We think the leathery skin and hair coloration — black on top, silver on the sides — may be responsible for the bulk of the resemblance. But still, it’s pretty darn close.
Our favorite comment in the thread:
“I’m loyal to the Bada Bing. Strippers to $3,000 (in singles)!”
We feel better. We’re not the only folks who have been rudely dissed by Linda Greenhouse, the longtime op-ed columnist Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times.
From Jim Romenesko’s widely read media blog, Poynter Online:
The Times’ Linda Greenhouse became upset when she realized that C-SPAN planned to broadcast a panel discussion featuring Supreme Court reporters. “I told [the event organizer] she had a choice, either she could have me on the panel speaking candidly or she could have C-SPAN there,” Greenhouse tells Gal Beckerman. “I didn’t want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience.”
C-SPAN’s programming veep is unhappy: “All the participants were notified the night before, and no one objected. Then, five to ten minutes beforehand, we were told we couldn’t cover it. Having a five-person crew unable to work for a day was a major hit on us.”
Wow. To the commenters who have questioned our characterization of Greenhouse as a diva, please reconsider your views.
So why did Linda Greenhouse throw a hissy fit over possible C-SPAN coverage? We have some (quasi-informed) speculation.
Some thoughts and some links, plus the complete protest letter sent by C-SPAN, appear after the jump.
We recently started a discussion about maternity leave policies at large law firms. Shortly thereafter, one such firm — Simpson Thacher & Bartlett — made changes to its maternity leave policy.
From a tipster (and confirmed for us by James Cross, co-chair of the firm’s personnel committee):
Simpson just announced a 50% increase in the paid time off for maternity leave (increased from the standard 12 weeks paid to 18 weeks paid portion of the 6 month maternity leave policy) in addition to other family/work/life balance benefits. I know it’s not as exciting and sexy as salary increases, but as quite a few of us women are associates these days, this would make a significant difference to me when selecting a law firm.
Also, since we started the last bump in raises, it may cause a ripple effect in the benefits arena across true top tier law firms. Perhaps even a pre-cursor to another salary bump.
Very nice! We applaud Simpson for taking this step, and encourage other large law firms to follow suit. Update: On the subject of paternity leave, an STB source tells us: “As far as I know it’s consistent with what is posted on our website for recruiting: 4 weeks paid (and 12 weeks unpaid) paternity leave. I do not believe this has changed.” Earlier: Biglaw Perk Watch: Maternity Leave and Paternity Leave
As many of you know, we’re guilty of federal judicial snobbery here at ATL. We frequently mock state court judges, whom we regard as “icky,” and contrast their regular misadventures — ethical lapses, brushes with the law, messy personal lives — with the generally upright lives of their counterparts on the federal bench.
But federal judges are people too — people who get themselves into highly embarrassing situations. From Colorado’s 9News.com:
Court documents obtained by 9Wants to Know show Colorado’s top federal judge was too drunk to remember how he spent more than $3,000 at a strip club in two consecutive days. He also used an Internet dating service while he was married.
Judge Edward Nottingham is the chief federal judge in Colorado and he is held to the highest standards of personal and professional conduct.
Umm, yeah, this story is all kinds of awesome. Some of Judge Nottingham’s conduct would make a drunken summer associate blush.
More after the jump.
Troutman Sanders raised associate pay $15,000 across the board in its Atlanta, Washington, Virginia and North Carolina offices Thursday, with the starting salary going from $130,000 to $145,000.
The firm’s managing partner, Robert W. Webb Jr., announced the pay increase to associates at 5 p.m. Thursday.
The raises are effective Jan. 1, 2008, the same date the pay raise that Alston & Bird announced to its Atlanta associates last week goes into effect. Earlier this week, King & Spalding matched Alston’s $15,000 increase in starting pay, also effective Jan. 1, but did not raise pay for more senior associates.
Correction: According to a source at the firm, as well as various commenters, “Troutman’s DC and Tysons Corner offices have starting salaries of $160K as a result of the increase. (Troutman’s Atlanta office is starting at $145K).”
What’s most noteworthy about this raise, as pointed out to us by several tipsters, is that it’s “across the board” — not just for first- or second-year associates. In Atlanta, where salary compression for more senior associates is a serious issue, an across-the-board raise of $15,000 is good news indeed. It’s better than what has been announced thus far by Alston & Bird and King & Spalding.
More discussion, after the jump.
* Ex-astronaut Lisa Nowak wants her ankle bracelet removed. She has no complaints about the diaper. [New York Times]
* Say what? The DOJ will pay $150K for me and a friend to surf the web for porn? [New York Times]
* Roel Campos is cashing in his chips. He’s leaving the SEC for a partnership at Cooley Godward Kronish. [Washington Post]
* The Maher Arar rendition and torture case: blame Canada? [New York Times]
* Congratulations, Gitmo detainees: you’re now “enemy combatants.” [Washington Post]
* “[H]ere’s a little unsolicited career advice for Loyola 2L.” [WSJ Law Blog]
Clerkship bonus announcements continue to roll in. Here’s the latest:
Quinn Emanuel’s website confirms that they have finally increased their clerkship bonus to $50,000.
My understanding is that other prestigious California litigation shops, like Keker and Munger, are still stuck at $35,000. You would make my day if you called them to confirm this (and thereby applied a little pressure).
Sorry, tipster. As we previously mentioned, we no longer conduct affirmative outreach to law firms about their clerkship bonuses, after receiving abuse rather than gratitude for past efforts on that front.
(But we might reconsider if, say, enough people made (tax-deductible) charitable donations to support us in the New York marathon this year. We need to raise $1,250 by early next month. Contributions — did we mention they’re tax-deductible? — can be made through our fundraising page.)
