"If this case goes to trial, expect David Braff to be seated prominently at counsel table, in a pink feather boa." rofl

David Braff is also head of litigation at S&C, so it is not totally random that he is the of counsel listed.

My hypothesis on what happened. Charney got to see his performance review and saw that he had no chance of making partner. He decides to sue to cause a controversy and make some money...

I wonder whether S&C decided to sue Charney some time ago, and will eventually admit it looked into how often he pooped.

Lat,
I am serious here. I feel really bad for this guy. Could we find a way to raise money for his expenses on this? Come on these guys are real sharks. I would be glad to put in some money. What do you think (gossip aside)?

Why do you feel bad for the guy? This isnt a situation where he had no other options. If he felt that the S&C situation was unbearable, then he could have left and gone to a different firm.

He got himself into this mess, and now he has to figure a way out.

11:11

i agree with you. lat: can you find out if charney would be agreeable to receiving donations?

Whatever, dude. I guess it's your money.

Of all the douche bags at S&C, David Braff is not one of the. It is a shame that he attached his name to this matter. He is a genuinely nice person, one of a very few among that partner ranks.

I find the behavior of the entire S&C team shameful. This countersuit appears to be a meta-response equivalent to the brusque slapdown Charney reportedly received when he first made his complaint. Can the company not figure out how to deal with its employees in a human, decent way, or can it only respond to problems by upping the ante to a wrestling match to the death?

And there is an incredible irony in S&C claiming damages due to bad publicity and then launching a suit that will only exacerbate it. Their harsh response seems to illustrate some particularly bad judgement in the firm. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

How much better would it have been if S&C had just shown some signs of contrition earlier on, as one smart law partner on this board previously suggested? Now the firm seems to be digging itself deeper and deeper, and can't figure out how to get out of the hole.

At any rate, it's going to be a fantastic media story, worth at least one "Law & Order" episode, and possibly a "Devil wears Prada" movie sequel. If I were Charney, I'd start getting my book proposal ready now. He may not beat the big guns of S&C in court (although their case does seem weak to me), but they will surely lose in the court of popular opinion.

S&C's allegations against Charney do not persuade me.

First, S&C accuses Charney of disclosing client confidences but provides little evidence of the nature of the secrets that he disclosed. I don't see how a court can find a breach of fiduciary duty based off such weak allegations.

Second, S&C's allegation that Charney stole a presentation and disclosed it to the media strikes me as unfounded. While it is interesting that Charney's office was next door to the partner who lost the presentation, that alone does not seem sufficient to establish that Charney in fact "converted" it. It is also interesting that a statement in Charney's complaint is similar to one made in the WSJ blog. The similarity, however, also does not establish that Charney stole the presentation.

On the conversion issue, the complaint does not present enough evidence to justify a shifting of the burden of proof to Charney. Moreover, it would be unfair to ask Charney to prove that he did not steal the presentation. Logically, one cannot prove a negative.

S&C's complaint strikes me as weak and subject to dismissal for evidentiary reasons. To the extent there might be a claim of defamation in this fiasco, I suggest that it probably now belongs to Charney. In light of Charney's current discrimination suit, I also would suggest that S&C's complaint is a good example of abusive litigation.

It seems to me that S&C has made bad situation much worse.

Patrick M and Anonymous 12:28 cannot possibly be serious.

Charney quoted handwritten language from a presentation in his complaint. The exact same language had also been handwritten on the presentation leaked to the WSJ. The statement is not "similar to the one made in the WSJ blog"; it is the exact same statement. And because it was handwritten, there is no reason to believe that it would appear on more than one copy of the report. Hence, the homosexual definitely stole and leaked the report.

"hence, the homosexual definitely stole and leaked the report."

just classic...

