We've reached the end of another exciting day in the salary wars.

Okay, exciting may be an overstatement. But it's obvious that reader interest in this subject remains high.

After the jump, we reprint a pair of non-announcements -- or perhaps they could be called "placeholder announcements" -- from DLA Piper and Morgan Lewis & Bockius. We also provide space for you to chime in on the latest compensation news, argue over pay differentials in different cities, and bitch about your hours.

To quote Hillary Clinton: "Let the conversation begin!!!"

* The point of this fluff piece feature is that Ferraris are not always penis substitutes. [Legal Times]

* Is there actually a rental market (Netbux?) for books-on-tape? [Patry Copyright Blog]

* New York fashion week starts soon, and I will yet again be reminded that as a woman living in the cultural capital of the world (arguably), I will never amount to anything because I am not 6 feet tall and 105 pounds. So would I really care if they keeled over and died? [Access Hollywood]

* She also claimed to have coined, “I’m listening.” [New York Law Journal]

* Must-see TV, PBS-style. Those of you who know me also know I only discovered PBS when I got to college. And then, I just didn’t care. (Nah, just being obnoxious -- I’ll occasionally watch a well-intentioned documentary or a live concert by some 60s band). [Legal Blog Watch]

* Defense should probably open with a clip of The Birds. [Los Angeles Times]

We haven't seen as many films this year as we usually do. But one of our favorites, either our #1 or #2 pick for the year, is The Queen (directed, and brilliantly so, by Stephen Frears).

Here's a decent plot summary:

In late August 1997, just as Prime Minister Tony Blair was moving into 10 Downing Street, Princess Diana died in a Paris car wreck. England went into traumatized mourning deeper than anyone could have predicted, while the royal family — Diana’s estranged former inlaws — offered no public reaction at all.

As resentment toward the royal cold shoulder built into a monarchical crisis of public opinion, young Mr. Blair [attempts to intervene] with the Queen, [urging] the House of Windsor [to make] a public demonstration of something like humanity.

But Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) resists Blair's call for a more public show of empathy. She is a deeply traditional woman, and as far as she's concerned, Diana's death is a "private matter" -- since Diana, divorced from Prince Charles some time ago, was no longer a "royal" or "HRH" at the time of her death.

The Queen's commitment to tradition makes her tone deaf on the public relations front. She does not know how to navigate the complex and challenging world of the modern mass media. The Queen fails to see the crisis in confidence that is looming -- a crisis that threatens the institution of the monarchy, which she loves above all.

What we must now ask is:

Is H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell, the Biglaw version of "The Queen"?

Our reflections on this question, after the jump.

Cahill Gordon & Reindel has raised base salaries for its associates. The memo -- posted on Infirmation, verified to us by one source at the firm, and emailed to us by another -- appears after the jump.

The story we're about to share with you is great, gossipy fun. But we must warn you that it's not for everyone. It's on the long side, and it's aimed at a rather narrow demographic.

It's most likely to entertain (1) current or former Ninth Circuit clerks and (2) people who follow the federal judiciary very, very closely. If you were a reader of Underneath Their Robes back in the day, then this story is for you.

In recognition of its "inside baseball" nature -- and so as not to inflict it upon people who just want Biglaw salary info -- we've placed the complete story after the jump.

The Justice Department's Shanetta Cutlar isn't the only idiosyncratic manager in the legal profession. The WSJ Law Blog offers up some interesting blind items about bosses from hell challenging supervisors in the world of private practice.

From the main post:

[Wall Street Journal columnist Carol Hymowitz] interviewed Gary Hayes, a psychologist and consultant, who says he worked with a New York law firm where a senior partner flung heavy law books across the room at an associate.

“The associate told me it was all right since the partner intentionally threw to miss — not hit him,” says Hayes. “But the associate soon moved to another firm.”

It's okay to hurl F.3ds at your underlings, as long as you have crappy aim.

And from the comments:

"In the eighties there was a story making the rounds about a partner at a major firm (yes I do know which one) who punctuated a heated discussion by ripping a telephone out of the wall and flinging it across the room at another partner. Does partner v. partner mean it’s ok?"

"There is a certain partner at a certain well-known firm who is reputed to have hit her secretary in the head with a phone."

"It just happened to me on Monday. A partner started yelling at me, reaching a high-pitched crescendo, because I handed him a photocopy of the wrong e-mail in an informal discussion. I almost started laughing, which infuriated him even more. The guy was on the verge of a stroke. I pity the man. He is a punishment to himself."

If you'd like to enlighten us about these blind items, or speculate as to the individuals involved, you may do so -- at your own risk -- in the comments.

We will remind you, as we've done before, that under Section 230, YOU are responsible for any defamatory comments you post. We are providing the forum for discussion, but YOU are the speaker or publisher of your own remarks.

(And only YOU can prevent forest fires.)

The Scream [WSJ Law Blog]

For those of you who are new to ATL, welcome to Legal Eagle Wedding Watch. In this recurring feature, we review the wedding announcements in the storied society pages of the New York Times, pick out three couples in which one spouse is a lawyer, and then score them numerically -- on their credentials, families, looks, and "couple balance." Each week, we declare a winning couple. The winners then square off in our "Couple of the Month" contest.

Due to competing claims on our attention -- e.g., associate pay raise news -- we've fallen a few weeks behind in LEWW. If you can think back that far, please cast your mind back to early January....

The weekend of January 6-7, the first wedding weekend of the new year, was a busy one. The most notable nuptials: the marriage of Ann Leventhal and Judge Jon O. Newman, of the Second Circuit. Numerous legal blogs took note of it.

But there were other lawyer weddings that weekend. Here are the three that we will review and score:

1. Ann Leventhal, Jon Newman

2. Erica Piccininni, Andrew Brettler

3. Debra Salz, David Finkelstein

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

We've confirmed the fact that Wilmer Hale has raised associate base salaries, in Washington and New York. We don't have a memo, though, because associates received personal latters.

More about what we've learned, plus an open thread for your comments, after the jump.

And he was VERY prestigious...

In case you don't visit ATL in the evenings (even though we post at all hours), please check out this post from last night: Please Stop Forwarding the Gallion & Spielvogel Link To All Your Friends, While Laughing Your Ass Off.

It concerns the website of Gallion & Spielvogel, a highly esteemed boutique law firm founded by former associates of the extremely well-regarded, exceptionally international law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. G&S is now representing associate Gera Grinberg -- y'know, the guy who allegedly had an "unnatural relationship" with Aaron Charney -- in connection with Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

As one of you suggested, we reached out to Edward Gallion and Steve Spielvogel. We inquired into the death of their delightful website.

Check out our correspondence to them, after the jump.

We're so excited. Our girlfriend SYC has made the big leagues!

Shanetta Y. Cutlar, the successful and high-powered lawyer who oversees the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section, is the subject of an article in today's Legal Times. We're praised her profusely in these pages; but we're glad that she's finally getting her due in the mainstream media.

Some excerpts:

Ty Clevenger, 37, a former Washington Times reporter and line attorney in the section who was fired in October, has accused veteran Section Chief Shanetta Cutlar of being "abusive toward attorneys and support staff," specifically those hired by Schlozman.

Among Clevenger's allegations: Secretaries were ordered not to assist him with an eight-hour typing project, another attorney was publicly berated for using a paper clip rather than a binder clip on a document, and an intern was reprimanded for not greeting Cutlar while passing her in the hallway.

In his whistleblower complaint, Clevenger included a copy of a statement by the intern, Deborah Meiners, 24, to a DOJ ombudsman about the hallway incident.

"I did get the sense that this was a common occurrence," says Meiners, now a third-year law student, of her treatment.

For those of you who have been wondering if Shanetta Cutlar is aware of her newfound celebrity, the answer is probably yes -- now that the Legal Times has contacted her office for comment:

Cutlar's office referred questions to a DOJ spokeswoman, who issued a statement saying the department is looking into the allegations.

Interesting. Does anyone know what "looking into the allegations" entails?

Is the DOJ conducting a full-blown internal investigation of SPL? Or is it just AAG Wan Kim getting on the phone to Shanetta and saying, "This is all silliness that I don't need to pay attention to, right?"

We hope the latter. As we've previously pointed out, Shanetta Cutlar is just doing her job -- and exceptionally well, at that. We hope that a bunch of whiners and crybabies don't interfere with SYC's longstanding efforts to vindicate federal civil rights laws on behalf of the disabled, prisoners, and other groups who can't stand up for themselves.

To Shanetta Cutlar: Congratulations on your shout-out in the Legal Times!

Whistleblower Complaint Filed Against DOJ Civil Rights Division [Legal Times]

A few more confirmed announcements of associate pay raises have rolled in. We collect and reprint them after the jump, where you should also feel free to continue the discussion from yesterday's open thread. Thanks.

Update: If you read the earliest version of the post, please note that we have added quite a bit of new material to it since we first published it. Refresh your browser to see the latest additions.

* Congress weighs its constitutional war powers. [CNN]

* Paris the Plaintiff. [AP]

* Merck lobbying for mandatory HPV vaccine shots. [MSNBC]

* New Jersey's constitution contains only one use of the word "idiot"? [How Appealing]

* Anyone else have the urge to cancel your firm's OCI at UConn next year? [Smoking Gun]

Sadly, it appears that hordes of Above the Law readers may have taken down Gallion & Spielvogel's exceedingly prestigious, highly coveted server:

This is shocking. The server in question, which has handled all numbers of site visitors in the past, is a top-of-the-line piece of equipment. It was purchased -- secondhand, but in near-mint condition -- from the extremely respected IT department of the deeply esteemed, highly international law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell.

P.S. Yeah, we know -- pot, kettle, etc. We are the LAST people in the world who should be making fun of crappy servers.

Gallion & Spielvogel [official (and highly mortifying) firm website, via Archive.org]
ATL reader comments on the Gallion & Spielvogel website (scroll down)

Earlier: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Now Everybody Gets To Bend Over!

Shanetta Y. Cutlar, a high-ranking official of the U.S. Department of Justice, oversees the Special Litigation Section (SPL) of the Civil Rights Division. As chief of the SPL, Cutlar is a steward(ess) of our nation's civil rights laws.

And, of course, Cutlar is a great diva -- which is why we adore her so much.*

Those who get to see a great diva up close, or to work with one, are truly blessed. So what if divas are difficult? That's why we call them divas.

It should come as no surprise, then, that working for Shanetta Cutlar comes with a few occupational hazards. From a former employee at SPL:

I loved my position, duties and responsibilities. Unfortunately, in time I become a victim of Shanetta's vicious, often brutal attacks, of constant, uncontrolled rage.

I tried to tolerate and persevere. But eventually the stress began to take a physical toll on me. Down to my last few months or so with the Department, I suffered a bout of diarrhea, each and every morning, before going to work.

My nerves were wrecked. I soon realized I had to seek employment elsewhere outside of the Department.

So I left DOJ and Shanetta. Life is good again.

Color us incredulous. You sacrificed the opportunity to work under an amazing lawyer and leader because, well, you had a touch of the runs?

You need to toughen up. Your "problem" wasn't anything that couldn't have been solved with a family-sized bottle of Kaopectate. And a lifetime supply of Depends.

* Sorry, Shalini. We will not apologize for having a weakness for divas. We have loved divas for our entire life, ever since we popped out of one's womb.

For those of you who care (all six of you), we defend our fixation on divas after the jump.

* The Guber Downward-Facing Dog Trial coming soon. [De Novo; MSN]

* If you don’t know who’s the “real lawyer” at the table, it’s you. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Kosher-ness may be inapplicable to porn, but I would not want to venture a guess as to Mr. Cohen’s idea behind his trademark. [Likelihood of Confusion]

* Another reason hedge funds are shady? You don’t say. [Professor Bainbridge]

We have to step out for a bit. We'll probably be back online later tonight; but our later posts may not necessarily be salary information.

So feel free to treat this post as the end-of-day open thread. Have at it, folks!

And if you can confirm a rumored announcement, please email us. Thanks!

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

As we mentioned earlier today, word on the street is that Sullivan & Cromwell has hired veteran employment litigator Zachary Fasman (at right), chair of the employment law practice in the New York office of Paul Hastings, to represent S&C in connection with Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

That rumor has now been confirmed. We emailed Zach Fasman for comment, and we received this response:

David:

I can confirm that I have been retained by Sullivan & Cromwell in this matter. I cannot provide any further comment.

Thanks.

- Zach Fasman

It will therefore fall to Mr. Fasman, and his associate minions, to quiz Eric Krautheimer on his bathroom reading habits. Fun stuff.

P.S. Thanks for all of your astute and amusing comments about Gera Grinberg's lawyers at Gallion & Spielvogel -- whose website is not to be missed.

Zachary D. Fasman [Paul Hastings]

Earlier: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Now Everybody Gets To Bend Over!
Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

As we've learned from emails, comments, and our tracking software, many of you are new to Above the Law. Welcome!

Here at ATL, we have a long and distinguished tradition of "hotties contests." We've previously held contests for America's hottest ERISA lawyers, law school deans, and 3L students at NYU Law. They were all huge hits within their respective communities.

Why do we hold hotties contests? Well, for better or worse, the legal profession is ruled by brains. Focusing on beauty provides a welcome respite from the credentials obsession that infects the law (and that we, of all people, are very guilty of -- especially with respect to Supreme Court clerks).

As the old saying goes, "Looks aren't everything." But neither are brains. Lawyers need to be reminded that there are things that matter in life besides where you went to law school or which judge you clerked for. E.g., How good do you look shirtless?

(In the case of Harry Potter, aka actor Daniel Radcliffe (at right -- photo via Drudge), the answer is: Pretty damn good.)

Hence our ATL hotties competitions. Our last beauty contest took place a long time ago; it's time for a new one.

We've received a number of different suggestions. We've narrowed the list down to two choices, which we will now poll you on:

No, we haven't heard anything on Latham & Watkins. But if you have, and you work there, please drop us a line.

It's quite possible that nothing was accomplished at the LW committee meeting earlier today. That sometimes happens at law firm meetings, y'know.

After the jump, we pass along information about Goodwin Procter (New York). It's rather old, and it has previously appeared in the comments.

But we don't believe it has been on the main page yet. So here it is, for what it's worth.

Of course they do. Debevoise & Plimpton paid generous bonuses in 2006. And they went along with the latest pay raises, with scarcely any hesitation.

So we can't help wondering:

Why do some of their associates still have roommates?

Then again, this roommate situation isn't the typical set-up of two post-college kids throwing up a sheetrock wall in a 500-square-foot one bedroom. It's an amazing apartment on Lower Broadway, a sprawling loft with high ceilings and great furniture -- courtesy of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," on which Berman once appeared (even though he's actually gay).

Jeff Berman went into this roommate arrangement not knowing for certain whether it would work out. Per the New York Times:

For Mr. Berman, a young lawyer who had met Ms. [Lauren] Reece — then Billy — at a bar in Chelsea two years before, moving in with a transsexual required a leap of faith. He was worried that a host of changes, physical as well as psychological, would make the perky Ms. Reece “a bit unstable.”

