first!

Can we stop with the idiotic "First!" posts? Get a life already.

541 just wants to be able to post First! more easily....

Three months severance plus ~100K bonus? I wish I had worked at Cadwalader. This would be the perfect way to leave that festering TTT. Much better than lateralling w/o 3mos pay.

Not a bad deal.

Who are CWT's competitors?

Wow, so 30 laid off, +20-25 more moved? That's a massive loss for a single department.

"Are we going to have difficulty sustaining this?" he asked. "No, short of some cataclysmic event that hits everyone else too."

Ha ha. Right on, brother. Right on.

Reed Smith is also laying off.

Layoffs are so short-sighted!

6:14,

So is a career in Big Law.

Other quotable quotes from Linky Dinky:

"There's a big imbalance in terms of expectations of law graduates and law firms," said Link. "It's all these history majors who found out they couldn't get jobs in history and decided to go to law school."

"Everyone should wake up in the morning and feel a little vulnerable," he said.

How's it feeling now Rinky Dinky Linky?

Honestly. As an associate, why would you enter such a high-risk environment, when you are not also offered a premium for taking that risk.

Same pay, higher risk, no brainer. For you lawsies out there who can't figure it out, I'll let an IBanker fill you in.

why does Anon 6:04 say Reed Smith is also laying off? which departments and which offices?

are the layoffs in ny, charlotte or elsewhere?

Lat, you presume that the people that work at these firms *do* go home at night.

hahahahaha....

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I kind of doubt that bonuses contingent upon making hours are relevant to people getting laid off b/c their groups had no work. I'm sure that some associates quickly jumped to doc review or other projects to stay busy, but typically if a firm is laying people off, it's because the firm doesn't have enough work to keep everyone billing at bonus levels. I'm not implying that people who had no work necessarily deserve a big bonus (although it probably wasn't their fault), but it just seems like something nice for the firm to say that probably doesn't require much of a payout on CWT's part.

6:42 is not seeing the picture entirely clearly. The layoffs are not because there hasn't been work, but because there isn't going to be work. Up until August, CWT probably flogged these associates with wild abandon, so many of them might have 2000+ hours from busier times last year. The problem is that, going forward, they aren't going to be able to sustain that.

What about the structured finance group at Alston & Bird? Does anyone have info about them?

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2008/01/10/a-rule-of-law-when-billings-slow-associates-go

CWT website shows 236 associates in Capital Markets (149) + Global Finance (87). Probably some puff in the count (i.e., somewhat lower FTE headcount), but even so, that's 15% layed off and 10% moved to other groups--25% of the groups gone.

Thanks, 6:44. Nice to see a civil answer to a sincere question on ATL! I just thought maybe the firm was trying to make itself look good.

the bonus announcement and benefits package are quite generous of CWT. The bonuses are based on hours from 2007. The partners could have figured 2008 would be slow, and stiffed the outgoing associates, but they did not. I think some credit should be given where it is due.

This is totally random and off subject. I just found out that my billable rate went up by 27%. My base pay went up by 6%.

Vis-a-vis the general population, both associates and partners are greedy. Vis-a-vis one another, NO QUESTION who is greedier.

MoFo NY is hiring cap markets associates. can anyone speak to the QOL there?

They fired "associates who had already been on document review since arriving in September"?

I'd rather be fired and take the severance.

7:06, no, those are the associates that were officially moved into litigation.

"As an associate, why would you enter such a high-risk environment, when you are not also offered a premium for taking that risk."

Look at the law schools they get their associates from and you'll have your answer. If you go to some mediocre law school and a big NY firm shows up offering unheard of cash for someone at your school, you take it. And I bet they will even after this.

7:13- yeah, oops- I meant to type "They moved..." I'd still rather be fired and take the severance.

I heard from someone in the CWT real estate group that 2/3 of the layoff's were for the NY office and at least half of those were from the real estate group.

What's the correct spelling for the past tense of "lay off" -- "laid off" or "layed off"? Being laid off is the same thing as being screwed.

The firms that lay off associates had better give a nice farewell package (severance, bonus, health coverage -- not just expensive COBRA) or they will spend years recovering their reputations among top tier law schools, whose students will have every incentive and many opportunities to go elsewhere. All that recruiting time, money, and effort down the drain.

"As an associate, why would you enter such a high-risk environment, when you are not also offered a premium for taking that risk."

