* Jurors go wild... kind of. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* This could be your fate if you have sexual relations with any animal, dead or alive, regardless of law: you could be the posthumous star of a Sundance documentary. [Editor and Publisher]

* Do not think you can know go about suing the various characters in your dysfunctional family. [Seattle Times]

This post has nothing to do with the gastrointestinal tract of a certain Supreme Court reporter. Rather, it's about Massachusetts v. EPA, the greenhouse gases/global warming case, argued before the Supreme Court yesterday.

We're relatively late in covering this -- you've probably read about it already elsewhere -- so we'll be brief.

Questions Presented:

(1) Can the EPA (read: Bush Administration) get away with refusing to regulate carbon dioxide in automobile emissions, even though a bunch of states, cities, and environmental groups want it to?

(2) Do these entities have standing to object to the refusal?

(3) Has President Bush been reading too much Michael Crichton?

Money Quote(s): Eh, there weren't any. This argument was no KSR v. Teleflex.

And are you really surprised? It's an administrative law/environmental law case, concerning the proper construction of the Clean Air Act, with a big threshold question about standing. Not exactly a barrel of laughs.

Likely Outcome: Who knows? We agree with Tony Mauro and Lyle Denniston: It all comes down to Justice Kennedy.

Roberts may be the Chief, but it's Kennedy's Court. And everyone else is just sitting on it.

Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120 [On the Docket / Medill]
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming [New York Times]
Massachusetts v. EPA oral argument transcript [Supreme Court (PDF)]
Eyes on Kennedy as Supreme Court Debates Global Warming Case [Legal Times]
EPA argument 11/29/06: Major precedent looms? Maybe not [SCOTUSblog]
Analysis: Kennedy key to global warming challenge [SCOTUSblog]
Today at the Supreme Court: Preemption and Global Warming [WSJ Law Blog]

Today we have TWO judges of the day. Both win the prize for their honesty and fearlessness. These jurists aren't afraid to speak their minds, and for that we salute them.

First, there's Judge James Brooks, of "the O.C." -- Orange County, California.

An Orange County judge with a sharp tongue and a history of making insensitive comments about ethnic minorities was publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

The commission cited [a] contempt hearing where litigant Arnold McMahon told Brooks that he didn't attend a scheduled Oct. 15 deposition because he had gone to the hospital with chest pains.

"Gee," Brooks responded. "I wonder what's going to happen when we put you in jail, Mr. McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?"

Come now -- that's a bit tepid. We've heard harsher words from federal appellate judges at oral argument. This was more compelling:

[T]he commission noted that Brooks had been privately chastised three times since 1996 for similar conduct. The commission-cited punishments include: a 1996 advisory letter for referring to Hispanic defendants as "Pedro," and issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for "ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand yen"...

Second, there's Judge Wilbur Mathesius, a Superior Court judge in Mercer County, New Jersey.

New Jersey's Supreme Court on Thursday handed Judge Wilbur Mathesius a one-month suspension without pay for making shoot-from-the hip comments that undermined the judicial system....

[Judge Mathesius allegedly] berated a jury for acquitting a defendant of illegal handgun possession. According to the complaint, Mathesius went to the jury room and said, "What the hell were you thinking?" He then told the jurors the defendant had a prior criminal record and chose to not testify because of that record; that another witness would have testified for the prosecution had he not been threatened; and that the prosecution's principal witness was the most credible he had ever seen.

This was only one of several incidents for which Judge Mathesius was disciplined. He also made some over-the-top comments about the death penalty. When criticized for these comments before the New Jersey Supreme Court, he responded as follows:

Mathesius observ[ed] that Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner "has written on many of the same subjects," [and Mathesius] suggested that members of the New Jersey judiciary do the same.

Judge Mathesius, we know Judge Richard Posner. We have corresponded with Richard Posner. And you, sir, are no Richard Posner.

You are a state court judge. In the trial court. In New Jersey. In a word: ICKY.

(We mean no disrespect to the Garden State, from which we hail. But the "state court" and "trial court" aspects are proper subjects of disdain.)

Vociferous Judge Is Suspended a Month Without Pay [New Jersey Law Journal]
Judge Scolded for Insensitive Remarks [NYLawyer.com]

At the White House:

Positions in the White House Counsel's office are some of the most prestigious and interesting jobs in the entire legal profession. And now two new lawyers are coming on board as associate counsels to the president:

* Christopher Oprison, formerly of Skadden Arps (Washington, DC); and Cheryl Stanton, a former law clerk to then-Judge Alito, and most recently of Olgetree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart (Morristown, NJ).

The arrival of Oprison and Stanton will mean that the lawyers in the office will reshuffle their portfolios for judicial nominations. We hear that Stanton will be in charge of Fifth Circuit nominations -- a subject of great interest to us.

* Also, a third lawyer -- Alan Swendiman, previously general counsel of the GSA, everybody's favorite government agency -- is joining the White House staff. He'll serve as special assistant to the President and director, Office of Administration.

