* Jailhouse rock beats making license plates all day. [The Times]
* Seems like everyone is lactose-intolerant these days. [Edgware & Mill Hill Times]
* There’s a place and time for B-movie headlines and slang captions–sometimes I forget the New York Post is a real newspaper. [New York Post]
* By now, even the small fry criminal knows all about felony murder. [AP via MSNBC]
* If those hipster parents start talking, show this to them to shut them up. Of course, sadly, it’s often the other way around. [Houston Chronicle]
* Jailhouse rock beats making license plates all day. [The Times]
As we did previously, we have received a message from the offices of Michael Kennedy, the prominent criminal defense lawyer retained by Aaron Charney, with a request to transmit it to ATL readers.
Here it is:
IF ANYONE HAS INFORMATION ABOUT EFFORTS TO CREATE FALSE AFFIDAVITS IN THE CASE OF CHARNEY v. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP OR SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP v. CHARNEY, PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL KENNEDY AT 212-935-4500 OR AT CHARNEYINVESTIGATION AT GMAIL.COM.
We have no further comment on this post. We will simply reiterate what we said the last time around:
“Please note that the posting of this email should not be interpreted as our siding with Aaron Charney in this litigation. We are simply functioning as a clearinghouse for information about the case….”
“[I]f Sullivan & Cromwell or the firm’s outside counsel, Paul Hastings, were to make a similar request of us, we would happily comply.”
Congratulations to the two finalists for ATL’s March Madness: Columbia and UVA! Both of them emerged victorious out of the Final Four, in hard-fought contests:
And extra congratulations to Columbia for the excellent Law Revue they staged last night. We attended and enjoyed ourselves thoroughly — aided by a helpful 3L, who explained the inside jokes to us, and a modest amount of alcohol.
We urge the CLS Revue folks to put some of their best numbers up on YouTube. We’d like to blog about them and share them with the world.
So here’s the final poll for our March Madness contest. It’s for the championship, so please get out the vote.
(Same rules apply: Feel free to email or IM people and encourage them to vote. But no scripts, clickbots, or other non-human voting tools. Thank you.)
Paul Hastings partner Zachary Fasman, counsel to Sullivan & Cromwell, leaving New York Supreme Court after yesterday’s hearing. As he passed us, he called out, “Go back to Washington!” It seemed half-playful, half-sincere.
As we mentioned yesterday, the Thursday morning hearing in Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was a bit of a snoozefest. Nothing particularly shocking or funny happened. The parties’ arguments hewed closely to their written submissions (as they should have). Justice Bernard Fried issued no significant rulings from the bench.
There were several MSM reporters at the hearing, but none of them has written anything on it — perhaps because it was a non-event. (Blogger Lavi Soloway did do a quick post on it.)
Even if it wasn’t a blockbuster hearing, some of you have requested a substantive report anyway. We’ve done a quick write-up, which appears after the jump.
This poster caught our eye when we visited Columbia Law School earlier this week:
The point of the flyer is to encourage CLS students to participate in the upcoming blood drive (Monday, April 16, Drapkin Lounge, 11-5:30 — we encourage you to go). The strategy of the poster is to “shame” law students into participation, by showing that even the employees of a big bad law firm like Sullivan & Cromwell give blood at a higher rate.
You can’t really read the small black text in this photograph, so here’s what it says:
“Sullivan & Cromwell gave 48 donations of blood per 100 employees in 2006. 1230 students at Columbia Law School gave 25. Total. That is 2 from every 100 students.”
“Even accounting for the pints of associate blood that were set aside for drinking by Alexandra Korry, S&C still kicked our ass. Please give blood on Monday!”
Columbia Law School Blood Drive [CLS Public Calendar]
We’ve been enjoying the story of Adriana Dominguez, the Brooklyn Law School student who made a nude video for Playboy TV. And based on the number of people who have been visiting ATL by Googling her, it seems that we’re not alone.
We’d like to “own” this story, covering every aspect of it, no matter how trivial (as we’ve been doing with the Aaron Charney case). If you have any firsthand information about Adriana Dominguez, even if not terribly exciting, please contact us (subject line: “Adriana Dominguez”).
Here’s one such tip we received:
“The New York Daily News keeps on referring to her as a ‘brainy blonde,’ but that’s not entirely accurate. First, it’s a dye job. Second, she’s not what I would call ‘brainy.’ I know someone who is in her International Law class, and let’s just say she’s not a star pupil. She should spend more time with her books and less time naked before the camera.”
After the jump, we’ve posted a screencap of her MySpace page. It’s not terribly revealing because access to her full profile is restricted to her friends. But for those of you who can’t get enough of her, check it out.
