Congratulations to WilmerHale and two of its associates, Ross Firsenbaum and Shauna Friedman. They just scored a big-time victory in a pro bono case.

It’s a story straight out of the movies. WilmerHale’s client, Dewey Bozella, a 50-year-old African-American man, was released from custody earlier this week — after serving 26 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. From the New York Times:

Mr. Bozella would still be in prison except for a few lucky breaks. The first came in 2007, when he contacted the Innocence Project, a legal group that focuses on wrongful convictions. The group, after determining all the physical evidence had already been destroyed, asked the high-powered law firm of WilmerHale to handle the case on a pro bono basis.

Ross E. Firsenbaum, a senior associate, said the firm’s lawyers had spent 2,500 hours — worth $950,000 at customary rates — on the case, the kind of representation almost never available to indigent convicts.

Will Bozella file a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit — perhaps represented by Wilmer, on a contingency basis? It could yield up a nice chunk of change (to make up for the nearly $1 million in non-billable work). Given all the firm has done for him, Bozella certainly owes WH a debt of gratitude.

Anyway, it’s a remarkable case. Read more about the victory in the NYT and Am Law Daily.

Such success is not entirely surprising. Although WilmerHale has one of the country’s top appellate practices, WH lawyers know their way around the trial court too. As noted in the firm’s ATL Career Center profile,”[t]he firm is known for its litigation expertise, as well as its regulatory practice and Beltway connections.”

Meanwhile, in other firm news, we got our hands on the WilmerHale warning memo that we mentioned earlier this month. Truth be told, it’s a little disappointing — not nearly as scary as we were led to believe.

We were expecting associates to be threatened with 26 years of imprisonment (or doc review) for leaking firm information to ATL. Or maybe waterboarding by Bill and Bill. But the actual memo is not unreasonable and fairly tame, guilt-tripping rather than menacing.

Check it out, along with some cautionary words for law firms thinking of clamping down on leakers, after the jump.

Although we focus on Biglaw in these pages, our recent open threads on small (or at least smaller) law firms, centered around different areas of practice, have been very well-received. So we’ll continue the series. To look at the past threads, click here and scroll down; to suggest a topic to us, please email us (subject line: “Small Law suggestion”).

Today we turn our attention to APPELLATE LAW. This field is near and dear to our heart, since we clerked for a federal appellate judge and focused on appeals during our time in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. If you enjoy research, writing and arguing more than document review and discovery hell, and if you are as lazy as we are more of a “law” person than a “facts” person, then appellate work may be for you.

Unfortunately, there aren’t that many appellate boutiques out there. It’s not easy to build a practice around 100 percent appeals work. Many top appellate practitioners can be found in the Washington offices of large firms, where they can be roped into law-heavy work in the trial courts (e.g., summary judgment motions). Biglaw shops with leading appellate and Supreme Court practices include Gibson Dunn, Mayer Brown, Jones Day, Sidley Austin, and WilmerHale. Check out the Chambers and Partners list of top appellate shops for additional examples.

UPDATE: One appellate practitioner pointed out to us that you can do appellate work for a large firm outside D.C. as well (especially in this age of telecommuting). For example, Jones Day and Mayer Brown have sizable presences in New York (and other cities).

There are opportunities to do appellate work outside the big firm environment too. Read more, after the jump.

We don’t have all of the details, but multiple sources report that WilmerHale is laying off 57 staffers today (secretaries and paralegals). We understand that the staff is being informed right now.

We don’t have information about what (if any) severance package is being offered to the departed staff. Our sources report that the layoffs will affect staff in Boston, D.C., and New York offices.

Spokespeople for WilmerHale did not respond to an immediate request comment. But we hope to have more information as people are informed of their job situation.

Good luck, WilmerHale friends.

UPDATE More from our tipsters, and a statement from the firm, after the jump.

As Justice Brandeis famously observed, “[s]unlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” A certain amount of transparency keeps organizations honest and ethical. Alas, it seems that some law firms, like vampires, have a lower tolerance for sunlight than others.

In late August, we ran an offer rate open thread. There were over 550 comments, and some of the ones about WilmerHale were a little disturbing. They came to our attention when an individual weighing offers from WilmerHale and other top law firms sent us this message:

Could you follow up on all of the negative comments re: WilmerHale in your Summer Offer Rate Open Thread? I’m considering an offer from this firm, and there seem to be a ton of disgruntled associates there. The whole thing seems to center around an internal memo warning associates not to send tips to ATL. This deserves some investigation. Thanks for running an excellent blog.