Patrick M, you are not, by chance, a 2L at loyola are you?

hmm - nope, but thanks for asking... just a fascinated observer

12:22 and 12:43, Patrick M, right on!
Thank you for being one of the few to make a point similar to the one that I have been walking around the block on these comments page (they usually drowned in a torrent of Loyola2L related postings). S&C's wrestling match to the death reads like extraordinary overkill. Surely S&C could have found a better way to deal with this when the issues first surfaced. Another lawsuit certainly doesn't quiet things down.
Anonymous 12:28, excellent point re defamation claim may now be Charney's to pursue! I'd love to hear from others who have more experience than I in these matters. Be prepared for a lot of "What ifffffing."

Word Lavi...I am soooo sick of Loyola 2L. Can we banish him from the site?

I thnk banishing is probably not in the spirit of what we are trying to do here (keeping an open forum) but perhaps we can discourage the constant bickering. Loyola 2L can continue to make his/her/their points (all thsi anonymity does strange things to my mind, or maybe it's just the late hour), but do they all have to be responded to with so much "enthusiasm"? I don't feel comfortable banishing, but let's try to keep the conversations going on a practical level.

I have read and re-read the complaint and frankly, I still don't understand what is going on in this case. S&C is Goliath, and this is their best strategy? Given my inexperience in these matters, I assume I am missing something. Why would S&C go to such lengths over Aaron Charney unless Charney does have some further "embarassing" goods on them that they are going to try to suppress. Why bring further publicity to the original allegations? I can't get excited about S&C's case because we are going down with them as a profession every hour that this remains unsettled, and grievances unremedied. More litigation, it seems to me, is an insufficient answer to Charney's original (small c) complaint and later his (NYSup) Complaint.

To those who have posted on ATL and on my blog re raising money for Aaron's defense, that's a noble instinct. Aaron, however, has not indicated such a need thus far to my knowledge, so it might a premature offer, though certainly generous. So I guess what I'm saying is let's hold that thought.

wgwag--you can have them!

"S&C's wrestling match to the death reads like extraordinary overkill."

So how would you suggest that S&C get papers back if an associate steals them and demonstrates a willingness to publish them?

The people who think Charney has a defamation claim seem to be cheerleaders rather than lawyers. Some of the same people accuse S&C of "overkill," but note that S&C has not sued Charney for defamation. Why? Because a complaint doesn't create a counterclaim for defamation. S&C's complaint is no different here.

"Why would S&C go to such lengths over Aaron Charney"

Well, Charney apparently released a client's confidential information to the Wall Street Journal. If I'm an S&C client, I'm very unhappy about this. (We also don't know what other files he emailed to himself: work product in sensitive litigation, for example?)

There are two ways to handle confidential information. One is to make everyone's employment life miserable at the front end, and keep associates away from everything sensitive lest they turn out to be thieves. The other is to trust people to act according to their fiduciary duties, enforce rights at the back end, and come down like a ton of bricks on those who do steal. If you foreclose the second option, that leaves law firms with only the first option. Do you really want to be required to lock everything in your desk every time you go to the bathroom or lunch on pain of firing when you fail to do so?

It sure looks to me like S&C's complaint has far more potential than Charney's at this stage: Charney now has next to no front-pay possibilities, and, given lock-step, little in the way of back-pay possibilities. The people who think this will settle for $500,000 are extraordinarily optimistic: I suspect S&C would rather lose after appealing it all the way to the US Supreme Court than pay a dollar in settlement. Any other result that rewards a Charney more than the associates who put in their 2500 hours sends the wrong message.

Lavi & Co. amaze me...

If S&C had not taken this action, Charney would still be parading around every media outlet that would give him the time of day in order to bash S&C. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is bad for business, regardless of the validity of his claims. This, of course, is to say nothing of the fact that it is also preventing any further release of CONFIDENTIAL information / communications. Furthermore, it is also important that S&C come down hard on such stealing of confidential information, lest they risk future problems.

Zach Fasman can slam a revolving door.

I assume that Charney's lawyers are operating on a contingency fee basis, don't ya think?

So here's a question:

This is a verified complaint, meaning that a S&C partner (Klapper) signed at the end, verifying that the allegations are, to the best of his knowledge, true. In Count 1, S&C alleges violations of the rules of professional responsibility. NY Disciplinary rule 1-103 requires that a lawyer possessing knowledge that raises a substantial question as to another lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer must report the conduct to the disciplinary authority.

