Kids these days just have no respect for teachers. Third-graders hatch murder plots against them. Some students get all litigious when branded with crosses or when they suffer permanent hearing damage. I bet teachers miss the good old days when they could call their students ugly and bratty, and give them a quick kick to the rear without fear of a lawsuit.

Those days are over. From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

According to the lawsuit, [Mount Miguel High School choir teacher Heather] Hargett had picked several groups of students to deliver the singing grams and "intentionally excluded" [freshman Jade Ray]. The 14-year-old asked why, and Hargett answered that she "looked bad" and had no choir T-shirt.

Jade asked whether the T-shirt really cost $15, and Hargett told her to leave the class, the lawsuit said. When Jade asked if she was serious, Hargett said that if she couldn't afford a T-shirt, she had to leave. The teacher called Jade a "brat" and "ugly" and kicked her, the lawsuit said. The kick landed on her buttocks, [attorney John] Gomez said.

This sounds like the kind of exaggerated story that kids tell their parents when they hate their teacher. But Jade says it happened in front of 50 other kids. If so, that is, like, totally embarrassing. It looks like a jury gets to decide if it's $75,000 worth of embarrassment.

Student files suit vs. teacher [San Diego Union-Tribune]

Parents of an Ohio eighth grader are suing their son's teacher, principal, and school superintendent, as well as the Mt. Vernon City School District. Apparently the teacher is among the one in eight biology teachers who don't believe in evolution, and he espouses his religious beliefs in class. And oh yeah, he burned a cross into their son's arm!

From the Courthouse News Service:

The John Does claim Freshwater has unconstitutionally taught his religious beliefs in his science classes for more than a decade. They claim that in 2003 Freshwater sought, and was denied permission, to teach "intelligent design," but does it anyway. They claim his classroom is festooned with Biblical posters, that he tells his students that "although he is forced to teach from the textbooks, the teachings are wrong or not proven according to the Bible."

The complaint [PDF] states: "On Dec. 6, 2007, Mr. Freshwater burned a cross into James Doe's arm using an electric device manufactured by Electro-Technic Products, Inc., Model BD-10A. The manufacturer of Model BD-10A warns that the electric device has a high voltage output that should never be used to touch human skin. ... Mr. Freshwater applied the electric device to the arm of at least one other eighth grade student on Dec. 6, 2007. The area burned with Model BD-10A resulted in an easily identifiable cross consisting of red welts with blistering, swelling and blanching in the surrounding area...

The complaint also states that Freshwater, as adviser of the school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes, claimed to drive Satan out of a speaker at a club meeting, told club members that "they are saved, whereas the other students playing on the playground are going to Hell," distributed Bibles at school, gave "extra credit" to students who did work on "intelligent design," and that school administrators knew all this but failed to discipline him for it.

Last time we checked, exorcising demons from your students wasn't part of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Eighth Grader Says Teacher Burned A Cross Into His Flesh [Courthouse News]

Harvard University -- and that includes you, Harvard Law School -- watch out. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is out to get you. From TaxProf Blog (citing the Boston Globe):

Massachusetts lawmakers desperate for additional revenue are eyeing the endowments of deep-pocketed private colleges to bolster the state's coffers by more than $1 billion a year, asserting that the schools' rising fortunes undercut their nonprofit status.

Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over $1 billion, an amount now exceeded by nine Massachusetts institutions. The proposal, which higher education specialists believe is the first of its kind across the country, drew surprising support at a debate on the State House budget last week and is attracting attention in higher education circles nationally.

The idea has prompted a range of questions, including whether it is legal to infringe upon private colleges' tax-exempt status or single them out based on their wealth. It also faces significant opposition from the colleges and some skeptical lawmakers.

And it's not just the Crimson whose blood would run under this plan:

In addition to Harvard, the legislation would affect Amherst College, Boston College, Boston University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Smith College, Tufts University, Wellesley College, and Williams College.

