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.

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's true 5:03. Stroock is actually one of the most profitable firms. Lat needs to fix the error.

4:56 Sensei: Identify yourself so that your glory be celebrated and your outrageously awesome karate moves be outrageously fear-inspiring.

I think some of you fools missed the fact that Lat posted the name above.....

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.

Check out Lat's post at 4:21. He did name names!

5:10, the sensei in the friendster pic isn't andy k, and definitely isn't the dude Lat identified. butt out.

Lat,

You should at least delete Paul's last name in the comments so it doesn't come up in google searches in the future.

I think some of you fools missed the fact that Lat posted the name above.....

UC has produced more whackjobs than any other top 10 I can think of. Bunch of miserable pricks there. This guy is like a more polished Cadwalader Chris.

5:03 + 5:06, Lat isn't talking about Stroock in New York. He's talking about Stroock's non-New York offices: LA and Miami.

Stroock LA is on a weird scale that is NOT the $160K scale. Here is the archived ATL memo:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/skaddenfreude_stroock_stroock.php

Class of 2006 - $150,000
Class of 2005 - $160,000
Class of 2004 - $175,000
Class of 2003 - $185,000
Class of 2002 - $200,000

That's not the NYC scale.

Lat,

You should at least delete Paul's last name in the comments so it doesn't come up in google searches in the future.

Those of us who guessed it was him were careful about not naming him for a reason.

We ask you now to clean up the mess others made.

Thanks

So now that we know the name of the emailer (per Lat's comment at 4:21):

What is this Maury Saiger guy like? Anyone know him?

He's a 2006 U. Chicago Law grad. There must be LOTS of people on this board who know him.

ditto on deleting the incorrect name comments.

"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."

Actually, while it will be a cautionary tale, it is unlikely that the "entire firm" stopped work on any matters at 2:00 a.m. b/c a first year advised to do so(it is likely that there were no senior people available to reach out to at that time, and this email was dealt with first thing in the morning).

First years often get alarmed by completely benign information when doing conflicts (or when doing most anything for that matter). I don't think this is hard to explain to non-lawyers, he was green and he got excited and in a panic, unable to reach anyone senior, emailed the entire firm in the middle of the night. Not a good choice, but, in the end, no harm, no foul, and, I am guessing it is also very likely--no conflict either.

When I was a first year associate at a fairly large firm (back in the dark ages of the early '90s) I had a friend who was always on the lookout for computers left unattended. Once, I went to a meeting and when I came back twenty minutes later, I learned that all the other first years had received an email from me, pleading for help -- it seemed I had locked myself in my office and had misplaced my pants.

Sensei says: I'm definitely not saying who I am after reading this blog. I mean it's pretty messed up that Paul had to go through all this nonsense (although I think he thought the posting of the Cobra Kai phot was pretty funny) after doing nothing wrong. I wouldn't want my name on here for any purposes now that I know how this site just throws around names.

I can tell you that the costumes that the 5 of us who went as Karate Kid that year (we also had a Daniel and a Mr. Miyagi) were well received at many a bar that night.

I can also admit that I went to school with Paul, and that he's way too smart to do something like this.

Did anyone determine if it was a joke yet? It seems almost too outrageous to be real, no?

What is the "Skadden e-mail?" Can someone post a link to archives?

Click on the link to learn more about it. Or cut and paste this into your browser:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/03/our_favorite_skadden_associate.php

i didn't know him but he's listed in the face book as moshe

Poor Paul! Now we all know that if some idiot at any of our firms does something retarded, any of us can be immediately blamed on the slimmest of coincidences.

I think that anyone industrious enough to be googling paul's name and to find this site will probably scroll the additional six inches down the comment section to find out that it wasn't him after all.

how could he have passed the july 2005 ny bar if he didn't graduate uc law until 2006?

5:49 pm - you worthless dumba**. if you aren't going to bother to pay attention and read, then don't bother wasting our time with your confused questions.

WOW!!!

Check the bio again:

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

BTW - kudos on the title of this article, Lat!

Hey insiders -

Did Maury get fired? Quit? Why is his bio down?

Nice catch 5:54. Looks like Maury's going to be investing in some resume paper.

Wow indeed. Either he got fired or Stroock took down his bio.

*****
Your search returned 0 results.

Search Criteria: Lastname: saiger

as the second comment pointed out, it will be hard to fire him for this.

