If you're interested in the intersection of law and politics, and we know many of you are, you'll enjoy this story. Here's how it starts:

Of all the angles played by Washington law firms, few can bring as much joy as having clients who aren’t playing with their own money.

Take the battle between two congressmen, John Boehner of Ohio and Jim McDermott of Washington: In a near-decadelong fight over McDermott’s leak of the contents of privileged and illegally taped conversations involving Boehner, the two ran up legal bills of about $1.6 million.

So who ended up covering that seven-figure legal bill? Find out, after the jump.

Earlier in the week, this email went out to all the lawyers in the Restructuring Group at Kirkland & Ellis, from the head of the group:

04/01/2008 10:58 AM
To: #FW Restructuring Attorneys
Subject: Upcoming Dress Code Program

As part of our KIRT [Kirkland Institute of Restructuring Training] programs, I am pleased to announce a "dress for success" program, which will be held on each Monday for one hour for the next four weeks. I have arranged for outside speakers from a number of prominent men's and women's fine clothing stores to lead the programs. In light of the number of button down shirts being worn with suits and the number of associates (mostly, male) wearing boring and mismatched ties and shiny suits, the program is highly needed. Attendance for the program is strongly encouraged.

We've seen how bankruptcy lawyers dress. This is a wise idea. Just don't bring in the Cleary Anti-Afro Lady.

Also -- was the reference to the sartorial dubiousness of wearing button-down shirts with suits a shout-out to ATL? See here.

More after the jump.

We received 1,036 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on where you'd most want to work, which, in turn, was based on your nominations last month.

Here's how it turned out:

Survey Results: Which Firm Would You Most Want To Work For?

Overall, Latham & Watkins dominated the field, pulling in almost one fifth of all votes. Latham was the most popular choice among voters in L.A., the Bay Area, and Washington, DC, and was particularly favored by tax lawyers and litigators.

Runner-up Wachtell was actually the top choice of respondents in New York, narrowly besting Davis Polk and Latham. It was also, by far, the most popular pick among M&A lawyers, with roughly 30% of their vote.

Kirkland placed third overall, but was the top choice of Chicago respondents and patent lawyers, with almost twice as many votes as the next most popular firm in Chicago (Latham) and almost as many patent votes as the next two firms combined (Latham and Quinn).

Williams & Connolly, Ropes & Gray, and Davis Polk tied for fourth, with Ropes & Gray dominating the Boston vote, Williams & Connolly pwning DC (and gaining the second highest vote from litigators after Latham), and Davis Polk rocking the investment management scene (with Ropes & Gray running second best in that field).

Paul Hastings was the clear winner among labor & employment attorneys, winning almost 70% of the vote, and was also the most popular choice among real estate attorneys and lawyers in Atlanta.

On the Magic Circle front, Linklaters proved more popular than Allen & Overy, and was actually the most popular choice among securities lawyers. Allen & Overy was the most popular choice among structured finance attorneys.

This month's ATL / Lateral Link survey, focused on which firm you would choose if you could go anywhere, was dominated by Latham & Watkins and Wachtell Lipton. But several firms were close behind.

  * Respondents had several reasons to applaud Latham: "Prestige", "Friends there are happy", "Awesome firm, awesome people", "They rock", "Prestige, substantive work, great litigation practice", and "Top notch clients and matters; kick ass bonuses; selective hiring in a good way (need good grades plus a good; personality); Vault top 10 without the stuffiness of originating on the east coast; good growth but no risk of Brobecking (great management + tons of funds).....should I go on?" Or, as one respondent summed it up: "ass kickers."

  * At Wachtell, with 2007 profits per partner of $4.48 million, money played a key factor in respondents' enthusiasm for the firm: "100% bonus", "money", "it's all about the cash", "I want the compensation!", "money honey" and, of course, "CASH."

  * "Money" was also a big plus for Cravath (even though their profits per partner were a mere $3.3 million). Voters also noted "Prestige, training, can go anywhere else afterwards."

  * "Prestige" and "Exit opportunities" also won several votes for Skadden, who also had more than $2 billion in revenues last year. (Their SideBar program is pretty cool, too.)

