The University of Virginia Law School, and legal academia more generally, have been rocked recently by a controversy involving a leading law professor and claims of anti-gay animus.

William N. Eskridge Jr. — currently the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale Law School, where we had great good fortune of having him as a professor — testified last month before Congress in support of the pending Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA). ENDA would prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace. In explaining the need for ENDA, Professor Eskridge made reference to his own career, testifying that “I was denied tenure at the University of Virginia School of Law in 1985 based in part on my sexual orientation.” You can, and should, read his complete testimony here (opens as a Word document).

The controversy has, of course, reverberated throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., the UVA Law Blog (including 40+ comments, many of them quite insightful); Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports (here and here); and The Faculty Lounge. The UVA Law Blog also reprints a Virginia Law Weekly article from January 1986 about the Eskridge tenure denial (which was strongly opposed by students; if you’ve been lucky enough to have Bill Eskridge as a teacher, this should not be a surprise).

We reached out to both Professor Eskridge and UVA Law School. We received written statements from Professor Eskridge and from Dean Paul G. Mahoney.

Their statements, plus a comprehensive collection of links, appear below.

Here at Above the Law, we’ve reviewed a lot of employment discrimination complaints over the years. But this one is special.

The firm (like it matters):

Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson.

The plaintiff:

Jennifer Braude.

Why you care:

Do I have your attention? Click after the jump for more details, plus Maron Marvel’s response.

The law firm of Littler Mendelson is embroiled in a pretty nasty lawsuit with a former receptionist. The Washington Business Journal reported on the suit brought by the former Littler Mendelson receptionist, Rebecca Landrith:

According to the July 27 lawsuit the receptionist filed — on her own behalf — against her old firm, Littler provided no back-up or substitute receptionist, and “had no consistent policy or procedure as to when or how Landrith could take a restroom break.”

Apparently, the receptionist was so bereft of bathroom breaks that she — on multiple occasions — pissed herself. Literally:

On two separate occasions, Landrith claims, she had to “wet her pants” at the reception desk because nobody would, well, relieve her.

Eww. Just yuck, man. Was there a physical chain attaching her to her desk? If not, there is simply no excuse. Can you imagine walking into a place of business, and the first person you see — and smell — is a woman covered in her own urine? Did she at least have some hand sanitizer on her desk!!!??? If I wanted to deal with that kind of stuff, I’d take the subway.

So, how much does Landrith want Littler to pay for her own incontinence?

The Connecticut Employment Law Blog reports on the kind of plaintiff that gives other plaintiffs a bad name:

In the middle of trial, a plaintiff (who is claiming his employment was terminated, among other reasons, in retaliation of his exercise of FMLA rights) drops a bombshell:

“[In the prior October], I learned that I had — have stage III prostate cancer with a metastatic brain lesion.”

What kind of client just blurts out “metastatic brain lesion” in open court? What kind of counsel allows that to happen?

Not surprisingly, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The judge called a hearing, and then the idiot plaintiff had something else to say:

During the hearing, however, there’s another another unexpected development: The medical records show that the employee did not have (and never had) a metastatic brain lesion.

The plaintiff knew he didn’t have a brain lesion — though it seems self evident that something upstairs is not working properly in this guy’s head.

Is this a situation that demands more than a mistrial?

A U.K. law student won her lawsuit against Abercrombie and Fitch. The clothing behemoth had relegated her to the stockroom because her uni-armed look didn’t fit in with the company’s dress code. The BBC reports:

Riam Dean, 22, who has a prosthetic arm, claimed she was “diminished” for not fitting the “look policy” at the Savile Row store in central London.

A central London tribunal awarded Miss Dean £8,000 for unlawful harassment and ruled that Abercrombie and Fitch failed to comply with employment law.

I can’t fit into anything at Abercrombie and Fitch, but it seems to me that their employment scheme involves gentlemen and women out front whose sole purpose is to fool people into thinking clothes can replace a lifetime of exercise and proper dieting. I don’t see why this function can’t be performed by pretty people with prosthetic parts.

But the trolls in the stockroom have to lift things, right? Unless Riam Dean is some kind of bionic woman, isn’t she much more suited to the store front instead of the stockroom?

More details on Ms. Dean after the jump.

Ed. note: This post has been revised in a number of important respects after it was published. As a result, many reader comments have been superseded, because they refer to parts of the post that have been edited or deleted. Please refresh your browser to read the latest version. Thank you.

