Martin Luther dropped out of law school - and so can you.

At what point should you give up on your dream of becoming a lawyer? It’s a question on many people’s minds lately. Whether they were laid off during the recession and haven’t been able to get back in, or if they’ve just graduated law school to the triumphant sounds of crickets, people are wondering when it’s time to stop throwing good money (and effort) after bad.

It’s a question some people start asking before they even graduate from law school. With the school year getting underway, returning law students are once again wondering whether or not they made the right choice when they matriculated to law school in the first place.

Earlier this week, Lat received this question from a 2L at a top-eight law school:

Hi David. I’ve got a dilemma and it’s really eating me up and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Here are the salient points:

* I’m at [redacted] — an awesome school.
* It’s a crappy economy and I don’t anticipate getting a job anytime soon.
* My 1L grades are A-, B+, B, B, B-, B-, B-, B-.
* I’m not sure I really want to spend my life being a lawyer. It seems like such a boring profession.
* I think I would be really happy being a public interest attorney, like working at the DA’s office or on Capitol Hill. I get excited about those jobs — but they pay nothing and are super-hard to get.
* I’m about $70K in debt — so I’ve invested so much!

People tell me that a JD is a great credential to get. I just don’t know if it’s worth it to finish the degree. It’s so darn expensive. Realistically, if I stay the course I’ll graduate with $170K in debt. If I don’t finish, I’ll never have the degree and the prospects that come with it.

I feel that long-term, over a 40-year career, it could be good to have the law degree — it’s from [redacted], not from a lower-ranked school.

Should I finish law school or walk away?

Mwahahaha — David isn’t here, Mrs. Torrance.

Just kidding. Lat is here, and he will answer your question in a second. But first, let Elie explain why you should run, now…

ELIE:

Obviously, I think you were kind of a dumbass to go to law school in the first place. How could you look at the legal-job landscape in the fall of 2009 and not be prepared for the difficult recruiting environment awaiting you in 2010 (and beyond)? But whatever, that milk has been spilled; now that you recognize it’s turning sour, what should you do?

You list a number of reasons why you might not want to leave law school at this point, but I guess this really all comes down to one issue you didn’t bring up: you don’t want to be called a “quitter.” You’ve probably never quit anything in your life. Winners never quit and quitters never win. Rocky didn’t quit, right?

Well, here some other famous people who probably should have quit before the end: Napoleon, Muhammad Ali, and Jesus Christ. You get my point? People who stick it out to the bitter end sometimes end up famous, but end up suffering excruciating pain. Do you like pain and suffering? No? Then leave law school. (Al Gore did — he quit law school, then quit trying to become president — and only then did he become interesting.)

This is actually the best time to leave if you are going to do it. After this, there is no turning back. By Christmas, God willing, you’ll have a job or a lead on a job. You’ll start thinking about a fat paycheck. You’ll start telling yourself that the worst is behind you. You’ll be almost halfway through. You’ll be locked in, buddy.

And not just for another couple of years. What’s going to happen next? You’ll go through all this legal education, graduate, and then not take the bar? Or take the bar, but then not use your law license to do anything legal? Of course not. After you graduate from law school, you are going to spend years trying to make it look like it wasn’t a dumb thing to put yourself through in the first place. You’ll spend at least five or six more years trying to somehow make law school look like a good decision.

Or you could leave now. One year lost, $70K down the drain. It stings, and it stinks, but think of it like you just moved to Vegas for a year and gambled away your life savings. You can recover from this. But if you stick it out, like I did, you might just find yourself a big, bitter, aging man, one who walks around popping balloons because he can’t stand the sight of happiness.

Close the book, buddy, and start writing a new one.

LAT:

I agree with Elie that the position you’re currently in is less than fabulous. But it could be worse. You’re at an excellent law school, and your grades, while not stellar, are fine. You should be able to land yourself a job, especially if the economy continues to pick up (a big “if,” admittedly). It might not be at a Vault or Am Law 10 firm — you might end up at a midsize or smaller firm — and it might take a lot of networking and shoe leather. But let’s face it: you are in a better position than so many others, thanks to your top 10 law school (which has cachet, a great alumni network, etc.).

Getting a legal education is like building a house. If you quit a third of the way through, what does that leave you with? What are you going to do with four walls but no roof?

Elie criticizes the conventional wisdom — “you don’t want to be called a ‘quitter’” — but the conventional wisdom is conventional, and wise, for a reason. Every year, thousands of law students confront the very same dilemma you now face. The vast majority of them conduct the same cost-benefit analysis, and they decide to stick it out.

