This morning we announced the winners of the recent contest to find NYU Law School’s hottest third-year law students. And now we’ve obtained pictures of all ten female hotties. Exciting!
These future babes of the bar should not be kept imprisoned within the ivory tower. For your viewing pleasure, here they are:
Top row, left to right: Xinying Chi, Noa Clark, Kate Fischer, Shaneeda Jaffer, Gina Magel. Bottom row: Ani Mason, Rachael McCracken, Tara Mikkilineni, Zoe Salzman, Rashanda Sibley.
In the initial contest, the ten winners were unranked. But in the hyper-competitive legal profession, that’s unacceptable. We will now fix that. Cast your vote below, in Above the Law’s latest hotties contest:
Three quick comments:
1. Why no men?
Nobody sent us the photos of the ten winning males. But if someone does, we’ll hold a contest for them too. Update: We’ve received pictures of the guys. Review and vote on them here.
2. Can’t you please remove [me/my friend/my daughter] from the contest?
Sorry, no can do. Over the years, we have conducted numerous beauty contests: for federal judges, White House staffers, Capitol Hill interns, ERISA lawyers, and law school deans. We’ve received numerous requests for one competitor or another to be removed from the running. But we have NEVER tampered with the integrity of the electoral process to comply with such requests — no matter how impassioned, and no matter how important the individual.
That’s not about to change with this poll. So please don’t waste your time and energy trying to persuade us to remove someone (e.g., yourself) from the contest. The ten contestants are all staying in. And that’s final.
(If you obtain an injunction from a court with proper jurisdiction, we will obviously comply with that court order. But anything short of that will not suffice.)
3. When will the voting end?
Uncertain; let’s see what kind of response the contest generates. But we will, out of fairness to the contenders, provide at least 24 hours notice before closing the polls.
To the NYU Law School hotties: GOOD LUCK!!! Earlier: Your NYU Law School Hotties NYU Law Students: Dorkily Desirable?
We can’t say we’re surprised. The readers of ATL probably have a higher-than-average tolerance for things that push the envelope (or the bounds of good taste). But for what they’re worth, here are the results of our most recent reader poll:
Reader opinion is consistent with that of Dahlia Lithwick, who had this to say about the controversy:
Help me out here. Because I consider myself a feminist and I am always one to fetch a pail of water in the service of gender equity. But can someone please explain what it is about this particular ad that “demeans women” and undermines our success in the workplace?
Can someone help me understand why the president of the Women’s Bar Association wrote in to the publication in question, calling this ad a form of “gender discrimination”? Am I supposed to be outraged about the fact that this nearly naked woman is using her near nakedness to seduce a colleague (a trick that goes back to the first fig leaf, I believe) or that a clothing company is using the promise of uncontrollable, spontaneous workplace sex to seduce clients (a trick that goes back to the first Fig Leaf Emporium)? Not much about the ad suggests that women are disempowered, after all. This couple could be married. The man might be the woman’s secretary. He may well be billing her by the hour….
“The man might be the woman’s secretary.” An excellent point. And kinda hot, too.
Is the Jiwani ad sexist only if you approach it looking for sexism? Jurisprudes? [Slate] Earlier: The Jiwani Ad: Hot or Rot?
Both Microsoft Outlook and Lotus Notes have a “message recall” feature. Of course, it’s a bit late for Emily Pataki to invoke it, so as to retract the office-wide email she sent to her White & Case colleagues about failing the New York bar exam.
But if Emily agrees with the majority of you, she probably wishes she had never sent that e-mail. Here are the results of our ATL reader poll:
We’re a bit surprised at the tally; we expected the vote to be closer. We didn’t think so many of you would disapprove of her handling of the situation. But this is your verdict, for what it’s worth.
Maybe the best advice can be found in this reader comment: “Repeat after me: an office wide email is never, ever a good idea.” Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Emily Pataki (scroll down)
Inspired by litigation taking place in Massachusetts, we recently polled you on this question:
Is a burrito a sandwich?
The poll result was clear, and in accordance with the ruling by Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke: No, a burrito is not a sandwich.
It’s gratifying when the law coincides with the commonsense conclusions of ordinary people — since it doesn’t happen as often as one might like.
(We do not wish to get into a debate on whether or not the common law is (was?) efficient. It’s just a throwaway line to end this post. Okay?) Earlier: ATL Reader Poll: Is a Burrito a Sandwich?
Failing the New York State bar exam. And emailing her White & Case colleagues about it.
