Massachusetts Releases List of Abandoned Property

Have you misplaced a safe deposit box or forgotten about a long lost savings account?  You may be in luck!  Massachusetts has released its list of people and entities who have abandoned property.  Unclaimed property will go to the state, so here’s your chance to reclaim what is rightfully yours.  There are 40,000 individuals and entities on the list, so there’s at least a colorable chance that you might be there.  How to find out if you’re on the list?  Click here.  Happy hunting!

Sidebar: Lawyers Can be Funny.

Miss P just discovered a blog called Litination.

It has everything from attorney dopplegangers to hysterical satirical stories about attorney life.  If you are sitting around your office bored because you wont have another project until that partner gets around to getting back to you, you should check it out to fill the time.  I know I am …

Editorial: Cooley, Godward & Kronish Doesn’t Layoff, it “Right-Sizes”

Mass Lawyers Weekly posted an article yesterday discussing the layoff ”right-sizing” at Cooley, Godward & Kronish on January 21st, 2009.  As MLW notes, back in December, it posted an article about “the firm’s billions of dollars in M&A transactions and venture/private equity financings,” so it was certainly the about-face when a month later it laid off 52 attorneys.

Cooley Godward’s Boston-office managing partner, John M. Hession, and Lester J. Fagan, the head of Cooley Godward’s business and technology group, had a ready explanation for this turn of event.  Unfortunately, they only speak in Euphemish.  Thankfully, Miss P speaks Euphemish, and is happy to translate the explanation to plain English:

 

According to MLW, Fagen stated that, “one can anticipate decreased transaction volume in 2009. We think that it’s extremely important for the organization be rightsized.”  ”Rightsizing,” Fagen explained, means “[having] appropriate staffing for the anticipated workflow.”

 

Translation: partners anticipate that there will be less transactional work in 2009, so it is extremely important for the health of profits per partner that the organization be relieved of the salaries of some number of associates.  Rightsizing means decreasing staffing until you anticipate that the workflow will just ever so slightly overwork those who are left.

Fagan went on to say, ”[A]re we certain that 2009 is not going to produce good results? Absolutely not. But we’re doing the prudent thing, for the benefit of virtually everybody in the organization.”

Translation: Are the Cooley Godward partners certain that 2009 is not going to produce good results?  Absolutely not.  But we’re doing the prudent thing for our own pocket books, for the benefit of virtually every partner in the organization.

 

Ashley Kanigher, a spokeswoman for Cooley Godward, even chimed in.  According to MLW, Ms. Kanigher says that you can’t look just to the connection between layoffs and profits (Question: so she’s recognizing but dismissing the connection between layoffs and profits?).   To Ms. Kanigher, its all about workload.  ”Hypothetically, if you kept everyone on board, you would have had attorneys sitting around with nothing to do…Part of it is making sure that the people who are there are busy, engaged, they’re active, they’re learning. That’s an important priority for the firm.”

Translation: If we didn’t fire people, you would have had attorneys who would not be over-worked … Part of it is making sure that the people who are there are overworked, stressed, they’re a little sleep deprived, they’re learning to review documents.  That is an important priority for the firm.”

Personally, this explanation makes total sense to Miss P.  If she’s not being over worked, stressed and a little sleep deprived by her job, she is miserable.  Thanks, Cooley Godward, for your very heartfelt explanation.  It certainly makes laid off associates feel much better about not having a job.

 

Sidebar: Are you confused by these pigs?

Fellow readers, Miss P is hoping you can help her settle a disagreement.  Miss P and Mr. P were in Brookline this weekend and discovered a new bakery which they love, When Pigs Fly.  While we were there, Mr. P says to me, “hey, is this the same company that makes those low fat brownies?”  As you may have imagined, I was appalled.  I said to Mr. P, “Absolutely not.  That is a totally different company!  Obviously.”  So we went home and pulled up the two pigs on line:

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me, this is clear as day and night.  ”Not so,” said Mr. P.  So, fellow readers, I pose to you that we put these two trademarks through the Polaroid factors and see whether there truly is a likelihood of confusion:

1. The strength of the mark;

The When Pigs Fly trademark is actually a stronger mark than the No Pudge mark.  Flying Pigs has absolutely nothing to with bread or the When Pigs Fly products, so it would qualify for the highest level of protection as an arbitrary and fanciful mark.  In contrast, “No Pudge” is a suggestive mark, because it indirectly describes the product – a treat that wont cause you to get pudgy, and therefore it is not as strong (though still pretty strong).  This factor weighs in favor of When Pigs Fly.

