More firms seek to “Keep Austin [Legally] Weird”

My fair city of Austin is notorious for being a stagnant and stale legal market for those young lawyers with the audacity to attempt to practice here. Practice groups at various firms tend to merely jump from one address along Congress to another, instead of firms actually adding to their headcounts.

The stories are legion of uber-qualified attorneys from Biglaw NYC firms and Ivy Law being turned away by the BigLaw and BigTex Austin branches because of the incredible geographical demand Austin perpetually generates. It was rare for BigTex/Law satellites to open entirely new offices in Austin–that is, until now.

It all began in early 2006 when Dechert opened its Austin office with the first group of Dewey (then Ballantine, now LeBoeuf) emigres.

In early 2007 after the shuttering of Jenkens & Gilchrist (which coincidentally, was the subject of our very first post here at the SMSB), Virginia-based Hunton & Williams reopened its Austin office with the remaining Jenkens lawyers who didn’t spin off their own boutiques or join Winstead’s ranks.

Also in 1997, the Arkansas firm of Mitchell Williams opened its doors in Austin, but only began to expand its Austin footprint in May with the acquisition of longtime Austin firm Long Burner Parks & DeLargy.

After the announced closing of the Dewey office earlier this year, the majority of the remaining Dewey alumni headed over to McKool Smith, but three found their way to King & Spalding’s new Austin branch just a few months ago.

Now, word out tonight is that several Akin & Gump lawyers, including the managing partner of the Austin office, are leaving to open Greenberg Traurig‘s Austin satellite on August 1.

While all of these office openings certainly prove the maxim that Austin firms merely trade lawyers instead of adding them, because five new firms now have an entrenched presence here in Austin, it is entirely likely that more capacity for lawyers yearning to live interesting and meaningful lives in the ATL will be created.

As long as they keep Austin Weird, they’re welcome within the City Limits.

* * * UPDATE * * *

Due to my own oversight, I neglected to mention the 2007 founding of Yetter & Warden’s (now Yetter, Warden & Coleman) Austin office by several former Weil appellate lawyers, including the national head of their appellate practice group, former Justice Thomas clerk and Solicitor General of Texas, Greg Coleman.

Thx to the Austin Business Journal and Tex Parte Blog

 

Above the Law to go Lat-less

Success ruins everything.

David Lat, a former AUSA and federal circuit clerk who I first began to follow in mid-2004 when he anonymously ran the Article III gossip blog, Underneath Their Robes (one of the seminal progenitors of the modern legal blog) until he was outed as the proprietor by Jeff Toobin. He went on to serve a stint editing Wonkette, and then became the founder and editor in chief of Above the Law, which has grown into the lowly law firm associate’s blogospherical check on BigLaw shenanigans.

Well, due to his success at ATL, Lat has been promoted to oversee all of ATL‘s parent company’s sites; thus reducing his ATL blogging load substantially and forcing him to:

brush my teeth, put on clothes, and schlep into an office each morning.

We here at the SMSB wish him well and curse thank him for seeding our own little degenerative blogging afflication. It’s not often that a person can create and ride a sea change in a profession, but Mr. Lat certainly has and we thank him for his diligent, entertaining, and status-quo-shattering work over these last few years.

Thx to the BLT

 

Shocking turn of events: this gentleman no longer works at his firm

Covington & Burlington (former) partner David Remes submitted his letter of resignation this past Friday after making worldwide headlines (which generously noted his firm affiliation) for dropping his pants to reveal his stylish tighty-whities in Yemen–of all places.

Remes apparently pulled the disrobing stunt to somehow show mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo (the indefatigable “liar, liar, pants on fire” defense perhaps?), but may have just wound up mistreating every unfortunate soul who can never forget the sight of him in his underpants.

Thx to the WSJ Law Blog

 

Gee, thanks a lot

Since leaving office, national appellate star and former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz has been busy beginning to build the U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate practice at Morgan Lewis.

Well, the “U.S. Supreme Court” end of that effort may have just gotten an ill-timed kidney punch from one of Cruz’s new partners, Daniel Johnson, Jr., in the firm’s San Franscisco office.