At Google (which is arguably more powerful than the White House these days):

* John Kent Walker Jr., formerly deputy GC of eBay, joins the search engine giant as general counsel.

Unusual structure: Walker will report to David Drummond, Google's senior vice president of corporate development, who will take on the title of "chief legal officer." But hey, Google is an unusual company.

Biglaw moves, after the jump.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of KSR International v. Teleflex. Here's our quick-and-dirty summary of the proceedings.

Subject Matter / Question Presented: To qualify for patent protection, an invention must be novel, useful, and not “obvious” to a person of “ordinary skill” in the field. So how do you determine "obviousness" when you have an invention that combines already-existing products? And is the Federal Circuit’s three-part “teaching-suggestion-motivation” test for obviousness a bunch of moronic nonsense?

Money Quote(s):

From the NYT:

When [veteran SCOTUS litigator Tom] Goldstein noted that “every single major patent bar association in the country has filed on our side,” the chief justice interjected: “Well, which way does that cut? That just indicates that this is profitable for the patent bar.” And when Mr. Goldstein referred to experts who had testified that the Teleflex patent was not obvious, the chief justice asked: “Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something’s not obvious? I mean, the least insightful person you can find?”

From the Legal Times:

“Three imponderable nouns,” is how Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the test, also calling it “gobbledygook” for good measure.

Likely Outcome: The Federal Circuit will probably get benchslapped by the SCOTUS. As Tony Mauro notes:

[W]hen Justice Stephen Breyer said he had read the briefs in the case “15 times” and still could not understand the “motivation” prong of the test, Scalia chimed in, “Like Justice Breyer, I don’t understand.”

The implied message to the Federal Circuit seemed to be: If two of the brainier justices on the Supreme Court don’t have a clue what you are talking about, a new test might be in order.

For those of you looking for a substantive, eyewitness account of the argument, we reprint below the report of Joseph (Jay) R. DelMaster, Jr., a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in Washington. His account includes advice about how to proceed in patent prosecutions while we await the Supreme Court's decision.

Check it out, after the jump.

The weekend of November 25-26 was shockingly short on lawyer weddings.

Call us paranoid, but we began to wonder: Were the editors of the New York Times wedding pages trying to starve us of material? Did they reject almost all wedding announcements for that week in which at least one spouse was an attorney?

This explains why, instead of the usual three, we have only two couples in competition this week:

1. Virginia Lazar, David McAuliffe

2. Ilyssa Lieberman, Stephen Steinlight

Scores and commentary for the newlywed couples, after the jump.

Don't give up on your day jobs.
This is our haiku.

We Haiku. Do You? [WSJ Law Blog]

The Supreme Court heard a number of interesting oral arguments this week -- and we're way behind in our coverage of them. We're working on catching up.

On that note, it's too bad that audio recordings of this week's SCOTUS arguments aren't available. As noted by the WSJ Law Blog, the Court released same-day printed transcripts in Watters v. Wachovia Bank and the greenhouse gas case -- but no audio broadcasts or same-day recordings.

This was pursuant to the Court's policy of selectively releasing recordings based on whether there is "heightened public interest" in a case -- i.e., whether it involves a hot-button issue. And these two cases, despite their major implications for business, environmental law, and federal-state relations, didn't make the cut.

We'd like to echo Dahlia Lithwick's recent call for the Supreme Court to revisit this policy of selective audio-casting:

If the Supreme Court justices really want the public to recognize that what they do is subtle and legal, as opposed to ideologically driven, why would they release the audio in precisely those cases in which they are most stridently split? Why reinforce the stereotype of a partisan 5-4 court that splits along the most-basic liberal/conservative lines?

(Oh, and Howard Bashman is with us on this -- which means that of course we're right.)

Releasing same-day audio tapes of ALL Supreme Court oral arguments, regardless of the level of "public interest," would take a clean, bright-line approach to the issue. It would allow the public to learn more about the workings of the Court, but without the intrusion of cameras in the courtroom. Justice Breyer wouldn't have to worry about television close-ups of his wattle; Justice Scalia could leave his eyebrows au naturel.

Finally, same-day audio release would save the Court -- or the Court's Public Information Office -- from having to determine whether a case is "sexy" enough to merit broadcast. Because do you really want Kathy Arberg deciding what's sexy?

(Speaking of Kathy Arberg, a few weeks ago the Supreme Flacktress put up a "help wanted" sign at One First Street. Out of curiosity, does anyone know whether the position is still open?)

Listen Up: The Supreme Court's hot/cold audio-casting policy [Slate]
Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? [Law.com via How Appealing]
Listen to Today’s Supreme Court Oral Arguments... Not! [WSJ Law Blog]

When they take over Congress next year, expect the Democrats to launch investigations up the wazoo -- of big business, the Bush Administration, the Iraq War, and other things they don't particularly like.