6:01. Have you ever heard of "at will" employment?

Your search returned 0 results.

Search Criteria: Keyword: saiger
===================

Hm... Maybe Maury became an hero?

(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=an+hero in case you're culturally illiterate)

6:02, have you ever heard of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

Why would it be hard to fire him for this? That is a completely asinine comment. It will be very hard NOT to fire him for this. How could any firm retain such a moronic associate? They would look like complete fools if they didn't can this guy ASAP -- which I'm sure they are doing.

6:01,
Why would it be hard to fire a first-year associate for showing such appallingly bad judgment in the use of firm-wide email, particularly the preachy, self-righteous closing? "I will consider anyone who fails to report this to the client and to the appropriate authorities at the first possible opportunity, to have breached moral, professional and legal duties and I will report you." Even *if* he actually had discovered some massive conflict of interest between the two clients, what kind of idiot thinks this is the appropriate way to deal with it?

A friend of mine said Winston raised to 160 (LA). Anyone confirm? No raises announcement in my email box here, in any case.

6:05 - don't be an ass. SOX only covers securities law violations - not legal ethical issues.

Agree with 6:07. Even if he found something blatantly inappropriate, a 2:00 a.m. e-mail to everyone in the firm making it look like he caught partners stealing client trust money and spending it on prostitutes would seem to be the type of poor judgment that would provide grounds for termination despite whistleblower protections. What would happen if he found something he didn't like in a deal and couldn't get the responsible attorney on the phone right away? Would he stop a $500 million closing because a typo hadn't been corrected?

I only vaguely remember him from law school (I'm Chicago 05)... which probably means I never had a class with him, or he wasn't one of our worst gunners.

Of course, keep in mind you're talking about Chicago... "not a gunner" at Chicago could still mean a loud-mouthed asshole just about anywhere else.

On a different note - what image is Stroock trying to convey with the picture of the air tram at O'Hare on its website? Are people supposed to think Stroock's attorneys are sophisticated because they get to ride on big fancy commercial airplanes?

Dude, did this guy seriously not learn in law school that the partner takes the shit for stuff like this until you're at least like, I dunno, a fifteenth year?

6:11, maybe the conflict is with two securities clients?

6:44,

Even if the conflict involves two securities clients, it would still have to be a very peculiar ethical conflict that would amount to a *violation of securities laws,* which is what SOX protects.

At any rate, I gotta agree with 6:07. There's a lotta stuff in SOX that I don't know/understand, so there may be "preachy asshole" protection in the whistleblower section. But I doubt it.

Come on, he is HISTORY. He named the clients and embarrassed everybody. You HAVE to fire him first and worry about him trying to sue you later. I assume he has been canned effective now.

aren't all of you losing sight of something in this incident? The poor sap's preachy e-mail is innocuous (sure, the all-firm distribution is ill-advised and the tone inappropriate, but he's being extra cautious, even diligent). The person I would fire, however, is the asshole who forwarded this e-mail outside the firm, revealing the names of clients and exposing the firm to potential malpractice liability (like in the event that he poor sap was right and there really is a conflict).

aren't all of you losing sight of something in this incident? The poor sap's preachy e-mail is innocuous (sure, the all-firm distribution is ill-advised and the tone inappropriate, but he's being extra cautious, even diligent). The person I would fire, however, is the asshole who forwarded this e-mail outside the firm, revealing the names of clients and exposing the firm to potential malpractice liability (like in the event that the poor sap was right and there really is a conflict).

Sending the message begged the not-so-innocuous proliferation thereof. That message went to EVERYBODY and was bound to be spread. In fact, that was most likely the point. Moreover, he was talking of going to the client and authorities (and then where? the media!). That wasn't cautious, it was stupid and vaguely insane.

Strook took Saiger's bio off the website and he is not listed in their directory... Fired?

You’re the best!
Around!
Nothing’s gonna ever keep you down
You’re the Best!
Around!
Nothing’s gonna ever keep you down
You’re the Best!
Around!
Nothing’s gonna ever keep you dow-ow-ow-ow-own

He didn't send the e-mail to "EVERYBODY" -- just to his firm's attorneys & staff -- all of whom have a duty not to disseminate that information. Breaching that duty b/c an attorney at your firm did something funny/stupid is not excusable. The same goes for the "public embarassment" argument -- this wouldn't be public unless some yahoo forwarded this e-mail to his friends/ATL. There is no public embarassment for the firm/clients if the firm attorneys/staff think own of their own is an idiot.

