David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law. His writing has also appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, New York magazine, Washingtonian magazine, and the New York Observer. Prior to ATL, he launched Underneath Their Robes, a blog about federal judges. Before entering the journalism world, he worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, in New York; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. He has received several awards for his work on ATL, including recognition as one of the American Lawyer’s Top 50 Big Law Innovators of the Last 50 Years; one of the ABA Journal’s Legal Rebels, a group of pioneers within the legal profession; and one of the Fastcase 50, "the fifty most interesting, provocative, and courageous leaders in the world of law, scholarship, and legal technology." His first book, Supreme Ambitions: A Novel, will be published in 2015. You can connect with David on Twitter and Facebook.
Last week, we asked you for information about the clerkship bonus policies of large law firms. We also made a few phone calls and sent out a few emails, to obtain information from the law firms themselves.
A summary of our findings:
1. No large law firm has matched the new Sullivan & Cromwell clerkship bonus of $50,000, at least as far as we’ve been able to confirm.
(a) There was a rumor about Paul Weiss matching S&C, but no one has confirmed it to us.
(b) We aren’t counting Kellogg Huber, which pays a $100,000 clerkship bonus, and Susman Godfrey, which pays a $50,000 clerkship bonus, since they’re really boutiques.
(c) We aren’t counting intellectual property firms, some of whom pay $70,000 bonuses for Federal Circuit clerkships, because they are a world unto themselves.
Update: As this commenter notes, if you have two years of clerkship experience, then Weil is where it’s at: $70,000 ($35,000 x 2).
2. As one Biglaw partner pointed out to us, it’s early to be thinking about clerkship bonuses, because we’re not yet at the point in the year when law clerks change over (typically in the summer or fall). So hopefully some firms will match S&C before it’s all over.
3. Any firm worth its salt should offer a clerkship bonus of at least $35,000. This is what numerous big firms already do, and it should be considered the “market” rate. A bonus of anything less than $35K is chintzy and lame.
Earlier today, we shared with you twovideos from the NYU Law Revue. In the comments to one of these posts, a vigorous “NYU vs. Columbia” debate ensued.
If you’d like to compare NYU and Columbia on the quality of their law revue videos — a critical measure of law school quality, to be added to next year’s U.S. News rankings — here’s a Columbia Law Revue video for your consideration:
1. We have great admiration for Columbia Law School (and will be visiting CLS to give a talk in the near future). We harbor no anti-Columbia bias. But this video strikes us as kinda lame.
2. Some of the actors, including the Cabaret-inspired emcee, are quite appealing. But the production values leave something to be desired, and some of the jokes are head-scratchers.
3. We must confess, though, that we did laugh at several points — e.g., the Wachtell Lipton quip. Furthermore, after a minute or two, we started to really enjoy the video, in a “so bad it’s good” sort of way.
Here’s another video from the NYU Law Review Revue that we enjoyed. It reminded us of the Promiscuous Firm video that those Canadian law students did a while ago.
The first minute is a little slow. But the fun kicks in at around the one-minute mark — and the sunglasses-wearing, Jacko-esque female partner is pretty badass:
A summary of this morning’s Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, from SCOTUSblog:
Ruling 5-4, the Supreme Court on Monday found that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming, and must examine anew the scientific evidence of a link between those gases contained in the exhausts of new cars and trucks and climate change. In the most important environmental ruling in years, the Court rebuffed the Environmental Protection Agency’s claim that regulating those gases was beyond its authority, and the agency’s claim that it need not take action even if it did have the power to do so. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
The benchslap came when the Court ordered the EPA to reevaluate its decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. From the Associated Press:
The court had three questions before it.
– Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
– Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
– Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a “laundry list” of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.
The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.
“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens said.
If you look up the term “private equity” in Black’s Law Dictionary, the entry reads: “Lucky bastards who make three times as much as you do, even though you graduated from college at the same time.”
But perhaps lawyers should think warm-and-fuzzy thoughts, as opposed to envious and resentful ones, about private equity types. Today’s DealBook has an interesting item about how private equity deals are keeping law firms busy — including a number of shops outside the private equity “Holy Trinity” of Simpson Thacher, Cleary Gottlieb, and Ropes & Gray.
The DealBook item is based on an article in the current issue of the American Lawyer, which contains this tidbit about lateral moves from Simpson:
An unintended consequence of our level of market share in private equity is that as private equity firms have grown, they’ve all developed in-house legal staffs, starting from zero, five years ago,” says Simpson partner Alan Klein. “They’re trying to populate those staffs with our associates.”
Seven lawyers left Simpson for private equity shops last year, according to Corporate Counsel, a sibling publication of The American Lawyer. Partly to stem defections, Simpson raised associate salaries in January, prompting a raise-a-thon among its competitors.
“I don’t understand what causes a firm be the first to increase the salary of a brand-new lawyer from an already eye-popping $145,000 to $160,000. There is no competitive advantage in doing so. Other firms will surely follow suit, and the firm that led the market will quickly be indistinguishable from the rest of the pack.”
In ATL’s March Madness, NYU currently enjoys a sizable lead over their uptown competition at Columbia. So they probably don’t need the electoral boost that might result from this delightful video, produced as part of the annual NYU Law Revue:
1. It’s all in the casting: “Columbia” is a brilliant choice. She’s the twenty-something, female embodiment of John Hodgman. If the whole “law” thing doesn’t work out for her, she should look into acting.
2. “Harvard” and “Yale” are super-cute!!! Of course, we’re assuming that in real life they are NYU law students (and perhaps future NYU law hotties).
