[Ed. note: This is the farewell post of MARIN, who was recently eliminated from ATL Idol, the "reality blogging" competition that will determine ATL's next editor. It is marked with Marin's avatar (at right).]

Marinheads:

Bad news. Our plot to take over ATL and transform it into a site about celebrities and my Jewish dog has failed. Mission aborted. Repeat, mission aborted. Return to the mother ship.

- Original Marinhead, a/k/a Mongoloid Marin, d.b.a Clay Aiken

That's the subject of this video contest, with a $10,000 scholarship for the winner.

Alas, it's too late to enter for this year; the ten finalists have already been picked. From a tipster:

If you're looking for something a little lighter, there's a contest right now run by Access Group Inc. among law students for the best short YouTube movie about what they worry about in law school. The contest is here, and my friend's video is one of the finalists.

I think his is easily the best, but some of the others are okay too. The winner is determined by popular vote, so if you guys linked to the movie, he (and I'm sure the other contestants) would appreciate it!

We're happy to do so (especially since Monday mornings can be slow around here). Good luck to the ten finalists!

"One Less Worry" Video Scholarship Contest [Access Group]

If so, then you might enjoy this short video, in which a Houston Chronicle reporter hangs out with a few folks who just took the test.

In response to the "what are you going to do now / I'm going to Disney World" question, interviewee Masoud Darvishi says he wants to "kiss.... girls." One gets the sense, however, that that's not all he'd like to do.

The first interviewee, Adam Curley, is super-cute. But why no women in the video?

Celebrating the Bar [Houston Chronicle]

If the title of this post sounds familiar to you, it should. We used it back in January, a few hours before major layoffs -- amounting to about 35 attorneys -- at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

In the months since then, we've heard all sorts of other rumors about Cadwalader. There have been whispers that the number of attorneys laid off last time may have been closer to 50 rather than 35. We've heard about possible staff layoffs. There has also been talk of quieter, smaller-scale reductions in attorney ranks at CWT -- "strategic firings," as one tipster put it. This source guessed that the firm has already shed around 100 attorneys since its peak.

But losing 100 lawyers, if true, may not have been enough. Word on the street is that Cadwalader is now bracing for another round of large-scale layoffs, which could be announced as early as today or tomorrow. In the words of one source, "Surprised you haven't posted anything on Cadwalader. Major s**t going down..."

Here's the most detailed account of several that we've received (after the jump):

The title of this post reflects the majority view of the BAR/BRI bar review course. We actually enjoyed studying for the bar. Our overall reaction: "Wow. We're learning so much.... LAW!"

But most of you don't seem to be fans of Bar/Bri. You find it rather unpleasant -- or maybe weird. Here's one email we received:

Longtime fan, first-time writer. I was wondering if you could do a discussion thread on the Barbri course we are taking?

Would especially like to start with a mention of the Property I lecture today by Seton Hall law professor Paula Franzese. While pretty excellent, it certainly had its totally surreal moments -- especially her long divergence about a fundraiser involving N-Sync and her (then) five-year-old daughter.

Also, the singing. She sings a lot -- it's totally something to behold!

Indeed. We recall Professor Franzese's property coverage as one of the highlights of bar review. She managed to make a potentially dry subject at least somewhat entertaining.

Here is the requested open thread. While we're on the subject of BarBri blonde beauties with musical talents, here is "Bar/Bri Girl," a music video parody set to the tune of "Barbie Girl." It was our favorite number from this year's NYU Law Review Revue, which we had the pleasure of attending this spring:

NYU Law Revue 2008 - Barbri Girl [YouTube]

A teenage girl has filed a lawsuit against Harrison, N.Y. police officers for violating her civil rights. According to the complaint, the police came to arrest the girl's boyfriend for marijuana possession. While conducting a search of the house, they got overly friendly with the girl during her patdown, seized her sex tape, and played with her anal beads.

The Smoking Gun has the filed complaint along with the story. We've added some line breaks for your reading pleasure:

The girl claims that police watched the video in her presence "while laughing," and that they put a camcorder in her face and "mockingly" asked her questions about the explicit video as it played. She also alleges that a Harrison detective told her, "I should beat your ass for this. I hope your parents beat your ass."

The teenager claims that the investigator also retrieved anal beads from a bedroom, put them in her face, and asked, "What do you do with these -- put them in your mouth?"