Johnson, a mid-70s graduate of Yale Law School was recently interviewed for a story by the American Lawyer examining whether Justice Thomas‘s black Yale Law contemporaries faced similar employment struggles as he initially did.

Johnson’s less than eloquent, on-the-record response to a question regarding whether Thomas’s argument that Yale’s affirmative action program made his law degree worthless?

“Bullsh[!]t.”

Lovely. Just as Cruz is attempting to organize and lead a first-rate national appellate practice at his new firm, one of his own partners hauls off and profanely insults—in writing—one of the five votes for which Cruz will be vying on a regular basis.

Thx to the WSJ Law Blog and the American Lawyer

 

How Texas law schools should be ranked

The U.S. News & World Report law school rankings have long been criticized for numerous and valid reasons by people who know of what they speak (unlike myself), but I think Res Ipsa has crystalized what criteria should really be considerd when ranking law schools—if the purpose in ranking these schools is to help inform where an aspiring applicant will spend the next the three years of indentured legal servitude.

Namely, return on one’s dollar.

Most law school students could care less about most of the indices USNWR uses to rank law schools, namely the size of a school’s library, median entering GPAs or LSAT scores, per capita expenditures, or even the employment rate for graduates (because what does it matter that you have a job if that job pays far less than the amount of money you just shelled out for the privilege of securing said job). Of much more importance to most law school students is the relative assurance they have that a given law school will provide them with an education that will likely allow them to attain a positive net worth at some point in their lives.

There are only three law schools in Texas where a graduate will, on average, make more in their first year of practice than they paid in tuition for three glorious years of legal tutelage: UT, Houston, and Texas Tech.

However, I would add two columns to Res Ipsa‘s excellent comparison chart above (and if I weren’t much lazier than Res Ipsa, I’d add in Thurgood Marshall‘s numbers as well): the return ratio of these schools when you factor in room and board (which all of us know who survived law school grossly underestimates the essential “beer” portion of the “board” figure, not to mention all kinds of other significant costs like books, etc.).

Taking into account room and board, nobody makes enough their first year to make up for what they expended during law school, but some schools fall so woefully low on the this list that I think the fallacy of the USNWR ranking of these schools is revealed.

So, according to USNWR, SMU is the second best school in Texas, but according to the modified return rate ranking, it’s one of the very worst. Same with Baylor (third best according to USNWR, sixth out of eight schools measured according to the modified return rate ranking).

However, USNWR did accurately rank UT as the best law school in Texas, and came awfully close on both Houston (third versus second) and Texas Tech (fourth versus third).

So, all hype and boosterism aside, I think one would have a pretty hard time arguing UT, Houston, and Texas Tech are not the top three law schools in the state. Conversely, it’s hard to rank either Baylor or SMU in the top three when you consider how much longer it will—on average—take a graduate to make back their law school investment.

I freely and anectdotally admit however that—hands down—the most impressive and intellectually-imposing lawyers I’ve ever worked with, against, or for were largely SMU and Baylor grads.

All this aside, it goes without saying that if you graduate in the top ten percentile, have served on a journal (or better yet, been pubished in or been selected to the executive board of said journal), you will likely be able to secure a clerkship somewhere and then go on to make oodles of money in the private sector, if so desired.

* * * MEA CULPA UPDATE * * *

Having had some time this afternoon to reflect on this morning’s rant, I think I have to temper my enthusiasm for the modified return rate metric somewhat. Namely, I don’t think that it is as indicative of the best law schools in the state as it is merely a investment-value measurement.

While I believe that average starting salaries among Texas law schools are misleading because I would posit that SMU, Houston, and South Texas‘s numbers are biased upward because most of schools’ graduates remain in either Dallas or Houston to practice, and St. Mary‘s is largely as low as it is because a large percentage of its graduates remain in San Antonio to practice, average starting salary is still probably a greater reflection of school prestige than is a return rate index.

Under my reasoning put forward earlier today, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford would all likely have much lower return rate rankings than their state school brethren, but no one could argue that these schools are not the best in their respective states, if not the country.

