The Texas based law firm of Haynes and Boone moved their Dallas operations into a new "green" office today. Despite the laudable initiative, some lawyers and many support staffers have complained about the new "confines." Apparently, personal space is at a premium in the new space. Administrative assistants are particularly annoyed, as they will be moved out of cubicles into an open floor plan, "fishbowl" situation.

In addition to the lack of privacy, Haynes and Boone issued new policies regarding how secretaries use the personal space they still have. Most of the new rules meet an accepted standard of "petty.":

2. There will be a sufficient number of small plants that Gensler will place in appropriate areas around our floors. You may have one 8-inch potted plant in your office or on your desk--none on the ledges.

3. Please do not put any objects or plants on ledges or the tops of your cabinets. Two framed pictures and a small candy dish may be placed on your desk, but no beanie babies on desks.

You're moving into new environmentally friendly offices, but you're going to regulate the number and types of plants employees are allowed to have? That's not directly contradictory, but it's certainly annoying.

Additional regulations after the jump.

Those of you who follow science news are likely well aware of the Large Hadron Collider deep beneath the earth near Geneva. For the uninitiated, it's a scientist's wet dream: an $8-billion particle accelerator built to test the Big Bang Theory by smashing protons together at the speed of light. They fired it up this month, but it malfunctioned and is out of commission until next year.

For some, the machine is more nightmare than wet dream. Critics worry that it could create a sub-atomic black hole ending the world as we know it. In March, two guys filed suit in Hawaii to save the world. From the New York Times:

Last spring, Walter Wagner, a retired radiation safety officer who lives in Hawaii, and Luis Sancho, a science writer and professor in Barcelona, filed the lawsuit, claiming that the collider could produce a black hole that could eat the Earth or cause some other calamitous effect.

The federal judge who got the case chose to punt, "dodging the issue of whether it could actually cause the end of the world."

The judge, Helen Gillmor, said in her ruling Friday that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Large Hadron Collider, which is located on the Swiss-French border and was built by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, with help from the United States and dozens of other countries...

Mr. Wagner and Mr. Sancho sued CERN, the United States Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Federal District Court in Hawaii. The Energy Department and the science foundation have contributed about $531 million of the collider's estimated cost of $8 billion.

Judge Gillmor decided that the fraction paid by the United States was too small for the collider to constitute a "major federal action," as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act, and so the court lacked jurisdiction on environmental grounds.

We hope someone else steps in to consider the possibility of a "planetary apocalypse." At least it puts the cosmic crisis on Wall Street in perspective.

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit to Halt Operation of Particle Collider [New York Times]

In his defense in the Wall Street Journal (subscription) of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, America's Firingest Law Firm™, Ashby Jones wrote:

[W]hile it might take several months to determine the full damage, so far the firm hasn't seen large groups of partners bolt for the door, a phenomenon that can create a mini-panic at a firm and result in the loss of entire practice groups. Of course, the handsome partnership payouts provide good incentive to Cadwalader partners to stay put. And while Cadwalader might never be called a "collegial" place, its partnership is at least cohesive. It consists of a manageable 114 lawyers located predominantly in lower Manhattan.

Make that 113 lawyers. From a press release issued today by Steptoe & Johnson:

Steptoe & Johnson LLP, a pre-eminent international law firm, today announced the addition of Andrew J. Perel as a new partner in its New York office.

Mr. Perel, former Chair of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft's Environmental Practice Group, will also become the resident member of the management committee of Steptoe's New York City office and that office's representative on the firm's Executive Committee.

"Andrew is the 'go to' environmental lawyer in New York. He is a leader in his field and highly respected nationally. Through his practice, he provides Steptoe with additional entrée into the financial services clients that are the backbone of every New York law firm practice," said Steve Fennell, head of Steptoe's Litigation Department.

Is Perel's departure an isolated occurrence? Or could it be the first of several partner exits? Time will tell.

Andrew J. Perel Joins Steptoe as Partner in New York Office [Steptoe & Johnson (press release)]
Andrew J. Perel bio [Cadwalader via Google Cache]

* A look back on the Supreme Court Term just ended. (Also: Is this Linda Greenhouse's swan song?) [New York Times]

Update: No, it's not. Greenhouse informed us by email that she'll be at the Times until July 18 and will be writing a few more pieces between now and then.

* DOD and EPA disagree on cleanup. [Washington Post]

* LVMH wins French lawsuit against ebay for counterfeit products, following earlier win for Hermes. [New York Times]

* Kellerman on Scalia's gun safety theory. [Washington Post]

* Iraqi government doing a double-take on oil contract bidding? [New York Times]

* Indiana teacher fired for using Freedom Writers' Diary. [CNN Video]

* DOJ settles with ex-Army scientist Steven Hatfill for $5.8 million. [AP]

At least it's a better way to spend the firm's money than a theme song (mp3). From The Recorder:

Nixon Peabody has appointed a chief sustainability officer, hoping not only to reduce the firm's environmental impact, but to increase its impact on clients. Carolyn Kaplan, a counsel in the firm's energy and environmental practice, will spend at least a quarter of her time in the new position.

