Katie Couric of Yahoo! News sat down to conduct an extended interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to discuss issues ranging from Hobby Lobby to the controversial “R” word. Most importantly, Couric confronts Justice Ginsburg about her internet fame and hip-hop moniker, and we learn that she knows all about it.
Obviously Justice Ginsburg is up on her internet presence. Above the Law learned firsthand that she takes the time to recognize her fans when Justice Ginsburg took the time to personally respond to Staci’s wedding invitation. But hearing an 81-year-old woman talking about how much she adores being called “Notorious” is face-meltingly cute.
There are some other gems from the full interview too….
When planning a wedding, it’s important to closely monitor who you’re inviting to stand beside you and support you on your special day. Some couples invite everyone they’ve ever known, and some couples invite very few people. My fiancé and I decided to invite everyone who had ever made an impact on our lives, big or small.
Given that I met my soon-to-be husband in law school, I decided that I wanted to invite a Supreme Court justice to our wedding — but not any Supreme Court justice. To stay true to the way we invited all of our guests, I wanted to invite the justice who made the biggest impact on my life.
I sent an invitation to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and painstakingly sealed it with a rhinestone heart. (Truth be told, it took three rhinestone hearts before I thought it looked as perfect as possible.) Inside of the invitation’s envelopment, I enclosed a handwritten note, telling Justice Ginsburg what an inspirational woman she was and praising her for what she’s done for women’s rights in the United States.
I didn’t think Justice Ginsburg would have the time to RSVP. After all, the recipient of my celebrity wedding invitation is one of the most important public figures alive in this country, and I’m just a law school graduate who writes for a legal website (albeit the most well-known legal website in the country).
Shame on me for thinking Justice Ginsburg — or the Notorious R.B.G., as we so lovingly call her — would let me down when it came to our wedding…
Many of you may remember Sex and the City, a sitcom that followed four women’s lives and relationships through good sex and bad. The show’s most ardent viewers found it easy to identify with one or more of its main characters. There was Carrie Bradshaw, the self-deprecating, too hopeful writer; Samantha Jones, the highly confident and highly oversexed vixen; Charlotte York Goldenblatt, the conservative prestige whore searching for true romance; and Miranda Hobbes, the often masculinized, debbie downer lawyer.
There have only been four women justices on the Supreme Court in the history of its existence — Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — so it’s fitting that we’d someday see an episode of SCOTUS and the City.
Which justice would you assign to each of these character roles? You’re about to find out…
* NO, NO, NO, NOTORIOUS! Previously unpublished documents from the Clinton White House have been released, and it looks like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was criticized for her “laconic” nature. Not cool, Bill. [Legal Times]
* Document review jobs aren’t going anywhere, folks. Exhibit A: Winston & Strawn’s e-discovery practice is bringing in the big bucks, earning the firm more than $20 million in revenue last year. [Capital Business / Washington Post]
* More lawyers are being treated for substance abuse for drugs and alcohol than ever before. In fact, a founding partner of Farella Braun + Martel, one of California’s largest firms, was once a “functioning alcoholic.” [Am Law Daily]
* A Florida jury apparently set on “sending a message” to tobacco companies awarded $23.6 billion in punitive damages to a chain smoker’s widow against RJ Reynolds. That was a costly message. [Reuters]
* June 2014 marked the fewest people who sat for the LSAT in 14 years, but it may get even lower if a new ABA proposal which would allow the test to be waived for 10% of students passes. [Central Florida Future]
As the Supreme Court’s October Term 2013 fades into memory, and the bickering over Hobby Lobby subsides, let’s look ahead to October Term 2014 — and beyond. We know now the identities of all the OT 2014 SCOTUS clerks, as well as a growing number of the clerks for October Term 2015.
The clerk hiring contains some bad news for Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and other liberals who want Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire before it’s too late. The Notorious RBG has picked her posse for OT 2015, suggesting that she won’t be leaving the Court anytime soon.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. First let’s look at the official list of Supreme Court law clerks for October Term 2014, starting up in just a few months….