Sarah Getchell is having a rough 2009. The University of Michigan grad was a first year at Seyfarth Shaw, until being laid off in May (perhaps as part of this bunch).

She found new employment at a small labor law firm, Lichten & Liss-Riordan. But then Seyfarth used her hiring to get the new firm removed from a case — not very nice.

Earlier this week, we showed you a photo of a protest before an undisclosed law firm, then asked you to suggest captions. We now have six finalists and would like you to vote for the best of the bunch. To refresh your recollection, here’s the photo:

And here are the finalists:

A. “Laid off associates try a new strategy after their restatement section 90 claims fail.”

B. “Firms run a risk of bad publicity when they lay off both labor lawyers and the print shop staff at the same time.”

C. “So you say they underpay their staff and associates, treat all employees poorly, and offer no medical or retirement benefits whatsoever? … Are they hiring?”

D. “What do we want?”
“Jobs!”
“When do we want ‘em?”
“No earlier than January 2011, economic concerns permitting!”

E. “Shame on Firm X for only laying off 2 employees. Doesn’t it realize we’re in a recession?”

F. “In a classic labor protest rookie mistake, the former associates wasted their budget on a fancy sign and failed to reserve funds for doughnuts, resulting in awkwardly low participation.”

Earlier: ATL Caption Contest: Shame on You

It has been a long time since our last caption contest. In fact, we don’t believe we’ve done one since last year. So it’s time for a new one. The rules are the same as before:

[P]ost your caption entries in the comments. We’ll take our favorites, incorporate them into a poll, and allow you to vote for your favorite.

We present the picture below without comment or back story, so as not to limit your creativity. If you know the back story, please refrain from posting it.

We’ll tell everybody the real story behind the picture when the contest is over.

Please note that we have redacted the name of the firm in question, to prevent this thread from turning into a “Dump on Firm X” thread. So if you know the name of the firm, please don’t disclose it in the comments. When we inform you of the story behind the picture, we will inform you of the firm.

Here’s the photo. It’s a thumbnail, so feel free to click on it for a closer look.

* Michael Jackson “beat it” without paying his legal bill. [The Daily Breeze]

* Former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain testified for 2.5 hours yesterday in New York in Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office, but wouldn’t say which employees got some of the $3.6 billion bonus pie before the merger with B of A. How are we supposed to know which men to date when we get laid off? Kidding….[Bloomberg]

* More than 100 clients of a man who pretended to be an immigration lawyer got free advice from Lawyers at the New York City Bar Association. [The New York Times]

* SCOTUS had a big day yesterday, ruling on a Utah union case and a case involvingIndian reservations, and hearing arguments on environmental cleanups. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the first to ask questions. [ABA Journal]

* In Houston, a Republican on the congressional judiciary has called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, aka the groper we’ve been writing about, who is still hoping to get retirement funds from the state. [The Houston Chronicle]

* Show me the money. Lawyers, bankers, and accountants stand to make $1.2 billion in fees from GM’s bankruptcy. [Bloomberg.com]

If you live on the East Coast — or Chicago, or even the Pacific Northwest — the winter weather may have you down. The latest Job of the Week is in a city where it rarely snows: the City of Angels. And it’s in labor and employment, a practice area that’s a haven from the economic storm.

Even though law firms may be cutting their bonuses, Lateral Link still offers attorneys a $10,000 guaranteed signing bonus. In addition, Lateral Link offers progressive referral fees for all attorneys referred by Lateral Link members.

Position: Labor & Employment Associate

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Description: This boutique law firm based in LA is seeking a mid-level labor and employemnt associate. The attorney should have 4-6 years experience and be a member of the California bar. This California firm with less than 100 attorneys is known for their flexible, task-oriented approach to providing high-quality legal services. Practice areas include trial and advocacy, real estate and business law, public law, labor and employment law, environmental law and education law.

For more information about this position or to apply, please see Position 10202 on Lateral Link. Current members can also contact their personal search consultant directly to discuss this position. Membership in Lateral Link is free and you can apply at www.laterallink.com.

Three years ago, NBA member clubs and the National Basketball Players Association (“NBPA”) got together and added a rule to their collective bargaining agreement that requires all prospective NBA players to wait a full year after graduating high school before entering the league draft.

