If you were skeptical of the notion that Barack Obama never published anything as a member of the Harvard Law Review, your skepticism was justified. From Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner, over at Politico:

[A]n unsigned -- and previously unattributed -- 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama's views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.

The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No.

As ATL readers know -- see the posts collected under the Harvard Law Review category -- ascertaining authorship of HLR student-written work can be controversial. How do we know Obama wrote this case comment?

The Obama campaign swiftly confirmed Obama's authorship of the fetal rights article Thursday after a source told Politico he'd written it. The campaign also provided a statement on Harvard Law Review letterhead confirming that the unsigned piece was Obama's - the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president - and that records showed it was the only piece he'd written for the Review.

It's pretty cool that "the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president." Like a Masonic temple, Gannett House is the repository of many secrets.

Having a hitherto unacknowledged case comment is better than having a hitherto unacknowledged baby girl.

Update: You can access a PDF of the Obama case comment over at TaxProf Blog.

Exclusive: Obama's lost law review article [Politico]

Earlier: Barack Obama and the Harvard Law Review

An observant tipster directed our attention to a fascinating excerpt from the Inspector General's report (PDF) about the politicization of hiring at the Justice Department's Honors Program. From page 59:

The Civil Rights Division had 24 of its 52 candidates deselected, and appealed 1. That candidate was a student at Harvard Law School with an A- grade average, had interned at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of California, and was strongly recommended by an attorney in the front office of the Civil Rights Division who knew him.

Rena Comisac, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, told us that after the appeal was submitted, [Michael] Elston informed her that the Screening Committee had found an article on the Internet in which the candidate was quoted as expressing regret that he had not participated in the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle. According to Comisac, Elston said that if the candidate wanted to participate in the Seattle WTO protests, which in Elston's opinion were close to a riot, then the candidate would not hesitate to chain himself to the front steps of the Department if he did not like the way something was being done. Comisac told us that it was clear to her that "any additional appeals would not be productive" and that she decided not to pursue the matter further."

Now we wonder who that might be. A Harvard Law School student with an impressive academic record, who has ties to the Sacramento area (E.D. Cal.), and who has publicly expressed regret about missing the 1999 WTO protests....

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

A Man of Many Hats [Harvard Crimson]

Earlier: Meet the Note Author: Phil Telfeyan, the Harvard Law Avenger

Given our twin obsessions with the Harvard Law Review and Barack Obama, we are compelled to draw your attention to this interesting article, from the Politico (via a commenter). Summarizing Obama's tenure as HLR president, Jeffrey Ressner and Ben Smith write:

The eight dense volumes produced during his time in charge there -- 2,083 pages in all -- show the Review to have been a decidedly liberal institution, albeit one in transition as its focus on race and gender was contested by liberals and conservatives alike. Under his tenure, the Review published calls to expand the powers of women, African-Americans and the elderly to sue for discrimination.

But Obama, who this March referred to "identity politics" as "an enormous distraction," was not so easily pinned down. He published a searing attack on affirmative action, written by a former Reagan administration official. And when, in an unusual move, he selected a young woman from a non-Ivy League law school to fill one of the Review's most prestigious slots, she produced an essay focused on individual responsibilities as much as on liberties, criticizing both conservative judges and feminist scholars.

"I was very surprised and honored to receive the invitation, of course, as I was teaching at Maryland Law School at the time, and the Foreword typically is extended to more established scholars at 'top' law schools," Robin West, now a professor and associate dean at Georgetown Law Center, wrote in an e-mail to Politico.

For more on Professor West and her Harvard Law Review foreword, see the Volokh Conspiracy, where David Bernstein describes Professor West as "an inspired choice."

Discussion continues, after the jump.

In the wake of a former Harvard Law Review president securing the Democratic nomination for United States president, it's timely to do an update on the Harvard Law Review Note controversy (or Statue-Gate, as Glenn Reynolds dubbed it). If you haven't been following the story, background appears here, here, and here.

Whenever a leader stumbles, bloggers swarm. The mini-scandal at America's top law review has spawned a cottage industry of blogs. First there was a blog claiming to be written by Note author Phil Telfeyan, Do the Right Thing at Every Moment. It was under password protection for a time, but it's once again open to all. And now there are at least two other blogs dedicated to covering perceived scholarly lapses at Harvard Law School and the Harvard Law Review, Harvard Clown School and Harvard Law Review Review (both via Prettier Than Napoleon).

There have been all sorts of rumors going around about Phil Telfeyan, his Note, and the blog dedicated to the Note (which may or may not be his). We made an effort to get to the bottom of some of them, talking to people with firsthand knowledge of the situation, including current and former HLR editors. We didn't find out everything we wanted to know, but we learned a few new things.