These investigations will be a pain in the hindquarters for Republicans. But they'll be a boon for Biglaw. From TPMmuckracker.com:

In a recent memo to its clients, the white-shoe law firm of Covington and Burling warned of the increased investigative activity soon to come from the Dem-controlled Hill -- and touted its credentials for representing corporations and individuals who may find themselves under scrutiny....

Are you an executive at a telecom involved in the NSA's wiretapping program? Did your company get a sweet no-bid contract in Iraq? Well, Covington's soon-to-be booming "congressional investigations practice" boasts such luminaries as Lanny Breuer, who was President Clinton's Special Counsel during impeachment proceedings, and Robert Kelner, who has represented the RNC in the New Hampshire phone jamming case.

Gentlemen, start your retainers.

Interestingly enough, a number of the top white-collar shops in Washington are left-leaning. In addition to Covington, there's Williams & Connolly and WilmerHale, both well-stocked with former Clintonistas.

Expect partners at these firms to make generous donations to Democratic candidates in the next few election cycles. They're getting tired of being the "Administration-in-Exile" -- and they have high hopes for 2008.

(On that subject, we're still interested in getting your views on which leading liberal lawyers would be in the running for top jobs in a Democratic administration. We have our own thoughts on this, but we'd love to hear from you.)

Crusading Dems Mean Big Profits for Corporate Defenders [TPMmuckracker.com]
Memo from Covington Burling on Congressional Investigations [Talking Points Memo Document Collection]

Before the Thanksgiving break, we wrote a fair amount about some possible nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We'll now pick up where we left off, and continue with more detailed profiles of some of the potential nominees we mentioned.

But first, a request. A number of ATL readers have expressed interest in speculation about nominees for the open seats on the Third Circuit (Justice Samuel Alito's old seat) and Fourth Circuit (Judge J. Michael Luttig's old seat). If you've heard anything interesting on these subjects, please do share.

Today's possible Fifth Circuit nominee: Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, of the Southern District of Texas. Here are some things we've heard from our readers about Judge Rosenthal:

"Best judge on the S.D. Tex. bench, which is actually passably deep. Sweet, rational, bright and tough all in one package."

"The country could not do better, and I think even hyperpartisan Democrats would be able to see that. She's my pick if Bush wants to avoid spending any significant political capital."

"A stellar trial judge who would make a superlative appellate judge. And those two don't always go hand in hand. See, e.g., Ann Claire Williams of the 7th Circuit (who should have remained an excellent district judge instead of becoming a thoroughly mediocre appellate jurist)."

(Judge Williams, if you're reading this, please note that these are simply opinions from ATL readers. They do NOT represent our own views.)

More comments about Judge Rosenthal, from the readers of Grits for Breakfast:

"Several readers identified Rosenthal... as an] exceptional, fair, and qualified judge[]."

"One reader feared losing Judge Rosenthal or Judge Elrod as trial judges, and suggested Rosenthal deserved a 5th Circuit appointment and Elrod should fill her federal district court slot."

"Lee Rosenthal is by far and away the most learned Judge I have ever practiced before. She seems to be fair, well-reasoned and straightforward."

So given all this praise, why did we place Judge Rosenthal in the second tier of possible nominees -- an "outside possibility" for the Fifth Circuit?

Well, to make a long story short, we hear that some conservatives are concerned about her "reliability" (i.e., her ideological consistency). And even though the new Senate will be controlled by the Democrats, the White House and the Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee do not feel compelled to put forward nominees whose conservatism is even slightly in question.

(At least not yet. It remains to be seen whether the scrappy Chuck Schumer, aided by Nan Aron and friends, will wear them down over time.)

What do you know about these potential 5th Circuit nominees? [Grits for Breakfast]

Earlier: More Fifth Circuit Scuttlebutt: R. Ted Cruz
Some Fifth Circuit Scuttlebutt

Remember Ralph Paul, the Florida man who almost went to jail over his refusal to pay for a seafood pasta that was light on the seafood?

Now a Los Angeles woman is suing over insufficient avocado in her guacamole. From the Los Angeles Times:

The guacamole sold by Kraft Foods Inc., one of the bestselling avocado dips in the nation, includes modified food starch, hefty amounts of coconut and soybean oils, and a dose of food coloring. The dip contains precious little avocado, but many customers mistake it for wholly guacamole.

On Wednesday, a Los Angeles woman sued the Northfield, Ill.-based food company, alleging that it committed fraud by calling its dip "guacamole." Her lawyer says suits against other purveyors of "fake guacamole" could be filed soon.

We take guacamole very seriously. We especially love super-fresh guacamole that's prepared tableside (e.g., at Rosa Mexicano in D.C. and New York, or Mama Mexico in New York).

So we hope that plaintiff Brenda Lifsey prevails in her lawsuit. We once tried the Kraft "guacamole," and it was absolutely disgusting -- green goop with barely a hint of avocado. We threw it out after about three chips' worth of nastiness.

