Last week we covered some goings-on -- or non-goings-on, to those of you who found them boring -- at Shearman & Sterling. Here's a quick update.

We reported that, according to the firm, there have been no staff layoffs. One source writes:

I'd like to know how they define administrative staff, as they laid off their entire word processing / document production center (i.e legal word processors, proofreaders, EDGAR operators, and supervisors) in February 2007. It has since been disastrously outsourced....

Outsourcing from a year and a half ago isn't what we had in mind when we asked about recent layoffs. But we pass that along, for what it's worth; we do aim to be accurate.

In the comments, there were some rumors about start dates for 2009 associates. We're looking into the rumors and will report back. If you can confirm, please email us.

Update: We're still waiting for official word from the firm, but one Shearman offeree confirms that yes, start dates for incoming associates next year will be no earlier than November 30, 2009.

Finally, we wondered whether there might be an interesting story surrounding the one out of 140 summer associates who didn't get an offer. It turns out that there is.

Find out what it takes to get no-offered by Shearman these days, after the jump.

Their personal identity information gets compromised by data breaches. From the Washington Post:

Sometime late last year, an employee of a McLean investment firm decided to trade some music, or maybe a movie, with like-minded users of the online file-sharing network LimeWire while using a company computer. In doing so, he inadvertently opened the private files of his firm, Wagner Resource Group, to the public.

That exposed the names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of about 2,000 of the firm's clients, including a number of high-powered lawyers and Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer....

A spokesman for Breyer said the justice had no comment on the security breach, which came to light after the reader notified Security Fix and the blog alerted some of the Wagner clients.

Eh, but who cares about lowly -- or low-paid -- Supreme Court justices? Lordly law firm partners were also victimized: "'This may explain why two weeks ago I got a $9,000 cellphone bill from AT&T,' said Steven Agresta, a partner with the law firm Alston & Bird."

Or maybe a certain A&B summer associate got a hold of Agresta's cell phone, and decided to call his homies back in Croatia. Did Agresta also get charged for a small fortune in necktie purchases?

Update: Some of you have asked for an update about Divljan Shatterhand Steele. He's still a summer associate at Alston & Bird, where he is doing well and has become something of a minor celebrity.

Justice Breyer Is Among Victims in Data Breach Caused by File Sharing [Washington Post via Drudge]

While we're on the subject of Supreme Court clerks...

The AMK clerk who worked on Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the Court held that imposing the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional, has committed an even bigger boo-boo than the JGR clerk who screwed up the Bob Dylan quotation.

As noted yesterday, sometimes the Elect are "just like us."

In Court Ruling on Executions, a Factual Flaw [New York Times]
The Supremes Dis the Military Justice System [CAAFlog]

Earlier this year, the Office of Career Services at NYU Law School sent out a very informative memo offering advice to future summer associates. We got our hands on it, so we thought we'd share. If you are a current or future summer associate, you should read it; check it out in full, after the jump.

The best part of the memo, "Real World Examples of Career Limiting Behavior," is essentially a "greatest hits" list of summer-associate screw-ups, bloopers, and faux pas. They range from the mildly embarrassing to the offer-killing. We've reproduced it below.

The memo is titled "How To Succeed As A Summer Associate." Think of these items as "How NOT To Succeed As A Summer Associate -- or, alternatively, "How To Succeed As A Summer Ass."

VIII. Real World Examples of Career Limiting Behavior:

A. Unimpressed with the quality of the wine being served at the summer welcome dinner, summer associate orders a special bottle of wine. To make matters worse, summer associate charges the wine to the firm.

B. Summer associate complains about having a windowless office and then claims to have been "promised" a window during the interview process.

C. Summer associate is criticized for filing motion without attachments . . . summer associate blames the secretary.

D. Summer associate shows up at all firm events involving food, and is so busy eating that they fail to socialize with anyone else.

E. Summer associate makes typographical errors in memoranda.

F. Summer associate paints their toenails in the office, assuming 10 p.m. is "her own time".

G. Summer associate refuses to work past 7:00 p.m. or on weekends.

H. Summer associate sleeps 12 hours a day during the firm's three-day sailing trip.

I. Summer associate fails to Shepardize.

J. Summer associate yells at support staff.

K. Summer associate misses a deadline.

L. Summer associate makes up citation to support the position he/she is trying to prove in a brief filed with the court (resulting in immediate termination and letter to Board of Professional Responsibility).

M. Wishing to play on the firm's ice hockey team, summer associate loudly and persistently discusses their skill as a high school hockey player and claims that he would easily be the best player on the ice. The senior associate who organizes the team is a former NHL player.