If you're curious -- some of you may be tired of this story, and we don't blame you -- you can read more below the fold.

We'll be doing a more detailed follow-up on the Harvard Law Review Note controversy "in due course" (to use a favorite expression of a former boss).

There has been lots of new blog commentary on the Note that we have not yet fully digested. E.g., Volokh Conspiracy (David Bernstein, via Instapundit); Concurring Opinions (Dave Hoffman). There are also hundreds of new ATL comments that we need to catch up on. So it may be a while.

We were hoping to bring you an interview with Note author Phil Telfeyan, but he has not responded to our multiple interview requests. Perhaps he prefers to address the public through Do the Right Thing At Every Moment, which purports to be a blog authored by him.

Update: There have been suggestions, in the comments here and elsewhere, that Phil Telfeyan is not the author of "Do the Right Thing At Every Moment." The blog appears legitimate to us (and we note, with interest, the 5:05 PM comment on this Concurring Opinions thread). But we have contacted Mr. Telfeyan, through messages to his Harvard email address and through Facebook, to invite him to issue an on-the-record denial of authorship, if he is not in fact the author.

In other Harvard Law Review news, that august publication is taking up new quarters. Move over, Gannett House. Say hello to.... the Law Review Lounge:

Okay, no, the HLR isn't actually moving into these dumpy digs -- they're pretty far from Cambridge. For the real story behind the Law Review Lounge, read below the fold.

Sigh. We hate it when news breaks late on a Friday before a holiday weekend.

But we won't let the timing stop us from giving this the attention it deserves. We'll do an update post next week, after everyone is back from the Memorial Day holiday weekend. We've also contacted Phil Telfeyan -- we've known he was the Note author for quite some time, thanks to our Harvard Law School sources -- and requested an interview.

We have to head out now. If you're still stuck in front of your computer, instead of enjoying the long weekend, check out the links below.

Comment: Mea Culpa by Phil Telfeyan [comment]
HLS Wins National Appellate Advocacy Competition [Harvard Law Record]
HLS students win national ABA moot court competition [Harvard Law School]
A Man of Many Hats [Harvard Crimson]

From Don Chairez, a former Clark County district judge who previously employed Judge Elizabeth Halverson as a law clerk:

"Unfortunately, she doesn't have good people skills when she's being attacked. But she did the heavy lifting in that court. When judges had complex issues, they came to her to write their memos. And they got Harvard Law Review-quality work."

Meanwhile, in other Judge Halverson news:

Clark County attorneys are quick to call out jurists they believe lack superior legal knowledge.... A staggering 84 percent of respondents questioned how District Judge Elizabeth Halverson exercises the law, far and away the poorest rating of any jurist evaluated. Halverson's retention score of 8 percent was also at the bottom.

Attorneys most critical of judges' knowledge of law [Las Vegas Review-Journal]

Earlier: Working in Biglaw = Killing Babies?

In January, after the Harvard Law Review published a rather embarrassing, bleeding-heart Case Comment, we wrote:

Last year, we ran a popular series of posts on the Harvard Law Review. The gist of the coverage was that the Review's new, left-leaning leadership "is running the journal into the ground with a cabal of radical ideologues, making the outgoing editors nervous about the future reputation of the journal."

We got some flak for our HLR coverage. But in view of what the Review is publishing these days, as discussed extensively in the blogosphere -- see, e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy and PrawfsBlawg -- we can't help gloating. Just a little.

Or a lot. A tipster draws our attention to a Note that was just published in the latest issue of the HLR:

I think you should break this story. It is a guaranteed comment clusterf**k.

This Note (PDF) basically says that anyone who doesn't go in to public interest work is immoral and is killing babies in third world countries (most of this analysis is in section 4 of the article). I think it just came out in electronic form today, so you should get a jump on anyone.

Our correspondent's summary is shockingly accurate. Check out the article for yourself by clicking here (PDF).

As it turns out, we're not the first to take note of the Note. We believe that would be Professor Paul Horwitz, over at PrawfsBlawg. After alluding to the notorious Case Comment from several months ago, Professor Horwitz writes:

I am reading the latest issue of the Harvard Law Review [which contains] a Note titled, after an inscription on a statue in Cambridge Common, "Never Again Should a People Starve in a World of Plenty." It's unusually thinly sourced for a Harvard Law Review Note -- not that I'm encouraging people to use more footnotes! And it has a certain voice ("There is injustice everywhere. The last place there should be injustice is in the justice system.") and theme that . . . . well, I find myself wondering whether we have found our anonymous author once again.

I don't mean to be unduly gossipy about this sort of thing; it's worth a two-paragraph blog post and not more. And I am not knocking the observation that injustice is bad; heaven forfend. Just the same, I'm curious whether this is the same author.

