The rumors circulated back in August, but now it looks like it’s finally happening. From Marc Ambinder, shortly before 11 on Thursday night:

Sources in government say that White House Counsel Gregory Craig has decided to resign, and that the president’s personal lawyer, Robert Bauer, will take his place. A formal announcement is slated next week, though word might drop tomorrow.

Looks like that announcement is getting sped up. More after the jump.

UPDATE: Greg Craig’s resignation letter, also after the jump.

We like to highlight examples of Biglaw associates who get to do especially interesting or high-profile work. E.g., Lindsay Harrison, the Jenner & Block associate who argued a case — and won — before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Most lawyers tuned in to Congress yesterday were listening to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings (even if day 4 was less than thrilling). But over on the House side, one young lawyer was talking rather than listening. Jason Pinney (pictured), a (rather handsome) sixth-year associate at Bingham McCutchen, got to testify before lawmakers.

Pinney addressed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, specifically, the Subcommittee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight. He spoke about his work as part of a Bingham legal team representing a group of Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Bingham lawyers obtained the release of two Uighurs in 2006 and four more Uighurs last month.

(As explained by the AP, “[t]he Uighurs, a Turkic minority from China’s far west, were sent to the U.S. facility in Cuba after their capture in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001. The Pentagon determined last year that they were not enemy combatants.” Oops!)

Congrats to the Bingham lawyers on their successful representation of their clients — and to Pinney on his congressional testimony. To download a copy of the testimony, click here.

Today in Congress: July 16, 2009 [Washington Post]
Lawmakers want investigation into Uighurs at Gitmo [AP]
Jason S. Pinney [Bingham McCutchen]
Pinney Testimony [PDF]

* Enjoy the inauguration. Even if work sucks—America is awesome. There is a lot of news concerning the inauguration, but one interesting point is that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is the “designated successor” to run the federal government in case of emergency and will not attend the inauguration. [The Washington Post]

* A federal judge granted Cheney discretion over which records of his actions as Vice President have to be preserved in the national archives. Good idea. Surely we can count on Dick Cheney not to destroy any documents that make him look bad. Especially since he has been so truthful and transparent in the past. [The Washington Post]

* Former public defender Randy Koshnick’s representation of cop-killer Ted Oswald could hurt him in his bid for a seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. [The Chicago Tribune]

* Frequent ATL readers are probably sick of reading about Guantanamo. But the war crimes court at the prison convened yesterday, and proceedings were disrupted by the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9-11. [Reuters]

* The International Court of Justice ruled that the U.S. violated a previous order when Texas executed a Mexican national guilty of rape and murder. [The Los Angeles Times]

* The 213 families in China whose babies got sick from drinking tainted milk brought the case to Chinese Supreme Court. [The Associated Press]

* Chicago lawyer Anton Valukas is in charge of investigating Lehman Brother’s bankruptcy. [Bloomberg.com]

* Civil rights leaders reflect on Martin Luther King. [ABC]

* The E.U. slammed Microsoft in an antitrust case. [The Washington Post]

* At least ten percent of the Guantanamo population has been deemed innocent, further calling the prison’s legitimacy in to question. [The New York Times]

* SCOTUS added 6 new cases to the docket Friday. Among their upcoming decisions, is whether states should be able to enforce their own non-discrimination lending laws against national banks. [The Washington Post]

* A San Francisco federal judge’s decision revives discussion about the legality of Bush’s wiretapping program. [San Francisco Chronicle]

* Kirkland & Ellis will advise billionaire Paul Allen’s Charter Communications Inc. on potential bankruptcy. [Bloomberg.com]

* London-based law firm Linklaters was the leading law firm in mergers and acquisitions this year, taking the number 1 title from Sullivan and Cromwell. [Bloomberg]

* Former UK attorney general Lord Goldsmith says the UK should take in prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp if it will help the U.S. close the prison. [BBC News] Australia is not likely to take any prisoners says prime minister Kevin Rudd. The U.S. has asked a 100 countries to help clear the prison. [BBC News]