As it turns out, domestic tranquillity reigns. The two roommates could pass for a suburban couple: Mr. Berman, 26, in workout pants and a T-shirt, Ms. Reece, 28, in a pink cardigan and pearl necklace.

Aww... Isn't that cute?

But look, even if Lauren Reece has turned out to be a total head case, Jeffrey Berman might still have wanted to move in. Why? As everyone knows, space-deprived Manhattanites are sluts for square footage. Who wouldn't room with someone "a bit unstable" -- heck, aren't we all -- in exchange for 1,400 square feet and 14-foot ceilings?

Hell, we'd move in with a transsexual PROSTITUTE if he/she had a pad that fabulous. Give us earplugs and some hand sanitizer, and we're good to go.

Update: Yes, this post has been tweaked slightly since its original incarnation.

In the Right Place at the Right Time [New York Times]
Jeffrey C. Berman [Debevoise & Plimpton]

Last Friday, we attended a fantastic lunch talk by Judge Janice Rogers Brown (near right; her celebrity doppelganger, Wanda Sykes, is on the far right).

In case you're not familiar with her, Judge Brown is a leading judicial diva. She's a former justice of the California Supreme Court and a current member of the D.C. Circuit. In light of her inspirational life story -- she's an African-American female, the daughter of sharecroppers -- and her seat on our nation's most prestigious circuit court, Judge Brown is frequently mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

We'll have more to write about the event later -- plus some of our fabulously horrendous photographs, an ATL trademark. For now, though, we just want to share you the best quip of the day (or the "money quote," as those political bloggers like to say):

"I have NEVER thought of myself as a diva."

What caused her to utter this sentence? During the Q and A, we got up and asked her (among other things): "Judge Brown, you're a fabulous judicial diva. But you're stuck on a court that focuses on administrative law. Do you feel that being on the D.C. Circuit cramps your diva style?"

This was just one of several delightful moments from a great event. We'll provide a more detailed report later.

Calendar of Lawyer Division Events [Federalist Society]
Fili-BUSTED! Magnificent Judicial Divas [UTR]

Earlier: The Courtroom of Style: Judge Janice Rogers Brown

1. Expect a Latham & Watkins announcement imminently. We've been reliably advised that the Associates Committee of LW met this morning, by conference call, from 11:30 AM to 12:10 PM (Eastern time).

2. In terms of the struggle for ATL's soul -- i.e., the heated debate over "salary vs. non-salary" coverage -- here is what we're going to do:

(a) We will continue to cover salary developments, but we will put the information and memos after the jump, so they won't clutter up the main page. (For those of you who are new to ATL -- and we can tell from our traffic stats that there are many of you -- "after the jump" is blogspeak for "Click on the 'Continue reading' link.")

(b) We will also start increasing the number of non-salary-related posts that we publish. After all, the biggest news -- the original Simpson Thacher raise, and the setting of baselines in various major cities -- is pretty much over. Much of what's going on now is just follow-up.

We hope this will strike a balance that will make most of you happy. Thanks for reading!

Why do we say this? Because more lawyers are on the scene, that's why! And now everybody gets to grab their socks.

(Internal investigations: Fun for the whole family!)

Here's a quick update on what's going on in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the lawsuit filed by Aaron Charney against S&C, alleging anti-gay discrimination and retaliation.

On the civil litigation front, Sullivan & Cromwell has a week or two before it must answer Charney's Complaint (PDF). As we previously mentioned, S&C is conducting an internal investigation into some of Charney's allegations.

Here's the latest news:

1. Sullivan & Cromwell associate Gera Grinberg, the purportedly straight associate with whom plaintiff Aaron Charney had a relationship that an S&C partner allegedly referred to as "unnatural" (HOTT!!!), has retained counsel: Gallion & Spielvogel.

Some time ago, we tried to contact Mr. Grinberg. We received this response from his new lawyers:

David Lat:

I understand that you recently have attempted to speak with Sullivan & Cromwell associate attorney Gera Grinberg.

Please be advised that my law firm, Gallion & Spielvogel, has been retained to represent Mr. Grinberg. My partner, Steven Spielvogel, and I are both alumni of Sullivan & Cromwell’s Litigation Department; we have a great deal of experience with internal corporate inquiries and, in fact, our firm specializes in handling such sensitive internal investigations.

As you can well understand, under the circumstances we have instructed our client not to speak directly with any media representatives. To the extent that you wish to contact Mr. Grinberg for any reason in the future, you should direct your inquiry to me at my law firm by email.

I trust that you and other representatives of your organization will refrain from any further attempts to reach my client directly.

Thank you.

Edward R. Gallion
Gallion & Spielvogel

Interesting that Grinberg has hired lawyers who are former S&C litigators (and presumably still on good terms with the firm). We wouldn't be surprised if the powers-that-be at the firm pointed Grinberg in Gallion's direction.

Why has Grinberg retained counsel? We're guessing Gallion is representing Grinberg in connection with Sullivan & Cromwell's internal investigation. Speaking of which...

2. We previously asked you which outside law firm was handling S&C's investigation.

We haven't confirmed this 100 percent. But we are hearing on the street that S&C has retained Paul Hastings. The team is said to be led by Zachary Fasman, a Paul Hastings partner who specializes in employment litigation.

We will contact Mr. Fasman and let you know what, if any, comment he has to offer.

If you have info you can share about this matter, please contact us.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Sorry for the technical difficulties. Happily, we're now back online.

Akin Gump has announced its compensation scheme for New York and Washington offices (and perhaps others; these are the ones we've confirmed).

Pay scales for Akin Gump, after the jump.

* Suing BAR/BRI is something we all wanted to do at some point. [ABA]

* Legislation introduced to create CSPAN 3: The Supremes. [WSJ Law Blog]

* What comes before the Iowa caucuses? Law review elections, of course. [New York Times]

* Ari Fleischer testifies in Libby trial regarding leak of confidential information, and the Miami Dolphins. [MSNBC]

* Brandy may face misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter charges. [CNN]

* Fraternity brothers get jail time for hazing. [CNN]

Our Latham & Watkins sources agree with the commenters who dismissed this memo as fake (or, if real, not yet released to all associates).

We're signing off for now. Please continue the discussion, and post additional announcements, in the comments to this post. Thanks.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Below is the Sidley Austin memo -- sent us to by one source, verified by a second.

MEMORANDUM

TO: All U.S. Associates
FROM: The Management Committee
RE: Associate Salaries
DATE: January 29, 2007

We value highly our associates and your contributions to the Firm's continued success. We also recognize the need to remain competitive with market conditions in order to recruit and retain the talent required to serve our clients. Accordingly, we are announcing increases in our standard salaries as follows, effective January 1, 2007.

Associates in our domestic offices other than New York will receive increases bringing standard salaries to the following levels:

Class of 2006 – $145,000
Class of 2005 – $155,000
Class of 2004 – $170,000
Class of 2003 – $190,000
Class of 2002 – $210,000
Class of 2001 – $225,000
Class of 2000 – $240,000

For New York associates standard salaries are as follows:

Class of 2006 – $160,000
Class of 2005 – $170,000
Class of 2004 – $185,000
Class of 2003 – $210,000
Class of 2002 – $230,000
Class of 2001 – $250,000
Class of 2000 – $265,000
Class of 1999 – $280,000

The differential between New York and offices other than New York is a reflection of market and cost-of-living factors.

As we have done in the past, we will address, on an individual basis, compensation for Counsel and associates in class years more senior than those listed above.

With your continued dedication and effort, we look forward to another strong year.

This is the Paul Hastings memo that went out earlier today (and previously posted in the comments). We have verified it with several sources at the firm.

Date: January 29, 2007

To: Stamford and New York Associates
cc: Stamford and New York Partners, All Office Chairs and AD Chairs, All Recruiting & Development

From: Jim Owens and Elizabeth Noe
Co-Chairs, Attorney Development

Subject: FY2008 Compensation Structure for Associates, New York and Stamford Offices

We are pleased to announce the Firm will be increasing base-level salaries for U.S. associates in Stamford and New York effective as of the new fiscal year which commences February 1, 2007.

FY2008 Compensation by Class Year is as follows:

Seniority Year / Class year
Stamford & New York

Entering 2007 160,000

1st / 2006 160,000

2nd / 2005 170,000

3rd / 2004 185,000

4th / 2003 210,000

5th / 2002 230,000

6th / 2001 250,000

7th / 2000 265,000

8th+ / 1999 280,000

These increases reflect the Firm’s commitment to paying at the top tier of the market in New York. The commitment to compete at the top tier extends to all of our markets. We will be making salary determinations in our other markets over the next several days. In all cases, any increase in base salary levels will made retroactive to February 1.

We thank you for and commend your performance, commitment and hard work throughout the year and your contributions to our success.

Please feel free to contact us or your local Attorney Development Committee Chair or Office Chair if you have any questions.

Here's the Sheppard Mullin memo that went out earlier today:

To All Associates:

The Executive Committee is pleased to announce we are increasing the base compensation for all Associates. The 2007 base compensation for our first year Associates in New York will be $160,000, and for our Associates in all other offices $145,000. These new first year levels are consistent with those of our competitors. Base compensation for other classes will also be increased. The amounts for other classes will be announced shortly. The increases will be effective retroactive to January 1, 2007 and will first show up in your February 15, 2007 paycheck. You will also at that time receive the retroactive portion.

2006 was an exciting and successful year, and we look forward to working together to make 2007 even better. Thank you for the energy and hard work that has made our Firm prosper.

Count-down to Superbowl Sunday!

* Turns out those Superlawyer rankings are unrelated to true super legal powers after all. [Crime & Federalism]

* While “Supermax” may sound like an office supply warehouse store, it’s not nearly as fun. [Sentencing Law and Policy]

* In an effort to stay relevant without resorting to cell phone violence, once-ubiquitous (and once
“Super”) model Niki Taylor is suing E! for slander. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* Air America has been saved from its own personal Superhero. [HuffPo]

Are you familiar with the delightful song "One, Two Step," by Ciara (featuring Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott, who used to live down the street from us)?

If not, do yourself a favor, and check out the video. It begins with voice-over by a rapper who exultantly announces, in major-domo fashion, "The Princess is here!!!"

The Princess is here!!! That's how we feel every time we get to write about Shanetta Y. Cutlar. In case you're new to ATL, as many of you are, Shanetta Cutlar is the divine diva who oversees the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section.

Over the past few weeks, we've written a great deal about the colorful Ms. Cutlar (who is clearly a public official, by virtue of her influential DOJ post, even if she's not a political appointee). We consider pretty much all of our coverage of her to be highly flattering. Far from reflecting any actual malice, it exhibits genuine affection for her.

But for those of you who don't share our love of strong-willed women, we have some more conventionally positive feedback about Shanetta Cutlar. Check it out, after the jump.

If you were hoping that Cravath was going to up the ante for associate base salaries, we're sorry to disappoint you. As reported last week in the comments, CSM basically matched the Simpson Thacher scale (after a bit of a delay; perhaps they were deliberating about besting the market).

For your reading pleasure, here's the official pay raise memorandum from Cravath, Swaine & Moore, which went around on Friday afternoon:

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Last week we opened up a reader poll concerning billable hours. We'll keep it open until 5 PM today. You can check it out, and cast your vote, by clicking here.

A number of you had various quibbles with the poll -- the wording of the question, the methodology, etc. Such is to be expected from an audience of lawyers. But we do admit our earlier poll was more complicated than necessary. (Also, it was rather narrowly targeted, limited to lawyers on the new "Simpson Thacher" payscale.)

Here are two more general polls for your consideration. One is for those of you at large law firms (defined as 100+ lawyers firmwide), and the second is for those of you who are not at Biglaw shops. Some quick notes:

1. These polls are highly unscientific, vague, etc. (and we're sure that after we put them up, a number of you will come up with refinements to them). But just humor us and take them -- they're just for entertainment purposes, really.

2. In the second poll, for non-Biglaw lawyers, if you work in an office where you're not required to bill hours -- e.g., government -- just provide what you regard as the rough equivalent of billables. (We are not going to get into such fine points as whether a particular meeting in your office is more like a billable meeting with clients or a non-billable, internal administrative meeting.)

3. If you didn't work for the entire year in 2006 -- e.g., you're a first-year who arrived in the fall -- just annualize your billables. Or come up with a rough estimate of what you would have billed had you been there for the whole year.

We are overlooking all sorts of little niceties. But we don't care; we don't want to complicate matters. These polls, while crude, will shed light on the questions we're really trying to get at:

1. Do Biglaw attorneys work harder than non-Biglaw attorneys?

2. If so, how much harder do they work (and is it worth the extra money)?

THANKS!!!

Note: To see the results of these polls WITHOUT voting, click here (for the Biglaw poll) and here (for the non-Biglaw poll).

Earlier: Prior ATL reader polls (scroll down)

We have a number of associate base salary memos in the queue for publication (including some from last week, when tech problems frustrated publication). Rest assured, we will get around to posting them. (Considering that nobody is doing anything particularly exciting -- e.g., besting Simpson Thacher -- the time pressures for publication aren't great.)

But for those of you who like your news to be breaking, here's a memo that's still warm from the photocopier. One of you already posted it in the comments. But for the record, and for those of you who only read the ATL main page, the LeBoeuf Lamb pay raise announcement is reprinted below.

Note that LeBoeuf will be paying New York salaries to its DC associates (as indicated in the addressee line for the memo). Note also that this memo is with all the horn-tooting enthusiasm of a press release, perhaps in the anticipation that it would get leaked outside the firm:

If you're trying to figure out what the new standard salaries are going to be in DC, it's hard to ignore Covington & Burling. Covington is regarded by many as the archetypal Washington law firm.

As previously noted in the comments, we have confirmed pay raises for Covington associates. We thank the multiple sources who sent us this memo (in various forms):

Our tipsters draw our attention to these highlights:

"Covington DC salaries are same as Hogan, but 7th and 8th years (1999 and 2000 classes) at Covington will be paid $5,000 less than at Hogan & Hartson (assuming billables of 1950 or more). No explanation provided for why senior associate salaries are now less at Covington than at Hogan."

"Brussels is still being evaluated."

Because, you know, it's all about Brussels.

Or actually, "I'm missing you already." Supreme Court justices have feelings too, y'know.

The former cheerleader and current Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader "Kiki" Ginsburg, misses having a "wing-woman" when she visits the highest ladies' room in the land. Per Joan Biskupic of USA Today:

It's been a year since Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court after a quarter-century tenure and left Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the lone woman on the nine-member court. Although it's unclear how O'Connor's departure will affect the law, this much is certain: Ginsburg misses her friend, and worries about the message court visitors get when they see only one woman on the bench.

"The word I would use to describe my position on the bench is lonely," Ginsburg, 73, said in an interview with USA TODAY.

