* Court needed a Chinese language interpreter. Rather than find a professional legal interpreter, the judge just told the lawyer to head down to the local Chinese restaurant and grab somebody. [Legal Cheek]
* News from former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s trial. As one tipster summed up the story: “Hon, I think I dropped my keys under that bus. Would you take a look?” [Slate]
* Everyone concedes Ted Cruz is smart. Why exactly? [Salon]
* A follow-up from a previous story: Connolly, Geaney, Ablitt & Willard shuts down after the foreclosure market that made them turned on them. [Mass Lawyers Weekly (sub. req.)]
* Interesting look at the volume of patent cases throughout history. Check out the troll phenomenon with charts! [Patently-O]
* Clint Eastwood talks with Chief Judge Kozinski and Judge Fisher at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. These days it’s exciting whenever Clint isn’t talking to an empty chair. Video embedded below… [YouTube]
With the Supreme Court’s 2013 term concluding on Monday, many Americans are assessing how they feel about the judicial branch of their government. Even if you are still reeling about some of the decisions made recently by the least dangerous branch, don’t forget the executive. The president and his agencies can also make you wonder how the American experiment is panning out.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton issued an order to hear oral arguments from lawyers representing the Internal Revenue Service and the conservative nonprofit True the Vote. True the Vote is one of the conservative groups claiming IRS improperly targeted its application for nonprofit status based on the group’s political and philosophical affiliation. True the Vote filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery on Monday, calling for an independent forensics examination of any IRS hard drives, servers, or other computer hardware involved in the government agency’s possible targeting of conservative nonprofits’ applications for tax-exempt status. It wants an outside computer expert to try to ascertain how and when any electronic evidence, such as former IRS Commissioner Lois Lerner’s emails, may have been lost. Also, it would be great if the government didn’t spoliate — I mean “recycle” — any more evidence….
The other shoe has dropped: Senator Harry Reid went forward with the long-awaited “nuclear option” to end the Republican filibuster of Obama nominees, most notably the nominations of Judge Robert Wilkins, Georgetown Law Professor Nina Pillard, and Akin Gump partner Patricia Millett to three vacant seats on the D.C. Circuit.
By a 52-48 vote, Democrats killed off the filibuster for most of the president’s upcoming nominations, though kindly preserved the minority’s right to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. So they didn’t take away all of our fun.
But you probably already know that. You probably already have a militant opinion about it if social media is to be believed. But as we prepare to welcome three new judges to the D.C. Circuit, our friends, family, politicians, and media people are going to toss around some really hollow sound bytes both for and against this move. Let’s just get some of them out of the way now, so you don’t have to act surprised when you watch Meet the Press on Sunday.
* “How do we find a new inventory of high net worth clients?” The answer for Kelly Drye was really quite simple: it seems that pro athletes are willing to pay just about anything to keep themselves from going bankrupt. [Capital Business / Washington Post]
* “I don’t know why it’s better to use a bigger firm.” When it comes to the latest law firm mega-mergers, some say that it’s not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean. [Wall Street Journal (sub. req.)]
* It’s like Groundhog Day for these Biglaw attorneys: Apple and Samsung are preparing for the “patent trial of the century,” part deux, and both MoFo and Quinn Emanuel have enlisted new lineups. [The Recorder]
* SAC Capital’s general counsel is okay, “[a]ll things considered.” His painful appendectomy is nothing compared to the $1.2 billion his hedge fund has to pay the government. [DealBook / New York Times]
* Ted Cruz might be an “AASS,” but he’s done at least one awesome thing in his life. He once drank so much Everclear that he completely ruined a play put on by the Harvard Law drama society. [Boston Globe]
It says something about you to be labeled as the biggest jerk at Harvard Law School. The school runs on jerks the way Smurfs run on berries. To be universally recognized as the biggest jerk in your class requires an amazing commitment to inhumanity. Think about it: I’m a pretty big jerk, but was I the biggest jerk at HLS while I was there? Please. Kiwi Camara, come on down.
A GQ article by Jason Zengerle yesterday just lit up Ted Cruz over his history of being a giant a$$hole that nobody likes. Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo, whose wife was at HLS with Cruz, added to the reporting, calling Cruz an “AASS,” which stands for “A$$hole, Arrogant, Super Smart.”
I think a quarter of the HLS class are decent humans who are just trying to get through law school with minimal stress and drama. These are the people who are out there in the world doing good stuff and when somebody says, “Did you know so-and-so went to Harvard?” you’re surprised because they’re such regular, well-adjusted people. A full 50% of the class are impressionable sorts who can access their inner jerk at a moment’s notice. They think they’re decent people with a “dark side,” but actually they’re jerks who don’t have the strength of personality to pull it off all the time. These are the future Biglaw partners of the world.
