For LEWW, one of the best things about spring is the return of a reliable stream of lawyer-lawyer couples to the NYT wedding pages. Soon we'll even be seeing SCOTUS clerks! This week five out of our six newlyweds sports a JD. Here they are:

1.) Michelle Lieberman and Daniel Lubetzky

2.) Michelle Davidowitz and Jed Schwartz

3.) Jessica Zeldin and Johnston Whitman Jr.

More about our finalists, after the jump.

The holiday season is shaping up to be a cheery one for associates at Fulbright & Jaworski. And not just due to perks like on-site tailoring and automated electronic defibrillators.

They're also getting more cash stuffed in their stockings. The firm just announced a new associate salary and bonus structure for 2008, in its offices in Washington (DC) and Texas.

More details, after the jump.

Guess what's at the top of the New York Times Most Emailed Articles list today? A piece entitled For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle, by Lynnley Browning.

We're pleasantly surprised that an article about law firm perks, a niche topic that we cover obsessively around here, is so popular with readers of a general-interest publication. Or is it just that lawyers are the only poor saps at work today?

Among the more notable perks mentioned in the article:

1. Milkshakes and candied apples -- yum! (Perkins Coie) [FN1]
2. Mortgage guarantees for the first $100,000 of associate mortgages (Sullivan & Cromwell)
3. Reimbursements for associates who buy a hybrid car or a certain brand of car (DLA Piper; Fulbright & Jaworski)
4. On-site yoga classes (O’Melveny & Myers)

It's an interesting article; read the whole thing here. There's additional commentary on the piece over at the WSJ Law Blog, by Jamie Heller (filling in for Peter Lattman, who is on his honeymoon).

P.S. Looks like an NYT correction may be in order, due to a slip-up concerning the amount of year-end bonuses:

The perks come on top of higher salaries and larger bonuses — this year, the top-offs have been doubled at some practices. At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to their year-end bonuses up to $35,000.

Our suggested rewording: "At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, some associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to year-end bonuses up to $60,000." (The word "some" is needed before the word "associates," because class of 2007 or "stub year" associates don't get special bonuses.)

[FN1] The Perkins Coie milkshakes come from Potbelly Sandwich Works. Coincidentally, we enjoyed a PSW milkshake for the first time on Wednesday. It was Oreo, and it was delicious!

Update: One of you sent us this great comment, by email:

I thought the most poignant perk was Fried Frank's: they offer psychotherapy (through what sounds suspiciously like a bulk discount deal) to help associates deal with stress, anxiety, depression, and divorce. I love it!

I can imagine the therapist's notes: "Patient distressed re: possibility of negative performance review. Says he has not seen wife or child since, "let's see ... when was that holiday with the fireworks?" Is in constant pain from chronic papercuts and verbal caning associated with ongoing case. Patient noted gratefully that firm is paying for therapy. Possible diagnoses: Stockholm syndrome?"

For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle [New York Times]
Law Job Perks v. Law Job Woes [WSJ Law Blog]

Perhaps taking a page from ATL's Biglaw Perk Watch, the Texas Lawyer recently published a survey of the perks offered to associates at some of the state's biggest law firms. It's not available online, sadly, but a tipster sums it up:

Most are either trivial or to be expected, but the one that stands out it the "automated electronic defibrillator" offered by Fulbright & Jaworski.

Aren’t they essentially saying to new associates, "We anticipate that you may be afflicted with cardiac arrest while working here"? Why on earth would this be touted as a "perk"?!

Indeed. Even if you do have defibrillators on the premises, which most large organizations probably should have, it seems odd to boast about them. It's like telling your recruits that you offer fire extinguishers -- nice to know, but not exactly a "perk."

You can check out the full list of Fulbright perks after the jump.

Yesterday we posted an open thread on law firms that screw over no-offer lots of their summer associates. This post is about the flip-side: firms that dole out summer associate bonuses.

This topic has been raised by two tipsters, in two different contexts. First, this tipster reports on two firms that pay bonuses to summer associates, regardless of whether you previously summered with them:

I'm just starting to get offers, as callbacks are rolling along. I have offers from Baker Botts and Fulbright & Jaworski, both in Dallas -- and both are offering a week's pay ($3077 and $2700, respectively) as a bonus! Baker pays out on the start date, and Fulbright pays if you spend the first half with them.

And from a second source, news of bonuses paid to 1L summers who return to the same firm:

I received an offer to come back for a second summer at Foley & Lardner... with a catch: If I come back for the whole summer, and do not split or spend time anywhere else, I receive a $5,000 bonus. The bonus pays out when I accept this fall, not next summer. I have no idea if all the offices do this, but I should add that I am not at all in a major market.

Interesting. Are you aware of other firms that either (1) pay bonuses to summer associates or (2) pay bonuses to 1L summer associates who return for a second summer (and don't split)? Please discuss, in the comments. Thanks.