"This is how it was for Sandra's first 12 years," she said, citing the time from O'Connor's appointment in 1981 to Ginsburg's arrival in 1993. "Neither of us ever thought this would happen again. I didn't realize how much I would miss her until she was gone."

Awww.... Isn't that cute? Who knew that someone who spent 13+ years dealing with admin law could be so sentimental?

(We aren't joking about the supreme judicial ladies room. As indicated here by Jan Crawford Greenburg, aka the Eve Harrington of One First Street, the justices' robing room has a women's bathroom -- even though it didn't back when Justice O'Connor first joined the Court.)

Ginsburg 'Lonely' Without O'Connor [USA Today]
Madame Justice [Legalities via How Appealing]

We have confirmed pay raises in the New York and Los Angeles offices of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Our understanding is that the information was communicated in meetings, so there's no memo or other official documentation.

We have verified the following pay scales with sources in Stroock's NY and LA offices:

STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN

New York:
Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000

Los Angeles:
Class of 2006 - $150,000
Class of 2005 - $160,000
Class of 2004 - $175,000
Class of 2003 - $185,000
Class of 2002 - $200,000

As for Stroock L.A. associates in more senior classes, we're told that raises are "discretionary." If you can clarify that opacity, please drop us a line.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

* With tax law, the sky's the limit. Seriously. [CNN; TaxProf Blog]

* Slow... Typist... Sues... His... Law... School. Must have taken forever to type the complaint (especially with a last name like "Zachariasewycz"). [WSJ Law Blog]

* ACLU seeks disclosure on NSA wiretaps in the Sixth Circuit. [SCOTUSblog]

* Vote Roberts for Chief Justice! [SCOTUSblog]

Blind items: they're not just about adulterous tycoons and drug-addicted celebrities.

Sometimes they're about antitrust lawyers at large law firms. Here's a blind item from, of all places, Antitrust Review:

We hear that the entire antitrust group of a major firm is moving to an even more major New York firm, effective Monday Jan 29 (all partners, special counsels and associates, both in the NY office and in the DC office). The group has been at the current firm only for a relatively short time and is now moving again. And this time, none of the group are staying behind.

Keep your eyes peeled on Monday, this move will be big news, we’ll post more detail once the story hits the papers.

The story has now hit the papers, including the Wall Street Journal. It's the antitrust group of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, which just left for Skadden Arps.

The group is led by Steven Sunshine (above right), a former DOJ antitrust official who is based in Washington, and Jess Biggio and Matthew Hendrickson, who practice out of New York. Sunshine and Biggio are coming onboard as partners; Hendrickson is joining Skadden as counsel.

Major Antitrust Group Moves [Antitrust Review]
Skadden Adds Sunshine To Its Antitrust Practice [Wall Street Journal via WSJ Law Blog]

We have a bit of a backlog of law firm associate pay raise announcements. We'll be clearing that backlog over the course of the day today, as well as publishing any new memos and emails that we receive (interspersed with our non-compensation coverage).

Here is the Kramer Levin email announcing increases in base salaries for its associates, which went out on Friday afternoon:

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

[Ed. note: These Non-Sequiturs from Stella Q should have been published on Friday the 26th, but as you may have noticed, we were experiencing technical difficulties at the time.]

* Paris Hilton again? We too are complicit in the current state of our nation. But we would at least have recognized Ruth Ginsburg. If you’re not STILL preoccupied with Biglaw salary raises, you should be outraged right now. [New York Post]

* Regardless of who wins or loses, it’s free publicity for both. Perhaps the entire point of Ms Millenia “No Racial Profiling” Black? [Overlawyered]

* If you spot anything new in this dialogue, then let me know. [New York Times]

* I don’t know if Lat is rubbing off on me or what, but I think I will pick this book up this weekend. Enough with the hipster fiction already. (But the less self-conscious, less post-modern fiction, I’ll keep.) [Legal History Blog]

* Rap Label sues, er, Condoleeza Rice and, er, Canada. And people say Canadians are irrelevant. [JD2B]

You know what to do, people. Gossip away in the comments to this post.

As for solid confirmations received since our round-up, we have Fish & Richardson and Cravath (PDF to be posted shortly, but upshot is: all numbers the same as Simpson, through Class of 2000).

Many other rumors are floating around. We're following up on a bunch of them, including Kramer Levin and Stroock.

If you can provide confirmation, please email us. Thanks.

P.S. If you're not comfortable with providing us substantive information by email, then send us a message asking for our phone number and/or AIM screen name. We'll reply with the requested contact info, and you can follow up with us by whatever means you prefer.

We love reader polls; it's interesting to take the pulse of an informed electorate. We have two polls currently running, both about the celebrated case of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. To vote in those polls (or to change your vote if you previously voted), click here and here.

Now we bring you a third poll, related to the other big story in Biglaw: associate pay raises. A reader sent this message to us:

Would you consider a poll asking how many hours people at the biglaw firms who just received salary comps are working? I'm at a second-tier biglaw firm (am law 100 with nyc, dc, cali offices + regional markets) that's considering what to do with compensation.

The reluctance to matching [the $160K payscale] is expressed as "associates at those firms just bill more hours than our associates do." An empirical -- though not necessarily scientific -- survey would be helpful to confirm or debunk that position.

We like this idea. So, if you're now on what we'll dub the "$160,000 Simpson Thacher pay scale," please take the poll that appears below. Three caveats/comments:

1. We realize there are divergences in salary at higher levels. We're going to ignore them for now. If you're on some variant of the "$160K, $170K, etc." pay scale, you're eligible to vote.

2. If you are NOT on the $160K payscale, please do NOT vote -- even if you just got a pay raise (e.g., from $135K to $145K). One goal of this poll is to determine how hard a "$160,000 Associate" works (and whether she works that much harder than, say, a "$145,000 Associate"). That goal would be frustrated by participation of non-$160K associates.

3. Our standard caveat about our polls: We realize that "ineligible" voters might vote, that this poll is highly unscientific, etc. That's okay; nothing turns on this poll. It's just for the proverbial "s**ts and giggles."

Without further ado, here's the poll:

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

We've been providing salary news updates in the comments because, due to technical difficulties, it's more reliable than trying to do so here on the main page. For your reference, here are links to the latest announcements:

1. Allen & Overy: Confirmed. Memo is here.

2. Debevoise & Plimpton: Confirmed. Memo is here.

3. McKee Nelson: Confirmed. Memo is here.

(We will spare you the details of the boring debate over whether they should be considered a DC firm with a very large New York office, which is the obvious preference of McKee Nelson's media relations people, or a firm that's roughly split between the two cities. How many D.C. associates can dance on the head of a pin?)

4. Schulte Roth & Zabel: Confirmed. Transmittal email for PDF memo is here.

****************************
Paging Biglaw boys: Is the retroactive portion of your pay burning a whole in your pocket? Are you trying to figure out how to spend $1,000 in found money?

Fret not. Have we got an idea for you:

For the High-End Bathroom, Something Unexpected [New York Times]

[Ed. note: It seems to be pure luck as to why we've been allowed to access this post through Movable Type, even though we can't access other ones or create new posts. So please refrain from asking us why we're publishing this rather than more salary coverage. Thanks.]

For those of you who have no interest in Biglaw pay raises, here's a bit of counterprogramming about Shanetta Cutlar.

In case you're not familiar with her, Shanetta Y. Cutlar is the Chief of the Special Litigation Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. She's a high-ranking DOJ official, and she's a colorful boss. Click here for a summary of her managerial quirks.

Ever since we started writing about her, lawyers who used to work under her have been emerging from the woodwork. They've been sending us a steady stream of stories about their time working for "SYC." Here's the latest, concerning a Shanetta Cutlar institution called "Docket Review":

Has anyone told you yet about "Docket Review" -- or rather, the Spanish Inquisition, which was probably less painless? Dear God, thinking back on it makes me cringe.

When you first arrive in the office, everyone warns you about it. Never, EVER miss Docket Review; be AT YOUR DESK when summoned for your meeting, or face the wrath of Shanetta; and NEVER tell her you don't know the answer to a question. It's nothing short of terrorizing.

Docket Review happens four times a year. During this time period, everyone is stressed out, and nobody gets any work done. In short, the entire Section is in an uproar -- for days.

The process begins when an email goes around about DR scheduling. This immediately triggers a stampede of people going to the staff assistant's office to sign up -- it's insane.

When signing up for Docket Review, there's an elaborate strategy involved. Some people like to get it over with as soon as possible, so they sign up for the very first slot. The main concern is not to go immediately after certain people that you know will have a bad one, placing SYC in a foul mood. Another dreaded spot is the time slot right before lunch.

In advance of your Docket Review meeting, you have to write up a memo summarizing the status of your cases. This stupid memo must comply, to the letter, with certain SYC specifications. It must be uniform and perfect, down to the spacing and formatting, and completely free of typos -- as if you were filing it in Court.

At the appointed hour, you are summoned to SYC's conference room. This is, by the way, "her" conference room. No one else can ever use it, even if she's not using it herself or even if she's out of town.

When you enter the SYC conference room, Shanetta is seated at the far end. Her deputies are lined up on both sides of the table, and you're on the other end. Surprisingly, there's no spotlight, but you feel like one is glaring down on you anyway.

During the meeting, the deputies are COMPLETELY SILENT. They're in the room, but they're not permitted to talk. It's just you and Shanetta.

Docket Review is a total game of "Gotcha." SYC asks you a question she already knows the answer to, listens to your response, twists your words, and then somehow turns it all around on you -- so you look like an incompetent fool.

Here I must begrudgingly give her credit. Making you look like you know absolutely nothing about your own cases, even though you've been toiling away on them for months, is a peculiar kind of art form. And Shanetta is a master of it.

Rarely does a Docket Review go well. As a matter of fact, going well is the exception, certainly not the rule. Some reviews have ended in screaming matches that carry on down the hall. After several confrontations with one particular attorney, he was quickly moved by the front office to a different section, out of open season.

Another attorney, who came up with the brilliant idea of telling Shanetta he was leaving the Section during his Docket Review, was escorted out of his office by the FBI a few days later.

(Admittedly, there may have been some cause for that. He had told Shanetta that he wished the Section was like "a cartoon world," in which he could toss a bowling-ball shaped bomb into her office....)

Why do we suspect that he's not the only person who has harbored that particular fantasy?

Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell isn't the only discrimination lawsuit against a large law firm kicking around New York Supreme Court these days. Earlier this month, a complaint was filed in the case of Yasmin Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Meet Harley I. Lewin (at right), a shareholder (partner) in the New York office of Greenberg Traurig LLP. According to his firm bio, he's the head of their trademarks and global brand strategies practice.

And according to allegations made by Yasmin Marinaro, a Latina female who previously worked as his administrative assistant, Harley Lewin:

-- described her to two male clients, within her earshot, as a "hot tomato";

-- told these two clients that they should "check her out," then called her into his office, "whereupon Lewin and his male guests ogled her";

-- referred to her by the nickname "Chiquita Banana";

-- ordered her into his office, "whereupon he would instruct her to view sexually explicit and inappropriate emails";

"encourag[ed] her to gain weight so that she would be more sexually attractive";

-- attempted to intimidate her into not coming forward with her allegations by sending her an email entitled "Be Careful," in which he urged her to "keep [her] own counsel"; and

-- played a role in her allegedly retailatory firing from Greenberg Traurig.

Juicy allegations -- and there's more in the full Complaint.

Alas, we don't have enough time to do it justice right now. But we'll surely have more to say next week about the case of Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP. If you'd like to read the Complaint for yourself, we've provided a link below.

Yasmin Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP [New York Supreme Court (PDF)]
Harley Lewin bio [Greenberg Traurig]

It was sent around about ten minutes ago. A source at the firm helpfully provided it to us, along with this exultant cry:

"And they said we weren't vault top 20! HAH!"

From: Tvetenstrand, Paul D.
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:58 AM
To: NYC Associates; DC Associates
Cc: Partners
Subject: 2007 Salary Increase

Consistent with our efforts to make certain that you are paid in accordance with the top of the market, we are pleased to inform you that we are increasing annual base salaries for our Associates. The classes of 2006, 2005 and 2004 will receive $15,000 increases. The classes of 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 and 1998 will receive $20,000 increases. We are also raising the base salary for the members of the Class of 2007, who will arrive in the fall, by $15,000.

These increases will be retroactive to January 1, 2007 and will be reflected in your February 15, 2007 paycheck. The increases will be paid to those Associates who are in good standing and with the Firm as of February 15. Increases for those Associates who work part-time or joined the Firm after January 1, 2007 will be prorated. Increases for associates more senior than the class of 1998 will be determined on an individual basis.

On behalf of the Firm, I would like to personally thank you for all of your dedication and hard work.

PDT

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Once the dust settles, we'll put up a comprehensive chart showing which large law firms have raised base salaries for which of their associates. That listing will indicate which law firms are paying the $160K salary scale across the board, which ones are doing so only in New York, and which ones are somewhere in between.

We'll publish this full law firm salary chart after more data points have materialized -- and after the situation has completely stabilized. It's theoretically possible (even if unlikely) that some firm might come along and bump rates up by another $5K or so. We're going to hold off on preparing a more elaborate chart until the final figures are in.

For now, and for your ready reference, these are the law firms that are confirmed as having recently instituted some form of associate pay raise (whether universal or New York-only):

-- Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
-- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
-- Clifford Chance
-- Davis Polk & Wardwell
-- Dewey Ballantine (actual memo here)
-- Fried Frank
-- Greenberg Traurig
-- Hogan & Hartson (additional discussion here)
-- Kaye Scholer
-- King & Spalding
-- Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy
-- Morrison & Foerster (NYC and non-NYC)
-- O'Melveny & Myers (additional discussion here)
-- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
-- Proskauer Rose
-- Quinn Emanuel
-- Shearman & Sterling
-- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
-- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
-- Sullivan & Cromwell
-- Weil Gotshal & Manges
-- White & Case
-- Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Please inform us of notable omissions, and please continue to send supporting documentation -- announcement emails and memos, or descriptions of the notification process if not made in writing -- to tips AT abovethelaw DOT com. Thanks.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

California may be the Golden State -- but not when it comes to the handcuffs placed on Biglaw associates.

On the West Coast, the handcuffs are silver rather than golden. We previously posted the compensation memo for Morrison & Foerster's New York office. Now, for comparison purposes, here's the memo for the firm's associates beyond the Big Apple:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wetmore, Keith C.
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:05 PM
To: LIST/Non-Partner Atty/SF; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/PA; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/SA; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/WC; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/LA; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/OC; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/SD; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/DN; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/DC; LIST/Non-Partner Atty/VA

Cc: LIST/Partner/SF; LIST/Partner/PA; LIST/Partner/SA; LIST/Partner/WC; LIST/Partner/LA; LIST/Partner/OC; LIST/Partner/SD; LIST/Partner/DN; LIST/Partner/DC; LIST/Partner/VA; List/Patent/Agt/All; Office Managing Partners-US; Directors of Administration-US; Herman, Janet Stone (PA); Moser, Cheryl L.; Nashelsky, Larren M.; Reed, Pamela J.; White, Anna Erickson

Subject: 2007 Associate Compensation Announcement

I am pleased to announce our 2007 compensation for associates located in our DC, Denver, Los Angeles, Northern Virginia, Orange County, Palo Alto, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco and Walnut Creek offices. Base compensation increases will be implemented for each class as noted below:

Class of 2006 – $145,000
Class of 2005 - $155,000
Class of 2004 - $170,000
Class of 2003 - $190,000
Class of 2002 - $210,000
Class of 2001 - $230,000
Class of 2000 - $245,000

These adjustments to base compensation will be reflected in your February 15 paycheck retroactive to January 1, 2007. If you are not in one of the class years noted above, or you are Of Counsel or a Patent Agent, we will be following up with you separately in the next few weeks. The 2007 bonus schedule will be finalized and distributed in the near future.

