Confidentiality. Lawyers get lectured about it all the time. Despite all the warnings, attorneys young and old routinely get themselves in trouble through indiscretion (not just Eliot Spitzer).

Sometimes Supreme Court clerks are overheard talking about their cases. Sometimes law firm partners are overheard talking about firm business. An in-house tipster provides this account of a morning subway ride:

I was sitting on the E train at approximately 9 AM today. Next to me was a tall, older woman with a short (obviously dyed) blond hair cut. A younger (I would guess in his 40s) man saw her and made some comment about how funny it was to see her. She made a face, said she was in a rather bad mood, and showed him an email on her blackberry.

Now this conversation only lasted from the 7th Avenue stop on the E to the 5th Avenue one where Male (I'm assuming Partner) got off in order to attend a meeting, and Female (I'm assuming Partner) got off at the Lexington/Third Avenue stop [at 53rd Street].

Note: Thelen's offices are at 875 and 900 Third Avenue, around 53rd Street....

The conversation continued to express FP's concern regarding the person in the email. That FP would "talk to her" as soon as she got in. MP seemed somewhat unconcerned as he "suspected something like this would happen."

Talk to Her -- the title of a critically acclaimed Almodovar film. In this context, however, we're guessing that FP's secretary or assistant got laid off (or is about to get laid off) -- and FP needs to discuss the situation with her.

Then MP mentioned your piece in AboveTheLaw.com (which is how I figured out what they were talking about), stating that the firm was reflected fairly well all things considered, and how the piece could have been worse. FP made a comment about how it only got bad when you read the comments, where it seems a lot of information was given out that made her very unhappy.

Ah, the comments. Sometimes they make us "very unhappy" too -- although, for the most part, we are grateful for the insight and humor contained therein.

Welcome to the internets, FP. And exercise greater discretion next time -- you never know who might be listening.

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner

This next story is not new; it was reported last year by CBS. But we have an update to bring you, via YouTube, which is why we're revisiting it.

For those of you who missed it, here's a quick recap:

[A] woman was referred to a lawyer to represent her in a car accident case. But what she experienced in the meetings with that 72-year-old attorney later led her to file a formal criminal complaint with the NYPD....

The 47-year old woman -- who has asked CBS 2 not to reveal her identity -- claims that during her initial visit to lawyer Allen Isaac, he asked her for oral sex as part of his fee for taking her personal injury case.

"He said I'm going to want oral sex from you. I'm going to want it twice before the case begins, then I'm going to want it every week after if I get you a very good result," she said.

Now that's what we call a "success fee."

More discussion, plus the recently uploaded YouTube clip, after the jump.

When it comes to knowing how to make proper court filings, don't bother with the FRCP, or even the local rules. Just read ATL.

We tell you everything you need to know. E.g., don't file an egg with Judge James Muirhead (D.N.H.).

And don't file gay pornography with Judge Adalberto Jordan (S.D. Fla.). From GamePolitics.com:

That gurgling sound you hear could be Jack Thompson’s legal career swirling down the ‘loo.

The frequent video game critic, already facing professional misconduct charges from the Florida Bar which could see him stripped of his license to practice law, has outraged a U.S. District Court judge by including images of men having sex in a document filed with the court last week.

What was he thinking? And no, the gay porn was not essential to the case (as it might have been in, say, an obscenity prosecution arising out of said porn).

More details -- if you want them -- after the jump.

Is this litigation kosher? You bet. From Vos Iz Neias (Yiddish: "What's News"):

A New Hampshire prison inmate's file drove a federal judge to rhyme to express himself.

A prison inmate protesting his [non-Kosher] diet attached a hard-boiled egg to documents sent by mail to U.S. District Court Judge James Muirhead.

"I do not like eggs in the file. I do not like them in any style. I will not take them fried or boiled. I will not take them poached or broiled. I will not take them soft or scrambled Despite an argument well-rambled," Muirhead wrote in his response to inmate Charles Wolffe.

Wolffe, 61, says he is an Orthodox Jew and has accused prison officials of refusing to feed him a kosher diet. He is seeking... proper foods and $10 million from the state. His case has been scheduled for a trial.

More discussion, plus the full text of Judge Muirhead's order, after the jump.

