(We suspect that Justice Scalia’s daughter handled herself much better during her recent DUI incident.)
DUI suspect does $1,100 worth of damage with his head [KSTP.com]
The delightful site Overheard in New York, which collects humorous bits of overheard conversation, has a collection of law-related “overheards” up today. Here’s our favorite:
Ditzy Chinese chick: So, I went on this job interview with this law firm, right? And this lawyer who was interviewing me was really cute, ya know? So at the end of the interview he stood up, and I wasn’t sure what to say so I said, ‘Well, I don’t know whether you’re going to hire me or not, but I’d really like to f**k you.’
So he came to my apartment after work and f**ked me. Then I get a letter two days later telling me I didn’t get the f**king job! Do you think that’s sexual harassment?
1. YES. He should totally sue.
2. So she “didn’t get the f**king job.” Guess he didn’t like her “audition” for the position.
(Or maybe, just maybe, he thought she had bad judgment. What on earth would have given him that idea?)
3. She should stop complaining — at least she got something out of the interview process. Most of the time, all you have to show for a half-day of boredom is a bunch of business cards. And maybe a nice lunch, if you’re lucky.
The rest of the funny, legally-themed “overheards” — although none as good as this one — are available here. Enjoy!
Wednesday One-Liners, Esq. [Overheard in New York]
The typical ATL “Lawyer of the Day” is a solo practitioner or small-firm lawyer. But today’s lawyer of the day hails from a large law firm, one that you’ve probably heard of — and one that gets the definite-article treatment in the New York Times wedding pages.
Meet Mark Fischer, from the Denver office of Faegre & Benson, the well-known Minneapolis law firm. Here’s what Fischer did to earn a place in the pages of ATL. From the Rocky Mountain News:
A prominent Denver law firm is being sued after one of its attorneys forged a federal judge’s signature on a legal document.
The forgery allowed one of Faegre & Benson’s clients to obtain a loan and pay the firm for work, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S District Court in Colorado.
The attorney, Mark W. Fischer, admitted in a two-page letter that on April 25, 2005, that he “fabricated a false document which purported to be an order” signed by Judge Philip Figa to release a lien against his client’s property.
Fischer was suspended by the state supreme court on April 11. His ultimate fate will be decided at an upcoming disciplinary hearing.
One of the tipsters who brought this to our attention wrote: “I can’t believe it backfired; it seems like such a good idea to forged a federal judge’s signature. I’m guessing the firm’s collections department was really hounding that attorney about those unpaid fees.”
So what did the powers-that-be at Faegre & Benson think of all this?
“What Mr. Fischer described in his letter is inconsistent with the way Faegre & Benson has practiced law for over 100 years,” [partner Dave] Stark said.
Thanks for the clarification, Dave. We’re glad to jear that forging federal judges’ signatures isn’t usual policy or practice at Faegre & Benson.
Interestingly enough, even though the firm is now being sued by the client for failure to “supervise” Fischer, it turns out that he was a PARTNER at the firm — not some wet-behind-the-ears associate. From his Martindale-Hubbell bio:
Mark W. Fischer (Partner) born Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1956; admitted to bar, 1991, Colorado. Education: Grinnell College (B.A. 1978); University of Colorado (J.D. 1991). Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation; Intellectual Property Litigation.
It’s nice to see some innovative thinking from a lawyer who has been practicing for over 15 years. Good work, Mr. Fischer!
Law firm sued over forgery by attorney [Rocky Mountain News]
Faegre & Benson sued over forged document [Minnesota Lawyer Blog]
* Keep all that proselytizing down! I’m trying to sleep sin in here! [San Francisco Chronicle via How Appealing]
* There she is….but she’s not gonna testify. [CNN]
* Parents can sue over abortions in Missouri. [ Jurist]
* D.C. Circuit upholds ruling against McDermott. [Fulton County Daily Report]
* Vonage wants a do-over. [WSJ Law Blog]
In case any of you were wondering, last Friday’s news about Weil Gotshal clerkship bonuses has been officially confirmed. Here’s a statement from a firm spokesperson:
“Weil will pay $50K for a one-year state or Federal clerkship and $70K (i.e., the current amount) for a two-year clerkship.”