Thx to Res Ipsa

 

Finally, an insurance defense firm we can root for

Because we’ve covered how some counsel for 9/11-affected insurers pursued a sanctionable and despicable course of conduct in order to avoid paying claims arising from the horrific attacks, we’re pleased to bring you a story of one law firm that has manifestly done the right thing by both its insurer clients and the country.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a fascinating couplet of articles chronicling Cozen O’Connor‘s groundbreaking lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for tort liability arising from the sovereign’s alleged complicity in–and even direct support of–the 9/11 attacks

Part one of the series documents some of the key assertions in the suit “missed not only by the 9/11 Commission but also by Congress in its investigations”, including:

Senior Saudi officials and members of the royal family or their representatives served as executives or board members of the suspect charities when they were financing al-Qaeda operations. Overall, the Saudi government substantially controlled and financed the charities, the lawsuit alleges.

The charities laundered millions of dollars, some from the Saudi government, into al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and provided weapons, false travel and employment documents, and safe houses.

Regional offices of the charities employed, in senior positions, al-Qaeda operatives who helped coordinate support for terror cells.

Part two details how the suit—brought under the auspices of the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)—alleges the “Saudi government and members of the royal family engaged in conduct that breached the standards of normal government activities when they supported Islamist charities that funded extremist groups.” By acting outside the statutory standards of conduct the suit contends, the Saudi government and royal defendants made themselves liable under the FSIA.

The Cozen plaintiffs are currently awaiting a Second Circuit decision that will decide whether the earlier dismissal of Saudi government and royals as defendants was proper. However, “[e]ven if Cozen loses the appeal and the Saudis retain immunity, U.S. District Judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that there is enough evidence to proceed against several Islamist charities, banks, and alleged terrorism financiers named in the lawsuit.”

Thx to How Appealing and the Philadelphia Inquirer

 

Rudimentary math for aspiring law school applicants

Res Ipsa has another great post today detailing the average starting salaries of Texas law school grads. Unsurprisingly, UT topped the list at $101,111 and Texas Wesleyan–the newest accredited law school in the state–provided the foundation for the list at $57,497.

Res Ipsa also includes a fascinating snapshot of a relative salary comparison tool from CNN Money that will help the curious decide if the grass is truly greener on the other side.

As an aside, for any of my readers that are looking to add a talented lawyer to their ranks, you should get in touch with young Mr. Benson Varghese, who runs Res Ipsa Blog and is currently a 3L at Texas Tech. Since debuting his blog in March of this year, it has consistently proven to be a fine legal read with invaluable content for the Texas Bar (of which Mr. Varghese will no doubt soon be a member).

Thx to Res Ipsa

 

First Cruz, now Clement

Like his Texas counterpart a few weeks ago, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement submitted his resignation today, effective June 2. Also like former Texas Solicitor General Cruz, General Clement is leaving on a high note.

Speaking of notes, the WSJ Law Blog reports that General Clement’s favorite band is Nirvana. “Smells Like [SCOTUS] Spirit” indeed.

The last similarity between these two Solicitors General is one they share with yet another former Texas SG (and Cruz’s predecessor), Greg Coleman. All three were were named to the American Lawyer‘s Young Litigators Fab Fifty in early 2007, which listed the top 50 litigators under the age of 45 from around the country.

Thx to General Clement for his able service to our country and Above the Law, Bench Memos, and the WSJ Law Blog

 

“Law firms at which you REALLY don’t want to practice for $1,000 Alex”

You’d think that law firms–of all places–would be bastions of political correctness and equality, or at the very least, the last professional environment where one could expect to have the following things happen.

First, it was Paul Hastings‘ (known for its employment law practice) extreme lack of tact (or timing) in firing an associate six days after she suffered a miscarriage. Then the firm had the audacity to coerce her into signing a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for three month’s pay (which she rightly refused).

They are now reaping what they sowed.

Now, a former associate of Bingham McCutchen is suing her former firm for failing to take action after she reported being drugged with tegretol (an anti-seizure medication that causes memory loss when taken with alcohol) at a firm holiday party.

