In an environment where hours are scarce, a new report shows that white attorneys are coming out on top. A new survey suggests that African-American attorneys — and minority attorneys in general — are experiencing a greater pinch for hours than their white counterparts. The Minority Law Journal reports:

[M]inority lawyers surveyed said they posted fewer billable hours on average last year than their white counterparts. The average hours billed figure in 2008 was 1,862 for black midlevels, 1,925 for Asian Americans, 1,965 for Hispanics, and 1,976 for whites. And minority lawyers are unlikely to boost their relative output much in 2009. Projected billables for this year were just under 1,825 hours for Asian Americans and African Americans, about 1,840 for Hispanics, and roughly 1,890 for whites.

Hours are low all over, but these numbers indicate the pain is not being shared equally.

Are minority attorneys being “out-hustled” for work, or are these numbers just another manifestation of the old boys’ network?

More numbers from the report after the jump.

Who can forget Quinn Emanuel’s victory in the 17-year-long dispute over the name “Redskins”? Above the Law readers will remember Robert Raskopf’s happy victory email … and the first-year associate who had a problem with the firm’s representation of the Washington Football club. The first year was (eek!) fired for reasons unrelated to his disagreement with the firm’s position.

But is the firm’s position as strong as Raskopf thought? The Blog of the Legal Times reports that the Redskins case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court:

The long-running dispute over the appropriateness of the “Redskins” name for the Washington D.C. NFL football franchise reached the Supreme Court today. Philip Mause, partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in D.C., representing a group of Native Americans offended by the name, filed a petition for certiorari in the case titled Susan Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Was Raskopf’s victory email premature? More details, plus an UPDATE about the Native Americans’ game plan if SCOTUS doesn’t want to play, after the jump.

My wife and I live four blocks away from my mother. I have a little bit of experience balancing one’s mother and one’s wife and not getting crushed by a domestic pincer attack of disastrous consequences.

As any good husband-son will tell you, the best policy is to stay far, far away from any skirmishes between your wife and your mother. Never underestimate the power of “selective deafness.” My wife and my mother can be having a conversation right in front of me, and if I hear something that could lead to conflict, I can “un-hear” statements before they make it to my hippocampus. All I hear is “First-and-ten on the Dallas 40. Manning drops back … incomplete.”

Later I can agree with my wife’s interpretation and my mother’s interpretation with perfect honesty. What do I know? I wasn’t even there!

Of course, such familial gymnastics might not be possible if my wife were a public person. For instance, my mother-in-law lives thousands of miles away. I like that. On the public forum of this blog, all you’ll ever hear me say is “my mother-in-law is the bestest most awesomest person ever! It only took her a decade to learn how to pronounce my name!”

New York comedian Sunda Croonquist apparently doesn’t have my skill for tact. Her act, which has been featured on Comedy Central, apparently contains a number of jokes made at her mother-in-law’s expense.

Is she hoping to get a sitcom? Probably. But instead she’s earned a defamation lawsuit — filed by her mother-in-law.

Life happens fast. This morning we reported that Thomson Reuters had revoked free printer access to law schools in Puerto Rico.

It seems that the policy has now been reversed. A message from University of Puerto Rico law professor José Julián Álvarez González, after the jump.

Update (4:15): After this post went was published, Thomson Reuters reversed course and reinstated the free printer access to Puerto Rican law schools. Click here for our coverage.

Thomson Reuters owns Westlaw and is one of the two major gatekeepers to legal research in the modern world. Recently, the company made an economic decision that some claim unfairly impacts law students in Puerto Rico. A tipster reports:

It seems Westlaw has decided to cut their free printer service to the four Puerto Rico Law schools for economic reasons, while keeping the service in all US law schools.

Why would Westlaw only discontinue free printer access to Puerto Rican law students? One Westlaw user wrote to Thompson Reuters, asking the company to reconsider its decision. But he also seems to have figured out why Westlaw made this decision.

Yolanda Young is back with a vengeance, and an amended complaint against Covington & Burling.

