We mentioned yesterday that Simpson Thacher has been chosen to advise the government on the massive $700 billion bailout plan. They were chosen on Friday and are already racking up billable hours on it.

Six other firms were approached by the Treasury, but only two expressed interest. Zach Lowe at the American Lawyer reports:

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton confirmed Tuesday that it was one of the six firms the Treasury Department considered as candidates for a role as lead adviser on the $700 billion bailout plan.

Only two of those six firms pursued the work that eventually went to Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

Four of the six law firms have confirmed that the Treasury reached out to them: Simpson, Cleary, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The two others, including the firm the Treasury turned down, remain unidentified. Two of the most likely candidates -- Sullivan & Cromwell and Latham & Watkins -- would not comment on the matter. A third, Shearman & Sterling, has not responded to messages.

Lowe tracked down a lawyer at one of the firms that rebuffed the Treasury. The lawyer admitted it was "prime work," but that they feared not being able to represent "regular clients on the program." In the cost-benefit analysis, the potential billable hours to financial services companies clamoring for bailout money must outweigh the government possibilities.

But Simpson Thacher is not sweating it:

Richard Beattie, chairman of Simpson Thacher, says the Treasury did not put any pressure on the firm to drop clients and that the firm is not concerned about losing business.

"They did not say that," Beattie says. "It's ridiculous. We represent JPMorgan Chase and would not give up a client like that."

AmLaw reports that Simpson's other financial clients include Washington Mutual (now part of JPMorgan Chase), Lehman Brothers, and AIG. Given that list, we can see why the government is the more attractive client at the moment.

Cleary Confirms It Rejected Lead Adviser Role on Federal Bailout Plan [American Lawyer]
Simpson Thacher Wins Treasury Sweepstakes, Four Firms Decline [American Lawyer]

On Friday we told you the story of 2 Cleary associates whose late night mistake caused problems for Cleary Gottlieb and their client, Barclays. Many were sympathetic to the associates and pointed out that blame should be shared with Cleary partners.

Cleary has declined to respond to the story, but that doesn't mean they are unconcerned about what is said about them in the press. They are not shy about capitalizing of the global financial crisis either; their website now links to a financial crisis resource center. Yesterday, the firm sent around a hyper-positive email to all new Cleary offerees:

Congratulations on your offer to join Cleary Gottlieb!

We thought you may be interested in some recent media coverage of Cleary Gottlieb's deals and cases.

The message goes on to list all of the great press stories Cleary has received since the firm's attorneys first discovered fire. What do you think of this effort at firm PR?

Read the full message after the jump.

Today, every associate's worst nightmare came to a merciful end in a New York Bankruptcy Court.

The nightmare started for a first-year Cleary Gottlieb associate on the night of September 18th. The associate was called in for some extra muscle on the Barclays acquisition of Lehman assets. At the request of a second-year associate, the first-year reformatted an Excel spreadsheet of critical contracts to be assumed and assigned in bankruptcy on the closing date of the Lehman/Barclays sale. Predictably, this work was done long after normal business hours, just after 11:30 p.m.

On September 19th, Cleary produced the list of contracts based on the associates' work the night before.

The problem was that the list contained 179 contracts that should not have been included. The Lehman/Barclays sale closed on September 22nd, with the over inclusive list of contracts.

My stomach gets tied up in knots writing that.

The resolution after the jump.

Am Law Daily highlights the work of James Clark, a fifth-year at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, who took a two-month unpaid leave to volunteer for the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania.

Clark was a community organizer for three different townships in Bucks County, a county Hillary Clinton carried with over 60 percent of the vote. He felt that his Cleary litigation experience helped him in his campaign stint organizing local volunteers:

Volunteers are kind of like junior associates in that you have to clearly articulate what needs to be done so that everyone is on the same page.

Also don't make any sudden movements. Be firm, yet gentle.

Clark credits Cleary for allowing him the opportunity to work in rural Pennsylvania:

The firm has always made it clear to me that they are committed to the community and they've allowed me to sort of be a pro bono rainmaker and go out and find things that are worthwhile.

Can Clark make partner with his book of pro bono business now?

We jest, but only out of jealousy. Taking two months off to do something you feel is important is commendable, regardless of your politics. Keeping your Biglaw job while you do it (Clark is getting married soon) makes you the winner, even though you lost.

ELECTION 2008: Cleary Associate Gives Up Paycheck for Obama [Am Law Daily]

Jingoistic competition is fun, but why should handing out medals be the sole province of the IOC? Athletes and David Rivkin should not be the only ones getting a taste of Olympic glory.

Here at ATL, we've put law firms on the (imaginary) field of competition and are now ready to reveal the gold medal winners in a number of sports.

After the jump, see the winners, and weigh in on which firms would be champions in sports we did not pick for prime time.