So we took a closer look at the WH comments on the thread. Like this one:

The firm has made it abundantly clear that no one should provide tips to ATL or post comments. The clear message is that if caught, you’ll be fired. I, however, have already been “transitioned out”, so I have nothing to worry about other than feeding my family.

And this one:

Didn’t you just love the scathing internal memo meant to scare the living &*^$ out of those who were even thinking about tipping ATL? Apparently it worked, because it didn’t end up here (though it should have). I guess the few that were spared from the bloodbath are shaking in their boots.

We haven’t received the memo itself — yet — but we certainly received an awful lot of detail about it.

More reactions to the memo, plus comment from the firm, after the jump.

We suppose it’s fitting that on Yom Kippur, when our Jewish friends are fasting at home, today’s Legal Eagle Wedding Watch is a total WASP-fest. (Last weekend was Rosh Hashanah, which explains the unusual dearth of Jewish nuptials in the NYT announcements.) We look forward to receiving plenty of tasteful feedback about how there are “too many gentiles” this week.

Here are your six finalists — all Biglaw associates, as it happens:

1. Elisabeth Madden and Wesley Mullen

2. Ann Parker and Robert McKeehan

3. Emily Harris and Matthew Mauney

Read all about these couples and evaluate their credentials, after the jump.

Let’s finish off the prestigious Vault 20. Here we have some firms on the rise, and some firms that are … not.

Here is the next batch of firms:

16. WilmerHale
17. Latham & Watkins
18. Arnold & Porter
19. Jones Day
20. White & Case

Okay, before we discuss Latham and White & Case, let’s give a good cheer for WilmerHale (up one spot from last year), Arnold & Porter (up two spots from last year), and Jones Day (up four spots from last year).

The Jones Day surge is particularly impressive. You’ll remember that the firm slammed its competitors earlier this month. But it seems like the firm is walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

After the jump, you know what happens next.

The current online front page of the NYT weddings section is worth a click. The head blurb leads with “Despite their differences in age … ” underneath a picture of a 20-something bride embracing a “groom” who appears to be about nine years old. “Differences in age,” indeed. Somebody alert Morality in Media! (Of course, when you click on the link, you learn that the real groom is 40-something. Still yucky, but not illegal.)

Our spotlighted weddings this week feature couples who are well-matched not only in age, but in accomplishments. Here they are:

1. Robyn Maslynsky and Paul Goldschmid

2. Stacy Humes-Schulz and Matthew Frazier

3. Courtney Dankworth and Russell Capone Jr.

Read more about these couples, after the jump.

Last month, the firm of WilmerHale denied that any layoffs have taken place at the firm. The accuracy of that statement depends on what the meaning of “layoff” is.

In an internal memo obtained by Above the Law, the firm acknowledges that “a very small number of individuals” have been asked to leave WH for economic reasons. The memo also notes that the performance review process “is affected by the reality of current economic conditions, as performance issues sometimes come to light more when business is slower.”

(This may constitute some welcome candor. Other firms try to claim, somewhat implausibly, that performance reviews are utterly unaffected by the economy, i.e., that associates are judged by the exact same standards as in boom times.)

Still, the knowledge that the economy contributed to one’s purportedly performance-based dismissal is cold comfort. From an affected associate at WilmerHale:

I was one of the ones that was cut for “performance” reasons. My evaluations were [several] pages long, single spaced — of accolades… with one half of one sentence that mentioned something I could improve on… from one partner out of [many] that evaluated me. I was let go based on that one phase, copied and pasted on the front of the eval…. Unlike the claim [in the memo] that the firm cannot give associates “three or four” chances to make improvements, I had never received a similar comment in the past.

Many partners were apparently left out of the process of deciding which associates to cut — and as a result have begun to “vent” to the associates that were cut about the process. We (as cut associates) actually had the incredibly uncomfortable task of informing partners that we worked with, who did not know we had been cut, that we were leaving. The resulting frustration of partners has led to a leak of a few tidbits of info on the numbers cut. The numbers floating around differ, but I’ve heard that between 10-15% of all associates firm wide were informed of their “transitions” over the past month. Apparently, another round may be coming in the fall.

Anxiety-inducing for current WilmerHale associates, but perhaps not a surprise. Expect a number of firms to trim their ranks after summer associates head back to school.

More discussion, plus the full memo, after the jump.

We’ll bottom-line this week’s contest, folks: The SCOTUS clerk wins. Yep, after a long absence, LEWW’s favorite credential makes a welcome appearance in the NYT weddings section, and we’ve got the details for you.

