To all those lawyers on the cusp of retirement, consider this fact. When Jack Borden was 60, he still had at least 40 more years of work in front of him. And now, at 101, the Weatherford, Texas lawyer seems determined to put in a few more.

Borden, who turned 101 earlier this week, still dons a coat and tie every weekday and heads down to his Weatherford, Texas, law office, where he puts in a full-day’s work as a probate and real-estate lawyer. Click here for a story from the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram; here for another, from the Dallas Morning-News.

According to the stories, Borden is the oldest practicing member of the Texas Bar, and earlier this week was honored as America’s Outstanding Oldest Worker for 2009.

The stories doesn’t explore exactly who is paying Borden to keep on chugging (and we wonder about that), but they do paint a picture of a man completely devoted to — and in love with — the practice of law, which he started doing in 1936. Part of his love stems from the fact, it seems, that his work is keeping him alive. “If I were to go home and sit down, I wouldn’t live another year,” he said. “I come down here” — to his office — “really to live.”

It’s unclear to us that the story imparts any secrets to longevity; Borden calls the secret to a long life “not dying.” But Borden seems a big believer in routine. Reads the story:

After a country breakfast — biscuit and gravy, sausage, a cup of black coffee — he will shower and dress, in a coat and tie, his live-in caretaker helping him with the buttons of his freshly starched shirt.

By 6:30 a.m., attorney Jack Borden will be sitting at his desk.

Each weekday, the oldest practicing member of the State Bar of Texas returns home from his office at about 11 a.m. He eats lunch. After a 45-minute nap, he heads back to his office, where he works on probate and real estate cases, his legal specialty, until 4 p.m.

In any event, Borden (Weatherford College/University of Texas Law School) had a colorful career. He has served as the Parker County, Texas, district attorney, as a two-term mayor of Weatherford, and as a special agent for the FBI.

Some other great tidbits:

• Borden’s father wore “underwear made from flour sacks”;
• During law school, he worked at a restaurant fountain as a soda jerk and as a janitor.
• He still chews tobacco, a habit he picked up during the Wilson Administration.

Photo: Rodger Mallison/Star-Telegram

So what happens now for Judge (soon-to-be-Justice) Sonia Sotomayor? On Saturday, she’ll be sworn onto the Supreme Court in a ceremony performed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

And that’s when the fun ends.

In Friday’s NYT, Adam Liptak previews the work Sotomayor’s got cut out for her. Her first case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to be heard just over a month from now, concerns how elections are financed, and has broad implications for both election law and First Amendment jurisprudence. After that, the Court’s work will resume in its more-or-less traditional fashion, with decisions over cert petitions and then, the hard job of having to hear — and decide — dozens of cases.

Writes Liptak:

In addition to the blockbuster election-law case, the new term is frontloaded with important First Amendment, business, criminal and patent cases. Justice Sotomayor’s early votes and opinions, along with alliances she forges, will provide answers to at least some of the questions she avoided in confirmation hearings.

Our favorite part of the NYT story, however, are the reflections from other justices on their first days at the court. “I was frightened to death for the first three years,” said Justice Breyer, in a 2006 interview. Justice Souter, according to the NYT, once described coming to the court in 1990 as like “walking through a tidal wave.”

And then there’s Justice Brennan: “I say categorically that no prior experience, including prior judicial experience, prepares one for the work of the Supreme Court,” wrote Brennan in 1973. “The initial confrontation on the United States Supreme Court with the astounding differences in function and character of role, and the necessity for learning entirely new criteria for decisions, can be a traumatic experience for the neophyte.”

We also love this: At their private conferences, whenever someone knocks on the door, Sotomayor — as the junior-most justice — will be required to answer.

And what about the emergence of a judicial philosophy? We probably won’t see one right away, says NYU’s Rick Pildes, who clerked for Justice Marshall: “Most newcomers tread gently as they come to terms with the dynamics of the group and a daunting array of new issues, including questions lower court judges never face, such as how bound to be by prior Supreme Court decisions. The cases are harder, the ramifications of decisions far more consequential.”

This just in: The Senate has voted 68-31 to confirm Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor to a position as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. She replaces retired Justice David Souter.

So what does the vote mean? On the one hand, that she was confirmed was hardly surprising; given all the pregaming, we practically knew not only that she’d be confirmed but that she’d get around 68 votes.

