* A South Carolina jail is being investigated by the Justice Department for allowing its inmates to read only the Bible. Instead of a joke, how about you goofballs learn something and read this article that Christopher Hitchens wrote about the King James version of the not-quite-great book. [Charleston Post and Courier]
* Hide yo kilos, hide yo weed. Cause they searching errbody. [Los Angeles Times]
* Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is not a fan of that state’s gay gross-up. “More like gross-out” he muttered, before kicking a teacher on food stamps. [Washington Post]
* Everything you didn’t know you wanted to know but were afraid you forgot to ask about the NFL lockout ruling from yesterday. [SI.com]
Have you ever noticed that some lawyers become different people when they get in front of a keyboard?
It’s like a Jekyll-and-Hyde kind of thing. They might be perfectly pleasant individuals in real life, capable of warmth or at least civility to their fellow human beings. But get them in front of a computer with a law-firm template on the screen, and they turn into some sort of lawyerly unmanned drone.
Most lawyers, especially junior lawyers, have an idea about what a lawyer letter is supposed to look like. It generally has fancy lawyerly words like “pursuant to,” and it usually includes lawyerly weirdnesses like parenthetically writing numbers in figures after having just spelled out the numbers in words (“If we do not receive a response for you and/or your counsel in five (5) days …”), and it almost always contains threats about Very Bad Things happening. And they tend to be uniformly douchey.
But here are four (4) reasons why lawyer letters are less effective than phone calls.…
* Akin Gump gets a major influx of renewable energy partners, from Chadbourne. And I bet they only used wind and solar power to jump ship. [PR Newswire]
* I keep saying, people will start going for merit-based compensation the minute merit-based compensation pays more than lockstep compensation for all (or almost all) associates. Until then, it’s just more risk for associates. [Vault]
* I think this post about economists trying to understand the incentive matrix for Dominique Strauss-Kahn pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with economists. [The Economist]
* It’s like we’re seeing the gentrification of the prostitution industry. [LA Weekly]
* I’ve got the same kind of deal here at ATL in case I need to punch any of you. [Lowering the Bar]
* For once the violently independent nature of Texans is helpful for doing something other than scaring the crap out of international onlookers. [MSNBC]
* Sure, we can fine Disney $3 million for violating the online privacy of children. Or we could remind parents that giving little Johnny a magnifying glass and a shovel will keep him busy for a good long time. [Not So Private Parts / Forbes]
* Count me as one of those people who thinks that the Obama administration is going to put up the good fight over the release of Osama Bin Laden death photos, but eventually be “forced” to release them. [Reuters]
* And we’re back to lawsuits over “sexual enhancement” pills. [ABA Journal]
Law school deans — as well as other administrators, and law students — obsess over law school rankings. It’s understandable why deans fixate on rankings; for better or worse, it’s their job.
But what about law students? Should they put so much stock in rankings? Do people, specifically employers, pay too much attention to where an applicant went to law school?
May is graduation month. Once you’re out in the real world of legal employment, do folks actually care where you went to school? That’s the topic for the latest installment in the ATL career advice webcast, sponsored by the Practical Law Company: Does your law school matter?
If you’re like me, two of your last three Sunday night sports orgies have been ruined by the intrusion of real world events. First, Osama bin Laden lost the ultimate game of Call of Duty. Then last night Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund and would-be president of France, was pulled off of a plane at JFK and arrested for a sex crime. And in the middle of those two world events, Mother’s Day happened.
(Note to NFL owners: this is the kind of crap that’ll be happening in the fall if you guys refuse to let people play football.)
As world events go, this is pretty big. Think about it: we’ve got the head of one of the five most powerful NGOs in the world, the leader of the Socialist party, a sex scandal, a super-fancy hotel, a maid, and an alleged escape attempt thwarted at JFK — and this has nothing to do with Bill Clinton! I mean come on, if you found out that the Lannisters were involved, would you be surprised?
And on the legal front, we’re talking about an important and respected international figure who just got denied bail.
Excuse me, I need to get my popcorn out of the microwave….
On Friday, we discussed the discrimination claims made against Ropes & Gray by John H. Ray III. Ray, a 2000 graduate of Harvard Law School and an African-American man, claimed that he was discriminated against and passed over for partner on account of his race.
