First!!!

He is an associate that graduated in 1994. That's his first problem.

YAWNNNNNNNNN

Comment removed by moderator.

This is some funny stuff. I wonder how many similar suits we'll see if he gets a settlement/wins at trial, I know I've got some post layoff ammo locked and loaded if it come to that :)

Your grammar makes my head hurt.

first to say mysTTTal

I haven't been on here in a while. Do you make a grammar error on purpose in every post? like where's waldo?

Hopefully some of the laid off associates at various firms who have let people go on a "stealth" and "performance" basis after giving trumped up bad reviews will start suing.

The schmucks running these places deserve it - if things are slow, admit it, and letting people go after falsifying bad reviews is totally dishonest and needlessly damaging.

Yet more proof that Biglaw associates make terrible litigators. That factual background is insanity -- For some reason he forgot to plead on information and belief that "Corman is incredibly self important and has an inflated sense of entitlement," but jest pled it as fact. First, what element of any of your causes of action does that fulfill? Second, how can you possible prove some ridiculous subjective claim like third? Third, why are you such an asshat?

Guy really has his panties in the bunch. Some of the language is just strikingly personal and inflammatory. What's the point of even doing that in a Complaint?

How does that saying go . . . something about having a fool for a client?

The only thing one needs to know about the linked Complaint are the words "Plaintiff in Pro Per".

Sorry, do not pass go, no cigar, zero credibiity.

You are an experienced attorney know the lingo, and cannot even convince a decent (or any) plaintiffs employment lawyer that your case has merit?

14 - He was in the labor / employment group at Skadden LA. I'm sure he believes that he's a better litigator than whomever he'd hire to do the work for him. His pleadsings prove him woefully mistaken.

14 - He was in the labor / employment group at Skadden LA. I'm sure he believes that he's a better litigator than whomever he'd hire to do the work for him. His pleadsings prove him woefully mistaken.

I'm sure the partner was a jew named Dickstein, thus one of those responsible for the financial crisis and the destruction of america

12 is right. What is the point of alleging that the partner had to beg for work from others, and did nothing but pro-bono work which failed to realize a profit for the firm? Is this a frickin mediation brief or a complaint? It's almost worth finding out when the initial CMC is in this case in L.A. Superior and going down to watch the calendar that morning. This guys sounds like a douche royale.

12 is right. What is the point of alleging that the partner had to beg for work from others, and did nothing but pro-bono work which failed to realize a profit for the firm? Is this a frickin mediation brief or a complaint? It's almost worth finding out when the initial CMC is in this case in L.A. Superior and going down to watch the calendar that morning. This guy sounds like a douche royale.

20th! Fadingle!

Amusingly, the associate that Green reviewed so harshly is a class of 97, so you had the 13th year reviewing the 10th year.

I was interested to learn that I'm entitled to review my performance reviews.
I couldn't tell--how did he claim they had published the defamatory statements? To whom? Other employers?
This dude does seem like he went on a personal rampage against his practice group, like he just went berserk. And the random little tidbits like "Corman was too dumb" aren't going to help him.
On a related not, Corman's house in Beverly Hills is worth 6.4 million. Not too shabby.

and close quote

"for a Skadden's client."

"You can download the full complaint for after the jump"

I know these are nitpicky typos, but you're a FUCKING JOURNALIST DAMN IT! YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO PROOFREAD!!!!

Paragraph 109 proves the first three words of paragraph 9.

let the burning bridges light your way

I hope LA Superior Court orders Skadden to make him a partner. What a douchenozzle complaint.

Wow, this complaint is actually pretty compelling. I think Skadden is going to have to pay on this one.

The d-bag actually had the nerve to sue the associate he trashed in the performance evaluation.

Wait, what's going on with Cahill?

It is so obvious that this guy spent the last year working up to this Complaint, goading his former employers all the way. How do you spell vendetta?

This guy is one of the biggest tools on the planet. You can tell from his ginormous, ridiculous signature. Loser!!!!!

