Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or an equivalent priced bottle of syrah?

Sure. If you want to make three nominations at once on the label of a $30 bottle of syrah, that would be fine too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or an equivalent priced bottle of syrah?

Apropos of spending money, this is crazy:

• The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.
  
  The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.
  
  Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  
  "Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.
  
  On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially "the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history," according to an e-mail cited by committee members.
  
  It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 30.

Reuters, via TPM

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I think she just wants to bone Bill Maher. Can't think of why else anyone would say that.

I always thought a good show would be Bill Maher and Dennis Miller as the conservative and the liberal. They could do like a cross fire, or a Hannity and Colmes, but one that would be funny.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A very special wine club for Penske.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This sounds right:

• Somehow, after four years, the debate on Iraq is still animated by wishful thinking. The White House talks as if a surge of 20,000 troops is going to stop a civil war. Democrats argue that when America withdraws its troops, Iraqis will finally take responsibility for their own security. But we all need to face the likelihood that this story isn't going to have a happy ending.

David Ignatius in today's WaPo.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Any use of firm resources ultimately affect the client's bill.

How do you figure that? If the pro bono work has no opportunity cost, and no marginal cost, why would it affect a paying client's bill, any more than a GP's affinity for fine Scotch?

Research -- library books are sunk/fixed costs. Using them to research Gitmo issues adds no costs. Westlaw.-- large firms are on fixed-price contracts, so they're not passing on hourly billing to clients. Lawyer time--for associates it's coming out of their own hide, and usually doesn't increase their salary or bonus. For GPs it's the same--they're not originating business, so they're not getting comp. for it.

And all of this assumes that any costs the firm actually incurs are passed along to other clients. That's a mistaken assumption--it reduces the partners' draw. And if the partner doesn't like this form of charitable giving, he goes to another firm that doesn't do it.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apropos of spending money, this is crazy:

• The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.
  
  The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.
  
  Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  
  "Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.
  
  On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially "the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history," according to an e-mail cited by committee members.
  
  It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 30.

Reuters, via TPM

It is a tribute to the honor of our nation's military pilots that a C-130 didn't mysteriously disappear somewhere in the Caribbean.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you figure that? If the pro bono work has no opportunity cost, and no marginal cost, why would it affect a paying client's bill, any more than a GP's affinity for fine Scotch?

Research -- library books are sunk/fixed costs. Using them to research Gitmo issues adds no costs. Westlaw.-- large firms are on fixed-price contracts, so they're not passing on hourly billing to clients. Lawyer time--for associates it's coming out of their own hide, and usually doesn't increase their salary or bonus. For GPs it's the same--they're not originating business, so they're not getting comp. for it.

And all of this assumes that any costs the firm actually incurs are passed along to other clients. That's a mistaken assumption--it reduces the partners' draw. And if the partner doesn't like this form of charitable giving, he goes to another firm that doesn't do it.

Because the trial/appeal guys doing the work will not be doing real money making work. Yet they will expect to be comped for the work- "it increases the firm's profile" which means that the work that is billed needs to be stretched further.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
All pro bono is "subsidized" by paying customers. Are you seriously trying to say it isn't?

There are thousands of indigent and/or unrepresented defendants out there and that any of these firms* could step up and represent.

Rather, they are making the deliberate choice to pick up a political football and meddle in wartime affairs.

So...if they suffer from their choice, so be it.

*Pillsbury Winthrop; Jenner & Block; Hunton & Williams; Alston & Bird; [Wilmer] Cutler [&] Pickering; Weil Gotshal; Paul Weiss Rifkin; Covington & Burling; Mayer Brown; Pepper Hamilton; Perkins Cole; Fulbright Jaworski;Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and Venable.

Oh My Gosh, the Wall of Shame! What a Rogue's Gallery of terrorist sympathizers!!

I expect the firms will manage to survive.

So, I take it that you believe that it is inappropriate for an attorney to represent a detainee on a pro bono basis? Is it OK if if it turns out he is one of the innocent ones?

I take it that you would prefer that the detainees remain unrepresented, and have no way to challenge their detention?

Everyone answers this question differently, but why did you become a lawyer?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Everyone answers this question differently, but why did you become a lawyer?

S_A_M

actually I drive a 7-Up delivery truck. I started thinking about going to college to be a lawyer so I started lurking here. Is it a good job?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Or is your theory that these firms' hatred of America is more general and diffuse?

And if one of the firms was headed by a former Attorney General of the United States when they began that representation, and the lawyer leading the Gitmo work for that firm is a former career prosecutor and two-time Independent Counsel, do you question their patriotism, or just their judgment?

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Because the trial/appeal guys doing the work will not be doing real money making work. Yet they will expect to be comped for the work- "it increases the firm's profile" which means that the work that is billed needs to be stretched further.

How much partner time do you really think is spent on pro bono matters? Next to none is the correct answer.

And what about firms with lockstep partner comp?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
How much partner time do you really think is spent on pro bono matters? Next to none is the correct answer.

I've been at Biglaw where senior trial guys spent tons of time on pro-bono. the firm comped him like he had done something paid.

And the chance to argue on cases that are as high-profile as Gitmo cases? Shit the biggest egos in these firms will be fighting for the files.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Because the trial/appeal guys doing the work will not be doing real money making work. Yet they will expect to be comped for the work- "it increases the firm's profile" which means that the work that is billed needs to be stretched further.

If there is an opportunity cost, the subsidy comes from those who bear the opportunity cost -- as Burger said, the partners who could be make more money if those guys were taking paid work. They're making less than they could elsewhere.

Unless the nation's top firms conspire to avoid competition by agreeing to all take cases of this sort. But the victims of that conspiracy are the partners who don't want to pay for pro bono work, not the clients.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Apropos of spending money, this is crazy:

• The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.
  
  The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.
  
  Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  
  "Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.
  
  On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially "the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history," according to an e-mail cited by committee members.
  
  It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 30.

Reuters, via TPM

I'm sure Henry Waxman just assumed that starving Iraqis would prefer gift cards.

Or Waxman's personal method of choice - having funds wired directly into his account.