Lawsuit stirs up guacamole labeling controversy [Los Angeles Times via Drudge Report]

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Skimping on the Scampi?

* Judge: Paper money violates the Rehabilitation Act because blind people cannot distinguish between bills. [CNN; USA Today]

* John Turley digs into recent comments by (presidential candidate?) Newt Gingrich on freedom of speech. [MSNBC]

* "Oregon Lawyer Wrongly Arrested After Madrid Bombings Settles Lawsuit for $2 Million." [Law.com; New York Times; Washington Post]

* Louis Vuitton sues Chewy Vuitton Vuiton... [WSJ Law Blog]

* ... and Ringling Bros. sue Louis Vuitton. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Former Illinois governor and convicted felon George Ryan gets bail pending appeal from the Seventh Circuit. [Chicago Sun-Times]

Fantasy football after the jump...

Yesterday we requested tips from you about associate bonuses: leaked bonus memos, juicy rumors, etc. Please send this information to us by email, to tips AT abovethelaw DOT com (subject line: "Associate Bonus Watch").

Please send us tips that you believe in good faith to be true. Because if you send us stuff that's fake, we'll find that out when we do our fact-checking.

Take the supposed "bonus memo" of Milbank Tweed. It was purportedly sent out by Christine Wagner, Milbank's director of legal personnel.

We contacted Ms. Wagner by email. Here's her response:

From: Wagner, Christine
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:27 PM
To: David Lat
Subject: RE: Milbank "bonus memo"

It is not authentic. No such memo has been issued.

Don't f*** with us, fellas. This ain't our first time at the rodeo.

Update: Looking for the REAL Milbank Tweed bonus memo, issued on Friday, December 8? To view it, click here.

Memorable Quotes from Mommie Dearest [IMDb]

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: The Milbank Memo Is Fake
Welcome to ATL Associate Bonus Watch

We tend to think that fact-checking is overrated. But sometimes it pays dividends.

This afternoon, a document purporting to be a Milbank Tweed bonus memo appeared on the oh-so-reliable message board of AutoAdmit.com, aka xoxohth. It sparked frenzied discussion at both AutoAdmit and Greedy Associates.

We checked with our sources at Milbank. The "bonus memo" is phony. But we give the prankster credit for decent execution.

Update: Looking for the REAL Milbank Tweed bonus memo, issued on Friday, December 8? To view it, click here.

In case you'd like to see the fake "bonus memo," in all of its fraudulent glory, we reprint it for you after the jump.

* After being subjected to Prince Charles’s tampon metaphors, is there really anything more to know about the Royal Family? [The Guardian]

* Pussy. Labia. Vagina. (Yeah, I too know way too much about Britney’s and, thanks to the above, Camilla’s.) Salary? Buzz! That word is taboo. [Feminist Law Professors]

* But I think in Virginia, it’s still okay to give the homeless transfat. [Southern Appeal; Washington Post]

* Let me save you the trouble: they all taste like the industrial cupcakes moms have been buying for grade school birthdays since the post-war era. So to protect such cupcakes would be like trademarking sawdust. [Madisonian]

* Professor Slater wants you to know that the interviewing-as-dating analogy is inaccurate. Unless you get drunk and end up in the apartment of the interviewer after he tells you he’s in a band. [PrawfsBlawg]

We're on a roll today in the correspondence department here at ATL. This morning we brought you an email message from Professor Tim Wu, aka "Genius Wu," young superstar of the legal academy.

And this afternoon, we proudly present this cyber-missive, typed by Article III fingers:

From: Judge Morris Arnold [email address redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:28 PM
To: AboveTheLaw Tips
Subject: AboveTheLaw Tip

Thank you so very much for the good wishes. I am on the mend and expect to be back up to full speed in very short order.

M. S. Arnold

First, we're delighted to hear that Judge Arnold is doing so well. Second, we're delighted that he wrote to us. How awesome is that?

After we put down our inhaler -- we started hyperventilating from excitement! -- we emailed Judge Arnold to check if it would be okay for us to post his message. And he graciously agreed. Thanks, Judge Arnold!

Earlier: Wishes for a Speedy Recovery to Judge Morris Arnold

The weekend of November 18-19 was a strong one for lawyer weddings (even if not as strong as November 11-12). Once again, we had to make cuts in deciding whom to write about. Here are the three couples on today's docket:

1. Carlynn Magliano, Patrick Sweeney

2. Stefanie Silverman, Keir Ashton

3. Jessica Tisch, Daniel Levine

Ratings and reviews, after the jump.

Earlier this month, Judge Morris Arnold, one of the most respected federal appellate judges in the country, suffered a heart attack. From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

Morris S. Arnold of Little Rock was hospitalized Wednesday night in St. Louis, where he is a judge on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after having a heart attack. Arnold, 65, officially took senior status less than a month ago. That designation reduces his caseload while he continues to serve on the court that hears appeals from federal courts in seven states including Arkansas.