But first, congratulations to Sabrina Charles and Jamie Dycus, who readers overwhelmingly voted Legal Eagle Couple of the Month for May, demonstrating that — in the words of one commenter (and apparently, in the minds of ATL readers) — “Wachtell > Sotomayor > Olympic medal.”

Here are our finalists:

1. Kathryn Whitfield and Adam Fotiades

2. Christina Krause and Peter Henderson

3. Pamela Bookman and Jeffrey Perlman

More about these couples, after the jump.

Another week, another NYT Vows column comparing the bride to a giant coniferous tree (“The bride stood stately and erect, echoing the Redwoods that surrounded them … “). Seriously, could they maybe assign Vows once a month to a real writer, just to make it a little less chirpy and insipid? What about Maureen Dowd? What about Paul Krugman?

Here are this week’s finalists, including the tree-like bride:

1. Alizah Diamond and Itai Maytal

2. Stefanie Schneider and David Alpert

3. Anya Emerson and Jonah Staw

After the jump, our non-chirpy analysis of these couples.

If you read Above the Law last week, you’ll know that it’s an interesting time at WilmerHale. The firm is transitioning associates onto the street to other opportunities. It’s also dealing with former associates who left to clerk and now want back in.

But the firm isn’t unconcerned about the terror snaking through its associate ranks. In fact, they’ve hired a “Chief Legal Talent Officer.” According to the firm wide announcement:

I am pleased to announce that Brad Scott, our new Chief Legal Talent Officer, has started with the Firm. We are fortunate to have attracted an individual with Brad’s qualifications. The Chief Legal Talent Officer role will be responsible for all aspects of the attorney lifecycle including associate recruiting and onboarding, promotion and compensation processes, professional development, mentoring and career development and diversity programs throughout the Firm.

Associate onboarding? What about associate offloading? We know that at some firms the person that fills this position doubles as the physical manifestation of the Grim Reaper. But maybe that won’t be Mr. Scott’s fate. A tipster quips:

Clearly WH is doing well if it can hire even more layers of management.

More details after the jump.

There has been a lot going on at WilmerHale recently. Summer associates are coming, regular associates are “transitioning.” The uncertainty has made some WilmerHale alumni who are currently clerking wonder if they can return to the firm when their clerkships end.

Above the Law has received reports from current clerks who were expecting to be hired back by WilmerHale after their clerkships are over. Some tipsters report that WilmerHale has decided not to rehire any of its former associates who took a year off to clerk. We know that many clerks are worried about being in a similar situation, so we asked WilmerHale clarify its position on rehiring clerks. The firm gave us this response:

All former summer associates who received an offer and then went on to clerk after graduation from law school have been invited to join the firm as associates. The firm, however, does not tell associates who leave for a clerkship that they can return after their clerkships are complete; rather, former associates must reapply to the firm, and we have not historically given offers of employment to all former associates at the conclusion of their clerkships. This year, we extended offers to some but not all of the former associates who inquired about returning; in addition, we have hired a small number of very promising judicial clerks who had not previously been with the firm.

So, if you clerk before you start at the firm, you are golden. But if you worked for a couple of years and then decided to clerk, best of luck.

Despite the difficulties clerks are facing when trying to get back into the Biglaw market, there are still many people who want to cool their heels as a clerk. One deferred incoming WilmerHale associate was so happy to receive a clerkship that the firm posted his gushing thanks on its internal website.

More details after the jump.

Here on Above the Law, we have extensively covered layoffs caused by the shrinking economy. We’ve also covered stealth layoffs. And we’ve covered performance review layoffs that have been done out in the open.

But at WilmerHale it looks like we are seeing an example of this: economically induced performance reviews resulting in stealth messages that require people to openly leave the firm.

Say that ten times fast. A tipster reports:

I know of [several] associates and counsel that have been laid off at Wilmer in the past week. Many of the associates are 2-4 years, but the lay-offs reach up to the 6 year level. All of them were let go for “performance” reasons - but everyone that I’ve talked to has had nearly perfect evaluations….

The not so subtle indication we are getting from the firm is to tread lightly - find something else and leave quietly, and if [people] do that, they will get help, resources, support and references. I imagine the flipside of that is [squeaky wheels] will get a performance based dismissal to hang over their heads. … People are just too scared to say anything in this economy. Of course, there is always the shame of thinking you’ve been let go for “performance” reasons that will keep people quiet as well.

As we understand it, these cuts have taken place in Washington D.C. and Boston.

After the jump, WilmerHale tells us that there have been no “layoffs.”

Last month, we brought you a summer lunch memo featuring the comedic stylings of lawyers from Cleary Gottlieb.