Why? Well, a few reasons. There are several possible outcomes given your situation:

1. You land a job in private practice after graduation, end up liking it, and live happily ever after.

2. You land a job in private practice after graduation, do it for a while to gain experience and pay off your loans, leave it for something you like better — e.g., the public-interest / government jobs you mentioned — and live happily ever after.

3. You go into public interest or government work directly after graduation, take advantage of your law school’s loan repayment assistance program, and live happily ever after.

4. You try law for a while, whether in the private or public sector, and then leave it after a few years (perhaps because you find it “boring,” as you noted in your question). You bounce around for a bit, but you eventually find a satisfying career outside the legal profession that still draws on your legal background and the skills you developed as a lawyer, and you live happily ever after.

(In the past month, I’ve met several ex-attorneys who enjoy their jobs — a diplomat, the director of a public interest organization, a lobbyist — and whose legal backgrounds helped them land these positions. For examples of different paths you can take that don’t involve the practice of law but value a legal education, check out our career alternatives for attorneys.)

5. President Obama, in his second term, pushes through the student loan bailout, leaving you with a valuable professional degree and erasing all your debt. You live happily ever after.

6. You try law for a while, but then abandon it to drive a cupcake truck. Cupcakes are delicious, so you live happily ever after.

Okay, I realize I’m being a bit glib. But my main point is that you really aren’t as screwed as you seem to think. The future holds so many possibilities, as I’ve just outlined — but many of these possibilities either require or strongly encourage a law degree.

So hang in there. And do let us know how it turns out for you and where you end up after graduation (or after dropping out). Regardless of whether your tale ends up being cautionary or inspiring, it’s one that our readers would like to hear.

Good luck!

The ATL editors have given their perspectives. Readers, what do you think?

* Are you a Biglaw associate with a family? You should despair check out this advice. [Life's Work]

* Tiny crustaceans have been found in New York City tap water, possibly rendering it unfit for consumption under the dietary laws of kashrut (kosher). Elie’s take: “I refuse to believe in a God who cares about this s**t.” [OUkosher.org via Consumerist]

* The “Top 100 Women of Weed” features four fierce females: Jessica Corry, Allison Margolin, Jeralyn Merritt, and Marjorie Russell. [CelebStoner via TalkLeft]

* Barry Scheck — the DNA evidence expert who helped free O.J. Simpson, and who also founded the Innocence Project — talks about the 258 cases in which the Innocence Project has secured post-conviction DNA exonerations. [Big Think]

* Are you an aspiring law professor? Here’s a conference that might interest you. [Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law / Arizona State University]

Last week we wrote about Chantal Raymond, a gorgeous graduate of Harvard Law School who was recently crowned Miss Jamaica World. Today brings beauty pageant news from across the pond, reported by the Telegraph:

Jessica Linley, 21, defeated 60 other contestants to win the title at the annual pageant in Birmingham. The statuesque blonde – who wants to be a solicitor – will now represent her country at the Miss World contest in China next month.

No, not that kind of solicitation — although the luscious Linley could make a mint in that older but less learned profession. “Solicitor” and “barrister” are British terms for “lawyer.” (For more on the difference between the two, see here.)

Let’s learn more about Linley — for example, where does she go to school? — and maybe see another photo or two….

Linley, who stands an impressive 5′11″, is a law student at Nottingham University — the #4 school for law in the U.K., according to one set of rankings. She holds a variety of leadership positions in the law school and seems to have a head for numbers: she’s treasurer of the law society and finance officer for the Athletic Union. But she’s taking time off from her studies to focus on winning the Miss World contest.

To take home the Miss World crown, she’ll have to overcome some tough competition — and soar past another legal eagle, Chantal Raymond. We wish both contestants good luck. May the best woman win!

P.S. For a more comprehensive collection of Jessica Linley pics — most of them with her mouth open, for whatever reason — check out the Independent’s slideshow.

Law student crowned as new Miss England [Telegraph (U.K.) via Twitter (Afua Hirsch)]
Law student Jessica Linley wins Miss England title [The Independent]

Earlier: Jamaican Me Crazy: Harvard Law Hottie Wins Jamaican Beauty Pageant
McKee Nelson to… Boob Cups? (Plus a digression on beauty queens in the law.)
There She Is, Miss Ames Moot Court Finalist

