In his recent post summarizing three new cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog mentions the docket numbers for two of them, as is his usual practice.
But he omits the docket number of one of the cases that was granted certiorari today:
We just finished our taxes (or our accountant just did), so we have taxes on the brain. Remember, everyone: tax returns are due on April 17 this year, instead of the usual April 15. (To learn why, click here.)
Considering the time of year, it’s appropriate that our Lawyer of the Day is one George E. Harp. Harp accomplished the impressive feat of losing two cases in Tax Court — his client’s, and his own — on the same day.
Congratulations, Mr. Harp!
(Okay, perhaps it’s not THAT impressive a feat. Harp seems to be one of those nutty tax protestors, with no viable arguments in defense of his failure, or his client’s failure, to file a tax return.) A Tough Day in Tax Court: Lawyer Loses Two Failure to File Tax Return Cases — His Client’s and His Own [TaxProf Blog] Tax Returns Are Due April 17 This Year [TaxProf Blog]
Maybe you’re grumpy because your firm hasn’t matched the latest associate pay raises. Maybe your clerkship bonus isn’t as big as the $50,000 now offered by Sullivan & Cromwell.
But at least you still have a job. From Bloomberg:
Jenkens & Gilchrist, a Dallas-based firm that once had 600 lawyers, is shutting down after reaching an accord with authorities to avoid prosecution for selling tax shelters that generated more than $1 billion in phony losses.
The firm admitted it developed and marketed fraudulent tax shelters and faces a $76 million fine, the Internal Revenue Service said.
The firm points a finger towards its Chicago office:
Jenkens & Gilchrist blamed its demise on unnamed lawyers in its Chicago office. That branch was closed on March 22.
“The Chicago tax shelter practice seriously undermined the firm’s long-standing reputation,” the firm said in a statement. “We deeply regret our involvement in this tax practice.”
This was probably ill-advised on the part of the firm:
Among the fraudulent shelters were transactions known as BOSS, BART and HOMER, prosecutors said in the agreement.
Little things matter in the legal profession. A typographical error can cost you $40,000. A misplaced comma can be worth hundreds of thousands.
And citing the wrong statute can lead to a nine-figure loss. From the AP:
Poorly written Justice Department documents cost the federal government more than $100 million in what was supposed to have been the crowning moment of the biggest tax prosecution ever.
Walter Anderson, the telecommunications entrepreneur who admitted hiding hundreds of millions of dollars from the IRS and District of Columbia tax collectors, was sentenced Tuesday to nine years in prison and ordered to repay about $23 million to the city.
But U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said he couldn’t order Anderson to repay the federal government $100 million to $175 million because the Justice Department’s binding plea agreement with Anderson listed the wrong statute.
* May we recommend that the IRS get a myspace page? [TaxProf Blog]
* Quirkiness belies dysfunction: Woody Harrelson’s father, convicted of murdering a federal judge, dies in prison. [AP via MSN]
* You may think people who buy hardbacks on an Oprah endorsement deserve their fate as victims of the great James Frey Swindle, but I have a heart. Losers, get your money back! [Gawker]
* I’m the kind of person who hates being hugged by non-friends without my permission, but this does seem a little inappropriate. [New York Daily News]
* News flash! No one remembers anything from the bar anyway. [PrawfsBlawg; Conglomerate]
(We’re filling in today for Stella Q, who has more pressing — and billable — matters to attend to.)
* Super-needy partners are the worst to work for. We knew of one partner who would summon an associate from another floor to retrieve a document from her printer and bring it in to her — because she couldn’t be bothered to stand up, walk outside to her secretary’s station, and get it herself. (This was after hours, and her secretary was gone.) [New York Times]
* Barack Obama draws on Tribe-al support — from Laurence Tribe, that is, and the Harvard Law School mafia. We still feel bad for poor, betrayed Hillary. [New York Observer]
* While we’re on the subject of ’08, check it out: election lawyers are in demand. Who says popular specialties have to be boring? [Politico]
* ATL Public Service Announcement: If you didn’t file your 2003 tax return, and are owed a refund, you need to act fast — or kiss that money good-bye. [TaxProf Blog]
* Brokeback Lawfirm continues to get play on the other side of the pond. [TheLawyer.com]
Last week we posted this photo, with captions:
“Speaking of asking people out, have you ever seen a tax law professor bust a move?”
