* Two new books attack string theory; class action lawsuit against Stephen Hawking’s “Brief History of Time” inevitable. [New Yorker]
* “I keep forgetting how women are disadvantaged by having to write a research agenda, but I am sure they have to be. Somehow. Always disadvantaged.” [Kate Litvak comment on PrawfsBlawg]
* Dom Deluise is not only still alive, but can legally sue his litigious ex-daughter-in-law’s lawyer. [Overlawyered]
* Weird Al Yankovic also alive, has aspirations of Jeremy Blachman-dom. [Overlawyered]
* Some might call it clever marketing of E. coli lawsuits, but I say it’s spinach and I say to hell with it. [Wall Street Journal]
* Protest demands recognition of zombie legal rights: “What do we want?” “BRAINS!” “When do we want it?” “BRAINS!” [Boing Boing]
* Upcoming deadline #1: The statute of limitations for suing Merck over Vioxx expires for many many putative plaintiffs today. Court clerks will be busy as attorneys forum shop. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Upcoming deadline #2: The Days of Awe end Sunday, and Yom Kippur starts Sunday night. Stephen Colbert offers a toll-free number, 1-888-OOPS-JEW, if you wish to atone to him. The recorded disclaimer alone (and Colbert’s addendum afterwards) makes it worth it, but you get what you pay for. [News From Me]
* It has nothing to do with the law, but how can we avoid mentioning this important press release on Kazakh-Uzbek relations? [Borat.tv]
Situated on two lots measuring approx. 2.5 usable acres this totally private and gated tennis court and equestrian estate is a paradise of its own. The home measures approx. 10,000 sq. ft. with 7 Bedrooms & 7 Bathrooms, extraordinary kitchen and a spectacular great room. The master has 2 large baths and walk-in closets with incredible views of the grounds which include enormous lawns, tennis court and pool. Across a bridge over its own year-round stream one will find a full orchard with plums.
The increased sales price reflects, in part, the additional 3,000 square feet of outdoor marble terraces added by the Loggans family.
Loggans is famous for litigation, but more often as a party than as an attorney. She sued the previous owner of her California home, an Austrian-American movie star named Arnold Schwarzenegger, calling the property a “nightmare.” One looks forward to the transfer disclosure statement Loggans will provide the lucky buyer. The Loggans-Schwarzenegger result is confidential, but Loggans had no luck in a lawsuit over a different real estate transaction; Chad Rogers (who works for Paris Hilton’s father) won $746,098.85 from Loggans over an allegedly unpaid commission and associated attorneys’ fees for an earlier sale of a Malibu beachfront home.
* Senate House grandstands over Hewlett-Packard as most witnesses take Fifth; libertarians celebrate that time wasted is time not spent passing new appropriations. [New York Times; WaPo]
* Verizon Wireless piles on against H-P. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Observers suggest Supreme Court cases over abortion might be contentious. You think? [Legal Times]
* Dozen Iraqi journalists arrested under new law against criticism of government. See? They’re already following in our footsteps up to the Alien and Sedition Acts! [New York Times]
* Belgium rules sifting of bank data illegal. [WaPo]
* California court hearing testimony over how many angels can dance on the pinhead of an anesthesized Death Row inmate. [Bashman linkwrap]
* Louisiana appellate court strikes down med-mal damages cap for failure to index to inflation, providing another excuse for doctors not to return to post-Katrina New Orleans. [Point of Law]
* New York Times writes thumbsucker on the Pirro marriage. [New York Times]
Justice Douglas played poker with FDR, as Justice Scalia noted in his refusal to recuse himself over his duck-hunting trips with Vice President Cheney. Scalia himself has a famous poker game that once included regular attendees Justice Rehnquist and William Bennett. Judge Kozinski often hosts poker nights for law students when he’s on the road. Blogging law professors Stephen Bainbridge, Victor Fleischer, and Josh Wright have admitted to the poker jones. Northwestern professor Steven Lubet tried to cash in on the Father’s Day market with his book Lawyers’ Poker: 52 Lessons that Lawyers Can Learn from Card Players, which is getting recent publicity. And I’m reliably informed that once upon a time before they got cold feet, the DC office of O’Melveny & Myers had a summer-associate program where a bus was chartered to Atlantic City, and attorneys played intense hold ‘em games on the ride using $100-bills as chips.
Other poker-playing attorneys are more noted for their poker-playing. Greg Raymer had a day-job as a patent attorney at Pfizer when he took down the $5,000,000 first place prize at the World Series of Poker main event tournament in 2004; as Evan Schaeffer noted, years earlier, Raymer suggested that attorneys made better poker players.
Another poker-playing attorney is Russell Rosenblum, a former Kirkland & Ellis summer associate. Rosenblum has his own real estate practice in Maryland, owns a handful of Five Guys burger franchises, has enough incriminating photos of Washingtonian magazine editors to get five separate mentions in the magazine (including two profiles) in the last five years, and has a couple of six-digit prizes for final-table finishes in big poker tournaments, including the 2002 World Series of Poker main event.
Good morning. David Lat is in Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand for the weekend for what has been euphemistically called “elective surgery.” Rest assured, D-Lat will return Monday, safe, sound, and happy to blog, if having to sit on a comfy pillow to do so, and we should all be supportive of the very difficult decisions involved.
In the interim, Lat has asked me to fill in a few posts this Friday, and I’ll start by introducing myself. My name is Ted Frank. Some fifteen years ago, I correctly identified the sequence at which Victoria, William, Xavier, Yolanda, and Zachary were seated at a circular table, filled in all corresponding ovals correctly, and was rewarded with a wheelbarrow of money to attend law school in a variety of bad neighborhoods in Connecticut and Massachusetts and Illinois. Because law interested me as a public-policy mechanism, I picked up a copy of The Economics of Justice while I was in a Chicago bookstore visiting that school, and smitten enough to decide to go there on what they called a “Public Service Scholarship.” A year of clerking and a dozen years of BigLaw taught me that litigation incentives actually create miserable public-policy results, and I’ve been writing about this problem on Walter Olson’s Overlawyered blog since 2003 and the Point of Law blog since 2004. In 2005, the American Enterprise Institute invited me to run their Liability Project directing research on the tort system and its effects; it’s a pay-cut, but the issue is important to me, and then there’s the whole Jewish guilt thing over not yet having done the public service I had hypothetically been awarded a scholarship for. And all of this has culminated in today’s guest-blogging opportunity on Above the Law, surely the highlight of my career, and worth a tenth of a point if Lat ever scores my wedding. More after the jump.
ATL sends its warmest congratulations to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain,* of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit! This month, Judge O’Scannlain celebrates twenty years on the federal bench. During two decades of distiinguished service, Judge O’Scannlain has established himself as a shining star in the federal judicial firmament.**
We had the honor and pleasure of clerking for Judge O’Scannlain during the 1999-2000 judicial year. He was a wonderful boss to us and our co-clerks, and he continues to be a great mentor and friend to this day. (He’s also quite handsome, in a Paul Newman sort of way; see photo at right.)
This weekend, Judge O’Scannlain is celebrating his federal judicial “anniversary” with a reunion of his law clerks. In a few hours, we’ll be leaving for the airport to catch a flight to Portland, Oregon.
We’ll be spending much of today in an airplane. But fear not, ATL readers: we have arranged for a brilliant and hilarious guest blogger to entertain you in our absence. We’ll be back over the weekend or on Monday.
Happy Friday!
* Not that you’d be calling him by his first name (unless you’re a fellow Article III judge), but in case you’re curious, “Diarmuid” is pronounced DEER-mid. See here. “O’Scannlain” is pronounced o-SCAN-lin.
** Also celebrating his 20th judicial anniversary this month: Justice Antonin Scalia, a good friend of Judge O’Scannlain (and regular recipient of O’Scannlain clerks in his chambers). Justice Scalia received his commission as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on September 25, 1986; Judge O’Scannlain received his Ninth Circuit commission the following day.
Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:18 PM - By David Lat
* We were taught growing up that when someone pays you a compliment, the appropriate response is gratitude. So thank you, QuizLaw!
Unlike those grumpy feminists — e.g., Jessica Valenti, adversary of Ann Althouse — we soak up compliments graciously. And we enjoy being objectified. Toward that end, here’s a shirtless photo of us. [QuizLaw]
* Call us un-American and terrible human beings, but we really don’t like dogs — not even to eat. So we support the idea of subjecting them to criminal punishment. [PrawfsBlawg]
* Oh, and we don’t like cats, either. [ABC 7 News]
* Chicago-Kent law students: When Professor William Birdthistle isn’t teaching you the finer points of securities regulation, he’s getting drunk off his ass enjoying — or at least writing about — the world’s most expensive cocktails.** [Forbes]
* This video is really more weird (borderline creepy) than it is funny. But the production values are excellent — especially for a law student council campaign video. [Concurring Opinions]
* Howard K. Stern, lawyer-cum-paramour of Anna Nicole Smith, may actually be a pretty shrewd attorney. He certainly knows his Bahamian family law. [PerezHilton]
* SCOTUS spouse we’d most like to grab drinks with: Martin Ginsburg. Close second: Martha Alito.*** [TaxProf Blog (2nd paragraph)]
* Apparently we’re not the only ones who are intrigued by Brian Leiter. [PrawfsBlawg]
** Please don’t misinterpret our good-natured ribbing of Professor Birdthistle, a former co-clerk and one of our closest friends.
*** We’re serious about this. Sources tell us that the nation got a very erroneous picture of Martha Alito from her husband’s confirmation hearings, when she fled the hearing room in tears. Apparently she’s a blast to hang out with and has a great sense of humor.
Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:01 PM - By David Lat
We are guilty of dereliction of duty. We’ve neglected to write about the Hewlett-Packard leak investigation scandal, now unfolding in all of its glory before Congress. (Yes, that Congress: a body that knows all about unethical behavior, illegal conduct, and mind-blowing stupidity.)
We’ve been avoiding this scandal for two main reasons. First, it’s a story that Peter Lattman and the WSJ Law Blog have really owned from the get-go. In fact, today Lattman is hanging out in Washington — our usual base of operations — to cover the House committee hearings on Capitol Hill. (Guess we’ve traded places; we’re up here in New York, a few blocks away from Lattman’s office.)
Second, L’Affaire HP has been such a total s**t show — from the very start, but somehow managing to get worse each day — that blogging about it presents no challenge. There’s very little opportunity for us to add value. Reading wire reports about the scandal is already pretty mortifying (and entertaining). Do you really need a side order of obnoxious commentary when the entree itself is so rich?
But HP is the big news story of the day. It’s one that our big brother is covering extensively. And we’ve received a bunch of emails asking for our thoughts on it. So fine, we will write about the HP spying scandal.
Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:15 PM - By David Lat
Last week we wrote about the A-team of legal talent that Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein is assembling over at the Justice Department’s new National Security Division. Wainstein’s top hires include several members of the Elect, including high-flying legal eagles Brett Gerry (Silberman/Kennedy) and John Demers (O’Scannlain/Scalia).
A press release issued this morning announces Kenneth Wainstein’s other front office hires. And they include two brilliant and beautiful women (whom we have had the pleasure of meeting): Kathryn Haun (left), counsel to the AAG, and Jessie Liu (right), deputy chief of staff.
Those who followed UTR’s Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary contest — which, by the way, we will be reinstituting here at ATL — may recall Haun. She’s the blonde hottie who was photographed wrapping her arms around her former boss, Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski (click here, scroll down). Back then we compared Haun to Naomi Watts; but upon further reflection, we’re thinking Cybill Shepherd.
Don’t let Haun’s dazzling beauty — a beauty that has ensnared multiple male members of the Elect — distract you from her accomplishments. Haun is one of the Elect herself, having clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. She was also an associate at Sidley & Austin, and most recently was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia (a post she is being detailed from to come to the NSD).
Liu, who will be Ken Wainstein’s deputy chief of staff, is similarly high-powered. Her gleaming resume includes Harvard College, Yale Law School, a clerkship with Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King (5th Cir.), and a stint at Jenner & Block. Most recently, Liu was an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, where she acquired a wealth of trial experience.
The luminous Liu and her disturbingly brilliant husband, law professor Michael Abramowicz — see NYT wedding announcement here — have two children. Great job, great husband, great kids. Who says you can’t have it all?*
Congratulations to Katie Haun, Jessie Liu, and Ken Wainstein’s entire team at the NSD!
* But please don’t hate Liu for her charmed life; she’s also one of the nicest and most wonderful human beings you’ll ever meet.
Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:55 PM - By David Lat
This just in: A possible sighting of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg!!!
I have an unconfirmed rumor that RBG was at the Kennedy Center’s performance last night of Sophie’s Choice: The Opera. Can you confirm this? Apparently the justice has been spotted before at the opera there.
Such a sighting would not surprise us. Justice Ginsburg’s love of the opera is well-known. It’s an interest she shares in common with her jurisprudential opposite, Justice Antonin Scalia, and the two jurists bond over it. They have even made cameo, non-singing appearances in various D.C. opera performances over the years.
So it would not surprise us to learn that Justice Ginsburg was at the Washington National Opera last night. Earlier this month, Ruthie was sighted at the company’s opening night gala dinner.
If you can confirm this sighting, please email us (and we will update this post if and when we receive such confirmation). Thanks.
We doubt we’ll check out “Sophie’s Choice” once we’re back in Washington. As DCist notes, the work “met with considerable critical disapproval after its 2002 world premiere in London.” The Washington Post’s recent review of the D.C. production calls it “a study in endurance” — at three and a half hours, with only one intermission.
If Justice Ginsburg went to “Sophie’s Choice,” did she enjoy herself? We hope that, at the very least, she didn’t fall asleep — as she did during an oral argument last Term
Even if the production may be problematic, we do like this quip from the programme notes of the London staging: “Life is messy, like masturbation.”
Justice Ginsburg, can you please pass the Kleenex?
Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:50 AM - By David Lat
Hey, it’s not yet noon — so we can still call this “Morning Docket.”
(Sorry for the delay. But if you care about actual legal news, as opposed to our crude musings on them, you really should go here or here instead.)
* BREAKING: Ann Baskins just resigned as general counsel of HP. And her lawyer, K. Lee Blalack 2nd of O’Melveny & Myers, said that she will not answer questions at today’s congressional hearings into the HP leak investigation scandal. [New York Times]
* Apparently Namibia is good for things other than harboring baby-bearing celebrities. Kobi Alexander — who is not an NBA player, but the ex-CEO of Comverse Technology — has been found in the African nation. As you may recall, after he was indicted on federal criminal charges arising out of alleged options backdating, Alexander became a fugitive. [Wall Street Journal via WSJ Law Blog]
* Not all internet sickos are creepy white men like John Mark Karr. There are a few ladies out there, too. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via How Appealing]
* Federal prosecutors are looking into whether Jeanine Pirro, anti-porn prosecutrix and the Republican candidate for New York attorney general, illegally taped conversations of her husband, to figure out if he was having (another) affair. Her partner in (possible) crime: Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner and ill-fated pick for DHS Secretary. [New York Times]
(Anyone have a link to the tapes? We heard them on the news this morning, and Pirro repeatedly drops the F-bomb. It’s pretty awesome.)