2. The degree of similarity of the two marks;

Here is where you’ll need to weigh in.  I think that though these are both cartoon drawings of pigs, they look nothing alike, and the No Pudge pig always seems to appear with the name No Pudge beneath him. Also, the When Pigs Fly pig is flying away, and the No Pudge pig is wearing a tape measure.  However, as Mr. P pointed out, they both have slanty-eye smiles, and when you aren’t scrutinizing them side by side, they are similar enough that he didn’t know if they were from the same company. This factor is a toss up.

3. The proximity of the goods or services;

Both products can be found within the same geographic location.  In fact, they can even purchased in some of the same local supermarkets, though one is located in the baking goods aisle, and the other in the bread section.  This factor weighs in favor of No-Pudge.

4. The likelihood that the senior user will bridge the gap;

 No-Pudge seems to be inclined to stick just to brownie mixes, but according to the When Pigs Fly’s website, they make a low-carb bread.  Arguably, this particular type of bread would could cause the most confusion as a “No-Pudge” bread.  Toss up.  

5. Actual confusion;

The only evidence of actual confusion that I have to present is Mr. P’s confusion.  However, I would fervently argue that he was more easily confused than the average consumer of bread and brownie goods.  Toss up.

6. Good faith usage of the mark;

There is absolutely no evidence that When Pigs Fly is not using the mark in good faith.  When Pigs Fly wins this factor.

7. The quality of the junior user’s product;

Mr. P and I sampled the junior user’s product this weekend, and I can bear witness to the fact that it is a product of excellent quality (and, I would argue, better quality than the senior user’s product.  Those brownies are okay, but this bread is Dee-lish).  This factor definitely weighs in favor of When Pigs Fly.

8. The sophistication of buyers.

The sophistication of consumers of bread and brownies is arguably pretty low, so this weighs in No Pudge’s favor.  

 

Having now gone through the factors, I still think When Pigs Fly is in the clear.  If you agree with Mr. P, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter (just don’t tell No Pudge please!).

Event: BBA New Lawyers Social (free food!) UPDATED

As promised, here is your reminder to attend the BBA’s New Lawyer’s Social event that is being held tomorrow, Wednesday the 25th at 6:00 pm at Revolutionary Rock Bar.  This should be a really fun event, but if that alone isn’t enough to get you to go, Miss P will be in attendance, (so if you want to try and guess who Miss P is, I suggest you go).

Here’s the deets, from the BBA’s website:

 

February Social Event:LAWYERS ROCK

Come to the next New Lawyers’ Section social event at the Revolution Rock Bar. Enjoy the sound of great rock music, show your moves on the giant dance floor, and catch up with old friends over some cocktails.

 

Admission is free, appetizers are provided [!!!!] and the cash bar has a great drink selection.

Just a reminder that you’ll need to sign up at the BBA’s website (and you’ll need to register if you haven’t done so yet).  If you have recently been laid off, you can pre-game this event by attending the BBA’s other program of the day, “Layoff Survival Skills for Laywers.”  For more information about this event, go here.

Attorney Group Therapy: A Partner’s Child’s Family Picture*

* Drawn by Miss P based on a real picture described by a tipster.  Real names have not been used.

Attorney Masochism: The Layoff Count

First, just so you know starting at midnight tonight there will be a three day moratorium on layoff discussions on this blog (unless I get a really good tip for which it would be against public policy not to post).   That said, if you really, really need to see a layoff count list, Mass Lawyer’s Weekly has started to compile its own list.  As you’ll see, they also have some Boston specific data, so its definitely a good resource.  And if you’re not feeling quite depressed enough, read about this survey done by the Mass Bar Association which basically says what most of us already know: times are hard for lawyers and they aren’t getting better any time soon.

 Now go buy some flowers and give them to your sweetheart, especially if she was just laid off yesterday.  And don’t forget the Perrier Jouet (and if you were just laid off, a bottle of Prosecco will do fine).

Expecting Parents In Breakdown Lane Snafu Off the Hook For $100 Ticket

Unless you were out of town or under a total media iron curtain, you probably remember hearing about the couple who were ticketed for driving in the breakdown lane on their way to the hospital back in December.  After an initially one-sided story came out in the Globe, facts started coming out showing that the ticket was the result of poor decision making by both the officer and the parents.  The story goes like this:

Jennifer and John Davis, from Dracut, were excited expectant parents who had picked a hospital where they preferred to have their baby, just like many excited expecting parents do.  Unfortunately, the hospital they picked, Mount Auburn, was not exactly near where they lived.  So as babies tend to do, the Davis’ baby decided it was time to come at a rather inconvenient time, just before rush hour.  Rather than head straight to the hospital, the Davis couple first took their other child to school, (at a time when her contractions were 5 minutes apart), and then headed to the hospital, getting caught in rush hour traffic on Route 2 in the process.  

