SBM Blog

What You Need to Know About Dewey & LeBoeuf

Question What's "Dewey & LeBoeuf"? Answer A very big, very venerable, global New York City law firm whose possible death throes have been in the legal news for months. Now, daily reports on its struggles are hitting the mainstream media.

Question "Dewey" as in "Dewey beats Truman"? Answer Yes.

Question What's happening? Answer The technical term for the exodus of partners leaving Dewey in the last several months is "in droves." Dewey has retained bankruptcy counsel and has cancelled its incoming class of summer associates. 

Question So what? Answer If a firm of such prestigious heritage and solid reputation and size bites the dust, lawyers everywhere need to be paying attention and asking questions such as: What was Dewey's business model, and does it look anything like mine? What were the firm's operating assumptions about growth, equity, and the future of the practice of law, and are mine the same? Is this just a case of bad management or is Dewey a very big canary in the legal industry mineshaft? Here are some current analyses and hypotheses:

• "Dishing the Debt" The Lawyer.
• "Partner Exodus May Upend Dewey’s Loans" and "With a Merger Unlikely, Dewey's Options Shrink" New York Times
• "Dewey & LeBoeuf Near Collapse—Are Other White Shoe Law Firms In Peril?" Daily Beast

Photo: Thomas Dewey

New Research Reopens Debate On William Rehnquist's Brown v. Board of Education Views

In "New Look at an Old Memo Casts More Doubt on Rehnquist," Adam Liptak reports on new information concerning an infamous memo written by William Rehnquist when he was a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson.  The memo said, “I realize it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.”  After Newsweek revealed the memo just before Rehnquist's confirmation hearing in 1971, Rehnquist explained that the memo did not represent his own views but was instead a statement of Justice Jackson’s tentative views for Jackson's own use. Liptak's story calls attention to new research published in an article in The Boston College Law Review that casts doubt on that explanation. A must-read for legal history buffs.

Michigan Women's Hall of Fame Adds Marilyn Kelly, Kary Moss

The Michigan Women's Hall of Fame has grown bigger and even more complete by the addition last week of two members of the State Bar of Michigan: Justice Marilyn J. Kelly, and Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan ACLU.  Bravo, Hall of Fame. Congratulations, ladies.

"Lincoln Was Self-Taught, So Why Go To Law School?"

That's the question discussed in this WSJ Law Blog post.  Lincoln also rode a horse.  So, why drive cars?

SBM Blog acknowledges the excellent additional observation of member Steven Dulan: "Also, you are not Lincoln."

Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Kelo

Slavery, Abortion, and Eminent Domain. Justice Antonin Scalia says that these three cases are the Pantheon of judicial over-reaching, and predicts that the Kelo decision will be overturned.  Compare, contrast, discuss.

Portrait: Dred Scott by Louis Schultze, 1882

The Anniversary of the Failure of the Bork Nomination: Reflections

In "The Ugliness Started With Bork," the NYT's Joe Nocera notes the anniversary of the rejection of Robert Bork's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and calls it the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics.  Bork's own reflections in a recent Newsweek interview are here.  And here are Linda Greenhouse's thoughts, ten years out.

Photo: Straight out of central casting for a role as a barrister in a Masterpiece Theatre production, Robert Bork's official photo as a federal judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

William Howard Taft's Really Terrific Idea for Lawyers

A fascinating piece from The Daily's History Page about a "bygone dress code for women lawyers" uncovers a movement to have all lawyers wear robes in court:

In their quest for a gender-neutral standard of attire, women lawyers urged all lawyers, men and women, to wear a robe in court. This was not an original idea. Former President William Howard Taft had already called for the robe, believing it would give all lawyers more professional respect. But feminist lawyers saw additional virtues in the robe and embraced it as a symbol of gender equality that would erase “sex consciousness” in the courtroom.

William Howard Taft surely had his own motivations for advocating form-concealing professional attire, but it's hard not to lament the personal fortunes and years of anxiety spent in pursuit of appropriate courtroom wardrobes that might have been devoted to more worthy pursuits had robed attire been adopted as the norm for U.S. attorneys.

Lawyers in Congress: Historical Pattern

From an upcoming paper by Duke professor Nicholas Carnes,who studied the connection between the occupational backgrounds of members of Congress from 1901 to 1996 and their voting behavior:PDF

With the exception of a modest increase in the percentage of representatives classified as career politicians in the early 1980s and a corresponding drop in the proportion of lawyers, the occupational makeup of the House changed surprisingly little during the 20th century (despite seismic changes in the composition of the American workforce). For most of the last hundred years, between one and two thirds of representatives were lawyers.

HT: NYT

30 Years Ago Today, A U.S. Supreme Court First

Michigan Law grad and novelist Meg Waite Clayton has an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times, "Flirting with Justice,"  commemorating the 30th anniversary of the swearing-in of Sandra Day O'Connor as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

This Week's Eyewitness Story: Perjury Charge for Recanting 1994 Murder Trial Testimony

Willie Johnson, the victim of a 1992 shooting in which two of his friends were killed has been indicted for perjury in Illinois after recanting the testimony he gave in 1994.  His eyewitness testimony resulted in the conviction of two men who are now serving life sentences.  In the post-conviction hearing earlier this year in which Johnson recanted his testimony, the judge found Johnson's testimony was not credible and refused the convicted men's petitions.  Johnson's lawyer, Steven Greenberg, is calling foul. As reported in Chicago Tribune, says the indictment is unprecedented and could discourage other witnesses who lied on the stand from coming forward and admitting their errors.  "When the state starts indicting people for perjury like this, eventually that will lead to suppressing the truth." he said.  A spokesperson for
Northwestern University Law School's Center for Wrongful Convictions called the perjury charge "beyond outrageous."

HT: ABA Journal