Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has been making quite a bit of news this SCOTUS off-season, has issued the final battle cry of every divine-right monarch, abusive spouse, and aging quarterback. In an interview with Reuters, the still-sharp Ginsburg said: “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
When reached for comment in the privacy of his own mind, I really hope the President thought: “You must not know ’bout me, You must not know ’bout me. I could have another you in a minute. Matter fact she’ll be here in a minute, baby.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a fantastic justice — is, not “was.” She will likely continue to be a fantastic justice right up until the very moment of her death. We will never see her like again.
But now her watch should end…
We’ve written from time to time about senior judges, the most senior of whom was Wesley E. Brown of the District of Kansas, who remained on the bench until his death at age 104. We’ve even written about lateral moves made by nonagenarians to highly esteemed Biglaw firms, likely performed with the aid of a walker. We’ve never written about centenarian Biglaw attorneys, presumably because there are very few of them, but that’s about to change.
Fear not, clients, for that’s not a blood stain on your legal documents. It’s prune juice, because a 101-year-old lawyer was working on your deal, and he needs to stay regular to keep his billable hours up.
Which Biglaw firm is keeping this extremely senior counsel on its payroll?
We’re midway through Biglaw’s second quarter, and this will be the third week in a row we’re covering law firm layoffs or buyouts of some variety. This just goes to show that no matter how well a firm does, it’s always looking to do better, and the easiest way to do so is by managing human expenses.
Sometimes the firms attempting to trim their ranks are members of the “Super Rich,” with high revenues per lawyer (at least $1 million) and even higher profits per partner (at least $2 million). Other times, these firms are rich but not super-rich — firms that generally saw “modest, hard-won gains” last year, according to the American Lawyer.
The firm we’re writing about today falls into the latter group, with relatively small financial gains in 2013. Despite this, it’s still offering “very generous” packages to inspire employees to walk away….
In January, we brought you word of a Florida state-court judge who posted a sex ad on Manhunt. We covered the news, first broken by JAAblog, since we are fond of stories about sexy judges. But we did not judge. Instead, Staci Zaretsky wrote of Chief Judge David Audlin, “more power to him if [the photos are] real. Everyone needs to get some, even judges.”
Last week, Judge Audlin resigned from the bench, apparently because of L’Affaire Manhunt. With all due respect to the judge, this strikes me as a bad decision….
Surprisingly this lawyer isn’t named “Captain Obvious.”
He’s James Kidney, an SEC Enforcement lawyer who joined the agency in 1986 and served there ever since with a four-year detour to work at Aetna. At his well-attended (about 70 people) retirement party, he fulfilled the dream of every retiring employee and called out the B.S. he’d witnessed in his years on the job. And at the SEC, that B.S. dealt mostly with a revolving door culture of fearful superiors more interested in harassing low-level offenders while turning a blind eye to anyone with responsibility on Wall Street.
This must have been an awesome party.
What else did he say?
I recently had dinner with the dean of a law school. To give you a sense of this person’s perspective, I’ll say that he (or she, but I’ll use the masculine) is responsible for a law school that U.S. News ranks somewhere between 50 and 100. His school has thus been hammered by the Great Recession and the decrease in applications to law school, but the school is not (yet) thinking of turning out the lights.
I didn’t actually pry into what was happening at his school. He simply volunteered that his life was far different now than it had been a very few years ago. I guess that’s no surprise, given the tumult of the times.
Anyway, what are law school deans doing these days?
The legal profession is not what it once was. It seems like every week, we’re writing about the same topics, over and over again: tumbling profits, partner departures, and layoffs. Biglaw’s focus on the bottom line is even sharper than in years past, and that means that when firms are hurting for cash, the first thing they’ll cut is “excess” personnel.
For a firm that sank like a stone in the most recent Fortune “Best Companies to Work For” rankings, sliding from #62 to #81 in just a year’s time, reducing ranks is sure to earn it another demotion.
Not so fast, though, because to our knowledge, this leading law firm isn’t desperately seeking dollars, and it’s not conducting layoffs just yet, either — instead, generous buyout packages are being offered…
(Please note the UPDATES to this post below.)
When a Biglaw firm gets a new chairman, you can be relatively sure that things are going to change, especially if the firm is in the middle of the pack in terms of size and profitability.
Sure, the firm might have been happy being in its Goldilocks position before, but this is the New Normal. Maybe being not too big, but not too small just isn’t going to work anymore.
This firm may have the urge to merge — it’s already spoken to “three or four” potential partners. As we know, with mergers come reductions in redundancies, and it seems like this firm is looking to slim down to be a more attractive mate.
Which firm are we talking about, and how many heads are expected to roll with its planned cuts?