You can check it out here: http://www.internalinvestigationlaw.com.
Sadly, their new website is understated, even tasteful. The fonts are well-chosen. The color scheme of black, red and white is catchy yet unobjectionable.
Where are the photos of the founding partners lounging about in tuxedos, making “tiger eyes” at the camera? Where is the aggressive touting of the “International Association of Networks”? And why have they removed all mention of their Long Island offices — have they closed them, or are they just trying to look less “bridge and tunnel”? (They list only their Manhattan address, in the world-famous Rockefeller Center.)
Thankfully, the website is not entirely bereft of comic fodder. This graphic is a little on the cheesy side:
“Success? Keep going until the third light, make a left. Go for a quarter-mile. Then you get to this traffic circle… Oh, it gets confusing — don’t you have GPS?”
And the attorney bios are still amusingly self-aggrandizing. We’re glad to know that a Second Circuit clerkship is still “extremely prestigious”; that Tenth Circuit clerkships are “coveted” and “prestigious” (which may be more or less prestigious than “extremely prestigious”); and that Sullivan & Cromwell is still “one of the most prominent Wall Street law firms,” representing “many of the world’s largest corporations.”
On the whole, though, the site is much improved. Kudos to Messrs. Gallion & Spielvogel!
P.S. One oopsie that we’d like to point out, in our role as helpful critic of their webpage: at the bottom of the page, it states, “For more information visit our website www.gsbarristers.com.” But that web address doesn’t offer “more information”; it has nothing on it but the firm name, as we previously noted.
Gallion & Spielvogel: Internal Investigation Law Firm [official website]
(If you’re not familiar with Gallion & Spielvogel and the firm’s previous misadventures in the world of webpage design, read these comments, as well as our prior coverage of Gallion & Spielvogel.)
Posts by David Lat
You can check it out here: http://www.internalinvestigationlaw.com.
Justice Walter Tolub is by most accounts a smart and fair jurist….
Why then when it comes to straightforward contracts and lease provisions, does Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Walter Tolub seem to hit a snag? He has been reversed 10 times in the last six months on cases that seem simple enough for a law student to find an answer that would stand up on appeal. Time and again, on a streak from September through February, the Appellate Division has said the 66-year-old jurist misinterpreted what appear to be largely uncomplicated agreements.
We’ve appeared before Justice Tolub, and he struck us as a well-prepared judge — “smart and fair,” as noted above. So we found this information surprising:
To be sure, Tolub does not have a particularly blemished record — just an apparently niggling problem. Of his 183 cases that were appealed between 2000 and 2005, he was reversed 36.6 percent of the time. During the same period, the average reversal rate for Civil Term judges in the First Department was 37.1 percent. However, only six of the over 80 judges in the Civil Term of the First Department were appealed more often than Tolub.
Justice Tolub has a reversal rate of almost 37 percent — which makes him one of the less reversed judges on that court? We’re not in federal court any more, Toto!
Back to the article:
The New Year  didn’t break the spate of problematic decisions on contracts and leases. The reversal streak continued and the Appellate Division continued to overturn Tolub’s rulings, using refrains emphasizing that the original contracts in question had “plain and ordinary meaning” and “clear language.”…
The Appellate Division noted [in reversing one Tolub decision] that the court is “not free to ‘make or vary the contract of insurance to accomplish its notions of abstract justice or moral obligation.’ ”
OUCH. Please file under the “Oh No They Didn’t!!!” West headnote.
Contractual Obfuscation [Judicial Reports]
“And I’m going to mention it in my restaurant review — ’cause if you sue me, your chances of prevailing are low.”
That’s the gist of this interesting NYT article by Adam Liptak. Money quote:
These rulings, from about a dozen over the past three decades, were all in favor of the reviewer.
¶ “Trout à la green plague”? Ruling: “An ordinarily informed person would not infer that these entrees were actually carriers of communicable diseases.”
¶ “The fish on the Key West platter tasted like old ski boots”? Ruling: “Obviously, that was hyperbole used to indicate that the reviewer found the fish to be dry and tough.”
¶ Peking duck pancakes “the size of a saucer and the thickness of a finger”? Ruling: “An attempt to inject style into the review rather than an attempt to convey with technical precision literal facts about the restaurant.”
¶ “Bring a can of Raid if you plan to eat here”? Ruling: “The techniques of humor and ridicule were protected.”
Mr. Gill likened the shrimp and foie gras dumplings at 66 to ”fishy, liver-filled condoms” and called them ”properly vile, with a savor that lingered like a lovelorn drunk and tasted as if your mouth had been used as the swab bin in an animal hospital.”
Ouch. Seems like Mr. Gill was trying too hard. We dined at 66 once, and we found it perfectly pleasant — not as impressive as Mr. Vongerichten’s other culinary outposts, but certainly not worthy of such vitriol.
(And yes, we did try the dumplings. We enjoyed them — as did William Grimes of the Times, who listed them as a recommended dish.)
Serving You Tonight Will Be Our Lawyer [New York Times]
The LIST OF SHAME is shrinking, albeit slowly.
We were down to eight firms as of last Friday morning. Then we learned about Baker Hostetler matching market. And today we get this associate pay raise news (from a verified source at the firm):
You can remove Fulbright & Jaworski from the List of Shame. We raised associate base salaries in the New York office to market today (retroactive to January 1, 2007). There was a meeting of all the associates so there is no memo or voicemail.
This leaves us with the following (ranked by Vault 100 numbers on the left, ’cause that’s how the list started out, but with AmLaw 100 numbers supplied parenthetically on the right):
43. Baker & McKenzie (3)
77. Bryan Cave (56)
82. Reed Smith (33)
83. Dorsey & Whitney (68)
86. McGuireWoods (65)
100. Seyfarth Shaw (66)
If any of these firms doesn’t belong, please email us, with supporting documentation (if any). Thanks.