U.S. Circuit Clerk Michael Gans said Thursday from the court’s St. Louis office that Arnold went to the hospital on his own after returning to his hotel at about 10:30 p.m. Wednesday and experiencing pains in his chest and arm that kept him from falling asleep.

Arnold had the heart attack while at the hospital, and doctors then surgically implanted a stent, Gans said.

We're advised that the heart attack was minor and that Judge Arnold -- known to some by his nickname, "Buzz" -- is doing well. We wish this distinguished jurist, revered by the bench and bar and adored by his former clerks, a fast and full recovery.

Little Rock Appellate Judge in St. Louis Hospital [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]

Over the years, law firms have become more relaxed about the attire and appearance of their associates. But there are limits. From the National Law Journal:

"It's really hard," said [hiring partner Matthew] Jones, with Duane Morris. He recently interviewed 18 University of Virginia School of Law students in about six hours. He had 15 minutes to eat lunch.

Still, sometimes making a decision is not too difficult. "I had someone come into an interview with a nose ring," Jones said. "I liked her, but how could I present her to a senior partner?"

To paraphrase Alicia Silverstone in Clueless: "Dee, when you have a Biglaw interview, take out your nose ring."

(Query: Should the NALP promulgate a rule protecting job applicants with noserings?)

National Firms Digging Deeper Into Class Ranks and on New Campuses Too [NYLawyer.com]
Memorable Quotes from Clueless [IMDb]

From Biglaw to business:

* Another Wachtell Lipton partner is leaving the firm. Corporate partner Mitchell Presser recently left to join Fox Paine. We now hear that WLRK real estate partner Michael Benner may be leaving to become general counsel at real estate giant Tishman Speyer.

New Partners:

* Dorsey & Whitney: Banking lawyer Mark Jutsen.

Lateral Moves:

* Speaking of Dorsey & Whitney, they're closing their San Francisco office. Ten IP lawyers from that office are joining Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

* With the Brown Raysman-Thelen Reid & Priest merger about to become official, two entertainment and IP lawyers are leaving Brown Raysman's L.A. office. Partner Brian Pass and associate Kevin Straw are joining the Century City office of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.

NY Lawyers On the Move [NYLawyer.com]
As Firm's Outpost Sinks, 10 IP Attorneys Jump Ship [NYLawyer.com]
Firms' Merger Spurs More Exits [NYLawyer.com]

Here's a good appetite suppressant: Ginsburg in the Nude?*

As it turns out, the article has nothing to do with Ruth Bader Ginsburg sans robe. It's about a copyright / misappropriation case, decided by the Ninth Circuit, that is now the subject of a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.

Usually cert petitions emanating from the Ninth Circuit get put in a special "Summary Reversal" bin at One First Street. But that might not happen in this case. The opinion isn't a Judge Reinhardt special, but a unanimous decision by a conservative judge, Jay S. Bybee (most well-known for his controversial pre-robesecent writing, namely, the so-called Bybee Memo).

Also, the song at issue is by Jennifer Lopez. And any lawsuit that would interfere with the dissemination of J. Lo's music should be immediately dismissed.

* This isn't the first time someone has thought about Ruthie in the nude. We know that Jon Stewart has. And so has, presumably, Martin Ginsburg.

Ginsburg in the Nude? [Townhall.com via How Appealing]
Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. [Ninth Circuit]
Circuit Breaker: The High Court vs. Death Penalty Foolishness [Washington Post]

Back in September, we reported that Judge Frank Easterbrook -- "a veritable judicial hottie, a possible SCOTUS nominee, and brother of well-known author and ESPN.com commentator Gregg Easterbrook" -- would be taking over in November as the chief judge of the Seventh Circuit.

The passing of the torch has now come to pass. From a tipster:

Judge Frank H. Easterbrook (your favorite judicial bear hottie) assumed the mantle of Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit on Monday, November 27.

Judge Joel Flaum turned 70 over the weekend. Under 28 U.S.C. 45(a)(3)(C), he was forced to step down as chief judge.

There was a nice little party in the main courtroom for employees of the court. Cake even!

How lovely! But we think that Chief Judge Easterbrook might have preferred an Arby's Melt.

28 U.S.C. § 45: Chief Judges [Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute]

Earlier: All Hail the Chief: Judge Frank Easterbrook

The NYU Law School hotties contest that we mentioned yesterday is still underway. The polls will close at 11:59 PM on November 30.

Alas, the Geocities voting site -- which a commenter claimed was operational earlier today -- appears to have gone down again. So we're unable to see what all the fuss is about.

We did enjoy this exchange about the hotness of NYU law school students over at Gawker:

Gigi: From my experience: Stringy-looking over-achievers, Borderline Aspergers, Awkward footwear, Douche-y attitudes, Most hideous college sweatshirts ever. Lame.

dorkattack: We may be dorky, douche-y, and dowdy. But every day when I walk to class in my practical shoes, outdated jeans, and enormous backpack, I pass through a herd of undergrads in ass-gripping tights, gold lame' belts, and fuck-me heels talking about last night's coke-fueled threesome and how they are finding acting lessons to be so incredibly intellectually stimulating. Honestly, I'd rather hang out with people who can't dress, are awkwardly argumentative, and can't stop talking about Scalia. NYU law: Holla!

