Add RSS RSS

Opinion of the Day: Giuliani v. Duke University

golf ball.jpgMay 2009 must be a month of mixed emotions for Andrew Giuliani, son of former New York mayor (and unsuccessful presidential candidate) Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani the younger sued Duke University for kicking him off the golf team.

On the positive side, he graduated from Duke this month (even if he did miss the graduation ceremony). On the negative side, he lost his breach of contract case against Duke — and now, thanks to the humorous opinion by a little-known North Carolina judge, he’s being subjected to a quadruple bogey of humiliation.

Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon dismissed Giuliani’s suit with golf references playing through the whole 12-page opinion. Here’s a sampling of leads from various news sources:

ESPN: Suffice it to say that in U.S. Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon’s opinion, ousted Duke University golfer Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit against the school did not make par.

New York Daily News: Andrew Giuliani’s bid to sue Duke University for kicking him off its golf team ended in the rough this week.

New York Times: A federal magistrate judge with a taste for sports metaphors has found that Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit against Duke University for letting a coach push him off the university’s golf team is “a swing and a miss.”

San Jose Mercury News: A judge treated Andrew Giuliani’s lawsuit with all the gravitas it deserved — which is to say, there’s a legal document in North Carolina that was inspired by “Caddyshack.”

The News and Observer: The son of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to make a federal case against Duke University for kicking him off the golf team. But a federal magistrate says Andrew Giuliani’s case belongs in the drink.

The News & Observer wins the contest for wonkiest golf metaphor. Excerpts from the opinion, after the jump.

Here are some of the best excerpts from the opinion, posted by the Smoking Gun. Lovers of golf, Caddyshack, and sports metaphors… Fore!

Plaintiff tees up his case by alleging that his dismissal from the Duke golf team was a “secret expulsion … without notice, without an opportunity to defend himself, and without cause in violation of University-issued policies enacted to protect students from such arbitrary acts.”
This attempt to change arguments between the complaint and the brief is like trying to change clubs after hitting the golf ball — Plaintiff is stuck with the club (in this case the argument) that he first picked… Therefore, Plaintiff’s reliance on four student policy manuals as evidence of a contract is a swing and a miss.
Plaintiff attempts to take a mulligan with this argument; however, this shot also lands in the drink.
Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim, which was not argued in his brief, brings to mind Carl Spackler’s analysis from the movie CADDYSHACK (Orion Pictures 1980): “He’s on his final hole. He’s about 455 yards away, he’s gonna hit about a 2 iron, I think.” North Carolina does not recognize affirmative claims of promissory estoppel; thus, Defendants are entitled to a judgment on the pleadings.
Plaintiff’s fifth and final claim for declaratory judgment, which was also not argued in his brief, can be disposed of with a hole-in-one sentence: no valid contract means no declaratory judgment.

Well done, Judge Dixon. That opinion was a stroke of genius.

Ed. note: Kash must admit to a certain lack of impartiality in the drafting of this post. She is Duke ‘03. And the only golf she plays is on the Wii or on a mini-golf course.

Giuliani Duke Golf Lawsuit Shanks [Smoking Gun]
Law Blog Magistrate Judge of the Day: Wallace Dixon [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Andrew Giuliani’s Golf Team Lawsuit: Open Thread
Duke Uses Big Apple to Fight Giuliani Lawsuit

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:24 AM

Oh god. "Fore," not "four."

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:25 AM

Today, I'm going to drain my "balls" by putting my "putter" into my secretary's "hole".

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:26 AM

San Jose has the best lede by far.

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:27 AM

Umm, Mr. Nifong, Andrew Giuliani raped me.

PE

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:29 AM

I am one of LATHAM'S laid off FIRST YEARS. My life and career have been ruined because I went to Latham. I had so many opportunities my second year, now there is nothing.

Go to a firm that will honor its commitment to you when times are bad.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:30 AM

5

Short order fry cook. At IHOP or the Waffle House, they treat you with respect.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:30 AM

Louis Zaccareli hates Andrew Giuliani.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:31 AM

didn't read, not about layoffs.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:32 AM

If you've been laid off, people look at you like there's something wrong with you. It isn't fair to me because I was just a first year and Latham laid off half my class. The vast majority of the laid off first years were good attorneys but no one is going to give us a chance to show it because Latham fucked us royally. We will ALWAYS be explaining our Latham layoff, it'll follow us forever.

