In connection with on-campus interviewing season, we're giving you a chance to assess the firms that made this year's Vault 100 list of most prestigious law firms. The previous open threads listed firms in groups of five, but to up the pace, we'll list them by ten from here on out. Here's the next group, with prestige scores in parentheses:

21. O'Melveny & Myers LLP (6.815)
22. Clifford Chance LLP (6.772)
23. Jones Day (6.763)
24. Morrison & Foerster LLP (6.657)
25. Hogan & Hartson LLP (6.579)
26. Linklaters (6.574)
27. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (6.512)
28. Ropes & Gray LLP (6.501)
29. Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP (6.494)
30. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (6.481)

We note Magic Circle firm Linklaters making a big leap from the high 30s in the 2008 list to #26 this year -- perhaps because its "notable perks" include group retreats to Europe, a drinks trolley, and an on-site doctor and dentist.

Compare. Contrast. Discuss. Thanks.

Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads - 2009

The latest departures from OMM (1) involve partners and (2) appear to be voluntary. From the Legal Pad:

Legal Pad is still chasing information about O'Melveny & Myers' early retirement program.... Details are dribbling out, but the firm is officially pretty tight-lipped so far.

“It’s strictly voluntary,” the firm said in a statement today. “We’ve implemented this type of program in the past and this is nothing new for our firm or law firms in general.”

The temporary option was offered for a window of time — how long isn’t clear to us yet, but we hear the window’s closed now — to all partners over age 50 who met certain requirements, such as length of tenure at the firm, according to a source close to O’Melveny management.

And maybe profitability? From an earlier post at Legal Pad:

[One departing partner] didn’t want to go into too much detail about the retirement buyout, but he did say it’s temporary and available to partners age 50 and up. We’re wondering whether there are any other conditions on the offer, how many people are taking it, when it went into effect, and whether yet another year of flat partner profits motivated it.

One knowledgeable but anonymous observer familiar with how L.A. law firms’ finances work speculated that the firm probably took a look its profitability curve and “maybe found out that the older guys aren’t sprinting, but trotting.”

This O'Melveny makeover reminds us of Cadwalader's Project Rightsize. Hopefully it will have a happier ending.

More On O'Melveny's Early Retirement Offers [Legal Pad / Cal Law]
O'Melveny Paying Older Partners to Leave [Legal Pad / Cal Law]

Earlier this month, we passed along a rumor that O'Melveny & Myers was conducting a "witch hunt" for ATL tipsters and commenters. For the record, OMM has denied the rumor (not to us, but at internal meetings).

Back in our prior post, we tossed out this hypothetical:

You're a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You're a lawyer -- a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn't have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

We concluded: "Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us?"

And enlighten us they have. One of the blog's editors, Professor Paul Secunda, kindly sent us a wonderfully detailed analysis. After all the conflicting opinions in the hundreds of comments to our post, it was nice to receive some clarity.

Read Professor Secunda's response, the model answer to our law school exam hypothetical, after the jump.

We previously reported on rumors of associate layoffs at O'Melveny & Myers. We've conducted some further investigation, and it's pretty clear to us that OMM is doing more than just performance-based pruning.

We'll issue a more detailed report sometime soon, perhaps early next week. If you have information to share, please email us (from your home computer, just to be on the safe side; see here).

For the time being, we'll stick to discussion of what has been reported elsewhere. The firm has never responded to our many requests for comment (and we're no longer going to bother trying to contact them; guys, you know where to reach us). But OMM did speak earlier this week to TheLawyer.com:

The managing partner of O'Melveny & Myers' New York office denies that the credit crunch has precipitated the layoffs of up to 15 associates.

O'Melveny tax partner and New York head Brad Okun confirms that a number of associates are leaving, but insists that the exits are all based on individual performance and are a result of O'Melveny's annual associate appraisal process.

"Every year we re-evaluate our associates and counsel to see how they're performing," Okun says. "Every year some fall below our expectations and therefore some are asked to leave. This year is no different from other years."

One of our OMM sources disagrees: "Complete baloney."

And a source who spoke to The Lawyer also begs to differ. Read more, after the jump.

In last month's ATL / Lateral Link survey we asked you which holidays you worked on, or expected to work on, during 2007. About half of you reported that you had worked on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Last week, we asked you how you fared this year. Did you take the day off to honor a champion of civil rights, or did you make it a "day on"?

