* “I don’t think the government should be in the credentialing business.” Thanks to the whims of politicians, SCOTUSblog is having trouble getting media credentials to continue its coverage of the Supreme Court’s cases. [New York Times]
* How you like me now? In Redeeming the Dream (affiliate link), a new book co-authored with David Boies, Ted Olson says he experienced “some blowback” when he announced he was taking on the Prop 8 gay marriage case. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Steve Davis and Steve DiCarmine of failed firm fame think it’s “unfair” they have to defend themselves in a criminal case and an SEC case at the same time. They want the SEC case to be halted. Dewey think the judge will say yes? [Law360 (sub. req.)]
* Only in Florida would a judge allegedly challenge a public defender to a fight out back during a hearing and start throwing punches. We’ll definitely have more on this fiasco later today. [WFTV Eyewitness News]
Edward Snowden returned to the news this week when NBC aired an hour-long interview with him, the first on American TV. Anchor Brian Williams met with Snowden in a Moscow hotel. The 30-year-old former computer systems administrator described his motives for releasing an unprecedented payload of classified information about NSA surveillance.
Snowden is vexing. As a person, he seems a mix of likeable and unlikeable traits. He appears earnest, convinced of the rectitude of his choices even if, as he told NBC, “Sometimes, to do the right thing you have to break the law.” Yet he bristles at Obama Administration characterizations of him as a low-level employee, a high-school dropout. (For example, the president told reporters last year, “No, I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.”) Even if Snowden is right to resist the connotations of those labels, listening to him defend himself in the interview can be painful. He insists he was “trained as a spy” who lived under an assumed identity and was a powerful operator. He sounds like a young man with a bruised ego. The last thing one wants to have to worry about in a situation of this great national and international importance, though, is one young man’s ego.
Snowden’s case is more important and more vexing. NSA’s surveillance programs are deeply troubling….
For the people who are enamored with the idea of the tax revenue from this, go to Colorado and see if you want to live there. See if you want to live in a major city in Colorado where there are head shops popping up on every corner. And people flying into your airport just to get high. You know, to me, it’s just not the quality of life we want to have here in the state of New Jersey, and there’s no tax revenue that’s worth that.
Dinesh D’Souza pleaded guilty to a charge related to illegal campaign contributions in Manhattan federal court on Tuesday. D’Souza, a conservative commentator, Reagan White House policy adviser, and Christian apologist, is widely known for his documentary film 2016: Obama’s America. D’Souza faces up to sixteen months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for September 23.
The case involved D’Souza’s use of “straw donors” when his own campaign contributions reached their legal limit. He encouraged two people close to him to each donate to the 2012 U.S. Senate campaign of his friend, Wendy Long. D’Souza promised to reimburse them for the donations. According to a press release by the Department of Justice, “Later that same day or the next day, D’SOUZA, as promised, reimbursed the Straw Donors $10,000 each in cash for the contributions.”
D’Souza’s defenders and critics can apparently agree on several points:
(1) D’Souza committed the crime.
(2) D’Souza committed the crime in an astonishingly ham-fisted way. (There’s nothing sly about handing over cash the day after a conversation like that. D’Souza might as well have delivered the money in a box marked “Campaign Finance Law Violation.”)
(3) The government is making an example of him.
What each side means by “making an example of him” is what makes this case more interesting . . . .
* Pennsylvania’s Governor Tom Corbett, who really wants to win his reelection vote in November, won’t appeal the decision striking down the state’s ban on gay marriage, making him the third governor to concede after a major loss in court. [Bloomberg]
* Sen. Ted Kennedy finally received his diploma from UVA Law, albeit posthumously. The school’s registrar kept it for more than half a century — they didn’t have his address. Lucky guy never received donation letters, either. [National Law Journal]
* An associate is suing her former boss for six figures after he allegedly sent her erotic emails about his fantasy workplace affair. Her fantasy of loan repayment may come true if she wins this case. [Oregonian]
* Apple’s general counsel Bruce Sewell gave some pretty great advice to recent graduates at GW Law: “Be someone [your boss] can talk to, rather than someone she can give orders to.” [Corporate Counsel]
* The New Mexico Law Review is dedicating an upcoming issue to articles related to Breaking Bad, which officially makes it one of the only law reviews whose pages will be read by human beings. [WSJ Law Blog]
I am writing this from Hanoi, Vietnam, where I have been for the last week, working on legal matters for American companies doing business in Vietnam. Viewing firsthand how Vietnam has responded to this week’s anti-Chinese riots has prompted me to write on the impact those riots and the sentiments that led to them might have for American businesses in Vietnam.
Many American companies doing business in China have what is commonly referred to as a “China plus one strategy.” Such companies will have the bulk of their Asian operations in China, but will also be active in at least one other Asian country to hold down costs or reduce over-dependence on China. The increasing cost of labor (and other inputs) in China has accelerated the number of companies considering this strategy.
If you do a Google search for “China plus one,” Vietnam is listed one, two and three as the “plus one” that specifically mentions another country. It is also the country my law firm’s clients most often mention when considering where to go outside China.