• Lunches at this firm are limited to 10 “traditional” lunches budgeted at $65 each, and 20 “casual” lunches budgeted at $15 each.  But if the wining and dining, long hours, and BlackBerrys aren’t your thing, the firm gives a few summer associates the opportunity to spend an additional four to six weeks on a public service project at their full firm salary.
• With 93% of summer associates receiving offers in 2009, no start date deferrals, a summer associate weekend retreat on Catalina Island, and a trip to Disneyland, this firm has its summer associates feeling like they’re summering at the happiest Biglaw firm on earth.
• Unsociable types need not apply to this firm, which summer associates confirm lives up to its “very social” and “fratty” reputation.  In addition to a full calendar of after-work events, a summer associate weekend retreat is held in Beverly Hills for more socializing, schmoozing, and a bit of training.
• Summer associates who share the same entrepreneurial spirit as this firm will thrive in the free-market assignment system, where summers are in control of their workload and who they work with, and have no qualms about needing to “reach out to attorneys for assignments, mentorship and feedback.”
• Summer associates have to “[b]e prepared to be on top of [their] game all the time” at this firm, where social events are as equally important as work product quality.

For information on summer programs and associate life at all the top firms, visit the Career Center.

But just because they’re not surprising doesn’t make them any less depressing. From the report:

The data compiled for this first systematic look at the issue is presented below. When we reviewed it, two numbers immediately jumped out. First, women make up only 17 percent of partners at the firms we surveyed, even though they have represented about 51 percent of law school graduates in the last 20 years. Second, of the women partners who work at multi-tier firms, 45 percent have equity status. In comparison, 62 percent of the male partners at these firms have equity.

Retention issue much? At 17 percent, you’re talking about a serious glass ceiling sitting on top of women at major law firms. With spikes pointing downard. And holes so small you can’t possibly fit squeeze through them if you are carrying any extra weight, or a baby….

Here’s the thing: right now there are a bunch of 2L women trying to decide which firm to summer with. It’s real simple. Look at snapshots like the chart below and use it to help you make a decision:

You can also use tools like those created by Building A Better Legal Profession, which tracks diversity and pro bono work at major law firms.

Does this chart mean that, if you are a young woman lucky enough to land a coveted summer associate position at Wachtell, you should turn them down based on their embarrassingly low numbers of female equity partners? Well, yes, at least if you want anything to change. Wacthell wants the best talent, male or female. If they find they can’t get the best young female talent unless they start promoting older female talent to partnership, they will start doing it.

You know where we learned that move? From the lawyers who started Wachtell Lipton. Back in the day, white-shoe law firms were reluctant to promote and hire Jewish attorneys, so the founders of Wachtell went off to start their own firm. Keep your crumbs; I’m going to feed myself. Similarly, sought-after women don’t have to summer at firms that do not seem committed to promoting female equity partners. If you can get a job at Williams & Connolly, you can probably get a job at WilmerHale.

And when you call up W&C to inform them that you are turning down that offer, tell them, “I saw the numbers of your female equity partners, and I was disgusted.” Vote with your feet.

Meanwhile, at firms that have both equity and non-equity partners, it’s apparently pretty hard to get a share of the profits unless you have a set of testicles:

The rate of female equity partners at the multi-tier firms was all over the lot — ranging from a high of 25 percent to a low of 8 percent. At most of these firms, the rate of women equity partners was in the teens (two firms had either 20 percent or more women with equity; seven firms had ten percent or less). At virtually every two-tier firm, the “percentage of male partners who have equity” was higher than the “percentage of female partners who have equity.”

The numbers are really an indictment of all the firms that adopt a multi-tier partnership structure. These structures allow firms to create two classes of partners — and to a shocking extent, one class is for men, and the sub-class is for women. Ms. J.D. explains:

Multi-tier refers to law firms where different partners are subject to different compensation systems. Equity partners draw from firm profits in proportional share. Service, income, and other non-equity partners are compensated like associates, not based on books or business of firm profits, but on hours worked or a salary structure more akin to an associate’s. Non-equity partnership often also lacks voting powers and management authority.

And the distinction between single- and multi-tier matters. More than a third of single tier firms had more than 20% female partnership compared to only 2 of the 51 multi-tiered firms surveyed. Read that again. See what I mean — this stuff is a big deal.

Back in, say, 1950, if you were a black person and had a choice of living Alabama or Chicago, you were probably better off in Chicago. Not that there weren’t horrible racial problems in Chicago, but at least you weren’t living in a legally segregated society. By the same token, if you are a female law student who is approached by a firm with a multi-tier partnership structure, RUN. Kick off your heels and sprint barefoot away from the interview suite until you reach a safe place.

Voting with your feet is a good start, but lasting change won’t start until clients begin to care. One hopes that day will soon come. Take a look at Perkins Coie, a favorite of the Obama administration. According to Am Law’s numbers, only 9 percent of equity partners at the firm are female. A multi-tier firm, where only 19 percent of women called “partners” at the firm have equity. For the male partners, 46 percent have equity. Those are the numbers you’d expect to see from one of the go-to firms for a liberal administration? Somebody get the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, on the phone — or on the Twitter machine, @PressSec — and ask him about that.

