The New York City marathon happens this Sunday. We know many lawyers who will be running it, and we wish them luck.

The marathon did not impose a minimum age until 1981 (16, raised to 18 in 1988). Pegged to the upcoming marathon, the New York Times had a fascinating article earlier this week about child marathoners, focusing on Wesley Paul, Scott Black (pictured), and Howie Breinan:

The adventures of Paul, Black and Breinan offer a glimpse into a forgotten aspect of the running boom of the late 1970s. Preternaturally self-disciplined, they were among about 75 children (ages 8 to 13) who tackled the early years of the New York City Marathon in a time of novelty and naïveté….

With no conclusive study, physicians still debate risks to children who compete in marathons, like muscular-skeletal injuries, stunted growth, burnout, parental pressures and the ability to handle heat stress.

Another risk: going on to become a securities lawyer. Two out of the three child marathoners profiled by the Times now practice in that field.

Scott Black is a senior trial lawyer at the Securities and Exchange Commission in New York (after several years at Wachtell Lipton, where he worked with Lat on a number of cases). Wesley Paul is a partner at Michelman & Robinson, where he practices corporate and securities law.

We touched base with Black and Paul to ask about possible connections between their running and legal careers. Read more, after the jump.

The general public really doesn’t understand what top-flight counsel does for their corporate clients. If they did, the pitchforks and torches crowd would be as angry at Wall Street lawyers as they are at Wall Street bankers.

Friday’s “revelation” about the advice given to Bank of America by Wachtell Lipton illustrates the point. Am Law Daily reports:

Amid the piles and piles of formerly privileged documents related to the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch merger, there are a few notes and e-mails from mid-December 2008 showing that BofA’s lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz were saying very different things to their client and to federal regulators.

What dastardly double talk did Wachtell Lipton allegedly engage in? Corporate Counsel reports:

The e-mails show that early on the morning of December 19 [Wachtell litigation partner Eric Roth] advised the bank’s chief executive, Ken Lewis, and its interim general counsel, Brian Moynihan, on how difficult and financially risky it would be to try to invoke a so-called MAC — or material adverse change — clause, which would allow the bank to get out of the merger with Merrill.

But another e-mail from associate general counsel Teresa Brenner to Moynihan, sent several hours later and on the same day as Roth’s e-mail, says, “Eric made a very strong case as to why there was a MAC” during a conference call with some officials from the Federal Reserve.

J’accuse!

Pitchforks on parade after the jump.

In this economy, if a newly-minted attorney can find a job, especially one paying over $100,000, she should be grateful. Based on our many conversations with law students and young lawyers, we think that most of them understand these new economic realities.

But not all of them. At least one Above the Law reader is still living in the heady days of “NY to 190.” Here’s what she wrote to us:

Can we put some pressure on firms that pay $160K to match at least those few firms that pay more than $160K (doesn’t a DC firm pay $180K and no, or little, bonuses?). It’s getting close to internal bonus discussion time, and any firm paying first years less than a $20K bonus will be paying less than those few firms, right?

Do we reward those firms paying a base of more than $160K with some positive press? If we do, does that put pressure on every other “peer firm” to remain a peer firm?

Honey, what recession-free universe are you living in? A sense of entitlement is so 2006.

A reality check, after the jump.

Yesterday, the Vault rankings were released. It is time to dig into them.

To refresh your memory here are the top five firms according to Vault:

1. Wachtell
2. Cravath
3. Skadden
4. Sullivan & Cromwell
5. Davis Polk

As we noted yesterday, the only change in the top five is Skadden jumping over S&C. Is that fair? A lot of you opined that Skadden’s prestige score was settled before it starting deferring associates. But surprisingly few of you noted that Skadden paid out bonuses that were double what Cravath, S&C, and DPW paid.

Is twice as much bonus money worth one extra spot in the rankings? Vault’s managing editor, Brian Dalton, suggests that Skadden’s bonus carried some weight:

Skadden had a good year, climbing over Sullivan & Cromwell to take the #3 spot. Among other factors, the notion of ‘half-Skadden’ is a potent one, though not quite enough to carry the firm past Cravath. (Mildly ironic in that Cravath’s bonus decision spawned that meme.)

