Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›528 »

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

My poo poo wasn't even BigLaw, it was just a miserable, old Husband/Wife combo who'd run through 8 paralegals in 6 months and thought, "maybe hiring an attorney will be the ticket, because we've had 'such bad luck' with paralegals."

# ? Jan 9, 2019 18:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:20

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Vox Nihili posted:

I really like the partner I work with most of the time. They're friendly, open, and reasonable, while also being extremely competent. No screaming, no laying blame for their own mistakes or problems.

Yeah, I'll never leave the firm I'm at unless life makes me, primarily because it's the best group of people imaginable.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 18:53

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

My favorite:

Idiot Partner: I want this motion edited. (Motion was not written by me. Last of the revolving door of associates who ran from this woman)
Me: OK. *emails edited word doc with track changes turned on*
IP: WHAT IS THIS REDLINE poo poo???? REDLINING IS FOR CONTRACT LAWYERS!!!!
Me: Uh... it�s track changes. This lets you see exactly where I made changes and you can accept or reject them by clicking on them. It�s easier than doing a side by side...
IP: NO! THATS NOT HOW WE DO THINGS!!!! WRITE ME A MEMO TELLING ME WHAT YOU CHANGED. THEN ILL TELL YOU IF I LIKE THE CHANGES!

By the way. This was a 30 page motion for summary judgment. The �memo� was long.

Same Partner didn�t want to listen when I suggested we may want to curb client�s expectations of MSJ rather than telling them we would win. On a negligence case. Where SJ is almost never appropriate. I had suggested using the MSJ as a tool to narrow down the complaint.

NOPE! I TOLD OUR CLIENT WE WILL WIN!!!!!!!!

ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jan 9, 2019

# ? Jan 9, 2019 18:57

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

blarzgh posted:

My poo poo wasn't even BigLaw, it was just a miserable, old Husband/Wife combo who'd run through 8 paralegals in 6 months and thought, "maybe hiring an attorney will be the ticket, because we've had 'such bad luck' with paralegals."

Ugh. Those are the worst.

Though maybe not. We have a firm that�s lost 10 associates since August. They only had like 14 to start.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 18:59

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

ActusRhesus posted:

Ugh. Those are the worst.

Though maybe not. We have a firm that’s lost 10 associates since August. They only had like 14 to start.

THE PURGE

# ? Jan 9, 2019 19:18

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

5 got picked up by PD offices. Good on them. Another 5 just threw up the deuces.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 19:19

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Speaking of purges, I have to go through my closet this weekend and get rid of old clothes, which makes no sense to me since I haven't bought myself any clothes since the last time I had to do this.

I think my wife is trying to slowly turn me into a Banana Republic model.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 19:19

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

I don't think the workload would have been so bad if it didn't have the emotion involved. Family law and criminal law have a lot of overlap, and I knew from the start I wanted nothing whatsoever to do with family law. I just don't want to deal with any more crazy people yelling or crying people.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 19:23

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

The feeling when you read a transcript and realize that the court reporter picked up all your under your breath snark at opposing counsel... and that you really don�t give a gently caress.

In fact... while it�s a bit brazen even for me.... I�m not even sure it was under my breath.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 20:28

nutri_void: Apr 18, 2015; I shall devour your soul.; Grimey Drawer

ActusRhesus posted:

NOPE! I TOLD OUR CLIENT WE WILL WIN!!!!!!!!

# ? Jan 9, 2019 20:37

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Spoiler. We in fact did not win.

Then I left the firm.

Then it went to trial.

Then it ended in one of the biggest jury verdicts in state history. Against our client. A number of issues raised by the court on appeal were also things I tried to warn them about... judgment and award affirmed.

Felt good.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 20:42

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

ActusRhesus posted:

Spoiler. We in fact did not win.

Then I left the firm.

Then it went to trial.

Then it ended in one of the biggest jury verdicts in state history. Against our client. A number of issues raised by the court on appeal were also things I tried to warn them about... judgment and award affirmed.

Felt good.