7:02,
Although I'm only a couple of years senior to the author of this email, I feel qualified to say that a big part of success in legal practice is the possession and exercise of qualities such as judgment, discretion, and maturity. Sending an all-firm email like this displays a complete lack of all of those qualities; it is not "innocuous," nor can it be justified as mere pedantry or hyper-diligence. This also isn't a "there but by the grace of God" situation like the Skadden guy who accidentally copied the entire firm on a personal email to a friend; this guy intentionally sent this loony email to all firm recipients, and apparently felt justified in ordering attorneys years senior to him to stop working for two clients based on nothing more than his say-so. It doesn't matter if it was 2 AM and he was tired; this lapse reflects a lack of judgment sufficient to call into question his competence to handle any high-pressure assignment of the sort common in large law firms.

As to the person who leaked the email to Lat, obviously that's not a "best practice," but the cat was already out of the bag by that point, anyway. I can't see how leaking the email to the press creates any potential liability for Stroock that wasn't already there. This raises an interesting point, though. Does anyone know exactly what the nature of the conflict that he believed himself to have discovered actually was? Not that there's anything that could have justified his actions, but I'm curious as to whether there was any legitimate basis for his conclusions at all. Based on what I know of him so far, I rather doubt it.

I can't really ever think of a time when I would send an all-firm email. The content would have to be something along the lines of "the building is on fire, get out!"

6:11 and 6:44,

More to the point, Strook has never registered a securities offering under the '33 Act or a class of securities under the '34 Act, and is therefore not subject to SOX.

Poor bastard has disappeared from Stroock's directory of lawyers. I'm thinking that they either killed him or sent him off to GITMO. Both options are legal for at least 621 more days.

There's no doubt this is insane and fire-worthy. But it would seem that there's enough to make a prima facie case of unlawful termination for whistleblowing--at least, enough to scare Stroock into settling/paying him off.

7:22 -- First, I'm not saying this was "good judgment" -- obviously not the best way to deal with something like this. I am saying, however, that he did not create the potential liability/public embarassment to the firm -- the person who leaked it did.

Second, you "doubt" this creates any liability for the firm. Let me explain how.
Assume for a second that there really is a conflict, one of the aforementioned clients sues, and the case goes to trial. On cross-examination of Strook Partner X plaintiff's counsel: "Mr. X, you received an email from associate S regarding the conflict of interest between my client and company B, yet you still decided to proceed with the transaction/representation." OR "Isn't it true that Mr. S -- a first year associate -- was able to spot this conflict of interest; why didn't you?" "What -- you don't recall? Let me refresh your recollection with document marked exhibit A -- a copy of the e-mail from Associate S"

Counsel for defendant: "Objection. Confidential/Privileged/Work Product, etc."

Judge: "Overruled. Document is public record/produced voluntarily/any privileged waived."

Starting to see the picture? So yes, if there is a conflict, the leaker of the e-mail (and not the poor sap who send it firm-wide) just handed plaintiff the verdict/settlement.

Anon,

Do you believe that your firm's partnership committee is reading your posts? You are way over the top. I enjoyed your recognition that "a big part of success in legal practice is the possession and exercise of qualities such as judgment, discretion, and maturity." You should have added that good lawyers, who are both mature and discrete, possess the judgment to, among other things, omit the last serial comma in clumsy sentences. The sender's e-mail went to his employers, not is deities. You need to appreciate this.

7:40, great story -- for Law and Order. Would never happen in real life. IF there's a conflict, a partner will catch it and deal with it appropriately (and if he doesn't, this email is the least of his worries, as he is either incompetent or unethical and probably has a whole HOST of similar skeletons and this is just the tip of the iceberg). I mean, come ON. You REALLY think some snot-nosed first-year fresh from the bar exam is going to catch a major conflict that likely dozens of PARTNERS and SENIOR ASSOCIATES, not to mention legal secretaries and paralegals, who for the present probably know a lot more than him, completely MISSED and/or ignored??

This kid freaked out over jackshit. The mailroom guy forwarded it to his buddies. They don't care about the mailroom guy, because the mailroom guy is never SUPPOSED to get emails like this, because he's the mailroom guy. He never would have gotten an email like this if a jackass associate hadn't sent it.

