Quinn Emanuel Associate Has Reservations About ‘Redskin’ Victory
Here’s a post devoted to the perils of “Reply All” and idealism among first-year associates. Brought to you by the attorneys of Quinn Emanuel.
The firm just celebrated a victory in its Washington Redskins case, reports the Washington Post:
A federal appeals court yesterday handed the Washington Redskins another victory in their long-running legal dispute with Native American activists over the team’s name.The appeals court did not address whether the name was offensive but upheld a federal judge’s ruling last year that a Native American man had waited too long to challenge six Redskins trademarks.
AmLaw Daily reports that Quinn attorney Robert Raskopf, who has been working on the case for as long it has been since the Redskins have seen a Superbowl stadium, was pretty psyched about the victory:
Raskopf was in a good mood when we spoke with him about the appellate win. He’s been on the case since it started 17 years ago. “It’s a great win for the team,” said Raskopf, who had help from Quinn partner Sanford Weisburst on the brief. “I’m so happy for the Redskins and their fans.”
Raskopf was so happy on Friday that he sent out a firm-wide victory e-mail. But not everybody was thrilled. After bouncing around the firm and racking up some responses, the victory chain made its way to our inbox via a tipster:
This is too good not to share. This was sent to all Quinn attorneys.
—-
The First Year Associate Who Shat All Over Raskopf’s Victory Email OR The First Year Associate Who Repurposed the Redskins
After the jump, see the chain that culminates in a (soon-to-be-fired?) first-year associate’s plea for idealistic litigation at Quinn.
Here’s the chain. We’ve put it in chronological order for you, and redacted all names but Raskopf’s (replacing real names with the monikers that you see in capitalized letters). The first year — while high on idealism or drugs — decided to go at it with a New York partner, then sent their private correspondence to everyone at the firm.
Later, the first year responded to Above the Law’s request for comment. We’ll get to the response after you read the email chain below.
Please don’t disclose identities in the comments or we will ban you from the wagon.
QUINN EMANUEL’S FIRM-WIDE VICTORY E-MAIL CHAIN
From: Robert Raskopf
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:34 AM
To: Attorneys
Subject: Washington Redskins Victory
One of the longest-running and closely-watched battles in the annals of trademark law took a decisive turn this morning when the DC Circuit (per Sentelle, CJ, Henderson and Tatel) affirmed the ruling of trial judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that the seven Native American activists who filed a petition to cancel the Redskins’ marks on the basis of disparagement waited too long to do so. The first of the six registrations under attack in the 1992 Complaint was registered in 1967, such that the period of delay was 25 years. Rather than provide the blow-by blow, I’m sending you all the opinion of the DC Circuit (only 9 pages [PDF]).
There are quite a few people here who deserve high praise for pulling off this very difficult win in an adversely politically charged atmosphere. Permit me to start with REDACTED, who authored the winning brief and whose work on these things is unmatched in my experience. But there are many more who brought this case to a wonderful finish in their own variously inimitable ways and upped the vaunted Q/E victory record along the way. They are: [REDACTED].
What a win. What a firm. Did someone say “America’s Firm”?
From: FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:16 PM
To: Robert Raskopf; Attorneys
Subject: RE: Washington Redskins Victory
okey-dokey.
this email is meant neither to rouse some rabble or down some debbies or outcrunch some crunchies. quite the opposite - i get excited whenever i get victory emails (and even replies to victory emails). this is/was an interesting case that i know (well, i guess i don’t know, exactly, but i think) turned on issues not related to whether or not native americans were being slighted by the redskins mascot. but i feel compelled to the point i’m willing to write (and i’m from iowa so imposition is a slow, agonizing death) with a request that we might take a moment (water fountain break, going to nelly and claire’s shop downstairs, getting printouts) to think about how many people (native americans, americans, non-native americans, non-american natives) are bummed today because a mascot they find offensive remains on the second column of the sports page and on a kid’s hat and on espn’s score ticker (and, to a lesser extent, on cnn headline sport’s score ticker).
obviously in writing this email, my end position on this matter is pretty clear, but i still, at times, try to make sense of whether or not the mascot is /that/ offensive or even that important an issue to fight. in saying that, i’m just saying i’m willing to chat about it to make sense of it, and i hope others are as well.
and i’ll leave on something cheesy: it’s incredibly humbling and gratifying to work at quinn, but i really hope america’s firm will be native america’s firm as well. (that’s soooooooooooo dorky, but eh.)
earnest congratulations on the win, for reals, and i hope everyone has a fun weekend!
(SOON-TO-BE FIRED?) FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE
From: PISSED OFF QUINN PARTNER
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:46 PM
To: (SOON-TO-BE FIRED?) FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE
Cc: Robert Raskopf
Subject: RE: Washington Redskins Victory
FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: We have not met. I am in the NY office. I sit down the hall from Bob. Calling Bob out in front of the entire firm is a poor use of the “reply to all” function. Note the lack of any parentheses in this email. It makes it much easier to read.
Bob and I represent clients, not causes. We like Native Americans. If Native Americans had hired Bob, the Redskins would have lost the case. But they didn’t. They hired someone else. So it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in court. It is really that simple.
But I digress. The real purpose of this email was to suggest that you made a mistake by sending your email to every lawyer in the firm, thus ensuring that every time someone says your name, they will think “isn’t he the first year that shit all over Raskopf’s victory email?”
From: FIRST-YEAR ASSOCIATE
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:22 PM
To: PISSED OFF PARTNER
Cc: Robert Raskopf
Subject: RE: Washington Redskins Victory
PISSED OFF PARTNER:
indeed, we haven’t met. but we’re (kind of) meeting now. hi.
i think if you reread my email, then you will find i in no way called out bob’s position on native americans or, for that matter, called into question either his ability as a lawyer (i think i adequately praised the win) or his constitution as a person (no comments on that issue, either). to say i called bob out is to focus my general comment on a ex post facto whipping boy created in your email and not in mine. but, i admit, i might be wrong on that point.
i legitimately have no animosity toward the people staffed on this case, the firm, or even the decision that the court reached today. i do, however, feel strongly about native american rights and their relation to both professional and amateur sports mascots. i also firmly believe a major problem in the progression of native american rights, generally, is the lack of visibility afforded to the culture in the united states. by emailing the firm about the topic, which i hope i did politely, i tried to raise a smidgen of awareness for the cause… and even if a person disagrees with the idea that native american mascots are, let’s say, objectionable, then all that’s lost in my email transaction was a little time to reading an email.
now, if i have in any way offended anyone’s professional reputation or just their personal sensibility, then i will gladly discuss the matter with them and apologize, if merited, either publicly or privately.
as for lingering points, i truthfully believe i didn’t make a mistake in emailing. again, if i injured anyone’s professional reputation (other than my own), which i doubt i did, then i can see how that might be a mistake. that said, i still think the overall good of just asking people to think about how hurtful it is to be hear ‘redskin’ outweighs the chance of harm, which i minimized in the email by (1) using a relaxed tone (including parentheticals (which i think are fun to read)), (2) admitting that the issue is difficult for even myself to comprehend, and (3) by praising the efforts of the trial team. and i hope and pray that a list of ubereducated and sometimes brilliant men and women can consume an email like that without collateral damage. if not, again, i would gladly discuss the matter.
lastly, i don’t mean to sound flippant. if i do, i apologize, but i believe, soundly, in what i wrote both then and now.
all the best…
FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE
From: FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 6:45 PM
To: Attorneys
Subject: aloha, redskins
The First Year Associate Who Shat All Over Raskopf’s Victory Email
OR
The First Year Associate Who Repurposed the Redskins
By: FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE
friends:
hey. sorry to write to you again. i’m surely wearing out my welcome. eek!
anywho, i think i finally realized that quinn emanuel is indeed not:
1. a dating service
2. a family
3. a commune (although i do get to have flowers on my office wall)
i get it. we’re a business. specifically, we’re a law firm. as such, our charge, at its most basic, is to make money (that’s the business part) while doing the lawyer thing (that’s the law firm part). i think i denied that reality, but i’ve accepted it. i’m yet to accept, however, that we can’t incorporate into our firm the qualities that make families and communes and dating services cool.
briefly, though, i’d like to take a quick sidetrack. i have an awesome memory from hanging out with my dad as a kid. we were driving to rapid city to visit family in, i think, 1987, meaning i was six or so. in the middle of south dakota, which is rather boring, my dad starting entertaining me by telling me about the local tribes. specifically, he told me how the native americans would kill buffalos and, in turn, utilize all the buffalo parts for some purpose or another. time for some paraphrased nostalgia!
BABY FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: why bother with all the buffalo parts?
dad: the buffalo was dead. sunk cost and whatnot.
and so i learned that if i have been given a gift, then i might as well make something out of it (even if the gift is of the lemons/lemonade persuasion). and dad would continue with a fun game where i would name a part of the buffalo, and dad, who in hindsight was probably bs-ing answers since they were often cartoonish, would tell me the repurpose:
BABY FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: the lungs!
dad: they’d inflate them and use them as pillows.
BABY FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: really? wow! the hooves?
dad: glue.
BABY FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: the tail?
dad: brooms.
BABY FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: [and that’s when i’d try to get clever.] how about the… nose?
(what good is a buffalo nose, right?)
dad: [pausing before smiling] they’d use it as a thimble.
i went slackjawed even though i wasn’t sure what a thimble (let alone a sunk cost) was. i just knew a person could repurpose anything (even a dead buffalo’s nose!) and that was pretty darn cool.
back to firm. i know our overall goal here is to win cases and make money, but that, to me, feels like we’re wasting a bunch of our gifts and talents (and sunk costs (read: legal educations (read: dead buffalos))), which is pretty tragic given that i honestly believe quinn houses some of the best, most creative minds (legal or otherwise) in the country. so why not turn those minds to something positive and make some thimbles? (well, because it can seem financially inefficient, i presume, but it needn’t be that way, especially as we’re currently standing amid the ruins of singularly-purposed, non-green law firms.)
now i happen to have an idea of something positive the firm could do. here’s my thinking:
1. i think it’d be cool to work in a post-racial america.
2. i think it’s incredibly tough for post-racial america, whatever it may be, to exist while a prominent team in our most-beloved league (sorry, united states hockey league (go muskies!)) has ‘redskins’ as a mascot.
3. i think post-racial america might appear a couple of days earlier than expected if the chicago bears played the washington fightin’ congresspeople or, really, washington plus anything non-redskins (oh, and preferably non-chiefs or non-indians or non-braves.) i might humbly suggest the washington buffalos (although the buffalo bills would probably get grouchy over that).
…therefore…
4. let’s try and get the redskins mascot pushed to the curb.
why we can do it:
1. we’re smart!
we can come up with an argument for the washington franchise to change the mascot. we’re smart enough to spin it as a positive for them… and not in the abstract. a mascot change for washington, i imagine, could be a moneymaker for the franchise… buying the new hat, buying the new jersey, all the positive press… but i’m not sure about these things. that’s why i’d like to talk about it.
2. we have summer associate resources, yo!
summers are about to start. if i remember from my time, there were one or two hours of downtime during my summer. why not let the summer associates bill an hour to pro bono and let them brainstorm ideas as to how to why washington should switch it up?
3. we know other smart people!
we may not be able to get this done on our own, but we know smart friends from law schools and from churches and from the block. ask them if they can come together with a reason why washington should be the non-redskins. further, we can take all of these reasons to a really, really, really smart person, who could compile them and offer them to the washington franchise. and if washington doesn’t change its mascot, then what have we lost? a little bit of time and effort is all. in return, we’d get some better karma, which i’ll gladly take. and think how cool it would be if our firm got washington to change its mascot!
why we need to do it:
___________________________________________________
FIRST YEAR PASTES COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HIM AND PISSED OFF PARTNER HERE
__________________________________________________
[DELUSIONAL FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE] TO THE FIRM
back to an earlier point. i realize we’re a business comprised of grownups, which means we can keep this idea internal. i see no reason for us to go posting/forwarding this email to all corners of the internet. we can do this in-house and do it well and do it for extra-cheap. (there is a recession on.)
so here’s to hoping you might get on board with this idea. if not, no worries. and i’m sorry for the imposition, but i really believe we’re primed right now to do something good for native americans, the firm, and the world (why not say it?). :)
with that, let the (hopefully civil) discussion begin. here’s to hoping that you have a fun day, that i don’t get michael clayton-ed :), and that dad’s dream of the redskins’ mascot being repurposed will finally come true.
all the best…
(SOON-TO-BE-FIRED?) FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE
But the awesome thread doesn’t end there. We at Above the Law reached out to the associate. In true Quinn Emanuel style, we received a response that was totally devoid of capital letters:
to answer your question, i think i still have a job. even if i didn’t, my tune wouldn’t change that quinn is a cool firm with smart, nice, and chill lawyers. honestly.about the email, it was the first time i’ve had a correct legal decision perpendicular to (what i believe to be) a “correct” moral position that i held/hold. (i don’t know if moral is necessarily the word i want — ever since i watched election i get nervous using ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’.) that dissonance was legitimately painful for me. i’m sorry if i worked through it in too public a manner and, beyond that, if anyone was harmed, either professionally or personally, i apologize here and would like to do so privately as well.