* Guinea pigs may smell bad but should you go to jail for owning one? Probationers in California could end up in jail for failing to report owning harmless pets like hamsters or goldfish thanks to a ruling by the California Supreme Court. [San Francisco Chronicle]

* A chinese court convicted 11 people for running a counterfeiting ring that “manufactured and distributed pirated Microsoft software throughout the world.” [The New York Times]

* Associates were not the only people in the legal community that were displeased with compensation this year. Federal judges lost their request to Congress for a pay raise to account for inflation. Chief Justice John Roberts says the frightfully low pay for judges threatens the quality of the court. [The Los Angeles Times]

* Life at law firms is not looking good for 2009, sorry to say. Lay-offs and lower bonuses will likely continue in the New Year. On the bright side—less work could help you meet that New Year’s resolution to go to the gym. [The Chicago Tribune]

* The chairwoman of a Chinese dairy company pleaded guilty to selling tainted milk. [Reuters]

* A federal judge declined Tuesday to release two detainees from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, finding that the U.S. government had proved that they were enemy combatants. [The Washington Post]

* Senate Democrats will not accept the appointment of Roland Burris because he is tainted by the corruption of Gov. Blagojevich. Obama publicly agreed with their decision, despite Rep. Bobby Rush’s (D-IL) contention that the U.S. Senate shouldn’t turn away a black man. [The Associated Press]

* The 9th Circuit rejected the outrageosly long 28-years-to-life-sentence for a California sex offender who registered his address late to local police. The court says it was “cruel and unusual punishment” for a technical violation. [Los Angeles Times]

* Instead of sending their client’s fruit baskets for the holidays, Boston firm Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford donated $10,000 to a local charity. [The Boston Globe]

* An 85-year-old man from New Jersey admits he passed U.S. nuclear secrets to Israel after gaining access to a military library in Dover, New Jersey. [Bloomberg]

* Barack Obama has promised to close Guantanamo Bay, but what is going to happen to the most dangerous inmates? Should they be released anyway? What legal basis can the U.S. use to keep them captive? [Bloomberg.com]

* Roman Polanski — the Academy Award-winning director of Rosemary’s Baby, who admitted to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in Jack Nicolson’s house in 1977 — has asked a judge to dismiss his case. Polanski fled to London 30 years ago to avoid a prison sentence and has been a fugitive ever since. [Los Angeles Times]

* The Republican victory in Georgia of Senate incumbent Saxby Chambliss means that the Democrats will not have a flibibuster-proof majority of 60 in the Senate. The Democrats now hold 58 of the 100 senate seats. The Minnesota senate race is still undecided. [The Guardian]

* A Massachusetts couple’s suit over their public school’s response to their five-year old’s complaint of sexual harassment on her school bus has raised some interesting constitutional questions for the U.S. Supreme Court. [New York Times]

* The SCOTUS also sent a murder case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration. The case involved a 16-year-old robber who killed a gas station attendant in a robbery that garnered him $150. [San Francisco Chronicle]

* For love of the law…and video games. A 26-year-old lawyer at Sheppard Mullin manages a 20-person team that deal with mergers, licensing contracts, and other legal transactions that fuel the game industry. Imagine how fun it would be to crash one of their office parties — there is nothing sexier than a lawyer who loves video games. [Los Angeles Times]

* Mukasey is going to be okay. He’s telling jokes and talking to the President. A GW doctor said “”The attorney general is conscious, conversant and alert.” [CNN]

* Do you feel sorry for sex offenders? The California 4th district court does. They ruled that Jessica’s law, a law that prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feel of a school or park constitutes “banishment under another name.” [San Francisco Chronicle]

* “A U.S.-triggered spate of global carmaker-bailout proposals may spark trade disputes over whether the Americans are unfairly trying to subsidize their industry or just making up for state aid foreign rivals already enjoy.”[Bloomberg]

* Meanwhile, the EU’s antittrust chief says the EU should resist an auto-industry bailout. [Bloomberg]