Truly striking is the reach of the Skadden brand: Third in the Boston regional ranking, second in Chicago, and—taking over from Latham—No. 1 in Northern and Southern California. (Vault’s regional rankings are calculated using only the votes of the survey respondents in the particular region.) By contrast, in its hometown of New York City, Skadden places fifth. (These regional rankings are coming soon to the site.)

After the jump, should any of these firms in the top five move over to make room for somebody else?

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.

Mega-fraudster Marc Dreier, who recently traded a magnificent penthouse for a cell at the MCC (look him up in the handy Inmate Locator), isn’t the only New York lawyer with new digs.

The iconic CBS Building (aka “Black Rock”), longtime home of Wachtell Lipton, has another prestigious legal tenant. From the New York Observer:

Law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe was expected Thursday to sign a lease for approximately 220,000 square feet at CBS’ 38-story granite slab known as Black Rock, at 51 West 52nd Street, according to industry sources.

As part of the deal, Orrick is taking the space being vacated by UBS and Cushman & Wakefield, which will consolidate its midtown offices at 1290 Avenue of the Americas. Sources say that UBS paid more than $32 million to terminate its lease early, money which CBS applied to the Orrick deal to absorb the costs of Orrick’s build-out of the noncontiguous space to the tune of $150 a square foot, and which will reduce the firm’s rent in the building.

It’s a great building, with handsome, elegant architecture (courtesy of Eero Saarinen). Because the footprint is relatively small, it doesn’t have the impersonal, warehouse-like feel of many other New York office buildings. The midtown location is super-convenient, and the higher floors offer amazing views. (We know Black Rock well, having spent several thousand hours in it while working at Wachtell.)

An Orrick spokesperson confirmed to ATL that the deal, described by the Observer as “expected,” has closed. Congratulations to Orrick on the fabulous new digs!

Links and press release, after the jump.

Rejoice, wedding fans! We have some compelling mid-summer material for you this week: Wachtell, SCOTUS, lesbians, French nobility — read on for the details on all of that and more, as reported in the New York Times and filtered by us.

Our finalist couples:

1. Rebecca Gutner and Rodman Forter Jr.

2. Laura Hammond and Christopher Hemphill

3. Laure de Vulpillières and Vanessa Dillen

Admire these couples’ achievements, after the jump.

* Legal bills to blame for Sarah Palin’s exiting the Alaskan gubernatorial stage. [New York Times]

* Appellate lawyer Gregory Coleman had two dates with the SCOTUS justices in eight days. [Austin American-Statesman]

* The U.S. Treasury will soon have a Department of Automobiles. [Washington Post]

* Cass Sunstein has his fingers in White House policy and his eye on SCOTUS. [Wall Street Journal]

* Given the choice, would you rent the books for your IP class rather than buy them? [New York Times]

* Wachtell remains. (On top of the M&A list.) [Bloomberg]

It’s getting ugly out there. For the first time since 2005, associate bonuses at Wachtell Lipton have dipped below 100 percent of base salary.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the subject, here’s how bonuses at WLRK work. First, they’re lockstep, not tied to any billable-hours requirement or performance review. Everyone in the same class receives the same bonus.

Second, Wachtell bonuses are calculated as a percentage of base salary. Sometimes the percentage is the same from class to class; sometimes it’s not. In 2006, for example, there were divergences from year to year. When there are divergences, they generally favor seniority, with more-senior associates receiving bonus percentages that are higher than those given to juniors.

In 2006 and 2007, total bonus compensation at Wachtell (including midyear bonuses in 2006) clocked in at or above 100 percent of base salaries . This year, however, the bonus percentage sank below that threshold. We don’t have the exact number, but we’re hearing around 70 percent of base salary — “good” and “better than expected,” say two sources, but not as good as recent years.

(If this figure isn’t consistent with what you know, please email us. Please mention the class year that is the basis for your information, since sometimes the bonus percentage varies from class to class. Due to that variability, plus the lack of a firm-wide bonus memo, bonuses at Wachtell are less transparent than at other firms.)