So here is the first debatable decision they made: rather than go to the much closer local hospital, the Davis’ decided to drive past rush hour traffic in the breakdown lane.  The first two troopers they encountered let them pass, but the third, Trooper Michael Galluccio, wouldn’t.  Here is the second debatable decision they made: Trooper Galluccio offered (twice) to call them an ambulance, but they refused, and asked to continue driving in the breakdown lane.  

Let’s be clear though that Trooper Galluccio was no saint either:  he asked Mrs. Davis “what’s under the jacket,” and motioned for her to unzip it to prove that she was pregnant.  The Trooper then made the couple wait when he went and wrote them a citation for $100 for driving in the breakdown lane.  

According to today’s Boston Herald, the Davis’ are now off the hook for the ticket.  After the couple got a clerk magistrate to throw out the ticket, the state police appealed the decision.  According to the article, when the Globe got wind of it and contacted the state police, they dropped their appeal, saying that it didn’t “serve the interest of justice.”  

Arguably, its more like it didn’t “serve the interest of publicity.”  

I find the whole administration of this case troubling.  First, the Trooper was clearly out of line, and arguably risked a major lawsuit against the state police by his actions.  What if Mrs. Davis was closer to having the baby than she was?  What if her delay caused her to have to have the baby right there on Route 2 (Route 2 = too gross to birth a baby.  Maybe she could have set up a little area in the privacy of the abandoned Faces building??).  

However, I don’t think that just letting the Davis’ go without addressing their own contributions to the situation is the answer either.  The Davis’ clearly made some poor decisions, and what precedent does it set for the next round of expectant parent who get caught in traffic while in labor?  It is not entirely unforeseeable that it could happen, and that they could think “well I heard about that story in the paper about the couple who drove in the breakdown lane” and so follow their example, and then end up causing an accident by driving into someone who was legitimately using the breakdown lane when their car broke down.  Over the top law school style hypothetical?  I don’t think so, but maybe you disagree.  How would you have handled this case?

 

I just remembered how many people were laid off yesterday.  Time for another drink.

Happy Friday the 13th: Yes, Yesterday Actually Happened.

Yes, more firms than Goodwin laid off yesterday.  Frankly, if you were as stressed out about it as I was, you probably went for a walk in the unnaturally warm weather too and pretended it didn’t happen.  But it did.  Here is a brief recap of the wreckage:

1. Holland and Knight:

243 total layoffs

70 lawyers, 173 support staff

2. DLA Piper:

180 total layoffs

80 lawyers, 100 support staff

3. Epstein Becker:

53 total layoffs

23 lawyers, 30 support staff

4. Dechert:

19 attorneys

And for the sake of completeness:

5. Nixon Peabody (earlier this week):

20 attorneys, 36 staff.

 

Does your head hurt yet?

If you are reading this because you don’t have a job this morning, my heart goes out to you.  It may be comforting to reflect on the fact that you are not alone, and this was not performance based.  On the other hand, it may be stressful to reflect on that fact, because it also means that you have a ton of competition out there.  

Do you remember when you graduated from college and you couldn’t find a job so you took an “unpaid internship” to fill your resume until you did? The only real difference between then and now is that college doesn’t pay severance.

If you are looking for Miss P, you can probably find her today in a bar drinking straight through until tomorrow.  

If you have any information about how the Boston offices were specifically affected by these layoffs, or have any information about the severance packages, please send me an email or post in the comments.

Layoff Alert: Goodwin Partners Hold Emergency Meeting UPDATED

If you recall from Monday, BCL received a tip that Goodwin partners held an emergency meeting last Friday.  If you haven’t already heard, Goodwin announced layoffs today which affect 38 attorneys and 36 staff members (a reduction of about 4% for each group).

For a recap of the carnage and the official GP statement, see Above the law.  Otherwise, if you have more information about how many people were affected in the Boston office, or what the severance package looks like, please shoot me an email or post in the comments.

I’ll update when I have more information.

Fewer People Want To Be Lawyers This Month

As a break from talking about all of the lawyers who have lost this job over the past year, lets talk about all of the wise JDs who have decided not to take the bar this month.

According to Mass Lawyers Weekly, there are fewer registrants to sit for the Massachusetts bar this February.  As the article notes, registration rates have been dropping since 2006, (and February numbers tend to be lower than the July numbers), but this February only 629 future unemployed lawyers have signed up.

Considering the fee to take the bar is $815, does it really matter if it is referred to as the “Passachusetts” if it still can’t get you a job?  Although another blogger [though I can't remember which!] reasoned that you’re still a lawyer even if you aren’t an employee, my feeling is, that’s all well and noble but it wont pay your gas bill.

Good luck to the 629 registrants… Or maybe we shouldn’t wish them luck?  After all, anyone who passes the exam will be eligible to compete for the 5 jobs available to the hundreds of unemployed laywers in Massachusetts.  Anyone up for tossing a stink bomb into the testing room?