Cool Guys Don't Look at Explosions

# ? Jan 9, 2019 20:44

Look Sir Droids: Jan 27, 2015; The tracks go off in this direction.

ActusRhesus posted:

Spoiler. We in fact did not win.

Then I left the firm.

Then it went to trial.

Then it ended in one of the biggest jury verdicts in state history. Against our client. A number of issues raised by the court on appeal were also things I tried to warn them about... judgment and award affirmed.

Felt good.

How many bar complaints/suspensions/censures/malpractice claims?

# ? Jan 9, 2019 20:46

Sab0921: Aug 2, 2004; This for my justices slingin' thangs, rib breakin' kings / Truck, necklace, robe, gavel and things / For the solicitors seein' them dissents spin and grin / That robe with the lace trim that win.

Ani posted:

I think this is all really overstated.

Some people really hate biglaw, and if you're one of them, you should obviously quit. Also, you have to work a lot, and if you want to work 9-5, you should also quit. But it's not really worse than any other comparable jobs that you would have got if you went to business school instead of law school. Management consultants and investment bankers work about as much, travel more, and have (relatively) a lot more pressure at an earlier stage to bring in revenue. Corporate executives work a lot, have a lot more pressure or responsibility than any corporate lawyer, and have a job that's much more at risk to factors outside their control (and also make less than you think). Large private equity firms pay better than anyone else, but it's an order of magnitude harder to get jobs there, and they have extremely high turnover so almost no one gets to the big bucks. The only job that seems like it could be categorically better would be something like being a senior programmer at Google, or an investment professional at a successful hedge fund, but those jobs are also much harder to get than biglaw, and also everyone I know who does them works as hard as a biglawyer.

If you compare to most jobs, biglaw actually looks pretty good:

you get your own office, plus an admin assistant.

flexible hours (no one cares when you arrive or leave), basically unlimited ability to work from home.

no meetings or other BS - basically all your time is spent doing your core job.

pay is pretty good and mostly non-discretionary - compared to a banker, you'd have a much easier time buying a house.

pretty good job security compared to most jobs - if you do a minimally competent job you're unlikely to get fired before you are up for partner.

clients (at least in transactional) value your work and generally pay your bills (almost) in full and (almost) on time. When I did management consulting, half the battle was getting your client to admit that you had done anything at all for them, let alone that what you did was worth what you charged for it.

Also, if you hate your biglaw job, think about why you hate it. If it's the hours or the content of the work, you may need to quit, but otherwise consider lateraling or changing practice areas. There are many firms that don't have horrible screaming partners or facetime requirements, and there are a lot of practice areas that have relatively easier hours and very few sudden emergencies.

The day to day of big law wasn't what I was talking about. It was the morally bankrupt nature of the work. Even if you get to work from home, you're still contributing to the ultimate destruction of society. The nature of the job also does not allow for compartmentalizing. Kirkland, Latham, Davis Polk, Cravath, Simpson, whatever V20 you want to choose all exist to serve corporate/capital interests to the detriment of regular people.

The entire business model of Private Equity is to take pension funds, take a 2-5% management fee off the top, use the remaining money to buy other companies, strip the cash out, sell or liquidate it, and then get a piece of the take for yourself.

If you think big law being a toxic leech on society is overstated, I would respectfully disagree.

Sab0921 fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 9, 2019

# ? Jan 9, 2019 20:58

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Look Sir Droids posted:

How many bar complaints/suspensions/censures/malpractice claims?

That I do not know.

But the second circuit opinion was basically �man your lawyers hosed this up. But that�s not the issue before us. Sooooo...�

# ? Jan 9, 2019 21:17

Bushido Brown: Mar 30, 2011

Maybe it's because I'm in lit, or maybe it's just that I've been lucky with the clients I've had, but I haven't had a single representation where I thought I was actively making the world worse.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 21:24

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Sab0921 posted:

The day to day of big law wasn't what I was talking about. It was the morally bankrupt nature of the work. Even if you get to work from home, you're still contributing to the ultimate destruction of society. The nature of the job also does not allow for compartmentalizing. Kirkland, Latham, Davis Polk, Cravath, Simpson, whatever V20 you want to choose all exist to serve corporate/capital interests to the detriment of regular people.