(I actually have no idea if the mailroom guy or someone else forwarded it, but the point is that you don't send an email like this firmwide -- THAT was the error to be concerned about).

7:02,
I see your point, and I'm a little hazy on the intricacies of attorney-client privilege, but I don't think that a mass email directed at all firm employees, the majority of whom presumably aren't working on any matters for the two clients in question, and including all non-legal staff, would be privileged or protected by the work product doctrine in the first place. If that's right, then the document would have been discoverable and admissible at trial regardless of whether it was shared outside the firm. Internal "confidential" documents are not immune from discovery if they aren't privileged or work product.

7:22 et al, his email was remarkably stupid, almost incomprehensibly so. Having said that, here's a guy who screwed up, and will likely be fired, and will seriously impair his ability to ever get a job at a major law firm. This is likely among the very worst days of his life. I don't think he needs all of us shitting upon him further. Further, while this may not be garden variety stupidity, all of us who work at large law firms are human and we make mistakes. Albeit, maybe not mistakes this awe-inspiring. I don't think we should be so eager to put this guys head on the chopping block much less gloat gleefully over his stupidity. Putting some perspective on the situation, here's a guy in the first few months of practice. Under more ordinary circumstances, this person is presumably not this stupid or insane and we are all one inadvertant email from suffering a similar fate.

7:22/7:48, good point. Also -- presumably it would be one (or both) of the CLIENTS in question suing. Since the clients would be the ones seeking the documents, the firm couldn't exactly go and shield them from discovery by asserting a privilege. The client is the one who gets to claim the privilege, not the firm.

Right, the point is that this kid went from 0-60, straight to Defcon 1, shot his wad all over the linens. You can't keep somebody after they do this. You just can't.

7:45,
I don't entirely understand your comment, but for what it's worth, both Strunk & White's Elements of Style, Rule 2 (4th ed. 2000) and The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style s. 1.3(a) (2002) recommend using the serial comma. I have no idea what the last two sentences of your post are intended to mean, so I can't comment on them.

Bigger question is whether there is an actual client conflict. Judging by the tone and the insanity of the email, there's a chance there isn't (as somebody set to start at Stroock in the fall, kinda hoping it was just a bad hoax).

good posts by 7:25 and 7:53

also, WGWAG

Assuming this is not some sort of hoax or a case of an email sent under his name by a third party, or a case of genuine whistle blowing, the lack of judgment is truly breathtaking and definitely worthy of dismissal.

Whoever stopped using the serial comma first is plainly an idiot, moron, or asshole. It is actually quite useful.

7:47 -- If your firm's mailroom guy forwards dirt/embarassing internal emails to his friends, you should fire him. And hire a new one (there isn't a shortage of mailroom guys, unlike good associates). And when you hire a new one, you tell him that if he ever sends any firm e-mail to an outside source, you'll fire him on the spot. That way, next time your first year associate sends a silly firm-wide e-mail, the firm won't be embarassed/incur liability, and won't be forced to fire the silly first-year associate (God knows they all make mistakes once in a while).

As for the partner who has other skeletons in the closet -- that's the difference between skeletons and something like this. Skeletons are tucked away in your closet -- this is public and something you may have to deal with. If this is a non-issue and there is no conflict, then all the more reason to laugh about it, tell the poor sap to take a few days off/catch up on sleep, and move on. But because this is bad publicity, now the firm has to fire the guy -- all because some mailroom guy couldn't keep his hands off the FW button. On the other hand, if there really was a conflict and it was missed/ignored (stranger things have happened), then (see my post above) there really could be some malpractice problems, and the public dissemination of this email hurts the firm.

This is what happens when your firm attempts to attract attorneys on the basis of penguin flash animation bowling games

That email really smacks of mental illness, not just extreme fatigue. And if you're tired enough to write "Do not wait for me to provide additional information. You have all the information you need" - and I have certainly been that tired working in Biglaw - it is time to go home and sleep!

All that aside, I wonder if there could be a serious conflict at the bottom of all this given the firm's hasty response....

7:02/8:01, they can fire the mailroom guy too. Fine, whatever. But come ON -- they simply cannot expect a mailroom guy to show the same level of maturity and decorum they expect from a LAWYER. Sacrificing the mailroom guy to save the ASSociate is a bitch move. It's like throwing a baby in front of a train, only more elitist. If they fire the mailroom guy, they fire both of them. The worse offense was sending the inappropriate, over-the-top, hysterical email in the first place.

