i can't imagine in what universe grabbing someone's ass would be something you could get away with

No wonder the OMM summer didn't get an offer. A truly classless act. If he acted this way in front of associates, imagine what he'd do in front of clients.

Personally, I think #4 is the best... simply for the "not yet"

As a gay person, I think #1 and #2 on themselves completely merit someone not getting an offer. What classless, trashy, homophobic bullshit.

What a douche rocket. He'll probably be a BigLaw partner one day.

This guy sounds like a tool. I think I went to school with him. I think we ALL went to school with him..

As a straight person, I agree with 4:50.

As a lawyer, I agree with 4:52. Poor guy just peaked too soon.

The #2/#5 combo is the best. When I want to make a good impression on my female coworkers, I call their future husbands gay and then grab their asses. I'm not sure what's up with ass-grabbing this summer either Lat, although I speculate that it has to do with the re-emergence of Denise Austin's classic Buns of Steel.

It's always the quiet ones.

"and makes a totally un-PC scene"

does that involve obscene tongue wagging?

The mystery guy should get an offer...he's already acting like a partner!

www.borntobill.com

"i can't imagine in what universe grabbing someone's ass would be something you could get away with"

In the pro football universe, particularly within the coach-player relationship therein.

What do you expect? Law firms are desperate to hire people. We all know those firms, especially in New York, where if a student is from a Top 10 school he/she will get hired despite coming off as a jerk in interviews. And then we sit around and wonder where all the ass-grabbing comes from.

wow...thanks for the update.

this guy sounds like a real credit to the profession. :-P

Not to mention that ass-grabbing is the favorite pasttime of prep schools boys in all-male dorms. When I look at John Kerry and George Bush, I know that what unites them is a fair bit of ass-grabbing at St. Paul's and Andover.

It's more than Mystery not getting an offer -- he didn't even finish out the summer. He was asked to leave immediately (i.e., resign or be fired, the choice is yours).

O'Melveny is an awesome place to work and supporting diversity is a HUGE priority. There is a significant number of openly gay associates and partners at the firm, and there is no way homophobic behavior would be tolerated.

IMHO, notwithstanding the purported behaviour of this puke, my firm's summer class has three out and out lesbians and we as associates are compelled to accept them as such. Religious viewpoints aside, one has more shit in her face than the lead singer from Rancid. That and the female summers wear J Crew flip flops to work. At the risk of sounding like an old prick, these kids today just don't seem to be getting taught how to act in a professional setting. That or they just don't give a shit, or a combination of the two. Law schools should teach more interaction and less theory. No one cares about theory, unless you write this blog or clerk for the supreme court.

OK, I don't get the bit about shit in her face. Was the lead singer of Rancid a lesbian? I feel really stupid, but I just don't get it.

5:36 (2),

I thought he was talking about piercings or something, but I google the band and their lead singer doesn't appear to have any peircings on his face. So, yeah, what exactly does that mean?

5:36 -- I think the poster was talking about nose rings, studs, etc.

5:36 - piercings

Nobody with shit in their face belongs at a law firm beacuse nobody with shit in their face will be taken seriously by a judge or a client. If the shit in your face is more important to you than a career as a lawyer, go do something else. Of course that's an issue entirely divorced from sexual orientation.

Is it just my middle class background and utter amazement and glee over a salary at age 30 that exceeds either of my parents' that makes me so angry at these fools? Can some folks who come from money share whether they too are angered at the thought of someone blowing a great career over things so stupid as likely to be intentional efforts to see how much one can get away with? Seriously, I am not dissing on you for your background in any way, so please don't be offended.

This is exactly why there is alcohol at all summer events: they want to bring this kind of crap out as early as possible.

5:36 he was talking about piercings; how about "More shit in her face than that heron dealer's wife in Pulp Fiction"

clearer?

5:36:

what do you mean, compelled to accept them as such? of course you're compelled to accept them as lesbians--they are lesbians. are you trying to allege that being out at work is unprofessional?

Yes--shit in face means "piercings" and I used Rancid reference for effect. However, i am surprisd that he doesnt have shit in his face. The lesbianism doesn't get me nearly as much as the in your face lesbianism. I would prefer not to know if someone is a lesbian, but hearing yarns about the lambda defense fund and the "evils" of the gay marriage ban grates on my skin after a while, particularly when I attend summer events purely to unwind not to hear some kid's view on the world, which is invariably retarded to a large degree. I would greatly prefer it if firms did not keep sexuality tallies (i.e. "openly gay" and such) for I, for one, do not think that a proper statistic to keep. I ramble, yes, and perhaps sound like a nazi to some, but I assure you I am not. To each their own...and they should keep it to themselves.

