Sexy résumé lands law grad fleeting fame if not job

 A lawyer desperate to get a job has made an impression on the legal community here, but not necessarily in a good way.

2009 Villanova Law School grad Brian Zulberti said he was about two Red Bulls into a late-night push to e-mail every lawyer he could find in the legal directory when he decided to add a photo.

Not a typical head-and-shoulders, suit-and-tie mug photo, it was a picture of Zulberti, 30, in a T-shirt with the sleeves rolled up, showing off his sculpted arms. Within a day of sending out his second round of e-mails, he became an Internet sensation.

"I was desperate to an extent," said Zulberti, adding he thought throwing in a little sex appeal might improve his chances.

This attracted the attention of the Above the Law Blog — apparently tipped off by an unimpressed lawyer that received it — which posted an item about Zulberti's letter and photo under the search term "Bad ideas."

"Seriously? Has this man no shame?" wrote Staci Zaretsky on the blog. "Who needs a résumé when you can send a selfie instead?"

The blog then went one step further and chastised Zulberti for pictures on his unsecured Facebook page, including one racy naked torso shot of Zulberti, his underwear dangerously low, holding a sign over his face that cried out for better grammar: "HIRE ME!!! no … as a Lawyer, … NOT A ESCORT… wait is it something I'm wearing."

"A picture is worth a thousand words, and here, all of those words seem to be: NO NO NO NO NO NO," Zaretsky wrote in the blog.

That started the explosion.

The blog post went viral on social media and Zulberti said he suddenly started getting a flood of friend requests on Facebook, less than 12 hours after he sent out his last batch of job-seeking e-mails. His voice mail and e-mail were soon swamped with messages.

Some were supportive, telling him not to give up hope. More called him a disgrace to Delaware, where he had just joined the bar. A number of friends told him to turn on his Facebook privacy settings.

That also was the advice of Delaware attorney and employment law expert Molly DiBianca.

"This is just wrong on so many levels," she said. Law firms want someone who is serious, professional and can show discretion. The images Zulberti posted of himself show "just the opposite."

"I'm sort of stunned by this picture. I can't stop looking at it," DiBianca said, noting that on top of everything there is a grammatical error in his "Hire Me" sign, which she said "looks like a 4-year-old wrote it."

Zulberti said soon after the blog mocked him, he started getting calls from media organizations and friends started sending him links to stories that had been posted about him from as far away as Croatia.

Among his Web hits:

• Gawker, "Lawyer Asks Hiring Firms to Google Him. Puts nude selfie on Facebook"

• MSN, "Law school grad bemoans job search, flaunts toned arms in cover letter"

• And even The Mail Online, the website of London's Daily Mail tabloid, "That's one way to bulk up your résumé!"

Some are getting the story wrong or at least misunderstanding it, Zulberti said.

"I never sent any pictures in my underwear to employers," he said. "I sent a picture in a muscle shirt. I will allow others to debate whether or not that was appropriate."

He said he already has talked to one Philadelphia radio show and has been invited to appear on The Steve Harvey Show.

The American Bar Association Journal website pointed to Zulberti's story as a cautionary tale both about the desperate job market, particularly for would-be lawyers, and the dangers of over-sharing on social media. Tuition and fees at Villanova Law School for the 2012-13 school year was $38,910, according to the Pennsylvania university's website.

But Zulberti said as far as he is concerned he sees no moral to the story.

Zulberti said he didn't intend to set off a social media firestorm. But now that it has arrived he is going to milk it, and enjoy it, for all it's worth.

"I went from being a guy with no job to a guy with no job on TV," he said with a laugh, sitting in his father's home where he lives.

In a YouTube response to Above the Law, Zulberti said while he initially felt the blog item was "rather insulting" and mean, the author also called him "a young stud."

"So it balances out," he said in the video, which has received nearly 10,000 views.

And through all the craziness, Zulberti has defiantly kept his Facebook page public and has continued to post provocative pictures of himself. Zulberti said to turn on privacy filters at this point would be to change who he is.

