We were dying to write about this wedding announcement, featuring a slutty Strawberry Shortcake costume (WTF?) and a wacky/tacky proposal story. But alas, commenters would have crucified us for elevating comedic potential over excellence.

So behold, this week's finalists. They include five Harvard degrees, five Yale degrees, and OMGOMGOMG the best Article III officiant ever. Enjoy.

1. Jessica Richman and Matthew Smith

2. Jessica Hertz and Christopher Angell

3. Ashley Lynn and Kenneth Leonczyk Jr.

The scoop on these legal-eagle weddings, after the jump.

The first weekend after Easter traditionally marks the beginning of High Wedding Season, where the weekly NYT fodder switches from merely interesting to heart-stoppingly impressive. This year is no exception, as last Sunday's pages were chock-full of prestigious lawyer couplings.

Here are the three best:

1. Dena Ringold and David Gossett

2. Ashley Potter and J. P. Bruynes

3. Tracy Zuckerman and Ryan Van Grack

Our complete analysis of these couples, after the jump.

There was no LEWW last Friday because last week's wedding pages were even bleaker than the Biglaw employment news. We've bounced back nicely, though, because Valentine's Day fell on a Saturday this year, making this week's weddings section a February feast of premium nuptial news.

We present three outstanding couples for your consideration:

1. Parisa Sabeti and Ted Zagat

2. Jessica Holzer and Hans Nichols

3. Kendall Burman and Eric Volkman

Check out these newlyweds' résumés and pictures, after the jump.

Hello, job seekers. There will soon be an opening at the University of Chicago Law School. Dean Saul Levmore circulated an e-mail to the school yesterday announcing his decision to step down. Here's an excerpt from the e-mail (which is reprinted in full, after the jump):

I have long said that eight years is about the longest a dean should serve, and I am now in that eighth year. Consequently, President Zimmer will soon ask a faculty committee at the Law School to begin the search process for a new Dean.

Chicago joins a host of law schools currently searching for deans, as we noted recently in our post on Dean Harold Koh possibly leaving Yale. Dean Levmore says he plans to "resume life as a full-time member of the faculty" (of which his wife, Julie Roin, is a part).

Dean Levmore's departure is completely voluntary, according to one Chicago source with a favorable view of Levmore's tenure. As for his successor, a few U of C alums we spoke with are hoping for a prominent conservative from the outside with strong Chicago ties (e.g., prior service on the faculty).

Since we can't predict the future, let's take a moment to look back on some of Levmore's past appearances on Above The Law:

What else do you consider to be part of the Levmore legacy at the University of Chicago? Feel free to discuss in the comments.

Thus far, the University of Chicago Law School has been immune to the fever of grade reform. While other law schools bend over backwards to make the same level of education look better on a transcript, Chicago has held the line.

But it's not like U of C Law is just ignoring the economic realities of the day. Another trend among top law schools it to make their on-campus interview process start earlier so firms don't "fill up" on other candidates. Chicago is officially moving in that direction:

The fall 2009 on-campus interview program may seem very far away during the Chicago winter, but the Office of Career Services has begun planning in order to maximize your opportunities during this important phase of the job market for students exploring law firm careers. This planning has led to a notable calendar change: The University of Chicago Law School's fall on-campus interviews will be held August 17-28, with an orientation to the program scheduled for August 15th.

After the jump, Chicago Law makes its intentions clear -- but there are other problems with changing the timing of OCI.

Things just seem to be getting more and more draconian over that the University of Chicago Law School. Yesterday we reminded you of the school's attempts to shut down internet access in class. The day before that we mentioned that some student was calling for an end to video games on personal laptops during lectures.

Today, the UofC Dean of Students has piped up with thoughts about the appropriate use for a law school listserv:

It has come to my attention that there may be some confusion among our student body about the proper use of our student listservs, and now is an ideal time to clarify this information. For your review, I have attached the guidelines for the use of the LawAnnounce listserv. You will notice that the LawAnnounce listserv is meant for informal announcements that may be of general interest to the law school community, and serves as an electronic bulletin board of sorts. While the list is monitored by our administrative staff, the Law School generally does not restrict content on this site with few exceptions. For example, while students are not permitted to use the listserv for "political commentary," students may be permitted to invite others to a political rally. (*See restrictions below.) The listserv is not meant to be a discussion board, however, on any political issue. Therefore, rebuttals or commentary about a posting should be directed to the poster and/or to the administration, but not to the listserv. This kind of back and forth discussion is more appropriate for a blog and not for this forum. Similarly, any offensive language, including the use of racial slurs, is strictly prohibited on LawAnnounce.

