In a comment appended to our last post on Supreme Court clerk hiring for October Term 2007, one of you wrote:
Not 100% certain, but I think that the last RBG hire is Tom Saunders (Yale 2004 / Leval), and that Breyer hired Michael Bosworth (Yale 2003 / Rakoff (SDNY) & Katzmann).
We did some poking around, and we’ve confirmed this information. So two more Yalies and Second Circuit clerks are bound for One First Street. We apologize for being late with this, especially the news about Tom Saunders (who was hired back in August 2005 for OT 2007).
If you have any more news — for example, whether Justice Samuel Alito has made offers yet based on his recent round of interviews — please email us.
After the jump, an updated tally of Supreme Court clerks for next Term.
We’re a little late in commenting on this; we’ve been overwhelmed by a tremendous amount of news and gossip, on multiple fronts. But if you have an interest in blogging, or blogging about blogging, you should definitely check out this most interesting PrawfsBlawg post (if you haven’t done so already): An Online Experiment: Take the Legal World, Add Gossip, Shake Professor Matt Bodie offers some thoughtful (and thought-provoking) reflections upon Above the Law, as well as gossip blogging more generally. Money quote:
[L]aw professor blogs have pretty much shied completely away from law professor gossip. There are a lot of really good reasons for this. Liability concerns may be a factor, but I think they’re a small part. No law prof yet has been willing to go on record as the mouthpiece for gossip.
And why should they? Being a gossip conduit is costly to one’s reputation. It’s trivial. It’s non-scholarly. It’s hurtful to others. And besides — if you already know the gossip, what good does it do you to bring others in on the secret?
We don’t have time to respond in much detail. We have some VERY juicy Aaron Charney dish that we need to write up.
But for those of you who are curious, our thoughts on Bodie’s post appear after the jump. Update: HA. We seem to misapprehended the point of Professor Bodie’s post. Please see his explanatory comment, available here.
(The irony, of course, is that we misinterpreted his post due to being defensive and oversensitive — even as we take the position that people in general need to be less sensitive when criticized or gossiped about.)
* Lower wages for women? Always. [MSNBC]
* Trial date set for only charged Abu Ghraib officer. [Jurist]
* Racial controversy: the breakfast of champions. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Gay groups not really satisfied about Super Bowl ad; Snickers pulls it. [AP via Findlaw]
* North Dakota, now slightly less boring, but not really, issues hemp permits. [AP via Yahoo!]
One of the allegations in Sullivan & Cromwell’s countersuit against its former associate, Aaron Charney, is that Charney leaked sensitive internal documents to the Wall Street Journal.
The firm’s Complaint implies that Charney physically removed — i.e., stole — confidential documents from the files of a partner. S&C alleges that Charney then leaked these materials to the Wall Street Journal.
And who, pray tell, was the Journal reporter who received the leaked documents? None other than Peter Lattman, author of the WSJ’s popular Law Blog, as well as a reporter for the print edition of the Journal.
Charney hasn’t admitted anything, so S&C’s allegations haven’t been proven (although the circumstantial evidence is very, very strong). How can the allegations be definitively established and thoroughly explored? Through the testimony of Peter Lattman, of course.
Thus far, Lattman isn’t giving up his source. When contacted by the New York Law Journal, the WSJ, through a spokesman, said that it “does not comment on sourcing.”
Has Peter Lattman said anything about his role in this controversy over at the Law Blog? No. Why not? Because he hasn’t been around.
Earlier today, a Lattman fan sent us this email:
Can you find out if Peter Lattman is away from the Law Blog this week because of his role in the S&C documents being made public? Usually he tells us when he’s going to be away. Who is Marmor?
After redacting our reader’s name and email address, we forwarded this query to the Law Blog. About ten minutes later, this post went up:
We’ve had some inquiries as to Peter Lattman’s whereabouts this week. Sorry we didn’t notify our loyal readership sooner, but Peter’s out of town through Wednesday on assignment. Meanwhile, thanks to colleague Jessica Marmor for stepping up and pitching in!
So P. Latt is away “on assignment.” Is that what they’re calling it these days? [FN1]
Very interesting. We previously speculated that Peter Lattman might make an appearance at Thursday’s hearing in S&C v. Charney. But in light of his delicate position at the eye of the storm, we doubt that he’ll show. In fact, he will probably try to stay as far away from 60 Centre Street as possible.
If “Charneygate” is the Biglaw version of the Valerie Plame saga, then Peter Lattman is our Judith Miller. Judy Miller went to jail to protect her sources. How far will Peter Lattman go? [FN2]
To lawyers who practice in First Amendment and media law: (1) Does New York have a reporter’s privilege and/or shield laws? (2) If so, what are the general standards that must be satisfied to invoke those protections?
[FN1] We have no reason to doubt that Peter Lattman is, in fact, out of town on assignment. But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.