So if the only reason they have bad publicity is because of the horrible irresponsible mailroom guy (eyeroll), does that mean we should fire any associate who tells her law school buddies "you guys won't believe what this jackass at my firm did. He sent an email to the ENTIRE FIRM basically accusing the partner he works for of unethical conduct. He goes and tells the WHOLE FIRM to stop working on these two issues because there's a conflict that apparently no one else in the firm bothered doing anything about"? Because that's almost just as bad, practically speaking. I mean, hell, why not sue Lat for making the whole thing a big deal?

And, again, if there are malpractice problems, the firm should have caught it well before this email (like, before they started billing the clients, as they clearly are doing). You catch conflicts well before you give a first-year an assignment. And any first-year who does a conflicts check does so only under specific instructions, and does so with the understanding that he is to report back to the partner. This kid fucked up big time.

8:05, I think the hasty response is more out of embarrassment than serious ethical concerns.

I don't see how you can make the argument that just because he sent the email internally there's no expectation of privacy. Of course there is. If he'd sent it to his buddies outside the firm, sure, but there's a reasonable expectation that, in a firm, when you send something to an office-wide (firm-wide, practice-wide, whatever-wide) list, it's meant only for internal things. The person who sent the email externally is the one who should be punished.

OMG! People have used the comments page of this website to post the friendster profile (with embarrassing pictures) of an innocent man to the entire world AND has accused him of being the email sender!

SOMEONE CALL REPUTATION DEFENDER!

Also, if the readers could start expressing their moral outrage that would help, since xoxohth got in trouble for basically. the same thing.

Why assume that a mailroom guy disseminated the email? Could've been another stupid associate -- a firm can have more than one of those.

The serial comma issue is what it is. http://www.swcp.com/info/essays/serial-comma.htm
If you cannot understand the import of the last two sentences, that too doesn't matter.

the guy's bio has been REMOVED from stroock's website - they sure move fast

this sounds like the beginnning of a grisham novel

7:22 posting at 7:57, will you marry me for smacking down John at 7:45 -- you are totally correct. Grammarians split on the serial comma, but the majority come out in favor. Seriously, I heart you.

What would you do for a semicolon? The post misses the point; the previous writer was pretentious and clumsy.

8:27,
Thanks-- if only I wasn't already taken :)

8:33,
Can you explain what was clumsy in the first sentence in my 7:22 post, and what that has to do with 7:45's criticism of the serial comma? If it was a bit pretentious, eh, that's not exactly a damning criticism in a room full of lawyers. In any case, I stand by it.

use of serial comma is not gtg imo. at least that's how I learned to write, eons ago.

now as to the email in question: second year or not, that thing is appallingly written, never mind the misspelling. All he says is he has information "suggesting" a "potential" conflict of interest. That hardly justifies the radical action he "advise[s] and request[s]." The sentence that reads "The potential for harm is immanent and could be occurring now" shows why you should avoid the passive tense, and in any event is just wrong: if there is potential for harm, the potential exists now. I would expect better from a lawyer. And nonlegal personnel have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to report client conflicts to anybody.

What exactly did the person who sent that email think some nonlegal person was going to say to one of the clients in question?

The only thing that convinces me this was not an accident or a prank is that the lawyer's bio is already down from the firm's website.

It sounds like this guy may be bi-polar (I'm being serious). Maybe we should not be seriously analyzing his decision and start hoping that he is getting some help.

8:23 - do you read before posting? Try it some time.

The sentence that discusses the serial comma also discusses all of your points concerning judgment, discretion and maturity. Because that sentence addresses all of the foregoing, your sentence is comparatively clumsy.

and wordy.

Great posts 702, 740, 840 --the concern here is embarrassment not ethics.

Unless this guy has Asperger's or nekkid pics of the senior partner boffing a mailroom guy he is toast. The only possible chance to avoid getting fire, don't go to work tomorrow, check yourself in to rehab -- even if you have don't have a problem feign one.

Thanks, I've laughed my ass off.

Just goes to show you that any clown can hired at one of these places

Alas, not any clown. I graduated from Bobo's school of red noses and squirting flowers, a tier 2 clown school, and Stroock wouldn't even give me a call back.

Fascists

8:43 - If he is indeed bipolar, or had some other kind of disease, and that caused him to write an email like this, that might be a "mental or emotional condition . . . that could adversely affect [his] capability to practice law."

