Last week, we tangentially touched on the issue of California's Proposition 8, which is titled: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The issue touched off a firestorm of comments, with many strong opinions for and against the measure.

Apparently, senior attorneys at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe also hold strong opinions about Prop. 8. Political divisions at the firm came to a head when Dean Criddle, a tax partner in the San Francisco office, made a $5,000 contribution to the Yes On 8 campaign. Upon learning of Criddle's contribution, his colleague in the tax department and San Francisco office, of counsel Cameron Wolfe, sent out this email:

Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:57 PM

To: SF ALL ATTORNEYS; SV ALL ATTORNEYS; SC ALL ATTORNEYS

Subject: Orrick and the Proposition 8 Campaign

The publicity attendant to the $5,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 Campaign by an Orrick partner damages the reputation of Orrick as a progressive law firm supportive of equal rights for gay and lesbian people. This can adversely impact the firm in many ways, including hurting our ability to attract gay and lesbian recruits; turning off clients, existing and potential, that support equal rights for homosexuals; and making our current gay and lesbian work force feel like second class citizens.

Chief justice George's eloquent exposition of the reasons why same sex marriage is a right that should be guaranteed to all gay and lesbian people need not be elaborated upon here. Obviously, the partner who made the $5,000 contribution had a right to believe the Chief Justice to be wrong and to make the contribution he did. It can be debated whether he should have foreseen that this action could damage Orrick. What can't be debated is that we should try to counteract the damage that has occurred.

One thing that we as individuals working at the Orrick firm can do is to make personal contributions to the No on 8 Campaign. If enough of us do so, that may be newsworthy enough to generate positive publicity offsetting the present negative impression in the community on this important issue.

I urge each of you to make a contribution to No on 8, which can be sent as follows:

No on 8
Equality California
2370 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94114

And be sure to indicate your affiliation with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

Thanks for your help.

Cameron Wolfe, Jr.

We can argue about whether gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution, but isn't it a little bit odd to be advocating one right while trying to step on a separate Constitutional protection?

Another Orrick lawyer weighs in, after the jump.

Michigan people, I feel your pain. The seven fumble loss to "The School That God Built, Then Abandoned" was terrible. You guys are trying to enjoy these last days of summer before the arctic wind sends you into underground bunkers. And clearly, you can't lend out a cell phone/ask for your cell phone back without getting dragged into a heated exchange that is mocked by all.

I understand how in that environment petty slights can turn into glorious insults. You demand satisfaction! But you justice seekers might want to turn somewhere other than the University of Michigan's law school list-serv. The following email was sent by a 1L who has been on campus for approximately 11 minutes and 6 seconds:

Dear Student Body,

Whoever the SLEAZE is who likes taking people's lunches (in particular, 1/2's of subway sandwiches bought on one day and saved for the next) from the refrigerator in the student lounge, STOP. In case you aren't aware, it's stealing. Perhaps you're practicing for a career in corporate law, but law school isn't the place to practice this particular skill. Also, in case you aren't aware, here are a few reasons not to do this:

1) Stealing lunches erodes collegiality among the student body.

2) Stealing lunches inconveniences the person from whom you steal by forcing them to go get lunch elsewhere, thereby wasting time and resources.

3) Stealing lunches can cause an additional inconvenience with having to buy lunch elsewhere. For most of us, the couple dollar loss isn't really the issue, but imagine not having your wallet with you on a day when someone has stolen your lunch? You must either do without or seek out somebody to borrow from, both of which are annoying.

If you're really so poor you can't afford lunch, the law school will provide you with an emergency loan. If you're just a sleaze, either take an ethics class or come talk to me.

Well allow me to retort.

1) I once got robbed and to make myself feel better, I called it "sharing" instead of "stealing."

2) Isn't forcing someone to get their lunch somewhere other than Subway kind of a good thing?

3) Not having your wallet? The only guys I know that don't carry around their wallet whenever they leave the house are super rich or homeless. Which one are you?

The rest of the maize and blue electronically punch this guy after the jump.

When you've been wronged, there's a part of you that wants the whole world to know. Maybe you think exposing the evildoer's misdeeds will bring solace, revenge, sympathy... But more often than not, it brings scorn. People just don't like tattletales.

