I’ve been working on a story about contested judicial elections and coincidentally came across a story about such a race in Oklahoma. (Shameless self-promotion: my story is slated for our Aug. 9 Maryland Lawyer.)

John Mantooth was running for a seat in on Oklahoma’s District Court in Tuesday’s primary election. (No word on whether he is related to Wes.) Mantooth’s adult daughter took out an ad in a local paper with the following headline: “Do Not Vote For My Dad!” There’s also a website of the same name.

The ad claims Mantooth is neither a good dad nor a good grandfather. The daughter, Jan Schill, said she’s never had a good relationship with her father, who divorced her mother in 1981. Mantooth said he was “saddened” and “hurt” by the ad but still loves his daughter.

Mantooth also suspected politics had something to do with the ad. Schill’s husband was once a law partner of Greg Dixon, one of Mantooth’s opponents.

“For a person to believe that Greg Dixon had nothing to do with this is like trying to believe that cows give chocolate milk,” Mantooth said.

Dixon and Mantooth, incidentally, were the top two vote-getters in Tuesday’s primary and will face off in the general election in November.

“Did they know it was your last day?” my editor asked, laughing.

I had just told her that the Court of Appeals drug possession opinion I was writing about mentioned both Cheech and Chong (Judge Harrell‘s majority opinion) and Mr. Mackey from South Park (Judge Greene‘s dissent). (An aside: bets on whether Judge Greene himself or one of his clerks inserted the Mr. Mackey bit?)

Anyway, it was a nice treat on my last day to write about an opinion full of pop culture references. So if you’re out there somewhere, Judges Harrell and Greene (I wouldn’t ordinarily assume that they read this blog, but if Judge Greene watches South Park, anything is possible), thanks for making my last day as a legal affairs writer for The Daily Record that much more fun.

Uh oh, sounds like somebody’s got a case of the Mondays!!! Hopefully our law links provide the antidote. (Note: Loyal readers recall Caryn Tamber writing last week that Danielle Ulman would take over the blog round-up. Danielle will, but today she is getting situated in her new business-of-law chair, so you’re stuck with me.)

“Is there a legal angle to the WikiLeaks story?” The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog asks — and answers that it’s unlikely the government can successfully prosecute anyone connected to the leak.

• Who knew pomegranate juice had so much bite? A D.C. judge prevents the National Law Journal from publishing details from documents it legally obtained in a lawsuit involving Hogan Lovells and POM Wonderful.  (HT: ABA Law Journal)
• Above the Law wishes good luck to everyone taking the Bar Exam this week. (As do we. But really, shouldn’t you be studying?)
• Word-of-mouth marketing is one of the best ways to recruit clients, and here’s a study that proves it. (HT: LawMarketing Blog)
• First Mel Gibson. Now Oliver Stone? Oy!

One of the best parts of the World Cup is the national teams’ nicknames. You’ve got the champion Furia Roja and the runner-up Oranje, not to mention El Tri, the Super Eagles and the Blue Samurai, to name a few.

(You can see a full list here. The U.S. is nicknamed the Yanks, which is, well, kinda lame.)

Outside of the Socceroos, however, the best nickname is Bafana Bafana, which belongs to South Africa. Sort of.

That’s because the phrase “Bafana Bafana” (Zulu for “boys, boys”) was actually copyrighted by a South African businessman in 1994. The South African Football Association, which uses the name, lost a lawsuit before the country’s highest court for control of the name in 2002.

Earlier this week, a South African government official suggested Bafana should be changed because of the lack of a copyright. As the AP noted in its story, “There is no indication the current owners of the brand will sue SAFA for using the term, but the country’s soccer association is unable to market it and make money from it.”

SAFA officials said this week they might seek the public’s help in choosing a new nickname. One thing’s for sure: whatever is chosen will probably be better than the Yanks.

(Hat Tip to vuvusela2010bafana.wordpress.com for the photo above.)

Let me start by saying I went to The Senator last night simply to see, for free, a classic film I’d never watched all the way through and to check out what I thought would be a neat event. I didn’t go as a reporter; I didn’t bring a notebook; I didn’t interview former Senator owner Tom Kiefaber (who I’ve actually never spoken to, only read about), and didn’t intend on writing anything until after the whole evening unfolded. Rather, I went dressed in shorts and sneakers with some old family friends and got there only a few minutes before the festivities kicked off, lucky to snag one of the few remaining unclaimed seats in the auditorium.

All disclosures and caveats aside, the point is I’m glad I went because how many opportunities do you get to watch Obi-Wan duel Darth Vader for the first time while simultaneously taking part in a memorable episode of Baltimore history?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Vault rankings of law firm prestige are out. The Vault rankings are based on surveys filled out by 15,000 law firm associates who rate firms on perceived status. No matter how you feel about rankings, these are an interesting read because they include some of the associates’ comments about the firms.

No firm based in Baltimore made the list, but several large firms with a major presence here did. Here’s are their rankings and a sampling what Vault and associates said about them.