Spokespeople for Quinn Emanuel declined to comment for this story, but their young associate had more to say when contacted by ATL. It’s not really germane to the issue at hand, but whatever:
real quick… word on the street is it that your blog is read by firm lawyers. :) i’d like to throw something out to them cuz word on the street (it’s a chatty street today, it seems) is that summer associateships are starting. and what’s a great part about summer associateships???? summer lunches! yumyumyumyumyum.but word on the (wall) street (ha) is that there’s a recession on, which sucks. here’s a quick way to be gluttonous (on goodwill) if you’re a summer associate:
ask your firm if you can do an easy fundraiser. take one day this summer where instead of summer lunchin’ all the summer associates bring sack lunches for the noonhour. sadie hawkins it up and have them invite an associate. so now the firm has saved:
$20 for summer associate lunch
$20 for associate lunchthat’s $40 per pair. invite a local soup kitchen or food bank into your office to give a talk so you’re not bored at the lunch, present them a tax write offable (i think, eek) check for…
10 summers in a class x 10 associates = $400!!!
…and you’ve done something pretty cool for the world. easy breezy!
have a great day…
Interesting idea. It reminds us a bit of Simpson Thacher’s Chow for Charity program.
In any event, we’ll be very interested to see if this young lawyer can hang onto a Biglaw job. On the one hand, expressing an opinion about the term “redskins” probably isn’t a fireable offense. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine that Quinn Emanuel wants its junior associates engaging in public debates about controversial racial issues — and saying that the firm is on the wrong side of the moral imperative.
What do you think is going to happen? What do you think should happen? We’ll keep you posted.
Update: Find out what happened over here.
Appeals Court Sides With Team In Suit Challenging Trademark [Washington Post]
Quinn Emanuel’s Raskopf Wins Affirmance of Washington Redskins’ Trademarks [AmLaw]
(959) Comments
Comments
wgwag white girls with asian guys wgwag wgwag
xoxohth
Whatever happened to the Quinn remains guy.
OCEANS RISE
CITIES FALL
THERE IS A OPENING FOR A FIRST YEAR ATTORNEY AT QUINN.
(Hurry up, all you deferred and laid off first years, this spot won't last long). (Note, parentheticals are occasionally appropriate)
OCEANS RISE
CITIES FALL
THERE IS A OPENING FOR A FIRST YEAR ATTORNEY AT QUINN.
(Hurry up, all you deferred and laid off first years, this spot won't last long). (Note, parentheticals are occasionally appropriate)
This guy is obviously socially retarded. How did the attorneys from Quinn interviewing him miss this?
Big picture silver lining: things are bad now, but maybe they're just correcting what were terrible hiring decisions in the past 3 years, and not a sign that the end of the big law firm is imminent. The firms lowered their standards, hired too many associates, and now some of these dorks need to be given their walking papers. Sucks for class of '09 and '10, but once equilibrium is re-established, things may go back to normal. The sky may not be falling. Thank you Quinn first year dork!
This guy is obviously socially retarded. How did the attorneys from Quinn interviewing him miss this?
Big picture silver lining: things are bad now, but maybe they're just correcting what were terrible hiring decisions in the past 3 years, and not a sign that the end of the big law firm is imminent. The firms lowered their standards, hired too many associates, and now some of these dorks need to be given their walking papers. Sucks for class of '09 and '10, but once equilibrium is re-established, things may go back to normal. The sky may not be falling. Thank you Quinn first year dork!
the return of the wgwag.
This first year attorney actually wrote the email this way. His grammar is fucking horrible. This is an inter-office email and the first-year is writing like he would on his friend's facebook wall.
WTF? Apparently, QE doesn't require a writing sample from its potential hires. This is writing more suited for a Teen People blog.
I love it. The first-year's judgment in sending it to the whole firm isn't unassailable, but I don't think the sentiment of his e-mail is out-of-line in the least. The partner got way too bent out of shape about it. Of course we as lawyers should be thinking about the ramifications of our representation - Christ, we're not automatons. His whole "we represent clients, not causes" is logical, I suppose, but a little too linear for my taste.
Mary mother of fuck this douche can't write. How the hell did he get a job? The i'm lovin it generation needed to be skipped.
Wow, I must've gotten on here early. The problem isn't the debate, or the improper use of the reply to all function, or even the absolutely ridiculous overuse of parentheses. It is that STBFFYA is advocating that the firm of 400+ lawyers in 7 offices take a position now that is wholly contrary to its client's best interests. If you want to go fight the good fight and follow your own individual plate of ethical obligation, join a series of non-profits that will pay you $12,000 a year. If you want to work in a law firm, particularly one with the reputation of QE, get off the high horse, recognize you don't know shit, and start learning the skill sets that will make you less expendable than your brethren.
Name? The first year obviously doesn't care if he/she was willing to answer ATL's request for comments.
Fire this guy. Not because he expressed an opinion on the use of the term "Redskins." Because he doesn't know when to shut up or how to write a professional e-mail.
Linear, perpendicular, whatever.... Stay ballsy, Iowa.
Wow. I would like to know what law school churned out that moron. If I was one of Quinn's clients, I would certainly want to know if this "caps-free crusader" was working on any of my projects.
This associate is a fucking moron. They just pissed away years of hard work, and over what? It will be interesting to know how idealistic this piss-fly is when they are standing in the bread lines next week.
Completely unprofessional on two points. First, he is worse the Elie when it comes to writing skills. Second, since when is it okay to try to incite members of your firm to turn against a client?
At least give us the law school he went attended. Any school that gave this illiterate wanker a JD is pure TTT. Unacceptable.
8 - agreed. This kid should be fired for poor writing skills, rather than bad judgment. We know first years do all sorts of things incompetently, so some lapses in judgment will be excused or minimized. However, good writing skills are a must, even in an interoffice email.
STBFFYA's comments are not unassailable?
How about his/her attempt to convince lawyers to take public advocacy positions contrary to a current client's interest? Or convince them to have "smart friends" do it by proxy since he (or she) has some inkling that the entire concept is TOTALLY FUCKING UNETHICAL, yo.
-- Ethical Liberal
19 here. Oops.
$10 that this associate graduated from HYS, the bottom 25% of which are regularly recruited by QE (mostly H).
This guy is an embarrassment. Seriously, is this the quality of associates at Biglaw? Y'all are overpriced...
I think this is made up. I'm not believing it until I hear an official response from the Quinn managing partner. It seems like made up e-mails meant to embody all the stereotypes of an overly idealistic associate with no real world intelligence.
He should be fired for not being able to find the shift key. Full stop. But otherwise, I stand back in awe at his breathtaking sweet clue-free-ness. I mean, wow. Wow. Many would have been put off after that first response. To reply with a book takes, uh, something really scary. I wish him well in whatever new profession he pursues.
I would rather go to a hell world like Salusa Secundus and undergo shigawire torture under the Sardaukar instead of subjecting myself to the random musings of an idiot associate who writes in lower caps and thinks that his words are important.
QE partners must be incredibly gracious if they haven't fired him yet. I probably would have.
Let this guy go to Latham NY. There would be no paying clients for him to work on (eek) "incorrect moral positions" and he would have all the pro bono hours in the world to do good.
LOL!! EASY BREEZY!!
lovelovelove it.
"They just pissed away years of hard work, and over what?"
Good question.
Well, this pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with the "entitlement generation." Good thing this person has some money saving ideas. She'll need them
This is about as dumb as it gets, forget for a minute the substance of his argument, although volokh.com recently had a couple posts that discussed how the overwhelming majority of American Indians don't consider the term a slur (when is the last time anyone called anyone a "Redskin"? 1880?).
The lack of common sense, judgment, good grammar and Outlook skills show that this person has no business being at QE or anywhere else.
"FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE: We have not met. I am in the NY office. I sit down the hall from Bob. Calling Bob out in front of the entire firm is a poor use of the "reply to all" function. Note the lack of any parentheses in this email. It makes it much easier to read."
PWN PWN PWN!
i don't know which is worse: the utter lack of capitalization, incessantly inappropriate use of parentheses, or using "eeeek!" in an email to a partner.
definitely has to be a chick.
What a self-righteous, self-absorbed jackass. Office email is not for you to spam the entire firm with your unsolciited opinions.
Agreed. This seems fabricated.
You've got to be kidding me. Is this a joke Kash & Elie cooked up? If it is, it's top drawer. But seriously, you two, April Fools' Day was so last month.
I can't believe a first-year at Q/E (or any other firm) would dare to send such a rambling piece of self-adulatory tripe after being briskly backhanded by a senior partner. Makes me feel a whole lot better about life and work.
I'm having trouble believing that all of this is true...It really needs to not be true, or my perceptions of QE are wildly incorrect...
Time stamps don't make sense
Please tell me this is a girl assoicate. Otherwise it has to be a gay dood from NYU.
Can't be anything else. amirite?
Signed,
The Dragon
35 - agreed. Either that or a ladyboy from Boalt working in the SF office.
What a painful email to read. I hope he gets axed (and then Darwin will smile down on us all...)
Don't ask me. You wrote the f***ing memo!
i don't know which is worse: the utter lack of capitalization, incessantly inappropriate use of parentheses, or using "eeeek!" in an email to a partner.
definitely has to be a chick.
I wonder what this guy/girl thinks about the Fighting Irish.
42, pretty sure your post counts as hate speech in the type of america most liberals want to live in.
this guy is SCREWED!
40 - dumbass. Did you consider the the time zones?
I wonder what the associate thinks about the awesome title to the blog post. Great job on the title Kash.
Associate is definitely a slave boy from Giedi Prime.
Quinn Associate here:
Surprised his original email didn't make ATL.
This one got sent on Monday.
The same Monday that the February Bar results for California were publicly posted.
Dude failed. A second time.
In other words, this is the most crazy "I'm fired" email in a long time.
Also, if anyone doubts this post: search for his name on our document system; he's literally prepared about 10 things in the entire time he's been at the firm, most of which are personal rather than client-related.
Two things:
1. Unbelievably, this is real.
2. Yale Law School.
Carry on.
I actually got the impression that this person is bipolar and wrote this correspondence in the throes of a manic episode. Seriously.
All the knocks on this nutjob's writing skills really are too much. This obviously is hastily banged out stuff in the heat of passion (or mania). It's not a legal brief. The dude/dudette can't be blamed for not editing this stuff - it's the content, not the style per se, that's eyebrow raising anyhow.
Sweet Jesus. This makes me want to never use a parenthetical ever again.
eek, it made it onto the internet!
Most lawyers at Quinn are crazy. Just not in quite this way.
40 - dumbass. Did you consider the the time zones?
Elie, can you tell us which office this douchebag is working from? I want to know where I can send my resume to.
what a giant douche.
also, love the return of WGWAG.
Quinn hires retards! Wow!
Way to go Quinn! I don't know what kind of associates they make, but that's so progressive of them to be a true equal opportunity employer!
props for cojones.
Saying things like that to Glossu (aka Beast) Rabban is just asking to have his head ripped off and shat on his neck in Giedi Prime. The baron would enjoy it.
I agree with 45 that this probably some chick (and if I had to guess, a chick who wore very short skirts, giggled alot and flirted shamelessly with partners in order to score her job offer). The term "Easy Breezy" is a Cover Girl (make up) slogan...
Saying things like that to Glossu (aka Beast) Rabban is just asking to have his head ripped off and shat on his neck in Giedi Prime. The baron would enjoy it.
It's a dude, and YLS. No s**t.
Come on! This is incredible. I am in awe of this associates naivety/balls.
47 - yes. Maybe you're right. And?
Gentlemen at the legal preparatory academy with which I was once affiliated....no, wait. Who I am kidding? I've never seen anything like this. I got nothin'.
The first year showed terrible judgement and his writing style is painful and inappropriate, but the first year must have a set of brass balls to butt heads with partners like this in the midst of a shit economy. His time at Quinn may be limited, but that sense of fearlessness will probably get him far in the long run.
"If Native Americans had hired Bob, the Redskins would have lost the case."
um, ok.
This guy's email, while poorly written, doesn't actually strike me as that inherently inappropriate. Well, okay, it IS totally unconvention for a firm-wide email, but this is exactly why all my friends who work in other sectors think large law firms are ridiculously outdated or trapped in tradition. Other non-law-firm places where I've worked have been able to avoid formality-for-the-sake-of-formality. I mean, things like this didn't go out to the whole company that often, but it wouldn't really be gasp-inducing if they did.
I remember the first time I learned that even email addresses on multi-person law firm emails needed to be ordered in terms of seniority -- crazy! This lock-step approach to things is really just so high school. And reflects poor economic decisions by firms, as well.
This guy's email, while poorly written, doesn't actually strike me as that inherently inappropriate. Well, okay, it IS totally unconvention for a firm-wide email, but this is exactly why all my friends who work in other sectors think large law firms are ridiculously outdated or trapped in tradition. Other non-law-firm places where I've worked have been able to avoid formality-for-the-sake-of-formality. I mean, things like this didn't go out to the whole company that often, but it wouldn't really be gasp-inducing if they did.
I remember the first time I learned that even email addresses on multi-person law firm emails needed to be ordered in terms of seniority -- crazy! This lock-step approach to things is really just so high school. And reflects poor economic decisions by firms, as well.
Chill out, people. The overly indulgent style of this associate's email seems awfully reminiscent of many a nostalgic trip down memory lane by a senior partner. I can't count how many times I've heard a partner start off on a tangent about some childhood memory and decide to contort it to make it seem relevant to a legal discussion. If this dude can keep up the self-reverence for long enough, he'll be partner in no time.
This guy/gal should be scalped for drinking too much fire water and trading away his/her career in the law for a few e-mails.
Should be fired, then smacked, then fired again (just in case he missed it the first time).
Yale?
Now I am actually HAPPY those basta**s summarily REJECTED my ass.
The Dragon
I always wanted to send an email like this when I was at a big firm.