ATL would love to take credit for the "ideal" timing of this letter. But sadly, it appears that politics made this message necessary.

After the jump, more stern warnings from the Dean of Students that are promptly disregarded.

A study conducted by Indiana University found that law students are more likely than other students to use their laptops in class. The study confirms our own internal data that shows that most law students enjoy having internet access on par with what can be achieved in Ghana.

The ABA Journal smartly put the study in the context of the University of Chicago Law School's attempts to shut down internet access in most classes, a move no doubt applauded by this guy:

Distractions posed by laptops with Internet access have prompted some law professors to ban the computers and one law school--the University of Chicago--to shut down Internet access in most classrooms.

A very wise tenured professor once said to me:

The way I see it, if my presentations are not interesting enough to capture your attendance and attention to a lecture you've already paid for, the fault is on me.

Needless to say, his lectures were always well attended, and I know more about the English Revolution than I could possibly need. But I digress.

Other IU laptop nuggets after the jump.

It happens every year. After first semester some 1Ls belatedly realize they need to "step it up" for second semester. Law school isn't like college: there's a curve, there are jobs to be wrested from the clutching hands of fellow students, and just because a professor starts babbling about Floridian Burger Kings doesn't mean you can zone out.

Some people look inward for strength and resolve. Some people blame others. Those outward looking folks are the ones liable to send out emails like this one, which popped up on the University of Chicago Law listserve yesterday:

A friendly warning to fellow 1L's: if you intend to play video games in class -- especially graphics-intensive video games -- please remember to sit in the back row so the rest of us don't have to watch. Super Penguin Mario or Donkey Kong Country may, from your perspective, be a good way to while away a long class; to those sitting behind you, it is a distraction we'd rather not have to deal with.

Sorry to be That Jerk; for what it's worth I know I'm not alone in strongly preferring this.

Yours from behind an absolutely mirthless smile,
[Redacted]

Let's broaden the discussion after the jump.

Earlier today we reported on an unfortunate affair that took place at the University of Chicago Law School. BLSA members excluded white students from a public forum, causing the law school Dean and the BLSA president to issue an apology.

Since our initial story we've learned that the BLSA president has stepped down from that position, and has issued a more full apology and explanation about how events transpired:

For those who are concerned,

I have received phone calls throughout the day regarding the incident that I personally incited on Tuesday at a BLSA lunch event. Words cannot express the remorse I feel for having made the remarks that I did. First and foremost, I want you to know that my decision to exclude non-BLSA members (with the exception of those who showed active interest by joining our organizational listserve) did not reflect the position of the Black Law Students Association. I made the decision unilaterally and hastily (giving me greater empathy for George W.), to the disapproval of BLSA members who were clearer on the school's strict policy of non-exclusivity. My lack of familiarity with this policy was inexcusable, and I take sole responsibility for the results. Additionally, exclusion, though wrong, was made on the basis of membership, not skin color.

Way to step up to the plate and accept responsibility.

Many people who sent this statement along noted that this statement -- and not the questionable actions -- is more indicative of the character of the former BLSA president.

People make mistakes all the time, but not everybody takes responsibility for their missteps.

Read the full statement after the jump.

Apparently some members of the Black Law Students Association at the University of Chicago Law School need a refresher in Constitutional Law. Or maybe some of them could just re-watch Eyes on the Prize and remember why we fight.

A tipster reports on some exclusionary practices undertaken by the BLSA group at what was supposed to be a public forum they were hosting:

Ruckus at University of Chicago Law School after ... the Black Law Students Association wouldn't allow white students to attend a public forum they held. ...

Note that these events are paid for with white-student dollars, not just funds BLSA raises.

We don't have the full details on what went down, but we understand that white law students were "discouraged" from attending the event.

Whatever happened, it was so bad that Law School Dean of Students Michele Richardson felt compelled to send out an email to the entire law school community.

Update (6:01): More coverage is available here.

The Dean's letter and BLSA's response after the jump.

The University of Chicago Law School is ranked as the seventh best law school in the nation according to U.S. News and World Report.

As we have extensively reported, the top-six schools (Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Berkeley) have all moved away from letter grading towards a modified pass/fail system, or are contemplating such a move (Yale and Berkeley have had pass/fail systems for some time).

The University of Chicago Law School, which currently has a grading system that defies rational understanding, is the next logical school to face the growing tide towards grade reform. On Friday, an all faculty meeting took place to discuss the matter.

