This is not a typical lede for a post on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Ashby Jones writes:

Cornell is the Lady Gaga of the law-school world. Both are white hot, but the explanations behind each’s popularity don’t fully add up.

Dem’s fighting words, Ashby. You’re not a bad guy, but Lady Gaga has more fabulosity in a single fake eyelash than you will ever possess. Her popularity is entirely explicable — due to her delightfully danceable music, and her genius as a performer — and richly deserved.

(Just watch the video for Poker Face. Res ipsa loquitur.)

Now, what about Cornell Law School? And other leading law schools — which celebrities do they most closely resemble?

Are you one of the 21 percent of law school students who, due to the changing legal job market, regret going to law school? If going to law school was a stupid decision decision for you, then congratulations — Vinny Guadagnino, the “self-confessed mama’s boy” of Jersey Shore fame, is smarter than you are.

We mentioned his recent interview with Us Magazine before, but in case you missed it — and, judging from all the emails we’ve been getting about it, it seems many of you did — let’s go over the highlights.

Like his undergraduate GPA — which is probably higher than yours….

As a denizen of New York City, I find that I have to deal with people who could be cast members on The Jersey Shore all the time. They clog up my 4 train when the Yankees are playing. They bounce at bars and clubs. Here in the city, you can even see them in their natural habitat, Gold’s Gym.

That’s why I was surprised when students at NYU Law School offered $2,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to get Snooki to come out and party with them. Why buy the landfill when you can get trash for free?

But in the hearty Midwest, it’s a little easier to understand why the cast from Jersey Shore can be so compelling. I mean, from the perspective of a Midwesterner, the cast of Jersey Shore must look like an alien species. I bet a Midwesterner would look at J-WOWW with the same level of fascination I’d regard Michele Bachmann. “What does it eat?” “Can I pet it?” “If I use a sentence comprised entirely of polysyllabic words, will its head explode?”

So, I have a modicum of understanding for the underground movement happening at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Here’s part of a letter that Above the Law received yesterday:

Dear AbovetheLaw,

I am a third-year law student at the University of Wisconsin Law School. My graduation is fast approaching and so far we (my classmates and I) have not heard who is going to be our guest speaker. However, the last thing I want to hear during my graduation is how great we are for becoming young lawyers, and that we have such a promising future ahead, especially considering our employment options currently. Instead a couple of classmates and I have come up with this great idea. If our futures are going to dissolve following graduation, we want to go down “guns blazing.” We want to raise money in order to bring the cast of Jersey Shore to come as our guest speakers.

Wasn’t this the setup for The Simple Life?

Are the Wisconsin students serious? More details after the jump.

Over the break, one NYU Law student started a movement to bring Nicole Polizzi (a.k.a. Snooki from the cast of Jersey Shore) to an NYU party. NYU students thought they could hang out with a drunk girl who likes to party, for just $2,000. Here’s the email that was sent to the NYU Law listserve:

Apparently, Snooki(e) from the Jersey Shore is charging $2,000 to make “personal appearances.” Basically, for 2-large, she will come to your party and get drunk and do cartwheels and fistpump and “battle on the floor” to techno “music” and try in vain to hook up with people and be generally awesome and delightful.

Here is where I got this information from: http://perezhilton.com/2009-12-22-rent-a-jersey-guidette-for-your-next-office-party

I want to note, first and foremost, that I neither agree with nor condone the general tone and candor of the Perez Hilton post. I think it’s not only distasteful and hateful, but dead wrong. Snooki(e) is one of the most delightful human beings ever to walk planet Earth and I need to hang out with her. I’m comfortable calling anyone who wouldn’t want to hang out with
her a “Silly Goose.”

That being said, $2,000 sounds like an absolute steal to me, so long as a good deal of people are willing to get together and throw down on bringing her in for a private party (we could rent out a small open bar somewhere). I have spoken to a number of friends already about this, several of whom are interested, which prompted me to see if Coases might be a fruitful avenue to pursue further subsidization of this event/personal dream of mine that I never knew I had until three weeks ago. If other people are down to get in on this heroic endeavor, which is sure to greatly enhance the lives of all those involved in ways we could never even dream of, please e-mail me saying so and letting me know the max you’d be willing to kick in towards the effort. I would genuinely like to see if we can make this thing happen.

Did they hit that? Details after the jump.

The most recent New Yorker features a profile of the newest resident of the High Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Given the tone of the piece, you might think One First Street is turning into Melrose Place. Journalist Lauren Collins describes Sotomayor as “the first celebrity Justice”: a “diabetic, a divorcée, a dental-bill debtor, a person who, the night before her investiture ceremony, belted out “We Are Family” in a karaoke bar at a Red Roof Inn.”

