Yet Another Biglaw Email Screw-up
Some minor email amusement, in the spirit of Skadden Arps and Pepper Hamilton, courtesy of the Chicago office of DLA Piper:
This is a pretty cool goof by Bill Rudnick, the new head of DLA Piper's Chicago office. A group of partners just came over from Locke Lord Bissell, and apparently one of them went back to Locke Lord within a week.Around 8:30 p.m. last Wednesday, three messages went out to the Chicago office all within a couple minutes. The first e-mail below went out first, followed by a "recall" message, and then the last message below.
Read the emails, after the jump.
Here's the first e-mail, which went out to the entire Chicago office. It shows DLA Piper's commitment to, er, total management transparency:
Subject: Randy Hack
From: Rudnick, William A.
To: ! Everyone Chicago Office
Cc: Burch, Frank; O'Malley, Terry; Mathias, RobertI am fine. I might change "came with him" to "joined us from Locke Lord". The "with him" could suggest he was the leader.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudnick, William A.
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 5:34 PM
To: Mathias, Robert; Isaacson, Samuel B.; Poulos, Michael S.; Rosenfeld, Jeffrey A.; Kopelman, Ian S.; Delman, Byron S.
Subject: Re: Randy's DepartureGentlemen:
Any thoughts on the following? I have gotten a couple of approvals. I would like to get this out by the end of the day.
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rudnick, William A.
To: Mathias, Robert; Isaacson, Samuel B.; Poulos, Michael S.; Rosenfeld, Jeffrey A.; Kopelman, Ian S.; Delman, Byron S.
Sent: Wed Feb 27 12:15:10 2008
Subject: Randy's DepartureGentlemen:
I have had a series of inquiries today about Randy's departure. I think some sort of internal announcement is necessary and appropriate. I propose the following, directed at just the Chicago office. Please let me know what you think.
***********
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As some of you have heard, Randy Hack has decided to return to Locke Lord. We are disappointed with his decision, although under the circumstances, we understand the choice he made.
Throughout the course of several difficult days dealing with some complicated issues, Randy handled himself with poise and grace.
We wish Randy well back at Locke Lord. And we remain fully committed to the balance of the group that JOINED US FROM LOCKE LORD. came with him.
Please advise with any questions. If you receive any media inquiries (which we do not expect), please direct them to me.
Thanks....
After one of those pathetically ineffectual Microsoft Outlook "recall" messages went out, this message followed:
Subject: Randy Hack
From: Rudnick, William A.
To: ! Everyone Chicago Office
Cc: Burch, Frank; O'Malley, Terry; Mathias, RobertLadies and Gentlemen:
As some of you have heard, Randy Hack has decided to return to Locke Lord. We are disappointed with his decision, although under the circumstances, we understand the choice he made.
Throughout the course of several difficult days dealing with complicated issues, Randy handled himself with poise and grace.
We wish Randy well back at Locke Lord. And we remain fully committed to the balance of the group that joined us from Locke Lord.
Please advise with any questions. If you receive any media inquiries (which we do not expect), please direct them to me.
Thanks.
Our tipster concludes: "It's weird that there's no acknowledgment of the goof in the second e-mail, or any explanation as to why the guy went back."
(39) Comments
Um boring email summary ?
Posting this on blog is dumber than emailing it to blog, which was dumber than sending email to firm.
BORING!
what was so transparent about that email? This post was ridiclous.
I read it kind of quickly, but I didn't notice anything wrong with the emails.
I wonder if these guys went to University of Penn State law school in philly?
This email blunder may have caused some very minor embarassment to a few partners.
However, it is certainly not a memorable email chain, and I would guess several ATL posters will deem it "boring."
The point is that the drafting / spin control procedure was shared with the entire office - that is transparency at its best.
yeah, this is stupid...who cares.
How do you start a sentence with "And"? After numerous approvals?
Holy shit, now everyone knows who the leader is.
you just wasted two minutes of my life
what is this dla piper firm. are they like montlick and associates
3:09, UPenn is in Happy Valley, not Philly.
3:15,
Using "and" at the beginning of the sentence is perfectly fine, so long as you are smart of enough to use it appropriately. Based on your comment, however, I think that you should stick to not using "and" at the beginning of a sentence. And you are a tool. Goodbye!
penn ("upenn") is in philly, not happy valley. penn state is in state college, PA, which is sometimes referred to as happy valley. And, it's perfectly ok to start a sentence with "and."
but penn state (Dickinson) law school is in carlisle, pa
bring back the bikini babe!
WHTFH, there's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction.
and carlisle, pa is the bomb because Miseno's and Market Cross are there.
@3:15: There's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "and" or "but."
Take a look at what grammar girl says: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/starting-a-sentence-with-however.aspx
WHTFH -- let me guess, you are either a 6th grade English teacher or a high quantity, low quality plaintiff attorney.
really?
How did this even happen? If I'm reading this correctly, all the e-mails in this chain are by Rudnick. He sends the first message to a group, then sends a follow-up message to the same group... then sends a third message with a different subject line to the entire Chicago office, cc:ing three people, only one of whom was in the original group?
Accidental use of "reply all" is understandable, but this particular screw-up seems to have taken a lot of effort!
3:29-- either way, when JoePa finally leave, Penn's going to have a tough time recruiting.
what is the point of the outlook recall feature if rather than actually recalling the message it just sends another message saying you asked it to be recalled (which is even worse)
4:45:
the recall feature actually works IF the recipient uses Outlook and has not read the message since it was sent. if both of those conditions are met, it simply disappears from their inbox and they are none the wiser. the problem is lots of stupid people don't know when it will/won't work or how to use it correctly, so most of us just see botched recall attempts. learn how to use your software people!!!!!
This pales in comparison to the typical Greenberg screw-up... Slow day at ATL.
Only Biglaw jerkoffs are capable of that degree of obsessiveness over what should be a simple e-mail: Randy went back- sorry to see him go but we understand. Best of luck-
For the love of God! Penn Law is in both Carlisle and State College! Get it straight, people!
http://www.dsl.psu.edu/two_facility/omicron.cfm
and carlizzle is the bizzle.
That's weird. I knew Hack back at his Kirkland & Ellis days. Good guy. Why would someone leave one firm for another and then return after one week and what will Hack's clients say about the musical chairs?
*squeezes out fart*
Is it just me or is DLA piper the most assholish firm in the country?
Learn how to act you tools.
This seems like a rather typical conflict problem. My guess: they didn't do a sufficient conflict of interest check before he moved, and then he had to move back because of some problem that couldn't be consented away.
Hey Lat,
Someone at my firm sent an email about a meeting to my entire group, and someone replied to everyone instead of just the person who sent the email.
Can we get a thread on it?
p.s. if you want something really juicy, I saw someone trying to catch the elevator at lunch today, and the person inside just let the doors close. They did not even push the "door open" button!! I can totally give you all the gory details for your blog if you want, just let me know.
InternationalLawFirm-In-A-Box strikes again!
Holy fuck does this blog suck. are you serious with this thread?
4:23 - Best comment in this thread. Explains why this is weird / funny.