The entire business model of Private Equity is to take pension funds, take a 2-5% management fee off the top, use the remaining money to buy other companies, strip the cash out, sell or liquidate it, and then get a piece of the take for yourself.

If you think big law being a toxic leech on society is overstated, I would respectfully disagree.

Serving capital/corporate interests isn't exclusively a "V20 biglaw" thing, it's pretty much a "private sector employment of almost any type" thing, particularly for lawyers. Private equity is morally no different than a bank or Google or Nestle or a sovereign wealth fund or any of the 10,000 legal forms that capital may assume. They're all rapacious by definition.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 21:33

Ani: Jun 15, 2001; illum non populi fasces, non purpura regum / flexit et infidos agitans discordia fratres

Sab0921 posted:

The day to day of big law wasn't what I was talking about. It was the morally bankrupt nature of the work. Even if you get to work from home, you're still contributing to the ultimate destruction of society. The nature of the job also does not allow for compartmentalizing. Kirkland, Latham, Davis Polk, Cravath, Simpson, whatever V20 you want to choose all exist to serve corporate/capital interests to the detriment of regular people.

This certainly seems a bit overstated. What makes biglaw particularly worse than just about any job in the private sector? All jobs with large companies (which comprise the majority of jobs) serve corporate/capital interests but I don't know why that means they are necessarily acting to the detriment of regular people.

quote:

The entire business model of Private Equity is to take pension funds, take a 2-5% management fee off the top, use the remaining money to buy other companies, strip the cash out, sell or liquidate it, and then get a piece of the take for yourself.

This is also overstated, but this isn't really the thread for it.

quote:

If you think big law being a toxic leech on society is overstated, I would respectfully disagree.

Obviously I don't think I'm a toxic leech on society. But I think anyone who feels like he or she is a toxic leech on society in their current profession should get out ASAP. The only point of my post was to note that biglaw is not (or doesn't have to be) uniquely horrible and in fact, when compared to comparable jobs (at least on the corporate side), can be pretty reasonable, as long as you are at the right firm in a practice area that you like.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 21:33

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Spoken like a true toxic leech.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 21:43

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

Yeah that's like fluent toxic leech. I'm sorry my man, better start measuring up your neck for the guillotine hole.

Personally my biggest crime against the people's interest is that I'm heavily invested in time travel futures. They haven't been invented yet, but I'm getting in before there's a ground floor.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 21:48

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Sab0921 posted:

The day to day of big law wasn't what I was talking about. It was the morally bankrupt nature of the work. Even if you get to work from home, you're still contributing to the ultimate destruction of society. The nature of the job also does not allow for compartmentalizing. Kirkland, Latham, Davis Polk, Cravath, Simpson, whatever V20 you want to choose all exist to serve corporate/capital interests to the detriment of regular people.

The entire business model of Private Equity is to take pension funds, take a 2-5% management fee off the top, use the remaining money to buy other companies, strip the cash out, sell or liquidate it, and then get a piece of the take for yourself.

If you think big law being a toxic leech on society is overstated, I would respectfully disagree.

OK Mr. Kaczynski, but the bathrooms are in the other corner of the room, behind the non-fiction section

# ? Jan 9, 2019 21:54

Kawasaki Nun: Jul 16, 2001; by Reene

Society is the real toxic leach!!!!!!! Return to the trees!!!!

# ? Jan 9, 2019 22:17

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

My office overlooks a park. Does that count?

# ? Jan 9, 2019 22:19

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

I swear to god I am this close to filing a responsive pleading that just says �dafuq did I just read?� Certification. Signature.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 22:26

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Sab went from a big law firm doing deal work to a small law firm doing regulatory compliance and now he's basically Che Guevara.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 22:28

disjoe: Feb 18, 2011

Ani posted:

I think this is all really overstated.