Did Klapper report Charney to the NY board of professional responsibility????

"I assume that Charney's lawyers are operating on a contingency fee basis, don't ya think?"

I wouldn't assume that unless the tapes are a lot better than what's alleged in the complaint. Would you take this case on contingency?

I would. I can't see S&C fighting this kid so aggressively and publicly if they were not worried sick that he might have some dirty bones on them. Seriously! I cannot wait to see what other stuff comes out in this trial. OMG!

"I can't see S&C fighting this kid so aggressively and publicly if they were not worried sick that he might have some dirty bones on them."

Leaking client-confidential documents to the WSJ (if that's what happened, and the circumstantial evidence is pretty damning) is plenty of reason to fight aggressively. S&C isn't fighting publicly: reporters are sussing out court filings, which are required to be public. If there weren't blogs obsessed with the case, the counterclaim would have gotten no publicity.

As an S&C insider with -- admittedly --limited objectivity (in this instance, at least), I find 99% of these comments comical. Nothing personal, Lat -- this applies to all blogs on this topic and is not aimed at you in particular. I primarily read your blog (and not others’) because your commentary is entertaining (in a good way). I will not comment substantively, but just wanted to convey that reading these comments reminds me of the frustration I felt when Janet, Jack and Mr. Firley mistakenly believed Christie was a Russian Army spy who infiltrated the apartment to expose Larry, a high ranking undercover agent. Reading these comments makes me question whether I’m an “S&C insider” after all.

Lat, with your permission, in an effort to be reaffirm this blog’s tabloid status, can we open the floor to a KFed discussion? Ya think he and Brit will get back together? Rumor has it that the actor formerly and partially known as “Bennifer” is now dating Estelle Getty. Anyone else hear that? Can we get one of those nifty survey grids up, please?

Some anticipated responses:

Typical S&C - what a[n] [insert appropriate pejorative].

Typical S&C - No substance at all.

Must be a PR firm engaged by S&C. And a bad one at that.

Loyola 2L has a sibling at S&C??

Estelle Getty is hot.

Can anyone answer the question about how come S&C is bringing Goldman's claim about Goldman's private docs being made public? I mean, is it true that Goldman and S&C are indeed really the same entity in the way things really work that S&C can do this? Also, if Charney loses his locense then the female partner at S&C should lose her license too.

9:30,

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. Stefanie Wheeler didn't steal the documents from GS, she had them legitimately. Charney allegedly stole them from her. The documents only became a problem when they were leaked to the press by Charney. I don't see any wrongdoing by Wheeler here.

S&C had many months to address Chareny's complaints - they refused to, lied about it, and then tried to make Chareny look like a liar.

S&C is the one who dug this hole.

S&C is however lucky that Charney does not know what he is doing. If he had been a litigation associate S&C would be in the crapper.

I would also be very interested in contributing money to Charney.

Roper. Clearly.

9:30,

Are you serious? Charney stole client documents and published them. S&C is alleging this in establishing his breach of fiduciary duties to his clients and of his professional responsibilities as an attorney. It's not Goldman's claim. And why should the partner lose her license for circulating a document to two people who were bound by the same fiduciary duties as herself to keep the information confidential (an obligation which she re-iterated in her prefatory email) because someone stole the documents from those people and sent them to a newspaper?

The grasping for straws by the people invested in the idea that Charney is in the right is pretty amazing. S&C won't have to present a bloody glove that fits Charney to establish before a fact-finder that he stole the confidential document that ended up in the hands of the WSJ. All they'll have to do is point to his own complaint to demonstrate that he somehow had access to the stolen version of the document containing handwritten notes and that same version ended up with the WSJ. Unless Lavi Solloway or Lat is the factfinder, I think that's a pretty settled point.

Posting over and over again ad nauseum on this forum that this complaint is weak, hurts S&C and that Charney has the upper does not make it so. But you should keep it up as it's pretty entertaining to watch the furious spinning.

I would be very interested in contributing money to S&C.

