I think the judge got it wrong here. Her involvement in the case while at her old firm seems de minimis.

Not cool to go after this first-year.

3 - I agree. Seyfarth shouldn't have sought her new firm's removal from the case, esp. after laying her off.

I think she has the power to read your thoughts.

#1 is a mean asshole

They're pinky, they're pinky and the brain brain brain brain brain brain brain brain.

You could land a 737 on that forehead.

Way to cast aspersions on the fact that she was "laid-off." The last sentence of this post seems really unnecessary.

Fine, it's a legal tabloid. But two cheap-shot posts in one morning? Save it for deserving attorneys like Judge Halverson and Elliot Spitzer.

8 - It's just her hairstyle.

Personally I think she is very attractive.

This will get appealed to the D. Court judge. Because seriously. 7 hours? And you couldn't put up a wall between this associate and the people on this case?

this is not newsworthy. and even if it was, the focus should be on the failure of LLR's hiring dept. to conduct due diligence, not the misfortunes of ms. getchell.

13 - Tell that to (1) the National Law Journal and (2) Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Getting written about in those two publications is a much bigger deal than appearing on a little blog like Above the Law.

13, that IS the focus of the post:

"It appears the hiring attorney at Lichten & Liss-Riordan may have failed in her due diligence. Shannon Liss-Riordan called Seyfarth for a reference and was told 'serious conflicts' could arise."

Read the decision. Seyfarth is a scumbag firm to pull this maneuver. Nice way to feed off the carcass of a discarded associate. Spin it any way you want, Seyfarth, that you were only protecting your client, but it was unnecessary and cruel. The firm cited the work she had done on an ARTICLE (non-billable) in which the partner on the case told her to use publicly known facts and issues as an example of certain wage disputes. Beware of the dreaded pro bono assignments, they may be deadly to your career.

Agree with 9.

Who remembers every single case they have ever worked on - especially when you are a small cog in a big machine given discrete assignments and may not even know how those assignments fit into the big picture?

Firms with informally reported offer rates at or near 100% (info culled from ATL posts and comments):

DPW (100%)
Debevoise (100%)
STB (100%)
Skadden NY (100%)
Kramer Levin (100%)
K&L Gates NY (100%)
Dewey NY (100%)
Willkie DC (100%)
Ropes & Gray (100%)
Jones Day NY (100%)

Cahill (near or at 100%)
Kasowitz (near or at 100%)
V&fE NY (near or at 100%)
MoFo NY (near or at 100%)
Quinn NY (near or at 100%)

Cravath (near 100%)
S&C (near 100%)
WilmerHale Boston (near 100%)

This is unfortunate. Seyfarth Shaw played dirty on this one. Seriously? 7 hours? Perhaps that's the only way SS can win a case for its client -- asshats.

Kashmir, this is bullshit. Why are you skylining this woman?

Seyfarth is a fucking douche for doing this.

Latham NY laid off more than half the first year class.

Latham LA laid off one third of the first year class.

Poor form, both by the Judge and ATL. No reason a firewall couldn't be created. Also no need to concentrate on the associate, who obivously is not at fault here.

"You're damaged goods, lady"
-Arnold S. as "Harry" in True Lies

I always thought that a female first-year associate who billed 7 hrs would be ahead of the curve.

anyone remember that prof resp case from the 70s w/almost the exact same facts?

unless she actually had knowledge of confidential information relevant to the case, it's fairly disproportionate to disqualify the firm, as opposed to just having her walled off and not participating in the case.

she'd be cute, but for her fivehead

The plaintiff firm was in a tough spot. It needed to hire a qualified associate earlier this year.

There happens to be very few attorneys looking for work at the moment. If only the firm's hiring need for a young attorney arose during a recession. Oh well. Maybe next time.

Railroading this attorney on this issue is not cool.

I'm down for humilating people who make dumb errors, but this does not seem to fall into that category. Serious error in judgement on the part of the editors here. As an associate you have no choice as to what matter you're staffed on or as to what matters your new firm may take on. Way to try and fuck up somebody's life and reputation for no reason.

I hope everyone remembers how Seyfarth Shaw acted. They laid this lovely young woman off and then interfered with her job search. What a bunch of A-holes. For the record, she's good looking.
"Serious conflicts COULD arise" WTF does that mean? If Seyfarth knew she had information, they should have been more specific during the call to the hiring attorney from the new firm. This just sounds like a blanket statement made by a thoughtless (big surprise) big law partner. The disqualification sounds like the move of a crappy firm with scum bag clients.

This is all a little surprising. The Seyfarth lawyers I've been up against would never have come up with anything this clever. [I know- it's not really clever. But on the Seyfarth scale of cleverness, this is an 11. There are some seriously dim bulbs over there.] On the other hand, it is a really douchebag move, and the Seyfarth lawyers I know were pretty douchey so maybe it's not so surprising afterall. Either way, Seyfarth = TTT.

