As litigators know all too well, there are two -- or more -- sides to every story. Unfortunately, in many controversies involving law firms, we never hear the firm's side (usually because they clam up -- we try to pressure them give them incentives them to talk, but we don't always succeed).

Earlier today, we reported on allegations made by a former associate at Bingham McCutchen in Boston. Michelle Moor claimed that (1) she was drugged at the firm holiday party; (2) a fellow Bingham associate told Moor that she had also been drugged -- and then raped -- by a Bingham employee the year before; and (3) a male employee at the firm "made 'a number of alarming sexually inappropriate comments' about 'roofies' and having sex with unconscious women." Along with Moor's allegations, we posted a brief statement from the firm.

Now we can bring you more of the firm's side of the story. Earlier this afternoon, Bingham McCutchen's general counsel, William Southard, sent out an internal email to all personnel. The email contains more specifics than the firm's prior statement.

We got our grubby paws on it, of course. Based on the email, it seems to us that Bingham has handled this difficult situation with sensitivity and "delicate handling" (as touted in its ubiquitous advertisements).

Of course, you're free to form your own opinion. Check out the email, after the jump.

Michelle Moor was a first-year associate at Bingham McCutchen, and a successful one judging from this Bingham press release on a case victory. She left the firm in February for the much smaller (and lower-paying) Kotin, Crabtree Strong, after allegedly being drugged at Bingham's holiday office party. She has filed a sex discrimination complaint against Bingham for not taking appropriate actions after she reported the incident.

From Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly:

The seven-page [Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] complaint, which was sent to multiple newspapers yesterday evening, states that on Dec. 14, 2007, Moor attended the firm's annual holiday party for associates at Lucia, a North End restaurant. Allegedly, after her second glass of wine, she felt "dazed and extremely disoriented." At an emergency room that evening, the complaint says, a blood test revealed that she had ingested Tegretol, an anti-seizure medication that causes memory loss when taken with alcohol.

After the incident, another Bingham associate allegedly told Moor that she had been drugged and raped by a Bingham employee the year before, but that she had not reported the incident to the firm.

On Dec. 20, according to the complaint, Moor reported both incidents to the firm's human resources department and asked that the firm warn other female associates.

A month later, on Jan. 17, according to the complaint, Moor attended a dinner at a restaurant with fellow Bingham employees, one of whom, a litigation specialist who worked on the same floor as Moor, made "a number of alarming sexually inappropriate comments" about "roofies" and having sex with unconscious women. The employee's comments allegedly indicated to Moor that he "may have been the person who drugged her and may have intended to rape her while she was unconscious."

At what kind of firm dinner does an attorney feel comfortable talking about taking advantage of passed-out women?

The story is getting considerable media attention. It also appeared in the Boston Globe and the WSJ Law Blog.

We contacted Bingham for comment. Their statement, plus links to collected coverage, below the fold.

We seem to be on a drug bust kick today. ATL says: "Just say no!"

Especially while you're hanging out behind the courthouse on a jury break. From the Houston Chronicle:

Judge Sherman Ross tried to assemble a jury of peers for a woman accused of possession of a marijuana on trial Tuesday.

But authorities say prospective juror Cornelia Mayo might have taken that concept a bit too far after she was caught smoking a joint outside the courthouse during a break.

Give that juror a bong hit, and she will acquit.

In other drug news, Georgia has a law going into effect July 1st that bans retailers from selling marijuana-flavored candy to kids, punishable with a $500 fine. The man responsible for pushing the bill forward in the Georgia state senate? Senator Stoner.

It targets businesses that sell the candies with drug-inspired names such as "Kronic Kandy" and "Pot Suckers." The law says the candies promote drug use.

Senator Doug Stoner pushed the bill in the senate. "I don't think that folks are aware this is going on," Stoner told Channel 2 in April. "It's mainly, from what I can tell, particularly targeted to minority communities."

Remember the good old days, when retail stores only tried to push candy cigarettes?