What is the office dynamic at S&C these days with respect to the various partners mentioned in Charney's complaint (Korry, Krautheimmer, Harms, Koltran, etc)? That is where the interesting drama will take place.

What is the office dynamic at S&C these days with respect to the various partners mentioned in Charney's complaint (Korry, Krautheimmer, Harms, Koltran, etc)? That is where the interesting drama will take place.

9:54 - Me too!! I think my ten bucks will really make a difference to them.

Ted - how come the NY Sun never wrote a word about Charney's case v. S&C but was all over the counterclaim then? It is public record that S&C is counsel to the Sun's owner. Come on.

Posts by Anonymous --most recent 09.52 AM

I am begining to think that "thou doth protest too much". Are you working at or working for S&C? I think there are several trolls on this site. Why come to the quick defense of S&C whenever someone makes a point unfavorable to them. Do you really care? If you are not in their pay, I think you need to get a life!

As to the Kodak e-mail -- I seem to remember reading in the initial complaint that Charney was accused of over billing hence his inclusion of this e-mail from his partner. This e-mail would support Charney's claim that this accusation was false. The partner merely pointed out that the, Kodak, were sensitive to billings but did not suggest in any way that these associates were over billing the client.

As to the memo leak to WSJ, prove it was Charney who leaked it. For all we know, several associates could have seen or copied the memo and leaked it to the WSJ. Wasn't it "leaked" after the complaint was filed? Maybe one of the S&C partners did it to blacken Charney. Who knows?

All things are possible. Some are more probable (like Charney leaked the email).

Also, love the knee-jerk S&C troll response. Because, obviously, there is only one side to this whole situation.

Anonymous - most recnt 10:17 AM

True, there may even be three or four sides to the story but you seem to be a one-man defense band! Are you getting paid to respond for S&C?

Just thinking - are you getting paid to attack S&C??

Love the ad hominem attacks. Keep 'em coming.

Because taking S&C's side (that is, honestly analyzing the situation) is certainly "trolling"

You've got to be kidding 10:21 AM
AKA Anonymous (or co-worker?)

No, I am not getting paid but I am open to offers! Seriously, you're way too defensive which is why I feel your comments are suspect.

You've got to be kidding 10:21 AM
AKA Anonymous (or co-worker?)

No, I am not getting paid but I am open to offers! Seriously, you're way too defensive which is why I feel your comments are suspect.

Ah, that's right. Defenders of S&C are a "suspect class."

Anonymous (again) 10:26 AM

Ah, so you see yourself as a "defender of S&C". Interesting. Don't you think they have enough resources to defend themselves? You obviously are on their payroll. Admit it!

Sorry, what was that? A partner just came into my office. Could you repeat the question?

She is drafting a response.

I'm curious about all these personal attacks. What is the logic supposed to be? I assume that there are S&C associates on this board but I don't understand why that is a problem. Why shouldn't they have an opinion on this case?

I am amazed that the powers ar S&C are allowing their associates to type anything on blogs at this point.

Ummm. Understandably, there are some pretty ripe emotions expressed on this blog comment board from time to time, and I'm not the only one that has strong opinions about various aspects of the case (though I am constantly challenged by all the "what if" and "assuming allegations are true" disclaimers, which are abundantly necessary given how little we ACTUALLY know). Allow me just to slip in a response to something directed at me earlier. While I'm at it, I concur with whoever wrote (too lazy to scroll up) that there are many possibilities, and many sides to these issues; therefore (my suggestion:) therefore it's probably a good thing to treat each other a bit more gently.

Anyway...

6:44: I didn't mean to amaze anyone, or to win a naïveté prize.

I can appreciate/comprehend, without applauding, S&C's present strategy (putting myself in their White Shoes), but I stand by my statement that it is demonstrative overkill from the perspective of choices they had to solve this matter all along.

S&C could have saved itself a lot of trouble and additional (unwanted) publicity by (and I assume that some/most or all of that ABC alleges actually transpired, and with suspicion that it may not end there) addressing/resolving Charney's original internal complaint, and, perhaps especially, the alleged duplicate review issue. I don't think the countersuit was necessary from the get-go, although in this world you might say it was inevitable.