28 - The post is not harsh on Getchell at all. Rather, it portrays her as the victim. For example:

"It seems this may not really be Getchell's fault...."

"seems like a slender reed upon which to hang a disqualification motion...."

This is no laughing matter for associates. I suffered from a similar (albeit not as dramatic) problem. I work at a small firm with niche practice areas. I am constantly litigating against the biggest firms in my market. Stoel Rives offered me a job contingent on the conflict check, or alternatively, on me obtaining signed releases from affected clients. Stoel Rives has 400 attorneys operating in 12 different states.

As an associate, I do not manage the client relationship. In fact, I do not have direct line of sight to the client to explain that “while I may be going to a firm which represents your adversary, I cannot work on that file.” Nor can I explain that “the attorney representing your adversary offices on the opposite coast.” Moreover, the rules in my jurisdiction do not allow the hiring firm (Stoel Rives) to simply screen me from the case.

Thus, I was left to plead my case to the partner and explain that I wanted to chase the Stoel Rives opportunity. Who knows what the partner told the client. I know the partner was disappointed that I wanted to move to Stoel Rives. I was told the client would not consent. Because of the conflict I was prohibited from making the lateral move. I can count 15-20 firms in my market that I cannot lateral into. Being an associate blows.

9 here. Thanks for changing, Kash.

This is a non-story that does not justify putting a first year in the spotlight with statements like "now she's the reason for the firm's getting kicked off a case" and "leads us to wonder why she might have been laid off"?

You have undoubtedly made her 2009 even worse with your article and by exposing her to your commenters, many of whom are notorious assholes.

Bad work, Kash.

Hang in there, Sarah.

-V10 partner

I don't understand why everyone thinks this post is harsh on the associate. The post is harsh on SEYFARTH.

This is such crap. I was at school with Getchell and she is both incredibly forthright and nice. She would never do anything sneaky like this. Boo to ATL for casting aspersions.

Leave this first year alone.

And good god Seyfarth Shaw is a fucking asshole. It's not enough for them to fuck her over by laying her off as a first year, they have to kick dirt in her face after the fact too.

This is such crap. I was at school with Getchell and she is both incredibly forthright and nice. She would never do anything sneaky like this. Boo to ATL for casting aspersions.

$100 says Lat made the edit to the last sentence.

I don't understand why everyone is upset about this post. Is it just because it features her name and photo? It seems pretty sympathetic to her plight.

Is it just me, or does this post not accuse the first year of anything?

See also: "This shouldn't be seen as Getchell's fault; if anything, the hiring attorney at Lichten & Liss-Riordan may have failed in her due diligence."

The write-up is very pro-Getchell.

Im for bashing lawyers on this blog as much as anyone, but I think it’s a bit excessive to call attention to the identity of this first year. She has already had it pretty rough, no reason to plaster her face and identity all over a legal tabloid, when she did nothing wrong or even embarrassing.

Way to show your colors, Seyfarth Shaw. You're supposed to be a first-tier L&E firm but you go and lay-off a first year from the vaunted L&E group. Then you spend your efforts and client resources on an issue that will most likely, in the end, be found frivolous. I guess that's what happens when you have a firm composed of assholes.

What a true TTT firm!

43 - Her identity is already (a) in a published court opinion, (b) the National Law Journal, and (c) Mass Lawyers Weekly.

ATL is just a niche website. This is "no big deal."

For a bunch of lawyers, ATL readers are a sensitive group!

Fuck you, Kash. Sarah is a very cool person, and this is not a story that was necessary to run for so-called entertainment value. This story should not have been run.

I know that in NY merely hiring the associate wouldn't create a conflict - not sure if that's the case in Mass. This seems super high-drama to me - can't she just get walled-off from the case? It happens all the time in big firms. Working on a case shouldn't derail a young associate's career (and that's actually a consideration under NY's ethical rules).

As to her picture, I noticed that other publications featured her picture prominently, which seems intrusive to me. I wouldn't want my image disseminated publicly b/c of a dispute between two law firms over seven hours of my time.

As to ATL's decision to do the same, c'mon editors. You know your fat, bespectacled, acne-ridden male readership is going to give their $.02 about this woman's appearance and, despite the prevailing wisdom on this site, the vast majority of people don't want to be subject to such scrutiny.

46: It's because she is a better-than-average looking female. If she was a) busted or b) a douchey looking guy they would be tearing the attorney to pieces.

45 - Agree. Chill, people.

Bravo, 48!

I've been sitting in my parent's basement for the past few hours pounding hot coffee and chimichangas. Is that so wrong?

I am highly offended by something in this article.

This article is offensive. Please moderate.

I hope someone punches Seyfarth Shaw in the face

Seyfarth Shaw should put this shit on its recruiting brochure. What a bunch of dickwads.

"We'll lay you off as a first year because we aren't good enough to bring in enough work, then seek to get you disqualified if you manaage to get rehired."

Stay classy, Seyfarth.

This associate has done nothing to deserve the comments in the article.

