* Rest in peace, Benazir Bhutto; God knows you weren't able to live in it. [CNN]

* That seems like a pretty good starting point for liability against the zoo. [BBC]

* We don't know if you know Tom Goldstein, but he's a pretty big deal. [SCOTUSBlog]

* If he could only apply all of that genius to acquiring some money to actually make a mortgage payment... [WSJ Law Blog]

* NRA defends the rights of hurricane victims to shoot at the National Guard keep guns. [AP via How Appealing]

* French "aid" workers sentenced to eight years of hard labor in Chad "orphan" case. [Jurist]

* Apparently if you're a rapper you can show up at court when you damn well please. [Athens Banner-Herald]

* If you feel guilty about it, at least you can take comfort in the fact that you've helped set up an appeal. [CNN]

* Would a holiday search be unreasonable? [Findlaw via How Appealing]

* Is the DOJ passing up a chance to crack down on plaintiff's lawyers? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Nothing but a G string. [CNN]

* Toby Keith puts his boot in the defendant's ass in the form of a $2.8 million verdict for his family in a suit over the wrongful death of his father. [AP via Asbury Park Press]

We hope that you're having a wonderful holiday season and are getting some well-deserved rest -- as are we.

As was the case last year, we'll be on a reduced publication schedule between now and the new year. We'll return to a normal schedule on Wednesday, January 2, 2008.

To those of you who celebrate it, Merry Christmas! And a happy new year to all.

* Top legal stories of 2007. [CNN]

* Stop complaining, civil libertarians. Things could be much worse. [New York Times]

* A leadership vacuum at the Department of Justice. [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* And don't look to recess appointments to address the problem. [Washington Post]

* A different kind of "pole tax," which will divert five dollar bills from g-strings to g-coffers. But does it violate the First Amendment? [AP; TaxProf Blog]

* Union members: You've Got Mail. Oh wait, you don't -- at least not of the union-related kind. [New York Times]

* Adam Liptak asks whether a "Judicial Hellhole" is in the eye of the beholder. Also, a quote from Dickie Scruggs that maybe he wishes he could take back. [New York Times via WSJ Law Blog]

Let's send you into the holiday weekend with some associate bonus news. Here are some law firm bonus announcements that haven't been previously covered in these pages.

(Firms that previously announced their bonuses, but are being sneaky about the exact amounts and/or the percentage of associates getting them, will be addressed separately. This post is for completely new announcements.)

Some of this news is incomplete. If you can provide more details, please email us. Thanks.

1. Akin Gump (New York): Year-end bonuses, and special bonuses to "those associates and counsel who have performed in accordance with the Firm’s expectations regarding productivity, quality of work and Firm citizenship." Plus "discretionary merit bonuses" to associates and counsel "who performed in a truly exceptional manner."

One source at the firm characterizes it as follows:

Full match in NY, with extra bonuses in certain cases (generally to billers over 2400). There has never been an hours requirement, so if past practice is any indicator, anyone not being fired will get it.

Full memo, after the jump.

2. Akin Gump (outside New York): Each associate is allowed to make the case to the firm for a big bonus. A source tells us that this practice of asking associates to write up memos to justify their bonuses started a few years ago. "I wonder how this plays into the current bonus climate, or if anyone else has to do this."

3. Hogan & Hartson (outside New York): The 2007 bonus memo appears after the jump.

4. Hogan & Hartson (New York): We've confirmed the fact that Hogan announced bonuses in New York. It was described to us as a market match. But we haven't seen a memo or the fine print of the announcement, so we can't confirm that.

Update: The bonus memo for Hogan & Hartson's New York office appears after the jump.

5. Vinson & Elkins (New York): "V&E matched the New York market bonus (including this year's special bonus) for its New York associates, to be paid on January 15, 2008. No memo yet, a voicemail."

6. Sheppard Mullin: Details after the jump.

The late Pope John Paul II was an expert skier. Even after he became Pope, and into his 60's, the Holy Father would slip away from the Vatican for secret ski trips.

So, although we'd like them removed from all interstate highways, we have no problem with oldies on the slopes. This, however, is more troubling:

A 60-year-old man is taking an 8-year-old boy and his dad to court, claiming the boy caused a ski-slope collision that left the older man with a shoulder injury. David J. Pfahler of Allentown, Pa., sued in federal court in Denver, claiming Scott Swimm, then 7, was skiing fast and recklessly when they collided in January, the Vail Daily reported Thursday.

Looks like Pfahler is making a federal case of it (literally). He claims -- quite conveniently, for diversity jurisdiction purposes -- losses in excess of $75,000.

Scott's father, Robb Swimm, said that he saw the crash and that Scott was skiing slowly and in control. "It wasn't a violent collision or anything; Scott just kind of tapped his ski boots," he said this week.

Scott's mother, Susan Swimm, said her son weighs 48 pounds and couldn't have been going more than 10 mph. "Who in the world sues a child?" she said.

Scott: How much do you have in your piggy bank? Pfahler is nearing retirement age -- and Social Security doesn't cover many ski trips.

Man, 60, sues boy, 8, over ski collision [Associated Press]

Check out this continuance motion (PDF), filed yesterday in Louisiana state court. It's pretty great -- especially the footnotes.

Update: As noted in the comments, there is precedent for this motion in Louisiana state court. See Danos v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (unpublished order).

P.S. We're still accepting applications for the position of ATL "Sports and the Law" columnist (details here). If you've already applied, thank you for your application. We are reviewing the many excellent submissions and will announce a decision in the new year. Thanks!

Motion to Continue Trial Due to Conflict with the LSU Tigers National Championship Game
[Joseph Harrell v. Fred Spencer and Imperial Casualty Insurance Company]

We're still gathering responses to Monday's survey, which asks you how big your bonus was (or is going to be). At last count, around 1,250 of you had responded, and you can still add your two cents (which is reportedly close to "market" at MWE) over here.

About a third of you still haven't heard whether your firm will pay bonuses, and that's clearly a source of deep frustration. But many of you have reported that the wait for your numbers is nowhere near as frustrating as the wait for the actual check. So here's an open thread for discussion of the subject.

To kick off the discussion, here's a tip we received from an associate in Washington, DC:

How about a story on mid-sized firms (who recruit from T14 schools) who intentionally wait until February-March to give bonuses? By doing so, they must know that the bulk of lateral openings will have come and gone by the time bonuses are given out -- so if an associate waits for his bonus to lateral, it's too late.

Today's featured survey, brought to you by ATL and Lateral Link, is on the same topic. It appears below.

In the spirit of delayed gratification, the next batch of results from Monday's survey will appear after you complete the survey. So far, we've revealed the bonus and salary responses from New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC. Yesterday, Los Angeles and San Francisco were neck and neck in the number of responses, while Boston made a proud showing in the comments.

Which city will we reveal next? Fill out the following survey to find out.

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results. See the next batch of results from Monday's survey after the jump.

Time for some quick follow-up on yesterday's intriguing email about "an exciting, transformational event" for Mayer Brown. As we speculated, the big news is a merger announcement.

From an article by Ameet Sachdev the Chicago Tribune:

Mayer Brown plans to announce Friday an agreement to join forces with a large Hong Kong firm in a deal that would dramatically expand the Chicago law firm's Asian presence, the Chicago Tribune has learned.

Mayer Brown is teaming up with Johnson, Stokes & Master, one of Hong Kong's oldest law firms known for its stellar reputation in banking and finance, also a strength of Mayer's.

Note that it's "Stokes," not "Strokes." A firm named "Johnson, Strokes & Master" surely would have made this list of funny law firm names. In Asia, the firm will be known as Mayer Brown JSM (which mercifully contains no "i"; but note that "jism" is a legitimate word, and a good way to get rid of your "J" if you enjoy online Scrabble, as we do).

An ATL source at the firm reports:

We just got out of the worldwide meeting they had for associates and counsel, and I thought it was pretty exciting. In its presentations in the past, it has always mentioned that it wanted to have a significant Asia presence. They said that JSM was one of the top law firms in Asia, and the complementary mix of practice groups and clients will lead to lots of "synergies" (that was the big buzz word).

Something you might find interesting -- they put up a new chart ranking law firms by worldwide revenue. We jumped from 13th (with $1.1bn) to 10th (with $1.35bn). JSM last year had about $130 million in revenue on only 41 partners. I'm pretty psyched about it....

Despite $1.3 billion in revenue and 1800 lawyers, the merged firm plans to expand further. From the Financial Times:

The firms expect to grow substantially after the merger. Mr Holzhauer projects annual revenue to hit $2bn ”very quickly” and Ms Lo predicts earnings of $4bn within two to three years. ”This kind of growth cannot be obtained by just organic growth alone,” said Ms Lo.

Up to now, Mayer Brown’s Asia presence has been limited to one office in Hong Kong and a representative office in Beijing. JSM, whose clients include HSBC, Bank of China and Cathay Pacific, has 200 lawyers in mainland China, but none outside Asia.

Meanwhile, in other MB news, the firm just announced New York bonuses. Memo after the jump.

Mayer Brown to merge with big Hong Kong firm [Chicago Tribune]
Mayer Brown merging with Hong Kong’s JSM [Financial Times]

Earlier: Mayer Brown Is A Woman Now

We've previously reported on improved parental leave policies at Latham & Watkins, Davis Polk, and Simpson Thacher. We predicted that "with respect to maternity leave for birth mothers, 18 weeks will become the new 'market rate.'"

Perhaps it already is. Tipsters have written in to advise us that Sullivan & Cromwell and Weil Gosthal & Manges went to 18 weeks some time ago -- S&C back in August, and Weil in September.

For anyone who is interested, more details appear after the jump.

As you may recall, the reaction of ATL readers to the bonus announcement of O'Melveny & Myers was decidedly unfavorable. Now the Daily Journal (subscription) -- in an article entitled "O'Melveny & Myers' Below-Market Bonus Disappoints Associates," by Maya Meinert and Rebecca Cho -- has taken notice:

This week's bonus announcement from Los Angeles-based firm O'Melveny & Myers has caused much dismay among associates in the firm's California and Washington, D.C., offices - the law blog AboveTheLaw.com's post on the subject generated more than 200 comments - because the standard bonuses remain unchanged from last year and are well below what is considered "market," based on New York numbers.

Should other major players in California pay more, O'Melveny could feel the impact among its associate ranks, industry observers said.

According to a memo obtained by AboveTheLaw.com, O'Melveny's standard bonuses range from $27,500 for first-year associates to $45,000 for those in their seventh year and beyond. The bonuses are tied to a rating system based on the firm's expectations and a minimum billable-hour requirement of 1,950.

More excerpts and discussion, including the firm's reaction when contacted by the Daily Journal, appears after the jump.

* CIA to cooperate with investigation of alleged torture tapes. [Newsweek]

* The Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy and statutory rape laws. Discuss. [CNN]

* California may face an uphill battle in taking its bid to limit greenhouse gases to the D.C. Circuit. [Los Angeles Times via How Appealing]

* Manslaughter trial that allegedly originated from MySpace messages goes to jury. [CNN]

* Interesting issues arise in New Jersey gang cases. [New York Times]

* Milberg Weiss trial will stay in L.A. [New York Sun via How Appealing; WSJ Law Blog]

We have to step out for a bit (company holiday party). We've only skimmed this Complaint (PDF), just filed in the Southern District of New York, by a Jewish lawyer against his former employer, Allen & Overy.

Check out the Complaint for yourself, by clicking here (PDF), and offer your thoughts in the comments. We look forward to reviewing your reflections when we return.

P.S. A special request: nicknames for this lawsuit, a la "Brokeback Lawfirm" for the Aaron Charney case, are especially welcome.

Complaint: Norman Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy (PDF)

Update: Here is the firm's statement, emailed to us by a spokesperson:

Allen & Overy denies all allegations of discrimination. This person's employment was terminated based solely on performance within his orientation period, a trial period of time mandated for all employees. He also failed to disclose to Allen & Overy the fact of his previous employment at another law firm.

Our firm has a strict written policy prohibiting any form of discrimination, and we provide all new employees and partners training in both diversity awareness and harassment prevention. Over the past several years, we have also instituted live diversity training for all of our existing attorneys and managers. We will vigorously defend our proud reputation of diversity and inclusion and are confident of a positive outcome for Allen & Overy with respect to these allegations.

We'll write more about this later. If you have any firsthand information to pass along about the events in question, please email us. Thanks.

* Who says lawyers can't be stylish? [Fashionista]

* Guess this makes Judge Porteous officially worse than Judge Kent. [New Orleans Times-Picayune]

* Should federal judges be barred from reading blogs? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Of course not. Unless they're written by robots. [Overlawyered]

Following in the footsteps of Latham & Watkins and Simpson Thacher, whose moves were first reported in these pages, Davis Polk has just adopted a new and improved "Primary Caregiver Leave" policy.

We predict that, with respect to maternity leave for birth mothers, 18 weeks will become the new "market rate." One tipster quips: "Four and a half months of paid time off almost makes me want to have kids."

Here's the email, which went out around half an hour ago:

From: **** On Behalf Of Management Committee
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:07 PM
To: all.lawyers
Subject: Primary Caregiver Leave Policy

We are pleased to announce that, effective immediately, the firm has adopted a new Primary Caregiver Leave policy, which will provide lawyers who are primary caregivers to a newborn or newly adopted child with up to six weeks of paid leave within the first six months of the birth or adoption of a child. This leave is in addition to the other parental and disability/maternity leaves offered by the firm. For example, a Davis Polk associate who gives birth and is the child's primary caregiver will now be eligible for up to 18 weeks of paid leave.

For additional information about the new Primary Caregiver Leave policy and the policies on Parental Leave and Disability/Maternity Leave, please consult the Lawyers' Handbook.

Thank you.

So far we're up to around 1,200 responses to Monday's ATL / Lateral Link survey, which asks you how big your bonus was (or is going to be).

So far we've told you about New York and Washington, DC. Today, we're adding a third city. It was a close call between L.A., San Francisco, or Chicago, but we got a few more responses from Chicago, so it's today's new city.

We're still accepting responses to the survey, and the more (valid) responses we get from your city, the more likely it is to be the next city we reveal. To participate, click here.

Check out the results, after the jump.

Still no bonus announcement from Mayer Brown. But check out this intriguing email, sent out in the last hour:

From: D'Esposito, Jr., Julian C.
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:41 PM
To: FW-Assocs; FW-Cnsl
Cc: Holzhauer, James D.; Geller, Kenneth S.; Maher, Paul; Favoriti, Gail A.; Pepper, Margery; Madden, Emilie S.; Dabrowski, Heidi M.; Reichert, Kathleen S.; Harris, Robert; Staiano, David; Couleur, Nancy Jo; Belic, Indira; Burdett, Shannon T.; Burkes, Eugenia; Corby, Candice; Harris, Russell; Holthaus, John H.; Kennedy, Clinton D.; Kislow, Connie; Ku, Alice; Loessl, Angela-Katrin; Tulic, Vesna; Watson, John; Wells, Stephen R.

Subject: Firmwide Meeting on Friday, December 21

Please plan to attend a Firmwide video presentation by the office of the Chairman on December 21 that will describe an exciting, transformational event for the Firm. The meeting will begin promptly at 8am PST, 10am CST, 11 am EST, 2pm BRST, 4 GMT, 5 CET and 12 am Saturday HKST. The Director of Administration will inform you of the location of the meeting in your office. If you are out of the office, there will be a limited number of dial-in lines, the number for which can be obtained from the DoA. You should receive an Outlook calendar notice of this meeting later today.

____________________________________________
Julian C. D'Esposito
Mayer Brown LLP
71 S. Wacker
Chicago, IL 60606

What could this "exciting, transformational event" be? We assume it's not the recent indictment of partner Joseph Collins, since that's already public.

Maybe a merger is in the works? It wouldn't be the first in the firm's history. The firm's former name, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, reflected the merger of U.S.-based Mayer, Brown & Platt with U.K.-based Rowe & Maw.

Update: One tipster speculates:

I have no idea, but it is of course intriguing. Maybe we're going public. (That would apply only to the English LLP of course. I think that it may be possible in the future but hadn't seen any change in the law that would allow it now.)

So maybe it's a merger. Or possibly the "exciting" change is that they are not going to give bonuses any more.

That would be "exciting" news -- to rival firms, looking to raid the ranks of Mayer Brown lawyers.

