Last week we complained about an insufficient number of summer associate scandals so far this year. But maybe things are starting to pick up.

We begin by giving props to Proskauer Rose for their commitment to public service. They bring all their summers down to New Orleans to work on a Habitat for Humanity project. From the press release:

On Friday and Saturday, June 20 and 21, law firm Proskauer Rose LLP will work with Habitat for Humanity to build three houses in the Musicians Village' section of the 9th Ward of New Orleans. The firm aims to help families displaced by Hurricane Katrina, giving them a place to once again call home.

Proskauer Rose summer associates, lawyers and staff, including Howard Shapiro, head of the firm's New Orleans office, and local Habitat for Humanity representatives will be available for interviews and photographs during the house building. The houses will be located at 1817, 1821 and 1825 Bartholomew Street and work will take place from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. both days. A check presentation ceremony will take place Friday, June 20 at 8 a.m. at 4000 North Roman Street.

Proskauer Rose is bringing together 90 summer associates, lawyers and staff from its New Orleans and national offices to participate in the event. The firm will also donate $75,000 to Habitat for the cost of one of the homes. This is the third consecutive year the firm has participated in and sponsored such an event.

So that's the background. Read the story, after the jump.

Many lawyers are charitable creatures. Because lawyers are good people. For those working in Biglaw, all that disposable income -- and the corresponding need for tax deductions -- can make giving to good causes a little easier.

We receive many requests from benefit organizers for promotion on Above The Law. We consider ourselves good charitable creatures here at ATL, but we have a responsibility to our readers to stick to important news items, like raunchy internet chats, embarrassing summer associate stories, top ten music lists, and irreverent commentary on plus-size judges.

But we've created a part of the site, the ATL Community, where the bleeding hearts among you can post information about charitable events. There are a few events there now, including Just Art 08!, to be held in NYC on June 25. If you have a charitable event you'd like to promote, please feel free to plug it in the Community section.

If you have any charity left in you after making donations to your favorite law school, check out the ATL Community site for legally-related giving opportunities. Okay, that's all the goodness we have in us for today. Time to get back to the news.

P.S. Speaking of charitable benefits, congratulations to Hope for Vision, previously mentioned here and here, on its recent successful event. Props to Jones Day, which presented the organization with a $100,000 check to kick off its 20/20 Vision Campaign.

Sigh. We hate it when news breaks late on a Friday before a holiday weekend.

But we won't let the timing stop us from giving this the attention it deserves. We'll do an update post next week, after everyone is back from the Memorial Day holiday weekend. We've also contacted Phil Telfeyan -- we've known he was the Note author for quite some time, thanks to our Harvard Law School sources -- and requested an interview.

We have to head out now. If you're still stuck in front of your computer, instead of enjoying the long weekend, check out the links below.

Comment: Mea Culpa by Phil Telfeyan [comment]
HLS Wins National Appellate Advocacy Competition [Harvard Law Record]
HLS students win national ABA moot court competition [Harvard Law School]
A Man of Many Hats [Harvard Crimson]

In January, after the Harvard Law Review published a rather embarrassing, bleeding-heart Case Comment, we wrote:

Last year, we ran a popular series of posts on the Harvard Law Review. The gist of the coverage was that the Review's new, left-leaning leadership "is running the journal into the ground with a cabal of radical ideologues, making the outgoing editors nervous about the future reputation of the journal."

We got some flak for our HLR coverage. But in view of what the Review is publishing these days, as discussed extensively in the blogosphere -- see, e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy and PrawfsBlawg -- we can't help gloating. Just a little.

Or a lot. A tipster draws our attention to a Note that was just published in the latest issue of the HLR:

I think you should break this story. It is a guaranteed comment clusterf**k.

This Note (PDF) basically says that anyone who doesn't go in to public interest work is immoral and is killing babies in third world countries (most of this analysis is in section 4 of the article). I think it just came out in electronic form today, so you should get a jump on anyone.

Our correspondent's summary is shockingly accurate. Check out the article for yourself by clicking here (PDF).

As it turns out, we're not the first to take note of the Note. We believe that would be Professor Paul Horwitz, over at PrawfsBlawg. After alluding to the notorious Case Comment from several months ago, Professor Horwitz writes:

I am reading the latest issue of the Harvard Law Review [which contains] a Note titled, after an inscription on a statue in Cambridge Common, "Never Again Should a People Starve in a World of Plenty." It's unusually thinly sourced for a Harvard Law Review Note -- not that I'm encouraging people to use more footnotes! And it has a certain voice ("There is injustice everywhere. The last place there should be injustice is in the justice system.") and theme that . . . . well, I find myself wondering whether we have found our anonymous author once again.