GG is HLS '94

I have to agree with 11. Has this guy heard of Rule 8(a)/"short and plain" statement?

29 --- The suing of the individuals is a major a-hole move.

Does the Complaint give any insight into the layoffs at Cahill?

"opened the firm up to potential malpractice claims from a Skadden's client."

dude you totally do this on purpose Elie. Your whole EIC tenure has been an elaborate spellcheck troll flame

34 -- There's little question that the length of this and the personal attacks are deliberate. Sometimes complaints are prepared less to comply with Rule 8, than to stir things up. It's not proper, but it happens all the time.

I knew (still know, I guess) all of the Skadden LA lawyers named in this complaint, including Gary, from when I used to work there. As for Gary, I always thought of him as honest and a good lawyer, although a little strange (but not overly so) personality wise.

The comments against Corman are not surprising - the labor practice appeared to have been dying for years.

I am surprised at the comments against Stephen. I always found him to be a stand-up guy and certainly not at all incompetent.

I can say that the way Gary alleges his firing was handled is typical Skadden style - bring in some big partners from out of the office, execution style.

I agree with some of the commenters above that the personal attacks in the complaint are both inappropriate and unhelpful. However, there is a lot of meat in this complaint (small stuff from the labor code that he can probably prove). I guess this is what you get when you fire a Harvard educated labor lawyer. If I were a laid-off or fired California lawyer, I would troll this complaint for some ideas (personal attacks notwithstanding).

I, too, wish I could attend the CMC in this matter, but unfortunately, I'd be recognized. Ellie - road trip?

Elie - please proof your posts. It's not funny. It's embarrassing.

11 - Asshat: sounds great, but what is it really? Panties? Trousers? Matted butt hair? I think you can do better.

I agree with 39, Stephen is a good guy and a good lawyer. Don't know Green.

Transactional dude decides to try his hand at litigation... interesting.

It's a shame that this guy's complaint make it obvious that he's a complete and total nut because Skadden does do a lot of these underhanded things and it would be great if someone had the balls to go public and call them on it. I wish I did.

The plaintiff may or may not be right factually, but he certainly has no political sense. In the offending review, he not only rips the associate, but also throws some digs toward the practice leader. Genius.

You can read all about it in the pocket part to my award-winning book "How to get fired"

What a douchebag. After reading his review of the associate and his decision to publicize that review, I can count the bullet points that he more or less proved on his own.

Skaddenfreude.

talk about burning bridges.

maybe we'll see more of these in this economy. makes for good reading at the very least.

Skaddenfreude.

45: that jumped out at me as well. The fact that an associate rips a practice partner to shreds in a review of an associate just screams . . . poor judgment, ironically.

Where is the complaint

Wow. Who would want to hire such a douchebag?

51 - see the red link at the bottom of the post above the comments section

Just heard Ropes is freezing salaries. Any truth?

Wow, we can quote TV in complaints?! I will have to use this technique more often.

The complaint is exihibit A on why not to sue your employer over a bogus performance review... Green's "poor judgment" has now become a matter of public record. Although the complaint indicates he probably deserved to be fired, an associate with more sense would want to keep his negative reviews to himself.

class of '94 and not a partner yet?!? WTH???

56 - Notice that he started with the firm in 2001. He was probably off doing something else in the interim (if he's a Labor practicioner, maybe as an ALJ with the NLRB?).

25 -- Well worth digging through the memo to get the joke. Bravo.

Doesn't his barbs at the defendents in the complaint reveal the claims of Corman...that he lacked good judgment? It is certainly not good judgment to call the other party dumb, nor the other ridiculous barbs. However, there seem to be some other substantive claims. Also, isn't his "craziness" symptomatic of working so long in BigLaw? Just sayin'...

