Here's the second half of the "head-to-head" round of ATL Idol. If you're not up to speed on what's going on, background information is available in this prior post (or just scroll down the front page to the post immediately below this one).

You can check out the second half of the head-to-head round, featuring the blogging of SOPHIST and FROLIC AND DETOUR, after the jump.

There seem to be two major themes running through today's posts. One is Skadden summer associates. See here and here.

And the second is... monkeys! Our first post of the day was about litigation over a monkey named Richard. And now we hear this fun tidbit, about Weil Gotshal & Manges:

Weil had a prom for their summers. The firm rented a monkey for the occasion.

Seriously. And it wasn't just a paralegal in a costume, but a real live monkey.

The swank summer event was held last night, at the Plaza. A Weil source confirms the simian presence on the premises:

We had a black-tie-optional event, with a circus theme. And yes, one of the features included a monkey.

Fabulous. Is this even cooler than the Simpson Thacher Batman screening? Is having monkeys at firm events the secret to Weil's strong fourth-place finish in the latest American Lawyer A-List rankings?

If you hear about odd or interesting summer associate events -- the standard-issue fancy dinners, sporting events, and theater outings don't count -- feel free to drop us a line.

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Wal-Mart discriminated against macaque named Dick?

A woman in Missouri says the scary-looking bonnet macaque (see specimen at right) helps her social anxiety disorder. Having that thing in our arms would increase our anxiety immensely, but to each their own.

Local health officials apparently share our anxiety. They allegedly banned the monkey from grocery stores and restaurants, including Wal-Mart. From the Kansas City Star:

A southwest Missouri woman has sued Wal-Mart, local health officials and Cox Health Systems, claiming they discriminated against her and her monkey named Richard.

Debby Rose of Springfield said in the lawsuit that the 10-year-old bonnet macaque helps curb a social anxiety disorder that can cause her to have panic attacks in public.

We're no experts in naming monkeys, but "Richard" seems like a horrible monkey name. We'd have a lot more respect for this woman and her suit if her monkey were named "Bananas" or "Bobo." But that's off-topic.

Rose's suit claims that the local health department decided that the monkey was not a legitimate service animal and told establishments not to admit her and her little monkey. Was the problem that the "service animal" is a monkey, or that social anxiety disorder is a questionable disability?

We'd try to sort it out, but we're still schoolgirl-giggling over "macaque named Dick."

Springfield woman's lawsuit alleges discrimination against her monkey [Kansas City Star]

Recently we've been thinking about law-related names for racehorses. The subject came up when we were reading about how Big Brown, the 2008 Kentucky Derby winner, might win the Triple Crown and join the company of Affirmed (pictured) -- the last winner of the Triple Crown, in 1978.

Hearing about a racing horse named "Affirmed" led us to start thinking about other legally-themed horse names. A few ideas:

-- "Reversed" (or "Reversed and Remanded")

We liked how it played off of "Affirmed." But it's "probably not the kind of message you want to send to the oddsmakers," said a friend.

-- "Cert Denied"

Kinda badass, no? We'll put it down as a possibility.

-- "GVR"

Suggested by another friend, to continue on the Supreme Court disposition theme. "GVR" stands for "Grant, Vacate, and Remand" -- which can, depending on the circumstances, be something of a benchslap. But maybe it's too technical, appreciated only by SCOTUS junkies?

-- "Desuetude"

Nominated by a third friend (in the midst of studying for law-school finals). It's erudite, but a bit short on sex appeal.

Have an idea for a law-related racehorse name, à la Affirmed? If so, feel free to leave it in the comments. If we get enough nominations, maybe we'll hold a contest. Also, feel free to weigh in on the names previously mentioned, if you strong feelings about any of them.

Update: Please make sure that your nomination complies with these naming rules (posted by a helpful commenter).

Further Update: Okay, we've reached the 400-comment mark on this post, so we're closing the thread. Poll to follow shortly.

More about racehorses and the law, after the jump.

New Yorker Kelly DeBrocky took her family to the aquarium in Norwalk, Connecticut. Her kid stepped in poo.

Now DeBrocky has filed a seriously sh**ty lawsuit against the city, seeking reimbursement for new shoes and the price of admission and parking. Maybe she's part of the secret movement trying to get everyone in the world to hate New Yorkers.

From the Stamford Advocate:

A New York woman who took her family to visit the Maritime Aquarium has filed a $100 claim against the city, saying her child's shoes, along with the entire outing, were ruined when her 1-year-old stepped in dog feces early last month outside the Maritime Garage.

Norwalk officials will deny the claim, city attorney M. Jeffry Spahr said.

"The official response is her claim is denied and poop happens," he said.