Here is what happens next:
1. Joe at Morgan Lewis (or its ilk) emails Bill at the Redskins HQ a link to this post.
2. Bill emails Bob at QE, asking "WTF"?
3. Bill and the other QE partners immediately move to placate an important client by sending this Whiffenpoof into the street.
I think the partner's email clearly states that it's a guy.
I say fire him. And more importantly, GO TRIBE
I seriously hope this guy/girl gets fired. In an economy where everyone is creeping around on their tip toes to hide from the firing squad, this tool has the gall to get all "holier than thou"? Newsflash to the idiot: You are beholden to your clients interests. If s/he doesn't get fired then s/he should just do the honorable thing and quit. Grow up. Seriously, some people never learn to just sit down and shut up. S/he need to give up his/her job in favor of someone who will keep their head down and work. Imagine how much time was wasted at QE reading his/her rant!
This guy's email, while poorly written, doesn't actually strike me as that inherently inappropriate. Well, okay, it IS totally unconvention for a firm-wide email, but this is exactly why all my friends who work in other sectors think large law firms are ridiculously outdated or trapped in tradition. Other non-law-firm places where I've worked have been able to avoid formality-for-the-sake-of-formality. I mean, things like this didn't go out to the whole company that often, but it wouldn't really be gasp-inducing if they did.
I remember the first time I learned that even email addresses on multi-person law firm emails needed to be ordered in terms of seniority -- crazy! This lock-step approach to things is really just so high school. And reflects poor economic decisions by firms, as well.
1. When you accept a job at BigLaw, your duty begins running to your clients, who in this case, were the Washington Redskins. Writing an email to the firm questioning whether your client was in the right to be fighting their fight is improper as a matter of your responsibility. That client is indirectly paying your salary. If you want to question which clients the firm is taking on, either join a different firm or take it up with the partners in charge of the relationships directly.
2. The partner response on email was poor strategy -- I think the message was correct, but putting that in an email in today's world is just stupid.
3. The associate not dropping the issue right there shows they're better suited to a non-BigLaw job, which is probably more admirable and appropriate anyhow. I'm sure many of us in BigLaw would be better suited in something else, and regardless of how stupid it is as a job preservation/professional reputation move, you do have to respect the frankness/balls of the emailing associate. Principle shouldn't be frowned upon in all walks of life, even if it isn't rewarded in BigLaw.
4. I wish the kid nothing but the best, but Quinn Emmanuel (or any other BigLaw firm) is not the place for you. Good luck, and if you find the gig where you can fight the issues you care about and actually get paid well for it, let the rest of us know.
-BigLaw Associate
1. When you accept a job at BigLaw, your duty begins running to your clients, who in this case, were the Washington Redskins. Writing an email to the firm questioning whether your client was in the right to be fighting their fight is improper as a matter of your responsibility. That client is indirectly paying your salary. If you want to question which clients the firm is taking on, either join a different firm or take it up with the partners in charge of the relationships directly.
2. The partner response on email was poor strategy -- I think the message was correct, but putting that in an email in today's world is just stupid.
3. The associate not dropping the issue right there shows they're better suited to a non-BigLaw job, which is probably more admirable and appropriate anyhow. I'm sure many of us in BigLaw would be better suited in something else, and regardless of how stupid it is as a job preservation/professional reputation move, you do have to respect the frankness/balls of the emailing associate. Principle shouldn't be frowned upon in all walks of life, even if it isn't rewarded in BigLaw.
4. I wish the kid nothing but the best, but Quinn Emmanuel (or any other BigLaw firm) is not the place for you. Good luck, and if you find the gig where you can fight the issues you care about and actually get paid well for it, let the rest of us know.
-BigLaw Associate
At my firm, this kid would have canned so fast after the first email, he wouldn't had time to write any follow-ups.
Fired
This guy's email, while poorly written, doesn't actually strike me as that inherently inappropriate. Well, okay, it IS totally unconvention for a firm-wide email, but this is exactly why all my friends who work in other sectors think large law firms are ridiculously outdated or trapped in tradition. Other non-law-firm places where I've worked have been able to avoid formality-for-the-sake-of-formality. I mean, things like this didn't go out to the whole company that often, but it wouldn't really be gasp-inducing if they did.
I remember the first time I learned that even email addresses on multi-person law firm emails needed to be ordered in terms of seniority -- crazy! This lock-step approach to things is really just so high school. And reflects poor economic decisions by firms, as well.
This is why Quinn does not have a transactional practice -- it would be impossible for them to draft a contract without capitalizing the defined terms.
"Bob and I represent clients, not causes. We like Native Americans. If Native Americans had hired Bob, the Redskins would have lost the case. But they didn't. They hired someone else. So it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in court. It is really that simple."
Priceless.
But yes, this guy should be fired, or there is no justice in the world.
There is NO WAY this is some guy. This is some teenage girl. "any who????!!!!" WTF!!!
85 - How *is* Greenberg Traurig these days? (Bingham McCutchen?)
I have officially taken QE off our "go to" list.
-In House
This guy seems to have a tenuous grip on the reality of working at a law firm. These are serious judgment errors, IMHO. I'd show him the door.
Just to clear up the offensive and nonsensical assumptions that because this is an irrational rant, it must be written by a female-- the author is male. Confirmed. Shame on all the sexism.
"that dissonance was legitimately painful for me" = what a horrific tool
This person is about to learn the meaning of chill.
JC?
"you do have to respect the frankness/balls of the emailing associate. "
It takes balls to write eek! in an e-mail or write rambling incoherent stories of his youth with multiple parentheticals that were unnecessay? If that passes for frankness/balls in your mind, I call BS that you're a biglaw associate.
If this story is true, I agree with others that he has mental problems or to give one poster credit, if true, that he failed the bar twice and simply knows he's going out anyway...and still has mental problems. Anyone that graduated from law school should be able to write more coherently than that crap.
-Attorney who isn't a GD idiot, unlike some people defending this moron.
73, 73, 82, & 87 - no wonder you don't think the email was inappropriate...
JC?
eek!
The Internet is a kind of hell!
I agree, he's gotta go
that was very funny and real ballzy.
97 - yes, about to get crucified for standing up for the least amongst us
this lawyer is delusional, obviously does not value a bigfirm job, and has no filter. how (s)he has survived layoffs i have no idea.
This associate is a very strange person. I don't think idealism is misplaced, but we all have to recognize that clients come to lawyers because they have problems, and they often have problems because they have made questionable or wrong decisions.
Anyone who went to law school and interviewed for and accepted a big firm job without considering the possibility that the firm would represent clients who had done questionable things must be entirely oblivious to what lawyers do.
Defending a politically insensitive trade name is pretty tame on the spectrum of icky stuff clients could conceivably be involved with.
But this associate's bigger issue is that he chose to make himself visible to everyone in the firm in a very unflattering way, and the e-mails that he sent to everybody are bizarre, meandering, poorly-written and contain no capital letters.
His sentences are full of non-sequitur clauses and strange parentheticals. He relays anecdotes of questionable relevance.
This is not a way for a lawyer to communicate.
Even aside from the fact that he proposes the exceedingly stupid idea that his firm should devote considerable resources to messing with a client of 17 years, If I were a partner at this firm, I would not want this associate on my matters given the way he represents himself here.
Wow - I didn't realize Quinn partners also have time machines. Maybe this explains (a) their success as a law firm and (b) how the partner called out the associate 2.5 hours BEFORE he sent out his email.
what a terrible lawyer
Gone in 30 days. Tops. Any firm with more than 10 lawyers understands that this moron is a malpractice suit waiting to happen. That is, if the clients stick around hoping to get staffed with this stellar legal talent.
Wow.
blaze of (ATL) glory
Agree with 93. How could anyone think that this is appropriate? Sounds like a Yalie to me!
72/73/82/87 - it's obvious that someone like you would never understand the problem with this email. Your need to post the same thing four times shows that you're just as self-absorbed as the guy at Quinn. The problem wasn't that the email was too informal, it's that the guy is a jackass for making the entire firm listen to his rambling thoughts about why a client should lose.
JC?
He should be fired for poor judgment, poor writing, and trying to kiss Quinn's ass by ignoring the shift key.
Wow - I didn't realize Quinn partners also have time machines. Maybe this explains (a) their success as a law firm and (b) how the partner called out the associate 2.5 hours BEFORE he sent out his email.
I agree with 54. My sense is that this first year is bipolar and caught up in a manic episode.
It's surprisingly common in lawyers, and I've seen similar episodes in friends -- same crusader zeal for their cause/beliefs and same total lack of filter in sharing their thoughts with the world.
If the Quinn partners want to fire the first year for this, I wouldn't blame them one bit. But they might first want to consider whether there's a mental health element.
P.S. Being bipolar does not excuse the horrendous writing and lack of capitalization. Seriously painful.
Comment removed by moderator.
107: please tell me you're trolling, and that you really do understand how email timestamps work between time zones.
I laughed out loud in my office. This guy is insane. This is what happens when you hire associates with NO PRIOR WORK EXPERIENCE. How the hell did this kid not think this was inappropriate. I know Quinn tries to be fun, but for the love of God, don't ever reply to anyone in your office using "easy breezy" or such incredibly bad writing. I really am shocked. GOOD JOB KASH AND ELIE!!!!
Agree with 93. How could anyone think that this is appropriate? Sounds like a Yalie to me!
"Wow - I didn't realize Quinn partners also have time machines. Maybe this explains (a) their success as a law firm and (b) how the partner called out the associate 2.5 hours BEFORE he sent out his email."
This is similar to an earlier post stating that the time stamps don't make sense.
I didn't realize the concept of time zones was so difficult to grasp. Are you people retarded?
97 for the win. This guy won't get fired for his opinions, though. He'll get fired for continuing to publicize all of this stuff through ATL.
extraordinary. thanks for sharing
Absolutely - They represent clients, not causes - so they'd have NO problem representing, say, anyone who contends that their clients didn't know that those blankets had smallpox on them or that they had the right to "relocate" an indigenous race of people off their own land.
Bob should be called out for several reasons;
1. You're right, you did great work for a client, but you won on a technicality. Really? You're proud of that? Where was the advocating? Someone missed a date on a calendar and it took you that long, and you needed that many people to point it out to you? Wow, he must be a genius. Well, anything to run up the bucks. If I were one of the Washington "Racists" who hired them, I'm sure that I'd LOVE that these retards dragged the case out this long.
2. Partha P. Chattoraj - Oooh, so close, but wrong kind of Indian - this does not buy you credit ("No, no, one of them WORKED on this case").
3. No one here deserves "high praise," at least not for the cause. Maybe they deserve "high praise" for charging all those fees. But really? "high praise?" "Yeah, Washington gets to keep it's racist name - Great Job Team! High Praise! It's Red Lobster time!!!"
4. What a win. What a firm. Did someone say "America's Firm"? And by "America," I mean the people that killed the people whose relatives brought this case against us. Let's be loud and proud.
Bob deserves nothing but shit on his parade. Meanwhile, OTHER partners are dining on the bullets. What a waste of a life.
I agree with 14, 20, 33, and many more to come, I'm sure. S/he should be fired for lack of judgment or poor drafting skills, or both. Either way, I cannot believe an associate that gets his/her ass ripped by a partner would proceed to act in this manner.
Forgetting the triple parentheses, which just pissed me off, this associate used an effing smiley in a law firm email :). I can't wait until this person becomes a partner with clients (obviously not at QE or any law firm for which I will be working). I can see the bill cover letter now: "dear client, enclosed please find your bill. i know it's a lot, but hey, i'm worth it b/c i totally believe in your cause. :). sooooooooooooooo, let's do drinks sometime soon because i want to make sure you still like me and don't find other smart people to do your work! thnx. xoxo FIRST YEAR ASSOCIATE."
Sweet. These comments demonstrate that sexists lack reading comprehension skills, given that PISSED OFF QUINN PARTNER explicitly referred to the associate as a "he."
Way to show your emotional AND intellectual retardation, guys.
chalk it up to time zones?
The author of the atrocious email will be fired. Within four months he will be gone, if not, for performance reasons. The email shows poor professional judgment. Although QE is not a peer firm, I expected it to be more selective in the type of people it hires to work for them. At my firm, this associate would be fired for inappropriate use of our email system.
this lawyer is delusional, obviously does not value a bigfirm job, and has no filter. how (s)he has survived layoffs i have no idea.
I would rather be standing between a wounded, angry MumbaRaz in heat and her chosen Fulmar than be this associate,
The guy is obviously gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
117, don't think you're right - says he's a member of CA bar.
Absolutely - They represent clients, not causes - so they'd have NO problem representing, say, anyone who contends that their clients didn't know that those blankets had smallpox on them or that they had the right to "relocate" an indigenous race of people off their own land.
Bob should be called out for several reasons;
1. You're right, you did great work for a client, but you won on a technicality. Really? You're proud of that? Where was the advocating? Someone missed a date on a calendar and it took you that long, and you needed that many people to point it out to you? Wow, he must be a genius. Well, anything to run up the bucks. If I were one of the Washington "Racists" who hired them, I'm sure that I'd LOVE that these retards dragged the case out this long.
2. Partha P. Chattoraj - Oooh, so close, but wrong kind of Indian - this does not buy you credit ("No, no, one of them WORKED on this case").
3. No one here deserves "high praise," at least not for the cause. Maybe they deserve "high praise" for charging all those fees. But really? "high praise?" "Yeah, Washington gets to keep it's racist name - Great Job Team! High Praise! It's Red Lobster time!!!"