In an essay for Thought Catalog called “I Had an Affair with My Hero, A Philosopher Who’s Famous For Being ‘Moral,’” an anonymous graduate student describes her soured romance with a prominent professor from another university and how she learned that he initially hid his history of pursuing other young women. Shortly thereafter, her friend started a campaign to crowd-fund expenses for legal action. They created the pseudonym “Lisbeth” for the essay’s author. Under the heading “Help us sue the school protecting a known rapist,” the fundraiser’s description now reads, “I’m Emma Sloan, Yale 2010. My dear friend is suing the professor who tried to rape her and the university for knowingly protecting him. Thanks to donations from our generous supporters, she can afford the $7000 retainer for a forensic psychiatrist.”
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the case. Many within the academic community have joined the fray, whether to champion Lisbeth’s cause, attach it to broader gender equality concerns, express doubts, or simply gossip.
Title IX obligates schools that receive federal funds to address sexual violence or harassment on their campuses. To pursue a grievance or official complaint, the person need not herself be the victim of the alleged discrimination. Someone who claims to be the actual victim of a Title IX violation has the additional right to pursue her claim in private litigation against the university. If she can show that the school was deliberately indifferent despite actual knowledge of the misconduct, she can win injunctive relief or money damages for her injuries. Yale’s Title IX coordinator, Stephanie Spangler, is investigating Lisbeth’s claims.
So, where exactly did this professor’s alleged conduct pass from merely smarmy to worthy of legal sanction?
Today I continue to address some of the questions that I have received from you by email. Once again, I note that these are simply my personal views on the questions presented.
1. How do law firms assess job moves on a résumé, particularly when the moves were dictated by life circumstances (such as the need to follow a spouse into a secondary legal market)?
There is an unspoken belief amongst many recruitment professionals that a candidate who has moved around too often is a problematic candidate. Whether this is true or not, recruitment professionals view a fifth-year candidate who has already been at three firms as easily discontented. The thought then becomes — why would this candidate be happy at our firm? How are we any different than his or her previous employers? While candidates are often able to explain their moves (e.g., personal circumstances), recruiters then question the depth of experience that a candidate has had to date. Is a candidate who has stayed at one firm for five years more experienced that a fifth-year associate who has moved firms three times? In my experience, employers always favor the former candidate. Partners like loyalty and depth of experience, be it actual or perceived.
2. How long after graduation should an associate remain at a less than ideal job in a secondary market before submitting a résumé to a Biglaw firm in a more desirable location, such as New York or Chicago?
I have lawyers who are extremely well-connected at the Justice Department who usually can, with one phone call, get [Attorney General Eric] Holder on the phone. And they actually have gotten the people they wanted to get on the phone. And those people have been very unusually unforthcoming about what their thinking is or what’s happening, even to the extent of not being willing to tell them whether there’s already an indictment filed under seal or whether there’s a grand jury investigation…. [T]hey clearly want me to linger in this state of uncertainty.
– Lawyer turned journalist Glenn Greenwald, famous for his reporting on NSA surveillance, discussing with GQ the legal limbo he finds himself in.
(What Greenwald thinks about Hillary Clinton — hint: he’s not a fan — after the jump.)
Ever have that feeling that someone got your slot in law school even though they didn’t deserve it? They had worse grades, worse test scores… they may not even be able to pass the bar. It’s ridiculous that schools are allowed to have biased admissions policies that discriminate against qualified students in favor of some politically popular factor.
Because this is a story about candidates who — on the face of it — just don’t appear qualified to attend the school, and who just so happen to have political pedigrees and got in….
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.
Please note that Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney are still in Hong Kong and will stay FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS WEEK. We still have a handful of available slots for meetings with our Asia Chronicles fans. If we have not been in touch lately, reach out and let us know when we could meet! There is no need for an agenda at all. Most of our in-person meetings on these trips are with folks who understand that improving a legal practice through lateral hiring is an information-driven process that takes time to handle correctly.
Regarding trends in lateral US associate hiring in Hong Kong, we of course keep much of what we know off of this blog. Based on placement revenue, though, Kinney is having one of our most successful years ever in Asia. We are helping a number of our law firm clients with M&A, fund formation, cap markets, project finance, FCPA and disputes openings. These are very specific needs in many cases, so a conversation with us before jumping in may be helpful. As always, we like to be sure to get the maximum number of interviews per submission, using a well-informed, highly targeted, and selective approach, taking into account short, medium and long-term career aims.
Making a well informed decision during a job search is easier said than done – the information we provide comes from 10 years of being the market leader in US attorney placements at the top tier firms in Asia. There is no substitute for having known a hiring partner since he/she was an associate or for having helped a partner grow his or her practice from zip to zooming, and this is happily where we stand today – with years of background information on just about every relevant person in all the markets we serve, and most especially in Hong Kong/China/Greater Asia. So get in touch and get a download from us this week if we can fit it in, or soon in any case!
The legal industry is being disrupted at every level by technological advances. While legal tech entrepreneurs and innovators are racing to create a more efficient and productive future, there is widespread indifference on the part of attorneys toward these emerging technologies.
When the LexisNexis Cloud Technology Survey results were reported earlier this year, it showed that attorneys were starting to peer less skeptically into the future, and slowly but surely leaning more toward all the benefits the law cloud has to offer.
Because let’s face it, plenty of attorneys are perhaps a bit too comfortable with their “system” of practice management, which may or may not include neon highlighters, sticky notes, dog-eared file folders, and a word processing program that was last updated when the term “raise the roof” was still de rigueur.