* U.C. Berkeley has settled on a new name for its law school. Check it out, it's quite brilliant. [Blogonaut]

(But we'll probably still conduct the reader poll mentioned here, just for the heck of it.)

* Strained attorney-client relations between Britney Spears and Anne Kiley? Apparently Brit has "trust issues" (in addition to that whole missing-panties problem). [OK! Magazine]

* Wow, this guy is quite a tool. Thankfully he's not a lawyer -- which you could infer from the facts that (1) he lives in Atlanta and (2) he brags about his compensation. [Gawker; follow-up here and here from DealBreaker]

* Judge of the Day. [St. Petersburg Times via Blogonaut]

* Exciting happenings this weekend: (1) the CSPAN rebroadcast of the Clarence Thomas book party, and (2) the nuptials of the Wall Street Journal's Peter Lattman. Congratulations and best wishes, PL! [WSJ Law Blog]

Right now some of you are probably thinking: "Enough already about Alberto Gonzales and Michael Vick! Isn't there anything else you can write about?"

Of course. Let's go back to the story of Nixon Peabody, and its ridiculous law firm theme song!

(In preemptive response to those of you who are sick and tired of this story: relax. It's on its last legs. But if the New York Times writes about us, of course we're going to acknowledge it. Capice?)

For those of you were on vacation last week -- and we know many of you were, based on all the "Out of Office AutoReply" messages we received -- you missed a fun story here at ATL.

But don't worry. If you don't have time to read our voluminous coverage of the Nixon Peabody theme song, here are some cheat sheets.

You can read this New York Times story, by Michael de la Merced, which nicely summarizes the saga. Or this post, by Peter Lattman, over at the WSJ Law Blog.

Best of all, for those of you who can watch videos -- some of you can't, 'cause you don't have a private office -- check out this awesome video. It appeared over the weekend, but we're reposting it, because many of you don't visit ATL on the weekend (and it would be a shame for you to miss it).

Unauthorized Enjoyment of Song Irks Law Firm [New York Times]
Everyone’s a Winner at Nixon Peabody! [WSJ Law Blog]
Re: Nixon Peabody [YouTube]

Firms continue to raise their clerkship bonuses, although the pace of announcements seems to be slowing.

Here's the latest addition to the $50K/$70K Club:

"Kramer Levin increased its clerkship bonus to $50,000 for one year and $70,000 for two years. The info is on their NALP page."

Indeed it is. You can access the firm's form by running a search on this page.

And if you're looking for a continually updated compilation of clerkship bonus information, we refer you to this list, over at the Law Clerk Addict blog. Very helpful!

P.S. Random factoid about Kramer Levin: it's the former Biglaw home of the WSJ Law Blog's Peter Lattman, who practiced litigation there for two years in the 1990s.

Vault 100 clerkship salary bonus chart [Law Clerk Addict Blog]

* Do you believe in life after law? Five Biglaw escapees — a writer, a baker, a stand-up joke-maker — discuss life on the outside. [New York Observer] [FN1]

* Some helpful clerkship application advice. [Infirmation] [FN2]

* Monica Goodling, to the Lido Deck! [What About Clients?]

* Fun fact of the day: Did you know that Peter Lattman likes fried plantains? [WSJ Law Blog]

[FN1] Yes, this is a shameless plug for the easy-to-miss sidebar to our New York Observer piece from last month.

[FN2] We're not sure we concur with the view that "[a] generic cover letter is a tragically wasted opportunity." Having seen some laughably bad "creative" cover letters over the years, we usually recommend a "do no harm" approach. If your application is strong, res ipsa loquitur.

The House Democrats just won't leave Monica Goodling alone. Even after the Justice Department lawyer invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, the Dems still want to have a little "conversation" with her. From the NYT:

House Democrats on Tuesday requested a private interview with an aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales who has asserted her constitutional right not to testify at a public hearing about the dismissals of United States attorneys.

Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sought the interview in a letter to a lawyer for the aide, Monica Goodling, who is on leave as the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House.... Mr. Conyers’s letter said that House lawyers wanted to question Ms. Goodling to evaluate the legality of her refusal to testify. It said she could not assert the privilege as a blanket justification not to appear.

Look, guys, she's just not that into you. Can't you just leave her alone? Go beat up on Kyle Sampson some more -- we think he still has some lunch money left in his pockets.