Prospective juror in pot trial caught smoking marijuana [Houston Chronicle]
Georgia Law Bans Retailers From Selling 'Pot Candy' To Minors [WSB TV]

The Drug Enforcement Administration raided fraternities at San Diego State University yesterday. They found a treasure trove of evidence: two kilograms of cocaine, 350 Ecstasy pills, marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, hash oil, methamphetamine, illicit prescription drugs, several guns and $60,000 in cash. Those are the makings of quite a frat party.

Members of Theta Chi, Lambda Chi Alpha, Phi Kappa Psi, Phi Kappa Theta, Sigma Alpha Epsilon and Sigma Alpha Mu were allegedly running drug rings at the university. Seventy-five students were arrested yesterday. During finals. That sucks.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A member of Theta Chi sent out a mass text message to his "faithful customers" stating that he and his "associates" would be unable to sell cocaine while they were in Las Vegas for a fraternity formal, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The text promoted a cocaine "sale" and listed the reduced prices on bulk quantities.

"Attn faithful customers both myself and my associates will be in Vegas this coming weekend," the 19-year-old student wrote in the text message. "So stock up, we will be back Sunday night."

Those arrested included a student who was about to receive a criminal justice degree and another who was to receive a master's degree in homeland security.

Criminal justice frat stud may need to change his major.

Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, agrees with the title of this post. He says to ABC News that the raid will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in court and prosecutorial fees and that "anyone who has gone to college knows there were always students who would deal drugs and who subsequently went on to prestigious careers in law, law enforcement, medicine and politics." No big deal.

6 fraternities suspended in drug probe at San Diego State U. [San Francisco Chronicle]
Critics Call College Bust 'Ridiculous, Nonsensical Waste' [ABC News]

At last weekend’s NFL draft, University of Michigan wide receiver Mario Manningham, who was once projected as a late first-round draft pick, saw his stock drop all the way to the third round (95th overall). This happened after he sent a letter to the 32 NFL teams admitting to having smoked marijuana in college. Only the Super Bowl champion New York Giants (incidentally owned by Fordham Law School graduate John Mara) did not become scared away from drafting the former Wolverines wide receiver.

According to published reports, Manningham, when initially asked about his past drug use in interviews, denied ever using marijuana. However, upon hiring an agent (something that Manningham had to delay based on the NFLPA’s new “junior rule”), he wrote a follow-up letter to NFL teams admitting the truth, adding that “I don’t use marijuana anymore — and I have passed tests since.”

Candor about past drug use can be tricky for certain NFL candidates. In many years, evidence of trying marijuana has been as damaging to an NFL prospect’s draft stock as it was to Douglas Ginsburg’s 1987 bid for Supreme Court nomination. In the 1995 NFL draft, for example, University of Miami defensive lineman Warren Sapp, who most had projected as the draft’s first overall pick, fell all the way to no. 11 upon news that he tested positive for marijuana at that year’s combine. Indeed, Manningham’s situation is a bit different. “Super Mario” actually passed his drug tests at the 2008 combine. He did, however, test positive for marijuana twice while at the University of Michigan.

There are some real reasons why certain NFL teams choose not to sign players who admit to having tried marijuana. First, there is the malum prohibitum argument. Marijuana is illegal in the United States. Someone that breaks the law in any capacity shows disrespect for authority. One who disrespects authority is more likely to disobey a team’s internal rules. This spells bad news, especially for disciplinarian coaches.

Then, there are the medical arguments against an athlete using marijuana, both with respect to short-term and long-term health risks. Finally, some NFL teams fear that players who test positive for marijuana in college or shortly thereafter are more likely to get suspended for marijuana use in the pros. (See, e.g., Ricky Williams).

But might there also be less valid reasons for teams to avoid pot-smoking players? Read more, after the jump.