Several tipsters sent along such an exchange from the University of Michigan's law school list-serv. Here's the catfight one law student sent out to the list-serv with the subject line, "not sure how to handle this:"

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:22 PM, TATTLETALE wrote:

EVILDOER,

Listen, I tried to be nice and understanding about all this but now it's just ridiculous! I did you a favor and now I've been stuck hounding you for my phone for months and months as if you're doing ME the favor! I bought that phone for $120, so either send me a check for that amount or return the phone ASAP...

I'm not going to lecture you about how this is no way to treat a law school class mate and definately [sic] no way to start making your reputation in the legal community -- hopefully you realize all that. Just return the phone or the money so I can finally forget about this after half a year!

-TATTLETALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:01:52 +0200
From: EVILDOER
Subject: Re: phone
To: TATTLETALE

You f***ing nasty b****,
My sister is gonna give you a f***ing check that you can f***ing hold onto until I come back from rome.
EVILDOER

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:54 AM, EVILDOER wrote:

I AM INF ***ING ROME YOU STUPID W****. I SAID I WILL MAIL IT TO YOU ONCE I
GET BACK. NO REASON TO BE A F***ING B****.

Is bar exam stress driving Michigan students over the edge?

Full exchange (warning: unredacted profanity), plus a bevy of responses, after the jump.

(We've redacted identities -- and appreciate your protecting anonymity in the comments. Thanks.)

In the wake of a former Harvard Law Review president securing the Democratic nomination for United States president, it's timely to do an update on the Harvard Law Review Note controversy (or Statue-Gate, as Glenn Reynolds dubbed it). If you haven't been following the story, background appears here, here, and here.

Whenever a leader stumbles, bloggers swarm. The mini-scandal at America's top law review has spawned a cottage industry of blogs. First there was a blog claiming to be written by Note author Phil Telfeyan, Do the Right Thing at Every Moment. It was under password protection for a time, but it's once again open to all. And now there are at least two other blogs dedicated to covering perceived scholarly lapses at Harvard Law School and the Harvard Law Review, Harvard Clown School and Harvard Law Review Review (both via Prettier Than Napoleon).

There have been all sorts of rumors going around about Phil Telfeyan, his Note, and the blog dedicated to the Note (which may or may not be his). We made an effort to get to the bottom of some of them, talking to people with firsthand knowledge of the situation, including current and former HLR editors. We didn't find out everything we wanted to know, but we learned a few new things.

If you're curious -- some of you may be tired of this story, and we don't blame you -- you can read more below the fold.

The Washington Post's Reliable Source column has a short piece about Holland & Knight partner Thomas Brownell, who apparently got a little too caught up in a family feud over a property in Virginia wine country. Brownell doesn't look like much of a fighter in his firm mug shot, but allegedly, he throws a mean punch:

In criminal charges and a new lawsuit, the [Oasis Winery] founder's son alleges his mom's attorney slugged him. Tareq Salahi claims his mother, Corinne Salahi -- with whom he is fighting for control of the estate -- wrongly moved some chairs from his house to the winery; when he moved them back, he claims, her lawyer, Thomas Brownell, punched him in the shoulder and threw him into a door. "Tareq is a big man; it takes a lot of force to do that," said the younger Salahi's attorney, Stephanie Ryan, who last week filed suit in Fairfax County against Brownell and his firm, Holland & Knight.

Use your words, not your fists -- that's what moms say. Do they teach that in law school?

In Va. Wine Country: Musical Chairs Followed by Punch [Washington Post]

It depends on whose side of the story you believe. From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

In a sensational legal filing (PDF), a former partner at Adams and Reese who is awaiting trial on charges that he stole $30 million from the firm claims that the firm has had a hand in scandals ranging from the WorldCom stock fraud to the abuse of Louisiana film tax credits.

The lawsuit also claims the New Orleans firm has made a practice of hiring former public officials, including former Jefferson Parish President Tim Coulon and former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial, and improperly using them to land clients with whom they had dealt as public officials. Coulon and Morial deny the claim.

The 73-page civil racketeering lawsuit reads more like a legal thriller than a court filing. It portrays accused thief Jamie Perdigao as a hard worker who was trying to stay within ethical boundaries while senior members of the firm pressured him into bending the rules to make money.

The suit does not make clear whether Perdigao has evidence to support his allegations. The law firm called the suit "the latest episode in Perdigao's continuing fantasy of blaming the government and our firm for his wrongdoing and lashing out at those who are holding him accountable for his actions."

Several tipsters alerted us to this article. Some viewed it as par for the course in Louisiana:

"[A] nice scandalous law firm story, though not entirely surprising coming from New Orleans. Adams & Reese is certainly one of the top firms in the Gulf area and largely considered to be the closest you will get to Biglaw down there."

