Over the weekend, we had the pleasure of attending the Federalist Society’s 2009 National Lawyers Convention, down in Washington, D.C. As in past years, conservative and libertarian legal luminaries were plentiful, and the panel discussions and other events were excellent.

Some folks — e.g., Josh Blackman — were liveblogging the proceedings. We’re only writing up the conference now, so you can call this “lateblogging” (both because we’re late in blogging about the conference, and blogging late at night; hey, better late than never).

This year, sadly, we missed most of the Thursday events (because of a speaking engagement at the ABA’s Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference). The first Fed Soc panel we caught was on Friday afternoon:

Free Speech: The Fairness Doctrine

In today’s Morning Docket, we mentioned the recent benchslap administered to Sidley Austin by Judge Diane Cannon (pictured), an Illinois state court judge. Lynne Marek of the NLJ reports:

A court hearing on Tuesday in Chicago at which former Northwestern University journalism students planned to fight a subpoena for their records and grades turned into a judicial lambasting of their Sidley Austin lawyers.

It started when Judge Diane Gordon Cannon of the Cook County Circuit Court called the lawyers, partner Richard O’Brien and associate Linda Friedlieb, to the bench before prosecutors from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office had even arrived. She asked who had written the brief she was holding. O’Brien and Friedlieb responded that they had submitted the reply supporting the motion to quash the subpoena.

Judge Cannon was, suffice it to say, not happy about the Sidley Austin brief.

Her Honor’s complaints — plus discussion of whether they were justified, and a reader poll — after the jump.

Yesterday’s Lawsuit of the Day — Jones v. Minkin, a $44 million lawsuit against yours truly, Above the Law publisher David Minkin, and Dead Horse Media (now known as Breaking Media) — has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, University of Miami law professor Donald Jones.

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)(B), the dismissal is without prejudice. If Professor Jones wants to refile, he should note the statute of limitations (which had already run as to most of our posts about him by the time his complaint was filed).

There was NO SETTLEMENT in this case. Above the Law has made no changes to our prior posts, and we have paid no money to Professor Jones. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without anything from our side, except a letter from our lawyer.

UPDATE (3:35 PM): We have offered Professor Jones a guest post on Above the Law in which to provide his side of the story, about either the lawsuit or the underlying facts. We have offered to keep the comments on that post closed or open, depending on his preference. (And we would have done this in the first place, had he made such a request.)

A huge thanks to our counsel, Marc Randazza.

Comment from Randazza, plus links to the notice of voluntary dismissal and other news outlets and blogs — we will UPDATE continually, so do check back for fresh links — after the jump.

For the first time in over three years of operation, Above the Law has been sued. We feel the lawsuit has no merit, but we will not comment further on this ongoing litigation. To access the pro se complaint, coverage by other news outlets and blogs, and ATL’s prior posts about Professor Donald Jones, click on the links collected after the jump.

Please note that we have closed comments on this post, out of respect for the judicial process. Thank you.

UPDATE: We will be continually updating this post with links to news and blogosphere coverage. We have already added new links from the ABA Journal, the WSJ Law Blog, and the Volokh Conspiracy, among other sources.

The fresh links will appear AFTER THE JUMP, so check them out there. Thanks.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has a comically predictable pattern for his columns. He usually starts with a little anecdote from his humdrum life and then launches into a ground-shaking, earth-shattering revelation about global politics.

Sometimes we wonder if Friedman has created a custom Madlib for crafting his columns. This week, he opines on our poor education system being the reason for the Great Recession. In a spot in the column that called for a ‘noun for lawyers’, he decided to throw in “untouchables.”

No, he’s not talking about contract attorneys. See Friedman’s explanation for lawyer layoffs after the jump.

One of our favorite legal affairs journalists is switching networks. As first reported by Mediabistro, the fabulous (and fabulously talented) Jan Crawford Greenburg is leaving ABC News for CBS News. Greenburg, author of the excellent and bestselling Supreme Conflict (2007), will become Chief Legal Correspondent at CBS, as of January 4, 2010. Meanwhile, back at ABC, her Supreme Court beat will be picked up by Terry Moran.

Greenburg’s move to CBS is something of a homecoming, since she worked at the Tiffany Network prior to her three-year stint at ABC. At CBS she’ll work once again with Bob Schieffer, described by Fishbowl DC as her longtime friend and mentor.