The profile covers some familiar territory, highlighting attacks on Sotomayor’s intellect during the confirmation process and indignation over her aggressive questioning during oral arguments since taking a seat on the High bench.

Overall, though, it’s more favorable in tone than the profile of John Roberts in the magazine last year. As the WSJ Law Blog notes, Sotomayor comes across as “eminently personable” and as a “stickler for preparation.”

Tina Brown of the Daily Beast, a former editor of the New Yorker, is a bit more graphic in her reaction to the piece for NPR:

Brown says the justice comes across as an “up-from-the-bootstraps woman who loves to bust out a poker game and knock back a scotch.” But, Brown adds, she also comes across as meticulous, rigorous and heavily influenced by her mother, a nurse, who emphasized education above all else…

“Sotomayor is not a great prose styler, not a fancy-flourish merchant,” says Brown. “She’s not a person who’s going to reinvent the philosophical approach to law, but she does believe that the law is to be understood by the common man in the street. And I think that there’s a lot to be said for that, actually.”

We concur with Brown’s ruling on the piece. We’ve excerpted our favorite anecdote from the profile after the jump. Clerking for Sotomayor sounds fun….

Last week, we wrote about how Levi Johnston, the hunky dad of Sarah Palin’s grandson, received an offer to perform on camera for a gay adult entertainment company, [Not Safe for Work (NSFW)] Corbin Fisher [NSFW].

We showed you the offer letter from Corbin Fisher. Then we asked you to advise Johnston about it, in the comments.

Today we bring you (1) a round-up of our favorite comments on the thread, and (2) how Levi Johnston responded to the offer in real life (through his counsel, high-profile Alaska attorney Rex Butler).

Check it all out, after the jump.

As tout le monde knows, Levi Johnston — the Alaskan hunk who fathered Sarah Palin’s grandchild, and who came thisclose to becoming the Republican VP nominee’s son-in-law — recently posed for Playgirl. To the disappointment of many, he refrained from full-frontal nudity (but did bare his bum for the cameras).

To check out the pics, visit [Not Safe for Work (NSFW)] Playgirl.com [NSFW]. For collected expert evaluations of the photos — Levi got some flak for overly hairy armpits, among other shortcomings — check out Us Weekly.

Not surprisingly, given his good looks and celebrity, Levi Johnston has received a number of other business propositions as well. He was recently offered a six-figure sum to appear in erotic videos by [NSFW] Corbin Fisher [NSFW], one of the world’s premier gay pornography companies.

No, dear ATL readers, this is not an excuse for your above-signed writer to offer you his personal gay porn recommendations. There is actually a legal connection.

Here’s your assignment. Read over the actual offer letter that Corbin Fisher sent to Levi Johnston (after the jump).

Pretend that Johnston is your client. How would you advise him? Review and flyspeck the offer letter. Do you see any terms in it that might be problematic for your client?

Should Johnston accept the Corbin Fisher offer, reject it, or make a counteroffer? If he makes a counteroffer, what should he include as the proposed terms? What considerations should he keep in mind in negotiating towards a more complete contract?

Okay, enough teasing; let’s see the goods. Check out the Corbin Fisher offer letter, after the jump.

UPDATE (3:07): The Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) just held a press conference. FHP announced that Tiger Woods was found “at fault” in his traffic accident, guilty of careless driving. The fine is $164 and four points on his driving record. This ends the Florida Highway Patrol’s investigation.

FHP determined “that there was insufficient evidence to issue a subpoena for any further evidence. There are no claims of domestic violence by any individual.”

Hmm… No evidence, you say? It looks like not talking was in fact the smart thing to do.

* * * * * * * * *
Lawyers, members of the bar, law students, and others with a smattering of legal training: we all have a duty to stand up and defend Tiger Woods’s decision to keep his mouth shut. The mainstream media has this story completely wrong, and it is up to us — those blessed with a basic understanding of criminal jurisprudence — to educate the public about why Tiger is staying silent. We must explain to our mothers and fathers and doormen and bodega owners that Tiger probably has to keep his mouth shut, in order to keep his wife out of jail.

I’ve explained elsewhere that we are looking at a potential domestic violence situation. If some of the reports are true, Elin Nordegren attacked her husband, allegedly threatening him with a golf club.

Now this is the part that laypeople seem to be having difficulty grasping. Just because Tiger is a man doesn’t mean he gets to decide whether or not his wife gets prosecuted for domestic violence. Criminal law doesn’t work that way. If the police find that Elin Nordegren assaulted Tiger, then this process gets taken out of Tiger’s hands. Right now, shutting up is the only thing Tiger can do if he wants to retain a modicum of control over the situation.

