That’s the most shocking revelation in an interesting New York Times profile of H. Rodgin Cohen, the nation’s top banking M&A lawyer and chairman of the venerable Sullivan & Cromwell. From the NYT:

After [Cohen and his wife Barbara] had paid their [restaurant] check, they went to fetch the car, and Mr. Cohen, a Boston fan since his days at Harvard Law, glanced down at his BlackBerry to check on the Red Sox. He drives a Subaru, a humble ride for a man who earned millions last year arranging shotgun weddings for the busted firms of Wall Street, and standing next to Barbara in the darkness, Rodge Cohen, a titan of the banking bar, struggled with his automated key, initially unable to — woop woop woop — release the lock.

Unlocking car doors by remote control — where’s a good associate when you need one?

Now, in re Subarus, we have nothing against them; they are fine cars. Some of our best friends drive Subarus. One of our co-clerks — a member of the Elect, no less — drives a Subaru Forester. The judge for whom we clerked — Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain (9th Cir.), a top feeder judge — used to drive a purple Subaru (affectionately nicknamed “Grimace” by his clerks).

But as we know from the judicial pay controversy, federal judges don’t get compensated like partners at Sullivan & Cromwell. And Cohen is no ordinary S&C partner — he’s the chairman of the firm and its top rainmaker, generating tens of millions in business every year. A Subaru is shockingly downmarket for him. We realize that true wealth doesn’t have to advertise itself, and six-figure cars are for the nouveau riche, but this still seems a tad extreme.

More to the point, why is Rodge Cohen even driving himself? Wouldn’t it be more efficient for him to have a chauffeur-driven Maybach — john quinn, holla — so he can spend every waking minute on the phone, negotiating billion-dollar bank mergers? Isn’t it a waste of the brilliant Cohen’s brain cells to have him paying attention to yield signs when he could instead be thinking about yield curves?

More tidbits from the Rodge Cohen profile, along with commentary, after the jump.

Today the winners of Lawyer of the Day honors are obvious. Congratulations to Arthur Cutillo, Michael Kimelman, and Jason Goldbfarb, three attorneys who stand accused of involvement in the infamous Galleon Group insider trading scheme.

Both Cutillo and Kimelman have distinguished pedigrees, with ties to two top firms. Cutillo (left), a holder of an M.S. in chemical engineering as well as a J.D. (both from Villanova), was an associate at the white-shoe firm of Ropes & Gray. Kimelman (right), a partner at Incremental Capital LLC, once worked as an associate at super-prestigious Sullivan & Cromwell. Check out Cutillo’s firm bio and Kimelman’s LinkedIn profile over here.

The third charged lawyer, Jason Goldfarb, apparently worked as a personal injury lawyer in Brooklyn. He allegedly served as a conduit of information between Cutillo and Zvi Goffer — the former Galleon employee apparently referred to as “Octopussy” at the SEC, because “he had his arms in so many insider” trading schemes.

More on our three honorees, after the jump.

The news was first reported by CNBC. See Dealbreaker for more details.

We have phone calls and emails in to Ropes & Gray and are waiting to hear back. We will keep you posted on further developments.

If you have more info, please email us. Thanks.

UPDATE (10:00 AM): According to Bloomberg, the FBI has arrested Arthur Cutillo (pictured). He is no longer on the Ropes & Gray website, but you can find his bio via Google Cache. Interestingly enough, he was an IP litigator, not a corporate attorney.

CNBC is now reporting that a Ropes & Gray employee allegedly provided inside information about various “going private” transactions the firm was involved in. Some of these transactions apparently involved companies heavily dependent upon intellectual property, such as technology companies.

UPDATE (10:10 AM): In case the Google Cache entry is removed, we have posted Arthur Cutillo’s bio after the jump. He graduated from Rutgers (undergrad) and Villanova (law), and he worked at Merck before joining Ropes.

UPDATE (10:15 AM): Here is a statement from Ropes & Gray:

We are deeply disappointed to learn about this situation, which suggests an extreme breach of this person’s duty of trust to our clients and to the firm. We cannot comment in detail on an ongoing investigation but we are moving quickly to protect our clients and are cooperating fully with authorities.

UPDATE (12:15 PM): U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (S.D.N.Y.) is giving a press conference discussing the charges. One of the other individuals charged, Michael Kimelman, once worked as an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell.

UPDATE (4:30 PM): We’ve honored Artie Cutillo, Michael Kimelman, and a third lawyer, Jason Goldfarb, as our Lawyers of the Day.

Art Cutillo’s Ropes bio and Mike Kimelman’s LinkedIn profile, after the jump.

