Susanna Dokupil can be reached by email at sdokupil@sbcglobal.net or on Facebook.

Katarina grabbed her oversized purse and tossed a long red scarf around her neck. Tyler noticed a copy of Atlas Shrugged peeking out of it. Alignment: Libertarian. And geeky. Only true bookworms manage to slog through all 1000+-pages of Ayn Rand's magnum opus.

"So what kind of law do you want to practice?" Tyler asked as they walked. He groaned inwardly for asking such a stock question.

"Litigation, probably appellate," she replied. "I'm especially interested in constitutional questions."

Tyler sensed a liberal arts background and good grades in law school. "And what was your college major?"

"Archaeology. I have my master's degree in Near Eastern Art and Archaeology from the University of Chicago."

Precisely, thought Tyler.

"No, I decided I was more interested in the present than the past. And constitutional law is just as much about piecing together how a civilization operates and thinks about itself through cases as archaeology is through artifacts. But I'll miss summering at eastern Mediterranean excavation sites."

They reached O Bento, a nearby sushi and sake establishment noted for its large, colorful aquarium full of coral and tropical fish. "Ooh, even a puffer fish!" exclaimed Katarina.

As they sat down, Katarina's scarf fell across the white origami-inspired dinner napkin. Tyler thought of a red python constricting a rabbit, swallowing it head first. He was hungry.

The server's appearance snapped him out of his fantasy. But just as they ordered, Tyler's BlackBerry rang. It was Carol, the lead partner on his copper pipe contract matter.

Tyler cursed mentally. He knew Carol liked regular updates and quick answers, and he hadn't checked his e-mail in, what, three hours? His chest tightened. His breathing shortened. What hadn't he done? He couldn't afford mistakes -- he needed to hang onto this job every single day he could....

"When do you think you'll have that brief draft finished?" she asked. "The client just called, and they'd like to see our draft two weeks ahead of the deadline instead of one because the general counsel is going on vacation. That means we have to get it to them next Wednesday, and I'll need a few days to review our draft before it goes to them, so I guess that means I'll need your section by noon tomorrow at the latest. Will that work?"

"Of course, Carol," Tyler replied. Class: Senior Partner. Experience points: Untold millions. Race: Succubus, capable of summoning abysmal darkness. Such as now. Tyler's +4 chain-mail armor and +6 vorpal laptop were useless. He surrendered.

Tyler turned to Katarina apologetically. "Mind if we get this to go? I have to get back."

"Of course, Tyler," she said, imitating his tone with Carol.
______________________________________________________________________
Susanna Dokupil is a former appellate lawyer who abandoned regular employment in favor of raising four kids. She wishes to emphasize that the resemblance of any character in "My Job Is Murder" to any actual person, living or dead, is purely coincidental. (Except for the geeky stuff. Appellate lawyers really are that geeky.)

Susanna can be reached by email at sdokupil@sbcglobal.net or on Facebook.

Earlier: Prior installments of My Job Is Murder

ATL,

"I'm a law student with a record. Larceny by trick, we'll call it. It happened a while ago. I have reasonable assurances from bar members in my state and my law school that if I disclose and explain (and obviously, don't mess up again) that I will pass the character & fitness exam.

But does it matter? When I got to law school, I thought I'd be able to get a job. Almost three years later, there are no jobs. Is there any point for a guy in my position to even apply to Biglaw firms? My grades are good enough to get Biglaw, but will they just ignore me because of my past?"

Been Caught Stealing

Dear Been Caught Stealing,

I always wondered what became of the cool rich kids from my high school who smashed in people's mailboxes and raced away in their Jettas to funnel beer in their parents' basements. If Facebook is to be believed, they've traded in terrorizing friendless ninth grade transfer students with clear braces and an unfortunate Sun-In situation for wildly successful careers and loving relationships. And evidently, some of them become lawyers.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: the market for lawyers is a piece of garbage. But as long as you pass character and fitness, you're in the same position as hordes of other unemployed recent grads. People usually don't list "criminal" under their resume work experience; they wait until they're filling out forms at the interview or they're accepting the job to revealed their checkered past. It's called "bait and switch," which you're probably familiar with. Because you're a criminal. And that's how you roll.