* The long and tortuous path to legislation governing the treatment of terror detainees may be reaching an end — and not a moment too soon, since this story is kinda hard to follow. And a bit boring. And torture generally doesn’t lend itself to humor opportunities. But seehere. [New York Times; How Appealing (linkwrap)]
Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:49 AM - By David Lat
For those of you in the New York area, our current location — we’re up visiting from Washington, DC — here’s an event next month you might be interested in:
Sunday - Tuesday, October 22-24, 2006 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Three-day conference: “Jews and the Legal Profession”, at 55 Fifth Avenue at 12th Street.
Participants include Alan Dershowitz, Stuart Eizenstat, and many others. For more information and registration, please e-mail xxx@yahoo.com or call 212-xxx-xxxx.
Other conferences you might enjoy:
— “Japanese Chefs and Sushi Preparation”
— “Koreans and the Dry Cleaning Industry”
— “Filipinos and the Domestic Arts”
We’re sticking to the Asians ‘cause, well, that’s what we are.*
Here is the conference’s website. We suggest that the organizers reach out to the “Jews and Web Page Design” crew.
* Three notes of preemptive defense: (1) it’s not “racist” to note that certain racial or ethnic groups make up a disproportionate percentage of a particular profession or industry; (2) this is less objectionable than a lot of material you’d see on The Daily Show, SNL, etc.; (3) we are not commenting, negatively or positively, on the contributions Jews have made to the legal profession. We’re merely suggesting that, in the grand scheme of things, there are more urgent topics out there to hold conferences about. Thank you.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:17 PM - By David Lat
We realize this gossip is several days old. But we don’t check Brian Leiter’s site as often as we should — ‘cause we’re always afraid of going there and finding something mildly critical to downright nasty about us. We’re quite good at loathing ourselves; we don’t need others to pitch in.
But better late than never. Here’s the juicy rumor:
Yale Law School may experience a wave of departures. James Whitman’s going to New York (NYU or Columbia), Alec Stone Sweet is flirting with Columbia and Stanford, Kenji Yoshino will follow Whitman to one or the other, Reva Siegel and Robert Post are visiting at Harvard and one of them really wants to go.
Interesting stuff. Can anyone confirm or provide further detail? If so, please drop us a line.
We are loyal alumni of Yale Law School (and just sent our modest annual contribution their way). But we are kinda curious about how Dean Harold Koh would spin such a loss of talent.
Every time we hear Dean Koh speak, he goes on — at great length — about YLS’s latest hiring coups (which we’re not faulting him for; it’s his job). So it would be interesting to attend an alumni event with Dean Koh and ask, during the Q-and-A session: “Hey Harold, what’s up with all these high-profile departures? Why is Yale losing great legal minds in droves? Is New Haven really so awful these days?”
Disclosure: We had Professor Leiter for Evidence in law school, when he was visiting Yale from Texas. He was very pleasant and mild-mannered. Based on his classroom demeanor, you’d have no idea he was so skilled at ripping people new ones on the internet (e.g., Jonathan Adler (aka Juan Non-Volokh), Ann Althouse, etc.). It’s interesting how the “web personalities” of so many bloggers differ from their “in-person personalities.”
Further Observation: We think it would violate some sort of educational privacy law for Professor Leiter to blog about how we actually sucked in his Evidence class, that we didn’t deserve the “H” he gave us, etc.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:20 PM - By David Lat
Oooh boy. Last night we read the extensive coverage of Anna Nicole Smith in the latest issue of US Weekly, focused on the (still mysterious) death of her 20-year-old son, Daniel. So we thought we were pretty caught up on ANS developments.
But this morning we received this breaking news, about an attorney-client “relationship” that went, er, beyond the scope of the original representation. From CNN:
An attorney representing former Playboy Playmate and reality television star Anna Nicole Smith said Tuesday he is the father of her daughter, born earlier this month in the Bahamas.
Howard K. Stern added that he plans to marry Smith.
“Anna and I have been in a relationship and we love each other, and it’s been going on for a very long time, and because of my relationship as her lawyer, we felt that it was best to keep everything hidden.”
“Hidden”? Did any of you watch “The Anna Nicole Smith Show”?
Okay, that was rhetorical. But we did — at least the first season. And based on what we saw, the possibility that Smith and Stern might have been more than just attorney and client was definitely in “plain view.” It certainly seemed that, regardless of Smith’s feelings, Stern was definitely into her (and that was before she lost all the TrimSpa weight; now she looks fabulous).
So we’re not TOO surprised to learn of hanky-panky going on between Smith and Stern (even if it may have violated legal ethics rules). But we do question whether Stern is the father of Smith’s newborn daughter, Danilynne. (Origin, per Stern: “where that comes from is that Daniel used to call Anna or his mom Mamma Lynne.”) Here’s why:
Entertainment reporter and photographer Larry Birkhead also claims to be the father of the girl, named Danilynne Hope. In a statement, Birkhead said Smith told him he is the child’s father, and that he has proof.
He said he accompanied Smith to doctors’ appointments until a “minor disagreement” took place while she was pregnant. He suggested a DNA test be conducted to determine the child’s paternity. He also made similar comments to “Entertainment Tonight.”
Well! In terms of Hollywood trends, place “Paternity Confusion” under the “In” column. First we hear the rumor that Suri Cruise is actually Chris Klein’s kid. And now we have no clue as to who fathered Smith’s spawn.
Stern, for his part, insists that the child is his. But he took the Fifth on whether Smith and Birkhead had a sexual relationship:
LARRY KING: To your knowledge were they ever intimate?
HOWARD STERN: You know that’s something I don’t even want to get into when we’re talking about Daniel’s death. I just don’t think this is the time for it. [Read: YES.]
KING: But does it give you concern that there might be a shot that the DNA might exclude you or is there no doubt that you’re the father?
STERN: I think based on the timing of it that there shouldn’t be a doubt. [Read: I will try to prevent a paternity test.]
We’re going to withhold judgment until we see some DNA evidence. If it’s good enough to get prisoners off of death row, it’s good enough to determine the daddy of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:25 PM - By David Lat
Technical difficulties persist. Yes, we have heard about Anna Nicole Smith, triumphant Supreme Court litigant, and her lawyer-cum-lover, Howard K. Stern. We will be chiming in on that shortly.
In the meantime, here are links to recent posts that seem to have “disappeared”:
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:31 PM - By David Lat
No, it’s not Monday all over again. Yes, our website content is experiencing that “not so fresh” feeling right now. Our posts from the past two days appear to be AWOL.
We are aware of the problem, and hopefully these posts should be reappearing sometime soon. They still exist, in the ether of the internet; so if you have the permalinks, you can still access them. They’re just not on the main page. (Long story, we’ll spare you the details.)
Is Judge Boggs’s trivia quiz the most odd law-clerk screening device? Actually, maybe not. This year, Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit had clerkships applicants do a cold reading of a play during their interviews. To clerk, or not to clerk? That is the question.
Sadly, we’ve learned that Judge Gregory does NOT make all clerkship interviewees demonstrate their thespianic abilities in front of him. Rather, he only asked one applicant — who listed acting experience on her resume — to do the cold reading. How disappointing!
Job seekers, there is a moral to this story: Don’t lie on your resume. Yes, it’s obvious — even though surveys show the practice is widespread. But there is an entirely self-interested, Machiavellian reason for honesty: You could very well get busted during an interview.
You might think to yourself: “Hey, why shouldn’t I list Tagalog on my resume? Sure, I don’t know a single word. But what are the chances I’ll be asked to speak any?” But when the judge’s Filipino secretary says “magandang gabi” as you walk through the door, you know you’re screwed…
And definitely don’t list “knife juggling” on your resume if you don’t possess this skill. Many judges’ chambers, as well as many law firms, have small kitchens — with complete knife collections. Getting called on your dishonesty could be a very painful experience.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:11 AM - By David Lat
We’re having a bit of a slow morning (as well as technical issues), for which we apologize. Please bear with us.
Today we’re traveling — not just leaving our apartment, which is a form of travel, but actually visiting another city in another state. Crazy, we know.
Unfortunately, our internet connection is experiencing “issues.”* So we may need to go in search of a Starbucks.
In the meantime, while you wait for us to slap up new procrastination material, why not explore our archives, to see what we’ve written in the past about your favorite law firm or judge? Click here, then scroll down — no, farther down — for the category listings.
Or, better yet, why not take our reader survey? You can access the survey via the links in this post. The good news is that we should soon have the number of responses that we need, at which point we will stop bothering you about this. Thanks!
* A quintessentially “New York” story. We once went to an Asian fusion restaurant in Manhattan with a group of friends. One person didn’t like her soup, perhaps too adventurous for her tastes (she was from what some of you call “flyover country”). So another friend calls over the waitress and says: “Excuse me, but would she perhaps be able to get something else? She’s having some ‘issues’ with her soup.”
(Said “issues” were quickly resolved with the provision of a salad to the discontented diner.)
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:49 PM - By David Lat
Yesterday we put out a call for submissions for Lawyerly Lairs. We look forward to your responses. In the meantime, here’s some real estate porn that we were able to obtain on our own — since the property in question is for sale.
The Schinasi Mansion is the only freestanding single-family mansion in Manhattan. It dates back to 1909, boasts 12,000 square feet of living space, and sits on swanky Riverside Drive. It is currently on the market for an eye-popping $29,000,000.
Here’s a shot of its French Renaissance, white marble exterior:
So who owns this Mother of All Townhouses? A senior partner at a top Biglaw firm — who also married very well? An ex-lawyer who left for the world of finance, to become a managing director at an investment bank or a partner at a successful hedge fund?
Actually, no. The $29 million mansion is owned by — brace yourselves, people — a legal academic. It’s home to Professor Hans Smit (at right), who teaches civil procedure and international law at Colubmia. Guess those private law school salaries must be pretty good!
Actually, there’s a backstory — and no, Professor Smit didn’t win the $315 million Mega Millions jackpot. Check out the details, as well as more drool-worthy pictures, after the jump.
Actually, no. But Matthew Thiessen, lead singer of the Christian pop-punk band Relient K, bears a striking resemblance to Philip Alito, Justice Samuel A. Alito’s handsome college-age son.
Check out the photo montage at right. The two pictures on the left are of Phil Alito; the two pics on the right are of Matt Thiessen. Both are pale and pretty boys, with light- to reddish-brown hair, and delicate facial features.
If you STILL question the resemblance, we refer you to the music video for Relient K’s hit single, “Who I Am Hates Who I’ve Been” (see below). It’s a delightful song. And in the video, Thiessen — who was surely subjected to a makeover by a stylist — looks especially Alito-licious. Enjoy!
* Congratulations to Alice Fisher and Ken Wainstein, who were (finally) confirmed by the Senate as, respectively, heads of the DOJ’s Criminal Division and National Security Division.
Saturday, September 23, 2006 2:48 PM - By David Lat
Some random reading recommendations, which don’t have much to do with law. But that’s what weekends are for, right?
* Suffering from Entourage withdrawal? Read about a real-life agent dumping (by Jim Carrey). [Defamer]
* Suffering from Project Runway withdrawal, since there was no new episode this week? Get your hands on the New Yorker’s fantastic fashion issue. The profile of Diane von Furstenberg — by Larissa MacFarquhar, who once profiled Judge Richard Posner — is especially worthwhile. So is Andrea Lee’s article about high-end handbags (“The Bag Lady”). [New Yorker (table of contents; most articles not online)]
* Suffering from Harriet Miers withdrawal? Head over to the blog of Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston. Then run a search (ctrl-F) for “LOL.” [Cardinal Seán’s Blog via New York Times]
Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:31 AM - By David Lat
Okay, maybe he should be “Judge of Yesterday,” since this was in yesterday’s paper (and was picked up by How Appealing yesterday too). But it’s Saturday, and we’re still working hard to entertain you, so stop your quibbling.
A judge who repeatedly viewed pornography on the computer in his chambers apologized Friday after receiving a public reprimand from the Florida Supreme Court for violating judicial ethics.
Circuit Judge Brandt C. Downey III of Clearwater told the high court he was “sorry” after Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis called his conduct “truly shocking” and an embarrassment to his friends, his family, the judiciary and the citizens of Florida.
It may have been, er, somewhat imprudent for Judge Downey to check out porn in chambers. But at the risk of sounding like libertines, we have to ask: What’s the big deal? Millions of Americans enjoy pornography.
As for the workplace aspect, we say: If he’s keeping up with his judicial workload, who cares about de minimis use of his computer for, um, other activities? Is it that different from, say, making flight arrangements online for your Hawaiian vacation, while on your lunch break?
To put it another way: What’s wrong with a judge admitting he shares something in common with at least 14 percent of American men? (A figure that’s surely on the low side, due to the study’s reliance upon self-reporting.)
What’s next? Judges getting censured for banging their own gavels? What century are we living in? Or, for that matter, what country — a theocracy?
[At the hearing, Judge Downey] added that he believes God has forgiven him. He said his family and friends also have forgiven him and urged him to seek re-election, but he declined to avoid further embarrassment and publicity, Downey said.
So we don’t think judicial porn viewing is such a big deal. These allegations are far more problematic:
Downey allegedly showed inordinate interest in a young state attorney, asking her to approach the bench to tell her that she “looked nice today.”
He also was accused of asking another female lawyer to approach the bench for personal conversation and sending her an e-mail saying “it was nice seeing u in court looking so pretty.”
“What were you thinking?” Lewis asked.
Using “u” instead of “you” in an email? Now THAT warrants censure.
(Final observation: What is up with these Florida state court judges? See Wednesday’s Judge of the Day.)
* “Bless him Father, for he has sinned”: Msgr. John Woolsey made some unauthorized withdrawals from his church’s collection plate, which he blew on golf vacations and Rolex watches. (Monsignor: A Rolex is so unoriginal. Why not, say, a nice Patek Philippe?) [Judicial Reports]
* Newly confirmed Tenth Circuit judge Neil M. Gorsuch — a member of the Elect, former partner at the super-elite Kellogg Huber firm, and former Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General — has a new book out. It’s entitled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. We have no idea what it says; but it was probably smart of him to get confirmed before it was published. [How Appealing]
* Planning a trip to Ireland? Law professor William Birdthistle has some recommendations for you. [Forbes]
* Gov. Jon Corzine’s picks for the New Jersey Supreme Court have cool names: James Zazzali, nominated to be the next Chief Justice, and Helen Hoens, nominated to fill Zazzali’s vacated seat. We support Judge Hoens’s nomination, ‘cause we’re suckers for alliteration. And assonance, too. [New York Times]
* This is a long and juicy article; we’ll probably blog more about it later. For now, some key terms to whet your appetite: insider trading, ballroom dancing, trips to Cuba, BMWs, strippers. Oh, and a forklift operator. Don’t forget the forklift operator. [Fortune via WSJ Law Blog]
Okay, so he’s no Alice Fisher — the ball-busting, badass blonde, recently confirmed to head the DOJ’s Criminal Division, who has white-collar criminals shaking in their boots. But he’s still a highly regarded attorney — and pretty cute, too.
