One of our favorite lawyers, Michael Inglimo, is back in the headlines. You may remember him from this post on the Volokh Conspiracy, linked to on ATL, which raised the following question:
Does “engaging in a three-way sexual encounter with [a current client] and [the client's] girlfriend” count as having sex “with a current client” (a practice forbidden by state bar rules)?
Wisconsin answered in the negative, but disciplined him for other infractions. Now Minnesota has stepped in. From the Pioneer Press:
The three-way sex did not get a lawyer’s license suspended – but plenty of other things did.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ordered that attorney Michael R. Inglimo stop practicing law for three years….
The high court decision comes after the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Inglimo’s license in October for illegal drug use with clients, having sex with a client’s wife, misuse of a client’s trust account, failure to maintain proper trust account records and criminal conviction for possession of marijuana. The Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility sought reciprocal discipline.
And got it — for the next three years, Inglino can’t practice in Minnesota as well as Wisconsin. There’s no split in authority, then, on the question of three-way jurisprudence originally posed. 3-way sex did not suspend lawyer’s license [Pioneer Press]
* William & Mary is a bit of a mess right now. But at least they pay their law profs well! [TaxProf Blog]
* The Fonz testifies at a trial over the death of Jack Tripper. [AP]
* Another link to add to our recent round-up of web-based research resources. [Commercial Law Center]
* Legal Hottie of the Day: Stacey Gardner, one of the suitcase-holding models on “Deal or New Deal,” and a member of the California bar. [New York Times]
* A fellow legal blogger corresponds with Donna Brazile over the superdelegate rules. [Blogonaut]
* Speaking of presidential politics, check out this collection of unflattering candidate candids. [CBS2]
Are your increasingly cost-conscious clients balking at five-figure bills for legal research? Here are some neat new resources you might find helpful: 1. The Public Library of Law. Here’s a brief blurb, from Ed Walters (the former Covington associate who founded Fastcase):
One of the joys of disruptive technology is that it occasionally allows you to disrupt things. In that spirit, I’m pleased to introduce the Public Library of Law, which debuts today at www.plol.org. PLoL is the world’s largest free law library, with more than 7,100 miles of text in the cases alone.
PLoL works hand in hand with our (much larger) subscription library at Fastcase, which features power research tools as good or better than any in the world. PLoL has its virtues as well — it is ad supported and easy to use, and should be a great starting place to find law on the Web.
There’s a usage tutorial available over at YouTube, prior coverage by Robert Ambrogi at LawSites, and a comprehensive press release. 2. PreCYdent. PLoL isn’t the only free law library on the web. From a tipster:
Have you posted about Professor Tom Smith’s new research tool, PreCYdent? It’s an amazing concept and it works quite well, even though only in its early stages.
A description from Professor Smith:
Right now our library consists of all US Supreme Court cases and US Court of Appeals cases going back to the 1950s (i.e. F.3d and F.2d). Automatic updaters are in place, so new cases are uploaded in slip opinion form as soon as they are released by these courts. We are working on having the last ten years of cases from all 50 states available soon. Everything is in XML.
It’s free. We believe that all law that is in the public domain should be available to everybody for free. Personally, I think I paid for it once already around April 15th or so.
More details here and here. 3. eDelaware. This last tool is a bit more focused than the others mentioned above; it’s all about Delaware law (of special interest to the corporate lawyers among you). From eDelaware’s press release:
eDelaware is free mobile software that will provide instant access to the full text of key Delaware statutes, along with case law summaries, through a BlackBerry® smartphone device. It is the first mobile software developed by a law firm that allows for seamless, wireless access to important statutes and case law summaries, all of which will be updated so as to provide the most current content possible.
It’s not as lavish as holding your law firm retreat at the Ritz in Pasadena, like O’Melveny & Myers. Nor is it as exotic as an all-expenses-paid trip to Jamaica, like Boies Schiller.
But still, this is neat. From a Fried Frank source:
Fried Frank announced to its associates on Tuesday that it is sending all associates in their third year and above, plus some partners and special counsel, to New Orleans for its 2008 attorney retreat. I thought this was pretty cool of the firm to do, especially because there’s a mix of fun, workshops that sound useful, and community service to help the residents of New Orleans.
A cynic might say that the last thing a devastated city needs is to be descended upon by a bunch of lawyers (a la Bhopal). But between the tourism dollars they’ll bring in and the volunteer work they’ll perform, the arrival of the Fried Frank folk is clearly a good thing. John Edwards, eat your heart out.
Announcement memo, after the jump.
We’re still in a Valentine’s Day state of mind, so we thought we’d toss out a poll question to the ATL readership: Should lawyers date other lawyers?