* The criminal codes violated in Transformers: Age of Extinction. Violations of the code of good filmmaking not included. [The Legal Geeks]
* Remember the guy who turned Justice Ginsburg’s Hobby Lobby dissent into a song? It turns out he’s been recording a song a day since 2009 and that was his first hit. Congrats! Hopefully next Term Justice Alito can declare suffocating orphans constitutional so this guy can have a follow-up. [Music.mic]
* How to end an internship? The key is drunkenly denouncing all your bosses in public. Oh, how to end an internship positively? Well, then I’m going to need some advice. [Corporette]
* Fracking interests have a new plan to promote the well-being of those living in affected areas: pay them $50,000 to grant universal releases. This doesn’t make fracking sound dangerous at all. [Pro Publica]
* Hey folks taking the New York bar exam at the Javits Center! Order your lunch. [Custom Gourmet]
* Insurance companies are asking American customers to go to Tijuana for medical care. “I know you need heart surgery, but have you considered how awesome it would be to take in a donkey show after your release?” [New Republic]
* Mitchell Epner, who is basically our Donald Sterling beat reporter, has a recap of the first day of the proceedings. [mitchellepner]
* Conviction for multiple sexual assaults “can be the basis of an interim suspension of his law license.” Seems like that should be a little more definite. [Legal Profession Blog]
* One of the underappreciated challenges in state and local governance is the inability to permalink statutes. [Government Executive]
The opinions released by the Supreme Court this morning were not super-exciting. The good news, pointed out by Professor Rick Hasen on Twitter, is that “[t]here are no likely boring #SCOTUS opinions left.” (But see Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, noted by Ken Jost.)
So let’s talk about something more interesting than today’s SCOTUS opinions: namely, the justices’ recently released financial disclosures. Which justices are taking home the most in outside income? How robust are their investments?
A recent study conducted by Maya Sen, a political scientist at the University of Rochester, and Adam Glynn, a government professor at Harvard, shows that judges who have at least one female child may be more likely to rule in favor of women in certain types of cases. The report “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?” finds that having at least one daughter corresponds to a 7 percent increase in the proportion of cases in which a judge will vote in a feminist direction. The study further finds that having one daughter as opposed to one son is linked to a 16 percent increase in the proportion of “gender-related cases decided in a feminist direction.” The study found the “daughter effect” was more dramatic in judges appointed by Republican presidents than in those appointed by Democrats.
Sen told the New York Times in a recent interview, “By having at least one daughter, judges learn what it’s like to be a woman, perhaps a young woman, who might have to deal with issues like equity in terms of pay, university admissions or taking care of children.” Sen and Glynn consider other causal explanations for their findings, but conclude that learning is the mechanism at play. For example, they rule out the possibility that parents of daughters feel compelled to rule in ways that would protect their female children Sen and Glynn saw an effect only in gender-related civil cases, not a conservative shift among gender-related criminal cases like sexual assault.
The problem with the study is not that the data are wrong. The problem is that too often those who use data like these mean to either exempt the judgments from moral consequence altogether or to praise particular judicial motivations that they happen to like. In the first instance, they justify legal realism with data, omitting any reflection on whether the observed effects can or should be minimized. They gloss over too the overwhelming number of cases that are decided by mundane, less-subjective methods. In the second variation, they celebrate the phenomenon as “empathy” with some results, while condemning it as “bias” in others . . . .
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: email@example.com.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
If you are considering a virtual law practice, you know that many of today’s solo firms started that way. But why are established, multi-attorney law firms going virtual?
Many small firms are successfully moving part—or even all—of their practice to a virtual setting. This even includes multi-jurisdictional practice spanning several states and practice areas, although solo and small partnerships are still the largest adopters of virtual law.
Can you do the same? The new article Mobile in Practice, Virtual by Design from author Jared Correia, Esq., explores how mobile technology bring real-life benefits to a small law firm. Read this new article—the next in Thomson Reuters’ Independent Thinking series for small firms—to explore how a mobile practice:
Reduces malpractice risk
Enables you to gather the best attorneys to fit the firm, regardless of each person’s geographic location
Leverages mobile devices and cloud technology to enable on-the-spot client and prospect communication
Transitioning in-house is something many (if not most) firm lawyers find themselves considering at some point. For many, it’s the first step in their career that isn’t simply a function of picking the best option available based on a ranking system.
Unknown territory feels high-risk, and can have the effect of steering many of us towards the well-greased channels into large, established companies.
For those who may be open to something more entrepreneurial, there is far less information available. No recruiter is calling every week with offers and details.
In sponsorship with Betterment, ATL and David Lat will moderate a panel about life in-house and we’ll hear from GCs at Birchbox, Gawker Media, Squarespace, Bonobos, and Betterment. Drinks, snacks, networking, and a great time guaranteed. Invite your colleagues, but RSVP fast, as space is limited.