The girl charges that cops subsequently played the video "sufficiently close to the cell in which the boyfriend was incarcerated so that he could hear the audio component of the video," and that they laughed about the video and made "repeated references by name to his girlfriend as she was depicted on the video."

She also contends that the Harrison officers "thereafter played the video for other members of the department to watch for their amusement, sexual gratification, and to further degrade Plaintiff."

Yet another reason not to make a sex tape.

We might have left the little anecdote about the anal beads out of the complaint. That's just plain embarrassing.

Girl Sues Cops Over Sex Tape "Screening" [Smoking Gun via Drudge]

Last year, Viacom filed a $1 billion suit against Google-owned YouTube, asserting widespread copyright infringement. We predicted a smackdown, and that day has come.

Viacom filed an amended complaint [PDF] last month, saying it had found over 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. In its answer [PDF], Google says YouTube responds properly when made aware of copyrighted content, and said Viacom's suit threatens our way of life... pretty much. From the Associated Press:

A $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube's ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said.

Google's lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.'s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to "an explosion of copyright infringement" by YouTube and others.

The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

It's sad that MTV no longer has the spirit of rock-and-roll rebellion and has officially become The Man.

In Google's corner are Wilson Sonsini, Mayer Brown, and Bartlit Beck. In Viacom's corner are Jenner & Block and Shearman & Sterling.

Google vows not to settle, saying it will take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Let the law firms rejoice!

Google: Viacom's YouTube suit threatens freedom [Associated Press]
Google's Answer To Complaint [PDF] [IP Democracy via Paid Content]
Google vows to keep fighting Viacom [Business Week]
Google Case Spells Windfall For Lawyers [Forbes]

Earlier: Coming Attractions: Viacom - YouTube - Google Smackdown

Judge Carlton Vines presides over traffic violations and DUIs in Chattooga County, Georgia. It's a tiny county with a population of just over 25,000. The local newspaper, The Summerville News, has an ongoing investigative series examining the county's drunk-driving phenomenon and growing number of DUI arrests.

Unfortunately, Judge Vines has become a part of the phenomenon. He was arrested in November of last year for driving drunk and leaving the scene of an accident after swerving into another car. The coppers just released the dash-cam video from the arrest. The man was trashed, slurring, and stumbling... though still cogent enough to refuse the breathalyzer.

From WBS TV:

Vines pleaded guilty to DUI charges in April. He has since spent three nights in jail, paid fines, done community service and was on house arrest.

On the tape, Vines can be heard admitting he has had "over the limit." At one point on the tape, an officer asks, "Do you remember the wreck you were involved in?" Vines can be heard responding, "I'm not going to admit or deny it but I will take responsibility."

A nolo plea -- or just good drunken logic? Vines is under voluntary suspension, and the Georgia State Judicial Commission gets to decide whether he returns to the bench.

Judge Vines makes some bizarre comment about sharecropping at the end of the YouTube video. Can someone from rural Georgia please explain?

Caught On Tape: Georgia Judge Arrested For DUI [WSB TV]
Drunk Judge Arrested [YouTube.com]

Word about Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe's rather odd commencement address at New York University is spreading rapidly throughout the blogosphere. It's already been picked up by Gawker and Instapundit. Here's an eyewitness account from an NYU alum:

Larry Tribe just gave a seriously weird commencement address at NYU -- especially the end, where he turns an amalgam of cosmologist / 60s love child, and tells all the grads to thank their mom and dad for screwing instead of watching TV, and thereby conceiving them....

Not to be too tough on Tribe, but I think the basic theme of the speech was that he's really, really smart and well read, and knows how to turn creative, even strange, phrases. (I thought we already knew that.)

How did Tribe get picked? Some speculation from our source:

I really think the only reason Tribe was honored, and got to speak, is that he was a key mentor to John Sexton, the president of NYU. Tribe probably recommended Sexton to be the NYU law dean, and then the NYU president, so this looks like payback.

Tribe has accomplished enough to have gotten the degree on his own merits, and I don't begrudge him it, but I'm sure the audience would have loved to have his co-recipient, Michael J. Fox, speak instead of Tribe -- Fox is vastly better known, and liked. On this point, see here.

Posted below is the "thank mom and dad for bonking" clip. A more detailed write-up from our tipster, after the jump.