(We think dorkattack has the better of the argument -- but of course we're biased.)

Although the voting site is unavailable, a tipster was kind enough to send along the email message that went around to NYU 3Ls promoting the contest. We reprint the message in its entirety, after the jump.

NYU Law Students: Hot or Not? [Gawker]
Who Are the Most Attractive 3Ls at NYU? [Geocities]

Hey kids, guess what? It's almost December. Christmas is only a few weeks away; the end of the year is within sight. And we all know what that means: Associate Bonuses!!!

Welcome to Associate Bonus Watch. In this recurring ATL feature, we'll keep you updated on the latest news and rumor about bonuses for law firm associates.

Here's the latest speculation, from the Wall Street Journal:

Bonus season for New York City-based associates at big firms usually begins in early December, and there is more intrigue than usual this year, because of the possibility that firms will scale back associates' bonuses after having raised their base salaries earlier this year.

In New York -- the nation's largest and most lucrative market, thanks to Wall Street business -- bonuses for associates often have little to do with either a firm's overall financial performance or the individuals' productivity. Rather, many firms match the competition's bonuses, regardless of whether firms have had similarly good years....

Asks a partner at one New York firm: "What top-tier firm wants to go to Harvard Law School and be the one that pays $5,000 or $10,000 less" in bonuses?

Exactly. And here at Above the Law, we're happy to reinforce that market pressure, by broadcasting on the internet what different law firms are doling out as bonuses. Who's naughty, and who's nice? Check in at ATL to find out.

We aspire to cover breaking bonus news more thoroughly than the mainstream media or even the legal press. We were, after all, the first outlet to break the news of Wachtell Lipton's midyear bonuses, back in September. We have a good-sized network of Biglaw moles, whom we turn to for tips and for fact-checking. (Yes, we do check facts -- sometimes.)

But we need your help to do the very best job possible. As soon as you hear of any news or rumor about year-end bonuses for associates, please contact us ASAP, by email (tips AT abovethelaw DOT com, subject line: "Associate Bonus Watch"). Thanks!

Jury's Still Out on Wall Street Law Bonuses [Wall Street Journal]

Although we mentioned it in passing, we didn't give adequate attention to Anna Schneider-Mayerson's delightful profile of Tim Wu when it appeared earlier this month in the New York Observer. (It was discussed on several other prominent blogs.)

Now we have an excuse to double back and correct the error: We've received an email from the good professor! Here it is (reprinted with permission):

Hi this isn't exactly a tip -- I just read your entry for above the law and the FedSoc conference, and wanted to say sorry I couldn't meet you at the Net Neutrality panel.... It turned out I had the wrong date and it conflicted with my Thursday copyright class, so I couldn't come....

I hope to run into you in person one of these days.

Best,
Tim

Wow! When we received this email, we giggled girlishly with excitement. First, Professor Wu is brilliant. As noted in the profile, he was nicknamed "the Genius Wu" by no less an authority than Judge Richard Posner, who knows genius when he sees it (e.g., when he looks in the mirror).

Second, Professor Wu is quite handsome (see photo). How many other Columbia Law School professors have earned themselves a music video tribute ("Ain't No Other Man But Wu") from their students?

(Our only grooming suggestion to Professor Wu: Have those eyebrows thinned. We go to someone very good for ours, but she's probably not convenient for you given that you're in New York.)

Finally, we were glad to learn why Professor Wu missed the Federalist Society panel: he misread his calendar. It's nice to know that a member of the Elect -- and not just any old Supreme Court clerk, but one who has been called "indefatigable" and "a valuable man in chambers" by his former boss, Justice Breyer -- makes scheduling mistakes. How utterly charming!

Wu-Hoo! Nutty Professor Is Voice of a Generation [New York Observer]
Tim Wu, Voice of a Generation [Volokh Conspiracy]
George Clooney’s Got Nothing On Tim Wu [WSJ Law Blog]
"I Heart Wu" [YouTube]

* The DOJ's IG, its equivalent of the GAO, will investigate the NSA's warrantless issuance of acronyms. [Law.com]

* Disecting the Chief Justice's humor... lawyer style. [WSJ Law Blog]

* No name-calling: Court strikes down President's power to designate terror groups. [MSNBC]

* Back in the Dogg pound: this time charges include "having a false compartment in a vehicle." [CNN]

for this thought-provoking article -- "Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms," by Adam Liptak, one of our favorite legal affairs writers -- to hit the New York Times "Most E-mailed Articles" list?

(Our prediction: By the close of business tomorrow, November 29, it will be in the top 10.)