Two of these institutions, BC and BU, have law schools. This tax would be bad news for them, but perhaps good news -- in a schadenfreude-ish sort of way -- for Bay State competitors with more modest endowments, like Northeastern and Suffolk. Deans of poorer law schools frequently complain about having to go toe-to-toe in the U.S. News rankings against institutions with vast accumulated wealth (which keeps on accumulating, tax free).

The Boston Globe editorial board thinks this tax plan stinks, calling it "economic suicide" and "an ill-conceived money grab that ignores how vital higher education is to the local economy." What's your view?

Mass. Considers 2.5% Excise Tax on College Endowments > $1 Billion [TaxProf Blog]
Lawmakers Target $1b Endowments; Exempt Status of Schools Debated [Boston Globe]
How to strangle an economy [Boston Globe]

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]

This is slightly off the legal beat. But these days, everyone is talking about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- including lots of law professors (like Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds). And we also know how much you enjoy controversy over commencement speakers, especially at Northwestern University (where Jerry Springer is speaking at the law school's commencement this year).

So, with those connections in mind, here's some interesting news from late last week:

In a highly unusual move in the academic world, Northwestern University in suburban Chicago has publicly disinvited the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright from its June commencement ceremonies, where he was to receive an honorary degree.

It's another indication of the rolling repercussions of the retiring African American pastor's inflammatory comments on America, 9/11, race relations, the AIDs epidemic and Illinois' junior senator, Barack Obama.

From Northwestern's statement:

Dr. Wright was quoted as saying that his invitation to receive an honorary degree was withdrawn by Northwestern President Henry Bienen because Dr. Wright “wasn’t patriotic enough.” If Dr. Wright was quoted accurately, that statement is not true. In his conversation and correspondence with Dr. Wright in March, President Bienen never characterized Dr. Wright’s views or made a judgment about them. The letter said, “In light of the controversy surrounding statements made by you that have recently been publicized, the celebratory character of Northwestern’s commencement would be affected by our conferring of this honorary degree. Thus I am withdrawing the offer of an honorary degree previously extended to you.”

So, readers, any thoughts -- on Northwestern's withdrawn invitation, or on Reverend Wright more generally? Might he have a cause of action against Northwestern arising out of his "dis-invitation"?

(No, we don't seriously think that. But we're trying to give this post some connection to the law, however tenuous. And we figured that those of you who are studying for final exams might appreciate the challenge of trying to come up with a legal theory for such a lawsuit. Go ahead -- spot those issues!)

Collected Jeremiah Wright coverage [Althouse]
Statement Regarding the Rev. Dr. Wright [Northwestern University]
Jeremiah Wright axed from honorary degree by Northwestern U. [Top of the Ticket / Los Angeles Times]
Clyburn Blasts Wright for 'Knee-Capping' Obama [The Trail / Washington Post]

* China and Iran lead the world in executions, according to Amnesty International's annual report on the death penalty. The U.S. comes in fifth worldwide. [AP]

* Gun control efforts build momentum at the state level. [New York Times]

* Some women return to the Texas polygamist ranch; judge seeks lawyers to represent children in upcoming custody battles. [CNN]

* Author J.K. Rowling holds her own while testifying before a crowd of Manhattan muggles. (Hopefully she won't sue us for using the word "muggle.") [WSJ Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]

* Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a past Lawyer of the Day, remains in a bitter impasse with the Detroit city council. [New York Times]

* Supreme Court justices tap their former clerks to pick up "orphaned" arguments -- arguments in cases where "the respondent abandons the lower court decision that the petitioner is challenging." [Legal Times]

* Legal restrictions on gifts to universities can generate quirky results years later. [New York Times]

The New York Times is on a bit of a "bully" kick lately -- using their "bully pulpit," if you will. They recently ran this 1100-word article, by Pulitzer Prize winner Dan Barry, about an Arkansas teen who has been subjected to bullying at school for years -- sometimes to the point of physical violence. (Gawker glibly summarizes it as a piece about "a random kid, Billy Wolfe, who gets knocked around a lot.")