My bad - I was looking for something lesbian-related with the shit in the face thing. Piercings do not belong in the face of anyone who works at a law firm. If I'm a client - and I plan to be, in about 6 or 7 years - and my law firm shows up with some associate with a face full of metal, then that law firm will have just become my ex-law firm.

5:56(2) - I think you mean 5:52. I don't think I alleged anything. I'm just slow, it has nothing to do with lesbians. Maybe I'm close-minded about piercings in a professional environment, too, but I'm OK with that.

Thanks for the clarification. I really thought it was something I should be looking up on urban dictionary.

The plot thickens. Now we have:

1. Gay slurs hurled at both genders;

2. General sexual harassing behavior (pointing, winking, buddy talk);

3. Verbally abusive/borderline assaultive behavior; and

4. (The Deal Killer) ASS GRABBING.

What a schmuck. I love it.

Compared to the benign and sleep deprived Maury, the OMMM needs his name published on the net big time. Or something else.

Lat, great save on a lackluster (initial) post.

We can all agree that the use of the word "fag" was inappropriate, but it was a fair assumption that he was gay, right?

I mean seriously, if there was a study, would it not show that when given a choice between liquor, beer, red wine, and white wine gay men choose white wine much more often than straight men? Answer -- yes.

5:56. Yes I do. I don't go around flouting my sexuality. Nor should they. Gay, straight. i don't give a rats ass. Just don;t want to hear about it. And if homosexuals feel "left out" while first years hit on and get hit on by opposite sex partners/associates, or while associates/partners talk about their wives/husbands and/or kids, well thats life in the big city. This societal shift to always having to act as if we commiserate with extreme minorities has become unmanageable. Again, I don't care if you, hime, he, she , it , them is gay, there is no need to hear about it at work. When will they be sensitive to us, rather than we always having to be sensitive to them?

tigher baby--

most tabloids make fun of celebrities who deliberately put themselves in the limelight. roy pearson, while hardly a typical celebrity, also put himself in the public eye by bringing a ridiculous lawsuit. he deserves whatever ribbing he gets on this site. so, too, arguably, various SAs who acted like morons but whose identities Lat preciously protects. but this guy did nothing public whatsoever, and his wife and kids sure as hell didn't ask for this. no, we're not in Sunday school, but are we so devoid of ethics (and, frankly, common sense) that we're incapable of making logical distinctions between making fun of the likes of Roy Pearson and the deceased?

Dude,

you have a right to prefer not to talk about issues at summer events, just like your co-workers have a right to prefer to talk about issues. you have a right to be annoyed...but don't call it unprofessional that they're talking about issues that are important to them. it's not.

Any idea what school these uber-cool Summers are from? No names, just the schools. Yess...schools.

6:08, I disagree - there are certain things that it's just not polite to talk about at social events, and one of those is politics. Another is religion. A third is the weather, but if I couldn't do that, I never would say shit at parties, so I like to talk about it. But it's not right that I do it, and even though I agree that the gays should be able to marry into misery just like us straights, there's a time and place for that discussion. It's unprofessional.

Dear 6:06 #1 A/K/A Moron/Schmuck:

Be a mench. I am a 5th generation Californian who happens to also hail from the Napa Valley. (Born and raised, currently living in SF weekdays, and West Sonoma on weekends.) You might say I have consumed my share of fine wine.

When I was in HS white wine was cheaper than beer.

While I am currently going through a persistent Zinfandel (that's a red wine you Midwestern schmuck, and not the pink stuff your mom drinks). I have also consumed my share of Chardonnay and Sauvignon blanc.

And, by coincidence, I just bought a case of 2001 Chateau Laville Haut Brion (that's a white wine also you ignorant hick.)

I am not gay. And no, I am not Jewish either; I am Italian (100%); I just think the Yiddish is appropriate here, schmuck.

Capice?

dude. Totally agree that facial piercings are completely inappropriate (maybe a teeny tiny nose stud... maybe). I don't think my firm would tolerate it for one second, even from summers.

But unprofessional to talk about pro bono work (lambda defense) and current legal issues (gay marriage debate) at a firm event? Would you be equally uncomfortable with two straight males talking about either of these things? I agree that it's unprofessional to talk about one's sex life at work regardless of orientation (and for lawyers to hit on SAs at events, I might add), but it doesn't sound like that's what's going on.

