[T]he 64-year-old [Samuel] Alito — a George W. Bush appointee — is aggressively staking out ground as a successor or even rival of sorts to Justice Antonin Scalia, 78, who’s often viewed as the intellectual leader of the court’s conservative wing. But he’s doing so in a less pugnacious and more politically palatable way than Scalia.
This May, Thomson Reuters published the tenth edition of the estimable Black’s Law Dictionary (affiliate link). The most widely cited legal book in the world, Black’s is a must-have for every lawyer and law student.
I met with Garner during his recent visit to New York, where he taught his famous legal-writing course to various law firms and government employers. His voice was hoarse from a summer cold, but he generously soldiered through an interview with the help of some tea. Here’s a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our conversation.
* The sad truth for those of you banking on Biglaw careers to pay off your loans? You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. [Law School Lemmings]
* The recent study that created a cumulative ranking of law schools based on LSAT scores, employment, and citations has been updated to account for school-funded jobs. No more gaming the system schools. [The Faculty Lounge]
* The next generation wants to change the world. Maybe consider something other than law school. [Law and More]
* The suit between Jerry Only and Danzig (Glenn, not Chris) is heating up with a countersuit. [Metal Sucks]
* Time for another Battle of the Law Firm Bands! This one is in L.A. next Tuesday, July 8, and 11 bands from area law firms and companies are playing, including bands from Latham, Gibson, O’Melveny, and MoFo. It’s for a good cause, so show up. [Family Violence Appellate Project]
The Supreme Court released its opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on Monday, holding that the HHS contraception mandate violates an employer’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even when the employer is a for-profit corporation closely held by individuals who object to the mandate on religious grounds. Following the decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the abortion clinic buffer zone case, Hobby Lobby is the second case in a week where the Court told us how much each side of a fundamentally divided issue can ask of the other, under the law. They are hard cases to talk about without questioning the good faith or good sense of the other side. Nearly everyone thinks either Hobby Lobby or McCullen was a bad decision.
The only thing more frustrating than a bad high-profile Supreme Court decision may be the public’s response to any high-profile Supreme Court decision. For proof, one need only look as far as some of the tweets on SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed….
Hey, guys, do you remember that time a partner from Reed Smith thought SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed was an official Twitter feed of the U.S. Supreme Court? That was so much fun. We always enjoy it when the words “go f@ck yourself and die” come from a Biglaw partner’s mouth — or keyboard, as it were.
This time around, everyone and their mother and their dog mistook the SCOTUSblog Twitter feed for an official Twitter feed of the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision. Members of the public were enraged, and took to the social media platform to shake their virtual fists in anger in tweets directed at SCOTUSblog.
Whoever is in charge of the SCOTUSblog account responded with the second language that is innate to all lawyers: sarcasm. The result was absolutely fabulous…
* You may have missed this because you were busy lamenting yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions, so here are just a few of the high-profile cases for which the high court refused to grant cert. [WSJ Law Blog]
* A judge tossed a defamation suit filed against Cooley Law by the original law school litigation dream team. That’s too bad, it would’ve been interesting watch the trial. [National Law Journal]
* George Zimmerman lost his defamation suit against NBC. As it turns out, the network didn’t need to edit those phone calls to make it seem like the acquitted artist was racist. [Chicago Tribune]
* Listen, if you really feel like you need include an addendum to your law school application, you should try not to use too much flowery bullshit to explain away each of your misdoings and missteps. [Law Admissions Lowdown / U.S News & World Report]
* Unfortunately, things aren’t exactly getting much better for women in Silicon Valley. A former vice president over at Tinder alleges that the company’s CEO called her a “whore” at a party. Eww! [Reuters]
Today’s majority cannot resist taking potshots at Abood… but it ignores the petitioners’ invitation to depart from principles of stare decisis. And the essential work in the majority’s opinion comes from its extended (though mistaken) distinction of Abood… not from its gratuitous dicta critiquing Abood’s foundations. That is to the good — or at least better than it might be. The Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and is the foundation for not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts between unions and governments across the Nation. Our precedent about precedent, fairly understood and applied, makes it impossible for this Court to reverse that decision.
– Justice Elena Kagan, using her dissent in Harris v. Quinn to shore up the compelling case that Abood cannot be reversed. Which is going to be downright hilarious next term when the Court goes ahead and reverses it.
Last year at about this time, Justice Samuel Alito authored one of the most sneaky anti-woman decisions in recent memory. In Vance v. Ball State University, Justice Alito made it much more difficult for women to sue their employers for workplace harassment. At the time, I said it’s the kind of decision Chris Brown would be proud of, but on reflection, that may have been unfair to Chris Brown.
Today, Alito once again puts in the heavy lifting to make the world worse for working women. Apparently, in Alito’s world, it’s not only okay for employers to try to have sex with their female employees, they also get to regulate what medications they take…
As we work on coverage of today’s opinions as I write this, let’s take a quick look back. In advance of this morning’s Supreme Court decisions, there were many thoughtful pieces on how the Court would rule. And most of those thoughtful pieces boasted equally serious and thoughtful headlines.
This was not one of them.
Indeed, this one was so bad, and yet so representative of the state of modern journalism, that it crossed the line into the dumbest headline ever….
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.
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.