speaking of ethics, now that the bio is back online, shouldn't it be corrected to acknowlege that he is not licensed to practice?

3:05 - wait a sec, are you claiming that Lat is trying to have it both ways [purporting to have journalistic integrity while secretly cultivating his trashy gossip, name-smearing fun]? I swear that's never happened before!!!!!!!!!!

3:05 - wait a sec, are you claiming that Lat is trying to have it both ways [purporting to have journalistic integrity while secretly cultivating his trashy gossip, name-smearing fun]? I swear that's never happened before!!!!!!!!!!

3:05 - wait a sec, are you claiming that Lat is trying to have it both ways [purporting to have journalistic integrity while secretly cultivating his trashy, gossipy, name-smearing fun]? I swear that's never happened before!!!!!!!!!!

Free Maury!!!

3:05 - wait a sec, are you claiming that Lat is trying to have it both ways [purporting to have journalistic integrity while secretly cultivating his trashy gossip, name-smearing fun]? I swear that's never happened before!!!!!!!!!!

So did someone actually take his bio offline yesterday in anticipation of his canning?

Wow, I can't believe the responses. On what theory can Lat be held liable for libel? Truth is a defense and he did not himself write anything that strikes of libel. I'm not aware of any cause of action that would assign liability for libel on the basis of comments posted to an article on his website.

Seems pretty clear to me that (1) this email was real; and (2) that the guy should be fired. I'd fire him. I'd fire him right now. Let me at him.

Do they not have an ethics committee that he could have gone to? Or was he not aware of it?

Free Maury!!!

So did someone actually take his bio offline yesterday in anticipation of his canning?

Does anyone else think that someone at Stroock might have been doing something wrong? To respond so vigorously, yet not can the guy, makes me think he might have been doing some bona fide whistleblowing.

Do they not have an ethics committee that he could have gone to? Or was he not aware of it?

So Maury was right

Free Maury!!!

Oh wow, so this was a legit email, not a prank. He will be fired soon. No way they can let an absolute baffoon like that work a respectable law firm. The guy is 51 cards short of a full deck. He must have been doing tons of blow in his office to send that crazy, rant-filled, threatening email.

i imagine the EC is pissed at Lat/his source, not so much at Maury. Lat's source should watch out, if he/she forwarded the e-mail from the firm's account (not cut and paste into a personal account, say), he/she might be subject to some well-justified adverse employment action.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. The original post indicated that the individual was going to report people to the authorities, or some such threat. It seems appropriate to call a meeting to discuss the threat and to dispel the threat, even if most people would not have felt threatened.

Not having been at the alleged meeting, I can't speak to whether people were livid or not, but the briefing you describe seems cool enough.

OMG!!! They didn't fire him?!?! What are they, passive aggressive or something? I am shocked -- just SHOCKED.

(Or not. See my posts on the previous thread). Sure, the firm is pissed off that he sent a ridiculous email. But they're more pissed off that this became a public story.

I don't think there is any dispute that a potential conflict was raised. Apparently, the issue was already being looked into. The issue is not whether he was "correct" in identifying a potential conflict (I think we can agree that Lawyers do this all of the time), but in how he brought the conflict to the attention of the entire firm in the dark of night without, apparently, discussing the matter with anybody.

Obviously, the guy was under a lot of stress and he cracked. Whether that stress was work related, medical related or home related, hopefully we'll never know. It is enough for me to know based on the message he sent, that he was not altogether when he wrote it and I feel sorry for him. I am just glad the pressure "crack" showed up in an E-mail and not in a more newsworthy manner.

What is the Exec Committee more upset about - the email, or the play it's getting? I'd like to hear more about what was said re: the leak at these "all associate meetings."

I don't think there is any dispute that a potential conflict was raised. Apparently, the issue was already being looked into. The issue is not whether he was "correct" in identifying a potential conflict (I think we can agree that Lawyers do this all of the time), but in how he brought the conflict to the attention of the entire firm in the dark of night without, apparently, discussing the matter with anybody.

Obviously, the guy was under a lot of stress and he cracked. Whether that stress was work related, medical related or home related, hopefully we'll never know. It is enough for me to know based on the message he sent, that he was not altogether when he wrote it and I feel sorry for him. I am just glad the pressure "crack" showed up in an E-mail and not in a more newsworthy manner.