This week, a lunch memo is going around the offices of WilmerHale:

Year in and year out, our Summer Associates tell us that what they remember most is the time they spent with the lawyers of WilmerHale. And there is no better way for each of you to get to know these 38 lawyers-to-be than to take them to lunch and chat them up a little bit.

Look around your floors today and take notice of the new Summer Associates. And yes, those of you on floors 21 and 31 may have to put in a little more effort and look around other floors on your way to meetings. Keep in mind, Summers tend to (a) have full heads of hair, (b) be a touch overdressed on their first day, and (c) have nice WilmerHale paraphernalia that even those of us who have labored here 5, 10, 15 years don’t get. Make a point to invite those folks to lunch a few times over the next 10 weeks.

The memo goes on to parody the Boston-area furniture store that famously gave away a lot of merchandise for free when the Boston Red Sox won the world series.

While we at Above the Law appreciate any attempt at levity during these difficult times, some WIlmerHale tipsters are less than impressed:

[O]bviously written by someone who is on the cusp of having a sense of humor not quite there. [It] lacks the risqué-ness of the Cleary memo (e.g. class distinction - “you can go to McDonalds,” etc) but is what you get from the most rigid firm in Boston.

Everybody’s a critic. And while we admit that the memo is a little bit inside (Boston) baseball, at least WilmerHale is joking. That has got to be better than the lunch memos that came out of Simpson Thacher.

Read the full memo after the jump and see for yourself.

More firms are pushing back the start dates of incoming first year associates. This weekend, we learned that Winston & Strawn has pushed back start dates to January 19th, 2010. Deferred associates will receive an additional $15,000 on top of their $10,000 bar stipend. The firm is also picking up health care for its incoming associates, starting in September.

We learned today that Baker & McKenzie has also pushed back start dates to January 2010. As we understand it, the firm is not offering any additional stipend other than what they normally pay out for bar expenses.

WilmerHale also announced a start date push back. According to a firm-wide memo:

As is our normal practice, we will have more than one start date. A portion of the class will start on January 20 and the remainder will start on March 17. To determine the group that will start on each date, Legal Personnel and Recruiting will work with department and practice group leaders to balance the stated interests of the incoming associates with the various needs of departments, practice groups and offices.

Those starting in January 2010 will receive a $10,000 deferral stipend on top of a $5,000 bar stipend, while the March 2010 first years will receive a $15,000 bar stipend.

But WilmerHale is also encouraging associates to take a full year off:

We also informed our incoming associates that they may defer their start dates until the fall of 2010 for a stipend in the amount of $75,000. This deferral is entirely at the option of the individual incoming associate and is not tied to his or her ability to obtain a pro bono or other public service position.

The WilmerHale deferral stipend is right at the top of the Latham-led market for these optional year-long programs. But its stipend for people being forced to start in January or March is a little on the low end.

Baker, Winston, and WilmerHale are announcing their programs late in the game. We’ll have to see if the delay puts incoming associates heading to the these firms at a disadvantage in terms of post-bar exam options.

After the jump, we check in on Sonnenschein’s late breaking, long-term deferral.

A couple of internal emails came across our desk today, heralding good news — at least for the partners.

Profits per Partner are up at WilmerHale:

PPP are $1,080,000, which is up from last year by a little bit. Also, 6.7% of total hours billed by the firm were to pro bono matters.

And the firm is passing some of those profits back down to associates. Individualized bonus memos are making the rounds at WilmerHale today, and at 2000 hours associates will be receiving a Cravath level bonus. Our Boston based sources are pretty happy with that.

Perhaps more importantly, WilmerHale announced that they will not be freezing salaries. So while associates at Goodwin Procter will be getting a better bonus, WilmerHale associates will be getting pay raises that are reflected in their February paychecks.

White & Case also shows a revenue increase after the jump.

Last night we wrote about some of the top-notch talent that will be filling senior legal positions in the Obama Administration. These are big names, and you probably also read about them in big publications, like the Legal Times or the Wall Street Journal.

ATL is willing to drill down deeper. We now bring you personnel news at more junior levels. If you graduated law school in the past 15 or even 10 years, you might actually know some of these people.

Our prior post focused on two of the most prestigious parts of the Department of Justice: the Solicitor General’s office, and the Office of Legal Counsel. We now turn our attention to two other top offices: the White House Counsel’s office, and the office of the Deputy Attorney General.

Over 300,000 people applied for 3,300 positions in the Obama administration. After going through a ridiculous screening process, these fine folks landed 20 of the most coveted legal jobs in the country.

See if you know any of them, after the jump.

We’ve reported on various firms cutting back some of the “perks” that used to be associated with Biglaw. But Wilmer Hale has decided to hit associates where they eat, literally.

