Oh is the author of the famous (and fabulous) PH Farewell Email -- aka The Email That Launched A Thousand Blog Comments -- and a heroine in the eyes of many Biglaw associates around the country. Here are a few highlights from the interview:

[T]he former associate, Shinyung Oh (University of Chicago ’93, Georgetown Law ’98), a commercial litigation lawyer.... says she sent the now-infamous email because she didn’t want other associates who may be laid off because of downsizing by the firm – but told it is because of their performance – to doubt their own abilities.

“I want them to feel like they’re not completely alone and not to worry about their own performance when it’s the firm doing something for economic reasons” and because of a “desire to increase partner profits,” she said.

Inducing crippling self-doubt among associates is one of the most pernicious things about "stealth layoffs," in which economically-driven dismissals are cast by firms as purely performance-based. We know this from having spoken to stealth-layoff victims, who have described how their self-confidence was shattered when their firms dismissed them, purportedly for poor performance.

While there may be a "six of one, half-dozen of another" quality to this debate -- as Dan Weiner of Hughes Hubbard & Reed just told the WSJ Law Blog, "is it economic or is it performance-related is a false dichotomy," since if you have to make cuts, "you’re not going to pick people randomly" -- we still think it's the better part of valor for firms to take the reputational hit, rather than stick it to their associates. At any rate, it's certainly fair for law students and lateral candidates to shun firms that get called out for being less-than-candid about their personnel decisions.

Back to the interview. Here's the $64,000 -- or three-months-severance -- question: What was Shinyung Oh thinking when she sent out that email?

[Oh said] she knew that the email, which was sent to associates firm-wide, litigation partners in her office and the top management of Paul Hastings, could ruin her chances of landing another big-firm job. She said she isn’t considering suing the firm, and said she doesn’t feel she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.

Oh Shinyung, are you sure? After Aaron Charney settled with Sullivan & Cromwell, he got himself a nice new apartment. Then again, if you were planning to sue, you probably shouldn't have told the Wall Street Journal that you didn't feel discriminated against on account of your pregnancy.

As for what’s next, Oh, who immigrated from South Korea when she was eight and grew up in New York and Houston, said she’s not sure. But she said that since the email was posted online, she’s received an outpouring of support from lawyers in the Bay Area and across the country. Several are trying to help her find a new job.

Shinyung, if you're looking for headhunter recommendations, drop us a line -- we can hook you up. And if you ever get the urge to send out another barn-burning, firmwide email, definitely give us a heads up. Based on the way that your email resonated with readers, it's clear that you have writerly talent that deserves a wider audience.

In all seriousness, we wish Shinyung Oh the best of luck. We commend her for the courage it took to write that farewell email. We have every confidence that she will land on her feet -- recall our prior post, quoting a colleague who praised her as someone who "ran a huge class action and got excellent results" -- and we look forward to following her career in the years ahead.

Update: Jane Genova shares our optimism about Oh's future. She writes: Oh "has almost an infinite number of fresh career options, within and outside law.... [enumerates options].... Being the good solider, girl scout or boy scout has no payoff in the current career marketplace. Bold risks do.... Wild risk is the only secure path."

P.S. Congrats to Amir Efrati on the interview. Read the full post over here. Check out a copy of Shinyung Oh's 2006 performance review, also obtained by the WSJ, over here (PDF).

A screencap of her firm bio is saved for posterity, after the jump.

Fired Paul Hastings Associate Talks to Law Blog [WSJ Law Blog]
The New Risky Business - Shinyung Oh's E-Mail Strategy [Law and More]

Earlier: Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email (And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)
Miscarriage of Justice at Paul Hastings? The Blogosphere Reacts
Nationwide Layoff Watch: Paul Hastings

In light of the explosive economic growth of China and the Far East, many top U.S. and global law firms are trying to figure out how to enter Asia. And Above the Law is, too.

We're looking for someone to write a weekly column for us about practicing law in Asia. It would be similar to ATL's other columns -- e.g., Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, Sports and the Law -- but centered on what it's like to be a lawyer in Asia.

The ideal candidate would be someone currently practicing in Asia. But former and future Asia practitioners would also be considered, as long as they can write knowledgeably about working in Asia, have a network of sources on the ground, etc.

The columnist can write under a pseudonym if desired. The gig comes with pay (a modest stipend). It's an excellent opportunity for anyone looking to do some fun, non-legal writing, or to share their expat experience with ATL's large and growing readership.