At the time of our prior post, Ray did not comment beyond what was in his filings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). But now Ray has contacted us with his rebuttal to Ropes, explaining that when he previously declined to comment, he “did not know that you intended to rely on a determination letter that had been rescinded and largely discredited in at least its factual description by my reconsideration requests.”
John Ray’s response is lengthy and detailed. Check it out below….
Say this for lawyers: they get around to things. Sure, the process might take a while, much longer than one would reasonably expect. But at the end of the day, lawyers do their paperwork.
Apparently, somebody at Squire Sanders in the U.K. has been catching up on old emails. Really old emails. Like, job application emails that were sent during the height of the recession.
I bet people who applied to Squire Sanders in 2009 thought that the firm had forgotten about them, but that is not the case! The firm just needed to get its ducks in a row. Now that it’s had time to full assess the economic landscape, the firm has decided that it’s no longer hiring….
Ervin Burell was a man who know how to 'juke the stats.'
All right folks, graduation is upon us. If you are a 3L who did not secure a post-graduate legal job, I’m sorry. Your life isn’t over, but law school didn’t work out as well for you as you might have hoped. At least not yet.
Not that your law schools want anybody to know that. No, according to your law school, you, unemployed 3L, are an embarrassment. They wish you would just go away. They don’t want to be reminded that you exist. Why? Because your unemployment could hurt your law school’s U.S. News ranking.
Unfortunately for some schools, U.S. News is actually paying more attention these days to schools that simply ignore their unemployed 3Ls for purposes of reporting their employed-upon-graduation statistics. Maybe U.S. News can’t force schools to report only those students employed in legitimate legal jobs, but they can punish schools that refuse to report on all of their recent graduates.
You know what that means: bring on your fake job programs, designed largely for rankings-enhancement purposes.
Let’s try to collect all of the schools that are enacting ridiculous “employment” programs that seem designed primarily to enhance their U.S. News rank. We’ll get you started with a fun one….
The case for same-sex marriage should rest less upon dollars and cents and more upon fundamental principles of fairness (as recently argued by Professor Jaye Cee Whitehead in a New York Times op-ed piece). But it’s certainly the case that money matters should not be overlooked when it comes to marriage equality.
We’ve previously discussed a non-salary benefit that we’ve nicknamed the gay gross-up. Here’s one concise definition: “A ‘gross-up’ for employees who enroll same-sex partners in the Firm’s health benefits plans to offset any federal, state and local income taxes paid on the value of the partners’ benefits which heterosexual spouses are not subject to.” (Currently gay couples in which partners receive employer-provided health benefits are taxed on the value of those benefits, due to the fact that, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), federal law — including federal tax law — doesn’t recognize same-sex unions.)
The gross-up is not a perk that affects a huge number of employees, to be sure. But having it sends an important message about a firm’s commitment to equality and inclusion.
Where did we obtain that handy definition of the gross-up? From the benefits page of a top law firm that recently started offering this benefit. It’s one of two elite law firms that recently boarded the gay gross-up bandwagon….
It’s tough to “lateral up” at a big law firm. Since I just invented the phrase “lateraling up,” I suppose I should define it: It’s when a fairly senior lawyer asks an older lawyer to help on a project.
If you’re 40 years old and just landed a small- or medium-sized matter, it’s hard to add a 55-year-old partner to your team. It might make sense to add the senior partner for the sake of either the client (the older partner has special expertise) or the firm (the older partner is competent to do the job and has time available to help), but it’s nonetheless tricky to execute.
In the litigation environment, if the client is looking to the 40-year-old to supervise the case, the 55-year-old can’t find a role that makes sense. The older partner can’t take the lead, because that’s the younger lawyer’s task, and the older lawyer can’t not take the lead, because senior people somehow don’t do that at law firms.
The same is true of corporate matters. The older partner can’t do the deal, because the client asked the junior lawyer to do it. And the older partner can’t carry the bags (to use the milder form of what the corporate lawyers really say) for a junior partner on the deal.
Please note the limitations on what I just wrote….
* So you’re trying to tell me that a French dude came all the way to America to sexually assault one of OUR maids? That makes no sense. [BBC News]
* Starting today, Chicago will be the site of a terror trial. Speaking of Chicago, did you guys see Taj Gibson’s dunk last night? Sweet sassy molassey! [Chicago Tribune]
* Some Yale Law grads start online legal tabloids. Some help resettle Iraqi refugees. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, whatever that gross phrase means. [Associated Press]
* Elena Kagan gave the commencement speech at New Mexico Law yesterday, but the local ABC affiliate couldn’t be bothered to spell her first name correctly. [KOAT Albuquerque]
We all wanted to give Raj the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe he was an honest man. How could someone so smart and rich already be involved in something so horrendous?