Recall also that Wachtell base salaries are on a scale that is slightly above market. First-year associates at WLRK earn a base of $165,000 rather than the usual $160,000 (no Latham shenanigans here). A base salary of $165,000 and a 70 percent bonus would bring total compensation for a (non-stub-year) first-year to just over $280,000.

A Wachtell associate earning under $300,000 is a sad thing. But these are sad times.

Even the Wachtell holiday party was scaled back. More details, plus predictions about the firm’s future, after the jump.

In response to the many queries we receive from couples hoping to be selected for LEWW (yes, we do get them — mostly from grooms, oddly enough), we’d been thinking about drawing up some submission guidelines (sort of like the NYT’s).

But we’ve got a better idea. Three words: pay to play. See, we’ve got this thing, and it’s f****** golden. You don’t just give it away for nothing. Call us; we’ll talk.

Here are this week’s candidates (only two again, because it’s December and the pickings are getting slim):

1. Nancy Kuhn and Bernard Nussbaum

2. Shira Tolins and Benjamin Roth

More on the newlyweds, after the jump.

Today, 50,000 Citigroup employees learned that their services would no longer be needed. I spent the weekend at the gun range working on the skills that will matter in the “new economy,” but law firms partners spent the time jockeying for business. Apparently, not everybody has accepted the post-apocalyptic reality staring us all in the face.

But let’s play their game; let’s assume that there will be “money” in the future that can still be traded for goods and services. Which law firms are positioned to pitch in with new Citigroup work?

Because it’s not going to be Wachtell. AmLaw Daily reminds us that Wachtell is representing Wells Fargo in litigation against Citi. And Sullivan & Cromwell is representing the Wachovia side of that Citi-Wachovia-Wells ménage à screwed.

Given today’s news, it’s not surprising that Citi’s board spent most of the weekend trying to pick a top law firm to cover their backside:

Citi’s board is apparently fighting over which Am Law 100 firm free of conflicts it should retain as counsel.

Quoting an anonymous “person close to the situation,” the Times reports that “Citigroup’s board has been bickering over seemingly small issues, including which white-shoe law firm will represent it. …”

The contenders, after the jump.

A job seeker, who had applications for full-time employment pending with many of New York’s major law firms, recently landed a clerkship. So he decided to withdraw his Biglaw applications.

Here’s the letter he sent — in a spirit of playfulness, not arrogance — to one prominent firm:

Thank you for considering me for an associate position at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Your firm’s background and experiences are impressive, and I know that your efforts to find an appropriate associate will be most successful.

Unfortunately, I am no longer able to pursue a position with your firm. If for any reason my needs should change, I will let you know. I sincerely appreciate your firm’s interest and wish your firm success in its future endeavors.

Regards,
[redacted]

Marty and Herb must be heartbroken, but we suspect that they’ll get over it. Time heals all wounds.

Yesterday was Election Day not just for the nation, but also for Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Wachtell, one of the country’s most prestigious and profitable law firms, traditionally elects its new partners on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November.

The firm just elected half a dozen new partners — a robust number, suggesting that things are going well at WLRK. Congratulations to our former colleagues Ian Boczko (litigation), Damian Didden (antitrust), Matthew Guest (corporate), David Kahan (executive compensation and benefits), David Lam (corporate), and Ante Vucic (corporate). They will become partners of the firm effective January 1, 2009.

Thanks to Wachtell’s insanely high profits and (roughly) lockstep compensation system, they will soon be millionaires. Back in the late 1990s, rumor had it that newly minted partners earned $1.5 million in their first year. The number must surely be higher today, since WLRK’s profits per partner are so much higher now — for 2007, PPP clocked in at a shade under $5 million (or $4.9 million, to be more precise).

We might start doing weekly round-ups of partnership announcements. If you’re at a major firm — say, Vault or Am Law 100 — and have partnership news to pass along, please email us (subject line: “New Partners”).

The full Wachtell Lipton memo, after the jump.

We mentioned yesterday that Simpson Thacher has been chosen to advise the government on the massive $700 billion bailout plan. They were chosen on Friday and are already racking up billable hours on it.

