Because he’s not THAT Aaron Charney. No relation. He swears!
Here’s a Facebook exchange that we reprint with permission of our correspondent:
Poor guy. When you see a résumé from Aaron Charney next spring, before you toss it in the circular file, please double check: Are you sure it’s from the right — or wrong, as the case may be — Aaron Charney?
In other Charney news, Keeping Up With Jonas has created a Charney v. S&C Superstar Poll. To cast your vote, click here. (We know how we’re voting, but we’ll keep it to ourselves.)
Aaron Charney [Facebook]
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell Superstar Poll [Keeping Up With Jonas]
Speaking for ourselves, we’d think that accepting advice on the bar exam from anonymous strangers over the internet is like getting on the express train to Bandyland.
But some of you disagree. Here are two requests we’ve received recently:
“I am currently one of the thousands of students frantically studying for the bar exam. One of the things that help me keep calm is hearing about the bar exam studying strategies of others and their stories about the exam itself. Would you, perhaps, consider doing such a post?”
“Can you post a string for help with the NY bar specifically? Especially Essay help or NY Multiple choice.”
We’re accommodating people here at Above the Law. So here you go: an open thread for sharing bar exam tips and stories (which have already started surfacing on other recent posts).
To everyone taking the bar next week: Good luck, from your friends at ATL!
- Dahlia Lithwick, Fabulosity, Howard Bashman, J. Michael Luttig, Linda Greenhouse, Media and Journalism, Nina Totenberg, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
We’re loving this little dustup over our item about Nina Totenberg getting territorial over seating in the Supreme Court press gallery. It got us a shout-out in the Washington Post. And it’s generating celebrity correspondence for us, too.
Over the weekend, we heard from SCOTUS bar superstar Tom Goldstein. And then, this morning, we received this email, from one of our favorite commentators on legal affairs:
From: Dahlia Lithwick
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:35 AM
To: David Lat
Subject: one bigger question raised in Divagate
The Wa Po article about Nina said she was “dean” of the Supreme Court press corps.
What the heck is that about?
Is it a real position? Is it tenured?
Good questions. It reminds us of “The Tenth Justice,” a title that has been bestowed on everyone from the Solicitor General to ex-judge J. Michael Luttig to Howard Bashman (by Howard Bashman).
Also, can you run for this post of “dean”? If the SCOTUS press corps is like high school, is this like being class president? Or prom queen?
If so, we nominate Dahlia Lithwick. She’s fabulous! How many Supreme Court correspondents have Facebook fan clubs?
(Linda Greenhouse, eat your (bleeding) heart out….)
Names & Faces: Totenberg’s Courtside Seat [Washington Post]
A3G to President Bush: Pick Alito, Not Luttig [Underneath Their Robes]
Earlier: Why Is Nina Totenberg Like Judy Miller?
Oops, we briefly dropped the ball on our continuing series about perks or fringe benefits provided by legal employers. In prior posts, we covered technology allowances, gym memberships, and marriage bonuses.
Recently a tipster asked us if any law firms out there would help him out with buying a house. We believe he was thinking in terms of financial assistance (e.g., a low-interest home mortgage).
We’re not sure about that. But we do know that some law firms will help out associates with other real estate and housing-related matters, such as moving expenses and broker fees.
Here’s an open thread for discussion of fringe benefits related to housing and real estate. Have at it!
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of perks and fringe benefits (scroll down)
- Bar Exams, Celebrities, Emily Pataki, Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sullivan, Law School Deans, Paulina Bandy, Politics, White & Case
Yesterday we wrote about Paulina Bandy, that poor creature who failed the California bar exam thirteen times, before finally passing it on try #14. Her story seems to have freaked out some of you who are sitting for the bar exam
later this month next week.
Relax. Take a deep breath. You won’t wind up in a 365-square-foot shack in your mom’s backyard. We think.
Chances are, you will pass. And even if you fail the bar once or twice, you’re still not on your way towards Paulina Bandy-dom.
As it turns out, a number of well-known individuals — some famous for their accomplishments in law, and others for different reasons — didn’t pass the bar on the first (or even second) try.
To get the ball rolling, here’s a short list of a few bar exam failures. Check it out, after the jump.
* Reprieve granted day before execution. [CNN]
* L.A. archdiocese reaches $660 million settlement. [MSNBC]
* Family of Girl Who Married Teacher Sues School District. [WSOCTV]
* OU must adjust records as part of NCAA sanctions. [SI]
* Charges dismissed against 13 former KPMG employees. [NYT; WSJ Law Blog (background)]
To balance out our recent tales of diva-licious behavior by a celebrated legal journalist, Nina Totenberg of NPR, here’s an opposing viewpoint — a “But see,” if you will — from Thomas Goldstein. Goldstein is a partner at Akin Gump, a top Supreme Court advocate, and founder of SCOTUSblog.
