UCLA School of Law will lose its dean at the end of the year. Dean Michael Schill will leave the law school at the end of the year to assume the deanship of the University of Chicago Law School. Dean Schill just informed his students over email:

Dear Members of the Classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012,

A little over five years ago I came to UCLA School of Law from the east coast to become dean of one of the greatest educational institutions in the world. From the moment I arrived I appreciated the strength and depth of our student culture. Indeed, you are part of the reason my five years as the dean of this school have been the happiest and most fulfilling years of my life. Thus, it is with mixed emotions that I announce today that I will be leaving the deanship at the end of the calendar year for a new challenge as dean of the University of Chicago Law School.

Why is he leaving so suddenly? Why was this decision made now instead of over the summer? University of Chicago Dean Saul Levmore announced he was stepping down back in February. Why the late trigger at UofC?

Dean Schill offers some additional information about his decision process — and the University of Chicago touts its new dean — after the jump.

The cast for the latest season of Survivor, which premieres on September 17, has been announced. This season, the show’s nineteenth, takes place on the tropical island of Samoa.

Four of the 20 contestants, or a fifth of the field, are either lawyers or law students. Is appearing on a reality television show the best way to wait out the recession?

We believe this to be the highest number of law-related contestants in a single season. We reached out to Charlie Herschel — the former Survivor contestant and current Weil Gotshal associate, who has encyclopedic knowledge of the show — and he said that, as far as he knows, four would be a record. Herschel explained:

Lawyers are making a better showing than bartenders for once on Survivor! There was a lawyer on the first Survivor who sued producers for rigging the show. Word was that they avoided casting lawyers after that.

Also, it’s generally difficult for lawyers to drop everything at a moment’s notice for the casting process and also for the show (which is required), so they have trouble casting lawyers. Most of the lawyers on survivor dont practice anymore.

Perhaps you know one of these four. Let’s learn more about them, shall we?

How young is too young to get married? Or more to the point, how young is too young to appear in the NYT weddings pages and not look foolhardy or vaguely scandalous? We ask because these newlyweds, ages 22 and 24, strike us as shockingly young. (And it’s definitely not a shotgun wedding — click on the link and you’ll see why.)

At any rate, this week’s featured newlyweds are all older than 22, so it’s a moot point. (If you want to ponder the trends in MAFM [median age at first marriage], here’s more.) Our finalists:

1. Caroline Nyenke and LaRue Robinson

2. Elianna Marziani and James Nuzum

3. Zehra Dincer and Matthew Mazur

Click on the link below for the scoop on these newlyweds.

This couple definitely merits an honorable mention this week. They met a year ago in Vegas and turned a 24-hour hookup into a NYT wedding announcement featuring seersucker, a 6-year age difference, and a JD from Widener. It’s certainly one of the more colorful lawyer wedding announcements we’ve seen in a while (although we concede the bar is fairly low).

We even managed to find a picture for you, seersucker and all. They look like they know how to party, don’t they?

On to our finalists, who are more prestigious — but admittedly a bit less colorful:

1. Dolores DiBella and David Schmid

2. Susanna Cowen and Ross McSweeney

3. Kara Burke and Matthew King

Check out these couples’ photos and qualifications, after the jump.

LEWW often hears complaints about the elitism and snobbery of the NYT’s wedding coverage (and, by extension, our coverage of the coverage). “What about all the couples who didn’t meet at Harvard?” critics cry.

In response, we’d like to point you to this Vows column from mid-June. Roughly twice a year, the NYT covers the wedding of what it presumably considers “average Americans,” seeking thereby to demonstrate that its weddings sections isn’t only for privileged Ivy Leaguers and their wealthy parents. This one, for example, features a pregnant bride and at least one electronic monitoring bracelet. Enjoy.

And now, this week’s legal eagle finalist couples (six people, six Harvard degrees, zero ankle bracelets):

1. Katherine Zeisel and Joshua Salzman

2. Maria Gambale and Zachary Taylor

3. Karen Milkosky and Patrick Curran

Check out these couples’ résumés and photos, after the jump.

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.