A memo went out to New York associates “updating” the firm’s overtime meal policy. For you law students out there who are not aware of the system, law firms usually allow lawyers to charge late night meals to clients. A long, long time ago astute managers realized that underlings perform better when they are fed. Apparently, there is a complex biological process that allows workers to convert the nutrients found in bread and water into menial legal tasks.

But Wilmer Hale has concluded that adenosine triphosphate is an “optional” luxury for associates lucky enough to work past 8 p.m. Paul A. Engelmayer, managing partner of Wilmer Hale’s New York office, clarified the overtime meals policy this afternoon:

The firm’s policy is to reimburse lawyers and bill clients for up to $30 per overtime meal not simply because a lawyer is present and working at the office at 8PM, but, rather, because the lawyer had to be here at that time to meet a specific client need or deadline. Just because a lawyer chose to work late does not mean that a client should have to pay for his or her food. Partners are constantly writing off evening meals billed to clients where it was impossible to justify to the client why they should be paying for a lawyer’s food. Please don’t bill clients for overtime meals where there isn’t a justification that you’d feel comfortable articulating to the client as to why the client should be paying for it.

I once knew a New York associate who always “chose” to work past 8 p.m. for no good reason. He was a great guy and a good attorney, until “the incident.” Now he lives at Bellevue and eats pudding out of a Redweld.

Look, we all know some associate at the firm who “abuses” the overtime meal system. But the vast majority of people who are working after hours are there because they have to be, not because they want to be and certainly not because Seamless Web is a bigger draw than a beer and a bed.

But Wilmer Hale presses the point, after the jump.

Reasons for reading ATL vary from person to person. But we have been told by some people that one of the greatest benefits of following the site is gaining familiarity with law firms and the differences between them.

In that vein, we shall continue on with our series of open threads on the Vault 100. (Sorry, haters! Though we are taking under advisement the idea that we list them in groups of ten from this point forward.)

Here are the next five, with prestige scores in parentheses:

16. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (7.056)
17. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (7.055)
18. White & Case LLP (7.054)
19. Shearman & Sterling LLP (7.043)
20. Arnold & Porter LLP (6.905)

Of the five, White & Case has the most bizarre list of notable perks: “Gender- and reason-neutral flexible work arrangement program” (what does that mean?), “Cold, anonymous” (yippee?), and “Dinosaur” (the ferocious or the fossilized kind?).

Time to compare and contrast. We invite you to have at it.

Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads- 2009

We know that attorneys at top firms like WilmerHale can charge stunning rates — up to $750 an hour for litigation chair Howard Shapiro.

But if you ask them, that’s a bargain.

Wilmer moved for an award of attorneys’ fees after winning a $90 million verdict in a False Claims Act case. The usual lodestar method of calculating fees, logically enough, is to multiply the attorneys’ standard billing rates by the number of hours they spent on the case. But Wilmer argued that its standard billing rates grossly undervalue the superhuman skills of its legal team. It asked the court to perform the lodestar calculation and then award twice the result in attorneys’ fees. In other words, according to Wilmer, its clients who pay by the hour get a 50% discount off the true value of the work.

Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the district court in D.C. didn’t buy the idea that Wilmer’s entire litigation practice is a pro bono program in disguise. The judge kicked Wilmer around for 169 pages before putting the fee petition to rest. He wondered why, if the attorneys had such extraordinary abilities, it took so many of them to get the job done:

Assigning eleven different attorneys to work on one deposition, however crucial the witness, can hardly be characterized as efficient… . WilmerHale [used] fifty-two lawyers and thirty paralegals in this case.

Judge Lamberth further ruled that Wilmer’s record-keeping was too vague and sloppy to support awarding even the lodestar amount. Plaintiff’s counsel in the McAfee v. WilmerHale overbilling case must be kicking themselves for not filing in Washington.

Judge Lamberth did note that the members of the Wilmer team were “graduates of prestigious law schools and/or former judicial clerks.” But apparently even members of the Elect — including Mike Gottlieb (OT 2004 / Stevens), Jonathan Cedarbaum (OT 1998 / Souter), and Robert Bell (OT 1981 / White) — aren’t worth $1000+ an hour.

Wilmer’s going to be OK; they’ll get about $7 million of the $20 million they asked for. But we should feel some sympathy all the same. It must be tough to hear that you’re only worth 100% of what the market will bear.

[Ed. note: This post is by FROLIC & DETOUR, one of the finalists in ATL Idol, the “reality blogging” competition that will determine ATL’s next editor. It is marked with Frolic & Detour’s avatar (at right).]