Awesome quote. City attorney M. Jeffry Spahr sounds like the man. Another great Spahr quote: "I'm also having a tough time picturing why [the child] had to be bathed after stepping in this unless he thought it was some kind of poop sandbox."

DeBrocky says it's no laughing matter and that she's "really skeeved." Well, we're really skeeved that your kid played in a poo sandbox and that you're suing someone for it.

P.S. Things could have been much worse for DeBrocky. What if the poop had been dumped on her stoop?

City: Mom's claim stinks [Stamford Advocate]

* The NYT's official statement on L'Affaire Berenson. [Starkman & Associates]

* A slew of law school hypotheticals about sex with and between minors, triggered by Carl Stanley McGee, our Lawyer of the Day. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Second runner-up for Lawyer of the Day? And a punitive damages award of $33 million. Ouch. [How Appealing]

* Man saves dog; law student saves man. Congratulations to GW's Jason Coates, our Law Student of the Day! [GW Hatchet]

* "Derek Jeter has romanced Mariah Carey, squired Jessica Biel, sweet-talked Scarlett Johansson -- and now he's made it to first base with the state taxman." [TaxProf Blog]

* Wow, this is wild. Has Gary Crossen, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Foley Hoag, read too many John Grisham novels? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Speaking of white-collar criminal defense lawyers, more business may be headed their way, courtesy of Andrew Cuomo. [DealBreaker]

* You've got... male? [Reuters]

* Are you a Disgruntled Republican? Join the club -- or buy a mug. [Zazzle]

[Ed. note: As we recently mentioned, we're looking for someone to write Morning Docket, on an alternating-week schedule. To those of you who have already applied, thanks for your interest; we'll review the applications and pick a writer this weekend. If you'd like to apply, there's still time -- just follow the application instructions contained in this post (but please note that the gig now comes with pay -- a modest monthly stipend). Thanks.]

* It seems to get worse by the day. The CIA apparently destroyed interrogation tapes while a federal judge was still looking for information about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. [New York Times]

* So what exactly are the federal government's policies on border searches? Two groups sue to find out. [Washington Post]

* We like funny legal ads. But state regulators are not amused. [Wall Street Journal via How Appealing]

* Kibbles 'n bits 'n indictments. Two Chinese companies and an American importer are indicted in connection with tainted pet food. [New York Times]

* Professor Akhil Amar (our former con law prof; pictured) will be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in the administration of... Mike Gravel! Amar: "I’m not quitting my day job.” [Yale Daily News via How Appealing]

* The latest legal woes of Dickie Scruggs and friends. [WSJ Law Blog]

Remember this attorney, who announced the dissolution of his law partnership in most unorthodox fashion? We sure do (and so does "Tim from Anaconda").

Our friends out west are idiosyncratic when it comes to office decor, too. From a piece by Debra Cassens Weiss for the ABA Journal:

A Montana lawyer said his decision to put a shark tank in his office started out as a joke.

“I said, ‘What would it take to put a shark in a lawyer's office?' and it just kind of took off from there,” lawyer Christopher Gillette told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

Workers hoisted the 1,000-gallon aquarium through the second-story window of Gillette’s new office in downtown Bozeman on Monday. He plans to fill the tank with a blacktip reef shark and other saltwater fish, including a venomous lionfish.

Forget mediation. Nothing brings about settlement as quickly as the prospect of being devoured by a blacktip reef shark. With a venomous lionfish on hand to clean up any leftovers.

Gillette, who practices family law, says he thinks clients will find the tank to be relaxing. “People seem to be comfortable with fish,” he told the newspaper.

Others will get a chance to watch the marine life, too. Gillette plans to install a camera and broadcast video of his fish tank beginning in February at www.cjgillettelaw.com and www.ccaqua.com.

No word yet on whether Bob Link of Cadwalader -- official holder of the "shark tank" nickname, courtesy of the New York Law Journal -- plans to install an aquarium at One World Financial Center.

ABA Journal [ABA Journal]

Earlier: An Update on the Managhan Law Firm (aka 'My Wife Is Sleeping Around and That's Why We're No Longer Law Partners')

Yes, we are aware that Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months imprisonment, for his involvement in a dogfighting conspiracy. We took note of the sentencing in Morning Docket.

We really aren't that into sports, and we weren't planning on saying much about the Vick sentencing. But it appears that some of you would like to talk about it, so here's a post for doing so.

Here are articles from the AP and the New York Times (which helpfully notes that Judge Judge Henry E. Hudson is a dog owner -- should he have recused?). A reader poll appears at the end of this post.