Attorney Group Therapy: Moral Compass Does Not Always Guide You To An Offer

Do you have a story for which you could use a little Attorney Group Therapy?  If it qualifies under The Rules, send it to me at Bostoncommonlaw@gmail.com and I’ll post it.

This first story comes from a recovering attorney who still remembers the incident vividly 15 years after the fact.  For purposes of this story, we’ll call her Ethical Emily (“Emily”).

Emily’s story begins much like it does for many lawyers: summering at a large local law firm (“The Firm”), doing research and legal writing, and dreaming of a permanent offer and the dollar signs that go with it.  Emily, as it turns out, had also paid attention in her Ethics for Lawyers I class during her first year of law school, and knew it was generally a bad idea to lie  misrepresent the law, though until that summer she had never had the opportunity to apply her newfound wisdom.

While summering at The Firm, Emily was assigned to do what she did best as a summer -research and write memos- for Partner X.  Partner X, as it turned out, had just represented to a bankruptcy judge that case law existed which supported his position on an issue of property law, and wanted Emily to find said case law and write it up in a memo.  Much to Emily’s misfortune, this particular type of assignment (“The Goosechase”) is typically reserved for enslaved first year associates, not prized and uncommitted summer associates, but there was nothing to be done about it.

After researching and researching, it became apparent to Emily that she had encountered a problem: the case law unwaveringly failed to support Partner X’s position on the issue.  Like innumerable associates before and after her, Emily walked to Partner X’s office, handed him her research results, and informed him of the devestating but unalterable news.  

The veins in Partner X’s neck began to bulge.   He shut the door behind Emily, and told her to sit down. 

Partner X proceeded to explain to Emily that he had already represented to the judge that he had supporting case law, and that she had better arrive at a different conclusion in her research memo.  Emily, internally consulting her Ethics For Lawyers I Course Pack, told Partner X that she couldn’t do that because the case law didn’t support his conclusion, and that she wouldn’t misstate the law. 

Partner X, a wiley fellow, would not give up on Emily.  He explained to her that as a summer associate, she could not be disbarred because she had not yet been admitted to the bar.  Therefore, Partner X reasoned, she should just do it. 

Emily stuck to her guns, inhaled deeply, and refused again.  

Partner X slammed his fist on the table.  He reminded Emily that he was not only a partner, but that he was the hiring partner, and suggested that she should go back to her office and reconsider his request.

Emily did what any self respecting summer associate would do.  She returned to her office and bawled.  But she didn’t give in.  Instead, Emily avoided that partner for the last two weeks of the summer program. 

Emily’s reward for her first ungraded ethical test?  She received the honor of being the only summer associate not to receive a permanent job offer.*  

Do not feel sorry for Emily, fellow readers.  Being the bright girl that she is, Emily received a permanent job offer at a rival Boston firm. 

And what about Partner X?  Emily reports that Partner X is still in practice to this day. 

Here is what I pose to you: In this economy where many firms are only making offers to a fraction of their summer class, would you be willing to lie if a partner asked you to, if your permanent offer was on the line?

* Well, there was one other who went home empty handed, but as Emily describes, the other summer intern “wasn’t too bright.”

Attorney Group Therapy

You’re probably wondering what the title of this post is all about.

A fellow reader has had the truly brilliant idea that we should have a forum to discuss the all too familiar episodes of outrageous treatment by partners of associates (and of other more junior partners as well, if we’re being honest). 

Most of us have stories for which we could use a little attorney group therapy.  If you care to share yours, please email me all the details at bostoncommonlaw@gmail.com, and if its good, I’ll post it on the blog.

Here are the Rules:

1. The incident must have happened in Boston/Cambridge, or at the very least somewhere in Massachusetts.

2.  No lying.  To be clear: Your story must be true.  Please no “the partner sprouted horns and a tail” stories.

3.  When deciding whether to submit your story, think about whether it would evoke one of these reactions: (1) Oh my God that happened to me too!; or (2) Oh my God, I can’t believe that really happened!  If so, please submit.

4. This is not to be a forum to air personal grievances or slander any one or any entity.  No information specifically identifying the partner or exact firm, please.

5. Preferrably the story happened sometime in the last five years.  If its older but REALLY good, though, definitely submit.

Those are the rules.  Let the AA (Attorneys Anonymous) group session begin!

Sidebar: Mass General Dumb Laws Annotated

Because I am bored, I decided to do a little posting I’d like to call Massachusetts General Dumb Laws Annotated (“MGDLA”).  If you google any state’s “dumb laws,” you’ll get loads of websites but there are no citations to prove any of them actually exist (see, e.g., the one about taking your lion to the movie theater).  Well, I’ve taken a gander at the Mass General Laws, and provided an MGL citation for each one I mention below, along with my own annotation for each.  Open further review, I would not call all of these “dumb” per se, (as you will see below), but are noteworthy because (1) they still exist; (2) I have no earthly idea what purpose they serve; or (3) the fact that they exist shows how dumb someone out there was that we need to have a law to criminalize that particular activity.  If you have an annotation of your own, please post in the comments. 