(Our suspicion: Chairman Conyers wants to offer Goodling a babysitting job. 'Cause John Conyers loves making lawyers babysit his children. He thinks the kids absorb legal knowledge by osmosis. And he's heard about Goodling's legendary brownies!)

Meanwhile, over at the WSJ Law Blog, Peter Lattman gets in a cheap double entendre at Monica's expense:

Are we this poor woman's only defenders?

Democrats Seek to Interview Gonzales Aide [New York Times]
Congressional Democrats to Goodling: Unzip It! [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Monica Goodling (scroll down)

A friendly warning to Peter Lattman and the WSJ Law Blog: "Hey guys, step off our turf!"

In a post this morning comparing President Bush's purge of U.S. Attorneys with President Clinton's, the WSJ Law Blog includes the graphic at right, showing three different WSJ "hedcuts" of former Attorney General Janet Reno. They pose the following "Law Blog Bonus Question": "Which of Reno’s three dot-drawings do you prefer?"

Despite the attempt to mask the inquiry as focused on "dot-drawings," we see this post for what it really is. It's a clear incursion into our blogging territory: evolving hairstyles of legal celebrities (e.g., Judge Janice Rogers Brown).

So back off, guys! We leave the options backdating and Vioxx litigation to you. Why can't you leave the hair and make-up of former AGs to us?

WSJ Law Blog readers agree with us. Right now there are a ton of comments to the post, but only two address the "Bonus Question" -- which one of them criticizes as "rather inappropriate."

Inappropriate for an MSM blog about "law and business, and the business of law"? Sure. But certainly not inappropriate for an online legal tabloid.

Time for a poll. We know that ATL readers are very knowledgeable about hair. But just to be perfectly clear, in the graphic at right, the hairstyles are (left to right) Janet With a Perm, Janet With a Part, and Janet With Bangs.

Bush’s U.S. Attorney Purge Vs. President Clinton’s . . . Discuss [WSJ Law Blog]

But it was much more fun to speculate that he was pulling a Judith Miller, hiding out because of his role in Brokeback Lawfirm.

As it turns out, there's pretty much no doubt that Aaron Charney leaked the Goldman Sachs / Sullivan & Cromwell reviews to Peter Lattman and the Wall Street Journal (as if there was much doubt before). The newly available S&C motion to dismiss states, on page 8, that at the February 1 TRO hearing before Justice Charles Ramos, "Charney admitted that he had the stolen documents described in the Wall Street Journal." Unless someone else stole the documents, and Charney just happened to stumble upon them and pick them up, his confession to possessing the stolen documents is tantamount to an admission that he stole the documents.

As for Peter Lattman and his story about the Microsoft antitrust case in Iowa -- which is now "DOA," as Lattman puts it, since the parties have settled -- we do feel bad for Lattman.

The poor guy spent a week in "snowy, subzero Des Moines." And he's not even running for president.

Microsoft Settles Iowa Antitrust Class-Action :-( [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: And Lindsay Lohan Really Was Suffering From 'Exhaustion'
Brokeback Lawfirm: The S&C Motion to Dismiss

One of the allegations in Sullivan & Cromwell's countersuit against its former associate, Aaron Charney, is that Charney leaked sensitive internal documents to the Wall Street Journal.

The firm's Complaint implies that Charney physically removed -- i.e., stole -- confidential documents from the files of a partner. S&C alleges that Charney then leaked these materials to the Wall Street Journal.

And who, pray tell, was the Journal reporter who received the leaked documents? None other than Peter Lattman, author of the WSJ's popular Law Blog, as well as a reporter for the print edition of the Journal.

Charney hasn't admitted anything, so S&C's allegations haven't been proven (although the circumstantial evidence is very, very strong). How can the allegations be definitively established and thoroughly explored? Through the testimony of Peter Lattman, of course.

Thus far, Lattman isn't giving up his source. When contacted by the New York Law Journal, the WSJ, through a spokesman, said that it "does not comment on sourcing."

Has Peter Lattman said anything about his role in this controversy over at the Law Blog? No. Why not? Because he hasn't been around.

Earlier today, a Lattman fan sent us this email:

Can you find out if Peter Lattman is away from the Law Blog this week because of his role in the S&C documents being made public? Usually he tells us when he's going to be away. Who is Marmor?

