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.
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.
Meet Richard Hohensee. He’s a homeless man here in Washington, who has been living on the D.C. streets for some two years — which has been “very convenient,” since he’s running for president (see here). We met him yesterday outside the Supreme Court, during our recent field trip.
Rick Hohensee is highly intelligent and articulate, with detailed views on the Second Amendment and the proper disposition of the Heller case, which is being argued before the Supreme Court as we post this. In case you can’t read it in the video, this is the text of his sign:
Silberman erred. DC exists so that the Second Amendment does not apply here. http://www.myspace.com/presidentbyamendment
Could this be the first time in human history that the name of a D.C. Circuit judge has appeared on the sign of a homeless man? (D.C. Circuit judges who get nominated to the Court, and protested as SCOTUS nominees, don’t count.)
In this short video clip, Mr. Hohensee explains why he believes Judge Silberman erred:
Two more videos featuring Rick Hohensee, in which he explains his support for Obama and his own presidential bid, after the jump.
New York and New Jersey’s rivalry has spilled over into sex scandals. New Jersey started the battle way back in 2004. Then-Governor James McGreevey resigned and announced he was a “gay American,” who had carried on an affair with a male aide. This month, New York belatedly responded, when Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor amid a prostitution scandal.
New Jersey filed its reply brief. From the New York Post:
A former driver and aide to former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey yesterday made the bombshell claim that Dina Matos McGreevey must have always known her husband was gay – because he was the other man in bed with them.
In an explosive interview with The Post, the McGreeveys’ self-professed man in the middle, Teddy Pedersen, gave explicit details of three-way sex romps that he claimed to have had with the now-divorcing duo, starting during their courtship and continuing into the marriage.
Note: when conducting sex scandals, New Yorkers choose the Mayflower Hotel, while Jersey folks opt for drinks at T.G.I.F.’s:
“We called it the Friday Night Special,” Pedersen said. The “intense” escapades, he said, usually began with a “couple of drinks” at a local T.G.I. Friday’s and culminated in “a hard-core consensual sex orgy” between the three of them at McGreevey’s Woodbridge condo.
So as far as nasty sex scandals, we declared a victory for New Jersey — but then New York filed a petition for rehearing! The Daily News reports that new Governor David Paterson and his wife have both carried on extramarital affairs for years:
In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.
In the course of several interviews in the past few days, Paterson said he maintained a relationship for two or three years with “a woman other than my wife,” beginning in 1999.
As part of that relationship, Paterson said, he and the other woman sometimes stayed at an upper West Side hotel — the Days Inn at Broadway and W. 94th St.
We are unable to name a “Dirtiest Governor Sex Scandal” victor just yet. We are mildly overwhelmed. We wish the McGreeveys, the Spitzers, the Patersons, and “Kristen” would just have one big orgy, to make our news coverage easier.
I WAS MCG AND WIFE’S THREE-WAY SEX STUD: EX-DRIVER [New York Post via Drudge]
Wife of Ex-NJ Gov Denies Threesome Claim [Breitbart.com]
Gov. Paterson admits to sex with other woman for years [The Daily News via Drudge]
Heather Mills was awarded nearly $50 million yesterday in her divorce from Paul McCartney. CNN has video of Mills speaking with reporters after the verdict. Mills says:
It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter’s future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with.
The funny way Mills says “obviously plan on helping” in the video made us surf over to her official website and look at her charities. The charities seem like a collection of photo opportunities: Heather in a hard hat with a landmine sign, Heather with limbs, etc.
We also discovered a bizarre “Heather’s Friends” section, which includes video testimonials from Richard Branson and Hillary Clinton. Weird.
Mills spends a good amount of time ranting about the law courts’ conspiracy against litigants who represent themselves:
Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it’s against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they’re never going to make it look in favor.
We would just like to point out that Mills requested nearly $251 million and only received a fifth of that. And now her daughter has to fly coach. We hope her daughter does not ever have to use American Airlines.