4. What a win. What a firm. Did someone say "America's Firm"? And by "America," I mean the people that killed the people whose relatives brought this case against us. Let's be loud and proud.
Bob deserves nothing but shit on his parade. Meanwhile, OTHER partners are dining on the bullets. What a waste of a life.
Somebody pull 117. That's not him.
Absolutely - They represent clients, not causes - so they'd have NO problem representing, say, anyone who contends that their clients didn't know that those blankets had smallpox on them or that they had the right to "relocate" an indigenous race of people off their own land.
Bob should be called out for several reasons;
1. You're right, you did great work for a client, but you won on a technicality. Really? You're proud of that? Where was the advocating? Someone missed a date on a calendar and it took you that long, and you needed that many people to point it out to you? Wow, he must be a genius. Well, anything to run up the bucks. If I were one of the Washington "Racists" who hired them, I'm sure that I'd LOVE that these retards dragged the case out this long.
2. Partha P. Chattoraj - Oooh, so close, but wrong kind of Indian - this does not buy you credit ("No, no, one of them WORKED on this case").
3. No one here deserves "high praise," at least not for the cause. Maybe they deserve "high praise" for charging all those fees. But really? "high praise?" "Yeah, Washington gets to keep it's racist name - Great Job Team! High Praise! It's Red Lobster time!!!"
4. What a win. What a firm. Did someone say "America's Firm"? And by "America," I mean the people that killed the people whose relatives brought this case against us. Let's be loud and proud.
Bob deserves nothing but shit on his parade.
I'm not convinced that this is real, but what a moron.
Also, this guy can't write to save his life and his e-mails come across like the ramblings of a stoner.
There might be a reasonable sentiment buried in there somewhere (i.e. too much enthusiasm ("America's Firm") in celebrating a victory for the right to offend Native Americans might strike some as in poor taste), but the way the guy expressed it reeks of poor judgment.
This guy must be a legacy or a Supreme Court clerk or something.
this lawyer is delusional, obviously does not value a bigfirm job, and has no filter. how (s)he has survived layoffs i have no idea.
the partner would have been so screwed if the associate he wrote back to was native american! just kidding, native americans dont have jobs.
What a fucking juvenile. Those emails look like they were written by a 15 year old girl. Moron.
117:
That's not him.
71--Yes, the Redskins would've lost, because Bob and Quinn can kick time's ass in the courtroom. Just ask the giant d-bag sitting down the hall from Bobby.
All this talk about buffalo has got me SOOO HONGRY!!!
-- h to the izzle
107: please tell me you're trolling, and that you really do understand how email timestamps work between time zones.
Wow. Stunningly inappropriate, on so many levels.
extraordinary. thanks for sharing
Ah, the indignities foisted upon Indians. First European settlers take all their land, then large corportae law firms outsource all their crappy work to them, now this.
Comment removed by moderator.
121 - YOU, sir are the retard.
Look again at the time stamps. Associate sent emails at 3:16 and at 3:22 (the latter in response to the parter). This means that the partner's email would have a time stamp sometime in between that eight-minute interval, regardless of the time zone (i.e., NOT with :46 -only minutes 16-22 of ANY hour).
There is NO WAY this is some guy. This is some teenage girl. "any who????!!!!" WTF!!!
Yeah, this guy is either bipolar or can't handle his coke/meth/adderall. I hope it's the latter 'cause he's done.
There is NO WAY this is some guy. This is some teenage girl. "any who????!!!!" WTF!!!
Anyone else wonder how ATL obtained the email from the pissed-off partner to the first year? Since it was not sent to the firm, this must mean that (i) the first-year associate is the one who sent this entire email chain to ATL, or (ii) the pissed-off partner or Raskopf sent the chain to ATL (as Raskopf was cc'd on the email from the pissed-off partner to the first-year). Just thought this was kind of strange, especially if the first-year is the one to make this entire thing public. It would be even stranger, though, if one of the two partners were the ones to make this story public.
Any thoughts?
1. we're going to need a name here
2. 72: if you don't think this is inappropriate, you're probably as socially retarded as the YLS guy. there is nothing appropriate about writing EEK to any partner. ever; or writing in all lower case (hate to use parentheses after this, but he's a 1st year, not the named partner); or sending out to everybody; or flaunting your political views that go against the firm's position. or the any number of career-ending mistakes in the email.
3. reminds me of a kid who got no-offered at my firm last summer. he was sending out informal mass-emails like they were going out of style.
Anyone else wonder how ATL obtained the email from the pissed-off partner to the first year? Since it was not sent to the firm, this must mean that (i) the first-year associate is the one who sent this entire email chain to ATL, or (ii) the pissed-off partner or Raskopf sent the chain to ATL (as Raskopf was cc'd on the email from the pissed-off partner to the first-year). Just thought this was kind of strange, especially if the first-year is the one to make this entire thing public. It would be even stranger, though, if one of the two partners were the ones to make this story public.
Any thoughts?
Anyone else wonder how ATL obtained the email from the pissed-off partner to the first year? Since it was not sent to the firm, this must mean that (i) the first-year associate is the one who sent this entire email chain to ATL, or (ii) the pissed-off partner or Raskopf sent the chain to ATL (as Raskopf was cc'd on the email from the pissed-off partner to the first-year). Just thought this was kind of strange, especially if the first-year is the one to make this entire thing public. It would be even stranger, though, if one of the two partners were the ones to make this story public.
Any thoughts?
I believe that native americans should be allowed to get married just like everyone else.
Please confirm/deny 147
Quinn is sending a great message to its clients. First, the Facebook fiasco, where Quinn put the amount of the settlement in marketing materials. Now this?!? Eeek!!
Hi, (soon-to-be-fired) Quinn First-Year:
I'm sure we will become very good friends soon. Be sure to stop by when you're in my neighborhood!!!
- Geoduck
This guy's email, while poorly written, doesn't actually strike me as that inherently inappropriate. Just kidding.
e think (i mean, this is just one opinion, ok?) he should, like, start packing his things 'cause, like, he writes like a 13 year-old girl. even if he didn't care about the natives (and lets not forget about the buffalos and washington redskins, though i'm not a redskins fan and continue to digress) his opinions are not the most problematic part of this (and by that, i mean that his writing and overall judgment trump his opinions in terms of badness, as i explained to my friends at the water cooler just a few minutes ago). so yeah, totally canned.
As an aside, its quite hard to write that poorly. I even had to go back and remove all the capitalization afterwards because I forgot to make those errors even though I wanted to.
Quinn is sending a great message to its clients. First, the Facebook fiasco, where Quinn put the amount of the settlement in marketing materials. Now this?!? Eeek!!
::sigh::
150, 154, 155:
Read it again. It's made quite plain in the post that the first year copied and pasted his earlier emails with the partner into the frighteningly long email he sent out to the whole firm.
Comment removed by moderator.
107 -- Those incredible analytical skills are going to serve you well once you actually graduate from Law School. They are called "time zones."
117 -- He's already been outed. He's a YLS alum who hasn't passed the CA bar yet, two reasons the guy you tried to "out" can't be him.
QE -- seriously, your website's attorney search feature is useless.
Laid Off First Year --- Dear God. I can't even wrap my brain around this. I mean, you hear stories...
This just reinforces that, in this economy where V50 firms feel fine doing layoffs via the "name out of a hat" school, that if people I know and respected managed to get laid off and this tool manages to keep his job, then there truly must be no just and loving god.
The firm shouldn't even have to fire you. You should have the decency to quit so they don't have to.
ATL TO 500 COMMENTS
Hahaha LOL at YLS and QE.
150/154/155, read the post. The stupid first year pasted it into a firmwide e-mail that he later sent.
This is from the post:
"___________________________________________________
FIRST YEAR PASTES COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HIM AND PISSED OFF PARTNER HERE
__________________________________________________"
147, you may be correct. He did win the o'TOOLe award in undergrad at ND.
Best. Post. Ever.
Hey 112, this site sucks with handling high-volume posting. Plenty of people who completely disagree with me also posted, like, 5 times. Get a grip.
What is the difference between a Native American and a Texan?
"Reply to All is not a toy!"
This is the first time I have felt compelled to comment on this site. WOW. This is the most ridiculous exchange I have ever seen. Amazing.
"Reply to All is not a toy!"
I wonder whether the associate is aware that his emails are dripping with homosexuality.
If this kid cared at all about Native American issues he would know that they prefer the term "Indian" to "Native American".
He's just a bleeding heart liberal.
Wow, that Quinn partner is an ASS. I used to think I might want to work at Quinn (and they recruited me at my top-five law school but I went to another firm for at least the first few years of my career). His email response to the associate was enough to kill that idea.
First, it's pretty pathetic to see a partner, who clearly holds a position of power and authority, use it to purposefully shit on an associate -- and to do it aggressively by criticizing his grammar/punctuation in a manner that is not at all related to the central issue.
Second, the points in his email are ridiculous. The partner totally misread and misrepresented the associate's email. The partner comes across as a freaky, money-grubbing lawyer who has been in the private sector way, way too long with his insistence that the firm represents clients, not causes. Of course, every firm represents (or should represent) both. Firms give money to causes all the time and buy tables at cause-oriented events constantly. They take pro bono based on causes. Regardless of the case, all lawyers are supposed to representing causes of our profession, like fairness, zealous advocacy, etc. Many firms, including big law, turn down certain types of work or clients because they realize that it's impossible to totally distance yourself from the "cause." Finally, the partner looks like an ass by his freakish assertion that the Redskins would have won had they hired Quinn. Really?? So, you're saying that there actually isn't such a thing as sound legal arguments or courts that follow precedent? You're saying you only one because your buddy partner was on the case? You're insane. While good lawyering is important, most often cases are won or lost in court based on THE LAW, which was clearly the case here.
Partner from Quinn (and probably lots of his partner friends at Quinn): chill out, take a walk, reacquaint yourself with your children and family, give some money away to worthy causes (you've clearly earned too much for too long, as has everyone you associate yourself with), treat your associates (who earn your salary for you) with an ounce of respect, manage with vision rather than fear, take a deep breath before you decide to "reply all" and vent your anger issues on the firm, do something to rekindle your idealism in a cause or two, learn to see in gray again - it's okay to work on behalf of a client and to also discuss the underlying "cause" or both sides of the issue internally at your firm, and overall just get a life.
I can confirm that 147 is him and that the person in question has been fired/no-offered from no fewer than 2 other large law firms.
the deletion confirms 147
If the original email was quoted by the New York partner in his e-mail, then the quoted message would have a New York time stamp.
Therefore, the associate sent the first e-mail at 12:16 pm Pacific, 3:16 pm Eastern.
The NY partner replied at 3:46 pm Eastern, 12:46 pm Pacific.
The associate responded at 3:22 pm Pacific.
Anybody here nostalgic for the buttcheeks guy of yore?
Fire the first year associate from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
164 - Not him- Not from YLS, has already been admitted, and not a first year
Bison. Not Buffalo. Bison.
164 - Not him- Not from YLS, has already been admitted, and not a first year
Major Jerry McGuire moment for this guy. And we all know what happened to Jerry. Although, in the end he did score Renee Zellweiger which was a pretty decent score. Maybe dipshit has some grand plan that none of us can see....... Nahhh!!!
164 - Not him- Not from YLS, has already been admitted, and not a first year
Today is the day I finally make my move.
He's either truly naive or trying to get fired, reap some severance, and then mount his South Dakota congressional campaign.
I wonder whether he could make out a title VII claim (or perhaps under a state anti-discrimination law) for being terminated while protecting a protected class? A longshot, but fascinating. Also, could put the firm's representation of the Redskins in jeopardy if they don't make such a suit go away quietly.
This is what happens when law firms hire numbers (GPA, class rank, USNWR, etc) instead of people. They get people who are lost outside of the classroom. Enough said.
148 is right, the times are still f-d up. Despite the time-zone arguments of the mathematically challenged.
Bison. Not Buffalo. Bison.
ATL TO 500 COMMENTS
Yeah, it is definitely not 164... Iowa is the only connection
Quin's website traffic just encountered a major spike...especially the "attorneys" section...
yeah, the search function sucks ass
If you ask me, firm/corporate wide reply all's that are not about business or something administratively important are always inappropriate
this first year associate should be fired for severe poor judgment...not for the first email but for not getting an effin clue and sending out the follow up email
I feel badly for the plaintiffs, first they lost Ghandi at Wounded Knee, now this. But really, this is what they get for taking all my doc review work. Dey Terk Err Jerrrbs!!
NYC to Curry & Smallpox Blankets!
83/84:
Thank you for your take. In a blog where most people write idiotic crap because they can do it anonymously, your summary is right. I was going to say something similar myself, but then I saw your take, and realized it was already said.
As you point out, there is no black and white right and wrong here. Yes, the associate used extremely poor judgment and I would never have done what he did, but, no, there is nothing wrong with this dude having some morals and an opinion.
I would make one additional point: I do find the last sentence of Bob the Partner's e-mail both offensive and odd. The line was "Did someone say "America's Firm"?"
For one thing, it appears he is making some sort of analogy to what he apparently thinks is the Redskins' nickname, America's Team. In other words: We are America's Firm because we won this big case for America's Team. He is mistaken, however, as it is the Redskins' longtime rival, the Dallas Cowboys who have long been referred to as "America's Team." No NFL insiders have ever called the Redskins "America's Team."
Furthermore, given the well-known sensitivity of calling a professional team the "Redskins" it is very stupid--and somewhat ironic--to send out a firmwide e-mail calling yourself "America's Firm" for defeating a cause long championed by Native Americans (arguably the most "American" of anyone in this country).