The last quarter of the class is actively in pursuit of being an AASS. This odious group might go into law or politics or media. They certainly interview with Skadden, but otherwise they don’t last long in Biglaw because they can’t spend 10 years with nobody listening to them. You never for a second do not know which law school they attended.
I think we all know which group I fall into, but my point is that this last group, tallest midgets all, should get its own award named after Ted Cruz…
Okay. It finally happened. Our colleague Tamara Tabo finally wrote something that required a response from one of your faithful regular editors.
Tamara makes some excellent points about the incidence of rape not necessarily being higher in the military than in civilian institutions (at least as reported).
But the problem is not so much what she says, but why? What’s to be gained by taking to the pulpit and saying that the incidence of military rape is on par with civilian rape and that the concern of policymakers is misplaced?
The only answer is to suggest that military rape is not a problem because it’s in line with the rest of society. And that’s not a good argument.
But not as bad as the argument that drunk women are the real problem in rape cases…
On Tuesday, Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul joined Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in her push to pass new legislation that would remove the chain of command from military sexual assault cases. Senator Gillibrand argues that women in the military are afraid to report rapes, and when they do report them, the crimes are not always prosecuted.
People of conscience want sexual assault victims to report. We want sexual offenders to be duly processed and punished. We want individuals wrongly accused to suffer as little harm as possible as they clear their names. We share these broad goals, though we may differ about specific means of achieving them.
I respect Senator Gillibrand for formulating a proposal. I respect Senators Cruz and Paul for crossing the aisle to support legislation they believe in. I am unpersuaded, however, that this bill would adequately and fairly address the problem.
Legislation like Gillibrand’s treats as unique a problem that is not. Relevant statistics suggest that young women may be at no greater risk of being sexually assaulted in the military than being sexually assaulted on a college or university campus. Why propagate a message of fear that sending our daughters (or ourselves) into the service amounts to handing them over to an unpatrolled, unrepentant rape culture, but shipping off young women to college is relatively safe? Why send the message that our women are more likely to be raped by a fellow Marine than by a frat brother from Sigma Chi?
I keep telling people, if I just did my thing of making controversial statements that draw attention to myself, but called myself a “Republican” who happened to be black, I’d be a sitting Congressman right now instead of a blogger.
Well, maybe I’d need to buttress my “controversy” with being factually incorrect and an unwillingness to admit that I’m wrong. But I’m close to being enough of a train wreck to be a Republican candidate of color. Let me just… sorry… get this water right here… ahhhh.
Like me, current GOP crazypants darling Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School. He apparently learned the same lesson there that I did: never let facts get in the way of a good story. In a 2010 speech, Cruz said that when he was at HLS there were more Communists on the faculty than Republicans.
Now, that is clearly an outlandish and incorrect comment, said for effect to an audience that doesn’t know any better. But, in classic modern GOP fashion, when confronted with this ridiculous piece of rhetoric, Cruz stood by the statement.
Because for reasons passing understanding, it’s not enough to say that the faculty at Harvard Law School is overwhelmingly liberal (true), now they have to be Communist (not true) in order to gin up the requisite amount of hatred for Northeastern elites that Cruz (a Canadian who went to Princeton and then Harvard Law School) wants his constituents to feel….
Well, the election is over, and a gaggle of new Congressfolks and Senators are coming to Washington in January. Of this population, 43 percent are lawyers, reversing the decline in lawyer politicians. So let’s review the incoming class and you can not-so-quietly judge our new legislators for their education and experience in the comments.
Ten new members attended Harvard Law School, so congratulations Crimson for continuing your tradition as the shadowy institution ruling our lives. There are also some inspiring stories among the new members. Like Joseph P. Kennedy, who lifted himself up by the bootstraps and managed to get into Harvard without any connections whatsoever. Everyone’s education info and any interesting career tidbits are provided below.
Legal elites fared well on election night. For example, Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren is now Senatrix-elect Elizabeth Warren, after expertly landing Langdell Hall on top of Scott Brown (“I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little pickup truck too!”). As a Divacrat — I support strong, strident, brilliant (sorry Sarah Palin) women, regardless of their political party — I’m already fantasizing about Clinton/Warren in 2016.
Joining Warren on the Senate floor will be another great legal mind who spent some time in Cambridge, Harvard law grad and former SCOTUS clerk Ted Cruz. The Morgan Lewis partner is one of several current or former Biglaw attorneys who won office on Tuesday. (For more, see Am Law Daily.)
The biggest winner of the evening, of course, is also a legal elite: President Barack Obama. He’s a former law professor, like Warren; an HLS grad, like Cruz; and the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Things don’t get much more elite than that.
And in the legal world, things don’t get much more elite than the United States Supreme Court. This brings us to today’s question: What will a second Obama term mean for the Supreme Court?
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: email@example.com.
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.