Doesn't his barbs at the defendents in the complaint prove the claims of Corman...that he lacked good judgment? It is certainly not good judgment to call the other party dumb, nor the other ridiculous barbs. However, there seem to be some other substantive claims. Also, isn't his "craziness" symptomatic of working so long in BigLaw? Just sayin'...

he is suing the associate to whom he gave the negative review. classy!

can you recover attorneys' fees when you sue in pro per?

Doesn't his barbs at the defendents in the complaint prove the claims of Corman...that he lacked good judgment? It is certainly not good judgment to call the other party dumb, nor the other ridiculous barbs. However, there seem to be some other triable substantive claims. Also, isn't his "craziness" symptomatic of working so long in BigLaw? Just sayin'...

61 - No idea about California. In NY, pro se litigants can't get attorney's fees.

Wonder if reported the alleged malpractice to Skadden's GC to try and preserve privilege? And, even if I knew it to be true, I would never, ever state that another lawyer at my firm was incompetent. That word carries way too much weight in the legal world. Poor judgment? Fine. Immature? Needs more supervision? Probably better. But not incompetent. And I'd certainly never put it in writing. If that client does wind up suing Skadden for malpractice, I hope this focker gets named too.

61 -- I believe the answer in CA is that pro pers do not revcover fees.

I found the statements about Corman being "dumb" particularly jarring. Every experienced litigator avoids that type of personal attack. Even if he has legitimate claims, they are completely undermined by the hysterics.

65 - Absolutely. I never understood why somebody would write out a 50 page Complaint with detailed attacks and irrelevant information in it. Know the elements of your cause of action, state that each element is satisfied in one paragraph, request relief. Clean neat and simple.

The plantiff's douchiness notwithstanding, it seems like the powers that be at Skadden really botched this thing up. Telling him one thing, side-stepping, retracting, etc. Should be interesting to watch this play out.

Is California a Right to Work state? In New York they could tell him they're firing him because of his hair color and actually be firing him because they don't like his taste in ties, but it's still not actionable.

Agree, 67. However, how many of you actually try and enforce your rights under the labor code to obtain your personnel records while still employed? That, in and of itself, must have put a huge target on his back. Of course that does not excuse Skadden from being cagey about what it gave him (or ignorant about what it must give him).

68- California is not a right to work state, but neither is he alleging any kind of breach of employment agreement or discrimination. Essentially, he is alleging it is against public policy to fire someone for giving an accurate performance review and that Skadden violated various wage and records provisions of the labor code.

What an enormous, self-important, egotistical blowhard. I like how throughout the Complaint, he attempts to paint himself as a heroic and courageous whistleblower. Douche. The selective bolding is also priceless. The most hilarious part is that he also seeks retroactive reinstatement of employment and a retroactive promotion at Skadden. I am amazed this guy graduated HLS.

70 - The wage and record provisions I get, but I just couldn't quite grasp the thrust of the wrongful termination claim. Although it might be a violation of an ethical or contractual obligation to a client, an employer could fire an employee for doing their job too well or too efficiently -- and thus not allowing the employer to bill enough time for it -- and there wouldn't be any standing for an action by the employee, I would believe.

72 - 70 here. I'm no labor lawyer - just reviewed the complaint and put down what I thought he was alleging. As for the wrongful termination claim, my sense is he is trying to appeal to some kind of public policy argument - similar to being a whistleblower - for saying what he did in the performance review. You're right that employment at will makes wrongful termination an uphill battle.

What a terrible complaint. This is horrid. I am a paralegal and I can do so much better than this. Wow. Stunned.

How could they have not termed him earlier? Who in the world lets someone stay useless for fourteen years? He didn't even go for hostile environment. If you are going to sell your reputation, at least go all the way.

-Paralegal

In paragraph 109, the plaintiff quotes "The Wire"! ... including its Episode # - 58 LOL

"To quote the instantly classic line from Episode 58 of The Wire: ' A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie.'"

PwNeD! or whatever the term is ...

