It was pretty hard to miss this week's big news: unemployment crashed through the 10% barrier, hitting 10.2% in October - the highest level since 1983 (and, of course, worse than predicted). Underemployment also hit record levels, with the number of self-reported disenfranchised and under-utilized people reaching 17.5%.

Republicans jumped on the numbers as a sign that Obama's package has failed, and the White House countered that it has saved almost 700,000 jobs. But that claim doesn't even come close to addressing the original estimates and is completely unmeasurable. Still, the administration is reconsidering ideas it had previously rejected, like a highway bill and a business tax credit for new hires, even as they ask for two versions of a budget: one with flat spending and another with a 5% cut.

Law firms got their place in the MSM sun this week, as Bloomberg used a former law-firm employee as an example of increased migration to areas perceived as having jobs:

Some people are pulling up stakes and moving to where they think the job prospects may be brighter. Beth Rubin, 41, lost her position as a receptionist at the law firm Goldstein Bershad & Fried, PC in Southfield, Michigan, in October. The resident of Ferndale, a Detroit suburb, is now selling her furniture and moving to Georgia. "I'm looking to get a job in Georgia, and I don't know about the job market there, but I can tell you Michigan is horrible," Rubin said in a telephone interview.

Of course, anything has to be better than Detroit.

More on the highs and lows in the legal sector, after the jump.

November is already looking worse, though. Just one week in and four firms, Dickstein Shapiro, Day Pitney, Goodwin Procter, and Clifford Chance, have had layoffs reported.

The American Lawyer cautions that there is at least one more major obstacle looming: collections.

A difficult year is about to get harder. It's the start of collection season for law firms, and the normal Christmas rush seems destined to run smack into fresh demands for deeper discounts. Adding a shiver of fear to those events are continuing rumors of coming partner bloodbaths. The glib talk revolves around two purported problems: some partners really have had little work all year, and some firms have done a poor job of keeping their members informed of just how far off budget the firm is. Dollops of pain seem likely to fall on many heads.

Layoffs have become just one tactic of many for firms. Deferrals remain another hot topic as firms fervently wish for their problems to be solved for them, if only they can procrastinate long enough. Winston & Strawn is one firm employing the head-in-the-sand method (combined with a de facto salary cut by giving a below-market stipend), as it announced it will further put off its incoming associates' start dates. We had to laugh when we read that Shearman & Sterling preemptively announced the deferral stipend for the graduating class of 2010.

And even when firms proclaim that they're proactively going out and addressing the issue, execution falls short. Case in point: Morgan Lewis and its announced intention to move off lockstep. Eventually. Despite seeming to have a plan over the summer, the firm has since shelved any change in its compensation structure indefinitely. This, by the way, is another example of why large law firms should hire professional (non-lawyer) managers.

The other idea being tossed about, because it reduces cost without involving much unpleasant disruption (and is therefore palatable to lawyers) is salary rollbacks to 1998 levels. If we recall correctly, that would be a base of $97,000. We're more certain that late 1999 was when Gunderson Dettmer set off the arms race with the bump to $125,000 for the class of 2000 (back when "class of" meant both the year in which the person graduated and started working) and $20,000 bonuses for first years. In any event, that number was pulled out of thin air by a consultant who works for law firms, so take it with a grain of salt.

Still, it wasn't all bad.

Last week, we closed with optimism that there were good reasons for firms to pay bonuses this year, and we were right. On Monday, Cravath announced bonuses, and late on Friday, Cleary matched. Interestingly, there has been grousing from both sides: some claimed that bonuses were in poor taste this year; others that they were too meager.

We threw in our two cents with The Case for Bonuses, which fleshes out the points we touched on: they're an important morale booster in this difficult year; and clients' year-end results are going to be extremely good.

The final numbers for the week are available on Law Shucks.