We're back with the next installment of open threads on the Vault 100 law firms.

A particularly insightful comment from the last post on the top five firms:

[Davis Polk & Wardwell] and [Sullivan & Cromwell] do very similar work. DPW has a stronger underwriters' practice, Sullivan is marginally better on the issuer side. DPW is much stronger than anyone at converts. Sullivan does more edgy contested M&A while DPW excels at deals with cutting edge securities components.

Sullivan is a slightly better place to work than its reputation. DPW generally lives up to its strong rep as a good place to work.

Now on to the next five from Vault, with their prestige scores in parentheses:

6. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (7.985)
7. Latham & Watkins LLP (7.784)
8. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP (7.754)
9. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (7.623)
10. Kirkland & Ellis LLP (7.473)

The most notable of "notable perks" in this batch is at Kirkland, where NYC associates get a "$350 office art budget" (previously reported here). Can associates use the money to commission work from their toddlers?

Please compare and contrast the firms in the comments. We'll continue to work our way down the Vault list in future threads.

The Top 100 Most Prestigious Law Firms [Vault]

Earlier: Fall Recruiting Open Thread: Vault 1-5 (2009)

Last summer, we wrote about the stinging benchslap that Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.; pictured), the highly regarded Manhattan trial judge, administered to Cleary Gottlieb, the highly regarded Manhattan law firm. Judge Preska sanctioned the firm for what she viewed as the improper attempt by one partner to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition. At the time, Cleary announced its intent to appeal.

And appeal it has. Writes Anthony Lin, in the New York Law Journal:

It was a matter of honor that brought Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday morning. Several lawyers from the firm, led by managing partner Mark Walker, were present in the ceremonial courtroom of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse.

A matter of honor. Will there be a duel? Guns all around, says SCOTUS.

Well, maybe not a literal duel. But Cleary's counsel, the distinguished Roy Reardon of Simpson Thacher, did mix it up with opposing counsel, Kevin Reed of Quinn Emanuel. As did the Second Circuit panel:

The 2nd Circuit judges asked [Reed] whether Kensington had been unreasonable in insisting that the deposition be held on Feb. 4 in Washington when a Paris deposition seemed a reasonable compromise.

"Everything would grind to a halt if lawyers couldn't accommodate each other," said Judge Miner.

"Everything would grind to a halt if everyone resorted to self-help as Cleary did here," Reed replied. He later added: "You don't go to the witness and say the sort of things [Cleary partner Jean-Pierre] Vignaud said, which can only have the effect of intimidating a witness and shaping his testimony."

So the alleged attempt by Cleary to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition arose out of a familiar dispute over depo location. Perhaps the parties should have taken a page from Judge James Nowlin's playbook, and taken it to midfield. Anyone up for a depo on a north Atlantic cruise ship?

Update: As noted over in the Community section, the sanctions against Clery Gottlieb were upheld by the Second Circuit. For more, see the New York Law Journal and the WSJ Law Blog.

Cleary Seeks Vindication in Appeal on Sanctions [New York Law Journal]

Earlier: Benchslap of the Day: Judge Preska Reprimands (Wait for It)... Cleary Gottlieb?

Congratulations to Keira Driansky and David Simon, chosen by ATL readers over Kristy Hong and Jonas Blank III as April's Legal Eagle Couple of the Month.

Now for the next set of entrants, and it's a crowded field. We think this week's column sets a record for total number of Ivy League JDs. Here's our latest crop of outstanding newlyweds:

1. Deborah Adler and Brian Sutherland

2. Rachel Hannaford and Justin Lerer

3. Zoe Segal-Reichlin and Daniel Garodnick

4. Alison Franklin and Shane Milam

Read up on their pedigrees and passions, after the jump.

Is anyone else sick of LEWW's logo? We've grown weary of the weird paper-doll figures holding hands -- they just don't say "celebration" to us.

So we're asking our readers to help us pick a new visual for Legal Eagle Wedding Watch. Some of you had gripes about ATL's new design -- here's your chance to put your stamp on a small corner of the site. Your submission can be a photo (an artistic detail shot from your own wedding, perhaps?) or a graphic of your own design. An allusion to the law would be a plus, but the most important thing is that the image convey the theme of impressive people getting married. (And, of course, it must not be an image that's copyrighted by someone else.)

Send us your entries (please e-mail them here and not to ATL's tips line). We'll pick our favorite and give you a big shout-out and heaps of gratitude for perking up this space.

And now, on to this week's finalists:

1.) Suzanne deVries and Adam Decker

2.) Kristy Hong, Jonas Blank III

3.) Elena Klau and Chad Silverman

4.) Natalie MacLean, Russell Leino

More about these candidates, after the jump.

The venerable law firm of Cleary Gottlieb, which has always been known as a kinder, gentler sort of place -- at least by Biglaw standards -- has fired a shot across the bow of its peer firms.