“Well, now you have.”
For the record, these captions can be read in more than one way. Was Professor Paul Caron hitting on Professor Shari Motro (profiled here)? Or was it the other way around?
Within the legal blogsophere, Professor Caron is a total rock star. And what’s a rock star without groupies?
(Digression: Speaking of Professor Caron, he has prepared this handy list of teaching fellowships for aspiring law professors. It’s a great resource for those of you interested in legal academia.)
By the way, after we chastised Professor Caron for wearing a button-down shirt with a suit, the good professor wrote us as follows:
I showed my students your comment about the button down shirt and asked them to vote on whether your fashion sense was correct about button down shirts with suits — maybe it is a Midwest v. East Coast thing (or perhaps they were just sucking up to me), but the students voted 85% v. 15% in favor of the button downs.
Update/clarification: We can’t believe we even have to do this. But for the record, a “button-down shirt” refers to a shirt with a button-down collar.
Time for an ATL reader poll:
[caption id="attachment_120719" align="alignright" width="260"] ‘Who needs a bonus? We have these nifty red hats!’[/caption]
The holiday season is upon us, and yet again, you have no idea what to get for the fickle lawyer in your life. We’re here to help. Even if your bonus check hasn’t arrived yet, any one of the gifts we’ve highlighted here could be a worthy substitute until your employer decides to make it rain.
We’ve got an eclectic selection for you to choose from, so settle in by that stack of documents yet to be reviewed and dig in….
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 six years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
We currently have a very exciting and rare type of in-house opening in China at one of the world’s leading internet and social media companies. Our client is looking for an IP Transactional / TMT / Licensing attorney with 2 to 6 years experience. The new hire will be based in Shenzhen or Shanghai. Mandarin is not required (deal documentation will be in English) but is preferred. A solid reason to be in China and a commitment to that market is required of course. This new hire will likely be US qualified (but could also be qualified in UK or other jurisdictions) and with experience and training at a top law firm’s IP transactional / TMT practice and could be currently at a law firm or in-house. Qualified candidates currently Asia based, Europe based or US based will be considered. The new hire’s supervisors in this technology transactions in-house team are very well regarded US trained IP transactional lawyers, with substantial experience at Silicon Valley firms. The culture and atmosphere in this in-house group and the company in general is entrepreneurial, team oriented, and the work is cutting edge, even for a cutting edge industry. The upside of being in an important strategic in-house position in this fast growing and world leading internet company is of the “sky is the limit” variety. Its a very exciting place to be in China for a rising IP transactional lawyer in our opinion, for many reasons beyond the basic info we can share here in this ad / post. This is a special A+ opportunity.
If your firm is in ‘go’ mode when it comes to recruiting lateral partners with loyal clients, then take this quiz to see how well you measure up. Keep track of your ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses.
1. Does your firm have a clearly defined strategy of practice groups that are priorities of growth for your office? Nothing gets done by random chance, but with a clear vision for the future. Identify the top practice areas for which you wish to add lateral partners. Seek input from practice group leaders and get specifics on needs, outcomes, and ideal target profiles.
2. In addition to clarifying your firm’s growth strategy, are you still open to the hire of a partner outside of your plan? I’ve made several placements that fit this category. The partner’s practice was not within the strategic growth plan of my client, but once the two parties started talking with each other, we all saw how it could indeed be a seamless fit. Be open to “Opportunistic Hires.” You never know where your next producing partner might come from, so you have to be open to it. I will be the first to admit that there is a quirky element of randomness in recruiting.
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!