So ATL sends its congratulations to Kenneth L. Wainstein, just confirmed by the Senate as assistant attorney general for the Department’s brand-new National Security Division (NSD). Previously Wainstein served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The Wall Street Journal — which criticized the Democrats for holding up Wainstein’s nomination 4-evah — describes Ken Wainstein’s new job as follows:
Mr. Wainstein is waiting to fill a new post recommended in last year’s Robb-Silberman report to further break down the “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement. The new post would bring Justice’s counterespionage, counterintelligence and wiretapping units under one Assistant AG. Mr. Wainstein would also be the law enforcement world’s primary liaison with the intelligence community.
President Bush approved the change, Congress authorized it while renewing the Patriot Act earlier this year, and Mr. Wainstein’s offices are humming with computers. All that’s missing is a leader.
Letting Wainstein go through was a smart move for the Democrats. We’re no political strategists, but we do know this much: With an election just a few weeks away, it’s unwise for the Democrats to hold up the nomination of someone with the words “National Security” in his title.
Wainstein, by the way, is putting together a real A-team of legal talent over at the NSD, including several members of the Elect. As we previously reported, one of them is conservative legal superstar Brett Gerry — the Silbermaniac and former Kennedy clerk, who was associate general counsel to the Robb-Silberman commission. Also onboard: John Demers (O’Scannlain/Scalia), the affable legal genius who previously did a tour of duty with the Office of Legal Counsel (which works on many national security issues).
So congrats again to Ken Wainstein. And best of luck to his band of brainiacs, as they tackle some of the toughest issues facing our nation.
Lately you haven’t been sending many legal celebrity sightings our way. C’mon, guys — we know you can do better. If you harbor doubt as to who constitutes a “legal celebrity” in our book, please review this post.
Due to your delinquency, we’ll have to resort to some rather hoary sightings. Here’s the first, inspired by our recent post about legal hotshots chowing down:
As for food sightings, I hear that Leonard Leo has his own wine locker at Morton’s. One day this past summer, he was there and Miguel Estrada was in the next booth.
For those of you outside the Beltway, Leonard Leo is Grand Poobah of the Federalist Society — ringmaster of the good Senatrix’s “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Miguel Estrada — aka “the kid from Teguicalpa” — is the brilliant Latino lawyer, and former nominee to the celestial D.C. Circuit, who is often talked about as a possible SCOTUS nominee (in a Republican administration).
And what do great legal minds do to work off all those calories? Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Judge Consuelo Callahan (9th Cir.), and Judge Kathleen Cardone (W.D. Tex.) are aerobics aficionados. And all three, coincidentally, used to teach it. Justice O’Connor led the female law clerks in aerobics at the Supreme Court; Judge Callahan was an instructor at Jack La Lanne Fitness in Stockton, California; and Judge Cardone led classes at EP Fitness in El Paso, Texas.
Meanwhile, Justice David Souter, feeder judges J. Harvie Wilkinson (4th Cir.) and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain (9th Cir.), and ex-Judge Michael Chertoff (3d Cir.) enjoy running. And they’re not the only ones:
An older sighting (March), but a good one. I was driving my car in Georgetown one Sunday morning behind a jogger (blue/black long spandex pants and windbreaker). He was trotting right down the middle of the street, leaving no opportunity to pass on either side.
We followed behind him for about 2 blocks, going an infuriating 4 mph. When he hits the end of the block, he turns and starts jogging the opposite way, and now he’s heading straight in our direction. It was unmistakably Justice Stephen Breyer.
We commend Justice Breyer for his fitness regimen (which may explain why he’s one of the more svelte of the justices). But please, Your Honor — show some consideration for the motorists.
(Yeah, we know — those brick sidewalks in Georgetown can be a real bitch. But remember the words of Nietzsche: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”)
Remember the not-so-little secret we let you in on the other day: that all big law firms are pretty much the same?*
If you question that conventional wisdom, consider this interview tale:
I walked into an on-campus interview with a prominent DC firm. The interview room had a big window, and the interviewer must have been relying all day on the natural light coming through the window. So he had forgotten to turn the overhead light on. However, my interview was in the early evening…. The result was a dark room, with only one light on: a desk lamp, which happened to be shining directly into my face. It felt like an interrogation.
The interviewer himself didn’t help matters. This partner looked like he hadn’t slept in a week. He was dour and unfriendly. It was one of those lazy interviews, where the interviewer just lets you ask questions. So I asked my litany of innocuous, and boring, questions.
After a few, he tilted his head and said, “You know, none of those questions will do anything to distinguish our firm from any other major firm in DC.” Taken aback, and a bit annoyed, I replied, “Well then, what really does set your firm apart?”
He paused in thought. Then he said, “Not much really. I can’t think of anything.” I pressed him, asking, “Why did you decide to join [this firm]?” “Oh, I don’t know. A bunch of my friends went there, so I went too.”
Hey, at least he was honest…
The interview went on for about ten more painful minutes. As I was about to leave, the interviewer said, “You know, I guess if there’s one thing that really does set our firm apart, it’s the people. The people here are friendly and collegial and down-to-earth.”
Umm, right….
* All the same except for Wachtell Lipton, which pays much better — but where you work much harder.
In response to our recent request for information about academic salaries, a number of you reminded us that the salaries of many professors at state law schools are already publicly available. We had a vague recollection of this, but were too lazy to dig up links. Thankfully, a number of you did that for us.
Here they are (from the ever-helpful TaxProf Blog):
All of them kind of fall on the low end of the pay scale: $163,000 (Halberstam), $114,240 (Larsen), $140,000 (Primus). Do those shining gems not require corporeal nourishment, and so forgo food budgeted into their salaries?
In light of the abundance of information about legal academic salaries at public law schools, consider our earlier request for information modified. We’re still interested in hearing about how much law school professors and deans — especially hot deans — take home. But if you have information on a non-state law school, we’re far more interested in that.
As always, you can submit the information via email (subject line: Skaddenfreude). And as always, you have our undying gratitude.
And now, our latest funny/embarrassing interview story, courtesy of a kind reader:
I was interviewing mostly with Boston firms. Inevitably I was asked about my Denver-heavy resume, and I had developed a whole spiel about why I wanted to work in Boston. On my last interview of the day, the interviewers asked the resume question right out of the gate.
I launched into my nearly memorized response: “Rest assured, my desire to work in Boston is sincere. I’ve been in Boston for college and law school. I love it here. There’s a rhythm and a dynamism here that you just don’t find out West. I have a real connection with the city, and frankly, I can’t imagine practicing law anywhere but Boston.”
The two interviewers looked at each other, then at me. Then they reminded me that they were, in fact, from a Silicon Valley firm. I did not get a callback.
(For the record, everything worked out. I did end up practicing in Boston for several years, before the lure of home brought me back to Denver.)
Good stuff. Have your own interview horror story that you’d be willing to share? Please email us. We define “horror” loosely; we’re just looking for stories that pass the “mildly amusing” test. We will omit your name and any firm names, unless you request otherwise. Thankee kindly.
If you haven’t already voted, you can review the field and cast your ballot by clicking here. Please note that the poll is being administered by Pollhost. As a result, we have no control over any technological glitches (e.g., being told you already voted when you didn’t — this is probably because someone else in your office already did, and Pollhost treated that IP address as yours).
Here’s what one reader had to say about the results thus far:
I am astounded by the vote tally. Judge Kozinski is no Paris Hilton. He’s more like Sean Puffy Combs.
We see this reader’s point. First, Paris Hilton is a woman — and oh what a woman! So the three female judges may have a better claim to her bejeweled mantle than the two men.
Second, the Kozinski-Combs comparison is strong: both men are international superstars, with devoted fans, who are believed to enjoy tequila and fabulous parties.
(But, with all due respect to Judge Kozinski, Sean Combs is a better dresser. The black velvet tux that he wore to the Oscars two years ago is way more stylish than any black robe.)
With the voting well underway, it’s time to declare when the contest will end. The polls will close on Tuesday, September 26, at 1 PM (Eastern time). This will allow the candidates to campaign over the weekend (e.g., by spamming all their former clerks). It will also allow West Coast readers — and contestants — to vote one last time when they get into work that morning.
We wish these five distinguished jurists the best of luck in their quest for this distinction. If they have any campaign messages to disseminate, we invite them to email us.
Think about it, Your Honors. Wouldn’t “The Paris Hilton of the Federal Judiciary” look great in the “Miscellany” section of your Almanac of the Federal Judiciary write-up? Fun stuff!
Friday, September 22, 2006 10:29 AM - By David Lat
Partnership. It’s the Holy Grail of private practice. It’s the brass ring for Biglaw attorneys (at least those who didn’t bail on the firm years ago). It’s the six- or seven-figure pot of gold at the end of a decade-long rainbow. And it’s something that lawyers talk about incessantly — who’s a lock, who’s DOA, and who’s in between.
Such gossip usually takes place in document-filled conference rooms, between bored associates speaking sotto voce, at some ungodly hour long after the powers-that-be have left the building. But we’re going to bring it out into the open and onto the internet, in this quasi-regular feature, Handicapping the Race to Partnership.
We’ll estimate the partnership chances of senior associates and counsels at some of the nation’s biggest and most prestigious firms — perhaps with a little fact-checking thrown in (our moles are everywhere). And yes, we will name names. We’ll talk about who’s been guaranteed partnership ever since she saved that billion-dollar deal from going south — and who’s never going to make it, despite his own ardent belief to the contrary, because everyone still remembers (and gossips about) his ill-fated romance with that busty paralegal.
So help us help you. Send us juicy tips about who will surely make partner — and who definitely won’t — at your firm. You know where to email us (subject line: “Race to Partnership”). Danke schön.
Friday, September 22, 2006 10:09 AM - By David Lat
* Judge Manuel Real (C.D. Cal.) defends himself against impeachment charges before the Senate. The accusation that he made rulings “to benefit an attractive female” is one that the 82-year-old jurist “find[s] repugnant, particularly at my age.” [Los Angeles Times]
(But who says old guys can’t be horndogs? See, e.g., J. Howard Marshall, the late husband of victorious SCOTUS litigant Anna Nicole Smith.)
* Senatrix Dianne Feinstein — who has a really nice house, by the way — storms out of a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, vowing to filibuster the Ninth Circuit nomination of Idaho judge Randy Smith. DiFi wants the seat to go to a Californian. We love a little SJC drama!!! [Associated Press via How Appealing]
* Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were sentenced to up to 18 months in jail, for refusing to disclose their confidential sources with knowledge of steroid use by star baseball players. ATL tipsters, listen up: We’ll go to jail to protect your anonymity too. It would be great publicity for us! [Los Angeles Times]
* Fifth Circuit Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., will assume senior status next year, creating a Fifth Circuit vacancy. [Confirm Them via How Appealing]
* Apparently Cablevision awarded stocks options to a dead guy. Oops. Columbia Law prof John Coffee: “Trying to incentivize a corpse suggests they were not complying with the spirit of shareholder-approved stock-option plans.” [WSJ Law Blog]
We recently heard about a 1L at a top law school who knew, since he was a wee lad, that he wanted to go into international commercial arbitration.
We found this rather odd. No one in his family worked in the field. He had no other prior exposure to this area of law. And ICA isn’t exactly something that youngsters fall in love with, even if they have no clue as to what it entails (unlike, say, “international human rights work,” which gets mentioned in 75 percent of law school admissions essays).
Somehow this kid just KNEW that international commercial arbitration was his calling in life. Strange, but hey — good for him.
Tons of us, however, go to law school without a clear sense of what we want to do afterwards. This next interview anecdote is therefore one that many people can relate to:
I was interviewing with a Chicago branch of a large national firm. The interview was proceeding uneventfully when the interviewer (who had a bizarre, affected British accent) asked me what kind of law I intended to practice. I had worked on both commercial litigation and employment law cases at another firm the previous summer, and I told him quite honestly that I had not made up my mind, but it would likely be one of those two areas.
He reacted to my answer with a horrible, shocked expression. “Young man,” he said, “if you can’t tell me right now exactly what you intend to do with the rest of your legal career, I’m afraid you’re not our firm’s material.”
Now it was my turn to be shocked. I stood up, extended my hand, and said, “You’re absolutely right. I realize now that working for you would be one of the biggest mistakes I could ever make. Thank you for setting me straight.” I shook his hand, spun around, and walked out.
Wow, that took cojones! But guess what?
The next day, I got a callback. Needless to say, I did not take it.
* There’s still time left for you to vote: Who is the Paris Hilton of the federal judiciary? [ATL]
* There appears to be a void in the blogosphere where rumor-mongering about law school faculty moves ought to be. [Is That Legal?; Concurring Opinions]
Note: We’re happy to try and fill that void. So send us your tips, your juicy gossip about who in legal academia might be going where. The bigger the name, the better. If we receive a regular inflow of such info, we’ll make it a weekly feature.
Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:40 PM - By David Lat
It’s been a while since the last installment of Skaddenfreude, ATL’s informal survey of compensation within the legal profession. And we’d like to bring you some fresh data.
Unfortunately, right now we don’t have enough submissions to fill a post. But based on the submissions that we HAVE received, we have a theme: salaries in legal academia.
With the AALS “meat market”job fair a few short weeks away, this is a good time of year to be talking about how much law professors and deans earn. So, if you’re a legal academic willing to share your compensation information with us — which, of course, we “anonymize” before publishing — please email us (subject line: “Skaddenfreude”). The information that we need, and the process for anonymizing entries, are described here.
Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:27 PM - By David Lat
Lateral Moves:
* Tax litigators B. John Williams, Jr. and Alan Swirski, to Skadden Arps (DC), from Shearman & Sterling (DC).
The WSJ Law Blog refers to the two men as “Tax Litigation Studs.” First: What do these guys look like? Second: Is using the word “stud” conduct unbecoming an MSM blog? (Just kidding, Peter.)
* Geroge Sullivan, to Greenberg Traurig (NY), from Morgan Stanley (where he headed litigation at the firm’s retail brokerage and investment management arm).
Government to Private Sector:
* Mark Feldman, to BDO Seidman’s litigation and fraud investigation practice, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (where he headed the office’s organized crime and racketeering section for over 10 years).
Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:58 PM - By David Lat
This actually isn’t a new installment of our Advice for the Lawlame column (although one is in the works). Rather, it’s a funny email we received from a reader who shares our fascination with NYLawyer.com’s Advice for the Lawlorn column. Here it is:
Love the “Advice for the Lawlame” column. My friends and I have been reading “Advice for the Lawlorn” with a sort of amused contempt for a year. After a while, we grew tired of the formulaic cluelessness of the posts and the answers, so we challeged each other to get our fake submissions answered.