I think the world of Biglaw is closed to you for the moment. There is no reason that a swank firm would take someone with a record when they can easily get 300 other people without one to fill the spot. You'll have better luck in smaller firms where the people are kinder and went to worse schools. Or try PI, where you'll work amongst your brethren.

I hope this helps.

Your friend,

Marin

But I don't think the halls of Biglaw are any more closed to you than they are to the squares that have never run afoul of the law. The last three Presidents have wild drug and alcohol stories. So you got drunk one night and stole some garden gnomes. That makes you Hurley from Lost, and everyone loves Hurley.

You say you have the grades to get into Biglaw. If that is true, then a past misstep should be no bar to your future success -- once the economy turns around of course.

Learn the phrase: "I was young, and I was stupid." It's what the pros use,

Probation Officer Elie

PS: This is all assuming of course that you are white. If you're a black or Latino man with a record you are totally screwed. It's government work all the way. But, if you are a minority I'm sure you already know that.

[Braces self for commenter barrage following Elie's PS.]

Do you have a question for next week's Pls Hndle Thx? Send it to advice@abovethelaw.com.

Position: Vice President

Location: Orange County, CA

Description: With more than $750 billion of assets under management, and offices around the globe, this Investment Management company is one of the world's foremost bond fund managers, overseeing more than 70 mutual funds invested in such financial instruments as corporate paper, emerging markets debt, municipal bonds, mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and real estate investment trusts (REITs), as well as stocks. The company is seeking a Vice President, Attorney with a minimum of three to six years of experience in securities laws applicable to registered investment advisers, including the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The successful candidate will have the opportunity to work on cutting edge legal and regulatory matters, such as analyzing compliance and trading issues, drafting and reviewing compliance policies, negotiating agreements, including investment management agreements, participating in special projects, such as regulatory audits, litigation matters and general corporate work, and resolving legal issues in connection with expansion of its business model and development of new products.

If you are a candidate, please see Position #5567 on Lateral Link. If you are not a member you can sign up for free at www.laterallink.com. If you are an employer seeking top legal talent for your company, please contact Michael Allen, Principal of Lateral Link, at mallen@laterallink.com or 213.785.2344.

Evan here, writing from New York. Apologies for no new post for a few weeks. It was an extremely busy October, including multiple trips to NYC and Asia (and those trips are of course continuing, with two more NYC and one Hong Kong trip scheduled over the next few weeks).

For the die-hard AC readers, next week we plan to launch a new daily Asia blog over at kinneyrecruiting.com, so you can keep up with the Asia biglaw lateral markets and our goings on much more frequently.

I will be in Hong Kong again from November 21 to December 5, so feel free to reach out if you would like to meet up with me there. Of course, Alexis is there full time and available. For the law student readers out there, on November 19 I will be participating in a seminar in NYC sponsored by the China Business Lawyers Association and the Asia Law Society of NYU. The event's target audience will be law students who are interested in future biglaw careers in Asia. While I don't always have time available (I wish I did) to talk to each of the many law students that reach out to us about future potential careers in Asia, events like this can be very helpful for those interested. The event's sponsors have done a great job of securing speakers / participants for the seminar, including a few law firm partners and myself.

It has been a solid past couple of weeks for us in Hong Kong, with one partner placement and three associate placements. There has also been a lot more interview activity recently in Asia, especially in HK / China, so we are expecting more results for our associate candidate clients in the short-term.

***More after the jump.

For several years now, as we have mentioned before in this column, most US and UK firms in Asia have asked us for advice regarding their expat benefits for US associates. Although the most important aspect of the expat package is the total cash number, there are other details to consider. Further, these extra details can be important when competing with other firms over a US associate offeree. While we usually advise associates in this column, here is some basic advice for firms (as always, please feel free to contact us for much more detailed advice), when giving offers:

1) Give offers quickly

Time and time again we see US and UK firms in Asia miss out on their preferred US associate candidates because they take too long to make a formal offer. This has especially been the case in '09, when the global economy has made it more difficult for partners in Asia more to get clearance from home offices to make new hires.