Earlier: Fall Recruiting Open Thread: No-Offer Factories

Law firm mergers have transformed the Biglaw landscape over the past decade. Several of the five firms in our latest open thread on Vault 100 firms have been involved in merger mania.

Here are the firms to talk about this morning:

56. Fish & Richardson P.C. (5.868)
57. Fulbright & Jaworski LLP (5.863)
58. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (5.825)
59. Goodwin Procter LLP (5.807)
60. Cooley Godward LLP (5.794)

Pillsbury Winthrop is the product of Pillsbury Madison & Sutro (San Francisco), Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts (New York), and Shaw Pittman (Washington). Goodwin Procter swallowed up Shea & Gardner, just as Cooley gobbled up Kronish Lieb.

Please exchange information and opinion about these five firms in the comments. Thanks.

The Vault Top 100 Law Firms [Vault]

Earlier: Vault 1-5; Vault 6-10; Vault 11-15; Vault 16-20; Vault 21-25; Vault 26-30; Vault 31-35; Vault 36-40; Vault 41-45; Vault 46-50; Vault 51-55

The executive committee of Fulbright & Jaworski just took this action with respect to associate compensation in Texas:

"After due consideration of all relevant data and after listening to our clients, our partners, and our associates on the issue at hand, the Firm has determined that we will raise base compensation for associates in Texas offices in the classes of 2006 and 2007 to $160,000 per annum, effective today, August 1, 2007."

"The Firm has commenced a comprehensive review of associate compensation and related recruiting and retention issues. These matters are of great importance to our partnership. We hope to complete this review by mid-autumn."

Our tipster's take:

"So F&J has punted even more than other Texas firms, only raising first years, probably because they already announced $165K for second years in DC with the deferred comp model."

Earlier: Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: Fulbright & Jaworski (D.C.)

No, we haven't heard anything about Fulbright & Jaworski raising associate salaries in Texas. If you hear anything, please email us.

But how about D.C.? That we can help with. From a tipster in Fulbright's Washington office:

Fulbright has raised. There's still no memo available, and no one expects one, as the numbers were announced orally at a meeting last Friday. I'm an F&J associate... and was at the meeting.

So no memo. But we do have the firm's schedule of base salaries and bonuses, payable at different hours levels (up to 2500 hours -- yikes).

You can check it all out -- it's a pretty elaborate scale, we'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it -- after the jump.

The LIST OF SHAME is shrinking, albeit slowly.

We were down to eight firms as of last Friday morning. Then we learned about Baker Hostetler matching market. And today we get this associate pay raise news (from a verified source at the firm):

You can remove Fulbright & Jaworski from the List of Shame. We raised associate base salaries in the New York office to market today (retroactive to January 1, 2007). There was a meeting of all the associates so there is no memo or voicemail.

This leaves us with the following (ranked by Vault 100 numbers on the left, 'cause that's how the list started out, but with AmLaw 100 numbers supplied parenthetically on the right):

43. Baker & McKenzie (3)
77. Bryan Cave (56)
82. Reed Smith (33)
83. Dorsey & Whitney (68)
86. McGuireWoods (65)
100. Seyfarth Shaw (66)

If any of these firms doesn't belong, please email us, with supporting documentation (if any). Thanks.

The mini-scandal that erupted after it was reported that Fulbright & Jaworski partner uttered "the n word" during a recruiting event at Duke Law School has pretty much blown over.

Much wind was taken out of the racist sails when it came to light that the partner said the magic word while "recount[ing] a story about Leon Jaworski’s defense of an African-American man in a murder trial in Waco, Texas in the 1920s." The partner uttered the racial epithet "in an effort to display the depth of racial hostility that Jaworski and his client faced."

In case you're still interested in this story -- and we understand completely if you're not -- an account of yesterday's meeting, between Fulbright & Jaworski lawyers and law students at Duke, appears after jump.

When we first posted about a Fulbright & Jaworski partner using "the n word" in a recruiting event at Duke Law School, we left open this possibility:

[U]nless the story was about, say, the partner's pro bono representation, in a civil action for damages, of a hate crime or police brutality victim who was attacked and called "the n word," it was hugely inappropriate....

We're glad we left ourselves that escape hatch. We now have more context about the incident, thanks to an email from the Fulbright & Jaworski executive committee:

Dear Colleagues:

Because you may hear about or be asked about a recent situation at a law school where attorneys participated in training interviews of students, we want to bring it to your attention. One of our lawyers recounted a story about Leon Jaworski’s defense of an African-American man in a murder trial in Waco, Texas in the 1920s. During the retelling, in an effort to display the depth of racial hostility that Jaworski and his client faced, the attorney used a racial term that characterized what the district attorney in the case said about the defendant. After review of the situation, all involved concluded that such terms, although recounted without ill intentions, are inappropriate for our firm, which values diversity and strives for inclusiveness.