I would even venture to say that this partner's inclusion of this sentence showed almost as poor judgment as the associate did in writing his stupid e-mails.
Reply to all is not a toy! Bratz dolls are toys.
Quin's website traffic just encountered a major spike...especially the "attorneys" section...
yeah, the search function sucks ass
If you ask me, firm/corporate wide reply all's that are not about business or something administratively important are always inappropriate
this first year associate should be fired for severe poor judgment...not for the first email but for not getting an effin clue and sending out the follow up email
It looks like the associate replied-to-all on the victory e-mail, then the partner replied privately to the associate with the CC on the partner who sent the victory e-mail.
Then the associate forwarded his exchange with the pissed off partner to all attorneys.
What a nutcase.
"Although, in the end he did score Renee Zellweiger which was a pretty decent score."
(Shitcanned)+(Renee Zellwegger)<(Eat bullet)
The guy in question is half Native American. While not any justification for handling things this way, it is important context.
I guess the deletion of 147 confirms it.
107: please tell me you're trolling, and that you really do understand how email timestamps work between time zones.
Worst writer in the history of the world.
190, you overlooked the obvious promissory estoppel argument. See section 90 of the Restatement.
So, can anyone come to the sadie hawkins brown bag lecture on why we should not go out to lunch by a zealous advocate for the homeless or is this just a QE thing?
Did anyone explain the time stamp error? Not the time zone issue. The fact that the idiot associate emails are stamped 3:16 and 3:22, six minutes apart, but the pissed off partner email is stamped 12:46 (or 3:46, whatever time zone you want)? Shouldn't the partner's email be stamped 3:16 to 3:22, or 12:12-12:22?
This guy stood up for his principles at great personal and professional risk. Judging by the responses here, most lawyers look down on that.
sad
209 - no, he annoyed his colleagues by preaching to them. Should we have hundreds of reply all emails circulating each day as everyoen thinks out loud? No one cares what he thinks. Moron.
Repeating from comment thread last week:
for those who care, i can confirm that PE is a 1L (soon to be 2L) classmate of mine. we attend a non-T50 school on the east coast. he has become a bit of a mini-celebrity here with his postings, most of which are done during classes. it is common knowledge here that he has been doing this, and the attention has only egged him on. i am surprised that no one here has "outed" him yet. i feel compelled to write this now that he no longer is in my section (and hopefully in any of my future classes). in addition, i think that his postings have become increasingly tasteless and unfunny. he also is a know-it-all jerk who thinks that he is a superstar. anyway, just thought that i would share.
--anonymous
Good for the associate defending him/herself to a partner who "manages" by acting like a bully with the "reply all" function. Pathetic that the partner didn't have more self-control.
Read the associate's email again, people. He/she didn't question the legal decision or under mine the client. The associate merely sent an internal email addressing sensitivity to native american issues.
The kid shouldn't be fired for sending out a stupid email to the rest of the firm -- most first years send out at least one stupid email at some point, although this is at least two standard deviations out. The kid should be out the f****** door for talking to the media about internal firm matters.
Seriously, I hope you got that kid's permission to print his email. Because he's f*****
"no, there is nothing wrong with this dude having some morals and an opinion."
If the dude had morals and an opinion he never would have taken the QE job in the first place if he had such a strong belief in the case, its not as if it just started last year.
He also could have simply resigned once hearing about the verdict. That might have shown some "balls".
I can't believe people are defending this idiot. This is as "black and white" as it gets. You don't bitch about your firm winning a case to the firm, and you don't try to gin up a movement at the firm to get their client to voluntary give up what they won in the case.
This is really unbelievable, the most believable aspect is, if true, that he went to Yale.
The guy should be fired; either way, he won't last 2 years in biglaw. If you don't want to represent biglaw clients that's perfectly fine, but then don't take a biglaw job.
198: Here is the source of the "America's Firm" comment.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429608233
Bob has been on a roll.
Comment removed by moderator.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
I cannot believe that so many posters don't understand timezones. Seriously, people, it's not that hard.
198-
The America's Firm thing is a reference to a prior win by Quinn for the Dallas Cowboys.
210,
as per my comment at 179,
Associate sent the e-mail at 12:16 pm Pacific time.
Partner receives it, therefore, at 3:16 Eastern, and replies with history at 3:46.
Associate receives e-mail at 12:46 Pacific. Therefore, the partner's e-mail is timestamped 12:46 by the associate's email client when the Cali associate receives it, but the quoted original e-mail has the partner's 3:16 Eastern time time stamp.
Associate replies at 3:22 Pacific.
Associate forwards his e-mail at 6:45 Pacific.
All time stamps in the chain are therefore Pacific time, except the 3:16 time stamp on the original e-mail, which is Eastern time.
Spotted: Naive Associate, tarnishing her career.
Sorry, Naive Associate. Looks like your lack of reserve may be sending you back to the reservation.
Until next time, xoxo,
GG
WOW, Now he will be one very vocal unemployed First Year.
This post is amazing.
GO SKEEEEEEEEEENS!!!
"He/she didn't question the legal decision or under mine the client. "
Did you not catch the 3-part plan to get the Redskins to change their name, the 3 parts being that (i) they are smart, (ii) summers need work and (iii) they know other smart people?
How is that not undermining their client, even if the guy's suggestion is hilariously insane?
The personal sentiments betrayed by the associate show several things that disturb me:
1. He felt his opinion was important enough to share firmwide - a self indulgent approach
2. The Redskins are entitled to a defense, regardless of the odiousness of their name
3. The lack of any sense, in my reading, of concern that this may not have been the best approach by the associate - where is the introspection? All I'm left with is a self confident associate but one who is confident in faulty thinking.
If the associate has moral qualms about the firm making money, he is free to return all the salaries he received from QE.
It's one thing for an outsider to criticize QE. It's another for a QE associate to say that the firm should focus on other things than making money, while drawing a very high salary from QE. The only reason he is at QE is because of the money.
212 - According to the Twitter/Facebook monkeys, yes, we should.
"LUK @ WAT I THANK, LULZ."
I guess it's not okay at Jones Day to have an opinion and want to dicuss the relationship between your profession and right/wrong.
Okay wow. You know what, I assumed all the "timestamps are impossible" nuts needed to learn the basics of Timezones like numerous people here...
Only it turns out, they are right?
First email (to all attorneys) sent by 1st year at Friday, May 15, 2009 3:16 PM (pacific, aka 12:16pm est).
Response by Pissy Partner at Friday, May 15, 2009 12:46 PM (eastern, aka 3:46pm pacific).
"Response" by 1st Year to all attorneys at Friday, May 15, 2009 3:22 PM (presumably still Pacific, hence 12:22pm eastern).
So unless the 1st year in question was writing while flying across country, or is a master of black hole physics, then something doesn't match up because the 3rd email happens before the 2nd, even accounting for the time zones.
Holy hopping snot. Is this guy actively trying to get fired?
Anyone else find that "America's firm" line creepy? I do. Quinn makes my skin crawl just a bit. Yay for winning a case and preserving profits for your client. Not sure how that makes you America's firm or why anyone with an ounce of sensitivity would use that phrase in an email that involves the original Americans losing an issue of great importance to them. Is Quinn "America's firm" when it wins more boring cases about contracts between two giant firms? I doubt it. I'm guessing you're only "America's firm" when a self-important, white, male partner wins a case against native Americans, women or minorities in some class action, or other cases involving issues one would hope there would be some sensitivity around.
They better fire this guy. This is terrible.
ROFLMAO!!
Seriously, this clown should be fired because:
(i) He cannot write intelligently;
(ii) His judgment is breathtakingly poor, even by the standards of first year associates; and
(iii) He displays the narrowmindedness of someone for whom it is self-evident that his "moral" conviction is correct (never mind the fact that few actual American Indians -- which is what they usually call themselves -- take offense at the Redskins name).
Quinn should be ashamed to have hired a fool like this in the first place.
if this attorney went to a TTT, Elie would have no trouble publishing his name.
Ah, the last of the self-entitled, self-important, first years that went to law school when times were good.
Enjoy the perks while you have it, asshole, you'll be fired and renting yours out to make rent soon enough.
Go Irish!
Yale Law? Seriously?
Ah, the last of the self-entitled, self-important, first years that went to law school when times were good.
Enjoy the perks while you have it, asshole, you'll be fired and renting yours out to make rent soon enough.
Comment removed by moderator.
anonymous 215
Nobody cares. Get a life.
These comments demonstrate exactly what's wrong with the legal profession.
First off, all you prissy little fops bitching about his writing style -- I've seen straight male, 50-something equity partners and GCs for multi-billion-dollar corporations who write like this, and WORSE ("u" instead of "you," incessant smiley faces, etc.) -- fuck, I'd name names if I didn't like them enough not to want to embarrass them (well, some of them anyway). So tone down the sexist, homophobic, "he writes like a 13-year-old girl/his email is dripping with teh gay" this-is-what-you-have-to-do-not-to-feel-so-tiny-and-small bullshit, mmkay?
Second, although the delivery is off, he's actually raised some really legitimate questions. Although the 80s all but destroyed the practice of law by turning it into *nothing more* than a mercenary business venture, being a lawyer USED to mean something. Sure, there have always been ambulance chasers and lawyers with questionable ethics, and there have always been (and will always be) lawyers who defended the "bad guys." But once upon a time, lawyers used to think it mattered that you BELIEVE IN what you do. Whether or not that puts you on the "wrong side" of something, there used to be this quaint, antiquated notion that you wouldn't fight for something you didn't believe in. Although it's certainly possible that Bob really and truly believes in the Redskins' right to make billions off of a franchise steeped in callous disregard for historically marginalized cultures, his partner down the hall obviously has no such scruples about which clients he thinks the firm should represent. To him, it has nothing to do with whether or not you legitimately believe in a client -- it has to do with who pays you. To him, the law is nothing but a means to an end -- money. And maybe that's appropriate for a society so money-obsessed that we've managed to bring the western world to its knees with our crippling greed and short-sighted, imbalanced economy. But it's a sad commentary on a once-proud profession.
This is even better than "Divljan Shatterhand Steele"
222:
Then it is an especially poor reference, as this partner, in discussing his big win for the Redskins, is making a direct reference to the firm's representation of the Skins' bitter rivals.
Also, what kind of backbone does this firm have in representing both the Cowboys and the Redskins. I see a conflict of interest there.
If you know, in what case/cause did the firm represent the Cowboys. I'm surprised Jerry Jones didn't hire one of those incredible Texas firms, like Baker Botts.
--198
anonymous 215
In case you didn't notice from the utter lack of interest in your previous post, nobody cares.
Get a life.
Let's just get this out of the way...
Ed DeFranco is the MAN.
240 - Yale Law is at least 40% Aspies. Why would this be surprising?
Amen 190. If I spoke out about marriage eqaulity and was canned after a partner sent a firm wide email with such enthusiasm about defeating the Prop 8 appeal, you bet your last dollar I would sue the pants off my firm.
219 - Yes, we've represented both the Cowboys and the Redskins. (Talk about a conflict of interest.)
Asperger Syndrome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome. Individuals with AS experience difficulties in basic elements of social interaction, which may include a failure to develop friendships or to seek shared enjoyments or achievements with others (for example, showing others objects of interest), a lack of social or emotional reciprocity, and impaired nonverbal behaviors in areas such as eye contact, facial expression, posture, and gesture.
Unlike those with autism, people with AS are not usually withdrawn around others; they approach others, even if awkwardly. For example a person with AS may engage in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener's feelings or reactions, such as a need for privacy or haste to leave. This social awkwardness has been called "active but odd". This failure to react appropriately to social interaction may appear as disregard for other people's feelings, and may come across as insensitive.
Pursuit of specific and narrow areas of interest is one of the most striking features of AS. Individuals with AS may collect volumes of detailed information on a relatively narrow topic such as dinosaurs or deep fat fryers, without necessarily having genuine understanding of the broader topic. For example, a child might memorize camera model numbers while caring little about photography. This behavior is usually apparent by grade school, typically age 5 or 6 in the United States. Although these special interests may change from time to time, they typically become more unusual and narrowly focused, and often dominate social interaction so much that the entire family may become immersed. Because narrow topics often capture the interest of children, this symptom may go unrecognized.
agree w/ 198 that the "America's Firm" joke reveals "Pissed-Off NY Partner" to be a huge nerd who has apparently managed to avoid watching any significant amount of NFL football in his lifetime, yet felt the need to work in a (failed) self-congratulatory football joke.
i totally disagree with all of you on this one. am i crazy or something (maybe just a little bit today (i forgot my medzies again)) ;) but this persons seem like a really carinig and empathatic individual (we need more of that in the legal world (even obama wants one for the supreme court (here hoping its a lady...yay))). big law has sucked your souls out (we shouldnt have to check our morals at the door to be a good lawyer). If firm were more open to looking for great causes (that also paid well) maybe life at big firms would be more bearable ( i know it would make me happy :) This is a new era for law and we need more than just money to motivate us (we need change). More lawyers voicing there objections to the current paradigm of big law can only be a good thing.
Recently made redundant (going british style there (any magical circle firms hiring crazy people)) QE 1st year
219 - Yes, we've represented both the Cowboys and the Redskins. (Talk about a conflict of interest.)
this guy probably got in to yale by doing his 250 word essay e. e. cummings style, in once sentence, as one huge serious of concentric parentheticals, talking about how his heart bleeds for native americans and sharing the buffalo story.
"yumyumyumyumyum"
This guy is a loose cannon.