Especially in Florida.

More details, after the jump.

We mentioned L’Affaire Tiger Woods in Morning Docket (first three links), but since it was the big story of the long holiday weekend, we thought we’d revisit it in more detail. This story has a number of interesting legal angles.

The most thorough coverage appears over at TMZ. Check out these posts, which thrown together could make for quite the law school exam hypothetical (we’ve included study questions with each one):

• Cops Pursue Warrant in Woods Case: According to TMZ, the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) may be “obtaining a search warrant — allowing them to seize medical records from the hospital that treated Tiger Woods — in an attempt to determine if the wounds Woods sustained are consistent with a car accident or domestic violence” (allegedly perpetrated against Woods by his wife).

Is there probable cause?

More links and questions appear below.

Women of Switzerland, lock up your daughters. Roman Polanski has been granted bail, after a court approved his bail offer of $4.5 million. (For now, he’s still in jail; his release date has not been set.)

Once released, Polanski will be under house arrest. So, good parents of Switzerland, maybe there’s no need to lock up your daughters. Just don’t let them anywhere near Polanski’s ski chalet in Gstaad.

Getting released on bail is a nice result for Polanski, since it was widely expected that he’d remain stuck in the pokey. Perhaps he was represented by the Zurich office of Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye? (Gavel bang: commenter #16.)

We suspect that ATL readers are displeased by this development. In a reader poll from September, almost three quarters of you expressed support for continuing to pursue and prosecute Polanski.

How does writer-turned-kinda-lawyer Elizabeth Wurtzel feel about all of this?

Sensible shoes are for liberal chicks. Say hello to fabulous Federalist footwear!

As you may have noticed, from our two posts late on Monday night and one from Tuesday morning, we’re engaging in some after-the-fact blogging of last week’s Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention.

As in past years, the social highlight of the conference was the Thursday night banquet (black tie optional; and many availed themselves of the option, ‘cause that’s how conservatives roll). The speaker at the dinner was none other than Justice Samuel A. Alito, who delivered an insightful and hilarious speech that was a delight to listen to. Just as one might say of, say, a newscast by Jon Stewart, much of the entertainment value was in the delivery — Justice Alito is so dry and deadpan, and yet his remarks make you bust out laughing.

Interestingly enough, we haven’t come across many news accounts of Justice Alito’s speech. There was also no video recording allowed at the address. So we feel we can add some value with this write-up, despite its belated nature.

There may have been some confusion over the ground rules governing reporting about the speech. From the BLT:

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. spoke to the Federalist Society [last Thursday] night, but photos of him doing so are hard to come by. That’s because photographers other than the Federalist Society’s own were barred from the event. Keith Appell, a spokesman for the Federalist Society, said cameras were prohibited by Alito’s security detail….

Kathy Arberg, the court spokeswoman, said “The justice’s policy was that the event was open to still cameras and pencil press,” and that the Federalist Society was informed of that policy before the event.

Well, photos from the event aren’t hard to come by on Above the Law. Nobody told us that we couldn’t take photographs — so we did. And, as members of the “pencil press,” we jotted down notes in our reporter’s notebook. (We left the laptop at the hotel that night.)

Check out a slideshow of our pictures, along with a discussion of Justice Alito’s highly engaging and entertaining address, after the jump.

Here’s a quick update on the “celebrity justice” beat. There has been a rash of break-ins in Los Angeles, targeting the homes of various stars. Is there a vigilante group of Robin Hoods lashing out at ostentatious displays of wealth during the recession? Not quite. Our sister site Fashionista reports:

While this is not surprising in itself, given that there would likely be some very nice goods found in any of the above, what is surprising is the news of who allegedly committed the crimes and why—a band of teenage girls obsessed with clothing and jewelry.

The older I get, the more I wish we could send all teenagers through some kind of Spartan-style education in discipline and respect before they are released back into the wild.

Click on the links below to read and comment, over at Fashionista and True/Slant.