* New accounting rules for M&A. [DealBook]

* Lilly contemplates $1 billion payment to settle civil and criminal investigations relating to its marketing of Zyprexa. [New York Times]

* NYPD officer accused of pimping child. [MSNBC]

* Ex-priest jailed for murder via exorcism. [CNN]

* Indiana man arrested for making his own crosswalk. [The Indy Channel]

* Nader takes steps toward another run for the presidency in 2008. [Bloomberg]

* Resignation in Detroit text-message scandal (previously discussed here). [Detroit News]

* A proud American tradition unknown in the rest of the world: bail for profit. [New York Times]

* Legal luminaries at the SOTU. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Trial begins in alleged microwaving of infant. [CNN]

* TRO against Patriots' Moss extended until after Super Bowl. [SI]

* Mortgage crisis may affect litigation departments. [WSJ Law Blog]

* U.S. jails Colombian FARC leader. [BBC]

Thanks to the many readers who have alerted us to the lawsuit that Roger Clemens just filed against his ex-trainer. From the AP:

Roger Clemens beat Brian McNamee to court, filing a defamation suit against the former trainer who claimed to have injected him with performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens filed the suit Sunday night in Harris County District Court in Texas, listing 15 alleged statements McNamee made to the baseball drug investigator George Mitchell. Clemens claimed the statements were "untrue and defamatory."

"According to McNamee, he originally made his allegations to federal authorities after being threatened with criminal prosecution if he didn't implicate Clemens," according to the 14-page petition, obtained early Monday by The Associated Press.

You can review the petition here (PDF). One tipster writes:

Some miscellaneous notes: it will be interesting to see if Clemens is considered a "public figure." Further, something I didn't know about, even as a life-long New Yorker - Clemens was initially drafted by the New York Mets. Intriguing.

We'd think that Clemens would definitely qualify as a public figure. But given our line of work, we like to think of everyone as a public figure. In the internet age, we are all public figures now.

P.S. Thanks to the many readers who applied to serve as ATL's sports columnist. We are reviewing the many submissions and will select a columnist by the end of this week.

Clemens files defamation lawsuit against ex-trainer McNamee [AP]
Clemens v. McNamee: Complaint (PDF) [ESPN]

We feel like a real news organization, with West Coast correspondents. From a tipster in the Northern District of California:

I'm writing this as I listen over the court's internal recording system. Barry Bonds just pled not guilty. His attorney entered the plea for him. Posted a $500,000 bond. The government wants him to surrender his passport. Bonds's attorney objects because Bonds needs to travel to Canada to play baseball. Government responds that it's not unreasonable to make Bonds request permission to leave the country each time he needs to go to Toronto. Magistrate Judge James rejects the government's request. She says that because he's not under pre-trial supervision, he doesn't need to surrender his passport. Magistrate Judge James reads to Bonds the terms of his release, and he says he understands them. The court is now in recess.

Update: Back from recess, and back to our tipster:

Now Judge Illston is in the courtroom to take over the Bonds proceedings. She sets the next hearing date for Feb. 7. Bonds does not have to appear at that hearing. Discovery will proceed in the meantime.

There's some sort of "conflict" issue, but counsel isn't speaking into the microphone, so I can't tell what it is. The "conflict" issue might delay some of the discovery. And it may require Bonds to appear on Feb 7.

Defense counsel also says he anticipates moving to "dismiss the indictment for facial defects" at some future time.

Recess again. Sounds like it's all over.

Further Update: "Apparently some of Bonds's attorneys represented witnesses in the grand jury investigation, so there may be some conflict. But they'll probably work that out and waive it or something."

Finally, in case you're curious, an email that was sent out to court personnel about courtroom seating for the Bonds case appears after the jump.

In the current issue of the Legal Times, Attila Berry has this report:

A Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom attorney died in Australia last week. According to the Courier-Mail in Brisbane, Mark Bronson, a 44-year-old partner in the firm's Tokyo office, flew into the Brisbane airport on Nov. 21 and was stopped by customs officials after a drug-sniffing dog took an interest in him.

The officials scanned his baggage, and his luggage tested positive for cocaine, though preliminary tests can be inaccurate. Then while talking with the customs officers, Bronson had a seizure, fell to the floor and began vomiting. He died later that day in the hospital.

[T]he cause of death has not been determined, and a scan showed that he wasn't carrying drugs in his body. However, the news article says his vomit allegedly tested positive for cocaine, and he may have thrown up pieces of plastic as well.

Last week we also heard this gossip about Skadden Tokyo -- which, as noted below, is NOT TRUE:

I heard a rumor that an associate in Skadden's Tokyo office died of overwork (karoshi in Japanese). This info is secondhand though.

We wonder whether this false rumor arose out of the passing of Mr. Bronson. Cocaine and overwork are constant companions.