Lat - Will you please try to find out if this was a legitimate email? Did Maury actually send it, or did someone else do it as a joke from his computer? I have to know the resolution to this story.

I'd like to know how the 'authorities' are responding. especially given the imanent threat of harm.

3:05 -- You are a d-bag.

It is sure starting to sound legit. Particulalry since the firm apparently says it was aware of the "alleged" conflict. Still, no explanation as to Maury's over-the-top, crazy way of handling this situation.

2:33 -- I hope Maury tracks you down and extracts your nest egg for that sort of libel. I know you think you can say anything you want on an anonymous message board, but don't be a total idiot about it.

2:41: Clearly not a prank. If it were a prank, they would have just sent out an email saying, "It was a prank, ignore that email."

Instead they called a meeting to discuss the alleged potential conflict. It seems to me like young Maury was on to something.

While I am generally enjoy ATL, and confess that I've enjoyed reading the Strook posts, 3:05 has a point. These posts can be quite damaging to people's lives and careers, and such posts probably should not be made, even if it creates some juicy gossip for readers like me.

3:05 is wrong, wrong, wrong and needs to chillax.

Maury Saiger Graduate

Lat--you're an incredible hypocrite. There'd be no reason for anyone to "chill" if not for your irresponsible "reporting" of this matter from the start. Moreover, your reference to witchhunts is entirely disingenuous. Take a look at yesterday's string of comments and the witchhunt that took place among your readers for the identity of the emailer, along with all the speculation that resulted in the names of innocent, uninvolved parties being posted on this site. You can't have it both ways. You made all of this worse than it ever should've been, and you owe apologies to several individuals whose names have been unnecessarily and unfairly dragged through the mud.

Can someone explain to me how 3:05's post is at the end, and yet people up top (as far up as 2:21) are responding to his post?

Is Above the Law not subject to the rules of the space/time continuum? Is there a warp of sorts involved?

Sign me up.

3:05--I completely agree. First, the suggestion that because the email was sent to eveyone in the firm, it therefore had no expectation of privacy is nonsense. Confidential firm-wide emails go around all the time at my firm and there's no suggestion that they're fair game for public dissemination. Futher, while it was someone perhaps overreacting to something or under stress or just being a really dumb first year trying to make a good impression, posting it on your blog made it 100 times worse. It wouldn't have been a big deal at all if you'd ignored it, but now I'd make a pretty strong bet that that kid's career just took a really big hit.

We google candidates all the time, and I have no doubt that future employers will have no difficulty finding out about all this.

At absolute worst, he was a dumb first year who screwed up. Had you not posted, nothing would have happened. Now, the firm is embarassed and the kid's in trouble.

Feel proud of yourself. Bet it gave you a boner.

You all are way understating this situation. This was not a minor screwup. This was a completely insane, threatening email he sent to the whole firm. It showed either incredible lack of judgment or complete insanity (drug-induced or not).

If the guy had written this:

If you are currently working on a matter for either [REDACTED] or [REDACTED], I advise and request that you stop your work immediately.

I have information suggesting that this firm's dual representation of these clients [presents a conflict].

[redacted]
Awaiting Admission to the Bar
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038

then everything would have been JUST FINE. But he didn't. He added completely unwarranted and ridiculously threatening language, vague characterizations of potential catastrophes, and a prominently misspelled word. Hence, not a minor screwup.

Personally, I find it much more interesting when somebody makes something up in a brief, than when an overstressed associate clicks "send" in a panic at 2 a.m. in the morning.

Why exactly are all UChicago kids nut-jobs?

isn't he a second year?

anyhow, it appears that in his own mind, he thought he was doing something brave and commendable. he must have known there would be repercussions. there are worse things in the world than someone who is willing to stick his neck out for what he thinks is right, even if in this case what he did was very poorly thought through and executed.

the whole affair may point up severe deficiencies in training junior lawyers in how to deal with real-world ethical issues. and for this, perhaps the firm should take some blame, but i doubt stroock is much different than other shops.

3:05, you are looking at a gossip website where law people who like to think document production is important to the progress of Man get together to complain about dick size, money, and billables. Try selling responsibility next door.