I don't mean to be unduly gossipy about this sort of thing; it's worth a two-paragraph blog post and not more. And I am not knocking the observation that injustice is bad; heaven forfend. Just the same, I'm curious whether this is the same author.

We don't share Professor Horwitz's shyness. We're happy to write more than two paragraphs about the Note (ha -- we already have). And there's no such thing as being "unduly gossipy" in our book.

So gossip away, in the comments. Do you think this Note was written by the same author as the prior Case Comment? Do you feel that the Harvard Law Review -- once headed by Senator Barack Obama, its first black president -- is tilting too far to the left?

Or, if you prefer, don't gossip; engage substantively with the arguments in the Note. Clearly the author wants associates and partners in large law firms to sit up and take notice, to think about whether what they're doing professionally is worthwhile -- or even morally defensible.

We're sure the anonymous author will be grateful to us for bringing his or her work to the attention of ATL's many readers in Biglaw. Whoever you are: you're welcome!

I previously wrote (here and here) about Oscar Pistorius, the Olympic hopeful who was ruled ineligible to compete in the Beijing Games by the International Association of Athletics Federations ("IAAF") because he uses Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetic legs. With help from Dewey & LeBoeuf (disclosure: my previous employer) as his pro bono counsel, Pistorius recently challenged the IAAF's ruling in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

On Friday, a three-person arbitration panel ruled in Pistorius's favor, finding that Pistorius's prosthetics do not provide him with "an overall net advantage" in violation of IAAF Rule 144.2(e). This opens the door for Pistorius to compete in South Africa's Olympic trials using his prosthetics. The panel reserved the right to change its ruling if new scientific evidence emerges.

With this matter resolved for now, let's take a look at the big winners and losers from the litigation:

Big Winners

Oscar Pistorius: Finally eligible for South Africa's Olympic trials, the Blade Runner is a step closer to competing against the world's finest. In addition, he is also a step closer to earning the kind of endorsement dollars that would make even Dan & Dave envious.

Ossur HF Company: The Iceland-headquartered supplier of the Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetics is gaining all kinds of free publicity. Most of us have now heard of the Cheetah Flex-Foot. Can anybody name a competitor prosthetic? I didn't think so.

Dewey & LeBoeuf: Forget the goodwill that comes with pro bono representation. By winning this case, Dewey & LeBoeuf has expanded its sports-law footprint across the Atlantic Ocean, as well as opened the door to secure new business in international sports arbitration.

Debevoise & Plimpton: Real kudos goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for their gutsy and articulate 18-page decision that does not pull its punches with the IAAF. David W. Rivkin, a partner in the New York and London offices of Debevoise & Plimpton, was one of the three named arbitrators in this dispute. His work could only look good for the firm.

Read the rest, after the jump.

Next week in Lausanne, Switzerland, the Court of Arbitration for Sport will hear the appeal of double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius (previously blogged about here). Pistorious is challenging the International Association of Athletics Federation's ruling that he cannot compete in the 2008 Olympics because his j-shaped, carbon-fiber prosthetic legs allegedly violate an IAAF rule against "use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage."

As of recently, Pistorius has been represented by Dewey & LeBoeuf (disclosure: my previous employer) and the firm's acclaimed sports attorney, Jeffrey Kessler. The thrust of Pistorius's appeal will be that his prosthetic legs do not provide any advantage over real legs. Although a victory for Pistorius in this appeal would not make him the first amputee to compete in the Olympic Games (American George Eyser already has that title, having won three gymnastics gold medals on a wooden leg), it would pave the way for Pistorius, if successful in his trials, to become the first Olympic track and field runner to compete on prosthetic legs.

While Pistorius and his lawyers are pushing for the Court of Arbitration for Sport to rule him eligible to compete using his choice of prosthetics, a few recent lawsuits filed by disabled American athletes have requested far more drastic accommodations.

Read about one such suit, plus more commentary on Pistorious's case, after the jump.

Tonight's ATL / Lateral Link survey explores the complex interplay between billable hours, pro bono, and sweet, sweet bonuses.

Also, a quick note about this month's who's your favorite blawg other than ATL survey, which is still open. So far, the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog is way out in front. We're also very gratified that so many of you answered "What do you mean 'Other Than Above The Law'???", making us your second choice for second-favorite blog after... ourselves.

A tip of the hat and bang of the gavel to taxgirl, TaxProf Blog, Balkinization and Ms. JD for their successful write-in campaigns. You're all in the survey now.