We don't share Professor Horwitz's shyness. We're happy to write more than two paragraphs about the Note (ha -- we already have). And there's no such thing as being "unduly gossipy" in our book.

So gossip away, in the comments. Do you think this Note was written by the same author as the prior Case Comment? Do you feel that the Harvard Law Review -- once headed by Senator Barack Obama, its first black president -- is tilting too far to the left?

Or, if you prefer, don't gossip; engage substantively with the arguments in the Note. Clearly the author wants associates and partners in large law firms to sit up and take notice, to think about whether what they're doing professionally is worthwhile -- or even morally defensible.

We're sure the anonymous author will be grateful to us for bringing his or her work to the attention of ATL's many readers in Biglaw. Whoever you are: you're welcome!

Last year, we ran a popular series of posts on the Harvard Law Review (click here and scroll down, to the posts marked with a mushroom cloud over Gannett House). The gist of the coverage, as described by one of our sources, was that the Review's new, left-leaning leadership "is running the journal into the ground with a cabal of radical ideologues, making the outgoing editors nervous about the future reputation of the journal."

We got some flak for our HLR coverage. But in view of what the Review is publishing these days, as discussed extensively in the blogosphere last week -- see, e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy and PrawfsBlawg -- we can't help gloating. Just a little.

Harvard Law Review on Punitive Damages and the 14th Amendment [Volokh Conspiracy]
Cruel and Unusual? On the Harvard Law Review's Case Comment on Philip Morris [PrawfsBlawg]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of the Harvard Law Review

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.

In October 2006, when LEWW reviewed her wedding, we wrote of Aileen McGrath (at right, with handsome hubby Jason Gillenwater):

Aileen is the President of the Harvard Law Review. HELLO!!! And this isn't mentioned in the announcement, but we've learned that she'll be clerking next year for Chief Judge Michael Boudin, of the First Circuit -- feeder judge extraordinaire.

So, Aileen, have you picked which Supreme Court justice you'd like to clerk for?

She has. We've learned that Aileen McGrath (Harvard 2007 / Boudin) has accepted an offer to clerk for Justice Stephen G. Breyer in October Term 2008. One source tells us: "[S]he’s universally recognized as brilliant. She was president of the law review and a Sears Prize winner."

We also hear that the fourth clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas for OT 2008 is a D.C. Circuit clerk (believed to be clerking for Judge David Sentelle). Will someone please give up the name?

Update: Her name is Claire Evans. She's a 2002 graduate of Rutgers School of Law - Camden, and she's the first alum of the school to score a SCOTUS clerkship. She clerked for Judge Jerome Simandle (D.N.J.) in 2003, and then for Michael Chertoff, back when he was still on the Third Circuit. Reports our source:

"Chertoff liked Claire so much that he took her to the Department of Homeland Security when he left the bench for Washington. Apparently, Claire continues to amaze and has now secured the most coveted of credentials -- a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship."

"[S]he holds the highest cumulative grade point average in the history of Rutgers School of Law - Camden. And, because of a grading change implemented the year after Claire graduated, it is now mathematically impossible for Claire's epic GPA to ever be topped."

Finally, expect more SCOTUS clerk hires in the near future. From an in-the-know tipster:

There's movement among the justices now. At least Alito, Roberts, Kennedy & Breyer have scheduled interviews in the last few days. Kennedy has scheduled pre-screen interviews, at least some of which are with Judge Kozinski.

The current tally of OT 2008 Supreme Court clerks, with Aileen McGrath and Claire Evans added, appears after the jump.

We're bummed that we can't write this week about the groom who arranges music for Yo-Yo Ma and Jay-Z. Or the one who's associate counsel for the NBA.

But lawyer-lawyer couples abound, and we know those are the pairings ATL readers crave. Here are our finalists:

1. Lisa Kutlin and Alexander Goldenberg

2. Shauna Burgess and Jonathan Friedman

3. Elizabeth Frieze and Matthew Prasse

More about these legal lovebirds, after the jump.

Remember our extensive, mischievous-yet-good-natured coverage of internal strife at the legendary Harvard Law Review? It appears to have irritated HLR President Andrew Crespo. And it probably will have to stop now, thanks to the Review's new "email and internet usage policy," which prohibits sharing HLR internal emails with the eyes of outsiders.

UH OH! Looks like Andrew "Crespolini" Crespo didn't like his dirty laundry being aired on Above The Law, so he's created a new policy (this one, mercifully, public) to ensure that all inanity can be confined to Gannett House.

Fortunately, since it won't take effect until next week, I figured I would send it along your way!

As our source notes, the policy doesn't take effect until July 18, 2007. So taking the policy and forwarding it to, say, your favorite legal tabloid is permitted (until Wednesday, when all bets are off).