Keep in mind though that US associates coming from the major US markets are accustomed to quick offer decisions after the interview process comes to a close. Thus, when, for example, a US associate travels out to Hong Kong and has a full round of interviews with a firm, followed by more meetings in NYC with senior partners, the associate will be expecting a quick offer decision. When things drag out for days or weeks (we have even seen it drag out for months on a few occasions this year), the associate will understandably lose confidence in the offer (regardless of what he / she is told by a recruiter or hiring partner) and start looking at other firms or in-house opportunities in Hong Kong.

On a number of occasions this year, we have had candidates who have been focused on one particular perfect fit opportunity for months and all set to accept the inevitable offer, but long delays occurred, momentum was lost, and by the time the offer was finally given, there were other offers to contend with at the 12th hour (and at firms where there was more momentum because offers were given much more quickly).

We realize that the partner doing the hiring in Asia may not be able to give offers as quickly as he / she would want, due to the internal firm process, but such delays have to be fixed one way or another. Especially now that the lateral US associate hiring market in Asia has rebounded some, it is highly unlikely that a strong US associate candidate is going to wait around for weeks after final interview round for an offer decision. Such candidates are going to be off the market, snatched up by peer firms.

The interview process in general should be shortened if possible and take place over a few weeks, rather than a few months, but most critical is not losing momentum at the point it is clear for both parties that there will be an offer and that the candidate wants to accept the offer. A few weeks or more later, when the offer finally arrives, the situation will be different the majority of the time.

2) Fly out new hires business class

We have generated for our candidates a number of offer letters in '09 that offer only economy airfare for fly out to Asia as new hires. Most US and UK firms offer business class airfare for the associate and immediate family (when the new hire is lateraling from another city or country).

We find that in close calls between offers, associates really appreciate the business class tickets, not so much because they demand to fly that way or care so much about their seat on a plane, but because it gives impression (as impractical as it may be) to some young associates that the offering firm is not cheap and does not nickel and dime their attorneys on a variety of matters in general. This concern is especially important in China because associates have heard stories about some busy overseas offices having a lot of financial pressures put on them during the global downturn.

Keep in mind also that new associate hires from US, who are moving around the world and making arguably their most important career lateral move (for many it is their first biglaw lateral move), the business class airfare for the trip out is a nice perk.

3) Home Leave

About half of the top US and UK firms in Asia offer a home leave benefit to their US associates. For the readers that are not familiar with the benefit, it is basically an annual plane ticket (for associate and immediate family) back to US or wherever in the world "home" is for the US associate. Some firms provide plane tickets, others reimburse the associate for purchasing plane ticket(s) and some firms simply provide a certain cash amount, such as $7000 for example, labeled as "home leave bonus", but the cash can be used for any purpose.

Most of the firms that offer home leave in their expat packages provide business class airfare. Especially if associates have a spouse and children, it can of course get fairly expensive.

Home leave, while a great perk and much appreciated by new hires, is in my opinion not as important as business class airfare for the initial trip out to Asia to start at a new firm. When associates are considering offers in Asia they are not going to be so concerned about their future personal travel plans as they are about getting started at their new position. Although one way business class airfare out to Asia is obviously not as expensive as business class airfare round trip annually, the trip out to Asia to start a new job is a much more significant travel experience.

4) School tuition reimbursement

Of course, this is a much greater expense (as much as $25,000 US per child per year) than simply paying for business class airfare for the initial flight out. Further, the majority of top US and UK firms in Asia do not provide school tuition reimbursement for US associates with children. However, some firms do provide this very impressive benefit and if your firm does not, the situation should at least be addressed with affected offerees during the offer stage.

