* Reprieve granted day before execution. [CNN]
* L.A. archdiocese reaches $660 million settlement. [MSNBC]
* Family of Girl Who Married Teacher Sues School District. [WSOCTV]
* OU must adjust records as part of NCAA sanctions. [SI]
* Charges dismissed against 13 former KPMG employees. [NYT; WSJ Law Blog (background)]
* Reprieve granted day before execution. [CNN]
To balance out our recent tales of diva-licious behavior by a celebrated legal journalist, Nina Totenberg of NPR, here’s an opposing viewpoint — a “But see,” if you will — from Thomas Goldstein. Goldstein is a partner at Akin Gump, a top Supreme Court advocate, and founder of SCOTUSblog.
Tom Goldstein also knows Ms. Nina well, since he’s a former intern for her and a longtime friend (see here). He writes:
I admit to being the world’s biggest Nina partisan, except maybe for my daughter (Nina) and wife and sister (who also were interns). The diva reputation makes for good press but honestly isn’t deserved; the seats in the press gallery are assigned.
Totes actually spends tons of time worrying about and caring for friends, including several who are recovering from cancer. She’s a sweetheart.
We thank Tom Goldstein for his thoughts on La Totenberg — but we’re disappointed to hear them! There are precious few divas in this world. When you find a true diva, or even a potential one, you should hold on to her for as long as you can.
With respect to Goldstein’s comments on the press gallery, that’s true — in part. The situation is actually a bit more complicated. If you’re just DYING to know how seat assignments work for the SCOTUS press corps (and we know you are), we’ll provide a detailed report in a subsequent post.
Names & Faces: Totenberg’s Courtside Seat [Washington Post]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Nina Totenberg (scroll down)
* Washingtonienne, the sequel? But this time around, blame the “backdoor action” on the Spicy Mussel Soup. [Medill Reports]
* A compelling defense of Judge Dennis Jacobs’s “look ma, no eyes” approach to dissenting. [ProfessorBainbridge.com]
* “My friends said to me, ‘It would take a murder trial for you to meet the right person.’” [Associated Press]
* Because we need to use the “Weirdness” tag at least once a day. [Underbelly]
We received an interesting email about a month ago. We meant to write about it back then, but never got around to it. But since we haven’t read about it elsewhere (please correct us if we’re wrong), we figure it’s still fair game for discussion.
Here’s the start of the email. It’s from John Quinn, name partner of litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel.
From: John Quinn
we have a possible solution to a problem that we want to run by all of you. its controversial–or has the potential to be such–so we don’t want to consider it further if it will be a problem.
our firm desparately needs more patent litigators with electrical engineering degrees. its not just that we have more and more cases calling for that expertise. we also have clients who insist on staffing their cases with electrical engineers. we are beyond capacity limited in this area. its to the point that we are being instructed to off load some work to other firms that have ee degrees. the truth of the matter is that we could probably put a dozen of these people to work right now if we had them.
we have constantly been looking for people with this credential. unfortunately, so are alot of other firms. the demand clearly exceeds the supply.
You can probably guess where this is going. Read the rest of John Quinn’s email, after the jump.
- Email Scandals, Harvard Law Review, Law Reviews, Law Schools, Ridiculousness, Technology, Vicious Infighting
Remember our extensive, mischievous-yet-good-natured coverage of internal strife at the legendary Harvard Law Review? It appears to have irritated HLR President Andrew Crespo. And it probably will have to stop now, thanks to the Review’s new “email and internet usage policy,” which prohibits sharing HLR internal emails with the eyes of outsiders.
UH OH! Looks like Andrew “Crespolini” Crespo didn’t like his dirty laundry being aired on Above The Law, so he’s created a new policy (this one, mercifully, public) to ensure that all inanity can be confined to Gannett House.
Fortunately, since it won’t take effect until next week, I figured I would send it along your way!
As our source notes, the policy doesn’t take effect until July 18, 2007. So taking the policy and forwarding it to, say, your favorite legal tabloid is permitted (until Wednesday, when all bets are off).
It’s not particularly interesting — but if you’d like to read the policy, you can check it out after the jump.
If you’re tired of reading about Peter Barta, the Legal Aid Society lawyer who allegedly videotaped his female colleagues as they were changing their clothes in the office, then skip this post.
But if you’d be interested in reading an email from a law school classmate of his, you can check it out, after the jump.
As we’ve mentioned before, our interest in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell is flagging somewhat. It has been a while since the last salacious accusation, and now the case is starting to look like any other civil action — motion practice, discovery, etc.
Been there, done that. Yawn.
(Wake us up when Alexandra Korry gets deposed. Now THAT is gonna be good — although we’ll have to pray for a leaked transcript, since presumably it will be covered by a confidentiality order.)
