How many years before they can fire him? Or how large of a settlement?

I have information suggesting that this fresh young associate's overreaction and taking of matters into his own hands, potentially embarrassing these clients when the e-mail is sent around the legal community without redaction, will harm them to a degree and in a manner which the clients may not be competent to assess.

All legal and non-legal personnel are now on notice of this young associate's lack of judgment and potential breach of duty to his client.

The potential for his termination is immanent [sic] and could be occurring now.

Anyone know anything about this?

Oops! Poor judgment. Been watching too many 60 minute and 20/20 episodes about whistleblowers.

Anyone know the name, school, or practice group of the associate?

Loyola 2L, there is now an opening at Strook. Strike while the iron is hot!!!

Yikes.

Lat - Why are you redacting the name? This person intentionally sent out this message to all personnel. What expectation of confidentiality could he/she have?

I would bet that most of us at decent sized firms find the e-mail forwarded to our in-boxes by the end of the day.

L2L, this is your window of opportunity... emphasize in your cover letter than you can spell.

I'm not sure why someone so junior would think it is a good idea to email *anything* to all firm personnel.

Surely Strook has automatic spell-checking of outgoing email? Did this dumbass have it turned off? You have to actually try hard to send email with misspellings these days.

But "immanent" is a real world, 3:18, so it wouldn't have been picked up. It's just not the word that the Strookster meant to use.

Is this legit? I just can't imagine someone being so dumb?

There is only one associate in the NY office who lists his/her bar status as "Awaiting Admission" on his/her bio page. All of the others list the state (and usually year of admission), say "Not Admitted to Practice," or have no bar admission info.

Where is Loyola 2L anyway? Maybe I've missed it, but he (or she?) doesn't seem to be posting as much recently. Did he finally get a job?

3:20,

Oh yeah. Good point.

Maybe he left his computer unattended and this is one helluva practical joke.

3:20 i just went through the list-- there are a few associates who "are not yet admitted"

Hah - Webster's defines "immanent" as "remaining or operating within a domain of reality . . . ." Apparently not the case for this associate!

C'mon 3:20, don't make us look through all 200 associate profiles.

Further to 3:20 PM, "Awaiting Admission" would be this person: http://www.stroock.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=49&itemID=885

could this be one of those cases of someone sneaking into a colleague's office and sending an inappropriate email from the colleague's computer?

3:26

But only one says "Awaiting Admission" the others say "Not Admitted to Practice" or "Not Admitted to Bar."

The signature line from the email says "Awaiting Admission to the Bar."

This of course, doesn't mean anything.

Lat, has anyone emailed you more information?

@3:28. I don't think it's that individual (I'd be really surprised anyway). I went to law school with him and think that a)he's admitted and the website hasn't been updated and b) has MUCH better judgment than that.

"Further to 3:20 PM, "Awaiting Admission" would be this person: http://www.stroock.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=49&itemID=885"

That dude's got quite a Friendster profile...

its not the person 3:28 provided the link to. the associate's web page does not indicate that he isn't admitted, so that is a false trail.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that the relevance of the description on the bio page, unless 3:20 is an insider who gave this hint w/ knowledge that this is the right person.

its not the person 3:28 provided the link to. the associate's web page does not indicate that he isn't admitted, so that is a false trail.

3:20 -- that guy is admitted, check the July 2005 pass list. Google, people.

its not the person 3:28 provided the link to. the culprit associate's web page does not indicate that he isn't admitted, so that is a false trail.

3:20 PM, I believe that person is listed on the July 2005 NY Bar Pass List, unless I am mistaken.

why does the language in the email remind me of the nigerian email scams?

I like this part:

Do not wait for me to provide additional information. You have enough information.

Enough information, indeed. I can't wait to start using this in my practice.

when you google that person's name though, it has him on a list of candidates who passed the July 2005 NYS bar exam.

http://www.friendster.com/photos/5046382/119984172/26034#pic=11998417226034

He sent 4 emails between 2 and 3am. Only the first one was insane, the other 3 were sane conflict checks. I vote of "practical joke" explanation. Someone must've stolen his password and sent emails at 3am. First-years do not normally do conflict checks and I don't think he was working last night at 3am.

There is a difference between passing the Bar and being admitted(!)

Hmm, if I had to guess what kind of douchebag would send out an email like that, there is *no way* I'd guess a Duke undergrad/NYU Law kid who is so proud of passing the Bar that he changes his email signature and web bio to reflect the fact that he is merely "[a]waiting admission"... ;-)

Why would it say "Awaiting Admission" if he passed the bar in 2005? Wouldn't you have been admitted by now?

that is why he is awaiting admission - he just never did his paperwork

He sent 4 emails between 2 and 3am. Only the first one was insane, the other 3 were sane conflict checks. I vote for "practical joke" explanation. Someone must've stolen his password and sent emails at 3am. First-years do not normally do conflict checks and I don't think he was working last night at 3am.