Sure enough, it has a legal angle to it:

The Wolfes are not satisfied [with the school's response to their complaints about their son being bullied]. This month they sued one of the bullies “and other John Does,” and are considering another lawsuit against the Fayetteville School District. Their lawyer, D. Westbrook Doss Jr., said there was neither glee nor much monetary reward in suing teenagers, but a point had to be made: schoolchildren deserve to feel safe.

One ATL reader who drew this article to our attention is definitely on the side of the parents: "I'd like to see a post about the tort and criminal aspects of the case. Seems like the school's gonna get creamed."

This reader is probably not alone in feeling sympathy for Billy Wolfe. We'd guess that victims of schoolyard bullies are disproportionately represented among the ranks of lawyers, especially lawyers at top law firms. What do revenge-seeking nerds do after high school? They grow up to become lawyers, so they can acquire wealth and power, and lord it over their used-car-selling ex-tormentors at twentieth high school reunions.

But the Times didn't stop there with its fixation on bullying. A second Times article, in today's paper, discusses bullying in the workplace. How long before Nick Kristof writes an impassioned column on the subject, after traveling to Arkansas and hanging out with poor Billy for a week?

More discussion, after the jump.

Here's an interesting factoid. According to a quick search we ran over at the Public Library of Law (powered by Fastcase), the word "douchebag" has yet to appear in the pages of F.3d. [FN1]

That may be about to change, if the Second Circuit decides to publish in a case that was just argued. From the AP:

A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn't have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court.... [Ed. note: an "Internet blog" -- not to be confused with all those Non-Internet blogs.]

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school's annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: "'Jamfest' is canceled due to douchebags in central office," and also referred to an administrator who was "pissed off."

In the district court proceedings, there was some extensive discussion of the whole d-bag remark:

When [the school board's lawyer] pressed [student council treasurer Pat] Abate on whether he had ever seen the famous douchebag posting, Abate’s responses included: “I haven’t seen it on my computer monitor, I haven’t seen it in my dreams.”

Guess he isn't very imaginative.

[A lawyer] asked Abate and [senior class vice president Jackie] Evans to define douchebag.

“Stupid, moron, idiot, Abate said.

“Jerks,” Evans said.

Hmm.... They're in the vicinity, but haven't hit the definitional g-spot. We respectfully submit that the term "douchebag" carries a stronger sense of condemnation than the terms proffered by Abate and Evans. See UrbanDictionary.com (defining "douchebag" as "[s]omeone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and a**hole, however not yet reached f**ker or motherf**ker"). [FN2]

[FN1] Maybe someone with free Westlaw or Lexis access can confirm for us that F.3d is douchebag-free.

[FN2] Alternate definition of "douchebag" from Urban Dictionary: "A student or instructor at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities." Well, as long as it's not the law school....

Update: Thanks, commenters -- F.3d is certifiably douchebag-free.

Further Update: Oh wait... As this commenter notes, if you expand the search to include "douche bag" and "douche-bag," you'll see that F.3d has been thoroughly defiled.

Appeals Court Weighs Teen's Web Speech [AP]
Defense Crumbles as Students Weather Cross-Examination [CT News Junkie]
douchebag [Urban Dictionary]
douche commercial [YouTube]

A reader alerted us to this informative article (registration-free) from the New York Law Journal. A summary from our correspondent:

This piece talks about the New York State bar passage rate, and specifically how the Tier 2 schools jumped up the ranks this year. Cardozo moved to the third-highest bar passage rate out of all the New York law schools, beating out both Fordham and Cornell.

I think with all the tier 2 trash talking on this site lately, you should give a post dedicated to the surprising accomplishment of those tier 2 bar takers in NY.

An excerpt from the article:

For as long as anyone in the legal academy remembers, the top three spots have shifted a few percentage points among Cornell Law, NYU Law and Columbia Law. And for the past several years, Cardozo Law, which opened its doors in 1976, has contended with St. John's University School of Law and Fordham Law for the coveted fourth spot.