Articles like this are why I will never use the services of any of the firms that advertise on this site. And I'm going to write an email to at least one of their advertisers write now telling them so. Others should do the same.

I think she billed only 7 hours to it because the god damn partners and seniors were hoarding. This is happening at biglaw firms allover the country. Fuck you above the law.

57 - What comments are you talking about? Care to cite examples?

I continue to be offended by something in this article. My confused sense of outrage at the ill-defined offense knows no bounds.

It would be nice if the post noted edits and corrections instead of making them surreptitiously. It'd be more useful to have a simple "this post has been edited for X reason" comment than a redline, particularly when ATL uses strikethroughs stylistically to denote sarcasm.

58, that comment is in strikethrough (meaning that it should be ignored).

Thanks for changing the article, Kash. SS was a royal douchebag on this one -- attention should be paid to its actions, not a poor first year who got caught in the crossfire.

57 - While you're at it, write emails to the National Law Journal and Mass Lawyers Weekly (which gave this much longer coverage than ATL).

58 - No need to be angry at Above the Law.

The point is that firms where partners and senior associates are hoarding hours are more likely to resort to layoffs (like Seyfarth).

The line in strike through text is not a slam of Getchell, but of Seyfarth.

This is 57 -- my primary objection was to the comment implying that her failure to remember working on the matter is indicative of why she was laid off, which has now been changed.

I just wrote lateral link and explained that I wouldn't be using their services as long as they advertise on this site. I encourage others to do the same.

Now the picture is smaller. ATL has caved to the terrorists demands.

57 / 66 - If you don't like Above the Law, the best response is not to read it. A boycott.

I assume this is the last time we'll see you around here. Bye-bye.

could have been published without saying her name.

regardless of whether it's good or bad on her, now when you search her name - TADA comes an ATL story.

i hate that this website does this to young attorneys. being a lawyer does not mean you should be put front page on a blog whenever something that may be of mild interest to other attorneys happens.

Any news on VE HOUSTON and their TTT offer rate?

This sucks. This is a waivable conflcit under our rules of professinal conduct. I wonder who paid for this battle. The clients?

57 / 66 - You are seeing slights where none exist.

The reason she didn't remember the case is because she worked on it for such a short time (which is why ATL is criticizing Seyfarth's decision to go after her, considering her minimal involvement).

69 - Isn't that Google's fault rather than ATL's?

Seriously ATL, do a follow up on V&E's Houston offer rate (see the hundred or so comments in the offer rate post).

Seems like PH NY may have massacred their summers as well.

29 = Sarah Getchell

69 - Go complain to Judge Collings, the NLJ, and Mass Lawyers Weekly.

They used her name before ATL did.

Good for Seyfarth. They found a weakness and they exploited it.

That's a lesson to all you kiddies out there that you need to be wary about what cases you are working on and which clients you are working for. Many of you posters seem outraged, but if you make it 5-10 years or more in this profession, you'll understand where Seyfarth was coming from.

Seyfarth Shaw lays off a new attorney, an attorney who probably could have gotten a job at some other law firm had Seyfarth Shaw been honest and told her that her job would not exist less than twelve months later. And then when by the grace of God she finds a good job at another firm Seyfarth Shaw tries to ruin her chances of getting hired by telling the new firm that a conflict will exist, where there isn't even a real one. Nice people over there at Seyfarth Shaw apparantly. I can see why any qualified law graduate with options would even consider working for these pricks.

Who lays someone off less than twelve months into a job? And then tries to ruin the persons attempt to get another job?

No 77, I have been in this profession that long and whether or not other biglaw firms would act this way does not make it right or necessary. If she was on the trial team then insist that a wall is erected, short of that, this is the act of dickheads.

"This is 57 -- my primary objection was to the comment implying that her failure to remember working on the matter is indicative of why she was laid off, which has now been changed."

I agree, 57. Kash, why don't you go to law school, work at a large firm, and then come back and judge an associate for forgetting that she spent seven hours on a case.

Hey 66, I'm sure lateral link cares. I'm sure your email made them change their entire marketing policy... fire all their executives and defacate themselves all in one fel swoop.

Unfair to Getchell.

Unfair, ugly smear reporting by ATL.

Seriously, she was laid off because she only billed 7 hours on the matter? Presumably: (1) she was billing more on other matters, but (2) they laid her off b/c of the worst economy in 70 yrs.

You guys suck.

82 - You should have read comment #65 before posting.

Her new firm deserves kudos for hiring a qualified young attorney despite the crap being thrown around by the big bully. Unlike Seyfarth Shaw, the new firm apparantly can afford to bring in new associates and is loyal to its attorneys. Where would you rather work?

77- are you nuts?

Its not like this ends the litigation. Yes, it will be on hold a little longer, and yes it will cause their client to spend more money on getting another firm up to speed, but it doesn't really help their ultimate position. Its just a jerk and antagonistic move.

I hope they hire Cravath or someone who beats the crap out of Seyfarth.

All Mystal can think about is using her forehead as a plate to eat his lunch off of.