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:34 AM

I would appreciate it if you would all keep it down a little while I pound my secretary in her ass.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:35 AM

this is all fine and good, but does it bother anyone else that a judicial magistrate and nobleman would make such quick work of promissory estoppel? even 1Ls know that, because Mr. Giuliani relied on Duke continuing to play him on their golf team to his detriment in not having selected a school that would continue to allow him to compete on the links, this claim certainly survives msj. on behalf of ATL commentors everywhere, do not tread on PE. thank you.

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:36 AM

eww, i would not go to latham. they screw their assocaites.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:36 AM

Bracewell & Giuliani > VE > Locke Lord

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:36 AM

Restatement §90 to massive sand trap!

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:38 AM

LOL @ promissory estoppel claim.

- Troll victory

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:39 AM

"We will ALWAYS be explaining our Latham layoff, it'll follow us forever. "

Given that you looked down on your law school classmates without jobs, or without biglaw jobs, few care about your fate. The Schadenfreude is killing me!

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:41 AM

I would love to put Mystal's face in between Andrew's milky white thighs.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:41 AM

Imagine searching for a job

1) during the great depression, and
2) with the skill set of a first year associate, and
3) with the (unfairly attached) stigma of a layoff

That is the life of a laid off LATHAM first year. they laid off half of us in ny, a third of us in la, and then some throughout the other offices. All this because we chose Latham.

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:41 AM

Glad he lost his case. Entitled little Pr*ck.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:42 AM

5/9 - Stop whining and feeling sorry for yourself - absolutely no one cares. Latham did not screw you, you screwed yourself. Why? Because you did not show them it would be a mistake to fire you. You did not show enough initiative or creativity. You did not align yourself with the right partners. It is your fault. You are not entitled to a job simply because you graduated from law school.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:42 AM

Glad he lost his case. Entitled little Pr*ck.

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:45 AM

Anyone notice that ATL closed comments on both stories about the YLS grad who got fired from QE for writing a diatribe about QE's victory for the Redskins? I wonder why they would do that, especially since the first post was approaching 1k comments.

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:45 AM

Dear $250K in debt sans job,

Can I have your babies?

Love,

$71K in debt with job as of 9:45 a.m. 5/21/09 (to best of knowledge)

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:46 AM

2 - shouldn't you use your driver?

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:47 AM

Adam Lambert was robbed last night, and Rod Stewart sounded turrible. Absolutely turrible!

--Charles Barkley

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:47 AM

The Trail of Tears was Andrew Giuliani's idea.

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:49 AM

23

Given that I have $250,000 in debt and no job, it doesn't take a mentat like Thufir Hawat to deduce that children that we have would inherit a crushing debt and have to be sold off to the mines of Giedi Prime.

Our love is not meant to be. Try being an axlotl breeding tank for the Bene Tleilaxu.

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:52 AM

19/21 - he didn't lose his case yet. Magistrate Judges do not have the power to dismiss cases. They can only recommend a dismissal to the district judge.

So there is still hope for PE!!!!

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:52 AM

Since there is a jurisdictional dispute and the opinion of the court comes down by way of recommendation, I believe young Plaintiff Giuliani should refile in state court and amend his complaint.

I believe the legal theory espoused in section D of the opinion would be Mister Giuliani’s best approach, even though North Carolina does not recognize affirmative claims of Promissory Estoppel. There is no doubt that poor young Giuliani was lured by the defendant’s promises and suffered a detriment as a direct result.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:53 AM

Dear all,

$250k in debt sans job has broken my heart. How can I use Rest. Section 90 for relief?

Tearfully,

$70K in debt and still employed as of 9:51 a.m. 5/21/09 (to best of knowledge)

P.S: Nobody is going to have to explain layoffs that happened in 2009.

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:57 AM

I hope CHOMPERS the Chimp eats Andrew's face off while Mystal is in dem creamy milky thighs.

Wildcard, bitches!

32 Posted by DennyCrane | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:59 AM

This judge should be off the bench for bad judging. How dare he insult the promissory estoppel claim!

However, had Giuliani argues Promissory Estoppel, I could have won the case for him.

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:59 AM

WHO IS LOUIS ZACCARELI?

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:03 AM

Giuliani can meta-p0wn the judge by suing him on the ground that denial of the promissory estoppel claim itself denies a previously promised and reasonably expected benefit (of judicial victory), thereby running afoul of Restatement 2d Section 90.