You are offered a premium, and there's really not really much risk, at least comparatively. Big I-Banks offer much bigger premiums in part because those job prospects are *far* riskier. So one law firm laid off a tiny fraction of its associates? Associate classes at places like Goldman are trimmed in HALF -- EVERY YEAR. Everyone knows this -- the law is a repository of the risk-averse.

wait, so did they layoff first years?

7:43 is it really in half or more like 15-20% in bad years and fewer in good years?

7:43, what is the "premium" that CWT offers, relative to other firms where the chances of being laid off in a down cycle are much lower?

6:45, I would stay away from Alston's NYC office based upon things I've heard (not layoffs, just a general lack of work and a horrible culture).

7:43 -- The past tense is "laid off". Funny story though, several years ago, I happened to be leaving the office in midtown at approximately 3 a.m. and I was propositioned by some ladies of the evening who were driving around in a Lincoln Navigator. I declined their offer for a ride, and then caught a yellow cab a short while later. I told the cabbie about the incident, and he said to me (in accented English), "You have to be very careful when getting laid off in New York City! I have friends that come to New York City and want to get laid off and I tell them to be very careful!" I found that to be highly amusing and I did not bother to enlighten him as to the difference between getting laid and getting laid off.

Capital Markets and Global Finance are separate groups than Real Estate, so I don't think any CWT associates in Real Estate were affected.

Here's the scoop as I understand it so far:

NY Cap Markets - 14 or so layoffs
NY Global Finance - 6 or so layoffs
Charlotte - 15 or so layoffs (don't know the CapMkt/GF breakdown)

And why not call it precisely as it is: as far as Cap Markets NY, here's a further breakdown of *confirmed* layoffs/movements by "partner group":

Glick/Quinn/Rotblat - 4 layoffs
Weidner - 3 layoffs (and various transfers and secondments)
Gelernt - 2 layoffs
Gambro/Polverino/Pauquette - 1 layoff (but also up to 3 stealth, performance firings. Figures, right?)
Schwarz - 1 layoff
Other - 1 layoff

And here are the two good guys (which will come as no surprise to CWT alumns):
Schetman - 0 layoffs (but various transfers)
Stromfeld - 0 layoffs (rumored, not confirmed)
Rumored, not confirmed - 2 additional layoffs
Also rumored - several dozen staff layoffs, including paralegals

@ 8:06 - CWT's "Global Finance Department" is made up of its Real Estate subgroup and its Banking and Finance subgroup. I think most layoffs today in Global Finance were from Real Estate (know personally of at least 5 real estate associates in the Charlotte office), but I know at least one Banking and Finance associate was also laid off today.

Are the laid off associates still listed on the firm website - trying to see if some people I know survived.

8:19, thanks for the clarification. I didnt realize that Global Finance included real estate. It sounds like in NYC the bigger hit was Capital Markets though. I ask because I am a real estate associate at a competing firm, but we remain fairly busy. Any word on what year associates were let go? Junior or Senior mostly?

8:06

This is terrible, and I think you all should be ashamed for making fun of it. These poor partners have had to endure the long pain of laying off hard working associates they care about. I, for one, am going to thank my lucky stars that I'm not a CWT partner who has to console my hurt soul in my Upper East Side condo, at my get away house in the Hamptons.

It's just terrible.

@ 8:22 - Laid off associates are still on the firm website through Jan. 18 is what I'm hearing.

CWT
Associate Openings
Corporate/Mergers & Acquisitions: Corporate Securities and Structured Finance

Location: New York

There are openings for two mid-level and 1 senior (5+ years) candidates with three to four years general corporate experience with a solid structured finance background.

Candidates should have three to four years and/or five plus years of general corporate experience with a solid structured finance background.

Anybody have any guesses as to what the secret meeting at Sidley is about tomorrow?

CWT NY Cap Markets Associate - what is the fallout in the Lofchie/Shirazi group?

8:37 - Ya they are asking for donations for Obama

Yes, laid off associates are still on the website. They will be allowed to use their offices through 1/18, and can avail themselves of various services that will be offered to them (including job placement) for quite a while.

As far as bonuses are concerned, I think very few of the laid off associates made their hours reqs, and therefore did not get bonuses. However, a few of the firings involved laterals from earlier in the year who may have met pro-rata billable hours. They are probably the only ones who got bonuses.