* On Thursday, a federal judge ordered the release of five Algerian prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [Los Angeles Times]

* If you’ve been following Proposition 8, you may want to watch an upcoming gay marriage case that will be coming before the Iowa Supreme Court. [Iowa City Press Citizen]

* A state agency publicly admonished retired Superior Court Judge John M. Watson for being rude in court, citing a case “in which he repeatedly mocked attorneys.” The agency claims Watson’s actions threaten the “integrity of the judiciary.” [Los Angeles Times]

* A federal judge “opened the first hearing into the government’s justification for holding suspects at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” This hearing was made possible by a Supreme Court ruling in June that Gitmo detainess “can seek their freedom through federal habeas corpus cases.” [New York Times]

* In an effort to keep thier son on life-support, parents of a 12-year-old boy with brain cancer will take the Children’s National Medical Center to court. The hospital argues that keeping him alive is unethical because he has “no brain activity,” but his parents, Orthodox Jews, say that is not how their religion defines death. [The Washington Post]

* A jury ruled that the former administrator of Grafton, Mass was not sexually harassing his secretary when he stared at her breasts so often that she had to hold a piece of paper in front of her chest when walking through the office. His doctor said he has an eye condition, lucky guy. [On Point]

Last week, we attended and reported on a talk at UVA Law School by Dahlia Lithwick, who discussed covering the Supreme Court. Now we bring you coverage of another interesting event, featuring more navel-gazing by legal journalists:

Reporting the Law: A Year-End Review
New York Law School

Moderator: Brian Lehrer, The Brian Lehrer Show, WNYC

Panelists: Emily Bazelon, senior editor, Slate; Dirk Olin, editor, Judicial Reports.com; Dan Slater, lead writer, WSJ Law Blog; Candace Trunzo, editor in chief, Star magazine.

The two lawyers on the panel, Bazelon and Slater, are pretty young things — and were smartly dressed for the occasion. Bazelon, whose features are reminiscent of Christy Turlington’s, wore a white v-neck blouse and well-tailored brown sweater. Slater, baby-faced yet lantern-jawed, wore a gray suit with a blue windowpane pattern, a blue patterned shirt, and a dark navy tie with pink stars (très preppy).

Oh, sorry — we got distracted by the superficial. We have more substantive comments as well.

If you’re interested in the legal media, you can read about the panel discussion after the jump.

A clear winner emerged from the 2499 votes on ATL’s Tighty-Whities caption contest:

The man in the photo is David Remes, a partner at Covington & Burling — but not for long, as reported by the Legal Times. From the WSJ Law Blog:

David Remes, who made Law Blog headlines last week for removing his pants at a news conference in Yemen, is leaving the firm, according to the Legal Times, which reported the news over the weekend. Remes will reportedly devote himself exclusively to human rights litigation.

Last week, we reported that Remes (Columbia, Harvard Law), who’s representing 15 Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay, removed his pants at a news conference in Yemen. Remes was attempting to demonstrate what he feels are the inappropriate body searches that detainees are undergoing several times per day.

“At the press conference in Yemen — this is a society where the rule of morality is so strict — I wanted to drive home the degree of humiliation that these searches cause by illustrating a typical body search,” Remes told the LB.

Biglaw doesn’t like seeing those kinds of briefs.

Remes Resigns from Covington & Burling [BLT]
David Remes, Who Dropped His Pants in Yemen, to Leave Covington [Wall Street Journal Law Blog]

Earlier: ‘Tighty-Whities’ Caption Contest Finalists

We’re currently running a caption contest for the photo at right. We’re not the only ones with an ongoing legally-themed caption contest. If one flips to the back of the current infamous New Yorker issue, the cartoon for their caption contest (Contest #153) is set in a courtroom. We’ll keep an eye on that contest, and issue an opinion on the finalists when they are announced.

We prefer not to give you the context for caption contest photos, but the background on this one is as exposed as the lawyer in the photo. It’s up on Yahoo! News, the WSJ Law Blog, and the ABA Journal, among other places. It got more publicity over the weekend, with the news that David Remes, the pants-dropping partner in the picture, is leaving Covington & Burling (as reported by the Legal Times; see also the WSJ, via New York magazine).