No matter how nicely this girl was portrayed in this post, it was still rude and tacky to thrust her into the limelight through no fault of her own. She isn't somre retard associate on a reality show, nor is she some nutcase associate who wrote a book about antidepressants...nothing at all indicates that she is seeking the limelight. Now all the fatties and fuglies (anonymously so) that frequent this site will sit there and make hurtful remarks about her looks, even though her looks are fine, while they pick their asses. Awful going with this one, ATL.

When did the ATL readers get such a stick up their collective ass?

88 - I agree. I think Getchell is getting all her friends to spam the comments on this post (even though the post isn't mean to her).

This story could easily have been written without publicizing the name of the associate and posting a picture, both of which are irrelevant to the story. What she looks like is especially irrelevant. Why not post a picture of the douches at Seyfarth Shaw so the gallery can take cracks at their looks.

Mystal is made out of Spam.

Ahhh, disqualification of opposing counsel. The last refuge of scoundrels. Wonder what sucks for Seyfarth in this case? The law? The facts? A bit of both?

Dicking around with rinky dink "conflicts" and wasting client money in the process is not considered good lawyering. At least not at the company I work for.

- In House Guy

90 - Talk to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. They used a HUGE photo of her. As for her name, talk to the judge and the National Law Journal.

#2, de minimis is a neat word

I'm a former journalist here, who then went to law school (trading one dying profession for another).

Just so you know, it is routine in news stories to use the name of parties (unless the person is a victim of rape / sexual assault). Such personal information is considered part of the story.

How are recent law grads supposed to compete for jobs with "displaced" associates?

Totally agree this is irresponsible. The story here is the two law firms and not the clueless first year who is just a pawn and could have been anyone. Kudos to her for at least getting out there and finding a gig after being screwed over by SS.

93 - Just because Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly did something stupid doesn't mean ATL has to needlessly pile on. I also don't see MLW providing an open forum for anonymous commenters to take cracks at her appearance. ATL pretty obviously just hung her out here to be batted around like a pinata by the malevolent masses that make up its readership.

Here's some red meat for you jackals to feed on:

http://www.llrlaw.com/attorneys/shannon.htm

http://www.seyfarth.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/attorney.attorney_detail/object_id/bd735b88-34d3-46ed-924c-d023f01b3de7/RichardAlfred.cfm

Seriously 80% of these comments must be coming from her friends. Do you know a law firm that would try to disqualify a former associate from a matter they actually worked on or a jurisdiction that allows lawyers to appear on both sides of a case?

dick move by ATL for highlighting the attorney and not the retarded non-diligence L&LR by and / or asshat move by SS. This ship be sinking, friends.

This Seyshit firm or whatever is disgusting. This is a second-rate lawfirm desperate to survive. I'd give the over-under for its survival at 13 months.

The people at this firm are pigs.

If they hired her specifically to work on this matter, then that is an issue, even if her work was de minimus. If they can prove her involvement involved nothing that was confidential, then disqualifying the entire firm is definitely wrong.

Its what happens when you have ttt magistrate judges make important decisions

98 - No, the commenters here are all defending her. Nobody is treating her like a "pinata." If anything, ATL is being treated like a pinata, by ungrateful readers.

If you don't like this site, don't read it. 'Nuff said.

101 - Reading comprehension FAIL.

BUT WHAT ABOUT DE MINIMIS????!!!!

Why isn't anyone coming to the defense of SEYFARTH? They have a DUTY to their client.

If they LOST this case, and then it came out that they allowed a former associate of theirs to work for opposing counsel, they would get SUED for MALPRACTICE.

Dear Above the Law -

This is the last post that I read from you. The writing on this site has become foolish and cruel particularly since Elie and Kash have taken the reins.

I've known Sarah since elementary school. She is very capable, talented and kind. I think that insinuating anything about why she was laid off is simply unprofessional and meanhearted. I feel awful for her right now. Kash - I wouldn't wish this post be written about you although perhaps it should. I wouldn't even wish this post be written about my worst enemy.

I hope more readers follow my footsteps and simply stop following this site.

Good bye.

Agreed 99. It would be far more appropriate to splash picures of the managing partners and/or the partners in charge of Conflicts.

108 - At least you have the guts to admit you're Sarah's BFF since elementary school (unlike all the other defenders).

If you are a friend of Sarah, you are hardly in a position to judge this story objectively.

107: Your allcaps don't render Seyfarth's conduct any less odious. They could've asked for her to get walled-off from the case without going after the firm merely for hiring her.

108 - You're crazy and hyper-sensitive. You clearly shouldn't be reading ATL, given your hypersensitivity.

It is for the best that you are leaving. Good riddance.

Friends of Sarah, please stop bombing this thread.

Your points have been noted. Thanks.

What's the point of that strikethrough? It's not funny and can be interpreted as an attack on the first year for something over which she had no control. Poor writing, Kash. Is that what you learned in j-school?