Technically Larry Hutchins is -- or was -- a mere magistrate, as opposed to a full-blown judge. But we think his alleged conduct entitles him to Judge of the Day. From the Greenville News (via the ABA Journal):

The South Carolina Supreme Court today reprimanded a retired Spartanburg magistrate after finding that he used a racial slur to refer to people a clerk might be dating and allegedly asked another clerk if she would be willing to have sex with another magistrate and secretly videotape it for use against him.

The court agreed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s findings and issued a reprimand for former Magistrate Larry M. Hutchins, who retired in 2004. The justices said Hutchins has repeatedly asked that his suspension or retirement be lifted.

That's unlikely, in light of this:

According to the court, a former clerk of Hutchins testified that in May 2003 he asked her if it would be difficult to get a magistrate not identified in the ruling over to her apartment. "Respondent then asked her to ‘go all the way’ with the judge, to videotape it, and respondent mentioned the availability of small cameras," the court wrote.

Secret videotaping? Perhaps to be expected from a Dunkin' Donuts employee -- or, in this day and age, the federal government -- but not from a state-court judge.

The woman refused and reported the proposal to the chief magistrate, the court said.

Also, Hutchins allegedly called a clerk superviser [sic] and said that one of the clerks was dating black men, using a racial slur, according to the court.

He added, according to the court, that there was "no telling what we might catch using the same bathroom as her."

Huh? And why would a male judge be using the same bathroom as a female clerk?

Justices reprimand retired Spartanburg magistrate [Greenville News]
Magistrate Reprimanded for Using Racial Slur, Seeking to Record Sexual Encounter [ABA Journal]

Meet Richard Hohensee. He's a homeless man here in Washington, who has been living on the D.C. streets for some two years -- which has been "very convenient," since he's running for president (see here). We met him yesterday outside the Supreme Court, during our recent field trip.

Rick Hohensee is highly intelligent and articulate, with detailed views on the Second Amendment and the proper disposition of the Heller case, which is being argued before the Supreme Court as we post this. In case you can't read it in the video, this is the text of his sign:

Silberman erred. DC exists so that the Second Amendment does not apply here. http://www.myspace.com/presidentbyamendment

Could this be the first time in human history that the name of a D.C. Circuit judge has appeared on the sign of a homeless man? (D.C. Circuit judges who get nominated to the Court, and protested as SCOTUS nominees, don't count.)

In this short video clip, Mr. Hohensee explains why he believes Judge Silberman erred:

Two more videos featuring Rick Hohensee, in which he explains his support for Obama and his own presidential bid, after the jump.

Shame on you, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. Earlier this week, we promised our readers that we'd be writing about your cute little firm video. But when we tried to access the video just now on YouTube, via Legal Pad, we got this:

For those of you who never got to watch the PWSP video, it was described pretty well over at Legal Pad, "smooth jazz" and all. But we regret not being able to add our two cents. We were looking forward to describing the archival photographs of sweaty, shirtless men, featured in the "history" section of the talk, as well as to deploying this line: "I'm not just the firm chairman, I'm also a client." Sadly, that last quip is useless without the video evidence, since you can no longer witness for yourself the uncanny similarities between Jim Rishwain's demeanor and Sy Sperling's.

But don't worry, Pillsbury peeps; we don't take it personally. We're used to having the videos we write about yanked from YouTube. See, e.g., here (University of Miami 1L modeling montage), here (Quinn Emanuel recruiting video featuring sexy associate "Ivy"), here (Harvard Law School parody), and here (Columbia Law Revue).

Jim Rishwain's Good Answer [Legal Pad / Cal Law]

We're tired of the national lovefest for Barack Obama that is currently underway. It seems that Senator Obama, barely halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate, can do no wrong -- and the divalicious Hillary Clinton, the fabulous former first lady who also has a complete (and highly successful) Senate term under the belt of her pantsuit, can do no right.

Everybody loves Barack. The 2008 election has turned into a run for class president, Barack is the "Cool Kid," and Hillary is the nerd -- the Tracy Flick character from Election.

Lawyers seems to love Obama, especially young, starry-eyed law firm associates. But general counsels have a weakness for him too, as reported today in Corporate Counsel:

The nation's best-paid general counsel have a clear favorite in the presidential race: Barack Obama. In the run-up to the primary season, the Illinois senator received more money from the in-house legal elite than any other candidate....

A total of 29 GCs in the top 100 have contributed to a presidential candidate so far (five gave to more than one campaign). Eight legal chiefs gave Obama a total of $20,600; Hillary Clinton raised $14,500 from six; and Christopher Dodd netted $13,000 from eight.