Paul McCartney-Heather Mills Divorce Saga Ends in $48.6 Million Settlement [Law.com]
£700 for every hour of the marriage … and Heather Mills is STILL moaning [Daily Mail via Drudge]
Judge awards Heather Mills £24.3 million in divorce ruling [Overlawyered]
- 10th Circuit, Bear Stearns, Celebrities, Divorce Train Wrecks, Guns / Firearms, Morning Docket, Public Interest, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, White-Collar Crime
* “Are we headed for another Great Depression?” [McClatchy]
* Quelle surprise: Bear Stearns shareholder lawsuit (filed in S.D.N.Y. by Coughlin Stoia). [Bloomberg; WSJ Law Blog (PDF of complaint)]
* Speaking of Bear Stearns, here are some law firms losing out on BSC business. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Tenth Circuit reverses convictions of former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio. [AP]
* Harvard Law School will pay the 3L tuition of future students who agree to work for nonprofit organizations or government for five years following graduation. [New York Times via Tax Prof Blog; Harvard Law School (news release)]
* Settlement in Paul McCartney-Heather Mills divorce (more on this later). [Legal Week]
* SCOTUS to hear Second Amendment / D.C. gun control case today (more on this later too). [New York Times; Reuters]
We probably won’t cover judicial clerkship bonuses quite as closely as we used to, now that Justin Bernold has put together this handy table of clerkship bonus info. But we did want to bring your attention to one development, since several of you emailed us about it. This message is representative:
Just to let you know, JD has just changed their website to reflect a $50K clerkship bonus. Despite all the bad things said about JD on ATL, they are at least keeping pace with clerkship bonuses. Hope this spurs some positive commentary….
Thanks for providing a great service to lawyers everywhere!
For ATL’s table of clerkship bonuses, which has been corrected to reflect the JD information, click here.
P.S. For the record, we don’t think the Jones Day buzz here has been that bad. Sure, there have been some negative comments, but that’s true of almost every firm under the sun. And we’ve heard from Jones Day defenders as well.
Jones Day – Careers – Compensation [Jones Day]
* News you can use: when your economic stimulus rebate check — $600 (single) or $1,200 (married), plus $300 per child under age 17 — will be in the proverbial mail. [TaxProf Blog]
* Will London overtake New York as a global financial capital? What are the prospects for a major US/UK law firm merger? Bruce MacEwen reports from London. [Adam Smith, Esq.]
* More apparel inspired by L’Affaire Spitzer. This T-shirt carries a pro-safe sex message. [Cafe Press]
* Speaking of dear old Eliot, he’s featured in a new print ad from Virgin Mobile Canada. [QuizLaw]
* Happy St. Patrick’s Day! But when to celebrate it? And what does it mean to be Irish today? Some reflections from Professor William Birdthistle. [Chicago Tribune]
* Special St. Paddy’s Day wishes to Senator Barack O’Bama. But if the phone rings in the White House at 3 a.m., do you really want a Leprechaun taking the call? [Blogonaut]
* Finally, Daithí Mac Síthigh hosts Blawg Review #151, from Dublin. [Lex Ferenda via Blawg Review]
We just got back from visiting the Supreme Court, where we hung out with the (sizable and growing) crowd of people camped out at One First Street, so they can get seats in the courtroom for tomorrow’s argument in the D.C. gun control case, District of Columbia v. Heller (previously discussed here).
We’ll have more in subsequent posts. For now, we pass along this highlight. It’s a video of Alan Korwin and Robert Blackmer — strong supporters of Second Amendment rights, and members of a group called “The Cartridge Family” — singing their own unique version of “That’ll Be the Day,” with alternative lyrics. Check it out:
That’ll Be the Day [YouTube]
1. Layoffs did take place at EAPD last week. The number of associates who were laid off was “less than ten,” according to management.
2. Management gave assurances that there will be no more terminations (although they also stated that they could have made deeper cuts than they actually did).
3. The firm posted the following on the intranet, and sent associates a link to the posting: “Although the firm grew in 2007, we did not grow as much as our staffing grew… As a result, today we undertook the very difficult process of eliminating a small number of attorney and staff positions. The decision to let go personnel was very difficult, but necessary given the changes in the economy over the past several months. We believe that these steps ensure that we will remain a strong, successful firm.
(Our source observes: “I’m not sure why they would post it on a website other than to make it difficult to forward.”)
4. Management downplayed the impact of partner John Hooper’s departure.
5. Most people do not know the individuals terminated and the departments affected, although litigation is rumored to have taken the brunt of it.
Here is, by our count, the list of firms that have openly acknowledged layoffs or “layoff-esque” personnel moves (e.g., buyouts of the “leave or you’ll probably be laid off” variety): Cadwalader, Clifford Chance, Dechert, Edwards Angell, McKee Nelson, and Thacher Proffitt.
If we’re missing a firm, please email us. Please include some documentation of the firm acknowledging the layoff or other personnel action, internal or external (e.g., an email from firm management, a link to a news article, etc.). Thanks.
