We've received over 900 responses to our ATL / Lateral Link surveys on the lengths and lunches of summer programs.

Today, in honor of David Lat's Above The Lard Project Truman Show, let's focus on the caloric part of the results: lunch.

Associates seem to be of two minds on the summer associate lunch. Some commenters view the lunches as a positive perk . . . sort of:

The perks are important. Lunches and events are how you meet and get to know the associates and partners at the firm. Anyone who has ever lateraled can tell you how hard it is to meet the people around you when all you do is work (and forget about meeting anyone in another practice group). I don't know if it's a good investment, but it at least brightens the miserable halls of the firm for a couple weeks a year. All the lawyers pretend that working at a law firm is really like what we hoped it would be when we were law students. It's nice.

Others, however, view the care and feeding of summer associates as an unwanted drain on their time:

As an associate, I don't want to be obligated to take summers to lunches, and I don't care about free lunches myself.

What I do want is to be left the hell alone during those daytime hours so that I can do the work I am being paid to do, which will allow me to leave two hours earlier than I otherwise would each day.

Summers are a hassle. They all want to go to lunch for two hours each day, and then when they go to happy hour or whatever event each night at 6:00, the associates get to stay in their offices billing the time that the summers stole from them earlier in the day.

Whether they're good or bad, though, one thing's clear: summer lunches are pretty pricey:

  * About a third of respondents said that their firms had a budget of more than $50 per person when lunching with summer associates, and seven percent of respondents said their firms imposed no limit at all.

  * Ten percent of respondents said that their firms impose a $50 per person budget.

  * Ten percent of respondents said that their firms will reimburse $40 or $45 per person.

  * Seventeen percent of respondents may spend $30 or $35 per person.

  * Twelve percent of respondents may spend up to $25 per person.

The rest have lower budgets or no budget at all. On the bright side, though, their clothes are more likely to fit at the end of the summer.

Despite the expense, summer associates expect frequent feedings:

  * Roughly nineteen percent expect to have lunch with their firm's lawyers five times a week.

  * A quarter plan on lunching four times a week. The same number expect lunch three times a week, and another quarter will settle for lunch a mere two times weekly.

  * Five percent of summer associates think they'll only have lunch with the attorneys once a week.

  * A lonely one percent of summer associates don't think they'll have lunch with the firm's attorneys at all.

As the comment above would suggest, however, full-time associates are not nearly as enthusiastic about all that lunch time.

  * Eleven percent don't expect to have lunch with the summer associates at all.

  * Fifty-four percent expect to do lunch once a week.

  * A quarter will have lunch twice a week.

  * Seven percent will have lunch three times a week.

  * Only three percent will have lunch four or five times a week.

Perhaps the firms should budget coffee runs instead?

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

Twelve Angry Men, move over; now there's someone meatier. A juicy judicial celebrity sighting, from the Las Vegas Sun:

Suspended District Judge Elizabeth Halverson returned to the Regional Justice Center on Friday -- for jury duty.

While waiting for an assignment, Halverson, who can't roll through the courthouse on her motorized scooter without attracting attention, turned quite a few heads, including those of several prosecutors at the district attorney's office, which is on the same floor as the jury service room.

Las Vegas lawyers: If you're hoping to have Halverson on your jury, sorry. Her Honor wound up being assigned to a civil trial that was subsequently postponed, "bringing an abrupt halt to her brief public service on the other side of the bench."

Suspended judge can't even get out of jury duty [Las Vegas Sun]

Here is a Tale of Two Judges: the Honorable Alex Kozinski, the relatively new chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson, district judge in Clark County, Nevada.

Both are judges in the western United States. Both are colorful figures and well-known judicial mavericks. And both have been in the news lately. Chief Judge Kozinski graces the cover of California Lawyer magazine, which describes him -- and rightfully so -- as "brilliant, charming, and provocative." Meanwhile, Judge Halverson has been all over the national media in the past few days, thanks to this less-than-favorable AP report (picked up by many news outlets).

In light of these similarities, we decided to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the two jurists. Check it out, below the fold.

We received over 1,600 responses to yesterday's ATL / Lateral Link survey on your law firm weight gain. Overall, you've gained a ton. Or more.

As one commenter put it:

NY to 350!

...lbs. that is...

Well, ok, it wasn't quite that bad, but two thirds of you who are currently practicing law have gained weight:

  * 13.78% of respondents gained 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 13.36% of respondents gained 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 14.13% of respondents gained 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 6.78% of respondents gained 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 6.71% of respondents gained 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 4.59% of respondents gained 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 7.35% of respondents -- and roughly a fifth of respondents who graduated in 2002 or earlier -- gained more than 30 pounds.