Because once big-time clients decide they would rather not be associated with firms that are reluctant to give women a piece of pie, change will come.

UPDATE: For some different viewpoints, see the comments.

Looking Into the Equity Box: Women and Partnership Status [Am Law Daily]
Just in Time for Recruiting: Real Numbers on Women with Equity [Ms. J.D.]

Vote for your favorite from the eight funny finalists, after the jump.

We chose the eight finalists by selecting those with the most “likes” on the Disqus commenting system. To make the top eight, a caption needed at least 15 “likes.” Here they are:

A. From the UCLA career services office: “The head maid recently was granted a green card. She is happy to discuss the process and/or answer any questions you may have. This is a good opportunity if you are thinking of getting into immigration law or even just to learn more about what it is like to be a client.”

B. Firms desperate to find ways for female associates to make partner, despite lack of business development abilities. “Can’t make it rain? Then make the bed,” says one BigLaw managing partner.

C. Even though he had been Lathamed the year before, the ex-attorney and new Best Western janitor won the concession of still being called “associate.” It was a hollow victory.

D. I hear they’re hiring lawyers at the prestigious firm of Bedstein, Bathus, and Beyond.

E. Still, it at least has a small window and a working coffee maker; you should see where the linen closet staff attorneys work.

F. At Skadden’s New York office, Associates have access to the finest 1000-thread count sheets with which to cover their in-office cots.

G. Apologizing for the confusion, the firm’s HR department issued a grammar correction in its new dress code policy. Should read, “Linen: Closet Associates Only.”

H. “Mom, you’ll never believe it…I got a call back from Holiday Inn and they said I got the In-house position!!!”

Now that you’ve seen the options, here is the poll:

We will leave the polls open through MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, at 11:59 PM (so anyone bored over Labor Day weekend can check in and vote). Thanks!

Earlier: Caption Contest: This is a weird one.

The details of how elite law and business consulting firms recruit astonish me every time I hear them. Even getting an interview often requires attending an Ivy League professional school or a very few top tier equivalents. Folks who succeed in that round are invited to spend a summer working at the firm, the most sane aspect of the process.

But subsequently, they participate in sell events where they’re plied with food and alcohol in the most lavish settings imaginable: five star resort hotels, fine cigar bars, the priciest restaurants.

And here’s the money shot, one that is careening around the legal blogosphere like Billy Joel trying to get back from the Hamptons before the hurricane hits:

Though it isn’t defensible, it is unsurprising that a lot of people who eschew offers to work at these firms, favoring public sector work instead, imagine that they are making an enormous personal sacrifice by taking government work. The palpable sense of entitlement some of these public sector folks exude is owed partly to how few of “our best and brightest” do eschew the big firm route (due partly to increasing debt levels among today’s graduates, no doubt).

Really? You want to do this now? You want to talk smack about the people on the bottom rung of this totem pole, while willfully ignoring the clients, partners, law schools, and state governments that generate huge sums of wealth off the backs of the palpably entitled?

Fine. Let me take off my glasses, and we’ll step outside…

First of all, let’s table Friedersdorf’s downright anachronistic view of summer associate recruiting. I don’t need to tell you guys that the days of five-star bottles and pliable models are long gone. But they existed once. And, who knows, if the American economy recovers and India magically sinks into the ocean, those days might come once again.

But even if we accept Friedersdorf’s premise about recruiting, what is wrong with that way of attracting talent? What is wrong with private companies doing whatever it takes to get top associates to join their firms? Would Friedersdorf prefer if new law school graduates were placed in steel cages and forced to fight to the death for the opportunity to work — you know, like they have to do now? Is that somehow morally preferable? If you’re talented, and more than one person wants to hire you, then people have to compete for your services. That’s what recruitment means.

I’m sure that there are any number of hardworking Americans whose eyes flash with righteous indignation when they read about the “lavish” summer programs Biglaw recruits enjoy. But, to paraphrase President Bartlett, “their indignation would be a lot more interesting to me if it wasn’t so covered in crap.” It’s not that these Americans object on moral grounds to the excesses of associate recruitment; it’s that they wish their services or talents were in such demand that somebody would take them to a four-star restaurant to close a deal on a new job. It’s just jealousy; I feel the same way whenever I read anything about any professional athlete — how much they make, whom they get to bone, whatever. I hate them because I want to be them.