Crimes of Fashion [Fashionista]
Paparazzi to blame for Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Orlando Bloom being burglarized? [True/Slant]

* Bank of America’s board votes to waive privilege and disclose the legal advice it received on the Merrill Lynch merger, which could spell trouble for B of A’s outside counsel at Wachtell (depending on the advice given). [New York Times]

* Meanwhile, B of A expands its team for the SEC litigation in the S.D.N.Y. by hiring Paul Weiss (which, along with Cleary Gottlieb, urged the bank to waive privilege with respect to the Merrill merger advice). [Dealbook / New York Times]

* Tort reform, in the form of limitations upon medical malpractice suits, could save up to $54 billion over the next 10 years. [CNN]

* Jon and Kate arbitrate… [People]

* Is everybody ready for the upcoming Bear Stearns trial? Here’s the pregame information you need to know. [Dealbook]

* In the matter of Jon v. Kate, maybe people don’t have enough sympathy for Jon? I don’t know, China’s “one child” rule looks better and better every day. [Double X]

* With all the talk about increased efficiency in legal services, you’d think that legal services have been ineffectively delivered up until now. [Technolawyer]

* How long should it really take to go from judicial misconduct to judicial apology? [Legally Unbound]

* Did you think my Obama-colored glasses were knocked off when he won the Nobel Peace Prize? [True/Slant]

* Meanwhile, they also give Nobel Prizes for other disciplines. Professor Bainbridge has some thoughts on this year’s winners in economics. [Professor Bainbridge]

* A 24-year-old woman tried to enroll in a high school as a 15-year-old boy. No pictures are available, but I have to assume that was one unattractive 24-year-old woman. [My Law Life]

* A Blawg Review to inspire all the would-be Emperors out there. [Popehat via Blawg Review]

On the media website Mediaite, we are erroneously listed as having an affiliation with the Late Show with David Letterman. We wish! If that were the case, then maybe we’d have inside dirt on one of the juiciest media scandals to come along in a while.

And it’s a media scandal with a legal angle — several, in fact. Last Friday, we named the woman at the eye of the storm, Stephanie Birkitt, our Lawyer of the Day. Birkitt — the former Letterman paramour whose ex-boyfriend, Robert “Joe” Halderman, stands accused of trying to extort David Letterman — is a lawyer. The blonde hottie is a graduate of Cardozo Law School, and she passed the bar exam twice — in New York and Connecticut. Very impressive, Ms. Birkitt!

Alas, Stephanie Birkitt may be a two-timer in more than one sense of the word. We previously stated, relying on other sources, that Birkitt’s sexual relationship with her former boss ended in 2003. Now we’re hearing otherwise, from the New York Post:

Pretty former “Late Show” staffer Stephanie Birkitt revealed in her diary that she continued having sex with boss David Letterman even after moving in with her CBS-producer boyfriend, who later allegedly tried to extort him over the affair, sources told The Post yesterday.

Letterman and Birkitt enjoyed romantic hikes last fall at his sprawling ranch in eastern Montana — where he was married in March — while her boyfriend, “48 Hours Mystery” producer Robert “Joe” Halderman, stayed home in Connecticut, the sources said.

At the time, Birkitt, 34, insisted to Halderman that she and the 62-year-old Letterman had just “a platonic relationship,” a source said.

“I’m his best friend,” Birkitt told the worried 51-year-old Halderman, the source said.

A friend with benefits? Like free law school tuition? Speaking of which, according to our reader poll, almost two-thirds of ATL readers would sleep with David Letterman in exchange for free law school tuition.

UPDATE: According to Maureen Dowd (gavel bang: commenter), Letterman’s company loaned Birkitt the money for law school, which she paid back. If true, this is disappointing. What’s the point of sleeping with the boss if you can’t get paid for it?

More law-related Letterman links, after the jump.

Jerry Maguire appeared as a guest lecturer at Harvard Law School last night. A HLS tipster tells us that Professor Bruce Hay invited Tom Cruise to talk to his Entertainment Law class on Monday night.

A most excellent guest, Tom Cruise is quite familiar with lawyers. He’s had legal star turns in The Firm and A Few Good Men. And he’s been involved in lots of litigation, including a suit filed by injured extras in Valkyrie, a RICO lawsuit against him and the Scientologists, and his plaintiff turn in that I’m-not-gay suit. (Insert “you can’t handle the truth” joke here.)

One HLS student sent us a link to this photo from last night. No word on whether or not Cruise jumped up and down on Hay’s lectern.

Our tipster was not in the class, but he did catch a glimpse of Cruise’s getaway.

To paraphrase this video, inspired by an Avenue Q song and submitted to Above the Law’s first-ever Law Revue Contest, “What can you do with a JD from Cardozo?”

Um…. David Letterman? From Bitten & Bound:

David Letterman was the victim of a $2 million extortion plot and we have now discovered that according to New York public records, Stephanie Birkitt, 34, a former intern on The Late Show, lived with the accused extortionist Robert Joe Halderman, a CBS 48 Hours producer, and may have unwittingly fed him the information through the pages of her diary, photos and personal correspondence….

According to TMZ, Birkitt is one of the women who engaged in an affair with her boss, but ended it in 2003, prior to the birth of Letterman’s son….