We’ve already covered this story; click here. But since it’s what everyone is buzzing about today, we’ll give in to your appetite for more discussion. Two requests for your assistance:
1. If you work at White & Case, went to Columbia Law School or Yale College with Emily Pataki, or are otherwise acquainted with her, we’d love to hear from you.
What’s Emily like in person? Any thoughts on why she didn’t pass? How are people at the firm reacting to her email? If you have information to share, please email us.
2. We’re curious about whether other people think it was wise or unwise for Emily to send out that mass email to her White & Case colleagues about her failing the New York bar exam.
So please share your views in the comments to this post. And cast your vote in this reader poll:
Panera has a clause in its lease that prevents the White City Shopping Center in Shrewsbury, Mass., from renting to another sandwich shop. Panera tried to invoke that clause to stop the opening of an Qdoba Mexican Grill.
But Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke cited Webster’s Dictionary as well as testimony from a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official in ruling that Qdoba’s burritos and other offerings are not sandwiches.
The difference, the judge ruled, comes down to two slices of bread versus one tortilla.
For some interesting thoughts on the issue, check out PrawfsBlawg and ACS Blog (especially the comments).
Cast your vote below. Andale, andale!
You may recall our recent Above the Law reader polls for Most Favorite Supreme Court Justice and Least Favorite Supreme Court Justice. The results of those polls are available here and here, respectively.
One of you had an interesting suggestion: Combine the results of the two polls to generate “net popularity scores” for the justices. These scores, combining measures of how much each justice is liked and disliked, could be viewed as measuring “overall” popularity.
We thought it would be interesting to see the results, so we went ahead and did this. We took the percentage of the vote each justice received in the “Most Favorite” poll, then subtracted from it the percentage of the vote received in the “Least Favorite” poll. We labeled the result the justice’s “Net Popularity Score” (NPS).
Here are the results of this number-crunching, with the justices ranked by NPS, from highest to lowest:
A few quick thoughts:
1. The rankings strike us as decent measures of overall popularity. Two of the top three finishers are favorites of their respective ideological wings. Justice Scalia, a cult figure among conservatives, comes in first; Justice Stevens, a hero of the liberals, places third.
2. The Chief is like Sara Lee: Nobody doesn’t like him. He got zero percent of the votes in the “Least Favorite” poll (just 24 votes out of 6,290). And, presumably due to his good looks and great resume — since he doesn’t have many opinions to be judged by yet — he won 16 percent of the “Most Favorite” vote. This gave him an NPS of 16, almost enough to beat Nino.
3. The next three justices — Justices Breyer, Thomas, and Alito — have net popularity scores close to zero. This makes sense too: as jurists, they don’t excite grand passion (even if Justice Thomas, prior to his confirmation, was a controversial figure).
4. Justice Alito, a fairly low-key personality, earns a “perfect” score of zero. Two percent of voters picked him as their favorite; two percent picked him as their least favorite. He’s like The Justice Who Wasn’t There (although, in fairness to Justice Alito, he’s too new to the bench to have made many enemies or fans).
5. Three justices have negative net popularity scores: Justices Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg. Their negative scores may have been affected by the fact that the voter pool in the “Least Favorite Justice” pool skewed to the right (thanks in large part to an Instapundit link).
6. As for why Justice Ginsburg attracted such a high percentage of the “least favorite” votes, Ann Althouse — and her commenters — have some interesting thoughts on the matter. Earlier: ATL Poll Results: Your LEAST Favorite Supreme Court Justice ATL Poll Results: Your Favorite Supreme Court Justice
Last week we asked for your input on the most flattering hairstyle for Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the exceedingly prestigious D.C. Circuit. Judge Brown, a high-powered and conservative jurist, may someday be the first African-American woman to sit on the Supreme Court.
We offered you a choice of two looks: “Bangs Janice” and “Perm Janice.” And “Bangs Janice” won in a landslide, with 92 percent of the vote.*
We can see why. Consider this reader email (with photographic support):
This is an easy one: “Bangs Janice” all the way. With bangs, Judge Brown looks like the hip and attractive comedienne, Wanda Sykes:
“Perm Janice,” on the other hand, calls to mind a different black woman:
We agree; Judge Brown should steer clear of that second look. Left-wingers already try to reduce Judge Brown to a racial stereotype (as BlackCommentator.com did when it published an offensivecartoon of her). Judge Brown doesn’t need to help them do it.**
Do you know of a prominent figure within the legal profession who sports two (or more) divergent looks? If so, please let us know. We’re always seeking other candidates to go before the jury in ATL’s Courtroom of Style.