At the same time, I doubt that the email really gives us any basis for that kind of diagnosis. There *is* definitely more than a tinge of paranoia in there though. My guess is some kind of controlled substance. I've seen people get pretty freaked out after too many uppers. Too many pep pills trying to stay awake til 2 AM?

8:41: You wrote: "The sentence that reads "The potential for harm is immanent and could be occurring now" shows why you should avoid the passive tense . . ."

Do you actually believe that "could be occurring now" is in the "passive tense" (I assume you really meant "passive voice")? You are mistaking the present ACTIVE participle for the "passive [voice]". Please be sure you understand grammar before you criticize others' use of grammar. Hope this helps, and best wishes. Yours sincerely, A. Friend.

Is this a record for # of comments on ATL?

I think all that is left for him is to become an hero.

i think y'all are on the right track re: his mental state. not good. reports from strook are that some fear he may go postal.

I teach legal writing. Anyone omitting the last serial comma gets an "F."

The only interesting thing here is the emergence of the grammar police. Are they welcome on all issues?

Well, his voice mail still works. Maybe they took his page don so assholes [like me] on the internet don't crank callhim and ask about his stupidity.

fuck the police. ummm the grammar police. english is a language, according to thomas jefferson, without rules & the right to write that way, according to tj, is one of the reasons we fought the revolution.

9:34, sorry, I just couldn't resist. you know this thread is going downhill when the 4chan memes come into it. If the rest of y'all have no idea what this is about, you're spending too much time practicing law and not enough fucking around on teh intarwebs.

━━━━━┓⌒ζ
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ BECOME
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ AN
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ HERO
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃

lol wut

Epic fall guy: What in god's name are you babbling about?

7:02 is correct.

I stopped reading all the back and forth, but I read enough, and was glad to see that SOMEONE (7:02 pm) has some sense. Yes, sending that email exhibited poor judgment and was stupid. But really, people don't get fired for that. At least not if it's a one-time indiscretion. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty insignificant event. It's not a violation of policy. Again, barring some pattern of misconduct or incompetence, it's doubtful he would get fired.

The REAL problem here is the dissemination of the email outside of the firm. If you don't understand that concept, then it is clear to me that you are not a practicing lawyer (and most likely are just a law student). If you ARE a lawyer, or if you are employed anywhere, I suggest you go read your company's email and internet policy. You'll be surprised to see how stringent it is. Clearly, not all provisions are enforced, or else we would all be fired for using our work email and internet connections for personal use (i.e., emailing friends and going to ATL).

Also, I'd note that people with a weak grasp of employment law always like to throw out "employment at will" as a buzz phrase to argue that anyone can get fired for anything at any time. It's simply not that easy. And even if it was, firms really do hesitate to fire people. There are many reasons for this, including: (1) no firm wants to be known as the firm that fires associates, if for no other reason than to avoid making it seem like the firm doesn't have enough work to go around; and (2) firing and hiring associates (to replace the fired associate) costs the firm money; unless the associate is a true liability, the firm really doesn't want to fire him; they'd prefer to rehabilitate him, or at least make back the $$ they've invested in training him thus far. So, in summary, get a clue.

Finally, really, this is not that juicy a story. Sure, maybe you tell your lawyer friends about it over a drink as you talk about how stupid first-year associates are. But not worthy of the storm it created here. The only reason this thread took off the way it did is because of the AutoAdmit crowd that has migrated onto this site and seeks only to out and shame people. That's pretty sad.

11:20, Well said.

...almost as sad as threatening to report your entire fucking firm to "the authorities" BEFORE bringing your concerns to your supervisor.

HTMFH

To 11:20: ...almost as sad as threatening to report your entire fucking firm to "the authorities" BEFORE bringing your concerns to your supervisor.

HTMFH

To 11:20: ...almost as sad as threatening to report your entire fucking firm to "the authorities" BEFORE bringing your concerns to your supervisor.

HTMFH

11:20. pick one point and make it well instead of making several poorly.

1. It simply is that easy. If an employee of a law firm showed that they fundamentally lacked basic writing skills that firm would fire that associate, not attempt to teach them to write a sentence. Here, this associate has demonstrated that they lack a very basic skill, that being sound judgment. No, he didn't send this email to the client but he has threated to (and threatened to report all parties that do not) inform the client. This shows that this associate lacks the ability to make clear, rational judgments. This is a problem that a firm would not want to undertake correcting. They seem to have cut their losses and moved on.

