Add RSS RSS

Morning Docket 5.05.09

other bike.jpg* The bankruptcy judge has made several decisions to keep Chrysler afloat including allowing a $4.5 billion credit line from the U.S. and Canadian governments. [The Detroit Free Press]

* State attorneys general will meet with Craiglist to discuss the elimination of advertisements for “illegal sexual activities.” [The Associated Press]

* In the Court’s first public appearance since Souter announced his retirement—there were many announcements of decisions and upcoming cases—but no mention of the elephant in the room. One case that will be decided is whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to give minors life sentences for serious crimes like rape. [The Washington Post]

* A group of biker lawyers has gotten together to form a small Los Angeles firm that represents victims of motorcycle accidents. [The Los Angeles Times]

* The story of a Beijing lawyer who took on Communist officials in court is evidence of how little freedom Chinese citizens really have. [The Los Angeles Times]

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:09 AM

DAMN ELIE, IN HIGHSCHOOL YOU WAS THE MAN ELIE, WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO YOU?

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:13 AM

First to say first

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:19 AM

New Series: Truth about Latham.

Truth # 1: Associates Committee does not protect interests of associates and is used to give qualified or minority associates an up in their partnership chances.

Please share truths about your firms.

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:23 AM

Even Newer Series: Fire Eliza and hire someone who can construct a coherent sentence and/or knows the difference between certiorari review and merits review. Since this is a "legal" website, a candidate with both qualities might be a nice bonus.

-Every day I say "aaaargh"

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:27 AM

did that may day protest in front of latham ever happen? curious to know if all the sabre-rattling here is just hot air and hurt feelings.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:31 AM

OMG I can't even look at the main page with that awful ad still up there in the right corner.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:31 AM

It's definitely hot air #5.

Quite pathetic too. It screams, "I'm angry about losing my job, but too much of a pussy to do anything about it other than post on ATL."

The fact is Latham could have their pick of top law school graduates this year, or in any future year. The problem is they don't have room.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:35 AM

OK I'm going to say something racist.

The problem with the DealBreaker ad is that the girl is wayyyyy too Asian looking. Fat meaty eyelids, mongoloid bone structure, lifeless skin color (odd that you can tell even in black and white).

It's just nasty. Take that shit off.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:37 AM

SullCromm did not Latham their first years. A Latham is when you layoff more than half of your first year class in one office (NY, in this case). SullCromm only laid-off a few first years. I would've much rather Latham SullCrommed the first years than Lathamed the first years, because I know for damn sure I wouldn't have been hit by something like that.

-suicidal laid-off latham 1st year

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:37 AM

7, the worst thing that can happen to Latham if things pick up. It will be all second tier graduates then. Latham recieved the worst reputation out of all firms through this downturn. In reality, latham is nothing more than a second rate deal shop like Dave Gordon said. Latham only got work true elite NY firms didn't have time to do. Latham NY has no real clients who go to them for advice. Latham back to CA only firm.

BTW - 7, HR will also face cuts since Latham does not need to recruit. Don't make plans to go to fancy lunches. Rather, make plans to join us on the bread line.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:40 AM

4--I think that Eliza does a pretty good job. Calm down before you start calling for people's jobs.

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:41 AM

"It will be all second tier graduates then,"

They already attract a lot of top of the class tier 2s. Also, you're way overvaluing yourself, and undervaluing a T5 grad's desperation for a job. I go to a T5 and the people here are dessssperrrate.

13 Posted by Senator Clay Davis | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:43 AM

4 - Sheeeeittt.

If its that much of a pain keep your ass off the board and out of West Baltimore.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:43 AM

Dave Gordon is an alumni of Syracuse law school. Who puts a Syracuse alum in charge of a major law firm?

Davey boy, why didn't you do more to diversify the NY office? Then instead of laying off 45% of NY associates in 2009 and talking about how well diversified your firm is, people could've kept their jobs.

And more than half the first year class Dave? Really? That is just fucked up. You know getting laid-off as a first year fucks up your life, yet you whacked all those first years. Ya know, we all turned down offers at firms that didn't pull this shit, and now we're fucked, because we put our careers in your hands.

Well done Dave.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:44 AM

Latham partners:

You laid off a lot of quality people. Not all were quality, but when you cut your office in half, a lot of quality people get eliminated. Those included many senior associates and midlevels who will land a job soon, most at in-house places. You think they will give you business? Not only the anwser is no, they will defame Latham everywhere so others will be reluctant to give Latham business. Reputations spread and shit firm like Latham will have nothing to do in NY in the next few years.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:46 AM

8 = racist

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:47 AM

15, I'm a laid-off Latham first year. I've already told my law school to send anyone considering Latham NY to me for the real deal on Latham NY. Don't want them to drink any recruiting department koolaid and end up like me.

And yah, Latham is FUCKED. What they did was WAY worse than what Shearman did, and Shearman got fucked nicely. As a 2L, I had no idea what Shearman even did, I just knew the general wisdom was to avoid them like the plague.

