A group of third-graders plotted to attack their teacher, bringing a broken steak knife, handcuffs, duct tape and other items for the job and assigning children tasks including covering the windows and cleaning up afterward, police said Tuesday.
Photos of the assembled weapons are here.
We realize there is a tenuous legal connection here… but authorities at the school are citing privacy law and there will be charges!
The children, ages 8 to 10, were apparently mad at the teacher because she had scolded one of them for standing on a chair, Tanner said.
Two of the students were arrested on juvenile charges Tuesday and a third arrest was expected. District Attorney Rick Currie said other students told investigators they didn’t take the plot seriously or insisted they had decided not to participate.
“Some of the kids said, `We thought they were just kidding,”‘ Currie said. “Another child was supposed to bring a toy pistol, and he told a detective he didn’t bring it because he thought he would get in trouble.”
Currie said the children are too young to be charged as adults, and probably too young to be sentenced to a youth detention center.
Police seized a steak knife, steel handcuffs, duct tape, electrical and transparent tape, ribbons and the paperweight from the students, Tanner said.
Currie said he decided to seek juvenile charges against two girls, ages 9 and 10, who brought the knife and paperweight and an 8-year-old boy who brought tape. He said all three students faced charges of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, and both girls were being charged with bringing weapons to school.
* A 2003 memo shows that the Justice Department greenlighted aggressive interrogation methods (including poking; Facebook, holla). Maybe those Yalies suing John Yoo need to amend their complaint. [New York Times; Washington Post]
* Speaking of Yalies, here are a Yale 1L’s thoughts on the U.S. News rankings controversy. [Hartford Courant]
* A bipartisan effort to protect homeowners at risk of foreclosure. [New York Times]
* Despite the grim economy, partner poaching continues — and even extends to finance and securitization lawyers. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Hey Mon — please don’t try to board a flight with apparent bomb-making materials. [CNN]
* Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano may have offered clients more than just investigative services. [New York Times]
If I recall correctly, Sullivan & Cromwell sent out a memo in December or January saying that even though they paid the “special bonuses” in December, they still intended to pay additional profit-sharing bonuses in February. [February is over] and as far as I know, not a word from S&C. Can you guys please make a big deal over this?
The tipster’s memory is slightly off. From chairman H. Rodgin Cohen’s earlier bonus memo:
[T]he Firm will pay senior associates compensation in addition to salary and bonus through our new Senior Associate Supplemental Bonus Plan (“the Plan”). We have decided to accelerate payments under this new Plan to result in the following [market-matching bonuses] being paid on December 14 to our senior associates, with final supplemental payments to be made in the Spring of ’08.
We are now officially into spring 2008. So ATL hereby “make[s] a big deal over this.” Has S&C paid the supplemental bonuses to its senior associates? If so, can someone please give us the skinny?
Second, here’s an interesting rumor of a partner departure from S&C, from a different tipster….
* Better late than never: data on New Jersey lawyers finally released to lawyer ratings site Avvo. [AP]
* Speaking of the Garden State, Judge Fred Kieser Jr. would have been a great Lawyer of the Day (if we hadn’t missed this when it came out last month). [NJ.com]
* “[I]n a move designed to show that it is doing its part in the global war on terrorism, China announced today a crackdown on counterfeit designer handbags….” [Securing Innovation]
* News you can use (if you have dreams of legal academia): teaching fellowships for aspiring law professors. [TaxProf Blog]
* If you’re STILL not tired of talking about those U.S. News law school rankings — and we’re finally sensing some fatigue, since our last post didn’t even generate 100 comments — here are a few more links:
* “The Contradictory Goals of Law School Rankings” [Concurring Opinions (Dan Solove)]
* “An Open Letter to Bob Morse of U.S. News” [Brian Leiter's Law School Reports]
* “US News Hacked?: Does the US News Web Site Display 3rd Tier & 4th Tier Law Schools Ranked in Order?” [PrawfsBlawg (Geoffrey Rapp)]
* The 2008 April Fool’s Blawg Review Appendix. [a fool in the forest via Blawg Review]
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]
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.
Things have changed recently in Korea – a few of our US and UK client firms are looking, very selectively, for a lateral US associate hire. Until just recently, there was not much hiring like this going on in Korea, since US and UK firms started opening offices there. We have already placed two US associates in Korea in the past month at top firms. Most of the hiring partners we work with in Korea do not actively work with other recruiters.
If you are a Korean fluent US associate in London, New York or another major US market, 2nd to 6th year, at a top 20 firm, with cap markets or M&A focus (or mix), or project finance background, and you are interested in lateraling to Korea to a top US or UK firm, please feel free to reach out to us at email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org. Our head of Asia, Evan Jowers, was just in Korea recently, and Evan and Robert Kinney will be in Korea in a few weeks. We are in the process of helping several firms open new offices in Korea (a number of which are interviewing our partner level candidates) and also helping existing offices there fill openings.
Professor Joel P. Trachtman has developed a unique, practical guide to help lawyers analyze, argue, and write effectively.
The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win is a highly readable 200-page book, available for about $10 in paperback or e-book. Chapters focus on foundational principles in legal argument: procedure, interpretation of contracts and statutes, use of evidence, and more. The material covered is taught only implicitly in law school. Yet, when up-and-coming attorneys master these straightforward tools, they will think and argue like the best lawyers.
For most attorneys, time spent managing the books is a necessary evil at best. Yet it is undeniably a crucial aspect of running a successful practice. With that in mind, we invite you to view or download a free webinar by Above the Law and our friends at Clio to learn how to better manage your finances.
Take this opportunity to learn what it takes to streamline your accounting and get the most out of your time. The webinar agenda:
● The basics of accounting for lawyers.
● How legal accounting differs from regular accounting.
● Report and reconciliation issues surrounding trust accounts.
● How to pick and integrate the best accounting tools for your practice.
● Steps to prepare your tax return for your firm’s income.
Do not miss this crucial chance to optimize your accounting practices. Save time and get back to billing!