The obvious answer is, “it depends” — on the two (or more?) individuals involved, the nature of their relationship, the surrounding circumstances, etc. But that’s boring. So let’s consider the question in the abstract, and in more absolute terms.
There are obvious pros and cons to lawyer-on-lawyer love. On the plus side, it’s nice to be with someone who can understand your work, including its many frustrations. When you tell that horror story over dinner about opposing counsel’s speaking objections at your deposition, your partner might actually understand.
(Also on the plus side: If you’re both at law firms on the $160K scale, together you take home a very nice chunk of change.)
But the sheer amount of lawyer shop-talk may also be the most obvious minus of legal-eagle romance. Wouldn’t it be nice to escape from the law world every now and then, instead of curling up with it at night? Wouldn’t dating a non-lawyer add some welcome diversity to your life?
Of course, as a practical matter, some lawyers have little choice but to date a fellow lawyer (or paralegal, hehe). If you bill 2500 hours a year, having a personal life is tough — unless that person works down the hall. In fact, due to the rise of workplace romances, the idea of the “love contract” has developed. As explained by Alston & Bird partner Ashley Brightwell over at the WSJ Law Blog, a love contract is “a tool that employers use to protect themselves when an office romance goes sour. It’s a document that confirms that a relationship is voluntary and informs the parties of the company’s sexual harassment policies. It sets out a procedure if, at any point, the relationship goes south.”
Anyway, enough thinking about what might go wrong. Let’s think about the possibilities — for lawyer love! Please take our poll — and discuss attorney-on-attorney action, in the comments. Thanks.
This latest layoff news may not be super-exciting to the associates among you, since it relates to staff rather than lawyer layoffs.The East and West Coast snobs will dismiss it as news from “flyover land.”
But as we previously observed, staff layoffs “serve as a ‘canary in the mine’ of sorts, with respect to a law firm’s financial health.” And the firm in question, Winstead, is one of Texas’s largest firms.
So this news merits mention (on a somewhat slow news day). From the Dallas Morning News:
Texas-based Winstead PC will lay off 20 support staff employees in its Dallas office, chief executive Denis Braham said Wednesday.
The firm also let a few associate attorneys go in the restructuring, but Mr. Braham said the firm typically cuts some associates each year.
Earlier this month, somecontroversy was generated when it was reported that Senator John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, said he’d be happy to nominate justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts — but Justice Samuel Alito, not so much.
This resulted in speculation over exactly what Senator McCain meant by this. Several observers were confused, since JGR and SAA are jurisprudential buddies. As noted SCOTUS advocate Tom Goldstein pointed out, in the Court’s last full Term, Roberts and Alito “had the highest proportion of agreement of any members of the Court, 89 percent in pure agreement, that is to say, not just in the result but in absolute, complete agreement, every word.”
So here’s one theory. Maybe McCain doesn’t like Alito because of the justice’s taste in television? From the AP:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. has convicted “The Sopranos” of spreading what he says are stereotypes about Italian-Americans. During a visit to Rutgers University on Wednesday, Alito complained that the hit HBO television drama not only associated Italian-Americans with the Mafia, but New Jerseyans, as well.
“You have a trifecta — gangsters, Italian-Americans, New Jersey — wedded in the popular American imagination,” Alito said at an event sponsored by the Italian studies program at Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey.
But it was such a great show, Your Honor!
A bit more, after the jump.
Earlier this week, we told you about client contact, and asked you about your firm’s leave policies (that survey’s still live, by the way). In today’s ATL / Lateral Link survey, we explore whether you’d like to leave your firm to become a client: Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.
– Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this survey.
No, we didn’t forget. We love you too much, dear readers. HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY!
Of course, this is a holiday fraught with peril. How should you celebrate? What gift should you get for your spouse or significant other? How do you handle the occasion if, say, you’ve been dating someone for just a few weeks — or if you’re seeing more than one person at the same time?
For many lawyers, Valentine’s Day is no big deal. A relationship — who has time for that?
But it does raise at least one issue. From a tipster:
Most attorneys get their secretaries / assistants a gift for the end-of-year holidays. But what about Valentine’s Day?
I suggest a thread on what people do give, should give, shouldn’t give, and should spend for Valentine’s Day gifts for their assistants. And whether attorneys need to give anything for this very Hallmark holiday.
Hmm… maybe a nice box of chocolates (unless he or she is diabetic)? Steer clear of lingerie, unless your secretary is doing more than your time entry.
What are your thoughts on this pressing inquiry, so the delinquent among you can step out during lunch and grab a gift or card? Feel free to share ideas, or discuss your V-Day plans more generally, in the comments.