* Speaking of free speech, is a college acting unconstitutionally by banning so-called "empty-holster protests"? [Courthouse News Service]

* Maryland bar exam results are out. Congrats to all who passed! [Maryland State Board of Law Examiners]

* In the wake of the Maine vote, is there such a thing as "Gay Apartheid"? [Transracial]

* Remember the Notre Dame 1L impersonator? He may be "weird and unethical," but he didn't break any laws. [WNDU]

* The ATL running group will be meeting tomorrow (Saturday) at 10 a.m., at the East River 6th Street track. All are welcome. [Above the Law]

Judge vacates $1.26B ruling against PepsiCo
[Associated Press]

Earlier: Legal Secretary of the Day: Pepsi's $1.26 Billion Mistake

We have confirmed the news of a Cravath bonus match with multiple sources at Cleary Gottlieb. One exchange went something like this:

ATL: Any good news today?

CGSH: No. Cravath news. Bonus FAIL.

So the 2009 bonus market is probably going to coalesce around the Cravath-level bonuses -- unless S&C shows up and trumps CSM. Stay tuned.

The timing of the announcement is telling. Usually bad news is saved for Friday afternoons, so it gets lost in the pre-weekend shuffle. Did CGSH view its bonus numbers as potentially disappointing to the recipients?

Perhaps. In our reader poll on the Cravath bonuses, a majority of respondents said the CSM bonuses made them either "unhappy" or "very unhappy" (the most popular choice). Approximately 30 percent said the bonuses made them "neither happy nor unhappy." Under 20 percent said the bonuses made them "happy" or "very happy."

The Cleary memo and another READER POLL, after the jump.

And here's the text of the Cleary memo. We also have posted a screenshot of the PDF that was sent to us.

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON -- MEMORANDUM

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL ASSOCIATES ON THE U.S. SALARY SCALE

Re: 2009 Bonuses

On behalf of the partners of the Firm, we are pleased to announce year-end
bonuses for associates in good standing on the U.S. salary scale, at the amounts set forth below.

To be eligible for a bonus, you must have been employed at the Firm prior to August 1, 2009 and be actively employed at the Firm on the day bonuses are paid. Bonuses will be paid on Tuesday, December 15th. Bonuses will be prorated for those on reduced schedules and for those who joined the Firm after January 1, 2009.

Class Bonus

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

We thank you all for the terrific work you have done for our clients over the past
year, and in particular, for demonstrating time and again your ability to adapt to the rapidly
changing legal landscape presented by global economic conditions.

Jeff Karpf
Derek Bush

For the New York and Washington
Associates Committees

Earlier: Breaking: Cravath Bonuses Are Out (and Down)

When we emailed him on Wednesday to set up an interview, we received this rather straightforward Out of Office message:

I'll be traveling on client and professional business Monday, 11/2 through Saturday, 11/7. I will have access to email, but my response may be delayed. Thanks.

How modest! If we had been in Sanders's shoes, we would have used this Out of Office auto-reply:

Oyez, bitchez!!! Today I'm arguing before the freakin' Supreme Court of the United States.
Later, haters!!!

But that's not Steve Sanders's style. He is dignified and professional, as we discovered when we caught up with him by phone after his argument.

Of course, Sanders didn't appear before the justices in flip-flops. In response to our first and most important question -- "Whom did you wear?" -- he said he acquired a new Armani suit, gray with white pinstripes, for the occasion. Sanders told us that he's not much of a suit guy, but obviously he didn't have much of a choice for this august occasion.

Sanders was lunching solo. No big lunch with the Mayer Brown team and the clients?

"No," Sanders said. "Last night I had a nice dinner, with the partner who worked on the case with me and the clients. But this morning, after we chatted on the courthouse steps and did some media interviews, everyone went on their way. I find that, after an intense experience like oral argument, it's good to have some 'alone time' to decompress."

So how did the argument go? "Ask me in three or four months after the Court issues a decision!"

Turning more serious, Steve Sanders noted that the AP story about the argument suggested a split Court -- as opposed to stories along the lines of "the justices seemed extremely skeptical at argument towards side X" (not good if you're representing side X).

