New York Times

In response to this post — about the low partnership rate for minority lawyers at large law firms, the subject of a recent New York Times piece — an ATL commenter wrote:

[UCLA law professor Richard] Sander relies too heavily upon grades as predictors of law firm performance. All of us know scores of brilliant law students who turn out to be terrible lawyers — because they lack social skills, common sense, etc. These people go on to become law professors.

If you’d like to read an entire article devoted to this rather banal proposition — namely, that partnership decisions aren’t based on how well a lawyer did back in law school — click here.*
So Jonathan Glater’s Week in Review piece may not be terribly interesting or amusing. But check out some of the reader comments on Adam Liptak’s original article; a few are real winners. Like this one:

I am sixty years old, and have gone to Law School with Blacks and think the proiblem is simple.

Blacks have lower standards for being accepted at law schools…. Then, while in Law School, my impression was that less was expected oif [sic] Black students while in Law School. Finally, when they are recruited, they are recruited to fill a quota or some diversity goal at the firm or company.

Blacks for a variety of reasons have not had the cultural background to develop as fully as they one day will….

Those Blacks — with whom we are quite familiar, since we went to Law School with them — just don’t have the “cultural background” to succeed in Biglaw. Clients and judges have such a hard time understanding Ebonics….**
* Yes, we’re being a bit glib. There’s an issue of causation versus correlation here. Obviously partners aren’t picked because they did well back in law school (which is the straw man that Glater’s piece knocks down).
But law school performance may correlate with certain skills that ARE the basis for partnership decisions. Professor Sander cites research showing a correlation between law school grades and how long lawyers remain at a firm. This in turn correlates with how many lawyers make partner, given the usual “up or out” system at most big firms. (But ATL is not the ideal forum for getting down into the academic weeds on this subject, so we will stop here.)
** We are NOT saying that anyone who subscribes to Professor Sander’s theory — which is supported by a wealth of research and data — is “racist.” We just think this particular commenter expressed himself rather inelegantly, that’s all.
Straight ‘A’ Student? Good Luck Making Partner [New York Times]
Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms [New York Times]
Earlier: How Long Will It Take…

Richard Sander Richard H Sander Professor Above the Law.jpgfor this thought-provoking article — “Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms,” by Adam Liptak, one of our favorite legal affairs writers — to hit the New York Times “Most E-mailed Articles” list?
(Our prediction: By the close of business tomorrow, November 29, it will be in the top 10.)
Update: It happened even faster than we expected. The article cracked the top 10 by 9:35 AM.
We may blog about it more later. At the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, we attended a spirited panel discussion on law firm hiring practices and diversity, featuring Professor Richard Sander (at right). So minority lawyers and the world of Biglaw is a subject that’s been on our mind lately.
In the meantime, feel free to opine in the comments.
Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms [New York Times]

Legal Eagle Wedding Watch NYT wedding announcements Above the Law.jpgWe’re a little behind in Legal Eagle Wedding Watch (hereinafter “LEWW”). We’ll be rectifying that shortly.
But before we do, a methodological digression. It concerns how we score couples on the “family” component of the competition. We respond to some reader questions we’ve received:
1. “Isn’t rating people based on the wealth and pedigree of their families horribly obnoxious and elitist?”

Yes. And that is the raison d’etre of LEWW.

2. “Why don’t you give couples higher scores if they came from impoverished backgrounds? Someone born to poor immigrant parents, who somehow managed to make it to a top law school and top law firm, is much more impressive than some rich legacy kid with the same achievements.”

A fair question. But we’re rating couples, not invididuals. An individual who overcame tough circumstances to achieve success in the legal profession is an impressive individual; but a Mayflower descendant marrying the child of a billionaire is an impressive couple.

For centuries, marriages have been used to bring together agglomerations of wealth and power. See, e.g., Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. And this remains true today, even if not to the same degree. This is why the Times, despite being much more meritocratic in its couple selection than decades past, still has a hard-on for Daughters of the American Revolution, and Sons with First Names That Sound Like Last Ones.