And publishers like to throw money at Obama too. From a post over the weekend at Boston Now:

[P]residential candidate Barack "No Experience" Obama apparently has no program for reducing foreign corporate control of the U.S. book publishing industry and other U.S. media industries.

One reason Obama might not want to propose that U.S. anti-trust laws be enforced against German media conglomerates like Bertelsmann AG is that between Election Day 2004 and his swearing in as a Senator, Obama was given a $1.7 million two-book contract by the Random House/Crown Publishers/Alfred Knopf subsidiary division of Bertelsmann AG. By signing his lucrative book contract with the German media conglomerate's U.S. subsidiary before taking office, Obama did not fall under various requirements for disclosure and reporting that applies to members of Congress who accept money from U.S. media conglomerates.

We could offer some snarky quip, but will refrain. Senator Obama complied with all applicable legal and ethical rules. His deal was brokered by Robert Barnett of Williams & Connolly, the D.C. superlawyer who brokered a similar book deal for Hillary Clinton, also hammered out right before she took office.

And Hillary is our girl. If loving her is wrong, we don't want to be right.

Update: This video, in which HRC gets a bit choked up, is awesome. She's the most effective politically when she's the most personal. Remember how her political career was launched, after she was humanized as the wronged woman in L'Affaire Lewinsky?

Further Update: In the comments, some of you suggest that this post would be more appropriate for our personal blog. Thanks for the unsolicited advice, which we have taken.

We offer additional thoughts about Hillary, Obama, and the amazing video clip, in this post on our personal blog. The post's title: "Could this be Hillary's anti-Scream, her anti-Macaca moment? Could this video clip save her faltering campaign?"

The GCs' Choice: Obama [Corporate Counsel]
Obama's $1.7 Million Book Contract [Boston Now]

We weren't surprised to see this case get a shout-out on I Am Lawsuit Abuse. From the AP:

A model who says she has worked hard to maintain a wholesome image has filed a $5 million lawsuit complaining that a jewelry company's video advertisement in which she writhes and moans looks pornographic.

The commercial, seen on the Internet in a clip entitled "Rock Her World," shows a woman wearing blue lacy lingerie and a diamond necklace while moaning and stroking her face and neck. It ends with the Web address for the jewelry company, Szul.com.

The 37-year-old woman claims in her lawsuit that she did not "consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure."

Actually, we prefer the description of the New York Daily News:

The 35-second "Rock Her World" spot features the model rubbing her teal teddy and purring with pleasure to the hard-grinding sounds of a guitar as the slogan, "Jewelry works every time" pops up onscreen.

But look, no need to rely on print descriptions of the ad. One of the beauties of the internet as a medium is that, when it comes to audio or video, you can judge for yourself. So check out the clip -- which, we warn you, is quasi-NSFW (at least with the sound turned on) -- over at Blogonaut.

Done watching? Okay. We concur with our fellow blogger:

[W]e find it hard to believe that Jane Doe’s behavior on the ad could be taken for anything resembling the “wholesome” persona she claims was maligned. What could she have been thinking when she made the ad?

Indeed. What exactly did she think she was advertising when she consented to be filmed, clad in pastel lingerie, writhing on a bed? Anti-epilepsy drugs?

Anyway, casting directors, consider yourselves warned. If the woman from the Szul Jewelry ad shows up for your casting call, don't even think of using her in that Herbal Essences ad.

Oh, and the "I'll have what she's having" scene from When Harry Met Sally? NOT FUNNY.

Update: Ted Frank has written about the case at Overlawyered. We like the title of his post, as well as this quip: "And, of course, she didn't have to roll around on the bed in the first place."

But he notes, in fairness, that the model-plaintiff is claiming no release (hehe). That might be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit.

Model's suit: You used the video you took of me [Overlawyered]
NY Model Sues Jewelry Co for $5M Over R-Rated Web Ad [Blogonaut]
Model sues Szul Jewelry over Web ad [New York Daily News]
NY Lawsuit: My Commercial Looks Lewd [Associated Press]
Rock Her World [YouTube (mildly NSFW)]

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]

Time for a quick update on a past Lawyer of the Day Weekend. From New York Newsday:

A former Legal Aid Society lawyer pleaded guilty Wednesday to illegally using a hidden videocamera to spy on female co-workers as they changed clothes in their offices.