Also, lol @ 2. Are you Neil Everett?

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:05 AM

I heart Danny Crain.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:06 AM

Please do not reference Andrew Giuliani's milky white thighs anymore. I am trying to enjoy a bit of breakfast.

37 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:12 AM

I recall in either the 1993 or 1994 US Open, I was at a corporate box with, inter alia, Rudy Giuliani, his wife and Andrew. Andrew defecated in his pants and the whole box acquired a putrid odor that forced me to leave Flushing Queens so quickly that my driver was pulled over for speeding before entering the Midtown Tunnel. The lad had to be about 5 or 6 years old at the time. This story about him still stinking up the place is no surprise to me.

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:14 AM

Isn't "swing and a miss" a baseball idiom, not one from golf? I'm a little ashamed that the NY Times adopted that as its 'goony lede reference,' since it's incorrect (and as I'm a Times reader).

I must say that the appearance of a promissory estoppel claim in this suit is indubitably a victory for the ATL Commenter (and TTT Slamin') population ...

39 Posted by DennyCrane | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:17 AM

39,
Yes "swing and miss" is normally reserved for the baseball press box. A more appropriate term used in golf would be the common "whif." But I highly doubt those liberal crazies at the New York Times have much golf background.

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:17 AM

I don't know why, but I really enjoy the PE shtick.

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:21 AM

20, most of the people in the class were great attorneys. the fact is, when you fire half a class, a lot of people who are quite valuable get thrown out.

it had a lot to do with relationships and who you had a chance to work with. they kept telling us we wouldn't be laid off, so i didn't realize my job depended on kissing the right ass.

also, you should care, because you're going to be paying off my massive, federally guaranteed student loan debt. enjoy.

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:21 AM

Well put 20.

"They may take our jobs, but they'll never take.....OUR ENTITLEMENT!!!"

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:22 AM

Why did they shut off posting again on the QE associate?

And BTW...I think that we shouldn't use Andrew Giuliani's name.

Please moderate.

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:22 AM

~ 32 / 39

Some things are sacred. You should be ashamed of yourself.

avatar
45 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:25 AM

"Latham did not screw you, you screwed yourself. Why? Because you did not show them it would be a mistake to fire you."

I'm not a Lathamite, and I still have a job (for now), but this argument is ridiculous - it presupposes that only shitty attorneys get fired. True, generally (and with substantial exceptions), firms try to keep folks for whom they see brighter futures. That certainly does not mean that the ones being let go are objectively shitty - they didn't get any worse - the pie from which they were going to bite just shrank. Not their fault.

avatar
46 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:26 AM

I have a client who was recently served with a complaint containing not one, not two, but three separate counts of promissory estoppel. I have two questions- 1) Is the time I spent reading excerpts from Section 90 on abovethelaw considered billable and 2) what ever happened to the Count?

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:30 AM

Andrew isn't the best behaved young man. He could have used some spankings as a child.

avatar
48 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:30 AM

46

From personal knowledge, the Count Layoffula got laid off. Since then, he's been hanging out on Sesame Street and seems to have given up on any thought of a legal career. He's now trying to be rapper.

49 Posted by partner emeretuss | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:30 AM

Of course my previous post was BS, but of course you all know that know. Back in 1993, I was still in elementary school.

Can someone help me find a job? I'm a 1L at a Third tier law school and my grades place me in the bottom 25%. That being said, I successfully fooled a number of ATL readers for a long time into thinking I was a partner at a TTT. That should count for something.

avatar
50 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:32 AM

20 aka Bob Dell, you are a cruel little man.

avatar
51 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:38 AM

20 says -

It's the fault of the skinny Jews that they were gassed. If only they had been more useful in the camps, they would still be making MP-40's on the assembly lines, and the other Jews would be gassed. So it's not really the Nazis' fault - blame the Jews for not working well enough.

(It's okay because I'm Jewish? Please?)

avatar
52 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:38 AM

30

I noticed that your debt went down by a grand within the space of eight minutes. At that pace you should be free of debt within the next few hours. If you can stand my chronic dandruff and athletes foot fungus, you will find consolation for your lost love within my arms.