If you might be interested, please email us (subject line: "Asia column"). Please include a brief bio and a discussion of your vision for the column, including possible topics to write about if you have some in mind.

Thanks! We look forward to reviewing your applications.

Unlike yesterday -- and by the way, we'll keep the reader poll open for a few more hours -- today we have no difficulty picking our Lawyer of the Day. Hollywood lawyer James Jackson maltreated his Filipino maid. We do not like it when you mess with our peeps.

From the AP (via Law.com):

A former Hollywood studio attorney and his wife were sentenced Monday for abusive treatment of their Filipino maid in a case federal prosecutors said "amounts to modern-day slavery."

James Jackson, the former vice president of legal affairs at Sony Pictures, was ordered to perform 200 hours of community service and pay a $5,000 fine. His wife, Elizabeth, was sentenced to three years in prison after her attorneys unsuccessfully pleaded for her to receive home detention.

These Hollywood types are ruthless (we've watched "Entourage"). Studio lawyers make Biglaw partners look like social workers. Consider the treatment alleged by the former maid in her civil suit against the couple:

[Former maid Nena] Ruiz claimed in her civil lawsuit that Elizabeth Jackson regularly slapped her and pulled her hair. She also said she was forced to sleep on a dog bed and was given three-day-old food to eat even as she was expected to clean and provide fresh fruit to the Jacksons' pets. The Jacksons only paid her $300 for her work....

See? Studio lawyers are meaner than law firm partners. At least associates get paid $160K for their suffering.

Happily, Nena Ruiz ultimately made out quite well. She was awarded $825,000 in damages by the jury that heard her case.

P.S. In fairness to Mr. Jackson, it appears that much of the abuse was perpetrated by his wife. In her allocution, Elizabeth Jackson told the court: "In my life I have always tried and strived to do the right thing. I failed in this case." Um, yeah.

P.P.S. A tipster observes: "Is it just me, or have these modern-day slavery stories been popping up a lot lately? See here."

Former Sony Pictures Lawyer and Wife Sentenced in Forced Labor of Filipino Maid [AP via Law.com]
Hollywood couple sentenced in Filipino maid 'slave' case [AFP via Philippine Inquirer]
In Pictures: Long Island Slaver Family On Facebook [Gawker]

We don't normally do this (and probably won't make this a regular feature). But since we have a few on hand right now, we'd like to pass along the following public service announcements:

* Attention Washingtonians. There's an interesting panel discussion taking place here in D.C. next week: "Practicing Law in the E-Court of Public Opinion: How the Internet Can Make or Break a Lawyer’s or Law Firm’s Reputation and What You Can Do About It."

We are on the panel, along with Mark Britton of Avvo, Andrew Mirsky of Mirsky Legal, and fellow bloggers Carolyn Elefant, of My Shingle, and Jonathan Frieden, of E-Commerce Law. [Avvo Blog; MyShingle.com]

* Attention Asian American lawyers and law students (but all are welcome; this isn't the K&E GLBT party). There's an interesting conference taking place next month in Philadelphia, PA: "Emerging Asia: Shedding New Light on the Legal Landscape." We're delivering the keynote address at dinner. [APALSA]

* Attention South Asian lawyers and law students (but again, all are welcome). There's an interesting conference taking place next month in Los Angeles, CA: "Reflecting Back, Reaching Forward: Building on a Decade of Progress." [NASALSA]

* Attention essayists. Check out this essay contest: "How Do We Close the Gap Between Baby Boomers and Millennials on Work/Life Balance?" It's sponsored by Ms. JD and The Project for Attorney Retention. Prize of $1,000; entry deadline of February 29. [Ms. JD]

* Attention prospective bone marrow donors. A tipster writes:

A former Simpson Thacher associate needs a bone marrow transplant, most likely to come from someone Jewish, and we’re trying to notify as many people as possible to get on the donor list.

More details, after the jump.

This actually happened quite some time ago -- last month, to be exact. But we're happy to write about it because (1) it hasn't been blogged about elsewhere, as far as we know, and (2) with the passage of time, tempers have cooled. So maybe now people can look back on it with amusement rather than anger.

A summary, from one of the several tipsters who drew our attention to this:

A friend of mine at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama, sent me this. Apparently some girl sent out a mass email about President Bush's veto of some health care legislation. This set off a whole clusterf**k of responding emails, with the debate devolving into one over race and class. From reading through the several threads, it's almost frightening that some of these people are actually going to become lawyers.

[One of the more] recent post[s] is especially enlightening.... [T]he author states that "The powers that be count on sellouts to climb the ladder of success and refuse to help those underneath them. That way they can use you sellouts as tokens...."

