Ed. note: We gave this a shout-out last week in non-sequiturs (second item), but it’s egregious enough to merit more discussion.

Biglaw attorneys frequently complain about how hard it is to date given the amount of hours they devote to work. Attorneys at a small immigration firm in Chicago may have encountered a similar dilemma.

Perhaps inspired by Maggie Gyllenhaal’s cinematic portrayal of a sex-enjoying legal secretary, Samir Zia Chowhan of Chowhan Law allegedly advertised on Craigslist, in the “Adult Gigs” section, for a secretary with benefits. From Legal Profession Blog:

Loop law firm looking to hire am [sic] energetic woman for their open secretary/legal assistant position. Duties will include general secretarial work, some paralegal work and additional duties for two lawyers in the firm. No experience required, training will be provided. Generous annual salary and benefits will be provided, including medical, dental, life, disability, 401(k) etc. If interested, please send current resume and a few pictures along with a description of your physical features, including measurements. We look forward to meeting you.

Many of you will recall that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan waged a war against Craigslist’s “Erotic Services” section earlier this year, claiming that there was rampant prostitution there. By her doing, the section was taken down and replaced by this “Adult Gigs” section, which is supposedly more closely monitored for illegal activity. But in our surfing of the section, we saw quite a few ads like Chowhan’s, including ones like this: “I’m seeking a young lady who would like to have some fun with me, possibly on a regular basis, in exchange for some help with bills or whatever.”

At least Chowhan was a little more discreet in his May 2009 ad. But when one woman responded, he made it clear why he had listed the job in the Adult Gigs section.

He defines “additional duties,” after the jump.

Allen Feingold, a former Pennsylvania attorney, really loved practicing law. Even after being suspended and eventually disbarred, he continued to service clients — and went to extraordinary measures to do so.

From Gina Passarella of the Legal Intelligencer:

[Feingold] created letterhead in the name of attorney Jeffry Stephen Pearson, another attorney who apparently handled some of Feingold’s files once Feingold was suspended. Feingold would use that letterhead, unbeknown to Pearson, to file pleadings and legal correspondence to lawyers, clients and judges, according to the complaint. Once Pearson learned of this, he changed his password for electronic filings with the court, but Feingold learned of the new password and continued making filings under Pearson’s name, the ODC alleged in the complaint.

To put a stop to his misconduct, a judge ordered the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to lock Feingold out of his offices.

Pretty bad — but it gets worse….

Results from the August 2009 sitting of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) are out, and people are talking. In addition to posting comments, candidates have emailed us about the news. For example:

Just wanted to be the first to inform ATL that August 2009 MPRE scores are now available for download (at least mine was).

Sorry, you weren’t the first; several readers beat you to the punch. Like this one:

It’s not exciting as gunmen or layoffs, and will definitely engender some “who cares,” but MPRE scores are out.

Write “WHO CARES,” crow about your triple-digit score, or opine on whether Elizabeth Wurtzel can call herself an “attorney,” in the comments to this post.

If you passed, congratulations; if you didn’t, better luck next time.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of the MPRE

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.

Yesterday some of you sat for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE). It seems to us that there’s not much to say about the test, but several readers have requested coverage. Like this one:

I walked out of the exam with little confidence. Maybe you can provide an open forum for people to express their thoughts on the test, or for past takers to provide insight on scoring / how many people they know that failed.

Well that’s cheery, isn’t it? Here is the requested open thread. Please do not reprint entire questions from the test in the comments.

Another MPRE taker’s tale — from the great state of Iowa, where people actually seem optimistic about the state of the legal job market — after the jump.

Here’s a quick afterword on the story of Elizabeth Wurtzel, the critically acclaimed, bestselling author who — for rather mysterious reasons (9/11 was somehow involved) — traded in a life of six-figure book advances, glamorous parties, and relationships with other celebrity writers… for a law degree.

In a prior post, we wondered whether Wurtzel, who has not yet passed the bar, can refer to herself as a “lawyer” (as she has done publicly on various occasions, most recently in an interview with Bitter Lawyer). In a comment to Gawker, Wurtzel advanced the theory that she can refer to herself as a “lawyer,” even if not an “attorney,” because “if you graduate from law school/receive a JD, you are a lawyer; if you are licensed, you are an attorney.”

For those of you who just took the bar, and who will receive your law licenses in a few months, this is a pertinent inquiry. Does the lawyer vs. attorney distinction hold water?

Yesterday we heard from legal ethics experts about whether Elizabeth Wurtzel’s referring to herself as a “lawyer,” despite not having passed the bar yet, could get her in trouble. The two we consulted, Professors Steven Lubet and Stephen Gillers, did not see it as a big deal.