Further Update: We've learned that tonight is the holiday party for the New York office. And still no word about bonuses...

The judicial fiefdom of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is about to expand. From today's Recorder (via How Appealing):

An extra seat for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared Congress on Tuesday and is headed to President Bush's desk.

The U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Court Security Improvement Act on Monday night, and the House of Representatives approved it on a voice vote Tuesday. Buried in that bill is language that removes one seat from the D.C. Circuit and moves it to the 9th.

Makes sense to us. Any court that takes the summer off, as the D.C. Circuit essentially does, isn't exactly overwhelmed. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit is by far the nation's largest and busiest federal appeals court. It's so huge that it has been the subject of repeated attempts at a split (so far unsuccessful, perhaps because of the Ninth Circuit Curse).

As Dan Levine's article notes, "the seat won't materialize until Jan. 21, 2009 -- the day after President Bush leaves office." We have no doubt that President Hillary Clinton will be able to fill it with a distinguished jurist.

Indeed, President Clinton may be able to reshape the Ninth Circuit, in the same that President Carter reshaped it -- in a way that still endures today, as reflected in the court's strong leftward tilt. Many of the liberal lions who are eligible for senior status but have declined to take it, such as Judges Harry Pregerson and Stephen Reinhardt, may finally be willing to do so, once they know that the court's future is in President Clinton's capable hands.

Congress OKs Extra Seat for 9th Circuit [The Recorder via How Appealing]

Our earlier open thread, about exam time "care packages" from law firms, remains active -- over a week after it was posted. So we thought we'd do a follow-up, on what law firms are sending recruits for holiday gifts.

From one tipster:

How about a piece on what law firms are offering law students as Christmas gifts? I received a package from Nixon Peabody (where everyone's a winner). It was a gray scarf, made in the USA with imported polyester (no s**t!) -- and, of course, Nixon Peabody's logo imprinted on it. I can always use a scarf, even if it is polyester, and the logo comes off with a knife (scraping).

And, of course, the market leader in swag -- Sullivan & Cromwell, provider of the famed bonsai trees -- is getting into the holiday spirit:

Attached are some pictures of the S&C holiday / exam swag (above right; thumbnail image, click to enlarge). It all came in a comically large box which I was hoping would lead to much jealousy from my roommates. Unfortunately, inside was a quite standard mug, hot chocolate, cookie combo - and, in a box of its own, a large, reversible fake wool blanket. On the reverse the blanket is a kind of synthetic raincoat material. Strange.

So what did your law firm, a former and/or future employee, send you to welcome the holiday season? Feel free to share in the comments.

(A picture of the "comically large" packaging, after the jump.)

Earlier: Does Your Law Firm Love You? An Open Thread on Exam Time Swag

* Associates, rejoice. Congress passes AMT legislation. [New York Times]

* Guitar Hero injunction denied. [Detroit Free Press]

* White separatist group sues over Jena march. [MSNBC]

* U.S. executions on the decline. [Washington Post]

* New Holloway evidence to be revealed. [CNN]

Information is now trickling in about bonuses at Kirkland & Ellis. Last week we had heard -- through the grapevine, from a social acquaintance of a K&E share partner -- that they would be good. It appears that the scuttlebutt was correct.

A K&E source in Chicago, class of 2006, reports hours of 2050 and a bonus of $45,000. That would be market in New York ($35K year-end + $10K special). But in Chicago, it's definitely above market.

A K&E source in New York advises as follows about New York bonus levels:

Overall bonuses were well over market. Exact numbers are hard to give... but about 60% were over market, with the rest mostly being with the market.

Out of the first years (class of 2006), 21 out of 36 people were above the market. After that, the ratio really increased as to the number of people who beat the market.

Congratulations, Kirkland associates, on your bountiful bonuses!

If you work at K&E, feel free to provide your bonus info in the comments. When it comes to bonus data points, the more the merrier. Thanks.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: A Pre-Announcement from Kirkland & Ellis

* If you want to run a "pump and dump" scheme, this is how you do it. [DealBreaker]

* She was only carrying the knife to defend herself -- from the bullies who would beat her up for having a brown bag lunch containing steak. [Overlawyered]

* If you ditch the law for the lucrative land of private equity, maybe you too can someday plunk down $21.3 million for a copy of the Magna Carta. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Blawg Review 139, this week replete with "sphincter-tightening." [Legal Literacy via Blawg Review]

* A shout-out to ATL form the ABA Journal, in an item about lowball bonuses. [ABA Journal]

* Speaking of the ABA Journal -- we don't want to get complacent, lest we get ambushed. Please vote for ATL! Thanks. [ABA Journal]

Monday's ATL / Lateral Link survey, which is still open, asks you how big your bonus was (or is going to be).

We're still accepting responses to the survey -- to participate, click here -- and now we're at around 1,100 participants. So we've made slight updates to the New York numbers to reflect fresh data.

After New York, the most responses have come from Washington, DC, so today's chart includes that city. Not surprisingly, the bonus ranges in Washington generally fall somewhere between New York and the national average.

Check them out, after the jump.

We see that the WSJ Law Blog has beaten us to this subject. We've had this post ready for a while; unfortunately, technical difficulties have prevented us from posting for the past hour.

The WSJ folks have already presented some of the cards that we were going to cover. But here are a few firm holiday greetings not on their list (click on each firm name to see their card):

1. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: Trying too hard, sort of like their Wild West-themed holiday party? Then again, it must have been fun for those underemployed structured finance associates to try their hand at web design.

2. Dewey & LeBoeuf: Not trying hard enough? This may take subtlety and understatement too far, to the point of banality. But at least the card's not signed "Sieg heil."

3. Schottenstein Zox & Dunn: This firm, which has about 110 lawyers in three Ohio cities and Raleigh, NC, explains in its cover email that it "strive[s] to approach life and law from a different perspective." So they designed not one but TWO holiday videos. You can view them, and vote for your favorite, over here. We're partial to the video of the skateboarding attorneys, which must have been a challenge to film.

For each vote, the firm will donate $1 to Project Mentor Big Brother Big Sisters of Central Ohio. How nice! (But it's too bad you have to provide your name and email address to vote, which will probably depress voter turnout.)

Update: It appears that the WSJ's link to the holiday card of Grodsky & Olecki, an entertainment law boutique, is broken. We've posted the card, which we also received, after the jump.

Law Blog Law Firm Holiday Cards Of the Day [WSJ Law Blog]

It's the end of the year, and the partnership announcements are trickling in. Some are being made externally, on law firm websites. Others are being made internally, with external announcements to follow in January.

Although many of them are sent to us, a specific firm's partnership announcement isn't typically of interest to us (unless there's something independently interesting about the person making partner -- drop us a line a few years from now, when Aquagirl or Loyola 2L makes partner). But we are interested in what people think generally about partnership prospects these days. So here is an open thread for discussion of the subject.

To kick off the discussion, here's a tip we received about Paul Weiss, which recently announced its new partners:

You should do an open thread about associates who have been told year after year that they were "on track" and then were totally screwed and passed over for partner. For example, for the second year in a row, Paul Weiss passed over people who were the "shoe-ins" for partner and told for years that they would make it. Two of the most egregious examples in the past two years involve women. Both women are extremely talented and have outstanding track records so it came as a complete shock to the associates. In fact, as a female mid-level associate, it makes me think, why the hell am I staying here?

(We contacted the firm for comment, but they did not get back to us.)

We're also curious about how many associate readers of ATL think they'll make partner. So here is today's featured survey, brought to you by ATL and Lateral Link:

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.

Last week, the ABA Journal named former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales its 2007 Lawyer Legal Newsmaker of the Year. Now we bring you news of two more Lawyers of the Year.

The National Law Journal went highbrow and international. The NLJ selected Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, as its Lawyer of the Year:

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is not exactly a household name to the legal profession in the United States. We think he should be.

Chaudhry, the chief justice of Pakistan who was dismissed from office by President Pervez Musharraf after the imposition of emergency rule, has been a strong voice for the preservation of the rule of law in Pakistan — one of the United States' key allies in the war on terror.

Meanwhile, the WSJ Law Blog stayed domestic. Their honoree may be, for better or worse, more well-known that former Chief Justice Chaudhry (at least to readers of ATL). Their pick: celebrity commenter Loyola 2L!

[W]hen the nominees were put to an unscientific vote, Loyola 2L won in a landslide.... And before you start whining, “But he’s not even a lawyer!,” we never said we were strict constructionists!

So who — or what — is Loyola 2L? For the non-cognoscenti, he, or she, is purportedly a second-year student, or “2L,” at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. And his claim to fame? For over a year, Loyola 2L has beaten a loud and consistent drum of discontent around the Web by posting in online forums about the job prospects for graduates of nonelite law schools.

If you're hoping that this honor will bring Loyola 2L to unmask himself (or herself), don't hold your breath:

[W]hile he’s presumably a “3L” by now, he still clings to the moniker. And anonymity. In responding to a call to identify himself he said, “Outing myself . . . would only add to the current difficulties in my life.”

For today, L2L, put the complaining on hold, and bask in the limelight. You've earned it!

P.S. Thanks for all of your nominations for ATL's own Lawyer of the Year contest. We'll put up the poll shortly.

The Lawyer of the Year: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry [National Law Journal]
The Law Blog Lawyer Of the Year: Loyola 2L [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: ATL Lawyer of the Year: Nominations, Please

Okay, she didn't quite say that. But, for the record, the woman accused of groping Santa Clause denies the allegations, claiming that she never ever sat on his lap:

"I don't know what's going on. I don't know if he was confused, it was a false report," Sandrama Lamy, 33, said this morning.

Lamy said she was window shopping at the mall Saturday with a friend when she decided to get a picture with a man playing Santa Claus.

A woman -- apparently working with the mall Santa -- made a comment after the picture was snapped, Lamy said.

"I did not sit on his lap. A woman there said 'Be careful, that's my husband.' I said 'What does that have to do with the picture?'" Lamy said. "That's all I said, and I left."...

"Why would I do this? There were so many people there. If he (Santa) needed a few extra bucks I would have given it to him," Lamy said. "I've never been involved in a crime or anything. This is shocking to me."

Selected amusing comments from readers of the Danbury News-Times, after the jump.

Every now and then, we like to highlight super-crappy especially unappealing job opportunities. See, e.g., this one (perfect for those of you who think sleep is overrated).

A reader at the University of Texas Law School recently sent a great job posting our way. A teaser:

Where to begin? First, what the heck is "Associate Attorney II"? Second, workday commences at 8 AM, and work week is 50-60 hours, Monday through Friday (not including possible weekend and holiday work). Third, anyone who cannot sit for two hours, or requires use of any ADA accommodations, need not apply. Fourth, everything is at the partners' discretion. Oh, and just in case you thought otherwise, "[t]his description is for recruitment purposes, only, and does not constitute a contract."

We noticed a few other less-than-appealing aspects of the job:

1. Pay is $4K a month. (This is a lawyer's job, right? At a law firm?)

2. The job requires a current Texas driver's license and "the ability to drive long distances unaccompanied during daylight and nighttime hours."

3. One of the practice areas is "water / wastewater / solid waste" law.

4. The job requires the ability to "carry[] loads of up to 35 pounds (such as books, binders, and files)." (To repeat: this is a lawyer's job, right?)

5. Yes, there are bonuses -- for associates who "produc[e] stellar work product and exceed[] billable hour goals," and "at the discretion of the partners."

Well, at least they're honest. No pretending to match the Cravath bonus scale, while in reality giving market-level bonuses to only a handful of associates.

Read the full job listing, after the jump.

* White House lawyers discussed destroyed CIA tapes. Harriet, holla. [New York Times]

* Meanwhile, Judge orders hearing on the destroyed tapes. [CNN]

* Defense contractor KBR employee alleges rape, testifies before House Judiciary Committee. [ABC Local]

* Teen convicted of murder when he was 12, who unsuccessfully invoked Zoloft defense, seeks cert. [MSNBC]

* Charges dropped in Holloway case again. [CNN]

O'Melveny & Myers just announced associate bonuses for its offices in California and Washington, DC. One of the tipsters who sent us the memo is not pleased:

Attached is the memo that O'Melveny & Myers associates just received. The figures for the "class bonus" appear to be far below the standard bonus at other comparable firms such as Gibson Dunn.

Memo after the jump.

Update: Based on the reactions thus far, this announcement is not going over very well. But maybe OMM is okay with that. Opines one commenter: "Expect a big exodus. It's probably what they are hoping for."

Colorado judge Grafton M. Biddle has been the subject of a prior ATL shout-out. But he has never been officially named a Judge of the Day. We think it's about time.

From the Rocky Mountain News:

A former Douglas County judge who had an affair with a prosecutor that included a rendezvous in his chambers and in the women's courthouse showers was suspended for three years Monday.

Grafton M. Biddle's punishment comes almost a year after he resigned his judgeship in a short Dec. 18 letter signed simply, "With regrets," that gave no reason for his decision.

But by then, rumors of his affair with Deputy District Attorney Laurie A. Hurst — who used the last name Steinman at the time — had been circulating in the courthouse.

From one of the paper's online commenters:

"Just another black mark on the Colorado Judicial System...... Would this be prostitution??? You know, lawyers have billable hours for everything they do... Screw the judge or screw the neighbors... Someone is paying the price for getting screwed, and an attorney is involved."

If you use the Douglas County courthouse showers, wear flip-flops.

Judge suspended over affair [Rocky Mountain News]

Earlier: Let's Get It On, Counselor!

What kind of sick society do we live in? From the Danbury News-Times (via Drudge):

A 33-year-old woman was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault Saturday after allegedly groping a man playing Santa Claus at the Danbury Fair mall.

Sandrama Lamy, 33, of Danbury, is charged with fourth-degree sexual assault, according to Danbury Detective Lt. Thomas Michael.

She sounds like a total.... ho ho ho.

Details leading up to the alleged fondling are sketchy. "I don't know what the deal was. It was just bizarre," the mall Santa told a reporter...

The mall Santa told police that Lamy touched him inappropriately while sitting on his lap. "The security officer at the mall said Santa Claus has been sexually assaulted," Michael said.

Put Ms. Lamy on the "naughty" side of the ledger.

2007 has not been a great year for mall Santas. Earlier this month in Missoula, Mont., a mall Santa was assaulted with a pumpkin pie. Meanwhile, a department store Santa in Australia claims he lost his job earlier this month because he said "Ho, ho, ho." (His bosses had asked him to say "Hi, hi, hi.")

"Santa Tim" Connaghan is the president of RealSantas.com and teaches hundreds of people a year how to be Santas. He said the Danbury Fair mall incident, if true, is one of kind. Santas usually have to worry about kids tugging beards and teens throwing pennies from the mall rafters.

"I've had some very nice ladies sit on my lap," Connaghan said.

Over at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Daniel Schwartz offers an analysis of potential employer liability under this fact pattern.

Sexual Harassment of Santa Claus - What's An Employer To Do? [Connecticut Employment Law Blog]
Police say woman groped Santa [Danbury News-Times]

So far, we've received about 1,000 responses to yesterday's ATL / Lateral Link survey on bonuses.

So far, we've discovered that around 40% of associates receiving bonuses think their bonus is too low, which is just slightly higher than the percentage of associates who think their hourly rates are too high. Coincidence?

Since over a third of you still don't know what your bonuses will be, we're going to leave the survey open for the rest of the week. Please fill it out if you haven't already done so. To access it, click here.

In the meantime, we're going to post the national results and breakdowns on a city by city basis. Since we have the most responses from New York, that's where we'll start. See the results after the jump.

Many of our Lawyers of the Day tend to be solo or small-firm practitioners from non-major cities. Not so with today's honoree, Joseph Collins. He's a partner at Mayer Brown, one of the country's biggest and most prestigious law firms, and he maintains offices in Chicago and New York.

From an article by Nathan Koppel in the Wall Street Journal (subscription; but also covered at the Law Blog):

In a rare case of a lawyer being charged in connection with the alleged wrongs of a client, Chicago lawyer Joseph Collins was indicted today on fraud and other charges in connection with the 2005 collapse of commodities and derivatives firm Refco Inc.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan on Tuesday announced 11 counts against Mr. Collins, of the law firm Mayer Brown LLP, in connection with legal work he did for Refco, including documenting a series of "round trip loans" between related entities and outside investors that Refco completed to shift bad debt off its books from the late 1990s to 2005. The discovery of the transactions led to one of the swiftest collapses in Wall Street history.