However, the most hilarious part of this whole thing is where one of the black (1L) students responds to an Asian student by saying, "To the Asian.....u aint black." Further idiocy follows.

The aforementioned "idiocy," after the jump.

We had a tough time picking our finalist couples this week, and LEWW will be the first to admit that we're not totally certain we chose the right three. (We're sure our commenters and e-mailers will let us know if we've dropped the ball.) Specifically, in addition to our three finalists, we considered these three couples, and if you work at Shearman, Simpson Thacher, Wachtell, Willkie, or Ropes & Gray, you might want to click on those links to read about your colleagues or their spawn.

But onward to this week's finalists! Here they are:

1.) Nisa Leung and James Lin

2.) Beth Schonmuller and John Williams

3.) Virginia Boyd and J. B. Lockhart IV

More on these couples, after the jump.

Last week, we mentioned in passing the news that the former U.K. Attorney-General, Lord Peter Goldsmith, QC, is joining Debevoise & Plimpton. Lord Goldsmith will head up Debevoise's European litigation practice.

The Times of London reported the news here, and the WSJ Law Blog posted on the move here. But both write-ups omitted the most notable part of Lord Goldsmith's resume (as mentioned by a WSJ commenter):

On 17 February 2007, the Mail on Sunday reported that Goldsmith, who is married, had been having an affair with Kim Hollis, Britain’s first Asian QC.

Good stuff. And more dirty details, after the jump.

Here are some of the comments appended to our recent post about Gibson Dunn's snazzy new website:

"I like the pictures on the main directory. Those are the best part. Except that they don't have too many women, and one of the women is in a very high school girl peek-a-boo around the brick wall pose. They'd never put up a picture of a man doing that."

"I agree... Shame on you, peek-a-boo posing Asian woman!"

"Uh, that 'peek-a-boo posing Asian woman' is Debra Yang, the former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, whom GDC allegedly paid a $1 mil signing bonus. She can peek-a-boo around whatever the hell she wants to peek-a-boo around."

"Debra Yang's picture's been taken down."

"Wait, the peek-a-boo is still there. Now spotted in the mix over at Practices. Please, GDC, put up a different picture of Ms. Yang."

Curious to see what all the fuss is about? Check out the controversial photo of Gibson Dunn partner (and former U.S. attorney) Debra Wong Yang, after the jump.

We're deep into the lazy days of August -- and today is Friday. So of course there's news of a high-profile resignation from the Department of Justice.

From the New York Times:

The head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division announced Thursday that he was resigning, the latest in a long string of departures from the department in the midst of a furor over the leadership of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

The department said that the resignation of the official, Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, had nothing to do with the recent controversies over Mr. Gonzales’s performance, and that Mr. Kim had been planning his departure for months.

We can confirm that. Kim's resignation, effective at the end of this month, does not come as a surprise to DOJ insiders. Recall what we wrote in these pages almost two months ago:

Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, who oversees the Justice Department's important (and controversial) Civil Rights Division, will step down from his post before the end of the year. He was sworn in as AAG in November 2005, so by this fall he will have held the job for two years -- a long-enough stint in that position.

So stick with us, kids. We bring you the legal news as -- and sometimes even before -- it happens.

(Another DOJ departure: Bradley J. Schlozman, who preceded Kim in heading the CRD (on an acting basis). We hear that Schlozman won't exactly be missed, even by fellow conservatives at Main Justice.)

Civil Rights Division Head Resigning at Justice Dept. [New York Times]
Statement of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on the Resignation of Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim [U.S. Department of Justice]

Earlier: Musical Chairs: Another Rumored DOJ Departure

Remember those dancing Filipino prisoners?

Well, these days Asia is abounding with new and interesting approaches to crime and punishment. From the AP:

Thai police officers who break rules will be forced to wear hot pink armbands featuring "Hello Kitty," the Japanese icon of cute, as a mark of shame, a senior officer said Monday.

Police officers caught littering, parking in a prohibited area, or arriving late among other misdemeanors will be forced to stay in the division office and wear the armband all day, said Police Col. Pongpat Chayaphan. The officers won't wear the armband in public....

"Simple warnings no longer work. This new twist is expected to make them feel guilt and shame and prevent them from repeating the offense, no matter how minor," said Pongpat, acting chief of the Crime Suppression Division in Bangkok.

But Hello Kitty is eminently appealing. Could this strategy backfire? Might there be some police officers who will deliberately misbehave, to win the privilege of having that cute cat straddling their bicep?