N. Summer associate decides to give client legal advice without the express permission of supervising attorney.

O. Summer associate refuses to make edits to a draft brief because "I was an English major in college and I know your edits are incorrect."

By the way, "Career-Limiting Behavior" is our new favorite expression. We're going to start using that more often around here.

That's just the start of the list; it's rather long, but entertaining (and enlightening). Read the rest, plus the full memo, after the jump.

That's what our colleagues over at Dealbreaker are reporting. But we just checked in with them, and they don't know whether it was an in-house lawyer at JP Morgan Chase or someone at Wachtell Lipton, JPMorgan's outside counsel on the deal. If you have more details, please email us.

P.S. If you're not familiar with what's going on here, read this earlier ATL post and this earlier Dealbreaker post, which supply the necessary background.

Update: A source at our former firm reports that "everyone at WLRK who worked on JPM/BS is still very much 'with the firm.'" This is consistent with the chatter in the comments, to the effect that the lawyer in question works in-house at JPMorgan Chase.

People Moves: Anyone Need A Lawyer? [Dealbreaker]

Earlier: Wachtell Lipton: Fallible After All?

When judges preside over law school moot court arguments, like the one at Columbia Law School last week, they often dish out this compliment to the student advocates: "You're better than most of the practicing lawyers who appear before us."

And maybe they're not just being nice. If we had gotten to this item a bit earlier -- it's from last week -- Roger Phipps would have been a Lawyer of the Day. We're happy to declare him our Lawyer of Last Week.

Over at the Legal Profession Blog, Professor Alan Childress draws attention to this per curiam opinion (PDF) by the Fifth Circuit. Here's an excerpt:

[W]e would be remiss if we did not comment on the conduct of Roger Phipps, counsel for Hartz, during oral argument in this case on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Phipps’ conduct towards the Court during argument was unprofessional. Even more serious was his admission that during his work on the case (including his preparation for argument), he had not read a key Supreme Court case. His cavalier disregard for his client’s interest and for his obligation to the Court was both troubling and disgraceful. [FN4]

Accordingly, we are ordering Phipps to provide his client, Hartz, a copy of our opinion immediately after it is released. In order to ensure compliance, we are further directing him to supply our Court with proof of service.

Ouch. So what did Phipps do to incur the court's wrath?

Read the text of footnote four, after the jump.

Update: For a postscript to this story, see here.

As we can see from the comments, you're already all over this NYT story. We linked to it in Morning Docket, but here's a little more. Andrew Ross Sorkin writes:

JPMorgan and Bear were prompted to renegotiate after shareholders began threatening to block the deal and it emerged that several “mistakes” were included in the original, hastily written contract, according to people involved in the talks.

One sentence was “inadvertently included,” according to a person briefed on the talks, which requires JPMorgan to guarantee Bear’s trades even if shareholders voted down the deal. That provision could allow Bear’s shareholders to seek a higher bid while still forcing JPMorgan to honor its guarantee, these people said.

When the error was discovered, James Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, who was described by one participant as “apoplectic,” began calling his lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz to seek a way to have the sentence modified, these people said. Finger pointing over the mistakes in the contracts began as bankers blamed the lawyers and vice versa.

We don't have much to add to Ted Frank's excellent observations. Here's an open thread for anti-Wachtell schadenfreude.

(They're big boys -- and they send their clients big bills. So the WLRK folks can take a little snark and ribbing from the ATL commentariat.)

Update (11:40 AM): Actually, did Wachtell make a mistake? If so, what exactly was their error? Over at Dealbreaker, our colleague John Carney wonders: "How do you 'inadvertently include' a provision everyone is talking about?" (Gavel bang: commenter.)

How Do You Inadvertently Include A Provision Everyone Is Talking About? [Dealbreaker]
The dangers of doing an M&A agreement over a weekend [Overlawyered]
Did Mistakes in the JPM-Bear Contract Help Lead to Renegotiation? [WSJ Law Blog]
JPMorgan in Negotiations to Raise Bear Stearns Bid [New York Times]

That statement was made by Samantha Power, a top foreign policy aid for Obama and new-ish love interest of Professor Cass Sunstein. Sunstein recently accepted a position at Harvard Law, leaving behind in Chicago his ex, philosopher Martha Nussbaum. Bossman David Lat posted all the gossip about the academic love triangle here.

Power, pictured, let her words slip during an interview in London with The Scotsman yesterday. Other tasty bits from that interview:

"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted.

"You just look at her [Clinton] and think, 'Ergh'.

