZE is who likes taking people’s lunches (in particular, 1/2’s of subway sandwiches bought on one day and saved for the next) from the refrigerator in the student lounge, STOP. In case you aren’t aware, it’s stealing. Perhaps you’re practicing for a career in corporate law, but law school isn’t the place to practice this particular skill. Also, in case you aren’t aware, here are a few reasons not to do this:

1) Stealing lunches erodes collegiality among the student body.

2) Stealing lunches inconveniences the person from whom you steal by forcing them to go get lunch elsewhere, thereby wasting time and resources.

3) Stealing lunches can cause an additional inconvenience with having to buy lunch elsewhere. For most of us, the couple dollar loss isn’t really the issue, but imagine not having your wallet with you on a day when someone has stolen your lunch? You must either do without or seek out somebody to borrow from, both of which are annoying.

If you’re really so poor you can’t afford lunch, the law school will provide you with an emergency loan. If you’re just a sleaze, either take an ethics class or come talk to me.

Well allow me to retort.

1) I once got robbed and to make myself feel better, I called it “sharing” instead of “stealing.”

2) Isn’t forcing someone to get their lunch somewhere other than Subway kind of a good thing?

3) Not having your wallet? The only guys I know that don’t carry around their wallet whenever they leave the house are super rich or homeless. Which one are you?

The rest of the maize and blue electronically punch this guy after the jump.

A few female readers have asked us to direct your attention to this poll at fashion and lifestyle blog Corporette:

How short of a skirt can a professional woman get away with?

According to the votes in so far, “professional women” can get away with skirts that stop just above the knee. Does the same apply to the legal profession? We’ll let you debate in the comments.

Meanwhile, we know that some of you would like every post under the sun to tie into the volcanic meltdown that is Wall Street. According to the “economic skirt theory,” women these days should be in skirts that brush the ground. Per a July article from the New York Times:

Although designers always dismiss the correlation between skirt lengths and financial markets as a fashion historian’s fantasy, the parallels are striking. Hemlines rose to dizzying heights in the financial and social whirl of the roaring 1920s — revealing women’s legs for one of the first times in recorded history. Then came the bear market and bare was out — except for low backs on the floor-length gowns that dropped hemlines just before the 1929 Wall Street crash.

Given the way things are going, maybe they’ll start designing woman’s skirt suits with trains?

Poll: How short is too short for a skirt? [Corporette]
Bulls, Bears and the Bellwether Hemline [New York Times]

Nixon Peabody and Thelen continue to make googly eyes at each other. But if Nixon keeps dancing and talking instead of making a move, there might not be any Thelen left to merge with.

As The Recorder reports:

Bingham McCutchen plans to announce on Monday that four D.C. attorneys from Thelen are moving over: Partner Carl Valenstein — recently listed on Thelen’s Web site as a member of the firm’s partnership council — as well as partners Jerome Akman and David Vidal-Cordero, and senior counsel Rebecca Hartley.

I don’t know who any of those people are, but it’s safe to assume that the laws of “subtraction” still apply to Thelen. It’s not like Nixon (or anybody else) is going to merge with the Thelen associates. A book of business is very different from an active Facebook page.

At least Thelen is trying to get the word out that not all of their partners are up for sale:

Two Thelen partners made a point of showing solidarity with their firm Thursday afternoon.

[Michael] Hallerud said that he’s been with Thelen for more than 13 years and has “no interest in going anywhere,” adding that the San Francisco office is “a family place.”

Another partner, [John] Heisse, replied in an e-mail: “As I have told what seems to be every headhunter in the continental U.S., I have no intention of taking my practice to any other firm. If your article has the effect of stopping their calls, then I appreciate your help.”

It’s awesome that Mr. Heisse is in such great demand. But wouldn’t it be nice if he put in a good word for whatever mid-level has been doing his dirty work for the past few years? Something like:

Hey Mr. Recruiter for a firm with much more stable financials. I’m sticking with the date I came with, but you might want to call up Tippy Highflower whose a 6th year in our San Fran office. She’s great and a future star, and based on the bottle of Zoloft I just saw her eating for lunch, I bet she could use some reassurance about her future prospects.