He must have been thinking that would be Sweet to use and then went through his collection looking for it ... or else he has a Wired life :)

If he is already citing to The Wire, he really should have found a way to quote Omar's "A man's gotta have a code" line as well. It really would have propped up his whole whistleblower angle.

You fucktard, bloody axe wound, roast beef curtains do realize that "pro per" is, well, proper in Ca. Right? I cannot wait until law school starts again so you soon-to-be chronically unemployed herpes soars will be in class.

I'm not a litigator but it seems like his personal attacks, particularly the ones about the partner's non-revenue generating commitments, are not targeted to the court at all but are targeted to other Skadden partners and colleagues who will read the complaint. He probably figured he had enough good substance to throw them in to make his point to the Skadden folks without totally derailing his complaint.

77 - Hey, fucktard, help a brother out and give the numbers of some of the posts questioning the use of "pro per." With a quick skim, I came up empty. I figure there must be a shitload that I missed, because you came out with guns blazing in your post.

[Nigel] This is a joke? It's a joke, right? [/Nigel]

Do you know how you can tell if someone went to Harvard?

They're the first ones to tell you.

Assbite!

It is great that he totally rips a partner in an associate evaluation and then is shocked, shocked that it would have consequences to his career at the firm. I hope he really got a lot of satisfaction in drafting this complaint and filing it, because it is just one giant personal ego stroke and lash-out. It is hilarious that he can repeatedly call a partner "dumb" but then bring a defamation claim based on allegation that someone said he has bad judgment.

78, that's precisely the point - the Complaint is addressed to the court. Including irrelevant and personal attacks that do absolutely nothing to further your legal argument but come across as contentious and completely inappropriate is asinine when you are trying to argue that they erred in firing him for bad judgment. It doesn't totally derail his complaint, but it sure as hell doesn't help.

Looks like many of the personal attacks were designed to cause problems internally for the partners disliked by the plaintiff. They will.

Looks like the rest of the complaint is designed to convince a client to sue Skadden for malpractice. If that client sues Skadden for malpractice, there will be at least one fun deposition.

This guy wants some money, but it looks like it is really about revenge, imho.

This is a perfect example why you don't draft pleadings when you're angry.

Elie, you continue to mangle the English language. You suck, dude. You really, really suck.

I'd love to be a fly on the way during the initial status conference in this case. The judge is going to ream this fuctard plaintiff a new one. Who wants odds that Skadden asks for sanctions and gets them?

I also hope this guy has either a trust fund or a big book of business. Surely no one will ever him at a firm or in house. Ever.

78 - believe me - the comments in the complaint about labor partner Karen Corman are already well known throughout the Skadden partnership. I'd be surprised if she even draws a full share.

Paragraphs 197 and 198 are the same. GG has the same proofreading skills as Elie!

Oh, and FIRST!!!!!

Oh, and his prayer for relief demands reinstatement! Hahahahaha!

Is this guy black?

i think #84 understands how the game is played.

Dudes..."In pro per" is proper---even if you are not familiar with CA law, just pull out your Black's law dictionary. It is short for "propria persona," which is Latin for "for oneself."

Dudes..."In pro per" is proper---even if you are not familiar with CA law, just pull out your Black's law dictionary. It is short for "propria persona," which is Latin for "for oneself."

Dudes..."In pro per" is proper---even if you are not familiar with CA law, just pull out your Black's law dictionary. It is short for "propria persona," which is Latin for "for oneself."

92 - 94 = Failure at everything.

95=fucktard

84, right on. I note that it has been almost a year since his termination and the filing. I wonder what happened during that time period that upset him so much. He could just be crazy. But it could be that someone at Skadden was bad mouthing him to potential employers and he felt like he had nothing left to lose by lashing out.
I'd say he's succeeded in causing problems for people.

96 = 92 - 94

Skadden has mandatory arbitration for its associates. So unless CA has some rule that arbitration clauses in employment contracts aren't enforceable, this gets dismissed and, yes, the plaintiff gets sanctioned.

The guy he gave the bad review to should countersue this douchetard.