Sincerely,
Gary Busey
wow. wow. wow.
wow.
i totally disagree with all of you on this one. am i crazy or something (maybe just a little bit today (i forgot my medzies again)) ;) but this persons seem like a really carinig and empathatic individual (we need more of that in the legal world (even obama wants one for the supreme court (here hoping its a lady...yay))). big law has sucked your souls out (we shouldnt have to check our morals at the door to be a good lawyer). If firm were more open to looking for great causes (that also paid well) maybe life at big firms would be more bearable ( i know it would make me happy :) This is a new era for law and we need more than just money to motivate us (we need change). More lawyers voicing there objections to the current paradigm of big law can only be a good thing.
Recently made redundant (going british style there (any magical circle firms hiring crazy people)) QE 1st year
He could have gotten away with the first email if he had just apologized in the second email by saying like his emotions had got the best of him. Maybe he wants to be fired so he can sit on unemployment for a year. He probably has rich parents that paid his law school tuition.
Anonymous 215...
If you're going to make that claim, affirmatively out PE with the necessary links to facebook, school's webpage, etc.
We do not care that you are willing to come here and talk about outing him. There is no try. Either do or do not out PE and be on your way.
Amen 190. If I spoke out about marriage equality and was canned after a partner sent a firm wide email with such enthusiasm about defeating the Prop 8 appeal, you bet your last dollar I would sue the pants off my firm.
Comment removed by moderator.
255 here. also, wtf is with the buffalo story? talk about stereotypes... so all native americans used all parts of their prey, and hence are the ultimate proto-environmentalists? i'd like to think my ancestors did a little bit of unnecessary killing just for the hell of it and that is why other tribes left us alone.
quinn remains
Comment removed by moderator.
To all you commenting/analyzing:
You are all as stupid as this pretend assoc. The time stamps make this a truly wonderful example of how ATL can get faked the F out, not do their proper due dilligence, and have all the non-working Biglaw fools making ridic amounts of money to do nothing in a tizzy to end all tizzy's.
Amen 190. If I spoke out about marriage equality and was canned after a partner sent a firm wide email with such enthusiasm about defeating the Prop 8 appeal, you bet your last dollar I would sue the pants off my firm.
The associate in question must be an affirmative action hire from the idiot grouping.
Has anybody tried emailing the guy yet? Does he have a good out of office reply yet?
219 - Yes, we've represented both the Cowboys and the Redskins. (Talk about a conflict of interest.)
Comment removed by moderator.
251
Most successful associates have Asperger's syndrome.
Most successful partners do not.
"These comments demonstrate exactly what's wrong with the legal profession."
Actually its the opposite, what's wrong with the legal profession is that people that people like this guy ever got hired in the first place at QE when there are other people would have been better at the job and taken it seriously, instead because this jerkoff went to Yale (assumedly) he gets the job over a "lesser qualified" candidate and proceeds to blow it in self-indulgent, preachy screen.
Want to be a lawyer of conscience? Great. Work for the ACLU, or Legal Aid or the PD office. Offended by Big Tobacco? Fine. Don't apply to Arnold & Porter, Hunton & Williams or Shook Hardy.
What's wrong with the legal profession is eggheaded dimwits apparently led to believe at places at Yale that their worldview entitles them to everything. It DOESN'T.
In America, even "bad guys" get legal representation. What's wrong with the legal profession is comments like 243's that assume their worldview is the correct one. Idiocy.
Give us a name! We demand a name!!!
Amen 190. If I spoke out about marriage equality and was canned after a partner sent a firm wide email with such enthusiasm about defeating the Prop 8 appeal, you bet your last dollar I would sue the pants off my firm.
Its Fake.
198/252 -
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429608233
jagoffs.
yumyumyumyumyum
266-- you are a jerkoff.
This is a real email--- we all got it, yank your head out of your 3t lawfirm. We're a national lawfirm... the assoc. is westcost, Raskog and the partner that repsonded are both east coast.
Dumb ass.
If I bothered to hire QE, I would specifically require that this associate not be assigned to any of my matters. Or better yet, I'll stick with my counsel that hides its idiot associates from me and the world.
Comment removed by moderator.
234,
You are an idiot. "America's Firm" is a spoof of "America's Team," which is how the Redskins describe themselves.
Can someone at least post the first letter of his name?
Great reading on a slow day. The kid's got balls, and a conscience. What's he doing at a BigLaw firm?
He could have gotten away with the first email if he had just apologized in the second email by saying like his emotions had got the best of him. Maybe he wants to be fired so he can sit on unemployment for a year. He probably has rich parents that paid his law school tuition.
What if I were an incoming 1L at Yale, and I had justifiably relied on US News' rankings of Yale as the top law school? This would obviously be to my detriment, as they let any asshat liberal into their school that has smoked the peace pipe with the buffalo. Would I have some kind of claim? Perhaps based on the Restatements?
If this is not a hoax, this person has a massive trust fund. No one could be this flippant about their (high paid) job or as naive about serious social change unless s/he had a stack of money waiting in the wings.
The So. Dakota drive/buffalo story suggests that the writer is from a large metropolis and that daddy is an incredibly well-paid professional who wanted to be an academic.
As has been previously noted, our author him/herself wanted to be a poet and has a juvenile-like obsession with Walt Whitman and E.E. Cummings.
After reading through this AND reading all the comments, I've found so many of your completely laughable:
1. So he didn't capitalize and used parentheses. Oh. My. God.
2. So many lawyers are still so obsessed with where someone went to law school. Does it really matter?
3. You have a partner claiming that "it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in court. It is really that simple." Isn't that why lawyers get such a bad rap? Given your comments, it seems like most of you watch Jerry Maguire and throw a temper tantrum when he decides to advocate for better representation. Seriously: you are the problem, not the solution.
4. The example that should be set: Big Law firms are open to internal debate and discord. Partners "down the hall" need watch what they say. MOST OF ALL: Whoever sent the email to ATL is fired immediately. Law firms deal with high stakes. Anyone that is willing to send an email to ATL has committed a far more egregious act that keeping an email in-house (even if that email was written in the heat of the moment.) One behaviour causes internal commotion. The other causes lawsuits and liability. Whom would you rather have represent you? A team with internal differences or a team with a lawyer who leaks emails to ATL?
198/252 -
Google QE and Dallas Cowboys. Jagoffs.
243, you are teh gay.
Umm, his name is all over these comments dudes. Wise up.
If the "guy" is truly half Native American then contrary to being "soon to be fired" he just secured his job with this litttle public spat. And given his judgment, writing skills, and general goofiness he probably was on his way out before this. Crazy like a fox ...
I assume most of you defending the first year are trolling. The e-mails were self-righteous and condescending, which the first year associate attempted to conceal with a very thin veneer of "folksy." Assuming that he was really torn up about the ruling, he could have talked to his mentor, e-mailed Bob privately to discuss the issue (still not wise, but vastly preferable to a firm wide e-mail) or just tried to make a difference in some other way.
Damn. This girl just pwned herself in a way that makes my self-pwnage look tame. Well played.
This guy has about as much subtlety as a Bene Gesserit acolyte being tested with a Gom Jabbar.
if anyone has been reading, the associates name is peppered throughout this entire post.
Shows complete lack of judgement. Fire him.
Most successful partners aren't Aspies? Since when?
Being eccentric, stupidly hard working and hateful of most people around you (and junior associates in particular) seems to be par for the course.
231 should read Quinn Emanuel not Jones Day
293-- male associate .
Thank you 263, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
203 - no, it is not important context. The issue isn't the guy's views on the Redskins mascot. The issue is that he subjected hundreds of busy people to his idiotic rants and generally acted like a jackass.
I would have loved to hear about this, but I was too busy doing jack shit, getting a 2 hour sushi lunch.
- Blank
If this had happened at Paul Hastings ......
the thing I find amusing is that, of all the nasty clients QE has, I -- and this associate, if s/he really thought about, probably wouldn't put the redskins anywhere near the top. let's see -- who is "nastier" in a moral sense (or at least in the moral view espoused by this associate), the redskins or a vulture fund seeking to pry foreign held assets from an impoverished third world country? i suspect their are innumerable other clients that QE represents that have done all sorts of "nastier" things -- did the associate not recognize this when s/he joined the firm?
and, the QE partner who responded does sound like a tool (although i suspect that is part of the culture), but at least he had the judgment to only respond to the associate -- and not to try to call him/her out to the world. the fact that the associate choose to broadcast that email compounds the lack of judgment evidenced by the first email.
Joseph P. O’Toole Award. eek!
287 - Whoever sent the email to ATL is fired immediately. Law firms deal with high stakes. Anyone that is willing to send an email to ATL has committed a far more egregious act that keeping an email in-house (even if that email was written in the heat of the moment.) One behaviour causes internal commotion. The other causes lawsuits and liability.
[I'm going to have to "this" this.]
This.
287 - Whoever sent the email to ATL is fired immediately. Law firms deal with high stakes. Anyone that is willing to send an email to ATL has committed a far more egregious act that keeping an email in-house (even if that email was written in the heat of the moment.) One behaviour causes internal commotion. The other causes lawsuits and liability.
[I'm going to have to "this" this.]
This.
coat hangers for everyone! eek!
His name is Daniel Faraday. Just look at the time stamps.
I don't care if his heart is in the right place, this guy suffers from a serious deficiency in the judgment department. He does not belong anywhere near clients.
243 - what good old days are you referring to anyway? I think you have a very idealistic picture of the legal profession's past. There have always been unpopular causes and cases.
235, right on. The content of the original e-mail is totally irrelevant. It's the fact that this guy first had a complete lack of judgment in sending out a firm wide opinion piece and then the audacity to send our further follow-up emails after the partner absolutely clowned on him/her. Even YLS can't teach a person common sense and basic work interaction skills. And to do this in this economic environment? I say this associate is so fired...
His name is Daniel Faraday. Just look at the time stamps.
198/252 - google QE and Dallas Cowboys. Jagoffs.
273, did you even read my comment? I didn't say everyone should agree with my worldview. I just said that lawyers should have scruples. If you legitimately believe in the right of football teams to be racist/culturally insensitive, go for it. Represent them.
If, on the other hand, you don't give two shits about what your client stands for, as long as he pays you, then you're an unethical ass who doesn't deserve to practice law. That's the type of partner who works down the hall from Bob Raskopf. That's the type of partner who bulks up the PPP. That's the type of partner who gets further in today's world. That's what's wrong with the law.
There's nothing wrong with defending "bad guys" if you actually believe in what you're doing, e.g., you honestly and truly believe everyone has a right to a good defense, etc., or whatever it is that makes what you do with your life "right" to you. If, on the other hand, you're a pure mercenary with no morals -- essentially, a money-motivated sociopath -- there's something seriously wrong with you. And there's something seriously wrong with a profession that values that kind of greed and sociopathy.
-243
Yeah, this is true. This guy exists. This guy is a douch. His father has tons of money, so he knows he can get away with it and basically live off the loot from boom times.
I don't care if his heart is in the right place, this guy suffers from a serious deficiency in the judgment department. He does not belong anywhere near clients.
243 - what good old days are you referring to anyway? I think you have a very idealistic picture of the legal profession's past. There have always been unpopular causes and cases.
This is what happens when a firm sets ridiculously high hiring standards, such as "Top 30 law schools only" for established successful laterals.
You get socially inept morons who did Yale undergrad, HLS, but risk their job over something stupid.
Ha. I've litigated against Bob Raskopf, and, he certainly is a lawyer with lots of ego.
That said, this IS a great victory. This is a case that is in every trademark casebook, and he secured a strong win for his biggest client. QE and Raskopf deserved to be proud. And this associate, while having valid points, has forgotten that his job as an advocate is to advocate for his (or her) client. When you're morally opposed to a case or an outcome, you talk about it privately, you quit your job, or you don't become an associate at a law firm that represents insurers, polluters, the tobacco industry, or, I guess, the NFL.
OUCH! That coat hanger really stings, sir.
There's nothing wrong with the substance of his argument - he just demonstrated poor judgment in sending out that kind of missive to hundreds of people at his firm.
Although, the stereotypical buffalo story kinda undermines his "I love/respect Native Americans" meme.
if diss was my firm, i would be busting this jibba jabbaing foos skull. i hope he enjoys welfare, cause he be on da breadline by diss afternoon.
either a chick or a gay dude. commenting on flowers on the wall - wtf.
yes parentheticals are way out of control and as i was reading this nonsense that was my exact thought.
probably some harvard grad who quinn hires automatically. "americas firm" had better wake up though by now everybody knows what they're really all about.
308/312/316 -- I hope he made sure they buried the hydrogen bomb like he told them to.
Comment removed by moderator.
This is precisely what elite law firms get when they worship at the diversity altar with politically correct alw schools and glossy diversity brochures. They get these Frankenstein monsters.
Comment removed by moderator.
235, right on. The content of the original e-mail is totally irrelevant. It's the fact that this guy first had a complete lack of judgment in sending out a firm wide opinion piece and then the audacity to send our further follow-up emails after the partner absolutely clowned on him/her. Even YLS can't teach a person common sense and basic work interaction skills. And to do this in this economic environment? I say this associate is so fired...
Oh lord. 263 is dead-on. Excellent work.
I mean, come on, take one look at the picture on the website and try to tell me that isn't the guy? I've never seen such a dead ringer for this sort of thing, everyone should have seen it coming a mile away.
I'll say this: if QE doesn't fire this guy... I will almost gain some respect for the firm. I mean, if you're willing to keep a turd-in-the-punchbowl like this around in this economy, you must have it going like gangbusters.
I just came on my secretary's keyboard.