"I am the guy who takes pictures of himself in his underwear," he said, adding he thinks the images are funny and lawyers should be allowed a sense of humor.

"There is something to be said for being true to one's self in a job search," DiBianca said, but she added that people looking for a job have to be concerned about being a cultural fit with their employer. Reputation is an important part of being an lawyer. "And this does not come off professionally, to say the least.

"You have to keep client matters confidential," she said. "And he doesn't seem to understand the boundaries or lines of confidentiality very well."

Despite the largely negative online and media attention he's received, Zulberti said the job search is going well. He has received several invitations to submit his résumé, and one interview he had Friday went so well that he is hopeful it will lead to a job offer.

Zulberti said he recognizes that "the social media death hammer" ultimately may crush his legal dreams but hopes people judge him on his legal abilities and not Facebook pics of his pecs.

"All I need is one job," Zulberti said, even if 9,999 out of 10,000 potential employers don't like him. If he gets that job, he said he will have the last laugh.

"I feel I could be a very good attorney some day," he said.

Court overturns passport law implying Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem

By Ann E. Marimow

A federal appeals court Tuesday found unconstitutional a law that gives thousands of Americans born in Jerusalem the option of listing Israel as their birthplace on U.S. passports.

In a separation-of-powers dispute centered on Middle East politics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the law passed by Congress in 2002 “impermissibly intrudes” on the powers of the president.

“While the president’s foreign affairs powers are not precisely defined, the courts have long recognized the president’s presumptive dominance in matters abroad,” Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in a 42-page opinion.

At issue is a provision of a 2002 foreign-relations act that challenged the U.S. policy of neutrality over the sovereignty of Jerusalem, a holy city claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians. The law allowed Jerusalem-born Americans to request that official documents list their birthplace as Israel.

Because of U.S. foreign policy regarding Jerusalem, the State Department — under Republican and Democratic administrations — has refused to follow Congress’s direction.

“Congress plainly intended to force the State Department to deviate from its decades-long position of neutrality on what nation or government, if any, is sovereign over Jerusalem,” Henderson wrote. She was joined by judges Judith W. Rogers and David S. Tatel, who also wrote a concurring opinion.

The case, which reached the Supreme Court in 2011, was brought by Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky, U.S. citizens whose son Menachem Binyamin was born in Jerusalem in 2002. The couple want their son’s passport to say he was born in Israel.

Zivotofsky attorney Nathan Lewin argued that the legislation “simply and neutrally” regulated the form and content of the passport.

Lewin said in a statement Tuesday that the “difficult case” calls for resolution by the Supreme Court. He described the State Department’s passport policy as an “isolated holdout, denying what is universally acknowledged, to the detriment of a right that a duly enacted law gives to American citizens.”

The Zivotofskys’ attorneys noted in court filings that the State Department has acknowledged inadvertently issuing passports with Israel as the birthplace to citizens born in Jerusalem and that there had been no harm done to U.S. foreign policy interests.

But the court said it found compelling the State Department’s position that the “reversal of United States policy” could “provoke uproar throughout the Arab and Muslim world and seriously damage our relations.”

The court’s opinion cited submissions from the department that argued the law “runs headlong into a carefully calibrated and long-standing executive branch policy of neutrality toward Jerusalem.”

Since Israel’s creation in 1948, Henderson wrote, U.S. presidents have “steadfastly declined to recognize any foreign nation’s sovereignty over that city.” The executive branch has made clear that the status of Jerusalem must be decided not unilaterally by the United States but by all the relevant parties.

In March 2012, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit, ruling in an 8 to 1 decision that the lower court could rule on the constitutionality of the law. The appeals court had earlier dismissed the case, writing that it posed a political question beyond the scope of the court’s authority.