[FN2] Yes, we know — any exposure Peter Lattman might have if he refuses to testify in a civil case is nothing compared to what Judith Miller faced. He might just have to pay a fine rather than go to jail (assuming he can even be held in contempt at all). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us. Update: This comment makes a good point (and our clouded thinking is probably a sign that we need to step away from the computer now). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us. Where’s Peter? [WSJ Law Blog] Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
Today was a little more interesting than yesterday. A few announcements were made — or were finally brought to our attention and confirmed, if they were made previously.
After the jump, more information about DLA Piper, Katten Muchin Rosenman, King & Spalding, and Jones Day (Atlanta).
(And, of course, your comments.)
* The only diet aid that couldn’t be accused of false advertising is heroin, so lay off Anna Nicole. What can I say, I always root for the underdog. [Yahoo! News]
* You’d think he’d be immune to this kind of alleged ridicule, having had his name his entire life. Pecker, embrace it the way I do Stellaq.com; I can’t tell you how easy it is to find dates these days. [Smoking Gun via Gawker]
* Charlize used her celebrity to peddle her mom’s crocheted scarf/poncho things (unfortunately for her mom, mainly by wearing them in Sweet November). So don’t tell me she can’t wear this luxury watch on an exclusive basis for “substantial funds.” [Courier Journal]
* He’ll still have to explain (a) the coke, (b) the 16-year-old girl, and (c) the motel. But at least dinner won’t revolve around why Daddy’s in jail. (Although it’s only a matter of time.) [Philadelphia Will Do; Bucks County Courier Times]
(Yes, we know. According to Gawker, the formulation “Best. [X]. Ever.” is a blog-media cliché. But we don’t care. And we doubt that this cliché has ever been deployed in the context of Continuing Legal Education — so we get a free pass.)
If you’re (1) short on New York CLE credits, and (2) as transfixed as we are by the Biglaw train wreck called Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, have we got a suggestion for you.
A reader tipped us off to this CLE event, taking place on March 8 at the Princeton Club in New York:
Employment Law for the General Practitioner and Corporate Counselor Thursday, March 8, 2007
7.5 TOTAL CREDITS: 6.0 credit hours of practice management and/or professional practice; 0.5 credit hour in skills; 1.0 credit hour in ethics
This popular, basic-to-intermediate level program, updated and revamped from previous years, is structured to cover on a practical basis the issues and problems typically arising in today’s workplace on which corporate counsel, or a private practitioner with a general practice, may be called to handle on behalf of the company or the employee.
What’s so interesting about this? The presenters. Two of the lecturers are A-list celebrities of L’Affaire Charney: Zachary Fasman of Paul Hastings (at right), who represents the embattled megafirm; and Theodore Rogers of Sullivan & Cromwell, who is working on the case in-house.
We have advice for Mr. Fasman on how to structure his CLE presentation. Check it out, after the jump.
According to the recent lawsuit filed by Aaron Charney, Sullivan & Cromwell thinks that Canadians are “irrelevant.”
We have a different view of our neighbors to the north. We think Canucks are horny. And pretty damn funny.
This music video, Promiscuous Firm, is from the 2007 University of Alberta Law Show. And it’s far more entertaining — and well-produced — than any video we’ve seen from a U.S. law school’s annual show or roast.
(Yes, even the Tim Wu video.)
Here’s the clip. It’s great from about 1:30 onwards (or 3:00 if you’re watching “backwards”):
Best double entendre, from the attractive female hiring partner (around the 2:20 mark):
I’m a big firm, I can handle myself But if I have an opening, I may need your help.
Rumor has it that Sullivan & Cromwell’s chairman, banking law god H. Rodgin Cohen, was “pretty angry” when he learned that the New York Times would be covering Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the anti-discrimination lawsuit filed against S&C by a gay former associate, Aaron Charney.
(The NYT story was pretty even-handed. But it was surprisingly long and detailed, which Cohen probably didn’t like. We discussed it back in this post.)
If Rodge Cohen doesn’t like MSM coverage of lurid litigation involving his firm, then he’s probably less than pleased by all the news coverage of Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney, S&C’s countersuit against its former M&A associate.
Today’s New York Law Journal has an article about the case. Most of it is familiar to ATL readers. What’s new is info about Charney’s legal team, which now includes the scrumptiously credentialed Laura Schnell: Dartmouth, Chicago Law, Jack Weinstein clerkship, Best Lawyers in America listing.
In addition, the New York Times’s widely read DealBook blog has a write-up of the suit. The DealBook post contains a shout-out to ATL. Thanks, NYT!
As some commenters have noted, one purpose of S&C’s countersuit was surely to get Aaron Charney to shut up. It appears to have succeeded, since Charney has been tight-lipped since last Thursday, when the suit was filed.
But the countersuit does mean that (1) S&C is “stooping to Charney’s level,” i.e., crossing swords with someone of lesser stature (no “Rose Garden” / “we will ignore you as if you were a gnat” strategy); and (2) opening itself up to more media coverage, to wit, coverage of its affirmative lawsuit.
We are coming up to New York on Thursday to watch the preliminary injunction hearing before Justice Bernard Fried of New York Supreme Court. And we don’t think we’ll be the only media (or quasi-media) types in attendance.