3:38 is an insider!

C'mon - give us another hint!

This is serious people. YOU are now all on notice, and bound to report it.

http://www.friendster.com/user.php?uid=5046382

Someone must have failed the bar. Might as well go out with a bang, rather than a wimper.

I saw Loyola 2L post on WSJ a few weeks ago.

My money is on
http://stroock.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=49&itemID=879

He sent 4 emails between 2 and 3am. Only the first one was insane, the other 3 were sane conflict checks. I vote for "practical joke" explanation. Someone must've stolen his password and sent emails at 3am. First-years do not normally do conflict checks and I don't think he was working last night at 3am.

the name at the link is: Paul M. Keyerleber: why are people being so squimish about that? don't know if it was him, but geez people - it's not a classified secret - real news means real names and real leads.

The link posted above is not to the correct person. Anyone who is not admitted to the Bar has to include a signature block that says "awaiting admission" but is generally is not included on the firms website. The nature of the email clearly indicates that this would be a litigation associate.

Of the two suspects, I vote for the structured finance guy over the real estate guy. Just think there are less HUGE conflicts that would come to the attention of a RE lawyer.

3:46 ass****, they are not posting his name so that -- when it turns out not to be him -- his name doesn't show up in Google searches forever. It would be quite unfair to him.

He sent 4 emails between 2 and 3am. Only the first one was insane, the other 3 were sane conflict checks. I vote for "practical joke" explanation. Someone must've stolen his password and sent emails at 3am. First-years do not normally do conflict checks and I don't think he was working last night at 3am.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=20064164

Couldn't find the other person's status

Check here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch

3:45 is another insider - why don't we have a name yet?!

Lat - you published the photo of the poor associate to mistakenly file a sensitive document in a public docket, what's with the sudden caution!

Now would be a good time for Stroock to move to $190k.

an associate "awaiting admission" could be just about any of their first-years who took the bar last summer and are awaiting the processing of paperwork. I doubt the website cares a lick about keeping outsiders up to date on the paperwork status of their lowest tier of attorneys.

Any first year associate at a law firm must write "awaiting admission" in their signature block and would not be listed on the firm's website.

3:46 is right -- law firms don't generally put people on their website until they've been admitted, often because of their carrier. Stop looking.

I don't work there, but I, too, assume that the associate is (i) male, and (ii) in litigation. Paul K from above is in Structured Finance, and it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that a conflict in that situation would get someone's undies in a bunch to this degree.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=20064164

Couldn't find the other person's status

Check here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch

Call your friends at Stroock, people. It's not Paul K, it's a crazy first year.

Call your friends at Stroock, people. It ain't Paul K. Poor guy.

i'm an insider - not naming names, but letting you all know that it is NOT Paul. here are hints though, the culprit mispelled the following words in his subsequent emails: "necessaily" and "reperesent"

This email is public record!!! It was sent to everyone at the firm - including non-attorneys and has since been disseminated outside of the firm to third parties - it is not bound by any rules of ethics, privilege, or confidentiality. If you're a real reporter Lat you'll disclose the name - if you don't - then don't claim to be one!!!

Lat usually redacts the names of people who do boneheaded things like this. Like that Cravath associate who gave out a porn number as a dial-in number for a drafting call. Or the Colorado lawyer who asked for an extension of time because of "drunkenness constituting excusable neglect."

The only reason Lat mentioned the name of the Orrick guy was because another publication - an MSM publication, The Recorder I think - already let the cat out of the bag.

I'm guessing from the comments and email that this guy is:

1) A first-year
2) Not a native English speaker

http://stroock.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=49&itemID=891

The only male associate who is in the NY office, not admitted, and in litigation, that I could find on their website.

Paul did NOT send that email. Please don't drag his name.

This email is public record!!! It was sent to everyone at the firm - including non-attorneys and has since been disseminated outside of the firm to third parties - it is not bound by any rules of ethics, privilege, or confidentiality. If you're a real reporter Lat you'll disclose the name - if you don't - then don't claim to be one!!!

This story is very entertaining, but could you post a new DC salary thread or start tallying a list of DC firms?

What kind of low-rent firm doesn't publish photos on its bio pages?

Insiders - Can you do us a favor and at least tell us if the person is on the website?