MGL Chapter 270: Crimes Against Public Health 

1. MGL Ch. 270 s. 8:  You can be fined up to $100 for selling candy containing more than 1% alcohol. 

This law is dumb because it forbids the combination of two awesome things: (1) candy and (2) alcohol (in greater than 1% increments).  I get the whole “you can’t make candy look like cigarettes” issue, but really? No intoxicating and delicious rum bon bons?

2. MGL ch. 270 s. 5: You can be fined up to $50 or imprisoned for up to 2 months for providing a hospital patient who is either “suffering from inebriety or from the effect of inebriety” with alcohol.

I am assuming this is one of those laws that they have to make because some idiot actually snuck booze into a hospital to give to a drunk who was in the hospital because he was a drunk (and was drunk, or hungover) and got caught but was able to get away with it because – aha! – at the time there was no law forbidding such behavior.

3. MGL ch. 270 s.14 and 15: You can be fined up to $20 for spitting in public (unless it is in a “receptacle provided for that purpose”), and you can be arrested without a warrant if an officer sees you do it. 

This law is not dumb.  I hate it when people spit on the sidewalk, and I would be happy to see more people arrested for it.

MGL Chapter 271: Crimes Against Public Policy

4. MGL Ch. 271 s. 46:  You can be fined up to $1,000 for failing to remove the door of your refrigerator before disposing of it.

What bit of terrible misfortune begot this law?

MGL Chapter 272: Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order

5. MGL ch. 272 s. 14: Believe it or not, adultery is still illegal in Massachusetts, and punishable by jail time or a $500 fine.  

This law is not dumb, its just dumbfounding that it still exists.  Domestic relations lawyers, is it still enforced?

6. MGL ch. 272 s. 34: I can’t paraphrase this law and do it justice. It states, “Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.”

I get the “beast” part.  But what exactly is a crime against nature “with mankind?”  Do I want to know?

7. MGL ch. 272 s. 36: Blasphemy is still illegal.  The best part of this law?  An offender may be “bound to good behavior.”

Wow.  I wish I knew this before I endured that 30 minute trip on the Red Line with that foul-mouthed kid behind me the other day.

8. MGL ch. 272 s. 86: It is in fact illegal to stable above the first floor unless there are two exits or automatic sprinkler systems.  The beauty of this law is that it does not apply to all those horses and mules stabled in cities.

This is a relief.  For a second there I was afraid I was going to have to find a new place to stable the mule I keep in Davis Square.

MGL Chapter 269: Crimes Against Public Peace

9. MGL ch. 269 s. 15: Under this law, you can be punished up to $200 for selling a stink bomb.

See annotation to #2.

MGL Chapter 265: Crimes Against The Person

10. MGL ch. 265 s. 34: Under this law, only a qualified physician can ink your tat.  

Good luck finding a doctor in this state that can both fix your broken heart and draw one on your bicep.

11. MGL ch. 265 s. 42: You can actually be imprisoned for a boom box in public.

Anyone who has seen that kid with the Fresh Prince haircut with his oversized boom box hanging around Park Street/Downtown Crossing lately will appreciate this one.

This is all for now.  If I missed any good ones, please post in the comments!

Thanks for the Shout Out

In case you missed it, Boston Common Law was mentioned in Marbury v. MadisonAve.  A few responses to the posting:

1. Thanks for the shout out!  BCL may be new, but it seems to have really taken off (thanks tipster!) and I appreciate the recognition.

2.  Its actually Miss P, not “Ms. P,” for Miss Prision.  (Nice to meet you too!)  Punny?  Offensively so.   As for who I am, I am a practicing attorney admitted to the Massachusetts bar.  I know that’s frustrating, but that’s all you get for now.

3.  I am a lawyer (see #2), not a graphic designer, and I’ve only been around a short time, so my apologies for the lame banner.  I do aspire to have a really nice banner eventually — consider this an open invitation to anyone who feels up to the challenge of designing one and emailing it to me.  The one I like best I’ll use.

Layoff Alert: McDermott, Will & Emery

This is a short post because I don’t have much info yet.  If you haven’t yet heard, MWE cut 60 associates and 89 staffers yesterday.  According to the Dallas Business Journal, its not clear how many of those cuts were made to the Boston office.  According to the interoffice memo, the decision was “tremendously difficult,”* and the doomed laid off associates were provided with “comprehensive severance benefits.”  Though Miss P always feels a little miffed toward MWE and all the other BigLaw firms going through RIFs (no rhyming intended), these very sincere and kindly notes they write make it all better.