On the other, the 31 Republicans who voted against her seem pretty pleased with themselves, according to this story, by the Dow Jones Newswires’s Kristina Peterson.

Why? Here’s why, according to Peterson:

[T]he show of party unity will discourage Mr. Obama from choosing a more liberal candidate in future picks and that the arguments they developed against Judge Sotomayor set a precedent for rejecting what they see as “activist” judges.

Said one Republican aide: “I think from the beginning a lot of people have seen this as setting up the stage for the next one.”

Ed Whelan, who’s banged a loud drum against the Sotomayor nomination from the get-go, had this to say, via the National Review’s Web site:

What is striking is that Judge Sotomayor, despite her inspiring personal history and despite the powerful advantage of being the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, earned so many negative votes. . . . Congratulations to the 31 Republican senators who stood on principle against Judge Sotomayor’s unsound vision of the judicial role and against her deceptive testimony.

Democrats, on the other hand, were pleased; and seemed unfazed by the 31 “nay” votes. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), says the Republican opposition may have cost them leverage in the next judicial confirmation. “If they oppose someone as moderate as Sotomayor, then the president will think, ‘Who wouldn’t they oppose?’ ” he said.

Akin Gump’s Tom Goldstein, the man who predicted Sotomayor would be confirmed only two days after her nomination, seemed to agree: “I can’t imagine this president nominating someone more conservative than Judge Sotomayor, so there is no hope for bipartisanship in the next nomination.”

So William Jefferson will be marched off to jail. A federal jury in Alexandria convicted Jefferson of bribery after a seven-week trial in which prosecutors detailed numerous schemes Jefferson orchestrated to bribe African officials or extort money from U.S. businessmen looking for deals in Africa.

But, interestingly, the apparent smoking gun in the case — the $90,000 in cash wrapped in foil and tucked among the veggie burgers and frozen pie dough in his freezer — turned out not to be his undoing.

The cold cash was the undisputed star of the trial. Feds had wired an informant who handed him the cash after the two had discussed a plot to bribe the Vice President of Nigeria for his help greasing a telecom deal.

But jurors acquitted Jefferson of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the charge that was directly tied to the freezer dough (though they did convict him of conspiring to violate the FCPA). The New Orleans Times Picayune lays it all out here:

The Justice Department has been going gangbusters, wielding the FCPA in five continents to crack down on bribery. In Jefferson’s case they had to prove he merely intended to bribe the VP. Apparently, defense attorney Robert Trout succeeded in convincing jurors that Jefferson was keeping the money in his freezer for safe-keeping from his housekeeper and intruders and never planned on using it as bribe money.

We’ll wait for the final word from jurors after they’re dismissed once they settle on a forfeiture amount for Jefferson. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for today.

This just in: former representative William Jefferson (D-LA), has been convicted on 11 of 16 criminal counts. The jury returned its verdict late Wednesday afternoon. The eight-woman, four-man jury convicted Jefferson on 11 of 16 counts that included bribery, racketeering and money laundering. Click here, here, and here for stories from the WSJ, WaPo and New Orleans Times-Picayune, respectively.

The backstory: In 2007, Jefferson, was charged on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government alleged that Jefferson used his congressional office to help promote business projects in western Africa in return for payments for his family. The most vivid evidence put on display: that feds found in Jefferson’s freezer $90,000 stuffed in Boca Burger and pie-crust boxes.

Jefferson’s lawyer, Robert Trout argued at trial that Jefferson’s behavior was perhaps unethical and even stupid but not criminal. “To make something that isn’t criminal into a crime, ladies and gentleman, that is power,” Trout told jurors.

Stefan Passantino, a lawyer at McKenna Long & Aldridge in Washington who represents individuals, companies and others on lobbying law and ethics issues, says that Trout was trying to walk a fine line in admitting to ethical violations but asking the jury not to find criminal behavior. “He was asking the jury to find a meaningful distinction between ethics violations and criminality,” he says. “To me, the verdict wasn’t entirely surprising.”

Jefferson, 62, could spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Click here for previous LB posts on Jefferson.

If it weren’t already pretty obvious, the situation involving Allen Stanford and his lawyers has gotten pretty dire. Earlier this week, we blogged the news that the financier, accused of helping mastermind a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, had traded the highly-regarded Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin for the similarly highly-regarded Washington lawyer Robert Luskin, of Patton Boggs.

