Do you work for a law firm in Midtown Manhattan? If so, feel free to drop in and say hello to your undersigned writer.
Last night we drove up from our regular base of operations, Washington, DC, to the Big Apple. Right now we’re hanging out, and working from, the Starbucks on the northeast corner of 51st and Broadway.
If you have some gossip you’d like to share — stuff that’s too juicy to send us by email — please swing by. Or just come by and say hi. (And do leave us with one of your business cards, so we can add you to the list of tipsters we use to verify information about specific firms.)
Hope to see some of you later today, when you’re on a lunch or coffee break. Thanks!
(After the jump: A random photo we took this morning, while walking through Rockefeller Center, of Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira, of the Today show, with Antonio Banderas.)
Do you work for a law firm in Midtown Manhattan? If so, feel free to drop in and say hello to your undersigned writer.
- Asians, Blogging, Defamation, Goldman Sachs, Insider Trading, Vicious Infighting, Wall Street, White-Collar Crime
“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.
It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s… an ATL post not related to law firm pay raises!
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued a somewhat saucy opinion in a libel case brought by a state court judge, Ernest B. Murphy, against a New England tabloid, the Boston Herald. No, we don’t know who is more icky.
Given the demanding “actual malice” standard, libel cases can be tough to win — but in this case, the plaintiff prevailed. Judge Murphy won a $2 million verdict against the Herald. This verdict, as modified by the trial judge, was just upheld by the SJC.
Yesterday we sat down with the folks over at Gawker to chat about the case. Check out our IM conversation with them by clicking here.
Understanding The ‘Boston Herald’ Libel Case [Gawker]
Judge’s Libel Victory Against Paper Is Upheld [New York Times]
Murphy v. Boston Herald [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (click on "Opinions" in lefthand column)]
Case Report for Ernest B. Murphy v. Boston Herald [MoreLaw.com]
- Adam Liptak, Anthony Kennedy, Blogging, D.C. Circuit, Guns / Firearms, Law Professors, Michael Dorf, New York Times, Randy Barnett
Liberal law professors can be pretty predictable in their tastes. Volvo stationwagons. Fair trade coffee. Guns.
Guns? Yes, guns. No, not gunners — guns. Firearms. Bang bang. The good ol’ Second Amendment.
According to a very interesting NYT article, by Adam Liptak:
In March, for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable.
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court.
Legal academic debate with real-world ramifications? Wow. This truly is newsworthy.
Thoughtful blogospheric reactions from Jonathan Adler, Jack Balkin, Randy Barnett, and Michael Dorf, among others. We were most amused by Professor Dorf, who blog-slaps Liptak, before concluding his post in delightfully catty fashion:
Full disclosure: I spoke with Mr. Liptak last week and expressed skepticism (along the lines described above) about his causal claim. I guess I didn’t say anything quote-worthy.
HA. Hell hath no fury like a law professor not name-checked.
(Sorry, Professor Dorf — not everyone is as susceptible to your charms as Justice Kennedy. You may spend your entire life searching for a jurisprudential romance to match what you had with AMK at One First Street, back in the heady days of October Term 1991.)
A Liberal Case for the Individual Right to Own Guns Helps Sway the Federal Judiciary [New York Times]
Scholarship and the Second Amendment in the Courts [Dorf on Law]
How Liberals Saved the Second Amendment [Volokh Conspiracy]
Scholars and the Second Amendment [Volokh Conspiracy]
The Second Amendment is Embarrassing No More [Balkinization]
- Anthony Ciolli, AutoAdmit / Xoxohth, Biglaw, Blogging, David Hoffman, Free Speech, Racism, Sexual Harassment, WSJ Law Blog
Some very interesting news, reported by Amir Efrati over at the WSJ Law Blog:
The Law Blog has learned that law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge rescinded its job offer to Anthony Ciolli, the 3L at Penn Law who resigned as “Chief Education Director” of AutoAdmit last month. H[e] resigned in the wake of a WaPo exposé on how the site in part served as a platform for attacks and defamatory remarks about female law students, among others (see our earlier post here).
Charles DeWitt (pictured, left), a managing partner at Edwards Angell’s Boston office, where Ciolli was slated to be a litigation associate, told the Law Blog: “He worked for us last summer. He’s not going to work for us in the fall.”
Ciolli took time from working on final exams to talk to the Law Blog. “Three years of legal education has been wasted because of an unmoderated message board,” he said, adding, “The timing is absolutely horrible.” The 23-year-old, who contributes to First Movers, a blog written by law students and graduates, added that “I don’t know what I’m going to do next.”