Six other firms were approached by the Treasury, but only two expressed interest. Zach Lowe at the American Lawyer reports:

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton confirmed Tuesday that it was one of the six firms the Treasury Department considered as candidates for a role as lead adviser on the $700 billion bailout plan.

Only two of those six firms pursued the work that eventually went to Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

Four of the six law firms have confirmed that the Treasury reached out to them: Simpson, Cleary, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The two others, including the firm the Treasury turned down, remain unidentified. Two of the most likely candidates — Sullivan & Cromwell and Latham & Watkins — would not comment on the matter. A third, Shearman & Sterling, has not responded to messages.

Lowe tracked down a lawyer at one of the firms that rebuffed the Treasury. The lawyer admitted it was “prime work,” but that they feared not being able to represent “regular clients on the program.” In the cost-benefit analysis, the potential billable hours to financial services companies clamoring for bailout money must outweigh the government possibilities.

But Simpson Thacher is not sweating it:

Richard Beattie, chairman of Simpson Thacher, says the Treasury did not put any pressure on the firm to drop clients and that the firm is not concerned about losing business.

“They did not say that,” Beattie says. “It’s ridiculous. We represent JPMorgan Chase and would not give up a client like that.”

AmLaw reports that Simpson’s other financial clients include Washington Mutual (now part of JPMorgan Chase), Lehman Brothers, and AIG. Given that list, we can see why the government is the more attractive client at the moment.

Cleary Confirms It Rejected Lead Adviser Role on Federal Bailout Plan [American Lawyer]
Simpson Thacher Wins Treasury Sweepstakes, Four Firms Decline [American Lawyer]

The deal between Citigroup and Wachovia fell through, allowing Wells Buffet Fargo to swoop in and pick up the ball Citigroup dropped.

Citigroup is considering whether to increase it’s bid for Wachovia or sue Wachovia according to the Wall Street Journal. They might also consider crying themselves to sleep on their huge pillow.

But legal insiders are busy blaming people for the aborted merger between the two commercial banks. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog suggests that Sullivan and Cromwell —counsel for Wachovia on both mergers— attorneys hit the snooze button one too many times:

We lobbed a call over to Wachovia’s lawyer, S&C’s Rodgin Cohen, to find out. Cohen declined to comment on the record. But in looking for clues this morning, we came across this National Law Journal story entitled, “Crisis mantra for sleep-deprived M&A attorneys: don’t sweat the small stuff.”

Discussing the feverish pace of three recent billion-dollar bank mergers, the NLJ quoted Cohen in explaining how to put such deals together so quickly: “We all understood, you can’t sweat the small stuff.”

The Law Blog claims that the “small stuff” might be an exclusivity agreement:

Citi claims the letter of intent it reached with Wachovia contained an exclusivity agreement prohibiting Wachovia from trying to lure other bidders. … An M&A partner at a large New York firm who spoke with us this morning says no. “Quite often, letters of intent don’t include exclusivity agreements.”

Additional winners and losers after the jump.

Not that anybody asked them, but Wachtell has decided to weigh in on the financial crisis. According to Am Law Daily, Wachtell wants short-selling to stop:

So say several memorandums penned during the past week by executive committee cochair and banking transactions rainmaker Edward Herlihy, 14-year SEC veteran and firm of counsel Theodore Levine, and associate Carmen Woo.

“In today’s markets, short sales continue to be at record levels, there are false rumors in the marketplace about the demise of financial firms, bear raids and abusive short selling are taking place, and there is significant disruption in the fair and orderly functioning of the securities markets,” said Herlihy and Levine in their first memo on September 16. “The markets are in crisis.”

Generally, we like our political power brokers to be elected or at least appointed by somebody who was elected. However, with everybody else in government waiting for Mr. Paulson to come and save America, maybe it is not a bad thing to have professional lawyers suggesting a strong course of action.

We don’t know if the SEC was listening. But we do know that Wachtell told them to ban short-selling on September 16th, and the SEC banned short-selling on September 19th. Post hoc ergo propter hoc …

Wachtell’s next gambit after the jump.