P.S. This is too late to be helpful for this Valentine’s Day, but for future reference, you can order personalized printed greeting cards at the Billable Hour. Check out their Valentine’s Day selection over here. Earlier: Secretary / Administrative Assistant Gifts: Open Thread (270 comments — wow)
* House Democrats oppose Senate spy bill’s telecom immunity. [Washington Post]
* Justice Scalia approves of “so-called torture” under some circumstances. [MSNBC]
* Just a few months later, Senate committee gets around to admonishing Sen. Craig. [CNN]
* Clemens and McNamee go head to head before Congress. [ESPN]
* City’s scantily clad cowboy sues candy-coated counterpart. [WSJ Law Blog]
Last week we put up a post about associate compensation issues at Jones Day. It generated a torrent of comments. As always, some were negative, some positive.
A few readers were upset by the negative comments and came to their firm’s defense. Here’s what one wrote:
I am a third year lawyer at Jones Day. I enjoy my job and am paid well (and I mean darn well) above market. I hesitate to respond to such mudslinging by persons who are either disgruntled or misinformed, but as a current happy third year lawyer at Jones Day, I felt the need to set the record straight.
People who are unhappy with their compensation at Jones Day are in fact underperformers. Believe me, if I were in charge, I would fire those people rather than giving them a $160,000 “hint” that they aren’t Jones Day material and should consider a career change. Because anyone who thinks that paying a third year lawyer the published salary of a first year lawyer is not a “message” about work quality is delusional. In no other profession do competent, mature people complain about being compensated based on their performance (or lack thereof).
To reiterate: I did not clerk. I have never billed more than 2100 hours. I have received bonuses despite billing slightly under 2000 hours. I have had many fantastic substantive opportunities (read: not two years of document review). I enjoy my job and colleagues. I am paid based on the quality (again, not quantity) of my work, which turns out to be more than most 4th year lawyers billing 2000-2100 hours at big firms in NY.
And the beauty of our confidential system is that other greedy jealous underperforming associates aren’t blogging about my pay stub. Instead, those “lawyers” have gotten the Jones Day “hint,” and are now spending their time at a new employer – not representing clients, but blogging about their ex-employer who figured out that they were worthless.
Ouch. That was way harsh, Tai.
But it’s a fair point. Why shouldn’t a firm pay associates what it thinks they’re worth on an individual basis, and if the associates don’t like it, they can leave? This is effectively what investment banks do with their personnel.
Additional commentary about JD, plus a photo of some of their paralegals at play, after the jump.
* From a male law student’s manifesto: “I Am A Law School Girl (Snatch, Gunch, Clam, Whisker Biscuit — Pick Your Subject Synonym)…” Charming, isn’t it? [Jezebel]
* Are celebrity gossip sites developing consciences? [Media Law Prof Blog]
* Could Greg Fleming’s status as the “last guy standing” at Merrill Lynch spell legal trouble for him? [DealBreaker]
* “[T]he Hollywood Foreign Press Association and even NBC could be on the verge of taking legal action against the WGA for actions leading to the cancellation of this year’s Golden Globes. Really, could Jeff Zucker possibly be more of a putz?” [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
* Is Hillary doomed? Maybe not (yet). [Blogonaut]
* “This is a lesson on how to fool a jury. And how to get caught.” [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]
* Added as an update to the original post, but in case you missed it, there’s another side to the whole “bringing a gun to a deposition” story. [ESPN]
If you are considering a virtual law practice, you know that many of today’s solo firms started that way. But why are established, multi-attorney law firms going virtual?
Many small firms are successfully moving part—or even all—of their practice to a virtual setting. This even includes multi-jurisdictional practice spanning several states and practice areas, although solo and small partnerships are still the largest adopters of virtual law.
Can you do the same? The new article Mobile in Practice, Virtual by Design from author Jared Correia, Esq., explores how mobile technology bring real-life benefits to a small law firm. Read this new article—the next in Thomson Reuters’ Independent Thinking series for small firms—to explore how a mobile practice:
Reduces malpractice risk
Enables you to gather the best attorneys to fit the firm, regardless of each person’s geographic location
Leverages mobile devices and cloud technology to enable on-the-spot client and prospect communication
Transitioning in-house is something many (if not most) firm lawyers find themselves considering at some point. For many, it’s the first step in their career that isn’t simply a function of picking the best option available based on a ranking system.
Unknown territory feels high-risk, and can have the effect of steering many of us towards the well-greased channels into large, established companies.
For those who may be open to something more entrepreneurial, there is far less information available. No recruiter is calling every week with offers and details.
In sponsorship with Betterment, ATL and David Lat will moderate a panel about life in-house and we’ll hear from GCs at Birchbox, Gawker Media, Squarespace, Bonobos, and Betterment. Drinks, snacks, networking, and a great time guaranteed. Invite your colleagues, but RSVP fast, as space is limited.
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: email@example.com.
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.