Frist! He shouldn't have gotten involved in the Schiavo case.

Anyway, nice job reporting on non-news.

They are trying to PWN A horse walks into a bar. At the Philly mediation they tried to force Ciolli to out him because he is friends with him and they are aware of this fact.

to the loser who posted at 11:35 - why write "first"? what's the point?

3 week delay in reporting on someting? sounds bout right for ATL.

To the loser who posted at 11:35 - why waste more space in the comments calling out the "first" guy? Do you really think you will shame him into not posting anymore?

Should have directed that to the 12:01 guy.....

Three week delays in reporting, like salary and bonus memos...

Oh wait, those go up on ATL within about half an hour of their issuance.

anyone who would be willing to lose a job and forgo employment in the near future to protect some nerdy sexist and racist douchebags on a message board is an idiot.

it is funny that people call him a "hero", he is a stupid ass. so are all those morons on autoadmit.

no leon - i don't think i will shame into not posting, but i just don't get it. after reading this site for a few months i would love to know why people think writing "first" is somehow cool. reminds me how many douchebags make up the lawyer ranks

To 12:17: Once the liberal PC feminists got their hands onto autoadmit, things were over for Ciolli. Even if he sold everyone out to save his own skin, he still would have lost his job.

12:17, Ciolli can sue you just like those girls are trying to sue xo. Just an FYI

12:17--link to anyone calling Ciolli a hero?

Thirteenth BABY!!! WOO HOO!

12:17 - He would have been even less employable had he ratted out his friends. No one wants an attorney who will spill everyone's confidences in an attempt to save their own skin.

Also, the entire lawsuit seems like nonsense that somehow made it into court.

Sue me for what?

Slander?

The primary defense to slander is the truth. I promise you that if we go into court I would have the truth on my side. a reasonably intelligent person would not continue to run a message board with racists and sexist posters if he knew that it would cost him the opportunity to make > $150K a year.

If that is not the definition of stupid, then what is?

Sue me for what?

Slander?

The primary defense to slander is the truth. I promise you that if we go into court I would have the truth on my side. a reasonably intelligent person would not continue to run a message board with racists and sexist posters if he knew that it would cost him the opportunity to make > $150K a year.

If that is not the definition of stupid, then what is?

12:17 - He would have been even less employable had he ratted out his friends. No one wants an attorney who will spill everyone's confidences in an attempt to save their own skin.

Also, the entire lawsuit seems like nonsense that somehow made it into court.

12:35 Ciolli continues to run the site, and I don't understand why the hell someone would continue to do that? Is there anything that is good that has come out of his continue ownership of the site?

12:17 "his" own skin. "No one wants an attorney [note: singular] who will ... to save HIS [singular] skin." Honestly, how did you obtain a bachelor's degree let alone complete law school?

Ciolli = HERO

"He would have been even less employable had he ratted out his friends."
__________________________________
His "friends"? They're not his "friends"; they're just a bunch of idiots hiding behind Internet anonymity to say what they wouldn't even whisper in reality. He doesn't know them from Adam, and if they were real "friends," they would step forward and stand by him AND their words.

The very fact that they post that garbage shows that they don't have the character to do either, which is why he's getting exactly what he deserves by providing them a forum. Good for the whole lot of them.

Well said 12:44, and the funny part is most of these anonymous users on XOXO would "rat" Ciolli out in an instant to save their own offer.

These losers all deserve each other.

I'm hungry.

here is a link to someone supporting Ciolli and making him a martyr 12:30

http://nancyrapoport.blogspot.com/2007/09/for-goodness-sakes-give-anthony-ciolli.html

In all seriousness, if some idiots come to the town square and shouts racists or slanderous comments, do you go after the idiots or shut down the town square?

Those Yale chicks are just being vindictive bitches.

"OMG I DIDN"T GET A JOB FROM INTERVIEWS MUST BE BECAUSE OF XOXO AND NOT THAT I"M A HUGE BITCH"

***

The above comments does not express the opinion of Abovethelaw.com and is meant as personal opinion and commentary on the bitchiness of the plaintiffs in the case of Doe v. Ciolli, as covered by THE FIRST AMENDMENT. The bitchiness of said plaintiffs have not been personally confirmed by the author and readers should not construe them as accurate depictions of their bitch level (unless you are an idiot). If you are a big law firm, do not use the above comments as part of your hiring material, since even the biggest idiot knows that the internet is not the best source of accurate information about people. This comment is meant to be humorous and in no way implies that said plaintiffs would not be able to work a day in a real job because they potentially have awful personalities and don't know how to handle issues with the appropriate level of response. PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER.