According to tipsters, one professor discussed the meeting with his class. The professor suggested that the administration felt they had to consider the issue with an eye towards remaining competitive with their peer institutions. The professor then asked the class if they shared those concerns:

Interestingly enough, the professor who mentioned this to us did a straw poll of students (mostly 2Ls) and the vast majority were in favor of staying on our current system. It's not like anyone knows what our system really is/means, so why change it?

The Dean responds after the jump.

What did you miss if you didn't peruse last Sunday's NYT weddings section? The marriage of Theodore Roosevelt V, for starters. Also, a whole lot of gayness! We counted seven same-sex weddings on this week's list, which we suspect is a an all-time high. (And how sociologically interesting that all seven were men marrying men!) None of this week's same-sex weddings made it into the finals, but LEWW is delighted to reflect (in a rare moment of seriousness) on how much has changed since August 2002, when the paper announced that it would include same-sex weddings for the first time. Long live love!

Here are this week's couples:

1. Tania Brief and Andrew Ehrlich

2. Jori Finkel and Michael Lubic

3. Laura Millendorf and Mark Yopp

Click on the link below to read all about these legal lovebirds.

For the commenters who yearn to see more "ordinary" couples in the Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, we commend this pair to your attention. The groom is a radio personality, and the bride has a JD from Loyola. They seem likable and . . . ordinary. Is this the type of couple our readership craves? Should we devote one slot a week to a Tier-II couple? Designate one column a month as Ordinary Week? Please advise. (This is actually a serious question. LEWW recognizes that we can't satisfy everyone, but we do aim to please.)

For now, we'll to continue to celebrate the extraordinary. Our finalist couples have degrees from Harvard, Yale, NYU, Chicago, and other elite schools, some with athletic programs. All three brides toil in Manhattan law firms, and all three grooms serve humanity in important-sounding public-sector jobs. Here they are:

1. Jessica Buturla and Caswell Holloway IV

2. Sarah McDonald and Patrick Egan

3. Johanna Greenbaum and David Newman

More on the couples below, including photos.

This is the type of topic we'd expect to see posted in our new Community section. But since that section hasn't really caught on yet, we're happy to post it here. From a law student at the University of Chicago:

The quarterly U of C student newspaper came out [last week], and the Student Body President (of all people) wrote a snarky poem about transfers. [Ed. note: The poem -- "Phenomenal Transfer," perhaps inspired by Phenomenal Woman, by Maya Angelou -- is posted after the jump.]

[T]he poem isn't terribly offensive, but it's indicative of a general attitude to transfers that original / "regular" students often have (and the way I understand it, it's worse at some schools than others). "Regular" students often snark transfers because transfers "don't deserve to be there" -- meaning that LSAT scores are apparently the only acceptable measure of deserving to attend a law school. It's also fairly well known that transfer students do as well as or better than "regular" students with grades -- maybe that's where part of the problem comes from.

Update: According to several commenters, the publication that the poem appeared in is a satirical, Onion-esque newsletter.

Apparently anti-transfer prejudice varies from school to school. According to our Chicago tipster:

I've heard bad things about how GULC [Georgetown University Law Center] treats its transfers. Apparently at orientation last year, the current students booed the new transfers. It'd be interesting as students start preparing transfer applications for them to have an idea (from an open thread or comments) how they'll be treated at the schools they're considering transferring to.

Now is a good time for such a discussion, says our source:

Schools start accepting applications May 1, usually through the summer, with applications completing when grades come in (from the first school -- so right about now). Acceptances go out throughout the summer, and some schools have rolling admissions. So I think it's most topical right now, especially given that students generally send out relatively few transfer applications (usually 2-4 tops) as compared to initial law school applications.

In fact, some prospective transfer students have already heard back. From a different correspondent, who wrote us last month:

[H]ave you ever done anything on law students transferring schools? Georgetown is in the process of sending out decisions to their early action applicants. I just got accepted as a transfer from John Marshall in Chicago with a 3.93, which puts me in the top 3%. The Yahoo TransferApps group and the transfer board at lawschooldiscussion.org have been blowing up over the last few days with people getting accepted/rejected. Maybe you could get some good info for the law-student readers that are pondering a transfer.

If you have thoughts on being a transfer student or on the transfer application process, please share them in the comments. You can also check out the "Phenomenal Transfer" poem, after the jump.

Ah, those inscrutable transcripts from the University of Chicago Law School -- gotta love 'em. They're chock full of numbers, but they don't use the standard "As = 90s, Bs = 80s" scale. For example, if your grades are all in the 80s, you're a rock star.