Some firms that do not offer tuition reimbursement do offer between $10,000 and $20,000 in addition to standard expat package for each child, regardless of whether school aged. Obviously this is a significant benefit and can erase the lack of a school tuition reimbursement plan, so it should be discussed more with the offeree, as an alternative to tuition reimbursement (rather than hiding from the tuition reimbursement issue due to your firm not having such a benefit for associates).

Most US associate hires will not have school aged children, so this issue will likely come up only once in a while.

5) Come up with one expat package number for all US associates, rather than allowing it to be open for negotiation.

There are still a number of US and UK firms (although the minority) in Asia that leave open for negotiation the expat package for each new US associate offeree / hire. It is not just the final expat package number negotiated for that matters so much to new US associate hires, but also the knowledge that everyone in their new practice group receives the same compensation package (according to class year of course). It goes without saying that you will run the risk of losing current US associates that find out about new hires being paid more, but there is also the significant chance of losing the offeree who has negotiated for a high expat package, due to the perception of unfairness to others in the group.

In '09, we are seeing a small handful of top firms offer low expat packages initially and then allow those packages to be negotiated upwards. At the end of the day, most of the new hires at such firms get market competitive packages, but not all know to negotiate (not all are represented by Kinney unfortunately) and the numbers come up differently for each US associate in the group.

We highly recommend that you come up with one expat package number for all your US associates and not leave things open for negotiation with each new offeree. It takes at least $60,000 US annual housing / expat allowance to be competitive in the Hong Kong market; at least $90,000 in Tokyo, and at least $45,000 in mainland China. Those numbers are at the low end of the range of competitive expat packages for each market (the range is usually about $20,000 from these low end numbers, with most competitive firms being just below the middle of the range). Without offering these packages, it will obviously be difficult to compete with other offers your preferred candidate may receive.

Regular Above the Law readers will note that there is absolutely no surprise about Simpson's bonus. Last year at around this time -- when there was still a clear separation between Skadden's bonus and Cravath's bonus -- Simpson rushed in to follow Cravath.

Given that history, we don't know a lot of people that expected Simpson to do anything other than follow Cravath. Long gone are the days when Simpson led the charge to $160K.

But don't forget about Sullivan & Cromwell. The firm's had a good year, and with all of its competitors falling in line behind Cravath, they could get some real market separation here with a bonus that is still smaller than what they paid out last year.

What a fun Friday. I wonder if anybody else will rush out a bonus announcement before five o'clock? I'm going to need another Red Bull.

Read the STB bonus memo, after the jump.

On behalf of the partners of the Firm, I would like to announce that year-end bonuses for associates in good standing will be as follows:

Class of 2008: $ 7,500
Class of 2007: $10,000
Class of 2006: $15,000
Class of 2005: $20,000
Class of 2004: $25,000
Class of 2003: $30,000
Class of 2002: $30,000
Class of 2001: $30,000

Bonuses for counsel and other attorneys will be determined on an individual basis and communicated separately. Bonuses will be paid on December 30, 2009. Associates and counsel who were on leave or worked part-time during any part of this year will be eligible for a pro-rated bonus. To be eligible for a bonus, an associate must have been employed at the Firm prior to September 1, 2009.

On behalf of the Firm, thank you for your dedication and professionalism.

Pete Ruegger

November 20, 2009

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Simpson Announces Bonuses ... And You're Not Going To Be Happy
Prior ATL coverage of 2009 associate bonus watch

[Seyfarth] just deferred all incoming associates to October 2010 with only $2000/month as a stipend beginning on our former start date of January 19, 2010! It's a joke ... we know for a fact that they were busy and could have afforded us. It is a firm managed by horrible, greedy, selfish individuals ... This is amusing, in light of the fact that the firm turned a profit last year ...

We would like to warn anyone considering accepting an offer from the firm to STAY AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is particularly disconcerting for those of us who turned down offers from Biglaw in favor of a firm that apparently "cared soooo much" about us. Go Vault or go home.