Anyway, give 'em a break. Until a few years ago their only form of mutual sexual gratification was outlawed with a thumbs up and a toothy grin from the Supreme Court.

the dude, you are a douche. Part of living in the "big city" in 2007 is dealing with the fact that not everyone is just like white bread little old you. If you can talk about your girlfriend (though lord knows how a douche like you would have a girlfriend) in public, then so can the lezzies. Tit for tat, that's life, grow up and fucking deal with it.

As a straight person, *I* am offended that I have to share a planet with idiots like you. As for "flouting" your sexuality, don't be so obtuse as to think you don't do it, just because OUR sexual orientation doesn't REQUIRE legal action just to make sure we have a right to, you know, live our lives in peace. You flout it every time you hit on your unfortunate female co-summers (and GOD I feel bad for those poor women). You flout it every time you go out on a date. You flout it every time you kiss a woman. You flout it every time you grab an associate's ass, which by the way, you should probably stop doing given the recent spate of firings.

6:08 -- You're argument is a complete load of crap. Just because you have a right to do something does not make it professional. Yeah, I have a right to loudly and conspicuously fart during my client meetings, but that doesn't mean it's professional to do so. Similarly, just because they have the right to talk about their sexuality, doesn't mean that it's professional either.

6:27 (1),

Good job buddy, wait to point out the obvious: you can always find an anecdote that shows not everyone in the world is the same. 6:06 didn't say that everyone who drinks white wine is gay, he just said that most of the people who do are. There's a big difference. Pointing out one exception to the general trend does nothing to disprove what he said.

6:27

I think 6:06 (1) was joking. Or he wasn't. But who cares?

And you spelled capisce wrong.

Um, why are people arguing over whether drinking white wine means someone is gay? How childish. First, calling someone "gay" isn't an insult unless you're a homophobe. Second, trying to tie drinking white wine to being gay is as ridiculous as trying to tie it to being white, or having red hair. Got scientific proof? I guess that's be relevant, except that, oh, NOBODY GIVES A RAT'S ASS. In other words, stop being retarded.

bleeding heart liberal--

I was also 6:12 but didn't "sign" properly. Absolutely think it's unprofessional no matter who's talking about it. Unequivocally. It's not about keeping the gays down. It's about social decorum. I could see talking about pro bono work, if you wanna be the guy who talks about work (dull but not unprofessional), but the gay marriage debate? Just not proper. Save it for another time.

6:40 - As a developmentally disabled person, I take issue with you characterizing people with whom you disagree as "retarded."

I (much to my regret, as I found it f***ing boring) took Family Law in law school. We spent quite a bit of time on the gay marriage debate, from a legal perspective (DOMA and state equivalents, etc.). I would imagine anything that was fair game for discussion in law school would be acceptable at a firm event (if dull work-related conversation bothers you, you would not enjoy my firm's suck-ass summer events).

Hey "the dude[sic]",

1) Am I flaunting it when I bring my wife to a firm event? Clearly I'm demonstrating to the world my hetero nature.

2) Am I flaunting it if I have a pic of my wife on my desk?

3) If not, why do you imply that when a gay summer brings their partner, bf/gf/bff to a summer event that they are flaunting it?

4) What firm do you work for? I'd like to make sure I don't end up there.

***
dude:

"And if homosexuals feel "left out" while first years hit on and get hit on by opposite sex partners/associates, or while associates/partners talk about their wives/husbands and/or kids..."
***

so i take it that all discussion of a spouse or significant other is unprofessional? or is it just unprofessional when that SO happens to be of the same sex? if you care as little about a person's sexual orientation as you claim, why would it bother you either way? why are discussion of same-sex partners "flouting" homoesexuality, while discussions of opposite-sex partners not "flouting" heterosexuality?

I don't think what people talked about in class is the standard. In crim pro the prof spent lots of time talking about child pornographers - those fuckers get caught all kinds of ways. Inappropriate. In evidence, we had a discussion about whether marijuana intoxication (i.e., gettin' baked) was properly a matter for lay opinion or expert opinion. It led to people discussing their college experiences with mary jane. Not appropriate for work.

I'm sorry your firm events suck so bad though.

6:59 is right, there's a boat load of stuff out there that could reasonably come up in a law school class that would not be "professional" to talk about at a firm event.

Who are these sick fucks who actually want the identities of fired summer associates revealed?

What the fuck is wrong with you? Have you no sense of decency?

Honestly, if you're so fucking miserable that you want to know the name of some 24 year old who made some stupid drunken mistakes and see him or her publicly humiliated, you need your head examined.

What a shocking lack of sophistication by homophobic posters (not to mention a shocking ignorance of wine and its enjoyment.)

