* 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 alma mater, just like Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.)

But we can’t bring ourselves to do it. Maybe this guy can do some caring for us.

Actually, the Borat connection may be the only vaguely interesting thing about the Pamela Anderson/Kid Rock divorce (court papers filed yesterday). From Page Six:

[Hollywood producer] “Ron Meyer held a screening of ‘Borat’ at his house for a bunch of people, including Pam and Bob [Ritchie, aka Kid Rock],” says an Anderson pal. “It was the first time Bob had seen the movie, and, well, he didn’t like it.”

The hugely popular film shows Sasha Baron Cohen - in character as Borat Sagdiyev - falling in love with Anderson after seeing her in a “Baywatch” rerun, then driving across America in order to propose marriage to her.

Her friend tells Page Six, “Bob started screaming at Pam, saying she had humiliated herself and telling her, ‘You’re nothing but a whore! You’re a slut! How could you do that movie?’ - in front of everyone. It was very embarrassing.

It looks like Pam will be getting her revenge. Anderson has retained high-flying celebrity divorce lawyer Neal R. Hersh, one of the name partners in Hersh, Mannis & Bogen, a top family law boutique in Los Angeles.

One of Neal Hersh’s fellow partners is Judy Bogen, who represented Kim Basinger in her ugly divorce from Alec Baldwin. And Baldwin is no Bogen fan, describing her as a “hideously angry-looking woman,” whose face “looks like a cross between a bulldog and a clenched fist.”

An ATL commenter agrees with Baldwin:

My ex-wife hired Judy Bogen to represent her, and I can confirm Mr. Baldwin’s description of this vile female. He forgot to mention her four inch long fingernails, which obviously hadn’t touched a keyboard and were likely reserved for tearing the heart and soul out of her female clients’ unfortunate spouses.

We eat this stuff up. If you have any other good stories about divorce lawyers from hell, feel free to email them to us.

Pam Anderson Files for Divorce [TMZ.com]
Pam Splits Over Kid Blowup [New York Post]
Neal Hersh bio [FindLaw]

Earlier: Gee, Alec, Tell Us How You Really Feel
Prior ATL coverage of Borat (scroll down)

Back in this comment, Sean Fitzpatrick pointed out a fun fact:

One of those “not so sexy” district court nominations [to be submitted to the lame duck Congress] is of former U.S. Representative Jim Rogan (R-CA), who served as lead prosecutor in Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate.

This escaped our notice, but not that of Al Kamen, of the Washington Post. From In the Loop (a Beltway must-read):

[O]ne of Bush’s nominees, a former House member from California and a “manager” in the effort to impeach and remove President Bill Clinton from office, could very well be confirmed to a federal judgeship, even under a Democratic Senate next year.

James Rogan, who lost his seat in 2000 because of voter unhappiness over his impeachment efforts, was later confirmed by the Senate to head the Patent and Trademark Office. He’s now a Los Angeles lawyer.

And, oddly enough, Rogan’s got support from an unusual group of Clinton backers, including a California judicial vetting committee with members picked by liberal Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

Kamen wonders: Will Senatrix Hillary Clinton (D-NY) vote for the man who tried to get her and her husband evicted from the White House? She’s known to bear grudges (and voted repeatedly against Michael Chertoff, when he was nominated for executive and judicial branch posts, because of his involvement in the Whitewater investigation).

But then again, check out this cheery photograph of the Clintons and the Rogans, from a White House Christmas party in 1999:

Hillary’s bustline is somewhat drooping in the pic. But that’s not Rogan’s fault, is it?

On Deck Again: One of Democrats’ Favorite Clinton Foes [Washington Post]

* Happy Anniversary, Justice Stevens. [Associated Press via How Appealing]

* Our low low prices on handmade office furniture are cruel and unusual! [MSNBC]

* The Court lights one up for Big Tobacco. [Law.com]

* Milberg Weiss’s judgment day: January 2008. [New York Times]

Our big brother brings to our attention an interesting article, from New York magazine, about urban professionals and burnout. And no article on the subject would be complete without a discussion of Biglaw attorneys:

An epidemic of malaise among bankers and lawyers is far more likely to inspire jokes—Wouldn’t it be nicer if it were terminal?—than concern and rafts of psychological studies. (And the few studies out there are funny, if inadvertently. In a special “burnout” issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology six years ago, the essay on lawyers was most notable for the “Select References and Recommended Reading” that followed—four of eight were about masochism.)

Not surprising in the least — although where are the sadism articles?

[C]onsider lawyers for a moment: According to the New York Bar Association, turnover rates among mid-level associates in this city’s law firms is 36 percent. The whole system is predicated on burnout. Why even bother treating associates well?

Sad but true. We’re reminded of one of our all-time favorite reader comments, in a thread discussing whether Paul Weiss is a gay-friendly firm. Here’s the comment:

Paul Weiss isn’t a magnet for gays, but it is a great place to get f*cked in the ass no matter what your sexual orientation is.

At least you get great sushi while grabbing your proverbial ankles.

Can’t Get No Satisfaction [New York Magazine via DealBreaker]

* It was either this cautionary tidbit — courtesy of Tawny Kitaen, Chuck Finley’s battering ex-wife and Whitesnake video girl — or Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock’s divorce. And you already knew about the latter. [E! Online via Yahoo News]

* It’s just a peace sign, not a full-page New York Times ad. [QuizLaw]

* And in the very near future, Law & Order will rip a new one from the headlines. [Ernie the Attorney]

* Life is a series of bait-and-switches. Or how else would people get married or work at law firms? And the circle of life continues. [Law.com]

Remember Scott Blauvelt, the former Ohio prosecutor who was charged with public indecency, for allegedly walking around his office in the nude? Time for an update:

Charges of public indecency were dropped [last week] against an ex-city prosecutor because of a paperwork problem. But officials said they would re-file the case against Scott Blauvelt, who has been accused of walking through public buildings after hours in the nude.

“A technicality is causing us to re-file the paperwork,” Butler County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Anthony Dwyer said Tuesday.

What was this “technicality”?

Blauvelt had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to two counts of public indecency in Municipal Court, where he worked from March 2005 until he was fired last month. A judge dismissed the charges Tuesday after authorities acknowledged they were filed under an outdated section of law.

See? When your legal research instructor read you the riot act about Shepardizing and Keyciting, it was for your own good.

Blauvelt’s lawyer challenged the charges on several grounds, including those offered by Professor Orin Kerr:

Gmoser argued the charges against Blauvelt never should have been filed, because his alleged nude strolls were unlikely to be seen by anyone in a public office building that is nearly deserted at night.

While Blauvelt’s unclothed ambulation may have been ill-advised, was it really illegal? We once heard a story about a female partner walking into the ladies’ room late on a Saturday night, where she found an associate and his girlfriend getting it on. Clearly they were guilty of poor judgment (and taste). But were they guilty of “public indecency,” considering that they were doing it in the relatively private place of the ladies’ room, late on a Saturday night?

(Actually, considering that the story supposedly took place at a big law firm in New York, one might reasonably expect people to be around on a Saturday night. But government offices in Ohio? Let’s get real.)

Charges Dropped Against Lawyer [Cincinnati Enquirer]

We’ve fallen a bit behind in telling you who is going where, and why. So here’s a short recap of notable recent moves within the legal profession:

From Law to Finance:
* It’s rare for partners to leave Wachtell Lipton, but it does happen. Earlier this month, former WLRK corporate partner Mitchell Presser left the firm, to join Fox Paine. Presser, renowned at Wachtell for his impeccable taste in sushi, focuses on deal structuring and new investment opportunities at Fox Paine.

New Partners:
* Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: Eight new partners in New York. Corporate: Barrie Covit, John Ericson, Ellen Reilly Patterson, Kathryn King Sudol. Executive compensation and employee benefits: Gregory Grogan. Real estate: Sasan Mehrar. Litigation: Michael Garvey and George Wang (whom we know, and who are both very fine lawyers — congrats, guys).

* Willkie Farr & Gallagher: Eleven new partners in New York. Corporate and financial services: Leah Campbell, Mark Cognetti, Morgan Elwyn, Rita Molesworth (luv the name), Adam Turteltaub. Litigation: Mary Eaton, Scott Rose, and former AUSA Michael Schachter. Tax: Christopher Peters. Business reorganization and restructuring: Rachel Strickland.

You may recall Michael Schachter as the superstar federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, who helped send Martha Stewart to prison (where she learned to make delicious dishes using vending machine fare and the inmates’ communal microwave).

* Weil Gotshal & Manges: Twenty new partners around the country. That’s too many for us to reprint here, so check out the list in the press release.

A majority of these twenty partners are women, and two are “flex-time partners.” Details here.

Out the Door:

* Myron Olesnyckyj, former general counsel of Monster Worldwide Inc. (which owns Monster.com). Stock options backdating. Yawn.

* And a bunch of execs at ACS and Quest Software, also because of backdating. Some lawyers, some not. Double yawn.

NY Biglaw Associates Making Partner [NYLawyer.com]
Another GC Axed Over Stock-Options [NYLawyer.com]
Backdating: More Resignations, More Legal Business [WSJ Law Blog]
Weil Gotshal Elects Twenty to Partnership and Appoints Five as Counsel [Weil Gotshal & Manges]
Weil’s Partnership Class Has More Women Than Men: News? [WSJ Law Blog]

As regular ATL readers already know, the results of the July 2006 New York bar exam are now available. They’re public and online; you can access them here (scroll down, to the boxes organized by the applicant’s last name).

The July 2006 test takers were, on the whole, pretty smart cookies. Pass rates rose in all major categories. Courtesy of the New York State Board of Bar Examiners, some interesting statistics:

On a more random note, one of you was kind enough to review the list of passing candidates and pick out some of the more interesting or colorful names. We’ve collected them after the jump.

Most judges exhibit an excess of caution in their out-of-court comments. While understandable, given judicial ethics and decorum, it’s disappointing (at least to those of us who write about the judiciary). When judges do speak out, the results can be both informative and entertaining.

Consider the literary exploits of Judge John H. Wilson, a criminal court judge in Brooklyn, New York. From the New York Daily News:

Criminal Court Judge John Wilson’s “Hot House Flowers” warns of “effects of unregulated immigration” in a plot line about beautiful flowers that wither when dandelions sneak into their greenhouse.

“It’s intended to describe defense of home and defense of country, and the reasons for that defense,” said Wilson, who self-published the book, listed on Amazon.com at $15.99.

The story tells of jealous weeds that hog all the water and soil in the greenhouse. The other flowers suffer, but don’t do anything until it’s almost too late - because they don’t want to appear intolerant.

While Judge Wilson’s creativity is commendable, we quibble with the greenhouse metaphor. Without illegal immigrants, all flowers, bushes, and lawns in America would die within a week.

We zipped over to the book’s listing at Amazon.com, where we enjoyed this comment, by one Jonathan Cohen:

The best story of the dangers of out-of-town dandelions coming in and destroying the greenhouse with their Camaros, mosques, and ethnic cooking flavors.

You’ll be flipping the pages until the climactic finale where the hot house flowers, who love the dandelions despite the different colors of their petals, burn a vitamin spike on the dandelions’ front lawn. Highly recommended.

Judge is in immig groups’ bad books [New York Daily News]
Brooklyn Judge Wants To Make Sure Kids Learn To Hate Immigrants Before Kindergarten [Gawker]
Hot House Flowers - John H. Wilson [Amazon]

A tipster sent us this Craigslist posting, with a query: “I wonder if this gets expensed to clients?”

National law firm with large Los Angeles offices seeks a Barista!!!

Huge law firm with an in-house coffee bar. The hours are Monday-Thursday from 8:30-5:30. You will receive full benefits, parking, etc. Time and a half if overtime is needed.

The firm is looking for someone bright and quick! If you have experience at a coffee shop or other food services company that is a plus. A college student or recent college graduate who is looking for a job 4 days a week would be perfect!

Ivy league caliber firm with top benefits, super casual dress and fun environment.

Please email a formal resume in WORD format. All inquiries 100% confidential.

It’s a brilliant idea on the part of the firm. Keep your associates as heavily caffeinated as possible — and allow them to get their fix without even leaving the building.

Anyone know what firm is in the market for a barista?

Update: Based on the comments thus far, Quinn Emanuel is the leading suspect. If this is correct, what happened to their last barista? (Did he or she get promoted to associate, after claiming to have passed the bar?)

BARISTA - at Large Law firm [craigslist]

[Ed. note: This post is on the vulgar side. It’s a bit like Borat: funny to some, distasteful to others. If you’re a person of delicate sensibilities, please exercise discretion in deciding whether to read further. Thank you.]

Last week we reported some top law firms involved in billion-dollar deals:

Biglaw shops are involved in all of these transactions. The lucky law firms: Sidley Austin, Simpson Thacher, Cleary Gottlieb, Howard Rice, Wachtell Lipton, Davis Polk, Debevoise & Plimpton, Covington & Burling, and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.

One of these things is not like the others. Yes, you guessed it: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.

The obvious response: Schwabe, a regional law firm based in the Pacific Northwest, is the least “Biglaw”-ish of these shops.

The less obvious response: Schwabe provides services the other firms do not. Check out the retention letter below, which has been making the law firm email rounds.

(Normally we’d challenge you to find the typo in the second paragraph, but today we’ve made it easy for you. After all, it’s the Monday after a holiday weekend.)

This typographical error gives unfortunate new meaning to the SW&W “diversity logo,” featured prominently on the firm’s website:

(Query: What’s up with the green hand? Title VII doesn’t protect martians.)

Earlier: Legal Fee Voyeurism: Merger Mania Moolah

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt [official website]
Define:Fisting [Google Search]

To those of you who have just returned from the Thanksgiving holiday, hoping that a venti coffee with an extra shot of espresso will bring you out of your food coma: Welcome Back. We hope you had a delightful holiday.

The sight (or mere thought) of turkey probably makes you nauseous at this point. But if that’s not the case, here is a picture of the Thanksgiving turkey that our mother prepared this year:

Maybe you weren’t at your computer on Black Friday, choosing instead to fuel the economy with your consumption. But we were, diligently churning out posts for a non-existent audience. If a blog post is published and nobody is around to read it, does it make a sound? (Scroll down the page to see what you missed.)

Like you, right now we’re engaged in some post-holiday catch-up (with news, email, etc.). If you have any funny, law-related Thanksgiving stories — yeah, we know, a tall order — please share them with us.

Hey, What Are You Doing Here? [ATL]
Thanksgiving turkey, white background [stock.xchng]

Probably not, ‘cause that’s Westlaw. H. Donald Wilson, who passed away earlier this month, was the founder of Lexis-Nexis. Fittingly enough for a man responsible for placing thousands of lawyers in front of their computer screens, for thousands of hours a year, Wilson died in front of his computer.

An interesting tidbit from the New York Times obituary:

A turning point for the acceptance of Lexis came in the early 1970s, when Mr. Wilson arranged for a skeptical audience at the Supreme Court to use the new system. The Lexis system found more cases than the court clerks found by using manual research methods.

Supreme Court clerks back in the seventies weren’t as good as the ones around today. Current SCOTUS clerks don’t need Lexis and Westlaw. They just commit all the cases to memory, down to the page numbers (a la David Boies).

The cause of death was a heart attack — and we can empathize. Finding out that your key precedent just got overruled can be a pretty jarring experience.

Everyone who has ever used Lexis-Nexis for legal research owes Wilson a debt of gratitude. May he rest in peace.

Donald Wilson, 82, Pioneer of a Database, Dies [New York Times]
H. Donald Wilson, 82; Developed LexisNexis [Washington Post]
Founder of LexisNexis Dies in Front of His Computer [TaxProf Blog]

* Several federal law all-stars have filed amicus briefs in the 4th Circuit — which means a lucky clerk now has Janet Reno’s autograph! [SCOTUSBlog]

* Gun makers challenge a finding that lawsuits are legal. [Indy Star via How Appealing]

* “A lineup of legal heavyweights unusual even by Supreme Court standards is doing battle in a case pitting Wachovia Corp. against Michigan banking regulators.” [Bloomberg via How Appealing]

* Appellate law 101: Careful what you say at oral argument, they’re kind of picky about accuracy. [CNN]

* “Marijuana-for-homework mom gets 3 months.” [MSNBC]

* Another week, another Borat lawsuit.

* Wow — it doesn’t take much to get lawyers all hot and bothered. But ATL readers were evidently untroubled.

* Merry Christmas. There will be no O.J. Simpson book.

* But no Britney sex tape, either.

* Wesley Snipes has some harsh words for the IRS. And Judge Posner does, too.

* We hung out a lot with the Federalist Society. We watched the social conservatives and the libertarians slug it out over cultural issues. And we learned that Judge Edith Jones isn’t the woman we thought she was.

* And you thought your parents were embarrassing when you were a pre-teen. [Associated Press via Times Leader]

* Now I know not to act upon those revenge fantasies I’ve had of playing the same prank on that female senior associate who yelled at me last week. [New York Daily News]

* Also an anti-competition issue — this way, the strip clubs don’t cut into the business of massage parlors. [Louisville Courier-Journal via How Appealing]

This is a continuation of our prior post about the annual dinner of the Federalist Society. You can read the rest of it after the jump.

The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin — who made his name as a legal affairs writer with his coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, later turned into a best-selling book — profiles Pablo Fenjves, the ghostwriter for Simpson’s ill-fated literary effort, If I Did It. Money quote:

Fenjves believes that, in the wake of Murdoch’s decision to cancel the book, another publisher may seek to release it….

“It’s going to be bigger than ever,” he said. “It’s like ‘Ulysses,’ except without the talent.”

The Ghostwriter [New Yorker via Gawker]

The weekend of November 4-5 was a little short on lawyer weddings in the New York Times wedding announcements. But the weekend of November 11-12 had a lot of them.

We had a hard time picking which pairs to profile. We came thisclose to writing about Lauren Clabby and James Moore V, but we were scared off by the epic length of their announcement. In the end, we settled upon these three couples:

1. Clare Cusack, Michael Gianaris

2. Rashida La Lande, Derrick Diggs

3. Jennifer Walsh, Stephen Cowen

Our numerical scores and comments for the newlyweds, after the jump.

We can’t say we’re surprised. The readers of ATL probably have a higher-than-average tolerance for things that push the envelope (or the bounds of good taste). But for what they’re worth, here are the results of our most recent reader poll:

Reader opinion is consistent with that of Dahlia Lithwick, who had this to say about the controversy:

Help me out here. Because I consider myself a feminist and I am always one to fetch a pail of water in the service of gender equity. But can someone please explain what it is about this particular ad that “demeans women” and undermines our success in the workplace?

Can someone help me understand why the president of the Women’s Bar Association wrote in to the publication in question, calling this ad a form of “gender discrimination”? Am I supposed to be outraged about the fact that this nearly naked woman is using her near nakedness to seduce a colleague (a trick that goes back to the first fig leaf, I believe) or that a clothing company is using the promise of uncontrollable, spontaneous workplace sex to seduce clients (a trick that goes back to the first Fig Leaf Emporium)? Not much about the ad suggests that women are disempowered, after all. This couple could be married. The man might be the woman’s secretary. He may well be billing her by the hour….

“The man might be the woman’s secretary.” An excellent point. And kinda hot, too.

Is the Jiwani ad sexist only if you approach it looking for sexism?

Jurisprudes? [Slate]

Earlier: The Jiwani Ad: Hot or Rot?

We previously provided you with our photographic coverage of the Federalist Society’s annual dinner, held last Thursday at the Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, DC. Now we offer a short (and admittedly belated) write-up of the proceedings.

For more systematic accounts of the dinner, check out the news links collected at the end of this post. For our more idiosyncratic reflections, read on — after the jump.

Video footage? Still photographs? We’d like to see the record on appeal in this case:

Lawyers for CBS Corp. argued Monday that singer Janet Jackson’s breast-baring at the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004 was unintended, took place without the knowledge of the network, and should not be considered indecent.

CBS is suing the Federal Communications Commission in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, challenging a $550,000 fine issued by the agency over the stunt, which created a national furor.

Third Circuit clerks: lucky dogs. They get to ogle celebrity breasts and call it “research.”

(Yeah, this news is several days old. But it’s the Friday after Thanksgiving, so the bar is set pretty low. Our posts today are going to be even more random than usual.)

Update: The Third Circuit subsequently vacated the FCC fine.

CBS Suing FCC Over Janet Jackson’s Boobgate [Access Hollywood]

Why are you in front of your computer? To quote our big brother:

The rest of America is either sleeping off their Thanksgiving hangovers or pushing their way into a mall to grab those holiday shopping discounts. But you’re rubbing the sleep out of your eyes while staring at a glowing screen. Well, you’re not alone. We’re here with you too today. And we’ll do our best to keep you entertained, and maybe even informed.

Yup, that’s right. For all of your poor saps who are at your computers working away, we’re here to keep you company (even if other usually industrious bloggers, like Howard Bashman and Peter Lattman, have cruelly abandoned you).

In the comments to this post, feel free to start up an open thread explaining why you’re in the office today (and bitching about it). Also, here are a few random Thanksgiving posts to be grateful for:

— What Tax Profs Are Thankful For [TaxProf Blog]
— Looking back on the Thanksgiving squirrel [Althouse]
— Thanksgiving, Thursday(s), and… Gettysburg? [PrawfsBlawg]
— Thanksgiving for Law Reviews? [PrawfsBlawg]

(Feel free to email us with more Thanksgiving-related links, and we’ll add them to this list when we update it later today.)

* Chimpanzees are people, too! [Central Valley Business Times via How Appealing]

* “Grace previously said in an interview with MSNBC that allegations she contributed to Duckett’s death ‘are hateful, they are spiteful and they are also ridiculous.’ ” Nancy Grace is, of course, none of those things. [CNN]

* Someone’s probably gonna sue, claiming they invented cranberry sauce. [ WSJ Law Blog]

* Pakistani women gain slightly greater protection against rape. [Jurist]

* The EPA thinks your nanosilver lining may have a touch of grey. [AP via Yahoo!]

* Read up, Kaavya Viswanathan. [Althouse]

* A great way for UVA students who also attended the Federalist Society Convention to cap off a busy week. [TJ’s Double Play]

* As ever, a nod to the holidays-a few turkeys (as in the actual animal) in caselaw. [Law.com]

* Because thirst is never illegal. [Racialicious]

Our series of photo posts from the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention has been popular. The prior installments are available here, here, and here.

Our camera is now emptied out. The last of our Fed Soc photos, after the jump.

No, we’re not done for the day (even though you probably are, and hitting the road for Thanksgiving travel). We still have a few more posts on the way.

For now, a quick collection of interesting links that pick up on stories that ATL has been following:

* The lawyer representing the Romanian villagers in the latest Borat lawsuit has had, um, some disciplinary issues. Color us surprised. [Overlawyered]

* Hungry for more Fifth Circuit scuttlebutt? Satisfy your appetite with Grits for Breakfast. [Grits for Breakfast (esp. reader comments)]

* Fear not, Legal Eagle Wedding Watch fans; LEWW will be returning momentarily (with two new installments). In the meantime, sate your credentials lust by checking out this Florida power couple. [Southern District of Florida Blog]

We’re not huge fans of this photo of Dean Evan Caminker of the University of Michigan Law School, posted at the WSJ Law Blog:

First, we don’t think it’s the most flattering picture of Dean Caminker. Compare it to the ones collected here (contestant #1). Based on the photo above, you wouldn’t guess that Dean Caminker won our contest for America’s Hottest Law School Dean.

Second, Dean Caminker is wearing a sweatshirt. In sartorial terms, this is a capital crime. If not for the fact that he was forced to wear the sweatshirt, having lost a football bet with Dean Nancy Rogers of Ohio State, we would strip Dean Caminker of his hottie title.

Finally, a bitchy postscript. We have problems with this paragraph from the Law Blog post:

You can call Michigan’s Dean Caminker lots of things: a Yale Law grad, a Supreme Court clerk (Brennan), a Wilmer Cutler alum, a constitutional law scholar. Just don’t call him a welcher!

How can any responsible journalist leave out “America’s Hottest Law School Dean” from this list of titles? It’s a glaring omission (which a Law Blog commenter had to point out). C’mon, Peter, get with the program!

(Would a reference to our hotties contest be deemed too “lowbrow” for the WSJ Law Blog? We doubt it. After all, it’s the blog where we first read about the Emily Pataki bar failure email.)

Ohio State v. Michigan: Dean Caminker Honors the Bet! [WSJ Law Blog]
Law School Dean Hotties: The Winners!!! [Above the Law]
Law School Dean Hotties: Comment from Dean Caminker [Above the Law]

Ah, Wesley Snipes. Not only is he an alleged tax cheat, as well as a possible fugitive from justice; he’s also practically illiterate a rather poor writer.

In an email to Scott Maxwell, a writer for the Orlando Sentinel (huh?), Snipes wrote:

Hi Scott, guess you can imagine I’ve been a little busy. Wow this is so crazy … Scott this was almost (10) ten years ago. Why are they coming with this issue now? Were the statutes of limitation running out or what? We thought all issues had been resolved. Guess not, huh? Like the situation in New York, and Florida, I know this has more to do with a few individuals with access to power, making moves (trying to move up!) and less with some alleged crime against the whole population of the United States of America. This reminds me of Rape cases where the “victim” is flipped, turned or converted into the role of victimizer, the “architect conspirator.” It appears I’m to be the scapegoat, because there’s more public interest in “celebrities gone bad” than “rich people being taken advantage of.”

Why does Snipes think he’s being victimized? He thinks his race may have something to do with it: “Being, a black male who asks questions doesn’t help the situation either.”

An elaborate government conspiracy, directed against an African-American male celebrity? We’re getting a feeling of deja vu.

But don’t expect Snipes to write a “hypothetical” memoir titled “If I Did It.” Tax fraud isn’t quite as sexy as double homicide.

Snipes says he’s ‘scapegoat’ in tax-fraud case [Orlando Sentinel]
Actor Wesley Snipes Claims He’s “Scapegoat” in Tax Fraud Prosecution [TaxProf Blog]

One highlight of this year’s Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention was the annual convention luncheon, held on Saturday, November 17. During the luncheon, a panel of distinguished judges addressed the very hot topic of judicial independence. The panelists:

Judge Carlos T. Bea (Ninth Circuit),
Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs (Sixth Circuit)
Judge Timothy B. Dyk (Federal Circuit)
Judge Patricia M. Wald (D.C. Circuit) (retired)
Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs (Second Circuit) (moderator)

A quick recap of the discussion, after the jump.

After details of Britney Spears’s “airtight” prenuptial agreement were disclosed, revealing that her soon-to-be ex-husband, Kevin Federline, wouldn’t get much in the divorce, we began hearing this rumor:

Fed-Ex will be a hero to stragglers everywhere, moreso even than Kato, in his leveraging: [Britney] made an air-tight prenup; he made a videotape of his adventures into what had been allegedly air-tight territory during their honeymoon. Internet P0rn distributor’s offer: $40M. Somehow I think that she is going to cough up more than that to prevent a Paris H. repeat…

But despite any spam you may have received recently touting the “Britney Sex Tape,” it seems that America’s most valuable home video is just an urban legend. From Reuters:

There is no “sex tape” involving pop star Britney Spears and estranged husband Kevin Federline, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

After Spears filed for divorce from the fledgling rapper this month, reports surfaced in the tabloid press that Federline had in his possession a videotape of the couple having sex and was considering making it public.

“There is not a sex video of Kevin and Britney in existence,” said Federline’s divorce lawyer, Mark Vincent Kaplan. Representatives for Spears had no immediate comment.

K-Fed really IS screwed — and all because Britney wasn’t.

(At least not on camera. Unless this publicist’s nightmare counts).

There is no Britney sex tape, Federline’s lawyer says [Reuters]
Britney Spears “STONED” acting strange UNCUT VERSION [YouTube]

Become the Chief Justice of the United States!

(Query: Where were the Supreme Court police officers when this fun photo was taken?)

The Borat litigation juggernaut rolls on. And Fox, the studio behind the hit movie, is fighting back:

Fox attorneys filed a legal brief Monday slamming a request for a preliminary injunction against the hit comedy “Borat” as a “fatuous” attempt to thwart free speech, even as the studio’s legal battle spread to a second front.

“Plaintiffs may claim that they were tricked ‘into making fools out of themselves’ and becoming ‘unsuspecting players’ in the movie ‘Borat,’ ” the studio said in opposing the request. “They never contend … that bigoted and misogynistic statements were put into their mouths.”

The plaintiffs are the two fraternity brothers who are suing the studio for depicting them as bigots and misogynists — after they made, on camera, bigoted and misogynistic statements.

The frat boys may not be terribly sympathetic plaintiffs. But they’re not the only ones suing over Borat:

[A]ttorneys representing a pair of villagers in Glod, Romania, filed a $30 million lawsuit over their roles in “Borat.”

Filed in U.S. District Court in New York, the suit seeks to stop distribution of the film until scenes showing plaintiffs Nicolae Todorache and Spiridom Ciorebea are removed.

It didn’t take long for plaintiffs’ lawyers to discover Bhopal. What took them so long to find Glod?

Fox Fires Back at “Borat” Suit [Hollywood Reporter]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Borat (scroll down)

* Third Marine pleads guilty in Iraq civilian murder case. [Jurist]

* Villaraigosa says L.A.’s not going out like that. [CNN]

* Ah, the old disaster-victim-flip-this-house ploy; works every time. [AP via Online Athens]

* Man, talk about putting the victim on trial. [AP via Yahoo!]

Controversy has erupted up in Boston over whether it was appropriate for the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly to run this racy advertisement, for Jiwani, a maker of custom-tailored suits:

Advertisements like this are a dime a dozen in Details and GQ. But in the more staid pages of a legal news publication, it drew a slew of negative reader responses. E.g., “Highly insulting,” “Puerile, tasteless, and offensive,” and “Wrong on so many levels.”

What do you think? We’re curious. Time for an ATL reader poll:

Update: This poll is now closed; you can view the results here.

Many Fume Over Hot Ad in Lawyers Newspaper [Boston Globe via How Appealing]

* Woo-hoo!!! Good news for online rumor-mongerers like ourselves. [Volokh Conspiracy; Instapundit]

* And a bit of bad news, too. [Concurring Opinions]

* We weren’t the only ones who had fun at Federalistapalooza. [Southern Appeal]

* “Conservative civil war”: Not just at the Federalist Society. [Andrew Sullivan; Instapundit; Ryan Sager]

* When the subject of gay marriage comes up, social conservatives bring out a parade of horribles — including polygamy. Now Ann Althouse wonders: Is it really so horrible? [Althouse]

* While we’re linking to contrarian thinking, here’s a different take on L’Affaire OJ.: “Rupert Murdoch’s relevant anatomy shrunk to the size of two shriveled peas.” [Crime & Federalism]

* Some food for thought: “If the [anti-burqa] legislation is enacted, a Dutch woman could marry her lesbian partner, spend her life smoking a little hashish now and then — and when the time comes, get a doctor’s assistance in pulling the plug — all well within Dutch law. But she couldn’t ride the subway with a veil over her face. What an odd country.” [PrawfsBlawg]

* Actually, Will, we think this is really cool. Who wants to tour Civil War battlefields when you can visit these instead? [Crescat Sententia]

Apperances can be deceiving. The smiling woman above looks like a sweet old lady (or perhaps she’s middle-aged).

But don’t be fooled. This pleasant-looking woman opened a can of whoop-ass at the final panel discussion of the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention. She rained hellfire and brimstone upon the audience, and placed at least two of the panelists on an express train to Hell.

As we mentioned earlier, that last panel “discussion” was insane. It was a no-holds-barred fight between the Federalist Society’s two major constituencies: the social conservatives and the libertarians. It was a smart move to save this intra-societal slugfest until the end of the weekend.

The nominal title of the panel: “The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture.” A more appropriate title for the panel: “Watch Libertarians and Social Conservatives Rant at Each Other About Gay Marriage.”

The combatants participants:

Moderator cum lion tamer: Hon. Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General
For the libertarians: Dr. Charles Murray, AEI; Mr. Anthony Romero, ACLU
For the social conservatives: Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Professor Hadley Arkes, Amherst College
Kinda in between: Professor William Eskridge, Yale Law School
Kinda irrelevant: Hon. Walter Dellinger, currently of O’Melveny & Myers and Duke Law School (and former acting Solicitor General)

A blow-by-blow account of this intellectual battle royal, after the jump.

At right: Homeless — or just fashion-impaired?

Back in April, in Jones v. City of Los Angeles (PDF), the Ninth Circuit ruled that “a City of Los Angeles ordinance that criminalizes sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks” violated the Eighth Amendment (specifically, its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The ruling struck some as a bit dubious. E.g., Howard Bashman, Orin Kerr.

We’re a bit more sympathetic, however, to this recent ruling by a federal judge in Las Vegas:

A federal judge on Monday rejected the city’s ban on feeding poor or homeless people in city parks. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman had argued that handouts discourage homeless people from seeking help from social service providers set up to handle mental health and substance abuse problems….

But U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jones issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ordinance, passed in July, and told lawyers for the city and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada that he intends to issue an order killing the measure.

The ordinance in question prohibits “the providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee.” It defines an “indigent person” as “a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.

We haven’t researched the issue. But the claim that this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague seems within the realm of possibility.

The ordinance turns on whether the person being fed “looks” homeless. And under this standard, taking law professors out for a picnic, or buying your blogger friend a hot dog, could get you arrested. That can’t be right!

(As the Supreme Court has held, any law that is bad and/or stupid is unconstitutional.)

Judge Nixes Las Vegas Homeless Food Ban [Associated Press]
Las Vegas Makes It Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks [New York Times]
Arresting the Homeless Is Unconstitutional? Where the 9th Circuit Went Wrong [Law.com]

Few things make us happier than when judges administer benchslaps to either colleagues or litigants. When the judicial power of the United States is deployed to diss, the result is fun for the whole family.

Heck, bench-slaps can even make tax law enjoyable! If you doubt this proposition, check out Judge Posner’s recent opinion in Kohler Co. v. United States (PDF).

Here are a few excerpts. We’ve pulled them out of context, and we won’t bother to get into the complex facts of the case; but the benchslappery is still evident:

“How to choose between adversaries’ valuations when both are manifestly erroneous?”

“[The IRS’s effort] to prove that the pesos were indeed worth $19.5 million fell pathetically short of the mark….”

“[C]linging stubbornly to its untenable valuation, [the IRS] suggested no alternative to $19.5 million. It played all or nothing, lost all, so gets nothing.”

Way harsh — but at the same time, direct and matter-of-fact. The straightforward nature of Posnerian benchslaps is what makes them so elegant, effortless, and enjoyable.

This latest benchslap from Judge Posner calls to mind our prior observations about his writing style:

The Posnerian prose style is wonderfully dry, and Judge Posner’s amazing writerly feat is his generation of delight from desiccation. The Giant Hedgehog doesn’t laugh at his own jokes, which just makes them funnier. And when he cuts you down, with a clean slice of his linguistic lightsaber, his face bears no expression. It’s all done with a clinical elegance; disdain is a dish best served cold. Magnificent!

With most judges, you can see the benchslap coming a mile away. They take forever to wind up that slapping arm, and when they make contact with their target, you can hear the “whack” for miles. With Judge Posner, in contrast, you’re benchslapped before you even REALIZE you’ve been benchslapped.

This makes perfect sense. Why? Judge Posner’s hand is too good for your face. And the national treasure known as the Posnerian Brain shouldn’t be wasted on benchslappery, since it really could be put to more productive use.

Like having electrodes hooked up to it, so we can finally end America’s dependence upon foreign oil.

Kohler Co. v. United States [Seventh Circuit (PDF) via How Appealing]
Posner Slams IRS’s “Pathetic” Position in Mexican Debt-Equity Swap Case [TaxProf Blog]
The Hilarious Hedgehog: Judge Richard Posner [Underneath Their Robes]

Last week we briefly discussed the appearance at the Federalist Society convention of Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We also described our exchange with him during the question-and-answer session.

We now provide you with a somewhat more detailed account of Senator Specter’s remarks. We found them surprisingly funny; but don’t get your hopes THAT high (because some of them were of a “you had to be there” nature).

Our write-up of Senator Specter’s speech, after the jump.

The most infamous case of the last century has turned into one of the biggest P.R. disasters of this one.

After nearly universal criticism, from both within and outside the company, the News Corp. has pulled its plans to publish a book by O.J. Simpson — and to air a television interview with him — in which the ex-football star describes how he “might” have killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Hypothetically, mind you. ‘Cause he didn’t. And he is still searching America, or at least every golf course in America, for the person who murdered his ex-wife.

(News flash: Even Rupert Murdoch will only go so far — or sink so low.)

For those of you who are well-versed in the legal issues surrounding publishing contracts, some questions from the Washington Post:

Who owns the book now? Will Simpson still be paid? And what will happen now to Regan, whom many in the industry condemn for what they consider bottom-feeding instincts while grudgingly admiring her audacity?

Some info about these issues, from the New York Times:

Standard publishing contracts call for a percentage of an author’s advance, usually up to 50 percent, to be paid when a contract is signed, and for the remainder to be paid when the finished book is accepted by the publisher. The [anonymous] executive [involved in the deal] said Mr. Simpson’s book was covered by a standard publishing contract.

In an interview last week, Judith Regan, the publisher, said ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins, had signed a contract with “a manager who represents a third party” who owned the rights to Mr. Simpson’s account.

Because the News Corporation and ReganBooks decided on their own to cancel the book and the television special, that money is likely to still have to be paid.

Your further thoughts are welcome, in the comments or via email.

Under Pressure, News Corp. Pulls Simpson Project [New York Times]
News Corp. Pulls Plug On O.J. Book, Fox Special [Washington Post]

Earlier: This Is Why the Founding Fathers Gave Us the Double Jeopardy Clause

Throughout the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, which we attended last week, various members and leaders of the group revelled in its reputation for being part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (in the immortal words of Senatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton).

We’re going to play along. We have a few write-ups of conference events that we’ll be posting, and we’re titling this series of posts From the Belly of the Beast.

Last week we mentioned how we got to meet Solicitor General Paul Clement (at right), the federal government’s lead advocate before the Supreme Court. We provide a quick account of his remarks to the Society, after the jump.

Note: In our prior post, we badly botched — we’re talking John Kerry-style botchery — a description of Solicitor General Clement’s record of Supreme Court appearance. These two comments set the record straight: Clement is 40 years old, and he has had 36 Supreme Court oral arguments, making him just four arguments short of matching his age.

Warning: The rest of this post contains that dreaded thing known as “substantive legal discussion.” And there’s not much in the way of humor to leaven the proceedings. So read on at your own risk, and don’t complain if it’s a little dry.

* Houston, we have a rehearing en banc. [How Appealing]

* Probation for 89-year-old who killed 10 driving through California farmer’s market; judge says he’s too sick to go to jail, even though he deserves to. [CNN]

* Grunting weightlifter may sue Planet Fitness for being lunk bigots. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Federal judge has no heart for Gitmo detainee. [Jurist]

At the risk of seeming Harvard-centric — yesterday we wrote about Larry Tribe’s dog — we bring you this brief report on the Ames Moot Court finals, held last week at Harvard Law School. From the Boston Globe:

Every year, the Ames Moot Court finals at Harvard Law School are a pretty amazing affair, bringing together a dozen third-year law students who have already beaten out a couple hundred of their classmates, in front of high-ranking real-life judges. But this year, the cast of characters seemed particularly interesting.

On one team was Erika Harold (at right), the 2003 Miss America. The other team included Kevin Terrazas, who started law school after serving in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division.

The bench for the competition was similarly distinguished. It’s traditional for a Supreme Court justice to preside over the Ames Moot Court finals, and this year was no exception: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court’s increasingly influential swing vote, wielded the gavel. He was joined on the bench by two of the most brilliant members of the federal judiciary: Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, of the Fourth Circuit, and (super-feeder) Judge Merrick B. Garland, of the legenday D.C. Circuit. Both Judge Motz and Judge Garland have been mentioned as possible Supreme Court picks in a Democratic administration.*

The case presented was a fictional one, captioned Adam’s Apple Markets v. Aphrodite Cosmetics. The team representing Aphrodite, which featured veteran Kevin Terrazas as an oralist, won best overall case. Beauty queen Erika Harold and her teammates won the prize for Most Congenial best written legal briefs. Tian Tian Mayimin, who argued for defendant Aphrodite Cosmetics, won for best oral presentation. (But in announcing the oralist award, Justice Kennedy “noted the judges emphasized substance over style.” Does that mean that Mayimin’s style left something to be desired?)

Were any of you in attendance at this august event? If so, and if you have any funny or interesting tidbits to add, please do so in the comments.

* Does anyone remember those TV commercials for Motts applesauce cups, in which a little kid says to his co-conspirator, “I got the Motts”? If Judge Motz is ever nominated to the Supreme Court, we’d like the president to announce her nomination by exclaiming, “I got the Motz!”

Shirin Shakir Memorial Team Wins 95th Ames Moot Court Finals [Harvard Law Record via How Appealing]
Miss America Loses Harvard’s Moot Court Competition [WSJ Law Blog]
Ames Moot Court Final video [Harvard Law School via How Appealing]
Moot Court Finals Rule at HLS [Harvard Law School]

* For you law review nerds out there, some direction as to the citation of new species of sources. But *sigh* you probably already know all of this. [Slaw.ca]

* Law students bring logic and order to child-bearing… It’s a shame that we have to forego all that spontaneity and excitement of unplanned pregnancies. (Like what 2L Tamina must have felt when she had her first of two kids in her late teens.) [Law.com]

* An Ohio woman litters by tossing bags of McDonald’s out her window, then invokes the Fast Food Nation defense — to no avail. [Tribune Chronicle]

* An Indian thief seizes the day — what’s money if you can’t spend it? [Reuters]

The Federalist Society Annual Dinner is basically one huge party. And no party would be complete without a rockin’ after party.

The Oscars have the Vanity Fair after-party; the Fed Soc dinner has the Harvard Law School after-party. And it’s supremely convenient. Unlike many after parties, which are held in obscure venues like underground bars or illegal clubs, the HLS Federalist Society party is held just across the hall from the ballroom hosting the dinner.

Like many non-HLS folk, we crashed the Harvard afterparty. Pictures from the raucous festivities, plus a few final photos from the dinner itself, appear after the jump.

Brian T. Valery is our hero. He figured out a way to save $100K on a legal education — namely, by not getting one. From Law.com:

Brian Valery is under fire for his pro hac vice appearance in a 2005 complex litigation case heard in Stamford, Conn. His motion to appear, which went unopposed, was based on his affidavit stating he was an attorney in good standing at the New York City firm of Anderson Kill & Olick. He also claimed to be a member of the New York Bar with no history of discipline.

As it turns out, Valery not only isn’t a member of the Bar, there’s no record that he ever applied or sat for the bar exam in New York or even set foot in a Fordham Law School classroom, which he told Anderson Kill partners he was doing at night to advance his career beyond that of a paralegal, Connecticut grievance officials say….

Valery, after working at Anderson Kill [as a paralegal] since 1996, told the firm in 2004 he had passed the New York Bar. Partners at the 132-lawyer firm have conceded to Connecticut grievance authorities that they regrettably took Valery at his word.

Oh Emily, if only you hadn’t sent that email, you could have tried this trick too.

Anderson Kill Discovers ‘Associate’ Is Not a Lawyer [Connecticut Law Tribune]

For years we’ve been huge fans of Judith Edith H. Jones. She had a reputation as a tough, smart, conservative judge. She was known as as a badass of the bench, more than capable of eviscerating counsel or colleagues who crossed her. Her dramatic nickname — “horsewoman of the right-wing apocalypse” — pretty much said it all. (See here, hottie #3.)

(The high-powered Judge Jones was also a recurring Supreme Court short-lister — so frequent a SCOTUS mention, in fact, that Slate once dubbed her “Susan Lucci in Judicial Robes.”)

So our obsession with Judge Jones went way back. How could we not adore such a strong-willed, right-wing judicial diva? Sometimes muttering her full name under our breath — the Honorable Edith Hollan Jones — would make us shiver involuntarily.

This past weekend, at the Federalist Society conference, we actually got to meet Judge Jones. It was a thrill! And we even got to take a picture of her — so cool!

(Alas, Judge Jones forbade us from publishing it on the internet — and we don’t want to be found in contempt. So the picture will have to remain in our personal stash of federal judicial portraits. Sorry!)

In addition, we had the chance to observe Judge Jones up close, while she was in the audience of the final panel of the conference — a magnificent shouting match between social conservatives and libertarians that was nominally entitled “The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture.” (We expect to write more about this steel-cage match panel discussion later.)

We are sad to report, however, that some of these observations have changed our view of Judge Jones. We reveal what we saw, after the jump.

Today is a banner day for mergers-and-acquisitions lawyers. Our big brother takes note of Blackstone Group’s gigantic proposed buyout of Equity Office Properties Trust, the nation’s largest office-building owner and manager, for roughly $36 billion ($20 billion plus $16 billion in assumed debt).

And that’s not the only deal. The WSJ Law Blog ticks off three more billion-dollar transactions: Bank of America acquiring U.S. Trust, Freeport-McMoRan acquiring Phelps Dodge, and Evraz Group acquiring Oregon Steel Mills.

Biglaw shops are involved in all of these transactions. The lucky law firms: Sidley Austin, Simpson Thacher, Cleary Gottlieb, Howard Rice, Wachtell Lipton, Davis Polk, Debevoise & Plimpton, Covington & Burling, and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt (of Oregon).

Okay, “lucky” may not be the right term for people who have probably been pulling one all-nighter after another over the past few weeks (or months). But let’s look on the bright side: the fees from these deals will be delicious. And they’re likely to mean very good associate bonuses for 2006.

How delicious? This is where you come in. For this latest edition of Legal Fee Voyeurism, we’d like to ask you for any information, rumors, or quasi-informed speculation about the fees that firms will be earning on these deals. And, of course, we’re always interested in the related subject of associate bonus scuttlebutt.

Please send any such tips our way, by email. Thanks!

The Biggest LBO Ever: Does The Blackstone REIT Deal Mark the Beginning of the End of Public Companies? [DealBreaker]
M&A Mania: Good for the Lawyers! [WSJ Law Blog]

This post is a continuation of our prior post, ATL Party Crash: The Federalist Society Annual Dinner (Part 1). It consists of additional pictures from the 2006 Annual Dinner of the Federalist Society, which took place last Thursday, at the Marriott Wardman Park.

The Fed Soc banquet is like Oscars night for the legal conservative establishment. The cavernous ballroom was packed with celebrity judges, lawyers, and legal academics, simply too numerous to mention here. Everywhere you turned, you saw a boldface name.

The evening’s two biggest stars were undoubtedly the two justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: Justice Antonin Scalia, honored for his twenty years of service to the Court, and Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the keynote address for the evening.

Our photographs — with numbering continued from the eariler post, law-review style — appear after the jump.

Last Friday, something happened that made Walter Olson, the distinguished scholar and “intellectual guru of tort reform,” a very happy man:

“The government on Friday rescinded a 14-year ban on silicone gel implants for cosmetic breast enhancement, a decision praised by some for providing women with a better product but criticized by others who still question their safety. … After rigorous review, the [Food and Drug Administration] can offer a ‘reasonable assurance’ that silicone implants are ‘safe and effective,’ said Donna-Bea Tillman, director of the FDA Office of Device Evaluation.” (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Daniel Costello, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18).

Silicone breast implants, available to consumers in most other countries, were driven from the market after a campaign of speculation and misinformation by trial lawyers and allied “consumer” groups, particularly Dr. Sidney Wolfe’s Public Citizen Health Research Group. The campaign resulted in billions in legal settlements over nonexistent autoimmune effects from the devices, none of which had to be repaid even after more careful scientific studies dispelled the early alarms.

We suspect Mr. Olson isn’t the only American male who was gladdened by this news.

FDA ends ban on silicone breast implants [Overlawyered]
F.D.A. Will Allow Breast Implants Made of Silicone [New York Times]
Memorable Quotes from Seinfeld (1990) [IMDb]

As we mentioned earlier, we spent much of the past few days attending events at the Federalist Society’s 2006 National Lawyers Convention. Conveniently enough, the convention was held right here in Washington, D.C. (primarily at the Mayflower Hotel).

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Society, here’s a blurb about them from their website:

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

Convention coverage will be interspersed throughout our posts over the next day or two. We attended many interesting events and took tons of pictures, so we have lots to share.

(A note to the American Constitution Society: In the interest of ideological balance, we will gladly cover your national convention next June, if you would be so kind as to invite us.)

A few photographs from the biggest social event of the Fed Soc convention — the Society’s star-studded annual dinner, held on Thursday, November 16, at the Marriott Wardman Park — appear after the jump.

* Let’s see. Romney wants the Massachusetts Supreme Court to force an anti-gay marriage amendment onto the ballot if the legislature fails to act on the issue before the session ends January 2. Wouldn’t that be, um, I dunno, activist? [Associated Press via How Appealing]

* It’s important to find something to occupy your time and stimulate your mind once you retire. It shouldn’t be anything like this, though. [CNN]

* Global warming: the new tobacco? [WSJ Law Blog]

* If he did it, you’re not gonna find out about it on these stations. [AP via Online Athens]

* Suit by stinky man kicked off flight fails to take off in Germany. [AP via Yahoo!]

Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School is one of the country’s most distinguished constitutional scholars and Supreme Court advocates. Having argued before the Court numerous times, Professor Tribe has no fear of the coutroom.

So why did Professor Tribe flee from the Ames Courtroom of Harvard Law School last Thursday? He was scheduled to judge a moot court for Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, the school desegregation case that the Supreme Court will hear next month. But before the arguments began, Professor Tribe bolted from the coutroom, leaving an empty swivel chair on the bench.

From The Harvard Crimson:

Laurence H. Tribe ’62, the Loeb University professor at Harvard, was scheduled to judge the moot court but had to leave upon notice that his dog, Chloe, had been found “shaking like a leaf” on the streets. The traumatized Chloe had fled the sound of a fire alarm in Tribe’s house, jumped a fence, and raced down Brattle Street, where a passerby waited with her while Tribe dashed the mile to the rescue.

Chloe was fine, if “badly-shaken,” said Tribe.

What set off the fire alarm in Larry Tribe’s house? A bonfire of Scalia opinions?

(Gavel bang: How Appealing.)

Desegration Case Argued at Law School [Harvard Crimson]

* Emily Pataki, the attractive and accomplished daughter of New York governor George Pataki, failed the New York bar exam — and sent around an office-wide email about it. The story was broken by the mainstream media.

* We heard from some of Emily’s law school classmates about the incident. In a reader poll, you opined that emailing her White & Case colleagues was unwise.

* The Democratic takeover of the Senate could make things tough(er) for the White House’s judicial nominees.

* Despite the sea change in Washington, President Bush resubmitted six controversial judicial picks to the lame duck Senate. Getting all of them confirmed is probably impossible, but getting two of them through might happen.

* The White House has not yet submitted nominees for the two vacant Fifth Circuit seats. (Texas’s Solicitor General, conservative legal superstar R. Ted Cruz, is said to be uninterested.)

* Borat-related litigation shows no signs of abating.

* O.J. Simpson: He’s back — and he’s still looking for his wife’s killer. Except this time, he’s looking in the mirror.

* Some bad ideas from the past week: getting frisky on an airplane; setting your ex-girlfriend’s kittens on fire; having sex with a deer (even if it’s dead); eating at Burger King or Taco Bell; and getting married without a prenup (if you’re a filthy rich Hollywood celebrity).

* Over the past few days, we’ve been spending some quality time with the Federalist Society. More reports on the proceedings — including lavish photography — will appear in the coming week.

* If you’re going to ban junk food ads, then bring back the cigarette ads! Nothing is as glamorous as a hot girl/guy smoking languorously. I’m only half kidding. [The Guardian]

* It’s great that attorneys have lives outside the law, but these people are probably the type who refer to themselves (and by “themselves,” I mean each of their “personas”) in the third person. [ABA Journal eReport]

* Although still not legal for non-medical purposes, much to Woody Harrelson’s chagrin. [Hit & Run]

Litigation surrounding Sacha Baron Cohen’s controversial comedy, Borat, is turning into a cottage industry for the legal profession. Here’s the latest news:

The owner of an etiquette business who was handed a plastic bag supposedly containing feces in the hit movie “Borat” says she was [falsely] told the filming would be used for a documentary in Belarus.

Cindy Streit said she filed a complaint Thursday with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, requesting an investigation into possible violations of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act.

For those of you who haven’t the film, here’s a description of the scene in question:

Streit said she arranged in Alabama both a sit-down session with Borat, played by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, and a dinner party with some of her friends…. Though awkward at times, the dinner went well until Borat asked to use the bathroom, Streit said.

“I had taught him to excuse himself. He did that correctly and went upstairs,” Streit told The Associated Press. “The next thing that happened is that he came down the stairs holding this plastic bag with whatever was in it.”

“My horror was that he had brought a bag of feces to my dinner table.”

Would-be Borats, consider yourselves warned: Cindy Streit doesn’t take any s**t.

Fun fact: Streit is represented by Gloria Allred, the colorful California litigatrix (and mother of Court TV anchor Lisa Bloom).

Etiquette Coach Files ‘Borat’ Complaint [Associated Press]

Here are a few of the most notable moves within the legal profession:

Reunited and It Feels So Good:

* Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld has returned to the New York office of McDermott, Will & Emery. This year, Weld unsuccessfully ran for the chance to get trounced by Eliot Spitzer the Republican nomination for governor of New York.

* Intellectual property lawyer Brian O’Shaughnessy is back at Buchanan Ingersoll — after Womble Carlyle crowed loudly about scooping him up. Nate Carlile of the Legal Times has the story:

O’Shaughnessy started at Womble the day after Halloween, never spent a moment there practicing law, and was gone before the end of the week. (Actually, it appears he cleared out at about the same time Womble was touting his hire.)

How bizarre, how bizarre.

Government to Private Sector:

* Guy Singer — who worked on the Jack Abramoff corruption case, among several other high-profile prosectuions — is heading for the D.C. office of Florida-based Akerman Senterfitt.

New Partners:

* Cravath, Swaine & Moore: Over at the Death Star, four new partners have been announced: corporate lawyer Craig Arcella, litigator Teena-Ann Sankoorikal, corporate lawyer Andrew Thompson, and corporate lawyer Damien Zoubek. The partnership decisions will be effective January 1, 2007.

A tipster tells us that both Craig and Teena are “very good-looking.” (Feel free to send us pictures.)

* Paul Hastings: Sixteen new partners — three more than last year. Evidently they enjoyed working at the firm more than this guy did. Their names appear here.

Firm Names Larger Class of New Partners [NYLawyer.com]
Well-Travelled Politician Rejoins Old Firm in NY [NYLawyer.com]
Abramoff Prosecutor Quits DOJ for Firm [NYLawyer.com]
NY Associates Making Partner [NYLawyer.com]
After Three Days, Flip-Flopping Partner Quits New Firm for Old Firm [Legal Times]
Paul Hastings Elects Sixteen To Partnership [Paul Hastings]

We recently quoted from this reader comment:

Repeat after me: an office wide email is never, ever a good idea.

This advice, while generally sound, is slightly overbroad. We can think of at least one occasion when an office-wide email is appropriate.

When you leave a job, it’s perfectly appropriate to send around a farewell email to the entire office, if you are so inclined. You should talk about how much you enjoyed working there, thank your colleagues for a great experience, mention your future plans, and provide your contact information (if you wish).

Try to refrain from writing things like this:

While I have a high degree of personal respect for PHJW as a law firm, and I have made wonderful friendships during my time here, I am no longer comfortable working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and Napoleonic personalities. In fact, I dare say that I would rather be dressed up like a pinata and beaten than remain with this group any longer. I wish you continued success in your goals to turn vibrant, productive, dedicated associates into an aimless, shambling group of dry, lifeless husks.

Yep, that’s a quote from an actual good-bye email, which an ex-Paul Hastings associate sent to his former colleagues. You can read the complete email here.

This email is an old one. In the future, the next time you receive a scandalous or funny email message at work, please forward it to us (tips AT abovethelaw DOT com). We love to reprint such emails in these pages. Thanks!

Paul, Hastings: “Gossips, Backstabbers and Napoleonic Personalities” [Gawker]

In our detailed review of possible nominees for the two open Fifth Circuit seats in Texas, we mentioned Texas’s Solicitor General, R. Ted Cruz, as a possible nominee.

After we dropped his name, a number of you wrote in to share your thoughts about him (as frequently happens after we mention someone in these pages). Here are some of your comments:

“Ted Cruz is brilliant — and he knows it. In this respect, he’s like his former boss, ex-Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig. And in both cases, the arrogance is actually warranted.”

“Ted Cruz is a smartest of all the people whose names you floated (probably even including Greg Coleman, but that’s a close call). Cruz is a former Luttig and Rehnquist clerk, and not surprisingly, he’s very well-connected politically. Prior to taking the Texas SG job, he served in the Bush Administration. If nominated, he could face some opposition. He’s very conservative — but when it counts, it’s mostly in a cute libertarian/old Federalist Society sort of way. And he’s very, very political — he may not be an easy sell in a 52-48 51-49 Senate itching to do some damage.”

“Before Ted Cruz was one of America’s top young conservative lawyers, he was a force to be reckoned with on the college parliamentary debate circuit. Debaters would pratically pee in their pants upon learning they’d be going up against him!”

In sum, Ted Cruz is a brilliant, conservative, high-powered Latino lawyer. So why did we call him only an outside possibility for the 5th Circuit?

Is it because he might engender Democratic opposition? Actually, no. Considering that President Bush just resubmitted four controversial circuit court nominees, it’s clear he’s still ready to rumble with the Dems. The White House would probably be fine with nominating Cruz if he wanted a Fifth Circuit seat.

And therein lies the rub. These days we’re hearing that Cruz actually does NOT want to get appointed to that court. At an earlier point in his legal career, a Fifth Circuit seat might have been his dream job (en route to a seat on the Supreme Court). But the latest rumor is that Ted Cruz has grown more interested in elective office lately.

So expect him to run for some prominent elected position in the not-too-distant future. Texas Attorney General? Governor of the Lone Star State? A position representing Texas in the U.S. House or Senate? The sky is the limit for someone as talented as Ted Cruz.

R. Ted Cruz bio [Trolp.org]
Ted Cruz [Wikipedia]

Earlier: Some Fifth Circuit Scuttlebutt

Both Microsoft Outlook and Lotus Notes have a “message recall” feature. Of course, it’s a bit late for Emily Pataki to invoke it, so as to retract the office-wide email she sent to her White & Case colleagues about failing the New York bar exam.

But if Emily agrees with the majority of you, she probably wishes she had never sent that e-mail. Here are the results of our ATL reader poll:

We’re a bit surprised at the tally; we expected the vote to be closer. We didn’t think so many of you would disapprove of her handling of the situation. But this is your verdict, for what it’s worth.

Maybe the best advice can be found in this reader comment: “Repeat after me: an office wide email is never, ever a good idea.”

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Emily Pataki (scroll down)

Today’s sessions at the Federalist Society annual conference kicked off with a speech by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the current (but outgoing) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. His remarks, which focused on the judicial nominations process, were engaging and informative. The crowd enjoyed his dry wit.

We may have more to say about Senator Specter’s address later. For now, a quick account of our exchange with him during the question-and-answer session. When it was our turn to question Senator Specter, we asked:

Senator Specter, as the current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, do you have any thoughts on specific individuals who might be suitable nominees to the Supreme Court? And on a related note, what do you think of Senator Chuck Schumer’s suggestion of you as a possible nominee?

The Senator took the second question first. His good-natured, joking response (paraphrased):

It’s the best idea he’s had in a decade. In fact, it’s the only good idea he’s had in a decade!

Senator Specter went on to note that, back in 1971, he was talked about as a possible Supreme Court nominee (according to the Nixon tapes). He quipped that 1971 “would have been a better time” than today.

Finally, with respect to opining on possible SCOTUS nominees, the senator demurred. He noted that while he certainly could offer some names, as part of the Senate’s “advise and consent” function, he would exercise his discretion not to speak on the subject. He said he expected President Bush to appreciate that decision.

Earlier this year, controversial blonde pundit Ann Coulter joked about putting rat poison in Justice John Paul Stevens’s creme brulee.

Did Coulter give someone an idea? Check out this story, from the Star-Telegram of Forth Worth:

When federal appellate Judge Danny Boggs said at a Friday legal conference at Las Colinas that physical assaults aimed at judges have come mainly from “the deranged,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor underscored the safety concerns.

“Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don’t know why, the staff decided to analyze them,” she recounted. “Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”

Sounds pretty serious, right?

But we must call out Justice O’Connor for exaggerating the seriousness of the threat. It seems the ol’ cowgirl is playing fast and loose with the record. As reported by SCOTUS press corps diva Linda Greenhouse:

The danger posed by the packages was immediately apparent. Each contained a typewritten letter stating either, “I am going to kill you,” or, “We are going to kill you,” and adding, “This is poisoned.”

Supreme Court justices get accused of many things. But illiteracy is not usually among them.

Moreover, Justice O’Connor’s casual statement of “I don’t know why, the staff decided to analyze them” — implying the deadly treats came thisclose to reaching supreme judicial lips — is misleading. Again, per the Queen Bee:

All mail received at the Supreme Court is screened, and the tainted packages never reached the justices, said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer.

So it’s not that easy to poison a Supreme Court justice. Furthermore, even if the poisoned food somehow makes it past the initial screening, to reach a justice’s chambers, success is still not guaranteed. Why? In addition to their other duties, some Supreme Court clerks serve as food tasters for their bosses.

Finally, we fail to see how Justice O’Connor’s tale of the poisoned baked goods refutes Judge Boggs’s point that most threats against judges comes from “the deranged.” Clearly Barbara Joan March, who sent the poisoned packages to the Supreme Court — accompanied by notes that helpfully disclosed their toxic nature — is not a right-thinking person. At the very least, she’s not the most sane, nor the most intelligent, resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Sitting Ducks on the Bench [Star-Telegram (Fort Worth)]
Justice Recalls Treats Laced With Poison [New York Times]
Ann Coulter to Justice Stevens: Drop Dead — Here, Let Me Help [Wonkette]

PG of De Novo, in a post entitled Bad Judgment at White & Case and ATL, had this to say about our Emily Pataki coverage:

I’m disappointed to see that someone forwarded this to David Lat, and that he chose to publish it. The July 2006 New York Bar Exam pass list is not yet public, and while I might expect someone online to pick through the list when it is, pointing out people who were known to have taken the bar yet not passed, to publicize a single person’s failure and her reaction to it is a particular kind of bad taste that I hadn’t expected of either White & Case employees or of Above the Law.

Reprinted below is the comment that we left on De Novo in response:

I actually can’t take credit for breaking this story. I actually first learned about it in a mainstream media blog, the WSJ Law Blog:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/11/14/emily-patakis-email/

But the Wall Street Journal didn’t break this story either. The source with the scoop was actually ANOTHER MSM blog, the New York Observer’s widely read politics blog, The Politicker:

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/11/first-setback.html

So, PG, please don’t hang this all on me just because I’m a blogger (and we bloggers are such easy targets, especially on matters of journalistic ethics). I only touched this story after two MSM organs did — even though I had the email much earlier.

Of course, once the Wall Street Journal and the New York Observer decided to cover this story — a story which, you must admit, lies squarely within the territory of Above the Law — I couldn’t just sit on the sidelines.

PG posted a response to our response; if we get around to it, we’ll offer our rebuttal later today.

Bad Judgment at White & Case and ATL [De Novo]

* It’s finally here: Ohio State vs. Michigan. And the respective law school deans are getting in on the wagering. Dean Nancy Hardin Rogers of Ohio State and Dean Evan Caminker of Michigan cleverly weave law with the age-old rivalry. Dean Rogers asks: “A burning question among the national media is whether the outcome in Columbus on Saturday will have res judicata effect between these two teams, or whether the loser will be able to appeal for a trial de novo at the National Championship game in January.” [WSJ Law Blog]

[Ed. note: Dean Caminker (pictured at right) is no stranger to the pages of Above the Law. ATL readers recently voted him the Hottest Law School Dean in America, an award that he accepted graciously.]

* Law students help uncover more possible violations at Gitmo. [MSNBC]

* Church and state are at it again. [Opinion Journal via How Appealing]

* John Dean chimes in on the re-nominations controversy. [FindLaw]

* Bobbleheads of Justices Kennedy and Stevens are up for bidding on eBay, with proceeds going to chairty. [SCOTUS Blog]

Bestiality-oriented necrophiliacs who live in Wisconsin, we bring you some potentially good news. In the next few weeks, a court could hold that you may have your way with whatever animals you please — as long as they’re dead.

From The Smoking Gun:

Meet Bryan James Hathaway, alleged venison lover. The Wisconsin man, 20, is facing charges that he had sex last month with a dead deer. Hathaway, who previously has served time for killing a horse he intended to sexually assault, allegedly found the deer in a ditch alongside a roadway.

Now Hathaway’s lawyer has filed a court motion (a copy of which you’ll find here) arguing that since the animal was already dead, Hathaway should not face a misdemeanor rap of sexual gratification with an animal. “The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass,” lawyer Fredric Anderson wrote in the motion filed in Douglas County Circuit Court.

Anderson isn’t trying to be a wise-ass; he has a plausible argument of statutory interpretation. Here’s an account of the court hearing on the motion, from The Daily Telegram:

The Webster’s dictionary defines “animal” as “any of a kingdom of living beings,” Anderson said. If you include carcasses in that definition, he said, “you really go down a slippery slope with absurd results.”

Anderson argued: When does a turkey cease to be an animal? When it is dead? When it is wrapped in plastic packaging in the freezer? When it is served, fully cooked?

Sounds persuasive to us. So how did the prosecution respond? Well, they got a little Platonic on defendant’s ass:

“The common and ordinary meaning of a word can be found in how people actually use the word,” Boughner wrote in his response to the motion.

When a person’s pet dog dies, [Assistant District Attorney James Boughner argued], the person still refers to the dog as his or her dog, not a carcass.

“It stays a dog for some time,” Boughner said…. “It did not lose its essence as a deer, an animal, when it died,” he said.

We hope the defendant prevails. ‘Cause we’re really looking forward to Thanksgiving.

Can You Get Dear With A Dead Deer? [The Smoking Gun]
Case Presents Unprecedented Challenge [The Daily Telegram]

* I’d rather go naked than eat foie gras. (Wait, is that how it goes? Like Pamela, I’ll find any excuse to show off my glorious rack.) [New York Sun]

* Would it have been a crime if the motive had been a little head-start on Thanksgiving preparations? Not everyone can be Rachel Ray. (Thank the F*&king Lord.) [Rutland Herald]

* You can still smoke in your detached, single-family residence, where the only victims will be you and anyone else likely to live in a detached, single-family residence. Like your kids. [San Mateo Daily Journal]

* If I had received this book as a stocking stuffer when I was 12, I actually would be sad I didn’t get socks instead. Let’s wait for the movie, and then only if it is narrated by Morgan Freeman. He’s just so kind and knowing. If you don’t just love him, well then, there is something seriously wrong with you. [Lowering the Bar]

* But you’ll still be able to gamble and pay someone for sex. [KTNV]

* May we recommend a theatrical adaptation of this instead? Cute, but not offensive. (We think.) [Chicago Tribune]

As we discussed yesterday, Emily Pataki — daughter of lame duck New York governor George Pataki, a graduate of Columbia Law School, and now an associate a supervised legal intern at White & Case — did not pass the New York bar. This fact became widely known after Emily sent around an office-wide email about the matter.

We’re taking a reader poll to obtain your thoughts on whether or not this was a wise move. We’ll close that poll soon; if you’d like to vote, click here. Several of you also discussed the issue in the comments (where opinions were all over the map).

Also, some of Emily Pataki’s law school classmates responded to our request for firsthand information about her. We’ve collected these responses, which you can read after the jump.

First the New Jersey Supreme Court has to suffer the indignity of the worst judicial portrait ever. And now, this:

A rodent infestation at the Hughes Justice Complex’s cafeteria in Trenton has led state officials to close it down indefinitely and end the contract with the vendor that ran it.

After a health inspection last summer turned up dead rats and other health violations, the vendor, Unique Food Management of Cresskill, was given a chance to fix the conditions, but an inspection last Wednesday found few changes, says Tom Vincz, a spokesman for the state Treasury Department, which oversees the cafeteria.

The state will solicit bids from other firms. Meanwhile, nearly 3,000 workers in the AG’s office, the Supreme Court and other departments will have to go elsewhere for breakfast and lunch.

Unique Food Management, indeed.

Inadmissible: Out to Lunch [New Jersey Law Journal]

Alas, celebrity professor Tim Wu — who was originally scheduled to appear on the Federalist Society Convention panel we just returned from, addressing net neutrality — was not there.

We were graced by the presence of Professor Christopher Yoo, however, and his presentation was excellent. Alas, due to the time constraints, he had to cover his material rather quickly.

Earlier today, we attended an address by Solicitor General Paul Clement, the government’s chief Supreme Court advocate — and were able to meet the man himself. We were in the lobby of the Mayflower Hotel, chatting with fantastic Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro, when Mr. Clement (“General” Clement?) exited the ballroom in which he had just spoken. Mr. Mauro then introduced us to the Solicitor General, who was most genial. He’s a friendly and accessible fellow, despite being a celebrity of the legal profession, with 32 Supreme Court arguments under his belt — at the tender age of 36 40.

(Thanks to this commenter for the correction. Clement was born in 1966. The statement of his age was made in the remarks introducing him, but we neglected to double-check them before posting.)

(We apologize to the Solicitor General for our rather disheveled state. We were unshaven, sweaty, tie-less — and, horror of horrors, wearing a button-down shirt. That has got to violate SOME provision in Title 18 of the U.S. Code!)

As Howard Bashman might say, “Programming Note”:

Over the next three days, we’re going to be attending various events at the Federalist Society’s 2006 National Lawyers Convention. It’s taking place right here in Washington, DC, a few blocks away from where we reside. So we’ll be splitting our time between our blogging HQ (our apartment) and the Mayflower Hotel (which unfortunately doesn’t have wireless internet in its public areas).

We’ll bring you dispatches about the different panels, speeches, and parties that we attend. Right now we’re running off to attend a panel discussion featuring celebrity law professor Tim Wu, among others. Hasta luego!