So there you have it, from the horse’s mouth. And there’s the answer to this commenter’s question: “Is that flat, or does Weil still double for two years?”
Okay, so Weil won’t give you $100K for two years of clerking experience. But $70,000 is still, as far as we know, the top of the market for two clerkships or years of clerking. Three cheers for Weil — and Cravath, which also pays $70,000 for two clerkships.
Does anyone know what S&C, Simpson, Paul Weiss, and Cleary Gottlieb — the other members of the $50K Club — pay for multiple clerkships or years of clerking? If so, please email us. Thanks.
- Celebrities, Divorce Train Wrecks, Education / Schools, Holidays and Seasons, Kids, Music, Non-Sequiturs, Religion
* Cheating in B-school… Surely this would never happen in law school. But if one of the wrongly accused lacrosse players got a highly coveted, six-figure job, then surely these guys will pull through. [New York Times]
* Kids always suffer the most in a divorce. [The Oregonian]
* Inspired by that handy pageant trick, local politicians have also approved free pots of vaseline at schools and churches. [Concurring Opinions]
* In politics as in music, Sheryl Crow isn’t for everyone. But I still really like her first hit single, Leaving Las Vegas. [Mirror of Justice]
* Apparently, today is Law Day. But if a holiday or designated special day does not involve cake or presents, I just can’t get that excited. [Professor Bainbridge; WSJ Law Blog]
Check out this posting, currently on the “Missed Connections” section of Craigslist:
My words come to you by ‘Writ of Certiorari’ from my heart. I have an ‘Opinion’: You are without a doubt the most perfect girl on the Hill. I look forward to argument days just so I can see your smile and say hello as you pass me in the Courtroom hall.
Some days you are in your Clerk uniform tails and some days you are not, but you always look stunning. When I see you across the way during arguments it is hard to concentrate on keeping the record.
Now that this session of Oral arguments is over I am bummed because I never really had the chance to talk with you. So here on Craigslist I am bringing an ‘Appeal’ to take you out to coffee sometime?
On ‘habeas review’, my heart is doing time and you have been found guilty.:0)
But this CL poster is not in search of a Supreme Court law clerk, since the object of his desire wears a “Clerk uniform — tails.” The law clerks generally wear standard business attire.
So which SCOTUS employees show up to oral argument in tails? A knowledgeable source tells us:
The reference may be to the Marshal of the Court Pamela Talkin, who does wear tails to oral argument. See here (Talkin describing her uniform as “a formal morning suit with tails, pinstriped slacks, and a vest”).
The Clerk of the Court is William Suter. He also wears tails to oral argument.
But Bill Suter is a man. And our lovesick poster is an “m4w” (man seeking woman).
Oyez, oyez! Pam Talkin, it seems that you have a secret — and considerably younger (30) — admirer. And he’s very interested in “drawing near” and “giving attention” to you, at a neighborhood cafe.
Update: One commenter wonders whether the woman in question might work in the Solicitor General’s office, since the morning coat is the official uniform of that office. But we’re not so sure, since (1) there are very few women in the SG’s office right now, and (2) our understanding is that female members of the SG’s office generally wear dark suits to oral argument (as opposed to the full-blown morning coat outfit of their male colleagues).
But look, we can’t rule out this possibility. Does anyone familiar with the current membership of the SG’s office have thoughts on this matter?
Further Update: Check out this excellent comment:
Denise McNerney, the Merits Clerk, is often in the courtroom in tails. And she’s very attractive. It is highly unlikely that Deanne Maynard, Patricia Millett, or Lisa Blatt from the SG’s Office is the object of the Craigslist poster’s affection. None wears tails. All are married.