In this instance, your points (1) and (2) are moot. This is not Shearman firing a group of associates because there's not enough work. This is a case of an associate showing up for work without pants on, or openly swearing at partner lunch. If they leave this associate in a position where they could potentially create another mess they would be risking more than the money they've invested/will have to invest in a headhunter to replace him. They may risk losing a client and damage to their rep (which is hurting any way due to high turnover).

Also, the partners have a duty to supervise the associates and may not want the added liability of having to be responsible for this person going forward (every dog gets one free bite).

In short, you are wrong. Firing him is that easy.

I actually know Maury, and he's been consistently billing 300 hours or more a month since he started. From what I understand he had not slept for a few days before sending this unfortunate email. I think most people on this board have missed the point. This is what happens when you push the billable hour model to the extreme.

11:20 & 11:52. Maybe you can agree on the following:

If the firm does fire this guy for this mistake alone, (1) jerks like 11:52 may wish to join the firm as it would seem to act in accordance with his/her view of the world and (2) the rest of us, including 11:20, can avoid the place like the plague because we've all made mistakes (though admitedly probably not quite as public as this one) for which we've been granted the opportunity to learn instead of simply suffer from.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong (or something I want in my world). Call me a jerk if you wish but I was just stating a fact, he made a bad mistake but can still have a career, just not a Stroock. Law firm life sucks at times but we all picked it.

11:20 & 11:52. Maybe you can agree on the following:

If the firm does fire this guy for this mistake alone, (1) jerks like 11:52 may wish to join the firm as it would seem to act in accordance with his/her view of the world and (2) the rest of us, including 11:20, can avoid the place like the plague because we've all made mistakes (though admitedly probably not quite as public as this one) for which we've been granted the opportunity to learn instead of simply suffer from.

Yes, we are always available. We sometimes get pulled onto projects just to proofread a partner's final draft before a filing.

We particularly enjoy questions regarding the subjunctive, the use of "which" versus "that," and adding two spaces after the period.

Cheers.

11:52

Are you an attorney in biglaw? I'm sure you aren't; or at best you are a first year. You write in the conditional ("a firm would fire..."); that tells me you have no experience with biglaw.

If you have worked as a biglaw attorney, then you know that there are associates at even "Top 10" firms that aren't all that good. Some of them are terrible writers; some of them inadvertently produce documents to adversaries; some of them accidently file redlined/draft versions of a brief with the court; some of them tell off a partner at a firm function. These are real life stories from a variety of NY firms; those associates did not get escorted out the door. Some firms also have used "professional counselors" for associates who have not quite figured out how to comport themselves properly in a law firm. (Frankly, I don't even know what that means, but I know that firms have done it, all in efforts to turn around junior associates who seemed to be floundering).

More concisely: I know of numerous associates who have screwed up in some major ways; never have I heard of an associate being fired for a one-time screw-up that didn't involve some kind of fraud, illegality or malpractice. Of the associates I know who got "asked to leave" for basically being incompetent, it happened only after 2-3 years of foot-dragging.

So your image of law firms as these bad-ass places where you get canned if you slip up is simply misguided. You want to glorify firms as these bastions of professionalism, where only the best and brightest make it, and the others get thrown to the curb. It just ain't the case. Sorry to burst your bubble. Fact of the matter is, many of the lawyers in biglaw are pretty average.

I speak from experience. You don't. If it was "that easy," more associates would get fired. But they don't.

Thanks for playing. Good luck with exams.

You guys fell for this shit? Don't you realize it is a ploy by big-law to get us talking about anything other than salaries? That is the real issue here.

I want to play Stroock bowl right now. Fuckers.

Time for Maury to become "an hero."

Go look it up.

The summer I know who told off a partner got canned. So I guess you gotta be careful who you tell off.

I want the all employees option deactivated from my outlook account. Just in case.

STRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCK!

To Anonymous | May 9, 2007 04:06 PM

Answer: Wachtell

1:48 - I'm not dumb enough to use writing "in the conditional" and generalize where someone must be working. You are an ass. I'm both a mid-level and a former Stroockie. The firm can be very difficult on associates and they certainly recognize that associates are fungible.

I was right the first time, you are wrong.