How lucky anyone is to live on either coast.

Thanks for reminding me how ignorant most of the states in between really are, even among the children of the "educated".

5:36(2)/6:59

Fair points, probably not a good standard. I guess at the end of the day religion, politics and sex are all touchy, and gay marriage has got all three.

If that was ALL somebody wanted to talk about or ever talked about, I, as a (I like to think) considerate conversationalist, would be annoyed that they didn't take the hint that I didn't feel like talking about it. I also don't like talking to partners about their kids, but hey, they're partners, I grin and bear it. But I don't buy that it's somehow "unprofessional" for two people with at least 14 years of college between them to talk about some uncomfortable topic that interests or affects them.

Obviously, to do so standing in a circle with a mixed crowd... judging from the above, one does so at one's own risk.

Am I the only one here who thinks that homoism is a sin? After all, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Am I the only one here who thinks that homoism is a sin? After all, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

6:40 - could you try to lighten up?

6:27 #1 - Could you be any more of a pretentious loser? I'd call you gay, but that would be an insult to gays.

7:06:

Chilax. Being fired from a SA position is not the end of the world. I am sure you will bounce back.

a friendly reminder to not feed trolls

7:09: hilarious

Dear 7:09 #1: Yes.

I meant 7:09(2): hilarious

7:06 - agreed.

"What a shocking lack of sophistication by homophobic posters (not to mention a shocking ignorance of wine and its enjoyment.)"

As a lesbian attorney, I'm really glad that I can (apparently) enjoy both red and white wine. I'm not sure whether, according to these clowns, straight women can drink white wine, or whether the entire white wine industry in America is supported by us fags and dykes (in which case our purchasing power is even more inflated than I'd believed.)

The blatant homophobia and ignorance of this comment is most pronounced:

"Yes I do. I don't go around flouting my sexuality. Nor should they. Gay, straight. i don't give a rats ass. Just don;t want to hear about it. And if homosexuals feel "left out" while first years hit on and get hit on by opposite sex partners/associates, or while associates/partners talk about their wives/husbands and/or kids, well thats life in the big city. This societal shift to always having to act as if we commiserate with extreme minorities has become unmanageable. Again, I don't care if you, hime, he, she , it , them is gay, there is no need to hear about it at work. When will they be sensitive to us, rather than we always having to be sensitive to them?"

- So, it's unprofessional to be out as gay at work (presumably because that might make hets uncomfortable), but not unprofessional to be out as straight, even when your heterosexuality makes others uncomfortable (and not only gay people - ask how many straight women are uncomfortable when straight men flaunt their sexuality by grabbing asses and making lewd comments.)
- The ludicrous assumption that gay people don't have partners, husbands, or wives, and don't have their own children to talk about. Do you imagine that all gay people live in small studio apartments except when we're out having boatloads of promiscuous, immoral sex?
- The belief that you are being asked to "commiserate" with us simply by what? Not making homophobic comments to us if we bring SOs to a firm event?
- Tell ya what. I'll make you a deal. You STFU about your sexuality. Nothing about your bf/gf/fiance(e)/husband/wife. Nothing about who you think is hot, including celebrities. Nothing about anyone you have ever dated or crushed on. Nothing about whether or not you are trying to have kids. You do those things, you won't be flaunting your sexuality. And I'll then, and only then, meet you halfway and not "flaunt" mine. Until then, get over yourself.

bled out - If it's just you and someone you know having a private discussion, even at a party, have at it. But it's not good party talk.

Someone wants to introduce me to his/her partner, awesome, happy to meet him/her. That person wants to start talking about how it's not fair that he/she can't get married - not awesome. Like the tiny house.

5:36(2) - yes, how rude of us to make straight people uncomfortable by pointing out that we don't have the same basic rights you do!

I actually prefer NOT to talk about how I can't get married at a social event (unless it's a gay fundraiser for marriage equality) because...it's not a fun topic. I'd be even more uncomfortable if straight people pulled me into that sort of conversation. So I half see where you are coming from. But at the same time, being told that it's socially unacceptable because it would make STRAIGHT people, the privileged class, uncomfortable because they have rights the rest of us don't? THAT's not awesome. It's not that I go around talking about gay marriage all the time. In fact, I find it to be an incredibly boring and straightforward topic. But I'll be damned if I'm going to shut up when I do want to talk about itjust because it makes someone else, who has all the legal rights in the world, squirm.

Why do homosexuals feel the need to flaunt their sexuality around us straight folks?