Luckily, no matter how fat, lazy, and slow I get, there’s nothing I can do to convince the Washington Redskins to give me a $100 million contract. I know this. Not so with people who want to “live the dream” of being a highly sought-after attorney. Shockingly, some people will read about the life of a summer associate and think “wow, that could be me if I just went to law school.” And so they come, in droves. Not because they love the law, but because they think they’ll love the life.

And that actually creates another “problem” that Friedersdorf points out:

The prize firms are after: talented people, to be sure, but also the ability to tell clients, “We can put together a team for your company that is entirely made up of Ivy League graduates.” Apparently this is enormously appealing to companies, which makes sense, given that law firms and especially consulting firms are often used as a kind of responsibility deferral system…

Well, sir, there wouldn’t be such a premium on Ivy League lawyers if there weren’t so many crappy lawyers and law schools out there. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that only Ivy League lawyers are worth anything, and I’m not saying that every law school ranked below #50 should be decommissioned and turned into a homeless shelter. I’m saying that when you look at 200 accredited law schools, God knows how many unaccredited law schools, state bar exams of varying degrees of difficulty, and a world where even the hardest state bar can be somewhat easily mastered with about eight weeks of test prep — you are going to get some crappy lawyers. Awful lawyers. Lawyers who have no business being anywhere near a sensitive document, a courtroom, and a wealthy person in need of legal advice. If there were as many terrible doctors as there are terrible lawyers, we’d still be trying to get “doctors must wash their hands” signs posted in operating rooms.

In this world, firms are looking for some basic quality control. Maybe an Ivy league credential isn’t the best way of separating the wheat from the chaff, but it’ll do in a pinch. Of course, everybody who didn’t go to an Ivy League institution needs to point out that it’s highly possible that Ivy League lawyers are crappy too. Fair enough. But since we actually can’t know in advance who’s going to become a good lawyer or a criminally negligent one, firms and clients are using the Ivy League to do a little pre-screening for them. You can’t really blame them.

But hey, if you’re making $160K a year and living the good life, you’ve heard all of Friedersdorf’s criticisms before. In fact, you’ve probably already sent him an email, with this subject line: I’m Rich, Bitch.

But out of nowhere Friedersdorf also levels some snark at government lawyers. Jesus. Picking on government lawyers is like kicking puppies. They’re cute, they’re not hurting anybody… sure, sometimes they might pee on your floor, but come on, they work for the government. They’re trying their best.

That last paragraph is, by the way, exactly why government lawyers walk around with what Friedersdorf imagines is a sense of entitlement. He’s wrong; it’s not “entitlement” that he’s seeing. It’s the huge freaking chip on their shoulders that they develop because many of their law school friends make tons of money and constantly throw that cash in their faces. Friedersdorf gets to that point in a follow-up to his initial article:

The core of the problem is that rather than comparing themselves to their fellow Americans, appreciating that they’re better compensated than the vast majority of them for doing relatively enjoyable work, and being cognizant of their privileged position and the special trust it entails, this subset of professionals compare themselves to a tiny elite, correctly judge that they’re worse off, and justify all manner of behavior accordingly.

Yes, yes, yes… and somewhere in Bangladesh a child could be saved from starvation based on what I just ate as a snack. But I don’t compare my career success to that child. You know why? ‘Cause I’m not a low-expectation-having mutherf***er. I was born into a middle-class family, in a safe suburb, to two parents, both of whom graduated from college. I could compare myself to some black guy who was born to a crackhead and is now in jail and say, “Oh gee golly, I’m doing so well,” but that would be weak. From my starting point, I’m not supposed to go to jail. I’ve had every advantage handed to me, and so the only people that it’s actually worth comparing myself to are others who had the same kind of opportunities that I had. (Yes, I’m failing in that comparison, please shut up now and let me get back to my point.)

Similarly, these government lawyers aren’t supposed to compare themselves to “their fellow Americans.” What does that even mean? A government lawyer is doing better than a subsistence farmer in Idaho? And that’s supposed to make him happy? What kind of country would we be if people were satisfied once they achieved “mediocrity”?

And speaking of farmers… there’s not a lawyer alive who hasn’t once daydreamed about chucking it all and becoming a farmer or rancher or surfer or something that allows them to get the hell out of their stuffy office at least once in an 18-hour day. Being a lawyer might be good work, but it’s not fun, and it’s not easy. It’s only natural that when you are doing something difficult, something that not a lot of people can do, you hope to be well-compensated for it. And when all your friends are extremely well-compensated for basically doing your same job, how is that supposed to make you feel?