Apparently, Ms. Power was under the impression that her remarks were "off the record," and therefore couldn't be attributed to her. The interview was actually totally on the record, and The Scotsman gives an explanation at the bottom of the link.

Update: Power has resigned from the Obama campaign, effective immediately. See here (AP article) and here (follow-up post).

'Hillary Clinton's a monster': Obama Aid Blurts out Attack in Scotsman Interview [The Scotsman]

Some minor email amusement, in the spirit of Skadden Arps and Pepper Hamilton, courtesy of the Chicago office of DLA Piper:

This is a pretty cool goof by Bill Rudnick, the new head of DLA Piper's Chicago office. A group of partners just came over from Locke Lord Bissell, and apparently one of them went back to Locke Lord within a week.

Around 8:30 p.m. last Wednesday, three messages went out to the Chicago office all within a couple minutes. The first e-mail below went out first, followed by a "recall" message, and then the last message below.

Read the emails, after the jump.

Cynics might say the firm is rearranging the proverbial deck chairs, but these leadership changes strike us as prudent. From a report by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal:

As it wrestles with an ongoing slump in its core capital markets practice, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft has shaken up its top management team.

The New York-based law firm announced today that Robert O. Link, its longtime chairman and managing partner, would relinquish the position of chairman to W. Christopher White, effective March 1. Mr. Link will continue to serve as Cadwalader's managing partner and remain a member of the firm's six-partner management committee.

The firm minimizes the import of the change:

[Management committee member (and Cameron Diaz pal) Gregory] Markel said the elevation of Mr. White was "not in any way a criticism of Bob." He said the firm would regard Messrs. White and Link as a team, with neither reporting to the other.

Additional discussion, which will probably interest only die-hard CWT groupies, after the jump.

Here's a possible answer. From the Daily Business Review:

In unauthorized court order generated by a law clerk in a case before Chief U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno resulted in the suspension of shipments of older generation PlayStation consoles through Miami for three months.

The errant preliminary injunction dated last Oct. 24 granted more than Sony was requesting and contained typographical errors and apparent contradictions. It was withdrawn this month.

The order effectively stopped the defendants from moving Sony consoles and accessories through the Port of Miami for export to Latin America but also instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to “hold and preserve any and all goods bearing the PlayStation trademarks” at the port.

Customs agents applied the order to all companies importing PlayStation goods through the Port of Miami.

As for the law clerk in question, the DBR article identifies him:

According to numerous sources in the legal community, the law clerk who handled the order is Matthew Bohrer, son of prominent media lawyer Sanford Bohrer. Matthew Bohrer, whose clerkship is scheduled to end soon, is still listed as one of Moreno’s clerks on the Web site for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Bohrer did not return calls for comment before deadline. His father, a Miami partner with Holland & Knight in Miami who has represented the Review and other news media on First Amendment and other legal matters, had no comment.

More details, including excerpts from the rather odd order, over here.

The Judiciary: Unauthorized court order halts PlayStation shipments [Daily Business Review]

Although many tipsters emailed us about it, we never wrote about this buzz-generating Wall Street Journal article, reporting on how many older lawyers are displeased by the overly informal, even sloppy attire of their younger colleagues. We didn't write about it earlier because we felt preempted: the piece received lots of online attention, from such widely read outlets as the ABA Journal and the WSJ Law Blog, where it generated heavy comment traffic.

But now we have a new angle on it. Focus on these portions of Christina Binkley's WSJ article:

[Winston & Strawn D.C. managing partner Thomas Mills] says he is partial to well-fitted Brioni suits for himself. He notes that the going rate for new associates in New York, Los Angeles and Washington is $160,000 a year -- enough to buy suits while paying down school loans. Yet all too often, associates show up at work in jeans -- attire that he doesn't condone "unless it's moving day."

Winston & Strawn brought in a personal shopper from a local department store last year to address associates on how to shop and dress for work. Mr. Mills says that when some associates do make an effort to dress up, they seem to base their look on Hollywood. "You get the TV-woman lawyer look with skirts 12 inches above the knee and very tight blouses," he says. "They have trouble sitting and getting into taxis."

These remarks apparently didn't go over too well back at Winston:

W&S DC office's managing partner comes off as a total a**. His comments re: his custom suits are one thing. But his comments re: the way women in the office dress have created a stir....

People are seriously pissed, particularly the women. Man comes off as a total pig.... Read the article, you'll see why.

This is prime ATL material. Firm has called impromptu associates meeting for 9:30 Monday, no topic given. But the guess is it is damage control.

The guess was correct. More about the meeting, after the jump.