I won, with the below entry. Note how spectacularly lame the “author” of the submission was — not only did he spend his law school career neglecting academics for drinks and rugby, but his team wasn’t any good! Ann was almost on to me, but the voices of her better and more credulous angels won out.
I’ll stay anon because I’m a partner at a big NY firm. Not to worry. No client was billed while I was teasing Ann.
Our reader’s “winning” submission — and Ann Israel’s response — after the jump.
Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:09 PM - By David Lat
Since fall is job hunting season in the legal profession, both in terms of firm jobs and judicial clerkships, ATL offers you this “public service announcement”: our top ten interview tips.
We’ve received requests for interview advice from readers. Rather than repeat ourselves in emails, we thought we’d just write our “wisdom” down in a single post. It’s essentialy an outgrowth of our continuing series of Interview Horror Stories, which give you an idea of what NOT to do during a job interview.
1. Review your social networking site profiles (if any) for appropriateness. Here’s what one reader had to say:
Guess what. People making hiring and career decisions about you can indeed use Google, MySpace, Friendster, Facebook, etc. So can clients who are paying $300 or more per hour for your services. To the extent possible, you might want to make an effort to make yourself appear halfway professional. Or at least get rid of the materials that make you look like a drunken fool.
Yeah, that picture of you chugging a forty is pretty funny — but you should probably remove it. See alsothis cautionary tale, from the New York Times.
2. Make sure your breath is fresh. Please, don’t inflict halitosis upon your interviewer. You can check your breath by breathing into your cupped hand and sniffing (quasi-gross, but effective). Bring along a tiny packet of those Listerine strips, which you can pop discreetly when needed.
3. No gum during the interview. Bad breath is verboten; but so is chewing gum, even of the breath-freshening kind. We shouldn’t have to tell you this, but we do.
And don’t try the trick of sticking it in an upper corner of your mouth, so you can resume chewing it later; it can affect your speech. When the interview is done, treat yourself to a fresh piece. You deserve it!
4. Get Them to Start Talking About Themselves. This is everyone’s favorite topic. They are as bored with you as you are with them, so avoid you and make it about them. (Gavel bang: John Carney, a former practicing lawyer and editor of DealBreaker, our big brother blog.)
5. Cologne or Perfume? Probably safest not to — especially if you’re interviewing with this guy (he bans it in chambers).
If you do, select a subtle scent — e.g., not Drakkar Noir — and use it sparingly. (We like Eau d’Orange Verte by Hermès.)
Oh, but a resounding “yes” to showering — and deodorant.
The rest of our interview advice appears after the jump.
Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:52 PM - By David Lat
Some time has passed since our last attempt to bring down western civilization — namely, our ERISA Hotties Contest. So it’s time for another legal professional beauty pageant.
Our latest competition is based on the suggestion of a helpful law professor reader. It’s a contest for the HOTTEST LAW SCHOOL DEAN in America.
Two notes on what we talk about when we talk about a law school “dean”:
1. The nominee must be a CURRENT dean. No former deans. (Sorry, Kathleen Sullivan and Tony Kronman — you both have great hair, but you’re ineligible.)
2. The nominee doesn’t have to be THE dean of the law school; assistant or associate deans, or deans with specific portfolios (e.g., admissions), can be nominated too. But they must have the word “dean” somewhere in their current title.
The nomination procedure will be pretty much the same as it was for our ERISA Hotties Contest. To nominate a dean, here’s what you must email us (subject line: LSD Hottie):
(1) the nominee’s name, title, and law school;
(2) a decent-sized, reasonably high-quality, digital photograph of the nominee (ideally a face pic); and
(3) a testimonial, in which you explain why this law school dean deserves to be named America’s hottest law school dean.
Now it’s your turn. Tell us which dean can “discipline” you anytime, and whose academic gown you’d like to peek under.
We’ll accept nominations until — eh, date to be determined (depending on the response rate). As always, tipsters and nominators will remain anonymous — unless you give away your identity in your testimonial. See, e.g., the Jennifer Stojak nomination.
To all who seek the title of America’s Hottest Law School Dean: GOOD LUCK!
[T]he Supreme Court’s two newest justices have decided, at least temporarily, to stick with the Court’s clerk-pooling arrangement…. [B]oth Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr. said they will stay in the “cert pool,” as it is called, for the current term.
Roberts said he will participate on a “year-to-year basis,” and Alito said the same….
The use of the certiorari pool does, by the way, increase the power of law clerks at the Court:
In a 1997 speech when he was in private practice, Roberts said he found the pool “disquieting” in that it made clerks “a bit too significant” in determining the Court’s docket. During his confirmation hearings in January, Alito said he was “aware of the issue” surrounding the pool. He added: “We cannot delegate our judicial responsibility. But … we need to find ways, and we do find ways, of obtaining assistance from clerks and staff, employees, so that we can deal with the large caseload that we have.”
One could quibble with Justice Alito’s description of the SCOTUS caseload as “large.” The Court hears fewer than 100 cases each Term, and the number has been decreasing over the years. And the cert pool may actually be contributing to that decline, as Lyle Denniston suggests.
In their new book on the Court’s clerks, Sorcerers’ Apprentices, authors Artemus Ward and David Weiden chart the history and impact of the pool. At the same time the pool has increased the power of clerks in the gatekeeping function, they say, it has made clerks less candid and more timid in their recommendations. “The pool writers are going to be less candid than they would be with their own justice,” says Ward in an interview. “It has a chilling effect.”
It would be interesting if another justice were to join Justice Stevens in declining to participate in the cert pool. But would that make a clerkship with that justice less desirable? Clerks to that justice would have to spend more of their time doing mind-numbing cert review work, getting down into the factual weeds of lower-court records — instead of working on the sexy, pure legal issues presented by merits cases.
Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:59 AM - By David Lat
(Yeah, we know, today’s “Morning Docket” is coming in just in time for lunch. Sorry, we overslept…)
* Former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling is facing 20 to 30 years in prison when he’s sentenced next month — but he can still get himself into even more trouble. Impressive. [Houston Chronicle via WSJ Law Blog]
* Elsewhere in Enron-land, ex-CFO Andy Fastow is seeking leniency in advance of his sentencing next week. Did you know he built a picnic table at his synagogue? [Washington Post; WSJ Law Blog]
* Clarence Hill, the death row inmate who sought to challenge the constitutionality of Florida’s lethal injection procedure, was executed last night. The Supreme Court decided, by a 5-4 vote, not to grant him a new stay of execution. [New York Times]
* Something complicated happened in the House concerning the White House’s proposal for interrogating and prosecuting terror suspects. Parliamentary procedure can be so wacky! Let’s face it: Nothing is getting done on this until after the November elections. [Washington Post]
* Hey, that’s neat: “Eugene Volokh” is on ABC’s “Boston Legal.” [How Appealing]
Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:17 AM - By David Lat
Today is the first day for judicial clerkship interviews under the official Law Clerk Hiring Plan (which some judges follow, and some judges don’t). We’re going to celebrate the occasion with a judge-related poll.
Here at Above the Law, we love ourselves some Paris Hilton. She’s beautiful, blonde, and rich. She’s fabulous and glamorous. She’s a gifted model, actress, singer, dancer, and businesswoman. (And yes, she’s good at that, too.)
Here are some quotes from a recent New York Sun article about Paris that capture some of our feelings about her:
Says Camille Paglia: “She feels the Zeitgeist. She has that dancer’s feel for the camera, for the observing eye, and she produces fantastic still pictures.” Ashley Barrett, global PR director for Coty Prestige, has added, “She is very clever about giving the press what they want — provocative fashion, an ever-increasing list of projects, scandal. She gives great paparazzi.”
Some people deride Paris Hilton as being “famous for nothing” or “famous for being famous.” We disagree; but if this were true, it would only make Paris more fantastic. It would make the purest incarnation of fame possible: fame undiluted by the distracting presence of accomplishment.
And, as everyone knows, we also love ourselves some federal judges. So here’s today’s poll:
Who is the Paris Hilton of the federal judiciary?
Here are the contenders and what they share in common with Paris:
Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:28 AM - By David Lat
Those big law firms — they’re all the same, right?
Yeah, pretty much. But let’s keep that as our little secret. Here’s our next amusing interview story.*
A law school classmate had been on what seemed like a zillion second-year callbacks and was having trouble keeping all the interviews straight in his head. At a Cravath, Swaine & Moore callback, three rather stuffy and reticent lawyers took him to lunch at an upscale French restaurant. Trying to make conversation, my classmate piped up, “So what’s it like to work at Skadden?”
The seniormost lawyer arched an eyebrow and replied icily, “You’re interviewing at Cravath.” Without missing a beat, my classmate replied, “Well, do you know what it’s like to work at Skadden anyway?”
His comment was prescient - he ended up at Skadden.
We can understand his confusion. Both Skadden and Cravath have laid claim to the “Death Star” nickname. (Around here, we use it to refer to Cravath, since Skadden has moved into new offices.)
* We agree this commenter — not all of these anecdotes qualify as “horror stories.” That just happens to be the catchy title we’ve bestowed upon this ongoing series of posts.
But just out of curiosity, ATL readers, what’s your first reaction to this photo of Bill Clinton and a group of bloggers? Please place your responses in the comments to this post.
* HP looked into having spies infiltrate the offices of CNET and the Wall Street Journal by posing as clerical employees or cleaning crew members. This scandal gets more insane by the day. [DealBreaker]
* Have an iron stomach? Looking for a quick way to make $75,000? [TortsProf Blog]
* We agree with Professor Dimino’s students — we’ll take a statutory class over Con Law any day of the week. [PrawfsBlawg]
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:25 PM - By David Lat
Obviously we have no aversion around here to humor (or attempts at it). But lawyers and law students on job interviews should be very careful when cracking jokes.
Engage in some amount of cost-benefit analysis: Does the good that this joke might do outweigh the risk that it will fall flat? Could the joke be construed as offensive in any way? Does your interviewer seem like someone who might be receptive to humor — for example, has he or she made a joke already — or do they seem a bit dour?
Here’s an example of a joke that didn’t go over so well:
A few of us take the interviewee out to lunch. We sit down; menus arrive. The candidate mentions that she is deathly allergic to shellfish. She returns to this subject again and again throughout the lunch — perhaps worried that someone at our table, or at a table nearby, might order something with shellfish. At one point she says: “Hey — if I get an allergic reaction, and you have to rush me to the emergency room, then will you give me an offer?”
Awkward laughter. And no offer (for a whole host of reasons, which I won’t burden you with).
Disclaimer: We are not making light of food allergies. To the contrary, we caution job applicants against using them as the basis for attempts at humor.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:51 PM - By David Lat
On the Way Out:
* Myron Olesnyckyj, general counsel of Monster Worldwide (parent of Monster.com), has been suspended “effectively immediately, pending the results of the ongoing review of the Company’s historical stock option grant practices.”
Lateral Moves:
* M&A lawyer John Graham, to Clifford Chance (NY), from King & Spalding (NY), where he was co-head of the firm’s mergers and acquisitions practice.
(By the way, we love how the Brits refer to their top corporate law firms as making up the “Magic Circle.” Too bad we don’t have a term that cool to refer to, say, the top five or ten firms in the U.S.A. If you have any suggestions, feel free to email us.)
Government to Private Sector:
* Former Manhattan Surrogate Eve Preminger, to Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, as counsel.
(Surrogates are judges who oversee probate and the estates of the deceased. Eve Preminger did not give birth to Baby M.)
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:14 PM - By David Lat
In yesterday’s Lawsuit of the Day post, we wondered where on earth Martha Louise Piggee, former part-time instructor of cosmetology at Carl Sandburg College, dug up the anti-gay comics she foisted on her gay students. One of you enlightened us:
These are the cartoon “tracts” of Jack Chick. He has them all online, in case you’d like to see the cartoons that Ms. Piggie included. Click here.
Check ‘em out for yourself; they’re pretty wild. In Doom Town (above right), a man who looks suspiciously like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sets out on a quest to “rescue” homosexuals from the “horrible judgment” awaiting them.
In Sin City (below), “Reverend Ray” — a gay clergyman preaching tolerance for gays — comes to discover that he’s actually on an express train to Hell. But he repents just in time:
Apparently he was a bottom.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on gay rights, gay marriage, etc. We’re not here to debate such weighty issues. We just find it hilarious that Martha Piggee was mounting a one-woman campaign against homosexuality AT A COSMETOLOGY SCHOOL…
(C’mon, Ms. Piggee — challenge yourself. Take your proselytizing to a Kathy Griffin show!)
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:28 PM - By David Lat
A lot of our humor is kinda juvenile. So now we’ll throw some erudition into the mix. Recently we learned of this fun fact:
A partner at a big New York law firm, a litigator, has the following quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein on his wall. “The world is all that is the case.”
Those of you who majored in philosophy should already be laughing.
For those of you who didn’t, here’s an explanation (which we provide at the risk of sounding pedantic):
In that context, it completely warps the meaning of the quote. Witty meant it as: “The world is composed of all facts.” To the litigator it meant: “The case is the entire world.”
The story actually came to us sans the identity of the litigator; we didn’t redact anything. If you know who it might be, feel free to drop us a line.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:11 PM - By David Lat
Tomorrow is the first day for clerkship interviews under the official Law Clerk Hiring Plan (which some judges follow, and some judges don’t). So it’s fitting and proper that our next interview anecdote relates to a clerkship interview with a federal judge:
I clerked for a federal court of appeals judge. The judge’s chambers were located in a converted local post office in a suburb, so the judge permitted us to dress casually. (Very casually, including the judge — sweatshirts and tee shirts were not out of the question, especially given the antiquated HVAC system). This was usually a big selling point among clerkship applicants, who of course arrived for their interviews dressed in business suits.
One day, after a nicely dressed, well-credentialed law student came through on an interview, the judge came out of her office with a rather amused look on her face. She recounted that, sitting in her office during the private interview, the applicant asked about the dress code. She gave her usual spiel that casual dress was fine, joking about the poor ventilation.
The student then asked her earnestly if it would be ok if he wore a suit to work if he were hired. Puzzled, she said sure, but asked why. He said, with a straight face, that he thought it was “more professional.”
Needless to say, an offer was not forthcoming.
It’s amazing how so many brilliant law students — and lawyers — can be so tone-deaf socially.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:54 PM - By David Lat
Yesterday we wondered aloud about how the wedding announcement of Chandra Collier and Juris Kupris made it into the New York Times (which is notoriously picky about which announcements it runs). This reader email expressed our sentiments exactly:
Check out the Chandra Collier/Juris Kupris wedding announcement. It seems completely out of place. Neither family is from New York. She went to Indiana. He is a fitness trainer. The announcement is very, very short.
Why was it included? The picture. He looks like a male model.
I guess this means you can get into the Times if you have an impressive job, an impressive family, or an impressive photograph.
Courtesy of another reader, who did a little research for us, we have some answers:
1. Juris Kupris isn’t just “a fitness trainer,” as the Times modestly describes him. He’s actually a brand unto himself. Check out the fancy website for his fitness company.