7:17. Don't be a douche. I'm not uncomfortable with the topic of gay marriage. It doesn't make me squirm. I just don't think it's appropriate for a party. I do think it's appropriate for you to bring whoever you're with, and to talk about him/her, etc. I just think getting on your political soapbox is a lame move. Why can you only get halfway there?

Maybe this will help. I'm in a wheelchair, and it would be just as unprofessional if I spent my time at a party talking about how the ADA (that's the Americans with Disabilities Act) doesn't go as far as it should. It doesn't, you know.

As far as rights? I apparently don't have the right to go above the ground floors of many buildings, but you know what? I shut the fuck up about it at parties, because it's not socially appropriate. Not because it'll make you walkers uncomfortable, so much, as it's just not what you talk about at a social event. Does that help?

I'm gayer than Liberace and I'll tell whoever I damn well please, whenever and wherever I want to, even at a firm party. It's who I am, so why should I hide from that? Besides, I listen to you straight folks talk endlessly about how great your marriage is, how little Sally is doing in her swimming lessons, blah, blah, blah. And if you're so offended by my talk at firm parties, you should see what goes on in my bedroom.

7:17 (1) -- I'll do it, if you do it. Seriously. That wouldn't bother me in the least. Somehow though, I don't think you'd keep your end of the bargain...

Are you gay if you did it just once?

5:36(2)

OK, so take me from "gay marriage is bad party talk" (agreed!) to "bad party talk is unprofessional." I would go so far as to say that bad party talk DEFINES our profession.

Other things that define our profession (at least parts of it) are argumentation of controversial topics and defense of ourselves and others against the tyranny of the majority. So, IMHO it's totally professional to talk about gay marriage at a firm-sponsored event, if that's what's on your mind.

7:32(1): ah, I see where you're coming from - but here's where we differ. I'd be happy to listen to you talking about the ADA (and yes, I knew what it stood for), and where it should reach further than it does. Honestly, I'm probably not as sensitive to disability issues as I should be, and I'd consider it an evening well spent to learn about things that might not register on a daily basis - like inadequate access to buildings. I'd much rather that, than the inane chatter about the latest inoffensive, trite movie or what Paris Hilton is up to now.

Plus, what if the firm is involved pro bono with same-sex marriage work or ADA work. Are the topics still off limits? What if the pro bono partner initiates a conversation about how the firm is thinking about branching into these areas, and you or I choose to share our experience as reasons why we'd like to see the firm get involved? Still unacceptable?

bhl: Bad party talk is unprofessional at professionally-sponsored parties. It's axiomatic, isn't it? At a dinner party with your friends, talk about whatever you want. My dinner parties are filled with bad conversation. But it's not a professional environment (thank God).

7:17 - I'm not doing a good job of making myself clear. I'd be happy to talk with any individual about gay marriage. I expect I could learn a lot from listening to you, and hell, if you wanna have a conversation, I'm up for it.

However, I would not be happy to stand around in a circle - obviously in my case I would sit - and listen to a bunch of people get going on their political views. It's not conducive to including everyone in the conversation, tempers are likely to flare - not necessarily about gay marriage, but about something! - and I simply don't think it's the right context. I've seen this time and time again with political conversations, most prominently last summer at a lunch where one of the partners was talking about her support of Hillary Clinton, and opined that she couldn't understand how anyone would vote for anyone else. That was the worst lunch I ever had.

I'm sure you can come up with examples at the margins where it would be ok, such as pro bono cases (assuming you wanna be the person that talks about work) - and of course, if a partner broaches the topic, you have to follow his/her lead, because that's what we associates - and summers especially - have to do. But overall, I stand by my assertion that it's not professional to talk politics of any sort at a party.

I think all of you are wrong here. The only one of these incidents that should automatically lead to a firing is the ass grab. Any unwanted physical contact should equal the boot!

Everything else is bad, especially #2 and #4, but alone these wouldn't warrant a firing. I think it's more reasonable for an employer to have a 2-strike policy. Lots of law students are immature and have been living in bubbles their whole lives, so they have no sense of proper workplace decorum. However, some of these are truly good people who simply need to be taught (just as all of us are taught rules of political correctness and etiquette at some point in our lives). Forgiveness and compassion are also necessary qualities for employers to possess. One mistake is forgivable, but after a talking-to or sensitivity training, a second mistake is not.

In other words, the combination of incidents 1-4 is WAY more serious than any one of them alone, because the fact that he continued his behavior shows him to be an unstable person and/or unsuitable candidate.

5:36(2)

Your conclusion then, is that talking about gay marriage at a work-social is on par, professionalism-wise, with advocating (or bashing) a particular presidential candidate. That it's tacky and unpleasant for others. Maybe so.