To Posted by: Check this | May 9, 2007 04:32 PM

There really weren't more than one or two questions about spelling - you just wanted to show off how clever you are. Troll.

Who is "Cadwalader Chris". Do tell!

Somebody "found" his blackberry and sent the emails, including this one (hence the typos). Someone thought it was funny, I guess. I think most everyone knew it was a gag and didn't take it seriously. I am disappointed to learn that someone did not see a joke and decided to send to their friends or a weblog.

1:48,
You're missing the point. Of course Biglaw firms don't fire associates, particularly junior ones, for inadvertent mistakes like producing an unredacted or privileged document, but this isn't a matter of a negligent mistake, nor is it a situation where the junior associate made an intemperate remark in the heat of the moment (and generally under the influence of alcohol) to a partner in a one-on-one setting. There simply is no good analogy in the lexicon of common junior associate gaffes to what this guy did, precisely because it is *not* common or excusable for a first-year to send a blast email to the entire firm accusing the partnership of serious ethical breaches and taking it upon himself to order work stopped on all matters for two clients (obviously his "order" was disregarded--and laughed at-- but the point is that he felt justified in giving it in the first place). This was an error of commission--and a huge one-- that just doesn't compare to letting a couple of documents slip through or being a bad writer.

Stroock's IT staff is a joke. Therein lies the real story above - though wont come out. Take it from an insider.

I'm going to use "Do not wait for me to provide additional information. You have enough information" the next time I draft discovery responses. Priceless!

any confirmation of 8:09's claim? this is what's pertinent

This is an hero: it is made of impertinent mass e-mail, and a gun.

7:43: a little late!

Who is Cadwalader Chris? Only the greatest Italiano-American summer to ever summer. You can read his flowery coke-fueld tome here:

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=140158&mc=140&forum_id=2

The intarweb tubes are a wonderful thing.

Why are his details no longer on their site though?

I don't believe 8:09's claim at all. Every law firm blackberry on the planet has a timeout function and 5 minutes after you stop using it, it resets to a password-protected screen.

I suppose the firm can figure out whether this email was a prank or not by the name of the clients.

Real firm clients this guy was working on? Drug-induced 2 am insanity by the (now fired) associate.

Fake clients not associate with Stroock (e.g., Microsoft and Google, Coke and Pepsi, etc.): somebody found his blackberry or laptop and somehow sent this email. He still might get fired -- or maybe just LOA and a public apology, etc.

I suspect they interviewed him first thing in the morning and got the real answer before the story broke. And if the answer was "prank" then there would have been a followup email, he would have been identified more publicly, and not off the website so quickly.

I love the Cadwalader Chris email. First time I had heard of it - I don't frequent to AutoAdmit myself, it's too "TTT" for my taste. I get most of these types of stories from this site.

Lat - here's an idea, let's get a top 5 list of the best biglaw email blasts. Obviously this one, the Skadden summer, that Cadwalder one, others???

His profile is back up on the Stroock website. Perhaps he was just the unfortunate victim of a prank...

TTT? Sounds like a rocking place to work. The partner's are constantly chasing skirts, and doing blow. It's like a 1980s movie. Is there any chance James Spader was a partner there?

What does "TTT" mean?

TTT is short for third tier toilet. A general reference to third/fourth tier law schools

TTT is short for third tier toilet. A general reference to third/fourth tier law schools

Looks like the kid's not fired. His bio's back up on the web

The firm took down the gentleman's profile, as well as the profiles of other first-year associates, to protect them from unfair speculation and inappropriate contact.

any word on salary increases?

I believe this is the latest salary increase thread:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/05/skaddenfreude_winston_strawn_r_1.php

Somebody asked, "who will want to work at Stroock now?" Let me assure you that my response to the recruiters remains what it has been for years: I can't really imagine wanting to work for any other firm, but if you find an in-house position that pays the same, with 9 to 5 hours, I'd like to hear about the opportunity. Otherwise, check back in 6 months and we'll see how things are going."

Somebody asked, "who will want to work at Stroock now?" Let me assure you that my response to the recruiters remains what it has been for years: I can't really imagine wanting to work for any other firm, but if you find an in-house position that pays the same, with 9 to 5 hours, I'd like to hear about the opportunity. Otherwise, check back in 6 months and we'll see how things are going."

━━━━━┓⌒ζ
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ BECOME
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ AN
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃ HERO
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃
┓┓┓┓┓┃

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…)

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…)

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…)