* Law professor Paul Horwitz has “a PIMP cane” (apparently acquired in the medical assistance section of RiteAid). [PrawfsBlawg; Thank You Ma'am]
* Some people hate lawyers, but one lawyer in particular incites amazing hatred. Opines law prof Stanley Fish: “The closest analogy [to Hillary-hating] is to anti-Semitism.” [Think Again]
* A weird link sent to us by a tipster. “This has absolutely nothing to do with the law, but we use computers a lot, and this is a new way to clean computer screens.” [SmoothNarketplace]
* Blawg Review #145: The Super Bowl Edition. [What About Clients via Blawg Review]
* Law professor Paul Horwitz has “a PIMP cane” (apparently acquired in the medical assistance section of RiteAid). [PrawfsBlawg; Thank You Ma'am]
Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Saved By the Bell Star To Clerk for Justice O’Connor!
(And another OT 2009 hire, by Justice Breyer)
Taken as a group, Supreme Court clerks can claim pretty much every honor under the sun. At One First Street, Rhodes and Marshall scholars are commonplace, law review editors-in-chief are a dime a dozen, and law school valedictorians abound.
But how many SCOTUS clerks have their own IMDb entry? Meet Isaac Lidsky (Harvard 2004 / Ambro), an attorney at the Department of Justice (Civil Appellate), who was selected last week by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as her law clerk for October Term 2008. He founded the non-profit Hope for Vision, and his bio there reads:
[Isaac] is an honors graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judge Thomas Ambro of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before law school, Isaac founded Poindexter Systems, a now thriving internet advertising technology company in Manhattan. Isaac has been involved in raising awareness and funding for vision research for many years. He has organized several fundraising events, has appeared in the national media to promote awareness of the cause, has testified about the need for scientific funding before Congressional bodies on numerous occasions, and has served as a mentor to younger individuals afflicted with eye diseases. He has retinitis pigmentosa.
From a tipster:
I wonder if he is the first blind law clerk on the Supreme Court. I also wonder whether he’s the first clerk to have thrown out the first pitch at an MLB game.
[Before law school,] Isaac had a prior life as a child actor. His most notable role, I believe, was as Barton “Weasel” Wyzell (the new Screech) on Saved by the Bell: The New Class.
Awesome. Fay Diplomas and Sears Prizes pale in comparison next to the experience of having acted opposite Dennis Haskins (aka “Mr. Belding”).
Also hired as a Supreme Court clerk, but for October Term 2009: Bessie Dewar (Yale 2006 / W. Fletcher / L. Pollak (E.D. Pa.)). She’s been described to us as “brilliant,” “wonderfully charismatic,” and “one of nicest, most smiling people to grace the halls of the Yale Law School.”
The current tally of OT 2008 and OT 2009 SCOTUS clerks, with Isaac Lidsky and Bessie Dewar added, appears after the jump.
Last week, we asked you how you fared this year. Did you take the day off to honor a champion of civil rights, or did you make it a “day on”?
We received just under 1,300 responses, and 44% of you reported that you took the day off. Associates in New York, Los Angeles and Boston were most likely to celebrate the holiday, while associates in Chicago, Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Texas were most likely to be working. (Respondents in the Bay Area were also most likely to work over Christmas and New Year’s. Is it time for them to get New York bonuses?)
How did it break down on a firm by firm basis? DLA Piper, Milbank, Sidley & Austin, Dechert, Hunton & Williams, Jones Day, Latham, Mayer Brown, McDermott, Hughes Hubbard, McGuire Woods, Morgan Lewis, Nixon Peabody, Paul Hastings, and Sullivan & Cromwell each had multiple happy associates who reported that they had taken the day off. Kirkland & Ellis, Baker Botts, Dewey & LeBoeuf, O’Melveny & Myers, Weil, and Winston & Strawn each had mixed responses. Associates at Skadden, however, uniformly reported that they had worked the holiday, as Martin Luther King Jr. day is a “floating” holiday for the firm.
Of those who spent the day at the office, about 54% reported that they weren’t actually asked to work the holiday, but had things they needed to get done. About a quarter reported that their offices were open. Another quarter said that partners told them to work on the holiday. About 8% were asked to work by clients. A surprising number of respondents wrote in that other associates had told them to work on the holiday.
A little over a third of respondents who worked on the holiday thought that the work did not justify the sacrifice.
