Check it out here.
We haven’t had a chance to read the whole transcript yet. We’ve spent the afternoon chasing down bonus news and mystery smells.
But if you have read it, and have some reactions or favorite parts, please share them in the comments. Thanks!
Update: The Washington Post comments on Judge Posner’s foray into cyberspace in this article.
The Second Life of Judge Richard A. Posner [New World Notes]
Posner: First Judge in Cyberspace [Eminent Domain via How Appealing]
Check it out here.
And at the peak of final exam studying, too! Our Greenwich Village correspondent reports:
I don’t know what it is, but it smells like the law library is in a dump. I gave up and left an hour ago. The whole basement of the library was EMPTY. But there were holdouts in the corners and the top floor in Vanderbilt.
We don’t know what the smell IS….
And from another NYU source:
People have been thanking me for confirming that they weren’t nuts. We’ve asked the librarians [about the mystery smell], but they have no answers.
From a commenter:
It smells like a Dumpster / port a potty combo, with an emphasis on the Dumpster. Think rotting trash in warm weather.
Davis Polk has fallen into line. This post went up on Greedy NY a few minutes ago.
Then we received the Davis Polk bonus memo, by email, from a DPW address. So consider that news CONFIRMED.
The Davis memo looks pretty much like all the other memos, so we won’t use up front page space for it. If you’d like to see it, including all the numbers that are mind-numbingly familiar to you by now, check it out after the jump.
Update: The memo was also posted by an ATL commenter over here. Thanks for all your help, everyone!
That’s what we’re hearing on the Rialto.
But this is not confirmed, certainly not as to all classes (because Skadden doesn’t circulate a firm-wide memo listing compensation for all seniority levels). The Greedy NY poster claims to be class of 2002.
If you can confirm, or provide us with the text or a scanned version of your memo, please email us. Thanks.
Skadden Matches [Infirmation / Greedy NY]
We received the Debevoise memo by email. The LeBoeuf memo was posted on Infirmation.
(Yawn. Are you as bored as we are? Then take our reader poll about your sex life. Or check out this awesome pro se lawsuit.)
In case they interest you, we reprint the Debevoise and LeBoeuf bonus memos, after the jump.
Remember the Best Notice of Appeal Ever? We’ve finally found a filing that tops it.
Pro se litigants, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and law professors all share the ability to “think outside the box.” They come up with novel and creative theories of liability — ones that courts have never entertained before.
Some are crazy. Some are brilliant. And some fall somewhere in between. Consider this civil complaint:
Summary: Pro se litigant George Allen Ward is suing Arm & Hammer and its corporate parent, Church & Dwight, for $425 million. His theory of liability: failure to warn. The company failed to warn him that if he cooked up THEIR PRODUCT, baking soda, with cocaine, he might end up serving a 200-month prison sentence on crack cocaine charges.
Ward argues that Arm & Hammer should add one of these warnings to boxes of baking soda:
“The use of this product with illegal drugs is punishable by law and is prohibited.”
“The use of this product with illegal drugs is punishable by enhanced penalties by the laws of the United States of America.”
This is just the beginning; the whole complaint is genius. It’s strangely compelling, and it gets better with every page. Also, we think it might fly in the Ninth Circuit.
We reprint the rest of the pleading after the jump. Enjoy!
So it appears that Willkie Farr & Gallagher has matched market bonuses. We don’t have official confirmation or a memo yet, but we doubt that this is another fake Willkie announcement.
Matching is the default outcome right now. We doubt anyone will have the guts to raise. Most big law firms had a very good year in 2006, and they probably could afford to be more generous with bonuses. But our guess is that they’re being conservative this year, in case the economy heads south in 2007.
On the other hand, we don’t think any Biglaw shop would be stupid enough (or mean enough) to go below market. It would be a scarlet letter to wear for several recruiting seasons to come. So matching market / Milbank is the safest way to go.
One of you was kind enough to respond to our request for the Simpson Thacher bonus memo. We reprint the STB memo, after the jump.
Update (1:35 PM): The Willkie Farr memo is also available after the jump. Our thanks to commenter Wendell.
Right now you’re probably thinking, “HOW RUDE!!!” But before you slap us for our impudence, allow us to explain.
Our inquiry is prompted by a news development. Our big sibling points out that according to a recent study, high-earning professionals with “extreme jobs” — defined as jobs that involve working at least 60 hours a week — have less satisfying sex lives than regular folks.