98 sucked DIckstein and then shoved his head up Shapiro's ass

Holy FUck! Talk about Prostating yourself. but SRSLY>

ey Guys!!!! My Name Is S A F A R I 917-518-9048.............................

I Offer B B B J!!!!............................................................

Ask Me About 80 Roses Special!!!!...............................................

Yo, 103! I'm only interesting in the BJs from the Size 4 ladies and below. None of this "BB" crap. What do you think this is? A side show?

Anyways, this guy has emotional issues ... beyond pacifism. But now that he is a public figure he needs to mee the sullivan standard ... that sux.

He might stay out of arbitration if the 2000 agreements didnt have mandatory arbitration clauses. This kind of crap would not go over well with the arbitrators I used to hang out with back in Venice.

The complaint is written in this manner to embarrass Skadden. The more embarrassed Skadden is, it will likely want to settle the suit quietly and quickly rather than go through the very public Charney saga that Sullivan went through. It's slimy, but the complaint may serve its purpose if ATL covers the lawsuit regularly.

Also, Elie, if not for the comments, I could care less about a typo or two in your posts. But, it's annoying to have to read 20 comments on typos on every single post. For that reason alone, try to reduce the typos.

can anyone pinpoint the moment when jon stewart stopped being even remotely entertaining?

I dunno - the complaint reads like the comments I read on just about every thread discussing diminished bonuses for bloated ego fucktard associates who think they are owed permanent positions, never-ending raises, and rose petals in their performance reviews

BTW- dumbass P has his address as a PO Box on the Cal State Bar site indicating that he wanted to keep his residence address private - but then he goes and files a pro per complaint and puts his home address on it .

If you want to keep track of the fun, but can't get to LASC to watch, find the LA County Superior Court Website, and input the case number and you will be able to track the fun from home.

the unnamed partners and counsel who gave this guy his glowing reviews must be shitting their pants knowing they are going to get dragged into this

sophomore guys in my high school used to cornhole freshman all the time, then bend over and get cornholed by juniors and seniors then by teachers. it was no big deal. they just sued everyone who cornholed them

84 -- you're exactly right. He couldn't just come out and say "I know you committed malpractice. Give me money or I'll tell." This complaint is an end run around the laws prohibiting blackmail. 99 -- Mandatory arbitration agreements are scrutinized very closely by California courts. It's entirely possible the Skadden one may not hold up.

What kind of an idiot goes pro se in a case like this? There are some really smart plaintiff's side employment attorneys out there... If you can't find one of them to take your case, maybe it's not worth bringing.

So he tried to get someone else fired but got fired himself instead. Karma is a hilarious, unforgiving bitch.

Yeah... at first blush, the complaint looks poorly written and riddled with personal attacks that seem out of place. But that's this guys strategy. It's all public record now. Will cause PR problems for Skadden and possibly questions from some clients regarding internal practices. Skadden may very well want him to shut up and go away, and break him off a bit of money....

People spill coffee on themselves and sue McDonald's, crash their RV because they though it had an "autopilot" feature and sue Winnebego, or break into someone's home and sue the homeowner when they hurt themselves....and a lawsuit like this suprises you because.......?

Ambush

His review of the associate is petty. The associate didn't make arrangements to have office space available for an expert? Is that really what Skadden attorneys do? The associate barged in on an interview to ask another attorney a question? So what. I think this guy sees himself as a hotshot (even though he was only an associate) and thus felt justified in shooting his mouth off in the review and it was the last straw for Skadden.

This is why associates shouldn't performance review other associates.

jon stewart is funny as fuk.

114 is right on - this guy isn't looking to comport with procedural niceties - he's looking to back Skadden into a corner and settle - that may not happen, but if it doesn't, I'm sure he'll have more interesting stories to tell in future filings.

Hey - do attorneys hire attorneys when they sue attorneys and do the attorneys being sued hire other attorneys to defend against lawsuits by attorneys?
That could bring in A LOT of billable hours! I'm sure the firm could use them!