In light of that news, however, one question plagued us. If Stanford was dropping DeGuerin because he couldn’t pay him, what, exactly, was the arrangement with Luskin? Was Luskin willing to take the case in the hope of getting paid down the road? Would Patton Boggs, Luskin’s firm, work the case for free?

Well, we’re not sure it’s entirely cleared up, but we have part of our answer. In a filing made Tuesday to the federal magistrate judge in Houston, Patton Boggs and Houston’s Sydow & McDonald, indicated they were inclined only to get involved in the case for the limited purpose of trying to free up some of Stanford’s assets. If unsuccessful, they’d drop out.

According to the filing:

The Firms and Mr. Stanford have . . . agreed that Patton Boggs’ appearance in this case is contingent on obtaining a court order allowing the Firm to enter a limited appearance as described above. Therefore, if the Court does not consent to the terms described above, the Firms and Mr. Stanford have agreed that Patton Boggs shall not otherwise enter an appearance in the case.

In a related matter, Bloomberg reports today that in a separate filing yesterday in the SEC case, the receiver in the case, Ralph Janvey requested payment of $7.6 million in legal fees and expenses to cover his work as receiver from April 13 to May 30. The request follows one for $20 million to pay for Janvey’s first eight weeks on the Stanford case. Janvey said the accounting and law firms working with him continue to discount their services by 20 percent.

We were once, we imagine, like a lot of young law-firm associates. We entered a big law-firm practically rolling our eyes at the very idea that we were, in fact, even toiling at a big law firm. We would do it for a few years, see how it went, pay off some loans, yadda yadda yadda. Throughout our stint, we worked hard, though not nearly hard enough to deserve the praise and accolades we felt we deserved. As a result, we felt under-appreciated, which made us work less hard, which triggered apathy. Before we knew it, we were looking for the door, wondering what in the world had gone wrong.

If there’s one good thing that the recession and corresponding struggles in the world of BigLaw have brought (and it’s a slight benefit), we imagine it’s an end to that rather loathsome attitude among some associates. Those who get jobs in BigLaw these days might not feel as if they’ve accomplished their life dreams, but more than a few probably feel pretty lucky. No fewer than a half-dozen partners have told us that this year’s crop of summer associates seems scared, driven and perhaps even more eager to please than previous classes. (They’ve also, perhaps not surprisingly, called the current crop of summers “boring” and “personality free.”)

So how do young associates please their superiors? In days past, we might have clicked right through first-person how-to tales of success, scoffing privately at the authors as “gunners,” or worse. But we came across a piece today in the Texas Lawyer which, we think, actually offers up some advice that someone out there might find helpful. And yes, we imagine there are more young lawyers out there looking for advice on how to thrive at a law firm than there were back in the early part of the decade, when it was relatively easy to keep your job and, well, reading articles on how to succeed at a law firm was decidedly uncool.

The article at issue comes to us courtesy of Jason Braun, an associate at Ajamie LLP. Some of Braun’s tenets:

Think Like a Partner: Braun writes: “When I became a lawyer, a partner gave me what I now realize was great advice: “Don’t think like an associate,” she told me. “Think like a partner.” . . . [O]ver time, I learned that the basic premise behind the advice is to put the client first and let the partner be your guide. . . . New lawyers should act as though they owe a fiduciary duty to their firm and its partners, whether or not the law recognizes one. Those who act on this belief will respond to situations appropriately.”

Strive for Perfection, Live With Less: “Associates should always strive to provide the partner with perfect work. Here is a little secret: You will fail miserably numerous times. But do not be disheartened if the partner says your perfect brief is complete and utter trash. Keep striving for perfection, and the criticism will lessen. . . .”

Appreciate the Yellers: Some associates complain ad nauseam about partners who criticize their appearance or yell at them. Don’t be one of those associates. . . . In my opinion, those are the best partners because when you make a mistake, you will never forget it.

Work that Business Card: “In firms, those who make the rain also make the rules. Associates who want to make their own rules should become rainmakers themselves. . . . First rule of thumb, always carry business cards. . . . [U]se them. The cards are useless if they remain in a pocket. Start by exchanging cards with other attorneys. Meet other lawyers and follow up with lunch. Often other attorneys are the best source of business referrals.”