By way of disclosure, I have about $75K of law school debt myself and am gainfully employed as well (though I lack your ability to erase debt so quickly). If you are willing to help make my loans disappear too, I am willing to enter a 2-7 day relationship with you.

avatar
53 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:39 AM

Laid off Lathamites, get thee a life. It's not the only firm which has laid off many of its first years in a shabby (perhaps even immoral) manner, but those laid off at most other firms focus efforts more on improving their own lives than being critical of others.

avatar
54 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:45 AM

53, Latham is the only v30 that has laid off a majority of first years in one office.

avatar
55 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:59 AM

The reason the judge dismissed the promissory estoppel claim so summarily is that North Carolina courts have, believe it or not, expressly rejected promissory estoppel as a viable legal theory.

avatar
56 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:05 PM

I was promised there would be estoppel!!

avatar
57 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:06 PM

I didn't know Rick Reilly was a judge in North Carolina. Huh.

avatar
58 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:07 PM

North Carolina law must be changed...please sign my petition at:

http://www.saverestatementsection90.com

avatar
59 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:11 PM

Ted Koppel?

avatar
60 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:21 PM

A Section 90 claim fails in the real world? Who knew

avatar
61 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:22 PM

52,

your post made my thighs quiver, lol!

$68K

avatar
62 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:22 PM

whether or not partner emeritus is actually a partner or a TTT 1L, the fact people are imitating him shows how big of d-bags those people actually are.

avatar
63 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:22 PM

whether or not partner emeritus is actually a partner or a TTT 1L, the fact people are imitating him shows how big of d-bags those people actually are.

avatar
64 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:23 PM

41/45 - Listen, Timmy (or is it Hunter or Aiden?), just because your mommy and daddy said you are valuable (you even have a plaque to prove it!), does not make it true, no matter how many times they tell you. Remember, Latham did NOT fire half of your class. What did they do that you did not? You think they chose you at random? Move out of your parents' basement, grow a pair and take responsibility for your life. Also, the comment that society should be responsible for paying off your debt is typical of the "trophy generation" - I did what mommy told me to, but I couldn't keep my job, now it is someone else's responsibility to pay my debts. Crybaby.

51 - You are a moron.

avatar
65 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:27 PM

"This attempt to change arguments between the complaint and the brief is like trying to change clubs after hitting the golf ball -- Plaintiff is stuck with the club (in this case the argument) that he first picked..."

Maybe the rules of golf have changed in the eight months since I last played, but I'm pretty sure you're allowed--encouraged, even--to change clubs after hitting the golf ball.

avatar
66 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:29 PM

This will not be a Cinderella story, at Augusta...

avatar
67 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 PM

I don't understand. How does this story relate to pay cuts, pay freezes, bonuses, layoffs, stealth layoffs, or Latham? These are the only topics that make any sense to me.


avatar
68 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:34 PM

the correct term is "lede" - not "lead."

avatar
69 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:36 PM

65- you cannot really be that dumb, or can you? the judge was suggesting that a golfer cannot change clubs for the swing that was already completed after the ball has been hit and is in mid-air.

avatar
70 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:37 PM

64, latham laid off more than half the class

avatar
71 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:38 PM

Elie -

Please remove this entire comment thread and disable it if possible - SOMEONE LOST A LAWSUIT. It is so inappropriate to make off-color jokes here.

What is wrong with people?

avatar
72 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:38 PM

69 - The stupidity that runs rampant on this board frightens me. Please watch the movie Idiocracy - that is our future.

avatar
73 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:39 PM

The entire Duke Lacrosse Team just gang banged Andrew in the ass.

avatar
74 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:42 PM

64, the partners did say it was random. it had to do with whether you'd been staffed on good projects, or had the chance to impress the right partner.

these are FIRST years we're talking about.

avatar
75 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:44 PM

70 - I understand how you could misinterpret that sentence. The point is that there is a large portion of the class that still has a job at Latham. Why do those particular people still have a job and Timmy doesn't? Most likely, Timmy just wasn't as good as he was led (or led himself) to believe. To realize that takes critical self evaluation, something that recent law school grads have yet to learn.

avatar
76 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:44 PM

18

I'm not sure that Latham existed yet during the great depression. But if so I truly can't imagine what it would have been like. No ipods and all.

avatar
77 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:50 PM

74 - Christ. Have you not been paying attention? Do not believe what other people tell you. It was your fault. The only person you can trust is yourself. Take responsibility for your life and your career. Make yourself valuable. Nothing is random. Why is this so difficult?

avatar
78 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:50 PM

54,70---Proskauer did, with 2 months reported severance. Most got the word 2 months after starting work and I don't see them whining. There are horror stories at other firms as well. So stop thinking you've been treated worse than anyone else.

avatar
79 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:58 PM

64 may be a massive asshole, but knowing how bitter and miserable he is apparently is, certainly takes the bite out of his ramblings. What a prick. I hope I don't work with you...

avatar
80 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:03 PM

79 - If you worked for me, you would know it. I choose carefully the lawyers who work for me, and I go to great lengths to protect them. I am not bitter; I am demanding. I will tell you the truth, and you will like (not love) working for me. But you will be a better lawyer for it. I guarantee it.

avatar
81 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:06 PM

That kid was an asshole when he couldn't be controlled durind Rudy's inauguration, and I guess he stil is.

avatar
82 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:11 PM

duke: great job on the victory. but lets take a moment to think of all the people out there that just had their hearts broken by losing a lawsuit. now that you've won, lets see if we can accomplish some kind of greater good by advocating a name change for duke. after all, blue devils is insulting to so many people (especially tar heels). after all, we are smart people, we should be able to put our heads together (and our friends and family) and figure out a way to fix this problem.

Fired Associate

avatar
83 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:21 PM

78, the difference is everyone knew proskauer was a TTT

avatar
84 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:21 PM

78, the difference is everyone knew proskauer was a TTT

avatar
85 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:22 PM

78, the difference is everyone knew proskauer was a TTT

avatar
86 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:33 PM

72, 69's reading is correct. It's the only way to read it that makes sense, so occams razor tells us we should read it that way. Once you pick your club (choose the claims in your complaint), and take a swing (go forward with the case without amending pleadings) you can't change the club you took the swing with (argue different claims after your chance to amend has expired).

avatar
87 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:44 PM

Laid off First Year--

Stop whining. You are not entitled to a job. And yes, it is your fault you were laid off. You were not as good as your still employed colleagues. It sucks, but it is true.

Right now, you are doing nothing to help yourself. Sitting on ATL all day complain about getting laid off will not get you a new job. Suck it up and start applying. You will get another job, and this will just be a bad memory.

avatar
88 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:57 PM

86 - I agree with 69's reading. I was lamenting.

87 - Thank you. My faith in humanity is restored.

avatar
89 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:58 PM

87, I'm sure I was worse than the son of a major partner who failed the bar who somehow managed to survive the layoffs.

This bar failure's ability to keep his job proves quite easily that it was political, at least for first years who had no written reviews.

avatar
90 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:01 PM

Ah yes, I see that now. I should heed my own advice. Meanwhile, 65 should spend more time reviewing civ pro and less time on the links.

-86

avatar
91 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:08 PM

89 - If you do not change your attitude this will happen to you again. And again. And again. Take a cold, hard look at what went wrong, and never let it happen again. If you feel like everyone is out to get you and nothing is fair, it's because it's true. Take responsibility for your life.

avatar
92 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:13 PM

91, i was a good attorney, as were most of the first year laid offs. i didn't do anything to cause this, Latham simply fucked up.

your attitude towards the laid offs is what needs to change. this is one of the things that pisses me off the most. some people like you are going to view us negatively. we don't deserve to be stigmatized.

avatar
93 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:23 PM

92 - You don't get it.

1. You are not a good attorney; there are no first yearsthat are good attorneys (some may have potential, but none are good).

2. Stop blaming everyone but yourself - Latham fucked up, my attitude needs to change, others will view us negatively, we don't deserve it, etc. You may not have done anything to cause yourself to be fired, but, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, you did nothing to prevent it.

3. You need to answer the question "What can I do to prevent this from ever happening again?"

4. Stop whining. Everyone hates whiners.

avatar
94 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:32 PM

83--85, I wouldn't disagree, although Proskauer's chairman does refer to Latham as a "peer firm."

avatar
95 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:49 PM

93, I did excellent work and my supervisors consistently praised me, what else could I have done? The only thing I failed at was playing politics.

avatar
96 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:49 PM

93, I did excellent work and my supervisors consistently praised me, what else could I have done? The only thing I failed at was playing politics or being an influential partners son.

avatar
97 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:57 PM

STOP WHINING!

No wonder you got laid off, you sound insufferable.

avatar
98 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:00 PM

STOP WHINING!