Correction / Update: As we suspected, it appears that the news about Mr. Bronson was transformed by the rumor mill into this urban legend of death through overwork. We understand that no associate in Skadden's Tokyo office, or any other office for that matter, has died from overwork.

Skadden Partner Dies After Drug Search [Legal Times]
Mark L. Bronson [Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom]
So Many Japanese Die of Over-Work They Have a Word for It [Blogonaut]

We commend secretaries who don't just cover the phones, but show some initiative and entrepreneurial spirit. From the Chicago Tribune:

A receptionist for the Cook County public defender's office accepted delivery of almost 40 pounds of marijuana at her Loop office, prosecutors alleged Wednesday.

At her bond hearing Wednesday, prosecutors said Lamour Holloway, 40, accompanied by two children, carted the drugs to her husband as he waited in a car behind the Cook County Administration Building at 69 W. Washington St....

"I think it's clear that not only is she committing a crime by accepting a package containing cannabis using the mail service, but as a public employee there is a sense of trust," said Assistant State's Atty Anna Demacopoulos. "She is an employee of the public defender's office, working in a public building, and she violated the sanctity of that public building."

Oh please. It's not like she worked in the prosecutor's office; she worked for the PD. If she wants to walk a mile in the shoes of a criminal defendant, like the ones her office represents, what's wrong with that?

Bail set at $80,000 in drug arrest at county building [Chicago Tribune]

With the police, who pulled you over for a traffic infraction. But the good news is that you're getting it back. From CBS:

Eight grams of medical marijuana seized from a Garden Grove man during a traffic stop must be returned to him, according to an appeals court ruling directing local law enforcement to uphold state, not federal law.

A three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal [in California] weighed in on the issue in a published decision that sets precedent for future cases on similar issues.

The marijuana, which belonged to Felix Kha, 22, was confiscated during a traffic stop on June 10, 2005.

The city of Garden Grove tried to argue "that to the extent state law authorizers or mandates the return of Kha's marijuana, it is preempted by federal law." The appeals court didn't see it that way:

Kha's attorneys argued that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution effectively prohibits federal interference with California's medical marijuana laws, and the three-justice panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed.

The justices found that because, under state law, Kha was lawfully entitled to possess the marijuana, "due process and fundamental fairness dictate that it be returned to him."

Indeed. Pass the bong, Your Honors!

P.S. The headline that CBS gave to the story is wrong. It was a state court, not a federal court, that issued the ruling.

Federal Court Rules Pot To Be Returned To Driver [CBS]

* Bong hits 4 farmers. [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* If looks could kill, then maybe this guy would have had a defense. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Privacy is so 20th century. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Good for him I guess, but isn't this a little weird? [CNN]

* A rave review for Saira Rao's Chambermaid. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]

* How could we NOT link to a post entitled "Do Faculty Have a Constitutional Right to Sleep With Their Students?" [TaxProf Blog]

* A very interesting installment of The Glenn and Helen Show, in which they speak with Professor Richard Epstein about drugs and health care. [Instapundit]

* Who needs lawyers? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Take the deal, Vick. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Buyer's remorse on the surveillance law? [New York Times]

* I want a new drug website. [BBC]

* Being the creepiest guy on earth is apparently not a crime. [CNN]

Oh goodness. And you thought Paris Hilton was troubled. From the AP:

Lindsay Lohan, who just finished a second stint in rehab for substance abuse treatment, was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving early Tuesday, authorities said.

Lohan, who is already facing a drunken driving charge in Beverly Hills, was pulled over near the Santa Monica Police Department after authorities spotted her car chasing another vehicle.....

Authorities conducted a field sobriety test and then transported Lohan to the police department. The 21-year-old actress was booked on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving on a suspended license and possession of cocaine, among other charges, [Sgt. Shane] Talbot said.

Police found cocaine in one of her pants pockets during a pre-booking search, Talbot said.

Summer associates can get pretty wild, especially after they've had a few drinks. But Lolita ain't got nothing on LiLo.

Law-and-economics types will appreciate this analysis, from Perez Hilton:

This could ruin Lindsay’s career! NO ONE is going to want to work with her now. And IF they do hire her, Lohan will most likely be forced to pay for her own insurance on films, which will be VERY COSTLY.