Cleary just announced their move to the new "market" rate of 18 weeks of parental leave. But they didn't stop there. They also rolled out all sorts of perks and fringe benefits that associates are sure to love. From a Cleary source:

See attached. Cleary ups parental leave and adds other programs on flex-time, telecommuting, professional development, career counseling, management training -- and free lunches on Mondays!

And from a tipster at a rival firm:

Cleary announced a new flex-time policy open to all associates above the second-year class, plus a two-day-a-month telecommuting policy for all associates. Other changes and boring stuff I skimmed through in the attached...

I hope my firm takes the hint!

Check out the memos for yourself (links below). Kudos to Cleary!

Will other top New York law firms follow suit? Only time will tell.

New Initiatives to Improve Professional Development and Quality of Life [PDF]
Parental Leave Policy [PDF]

As the old adage goes, "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." And there is some anecdotal evidence in support of that proposition. See, e.g., Elana Glatt / Elana Elbogen (depending upon how you view the merits of her case against her wedding florist).

Here's another example of what can happen when Biglaw litigators represent themselves. From TaxProf Blog:

The Tax Court today decided Hynes v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2008-1 (1/2/08), a case involving Shawn T. Hynes, a fifth year securities litigation associate in Cleary Gottlieb's New York City office. The taxable year at issue was 2003, when Hynes was a Penn 3L (he tranferred to Penn after completing his first year at Oregon).

More about the facts of Shawn Hynes's case, and how he got benchslapped by the Tax Court, after the jump.

Not a heck of a lot going on today, a Friday in the holiday season. So let's fall back on a staple of these pages: New York real estate.

If you're an associate at Cleary Gottlieb who's a fan of the current offices at One Liberty Plaza, congratulations. You're not going anywhere anytime soon. From today's New York Post:

[P]owerhouse law firm Cleary Gottlieb inked a deal to expand by 100,000 square feet at One Liberty Plaza. The law firm just signed a 20-year lease for 550,000 square-feet with landlord Brookfield Properties after more than a year of what Newmark Knight Frank broker Mark Weiss called "very competitive" and "very intricate" negotiations.

Cleary Gottlieb previously had 450,000 square feet under a lease due to expire in 2010. The "competitive" aspect was an attempt by Larry Silverstein to lure the firm to his new 7 World Trade Center.

Seven World Trade is a beautiful new building. But it's expensive; we're guessing Cleary got a very good deal to stay in its current spot. (The terms of the renewal were not disclosed.)

Meanwhile, a few miles uptown, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher is making a move. Details after the jump.

We would've had this up a few minutes ago, but the technical difficulties that Lat mentioned yesterday are still lurking around. Bring on the new fancy servers.

At any rate, Cleary Gottlieb has matched, and the memo is after the jump.

This email was sent around Cleary Gottlieb earlier this afternoon:

There has been a bomb threat received by one of the tenants of OLP [One Liberty Plaza] that is not specific as to details of the threatened event. The police have been conducting an investigation of the premises, including with dog squads, and have turned up nothing. No recommendation has been made by the police or other authorities that we evacuate the building, although one or two tenants have taken it upon themselves to do so.

The police do not believe this is a credible threat, but we felt that our employees should have the benefit of this information nevertheless.

If you have any details about the incident, please add them in the comments, or email us. Thanks.

That's right -- this is a combined edition of LEWW. Weep with joy, wedding-watchers!

Before we serve up this double shot, a request for input. In response to prompting from readers, when we've chosen the week's top three couples lately, we've been giving a big edge to lawyer-lawyer couples. The result is that we've often found ourselves writing about double-JD weddings even when there are other couples with more impressive credentials (but only one JD).

To be honest, we're not sure this is the right approach. It just feels wrong to pass over a dripping-with-prestige couple like this simply because a couple of unremarkable associates are getting hitched. Particularly during the height of the wedding season, there are often at least three lawyer-lawyer couples, so under our current system you're basically out of contention if you marry outside the profession.

We're considering lifting the heavy thumb we've put on the scales in favor of dual-lawyer couples, but before we do anything rash, we need to know what our readers think. What's more interesting to you, ATL fans: lawyers marrying lawyers, or prestigious lawyers marrying other prestigious (and often more interesting) people? Make your opinion known, either in the comments or by e-mail.

Here are this week's featured couples:

1.) Elaine Ewing and Christopher Viapiano
2.) Carl Roller and Daniel Weiner
3.) Deborah Lipman, Matthew Fox
4.) Katherine Downs, Peter Oppenheim

Read on for more about these three brides and five bridegrooms.