You shoulda waited things out like all the other v10 firms Latham. No one followed you in your ridiculous let's lay off 45% of NY associates and more than half the NY first years bullshit.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:50 AM

YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS

Skadden Secure

ps - YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:50 AM

"And yah, Latham is FUCKED."

Whatever makes you feel better, too scared to talk about Latham IRL guy.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:50 AM

"And yah, Latham is FUCKED."

Whatever makes you feel better, too scared to talk about Latham IRL guy.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:53 AM

20 is a soon to be laid-off Latham PR guy.

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:53 AM

I am not at Latham and was hoping someone could explain why there is more contempt for it than other firms that have laid off associates. Honestly, from what I have read, the severance package seemed more generous than other firms. What did Latham do that is causing all this outrage?

Thanks

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:53 AM

I am not at Latham and was hoping someone could explain why there is more contempt for it than other firms that have laid off associates. Honestly, from what I have read, the severance package seemed more generous than other firms. What did Latham do that is causing all this outrage?

Thanks

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:54 AM

REVISED MORNING DOCKET BY ELIZA AND ELIE

* The bankruptcy judge [I HATE CATHOLICS] has made several decisions to keep Chrysler afloat including allowing a $4.5 billion credit line from the U.S. and Canadian governments. [The Detroit Free Press]

* State attorneys [WHY ARE CATHOLICS SO AWFUL?] general will meet with Craiglist to discuss the elimination of advertisements for "illegal sexual activities." [The Associated Press]

* In the Court's first public appearance since Souter announced his retirement--there were many announcements of decisions and upcoming cases--but no mention [I HATE CATHOLICS] of the elephant in the room. One case that will be decided is whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to give minors life sentences for [JEWS ARE BETTER] serious crimes like rape. [The Washington Post]

* A group of biker lawyers has gotten together to form a small Los [I HATE CATHOLICS] Angeles firm that represents victims of motorcycle accidents. [The Los Angeles Times]

* The story of a Beijing [JEWS > CATHOLICS] lawyer who took on Communist officials in court is evidence of how little freedom Chinese citizens really have. [The Los Angeles Times]

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:55 AM

23

THEY LAID-OFF MORE THAN HALF THE FIRST YEAR CLASS IN NY. IN 2009, THEY LAID-OFF 45% OF ASSOCIATES IN THE NY OFFICE.

I do not want a severance, I want a career. That is what is causing this outrage.

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:56 AM

22 - Latham's sin is that they introduced mediocre HYSCCN students to reality.

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:58 AM

I am glad that I just went to a Top 20 law school and that my grades were not good enough to get a job at Latham.

--Secure MidLaw 1st year

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:59 AM

The incessant posts of these elitist and annoying Latham (former) first year douchebags make me glad that they're laid off and not polluting the legal profession with their retardation.

I will never let my firm hire any associate who worked at Latham from 2008 to 2009, whenever I have any input.

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:59 AM

25 - doesn't the fact that you are an absolute worthless nothing without Latham prove that Latham shouldn't have kept you on? Why would Latham want someone like you?

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:59 AM

27, I wish every day that I had been rejected by Latham.

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:01 AM

In defense of Elie/Eliza, CATHOLICS are pretty bad. There was a study done over the weekend that determined Mexican Pig Flu actually is the fault of the Catholics.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:03 AM

THE DEALBREAKER AD MUST GO

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:04 AM

29, what i am saying is that i turned down other jobs during prime recruiting time to go to LaTTTham.

the time to get a job is during 2L oci, or as a 3rd year lateral. NOT a laid-off first year.

i could have gone to plenty of other places if i hadn't been dumb enough to drink the LaTTTham koolaid. but because i am no longer a 2L it's just a fact that i don't have the same options. anyone with half a brain should understand that.

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:07 AM

33 - The point is you are worth nothing with Latham. You admit it yourself. Now that they laid you off your future is destroyed. You were basically leeching off of their reputation.

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:14 AM

I am happy that Latham laid off all of these idiots. Less of them around for me to have to deal with.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:15 AM

"The point is you are worth nothing with Latham"

Is this what you meant to say 34?

Idiot. If you're going to flame me, at least don't fuck it up.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:17 AM

Life is so much better with that Career Center ad instead of the awful grape one. Not that I intend to click through on that career ad -- I mean, I didn't go to Latham...geez.

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:17 AM

I just don't understand 36, if you're a lawyer worth hiring, then why are you so worthless and helpless without Latham? Go use your "talent" to do something (lol).

avatar
39 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:21 AM

If you want to work with people like 35, go to Latham.

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:23 AM

These Latham rejects sound like chickenhead divorcees begging for alimony. "He took my youth" wahhhhh.

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:23 AM

Jacoby&Meyers>Locke Lord> Latham

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:25 AM

38, list the large firms that are hiring people with only several months of experience. link to proof.