Associates need lifeboats too. Sometimes just knowing that you have one can help you weather the storm.

Merger or No, Gems Remain in Thelen’s Ranks [Law.com]

Earlier: Law Firm Merger Mania: Nixon Peabody + Thelen = Nixlen Thelpea?

* The financial crisis has everyone reeling. Here’s a good American solution: sue! [Bloomberg]

* Paul Clement may have to suspend his rubber hose business for now. He and fellow former DOJ-er David Ayres are getting sucked into the Abramoff legal abyss. [Washington Times]

* It’s “the fiercest battle in products liability law today.” SCOTUS will tackle federal pre-emption this fall. [New York Times]

* The National Law Journal has an article on your responses to one of Justin’s recent surveys. Go, you! Unfortunately, the news is depressing. [National Law Journal]

* Attorneys general are not big fans of a new MillerCoors alcoholic energy drink, Sparks Red. Will they go after bartenders who mix Red Bull and vodka next? [Business First of Columbus]

What did you miss if you didn’t peruse last Sunday’s NYT weddings section? The marriage of Theodore Roosevelt V, for starters. Also, a whole lot of gayness! We counted seven same-sex weddings on this week’s list, which we suspect is a an all-time high. (And how sociologically interesting that all seven were men marrying men!) None of this week’s same-sex weddings made it into the finals, but LEWW is delighted to reflect (in a rare moment of seriousness) on how much has changed since August 2002, when the paper announced that it would include same-sex weddings for the first time. Long live love!

Here are this week’s couples:

1. Tania Brief and Andrew Ehrlich

2. Jori Finkel and Michael Lubic

3. Laura Millendorf and Mark Yopp

Click on the link below to read all about these legal lovebirds.

* Monkeys are funny. But chimps on a porsche are just weird. [Tulkinghorn / The Lawyer]

* I do not think that word means what John McCain thinks it means. [Firedoglake; Stephen Bainbridge]

* Are firms suffering from a generational divide? [The Complete Lawyer]

* For those interested, USC has started a Charlie Whitebread Scholarship Fund. And the dean pens a nice tribute. [Gould School Of Law]

Joseph Petcka, who had bit part in Sex And The City and an even less useful role as a New York Mets minor league prospect, has been charged with brutally murdering his girlfriend’s cat. His trial started yesterday.

In her opening statement Assistant District Attorney Leila Kermani said:

The defendant, in a fit of anger and rage, beat a defenseless animal to death. The defendant killed Norman [the cat] simply because he was an angry, jealous and drunken bully.

The defense argued that the cat’s death was a tragic accident:

Petcka’s lawyer, Charles Hochbaum, admitted his client kicked the 8-year-old tabby and “swatted him really hard” after the cat bit him, but he said his client did not mean to kill him.

If this guy wasn’t good enough to pitch on those terrible mid-90s Mets teams, it is shocking that this guy could hit a moving cat with anything. The “accident” defense just might work.

Our friend over at Animal Law Blog argues that both participants are idiots:

I can’t help but note a couple of things. One is that AP is reporting that the pair had only been dating six weeks at the time of Norman’s death. What was this guy thinking? That his girlfriend would abandon all other relationships in her life for someone she had been dating for six weeks?

More importantly, the article also says that when Petchka alleged went into his drunken rage at about 3 a.m., ex-girlfriend Lisa Altobelli left the apartment to protect herself but apparently didn’t think Norman was in danger. What was she thinking? Yes, technically, she shouldn’t have to fear for Norman’s safety, but then again, she shouldn’t have had to fear for her own, either.

I don’t leave my dog alone with me when I am drunk and enraged. But that is mainly because I don’t want her to see me cry.

Have fun in that great animal rescue in the sky, Norman. “Accident” or not, we can only hope that you had some kind of dastardly form of rabies crossed with Ebola that is slowly coursing itself through Petcka’s blood stream as we speak.

