Go watch Penn Law students beat the crap out of Wharton MBA students. Yay!
* The Biglaw firm that Chris Christie hired to investigate Chris Christie and the Bridgegate scandal has concluded that Chris Christie did nothing wrong. Phew, Chris Christie couldn’t haven seen that one coming. [BuzzFeed]
* If you were an attorney on the D.C. Circuit case where counsel received an unexpected benchslap for excessive use of acronyms, would you have said OMG WTF, or LOL NBD? Choose wisely, unless you DGAF. [Legal Writing Pro]
* BTW, the D.C. Circuit doesn’t so much forbid the use of uncommon acronyms as much as it requires that a glossary be used to define them. Too bad iPads have killed glossaries. [Maryland Appellate Blog]
* An American failed chef in Paris: One of Lat’s friends from back in the day when he was at Wachtell took a very circuitous route to becoming the first American partner at a top French firm. [The Deal Pipeline]
* If you care at all about how well women and minority law students are represented on law reviews, then you’ll want to come to this important event. I’ll be there, and hope to see you there, too! [Ms. JD]
* It’s getting hot in herre, but please keep on your clothes. Students from Penn Law REALLY want you to know about this weekend’s boxing event. Nelly will be at the after party. [Wharton vs. Law: Fight Night]
On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit benchslapped a gaggle of lawyers for filing briefs with excessive acronyms. The court’s per curiam order directed the parties to “submit briefs that eliminate uncommon acronyms used in their previously filed final briefs.”
Alas, attempts to comply with this order have raised a new problem — a problem that some readers saw a mile away….
* Federal district judge who thought he was one of the Hardy Boys gets a benchslap from Judge Rakoff. [Josh Blackman's Blog]
* The dean of the DePaul College of Law, Gregory Mark, is stepping down at the end of the academic year. Administration issues are never fun, but this is better than another story about Augustus Sol Invictus. [Chicago Sun-Times]
The defendants’ appeal brief is a gaunt, pathetic document (there is no reply brief). Minus formal matter, it is only eight and a half pages long. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that, but still: the first seven and a half pages are simply a recitation of the history of the Georgia lawsuit, the settlement negotiations, and the present suit, along with questionable and irrelevant facts; and the tiny argument section of the brief — 118 words, including citations — states merely, without detail or elaboration, that the defendants do not possess the settlement funds and therefore can’t restore them.
People can be so unreliable. Especially if those people are Biglaw litigators in a high-stakes intellectual property dispute. With a scheduling order set months in advance, with no warning as to the volume of disagreement, these lawyers dumped “joint” pretrial filings “so rife with disputes that the documents amount to two separate proposals” and a metric tonne of motions on the court to resolve in two weeks.
Scratch that. With less than two weeks, because they filed all this late. Oh, and they filed a bunch of them redacted and under seal without permission, just for good measure.
If that would make you a very angry judge willing to rip both sides for posterity, you wouldn’t be alone….
So federal judges should be keenly interested in the insights of young legal minds — especially minds being cultivated at the Yale Law School, the nation’s #1 law school (according to both the U.S. News rankings and the Above the Law rankings). Right?
Well, just because a judge wants your advice as a law clerk doesn’t mean he wants to hear from you as an expert witness. A current Yale law student recently learned this lesson the hard way….
You can take your analogy and shove it right up your [expletive], judge.
– Kenneth Conley, a convicted bank robber, at his sentencing for having masterminded a daring escape from the Chicago MCC in 2012. Judge Gary Feinerman could only respond with a “thank you,” making this a rare “defendant-slap.”
The term “daring” is no understatement when it comes to this escape. Conley and his accomplice cut a hole in a concrete wall and then used a rope fashioned from bed sheets and dental floss to scale down the prison’s outer wall in the middle of the night.
(If you’d be scared scaling a two-story wall suspended only by dental floss, check out a picture of the wall they actually scaled down.)
Judges can usually keep it together even when the lawyers deserve a paddlin’ for their disrespectful behavior. And I cannot imagine how a judge summons the depth of patience required to deal with a pro se litigant without constantly losing their composure. While lawyers may privately think of judges as arrogant and imperious from time to time, when you really look at the job, judges spend most of their time holding their tongues.
Which is why a uncontrolled outburst from a federal judge is such a rare treat.
Now you may think, “This is probably a minor rebuke blown out of proportion.” To that I quote David Frank, the managing editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: “I have heard judges raise their voice. I’ve heard judges get tense. I have never heard something as loud as that.”
I guess this was less of a benchslap and more of a benchpunch….
Yes, benchslaps are great fun to read about, especially if you enjoy a little schadenfreude. But benchslaps are not fun to receive — and they’re not always justified.
Because of the prestige of judicial office, judges generally get the benefit of the doubt when dishing out benchslaps. But sometimes judges go too far. For example, some observers felt that Judge Richard Posner crossed the line when interrogating a Jones Day partner during a recent Seventh Circuit argument.
This brings us to today’s benchslap — directed at a lawyer for the federal government, no less. It’s harsh, but is it warranted?
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.
Please note that Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney are still in Hong Kong and will stay FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS WEEK. We still have a handful of available slots for meetings with our Asia Chronicles fans. If we have not been in touch lately, reach out and let us know when we could meet! There is no need for an agenda at all. Most of our in-person meetings on these trips are with folks who understand that improving a legal practice through lateral hiring is an information-driven process that takes time to handle correctly.
Regarding trends in lateral US associate hiring in Hong Kong, we of course keep much of what we know off of this blog. Based on placement revenue, though, Kinney is having one of our most successful years ever in Asia. We are helping a number of our law firm clients with M&A, fund formation, cap markets, project finance, FCPA and disputes openings. These are very specific needs in many cases, so a conversation with us before jumping in may be helpful. As always, we like to be sure to get the maximum number of interviews per submission, using a well-informed, highly targeted, and selective approach, taking into account short, medium and long-term career aims.
Making a well informed decision during a job search is easier said than done – the information we provide comes from 10 years of being the market leader in US attorney placements at the top tier firms in Asia. There is no substitute for having known a hiring partner since he/she was an associate or for having helped a partner grow his or her practice from zip to zooming, and this is happily where we stand today – with years of background information on just about every relevant person in all the markets we serve, and most especially in Hong Kong/China/Greater Asia. So get in touch and get a download from us this week if we can fit it in, or soon in any case!
The legal industry is being disrupted at every level by technological advances. While legal tech entrepreneurs and innovators are racing to create a more efficient and productive future, there is widespread indifference on the part of attorneys toward these emerging technologies.
When the LexisNexis Cloud Technology Survey results were reported earlier this year, it showed that attorneys were starting to peer less skeptically into the future, and slowly but surely leaning more toward all the benefits the law cloud has to offer.
Because let’s face it, plenty of attorneys are perhaps a bit too comfortable with their “system” of practice management, which may or may not include neon highlighters, sticky notes, dog-eared file folders, and a word processing program that was last updated when the term “raise the roof” was still de rigueur.