Said Sanders: "The coverage [some collected here] indicates a closely divided court struggling to make up its mind on this question -- not just what it means for the parties in this case, but for the law of immunity and for the lay of the land for lawsuits against prosecutors in the future."

(To read more about the case of Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, which presents questions concerning the scope of immunity for prosecutors, see ScotusWiki.)

Was Sanders nervous arguing before the nine justices?

"No, I don't think I was," said Sanders. "I felt pretty serene last night and this morning. My hands weren't shaking; I wasn't sweating. Once you stand up and the questions start coming, the whole experience is just kind of a blur.... The time goes by so incredibly quickly."

Did any of the justices give Sanders a hard time at argument?

"I don't think anyone gave me a gratuitously hard time," he said. "Sometimes you read about justices pounding away at an advocate, but in my case they asked skeptical questions of both sides.... I had encountered more skepticism and hostility in my moot court sessions than I did today."

In our earlier post, we wondered if Sanders was going to argue without notes. In the end, Sanders brought notes up to the podium with him, but barely used them:

I argued with very few notes. I had the text of maybe a forty- or fifty-word opening statement typed out that I had more or less committed to memory, and one page in outline form with four major points and maybe three or four subpoints, short bullet points under each point. As a practical matter, I didn't look at them.

I thought seriously about doing it without any notes. What I noticed in my moot court sessions was that I brought up notes but never referred to them anyway. But you still like to have something to look down at in case you have a moment without questions.

And how did Sanders snag a coveted SCOTUS argument?

It was a case of creating opportunities for oneself in light of Mayer Brown's entrepreneurial firm culture, said Sanders. While the case was in the Eighth Circuit, he became the person most knowledgeable about the immunity issues. When the time came for the Eighth Circuit argument, Sanders put himself forward as the person best situated to handle the argument, given the issues presented -- and received no pushback from partners or the client.

"I don't look like a 25-year-old," added Sanders, who had a prior career in university administration. "Maybe if I did there would have been a different outcome. I had also done several oral arguments before that."

So Sanders handled the argument in the Eighth Circuit. And even though the Eighth Circuit ruled against his client, Pottawattamie County, two factors gave the client confidence in Sanders and his ability to handle the Supreme Court argument.

First, there was a state-law immunity issue that the Eighth Circuit initially ruled against the county on. Sanders took the lead on the petition for rehearing. The court granted the petition and reversed itself on the state-law immunity issue, coming around to the position of Mayer Brown's client.

Second, after the County lost in the Eighth Circuit, it authorized a petition for certiorari. Sanders drafted the successful cert petition -- which also resulted in a stay on the lower-court proceedings issued by Justice Alito.

Once Sanders succeeded in securing cert, it started to look very much like "his" argument. "To the firm's credit, the idea never occurred to anyone to take the case away from me," said Sanders. "I had done the briefing at the cert stage and understood the case more intricately than anyone else. It didn't make sense for someone to get up to speed on it."

A fun factoid: Sanders is not yet a member of the Supreme Court bar. He had to argue pro hac vice, i.e., with the Court's permission for this particular argument.

Why couldn't he gain admission? He's too much of a legal "Doogie Howser." Sanders doesn't have the requisite years of legal practice:

I graduated law school in 2005, but I clerked for a year. Always being a procrastinator, I decided to sit for the bar after my clerkship. The required experience [for Supreme Court bar admission] is three years in practice. My date of three years in practice will be November 13, putting me about nine days short. So I had to be admitted pro hac vice.

Fortunately, getting admitted pro hac vice was "no big deal" (as a certain ATL commenter might say). It did require consent from opposing counsel -- in this case, former Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Clement agreed -- and sent Sanders a very nice note, saying something along these lines: "You'll have the distinction of not only relying on an opinion by Chief Judge Easterbrook, but joining him in the ranks of attorneys who have argued pro hac vice." (Apparently Frank Easterbrook argued pro hac vice for some part of his time in the Solicitor General's office.)