Prosecutor: Actor killed cat in jealous rage [MSNBC]
Kudos to one New York City District Attorney’s Office [Animal Law Blog]

Talis Colberg, Alaska’s Attorney General, has stepped into Sarah Palin’s troopergate issues. He is trying to quash subpoenas sent to state employees as part of the ongoing investigation.

But we’re not sure why. He had been running his own investigation, at Palin’s request, since July. Then Palin authorized Stephen Branchflower to run an independent investigation (you have to love the names on these Alaskans). Messing around with the state legislature’s investigation seems outside the purview of normal attorney general duties.

Talking Points Memo thinks that Colberg is acting for political reasons:

[I]t’s worth stressing a point that might be getting lost in the flurry of moves and counter-moves: Colberg is no independent player in this case. In fact, he’s a Palin appointee, who was personally involved in the effort to pressure Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to terminate Trooper Mike Wooten, and who has already led an investigation into the matter at Palin’s behest.

But does the mere fact that Colberg is a Palin appointee mean that he has turned into partisan prosecutor? In his letter arguing against the subpoenas Colberg wrote:

This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity.

What is the proper role of state AG’s when the sled hits the slope? Clearly any move that Colberg makes will be interpreted as partisan by the opposition, but does that mean he should recuse himself? Or is it his responsibility to tangle with the legislature over this investigation?

The bottom line is that whatever happened between Palin and her family and her office, nobody will be satisfied until all the facts are brought to light in an impartial way. But is there anybody left to investigate that isn’t biased one way or the other?

Trooper-Gate’s Attorney-General Problem [TPM]

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that women in legal occupations earn 51% of what men earn.

That is not a typo.

Some people will no doubt say something like “women are secretaries and men are attorneys,” before clubbing their mates into submission. But according to the report:

[T]he salary gap was the largest among judges, magistrates and other judicial workers, with women earning an estimated $69,500, compared to men’s $108,100, or about 64 percent of their salaries.

Women attorneys earned a median of $93,600, or about 78 percent of men’s median earnings of $120,400.

We briefly mentioned yesterday that female paralegals only earn 93% of what their male counterparts make. Given the proportion of females to males that work as paralegals, that income disparity screams of day-to-day sexism.

These additional numbers may speak to larger systematic problems facing women in the legal profession. Lockstep pay should smooth out gender inequality when it comes to salaries, so long as women are getting promoted and making partner on par with their male counterparts. Clearly, this is not happening.

And the “women get pregnant and have babies while men toil away all the live long day” argument is a poor one. Women who have left the profession to start a family are not artificially dragging down the salary numbers, since they are “out” of the profession. And surely we don’t think that women who take a “survival of the species” time-out and then come back to work should be penalized.

78 cents on the dollar for female attorneys? 51 cents on the dollar for all females in the profession? Those numbers are embarrassing. That is all.

Women in Legal Occupations Earned 51 Percent of Men’s Salaries, Says Study [Law.com]

A few days ago, we asked whether going in-house was still a viable option for Biglaw associates. Today we look at whether those who leave can ever come back.

The National Law Journal did a follow-up piece on Bear Stearns attorneys who weren’t able to move over to JP Morgan after the merger. They report (subscription):

Many refugees from Bear Stearns have landed at law firms, including Bingham McCutchen; Venable; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; K&L Gates; and Katten Muchin Rosenman.

“It’s like a port in the storm right now,” said one former Bear Stearns attorney who has landed at a law firm and asked not to be identified.

But as one commenter points out, moving back into Biglaw isn’t easy:

To get back in to BigLaw from most in-house positions is extremely difficult. If you work in a niche, like government contracts or FDA, it improves your chances significantly. However, if you are just a general corporate attorney at a company and are looking to get back in a firm, there’s little shot.

Going back to the firm will likely get even more difficult as additional attorneys from Lehman and Merrill Lynch flood the midlevel market. But we can expect that displaced in-house counsel will try to get back into Biglaw, because in this market, “job security” is the Holy Grail.

Do law firms actually provide a “safer” alternative? After the jump.

There is so much blame to go around over the AIG debacle that even “Governor John” Eliot Spitzer is getting knocked around.