Whoa, tell us what you really think. You have to wonder if these deferred incoming associates will come up with any fun banners about their would-be employer.

As angry as the deferred incoming associates appear to be, it is not at all clear that Seyfarth could have afforded to bring on a new class of people at this time. In addition to telling the incoming associates to wait for almost another year, today the firm announced that it was cutting first year associate salaries.

Details and a statement from Seyfarth, after the jump.

We are continuing to manage our staffing levels in light of anticipated client demand and market conditions. As a result, we have decided to postpone start dates for 8 of 16 first-year associates who were scheduled to start in January 2010. We have rescheduled their start dates until October 2010 to ensure we are staffed appropriately to meet clients' anticipated needs. Given the timing of this notification, we are providing each of these people with a $2,000 monthly stipend until October to offset any disruption this may cause. We are telling them that, as conditions improve, we hope to call them to start earlier.

We also have decided to reduce the base salary levels by approximately 5-10% for all the first-year associates joining us in 2010. While we see bright spots ahead in the economy for 2010, we also believe that economic conditions will continue to put pressure on our clients, including the costs of legal services, and we need to address those issues.

Blaming pay cuts on clients is starting to become commonplace. But regardless of who is to blame, there is an awful lot of writing Seyfarth is putting up on the wall for its incoming class.

Maybe you graduated this spring, focused on the bar, and reasonably believed that you would be able to start in January. If so, now is the time to change course. I wouldn't advise people to sit around waiting and hoping that everything works out by this time next year -- not that there is a lot of "sitting" you can afford to do on $2,000 a month anyway.

Take the hint, polish the resume, and see if you have any other options. It's the only thing left to do. Next October is a long time away.

Good luck, Seyfarth friends.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of start dates
ATL Caption Contest Winner: Shame on You

But one deferred associate had this question:

Aside from the question of which firms may be abandoning their holiday parties this year, it would be interesting to see which firms are inviting their deferred associates. As of now I don't think the firm that deferred me is ...

You know, it never occurred to me that firms would invite deferred associates the holiday party. At first blush, the idea sounds ludicrous. Why would they invite people who are not employees to the employee party?

I'm willing to bet that it never occurred to most firms either. But remember, deferring incoming associates is a completely new thing. There are no rules for this stuff; the legal industry is making it up as it goes along.

So, as long as we are setting new standards here, why shouldn't a firm invite deferred associates to the party?

A discussion and a reader poll after the jump.

But there is an argument that can be made in favor of firms inviting incoming associates. First of all, firms keep telling these kids that they will be members of the firm. They have offers. Some of them aren't even looking for other employment in reliance on those offers. Inviting these kids would be a low cost way for people to meet the new members of the firm. It would be a nice gesture that would suggest the firm isn't just stringing its incoming associates along towards an inevitable offer revocation memo.

And then there's the "lobster effect." Leo McGarry (R.I.P.) explains on the West Wing: "I take my daughter to a seafood place; the first thing she does is name all the lobsters in the tank so I can't eat 'em."

It's much harder to destroy something once you've put a name on it.

In this way, getting invited to the holiday party could really help deferred associates. It's one thing for a firm to revoke offers to its entire class of "incoming associates." It might be marginally more difficult, emotionally, to cast John, and Doug, and Karen, and Steve back out into the cold abyss of the breadline.

Anyway, it's an interesting question. What do you think? Take the reader poll below.

Earlier: Holiday Parties Open Thread: Are They Happening This Year?
Open Thread: Should Deferred Associates Be Looking for Work?

Here's the breakdown from a tipster:

From: The Executive Committee To: ASSOCIATES - NY; ASSOCIATES - DC Cc: PARTNERS - FIRMWIDE Sent: Fri Nov 20 11:11:01 2009 Subject: 2009 Associate Bonuses

The Executive Committee is pleased to announce the following year-end bonuses for associates:

Class of 2008: $7,500
Class of 2007: $10,000
Class of 2006: $15,000
Class of 2005: $20,000
Class of 2004: $25,000
Class of 2003: $30,000
Class of 2002 and senior: $30,000

Bonuses will be paid on December 18, 2009, consistent with our customary practices.
The Firm greatly appreciates the efforts of our associates over the course of the year.