"Most people don't know how corrupt New Orleans politics really are, but now we've got a suit filed against Adams & Reese (the largest firm in the city) for its involvement. The plaintiff is a former partner caught stealing $20-30 million a few years back.... Guess he figures if he goes to jail, he may as well bring his former partners with him. Pretty good stuff."

But another reader views Perdigao's account skeptically, summarizing the situation as follows:

"Attorney steals $30M, then blames former firm in mini-Grisham novel, 70 page-RICO suit."

This suit sounds like one to watch. We suspect that neither party will emerge smelling like magnolias.

Indicted lawyer says New Orleans firm steeped in corruption [NOLA.com / New Orleans Times-Picayune via ABA Journal]
Complaint: Perdigao v. Adams and Reese (PDF) [NOLA.com / New Orleans Times-Picayune]

When it comes to law school graduation speakers, it's hard to please everyone. Earlier this year, controversy erupted at Boston College Law School when U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey was announced as the commencement speaker. Some students, faculty and alumni voiced opposition to AG Mukasey, based on his involvement in the waterboarding / torture controversy (extensive coverage collected here; resolution of the situation described here).

Now we report on commencement controversy news of a rather different (and somewhat less highbrow) sort. It arises out of the decision by Northwestern University School of Law to invite Jerry Springer to serve as this year's commencement speaker. Springer got his law degree there in '68, worked as a campaign aide to Robert F. Kennedy, and served as mayor of Cincinnati. But he's perhaps best known as the ringmaster of scandal and vulgarity on the Jerry Springer Show (and an unsuccessful contestant on Dancing With the Stars).

Some Northwestern students are not happy about Springer's selection. From a tipster:

There is a current uproar in the graduating class at Northwestern Law. The graduation committee thought Jerry Springer would be an appropriate speaker for this year's convocation. Most of the student body is opposed to this, but this administration is sticking by the committee's decision.

Maybe he'll bring Northwestern students with secrets and unresolved conflicts up on stage, then have them confess and brawl. That might be more fun than the usual staid graduation ceremony.

We contacted the school for comment, which issued the following statement, from Dean David E. Van Zandt:

In keeping with the spirit of our community, our commencement speaker annually is selected by a student committee, approved by the administration, and invited by both.

Mr. Springer is an alumnus who has held public office as a city council member and mayor of Cincinnati. He has had a very successful career in the news and entertainment industries.

We look forward to Mr. Springer's participation at commencement.

At least one LLM candidate is trying to prevent Springer's speaking. See the protest letter circulating at Northwestern, and vote in our reader poll, after the jump.

Update: Also after the jump, a defense of Jerry Springer's selection as commencement speaker, which went out over the NU law school listerv.

We love internecine warfare at law schools and in other academic settings. As the old saying goes -- our cursory Googling doesn't immediately generate the exact wording or source, so we'll paraphrase -- fights in academia are especially vicious, because the stakes are especially small.

As Hillary and Barack do battle in Virginia today, so too do administrators at William and Mary. From a tipster at William & Mary School of Law (interesting factoid: it's one of the oldest law schools in the country):

Today the William and Mary Board of Visitors decided not to renew William and Mary President Gene Nichol's contract. Nichols sent out a pretty amazing email to all students about his resignation, and Michael Powell, former FCC Chairman and Rector of W&M, sent a response. Needless to say, people are talking of nothing else today.

To make the story even better, the law school dean, Taylor Reveley, is now serving as President of W&M. Nichols is joining the law school staff, where his wife is also a professor.

Check out the messages -- Gene Nichol's defiant departure email, claiming he was ousted due to ideological reasons, and Michael Powell's steadfast denial that the non-renewal was based on ideology -- after the jump.

Updates: First, a W&M tipster advises:

William & Mary School of Law is actually THE oldest law school in America (not one of the oldest). See Davison M. Douglas, The Jeffersonian Vision of Legal Education, 51 J. Legal Educ. 185, 197 (2002) ("[I]n January 1780 William and Mary became the first college in America to offer a formal course of study in law.").

Second, another source notes that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is the Chancellor of the College of William & Mary. Perhaps the formidable SOC needs to descend on Williamsburg and restore some order down there.