After redacting our reader's name and email address, we forwarded this query to the Law Blog. About ten minutes later, this post went up:

We’ve had some inquiries as to Peter Lattman’s whereabouts this week. Sorry we didn’t notify our loyal readership sooner, but Peter’s out of town through Wednesday on assignment. Meanwhile, thanks to colleague Jessica Marmor for stepping up and pitching in!

So P. Latt is away "on assignment." Is that what they're calling it these days? [FN1]

Very interesting. We previously speculated that Peter Lattman might make an appearance at Thursday's hearing in S&C v. Charney. But in light of his delicate position at the eye of the storm, we doubt that he'll show. In fact, he will probably try to stay as far away from 60 Centre Street as possible.

If "Charneygate" is the Biglaw version of the Valerie Plame saga, then Peter Lattman is our Judith Miller. Judy Miller went to jail to protect her sources. How far will Peter Lattman go? [FN2]

To lawyers who practice in First Amendment and media law: (1) Does New York have a reporter's privilege and/or shield laws? (2) If so, what are the general standards that must be satisfied to invoke those protections?

[FN1] We have no reason to doubt that Peter Lattman is, in fact, out of town on assignment. But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.

[FN2] Yes, we know -- any exposure Peter Lattman might have if he refuses to testify in a civil case is nothing compared to what Judith Miller faced. He might just have to pay a fine rather than go to jail (assuming he can even be held in contempt at all). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.

Update: This comment makes a good point (and our clouded thinking is probably a sign that we need to step away from the computer now). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.

Where's Peter? [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Rumor has it that Sullivan & Cromwell's chairman, banking law god H. Rodgin Cohen, was "pretty angry" when he learned that the New York Times would be covering Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the anti-discrimination lawsuit filed against S&C by a gay former associate, Aaron Charney.

(The NYT story was pretty even-handed. But it was surprisingly long and detailed, which Cohen probably didn't like. We discussed it back in this post.)

If Rodge Cohen doesn't like MSM coverage of lurid litigation involving his firm, then he's probably less than pleased by all the news coverage of Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney, S&C's countersuit against its former M&A associate.

Today's New York Law Journal has an article about the case. Most of it is familiar to ATL readers. What's new is info about Charney's legal team, which now includes the scrumptiously credentialed Laura Schnell: Dartmouth, Chicago Law, Jack Weinstein clerkship, Best Lawyers in America listing.

In addition, the New York Times's widely read DealBook blog has a write-up of the suit. The DealBook post contains a shout-out to ATL. Thanks, NYT!

As some commenters have noted, one purpose of S&C's countersuit was surely to get Aaron Charney to shut up. It appears to have succeeded, since Charney has been tight-lipped since last Thursday, when the suit was filed.

But the countersuit does mean that (1) S&C is "stooping to Charney's level," i.e., crossing swords with someone of lesser stature (no "Rose Garden" / "we will ignore you as if you were a gnat" strategy); and (2) opening itself up to more media coverage, to wit, coverage of its affirmative lawsuit.

We are coming up to New York on Thursday to watch the preliminary injunction hearing before Justice Bernard Fried of New York Supreme Court. And we don't think we'll be the only media (or quasi-media) types in attendance.

Bob Kolker, of New York Magazine, is writing a feature-length article about Charney; so we'd expect to see him there. Other top legal reporters we'll be watching out for -- we have no idea of whether they're coming, though -- include Peter Lattman and Nathan Koppel, of the Wall Street Journal; Anna Schneider-Mayerson, of the New York Observer; and Anthony Lin, of the New York Law Journal.

Update (4:35 PM): Prolific ATL commenter Lavi Soloway will be there.

If you're at the hearing, feel free to come over and say hello. We look like this.

We also look forward to meeting the parties and their lawyers. We've emailed Aaron Charney to tell him that we'll be there (although he hasn't responded). And we've emailed Zach Fasman of Paul Hastings, who represents S&C, to put him on fashion-and-style notice:

I'm planning to attend the hearing on Thursday, so perhaps I'll meet you then. Be sure to dress for success! I'll definitely be writing about the sartorial choices of counsel at this red-carpet event.

Hope all is well!

Best,
David

Time to break out the Brioni, Zach. We better see visible hand-stitching on the lapels, bitch.

This is going to be great fun!!!

Update (4:20 PM): As noted by Lawzer, New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer also has a brief item on the S&C countersuit.