In short, despite the changes over the years — more racial and ethnic diversity, the inclusion of gay couples — the NYT weddings and celebrations page still has a “Social Register” feel to it. And LEWW, in keeping with that spirit, awards extra points for “Social Register”-worthy families.

3. “You’re pretty stingy in scoring families. What does a perfect ’10′ look like?”

A timely question. Earlier this month, on November 19, we saw a couple with an astronomically high score in the family department. We won’t be rating them in LEWW, since neither spouse is a practicing lawyer (although the husband has a law degree). But here’s what a 9.9 — or maybe a 9.8, to leave some room for improvement — might look like.

Meet Lea Carpenter and Clifford Brokaw IV:

She is a daughter of Carroll M. Carpenter and Edmund N. Carpenter II of Wilmington, Del. Her father is a partner in and a former president of Richards, Layton & Finger, a law firm there. The bride is a descendant of Eleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours, the founder of the DuPont Company….

He is a son of Elizabeth Rogers Brokaw and Mr. Brokaw III of Southampton, N.Y. His father retired as the chairman of Invail Capital, an investment firm in New York. The bridegroom is a descendant of William Bradford, a governor of Plymouth Colony, and of Dr. Josiah Bartlett, a New Hampshire signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, we have tagged this under “Nauseating Things.”

jane pauley.jpgTelevision broadcaster Jane Pauley is suing the New York Times. Pauley v. New York Times may not go down in history like New York Times v. Sullivan; but it’s still a case worth noting. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Former “Today” show co-host Jane Pauley sued New York Times Co., alleging the publisher helped deceive her into participating in an advertising supplement for drug companies published in the Times.

Also named in the suit is DeWitt Publishing, a company that prepared articles for the supplement. The lawsuit alleges Ms. Pauley was “tricked” into being interviewed for the supplement, which promoted makers of psychotherapeutic drugs, by a DeWitt employee who represented herself as a reporter for the New York Times.

So Pauley’s claim is that she was unwittingly turned into a shill for Big Pharma. Because when celebrities sell out to corporate interests, they prefer to do so consciously.
The Times’s defense:

“Ms. Pauley’s assistant was told that the article for which Ms. Pauley was to be interviewed would appear in a special advertising supplement and Ms. Pauley agreed to participate.”

They told your assistant? Bad news, Jane. In the entertainment industry, if that’s not constructive notice, we don’t know what is.
(You can access Pauley’s complaint by clicking here. The case has been assigned to Judge Gerard Lynch, a brilliant S.D.N.Y. jurist and former full-time law prof at Columbia — and a proud graduate of our high school.)
TV’s Pauley Sues New York Times [Wall Street Journal via WSJ Law Blog]
Jane Pauley Sues New York Times [The Smoking Gun]

Non-Sequiturs: 10.18.06

greenhouse effect linda greenhouse.jpg* Who’d have thunk it? Objectivity is subjective. And how much do you want to bet that any article or blog entry referring to this controversy will be titled the “Greenhouse Effect”? [PrawfsBlawg]
* Shi–ite! That’s scary. But the op-ed is a good primer for lay idiots like me. [New york Times via AMERICAblog]
* Forget the Shiites and Sunnis. Someone needs to write “Abortion for Dummies,” and give it to Mr. O’Reilly pronto. [Media Matters]
* “Working for food” just doesn’t seem legal in this context. Isn’t there a Models Union or something? [OnMilwaukee.com]
* Lichtenstein would no doubt describe the noise of this head-on collision between copyright and fair use with a POW! “Sampling” doesn’t look so bad now, does it? [Boston Globe]

chandra collier juris kupris.jpgYesterday we wondered aloud about how the wedding announcement of Chandra Collier and Juris Kupris made it into the New York Times (which is notoriously picky about which announcements it runs). This reader email expressed our sentiments exactly:

Check out the Chandra Collier/Juris Kupris wedding announcement. It seems completely out of place. Neither family is from New York. She went to Indiana. He is a fitness trainer. The announcement is very, very short.