Even if you have a possible justification for doing so -- 'cause it might be illegal. From the ABA Journal:

Proceedings have been delayed in a California misdemeanor case in which the defense is claiming that police brutalized their client with a stun gun during his arrest at a shopping mall last year.

That's because the defense team is now being criminally investigated for allegedly violating human experimentation laws by repeatedly using a stun gun on their client themselves during an evidence-gathering effort in a law office.

Additional details here. Our tipster, a criminal defense lawyer, observes:

"I can't decide which I like better:

(1) imagining those nervous, sweaty-palmed, study-group types from law school, wringing their hands and saying, 'C'mon, guys, we have to be PREPARED! How are we gonna know what he looked like when he was writhing in agony unless we shock him AGAIN?' or

(2) the idea of defense lawyers seizing the opportunity to taser a client -- which we have ALL dreamed of doing."

Shocking Case: Legal Team Tasers Client [ABA Journal]

In case you're wondering what happened to the litigation support guy at Quinn Emanuel, who sent around an office-wide email reprimanding an associate for allegedly rude treatment, here's an update:

The lit support guy got his walking papers almost immediately. The litigation associate to whom he directed the email was baffled by the entire event.

Apparently, he just told the guy that there was a mistake and that it needed to be fixed ASAP. Knowing this associate pretty well, I say it's pretty inconceivable that he would treat someone like a "dog," or even unprofessionally.

So maybe the associate didn't do anything wrong, and the litigation support guy was just a bit unhinged -- a beleaguered support staff member, on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Cf. The Patton Boggs librarian.

Since the litigation support guy got fired over his email, we hope he derived a lot of satisfaction from sending it.

Earlier: ATL Practice Pointers: Be Nice to the Support Staff

First, it's the right thing to do. Second, if you're mean or rude to support staff members, they might start talking trash about you behind your back -- not good for your reputation at the firm. They might also handle your projects with less care or speed in the future.

If you REALLY piss them off, they might tell you off directly. And cc everyone at the firm, just to make you look like a total d-bag (even if you're generally known as a nice guy among your colleagues).

The following email was sent out this morning by a litigation support team member at Quinn Emanuel to a litigation associate. Copied on the message were (1) the entire New York office and (2) litigation support firm-wide.

From: [Litigation Support Guy]
To: [Litigation Associate]
Cc: [New York Office]; [All Litigation Support]
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:15:46 -0700
Subject: Respect

[Litigation Associate],

I don't care who you are and what your title is...

Have respect for people when you speak to them. Education should teach you such life lessons. No one is your dog. If you want a dog go buy one or visit the zoo.

Sorry I did not see your wonderful screen shot as Trial Graphix did not see it either. People are human and make mistakes and I am sure you have made a few such as not providing the Bates number for us to cross reference.

Enjoy,
[Litigation Support Guy]

We like this cheeky message, but we have a quibble. The zoo? Dogs aren't really exotic enough to be in the zoo. Maybe try Michael Vick's house?

Oh, sorry -- you want a live one...

(The usual rules apply. Please don't identify either the sender or the recipient of this message. Thanks.)

This resignation letter has been making the rounds by email. Whaddya think?

The conventional wisdom about farewell emails and resignation letters is to keep them short and sweet. Say as little as possible, and only say positive things, even if untrue ("I greatly enjoyed my time at [Biglaw X]"). Above all, don't burn any bridges.

But if you're leaving the legal profession altogether -- and you're really, really sure that you're never coming back -- is it okay to let off some steam? To tell them how you REALLY feel?

Please opine on that question, and anything else you see in this farewell letter, in the comments.

(But please don't name the individual who sent this letter. We've intentionally redacted his name from the missive. Thanks.)

P.S. Speaking of Greenberg Traurig, does anyone know what ever happened on this insane front? Did the firm ever respond? If you can enlighten us, please do so by email. Thanks.

Every now and then, we offer you some ATL Practice Pointers.

Today we bring you a legal writing lesson. This is how you write a preliminary statement:

Our tipster wonders:

"Frustrated writer, or just a d-bag? Unfortunately, he did not continue the pirate theme throughout the brief, or even bring it back in the conclusion."

Update: In case you're wondering, this is an excerpt from a brief recently filed in federal district court (District of the Virgin Islands).