The danger I see in using this as a justification for telling people to stop talking about it is that it's a convenient excuse to silence discussion of the topic for other, unsavory reasons. Despite your own reasoned discourse, something tells me "the dude" and others is not ultimately motivated by respect for the social niceties. When faced with a choice between putting up with uncomfortably derailed cocktail talk, or living in a world where a group of people are discouraged from airing their grievances and being themselves, I choose the former.

"When faced with a choice between putting up with uncomfortably derailed cocktail talk, or living in a world where a group of people are discouraged from airing their grievances and being themselves, I choose the former."

Yes, but everything has its time and place. It's just basic manners that you don't spout off on politics at a WORK-RELATED cocktail party!

If you are in the habit of uncomfortably derailing cocktail conversation at work in order to air your social grievances, you might want to reconsider whether biglaw is for you.

Talking about gay marriage IS unprofessional.

It's called SMALL TALK.

"What neighborhood are you living in this summer?"

"Ooh, the traffic is a bitch."

"Have you tried that new restaurant across from the office?"

"Where are you from? Oh, I love [insert random state here]"

"How's your workload been?"

Somehow, "THAT FASCIST MORON BUSH NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED!" or "WHY WON'T THE STATE GIVE ME MY RIGHT TO MARRIAGE??! IF YOU PRICKETH ME DO I NOT BLEED?" or "GUN CONTROL IS THIS NATION'S DOWNFALL!!!" doesn't quite fit.

Again, if you feel like being a gadfly, go right ahead, but maybe law firm work isn't for you. Ted Nugent and Rosie O'Donnell speak their minds -- they don't do doc review.

8:33

I agree to disagree.

Gay law students considering biglaw should consider the implications of the last paragraph though - no matter how much firms advertise diversity, they are fairly conservative institutions full of people of varying opinions, and some of them don't want to hear what you have to say. My advice would be to not let it stop you, manners be damned.

Is anyone going to post the story of the Chadbourne & Parke SA from NYU in 2003? He was much worse than this guy.

No, bhl, that's not my conclusion. I wasn't trying to equate the partner's horrible gaffe to just anyone talking about gay marriage, as I expect you know. I'm simply giving one example of how political discussion, of any sort, can be socially chilling.

In a world where we only have binary choices such as the ones you present, I would choose the former as well. I just don't think those are the only choices. You're obviously correct that not everyone reasons it out the way I do, but it doesn't change the validity of my reasoning.

"Ted Nugent and Rosie O'Donnell speak their minds -- they don't do doc review."

That was classic

Comments like "I'm gayer than Liberace and and I'll tell whoever I damn well please, whenever and wherever I want to" are every bit as repulsive and innapropriate as the kind of comments you'd expect from a drunk, heterosexual, ass-grabbing SA. I don't understand how you can get all worked up about straight people flaunting their sexual orientation when you do exactly the same. Just because I'm straighter than [insert name of some well-known straight guy here] doesn't mean that I go around telling everyone how much I like looking at naked women. So, why should we hear about how much you like men?

8:44 Wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, just tell you what I was hearing.

Anyway, I leave it to others, I've said my piece (or is it peace?).

Salaam.

Did just one of these constitute something "so shocking" that it was unmentionable? I find that hard to believe. I would think it'd have to be an ACT for it to be that shocking, not just a flippant offensive line after too much alcohol.

Dear 7:17:

Just be yourself and when you feel the urge drink white or red. A sophisticated person drinks what they enjoy, and only a hick would attach any cultural-gender-sexuality connotation to the choice.

To the rest of you: NEWS FLASH. We do not chose our sexual preferences. It not a sin. Its not sick. It just is. Moreover, if you want to prosper (indeed not get fired) in Biglaw, I suggest you get used to the idea and not make an ass out of yourself by blurting out some of the asinine views posted here today.

Inclusion is in, and in most big firms and corporations, institutionalized. Bigotry of any kind is out.

If you don’t like it, crawl back under that rock you were apparently raised under.

I've been to many a firm function, with relatively many a gay attorney... And never has someone decided to just start talking about gay marriage in the context of "small talk." If it came up -- which, frankly, I'm not sure it ever has -- it was pretty relevant to a discussion that arose naturally and was entirely appropriate. And even then, I'm pretty sure it would have been straight people who brought it up, not a gay person.

So, really, either the homophobes here are overly sensitive and see any reference to anything "gay" as offensive, "unprofessional" and icky, or they are just trolls. Either way, they're idiots.

dude, now you deleted the RIP petition posts? weak.