The brief synopsis on Young is that she was a Covington & Burling staff attorney who sued the firm for racial discrimination. Covington has denied the charges at every point. The firm briefly got the suit tossed, but it was reinstated.

Young’s basic allegations remain the same:

Through its pattern and practice, Defendant, Covington & Burling LLP, systematically relegates its black attorneys to its lowest rung of practicing attorneys — the position of staff attorney. Firm policy bans the promotion of staff attorneys to the position of associate and, ultimately, to partner. This prohibition adversely impacts Defendant’s black attorneys by consigning the majority to earning less money, performing less challenging work, and enjoying less opportunity for professional growth than Defendant’s nonblack attorneys.

This time around, Young argues that black staff attorneys at Covington are more qualified than their white colleagues:

Young points out that while Covington uses a combination of law school grades, journal membership, and clerkship experience to determine the assignment of its attorneys, many of their partners — who decide how an attorney should be assigned — lack such credentials, but presumably are able to perform adequately at partner-level.

Young also asserts that black practicing attorneys, as a group, typically graduated from higher ranked law schools than their white colleagues and that, more often than their white counterparts, black staff attorneys attended law schools from which Covington’s partners, counsel, and associates graduated.

I think I know what is going on here. See, this is a revenge fantasy lawsuit. And Covington has been typecast in the role of Major King Kong.

After the jump, Young brings charts to back up her claims, and announces her full intentions exclusively to Above the Law.

Yesterday we told you about the firm Trial Lawyers For Justice asking job applicants to send in some non-standard information. Among other things, the firm asked potential employees to send in a family photograph.

We asked Nick Rowley — who wrote the ad asking for applicants to send in their personal story and political beliefs along with their picture — to explain how these factors affect his decision making process for new hires.

He furnished Above the Law with a full response. We’re publishing it full after the jump. Let Mr. Rowley know if you agree with his reasons in the comments.

We all know that it is difficult to get a job in this legal market. But an advertisement posted on the Minnesota state bar website makes it look like we are just one step away from genetic testing for junior associates. At least in Iowa.

The request for new talent starts off very earnestly:

DECORAH, IA plaintiff firm is seeking a brilliant hardworking lawyer who would rather do research and writing than be in court. Firm practices catastrophic injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful death and is seeking a lawyer licensed or in the process of becoming licensed in Iowa and/or Minnesota willing to get licensed in both with a possibility of Wisconsin and California, who is willing to relocate to Decorah, IA. Position will be handling of the firm’s law and motion, discovery, legal research, and appeals (to work 50 hours per week, full time inside the office to prepare the firm’s trial lawyers who travel and spend most of their time in court). One month paid vacation per year, salary is negotiable and commensurate with experience and qualifications, the firm may be willing to provide housing in Decorah, IA. Writing samples, resume, and examples of briefs and projects worked on is required.

But then this plaintiff’s firm ad becomes … kind of creepy:

Much thought is going to be put into who will fill this very important position with the firm. Persons who are interested are requested to email a personal story of who the applicant is, what his or her political beliefs are, and what they believe about justice and personal injury litigation along with a recent personal and/or family photograph.

Political beliefs? A family photo? You know, this is one time where a little “X law firm is an equal opportunity employer …” tagline would be comforting.

What law firm put this advertisement together? Details after the jump.

What’s better than a Boston cop emailing a newspaper specifically to call a black man a “banana eating jungle monkey”? Well when that same cop turns around and sues the police department for a civil rights violation. The Boston Globe reports:

Justin Barrett, the Boston police officer suspended from the force for his e-mail likening Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., to a “banana-eating jungle monkey,” has filed a lawsuit against the Police Department, police commissioner, and mayor, saying the city violated his civil and due process rights.

You know what would make this story perfect? If the cop who used racist slurs against Henry Louis Gates Jr. turned around and claimed intentional infliction of emotion distress:

The 18-page lawsuit accuses the three parties of “conspiring to intentionally inflict emotional distress and conspiring to intentionally interfere with the property rights, due process rights, and civil rights of the plaintiff.”

I. Just. Love. America.

Let me gather myself after the jump.