* The NYT's official statement on L'Affaire Berenson. [Starkman & Associates]

* A slew of law school hypotheticals about sex with and between minors, triggered by Carl Stanley McGee, our Lawyer of the Day. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Second runner-up for Lawyer of the Day? And a punitive damages award of $33 million. Ouch. [How Appealing]

* Man saves dog; law student saves man. Congratulations to GW's Jason Coates, our Law Student of the Day! [GW Hatchet]

* "Derek Jeter has romanced Mariah Carey, squired Jessica Biel, sweet-talked Scarlett Johansson -- and now he's made it to first base with the state taxman." [TaxProf Blog]

* Wow, this is wild. Has Gary Crossen, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Foley Hoag, read too many John Grisham novels? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Speaking of white-collar criminal defense lawyers, more business may be headed their way, courtesy of Andrew Cuomo. [DealBreaker]

* You've got... male? [Reuters]

* Are you a Disgruntled Republican? Join the club -- or buy a mug. [Zazzle]

Not everyone likes Attorney General Michael Mukasey. At Boston College Law School, students are protesting Dean John Garvey's decision to invite Attorney General Mukasey to deliver the school's 2008 Commencement address. See here (Facebook group: "Waterboarding IS Torture"), here, and here.

Why are liberals so unhappy about Mukasey? We'd expect the AG to receive a warmer reception, in light of this happy news, which made the pages of the Washington Post:

Five years after a gay advocacy group was told that it could no longer use the e-mail, bulletin boards and meeting rooms at the Justice Department, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has reversed that decision and issued a revised equal-employment-opportunity policy barring discrimination against any group.

Mukasey informed leaders of DOJ Pride last week that the department would give it the same rights as all other DOJ employee organizations, said the group's president, Chris Hook. In a statement, Mukasey said the department will "foster an environment in which diversity is valued, understood and sought" and maintain "an environment that's free of discrimination."

Writes a Department of Justice source:

Finally -- now I can celebrate "Pride on Ice" anytime I want! Michael Mukasey gets two snaps in a circle for this decision!

In another sign of libertinism running rampant in the halls of justice, Lady Justice's magnificent metal breastses are no longer covered up, as they were during the repressive Ashcroft regime (during which female DOJ lawyers had to wear burqas to court). But the credit for the breast-baring belongs to Alberto Gonzales.

Attorney General Mukasey Reverses Anti-Gay Policy at Justice Dept [Towleroad: A Site With Homosexual Tendencies]
Attorney General Reverses Curbs On Gay Group at Justice Department [Washington Post]
Boston College Law School Community Members Protests Mukasey [ACS Blog]
Mukasey Invitation Prompts the Question: "What has BC Law become?" [Eagleionline]

If we hadn't already named a Lawyer of the Day, the prize might have gone to Jeremy Pitcock of Morgan & Finnegan. From the American Lawyer:

The former head of intellectual property at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman was fired in December for "extremely inappropriate personal conduct," according to the firm.

Not merely "inappropriate" conduct, but "extremely inappropriate" conduct. We're guessing it was strenuously objectionable.

Jeremy Pitcock, 35, joined Kasowitz in March 2006 after being wooed from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, where he was a senior associate. Kasowitz named him head of IP not long after. But after less than two years, Pitcock left the 200-plus-lawyer firm for 52-lawyer New York IP boutique Morgan & Finnegan.

Morgan touted Pitcock's hiring as "an outstanding addition to our successful litigation practice" when it announced his move on January 8. But the Kasowitz firm says he was forced out following an unspecified incident.

"Mr. Pitcock was terminated for cause by Kasowitz, Benson in December 2007 because of extremely inappropriate personal conduct," name partner Daniel Benson said in a statement.

So what prompted the firm's statement?

Kasowitz's statement followed the publication of an article in trade publication IP Law 360 last week, which reported that Morgan had lured Pitcock from Kasowitz. In his statement, directed toward the publication, Benson said, "It was inaccurate to use 'nab' in your headline, or to use 'jump ship' in your opening paragraph."

"We were not looking to publicize this incident, but because of those incorrect news items, we felt compelled to set the record straight," Benson said in a press release that the firm distributed online.

We're intrigued -- and the full article in the American Lawyer doesn't offer much more. If you have details on the alleged conduct, please email us. Thanks.

Update (6/6/08): Jeremy Pitcock has filed a $90 million defamation lawsuit against Kasowitz Benson. See here.