  * "Bonuses and work" were praised at Kirkland & Ellis, as was stability: "They're well positioned for the credit crunch and M&A downturn. And the pay's better, of course."

  * Sullivan & Cromwell was also coveted for "good work, and $$$$" as well as "reputation." With profits per partner of $3.13 million, that "$$$$" is appealing at multiple levels.

  * Paul Hastings surged in popularity as respondents complemented their labor & employment practice and their compensation structures in Atlanta and Chicago.

  * In an incendiary match-up, Davis Polk was heralded as "da bomb", while Boston heavyweight Ropes & Gray was declared "the bomb."

  * Among the Magic Circle firms, Allen & Overy supporters declared "Great offices, european attitude" while Linklaters was called "the best globally, both in equity and debt."

  * Debevoise won several votes for its combination of "prestige and culture".

  * Litigators were torn between Quinn Emanuel, where "hard core litigators with a great reputation" create an atmosphere where "[p]ersonality, quirkiness, and fun seem prevalent," and Williams & Connolly, as "the best litigatio[n] shop. Period."

So of these fourteen juggernauts of practice, prestige, and sweet, sweet profits, who would you most like to work for?

Cast your vote in today's ATL / Lateral Link survey, after the jump.

Last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey asked, "If you knew then what you know today, would you still choose to join your current firm?"

We received 540 responses, and, overall 68% of you said yes. But the gruntlement (i.e., satisfaction) varied quite a bit from market to market:

  • Atlanta - 50%
  • Boston - 74%
  • Bay Area - 79%
  • Chicago - 70%
  • Dallas - 80%
  • Houston - 82%
  • Los Angeles - 71%
  • New York - 71%
  • Philadelphia - 75%
  • Washington, DC - 68%

Apparently, "everything is bigger in Texas" includes job satisfaction, and the Bay Area is close behind, followed by Philadelphia. Meanwhile, firms in Boston have managed to produce slightly happier associates than firms in New York, notwithstanding the city's often lamented bagels and challenging pizza scene -- a challenge Chicago offices, hampered by quiche deep dish pizza, have been unable to surmount. Washington, DC lags a bit behind, and Atlanta clearly needs a hug.

Associates at a few firms were particularly likely to say they'd make the same choice today. Find out which firms have especially happy campers, after the jump.

Here's news of an interesting, high-profile move. Our source offers this preface:

"[A] number of the younger lawyers at K&E tend to be moderate to liberal and have donated a great deal to Obama. Yet K&E seems to be a popular destination for right-wingers nonetheless."

(Well, that depends on the office. There are lots of moderate to liberal young lawyers in K&E's New York and Chicago offices. But in the more politically charged Washington office, conservatives dominate the junior ranks as well.)

Oh yes, the move. As reported by James Oliphant -- former editor in chief of the Legal Times, who not too long ago went back to reporting, for the Chicago Tribune -- in the Tribune's D.C. blog, The Swamp:

John Bolton, the outspoken former Bush administration official and UN ambassador, is joining Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis as a senior adviser.

Bolton worked as a senior arms-control policymaker in the State Department and became known for his hawk-like views toward Iraq, Iran and North Korea and a belligerant personal style. His nomination as United Nations ambassador in 2005 became a highly charged affair, largely because Bolton had expressed tremendous antipathy toward the U.N.

He was once quoted as saying that "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Ultimately, he was never confirmed as U.N. ambassador but made a recess appointment by President Bush and again drew criticism for an abrasive manner while in New York.

Interestingly enough, John Bolton was friends during law school with Clarence Thomas, who would also become a target of the left in the years to come. At last year's book party for Justice Thomas's memoir, My Grandfather's Son, Bolton and Thomas were overheard commiserating over how doing audio versions of their books made them hoarse.

John Bolton joins Chicago-based firm [The Swamp / Chicago Tribune]

Here's some interesting follow-up to yesterday's post about the new mandatory arbitration policy that Kirkland & Ellis has imposed upon its associates. From Karen Donovan, over at Portfolio.com:

There have been many stories about how the big law firms coddle associates with lush perks and big bonuses. Now there is some tough love. Kirkland & Ellis has sent a memo to its associates informing that should there be a dispute with their employer that cannot be resolved internally, they will have to go arbitration, rather than court.