We have to step away for a bit. But we'll leave you with some food for thought (and argument): a piece we just wrote for the New York Observer, timed to coincide with fall interview season, about New York law firms. Here's a brief excerpt:

"[J]ust as certain sleeve cuts are all the rage at Fashion Week, some law firms are “hot”—and some are not. Having interviewed with firms exactly 10 years ago, I was curious: Who is this fall’s “It” Firm?"

We expect that many of you will disagree with our conclusions, condemn us as ill-informed or biased (or both), etc. That's okay. Our point is to provoke. We'd like to become for the law firm world what Michael Riedel is to theatre: "Post columnist Michael Riedel's gleeful skewering of Broadway's shows and personages has made him a must read—and a must-hate—on the Great White Way."

You can read the full column over here. It's the first in what's going to be a semimonthly column we'll be writing for the Observer on New York lawyers and law firms. Enjoy (we think).

Polish Those Portfolios! Legal Eaglets Seek Their Nests [New York Observer]

Judge Loretta K. Preska (S.D.N.Y.) has it all: a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, a rich husband, and killer shoes.

As well as, it appears, no patience for lawyers who play fast and loose with the rules. From the WSJ Law Blog:

Cleary Gottlieb conjures images of Ivy League bookishness and international savoir faire, not bare-knuckled litigation tactics. But last week a federal judge sanctioned the firm and found them to have acted in bad faith. “Civil litigation is not always civil,” began a ruling by Loretta Preska, a federal judge in Manhattan. Here’s the opinion (PDF).

The judge concluded that Cleary tried to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition, in part because of a concern the witness would testify adverse to the firm’s client. Preska ordered Cleary to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs ─ an amount to be determined ─ and ruled that “the sanction is imposed as a formal reprimand and should be circulated to all attorneys at Cleary.”

And Cleary partner Jean-Pierre Vignaud was ordered to write "I will not interfere improperly with the discovery process," five hundred times, on a dry-erase board in a firm conference room.

Cleary Gottlieb -- which, by the way, picked fellow white-shoe law firm Simpson Thacher to represent it -- said in a statement that it intends to appeal.

Judge Sanctions Cleary: “Civil Litigation Is Not Always Civil” [WSJ Law Blog]
Kensington Intl., Ltd. v. Republic of Congo [WSJ Law Blog (PDF)]

We were pleasantly surprised by the robust and intelligent discussion in the comments to our earlier open thread, Fall Recruiting Open Thread: Vault 1-5. There were over 100 comments, and many of them were quite informative. So we will press on.

The next five firms up for bids, in Vault 100 order (prestige scores in parentheses):

6. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (8.116)
7. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP (7.759)
8. Latham & Watkins LLP (7.712)
9. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (7.672)
10. Covington & Burling LLP (7.510)

Please compare and contrast these firms, and discuss what it's like to work for them, in the comments. Thanks.

The Vault Top 100 Law Firms [Vault]

Lawyers aren't known for being the most stylish of professionals. So Cleary Gottlieb brought a fashion magazine editor in for a luncheon talk, to give some fashion and style pointers. From Jezebel:

[A] recent slide show by an unidentified Glamour editor on the "Dos and Don'ts of Corporate Fashion" at a New York law firm shed some light on the topic, according to this month's American Lawyer magazine.

"First slide up: an African American woman sporting an Afro. A real no-no, announced the 'Glamour' editor to the 40 or so lawyers in the room. As for dreadlocks: How truly dreadful! The style maven said it was 'shocking' that some people still think it 'appropriate' to wear those hairstyles at the office. 'No offense,' she sniffed, but those 'political' hairstyles really have to go."

Not surprisingly, such un-PC sentiments didn't go over too well at Cleary:

The story ends happily, with the law firm Cleary Gottlieb's managing partner Mark Walker, who wasn't at the lady luncheon, sending everyone an email pointing out the stupidty of the Glamour editor and of fashion magazines and yeah pretty much all the things we here at Jezebel hold so near and reviled.

So whose bright idea was it to bring in the Glamour editor anyway?

If you're at Cleary Gottlieb and have more details on this episode, please email us. Thanks.

'Glamour' Editor To Lady Lawyers: Being Black Is Kinda A Corporate "Don't" [Jezebel]

We resume our occasional series on the perks or fringe benefits of Biglaw life. Today's thrilling subject: bar dues. From a reader:

Would you mind including paying for bar dues/section memberships and ABA memberships/section dues in your series on fringe benefits at law firms?

Okay, sure. We don't know if this will be terribly exciting, since (1) most big firms pay for bar fees and ABA dues, and (2) the sums in question aren't very large. We have a vague recollection of some top firm -- Cleary? -- that had a "tradition" of having lawyers pay their own bar fees, but we don't think that's the case any longer (and Cleary's NALP form says they pay bar fees and bar association membership dues).

So we're not expecting much -- but we're happy to be proven wrong. Please discuss, in the comments. Thanks.