Funny how paragraph 38 of the complaint states "Corman was even dumb enough to try to document...". Who uses the phrase "dumb enough" in a complaint?

Are layoffs going down at Cahill?

123, yes. Give it an hour and i'm sure the blog-o-sphere will have the skinny. Until then I am going to compile my resume and hope that my phone doesn't ring.

Who's handwriting is that on the Summons? It is atrocious.

There are several things that you should not do while angry. Drafting and filing a complaint is one of them. While potentially cathartic, the downside is being perceived as an unprofessional lunatic. With poor judgment. (Bold font and underlining omitted.)

The reason he put all of the irrelevant "mediation brief" type "facts" in the complaint is so that they would become public. This guy knows the case flames out fast, but the pleading, with all if its irrelevant, unprovable allegations is his chance to tell his story.

And by the way, the relentless comments on grammatical errors in blog posts really makes this group seem lame. GIve it up already. If you want things proofread thirty times (which is likely what you guys pass off as deep legal work) read a freaking newspaper.

having worked at skadden, i am afraid the guy might be right. definitely not a good move for his future in law firms, but i am positive he will have some good points to make!

having worked at skadden, i am afraid the guy might be right. definitely not a good move for his future in law firms, but i am positive he will have some good points to make!

Jonathan Lee Riches > Gary Green II

The reason he put all of the irrelevant "mediation brief" type "facts" in the complaint is so that they would become public. This guy knows the case flames out fast, but the pleading, with all if its irrelevant, unprovable allegations is his chance to tell his story.

And by the way, the relentless comments on grammatical errors in blog posts really makes this group seem lame. GIve it up already. If you want things proofread thirty times (which is likely what you guys pass off as deep legal work) read a freaking newspaper.

having worked at skadden, i am afraid the guy might be right. definitely not a good move for his future in law firms, but i am positive he will have some good points to make!

103--You cannot make yourself a public figure by objecting to the fact that you were defamed. And public figure status is measured at the time the allegedly defamatory comments were made.

I hope the guy gets a nice big settlement. It always annoys me at the firms I've worked for to get glowing written performance evaluations, then when I'm "laid off" due to "insufficient performance" its always oral.

Lawfirms hate having bad reviews written down, they always have deniability, he said/she said, when its oral. Then they can claim any reason they want for firing you. And its your own skin if you sue, you may get a reputation and no firm will want to hire you.

that also could be why Green didn't get an attorney for himself, maybe no other attorney wanted to take on Skadden in a lawsuit like this.

Un-farking-believable. That's an attorney who'll never work at anything more than a shopping mall firm ever again. Talk about a robust demonstration of "very poor judgment" and having "significant blind spots." The complaint's an embarrassment to the profession.

I've no cause to love Skadden, but that complaint's just over the top. I see a §436(a) motion a'coming. I'd also be thinking, if I were Skadden, about an abuse of process claim.

My view:

Bad performance review - 95% you're screwed

Good performance review - doesn't mean anything if the firm looking to screw you

34: I'm sure he has, but given that this is a state case it's not necessarily relevant (not sure if CA rules track the federal rules).

I'm all in favor of companies, including law firms, getting sued if they manufacture bad reviews to get somebody terminated for cause to save bucks in a bad economy. However, in this case, Skadden are dead right and I urge them not to settle with this clown. His written review of a fellow associate and a partner was intemperate and downright stupid and it is perplexing that a lawyer with several years of big law experience would think it was OK to write such a review. Maybe he knew he was going to get canned anyway so he manufactured an incident for a wrongful termination suit (remember, he's a labor lawyer). Reading this complaint (or rather insane rant), the hyperbole used give the reader a great insight into the volatility of this guy. It's a vicious smear against a number of fellow professionals and career suicide to boot. Don't reward this behavior - don't settle. And no, I'm not at Skadden, never have been and have no particular affection for the place.