Phillip Bennett, the former chief executive of Refco, and others have been indicted in connection with the Refco collapse.

"Acting hand-in-hand with Bennett, Collins made affirmative misrepresentations, material omissions, and told deceptive half-truths, all to assist Bennett's scheme to steal more than $2.4 billion from potential investors," the indictment said.

Yikes. And the indictment is coming out of the S.D.N.Y. -- those guys are badass.

Neither Mr. Collins nor the firm got back to the WSJ in time to comment. But we were able to get a statement from Mayer Brown. Check it out, after the jump.

We've heard complaints from numerous associates claiming that their law firms are using vague bonus policies to lowball them on bonuses. While we understand why these associates are upset, we can't say we're surprised. The whole point of a bonus policy that contains an element of discretion is the ability to pay some associates less than others -- for whatever reason, justified or not.

This is why we regard only a lockstep, non-hours-based match of the Cravath year-end and special bonuses as a "true match." If a firm reserves the right to tailor associate bonuses -- based on billable hours, quality of performance, or any other factor -- expect the firm to exercise it.

So we don't expect to write much about how firms are using slippery bonus memos to pay low bonuses (although we will bring you the results of yesterday's bonus survey). The intricacies of an individual law firm's bonus policy tend to be of interest only to people at that particular firm.

We are, however, interested in bright-line distinctions. For example, what firms have rejected special bonuses entirely? It turns out there are a few of them. Last week we received this info:

DLA Piper litigation associates in New York just left a "Coffee Meeting" with Joe Finnerty III, head of New York litigation. He "unofficially" announced that the bonus structure and amount will be exactly the same as last year and that there will be no market "special bonuses."

Hmm. Did the firm not get paid enough for the Mitchell Report?

And today we received this info:

I'm an associate at McDermott, Will & Emery in the Boston office. We have all just heard through department heads that not only will the firm not issue special bonuses this year, but bonuses this year will be less than half of years past and well well below market.

For example, a 6th year associate (class of 2001) billing between 2000 and 2100 hours will get approximately $5,000. eedless to say, this is less than a first-year associate gets for simply showing up at any other firm. There is not a large or probably even a midsize firm in Boston whose bonuses are anywhere near this low.

We're guessing that DLA Piper and McDermott, Will & Emery are not alone in nixing special bonuses. Many of the firms that have remained mum until now probably have no plans of paying special bonuses, a la Cravath.

And to be perfectly (and brutally) honest, does it make sense for firms with profits per partner that are a fraction of Cravath's to pay bonuses at Cravath levels? Of course associates want bigger bonuses. But they also want jobs.

Nevertheless, we have no doubt that many of you are unhappy about your firm's bonus policy. Feel free to engage in bonus bitchery in the comments. Thanks.

We thought the whole point of Ave Maria Law School, founded by Domino's pizza founder Thomas Monaghan, was that with enough money, you can do whatever you want. E.g., establish a very conservative, Catholic law school, and not care if the liberal legal academy raises its eyebrows -- 'cause you could buy and sell them, several times over.

So doesn't it defeat the whole point if Ave Maria requires funding from sources beyond Monaghan's pile of pizza dough? From Julie Kay's article in the National Law Journal:

Got $20 million? If so, you could have a law school building named after you.

Ave Maria School of Law is selling naming rights to the new law school facility it's building in southwest Florida.

"We'd like to find someone who would want the opportunity to have their name associated with the school, to help us with the construction costs," said Dean Bernard Dobranski. He said the school is rapidly moving forward with its controversial plan to relocate from Ann Arbor, Mich., to Ave Maria, Fla., and has even obtained architectural renderings of the new school.

Ave Maria is already in turmoil: controversy over its move from Michigan to Florida, lawsuits filed by three professors who claim they were wrongfully terminated, an ongoing investigation by the American Bar Association. A suggestion that Tom Monaghan's coffers are not infinite could not come at a worse time.

Meanwhile, in other Domino's news, they're trying to return to the glory days of their 30-minute delivery guarantee -- without getting sued. Delivering delicious pizza in under half an hour is a noble mission. We wish them the best of luck.

P.S. Tom Monaghan no longer owns the pizza chain. He sold his controlling interest to Bain Capital in 1998 for about a billion dollars, which he plowed into launching Ave Maria University.

Ave Maria still looks to move, puts name on block [National Law Journal]
Domino's Pizza and the Law [WSJ Law Blog]
Will a Twist on an Old Vow Deliver for Domino's Pizza? [Wall Street Journal]

Veteran litigator Joseph Russoniello, recently nominated to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, previously served as senior counsel in the San Francisco office of Cooley Godward Kronish. If he's confirmed, which is looking likely, one would expect him to take a big pay cut as he moves from private practice to government service. The current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, earned $1,993,367 over 21 months while at Patterson Belknap; now, as AG, he takes home $186,600 a year.

But Joe Russoniello won't be taking such a huge pay cut. A reader observes:

Buried at the end of a Recorder article (subscription) about a DOJ report about Joe Russoniello’s possible conflicts or interest due to his $1.5 million stock portfolio is Joe’s last year’s compensation from Cooley Godward. This is the part that I found interesting. Why? Because it’s so low.

What do you think Cooley Godward was paying the ex-U.S. Attorney to serve as counsel to the firm? Half a million? A million? No.... $244,802!

In light of that paycheck -- which, while handsome by normal standards, is a pittance by Biglaw ones -- we hope that Russoniello's Cooley gig was super-cushy, with minimal billing required. His paycheck is pretty much equal to that of a third-year associate at Cravath, all in (base of $180,000, year-end bonus of $45,000, and special bonus of $20,000). But how many Cravath third-years can claim to have served as U.S. Attorney in a major city for eight years, as Joseph Russoniello did (1982-1990)?

Fighting Crime May Not Pay [The Recorder (subscription)]
Taking Stock of The DOJ's Next Targets [Legal Pad]

Leave it to lawyers to complicate everything they touch. Over at New York Personal Injury Law Blog, Eric Turkewitz has this update on the New York bar exam fiasco:

The New York State Board of Law Examiners has confirmed to me that they will hear appeals regarding the July 2007 exam. That exam was plagued by malfunctioning software for those that submitted essays on laptop computers, only to see all or part of the answers disappear. The BOLE subsequently said that they approximated the answers if they were incomplete, based on how the examinees did on other answers. Those grade approximations were subsequently called into question based on an anonymous tip in this blog.

More details in the full post.

New York Bar Examiners Will Entertain Appeals Over Laptop Problems [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]

* Arbitration rising in the workplace. [WSJ via Law Blog]

* Judge orders disclosure of White House visitor logs. [CNN]

* It's official: NJ bans death penalty. [New York Times]

* FCC to vote on rule allowing greater consolidation of local media ownership in big cities. [Washington Post]

* Wealthy couple busted for forcing labor, practically enslaving housekeepers. [CNN]

* Nicaraguan appeals court frees American. [CNN]

For associates in the New York office of Kirkland & Ellis, this Wednesday is when they'll learn their financial fate:

From: Jonathan Putnam
To: New York Associates
Cc: John Desmarais, John Kuehn, Michael Movsovich, Maria Davalos
Sent: December 17, 2007
Subject: Associate Bonus Meeting

As in past years, John Desmarais will give a short presentation this week to explain our associate bonus methodology. The meeting will take place on Wednesday, Dec. 19, at 4 pm in Conference Room 50G-H. The bonuses will be paid before the end of the month.

When it comes to bonuses, K&E does things a bit differently. Associate bonuses are not lockstep but individualized, based on (1) your rank relative to your peers and (2) your hours.

Historically the Kirkland bonuses have been quite generous. Even for average K&E associates, as opposed to top performers, they're typically well above-market -- some of the highest in all of Biglaw (even if not at Wachtell levels).

But in light of this year's "special" bonuses, how will the K&E bonuses stack up to the top tier New York firms? Check back later in the week to find out.

* Is this brilliant, or awful, or both? [LexBlog via WSJ Law Blog]

* Move over, bonsai trees. Make way for... law faculty recruitment swag? [Feminist Law Professors]

* State government lawyers to.... $197K! No, seriously. [Pennsyltucky Politics Blog / Harrisburg Patriot-News]

* A cautionary tale about law firm websites, courtesy of Jones Day. [Legal Blog Watch (Carolyn Elefant)]

* Don't take tax advice from Wesley Snipes. [TaxProf Blog]

* Lots of Lawyers (and Judges) of the Day on this list. [Blogonaut]

* Blawg Review #138: on human rights, and law student rites. [De Novo via Blawg Review]

What are the duties of a Supreme Court law clerk? The primary responsibilities of SCOTUS clerks include reviewing cert petitions, conducting legal research, and drafting opinions.

But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has added a new task to the list: congressional gossip gathering. On Friday, he dispatched one of his clerks to the Senate. The clerk's mission? To skulk around hallways and offices, collecting intelligence about the status of the pending judicial pay raise legislation (and maybe to put in a good word or two in favor of the bill, too).

It's not unusual for a clerk to serve as a justice's eyes and ears -- but these spying duties usually don't extend beyond One First Street. If Justice Kennedy subscribes to a strict view of separation of powers, and wants cameras out of the courtroom, should he perhaps keep his clerks out of the Capitol?

Okay, we jest. We really don't think it's a big deal if Justice Kennedy wants to send a clerk over to snoop around the Senate (and we also suspect that Justice Kennedy, of all the justices, wouldn't mind cameras in the courtroom). But AMK's sending over a clerkly spy is a sad commentary on how desperate some judges are for a pay raise.

(Another depressing sign: rumor has it that one federal judge was wandering around the Federalist Society 25th anniversary gala, collecting the unclaimed $1 Madison coins that were left at each place setting.)

So come on, Senators. Pass the federal judicial pay raise, and give these judges back their dignity!

Federal Judiciary Salary Bill Progresses - With Caveats [Washington Briefs]

The litigation powerhouse of Williams & Connolly has announced associate pay raises, effective January 1, 2008. We have confirmed the fact of the raise with sources at the firm.

There was no comprehensive memo, so we're not 100 percent certain of the specific numbers. But word on the street is that the new pay scale is as follows:

Year -- Salary
1st: $180,000
2nd: $195,000
3rd: $210,000
4th: $230,000
5th: $250,000
6th: $270,000
7th: $290,000

These base salaries are well above market (160 - 170 - 185, etc.). But remember that Williams & Connolly traditionally pays an above-market base salary, since it does not pay year-end bonuses. So W&C's move to a $180,000 starting salary is not as exciting as a similar move by Cravath or Simpson would be.

The old pay scale is available here. The pay raise appears to be a $15K bump for the first three classes. Fourth-year associates get a $20K increase. Fifth-year through seventh-year associates get a $25K increase.

We're reasonably confident in these numbers. But, as noted, they were not set forth in a memo. So if you see any errors, please contact us. Thanks.

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Williams & Connolly Weighs In

The combined firm will have over 1,500 lawyers in 23 offices. It will "employ the K&L Gates brand and have the legal name of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP." Press release here.

Update: Some commentary from an inside source, after the jump.

K&L Gates, Hughes & Luce Partners Vote to Combine Firms Effective January 1 [K&L Gates]

The firm of Dewey Ballantine was never known for being particularly PC. From a 2004 article by Anthony Lin, for the New York Law Journal:

Nearly one year after lawyers at Dewey Ballantine infuriated members of the Asian-American community by performing a stereotype-laden parody song at their annual dinner, the law firm is again dealing with allegations of racial insensitivity....

On Monday, an employee sent a firmwide e-mail advertising the availability of some puppies for adoption. Douglas Getter, a London-based American who heads Dewey Ballantine's European mergers and acquisitions practice then sent a firmwide reply.

"Please don't let these puppies go to a Chinese restaurant!" Getter wrote in his e-mail.

Now Dewey has merged with LeBoeuf Lamb. Happily, it appears their firm cultures are a good match. Check out this email exchange appearing below -- and note that partner Stephen Best came from the LeBoeuf Lamb side of the marriage.

From: Ralph C. Ferrara
To: DL All Attorneys - US
Cc: Ferrara, Ralph C.
Sent: Mon Dec 17 11:00:29 2007
Subject: German Translation - Completed

Dear All,

Thank you for your many quick responses [to a request for translation of a German document]. The translation has been completed.

Regards, Ralph
______________

From: Stephen A. Best
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 AM
To: Ferrara, Ralph C.; DL All Attorneys - US
Subject: Re: German Translation - Completed

Zieg Heil!!!!!!

Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

Oh, the perils of Blackberrying! If you respond to a firm-wide email on your Blackberry, be EXTRA careful about not hitting "reply all" (unless that is truly your intention).

Of course, the "Zieg Heil" response would have been inappropriate even if sent to a smaller group of recipients. As noted by Wikipedia, uttering the phrase "Sieg Heil" in Germany is "a criminal offence punishable by up to three years of prison."

Two emails of profuse apology, issued within an hour of the offending message, after the jump.

Last week, our Associate Bonus Watch kicked back into high gear, with news (or teasers) from Ropes & Gray, Sidley Austin, Chadbourne & Pourke, Arnold & Porter, Wachtell, Fried Frank, and O'Melveny & Myers, as well as pay raise news from Boies Schiller. Today's ATL / Lateral Link Featured Job Survey keeps that thread alive.

Update: This survey is closed. Click to see results for New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles San Francisco / Silicon Valley, Boston, and Texas.

More results from last week's survey, which inquired into billing rates, after the jump.

Some quick updates on law-related sex scandals previously covered in these pages:

First, Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison, a recent Lawyer of the Day, is resigning. We'd say that this is pretty lame; what prominent public official hasn't had an affair? But there are other allegations in the mix, including a claim that he tried to get dirt on a political rival from his lover, which make the resignation more understandable.

Second, yes, we missed last week's juicy NYM story about financier Jeffrey Epstein, alleged former paramour of model Maximilia Cordero. Fortunately, our colleagues over at DealBreaker didn't; Bess Levin's post appeared here.

Finally, a sex scandal that's new to these pages: some 1Ls at UVA getting busted for bonking, in a cell phone booth at the law library. Of course, library sex is nothing new. But it seems to be moving up the U.S. News rankings.

Attorney General Paul Morrison scandal (collected coverage) [Topeka Capital-Journal via WSJ Law Blog]
In Kansas, Top Official Announces Resignation [New York Times]
Jeffrey Epstein, Owner Of An Enormous Townhouse, Doesn't Bitch About Having To Answer The Front Door When He's In The Middle Of A 4th Floor Breast-Feeding [DealBreaker]
The Fantasist [New York Magazine]
Law Lib Bump ‘n Grind? [BLOTUS via TJ's Double Play]

Earlier: Lawyer of the Day: Attorney General Paul Morrison
Sex in Your Law School Library Is Illegal, and 'Necessity Is Not a Defense'

Yesterday's New York Times contains an interesting op-ed about how to read the Second Amendment. Adam Freedman -- author of The Party of the First Part: The Curious World of Legalese, a potential stocking stuffer for the lawyer in your life -- parses the use of commas in the amendment. He concludes:

[At the time of the Second Amendment's drafting,] lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible.

Another problem with trying to find meaning in the Second Amendment’s commas is that nobody is certain how many commas it is supposed to have. The version that ended up in the National Archives has three, but that may be a fluke. Legal historians note that some states ratified a two-comma version. At least one recent law journal article refers to a four-comma version.

The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence.

... [W]hen the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

In fairness to the other side of the debate, that's just one scholar's opinion. Many others, including prominent liberal academics, disagree.

What do you think? Take our poll, after the jump.

* Bush administration seeks greater power over promotions of military lawyers. [Boston Globe via How Appealing]

* Saudi king pardons rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes (for being alone with a man at the time of the attack). [AP via New York Times]

* Limited effects of recent SCOTUS sentencing decision? [Chicago Tribune]

* CNN's guide to Mitchell report players. [CNN]

* Law Blog's guide to Sen. George Mitchell (including a funny story of a minor faux pas). [WSJ Law Blog]

* Poll suggests support for individual rights reading of Second Amendment. [CNN]

* Comcast v. NFL Network dispute produces another lawsuit. [Sportsline]

For non-New York associates of Sidley Austin, Monday is the big day. The firm just sent out a memo informing them that bonuses will be distributed at that time. As you may recall, the firm previously announced special bonuses, but only for its New York office -- news that was not well-received outside of NYC.