- Admin, Announcements, Antitrust, Google / Search Engines, Microsoft, Morning Docket, Politics, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Technology
[Ed. note: We're looking for someone to share Morning Docket duties with B. Clerker (on an alternating-week schedule). If you'd like to be considered for this position, please follow the application instructions contained in this post. The main thing that has changed between then and now is that the gig now comes with pay -- a modest stipend. Thanks.]
* MSFT + YHOO = Antitrust Scrutiny. Also, the identities of the law firms advising on the mega-deal. [WSJ Law Blog; New York Times]
* The quality of mercy is not strained… except in the Office of the United States Pardon Attorney. [New York Times via How Appealing]
* Hidden-camera video evidence leads to reopening of Natalee Holloway investigation in Aruba. [ABC News; AP]
* HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson accused of favoritism and retaliation in lawsuit. [Washington Post]
* Prominent conservatives Steven Calabresi and John McGinnis, on Sen. McCain and Supreme Court nominations: “the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government.” [Wall Street Journal via How Appealing]
An article for the McClatchy newspapers, evaluating the truth of Senator Hillary Clinton’s claim of “35 years of change,” has some interesting background about her legal career at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas.
It does suggest, for those of you interested in political careers, that you might not want to cool your heels too long in Biglaw. It just doesn’t lend itself well to rosy campaign-trail bios. If you do spend a lot of time at a firm, be sure to engage in lots of pro bono work. From the article:
Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas’ most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.
Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail. Her campaign Web site biography devotes six paragraphs to her pro bono legal work for the poor but sums up the bulk of her experience in one sentence: “She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm.”
Here’s what we found most interesting:
Clinton did receive a smaller salary than most other Rose partners, topping out at about $200,000, in part because of her outside activities, according to several biographies.
So don’t count Hillary Clinton among the ranks of seven-figure law firm partners. She’s closer to an underpaid junior partner than a partner at Wachtell or Cravath.
But don’t shed tears for HRC either. If you look at her partner pay in the context of Arkansas’s legal market and low cost of living, and if you adjust it for the passage of time (Sen. Clinton practiced law many years ago), $200K looks better and better.
Clinton’s ’35 years of change’ omits most of her career [McClatchy]
Your reading of gossip blogs — well, at least those relating to your profession (so Perez Hilton probably doesn’t count, unless you’re in showbiz) — has just been blessed. From an article entitled “Gossip Is Information By Another Name,” in the New York Times:
Q. The office sometimes feels like one big water cooler, with colleagues gossiping about one another and about management. It’s hard to resist joining in, but it feels subversive to spread information this way. Is it?
A. Not necessarily. Most gossip is just communication, a way that people form networks of trusting relationships.
The word “gossip” has a negative connotation, but you could also call it strategic information sharing, counseling or mentoring, said Michael Morris, a research psychologist and professor of organizational behavior at Columbia Business School who studies social cognition.
So feel free to bill your reading of ATL to “professional development,” “office admin,” or something similar. If you get asked about it, say you were gathering and sharing “strategic information,” or “mentoring” younger lawyers.
As long as the information you’re spreading is not intended to hurt another person, it can actually be good for the company. Especially during times of major change, like downsizing or layoffs, gossip can be cathartic for employees, Professor Morris said.
See, e.g., Friday’s O’Melveny & Myers thread (250+ comments).
A little more discussion, after the jump.
* Tax protesters, rejoice. Wesley Snipes acquitted of felony tax fraud (but convicted on misdemeanor charges). [taxgirl; TaxProf Blog]
* IP issues in the Super Bowl context. [Forbes]
* Poor marks for former Chief Judge William Zloch (S.D. Fla.) in Floridian judicial survey. [Daily Business Review]
* Speaking of south Florida judges, the Liberty City Seven gag order has been lifted — in part. David Markus et al. will continue to seek mandamus (our favorite writ — sure, habeas is “the Great Writ” and all, but mandamus is badass). [Southern District of Florida Blog]
* Supreme Court clerks do the darnedest things. Here’s a lovely one-minute movie by the fabulous Gretchen Craft Rubin, a former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal and law clerk to Justice O’Connor, who’s now a writer working on her fourth book. [The Years Are Short / The Happiness Project]
We respectfully submit that the powers-that-be at O’Melveny & Myers need to “chill” (as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) recently told former President Bill Clinton).