Lat, don't you dare apologize, I don't remember reading you making wild-assed guesses, your readers were. Further, you are not a hypocrite; you are not going crazy while asking Stroock to chill out (i.e. telling them to do x while you do not-x); you were a mellow yellow from the beginning. Gleefully cruel, sure, but if the perfect storm email fell into her lap, you bet your twig and berries Mother Teresa would have sold Maury for some page-views.

3:05 and 4:41 are right, it was very stupid, granted, but it was just one mistake under extenuating circumstances. This is cause for, at most, a strict reprimand, diminished responsibilities, and enhanced supervision until the associate proves he's not a nut case - nothing more. The bloodlust (my guess, mostly from law students) is cruel and unjustified. A firm that axed a guy for this one screw-up (provided he was otherwise a good associate) would not be a place I would want to work at. Someone else posted that the guy worked 300 hours a month since he started and had not slept in several days. What firm would fire someone like this for this? Haven't you heard of loyalty? Further, it is not a good thing that we as a society convert what would have been minor non-public embarrassments into career threatening events. Finally, whoever forwarded this email outside of the firm made a greater error, one that is less forgiveable because it was driven, presumably, by malice and sadism than by an erroneous attempt at vigilence.

5:04

Even assuming this wasn't a firable offense (and I believe it is), if I were a partner, I'd never work with him again. People are blackballed from work assignments over far less. He'll just be fired eventually over having no billables from this time on anyway. So why waste the next year or so of his life?

Ahmen to that, brother. Though, if it was forwarded at 2:30 in the morning, it may have just been done out of giddiness. And maybe it was sent to a spouse in strict confidence and she could not resist, and sent it on to a friend.

Of course, if it went directly to this site, you are 100% correct.

Glad to see common sense prevailing here. I'll say it again: no one who has been practicing law for more than 1.5 years can reasonably think the kid's email was sooooooo shocking and egregious. It's stupid, but we've seen worse, and we can probably even feel some empathy for the kid. This whole "scandal" is being fueled by law students.

I don't know where you are getting your information. I am an insider, and there were no all-associates meetings held at Stroock, at least not in the New York office. I've also never heard anything about management being "livid" or "pissed" and I know several members of the Associates' Committee. In fact, the general reaction at Stroock has been far calmer than the reaction of your commenters. Nor have there been, to my knowledge, any "witch hunts" for your sources. Even if there had been, I don't think management would have been overreacting. Take a look at the unsubstantiated, hysterical accusations of unethical behavior in these comments. Why should management not make it clear to its associates (or to the legal community, given that one's reputation is everything in this business) that such ethical behavior did not occur? Of course, I defer to your extensive experience in firm management.

Eagle - the email is pretty egregious. the fact that it was sent to all personnel is more egregious.

3:05 has got to be Strook lawyer - although if so, I don't blame him or her for being a little snippy, its got to be a little tense around there these days.

But, I agree with 4:59. Lat, don't intimidated (not that I think you would be) - what are they going to do, take away your summer associate job at Edwards Angell?

BTW, did anyone else see on the front page of the WSJ a few weeks ago, a very similar story about a very junior employee at Kaiser Permenente who wrote some crazy whistle-blowing blast email? He was summarily dismissed about 48 hrs after the email was sent.

Re: my post at 5:46, obviously, "ethical" on the second to last line should read "unethical."

5:28,

I have been practicing law for significantly longer than 1.5 years, and I think the kid's email was stupid and egregious. In terms of sheer stupidity (as opposed to criminal conduct), I can't think of anything worse that I've seen or heard of.

The KP email discussed in the WSJ was much different and in a way less insane.

IIRC, the KP employee had an axe to grind from the get go, and sent the email knowing he would be fired.

5:49 - thanks for the insider detail - that's what this board is for. Now if we can only get an interview with Maury.

Follow-up to my last post: Maybe Aquagirl was more stupid, but that at least was an impusive decision fueled by alcohol, and she was a summer rather than a regular associate. So it's a toss-up.

6:01, if you are going to say something like that, why don't you identify yourself? You must know that Saiger, nearly all of the attorneys at Stroock, his family, everyone connected to the University of Chicago law school, and perhaps his friends are reading these comments. Why do you feel the need to further humiliate this guy? If you must say something that meanspirited, identify yourself.