Check back later for more information.  If you have a pulse on MWE’s Boston office, please send me an email or leave a comment.

 

*  Tremendously difficult = finding another job in a dry market.

Tremendously coldhearted: Pushing hardworking talent into the street with no chance of rebound in order to protect PPP.

** What exactly does “comprehensive severance benefits” mean?? And were the “comprehensive severance benefits” provided to the staffers on par with the “comprehensive severance benefits” provided to attorneys?

Parents sue Hilton after son chokes on used condom found in hotel room

When Hilton came up its slogan “Travel should take you places,” they probably didn’t mean the hospital.  But that is where the son of Stephen and Amy Wolfe of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, ended up after staying at a Homewood Suites by Hilton, where he found a used condom, ingested the contents, and then choked on it.  Ew. Ew ew ew ew ew ew ew.

According to the complaint, The Wolfe’s main complaint is that Hilton was negligent in exposing the boy to a fatal illness such as HIV/AIDS.  (See Count 1).  However, they also claim negligent infliction of emotional distress was inflicted on the child (also in count 1).  While the Ick-factor is clearly evident here with respect to the parents, and so its plausible that they could sue for NIED, its unclear how a 22 month old could have suffered NIED, especially when he didn’t even realize the consequences of sucking the juice from a used condom in the first place.

The complaint goes on to make other questionable assertions, such as that Hilton “[P]laced unduly burdensome demands” on the housekeepers, which lead to their inattention, “failed to properly hire, train, and supervise personnel” with regard to cleaning the guest rooms, and “engaged in arbitrary and capricious procedures” in cleaning the rooms.  First off, this is a bit nitpicky, but don’t they need an “on information and belief” preceding these assertions?  Second, what the heck is an “arbitrary and capricious” room cleaning procedure??

Read the complaint for yourself, but Miss P is not entirely convinced.  While the whole situation is definitely one to turn stomachs, is Hilton really at fault?  Aren’t the parents contributorily negligent by leaving a 22 month old child unattended in an unfamiliar room where there is no guarantee that it is free from any choking hazards (whether used condom or not).  And should a hotel really be expected to have anticipated that (1) if a used condom was left by a prior occupant in one of its guest rooms, (2) and it was missed by the housekeeping staff, (3) there is a likely chance that that condom would be found by an unattended child who would then proceed to ingest its contents??  Thoughts anyone?  I would love to have a lively discussion of this one.

For the original story, see Onpointnews.com.

Layoff Watch: Ropes & Gray lays off 106 staff (not attorneys)

According to Abovethelaw, Ropes laid off 106 staff today.  The comments to the post indicate that the layoff did not include staff attorneys.

As posted on Abovethelaw, Ropes chairman Brad Malt:

[W]e have reluctantly decided to eliminate 106 staff positions across all departments in the firm, or 10% of non-lawyer staff. While I know this is painful news, I felt it was important to share with all personnel as soon as appropriate.

As one commenter there noted: 

This has been an awful day here at R&G (Boston). I lost my secretary of 5 years…while she maybe wasn’t the best worker, she is a wonderful person who cared deeply about all of the people she worked with, and this is devastating for her and her family. 

Interestingly, other commenters (see, e.g., #42) indicated that Ropes has been doing stealth layoffs of associates since December.

My heart goes out to all of those who lost their jobs today.  Good luck in your future endeavors, and until then, do not be shy about collecting your unemployment benefits.

To get the full story, see Abovethelaw.

Passing Judgment: HLS student = Jailhouse Barack?

The Boston Herald today is reporting that Harvard Law Student Charles Claudio Simpkins, 24, was arrested after treating the police like his personal car service early Saturday night.  According to the report, Simpkins spilled out of a Theater District bar and apparently straight into the back of a police cruiser, where he ordered the officers to “give me a (expletive) ride, I work for the district attorney’s office.”  Simpkins also is reported to have threatened the officers that he would “lie and cheat” to ruin them if he ever called them to a witness stand.  In an earlier Herald article, Simpkins is reported to have also made the choice statements, “This ain’t (expletive) because I work at the DA’s office. Don’t worry, I will beat this,” and “You (expletives) all lie. That’s why no one likes you (expletives).”

Simpkins must have felt at liberty to make these statements because Boston Police Officers usually respond favorably to this sort of treatment.

In a twisted bit of justice, the Herald is reporting that “Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley, who took Charles Claudio Simpkins on last fall as an intern [] will now prosecute him on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.”  

Needless to say, Simpkins’ internship with the DAs office in the Dorchester District Court has been terminated.