Peter Barta, 32, of Queens, used a camera hidden in a clock to videotape five co-workers in the public defense agency's Manhattan offices, recording at least one woman with her breasts and buttocks bared....

Barta, 32, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful surveillance, a felony, in exchange for a conditional discharge. The case will be dismissed and sealed after he completes a year of counseling.

Barta will be automatically disbarred. But clerking doesn't constitute the practice of law, which is why you don't need to be admitted to the bar to do it. Maybe Peter Barta can land a clerkship with this fine jurist?

Legal Aid lawyer plead guilty in coworker voyeurism case [New York Newsday]
Voyeur lawyer pleads guilty to oogling co-workers [AP]
Inside the Apartment of a Peeping Tom [Gothamist]
'PEEP' LAWYER HAD KINKY TOY TROVE [New York Post]

We just finished watching America's Next Top Model. So it's quite appropriate for us to pass along this modeling montage video, which is amusingly bizarre. From a tipster:

I hate to pile it on, but you have to check out this YouTube clip of a University of Miami 1L. It's a seven-minute clip of various glamour shots, set to the soothing sounds of flamenco guitar. I think my favorite photos involve her posing with a samurai sword.

We agree; nothing beats a samurai sword paired with fishnets. But the pics of her in a midriff-baring schoolgirl outfit, replete with pigtails, are also pretty great. As is the photo of her humping a white banister, which kicks off the whole thing.

You don't need to watch the entire video, since the shots start to repeat after a while, but stick around at least until "Hotel California." Enjoy!

Update (12:15 AM): Sigh. If you click on the video below, you'll see that it has been pulled. We seem to have the anti-Midas touch when it comes to law school videos: everything we link to gets yanked. See, e.g., here (Harvard) and here (Columbia).

A little bit more, after the jump.

This short video clip requires little introduction. Res ipsa loquitur. Just watch Judge Marilyn Milian, of The People's Court, benchslap a cute-but-insolent 2L from the University of Miami:

What is up with all these female Floridian jurists? See also Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff.

The People's Court - Judge Milian Flips out on Defendant [YouTube]
The Hon. Marilyn Milian [Wikipedia]

Or maybe it is. From a tipster:

Several offices of Seyfarth Shaw met yesterday and today to discuss the results of the Am-Law Mid-Level Associate Survey, as well as those from an internal survey distributed. [T]he data revealed in these surveys reflected a considerable level of dissatisfaction from associates regarding a variety of areas, and [discussion was held] to cover some of the things the firm is doing to address them (as discussed at the Partners retreat in late September).

When this non-descript "Associates Meeting" was announced last week, most of the associates believed it was to discuss that fact that Seyfarth was finally going to get off ATL's List of Shame and raise to 160k. However, to our surprise, the whole issue of salaries was completely glanced over. It was merely conveyed that the Compensation Committee was still compiling data regarding recent "market trends in compensation" and would be "meeting" (not necessarily deciding anything) in December.

Seyfarth really continues to amaze....

Okay, so you're getting below-market pay (except in New York, where associates start at $160K). But look on the bright side -- at least your firm makes awesome videos! From an earlier message:

I am not sure how you can get your hands on this, but Seyfarth Shaw did a professional-quality "MTV-Cribs" spoof for the opening of its new Chicago office last fall where Steve Poor (managing partner) walked around in a Hugh Heffner-style smoking jacket showing off the firms new office space. It was clearly a joke (unlike the Nixon Peabody fiasco) and the firm showed it to the new first year associates during first year orientation. However, I would pay money to see that video again....it was hilarious!

If any of you has a copy of said video, or knows how one might be obtained, you know where to reach us.

A reader drew a legally-themed music video to our attention:

It's from a specialized patent blog, but some of your readers may find it funny -- especially because is an actual partner from a large firm singing the song. Is this a new BigLaw marketing trend?

Check out the video via Patently O. As you can see from the lyrics, the song is a comparison of dating to the Patent Act.

Performer Lana Knedlik, a fine-boned, pixieish beauty, looks like she could be an indie film actress or Indigo Girl. She strikes us as considerably younger and more attractive than the average (1) registered patent attorney or (2) partner at a large law firm.

(No offense to patent lawyers or Biglaw partners. We're just sayin'...)

Redefining the Bar Date [Patently O]
Bar Date by Lana Knedlik [YouTube]
Lana M. Knedlik bio [Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP]