>Big law firms would salivate at taking on a high profile project like this

High profile but also high criticism, a not easily solvable problem: not that attractive.

Don't forget that despite their relatively low salaries, many high-profile politicians receive numerous perks, and there often are funds created by their parties and their donors from which to draw. They're not living just on their salaries. And in the future, they parlay their political experience and connections into handsomely paying positions such as consultants, board members, etc.

>All I’m hearing is a lot of Virtue signaling from people who have never been anywhere near a prison, let alone having worked in one.

It's equally obvious that most people here are unfamiliar with what lawyers charge or how they work. IIRC, there was a lawyer who was appointed a special master in a securities case. I think she had had a high-ranking position in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and had left and become a partner at a large, respected corporate law firm. I believe she charged $800 an hour and that was years ago.

>He sounds like any conservative paper's(e.g the Post's) reporting. Put a large figure in the headline implying it's an elected/appointed public official's salary.

I was thinking the opposite, that he sounded like a naive or faux-naive lefty reporter. At the extremes of the political spectrum, there are similarities.

This isn't pro bono work. Pro Bono work is usually performed at no charge. The law firm makes a certain number of lawyers available for free and doesn't charge for expenses like photocopying, postage, service, and travel, which can be considerable. Pro bono work usually isn't open-ended. The law firm takes on discrete matters that can be resolved in a reasonable amount of time like a year or two, often less. Often law firm associates (as opposed to partners) are assigned to pro bono cases and in many large law firms with up-and-out systems, the associates leave after a few years to work somewhere else.

I don't think many competent lawyers with this level of expertise and experience would want to work for years on a project of this type for less than their normal fee. It doesn't seem to be very rewarding work and it appears that the lawyers don't have the power and political support to accomplish all that they need to. If you're going to work at less than your regular rate you want the experience to be fulfilling, to be good training for your associates, and to generate good PR for your firm.

He's a private consultant. I don't know his exact status, but agreeing to take the position does not mean he's agreeing to be paid like a typical elected or appointed official or a member of the civil service. Up higher in this thread, someone posted a link to his curriculum vitae. It's 14 pages long. I only looked at the first few pages, but he appears to have highly relevant experience in criminal justice and specifically corrections systems stretching back to 1987. When the government hires an expert it doesn't expect to get a discount. It's paying for special expertise. As I said, many experienced lawyers have a much higher hourly rate. Harping on his rate seems like a juvenile, attention-grabbing ploy and the reporter is experienced so it's disappointing.

"We got the monitor's bills...He makes $400,000 a year for a part-time job."

He charges $350 for an hour, which for a lawyer with his experience and expertise is perfectly reasonable. Some lawyers charge $800 an hour. Unlike the Mayor, Martin is not a public servant, he's in private practice. The team also is large. Review of the materials is costly and time-consuming. The lack of progress is of course troubling, but by his own admission, it's a huge problem and his limited powers aren't sufficient. In other words, it's good to alert the public to the continuing issue but it's bad to make a scapegoat out of this guy and his team. You sound like a crusading junior high school reporter when you do that.

The president of the United States and the Mayor of NYC are public servants. The Monitor is not. He's a private lawyer and his hourly fee of $350 is not out of line for an experienced lawyer, in fact, it's on the low side.

No, from what I've read, for years, Federal Society graduates have worked hard to get their members in key positions, much more than the ordinary law school organization. I didn't say it was a secret society, but in terms of exercising influence to help its members, it does remind me of societies like Skull and Bones.

For the last 32 years.

Stop the presses.

> Maybe my experience is different than others, but it’s literally just a law school club.

It's a law school organization with an agenda, especially at prestigious schools like Yale Law School and Harvard Law School, but there's nothing illegal or improper about its objectives.

Steven Calabresi is very well-connected, but his uncle, Guido, the former dean of Yale Law School and current federal appellate judge, is not a Federalist Society type.

When Robert Bork was nominated for SCOTUS in 1987, virtually everyone at YLS was against it. There was a very well-attended panel discussion at which his former colleagues spoke. Even the professors who had a friendly relationship with Bork criticized his legal philosophy.

You obviously didn't read the article.

Yale College and Yale University are excellent. Yale Law School is extremely prestigious among law schools because it is the most difficult law school to get into in the United States and has many successful graduates despite its size. Harvard Law School is also excellent, but it is much larger than Yale. HLS has 1,900 students (law students and advanced degree students). YLS has a little over 600.

Yale Law School has been number one on the list since 1990. That's why it's significant that it and Harvard are leaving the ranking process. They don't think it's fair to schools that promote public interest or provide significant scholarship aid and they have never needed U.S. News & World Report and never will.

I'm hardly the first person to comment on the inappropriateness of public proposals. They are a private moment and they put the woman in an awkward position. They're tacky.

Imagine having no taste.

A proposal should be a private moment.

The Post says he'd be fine with Zeldin.

Hard to enter at 57th Street when the Park starts at 59th.

Actually, a friend of mine said it might better to go in the direction you took because you'd see the sunset on the Hudson at the end of the walk and it would be warmer. I think they may start it on the Hudson side because that's the prettiest part of the walk and many people drop out by the time they reach Inwood. So they get to see the fun part before quitting.

I get it. So you did this on your own? There was a Virtual Saunter this month. The first one was scheduled during the pandemic because large groups of people couldn't walk together. Normally, there are at least 1,000 walkers.

Shorewalkers, the organization that sponsors The Great Saunter, always schedules several practice walks leading up to the main walk, which is the first Saturday in May.

This specific walk, sponsored by the Shorewalkers organization for over 30 years, is called "The Great Saunter." "Sauntering" is not a term generally used for this kind of activity, which is a challenging urban hike.

That's the name the walk has always been called. I've always wondered why it's called that because to me, "sauntering" suggests a more relaxing walk, while The Great Saunter is a demanding hike. The name may come from a Walt Whitman poem.