There’s an interesting follow-up over at Gawker, which obtained the following comment from La Wurtzel herself:

This is my understanding: if you graduate from law school/receive a JD, you are a lawyer; if you are licensed, you are an attorney. That’s what I’ve always been told.

Not too many nice things to say about the Bar Exam. Every year, some very gifted people fail it (Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School)—and every year, a lot of real idiots pass it. Hard to know what to make of that ;-)

Regarding Wurtzel’s understanding of the difference between the terms “lawyer” and “attorney,” other folks have been told that too. See the comments to this post from last year on the subject.

But there is disagreement. Read more, and take a READER POLL, after the jump.

To those of you getting ready to take the bar exam this week, here’s some reassurance for you: even if you fail, life goes on. Consider this list of famous failures, people who didn’t pass the bar exam but went on to tremendous success anyway.

And here’s another boldface name who failed the bar: Elizabeth Wurtzel, the bestselling and critically acclaimed author, who graduated from Yale Law School last year and sat for the New York bar in July 2008 (and maybe in February 2009 too). In an interview with the New York Observer, Wurtzel shrugged off her bar failure.

In a more recent interview with Bitter Lawyer, Wurtzel once again breezed past that fact. From Gawker:

Wurtzel granted an interview recently to Bitter Lawyer, talking about how much she loves the law and how awesome it is being a lawyer and working at David Boies’s law firm. Except she’s not a lawyer! At least not in New York, where it seems to be unlawful to claim to be a lawyer if you haven’t passed the bar exam. Which she hasn’t.

In the Gawker post, John Cook parses Wurtzel’s Bitter Lawyer interview against the backdrop of New York rules and statutes regulating the legal profession. Cook suggests that Wurtzel describing herself as a lawyer violates New York Judiciary Law § 478, “Practicing or appearing as attorney-at-law without being admitted and registered.”

We forwarded the Gawker link to a pair of legal ethics experts, Professor Steven Lubet of Northwestern and Professor Stephen Gillers of NYU, and asked them to assess the situation.

Read what they had to say, after the jump.

Someone’s July 4th weekend is off to a good start. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, has been cleared of misconduct by the panel of Third Circuit judges that was tasked with investigating him. As you may recall, Chief Judge Kozinski called for an investigation of himself, after it was revealed that he had a “website” — which wasn’t really a website, for reasons previously explained by the judge’s wife, Marcy Tiffany — containing some sexually explicit material.

The Third Circuit Judicial Council’s unanimous opinion, authored by Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, is available here (PDF). It was actually filed on June 5, but only made public today. It’s thorough and lengthy, weighing in at 38 pages, and describes in detail the extensive investigation conducted by the council (with the assistance of outside lawyers, from Dechert and Morgan Lewis, and a technology consultant).

To those with a deeper familiarity with the facts of the case, as opposed to just the headlines, Chief Judge Kozinski’s vindication is not surprising. The judge violated no law; rather, the “website” — actually just a private family file server, although imperfectly secured for a period of time, as explained in the opinion — was a personal matter unrelated to his judicial duties. To the extent that the (overblown) public controversy created a problem in an obscenity trial that Judge Kozinski was presiding over at the time, any problem was obviated when the judge recused himself. And let’s not forget that the whole controversy was originally kicked up by a disgruntled litigant, Cyrus Sanai, who tried peddling the story for months before someone finally bit — and who “has been targeting Kozinski for years,” as noted by Ted Frank.

So congratulations, Judge Kozinski, on putting this matter behind you. We look forward to catching up with you at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference later this month.

A few updates and links, after the jump.

Two weeks ago, we reported on Syracuse College of Law changing its exam guidelines in an attempt to thwart cheaters. Fordham Law School also had some academic dishonesty issues. Fortunately, this new cheating phenomenon is not limited to New York State. The National Law Journal reports:

When a Florida Coastal School of Law student last year spotted notecards poking out of a fellow test-taker’s pocket during finals, she kept her head down and focused on the exam in front of her. “I’ve never been one to rat people out,” said the student, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

Her classmate was returning from a bathroom break during a final exam, and it was pretty clear to her that cheating was afoot. Like thousands of law students each year, the Florida Coastal student and her classmates had signed an honor code on their first day of school. Law schools rely on honor codes to keep students from cheating. The codes reflect the self-policing nature of law school academic integrity regimes, and they appeal to students’ sense of fair play to keep them in line.

Cheating at Florida Coastal? Noooooooo!

What is your friendly, neighborhood American Bar Association doing about the scourge of cheating at accredited law schools? We explore after the jump.