2. You can get into the Times if you have an impressive job, an impressive family, an impressive photograph — or an impressive publicist.
Kupris is represented by NYC powerhouse publicist Lizzie Grubman. After Grubman threatened to run over the entire Sunday Styles staff with her Mercedes SUV, they were more than happy to accommodate the Collier/Kupris announcement.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:29 PM - By David Lat
Usually we respond to reader comments — which we always welcome, whether good, bad, or indifferent — in the comments. But some comments merit fuller treatment, like this one:
I still find it hard to fathom how gossip about these clerks adds to the public discourse. Given that the clerks are not going to be standing for an election, revealing details of their personal life seems completely unhelpful. Why don’t you consider getting a life of your own and stop harassing people.
Or, maybe you should “put your money where your mouth is” and post information about your law school grades, family background and net worth on your site. Yes, it’s a challenge (although none of us would honestly care)…
Our response to this idiocy, for those of you who care — if you don’t, just skip ahead to the next post, no one’s forcing you to read this — appears after the jump.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:09 PM - By David Lat
Our series of interview anecdotes, which we kicked off yesterday, continues. And today’s tale illustrates that sometimes the rudeness comes not from the interview candidate, but from her hosts:
As a law student applying for summer associate jobs, I had a post-interview lunch at [a large New York law firm] with a young male associate. As is traditional, he brought along a fellow associate as his wingman. (Why is that the protocol, anyway? Is it so it doesn’t feel like some weird date? Are firms afraid the associate will tell the truth if alone with a candidate over lunch?)
Anyway, the associate and his wingman proceeded to IGNORE me the whole time, catch up on their respective lives, and talk to each other about the NFL and the various prospects for the season, like it was going out of style. I thought I was at lunch with Bob Costas and John Madden.
I made some pointed comment about how these interviews must be great for associates to catch up with each other, but it went right over their heads. Not only that, but they walked AHEAD of me through Times Square, both going and coming, yammering about the Jets — as I struggled after them in my suit and high heels. When we returned to the lobby, they just stared at me awkwardly, until I offered a “Well, unless someone upstairs needs me, I’ll be going.”
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:37 AM - By David Lat
ATL extends its warmest congratulations to Alice S. Fisher, who was just confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division — one of the most important and high-ranking posts at the Department of Justice. The vote was 61-35, with 7 Democrats crossing the aisle to support her.*
The Senate sure took its sweet time in confirming Alice Fisher. Back in August 2005, the White Collar Crime Prof Blog asked: When Will the Senate Confirm Alice Fisher to Lead the Criminal Division? It noted that Fisher was nominated as Crim Div AAG back in April — of 2005, mind you — and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2005.
We’re delighted by this news, ‘cause we can’t get enough of the brassy, blonde, tough-talking Fisher. In Washingtonian magazine’s July 2006 list of “40 Top Lawyers Under 40,” Fisher came in second (behind Solicitor General Paul Clement). The magazine quoted lawyers who described Fisher — a 1992 graduate of Catholic University Law School, and a protege of DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff — as a “tornado” during her time at Latham & Watkins (where she was a partner before joining the Justice Department).**
Fisher is a native of Kentucky — but based on her bad-ass demeanor, you’d guess she emerged from the mean streets of Brooklyn (pre-Yuppification). We can still recall Fisher’s press conference announcing charges against disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Fisher held forth like a sheriff from the Old West, making clear to Capitol Hill criminals that she would hunt them down and bring them to justice.
During her remarks, Fisher mispronounced Abramoff’s name — maybe she said something like “uh-BRAM-off” — over and over again. This led some Beltway insiders to snicker; tout le monde knew Jack Abramoff and the proper pronunciation of his name.
But we were loving it. Why? Rumor has it that this DOJ diva knew full well how to pronounce “Abramoff,” but mangled it on purpose — to send him a message. That message: “Congressmen have been kissing your ass for years. Everywhere you go in this town, people treat you like royalty. But to me, Mr. uh-BRAM-off, you’re just another common criminal — and I’m going to treat you like one. Bite me!”
ALICE FISHER 4 EVER!!
* The seven Democrats who supported Fisher were Evan Bayh, Byron Dorgan, Russell Feingold, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Kenneth Salazar. One Republican, Norm Coleman, did not vote.
** Michael Chertoff has a long and distinguished list of high-powered proteges. See here.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:24 AM - By David Lat
* The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal judiciary (but not the SCOTUS), has announced measures to improve the judiciary’s self-policing and public accountability. They include required installation of “conflict checking” software — get with it, Your Honors, that’s long overdue — and enhanced disclosure concerning judicial junkets. [New York Times; Washington Post]
* Speaking of judicial naughtiness, a commission headed by Justice Stephen G. Breyer has concluded that the Ninth Circuit mishandled its investigation of Judge Manuel Real — who is now facing an impeachment inquiry. [Los Angeles Times via How Appealing]
* The latest news in L’Affaire HP: Lawyers all around! HP general counsel Ann Baskins has retained white-collar specialist Cristina Arguedas, and Larry Sonsini has retained Michael Madigan, of Akin Gump. [The Recorder; WSJ Law Blog]
* Trying to come up with legislation to govern interrogation and treatment of terror suspects: Still a big ol’ mess. Wake us up when something’s actually accomplished. [Washington Post; New York Times]
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:56 AM - By David Lat
As we noted yesterday, federal judge Manuel Real (C.D. Cal.) is facing an impeachment inquiry (more details here). But when it comes to egregious judicial misconduct, state court judges win handily over their federal counterparts.
Check out this AP report about a recent disciplinary hearing for a Florida state judge:
A judge who admitted to 14 ethics violations, including unconstitutionally ordering a probationer to go to church, was scolded Monday by the Florida Supreme Court.
Accusations against Albritton include jailing a young mother because she was unable to remember her address; soliciting gifts and invitations to lunch; getting hunting trips from lawyers; and demeaning a Department of Children and Families staffer because of her young age.
Alas, the AP report omits some of the more colorful allegations against Judge Albritton. They can be found in this TSG report from last year:
A Florida judge is facing a disciplinary hearing for a host of allegedly inappropriate behavior on the bench, including the recommendation to one female defendant that she “needed to close her legs and stop having babies.”…
Among the commission’s many allegations is the claim that Albritton once demanded that a teenage mother identify the father of her baby. When the girl declined to answer, Albritton told her that he would “put her back in juvenile detention” if she did not give up the dad’s name.
Here’s our favorite quote from the disciplinary hearing for Judge Albritton:
During the reprimand, Lewis said Albritton had told a staff lawyer that he realized ordering a probationer to go to church was unconstitutional but that the defendant didn’t know that. The order violated the First Amendment prohibition against the government endorsing a religion.
“You abused your position by placing yourself above the law,” [Chief Justice] Lewis told him.
The Honorable Richard Albritton, Jr.: a judge after our own heart.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 6:25 PM - By David Lat
* We haven’t bothered to mix it up with our variouscritics, mostly out of sheer laziness. You don’t read us, we don’t read you; it’s a fair trade. But the description of the fracas in Blawg Review #75 makes launching a “blog war” sound kinda fun. [Concurring Opinions]
* Now we know why bankers are richer than lawyers. [TaxProf Blog]
* Random aside: This has nothing to do with law — although the groom’s name is “Juris.” But what was up with the Collier/Kupris wedding announcement? One of you notes:
Check out the Chandra Collier/Juris Kupris wedding announcement. It seems completely out of place. Neither family is from New York. She went to Indiana. He is a fitness trainer. The announcement is very, very short.
Why was it included? The picture. He looks like a male model.
I guess this means you can get into the Times if you have an impressive job, an impressive family, or an impressive photograph.
We actually take issue with this reader’s characterization of Kupris as a “male model.” Male models — the runway models, not the catalog ones — tend to be skinnier (the “male waif” look is still in).
We think Kupris looks more like the shirtless guys they put on the covers of Harlequin romance novels…
In September 2002, Martha Louise Piggee, who was then a part-time instructor of cosmetology at Carl Sandburg College, gave a gay student two religious pamphlets on the sinfulness of homosexuality. The student was offended and complained to college officials. After the college looked into the matter, it found that Piggee had sexually harassed the student. It admonished her in a letter to cease such behavior, and the following semester it chose not to retain her.
Thereafter, Piggee filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the college, the members of its board of trustees, and various college administrators (including one person who directed the mortuary science program, whose offense was to clean out Piggee’s refrigerator and throw away her noodles at some point during the spring of 2003) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Question Presented: Can throwing away someone’s old noodles constitute a civil rights violation? Answer: No, unless they’re cold sesame noodles. Those things are like crack!
It’s also worth noting that Ms. Piggee — no, we won’t make the Muppets joke — is an instructor in COSMETOLOGY. If she has something against gay people, she sure picked the wrong field.
More excerpts from this delightful opinion, after the jump.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:50 PM - By David Lat
When the Supreme Court isn’t in session, many of the justices — such as Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy — traipse off to Europe. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, showing his diligence, sticks around town (at least more than his colleagues). He was recently spotted at work on a Sunday.
When he does travel, look for him not in the Old Country, but in New England. Chief Justice Roberts recently acquired a house on a small island off Port Clyde, Maine (pictured). Tony Mauro has the details:
Roberts and his wife, Jane, paid $475,000 in June for a two-acre property and roughly 1,300-square-foot house on the island. The seller was Steve Thomas of “This Old House” TV fame.
The island is reachable by boat, and that has proved to be a bit of a problem for Roberts. In a brief interview on the subject of his new home, Roberts joked that he had trouble achieving the right ratio of gas to oil for his boat’s motor on a recent trip. The main reason for the miscalculation, he said with a laugh, was that when he asked around to be sure how many pints there are in a quart, most people told him four — instead of two, the correct answer.
It’s nice to know that we’re not the only folks who struggle with measurements. So does the brilliant Chief Justice!
[Roberts] no family connections in Maine. But Roberts said his family has vacationed in the area in two of the past four years and decided to take the plunge. Kevin Lipson, a partner at Roberts’ former law firm Hogan & Hartson, owns a house on the island and introduced him to the rustic retreat several years ago.
Town assessor’s agent James Murphy Jr. describes Roberts’ house as “pretty average,” a one-story structure built in 1965 but remodeled a few years ago. It also has an “outbuilding,” Murphy adds, but he is quick to assure that it is not an outhouse but a shed.
Sounds like a perfect place for clerks’ quarters, should JGR ever invite them out to his retreat.
While the island sounds lovely, we’re a little disappointed that the Chief’s pad is a “pretty average” house, built in the dreaded 1960’s, and worth under $500,000. We were expecting something a bit more grand.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:26 PM - By David Lat
In a forthcoming interview in GQ, actor Alec Baldwin lashes out at his ex-wife, Kim Basinger. According to Page Six, “Baldwin claims she told such horrible lies about him that he wanted to die.”
But Baldwin saves some of his harshest words for Basinger’s lawyers at the Beverly Hills firm of Hersh, Mannis & Bogen. He offers this colorful description of prominent divorce lawyer Judy Bogen:
[Judy] Bogen, she’s this 300-pound homunculus whose face looks like a cross between a bulldog and a clenched fist. She’s this hideously angry-looking woman. She’d snarl and hiss.
The responsible journalists over at Page Six tried to contact Bogen for comment. But, as they drily note, “Bogen did not return our call.”
We tried to locate pictures of Judy Bogen — our curiosity was definitely piqued by Baldwin’s remarks — but were unsuccessful. If you can help us out, please drop us a line.
Alec: We hate to quibble, but… a “300-pound homunculus”? Isn’t a homunculus supposed to be small?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:50 AM - By David Lat
Yesterday we wrote about Julie Buxbaum, the 2002 graduate of Harvard Law School who just landed a $500,000, two-book deal with Dial Press. We also asked you for more information about her — where she practiced law before leaving for the writing life, what she’s like as a person, etc.
Via Friendster, we learn that this Harvard Law hottie is 29 years old, in a relationship, and residing in Los Angeles. She has highbrow tastes in literature — e.g., Interpreter of Maladies, The Unbearable Lightness of Being — and less highbrow tastes in movies — e.g., Revenge of the Nerds.
We also learned some things about Julie Buxbaum through your emails. One tipster stated, upon information and belief, that she worked in the L.A. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Another tipster, however, said she used to work at litigation boutique Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman. Our speculation: Julie started off at GDC, then left for Hennigan Bennett (Biglaw to boutique — a perfectly logical career path).
The most fun tidbit about Ms. Buxbaum? That her brother was a child actor who went by the stage name Josh Blake. This piece of information is corroborated by the IMDb entry for Josh Blake, “sometimes credited as Josh Buxbaum.” For devotees of the late 80’s sitcom ALF, you may recall Blake as Jake Ochmonek, the “belligerent nephew” of the Tanners’ next-door neighbors, who was befriended by that furry alien from the planet Melmac.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:56 AM - By David Lat
The evening air is turning crisp. The kids are back in school. You’re starting to think about where to spend Thanksgiving. That’s right, everyone: Autumn is here. (Official start of fall this year: Saturday, September 23.)
In the legal world, everyone knows what fall means: job interviews. Second- and third-year law students are interviewing for summer associate positions at law firms. Third-year law students, as well as recent law school graduates, are interviewing for prestigious judicial clerkships. (You can find out the latest clerk hiring info here.)
To celebrate the season, we’re going to share with you some of the more interesting or amusing interview stories we’ve heard. To make a contribution, please email us (subject line: “Interview Story”).
Please note that your story doesn’t have to be a tale of disaster. Stories about interviews that are weird, cute, or heartwarming are also welcome.
We’ll kick things off with this little anecdote:
I don’t mean to be the etiquette police; I’ve committed many a faux pas over the years. And I understand that not everyone grows up in privileged surroundings where they learn, from an early age, which fork is which.
But I found this lunch behavior rather odd, coming from an interview candidate who went to a top college and is now at a top law school. Presumably she has attended some formal events, semi-formal events, or business meals, where she has had the chance to observe others.
So here’s the story. We’re at an interview lunch. The candidate takes a roll from the bread basket. She butters it. She takes a bite out of it. And then she PUTS IT BACK IN THE BREAD BASKET.
None of us said anything; but everyone noticed. I could not believe my eyes.
One of the other associates at the table takes out her Blackberry — perhaps also a breach of etiquette, but quite common in this town — and taps out a message. A few seconds later, my Blackberry vibrates. I apologize for the interruption — “I’m waiting for an urgent message from a client” — and check my email.
It’s a message from my colleague across the table. Subject line: “Bread.” Message text: “Did she just do that?”
It’s time for Above the Law to perform our mitzvah for the day — what’s known in the publishing trade as “service journalism,” or “news you can use.”
Today we offer job applicants this friendly advice: After you remove a piece of bread from the communal bread basket, it is considered yours. Never return it to the basket. As John Locke might have said, by “mixing it with your labor” — by lifting the roll out of the basket, and placing it on your bread plate — you have converted that communal property into your own.