Just under 12% of you stayed the same. And a fifth of you are bastards reported that you lost weight:

  * 5.72% of respondents lost 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 4.73% of respondents lost 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 3.82% of respondents lost 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 0.71% of respondents lost 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 2.69% of respondents lost more than 30 pounds.

Most respondents are eating in the office, grabbing food from restaurants, and enjoying a sedentary lifestyle:

  * About three quarters of respondents who are currently practicing law eat at least five meals a week at their firms.
  * About two thirds get at least five meals a week from restaurants.
  * Although roughly two fifths of respondents said their firms have gyms (25% have free gyms, 15% are at firms with subsidized gyms, and 2% are at firms with no discount), 60% of these respondents "never" use their firm gym, and 20% work out only once or twice a week.

Law students fared better, but still not that well, with roughly 55% gaining weight, and just under a third losing weight. Law students were just about as likely as practicing attorneys to gain 15 or fewer pounds, but a bit less likely to gain more, and a bit more likely to lose 15 or fewer pounds. Clearly, there's room for more recruiting lunches.

So, overall, don't you feel better about yourself now?

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on weighty matters. Literally.

In an interesting counterweight (as it were) to Kash's post about prison weight loss litigation yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had a story on a proposed law in Massachusetts that would ban discrimination based on weight. (Apparently, Michigan, the District of Columbia, San Francisco, and Madison, Wisconsin already have similar anti-discrimination provisions in place.)

Since Daily Kos has already "stolen" a poll on whether the law's a good idea, I won't ask that here -- although those of you with an appetite for debate can weigh in in the comments. But while weight debates hang heavy in the air, what I will ask is whether your time in law has expanded more than just your acumen.

So, have your salad days as an associate or law student yielded a beefier frame?

Has partnership given you more substance?

Judge Elizabeth Halverson has graced stomped through these pages many times before. But this is her first appearance of 2008. The LA Times recounts some Halverson highlights:

Her former bailiff said he was forced to heat and serve her lunch, check the temperature of her ice water, brush lint from her robe, help her put on her shoes, massage her neck and cover her with a blanket before her nap.

An assistant said Halverson, of the 8th Judicial District Court, made her answer questions -- under oath -- about courthouse gossip.

She's been stripped of her criminal cases. She has been suspended with pay. She has a hearing this month that may result in her being removed from the bench. But she's STILL running for reelection. We apologize to Halverson fans out there, but we will not be running a "Re-Elect Halverson" campaign, even if she does provide great blog fodder...

Halverson also referred to her husband as "Evil Ed," her former bailiff testified, and told Jordan to "pull out your gun and shoot him."

"I'll dispose of the body," Jordan quoted the judge as saying.

Halverson's newer staffers told commissioners she acted respectfully and professionally. But commissioners said that didn't excuse her treating Jordan and others in a "truly bizarre and inappropriate manner."

Two people are challenging the suspended judge in the August election. Halverson said she entered the race because community members encouraged her to hold onto her judgeship.

"Do I think the public will see the truth about me?" she said. "Yes, I do."

The truth is out there. I mean, seriously, how could she dispose of her husband's body? She is a LARGE woman, with an oxygen tank, who can't even get her own nap-time blanket. She was making a joke. Obviously.

Update: A commenter sent us to this bizarre kid-sploitation reelection video.

Judge Elizabeth Halverson courts trouble in Las Vegas [Los Angeles Times]

Obesity isn't just a problem for Biglaw lawyers who don't get to the gym enough. From the New York Post:

He weighs more than 500 pounds, but that wasn't enough to tip the scales of justice for ex-cop Paul Soto.

The rotund retiree lost his legal argument that it was a line-of-duty fall outside a doctor's office that cost him his NYPD career. A judge says it was actually his "morbid obesity."

"There's no dispute that [Soto] is physically incapable of performing his duties as a police officer. He is morbidly obese, suffers from narcolepsy and is hypertensive," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische wrote in her decision made public yesterday.

Apparently the physical vigor of being a cop doesn't always keep off the pounds:

When Soto joined the force in 1993, Gische found, he weighed approximately 250 pounds. He is now 40, 5-foot-7 and over 500 pounds.

A former colleague at the 6th Precinct said Soto's gun belt was an incredible 6 feet long, and his bosses would order him to take walks around the stationhouse for his own good. They would also have other officers shadow him to make sure he didn't pick up food along the way, he said.