Was Sanders surprised by any aspect of his Supreme Court experience?

It was interesting to discover how relatively informal the Court is, and how genuinely nice and helpful the people are in the Clerk's Office and the Marshal's Office. Their docket is so small, so they can give you personal attention. In other courts' offices, you get the impression that they're trying to hide the ball or don't particularly like the attorneys they deal with. I found here that I could always call the Clerk's Office and they were always very helpful.

Now that the argument is over, what's next for Sanders? Is he going to Disneyworld?

Alas, no. Although he did go out to dinner that evening with friends from law school, some of whom attended the argument, an appellate lawyer's work is never done.

"I have three new cases to work on that are just getting started," Sanders told us. They include an amicus brief in a Ninth Circuit appeal, an appellee's brief in a Sixth Circuit case, and an amicus brief in a Supreme Court habeas case.

Congratulations on the argument, Steve -- and good luck as you wait for the decision!

P.S. One final interesting tidbit. Steve Sanders is an openly gay lawyer who has worked on a number of LGBT causes (as you can see from his personal website). Lindsay Harrison, another Biglaw associate who argued before the Court recently, is also out and has litigated LGBT rights cases (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas).

It's highly unusual for a Biglaw associate to argue before the Supreme Court. Of the two that we're aware of in 2009, both are gay. Why are LGBT lawyers so awesome?

Mayer Brown Associate Makes Debut Before Supreme Court [Appellate.net (linkwrap)]

Earlier: Mayer Brown Associate Makes His Supreme Court Debut
Jenner & Block Associate Argues Her First Case - In the Supreme Court
Update: Jenner & Block Associate Scores SCOTUS Win

Colman Herman wrote a piece for Commonwealth magazine exploring the "shadowy underworld" of college papers for purchase. The journalist went cruising on Craigslist for people advertising thesis-generating services. He e-mailed 66 people. Among the 62 respondents was Bonazzoli:

Damian Bonazzolli (sic), who promised a "quality grade" if he was hired to write the 20-page paper, responded to an initial inquiry by sending, unsolicited, his résumé. It indicated he is a senior staff attorney for the Massachusetts Appeals Court, a job that pays him $94,000 a year, according to state records. He wanted $300 to write the paper on physician-assisted suicide.

In an email exchange, Bonazzolli (sic) [FN1] said turning in a paper that he had written would not be illegal. "I am aware of no state or federal statute that prohibits such a practice. This is not the equivalent of, say, lying on a federal employment or tax form," he said. "Could your school take disciplinary action? Of course. But that's quite different from a criminal prosecution."

We hope no law students have hired Bonazzoli to do legal analysis for them. His is not up to par when it comes to Massachusetts law.

Passed in 1972, the Massachusetts statute outlaws the sale of a "theme, term paper, thesis or other paper or the written results of research" if those involved know or have reason to know that the material will be submitted for academic credit and represented as original work. The law also prohibits individuals from taking an exam for someone else... Violators are subject to a fine of not more than $100, imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Sixteen other states have similar laws, and most colleges and universities have policies on academic integrity prohibiting students from passing off someone else's work as their own.

Legal Blog Watch links to the relevant statute.

Despite the laws against this, there are numerous businesses (Papergeeks.com, 15000papers.com, Schoolsucks.com, and echeat.com) that advertise their services online, with slogans like "It's not cheating, it's collaborating."

Stetson's law school dean weighs in to say that it's a big problem nationwide:

But Darby Dickerson, dean of the law school at Stetson University in Gulfport, Florida, and the author of a 2007 article on academic plagiarism in the Villanova Law Review that said "cheating and plagiarism are as common on college campuses as dirty laundry and beer."

If you were among those laid off by Goodwin Procter, it sounds like the kids at Stetson might have some work for you.

FN1 - The journalist misspelled Bonazzoli's name with two "l"s. According to his listing with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, his last name has just one "l". Unfortunately for his search results, we've corrected the record on this in our post.