Also, at least for NY CapMkts, the layoffs were primarily of junior associates (but no members of class of 2007) and laterals who came over in the past year and a half, with a senior associate or two. Some of the laterals were hard workers who entered the wrong group at the wrong time. They certainly don't deserve the rap that they were poor performers. Neither do a few of the juniors, whose only fault was to join a group whose work died. *However*, other juniors were poor performers, some of whom were not well liked. Good riddance, I say, to these *tier one* graduates.

My understanding of our Global Finance group is that much, perhaps most, of its work, has been in commercial lending headed for securitization, as opposed to syndication. That might explain why certain firms RE groups remain busy while others do not.

For the record, here's how the work of the various Cap Markets groups has broken down:

1. Gambro: mostly RMBS, especially subprime, with a secondary CMBS practice
2. Schwarz: RMBS, but primarily prime; whole business securitization
3. Gelernt: repos, commercial paper, warehouse lending
4. Glick/Quinn/Rotblat: CMBS and real estate CDOs
5. Weidner: CDOs, esp. synthetics
6. Schetman: CDOs, esp. synthetics, credit default swaps, other swaps
7. Stromfeld: muni derivatives

MoFo NYC is laying off in capital markets. or so I hear around here.

What if the legal economy stagnates -- or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of law firm conflict: East against West, rich against richer. Wachtell, Cravath, Sullivan -- these firm with their millions in PPP and their top legal talent will pose a much greater danger to the Vault than Brobeck and Fenwick did in the 90's.

8:41 - I'm not entirely sure about Shirazi/Lofchie, except that last week I heard a rumor, probably true, that three associates were the victims of stealth firings for performance-related reasons. Don't know what, if anything, shook down today. OTOH, the FRED group has taken at least one transfer from Weidner (or is it Schetman?).

Btw, the stealth fires have all been given several months to find jobs. But I would imagine they get no bonuses.

For those who don't know, the "FRED" group was once part of CM but split off when Lofchie joined the firm. They are an odd hybrid of a department, which the firm website describes as follows:

"Cadwalader organized our Funds, Regulation, and Equity Derivatives Department to match our practice expertise to the needs of our clients. The group integrates broad regulatory expertise, including enforcement, with the derivatives and fund formation transactional practices to which that expertise is critical. "

There is no secret meeting at Sidley tomorrow.

Lofchie/Shirazi group was told that they are all safe from the "layoffs" - performance-related firings is another matter

9 of the 35 were in the Charlotte office.

http://www.charlotte.com/business/breaking_news/story/440561.html

there is a secret meeting at your mama's

9:12.... Did you really just say that there is a secret meeting at my Mama's? Seriously? Super seriously?

At Sidley there are routine firm-wide meetings regarding year-end results and a few other things such as recruiting results, IT upgrades and other odds and ends. The meetings are not secret. BTW most lawyers in your group would be happy to answer any questions about such meetings so don't feel that you have to ask on ATL.

8:52, that was awesome.

what a piece of shit firm. couldn't even take a hit on PPP to support a few associates? partner greed (they're near 3 mil per partner?) gone totally out of control.

so make the partners feel it. and by that i mean law students--don't work there. frankly, you shouldn't work there anyway because they've made it clear how little associates matter to them.

Did a callback with CWT this recruiting cycle. One of the partners I spoke to was a huge ass and told me how profitable CWT is and how "culture is overrated". I asked one associate how life was at the firm, and he flat-out told me how he disliked the firm, and how he's leaving after bonuses are paid. Needless to say, I did not accept their offer.

My firm's decision to work with Cadwalader was based on its reputation not among law students, but among businessmen, a reputation that remains strong. I'm sorry that they're experiencing some difficulties; many of us are these days. But hopefully recent unfortunate market trends won't dissuade future law students from joining a law firm that at least knows how to cut its losses in a dignified, respectful manner. At least their outrageous fees get us results; that's more than I can say, from personal experience, about a couple of the other firms mentioned on this site.

Actually 9:30, while the Friday meeting is not a secret, you are either naive or trying to mislead this person by implying that most lawyers in any group know what it is about. Non management/executive committee partners and all associates usually have no fucking clue what is going on at Sidley.

10:47--they probably told you those things because you're a douche bag and they didn't want to work with you.

10:59 you can't throw that out there without enlightening us on who you spent money on that didn't get you results... come on!