Remember Attorney General Spitzer orchestrated AIG founder Maurice “Hank” Greenberg’s resignation, back in 2005. But since then some of the charges against Greenberg have been dropped, while Greenberg continues to fight other allegations.

Greenberg was but one of many “triumphs” Spitzer notched on his bedpost as Attorney General. His zealous prosecution of wall street corruption catapulted him to fame, higher office, and (we now know) abject hypocrisy.

But as the AP points out, it may be a little too easy —and partisan— to blame Spitzer for AIG’s collapse:

“I think the AIG problems were probably even bigger than Hank Greenberg and Eliot Spitzer,” said Professor James D. Cox of the School of Law at Duke University. “I would hope that something of this scale _ which is mammoth, both the bailout and the problems that led up to it _ are bigger than just politics.”

Columbia Law Professor John Coffee blames AIG’s troubles on AIG owns practices: “Ratings agencies don’t downgrade anyone because Eliot Spitzer doesn’t like them.”

Spitzer didn’t break Wall Street, but his particular path to power should be a warning to future attorneys general. Sticking up for the little guy is all well and good. But you shouldn’t use the office to get nice copy for future campaign ads.

Are you listening Andrew Cuomo? Prosecutors are supposed to tackle “corruption” because it is their job, not because it’s a resume builder for higher office. It’s a rule we think both parties should be able to follow.

Analysis: Some see Spitzer role in AIG’s crisis [Associated Press]

You’ve got to, get yourself together
You’ve got stuck in a moment,
And now you can’t get out of it
Don’t say that later will be better,
now you’re stuck in a moment
And you can’t get out of it
— U2

Heller Ehrman is in trouble. They’ve been spurned again and again by merger partners, entire practice groups have defected, and now more rumors are flying fast and furious. Today’s Recorder reports:

In office meetings on Wednesday, partners were told that dissolution is one of several options facing the 119-year-old firm, a Heller partner said. As a result, management said it was understood that partners would begin talking to other firms, and several individuals and groups have already begun talks, sources said.

Despite these talks, Heller continues to show a brave face to the public. In response to reports we had heard declaring that Heller’s D.C. office would be closing, a firm spokesperson said simply:

[T]here are no plans to close the D.C. office.

But the firm’s 2009 summer program seems to be up in the air. The Heller people we talked with had no direct knowledge of what was happening with the summer program, but one tipster sent us an ominous warning:

I am a 2L at Georgetown. I had a screening interview with Heller Ehrman almost a month ago and heard back earlier this week, within hours after the news about the failed merger. I warily accepted a callback with them. Just got a voicemail from their recruiting coordinator saying that they had to cancel the callback and that she didn’t have any more information about it. My theory is that they’re canceling the summer program

Ours too. But Heller’s associate recruitment department could not be reached for comment.

Employees still at Heller weigh in after the jump.

We’ve been providing extensive coverage of the unfolding financial crisis (as have our colleagues at our sister site, Dealbreaker). In several recent posts — see, e.g., here and here — we’ve discussed the Biglaw winners and losers with respect to the Wall Street meltdown.

One evident winner: Davis Polk & Wardwell. Several DPW sources forwarded us an email that was circulated yesterday, trumpeting how busy the firm is these days and how many engagements it has landed arising out of what the memo calls “recent financial markets matters” (aka “the late unpleasantness”).

One Davis tipster writes:

[This email] went out to all lawyers. I suppose it’s their way of saying things are pretty great at the firm. Let’s hope bonus season will confirm this view!

The supposedly internal memo reads a bit like a press release. It was sent out not by a partner but by Kevin Cavanaugh, the firm’s director of business development.

We suspect that the memo is a bit of “blog bait” from Davis Polk. Naturally, we’re happy to take it.

Check out the full memo, after the jump.