Birkitt began working as a page for CBS New, 48 Hours, and The Late Show while still in college [at Wake Forest] in 1996. She spent a short time as an associate producer on segments for correspondent Erin Moriarty but soon decided that she wasn’t a news hound. That was when Letterman hired her as a personal assistant. She was initially brought on to handle his charities and his Indy car racing team, but her duties expanded over time.

Apparently so. Anyway, here’s the legal connection:

Birkett went on to the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City beginning in 2005 and passed the Connecticut bar exam in February 2009.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments, Birkitt also passed the New York bar exam in February. Congrats on passing two state bars, Steph!

FURTHER UPDATE: Actually, Birkitt’s relationship with Letterman may have lasted much longer. See here.

Now, before the elitists among you start ranking on Cardozo Law, there’s something you should know.

We’ve already mentioned the recent arrest of acclaimed film director Roman Polanski (pictured at right, with uber-hottie Adrien Brody). But it’s a slow news day controversial, so we’d like to give you a chance to discuss it in more depth.

Over at the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones has a nice write-up. He explains the background:

The Oscar-winning film director was arrested on Sunday in Zurich on a 31-year-old warrant issued in the U.S. for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Polanski was arrested, at the request of the United States, as he jetted into Switzerland to collect an award for his life’s work.

Local police arrested Polanski at the airport upon his arrival in Zurich, where he was to receive a lifetime-achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. Polanski was jailed pending a decision on whether to extradite him to the U.S., according to the Swiss Justice Ministry….

Polanski fled the U.S. in 1978 after he pleaded guilty to having had sexual intercourse with girl — the allegation was that he gave the girl alcohol and part of a quaalude before raping her. Since then, he has lived in France, where he was born. French authorities refused to extradite him to the U.S., claiming that his crime didn’t fall under those covered by treaties between the two countries.

According to ABC News, which obtained comment from Polanski’s French lawyer, the director plans to fight extradition.

Should the authorities keep pursuing Polanski? Some pros and cons, plus a reader poll, after the jump.

Apologies for not getting to this story earlier. Sometimes things fall through the cracks around here. (We were offline for much of Thursday and Friday, attending Lavender Law.)

Last week, a federal magistrate judge questioned the propriety of the U.S. Attorney’s Office moving to dismiss a marijuana possession charge against Andrew Sullivan. Yes, that Andrew Sullivan — the noted political pundit, author, and blogger (and proponent of marijuana legalization).

Judge Collings issued his saucy opinion (PDF) on Thursday. Later that day, the story was broken by The Docket. The case has also been covered by Gawker, Wonkette, and the WSJ Law Blog, among other outlets (links collected below).

So we won’t rehash what you’ve probably already read. But feel free to take our reader poll and to discuss the case in the comments.

Judge angered by special treatment for Andrew Sullivan [The Docket / MLW]
United States v. Sullivan [PDF] [U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts]
Andrew Sullivan’s Federal Pot Favors [Gawker]
Friendly D.A. Saves Andrew Sullivan From Life Sentence In Gitmo, For Smoking Marijuana [Wonkette]
On Marijuana, a Famous Blogger, and One Skeptical Judge [WSJ Law Blog]

Over at AmLaw Daily, Zach Lowe has revealed that Hogan & Hartson will be playing the part of Mr. Big’s office in Sex and the City 2, due out next year:

The atrium on the 25th floor of Hogan’s offices at 875 Third Ave. will be transformed into Mr. Big’s on-screen office, according to an internal memo that found its way to our in-box. (We have no idea what Mr. Big does for a living, but we know he’s played by the dreamy Chris Noth.)

Lowe, we’re flattered you’ve adopted the royal ATL “we.” We’re not sure what Big does for a living either, but we know he’s not a lawyer, which is perhaps why he has an atrium-sized office.

The Sex and the City crew will be at Hogan’s office on Sept. 2, but an internal memo — which we invite tipsters to send for posting — indicates that friends, family, and random Chris Noth-stalkers shouldn’t try to drop in. We wonder if they would make an exception for Justice Scalia, who may or may not be a SATC fan.

The internal memo says that Hogan employees might get to meet the stars and might get autographs, but it’s not guaranteed. And the memo reminds partners that on the day of the filming, their star wattage will be dimmed:

A few partners will also have to clean up their offices “so your boxes are not in the movie!” the memo says.

We talked to Hogan managing partner Warren Gorrell. He says he works on the 24th floor. “I’m not one of the partners with a messy office,” he told us. Gorrell’s take on Hogan’s Sex and the City 2 star turn, after the jump.