Earlier: ATL Practice Pointers (scroll down)

We have a ruling in the HappyMealGate case (prior coverage here, here, and here of Wiliam P. Smith, the McDermott Will & Emery partner who told Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal"). And it's surprisingly lenient.

Judge Isicoff basically gave Smith a stern talking to:

“There is no jurisdiction in the U.S. — including the district where Mr. Smith regularly practices — where the expression and tone Mr. Smith used on May 7 would fall in the bounds of acceptable behavior,” a solemn Isicoff said from the bench in front of a packed courtroom.

and ordered him to take an online professionalism course administered by the Florida Bar.

Smith brought McDermott chairman Harvey Freishtat with him to beg and plead for mercy from Isicoff. Apparently it worked.

Isicoff said she accepted the apologies of both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery chairman Harvey Freishtat, the head of the Chicago-based, 1,000-lawyer firm, who also appeared in front of her to beg her pardon.

Looks like the fry guy got off relatively easy, and we've all learned something: don't stoop to middle-school insults while arguing in front of a federal judge, especially if you're appearing pro hac vice.

Surely you all recall William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and head of its bankruptcy department -- who recently told a Miami bankruptcy judge, in open court, that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." We broke the story here (with follow-up here).

The "Happy Meal" comment royally pissed off Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff (and not 'cause she's a Burger King partisan). She benchslapped Bill Smith via an Order to Show Cause, directing the Fry Guy to explain why he shouldn't be suspended from practice in her court.

The firm has now filed a motion in response to the OSC. From the Daily Business Review:

Chicago attorney William P. Smith says he’s very, very, very sorry for telling U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff she was “a few French fries short of a Happy Meal” during a May 7 court hearing in Miami.

The chairman of McDermott Will & Emery, the Chicago-based firm whose bankruptcy practice Smith heads, is ready to prostrate himself before the judge as well.

According to a recent motion filed by the law firm, Harvey Freishtat, who heads the 1,000-lawyer firm, plans to fly to Miami for a hearing on Smith’s comment. The motion states Freishtat will personally express “on behalf of the entire firm, to this court, to the other lawyers in this case, and to the other honorable judges of this District Court, [his firm’s] sincere and deepest apology for the words used by Mr. Smith.”

And would Her Honor like a side of fries with that?

More discussion after the jump.

Earlier this month, we wrote about how William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and head of its bankruptcy department -- landed himself in the deep-fat fryer. Smith unwisely told a bankruptcy judge, in open court, that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal."

Well, Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff didn't respond so well to that colorful statement. She issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause, directing William Smith (hereinafter "the Fry Guy") to explain why he shouldn't be suspended from practicing in her court.

Several tipsters have directed our attention to this delightful article, from the Daily Business Review, about the Fry Guy's "super-sized gaffe." It describes the fallout, for both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery, from L'Affaire Happy Meal -- and includes a shout-out to Above the Law.

Excerpts and discussion, after the jump.

Or even in chambers, for that matter. But open court is worse. From a tipster:

In a bankruptcy case here in the Southern District of Florida, William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and the head of its bankruptcy department -- actually told a judge she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal."

Literally. In open court. Amazing.

Don't believe us? Check out the transcript:

In fairness to Bill Smith, please note that he let fly this insult "with respect." Nice touch, counsel.

Alas, Judge Isicoff didn't take kindly to a lawyer questioning the completeness of her "Happy Meal."

Find out how she responded, after the jump.

Ah yes, the legendary bonuses of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Tout le monde wants to know: So, just how big were they?

Very big (and bigger than yours). We can't give up specific numbers for specific classes, because that might get our sources in trouble (and WLRK is a pretty small firm).

But we'll just make these general observations:

1. Wachtell Lipton pays base salaries that are at (or even slightly above) market.

2. Earlier this year, they paid out midyear bonuses ranging from $15,000, for the newest associates, to $50,000, for the most senior classes.

3. When you add the midyear bonuses to the year-end bonuses that were paid out earlier this week -- on Tuesday, December 12 -- every class at Wachtell received 2006 bonus compensation equal or slightly greater than 100 percent of base salary.

4. This year, the percentage of bonus as base varied a bit from class to class. Historically this hasn't always been the case; when we were there, it was pretty much constant.