Frankly, we can’t buy into everything Braun suggests, like eschewing a backpack in favor of, we presume, something more formal. But we do appreciate much of what he says, especially once we’ve dropped that knee-jerk cynicism. LBers, any thoughts?

It’s hard for us not to be compelled by the Sharon Keller story. An impeachment trial for Keller, the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is slated to start on August 17. At issue: whether and to what degree Keller erred one day back in 2007 when she closed the courthouse doors at 5 p.m., barring a death-row inmate from filing an appeal. The defendant was executed later in the day. According to a recent story in the Austin American-Statesman, Keller and her lawyers have previewed what one of their arguments might be.

But before we get to that, let’s bring you up to speed. Keller is the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the equivalent to a state supreme court, but for criminal matters. As such, she’s the senior-most criminal judge in Texas.

On September 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection. In response, a Texas death-row inmate named Michael Richard sought to appeal his death sentence to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. But Keller refused to keep the court open after 5:00 pm to allow Richard’s counsel to have the time to prepare the appeal. Richard was executed later that day.

“It’s one thing for a banker to close shop at 5 o’clock sharp,” said Texas state legislator Lou Burnam, back in February. “But a public official who stands between a human being and the death chamber must be held to a higher standard.”

For her part, Keller has said that she was just following the court’s long-standing practice to close on time. But that’s reportedly only part of what Keller will argue during her impeachment trial. According to the American-Statesman, Keller will also argue that that defense lawyers fabricated — or at least exaggerated — computer problems the day Texas executed Michael Richard.

The American-Statesman writes that the attack, “seeks to undermine the narrative that has emerged against the judge: that she refused a reasonable request to keep the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals open past 5 p.m., penalizing Richard for events outside his control — computer breakdowns experienced by his lawyers.”

In response, Neal Manne, a lawyer representing the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit legal agency that represented Richard, told the paper that questions about computer problems are “a legally irrelevant sideshow.”

Manne admitted to the American-Statesman that they “might have been a few minutes late even if there were no e-mail problems at all. But the question is: What did (Keller) do and was it appropriate? It’s a classic legal defense to create a credibility contest over something that doesn’t matter anyway.”

LBers, we’ve blogged about this in the past, but we’d love to get your take on it again. On the one hand, Keller might argue formalism: rules are rules. The courthouse closes at 5; if the timing doesn’t work out for you, tough. She might also gain some traction with a slippery-slope argument: if we allow certain exceptions, where do we draw the line at other exceptions?

On the other hand, Richard’s supporters might argue of course, that you draw the line here: when a prisoner is slated to be executed barring an exception; in other words, when life is at stake. Where do you come down?

That’s the question asked in so many words this morning by WSJ reporter Evan Perez, who reports that Obama administration officials are holding discussions that could result in the White House counsel leaving his post. Click here for the story.

The issue, it seems, has to do with Craig’s management of several national-security issues that were once seen as popular, but have since become political liabilities for Obama. These include the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the release of Bush administration-era national-security documents, and efforts to find legal ways to indefinitely hold some detainees who can’t be put on trial.

The decision to close the Guantanamo facility became a political problem for Mr. Obama when concerns arose that some of the detainees would be released into the U.S. and the public soured on the move.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), one of the administration’s allies on the Guantanamo closure, faulted the White House handling of Guantanamo. “Announcing the closure without a plan has put in jeopardy the ability to close Guantanamo. Now public opinion has turned,” Graham said Monday.

Officials also cite an internal dustup concerning whether to release Justice Department memorandums detailing the Bush administration’s policies on terrorism detainees. Craig and Attorney General Eric Holder won the fight to release the memorandums, with minimal redactions, but the White House had to move quickly to limit political damage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney sharpened criticism of Obama during a televised speech that followed Obama’s own address intended to explain his national-security vision.

Craig didn’t respond to the WSJ’s request for comment.

The people familiar with the matter said a final decision hasn’t been made. But in a statement, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina said: “We’ve addressed these rumors before. They are nothing more than typical Washington parlor games. It’s disappointing that while we are focused on reviving the economy and fighting two wars, others spend their time pointing fingers in an attempt to promote their own status.”

Were Craig, 64, shown the door, he’d likely have a seat waiting for him at his old law firm, Williams & Connolly, where he served as a partner before joining the Obama campaign.

Will it be long before we see outside ownership of law firms in the U.K.? Perhaps just a couple of years, reports Bloomberg, in a story out today.