Congratulations and good luck at your new (old) home, Jan!

JCG’s farewell email to her colleagues at ABC, plus the press release announcing her hire at CBS, after the jump.

According to CNN Money, being a lawyer is one of the Best Jobs in America. Attorneys rank eighteenth on CNN’s list, just behind IT business analysts, and just ahead of doctors.

Congratulations?

If you look at the list, you can make a very cogent argument that lawyers should have ranked much higher. Some of the jobs that did better than lawyers are: CPA (more at Going Concern), nurse, and something called physician assistant, which sounds a lot like doing routine medical work with none of the glory (or pay) of specialists.

Ranked below lawyers (but still in the top 50) are such plum jobs as: human resource manager, hotel general manager, and corporate paralegal.

You know, when you put it like that, maybe we are not “devoting too many of our very best minds” to the practice of law. No offense to hoteliers and all of the challenging work they do, but it’s not like we need more snooty concierges.

All that said, I’m not entirely sure CNN Money knows a whole lot about what it is like to be a lawyer these days.

Let’s take a look at the profile after the jump.

Last week we wrote about the move of prominent D.C. lawyers Lanny Davis and Eileen O’Connor from Orrick to McDermott Will & Emery. Am Law Daily described the jump as follows: “Lanny Davis, a longtime Washington, D.C., lawyer who supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid and was a fraternity brother of George W. Bush, is taking his unique practice from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to McDermott, Will & Emery.”

It’s not the case, however, that the entire practice moved. As noted by one commenter, the rest of the legal strategic and crisis management practice remained with Orrick. Consistent with this, an Orrick spokesperson issued the following statement to ATL:

We wish Lanny and Eileen well, but Orrick’s law, policy, media, and crisis management practice remains vibrant and strong with continuing plans for expansion and will keep delivering its unique blend of legal, public relations and government affairs counsel to our clients around the world.

Remaining at Orrick are partners Adam Goldberg, who was co-chair of the practice with Davis, and Joshua Galper. Goldberg and Galper will head the practice going forward. In addition, the associates who work in and with the law, policy and media group are staying at Orrick.

As for clients, it’s not yet clear which ones will stay with Orrick and which will move to McDermott. “Thankfully, this is a practice where we’ve always had plenty of work, so that’s not an issue,” Galper said. (We’d guess, however, that certain clients closely tied to Davis — like CEAL, the Honduras business group supporting the coup in that country — will travel with him.)

Get to know Messrs. Galper and Goldberg, and read more about Orrick’s very interesting and unusual practice area, after the jump.

Last year, we wrote about retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor entering a new field: video game development. She’s spearheading a project called Our Courts, which seeks to improve civic education in middle schools. The Our Courts website officially launched in January of this year.

The first two games, “Supreme Decision” and “Do I Have A Right?”, went live this summer. The Washington Post contacted us and asked us to review them. We played Nintendo, Oregon Trail, and Carmen Sandiego growing up, and we spent a recent Friday night at Elie’s playing Rock Band, so we were willing to give the Our Courts game a go.

Check out our review of the games, along with additional reflections on civic education and public access to the courts, in this Washington Post piece: Educational? You Be the Judge.

While Lat was in D.C., he swung by the Washington Post’s offices to talk about the games. Check out his star turn in the video after the jump.

Last week we participated in a panel discussion at Georgetown Law that was skillfully moderated by Eileen O’Connor, the Emmy-nominated journalist turned high-powered lawyer. After the talk, we tried to play the “name game” with O’Connor regarding colleagues of hers over at Orrick. But O’Connor seemed strangely uneasy about Orrick, and she quickly changed the subject.

Could this have been why? From Am Law Daily:

Lanny Davis, a longtime Washington, D.C., lawyer who supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid and was a fraternity brother of George W. Bush, is taking his unique practice from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to McDermott, Will & Emery.

Davis, who previously moved to Orrick in 2003 from Patton Boggs, will bring counsel Eileen O’Connor, a former ABC News and CNN reporter, with him.