It's a good thing Soto doesn't work at a law firm, where office-wide emails about extra sandwiches left in conference rooms make the rounds daily.

He's Biiig Blue [New York Post via Drudge]

* Mandated calorie watching is struck down. [AP; New York Times]

* Mortgage lenders' ads may violate FCC FTC rules. [MSNBC]

* Former Philippine prez gets 40-year prison sentence. [New York Times]

* China agrees to prohibit lead paint in children's toys... [AP via MSNBC]

* Tennessee uses the chair for first time since 1960. [CNN]

Since the last coverage of her on ATL, the Energizer-bunny-esque Judge Elizabeth Halverson has been ordered on the inactive list by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.

Following an emotional plea by Halverson in a rare television interview, and a similar public plea by two sexy ex-Halverson staffers (a law clerk and a secretary), the hearing transcripts have been released by the Nevada Supreme Court.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal published a story this morning that basically places the final nail in the 425 500 lb jurist’s cavernous coffin career:

District Judge Elizabeth Halverson's former bailiff testified that she fell asleep daily in court and frequently told him to shoot her husband, according to transcripts of a closed-door hearing that were made public Wednesday.

Yes, you read that right: "frequently told him to shoot her husband."

(Dozing off on the bench is no big deal. Some highly regarded judges do it all the time.)

The balance of the insanity, after the jump.

The rail-thin Judge Richard Posner (7th Cir.), who favors grapefruit for dessert, has this to say about fat people over at his blog:

It makes sense, as the recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine finds, that friends' fatness would have an influence distinct from that of the culture as a whole....

In my own ingroup of 16 judges (11 active members of my court, 4 senior members, and 1 nominee, who will replace an active member who will be taking senior status), only 2 are overweight (12.5 percent), compared to a nationwide average of 66 percent. Among my other friends, judicial and otherwise, the percentage who are overweight is probably no greater than 12.5 percent.

When we read this, we guessed that one of the two overweight judges was Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. After all, a fondness for Arby's Melts is not a recipe for thinness. But one ex-Seventh Circuit clerk we contacted disagreed:

Actually, Easterbrook has lost a lot of weight. I am not sure who [Posner] meant. Also query whether he used the rigorous BMI > 25 test.

Good point. Did Judge Posner run around the Dirksen Courthouse with a pair of body-fat calipers? Or did he just eyeball his colleagues in the robing room, to see who was sporting muffin tops?

To Seventh Circuit groupies: Which judges are packing a few extra pounds underneath their robes? Please enlighten us, in the comments. Thanks.

Social Obesity -- Posner's Comment [The Becker-Posner Blog]

Jane Ann Morrison, columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, had a column yesterday that put quite a smackdown on two-time Judge of the Day Elizabeth Halverson (see her previous honors here and here). Along with some catty renditions of some of the facts we already knew (like the fact that Judge Halverson's pre-judicial legal experience apparently consists of 9 years as a state court law clerk, getting FIRED from that job, losing her first election, and then somehow winning her second), Morrison provides some of the juicy details of the hefty judge's outrageous behavior that led to her needing her own security force in the first place.

From the column:

Halverson spent nine years as a fairly lowly law clerk. (I always assumed the 425-pound woman, according to her driver's license, stayed as long as she could for the county's health insurance coverage.)

Zing!

After she was fired, she ran for one judgeship, lost, but in 2006 won on her second try.

Before long, stories started coming out of the Regional Justice Center about her contemptuous behavior toward her staff, particularly her bailiff, Johnny Jordan. Halverson, who had never had real power, was relishing it, throwing a pencil on the floor and ordering him to pick it up. Jordan was ordered to give her foot rubs and back massages. He has since filed a complaint against his former boss alleging discrimination based on sex and race. He is black and says she treated him like a "house boy."

Yikes.

Apparently the other judges in the courthouse felt the need for a judicial intervention with Halverson:

Court officials realized they were going to be slapped with multiple lawsuits alleging hostile work environment if no action was taken. Three judges were asked to help Halverson, Family Court Judge Art Ritchie and District Judges Stewart Bell and Sally Loehrer.

A memo details an April 6 meeting between Halverson and the three judges:

• She's told it's inappropriate to have staff rub her feet or her back. Her answer: She'd told the bailiff to stop that, that he'd become too familiar with her.

• She's told she should not require staff to show up at 6:45 a.m. to wait for her arrival at 8 or 8:30 a.m. Her answer: She'd told the bailiff not to come early, but he wouldn't listen.