Seven Arrested In Insider Trading Case [Dealbreaker]

More than a decade ago, Cory Maples of Alabama murdered two people. After an evening of heavy drinking, playing pool, and riding around in a friend’s car, Maples killed two friends, shooting them execution-style.

According to court documents, he signed a confession, “stating that he: (1) shot both victims around midnight; (2) had drunk six or seven beers by about 8 p.m., but ‘didn’t feel very drunk’; and (3) did not know why he decided to kill the two men. Faced with this confession, Maples’s trial attorneys argued that Maples was guilty of murder, but not capital murder.”

A jury found Maples guilty and sentenced him to death.

Maples appealed his capital murder conviction with the help of attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell:

Maples subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present evidence of: (1) Maples’s mental health history; (2) his intoxication at the time of the crime; and (3) his alcohol and drug history.

The trial court dismissed Maples’ Rule 32 petition, and sent notice of the decision to the attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell and to local Alabama counsel. There was a 42-day period for filing a notice of appeal, but all the lawyers involved dropped the ball on the case, PepsiCo-style.

So what’s the explanation for S&C’s missing the deadline for filing an appeal?

It’s partner promotion season in Biglaw. This year, Sullivan & Cromwell is making five new partners — and four of them are women. Am Law Daily reports:

Firm chairman H. Rodgin Cohen attributes the growth in female partner ranks to policies, such as flex-time and maternity leave, aimed at promoting and retaining greater numbers of women, the NYLJ’s Nate Raymond reports.

“I think hopefully as we have more and more women joining us it will be the new normal,” Cohen said. “We certainly for a long time have been trying to promote more women and more minorities.”

Are diversity policies actually starting to work?

There is even more good news from this round of partner promotions. Three of the five new S&C partners are in corporate. Green shoots? That looks like a mighty bean stalk, Jack.

Female partners, corporate partners, this is all pretty good news for a Thursday.

S&C Promotes Five Associates—Including Four Women—to Partner [Am Law Daily]

Earlier: Can Remote Access Help Firms Make Female Partners?

“There are no NALP police.”
— James G. Leipold, Executive Director, NALP

Oh, but wouldn’t it be fun if there were? Let’s use our imaginations….

As the Bad Boys theme song plays in the background, a bespectacled Jim Leipold, accompanied by a gaggle of burly NALP goons, breaks down the door at 111 Huntington Avenue — the Boston offices of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge.

Leipold handcuffs Kelly. “You are being arrested for your firm’s violation of Part V.C.1 of the NALP Principles and Standards,” he tells her. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to the managing partner of your law firm, as well as the right to blame the managing partner for your firm’s breach of the NALP rules. But don’t be surprised if you get hit with a stealth layoff after doing so.”

Bad firms, bad firms, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when NALP comes for you?

NALP, the Association for Legal Career Professionals (fka the National Association for Law Placement), promulgates “guidelines that offer an ethical framework for all participants in law student recruiting.” In past years, these guidelines were generally followed by law firms, schools, and students. This year, however, with the economy in the tank, things are… different.

Over the summer, uber-prestigious Sullivan & Cromwell tried to ditch the requirement that law firms give law students 45 days to weigh offers of summer employment. S&C ultimately backed down. But as reported in these pages earlier today, Edwards Angell has told law students receiving offers that they have three weeks to accept, “or until the summer class fills up” — whichever is earlier.

And EAPD isn’t the only firm that has decided to make offers with shorter fuses. Another firm is giving offerees two weeks to make up their minds.

More information, plus reflections on the NALP rules, after the jump.

The big decisional news out of New York today is the guilty verdict in the Brooke Astor trial. Anthony Marshall, the son of the late socialite and philanthropist, was convicted in a scheme to defraud Mrs. Astor.

But we also have news of another notable ruling. Longtime readers of Above the Law will recall the case of Jeremy Pitcock, the successful intellectual-property litigator who was fired from Kasowitz Benson in December 2007. The firm issued an unusual statement saying that Pitcock had engaged in “extremely inappropriate personal conduct.”

Pitcock sued Kasowitz for defamation. Kasowitz turned around and sued Pitcock, alleging in its complaint that he “subject[e]d at least twelve of the firm’s female employees…. to a pattern of unwelcome sexual advances.”

Now a judge has ruled in both of the cases. From Nate Raymond of the New York Law Journal:

A nearly two year-long public brawl between Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman and a former partner it fired for sexual harassment could be quieting down now that a Manhattan Supreme Court judge has dismissed both parties’ lawsuits.