So please, when it comes to rolls in the bread basket, “no backsies.” We know that people are starving in sub-Saharan Africa. But your buttered, half-eaten roll of sourdough will never make it to them. Thank you.
Cf. Seinfeld, The Muffin Tops. For those of you not familiar with that classic episode, excerpts from the script appear after the jump.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:48 AM - By David Lat
* More back-and-forth between the Bush Administration and Congress concerning rules to govern the interrogation of terror suspects. The White House sent Congress a revised proposal last night; a deal could be reached by the end of this week. [Washington Post]
* More developments in the HP leak investigation scandal. The most interesting: even Larry Sonsini (at right), HP’s lead outside lawyer, was pretexted as part of the probe. Heh. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Former Enron exec David Delainey is sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. [Houston Chronicle via WSJ Law Blog]
* Freelance video journalist and blogger Josh Wolf, who refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena seeking his footage of a political protest, is headed back to jail. [Associated Press]
* Judge Manuel Real (C.D. Cal.) will testify before Congress in response to GOP efforts to impeach him. (Judge Real, by the way, is quite a character; we’ll probably have more to say about this later.) [Daily Journal via How Appealing]
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:57 AM - By David Lat
Here’s the fourth post in our continuing series about why there’s nothing wrong with writing about Supreme Court clerks. Prior installments are available here (Part 1), here (Part 2), and here (Part 3).
We’d also like to direct your attention to this excellent comment by a reader — replete with an eloquent quote from Schopenhauer. It’s like the metaphysical version of “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
The balance of this post, making the fourth point in our multi-part argument, appears after the jump.
* The lyrics of Bob Dylan are the most frequently cited song lyrics in law review articles and judicial opinions. [Volokh Conspiracy; Insert Song Lyrics Here (pdf)]
* The tabloids and celebrity weeklies are all over the mysterious death of Daniel Smith, the 20-year-old son of successful SCOTUS litigant Anna Nicole Smith. [Gawker; Gawker]
* Bowers v. Hardwick may be history; but Atlanta Attorney General Mike Bowers is still racking up accolades. [Queerty]
* Transactional types: You may be interested in the Vault.com list of the top 50 investment banks. [DealBreaker]
* For any of you who read the (often hilarious) message boards at AutoAdmit — aka xoxohth — please be advised that the person using the handle “David Lat” is not actually us. [AutoAdmit]
The anecdote we’re about to share with you is on the vulgar side. So if you’d rather not be exposed to such crudeness, just skip this post. (Mom and Dad, this means you.)
We heard this story recently over drinks — but we have the permission of the storyteller to publish it. So if you ever hang out with us, you need not fear that what you tell us will appear in these pages. Our default rule is that social conversations are “off the record.” If we’re in a social setting and hear something juicy we want to publish, we always ask our source for permission first.
In contrast, as we’ve previously stated, emails you send us are presumptively usable for blogging purposes. We’ll just keep you anonymous as our source (unless you ask to be identified).
Although this story may seem outrageous to you, it is NOT an urban legend. We actually did some fact-checking — just like real journalists — and verified the accuracy of this account with one of the participants.
If you have tender sensibilities, stop reading here. But if you’re willing to read a rather rude but entertaining story, then click ahead to the jump page.
This is the third post in a series defending the propriety of writing about Supreme Court clerks. The first two installments are available here and here. The rest of this post, making the third point in our multi-part argument, appears after the jump.
* Global trade lawyers Duane Layton, Sydney Mintzer and Jeffrey Lowe, to Mayer Brown, from Miller & Chevalier.
* Bankruptcy lawyer Stephen Gallagher, to Venable LLP, from LeClair Ryan PC.
* Intellectual property litigator Daniel McCloskey, to Greenberg Traurig (of counsel), from Dechert.
Internal Promotions:
* Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal: Kara Baysinger has been named lateral acquisition partner.
(When we read this item, we scratched our head and thought, “Lateral acquisition partner — huh?” The firm’s press release explains: “Baysinger, who joined the firm eight years ago, will lead a lateral hiring program designed to help Sonnenschein achieve its aggressive growth targets.”)
This is the second post in our continuing manifesto, started this morning, as to why it’s okay to write about former Thomas clerk Chantel Febus’sappreciation for Lenny Kravitz.
Most of you probably have no interest in the rest of this post; if you’re visiting a site like this one, you probably enjoy rather than condemn gossip about Supreme Court clerk clerks. But if you’d care to read our ramblings on the subject, they’re after the jump.
We’d like to call your attention to this interesting Sunday Times article (and not just ‘cause we’re quoted in it). It’s about the internet-based food delivery company SeamlessWeb. The Times explains:
Every weekday, when they are hungry, thousands of the most highly paid workers in New York City will log on to the same Web site. Finding food while they work requires just a few clicks of the mouse, and fits neatly into their multitasking, desk-bound work lives. Few of those employees will ever see the bill or pay a tip when their food is delivered. Instead, their orders are processed, and billed to their employers, through a single company: SeamlessWeb.
SeamlessWeb may be little known outside the high-powered business world. But it has instant name recognition with almost any elite corporate lawyer, investment banker or management consultant in the city. At hundreds of firms, a SeamlessWeb log-on has joined the company ID and the e-mail address as de rigueur accouterments for the new hire.
We can remember when logging on to SeamlessWeb, to order saag paneer or a black-and-tan milkshake, was the highlight of our day (or night). Biglaw life definitely has its perks.
Of course, SeamlessWeb — like, say, a Blackberry or a firm laptop — is both a blessing and a curse. It’s tremendously convenient. But it is part of a Biglaw culture designed to keep associates productive around the clock, without any excuses or distractions to take them away from work.
Monday, September 18, 2006 12:14 PM - By David Lat
Above the Law bills itself as “a legal tabloid.” And no tabloid would be complete without a sex scandal. Our scandale du jour emanates from the Windy City, home of John Marshall Law School. The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
When students returned to John Marshall Law School this month, everyone was talking about the lawsuit against “The Colonel.”
Robert “Gil” Johnston, the venerable former dean of the university, was sued by his ex-mistress, Virginia Smith, whom he started dating while she was a law student in 1983. Among other claims, she said Johnston beat her, promised to marry her, then, after his wife died, married someone else.
Generations of students have noted a resemblance between Johnston, with his cotton candy white hair and goatee, and Kentucky Fried Chicken founder Col. Sanders.
Johnston’s attorney said the former dean admits the affair, but denies any abuse on his part.
Of course, Robert Johnston isn’t the only university dean to get with a student. Affairs between law school students and faculty or administration members are, shall we say, not uncommon.
But this isn’t the end of the story. More salacious details appear after the jump.
Monday, September 18, 2006 11:30 AM - By David Lat
We understand that some of you have been upset by our recent coverage of a certain future Supreme Court clerk. As we mentioned over the weekend, we are instituting a moratorium on coverage of this clerk, at least for the time being. So all of youiratecommenters can unwad your panties, spray Febreze on them, and toss them into the dryer.
But we WOULD like to defend, as a general proposition, the propriety of writing about Supreme Court clerks. The Elect should not be viewed as an off-limits or taboo topic. To those of you who object to our coverage of SCOTUS clerks — and rest assured, more is on its way — we have some points for your consideration. (If you have no problem with such coverage, then just ignore all of these posts.)
We’re going to spread our arguments out over a series of posts, so as not to tire you. We’re giving this series of posts a tag — “SCOTUS Clerks Are Fair Game” — so you can click on all the posts discussing this topic.
We apologize in advance if you find our arguments unpersuasive. Substantive analysis is not our forte, which is why we generally stick to gossip (and why our own interviews for Supreme Court clerkships ended badly). As you review our points, please remember that we are but humble members of The Great Unwashed.
The first point we’d like to make appears after the jump.
Monday, September 18, 2006 10:38 AM - By David Lat
We follow the media and publishing worlds almost as closely as the legal world, so we’re not quite sure how we missed this. But we did, and we’re sorry. So we’re bringing it to you now, a few days late — and we apologize if you’ve already read about it somewhereelse.
For all of you lawyers who are frustrated writers, this news may inspire or depress you, depending upon how you react to news of other people’s good fortune. Here’s a book deal announced last week in Publishers Marketplace:
Julie Buxbaum’s debut novel THE OPPOSITE OF LOVE, about a 29-year-old attorney who lost her mother as a teenager and finds her well-constructed life falling apart when she can’t commit to the man who loves her, to Susan Kamil at Dial Press, in a major deal, for publication in winter 2008, in a two-book deal, by Elaine Koster of the Elaine Koster Agency (US).
For those of you not conversant in PM-speak, “a major deal” is one with an advance of $500,000 and up.
The timing of the deal announcement was a bit ironic. That same week, Ms. Buxbaum wrote an essay for 02138, the new magazine by and about Harvard alumni, in which she waxes poetic about turning her back on Biglaw to pursue life as a sushi-starved artist. Here’s the money quote:
I am currently dressed in head to toe Old Navy. My highlights are grown passed [sic] my ears. That latte is a splurge, sushi an absolute no-no. And, of course, there is the constant, nagging guilt — like an angry rash — when I check my dwindling bank balance, when I remember I spent close to a quarter million dollars on higher education, when I realize that it was less than a year ago that I was making six figures. I was a litigator at a top law firm, an HLS graduate, a somebody. Now, well, to be honest, I am not too sure who I am, what exactly I “do.”
Not sure “what exactly you ‘do,’” Julie? Try this on for size: You collect a cool half-a-mil for being the latest hot young female writer with an Ivy League degree and a chick-lit manuscript.
Best of luck, Julie. May your tale end more happily than that of the last young Harvard gal who landed a $500,000 book deal.
Anyone have any intelligence to share about the comely Ms. Buxbaum — what she’s like, where she worked as a litigatrix, etc.? If so, please chime in.
Last week we broke the news of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz bestowing generous midyear bonuses upon its associates. We heard that associates who graduated law school in the class of 2000 received $40,000, and class of 2002 members received $30,000.
We’ve now learned that class of 2005 associates got $15,000, and class of 2004 associates got $20,000. So our speculation that bonuses increased in increments of $5,000 appears to have been correct.
We raised the possibility that associates more senior than the class of 2000 might have received bonuses reflecting jumps larger than $5K. This appears not to have been the case. Rumor has it that bonuses topped out at $50,000 for the most senior class of associates (class of 1998, up for partnership this November). So presumably class of 1999 members, up for partnership next November, received $45,000.
Congratulations to the Wachtell Lipton associates on their good fortune. Their midyear bonuses are delicious — but they sure worked hard for them. And they do bode well for year-end bonuses at both WLRK and other top New York firms (which, even if they don’t compete directly with Wachtell in terms of pay, can’t embarrass themselves too much on the compensation front).
Meanwhile, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld has decided to spread around part of the $58.5 million fee it received for a $468 million settlement of a lawsuit against a medical equipment company. Akin Gump is paying out 14 percent of the award, amounting to over $8 million, to non-partner employees of the firm (including associates and secretaries).
New arrivals at Akin Gump will get $500, and anyone on the payroll before January will get $1,000. So the largesse won’t reach Wachtell Lipton levels; but it’s a perfect chunk of money for a mini-shopping spree. One can get a pretty decent handbag, or an entry-level Hugo Boss suit, for about a grand.
(Oops, sorry — just like Oprah, we forgot about taxes. But hey, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.)
* Another day, another deepening of the doo-doo over at HP. Now the plot is taking on a “made-for-television-movie” feel: “[D]etectives tried to plant software on at least one journalist’s computer that would enable messages to be traced.” [New York Times]
* National security adviser Stephen Hadley indicates that the White House is trying to reach a compromise with Republican Senators over what the CIA can and cannot do when interrogating terror suspects. [New York Times]
* A medical examiner hired by successful Supreme Court litigant Anna Nicole Smith performed a second autopsy on Smith’s 20-year-old son over the weekend. The cause of death has not yet been determined, but heart disease, stroke, or a “congenital anomaly” have been ruled out. [Associated Press]
* Options backdating defendant William Sorin was outside general counsel at Comverse Technology — a rather unusual arrangement. Sorin was awarded millions of dollars worth of stock options, even though he wasn’t even a salaried employee of the company. [Corporate Counsel]
* A happy 67th birthday to Justice David H. Souter. And some advice: Don’t eat that cupcake sent over by Ann Coulter, even if she did stick a cute little candle in it. [How Appealing]
* If you royally piss off a judge with a recusal request, which he denies, can you try to get him recused again? [New York Times via DealBreaker]
* Congrats to Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds. [Andrew Sullivan]
* Man with “suspicious package” arrested outside Supreme Court building. Write your own punchline — it’s Friday after 5, we’re outta here. [SCOTUSblog]
But it might as well be one. A tipster sent us this anecdote, following up on our Cristina Schultz coverage:
Towards the end of my first year at the University of Texas School of Law, one of the first-years stopped showing up to class. But then she showed up at an end-of-year party for her section, and folks asked what she was doing.
“Modeling,” she says.
“Oh, really? Are you modeling for department stores or something?” respond her former classmates.
“Nope, lingerie.”
“Huh, that’s interesting. Like for a catalog or something?”
“Nope,” she responds calmly. “I go to hotel rooms and men masturbate while I strip down to lingerie.”
That conversation ended pretty quickly.
Lest you find this discussion crass, please bear in mind: An ambitious young woman making her way in the world, with little to trade on but her beauty and sensuality, is one of the great themes of literature. It’s in everything from Daniel Defoe’s Roxana (1724), to Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie (1900), to Jessica Cutler’s Washingtonienne (2005)…
(Feel free to add other examples in the comments. We will add them to our reading list, since we are strangely obsessed with these narratives. Maybe we’ve been reading too much Camille Paglia.)
In light of our earlier posts about Cristina Schultz and Rachel Kovner, Friday is rapidly turning into “Women of Stanford Law” day here at ATL. And that’s not about to change.
We’ve received some interesting responses to our wall-to-wall coverage of Ms. Kovner — whom we are determined to turn into a celebrity, whether she likes it or not. On her ideology — which we originally described as conservative, but then quasi-retracted — we received this information:
I question your label of Rachel as “staunchly conservative,” though mostly because she was so quiet it was difficult to discern her politics. She was certainly a great deal more friendly to progressives and moderates at SLS than some of our outspoken, ultra-conservative classmates (of whom there were, thankfully, very few).
So let’s place a big question mark in place of the previously bestowed “conservative label.” Rachel Kovner will work for conservatives (like Judge Wilkinson and Justice Scalia), but she’s rather quiet about her own views. So think of her as the Harriet Miers of her generation — but hopefully with better personal style, given the financial resources at her disposal.
Okay, this next criticism gives you an idea of how hard it is to run a website read by so many attorneys. Leave it to lawyers to nitpick:
I don’t understand why you insist on making such a big deal about Rachel Kovner’s family wealth, conflating her and her father financially. Bruce Kovner may be worth $2.5 billion. But don’t forget two things: (1) the estate tax, and (2) his two other children.