• She's told she should not have staff make her lunch. Answer: The bailiff wants to make her lunch.

• She's told there are 20-25 orders missing. Answer: She's shocked.

• She's told it's unethical to make statements showing bias against attorneys, particularly those who didn't give to her campaign. Answer: Yes, she said it, but since nobody gave her money for her campaign, she's not discriminating against anyone.

• She's told the demeaning way she talks to her husband, Ed, referring to him as a "bitch" (and worse), is offensive to staff. Answer: She doesn't know why that would upset the staff, but the solution is to have him not come to her chambers.

• Told she should treat people with dignity and respect, Halverson said she didn't know specifically what she was doing wrong.

After she answered every allegation made against her, Judge Bell told her, "If you can't see it, you can't fix it. Get some psychological help."

On April 12, the three judges tried to meet with Halverson again at 4:30 p.m. She was in a civil nonjury trial. The three judges waited until 6 p.m. before leaving. Later, the judges said they confirmed her trial was over, but she waited in the courtroom until she confirmed they had departed. The judges said Halverson will "falsely" claim she was in trial. Essentially, the judges called her a liar.

We also have it on good authority that she told her doctor she was just "big-boned."

But despite all of this, Las Vegas voters will have to wait 18 more months to get rid of the behemoth they so nonchalantly voted into office. That is unless a complaint is filed with the Judicial Discipline Commission; the article says that investigators are working on putting one together.

Oh yeah, did we mention that she's huge?

It's time for a quick update on Judge Elizabeth Halverson. As you may recall, Judge Halverson -- a Nevada state court judge, with her chambers in Las Vegas -- was recently named our Judge of the Day. She achieved this honor after being banned from the courthouse by the chief judge.

Anyway, we're pleased to report the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson is now back at work. Congratulations, Your Honor!

Also, she is still really large.

P.S. Speaking of Las Vegas, we're going to be out there over Memorial Day weekend, to attend the wedding of a friend (no, not Britney).

If you'll be in Vegas at the same time, and would be interested in shooting craps grabbing drinks with us, please drop us a line. If there's enough interest, maybe we'll hold another ATL happy hour, or office hours. Thanks.

Halverson returns to court [Las Vegas Review-Journal]

Earlier: Judges of the Day: Elizabeth Halverson and Fred Axley

State court judges are like bratty kids, or pets that aren't housebroken. You can't take them anywhere.

Because they've probably already been banned from where you were planning to take them. Even if the place in question is the courthouse.

Consider the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson (at right). From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

The District Court chief judge on Thursday banned District Judge Elizabeth Halverson from the county courthouse.

In an administrative order, Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle said Halverson jeopardized security at the courthouse this week by bringing her own two bodyguards into the courthouse and allowing them to bypass security checks.

As for why Judge Halverson needs two (2) bodyguards -- and no, we won't make the obvious joke -- there's quite a backstory, full of juicy judicial infighting. You can read all about it here.

And Judge Halverson isn't the only state judge getting banned from public places these days. Meet the Honorable Fred Axley.

From the Legal Reader:

A Memphis judge is banned from a Florida resort. He is accused of sexually harassing an employee. Eyewitness News Everywhere uncovered this is not the first time Criminal Court Judge Fred Axley has been accused of sexual harassment....

Now he has been banned from a resort in Destin, FL, after an employee there says he sexually harassed her last week....

When we called the resort, an employee who asked not to be named, told us Axley had propositioned a massage therapist there for oral sex.

We commend the resort employee for having the courage to turn down the judge (and report him). Because saying "no" to a judge isn't easy -- even if the request involves sucking his gavel.

You can read more about Judge Axley's history of alleged harassment, including incidents that led his law clerks to file lawsuits, by clicking here.

Judge Halverson banned from courthouse [Las Vegas Review-Journal]
Memphis Judge Banned From Florida Resort For Harassment [Legal Reader]

* Michael Moore being investigated by DOT for possible violation of Cuba embargo while filming new movie "Sicko." [MSNBC]

* Purdue Pharma and former execs guilty of misleading consumers on OxyContin addiction risks. [MSNBC]

* Lawsuit focuses on Planned Parenthood and duty to warn. [AP]

* McNair arrested in DUI despite not driving. [SI.com]

* No charges for police officer and wife who made "special" brownies. [MSNBC]

* It's prom season, when schools discriminate against singles (and misguided girls hope that a "prom baby" will save them from the trials and tribulations of college). [Boston.com]