I really have to take issue with those of you who chide Charney for mentioning clients, etc., in his complaint as “all unnecessary and … there solely to humiliate S&C.” Unfortunately, many, many complaints do what Charney did and much, much more. Making the defendant sound like the devil incarnate is standard fare and basically meaningless.

S&C overstates its case (also quite common). I have read both complaints and the Wall Street Journal article. Charney does not reveal anything that can be called a client confidence. An internal S&C e-mail about staffing a deal is not privileged or work product. And having Charney return the partnership agreement is just silly. I already printed it out and saved in on my PC. And I am not giving it back.

What I think is really going on here is that S&C is hugely embarrassed by its partners using Goldman Sachs litigation documents as a basis for a much-needed morale-improvement project. So it is inventing the “theft” of the documents as a vindictive distraction.

Suffice it to say that I am very, very familiar with the offices of S&C and the 31st floor, where Mr. Wheeler sits. That floor is all litigators and Charney’s office is not even close to her’s. It must be another partner’s office on another floor from which the documents were taken.

And what will the court and S&C do if (i) Charney denies taking or possessing the subject materials and (ii) the WSJ won’t reveal its source? Ask the police to raid Charney’s home? Jail Peter Lattman until he gives up the name of his source? What a farce.

This whole thing is evidence that the folks calling the shots at S&C are blinded by their anger at Charney and are only making this an even bigger PR nightmare for themselves.

Comment by To the non-litigators; foolish S&C - February 6, 2007 at 10:37 am

S&C is supposed to be practicing law for clients... not be a client. This needs to end. It is still at a point where the parties can work something out and move on and leave us all wondering for a while adn then we won't think about it - -having moved on to the next juicy thing. If this keeps going though, whether a move is made that helps one party or hurts one party, it still all keeping this mess alive. With every day this mess lives on, the entire legal profession loses. Please S&C... be the leader you should be and allow this to all end with quiet dignity for both sides and do is ASAP.

How can you say revealing the existence of a exclusivity agreement, the termination date (which hadn't expired) concerning an auction not to be confidential information?

Very well said. Perhaps the most relevant post on this blog or any other.

And if S&C fails to take your advice, then perhaps they are not the leader that we thought they were.

"While I'm at it, I concur with whoever wrote (too lazy to scroll up) that there are many possibilities, and many sides to these issues; therefore (my suggestion:) therefore it's probably a good thing to treat each other a bit more gently."

That's just it, no? We don't know what actually happened, so much of this argument is pointless. Does anyone have an argument that faults the parties regardless of what happened?

If Charney's allegations are true, S&C could have dealt with them better at the outset, and there's nothing wrong with faulting them for compounding whatever harm they've done to Charney by suing him. Even if he's right, though, the complaint alleges little more than generic rudeness at the outset.

If Charney's allegations are false, then everything S&C's done thus far makes sense, as Ted explained. http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/sullivan_cromwell_v_charney_so_1.php#comment-14925

I think most people's view of the case is affected by their guess as to what actually happened.

I think that all of the people urging S&C to do "the right thing" are just Charney's friends. Whether you are on one side or the other, presumably, you have the same self-interest as I do, which is to be entertained by this charade as long as possible. The only one who benefits at this point from S&C being the "better man" is Andrew Charney.

Keep dreaming Andrew - it ain't gonna happen. And now, you will also lose all those saving that you worked so hard for at S&C.............

Anonymous 11:22 AM

Are you Rodgin Cohen? Didn't he keep calling Aaron Charney "Andrew" at the pep talk to the associates? Very funny!

Pointless argument? Discussion? Chatter? We are just having a conversation here, right? None of us is going to solve the meaning of life on this blog or any other, and we're definitely not going to unearth the big mysteries of ABC v S&C v ABC along the way. But it's a healthy discussion as long as we remain respectful. And, 11:10, you raise some interesting and valid points. Those guesses are the basis of a lot of enthusiastic typing (mine included) but that's not to say they're worthless.

