Last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey asked, “If you knew then what you know today, would you still choose to join your current firm?”
We received 540 responses, and, overall 68% of you said yes. But the gruntlement (i.e., satisfaction) varied quite a bit from market to market:
• Atlanta – 50%
• Boston – 74%
• Bay Area – 79%
• Chicago – 70%
• Dallas – 80%
• Houston – 82%
• Los Angeles – 71%
• New York – 71%
• Philadelphia – 75%
• Washington, DC – 68%
Apparently, “everything is bigger in Texas” includes job satisfaction, and the Bay Area is close behind, followed by Philadelphia. Meanwhile, firms in Boston have managed to produce slightly happier associates than firms in New York, notwithstanding the city’s often lamented bagels and challenging pizza scene — a challenge Chicago offices, hampered by
quiche deep dish pizza, have been unable to surmount. Washington, DC lags a bit behind, and Atlanta clearly needs a hug.
Associates at a few firms were particularly likely to say they’d make the same choice today. Find out which firms have especially happy campers, after the jump.
Last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey asked, “If you knew then what you know today, would you still choose to join your current firm?”
While standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court building this morning, Georgetown Law student Sam Arora sent us this message (with photo):
I’m #2 in line for the SCOTUS 11 AM argument. A policewoman standing at front told me I wasn’t allowed to wear my Hillary button “on the plaza.” She said it was rules.
I asked if she was sure, because I’m just standing here in our single file line with my friends. She said wearing a button was “demonstrating,” and I had to take it off.
I asked again if she was sure, because that seems to run afoul of First Amendment protections, but hey… I want to see my professor (Mike Gottesman) argue in Chamber v. Brown at 11am, so I took it off.
I asked her who in their office I could talk to about their policy, because I just don’t understand its grounding. She barked at me, “JUST TAKE IT OFF!.”
Well, dang, she has a gun, so I’m just going to petition the government… at a later time when she can’t hurt me!
So, readers, what do you think? Does Sam have a legitimate grievance? Or will his petition be denied?
P.S. Sam Arora is identified here with his permission. Our default rule at ATL is anonymity for tipsters. But Mr. Arora is a quasi-celebrity here inside the Beltway, as one of The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill. Sadly, the Supreme Court policewoman proved immune to his charms.
George Washington students have created a series of YouTube videos riffing on the Bud Light Real Men commercials. Best in the law-student-mocking series is “Guy who asks about summer jobs”:
Our favorite line: “Public interest is for gays and hippies.”
To see more of the Real Men of Law School videos, check out the TaxProf Blog.
Real Men of Law School [TaxProf Blog]
- Barack Obama, Guns / Firearms, Kwame Kilpatrick, Morning Docket, Politics, SCOTUS, Sex Scandals, Supreme Court
* Collected coverage of yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment case concerning D.C. gun control. [SCOTUSblog (linkwrap); How Appealing (linkwrap)]
* NJ prosecutors subpoena records from JuicyCampus.com (think AutoAdmit for college students). [AP]
* An update on former Lawyer of the Day Kwame Kilpatrick: the Detroit City Council wants him to resign as mayor, but he’s vowing not to leave. [New York Times]
* Olympic gold-medal hottie who had “close personal relationship” with New York’s latest Luv Guv, David Paterson, says he helped her land a government job. [New York Post via Drudge]
* The full transcript of yesterday’s speech by Barack Obama on race. [Washington Post]
If you’re a judiciary junkie who used to read Underneath Their Robes, the judicial news and gossip site that was our first foray into blogging, you may be mildly amused by this strange piece of spam.
Jeffrey Toobin — legal affairs writer for the New Yorker and author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, one of our favorite books in 2007 — forwarded the rather bizarre email to us yesterday. Check it out, after the jump.