Thank you to everyone who voted in ATL’s Law Librarian Hotties contest. The first round of voting is now complete, and we have four finalists.
On the women’s side, our slate of thirteen fantastic nominees has been reduced to two worthy competitors:
1. JOY HANSON
1. DWIGHT KING
2. LARRY REEVES
You can refresh your recollection about these hotties, and cast your vote in the runoff races, after the jump.
- Alison Maynard, Environment / Environmental Law, Lawyer of the Day, Litigators, Lunacy, Politics, Weirdness
When we wrote about her amusing court filing earlier today, we redacted her name. But since she has shown that she has no problem with being identified, even going so far as to comment on our prior post, we’re happy to shout her name from the blogospheric rooftops: ALISON MAYNARD.
Alison Maynard, who ran unsuccessfully for Colorado Attorney General as a Green Party candidate, is known in some circles as “Sunny” Maynard. And with her hilarious motion, Sunny Maynard has brightened the days of thousands of lawyers around the country.
This is why we’re naming her our Lawyer of the Day. Congratulations, Ms. Maynard!
For those of you who didn’t read our prior post, here’s the relevant excerpt from Maynard’s motion:
In the hours since we posted it, we’ve been bombarded by several lengthy email screeds from Maynard. Because most of them contained the words “water rights” and “bill of costs,” they were initially banished to the “Boring Stuff” subfolder of our “Junk Mail” folder.
But we dutifully rescued them, and we even read them. Some excerpts, as well as links with biographical information about Alison Maynard, appear after the jump.
In the continuing saga of Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, there are two central “villians” (assuming you take Charney’s side — which is about 60 percent of you).
The first villian is Eric Krautheimer, the partner who allegedly made the “bend over” comment. The second is Alexandra Korry, the M&A queen who allegedly referred to Charney’s “unnatural” relationship with another male associate.
In the pages of ATL, we’ve seen extensive discussion of Alexandra Korry and her rumored personality quirks — but relatively little about Krautheimer. Some of you have chalked up this discrepancy to sexism.
We’d like to make things right. We’ve heard general statements to the effect that Krautheimer is “a nightmare to work for.” We’ve also heard “defenses” of his alleged conduct in Brokeback Lawfirm along these lines: “Krautheimer isn’t anti-gay. He’s just an a**hole — to everyone, gay or straight.”
So we KNOW there are stories out there, although we’ve received little in the way of specifics. We hereby request your tips about Eric Krautheimer, which you can send to us by email.
Here’s one little story that came our way:
An overworked associate went to see Eric Krautheimer. He wanted to quit because of brutally long hours. Eric’s response: “I don’t want to hear about it. I billed 3900 hours last year!”
We’re not surprised. Eric Krautheimer is many things, but he’s definitely not lazy. Over the past few weeks, in which Charney v. S&C has been hogging the headlines, Krautheimer has kept a low profile. He’s immersed himself in his work, doing what he does best: working on big deals.
We’re not that far into 2007, but Krautheimer has already handled some major matters. He was involved in the giant Vornado/Equity Office battle, and after his client walked away from that fight, he plunged himself to the Central Parking/KCPC Holdings transaction. (We hear about these things because we’re on the S&C deal distribution list.)
Perhaps Eric Krautheimer, since the start of Brokeback Lawfirm, has started treating his underlings with greater civility. But we’re sure there is some dirt out there, even if it’s old.
Please feel free to share it with us by email (subject: “Eric Krautheimer”). Thanks!
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Eric Krautheimer (scroll down)
Meet Adrienne (at right), a 22-year-old hottie from South Carolina — and a current student at Boston College Law School.
Adrienne graces the cover of the current issue of Barstool Sports. We are not familiar with this publication, but we are advised that it is “a prestigious biweekly magazine.”
In our opinion, the cover photograph isn’t even the best picture of this comely young lawyer-in-training. We think this shot and this one are both superior. To review Adrienne’s photo gallery for yourself, click here.
Adrienne — who will be making an appearance next Thursday, March 15, from 9 to 11 p.m., at an establishment called “Whiskey’s” — is studying for a JD. But based on her interview, it sounds like she’s also pursuing her MRS….
Kristina Daugirdas and Nicholas Bagley made a valiant effort in our Couple of the Month contest. Over time, they narrowed the gap between themselves and the leading couple considerably.
But in the end, it wasn’t enough — especially since the leading couple, which started off and remained in the lead throughout the contest, included a sitting federal appeals court judge:
Congratulations to ATL’s newest couple of the month: Ann Leventhal and (the Honorable) Jon Newman!!!
Update: In response to this question, the answer is “no.”
A couple that includes a Supreme Court clerk has lost before in Couple of the Month voting (although not in the weekly Legal Eagle Wedding Watch ratings). Lori Alvino and Matt McGill did not prevail in the October 2006 Couple of the Month competition.
Earlier: Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: January 2007 Couple of the Month
To read past editions of Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, click here, and scroll down.
Okay, so those BU bagels are off-limits. But there are other options:
Is S&C going on a bagels-and-danish charm offensive, in light of the recent PR troubles caused by Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell? Our source raises this possibilty:
As an alumnus, I received this from the lgbt law students’ listserv. I don’t recall S&C ever having any events at Michigan before the actual interview season started….
I just wonder if it is a coincidence (i.e., consistent with past practices and/or scheduled before the lawsuit), or if it’s an attempt at damage control in their recruitment efforts.
If you have thoughts on this — or if you were able to attend the Michigan breakfast (it was yesterday) — we’d love to hear from you.