To the idiots who say that you dont generally get listed on the website if you arent admitted, why not actually look at Strook's website? There are Strook attorney profiles that say things like: "Not Admitted to Bar". Are these statements without meaning?

Paul did NOT send that email. Please don't drag his name into this.

3:59, how the hell is that supposed to be a hint?

And how about posting those subsequent emails?

This is juicy - unlike the monotonous string of Monica Gooding and Aaron Charney postings over the past few months.

Moar meltdown emails kplzthxbye!

Paul may not have written the e-mail, but does that excuse the fact that (according to his Friendster profile) he's a member of the Cobra Kai dojo? If I were a client, I'm not sure I'd want a lawyer who'd employ dirty "sweep the leg" tactics.

Best. ATL. Day. Ever.

3:59, how the hell is that supposed to be a hint?

And how about posting those subsequent emails?

This is juicy - unlike the monotonous string of Monica Gooding and Aaron Charney postings over the past few months.

Moar meltdown emails kplzthxbye!

http://www.stroock.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=49&itemID=891

did he go to BC law, BU undergrad?

4:01: Just because something isn't privileged doesn't mean it's "public record."

4:06: Wachtell, Cravath, Simpson, Debevoise, Davis Polk, to name a few.

4:06, many firms don't put up first years who aren't yet admitted onto their websites. People more senior who haven't dealt with their paperwork, no such luck.

If you look up "not admitted" on the website you get a few more candidates who are not yet admitted to the bar as well, but likely not as many as are in the first year class.

4:11 - he does a better Martin Kove than Martin Kove circa 1984 (if he's the one posing as the sensei)

Speaking of L2L, he (she?) left a hilarious comment on feministe. Let me find it

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/05/03/autoadmits-anthony-ciolli-loses-job-offer/#comment-102540

4:12 - Is that a confirmation?

I'd bet heavily that its the guy in 4:03 & 4:12's link. If you're looking for a bitter nutbag who happens to be a few bricks short, odds are he's spent several years in Boston.

I say we stick with Paul Keyerleber as the culprit until we get a straight answer - I mean obviously it must be him otherwise Lat or someone at Strock would clear his name and tell us who really did it. So until then, I'm going to believe its Paul, I think we all should, and should post on other blogs as much.

4:12. nope, not him either.

4:11

If I were a client I'd pay DOUBLE for sweep the leg tactics.

I'm guessing this guy:

http://www.stroock.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=49&itemID=725

Google his name and you'll see why -- first hit shows he is off his rocker and doesn't speak great English. Plus he's in NY office, an associate, and not admitted yet. The corporate thing is a distraction -- if anything a corp assoc may be less knowledgeable about conflicts so when they come up, he/she overreacts.

4:15-That is a hilarious comment!

His next email was about 20 minutes later:

"Please advise if you know of any reason why we cannot reperesent both [Redacted], and [Redacted]."

Since technical problems are preventing us from posting on the main page, we've decided to post in the comments.

As 4:01 notes, typically we redact the names of people who commit screw-ups (unless some other outlet has previously published them).

But in this case, we've decided to name the individual in question, for these reasons:

1. This guessing game is wasting everyone's time.

2. "Innocent bystanders" are getting dragged into the mess.

3. The person in question DID send the email to an entire law firm. So no reasonable expectation of privacy would attach to his identity.

4. The client names in the email remain redacted.

So, without further ado:

His name is Maury Saiger -- Maury B. Saiger. Here is his educational background:

J.D., University of Chicago Law School, 2006

B.A., summa cum laude, University of Illinois, 2003

Here's a link to his firm bio:

http://www.stroock.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=49&itemID=899

We do not know whether Saiger sent this message in earnest, or whether it was some prank pulled by a colleague who commandeered his computer.

If you have more information, we welcome it, by email. Thanks.

Stop posting people's names until we get confirmation. No one should be google-vulnerable without good reason.

4:18. Nope. Not him.

why oh why is it not the sensei? why is the world so cruel?????

what if he just blew the whistle on something legit? he'll be a hero!

3:37: If his Stroock website bio fails to indicate that he's not admitted, isn't that a violation of legal ethics?

i don't understand how stroock's conflict/intake partners/supervisor/department missed this or wasn't involved. gotta be a good back story with that exchange (if one happened).

Right on, 4:27. This guy probably wants to be outed - he's a hero! (Or he thinks he's a hero.)

Why all the questions about spell check. Easy answer. Blackberries have no spell check yet.

Anyone guessing who this person is without being positive is f***** up. Have you no decency, sir? I for one, query whether we should be so hot for exposing this person's name, even if we do find out who this person is. There but for the grace of God go us all. Having said that, this memo plainly showed remarkably poor judgment.