Beltway dwellers know that Lanny Davis is a big deal. He served as White House Special Counsel during the Clinton Administration, but he has friends on both sides of the aisle. As Bobby Burchfield, cohead of McDermott’s Washington office, told Zach Lowe of Am Law Daily, “Lanny is the only person I know who considers both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush good friends.”

In addition to practicing law, Davis writes for the Washington Times and for The Hill. In one recent column, he scolded bloggers for inadequate fact-checking. If anything in this post is inaccurate, Mr. Davis, please email us and we’ll fix it ASAP.

Press release after the jump. Good luck to Davis and O’Connor in their new professional home.

As previously mentioned in these pages, your above-signed scribe has been named a Legal Rebel — one of “50 leading innovators” in the legal profession, as selected by the ABA Journal.

The profile, written by Rachel Zahorsky, appears here. For more background on the Legal Rebels project, see our prior post, or the Legal Rebels website.

Through the Legal Rebels team, we were given the opportunity to meet and interview a longtime idol of ours: Steven Brill, founder of the American Lawyer and Court TV (and a fellow Yale Law School graduate). Brill’s latest project is Journalism Online, which “is pioneering the effort to make the transition to a paid online model successful for publishers and easy for readers.”

You can check out the video of our interview with Steve Brill here, or read about it at the ABA Journal.

David Lat: Gossip at Law [Legal Rebels / ABA Journal]
David Lat Interviews Steve Brill [Legal Rebels / ABA Journal]
Ever the Tough Editor, Am Law Founder Hits Publication’s Websites [ABA Journal]

P.S. Elsewhere in shameless plugs: if you’re in D.C. and don’t have anything more exciting to do tonight, head over to Georgetown Law for a discussion of new media and the law. The panel will feature yours truly, Tony Mauro from the National Law Journal, and Matt Welch from Reason Magazine. Eileen O’Connor, former reporter and bureau chief at CNN, will moderate.

Earlier: Maverick Law: The ABA Journal’s ‘Legal Rebels’
Mr. Lat Goes to Washington

We mentioned this in passing yesterday, but in case you missed it, please take note of this event in D.C. next week:

On Wednesday, September 23, the Georgetown Federalist Society will be hosting a panel event on New Media & The Law at 7 PM in Hart Auditorium [at Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Ave. N.W., Washington, DC].

The panel will feature David Lat from Above the Law, Tony Mauro from the National Law Journal, and Matt Welch from Reason Magazine. Eileen O’Connor, adjunct professor at Georgetown and former reporter and bureau chief at CNN, will moderate.

The event will be followed by a reception.

The event is sponsored by the Georgetown Federalist Society. Hope to see you there!

New Media & The Law Event at GULC [Georgetown Federalist Society Blog]

Gawker reports that Incisive Media — the legal media giant behind the American Lawyer magazine, Law.com, and many other excellent and influential print and online publications — is taking back its old name: American Lawyer Media (ALM).

ALM adopted the Incisive moniker back in 2007, after being acquired by Incisive Media for $630 million. Incisive itself was acquired in 2006 by Apax Partners, a private equity firm.

The full memo about the ALM rebranding appears after the jump. Here’s the most interesting part:

While we will continue to be majority-owned by funds advised by Apax Partners, our lender, Royal Bank of Scotland, will swap a portion of its existing ALM debt for a 49% equity stake in the company and become a minority owner of ALM.

Turning over almost half of the equity in the company to a lender — that doesn’t sound good, does it?

But there’s more to the story here.

We thought something was off about the discussion of the recruiting situation at Yale Law School in last week’s big New York Times article about the tough legal job market.

It turns out we were right. Check out this correction, which appeared in yesterday’s paper:

An article on Wednesday about a cutback in hiring by law firms misstated several firms’ recruitment decisions involving Yale Law School. Two firms — Baker & McKenzie and Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy — did not register for the program in 2009; another, White & Case, registered but dropped its registration before scheduling any interviews. None of the firms “canceled interviews in New Haven.”

The errors were brought to the attention of the Times by a YLS spokesperson, who explained that the school was never contacted by the reporter and had no idea as to where he obtained his information.

“No students were ‘stunned’ by the canceling of any interviews,” the spokesperson explained to ATL. “That just simply did not happen.”