I’ll admit, I’ve never really understood the utility of cheating on a test. Even if you don’t get caught, what have you really gained from getting a couple of extra questions right? A third of a grade? A full grade? It just strikes me as ridiculously hypocritical. If you really care that much about your grades, isn’t it better to just put in the work over the course of the semester? And if you don’t care about your grades, why do you suddenly lose your nerve at the very end?

In any event, I suppose the terrible economy is making a lot of people think creatively about what their transcript will look like when it comes time to find a job. It looks like a spate of cheating scandals has erupted among some New York law schools.

The Syracuse University College of Law is so worried about the problem that it is cracking down on people with weak bladder control:

Students can now use the rest room only once during an exam, which can last four hours, because some are suspected of using cell phones or looking at papers in the bathrooms. Students with medical reasons to use the rest room more often than once per exam must provide medical documentation to a dean.

“During this exam period, we have received a significant number of reports from (first-year) students alleging academic dishonesty,” read an e-mail sent by law school deans to first-year students.

Forty years I been asking permission to piss. I can’t squeeze a drop without say-so.

While Syracuse adopts the Depends Honor Code, Fordham hasn’t decided if it will do anything at all. Details after the jump.

This seems like an odd time to be worried about professional responsibility, what with all the professional carnage. But nonetheless, the MPRE marches on and March results are out today.

The emails aren’t out yet, but you can check your score on the site.

Would you like to discuss whether or not you can promise victory to your prospective clients? Have at it in the comments.

Earlier: Open Thread: Congrats on being done with the MPRE

[Ed Note: Do you have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com]

Dear ATL,

As a 3L, coasting through his last year of school, I find the occasional moment to partake in a bit of “relaxation” by way of an unmentioned illegal plant.

I’m wondering though, other than a question about this on the Bar application, would I be subject to any type of drug testing for the bar or at my post-bar big law firm? Do firms ever drug test their employees?

— Panama Red.

Dear Panama Red,

If you show up to work with bags of White Castle or pester secretaries with questions about where your car’s at, firms may demand a drug test (based on boilerplate paperwork you fill out at the outset of your job permitting them to do so), and they can fire you without cause anyway. But as far as I know, no law firms routinely test associates for drugs, and neither does any bar-related process.

However, firms do prohibit associates from moonlighting or engaging in activities that would be detrimental to the business or reputation of the firm. Practically speaking this means you’ll have to get off Phish tour (editor’s note: they’re not reuniting, give up the ship) and turn in that ridiculous shell necklace from Hollister. The hemp one, too. God, this is embarrassing.

Since it would have only taken a Google search for you to have answered your own question, I’ll take your email as a cry for help and give you some actual advice. You need to lay off the weed and focus on passing the bar and keeping your job. Also, I see you didn’t get the memo about how everybody switched over to coke. Um, yeah. AWKWARD.

Your friend,

Marin

After the jump, Marin passes the blunt to Elie, who’s wearing a “Take Me Drunk I’m Home” t-shirt.

Here’s a little shopping rule that I live by. If Jack Thompson starts screaming about a video game destroying the moral fabric of America, I immediately go out and purchase that video game. Back in September, Thompson was disbarred for annoying and harassing the video game industry over “pornographic” titles. It was a great victory for those who enjoy shooting (virtual) Manhattan residents from stolen police helicopters.

But Jack Thompson, who blames the Grand Theft Auto series for teaching children how to kill cops, wants to avail himself of a “reset” button. He sent around the following — I don’t even know what you would call this — angry missive to members of the Florida bar:

I have just been permanently disbarred by The Florida Bar after being a lawyer in continuous good standing for 31 years. No client complained. My sin was accepting Ed Bradley’s personal request to go on CBS’ 60 Minutes to expose the reckless and harmful marketing of adult-rated, violent, and pornographic Grand Theft Auto video games to kids. One of these teens killed three Alabama cops after training to kill them on this “cop-killing” murder simulation game.

Just to be clear, Thompson was not disbarred for going on 60 Minutes with a stick shoved so far up his ass he could choke on it. Instead, Thompson was deemed too contentious to even be a lawyer. The referee’s recommendation for his disbarment said:

Over a very extended period of time involving a number of totally unrelated cases and individuals, [r]espondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes.

He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior, but rather uses other means available to intimidate, harass, or bring public disrepute to those whom he perceives oppose him.

Just because Thompson learned his legal strategies from GTA doesn’t mean that American children are so addled as to think that they can pull off video carjacking skills in real life.

Thompson’s due process argument and his full email after the jump.