The strikethrough in the last sentence = If Seyfarth didn't have enough work for her, it is not surprising that they laid her off.

115: Maybe, but you can't ignore the alternative interpretations. Ambiguity = sign of a bad writer.

111, what if I write ODIOUS in all caps? I don't understand legal phrases, I just like them.

I like Elie more than Kash. Elie is sloppy and a race-baiter, but Kash is just plain mean. Does this girl need to be plastered all over a national blog for something well beyond her control?

118 - "A national blog": What does that mean?

Isn't EVERY blog a national (or even international) blog, since it can be read anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of China)?

ATL is just a silly little blog. It is less influential than either the NLJ or MLW. Don't exaggerate its influence.

77 Key word in your post - "exploit". Nothing else needs to be said about the firm.

I agree with 36. Badly done, ATL. Badly done.

How DARE Seyfarth try to enforce ethical rules to the benefit of their client! Don't the know that when a cute lawyer is laid off rules don't apply?

I'm with 108--g'bye!

Okay, my two cents on the law here. (The Massachusetts RPCs.)

As to whether the first-year herself should have been able to work on the case with her new firm (and I'm not sure whether she was), that's an easy NO. Either she was representing the former client herself under RPC 1.9(a), or her old firm was, and she was exposed to some material information --doesn't matter whether it stuck -- under RPC 1.9(b).

As to whether her new FIRM should have been disqualified though, I'm surprised why they would have been. The test here is RPC 1.10, concerning imputed conflicts.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the first-year had SOME material information. That would mean that the new firm couldn't represent the client under RPC 1.10(d)(1).

However, Massachusetts is a screening state, and under RPC 1.10(d)(2), even if the first-year had some material information, so long as this wasn't substantial and she wasn't substantially involved in the case, and so long as she was screened, the new firm SHOULD be able to work on the case.

From what I've read on the matter, while it looks like one might make the argument that she was privy to material information, it would seem a real stretch to say that she was substantially involved, especially given her very junior status.

First-years aren't exactly let into the vault to dust the crown jewels. They're told by the senior associate whom the firm deigns to allow to do the dusting to research what duster the senior associate should use.

Thus, one of three possibilities is going on here.

(a) By some miraculous turn of events, this first-year was privy to "substantial material information" on the matter.

(b) The first-year's new firm was too stupid to screen her off from the matter.

(c) The magistrate judge made a serious goof.

Just because someone at Seyfarth said there would be a serious conflict from hiring this first-year is absolutely no grounds for disqualifying the new firm, so long as she was screened off from the case. Bottom line, either this small firm or the magistrate judge did an oopsie.

124 - Read the opinion. The firm told the magistrate what she material she was privy to and he found that to be substantial. Without knowing what that information was how can you say the magistrate goofed?

You all need to chill the fuck out. Seyfarth Shaw is clearly the villian in this story, not Getchell.

115: So, billing just a few hours to a matter means that a firm doesn't have enough work to go around? Or does it just mean that particular matter didn't require that much work?

magistrate judges are ttt without exception hth

If you think people want to read about the misfortune of a first year after being thrown into the pond you have not done your job. In the future please do your research and write something worth reading that is informative and relevant.

This post could have just as easily been titled "Another Michigan Grad Enters the Workforce - Predictable Hilarity Ensues"

EVERYBODY CALM DOWN. The original post had some loose language that made the girl to be the villain. It's been edited several times since then, and those problems have been fixed. If you're seeing bad stuff, refresh the page. ATL, please note corrections from now on.

Magistrates blow.

129 - With 100+ comments on this post, it is clearly connected with readers.

If you don't think ATL is informative and relevant, don't read it. Just leave (like several other commenters have said they will do).

130-Was that a slight on Michigan? A pack of Wolverines is going to come eat you in your sleep.

Right now things are bad for associates - obviousl,y its an employer's market. Kash and Elie, things are bound to turn around in a couple years. In the meantime, you should keep notes of the fucked up shit that law firms do. When things turn around, you should come out with a book - ATL's guide to the AM Law 200 Law Firms and the Fucked Up Shit They Have Done Over the Past 5 years. Law firms like Skadden and Gibson that made it rain while avoiding large-scale layoffs should be rewarded. Law firms like Seyfarth that overhired and laid off, only to salt the wounds of their victims should be shat on.

There's hot, and then there's lawyer hot.

Learn more at golawyer.com.

"Ed. note: This post has been revised in a number of important respects after it was published. As a result, many reader comments have been superseded, because they refer to parts of the post that have been edited or deleted. Please refresh your browser to read the latest version. Thank you."

124 please stop posting substantive comments. Do you really think that is the point of this blog? Really? Do you think anyone really cares about what the actual law is. If I wanted to have a really fun discussion about actual law I would be working on actual law instead of screwing around for a few minutes on a Friday afternoon reading this crap.

Although I wonder, if a person goes to Michigan law, can they really expect much of a legal career?

I agree with 77. Now that it has been revised, I think this post is unfair to SEYFARTH.