At a press conference today, Lucia Whalen spoke out about her 9-1-1 call and her role in the Gatesgate fiasco.

She said that she supports the Cambridge police and respects Professor Gates. She’s happy that the police released the actual tapes of her call to the police.

She also clarified that she only spoke to Sergeant Crowley briefly at the scene. While she wouldn’t speak about the police report specifically, she indicated that she did not say the “black males … with backpacks” line that was in Crowley’s police report.

As I said Monday, I feel bad for this woman. Her voice was shaking and she’s clearly been traumatized by the scrutiny of her actions. I totally apologize for jumping to conclusions about this woman based on the police report.

I just hope that Crowley feels bad for her too.

911 caller in Gates case speaks publicly [MSNBC.com]
Gatesgate: Let’s Go To The Audio Tape [True/Slant]

Earlier: Gatesgate: Caller Disputes the Police Report

The Cabbed Caller, who reported Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. to the police, now disputes the police report about what she told them in her 9-1-1 call. Instead, the caller — who has now been repeatedly identified as Lucia Whalen — contends that she did not know the race of the two people attempting to enter the house. According to the Boston Globe:

Lucia Whalen, saw the backs of both men and did not know their race when she called 911, said Wendy J. Murphy, a Boston lawyer from New England School of Law. Whalen phoned police, Murphy said, because she was aware of recent break-ins in the area.

Well, I guess I was wrong. On Friday, I questioned whether or not the woman acted appropriately in sicking the Cambridge police on Professor Gates while he was attempting to enter his house. Previously, I questioned whether Gates’s blackness prevented this woman from assessing the situation rationally.

Assuming the woman is telling the truth, then you can’t really fault her. You can fault the Cambridge police, for injecting race into a call where race wasn’t even mentioned.

More from Whalen’s side of the story, plus the 9-1-1 tape, after the jump.

If you’re a minority female, you’ll likely say ba-bye to your firm within five years, says a study from Catalyst, a non-profit focused on women and business issues.

The organization recently released a report titled, “Women of Color in U.S. Law Firms:”

According to Catalyst’s Women of Color in U.S. Law Firms, women of color face complex barriers compared to other groups that may significantly decrease job satisfaction and increase the intent to leave their current firm—factors that affect a firm’s bottom line. The study is the fourth and final in Catalyst’s Women of Color in Professional Services Series examining how the “intersectionality,” or combined identities of gender and race/ethnicity, puts women of color at a unique disadvantage in the workplace. Despite widespread existence of systems created to develop and advance women of color, research has shown that more than 75 percent of these women will leave their employer within five years, costing an amount potentially greater than each person’s total salary and benefits.

The organization surveyed 1,242 lawyers and conducted focus groups with women of color—including Asian women, black women, and Latinas— and then produced a 72-page report [pdf]. Here’s the short version from the Chicago Sun-Times:

75% bail within 5 years due to barriers.

Female lawyers of color being flaky is maybe not exactly the message that Catalyst wanted to send.

We skimmed the report, and must say it’s a bit dry. We’ve extracted the juicier bits — mainly the individual stories — after the jump.

Elie here. On Wednesday, I took a closer look at the woman who called the Cambridge police on Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. I wondered if she could be held liable under a good Samaritan statute, and asked if we should hold good Samaritans to a higher standard.

Most readers felt that the woman was beyond reproach. She saw “two black males with backpacks” attempting to enter a house, and most people — including Professor Gates and President Obama — felt she acted appropriately when she called the police.

Legal Blog Watch has published a great analysis suggesting that Gates’s arrest was unwarranted. Even if you take the police officer’s word about what happened inside the house, it was unlikely that a prosecution against Gates for disorderly conduct could have survived (at least based on the evidence we have now; there are rumors of tapes).

I understand that I am hanging far out on a thin limb, but I remain far from convinced that the woman acted appropriately. I do think, hypothetically, that there is a cognizable legal claim Professor Gates could have against the woman who turned him in. Here is the applicable Massachusetts “good Samaritan” statute:

Chapter 258C: Section 13. “Good Samaritans”; liability

Section 13. No person who, in good faith, provides or obtains, or attempts to provide or obtain, assistance for a victim of a crime as defined in section one, shall be liable in a civil suit for damages as a result of any acts or omissions in providing or obtaining, or attempting to provide or obtain, such assistance unless such acts or omissions constitute willful, wanton or reckless conduct.