If you're hoping for hard numbers, you'll be disappointed; the memo is rather vague. It states:

[W]e continue to determine bonuses on an individual basis and consistent with our culture and practice, will communicate with you individually about them. Because year-end bonuses remain discretionary and are tailored to individual circumstances, no description of the relevant factors could be exhaustive. As in recent years, however, we again have considered the hours that each associate has spent on chargeable, pro bono, and certain non-chargeable matters such as legal services to the Firm, as well as the quality of each associate's work and other special contributions to the Firm.

You can read the whole thing, in all of its glorious opacity, after the jump.

Law school list serve trainwrecks are a staple here at ATL. We've written about several -- see, e.g., Cumberland Law School; Washington University School of Law -- and they tend to be popular with readers.

A student at NYU Law School brought a recent listserv debacle to our attention:

[This listserve controversy] touches on many law school and other legal topics. They include grades, finals, state vs. T14 schools, Jesus, the Constitution, Jesus vs. the Constitution, and [people] who were arrested at Harvard [see April 24, 2:21 AM entry] and feel the need to announce it to the whole law school.

Perhaps it's just exam stress all around, but having just taken my crim pro final earlier today, the last bit made things extra hilarious.

The reader then included several emails from the thread. But fortunately for us, another NYU law student already collected and posted them over here (which saves us the trouble of cutting and pasting).

More after the jump.

Here are the results from yesterday's Featured Job Survey, brought to you by ATL and Lateral Link, which inquired into billing rates.

More than 700 of you responded to yesterday's survey, not counting a few dubious entries. In case you were wondering, yes, we really do discard your response if you claim to be billing out at $25 an hour at Sullivan & Cromwell. We're asking for your rates for legal services.

For those of you wondering what the average rate for an hour of lawyerly time is these days -- and whether your firm is selling you cheap -- here are the national averages based on our (admittedly unscientific) survey:

How many associates think they're worth more than that? Find out, after the jump.

Last month, Morgan Lewis & Bockius issued a bonus non-announcement -- a placeholder memo, indicating that bonus news would be forthcoming.

Perhaps MLB associates have reason to be optimistic. The firm must be saving some money, since it's making associates pay their own way on the ski trip of Business and Finance Practice Group. Our tipster observes: "[T]his is yet another reflection of Morgan Lewis' caring attitude."

When law firms hold "destination events" -- e.g., the Boies Schiller firm meeting in Jamaica, the Kirkland & Ellis retreat at the Hotel Hershey, and other retreats mentioned here -- they often pay for their associates to attend. But there's no rule holding that they must do so, especially if attendance is voluntary (which is the case here).

And hey -- at least the firm has negotiated a special ML&B discount!

(ML&B ski trip memo, after the jump.)

Our recent open thread about boutique law firms prompted another request for more beyond-Biglaw discussion:

Not really a tip, but how 'bout a thread on midsize firms -- not quite big law, which has been going on for a while, and not quite boutique, which you just recently posted. I'm talking 75-200 attorney type firms that still pay $125K-$150K base in New York (don't know much about other regions).

Our tipster provided a few examples of the firms in question, with starting salaries (note -- we have not independently verified these numbers):

pryor cashman - 140k
anderson kill - 140k
herrick feinstein - 150k
otterbourg - 150k
olshan grundman - 150k
fox rothschild (philly-based) - 125k

If you have information to share on year-end bonuses (or compensation more generally) at midsize / regional law firms, please share in the comments. It would be optimal if you could identify the firm by name; but if you can't, please provide as much information as possible. Thanks.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Beyond Biglaw

The ethical rules governing advertising by lawyers are designed in large part to protect the public from misleading pitches. But maybe it's the lawyers who need protecting -- from themselves.

If these lawyers scratch themselves inappropriately during meetings, or hog the cold cuts at lunch, don't say they didn't warn you.

Magilla Gorilla, Esq. [copyranter]

Earlier: Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My -- Is It a Law Firm Ad Campaign?

Here's the latest Job of the Week, courtesy of ATL's career partner, Lateral Link. If you're not already a member of Lateral Link, you can sign up through their website. Membership, which is free and confidential, allows you to learn about new legal opportunities as they become available.

Position: Staff Counsel

Company: ActBlue

Location: Boston, MA

Position Description: Staff Counsel will report to Executive Director. Initial responsibilities will include:

• Research of campaign finance laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels.
• Developing and implementing legal and lobbying strategies to expand ActBlue’s ability to operate at the state level.
• Ensuring compliance with all applicable campaign finance and privacy laws.
• Cultivating relationships with election offices and local campaign finance attorneys across the country.
• Responding to legal inquiries and complaints.

Additional information, after the jump.

We have confirmed the rumor that has surfaced here and there in the comments: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz once again paid year-end bonuses to its associates that were 100 percent of their base salaries (which are already above-market; starting salary at WLRK is $165,000). This is consistent with past practice; Wachtell has paid 100 percent bonuses for several years running now.

Due to the new "special bonus," the gap between Wachtell associates and their counterparts at other top shops, while still large, isn't as enormous as it has been in the past. But when you're a senior associate taking home roughly $600,000, it's not very gracious to complain.

P.S. Disclosure: We worked at Wachtell from 2000 - 2003. For our thoughts on that experience, click here.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Wachtell Lipton Windfalls

* So, it's gonna be illegal now, which means the CIA can't do it, right? [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* New Jersey gets rid of the death penalty; now if they could just tackle that disgusting odor. [BBC]

* Prosecutors go 0-1-6 in Sears Tower trial. [CNN]

* Hey, look everybody! International law! They've got a court with judges and lawyers and stuff, and they even issue rulings! Just like it's real! That's cute. ICJ upholds treaty giving islands to Colombia. [Jurist]

* Hollywood writers take this strike thing up a notch. [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

So yes, it's true. The rumor that Boies, Schiller & Flexner has raised starting salaries to $168,000, which has surfaced here and there in the comments, has been confirmed for us by a knowledgeable source. The news was announced last weekend at the firm meeting in Jamaica.

As for the rest of the scale, second-years make $180,000, and then there are $21,000 jumps each year thereafter (i.e., $201,000, $222,000, etc.). Additional changes to the old Boies compensation system -- primarily relating to contigency cases, which the firm does a fair amount of (and earns major moolah from) -- are being considered, but have not yet been finalized.

Now, as you may recall from this earlier post, BSF is perhaps sui generis when it comes to associate compensation matters. Associate compensation is actually directly tied to the revenue that each associate generates for the firm. So their move to $168K is not as exciting as if, say, a firm with a more traditional compensation structure -- a Cravath or Sullivan or Simpson -- made such a move.

But hey, it's still good news; the new base rates are indeed a raise over what Boies associates previously earned. But recall that, at least in the major (New York / Westchester / D.C.) offices, base salary is just an advance on total compensation, and bonus is the difference. And in the major offices, it's really all about the bonus.

Anyway, stay tuned. If you're at Boies and can provide us with more detail, please feel free to email us. Thanks.

P.S. Sorry for the radio silence. The new servers that we're expecting in 2008 are needed now (as we've repeatedly told our bosses).

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Associate Compensation Overhaul at Boies Schiller?

A major legal story that's related to sports? Oh noes! We are completely ignorant.

But we've collected some links about former Senator George Mitchell's report on steroid use in major legal baseball. Feel free to discuss in the comments.

P.S. Would any of you be interested in writing a column for ATL on sports and the law? If so, please email us (subject line: "Sports Column"), and tell us a bit about yourself, your vision for such a column, possible topics, etc.

In 2008, we're going to be making some changes to ATL -- e.g., a site redesign, new servers, etc. -- and bringing aboard some outside columnists is part of that plan. So feel free to send column ideas our way.

Thanks, bro. (Talking like a jock -- it's really not that hard.)

Steroid Report Implicates Top Players [New York Times]
Clemens, Tejada named in Report [Sports Illustrated / SI.com]
Law Blog Lawyer Of the Day: DLA’s George Mitchell [WSJ Law Blog]

Part of a blogger’s job description is to shamelessly rip off stuff from the mainstream media. So we’re going to follow in the footsteps of the ABA Journal and the WSJ Law Blog, and name ATL’s first annual Lawyer of the Year. (Of course, it's not that original an idea to begin with, insofar as it's inspired by Time magazine's Person of the Year.)

The WSJ crew is still accepting nominations, so we don’t know the identity of their pick. But the ABA Journal’s honoree for 2007, Alberto Gonzales, has generated some controversy. The Journal's editor and publisher, Edward A. Adams, explained the pick to the Washington Post: "It's about who has had the most effect in the world of lawyers this year. We're not saying Gonzales is good or bad. We're just saying this is the leading newsmaker in our part of the world."

Additional discussion, plus how to submit your nomination for ATL's Lawyer of the Year, after the jump.

Attorney billing rates continued to rise in 2007, as just reported by the National Law Journal, based on its annual survey. With this news hook, we bring you the latest ATL / Lateral Link Featured Job Survey, which inquires into billing rates.

If you're interested, check out and respond to the survey, which appears after the jump. Thanks!

We previously opined that it would be tough to top last year's holiday party at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. The Carnivale-themed festivities featured drag queens, dancers covered in silver make-up, and albino boa onstrictors.

But if the firm fails to equal that extravaganza, it won't be for lack of trying. Check out the "Schedule of Events" -- how lawyerly to have festivities on a schedule -- for this year's CWT holiday party, taking place tonight at the firm's offices in lower Manhattan. Be in the Empire Room by 7:45 PM sharp, or you'll miss the "Holiday Greeting by Bob Link"!

See also quesadillas. Mmmm, quesadillas...

P.S. We've been hearing all sorts of rumors about CWT lately. If you have some gossip to contribute, please drop us a line. Thanks.

Boogie, Counselor! Which Law Firm Gives Best Party? [New York Observer]

Yesterday at around 5:30 p.m., just as the New York office was getting ready to head off to the firm holiday party, Chadbourne & Parke issued its bonus memorandum. The upshot is that Chadbourne is paying year-end and special bonuses to "eligible" associates in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, and Houston (yes, Houston -- wow).

The bonus table is your standard table, with the most senior associates getting $115,000 in bonuses ($65,000 year-end and $50,000 special). But it's not a lockstep match due to the "eligibility" requirement. It's not clear what the eligibility criteria are, but here's the relevant language from the memo:

As in the past, eligibility to receive a full or partial year-end bonus will be performance based, with the quality of performance as well as billable or quality non-billable hours expectations each taken into account. Eligibility for a partial or full special bonus will be based on meeting or exceeding all of the Firm's expectations.

It seems that Chadbourne is going with the Fried Frank model. Some people will get full special bonuses, some will get partial special bonuses, and some might get no special bonus at all. In addition, it appears that some CP associates might not even get a full year-end bonus, based on the memo raising the possibility of getting a "partial year-end bonus."

In sum, it pays to be an eligible young associate.

Today's Morning Docket links to this fascinating article by one of our favorite Supreme Court correspondents, Tony Mauro. Mauro writes:

Among prominent federal appeals court judges in the 1990s, Barack Obama was known as “the one who got away.”

In 1990, Obama had been elected the first African-American president of Harvard Law Review, which made him a blazingly hot prospect as a law clerk for one of the top federal appeals judges, who in turn would almost certainly send him on to the Supreme Court as a clerk.

But with a remarkable certitude that still amazes his friends and elders, Obama said no to all that...

But the three individuals listed below didn't "get away"; they have not escaped the justices' clutches. They've all been hired to clerk for Chief Justice John G. Roberts in October Term 2008 (who is, by the way, now done hiring for next Term -- sorry, aspiring JGR clerks):

1. William Baude (Yale 2007 / McConnell)
2. Jeffrey Harris (Harvard 2006 / Sentelle / Silberman)
3. Erin Murphy (Georgetown 2006 / Sykes)

Will Baude (pictured) is a fellow blogger, founder of Crescat Sententia (where he once interviewed us). Jeff Harris is currently finishing up the second of two D.C. Circuit clerkships (because, you know, doing just one wasn't prestigious enough). Erin Murphy is currently a Bristow Fellow. She was, incidentally, hired by then-Judge Samuel Alito to clerk for him on the Third Circuit -- so she has actually been hired by two justices (even though she never clerked for SAA due to his intervening elevation).

Also, note the feeding by Judges Michael McConnell (10th Cir.) and superhottie Diane Sykes (7th Cir.). They're both highly-regarded judges who are reputed to be great to work for. Expect to see them feed more in the future (especially Judge McConnell, a former SCOTUS clerk himself -- having once been a SCOTUS clerk is highly correlated with feeding your own clerks).

The current tally of OT 2008 SCOTUS clerks, with the three new Roberts clerks added, appears after the jump.

The Man That Got Away [Legal Times]

* Well, Justice Thomas, it's no place for stubborn, illogical reasoning either, but hey... [South Florida Sun-Sentinel via How Appealing]

* Obama's road not taken; has it made all the difference? [Legal Times]

* Car companies' suit against California tossed. [Jurist]

* Bush still doesn't care about poor kids. [AP via Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Is "orgy guy" a suspect classification? [CNN]

Maybe you can tell us. We heard that the associates' meeting for O'Melveny & Myers's New York office was muddled, with no clear answer or bright-line rules about the firm's bonus policy. What we have gathered, however, is that the firm did not do a "true match" of year-end and special bonuses. Associates will be eligible for a special bonus based on their evaluations and their hours, but we're not sure of the cutoffs for each.

Based on the bits and pieces that we've heard from secondhand sources, this comment seems to be basically accurate:

The "market" bonus will be determined in the usual fashion, basically a combination of your review and hours (including pro bono). There is no bright line on hours for this bonus.

The "special" bonus will be given to associates who get at least an average review (meeting expectations) and who hit a minimum billable hour requirement (also including pro bono). This number has not been finalized but will be no more than 1950. The billable hour requirement may change a little for different class years.

If you work at OMM and can provide us with a more definitive account or more details, please drop us a line. Thanks.

In yesterday's Featured Job Survey, brought to you by ATL and Lateral Link, we asked you whether your firms had enough work to go around. The two questions posed were (1) whether business is slow for you and (2) whether you're afraid of losing your job.

Almost 1,300 of you responded to the survey (which is, by the way, a number 100 times greater than the handful of cantankerous commenters who objected). Here are the overall results:

More detailed results, broken down by a number of categories, appear after the jump.

Just in time for its holiday party, which is taking place tonight, the New York office of Arnold & Porter has announced bonuses. It appears to be following the example of other non-New York firms -- e.g., Covington & Burling, WilmerHale, and Sidley Austin -- and paying its New York associates better than their non-NYC counterparts.

Full memo after the jump. Some brief observations, from a tipster:

A word of explanation: bonus structure is very different between the D.C. office (which I believe has a tiered formula), and New York, which has in the past had a flat 1950 hours requirement, with some other types of hours counting toward that 1950. Note the tying of special bonus to 2000 client billables (this is going to cut out some, don't know how many).

There is also confusion in the ranks about whether the special-bonus-tied-to-2000-billables thing includes pro bono hours. On my reading, it doesn't.

Note also the VERY weird "firm citizenship" requirement. Timely billing!? Oh noes!

You can read the memo for yourself, after the jump.

Earlier today, we alluded to a significant revamping of parental leave policy at Latham & Watkins. Now we're happy to bring you the details.

Under the earlier version of LW's Parental Care Leave policy, associates were entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave and up to four weeks of paternity leave. Today the firm announced a significant expansion of its Parental Care Leave, at full base salary, which reflects its support for associates who are balancing the responsibilities of parenthood with a legal career.

Effective today, December 12, Latham's Parental Care Leave policy provides:

* 18 weeks for birth mothers who are primary caregivers

* 18 weeks for adoptive parents who primary caregivers

* 10 weeks for other primary caregivers

* 4 weeks for non-primary caregivers (both birth and adoptive parents)

In addition, the firm is introducing a new "Pace Reduction Option for Returning Associates To Adjust" Program. This program automatically gives associates the option of returning on a reduced pace schedule, for six months, without seeking prior approval. It's designed to help new parents transition back to work after their Parental Care Leave, without the immediate pressures of a full-time billable hours requirement.