The new policy, first reported by David Lat of the AboveTheLaw.com blog, asks employees to hit the "acknowledge" tab on this e-mail by March 3.

If you're a K&E associate hoping to escape the clutches of the new policy, good luck (unless you're in California):

"Continued employment in most states is adequate compensation for an arbitration procedure," says Michael Casey III, a Miami partner with Epstein Becker & Green, a law firm that specializes in employment and labor issues. Casey has advised a number of firms to put mandatory arbitration policies in to place. He says a number of big law firms have them, but he declined to name names.

There's still hope for those Kirkland associates who toil in the firm's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices. A decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a mandatory arbitration policy at O'Melveny & Myers. The Ninth Circuit has generally found "these are contracts of adhesion or unconscionable," says Gary Friedman, an employment partner with Weil, Gotshal & Manges. But Friedman says arbitration agreements are "still relative rarities" in the world of law firms.

K&E itself stayed mum on the subject: "'We don't comment about employment matters,' says Jay Lefkowitz, a New York partner on the firm's global management committee."

No Court for These Lawyers [Portfolio]

Earlier: Kirkland & Ellis: We Love Minorities! (But don't dare take us to court if you are one. Instead, please sign our mandatory arbitration policy. Thanks!)

We bring you two interesting updates on our friends at Kirkland & Ellis -- one important, and one silly.

Let's start with the trivial, and work our way up. First, from a tipster:

The balkanization of Kirkland & Ellis continues. Why should an "informal, visible network for attorneys to exchange ideas, provide support, and develop relationships" be based on race and/or sexual orientation? What's next, separate cafeterias and drinking fountains?

A recent email from The Kirkland & Ellis LLP Diversity Committee reads:

Kirkland & Ellis Diversity Networking Forums (Chicago Office)

On behalf of the Diversity Committee, I am proud to announce a new addition to our diversity programming, Diversity Networking Forums. The main purpose of the Diversity Networking Forums is to provide an informal, visible network for attorneys to exchange ideas, provide support, and develop relationships. There will be four Diversity Networking Forums:

Asian Diversity Networking Forum
Black Diversity Networking Forum
Hispanic/Latino Diversity Networking Forum
GLBT Diversity Networking Forum

The Diversity Networking Forums are open to all Chicago Kirkland attorneys. If you are interested in becoming a part of any of these forums, please email Attorney Training and Development at [xxxx] by February 8 and indicate which forums you would like to join.

Note that the forums are "open to all." We wonder if that language was added to avoid a psuedo-controversy like the one over K&E's big gay party. We also wonder why you'd join one of these networking forums if you weren't a member of the group in question. But see "fag hags" signing up for the LGBT group.

Okay, on to the second update. Perhaps in an effort to avoid an Aaron Charney debacle -- or, on a smaller scale, a Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy or a Morisseau v. DLA Piper -- K&E has enacted a mandatory employment arbitration policy, applicable to all associates. From a tipster:

Kirkland just sent a memo to all of its associates, which they had to sign, reminding them that they were at will employees, and telling them they had to agree to arbitrate any employment dispute. Apparently a response to Charney-gate.

If you're interested -- perhaps you're a labor and employment lawyer, or a Biglaw partner looking to foist such a policy on the associates at your own firm -- check out the memo, after the jump.

It's Friday afternoon, and things are kinda slow. So please forgive the randomness.

Remember Kirkland & Ellis's big gay party from last month, featuring cocktails and hors d’ouevres, but open only to LGBT lawyers? A source at our former firm writes:

Hors d'ouevres? That's nothing! At Wachtell Lipton, the gay partners (and whatever associates/summers are out and proud) go to a verrry nice dinner every year. Last year it was at Per Se.

Magnificent. We've been to Per Se -- on our own dime, not Wachtell's -- and it lives up to the hype.

So if you're summering at WLRK, say that you're gay (whether you are or not). You can always "change your mind" when you return to school in the fall; sexuality is fluid. And Per Se's salmon tartare cornets are to die for!

Earlier: Kirkland & Ellis's Big Gay Party: Discriminatory?