Meanwhile, in other federal sentencing news, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two sentencing decisions today, and disgraced media mogul Conrad Black was sentenced to six and a half years in prison.

These developments are a bit too substantive for the pages of ATL. But you can read more about them over at Professor Doug Berman's Sentencing Law & Policy, SCOTUSblog, and the WSJ Law Blog.

Large-firm lawyers are a busy lot. Who has time to walk the dog?

With this in mind, we pass along an inquiry from a reporter friend. She's working on a story for a New York business publication about unusual perks at law firms -- you know, like defibrillators.

Recruiters have told her that pet care services, such as dog-walking, are popular perks. But she has been unable to obtain confirmation. We also didn't know offhand of specific firms that will pamper your pooch, as you bill away the hours.

But maybe some of you have this knowledge? If you know of a New York law firm that offers pet perks to its associates, please drop her a line, by email. Thanks.

Michael Vick, dressed in a sober charcoal suit and gold tie, just made a short public statement about his case. He took no questions. Here are some excerpts.

"For most of my life, I've been a football player, not a public speaker.... I'd like to take this opportunity to speak from the heart."

He apologized to Commissioner Roger Goodell, Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, and Vick's teammates, for "not being honest" in "previous discussions we had."

"I was ashamed. I've disappointed in myself, to say the least."

"I'd like to apologize to all the young kids out there for my immature acts. What I did was very immature, so I need to grow up."

[Dogfighting is inhumane, brutal, despicable -- but immature? It's not the first word that comes to our mind. And given the content of ATL, we consider ourselves experts in immaturity.]

"I take full responsibility for my actions."

"Dogfighting is a terrible thing and I do reject it."

"Through this situation I've found Jesus, and I dedicate my life to God."

[Of course -- so predictable. Why can't we have disgraced public figures pledge themselves to the principles of Wicca?]

"I've got a lot to think about in the next year or so.... I've got a lot of down time to think about how to make Michael Vick a better person."

[That's for sure -- and as just noted, Judge Hudson isn't bound by the parties' recommendations or the 12 to 18 month sentencing guidelines range. He's bound only by the five-year statutory maximum.]

The plea hearing for the embattled star quarterback took place this morning. One of Michael Vick's lawyers, Billy Martin, spoke to reporters on the courthouse steps. He stated that "this matter is concluded until December 10th, when Judge Hudson will sentence Michael Vick according to the plea agreement." He also announced that Vick will make a statement of his own at 11:30 AM today.

At the hearing, Judge Henry Hudson told Michael Vick something along these lines: "You know you're taking your chances here. I'm not bound by the recommendations [of the parties]."

A correct statement of the law, especially after Booker? Yes. A smart thing for a judge to do at a plea hearing, to prevent the defendant from later claiming he was blindsided? Sure.

But, reading the tea leaves a bit, we'd hazard a guess that Judge Hudson might give Vick significantly more than the 12 or so months that the parties will recommend (per the plea agreement). Stay tuned.

(We'd guess that the parties will recommend a year and a day, which will make Vick eligible for certain "good time" credits applicable only to sentences over a year.)

The plea agreement (PDF) for star quarterback Michael Vick has been filed in federal court. In the statement of facts (PDF) accompanying the agreement, Vick admits involvement in the dogfighting conspiracy (including funding it), but declines to admit a number of other allegations. According to ESPN, Vick claims that he "did not place side bets and did not receive proceeds from purses from the fights."

Here's what the agreement provides with respect to sentencing:

Assuming zero criminal history, an adjusted offense level of 13 gives you an imprisonment range of 12 to 18 months. Of course, and as noted in the agreement, the sentencing judge is not bound by the guidelines (thanks to Booker).

What's next in procedural terms, from CNN:

Vick, 27, is scheduled to appear in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday, where he is expected to plead guilty before a judge. The judge in the case will have the final say over the plea agreement.

Presiding over Vick's case is Judge Henry Hudson, a Bush II appointee to the bench and a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (under Bush I). He has an impressive resume, but we don't know much about him personally. We welcome your thoughts on Judge Hudson in the comments.

Vick files plea agreement admitting to dogfighting [ESPN.com]
Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy [CNN]

Woof woof! This just in, from Fox News (via AFP via Drudge):

The lead attorney for pro football star Michael Vick said Monday that the Atlanta Falcons quarterback will plead guilty to dogfighting and related charges and will "accept full responsibility for his actions and the mistakes he has made."

Billy Martin, heading up Vick's legal team, issued the following statement:

"After consulting with his family over the weekend. Michael Vick ask that I announce today that he has reached an agreement with Federal prosecutors regarding the charges pending against him. Mr. Vick has agreed to enter a plea of Guilty to those charges and to accept full responsibility for his actions and the mistakes he has made. Michael wishes to apologizes again to everyone who has been hurt by this matter."

