LAW BLOG NEWSLETTER
from The Wall Street Journal Online
May 1, 2009 -- 6:30 p.m.
___________________________________
TODAY'S POSTS
- Afternoon Roundup: Feds Seek to Drop AIPAC Charges, More
- How Will Justice Souter's Departure Affect Big Business?
- The Jones Day Bankruptcy Billing Machine
- More On the Mark Levy Tragedy
- Spurned Associate's Suit Against Orrick Still Alive
- More on Souter . . . And Specter and Shakespeare
- Morning Roundup: A Sentence, A New Probe and a Very Strange Disbarment
- Chrysler Judge Arthur Gonzalez: No Stranger to Big Cases
- On the News of Justice David Souter's Retirement
***
Afternoon Roundup: Feds Seek to Drop AIPAC Charges, More
Before heading off for the weekend, let's get you caught up on a few matters that we didn't get to today (we're blaming you, Justice Souter).
Feds Move to Dismiss Another Case: Only weeks removed from the Ted Stevens debacle, the Justice Department said today that it will ask for dismissal of all charges in a criminal case against two former officials of AIPAC, the influential pro-Israel lobbying organization. The rationale, according to a filing made Friday: Recent court decisions had made it hard for federal prosecutors to win the case. The disclosure will likely end the five-year legal battle between the government and lawyers for the pair: Abbe Lowell of McDermott Will & Emery and Arent Fox's John Nassikas and Baruch Weiss. Click here for the writeup from the Blog of Legal Times.
An Aggrieved AIG Lawyer: A former AIG lawyer says she was fired after protesting what she alleges was a potentially "corrupt arrangement" between the financial-services company and a South Korean government agency that invested in an AIG real-estate fund. Click here for the WSJ story.
Au Revoir Demjanjuk? The Sixth Circuit opened the way again Friday for the Justice Department to deport alleged Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk to Germany to face 29,000 counts of accessory to murder. The panel denied a stay of deportation for the 89-year-old retired autoworker from his suburban Cleveland home. Click here for the AP story.
Happy Law Day! What else can we say? It is, yes, Law Day.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/afternoon-roundup-feds-seek-to-drop-aipac-charges-more#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
How Will Justice Souter's Departure Affect Big Business?
Associated Press Then-New Hampshire Attorney General David Souter is seen in this undated photo in Concord, N.H. Souter served as New Hampshire Attorney General from 1976-1978. The answer to the above question hinges largely, of course, on who takes Justice Souter's slot at the high court. Friday afternoon, President Obama praised Justice Souter and promised to nominate a replacement with "a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity." Click here, for the record, for Justice Souter's retirement letter to Obama, dated today.
For a little insight on the effect a possible replacement might have on big business, we talked with Evan Tager, a partner at Mayer Brown in Washington, D.C. and a member of the firm's Supreme Court and appellate practice.
Hi Evan. Thanks for taking the time. Interesting day, huh?
You know, we have elections every four years, but it feels like Supreme Court nominations happen only about once a decade. For folks like me, a retirement is a big event.
You've argued in front of the Court and have attended numerous arguments. Tell us first off what Justice Souter was like on the bench.
He was unfailingly courteous. He wasn't there to embarrass the lawyers, nor was he there to one-up another justice. He used oral argument for its proper and valid purpsoe, to delve more deeply into some of the issues and in some instances give the lawyer a chance to talk him out of the way he's leaning. He'd often say: "suppose I'm writing the opinion that largely supports your side. What can I say here to avoid this from becoming a slippery slope?" He wasn't a justice who was looking to dominate an argument or show off.
And in terms of loquaciousness, if you place maybe Justices Scalia and Ginsburg on one side of a spectrum, and Justice Thomas on the other, where did Justice Souter fall?
He's pretty squarely in the middle. He usually says something in every argument, but doesn't generally hammer away question after question. He's quite comfortable deferring to other colleagues.
He seems to have been well liked by practitioners and well-regarded by academics and others.
I think that's right. I, personally, think the world of him. He's exceptionally conscientious; he really sweats the details. He really wants to get to the bottom of things. Though having said that, I think the same can be said of most - if not all - of the other justices. They really are an impressive and talented bunch.