Wouldn’t most folks assume that a LAW FIRM would be proactive if not aggressive in trying to get to the bottom of such criminal and damaging behavior?

Apparently not.

* * * UPDATE * * *

Bingham has responded with its official side of the story.

Thx to Above the Law

 

Top BigLaw gross revenues in Texas

Following up on our post last week comparing the gross revenues of BigTex and MidTex (and BigLaw generally), see the Texas-generated gross revenues figures of the top BigLaw firms in Texas.

Jones Day $161.8 million
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges $140.4 million
Hunton & Williams $90 million
King and Spalding 82.2 million
Mayer Brown $64.2 million

Thx to Res Ipsa

 

Yet more ponderings on the art of persuading judges

Justice Scalia gave his best interview yet the other day with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN’s series, Q&A.

One of the most interesting segments was when Lamb showed Justice Scalia this clip from the Daily Show castigating his 60 Minutes appearance and his vote in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and then asked for his reaction.

“I watched [the Daily Show] once and that was enough.”

Justice Scalia elaborated further. First, he reminded John Stewart that President Bush was subsequently re-elected in 2004, so blaming his current occupancy of the office, the ongoing war in Iraq, or anything else derivatively-related in 2008 is specious. Second, he recounted how press studies conducted subsequent to the election found that Vice President Gore would have still lost even if he had never brought the election challenge that eventually resulted in Bush v. Gore, and the votes had been counted the way Gore sought. Third, and “penultimately,” Justice Scalia reiterated that the case only came before SCOTUS because Gore brought the suit, so it was he–not Bush or SCOTUS–who “wanted courts to decide the election.”

What was SCOTUS supposed to do when one of the parties (Bush) alleged the Florida Supreme Court had violated the federal constitution, “turn the case down for not being important enough … hardly.” Last, he also reiterated a point I have made as well that the vote finding the Florida Supreme Court violated the constitution was 7-2, not 5-4.

Justice Scalia also hinted at some future books he’d like to write, most exciting of which would be a sequel to his seminal tome, “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.”

The discussion ranged from what items are in his official SCOTUS portrait (a copy of–what else–The Federalist, and Webster’s Second International Dictionary (he doesn’t care for the Third edition)) to whether he still smokes a pipe (which he said was a very useful tool during his confirmation hearings to distract attention from what he was saying).

Thx to Convictions, WestBlog, and WSJ Law Blog

 

The David Lat check on the BigLaw branch of lawdom

A few days ago, Volokh had a post entitled, “It’s David Lat’s World, and BigLaw Partners Are Just Living In It.” I couldn’t agree more. Above the Law has become an essential outlet for exposing BigLaw tomfoolery and scandal.

One commenter over ATL put it best when they said:

Fact: H. Rodgin Cohen wears David Lat pajamas.
Fact: Before he goes to bed Jim Sandman checks his closet for Kashmir Hill.

Fact: Fear is not the only emotion David Lat can smell. He can also detect hope, as in “I hope I don’t get profiled on Above The Law by David Lat.”

Fact: A study showed the leading causes of death among partners in the AmLaw 100 are: 1. Heart disease, 2. David Lat, 3. Cancer.

Thx to David Lat and Volokh

 

The new appellate landscape in Houston

The past few months or so have seen some truly momentous changes in the Texas appellate world, particularly as viewed from Houston.

In March, the respected appellate practice group at Mayer Brown splintered, with a portion leaving to head up the new appellate practice at Pillsbury, and another faction headlined by former SCOTUS clerks Brett Busby (Stevens, J.) and Jeff Oldham (Rehnquist, C.J.) moving to Bracewell Giuliani.

The latest addition to the Houston appellate scene is Morgan Lewis’ recent announcement that former Solicitor General Ted Cruz will be helping lead the firm’s effort to build the SCOTUS and national appellate practice from its Houston office.

Thx to SCOTX Blog and Tex Parte Blog

 

Lateral hiring circa 2009

The most painfully humorous clip I’ve seen in a while.