- Brett Kavanaugh, Federal Judges, Hair, Law Schools, Rudeness, Samuel Alito, Screw-Ups, Susan Graber, Videos
Next time you hear a cell phone go off in a movie or at the theater, and think to yourself, “What an a**hole!”, remind yourself: Someday YOU might be that a**hole.
Watch this video, from the start of the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court finals, which we attended at Columbia Law School earlier this week. Pay special attention to what happens around the 18-second mark:
Yes, that’s right. The judges entered the room, their robes billowing out behind them. The court crier made the very formal and grandiose announcement: “Oyez, oyez…” The room fell into a solemn silence. And then, at that precise moment, our computer — which was in the process of turning on — made that annoying Windows start-up noise. Loudly.
One could feel a wave of horrified embarrassment sweep through the audience. Justice Alito chuckled, so hopefully he wasn’t too offended. But we were mortified (and rightfully so).
In our defense, this was a complete accident. We were in the process of setting up and turning on our computer, and we didn’t know when exactly the judges would be arriving. We turned our computer on, and it began the start-up process (which can take a little while). Unfortunately, just seconds after we turned it on, the judges made their entrance. And even more unfortunately, as the silence settled over the room, our computer made that colossally loud cyber-fart.
In any event, our apologies, Your Honors! Please do not blame the CLS audience for this rudeness. It was completely our fault.
We took some rough notes on the proceedings. They will probably interest you only if you attended the Moot Court finals yourselves. Or if you care about the hairstyles of Article III judges.
If you want to see our commentary, it’s available after the jump.
Our recent post about Aaron Charney and his well-to-do family background generated tons of discussion (about 90 reader comments). We’d like to pass along two pieces of additional information on the subject.
From a tipster who went to the same temple in the Syracause area (Temple Adath Yeshuran) as the Charney family:
“The Charneys do quite well for themselves with their stores. They never seemed to be wanting for cash, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he’s got a trust fund.”
If Charney does come from such an affluent background, it may explain his willingness to “roll the dice” by pushing forward with his lawsuit against S&C. Someone from more modest means might have taken a more modest settlement, then moved on to a job at another firm. But someone with family money to fall back on might be more willing to shoot for a seven-figure payday, knowing that he could ride out even a lengthy period of unemployment with parental help.
But our source also has this to add:
“I’m not sure if Aaron Charney’s father is the only owner of the clothing store chain. The business may be a family business with more than one owner.”
We looked back at Bob Kolker’s profile of Aaron Charney for New York magazine. Kolker identifies Charney as “[t]he only son of an owner of a small chain of men’s clothing stores in the Syracuse area.” The indefinite article — “an owner,” rather than “the owner” — leaves open the possibility of multiple owners.
So this might dilute Charney’s patrimony, if other branches of his extended family also have their fingers in the dynastic till. Unlike, say, a chunk of the Wal-Mart fortune, multiple heirs from multiple families could be quite dilutive of Aaron’s share.
Does anyone know if Aaron Charney’s father is the sole owner of the Charney chain of stores? Anyone care to estimate what the chain’s annual revenue might be?
As always, if you can shed more light on any of this, please drop us a line.
Earlier: Brokeback Lawfirm: Aaron Charney’s Doing Just Fine, Thank You
* White House says it “screwed up” in not preserving e-mails relating to US Attorneygate. [CNN]
* But officer, I am a legitimate businessman in the unregulated dietary supplements industry. [MSNBC]
* Murder trial of minister’s wife begins. [CNN]
* Did you hear the one about the opening on AG Gonzales’s staff? [Washington Post via How Appealing]
* “Lawyers.com” cannot be trademarked because it’s generic. [How Appealing]
* How about “Surf City, USA”? [WSJ Law Blog]
* Former paralegal and current law student, here is an example of when a woman is justified in worrying about clothes making the (wo)man. [San Francisco Chronicle]
* If you can’t trust the Geek Squad, who can you trust? But you know, even geeks have needs. [Los Angeles Times]
* Act like a baboon, get arrested. [First Coast News via QuizLaw]
* It’s been kind of a bummer for JLo lately–mediocre American Idol performances by her mentees for Latin Week, divorce rumors and now some tax shenanigans. [People]
Prompted by various comments, here are two more polls on Adriana Dominguez, the Brooklyn Law School student turned stripper:
If you’re seeking a more substantive analysis of this morning’s hearing in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, check out this post by Lavi Soloway.
A Law Unto Itself ? Aaron Charney v Sullivan & Cromwell Returns to Court [Soloway]