Justice Souter keeps getting referred to as a "liberal" or at least as voting usually with the more liberal wing of the court. Do you find this label accurate?
I think reality is more nuanced than that for a few reasons.
First of all, Souter was not easily pigeonholed. As you may know, calling him a liberal is in part a function of where the court is on the spectrum to begin with. He's certainly nothing like a [Justice William] Brennan or [Justice Thurgood] Marshall. For instance, there are certainly areas of the law in which he clearly 'gets' the business side of the picture. He's not a liberal, pro-plaintiff justice at all. For example, he's never voted against the defendants on the merits in a punitive damages case.
People criticize the Exxon Valdez punitive-damages decision that came down last year as being a product of the Bush administration or the conservative wing of the court. But that was a Souter opinion. (Click here for an earlier LB post on the Exxon ruling.)
Would you call him a centrist on business issues?
I think that's fair. I think he's voted both ways in various cases, in securities cases and antitrust cases. And on preemption cases, he's taken a moderate position too.
Okay, so an Obama pick could actually move the court left on business issues?
It's possible. But the thing with a nomination is that the president wants someone with whom he squares ideologically across a range of issues, not just on one particular issue or subset of issues. It's not exactly accurate, I think, to say that the President will be looking to nominate someone who will move the Court to the left on business issues, though that certainly could be the effect of choosing someone whose general judicial philosophy is compatible with his. Another thing to bear in mind is that the President will want to pick someone who's going to be a credit to the Court and the President.
President Clinton picked two very scholarly people for the Court, and I think they've been great justices. They don't always win the day, but they certainly do credit to the president who appointed them. President [George W.] Bush's appointees too. They were each at the top of their profession when they were tapped. Justice Alito was one of the elite judges on the Third Circuit when he was picked, and Chief Justice Roberts probably would have gone on to become an elite judge on the D.C. Circuit had he been there longer. These were all extremely solid picks.
Anyone you think would make a particularly good justice?
People say he's likely to appoint a Hispanic or a woman, and that that narrows the range of prospective candidates, but there are some awfully talented people within those groups.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit. I think she'd be a wonderful option. If you look at her rulings, you wouldn't necessarily say she's going to give the liberal interest groups everything on their wishlists, but that she's going to be open-minded about the issues, not doctrinaire. Frankly, I hope that's something Obama's looking for, too.
Back to business. The court in recent years has looked at looked closely at clusters of cases on particular issues or legal topics, like patent law, federal preemption and the due-process concerns of punitive damages.
Employment law, too.
Right. Forgot about that. Employment law, too. Do you forsee any issues that the court might be looking to take up in the years to come? I realize, it's nearly impossible to predict that, but give it a shot, if you would.
I don't know if I'm the best of prognosticators, but they've taken up four cases in recent years having to do with the Federal Arbitration Act. My guess is that they're not done with that area.
One looming issue that I think they'll eventually take up is this: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state law determination that an arbitration clause that precludes class actions is unconscionable. It's been an issue that we've been fighting in the trenches for several years. And I do believe they'll at some point grasp the nettle on the issue.
I think there's more to do on punitive damages too, so we'll see.
Well, thanks, Evan, for taking the time.
My pleasure.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/how-will-justice-souters-departure-affect-big-business#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
The Jones Day Bankruptcy Billing Machine
About now, as our thoughts frankly turn to the weekend, we feel a pang of sympathy for the Chrysler bankruptcy team at Jones Day. They have so many miles to go before they sleep.
But, at least, they are well paid for the troubles. The Dealscape blog has a nice post spelling out just how well paid they are.
Based on court filings, Jones Day partner John Cornell will be billing $950 per hour. He specializes in employee benefits, a legal topic that we're guessing will get a bit of a workout in the Chrysler case.
Corinne Ball, (pictured) the head debtor's counsel, and her colleague David Heiman, each clock in at $900 per hour. All told, 18 Jones Day partners are working on the case.
So how do these impressive billing rates rank in the grand bankruptcy scheme of things?
Cornell, according to Dealscape, does not even rank in the top 15 fee earners in the bankruptcy bar, a list that includes Mark Thompson (Simpson Thacher) at $980 per hour and Jonathan Landers, who used to bill out at $955 per hour at Gibson Dunn. Click here for an LB post on Landers and the work he is doing at Milberg, his new home.