In case you hadn’t heard, Wall Street is in meltdown mode right now. Our colleagues over at Dealbreaker have been working over the weekend and around the clock to cover all the latest developments.

Here are the two big stories from the financial world. First, the top-level parent company of Lehman Brothers, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. (But no sleeping in for Lehmanites; they have been informed that they’re still expected to show up to work this morning.)

Second, Merrill Lynch, the investment bank that some feared might be next to go down the Bear Stearns / Lehman Brothers path, has reached a deal to sell itself to Bank of America, for $50 billion.

What do these deals mean for lawyers? Well, at least in the short term, they bring good news: more work. (Over the long term, of course, the news may be less good, as current and potential future clients vanish from the landscape on Wall Street.)

For its bankruptcy, Lehman is turning to Weil Gotshal & Manges, long known for its top-notch bankruptcy practice. From Dealbook:

Lehman has hired Weil, Gotshal & Manges, the law firm that handled Drexel [Burnham Lambert]’s bankruptcy filing [in 1990]. Harvey Miller, the head of Weil’s restructuring practice, is known as one of the deans of the bankruptcy bar.

In addition, Lehman is trying to sell its more valuable assets, including its broker-dealer and asset-management operations. It appears to be represented in those efforts by Sullivan & Cromwell, according to TheDeal.com (subscription).

Meanwhile, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, a powerhouse in financial-institutions M&A, is getting a piece of the action on the Merrill deal. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the Merrill / B of A deal was hammered out in “a marathon series of meetings at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the law firm which has long represented Bank of America in its deals.”

Wachtell isn’t lending out their offices for free. As TheDeal.com reports, WLRK is indeed representing Bank of America in the transaction (for a fee that will be well into the eight figures — Ed Herlihy doesn’t come cheap). Merrill Lynch is being advised by Shearman & Sterling.

If you’re aware of other winners and losers from these deals, please share what you know, in the comments.

Lehman Announces Bankruptcy Filing For Holding Company [Dealbreaker]
Bank of America Reaches Deal To Buy Merrill Lynch [Dealbreaker]
What a Lehman Bankruptcy Filing Might Look Like [DealBook]
Bank of America to Buy Merrill [Wall Street Journal]

Wachtell may be the most prestigious firm out there (according to Vault), but it has the industry’s worst Web site, as rated by Jonathan Thrope of the American Lawyer. We’re not completely sure we trust his judgment though, since he was “sucked in” by Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice’s animated dog. We waited for it to do something cool, but it just stretched and yawned.

According to Thrope, law firms are getting more serious about online marketing and using Web sites to create a distinctive brand. In general, law firm sites strike us as fairly dry. And boring. There are a few exceptions, like the Van Winkle Law Firm’s split personality bio page. North Carolina-based Van Winkle adds a personal touch to its site with dual bios (and photos) for many of its attorneys: one with professional highlights, and another focused on hobbies and life outside of work.

Other firms experiment with offbeat advertising, but seem to be using it to recruit attorneys, not clients. Like Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle’s creation of a Facebook page, and Stoel Rives’ free-style running promo on YouTube.

Of the assortment of staid sites in the AmLaw 100, five made Thrope’s cut for the worst. Check them out after the jump.

As we expected, celebrity professors Cass Sunstein and Samatha Power were the winners of last week’s July Couple of the Month voting, running away with over 60 percent of the vote. Congratulations to this nerdy-hot duo!

This week’s set of contestants might be the strongest we’ve seen this season. Their write-ups feature five Harvard degrees, a Rhodes, and one of Biglaw’s most exalted surnames. Here are the names of the newlyweds:

1. Geneviève Treuille and Daniel Wachtell

2. Melissa Langsam and Todd Braunstein

3. Amanda Schwoerke and Stephen Sachs

Read more about these couples — and see their pictures — after the jump.

Jingoistic competition is fun, but why should handing out medals be the sole province of the IOC? Athletes and David Rivkin should not be the only ones getting a taste of Olympic glory.

Here at ATL, we’ve put law firms on the (imaginary) field of competition and are now ready to reveal the gold medal winners in a number of sports.

After the jump, see the winners, and weigh in on which firms would be champions in sports we did not pick for prime time.