Potential clients keep contacting me, almost daily. I’m going to have to take my number off our Web site.
No, she didn’t cheat on a cancer-stricken spouse through an affair with a trashy “videographer”; Cate Edwards, the daughter of John and Elizabeth Edwards, isn’t married. Rather, the 28-year-old Harvard Law graduate has become a plaintiffs’ lawyer, like her father before her.
As reported today in the Washington Post’s Reliable Source column, Edwards recently became an associate with Sanford Wittels & Heisler, a boutique class-action litigation firm with offices in New York, D.C., and San Francisco. Her bio on the firm website, which lists her as Catharine E. Edwards, mentions that she’s a member of the Virginia bar, with an application to the D.C. bar pending.
It also reveals that she previously served as a law clerk to a federal judge. For whom did Cate Edwards clerk?
October is typically a prime wedding month, yet we’ve seen a precipitous and unaccountable prestige drop-off in the NYT over the past couple of weeks. You know it’s lean times when the only Ivy in the batch is UPenn, which has a big-time football program and therefore can’t be academically serious.
But never fear, we’ve managed to find some wheat among the chaff:
More on these couples, plus our comprehensive list of all the legal-eagle weddings, after the jump.
Last month, the employee cafe in the D.C. office of Skadden was briefly closed for health code violations. Meanwhile, across town, the Supreme Court cafeteria continues to operate — even though some apparently think it should be struck down like an errant statute.
This food should be unconstitutional, we agreed, as my two companions and I sat in the court’s sparsely populated dining area, examining the wan offerings we’d just received.
The restaurant review is part of the WaPo’s ongoing review of federal government cafeterias. Based on the harsh write-up for Cafe Scotus, it sounds like the judiciary is — with apologies to Alexander Bickel — the most dangerous branch.
So, what are some of the specific dishes panned by the Post?
As we noted yesterday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, on track to be the newest justice of the Supreme Court, apparently hasn’t been bitten by the “Twilight” movies. When Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) tried to get Kagan to weigh in on the case of Edward v. Jacob, Kagan declined — a little forcefully. This won’t help White House efforts to depict the Divine Miss K as a girly girl.
But perhaps other legal types have a weakness for the series of vampire romance films. On Wednesday, the Washington Post had an article on the hard-core “Twilight” fans who came out in force for Tuesday night, post-12 a.m. screenings. Reports the Post:
After “Eclipse” was over, moviegoers gave it mixed reviews.
“It was a lot more frustrating than I thought it was going to be, ” said Bill Murray, 31.
“I thought it was fantastic,” said Gus Golden, 33. “It had a little bit in it for everyone.”
It seemed odd to find thirtysomething men at the midnight screening of a film aimed at teenage girls. To be sure, Robert Pattinson is ridiculously hot, and Taylor Lautner is quite the butterface (butHISface?), with abs that should be illegal under the Model Penal Code (hehe — penal). But then a little bird told us: “Gus Golden and Bill Murray are both rising 3L’s at Georgetown University Law Center.” And suddenly it all made sense.
The “Twilight” films are supposed to be juvenile and insubstantial — not typical cinematic fare for lawyers and law students. But before we started on a post heaping scorn upon these GULC students, and cracking jokes about how a fall from the so-called “T14″ is imminent, we decided to do some digging….
In his speaking tours around the country, Clarence Thomas has a lot to say — sometimes critical things to say, about his fellow justices’ approach to oral argument and the lack of alma mater diversity among the Court’s clerks, for example.
But when Thomas is back at One First Street, sitting on the bench, he gets quiet. Very quiet. He hasn’t spoken a word during oral argument in over four years. He’s said before that it’s because he doesn’t see the point in badgering the attorneys arguing before the High Court. But we think there may be another reason: he hates his job. He’s suggested it himself.
In the Washington Post, we set forth a proposal for him: step down. And seek the Republican presidential nomination for 2012.
A bit about our reasoning, and a reader poll, after the jump.
The government acknowledged that a link exists between autism and the routine vaccines which one girl from Georgia was given as a child:
The cases are before a special “vaccine court” that doles out cash from a fund Congress set up to pay people injured by vaccines and to protect makers from damages as a way to help ensure an adequate vaccine supply. The burden of proof is lighter than in a traditional court, and is based on a preponderance of evidence. Since the fund started in 1988, it has paid roughly 950 claims _ none for autism.
Although the government didn’t say that the vaccines cause autism, they did concede that, in this single case, the vaccines worsened the girl’s existing condition and caused her to develop symptoms of autism.
We’re wondering about this “special ‘vaccine court.’ To our readers: what are some other interesting cases in which “special courts” were set up for a specific type of claim (not military tribunals; that’s too obvious)?
UPDATE: We’re asking about interesting cases when “special courts” set up for strange or unorthodox reasons.