The Supreme Court Clerk of my heart – m4w – 30 [Craigslist]
- Alberto Gonzales, D. Kyle Sampson, Fabulosity, John Conyers, Monica Goodling, Politics, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Attorneys Offices, You Go Girl
Via the Volokh Conspiracy, we came across this intriguing piece, by Murray Waas for the National Journal, about how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales delegated exceptionally broad powers to his two youthful underlings: D. Kyle Sampson and the Magnificent Monica Goodling.
Here’s the lede:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides — who have since resigned because of their central roles in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys — extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department….
In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison “the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration” of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department’s political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.
Professor Orin Kerr’s take:
Remarkable. And assuming this story checks out, it certainly explains why Gonzales seemed so clueless about the U.S. Attorney firings. It seems that Gonzales had taken himself completely out of the loop of all DOJ political appointee hiring. He had delegated that role completely to two 30-somethings, Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling; his only role was a formality, required just so that OLC would find the practice constitutional.
We take issue with Professor Kerr’s dismissive reference to the Magnificent Monica Goodling as a mere “30-something.” And now that she has been granted immunity, we can’t wait for Goodling to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.
All mysteries will be revealed, and this entire U.S. Attorney mess will be straightened out, after Monica Goodling appears before the House Judiciary Committee in all her radiance. She will dazzle the Committee, as well as the American people, with her command performance, the likes of which have never been seen on Capitol Hill.
Goodling’s crisp and cogent answers to even the most challenging queries from legislators will cause jaws to drop. Her command of both the facts and the law concerning the U.S. Attorney firings will amaze the nation. It will be just like the final courtroom scene in “Legally Blonde,” in which another plucky, underestimated blonde triumphed against all odds.
At the end of her testimony, Rep. John Conyers will publicly apologize to Monica Goodling for dragging her good name through the mud. Faith in the U.S. Department of Justice will be restored. Truth, justice, and the American way will be vindicated.
And then President Bush will dispatch Monica Goodling to Iraq, as head of a special mission designed to fix the debacle over there. There is nothing that our Monica can’t do!!!
Secret Order By Gonzales Delegated Extraordinary Powers To Aides [National Journal]
Did Sampson and Goodling Have Total Control of DOJ Political Hiring? [Volokh Conspiracy]
The various comments added to our last post, stating that Cleary Gottlieb has joined the elite ranks of law firms paying $50,000 clerkship bonuses, are correct. Here’s the email, from CGSH partner David Leinwand:
From: David LEINWAND
Time: 2:01 pm
I am very pleased to announce that the firm will be increasing its judicial clerkship bonus for U.S. associates who complete one or more clerkships to $50,000. The increased bonus will be paid to associates who accept an offer to join the firm or complete a clerkship after January 1, 2007.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Norma Cirincione if you have any questions.
on behalf of the Recruiting Committee
So who’s next? By conventional prestige standrads, we’d say Davis Polk. By profits per partner, it would be Cadwalader. According to the just-released AmLaw 100 rankings, Cadwalader is the most profitable NYC-based firm — excluding Wachtell Lipton, which pays no clerkship bonus, but compensates with a ridiculous year-end bonus — that has not yet joined the $50K club.
But don’t hold your breath for Cadwalader. Based on Anthony Lin’s fascinating profile of the firm, published back in February, it seems that CWT isn’t a big fan of “clerky” types:
Whereas [rival] firms lavish attention on Ivy League law graduates with prestigious judicial clerkships, [Cadwalader Chairman Robert] Link wants lawyers who want to be in the business and want to work hard in it. He said his ideal candidate would probably be someone slightly older with previous work experience, maybe on Wall Street.
He has no use for Yale Law School.
“I don’t think we even recruit there anymore,” he said of the law school often regarded as the nation’s most intellectual. “They don’t seem to produce the kind of lawyer we want.”