Back in July, we were the first to wonder about the mysterious departure from Sullivan & Cromwell of Carlos Spinelli-Noseda, a rising star at the über-prestigious (and profitable) law firm. Some commenters viewed our interest in his departure as unseemly, prying, or reflecting bias against S&C.

We don’t mean to gloat — okay, maybe just a little — but we’ve been vindicated by recent revelations. From a report by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal:

A former Sullivan & Cromwell partner has resigned from the bar for billing his clients and firm more than $500,000 in fraudulent travel and entertainment expenses.

Carlos J. Spinelli-Noseda, a banking and finance specialist who joined Sullivan & Cromwell straight out of Harvard Law School in 1994 and became a partner in 2003, was facing a disciplinary investigation over a pattern of improper billing dating from roughly July 1998 to February 2008.

In a June 3 affidavit of resignation he submitted to the disciplinary committee of the First Department, Mr. Spinelli-Noseda admitted he could not successfully defend himself against charges of professional misconduct. Such resignations are frequently tendered when further proceedings are almost certain to lead to disbarment.

Read more, after the jump.

As we’ve previously observed, “we’re not really sure how much there is to say about the MPRE. It’s not a super-difficult test, and it hasn’t exactly achieved the mythical status of the bar exam as a rite of passage for aspiring lawyers.”

But it seems, judging from all the emails we’ve received, that some of you are dying to discuss the just-released results for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. A few representative messages:

“The MPRE results for August are now online!”

“I didn’t study at all and got an 80. Looks like I’ll be re-upping in November.”

[Ed. note: As noted here, “[p]assing scores, which are established by each jurisdiction, currently vary between 75 and 86.”]

“I just got an e-mail with a link to my score for the August MPRE. Pretty quick turnaround time, actually — exactly a month since the test day. Thought you might want the news.”

This does seem a little earlier than usual, as we were just discussing here in the office. From an IM that Elie sent (yes, we IM each other, even though we’re about 15 feet away): “What is the usual turnaround time for MPRE scores? I don’t remember mine, other than briefly wondering if taking it hung over was really a wise decision (turned out fine).”

Here’s an open thread for discussing the MPRE. If you passed the test, congratulations. If you failed — well, prepare to be mocked, in the comments.

Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) [National Conference of Bar Examiners]

Update / Clarification: Some commenters have complained about a formatting problem in an earlier version of this post. If you encountered this formatting problem, it’s time for you to enter the 21st century, ditch Internet Explorer, and adopt a better browser, like Firefox (download it here). Or get a Mac.

But just for the record, the formatting error was your editor’s fault, not that of FROLIC & DETOUR. We apologize for the mistake (which you should not hold against F&D).

*******************
After Tuesday’s discussion, readers submitted some beautiful examples of the bureaucratic glory that is character and fitness:

On my 2003 application I reported that I had lived in one location until “June 1996” and another location starting “July 1996.” I got a call saying I had failed to account for where I lived for almost two months. When I asked them what they meant, they said they were missing addresses for the period between June 2, 1996 and July 30, 1996.

I got grief from C&F for failing to disclose a citation for failure to wear a seatbelt. It was a $10 ticket that I got 6 years before applying to the bar.

And my personal favorite:

When asked why I left the Dean campaign I wrote “Iowa, the Scream.” They asked for more details.

Thanks for the stories. But since this is the last post of ATL Idol, I’m cutting to the chase. It was clear from Tuesday’s comments that readers were more interested in my character than in character & fitness. So let’s talk about that.

To clear up some misconceptions, I’m not Miss Alli/Linda Holmes. I have a B.A. and J.D. from Harvard, and I don’t know whether I know Sophist. I really did interview fired biglaw partners who knew I was writing for ATL (Lat knows who they are). I’m done with legal practice whether I’m the Idol or not. And whatever happens this weekend, I’m grateful to all the voters who think my garbage stinks a little bit less than the competition’s garbage. I feel like a bacterium that survived a three-week penicillin bath.

Finally, I have to address the reader accusation that I am an anti-Semite. I have to admit, this one is true. Those schmucks in my mishpocheh give me nothing but tsuris.

[Ed. note: This post is by FROLIC & DETOUR, one of the finalists in ATL Idol, the “reality blogging” competition that will determine ATL’s next editor. It is marked with Frolic & Detour’s avatar (at right).]

[Ed. note: This post is by FROLIC & DETOUR, one of the finalists in ATL Idol, the “reality blogging” competition that will determine ATL’s next editor. It is marked with Frolic & Detour’s avatar (at right).]

It’s puzzling that lawyers have a reputation as a bunch of thieving shysters. After all, we have to prove our character and fitness before joining the profession. Unlike, say, doctors, lawyers’ unique responsibilities demand high moral standards as well as professional skill. Only the pure in heart can be allowed to carry the briefcase.