It's not particularly interesting -- but if you'd like to read the policy, you can check it out after the jump.

We're posting this on Friday the 13th -- hardly anyone's lucky day. But last Saturday was 7-7-07, and couples all over the world rushed to the altar (and the gambling tables) to take advantage of the auspicious date.

And sevens weren't the only thing we saw multiples of in the NYT weddings section. We've got four grooms this week, and all four are named John!

If that gives you chills, just wait till you check out their credentials.

Here are this week's finalists:

1. Zina Gelman and John Bash III

2. John Alexander and John Lipsey

3. Anne Ho and John Griggs III

More on these couples, after the jump.

[Bonus wedding note: Check out this correction and ponder how annoyed this bride is.]

Regular ATL readers know that the venerable Harvard Law Review is something of a shark tank. See here, here, and here.

So maybe the rough-and-tumble world of Gannett House is where Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), a former HLR president, learned how to campaign. From the NYT:

Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information [about a blind trust], the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline.

The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

"D-Punjab"? Not very politically correct of the Obama campaign.

We bet that Senator Obama -- who tries to cast himself as Mr. Sweetness & Light (and Hope, The Audacity Of) -- will try to stay above the fray. He'll leave the dirty work to his staffers (a la Geffengate).

But we wanted to bring this to your attention. We think it's unfair that our girl Hillary gets attacked for being allegedly conniving, but equally devious competitors don't get called out on such things.

Update: You can view the Barack Obama campaign memo, entitled "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s Personal Financial and Political Ties to India," by clicking here (PDF).

To Avoid Conflicts, Clintons Liquidate Holdings [New York Times]

We continue our series of posts chronicling rampant internal strife at America's top law journal, the Harvard Law Review. Prior posts appear here, here and here.

The standard caveats apply:

1. This material is not for everyone. If you don't share our appreciation for tempests in teapots, you may have a "So what?" reaction. But if you do enjoy the hilarity of petty law school squabbles, then keep reading.

2. The internal emails reprinted below speak for themselves. After reading them, you may end up siding with the HLR editor or with president Andrew Crespo. We take no side in this controversy.

3. If you feel that we've missed something in our coverage, please email us (subject line: "Harvard Law Review"). We're eager to hear from all parties to this dispute.

(Alas, it's usually the case that one side leaks info to communicates with us more than the other. As a result, that side's viewpoint may receive more coverage in these pages. E.g., Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. If you want to level the playing field, you need to feed us information that supports your position.)

Discussion of the latest controversy, plus internal Harvard Law Review emails, after the jump.

Today we bring you another post in our series about controversy and dissension at America's top law journal: the Harvard Law Review. Earlier posts appear here and here.

We repeat the warning we included in our last post:

[This material] is not for everyone. If you don't share our appreciation for tempests in teapots, you may have a "So what?" reaction. But if you do enjoy the hilarity of petty law school squabbles, then keep reading.

It appears that a fair number of you do enjoy such ridiculousness. Our last HLR post generated over 80 comments.

The latest controversy unfolds, in all of its crimson glory, after the jump.

As promised, here's the first installment in our series about infighting at America's top law journal: the Harvard Law Review. Some HLR editors are unhappy with the Review's new fearless leader, president Andrew Crespo, and have been expressing their concerns.

We've been leaked a number of HLR internal emails that some of you may find amusingly ridiculous. But we should warn you that they're not for everyone. If you don't share our appreciation for tempests in teapots, you may have a "So what?" reaction.

But if you do enjoy the hilarity of petty law school squabbles, then check out the emails -- after the jump.

We're going to be doing a series of posts about the world's premier journal of legal scholarship: the Harvard Law Review. We've learned that there are some unhappy campers over at Gannett House (at right), who are less than thrilled with the Review's new leadership.

Here's a preview of what's on the way. From a tipster:

As you might remember, Andrew Crespo was recently elected president of the Harvard Law Review. Since then, he has taken a decidedly fascist approach to leadership and he is running the journal into the ground with a cabal of radical idealogues, making the outgoing editors nervous about the future reputation of the journal.

Some have taken to calling him "Crespolini," after [Benito Mussolini]. In short, there is a crisis of confidence at Gannett.

As noted in some of the news coverage of his selection, Crespo is the first Latino to serve as HLR president. Fortunately, Mussolini was Italian.

More to come in subsequent posts (including internal HLR emails). If you're at the Harvard Law Review and have information to share, whether pro- or anti-Crespo, please email us. Thanks.

Crespo Elected First Latino President of Harvard Law Review [Harvard Law Record]
First Hispanic To Lead Harvard Law Review [Harvard Crimson]
Harvard Law Review elects Crespo as new president [Harvard Law School (press release)]