This is a great move, which hopefully other firms will emulate. We commend Latham & Watkins for its commitment to lawyers who are balancing the rigors of Biglaw life with the demands of parenthood.

P.S. Are we witnessing the start of a trend in the direction of improved maternity and paternity leave policies? Back in August, as we reported in these pages, Simpson Thacher raised maternity leave to 18 weeks.

By collecting and disseminating compensation information, this site plays a role in the setting of associate salaries. By email, several of you have requested that we bring greater transparency to another market: holiday gifts for secretaries / administrative assistants.

In large law firms, it's customary during the holiday season for an associate to give a cash gift to his or her administrative assistant. Some people think of it as a "bonus" or a "tip," like what you might pay to your doorman or newspaper delivery person (although the most genteel formulation is to cast it as a holiday gift, accompanied with a nice card).

Many associate readers have written in to us for guidance in terms of how much they should give their secretary as a gift. For example:

"I was recently discussing secretary bonuses with a senior colleague of mine. It turns out he has been paying far more than me over the years (even though I thought I paid fairly generously). Can we generate some discussion as to the appropriate level for associates to tip their secretaries and paralegals?"

"Lots of time is spent talking about the bonuses that we'll be getting as associates, which we share with support staff as holiday tips or gifts. Is there any guidance on how much we should be giving our assistants and/or dedicated paralegals? Is there a scale based on class year?"

Reader, you're in luck. A table is making the rounds of one large New York law firm.

Check it out, after the jump.

If she hadn't already gotten a shout-out in Morning Docket, we might have named Karyn McConnell Hancock our Lawyer of the Day. She's the pregnant Ohio attorney who, as reported by the AP, disappeared for four days, then made up a story about being kidnapped at gunpoint and taken to Georgia. According to her husband, she had "a meltdown."

Instead, since Hancock's story has already gotten lots of MSM coverage, we'll bestow today's prize upon New York lawyer Thomas Decea. From a story in the New York Law Journal by Anthony Lin (who's on a roll lately; two words: Charlene Morisseau):

A New York judge has ordered court supervision of a lawyer for "objectionable conduct" toward a female opposing counsel who he said had a "cute little thing going on" during a deposition.

According to transcripts of the deposition, Thomas B. Decea of Danzig Fishman & Decea in White Plains also called Michelle A. Rice of Arkin Kaplan & Rice "hon" and "girl" and asked her why she was not wearing a wedding ring.

It's interesting to note that Michelle Rice, alleged possessor of the "cute little thing," is a name partner in the law firm of legendary litigator Stanley Arkin -- who's renowned for his toughness.

The underlying litigation is also noteworthy. It involves Lowenstein Sandler, one of New Jersey's largest and most profitable law firms (Rice's client).

More excerpts and discussion -- including an attempt to explain away Decea's calling Michelle Rice "hon" as a reference to "Attila the Hun" -- after the jump.

With respect to whether to match the Cravath-level "special bonuses" -- or, if not to match them fully (i.e., lockstep / no hours requirement), to what extent -- L.A.'s "Big Three" L.A. are playing a waiting game.

At Latham & Watkins, the Associates Committee just sent out this email (to all offices):

Itʼs that time of year again. Everyone is busy with work, family and the holidays, not to mention bonus chatter. So are we. We are preparing for our year-end Associates Committee meeting, where the details of our bonus program are worked out. As in the past, we will be announcing bonuses following this meeting, this year on January 25.

(In addition, we're hearing about some significant enhancements to associate benefits at LW, including parental leave. We'll write more on the subject once we have details.)

Meanwhile, in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, associates are being notified of their bonuses in their annual performance reviews. The standard bonuses for the various classes appear to match the "year-end" bonus scale set by Cravath. But GDC associates have not been told anything about "special" bonuses and whether they will -- or won't -- be receiving them. Our tipster summarizes: "As of now, they are effectively punting."

Stay tuned to ATL for the latest bonus news from around the country.

The Ropes & Gray bonus memo, which some of you have already started discussing over here, appears after the jump. It outlines bonuses for the three most junior classes (2005-2007).

The firm appears to be paying market-level special bonuses to (1) New York associates and (2) certain associates outside of New York. But the memo is, as one commenter puts it, "very slippery":

In recognition of the extraordinary contribution associates have made to our success this year, the bonus ranges include a one-time special bonus ranging up to $10,000 for the class of 2006 and up to $15,000 for the class of 2005. Special bonuses are paid to New York associates and to other associates whose work commitment to the firm is comparable to that of associates in New York firms.

As previously announced, we vary from announced bonus ranges in unusual circumstances where an associate's performance review is substantially below our expectations or an associate's work commitment is substantially below our goal of 1,900 average billable and pro bono hours.

One Ropes source is displeased about the current state of affairs:

The firm appears to have over-hired in New York. Certain groups do not have enough work to meet the 1900 "soft" requirement. That would be fine because business is business, but some associates who were not given enough work to meet this limit were trashed at their reviews, and it was insinuated that it was their fault for not being able to get work. The end-goal seems to be to portray [a departure from lockstep pay] as a matter of associate incompetence rather than a failure to meet hours. Obviously, this story that is more palatable for publicity and recruiting purposes.

The complete memo, after the jump.

Our condolences to Brenda Evanick and the Evanick family on the passing of R. Bruce Evanick, who was a shareholder in the New Orleans law firm of Abbott, Simses & Kuchler. Here are some excerpts from his obituary, which ran in the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

EVANICK Robert Bruce Evanick (always known as Bruce to those who loved him - and those who employed him and exploited his work ethic) -- died Tuesday afternoon, December 4th, 2007. A massive heart attack killed him - despite the heroic efforts of many physicians, surgeons and nurses - in a waiting area at Ochsner Hospital. He was not an inpatient there. He was there to provide company and comfort to Brenda, his wife, whom he loved and supported, in all ways, for 32 years. Her heart is broken.

He died a horrendous death, on the floor of the waiting room, at Brenda's feet. To her, he was the most kind, most gentle, and most generous person she has ever known. His death should be a warning to all those who believe that they are being used by insensitive employers. He deserved better, both in life and death. Bruce had been seduced into a sedentary and high stress life style after he moved to New Orleans, by the promise of "big money" from a corporate defense law firm. Essentially, his succumbing to that seduction and his devotion to duty caused his death.

Read more, after the jump.

When we posted the Fried Frank bonus memo last month, we noted that "whether this is a true market match is unclear, since the firm is a bit vague with respect to what percentage of associates will receive 'special' bonuses." In its memo, the firm said that special bonuses would be paid out "on a discretionary basis based on performance."

What we're now hearing is that Fried Frank has reduced special bonus amounts for a significant number of associates who had low hours relative to their class. The news was conveyed to associates during their year-end reviews.

It's hard to say how many associates had their special bonuses trimmed, but one source tell us that "it appears to be more than just a handful." It may reflect, our tipster suggests, "a new policy of tying bonuses (to a certain extent) to hours."

If Cravath was hoping to use the "special bonus" or bifurcated bonus structure to distinguish itself from other top firms, including firms that pay the same $160,000 starting salary, perhaps it has succeeded (at least in part). It appears that a number of major New York firms, such as Fried Frank and Cadwalader, will not be paying market-rate special bonuses to all associates on a lockstep basis (i.e., without regard to billable hours or performance).

The same may be true of major West Coast firms, but we'll have to wait and see. Things should become somewhat clearer after the O'Melveny & Myers associates' meeting in New York, which takes place today.

Update: We're advised that some associates didn't get any special bonus at all, but that most did receive some special bonus, just not at the levels set by Cravath. In addition, a few people received larger special bonuses.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Fried Frank

* Necessary torture? [ABC via How Appealing]

* Turns out she's both pregnant and a big fat liar. [CNN]

* Separate continues to get more equal. [New York Times]

* More about Kansas's Attorney General (yesterday's Lawyer of the Day). [Washington Times]

* Bush issues end-of-year pardon list, which includes cutting short the sentence of a crack dealer but does not include Scooter Libby. [AP via CNN]

* A further update on the O'Melveny & Myers bonus situation. [Legal Pad / Cal Law]

* It is unwise to hire a felon and disbarred attorney, with alleged ties to Pablo Escobar, to do your taxes. [Daily Business Review]

* Ten Survival Tips for New Associates. [Texas Lawyer]

* Should Harvard, which just dramatically increased financial aid to its students, go whole hog -- and abolish tuition entirely? [PrawfsBlawg]

* Why self-promotion is a good thing (and how to do it quasi-tactfully). [What About Clients?]

* Speaking of self-promotion, here's a double shout-out to ATL, from the kind folks at NYM. [New York Magazine / Daily Intelligencer]

Yesterday's survey was about whether your firms were working you all the year round (results after the jump). In today's ATL-Lateral Link survey, we explore whether your firms had enough work to go around this year.

Update: This survey is closed. Click here to see the results.

Results from yesterday's survey, after the jump.

The Grinch stole... my Lincoln town car! This afternoon, the following email was sent to all personnel in the New York office of Dewey & LeBoeuf:

To: "DL All NY Personnel"

Sent: 12/11/2007, 12:42 PM

Subject: Holiday Party

As a reminder, the firm will be hosting a holiday party for the New York office this Monday, December 17. The party will be held at Del Frisco's from 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm, and will include a full bar, raw bar, carving stations and a DJ. We hope you join us and enjoy the event -- as we wind down an exciting year in our history, we certainly have a lot to celebrate.

Due to the increased number of attendees this year, we kindly ask that all attendees provide for their own transportation home. Furthermore, as we welcome all personnel from all three of our New York locations, we are unfortunately unable to accommodate spouses or guests at this year's party.

We thank you for all of your hard work and dedication in 2007 and look forward to seeing you at the holiday party next week.

------------------------------------------------------------
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019

A law firm holiday party without a chauffeur to ferry you home? Heresy! One tipster opines:

This seems quite ludicrous. They're offering an open bar for four hours, and yet they're telling everyone to find their own transportation home. Aside from the potential liability issues this may raise, it seems ridiculous that a firm as big as Dewey would require everyone to find their own car rides home.

Ah, but maybe size is the problem. When two already large, New York-based firms merge with one another, is the resulting behemoth so ginormous that covering its holiday party would suck up every livery vehicle on the island of Manhattan?

(Then again, a question: Does Skadden provide transportation home for people from its holiday party?)

To well-paid associates who live in Manhattan, springing for a cab may not be a big deal. But this may be somewhat inconvenient to support staff who live farther way -- e.g., hipster paralegals from Brooklyn, secretaries from Staten Island. Perhaps they will leave the festivities earlier than usual this year and take mass transit.

Does your firm provide transportation home from your holiday party? Feel free to share in the comments.

Update: Yes, we did note the dis-inviting of plus-ones (as pointed out in the comments). But that's par for the course, or "market," for New York law firm holiday parties. We believe that of the six firms whose parties we described in this piece, only one -- Sullivan & Cromwell -- allows spouses or dates.

Earlier: 'Tis the Season: A Round-Up of New York Law Firm Holiday Parties
Do Plaintiffs Lawyers Throw the Best Parties?

Several of you nominated John Wulle, a state court judge in Washington, as Judge of the Day. We're not sure we accept the relevance of all the evidence in support of his candidacy (for reasons we explain below). But since we don't have other contenders today, he wins by default. From the Columbian (Vancouver, Washington):

Clark County Superior Court Judge John Wulle has been censured for "demeaning, offensive and shocking" behavior at a training conference last year....

The judge and seven other people from Clark County, including a deputy prosecuting attorney, a juvenile probation officer and a defense attorney, attended "Planning Your Juvenile Drug Court," July 24 to 28, 2006, in Los Angeles.

According to a nine-page document posted on the commission's Web site, Wulle used profanity, made an obscene gesture in response to a request to lower his voice, and referred to Clark County's group facilitator as "the black gay guy" while at the Los Angeles event. Also, after the facilitator said, "Clark County gets a star" for finishing an assignment, Wulle said, "I don't need a star. I'm not a Jew."

Several witnesses said Wulle smelled of alcohol, according to the censure order.

Okay. Cursing, obscene gestures, and showing up to a conference drunk -- if that's what Judge Wulle did; he denies it and claims it was cough syrup on his breath -- are not so appropriate. And the "I don't need a star" comment was uncalled for.

But is it wrong to refer to someone as a "black gay guy," if that person is in fact (1) gay and (2) African-American? Neither term is a slur. It would be like referring to someone whose name you didn't know (or had forgotten) as "the young Asian woman in the red sweater" or "the tall man in the three-piece suit."

Just wondering....

Judge's "shocking" words at meeting lead to censure [The Vancouver Columbian]
Vancouver WA Judge ‘Gave the Finger’, Used Anti-Semitic and Anti-Gay Slurs During Juvenile Justice Conference in LA [Blogonaut]

We're big fans of Washingtonian magazine (and not just because we've contributed to its pages, or because we made their list of 40 people under 40 to watch). Their coverage of the D.C. legal world, spearheaded by the amusingly eccentric Kim Isaac Eisler, is consistently excellent.

The magazine's December issue, on newsstands now, is a feast for fans of top attorneys. Washingtonian names D.C.'s top 30 lawyers, providing fairly detailed profiles of each. Among legal geek circles, and even beyond, they are household names. Here are the top ten (in rank order): Ted Olson, Brendan Sullivan, Sandy Ain, Billy Martin, Maureen Mahoney, Seth Waxman, Bob Bennett, Carol Elder Bruce, Michele Roberts, and Bob Barnett.

But in a town overrun by lawyers, the bench of talent is much deeper. The magazine also lists 800 top lawyers, in a wide range of legal practices. See if any of your friends or law school classmates made the list, which you can access here.

Also in the same issue: an interesting item about Dickstein Shapiro partner Ken Adams, a poker tournament champ, who has also carved out a niche practice representing poker organizations. Legal acumen plus poker skill -- now that's what we call a full house!

Big Guns: Washington's Top 30 Lawyers [Washingtonian]
Big Guns: Washington's Top 800 Lawyers [Washingtonian]
Law + Poker: Ken Adams is Winning at His Own Game [Washingtonian]

This site tends to focus on large law firms when it comes to compensation coverage. There are several reasons for this. First, Biglaw shops tend to be more public about how they pay their people. Second, there's a larger audience for information about their pay scales. Third, even when firms don't make salary and bonus information publicly available, it's easier to get information out of a firm with several hundred lawyers -- there are more potential tipsters, and the risk of a leaker being discovered is much lower.

But many of you are curious about what pay is like at smaller shops. Here's a representative request from one reader:

How about getting the scoop on bonuses as smaller firms? My particular interest is in white-collar boutiques -- e.g., Morvillo, Lankler, Stillman, Zuckerman Spaeder, etc.

There's no info online, and those firms tend to be pretty quiet about how much they pay. This should be right up your alley.

So here's an open thread -- although we're not sure how successful it will be. As our tipster notes, smaller firms tend to be tight-lipped about compensation matters.

If you have information to share on the bonuses doled out by smaller firms, including but not limited to white-collar criminal defense shops and litigation boutiques, please share in the comments. It would be optimal if you could identify the firm by name; but if you can't, please provide as much information as possible (e.g., "a 25-lawyer, white-collar criminal defense firm in New York"). Thanks.

Denizens of the East and West Coasts are supposed to be sybarites, at least compared to their heartland counterparts. But maybe this generalization doesn't apply to state attorneys general.

From the Topeka Capital-Journal:

Attorney General Paul Morrison faces a sexual harassment claim tied to an extramarital affair he had with a subordinate in the Johnson County district attorney’s office that continued after he became the state’s top prosecutor this year.

Linda Carter, longtime director of administration in the district attorney’s office, revealed extensive details of the relationship with Morrison before quitting her job Nov. 30 in Olathe.

Holy crap! The Kansas AG slept with Wonder Woman?

(Oh no, different Lynda Carter -- the actress spells her first name with a "y.")

Now, cheating AGs are nothing new. See, e.g., Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox (hehe). But Paul Morrison wins Lawyer of the Day honors for this bit of chutzpah:

Carter and Morrison regularly had sex in Carter’s private office and in Morrison’s office at the courthouse during normal business hours, her statement said. During one such encounter, the statement says that Morrison gazed out the office window and wondered aloud if Kline had someone watching through a telescope. The two also had sex in a witness room assigned to District Court Judge Stephen Tatum.