We received just under 1,300 responses, and 44% of you reported that you took the day off. Associates in New York, Los Angeles and Boston were most likely to celebrate the holiday, while associates in Chicago, Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Texas were most likely to be working. (Respondents in the Bay Area were also most likely to work over Christmas and New Year's. Is it time for them to get New York bonuses?)

How did it break down on a firm by firm basis? DLA Piper, Milbank, Sidley & Austin, Dechert, Hunton & Williams, Jones Day, Latham, Mayer Brown, McDermott, Hughes Hubbard, McGuire Woods, Morgan Lewis, Nixon Peabody, Paul Hastings, and Sullivan & Cromwell each had multiple happy associates who reported that they had taken the day off. Kirkland & Ellis, Baker Botts, Dewey & LeBoeuf, O'Melveny & Myers, Weil, and Winston & Strawn each had mixed responses. Associates at Skadden, however, uniformly reported that they had worked the holiday, as Martin Luther King Jr. day is a "floating" holiday for the firm.

Of those who spent the day at the office, about 54% reported that they weren't actually asked to work the holiday, but had things they needed to get done. About a quarter reported that their offices were open. Another quarter said that partners told them to work on the holiday. About 8% were asked to work by clients. A surprising number of respondents wrote in that other associates had told them to work on the holiday.

A little over a third of respondents who worked on the holiday thought that the work did not justify the sacrifice.

Your reading of gossip blogs -- well, at least those relating to your profession (so Perez Hilton probably doesn't count, unless you're in showbiz) -- has just been blessed. From an article entitled "Gossip Is Information By Another Name," in the New York Times:

Q. The office sometimes feels like one big water cooler, with colleagues gossiping about one another and about management. It’s hard to resist joining in, but it feels subversive to spread information this way. Is it?

A. Not necessarily. Most gossip is just communication, a way that people form networks of trusting relationships.

The word “gossip” has a negative connotation, but you could also call it strategic information sharing, counseling or mentoring, said Michael Morris, a research psychologist and professor of organizational behavior at Columbia Business School who studies social cognition.

So feel free to bill your reading of ATL to "professional development," "office admin," or something similar. If you get asked about it, say you were gathering and sharing "strategic information," or "mentoring" younger lawyers.

As long as the information you’re spreading is not intended to hurt another person, it can actually be good for the company. Especially during times of major change, like downsizing or layoffs, gossip can be cathartic for employees, Professor Morris said.

See, e.g., Friday's O'Melveny & Myers thread (250+ comments).

A little more discussion, after the jump.

We respectfully submit that the powers-that-be at O'Melveny & Myers need to "chill" (as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) recently told former President Bill Clinton).

The folks at OMM apparently have some totalitarian tendencies. We heard they no-offered a summer associate from last year based on this individual's personal blogging about the summer associate experience (which didn't even mention the firm by name). And now we hear this rumor (by phone and by email, from multiple sources):

[T]he firm is furious about (true) comments sent to ATL about the firm's poor performance and underhanded layoffs. Apparently, the fire rages so much so that OMM is dead set on a witch hunt to find the associate(s) who leaked the goings on to ATL.

Both the firm's tech department and outside techies have been enlisted to figure out which associate's computer the comments were sent from. OMM associates are now scared to even check your site while at work (though of course are keeping in the loop through home computers).

We contacted the firm for comment. We haven't heard back from them as of the time of this posting.

We know next to nothing about labor and employment law. But to the labor lawyers among you, here's a hypothetical:

You're a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You're a lawyer -- a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn't have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us. Or if you're a labor and employment lawyer, feel free to opine in the comments.

P.S. We're experiencing mysterious technical difficulties this afternoon, so this may be our last post in a while. Maybe OMM is hacking ATL?

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of O'Melveny & Myers (scroll down)

We bring you an addendum to Monday's post about the latest in Supreme Court clerk hiring. And we're pleasantly surprised to see that we have this news before Wikipedia.

Recently hired to clerk for Justice Stephen G. Breyer in October Term 2008: Brianne Gorod, currently in the D.C. office of O'Melveny & Myers. Gorod is a 2005 Yale Law grad and a former clerk to the judicial tag team of Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) and Robert A. Katzmann (2d Cir.).

Those who obsessively follows SCOTUS clerk hiring know that Judges Rakoff and Katzmann have jointly sent clerks to the Court before. But contrary to some rumors, they're not always a "package deal" when it comes to hiring (although there is a significant degree of overlap among their current and former clerks).

