We previouslyreported that Covington & Burling, in their New York office, paid special and year-end bonuses at market levels. But what did they do in their other offices around the country?
The firm takes its sweet time, for one thing. Last month, a tipster there wrote us:
The D.C. office of Covington & Burling still has not paid bonuses to associates. When our peers at other firms (and in NY) got bonuses months ago, it seems offensive and stingy to hold out on the bonus payment…
But that’s the way things have always been. We contacted Covington and learned, through a spokesperson, that “it’s been our firm’s policy for years that our bonus schedule is around April 1 in all markets, except New York.”
So today is April 1. Do you know where the Covington bonuses are — and what they’re like this year?
If so — or if you have bonus news on another major national law firm, not previously covered in these pages — please email us (subject line: “Associate Bonus Watch”). Thanks. Update: We’ve learned that in Covington’s San Francisco office, bonuses ranged from $5K to $65K (but don’t have any more details). Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Covington & Burling (New York) Associate Bonus Watch: A Few More Updates
A quick follow-up to Friday’s post about Latham & Watkins possibly representing the Church of Scientology. The post was updated multiple times, and there were also lots of comments on it. Depending upon when you stopped reading, you may have come away with an erroneous impression.
At one point, we — and some commenters — expressed doubt that LW represents the Scientologists. But for the record, it now appears that Latham really IS representing the Church.
See this post from Radar Online, which has more details, and collects severallegalletters sent out on behalf of the Church (thumbnails; click to enlarge) According to Radar, “[a]t least one Latham & Watkins letter was signed by David J. Schindler, the former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the criminally mischievous nerd any self-respecting hacker wannabe worships, Kevin Mitnick.”
More discussion, after the jump.
The federal court filing spree launched by Jonathan Lee Riches, a pro se inmate who has barraged courts around the country with some 1,500 handwritten suits, is coming to a halt—at least in the Northern District of Georgia.
Calling Riches a “vexatious and abusive litigant,” U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. last week permanently enjoined Riches—who has filed 351 suits in the Northern District alone over the past several months—from filing any more without first meeting a strict set of criteria.
Vexatious. That’s a great Scabulous word!
The order [pdf] dismisses all of Riches’ pending cases without prejudice. Skadden Arps and Pepper Hamilton must be breathing huge sighs of relief.
Among the defendants to Riches’ Atlanta suits were former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his wife, Silda; the law firms Pepper Hamilton and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Hooters of America; Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc.; and investment banker Bruce Wasserstein, whose private equity fund used to own the Daily Report’s parent company.
Riches’ celebrity targets included actors Anne Heche, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones; musicians Cyndi Lauper and Eddie Van Halen; and Braves pitcher Tom Glavine.
In one case, he alleged that actress Molly Ringwald “said she is going to turn me into a redhead and … burn me with 16 candles,” an apparent reference to Ringwald’s 1984 hit movie “Sixteen Candles.”
In honor of both the start of baseball season and April Fool’s Day, log onto Westlaw and type in 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1474. What you will find is a piece from the June 1975 University of Pennsylvania Law Review called The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule. This Aside, presumably written tongue-in-cheek, examines “whether the same types of forces that shaped the development of the common law also generated the Infield Fly Rule.”
The Infield Fly Rule is a baseball rule that prevents infielders from intentionally dropping pop flies with less than two outs and either runners on first and second base or the bases loaded. According to the rule, if a batter hits a pop fly in infield territory, the umpire is supposed to automatically call the batter “out.” Runners are then free to advance at their own risk.
As discussed in the Aside, baseball owners implemented the Infield Fly Rule to combat gamesmanship by infielders, including most famously Columbia Law School graduate Monte Ward, who realized that intentionally dropping pop flies would allow turning single outs into double plays and triple plays. Without adding such a rule, base runners would have no way to know whether to advance or retreat on pop flies until the very last moment.
Over the years, The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule has developed a cult following. The work has been cited 56 times, including by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Wikipedia ranks the Aside as one of the sixteen most “significant” works ever published by Penn Law Review. The author Will Stevens even stepped forward to identify himself after having originally published the piece anonymously.
More discussion, after the jump.
We received almost 900 responses to last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on how work gets assigned.
Here’s how you said it is:
* 54% of respondents said that their work was assigned directly by the partners.
* 19% of respondents seek out the work they want in a “free market.”
* 18% have work assigned by a practice group leader or department head.
* 3% have work assignments filtered through an advisor or mentor.
* 6% wrote in that their firms have some combination of the above, which generally boiled down to a mix of direct assignments from the partners and a free market.
But many respondents would rather see some of those direct assignments filtered through a department head or a mentor. Here’s how you said it should be:
* 37% of respondents want their work to be assigned directly by the partners. Among respondents whose work actually is assigned directly by partners, this number jumped to 88%.