No wonder you got laid off, you sound insufferable.

avatar
99 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:04 PM

Ok 96, you identified the problem-- No one liked you. Now figure out a way to improve your personality.

Learning to shut up and getting over yourself would be a great place to start.

avatar
100 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:04 PM

98

No. Latham fucked me over and I'm pissed. If you don't like my comments, don't read them.

avatar
101 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:06 PM

95/96 - By George, I think she's got it. THAT is what I was waiting for. Although it may just be a rhetorical question, you finally asked what "could I have done."

Excellent work is not enough, and praise is worthless (except to your ego - which no one cares about).

You need to add value; to make the person you work for look good; to be the person the partner looks for when he needs something done now. You need to always be available; to be energetic about your job; to ask for work. You need to take the initiative and look for work within your firm, even outside your practice area (esp now in a recession) - even if you by-pass the rules or an "assignment coordinator" (remember, your firm did not play by the rules when it fired you). Treat EVERY LAWYER senior to you like a client - the more work you get from them, the more indespensable, AND VALUABLE you become. AND NEVER COMPLAIN especially about how much work you have.

Do this, and you will never be fired as an associate.

avatar
102 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:14 PM

100 - Dammit, you take one step forward, then 2 steps back.

FYI - I was fired 6 years ago as a senior associate. I re-assessed my goals, what I needed to do to achieve them, took a job making much less money to learn the skills I lacked and today I am a partner making more than any other partner at my old firm. You need to be critical of yourself, and learn how to fix your flaws.

avatar
103 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:27 PM

102, i was a good attorney and did not deserve to lose my job. you were a crappy sixth year. there's a difference.

avatar
104 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:33 PM

103,

You deserved to lose your job for sucking as a human being.

avatar
105 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:38 PM

103, hey, you actually had a chance to prove yourself and you blew it.

avatar
106 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:34 PM

Another judge who thinks he has to be clever because the case involves sports. It reminds me of a particulary pompous judge here who had to lard his opinion with his alleged knowledge of baseball simply because one minor baseball official sued another one for calling him a "fag."
You hardly see this when the case involves any other subject matter, and I find it annoying. I have said this before--Who cares? Just decide the case.

avatar
107 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:03 PM

106 - No joke. This looks like something Judge Kent would have written before he was hauled off to prison.

avatar
108 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:05 PM

Andrew Giuliani is an apple that has fallen far from the tree. That sourpuss has definitely taken after mama Hanover. Plus, he's packiing on the pounds. Lay off the twinkies Andy!

What a jackass.

I bet he didn't consult with his dad before filing the suit.

avatar
109 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 22, 2009 4:32 AM

104, hey, you actually had a chance to prove yourself and you blew it.

avatar
110 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 22, 2009 8:36 AM

Everyone is bashing Andrew Giulian and while his lawsuit might not have much merit what happened to him was unfair. A new coach comes in his junior year (after it is too late to transfer) and decides to cut the team in half. How many Duke basketball players would like it if they went to Duke and then someone replaced Coach K and decided to go from 12 person team to save a 7 person team?

And then after making this controversial decision, the Coach leaves to go elsewhere. Oh, and Giuliani's former best friend from high school, Mike Quagliano (Duke Golf Captain) now doesn't speak to Giuliani. Obviously, the coach pitted teammates against teammates. Its inevitable when the coach decides to cut the team in half and for some reason decides to only have a six man team.

avatar
111 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 22, 2009 9:13 AM

103 - You are beyond help. You can't even read. Don't worry, mommy, daddy and uncle Barack will take you of now.

avatar
112 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 22, 2009 9:13 AM

103 - You are beyond help. You can't even read. Don't worry, mommy, daddy and uncle Barack will take care of you of now.

avatar
113 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 22, 2009 10:35 AM

104 here--I am a different person from the person who got fired as a sixth year. I have proved myself, I am still employed.

Regardless, the fact remains that you too had a chance to prove yourself. Stop bitching and blaming everyone else. Clearly, Latham made the right decision.

114 Posted by Pacific Reporter | Permalink Saturday, May 23, 2009 12:51 PM

I want to score a hole-in-one on Kash.

avatar
115 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, May 25, 2009 1:11 AM

I agree that legal opinions/orders/recommendations should stick to plain language in general, but Giuliani's attorney was asking for it when he used the 3 Lord of the Flies references in the complaint. After setting it up, the judge just putted it in.

Post Your Comment