5:04 you are so wrong. You've been reading too many biglaw hiring brochures about "nuturing and supporting" associates and such things. In the real world when you send a mass email alleging that your company is acting unethically or illegally, you get fired.

6:07,
I didn't intend my comment to be mean-spirited, though you're right that it was, so I apologize. My intention was not to further humiliate Saiger, though I see your point that my posts above did just that, but to dispute 5:28's argument that what he did wasn't that bad. I think it was bad, but it probably wasn't necessary to rub salt in the wounds with my comment. I should have considered the impact of my words on the real people affected by this story. So, my apologies. I'll bow out of further discussion.

6:10 I'm not sure what "real world" you are referring to. I'm considered to be a star associate at a prestigious law firm. If there is a "real world" you inhabit that I do not, please enlighten me further. One of the most refreshing things I've found about the practice of law, and one of the things law students rarely understand, is that everyone including preminent lawyers in their field make mistakes all the time. Most of these mistakes are not this stupid, but they can have important effects. Obviously, conscientious lawyers try to limit these mistakes and they ought to make the person making the mistake sick to their stomach, but part of being in the "real world" and being an adult for that matter, is recognizing this reality, your own falliability, and treating others as you would like to be treated when they make an epic blunder. I've said it once, I'll say it again, if a firm fired a dedicated and otherwise competent associate over one blunder, even one like this, it is not somewhere I would want to work.

6:01, I appreciate your comment at 6:12. Thank you.

This is a total non-story. Associate worked late at night. For whatever reason, he was stressed and made a poor decision. It could have been a lot worse. In any event, this really is not that exciting or newsworthy IMO.

If he missed a filing deadline, fabricated some case law, forged a judge's signature on a fake order, or emailed a crazed rant to the client itself, then it would be newsworthy. As it stands, you have to be really really bored with your job and your life to get all worked-up about something this minor.

He was such an hero...

I really do love how people brag about themselves here. "I'm considered a star associate . . ." (6:21) Right. You know what, I'm an 04 grad who was just made partner at one of the best firms in the world ever because I was such a bloody star that was shining so bright it struck everyone else blind so I had to be made partner.

The pompous lack of forgiveness here--that the kid's head should roll for an internal screw up--reminds me why so much of our profession makes my stomach turn. If there's anyone here that can certify that they've not made a mistake, please go ahead, and any mistake, no matter how minor, when broadcast to the entire malice-filled world of frustrated sex-starved associtates, becomes major. Example: I spelled a judge's name wrong on a proposed order. Embarassing. Pissed off partner and judge. No big deal. But if it got out that "associate at major law firm spells judge's name wrong making judge angry," and then that was subjected here to the "what a moron" and "what kind of firm hires that sort of idiot," you don't think there would be ramifications? Such as it being publicly telegraphed to the world that my firm hires morons? And, in particular, now, the entire world knows I'm a moron, and any employer will do a google search discover my name and likeness attached to my screw up.

Give me a freakin' break.

Cool down your bloody egos and slake your bloodthirst on something else. Like the Attorney General.

6:38, ok, maybe the "star" phrase was a bit odious, and I feel appropriately shamed, but you are aware that we agree on just about every other point here, right?

I don't think that it's so unbelievable that people think that this is "great." It's the same reason that people think videos of guys getting kicked in the balls is "great." They're great because everyone knows that the can see something like this happening anywhere.

When i read this yesterday, I thought, "damn, that's one of the dumbest e-mails from a junior attorney I've ever read." Therefore it was great enough to share with other associates at my office.

I also find it great when people hit "reply-all" and accidentally send firm-wide e-mails that really aren't meant to be firm-wide. This is just like those stories but also has a mix of bad spelling, self-righteous indignation, and sleep deprivation. All of that makes it "great."

He must be an idiot if he went to Chicago and ended up at Stroock

I've made (and expect to make) a lot of stupid mistakes in my life and career. But stupid mistakes are ones that are inadvertent (e.g. misspelling judge's name, misreading a case, typos, etc...). There is a major difference between an inadvertent mistake which we all are guilty of at some point, and a stupid action where the consequences aren't thought all the way through.

We've all learned that when one knows of an ethical violation, it is an ethical violation not to report it. Perhaps this poor guy thought he had to do what he did, when stumbling across the conflict at 2 am in the morning! Give him a break.