The NBA’s age / education requirement benefits just about everybody, except prospective NBA entrants and the league’s fans. Under the rule, individual club owners get to scout young players for at least one additional year before deciding who to draft. Fringe veterans avoid competing for jobs against 18-year olds with raw talent. And, even the NCAA gets to squeeze a year’s profit out of young men with no interest in otherwise attending college, such as Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, and O.J. Mayo. (It is no wonder the NCAA filed an amicus brief in support of the NFL age/education requirements in the Clarett case).

Last week, however, one prospective college freshman, Brandon Jennings — a young man from a poor family in Compton, CA — decided that rather than provide free labor to the NCAA, he would seek to sign an overseas contract with a professional basketball team based in either Israel, Italy or Spain. Jennings also expects to sign a lucrative sneaker contract with a major American company in the near future — something not allowed of college basketball players under the NCAA Principle of Amateurism.

If Jennings plays well abroad, he may be able to turn the future of the NBA’s age / education requirement on its head. If he becomes a star, the NBA runs the risk that one of the more affluent international basketball clubs may begin to sign premier American talent to long-term contracts directly out of high school — a result that may encourage some NBA owners to want to scrap the age/education requirement altogether. At the same time, Jennings makes NBPA executive director Billy Hunter look foolish, if not morally flexible, for agreeing to an age / education requirement that forces young adults like Jennings to fly over 5,000 miles just to practice their trade.

In a complete about face from his 2005 decision to accept an age/education requirement, Hunter last week told the Los Angeles Times that “I’m against [an age limit]. It’s going to be a very big issue the next time we negotiate.” Hunter’s change of heart is critical, because, without the union’s support, a court would likely find any NBA age/education requirement violates antitrust law.

As you may remember, the NBA did not have an age/education requirement from 1971 until 2005. That’s why during this period players such as Darryl Dawkins, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Rashard Lewis and Kobe Bryant entered the league draft directly from high school — an opportunity that is now denied to young players such as Jennings.

Read more, after the jump.

We reported last month on the D.C. Attorney General’s office firing 10 lawyers and a manager. As good attorneys should, the recently fired are taking the D.C. AG to court.

The original Washington Post article on the firings said the staff were being let go for performance reasons and for fiscal reasons, “to help close a $3 million deficit in the office’s fiscal 2009 budget.” The American Federation of Government Employees is filing a suit on the lawyers’ behalf, saying there were no performance issues. From the Post’s D.C. Wire:

The American Federation of Government Employees has filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court seeking an injunction to block Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles from firing eight city lawyers in his office. Lawyers for the union said the employees “received satisfactory of better performance ratings in the most recent rating period.” Nickles’ contention that the city lawyers performed poorly is a “pretext to disguise the true basis for the terminations, which is to address the budget,” the lawsuit states.

Not clear as to why only eight lawyers are involved in the suit. We don’t have any other information on the case, but we do know that “satisfactory performance” usually means “barely functioning” in government parlance.

D.C. is not alone in facing legal budget shortfalls. ABC News reports that public defenders in Kentucky, Minnesota, Florida, and Georgia have had to fire many lawyers, leaving them severely short-handed:

Statewide public defenders in Kentucky and Minnesota and local offices in cities such as Atlanta and Miami say budget cuts are forcing them to fire or furlough trial lawyers, leaving the offices unable to handle misdemeanor and, in some instances, serious felony cases.

The cuts leave states scrambling to find a solution to a constitutional dilemma: The Sixth Amendment requires the government to either provide poor defendants with lawyers or release them.

Hmmm… have you read our recent post on law school not being a golden ticket?

D.C. Attorney General Fires 11 Staff Members [Washington Post]
Facing Budget ‘Crisis,’ Public Defenders May Refuse Cases [ABC News]
ABC: Budget Cuts Causing “Crisis” in Public Defenders’ Offices [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: The D.C. AG’s Office

If you work for the government, you’ll earn a fraction of what you could make at a private law firm. But at least you have job security, right?

Not necessarily. From the Washington Post:

The D.C. attorney general’s office told 10 lawyers and a manager this week that they are being fired to help close a $3 million deficit in the office’s fiscal 2009 budget.

The cuts are also being made because of the workers’ poor performance and as part of an effort to transform the agency into what interim Attorney General Peter Nickles called a “first-rate law firm” with “strong, young, able stars.”

Our tipster quips: “[Nickles] is trying to turn the Office of Attorney General into a law firm. What better way to make government attorneys feel they are working in a law firm than by firing 11 of them? The only problem: Nickels doesn’t realize these government attorneys are in a union.”