Thx to Simple Justice

 

The next Solicitor General of Texas

A quiet trickle of a rumor last week was that James C. Ho, currently of counsel with Gibson Dunn and a former law clerk to Justice Thomas at SCOTUS, has been tapped to serve as the next Solicitor General of Texas. If this is true, Texas will be in very capable hands as Jim Ho is certainly one of the best appellate lawyers in the state (and the country for that matter), and has demonstrated great and valuable political savvy on the national stage as well.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that, now, three of the four solicitors general have clerked for SCOTUS (Greg Coleman–Justice Thomas; Ted Cruz–the late Chief Rehnquist; and Jim Ho–Justice Thomas). A SCOTUS clerkship now appears to be a prerequisite to the post, which makes eminent sense because one of the OSG’s main functions is to represent the State before SCOTUS–a job we have noted current General Cruz has done extremely well.

Thx to an anonymous Texas lawyer

*** UPDATE ***

It’s official.

Thx to General Cruz for his outstanding service to the Great State of Texas, and to the Texas Appellate Law Blog

 

Dewey LeBoeuf decamps the Frost Bank penthouse

The global IP firm of Dewey LeBoeuf announced it is closing its Austin office, which itself was formed when Brobeck imploded back in 2002.

The good news for the legal office market is that the penthouse suite of the Frost Bank tower will be available. A security guard took me up there when they were still outfitting the suite and it is truly some choice real estate for any firm looking to upgrade their space (and view).

Of note, most of the Austin folks are being asked to move to Dewey LeBoeuf’s Houston office, which would be a return trip for most of the legacy Dewey folks who, prior to the merger, moved to Austin from Houston.

Thx to AbovetheLaw

 

Federal clerkship bonuses for Vault 100 firms

The below chart was shamelessly taken from I Seek Validation Through Clerkship Placement (a painfully accurate title).

As you can see, the info on some of the BigTex and BigLaw with Texas satellites is a bit threadbare, so please comment if you can fill in any of the blanks.

The chart below indicates the clerkship salary bonus that the Vault 100 (2008 ) firms offer federal COA clerks. Some notes:
-The chart uses the highest number for an office if different offices give different amounts.
-The chart uses only the official number of the firm, not the number that some may negotiate or that some clerks may receive for working for a particular judge or circuit.
-The second number indicates what, if anything, a two-year clerk receives (or “cbc” if case-by-case).
-Blanks are unknown data.
-All numbers are in thousands of dollars.
Last updated August 23, 2007

1 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz $0
2 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP $50 $70
3 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP $50 $70
4 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP $50 $70
5 Davis Polk & Wardwell $50
6 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP $50
7 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP $50
8 Latham & Watkins LLP $50 $70
9 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP $50 $70
10 Covington & Burling LLP $35
11 Kirkland & Ellis LLP $50 cbc
12 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP $50
13 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison $50
14 Shearman & Sterling LLP $15
15 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP $30‡
16 Williams & Connolly LLP $35 $70†
17 Sidley Austin LLP $50
18 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP $35
19 O’Melveny & Myers LLP $50
20 White & Case LLP $50
21 Arnold & Porter LLP $15 $35
22 Jones Day $35
23 Morrison & Foerster LLP $50
24 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP $15
25 Clifford Chance LLP
26 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP $15
27 Hogan & Hartson LLP $35
28 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP $35
29 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson $50
30 Ropes & Gray LLP $50
31 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP $50 $70
32 Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP $50
33 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $50
34 Winston & Strawn LLP $35
35 Dewey Ballantine LLP $50
36 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati $20
37 Linklaters
38 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP $40
39 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
40 Proskauer Rose LLP
41 King & Spalding LLP $10
42 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP $25
43 Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Oliver & Hedges LLP $50
44 Baker & McKenzie
45 Baker Botts L.L.P. $35
46 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
47 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP $35
48 Dechert LLP $20
49 Irell & Manella LLP $35
50 McDermott Will & Emery $35
51 Jenner & Block LLP $35 cbc
52 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, LLP $50 $70
53 Allen & Overy LLP
54 DLA Piper $35
55 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP $50
56 Fish & Richardson P.C.
57 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP $35
58 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
59 Goodwin Procter LLP
60 Cooley Godward LLP
61 Alston & Bird LLP
62 Heller Ehrman LLP
63 Vinson & Elkins LLP
64 Bingham McCutchen LLP
65 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
66 Greenberg Traurig, LLP $0
67 Kaye Scholer LLP
68 Holland & Knight LLP
69 Steptoe & Johnson LLP
70 Foley & Lardner LLP
71 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP
72 Chadbourne & Parke LLP
73 Hunton & Williams LLP
74 Nixon Peabody LLP
75 Thacher Proffitt & Wood LLP
76 Bryan Cave LLP
77 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
78 Perkins Coie LLP
79 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
80 Patton Boggs LLP
81 Howrey LLP
82 Reed Smith LLP $20
83 Crowell & Moring LLP
84 McGuireWoods LLP
85 Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
86 Arent Fox PLLC
87 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP $10
88 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner L.L.P.
89 Dorsey & Whitney LLP
90 Thelen Reid & Priest LLP
91 Baker & Hostetler LLP
92 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP $50
93 Venable LLP
94 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP
95 Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
96 Dickstein Shapiro LLP
97 Fenwick & West LLP
98 Kilpatrick Stockton LLP $5
99 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC
100 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Thx to I Seek Validation Through Clerkship Placement