Justice Martin Shulman (See Profile) last week found “unavailing” and “unpersuasive” the arguments made against the firm by intellectual property lawyer Jeremy Pitcock, who sued for defamation, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

The judge also found Kasowitz Benson failed to show how Mr. Pitcock had damaged the firm.

Executive summary (or West headnote): “A pox on both your houses.”

The stalk-and-eventually-marry-your-doorman phenomenon continues to enthrall the NYT weddings editors. This week they shine the spotlight on yet another bride — this time a producer at CNN — who found love in the lobby. LEWW encourages female Biglaw associates to embrace this trend. You’re in and out of office buildings all day, ladies — open your eyes to the lusciousness perched behind those security desks!

And now, this week’s finalist couples:

1. Monique Mendez and Graham O’Donoghue

2. Ashlee Conley and Andrew Veit

3. Anne Claiborne and Andrew Grotto

Read all about these newlyweds, after the jump.

[Speaking in the voice of the late, great Don LaFontaine] In a world where 2Ls are terrified. In a time when Biglaw openly flouts NALP rules. There was one man who would not take it anymore.

[Cue sweeping and inspiring theme song]

That man was Harvard Law School’s Assistant Dean for Career Services, Mark Weber.

Without the knowledge of the general public, the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell told 2Ls interviewing with the firm that it would disregard the 45 day waiting period for holding open offers. Instead, the firm would expect a decision in just two weeks. Am Law Daily reports:

In late July, S&C called several of the nation’s top law schools and informed career services personnel at those schools that the firm would not be following the 45-day guideline, according to six sources with direct knowledge of the situation. All six spoke only on the condition that they not be identified publicly.

Instead, S&C told the career services personnel, the firm would require prospects to respond yes or no in two weeks.

But S&C wasn’t prepared for Mark Weber.

Click below to continue listening to this trailer.

Yesterday, the Vault rankings were released. It is time to dig into them.

To refresh your memory here are the top five firms according to Vault:

1. Wachtell
2. Cravath
3. Skadden
4. Sullivan & Cromwell
5. Davis Polk

As we noted yesterday, the only change in the top five is Skadden jumping over S&C. Is that fair? A lot of you opined that Skadden’s prestige score was settled before it starting deferring associates. But surprisingly few of you noted that Skadden paid out bonuses that were double what Cravath, S&C, and DPW paid.

Is twice as much bonus money worth one extra spot in the rankings? Vault’s managing editor, Brian Dalton, suggests that Skadden’s bonus carried some weight:

Skadden had a good year, climbing over Sullivan & Cromwell to take the #3 spot. Among other factors, the notion of ‘half-Skadden’ is a potent one, though not quite enough to carry the firm past Cravath. (Mildly ironic in that Cravath’s bonus decision spawned that meme.)

Truly striking is the reach of the Skadden brand: Third in the Boston regional ranking, second in Chicago, and—taking over from Latham—No. 1 in Northern and Southern California. (Vault’s regional rankings are calculated using only the votes of the survey respondents in the particular region.) By contrast, in its hometown of New York City, Skadden places fifth. (These regional rankings are coming soon to the site.)

After the jump, should any of these firms in the top five move over to make room for somebody else?

The world of contract attorneys isn’t our primary focus around here. We make occasional forays into that territory, but for the most part we leave it to more specialized sites, like Temporary Attorney (aka Tom the Temp).

If the temp-attorney world is your cup of tea, however, then check out this interesting new site, which several ATL readers have emailed us about: Big Debt, Small Law. We reached out to Law Is 4 Losers — the angry author, who still works as a contract attorney (he just finished a New York project for a large national law firm) — and asked him about the site’s origins. He explained:

I was prompted to start the blog for two reasons. First is the membership solicitation from the ABA asking me for $250 in dues and listing all the wonderful things that they’ve been doing of late to “improve” this profession (curiously, outsourcing my job to India via ethics opinion 08-451 was not among them).

Another reason was my recent NYS Law license renewal of $350. There was no waiver provision or extension for unemployed lawyers. [W]e contract attorneys have to pay health insurance, bar dues, CLE fees, and other obligations out of our own pocket. And at the $28 an hour straight-time now offered by NYC Biglaw (or the $40K small firms are paying), this is a hell of a lot of money. Forcing people to choose between their rent and their job is unconscionable….

I hope to warn incoming One L’s and prospective law students about the reality out there behind the slick admissions brochures and silver-tongued charlatan deans who will lie thru their teeth to get their hands on that Sallie Mae loan money. I’d also like to lobby the state bars to offer fee waivers or extensions on dues to unemployed lawyers who can prove financial hardship.