Judge Katzmann prefers to hire individuals who have clerked on the district court (or have some other kind of post-law school work experience), so he regularly turns to Judge Rakoff, for whom he has a great deal of respect, as a source of clerkly talent. Judge Katzmann sometimes also helps promising applicants to his own chambers to secure interviews with Judge Rakoff. Conversely, Judge Rakoff also refers and sends clerks to Judge Katzmann, as well as to other Second Circuit judges, and he has also hired some clerks after Second Circuit clerkships. In short, both judges think it's valuable for people to have both district and circuit clerkship experiences, and they try to help make that happen for their clerks. But they don't hire 100 percent of their clerks jointly.

The current tally of OT 2008 SCOTUS clerks, with Brianne Gorod added, appears after the jump.

Something weird, that's what. We are not prepared to declare associate layoffs (because we try to be cautious about making such calls). But odd things are afoot at OMM, and the environment is one of Kremlin-esque anxiety and paranoia.

We contacted O'Melveny & Myers last week, to see if they had any comment on rumors of associate layoffs. They never got back to us. So this report does not reflect any information provided by the firm itself.

(Other firms that have been the subject of layoff rumors have been more cooperative, opening their kimonos and persuading us of the falsity of the layoff rumors about them. OMM did not avail itself of this opportunity.)

Although O'Melveny had no official comment, we did hear from people who are at OMM or who know people over there. The (admittedly unhelpful) upshot: nobody seems to know what's going on; the firm is keeping people in the dark.

Read the full report, 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

This week has been fairly quiet in terms of associate bonus news. We started wondering: Are you, our readers, holding out on us? Have there been bonus announcements from major firms that you haven't told us about?

Maybe not -- at least not from West Coast firms. From an article by Kellie Schmitt for The Recorder:

Want to kill a conversation with a California law firm leader? Talk about bonuses.

Weeks after top New York firms started announcing lavish special bonuses on top of the usual year-end handouts, California's firms have made no moves. This week, leaders at eight of 10 leading West Coast firms declined multiple requests to talk bonuses.

So no, it's not our imagination. West Coast firms are still deliberating about bonuses. For example, we've heard that the relevant committee at O'Melveny & Myers recently met -- but we've not heard about what conclusion they reached.

More discussion, after the jump.

Guess what's at the top of the New York Times Most Emailed Articles list today? A piece entitled For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle, by Lynnley Browning.

We're pleasantly surprised that an article about law firm perks, a niche topic that we cover obsessively around here, is so popular with readers of a general-interest publication. Or is it just that lawyers are the only poor saps at work today?

Among the more notable perks mentioned in the article:

1. Milkshakes and candied apples -- yum! (Perkins Coie) [FN1]
2. Mortgage guarantees for the first $100,000 of associate mortgages (Sullivan & Cromwell)
3. Reimbursements for associates who buy a hybrid car or a certain brand of car (DLA Piper; Fulbright & Jaworski)
4. On-site yoga classes (O’Melveny & Myers)

It's an interesting article; read the whole thing here. There's additional commentary on the piece over at the WSJ Law Blog, by Jamie Heller (filling in for Peter Lattman, who is on his honeymoon).

P.S. Looks like an NYT correction may be in order, due to a slip-up concerning the amount of year-end bonuses:

The perks come on top of higher salaries and larger bonuses — this year, the top-offs have been doubled at some practices. At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to their year-end bonuses up to $35,000.

Our suggested rewording: "At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, some associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to year-end bonuses up to $60,000." (The word "some" is needed before the word "associates," because class of 2007 or "stub year" associates don't get special bonuses.)

[FN1] The Perkins Coie milkshakes come from Potbelly Sandwich Works. Coincidentally, we enjoyed a PSW milkshake for the first time on Wednesday. It was Oreo, and it was delicious!

Update: One of you sent us this great comment, by email:

I thought the most poignant perk was Fried Frank's: they offer psychotherapy (through what sounds suspiciously like a bulk discount deal) to help associates deal with stress, anxiety, depression, and divorce. I love it!

I can imagine the therapist's notes: "Patient distressed re: possibility of negative performance review. Says he has not seen wife or child since, "let's see ... when was that holiday with the fireworks?" Is in constant pain from chronic papercuts and verbal caning associated with ongoing case. Patient noted gratefully that firm is paying for therapy. Possible diagnoses: Stockholm syndrome?"