* Lawyer opinions solicited: Is this an effective ad for malpractice insurance? [Copyranter]
* Another ugly day for the stock market. [Volokh Conspiracy]
* On that subject: Is the vast family fortune of Rachel Kovner, ATL’s official It girl, in jeopardy — as recently rumored by our sibling site? Not exactly. But if Bruce Kovner’s legendary fund is up only 3 percent year-to-date, things could certainly be better. [DealBreaker]
* What? The iPhone is not God’s greatest gift to man? Bite your tongue! [Althouse]
* Ignoring a handslap will get you a benchslap. See page 15, footnote 7. [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (PDF)]
It used to be that salaries for first-year associates at large firms remained intact for the year. No more.
Increasing pressures to match the pay offered elsewhere have impelled some New Jersey firms to a midyear hike, a sampling of large New Jersey law offices shows. (See chart.)
Day Pitney in Florham Park announced on July 27 it would increase first-year salaries to $135,000 in January 2008, a jump of $15,000.
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik in Westfield decided on July 1 to boost first-year salaries by $10,000, to $140,000, starting in January.
Lerner David’s pay level equals that of Lowenstein Sandler of Roseland as the highest among firms whose main office is in New Jersey. Lowenstein announced in June that first-year pay would increase to $140,000 in January, $15,000 above the level originally set earlier in the year….
Actually, this is a two-for-one. We can also get a Benchslap of the Day out of this item. From the Miami Herald:
Prominent attorney Hank Adorno — already under Florida Bar investigation for his role in Miami’s fire-fee scandal — on Wednesday was blasted by the Third District Court of Appeal for what the judges called his ”reprehensible conduct” in the now infamous case.
In a unanimous opinion that upheld a lower-court decision invalidating Miami’s $7 million fire-fee settlement with just seven people, the appeals court ripped into Adorno, who had represented the so-called ”lucky seven.” The Adorno & Yoss firm stood to earn a $2 million share of the $7 million payout, while some 80,000 taxpayers got nothing.
Huh? How did that almost come to pass?
More discussion, plus the benchslap-worthy language from the court’s opinion, after the jump.
Some fashion advice for Arab-Americans traveling by plane: leave the Arabic-slogan t-shirts at home.
Unless you want to become the plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit. Consider this recently filed case:
The American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit charging that a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) official and JetBlue Airways illegally discriminated against an American resident based solely on the Arabic message on his t-shirt and his ethnicity.
JetBlue and the TSA official, identified as “Inspector Harris,” would not let Raed Jarrar board his flight at John F. Kennedy Airport until he agreed to cover his t-shirt, which read “We Will Not Be Silent” in English and Arabic script.
According to the complaint, Harris told Jarrar that it is impermissible to wear an Arabic shirt to an airport and equated it to a “person wearing a t-shirt at a bank stating, ‘I am a robber.’”
Here it is: the breathlessly anticipated SCOTUS Smackdown! To be precise, we should note that not all of our July couples featured a Supreme Court clerk. But Gelman-Bash (Scalia), Ingber-Metlitsky (Roberts), and Bernstein-Foster (Kennedy) are all Elect-able pairings. We can’t wait to see who gets to strut around One First Street with ATL’s coveted Couple of the Month crown!
Vote for your favorite (or least un-favorite) Justice, vote for the best picture, or vote against the Elect by picking DeLeonardo-Frey or Goldfein-Holden — just vote! Click on the link below for recaps on each couple.
When you’re ready to make your choice, here’s the poll:
If your firm is in ‘go’ mode when it comes to recruiting lateral partners with loyal clients, then take this quiz to see how well you measure up. Keep track of your ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses.
1. Does your firm have a clearly defined strategy of practice groups that are priorities of growth for your office? Nothing gets done by random chance, but with a clear vision for the future. Identify the top practice areas for which you wish to add lateral partners. Seek input from practice group leaders and get specifics on needs, outcomes, and ideal target profiles.
2. In addition to clarifying your firm’s growth strategy, are you still open to the hire of a partner outside of your plan? I’ve made several placements that fit this category. The partner’s practice was not within the strategic growth plan of my client, but once the two parties started talking with each other, we all saw how it could indeed be a seamless fit. Be open to “Opportunistic Hires.” You never know where your next producing partner might come from, so you have to be open to it. I will be the first to admit that there is a quirky element of randomness in recruiting.
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: email@example.com.
We currently have a very exciting and rare type of in-house opening in China at one of the world’s leading internet and social media companies. Our client is looking for an IP Transactional / TMT / Licensing attorney with 2 to 6 years experience. The new hire will be based in Shenzhen or Shanghai. Mandarin is not required (deal documentation will be in English) but is preferred. A solid reason to be in China and a commitment to that market is required of course. This new hire will likely be US qualified (but could also be qualified in UK or other jurisdictions) and with experience and training at a top law firm’s IP transactional / TMT practice and could be currently at a law firm or in-house. Qualified candidates currently Asia based, Europe based or US based will be considered. The new hire’s supervisors in this technology transactions in-house team are very well regarded US trained IP transactional lawyers, with substantial experience at Silicon Valley firms. The culture and atmosphere in this in-house group and the company in general is entrepreneurial, team oriented, and the work is cutting edge, even for a cutting edge industry. The upside of being in an important strategic in-house position in this fast growing and world leading internet company is of the “sky is the limit” variety. Its a very exciting place to be in China for a rising IP transactional lawyer in our opinion, for many reasons beyond the basic info we can share here in this ad / post. This is a special A+ opportunity.
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!