April showers are about to bring May flowers, but a Monday always brings you the blog roundup. Here are some tidbits as you prepare to celebrate Law Day:

-A Georgia lawyer traded pills for a peep show with female prison inmates.

-American Lawyer released its list of highest-grossing firms.

-A Washington, D.C., lawyer reached his goal of swimming in 50 states before he turned 50.

-A Duke University School of Law student tried to get an answer to a question on his Constitutional Law exam by posting it on the Internet.

Still upset about last night’s game? Just getting to work now because of last night’s game? Here are some links to take your mind off it.

• A former Baltimore County public defender starts a law firm in Annapolis focusing on “low bono” clients.
• Are we ripe for growth in the small-town lawyer arena? An Above the Law contributor says, “Possibly.”
• Turns out a stability ball in Sacramento might not have been all that stable.
• A primer on the “Repeal Amendment” you might be hearing more about once Congress becomes Tea Party-flavored next month. (The story has generated a spirited back-and-forth on The Volokh Conspiracy.)
• Say what you want about Eliot Spitzer, but “professional exerciser” Ron Miller gives the former New York governor high marks as a lawyer.

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!

There’s research, and then there’s what Montgomery Kosma did. Kosma, co-founder of The Green Bag, reviewed more than 24,000 opinions written by the first 99 U.S. Supreme Court justices and the 1.2 million citations of the opinions that appeared in later Supreme Court and appeals court cases. His findings, according to his interesting guest column in Sunday’s Washington Post:

I found that Supreme Court decisions are highly durable — half the instances in which an opinion is cited occur more than 14 years after the opinion was written. Since the average justice’s tenure is well over a decade, a president should expect that his nominee will probably influence the law for more than 25 years.

Kosma’s point is that the net influence of a justice is no different whether he or she is nominated at 50 or 60. It’s just more concentrated coming from an older justice.  Which is why Kosma argues President Obama should nominate an older candidate as opposed to a younger one.

“The question isn’t if Garland and Wood are too old,” Kosma concludes. “Rather, is Kagan old enough?”

It’s generally accepted that the “holiday season” ends with New Year’s Day. But the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas tomorrow, and the Armenian Apostolic Church celebrates Christmas tomorrow. So, technically, we are still in the holiday season.

This means I am not late at all in sharing with you a clever holiday eCard I was forwarded. It comes from the powerhouse D.C. law firm Akin Gump.

Merry Christmas to those now observing it.

A vote on U.S. District Judge Andre M. Davis’ nomination to the 4th Circuit could be scheduled as soon as next week, according to The Baltimore Sun’s Maryland Politics blog.

Since taking office, President Obama has made 17 Article III appointments to the federal judiciary. So far the full Senate has approved just one: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who heard her first case on Wednesday.

Sorry, still no word on when DLLR Secretary Tom Perez might be able to follow his staff to the Justice Department.

My expense report consists primarily of parking receipts and courthouse document copies. So I was impressed when I read a former legal secretary charged more than $46,000 on a company credit card to finance her side business – male exotic dancers.

Jarriette Richie, 41, was charged in Washington, D.C. federal court with fraud last week, according to The Washington Post. Richie worked at Saul Ewing LLP’s Washington office for three months in 2007, according to court filings. The credit card belonged to a lawyer whose firm merged with Saul Ewing, and all information related to the card was kept “in a locked room near Richie’s desk at Saul Ewing,” according to court filings.

Richie’s side businesses was Show N Tell Entertainment, which catered to female audiences and was based out of Richie’s Clinton home. The fraud charges stem from her planning an August 2007 trip to a Puerto Rican resort featuring the male performers. She used a personal credit cart to cover a $5,000 deposit, but then charged more than $21,000 on the company credit card for airline tickets and more than $25,000 for expenses at the resort, according to court filings.

Richie was released on her own recognizance following her initial court appearance Sept. 4, and her next hearing is scheduled for Sept. 18.

Deep in today’s WaPo story about the deadliest crash in Metro history is this nugget:

The first lawsuit against Metro as a result of the crash was filed yesterday, and more are expected. The parents of Davonne Flanagan, 15, of the District sued in federal court, charging “negligent operation” and “negligent maintenance” on the part of Metro and the train’s operator.

Imhotep Yakub and Dawn Flanagan are seeking $950,000 for Davonne’s fractured leg and his pain and suffering. They are represented by Lawrence Lapidus, of the D.C. office of Karp, Frosh, Lapidus, Wigodsky & Norwind. (The firm also has offices in Rockville and Alexandria.)

A search of the PACER system shows no other suits filed against WMATA this week in D.C. or Maryland’s federal courts.

We’ve documented the struggle for funding of legal services in Maryland, but there’s been news in the last week about federal funding for legal services.

It began Thursday when the House approved $440 million in funding for the Legal Services Corp. for Fiscal Year 2010, a $50 million increase from the current fiscal year. The bill passed after an amendment to eliminate LSC was defeated 323-105, according to LSC.

Rep. Allan B. Mollohan, D-W. Va., said the amendment was “the wrong place to try to balance the budget,” echoing Maryland Sen. Bobby Zirkin and Del. Jon Cardin, the Baltimore County Democrats who led the fight to prevent a $500,000 cut to the Maryland Legal Services Corp.

The U.S. House measure also removed a restriction barring lawyers paid by legal services from collecting attorneys’ fees from opposing parties. As the U.S. Senate begins discussing LSC this week, the The Washington Post and The New York Times editorial boards both urged the Senate to lift two additional restrictions: one prohibiting legal services clients from participating in class-action lawsuits; the other extending the federal restrictions to money legal services providers receive from other sources. 

Incidentally, the Senate subcommittee that will be first to take up LSC funding is chaired by Maryland’s own Barbara Mikulski. Stay tuned. 

Thomas C. Goldstein had a busy day yesterday at the Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in Ocean City.

Goldstein, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauser & Feld LLP in Washington D.C. and founder of the popular SCOTUSblog, spoke at two educational sessions. One was about the U.S. Supreme Court under President Barack Obama; the other, which I attended and wrote about, was on effective appellate representation.

Goldstein has argued 21 cases before the Supreme Court and offered advice on how to get a petition for writ of certiorari granted and, if you’re lucky, how to argue your case before the high court.

I say “lucky” because Goldstein estimated the court grants approximately 1 percent of the 7,500 cert petitions it receives.

“They’re looking to deny cert,” he said.

Goldstein said the cert petitions granted answer four questions:

• Why this question?  (And it must be a clear question of law);
• Why this court: Can the issue be resolved by Congress or a regulatory agency instead?
• Why this case: What makes this case the perfect vehicle to resolve this question? And,
• Why now: Is there a sense of urgency to decide this case?

When it comes to arguing a case before the high court, Goldstein prepares through moot courts, practicing as many as a half-dozen times before the real deal.

He has two strategies: the principle of relative advantage (what can I bring to the conversation?) and the art of the possible (realizing you will not convince all of the judges to change their minds). Sometimes Goldstein will focus on one judge and discuss only one issue.

“Think modestly about what you can accomplish at oral arguments,” he said.