They have a client to represent. They should do whatever they can to protect the interests of that client.

wow, seyfarth even brags about the victory on their website (i'd run, run from working at this place...):

http://tinyurl.com/kowso3

139- I can only guess that you're a graduate of THE Ohio State Law School. One thought (small mental bites for you guys): Ohio State- big football muscles, little brains.

This is classic Seyfarth. The reason their L&E group is "vaunted" is because employers like hiring a**holes who will push the envelope on accepted behavior to the point of sanction.

141 - holy shit. Seyfarth really does suck balls. BTW -This article is inidicative of the fact that the small law firm that was DQed scares Seyfarth attorneys - that is the ONLY reason Seyfarth filed the DQ motion. The magistrate had no choice given that the attorney was directly involved in substantive issues. However, Seyfarth attorneys and their client (who BTW is a staffing agency - does anyone else find that ironic?) could have exercised discretion. That they did not do so here just shows that they suck as people.

I did not go to elementary school with Sarah Getchell.

However, I did go to law school with her. We were acquaintances. I knew her well enough to respect and admire her. She is a really great person, and in no way deserved the treatment of the original post.

Clearly, Lat got involved to tamp down Kash's amateur mudslinging. (Kash - you're not even a lawyer, yet you insinuate that a first year gets fired in the Great Recession for only working 7 hours on one case? FAIL.)

I hope Lat not only edited the post but apologized to Sarah for it.

Lat, come back and make this blog what it was circa a year or two ago. This sh*& is out of control.

125,

I have read the opinion, and I disagree with how the magistrate came out.

Admittedly, it's a bit hard to piece together how substantial the information was to which the first-year had access, since the opinion is relying on in camera submissions and never lays out specifically what was said to whom, but from what I did see there, it doesn't seem to cut it.

The opinion asserts that three instances on which the first-year received information, when considered in the aggregate, sum to "substantial material information."

(1) She was in a practice group meeting in which the case was mentioned. Give me a break. A first-year in a practice group meeting is probably playing Brickbreaker on her Blackberry, while practice group heads give in the vaguest most general way an overview of the cases the firm is covering.

(2) She was doing a research assignment for the publication of an article in which this case tangentially -- and that's even pushing it -- came up.

(3) She did a research assignment for another attorney in Seyfarth on the case itself. This one, of the three, I will admit counts.

So basically, the magistrate is deeming probably one first-year research memo on a case, coupled with two passing -- if that -- references to the case elsewhere combine to constitute "substantial material information." I call bull, especially if the purpose of having a "substantial material information" requirement in the rules in the first place is that an attorney would really have to have a bunch of information for him not to be able to be screened.

If one is going to interpret the screening rules like this so it's not even possible to screen out a FIRST YEAR who changes firms, what's the point of having a screening rule at all?

It's especially telling to contrast the two cases on which the magistrate purports to rely, in which judges also found substantial material information, to this one. In one of them, the lawyer drafted the actual contract that was being litigated. In the other, the lawyer was a PARTNER and went over the summary judgment motion.

I maintain, then, that saying this first-year had such access to material information that she could not have been screened is ridiculous. The ONLY possible objection that Seyfarth should have been able to make to the arrangement would be if the new firm did not actually screen her out, or because of its small size, it would have been objectively unreasonable for one to expect the firm to adequately be able to screen her out.

Oh, and did I mention the prejudice to the plaintiffs in having to change lawyers at this point in the litigation?

Hardheaded joke of an opinion.

Hugs and Kisses,

124

To the awesome law firm that was DQed: Please refer this case to a firm that is as well, if not better equipped to kick Seyfarth's ass on this case. They need to know that there will be consequences for their behavior. What about Lief Cabraser or Hagens Berman?

I agree with previous posts. This individual did absolutely nothing out of the ordinary and now this ATL story will ultimately probably be her google footprint. The fact that she was laid off -- a personal and trying event in one's life -- is being plastered on a gossip blog that the entire legal community reads. Even worse, your headline strongly implies that *she* somehow did something to get her firm kicked off a case when in fact none of this was her fault. And it's not even that interesting of a story!

I thought Kash Hill was supposed to be one of the more prominent bloggers on privacy issues. One would think she would be sensitive about these matters. I understand that there are stories that fall into a grey area, but this one seems like a no brainer -- you shouldn't have published this total non-story that has almost no news value and only serves to memorialize this individual's personal career issues on the 'net, forever.

148 if you think this is a non-story youre either stupid or youre a big law partner who is sympathetic to Seyfarth. The fact that you used the word "net" makes me think the latter may be true. This blog is about potential employers and read by people who are smart enough to get jobs at huge law firms, and have options in doing so. If Seyfarth and law firm X give me a job offering the same salary, after reading this story, I'd most likely go with law firm X.

Blanked revisions are BS. Those of us late to the story should get a redline up in this bitch so we can pass some angry judgment on the writer and relevant parties.