For those keeping score at home, Dealscape reports that Cornell's billing rate is on par with Harvey Miller at Weil - who's billing $950 an hour in the Lehman case - and Martin Bienenstock at Dewey LeBoeuf.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/the-jones-day-billing-machine#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
More On the Mark Levy Tragedy
We wanted to double back to the tragic story of Mark Levy, the head of the Supreme Court practice at Kilpatrick Stockton who killed himself yesterday in his D.C. office.
WaPo has a story out today that Kilpatrick had laid off Levy. Thursday would have been his last day at work, WaPo reported.
"Mark Levy was well known and highly respected for his successful appearances before the Supreme Court," Kilpatrick's co-managing partner said yesterday in a statement. "We offer our deepest condolences to his family."
We caught up with some lawyers who knew Levy. Tom Goldstein, of Akin Gump, says Levy was very well regarded in the clubby, elite Supreme-Court bar. "We're unlikely to ever know exactly what happened, and his family deserves its privacy, but it [could be that] the hard-edged business of the law exacted a terrible cost yesterday," Goldstein says.
Levy, according to WaPo, was discovered by a co-worker at about 8:00 a.m. in his 11th-floor office. He evidently left a note at his home saying he loved his family and instructing his wife on how to handle family finances; the attorney's 20-year-old son found the note and called police.
After a stint in the Solicitor General's office, Levy joined Mayer Brown, where he was a partner. He later joining the Justice Department under Clinton and did a stint at Howrey.
"Mark was an able lawyer and a good guy," says Roy Englert Jr.. of D.C., who worked with Levy at Mayer Brown and in government.
Englert believes it's simplistic to attribute Levy's suicide solely to the business pressures of practicing law in an increasingly competitive industry. Levy won an important ERISA case at the Supreme Court in January.
And in March, he won a key Federal Circuit ruling for a Native American client. The court upheld the right of the Tohono O'odham Nation to pursue its claims that the US mismanaged the Nation's trust property. Based on those rulings, Englert says, Levy's career appeared to be going well. "Things like this don't have a single cause," he says. "Stuff could get under his skin, but nothing to the extent that made me think this would happen."
Mayer Brown partner Andrew Frey, who worked with Levy at Mayer Brown and at the Solicitor General's Office, describes him as shy and reserved. "He was not an outgoing, glad-handing kind of person," Frey says. "But the news was a complete shock."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/more-on-the-mark-levy-suicide#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Spurned Associate's Suit Against Orrick Still Alive
To many associates in BigLaw, Patrick Hoeffner may have gained folk hero status in 2006 when he filed suit against Orrick, claiming the firm shafted him when it declined to make him partner.
Click here for an LB post on the suit, which claimed that Orrick promised to make Hoeffner partner, because it allegedly feared the former intellectual-property associate was heading to Chadbourne & Parke and taking mad business with him.
Orrick at the time called the suit baseless. In 2008, a New York trial court partially granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing the suit.
Yesterday, a New York appellate court reinstated Hoeffner's claim that he was induced to remain at Orrick with the promise of partnership. (HT to the Legal Profession Blog.)
"Plaintiff's alleged reliance on the individual defendants' statements concerning the partnership process at the law firm and plaintiff's partnership prospects was not unreasonable as a matter of law," the appellate court held in its ruling. "He was an associate with no experience in applying for partnership at the firm."
Orrick's lawyer, Gerard Harper at Paul Weiss, emphasizes that the appellate court upheld the lower court's dismissal of other claims by Hoeffner. As far as damages, Hoeffner at most will be entitled to the "the difference between what Orrick actually paid him and the outstanding offer from Chadbourne, which he turned down to stay at Orrick," Harper says. "That number is south of $60,000. That's like the cost of a couple of depositions in today's world."
Hoeffner's "economic damages are limited to $60,000," his lawyer, Douglas Wigdor says. "But the other half of the story is that Mr. Hoeffner is entitled to uncapped punitive damages, which we believes will be in the millions of dollars." Wigdor says that Hoeffner is still practicing law, though he did not know where. "Had he gotten what he was promised at Orrick, he'd be earning substantially more money than he is earning now."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/spurned-associates-suit-against-orrick-still-alive#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
More on Souter . . . And Specter and Shakespeare
A few further snippets on the Souter departure have come our way this morning, and rather than hoard them all to ourselves, we thought we'd share the love.