Yes, 3Ls, for a mere $815 (0r more), expert bureaucrats will judge your moral merit. Along with the occasional white supremacist, state C&F committees weed out sinners great and small. Unpaid parking tickets? They’re on it. Remember that security deposit on your 1999 summer share? They do.

Maybe you didn’t think that a drunken tailgate from sophomore year would come back to haunt you. But we’ve already heard from several C&F veterans about the long-forgotten dramas that stood between them and their legal dreams:

I worked as a paralegal at a small New York firm in between college and law school. After six months, I got sick of picking up sushi and making copies, so I quit. The firm was furious that I was leaving, and they threatened to do whatever it took to keep me out of the bar. Sure enough, three and a half years later, they told California that I was a liar and not to be trusted. California admitted me anyway. Later in my career, I moved to New York. This firm again told the bar that I was a liar and made as much trouble as they could — almost six years after I quit.

I skipped a lot of class in high school and ended up with a bunch of Fs. I graduated from college with honors, then made it to a top-6 law school, with years of work experience along the way. I was 26 when I took the bar. C&F gave me huge problems over my high school academic record. They made me write a long apology and promise never to do it again. For real.

So readers, what vomit blotches stained your bar applications? How did you have to pay penance? Share in the comments or at frolicndetour.atl.idol@gmail.com, and we’ll discuss on Thursday.

No, there’s no decimal point missing. Computer virus fighter McAfee Inc. wants to quarantine the legal fees of WilmerHale, alleging that the firm overbilled the company. It finds WilmerHale’s $12 million bill to be simply unacceptable.

From Niraj Chokshi of The Recorder:

The Santa Clara, Calif., company is embroiled with Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr over $12 million in legal fees incurred in the trial of former McAfee Chief Financial Officer Prabhat Goyal. The company is accusing WilmerHale of fraud, theft, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

“[WilmerHale] intentionally overworked and churned the representation of Goyal; shamelessly employing over 100 WilmerHale timekeepers in the feeding frenzy,” McAfee alleged in a complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas earlier this year. “Defendant’s bills reflect at least 16 partners, 34 associate attorneys, 10 legal assistants and 49 staff personnel — how else could they amass this enormous trove of cash?” the complaint read.

On the one hand, $12 million is a sizable chunk of change. Did William DiSalvatore bill time to this matter?

On the other hand, big cases are, well, big. And part of the reason you hire Biglaw shops to tackle them is the ample supply of warm bodies to throw at the problem. Racking up an eight-figure legal bill is not unheard of in a long-running, large-scale white collar case involving top corporate executives.

More after the jump.

Last summer, we wrote about the stinging benchslap that Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.; pictured), the highly regarded Manhattan trial judge, administered to Cleary Gottlieb, the highly regarded Manhattan law firm. Judge Preska sanctioned the firm for what she viewed as the improper attempt by one partner to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition. At the time, Cleary announced its intent to appeal.

And appeal it has. Writes Anthony Lin, in the New York Law Journal:

It was a matter of honor that brought Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday morning. Several lawyers from the firm, led by managing partner Mark Walker, were present in the ceremonial courtroom of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse.

A matter of honor. Will there be a duel? Guns all around, says SCOTUS.

Well, maybe not a literal duel. But Cleary’s counsel, the distinguished Roy Reardon of Simpson Thacher, did mix it up with opposing counsel, Kevin Reed of Quinn Emanuel. As did the Second Circuit panel:

The 2nd Circuit judges asked [Reed] whether Kensington had been unreasonable in insisting that the deposition be held on Feb. 4 in Washington when a Paris deposition seemed a reasonable compromise.

“Everything would grind to a halt if lawyers couldn’t accommodate each other,” said Judge Miner.

“Everything would grind to a halt if everyone resorted to self-help as Cleary did here,” Reed replied. He later added: “You don’t go to the witness and say the sort of things [Cleary partner Jean-Pierre] Vignaud said, which can only have the effect of intimidating a witness and shaping his testimony.”

So the alleged attempt by Cleary to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition arose out of a familiar dispute over depo location. Perhaps the parties should have taken a page from Judge James Nowlin’s playbook, and taken it to midfield. Anyone up for a depo on a north Atlantic cruise ship?

Update: As noted over in the Community section, the sanctions against Clery Gottlieb were upheld by the Second Circuit. For more, see the New York Law Journal and the WSJ Law Blog.

Cleary Seeks Vindication in Appeal on Sanctions [New York Law Journal]

Earlier: Benchslap of the Day: Judge Preska Reprimands (Wait for It)… Cleary Gottlieb?