Bob Kolker, of New York Magazine, is writing a feature-length article about Charney; so we’d expect to see him there. Other top legal reporters we’ll be watching out for — we have no idea of whether they’re coming, though — include Peter Lattman and Nathan Koppel, of the Wall Street Journal; Anna Schneider-Mayerson, of the New York Observer; and Anthony Lin, of the New York Law Journal. Update (4:35 PM): Prolific ATL commenter Lavi Soloway will be there.
If you’re at the hearing, feel free to come over and say hello. We look like this.
We also look forward to meeting the parties and their lawyers. We’ve emailed Aaron Charney to tell him that we’ll be there (although he hasn’t responded). And we’ve emailed Zach Fasman of Paul Hastings, who represents S&C, to put him on fashion-and-style notice:
I’m planning to attend the hearing on Thursday, so perhaps I’ll meet you then. Be sure to dress for success! I’ll definitely be writing about the sartorial choices of counsel at this red-carpet event.
“I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: I am NOT a judicial diva!!!”
(Okay, she didn’t say it quite this emphatically. But Judge Brown did repudiate the “judicial diva” label, when we asked her about it during the Q-and-A session.)
Some time ago — we’re too embarrassed to mention when — we attended a lunch talk here in Washington with Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the D.C. Circuit. As we’ve previously noted, Judge Brown is a leading judicial diva and possible Supreme Court nominee.
It was a great event, and we took lots of pictures, of the impressively poor quality that you’re used to here at ATL. Our write-up, with pics, after the jump.
What does it mean to be “newly admitted?” To us, it means endless possibilities!
We recognize that you already possess the ability and intelligence to succeed in a variety of legal professions. Our job is to expose you to various practice areas in a way that ensures those very attributes are successfully applied. Our seasoned and successful faculty present unique programs that provide an approachable and practical understanding of the avenues of achievement available as you launch a fruitful, enjoyable and promising career.
Our Live Bridge the Gap weekends satisfy the entire year of New York Newly-Admitted CLE Credits in only two days!
After physically attending a full weekend, you will receive:
• 3.0 Ethics CLE credits,
• 6.0 Skills CLE credits, and
• 7.0 Professional Practice and/or Law Practice Management CLE credits
Date: Saturday, June 8 and Sunday, June 9, 2013 Time: 9:00 a.m. – 4:35 p.m. (EST) Location:
55 Exchange Place
New York, NY 10006
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past six years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Deal flow has clearly picked recently up for most US associates, counsels and partners in Hong Kong/China and Singapore. We are on the phone with a lot of these folks on a daily basis, many of whom we have known for years. Further, the head of our Asia team, Evan Jowers, and Kinney’s founder and president, Robert Kinney, frequently meet in person with leading US partners in Asia to assess their needs and keep on top of the inside scoop at as many firms as possible. The need for legal recruiting help in Asia from experienced recruiters appears to be live and well. In March, Evan and Robert were in Beijing at such meetings, in April, Evan was in Hong Kong, and for half of June Evan will be in Shanghai and Hong Kong. Thus its pretty easy for us to tell when there has been an across-the-market pick up in capital markets and corporate work.
On an average day in Asia when Evan and Robert visit firms, they typically have 5 to 9 meetings a day, mostly with US partners in the market. The reason they have these meetings is not simply because Kinney makes a lot of US attorney placements in Asia and that a particular firm may have openings; instead these are just visits with friends. After years of working together as business partners, the folks at Kinney are actually these peoples’ friends. The firms Kinney work closely with in Asia (which is just about every law firm – call us if you want to know the one firm in the world we will never place anyone with again, ever, and why) look forward to the visits, or at least act like they do. After seven years in the market, many of the client partners are former associate candidates. Also, these US partners see Kinney as a very good source of market information as well, because they know how deep their contacts are in the market and how frequently they are speaking to counterparts at peer firms.
In a land that is right here and in a time that is right now, a technology has arisen so powerful that it can replace basic human document review. Is it time to bow down before our new robot overlords?
First, here’s a little story about me: my life in the legal world began as a paralegal. My first case was a GIANT patent infringement case that was already six years old and had involved as many as five companies, multiple US courts, the ITC and an international standards committee. I knew nothing about any of this.
On my first day, my supervisor (a paralegal with at least eight other cases driving her crazy) sat me down in front of a Concordance database with a 100,000+ patents and patent file histories. “Code these,” she said. I learned that “coding”, for the purposes of this exercise, meant manually typing the inventor’s name, the title of the patent, the assignee, the file date, and other objective data for each document. I worked on that project – and only that project – for at least the first six months of my job. After a week or so, time began to blur.
What I know, in retrospect and with absolutely certainty, is that as time began to blur, so did my judgment. So did my attention to detail. If you could tell me that I did not make at least one mistake a day – one inconsistent spelling, one reversed day and month, one incorrectly spaced title – I frankly would need to see your evidence. I would not believe it. The human mind is trainable but it is not a machine.
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!