"I'm not deeply invested in bar pass rates," said Cardozo Law Dean David Rudenstine. "But I have to confess, I'm really touched. This is a milestone for our school."

Congratulations, Cardozo! Your grads rock the New York bar exam.

Law Schools Report Record Gains in Bar Exam Pass Rate [New York Law Journal]

In the comments to our post about Thanksgiving horror stories, an interesting (if somewhat off-topic) discussion developed. It started off with a law student complaining about having to study for final exams over the holiday, to which another commenter responded: Why bother? After a certain point, who cares about your law school grades?

The conventional wisdom is that law school grades don't really matter after your first year. Once you've secured your summer associate gig in the fall of your 2L year, you can pretty much coast, according to this theory. Unless you're hoping to graduate with honors, snag a feeder judge or Supreme Court clerkship, or become a law professor, you don't need to worry about your law school transcript (as long as you don't fail anything or lack sufficient credits to graduate, of course).

But in the comments, some readers suggested otherwise. They claimed that if you want to lateral from one firm to another, the firms you're applying to may request your transcript and consider your grades. Some suggested that grades even matter in the context of partnership decisions.

Thoughts? If you have an opinion or, better yet, hard information, please provide it in the comments. Thanks.

Earlier: Thanksgiving Horror Stories: Open Thread

Considering the grim job prospects for graduates of non-top-tier law schools, maybe we should be shuttering law schools rather than opening them.

But the trend may be going in the opposite direction. From the National Law Journal:

State University at Binghamton in New York is in the early stages of planning to open a law school, which would be the third public law school in the state.

Binghamton University President Lois DeFleur said that she has been in ongoing talks with State University of New York (SUNY) officials and with the American Bar Association about the school. The proposal would need the approval of state's education department and the governor.

The other publicly supported law schools in New York are the University of Buffalo, part of the SUNY system, and the City University of New York School of Law at Queens College.

Okay, maybe this wouldn't be such a horrible idea. First, Binghamton is a well-respected university, so presumably its law school would be strong as well. Second, it would be a public school, with more affordable tuition. So even if its graduates have trouble finding jobs, at least they won't be six figures in debt.

From a tipster:

There is really no great option for affordable legal education in New York (Buffalo?) and very few options at all outside of NYC (i.e., Cornell). Another thing to consider is that the closest schools to Binghamton (besides Cornell) are Albany and Syracuse, both of which are private schools. So, presumably there would be a market for this school.

Thoughts? To any Binghamton undergrad alums: Would you like your alma mater to launch a law school?

SUNY Binghamton makes a bid to create law school [National Law Journal]

Remember James Sandman? Oh no, you don't? Well, surely you remember the Arnold & Porter partner's infamous essay, The High Price of Escalating Associate Salaries, which he wrote while president of the D.C. bar.

Jim Sandman's article, dishing out harsh criticism of law firm associate pay raises, did not endear him to ATL readers. In a near comments clusterf**k, he was condemned as the greediest of greedy Biglaw partners (along with other epithets not fit for printing here).

Well, maybe Sandman has gotten a bad rap. After all, he was public-spirited enough to serve as president of the D.C. bar. When we met him at this party, one of many charitable functions he attends, he didn't have horns growing out of his head.

And now we hear that he's leaving his lucrative partnership, to toil in the considerably less profitable precincts of the D.C. public school system. He's accepted a position as General Counsel for the District of Columbia Public Schools, and he'll also be a member of Chancellor Michelle Rhee's senior leadership team to the DC School Board.

Read the A&P memo announcing Sandman's departure, from firm chairman Thomas Milch, after the jump.

While you wait for more bonus announcements to trickle in, check out a benchslap from the nation's capital. The Washington Examiner reports:

Furious over the city’s “stunning ignorance” of the crisis facing its special-education system, a federal judge has given the District of Columbia one week to come up with a cost-fixing schedule — or face contempt charges.