* Decent folks (and despite all my hating, that's most of us) have a visceral reaction to hate crimes -- but out on the horizon also loom 1984 and Minority Report. [Agoraphilia]

* To my knowledge, Mr. Chow has never been a Biglaw partner. [Yahoo! News]

* That is 750 years of bitch servitude. [TwinCities.com]

* At least the plaintiff spared the Mets from an additional lawsuit by cushioning the fall of the 300 lb. man and has not defected to the Yankees, although the latter probably turns on the outcome of the lawsuit. [Sports Illustrated]

* The point of this fluff piece feature is that Ferraris are not always penis substitutes. [Legal Times]

* Is there actually a rental market (Netbux?) for books-on-tape? [Patry Copyright Blog]

* New York fashion week starts soon, and I will yet again be reminded that as a woman living in the cultural capital of the world (arguably), I will never amount to anything because I am not 6 feet tall and 105 pounds. So would I really care if they keeled over and died? [Access Hollywood]

* She also claimed to have coined, “I’m listening.” [New York Law Journal]

* Must-see TV, PBS-style. Those of you who know me also know I only discovered PBS when I got to college. And then, I just didn’t care. (Nah, just being obnoxious -- I’ll occasionally watch a well-intentioned documentary or a live concert by some 60s band). [Legal Blog Watch]

* Defense should probably open with a clip of The Birds. [Los Angeles Times]

Some people, like the Overlawyered crew, can't stop bitching about our ridiculously litigious society. They complain that here in the United States, people sue at the drop of a hat, for the most stupid or frivolous of reasons.

But there may be an upside to our culture of litigation. From the AFP:

The leading association of US fashion designers said it would issue guidelines this week on the issue of skinny models. The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) will issue its findings to designers, modeling agencies and production companies by the end of the week ahead of castings for fashion week, which begins on February 2....

The former president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, Stan Herman, last year ruled out a ban on skinny models in New York, saying such rules would expose the organizers to possible legal action.

"It would be the same as banning somebody who's too fat," he told AFP in September. "Those people could sue... I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole."

Indeed. And who'd want to be on the receiving end of such a class action, filed on behalf of every runway model with a sub-18 BMI? If liability is established, damages could be astronomical. As Linda Evangelista famously quipped, those girls "don't wake up for less than $10,000 a day."

So when Anna Wintour says her bedtime prayers tonight, she should thank God for the trial lawyers. They're the only ones standing between her and a bevy of big-boned beauties.

Update: And models aren't afraid of going to court to vindicate their rights. Check out this lawsuit, the subject of a recent Second Circuit ruling.

Doctors Fault Designers’ Stance Over Thin Models [New York Times]
New York fashion group to issue guidelines on skinny models [AFP]
NYC Fashion Week to Ban Twig Girls? [Gawker]

We're glad to see that kids today have their priorities straight:

Children under 10 think being a celebrity is the "very best thing in the world" but do not think quite as much of God, a survey has revealed.

The poll of just under 1,500 youngsters ranked "God" as their tenth favourite thing in the world, with celebrity, "good looks" and being rich at one, two and three respectively.

Ah, the wisdom of babes. We're glad to see they agree with us: "There is nothing more important than fame."

This finding amused us:

"[K]illing" and "wars" head the list of the "very worst things in the world", followed by drunks, bullies, illness, smoking, stealing, divorce and being fat. Dying is in tenth place.

Nice to know that the world's youth have such healthy attitudes towards issues of weight and body image. They apparently subscribe to this adage: "Better dead than well-fed."

Being a celebrity is the 'best thing in the world' say children [Daily Mail via Drudge Report]

Earlier: An Open Letter to the Empress of Palo Alto

* Pity the petty, Tommy Bahama-wearing victims of the defectively long and narrow armrests of Metro-North commuter trains. [New York Times]

* Dr. Daniel goes to prison after lubing up the Beverly Hills ladies… in a bad way. [Los Angeles Times]

* Small firms are great and all, but can they afford the luxury of a Holiday Extravaganza in the cafeteria? [Build a Solo Practice, LLC]

* A crime against the Christmas spirit? No, just a mom charging her kid with petty larceny. [The Smoking Gun via CrimLaw]

* Remember that ninth-grade health ed presentation on the dangers of smoking, with the gross photos of cancerous lungs? That is when the statute of limitations should start running. (The SOL in trans-fat cases, because it’s only a matter of days now, should run the day you realize you can’t see your penis anymore.) [Point of Law]