A Specter of Delay? Over at the Election Law blog, Loyola's Rick Hasen has some interesting thoughts on how the confirmation process for Justice Souter's replacement might play out, especially in light of Senator Arlen Specter's recent defection to the Democratic party. Writes Hasen:
Senator Specter has been the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with his change to a Democrat, it could be Senator Grassley or someone else who takes [over] as ranking minority member. This can affect both timing and who President Obama might choose.
On timing, it is going to take some time for the new ranking member to set things up. There could be delays in getting the vetting process open, and Democrats will be hard pressed to rush the process given that it is Specter's departure that caused the delay. Of course, the more controversial the candidate, the more time Republicans are likely to take. . . . But it is not a given that, even if the President nominates someone promptly, that the person will be seated the first Monday in October.
Souter and Shakespeare: A few weeks ago, Jess Bravin, the WSJ's Supreme Court reporter wrote an amusing piece about Justice John Paul Stevens's rather developed thoughts on the "authorship question" pertaining to Shakespeare. (Here's our blog post on the story.) The gist of it: Stevens has done his research and feels strongly that the Bard of Avon's plays were largely the work of the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.
One of the strange things about the piece was that others on the court - namely Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer - all seemed to have an opinion on the matter as well.
So we found it somewhat refreshing to read Justice Souter's comments on the matter, which didn't make their way into Bravin's story. Writes Bravin:
When asked his views of the Shakespeare authorship question, Justice David Souter recalled the comment of the late Harvard professor George Lyman Kittredge, who in his day faced claims that Sir Francis Bacon was the true genius behind the Bard. "I'll agree that Bacon wrote Shakespeare if you'll tell me who wrote Bacon," Kittredge liked to say, Justice Souter said.
As far as his own position, Justice Souter was far less decisive than he has been on recent cases involving the Fourth Amendment and punitive damages. "I have no idea who wrote the plays, but I'm glad someone did," he said.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/more-on-souter-and-specter-and-shakespeare#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Morning Roundup: A Sentence, A New Probe and a Very Strange Disbarment
In all the hubbub about Souter's retirement, the Chrysler bankruptcy, the Mark Levy tragedy, we're running the risk of letting some good news stories pass us by. Let's get you caught up quickly:
Graham Gets Sentenced: The former assistant general counsel of General Re Corp., Robert Graham, was sentenced on Thursday to one year and one day of federal prison in a financial fraud case. Graham, 61, was found guilty last year of conspiracy, securities fraud, mail fraud and making false statements to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Prosecutors had alleged that the five defendants schemed to inflate AIG's loss reserves, which indicate the financial health of an insurance firm, by creating two sham reinsurance transactions between the companies. All five were convicted last year. Click here for the NLJ story.
SEC Investigating Schering-Plough Trades: The SEC is investigating trading of Schering-Plough shares ahead of the announcement of its merger with Merck & Co., people familiar with the matter said. The investigation is focusing on whether people trading the pharmaceutical company's stock in late February or early March were using inside information about the merger talks, which concluded in a deal announced Monday, March 9. Click here for the WSJ story.
UBS Rebuffs US: UBS AG, in a court filing aimed at fending off Internal Revenue Service attempts to gain access to information about American clients, said Thursday it can't provide information to U.S. tax collectors because the move would violate Swiss privacy laws. Click here for the WSJ story.
Sex-For-Pay Lawyer Gets Disbarred: A lawyer who let a female client work off her fee through sex has been disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court. The justices wrote that the man admitted having sex with his 18-year-old client and another woman in exchange for credits toward her $2,300 fee for handling an assault case. He agreed to take off $200 every time he had sex with her and $400 when she arranged sex with another woman. Click here for the AP story.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/morning-roundup-a-sentence-a-new-probe-and-a-very-strange-disbarment#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Chrysler Judge Arthur Gonzalez: No Stranger to Big Cases
There's presumably much handwringing going on among all the parties involved in the Chrysler bankruptcy. But, judging from reports out today, the parties probably need not spend too much time worrying about the judge on the case - Arthur Gonzalez of the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York. Click here, here, and here for stories from the WSJ, NYT, and Bloomberg, respectively.