If you’re an associate and feeling sorry for yourself, perhaps because your pay has been cut or layoffs are taking place at your firm, Law Is 4 Losers doesn’t want to hear it:

Bad as things are for associates, they are 100 times worse for doc reviewers. We’ve been losing jobs every few weeks or months ever since leaving law school, having no “careers” to speak of, and also no health insurance, severance, or savings.

His most recent blog post — deeply depressing, but scabrously funny — describes the misery of temping at two of Biglaw’s biggest names: Paul Weiss and Sullivan & Cromwell. And he doesn’t pull his punches.

Based on a Washington Post article profiling the Five O’Clock Club, an outplacement and career coaching company, we constructed a Biglaw blind item:

Which New York law firm, having already completed two rounds of layoffs, has hired the Five O’Clock Club to help it carry out additional layoffs (in August, October, and November)?

After we ran the item, several firms came forward to declare they’re not the firm in question. And now they’re joined by one more: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

A spokesperson for Morgan Lewis contacted ATL to say that it isn’t the firm with layoffs in the works. In fact, Morgan Lewis claims that it shouldn’t even be on the shortlist of contenders.

Read why — and check out the list of the Five O’Clock Club’s clients, including some very prestigious law firms that haven’t publicly admitted to layoffs — after the jump.

Summer programs at many firms are shorter this year than last year. That means the summer is over at a lot of places, and summer associates are starting to learn their fates.

So far, there is some surprising news. Summers are getting offers. Many people have reported that their firm has given full, 100% offers to 2009 summer associates. Summers at Sullivan & Cromwell and Davis Polk are just some of the people reporting good news:

Davis Polk & Wardwell and Sullivan & Cromwell have extended offers to all of their summer associates.

Update (12:35): Additional tipsters inform us that Davis Polk has only given 100% offers to the summers that have already left. That is about half of the summer associates. The rest of the SAs leave on Friday, so we’ll see.

We also have received word that Cravath is making 100% offers.

After the jump, let’s look at a few more firms that we believe are making full offers to this year’s summer associates.

Even people who were not stealth layoff victims write us at Above the Law, pissed about their firm’s shady treatment of their friends and colleagues. And when stealth layoffs happen at top firms, we get top emails. We initially reported that 15 - 20 people were quietly let go from Sullivan & Cromwell, but that number keeps growing:

Now about the layoffs. 30+ is much more close to the truth than 15-20 previously reported. As you have mentioned, this 15-20 associates were the ones told in February who now have already left. But layoffs are ongoing. I can personally [list names]. I’ve heard from a senior associate (who was told by friendly partner) that the plan is to lay off 10% of associates, in NY that would be about 45-50. I am … pissed about … how they handle it….They would rather destroy your reputation and self-esteem than concede to economic layoffs.

Does S&C really think that it can lay off 10% of its associates without anybody noticing?

Or, to put the question another way, does S&C really want people to think that 10% of its associates are bad lawyers?

But, this particular tipster doesn’t just want to cast aspersions and hide. Instead, the S&C associate provides hard evidence of Sullivan’s scaled back summer program.

More details after the jump.

Last week, we reported on stealth layoffs at Sullivan & Cromwell. We mentioned that 15 to 20 associates were laid off (although subsequent reports we’ve received indicate the number may be closer to 30).

We also observed that S&C’s promised spring bonus would be an excellent opportunity to see if the layoffs were motivated by the economy, or by poor performance from the firm’s attorneys. Last week, I wrote:

This provides Sullivan with a rare opportunity to prove that its layoffs are performance based. If everything is fine, if the economy is not a factor, if the firm has really just laid off 15 to 20 “bad lawyers,” then maybe S&C will reward the good lawyers still at the firm?

Well, news is now trickling in about the special bonus S&C paid out late last week. Last year, the spring bonus was as much as $30,000 for eighth-year associates.

This year, sources report that eighth-year associates topped out at $8,500. For first-year associates, the spring bonus was $500.

No, I didn’t miss a zero.

One tipster reports general dissatisfaction with the bonus:

People here are mostly furious. We view it as extremely insulting to our intelligence that the firm would tell us this is about economic problems despite having sky-high PPP — almost a million above Skadden. Morale is terrible, both because of the stealth layoffs and the shameful bonuses. People are talking about leaving when the economy picks up.

It doesn’t sound like things are looking much better for summer associates. More details after the jump.

The news has been brewing for weeks, but Above the Law is now in a position to confirm that there have been layoffs at Sullivan & Cromwell.

Multiple independent sources report that the firm has quietly laid off 15 - 20 associates. The departments vary, but the layoffs have been focused in the New York office.

All of the sources we spoke were told that they were being laid off for performance reasons. But Above the Law has learned that a couple of first years have been laid off as well. It’s hard to make a performance argument against an attorney that has been around for less than a year.

