Featured Legal News (Nov. 8 - Nov. 9, ‘06) Awash in Crimson, And Lots of Other Colors Posted on Thursday, November 9, 2006 The growing buzz over our second annual "Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America" issue has convinced us to reveal some juicy data – including which law schools produced the most lawyers on our guide. As it turns out, in our world, the Harvard/Yale rivalry is a little lopsided. Seventy-eight Harvard Law alums earned places on the Fall 2006 leading lawyers guide, compared to 33 from Yale. Of course, Yale accepts far fewer students, so that's still pretty impressive. The intra-city New York rivalry was closer. Columbia law grads took 37 places on the guide, not too many more than NYU's total of 26. A solid 20 leading lawyers graduated from the University of Texas Law School. Other big showers include the law schools at the University of Michigan and University of California, Berkeley, which have 14 lawyers on the guide, and Stanford and the University of Virginia School of Law, which have 13. But the most impressive number is 95 – that's how many law schools are represented on the guide. Nearly double that – 179 undergraduate programs – produced Lawdragon leading lawyers, with Harvard again taking the lead spot with 27. Yale edged closer in the undergraduate tally with 24 spots. Scratch that. The most impressive number is this: The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers come from more than 250 law firms, public interest groups, in-house corporate departments and law school faculties (and several judges made the list, too). How's that for diversity! Most firms and organizations have between one and four attorneys on the guide. Of course, some of the prominent national firms have many attorneys listed. The biggest tally this year is 20, from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, a New York-based firm with approximately 1,750 lawyers worldwide. Tell us what you think by visiting our comments page. Send any news items to news@lawdragon.com. From the Bench to the Big House? Posted on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 Most of the national attention on South Dakota in recent days has focused on the state's abortion-ban measure, which was rejected by voters. But the big measure among judicial-independence advocates was the proposed amendment to the constitution known as "J.A.I.L. 4 Judges," or the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. With most of the precincts reporting, 90 percent of South Dakota voters rejected the controversial measure, which would have created a special grand jury to look into complaints against judges, commissioners, prosecutors and jurors. The grand jury could remove, fine and even jail the offending individuals. Yikes. Many observers long speculated that the measure was too extreme to be a real threat, as it was unlikely to pass, but the sentiment behind it was troubling. The amendment's sponsor questioned the results and has made allegations of possible election fraud. Tell us what you think by visiting our comments page. Send any news items to news@lawdragon.com. Page: 1 of 1 pages for this article
|
|
|---|