In 2007, the U.K. changed its rules on law-firm ownership. Starting in 2011, when the new rules go into effect, firms will be allowed to accept outside investments. According to Bloomberg, three private equity funds — Fleming Family & Partners Ltd., Phoenix Equity Partners Ltd. and Lyceum Capital Partners LLP — are considering investing in U.K. law firms.

The very notion of outside ownership of law firms strikes us as a bit wacky, only because it’s so foreign — and so rare. We’re only aware of one firm, Australia’s Slater & Gordon, that has embraced the idea. The plaintiffs’ firm started taking public investment in 2007. The firm trades on Sydney’s stock exchange under the symbol SGH. Click here for an American Lawyer story on the firm’s first year or so under the publicly-traded regime.

But more could be on the way, reports Bloomberg. For starters, at some firms, getting hands on cash for expansions, capital projects and the like has never been harder: the global recession has made it much harder for firms to get new loans and lines of credit.

Furthermore, law firms are viewed by many as potentially lucrative places to put one’s money. “Law firms are pretty attractive investments as they have stable cash flows, long track records of business operations and increasingly are much better run,” said John Llewellyn-Lloyd, executive director of Noble Group Ltd., a London-based investment bank.

If and when it does happen, expect to see mid-sized firms the first to be among the early adopters. Don’t expect to see the so-called “Magic Circle” firms — a group that includes Clifford Chance, Slaughter & May, Linklaters, Freshfields and Allen & Overy — jump in headlong. Such firms have scoffed at the idea in the past, saying they don’t need the money.

“We looked into it, but decided it wasn’t right for us,” said Wim Dejonghe, the managing partner of Allen & Overy. “Why would we need the money?”

In the U.S., outside ownership of law firms is prohibited.

Wow, that was quick. Just as soon as we started seeing CNBC headlines earlier today on the SEC’s suit against Bank of America, the headlines switched, revealing that the parties had settled, with the bank agreeing to pay $33 million to scratch the suit from its to-do list. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, alleged that the bank failed to disclose to investors that it had agreed to pay $5 billion in bonuses at the time of its takeover of Merrill Lynch, last fall. Click here for the WSJ story; here for the complaint.

The SEC alleged that Bank of America told investors in proxy documents on the Merrill acquisition that Merrill agreed it would not pay bonuses or other compensation to executives before the takeover deal was closed without Bank of America’s consent. In truth, according to the SEC, Bank of America had already “contractually authorized” Merrill to pay $5.8 billion in bonuses.

Companies are required to disclose any market-moving information to investors. Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said in a statement: “Failing to disclose that a struggling company will pay out billions of dollars in performance bonuses obviously violates that duty and warrants the significant financial penalty imposed by today’s settlement.”

The SEC said, however, without elaboration, that its investigation is continuing. One’s also ongoing for the office of New York AG Andrew Cuomo, which referred the pay case to the SEC in February.

My oh my, how fortunes have changed for Joe Nacchio. Last month, the Supreme Court punted on a decision on whether or not to hear his case — leading folks to wonder think maybe, just maybe, the court was inclined to grant cert on the case and take a fresh look at his insider-trading conviction.

Now this news: the Tenth Circuit has ordered a shorter sentence for the ex-Qwest CEO, saying his six-year term for insider trading was too long. Nacchio’s sentence could be cut to less than three and-a-half years.

But wait, there’s more. The court also ruled that the lower-court judge, Edward Nottingham, had erred in ordering the former executive to forfeit $52 million, the gross proceeds from selling his Qwest stock. The appellate judges ordered a new trial judge to redetermine the correct amount of proceeds from his insider trading that Nacchio will have to forfeit to the government.

Click here and here for stories from the Denver Post, respectively. Click here for the 10th Circuit opinion.

Nacchio and his lawyers argued in his appeal that he should have received a sentence ranging from 41 months to 51 months because his actual gain on the illegal insider trades was $1.8 million. The district court based its initial sentence on a gain of $28 million.

Nacchio began serving his 72-month sentence in April.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. 1

The above portion of the great document has gotten a lot of airplay in recent months and weeks, what with the 1) speculation from some that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and 2) the countermovement against that speculation, which led to the invention of the derisive “birthers” neologism about three weeks ago.