Tom Goldstein also knows Ms. Nina well, since he’s a former intern for her and a longtime friend (see here). He writes:
I admit to being the world’s biggest Nina partisan, except maybe for my daughter (Nina) and wife and sister (who also were interns). The diva reputation makes for good press but honestly isn’t deserved; the seats in the press gallery are assigned.
Totes actually spends tons of time worrying about and caring for friends, including several who are recovering from cancer. She’s a sweetheart.
We thank Tom Goldstein for his thoughts on La Totenberg — but we’re disappointed to hear them! There are precious few divas in this world. When you find a true diva, or even a potential one, you should hold on to her for as long as you can.
With respect to Goldstein’s comments on the press gallery, that’s true — in part. The situation is actually a bit more complicated. If you’re just DYING to know how seat assignments work for the SCOTUS press corps (and we know you are), we’ll provide a detailed report in a subsequent post.
Names & Faces: Totenberg’s Courtside Seat [Washington Post]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Nina Totenberg (scroll down)
* Washingtonienne, the sequel? But this time around, blame the “backdoor action” on the Spicy Mussel Soup. [Medill Reports]
* A compelling defense of Judge Dennis Jacobs’s “look ma, no eyes” approach to dissenting. [ProfessorBainbridge.com]
* “My friends said to me, ‘It would take a murder trial for you to meet the right person.’” [Associated Press]
* Because we need to use the “Weirdness” tag at least once a day. [Underbelly]
We received an interesting email about a month ago. We meant to write about it back then, but never got around to it. But since we haven’t read about it elsewhere (please correct us if we’re wrong), we figure it’s still fair game for discussion.
Here’s the start of the email. It’s from John Quinn, name partner of litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel.
From: John Quinn
we have a possible solution to a problem that we want to run by all of you. its controversial–or has the potential to be such–so we don’t want to consider it further if it will be a problem.
our firm desparately needs more patent litigators with electrical engineering degrees. its not just that we have more and more cases calling for that expertise. we also have clients who insist on staffing their cases with electrical engineers. we are beyond capacity limited in this area. its to the point that we are being instructed to off load some work to other firms that have ee degrees. the truth of the matter is that we could probably put a dozen of these people to work right now if we had them.
we have constantly been looking for people with this credential. unfortunately, so are alot of other firms. the demand clearly exceeds the supply.
You can probably guess where this is going. Read the rest of John Quinn’s email, after the jump.
- Email Scandals, Harvard Law Review, Law Reviews, Law Schools, Ridiculousness, Technology, Vicious Infighting
Remember our extensive, mischievous-yet-good-natured coverage of internal strife at the legendary Harvard Law Review? It appears to have irritated HLR President Andrew Crespo. And it probably will have to stop now, thanks to the Review’s new “email and internet usage policy,” which prohibits sharing HLR internal emails with the eyes of outsiders.
UH OH! Looks like Andrew “Crespolini” Crespo didn’t like his dirty laundry being aired on Above The Law, so he’s created a new policy (this one, mercifully, public) to ensure that all inanity can be confined to Gannett House.
Fortunately, since it won’t take effect until next week, I figured I would send it along your way!
As our source notes, the policy doesn’t take effect until July 18, 2007. So taking the policy and forwarding it to, say, your favorite legal tabloid is permitted (until Wednesday, when all bets are off).
It’s not particularly interesting — but if you’d like to read the policy, you can check it out after the jump.
If you’re tired of reading about Peter Barta, the Legal Aid Society lawyer who allegedly videotaped his female colleagues as they were changing their clothes in the office, then skip this post.
But if you’d be interested in reading an email from a law school classmate of his, you can check it out, after the jump.
As we’ve mentioned before, our interest in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell is flagging somewhat. It has been a while since the last salacious accusation, and now the case is starting to look like any other civil action — motion practice, discovery, etc.
Been there, done that. Yawn.
(Wake us up when Alexandra Korry gets deposed. Now THAT is gonna be good — although we’ll have to pray for a leaked transcript, since presumably it will be covered by a confidentiality order.)
On Friday, Charney filed his opposition to S&C’s Motion to Dismiss. Taking a page from Judge Jacobs’s (unopened) book, we haven’t bothered to read it. But here are three bloggers who have:
3. Lavi Soloway
Based on their posts, the upshot is that Charney’s lawyers have accused S&C of “grandstanding” and “arrogance.”
C’mon, guys — was that really necessary? Did you have to call S&C arrogant? Can’t Justice Fried just take judicial notice of that?
Okay, sorry, we couldn’t resist. To be fair, Charney’s lawyers aren’t acquitting themselves that well either, with all of these ad hominem attacks on their adversaries.
For more criticism of Charney’s counsel, see here. We hereby designate Jonas the pro-S&C Charneyblogger. Now, thanks to him, coverage of Charney v. S&C will be fair and balanced!
Charney’s Lawyers Accuse Sullivan & Cromwell of Arrogance and Grandstanding [Soloway]
Charney Accuses Sullivan & Cromwell of “grandstanding” in pending dismissal motion [Leonard Link]
Charney’s Opposition [Keeping Up With Jonas]