The folks at OMM apparently have some totalitarian tendencies. We heard they no-offered a summer associate from last year based on this individual’s personal blogging about the summer associate experience (which didn’t even mention the firm by name). And now we hear this rumor (by phone and by email, from multiple sources):
[T]he firm is furious about (true) comments sent to ATL about the firm’s poor performance and underhanded layoffs. Apparently, the fire rages so much so that OMM is dead set on a witch hunt to find the associate(s) who leaked the goings on to ATL.
Both the firm’s tech department and outside techies have been enlisted to figure out which associate’s computer the comments were sent from. OMM associates are now scared to even check your site while at work (though of course are keeping in the loop through home computers).
We contacted the firm for comment. We haven’t heard back from them as of the time of this posting.
We know next to nothing about labor and employment law. But to the labor lawyers among you, here’s a hypothetical:
You’re a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.
You’re a lawyer — a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn’t have one.
You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?
Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us. Or if you’re a labor and employment lawyer, feel free to opine in the comments.
P.S. We’re experiencing mysterious technical difficulties this afternoon, so this may be our last post in a while. Maybe OMM is hacking ATL?
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of O’Melveny & Myers (scroll down)
We’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time and energy trying to get to the bottom of the bonus situation at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. We’ve heard all sorts of conflicting rumors, but we think we’ve finally figured things out — to the extent that they can be figured out. This post supersedes all prior coverage of CWT bonuses.
In Litigation, we think that bonuses were fairly straightforward. This is our understanding, on very good authority:
1. 1900 hours and above = full, market-level, year-end and special bonus.
2. Between 1850 and 1900 = 75 percent of the regular year-end bonus, but NO special bonus.
3. Below 1850 = nothing, nada, zilch. Unless you were a first-year from the class of 2006 (first full year at CWT), in which case you got 50 percent of a year-end bonus.
4. For purposes of calculating hours, only client billable, pro bono, and “pre-approved” marketing hours counted. Other marketing hours, and recruiting hours, were NOT counted.
Read more — including a dramatic epic narrative from a CWT associate, describing how the firm epically mishandled the bonus situation — after the jump.
In the wake of our recent post about a dubious defense, here’s another one:
A lawyer for an MIT student held at gunpoint after she walked into Logan International Airport wearing what authorities believed was a bomb asked a judge to throw out the charges Friday, saying the device was a legitimate form of free speech….
Thomas Dwyer Jr., a lawyer for Simpson, said his client didn’t think her shirt would scare anyone. He said she’d been wearing the shirt for several days on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus, and it had not alarmed anyone….
“People make these objects part of their identity. It’s a part of their personal expression,” he said. “They are legitimate forms of First Amendment expression.”
[A] 9mm round from an airport police handgun might be a legitimate “free speech” reply to a person with a battery-powered rectangular device on their chest with flashing lights and apparent plastic explosive in their hands.
The marketplace of ideas. Ain’t it grand?
P.S. Is the Tom Dwyer involved in this case the well-regarded Thomas E. Dwyer, Jr., of Dwyer & Collora (formerly Dwyer, Collora & Gernter, before Nancy Gertner was appointed to the federal bench)? If so, we’d expect a former state and federal prosecutor to offer a more compelling defense.
P.P.S. In fairness to Dwyer, another argument he’s making — that state law does not clearly define a “hoax device” — seems stronger.
Woman charged with wearing fake bomb says device was free speech [Worcester Telegram via Blogonaut]
Earlier: From the Department of Dubious Defenses
From this morning’s ATL mailbag:
It may not be that juicy of a story, but almost all of the soon-to-be first-year associates at Sidley Austin LA are pissed about the start dates they gave us. Our available start dates are August 11 or September 8. The first start date is just 10 days after the California bar. Are we being whiny bitches, or is this messed up?
We lean towards “messed up.” But we’re biased in favor of late start dates — we showed up for our first day of law firm work in December, after extensive post-clerkship travels. (We couldn’t do a post-bar trip because our clerkship started a week after the bar exam.)
So, readers, whaddya think? Do the Sidley associates have just cause for complaint? Or are these starting dates par for the course in Biglaw? What’s your law firm’s policy?
Update (11:45 AM): Based on the comments thus far, it seems the weight of authority favors “whiny bitches.” But let’s do this more systematically: take our poll.