I saw this piece on Tax Prof Blog and thought your readers might have some interesting thoughts. NALP has decided next fall the 2Ls only get 45 days to hold an offer for a summer position. See here.
I have a job at a firm this summer that is part of NALP that I am happy about as a 1L but I definitely want to go through OCI. If I leave my job this year at the end of July, the firm will likely notify me by August 15th that I have an offer for the next summer. It would then expire by September 30th!
It seems possible that I could be in the middle of call-backs with other firms and have to decide whether to take a chance on getting a better offer or not. Yikes!
And what about firms that don’t do OCI at my school? I doubt that they will go through submitted resumes, conduct interviews and make offers by then.
So, ATL readers — any advice for our nervous 1L? Or any views on whether this rule change is a good or bad idea? Update / Correction: According to the analysis of this commenter, the scenario outlined above would not come to pass. We’ve reviewed the NALP rules, which can be accessed in full over here, and we agree with the commenter. See Part V, Section C: “Employers offering positions for the following summer to candidates previously employed by them should leave those offers open until at least November 15.” 2Ls Now Must Respond to Summer Job Offers Within 45 Days [TaxProf Blog] Full Text of NALP Principles & Standards [NALP]
We didn’t notice this, until a tipster just mentioned it to us: today is the February MBE day. So, to everyone taking the multistate bar examination right now, good luck!
From the same source:
I thought an open thread about the weirdest bar preparation might be entertaining. I immediately thought of you when I was told that the husband of an acquaintance, taking the bar for his second time, decided to “manage” his bathroom breaks by first doing a purge diet the week prior to the bar, and then taking Immodium each day during the exam.
Sorry for the crudeness, but I found this funny, as well as a bit extreme.
No worries. We have a reasonably high tolerance for crassness in these pages.
We also like this suggested topic of bar prep. The February administration of the bar exam is often more difficult to study for than the July administration, since those who sit for the bar in February are more likely to have to juggle their studies with other commitments (e.g., a day job). July exam takers, in contrast, are usually recent law school graduates who have taken the summer off to prepare full-time for the big test.
If you have any good stories about how you prepped for the bar, feel free to share them in the comments. National Conference of Bar Examiners: MBE [official website]
So how much did Aaron Charney get in his settlement from Sullivan & Cromwell? There has been lots of speculation, but little evidence.
Here’s one fact suggesting that he did pretty well: Aaron Charney just bought a $1.5 million Manhattan condo. As reported by Max Abelson in the New York Observer:
A deed filed in city records suggests that the Sullivan settlement wasn’t minor: Mr. Charney and a partner just paid $1.495 million for a penthouse at the newly converted condo at 93rd Street and Broadway.
According to the floor plan, they’ll have two bedrooms, a 17-foot-long living/dining room and an L-shaped terrace that stretches 50 feet on each wing….
The 987-square-foot terrace, nearly as big as the interior space, is edged by high walls, which means there’s privacy instead of views. “I would consider it extremely private, with an opportunity to take your inside living outdoors,” the broker said.
Sounds fabulous — although quite different from his former home. Charney’s new abode is in a prewar building (pictured), as opposed to the ultra-modern Orion, where he used to live. And it’s in a more staid neighborhood: the Upper West Side, as opposed to the hip and gentrifying Hell’s Kitchen.
But at $1.5 million, Charney’s new home is 50 percent more expensive than his old one, which he sold last year for a little under a million ($150K more than what he paid). So Charney is definitely movin’ on up.
More discussion, including speculation about Aaron Charney’s finances and romances, after the jump. Update: Since this post was originally published, we’ve appended multiple updates, which appear after the jump.
We received 826 responses to last Thursday’s ATL / Lateral Linksurvey, which asked you what kind of benefits, leave or part-time policies you would most like your employers to offer.
Both men and women found a reduced-hours track with lower compensation a particularly appealing policy, with roughly a third of male respondents and a quarter of female respondents ranking it their top choice.
However, roughly the same number of female respondents ranked on-site childcare as their top choice, and almost twelve percent of male respondents agreed.
A telecommuting option was also appealing, with more than a quarter of male respondents ranking it as a first choice, and a fifth ranking it #2. Fewer women, 14.4%, ranked a telecommuting policy as the most appealing option a firm could provide, but roughly seventeen to eighteen percent of female respondents ranked telecommuting as their second, third, or fourth choice.
Less than ten percent of men and only 15.7% of women ranked a flex-time policy as their top choice, but it was actually the most popular second choice for respondents of each gender.
Both men and women also generally preferred the idea of a two-year part-time track, treated as one year for seniority purposes, to either longer parental leave or a six-month part-time option.
See charts of responses by both genders, after the jump.
We have previously compared Linda Greenhouse, the veteran Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times, to Margo Channing, the great but aging diva of All About Eve. The comparison continues to hold.
Just as Margo Channing eventually leaves the thea-tuh, so too does Linda Greenhouse leave the SCOTUS. Ed Whelan, the former Scalia clerk with lots of Court connections, has this report over at Bench Memos:
According to a well-placed Supreme Court source, New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse is telling folks at the Court that she has accepted a Times buyout package and will be ending her coverage of the Court at the end of the current term.