We’d like to do a little poll of our readership. Many of you are hard-working lawyers with “extreme jobs.” This poll is for you.
(If you do NOT have an “extreme job,” then please do NOT vote. Law students, this means you. We know that outside of exam period, you do none of your class reading, or any other work. You spend all your time working out, drinking at the local bar, or going at it like bunny rabbits. So please, wait until you’re all grown up, and toiling in the Biglaw salt mines.)
Here’s the poll:
|Make Free Online Polls|
We realize this poll is massively unscientific. We have no way of preventing non-extreme-job-holders from taking it. We don’t explain the criteria for an “satisfying” or “unsatisfying” sex life (although here’s one thought).
And there are lots of other problems, too. Those of you who majored or went to graduate school in social psychology, and designed lots of weird studies, can explain them to us.
But look, we’re just curious. So please, humor us, and take the poll — provided that you have an “extreme job.” Thanks.
P.S. This study is also timely in light of today’s release of the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, which collects all sorts of interesting but random study data.
Why You Probably Aren’t Getting Laid Tonight [DealBreaker]
Who Americans Are and What They Do, in Census Data [New York Times]
Per this posting, which reprints what appears to be the Clifford Chance bonus memo:
On behalf of all the partners, we are pleased to announce the 2006 bonus levels for our U.S. associates. In connection with the annual associate performance review, the Firm will pay bonuses according to the following bonus levels by class:
Class of 1999 and more senior $65,000
Class of 2000 $60,000
Class of 2001 $55,000
Class of 2002 $50,000
Class of 2003 $45,000
Class of 2004 $40,000
Class of 2005 $35,000
Class of 2006 $30,000 (prorated)
Bonuses will be paid to associates in our U.S. offices on January 5, 2007.
Thank you for your dedication and hard work throughout the year. We wish you and your families a happy and healthy holiday season.
Unlike most other bonus memos, the CC memo starts with the most senior class (and biggest bonus), then works its way down. How creative! How wild ‘n crazy! Is Associate Bonus Watch fun, or what?
(That said, it’s not as much fun as this Clifford Chance memo.)
CC matches [Infirmation / Greedy NY]
Associates Concerns [Clifford Chance LLP via InternalMemos.com]
That’s the latest word on the street (as brought to our attention by this comment).
This news makes perfect sense, and we have no reason to doubt it. If it were something surprising — e.g., Simpson tops the market bonuses — then we’d be more concerned about fact-checking.
But just for our records, can someone please send us the memo, assuming there is one? We’d like to add it to our collection of law firm bonus memos. Thanks.
simpson matches [Infirmation / Greedy NY]
Simpson confirmed [Infirmation / Greedy NY]
Because of Bonusmania, we’ve fallen behind a little in Legal Eagle Wedding Watch. In this post, we discuss lawyer weddings from the weekend of December 2-3.
The most high-profile wedding that week was between media heiress Anne Hearst, sister of Patty Hearst, and novelist Jay McInerney (announcement here). But there were also three marriages involving attorneys:
Our scores and commentary, after the jump.
We have not forgotten our recent request for funny or embarrassing holiday party stories. If you’re disappointed with your bonus, the perfect way to strike back is by sending us stories of partner misbehavior at your firm’s December fête.
We’re still accepting submissions, by email (subject line: “Holiday Party Stories”). If we receive enough, we’ll have a contest in which you can vote for the most egregious one.
We were reminded of our dormant request when one of you emailed us this story (subject line: “Just in time for law firm Christmas parties”):
A solo practitioner has been censured by the Appellate Division, 1st Department, for twice pinching his secretary’s buttocks. New Jersey-based attorney Ronald M. Sims, a member of the New York Bar since 1974, was convicted in December 2003 in New Jersey of harassment.
This next part confused us:
“Respondent, a solo practitioner, has submitted a letter brief in lieu of a formal response,” the court wrote in its per curiam decision. “He states that he takes full responsibility for his wrongful conduct and explains that the matter came about as a result of his secretary getting mad at him.”
Ronald Sims’s defense: “My secretary got mad at me, so I pinched her butt.”
Shouldn’t that be the other way around?
Attorney Censured for Pinching Secretary [New York Law Journal]
Earlier: Holiday Party Scandal Stories, Please