Assuming Bruce Kovner (1) doesn’t give away much of his fortune to charity, (2) leaves it all to his kids, and (3) doesn’t give Rachel the “Nicole Buffett treatment,” Rachel would only be looking at a third of his estate — split with her siblings. After the inheritance tax, that might amount to only $400-$500 million. That kind of money wouldn’t put her in the ranks of billionaires, or even the Forbes 400.
ONLY half a billion? How on earth is the poor girl going to feed herself?
* Litigator Robert Knuts, to Allen & Overy, from Day, Berry & Howard. Knuts was with the New York office of the SEC from 1994 to 2003.
As you may recall, London-based Allen & Overy is trying to build up its New York litigation practice — most recently through the addition of former plaintiffs’-side princess Pat Hynes.
* Private equity lawyer James Kelly, to Nixon Peabody, from O’Melveny & Myers.
New Partners:
* Goodwin Procter: corporate and private equity lawyer Edward Braum.
Thankfully, one of you anticipated our curiosity, did some research, and sent us this update:
[Y]ou missed the “happy ending” (hehe) to the Cristina Schultz story. AskJeeves founder and millionaire David Warthen — who has since filed an implausible claim in the forfeiture proceeding that the money is actually his — left his wife and kids and married Schultz. The forfeiture case was settled last August; court records don’t indicate the amount of the settlement, but I imagine a FOIA request (or enterprising web-journalist) might tell us something…
Very interesting — perhaps we’ll be following up on this.
For those of you who can’t get enough of Christina Schultz d/b/a “Brazil,” additional details — including racy excerpts from the government’s complaint in the forfeiture case, and a link to Cristina’s old website — appear after the jump.
Sadly, today’s summer associate story isn’t as exciting as the misadventures of the amateur stripper. Rather, it’s an all-too-familiar tale: summer associate goes to firm event; summer associate gets rip-roaringly drunk; summer associate acts crazy.
But hey, we’ve got to make do with what we’ve been given. And lately you guys have been somewhat delinquent as tipsters. Tut tut!
So here’s today’s tale of idiocy and woe:
I received this story thirdhand, so I can’t vouch for it that strongly. But I’ve heard it from multiple people, and I believe it to be true, at least in broad outline. (If I’ve gotten a few details wrong, maybe your readers can correct me.) [Ed. note: Please see the comments to this post.]
It involves a summer associate at a big firm in Los Angeles (maybe Latham or O’Melveny, but I can’t remember). This guy went to a firm event and got very, very drunk. In his inebriated state, he started to hit on the wife of one of the permanent associates — very aggressively.
This behavior was out-of-character for the SA, a milquetoast-ish kid of Indian ancestry. But he was drunk off his ass, and you know how people can get when they’re hammered.
The permanent associate, after enduring the summer associate’s rude treatment of his wife for quite a while, finally told the SA — politely but firmly — to back off. At this point, the summer completely lost it. He flipped out and started yelling at the associate, repeatedly and maniacally, “I have a knife!” and “I’m going to kill you!”
And hey, guess what — the summer DIDN’T get an offer. It’s nice to know that when it comes to summer associate misbehavior, firms draw the line somewhere (e.g., death threats).
Heh. Who knew South Asian guys could be so much fun? And you thought they were only good for winning spelling bees! (Oh, and getting Republican presidential aspirants into deep doo-doo…)
Well, now Nino is all done hiring his clerks for October 2007. The name of his final hire: Bryan Killian (at right; very cute, in a boyish, preppy sort of way). Bryan went to UVA and Harvard Law School, clerked for Judge Paul Niemeyer (4th Cir.), and is now a Bristow Fellow in the Solicitor General’s office.
Bristow Fellowships, for those of you not familiar with them, ooze prestige from every orifice. Along with a stint at the Finishing School for the Elect, a Bristow is a common springboard to a SCOTUS clerkship (although lately BFs haven’t fed to the Court like they used to).
As noted in the HLS Alumni Bulletin, Mr. Killian fulfilled his pro bono requirement at HLS by “designing a legal crash course for teenage creators on the Internet.” Hey Bryan — if we ever get into any legal trouble, can we give you a call?
To those of you harbored dreams of waiting hand-and-foot on the Empress of Palo Alto, sorry; Bryan Killian has beaten you to the punch. He’s the lucky guy who will be fanning Rachel Kovner with a peacock feather — unless John Bash or Aditya Bamzai has called dibs on that task, in which case Bryan will be stuck on peeling-grape duty.
Friday, September 15, 2006 10:51 AM - By David Lat
This just in: Earlier this month, M&A powerhouse Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz bestowed generous “mid-year bonuses” upon its associates. The dough was distributed “without prejudice” to Wachtell Lipton’s legendary year-end bonuses, which in recent years have come in anywhere between 40 to 80 percent of an associate’s base salary. (WLRK’s base salaries are already at the top of the New York market.)
Your next question: How much? We hear that associates who graduated law school in the class of 2000 received a midyear bonus of $40,000, and associates who graduated in the class of 2002 received $30,000. So we’re guessing that the bonuses were distributed in $5K increments, with class of 2001 associates getting $35,000. (But perhaps the more senior people received bonuses reflecting bigger jumps; Wachtell, like many other top firms, likes to reward those who stick around.)
If you’re thinking that $40K doesn’t sound like that great a bonus for billing 3000 hours, please remember: This is just mid-year beneficence from Marty Lipton and Herb Wachtell. Year-end bonuses at Wachtell Lipton are expected to be better than ever, owing to the firm’s banner year on the corporate side. Back in the summer of 1998, believed to be the last time the firm doled out midyear bonuses (equal then to two months’ base salary), the end-of-year bonuses roughly equalled base salaries for associates. (For those of you who aren’t familiar with them, WLRK bonuses are lockstep based on seniority — they’re not tied to hours or to an assessment of the associate’s merit.)
What does Wachtell’s move mean for associates at other top New York firms? Well, probably not much — WLRK has always been in a class of its own in terms of compensation, paying bonuses that are more like investment banking bonuses than law firm bonuses.*
But Wachtell Lipton’s move could at least do this: It could prevent firms that raised base salaries earlier this year from “undoing” or “taking back” those raises, by reducing year-end bonuses by a commensurate amount. Now that Wachtell is taking in money so fast it’s GIVING it away — to its own associates — it would ill behoove Cravath and Sullivan to pull such a cheap trick on their associates. In the wake of Wachtell’s midyear bonuses, a top firm that raised associate salaries earlier this year, but then tried to keep total associate compensation unchanged by cutting year-end bonuses, would suffer a definite “shame sanction.”
Disclosure: Yes, we once worked at Wachtell Lipton, from 2000 to 2003 (i.e., we missed some of the fattest years). And yes, we are depressed this morning.
* Yes, obnoxious-lawyers-turned-obnoxious-bankers, we know: I-banking bonuses are often a multiple (x2, x3, etc.) of the banker’s base salary. Banker bonuses frequently run into the seven figures — unlike Wachtell bonuses, which at least have the decency to stay within six figures. And don’t get us started on the hedge fund people…
* Anna Nicole Smith, the buxom ex-Playmate and victorious Supreme Court litigant, supports a formal inquest into the mysterious death of her 20-year-old son, Daniel Wayne Smith. [Associated Press]
* SCOTUS groupies, rejoice: Same-day transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments will be made available, for free, on the Court’s website. [Washington Post; SCOTUSblog]
* The Pennsylvania Supreme Court strikes down the legislature’s attempted repeal of judicial pay raises as unconstitutional. As a result, Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices’ salaries will increase to about $171,000, and Common Please judges’ salaries will increase to almost $150,000. Not bad for being an icky state court judge. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]
* Boy that was fast: notorious plaintiffs’ lawyer William Lerach, a former partner at the indicted law firm Milberg Weiss, has filed a derivative lawsuit against the HP board. [The Recorder via WSJ Law Blog]
* Michael “Under God” Newdow, the Energizer Bunny of questionable litigation, is at it again. [Law.com]
* More wrangling between the White House and Congressional Republicans over military tribunals and permissible interrogation methods for terror suspects. We hope this gets resolved soon, ‘cause our attention span just isn’t that long. [New York Times]
Welcome to Law and Order: Fashion Victims Unit, an Above the Law feature that we hope will catch on with fashion-forward lawyers.
FVU will be like New York magazine’s “Look Book” column — see, e.g., here — but for attorneys. We’ll put up a photograph of a lawyer with an interesting or distinctive way of dressing, then either interview that individual — if they agree to participate — or offer color commentary on their outfit (a la Gawker’s Looking at the Look Book).
This feature will require some reader participation. Here’s what we need from you: good-sized, high-quality, head-to-toe photographs of sartorially distinctive lawyers. You can send in pictures of friends, colleagues — or even yourself.
Please send us your submissions by email (subject line: “FVU”). Thanks!
Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:58 PM - By David Lat
The recent HP leak investigation scandal has drawn into the spotlight a legal celebrity of the first rank: Viet Dinh. Dinh represents venture capitalist god Thomas Perkins, in Perkins’s (rather tense) dealings with HP’s board and lawyers.
Dinh, for those of you visiting from other planets, is one of the highest-flying legal eagles in the country. He’s a former high-ranking official at the Justice Department, current professor at Georgetown Law, and former Supreme Court clerk (to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor).
Despite his platinum-plated résumé, Dinh is a grabby l’il guy. Here’s the lede of Anna Schneider-Mayerson’s very interesting profile of Dinh, in the New York Observer:
On the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Viet Dinh, one of the lead architects of the controversial Patriot Act, was standing in his Washington, D.C., office, waxing poetic about Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
“Justice O’Connor, I love her so much,” the 38-year-old law professor said. “I love her so much. She’s the best.”
As if to return the compliment, her image, in the form of a photo portrait signed to her former clerk “with respect and affection,” smiled back at him.
Hugs all around!
The effusive Dinh is, according to Schneider-Mayerson, “an avid and nonpartisan hugger.” As he readily admits, “I always hug [conservative lawyer] Ted Olson and [ACLU executive director] Anthony Romero,” he said.
Does this surprise us? Not in the least. Learn why, after the jump.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:54 PM - By David Lat
Based on the feedback we’ve received, it seems that you share our obsession with the brilliant Rachel Kovner.
In case you don’t know, Ms. Kovner is (1) the best student in the history of Stanford Law School (“the Empress of Palo Alto”); (2) a future law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia (“Nino’s Girl”); and (3) the daughter of the $2.5 billion man, Bruce Kovner.
(The rather odd picture at right is from her Facebook profile. Don’t ask us, we’re as confused as you are.)
One thing we’ve heard is that Rachel, despite her brilliance and her wealth, is a quiet and unassuming young woman. She doesn’t call attention to herself; to the contrary, she eschews the limelight. She doesn’t like people knowing that her dad is the 93rd richest man in America (a fact that’s in the public domain, readily ascertainable by anyone with Google).
Now all this is quite understandable. After all, Rachel doesn’t want certiorari petitions sent to the Supreme Court with footnotes like this: “If the Court declines to hear this case, petitioner respectfully requests that this petition be construed as an application for a $5,000 loan from Ms. Rachel Kovner, so petitioner can get momma a facelift.”
But it’s just not a realistic approach to the world for someone in the Jimmy Choo shoes of Rachel Kovner — as we will now explain, in this open letter.
Dear Ms. Kovner:
Greetings from your friends at Above the Law. As you surely know, we have written about you extensively in the past week. See, e.g., here and here.
We understand from some of your friends that you are a modest and low-key person, uncomfortable with being the center of attention. But given who you are, your aversion to the spotlight is simply untenable.
With your blinding intellect, and your father’s mountains of hedge-fund cash, it was only a matter of time before the world discovered you. Greatness knows no hiding place. The proverbial cream rises to the proverbial top.
So Rachel, dear, listen up. You got a Supreme Court clerkship, and we didn’t; so maybe we’re in no position to give you advice. But we ARE a little older than you, and we’ve been around the block, so please permit us a few words.
Here is today’s lesson (which we hope you’ll learn with the same diligence that earned you the top grades in Stanford Law history): There is nothing more important than fame.*
Yes, fame. Celebrity. Your name on everyone’s lips. People knowing who you are, even though you have no clue as to who they are. An off-the-chart Q score. People constantly talking about you — for good or ill. Take to heart the words of Samuel Johnson: “I would rather be attacked than unnoticed.” Or this old adage: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
Remember the saying “Whoever dies with the most toys wins?” It should be updated for today’s world: “Whoever dies with the most Google hits wins.”
As we’ve said again and again, Rachel, you are fabulous. A superstar. And you need to stop denying or hiding from that reality. You are one of the greatest legal minds of your generation. And your father is one of the world’s richest men.
So start playing the part. Find your inner diva, and let her shine. Show up tomorrow in Judge Wilkinson’s chambers and shout, at the top of your lungs: “I am Rachel Kovner. Hear me roar!!!”
Sincerely, Your Friends at Above the Law
* Incredibly enough, the phrase “there is nothing more important than fame,” placed within quotation marks, generates no Google hits. The same thing goes for the more concise “Nothing is more important than fame.”
Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:41 PM - By David Lat
Remember Cristina Leeann Schultz, a.k.a. the Stanford Law escort? The federal government alleged that she “paid off more than $300,000 in student loans, [working] under the stage name of Brazil, a call girl who roamed the country to turn ‘high-priced hottie’ tricks.”*
Perhaps Brazil — er, Ms. Schultz — is inspiring future generations of female law students to explore, um, other professional opportunities. Check out our latest summer associate story:
[A] summer associate at McGuireWoods in Richmond apparently was feeling unfulfilled by her list of assignments for the summer. So she headed down to the Paper Moon strip club for Amateur Night. For anyone who hasn’t sampled Richmond’s professional nudie scene, it’s pretty terrible. I can only imagine the horror of amateur night.
Anyway, said summer associate — I believe she goes to school at [redacted] — got onstage, did her thing… and WON. Sadly, her secret remained safe through the end of the summer, and no one ever really found out.
Until now.
We congratulate this multi-talented law student. Any summer associate can throw on a pantsuit. But how many can throw one off?
So can you top that? We’re still on the prowl for more silly summer associate stories. You know where to reach us.
* What, pray tell, is a “high-priced hottie” trick? Is this a term of art within the world’s oldest profession?
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape. You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger.
And you never, ever, pull into Circuit Judge Stanley Mills’ parking spot.
Nichole Delameter spent all day Monday learning that lesson while cooling her flip-flops at the West Pasco Judicial Center.
Mills made Delameter sit in his courtroom for much of the morning after she parked in his reserved spot. He used his 2005 Cadillac to block in her 1990 Oldsmobile until he left at the end of the day.
Some people accuse the judge of overreacting. But let’s view his actions in context:
For the second time in two weeks, the Pinellas-Pasco circuit judge arrived for morning court to find another vehicle in his spot. And just like last week, he pulled behind it, parking perpendicular to the offending vehicle and blocking it in.