On behalf of the Firm, thank you for your part in making 2006 a great year for the Firm and for your hard work and commitment to the Firm and its clients as we look to the future.

Keith

Keith C. Wetmore | Chair
Morrison & Foerster LLP

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Morrison & Foerster (New York only)

* When you use YouTube to bootleg 24, the terrorists win. [WSJ Law Blog]

* North Carolina doctors refuse to play executioner; executions temporarily blocked. [Jurist]

* Wal-Mart agrees to cough up $33 million for overtime violations. [FindLaw]

* This wasn't the law already?. [AP via Yahoo!]

* Seven defendants, including the estate of Kenneth Lay, dismissed from Enron shareholder derivative suit. [Jurist]

* Can someone please fix the damn clock in the Lewis Libby courtroom, before every news outlet turns it into a metaphor? [New York Times]

Los Angeles-based O'Melveny & Myers just raised base salaries for its associates in D.C. And it's talking smack to Washington law firms that are too cheap to follow its lead:

“D.C.-area firms will have a difficult time competing for talent if they don’t move off the $135,000 number,” says Brian Brooks, O’Melveny’s recruiting partner. “National firms have moved. And because we want to attract the best talent to D.C., we now look at the market as being set at $145,000.”

Hogan & Hartson is also paying $145K in the District. We expect that to become the new "going rate" for Washington.

But a starting salary of $160,000 in the nation's capital is possible. Look to Skadden, among others (basically, New York firms with D.C. offices).

O’Melveny Raises First-Year Salaries, Hogan Follows Suit [Legal Times]

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

As we recently noted, both Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are distinguished lawyers and public servants.

But it's time for them to bow out of the 2008 presidential race, in recognition of the inevitable: Senatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton is UNSTOPPABLE!

Divas of Yale Law School, represent!!!

Update (3:48 AM): Now running at the top of the Drudge Report:

Liz Taylor backs Hillary Clinton in presidential race [Reuters via Drudge Report]
Hillary Clinton 19 Points Ahead of Barack Obama [Time]
Poll: Many Black Voters Don't Identify With Obama [CBS News]

Earlier: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: The Lioness Roars, "I'm In"

* When do you lose control of your copyright? The Unabomber wants to know. Paris Hilton [NSFW], on the other hand, doesn’t care. [Slate]

* I am not a dog-hater, but you don’t see people bringing their babies to bars. (Although I hear you, dog-lovers -- at least, there’s no law against it.) [Seattle Times]

* If you don’t hear from me for a while, you’ll know what happened. [QuizLaw]

Here's the King & Spalding memo. As our source points out, "King & Spalding matched -- but NYC only, which leaves an 8th-year in their Atlanta office making less than a 1st-year in their NY office."

Correction/Update: This is actually a disputed matter. According to this comment, a first-year in New York ($160K) makes more than a sixth-year in Atlanta ($155K), but not an eighth-year ($170K). The point remains, however, that K&S's New York associates earn significantly more than their colleagues at the Atlanta mother ship.

KING & SPALDING LLP

From: Hays, Robert
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:32 PM
To: [New York associates]
Subject: Increase in Salaries for New York Partner-Track Associates

Please see the attached announcement regarding changes to base salaries for our New York partner-track associates.

We received this memorandum indirectly (i.e., not from a source at Hogan & Hartson). But we have no reason to question it, since it's consistent with the firm's publicly declared intention to stay at $145,000 in D.C., at least for the time being.

HOGAN & HARTSON

As several commenters mentioned, Proskauer Rose has raised associate salaries. Here's the announcement memo (originally posted by an anonymous commenter, but subsequently confirmed for us by multiple Proskauer sources).

To: New York, Los Angeles and Boston Associates
CC: Partners, Senior Counsel

From: The Executive Committee

Date: January 25, 2007

Re: 2007 Salaries

We are pleased to announce that we have increased compensation effective January 1, 2007, as follows:
Class Year Adjusted Base Salary

2006 $160,000
2005 $170,000
2004 $185,000
2003 $210,000
2002 $230,000
2001 $250,000
2000 $265,000
1999 $280,000
1998 and earlier $290,000

This increase is retroactive to January 1, 2007, and will be reflected in the February 15, 2007 payroll. Bonuses for 2007 will be determined at year-end, as usual.

Base salaries and compensation for Senior Counsel will continue to be determined on an individual basis.

We continue to highly value your contributions to the Firm and thank you for your dedication and hard work. We look forward to another successful year.

Here's the verified Davis Polk memo (which we received by email; it was also previously posted in the comments):

From: Ferrell, Kathleen L. On Behalf Of Management Committee
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:33 PM
Cc: all.partners
Subject: Associate Salaries

We are pleased to announce that associate base salaries will be increased as follows, effective January 1, 2007:

Class of 1998 - $290,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2006 - $160,000
Entering Class of 2007 - $160,000

As always, we appreciate your efforts.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

We received this from multiple tipsters at Kaye Scholer, so consider it confirmed. One of them notes: "They matched retroactively, which they didn't do last year."

Barry Willner/NY/US/KSFHH
01/25/2007 05:31 PM
Phone: (212) 836-8421

Subject: 2007 Salaries

We are pleased to advise that the Firm is raising associate salaries for the Classes of 2006 through 1999 to reflect the competitive market . The new salaries in New York are as follows:

Class of 2006--$160,000
Class of 2005--$170,000
Class of 2004--$185,000
Class of 2003--$210,000
Class of 2002--$230,000
Class of 2001--$250,000
Class of 2000- $265,000
Class of 1999--$280,000

We will also be raising associate salaries for offices outside of New York but we have not yet determined what those salaries will be. Once they are determined, the heads of your offices will let each of you know the new salary levels. All salary adjustments for all offices will be effective as of January 1st.

To the extent adjustments are needed in order to raise salaries for junior counsel or senior associates above the 8th year class, any such adjustments will be addressed on an individual basis.

We are looking forward to another record year at the Firm and to your continued commitment to our clients.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

We have to step away from the computer for a while for a dental appointment. We'd rather be covering associate pay raise developments than undergoing a root canal, but we sadly don't have much choice in the matter.

Please mention the latest associate base salary news in the comments to this post. We'll check them out when we get back. Thanks.

P.S. Here's the Dewey memo from yesterday:

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Thanks to our tipsters, and sorry for the delay. We've been having technical difficulties again (but thankfully not as bad as yesterday).

Here's the Clifford Chance memo:

We have spoken to multiple sources at Williams & Connolly in the past half hour. The rumor of good news by voice-mail is not true (unless our sources, from different class years at the firm, were somehow left out of the loop).

We think it's only a matter of time before W&C raises base salaries. Their compensation model is to pay an above-market base salary for D.C., but no year-end bonus.

As of now, though, nothing official has been announced. If you're at Williams & Connolly, and anything changes on this front, please let us know. Thanks.

One of you asked for an open comments thread, to consolidate the conversation about compensation. Good idea.

Here you go. Please discuss the latest Biglaw associate pay raise news in the comments to this post.

After a flurry of announcements yesterday, things seem to have slowed down a bit. Or is it just that tipsters aren't being as helpful today?

Look, folks, we can't do this without your help. If your firm has raised associate base salaries, please let us know, by email. If there's a memo, please include the memo text or a PDF. Thanks.

We like to keep things light around here. As far as we're concerned, pretty much everything is entertainment. And if it's not, then we're not interested in covering it.

This is the spirit in which we've been writing about Shanetta Cutlar, the amusingly idiosyncratic chief of the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section (SPL). But we're getting concerned that the story might take a more serious turn.

Here are two things we've heard lately:

1. The mainstream media, in the form of the Legal Times, is sniffing around the story. They may be interested in covering it.

2. Staffers from the House Judiciary Committee have contacted Ty Clevenger, the former DOJ lawyer who initially blew the whistle on La Shanetta. They may be conducting further investigation into goings-on over at SPL.

Covering the shenanigans of Shanetta has been great fun. We sincerely hope that the MSM and the House Judiciary Committee don't hijack this story and turn it into some sober expose about DOJ abuses of power. Yawn.

We steer the discussion back in the direction of frivolity and fun, after the jump.

From the D.C.-based Legal Times:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom said Wednesday it would increase its first-year associate salaries [in Washington] to $160,000, following in the footsteps of New York-based Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

Skadden is the first law firm with a major D.C. presence to up the ante for associate pay in Washington. The firm has 263 lawyers in the District.

D.C.-based Hogan & Hartson has also announced it is moving associate salaries in its New York office to $160,000, but it doesn’t plan to do the same in Washington as of yet.

So in New York, it looks like all the biggies will be following suit. But expect a divide to open up in D.C. between the "national" firms and the local shops:

[M]ost D.C. firms are staying quiet about whether or not they’ll follow. Karl Racine, managing partner of Venable’s Washington office, which pays first-year associates $135,000, says he “expects that to remain.”

You can read the rest of Nate Carlile and Anna Palmer's article here.

Skadden Raises Associate Pay [Legal Times]

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Congratulations to Emily Pataki. It appears that her employer, White & Case, is raising base salaries for its associates. Here's the memo:

WHITE & CASE LLP

Date: January 25, 2007
To: All New York Associates
From: David N. Koschik
Re: Salary Increases

I am pleased to announce that effective January 1, 2007 the base salaries for New York associates in the following classes will be increased as follows:

Class / 2007 Base Salary
2006 $160,000
2005 $170,000
2004 $185,000
2003 $210,000
2002 $230,000
2001 $250,000
2000 $265,000
1999 $280,000

Increases for associates in the class of 1998 and senior will be determined on an individual basis. All increases, including the retroactive portion to the beginning of the year, will be reflected in your February 14 paycheck. On behalf of the Firm, I would like to personally thank you for all of your dedication and hard work.

cc: New York Partners

Well before Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was ever filed, the venerable law firm was dealing with some serious issues. As aptly summarized by New York Magazine's Intelligencer, "Sullivan & Cromwell lost about 30 percent of its associates in 2004 and 2005. It might take more than a raise to fix that."

From a fascinating rather interesting Wall Street Journal article by Peter Lattman (which we meant to write about yesterday, before we got swamped by all the pay raise news):

Faced with a surge in turnover of its associates, the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has been putting on a charm offensive to hold onto junior lawyers.

The crash course in etiquette went into high gear at a partners meeting last February. To deal with low associate morale and high attrition, a confidential slide presentation reviewed by The Wall Street Journal urged partners to say things like "thank you" and "good work" to associates they supervise.

What else should partners do? "Return associates' phone calls as quickly as you would a partner's or client's," said one bullet. "Be sensitive to not canceling associates' vacations," said another.

Additional bullet-points made these helpful suggestions:

"Don't tell gay associates that they like taking it up the ass (because they might be tops rather than bottoms)."

"Refrain from subjecting associates to profanity-laced tirades in which you tell them they should be fired."

Guess Eric Krautheimer and Alexandra Korry missed that meeting.

Discussion continues after the jump.

* Delegates from five non-state territories get limited voting rights in the House; critics cry "no representation without taxation!". [Jurist]

* Nice try. Jury doesn't buy man's attempt to blame murder of his wife on his daughter. [CNN]

* DeLay case before Texas Court of Appeals. [Jurist]

* Cold case involving murders in the heat of the Philadelphia, Mississippi night possibly solved; ex-deputy indicted for 1964 killings. [MSNBC]

* What is 15 years of your life worth? Apparently, if you spend it in an Oklahoma prison for a rape you didn't commit, $4 million. [AP via FindLaw]

* Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you are smart, if you're intellectually honest with yourself? You end up withdrawing from a presidential race you had no shot in hell of winning. [FT via MSNBC]

Okay, folks, we're signing off for now. It has been a long and frustrating day (thanks to all the server problems, over which we have no control).

We've been at our computer since before 7:00 AM. And we, unlike those of you who toil for Biglaw, don't get paid to work twelve-hour days.

To recap, here are the law firms that have raised base salaries for (at least some of) their associates:

-- Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
-- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
-- Dewey Ballantine
-- Fried Frank
-- Greenberg Traurig
-- Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy
-- Morrison & Foerster
-- O'Melveny & Myers
-- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
-- Quinn Emanuel
-- Shearman & Sterling
-- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
-- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
-- Sullivan & Cromwell
-- Weil Gotshal & Manges
-- Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments, which we'll review when we get back online in the morning. See you tomorrow.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

We believe the Greenberg Traurig memo was posted, multiple times, in the comments. But just to make it official, here's the (verified) memorandum:

To our New York associates:

We are pleased to announce that our New York office will be increasing associate compensation retroactive to January 1, 2007.

The new standard salary range will start at $160,000 for the class of 2006 (and for new associates arriving with the 2007 incoming class) and increase for each subsequent class through the class of 1999 and beyond. Each associate will be advised of her or his salary by the end of this week.

As you know, at Greenberg Traurig, the timing and opportunity for making shareholder and having a long term home, as well as our unique cultural environment, are more favorable to our associates than is the case at other large New York firms. While these facts are themselves of high value for forward-thinking individuals, we also desire to fairly compensate all of our people along the way based on all conditions.

We have always been committed to providing our associates a unique opportunity to be a real part of an organization based on change, and which will be at the forefront of our profession as we move into a bright future together. At the same time, we believe in a strong, merit-based compensation system at all levels of our firm, and we believe that total compensation, including year-end bonuses which will be determined at the end of 2007, should reflect your contributions. Providing for increased base salaries at this time allows our associates to feel highly rewarded while still retaining these important features of our culture.

Thanks, let's have a great year together!!

Yes, let's!!!

(We also have a weakness for multiple exclamation points.)

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Here's what the associate pay raise memo for Skadden's Class of 2003 looked like:

From: Garfinkel, Jodie
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:26 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: Compensation

TO: Class of 2003

We are pleased to advise you that we are increasing base salaries retroactive to January 1, 2007. The salary for most associates in the class of 2003 will be increased from $190,000 to $210,000. Increases will be reflected in paychecks of February 15th and retroactive payments will be made only to those attorneys who are employed with the Firm on February 15th.

Annual bonuses will be determined at year end based upon individual performance, levels of activity in the Firm's practice areas and the economic environment as it affects our Firm.

We thank you for your continued commitment and dedication.