You sure are smart, 1:14.

The 1st amendment keeps the government from restricting speech, private citizens (particularly employers) are free to restrain speech all they wish. I fail to see how the 1st amendment is relevant to this issue. Enjoy Con Law I next semester 1L.

The 1st amendment keeps the government from restricting speech, private citizens (particularly employers) are free to restrain speech all they wish. I fail to see how the 1st amendment is relevant to this issue. Enjoy Con Law I next semester 1L.

They should be sued. It is unacceptable to have intolerant opinions in this country.

Hopefully once AutoAdmit goes down, we'll move on to other targets, like books.

I couldn't see them (YLS girls) actually wanting to go through with the lawsuit.

I can't imagine they'd want to go through discovery for that stuff (implants? equine thievery? and so on), particularly when some of it seems to be true, which makes the D's immune from per se defamation.

I can't imagine this was a "real" lawsuit intended to do anything other than harass and destroy Ciolli's career (and it seems to have been somewhat successful on that front).

Wow that guy looks like a douchebag.

No one is talking about burning books

Ciolli needs to be responsible for his own actions. If prospective employers do not wish to employ intolerant individuals then they are well within their rights to do so.

The posters post anonymously because they aren't brave enough to deal with the repercussions of their actions in real life.

Never forget that these guys from XOXO are cockroaches. You throw the light of day on them and watch them scatter.

I don't see any of them stepping forward.. into the light.. to defend their so-called hero Ciolli. Ciolli is definitely stupid for continuing to run the message board.

Why is it anymore unimaginable that they would go through witht their suit than that people would post that bullshit in the first place? They're exercising their legal rights just like Ciolli and his posters--so why are they the "oppressors" but Ciolli is a hero?

What firm did Ciolli get fired from? Was it prestigious?

2:05 - Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge. You decide.

hey, what do you call a court ruling enjoining private action? HINT: the courts are one of three branches of the what?

btw, they teach individual rights in CON LAW II

I fail to see where the state action is when Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge fired Ciolli.

Sure you have free speech, but your speech will have consequences.

These losers can spout of all they want, but that does not mean that private employers are not within their rights not to hire Ciolli et all.

I hope they unmask all of these clowns so that we can watch them shrivel under the spotlights. Roaches indeed.

2:19, no it was not prestigious. how sad and ironic for him.

This is the funniest part of the whole story--the guy goes to PENN and lost an offer to EDWARDS, ANGELL--where's the PRESTIGE?

By the way 1:14, publication is not a private action. I guess it's back to "Torts for Dummies" for you!

1:14 got PWN3D!!

Lololollo 1:14 got PWN3d

I don't get it? What did AC actually do? He didn't make the statements in question.

Even if they're not close friends he's refusing to disclose the identities of people who trusted in him. The fact that you don't see why this would be a beneficial character trait speaks more of you than him.

Does he still run the site? I'm pretty sure he doesn't. In fact, I think he stopped running it even before he got fired.

Finally, this all reflects far worse on the plaintiffs than on anyone else, in my opinion.

If you're so impressed by Mr. Ciolli's character, you are free to employ him, 5:06.

Of course, then you couldn't make your heroic stand for freedom of speech by posting anonymously on a message board. :-)

5:44: While jr. associates are not in a position to hire anyone, I would not refuse to hire someone for AC's past, at least as it relates to AutoAdmit.

I fully recognize that our profession requires lawyers at large firms to be politically correct and non-controversial. However, this is not to our credit, particularly given the role lawyers play in our society.

"I fully recognize that our profession requires lawyers at large firms to be politically correct and non-controversial. However, this is not to our credit, particularly given the role lawyers play in our society."

What role as that? As providers of forums for the publication of libel?

And you don't need to be in a position to hire him to publically support him--a junior associates can certainly do that if you sincerely believe that he has done nothing more than be "politically incorrect."

I was reading xoxo during the scandal that led to the suit and it was ridiculous how defamatory posts kept going up, while Ciolli watched and did nothing. He even publicly insulted one of the slandered girls for contacting him at his personal email address (oh the inconvenience!).

I'm glad Ciolli lost his job over this and I hope those anonymous cowards are outted and made to pay for their actions.

I'm surprised they don't redact his address on the imaged certificate of service. Nice to know that any yahoo that can sue and make a lot of noise will be able to draw a lot of public attention to your home address on the internet.

Ciolli should use his infamy to make some money. Maybe get into porn.

To Articles Editor | October 31, 2007 12:43 PM:

How did you get through HIGH SCHOOL without learning to read a dictionary?

