STACITA.

Link. I wouldn't agree to Article 20 either.

So, according to the Attorney General for the United States, Alberto Gonzalez, the U.S. Constitution does NOT protect the right of an individual to petition for habeas corpus. Are you kidding me?? Okay, so I might be biased, but a) HC is specifically discussed as a right in the Constitution, b) the right was crafted from British law and c) it's one of the most fundamental protections in democracy from arbitrary imprisonment by the government against an individual citizen.

For real, Alb? For REAL? I thought that we're supposed to be spreading freedom and democracy, and yet YOU cannot find protection for HC in the Constitution -- the bedrock of our democratic state? What the FUCK are they teaching you Harvard grads anyway?

Check out the exchange between Gonzalez and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17:

Gonzales: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. ...

Specter: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's an invasion or rebellion?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except...

Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

Abovethelaw.com -- along with a myriad of other buzzing sources -- reported today that Simpson Thacher in NYC has raised first-year associate salaries to $160,000 (from $145K). Cadwalader, Cleary Gottlieb, Milbank Tweed, Paul Weiss, and Sullivan & Cromwell have all followed in the salary war that has driven the compensation level of new associates up $20-30K or so in the last year alone. The pay scale now looks like this:

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000

 

Other law blogs have begun to sound off -- with my favorite comment so far posted on WSJ law blog:

No wonder the State of California finds it so difficult to find competent attorneys anymore. With a starting salary of $56,000 per year and a top end of $125,000, its amazing anyone with anything better than average ability works for the state.
Comment by anon - January 23, 2007 at 7:57 pm

 

Yet, I am reminded of the recent coverage in San Francisco Magazine on why it sucks so bad for young lawyers -- lower partner to associate ratios (from 1 partner:3-5 associates to currently 1 partner:1.8 associates), to droves of mid-level associates jumping ship, etc. I'm afraid to say that I already know a few peers in the class of '06 planning their own exit strategy.

The real question is -- is it worth it? Are the new associates worth the $160K? Are the long hours, weekends, missed holidays and drain on relationships worth it? What does this do for work/life balance... does that even exist? Can you still sell out for a few years, pay the debt, and then free yourself of the golden handcuffs? Is the money a fair trade-off?

I think this posting from WSJ says it best:

Almost a year ago, Sullivan & Cromwell raised starting salaries by $20K from $125K to $145K. Yesterday, Simpson announced a further $15K increase in starting salaries to $160K. Why have salaries gone up by nearly 30% in a year? To staunch the flow of midlevels to the investment banks, hedge funds, PE shops, in-house counsel and myriad other jobs that promise either higher pay, a better quality of life, or in rare cases, both.

I do not intend to sound ungrateful for the increase in salary, I am just another associate at a big New York firm with over $100K in law school debts to repay who knows how much any extra money helps that cause. But is there a price point where more associates will stop grumbling about poor working environments and stay at these firms for the long-haul?

Obviously a $20K increase was not enough to slow the attrition rate. Now firms are hoping that another $15K might get people to stick around? What about asking the tougher questions such as why turnover is so high in New York law firms? Or why associates secretly, or not so secretly, begin planning their own exit strategies from day one on the job? Or what senior associates and partners could do to keep their juniors from jumping ship? Perhaps better management techniques should be taught to those at the top, such as learning how to manage upward ( i.e. the clients' expectations) rather than caving in to every whim of the client and promising unreasonable deliverables. Since the big law firms seem to do everything else in tandem , maybe they should strike a gentlemen's agreement to push back on clients' unreasonable demands. Such a move could eliminate the fear that if a partner at Firm X says no to a client on a Friday afternoon to drafting an entire Merger Agreement by Monday morning, the client will just go to Firm Y to get it done. In the process, a small legion of junior associates will be more grateful for actually having their weekend to themselves for a change and more willing to sacrifice when absolutely necessary.

Whatever the solution is, while a boost in salary is nice for everyone, it fails to address the underlying problems as to why third- and fourth-year associates flee New York firms in droves, creating the apparent shortage today. Maybe New York firms should finally begin critically assessing their management structures and treatment of their subordinates.

Comment by Let's Think For a Second - January 23, 2007 at 11:58 am

Smooches: The Columbian.  

I got my motorcycle license!! I got power between my thighs!!

No seriously, there is nothing cooler than being a badass on a motorcycle. I rode a Kawasaki 250 cc hog and passed the test to become a certified California motorcyclist. Getcha motor runnin!

It really is the most amazing show out there. And it's not because it's amazingly written or because these characters have this unbelievable chemistry.

It's because you can identify with so much of their honest reactions, and because sometimes, it's an hour where you pour all your attention away from your life, only to realize that you later connect directly with it. Life, that is.

Last night, full on sobbing. George's father died - they took him off life support, and all I could think was Gramps. George said that he can't imagine his life without his dad in it ... and I realized that neither could I. Sure, I've been thinking a ton about my grandfather, but watching that show let me just release all this pent-up sorrow and remorse, and it felt fucking great. 

It's just good that my roommate wasn't here. It would have scared the shit out of her.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm totally Izzy. :) 

I think the line about the Yalta Summit of Vagina is the best.

Ah yes. This morning, I pull up SFGate.com and what is one of the TOP stories, but -- "Male Panda Said Too Fat to Have Sex." Ahhh. Mental pictures galore. How life imitates art.

Do you know the reason that he can't have sex? It's not because he's so fat that he can't find his dingle-dongle under all the layers of panda black-and-white fat... NO! It's because the GIRL Panda is too uncomfortable. Weighing in at a mere 253 lbs., Girl Slut Panda Lin Hui cannot take Sir Panda Fatness at 331 lbs. And trust me, no matter how much Sir Fatness tries to coax his beloved Pandho', all that extra poundage is not concentrated in his twigs and berries.

Which leads me to my next thought. Men will always take the sex, but women are more picky. Men would do just about anything, while the ladies draw the line. Here is a list of girl turn offs, in which I GUARANTEE a man would probably still do her if the lights were out and the music was loud:

1. Extreme stank. From any orifice.
2. Strange bodily noises (The female queef doesn't stop the action, but I betcha a male fart would.)
3. Bad facial expressions.
   
4. Contortion demands.
5. Excessive talking. (Are you there yet? How bout now? Now?)
   

Sigh. There's probably a sympathetic list of horror stories I'm missing where the girl, like the panda, rolled over and said, I just can't do you. Love it.

I shall don the deed "Not Gonna Panda to You."

AND BUY ME THIS!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

I need it. 

Chills. Fucking Chills. I NEVER want to hear from anyone ever again, "Oh, I didn't realize they were still together after Ten."

Smooches: Fucker. 

It's my first day as a HOT DAG! I'm nervous but super-duper excited!!

Except my pants are a bit snug in the tush. Damn you holidays!!

Wish me luck!