SASM&F

********************************

If you're a Skadden associate in a class other than 2003, please provide your new base salary in the comments. We will "Wiki" our way towards a comprehensive Skadden memo. Thanks everyone!

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

"You mean to tell me that this guy has argued before the Supreme Court? This guy, in the button-down shirt? Seriously?"

******************************

Here are the remaining photos from our recent Movie Night With Justice Breyer. The first batch was posted over here.

As we previously explained, these pictures are pretty awful -- dark and blurry. Because of all the priceless art lying around, we weren't allowed use a flash inside the darkened precincts of the Phillips Collection.

And we're not great at photography to begin with. And we could use a better camera. (Did you catch that, Sony and Canon publicists?)

But if you're looking for a break from all the law firm pay raise coverage, maybe you'll appreciate them. Check them out, after the jump.

We have confirmed this Morrison & Foerster memo with sources at the firm. So you can take it as 100 percent reliable.

Please note that it pertains only to the New York office. MoFo has historically paid its NYC associates more than their counterparts in other cities, which some non-Gothamites have grumbled about. But that's probably not about to change -- especially when New York newbies pull down $160K...

From: Wetmore, Keith C.
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:21 PM
To: LIST/Non-Partner Atty/NY
Cc: LIST/Partner/NY
Subject: 2007 New York Associate Compensation

I am pleased to announce the 2007 compensation structure for associates in our New York office. Associates eligible to receive an increase to their base compensation as a result of progressing to the next salary class will see the increase reflected in their February 15 paycheck retroactive to January 1, 2007. These step increases will be based on the following schedule:

Class of 2006 – $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000

We will be determining compensation for of counsel on a separate basis and will send individual compensation messages in the next few weeks.

On behalf of the Firm, thank you for your part in making 2006 a great year for the Firm and for your hard work and commitment to the Firm and its clients as we look to the future.

Keith

[Ed. note: We'll get back to associate pay raises shortly. But for those of you with no interest in the staggeringly high sums being earned by your Biglaw buddies, Stella Q has some Non-Sequiturs for you.]

* I’m not sure how they do it, but Reputation Defender can rid cyberspace of slanderous detritus, even if you’re probably the one who put it out there in the first place. [Reputation Defender via Daily Candy]

* For those of you who are solo practitioners and/or have your face on a bus, then this service may actually make good business sense. [Blawg]

* So we’ve been preoccupied with Charney, Shanetta and the tightening of the golden handcuffs -- don’t forget the juicy bits (betrayal! secrets! lies! some racial stuff!?) coming out of the Scooter Libby trial too. [Dean’s World via Media Bloggers]

* Puns kill. [Law.com]

* Is it presumptuous for the gorgeous, ageless Sidney Poitier to identify with Thurgood Marshall? (The answer is no, doubters! The evidence lies in these 25 questions.) [Vanity Fair]

* Yeah, but do any of them look like this? Also, I welcome recommendations as to up-and-coming bloggers or just quirky, personal favorites. [Blawg Review]

We haven't confirmed it 100 percent. But the Weil Gotshal memo reprinted below, which has been posted several times in the comments, strikes us as pretty safe to consider authentic.

(We're waiting to hear back from certain contacts at Weil. When we do, we'll update this post.)

Update (6:30 PM): Official sources at Weil declined to comment: "We're not in the business of confirming internal memos or emails."

But unofficial sources have confirmed, informing us that the "Town Hall Meeting" mentioned below took place at 4:10 PM. So you can regard the memo below as a true copy.

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES

To: US Associates
From: Stephen J. Dannhauser

As announced at today's Town Hall Meeting, effective January 1, 2007, annual U.S. associate base salaries have been increased, as set forth below. You will receive a retroactive adjustment reflecting this increase in your paycheck or direct deposit on February 9th. Bonuses will be paid this Friday, January 26th. As we have previously told you, it is our intention to pay our associates commensurately with our peer firms.

The firm has enjoyed a very good year, and we recognize that your dedication and hard work have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to our success.

Class Year 2007 Salary

2006 $160,000
2005 $170,000
2004 $185,000
2003 $210,000
2002 $230,000
2001 $250,000
2000 $265,000
1999 $280,000

Base salaries for associates in the class of 1998 and more senior will be determined on an individual basis.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Amazing! Our uncooperative servers are allowing us to post something (or so it seems). Allah be praised.

On the associate pay raise front, here's what we've heard most recently:

1. O'Melveny & Myers: They did it by voicemail, presumably to prevent forwarding of emails or cutting and pasting of text. Cute, guys.

Here's what a tipster tells us:

You're not going to get a memo, but we (NY, DC, LA) just got a voicemail left for us basically saying we're matching in NY the recent raises and LA and DC are getting bumps too. I didn't write down the numbers, but the LA and DC base salaries are not the same as for NY.

Another tipster confirms the LA and DC raises, with more detail: "O'Melveny is bumping first years from $135K to $145K in DC."

2. Simpson Thacher (summer associate addendum). This isn't exactly a surprise. But for the record:

The wave of postings and comments in response to Simpson's announcement to raise associate salaries has left some of you wondering what the application will be to the summer class. I wanted to confirm that summer associates will be paid the same salary as first year associates, prorated on a weekly basis, which is $3080 per week. A copy of our Chairman's memo appears below.

We're all looking forward to seeing you soon.

All the best, Dee

Dee Pifer

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

We're working on a few other confirmations. Please continue to send us memos and other info. Thanks!

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Consider the rumors about Dewey Ballantine and Fried Frank joining in the associate pay raise fun to be confirmed. We've been in touch with multiple sources at both shops.

We're working on getting a copy of the DB memo. Here is the text of the Fried Frank announcement (which reportedly went out by email at 2:11 PM today):

FRIED FRANK

To: All DC and New York Associates and Special Counsel
cc: All Partners
From: Valerie Jacob, Justin Spendlove

We are pleased to announce an increase to the associate base salary scale as follows:

Class Year Adjusted Base Salary
2006 $160,000
2005 $170,000
2004 $185,000
2003 $210,000
2002 $230,000
2001 $250,000
2000 $265,000
1999 $280,000
1998 $290,000

This increase is retroactive to January 1, 2007, and will be reflected in the February 9, 2007 payroll. Bonuses for 2007 will be determined at year-end, as usual.

Base salaries and bonuses for Special Counsel will be determined on an individual basis in the Spring, as usual.

The Firm's continued success depends upon the support and contribution of all our associates. We are very appreciative of the efforts and hard work of all our attorneys during this fiscal year and we look forward to continued success next year.

******************************
As several of you noted in the comments, news of a pay raise sounds even sweeter when it comes from a man named "Justin Spendlove."

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

It looks like the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Law Association of New York ("LeGal") has gotten tired of receiving angry emails from random gay law students at Columbia, NYU, and Fordham.

Over at their website, LeGal has posted an interesting statement (gavel bang: Soloway) about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. LeGal, you may recall, is the gay rights group whose vice-president, John Scheich, spoke out publicly in defense of S&C (as discussed here and here).

The statement, issued by LeGal's Board of Directors, reads as a whale of a bitchslap stinging rebuke of Jack Scheich. It's unintentionally amusing, in a smirk-inducing, Schadenfreude-ish sort of way.

We reprint (1) the LeGal Board's statement, and (2) a personal email that Scheich sent to Charney -- yeah, seriously!!! -- after the jump.

Capitalization in the original. All lowercase is very appropriate for the youthful, fun, California-based Quinn Emanuel firm.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Quinn
Sent: Wed 1/24/2007 12:14 PM
To: Associates
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

beginning february 1 the firm will match the recently announced increases in base salaries for years 2001 through 2006. incomes of more senior lawyers will be dealt with on a case by case basis, given the firm's partnership track.

John B. Quinn
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP

We've been DYING for a photograph of Shanetta Cutlar, the Bitch Goddess Chief of the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section, whom we have written about extensively in these pages. So we were absolutely delighted to receive the photograph at right, which one of you dug up for us on an archived DOJ web page.

As you can see, Shanetta Cutlar is attractive and stylish. We love the combination of the pearl necklace and the pearl-gray pinstripe suit (with hints of purple in the sleeve). Her smooth mocha skin and glossy red lips couldn't be more alluring. Her hair is fabulous; it looks professionally styled.

Just like Paris Hilton, another one of our favorite women on planet Earth, Shanetta Cutlar takes a great still photograph. We're reminded of what cosmetics heir and art collector Ronald Lauder recently said, to the New Yorker, about socialite Adele Bloch-Bauer, whose portrait was painted by Gustav Klimt (a portrait Lauder recently bought for $135 million):

"She had a salon, she had a personality, and you can feel that personality. Unlike The Kiss, this is a painting that is alive."

The same can be said of Shanetta Cutlar. Love her or hate her, the woman has personality. Unlike so many of those "DOJ Official In Front Of A Flag" photos, which are generic and interchangeable, Shanetta's photo portrait is alive. You can practically hear her yelling at a line attorney for including extra spaces in a document, or upbraiding a summer intern for failing to say hello.

For those of you who are as obsessed with "SYC" as we are, we reprint the text that accompanied this Shanetta-licious image, after the jump.

Yes, the rumors are true: Willkie Farr & Gallagher has raised base salaries for its associates. Here's the memo:

-----Original Message-----
From: The Executive Committee
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:52 AM
To: ASSOCIATES - DC; ASSOCIATES - NY
Cc: PARTNERS - DC + OF COUNSEL; PARTNERS - NY + OF COUNSEL; Danaher, John; Salvatore, Jeanine; Poster, Margaret
Subject: 2007 Associate Salaries

We are pleased to announce that the annual base salaries for associates in NY and DC have been increased, retroactive to January 1, 2007, as follows:

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000

Adjustments will be reflected in your January 31st paycheck. Adjustments for more senior associates and Special Counsel will be determined on an individual basis.

We continue to be extremely appreciative of our associates' contributions to the Firm which were instrumental in making 2006 another record year for the Firm.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

We're having major computer troubles once again. Please bear with us.

If we could post normally, we'd have already written about LeGal bitchslapping John Scheich, the juicy Wall Street Journal article on Sullivan & Cromwell's troubles (aside from Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell), and the latest round of associate pay raise announcements.

One of them is Shearman. Hopefully this post will go through (and just once, not twice). Here's the memo:

From: Rohan S Weerasinghe
Sent by: Halle Schargel
To: [Classes of 2006 through 1994]
Cc: Worldwide - Partners Only
Date: 01/24/2007 11:29 AM
Subject: U.S. Track Associate Salary Increases

2007 Salaries

I am pleased to announce that in addition to the bonuses announced on December 14, 2006, we are increasing salaries for U.S. Track Associates to the following levels:

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998
and above - $290,000

These increases will be retroactive to January 1, 2007 and will be reflected in your February 15, 2007 paycheck. The increases will be paid to those Associates who are in good standing and with the Firm as of February 15. Increases for those Associates who were on a leave of absence, worked part-time or joined the Firm after January 1, 2007 will be prorated.

On behalf of all of my Partners, I want to thank each of you for your contributions, dedication and hard work and, together with your help, I look forward to another strong year.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

When President Bush delivered the State of the Union last night, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not one of the four Supreme Court justices in attendance.

Oddly enough, however, Justice Ginsburg and President Bush aren't as far apart as one might think. They share something in common:

Both Justice Ginsburg and President Bush were cheerleaders!!!

President Bush's career as a college cheerleader is well-known. But did you know that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a cheerleader too, at Madison High School, in Brooklyn, New York?

We are not kidding. More details available from Ted Frank. It goes without saying that we would LOVE a copy of that yearbook photo.

But hey, anything is possible. If little Olive Hoover (Abigail Breslin) can be a beauty pageant contestant, in Little Miss Sunshine -- which just snagged Oscar nominations for Best Picture and for Breslin's performance, among others -- then surely RBG can be a cheerleader.

Justice Ginsburg, cheerleader [Lagniappe / Ted Frank]

* State Farm reaches Katrina settlement. [Jurist]

* What would you buy if you embezzled $6.9 million? [CNN]

* Bush told us what condition our condition is in. [Jurist]

* I guess if you're a DT for the Bears, the Super Bowl counts as work; judge allows Tank Johnson to play in XLI, but tells him to keep his metaphorical nose clean. [AP via Yahoo!]

* Virginia is for cockfighters. [MSNBC]

We're signing off for the night. It's almost time for the State of the Union (9PM Eastern time). We won't be back online until tomorrow morning.

Feel free to offer your thoughts on Biglaw compensation matters in the comments to this post. For ease of reference, here are the associate pay raise announcements that we've collected so far:

-- Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
-- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
-- Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy
-- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
-- Sullivan & Cromwell

And, of course, the first mover who deserves credit for this largesse:

-- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

Enjoy the State of the Union, everyone. See you tomorrow.

(The Wonkette crew is liveblogging the SOTU. And don't miss their SOTU Drinking Game, which will make President Bush's speech twice as fun.)

Update (8:50 PM): A shout-out to the lawyers: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the Cabinet official who has been designated NOT to attend the State of the Union, to ensure the continuity of government in the event that disaster strikes on Capitol Hill tonight.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

* Whatever the state of the current voting systems for Oscar nominations, at least Ryan Gosling was nominated for Half Nelson. Bleeding-heart inner-city teachers-slash-junkies are hot. Perhaps also a little paternalistic. But still really hot. [Concurring Opinions]

* Joe Francis, scapegoat. No, a martyr even. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* Blogs are like PBS: they need private donations because they only feature pseudo-ads. [TalkLeft]

* E-retailer sales assistant decides to editorialize -- and once again, thinking outside the box ends up very, very badly. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

* You can be plenty creepy without violating any child pornography laws… [Althouse; Sex Crimes]

* …and just be a Paris Hilton wannabe, and violate those same laws. [Internet Cases]

As the WSJ Law Blog previously reported, Cleary Gottlieb has joined the club of law firms raising salaries for their associates.

One correspondent of ours at Cleary was pleasantly surprised by how quickly the announcement arrived:

I'm amazed that Cleary has been so quick to react to the change. Cleary is typically more lagging in upping salary in response to market change, but this year pulled it off within 48 hours. Color me impressed.

With apologies for the delay, as well as for various technical difficulties (which have resulted in some comments being posted multiple times), here is the memo:

The Simpson Bump: Everybody’s Doin’ It! [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Apologies for the delay -- server problems. Trust us, they're frustrating us ten times more than they're frustrating you.

With thanks to the various tipsters who sent it to us (including "Goose"), here's the memo from Milbank Tweed announcing pay raises for their associates:

MILBANK TWEED HADLEY & McCLOY LLP

From: Wagner, Christine
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:12 PM
To: #Asia Associates All; #DC Associates; #LA Associates; #NY Associates; #LN Associates
Subject: Sent On Behalf Of The Executive Committee

MEMORANDUM TO ASSOCIATES - CLASSES 2006-1999 AND SPECIALS

Re: 2007 Salaries

We are pleased to announce salary adjustments as listed below:

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000

These increases are retroactive to January 1, 2007 and will be reflected in February 15 paychecks for those who are in good standing and with us on that date.