Attention Tatum clerks: it's time to break out the Clorox Disinfecting Wipes. Turns out that sticky spot on the witness room conference table is NOT congealed donut oil.

Sex scandal rocks attorney general Morrison [Topeka Capital-Journal]

A reader brought our attention to an interesting site called Predictify. Here's a little explanatory blurb:

Studies have shown that large groups of regular people are often more accurate than a small group of experts at predicting the outcome of future events. Predictify is a prediction platform that harnesses this collective wisdom.

Predictify provides a simple, fun way to engage in current and future newsworthy topics. You can research, discuss and predict the outcomes of real-world events, challenge your friends to private prediction contests, build a reputation based on your accuracy, and even get paid real money when you're right. Best of all, it’s free – no points or bets required.

Accuracy generally increases with the number of participants involved in making predictions. So head over to the site and chime in on this question:

When will the legal news website Above the Law first report that any U.S. office of an AmLaw 100 firm has increased the standard first year associate base salary to more than $160,000?

Currently the most popular response is March - May 2008 -- which strikes us as not unreasonable, provided the economy doesn't go straight over a cliff.

What do you think? You can access the survey and make your prediction by clicking here.

P.S. The survey question was submitted by ATL reader crimsontribe, who is not a shill for Predictify or Biglaw, just himself. Feel free to sign up for add him as a friend on Predictify (by adding friends, you can get a percentage of their winnings).

Salaries at Big Law Firms [Predictify]

* Score one for judicial discretion in sentencing. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* And another. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF); New York Times]

* Receiving a gun in a trade for drugs is not "using" it. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* Libby ditches his appeal. [Washington Post]

* New Jersey may soon have some spare machinery of death, if you're in the market for some. [Newark Star-Ledger via How Appealing]

We're writing to correct two earlier items. We've appended corrections to both stories within each post, but we wanted to do a separate post, at the top of the main page, to draw attention to these errors. We are big believers in owning up to our mistakes around here; it's critical to maintaining our credibility.

1. Simpson Thacher "facetime requirements." On Friday, we summarily dismissed the rumor of new, firm-wide "facetime requirements" for associates at Simpson Thacher. Our rejection of the rumor was based, in part, upon the comment by partner James Cross that the rumor was "inaccurate."

The rumor was "inaccurate," insofar as it was not 100 percent true in all particulars. But neither was it completely false. It turns out that certain STB associates were in fact read the riot act about being in the office from 9:30 to 6:00, but it was a specific subset of associates: junior corporate associates in the New York office. (The sources we contacted for confirmation do not fall into this group, which is why they denied the rumor when we asked them.)

So the rumor, as we presented it to Mr. Cross for comment, was "inaccurate." But it was not completely devoid of truth. For more details, see the corrected version of our Friday post.

2. O'Melveny & Myers "special bonuses." Earlier today, based on what an OMM partner said at an associates' meeting in Washington, DC, we reported that OMM will not be matching the market-level special bonuses in New York. We got a lot of pushback on this item. Shortly after our post, the firm sent around this email in its New York office:

Please note that we are aware of the recent posting on abovethelaw.com and we want to assure everyone that it is NOT ACCURATE.

Brad Okun will address the issue of the 2008 bonus structure at the ACAC lunch meeting this Wednesday.

See you all there.

Once again, note the use of the "not accurate" language. When dealing with lawyers, never read a statement for more than it's worth. Remember the logical reasoning section of the LSAT?

O'Melveny did not announce that it is, in fact, matching market-level special bonuses in its New York office (which it very easily could have done). Instead, it simply called the rumor "not accurate" -- without identifying the specific inaccuracies -- and offered a placeholder announcement: wait 'til Wednesday, where "the issue of the 2008 bonus structure" will be addressed.

As for what's really going on at OMM, this comment outlines one possible scenario:

[At today's meeting,] the DC partner misspoke. The email to NY associates is real. Lat reported what happened in DC, and his report was accurate. But the statement made in DC was not accurate. It is worth noting though that the DC partner made clear that his comments were based on "his knowledge," and were not meant to be authoritative. But thanks to the glorious blogs, it hit the wire and the shit hit the fan. The email in NY has hopefully calmed everyone down.

But see also this comment, which offers an alternate hypothesis:

All you OMM associates complaining about Lat's bad reporting should stop your whining. You should be thanking Lat. The DC partner probably didn't mis-speak, but reported what, at the time, was accurate information.

The pre-formal-announcement backlash, thanks to Lat's post, may just have saved the special bonus for the NY (and possibly other) OMM associates.

We are inclined to agree with the latter comment. Our guess is that OMM partners in all offices were informed of the firm's decisions with regard to bonus levels, including a non-match in New York, and the D.C. partner prematurely let the cat out of the bag.

Also, please note that we consider a "true match" to be payment of year-end and special bonuses, at the levels announced by Cravath (or Debevoise for the most senior classes [FN1]), to ALL associates, and WITHOUT a billable hours requirement. If OMM's "special bonuses" come with an hours requirement attached, we will consider our original report of a non-match vindicated.

At this point, there's nothing left to do but wait until that Wednesday meeting. We would be happy for our speculation to be proven wrong, and for OMM to announce a "true match" of market-level, New York special bonuses. But please don't shoot the messenger and get angry at us because we passed along inside information from a D.C. partner who spoke prematurely (but truthfully).

(By the way, we have reached out to Brad Okun, managing partner of O'Melveny's New York office, for comment. We will let you know if and when we hear back from him.)

[FN1] Because Cravath has such a short partnership track, its year-end bonuses top out at $60,000, for the Classes of 2001 and 2000. Many firms with longer partnership tracks pay a year-end bonus of $65,000 to the most senior classes.

Based on the overwhelming response to the recent open threads on lateral moves and other job dis-satisfaction queries, we've decided to dig into this topic a little deeper, with the help of ATL's career partner, Lateral Link (www.laterallink.com). We're launching a new series of surveys here at ATL. They're not terribly scientific, but please take a second to respond, and we will post the results later.

Today's survey is inspired by last month's Thanksgiving horror stories post. Your individual answers will be confidential, but the overall results will be posted on ATL at some point in the future.

Update: This survey is closed. Click here to see the results.

Yes, we are aware that Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months imprisonment, for his involvement in a dogfighting conspiracy. We took note of the sentencing in Morning Docket.

We really aren't that into sports, and we weren't planning on saying much about the Vick sentencing. But it appears that some of you would like to talk about it, so here's a post for doing so.

Here are articles from the AP and the New York Times (which helpfully notes that Judge Judge Henry E. Hudson is a dog owner -- should he have recused?). A reader poll appears at the end of this post.

Meanwhile, in other federal sentencing news, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two sentencing decisions today, and disgraced media mogul Conrad Black was sentenced to six and a half years in prison.

These developments are a bit too substantive for the pages of ATL. But you can read more about them over at Professor Doug Berman's Sentencing Law & Policy, SCOTUSblog, and the WSJ Law Blog.

Finally, some bonus news from one of the "Big Three" Los Angeles-based law firms. From a source at O'Melveny & Myers:

Per an associates' meeting today: OMM does NOT plan to match the "special bonus." Hours in the New York office were substantially lower than in those firms who paid the bonus (and lower than other offices of OMM).

They also made a bunch of NY partners on the transactional side.

Our condolences to the OMM associates; our congratulations to the newly minted partners.

(We don't have the new partners' names, but feel free to post a shout-out to them in the comments. Their identities will be made public soon enough, when the firm announces their promotions on its website.)

Update / Correction: We have verified, with multiple O'Melveny sources, the authenticity of the email posted in the comments, which went around OMM's New York office. It states as follows:

Please note that we are aware of the recent posting on abovethelaw.com and we want to assure everyone that it is NOT ACCURATE.

Brad Okun will address the issue of the 2008 bonus structure at the ACAC lunch meeting this Wednesday.

See you all there.

Now, we are not necessarily convinced that our prior report (from a reliable source of ours) was wrong. If OMM wanted to announce it was matching the market-level special bonuses in New York, why didn't it just announce it was matching the market-level special bonuses in New York? It would have taken five minutes to ctrl-C, ctrl-V the Cravath memo. Instead, the firm offered a placeholder announcement: wait 'til Wednesday, where "the issue of the 2008 bonus structure" will be addressed.

So let's wait and see what happens at that Wednesday meeting. We'll keep you posted.

Update: We've issued a subsequent post about this subject. You can access it by clicking here.

One of the best parts of clerking is reading the emails that the judges send back and forth amongst themselves. If you clerk on a court stocked with zany personalities -- e.g., the Ninth Circuit, where we clerked -- some of the emails can be real doozies.

Compared to some of the Article III cattiness that we have personally witnessed, this email really isn't that extreme. But it's still worth passing along to you. Here's a short introduction, from our source:

Judge Matthew Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) just sent this bizarre email to the entire court. The original memo that he was responding to (from Annette Panter) regarded the new policy of lowering the flag to half staff whenever an active service member from the jurisdiction state is killed in battle.

Here's Judge Kennelly's email:

Matthew Kennelly/ILND/07/USCOURTS
12/10/2007 10:40 AM

To: Annette Panter
cc: ILNDml_Eastern Division
Re: Fw: Amendment to U.S. Flag Code, Public Law 110-41

Not to be flip about it, but since we appear to be in a war-without-end against "terrorism" (or "terror," as the Pres. ungramatically [sic] puts it), we may well never see another flag at full-staff in our lifetimes.

In case you're wondering, yes, Judge Kennelly was appointed by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton). Perhaps he might get elevated to the Seventh Circuit under Clinton II?

If Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell ever gets turned into a movie, there will be a little epilogue at the end, to inform viewers of the fates of the dramatis personae. Here is our version of it.

Aaron Charney is believed to be happy, spending time with friends, and presumably enjoying those settlement proceeds. No word yet on his future employer (assuming he returns to the work force). Meanwhile, his erstwhile nemesis, partner Eric Krautheimer, passed the California bar and moved out to Los Angeles. He still works for S&C, but now gets to lead more of his own deals.

And what about Gera Grinberg, the former S&C associate who would have been a key witness in the case, who was joined at the hip -- professionally, but not personally -- with Aaron Charney? We've learned two pieces of good news about him:

First, he has landed himself a new job. We understand that he is now the general counsel to a small real estate development company.

Second, on the personal front, here's some news that will put to rest any and all the rumors that he might be gay. Gera Grinberg is engaged (to a woman). His fiancee is a former associate at Kirkland & Ellis in New York, now working in-house for a large hotel company.

Congratulations and best wishes to Gera Grinberg and the future Mrs. Grinberg!

P.S. We still don't know whether he has resolved any of his outstanding issues with S&C. But considering how well Grinberg's life is going right now, both professionally and personally, maybe he should just let bygones be bygones?

We resume our series of open threads about the lateral hiring process. After those bonus checks clear, associates clear out their desks. So 'tis the season to be talking about lateral moves.

Our prior posts addressed the why, when, and how of lateral moves. Now we get to what you really want to discuss: How much?

One tipster writes:

As someone thinking about feeling out the lateral market, I'd love to know: What sort of signing bonuses are firms giving out these days? What's the best way to negotiate one (other than using a headhunter)?

And from a different correspondent, who also has lateral money on the mind:

What firms offer signing bonuses for laterals, if any? Do they pro-rate bonuses for the following year, or do you basically give up a bonus cycle when you move from firm to firm?

Please discuss these topics in the comments. Information based on personal experience, as opposed to speculation and conjecture, is especially welcome. Thanks.

Earlier: Lateral Move Open Thread: When and Why?
Lateral Move Open Thread: This Is How You Do It

* Vick to be sentenced. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* He Flatley denied the allegations, and apparently he was telling the truth. [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

* All's well that ends well for fired U.S. Attorneys. [Los Angeles Times via How Appealing]

* And home will come lawyer, baby and all. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* First thing we do, let's detain all the lawyers. [Jurist]

* And speaking of detained lawyers... [Jurist]

* John Carney on backdating: "Although it was billed as the latest financial crime of the century, backdating is turning out to have some very minor results. Few prosecutions, stalled or failed lawsuits..." [DealBreaker]

* Glenn Reynolds on the Omaha mall shooting: "[W]e've reached the point at which a facility that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them." [Instapundit]

* Ann Althouse on Hillary Clinton: "The resistance I feel toward Hillary has to do do with her advancement under the aegis of a powerful man — a powerful man who seems to have diminished quite a number of women." [Althouse]

* Dan Solove, author of The Future of Reputation, on breaking up with someone via Facebook. [Concurring Opinions]

* Michael Dimino on SOC: "Justice O'Connor's status as the first woman on the Court makes it easy to praise her. I cannot imagine that she would be receiving the praise that she gets from the country if she were male." [PrawfsBlawg]

* Valerie Plame, whose exposure as a CIA agent launched lengthy legal proceedings, on the prospect of posing in Playboy: "I'm a mother of twins, are you kidding me?" [Washington Examiner / Yeas and Nays via Gawker]

Not a heck of a lot going on today, a Friday in the holiday season. So let's fall back on a staple of these pages: New York real estate.

If you're an associate at Cleary Gottlieb who's a fan of the current offices at One Liberty Plaza, congratulations. You're not going anywhere anytime soon. From today's New York Post:

[P]owerhouse law firm Cleary Gottlieb inked a deal to expand by 100,000 square feet at One Liberty Plaza. The law firm just signed a 20-year lease for 550,000 square-feet with landlord Brookfield Properties after more than a year of what Newmark Knight Frank broker Mark Weiss called "very competitive" and "very intricate" negotiations.

Cleary Gottlieb previously had 450,000 square feet under a lease due to expire in 2010. The "competitive" aspect was an attempt by Larry Silverstein to lure the firm to his new 7 World Trade Center.

Seven World Trade is a beautiful new building. But it's expensive; we're guessing Cleary got a very good deal to stay in its current spot. (The terms of the renewal were not disclosed.)

Meanwhile, a few miles uptown, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher is making a move. Details after the jump.

Former DLA Piper associate Charlene Morisseau isn't just our Lawyer of the Day. This high-powered litigatrix -- a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and a former editor of the Harvard Law Review -- should be hailed as a heroine by Biglaw associates everywhere.

From a most engaging article by Anthony Lin, in the New York Law Journal:

A Manhattan federal judge has thrown out a race discrimination suit brought against DLA Piper by a former associate who claimed the firm's New York office was a hostile work environment.

Charlene Morisseau, a 2001 graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was a law review editor, joined DLA Piper as a litigation associate in April 2003 but was asked to leave less than a year later. In a lawsuit filed last year, Ms. Morisseau, who is black, claimed her firing was retaliation for complaints she had made about discriminatory treatment.

She requested almost $250 million in damages from the firm and the 11 partners she individually named in the suit.

Now, we're all in favor of giving associates more money. But $250 million may be a bit much, even for a Harvard Law grad. It's about 90 percent of DLA Piper's total firm profits for 2006 ($280 million).

But it looks like Morisseau won't be seeing a dime:

Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan granted summary judgment to the firm Monday, finding that DLA Piper had put forth a "legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination."

"Here, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that plaintiff did not perform in a manner satisfactory to Piper notwithstanding her academic credentials," the judge wrote. "She was a confrontational, stubborn, and insubordinate employee in an environment in which professional personal relations, flexibility and a willingness to accept supervision were essential."

Now we've reached the good part. Here's why Charlene Morisseau should be every associate's idol:

[I]n court filings, DLA Piper denied treating Ms. Morisseau differently and said the firm had taken action because the ex-associate had exhibited a pattern of unacceptable behavior, including yelling at partners and throwing one out of her office.

The firm said Ms. Morisseau ordered former partner Marilla Ochis to "back up" out of her office after Ms. Ochis had come to discuss an e-mail exchange Ms. Morisseau had apparently taken offense to.

Have you ever fantasized about telling off your partner oppressors? Well, Charlene Morisseau has lived your dream -- and then some.

Read the rest, after the jump.

We've been hearing all sorts of rumors lately about Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Some are true, some are false, and some are in between.

We've decided to create a little ATL quiz based on the gossip. Here are three rumors about STB that have been making the rounds. Guess which ones are true and which ones are false:

1. STB has instituted new "facetime requirements." Associates are required to be in the office by 9:30 AM and are not allowed to leave before 6 PM. This has long been firm policy, as set forth in the STB employee handbook, but it will be enforced more strictly going forward. (Source: AutoAdmit.)