* The fiscal crisis continues to escalate. The Fed and Treasury Department are making historic, rapid-fire decisions every hour. But in Congress, lawmakers are just sitting around, twiddling their thumbs. [Washington Post]

* John Grisham is deemed “the innocent man.” Judge dismisses libel suit against him. [Associated Press]

* It’s not just Biglaw sharing office space. Federal judges may have to start shacking up too. [Legal Times]

* In another sign of America’s waning global influence, the world’s courts are losing respect for SCOTUS. At least the world still loves Hollywood movies. [New York Times]

* In “a shocking invasion of the Governor’s privacy and a violation of law,” hackers raid Sarah Palin’s Yahoo e-mail account. Men everywhere despair at the lack of bikini photos. [Slate]

* The Congressional investigation of Judge Thomas Porteous (E.D. La.) is on. Will he become the first impeached federal judge in almost 20 years? Stay tuned. [Associated Press]

Rebecca Cohn was a California assemblywoman representing Buena Vista, Burbank, Cambrian Park, Campbell, Fruitdale, and parts of San Jose and Santa Clara. After losing to Jim Beall, she decided to matriculate at UC Davis School of Law (King Hall).

Cohn said that her lifelong dream was to attend law school. But she apparently couldn’t shake the political monkey: she decided to run for 1L representative. Our friends at The Shark pick up the story from there:

No doubt recognizing the tough road ahead of her, Cohn ran her 1L Representative campaign with some enthusiasm that stunned some students. Her ascension to high profile student caused a commotion on campus that involved: a war over her Wikipedia entry, the re-use of signs from her assembly campaign, and several salacious rumors that are too inflammatory and unverified to repeat.

If we receive any “salacious” rumors, we will happily repeat them.

The Shark at least hinted at the tenor of the rumors swirling around Cohn:

Most of these rumors seem to stem from the report that her San Jose magazine cover … prompted two assembly aides to sue her for creating a sexually charged workplace. Cohn, who is single, seems to be avoiding this situation at King Hall: the San Jose Mercury News reported that she has not been asked out on a date by a single King Hall student.

More on Cohn’s campaign craziness, after the jump.

* Yeah. Justices are “impartial” all the time. You’ll never ever see a respected SCOTUS Justice openly campaigning against a particular political candidate. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Projected 2009 tax brackets are out. Plan your charitable giving accordingly. [TaxProf Blog]

* Female paralegals don’t get paid as much as male paralegals. There is not even an acceptable bad “reason” for this. [The Common Scold via Legal Blog Watch]

* Fellow legal blogger Lavi Soloway, who covered L’Affaire Charney so thoroughly, gets a shout-out in an article about gay dads. [Time Out New York]

* Merger abortions would never happen if law firms had family values. [Wired GC]

Another day, another market massacre. Right now the SEC is meeting about “improper short selling” of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs stock. The Dow is down nearly 450 points.

We have definitely entered the “dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria” phase of this meltdown.

But while everybody is running around trying to CYA, the government is giving away the store. Professor Bainbridge has nine excellent questions about the AIG bailout; questions that the government lawyers seem to be willfully ignoring. Here are some crucial ones, maybe we can help Bainbridge (and our country) out of this mess:

* On what basis does the Fed have authority to use the discount window to bail out an insurance company?

* Who would have standing to challenge the Fed action, if anyone?

* Why was AIG to big too fail but Lehman wasn’t? Was AIG’s role in the credit default swap market really that important?

* Has the federal government ever taken an equity stake—let alone a controlling stake—as part of a bailout before? Was there any equity stake in Chrysler?

See the rest of Bainbridge’s probing questions here.

There are a lot of smart men and women here. Does anybody have any idea how the federal government just shoved AIG down our collective throats?

Things I don’t Understand About the AIG Bailout [Stephen Bainbridge]

We’d like to take a moment and acknowledge the great life and career of Professor Charles H. Whitebread. Professor Whitebread passed away Tuesday, in Santa Monica, California.

Professor Whitebread was a legend at the USC Gould School of Law, but most attorneys will remember him for his BAR/BRI Criminal Law lectures. We fondly remember the bow-tied professor for adding a bit of levity at a time when we were stressed beyond belief.

He is survived by his life partner, John Golden, and his devoted friend Michael Kelly.

The USC Gould School of Law will hold a memorial for Professor Whitebread at a date still to be determined. Donations to the Charles H. Whitebread Memorial Schol