Rather than delve into the heart of the controversy, we’d prefer to ask a broader question: has the “natural born Citizen” requirement for president outlived its usefulness? Should it be repealed?

A law professor at Temple, Peter Spiro, argues in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Thursday that the answer should be yes.

For starters, writes Spiro, the requirement is outdated:

The natural-born provision is an artifact of a time when one’s birthplace was fraught with consequences. In the feudal conception of natural law, one was born into the protection of a territory’s sovereign, for which one was thought to owe an indissoluble duty of allegiance. . . .

Today, birthplace is hardly so meaningful. Many more individuals are being born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents (often with dual citizenship), and others are naturalizing at an early age and maturing as Americans in every sense. Notions of perpetual allegiance dissipated long ago.

Furthermore, writes Spiro, the requirement draws distinctions that are largely arbitrary:

Foreign-born adopted children are extended citizenship automatically upon admission into the United States with their new parents. Can any of the thousands who have moved here as infants from China, Korea, Guatemala, or Romania grow up to be president? . . .

And then there are the more than 15 million naturalized Americans who more clearly fall short of being natural-born citizens - among whom Obama might have been counted if the details of his mother’s life were a little different. For them, the presidential eligibility clause represents sanctified discrimination, a kind of asterisk next to the principle that they enjoy equality with other citizens.

Constitutional amendments ain’t easy to pass. But, writes Spiro, a natural-born killer movement would be likely to garner at least some bi-partisan support. After all, efforts to repeal the requirement were earlier this decade initiated by Republicans enticed by the prospect of an Arnold Schwarzenegger presidency. Utah Republican Orrin Hatch introduced the “Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment” in 2003, and it enjoyed bipartisan support, including that of Michigan’s Canadian-born Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm.

LB Readers, let’s hear your thoughts on this.

Note to self: When the time comes to commission a wax statue in our own likeness, do it with our own hard-earned money (and, of course, when it’s complete, keep it away from open flame.) Use someone else’s money for such a tribute, and you just might wind up in a lawsuit over it.

Alleged Example A: Barbara McKinzie, the international president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the country’s oldest black sorority. Members of the sorority are suing to remove McKinzie (pictured, left), alleging she spent hundreds of thousands on the group’s money on herself, some of it to pay for a wax statue of herself (pictured, right). Click here for the story, from the Chicago Tribune.

In the suit, filed in Washington, D.C., the Alpha Kappa Alpha members also alleged that McKinzie bought designer clothing, jewelry and lingerie with the sorority credit card. “This is extraordinarily shocking if not illegal conduct,” Edward W. Gray Jr., an attorney representing the plaintiffs suing the Chicago-based sorority, told the Trib.

McKinzie reportedly denied what she called the lawsuit’s “malicious allegations,” saying they were “based on mischaracterizations and fabrications … not befitting our ideals of sisterhood, ethics and service,” according to a statement issued this week by the sorority.

Fine, fine. But can we get back to the wax statue? In the sorority statement, McKinzie said the sorority’s board approved the money to “help defray overall expenses for our 2010 convention.” She said a total of $45,000 was spent on a wax figure of her and the sorority’s first international president, the late Nellie Quander. McKinzie also said the expenses were “consistent with furthering AKA’s mission” and did not violate any of the group’s bylaws.

The lawsuit says $900,000 was spent on the McKinzie wax statue, but Gray said he has since learned the amount was for the two statues. The statues reportedly are to be displayed in the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, Md., he said.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Full Business Meeting Tuesday 7/21/09, 10:00am, Russell 253 Summary This markup session was convened primarily to deal with transit funding reauthorization measures, and a number of other matters were dispensed with in the meantime. Almost all of the details at hand were worked out beforehand and behind the scenes, except for one [...]

More...

Game-time. Gut-check time. It’s getting down to that time for former Rep. William Jefferson, who, for the past six weeks has been on criminal trial down in Alexandria, Va. Closing arguments wrapped up on Wednesday. The judge in the case, T.S. Ellis III, is likely to send the case to the jury Thursday morning. Click here for the story from the New Orleans Times-Picayune; here for earlier LB posts on the Jefferson trial.

The quick refresher on the case. In 2007, Jefferson, a former Democrat from New Orleans, was charged on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government alleged that Jefferson used his congressional office to help promote business projects in western Africa in return for payments for his family. The most vivid evidence put on display: that feds found in Jefferson’s freezer $90,000 stuffed in Boca Burger and pie-crust boxes.