Update: It happened even faster than we expected. The article cracked the top 10 by 9:35 AM.

We may blog about it more later. At the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, we attended a spirited panel discussion on law firm hiring practices and diversity, featuring Professor Richard Sander (at right). So minority lawyers and the world of Biglaw is a subject that's been on our mind lately.

In the meantime, feel free to opine in the comments.

Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms [New York Times]

* Thesauruses can still do the trick. Who knows if I would have passed AP English without one? On the other hand, one of the perks of public high schools is having your Cliffs Notes-cribbed essay graded by a teacher qualified only to teach woodshop and coach girls' softball. [New York Times]

* What would the Supreme Court say about McDonald’s plans to patent its sandwich-making process? [CNN Legal Pad]

* Ah, law school flirting is just so cute. [Overheard in New York]

* While the poodles seem to be safe, babies, sadly, are not. [WCSH Portland]

* Blood money, in a way. Because someone killed my will to love. [Newsweek via Overlawyered]

Details here. The original site is currently unavailable, apparently due to overload.

If you have the full email, please send it our way. We're curious about this contest, so any additional information would be most welcome. You know where to reach us.

NYU Law Students: Hot or Not? [Gawker]
Who Are the Most Attractive 3Ls at NYU? [Geocities]

The AEI panel discussion on Watters v. Wachovia Bank that we were liveblogging earlier has ended. Our quick thoughts on the question-and-answer session, after the jump.

Last week, an investiture ceremony was held for Judge Neil Gorsuch, recently confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. And it was a star-studded affair. From the Denver Post:

Seven-year-old Emma and 5-year-old Belinda helped their father, Neil Gorsuch, into his judge's robes Monday after the newly appointed 10th Circuit Court judge was sworn in.

Munching on cookies after the formal ceremony, Emma said she thought it "was nice."

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in Denver to administer the oath, spoke directly to the little girls before Gorsuch raised his right hand. "He's doing it to remind all of us that the first obligation any American has is to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Justice Kennedy's pedagogical impulse is admirable. We suspect, however, that Emma and Belinda were thinking more about cookies than the Constitution.

Some supplementary coverage, from an ATL tipster:

The entire en banc 10th Circuit was present. Justice Kennedy administered the oath. Attorney General Gonzales read the commission. Both Colorado Senators made remarks, as did Mark Hansen of Kellogg Huber (the insanely prestigious appellate shop from which Gorsuch rose). Half of the Justice Department was there: Rachel Brand, Elisebeth Collins Cook, Brett Gerry, Wan Kim, Gregory Katsas, among others.

The Gorsuch clerks showed everyone around Denver and got trashed on consecutive nights. Good times were had by all.

Article III groupies, Judge Neil Gorsuch is one to watch. He's brilliant, he's young, and he's incredibly well-connected. Look for him to rise through the ranks of Supreme Court feeder judges in the years to come -- and, perhaps, to be nominated to the Court himself someday.

(Judge Gorsuch is taking the seat of Judge David Ebel, who has been the Tenth Circuit's resident feeder judge for quite some time now. Guess that's the 10th Circuit's designated "feeder seat.")

Update: Would someone be able to locate and/or send us a good photo of Judge Gorsuch for our files? Our quick Googling didn't produce anything useful.

10th Circuit judge's oath a family affair [Denver Post]

The televised event that we put in a plug for earlier today is now underway, on C-Span. And it's actually not just a conversation with Ted Frank (at right), much as we'd enjoy that. It's a full-blown panel discussion, sponsored by AEI, on Watters v. Wachovia Bank, to be argued before the Supreme Court tomorrow.

The topic -- preemption of state banking regulation by federal banking law -- is technical, complicated, and perhaps dry-seeming to some. But we're tuned in, and finding it interesting. (Caveat: We may not be the typical viewer. We're geekily fasincated by preemption, just as we are by ERISA, a statute that frequently raises preemption questions.)

We're also enjoying the occasional camera shots of the audience. E.g., the woman in Kermit-the-Frog green, who was vigorously scratching her nose (and whose facial expression suggested she was oddly intrigued by the nasal itchiness).

When television cameras are in the room, you really must be on your best behavior.

More observations, after the jump.

You may recall Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (E.D. La.), recently named an ATL Judge of the Day. He's currently the subject of a federal criminal investigation, and he's on an extended leave from the bench (to focus on the investigation and to mourn his recently deceased wife).

Judge Porteous has now applied to extend his leave for six more months. From the Times-Picayune:

When Porteous left six months ago, [Chief Judge Ginger] Berrigan divided his docket of 248 cases among the other federal district judges in New Orleans. A deputy court clerk said at the time that those cases could be returned to Porteous once the leave expired, but many of them could be settled by the time he returns next year.

Porteous was hearing only civil cases at the time he left, having recused himself from presiding over criminal matters after The Times-Picayune reported allegations that the judge had accepted fence repairs and other gifts from Bail Bonds Unlimited, the corrupt bail bonds company that was brought down in the federal Wrinkled Robe investigation.