THANK YOU

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:28 AM

42 - go work at a non-large firm. Let me guess, you've never actually looked for a job before?

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:28 AM

42 - Have you considered the possibility that you just suck, and that Latham should have never hired you in the first place?

You clearly have no talent or ability. The only reason you were worth anything was because you had Latham on your business card, and now that that's gone, you have nothing, and you are nothing.

Latham wants people who add to their firm, not parasites who drag them down.

avatar
45 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:29 AM

11:

"In the Court's first public appearance since Souter announced his retirement--there were many announcements of decisions and upcoming cases--but no mention of the elephant in the room."

Yeah, that's a GREAT freaking job. Go self-immolate, please.

avatar
46 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:30 AM

42, you only want "large firms"? Do you still suffer under the delusion that you're entitled to $160k a year?

Try finding work elsewhere. And if you can't find any work at all, what is the market trying to tell you how much your labor is "worth"?

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:35 AM

42, you only want "large firms"? Do you still suffer under the delusion that you're entitled to $160k a year?

Try finding work elsewhere. And if you can't find any work at all, what is the market trying to tell you how much your labor is "worth"?

avatar
48 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:38 AM

43 and 46, by saying that large firms are off limits now, you're admitting that latham fucked people over.

we all had other large firm offers.

anyway, done talking to you.

avatar
49 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:42 AM

48, no, the large firms are not hiring because the economy has changed a bit since your 2L OCI in fall 2006.

avatar
50 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:43 AM

Listen to these insufferable Latham fellating trolls who don't get the biglaw hiring model.

avatar
51 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:43 AM

"we all had other large firm offers."

Well then go back and tell them it's their lucky day, because you're now back on the market (lol).

avatar
52 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:46 AM

Lol I also had offers from people to buy my AIG stock for $80 in 2006. If only we lived in a world without time machines, where we make decisions and then live with the consequences of those decisions.

avatar
53 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:53 AM

LaTTTham

avatar
54 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:12 AM

All these posts about Latham are from the same guy posting over and over to make it look like there is some sort of consensus building.

And I also agree that the Dealbreaker ad has GOT to go.

avatar
55 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:13 AM

I turned down several other Biglaw offers and also some midlaw (which NEVER defer, rescind, or lay off) to go to Latham because they led me to believe that they were better and more secure. Now, as a result of that belief, I am worse off than I would have been had they not made those claims. It isn't fair, and I'm sure there must be some legal or equitable remedy I could pursue -- I just haven't found it yet.

avatar
56 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:13 AM

Elie PLEEEEZE can haz update on DOJ hiring? Which components are doing what?

avatar
57 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:18 AM

"I turned down several other Biglaw offers and also some midlaw"

Why don't you call them up and tell them you're available? They'll jump at the chance to hire someone like you (lol).

avatar
58 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:20 AM

LATHAM FOLKS DON'T GET DOWN, LISTEN TO THIS SONG AND MAKE IT YOUR ANTHEM.

http://www.retrojunk.com/tv/videos/62-perfect-strangers/2398/#intro

avatar
59 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:20 AM

48 - stop crying. You wanted Latham because it was more "social."

60 Posted by 1L yet to come | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:21 AM

Re: the LA Times Story:
http://www.freegao.com/

avatar
61 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:30 AM

Eliza: If you can't use dashes correctly and in moderation, don't use them at all.

(Or, in your parlance: If you can't use dashes--correctly--and in moderation--don't use them--at all.)

avatar
62 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:34 AM

Latham associates:

I understand it makes you feel better that you were the ones allowed to stay for a while longer before the firm restructures out of NY, but that in no way means you are better. Most of you are from shit schools who have been sucking up to partners the day you walked into the door. As a midlevel, I know many of you who produce shit work, stick around at night to pretend you are working and brag about how you went to lunch with a big shot partner. Because of politics, Latham ended up keeping shitty attorneys who don't do work, but politic all day. That is why Latham will be producing inferior work product and overbilling clients.

avatar
63 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 11:44 AM

"Because of politics, Latham ended up keeping shitty attorneys who don't do work,"

lololol

avatar
64 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:11 PM

55--After some brief research, I think I may have found what you're looking for. It's called promissory estoppel, based on the Restatement (Second) Contracts, section 90. Now I don't have the time right now to explain this equitable concept because it's quite complex, but I do believe you have a case against Latham

avatar
65 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:19 PM

Start a business. Make your own money.

avatar
66 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:18 PM

Stop crying - it's not the end of the world if your not working ....It's not cancer !!! Be realistic & just face the truth & move on..that's life ..nothing is ever gauranteed . Read the book by Bertrand Russell "The Road to Happiness", you may learn something new..Reinvent yourself...otherwise, you will not survive in today's world.
Good Luck

avatar
67 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:00 AM

Dave Gordon is a two-faced, scumbag liar.

Post Your Comment