* 21% of respondents would like to get the work they want in a “free market.” A slight majority (54%) of the respondents who do receive their work this way considered it the best option.
* 28% would prefer to have work assigned by a practice group leader or department head. Among respondents who already receive their assignments through this system, 40% considered it the best option.
* 11% would rather have work assignments filtered through an advisor or mentor. But only 17% of respondents whose firms currently use this method would choose to assign work this way.
* 3% wrote in that they would like a mix of the above. Earlier: Featured Job Survey: Where Does Your Work Come From?
– Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this survey.
We’ve blogged before about the danger of Blackberry addiction. However, the latest research linking cell phone use with brain cancer risk is much scarier than Blackberry orphans.
We first started worrying about cell phone radiation at the ending of the film Thank You For Smoking. It was easy to dismiss a Hollywood quip, but it’s harder to ignore a news report on an award-winning expert on cancer research:
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take “immediate steps” to reduce exposure to their radiation.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.
It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
The article goes on to cite a dismissal of the doctor’s work by the “Mobile Operators Association.” Given that the MOA’s members include T-Mobile and Vodafone, we’re not exactly reassured.
Is the fear of brain cancer enough to make us stop using our cellphones and Blackberries? Probably not. We know french fries likely cause cancer, but we can’t give those up either. We are warming to the idea of a phone headset, though. Mobile phones ‘more dangerous than smoking’ [The Independent via Drudge]
* Supreme Court grants cert in fantasy baseball case. [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]
* Treasury Department plan to reform financial regulation meets with skepticism, faces long odds for passage this year. [New York Times]
* “Breaking News? Less M&A Work for Lawyers in Q1.” [WSJ Law Blog]
* More about the departure of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, currently under DOJ investigation. Yesterday Jackson invoked the old Beltway standby: more time with his family. [New York Times]
* Obama leads Clinton in doling out campaign cash to superdelegates. [McClatchy]
* Bad news for Cravath and Cadwalader associates: Manhattan judge scratches punitive-damages request by plaintiffs in bedbugs case. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Happy Birthday, Justice Alito! SAA turns 58 today. [SCOTUSblog]
To be perfectly honest, we’re getting tired of writing about the new U.S. News & World Report law school rankings. But judging from the number of comments on our earlier posts — 1,153 and 575, as of this posting — you’re not tired of reading and talking about them. So, onward.
In our last post, we wrote about law schools freaking out over their falling rankings. The schools we specifically mentioned, whose administrators sent out defensive messages to the student body on the subject, were the University of Buffalo (down from 77 to 100), the University of North Carolina (from 36 to 38), the University of Iowa (from 24 to 27), and the University of Minnesota (from 20 to 22).
To this list of law school lamentation, please add Case Western, which went from 53 to 63 (memo posted in the comments, but independently verified by us) [FN1]; and the University of Miami, which fell from 70 to 82. One UM student had harsh criticism of Dean Lynch’s message (PDF):
Here’s Dean Dennis Lynch’s blast to University of Miami students, attempting (complete with a cornucopia of grammatical errors — maybe this is indicative of the problem?) to explain away a nearly 25% drop in the rankings over the last three years (resulting in an institution now perilously teetering on the edge between Tier II purgatory and Tier III oblivion).
I’d direct your attention to his trumpeting of UM’s “ranking” on the oh-so-often cited ‘Law Dragon’ survey. With someone like this in charge — to say nothing of UM’s past glory, like professors getting arrested for solicitingprostitutes — the real wonder is how UM is even ABA accredited, let alone ranked on U.S. News.
Self-hatred much? We love our UM tipsters, but maybe they need to find themselves some good therapists.
Not every administrator at a law school that slipped in the rankings viewed sending out a school-wide email as such a hot idea. From a future law student, who won’t graduate law school until 2011, but who’s already an ATL tipster (call us Socrates — we like to corrupt the youth):
I was at the U of Illinois College of Law admitted students weekend. In the 2009 USN&WR ratings, Illinois Law “fell” from #25 to #27. So, the dean of admissions spent the first 15 minutes of a 30 minute break-out session ostensibly about “Campus Housing Options” talking about the rating decline.
He said that “at some schools, like Minnesota and Iowa, the students are so freaked out about this that the administration sends out emails immediately to calm them down, but we’re not going to do that here, because you know it will be on AboveTheLaw.com in 30 seconds after I hit ‘send.’
Well, we’re not that fast. But thanks for the compliment and shout-out.
More discussion and links, after the jump.