Kasowitz Fired its ex-IP Chief for Inappropriate Conduct [The American Lawyer via Law.com]
Jeremy S. Pitcock bio [Morgan & Finnegan]

Today we bring you not one, but two Judges of the Day. We can't decide who is more deserving of the honor. From the Florida Times-Union:

Twelve days before Christmas, Circuit Judge Aaron Bowden fired his 17-year judicial assistant, who had been on leave since August with cancer. The Jacksonville judge said he feared her prolonged illness would leave him without an assistant at a time when the state had implemented a hiring freeze.

But his decision left Christine Birch, 54, with no medical, life or disability insurance and has created a firestorm at the courthouse.

Chief Circuit Judge Donald Moran responded by calling Bowden "a no-good son of a bitch," prompting Bowden to respond with a blistering e-mail (PDF) defending his decision and calling Moran's criticism irresponsible, unprofessional and unseemly.

Other judges' assistants were also appalled by Birch's firing. They raised money to pay her rent this month....

Birch declined comment Thursday. But she thanked Moran in a handwritten note last week for putting her back on the courthouse payroll in a rotating judicial assistant's position. Birch was paid about $3,275 a month in her old job, and the state paid her health insurance premium. Her new rotating position pays $750 less a month and requires her to pay her own premiums.

Our tipster writes:

Best quote from the article: "He said if she died while on the payroll, he would have been without an assistant for two months, 'not an ideal situation for a judge.'" I guess dying wouldn't have been an ideal situation for her, either.

To get both sides of the story, check out the email from Judge Bowden in which he defends his actions (and rips Chief Judge Moran a new one). You can access his message -- in which he benchslaps Chief Judge Moran for his "effrontery" and his "irresponsible" comments, made "precipitously [and] without authority" -- by clicking here (PDF).

P.S. Speaking of cancer, here's a PSA from ATL, and bad news for Biglaw associates and paralegals: according to cancer researchers, overnight work and sleep deprivation may raise your cancer risk.

Judge fires his assistant, draws criticism [Florida Times-Union]
Email from Judge Aaron Bowden (PDF) [Florida Times-Union]

This actually happened quite some time ago -- last month, to be exact. But we're happy to write about it because (1) it hasn't been blogged about elsewhere, as far as we know, and (2) with the passage of time, tempers have cooled. So maybe now people can look back on it with amusement rather than anger.

A summary, from one of the several tipsters who drew our attention to this:

A friend of mine at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama, sent me this. Apparently some girl sent out a mass email about President Bush's veto of some health care legislation. This set off a whole clusterf**k of responding emails, with the debate devolving into one over race and class. From reading through the several threads, it's almost frightening that some of these people are actually going to become lawyers.

[One of the more] recent post[s] is especially enlightening.... [T]he author states that "The powers that be count on sellouts to climb the ladder of success and refuse to help those underneath them. That way they can use you sellouts as tokens...."

However, the most hilarious part of this whole thing is where one of the black (1L) students responds to an Asian student by saying, "To the Asian.....u aint black." Further idiocy follows.

The aforementioned "idiocy," after the jump.

Finding a decent legal job is hard enough as it is. Having a career services office that's in complete disarray doesn't help. From a tipster:

Emory Law's Career Services Office has imploded. The latest departure was the Dean of Career Services, Dean Laurie Hartman, last month. She left under mysterious circumstances....

Students are asking lots of questions. They organized a facebook group, asking for an explanation, or an explanation for "if you can't tell us what is going on, can you tell us why you can't tell us what is going on?" Many law students went to their university paper, the Emory Wheel.

More after the jump.

We're rather late on this, but better late than never. Some time ago, one of you sent us this tip:

Fish & Richardson has asserted ownership over patents secured by a former principal who, in addition to being an attorney, also is a prolific inventor (and alleged "patent troll").

Interestingly enough, Fish appears to have made its claims only after Google, one of its clients, was sued under a patent claiming a technology that Harris invented while at Fish. See Patently O, which has a copy of the Complaint.

What a mess. Anyway, we were reminded of the case yesterday, when it was picked up by Overlawyered:

Annals of creative patent lawyering: Highly placed attorney with intellectual-property specialists Fish & Richardson accumulates his own portfolio of patents, quits the firm, begins suing Fish & Richardson clients, things get messy fast (Patent Troll Tracker, Oct. 21).

We expect to be following this case for a while. If you have some inside info to share, please email us. Thanks.