That's the basic question posed by this interesting piece, currently the most emailed article on the New York Times website. After describing some of the sufferings of lawyers and doctors today, Alex Williams writes:

[I]n the days when a successful career was built on a number of tacitly recognized pillars — outsize pay, long-term security, impressive schooling and authority over grave matters — doctors and lawyers were perched atop them all.

Now, those pillars have started to wobble.

“The older professions are great, they’re wonderful,” said Richard Florida, the author of “The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life” (Basic Books, 2003). “But they’ve lost their allure, their status. And it isn’t about money.”

Oh really? Tell that to the readers of ATL. Compensation coverage sends our traffic through the roof.

More discussion, after the jump.

Gracing the front page of today's Washington Post is an article that will appeal to many ATL readers. It's by Post reporter Ian Shapira, who previously wrote this interesting piece about summer associates. Here's the headline:

Okay, not a terribly novel development. As one of several ATL readers who wrote us about this story observed, "it's not exactly Man Bites Dog."

But even if the article may not be earth-shattering, it's a well-crafted, thought-provoking piece. We think it will get an interesting discussion going. Also, anything that gets a general audience to care about the niche topic of law firms, like a front page WaPo article, is a good thing in our book.

Excerpts and observations, after the jump.

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in Arar v. Ashcroft, a high-profile lawsuit arising out of the U.S. government's rendition of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria.

We interviewed DLA Piper partner Joshua Sohn (at right), co-counsel to Mr. Arar along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, about this interesting case and his firm's work on it.

For readers who aren't familiar with the case, what's it all about?

It's about the federal government's extraordinary renditions program, which sends "people of interest" to sites around the world for indefinite detention and interrogation under harsh conditions -- in this case torture. Mr. Arar, who is a computer engineer, Canadian citizen, husband, and father of two young children, was pulled out of the immigration line at JFK when he was attempting to change planes, but not enter the United States. Mr. Arar was interrogated at the airport, detained and interrogated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and ultimately flown by private jet in the dead of night to Jordan and delivered to Syria. Mr. Arar was never charged with a crime, was not allowed to consult with an attorney for many days when he was first detained and both he and his attorney were lied to about what was going to happen to him and the fact that he was being sent to Syria.

Mr. Arar made plain to those holding him that he feared being tortured in Syria and that he wanted to be sent to Canada-where he lived and was a citizen. Those pleas were ignored and Mr. Arar was sent to Syria where he was tortured and kept in a grave-like cell for almost a year. This case seeks to hold the federal officials who are responsible for Mr. Arar's treatment, responsible.

Read the rest of the interview, after the jump.

We previously commended the firm of McKee Nelson for the steps it's taking to accommodate its associates in the wake of the credit crunch. Credit market woes have significantly affected the firm's once booming capital markets practice, but the firm is bending over backwards not to do layoffs.

So far backwards, in fact, that we're going to go even farther: we wish we worked at MN. To paraphrase Crazy Eddie, the offers they're making to associates are INSANE.

On Friday, the firm offered these options to its associates:

(1) a full bonus, and four months' pay, to anyone willing to depart from the firm; or

(2) the option to take a year-long sabbatical, at 40 percent pay, AND with a full bonus for 2007.

Wow. How is option (2) -- or even option (1), for people who wanted to change jobs or career paths anyway -- not the sweetest deal ever? You get a year off from the Biglaw grind, at 40 percent of your pay (McKee is on the $160K scale), AND with a year-end bonus? (Their bonus table appears here -- the firm is paying standard year-end bonuses, although not "special" bonuses.)

There are some caveats, according to our tipsters. First, there's no guarantee of a job at the end of the sabbatical -- whether you can return to the firm will depend on what the business climate looks like in a year. Second, you're supposed to do something public-interest-oriented during that year -- or, as the managing partner put it, "something that makes the world better." So you can't just go to Ibiza and party for twelve months (although cynics claim that turning lawyers into layabouts "makes the world better").

On the other hand, there's no requirement that you work for a 501(c)(3) during your sabbatical; the concept has some flexibility. Could you perhaps use the year -- and the money -- to study painting, or to finish the novel you started writing back in law school?

So many lawyers talk about the dreams that died when they went to law school. How is the McKee Nelson sabbatical program not a great opportunity to resurrect those dreams, with the luxury of free time and financial security?