(1) This guy is an idiot, and has poor judgment.

(2) All of the allegedly defamatory statements are statements of opinion (not fact), and thus not actionable as defamation

(3) While allegations in a complaint are generally privileged (and not actionable as defamatory), it is possible to cross the line, and it seems that this guy comes very close to crossing the line (with respect to his statements about Corman "running the department into the ground). So he could face a defamation counterclaim

If you have to sue to get 'reinstated' as Counsel, you should go back to Pinkberry.

If i had given 13 years of my life to a firm I would be pissed as well!

"Corman was even dumb enough" . . . .

Nuts.

Dear 125:

It would appear that the type written denomination of the parties on the summons did not precisely match the Complaint caption and the clerk therefore initially refused to issue the summons—unless whoever manually corrected every copy the summons with a pen. Since the Complaint was filed pro se by an out of work plaintiff the handwriting is probably his.

The handwriting, while bad, is the least of the plaintiff's personal problems.

The moral os the story is that it is probably not a good idea to tell the partner in charge of your practice group that you are "done with her".

25 -- Nice.

Does anyone else see something strange here? The guy had the credentials to quickly land another good job. Why didn't he? I wonder if he was getting really bad references from Skadden and cracked.

Under the circumstances, this "Dilbert" cartoon seems to summarize things nicely:

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2004-06-23/

Love how he puts the partners' addresses in there. That's rich. He has a huge sanctions motion coming against him, and I can imagine that the bill will be quite hefty. Interesting insight somebody made about how all the statements are opinions rather than assertions of facts. Hmmm . . .

There is no CMC date set. Just checked the case online at LASC.org, under case summary, and after inputting the case number.

This guy has totally lost his mind. This is basically going postal, but in writing. He is broken, done, bent, cooked. He's a loon.

And, yes, he's begging that this client sue Skadden for malpractice. That, too, is rich.

147 - curious - where will the sanctions motion come from? litigation privilege shields just about every stupid complaint filed in Cali. if you have the key to getting around anti-SLAPP lets hear it.

148 -- It would seem to me that they can seek sanctions in having to litigate a motion to strike (based on surplusage (sp?) in the complaint, personal attacks therein, clearly irrelevant material, etc.). I wonder, however, if, to get sanctions, you first have to meet and confer and attempt to persuade him to dismiss the case without prejudice, and then refile with a "non-postal worker" complaint. I don't think a meet and confer requirement is absolutely necessary before getting sanctions. If anybody wants to chime in on all this, I could certainly stand corrected.

I haven't read all the comments posted here, but I feel compelled based upon some of the first 20 or so to post this:

I am a former associate at Skadden Los Angeles and personally knew Gary. He was a GREAT associate and is a generally great guy. Whether or not he is entitled to any damages based upon being douched over by Skadden, I cannot say. Whether Skadden should be ashamed by the way it treated him, however ... I would wager on yes. His suit will doubtlessly be swept into arbitration proceedings soon enough, and Skadden will doubtlessly throw him a few (big) bones to hush up, so it is unfortunate that the public (i.e., us) will never know if Gary prevails. But he should.

I haven't read all the comments posted here, but I feel compelled based upon some of the first 20 or so to post this:

I am a former associate at Skadden Los Angeles and personally knew Gary. He was a GREAT associate and is a generally great guy. Whether or not he is entitled to any damages based upon being douched over by Skadden, I cannot say. Whether Skadden should be ashamed by the way it treated him, however ... I would wager on yes. His suit will doubtlessly be swept into arbitration proceedings soon enough, and Skadden will doubtlessly throw him a few (big) bones to hush up, so it is unfortunate that the public (i.e., us) will never know if Gary prevails. But he should.

The CMC is set for April 30, 2009, at the main LASC courthouse, downtown. It's in Department 17. I'm going to attend, that's for damn sure. I've got to see this. Will anybody else be there?

He was "asked" to leave?

That's some mighty fine lawyering, Lou...