In an unusually caustic order, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman has ordered State Superintendent Deborah L. Gist and schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to come up with a policy for setting rates with the thousands of private schools and vendors with which it does business.

Judge Friedman had especially harsh words for the city's counsel:

“The defendants’ response demonstrates a stunning ignorance of the history of [the] litigation and the operative orders issued by this court,” the judge wrote. “The only plausible explanation is that the attorneys whose names appear on the signature page ... must not have read it. ...”

Lighten up, Your Honor. Lots of people sign stuff they didn't draft, or even read. They're called partners.

(And reading court filings is overrated. Just ask Chief Judge Jacobs.)

Judge sets deadline for special ed plan [Washington Examiner]

Earlier: Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs: Not Running for Student Body President

* If you received Jesse Wegman's invitation to join Shelfari, please accept his apologies. [NYO]

* Yet another law professor who's out of touch with the real world. [TaxProf Blog]

* Going north of Westchester = Going south of the Mason-Dixon line? [QuizLaw]

* Is Hillary a Commie? [Althouse]

* Eh, who cares? She's unstoppable! Polls show Hillary picking up more momentum, especially among younger voters, while Obama is losing his mojo. [Marc Ambinder]

We're sorry to report that we haven't heard serious and credible raise rumors lately. In fact, we've heard more gossip about layoffs in recent weeks than about associate pay increases. The rumors of "NYC to 190", which used to flood our email inbox, have gone the way of Testa Hurwitz.

But here is some reason for optimism. From the National Law Journal:

Nearly two decades ago, [Georgetown law professor] Philip G. Schrag said he saw the need to help law students with crippling law school debt....

Help is finally on the way with the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. Passed by Congress on Sept. 7, the bill aims to help law students and other graduates with high debt through an income-based loan-repayment plan. The bill also would allow for loan forgiveness for qualifying employees after 10 years of service to government agencies or nonprofit organizations.

Tex Frank explains why this might be good news for some of you, at Overlawyered:

Bush has indicated he'd sign the bill.

The market currently reflects a private-public pay gap reflecting the fact that public jobs are generally considered to have better working conditions and that private-sector law firms need to offer substantially higher pay to encourage attorneys to work there. If the government is providing thousands of dollars of loan subsidies to government and non-profit attorneys, the private sector will need to raise its salaries to continue to compete, some of which will be swallowed by the partners, but most will be swallowed by the clients, who, increasingly facing bet-the-company litigation, have inelastic demand for top law firms. Too, as attorney salaries increase, and loans are subsidized by the government, law schools will be empowered to extract some of that surplus by raising tuition.

Winners: most attorneys, law school employees, and some clients of non-profits. Losers: taxpayers, clients, partners at non-top-tier firms.

Do you concur with Ted Frank's analysis? And what about graduates of non-top-tier law schools, who are the focus of this week at ATL -- how will they be affected by this legislation?

(We'd think that they would be thrilled by anything that might ameliorate crushing loads of educational debt. But if this change could be bad news for non-top-tier firms, it could indirectly be bad news for non-top-tier grads, insofar as non-top-tier firms provide jobs for so many of them.)

Taxpayers to provide additional subsidies for law-school education [Overlawyered]
Law School Loans About to Be Lightened for Some [National Law Journal]
Bush Will Sign Loan-Relief Bill for Public-Interest Lawyers [Daily Journal (subscription)]

Earlier today, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a controversial appearance at Columbia University. The decision to invite Ahmadinejad was defended by President Lee Bollinger, who criticized Ahmadinejad and his views while introducing him, but condemned by Columbia Law School Dean David Schizer.

Dean Schizer's statement provides us with enough of a "law" hook to write about the controversy. Here's what he had to say:

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend. I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation.