(According to the Wall Street Journal, Rajaratnam “is estimated to have paid as much as $40 million for his defense… about two-thirds of the amount prosecutors said [his Galleon Group hedge fund] made from the insider trading addressed in the charges.”)
California bar exam results will be made available to applicants tonight, at 6 PM (PDT). The pass list will be made public on Sunday at 6 AM (PDT). Congratulations to all of you who passed, and better luck next time — and next time, and next time — to those of you who failed.
Here’s an open thread for discussion. And here’s an earlier post looking at which CA law schools had the highest bar passage rates (for the July 2010 administration of the exam).
* Sam Glover asks: “Can mentoring be replaced by blogs and social networks?” [Lawyerist]
* Today is Friday the 13th. We’re so glad this week is over — and it seems that we’re not alone. [What About Clients?]
* Good news for jobless 3Ls: you can now avail yourself of JD Match, the new career service founded by law-firm consultant and blogger Bruce MacEwen (previously mentioned here). [Adam Smith, Esq.]
When I worked in private practice, I once had a case opposite Ropes & Gray. The Ropes lawyers made a highly positive impression on me. They were very talented advocates (and they continue to be talented advocates; note the firm’s recent, high-profile victory in the defense of an in-house lawyer for a drug company).
Of course, many top firms have excellent lawyers. The Ropes attorneys were also… nice. They were polite, and genteel, and not difficult to deal with (in contrast to some of their co-counsel). They met my expectations of what lawyers from an old white-shoe firm should be like. [FN1]
In light of this overall Ropes & Gray “niceness,” it’s a bit surprising to see discrimination claims lodged against the firm. In March, we wrote about a lawsuit filed against Ropes by Patricia Martone, a former partner and noted IP litigatrix. Martone, represented by the high-powered Anne Vladeck, alleged age discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation.
Today we bring you news of another discrimination lawsuit brewing against the firm. The potential plaintiff has an impressive pedigree. But do his claims hold water?
April’s Lawyer of the Month victor won in a landslide. He’s also the first person to win the contest for his practice of law (as opposed to his death or his desire to quit the practice of law).
Yes, I think I speak for all legal bloggers out there by wishing April’s Lawyer of the Month a warm congratulations…
I’m an in-house attorney at a large company. I used to be an associate at a big law firm, but was a stealth layoff victim and had little contact with the firm after that (and I’ll admit, I’m still somewhat bitter about the layoff). My current employer still works with my former firm sometimes, though the firm didn’t do anything to help me get my current position.
Recently, the firm realized that (1) I once worked there, and (2) I now work at a client. However, they failed to remember why or how I left, and thus have been contacting me as a firm “alumnus” to invite me to client and industry-type things, as well as firm events.
How should I respond to this attention, especially since I’m in a relatively small legal community, and my bosses do have some relationship with the firm?
– Memento
Dear Memento,
People seem to have online amnesia these days. You can be sworn enemies with someone in real life, but somehow it’s perfectly natural to want to add them on Facebook. Just had a soul-crushing breakup with an asshat? Start monitoring your inbox for his LinkedIn request. It’s really unbelievable. Some people just don’t understand that grudges are for life, and they’re held offline and online…
It’s heating up in Houston — and we are not just talking about the weather. The job market for corporate associates is hotter than ever, especially for associates with Biglaw experience from top markets like Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, and New York. Did you know that a $200K NYC salary is worth $366K in Houston? Click here to compare your current cost of living to what it could be if you lived in Houston.
Then dust off your cowboy boots and check out the Job of the Week below, from Lateral Link. It’s an excellent transactional opportunity for a corporate associate to work in the Houston office of a top international firm, earning a New York salary.
Description of Position: The Houston office of a top international firm is seeking a midlevel corporate associate to handle energy transactions. Candidates should have 2-5 years of M&A or capital markets/finance experience at a top firm in a major market and excellent academics credentials. Energy experience is preferred, but not required.