Earlier: Nationwide Personnel Reconfiguration Watch: McKee Nelson

* Does a federal district court have to recruit pro bono counsel for a pro se litigant? [Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals via How Appealing]

* DOJ cool with torture tough interrogation techniques. [New York Times]

* Bush doesn't care about poor kids. [AP via Athens Banner-Herald]

* The ACLU doesn't want to let Bush protect us. [Jurist]

* Falcons want their money back; so do Falcons fans (last week's fine win notwithstanding). [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

We received this information from a tipster last night, and a firm spokesperson confirmed it for us this morning. Here it is:

Patton Boggs just raised starting salaries to 160,000 for first years for 1950 billable hours. This is a 50 hour bump and a $15,000 bump. They also introduced a new 1800 billable track that is full-time, but paid on a lower scale (obviously).

No memo yet. The full scale closely approximates the Hogan & Hartson scale and caps out at $280,000. Still a 100 hour/year pro bono requirement.

So does anyone know what the DC List of Shame now looks like? Feel free to post it in the comments.

Also, are you aware of any recent pay raise news that we haven't covered in these pages? If so, please email us. Thanks.

Pro bono work is near and dear to your hearts. When we posted an open thread on the subject last month, it generated a slew of comments. Like this one:

I was actually told by the partner I worked for at my firm, in no uncertain words ... "If you have time to spend on matters that firm isn't collecting fees for, then you have time that I can be giving you more work that you should be collecting fees for." And that was my official talk on our "pro bono policy."

Well, who says that fee-earning work and pro bono work are mutually exclusive? From the Seattle Times:

Lawyers at Davis Wright Tremaine didn't charge a parent group for seven years of work on a U.S. Supreme Court case against Seattle Public Schools: They took the case pro bono.

But now that the firm is trying to collect $1.8 million in legal fees from the school district, several national legal experts say the term — technically, "pro bono publico," meaning "for the public good" — may no longer apply.

The firm's effort has put a local lens on a national debate: If attorneys get paid for pro bono work, is it still pro bono?

The full article, which lays out both sides of the argument, is quite interesting. You can check it out here.

Some argue that financially strapped school districts shouldn't have to shell out millions of dollars to line the pockets of law firms. But others argue that making them pay fees will discourage them from violating rights in the future (and that the law firms can donate the fees to charity). Thoughts?

Billing in "pro bono" cases is fodder for ethics debate [Seattle Times]

Earlier: Biglaw Perk Watch: Pro Bono Work

Since the tireless Howard Bashman is in transit, we'll temporarily assume his role as super-timely provider of appellate litigation news.

This just in: A divided Seventh Circuit panel has affirmed the criminal convictions of former Illinois Governor George H. Ryan and his associate, Lawrence Warner. The majority opinion is by Judge Diane Wood (who is a judicial hottie); the dissent is by Judge Michael Kanne (who is reportedly not fat).

This is especially bad news for Winston & Strawn. As some of you may recall, the firm reportedly blew $20 million on defending Governor Ryan, on a pro bono basis.

United States v. Ryan [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]

The subject of today's perk post may not jump to mind as a perk or fringe benefit, but we think it's important and worthy of inclusion here. From a reader:

Please do a “perks” thread on pro bono work. What kind of opportunities are presented? How are the hours counted (if at all), both de jure and de facto?

Speaking for myself, it’s the main thing that makes White & Case different from other firms. The hours are counted 1:1, without limitation. I am permitted to seek my own pro bono assignments, and function at a very high level on those cases. I have “billed” 200-300 hours to pro bono every year I’ve been here, and received no feedback but encouragement (although my “real” hours have always been in the defensible range without consideration of the pro bono).

That's impressive. We had a friend at a top 10 firm who spent hundreds of hours on pro bono work (which got the firm some nice publicity in the New York Times). But at a certain point, she got called in for a talk about how she was spending too high a percentage of her time on pro bono.

More discussion after the jump.

We were wrong in speculating that the parties had decided to use Friday afternoon to quietly settle Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. As it turns out, S&C has actually opened up a new front in that war. How exciting!

But we were absolutely right in observing that "[w]hen a disgraced Washington political figure wants to resign, they wait until Friday after 3 PM." Look at what the cat dragged in, at 4:05 PM: Charles "Cully" Stimson, the Pentagon official who made controversial remarks about lawyers who represent terrorism suspects.

Stimson didn't last very long as deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. But at least his tenure was longer than that of Jack Scheich as president of LeGal.

Defense Official Resigns Over Remarks [Associated Press via How Appealing]
Cully Stimson Resigns [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: For Breakfast at Cully Stimson's House: Pop Tarts Filled With Crow
Make the Gitmo Detainees Pay for Their Own Damn Photocopies