Yes, the rankings are all based upon what stupid mistakes first year lawyers make.

I too was speculating that the deletion of his bio from the firm website resulted from Maury being given the sack--simply because he [allegedly] threatened to bring disciplinary charges against the ENTIRE FIRM in a 2:00 a.m. email (or was it 3:00 a.m. ?) regarding a real or imagined "conflict". I will now sleep better, I assure you, knowing: 1. Maury has not been sacked; 2. The Executive Committee was able to meet within hours and then commence associate meetings—simultaneously—in all offices to address a humorous post in an obscure internet blog; 3. The Executive Committee was able to so quickly determine that no “impropriety” has occurred “thus far” and that 4. An “investigation” is underway—apparently into the identity of the source. I second your advice to the to the “Stroocksters”: ‘You need to chillax. ASAP.’ (I recognize that, that is humor…)

Who said they addressed the post in this dumb blog as opposed to the firmwide E-mail itself? Why would you think the investigation related to the identity of the source and not the investigation of the alleged conflict?

You ASSume a lot that makes little sense.

Dear 8:20: Well, because LAT's source says so. If you cannot rely on gossip in a dumb blog, what can you rely on....Chillax

Gianeli, that's not what the post says. It says with respect to the conflict, an investigation is under way.

It's G-I-A-N-E-L-L-I.

Dear 8:20,

You miss Gianelli's point, indeed the reason for this entire thread.

The reason for the post to begin with is that a first year sending a firm-wide email threatening partners, associates, and support staff with prosecution over a "conflict" is that it's HUMOROUS.

Lighten up.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Founded in 1876 • Over 350 attorneys
New York • Los Angeles • Miami

Co-Managing Partners: Stuart H. Coleman and Alan M. Klinger
Media Contact: Elyse Blazey • 212.806.6098 • Send E-Mail

“Law Firm of the Year,” Securitization News…Among the top three firms in financial services litigation, National Law Journal…$100 billion in recent securities offerings…$500 billion in recent asset securitizations…over 400 investment management representations…$100 billion in recent mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures…“Stroock was praised for its commitment to the [energy field], with particular commendation of its physical commodity focus…”, Chambers Global: The World’s Leading Lawyers for Business…over $12 billion in recent real estate financings…Listed as one of the top insurance law firms in the country, ReActions Magazine…“The message from clients has been that Stroock [Intellectual Property] lawyers understand business…”, IP Law Bulletin…“Stroock displays the highest standards of pro bono service and is a shining example for its peers…”, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.

Gee, how do these U. of Chicago folks "wind up" at Stroock?

8:55, I understand humor. And there seems to be a mixture of fact and humor here. Humor is one thing. Humiliation another. Pressing for names in this situation isn't really funny, its sadistic.

Yawn

5:04/6:21 - You are a fucking piece of shit

From way above: "Lat's source should watch out, if he/she forwarded the e-mail from the firm's account (not cut and paste into a personal account, say),"

Warning: you are safER, but NOT safe, if you do this. Any communication over the firm's network can be monitored.

That includes browsing this website, of course.

This is 3.05--contrary to someone's suggestion, I am not a Stroock insider. Not even close. I am, however, a reader who thinks Lat should be called on, and held accountable for, his hypocrisy, irresponsibility and general bullshit. He shouldn't get a free pass just because this is a "gossip blog".

Akin Gump DC and CA raised to 160,000.

10:25 - Mom, is that you?

RULE #1 Never send e-mails after 9:00 p.m.

RULE #2 Never send e-mails after 9:00 p.m.

Oops...did just hit reply-to-all? Just Kidding Mr. Coleman....

Dear "3.05": What "Mud"?

A first year did something INCREDIBLY dumb. Its so dumb its hilarious. He'll live it down, EVENTUALLY.....as we all did when we were paying our dues. (In my case it was a "hearsay" objection at a depo, during my first week on the job, resulting in the retort "That is the dumbest objection at a deposition I ever heard...", which of course was copied and placed in every in box at my firm.)

Of course, this was pre internet, and I did not instantly become more (in)famous than the Star Wars light saber kid....

PS: I know you’re the Stroock insider…..

Dear 3:05: You need to watch Good Morning Vietnam, then 4 consecutive episodes of John Stuart, then try and find some old issues of Spy Magazine; its called HUMOR. hu•mor: that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing.