You can read the whole post, which recounts the fascinating correspondence between DeWitt and Ciolli (pictured at right), over here.
Commentary from Professor Dave Hoffman, who has written extensively about AutoAdmit / Xoxohth in the past, appears at Concurring Opinions.
What do we think? Eh, we generally steer clear of this subject. What do YOU think?
(In this poll, which we admit is vaguely worded, you can substitute “fair” or “appropriate” in the place of “justified,” if you wish. We’re just trying to get a general sense of how many of you agree, and how many of you disagree, with what Edwards Angell did.)
Did you miss us? We hope so. But we also know, from reader emails and comments, that you greatly enjoyed the efforts of Laurie Lin and Billy Merck, who held down the fort in our absence. We thank them for their fantastic work.
We’re still in the process of catching up on legal news, blog reading, and email. It’s a Monday morning, so we need all the help we can get. If you have any suggested blog fodder, please send it to us by email. Thanks!
* Is this just a perverse case of giving them what they want? [Chicago Sun-Times]
* Or, unless this guy is developmentally disabled or the kid in Mask, is it just about attention? [Des Moines Register]
* Jesse James is the kind of guy you’d want around to deter stalkers. [People]
* Note to father of depressed/anorexic woman: a $77,000 tab is sketchy… but so is free treatment. [Star Tribune]
* Not content with designing god-awful, Talitha Getty-inspired tunics and dressing up like JonBenet on a nightly basis, “socialites” busy their idle hands with a potential lawsuit. [New York Post]
The brilliant and irascible Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, has handed down his opinion on blogs, and it’s scathing. The audio link is down, but Orin Kerr helpfully gives us the juicy bits:
ERIC GOLDMAN: So but what about blogs? . . .
JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI: I hate them, hateful things.
ERIC GOLDMAN: Why do you hate blogs? . . . .
JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI: I just think it’s so self-indulgent, you know. “Oh, I’m so proud of what I’m saying, I think the world instantly wants to know what I’m thinking today.” People wake up thinking, . . . . “I wonder what great thoughts have come into his mind this morning that I can feel myself edified by. I can’t really have breakfast — really enjoy my day — until I hear the great thoughts of Howard Bashman!” I don’t think so. I go for months without ever knowing what Howard has to say. So I don’t know. I find it sort of self-indulgent. And I find it grandiloquent. And I find it annoying, particularly if I’m in an audience and people are sitting there typing in their computers.
Why is Kozinski picking on Bashman? How Appealing is the opposite of grandiloquent; it’s essentially a just-the-facts clearinghouse for the day’s news.
If the self-nominated judicial superhottie and recent ATL critic has a beef with grandiloquent blogs, a more fitting target might be the one run by his former clerks, Eugene and Sasha: the verbose Volokh Conspiracy!
We’re coming to you this morning from about three hours east of LEWW, in Athens, Georgia, home of the University of Georgia (my two-time alma mater), R.E.M., and well, to be honest, not much else that anyone except us cares about. We, like Laurie, are both honored to be filling in and not prone to referring to ourselves in the first-person singular.
Regular readers will recognize us as 1/2 of the MD team, along with B Clerker. Here’s our self-introduction from October of last year, when we started helping out with MD, for those of you who missed it and/or those of you who, like Loyola 2L, are concerned about our legal credentials. (For the record, UGA Law is tied with 7 schools for 36th in the latest USNWR rankings. Come on, USNWR, an 8-way tie? Make a decision! We need to know whether we can look down on Hastings graduates!)
At any rate, we’re no David Lat and we know it, but we will nevertheless do our best to entertain and inform in his absence. So keep the tips coming, keep reading, criticize us freely if you think we suck (I’m sure you won’t have any problem with that), and remember, no matter what you think of us, Lat will be back next week (and so will we, with MD).
Good morning from Birmingham, which we’ve got all to ourselves because most of the state is in Tuscaloosa at football practice. We are honored to be filling in here while David takes a well-deserved vaycay.
Recent readers know us as the neww LEWW, but while wedding commentary may be our specialty (well, that and tax law, theoretically), we occasionally do skim the other sections of the paper. And although we won’t pretend to be quite as knowledgeable about the current hot legal scandals as David is, we’re every bit as good at avoiding the first-person singular!
As David noted, we’re also checking the mail, so please continue to send your tips, suggestions, and salacious gossip to the usual ATL address: tips AT abovethelaw DOT com. (Actually, the mail is supposed to be forwarding itself to us, but at the moment it’s not, so for now please cc kitchencabinetblog AT gmail DOT com. And if you sent anything last night or this morning, please re-send to both addresses.) We will, of course, zealously protect our tipsters’ identities, per ATL policy.