We are addressing the situation, and Steve Pfeiffer and other senior partners are en route to meet with the students. One of the other attorneys who participated in the training session acted immediately when the incident was called to his attention and responded with an electronic letter of explanation and appropriate apology. Any inquiries should be directed to the firm's Hiring Partner, Gerry Lowry.

Executive Committee

Here's some further evidence suggesting that the Duke law school community may be overreacting. Per a current law student at Duke:

This partner was relating what another person said in the context of telling a story. Now everyone is piling on him. The student [who voiced the complaint] has been goaded on by some super liberal professors.

Interesting. As we've previously stated, we welcome any and all information about this incident. Thanks.

Earlier: Breaking: Fulbright & Jaworski Partner Drops the N-Bomb During A Recruiting Interview!
Stepping in Deep Duke-y: More Details, Please

This morning we wrote about the recent scandal at Duke Law School, in which a Fulbright & Jaworski partner uttered "the n word" during the course of a recruiting event. We published an email from Dean Katharine T. Bartlett to the student body about the incident.

Unfortunately, there's still so much that we don't know. To those of you with knowledge of the underlying events, here are a few things we're curious about:

1. What type of event was this -- a meeting, a one-on-one interview, etc.? Was the complaining student the only one who heard "the n word"?

2. In what context was "the n word" uttered? In other words, what exactly was the "story" that the partner was telling to the student(s)?

3. Who was the Fulbright & Jaworski partner who said this racial slur?

These are just a few representative questions. We'd love to get ANY additional information about the incident, no matter how trivial. Thanks in advance for your tips.

Update: We now have more details and context about the incident -- and it's not as bad as it initially sounded. See here.

Earlier: Breaking: Fulbright & Jaworski Partner Drops the N-Bomb During A Recruiting Interview!

The email reprinted below, from Dean Katharine T. Bartlett, just went out to everyone at Duke Law School. It was forwarded to us by a source at the school.

Yes, we know: the partner who pulled a Michael Richards used "the n word" in the context of telling a story, in which the racial epithet was uttered by a character in the story. He didn't use "the n word" to refer to any student or interviewee.

We don't know the nature of the story being told by the partner. But unless the story was about, say, the partner's pro bono representation, in a civil action for damages, of a hate crime or police brutality victim who was attacked and called "the n word," it was hugely inappropriate for the partner to use a racial slur in this context (or, for that matter, any other context).

>>> Kate BARTLETT / 11:21 AM >>>

To The Duke Law School Community:

The purpose of this letter is to address a recent incident of concern arising out of a law firm recruitment visit to Duke. A Duke student reported that a partner from Fulbright & Jaworski who was meeting students on campus told a story in which "the n word" was attributed to one of the characters in the story. Understandably, the use of the word offended the student.

Upon learning about this episode, pursuant to the Law School's Anti-discrimination Policy, http://www.law.duke.edu/career/pdf/discriminationcomplaintform.pdf, the Career Center staff immediately asked the student if they could approach the employer to investigate the incident. The student agreed, and Tia Barnes called the recruiting manager to say that this was a serious situation that needed to be promptly addressed.

The hiring partner called back within minutes, clearly upset at the behavior of his partner. Shortly thereafter he reported back that he raised the issue to the highest levels of the firm, that the firm was taking internal measures dealing with the individual involved, and that the offending lawyer will not be permitted to return to Duke to meet with students.

The offending lawyer admitted his use of the word in question and reportedly recognizes that it was wrong to do so. The firm also sent an official apology to the student through us, as the student wished to remain anonymous.

As part of its remediation efforts, a partner at the law firm has asked to come to Duke to meet with students to describe the incident, to apologize to the community publicly, and to explain the measures that the firm has taken. Bruce Elvin has arranged for this meeting to take place tomorrow, February 22, at 4:30, in Room 3041.

This situation is ongoing, but to help the community better understand what has occurred thus far in the face of stories circulating on the grapevine, we asked for the student's permission to describe what happened and to write this letter, and the student agreed. As is understandably often the case, the student still wishes to remain anonymous, and we have done our best to respect that wish, particularly given the importance of ensuring that our follow-up to incidents of this sort encourages students in the future to come forward to report such incidents, and does not discourage them from doing so.

This incident creates an opportunity to restate that the law school does not tolerate offensive or discriminatory conduct behavior by employers, whether occurring during interviews, mock interviews or summer employment. Pursuant to our policy, complaints of such behavior are investigated and we evaluate the response by employers to determine if their remedial action in response to the behavior is adequate. If you experience such behavior, please let us know either in person or by using the complaint form referenced above.

I appreciate the strong feelings this incident has raised and seek to work with the community as an ongoing matter to facilitate communication about how to make our climate here free from discrimination in the career services context and in all other dimensions of our Law School.

Katharine T. Bartlett
Dean and A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law Duke University School of Law

Update: We now have more details and context about the incident -- and it's not as bad as it initially sounded. Details here.