David,

Why so shy?

Lat,

Seriously man, deleting the RIP petition posts was Busch League. Before today I thought I had you figured out; a quirky guy with a quick wit and fun sense of humor who could enjoy a good laugh w/o hurting innocent people. I guess I was wrong. Really, Lat, I'm disappointed. I'm with 10:25, today proved that I need a break from this site. I'll be back in a week to check out what's happened while I'm gone, and if things haven't gotten any better (i.e. if that insidious post is still here) I'll be gone for good. Way to spoil a good thing over something so dumb David, good thinking on that one. See you all later.

It's rare that I take the side of L2L, but he's right here. I think OMM could have done a lot better by going deeper into the classes at lower ranked law schools.

Who wears flip-flops to the office? My idea of busines cas is sports coat and no tie.

Piercings = Fired
Flip Flops = Fired
Grabbing associate's ass = Fired

Bye bye! I'm sure Lat will miss you.

Let the Eagle Soar,

You remain a dumbass. If gay marriage came up, you're sure it would have been appropriate, even though you think it's never happened, and also in this postulate that you don't think ever happened, it would have been a straight person bringing it up? Wow. That's really helpful. Thank you.

I've been to lots of firm functions, with lots of summer associates, and never once has a summer just grabbed anyone's ass, male or female, gay or straight. If it happened - and frankly, I'm not sure it ever has - then it arose in a flirtatious manner, and was well deserved. Also it was a senior partner. Maybe even a named partner.

I've been to lots of firm functions, with lots of summer associates, and never once has a summer just grabbed anyone's ass, male or female, gay or straight. If it happened - and frankly, I'm not sure it ever has - then it arose in a flirtatious manner, and was well deserved. Also it was a senior partner. Maybe even a named partner.

Any of you who are upset about the ass-grabbing are just uptight. Or trolls. Either way, you're idiots.

---"I'll be back in a week to check out what's happened while I'm gone, and if things haven't gotten any better (i.e. if that insidious post is still here) I'll be gone for good."---

While you're away, remember to use a buddy system when auto-asphyxiating. How many do we have to lose this way?

--"Bye bye! I'm sure Lat will miss you."--

Obviously Lat's not going to miss a single reader, but a month or two from now when he realizes that his blog has gone from a quality humor website to an XOXO trash heap, I honestly think he'll regret not having had the courage to stand up and do the right thing. This blog's headed down hill, and fast. Enjoy it while you can folks, cause odds are that by December this place will be nothing but a festering AutoAdmit look-a-like. I really hope Lat enjoyed his days of getting written up about in the Washington Post and other classy publicity, because at this rate their going to come to a screeching halt much sooner than later.

11:34, the exact same things were said when the Andrew Gardner threads were posted last year. Those threads were far worse than what you're objecting to.

Months later, ATL is more widely read than ever. So I doubt your predictions will come true.

There may be some hypocrisy in this comment, but:

1. This is a post about a particular summer and nothing else.

2. There was nothing tasteless about the post on the dead lawyer; y’all read what you chose to into it.

3. The coroner filed an amended death certificate within hours changing the manner of death from “asphyxia” to “unknown” so that may be part of the reason that the post is now closed—not to mention YOUR tasteless entendre to a neutral post about a prominent lawyer from a Biglaw firm who died suddenly.

PERSONAL NOTE TO LAT: Jesus Christ, it’s a good thing that you did not run with the necrophilia piece I sent you about the twin brothers in Wisconsin—where that activity is not illegal (for now)—let alone my annotations to the story! Now THAT was tasteless. But funny.

10:47

The point was clear -- that you (or whoever it is who has posted 78 messages here about how "unprofessional" it is to be gay) are hypersensitive. If someone just up and raised gay marriage out of nowhere, I'd probably remember it. But no one has. So any conversations on the topic really haven't stuck in my mind. The fact that it happens to you so often, and that you remember these traumatic conversations so vividly, just is not credible. So again, you're making it up, or you have serious trouble coming to grips with homosexuality.

I apologize for the name-calling. It appears I hurt your feelings. Please forgive me. Though honestly, having such thin skin is just a tad "gay," don't you think?

Politics, even if they are near and dear to your heart, are a landmine in casual conversation. Accordingly, a homosexual or heterosexual associate should not raise the issue of same sex marriage in general conversation with mere acquaintances, unless the circumstances merit it. If two associates want to discuss marriage rights, that's fine, but it is (like it or not, and I vehemently support same sex marriage) not a subject to be raised in casual conversation. Not to say that the subject is off-limits at work - it's just that there is a time and place for everything.