On Wednesday, I suggested that the standard for liability was reasonableness, as opposed to “willful, wanton or reckless conduct.” Obviously, a recklessness standard is much more difficult to prove.

But after the jump, I make my case. And then Mr. David Lat slaps me upside the head makes his case … that I need to be Rule 11-ed right back to Tolerance 101.

This morning, we mentioned that Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. talked to the Washington Post about his arrest (the charges have already been dropped). But there is a lot of chatter around the web about this instance of racial profiling — or honest mistake, depending on your point of view.

Writing for the Daily Beast, Professor Gates’s daughter, Elizabeth Gates, conducted an interview with her father.

Meanwhile, Touré — who you might recognize from the wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage — channels Malcolm X when he asks, “What do you call a black man with a Ph.D.?”

Of course, I have my own take. But instead of focusing on the arresting police officers, I’m interested in the white lady who called the cops in the first place, and whether she’d be found liable under various theories of good Samaritan laws. I don’t think she met the “reasonable person” standard, but I’m also the guy who thought the person who took Madlyn Primoff’s children to an ice cream shop in the Kaye Scholer Mommy of the Day case was an idiot. At least I’m consistent.

Should we hold so-called “good Samaritans” to a higher standard?

Gatesgate: Racism 101 [True/Slant]
My Daddy, the Jailbird [Daily Beast]
Skip’s Racist Wakeup Call [Daily Beast]
Scholar Says Arrest Will Lead Him To Explore Race in Criminal Justice [Washington Post]

Earlier: Mommy of the Day Madlyn Primoff Gets Conditional Discharge

Last week, prominent African-American studies scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct after police confronted him for trying to break into his own home. There are accusations of racial profiling. Harvard Law School professor Charles Olgetree is representing Gates. The media are all over the story; even TMZ is covering it (and picking up on “yo’ mama” jokes from the police report). We’ve dubbed it Gatesgate,.and we gave you a full write-up of the incident this morning.

Charles Ogletree has prepared a statement about the incident and released it to The Root, a website co-founded by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Not surprisingly, his account sounds a bit different from the police report. Here’s an excerpt:

As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening.

No overt aggression, but apparently plenty of passive aggression from the officer.

Read in full at The Root.

UPDATE (12:30 p.m.): The AP reports that the disorderly conduct charge against Gates has been dropped:

The city of Cambridge issued a statement saying the arrest “was regrettable and unfortunate” and police and Gates agreed that dropping the charge was a just resolution.

“This incident should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department,” the statement said.

Too late for that.

Lawyer’s Statement on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. [The Root]
Charges dropped against black Harvard scholar [Associated Press]
WORD OF THE DAY: Gatesgate [Transracial]

Earlier: The Gatesgate Arrest Scandal: Harvard Law Prof Charles Ogletree to Represent

We mentioned Gatesgate yesterday in Non-Sequiturs. Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a prominent African-American studies scholar, was arrested on Thursday after a neighbor called police to report that Gates was trying to break into his own home.

The New York Times says Gates was returning from a trip to China, and that his door was jammed. He forced the door open with the help of a cab driver.

According to the police report [pdf], this led a woman passing by to call the police because she saw “two black males with backpacks… trying to force entry” into Gates’s home. At least the woman was a vigilant neighbor, even if she can’t recognize Henry Louis Gates.

When a police officer arrived, said he was investigating a break-in, and asked Gates to step outside, Gates was understandably offended. From the NYT:

Gates accused the investigating officer of being a racist and told him he had “no idea who he was messing with,” the report said.

Gates told the officer that he was being targeted because “I’m a black man in America.”

Frustrated, Gates initially refused to hand over his ID, but eventually relented, providing his Massachusetts driver’s license and his Harvard identification card. Gates had a few choice comments for the officers, including a yo’ mama joke.