P.S. Hello Kitty isn't our favorite Sanrio character. That honor goes to Pekkle the Duck. He's unspeakably adorable!

Bad Thai Cops to Endure Kitty Shame [Associated Press]

Earlier: Sentencing Reform: Dancing Will Set You Free

We're guessing you've all seen this video of 1,500 Filipino prisoners dancing to Michael Jackson's "Thriller." It has been discussed all over the blogosphere and MSM. E.g, Gawker; Concurring Opinions; Times of London.

(We're just surprised that sentencing guru Doug Berman -- who, by the way, moderated a great panel on the federal sentencing guidelines at the recent ACS convention we attended (and will write about later) -- hasn't weighed in on this innovative approach to criminal punishment.)

In case you haven't seen it, here's the clip:

Pretty cool, eh? Professor Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School quipped, "I want to meet the warden."

Well, Professor Nesson, we can help. As it turns out, Byron Garcia -- the prison official who came up with this idea, and uploaded the video clip to YouTube -- is our uncle!

You can read our correspondence with Tito Byron, after the jump.

They do things differently over in China. Here in the United States, for example, we like to put cats on TV. In China, they like to eat them.

And in the Chinese city of Xiamen, they take an approach to anonymous comments on the internet that diverges from the American way. From UPI:

A Chinese city plans to ban anonymous online postings after Internet users successfully campaigned to stop completion of a chemical factory.

The ban mandates Internet users must provide proof of their real identify when posting messages on more than 100,000 Web sites registered in Xiamen, the Times of London reported Saturday.

We're not experts on internet use in China, so please excuse our ignorance, but we don't understand how this ban is supposed to work. How does the ban stop people from posting as "GeneralTso888"? Sure, maybe the authorities can track you down through your IP address, if you dare to post as "Hot Pork Buns" (and that is not your real name). But couldn't they have done that even before the ban?

And if the point of the ban is to establish some penalties for posting anonymously or under a pseudonym, that also seems like a waste of time. Doesn't China already have enough pretexts for throwing people in prison?

P.S. Yes, we're Asian -- and part Chinese, in fact.

Chinese city bans anonymous web postings [United Press International via Drudge Report]

Thanks for the reminder. In an earlier post, we wrote: "We've been hearing interesting rumors about some possible departures at the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) level." And since today is Friday, the favored day for DOJ resignations, we figured we might as well squeeze this in before lunchtime.

Some of the rumors have already come to pass -- like the departure of Eileen O'Connor, as head of the Tax Division, and the departure of Rachel Brand, as head of the Office of Legal Policy. But there's one resignation rumor that's still outstanding.

We hear that Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, who oversees the Justice Department's important (and controversial) Civil Rights Division, will step down from his post before the end of the year. He was sworn in as AAG in November 2005, so by this fall he will have held the job for two years -- a long-enough stint in that position.

If Wan Kim does resign from the Civil Rights Division, he can hardly be blamed. Getting scolded on Capitol Hill isn't much fun. Especially when most of the things you're getting scolded about are the fault of your predecessor, former Acting AAG Bradley J. Schlozman (who is allegedly not the nicest guy in the world, according to some people).

Senators Deride Justice Reassignments [Washington Post]

Earlier: Why Did the Prom Queen Leave the Party?
Musical Chairs: Rearranging the Proverbial Deck Chairs at Main Justice?

Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson is still pressing (harhar) his $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. From the Washington Post's Marc Fisher:

Despite a clear finding by D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff that Pearson's case against Custom Cleaners had no merit and that the cleaners' possible misplacing of a pair of Pearson's pants was not worth a penny to the plaintiff, Pearson is back.

He wrote to defense lawyer Christopher Manning this week to let the Chung family know that Pearson plans to file today a motion arguing that Bartnoff failed to address Pearson's legal claims and asking the judge to reverse her verdict in the case.

If you can stomach it, read the rest after the jump.

If you've been feeling bad for Jin Nam and Soo Chung, the dry cleaners sued by crazy-ass pseudo-judge ALJ Roy Pearson for $54 million -- over a pair of pants -- now you can help:

As for what's going on in the case, Marc Fisher has this update in today's Washington Post. The trial is over; expect a ruling from Judge Judith Bartnoff sometime next week.