Stroock LA laid off one special counsel with more layoffs to come

All CWT partners are rainmakers? Hardly! Even in its sharkiest of tanks, Cap Markets, the firm could have saved even more money by axing 3 or so *partners* (to speak nothing of special counsels). If JR, SG and KG were de-partnered, would any CWT clients care enough to take any business elsewhere? How about a Project Right-size?

CWT partners . . . to BJs with secretaries!!!!

8:52, I agree with 9:44. Good work.

All CWT partners are rainmakers? Hardly! Even in its sharkiest of tanks, Cap Markets, the firm could have saved even more money by axing 3 or so *partners* (to speak nothing of special counsels). If JR, SG and KG were de-partnered, would any CWT clients care enough to take any business elsewhere? How about a new Project Right-size?

CWT partners . . . to BJs with secretaries!!!!

why not both KGs?

11:53, good question. From what I can tell, one does have a few cients and, I suppose, brings in some money. What value the other adds is truly mystifying, especially given that notoriously embarrassing behavior last year. But if we are going to add in the other KG, you might as well throw NW in there too, given recent performance.

To the very small percentage of associates here who will make partner at a large firm:

When the time comes, will you volunteer for a pay cut in order to keep associates on board to sit around and get paid a high salary while doing very little work?

12:25--

I seriously doubt a nonequity partner would. I doubt a junior equity partner would either.

My understanding is that one is not on an equal playing field until after several years of partnership (if ever). I imagine many partners are still working hard to keep the partners with higher equity happy.

Besides, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This lay off hysteria sure is a nice diversion from the below-market bonus tizzy everyone was caught up in. In fact, the partners couldn't have asked for better timing.

And 12:25, no I will not.

10:59PM: Anyone else get the feeling that CWT or its PR firm is posting on ATL for spin-control?

Re prior poster's request for A&B CLT info, they seem to be talking a good game (long-term commitment to group they brought over this summer). I would think that these people get a cold when the folks at CWT sneeze. Sure, the work could have an uptick later. But what if it is 2009 later? Playing it close to the vest on that. [And forget that post on talking to your partners about this -- they have big mortgages to think about and are only happy to share spin, hopes, and good news. Way to get yourself hit with a label of being negative and not a team player.]

But what of Dechert CLT, Dewey CLT, and the new Pogo CLT?

My sense is that the partners who start new offices get nice guarantees and a bumped-up draw. In an up market, the next junior people get shafted (de-equitized, perma-counsel, taking more laps) and the junior-most people are indifferent in the short run. In a down market, I'd be / am a short seller on that, but there aren't a lot of other places to land in this down right now. Maybe time to head to the SEC if they're hiring???

Oh, there can be little doubt 10:59 is CWT or its PR -- probably the latter. "Among businessmen"? What sort of CWT client contact would refer to himself and those like him as "businessmen"? An i-banker? A GC? No way. Much more likely a PR noob.

And clients in CWT's practice areas don't exhibit the kind of law firm loyalty found in the (ridiculous) 10:59 post. They may find a partner or two they like, but their loyalty isn't going to extend far beyond those guys. Client loyalty to a *firm* to the extent of advocating that law students work there? Give me a break. If CWT can't get good people to sustain a high level of quality, clients with even a little sense will go elsewhere without a second thought.

12:25,

If I was a partner who had seen my income double in the past 5 years on the backs of those associates, I would have no problem taking a 3% pay cut to keep them around. It's called management. Even if you are completely self-serving, studies upon studies and life experience should teach you that the golden rule is usually the best strategy. Reasonably happy employees are almost always the best assets a business can have.

9:13
That's easy for people like you and I to say... because we're not idiots.

What?

CWT just bought a one way express ticket to the bottom of the vault rankings.

As a new partner, I think I would be the very first to suggest a layoff. When you are a senior associate, you are still close enough to hear all of the crying and bitching junior associates do. You realize that there are maybe upwards of 20%of associates that could or should be fired at any time.

The very thought of telling my family that i took a paycut, voluntarily, so that some loudmouth creep can keep his huge salary is just not realistic.

Those who are loyal and who want to contribute to the business are typically the ones protected. The whiners are the first to go.

I feel so sorry for those 35 attorneys that got fired. That sort of rejection is so hard to face. Who knows about the intentions or priorities of the partners or the terrible Cadwalader managment, my heart goes out to those 35 attorneys. How awful would it be to have kids at home or a steep mortgage and to have specialized in something for which there is no longer a need. It makes you doubt everything.
SO glad I did not end up there.