We’re pushing on with the contest, since we had over 200 entries. These are our finalists:

A. “Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief…”

B. “Million Dollar Pants Lawsuit: Part 2”

C. “Ya know, John, I think the school board had something else in mind when they asked for an assembly on the how the penal system works.”

D. “Having been found guilty of malpractice, the lawyer literally had his pants sued off.”

E. “Another unsuccessful effort to get ‘junk’ science before the jury.”

F. “And now my junior partner has something he’d like to say…”

G. “[Y]our honor, i thought you said you wanted to take a closer look at the briefs.”

H. “You think that jury was hung?”

I. “Counsel, the phrase ‘may it please the court’ is NOT a literal request.”

J. “Other Van Winkle Law Firm partners have expressed concern that Joe represented his favorite extracurricular activity a little too enthusiastically in his ‘Meet Joe’ bio photo.”

* Tiffany & Co. loses suit against eBay in SDNY. [American Lawyer]

* Former Assistant AG turns up on terror watch list. [CNN]

* InBev gets Bud, but what does that mean for funny Super Bowl ads? [MSNBC]

* Gitmo interrogation tape revealed. [AP]

* President lifts ban on offshore drilling by executive order; Congress’s move. [Washington Post]

Or maybe “broken”; the news came in about an hour ago, and we’re a little slow on the draw. From Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog:

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.

Sounds like there’s a little punting going on. But that’s why the Supreme Court is supreme: they give the district judges the first crack at things, then show up and tell the DJs where they went wrong.

More here from the New York Times, which describes the ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (PDF) as “a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.”

Court gives detainees habeas rights [SCOTUSblog]
Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts [New York Times]
Boumediene v. Bush (PDF) [SCOTUSblog]

* Justices trim their holdings of individual stocks to avoid recusal. Also, most of them are still millionaires. [WSJ Law Blog; New York Times]

* State and local governments find ways to crack down on illegal immigrants. [New York Times]

* Interrogators of detainees at Guantanamo Bay instructed to destroy handwritten notes, according to military defense lawyer. [AP]

* NYC’s chief crane inspector arrested on bribery charges. [City Room / NYT]

* Arson suspected at Texas governor’s mansion. [CNN]

* Minneapolis ordinance limits vehicle idling to three minutes. [KSTP.com via Drudge]

* Pakistani lawyers and political activists hold cross-country rally to demand restoration of judges removed by Musharraf. [Reuters]

* Three lawyers, plus one guy who likes to tell lawyer jokes, do battle in Super Tuesday: forty-three presidential nominating contests, across 24 states. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* Save the whales? Federal judge reinstates sonar rules — and benchslaps the Bush Administration for trying to exempt the Navy from them. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]

* The trouble with tribunals (of the military kind, at Guantanamo Bay). [New York Times]

* Jury finds former Credit Suisse banker guilty of insider trading. Don’t those i-bankers make enough money? [DJ Newswires via WSJ Law Blog]

* The same goes for Biglaw partners. John J.P. Howley, a former Kaye Scholer partner who ran the firm’s pro bono program, pleads guilty to a tax charge (failure to file). [WSJ Law Blog]

We were pretty lucky in the law school roommate department. During our 1L year, we lived with a high school friend who was in New Haven doing medical research. During our 2L year, we roomed with a friend from college: the brilliant Steve Engel, a former law clerk to Judge Kozinski and Justice Kennedy, who currently serves as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel (and who recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in that capacity, on the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees).

Both were highly considerate roommates. Neither tried to purloin our silverware, which is the allegation made in this angry letter from a University of Alabama 2L to his former roommate. It begins:

Dear Roommate:

This is a letter regarding your use and possession of my silverware and tableware. I regret that I have to tell you this in writing, but all of my attempts to speak to you in person were thwarted by your unwillingness to speak directly to me.