So what exactly will Ms. Kaplan do in this new gig? Send around annoying firm-wide emails telling people to recycle those reams of useless Westlaw print-outs? Tell associates to turn off the lights when they leave their offices (even if it will tip off the partners to their departures)?

Kaplan said the position has two aspects: looking internally at ways to reduce the firm's production of CO2, or its carbon footprint, and determining how attorneys can use the firm's experience to better understand clients dealing with environmental regulation and related issues. Both of those could make the firm greener in the financial sense, too, she said.

More after the jump.

* Judge Mark Filip (N.D. Ill.) picked to be Mukasey's deputy. [AP via How Appealing]

* SCOTUS stays Florida execution like I said they would. [New York Times]

* Hmm...Bush administration didn't properly consider impact of climate change.... shocking. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* Hillary Clinton takes the gloves off, giving "her most commanding performance to date" in last night's debate. [The Atlantic (Marc Ambinder)]

* Al Gore, law school dropout, wins Nobel Peace Prize. [WSJ Law Blog; Washington Post; New York Times]

* Houston crime lab drops the ball, again. [CNN]

* Iraqi families sue Blackwater in U.S. court. [CNN]

* Lithwick's take on the interesting SCOTUS case, Medellin v. Texas. [Slate]

* McCartney-Mills divorce settlement could break records. [MSNBC]

* After typo, infants in Arkansas can't not be allowed to marry. [CNN]

The latest post in our series on perks / fringe benefits isn't a "perk" per se. But it is, like true perks, a non-monetary factor that some people may take into account when choosing between law firms.

The topic: eco-friendliness, or how "green" a law firm is. From a tipster:

I think you should do a feature on which law firms are promoting eco-friendly office environments / business practices. With the country's increased environmental awareness, I think it could help both law students and attorneys decide where to work. Here are two examples:

1. Arnold & Porter: Details of their "green office" policy appear here.

2. Morgan Lewis & Bockius: They described their "program to promote an eco-friendly workplace" in a recent memo (reprinted after the jump).

We offer commentary on that memo after the jump.

Getting Law Firms to Boot Up to Green [Legal Technology News]

* Morgue employee having too much fun costs Hamilton County $8 million. [CNN]

* Nacchio gets appeal bond. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Told ya. [Jurist]

* Parents apparently signed their kids away to a New Mexico entertainment sweatshop. [New York Times]

* It'll be blowing up our mountains when it comes. [New York Times]

* That's one way to have "smaller government". [CNN]

* Maybe the jury can pick a day to wear their "pimps 'n hos" jumpsuits. [New York Times via How Appealing]

* Corzine signs New Jersey greenhouse gas legislation. [Jurist]

* So where was Hillary on Friday night? [AP]

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]

* Let us help you. Defraud the government. [CNN]

* UK hacker of U.S. computers loses extradition appeal. [Jurist]

* Hicks sentence prompts Lindh to ask for commutation again. [AP via FindLaw]

* Vermont federal judge doesn't throw out automakers' suit against state regulation of greenhouse gases; says there are still issues for trial despite recent Supreme Court holding that EPA can regulate greenhouse gasses. [AP via FindLaw]

* Supreme Court says EPA can regulate greenhouse gases. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* Fourth Circuit's reading of PSD regulations did not comport with Clean Air Act's limits on judicial review of EPA regulations for validity, so Duke Energy's summary judgment gets reversed. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* More interminable Anna Nicole legal news: Howard K. Stern drops his appeal of using DNA to determine paternity, and some kind of a hearing will be held tomorrow. Apparently Bahamian court rules prevent us from knowing the nature of the hearing. [CNN]

* Bong hits 4 glaucoma in New Mexico. [Jurist]

* DNA evidence to the rescue once again. [CNN]

A summary of this morning's Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, from SCOTUSblog:

Ruling 5-4, the Supreme Court on Monday found that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming, and must examine anew the scientific evidence of a link between those gases contained in the exhausts of new cars and trucks and climate change. In the most important environmental ruling in years, the Court rebuffed the Environmental Protection Agency's claim that regulating those gases was beyond its authority, and the agency's claim that it need not take action even if it did have the power to do so. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

The benchslap came when the Court ordered the EPA to reevaluate its decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. From the Associated Press:

The court had three questions before it.

-- Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

-- Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

-- Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson was also ordered to write "I will not make fun of Al Gore" three hundred times on a blackboard.