Do you agree with President Bollinger or Dean Schizer? Take our poll:

Statement By David M. Schizer Re: SIPA Invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [Columbia Law School]
Tough US Welcome for Iran's Ahmadinejad [Associated Press]
Columbia law dean slams Ahmadinejad invite [JTA]
QuickSpec- Judgement Day edition [The Bwog]

We're not being sarcastic. This course, to be offered at Georgetown Law in spring 2008, sounds awesome. To the average law student, it's probably way more interesting than securities regulation (or even ERISA -- one of our favorite law school classes). [FN1]

From the GULC course catalog:

The Law of "24"
Professor W. Sharp
LL.M Course 853 (cross-listed) | 2 credit hours

The award winning Fox Television drama series 24 explores America’s fictional response to international terrorism through the eyes of Jack Bauer, a U.S. counter-terrorism agent. Oftentimes without remorse or regard for the law, Agent Bauer is willing to do what has to be done when faced with the threat of kidnappings, assassinations, nuclear detonations, and bioterrorism on U.S. soil – despite traitors in his family, his unit, and the White House; partisan politics; sleeper cells; and hidden agendas.

This course provides a detailed understanding of a very wide-range of U.S. domestic and international legal issues concerning counterterrorism in the context of the utilitarian and sometimes desperate responses to terrorism raised by the plot of 24. Course requirements include active classroom discussion and a paper of approximately 25 pages.

If Jack Goldsmith's new book is correct, it seems some members of the Bush Administration legal team might benefit from this class.

The instructor, adjunct professor Walter Sharp, sounds pretty badass. He's a Naval Academy grad who currently serves as Associate Deputy General Counsel for International Affairs at the Defense Department. He previously served as Deputy Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pretty cool!

[FN1] We followed, with interest and amusement, this recent spirited commenters' debate over whether you can get a "real" legal education at Yale. For those of you who care, we offer some thoughts on that subject after the jump.

The Law of "24" [Georgetown University Law Center]
Faculty bio: Walter Gary Sharp [Georgetown University Law Center]

* Sadly, the Nixon Peabody theme song didn't make the cut. [TechnoLawyer]

* "Sonnenschein sued for millions by former partner." [Legal Times]

* News you can use: "How much income can parents have before losing all financial aid for their kids' college?" [TaxProf Blog]

* We're late in linking to this, but here's Blawg Review #124. [George's Employment Blawg via Blawg Review]

* We're REALLY late in linking to this, but it's timely once again in light of the imminent announcement (tomorrow) that he's officially running for president. Here are some interesting reflections from Fred Thompson on the law and his career as a practicing lawyer. [Power Line]

As we have previously bitterly lamented observed, sometimes it seems like all the blessings of life are reserved for Supreme Court clerks. And they include not just $250,000 signing bonuses and top-shelf legal jobs, but luxury real estate, too.

This latest Lawyerly Lairs post looks at the expanding digs of Joel I. Klein (Powell) and his wife, Nicole K. Seligman (OT 1984/Marshall). From the New York Observer:

New York is a city of poshly-housed public servants.

The mayor owns two mansions in the East 70’s; the governor goes rent-free in a terraced Fifth Avenue apartment (it’s owned by his dad); development chief Robert Lieber has a new $7.25 million condo at Trump International; and even Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum is in the Beresford.

Now Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has bonus space on Park Avenue. He and his wife Nicole Seligman, a Sony executive vice president (and an ex-lawyer for both Oliver North and Bill Clinton) have paid $1.7 million for their second apartment at 95-year-old 565 Park Avenue.

Yes, that's right -- their second apartment in this venerable building. The couple already own the unit directly above their new acquisition. Hello, duplex!

(C'mon, get real: Did you really expect Klein and Seligman to slum it in a sub-$2 million apartment? As people have observed countless times in these pages, $2 million doesn't buy you much in NYC.)

More details after the jump.

Earlier today, we posted the first installment of our recent interview with Dean Bernard Dobranski, of Ave Maria School of Law. You can access that part of the write-up, which includes background on current controversies at Ave Maria, by clicking here.

Now we bring you the second half of the interview. It appears after the jump.