I wish to be as tolerant as possible so we can live together peaceably. However, your impermissible possession and misappropriation of the bulk of my silverware, as well as my stoneware bowls, is no longer acceptable.

The silverware in question was purchased entirely by me for my use. It is relatively new, bought in 2007, and cost approximately $75. The silverware in questions [sic] consists of Oneida’s “Journey” (4 setting) and also an Oneida Silverplate (2-setting which is coated in actual silver). I did not object to you using it at first (although you never asked for permission), but I reasonably thought you understood that your use had to be within some bounds of reason. You have continually used silverware without returning it to the kitchen. This has meant there is insufficient silverware for me, the owner, to use. This is unacceptable under any condition. Placing dishes and silverware in the kitchen does not waive my right to have reasonable possession or use of it.

The letter gets more over-the-top as it goes along. It culminates with a threat to bring a civil action for the tort of conversion.

Read the rest, after the jump.

Here’s a quick follow-up to our prior coverage of the mysterious Under Armour briefs that somehow made their way into the hands, and onto the loins, of Guantanamo Bay detainees. From Reuters:

The U.S. military has ended an inquiry into who smuggled unauthorized underwear and a bathing suit to two prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without learning the source of the contraband skivvies, an attorney said on Wednesday.

The investigators concluded more vigilance was needed to prevent contraband from entering the camp that holds 330 suspected al Qaeda operatives, said Capt. Pat McCarthy, the military’s chief lawyer for the detention operation at Guantanamo.

Is the inability to solve the Riddle of the Briefs a sad commentary on the state of military intelligence? Or is this perhaps a mystery that they didn’t want to be solved?

Mystery underwear stymies Guantanamo investigators [Reuters]

Earlier: Guantanamo Bay Perk Watch: Under Armor Briefs!

Life for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, while difficult, isn’t 100 percent grim. From yesterday’s Washington Post:

Undergarments from Under Armour, the sports apparel line, offer “all-day performance, delivered in a lightweight compression fit,” at least according to the company’ s promotional material. While “unprecedented” in its ability to deliver comfort, Under Armour underwear is not standard issue for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. So when two men in detention there were found to possess the contraband briefs, the Navy attorney contacted their attorneys. One of the detainees in question is Shaker Aamer, whose release the British government wrote to request from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in August.

But before turning to the larger question of whether Aamer will stay or go, there’s the question of what he’s wearing. And as the recent exchange between the Navy lawyer and Aamer’s attorney Clive Stafford Smith illustrates, in the legal wrangling over detention, even details on intimates can lead to contentious debate…

You read excerpts from the hilarious correspondence, which showcase the dry British wit of Clive Stafford-Smith, over here.

But for those of you who like to look at original documents — and we know that, since you’re mostly lawyers, you love yourselves some primary docs — we’re pleased to present the complete correspondence (with original letterhead, signatures, etc.). Just click here (PDF). Enjoy!

Correspondence Between Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Navy, and Clive A. Stafford-Smith [PDF]
An Incursion of Briefs at Guantanamo [Washington Post]

After yesterday, we thought they were all done for the Term. We thought wrong.

Some notable news from the Supreme Court today. Lyle Denniston of the invaluable SCOTUSblog reports:

In a startling turn of events in the legal combat over the war on terrorism, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to reconsider the appeals in the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases. It vacated its April 2 order denying review of the two packets of cases. The Court then granted review, consolidated the cases, and said they would be heard in a one-hour argument in the new Term starting Oct. 1.

Such a switch by the Court — from denial to rehearing and new argument and decision — may not have occurred since 1947, in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, legal sources said Friday.

So they’ve changed their mind about a cert grant for the first time in 60 years. What a neat little factoid!

But hey, being a Supreme Court justice means being able to change your mind. And never having to say you’re sorry.

(For more on the likely import of this change of heart, see Orin Kerr.)

Court switches, will hear detainee cases [SCOTUSblog]
Supreme Court Agrees to Take Guantanamo Bay Cases [Volokh Conspiracy]