Latham & Watkins drops 190 lawyers in a "one shot deal"

Latham & Watkins, the nations 2nd highest grossing law firm (2nd to Skadden Arps) booted 440 employees! A total of 190 lawyers and 250 supporting staff were dropped in what Chairman Robert Dell calls a "one shot deal". That's not good news. Especially considering Latham grossed $2 Billion in 2007.

Does this mean they didn't maintain enough padding for this hard of a hit? Or do their shareholders just love lacing their pockets as much as possible? After all, firms do have 2 options: retain earnings, or pay out shareholder salaries and bonuses. So if earnings fall, all else equal, associate salaries gotta go.

Boy am I glad my undergrad was in paper clip manufacturing. Then again, if law firms are slowing down that means less senseless paper work. Less senseless paper work means less legal secretaries. As secretaries decrease, office supply theft will decrease. Which equates to greater inventories of paper clips. Which means demand for paper clips will decline significantly. Now that really sucks.

reference: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123575323300395661.html#mod=testMod

White Collar Black Market: Allen Stanford's $8B Fraud Scheme

If you haven't heard about this yet, it's likely you are still trying to figure out Mr. Madoff's grand scheme. That guy was a former NASDAQ Chairman, and another "trusted" member of our financial society. The new "Sir" is Allen Stanford. He's from the Bush homeland of TX, where the frauds are always bigger and better. Stanford is the Chairman of Stanford Financial and has managed to support the Mexican drug cartel, launder money through off-shore accounts, create false certificates of deposits, etc... BTW, Stanford has mysteriously disappeared. Just in time for a nice investigation. The irony.

These guys are well connected. Remarkably, Vice Prez's Joe Biden's son managed some interesting hedge funds marketed by Stanford's firm. Some of Stanford's directors held prominant positions. Two were financial regulators: Fredrick Fram and Lena Stinson. They were both at FINRA! [I wonder if they are also related to Madoff's FINRA family members? Like the ones he used to cover up his $50B ponzi scheme.]

So it's bad enough these guys continue to perpetuate fraud with innocent money. But even worse is the fact that people at the top of these schemes are politicians/elected officials/regulators that are supposed to protect our interests, right?. Wait, you mean centralized unchecked power yields corruption?

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND SEE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.

References:
http://www.stanfordfinancial.com/sir_allen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/allen-stanford-had-links-_n_169361.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/allenStanford/idUSTRE51N5RO20090224

Law Schools with FREE TUITION!!!!

Yes. There are eight law schools that do NOT charge a dime for law school, or room and board!! Okay, for some you might need to work in the school's cafeteria, or perhaps live 45 minutes from the nearest hospital, i.e. Deep Springs Law in CA. Even still. What luxuries do most law students really have? Most are not spoiled (like living 20 mins from campus in a rent free 6 bedroom w/ a dive pool, jacuzzi and 7 cars). So the opportunity cost to attend 3 years tuition free, assuming bar passage, is really not high at all. Most law students would go head over heels for such an opportunity. Take the new tuition-free UC Irvine Law. Dean Erwin Cherminsky is a notable Constitutional Law scholar. If he's dean, the school likely has stellar credentials. UC Irvine's first admitted this fall class size = 60. And apparently they will be ranked in the top 20. Sounds like a good deal.

Reference: http://blogs.static.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/22573.html

Agency Heads + Bribes?

It's no coincidence that Leon Panetta, nominee to head the CIA, happened to collect over $700,000 in bribes (a.k.a. consulting fees?).

Why do that? This is a position that empowers him to decide which government contractors get our tax money to perform "national security work." So wait, you mean to say contractors that have material pecuniary interests in government's contracts can pay "fees" to get contracts? That's interesting. In legal ethics that's called a CONFLICT OF INTEREST . A conflict so material and substantial to the interests of representation that every state bar would sanction. The ethical rules that apply to the regulation of lawyers is a great analogy because like Federal civil servants, we represent people. Ask yourself why we have the Office of Government Ethics and also the General Accounting Office. Might it be possible (and highly probable) that positions of power yield self-interested results?

Federal civil servants take an oath. Remember that oath? Read below (pay attention to the bold words) :

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Good 'ole fashion American corrupt-capitalism permeates democracy. Let's just admit it. Browse the real headlines and do your own research.

Reference: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123378062602049003.html
http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

American Bar Association Spots New Law-Grad's Unemployment...YES it's BAD!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/unable_to_find_a_job_law_grads_hang_out_a_shingle

Note: "shingle" is a reference to a sign that is typically displaced outside a small office. It's synonymous to "opening up shop". It's not the "shingle" of the STD type. (Yes, someone asked me.)