Term paper trafficking [Commonwealth]
Appeals Court Lawyer 'Traffics' in Term Papers [Legal Blog Watch]
Mass. Appeals Court Lawyer Reportedly Offered to Write Term Paper for $300 [ABA Journal]

Now we plummet back to earth to turn the LEWW spotlight on more ordinary folk. This week's contestant-couples:

1. Lisa Klein and Blake Sparrow

2. Sarah Goodstine and Laurie Levin

3. Rachel Moston and Garrett Ross

Get the scoop on these newlyweds, after the jump.

The Case:
- This vivacious-looking bride, a magna cum laude graduate of Mount Holyoke College, is an events coordinator.
- Her groom graduated cum laude from Amherst and is studying for a JD at Howard. He's also the editor-in-chief of the Howard Law Journal.

The Case Against:
- The groom apparently goes by "X. Blake Sparrow." LEWW can't decide whether that's effete or totally bad-ass.

2. Sarah Goodstine and Laurie Levin
(Buy them a coffee pot.)

The Case:
- These brides met at Northwestern Law School, from which they both graduated cum laude (Laurie, on the right, also received an MBA from Northwestern). Both also have undergraduate degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, Sarah magna cum laude and Laurie cum laude.
- Both women are associates at law firms in New York. Sarah is at Patterson Belknap; Laurie is at Goodwin Procter.

The Case Against:
- They greedily had two weddings, a real one in Massachusetts and a fake one in backward Pennsylvania. There were also two proposals.

3. Rachel Moston and Garrett Ross
(Buy them a slow cooker.)

The Case:
- Another two-JD couple, this pair met as students at Brooklyn Law School. She graduated cum laude; he was magna.
- Rachel, a graduate of Haverford College, is an assistant corporation counsel at the New York City Law Department in Manhattan. Garrett, who went to the University of Wisconsin, is an associate at Cahill, Gordon & Reindel.

The Case Against:
- In LEWW's experience, facial hair in Biglaw is fairly rare. A bold expression of rugged individuality, or just lumberjack-weird?

The Verdict:
- Two law degrees from Northwestern and two plum Biglaw jobs, Team Goodstine-Levin is the clear winner this week. Congratulations to both brides!

I mean no offense by this, but isn't the Southern New England School of Law not a very good law school? There's a reason the school isn't accredited, right? I just don't see how raising the profile of bad law schools is the right way to go.

Apparently, Southern New England School of Law took offense. The Boston Globe reports:

"My students and faculty have been maligned,'' the school's dean, Robert Ward, said during a recent tour of campus, a 75,000-square-foot three-story building next to an outlet mall in North Dartmouth.

Ward acknowledged his school has a way to go to meet national accreditation standards, but said it is far from the crumbling, financially destitute failure critics portray it to be.

He noted a retired appeals court judge -- a Harvard Law graduate, no less -- among his 13-member faculty.

Putting aside the question of whether or not Southern New England is a good school, can we get back to the question of whether Massachusetts needs a public law school?

Tuition and fees, currently $22,175, would be raised slightly to $23,500, still nearly half the cost of Suffolk and New England School of Law. State education officials say the public connection would allow the law school to build upon the strengths of UMass-Dartmouth - public policy, environment, and marine studies.

None other than Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree is in favor of the school:

"I certainly applaud the idea of Massachusetts having a major public law school,'' said Charles Ogletree, a Harvard Law School professor who directs the school's Institute for Race and Justice.

"The interest here is to find more people who are eager to engage in public service. The needs have never been greater, given the number of poor clients who lack access to legal services,'' he said.

It is obvious that there is a need for more lawyers willing to serve poor clients. But, once again, I fail to see how $23,500 in tuition accomplishes this goal. Who the hell takes on up to $70K in debt to work a low-income, public interest job?

There are a lot of schools that cost a lot of money that produce a smattering of public interest lawyers. But the vast majority of people spending $70K are going to want to go into profitable, private practice.