Before Saturday, Simpkins had a bright future ahead of him– so much so that a political blogger once referred to him as “what Obama could have been.”  [Snide comment excluded here as unnecessary]

No word yet on whether this bit of drunken theatrics will affect Simpkins’ status at HLS.  The apology that inevitably will come out of this incident is going to be over the top!

Check back for updates to this story.

So you’ve been laid off … The unemployment benefits story

If you are one of the 1,000,000,000 people who were laid off today, you should know that you may be eligible for unemployment benefits, even if you were a Biglaw lawyer making loads of money up until today (don’t you wish you’d paid down your student loans more aggressively right now). 

So how do you get more information on how to apply for benefits?  Well first, you can visit Massresources.org.

What if you’re not laid off but think you might be but you haven’t heard anything yet but oh my God did you hear about Choate last week?  Well, you could read Mass. Gen. Law 151A s. 29  which says, in relevant part:

“An individual in total unemployment and otherwise eligible for benefits whose average weekly wage in his base period exceeds sixty-six dollars shall be paid for each week of unemployment an amount equal to fifty percent of his average weekly wage in the base period, rounded to the next lower full dollar amount, but not more than fifty-seven and one-half per cent of the average weekly wage of all employees covered by this chapter. ”

So at first blush you probably exclaimed (too loudly for your office): “Oh my gosh sweet!!  50% of my weekly wages!  I’m going to go sit on my butt for a few months!”  But as of October 5, 2008, the maximum unemployment benefit in Massachusetts is $628 per week.  So you don’t need to eat Cup-A-Noodle for lunch like you did in law school, but you may find yourself dining at Anna’s Tacqueria more often than you’d care to admit. 

And this is all assuming your employer doesn’t contest the benefits, which if they are playing for Team Foley, they wont, but if they are playing for Team Goodwin, well your guess is as good as mine.

This is obviously not the whole unemployment benefits story, but I hope you find it a useful start (or don’t, because you don’t need it because you are safely employed).  If anything is egregiously missing here, please post in the comments or send me an email!

Attorney General’s Office: Sh*tkicker wanted

According to Cnn.com no one has jobs and everyone is miserable.  So Miss P thought, “hey, why don’t we have more posts about who is hiring!?”

Well today is your lucky day.   That is, if you’ve ever wanted to be BFF with Martha and really want to take down bad guys.  The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General is hiring an AAG in its Medicaid Fraud division.  No matter what your current salary or unemployment benefits is/are, this job will definitely be a pay cut.  BUT, you will be so completely satisfied in your work that you’ll stop spending money on all the crap you’re currently buying to make you happy.  

Want more details?  Check out the AG’s website.  Note that the application deadline is NEXT WEEK, so get going already!

Sidebar: Michelle Obama’s Inauguration Gown

Miss P and her friends have been debating since Tuesday over the virtues of First Lady Michelle Obama’s inauguration attire.  Miss P loves the First Lady and thinks she can commit no fashion faux pas, but her friends think this dress gives new meaning to wardrobe malfunction.

(First) Lady in White

Help settle this matter once and for all, and take the poll.

Business Litigation Session gets a new leader.

Enough talk about layoffs for the day. 

I’m sure you are all just as interested to know that Superior Court Judge Margaret Hinkle will succeed Judge Gantz in heading the Business Litigation Session.

Judge Hinkle has a strong background in the Boston legal scene which should make her an excellent choice for the BLS.  She has held such enviable positions as partner at Goodwin Procter, associate at Berman, Dittmar & Engel, assistant U.S. attorney in the economic crimes division, head of the Justice Department’s New England Bank Fraud Task Force, and Superior Court Judge.

Want more info:  check out the Mass Lawyer’s Weekly Online.

Layoff watch: Choate, Hall & Stewart lays off 15 attorneys UPDATED

Thanks to our tipsters, we have some of the grim details.  If law firms layoffs are a baseball field, Choate has just joined team Foley.  Department heads went around this morning to alert the ill-fated 15 of their impending demise, but it was made clear that the layoffs affected all areas and were not performance based.  Former Choatees will stick around for another month and will have access to outplacement services, and then be given two months severance.  

Support staff reportedly were not treated quite so generously: today was their last day, they’ve already been locked out of the system, and it is still unclear (more tips people!) whether they received any severance at all.  See comments.

Raise your hand if you think more Boston law firms will follow (and then send me a tip!).  Let’s just hope they side with Team Foley instead of Team Goodwin. Mintz?  Ropes?  I need to hear from you.  Judging by the number of hits to this post today tells me your brothers and sisters in the law need the info.

TGIF,

-Miss P

I’ve just received a tip so hot it’s melting the snow on the Greenway. Choate Hall has laid off 15 attorneys and more than 20 staff members this morning.

If you were laid off and are reading this,  send Miss P an email with the juicy details. You’d better be networking your socks off at the BBAs wine tasting event tonight.