Especially all the poor pooches, God rest their doggie souls.

But wait -- are we sure about this?

The statement apparently took federal officials by surprise.

Jim Rybicki, a spokesman for U.S. States Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, said he had not heard of an agreement in the Vick case, and that he was trying to reach prosecutors.

We'll keep you posted.

Update: This looks solid; CNN has this report. Apparently a status conference is taking place this afternoon.

Vick Attorney Says Star Quarterback Will Plead Guilty in Dogfighting Case [Fox News]
Vick agrees to plea deal, prison possible [CNN]

Things aren't look so hot for football star Michael Vick right now. See here and here.

Despite the incriminating statements of his co-defendants, Vick still hasn't reached a plea agreement with the government. Rumor has it that there's a split among Vick's lawyers about whether to take a plea deal.

After the jump, we post an analysis from a reader suggesting that, under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines (which are of course advisory post-Booker), Vick shouldn't necessarily serve prison time.

But we suspect that the feds wouldn't allow Vick to get off without some prison time (at least a year). And if Vick doesn't plead guilty to the current indictment, they'll nail him with a superseding indictment that includes RICO charges (which will vastly ramp up his exposure if convicted).

Check out this reader's analysis, after the jump.

Quite literally. From TSG:

In a pathetic end to the Mike Nifong saga, the disgraced North Carolina prosecutor who handled the Duke rape investigation has turned in his law license, noting that he never framed or displayed the document because it had been damaged "by a puppy in her chewing stage."

Additionally, in an August 7 letter to the North Carolina State Bar, Nifong noted that the law license also contained a misspelling of his middle name (which is Byron).

From the tipster who drew this to our attention: "Astounding." But sadly appropriate, too.

Nifong: The Dog Ate My Law License [The Smoking Gun]

To everyone sitting for the bar exam today (or later this week): Good luck!

Relax; you'll be just fine. We're sure that you'll pass, with flying colors.

Even if you don't, no worries. You can take the bar again. Lots of famous and successful people didn't pass the first time around. (Or even, say, the thirteenth time around.)

And if you don't pass, that could be a blessing in disguise. It could constitute your million-dollar payday!

(Or maybe your $9.75 payday. That's good for at least two beverages at Starbucks, even after they hike prices later this summer.)

Bar Exam Lolcats [Facebook]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of bar exams (scroll down)

From ESPN.com (gavel bang: commenter):

In another [Michael] Vick-related matter, the quarterback's camp has begun interviewing candidates to beef up his legal defense team in the event he goes to trial [on federal charges of conspiracy related to an alleged dogfighting venture].

Vick's longtime personal attorney, Lawrence Woodward, is expected to remain part of the defense team, but advisors have urged that the Falcons star consider adding counsel with experience in the federal courts.

The Vick camp has solicited recommendations and is believed to have interviewed at least one prominent defender from the prestigious Washington, D.C., firm of Wilmer Hale.

And from a second commenter:

WilmerHale for Vick? Wow, doesn't seem like a dog-fighting defense shop. They do white collar defense, but that's a different ball game. From their website: "We have defended clients against allegations of insider trading; securities, healthcare, accounting and government contracts fraud; criminal antitrust violations; money laundering; and alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other statutes."

So, any speculation as to which WilmerHale lawyer is being considered by Team Vick? Or a recommendation of a top "dog-fighting defense shop" for the embattled sports star?

NFL, Falcons could ask Vick to focus energies in court [ESPN.com]

* Who let the dogs fight? Who? Who? Feds say: football star Michael Vick. [CNN; TSG]

* Bar-Bri class reps (no, different class reps): No incentive payments for you. [The Recorder]

* Seven-figure legal bills: par for the course for white-collar criminal defendants. [WSJ Law Blog]

* India market hot for law firms. [Law.com]

* Billionaire Siebel gets California Supreme Court's ok to sue lawyer and judge despite settlement. [The Recorder]

* UK girl loses fight to wear purity ring at school. Chastity belt still under review. [MSNBC]

* Ohio Turnpike murder-for-hire case could result in death sentence. [CNN]

* Wow, talk about passive-aggressive behavior. (The husband, not the wife.) [Island Packet]

* The FTC may be good at many things, but creative punny language is not one of them. [Truth on the Market]

* Sexual harassment: once a dog, always a dog. [Reuters / Oddly Enough]

* I blame the same wiring responsible for guys' breasts-as-stimuli reaction for the double take on that guy with the Che Guevara neck tatt. Reflex trumps judgment. [Agoraphilia]