2007 salary increases for Specials will be determined on an individual basis this quarter as usual.

We appreciate all your contributions and look forward to another great year.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Milbank
Christine Wagner
Director of Legal Personnel

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

From an source at Sullivan & Cromwell:

I thought you and your readers would find it interesting to know that H. Rodgin Cohen gave a speech to the Firm yesterday regarding Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

In his speech, Rodge denied every single allegation that "Andrew" made. That's right, Andrew.

Apparently S&C investigation's has been so robust that the Firm's chairman still does not even know the plaintiff's name.

This must be just another administrative oversight here at S&C.

Our take on this episode is a little different. We see it as compelling proof of the following:

As far as Biglaw partners are concerned, ALL ASSOCIATES ARE FUNGIBLE.

Even associates who sue your ass for discrimination and retaliation, giving rise to a public relations disaster.

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: S&C Says, "Charney Who?"
Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Sullivan & Cromwell has followed suit. It has tried to distract everyone from the train wreck called Charney v. S&C just announced raises in base salaries for its associates. And its 2007 summer associates will share in the loot, too.

Here's the memo, from firm chairman H. Rodgin Cohen, which was just sent out by email:

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

From: Cohen, H. Rodgin
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:59 PM
To: *Associates.Worldwide
Cc: Shenker, Joseph
Subject:

We are pleased to announce that, in addition to the bonuses awarded to lawyers at the end of last year, which ranged from $30,000 for the class of 2005 to $70,000 for the class of 1998, the Firm will be increasing associate compensation retroactive to January 1, 2007.

The new salary range will start at $160,000 for the class of 2006 and move up to $310,000 for the class of 1998. In accordance with our usual practice, each associate will receive individual notification of her or his salary.

In addition, annual base compensation will be increased to $160,000 for new associates arriving with the 2007 incoming class. The weekly compensation for the 2007 summer associate class will also be increased to be based on the new starting annual salary of $160,000.

The Firm is committed to rewarding our lawyers for their contributions to our continued success by maintaining compensation levels, including year-end bonuses, at the forefront of peer firm compensation.

Rodge

Update: According to this comment, the compensation figures for S&C's most senior classes are as follows: class of 2000, $270K; class of 1999, $290K; and class of 1998, $310K. These amounts are higher than Simpson Thacher's: class of 2000, $265K; class of 1999, $280K; and class of 1998, $290K.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

Thanks to everyone who sent this to us -- and sorry for the delay in posting it. Here's the CWT memorandum announcing pay raises for its associates.

CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT

From: Link, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:26 PM
To: MAIL-NY_ASSOCIATES; MAIL-DC_ASSOCIATES
Cc: MAIL-NY_PARTNERS; MAIL-NY_COUNSEL; MAIL-DC_PARTNERS; MAIL-DC_COUNSEL; Freeman, Claudia; Ellis, Patricia; Wallsh, Mitch; Sekler, Mitchel; Pinkerton, Dyana
Subject: 2007 Compensation

In keeping with our pledge to provide compensation that is competitive with the other leading law firms in our markets, we will increase associate base salaries in New York and Washington effective January 1, 2007 as follows:

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000

We are also raising the base salary for the members of the Class of 2007, who will arrive in the fall, to $160,000. Thank you for your hard work and efforts on behalf of the firm.

Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through "Skaddenfreude" archives)

That's what a number of you said in comments.

And then we were emailed this memo (which we have verified with multiple sources at Paul Weiss, so we vouch for it 100 percent):

PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON

We are pleased to announce that we have increased associate compensation effective January 1, 2007 as follows:

Class / 2007 Base Salary

2006: $160,000
2005: $170,000
2004: $185,000
2003: $210,000
2002: $230,000
2001: $250,000
2000: $265,000
1999: $280,000
1998 and senior: $290,000

We are very appreciative of your hard work and dedication. The increases will be reflected in your February 15, 2007 paycheck. We expect to determine the bonus portion of your 2007 compensation near year-end as usual.

*****************************
As you can see, these numbers are completely consistent with the new base salaries announced yesterday by Simpson Thacher. Any firm that wants to play in the same league as PW and STB will have to ante up.

Congratulations to the Paul Weiss and Simpson Thacher folks!

Earlier: Breaking: Simpson Thacher Raises Associate Base Salaries!!!
Skaddenfreude: Who Has Matched Simpson?

Poor Justice Breyer -- he's totally trapped! (But nice necktie, Your Honor. Is it Hermes?)

Supreme Court justices: They're just like us. They get cornered at cocktail parties by matronly women they don't really know.

And no, that's not Beverly D'Angelo, aka Barbara "Babs" Miller of Entourage. We wish.

But yes, that is the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin -- FROOMKIN!!! -- over her shoulder, on the far right.

*****************************

Last week, we attended a movie night with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, sponsored by The Week magazine. It was held at the Phillips Collection, an amazing modern art museum here in Washington, DC. We were treated to cocktails and dinner, followed by a screening of The Third Man -- Justice Breyer's cinematic selection.

Photographs, plus brief commentary, after the jump.

Yesterday's big story, which has carried over into today, is the associate pay raise by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Right now everyone is wondering: Which firms will match?

A digression: We're having one of those days. We woke up late, not feeling that great, and wondering if Shanetta Cutlar had hexed us. So we apologize in advance -- we're not firing on all cylinders today.

Since we're feeling out of it today, we're going to begin our pay raise coverage by simply highlighting the most interesting reader comments on this news. There have been over 150 comments so far, and we're guessing that you haven't had the time to read through all of them.

That's what we're here for. We have sifted through all of your comments. And we've collected the most interesting, thoughtful, or funny ones, after the jump.

Amidst all of the hoopla over associate pay raises and Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, some of you have requested updates about Shanetta Y. Cutlar. We're happy to report that we have some new material for you.

(For those of you who are new to ATL, Shanetta Cutlar is the deliciously imperious, ruler-wielding diva who heads the Special Litigation Section, in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. To get a sense of Shanetta Cutlar, in case you haven't read our prior coverage of her, see here, here, or here.)

We hope that Shanetta Cutlar has been pleased by our coverage of her -- 'cause if she's not, she might put a curse on us. Here's the latest tip about her:

Those who worship together, work together. Principal Deputy Tammie Gregg, who was promoted by Shanetta, as well as the Supervisor of the Investigators, whom Shanetta refers to as her "spiritual advisor," all attend the same Church. Both were promoted over others more experienced than they, and obviously for their personal connection to Shanetta.

Shanetta is very superstitious. She had her office "excised" of evil spirits and ill will toward her, as evidenced by the cross etched faintly, in some sort of oil, on the upper right hand corner of her door. Most recently, an escapee [from the Section] said she told them that she was "gathering her protections."

"Gathering her protections"? Boy are we f***ed.

(But not as much as Ty Clevenger, the whistleblower who first brought Shanetta Cutlar to the public eye. We hear that Shanetta has a voodoo doll of him in her desk drawer, which she abuses regularly with a staple gun.)

Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)

We'll get back to the subject of pay raises for law firm associates in a minute. For now, here's a quick update on the other story that Biglaw is abuzz about: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the case filed against S&C by associate Aaron Charney, alleging anti-gay discrimination and retaliation.

We're monitoring coverage of this lawsuit through a news feed. Here are links to, and excerpts from, the latest stories:

1. Maple Grief [TheLawyer.com]

[O]ne charge [in the Charney Complaint] strikes [us] as particularly heinous. And that is that partners at the firm said the prevailing attitude internally was that "S&C considers all Canadians to be irrelevant".

Given that the firm's M&A lawyers spent most of last year defending Canadian nickel producer Inco on a £9.3bn hostile bid, we would be keen to hear Sullivan's arguments played out in a tribunal.

2. Fake-Lawyer Jokes Better Than Real-Lawyer Jokes [New York Magazine / Daily Intelligencer]

A very brief mention -- but with a shout-out to ATL:

Aaron Charney, the gay associate suing his former firm for discrimination, hasn't gotten the support he expected from New York's Lesbian and Gay Law Association. [Above the Law]

3. The Tough Road Ahead in the Lawsuit against S&C for Anti-Gay Discrimination: The Plain Truth about Plaintiffs [FindLaw]

Those of you who have been hungering for a dissection of Aaron Charney's case by an employment lawyer will appreciate this excellent article. It's by Professor Scott Moss, who teaches employment discrimination law at Marquette. Before entering academia, he practiced plaintiff-side employment law for several years, at Outten & Golden LLP in New York City.

It's quite interesting. Highlights and our commentary, after the jump.

* Probation is definitely not hot. If she opts for the community service, you think Fox can make a tv show out of it? [CNN]

* The Sixth Circuit has been playing fast and loose with the PLRA. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* The Attorney General's certification that a federal employee was acting within the scope of his duties is conclusive for the purposes of removal in Westfall Act cases. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* California's determinate sentencing law runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and its progeny. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* Libby jury seated. [Jurist]

Simpson Thacher & Barlett has raised associate base salaries, as set forth in this memo. Entering associates will now earn a starting salary of $160,000 rather than $145,000.

We reported on this earlier today, but you don't have to take our word for it. The WSJ Law Blog also has the news, plus some banal on-the-record comments from Pete Ruegger (who didn't bother returning our telephone calls or email messages).

As for which other law firms have or haven't matched STB, all kinds of rumors are flying around, including many in the comments to our earlier post. Some of you have expressed irritation over not knowing what to believe.

Our response is simple: Don't rely upon anything until it's confirmed here, on ATL's main page (as opposed to the comments -- which we love, but which can be unreliable).

Over the next few days, we will follow up on the different rumors about raises. We will gather announcement memos from the various firms, obtain confirmation from friends that we know to actually work at these places, and collect statements from firm partners and spokespersons. Then we'll report back to you on what we've learned.

But we're not expecting any surprises out of this process. We think it's only a matter of time before most top New York firms fall in line. (But we don't know what will happen nationally -- $160K for first-years may not be sustainable outside Gotham.)

So if you work at a Biglaw shop in New York, at a firm that considers itself a peer to Simpson Thacher, just relax. You will surely get your extra dough.

Simpson Thacher Raises the Bar [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Breaking: Simpson Thacher Raises Associate Base Salaries!!!

* If it’s not in the URL, get rid of it. [Law.com]

* Pedophiles are upset to learn that the 12-year-old they’ve been “violating” is actually 29. Another example of how TV and movies featuring twenty-something actors as smooth-faced teenagers warps reality. [AP via MSN]

* It’s Roe v. Wade’s 34th anniversary. The pro… [Feministing]

* …and the con. [La Shawn Barber’s Corner]

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett has raised associate base salaries across the board. For the most junior classes, the increase is $15,000. New associates arriving at the firm in the fall will now receive a starting salary of $160,000, instead of $145,000.

(You saw the memorandum here first, people -- less than ten minutes after it was sent. MSM sources: PLEASE CREDIT ABOVE THE LAW. Thank you.)

The Simpson Thacher memo reprinted below was emailed to us by multiple sources. So we do not doubt its authenticity. It was sent out today by email, at 4:28 PM, by STB executive committee chairman Philip T. (Pete) Ruegger III, to all associates and non-senior counsel.

We are seeking additional comment from STB representatives -- namely, Pete Ruegger, who sent the memo, and Susan Bussy, who handles media inquiries. We will let you know if and when we hear back from them.

Without further ado, the memo:

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

MEMORANDUM TO ALL ASSOCIATES AND COUNSEL

The Firm has been very busy and we expect the high level of activity to continue. We are proud of the results we are helping our clients achieve.

We believe we have the finest legal team of any global law firm. In appreciation of your efforts, we are pleased to increase associate base salaries as follows, effective January 1, 2007:

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000

We are also raising the base salary for the members of the Class of 2007, who will arrive in the fall, to $160,000.

Counsel and classes senior to 1998 will be addressed on an individual basis.

Again, on behalf of the Firm, thank you for your commitment and hard work.

January 22, 2007

Pete Ruegger

*************************
Other firms will surely follow suit and match this base salary increase. As the various firms match, please note their moves in the comments. THANKS!!!

Today's New York Times has an interesting article on Brian Valery, the bestest paralegal ever. The article may actually say less about Valery and more about the general uselessness of junior associates. Consider this:

Steven Maass, who hired Mr. Valery’s former law firm, Anderson Kill & Olick, after Mr. Maass’s electronic trading business was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, thought Mr. Valery unimpressive but chalked it up to inexperience.

“All first- and second-year attorneys are pretty terrible,” Mr. Maass wrote in a recent exchange of e-mail messages.

True enough -- even though you're paying several hundred dollars an hour for that awfulness. In Valery's case, he was billed out at $300 per hour. Anderson Kill is in the process of negotiating financial settlements with about 50 former "clients" of Valery.

What should be frightening to defenders of the monopoly that bar-admitted lawyers have upon the provision of legal services is that Valery, despite never having attended law school or taken the bar, didn't do that badly for himself. Maass found him to be no more useless than the typical junior associate. And Anderson Kill has not yet had any clients come forward to claim that Valery screwed up their cases. (Of course, given how little responsibility junior associates are given, perhaps that's not surprising.)

Some food for thought:

Connecticut authorities debated what Mr. Dubois called the “metaphysical question” of whether they could even disbar someone who was never a lawyer and had only temporary privileges to practice in the state. They decided they could, and should, to keep other states from issuing privileges based on the faulty Connecticut credentials.

Anderson Kill's chairman, Jeffrey L. Glatzer, euphemistically refers to the Valery episode as “the unfortunate incident." Not bad. But if it were up to us, we would have gone with "The Late Unpleasantness," "That Not-So-Fresh Feeling in the Legal Briefs," or "The Smell of Napalm in the Document Room."

Case of the Paralegal Who Played a Lawyer Raises Many Questions [New York Times]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Brian Valery (scroll down)

If you haven't already done so, you can still vote in our poll asking you whether you support Aaron Charney or Sullivan & Cromwell in Charney v. S&C. Click here to vote in that poll (or to view the results if you've already voted).

After we posted Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: The $15 Million Question, a number of you started to debate in the comments:

How much is Aaron Charney's lawsuit really worth?

Here are some of your thoughts:

"5-10 mil seems like a fair sum to ask for in this matter."

"I'd let partners say much more degrading things to me for $5M. I'd also allow myself to be left out of the summer mentoring program. ABP's sandwiches are not bad at all. Esp. that chicken mozzarella one."

"Does anyone have statistics on the average employment discrimination award in NYC? Include not just the cases that won millions, but also the cases we never hear about."

"$15 million? Sheesh. I'd take it up the butt for $15 million, much less tolerate a few comments about bending over."

We realize that what we're about to do is completely unscientific and unreliable. We don't know all the facts of the case. Nor do we have any data concerning the average size of employment discrimination awards in New York City (as one of you expressed an interest in seeing). So we don't have any solid basis for comparisons.