210:
I've seen (in doing doc reviews, etc.) that email chains will show all kinds of different timestamps, and that they don't necessarily correspond to the time zone of the person sending it. It's possible that the original 3:16 was 3:16 PM EST, that the 12:46 was 12:46 PM PST, and that the 3:22 was 3:22 PM PST.
Standardizing them would then be:
12:16 PM PST
12:46 PM PST
03:22 PM PST
or
3:16 PM EST
3:46 PM EST
6:22 PM EST
The first email sent got to the NY partner at 3:16 PM in New York, Eastern Time, so 3:16 shows up as the timestamp on that email.
The partner wrote back about thirty minutes later, at 3:46 PM Eastern, but it shows up in CA First Year's message as 12:46 PM Pacific. Then Firsty writes back a few hours later, at 3:22. The last email (that Firsty later copied into his second firmwide email) has a PST stamp on it because it isn't NY Partner's copy that gets pasted into 2nd Firmwide, it's Firsty's copy (from Sent Mail or perhaps a BCC), and Firsty is in PST, not EST.
And it would probably take Firsty a couple of hours to get back to NY Partner, as he undoubtedly had plenty of other emails to read through. I get that sense from the "this is not a dating service/family/commune" acknowledgment that Firsty put in his 2nd Firmwide.
Absolutely must be fired.
1. Regardless of what one thinks of the Redskins naming issue, this associate demonstrated an absolute lack of judgment. This email chain provides evidence in a future malpractice case against QE that the firm was on notice that this associate lacked basic judgment.
2. QE's reputation is harmed by this idiot associate.
3. QE's client has been publicly attacked by an attorney at QE.
4. Future clients must question whether to entrust QE with controversial issues, since QE cannot keep its idiot associates under wraps.
5. Future / present clients must question how much proof-reading and hand-holding is billed on matters to clean up the idiocy of this associate.
301--203 here. In case I wasn't clear earlier, I'd fire his ass. I'd also just have my employment group on standby for the discrimination lawsuit.
Please stop defending the associate. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion or having concerns about the clients that your firm represents. However, your ability to do anything about such matters is virtually nil as a first-year associate, and even if he did have any ability/influence, the way to effect change is most certainly not via a firm-wide e-mail crapping all over a big win. How many Arnold & Porter attorneys publicly crap all over all of their Philip Morris victories? If you work in a law firm, your firm will do things that make you proud, and things that embarrass you. Working in a law firm means you have to live with it. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. The use of firm-wide e-mail to air firm dirty laundry shows uncommonly poor judgment, and that alone should be a fireable offense. But on top of that, he actively suggested that his firm enlist summer associates and "smart people" to come up with a way to convince its client to abandon its hard-fought victory. This shows even worse judgment. And if it is true that this guy just failed the bar exam on his second attempt, he should be gone in less time than it took Darrell Green to run the 40-yard dash.
This is precisely what elite law firms get when they worship at the diversity altar with politically correct law schools and glossy diversity brochures. They get these Frankenstein monsters.
I refuse to believe this is real. This is why 1) law school admissions should not be based mostly on LSAT and 2) law schools should require work experience and interview applicants.
This guy is in his own world. Wow.
This is bad news for any QE associate looking to change jobs for whatever reason. No one will hire anyone that might even remotely appear to be this fellow.
Even if times were good, no firm is going to retain an associate that flunked the bar twice and thinks they have some moral imperative to criticize the firm's clients.
321 - Sure there is. The primary flaw with his argument is that there is not now, never has been, and never will be a guarantee that everythingin the world will be so fucking sterile as to not someway, somehow, offend someone. And for that I am eternally grateful.
You see, being offended requires that you, at least on some level, hold your own opinion rather then giving up your gift of free thought.
Enough already with changing mascots because someone is offended. Did they somehow lose their ability to NOT partake in activities affiliated with the Washington Redskins?
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
326
The picture becomes clearer.
A self entitled tool who doesn't want to be a filmmaker and yet goes to film school.
A self entitled tool who goes to law school and sends out that kind of email.
When (and not if) he gets fired from QE, he'll find another thing to do. He's a perpetual tool thanks to daddy -- eek!
A Richistani tool.
I am surprised that there are more than 300 comments already and no one here has pointed out the obvious - YLS! This kid could care less if he gets fired. He knows that prestige is everything in the legal world and that someone that pays a decent amount of money would give this kid a job merely because he graduated from Yale (if of course this is true - which it appears to be). Perhaps he is trying to make a name for himself as some kind of ideological lawyer when he looks for a public interest job with the ACLU, but I doubt it. He simply knows that YLS allows him to do shit like that and get away with it. Had he gone somewhere else I am sure he would think twice about doing something so foolish. Either way I agree with his ultimate ideological position.
Beast Rabban would rip Rick's head off and shit on his neck. It doesn't matter if his father is rich and the head of a MInor House -- no one talks drivel to a Harkonnen on Giedi Prime.
338 FTW!
someone please delete 323-- the associate's name isn't supposed to be public.
321 - Sure there is. The primary flaw with his argument is that there is not now, never has been, and never will be a guarantee that everythingin the world will be so fucking sterile as to not someway, somehow, offend someone. And for that I am eternally grateful.
You see, being offended requires that you, at least on some level, hold your own opinion rather then giving up your gift of free thought.
Enough already with changing mascots because someone is offended. Did they somehow lose their ability to NOT partake in activities affiliated with the Washington Redskins?
You people are fucking pathetic. Instead of dumping on some stranger for having an opinion just because he's in some shithole job you want but can't get, why don't you quit masturbating and go study for the LSAT or pray for penance or something?
This profession is rotten to the core.
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE "REDSKINS".. GET IT???!?!?!
CAUSE YOU KNOW.. INDIANS LIVE ON RESERVATIONS!!!!!!1!!
- ROFL
I think ATL was getting these emails from two different sources. One is from a California office and the other is Mr. Pissed Off Partner. If you take that into account the time stamps make sense.
obviously the issue is the professionalism/maturity/mental stability of the associate, all of which is called seriously into question by the writing, the style of writing, and communicating with the media about it. This individual has no business being at a big law firm, and seems to know it. He should show some maturity and resign.
321 - Sure there is. The primary flaw with his argument is that there is not now, never has been, and never will be a guarantee that everythingin the world will be so fucking sterile as to not someway, somehow, offend someone. And for that I am eternally grateful.
You see, being offended requires that you, at least on some level, hold your own opinion rather then giving up your gift of free thought.
Enough already with changing mascots because someone is offended. Did they somehow lose their ability to NOT partake in activities affiliated with the Washington Redskins?
good gosh!! delete 241, 263, 326, 338, and 339!! We're not supposed to name the guy (or girl (read: sexually confused (read: maybe just bipolar)))
EEK!! those posts name the author of the email!!
good gosh!! delete 241, 263, 326, 338, and 339!! We're not supposed to name the guy (or girl (read: sexually confused (read: maybe just bipolar)))
EEK!! those posts name the author of the email!!
Flaming nancy boys like him should be glassed.
333: Working at a law firm does not mean you just have to "live with it" when you disagree with a client's position or an underlying social cause. Yes, you need to zealously represent your clients. But being a lawyer does not take away a person's personality, independent thinking or personal opinions. Since there have been law firms, lawyers have dissed their clients in private and have taken private positions in the office that are not in line with the client's. Attorneys joke internally about their client's guilt all the time. There is nothing wrong with the associate airing his thoughts, concerns or opinions internally at his firm. The only potential problem is that someone else chose to forward the email outside of Quinn and that it then got published for thousands to see.
What is there to debate here? 52 nailed it. He was a goner anyway. This is one of those blaze-of-glory mass emails.
Dude just failed the CA bar for the second time (presumably -- he's listed as 'not currently admitted' on the website, and he isn't on the Feb. 2009 pass list.) Now he can enjoy the spotlight for a little longer before he has to find some other way to be a self-congratulatory dbag. He's probably the one who sent ATL the emails.
Carry on...
The first firm-wide email was naive.
The second and third (with parenthesis no less) after being slammed by a NY partner for the first were just plain stupid.
Responding to ATL about the fiasco doubly so.
And I doubt the pissed off partner is any less so to see his email to the kid--implying than QE will represent any side of a dispute no matter what--in print.
Last, I wonder how the client feels about both emails?
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
243 is totally gay! gaywad! thats awesome though. dont be pissed, dude.
i don't know ( i kinda (sorta (in a way))) liked this (kid).
;-)
ROFLMAO !!!
The door has already hit his/her ass on the way out.
338,
You win the interweb. Congratulations are in order.
Hey QE -- law schools warn their students that potential employers will do basic background checking on their applicants (like reading their blog, or seeing if they have one and thus are prone to spouting off at the mouth in public). Most people know this is BS because it implies some level of competence on the part of law firm hiring personnel.
Nevertheless, you might want to explore this idea in greater depth. If this kid passed the "business lunch test" then you clearly need to re-evaluate your hiring process.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
$10 easy money this kid went straight from undergrad to law school and had not previously learned the importance of distinguishing between the 'Reply' and 'Reply All' buttons. Law schools should really offer "Law Firm Intraoffice Interactions and Decorum" seminars, especially for those have no substantive work experience (internships don't count).
But it's not like the QE associate in the $5,000 Birkenstocks is going to listen to the collective wisdom of people who work/have worked in a law firm. COME ON!
Comment removed by moderator.
i don't get it
how can someone this retarded get into yale?
oceans rise
nations fall
quinn hires retards
187 - I just threw up all over my desk. The only thing more insane than this kid's email is the idea that Renee Zellweger is a "catch."
I say COOLIO...if u don't need the money! Good for him. Standing up for yourself is the most important thing.
If he does need the money, however, then probably a bad strategic decision.
258,
Its impossible for you to disguise the fact that you are in fact The Idiot first year, " :Rick." Look at all those f*ing ((() ))))!! You can't even disguise yourself in your own ramble-shout-out-trying-to-be-witty-save-yourself-emails. THOSE GODDAMN parentheticals are so damn annoying that it doesn't matter what you write! I want to scratch your eyes out and kind of despise you just for that alone. Its not whether or not its proper form, its just plain ANNOYING AS HELL to read and indicates that you are annoying too.
You are very immature. Its too bad.
18 wrote - "First, he is worse the Elie when it comes to writing skills." Hey 18, check your own writing before you comment on someone else's. Dummy.
Scwaaaaa!
Comment removed by moderator.
18 wrote - "First, he is worse the Elie when it comes to writing skills." Hey 18, check your own writing before you comment on someone else's. Dummy.
Scwaaaaa!
Despite QE's useless attorney search function, I was able to determine that there is only one male associate in a West Coast office who graduated from YLS. It also notes on his profile that he is "Not Yet Admitted" to a bar. Plus, his picture totally fits the one I had in my mind when I was reading his crazy email!
355-
You've ruined it for everyone.
My theories:
1. This guy was on drugs or is mentally unstable. AND either:
2. This guy was laid off or knew he was about to get laid off, thus sending out a final F-you goodbye email and telling QE what he really thinks about them.
3. This guy is afraid of getting laid off and thinks he can protect his job by speaking out in favor of Native Americans and against an unpopular case. Maybe he's Native American?
4. This guy was leaving anyway or know he's getting laid off soon, so he thought he'd go out with a bang.
Good for him. And if he has the resources to back up his ballsy move, all the better. We could use more associates who aren't afraid to question whether the industry has set the appropriate bottom line.
All of you piling scorn on him are so blinded by your own captivity you don't even recognize freedom anymore.
From his blog it is clear that this person is mentally unbalanced, and is in need of psychological help. Mocking him is inappropriate. Hiring him as an attorney (and accepting him to Yale Law School) is just ridiculous. I don't doubt that he is intelligent, but a simple perusal of the dude's blog would have outed him to Quinn recruiters as a total wacko.
he is awesome. you guys are idiots!
356-
Dan Snyder likes the kid's gumption and just signed him to a two-year guaranteed deal in exchange for cash and a future first-round draft pick.
he is awesome. you guys are idiots!
Its not 164 -- REMOVE
302 = blast from the past!
373-- you are a DUMB ASS...
HIS NAME IS ALL OVER THESE POSTS!!!!
Congrats for piecing together the puzzle, jerko, when his name is posted in at least five comments (241, 263, 326, 338, 339).
Partners must be amazed at your research skills, you fcking tool.
I say COOLIO...if u don't need the money! Good for him. Standing up for yourself is the most important thing.
If he does need the money, however, then probably a bad strategic decision.
I'm very confused. Why hasn't 263 been deleted yet? Is ATL just deleting all the false outings?
373-- you are a DUMB ASS...
HIS NAME IS ALL OVER THESE POSTS!!!!
Congrats for piecing together the puzzle, jerko, when his name is posted in at least five comments (241, 263, 326, 338, 339).
Partners must be amazed at your research skills, you fcking tool.
I say COOLIO...if u don't need the money! Good for him. Standing up for yourself is the most important thing.
If he does need the money, however, then probably a bad strategic decision.
373-- you are a DUMB ASS...
HIS NAME IS ALL OVER THESE POSTS!!!!
Congrats for piecing together the puzzle, jerko, when his name is posted in at least five comments (241, 263, 326, 338, 339).
Partners must be amazed at your research skills, you fcking tool.
You are all poor slobs who wish you were me.
Louis Zaccareli.
Wow this really is going to reach 500 posts....
353-- don't fck with me.
hey 313: yeah, we get it. i stand by my statement. the joke may have been appropriate (but lame) in relation to representation of the Cowgirls, but was a total non sequitur when talking about the Redskins.