* One reader objected to our hairstyle terminology. But even if our terms were erroneous, we provided photographs to make clear which hairstyle was which. So voters should not have been confused.
** Conservatives wereoutraged by the JRB cartoon. In the words of Byron York, the cartoon depicted Judge Brown “as a fat black woman with huge lips, an unruly Afro, and an enormous backside.” Earlier: A Random Friday Poll: The Hairstyles of Judge Janice Rogers Brown
* Gay marriages legally-cognizable-relationships-that-will-probably-get-called-civil-unions are coming to New Jersey.
* Superstar lawyer Ted Olson, who is not gay, got married — to a lovely lady named Lady. And ATL has the exclusive photos to prove it.
* Law firms are tying the knot too. The latest to head for the altar: Dewey Ballantine and Orrick.
* Things are going less smoothly for celebrities. Country music star Sara Evans is getting divorced. Jane Pauley is filing suit. Naomi Campbell is getting arrested. And Foxy Brown is getting sentenced.
* Paralegal pay ain’t half bad, as long as you work for Biglaw — and put in lots of overtime.
* Think grammar and punctuation are silly and useless? Listen to the cautionary tale of the costly comma.
* Justice Scalia: You like him, you really like him!
* As for your Least Favorite Supreme Court Justice, we’ll keep the polls open over the weekend. To vote, click here.
* And if you’d like to cast a ballot in a more frivolous poll, help Judge Janice Rogers Brown pick a hairstyle. To vote, click here.
Watch to find out what some of our subscribers received in their May box!
The proper hair styling product might just be the only thing standing between you and your dream job. And the best way to find what works for you is to try the best stuff on the market. Join Birchbox Man for $20 a month and you’ll get customized shipments of the best grooming and lifestyle gear on the market every month—everything from haircare and shaving supplies to style accessories and tech gadgets.
As the leading discovery commerce platform, Birchbox is redefining the retail process by offering consumers a unique and personalized way to discover, learn about, and shop the best grooming and lifestyle products out there. It’s a full 360-degree process: try, learn, buy. Once you sign up and fill out your profile, head over to Birchbox Man’s online magazine to find article and video tutorials on how to get the most out your monthly box products. Pick up full-size versions of anything you like in the Birchbox Shop and earn points for every purchase.
We currently have a number of active openings for associate roles at US and UK firms in HK / China, Singapore and two new in-house openings. As always, please feel free to reach out to us at email@example.com in order to get details of current openings in Asia, as well as to discuss the Asia markets in general and what we expect for openings later this year. Our Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney will be in Beijing the week of March 25 and Evan Jowers will be in Hong Kong the week of April 1, if you would like to meet them in person.
The US associate openings we have in law firms are in the usual areas of M&A, cap markets, FCPA / white collar litigation, finance, and project finance. The most urgent of our top tier (top 15 US or magic circle) law firm openings in Asia (among many other firm openings that we have in Asia) are as follows:
• 2nd to 5th year mandarin fluent M&A associates needed in Beijing and Hong Kong at several firms;
• Korean fluent 2nd to 4th year cap markets associate needed in Hong Kong;
• 2nd to 5th year Japanese fluent M&A associates needed in Tokyo;
• 4th to 6th year mandarin fluent cap markets associate needed in Hong Kong;
• 2nd to 4th year M&A / cap markets mix associate needed in Singapore.
The last time I flapped my wings your way, I tried to make at least enough noise about your mobile phone to make you more than a little bit uncomfortable. I hope I did. If enough of us become anxious enough about the known and unknown unknowns and knowns in our mobile phones, then we can start making wise decisions about how to manage that information and its resultant investigations.
Today, I’d like to put a finer point on the last installment’s topic by asking a question that seemed to catch most attendees off-guard at a conference panel that I moderated last week: is there discoverable personal information in a mobile app? Our panelists’ answer was a uniform “yes” with one stating that, if he had to choose only one type of data that he could discover from a mobile phone, he’d choose app data. Why? Because there’s simply so much of it and because almost all of it is objective – not just user-created like an email – but machine-tracked like GPS, usage duration, log in and log out times, browsed web addresses, browsed actual addresses. Also, most of us seem to have the idea that data doesn’t actually “stick” to our mobile devices the way it “sticks” to our hard drives. Maybe there’s a disconnect based on the fact that our phones are mobile so we assume the data is mobile to?
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!