Remember: there is life after Biglaw.

Event: BBA Young Lawyer’s Wine Tasting

If you attended the BBA’s wine tasting event last Friday, then you probably had a really good time.  The wine was excellent, Maribeth was a rockstar, the networking potential was unlimited, and the BBA, as per always, put on a good program.

If you did not attend, check back later for more exciting events coming up.

As if the allure of free alcohol wasn’t enough, the BBA’s Young Lawyer’s Wine Tasting Event being held tomorrow, January 23, is also an excellent opportunity to connect up with your peers in the legal world (especially the ones who are still miraculously employed!)

According to the BBA’s website:

The New Lawyers Section is holding their 5th annual wine tasting led by wine expert Maribeth Perry, Lawyers Clearinghouse.  Put your palette to the test by tasting five different types of red wine.  Guests will have the opportunity to discuss and match up glasses to bottles. Maribeth will be available to provide descriptions of the wine and answer any questions. 

The event will run from 6-9pm at the Boston Bar Association (16 Beacon Street, Boston) and promises to be a good time.  If you’d like to attend, you’ll need to register at the BBA’s website (note that if you haven’t already created an account with the BBA, you’ll need to do so pre-registration).

I hope to see you there!

You don’t need to be familiar with the Constitution to be the Chief Justice of SCOTUS

President Obama very noticeably paused during his oath of office today, leading many to believe that he couldn’t follow a basic “repeat-after-me,” which was then followed by an awkward exchange between Obama and Roberts that was a bit reminiscent of Dueling Banjos.

The Constitutional oath of office is remarkably short, only two lines long:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

However, it was not President Obama who had forgotten how the Constitution goes flubbed.  The general confusion surrounded the proper placement of the word “faithfully” in the oath.  Chief Justice Roberts, who was working without notecards, misplaced the word, and President Obama knew it.  Flustered, the Chief Justice apparently took a bit of prompting (irony?) before he was back on track. 

I understand getting up in front of that many people can be nerve-wracking, but seriously its two lines, and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court should know the Constitution.

In the battle of the executive and judicial branches that will undoubtedly ensue during Obama’s first term, score one for Obama, zero for Roberts.

Senator Kennedy Suffers Seizure At Inaugural Lunch

Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure today at President Obama’s inaugural lunch.  Thankfully, it appears to have been brought on by fatigue, and that Senator Kennedy will be just fine.

Dr. Edward Aulisi, chairman of neurosurgery at Washington Hospital Center where Senator Kennedy was taken, stated:

“Senator Edward Kennedy experienced a seizure today while attending a luncheon for President Barack Obama in the U.S. Capitol. After testing, we believe the incident was brought on by simple fatigue. Senator Kennedy is awake, talking with family and friends, and feeling well. He will remain at the Washington Hospital Center overnight for observation, and will be released in the morning.”

My thoughts and prayers are with Senator Kennedy, and I hope he’s around to represent us for many, many years to come.

Event: Walk to the Hill UPDATED

I hope that if you’re reading this you trudged up to the State House today for the Walk to the Hill.  Judging by the shear number of lawyers crammed into the Hall of Flags, the Walk was a massive success (I am curious to what extent the general improvement compared to the weather at last year’s Walk facilitated the high turnout).  If you did not make it out, there are a number of ways that you can do your civic duty, such as taking on a pro bono case or donating whatever you can spare to a public interest organization such as PAIR or GBLS.  

If ever there was a time that the underprivileged needed extra legal assistance, now is that time.  Once we know how much funding is being allocated to legal assistance this year I’ll update the post.

This Thursday, January 22 from 11:00am-1:00pm please join your own Miss P in showing solidarity for the support for legal aid by walking to the State House in the annual Walk to the Hill.  If you do no other pro bono work this year, you must at the very least put on your hat and mittens in support of the less fortunate in need of legal representation.

Layoff Alert: Mass Trial Courts

BigLaw associates are not the only ones who are getting hit hard by the economy.  Mass Lawyers Weekly is reporting that if Deval Patrick orders the Trial Courts to reduce its budget by 10% for 2010, the courts will have to lay off 1,250 employees on July 1.  For the full story, check out Mass Lawyer’s Weekly.

Layoff Watch: Goodwin Procter

Unlike Foley Hoag, who has recognized the virtues of the honest and open layoff, Goodwin Procter has chosen to go the alternate route: it “secretly” laid off 30 associates for “performance,” just before Thanksgiving.  Word on the street is that these associates were allowed to stick around for a few months while they searched for other jobs.

 In this age of information, no layoff is truly stealth, so lets make this one as transparent as possible.  Were you laid off at GP?  What were the terms of your layoff?  Sound off in the comments, or email me at bostoncommonlaw@gmail.com.