This argument that Southern New England Law School at U. Mass. is going to produce an army of public interest lawyers seems intellectually dishonest. I don't know how low tuition needs to go to allow people to go through three years of legal education and take a low-paying job at legal aid, but I know it's got to be lower than $23,500.

But John O'Brien, dean of New England School of Law, questioned the feasibility of UMass's plan to generate enough revenue to prepare the school for national accreditation. Other new law schools have had to significantly discount tuition in their initial years of operation to entice talented students to enroll, he said.

"You can't expect good students to come who could otherwise go to an accredited school,'' O'Brien said.

This brings us back to the question of the quality of education that will be available at Southern New England should it merge with U. Mass. Essentially, the most compelling argument that the school would produce a bunch of public servants is that its graduates won't be able to get jobs anywhere else. "Don't worry, our graduates won't be able to get spots in Biglaw or even mid-law, so we'll be training the public defenders of the future. :-)"

And that's a fine argument -- albeit horribly cynical. And I'm sure there are students who will be going to Southern New England who don't want to do anything other than work on asylum cases or some other field of law where there is a critical lack of attorneys. Some, but not all. Why? Because people don't usually fork over $70K for psychic goods. "Working-class" people don't usually commit to a $70,000 burden for the opportunity to make less than a plumber.

We have more than enough schools that produce public interest lawyers by default. What we need is a school that is going to really focus on public work and make it a possible and economically viable career option for most of its graduates. Southern New England has still failed to make a cogent argument for how their school is going to accomplish that goal.

Law school takes on its detractors [Boston Globe]

Earlier: How Much Is a Law School Worth?

"Listen, most of the people we get off are intoxicated. But that's the justice system," [Tyler Flood] says. "I've always thought people would be very concerned if they knew what we were doing."

Really? You think people would be concerned by your practice of setting drunk drivers free to careen down the streets of your city? Who would have a problem with that?

More from Flood after the jump.

Attorneys like Flood make their good living on shredding the baby prosecutors who in Houston use DWI trials to cut their teeth. "It's not hard to win sometimes. You can kind of prey on them a little bit," Flood says.

Your tax dollars, hard at work.

Everybody is of course entitled to a competent defense. And another prominent DWI defense attorney, Doug Murphy, suggests Texas lawmen are targeting wealthy drunkards:

Murphy claims cops target people driving nice cars or from nice bars for DWI arrests, hoping they'll pay to fight in court, which brings extra overtime. He keeps handy a 2006 Houston Chronicle article that found one DWI officer making more than $100,000 of overtime in a single year. DWI lawyers say they now get a huge chunk of business from Washington Avenue. (They should get another boost from the 1,200 convictions that will be revisited now that a Texas Department of Public Safety employee was caught faking breathalyzer inspection records.)

That's a good argument. But aren't we fundamentally talking about drunk people driving cars and potentially injuring or killing people? Attorneys like Flood aren't exactly dealing with a sympathetic clientele.

But hey, lawyers gotta eat too.

Getting Off [Houston Press]

The Job of the Week, brought to you by Lateral Link, is with a stellar boutique that is looking for a superstar associate to join its growing ranks. Even in a strong economy, great opportunities like this one don't come along very often.

Title: Litigation Associate

Location: Houston

Description: A high-end litigation boutique is seeking a 2007 or 2008 grad with general commercial or IP litigation experience. The firm requires stellar academic credentials and writing skills, and the ability to manage cases by yourself. Clerkships are preferred but not required. The firm is open to relocators.

For more information about this position, please contact Lateral Link's Texas Director, Gary Cohen. Current Lateral Link members can also view Position #5397 on Lateral Link. Membership in Lateral Link is free and you can apply at www.laterallink.com.

In addition, we are still collecting salary data for the Career Center so please take a minute to tell us about compensation at your law firm -- AFTER THE JUMP.

• Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (gay associate who accused partner of directing him to "bend over");

• Jennifer Braude v. Maron Marvel (allegations of lesbianic / girl-on-girl sexual harassment); and

• Charlene Morisseau v. DLA Piper (African-American female associate filed $250 million lawsuit against her former firm; firm accused plaintiff of rudeness and insubordination, e.g., throwing a partner out of her office).

Today's Lawsuit of the Day, Alan Levy v. Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP (PDF), is a similar suit. Alan Levy (pictured), a former associate at Sedgwick, alleges that his employment was terminated on the basis of disability -- to wit, severe depression and a breakdown, brought on in part by the abusive treatment he received at the hands of a partner, Scott Haworth.

So, what was the alleged abuse inflicted upon Levy by Haworth?

Ah, 125 Broad Street. Misery loves company.

Covering up a partner's affair -- what's the billing code for that? Firm Admin?

Marijuana? This reflects poorly on Scott Haworth. Hard-charging litigators use cocaine, not pot.

Those are the juiciest bits; the rest of the complaint, which gets into a "he said / they said" regarding whether and when Levy could return to work after taking medical leave, is less exciting. But you can access it if you like by clicking on the link below.

P.S. Disclosure: We have known the plaintiff, Alan Levy, for a number of years, dating back to the college parliamentary debate circuit.

Alan Levy v. Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP: Complaint [PDF]

[W]e believe it would be irresponsible to recruit a class for the summer of 2010 - a class that would normally join us in late 2011 or early 2012, the same time our current class of summer associates would be joining us after the one year deferral - until we know how many of our 2009 summer associates accept their one-year deferred offers. We need to prioritize the interests of our current Orrick summer associates over the law students whom we have not yet met and who would otherwise be competing for the same positions.

For these reasons we have decided to shift our on-campus recruiting efforts from the normal time-frame to November 15, 2009 through March of 2010. After the November 15th NALP deadline, we will know how many of our current summer associates accept their deferred offers, and we will be able to better assess our needs for recruiting 2L associates for a 2010 summer program. We expect to reach out to 2L and possibly 1L students during this shifted time frame to meet our summer 2010 recruiting needs.

Well, we're getting pretty close to November 15th. And Orrick has been placing recruiting ads at a law school near you. But some Above the Law tipsters are surprised that Orrick is doing exactly what Orrick said it would do:

I assumed that was BS though and figured it was just a way to avoid saying they weren't recruiting at all. Given how things are going, why would they basically go to recruit fromt the bottom half of the class?

You know, when this whole recession is over, we are going to need to have some trust building exercises between firm management and employees.

Orrick didn't lie back in July. They really are recruiting. Check it out after the jump.

Title: 2L Summer Associates in Washington, DC

Description: The Washington, D.C. office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe is seeking applicants for our 2010 Summer Program. We are looking for second-year law students with grades in the top 33% of their class. We consider other factors, including Law Review, Moot Court participation, student activities and previous work experience. We also take into consideration attributes we believe are important in the practice of law, such as leadership ability, independence, poise and maturity. The weight given to any one factor varies with each application.

One tipster wonders if Orrick is setting its standards a little high:

They're 33% guideline essentially is saying were looking only for people who have already accepted offers.

Well, you know, maybe Orrick doesn't care if people have accepted offers elsewhere.

But it's more likely that Orrick expects that there are 2Ls running around in the top third of their class that do not have offers yet. We are in a recession after all.

Earlier: Breaking: Orrick Overhauls On-Campus Recruiting
Should 2Ls Accept All of Their Offers to The Detriment of Fellow Students

* Does Bernard Kerik's guilty plea end Rudy Giuliani's nightmare? [Huffington Post]

* Dallas = not racist. [Courthouse News Service]

* Doesn't anybody respect attorney-client privilege anymore? This isn't 'Nam. There are rules. [Am Law Daily]

* Honestly, I'm more worried about gamma rays from distant black holes than I am about cell phone radiation. And no, I'm not at all worried about gamma rays. [Law.com]

* People seemed to like music on Fridays. So, in honor of the (Damn) Yankees:

We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums... drums in the deep. We cannot get out ... they are coming.