3. The video includes a photographic cameo by one-half of FELDSUK. Awesome! (And we love how NYU has brilliantly spun Professor Noah Feldman’s high-profile defection to Harvard.)
Congratulations to the NYU Law crew that put together such an excellent video. Nice work, guys!
P.S. Did they get any help from their brilliant colleagues at NYU’s famous film school? Update: The answer to that question is no. A tipster tells us that the creator of the video is a mere law student, who produced this video without film school help. This source also adds:
The ad makes fun of NYU as well: we have no waitlist, and can’t use Macs for exams. The video turns against NYU.
But so is the mainstream media. The articles about this high-ranking Justice Department official, at the heart of the controversial U.S. Attorney firings, just keep on coming.
We can’t get enough of the coverage. We are completely intrigued — and quite taken by — Monica M. Goodling. She’s the most fascinating and appealing personality we’ve encountered since Alexandra Korry and Shanetta Cutlar (whom we also adore — what can we say, we love strong women).
In the face of widespread media and blogosphere criticism of Monica Goodling, we intend to stake out our position as the leading pro-Monica outlet. It’s all too easy to rank on her non-Ivy League background or her strong conservative beliefs. We will provide a counterbalance to the negativity, by vigorously praising and defending Monica Goodling in all of her fabulosity.
The latest Monica Goodling profiles are by Jonathan Last, for the Philadelphia Inquirer, and by T.R. Goldman and Emma Schwartz, for the Legal Times. Here are some excerpts from Jonathan Last’s article:
Now 33, [Monica Goodling] graduated from Messiah College, an evangelical Christian school, in 1995. After a year at the American University Washington College of Law, she enrolled at Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School in 1996 – the year it received full accreditation from the American Bar Association. She graduated from Regent in 1999. That November, Goodling went to work for the Republican National Committee as a junior research analyst in the opposition research shop. When her boss, Barbara Comstock, left the RNC to head the Office of Public Affairs in the Ashcroft Justice Department, Goodling went with her.
After spending two years in Public Affairs, Goodling was detailed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia for a two-year stint in order to get the “field experience” typically required for the attorney general counsel’s job. She served only six months. (The head of EDVA at the time was Paul McNulty, who, having since become a deputy attorney general, also played a role in the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.)
According to my research, Goodling was the lead attorney on three felony cases while at EDVA. All three ended in plea agreements; none was of particular importance. To give a sense of the magnitude of her work, the highest-level defendant was sentenced to four months in jail; the other two were given three years of supervised release – one of these also received a $100 special assessment. Nevertheless, upon her return to Justice, Goodling assumed the senior counsel and White House liaison posts. So much for the best and the brightest.
OUCH. Mr. Last, that’s no way to treat a lady!
More discussion, after the jump.
Thanks to everyone who took the Above the Law reader survey (now closed). We appreciate your taking the time to tell us — and our advertisers — a little bit about yourselves. Special thanks to those of you who offered us comments and feedback on ATL.
The survey results are similar to those from the one we conducted about six months ago. Here are the highlights: Gender: 64 percent male. Median age: 29. Education 72 percent of you have a JD, and 99 percent are college grads. You’re a smart bunch. Average annual household income: $118,000. This figure is about 20 percent higher than it was six months ago ($99,000). Our thanks to Simpson Thacher. Occupation: 50 percent of Above the Law readers are lawyers or judges; 14 percent are law clerks; 19 percent are students. Consumer habits: ATL readers are an appealing group demographically:
• 32% have taken a flight for business in the past 30 days
• 47% have taken a flight for leisure in the past 30 days
• 54% have gone to the movies in the past 30 days
• 55% have managed their investments online
• 41% have used the internet to research cars over the past 6 months
If you’d like more information about advertising on ATL, please click here. Thanks! Earlier: Some Interrogatories from Your Friends at ATL ATL Readers: ‘Handsome, Clever, and Rich’
We realize that we’ve prematurely predicted settlement before. But this time around, we have the news on very reliable authority.
Aaron Charney and S&C have been engaged in marathon settlement talks for most of this weekend. And, according to a source close to the discussions, they’re very close to an agreement. The parties are said to be “zeroing in on a figure just north of $1 million.”
Exciting stuff! We’re glad to see the parties working things out — but we will obviously miss writing about this story.
More details, after the jump.
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
Whether you’re fresh off the bar exam or hitting your stride after hanging a shingle a few years ago, one thing’s for certain: independent attorneys who start a solo or small-law practice live with a certain amount of stress.
Non-attorneys would think the stress comes from preparing for a big trial, deposing a hostile witness, or crafting the perfect contract for a picky client.
But that’s nothing compared to the constant, nagging, real-life kind, the kind you get from the day-to-day grind of being a law-abiding attorney.
Connecticut plaintiffs-side boutique litigation firm (12 lawyers) seeks full-time associate with 2-4 years litigation experience, top tier undergraduate and law school education. Journal or clerkship experience a plus; highest ethical standards and strong work ethic required. Familiarity with Connecticut state court legal practice is preferred, but not required.
The firm handles sophisticated, high-end cases for plaintiffs, including individuals and businesses with significant claims in a wide array of matters. Our cases often have important public policy implications, and are litigated in state and federal courts throughout Connecticut. Representative areas of practice include medical malpractice, catastrophic personal injury, business torts, deceptive trade practices and other complex commercial litigation, and products liability.
Additional information can be located on our website, at www.sgtlaw.com.