I feel so sorry for those 35 attorneys that got fired. That sort of rejection is so hard to face. Who knows about the intentions or priorities of the partners or the terrible Cadwalader managment, my heart goes out to those 35 attorneys. How awful would it be to have kids at home or a steep mortgage and to have specialized in something for which there is no longer a need. It makes you doubt everything.
SO glad I did not end up there.

I couldn't help but think of Jim Mora screaming when he heard the news. "Layoffs? Don't talk about layoffs."

What? He said "Playoffs?" Never mind.

Can someone please explain more to me about i-banking? Everyone is always talking about it as though you'd be an idiot to go to a law firm and make 200k off the bat. How much do you make starting out in i-banking? Can you go straight out of law school? What are the major firms? What is your job title? What type of work do you do? Does it require a law degree? Thanks in advance for any responses.

There are layoffs at Stroock right now that they are calling "performance based" but that is total BS.

If you're a law student without work experience, and in particular consulting or investment banking "pre-MBA" style jobs after undergrad, you can pretty much forget about jobs in investment banking out of law school. A select few can hop from law firms to banking, but there's an awful large pool of disgruntled lawyers seeking to do that.

Just skip law school in the first place and you're much better off. JD/MBA isn't bad, but I hear them questioned why they did the JD, and it hurts them.

NW is kept around because of his zeal and enthusiasm for laying off associates when his business slows. He's the guy that keeps everyone on their toes when Hayseed Bob is too busy counting his gold pieces to fuck up some associates' lives.

Are there any three things sweeter than ManBearPig, MF Snakes and Frat Stud's wisdom? If only I could all three in one post.

A lot of firms have too many associates anyway. A lot of junior associate work at big firms can be done by staff attorneys, contract attorneys, law clerks, paralegals, skilled secretaries, or trained monkeys. There is a a lot of dead weight at some white-shoe firms. Why not cut them instead of profitable partners?

And for all those law students on this board that keep trying to raise associate salaries and bonuses ("NY to 190" etc) - don't you think that's going to create pressure to hire less associates (and make them work more) or fire more associates who aren't billing enough to keep PPP high? Maybe CWT could have kept some of the associates if it didn't have to pay such high lockstep salaries and bonuses.

I don't doubt the good intentions of those who said they'd take a pay cut. And I generally agree with your sentiments. But I have my doubts about whether you (or I) would follow through in practice. And I believe the vast majority of your fellow partners would disagree with you, so unless you're the Supreme Ruler of your firm, you will be outvoted by your fellow partners. Also, you haven't addressed the fact that the associates really have no work. It's hard to justify maintaining the same number of employees when there is no work for them to do. Yes, you can try to shift them to different area (and CWT did shift some people), but you can't shift that many people. Layoffs hurt morale; but having people sitting around doing nothing hurts morale too.

This isn't meant to defend CWT by any means. The fact that they were left in this kind of bind indicates poor management, and the partners should be ashamed. They can try to blame the "unforseen" credit market problems, but most of the blame falls on the partners for not planning better. I feel sorry for the associates at CWT and TPW who have been effected. Frankly, their skills are so narrowly focused in a practice area that no one wants right now. Getting a new job might be a little difficult, particularly if they are 3rd years or more senior and all they've ever done is structured finance.

10:34 is right. Most law students and lawyers--even those who do the legal work to support finance deals--are quantitative morons. People on this blog love to talk about the option of jumping to finance, but very few people here could hack it, especially given the weak labor market.

There are a lot of comments on this board about how CWT - or any firm that lays off associates when the going gets tough - will have trouble recruiting from the best schools.

There are also a lot of comments about how CWT hires from TTT schools. Yet, given CWT's astronomical PPPs, it must not matter THAT much if a firm hires from TTT schools (like CWT) or is more selective (say, S&C).

How long do you think it'll be before more selective firms decide lay offs aren't that bad an idea? After all, if CWT partners can hire from TTT schools and still get rich, why can't the partners at the other major NY firms?

11:18-Agreed--I am a 2nd year associate at a V10 firm. I spent my first year in law school at a TTT did real well and transferred to a T-5 school as a 2L. MY LSAT's sucked--mid 150's. Didn't matter to the firms I interviewed with that the only grades they saw were from my TTT school. Got more offers than I could handle including 4 from V10 firms. My grades from the T-5 school law school qualified for honors. Firms will wake up and realize there is quality between T-14 schools.