The firm did not respond to our multiple requests for comment.

Why is this information coming out now? We have some additional details after the jump.

This year has been an interesting one so far for Sullivan & Cromwell. There has been happy news, like firm chairman H. Rodgin Cohen — banking M&A god, and a contender for a top Treasury Department post, before he withdrew — being named Dealmaker of the Year. There has been tragic news, like the killing of one S&C secretary (and the wounding of a second).

This latest piece of news, like the pushing back of start dates to November 2 for incoming associates, falls somewhere in between. Above the Law has learned that John O’Brien — a corporate, er, “general practice” partner at S&C, where he handled “mergers and acquisitions, investment management, [and] corporate and securities matters” — has left the firm. He joined the firm in 1992 and made partner in 2001.

Multiple sources report that O’Brien’s departure was involuntary. Apparently he was removed from the building by security personnel, sometime last week. His removal came as a shock to many. According to one S&C tipster, O’Brien was known around 125 Broad Street as “a well-respected attorney and incredibly nice individual” — one of the nicest people at S&C.

(That may not be saying much, given the firm’s reputation for hiring folks like the infamous DB. But O’Brien was also highly esteemed for his legal skills at the uber-prestigious, super-successful firm, home to many great legal minds.)

Regardless of the exact reasons for John O’Brien’s departure — if you have information, please email us — it is confirmed that he is no longer with the firm. He no longer appears on the external S&C website. Nor is he on the firm intranet, sources at the firm inform us. We called his former direct-dial number and received no answer. We called the main S&C switchboard and asked to speak with him. After placing us on hold for a long time, the receptionist returned to inform us that O’Brien “is no longer with the company” (and that she had no forwarding information for him).

It was all very reminiscent of the Carlos Spinelli-Noseda situation. As you may recall, Spinelli-Noseda — like O’Brien, a young, highly regarded, very well-liked corporate partner at S&C — mysteriously disappeared from the firm. Several months later, it came to light that Spinelli-Noseda defrauded clients and the firm (to the tune of $500,000, through submission of fraudulent travel and entertainment expenses).

Last night, we reached out to H. Rodgin Cohen and to a firm spokesperson for comment. Neither has gotten back to us yet; if and when we hear anything, we’ll let you know. If you have inside info, please email us, or call (212-334-1871, ext. 9).

More about John J. O’Brien and Sullivan & Cromwell, including cached versions of his firm and Martindale-Hubbell bios, after the jump.

It’s NCAA Tournament time, which means that if you get married this weekend or the next two, your guests will be cursing you as they surreptitiously refresh their BlackBerries. We therefore applaud this week’s brides, who planned their weddings for this past weekend, before the madness struck. They are — if we may say so — our Cinderellas.

Here are this week’s finalists:

1. Sara Schacter and Aram Erenburg

2. Melissa Weiss and Kenneth Mazer

3. Rebecca Kirszner and James Katz

Read more about this week’s legal lovebirds, after the jump.

This won’t come as a galloping shock to anybody, but profits per partner were down at some of the most prestigious firms in the country. AmLaw Daily reported:

All three firms, however, posted declines in profits per partner. Sullivan, which was involved in almost every major bank deal in the industry’s radical makeover last year, suffered the least severe downturn: Net was down 2 percent from 2007, leading to a decline in profits per partner of 3.7 percent to $2.94 million. At Skadden, net profits declined 5.4 percent. Profits per partner were down 9.5 percent to $2.06 million.

Davis Polk’s profitability suffered more severely. The firm’s net declined by almost 13 percent and profits per partner fell 17 percent to $1.90 million. That decline in PPP is one of the steepest so far reported in The Am Law 100. By comparison, profits per partner at Latham dropped 21 percent and PPP at Cadwalader fell 30 percent. Davis Polk has stated publicly that it prepaid some 2009 expenses, such as January rent and associate bonuses, in 2008 in anticipation of a continued downturn. Such payments depressed 2008 profits.

What were those bonus numbers again? Let’s go to the video tape after the jump.

Now that we’re a few days into 2009, we’re going to pick up the pace in our 2008 round-up posts. Some of you are getting impatient. Complained a commenter: “At this rate, we’re going to get to #1s sometime in June.”

So, onward. We previously wrote about the #5 gossip story in Biglaw. Today we’re going to hit two birds with one stone, announcing the #4 and #3 stories in law firm land (on the gossipy side; the hard news / business stories are on a separate list).

Although they’re not in the top two, these tales were in some respects the most fun for us to cover. Take a trip down memory lane, after the jump.