Annals of creative patent lawyering [Overlawyered]
A Tangled Web of Patent Rights [Patently O: Patent Law Blog]
Fish & Richardson Strikes Back at Scott Harris [Patent Troll Tracker]
Patent Troll Sues Fish & Richardson [Patent Troll Tracker]

In case you missed this story from last week, here's a recap. Earlier this month, a plaintiffs' lawyer in Montana by the name of William Managhan sent out the following email, to the entire Montana Trial Lawyers Association:

From: William L. Managhan
To: Montana Trial Lawyers
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: [mtla_members_all] Firm Name Change

Managhan & Kortum-Managhan Law Firm will no longer be known as such. The name is returning to Managhan Law Firm as Santana Kortum-Managhan is leaving the firm. Turns out that she was having sex with Tim McKeon of Anaconda while attending MMLP hearings in Helena.

Call me silly but I no longer fill [sic] comfortable with her as my law partner or wife. Some will think this is an inappropriate announcement, but considering the small legal community in our state, I might as well preempt the roomer mill [sic]. Please address communication to William L. Managhan through Managhan Law Firm.

More discussion, including accounts of our telephone conversations with Bobbi Bonnington and Tim of Anaconda, after the jump.

This email message, from Professor Erwin Chemerinsky to Duke law school faculty and students, went out ten minutes ago.

Also, here's some coverage from the Los Angeles Times.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Erwin Chemerinsky"
To: [redacted]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:07:53 -0400
Subject: news

It is with excitement and sadness that I am writing to tell you that I have accepted the position to be the founding dean of the Donald Bren School of Law at the University of California, Irvine. After meeting with Chancellor Michael Drake at length this weekend, I accepted his renewed offer. He provided me the greatest possible assurance of academic freedom for the dean and all faculty.

It has been one of the strangest and most difficult weeks of my life. I cannot possibly express my thanks for all of the support that I received from the law school's faculty, administrators, and students. I am sad to be leaving this wonderful supportive community, though excited about the new challenges ahead.

Chemerinsky to return as UC Irvine law dean [Los Angeles Times]

A fantastic and hilarious email, announcing a name change for a Montana law firm, has been making the rounds. We'd like to reprint it here, but we'll refrain for now. Instead, read the email and commentary on it here and here.

We have no reason to question the authenticity of the email (which apparently went out to the entire membership of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association). But we haven't verified it definitively either. And we'd like to give William Managhan and Santana Kortum-Managhan the chance to comment, given the salacious nature of the material. How do they fill about all the roomers?

Accordingly, we have phone calls and emails in to the Managhan Law Firm (whose typo-laden website still identifies it as the "Managhan & Kortum-Managhan Law Firm"). We will let you know if and when we hear back from them.

Update (7 PM): We have been communicating with Bobbi Bonnington via email. We hope to have more information for you soon.

A comedic tidbit...courtesy of Montana [The Amateur Law Professor]
Firm Name Change [The Legal Scoop]

Who knew that such a little man could generate such big controversy?

In a nutshell (see the links collected below for more):

Erwin Chemerinsky, the brilliant but controversial professor of constitutional law at Duke, accepted an offer to serve as inaugural dean of UC Irvine's new law school. But then Professor Chemerinsky's deanship was yanked as quickly as it was offered, based on the administration's discomfort with Chemerinsky's political views.

One tipster reminds us: "For those who took BarBri, Chemerinsky is the Con Law professor who can recite the entire lecture (2 days if I recall) from memory, without consulting his notes."

Does anyone have a copy of, or know the contents of, Chemerinsky's employment contract with U.C. Irvine? If so, please contact us by email. Thanks.

Also, you can take our reader poll about the controversy, which appears after the jump.

New UC Irvine Law School Hires Chemerinsky as Dean, Then Fires Him for Political Reasons
[Brian Leiter's Law School Reports]
The O.C. — Law School Edition [WSJ Law Blog]
Could This Be True??? [PrawfsBlawg]
Chemerinsky says UC Irvine rescinds offer to become law school dean [Los Angeles Times]

This email exchange, between two law students at Washington University Law, took place late last month. It's reminiscent of that Greenberg Traurig email exchange from the other day -- which, in our book, is high praise.

Some background, from our tipster:

I'm an avid reader of ATL. Although I don't see much law school coverage on your site, I thought you might find this email string between a couple Washington University in St. Louis law students amusing.

Note that the email string starts as a solicitation sent to the entire school, marketing a washer/dryer for sale. The proceeding communications are also copied to the ENTIRE school of law (including professors, deans, etc.).

Check it out, after the jump.