Ouch. And Yale, which sends a sizable percentage of graduates directly into judicial clerkships each year, is the most “clerky” of law schools.
Does the Future Belong To Cadwalader? [New York Law Journal]
Incoming associates, in fall 2007, who have completed a U.S. Federal district court, Federal appellate court, or state highest court clerkship receive a bonus of $50,000 and credit for a one-year clerkship.
What about for two clerkships or two years of clerking? Or clerkships that don’t fit one of the foregoing categories?
Those associates who complete a clerkship of two years or two one-year clerkships will receive (in lieu of the $50,000 bonus described previously) a bonus of $70,000 and class credit for each year of a clerkship, up to two years. Credit and bonuses for a magistrate, a state lower court or a clerkship outside of the U.S. are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Good stuff. We commend Cravath for its transparency with respect to these matters. And we congratulate them on joining Weil Gotshal at the top of the bonus market for two clerkships: $70,000. (More on Weil in a later post.)
So now the $50K Club has five members (in order of their joining): Sullivan & Cromwell, Simpson Thacher, Paul Weiss, Weil Gotshal, and Cravath.
Correction: The paragraph below, which now appears in strikethrough text, was based on erroneous information. We were previously advised that Cravath paid different clerkship bonuses for district and circuit court clerkships. That was incorrect. The old Cravath clerkship bonus structure was $15K across the board, up to a maximum of $30K.
One other observation on the Cravath news. It removes the firm’s former two-tier system with respect to clerkship bonuses ($15K for district court clerkships, $35K for circuit court clerkships). This makes sense to us. While circuit court clerks may have, on the whole or as a general matter, more impressive credentials than district court clerks, a district court clerkship is usually a more educational experience (at least viewed from the perspective of a future litigator).
A group of Japanese magicians sued TV broadcasters on Tuesday for revealing closely guarded secrets behind a series of coin tricks, a news report said.
Forty-nine magicians are seeking $16,000 in damages from Nippon Television Network Corp. and TV Asahi Corp. for airing shows last year that revealed how magicians perform tricks involving coins…
Personally we have our doubts about these “magicians.” If they’re truly so magical, why must they resort to judicial process?
Why not just cast spells? Like a tongue-shutting curse, which could have stopped the secrets from being divulged in the first place?
Magicians Sue Over Revealed Tricks [Associated Press via Drudge]
The good news just keeps on coming for Aaron Charney, the former Sullivan & Cromwell associate who is now suing his former employer, alleging anti-gay discrimination and retaliation.
Yesterday Justice Bernard Fried handed down two decisions that were, on the whole, quite positive for the plaintiff. And now we learn of Charney’s alma mater, Columbia Law School, giving a shout-out to their 2003 graduate:
This may not be that unusual this year, but the final exam in Prof. Elizabeth Emens’s Employment Discrimination class at Columbia included as its issue spotter a closeted gay associate named Adam Cross, who worked at a law firm Sampson & Goliath (abbreviated S&G).
Among the mishaps that happened to our pal AC was an older male partner who told him to bend over and pick something up, stop “prancing around the office,” and handed him a document he wiped his “sneeze” with and said “I’m sure you’d like that.” Another partner accused him of having a relationship with another male associate that was “not natural.”
(We’ve heard of some pretty weird stuff in our day — but who gets off on bacteria-drenched mucus? Gives new meaning to the term “golden shower.”)
Our source concludes:
Most law school alums have to wait years before being memorialized by their alma mater.* But CLS has already honored Aaron Charney!
Does this mean that ABC will no longer feel the need to endow a professorship at CLS in gay legal studies, after prevailing in (or settling) his litigation with S&C?
In any event, our congratulations to Aaron Charney on this latest honor!
* So, so true. Unless you win a million dollars on TV, like our fabulous former schoolmate, Yul Kwon.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Aaron Charney (scroll down)