The poster in the wheelchair is absolutely right. Think of it this way: everyone here would likely think a bit inappropriate to talk about Palestinian rights in casual conversation in mixed company.

Politics, even if they are near and dear to your heart, are a landmine in casual conversation. Accordingly, a homosexual or heterosexual associate should not raise the issue of same sex marriage in general conversation with mere acquaintances, unless the circumstances merit it. If two associates want to discuss marriage rights, that's fine, but it is (like it or not, and I vehemently support same sex marriage) not a subject to be raised in casual conversation. Not to say that the subject is off-limits at work - it's just that there is a time and place for everything.

The poster in the wheelchair is absolutely right. Think of it this way: everyone here would likely think a bit inappropriate to talk about Palestinian rights in casual conversation in mixed company.

No, LTES, I didn't post anything. I"m gay, as a matter of fact. I just figure that others have called out the homophobes on their poor logic, but someone needed to call you on yours. You know ... keeping you "Straight", as it were. A dumbass is a dumbass no matter how liberal he or she might be, and you, princess, are a dumbass.

I'm not gay, and I love white wine. And mustache rides.

Thank you, Ms. Manners. You've said it better than I could, as you so eloquently do in your newspaper column every week.

"Who are these sick fucks who actually want the identities of fired summer associates revealed?

What the fuck is wrong with you? Have you no sense of decency?

Honestly, if you're so fucking miserable that you want to know the name of some 24 year old who made some stupid drunken mistakes and see him or her publicly humiliated, you need your head examined."

Wow - you completely misapprehend basic human nature. Sucks to be you.

i'm a straight white boring guy at a big NYC firm, and i'm all for more facially-pierced, inappropriate-dressing, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, omnisexuals, red hot chili peppers, progressives raging against the machine, conservatives aging against the machine, blue-state red bloods, red-state pinkos, and anyone else who will make my workplace and life more interesting. seriously. do you folks really want to work at a place where everyone is just like you? how horribly boring.

when we go to a client meeting, or a court hearing, the "interesting" person should remove the piercing and shut up about anything sexual, political, religious, etc. (unless that's the nature of the matter at hand, of course). and i will shut up about whatever political identity issue is on my mind that day. because that's just professional behavior, and the judges of the 5th circuit listening to your oil-rights appeal do not care to hear about your sexuality at that moment.

but if i'm BSing at work in the lunchroom, i should (and do) feel comfy mention my wife and kids, and she should feel comfy mentioning her girlfriend and kids, etc. then we can talk about whatever we feel like talking about. she doesn't have to talk to intolerant people, if she so chooses. and neither do i.

In response to 7:17's 7:22 post:

I support the right to be homosexual. I personally find it immoral, but you have the right to choose your own destiny. What bothers me is the "rights" argument in relation to marriage. You and I have the exact same rights when it comes to marriage: the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex. What you are seeking is not equal rights, but rather a new right. If you want to fight for the right to gay marriage, fine. But don't position it as equal rights.

Wow, that was very unprofessional of me.

11:47: Beg the question much? Your position on gay marriage may not be per se unprofessional, but the fumbling way in which you formulate the argument in support of your position suggests that you have no business practicing law.

So by your reasoning, 11:47 am, blacks and whites had the exact same rights under anti-miscegenation laws, right? Each was free to marry someone of the same race. Blacks were free to marry people of the same race; Whites were free to marry people of the same race. Everybody is free to marry people of their same race: Nobody was treated differently.

Or perhaps that is just a bit of sophistry based on how you framed the question. In anti-miscegenation, only Blacks were free to marry Blacks, and Whites were treated differently by not being allowed to marry Blacks. And vice versa, only Whites were free to marry Whites, and Blacks were being treated differently by not being allowed to marry Whites.

Or more abstractly, people weren't allowed to marry the people they loved. More accurately, people were allowed to marry the people they loved only when those people were what society deemed as acceptable.

Under anti-miscegination, you could marry a black person if you were black but not if you were white, because society found mixed marriages unacceptable. Likewise, you can marry a woman if you are a man, but not if you are a woman, because society finds homosexuality unacceptable.

So your specious argument that everyone is being treated the same does not cut muster. In fact what you're implcitly expressing by your comment is that although gays are treated differently than straights, that's OK because gay relationships are not as valid as straight ones. This is made clear by the very start of your eloquent post, "I personally find it immoral, but you have the right to choose your own destiny."

You will tolerate gays and lesbians, but you won't accept them. And that's what refusing gay marriage does.