Don't feel bad, guys; there are a lot of great things you can do with $7,500.

More on Willkie's bonuses after the jump.

Well check out where Willikie Farr falls on the Vault 100. Willkie (ranked #37) is the first firm outside of the top ten to announce its bonus. And they did decide to match the market.

So you have to wonder if this Willkie bonus is going to push firms like Akin Gump and Winston & Strawn to match the market, even more so than Cravath's announcement.

Willkie's bonus brings one other thought into focus. Earlier indications and rumors that firms would pay bonuses based on their personal financial situations this year were evidently entirely wrong. It will be a while before we know the 2009 revenue numbers for Cravath, Skadden, Cleary, and Willkie, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they're not going to be "equal." Yet, these four firms decided to pay the exact same 2009 bonus.

Boy, that looks an awful lot like some sort of "lockstep" system, where firms pay out money in concert with peer firms, regardless of the firms' individual performance.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's nice to see that at least some of the traditional ways will survive the recession.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of 2009 associate bonuses.

Welcome to the first installment of Predictions of the 10th Justice, brought to you by FantasySCOTUS.net. The league has over 1,300 members, who have made predictions on all cases currently pending before the Supreme Court. In this feature, we analyze these predictions, and try to explain how the Supreme Court will resolve top cases.

The first case we'll look at is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, commonly known as the Hillary Movie case. This case is a showdown between free speech and campaign finance laws.

Out of 286 predictions, 192 members (67%) predicted that the Supreme Court will likely reverse that decision, and 94 members (33%) predicted that the Court will affirm the lower court's decision.

Next we will explore the decision vote distributions and how the Justices will vote.

On this bar graph, the 9-0 and 8-1 Affirm splits each garnered less than 5 votes, along with 7-2, 8-1, and 9-0 Reverse. This graph reinforces the predicted outcome from the first chart. Most members are predicting a 5-4 Reverse, while those predicting an Affirm were more moderately split, slightly favoring a 5-4 split over a 6-3 split. Overall, the 10th Justice predicts a 5-4 decision reversing the lower courts holding.

How will each Justice vote? Predictions at The 10th Justice.

* Details continue to leak out about a merger between Hogan & Hartson and Lovells. Apparently, Ho-Love will retain separate profit pools for the two sets of partners. [The BLT: Blog of the Legal Times]

* Junior Gotti is so close to a mistrial he can feel it. [Daily News]

* Nic Cage got ruined during the financial crisis, according to his estranged business manager. [Courthouse News Service]

* Oprah Winfrey will end her popular talk show in 2011. Notice how I wrote that blurb without using the words "queen," or "throne." You're welcome. [ABC]

* In honor of Full-Cravath's bonus:

Dude, I have finals. And my 2L grades matter because I'll be doing 3L recruiting. Unless we're protesting canceled summer programs, count me out.

We wanted to know how the law school generally was reacting to today's festivities, so we reached out to the UCLA Student Bar Association President, Lenny Sandoval. We asked him why law student participation seemed lacking:

Being a third year with one foot out the door, it's tough for me to give a totally representative view, but while I agree that the involvement of law students as a whole is a bit subdued, I think the reaction from the identity organizations and their leadership (Raza, BLSA, etc.) has been very supportive and vocal of the undergraduate led movements. Based on FB status updates and gChat blurbs I saw at least 6 or 7 people either returning from the protests or planning on going to the protests, so that's something at least.

Sandoval also noted that law students need to be a little bit more careful when it comes to potentially getting arrested than college kids.

That's certainly true, especially in this economy. There's no sense having your tuition jacked up and hurting your chances at snagging a legal job.

But something other than fear and general apathy might be driving down law student participation in civil disobedience. We also spoke with UCLA Law professor Stephen Bainbridge and he notes that people at the law school might just be paying a little bit more attention to the general state of affairs with the U.C. system than your average college student.