On Friday, Charney filed his opposition to S&C’s Motion to Dismiss. Taking a page from Judge Jacobs’s (unopened) book, we haven’t bothered to read it. But here are three bloggers who have:
3. Lavi Soloway
Based on their posts, the upshot is that Charney’s lawyers have accused S&C of “grandstanding” and “arrogance.”
C’mon, guys — was that really necessary? Did you have to call S&C arrogant? Can’t Justice Fried just take judicial notice of that?
Okay, sorry, we couldn’t resist. To be fair, Charney’s lawyers aren’t acquitting themselves that well either, with all of these ad hominem attacks on their adversaries.
For more criticism of Charney’s counsel, see here. We hereby designate Jonas the pro-S&C Charneyblogger. Now, thanks to him, coverage of Charney v. S&C will be fair and balanced!
Charney’s Lawyers Accuse Sullivan & Cromwell of Arrogance and Grandstanding [Soloway]
Charney Accuses Sullivan & Cromwell of “grandstanding” in pending dismissal motion [Leonard Link]
Charney’s Opposition [Keeping Up With Jonas]
- Andrew Speaker, Morning Docket, Sandra Day O'Connor, SCOTUS, Sports, Supreme Court, Trials, Violence
Try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, and try again. And maybe the 14th time will be the charm!
For those of you freaking out over the bar exam next week, chillax. You will probably pass. If you don’t pass this time, surely you’ll pass the next time. Or the time after that.
You’ll be just fine — as long as your name isn’t “Paulina Bandy.” From the Orange County Register:
Paulina Bandy couldn’t fail the state bar exam again. Not after she failed 13 times before.
Some people complain that we’re elitist. So we apologize for asking: What the hell is UP with this woman?
(Is Paulina Bandy the child of a prominent politician? They seem to be jinxed when it comes to the bar exam.)
If you feel sorry for non-top-tier law school graduates who can’t land good jobs, just think — things could be worse. Much worse:
Paulina Bandy couldn’t fail the state bar exam again. Not after she had spent tens of thousands to attend law school. Not after she put her husband Jon Gomez through the ringer for so many years. Not after the debt she piled up forced her family to move into a 365-square-foot home.
Anywhere outside the island of Manhattan, that’s simply unacceptable.
More discussion, after the jump.
We’re back. It’s Monday. We don’t like Mondays. We’re feeling sluggish today.
So we’ll take the path of least resistance, and start a thread about an ATL staple: clerkship bonuses. We have some good news about two new (and non-New York) firms.
First, the rumor about O’Melveny & Myers can be treated as confirmed. We received lots of emails about OMM. Here are two:
“O’Melveny and Myers has raised their federal clerkship bonus to 50k. District Court and Appellate. Not sure about second year bonus of 70k.”
“O’Melveny and Myers just raised their clerkship bonus from 35k to 50k. As far as I know, they’re the first non-NY based firm (aside from Susman) to go to 50k. And it’s straight 50k — it doesn’t include a bar stipend like that Latham nonsense.”
Second — from just one source, so let us know if it’s erroneous — we hear that Morrison & Foerster has joined the $50K Club:
“Noticed the clerkship bonus list of shame (7/02/07). A co-clerk of mine is joining MoFo this fall and the clerkship bonus is listed as 50K (nationwide) in the documents he has received.”
If you have clerkship bonus information not previously reported on ATL, please email us (subject line: “Clerkship Bonus”). Thanks.
- Fabulosity, Media and Journalism, Nina Totenberg, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Thomas Goldstein, You Go Girl
A blog that labels itself a “legal tabloid” has been soliciting juicy anecdotes about NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg’s on-the-job behavior, but Totenberg says she’s just doing her job.
In a post on Above the Law authored by the blog’s editor in chief, David Lat, one anecdote describes the correspondent entering the Supreme Court’s press section moments before a morning session begins — and asking someone sitting in the front row to surrender the seat.
Totenberg gets her way, it says, “because nobody says no to Nina.”
But not so fast: Totenberg says that since she happens to be the dean of the Supreme Court press corps, she actually has an assigned seat — that nice one, right up front.
Who knew the Supreme Court press gallery was just like a high school cafeteria? On first Mondays we wear pink!
Totenberg’s complete comment, and our reaction, after the jump.
* Texas teen cut from cheerleading squad; sues. [Victoria Advocate via Drudge]
* Virginia middle-schoolers receive diplomas bearing likeness of
Frederick Douglas Karl Marx. [Richmond Times-Dispatch]
* Lawyer who leaked BALCO testimony gets 2.5 years. [LA Times]
* A “thumb on the scale” in college admissions — in favor of men. [US News]