See, the market IS efficient! Even the market in alcoholic, coke-addicted young strumpets.

Lohan in Car Chase [TMZ.com]
It Was Cocaine!!!!!! [PerezHilton.com]
Lohan Booked on Suspicion of DUI [Associated Press]
Lindsay Lohan Arrested for DUI, Again [ABC7.com via Drudge Report]

The following comes from a trial in the Southern District of Alabama, Chief Judge Ginny Granade presiding. It's from an assistant U.S. attorney’s examination of an accomplice in a bank robbery:

Q: Well, let me just as an aside right now, what kind of a high, what kind of feeling do you get from smoking, and you were smoking crack?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: What kind of a high do you get from that?

A: You get a real intense high and you're not really able to really able to make good -- good judgment calls about what you’re doing.

News flash: Crack use may impair your judgment. That's why all the Biglaw attorneys stick to powder cocaine. Clients pay them big bucks for their sound judgment!

The excerpt from the trial transcript continues, after the jump.

Can you blame Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for not being more in the loop on the U.S. Attorney firings? He's been holding down not one but TWO demanding jobs. Check out the DOJ homepage (unchanged as of this morning, despite this Friday afternoon post by Wonkette):

If Alberto Gonzales can survive the revelation that "he" is actually a female, drug-trafficking terrorist -- who may possibly be related to Wilmer Valderrama -- then clearly he's untouchable.

Meanwhile, in other Justice Department news (expect announcements later today or tomorrow):

The stylish pumps of the fabulous Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand, whose last day as head of the Office of Legal Policy is today, will be filled on an acting basis by another former Kennedy clerk, Brett Gerry (OT 2000).

Congratulations to Brett Gerry on his new post. Alberto Gonzales needs all the help he can get these days.

Why Is This Man Smiling? [Wonkette]
High Ranking Member of Colombian FARC Narco-Terrorist Organization Sentenced on U.S. Drug Charges [U.S. Department of Justice]

Earlier: Why Did the Prom Queen Leave the Party?
Congratulations to Ken Wainstein (profiling Wainstein's front office staff at NSD)

If you're driving 100 miles per hour, but in a hybrid vehicle, can you still get pulled over? Unfortunately for Al Gore III, yes. From Reuters:

The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

Speed limits suck. Why can't we institute a system of "speeding offsets," like the market for carbon offsets? Grandmothers in Boca Raton, who consistently drive 10 miles under the speed limit, could supplement their incomes by selling the right to speed. Who needs Social Security?

After the traffic stop, things only got worse for young Al. From the New York Daily News:

Deputies then searched the car, and Gore faced an inconvenient truth when they allegedly found a small amount of pot and mind-altering pills - Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall.

"He does not have a prescription for any of those drugs," [a sheriff's spokesman] said.

Finally, we loved this little detail:

Al the 3rd lives in Los Angeles and works for GOOD magazine, which describes itself as "media for people who give a damn."

If this arrest is BAD for Al's career at GOOD, we hear they're accepting résumés over at High Times.

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car [Reuters]
He's our li'l eco-maniac! [New York Daily News]
Al Gore's Son Busted! [TMZ via Jezebel]

They prefer crack, thank you very much.

Because why else would the justices rule against noble, crusading students, and in favor of the mean old school officials, in Morse v. Frederick -- aka the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case?*

But free speech proponents shouldn't despair. Over at SCOTUSblog, Marty Lederman notes:

Morse is a very limited holding -- essentially limited to the drug context. The Alito concurrence, joined by Kennedy, is controlling. He writes:

I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as 'the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.'”

In other words: Hey liberals, this Alito guy might not be as bad as you thought.

* As we previously observed, petitioner Deborah Morse, one of the prevailing school officials, is "a curvaceous, dark-haired beauty." But we would hope that Supreme Court justices would decide cases based on the merits, not on the attractiveness of the parties.

Of course, sometimes both factors point in the same direction. See, e.g., Marshall v. Marshall -- the Anna Nicole Smith case.

Quick Preliminary Notes on Hein and Morse [SCOTUSblog]