* Why is prostitution illegal, but pornography is not? [Andrew Sullivan via The Legal Satyricon]
* Dueling applications to register “Client 9″ with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Maybe Eliot Spitzer should object? [USPTO; USPTO]
* Speaking of trademark fights, who should have the rights to use “COCKAHOLIC”? (An aside from Prof. Marc Randazza: “I’m surprised this wasn’t simply rejected as allegedly ‘immoral and scandalous.’”) [The Legal Satyricon]
* Remember Leona Helmsley’s “rich bitch,” who inherited $12 million from the late real estate queen? Here’s more information about estate planning for pets, from lawyer and pet lover Rachel Hirschfeld (via Prof. Paul Caron). [TaxProf Blog]
* On the subject of New York real estate riches: Columbia law prof Hans Smit has apparently lowered the asking price on his Manhattan mansion to $25 million. A reader who caught the HGTV segment said: “The actual tour of the house with the good professor leading the way was pretty neat…. Check your schedule for HGTV.” [HGTV]
- Department of Justice, Fabulosity, Musical Chairs, Office of Legal Policy, Politics, Rachel Brand, Seth Waxman, Weirdness
We bring you news of a career move by one of America’s most fabulous young lawyers. From a press release issued by WilmerHale:
WilmerHale is pleased to announce that Rachel L. Brand and Mark D. Nelson will join the firm’s Washington, DC public policy and strategy practice focusing on congressional investigations, regulatory affairs and crisis management. Ms. Brand will also be active in the firm’s government litigation and defense and national security practices. Ms. Brand was most recently Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy, where she served as chief policy and regulatory advisor to the Attorney General and managed the confirmation process for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
Wait, hold on a sec — Rachel Brand? As in young-conservative-superstar Rachel Brand, known in some circles as the Federalist Society Prom Queen?
Are you sure there hasn’t been some mistake? Maybe Brand went to another D.C. law firm whose name starts with a “W,” like Wiley Rein — perhaps a more natural home for a prominent Republican attorney?
WilmerHale, after all, is one of Washington’s most high-profile, left-leaning law firms. It’s home to leading liberal lawyers like former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, a possible Attorney General or Defense Secretary in a Democratic administration; former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, a possible judicial (D.C. Circuit?) nominee; Randy Moss, former head of the DOJ’s super-elite Office of Legal Counsel; and Howard Shapiro, former general counsel to the FBI. [FN1]
But no, it’s true — Brand is at Wilmer Hale. Word on the street, in fact, is that the firm is actively looking for Republican lawyers like Brand and Nelson. Perhaps they need someone to hold down the fort when everyone bails to serve in the Obama Administration?
We spoke to Rachel Brand yesterday, her first day of work. You know how useless first days can be — paperwork, orientation, technology training. “They taught me how to turn on my computer,” she quipped.
As for her new gig, Brand expressed excitement about the opportunity to join WilmerHale, “a great firm with some incredible lawyers.” She noted the abundance of lawyers with government experience at WilmerHale and said that her skill set fit well with the firm.
We wish Brand and Nelson the best of luck in their new professional home.
(We tried to contact Nelson but were unable to reach him. The WilmerHale telephone operator did not have an extension for him. Perhaps he isn’t in the office yet? If he is, someone needs to give his phone number to the receptionist.)
[FN1] As it turns out, a number of prominent Republicans are current or former WilmerHale partners. E.g., current partner Reginald Brown, who most recently served in the White House Counsel’s office, and former partner C. Boyden Gray, currently
U.S. ambassador to the European Union Special Envoy for EU Affairs.
WilmerHale Adds Top DOJ and Congressional Investigation Lawyers To Public Policy and Strategy Team [WilmerHale]
As the BLT reported earlier this month, McKee Nelson has hired beauty queen Chelsey Rodgers, a 3L at Howard University Law School, who will be D.C.’s representative in the Miss USA competition. Although the firm has been trying to thin its ranks, we’re sure that they can find room for Ms. Rodgers (just as Thacher Proffitt, in its recent personnel reductions, kept its former Playboy pinup on the payroll).
In an interview in Washingtonian magazine, Chelsey Rodgers described this embarrassing moment:
“I lost a boob cup once. It’s one of the tools of the trade, but I was uncomfortable with it. I told the girls before we went out: ‘If you see something fall out of me, just act like nothing happened.’ I could sense it shifting as we walked out and it came out on me. All you can do is act like nothing happened.”
Quips our tipster, “Let’s hope she doesn’t lose any ‘boob cups’ whilst ‘thumping the table in the courtroom.’” [FN1]
Here’s a question (which you don’t need to emerge from a soundproof booth to answer): What is up with beauty queens and the law? See, e.g., Erika Harold (Harvard), Victoria Kush (Florida International), and — last, but definitely not least — Kumari Fulbright (University of Arizona).
Why do these beauty pageant winners gravitate towards the legal world? Especially when, in a sad commentary on gender equality in the law, they could arguably earn more as escorts? As Stanford law professor and sociologist Michele Landis Dauber recently told us, for our column in this week’s New York Observer:
“It is unfortunately true that plenty of women, Silda Spitzer included, probably have a better chance of making five diamonds at the Emperor’s Club than they do of becoming an equity partner at Dechert, Mayer Brown, Blank Rome, Kramer Levin, or Cravath.”
Professor Dauber is a director and officer of Building A Better Legal Profession, which works to increase diversity at large law firms. There’s a nice shout-out to BBLP in today’s Los Angeles Times.