Please contact Mardy Sackley directly at msackley@laterallink.com for more information on this job (position #6099), as well several other corporate positions available in Dallas and Houston. Mardy is our newest Lateral Link Director, who focuses on partner, associate and in-house recruiting in Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. Mardy was a previously a litigation partner at McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago, where she served on the summer associate and hiring committees. Mardy graduated with honors from the University of Iowa College of Law, where she was a Note & Comment Editor for the Iowa Law Review.
Click here to learn more about Mardy and the rest of the Lateral Link team. Not a Lateral Link member, but want details on this or hundreds of other openings? Register for free at www.laterallink.com to work with an attorney recruiter who is an expert in your market.
Every summer when I was in Biglaw, a new crop of summer associates would roll in, and I inevitably would be assigned a female summer to mentor. Presumably the intention was for us to bond over our mutual struggles of being women at a law firm. Every fall the same arrangement would take shape again, this time with a first-year associate. Within a week they would each inevitably ask some variation on the same question: “Have you found that being a woman has made it tougher for you at the firm?”
I always hated this question. I’m not sure if I’m lacking something that normally comes with having two X chromosomes, but it never occurred to me to go into my career asking this question right out of the box. So, my answer was always a simple “No.”
I’m not suggesting that sexism isn’t a real problem in law firms. There are countless horror stories to back this up. Biglaw is still an old boys’ club and doesn’t show any signs of changing any time soon. We all know that going in.
But I don’t think that female lawyers do themselves any favors by starting with an expectation that they will be slighted. I never stopped to question whether things were tougher for me as a woman because I was too busy trying to do a good job to spend time searching for ulterior motives. If you make being a good associate your top priority, you’ll likely be too busy to wonder if you’re getting as many assignments as the guys are.
That said, there will be times when legitimate issues of sexism arise. And when they do, there are good and bad ways of dealing with it….
In 2009, a small group of Harvard Law School students noticed an absurd monopoly in the bar prep space, held by an unchallenged leader with a non-evolving product. In response, these students teamed up with Harvard Law alumni to launch BarMax on January 14, 2010.
The mission: democratize bar prep by embracing new technologies to provide the very best bar exam review courses at a fraction of the cost normally associated with these courses.
Since then, with the encouragement of thousands of students and an unwavering commitment to their success, BarMax has established itself as a comprehensive alternative to the stagnant, over-priced status quo.
As we continue to expand, we do not want to lose sight of the basic premises that led us to create BarMax in the first place. If you are a law student who believes that there is something fundamentally wrong with being forced to take out yet another loan to pay for a $4,000 bar exam prep course, you are not alone.
Ed. note: This post is authored by Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting, sponsor of the Asia Chronicles. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past five years. You can reach them by email: asia@kinneyrecruiting.com
Happy Chinese New Year! We were extremely busy the past few months, including most of our US based team working from our Hong Kong offices during November and December.
As a follow up from our recent post, which listed our 62 US associate and counsel placements in Asia last year (vast majority in HK / China), please note that thus far in January ’12, we have already made seven US associate and counsel placements in Asia. This is an especially impressive number, considering the biglaw lateral hiring market in Asia is down right now (see state of the market brief overview below). These new placements are of new hires in Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai, who were interviewing with their new firm for a month or more and they are spread out among different practice areas, including project finance, litigation, fund formation, M&A and cap markets. We are close on four additional new associate placements, in Hong Kong, Tokyo and Shanghai, that we expect to close soon. We do not discuss partner placements in these articles, but the pace of partner recruitment in Asia (a large part of our business) has continued.
Hedge Fund In-House Openings in Hong Kong
We are seeing a small run of new in-house openings in Hong Kong at hedge funds. We are currently filling three different in-house positions at three different hedge funds in Hong Kong, two of these searches we are handling on an exclusive basis. All three will most likely be filled by a US associate, with about 4 to 6 years of experience. Mandarin not required. Candidates from NYC and London will be considered, but at one of these funds the new hire will likely come from Hong Kong / China or Singapore (with HK being the strong preference).
Please feel free to reach out to us at asia@kinneyrecruiting.com if you are interested in these hedge fund openings. As you probably would expect, the competition for these spots will be fierce and the funds will be very selective when choosing which candidates to interview.
* Dominique Strauss-Kahn will go to Rikers for three or four years just to prove his point. [CNN]
Continue reading “Small Firms, Big Lawyers: The Problem with Lawyer Letters”