Wearing Down the Judicial System With a Pair of Pants [Washington Post]
Custom Cleaners Defense Fund [official website]

* Panda Express, Kelly and Ping's and hall of shamer Eggrolls Etc are fakes alright, but they're not illegal. Is widespread consumption of Lean Cuisine a harbinger of another Cultural Revolution? [Disgrasian]

* Martha is peeved that her staff didn't do a background check on her driver. Expect a guest of middle-eastern descent on her next show, discussing the necessity of luxury Egyptian cotton sheets and teaching TV viewers how to make basbousa. [Huffington Post]

* We've known this for some time, but it's worth repeating: that Chiquita Banana you eat before an intramural game is quite possibly the world's most imperfect food. [Boston Herald]

* Venn Diagrams rule. Speaking of tennis, don't forget to catch the finals of the Roland Garros this weekend. And phenomenal Ana (also infinitely hotter than her poufy-faced predecessor of sorts) has her own blog! [FN1] [Indexed via Quiz Law]

[FN1] And I'm not condoning the ridiculous levels of exploitation women's tennis has seen in the past decade…but she is super-hot, not just tennis-player hot! Yeah, I'm jealous.

Chinese judges: they're just like ours. They lament how profit pressures are making the practice of law much more of a business and much less of a profession.

At a recent conference, Hong Kong judge Andrew Li Kwok-nang stated: "To put it bluntly, mercenary considerations have assumed much greater prominence at the expense of ethical standards." He provided this example:

Mr Justice Li cited the case of a client who asked his lawyer for a breakdown of his bill. The itemised account included a charge for "recognising you in the street and crossing the busy road to talk to you to discuss your affairs, and recrossing the road after discovering it was not you".

Oh those Asians, they're so hard to tell apart...

P.S. We're Asian, so we can get away with this.

P.P.S. Whether Asians are more difficult to tell apart than white folks strikes us as a legitimate question, due to the reduced variability in terms of obvious characteristics like hair and eye color. For more on the subject, check out this website.

Chief justice laments rise of greedy lawyers [South China Morning Post (subscription)]
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road? [ChickenJoke.com]

* These ads are as unfunny as the Jon Stewart skit, and both are a waste of Jack Chin's legal credentials. [Arizona Daily Star]

* I doubt books are in any danger. Remember the Rocket? [Out of the Jungle]

* You are probably safe calling her hot and/or making phallic jokes, but please don't make any tenuous analogies between a sex crime victim accused of "asking for it" and a beautiful and athletic object of lust. I kind of think we should be more worried about other over-exposed (but less blessed) girls like Tara Reid. [Sports Law Blog]

* This is how I want to bill my hours; I'd feel like a veritable Miss America…on To Catch a Predator. [Madisonian]

* Here's another survival guide for summer campers associates. (Other examples were previously linked to here.) [Daily Business Review]

* Duke, race, and why the honor code is harder to understand than "Fuqua" is to pronounce. [CNN; The News & Observer]

* When a woman rushes into the bathroom and emerges with no powder of any kind on her nose, it means she's stealing your identity, fool. [Los Angeles Times]

* If models can insure their legs, surely this guy could have insured his nose. But I'm glad I now know that Zicam can make you oblivious to the smell of pee and chemical fires. [Charleston Daily Mail]

* Another travesty on an unsuspecting public? We seemed to have accepted the whole bottled water thing with little outcry. [Consumer Law & Policy Blog]

* I can really hear Madonna's Frozen playing over a future Dateline segment on this troubled mother. [The Pittsburgh Channel]

Law-related stories are proliferating over at our big sibling site, DealBreaker. Here are three from yesterday afternoon alone:

1. Goldman Sachs Acquitted of All Charges. It's good to be Goldman:

"In an effort to uphold the rule that the Masters of the Universe can pretty much get away with anything simply because they’re the Masters of the Universe (see, also: Jobs, backdating), a federal judge has ruled that Goldman cannot be included in a lawsuit by Fannie Mae shareholders."

2. Dow Jones Insider Trading Watch: Two Charges, Dow Jones Director Scutinized. Hmm, this sounds a wee bit fishy to us:

"[T]he SEC filed a lawsuit against a Hong Kong couple, Kan King Wong and Charlotte Ka On Wong Leung, accusing them of insider trading. The couple had purchased $15 million of Dow Jones shares prior to the May 1st announcement."

They liquidated the position after News Corp.'s unsolicited offer to boy Dow Jones, for a tidy profit of $8.2 million. More details here.

3. In the Future of a Defamation Lawsuit, Dimon Is the Law. Here's a teaser, concerning the lawsuits that are flying between Dow Chemical and a former executive and board member: "It’s the legal equivalent of a John Woo action scene."

You can check out the full post here.