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]

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 st