ER AUGUST 7, 1989 Weil, Gotshal Snares Second Houston Judge Both Texas Offices Continue Hiring Spree BY BRENDA SAPINO U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Margaret A. Mahoney will leave the bench Sept. 30 to join the Houston office of New York-based Weil, Gotshal & Manges as a partner in the firm's reorganization section. Mahoney is the second Houston judge in two weeks to announce a move to Weil, Gotshal. Her decision follows Harris County's 234th District Judge Ruby Kless Sondock, who plans to join the firm this fall to work in the litigation section as of counsel. Weil, Gotshal also hired Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Johnson of Houston as an associate effective Aug. 28. He has been with the U.S. attorney's office for four years in the fraud section and will work in the white collar crime section of Weil, Gotshal's Houston office. Meanwhile, the firm's Dallas branch, practically dormant since its opening two years ago, continues a sudden surge of growth. On Aug. 3, Weil, Gotshal lured three more law. yers from Dallas' Johnson & Gibbstax partner Jerred Blanchard Jr. and corporate associates Jeremy Dickens and Steven Dietz. The new additions come on the heels of three other Johnson & Gibbs corporate attorneys' defections. They made the jump to Weil, Gotshal in Dallas several days earlier. The first group of departing attorneys was led by partner Lawrence Stuart Jr., among Johnson & Gibbs' heaviest revenue producers and one of the city's most prominent deal makers, specializing in mergers and acquisitions. Peter Gruenberger, managing partner of Weil, Gotshal's Houston office, said that although the firm has hired two prominent Houston judges recently, it isn't specifically recruiting jurists. Sondock and Mahoney, whom he described as qualified lawyers who happened to "fit" into the firm, will be the only former judges among the 500 lawyers at Weil, Gotshal, he said Aug. 2. Judge Mahoney, a bankruptcy judge in Minneapolis before moving to the Houston bench in August 1987, said Aug. 2 she is returning to private practice for money and career JUDGE MARGARET MAHONEY: Cites fears of a proposed law that could have limited her career options. said, explaining that she has two young children to rear. SHEILA CUNNINGHAM Saying she loved her job as a bankruptcy judge, Mahoney said it was in her best interest to leave the bench to preclude the possibility of being forced to leave Houston to practice law. Houston's hot climate has helped the rheumatoid arthritis of her husband, a self-employed businessman, she said. Mahoney makes $82,340 a year as a federal bankruptcy judge, far less than her potential draw at a firm where average profits per partner last year were $675,000, according to The American Lawyer's most recent report on firm finances. Mahoney said she started talking formally to firm leaders six weeks ago about a possible move. The firm contacted her after she mentioned to a friend- an associate at the firm that she was concerned about the proposed federal legislation that would limit her career options, she said. Gruenberger said Mahoney has a strong background in litigation as well as bankruptcy work. She plans to start at the firm about Oct. 1. The addition of Mahoney will boost the firm's Houston office to 60 lawyers, including 10 partners, three of counsel and 47 associates, Gruenberger said. The firm's Dallas office has 24 lawyers. Bankruptcy comprises about 40 percent of the work in the Houston office and about 30 percent in the Dallas office, he said. Before accepting a job as a bankruptcy judge in Minneapolis in February 1984, Mahoney was a litigation partner with Minneapolis' Stringer, Courtney & Rohleder, now Stringer & Rohleder. She graduated from the University of Minnesota law school in 1974. The Houston Post FRIDAY, August 4 1989 U.S. bankruptcy judge quitting to join law firm FROM STAFF REPORTS U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Margaret Mahoney said Thursday she is leaving the bench to work for the Houston office of New York-based Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Mahoney, 40, said she will step down Sept. 30 after two years on the Houston bench because "it was an offer that was too hard to pass up." She also cited Congress' refusal to raise bankruptcy judges' salaries from $82,340 and proposed legislation that could restrict her ability to practice law. I have just read in the current issue of The Third Branch, published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, that you have spoken in support of HR 2181. I write out of profound appreciation to you for your willingness to advance this most justified piece of legislation. Federal judges are not by nature given to public displays of emotion. Nevertheless, I can attest, personally, to a prevailing climate of "silent rage" among federal judges for our perception that Congress as a whole has undermined the morale of a separate and coequal branch of government. Your stepping forward with precisely the right kind of legislation to solve at least the compensation problem for the indefinite future is the best news that I have seen on this entire front since Black Tuesday in February of this year. You have my wholehearted support. If you or your staff would suggest any way in which I can encourage other colleagues, particularly from this corner of the world, to support you in your efforts, your wish will be my command. (How's that for interbranch cooperation!) Sincerely, DFO: js Diarmuid F. O'Scapnlain nited States Circuit Judge On behalf of the American Bar Association, I write to We are concerned that the announced campaign to repeal the raises by opponents of the pay, ethics and honoraria package, threatens these much needed reforms. We urge your continued support for the raises and ask that you vote against all repeal proposals. The Association stands ready to help in defending the hard-fought pay package against the roll back effort. We commend you for your courageous vote in addressing this very serious, but politically unpopular, issue. What gets lost in the demagoguery on the issue are the very real needs of our dedicated public servants. Thank you for your leadership in this area. Sincerely, Напускам L. Stanley Chauvin, Jr. APPENDIX V.-MATERIALS RELATING TO SENIOR JUDGE WORKLOAD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE The Senior Judge System in the Federal Judiciary In connection with the "compensation" issue relating to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, the question has arisen as to the function, duties and entitlements of senior judges. Two constitutional provisions are important in understanding why Congress chose to create the Senior Judge system in 1919. The first provision mandates that Judicial compensation not be diminished during the lifetime of the Judge and the second provides that Federal judges serve during good behavior and can only be removed by impeachment. These provisions are a substantial part of the framework that result in an independent judiciary. However, the provisions led to an unfortunate result. Because there was no retirement provision for Judges and because they could not be removed from office except by impeachment, elderly Judges, in order to have an Income, had no realistic choice but to stay on the bench -- even when their mental and physical abilities began to diminish. And if a judge stayed in office, no vacancy became available and the result would be that the delivery of justice was impaired. The senior Judge system was adopted to resolve this dilemma. Under it a judge has two choices upon reaching retirement age: (1) (2) the judge may retire in which case he or she is entitled to the judge may take senior status. In that case the judge In either event, a vacancy occurs which can be filled. A judge may take senior status if the judge is at least 65 and has served 15 years on the federal bench. A sliding scale in the statute permits Judges at age 66 to take senior status after 14 years, age 87 after 13 years, age 68 after 12 years, age 69 after 11 years and age 70 and above after 10 years. Such Judges continue to hold the Judicial office and continue to receive the salary of the office because the |