Nobody can make heads or tails of the U. Chicago transcripts. So what's wrong with a little "tweaking" here and there? From the ABA Journal (via TaxProf Blog):

A lawyer who attended the University of Chicago Law School has been accused in an ethics complaint of lying about his grades when he applied for a summer position at Sidley Austin.

Loren Elliotte Friedman is accused in a complaint filed May 6 by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. He was listed as an associate at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in New York on the firm's website earlier Tuesday, but his name was removed by the afternoon.

Joseph Pizzurro, managing partner of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, told ABAJournal.com that Friedman, a bankruptcy associate, disclosed the bar complaint to the law firm on Friday and submitted his resignation.

The complaint says Friedman altered transcripts of his law school grades in 20 classes to reflect better grades than he received. Friedman worked at Sidley Austin the summer of 2002, and the firm extended an employment offer for him to begin work as an associate in 2003.

The complaint also alleges that Friedman failed to reveal he flunked out of medical school in his application to law school, and that he failed to disclose the altered law school transcripts in his bar application.

It looks like medicine, and now law, haven't worked out for Loren Friedman. What's next?

Maybe betting on horse races? The Legal Profession Blog has dubbed his three alleged omissions a "trifecta."

More details, after the jump.

In the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine, you'll find their list of the world's top 100 public intellectuals. The list appears here (and you can vote for your top five). Bios of the honorees -- and we must confess, some of these names didn't ring a bell -- appear here.

The public intellectuals explicitly identified on the list as lawyers, judges, or legal scholars are (in alphabetical order):

-- Aitzaz Ahsan, president of Pakistan's Supreme Court Bar Association, and a leader in the Pakistan People's Party;

-- Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights lawyer and Nobel laureate;

-- Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig; and

-- Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, who wrote the book on public intellectuals.

And here are two other honorees with legal links:

-- University of Chicago law professor and philosopher Martha Nussbaum; and

-- journalist, Harvard Law School graduate, and Kennedy School of Government professor Samantha Power.

What do Professors Nussbaum and Power share in common? Cass Sunstein, as you may recall.

Professor Nussbaum is a former flame of Professor Sunstein, while Professor Power is his current main squeeze. Rumor has it that his move to Harvard Law School from his longtime academic home, the University of Chicago Law School, was prompted by a desire to be closer to the center of power -- Samantha Power, that is.

In their paper Six Degrees of Cass Sunstein: Collaboration Networks in Legal Scholarship, Professors Paul Edelman and Tracey George declared Cass Sunstein to be the "Kevin Bacon" of the law. But it looks like his influence extends beyond the narrow world of legal academia, into the World of Ideas, writ large.

In sum, two percent of the world's top 100 public intellectuals are former or current lovers of Cass Sunstein. This should provide consolation for Cass, who didn't make the list himself.

Professor Sunstein, you are the man.

The Top 100 Public Intellectuals [Foreign Policy]
The Top 100 Public Intellectuals: Bios [Foreign Policy]
Six Degrees of Cass Sunstein: Collaboration Networks in Legal Scholarship [SSRN / Green Bag]

Earlier: The Real Reason Cass Sunstein's Going to Harvard? He's Got the Power

The National Law Journal and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported this week on the University of Chicago Law School cutting off internet access in the classroom. For more background on this story, check out our posts from March 25 and March 26. Ahem. Three weeks ago.

We did a poll way back in March. Over 63% of the ATL voters favor internet access in the classroom. These folks won't be happy about this tidbit from the National Law Journal:

[Chicago Law School Dean Saul Levmore] has received inquiries from about 10 other law schools interested in possibly following suit on the move, he said.

The Conglomerate Blog makes a good point:

[I] do believe that shutting down the wireless signal is a short-term fix, at best. I have become convinced that the problems accompanying laptops in the classroom are behavioral, not technological.

So, University of Chicago students, how's it going? Have you found other means of distraction-- doodling, passing notes, daydreaming? Hope you didn't miss our tattoo in exchange for legal services post this morning.

University of Chicago Law School blocking access to Net in classrooms [National Law Journal]
Internet Access in the Classroom? Not at Chicago Law [WSJ Law Blog]
Internet in the Classroom [Conglomerate Blog]

Earlier: Update: Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids (and Their Internet) Alone!
Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids (and Their Internet) Alone!

Relax, folks. We are aware that the 2009 law school rankings of U.S. News & World Report have leaked, in advance of their official Friday publication date. They're all over the blogosphere and the message boards (links collected below).