Just cause someone urges the "Do The Right Thing" approach doesn't make them allies of ABC. I don't want to be entertained, though maybe others do. I want to discuss the state of our profession, and what we can do within it and outside it to address issues of harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.

One thing is certain - discrimmination and retaliation in the workplace is a nightmare. Nobody should have to endure that. It is uncivilized, unprofessional, and childish.

Chareny screwed up his Complaint and his approach to this case - and S&C must be happy about that.

Charney screwed up his case because he is young and has no litigation expereince and no one would take his case b/c S&C is the defendant.

So S&C's power is and will continue to determine the outcome of this.

That is unfair and that unfairness should be pointed out.

11:55,

Charney screwed up his case because he chose to follow an extortionist game plan rather than rely on his version of events. No one forced him to take ethical shortcuts and the fact that he popinted out to Lattman the use of client docs indicates that he was aware of the impropriety of what he was doing and calculated that it would be to his benefit. He calculated incorrectly and he will suffer the consequences. That's all on him.

They should have dusted Wheeler's file for his fingerprints. I'm serious!

For people mentioning me. I really doubt I will be poster here any longer.

I only started posting here about a week ago after finally accepting the fact that as a tier 2 grad I will not allowed to play any worthwhile role in the legal world. I've gone through the stages of disappointment and now accept my lot.

In addition, this board has simply gotten boring. Charney 160k Charney 160k blah blah blah. Enough.

I do find it ironic though that as bad as Charney has it, at the end of the day he's still far better off than us tier 2 grads. Alterman is a pre-eminent attorney who will likely get Charney a good outcome. But even in the worst case scenario Charney loses and his employment opportunities are limited - to those of a tier 2 grad. The only reason anyone even cares about any of this is because he went to a good school and worked at a top firm. Had he been a tier 2 grad suing a toilet firm partner David and WSJ wouldn't have covered one bit of it.

Ultimately I think I will call my time in law school a massive con job, put it behind me and go to medical school. Speaking of which, as a doctor I'll never have to do things like give patients poison only so I can make money "curing" them. I won't have to do things like create and inflame disputes only so I can bill millions of dollars on massive litigation (*cough* Fasman and Bloom *cough*).

Loyola2L

Hey Loyola2L,

How much does it hurt to be a Tier 2, knowing that TTT students have BigLaw jobs?

Enjoy med school.

L2L

I am relieved to read that you doubt you will posting on here anymore. I am a tier 4 grad and your "feel sorry me, I have no job prospects" song and dance was getting really old.

tier 4 grad

L2L, is that a promise? Can we hold you to that? Because one thing exceedingly more boring than "Charney 160k Charney 160k blah blah blah" is your constant whining.

We wonder: How much did Aaron Charney give his secretary for a holiday gift?

Damn! You should have had a reader poll in December.

We wonder: How much did Aaron Charney give his secretary for a holiday gift?

Damn! You should have had a reader poll in December.

Loyola2L:

You're going to go to medical school???!!! OMG you are the most ridiculous person in the history of the world. There has never been nor will there ever be a person more ridiculous than you.

Loyola 2L is a sham. He created a fake ATL forum personality for himself. I believe (and would be willing to put money on it), that he is a college junior and is thinking about going to law school. His whole persona, attitude and intellectual underpinnings of his posts cry out "college student".

Some on this post have doubted if L2L is actually a law student. For the purposes of this post, I will assume L2L is actually a law student, but others could be correct because I am somewhat surprised that anyone with the ability to get into law school or become a lawyer would act in such a poor manner.

L2L, your self-pity and absolute incapability to recognize what a great situation you are in is at times disheartening to hear given all of those in this world who have real, difficult, and troubling problems much more than your being "stuck" at a tier 2 law school. GET REAL. About 1/4 of the people in this country actually graduate from ANY college, and only a few of those actually are in the position to get a post-graduate degree. The US has 300 MILLION people in it and probably only 2-3% of them have a graduate degree, let alone one of the most valuable graduate degrees: a JD.