Law Firm Facing Gay-Bias Suit Fires Back [DealBook / New York Times]
Sullivan & Cromwell Sues Fired Associate [New York Law Journal]
Paper Trail Disturbed at Sullivan & Cromwell [Intelligencer / New York Magazine]
Taking Center Stage [Soloway]

Well before Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was ever filed, the venerable law firm was dealing with some serious issues. As aptly summarized by New York Magazine's Intelligencer, "Sullivan & Cromwell lost about 30 percent of its associates in 2004 and 2005. It might take more than a raise to fix that."

From a fascinating rather interesting Wall Street Journal article by Peter Lattman (which we meant to write about yesterday, before we got swamped by all the pay raise news):

Faced with a surge in turnover of its associates, the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has been putting on a charm offensive to hold onto junior lawyers.

The crash course in etiquette went into high gear at a partners meeting last February. To deal with low associate morale and high attrition, a confidential slide presentation reviewed by The Wall Street Journal urged partners to say things like "thank you" and "good work" to associates they supervise.

What else should partners do? "Return associates' phone calls as quickly as you would a partner's or client's," said one bullet. "Be sensitive to not canceling associates' vacations," said another.

Additional bullet-points made these helpful suggestions:

"Don't tell gay associates that they like taking it up the ass (because they might be tops rather than bottoms)."

"Refrain from subjecting associates to profanity-laced tirades in which you tell them they should be fired."

Guess Eric Krautheimer and Alexandra Korry missed that meeting.

Discussion continues after the jump.

Last week there was some speculation over what happened to certain particularly delicious reader comments posted over at the WSJ Law Blog, concerning Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

As explained here:

"[N]o work is getting done [at S&C]. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings)..."

Over at the WSJ Law Blog itself, there was some meta-commentary about the deletion of these comments:

"Why are comments being deleted from the board? There were definitely a few on here that were posted since 7:35 AM today."

"[O]ne of my finest writings was summarily removed by the WSJ Law Blog thought police. Why don’t we all keep parallel logs of our writings as each is entered, and if the law blog continues with its caprice in 2007, et seq., we loggers can then start a class action against WSJ law blog. Coul[d] be fun!"

"I am a gay blogger and WSJ expunged me without my consent. It felt GREAT."

"A post regarding the attractiveness of one of the attorneys mentioned in complaint ([Melissa] Sawyer) was removed, I know that much because I remember it being there. And after looking up her profile myself . . yes, she is a fox."

We followed up with Peter Lattman of the WSJ Law Blog, to find out why certain S&C-related comments were getting zapped. We received a response from Bill Grueskin, managing editor of WSJ.com.

We reprint Mr. Grueskin's response, and explain ATL's own policy on reader comments, after the jump.

A very interesting exchange appeared in some recent comments about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

We're bringing the exchange up to the main page, for the benefit of those of you who can't keep up with all the comments. Here it is:

I wonder if ANY work is getting done over [at Sullivan & Cromwell]. I bet people are just sitting around and gossiping all day.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2007 04:33 PM

Of course no work is getting done. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings...

Posted by: None | January 19, 2007 04:44 PM

4:44: What are some of the conpiracy theories you have come up with thus far?

Posted by: Dr. Kravath | January 19, 2007 04:45 PM

Please say that these comments can be recreated for those of us whose free time allows for the constant refreshing of only one legal gossip blog.

Posted by: new anon | January 19, 2007 04:47 PM

Our response to all of this:

4:44 PM: We have an email into Peter Lattman [at right] about this. Also, please note that ATL has a general "no moderation" policy with respect to comments. So if the WSJ Law Blog posters would like to reproduce their comments here, they are welcome to do so.

(An exception to our "no moderation" policy: We pull comments that appear to be accidental duplicates -- e.g., double- or triple-posted comments.)

Posted by: David Lat | January 19, 2007 05:25 PM

We will let you know if and when we hear back from Peter Lattman.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

One of you thinks that this news warrants a Saturday post. And we see your point.*

The article in question is running on the front page of the New York Times, above the fold. So, from the NYT:

The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble....

When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”

Props to this Charles Stimson fellow. Even if his views may be completely misguided, we like anyone who stirs up a s**tstorm.

Discussion continues after the jump.

As previously mentioned, we're on a reduced publication schedule this week. We'll be doing a daily news round-up (and maybe a few other random posts here and there). We'll return to our normal diarrhea of the keyboard publishing schedule on January 2.