Update: Confirmation and additional information from TheLawyer.com.
Earlier: What’s Going on at Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge?
Edwards Angell UK escapes layoffs [The Lawyer]
Under the leadership of the beloved Elena Kagan, Harvard Law School continues to raid other schools for law professor talent. Word on the street is that another big hire is in the works. This past weekend, Dean Kagan crowed about her coup before a group of admitted students, saying it would be announced later this week.
We checked for news and gossip over at Leiter’s Law School Reports, the definitive source for information about senior-level appointments in legal academia, but didn’t see anything. Any guesses as to who will be snatched by HLS next?
In addition to the Harvard name (and endowment), Dean Kagan has other weapons in her arsenal for doing battle in the recruitment wars. She wooed Feldsuk with a million-dollar mansion, and Cass Sunstein with a million-dollar bab[e]. What fabulous prizes will Kagan bestow upon her latest hire?
Feel free to speculate and opine in the comments, or by email. Thanks.
In last week’s ATL / Lateral Link surveys, we asked you whether you would want to work in a different city, whether, knowing what you know now, you would still want to work where you do, and where, if you could go to any other firm, you would choose to go.
We received 1,189 responses to last Monday’s survey on whether you would want to work in a different city. A whopping 88% of respondents said they would consider moving to a new city to practice. Sixty-eight percent cited a better lifestyle as a reason to move, while 45% would move for more money. Thirty-eight percent of respondents would move for a better practice, and 35% would be willing to move to be closer to friends or family. Only thirteen or fourteen percent, however, would move to be closer to a spouse or significant other, suggesting that most respondents are either single or willing to be.
Responses: Would you consider moving to a new city to practice?
Where would you go? The Bay Area was the most popular destination, chosen by twelve percent of respondents. Another nine percent chose London. Eight percent would move to either the Pacific Northwest or Washington, DC. Six percent chose LA, Texas or Chicago. Five percent chose Boston, New York or Atlanta. Less than four percent would move to Paris, Hong Kong or Dubai to practice, and only a handful would consider Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, or Frankfurt. Quite a few people wrote in Philadelphia, Charlotte, Denver, Miami, and San Diego as their preferred destinations, putting them in about the same range as Tokyo.
Can you get there without updating your resume? Maybe not. Only a third of respondents thought their current firm would allow them to change offices. A quarter said no, and the rest weren’t sure.
Our ATL / Lateral Link surveys about whether, knowing what you know now, you would still want to work where you do, and where, if you could go to any other firm, you would choose to go are both still open, but you can sneak a peek at the results so far after the jump.
The Supreme Court gets to enjoy the media spotlight this week as it dives into the always contentious Second Amendment. An article in Sunday’s Washington Post has a good breakdown of the issues at stake:
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment’s meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
“This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,” said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. “And that’s why there’s so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.”
Facing the highest firearm murder rate among the States, the District of Columbia passed a law in 1976 virtually banning the possession of handguns. As a sidenote: The District also changed the name of its basketball team from the questionably violent “Bullets” to the “Wizards” in 1997.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the ban last year, and now SCOTUS has got to get up in it. In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Laurence Tribe revealed that he will do a little happy dance if the Court decides narrowly. Moderation…yawn…
Using a case about national legislative power over gun-toting in the capital city as a vehicle for deciding how far Congress or the state of California can go in regulating guns in Los Angeles would be a silly stretch.
Chief Justice John Roberts, ever since his days as a judge on the court of appeals, has virtually defined judicial modesty by opining that if it is not necessary for the court to decide an issue, then it is necessary for the court not to decide that issue. For this reason, and for the further reason that the scholarship on the reach of the Second Amendment and its implementation is still in its infancy, the court should take the smallest feasible step in resolving the case before it.
Issuing a narrow decision would disappoint partisans on both sides and leave many questions unresolved. But to do anything else would ill-suit a court that flies the flag of judicial restraint.
Supreme Court vs. the Second Amendment may be as exciting as a Duke vs. UNC basketball game. People are camping out overnight to watch the argument tomorrow! A tipster on location reports that there are already 14 people in line, the first one having arrived at 5:30 a.m.
Of course, no decision’s expected until the end of the term in June. While we wait, we’ll keep challenging people in bars to name all the Supreme Court Justices. And watch Charlton Heston movies.
D.C.’s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court [The Washington Post]
Sanity and the Second Amendment [Laurence Tribe in the Wall Street Journal]
Laurence Tribe to High Court: Restrain Yourself [Wall Street Journal Law Blog]