During closings, government lawyer Rebeca Bellows said: “It’s time, at long last, to bring Congressman Jefferson to justice . . . He was always looking for a payday. He not only sold his office he wanted to make sure he got top dollar for it.”

According to reporting from the WSJ’s Dionne Searcey, defense attorney Robert Trout countered that Jefferson’s behavior was perhaps unethical and even stupid but not criminal. “To make something that isn’t criminal into a crime, ladies and gentleman, that is power,” Trout told jurors.

But before Trout took the stand, according to Searcey, prosecutors on Wednesday outlined a number of schemes Jefferson crafted to use his political office to create business opportunities for his family. The most notorious: an alleged plot to give at least $100,000 in cash to the vice president of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, in exchange for permission for a company that had family ties to Jefferson to offer telecom services there. Much of that cash — $90,000 in marked bills — was found in Jefferson’s freezer.

During Wednesday’s hearing prosecutors played video and audio tapes of Jefferson in meetings with the informant, Virginia businesswoman Lori Mody, at s****y Washington-area hotel restaurants. Searcey describes one snippet in which he camera focuses squarely on a white coffee mug while in the background Jefferson waves his hands as he talks about an alleged bribe, saying it’ll be doled out “to make sure the hook is in there.” Over dinner at the Mandarin Oriental he chides Mody for referring to what prosecutors say is a bribe to the vice president of Nigeria as a “goodwill present.”

Mody delivered $100,000 to Jefferson in the parking lot of the Ritz Carlton. Jefferson allegedly intended to give the cash to Abubakar during a visit to Washington D.C. but he left town before it could be delivered, prosecutors said.

Trout conceded that Mr. Jefferson agreed to the bribe but did so only to please Ms. Mody and that he never intended to deliver it. He hid the cash in his freezer for safe-keeping, Trout said.

We’ll the jury buy it? We’ll soon know.

Ever since Bernie Madoff’s guilty plea back in March, life seemed to be finally settling down for Bernie’s wife, Ruth. Last month, she agreed to give up her potential claim to more than $80 million of assets, but, in an agreement with federal prosecutors, was allowed to keep $2.5 million in cash. Then, earlier this month, federal investigators concluded they didn’t have enough evidence to charge her criminally.

But things took a turn for the worse for Ruth earlier today when Irv Picard, the trustee for Bernie’s collapsed firm, filed civil suit against Ruth, seeking to recover some $44 million from her. Click here for the complaint, filed in Manhattan bankruptcy court.

So why, if Ruth seemingly wasn’t a co-conspirator in Bernie’s operation, gives the trustee the right to go after her? Picard explains in the complaint:

For decades, Mrs. Madoff lived a life of splendor using the money of BLMIS’s customers. Regardless of whether or not Mrs. Madoff knew of the fraud her husband perpetrated at BLMIS, during the past two- and six-year statutory periods, she received tens of millions of dollars from BLMIS for which BLMIS received no corresponding benefit or value and to which Mrs. Madoff had no good faith basis to believe she was entitled. The purpose of this action is to recover that money to the extent possible for the benefit of BLMIS and its defrauded customers.

And will the $2.5 million be part of what Picard goes after? Apparently so:

The United States government agreed not to contest Mrs. Madoff’s claim to $2.5 million and to make a payment to her in that amount following forfeiture of the Madoffs’ assets. The forfeiture Stipulation And Order . . . expressly provides that the $2.5 million payment to Mrs. Madoff “does not in any way preclude . . . Irving H. Picard, Esq. as trustee for the liquidation of the business of defendant Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC . . . from seeking to recover the Funds from Ruth Madoff.” While Madoff’s crimes have left many investors impoverished and some charities decimated, Mrs. Madoff remains a person of substantial means. The inequity between Mrs. Madoff’s continuing financial advantages and the economic distress of Madoff’s customers compels the Trustee to bring this action.

Peter Chavkin, a lawyer for Ruth, had this to say: “What makes this complaint particularly perplexing and totally unjustified . . . is the fact that Ruth already forfeited to the United States Attorney’s Office almost all of the assets named in this complaint,” assets that prosecutors will distribute to victims of the fraud. “We believe the Trustee’s action is wrong as a matter of law and fairness.”