In last month's ATL / Lateral Link survey we asked you which holidays you worked on, or expected to work on, during 2007. About half of you reported that you had worked on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Last week, we asked you how you fared this year. Did you take the day off to honor a champion of civil rights, or did you make it a "day on"?

We received just under 1,300 responses, and 44% of you reported that you took the day off. Associates in New York, Los Angeles and Boston were most likely to celebrate the holiday, while associates in Chicago, Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Texas were most likely to be working. (Respondents in the Bay Area were also most likely to work over Christmas and New Year's. Is it time for them to get New York bonuses?)

How did it break down on a firm by firm basis? DLA Piper, Milbank, Sidley & Austin, Dechert, Hunton & Williams, Jones Day, Latham, Mayer Brown, McDermott, Hughes Hubbard, McGuire Woods, Morgan Lewis, Nixon Peabody, Paul Hastings, and Sullivan & Cromwell each had multiple happy associates who reported that they had taken the day off. Kirkland & Ellis, Baker Botts, Dewey & LeBoeuf, O'Melveny & Myers, Weil, and Winston & Strawn each had mixed responses. Associates at Skadden, however, uniformly reported that they had worked the holiday, as Martin Luther King Jr. day is a "floating" holiday for the firm.

Of those who spent the day at the office, about 54% reported that they weren't actually asked to work the holiday, but had things they needed to get done. About a quarter reported that their offices were open. Another quarter said that partners told them to work on the holiday. About 8% were asked to work by clients. A surprising number of respondents wrote in that other associates had told them to work on the holiday.

A little over a third of respondents who worked on the holiday thought that the work did not justify the sacrifice.

Why was Cinderella stuck in the office doing document review, while her wicked stepsisters nibbled on caviar and danced the night away?

Maybe Cinderella worked at Kirkland & Ellis, and her sisters were of the Sapphic persuasion. From a K&E tipster:

The Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis hosted a "GLBT only" party last night. The email invitation is below.

It's illegal under Illinois law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace. But they shouldn't be expected to know that as attorneys, should they?

Here's the invite:

The GLBT Subcommittee of the Firmwide Diversity Committee cordially invites All Chicago Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) Attorneys and Staff to a Winter Cocktail and Hors d’Ouevres Reception Today, Thursday, January 17, 2008 Sidebar Grille.

221 N. LaSalle
Chicago
5:00 P.M. — 7:00 P.M.

Truth be told, we aren't deeply troubled. Regardless of their technical status under the law, events for lawyers who share common interests happen all the time.

So lighten up, Mr. Tipster! You probably wouldn't have liked the music anyway -- or, for that matter, being ogled by those twinks from IT. And you definitely wouldn't have appreciated being hit upon by that bear from Duplicating.

As a certain ATL commenter might say, "Guys in my high school used to throw special gay parties all the time. They called it Drama Club. It was no big deal."

P.S. A more serious issue is presented by K&E's summer associate diversity fellowship, previously discussed by Professor David Bernstein over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Diversity Fellowship Program [Kirkland & Ellis]
Illegal Fellowship at Kirkland & Ellis? [Volokh Conspiracy]

Information is now trickling in about bonuses at Kirkland & Ellis. Last week we had heard -- through the grapevine, from a social acquaintance of a K&E share partner -- that they would be good. It appears that the scuttlebutt was correct.

A K&E source in Chicago, class of 2006, reports hours of 2050 and a bonus of $45,000. That would be market in New York ($35K year-end + $10K special). But in Chicago, it's definitely above market.

A K&E source in New York advises as follows about New York bonus levels:

Overall bonuses were well over market. Exact numbers are hard to give... but about 60% were over market, with the rest mostly being with the market.

Out of the first years (class of 2006), 21 out of 36 people were above the market. After that, the ratio really increased as to the number of people who beat the market.

Congratulations, Kirkland associates, on your bountiful bonuses!

If you work at K&E, feel free to provide your bonus info in the comments. When it comes to bonus data points, the more the merrier. Thanks.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: A Pre-Announcement from Kirkland & Ellis

For associates in the New York office of Kirkland & Ellis, this Wednesday is when they'll learn their financial fate:

From: Jonathan Putnam
To: New York Associates
Cc: John Desmarais, John Kuehn, Michael Movsovich, Maria Davalos
Sent: December 17, 2007
Subject: Associate Bonus Meeting

As in past years, John Desmarais will give a short presentation this week to explain our associate bonus methodology. The meeting will take place on Wednesday, Dec. 19, at 4 pm in Conference Room 50G-H. The bonuses will be paid before the end of the month.

