Yeah, we know: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales remains in office.* But his days are looking numbered. He’s received the kiss of death — a presidential expression of “confidence” — and even some Republicans are calling for his resignation.
So we have to ask:
If Alberto Gonzales steps (or gets pushed) aside, who should take his place as Attorney General?
We’re rooting for Shanetta Cutlar. But if she doesn’t get tapped, Andrew Cohen floats this interesting idea.
Right now, Patrick Fitzgerald is most well-known for his (successful) work on the Scooter Libby case. This may preclude his selection as AG, given the political hot potato that it turned into — and the embarrassment it caused for the Bush Administration.
But let’s not forget that, setting aside the Libby case, Fitzgerald has the background that one would normally seek in an Attorney General. He’s the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago), one of the nation’s most prestigious prosecutor’s offices, and he has some serious additional credentials.
After graduating from one of our nation’s finest high schools (shameless plug for our alma mater), Pat Fitzgerald went on to Amherst College and Harvard Law School. Before taking over as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District, he was a line prosecutor in the legendary Southern District of New York. As an AUSA in the SDNY, he worked on some major prosecutions, including the trials of Omar Abdel Rahman and Ramzi Yousef. He has been praised for his work as U.S. Attorney in Chicago.
Thoughts? Nominating Fitzgerald as AG might be kinda crazy, but kinda brilliant. It would change the story line big time, in a way that the White House might welcome.
(Some other random names we’ve heard as possible AG candidates: former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey; SEC Chairman Christopher Cox; and Judge Laurence H. Silberman, of the D.C. Circuit.)
* It’s a rainy Friday afternoon, not much is going on, and people aren’t paying attention to the news. If you’d like to step down, Mr. Attorney General, there are still several hours of prime resignation time available to you. The Case for Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald [Washington Post / Bench Conference]
Chef Robert Invine was given a challenging task. He was directed “to prepare a stately array of hors d’oeuvres,” to be served at the Inaugural Ball of Judge Rendell’s husband, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell.
The number of guests: 4,000. The amount of time available to him: 24 hours. Despite the difficulty of the project, Chef Irvine completed his mission.
But we were a little disappointed with the episode, for a number of reasons….
As we head into another weekend, here’s the latest LIST OF SHAME. We’re down to only five firms (Vault 100 ranking on the left, AmLaw 100 ranking on the right):
43. Baker & McKenzie (3)
82. Reed Smith (33)
83. Dorsey & Whitney (68)
86. McGuireWoods (65)
100. Seyfarth Shaw (66)
If any of these firms doesn’t belong on the list, please email us, with supporting documentation (if any).
Please discuss other salary developments in the comments to this post. Thanks.
We thoroughly enjoyed ourselves at last night’s Kennedy Center event, The Trial of Hamlet, presided over by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. It was highly entertaining and quite educational, on a number of subjects: Hamlet, literary criticism, psychiatry, and the art of advocacy, among others.
We’re planning to write more about the evening later. For now, we’ll give you the bottom line: Who won?
The prosecution team consisted of Miles Ehrlich, a former federal prosecutor (and law clerk to Justice Kennedy), and Cristina Arguedas, a California criminal defense attorney. Hamlet was represented by Abbe Lowell, the prominent D.C. defense lawyer, and Catherine Crier, a Court TV host and former Texas state judge. The defense argued that Hamlet should not be held criminally responsible for the killing of Polonius by reason of insanity.
After testimony from psychiatric experts and arguments from counsel, the jury of 12 retired to deliberate. In the end, they emerged deadlocked, voting 6-6 in the case. After receiving the jury’s verdict, Justice Kennedy, without missing a beat, said something like, “Hamlet, please rise. I hereby remand you to the pages of literature, where you will continue to intrigue us for centuries to come….”
Justice Kennedy’s “remand” speech was so eloquent that it sounded scripted. Many audience members were left wondering whether the outcome was rigged — whether the jury was going to be a hung jury no matter what, in order to demonstrate the complexity, ambiguity, and richness of Hamlet as a literary text.
As it turns out, however, the jury vote was NOT rigged. They truly were deadlocked, by the end of their deliberation time (which, due to the schedule for the evening, was admittedly not that long).
And don’t blame Justice Kennedy for their indecision! While the jury was deliberating, AMK was moderating a discussion about the play with the participants in the trial, in front of the Kennedy Center audience.
Despite the frustratingly ambiguous verdict — we must admit, we like our entertainment with closure — we had a good time. More discussion will follow later. If you attended and have thoughts to share, please feel free to email us. Sane or not, Hamlet a hit in Washington trial [Reuters] Earlier: Justice Kennedy and The Trial of Hamlet
Ty Clevenger, a former attorney in the Special Litigation Section (“SPL”) of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, is the one who got the ball rolling with respect to colorful anecdotes about Shanetta Cutlar, the charismatic and strong-willed chief of the Section.
Clevenger sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty raising concerns about Cutlar’s leadership of SPL. Shortly thereafter, Clevenger was effectively fired by Cutlar the next day.
As for Clevenger’s letter, the DAG assigned it to Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, for a response. Earlier this month, Clevenger received the following from Wan Kim:
Letters to McDonald’s, complaining about insufficient mintiness in Shamrock Shakes,* receive responses evincing greater concern.