LBers, we really want to hear from you on this one. Given all you know about Ruth, should she be allowed to hang onto her $2.5 million?

There should be a television game show, we think, in which contestants vie to see who can defame someone an audience member in fewer words. (”I can defame that man in seven words, Alex!”) We had this silly thought after getting word of a lawsuit out of Cook County, Ill., in which a management company filed a $50,000 lawsuit over a tenant’s “malicious and defamatory” Twitter tweet. Such tweets, as of course you know, LBers, have a maximum length of 140 characters. And yes, apparently they can lead to defamation lawsuits.

The tweet was made by the tenant, Amanda Bonnen, in reference to the state of her apartment to her 20 followers. “You should just come anyway,” it read. “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s OK.”

Click here for the story, from Chicago Bar-Tender (hat tip: ABA Journal). The complaint notes that because Bonnen’s account was public, “anybody in the world can view the account holder’s tweets.” The complaint says that because the “statement damaged the plaintiff’s reputation in its business, the statement is liable per se.”

We’re not defamation experts, but we think that Marian Wang, the author of the item at Chicago Bar-Tender, asks some good questions. Writes Wang:

It begs this question: What IS a tweet anyway? Is it really considered publishing? Is it a conversation between friends in a public forum, like the electronic version of a coffeeshop, where you can gripe privately but have your gripes overheard? No one considers that defamation. And for that matter, does anyone actually claim that one-liners on Twitter are truth? After all, when you tweet, you type into a text box that asks, “What are you doing?” So what does an assertion on Twitter count for, anyway? Isn’t it just an opinion? Isn’t it stream of consciousness? Isn’t it called a Twitter “stream” for a reason?

Our question would primarily concern damages. How might a plaintiff go about proving damages in such a case, where only 20 people were likely to see the tweet (although, yes, because Bonnen’s tweets were public, many more may have seen them)?

Any thoughts, LBers?

Texas, the death penalty capital of the country, seems to be looking to change its ways.

The state has passed legislation creating a capital defense office next year, which will handle appeals for death row inmates, according to this article from the Houston Chronicle.

The appellate office will have a staff of nine and a budget of about $1 million.

Texas has gotten roundly criticized over the years for its handling of capital murder cases. There have been strange capital murder tales coming out of the Lone Star state in recent years, including a capital murder defendant represented by a sleeping lawyer; a defendant sentenced to death by a judge who allegedly was having a secret affair with the prosecutor in the case; and a defendant who was executed after he was barred from filing an appeal after the 5:00 pm closing time of the state’s highest criminal appellate court. That later case prompted a move to impeach Sharon Keller, a judge on the state’s court of criminal appeals.

The Chron reports that the legislation creating the capital defense office was inspired by stories of Texas inmates who lost appeals because their lawyers missed deadlines or filed “skeletal” writs, which contained only scant information often copied from other cases.

“The status quo has been an international embarrassment,” state senator Rodney Ellis, who sponsored the legislation, told the Chron.

Oh LBers, just when we know you’re ready for a healthy does of good news on the employment front, comes news of a veritable meltdown in yet another area of legal practice: Hollywood dealmaking.

Reports the National Law Journal:

The economic recession has hit the most escapist of industries as deals for actors, musicians, directors and other talent in the entertainment sector have plummeted, according to attorneys who structure transactions. Fees and other compensation have declined as studios clamp down on costs, they report.

It’s not news that’s likely to cause shockwaves through whole classes of law-school second years — Hollywood boutiques often only hire lawyers with dealmaking apprenticeships from elsewhere. But it’s not good news for New York and LA lawyers who were hoping to make a full-fledged jump into entertainment law.

“Every entertainment lawyer will tell you the same thing about new deals: They have to do twice as many to stay afloat, which means working twice as hard, because the deals have been cut in half,” said Doug Mark, a partner at Mark Music & Media Law in Los Angeles who worked for several years at the boutique firm Morris Yorn Barnes & Levine.

According to the NLJ, the downturn could lead to a rash of mergers within the industry.

“I do think that in the next 24 months you are going to see more consolidation of law firms, whether it’s in the form of boutiques getting together or individuals from boutiques joining larger firms,” said Craig Emanuel, chairman of Loeb & Loeb’s Los Angeles entertainment department and talent practice group. “Like in any business in a depressed time, finding a way to share overhead with somebody else becomes a critical factor.”