The "Wrinkled Robe" investigation? Pretty awesome code name.

Does the new probe into Judge Porteous have a name yet? If not, may we suggest "Soiled Robe"?

Trying times keep judge off bench [New Orleans Times-Picayune]

Earlier: Judge of the Day: G. Thomas Porteous Jr.

We're a little behind in Legal Eagle Wedding Watch (hereinafter "LEWW"). We'll be rectifying that shortly.

But before we do, a methodological digression. It concerns how we score couples on the "family" component of the competition. We respond to some reader questions we've received:

1. "Isn't rating people based on the wealth and pedigree of their families horribly obnoxious and elitist?"

Yes. And that is the raison d'etre of LEWW.

2. "Why don't you give couples higher scores if they came from impoverished backgrounds? Someone born to poor immigrant parents, who somehow managed to make it to a top law school and top law firm, is much more impressive than some rich legacy kid with the same achievements."

A fair question. But we're rating couples, not invididuals. An individual who overcame tough circumstances to achieve success in the legal profession is an impressive individual; but a Mayflower descendant marrying the child of a billionaire is an impressive couple.

For centuries, marriages have been used to bring together agglomerations of wealth and power. See, e.g., Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. And this remains true today, even if not to the same degree. This is why the Times, despite being much more meritocratic in its couple selection than decades past, still has a hard-on for Daughters of the American Revolution, and Sons with First Names That Sound Like Last Ones.

In short, despite the changes over the years -- more racial and ethnic diversity, the inclusion of gay couples -- the NYT weddings and celebrations page still has a "Social Register" feel to it. And LEWW, in keeping with that spirit, awards extra points for "Social Register"-worthy families.

3. "You're pretty stingy in scoring families. What does a perfect '10' look like?"

A timely question. Earlier this month, on November 19, we saw a couple with an astronomically high score in the family department. We won't be rating them in LEWW, since neither spouse is a practicing lawyer (although the husband has a law degree). But here's what a 9.9 -- or maybe a 9.8, to leave some room for improvement -- might look like.

Meet Lea Carpenter and Clifford Brokaw IV:

She is a daughter of Carroll M. Carpenter and Edmund N. Carpenter II of Wilmington, Del. Her father is a partner in and a former president of Richards, Layton & Finger, a law firm there. The bride is a descendant of Eleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours, the founder of the DuPont Company....

He is a son of Elizabeth Rogers Brokaw and Mr. Brokaw III of Southampton, N.Y. His father retired as the chairman of Invail Capital, an investment firm in New York. The bridegroom is a descendant of William Bradford, a governor of Plymouth Colony, and of Dr. Josiah Bartlett, a New Hampshire signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, we have tagged this under "Nauseating Things."

Some happy news from New Haven, Connecticut. Seriously.

It's about Asha Rangappa, Assistant Dean of Admissions at Yale Law School -- and here at ATL, better known as the winner of our recent Hottest Law School Deans contest. Check out this memo, from YLS Dean Harold Koh:

To: Yale Law School Community
From: Harold Hongju Koh

If you have not already heard the wonderful news, I am delighted to report that Asha Rangappa and Andrew Dodd’s new baby boy, Paras Nikhil Dodd arrived on November 21, 2006! (He was instantly named “America’s Hottest Law Baby.”)

Baby Paras weighed in at 8 pounds even, 22 inches long and is wonderfully healthy. The whole family is now home from the hospital and doing well--tired but happy. If you’d like to send congratulations, their home address is [redacted -- America's hottest law school dean must be kept safe from unhinged admirers].

Please note that the baby's name is "Paras" with an "a."

We don't think we're flattering ourselves in construing the reference to "America's Hottest Law Baby" as a shout-out to ATL. How cool!

(This shout-out does raise the possibility that Dean Koh has read Above the Law. If so, Dean Koh, we hope you weren't upset about this post. Or this one, with comments. Everything we do around here is all in good fun.)

* Former ATL guest blogger Ted Frank -- of Overlawyered, Point of Law, and Table 42 fame -- will be on C-SPAN today, at 2 PM (Eastern time). He'll be discussing federal regulatory action and the Roberts Court. [C-SPAN]

* If you haven't done so already, add the excellent JD Bliss to your RSS reader or blogroll. And not just 'cause we were recently interviewed by them. [JDBliss: Balancing Life and the Law]

* The music video for Beyonce's "Irreplaceable" is not to be missed. The visual contrast between "urbane" Beyonce, with her meticulous make-up and perfectly straight hair, and "feral" Beyonce, drenched by a gushing fire hydrant, is jaw-dropping. And the image of her wet hand, snaking deliciously across her black-leather-swathed derrière, is arresting and indelible. WOW!!! [YouTube]

(We can't wait to see Beyonce in Dreamgirls, directed by Bill Condon -- a graduate of our