Judge Gonzalez is no stranger to big, high-profile bankruptcies. He presided over the filings in Enron and Worldcom - and, judging from some of the players on those cases, did a bang-up job of it.
Dewey & Leboeuf's Martin Bienenstock, who represented Enron in its bankruptcy, told the WSJ's David McLaughlin that Gonzalez isn't afraid of taking novel approaches to move complex cases along. In the Enron case, for instance, Gonzalez set 15-minute trials to determine the fate of thousands of claims. As a result, most creditors ended up settling. "I think he's a judge you can count on to do the right thing and not be pressured by anyone," Bienenstock says.
"I think it's a good thing for everyone involved - the creditors, the company," said Paul Hastings's Luc Despins, who represented Enron's creditors, to the NYT. "He's just a very efficient and very organized judge. He's used to dealing with huge cases with huge dockets."
Frankly, in reading both stories, we were perhaps most taken by Gonzalez's personal story. From 1969 to 1982, he taught math in a New York City elementary school. Then, after getting a law degree from Fordham Law School at night, he was a staff attorney for the Internal Revenue Service in New York and spent three years in private practice.
In 1991, he joined the U.S. Trustee's office, an arm of the Justice Department that monitors bankruptcy proceedings. He was appointed a federal bankruptcy judge In 1995.
Granted, in many ways, the Chrysler case offers nuances and complexities that even Enron and Worldcom didn't. For starters, Gonzalez will have to wrestle with the presence of the Obama administration, which both brokered and funded a deal aimed at keeping Chrysler alive.
The Obama plan requires that secured lenders make concessions to unsecured creditors - namely employees in the United Auto Workers union - a step that would be at odds with decades of bankruptcy practice. And as we outlined in a post yesterday, those creditors could stymie a process that President Obama has said "will be quick."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/chrysler-judge-arthur-gonzalez-no-stranger-to-big-cases#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
On the News of Justice David Souter's Retirement
For those of you who haven't checked just about any news Web site since last evening - and otherwise don't have the names of all nine Supreme Court justices plugged into Google Alerts - let us gladly be the ones who bring you the news: Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire from the Supreme Court. Here are reports from the WSJ, NYT, and WaPo.
We'll have more on the news over the course of the day; for now, let's hit the high-level points and give you a few more links to check out.
Why now? To court watchers, it's been one of Washington's best-kept secrets: that the 69 year-old jurist had over the years grown increasingly disenchanted with life in Washington and reportedly longed to return to his home state, New Hampshire. Souter had reportedly sussed out whether two other members of the more liberal wing of the court - Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Ginsburg - had plans to retire in the next year, and feeling confident enough both in Justice Stevens's desire to stick around for another year and in Justice Ginsburg's health prognosis, felt that the time was now.
According to the WaPo, a friend who ran into him last summer in Concord said he was surprised by just how strongly Souter spoke about wanting to leave Washington. "He said, 'If Obama wins, I'll be the first one to retire.'"
Adds Tom Goldstein on Scotusblog: "Justice Souter's sense of self has never seemed bound up in his status. It is likely that once it became clear that Justice Ginsburg would fully recover and serve for many years more, this seemed like an appropriate time to retire from the Court."
When the court is not in session, Souter lives in Weare, a small town west of Concord where he has a modest 200-year-old farmhouse on eight acres.
What's his legacy? Well, far be it from us to weigh in on such a question mere hours after the news breaks. But we can tell you this: Nearly from the day he was sworn onto the court, back in 1990, the George H.W. Bush-appointed Justice Souter was a disappointment to conservatives who supported his nomination and a surprising boon to liberals. Throughout his tenure - first with the Rehnquist court and more recently with the Roberts court - Justice Souter regularly voted with the liberal bloc (which was often also the minority bloc). Dating to President Clinton's first term, that group consisted mostly of Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Souter.
Justice Souter cast what appeared to many to be a surprising vote in a 1992 abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which it was widely expected that the 1973 landmark case upholding abortion rights, Roe v. Wade, would be either partly or wholly overturned. But owing in part to Justice Souter's vote, Roe was largely upheld. In the fractious 2000 opinion Bush v. Gore, which essentially settled that year's presidential election by ending the ballot recount in Florida, Souter voted with the minority.