I think everyone's missing the point about CWT. They suck, not because they lay folks off when there's no work (which is what any rational person would do), but because they don't have the smarts to diversify practice areas. They gambled by piling into the real estate bubble and lost, just like all their clients, and the associates paid for it. The partners should have known; the associates should have known; everyone should have known. Fear and greed, my friends. It really is all about fear and greed.

12:19: Agreed. The practice of law is supposed to be a profession, an art, a discipline, a fraternity. When it turns into merely a business, we become basically paid-by-the-hour workerbees (the i-bankers' back office) who are too easily interchangeable. I wish law would go back to the apprentice system with lots of training and mentoring, partners investing time into associates so that we grow and learn as attorneys. My mentor is MIA. The "free market system" is code for "Darwinism."

"[Y]our position is secure." This seems ambiguous. Is it
1 - Your summer associate position - and only that - is secure. Since we haven't officially offered anyone work after graduation, no-offers on a large scale are still a possibility; or
2 - Your summer associate position as well as the expectation that almost everyone will get an offer is secure.

If I were going there for the summer, I think I'd take him up on his offer to call some partners and ask what they plan on doing to mitigate the possibility of ever having to lay people off again.

1:18 - That was sent to the 2007 summers who accepted to come back as first years in fall 2008.

1:18 - read carefully - CADWALADER WICKERSHAM & TAFT -- MESSAGE TO FORMER SUMMER ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE ACCPTED OFFERS

Of course CWT is going to protect its PPP. That's all the firm has going for it.

8:08 - Very true about Schetman and Stromfeld. People are going to be fighting to work for these guys even more than ever. Better QOL too. Of course, you could be pretty secure working for Gambro too if you don't mind cancelling vacations and working on holidays.

8:08 - Very true about Schetman and Stromfeld. People are going to be fighting to work for these guys even more than ever. Better QOL too. Of course, you could be pretty secure working for Gambro too if you don't mind cancelling vacations and working on holidays.

fighting to work for stromfeld? the muni market has dried up worse than the CMBS market. the rmbs market died three months ago. as goes the muni market so goes the muni derivative space. i doubt stromfeld needs anybody right now. he's probably fighting to keep his guys, like that big dorky eastern european dude. good group though. gelernt not so much.

wow. I happened to see the NYLJ headline on CWT on my way out to court today.... yup, to court, as a third year. I did a year and a half at Big Law, and then, student loans be damned, I dove into legal services at a third of my former salary....

I go home at night. I make weekend plans. I love my job. did you read that right? Yup: I love my job. I'm being trained in real skills, I write and argue motions every week, and I don't have to wear business casual anymore (suits or jeans!). is the money really worth it? sure i'm broke. But that's fine. I have a great, money-is-tight life.

They will eat you alive. get out while you can. you're all smart, hard working people. and you deserve better.

My dad just got fired from CWT. It is a very sad thing.

10:59 no matter how much you jerk off to telling people you love your job, you're a poor and being a poor sucks dick.

Having seen one round of layoffs firsthand a few years ago, and spoken at length to associates who experienced the one before that, I just want to add that there will be NO CONSEQUENCES to any firm for laying off associates in terms of law student recruiting. For one thing, a graduating class of law students has no information about anything that happened as little as a couple of years ago. For another, there are always students graduating who just need a job, even from the best schools. They won't turn down an offer from a big firm -- and if they do, there will be a dozen from the next school down the list who will take it. The big firm won't have to dig too deep.

But the most important factor preventing any consequences for laying off associates is . . . [drum roll] . . . every law student's abiding and unshakeable belief that IT WILL BE DIFFERENT FOR ME BECAUSE I'M SPECIAL. Those gusy who got laid off just couldn't cut it, see. But I've got the gumption and spunk and high hopes and sticktoitiveness to pull myself up by my bootstraps and make it at the big firm! And then I'll be on easy street!

In short, they don't know anything.

11:20-- I'm sick of all this fucking "poor" shit. I'm at a big firm and make as much as just about anyone on here, but seriously: "Being a poor sucks dick"? If money is the only thing that gives you any satisfaction in life, you're pathetic. I give a lot of respect to the guy that walked away from money to do what he enjoyed.

Defender of the poors, you're the man. I couldn't agree more. no one really goes into a career for money. they do it for a challenge, and for opportunity.