[FN1] Don’t feel bad if you weren’t familiar with a boob cup; we weren’t. But Kashmir Hill, ATL’s breath of fresh estrogen, explained:
“A boob cup is one of those stick-on bra things. You get two cups that you essentially adhere to yourself. They don’t tend to work that well for anyone larger than a B cup.”
- Affirmative Action, Biglaw, Labor / Employment, Minority Issues, Racism, Staff Attorneys / Discovery Attorneys, Yolanda Young
Sorry we’re late to the party on this HuffPo post, bearing the provocative title “Law Firm Segregation Reminiscent of Jim Crow.” It’s by Yolanda Young, a former staff attorney at Covington & Burling. Her claim, in a nutshell, is that Covington fills the ranks of its “staff attorney ghetto” with African-Americans, while the ranks of its partnership and partnership-track associate pool are overwhelmingly white.
Young’s post has already been discussed at Legal Blog Watch and the WSJ Law Blog. But considering how we
love to fan flames of racial tension follow the issue of diversity in the legal profession so closely here at ATL, of course we’re going to cover it.
Here’s an excerpt (emphases added)….
Several tipsters nominated this story for ATL’s Lawsuit of the Day.
A businessman claims in a lawsuit that he was injured when a stripper giving him a lap dance swiveled and smacked him in the face with the heel of her shoe.
Stephen Chang, a securities trader, said in court papers filed Friday that he was at the Hot Lap Dance Club near Madison Square Garden and was getting a paid lap dance when the accident occurred early Nov. 2, 2007.
According to the lawsuit, as the dancer swung around, the heel of her shoe hit him in the eye, causing him ”serious injuries.”
At least the heel just him in the eye. We agree with one tipster who said:
You have to love the name of the club, too – “Hot Lap Dance Club”. Really? They couldn’t come up with anything better?
We surfed on over to the Hot Lap Dance Club website:
Our dancers are all ”hand picked” and are among the most beautiful women in New York City with killer bodies.
Last year, the TV networks and their “fleeting expletives” won their case against the Federal Communications Commission. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC… and the public’s right to hear Jane Fonda use the “c” word as necessary.
SCOTUS agreed yesterday to hear the FCC’s appeal.
The Second Circuit held that, contrary to the commission’s policy under the Bush administration, the agency could not punish television stations for broadcasting “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities. At the time, F.C.C. officials expressed concern that the opinion could hamper the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.
Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the commission, said on Monday that he was pleased that the high court would review the issue. Last June, he said he was “disappointed for American families” because of the Second Circuit ruling.
“The commission, Congress, and most importantly, parents understand that protecting our children in our greatest responsibility,” Mr. Martin said. “I continue to believe we have an obligation, then, to enforce laws restricting indecent language on television and radio when children are in the audience.”
American families everywhere are rejoicing.
For background on the Second Circuit’s ruling, check out this excellent New York Journal article:
The FCC planned to sanction the network first for Cher’s comment at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, when she said “f**k ‘em” about critics who had repeatedly said her career was over.
Richie followed at the 2003 awards by saying “Have you ever tried to get cow s**t out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f**king simple.”
Who would have thought that Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie’s adventures on the Simple Life would spur a Supreme Court case? We hope to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read Nicole Richie’s quote aloud during arguments.
2nd Circuit Finds FCC’s Policy on ‘Fleeting Expletives’ Arbitrary [New York Law Journal on Law.com]
Justices to Hear F.C.C. Indecency Case [New York Times]
While last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on hindsight is still open, today’s survey ponders the uncertain future. And Bear Stearns’s effect thereon.
Nathan Koppel has an interesting post on the WSJ Law Blog about which firms might miss Bear Stearns business. Verdict: it’s murky, but probably not that great for Latham, Skadden, Cadwalader, or Weil Gotshal, and a mixed bag for WilmerHale. (Wachtell and Cravath weren’t mentioned in the post, but since Wachtell advised J.P. Morgan in the deal, and Cravath represented Lazard as financial advisor to Bear, they might experience some short-term upside.)
John Carney has an interesting post on Dealbreaker about how the Bear Stearns collapse affected the chairman’s bridge game. Verdict: the guy was playing bridge??
And the litigation’s already afoot (PDF), suggesting that somebody out there is going to get to bill some heavy hours for the defense.
But how will it affect you? Will work slow down as investors circle the wagons, or will there be a regulatory response that actually increases the need for lawyers? Will shareholders’ fear of fire sales increase bankruptcy and litigation work?
Let’s find out, in today’s ATL / Lateral Link survey:
Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this survey.