We've spent a ridiculous amount of time and energy trying to get to the bottom of the bonus situation at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. We've heard all sorts of conflicting rumors, but we think we've finally figured things out -- to the extent that they can be figured out. This post supersedes all prior coverage of CWT bonuses.

In Litigation, we think that bonuses were fairly straightforward. This is our understanding, on very good authority:

1. 1900 hours and above = full, market-level, year-end and special bonus.

2. Between 1850 and 1900 = 75 percent of the regular year-end bonus, but NO special bonus.

3. Below 1850 = nothing, nada, zilch. Unless you were a first-year from the class of 2006 (first full year at CWT), in which case you got 50 percent of a year-end bonus.

4. For purposes of calculating hours, only client billable, pro bono, and "pre-approved" marketing hours counted. Other marketing hours, and recruiting hours, were NOT counted.

Read more -- including a dramatic epic narrative from a CWT associate, describing how the firm epically mishandled the bonus situation -- after the jump.

This has been all over the news. We like the ABA Journal's version, 'cause it's the crispest:

The Atlanta judge overseeing the prosecution of alleged courthouse shooter Brian Nichols has stepped aside from the case after he was quoted [in a New Yorker article] as saying, “Everyone in the world knows he did it.”

The New Yorker piece was by one of our idols, prosecutor-turned-writer Jeffrey Toobin (who launched our blogging career, with this Talk of the Town piece). Judge Fuller and Jeff Toobin were interviewed by the Fulton County Daily Report about the controversy:

"I had a specific agreement with Toobin," said Fuller on Tuesday, before announcing his recusal. "Our conversation was to be on background only, and there would be no direct quotations or attributions, unless they were floated by me first."

Not so, said Toobin, reached in New York. "I don't know what to say," he said. "I mean, it was clearly for attribution; we even had a New Yorker fact-checker call and confirm it. ... I have great respect for Judge Fuller, but that was not at all my understanding."

We're with the meticulous Toobin on this one. In fact, we share the suspicion of one of the correspondents who wrote us about this story: Was Judge Fuller's indiscretion intentional? Was it his way of getting out from under a long and complex nightmare of a case?

Judge Recuses From Courthouse Shooting Case Due to New Yorker Quotes [ABA Journal]
Judge Fuller recuses from Nichols case [Fulton County Daily Report]
Judge in Courthouse Shooting Case Steps Down [New York Times]
Death in Georgia [The New Yorker]
New Yorker Quote Leads to Atlanta Judge Recusal [WSJ Law Blog]

Georgetown is an excellent law school -- "T14" (top 14), as some like to say -- with many things going for it. Supreme Court justices love to visit. Students get to take classes like The Law of 24. The diva-licious Nina Totenberg speaks at commencement.

Perhaps most importantly, at least to readers of ATL, Georgetown grads land excellent jobs. Not surprisingly, in a recent poll, a majority of respondents said they'd need $100,000 to turn down 14th-ranked Georgetown in favor of, say, 51st-ranked Arizona State (maybe 'cause they'd like to be separated from Kumari Fulbright by multiple states).

But GULC isn't perfect. Mistakes get made -- mistakes that could, say, compromise your personally identifiable information (and mess with your credit score). From several tipsters:

"You might want to post this so anyone who graduated during this time but didn't get the e-mail knows about the stolen identities."

"I got this warning this morning. Evidently, not everyone is affected, as students next to me in class have not received the email. Just thought I'd forward this along to show the problems at American could be worse - at least their identities aren't at risk."

View the email, after the jump.

Update: We have also posted a follow-up to the original message.

Remember MacGate, at American University's Washington College of Law? It was resolved. But technology problems persist at WCL:

Date: January 28, 2008 2:34:20 PM EST
Subject: Wireless at WCL

Dear Student Body:

The following problems have been discovered with the WCL network:

1. All access points in room 101 were either turned off, or nonfunctional for the past two years.

2. All access points on the 5th floor were located in elevator shafts, or other places where they did not provide coverage.

3. Certain points on the 6th floor were assigned the wrong IP address,and so did not provide access.

The Technology department is working to address these problems. If you continue to experience problems with the internet, please inform the Student Services Committee at [xxxx]. You can also file an online trouble ticket, when you find yourself in an area with internet access, at [xxxx].

Regards,
Student Services Committee

At first we thought this was satirical, but we were assured that it's not: "This is for real -- we got it from the SBA today. Our wireless has been terrible recently."

Your friends at ATL obviously want you to have wireless access in class. But we realize that some professors contend that internet access in classrooms is an impediment to instruction.