Why was it included? The picture. He looks like a male model.

I guess this means you can get into the Times if you have an impressive job, an impressive family, or an impressive photograph.

Courtesy of another reader, who did a little research for us, we have some answers:

1. Juris Kupris isn’t just “a fitness trainer,” as the Times modestly describes him. He’s actually a brand unto himself. Check out the fancy website for his fitness company.

2. You can get into the Times if you have an impressive job, an impressive family, an impressive photograph — or an impressive publicist.

Kupris is represented by NYC powerhouse publicist Lizzie Grubman. After Grubman threatened to run over the entire Sunday Styles staff with her Mercedes SUV, they were more than happy to accommodate the Collier/Kupris announcement.

Juris Kupris Fitness [official bio]
Lizzie Grubman Public Relations: Clients

Non-Sequiturs: 09.01.06

dan markel and wendi adelson.jpg–Ah, so Goulston & Storrs is going to China.* [WSJ Law Blog]
–Our Legal Eagle Wedding Watch is already generating controversy — see this post (and the comments). But Dan Markel — at right, with Wendi Adelson, his lovely wife — isn’t impartial when it comes to the NYT wedding pages.** [PrawfsBlawg]
–Yes, ATL will weigh in at some point on the controversy over diversity, Supreme Court clerks, and the relatively small number of women in this Term’s group of SCOTUS clerks. [Slate and Concurring Opinions, via SCOTUSblog]
But not on the Friday before Labor Day. Enjoy the holiday, everyone!
* We can make this lame, insensitive, politically incorrect pun, ’cause we’re Asian ourselves. And it’s hard out here for an Asian male. We’re the one demographic group that’s never en vogue — unlike, say, Asian women, or African-American men. So please, allow us the small pleasures.
** Disclosure: We went to college with Dan, worked on the school newspaper with him, and are friends with him. Hell, we’re pals with like three-quarters of the people we link to, write about, etc. The law: it’s a small world after all.
So please assume that everything you read here is potentially tainted with some kind of undisclosed conflict. Actual mileage may vary. Personal-injury lawyers in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are. Thank you.

legal eagle wedding watch david lat above the law legal blog law blog david lat david lat atl.JPGIf you’re like us, you read the New York Times wedding announcements religiously every week. It’s one of the most addictive forms of résumé porn. Consider the trenchant analysis of David Brooks:

The wedding page is a weekly obsession for thousands of Times readers and aspiring Victor Hugos. Unabashedly elitist, secretive (believe me, I’ve tried to get information out of the page’s editors), and therefore totally honest, the “mergers and acquisitions page” — as many of its devotees call it — has always provided an accurate look at an important chunk of the American ruling class. And over the years it has reflected the transformation of the American establishment….

[As the WASP elite has declined,] a new elite has coalesced, and it is found — as much as anywhere — on the wedding page of the New York Times. Whereas the old establishment was based on birth and breeding, this new establishment rests on education and career.

And what educations! What careers! Reading the Times wedding page and secretly comparing yourself to all the featured brides and grooms is a recipe for depression.
Well, we’re here to help. Each week we’ll read the Times wedding page, so you don’t have to. We’ll pick out selected marriages involving members of the legal profession and offer colorful commentary on them. Think of it as like the Veiled Conceit blog, but centered on lawyers.
We’ll score each couple in three to four categories: (1) their résumés; (2) their families; (3) couple balance (how well-matched they are); and (4) beauty (but only if there’s a picture of the happy couple). We’ll average these scores to produce an overall score. The couple with the highest overall score is the winner for that week!
The inaugural installment appears after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: July 30, 2006″

Page 24 of 241...2021222324