"Their" is defined as "his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent [[]anyone in their senses — W. H. Auden[]]." their, Merriam-Webster OnLine, http://m-w.com/dictionary/their (last visited Nov. 1, 2007). Since not all attorneys are male, the antecedent is indefinite.

Next time, don't be so quick to be an annoying and misinformed pedant.

XOXO

HTH

"What role as that? As providers of forums for the publication of libel?"

How about as someone that merely ran an open forum?

"And you don't need to be in a position to hire him to publically support him--a junior associates can certainly do that if you sincerely believe that he has done nothing more than be "politically incorrect.""

You know perfectly well that in our profession, particularly as a junior associate at a large firm, you can't simply stand up for what you really believe if that belief creates any controversy whatsoever. Frankly, I suspect that the only reason you're encouraging this is because you would love to see someone else suffer career difficulties because of this frivolous lawsuit.

"What role as that? As providers of forums for the publication of libel?"

"How about as someone that merely ran an open forum?"
__________________________________

In which people were libeled with his knowledge and without in effort on his part to stop it. Stop playing dumb.

"And you don't need to be in a position to hire him to publically support him--a junior associates can certainly do that if you sincerely believe that he has done nothing more than be "politically incorrect.""

"You know perfectly well that in our profession, particularly as a junior associate at a large firm, you can't simply stand up for what you really believe if that belief creates any controversy whatsoever. "
__________________________________

What I know perfectly well is that there is no such thing as freedom without cost, which is the dream of the unprincipled. That's why people go to xoxo, and that's why people like you are so upset that someone expects you to marry your words instead of just flirt with them, as if you have some "right" to hide what you really are.

It isn't the "freedom" to make Auschwitz jokes that you want, because you have that freedom--it's the freedom to maintain the facade of someone too decent to do such a thing, the veneer of someone who's fit to be a part of a civilized society. Well, there is no such "right," and people who refuse to help you hide what you are aren't "oppressing" you.

11:52, it's reactionary hysterics like you that make it impossible for people to comfortably voice unpopular opinions of any sort, tactful or otherwise.

For people like you to say with a straight face that people have the freedom to express themselves because petty, spiteful reprisal comes from private entities as opposed to public ones makes exactly as much sense as it did for the South to say that blacks had the "freedom" to vote under the grandfather clauses of Jim Crow.

LOL@"it's reactionary hysterics like you that make it impossible for people to comfortably voice unpopular opinions of any sort, tactful or otherwise."

Poor thing--you can't "comfortably" voice your unpopular opinions because of "reactionary hysterics" like me--not because you're a coward.

Why, you're like a black trying to vote in the Jim Crow South! Having your Edwards, Angell offer rescinded is akin to being strung up and having your genitals hacked off and plopped in a pickling jar as a souvenir for the kiddies!

Really--can't the campus Federalist Societies come up with better drivel than this?

@11:52 and 1:19.

Amusing. I suspect that if people were being fired for opposing the war you would be up in arms about freedom of speech.

That said, you're essentially stating that there's freedom of speech so long as its not actually used to voice something politically incorrect. Otherwise, the author needs to be identified and punished. This isn't freedom of speech. I especially appreciated how you stuck in that real freedom of speech is "the dream of the unprincipled." You are the reason both this profession and this country are sinking.

@11:52 and 1:19.

Amusing. I suspect that if people were being fired for opposing the war you would be up in arms about freedom of speech.

That said, you're essentially stating that there's freedom of speech so long as its not actually used to voice something politically incorrect. Otherwise, the author needs to be identified and punished. This isn't freedom of speech. I especially appreciated how you stuck in that real freedom of speech is "the dream of the unprincipled." You are the reason both this profession and this country are sinking.

@11:52 and 1:19.

Amusing. I suspect that if people were being fired for opposing the war you would be up in arms about freedom of speech.

That said, you're essentially stating that there's freedom of speech so long as its not actually used to voice something politically incorrect. Otherwise, the author needs to be identified and punished. This isn't freedom of speech. I especially appreciated how you stuck in that real freedom of speech is "the dream of the unprincipled." You are the reason both this profession and this country are sinking.

"you're essentially stating that there's freedom of speech so long as its not actually used to voice something politically incorrect."

Yep--that's what I'm essentially saying. Can't hide the truth from you!

Why am I not surprised that your posting skills are no improvement over your reasoning? How sad . . .

So far, your posting skills and reasoning both seem to consist of ad hominems combined with authoritarianism combined with moralism. Frankly, I suspect that you're flame.