149:
There may be some value to the story for the reason you cited.
But on the other hand, a first year associate is just going through her career and all of a sudden her picture and information about her layoff is posted to a tabloid read by the entire legal community and self-described as a "tabloid." Different people have different tolerances regarding privacy. You may have a higher tolerance, but we just don't know what this individual's preferences are. Nor does it seem that ATL did anything to check. Because she did absolutely nothing to seek the limelight, I think that the news value should be weighed against the potential privacy interests that the subject of the story may have. And in this case, it seems clear: the news value of this story does not justify what was done.

Good lord. Unless someone puts themselves out there as an attention whore (on a reality television show) or does something criminal, you shouldn't be going after them like this. Especially someone who was laid off.

How about intent or maybe even recklessness as a minimum theshold for character assassination?

151 -

You also make a good point. I think they best way to handle this would have been to leave her name out of the story and block all posts that try to mention her name, unless she consented to her name being used. But this story is far too important to ignore in my opinion. Law students and young lawyers have no way of knowing what a firm is really like when they interview. There are still a few firms whose partners care and who maintain admirable professional and ethical standards while maintaining a lucrative business. Seyfarth - at least least their Boston L&E office - does not seem to be among those ranks. And stories like this offer financial incentive for firms to "be good."

-149

It is a compliment to the associate. Let it remain on google forever.

1. She was able to get a job in this economy.
2. Seyfarth fears her knowledge.
3. The new firm values her enough to risk being thrown off a case.

In the long run the new firm will still get a referral fee of some sort and won't have to go deal with Seyfarth anymore. And that new firm has plenty of cases to keep them, and their new associate, busy.

Only the worms that comment on this blog and work in big law would read this story and be embarrassed for the associate instead of Seyfarth and the its lawyers who are working on this litigation.

Now a big picture on whoever signed the motion to disqualify may be in order.

Seyfarth Shaw partner Krista Pratt, who represents Robert Half, said that the court "came to the right decision."

To everyone who says this has no news value:

Why did two (2) mainstream media outlets, the National Law Journal (part of American Lawyer) and Mass Lawyers Weekly, write about it before ATL? Using Sarah's full name?

Okay, we get it: Sarah Getchell is a saint. She is a lovely person, a wonderful friend, and an amazing attorney.

Now can we please move on?

157 here. One more thing.

Her name is a matter of public record, in a published judicial opinion. ATL has explained that it doesn't remove names when they are already in the public record:

http://www.uvalawblog.com/2009/07/david-lats-take-on-covering-felony.html

Sarah, please call off your attack dogs. Thanks.

I have read this post twice. It does not seem to attack the associate in any way. It is a repackaging of two stories that appears in other (more established) news outlets.

Why is everyone so upset? Am I missing something?

154 - Yes. There is no problem with this coming up when someone Googles her.

67 - I'm with you. It looks like Sarah and her kindergarten and law school friends have browbeaten ATL into revising a story that was fine to begin with.

Sarah, you're a litigator. You should (a) get a thicker skin and (b) not be afraid of publicity.

131 here. Thanks for adding the note.

141-

Thanks for the link. I notice that Seyfarth started two sentences with either "Notwithstanding that" or "Notwithstanding this." In a press release.

They don't just ACT like douchebags, they WRITE like douchebags.

It is hilarious that some of you are being thick-headed about this. One night you will stumble out of Scores drunk and accidentally expose yourself to a nun. It will be all over the internets and the karma will come full circle, I promise.

131 / 164 - There is also now an Editor's Note at the top of the page explaining everything.

Refresh, refresh, refresh.

The girl is cute. Is she single?

167 - I know. It was after I posted 131 and before I posted 164.

The point is that a judge RULED AGAINST HER.

Why does everyone - including ATL - assume that Seyfarth is wrong and she and her new firm are right?

She is cute.

Lat...you still need to delete a lot of comments that reference the earlier wording in Kashmir's blog post....any dumb schmuck who took BarBri (let alone who worked for a 9th Cir judge, Wachtell, and DOJ) knows that the post as originally worded was defamatory to Getchell....you still need to further clean up your mess....just because you're a blog doesn't mean your immune under the law

172 - Okay, First Amendment lawyer. What's the basis of the defamation claim?

I don't see it. It's a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding.

172, you're the dumb schmuck.

The original post was snarky, sure. But there was nothing factually false (and therefore defamatory) in it.

172 = FAIL

172's post has a kernel of truth though. She's still getting skewered.

Have to agree with 173 and 174. Not defamation in the original post.

Maybe, just perhaps, false light invasion of privacy, but it looks like from this post the first-year practices in MA, and she couldn't then bring a false light suit in MA, since MA doesn't recognize the false light tort.

Wow. Definitely going to carry a chip on my shoulder against this firm for a very long time.

What the hell is going on recently? Do firms not care about their reputations anymore? I get that the economy is bad - terrible even - probably the worst any of the partners have ever seen.