His blog is filled with parenthetical phrases, exclamation points and words like "Gollywood."
Thanks, 338.
Hey!! Leave Renee alone!
http://www.icelebz.com/celebs/renee_zellweger/photo274.html
To: Robert Raskopf
From: Real Lawyer
Re: Having Class
Next time you manage to get a baseless claim filed by underfunded, but morally correct plaintiffs thrown out of court on behalf of a well funded client, act like you've actually won something before and don't send a silly email to everyone in the firm. It wasn't even a trial vicotry. America's firm, give me a f'n break, you dork.
holy shit what a douchebeast. i hope he/she gets fired.
379 is clearly a true redskins fan. Having lived with Snyder all these years, I swear I had to think about it for a second to see if it might be true.
394: we know who you are --- you're the associate that tripped on his dick during a a depo for one of raskopf's cases.... shut your hole,
379- ROFLMAO
You cannot deny the fact that, appropriate or inappropriate, the buffalo lungs-as-pillows image is pretty damn funny.
Fire this lunatic for all the reasons previously expressed and for stupidity. isnt that a valid reason to fire someone? I think the culprit might be Juno
anyone else find it funny this guy won the 'toole' award while at nd?
anyone else find it funny this guy won the 'toole' award while at nd?
So my brief Fight Club reference with no mention of the poor fool's name gets deleted, yet the poor fool's name REMAINS in so many other comments?
"this email is meant neither to rouse some rabble or down some debbies or outcrunch some crunchies. "
I just e-mailed my wife this post, she's an MBA who has worked in a couple different banks. According to her if a recent hire, say less than year, started an e-mail like this to a managing director, regardless of the rest of it he or she should be dusting off their resume.
What is it about this person that makes so many non-QE attorneys disdainful, or should I say uncomfortable?
As I read his e-mail chain, I became more and more concerned that he was a Yalie, but the terrible writing made me think perhaps he wasn't.
And then I read the comments. Sigh...
-Another Yalie
Nice 344, I laughed out loud.
classy lawyers end their emails with "you dork" all the time.
SO IF QE ONLY HIRES FROM PRESTIGIOUS LAW SCHOOLS, HOWCOME THEY HIRED THIS KID FROM UNIVERSITY OF IOWA? HE LOOKS LIKE BUTTHEAD.
251, how dare you make light of Asperger's. As a family member of someone with the syndrome, I can tell you exactly how difficult it is to live with. Its not common to find someone with Asperger's but it's a rare condition, this day and age,to read any good news on the newspaper page. Love and tradition of the grand design, some people say it's even harder to find. Well then there must be some magic clue inside these tearful walls. Cause all I see is a tower of dreams real love burstin' out of every seam. As days go by, we're gonna fill our house with happiness. The moon may cry, we're gonna smother the blues with tenderness. When days go by, there's room for you, room for me, for gentle hearts an opportunity. As days go by, it's the bigger love of the family.
394,
The plaintiff's were represented by White & Case, so they can't be that underfunded.
http://www.whitecase.com/fvasquez/
He is right about the mascot issue. What other ethnic group today is as openly parodied as Native Americans? And, the Quinn partners who are so very displeased with the email should take the pole out of their asses. Underlying this exchange is a bigger issue- just because the firm could take the case and win it, should it have? As for the associate's future at Quinn, um, I would say that it is pretty much over. They will not fire him, but, they will assign him to every prick in the firm and they will make his life hell until he voluntarily quits.
If it is true that this geneius has not passed the bar, he is likely not on the QE website yet.
394,
People send emails like this at big firms all the time. It's not a big deal and is considered part of the "we are a team" bullshit culture these places try to foster. Notice how the second part of the email is dedicated to thanking people.
stupid is as stupid does. i think the first year associate might have been Juno
rotflmao @ 410
Genius! By publicizing his race-conscious rant, this wiley first year just got himself immunity from the next two rounds of layoffs. And a leg up on the race for a NAACP LDF position in two years, when the economy picks back up. No wonder Yale is numero uno.
-not a Y grad. associate thinking about emailing entire firm about plans to undergo gender or ethnicity reassignment.
OCEANS RISE.
YALIES FALL.
THE ASSHOLE PARTNER WHO SITS DOWN THE HALL FROM BOB REMAINS.
409: iowa is a top20 law school.
Comment removed by moderator.
410 - Hey, everyone suffers from a little Asskissers now and again. Relax your sphincter.
"What other ethnic group today is as openly parodied as Native Americans? "
Vikings, Celtics and the Fighting Irish.
Note also that the majority of American Indians (and one is truly an out of touch liberal if they haven't figured out that's how most tribes prefer to call themselves, not Native Americans) aren't offended in the least by the term.
"If it is true that this geneius has not passed the bar, he is likely not on the QE website yet. "
Non-admitees are on QE's website, they are just indicated as such.
from his blog :
About Me
why ain't that a reason to spit?
eek
if this attorney went to a TTT, Elie would have no trouble publishing his name.
Comment removed by moderator.
409 -- without going into too much detail since he's actually a nice enough guy . . . nepotism.
409 -- without going into too much detail since he's actually a nice enough guy . . . nepotism.
By the way, how's this for interesting coincidence:
First year associate in question was an SA in the same office, same year, as Amazing Race winner Tammy Jih!
Que exciting!
First!
this associate was absolutely correct in his analysis and congrats to him for speaking truth to power. this reminds me of why I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad I am not a part of biglaw anymore--the BS hierarchy, the lack of questioning WHO the client is or what they did, the greed, and the list goes on........ Too bad this kid needs to go ahead and put in his resignation because in this market, I just don't see how he gets away with it. But kudos nonetheless for speaking real truth to power.
409: iowa is a top20 law school.
409: iowa is a top20 law school.
Joseph P. O'Toole award is right.
Look at this guy's picture. I'll wager $1000 that those glasses aren't even prescription.
someone needs to take a Paul Hastings Coat Hanger to this guy.
"eeeeeeek!"
People like this make me feel great about my future. Just by not starting fights with partners I'll be a step ahead of my counterparts.
-Summer Associate
334 - No, this is precisely what elite law firms get when they worship at the prestige altar and hire 24 y/o dipshits without one iota of real world experience, all because he went to Yale.
409: iowa is a top20 law school.
438th!
Comment removed by moderator.
344 - you just made my day
430 - Speaking truth to power my ass.
He wants to advance his social agenda, fine, but he stepped in shit and doesn't like that it stinks. TFB.
He needs to put on his adult underoos, update his resume and move on.
409- the guy mention is the wrong guy
429 FTW!
Fat guy in a little coat.
This post is an addendum to my prior post. I had to take a break to partake in a tutorial involving my newly delivered Palm Pre phone, which is a marvelous smartphone even for an old timer like me. I suggest you look into this phone as it will be avaliable to the public on June 6.
Although the associate's judgment was poor, the replying partner's was worse. Engaging in such a puerile exchange with an emotionally unstable associate demonstrates a lack of tact and judicious temerity that is required of a partner at a peer firm. QE was never a peer firm and will never be. Gloating or chest thumping over a technical victory is poor form. If you want to boost morale at the firm, take the associates out to happy hour on a friday afternoon rather than bore them a la Bob Raskopf "VICTORY PROCLAMATION" email. Clients will take notice of these embarrassing moments. QE will lose credibility and the ounce of standing it had among non-peer firms for this incident.
I think the most offensive/shocking part of this whole post is the jock-sniffing partner-down-the-hall's comments below:
"Bob and I represent clients, not causes. We like Native Americans. If Native Americans had hired Bob, the Redskins would have lost the case. But they didn't. They hired someone else. So it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in court. It is really that simple."
ODOYLE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!! F*cking goon.
This guy should be fired and escorted out by building security immediately simply for failing to use capital letters at the beginning of his sentences. If that is not a terminable offense, then I don't know what is. No matter the message being conveyed, it sounds stupid because of this.
Two words: douche bag.
hey, iowa-lover: according to comments, he did not go to iowa law. also, iowa is no longer in the top 20.
I think they removed his bio from the website. Can anyone else find it?
I'm beginning to think the whole thing was a big FU joke. The lack of capital letters gives it away. He knew he was going to get canned for failing the bar twice (how does that happen?!) and was just going out in a blaze of glory.
The lower case email was a subtle dig at the POS firm.
To: Everyone at my firm
From: Real Winner
Date: 18somehting
I would like to thank everyone for helping us win that big case, we really showed that Plessy guy who the real lawyers are.
Comment removed by moderator.
= : O
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
nuclear launch detected
Comment removed by moderator.
This fellow seems to have forgotten immortal words to live by: Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
450-- you're an ass. QE is the only firm that hasn't gone on a rampaging firing spree.... now go get your fcking shine box, and dust off your resume, douche..
Also, what I think is lost in this exchange is that those "victory emails" are extremely common here--- we see at least three or four a day. Bob wasn't stroking himself or doing anything out of the ordinary... it's just part of the culture here. Most of the time we ignore those emails, this is the first time (probably) any one of us have gone back and actually read one of those things.
461 - Your name/avatar combination is clever and hilarious. It is the first thing on this thread to have made me lulz.
441, this is 430 and I hear you and agree. I don't think this guy is cut out for biglaw and neither was I. I excelled and did a lot of stuff my peers never got the chance to do, but I hated WHO we did the work for and I hated having to spend time thinking about how to get the client out of trouble for something they did that I perceived as scummy. It mattered to me, as it is clear it does to this guy, WHO I did legal work for and after a while, I decided I didn't want to waste my talent on agendas that I couldn't believe in. We are passionate about what we love and we pursue what we love to the fullest. I stopped loving law, something I am really good at, because of who our clients were. That sucked. And that's all i'm saying. I think it's disgusting that the Redskins care so much about an offensive mascot that they'd engage in 17-year litigation over it. And it offends me to watch this firm help the Redskins organization continue to demean Native Americans. But you are right, this kid has got to go. What he did was inappropriate and unacceptable for that environment.
To: QE
From: Me
I am forwarding my resume for your consideration because it has come to my attention that although you are a top firm you have a really fucking stupid 1st year associate who deserves to be shitcanned.
i mean seriously (he can't use caps when appropriate?). he cannot write (my writing sample is attached). he uses words like "yo" in firm communications (is he 13? i would be concerned about child labor laws). he talks back. he uses reply all. he has no respect for senior partners.
In these trying times your firm can afford to be more selective in making recruiting decisions and I hope you will consider my resume. Thank you (afterall i couldn't be worse than that guy you have right now yo!)
Best Wishes,
Me
Comment removed by moderator.
Particularly awesome point that has been missed: if this toolbag indeed took the February bar, his meltdown began a few hours before the list was released at 6PM on Friday. Did he know he was gonna fail? If he had an ounce of self-respect he shoulda been sweating passing the bar on the second time around, not worrying about some PC bullshit.
What a sad, sad little loser he is.
What kind of loser sends out a victory email after winning on a technicality???
Danny Snyder must love paying these ass clowns millions in legal fees to win on an issue that a 1L could spot.
for 69
465- hired.
I was attached days ago for commenting that HYSers are ANDROIDS.
Thank you QE First Year for proving my point.
465- hired.
464 - Please, you're a lawyer - you care about the fee. The rest is pretense for your marketing material.
He also clearly doesn't understand a few minor things like, oh, I don't know, conflicts of interest? For the firm to attack the Redskins mascot would probably create a pretty massive conflict, seeing as the 'Skins are QE's client...
Maybe they taught that at the same time they taught capitalization.
Comment removed by moderator.
Associate in heap big trouble.
Firm no likeum bad press.
Too late for peace pipe.
Partners have big pow-wow.
Decide to scalp him.
No more wampum.
Chief Spewing Bull
466, classic! Bwahahahaha!
Comment removed by moderator.
I'm with 261. Either tell us who PE is or don't. Personally, I think you shouldn't; I'm not a fan of outing someone just because he's a jackass. But posting this now that you're no longer in the same section with him? Seriously? Are you afraid he'll beat you up?
473--some of us care about more than money. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. you've worked for QE way too long. they've indoctrinated you. I think it's even too late for you to get out. Stay, make more money, have no soul, defend the morally indefensible. there's a place in the world for you.....................
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
The Pittsburgh Steelers are America's team. Anyone who knows the NFL knows that.
Like QE, I always enjoyed sticking it to the red man. See, e.g., SUPERINTENDENT OF FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, FOR SANDY FOX, CREEK NO. 1263 v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 295 U.S. 418 (1935).
482-- Yes, you should know, it's well-known that you scking his dck last week. Nice to grow a set of b@lls when the posts are anonymous..
482-- Yes, you should know, it's well-known that you scking his dck last week. Nice to grow a set of b@lls when the posts are anonymous..
An associate just committed career suicide. Surely the ABA will create a new committee to address this new plague upon the profession.
482-- Yes, you should know, it's well-known that you scking his dck last week. Nice to grow a set of b@lls when the posts are anonymous..
The Pittsburgh Steelers are America's team. Anyone who knows the NFL knows that.
Will this guy get some form of severance or a notice period to find a new job?
Or will it be "you are gone" on the spot with security escorting him out?
1) I think this first is a woman. No guy talks like that.
2) Hail to the Redskins!!!!
Good work Quinn
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
This is RIDONKULOUS
491-- you are a dumb ass. he's a guy. His name is all over this post. Jerk. You must be great at doc review.
491-- you are a dumb ass. he's a guy. His name is all over this post. Jerk. You must be great at doc review.
491-- you are a dumb ass. he's a guy. His name is all over this post. Jerk. You must be great at doc review.