2. Earlier this year, approximately a dozen first-year associates in Litigation were transferred to Corporate, due to slowness in Litigation. Some of the associates who were moved had very little background in corporate law (e.g., they had not even taken Corporations / Business Organizations in law school).

3. Simpson to 8310! Associates are now being offered an upgrade to their Firm-issued Blackberries, with the ability to choose between two new models (one of which is the 8310 / Curve).

Have you written down your guesses? Find out whether you're right, after the jump.

UPDATE / CORRECTION: If you read the original version of this post, please note that it has been revised significantly since it was first posted. Correction / clarification after the jump.

This next story is not new; it was reported last year by CBS. But we have an update to bring you, via YouTube, which is why we're revisiting it.

For those of you who missed it, here's a quick recap:

[A] woman was referred to a lawyer to represent her in a car accident case. But what she experienced in the meetings with that 72-year-old attorney later led her to file a formal criminal complaint with the NYPD....

The 47-year old woman -- who has asked CBS 2 not to reveal her identity -- claims that during her initial visit to lawyer Allen Isaac, he asked her for oral sex as part of his fee for taking her personal injury case.

"He said I'm going to want oral sex from you. I'm going to want it twice before the case begins, then I'm going to want it every week after if I get you a very good result," she said.

Now that's what we call a "success fee."

More discussion, plus the recently uploaded YouTube clip, after the jump.

We feel like a real news organization, with West Coast correspondents. From a tipster in the Northern District of California:

I'm writing this as I listen over the court's internal recording system. Barry Bonds just pled not guilty. His attorney entered the plea for him. Posted a $500,000 bond. The government wants him to surrender his passport. Bonds's attorney objects because Bonds needs to travel to Canada to play baseball. Government responds that it's not unreasonable to make Bonds request permission to leave the country each time he needs to go to Toronto. Magistrate Judge James rejects the government's request. She says that because he's not under pre-trial supervision, he doesn't need to surrender his passport. Magistrate Judge James reads to Bonds the terms of his release, and he says he understands them. The court is now in recess.

Update: Back from recess, and back to our tipster:

Now Judge Illston is in the courtroom to take over the Bonds proceedings. She sets the next hearing date for Feb. 7. Bonds does not have to appear at that hearing. Discovery will proceed in the meantime.

There's some sort of "conflict" issue, but counsel isn't speaking into the microphone, so I can't tell what it is. The "conflict" issue might delay some of the discovery. And it may require Bonds to appear on Feb 7.

Defense counsel also says he anticipates moving to "dismiss the indictment for facial defects" at some future time.

Recess again. Sounds like it's all over.

Further Update: "Apparently some of Bonds's attorneys represented witnesses in the grand jury investigation, so there may be some conflict. But they'll probably work that out and waive it or something."

Finally, in case you're curious, an email that was sent out to court personnel about courtroom seating for the Bonds case appears after the jump.

Here's the latest Job of the Week, courtesy of ATL's career partner, Lateral Link. Check out Lateral Link's completely revamped website and new features. Now you can find the Job of the Week listed below in the Featured Jobs section of your MyBio page (and qualified candidates can reveal the employer name immediately).

Position: Assistant Vice President, Investment Counsel

Company: Pacific Life Insurance Company

Location: Orange County, CA

Description: Fortune 500 company is seeking an AVP, Investment Counsel. Primary responsibilities include the following: (i) oversee the drafting, preparation and filing of SEC registration statements and other regulatory filings; (ii) monitor legislation and new laws affecting mutual funds and Investment Advisors. Candidate must have a law degree from an accredited law school, firm knowledge of federal securities laws, excellent writing and communication skills, and a minimum of 8 years experience in 1940 Act work (mutual funds and/or variable products). Admission to California bar required within 1 year. The position requires drafting prospectus disclosure, advisor disclosure, documents and materials, along with implementing appropriate procedures to comply with new laws. Also the candidate will work on board meeting materials, coordinate legal issues with fund advisers, draft fund procedures, prepare/negotiate fund agreements and work on all fund-related matters.

More details, after the jump.

Now that we're into December, first-year law students can start their engines, and pursue for summer employment. Prior to December 1, the NALP folks don't want first-years thinking about summer job stuff, since they need to be focused on drinking and getting laid their rigorous 1L studies. But now that they're all settled in, it's okay, per the NALP rules:

Summer Employment Provisions for First Year Students

1. Law schools should not offer career services to first-semester first year law students prior to November 1 except in the case of part-time students who may be given assistance in seeking positions during the school term.

2. Prospective employers and first year law students should not initiate contact with one another and employers should not interview or make offers to first year students before December 1.

We were reminded of this by a first-year student who sent out a wave of applications on Saturday, December 1, and had his first ding letter by Tuesday, December 4. That was fast!

He shouldn't take it personally. Law firm jobs are relatively tough to get for the summer after your first year. But they're not as tough to score as they used to be, since firms are increasingly hiring 1Ls in the hope that they can "get 'em early," and also use them as goodwill ambassadors to their classmates during the 2L fall recruiting process. (Also, you may have better luck as an underrepresented minority, due to firms' attempts to address their relative lack of diversity.)

We agree with the conventional wisdom that the summer after your first year is a pretty good time to explore opportunities in government, such as working for a prosecutor's office or judge, or public interest law. You'll be able to do the Biglaw thing next summer. (Of course, if you're lucky enough to snag a law firm job for this summer, more power to you -- it's tough to turn down three grand a week.)

Feel free to discuss the 1L job search in the comments. Thanks.

P.S. For sending out applications to law firms en masse, one reader recommended LawFirmLetters.com. We've not used this site ourselves, so we can't personally vouch for it, but feel free to check it out.

* States crack down on puppy mills. [MSNBC]

* Lithwick and Bazelon on habeas corpus [Slate]

* Stoned [Vehicle] Pilot. [MSNBC]

* Alleged Sean Taylor shooter seeks plea deal. [ESPN]

* Tax legislation in the making. [New York Times]

Almost half of the justices are done hiring their law clerks for October Term 2008. The latest justice to finish up: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

In addition to Chris Walker (Stanford 2006 / Kozinski), whose hiring has been previously noted in these pages, congratulations to the three newest AMK clerks:

1. Ashley Keller (University of Chicago 2007 / Posner)
2. Travis Lenkner (Kansas 2005 / Kavanaugh)
3. Steven Shepard (Yale 2007 / Kozinski)

It's unusual to have two clerks from the same feeder judge in the same justice's chambers. But if there's any combination that's likely to produce such a development, it's Kozinski --> Kennedy (just as Luttig would sometimes send two clerks to Justice Scalia in the same Term; also note Judge Garland filling three out of Justice Stevens's four slots in OT 2008).

Ashley Keller appears to be the first Chicago clerk in OT 2008. Also note the (unsurprising) emergence of the well-connected Judge Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), relatively new to the federal bench, as a feeder judge extraordinaire.

The current tally of OT 2008 SCOTUS clerks, with the three new Kennedy clerks added, appears after the jump.

The idea of pitying people taking home seven figures sounds dubious. But check out this great article, by the American Lawyer's Vivia Chen (who's not doing too badly herself, at least based on her magnificent mink coat). Here's the fantastic, rather literary lede:

The prize was a home-cooked dinner for eight, prepared by a parent-one of New York's most celebrated chefs and a perennial on the Food Network. The bidding started at $3,000-a fabulous bargain. Nearly two dozen paddles shot up in the air. The bidders were the usual suspects-Wall Streeters, big-firm lawyers, a sprinkling of doctors, a few people with money but no visible means of support.

Nursed by a steady stream of champagne cocktails, the bidders were a competitive lot. At $7,000, the doctors dropped out of the game; at $10,000, most of the other professionals were gone; at $15,000, the lawyers and the trust fund babies bit the dust. With only the financial titans in the game, the bidding got intense: $20,000, $25,000, $30,000. Sold for $40,000! The winner: the wife of a 30-something hedge fund manager.

There's nothing like a fund-raiser at a private school in Manhattan to define your social station. Time was, lawyers were near the top of the heap. Investment bankers and other finance types have long eclipsed them, but the difference used to be one of degree. Then came private equity investors and hedge-funders, and lawyers nose-dived on the socioeconomic ladder.

"Face it, we have no status," says an Am Law 100 partner of the pecking order at his sons' private school. "We go to these school functions, and this well-heeled group looks right through you. They won't give you the time of day. You're just one step ahead of the doorman."

Biglaw partners, "one step ahead of the doorman"? Killer quote. Fabulous work, Vivia.

More after the jump.

The signing bonuses for U.S. Supreme Court clerks who join law firms after their clerkships have reached $250,000. But if a cool quarter million, on top of a third-year associate's salary, is not enough, former SCOTUS clerks can supplement their income by hawking the traditional departure gift -- a photograph of the nine justices, autographed by each one -- on eBay.

(The Court portrait currently on sale on eBay is not being sold by a former Supreme Court clerk, though. It's "from the estate of the late Michael Rodak, Jr., who was the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court from 1972 to 1981." The bidding is currently at $1,825. But if that strikes you as high, it's not high enough -- the seller's reserve price has not yet been met.)

9 Rehnquist Supreme Court Autographs on Photo Mount [eBay]

We continue our series of open threads on the lateral hiring process. Yesterday's post, which addressed the "why" and "when" of making a lateral move, generated almost 200 comments.

Here are the questions for today's open thread, concerning the "how" of the lateral process:

1. What are the benefits of headhunters / recruiters versus personal referrals versus blind emails / cover letters?

2. What is the lateral interview process like (as opposed to law school interviews)?

If you have information or opinions to contribute on these subjects, please share them in the comments. Thanks.

Earlier: Lateral Move Open Thread: When and Why?

That's the conclusion suggested by this Houston Chronicle article, about the most fabulous law firm holiday parties thrown in that city.

In New York, the biggest and best law firm parties tend to be thrown by the biggest and best law firms. But they do things differently down in Texas, Land of the Plaintiffs' Lawyers. From Mary Flood's quite interesting article:

A random survey of about 100 Houston lawyers showed these to be the six hottest legal party tickets this holiday season:

• litigation firm Susman Godfrey's art-studded office reception;
• plaintiffs lawyer Richard Mithoff's traditional classy soiree;
• plaintiffs lawyer Mark Lanier's family-friendly extravaganza;
• plaintiffs lawyer John O'Quinn's sparkling gala;
• Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels & Friend's crowded office open house;
• defense lawyer David Beck's high-quality in-home affair.

More excerpts and discussion, after the jump.

If you work in the London office of a U.S. law firm, you'll be paid very well. But there are other reasons for working as a lawyer in the U.K. It seems that the Brits just have WAY more fun than we do.

Earlier this year, James Wolcott wrote a Vanity Fair article in which he wondered: Why are British sex scandals so much better than ours? He was referring to the scandals of political leaders. But the same appears to be true about lawyers.

From the Sun (via Charon QC):

A host of lusty lawyers have been dropping their briefs to enjoy a bit of rumpy-pumpy at the office. Steamy tales of sexy solicitors and passionate partners were revealed yesterday by trade magazine Legal Business.

They took the form of a Christmas quiz on gossip picked up by the mag’s journalists – prompting a massive guessing game in the legal industry to identify those involved. The questions posed include:

WHICH female partner at a top City law firm was banished to Asia after she was caught having a three-some with two trainees in the office?

WHICH City partner had to take time off to save his marriage after discovering his wife was having an affair with a Premiership footballer?

WHICH leading partner was so tired of waiting for a cab in Cannes, France, that he hailed a hooker and asked her to drive him to his hotel, before paying her for the lift and asking her to leave?

What's so bad about that last story? He was just being smart and resourceful.

Other saucy stories involve a secretary smitten with a lawyer who bashed an office love rival with a bottle of champagne.

Then there was the law firm partner who hired an assistant, then bedded her after taking her out for “celebratory” drinks.

The girl felt so guilty at cheating her boyfriend she quit before she officially joined. The mag runs the quiz every year but editor James Baxter said: “This is a good crop.”

So will our friends at the New York Law Journal, or maybe the Legal Times here in Washington, issue a similar quiz? It could be a fun addition to the holiday party. Just be sure to leak a copy to your friends at ATL...

Lawyers Take Their Briefs Down? [Charon QC]
Lawyers Writs' Out for the Lads [The Sun (London)]
Why Are British Scandals So Much Better Than Ours? [Vanity Fair]

This coming weekend, while the rest of us will be getting used to the winter snow and cold, the attorneys of Boies, Schiller & Flexner will be partying down at a resort in Jamaica. The firm is picking up the tab for its lawyers and their spouses (for the weekend; if you stay for longer, you pay for the extra nights in the hotel).

But it won't be all pleasure and no business. On Sunday, December 9, while they're in Jamaica, the BSF lawyers will hold their firm meeting -- where they will consider changes to the firm's current associate compensation model. Compensation is currently governed by a somewhat complicated formula; the quick and dirty version, as explained in the firm's Vault guide write-up, is that you get "30 percent of all revenue you bring to the firm as salary plus bonus as well as some credit for pro bono."

An email from David Boies about the possible changes was previously posted in the comments. We've now confirmed its authenticity; it appears after the jump.

* Lott: What's Scruggs got to do, got to do with it? [CNN PoliTic]

* Woman awarded $500k for years of abuse by priests. [MSNBC]

* Breaking down the Gitmo arguments. [New York Times; AP]

* As clues surface, Darwin story evolves. [CNN]

* Hydroderm sues Teri Hatcher for promoting competitor. [MSNBC]

From a law student tipster:

I was wondering if you've ever posted about the "care packages" big firms send their summers around finals time. I searched around your site and didn't find anything. [FN1]

The things my friends are receiving from large New York and Boston firms are nuts. Tons of firm gear, Godiva chocolates, leather portfolios, popcorn, Red Bull, Starbucks cards... You name it. It would be interesting to see what firms send out to summers. Just a thought.

Love ATL - keep up the good work!

So have you received a Biglaw "care package" to get you through the next few weeks? Or is your firm just not into the holiday spirit (i.e., cheap)?

Please discuss, in the comments -- and identify firms by name if possible. Thanks.

[FN1] This is a good tipster. Many times people suggest topics to us without running a site search or looking through our archives first, and it turns out that we've already covered the subject.

Remember how victims of alleged sexual harassment by Bill Clinton claimed that inspection of the Article II member would confirm the truth of their claims, due to the presidential penis's distinctive appearance? We were reminded of those entertaining days, when the political was just so darn personal, by this story:

Graphic photographs of two defendants will be allowed as evidence in a rape trial Wednesday. The defense team argued to prevent evidence that includes photographs of their clients’ anatomies out of the courtroom. Defense attorney Robert Jenkins said his client and another man might have to expose themselves during trial.

“They say it helps the case because, allegedly, one perp is circumcised and one not circumcised,” Jenkins said.

If the foreskin has been slit, you must acquit.

Update: A reader submitted this alternative, by email: "If he had no bris, you must dismiss." (But we don't know if the defendants are Jewish.)

Court To Scrutinize Defendants' Genitals [WDSU.com]

Apparently law firm recruiting departments are aware of this website's existence. From a tipster:

Just got an email from recruiting at Kirkland & Ellis to fill out a survey to help them improve their process. (I did not accept with K&E.) Here's one of the questions on the survey:

"4. Using the scale below, please rank the importance of each resource in your decision to interview with us: ....

Online research, i.e., abovethelaw.com; infirmation.com."

We're flattered to be included in this survey. But shouldn't that "i.e." be an "e.g."? ATL has not yet reached the point where it is synonymous with online research into law firms, to the exclusion of all other sources.

The clean-cut and appealing Brian Branch, a recent graduate of Loyola Law School in New Orleans, looks pretty happy in the picture at right. We're guessing it was taken before his lawsuit got dismissed. From the ABA Journal:

A New Orleans federal judge has tossed a lawsuit by a Loyola University New Orleans law grad who sought the refund of tuition that enabled him to receive free classes at another law school.

Plaintiff Brian Branch, now a Louisiana lawyer, took advantage of an offer made after Hurricane Katrina to attend classes at Southern Methodist University for free as long as he paid Loyola tuition. Loyola accepted Branch’s SMU credits, and he graduated without delay, according to the opinion by U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.