GET IT NOW? (Of course you don't.)

Face it, Stroock + Stroock will never be funny, except unwittingly. (See, e.g. Spy Magazine, the Unwittingly Hip series.)

I just reread Saiger's original email. It made me laugh out loud. It really is funny.

(Or maybe I'm just giddy, at 2 a.m., from reviewing change-of-control provisions in lease agreements. I will try not to send out a firm-wide email in my current state.....)

He is very smart and sexy. He loves nature.

1:44 - you should go for it. Second time's a charm.

I'm a Stroock "insider" and I've never heard of this site before yesterday.

What's up with all of the anonymity? I can certainly understand somebody sticking up for the underdog as wanting to keep their name a secret, to avoid ridicule by the hordes of trolls who use anonymity (to protect themselves from hordes of trolls??)

Seriously, and with all due respect, if you think something is funny, be proud of your humor and put your name to it.

The butt of a joke is often left a bit foolish or victimized. It is fair (if only for good karma) that the perpetrator of the joke out him or herself. Else, there is really no "check" on crossing the line between funny and cruel.

If you found the original E-mail funny, I am certain that the (witch)hunt for the author's identity while tittilating, added nothing to the humor. In this case, the "butt" of the joke did not need to be identified. People who spent time "guessing" and "ferreting" out that information are not funny people.

Oh, and by the way... if Stroock lacked humor, I would have been fired a long long time ago.

Mean to say, "The butt of a joke is often left FEELING a bit foolish of victimized..."

06:02: The only people brave enough to show their names are lowly tier two grads who don't have a BigLaw job to protect!

Loyola 2L, if that's the case, I think we'd all be very interested to learn your name.

Above the law

The comments speculating about the e-mailer's ID are not the funny ones. Go back and read the original string before this discussion started taking itself WAY too seriously. And I do sign my name to posts, you self righteous [SELF REDACTED AS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISCUSSION]. Look, David, you either have a sense of humor or you do not. You do not.

To: 6: 02 Loyola 2L: I have been practicing almost 30 years. I have tried over 100 jury cases to verdict. I not only clerked during the summer, but full time senior year as well. And let me tell you something, I have met plenty of “first tiers” who could not find the courthouse with both hands. And anyone who would refer to themselves smugly as “first tier” and dismiss those who are not as “lowly”: 1. Is in the latter category and 2. Does not get it either.

Look, geniuses, this his a HUMOR site that employs irony, parody, ridicule
satire, irreverence for bit firm culture and politician’s daughters who flunk the bar. DUH….

Above the law

The comments speculating about the e-mailer's ID are not the funny ones. Go back and read the original string before this discussion started taking itself WAY too seriously. And I do sign my name to posts, you self righteous [SELF REDACTED AS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISCUSSION]. Look, David, you either have a sense of humor or you do not. You do not.

To: 6: 02 Loyola 2L: I have been practicing almost 30 years. I have tried over 100 jury cases to verdict. I not only clerked during the summer, but full time senior year as well. And let me tell you something, I have met plenty of “first tiers” who could not find the courthouse with both hands. And anyone who would refer to themselves smugly as “first tier” and dismiss those who are not as “lowly”: 1. Is in the latter category and 2. Does not get it either.

Look, geniuses, this his a HUMOR site that employs irony, parody, ridicule
satire, irreverence for bit firm culture and politician’s daughters who flunk the bar. DUH….

Above the law

The comments speculating about the e-mailer's ID are not the funny ones. Go back and read the original string before this discussion started taking itself WAY too seriously. And I do sign my name to posts, you self righteous [SELF REDACTED AS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISCUSSION]. Look, David, you either have a sense of humor or you do not. You do not.

To: 6: 02 Loyola 2L: I have been practicing almost 30 years. I have tried over 100 jury cases to verdict. I not only clerked during the summer, but full time senior year as well. And let me tell you something, I have met plenty of “first tiers” who could not find the courthouse with both hands. And anyone who would refer to themselves smugly as “first tier” and dismiss those who are not as “lowly”: 1. Is in the latter category and 2. Does not get it either.

Look, geniuses, this his a HUMOR site that employs irony, parody, ridicule
satire, irreverence for bit firm culture and politician’s daughters who flunk the bar. DUH….