Last week, we brought you the story of a former Mayer Brown associate who is suing the firm. We have some more back story on the plaintiff, Venus Yvette Springs, and she certainly sounds like a colorful person.

Before joining Mayer Brown, Springs worked at Cadwalader. According to our tipsters, she left CWT in an interesting fashion:

In her departure email from Cadwalader, she quoted all sorts of religious passages and talked about how she wanted to devote her life to pro bono.

Shortly thereafter, she wound up at Mayer Brown — one of the largest and most profitable law firms on the planet.

In her complaint against Mayer Brown, Springs alleged that the firm did not count her pro bono hours as it had promised. Of course, working in the real estate department at a major firm hardly sounds like a life “devoted to pro bono.” She wants to work with clients who can’t pay, but wants to make sure she gets a plump pay check anyway.

But maybe she needed to support her family. Unconfirmed reports say that her husband is Jules Springs. Jules Springs recently pleaded guilty to mortgage fraud. No word on whether or not Mr. Springs was an equal opportunity defrauder.

After the jump, Venus Springs compares her plight at Mayer Brown to the Holocaust. I wish I were making that up.

A former Mayer Brown associate, Venus Yvette Springs, has filed a complaint against the firm. She alleges Mayer Brown discriminated against her and eventually fired her in 2008.

Springs was an associate in the real estate group of Mayer Brown, Charlotte. In her complaint, she claims that the head of the group, Frank Arado, said that he would make her a partner with the firm as recently as March 2008. But in May 2008, she was informed that she would be fired. She was officially terminated in September of 2008. The heart of her discrimination claim seems to be this paragraph:

In a statement obtained by Above the Law, Mayer Brown strenuously denied the claims:

Mayer Brown has not yet been served with the complaint filed by former employee Yvette Springs. However, based on our current review, we believe her claims have no merit. We will defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Consistent with our policy of not commenting on personnel matters or pending litigation, we have nothing further to say.

Additional details after the jump.

The Marcus Epstein story just keeps getting better and better. We reported that the Tom Tancredo staffer lost his spot at UVA Law school after he slapped a woman in the head after using a racial epithet.

How do you top getting drunk and slapping black women? Talking Points Memo found Epstein’s facebook photo album from his trip to Ethiopia. Facebook has removed the page, but one of the screen caps is preserved over at Gawker.

The Gawker pic has him regarding Ethiopian art. His caption is:

It’s no Sistine Chapel, but you know what Samuel Johnson said about a Dog walking on it’s [sic] hind legs.

We at Above the Law have seen the full photo album, but Facebook is an angry God. We don’t want to get banned from its precincts.

We’ll share more photo captions after the jump.

Here’s a post devoted to the perils of “Reply All” and idealism among first-year associates. Brought to you by the attorneys of Quinn Emanuel.

The firm just celebrated a victory in its Washington Redskins case, reports the Washington Post:

A federal appeals court yesterday handed the Washington Redskins another victory in their long-running legal dispute with Native American activists over the team’s name.

The appeals court did not address whether the name was offensive but upheld a federal judge’s ruling last year that a Native American man had waited too long to challenge six Redskins trademarks.

AmLaw Daily reports that Quinn attorney Robert Raskopf, who has been working on the case for as long it has been since the Redskins have seen a Superbowl stadium, was pretty psyched about the victory:

Raskopf was in a good mood when we spoke with him about the appellate win. He’s been on the case since it started 17 years ago. “It’s a great win for the team,” said Raskopf, who had help from Quinn partner Sanford Weisburst on the brief. “I’m so happy for the Redskins and their fans.”

Raskopf was so happy on Friday that he sent out a firm-wide victory e-mail. But not everybody was thrilled. After bouncing around the firm and racking up some responses, the victory chain made its way to our inbox via a tipster:

This is too good not to share. This was sent to all Quinn attorneys.
—-
The First Year Associate Who Shat All Over Raskopf’s Victory Email OR The First Year Associate Who Repurposed the Redskins

After the jump, see the chain that culminates in a (soon-to-be-fired?) first-year associate’s plea for idealistic litigation at Quinn.