For a quick synopsis of some of the larger cases in which Justice Souter played a significant role, check out Goldstein's excellent post. He writes:
So far, [Souter] has written 156 majority opinions for the Court. There isn't the space here - or the time for reflection - to catalog them in order of importance or interest. But in constitutional law, his opinion for five Justices in McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), stands at the knife's edge of stating a controlling rule of law in Establishment Clause cases that may not survive the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor. His opinion in the right of speech and association in Hurley v. Irish-American, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), is among the most often cited in the field. For a time, he was a member of a majority to more broadly uphold campaign finance regulation, as reflected in his opinions in FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001), and Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (1999). For a man with a somewhat distant relationship with technology, his opinion in MGM Studios v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is surpassingly important to the future of copyright, and opinions like Verizon Comms. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467 (2002), play a central role in telecommunications regulation. Others decided critical questions of procedure. The defense bar hopes that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), is a landmark ruling on the obligation to set forth detailed allegations in a complaint.
What happens next? With 59 supporters in the Senate, President Obama will likely have wide latitude in choosing Souter's replacement. Since last November's election, a consensus has grown that Obama will feel pressure to add a second woman to the court. Some names that will likely be on a short list include Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, the former dean of the Harvard Law school and nominee to become President Obama's first solicitor genreral, Seventh Circuit judge Diana Pamela Wood, former Stanford Law dean Kathleen Sullivan, Leah Ward Sears, the chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.
For more on possible replacements, click here for Goldstein's take.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/01/on-the-news-of-justice-david-souters-retirement#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
___________________________________
LAW VIDEO
Jim Roos discusses his fight against states' authority to condemn private property for economic development, in a documentary "Begging for Billionaires," which looks at the use of eminent domain in Missouri.
http://online.wsj.com/video/non-profits-losing-ground-to-eminent-domain/3A3749DF-F33F-4E3B-9FAE-9A427241FEEB.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
___________________________________
TOP LAW NEWS
Souter's move would create the first vacancy on the high court for Obama to fill. - Souter's Letter | Obama's Remarks - Advocacy Groups Prepare for Battle - Graphics: A New Face? | Now on the Court
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124114676548376235.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Obama said he will nominate as a successor to Supreme Court Justice Souter someone who understands how laws affect people's daily lives. - Souter's Letter | Court Statements | Obama's Remarks - Advocacy Groups Prepare for Battle - Graphics: A New Face? | Now on the Court
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124120744285578265.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Federal prosecutors dismissed espionage-related charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who had been accused of disclosing classified defense information. (Court filing)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124118611834077273.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Chrysler thanked workers and major lenders for their sacrifices in its first appearance in what it hopes will be a fast trip through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124119661546577761.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
A federal appeals court opened the way again for the Justice Department to deport alleged Nazi death-camp guard John Demjanjuk to Germany.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124119238093577535.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Souter's move would create the first vacancy on the high court for Obama to fill. - Souter's Letter | Obama's Remarks - Advocacy Groups Prepare for Battle - Graphics: A New Face? | Now on the Court
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124114676548376235.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
___________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT
Take Advantage of Online Journal Research and Tools!
Utilize our valuable research and tools for important business,
investing and financial planning decisions. Our research includes
quotes and up-to-date information on nearly 30,000 companies as well
as an article archive and extensive market data.
http://online.wsj.com/advanced_search?mod=emtdfix
Contact WSJ's Law Blog at lawblog@wsj.com
__________________________________
ONLINE JOURNAL E-MAIL CENTER
TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY from this list, go to:
http://setup.wsj.com/EmailSubMgr/do/delete?addr=ignoble.experiment%40ARCONATI.US&id=145
Your request will take effect within 48 hours.
TO VIEW OR CHANGE any of your e-mail settings, go to the E-Mail Setup Center:
http://online.wsj.com/email
You are currently subscribed as ignoble.experiment@ARCONATI.US
FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-369-2834
or 1-609-514-0870 between the hours of 7 am - 10 pm Monday - Friday and 8 am - 3 pm Saturday or e-mail onlinejournal@wsj.com.
___________________________________
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy -
http://online.wsj.com/public/privacy_policy
Contact Us -
http://online.wsj.com/public/contact_us
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.