The purge, Nickles said, is only the beginning and is part of his overhaul of the $101 million operation. Lawyers are required to wear jackets at all times, must submit reports to him each week about their casework and will soon have to clock in and out, he said.

A Biglaw environment, for government pay? Where do we sign up?

Update: As noted in the comments, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles is a former partner at Covington & Burling.

D.C. Attorney General Fires 11 Staff Members [Washington Post]

Before we issued our report on lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings, we reached out to the firm for comment. Eileen King, Global Director of Public Relations for Paul Hastings, told us that “the firm does not comment on employment law matters.”

Or something. After being subjected to waterboarding the enhanced interrogation techniques of the American Lawyer, Paul Hastings was moved to speak:

King told The Am Law Daily that while some associates have been let go, they were part of typical annual performance reviews. While she declines to say how many had been let go, King says the numbers were in line with last year’s cuts.

“There is always resulting turnover [after performance reviews], but we have not done any layoffs,” King says. “It’s really normal attrition based on performance evaluations, and the numbers show year over year that we’re up in associates. We’re a healthy firm in terms of head count and real revenue perspective, and the numbers really say the story in my mind.”

We’d be interested in seeing some actual numbers, in terms of this year’s cuts compared to last year’s cuts. It should also be noted that a firm can still lay off associates and see its headcount increase (if voluntary attrition slows, as it does during a bad economy, but new associates, from prior summer associate classes, continue to arrive).

But if PH says there have been no layoffs, then there have been no layoffs. Laying off associates? It’s just a state of mind. One firm’s “layoffs” are another firm’s “normal, performance-related attrition.”

King says the firm’s revenue and head count situation is healthy. Associate head count, she adds, is up “considerably” for the year, and the firm expects to welcome a larger summer associate class than in 2007. Revenue increased 19.9 percent in 2007, to $925 million. Profits per partner were up 19.6 percent, to $1.92 million.

A dramatic increase in PPP isn’t necessarily a rebuttal to the layoff claims. As Shinyung Oh, author of the famous PH Farewell Email, told the WSJ Law Blog, in explaining why she sent her dramatic missive, “I want [laid-off associates] to feel like they’re not completely alone and not to worry about their own performance when it’s the firm doing something for economic reasons… [or a] desire to increase partner profits.”

Speaking of Shinyung Oh, her bio is no longer on the PH website. Has she been officially terminated?

We’re looking into the situation. If you know anything, feel free to drop us a line.

Paul Hastings Denies Reports of Layoffs [American Lawyer]
Paul Hastings scotches lay-off reports [Legal Week]

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Paul Hastings

Rumors of lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings have been circulating for quite some time, since late last year. For example, back in November, we heard that the firm laid off / fired several associates in the real estate group. But we heard that secondhand, and we were unable to get confirmation, so we never wrote about it.

(That happens all the time, by the way. We get lots of gossip, but much of it never sees the light of day.)

Why has the PH layoff news been so elusive? One source explained: “A former Paul Hastings partner said PH likes to do its layoffs a little at a time, so they stay under the radar. I guess that didn’t work out too well this time.”

You can say that again. This week’s bombshell — an emotional farewell email from an associate in San Francisco who was laid off six days after her miscarriage (hereinafter “the PH Farewell Email”) — confirms the rumors: Paul Hastings has been laying off associates. But it has been doing so quietly, in small clumps, spread out over many months.

If the other laid-off lawyers got the same deal as the author of the PH Farewell Email, they received a three-month severance package. This appears to be standard or “market” for the latest round of Biglaw layoffs. For more details about the Paul Hastings severance deal — e.g., health insurance, vacation, access to firm email and voicemail — see the agreement (which also provides that the departure “is and will be classified as a resignation”).

Also note the agreement’s strict confidentiality provisions. In a nutshell, Paul Hastings has been buying the silence of the laid-off lawyers — and up until this week, the strategy was working quite nicely. PH isn’t a leading employment-law shop for nothing. They know how to draft a tight agreement, how to keep firings on the down-low, and how to keep terminated employees silent.

But now, in the wake of the PH Farewell Email, the floodgates have opened. Yesterday we solicited tips about Paul Hastings lawyer layoffs — and we received a wealth of information, from current and former PH lawyers, no longer afraid to speak out. (Of course, to be on the safe side, most of these sources emailed us from home, using their personal email accounts.)