Thoughts from Professor Bainbridge after the jump.

The University is going through a rough patch, but the problem has been building for a long time. The California university system was founded on a premise of full state funding. Unlike private universities and many of the so-called public Ivies (e.g., Michigan and Virginia), the UC system had very low fees and made little effort to raise private endowment funds....

It is now finally clear to anyone with eyes to see that the state will be a relatively modest source of funding in the future. So we are going through a period of finally adapting to that reality.

He notes that U.C. faculty are paying the price -- along with the students -- for the state's lack of vision:

Students aren't the only ones who are suffering either. The faculty is taking pay cuts of up to 10% (disguised as a so-called furlough). At the same time, our out of pocket costs for benefits--especially health insurance--have risen dramatically.

So we're all in the boat together. At the moment, we're encountering some rough seas. But I think we'll come out of it stronger, less reliant on state funding, with a bigger endowment, and competitive tuitions.

If the professor is right about this feeling that both students and faculty are in the same boat, it could go a long way towards explaining why some students don't feel the need to take to the streets. "Students versus Fat-Cat Faculty" is the kind of program you can run on Spike TV. "Students versus Bureaucrats and Lackeys" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Bainbridge reminds us that there are other law students in California that have more cause to complain than UCLA law students:

As far as UCLA law school goes, it's true that our tuition has risen. But 92% of our J.D. students are receiving some type of financial aid. And, according to data from your own website, UCLA tuition currently is lower than both Berkeley and Irvine. The forecast through 2013 has UCLA tuition remaining below that of Berkeley and Davis, while being basically tied with Irvine.

Contrary to my prior post, it appears that UCLA law students are not "mad as hell." Instead, it sounds like they are "vaguely annoyed by the general state of affairs." If that's how you feel, you're not going to risk getting hit with a billy club.

It doesn't appear that a whole lot of people think UCLA Law is facing any sort of crisis. Certainly, Bainbridge isn't worried:

Indeed, I'm so confident in the long-term health of the UCLA law school that I turned down an opportunity to visit elsewhere next year and, as part of the agreement, committed not to consider other opportunities for the next 5 years. At my age (approaching 51), that probably means I'll be a UCLA lifer. And I'm fine with that.

Cooler heads prevailed at UCLA today ... so what other law school can we put on the "blood in the streets" watch list? Tulane? You guys haven't been on Above the Law in forever.

The UCLA Tuition "Riot" [Professor Bainbridge]

Earlier: UCLA Students Protest Fee Hikes
Law School Tuition Hikes Spread Like Wildfires in California

* Thank God for Brian Leiter. Here's what the Super Lawyers rankings look like, adjusted for class size, not adjusted for U.S. News Top-14 status. Now I can comfortably say, HLS to #1! [Brian Leiter's Law School Reports]

* Sometimes I park, in handicapped spaces, while handicapped people, make handicapped ... Oww. I think the PC police just tasered my fingers. [Wild Wild Law]

* Your lawyering skills aren't going to matter much if you can't sell it. [Bar & Bench]

* David Hamilton will ascend to the 7th Circuit. Finally. [BLT]

* The IRS does not apologize. [Going Concern]

* Where is the physical evidence in the Robert Wone case? [Who Murdered Robert Wone]

Fort Worth Star Telegram broke the story. Slate sums it up:

A Houston lawyer who is the Democratic candidate for attorney general claims that a 2005 Constitutional amendment that was supposed to ban gay marriages actually took the whole thing a bit further than anyone expected. The amendment states that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." So far, so good.

But then comes Subsection B: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." That was supposed to ban any form of civil unions or domestic partnership but may have put the legal status of all Texas marriages in doubt.

Texas: 3500 sq ft, a Lexus and babies out of wedlock?

But AG candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky -- who spent 27 years at Vinson & Elkins -- disagrees. She says the clause "eliminates marriage in Texas." From the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

"You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says," said Radnofsky.