Above the law

The comments speculating about the e-mailer's ID are not the funny ones. Go back and read the original string before this discussion started taking itself WAY too seriously. And I do sign my name to posts, you self righteous [SELF REDACTED AS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISCUSSION]. Look, David, you either have a sense of humor or you do not. You do not.

To: 6: 02 Loyola 2L: I have been practicing almost 30 years. I have tried over 100 jury cases to verdict. I not only clerked during the summer, but full time senior year as well. And let me tell you something, I have met plenty of “first tiers” who could not find the courthouse with both hands. And anyone who would refer to themselves smugly as “first tier” and dismiss those who are not as “lowly”: 1. Is in the latter category and 2. Does not get it either.

Look, geniuses, this his a HUMOR site that employs irony, parody, ridicule
satire, irreverence for big firm culture and politician’s daughters who flunk the bar. DUH….

Quadruple posts are hilAARious.

I think the point is, the E-mail itself was funny. The witch-hunt and subsequent outing, and numerous posts saying the guy ought to be fired, are not.

I reserve judgment on whether he has a sense of humor.

Don't ask me for more information. You have enough information...

Mr. Gianelli might be almost as funny as our friends Gallion and Spielvogel... dude, why so many caps on your website? Is it all that aggression?

Gallion OUT!

LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN R. GIANELLI

AGGRESSIVE AND EFFECTIVE TRIAL REPRESENTATION IN CIVIL AND WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL MATTERS FOR 25 YEARS

I went to school with Maury and he's a nice, decent person. I doubt he would have sent this email unless 1) he had already spoken with individuals in the firm, or 2) it was something that really upset him. Ultimately, and putting aside the threats in his email, he was trying to be an ethical lawyer.

Dear Gallion (May 11, 10:51 pm):

Can you please explain your capitalization phobia?

The cap letters to which you refer are headings that appear on the title of the home page.

On the additional pages only headings and links receive capitalization.

Is there some "no caps" internet rule in hour home state/institution/ frat/whatever that I have contravened?

Please advise ASAP so I may revise my ENTIRE website IMMEDIATELY.

PS. If that is the best criticism you can level toward the undersigned, I guess I am OK.

PPS: To answer your specific query: (“Mr. Gianelli might be almost as funny as our friends Gallion and Spielvogel... dude, why so many caps on your website? Is it all that aggression?) DUH: The webpage title you quote states: “AGGRESSIVE AND EFFECTIVE TRIAL REPRESENTATION …(ect.)”, so yes, as ADVERTISED my mentally challenged friend, I am AGGRESSIVE.

Uh, I'm an insider and just now heard about this silliness. So much for the grand Executive Committee witchhunt. And it's "Stroockies" not "Stroocksters." And if you look at the bios, you'll see a lot of impressive credentials. Just a guess, but the firm probably took down the bio -- temporarily -- when they learned the email was circulating on the internet, in order to protect his privacy and minimize adding fodder to the flames. I'm going back to reading about Charney and the evil S&C. Stroock as a general enterprise does not disrespect people, and certainly does not tell them to "bend over" Charney style. That's a far more interesting thing to follow.

How could the poster suggest "Fire the guy" when he was protecting the firm. It is a joke to say that "no improprieties have taken place thus far". Accepting the conflicted client was the first impropriety, not immediately withdrawing form both clients and instead "investigating" is another. Who knows how many other improprieties occured, but even if nothing else happened heads need to roll. And Mr. Saiger, I'm involved with a documentary / reality movie about law firms and you could be interviewed in it if you like. I'm serious, send me an eMail and I will forward your information to the producer.

stroock handed out toy penguins during interview week. i liked that.

I think we can agree the manner in which this associate acted was extreme. But before mocking him and calling for his firing, maybe we should ask ourselves what our job, as lawyers, is really all about? This recent law grad was doing what he thought was honest and ethical, all in an effort to protect his firm, his clients, and himself. There are far worse things that go on in the legal community than an associate who errs on the side of caution.

Maybe our energies would be more productive if focused on the real causes for concern in our profession, like the Millberg Weiss scandal, the attorney firings at the Justice Department, not to mention the fact that new associates are expected to be sitting in front of their office computers, billing away at 2:00am.