Justices: EPA Can Control Car Emissions [AP via Washington Post]
EPA must consider global warming again [SCOTUSblog]
Massachusetts v. EPA (opinion; PDF) [SCOTUSblog]

* Since charges have been dropped, we can only hope nothing more severe than spray painting occurred. Those poor goats and sheep, always such pervert-magnets. [LoHud.com (The Journal News)]

* I think the Vietnamese president lost a bet to our president. [Jurist]

* This, hopefully, will not offend anyone. [New York Times]

* The upside is that such drama is indispensable to country song-writing, so better her than me. [AP via Yahoo! News]

When we wrote about her amusing court filing earlier today, we redacted her name. But since she has shown that she has no problem with being identified, even going so far as to comment on our prior post, we're happy to shout her name from the blogospheric rooftops: ALISON MAYNARD.

Alison Maynard, who ran unsuccessfully for Colorado Attorney General as a Green Party candidate, is known in some circles as "Sunny" Maynard. And with her hilarious motion, Sunny Maynard has brightened the days of thousands of lawyers around the country.

This is why we're naming her our Lawyer of the Day. Congratulations, Ms. Maynard!

For those of you who didn't read our prior post, here's the relevant excerpt from Maynard's motion:

In the hours since we posted it, we've been bombarded by several lengthy email screeds from Maynard. Because most of them contained the words "water rights" and "bill of costs," they were initially banished to the "Boring Stuff" subfolder of our "Junk Mail" folder.

But we dutifully rescued them, and we even read them. Some excerpts, as well as links with biographical information about Alison Maynard, appear after the jump.

* If you support intelligent design, then these Inconvenient Truth-opposing parents want you in their PTA. [Seattle Times]

* If he had thrown down the gauntlet beforehand, might that be a mitigating factor? We can see the headlines now: If the glove doesn’t fit... [TaxProf Blog]

* Diana, you know the audience will be cheering for Effie, but Florence Ballard died 30 years ago -- and you’re going to be an American Idol “mentor”! Yeah, life has definitely been unfair in your favor. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* Some real-life law and order from a man known to die-hard L&O fans like myself as Chris Noth’s partner in the second season. (And, incidentally, it appears that the younger Sorvino daughter likes them as young as her brother-in-law.) [People]

* Napster rip-off Kazaa introduces its new YouTube rip-off called Joost. Why do I care? Because I wrote my law school thesis on Kazaa. And because Joost (as in “juiced”) is as stupid a name as “Kazaa.” [Los
Angeles Times]

* Affirmative action not gone quite yet for Michigan schools. [AP via How Appealing]

* Convicted debutante killers not so happy at sentencing. [CNN]

* Nebraska corporate farming ban violates dormant commerce clause; Nebraska will appeal to the Supreme Court. [Jurist]

* Dracula Jr.'s a lawyer. [WSJ Law Blog]

* 13 States and DC sue EPA to get them to, you know, protect the environment. [MSNBC]

* Solitary confinement, cruel and unusual? Cruel, perhaps, but not that unusual. [St. Petersburg Times via How Appealing]

* Florida and California decide to take a little break on the whole lethal injection thing. [CNN]

* New Jersey Legislature does what New Jersey's Supreme Court told them to. [FindLaw]

* Mariah Carey is concerned that people might be confused and think that she is someone who uses sex to make money....oh, wait a minute... [FOX News]

* Global warming is such a nuisance. [Jurist]

This post has nothing to do with the gastrointestinal tract of a certain Supreme Court reporter. Rather, it's about Massachusetts v. EPA, the greenhouse gases/global warming case, argued before the Supreme Court yesterday.

We're relatively late in covering this -- you've probably read about it already elsewhere -- so we'll be brief.

Questions Presented:

(1) Can the EPA (read: Bush Administration) get away with refusing to regulate carbon dioxide in automobile emissions, even though a bunch of states, cities, and environmental groups want it to?

(2) Do these entities have standing to object to the refusal?

(3) Has President Bush been reading too much Michael Crichton?

Money Quote(s): Eh, there weren't any. This argument was no KSR v. Teleflex.

And are you really surprised? It's an administrative law/environmental law case, concerning the proper construction of the Clean Air Act, with a big threshold question about standing. Not exactly a barrel of laughs.

Likely Outcome: Who knows? We agree with Tony Mauro and Lyle Denniston: It all comes down to Justice Kennedy.

Roberts may be the Chief, but it's Kennedy's Court. And everyone else is just sitting on it.

Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120 [On the Docket / Medill]
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming [New York Times]
Massachusetts v. EPA oral argument transcript [Supreme Court (PDF)]
Eyes on Kennedy as Supreme Court Debates Global Warming Case [Legal Times]
EPA argument 11/29/06: Major precedent looms? Maybe not [SCOTUSblog]
Analysis: Kennedy key to global warming challenge [SCOTUSblog]
Today at the Supreme Court: Preemption and Global Warming [WSJ Law Blog]