When it comes to bonuses, K&E does things a bit differently. Associate bonuses are not lockstep but individualized, based on (1) your rank relative to your peers and (2) your hours.

Historically the Kirkland bonuses have been quite generous. Even for average K&E associates, as opposed to top performers, they're typically well above-market -- some of the highest in all of Biglaw (even if not at Wachtell levels).

But in light of this year's "special" bonuses, how will the K&E bonuses stack up to the top tier New York firms? Check back later in the week to find out.

If Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell ever gets turned into a movie, there will be a little epilogue at the end, to inform viewers of the fates of the dramatis personae. Here is our version of it.

Aaron Charney is believed to be happy, spending time with friends, and presumably enjoying those settlement proceeds. No word yet on his future employer (assuming he returns to the work force). Meanwhile, his erstwhile nemesis, partner Eric Krautheimer, passed the California bar and moved out to Los Angeles. He still works for S&C, but now gets to lead more of his own deals.

And what about Gera Grinberg, the former S&C associate who would have been a key witness in the case, who was joined at the hip -- professionally, but not personally -- with Aaron Charney? We've learned two pieces of good news about him:

First, he has landed himself a new job. We understand that he is now the general counsel to a small real estate development company.

Second, on the personal front, here's some news that will put to rest any and all the rumors that he might be gay. Gera Grinberg is engaged (to a woman). His fiancee is a former associate at Kirkland & Ellis in New York, now working in-house for a large hotel company.

Congratulations and best wishes to Gera Grinberg and the future Mrs. Grinberg!

P.S. We still don't know whether he has resolved any of his outstanding issues with S&C. But considering how well Grinberg's life is going right now, both professionally and personally, maybe he should just let bygones be bygones?

Apparently law firm recruiting departments are aware of this website's existence. From a tipster:

Just got an email from recruiting at Kirkland & Ellis to fill out a survey to help them improve their process. (I did not accept with K&E.) Here's one of the questions on the survey:

"4. Using the scale below, please rank the importance of each resource in your decision to interview with us: ....

Online research, i.e., abovethelaw.com; infirmation.com."

We're flattered to be included in this survey. But shouldn't that "i.e." be an "e.g."? ATL has not yet reached the point where it is synonymous with online research into law firms, to the exclusion of all other sources.

That's the question Andrew Ross Sorkin, the young star business reporter of the New York Times, tackles in his latest DealBook column. After describing the recent wave of bonus announcements, which fell into the typical pattern -- one firm led, and everyone else mechanically followed, "as if [they] had simply copied and pasted the numbers directly from Cravath’s memo" -- Ross Sorkin writes:

Lawyers are smart, but this herd mentality seems absolutely irrational, economically speaking — and not because the compensation is too high. The top law firms have been stuck in copycat mode for years. As soon as one of them raises salaries for associates, the others fall in line almost immediately.

At first glance, it makes sense in a free-market kind of way that law firms rush to match one another’s compensation packages. They have to compete for talent, especially for the annual crop of law school graduates. Indeed, if they never raised salaries or bonuses, they would probably be accused of conspiring to keep costs down.

But think about this for a moment: Is there any other business in which every competitor matches salaries and bonuses almost identically?

Good question. Nothing really comes to mind (with the exception of "highly unionized industries," already noted in the article).

More excerpts and discussion, after the jump.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Firmwide Associates

cc: Firmwide Partners

FROM: Associate & NSP Compensation Committee

DATE: November 1, 2007

RE: Year-End Bonuses

______________________________________________________________________

Several New York-based firms recently announced their 2007 bonuses. Please be aware that we intend to continue our practice of paying year-end bonuses in December. As in the past, we expect that those bonuses will be competitive in each of the markets in which we are located, and that they will continue to reflect our historical, meritocratic approach. Thank you for your continued hard work and dedication.