In closing, Friedersdorf writes:

One thing that’s surprised me as I’ve watched folks in my age cohort move from college to professional schools to highly paid careers is how rapidly they shift their baseline for what is normal. People who were happily buying Natural Light and eating microwaved Maruchan Ramen a few years back earnestly insist that their $165,000 salary isn’t so much when you think about it…

Look buddy, nobody is “happily” drinking Natty Light and eating ramen. Nobody. Oh, they’ll say they’re happy doing it, because that’s what you say when you are in that situation and trying to convince yourself that life is still worth living. But I could go to every law student in America and offer to switch out their ramen for a well-prepared steak, and they’d be eating it right out of my hand.

The vast majority of Americans want as much as they can get. Lawyers are no different. And I don’t necessarily see anything particularly astonishing about that.

How Our Professional Elites Are Hired [Daily Dish]
In Defense of Feeling Entitled [Daily Dish]

Then there’s this uncomfortable write-up, in which the couple cheerfully airs a story that makes the groom sound like a massive cad at best (he “shacked up” with someone else while she was studying abroad and failed to mention that detail in the cheesy love letters he was sending her). “I’m still pretty incredulous that she’s with me,” says the wannabe-player groom. So are we.

On to this week’s slate of newlyweds, which we believe sets a new record for number of Harvard and Yale degrees:

1. Anne Catherine Savage and Zachary Podolsky

2. Elena Lalli and Guillermo Coronado

3. Caroline Lopez and Nicholas Miranda

4. Alexandra Denniston and Caleb Schillinger

Read more about these couples — and vote for your favorite — after the jump.

1. Anne Catherine Savage and Zachary Podolsky
(Buy them a sugar bowl.)

The Case:
- Our first featured couple has lovely credentials, starting with Wellesley undergrad for her, topped off with a law degree from Harvard. He’s even more impressive: Harvard undergrad, and now Yale Law (he’s a 3L).
- That said, it’s Zach’s summer employment at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz that really sets our hearts a-thumping. The NYT coyly refers to the big W as “a New York Law firm,” but we all know it’s THE New York law firm — the one whose partners frolic in diamond-studded hot tubs full of caviar and towel off with the pelts of Iberian snow leopards. We made that up. But we’re pretty sure they at least pay their summer associates.
The Case Against:
- Including stepparents, five of the parents mentioned in the writeup are lawyers. How profoundly depressing.

2. Elena Lalli and Guillermo Coronado
(Buy them a pillowcase.)

The Case:
- Harvard-Harvard-Harvard-Harvard. Undergraduate degrees (both cum laude) for both, a JD (cum laude) for the bride, and an MBA for the groom.
- She’ll be starting at Sullivan & Cromwell in October; he’s an associate at McKinsey & Company.

The Case Against:
- Surely, ATL readers and commenters, we can all agree that this bride is hot, and not just lawyer hot. (See more pictures here.) Unfortunately, that means that she badly outclasses Guillermo. But that’s probably fine with him. Way to go, Guillermo!

3. Caroline Lopez and Nicholas Miranda
(Buy them a wine coaster.)

The Case:
- Yale-Yale-Yale-Yale. This bride and groom — whom we’ve had the pleasure of meeting — have been together since their undergraduate days at Old Eli (she graduated summa and he cum laude); they were also classmates at YLS.
- They now live in DC. She recently finished a DC Circuit clerkship with Judge Judith W. Rogers, and he’s an associate in the appellate and Supreme Court practice group at MoFo.

The Case Against:
- Badly out-Latinoed by the couple above.

4. Alexandra Denniston and Caleb Schillinger
(Buy them a compost pail.)

The Case:
- Our final couple met at Harvard Law School. She was cum laude at Wellesley; he was summa at Michigan.
- The bride’s father’s name is — we couldn’t make this up — Brackett Badger Denniston. The third. Brackett Badger, who has his own Facebook fan group, is General Counsel of GE, a big donor to (mostly Republican) political causes, and a former partner at Goodwin Procter.
- And coincidentally, Alexandra will be starting at Goodwin Proctor as an associate later this fall. Caleb will be in the Boston office of Dewey & LeBoeuf, specializing in the narrow field of “litigation and corporate law.”

The Case Against:
- We get a weird no-chemistry vibe from their photo. She looks like a second-tier sorority VP, and he looks like a female divinity student.

The Verdict:
- Oh, lordy. There’s too much goodness here; we can’t possibly decide which one of these stellar combos gets the prize. Readers, you make the call:

Thanks for voting! Polls will close a week from now, on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, at 12 noon. We’ll have the results in our next column.

The pictures came to light when an ethics complaint was filed against Justice Douglas and her husband, matrimonial lawyer Jack King. A former client of King, an African-Canadian gentleman by the name of Alex Chapman, claims that King sexually harassed him by showing him the porn pics of Lori Douglas and encouraging him (Chapman) to have sexual relations with Douglas. According to Chapman, King suffers not just from depression but from “Jungle Fever”: he is titillated by African-Canadian men getting it on with white women.

Justice Douglas did not comment to CBC News, which broke the story. But she has taken other action in the wake of the scandal….

Justice Douglas has decided, at least for now, to hang up her robe (now that DarkCavern.com users have seen what lies beneath it). She is temporarily leaving the bench while the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the ethics complaint against her, as reported in the National Post:

Lori Douglas, the associate chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Family Division, decided to step away from active duty during a meeting with Chief Justice Marc Monnin on Wednesday.

“In the interests of the judiciary and of the Court, Associate Chief Justice Douglas has requested to be temporarily relieved of her duties as a sitting judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench and will remain in her position in an administrative capacity until the pending complaint before the Canadian Judicial Council has been dealt with by that organization,” Mr. Monnin said in a statement.

So Justice Douglas won’t be sitting. No surprises there — she prefers being on all fours anyway.

Meanwhile, Alex Chapman — who claims to be deeply offended by how King treated him as a sexual object, a virile African-Canadian man to be pimped out to “White Princesses” (the section on DarkCavern.com where Douglas’s pics were found) — has filed several lawsuits. From CBC News:

A Winnipeg judge, her lawyer husband and a prestigious law firm are being sued for a total of $67 million by a man who claims he was harassed and suffered emotional distress when he was pressured to have sex with the lawyer’s wife….

On Wednesday, Chapman filed separate suits against King for $10 million and against Douglas for $7 million. He is also seeking $50 million from the law firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, where Douglas and King were partners when the alleged incidents took place.

CBC News points out that Douglas and King are still married. We’re guessing that King is being flogged by Douglas in a dungeon sleeping on the couch these days.

What are Chapman’s causes of action?

The statements of claim all allege misfeasance in public office, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims against King and the law firm also note harassment.

No statements of defence have been filed and none of the allegations contained in the lawsuits have been proven in court.

If any of our Canadian readers would like to break down these claims in the comments, please feel free.

With respect to Justice Douglas, here’s the million-Canadian-dollar question:

“The question is, what did she know and when did she know it? I think that will be a very important part of this,” said [Irwin Cotler, the former federal justice minister who appointed Douglas to the Court of Queen's Bench in 2005].

Appointments to the bench are always thoroughly vetted and the candidate is asked about his or her background, he said in an interview in Ottawa.

It’s possible that an applicant could be unaware of the possible misuse of their personal photos or papers, he said.

Although Justice Douglas is keeping quiet, her husband is defending against the claims:

Mr. Gange, Mr. King’s lawyer, is now furious that Mr. Chapman has breached [an earlier] confidentiality agreement by approaching the CBC and providing the TV station with the lewd pictures.

“This is disgusting. It’s a horror show,” he said Tuesday. Mr. Gange admitted Mr. King “shouldn’t have talked to him the way he did” but said his client has already paid a heavy price through the financial settlement [of $25,000 to Chapman] and taking a year away from his practice.

As some commenters on yesterday’s post wondered, King could have claims against Chapman, who previously took a settlement of $25,000 in exchange for his silence:

Mr. Gange also accused Mr. Chapman of attempting to “extort” as much as $100,000 from Mr. King before agreeing to the lesser amount.

“I only recommended it to protect Lori, and his son. He was succumbing to the blackmail,” said Mr. Gange. “He did something stupid and out of character, but it was not illegal, and it was never acted upon.”

Mr. Gange said Mr. King and Ms. Douglas likely have several legal avenues to pursue against Mr. Chapman for breaches of the confidentiality agreement, of the Privacy Act for not destroying the personal photos and for defamation of character.

What a sordid scandal, eh? It’s a stickier mess than a tub full of poutine!

P.S. For those of you looking for a more high-minded take on these events, so you can read about it without feeling gorss, Canadian law professor Alice Woolley, of the University of Calgary, discusses some of the ethical issues over at the Legal Ethics Forum.

Manitoba judge embroiled in sex scandal removes self from bench [National Post via Legal Ethics Forum]
Manitoba judge, husband, law firm face lawsuits [CBC News]
More on the ethics scandal [Legal Ethics Forum]

Earlier: Judge of the Day: Oh, Oh, Oh… Canada!

– Voice heard by Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams

Writing a book, blog, article or white paper are all great ways to get noticed and build relationships in the legal industry. Unfortunately, practicing lawyers confront great demands on their time, and even though they have good intentions, the work of creating this type of content is often delegated to associates or put off altogether. Part of the problem is that writing blog posts and articles is a loss leader. You spend too much time writing without business coming in, and soon enough you’ll be out of business.