Nope it's Paul

Wow, a friend sent me this link and I was expected something good - you know, something along the lines of the infamous "Skadden email" or the "Monkey scribe," but this is just lame. I'm reading through these comments and almost can't believe that you losers care so much about this. Is this honestly how pathetic your lives are? Find something else to do.

Why all the questions about spell check. Easy answer. Blackberries have no spell check yet.

Who cares who it is? What will be interesting is figuring out what the heck led to this e-mail.

4:18:
Very juicy guess. So much Google fodder...

Hey, 4:35--it beats the heck out of this Management Services Agreement!

Check out the paper he helped out on: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=uiuclwps

really no scandal here, just a first year overreacting at 2:00 a.m.

4:35: A first-year associate, not even admitted to the bar yet, ordering an entire firm to stop work on two matters?

This may be harder to explain to non-lawyers than the Skadden email, but it's still pretty crazy.

4:35 asks: "Is this honestly how pathetic your lives are? Find something else to do."

shortly after admitting: "I'm reading through these comments"

File this in the same category as "when I was at the strip club last Friday, I saw you there, and I really think you should stop going, because these places degrade women."

4:35 - And yet you took the time to read 80 comments (before posting your own comment, no less) . . .

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

4:38: good find!

You Ain't Taking the HR Title From Me

He went straight though college and law school. He's probably 25 years old or so.

He was probably sleep-deprived and just flipped out. The email went out at 2 AM.

Good work Lat - and very sound analysis in choosing to release the name. You must have made a fine memo-writer in your biglaw days

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Ditto to 4:35's sentiment. And I hope all the losers out there posting names and guesses have karma bite them in the rear.

Ditto to 4:35's sentiment. I hope all the losers out there getting off on this little treasure hunt have karma bite them in the rear.

Ditto to 4:35's sentiment. I hope all the losers out there getting off on this little treasure hunt have karma bite them in the rear.

Hah. I literally just finished a professional responsibility take home exam a few minutes ago. I feel like this letter could have been part of my answer. Funny how I would never actually considered doing anything I wrote up on the test in real life.

Hah. I literally just finished a professional responsibility take home exam a few minutes ago. I feel like this letter could have been part of my answer. Funny how I would never actually considered doing anything I wrote up on the test in real life.

Isn't curiosity an important trait in a lawyer?

Isn't curiosity an important trait in a lawyer?

I am the sensei in Paul's photo. Paul just called me and told me how he had erroneously been dragged into this affair and about the Cobra Kai photo from 3 years ago making the blog. I can assure this blog that people who wear great Halloween costumes do not send All Firm emails. We may or may not occasionally sweep the leg, however. Sorry to disappoint the person who called the world cruel.

Put 'em in a body bag.

I don't know, IS curiosity an important trait in a lawyer? I'd like to know the answer to that...

Lat needs to get a new host for ATL. Whenever I post a comment, it posts, but I get an error message. And he seems to constantly be unable to post. What is up with that, Lat?

So why isn't Paul admitted? He passed the bar in July 2005

http://www.nybarexam.org/705_KL.htm

Check his status here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch

It seems clear that this email is a reflection on the law firm. Either 1) there was a conflict ignored because of greed, or 2) this associate has been working too many hours, or 3) both. Can't really judge the associate at this point, but who will want to work at Stroock now?

no need to drag non-native speakers through the mud. plenty of native speakers can't spell to save their lives.

see, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i'm an insider - not naming names, but letting you all know that it is NOT Paul. here are hints though, the culprit mispelled the following words in his subsequent emails: "necessaily" and "reperesent"
Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 03:59 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

er, presumably this "insider" is a native speaker hinting that the sender is not? but even at 3:59 in the afternoon, he/she couldn't spell "misspell." so ironic.

For what it's worth Stroock is at $160K, they matched the first week or so. Check your own archives on this one...

It seems clear that this email is a reflection on the law firm. Either 1) there was a conflict ignored because of greed, or 2) this associate has been working too many hours, or 3) both. Can't really judge the associate at this point, but who will want to work at Stroock now?

It seems clear that this email is a reflection on the law firm. Either 1) there was a conflict ignored because of greed, or 2) this associate has been working too many hours, or 3) both. Can't really judge the associate at this point, but who will want to work at Stroock now?

The issue isn't whether or not to expose the name. Rather, the issue is does anyone know enough information to have a reasonable enough basis to just start throwing names out there. Poor Paul K., if it is indeed a mistake (I haven't read this whole string).

Either which way, what a fun email to get everyone at Strook through the day.