* A politically incorrect theory to explain the growing pay gap between male and female JDs. Opines Jane Genova: “No one likes The Professional Woman — not women, not men, not children, not animals, not even The Professional Woman.” [Law and More]
* Thoughts on the ethical and tax considerations of winning an NCAA tournament office pool. [TaxProf Blog]
* Lawsuit of the day last week: verdict reached in the suit brought by ex-Sonnenschein partner Douglas Rosenthal against his former firm. [The BLT: Blog of the Legal Times]
* $21 theft, $1 million bond? [Cincinnati Enquirer]
* Ahoy, mateys. Say hello to Blarrgh Review — aka Blawg Review #153. [Declarations and Exclusions via Blawg Review]
Dominating today’s news cycle is the Treasury Department’s plan to reform the nation’s system of financial regulation. For some thoughts on the proposal, check out what John Carney has to say over at our sibling site, Dealbreaker (in posts here and here).
This regulatory reform proposal comes at a grim time for Wall Street, characterized by some as “the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.” It feels like we’re at the end of an era. Wall Street profits are sinking fast, venerable investment banks look endangered, and financial-sector layoffs could claim 20,000 more jobs in the next two years, in New York City alone.
This is generally viewed as bad news for Biglaw, considering how much large law firms depend on the financial services industry for work. But could it perhaps be a boon for lawyers, if their standing in the city’s financial pecking order falls at a slower rate than that of Wall Street Masters of the Universe?
A reader drew our attention to this interesting Sunday Times article:
The collapse of a major financial institution is usually an occasion for hand-wringing and tut-tutting over potential job losses, lower consumer spending and missed mortgage payments.
In New York City, it’s also seen as an opportunity. For many of the city’s middle class, especially those in the creative class, who have felt sidelined as the city seemed to become a high-priced playground for Wall Street bankers, the implosion of the brokerage house Bear Stearns raises a tantalizing possibility: participation in an economy they have been largely shut out of.
Wonders our tipster:
“Some New Yorkers seem to be looking forward to the collapse of Wall Street and their huge salaries in the hopes that prices deflate a bit. Does this return lawyers to the top of the financial food chain? Or do those huge partner salaries take a dive along with Wall Street?”
For some law firms and lawyers — e.g., those that are heavily dependent on securitization and structured finance work — the Wall Street retrenchment is definitely unwelcome. But for others, especially those focused on countercyclical practice areas like bankruptcy, the bust could be a boom.
Take a look back at this post, in which one Biglaw partner described the plight of lawyers in New York as follows:
“Face it, [lawyers] have no status. We go to these [elite private] school functions [for our kids], and this well-heeled group looks right through you. They won’t give you the time of day. You’re just one step ahead of the doorman.”
In the 2009 U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law fell from #52 to #55. See here.
It’s a little surprising, since the past year has been good for Cardozo. Their bar passage rate is now the third-highest among New York law schools. One of their graduates is currently clerking for Justice Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.
And, most importantly, their Law Revue is turning out delightful videos. If you share our love of Project Runway, you’ll enjoy this good-natured spoof (film by Ryan B. Finkel). It’s a little long, and somewhat uneven — but on the whole, it’s well-done and quite fun. The film is expertly put together, with the actual Project Runway footage elegantly interspersed into the fake footage, and the performances — especially those by the Heidi Klum and Chris March impersonators — are hilarious and compelling. Check it out below (plus links to two videos from last year’s show).
So what’s responsible for Cardozo’s USNW&R decline? The booting of littering-and-loitering law students from the fifth-floor faculty lounge? Rampant “expensive umbrella” and iPod theft? Your guesses are welcome.
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 seven years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
Whether you’re fresh off the bar exam or hitting your stride after hanging a shingle a few years ago, one thing’s for certain: independent attorneys who start a solo or small-law practice live with a certain amount of stress.
Non-attorneys would think the stress comes from preparing for a big trial, deposing a hostile witness, or crafting the perfect contract for a picky client.
But that’s nothing compared to the constant, nagging, real-life kind, the kind you get from the day-to-day grind of being a law-abiding attorney.
Connecticut plaintiffs-side boutique litigation firm (12 lawyers) seeks full-time associate with 2-4 years litigation experience, top tier undergraduate and law school education. Journal or clerkship experience a plus; highest ethical standards and strong work ethic required. Familiarity with Connecticut state court legal practice is preferred, but not required.
The firm handles sophisticated, high-end cases for plaintiffs, including individuals and businesses with significant claims in a wide array of matters. Our cases often have important public policy implications, and are litigated in state and federal courts throughout Connecticut. Representative areas of practice include medical malpractice, catastrophic personal injury, business torts, deceptive trade practices and other complex commercial litigation, and products liability.
Additional information can be located on our website, at www.sgtlaw.com.