So that’s the word on One First Street. We have reached out to Linda Greenhouse for comment and will let you know if and when we hear back from her.
If this is true — and we have no reason to doubt it, since it comes from the well-connected Whelan — then Jan Crawford Greenburg is one step closer to being Queen Bee of the Supreme Court press corps. Nina Totenberg, watch your back! Update: More from Ed Whelan at NRO Online: “On the same day that we learn of Linda Greenhouse’s imminent departure from the New York Times, Greenhouse provides further evidence of her bias….” Greenhouse’s Departure [Bench Memos / National Review Online] Re: Breyer’s and Souter’s Drift to the Right? [Bench Memos / National Review Online] Earlier: All About… Jan?
We’re back with another installment of the Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, where we weigh the relative prestige and fabulosity of the newlywed lawyers who are brave enough to splash their happy news across the pages of the New York Times.
Here are the latest LEWW hopefuls:
* EU fines Microsoft $1.3B. [New York Times]
* Sinking Eskimo village sues energy companies for global warming. [CNN]
* Polygamist Jeffs charged in Arizona. [MSNBC]
* Mayor recalled over MySpace picture and golf course management. [CNN Video]
* Law Blog chats with “NCAA defender to the stars.” [WSJ Law Blog]
A struggling personal injury lawyer was disbarred last month, for splitting fees with non-lawyers, aiding the unauthorized practice of law, and other offenses. Sounds pretty unexciting, right?
But Keith Rubinstein is no ordinary PI lawyer; don’t cry for him, Argentina. Last year, he beat out Evita — i.e., Madonna, the Material Girl herself — in a bidding war for a $35 million townhouse on the Upper East Side. For more about Rubinstein, see this interesting article, by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal.
Rubinstein is used to swanky digs. He previously lived in a West Village townhouse that Will Smith rented for $60,000 a month during the filming of “Hitch.”
Speaking of lawyerly landlords, Charles T. Munger, a founder of Munger, Tolles & Olson, has been in the news lately for real estate reasons. Munger owns the building that houses the popular Dutton’s bookstore in Brentwood, Los Angeles. Dutton’s is closing its doors in April, in part due to rising rents.
But don’t blame the bookstore’s fate on Charlie Munger. From the Los Angeles Times:
The property [housing Dutton's] is owned by billionaire investor Charles T. Munger and his wife, Nancy. A founder of the Los Angeles law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, he partnered in 1978 with Warren E. Buffett to run Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a holding company.
Munger was in Washington on Monday and could not be reached. He said in a statement that he would allow Dutton’s to use the space rent-free during the liquidation and that he would cover the $550,000 debt in exchange for the store’s closing. Dutton described the offer as “very gracious and generous.” As part of the deal, Munger said, Dutton would retain the Dutton’s trade name.
In light of the explosive economic growth of China and the Far East, many top U.S. and global law firms are trying to figure out how to enter Asia. And Above the Law is, too.
We’re looking for someone to write a weekly column for us about practicing law in Asia. It would be similar to ATL’s other columns — e.g., Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, Sports and the Law — but centered on what it’s like to be a lawyer in Asia.
The ideal candidate would be someone currently practicing in Asia. But former and future Asia practitioners would also be considered, as long as they can write knowledgeably about working in Asia, have a network of sources on the ground, etc.
The columnist can write under a pseudonym if desired. The gig comes with pay (a modest stipend). It’s an excellent opportunity for anyone looking to do some fun, non-legal writing, or to share their expat experience with ATL’s large and growing readership.
If you might be interested, please email us (subject line: “Asia column”). Please include a brief bio and a discussion of your vision for the column, including possible topics to write about if you have some in mind.
Thanks! We look forward to reviewing your applications.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has ruled against a federal judge who was seeking $21 million after alleging that he was severely injured when he fell from a malfunctioning escalator at an Encino shopping center.
U.S. District Judge George P. Schiavelli, 59, said he was riding the escalator at Encino Place shopping center in August 2005 when it stopped “suddenly and without warning,” knocking him down the stairs and causing permanent injuries, according to court records.
It wasn’t destined to be an easy case for Judge Schiavelli. California is a well-known judicial hellhole for plaintiffs who sue shopping malls. It’s second only to New Jersey in pro-mall bias.
And prejudice against judges may have played a role in the jury’s verdict:
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Browne Greene, said the jury ruled against Schiavelli not because of the merits of his case, but because of his position on the federal bench. “The bias against judges in today’s world is just palpable,” he said Monday evening.
A brief update on an earlier story. Last week, we mentioned that celebrity cyberlaw prof Larry Lessig, of Stanford Law School, was contemplating a congressional bid. His prospective campaign would be centered on the theme du jour of Change (in this case, of Congress).
Many ATL commenters didn’t think highly of the idea:
“He has NO chance against Jackie Speier.”
“He can’t exactly self-fund, and the primary is just over three months away. I like the fellow well enough, but this seems foolhardy.”
“Jackie Speier has this thing locked up. She has name recognition, prior elected experience, the endorsements of everyone who matters, party money, and a compelling story that involves getting shot several times by crazy people. Beat that.”
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.