Downturn Dims Prospects Even at Top Law Schools [New York Times]

Earlier: All the News That’s Fit to Recycle

The ABA Journal is kicking off a series on legal rebels. It’s not an oxymoronic phrase; there are innovators and mavericks all throughout our risk averse profession. Here’s what the publication is looking for:

Over the next three months, the Journal will profile 50 of the profession’s leading innovators on www.LegalRebels.com, with at least three profiles added every week. Each profile will include multimedia features like video interviews, audio podcasts, photo slideshows and live chats.

[T]he recession is totally changing the practice of law, and the Legal Rebels project is documenting the individual lawyers who are leading the changes.

But you don’t have to be featured by the ABA Journal to be a legal rebel. Check out the rebel manifesto, after the jump.

Check out this article, wherein the New York Times tells you what you already knew. We’ve been covering these developments for weeks here at Above the Law.

To all the mainstream media reporters who complain about blogs repackaging their content without adequate attribution, we say: it looks recycling is a two-way street.

In fairness to the NYT, they’re writing for a general audience. Some of their readers might actually find it newsworthy that (1) legal employment is down during this recession, (2) people often have to go into debt to attend law school, and (3) some of these people are having a hard time finding jobs now.

Regular visitors to ATL will find the Times piece more boring than incorrect. But one paragraph was wildly off the mark.

Are you a laid-off lawyer who has been spending way too much time on Facebook? Here’s a way to turn that “résumé gap” into job experience:

Director of Social Media

Medium-sized Atlanta law firm seeks candidates interested in a part-time or full-time social media position. The primary responsibility of the Social Media Director will be to actively promote our growing law firm using a variety of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and our existing web-site. Projects include: managing the firm’s Twitter, Facebook and web-site account, research current and relevant legal stories in the news and republish to social networks and firm web-site on a daily basis, communicate through social web-sites about all specific practice groups and their developments, update marketing team on a weekly basis with web-site content.

Managing a professional presence on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites felt like a full-time job to me. But I didn’t know you could draw a salary for it.

So what are the qualifications for this position — and, more importantly, the salary?

Was there any doubt, ever, that Bill Clinton would go to North Korea and come back with two women? The Associated Press reports:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has issued a “special pardon” to two American journalists convicted of sneaking into the country illegally, and he ordered them released during a visit by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, North Korean media reported early Wednesday.

The release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee was a sign of North Korea’s “humanitarian and peaceloving policy,” the Korean Central News Agency reported.

North Korea had taken a hard stand against the jailed journalist. The two were sentence to 12 years of hard labor for “hostile acts” against the nation.

But that was before slick Willie made everything okay.

In fairness, the happy victory is probably owed to tireless work by the U.S. State Department and a cadre of unnamed international actors.

But President Clinton went over there and sealed the deal. That man is a closer.

North Korea: 2 US journalists pardoned [Associated Press]
North Korea pardons US reporters [BBC]

The inherent tension between the old media and the new media boiled over the weekend when Ian Shapira wrote an insightful article for the Washington Post about how Gawker appropriated one of his stories. For people concerned with the so-called “death of journalism,” it is a must read. It is a fairly accurate description of what happens when bloggers repackage stories.

Yesterday, Gawker fired back at the Washington Post. Gabriel Snyder explained how bloggers add original commentary, humor, and sometimes insight. It’s one of the reasons readers keep coming back.

Today, our own Kashmir Hill entered the fray. She points out that some blogs (ahem) actually report and break news, and that news is repackaged by mainstream media sources all the time, often without sufficient attribution or original insight. Over on True/Slant, Kash writes about what happened to her popular story about Fordham’s privacy dossier on Justice Scalia:

I’m a struggling blogger making very little money. I would have been happy to write that story for the New York Times on a freelance basis and get paid for it. (As Washingtonian Magazine invited me to do for its June issue.)

But that’s not how these things usually work. As journalists — the traditional ones and the “new” ones/bloggers — we get stories out into the world, and then they bounce around and gather steam and get read. It’s exciting!

I’m happy my story was covered, regurgitated and repackaged. It’s an important story about a topic -privacy- that I am passionate about.

Hear, hear. The old media simply doesn’t have a monopoly on original reporting anymore.

In case you are interested, Above the Law has a very consistent policy that we follow when it comes to attribution. Let’s discuss it after the jump, and you can weigh in with your thoughts.

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.