Thursday, August 16th, 2007

In the wake of the Gardere, King & Spalding, and JDub announcements, and in order to appease a certain Greedy–Texas poster, behold the updated update.


Akin Gump
Baker Botts
Baker McKenzie
Fulbright & Jaworski
Haynes & Boone
Jackson Walker
(put here under protest b/c the base raise is really only to $140k, but the advertised combination of “guaranteed” bonuses gets them to $160k)
King & Spalding
Andrews Kurth
Locke Liddell
Thompson Knight
McKool Smith
Jones Day
Dewey Ballantine
– Austin
Fish & Richardson– Austin and Dallas
Gibson Dunn– Dallas
Jenner & Block– Dallas
Skadden– Houston
Sidley Austin– Dallas
Weil Gotshal– Dallas and Houston
Wilson Sonsini– Austin


Carrington Coleman
Hughes & Luce
(can become ¢hameless if it merges with K&L Gates and KLG raises Dallas from it’s current $120k basement to match its DC and NY offices at $160k)
Hunton & Williams (only $160k in DC and NY)
Munsch Hardt
Porter & Hedges
Seyfarth Shaw
Strasburger (never went to $135K)
Winstead (proudly sticking to $135k)

Thx to Gardere, Jackson Walker, King & Spalding, and BigTexLawyer

How about U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lance Ito (of O.J. infamy). Both apparently attended a soiree in Malibu, CA, organized by the National Italian American Foundation.


Thx to the Houston Chronicle

Columbia Law School Professor Michael C. Dorf has this fascinating look at the most cited SCOTUS decision from the October 2006 term. Was it Gonzales v. Carhart (the partial-birth abortion decision) (cited eleven times)? Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (the race-based schooling case) (cited two times)?


No, it is the oft-overlooked–by everyone except the federal courts–decision of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, cited 457 times, in which Justice Souter, writing for the Court, seemed to hold that notice pleading might no longer suffice, at least in conpiracy cases. Justice Souter suggested district judges must take care to require allegations that reach the level suggesting conspiracy before permitting a case to go forward.

Any thought that Twombly, instead of ushering in a heightened pleading standard for conspiracy or antitrust conspiracy cases, was really a decision requiring more factual detail for all categories of cases, has seemingly already been rebuffed by the Court itself. In it’s June opinion in Erickson v. Pardus, the Court unanimously cited Twombly as rejecting any requirement of factual detail in a lawsuit by a prisoner alleging cruel and unusual punishment.

Hence the confusion and the nearly five hundred cites to the opinion. Just another testament to the maxim that the cases which stir up the most headlines are not neccessarily the same ones that stir up the bar.

Thx to Prof. Dorf and Findlaw