But please, humor us; we're curious. For what it's worth -- and we admit it may not be worth much -- please take our latest poll:

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell

A few weeks ago, we reported that Kirkland & Ellis's Los Angeles office has raised the starting salary for its new associates to $145,000.

For those of you who don't believe anything until it appears in the MSM, you can now rest easy. From today's Recorder:

Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis confirmed to The Recorder last week that it has upped its California offices to start at $145,000.

The article also reports that Irell & Manella has joined the $145,000 club, paying its first-year associates in Los Angeles the standard going rate for New York.

The question now becomes whether (and when) the so-called "Big Three" of L.A. law firms -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Latham & Watkins, and O'Melveny & Myers -- will match. Rumor has it that Latham is "reconsidering" whether to raise to $145K (a movie it had previously ruled out doing in 2007).

If you hear anything on that front, please share what you know. Thanks.

Irell and Kirkland Hit $145K Mark [The Recorder via Law.com]
Re: Kirkland goes to $145k in LA/SF [Infirmation / Greedy LA]

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Kirkland LA Ups the Ante

Some of you are getting tired of our wall-to-wall coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. We hate to break it to you, but it's not changing anytime soon.

In deciding what to cover, we listen more to our tracking software than to individual commenters. And our traffic stats make clear that most of you can't get enough of this case. Your appetite for more information about Charney v. S&C appears to be insatiable.

(But we've decided to give you a break from Charney's "glistening-smile mug shot," from the S&C website. For this post, we've used a smaller headshot that one of you kindly sent our way.)

In our weekend coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, we pointed out a New York Post article that referred to Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell as a "$15 million lawsuit." We wondered where this $15 million figure came from, since Aaron Charney doesn't specify the amount of damages he seeks in his Complaint (PDF).

A commenter responded:

"$15 million is supposedly the figure AC and his lawyer first demanded in the meeting mentioned in RC's memo from the firm."

We followed up with Aaron Charney, who denied this claim. Read more after the jump.

Listen up, Chief Justice Roberts! Here are two new arguments you can use to make the case for higher judicial pay.

1. From the Drudge Report:

According to Forbes, Judge Judy has a net worth of $95 million. She earns $25 million a year -- over 100 times the Chief Justice's salary.

Random aside: Contrary to rumor, and despite their shared irascibility, Judge Judy Sheindlin (at left) and Judge Shira Scheindlin (S.D.N.Y.; at right) are NOT related. As you can see, their last names are spelled differently. Despite this difference, Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District regularly receives telephone calls from people in search of televised justice.

2. Because of his low pay, Justice Clarence Thomas has been reduced to eating at ESPN Sports Zone.

(Yes, we know, CT got a seven-figure advance for his memoirs. But when you enjoy Corvettes, luxury RVs, and fine cigars, the money goes fast.)

Wonk'd: Barely Legal [Wonkette]
The Richest 20 Women In Entertainment: Judith "Judge Judy" Sheindlin (#13) [Forbes]

Last week there was some speculation over what happened to certain particularly delicious reader comments posted over at the WSJ Law Blog, concerning Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

As explained here:

"[N]o work is getting done [at S&C]. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings)..."

Over at the WSJ Law Blog itself, there was some meta-commentary about the deletion of these comments:

"Why are comments being deleted from the board? There were definitely a few on here that were posted since 7:35 AM today."

"[O]ne of my finest writings was summarily removed by the WSJ Law Blog thought police. Why don’t we all keep parallel logs of our writings as each is entered, and if the law blog continues with its caprice in 2007, et seq., we loggers can then start a class action against WSJ law blog. Coul[d] be fun!"

"I am a gay blogger and WSJ expunged me without my consent. It felt GREAT."

"A post regarding the attractiveness of one of the attorneys mentioned in complaint ([Melissa] Sawyer) was removed, I know that much because I remember it being there. And after looking up her profile myself . . yes, she is a fox."

We followed up with Peter Lattman of the WSJ Law Blog, to find out why certain S&C-related comments were getting zapped. We received a response from Bill Grueskin, managing editor of WSJ.com.

We reprint Mr. Grueskin's response, and explain ATL's own policy on reader comments, after the jump.

The big news of the weekend: the announcement by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that she's opening a presidential exploratory committee. This is, of course, the first step towards a (now inevitable) White House bid.

If you haven't done so already, check out Senator Clinton's videotaped announcement. It's excellent.

Senator Clinton's intelligence, work ethic, experience and toughness all lie beyond the dispute. But the video highlights her charm, conviviality, and sense of humor. Regardless of whether you're a Hillary fan or Hillary hater, we think you'll be impressed by the video.

It's very well-produced. The nice touches include the lovely side table, featuring pink roses and a discreet photo of her and Bill; Senator Clinton's deft invocation of her Midwestern roots, replete with a Midwestern accent (listen to how she says "part"); and, of course, her flawless make-up. She looks great even in extreme close-up -- which can't be said for most of us. Can you believe she's 59 years old?

There is a legal angle to this paean to Hillary (Yale Law School class of 1973). Discussion continues after the jump.

We wrote a fair amount over the weekend about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. Scroll down the page to see our coverage, or click here and here.

One of our posts concerned an interesting letter that a gay NYU Law graduate wrote to John Scheich, first vice-president of the Lesbian and Gay Law Association of New York (LeGal). Last week, Scheich made statements to the media supporting S&C in the case. This NYU grad's letter questioned Scheich about the basis for LeGal's public support of S&C.

Scheich's response to the letter, also reprinted in our post, struck us as a bit snippy. Based on your comments, many of you agree with us.

Now Aaron Charney (at right) has decided to give Jack Scheich a piece of his mind. We reprint Charney's letter after the jump.

* Unabomber wants to secure his papers and effects. [New York Times via How Appealing]

* Hey big spender. [CNN]

* German foreign minister involved in controversial Gitmo detention? [Jurist]

* Papa needs a brand new eternal resting place, and other squabbles in the aftermath of the passing of James Brown. [AP via Fulton County Daily Report]

* Canadian bacon farmer and Jack-the-Ripper-esque serial killer goes on trial. [AP via Yahoo!]

* Last Tuesday, a civil action captioned Aaron Brett Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP was filed in New York Supreme Court -- and the world of Biglaw has never been the same ever since. Click here to access the complete archives of our Aaron Charney coverage.

* Of course, Sullivan & Cromwell partners aren't the only bosses who are jerks challenging (allegedly).

* Don't forget the Divine Miss C, Shanetta Cutlar, whose delicious reign continues over at the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section.

Compared to Aaron Charney and Shanetta Cutlar, other topics pale by comparison. But here are other highlights from the past week in legal news:

* Charles "Cully" Stimson apologizes for ranking on Gitmo lawyers.

* In New Orleans, trials get rescheduled for football.

* Barry Ostrager of Simpson Thacher, the renowned business litigator, has poor bathroom manners (or aim).

* The justices of the Michigan Supreme Court just can't stop squabbling.

* Now we know the real reason -- or rather, the 25 million reasons -- that the Dewey Ballantine / Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe merger was scuttled.

* Third Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell, who also serves as the First Lady of Pennsylvania, sings a duet with Jon Bon Jovi. We don't know whether to be delighted or frightened.

We have a Google News Alert set to notify us every time there's a new article about Aaron Charney or Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. As the lawsuit moves forward, we will read and digest all of the news coverage for you. Think of ATL as your "one-stop shopping" source for Charney v. S&C news.

Here are the latest news stories that have been brought to our attention:

1. Lawyer Sues Top Firm Over "Anti-Gay Bias" [New York Post]

This article characterizes Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell as a "$15 million" lawsuit. The version of the Complaint that we've seen, however, seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages ("Prayer for Relief").

We emailed Aaron Charney to clarify this. We inquired whether he had amended his Complaint, or announced an intention to amend it, to seek $15 million in damages.

Charney responded: "I have not amended the complaint or specified damages in the complaint." So this was just an error on the part of the New York Post. Quelle surprise.

2. Bias Charged at Top NY Law Firm [Gay City News]

Not much new in this article, since it's based largely upon prior reporting by other news organizations. The following paragraph was based upon original reporting:

Charney's complaint was being circulated via a Web site on Tuesday and was spreading "like wildfire" among the informal gay law associates network in New York, according to a New York Law School faculty colleague of this reporter who received it via e-mail from a friend.

"[T]his reporter" refers to Professor Arthur Leonard of New York Law School, a contributing writer for Gay City News, who wrote the article.

We speculate that the unnamed faculty colleague quoted by Professor Leonard is Professor William LaPiana, an openly gay trusts and estates professor at NYLS. Professor LaPiana, randomly enough, was the pre-law advisor to Chief Justice John Roberts, when Chief Justice Roberts was an undergraduate at Harvard College thinking about attending law school. See More Grist for the "John Roberts Is Gay" Mill (item 4(b)).

3. Attorney Sues Top Manhattan Law Firm for Discrimination [The Advocate]

The Advocate is a leading news publication within the gay community, so the appearance of this article is by itself notable, as a sign that the community is taking notice. The Advocate article itself, though, is only three paragraphs long, and it contains nothing new.

4. Top Law Firm Sued For Discrimination By Gay Attorney [365Gay.com]

Nothing noteworthy here, except for repetition of the erroneous claim that Charney is seeking $15 million in damages. Where did that come from?

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Back in this post, we quoted this passage from an ABC News piece:

"Sullivan Cromwell is far from prejudiced in any way," says John Scheich, the first vice president of the Lesbian and Gay Law Association of New York [LeGal], adding that the firm often buys a table at his group's annual fundraising dinner dance. "I don't know Aaron Charney or the details of his case, but if I had to line up on one side or the other, I would have to line up with David H. Braff [an openly gay partner at the firm] and Sullivan Cromwell."

A gay NYU Law grad sent a letter to LeGal, inquiring into the organization's stance on Charney v. Sullian & Cromwell. He received a response from Jack Scheich that struck us as, well, kinda bitchy.

See if you agree with us. The letter and the LeGal response appear after the jump.

In light of our non-stop coverage of (1) Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell and (2) the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar, we found the timing of this New York Times article -- "Help, I'm Surrounded By Jerks" -- to be rather uncanny. Not surprisingly, it's currently the "Most E-mailed Article" on the NYT website.

Law schools figure prominently in the growing field of "jerk research":

Next month the Career and Professional Development Center at Duke Law School will for the first time offer a workshop called Dealing With Conflict and Difficult People. In September the negotiation program in Harvard Law School’s executive education series will present a seminar called Dealing With Difficult People and Difficult Situations.

Who says law schools don't prepare their students for the "real world"?

Of course, most law schools don't need to offer "workshops" for dealing with pricks. Students learn these lessons through practice -- by dealing with professors.

Disclaimer: Please do not interpret this post as our taking sides in either Charney v. S&C or Shanettagate. Consider this provocative quote from the article (emphases added): "[S]ome scholars say, the problem is not the difficult people themselves. IT IS YOU."

Furthermore, reasonable minds can differ over who is the "jerk" in a particular situation. The article mentions "[t]he explosive boss" as one example of a jerk, but it also cites "the Complainer, the Whiner and the Sniper" as jerkly archetypes. So the S&C partners might argue that Aaron Charney is a "jerk," or Shanetta Cutlar might label Ty Clevenger as a "jerk."

Help, I’m Surrounded by Jerks [New York Times]

A very interesting exchange appeared in some recent comments about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

We're bringing the exchange up to the main page, for the benefit of those of you who can't keep up with all the comments. Here it is:

I wonder if ANY work is getting done over [at Sullivan & Cromwell]. I bet people are just sitting around and gossiping all day.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2007 04:33 PM

Of course no work is getting done. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings...

Posted by: None | January 19, 2007 04:44 PM

4:44: What are some of the conpiracy theories you have come up with thus far?

Posted by: Dr. Kravath | January 19, 2007 04:45 PM

Please say that these comments can be recreated for those of us whose free time allows for the constant refreshing of only one legal gossip blog.

Posted by: new anon | January 19, 2007 04:47 PM

Our response to all of this:

4:44 PM: We have an email into Peter Lattman [at right] about this. Also, please note that ATL has a general "no moderation" policy with respect to comments. So if the WSJ Law Blog posters would like to reproduce their comments here, they are welcome to do so.

(An exception to our "no moderation" policy: We pull comments that appear to be accidental duplicates -- e.g., double- or triple-posted comments.)

Posted by: David Lat | January 19, 2007 05:25 PM

We will let you know if and when we hear back from Peter Lattman.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

* Too soon, Daily Princetonian, too soon. And what’s more, you budding SNL-writers are so completely unfunny that you might consider law school instead. Dewey Ballantine would probably hire you. [IvyGate Blog]

* Retiree sick of junk mail claims that (literal) poo-slinging is constitutionally protected. [AP via Forbes]

* If only Jason were just a tad younger, they’d be just another couple of happy, teenage parents. [Sheboygan Press]

* But we’ll always have YouTube. [ValleyWag]

* Want to do more than just blog? Ernie is looking for a freelance legal researcher. Sounds like a great gig if you like that kind of thing. (I obviously don’t, or I wouldn’t be putting this out for all of you to see.) [Ernie the Attorney]

After we posted our open letter to Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Chief of the DOJ's Special Litigation Section, an ex-minion of hers contacted us with an email address for her. We sent a message to that address -- and unlike our past messages, it didn't bounce back. So presumably our "open letter" has reached Shanetta's inbox (assuming it didn't get caught in her spam filter).

(A commenter also posted an address for Shanetta. But a message we sent to that account bounced back.)

You'll recall that in our open letter, we asked Shanetta Cutlar for a photo of herself. Receiving one would make us unspeakably happy. But we realize it's unlikely that she will comply with our request (even though we're told that, at one point in time, the DOJ website featured a photo of her, as part of a diversity-touting publicity effort).

To get a better idea of what Shanetta Cutlar looks like, we asked some of our tipsters to describe her. We asked: "If a movie or TV show were to be produced, based on the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar, who should be cast to play Shanetta?

We received two responses. Here's the first:

Well, you've got a large African-American woman with what appears to me like (emphasis on anti-libel weasel words) a nasty little personality disorder. So I'm going to say Queen Latifah, but the character would be more like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.*

And here's the second response (which we enjoyed even more):

[F]or your mental picture, think Oprah Winfrey (but with long, flowing hair). I can't even watch Oprah's show anymore because it sends shivers up my spine. It leaves me with a pit in my stomach, by bringing back memories of working there. I feel like I have post-traumatic stress disorder from working for her.

You can no longer watch "Oprah"? Add that to the damages claim in your lawsuit against Shanetta.

* Fatal Attraction, by the way, is one of our favorite movies. And whenever we watch it, we root for Alex Forrest (Glenn Close).

Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)

When we write about pro se litigants, it's usually because they have done something ridiculous. But some folks who represent themselves -- and we're not just talking about Aaron Charney -- can be reasonably effective as advocates.

From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

In March 2004, police arrested Muhammad Dye on Central Avenue. They found him carrying an electric scale, two cellular phones, five empty sandwich bags with cocaine residue and $1,063 in cash.