Now we understand why Shanetta Cutlar was comfortable enough in her position to wear a tiara to a recent meeting of DOJ section chiefs. We predict she will remain in power at SPL long after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has left the building (which may not be saying much — but you get our point).
* Yes, Shamrock Shakes are back! We enjoyed one in Miami earlier this week.
More fine blogging from Lavi Soloway — although his latest material is related only indirectly to Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.
Remember LeGal, the gay and lesbian lawyers’ association that got itself into a bit of controversy after its (now former) president, Jack Scheich, came out swinging in favor of S&C?
Well, last night LeGal held its big annual dinner. At this gala event, big law firms cough up dough for insurance against anti-gay bias lawsuits tables to show their support for the organization. (We wrote previously about the hideous invitation for the dinner over here.)
We weren’t able to attend last night’s festivities, ’cause we were spending quality time with Justice Kennedy. But Lavi Soloway was there. His party write-up, with photos, appears here.
There was a rumor floating around, several weeks ago, that Aaron Charney was going to make an appearance at the LeGal dinner. We were, for obvious reasons, excited about this possibility. It might have given rise to some deliciously awkward moments — since his former employer and current adversary, S&C, bought a table and turned out in force.
Alas, based on Soloway’s coverage, it appears the answer to “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” was “Not Aaron Charney.” If Charney had been there, surely Soloway — who knows what Charney looks like, having seen him at the big hearing earlier this week — would have mentioned it.
So what happened to poor Aaron? Was he stuck at home, scrubbing floors like Cinderella, while his mean S&C stepsisters danced the night away at the Ritz-Carlton?
Looking ahead, will the Aaron Charney saga have a fairy tale ending? Might Charney’s newfound fame bring him to the attention of a sugar daddy Prince Charming — a boyfriend so rich he can afford to drop his lawsuit against S&C? Will S&C break down and settle the case, placing a glass slipper on Charney’s (presumably large) foot,* thereby transforming him from an unemployed ex-Biglaw associate into a millionaire plaintiff princess?
To find out the answers, just stay tuned to ATL. We will continue to cover even the most trivial developments in this litigation with obsessive zeal.
* We speculate that Charney has large feet because we hear that he’s tall and thin — as you can sort of see from this photo, by Lavi Soloway. NYC Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Hold Annual Dinner [Soloway] Earlier: Beware the Ides of March
* Insider Trading– glamorous in the 80s, boring in securities law casebooks. [Truth on the Market]
* Especially important if you haven’t been featured on a plastic surgery-themed reality show. [Los Angeles Times]
* This is the only recorded instance of the Pope’s utterance of “WTF?” [New York Post]
* Netflix thefts pale in comparison. [TheCincinnati Enquirer]
As we’ve mentioned before, Lavi Soloway has posted some great coverage of yesterday’s hearing in Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. He offers detailed discussion of the arguments before Justice Bernard Fried, his impressions of them, and original photos.
You can access Soloway’s two posts here and here. They’re well worth your time.
Some excerpts, with commentary from us, appear after the jump.
We didn’t receive this information from a verified source at the firm, so please treat it as unconfirmed. We’re going to fact-check this information “blog-style”: we’re going to throw it out there, then wait for somebody to tell us it’s wrong (or to confirm it).
Anyway, here it is, from an email from an anonymous source:
On Tuesday, Williams & Connolly LLP raised its salaries across the board, retroactive to January 1. Starting salary for first-years is now $165,000.
You’ll note that these numbers are higher, at least in the most junior years, than what appears to be the new standard for Washington: 145/155/170/190. They’re also higher, at least in the first three years, than the new NYC scale (which also applies to the D.C. offices of New York firms): 160/170/185.
But this is consistent with the Williams & Connolly pay scale of years past. Their base salaries are somewhat higher than market; but they don’t pay year-end bonuses.
As noted, if you know this information to be incorrect — or if, on the other hand, you can confirm — please email us. Thanks! Update: The information appearing above, concerning Williams & Connolly, has been confirmed.
If you are considering a virtual law practice, you know that many of today’s solo firms started that way. But why are established, multi-attorney law firms going virtual?
Many small firms are successfully moving part—or even all—of their practice to a virtual setting. This even includes multi-jurisdictional practice spanning several states and practice areas, although solo and small partnerships are still the largest adopters of virtual law.
Can you do the same? The new article Mobile in Practice, Virtual by Design from author Jared Correia, Esq., explores how mobile technology bring real-life benefits to a small law firm. Read this new article—the next in Thomson Reuters’ Independent Thinking series for small firms—to explore how a mobile practice:
Reduces malpractice risk
Enables you to gather the best attorneys to fit the firm, regardless of each person’s geographic location
Leverages mobile devices and cloud technology to enable on-the-spot client and prospect communication
Transitioning in-house is something many (if not most) firm lawyers find themselves considering at some point. For many, it’s the first step in their career that isn’t simply a function of picking the best option available based on a ranking system.
Unknown territory feels high-risk, and can have the effect of steering many of us towards the well-greased channels into large, established companies.
For those who may be open to something more entrepreneurial, there is far less information available. No recruiter is calling every week with offers and details.
In sponsorship with Betterment, ATL and David Lat will moderate a panel about life in-house and we’ll hear from GCs at Birchbox, Gawker Media, Squarespace, Bonobos, and Betterment. Drinks, snacks, networking, and a great time guaranteed. Invite your colleagues, but RSVP fast, as space is limited.
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.