More news from one of ATL's favorite law firms, Quinn Emanuel. See Gawker and Radar.

If your friends are as fabulous as Susan Estrich's, why hide them behind a bcc?

Query: Could this actually be a brilliant viral marketing ploy? Has Susan Estrich harnessed the power of the blogosphere to get all the world to read her paean to QE?

The Art Of The 'To' Line [Gawker]
Fox News' Susan Estrich Has a New Job [Radar Online via Big Law Board]

We love tales of misbehaving DAs. And this one is a doozy. From the Houston Chronicle:

New e-mails released Tuesday show District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal sent and received racist jokes and strategized with political consultants and colleagues about his re-election campaign on his county e-mail account.

Also within the correspondence obtained Tuesday by the Houston Chronicle were numerous sexually explicit images. It was unclear, however, if Rosenthal ever forwarded those files.

Those were just for his personal wank collection.

Among e-mails that concerned Woodfill were video clips of nudity and sex acts and a racist joke forwarded by Rosenthal that compares former President Bill Clinton to a black man. The e-mail says Clinton played the saxophone, smoked marijuana and gets a check from the government each month.

Pot always struck us as more of a white person's drug, but whatever.

Also included within the e-mails is heavy traffic between Rosenthal and Sam Siegler, Rosenthal's physician and the husband of Kelly Siegler, who is running for district attorney. In one e-mail from Sam Siegler to Rosenthal, an attached video shows women having their breasts exposed after men forcibly pulled down their blouses in public. The video called the act "sharking."

Kelly Siegler dismissed her husband's e-mails. "He cusses like a sailor and his sense of humor is crude, to put it mildly," she said. "It's his computer and what he does at work is his business. He's the boss."

Stand by your man, Kelly. As long as there's no kiddie porn in those emails, it's all good.

Oh, and Rosenthal also sent "intimate e-mails to his executive secretary." More details, after the jump.

Or a richness of embarrassment. Today we're going to name not one, but seven Lawyers of the Day.

Our first Lawyer of the Day is Mark Mersel (formerly of Morrison & Foerster, now at Bryan Cave). In case you missed the shout-out in Morning Docket, here's a bit more, from the WSJ Law Blog:

It's a litigator's worst dream -- costing your client serious money by missing a filing deadline.

That nightmare was a reality for MoFo, which appears to have cost its client Toshiba America $1 million when it was one-minute late -- 1 minute! -- in filing a motion for attorneys fees.

For the exciting details -- which involve a courier zooming through traffic on a motorcycle, and an unfortunately timed train -- read the full post.

The other six Lawyers of the Day are no strangers to these pages. Let's call them the Qualcomm Six. From the Recorder:

Six attorneys in the Qualcomm Inc. discovery fiasco were sanctioned Monday for "monumental" discovery violations and referred to the State Bar of California for possible discipline.

Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder attorneys James Batchelder, Adam Bier, Kevin Leung, Christian Mammen and Lee Patch, and Heller Ehrman's Stanley Young were sanctioned and harshly criticized by U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Major in a 42-page order. The ruling follows a patent infringement trial Qualcomm had brought against Broadcom Corp.

The attorneys "assisted Qualcomm in committing this incredible discovery violation by intentionally hiding or recklessly ignoring relevant documents, ignoring or rejecting numerous warning signs that Qualcomm's document search was inadequate, and blindly accepting Qualcomm's unsupported assurances that its document search was adequate," Major wrote.

Document production sucks -- or, to put it more nicely, it's a thankless task. It's time-intensive, mind-numbingly boring, and a general pain in the a**. If you do it right, you're just doing your job; but if you screw it up, consider yourself screwed. Monumentally.

Six Lawyers in Qualcomm Case Sanctioned for 'Monumental' Discovery Violations [The Recorder via Law.com]
Judge rebukes Qualcomm, its attorneys [San Diego Union-Tribune via Blogonaut]
A Litigator's Nightmare: Late Filing Costs Client $1 Million [WSJ Law Blog]

Leave it to lawyers to complicate everything they touch. Over at New York Personal Injury Law Blog, Eric Turkewitz has this update on the New York bar exam fiasco:

The New York State Board of Law Examiners has confirmed to me that they will hear appeals regarding the July 2007 exam. That exam was plagued by malfunctioning software for those that submitted essays on laptop computers, only to see all or part of the answers disappear. The BOLE subsequently said that they approximated the answers if they were incomplete, based on how the examinees did on other answers. Those grade approximations were subsequently called into question based on an anonymous tip in this blog.

More details in the full post.

New York Bar Examiners Will Entertain Appeals Over Laptop Problems [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]