You have already posted that you believe getting a JD degree from a tier 2 school is basically worthless and all of those going to a school under T-14 are wasting their money because they can't get the BIGlaw jobs. If you feel the degree you would receive upon graduation is so worthless, why are you still in law school? I assume you have accumulated $60-80K in loans thus far and to graduate you would probably accumulate another $60-80K...so if you are such a rational person and your degree will be so worthless, why are you even contemplating completing law school and racking up another $60-80K of debt? The fact of the matter is that your degree IS very worthwhile, but you seem to be content to whine about what a horrible life you have and how you have been "tricked" by Loyola to giving them your money for nothing.

You sound like a little baby, and guess what, that is NOT a good way to impress classmate, professors, and most importantly potential employers.

You have constantly disgraced all current Loyola law students and, moreover, you have insulted every person who currently attends a law school that is under T-14 by stating that their degrees are worthless. That type of attitude will undoubtedly do you a lot of harm in whatever future you decide to pursue.

If you are seriously committed to getting a BIGlaw job or any job for that matter you need to shut your mouth, end your whining, learn how to form a real legitimate argument and how to defend it, and get off this post so you can spend more time in the books expanding your legal education, and less time with your head in the clouds justifying to yourself whatever failures you might have had in your life up until this point.

The fact of the matter is that the law gods have not stacked themselves against you and contrary to what you have been whining about you can get a great job with determination, hard work, and most importantly a realistic and positive attitude about your situation. Instead of sitting here blaming everything under the sun for why you cannot get a job, why don't you prove you have the talent, the drive, and the will to work in BIGlaw regardless of whatever obstacles you might think are in your way.

The entire time you have been posting here you have been communicating with associates, partners, and fellow law students, and like it or not these are your colleagues and their opinions matter because these are the people that will help you succeed or watch you fail. If I'm not mistaken, the feedback you have been getting from your colleagues has been anything but positive. I think you need to look at that evidence and maybe consider that this is a great part of why you are in this situation. It isn't that bad, but you do absolutely nothing to make it better.

Learn from this.

i can't remember the last time i had so much fun! L2L, if there's anything more difficult than law school, it's med school. based on your constant whining & lack of motivation to improve your lot (i.e. studying to improve your class rank & thus get more job prospects), i seriously doubt your suitability for the medical profession. if there's anything scarier than you as an attorney, it'd be you as a doctor. just stop with the self-pity & hit the books already. your attitude that anything other than a biglaw job is "toilet" does a disservice to the many talented & hard-working lawyers who are solo practicioners etc. also, do you know how many judges graduated from Loyola? try telling Your Honor that he's a "toilet law grad."

i can't remember the last time i had so much fun! L2L, if there's anything more difficult than law school, it's med school. based on your constant whining & lack of motivation to improve your lot (i.e. studying to improve your class rank & thus get more job prospects), i seriously doubt your suitability for the medical profession. if there's anything scarier than you as an attorney, it'd be you as a doctor. just stop with the self-pity & hit the books already. your attitude that anything other than a biglaw job is "toilet" does a disservice to the many talented & hard-working lawyers who are solo practicioners etc. also, do you know how many judges graduated from Loyola? try telling Your Honor that he's a "toilet law grad."

i can't remember the last time i had so much fun! L2L, if there's anything more difficult than law school, it's med school. based on your constant whining & lack of motivation to improve your lot (i.e. studying to improve your class rank & thus get more job prospects), i seriously doubt your suitability for the medical profession. if there's anything scarier than you as an attorney, it'd be you as a doctor. just stop with the self-pity & hit the books already. your attitude that anything other than a biglaw job is "toilet" does a disservice to the many talented & hard-working lawyers who are solo practicioners etc. also, do you know how many judges graduated from Loyola? try telling Your Honor that he's a "toilet law grad."

Hey L2L,

I hate to break it to you, but being a doctor isn't all saving lives and helping people. Ever had to deal with an insurance company? You may be surprised about how often your hands are tied regarding what you can do for people.

Moral of the story: the world isn't perfect, whether you're a doctor or a lawyer.