Some people really hate biglaw, and if you're one of them, you should obviously quit. Also, you have to work a lot, and if you want to work 9-5, you should also quit. But it's not really worse than any other comparable jobs that you would have got if you went to business school instead of law school. Management consultants and investment bankers work about as much, travel more, and have (relatively) a lot more pressure at an earlier stage to bring in revenue. Corporate executives work a lot, have a lot more pressure or responsibility than any corporate lawyer, and have a job that's much more at risk to factors outside their control (and also make less than you think). Large private equity firms pay better than anyone else, but it's an order of magnitude harder to get jobs there, and they have extremely high turnover so almost no one gets to the big bucks. The only job that seems like it could be categorically better would be something like being a senior programmer at Google, or an investment professional at a successful hedge fund, but those jobs are also much harder to get than biglaw, and also everyone I know who does them works as hard as a biglawyer.

If you compare to most jobs, biglaw actually looks pretty good:

you get your own office, plus an admin assistant.

flexible hours (no one cares when you arrive or leave), basically unlimited ability to work from home.

no meetings or other BS - basically all your time is spent doing your core job.

pay is pretty good and mostly non-discretionary - compared to a banker, you'd have a much easier time buying a house.

pretty good job security compared to most jobs - if you do a minimally competent job you're unlikely to get fired before you are up for partner.

clients (at least in transactional) value your work and generally pay your bills (almost) in full and (almost) on time. When I did management consulting, half the battle was getting your client to admit that you had done anything at all for them, let alone that what you did was worth what you charged for it.

Also, if you hate your biglaw job, think about why you hate it. If it's the hours or the content of the work, you may need to quit, but otherwise consider lateraling or changing practice areas. There are many firms that don't have horrible screaming partners or facetime requirements, and there are a lot of practice areas that have relatively easier hours and very few sudden emergencies.

You know you've got a great argument when you're comparing work/life to being an i-banker.

But I generally agree with this except the work from home thing doesn't really kick in until you're late midlevel or early senior associate. And even then you should probably show up to the office if you want to make partner.

As for the moral part of it, yes my job is absolutely to the detriment of society. No I do not care about it very much because society sucks. Plus this career moved me from a miserable existence in podunk to a comfortable life in a big city.

Ani posted:

This certainly seems a bit overstated. What makes biglaw particularly worse than just about any job in the private sector? All jobs with large companies (which comprise the majority of jobs) serve corporate/capital interests but I don't know why that means they are necessarily acting to the detriment of regular people.

I'm on your side but I think the perception is office drones in large companies are cogs in the machine trying to get by, whereas attorneys are comparatively independent professionals that can redirect their career trajectory towards less desirable jobs that serve their communities.

But what do I know, I'm just smart enough to have a biglaw job but just dumb enough to stick with it.

e: oh hey I work in banking & finance too. I feel like there's overrepresentation in that area among biglawyers here.

disjoe fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jan 9, 2019

# ? Jan 9, 2019 22:52

Ani: Jun 15, 2001; illum non populi fasces, non purpura regum / flexit et infidos agitans discordia fratres

disjoe posted:

You know you've got a great argument when you're comparing work/life to being an i-banker.

No argument that biglaw life sucks compared to a 9-5.

quote:

But I generally agree with this except the work from home thing doesn't really kick in until you're late midlevel or early senior associate. And even then you should probably show up to the office if you want to make partner.

I think this really varies with the firm. I've now worked at three biglaw firms. At the first two, work from home was really frowned upon and we had a lot of in-person meetings. At my current firm, everyone does it, and in the office most people keep their doors closed. A lot of times when I'm working from home, no one else at the firm is aware that I'm at home (because we mostly communicate by phone and email even if we are all in the office).

quote:

As for the moral part of it, yes my job is absolutely to the detriment of society.

I've had the occasional deal that has been pretty messed up. And I think that there is an argument that at least some LBOs generate a lot of returns by breaking the implicit social contracts that companies had with their suppliers and employees. But for the most part, the typical biglaw engagement is just ordinary course corporate stuff and isn't really to the detriment of society any more than any work done for any big company.

quote:

No I do not care about it very much because society sucks. Plus this career moved me from a miserable existence in podunk to a comfortable life in a big city.