(Radnofsky's degree is from the University of Texas.)

On the upside, Texans who made bad marital matches in the last few years may be saved the trouble of messy divorces.

Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages [Fort Worth Star Telegram]
Are All Marriages Banned in Texas? [Slate]

Here's the scale:

2008 -- $7,500
2007 -- $10,000
2006 -- $15,000
2005 -- $20,000
2004 -- $25,000
2003 -- $30,000
2002 -- $30,000

With Skadden and Cravath on the same page, the rest of this bonus season might be devoid of any real drama. Associates will take their $7,500 and up and like it.

Skadden's move here isn't all that surprising. Last year, the firm doubled the Cravath payment. While that generated a lot of positive press for the firm, evidently good cheer isn't something that shows up on the partners' bottom line.

And you know that Cravath has to be happy about this. Now the firm won't have to look like it paid low bonuses two years in a row.

We should expect the rest of the top firms to fall in line. Now the question turns to firms that are not in the position of Cravath, Skadden, and Cleary. Will they fall into line with the big boys, or might they go even lower?

Then again, how much lower can this bar really go?

After the jump, check out the memo senior associates got from Skadden about their Cravath bonus.

RE: 2009 Associate Bonuses

We are pleased to announce that we will be paying a discretionary bonus this year. The discretionary bonus is an indication of our appreciation for your hard work and dedication to
the Firm and our clients.

While the economic environment has had an impact on our clients and the demand for legal services, the Firm remains strong and we are optimistic about the future. Accordingly, associates in the class of 2003 and senior will be paid a year end bonus of $30,000 on December 18, 2009.* As in the past, bonuses will be paid to associates in good standing who have been reasonably busy over the course of the year. Payment will only be made to associates employed by the Firm on December 18th.

Best wishes for the holiday season.

* If applicable, bonus amounts will be prorated based on start dates and status changes.

A single vulgar word cost a man his job on Friday.

Well, that's putting way too nice of a spin on it. It's not like somebody put in a vulgar comment and then the secret police crashed his cubicle and then kicked him out on the street.

No, the blogger who noticed and deleted the vulgar comment called the commenter's employer:

A few minutes later, the same guy posted the same single-word comment again. I deleted it, but noticed in the WordPress e-mail alert that his comment had come from an IP address at a local school. So I called the school. They were happy to have me forward the e-mail, though I wasn't sure what they'd be able to do with the meager information it included.

Armed with the IP address, the IT people at the school quickly found out who posted the comment. The commenter was confronted and resigned.

Would I ever do something like that? No. Because I'm drunk with alcohol, not power.

Let me explain after the jump.

But to figure it out, and then to take it to the next level of calling employers, I'd have to care. Which I don't. Commenters make up a small percentage of the overall readership, asshole commenters make up a small percentage of the commenters, and I've got better things to do with my time than running around knocking down anthills looking for one ant. Just deleting some of the obviously offensive stuff takes up more time than I have to spare.

I don't like all of the comments on the site, some of the "schticks" are pretty annoying. But -- as many have pointed out -- I'm a big boy. I don't need to be a tattletale.

If I was easily offended and spent my days worrying about what other people think, I'd have my own office at 919 3rd Avenue by now. And I'd be making a lot more money. And my secretary would be fixing my clerical errors. And ... (wait a minute, bad thoughts, bad thoughts. Good call on the road less traveled, Elie. Property ownership is totally overrated.)

Not for nothing, but as far as I know nobody has been fired for tipping Above the Law, talking to Above the Law, or interacting with Above the Law in any way. I aim to keep it that way.

I'd imagine that the good people at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have a similar "who cares" outlook. But it seems that where this fired commenter went too far was that he re-posted the comment after it was already deleted.

Now that is something that would piss me off. If I'm going to go through all of the trouble to delete a comment, don't re-post it. That's just not nice. That makes me angry.

Post a vulgar comment while you're at work, lose your job [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
Kurt Greenbaum - disgrace, douche, pussy [Legal Satyricon]