 

Sure, your firm just gave you a $25k raise, but do you have a theme song?

**Updated**

Nixon Peabody does [not have a theme song]. Behold, the non-theme song, which Nixon Peabody does not want you to hear.

**Updated update**

See the NY Times writeup of this fracas here.

See the new YouTube video (posted in place of David Lat’s original song post), adding some visuals to the hypnotizing lyrics.

Thx to Above the Law

 

The best law firm … ever

Many of you are probably already familiar with the Anonymous Law Firm, but for those of you who aren’t–and even better if you practice law with people suspiciously similar to the lawyers described therein–you will agree with me that the Anonymous Law Firm is the most painfully hilarious site you’ve ever visited.

From the bio of a senior partner:

Hobbies/Interests
Breathing.

Best Experience at the Firm
“The firm’s been very good to me. I thought that once we were out from the under the rule of King George, it would all be downhill, but it’s been a terrific surprise.”

Advice to Law Students
“Keep your quills sharpened and your wigs clean. It’s important to make a good first impression.”

From a patent litigation partner:

Best Experience at the Firm
“I had one case which seemed completely unwinnable, my client had made a Silly Putty knockoff called Highly Toxic Putty, and some children had swallowed some, and suffered severe brain damage, but I was able to get the client off scot-free, so he could continue manufacturing the product, and others like Inky, a version of the Slinky that sprays the user’s with a permanent dye that causes cancer.”

From an associate in the New York office:

Hobbies/Interests
Squinting at his computer screen; feigning concentration when people walk by; arbitrarily flagging documents.

Family
Paralegal, Janet.

Best Experience at the Firm
“Highlighting the client’s name 300 times in a 75-page document, just for fun.”

Worst Experience at the Firm
“Finding out I used the wrong color highlighter.”

Advice to Law Students
“If you turn your computer so it faces away from the door, you can play solitaire all day.”

From a paralegal’s bio:

Practice Areas
• Stapling
• Filing
• Highlighting (as of August 2006)

From a “complex commercial” litigator:

Notable Experience
Ms. Smith practices in complex litigation including junk fax law, uncontested divorces, and debt collection. Most notably, she won a $1 million dollar judgment (unenforceable) against a notorious junk faxer based in Tijuana. Ms. Smith has been listed in every consecutive edition of El Mucho Muy Bien Albagado en Los EstadoUnidos. Her scholarly article entitled “Junk Fax Law: How to Track Down those Dirty Bastards” has been published in the Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Law Review.

Thx to Jeremy Blachman

 

Jones Day antes up

According to their website, Jones Day has matched the $160k scale in their Dallas and Houston offices.

Thx to Above the Law and Greedy Texas