This is also important. If you want to live a comfortable life in a big city it is difficult to also have a 9-5 job.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 23:08

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

I want more of a 7-3 type job.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 23:09

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Hell, I'd prefer not to work at all.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 23:10

Ani: Jun 15, 2001; illum non populi fasces, non purpura regum / flexit et infidos agitans discordia fratres

disjoe posted:

e: oh hey I work in banking & finance too. I feel like there's overrepresentation in that area among biglawyers here.

oh hey. didn't realize there were a lot of goon finance lawyers.

# ? Jan 9, 2019 23:13

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

bringing people together

# ? Jan 9, 2019 23:16

Arcturas: Mar 30, 2011

disjoe posted:

e: oh hey I work in banking & finance too. I feel like there's overrepresentation in that area among biglawyers here.

I think that�s just because there�s a general overrepresentation of these clients in big law because they have money and have weird ideas of what it means to be conservative in decision making (hire an expensive firm to tell your investors you are protecting them, ignore the firms advice).

# ? Jan 9, 2019 23:51

disjoe: Feb 18, 2011

Vox Nihili posted:

Hell, I'd prefer not to work at all.

There are people at my firm who have inherited gross wealth (like literally descended from old world aristocracy) and all I can think is: why the gently caress are you doing this?

They probably feel guilty about it and work hard to compensate, but I'd much rather start a business or philanthropy or some other dumb poo poo than work in loving biglaw.

# ? Jan 10, 2019 00:53

Look Sir Droids: Jan 27, 2015; The tracks go off in this direction.

disjoe posted:

There are people at my firm who have inherited gross wealth (like literally descended from old world aristocracy) and all I can think is: why the gently caress are you doing this?

They probably feel guilty about it and work hard to compensate, but I'd much rather start a business or philanthropy or some other dumb poo poo than work in loving biglaw.

Noblesse oblige

# ? Jan 10, 2019 01:00

The Dagda: Nov 22, 2005

Yuns posted:

I think it takes certain personality types to thrive in or enjoy or even tolerate big law.

This line plus the Patrick Bateman av quote is :discourse:

I know some big law guys who don't seem to hate it, but honestly the misery of former classmates of mine working in big law is the only thing that sustains me when I think about how big a paycheck I missed out on. I also won asylum for an HIV+ dude today after he spent 5 months in immigration detention so I guess there's that too.

# ? Jan 10, 2019 01:01

Toona the Cat: Jun 9, 2004; The Greatest

I know I'm going to get pilloried for this but being a toxic leech at a bank feels way more morally upstanding than sitting at the defendant's table with kiddy fuckers and rapists. (yes yes, you're not defending the act, you're defending the right I get it, I have the sweet quote from Powell v. Alabama on my office wall too)

# ? Jan 10, 2019 01:24

Kawasaki Nun: Jul 16, 2001; by Reene

Toona the Cat posted:

I know I'm going to get pilloried for this but being a toxic leech at a bank feels way more morally upstanding than sitting at the defendant's table with kiddy fuckers and rapists. (yes yes, you're not defending the act, you're defending the right I get it, I have the sweet quote from Powell v. Alabama on my office wall too)

Hell it feels the most morally upstanding when I tell people I am Jehova reborn and I need a cut of their social security to pay for my private jet. You won't hear otherwise from me!

# ? Jan 10, 2019 01:35

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

This thread: gently caress the police. Convicting people of crimes is morally wrong.

Also this thread: gently caress defending people if they�re actually guilty. Powell v. Alabama can eat a dick.

# ? Jan 10, 2019 02:04

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

ActusRhesus posted:

This thread: gently caress the police. Convicting people of crimes is morally wrong.

Also this thread: gently caress defending people if they’re actually guilty. Powell v. Alabama can eat a dick.

Wow this thread sure seems to have multiple personalities!

# ? Jan 10, 2019 02:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:20

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Edit: double post.

# ? Jan 10, 2019 02:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›528 »