Dye was charged with drug possession and possession of criminal tools, but after a weeklong trial in November 2005, a jury cleared him of the charges. Dye even argued successfully that all the items seized should be returned to him, right down to the sandwich bags.

This guy sounds AWESOME. Here's more from the article:

Common Pleas Judge Lillian Greene declined to discuss the case because Dye has three more cases pending before her. Courtroom observers, though, said Dye is surprisingly charming. While he sometimes mangles his words, he gets his point across to the jury.

Considering that Dye prevailed in getting his cocaine-dusted Ziplocs returned to him, he's got to be good.

Update: From someone who has witnessed Muhammad Dye in action:

He's not great, I'll be honest, but he's not bad. His cross of a codefendant who flipped was decent -- he got his point across. Having clerked in a federal district court, I've seen lots worse from retained defense attorneys.

Accused drug kingpin defending himself [Cleveland Plain Dealer]

As we have stated previously, we intend to cover Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell like nobody's business. We are not yet the #1 Google result for either aaron charney or charney v sullivan & cromwell, but we're getting there.

It's not terribly exciting, but here's a brief note we received this afternoon from plaintiff Aaron Charney:

David,

Wanted to drop you a quick line thanking you for your ongoing coverage of my case. As I have stated all along, it is very important for attention to be given to this issue in order to foster change at S&C and more generally, and you have provided (and I hope will continue to provide) a tremendous forum for this cause.

If you want to discuss my matter, feel free to [call me].

Regards,

Aaron

Also, here's another article on the lawsuit, from the New York Blade. It contains no new information about the case. But its appearance in the Blade does show that the case is receiving attention within the gay community.

Lawsuit Filed Against Law Firm Claiming Harassment, Discrimination [New York Blade]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

For the second month in a row, ATL's "Couple of the Month" contest was a total snoozefest. Once again, the winning couple prevailed with approximately 50 percent of the vote. Unlike certain past races, there was no exciting, eleventh-hour victory by an underdog.

There was a last minute surge by Sandee Brawarsky and Barry Lichtenberg. But they were unable to catch a certain Supreme Court clerk and her high-powered hubby:

Congratulations to ATL's newest couple of the month: Theane Evangelis and Teddy Kapur!!!

Earlier: Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: December 2006 Couple of the Month

To read past editions of Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, click here, and scroll down.

With respect to our continuing coverage of the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section, some of you have asked to hear Shanetta Cutlar's side of the story.

For the record, we have tried to reach out to Ms. Cutlar. Unfortunately, the various email addresses that we tried to contact her at -- Shanetta.Cutlar@usdoj.gov, Shanetta.Brown.Cutlar@usdoj.gov -- didn't work. (And we are too scared of her to pick up the telephone.)

Update: One of you sent us a different email address for Shanetta Cutlar, and this address apparently worked. See here.

So, in the hope that Shanetta Cutlar or someone she knows will read this post, we'd like to publish this open letter to her:

Dear Ms. Cutlar:

Greetings. My name is David Lat, and I am the editor of Above the Law (www.abovethelaw.com), an online legal tabloid.

As someone who deeply admires strong and successful women, I am a huge fan of yours. Congratulations on your IACP Civil Rights Award!

We have previously written about you here at Above the Law. Although it is not as prestigious as the IACP award, you are a two-time winner of our "DOJ Diva of the Day" Award:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/doj_diva_of_the_day_shanetta_y_1.php

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/doj_diva_of_the_day_again_shan.php

Additional coverage can be accessed here:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/shanetta_cutlar/

I was just writing to mention that if you would like to respond to any of our coverage, please do not hesitate to contact me. We would be happy to publish any statement you might wish to make. In addition, if you might like to send us a photograph of yourself that we could use when writing about you, we would be most grateful.

Thank you for your time and kind consideration. Hope all is well in the Special Litigation Section!

Best regards,
David

Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)

We have a lunch to attend, so we'll be gone for a little while. We've arranged for items to be posted in our absence, though, so please visit early and often.

While we're gone, please feel free to share your thoughts on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, in the comments. We've been finding your comments highly informative and entertaining.

We especially welcome comments about Sullivan & Cromwell partner Alexandra Korry (at right). If the allegations about her from the Charney Complaint and ATL reader comments are even halfway true, we have the HUGEST CRUSH...

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Later!

Alexandra D. Korry [Sullivan & Cromwell]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

In case you're wondering, the motion to reschedule a trial to accommodate football fans, which we wrote about yesterday, has been granted.

Here is the signed order. Note, however, that the trial must be completed by Friday, February 2 -- the Friday before the Super Bowl.

Earlier: This Is the Kind of Motion That Gets Filed in State Court. In Louisiana.

Back by popular demand: your favorite litigatrix, Shanetta Y. Cutlar, who rules over the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section with an iron fist (and a ruler).

From yet another refugee former line attorney-- yes, there are tons of them -- who worked under Cutlar in the Special Litigation Section ("SPL"):

Shanetta Cutlar boasts about her "open door policy." It works great -- it took me three whole days to get granted an audience with her to tell her I was leaving. Same with [another lawyer who left the Section].

SPL employees are not permitted to speak with Shanetta, other than the enthusiastic "hello" in the hallways, without an appointment. When you meet with her, she has Tammie Gregg, her Principal Deputy, present to take notes for her.

Overall, everyone -- except [xxxx] -- is terrified by her. She has literally ruined people's careers, for NO GOOD REASON. One lawyer says that whenever her swipe card fails to work in the morning, the first thing that runs through her head, is, "Oh my God, did Shanetta fire me?"

There is no real practice of law in the Special Litigation Section. You are not treated like an attorney and a trusted professional, but like a naughty kindergartener, who makes typos and knows nothing. You are guilty and cannot prove yourself innocent.

The advice I was given for how to survive at SPL: "Pretend you've been attacked by a bear, and play dead."

Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)

A similar thing happened to the paralegal manager at our former firm. Her Burberry raincoat was ruined. But that incident happened on the New York City subway, not inside judicial chambers.

Woman Sues Texas Judge for Ejaculating On Her In Chambers [Legal Reader]

Lots of great reader comments concerning Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. It's getting hard to keep track of them.

If we get the chance, we may put together a "Best of" or "Top 10" list for comments (as one of you suggested). This comment thread, appended to yesterday's post about Aaron Charney's interview on Canadian television, is especially interesting.

If you're having a slow Friday, and if you haven't already done so, we urge you to read the entire Complaint (PDF). We have no background in this area of law, so we won't opine on the merits of Charney's case. But his complaint seems fairly well-written, at least by pro se standards, and it's full of fun gossip about S&C.

As a legal matter, as well as a matter of professional development -- i.e., not burning every last one of your bridges, including those to your mentors and allies -- it may have been unwise for Charney to lard his complaint with so much (arguably gratuitous) scuttlebutt. But as connoisseurs of Biglaw gossip, we're grateful to him for dishing all that dirt about S&C.

For now, we'd like to share with you this amusing message from a reader, about specific allegations from the Charney Complaint:

Not being included in the Mentor Program. That HAD to be the breaking point. See paragraphs 60-61 ("Pagnani's Mentor List did not include Plaintiff").

Oh the horror. If there is one bright ray of sunshine in a young associate's life, it's the opportunity to take summers out for a $200 lunch once a week. How can any third year get out of bed knowing that they'll be eating an $6 sandwich from Au Bon Pain, while everyone else is out at a mentor-mentee lunch?

At first we thought this message was facetious. But now we're not so sure. If being forced to dine at ABP while your colleagues go to Nobu isn't actionable, we don't know what is.

P.S. Yes, we know: Chief Justice John Roberts eats at Au Bon Pain (and also gets take-out from Cosi). But he makes less than a fourth-year associate -- and can't stop bitching about it.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

* Someone skipped Evidence class...all semester. [CNN]

* Next week is Roe's anniversary. Slate offers a primer on that and Casey. [Slate]

* Previously, Ohio delayed vote-counting for the Michigan game, and Congress delayed its 100 hours for the national championship. This time it's the NFC championship, and rightfully so! [WSJ Law Blog]

(Ed. note: We previously discussed this continuance request here, in a somewhat eye-rolling post. But as you can see, B Clerker has a different take.)

* The Harvard Crimson runs a retrospective on the Obamas as law students. [Harvard Crimson via How Appealing]

* MySuit. [MSNBC]

We've been running the same still photo of Aaron Charney, the plaintiff in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, over and over again. You're probably sick and tired of seeing his mug (appealing though it may be).

But now we have more to offer you. If you'd like to see and hear an animated Aaron Charney, to make your own judgment of his credibility, you're in luck.

Aaron Charney has given an on-air interview to Report on Business Television, Canada's leading business news television channel. The segment was titled "Aaron and Goliath." Check it out here (around the 44th minute of the broadcast).

It's quite interesting. And, of course, they go into the subject of anti-Canadian animus.

We'd like to hear your thoughts on the video. Please place them in the comments. Thanks.

SqueezePlay [RobTV.com (video)]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

* Another high-profile discrimination case, but this time in the world of haute cuisine. Daniel Boulud's defense? He’s an immigrant himself -- we bet the whole “Freedom Fries” anti-French sentiment really hurt. [New York Times]

* A gentleman should not be required to excuse himself for European civility. [AP via Lowering the Bar]

* I have never smoked pot. As long as people dating me or coming to my stand-up gigs are high, the banter will undoubtedly seem witty and the jokes uproarious, and I’d rather be lucid enough to savor such fleeting moments. [TalkLeft]

* My mom once gave me cash to use on an SAT-prep course. I secretly used it on a Gucci dress. But I still got into my first choice college and had 75 hours of free time to, like, hang out at the mall. There’s an analogy in there somewhere. [Denver Post via Mirror of Justice]

* Families blame MySpace for enabling teenage irrationality, sexual perversion and poor parenting. They long for the days they could just plunk their kids in front of the TV without consequence. [Associated Press]

* So you think MTV doesn’t respect its audience? Well, it has just acquired RateMyProfessors, so I guess it’s assuming someone in that demographic actually cares about school and their future and stuff. [TaxProf Blog]

We're stepping away from the computer for a bit. We are attending this exciting event, a dinner and movie screening with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, sponsored by The Week.

Some posts, including Non-Sequiturs, will appear while we're gone. But if some exciting news breaks and we're slow to cover it, it's because we're spending quality time with SGB.

Finally, while we're making administrative announcements, we're planning to close our December 2006 Couple of the Month poll tomorrow, January 19, at 1 PM (Eastern time). You can cast your vote here.

The second poll we're running, concerning which side you support in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, we will keep open for a while (at least through the weekend). You can vote in that poll by clicking here.

The Third Man [IMDb]

After we posted the press release recognizing the Sullivan & Cromwell and Kaye Scholer lawyers who worked on the recent Onex / Kodak Health Group transaction, one of you pointed out:

Respectfully, you missed the lede in the Kodak post. Read Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint (PDF) re: Kodak's complaints regarding fees and overstaffing. Then look at the attorney list for Kodak and compare the slim list for the other side.

S&C put out its major league press, earning how much in fees??? I'll leave it to you to parse the Exhibit C memo. Have at it!

Point well-taken. The announcement mentions just five Kaye Scholer lawyers, versus almost thirty S&C lawyers, who worked on the deal.

In fairness to Sullivan, the Kaye Scholer part of the announcement names only partners, not associates (presumably omitted from the list). But it is true that a staggering number of S&C lawyers worked on this transaction -- some 28 lawyers, about a third of them partners, from six different countries. Basically, everybody and their cousin-in-law worked on this deal.

Not surprisingly, Kodak squealed about the bill. For your reference, here's Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint:

Partner Stephen Kotran notes that griping about the bill is "par for the course" for Kodak.

But Kodak might be wondering: Is overstaffing "par for the course" for Sullivan & Cromwell?

(Okay, that last line was gratuitously snarky. For all we know, Kodak was just delighted with the quality and cost of S&C's legal representation. Heck, maybe we'll drop Kodak a line and see if they have any comment. We'll keep you posted.)

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

We're not really that up on sports. There's a reason we've delegated the provision of fantasy football advice to B Clerker.

Despite our ignorance of athletic pursuits, several readers have emailed us copies of this rather unusual motion. So, for your amusement, here it is:

More background over at the WSJ Law Blog.

Law Blog Lawyer of the Day: New Orleans’s Jim Garner [WSJ Law Blog]

Our eyes glaze over when we see, in The American Lawyer or over at NYLawyer.com, those laundry lists of lawyers who worked on various transactions. Usually we don't bother reading them.

But several of you drew our attention to this interesting announcement:

Sullivan, Kaye Scholer Advise Purchase Of Kodak Medical Imaging Business [NYLawyer.com]

In case you haven't registered for NYLawyer.com -- yeah, registering for free sites is a bitch -- we reprint the announcement, in full, after the jump.

We now interrupt your regularly scheduled programming of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell to bring you some embarrassing news about another ultra-prestigious New York law firm: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

From Decision of the Day:

From the "it can happen to anyone" file, the Second Circuit dismisses a cross-appeal by Travelers Insurance Company because its law firm filed the notice of appeal one day late. After the losing party in the district court filed a notice of appeal, Travelers had 14 days to file its notice of cross-appeal. However, the firm calculated the 14 days from the date it received the notice, not from the date the notice was actually filed. The district court denied Traveler’s motion to extend the deadline by one day, explaining that this was a case of "garden variety attorney inattention" and not excusable neglect. The Second Circuit affirms (PDF).

The law firm that made this rookie mistake was one of the whitest of the white shoes, the venerable Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. The partners on the brief have stunning resumes, and the fifth-year associate has done plenty of litigating, given that he is admitted to practice in three jurisdictions and thirteen courts. So, yes, it can happen to anyone. (And in case you’re wondering, no, STB did not reject me.)

Decision of the Day is too nice to name the STB lawyers on the brief, but we have no such qualms. These are matters of public record. The attorneys who screwed up here are partner Barry R. Ostrager, partner Andrew T. Frankel, and associate Robert J. Pfister.

Barry Ostrager, by the way, is routinely named as one of the country's top business litigators and trial lawyers. See, e.g., here, here, and here. He's not particularly nice; as one litigator diplomatically observed, Ostrager "doesn't suffer from the need to be loved." But he has been very successful for his clients.

Given Ostrager's stellar reputation, this latest defeat is particularly embarrassing. It's one thing when you litigate a case as best you can, then lose because the law just isn't on your side. It's another thing when a federal trial judge finds you guilty of "garden variety attorney inattention," and then an appeals court affirms, holding that your "attorney inadvertence" -- a charitable phrasing -- does not constitute "excusable neglect." Great litigators, after all, are supposed to be careful, attentive, and detail-oriented.

But this is not Barry Ostrager's only lapse. His failure to pay attention to detail extends to the men's room -- as we have had the misfortune of observing, firsthand.

Read all about it, if you dare -- don't say we didn't warn you -- after the jump.