LEGAL TIP: Before You Go Into Business with Family or Friends

Before You Go Into Business with Family or Friends

You want to start a business with your spouse...or your best friend from college...or your brother-in-law. You have heard horror stories about working with family and friends, but you are sure it will work out. But you wonder what you should to to make sure you can work together in a business without destroying that relationship. Here are some tips:

Talk About It

Sit down and talk about who is going to do what job in the business. Maybe you like doing marketing and your friend or spouse wants to do the accounting. Talk about what happens when one of you has to stay home with a sick child, or if your friend wants to take a vacation. Cover as many concerns as possible. Make a list of all types of contingencies.

Decide Who Owns What

Decide who owns what percentage of the business. You may decide to split the ownership 50/50, but there may be reasons for not doing this. Maybe one of you is going to be full-time and the other only part-time. A different ownership split can show those differences.

Put Together an Agreement

Create a written agreement, describing who does what, how much of the business each person owns, and listing what happens if someone wants to leave the business or if there are problems.

Determine Your Business Form

Learn about the various forms of business organization that might suit your circumstances. You might want to form a Partnership or an LLC. Or you may want to create a corporation.

Complete The Paperwork

In other words, take your agreement to your attorney for the final version of your agreement. The type of agreement is similar for all types of businesses (except for a sole proprietorship). Don't try to write up the agreement yourself.

Follow the Same Process for Family/Friend Investors

If a family member or friend wants to invest in your business, you will definitely need an agreement or something prepared by an attorney that protects both of you. Y may not be able to save the relationship if the business starts going downhill and the person loses money, but you may be able to at least remain on a talking basis.

·         Startup Funding from Family/Friends

Finally, Remember "Business is Business"

The business agreement you signed can help save your relationship if things go wrong in the business. Don't be afraid to change the agreement if something changes in the business relationship.

Frequently Asked Questions About: Getting a US Visa

Frequently Asked Questions About: Getting a US Visa

Whether you’re applying for a work, student, immigrant or any other US visa, the process is rarely straightforward — and it often results in a lot of questions.

Here are the answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding the US visa process.

1) How long will it take before I get a US visa?

This is perhaps the most frequently asked question regarding US visas, and with good reason. Unfortunately, it is one of the most difficult questions to answer.

There is usually a wait time to receive an appointment to apply at the US Embassy or Consulate in your area. Depending on where you live, what type of US visa you are applying for, and whether or not many others are also applying for visas, this wait for an appointment can be anywhere from just a couple of days to a couple of weeks.

Visitor, student, work and other nonimmigrant visas are the easiest appointments to get — often within a week. Appointments for immigrant visas, including the dual-intentK-1 fiancé(e) visa, may take up to two weeks or even a month in some remote areas.

If you would like a more specific approximation, the US Department of State has ahandy tool on its website that helps you calculate how long it will take in your area to get a consular appointment.

At your appointment, the consular officer decides whether or not to grant you a US visa. If you are granted a visa, there is a processing time before you receive it — usually around a week, but it may take up to 60 days, especially with immigrant visas.

2) What is a police report, and why do I need one to get a US visa?

A police report can be obtained at your local police department. It will show your criminal history. If you have no criminal history, the police department will still check your name against its databases and print out a report with your information showing that you have a clean record.

3) Does having a criminal history affect my US visa application?

This question is more frequently asked than you might think! Some people committed small crimes when they were younger, but they have paid the price and have had a clean record ever since.

The answer: It depends on the type and frequency of criminal activity. US immigration officers often will overlook smaller crimes, like petty theft, if it happened only once and not recently. Having a DUI on your record is a little more serious, but it won’t disqualify you from obtaining a US visa, especially if you have shown that you have paid the fines and went to classes.

If you have a recent DUI or more than one on your record, or if you have any more serious crimes, you may want to consult an immigration attorney on how best to proceed with your visa application.

4) Why would my visa application be denied?

In addition to serious criminal convictions, there are a number of reasons why the US may choose to deny your visa application:

• You have a communicable disease that may endanger public health, like tuberculosis.

• There is insufficient proof that you’ve been vaccinated against preventable diseases such as mumps, measles, rubella, tetanus and hepatitis B.

• You have physical, mental or behavioral disorders that might pose a threat to the safety of others.

Consular officers will also deny visa applications of anyone they believe to be a drug user, drug trafficker, prostitute, terrorist or spy.

5) What should I expect at the US border?

Even though you may have been granted a US visa, there is no guarantee that it will get you into the United States!

Be prepared by completing the following tasks:

• Fill out the Form I-94 that you are given on the plane to the best of your ability.

• Have your passport and any other travel and identification documents ready.

• Answer the officer’s questions truthfully about what you are planning to do with your time in the United States.

• If you cannot speak English well, have a certified translator draft you a letter in English that lists the language or languages you do speak so that border patrol officers may better assist you.

Even if all of your paperwork is in order and you have already submitted a background check, the first priority of border officers is security, and they will most likely check your name against several databases. You can be turned away if it appears that you are lying about your intentions — for example, talking about moving to the US full-time if you have only a visitor or other nonimmigrant visa.

With some preparation and the answers to these frequently asked questions, getting a US visa will seem like a much smoother process.

Sullivan & Cromwell Pays Generous Spring Bonuses!

Sullivan & Cromwell Pays Generous Spring Bonuses!

Friday afternoons are for bad news. When you have some news that you want to disappear into the ether, you announce it on Friday afternoon. It’s a favorite time for disgraced D.C. figures to resign from office in order to “spend more time with their families.”

So why did Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the world’s most prestigious and profitable law firms, decide to announce good news — namely, generous spring bonuses for its associates — late on a Friday afternoon? (Was it perhaps in response to the Latham bonus news from earlier today?)

Yes, Cravath and Skadden and Davis Polk associates, you read that right. S&C is paying out healthy springtime bonuses. They’re supplemental to the 2010 year-end bonuses that S&C announced back in December.

So how much are we talking about? And when will these amounts hit associate bank accounts?

Let’s find out….

By the way, the S&C springtime bonuses shouldn’t come as a total surprise. When the firm announced year-end bonuses in December 2010, S&C mentioned that it might pay spring bonuses in 2011, subject to firm performance.

We’re gathering that the firm is performing well, since the amounts in question are significant. For junior associates, the springtime bonuses are equal to the end-of-year bonuses, meaning that S&C junior associates are getting twice as much bonus money as their friends at Cravath, Skadden, Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher, Weil Gotshal, Cleary Gottlieb, and Debevoise.

Here’s the full scale of Sullivan & Cromwell springtime bonuses, as set forth in today’s memo from firm chairman Joseph Shenker. The bonuses are payable in April — an incentive for S&C associates who were thinking of leaving to stick around until then.

Class of 2010: $2,500
Class of 2009: $7,500
Class of 2008: $10,000
Class of 2007: $10,000
Class of 2006: $12,500
Class of 2005: $15,000
Class of 2004: $17,500
Class of 2003: $20,000
2002+: $20,000

And here’s a table that we’ve prepared — if you see any errors, please note them in the comments — totaling the December 2010 and April 2011 bonuses for S&C associates:

Class Year: December 2010 Bonus + April 2011 Bonus = Total Bonus

Class of 2010: $0 + $2,500 = $2,500
Class of 2009: $7,500 + $7,500 = $15,000
Class of 2008: $10,000 + $10,000 = $20,000
Class of 2007: $15,000 + $10,000 = $25,000
Class of 2006: $20,000 + $12,500 = $32,500
Class of 2005: $25,000 + $15,000 = $40,000
Class of 2004: $30,000 + $17,500 = $47,500
Class of 2003: $37,500 + $20,000 = $57,500
Class of 2002+: $42,500 + $20,000 = $62,500

What might be motivating the springtime bonuses — and the January announcement? Said one of our S&C sources: “The early timing is likely due to the fact that the firm has been bleeding associates since January 1.” But another S&C tipster disagreed: “We get emails whenever someone leaves, and I haven’t noticed any uptick in attrition.”

UPDATE (1/22/11, 3 PM): There’s more discussion of this attrition issue in the comments. The majority view seems to be that attrition is running high at S&C these days. As for why it might not seem that way from emails, here’s a representative comment:

The reason that we haven’t seen an uptick in associate attrition on the weekly farewell emails is that the firm stopped sending them because so many people are leaving. Check the “S+C This Week” publications they’ve sent us and you’ll see a long list of people [leaving], and plenty more are — well, before the bonus news — scheduled to leave in the next few weeks.

In any event, regardless of the motives behind them, these spring bonuses are happy, happy news. Congratulations, S&C associates!

Now the question becomes: Which (if any) of Sullivan & Cromwell’s “peer firms” will match?

Verizon Files Early Challenge to Latest ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules

What, you ask, is that clickety-clackety noise you hear off in the distance, emanating from office buildings everywhere?

Here’s the answer: It’s the sound of lawyers (and their assistants), typing up legal challenges to the Federal Communications Commission’s recent rules on “net neutrality.”

One of the first (and most high-profile) challenges was filed Thursday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by telecom giant Verizon. The company asked the D.C. Circuit to overturn the FCC’s latest effort to regulate the Internet lines, predominantly on grounds that the government overstepped its authority. Click here for the WSJ story; here for the NYT story.

Last month, the FCC passed new rules to police Internet lines. The rules would bar phone and cable companies from blocking or slowing legal Internet traffic or providing preferential treatment to certain Web sites.

Verizon has long maintained that the FCC doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce net neutrality rules and has urged Congress to get involved. In its appeal, Verizon said it is “deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” according to a statement from Michael Glover, a Verizon deputy general counsel.

This won’t be the D.C. Circuit’s first bite at the “net neutrality” apple. The court ruled early last year that the FCC overstepped its authority when it sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing some subscribers’ Internet downloads. Verizon has hired Wiley Rein’s Helgi Walker, the lawyer who helped Comcast win its case, to ask the D.C. Circuit to shoot down the FCC’s latest rules.

The Verizon suit is the first of several challenges expected to be launched against the rules.

Public interest groups that believe the rules don’t go far enough also are expected to contest the rules.

Challenges to the Health-Care Law Are Wrong — And Right

Challenges to the Health-Care Law Are Wrong — And Right

In a provocative piece over at the National Law Journal, Wisconsin Law professor Andrew Coan stakes out a position that’s new to us: that both sides in the debate over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act are correct. And, at the same time, they’re both wrong.

(For background, click here for all of the LB coverage on the debate over the constitutionality of the law, arguably the signature domestic-policy achievement reached by the Obama administration.)

So what is Coan talking about? He explains, on the one hand, his assertion that both sides are right:

For courts to uphold the act would thus cast aside a cherished principle of American constitutional law — that the national government is one of limited powers, with everything else left to the states.

On the other hand, he writes:

For courts to invalidate the act would thus cast aside another bedrock principle of American constitutional law — that Congress has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce, including health insurance, and also wide flexibility in choosing how to carry that power into effect.

But both sides, he writes, are also wrong; wrong to deny the validity of their opponents’ arguments.

Coan compares the current conflict to one that emerged during the presidency of George Washington, when Congress passed legislation incorporating a national bank. The bank’s proponents claim the Constitution gives Congress the powers to tax and to borrow money, and, by extension, establish a national bank.

The bank’s opponents, on the other hand, argued that, in Coan’s words, “if Con­gress could incorporate a national bank merely out of convenience, what could it not do?”

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court upheld the bank, ruling implicitly that “Congress is usually in a better position than the courts to determine how to carry those powers into effect.” If the people really object to a piece of legislation, they can vote Congress out of office.

Coan concedes that the national bank situation may not be directly applicable to the health-care situation. And he doesn’t weigh in on one side or another.

Instead, his request is refreshingly modest:

If their decisions follow the lead of most commentators, both courts and the country will fail to appreciate the hard compromises that either result would entail. One bedrock constitutional principle or another must give way. It would make for wiser judicial decision-making — and a healthier democracy — if we began to wrestle with this openly now.