• Hogan & Hartson (the survey was done before Hogan merged with the British firm Lovells earlier this year) ranked 28 this year, down from 25 last year. Vault comments, “As one would expect of the largest and oldest BigLaw firm with roots in Washington, D.C., Hogan & Hartson’s Beltway influence runs deep” and notes that Chief Justice John Roberts is a Hogan alum. Associates called the firm “lifestyle-friendly” but also “legends in their own minds” and criticized Hogan for “stealth layoffs.”
• DLA Piper ranked 53, down from 44 last year. Vault comments, “Some love it, some dislike it, but generally associates agree that recent salary cuts have lowered morale.” Associates said things like “competitive and diverse,” “amazing pro bono opportunities” and, somewhat bewilderingly, “extra large pizza with no toppings.” Associates also said the firm is too big. One senior associate told Vault, “Within 12 months, I have gone from my friends saying “wow” when I tell them I work at DLA Piper, to them snickering and asking me why I haven’t left yet.”
• McGuireWoods‘ ranking is unchanged from last year, at 82. Vault says, “McGuire attorneys enjoy the rewards of working at a big-market firm in small-market settings, entering friendly offices in the morning and heading home to their families at night.” Associates made comments like, “good firm; good people,” “old school, boring,” “less pressure than many other similar-sized firms” and “favoritism toward anointed associates.”
• Venable comes in at 83, up from 85 last year. Vault comments, “Venable LLP is a mid-Atlantic force that, until the capital markets meltdown, had defined itself by aggressive expansion.” Associates said, “very nice mid-Atlantic practice,” “quirky,” “strong pro bono commitment” and “bonus and compensation system allows firm to rationalize less-than-market salaries for certain associates.” There’s also a comment from a Baltimore corporate associate: “In Baltimore, we do fairly sophisticated work. It’s not Wall Street, but the projects are interesting and challenging. My practice group covers a lot of people and a lot of different sub-specialties, so it can be hard to find your place when you start. It is difficult to see what the future of the group is. While it’s not written anywhere, if you bill 2000 hours people are pleased.”

I’ve never been to Raleigh-Durham International Airport, but it’s near Duke, so naturally I must root against it under any circumstances. (Go Terps!)

I was doubly delighted, then, upon learning that the airport had conceded defeat in a six-year battle with a local newspaper, The News & Observer, over a ban on vending boxes at the airport. The airport, known as RDU, had argued the news racks “would undermine airport security and aesthetics, impede passenger flow through the terminals, and reduce airport income.”

The case went up and down the federal court system until Thursday, when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied RDU’s request for a rehearing en banc. The airport says it will place news racks at baggage claim and ticket areas of terminals, although The News & Observer and other papers want them in the terminals’ concourses.

That dispute is for another day; what I want to highlight is the “withering rebuke” of RDU written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. Wilkinson, a former newspaper editorial page editor, who attacked RDU’s arguments and offered a spirited defense of the First Amendment. You can read the entire concurring opinion here.

His underlying point is “it is blackletter law that free speech is not to be wholly subordinated to administrative convenience.” And he concludes with the following gem:

“An informed citizenry is at the heart of this democracy, and narrowing the arteries of information in the manner sought by the Authority will only serve to impair our country’s coronary health.”

The other day, I found in my office mailbox a photocopied Subway coupon sheet addressed to “Daily Record Newspaper Employees” and touting “great offers.” As a longtime Subway customer, I read on, expecting to find a deal that would save me a few bucks. Instead, I met with an insult to my intelligence.

“Daily Record Newspaper Employees,” one coupon advertised, could get a FOOTLONG sub, chips and a drink for $7.

Thanks for the personal invitation, Subway, but spare me the disingenuous implication of exclusivity. As any regular patron of the sandwich chain knows, that’s what everybody pays when they make a $5 FOOTLONG into a combo meal.

I don’t know whether the other coupons offer similarly misleading deals. Maybe somebody at another downtown Baltimore employer who eats six-inch subs and has little tolerance for “one for $1, two for $2″ bargains cares to chime in.

Jay Perman, the University of Maryland, Baltimore’s new president, has no problem being known as a nice guy. His annual commencement speech while dean at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine was even about the importance of doctors being nice to patients.

But Perman told reporters and editors at The Daily Record last week that what surprises him are people who view nice as a liability. He recalled early in his career a colleague at the University of California, San Francisco, said Perman “would never make it” because of his niceness.

“So ha-ha,” Perman said dryly. “I’m here to say that’s not true.”

Perman describes himself as nice by nature but also in a pragmatic way.

“When you’re nice, it becomes that much easier to demand of those who are not nice that they shape up or get out,” he said. “That’s why it’s been so effective for me.”

That Perman is a pediatrician has also helped him as an administrator. (You can insert your own joke here about what caring for children and overseeing a faculty have in common.)

“I think if there’s a case for a leader being nice, that sort of self-selection goes into choosing pediatrics,” he said. ‘There are no harsher critics of nasty adults than children. They will not have it.”

Happy Monday! Here are a few law links to start your gonna-be-another-hot-one week.

On a personal note, this will be my last blog round-up, since I will be wrapping up five great years at The Daily Record this Friday. The round-up will be taken over by Danielle Ulman, who will also be moving from covering finance, energy and biotech to covering the business of law. She’ll do a great job!

• “One part charisma, one part skill and a dash of improvisation is the recipe for success,” “Be careful who you smack with a steel chair, because he will probably be your tag-team partner next week,” and other law career lessons from pro wrestling. HT: ABA Journal.
• Would you tell another lawyer that she looks inappropriate?
• Could soldiers who believe homosexuality is wrong seek conscientious objector status as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ends?
• With Justice Stevens’ departure, Justice Breyer looks ready to lead the opposition, former Daily Record-ite Lawrence Hurley writes.
• There’s never been so much riding on passing the bar exam, argues a bar review teacher.
• But she’s so darn sassy!