* Musical chairs: Epstein Becker & Green closes up shop in Miami, after managing partner Michael Casey defects to Duane Morris (with lawyers and staff in tow). [Daily Business Review (subscription) via ABA Journal]
* Law enforcement mistakes end in tragedy in Detroit. [Mother Jones]
* Justice Souter is still opposed to cameras in the courtroom. [Josh Blackman]
* As discussed by Steven Davidoff and Larry Ribstein, Abercrombie & Fitch wants to reincorporate from Delaware to Ohio. Hopefully this won’t affect A&F’s eye-catching catalogs. [Truth on the Market and Dealbook / New York Times]
Because God is a kind and loving God, Christine O’Donnell lost Delaware’s Senate race this past Tuesday night. Although you probably wouldn’t know that by her concession speech, in which America’s sweetheart followed up her somewhat terrifying “I am you” campaign tagline with a staunchly delusional “we have won” announcement. These statements would normally be classified as symptoms of schizophrenia per the DSM-IV-TR, although admittedly Christine is well past the average age of onset.
Some pundits argue that what Christine really meant by “we have won” is that she won a career for herself following the election, given all of her press coverage. At this point, it’s still anybody’s guess as to what she plans to do, but in the meantime we can take bets, turn to page 87, and choose her own adventure.
* I’m not sure how you follow up a link which includes a story about Christine O’Donnell’s… carpet. But here’s a very funny pleading that went down this summer. [Lowering the Bar]
* She-Hulk is #3 on the list of greatest cartoon lawyers. But if ladies are looking for a last minute Halloween costume, I still think “ladybug” is going to be the winning idea. Just get really drunk and hit on people you’ve known for five minutes. [California Law Report]
* How to tell if you are a beta associate at your law firm. Well, for starters you’re probably getting your roommate’s sloppy-seconds in the form of Christine O’Donnell. [Last Day at the Office Emails]
* Larry Tribe takes a shot at Sonia Sotomayor. You see, one night Sonia came over to Larry’s house and asked him out to a Halloween party… [WSJ Law Blog]
* The Government is set to require “career colleges” to disclose graduation and job placement rates, but not law schools? What the hell is going on here? It’s like the government is taking off its panties, but declaring it intends to stay a virgin. Who pulls that crap? [New York Times]
West Wing fans will get a kick out of this. Liberals will get a huge kick out of this. Republican leaders who hope to take back the Senate will cry softly to themselves.
The Tea Party darling and Republican nominee for Senator from Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, has struck again.
Last week, we learned that Christine O’Donnell couldn’t name a recent Supreme Court decision she disagreed with. That was funny and embarrassing, but Lat did a good job defending O’Donnell and pointing out her recovery from the flub.
She’ll get no such quarter from me.
During a debate at Widener Law School, O’Donnell and Democratic Senatorial nominee Chris Coons mixed it up over teaching creationism in schools. Coons, on the defensive because Dems are too dumb to say “creationism is not science” and move on, said that a fundamental principle of this country is the separation of church and state. O’Donnell, after a pause, asked: “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” The crowd laughed, O’Donnell started grinning like an idiot, and, well — watch the clip for yourself, in which O’Donnell shares her thoughts on some other Constitutional amendments…
Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell may not be a witch, but she won’t be mistaken for a legal scholar either. In last night’s debate, when asked by moderator Nancy Karibjanian to name a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees, O’Donnell came up empty. After Karibjanian noted the important responsibility that senators have to vote on appointments to the Supreme Court, this exchange ensued:
KARIBJANIAN: What opinions of late that have come from our high court do you most object to?
O’DONNELL: Oh, gosh, um…. Give me a specific one, I’m sorry.
KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can’t, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.
O’DONNELL: Um, I’m very sorry…. Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot. I’ll put it up on my website, I promise you.
Maybe this Mama Grizzly needs to crawl back to the den and curl up with some slip opinions?
But wait! We offer a defense of O’Donnell, who partially redeemed her initial flub, plus video — after the jump.
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.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org.
We at Kinney Asia have made a number of FCPA / White Collar US associate placements in Hong Kong / China thus far in 2014. Most of such placements have been commercial litigation associates from major US markets, fluent in Mandarin, switching to FCPA / White Collar litigation. Some have already had FCPA experience, but those are difficult candidates for firms to find (this will change in coming years as US firms are now promoting FCPA / White Collar to their 2L summers who are fluent in Mandarin and have an interest in transferring to China at some point).
Legal Week quoted Kinney’s Head of Asia, Evan Jowers, extensively in the following relevant article here.
There is a new trend in the market, though, where mid-level transactional US associates, fluent in spoken Mandarin and written Chinese, are interviewing for and in some cases landing junior FCPA / White Collar spots in Hong Kong / China at very top tier US firms.
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.