* Civil libertarians, just raise the white flag. The Justice Department knows what you're doing RIGHT NOW. [Washington Post]

* His father always knew there was "something special" about Judge Frank Easterbrook. And litigants who have appeared before FHE feel the same way. [Buffalo News via How Appealing (of course -- no offense, but we aren't regular readers of the Buffalo News)]

* In other Seventh Circuit news, Judge Richard Posner delivers remarks about maritime law to an audience of supermodels. We swear we're not making this up. [Washington Post]

* Following up on our prior report, here's a clear sign that Chadbourne & Parke partners don't have enough business. [WSJ Law Blog]

* If McDonald's french fries never taste the same, blame it on the anti-trans-fat legislation. [UPI]

* Complications of diabetes: not just medical, but law-related, too. [New York Times]

* If you're a judge with unfulfilled literary aspirations, try writing something safe and non-controversial. Ideally it should be something nobody would want to read. We suggest a pop-up book about the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch via How Appealing]

* Even more fun than charades: take Peter Lattman to a party, start reading out random newspaper headlines, and challenge him to find a legal angle to the stories. [WSJ Law Blog]

Don't give up on your day jobs.
This is our haiku.

We Haiku. Do You? [WSJ Law Blog]

We're not huge fans of this photo of Dean Evan Caminker of the University of Michigan Law School, posted at the WSJ Law Blog:

First, we don't think it's the most flattering picture of Dean Caminker. Compare it to the ones collected here (contestant #1). Based on the photo above, you wouldn't guess that Dean Caminker won our contest for America's Hottest Law School Dean.

Second, Dean Caminker is wearing a sweatshirt. In sartorial terms, this is a capital crime. If not for the fact that he was forced to wear the sweatshirt, having lost a football bet with Dean Nancy Rogers of Ohio State, we would strip Dean Caminker of his hottie title.

Finally, a bitchy postscript. We have problems with this paragraph from the Law Blog post:

You can call Michigan’s Dean Caminker lots of things: a Yale Law grad, a Supreme Court clerk (Brennan), a Wilmer Cutler alum, a constitutional law scholar. Just don’t call him a welcher!

How can any responsible journalist leave out "America's Hottest Law School Dean" from this list of titles? It's a glaring omission (which a Law Blog commenter had to point out). C'mon, Peter, get with the program!

(Would a reference to our hotties contest be deemed too "lowbrow" for the WSJ Law Blog? We doubt it. After all, it's the blog where we first read about the Emily Pataki bar failure email.)

Ohio State v. Michigan: Dean Caminker Honors the Bet! [WSJ Law Blog]
Law School Dean Hotties: The Winners!!! [Above the Law]
Law School Dean Hotties: Comment from Dean Caminker [Above the Law]

Lateral Moves:

* Tax litigators B. John Williams, Jr. and Alan Swirski, to Skadden Arps (DC), from Shearman & Sterling (DC).

The WSJ Law Blog refers to the two men as "Tax Litigation Studs." First: What do these guys look like? Second: Is using the word "stud" conduct unbecoming an MSM blog? (Just kidding, Peter.)

* Geroge Sullivan, to Greenberg Traurig (NY), from Morgan Stanley (where he headed litigation at the firm's retail brokerage and investment management arm).

Government to Private Sector:

* Mark Feldman, to BDO Seidman's litigation and fraud investigation practice, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York (where he headed the office's organized crime and racketeering section for over 10 years).

Shearman Tax Litigation Studs Decamp to Skadden [WSJ Law Blog]
Morgan Stanley Litigation Chief to Join Firm in NY [NYLawyer.com]
Organized Crime Prosecutor Joins BDO Seidman [NYLawyer.com]

* Clerkships for the bejeweled bench known as the D.C. Circuit are still available. But spots as Sentelletubbies and Tatel Tots are going fast. [Clerkship Notification Blog]

* A modest proposal for Angelina Jolie: Get married like a lesbian. [De Novo]

* Best comment clusterf**k we've seen in a long time: 128 and counting. (Does poor Peter Lattman have to read them all?) [WSJ Law Blog]

* "In her wildest dreams, Barbie could not have imagined herself in the middle of Rule 11 proceedings." [TJ's Double Play]

* Q: "Do you know where Judge Marsha Berzon's clerks came from?"
A: "Berzon's clerks came from Hell.... Oh, wait, that's where they are going." [Clerkship Notification Blog]