But still - firms are acting so unprofessionally lately. It is this, and not the temporary setback of this economy, that will lead to the end of biglaw. A whole generation of young lawyers is coming out with an overwhelming sense of disrespect for these firms.

uh...hello...7 hours of review would permit even the most inept attorney the opportunity to learn substantial information about a case. also, that amount of time would undoubtedly permit a review of work product, yielding the case strategy. would anyone here think it fair to litigate a case where opposing counsel got a sneak peak into your litigation strategy? and firewalls, for those of you who propose them, are less effective in small, intimate firms because it's almost certain that someone's gonna spill the beans. and finally, uhh...hello...the fact that an associate billed 7 hours to a client typically means that she worked for 15, reported 12, and the partner cut it to 7 on the invoice to the client. let's not be naive about things.

No privacy tort violation here. This was a write-up of a noteworthy, publicly available judicial opinion (which was previously written up by two other news outlets).

Former Majority Leader Dick Armey just announced his decision to leave DLA Piper. Apparently, this is related to his involvement with FreedomWorks, an ultra-concervative organization that has been connected to the organized disruptions of the health care reform town hall meetings.

180--you are a moron. She didn't do anything strategic or substantive on the case aside from write a memo on some point of law, which inevitably, probably went into a file somewhere never to be heard of again.

This magistrate will be overturned by the Dist. Ct. This is just Defendant's buying time probably and trying to shake down the settlement numbers. Waste of time, resources, and oh so nice to see how you guys treat your first years.

Fuck Seyfarth Shaw. Stupid piece of shit.

182, that's some weak sauce.

Even if the magistrate judge erred, there is no cause of action based on a write-up of that opinion.

I don't think the magistrate is going to get overruled. It's a careful opinion. Read it:

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=collings/pdf/04cv12719finalorderdisqualify.pdf

176 - How is she getting "skewered"? It seems that this entire thread is just her friends and former classmates coming to her defense.

If the hiring firm didn't put up an adequate wall, then this comes as no surprise. Let's face it, as Edward Bennett Williams once said of one of his favorite clients, a continuance is as good as an acquittal, it just doesn't last as long.

Why wouldn't a competent law firm play this card? Be malpractice if they didn't.

187 has a point. If you read the opinion, it seems the hiring firm represented that she would be walled off from the case:

"Attorney Liss-Riordan on behalf of the Lichten firm took the position that no conflict existed and that Attorney Getchell would have nothing to do with the instant case while at the Lichten firm."

182: this is 179. i don't want to harp on the fact that you tried (but failed! miserably) to deride my post, although that would be very gratifying. i do, however, want to point out that i had not seen the order before i posted what turned out to be a prescient analysis of the critical issues that were the focus of the order. so that means you actually got pwnd! in the same way a certain leader of the executive branch did when he commented on a local arrest in cambridge.

Tough year is right. Graduating from Michigan and working for SS certainly was a tough start to the year, but it started to improve in May.

I'd bang her.

Blame this on the firm. They've made their living on Wage & Hour class actions and they are admittedly rather good at it. That said, it shouldn't be a suprise to anyone that in a legal market as incestous as Boston that one of the top L & E defense firms would have numerous conflicts with one of the top L & E plaintiff's firms. In reality we should probably be blaming this woman for thinking that being a goody-goody plaintiff attorney is the right move after starting in cutthroat Employer side world. This is exactly why, even as a 1L summer, I would NEVER have worked for the needy, whiny, nutcases who file the VAST majority o the Employee side claims.

189 = fail

187-Under the judge's decision interpreting Massachusetts Rule 1.10, it doesn't matter if she was walled off. The decision does not indicate any problems with the wall. The controlling consideration was whether she was exposed to confidential litigation materials (such as work product) while at SS.

This illustrates why the ABA voted to change Model Rule 1.10 this year. Old rule 1.10 is brutal to lateral associates and the firms that hire them because the client must waive the conflict if the incoming attorney possesses confidential information and screening alone cannot cure the conflict.

Sigh. Non-dispositive orders from magistrates are appealable to the dist. court. I'm guessing you idiots do not practice in federal court much. Considering that this is "was an admittedly close call" and the weakness of the memo & order (which I read), this is definitely getting overturned. Idiots. All of you.

195 - Thanks for the Civ Pro / Fed Jur lesson. We didn't know that until you cane and enlightened us.

I went to college with Sarah. She was horrible. Extremely stuck up and unfriendly.

Lat's real reason for changing the post, from his Facebook page:

A hyperventilating, hysterical woman, claiming she was defamed in the comments (which I don't think she was, but I've removed the comments, because crazy people = plaintiffs, and I'd rather avoid the trouble)

Why does she have hair coming out of the side of her head?

More likely this is a move against Liss-Riordan personally as she's has been hammering Seyfarth in MA wage act cases.

198 - Also from Lat's Facebook page:

"An ATL commenter thought this status update was about the associate discussed in this post:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/08/lawyer_of_day_sarah_getchell.php

For the record, she was not the person who called me."

http://www.facebook.com/davidlat