Branch’s class-action lawsuit had sought the refund of tuition paid for the fall 2005 semester when the school was closed because of Katrina damage. He alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

But Porteous noted that Branch would have had to pay a higher rate of tuition at SMU if he did not participate in the visiting students program and said Branch himself would be unjustly enriched if Loyola were forced to reimburse his tuition payments.

An SMU education for Loyola tuition? Maybe not a bad deal. SMU is #46 in the U.S. News rankings, while Loyola - New Orleans is Tier 3. And Loyola's tuition is lower by a few thousand dollars a year.

Also, welcome back to Judge Porteous. He has returned to the federal bench, after the conclusion of what the New Orleans Times-Picayune called "the long criminal investigation into his personal bankruptcy and possible misdeeds while a federal and Jefferson Parish jurist."

Excerpts from the opinion are collected at TaxProf Blog by Professor Paul Caron.

Loyola Law Grad Irked by Katrina Accommodation Loses Suit [ABA Journal]
District Court Grants Summary Judgment in Lawsuit by Former 3L Displaced by Hurricane Katrina [TaxProf Blog]

Over the past few months, we've received several requests for a series of open threads on lateral moves -- i.e., how to move from one law firm to another (as opposed to moves from Biglaw to government, academia, or public interest).

We've decided to launch a series of open threads devoted to this subject, similar to our Fall Recruiting Open Threads, in which people can trade information and gossip about the lateral move process. From a tipster:

Please please please do a thread or series of threads on how to make a lateral move. With bonuses being paid, or coming soon, it seems like it might be lateral season, and there are a lot of people thinking of jumping ship. The market is shaky, which makes the decision more complicated than in the past.

There was a (very) little bit of useful information in the Headhunter from Hell thread, but it mostly got buried by people trashing the person who emailed you the story. You could break it down into a series of posts (like with Biglaw Perk Watch).

We like the idea of dragging things out over a series of posts (especially since we seem to be in a slow news period right now). Our correspondent helpfully laid out a series of possible topics related to lateral movement. We'll devote this thread to two of them, saving the rest for posterity:

1. When is the right time to move?

2. What are good reasons to move -- i.e., how do you avoid the "same s***, different office" problem?

If you have thoughts on these subjects, please share them in the comments. Thanks.

Down at Duke Law School, they have a highly regarded new dean: David F. Levi, former Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California. But maybe what they really need is to create a new position: "Cyber-Security Czar."

It appears that their website has been hacked. Visitors to the site see the message at right.

In addition, a security breach has compromised the safety of the personal information of some applicants to the law school.

Emails sent to current Duke law students and applicants to the law school, after the jump.

San Antonio lawyer Mary Roberts is attractive, enterprising, and creative. She knows how to think outside the box.

These qualities make her a shoo-in for Lawyer of the Day. From WOAI.com:

A San Antonio attorney is on trial, accused of stealing money from her lovers. Prosecutors say Mary Roberts would have affairs with men. Then her husband would extort money from them.

Ted Roberts was convicted and sentenced to 5 years for extorting $155,000 from four men. He's appealing his conviction.This week, it's Mary Roberts turn to face a jury.

Her past was relived during opening statements as the prosecutor described the affairs Mary Roberts had, the men she had them with, and how those affairs ended. The prosecutor explained that one man wrote a $70,000 check to the Roberts Foundation for Children. Prosecutors said it's all a sex scandal both Ted and Mary Roberts were in on.

Is your marriage in the doldrums? Perhaps you and your spouse should start a sex-and-extortion scam together, to rejuvenate your marital union:

The first person to take the stand Monday was Ted Roberts' legal assistant. She told the court, "Before [the alleged plot began began], there was just very little interaction. Um, just rarely saw Mary in the office. And once all of this came about, um...Just, all of a sudden, they were much more, I guess, lovey-dovey. They just became a lot closer."

Watch video footage of the trial here. Both the prosecutor and the legal assistant are highly attractive, in a C-list actress sort of way. Casting the made-for-TV movie will be a cinch.

Sex, Lies, and Blackmail: The Secret Life of a San Antonio Attorney [WOAI.com]
Mary Roberts Trial Begins [WOAI.com (video)]

* Tweety, Mickey subpoenaed. [MSNBC]

* Little progress in Hollywood writers strike. [MSNBC]

* The Quaids sue drugmaker. [CNN]

* DLA Piper rising. [WSJ Law Blog]

* SCOTUS to hear latest Guantanamo detainee case today. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]

* Is Nicolas Sarkozy's son -- "a law student with flowing locks," described by one ATL reader as "kinda hot" -- getting favorable treatment in his traffic case? [Times Online]

* Speaking of President Sarkozy, good for him for telling the French to "get off their derrieres and back to work." [What About Clients?]

* Professor Kaimipono Wenger on polygamy: Is it good for the environment? [Concurring Opinions]

* Professor Howard Wasserman on the Adam Key / Pat Robertson finger case: "[T]his lawsuit has no chance." [PrawfsBlawg]

* John Grisham on Dickie Scruggs: "[I] could not believe he would be involved in such a boneheaded bribery scam that is not in the least bit sophisticated. I don’t believe it." [WSJ Law Blog]

* A very cool Christmas gift, inspired by our favorite lawyer-turned-politician. Note: Site features loud-ish music, so you may wish to turn down your speakers before clicking through. [The Official Hillary Nutcracker Site]

* A Dante-themed Blawg Review, from the previous winner of the Blawg Review of the Year Award for 2005 and 2006. [Infamy or Praise via Blawg Review]

(Yes, this is old news. But as we explained earlier, today is Remedial Blogging Day at ATL.)

Surely you recall Adam M. Key, the 2L at Regent University School of Law who's engaged in a public battle with the law school administration over free speech issues. For background on his story, in case you haven't been following it, read this ABC News story. Or ATL's two-part interview with Mr. Key, available here and here.

Anyway, even if Adam Key isn't in law school right now -- he's been suspended -- he is back in the news. From the ABA Journal:

A Regent University law student has sued the school for suspending him after he posted an online photo of school president Pat Robertson with his middle finger extended [above right]. Robertson was scratching his face with his middle finger in the photo, posted on student Adam Key's Facebook page, but the gesture appeared to be obscene.

The suit, filed in federal court in Houston where Key lives, claims the school suspended Key without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Virginian-Pilot puts the period of Key's suspension at one year while the Tex Parte blog says it is two years.

More after the jump.

To our surprise, yesterday's open thread on the MPRE generated over 200 comments. Who knew that this topic would incite such interest?

Since you're all so interested in talking about the MPRE, here's more. A reader sent us a long but entertaining story about the test -- which you can read in full, after the jump.

Two favorite topics for ATL readers are (1) the bar exam and (2) the difficult job searches of non-top-tier law school graduates. These subjects are nicely combined in an article in today's New York Sun:

Even with 91,000 practicing attorneys in the five boroughs last year, a new wave of lawyers is hitting the city, as a record number of law school students are taking and passing the state bar, according to data provided by the New York State Board of Law Examiners.

In July, 10,907 students sat for the bar — an increase of more than 20% since 2000 — and a record 70.6% of them passed the bar.

While many associates who graduated law school in 2006 are earning bonuses at the city's most prestigious law firms, boosting salaries to an average of $205,000 a year, recruiters said the competition for the top talent belies that the vast majority of lawyers in New York are not guaranteed lucrative employment after law school.

That's an understatement. More discussion, after the jump.

In the current issue of the Legal Times, Attila Berry has this report:

A Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom attorney died in Australia last week. According to the Courier-Mail in Brisbane, Mark Bronson, a 44-year-old partner in the firm's Tokyo office, flew into the Brisbane airport on Nov. 21 and was stopped by customs officials after a drug-sniffing dog took an interest in him.

The officials scanned his baggage, and his luggage tested positive for cocaine, though preliminary tests can be inaccurate. Then while talking with the customs officers, Bronson had a seizure, fell to the floor and began vomiting. He died later that day in the hospital.

[T]he cause of death has not been determined, and a scan showed that he wasn't carrying drugs in his body. However, the news article says his vomit allegedly tested positive for cocaine, and he may have thrown up pieces of plastic as well.

Last week we also heard this gossip about Skadden Tokyo -- which, as noted below, is NOT TRUE:

I heard a rumor that an associate in Skadden's Tokyo office died of overwork (karoshi in Japanese). This info is secondhand though.

We wonder whether this false rumor arose out of the passing of Mr. Bronson. Cocaine and overwork are constant companions.

Correction / Update: As we suspected, it appears that the news about Mr. Bronson was transformed by the rumor mill into this urban legend of death through overwork. We understand that no associate in Skadden's Tokyo office, or any other office for that matter, has died from overwork.

Skadden Partner Dies After Drug Search [Legal Times]
Mark L. Bronson [Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom]
So Many Japanese Die of Over-Work They Have a Word for It [Blogonaut]

(We realize this is old news, but we're declaring this Remedial Blogging Day at ATL. We have a few other slightly stale stories that we may write up later today, if it continues to be a slow news day.)

Judge Harold Baer (S.D.N.Y.) was once nominated as a hottie of the federal judiciary. Alas, he didn't win.

But in a competition for hotheadedness rather than hotness, Judge Baer might fare better. From a very interesting article by Anthony Lin in the New York Law Journal:

A Manhattan federal judge has delivered a lengthy manifesto against declining civility in the legal profession in the course of sanctioning law firm Dorsey & Whitney and two of its partners.

Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer opened his 129-page decision with a discussion of how "naked competition and singular economic focus of the marketplace have begun to infiltrate the practice of law, subordinating the high standards of service, collegiality and professionalism as a result."

He ended it with his observation that "partners are at times made and retained for their rainmaking skills and not for their legal skill, that the number of billable hours is not only the alpha and omega of bonuses but that these hours -- or at least the ones that count -- often exclude pro bono hours, or that who gets credit for originating a piece of business can throw a firm into turmoil and prompt internecine struggles, or that the bottom line has eclipsed most everything else for which the practice of law stands or stood to the extent that the practice of law is now frequently described as a business rather than a profession."

Usually when a federal judge tears you a new one, you just grin and bear it. Or maybe go out and buy some Preparation H.

But the lawyer who was the subject of Judge Baer's ire actually struck back. Read more, after the jump.

Our latest column for the New York Observer addresses a seasonal subject: law firm holiday parties. Here's the opening:

Law firm holiday parties aren’t what they used to be. In bygone days, the booze-fueled blasts yielded up tales of M&A lawyers making out with each other in darkened corners, partners dancing drunkenly with paralegals young enough to be their daughters and similarly dubious behavior.

In recent years, however, stories of scandal have become less common. Perhaps guests are more afraid of public embarrassment, now that cellphone photos of carousing legal eagles can be uploaded to the Internet in minutes....

But even if they’re not as wild and crazy as they used to be, law firm holiday parties still reflect, in ways large and small, the cultures and personalities of the firms throwing them. Let’s have a look, shall we?

You can read the rest of the column -- which describes the December festivities of Wachtell, Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Skadden, Cadwalader, and Fried Frank -- by clicking here.

Boogie, Counselor! Which Law Firm Gives the Best Party? [New York Observer]

* Sudan pardons and releases teddy bear teacher. [CNN]

* Another Senate sex scandal. [MSNBC]

* Top schools raking in the funds. [BusinessWeek via MSNBC]

* Is the felony murder rule too harsh? [New York Times]

* Secondment becoming more popular at firms. [National Law Journal via WSJ Law Blog]

Congratulations to everyone who passed the MPRE. Results were made available online earlier this afternoon.

As for those of you who failed, we could subject you to some good-natured ribbing in these pages. But we will refrain.

Instead, we're delegating that task to the commenters, on this open thread. As one reader noted in an email, "people love comparing scores and condescending to, or commiserating with, those who failed."

The MPRE: Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination [official website]

As Justice Holmes famously wrote in his Lochner dissent, "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics." But does it enact, say, Mr. Alan Flusser's Dressing the Man?

This doesn't affect us, since we usually don't put on pants before 5 p.m. But for those of you who do get dressed and leave home in the morning, check out this story:

Pine Lawn, a mostly black municipality outside St. Louis, is among a growing number of U.S. cities enacting laws that ban low-slung pants.

Critics say the bans amount to government attacks on youthful fashion that some find offensive. And constitutional scholars say they may not be lawful.

"People have a right to express their identity through speech and action," said Neil Richards, a First Amendment expert at Washington University in St. Louis. "On the other hand, municipalities have a vague power to control the health, safety and welfare of citizens.

Discussion continues, after the jump.

In some legal markets, including much of the West Coast, the talk these days is about associate bonuses. But in other locales, the January 2007 increase in base salaries is still rippling through the large law firms.

We've just learned that Alston & Bird has matched King & Spalding's Atlanta base salaries. But A&B but did not match the K&S bonus levels -- the lion's share of the K&S raise.

Neither Alston & Bird nor King & Spalding, nor any other Atlanta firm, is on a "true" $160K scale (as defined by Simpson Thacher). In fact, a seventh-year at Alston & Bird will earn less in 2008 base salary ($195,000) than a class of 2006 first-year at a New York firm will earn in 2007, counting year-end and special bonuses ($205,000).

But at least things in the Big Peach are moving in the right direction -- albeit incrementally. Check out the memo, after the jump.

Despite her attractiveness, Judge Cheryl Aleman is not our favorite Floridian judge. That honor would have to go to Judge Mary Barzee Flores (with Judge Ursula Ungaro a close second).

But Judge Aleman still sounds pretty delish. Tomorrow she goes on trial before the state’s judicial ethics commission. From the Daily Business Review:

In February, the JQC [Judicial Qualifications Commission] filed formal charges against Judge Aleman for incidents when she:

• Threatened to hold two assistant public defenders in contempt in a first-degree murder case for not filing a motion quickly enough.

• Held a contempt hearing for a defense attorney when she knew he was out of town, and then sentenced him to 60 days in jail for missing two hearings.

• Refused to release a man allegedly dying of AIDS from jail and then issued an order releasing him once a negative article was published about the incident.

• Served on cases involving a defense attorney with whom she had conflicts.

A little bit more, after the jump.

The holiday season is shaping up to be a cheery one for associates at Fulbright & Jaworski. And not just due to perks like on-site tailoring and automated electronic defibrillators.

They're also getting more cash stuffed in their stockings. The firm just announced a new associate salary and bonus structure for 2008, in its offices in Washington (DC) and Texas.

More details, after the jump.

From a piece in the American Lawyer, summarizing the (fairly gloomy) responses of Am Law 200 law firms to the magazine's annual survey about the state of the law biz:

[T]he credit crunch is only part of the story, several managing partners say. The current market worries are exacerbating a more general sense that firms' resources have already been stretched to the limit. As the chair of one firm put it: "We can't beat the donkeys any harder."

This law firm chair decided to remain anonymous. So we can't give him (or her) props for being a lovably candid a**hole, in the Ari Gold mold.

If you are a donkey, feel free to opine on whether or not you can be beaten any harder, in the comments.

Am Law 200 Managing Partners Issue Fog Advisory for 2008 [American Lawyer]

One of ATL's more popular and long-running features is Lawyerly Lairs, in which we take you inside the luxurious homes of prominent members of the legal profession -- leading lawyers, judges, and law professors. Past posts have featured a law professor's $30 million Manhattan mansion, a commercial litigator's $7 million waterfront estate in Miami, and the former home of Aaron Charney.

But it looks like it won't be necessary for us to visit Chicago, where the real estate purchases of attorneys are already thoroughly covered, by a site called Chicago Block Shopper. From Legal Blog Watch:

Did you know that Mel M. Justak, an estate-planning associate at Reed Smith in Chicago, and his wife just sold their two-bedroom condo in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood? They got $340,000 for it, $4,000 less than they paid to purchase it in 2003. Perkins Coie IP associate Douglas L. Sawyer and his wife fared better in selling their four-bedroom Lincoln Park home, receiving $1 million for a place they bought in 2005 for $925,000. Meanwhile, Faith Bugel, a staff attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago, and David A. Rickard got a good deal for themselves in purchasing a four-bedroom, 5.1 bath home in Lincoln Park for $1.73 million. They bought it from Chicago Title, which paid a million more for the property in 2003.

How does Robert Ambrogi know all this? Find out, after the jump.

With apologies for the d