Last week he didn’t move his car, the judge said Monday, until the errant driver got this lecture in court: “There’s two perks to the job,” Mills said. “I have my own bathroom, and I have my own parking spot, and you’re not going to get to use either.”
Darn tootin’, Your Honor! And here’s our favorite detail:
It was 3:30 p.m. in the parking lot when remorse gave way to anger. While Judge Mills was still working, his judicial assistant kept moving the Cadillac to let other judges get in and out of their spots. But Delameter’s car was still stuck.
That’ll learn her! And will someone please tell her to buy some closed-toe shoes?
Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:01 PM - By David Lat
Attention reality TV junkies: the new season of Survivor debuts tonight.
This edition is formally called “Survivor: Cook Islands.” But as some have noted, you may know it better by its nickname: “Survivor: Race Wars.”
Tonight, CBS kicks off the social experiment/ratings gimmick that is executive producer Mark Burnett’s latest and brashest attempt to give his reality show an attention boost.
This time, blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians will initially be separated into four tribes. That’s 20 contestants divided along racial and ethnic lines, an idea that’s stirred up a hot stew of outrage and curiosity.
We’ve never been that into “Survivor” (despite a general weakness for reality television). But maybe we’ll tune in tonight. Why? Because two of the contestants are lawyers — including a guy we went to law school with!
The two attorney contestants are both Asian-American — and ridiculously good-looking. This is interesting, since (1) law isn’t a profession widely associated with Asians, and (2) not many lawyers are ridiculously good-looking (ERISA hotties excepted).
Their names are Becky Lee and Yul Kwon. You can read more about them — and check out their photos — after the jump.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:28 AM - By David Lat
One of our finest moments in private practice took place during a deposition. We had been up the entire night before, along with the paralegal on the case, pulling documents and preparing deposition outline material for the partner.
It was a critical deposition: the deposition of the plaintiff, a billionaire businessman (on the Forbes 400 — although not as high as Bruce Kovner). The questions were being asked by the partner, but we were on hand to watch and assist.
Several hours into the deposition — due to our sleep deprivation, coupled with less-than-scintillating testimony — we started to nod off (as did the paralegal). The plaintiff noticed. After the partner asked a question that was very similar to a prior question, the plaintiff exploded: “You already asked me that. Your questions are so boring and repetitive, YOUR OWN COLLEAGUE IS FALLING ASLEEP!”*
But if we had been attending this deposition, we wouldn’t have fallen asleep. Here’s a bit of context for the video clip, contained in the email that forwarded it to us:
The attached deposition excerpt will underscore the importance of good witness preparation and steady questioning technique when taking. (Pay special attention to the defending attorney’s studied silence on the tape because the witness obviously was in firm control.) Also, note the excellent follow-up question at the end by the questioning attorney.
Click on the video clip below to play — and be sure to listen through to the end, ‘cause that’s where the best stuff is. Enjoy!
(Our “preemption check” was cursory, so if this video has been previously discussed on another website or blog, we apologize.)
* You’re probably wondering what happened to us, after we fell asleep during the most important deposition in the case, and got made fun of — on the record — by the billionaire plaintiff.
No, we didn’t get fired. In fact, the partner was very gracious and understanding. In the elevator after the deposition, he told us: “I know you and [the paralegal] were up all night. So don’t worry about it. When I was an associate, I fell asleep during a deposition too. The problem was, I was taking it!”
Normally we offer you a round-up of how much various lawyers around the country are making — and how many billable hours they’re racking up. But today we’re going to do things a little differently. Many readers of this blog are people who work in the legal profession, but who aren’t lawyers (or who will be lawyers eventually, but aren’t yet). And some of these readers kindly sent us their compensation information. So today we shine the salary spotlight on these non-lawyers with law-related occupations:
(1) contractor-investigator, aerospace company/Justice Department, based in a large city, specializing in disability rights, class of 2004: $48,000 (incl. health and welfare benefit; base is “a meager $41,000”);*
(2) procurement specialist, engineering and construction company, based in a small city, specializing in contract and construction law, class of 2000: $55,000 (plus “profit sharing and all the slide rules I can bogart”);**
(3) intellectual property manager/in house counsel’s office (and evening law student), biotechnology company, metropolitan area of a large city, class of 2008 (law school): $80,000.
Our Skaddenfreude hopper is almost empty right now. Please help us out by sending us your income information, by email, to tips AT abovethelaw DOT com (subject line: “Skaddenfreude”). The components of a submissions package are listed here.
If you’re a counsel or partner (equity or non-equity) at a big law firm, we’re especially interested in hearing from you. As we’ve explained previously, you will be kept anonymous. We thank you in advance for your contributions.
* Clarification: This reader is a law school graduate; and even though the holder of this position does not have to be a lawyer, legal training is strongly preferred.
** Correction: We misapprehended our reader’s submission; this individual is a lawyer. “I do contracts. And boy, do I do contracts.” We apologize for the error. Who knew that a lawyer would be so keen on slide rules?
The tiaras will be furnished courtesy of acclaimed wedding tiara designer Christina Garcia. We will be contacting the winners to find out their shipping information.
2. Check out this hilarious email — which we and dozens of others received as a forwarded message. (We’ve deleted the endless string of email forwards that preceded the original message.)
I will send a serious email later, but first a frivolous one — I am 5 votes down in the ERISA Hottie Contest. The polls close at 1:00 your time. The leader has been sending me some rather snooty emails — it seems she’s ready to count me out and claim the crown.
So, I need to teach this girl a lesson — get your mom and dad to vote! Send the link to anyone good humored enough to help me win!
Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:57 AM - By David Lat
* It’s her prerogative… to seek a legal separation from her husband of 14 years. Whitney Houston files for legal separation from Bobby Brown, citing “irreconcilable differences.” (What differences? They’re both seriously f***ed up celebrities. But we will always love you, Whitney.) [Associated Press]
* Congressional Republicans are falling in line behind the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The Administration is also making some progress in pushing its military tribunal proposal forward; but it’s proving a tougher sell. [Washington Post; New York Times]
* Kayne Gillaspie is eliminated from Project Runway. Yes, he was a real sweetheart; but it was only a matter of time. [Reality TV Magazine; Althouse]
* And Tucker Carlson is ushered off the floor on Dancing With the Stars. We voted for you, Tucker — like three times! Sorry it wasn’t enough. [Reality TV Magazine]
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:53 PM - By David Lat
In response to our repeatedrequests for summer associate stories, a few have started trickling in. But we need more. So please email them to us, at tips AT abovethelaw DOT com.
We’ll kick things off with this tale of a summer associate at an intellectual property firm. It’s amusing, but not scandalous. (We’re saving the more scandalous ones for later.)
One summer associate in this year’s was particularly socially inept — he’d always complain about the food (because nothing met his preferences), had no problem asking senior partners about bonuses, payscales, and the like during his first week, and brought his girlfriend (who worked for a competing IP firm) to every firm event that she could make.
About three weeks into the summer, this summer associate forgot which of the partners had given him an assignment… so he emailed ALL the partners, asking which of them gave him the assignment. Brilliant.
Pretty bone-headed, huh? But he’ll surely get an offer. People who have sent out far more embarrassing emails have still wound up with offers — like this guy…
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:22 PM - By David Lat
* Clerkships for the bejeweled bench known as the D.C. Circuit are still available. But spots as Sentelletubbies and Tatel Tots are going fast. [Clerkship Notification Blog]
* A modest proposal for Angelina Jolie: Get married like a lesbian. [De Novo]
* Best comment clusterf**k we’ve seen in a long time: 128 and counting. (Does poor Peter Lattman have to read them all?) [WSJ Law Blog]
* “In her wildest dreams, Barbie could not have imagined herself in the middle of Rule 11 proceedings.” [TJ’s Double Play]
(0) Comments
ATL sends its warmest congratulations to 
* We were taught growing up that when someone pays you a compliment, the appropriate response is gratitude. So thank you, 
We are guilty of dereliction of duty. We’ve neglected to write about the Hewlett-Packard leak investigation scandal, now unfolding in all of its glory before Congress. (Yes, that Congress: a body that knows all about unethical behavior, illegal conduct, and mind-blowing stupidity.)
Last week we 
This just in: A possible sighting of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg!!!
Hey, it’s not yet noon — so we can still call this “Morning Docket.” 
For those of you in the New York area, our current location — we’re up visiting from Washington, DC — here’s an event next month you might be interested in:
We realize 
Disclosure: We had Professor Leiter for Evidence in law school, when he was visiting Yale from Texas. He was very pleasant and mild-mannered. Based on his classroom demeanor, you’d have no idea he was so skilled at ripping people new ones on the internet (e.g., 
Oooh boy. Last night we read the extensive coverage of Anna Nicole Smith in the latest issue of US Weekly, focused on the (still mysterious) death of her 20-year-old son, Daniel. So we thought we were pretty caught up on ANS developments.
No, it’s not Monday all over again. Yes, our website content is experiencing that “not so fresh” feeling right now. Our posts from the past two days appear to be AWOL.
Actually, no. The $29 million mansion is owned by — brace yourselves, people — a legal academic. It’s home to 
Actually, no. But Matthew Thiessen, lead singer of the Christian pop-punk band Relient K, bears a striking resemblance to Philip Alito, Justice Samuel A. Alito’s handsome college-age son.
* Who is the 
Okay, maybe he should be “Judge of Yesterday,” since this was in yesterday’s paper (and was picked up by 
* “Bless him Father, for he has sinned”: 
Okay, so he’s no 
Lately you haven’t been sending many legal celebrity sightings our way. C’mon, guys — we know you can do better. If you harbor doubt as to who constitutes a “legal celebrity” in our book, please review 
Remember the not-so-little secret we let you in on the other day: that all big law firms are 
In response to our recent 
Our series on 
Voter turnout in our ATL reader poll, 
Partnership. It’s the Holy Grail of private practice. It’s the brass ring for Biglaw attorneys (at least those who didn’t bail on the firm years ago). It’s the six- or seven-figure pot of gold at the end of a decade-long rainbow. And it’s something that lawyers talk about incessantly — who’s a lock, who’s DOA, and who’s in between.
* Judge Manuel Real (C.D. Cal.) defends himself against impeachment charges before the Senate. The accusation that he made rulings “to benefit an attractive female” is one that the 82-year-old jurist “find[s] repugnant, particularly at my age.” [
We recently heard about a 1L at a top law school who knew, since he was a wee lad, that he wanted to go into international commercial arbitration.
* DLA Piper’s Amy Schulman (at right): Leading litigatrix, or Dianne Feinstein doppelganger? [
Lateral Moves:
This actually isn’t a new installment of our 
Since fall is job hunting season in the legal profession, both in terms of firm jobs and judicial clerkships, ATL offers you this “public service announcement”: our top ten interview tips.
Some time has passed since our last attempt to bring down western civilization — namely, our 
From the same 
(Yeah, we know, today’s “Morning Docket” is coming in just in time for lunch. Sorry, we overslept…)
Those big law firms — they’re all the same, right?
Obviously we have no aversion around here to humor (or attempts at it). But lawyers and law students on job interviews should be very careful when cracking jokes. 
In yesterday’s 
A lot of our humor is kinda juvenile. So now we’ll throw some erudition into the mix. Recently we learned of this fun fact:
Tomorrow is the first day for clerkship interviews under the official 
Yesterday we 
Our series of interview anecdotes, which we 
ATL extends its warmest congratulations to 
* The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal judiciary (but not the SCOTUS), has announced measures to improve the judiciary’s self-policing and public accountability. They include required installation of “conflict checking” software — get with it, Your Honors, that’s long overdue — and enhanced disclosure concerning judicial junkets. [
As we noted 
* We haven’t bothered to mix it up with our 
After 
Via 
When the Supreme Court isn’t in session, many of the justices — such as Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy — traipse off to Europe. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts, showing his diligence, sticks around town (at least more than his colleagues). He was recently 
In a forthcoming interview in GQ, actor Alec Baldwin lashes out at his ex-wife, Kim Basinger. According to Page Six, “Baldwin claims she told such horrible lies about him that he wanted to die.”
Yesterday we wrote about 
The most fun tidbit about Ms. Buxbaum? That her brother was a child actor who went by the stage name Josh Blake. This piece of information is corroborated by the 
The evening air is turning crisp. The kids are back in school. You’re starting to think about where to spend Thanksgiving. That’s right, everyone: Autumn is here. (Official start of fall this year: Saturday, September 23.)
* More back-and-forth between the Bush Administration and Congress concerning rules to govern the interrogation of terror suspects. The White House sent Congress a revised proposal last night; a deal could be reached by the end of this week. [
* The lyrics of Bob Dylan are the most frequently cited song lyrics in law review articles and judicial opinions. [
The anecdote we’re about to share with you is on the vulgar side. So if you’d rather not be exposed to such crudeness, just skip this post. (Mom and Dad, this means you.)
We’d like to call your attention to this interesting Sunday Times 
Above the Law bills itself as “a legal tabloid.” And no tabloid would be complete without a sex scandal. Our scandale du jour emanates from the Windy City, home of John Marshall Law School. The Chicago Sun-Times 
* Another day, another deepening of the doo-doo over at HP. Now the plot is taking on a “made-for-television-movie” feel: “[D]etectives tried to plant software on at least one journalist’s computer that would enable messages to be traced.” [
* Our first annual ERISA Hotties Contest is over, and America’s hottest 
* New Jersey politics: Never a dull moment. [
But it might as well be one. A tipster sent us this anecdote, following up on our 
Okay, this next criticism gives you an idea of how hard it is to run a website read by so many attorneys. Leave it to lawyers to nitpick:
After we briefly mentioned 
Sadly, today’s summer associate story isn’t as exciting as the 
Earlier this week, we 
* Anna Nicole Smith, the buxom ex-Playmate and victorious Supreme Court litigant, supports a formal inquest into the mysterious death of her 20-year-old son, Daniel Wayne Smith. [
Welcome to Law and Order: Fashion Victims Unit, an Above the Law feature that we hope will catch on with fashion-forward lawyers. 
* It’s a gay, gay, gay, gay world. [
The recent HP leak investigation scandal has drawn into the spotlight a legal celebrity of the first rank: 
Based on the feedback we’ve received, it seems that you share our obsession with the brilliant 
Remember Cristina Leeann Schultz, a.k.a. the 
This is pretty awesome. Of course it’s from Florida, from whence 
Attention reality TV junkies: the new season of Survivor debuts tonight.
* It’s her prerogative… to seek a legal separation from her husband of 14 years. Whitney Houston files for legal separation from Bobby Brown, citing “irreconcilable differences.” (What differences? They’re both seriously f***ed up celebrities. But we will always love you, Whitney.) [
In response to our 
* Clerkships for the bejeweled bench known as the D.C. Circuit are still available. But spots as Sentelletubbies and Tatel Tots are going fast. [