Here is where social media and email marketing comes in. Every article and piece of content you create no longer has just one life. Now it can easily have nine. Hopefully one of these nine lives will give you the extra motivation to start writing more.

Life 1: Blog.

The law blog is your home base for all your new content. Creating blog posts on a regular basis is the single most powerful tool for business development in the online world. The search engines love fresh content, and once you have enough content on your blog, you will create a steady flow of traffic to your site….

Life 2: Share on Twitter, LinkedIN and Facebook.

Bring a second life to your new posts by sharing the link with your contacts on Twitter, LinkedIN and Facebook. For an idea of which articles really resonate with your audience I recommend using a site like http://bit.ly to shrink down your URL. The best part is that by using http://bit.ly you can track how many people click on each article. You can use these links on each of the social networks.

If you don’t have time to go to each social media site individually, I recommend downloading an application called Tweetdeck that allows you to post a single update to all three sites in a single click. There is also a feature that allows you to schedule out your messages days or weeks in advance so that you don’t need to be jumping on and off multiple times each day.

Life 3: Join a group on LinkedIN and share your articles within the group.

What clubs, organizations or associations are you a member of? Would they be interested in your article? Search for the “group” on LinkedIN and share your article using the “add news” box.

This way you get access to an extremely targeted group of people who are probably not direct connections. This technique can substantially increase traffic to your blog and website.

Life 4: Upload to JD Supra and share through legal updates.

Using legal updates is one step beyond simply sharing with your network and groups on LinkedIN. Through legal updates your articles will actually be pushed out to a a potential audience of 75 million people and over 1 million lawyers. While I mentioned how this works in last week’s article, there are complete details here: LinkedIN & JD Supra change the game.

You can find “Legal Updates” on the LinkedIN bar along the top by clicking “More…”

Then scrolling down to “Application Directory”:

You can then choose “Legal Updates”:

Upload a Word doc or PDF directly through LinkedIN and it can be shared across the entire LinkedIN network.

Life 5: List your article on Legal OnRamp or Martindale Hubbell Connected.

Legal OnRamp is great for in-house and corporate lawyers, while Martindale-Hubbell Connected has all types of lawyers, with a good concentration of international lawyers. There are also dozens of other lawyer-only online communities, but these are two I think should be considered as great places to share your content.

Life 6: Send your new article to your top prospects in a personalized email.

I know this is kind of old school, but don’t forget about it. This is a great way to touch bases with an existing client or prospect because (1) it gives you an excuse to reach out that doesn’t seem forced, (2) it gives you a chance to show your expertise, and (3) the personalized message in the email shows they are a special contact.

Life 7: Create a monthly e-newsletter out of your blogs posts and use a service like Aweber to send it to your targeted email lists.

There are a lot of ways to do this, and no “right way.” Your newsletter can be one old article and one new article, or it can just be a summary of your best articles from the past month or two.

You do have an email list, don’t you? If not, your legal writing can help with that as well.

Life 8: Give your article or white paper away as an opt-in.

One of the big bonuses to having written a book is that you can give away a free chapter as an opt-in. You win because you get the email address of somebody interested in your topic, and they win because they are emailed a PDF of your chapter. Building your email list is a vital part of your online business development efforts. As Stephen Fairley says, “he who has the biggest list wins.”

You don’t need a book to gather email lists, though; you can use a long article, white paper or even a list or chart. Create something of value that would help out your average client. Make sure to mention it at the end of every blog post in the signature line.

Life 9: Print out your article or post and give it away when you speak, in exchange for a business card.

This is one of my favorite tactics. Take your article, print it out and physically show it to people when you present at a speaking event. Give a free copy to everyone in the audience in exchange for a business card. Should you just offer to email it to them? No. I’ve tried it both ways, and having a physical document to hand to people substantially increases the chance of them giving you their business card, which can then be added to your list.

Conclusion

There is a lot of work to do once your content is created, but keep in mind that your secretary, assistant or marketing department can take your content and make it live again through these various steps. What your staff most likely can’t do is write your articles for you. You need to make the time to build up your blog by writing original content. Because remember, if you build it . . . well, you know the rest.

Earlier: Social Media Lessons from a Russian Sniper
The All-or-Nothing Social Media Skeptics
Many In-House Counsel Are Social Media Savvy. But Biglaw Firms? Not So Much.
Social Media Policies for Legal Types
Social Media Policies for Legal Types, Part II

Adrian Dayton is a lawyer and writer who advises law firms about business development through social media. He is the author of Social Media for Lawyers: Twitter Edition. You can learn more about him on his website and follow him on Twitter.