The results of our investigation, after the jump (i.e., click on the “Continue reading” link below).

This would also have made for a good posting in ATL’s new Community section. But since we’ve actually received several inquiries into the topic, we’ll toss it out for discussion here. A representative email:

I’ve been searching for positions in large law firms in Labor & Employment. I’m discovering that many firms are getting rid of those practice groups because they are not profitable, and work is going to boutique places like Littler Mendelson and Jackson Lewis.

Given that employment work in general seems to be booming in some states, it’s surprising that these big firms are rolling back work. I’d be curious what people’s experiences have been on the inside. Would you consider doing an open thread on this issue?

Sure! Here you go.

This reader’s report is generally consistent with what we’ve been hearing. Labor and employment work tends to be fairly sensitive to rate pressure from clients, and as a result, profit margins can be relatively low (at least compared to, say, M&A work). Over the past few years, some firms have been cutting their labor groups loose.

On the other hand, as noted by our tipster, the area is busy right now. In our recent survey of which practice areas are busiest, respondents in Los Angeles, for example, identified labor and employment as one of the three most active areas at their firms. With the economy — and deal flow — slowing down, perhaps firms will be happy to have labor and employment work, even if it’s not super-lucrative.

So, ATL readers, any advice for our tipster? Are Biglaw gigs available for labor and employment lawyers? Or should this reader focus instead on specialized labor and employment shops?

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.

The Magic Circle law firm of Allen & Overy, defendant in Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy, has just filed its Answer (PDF). They’re hoping to make Norman Schoenfeld’s claims disappear. Schoenfeld, an observant Jewish lawyer who once worked at the firm, alleges that A&O discriminated and retaliated against him as a result of his observing the Sabbath.

We contacted the firm for comment. Here is their statement:

Allen & Overy denies all allegations of discrimination. This person’s employment was terminated based solely on performance within his orientation period, a trial period of time mandated for all employees. He also failed to disclose to Allen & Overy the fact of his previous employment at another law firm.

Our firm has a strict written policy prohibiting any form of discrimination, and we provide all new employees and partners training in both diversity awareness and harassment prevention. Over the past several years, we have also instituted live diversity training for all of our existing attorneys and managers. We will vigorously defend our proud reputation of diversity and inclusion and are confident of a positive outcome for Allen & Overy with respect to these allegations.

More discussion, including interesting information from tipsters, after the jump.

Update (5/9/08): The case is settling. See here.

Earlier this month, we passed along a rumor that O’Melveny & Myers was conducting a “witch hunt” for ATL tipsters and commenters. For the record, OMM has denied the rumor (not to us, but at internal meetings).

Back in our prior post, we tossed out this hypothetical:

You’re a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You’re a lawyer — a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn’t have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

We concluded: “Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us?”

And enlighten us they have. One of the blog’s editors, Professor Paul Secunda, kindly sent us a wonderfully detailed analysis. After all the conflicting opinions in the hundreds of comments to our post, it was nice to receive some clarity.

Read Professor Secunda’s response, the model answer to our law school exam hypothetical, after the jump.

We respectfully submit that the powers-that-be at O’Melveny & Myers need to “chill” (as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) recently told former President Bill Clinton).

The folks at OMM apparently have some totalitarian tendencies. We heard they no-offered a summer associate from last year based on this individual’s personal blogging about the summer associate experience (which didn’t even mention the firm by name). And now we hear this rumor (by phone and by email, from multiple sources):

[T]he firm is furious about (true) comments sent to ATL about the firm’s poor performance and underhanded layoffs. Apparently, the fire rages so much so that OMM is dead set on a witch hunt to find the associate(s) who leaked the goings on to ATL.

Both the firm’s tech department and outside techies have been enlisted to figure out which associate’s computer the comments were sent from. OMM associates are now scared to even check your site while at work (though of course are keeping in the loop through home computers).

We contacted the firm for comment. We haven’t heard back from them as of the time of this posting.

We know next to nothing about labor and employment law. But to the labor lawyers among you, here’s a hypothetical:

You’re a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You’re a lawyer — a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn’t have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us. Or if you’re a labor and employment lawyer, feel free to opine in the comments.

P.S. We’re experiencing mysterious technical difficulties this afternoon, so this may be our last post in a while. Maybe OMM is hacking ATL?

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of O’Melveny & Myers (scroll down)