The University of Iowa College of Law -- that's right, Iowa -- is receiving a record number of applications. The administration sent out this, almost taunting, email:

Greetings from The University of Iowa College of Law:

We have nearly completed a busy Fall travel schedule. Also, it has been a very successful travel season, as reflected in our total application numbers to date: Applications to The University of Iowa College of Law have increased 62% versus this time last year, and the quality and diversity of those applications has increased significantly, as well. It is still early in the admissions season, so we will see if these positive signs hold up over the long term. These increases do, however, reinforce the strengths of The University of Iowa College of Law:

I don't even know how to make sense of a 62% increase in applications. But I'll try after the jump.

But let me pose the question this way: Is there anybody in Iowa that can come up with a better way to spend $60,000 over the course of three years? I mean, is farming really that bad? You get to be outdoors, live a healthy lifestyle, and work with your hands. What is wrong with that?

Clearly, a number of people who are applying to law school this year are suffering from severe lack of career creativity. Are there and alternative career ideas for these people before they commit to the legal lifestyle?

Of course, if people are still trying to decide between doing something productive with the next three years -- or going to law school -- Iowa has these selling points:

1. We are a law school that is fully focused on student success and achievement. This focus results in success in national ranking exercises and polling of law schools.

2. We continue to have a strong national reputation. Our placement process sends graduates all over the country.

3. Iowa Law School students mention how they really enjoy attending law school in Iowa City, an active and thriving public research University community.

4. We are affordable: Iowa Law School students graduate with approximately $21,000 less debt than the national average for law school graduates.

5. We have a small entering class of 200 students, which compares favorably with our peer institutions which have entering classes that range from 240 students to as many as 400 students.

6. We have students and faculty who are civil to each other. They know how to disagree without being disagreeable.

7. We support research institutes, scholarly publications and clinics in the following academic and professional areas of interest:

Research Institutes: Public Affairs, Nonprofit Law, International Human Rights, and International Finance and Development.

Scholarly Publications: Corporation Law, International Law, Civil Rights Law, and The Iowa Law Review.

Clinical Opportunities: Assistive Technology and Disabilities, Consumer Rights, Criminal Defense, Disability Rights, Domestic Violence, Civil Law, Immigration, Nonprofit Organizations, and Workers' Rights.

Another strength of the University of Iowa College of Law is the application review process: It is holistic. We read the entire application for admission. Academic numbers are the most important piece of criteria, but academic numbers alone do not stand as representative of the criteria for admission in our evaluation process. We also use Personal Statements, Letters of Recommendation and a resume to assess the nonacademic factors that exist in every application for admission. This process produces the following results: 99% retention rate, 99% graduation rate, 99% placement rate, and a 93% Bar passage rate.

According to U.S. News, Iowa had an 87.4% employed at graduation statistic last year. Are there Iowa law students that can tip us off on how recruiting is going this year?

In any event, a 62% increase in law school applications at Iowa probably tells you all you need to know about the future of legal salaries. It's not pretty.

Prospective law students, please take a look at some of the links below. I pulled them up off the top of my head just from the past two weeks on Above the Law. You should be paying attention to stories like these. I'm trying to help you.

Earlier: Boston College Law School Has A Plan For Its Jobless 1Ls and 2Ls
Colorado Law Employment Correction
New Villain in Law School Debt Tragedy
Graduate from 'Tier 1' Law School Decides Education is Worth $0

* The Anonymous Lawyer opines on Biglaw bonuses. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Justice Antonin Scalia will be speaking at Ohio State. Any chance he's looking for clerks? [Moritz College of Law]

* Stealing court documents in plain sight. [The Victorious Opposition]

* Why does Facebook hate pregnant women? [Gothamist]

* Anyone wondering why Carrie Prejean abruptly settled her suit with the Miss America people? It's pretty hot, or horrible, I can't decide. [TMZ]