Judicial clerkships. Year-end bonuses. Two great tastes that go great together.

We received some inquiries about whether clerks who leave law firms to go off and clerk might receive some kind of partial or prorated year-end bonus. It struck us as a rather obscure topic, of interest to only a small group of people.

But then the subject came up repeatedly in the comments to yesterday's Debevoise bonus news. A reader pointed out that "with the end of salary match, this could be a question that could somewhat influence the choices of potential experienced clerks."

So we've decided to write about it. From a tipster:

I am a federal clerk and my co-clerk, who worked at Kirkland & Ellis in NY for a year prior to his clerkship, was recently told that he will be paid the bonus he would have received had he not left to clerk. In other words, he will receive the pro-rated amount from Jan. 2007 to Sep. 2007 (8 months worth of 35K) even though he no longer works at K&E. This payment is NOT contingent on him returning to the firm after his clerkship.

This strikes us as highly unusual -- and quite generous on Kirkland's part. We don't know about the mechanics or the exact timing of this payment, but we'd suggest to the lucky clerk that he talk to his judge to make sure this doesn't raise any issues.

A little more, after the jump.

Some sources at Kirkland & Ellis have been upset by our recent coverage of layoff rumors. These rumors were focused on K&E's office in Chicago, but New York was also implicated.

As we've repeatedly noted, these rumors are just that -- rumors. We were reporting more on the existence of the rumors, as opposed to offering them for their truth value.

But let's say the rumors are true, and K&E has adopted more rigorous associate review standards this year, in light of growing economic uncertainty. Would that be such a bad thing? Consider this
comment:

Kirkland & Ellis is one of the nation's preeminent and most profitable law firms. So it appears they have a sound strategic business sense and are watching the bottom line. What is wrong with that? Don't a lot of us aspire to work for a preeminent, highly profitable firm?

A law firm feels economic cycles. I'd much prefer to work for a firm that aggressively manages staffing levels as opposed to letting underproductive people [stay on indefinitely].

Recall that K&E's bonuses have historically been well above market. If K&E is trimming some fat, so it can once again pay generous bonuses to the associates who DO meet its standards, what's wrong with that?

Remember, too, that K&E, unlike most other Biglaw shops, doesn't pay lockstep bonuses. Bonuses at Kirkland are highly individualized. In this sense, could K&E be the law firm of the future? Evaluate associates according to their individual merits, richly reward the superstars, and dump the underperformers? Might this be a better business model than the traditional "treat unequal associates equally" model of Biglaw?

Nevertheless, some Kirkland lawyers resist even this favorable characterization of the firm. They claim that K&E's associate review process was conducted exactly as it has been in past years -- that it was simply "business as usual," and the same standards were applied this year as in prior years.

It's only fair to give equal time to their views. Check out their rebuttals, after the jump.

There seems to be a lot of hostility towards our coverage of layoff rumors. That's fine -- go ahead, shoot the messenger. But don't say that we didn't warn you. It would be irresponsible to write about "NY to 190" rumors while ignoring similarly reliable (or unreliable) layoff rumors.

Also, rumors -- even when untrue -- can be revealing. The very existence of a rumor reflects the state of the market and sheds light on the psyches of the participants. The fact that pay raise gossip has been supplanted by layoff gossip is telling.

We received many interesting responses to our recent post about layoff rumors at Kirkland & Ellis. Like this one, from someone at K&E (and not one of The Departed, so without an ax to grind):

Surprised it took you so long to pick up the layoff rumors, though I guess K&E has done a reasonably good job of keeping them quiet, even to its own associates.

(1) Associate reviews were just completed.

(2) 6-8 mid-level associates [in Chicago] have recently and abruptly left the firm. Rumor is that they were canned. I know two of them personally, and neither of them had ever indicated a desire to leave.

(3) As for causes, I initially heard that extraordinarily low hours were to blame. Other sources suggest that performance was an issue.

(4) At least one of the layoffs really has people baffled: good hard worker who appeared to put in reasonable hours.... [T]he response in the Chicago office appears to be a bit bewildered, especially with respect to the one associate who seemed to be very well-regarded.

More information, compiled from multiple Kirkland sources in different offices, appears after the jump.