Add RSS RSS

(Hoping-to-be-rehired) Lawyer of the Day: Dan Bogden

dan bogden.jpgThe mainstream news media have tuned into layoffs in the legal world. The essence of most of the MSM coverage is, “You know things are really bad when lawyers start getting fired.” Thankfully, legal layoffs seem to have subsided somewhat, or at least not been so fast and furious as in months past. We welcome the respite and the chance to do the fun news: law revue contests, bad legal mamas, and gunners gone wild.

This week, The Atlantic spilled some ink for a legal firing of the political variety. Murray Waas has a piece on former Nevada U.S. Attorney Dan Bogden. The U.S. attorney firings are a story of yesteryear — specifically, 2006 — but there are still questions that have not been answered, including the reason why Bogden got the boot.

During his time as a U.S.A., Bogden got rave reviews from superiors at the DOJ. He has never received an adequate explanation for why he got pink slipped, even though the Inspector General devoted a whole chapter of its 358-page report on the firings to Bogden.

As noted by the WSJ Law Blog, the Atlantic article sheds a little light on the firing. Apparently, kids would have helped his job security:

“I’m concerned about Bogden,” [Deputy attorney general Paul McNulty] told [AG AG chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson] and a few other senior DOJ officials in the room. “… he’s 50, hasn’t had a job in [the] private sector, and what about his family.”

According to Sampson’s account, another senior official corrected McNulty: “He’s a bachelor,” the official said, “He’s single.”

As Sampson recalled to investigators, McNulty responded, “Okay never mind.” McNulty, Sampson said, “then got up and left my office.”

When questioned by investigators, McNulty did not disagree with Sampson’s basic version of events. Having learned that Dan Bogden was a bachelor, McNulty recalled, “I guess I don’t have any objection [anymore] to going forward.”

We didn’t know the detective from the Wire was working for the DOJ. Cool.

The article goes on to reveal that the screwed over fired U.S. attorneys have an informal little social club, holding reunions on a yearly basis. More on how U.S.A.s get wild, after the jump.

Okay, “wild” might be a slight exaggeration.

These reunions are, as one participant told me, a “bohemian affair,” the cuisine often no better than pizza or take-out food—with a congenial atmosphere, in which participants engage in a certain amount of commiseration. At one reunion, the group clustered around a laptop and watched a Saturday Night Live skit depicting Alberto Gonzales evading congressional questioning.

It has also become something of a pastime at these gatherings for the former prosecutors to speculate as to why Bogden was terminated.

Those U.S. attorneys sure do know how to party.

The piece ends on a happy note. There’s talk of Bogden getting his job back as Nevada’s U.S.A. per Senator Harry Reid’s request. But if that happens, what will the U.S.A.’s talk about at their parties?

A U.S. Attorney’s Story [Atlantic]
Can Bachelor and Former U.S. Attorney Dan Bogden Come Home Again? [WSJ Law Blog]
Re-Hiring of Fired U.S. Attorney Could Spell Trouble for Gonzales [True/Slant]

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:14 PM

There once was a law firm named Schulte,
That ought to be feeling quite guilty.
They make CWT
Look like a great place to be,
Yet to their lawyers they have no loyalty.

--Sir Frederick B. Limerick
(circa 2009)

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:15 PM

2nd!!111

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:18 PM

If you really care about Bogden, hire him as your intern.

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:19 PM

"The essence of most of the MSM coverage is"

What does Men Seeking Men coverage have to do with layoffs?

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:21 PM

Anyone agree that Bogden has a claim for promisory estople?

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:21 PM

Mmmmm . . . Kashmir gives good post.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:21 PM

I think he may have a valid promissory estoppel claim.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:29 PM

So is the implication that he presumed to be gay, and they wanted to fire him because of it, or just that because he didn't have a wife and kids at home to support, they felt less guilty about firing him?

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:35 PM

1, clever, but change "yet" in the last line to "because" (or "since" since it's a lymric).

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:39 PM

In the spirit of Sire Frederick B. Limerick:

There once was USA named Bogden
Whose career, in politics, got bogged down
He was fired for nothing,
Started huffing and puffing
And now has wound up being blogged on.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 3:52 PM

He was fired to keep our freedoms safe!

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 4:07 PM

Partner Emeritus,
We implore you to come back and display your Donald Moffat-like face. Unless, of course, Donald Moffat's lawyers have prevented you from doing so, which is the only possible explanation for your absence.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 4:25 PM

Alberto Gonzalez really should have read Section 90

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 4:26 PM

13, why? He just would have wound up being unable to recall it.

15 Posted by Captain WorkHard | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 4:27 PM

This article is a FAIL unless you can tell us which school the fired attorney went to. If it was a TTT then what do you expect.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 4:38 PM

It sounds to me like they fired him assuming he was gay (no kids at 50?) than they fired him because he didn't have kids. That was my first thought anyway.

I mean, he didn't tote the party line (most were fired for not going after dems in their prospective states for various weak legal issues) and on top of that he was likely gay. Prototypical bush firing to me

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 5:00 PM

15 - It's called Google. Try working hard some time, you might actually get results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bogden

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 5:24 PM

Is Bodgen cute? Or rich? Or powerful? Or at the very least the answer to an MBE question? Please advise.

-- Lawyer gay

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 6:38 PM

Nevada was going to be a swing state. Karl Rove knew this. Bogden was too ethical to take marching orders on harassing democratic political operatives under the name of "voting rights." He was fired not because he was a democrat, but because he wasn't partisan enough. Pretty simple.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 10:01 PM

So, he got "rave reviews" from the same incompetents who later fired him on suspicion of being gay? It should make you question the "rave review" judgment.

For some actual insight into St. Bogden's tenure at the USAO in Las Vegas, read some of the judicial opinions tearing into his AUSAs for ethical lapses.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, April 24, 2009 10:15 PM

and meanwhile Chris Oprison who approved a letter to Congress that , "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin" after he had received an email that Griffin's appointment was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." is about to be promoted at Skadden. Is everyone else on SideBar?

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 AM

Latham, the Rats of New York.

Post Your Comment