We've been sitting on this item for a little while -- coordinating with our other posts this morning, taking into account our traffic patterns, etc. There is a method to our madness.

Ideally we'd hold this item even longer (which would allow us to do a more detailed write-up). But it's clear that you're all dying to talk about the rankings RIGHT NOW. And we don't want to get any more emails and comments of the "why aren't you writing about U.S. News" variety.

So here you go. Rankings and discussion, after the jump (i.e., click on the "Continue reading" link below).

A tipster sends us troubling news from the University of Chicago Law School:

University of Chicago Students got an e-mail from Dean Levmore today announcing that the Law School will be turning off internet access in classrooms beginning next quarter.

We express our deepest sympathies for Chicago students who will have to check ATL for updates between classes. Perhaps we can arrange for some kind of carrier pigeon system for urgent news.

We're wondering how many of you currently have internet access in the classroom. Is cutting off access to the web a trend at law schools? A number of law professors have complained about laptops undermining learning.

We're obviously biased in favor of maximum internet access for all; perhaps you feel differently. So let us know your views via commentary, and take our poll on whether internet should be allowed:

Earlier: Laptops vs. Learning -- Once More, With Feeling

We greatly enjoyed our recent visit to the University of Chicago Law School. The U. Chicago students were very welcoming and made us feel right at home, even inviting us to their law school musical -- which, by the way, was delightful.

(We added many of them as friends on Facebook before we were mysteriously banned from the site, without notice or explanation. So if you no longer see us on FB, it's not because we "de-friended" you, but because our account was disabled.)

A few Chicago students, however, had a bone to pick with us. They objected to this ATL post, which cast the recently announced departure of Professor Cass Sunstein -- prominent scholar, beloved teacher, and possible Supreme Court nominee under President Obama -- as a hiring coup by Harvard Law School, a triumph by HLS over Chicago. They emphasized that Professor Sunstein's leaving the Windy City for Cambridge was prompted by personal rather than professional reasons.

Professor Sunstein said as much his farewell email (emphasis added; in fact, all emphases added throughout this post, unless otherwise indicated):

I'm writing to say that I've just accepted an appointment at Harvard Law School. It is an understatement to say that I don't take this step easily or lightly. As most of you know, I've been reflecting on this question for several years. I finally decided, for personal reasons, that I need a change.

Since he's a prominent Obama supporter -- as well an adviser to the campaign, but more on that later, since it ties into our tale -- it's not surprising that Professor Sunstein is All About Change.

The law school's popular leader, Dean Saul Levmore, also stressed the personal component to Professor Sunstein's move. As he told the University of Chicago's student newspaper, the Maroon:

"I'm sort of embarrassed that [the story] said that the University of Chicago couldn't be reached for comment," Levmore said. "It looks like we didn't want to talk, but the truth is that this decision [to leave Chicago for Harvard] was based on personal reasons and I respect that privacy. The media will find out about them soon enough."

With a comment like this, Dean Levmore was basically begging us to go digging. So dig we did.

Let's see, Cass Sunstein's "personal reasons" for leaving U. Chicago... hold on a sec. Isn't Professor Sunstein part of legal academia's most fabulous power couple, together with that renowned philosopher queen, Professor Martha Nussbaum? And didn't Professor Nussbaum just turn down a Harvard offer?

That was then; this is now. What we learned in our investigation is consistent with this ATL comment, as well as this (subsequently removed) Wikipedia edit.

It appears that Professor Sunstein may be part of a new "power couple" -- in the most literal sense. Rumor has it that he's romantically involved with Professor Samantha Power -- a beautiful, brainy professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, who is roughly 15 years his junior. She is a Pulitzer Prize winner who has also been profiled in Men's Vogue (see glamorous photo, at the top of this post). What's not to like?

Update: More about Samantha Power here (from a college classmate who tried to hit on her, without success, and just ended arguing politics with her).

Now, please don't give us full credit (or blame) for bringing to light the Sunstein-Power relationship. When we attended the Chicago Law School musical last weekend, Samantha Power got a shout-out near the end of the show, when the Cass Sunstein character announced his departure for Harvard. So the rumor of her romance with Professor Sunstein is already widely known throughout the U. Chicago community (and beyond); it's no state secret. It is already known to hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

We reached out to all three members of this Mensalicious love triangle, which seems to come straight out of a Saul Bellow novel. Find out what we learned -- two of them had no comment, but one of them did -- after the jump.