Executive summary: Take your base salary, double it, and that's what your law school classmate who went to Wachtell earned in 2006, "all in" (base salary + mid-year bonus + year-end bonus).

A shameless plug for our former firm, based on the time that we spent there (2000 - 2003), after the jump.

It has been forever since the last edition of Advice for the Lawlame. In this feature, we take a question submitted to one of NYLawyer.com's popular advice columns, such as "Advice for the Lawlorn," and offer our own unique take.

Here's the condensed version of today's question:

I am a mentor in my firm to a couple of younger lawyers. My problem is that one talks to me too much about personal issues.

A sticky situation. When you're a partner, she's an associate, and you're having conversations about that "not-so-fresh feeling," you know it's time to redefine the parameters of your relationship.

The complete version of this question, plus our "advice" -- after the jump.

The stereotypical lawyer is a real bigmouth, too loud for his or her own good. But not all attorneys conform to type. This leads us to our next lesson.

Practice Pointer: Don't mumble your closing argument.

This news story comes from Ireland rather than America, but it's still instructive:

A murder trial jury has been discharged because the judge said he could not hear the prosecuting counsel during his closing speech. Mr Justice Paul Carney made his comments at the conclusion of the trial of 56-year-old John O'Neill from Mercer House flats, Mercer Street in Dublin.

In the words of our tipster: "Overturned for want of clear diction?"

But our curiosity was piqued. What would the jury have heard if the prosecutor had spoken up?

During his closing speech to the jury, prosecution counsel Gerard Clarke described to the eight men and four women how Rosemary Dowling might have felt while she was being killed.

He said she had no voice, but the members of the jury could be her voice, and he went on to imagine what she would say.

Ahhh. Not sure how things work in Ireland; but here in the United States, that kind of summation would be inflammatory and improper.

So we take back that tip. If your closing argument could result in the defendant getting a new trial, mumble away.

Jury Discharged Over 'Mumbled' Closing [RTE News]

Here at Above the Law, we're not all about silliness. We have a serious and more practical side, too.

Last month, in honor of fall recruiting season, we shared with you our Top Ten Interview Tips. This is what's known in the trade as "service journalism," or what U.S. News and World Report calls "news you can use."

We now bring you the first post in an occasional series of ATL Practice Pointers. You've landed the legal job of your dreams. Now, what do you have to do in order to keep it?

Today's tip is about being a good loser. Even the most talented attorneys lose sometimes. Superstar litigator David Boies, for example, lost a little case called Bush v. Gore. So what's the best way to handle professional setbacks?

Practice Pointer #1: Don't send the judge nasty, ad hominem letters after he renders a decision against you.

The ACS Blog brings us this news:

Florida attorney Jack Thompson recently lost a case seeking to enjoin the sale of "Bully", a video game which puts the player in the shoes of a high school ruffian. In response to his loss, Thompson delivered a letter to the judge in the case:

Dear Judge Friedman:

Now that you have consigned innumerable children to skull fractures, eye injuries from slingshots, and beatings with baseball bats, without a hearing as to the danger, let me tell you a few things, with all respect for your office and with no respect for the arbitrary way in which you handled this matter. I can handle an adverse ruling by a judge. I’ve had plenty of those in my lifetime, and that’s fine. But the way you conducted yourself today helps explain why a great Dade County Judge, the late Rhea Pincus Grossman, could not abide you. She was not the only one....

Luckily for Thompson, Judge Grossman is no longer around. She probably wouldn't have appreciated being ratted out like that.*

The letter goes on for a while, before concluding as follows:

Next time you promise a “hearing,” I’ll bring a parent with me whose kid is in the ground because of a kid who trained to kill him or her on a violent video game. Try mocking that person, I dare you.

Which brings us to Practice Pointer #2: Don't threaten a judge, either -- even a mere state court judge.

* We're assuming this enmity between the judges was not open and notorious; but maybe it was.

How Not To Speak To a Judge [ACSBlog]
Judge Gives Bully Game the Go Ahead [Tech Law Prof Blog]
“Bully” Case Document Dump [GamePolitics]
Letter from John Thompson to Judge Ronald Friedman [GamePolitics.com (Word document)]

Earlier: A PSA from ATL: Top Ten Interview Tips