For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle [New York Times]
Law Job Perks v. Law Job Woes [WSJ Law Blog]

Here's our latest Non-Top-Tier Law School Graduate of the Day, an alumnus of a Tier 3 school. And he didn't even get an LLM from NYU!

Name: Daniel Petrocelli

Law School: Southwestern Law School, J.D., 1980

Current Position: Partner, O'Melveny & Myers

Why He's Our Winner: The reader who nominated Petrocelli says it all:

You should consider featuring Daniel Petrocelli on your non-top-tier success series. This is the same Petrocelli who brought in the civil verdict against O.J. Simpson and represented Jeffrey Skilling. Petrocelli is now pulling in gazillions as a partner at O'Melveny & Myers in L.A.

From whence did he come? Southwestern University Law School. But wait, there's more. It's not featured on his bio, but he went to night school!!!

So whether to illustrate the heights to which non-top-tier graduates are capable of reaching, or to show how one doesn't need to have their parents get them into Yale to succeed, you really should feature him.

Indeed -- Dan Petrocelli is a worthy winner. But one caveat: he did graduate first in his class, and served as editor-in-chief of the law review. So his job prospects were considerably better than those in the middle or at the bottom of the class.

Daniel Petrocelli bio [O'Melveny & Myers]
The Inside Story of How O.J. Lost [Time]

Although the pace seems to be slowing, our open threads on Vault 100 firms continue to generate a decent quantity (and quality) of comments. So we'll press on, for the benefit of those of you who are now in the throes of the law firm application process.

Please pose questions about and share insights into these five law firms (in Vault 100 order, with prestige scores in parentheses):

16. Williams & Connolly LLP (7.234)
17. Sidley Austin LLP (7.232)
18. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (7.158)
19. O'Melveny & Myers LLP (7.105)
20. White & Case LLP (7.092)

You can discuss them in the comments. Thanks.

The Vault Top 100 Law Firms [Vault]

Earlier: Vault 1-5; Vault 6-10; Vault 11-15

We were rightfully ribbed for having so few details in yesterday's post about the O'Melveny Mystery Man (hereinafter "Mystery"). Now we have more information about him, gleaned from multiple sources.

One source, who interacted with Mystery at lunches and over coffee, said that he "seemed very quiet." But maybe he acts differently in a party context (i.e., after he's had a few drinks). A second source, who spent time with Mystery on the notorious night of the firm retreat, described him as "obnoxious" and "a true frat guy."

As for the alleged conduct on the evening in question, here's what we've heard:

1. "[O]ne of the summer associates is a lesbian, but I don't think most of us knew until this weekend since she brought her girlfriend. Everyone was at the hospitality suite on Saturday night, and the summer kissed her girlfriend on the cheek. [Mystery] yells out, "Whoa, what was that?!" and makes a totally un-PC scene, [making] both girls uncomfortable."

2. "[O]ne of the first year associates had her fiance there, and he was drinking white wine. [Mystery] says: 'Why are you drinking white wine? Are you a fag?'

3. "[Mystery] kept doing the 'wink and point' thing at a 3rd or 4th year female associate, telling her that she would be his drinking buddy for the night. She was creeped out."

No, that's not all. More misconduct alleged, after the jump.

Of course we're not done with our series on the mishaps of summer associate. There's just too much material. If you have an anecdote to share, please review our submission guidelines, and then email us.

Here's our latest X-Summer. The good news is that this story is current, from this summer (although we gladly take old stories too). The bad news is that many details are missing -- but maybe you can help us out with that.

1. Superhero name: O'Melveny & Mystery Man
2. Special power: Ability to spawn a hundred stories about the true reasons for his departure.
3. Summered: O'Melveny & Myers, summer 2007 (southern California).
4. Claim to fame: According to allegations in circulation:

[O]ne of our summers got fired... Apparently, while he was on the Newport retreat, he did something offensive, and no one knows what, exactly. The most likely story is that he said something homophobic to a lesbian partner, but it's all speculation.

The rumors have gotten out of control, though. Apparently this story has reached New York, and has blossomed into one about two summers: one allegedly groped an associate, and the other supposedly exposed himself to a bunch of attorneys. It's amazing. Legal gossip is a nationwide network.

Amen to that. Ain't the internets great?

More discussion, after the jump.