Notes from the Breadline: Always Seem to Get Things Wrong (Part II)
Ed. note: Welcome to the latest installment of “Notes from the Breadline,” a column by a laid-off lawyer in New York. Prior columns are collected here. You can reach Roxana St. Thomas by email (at roxanastthomas@gmail.com), follow her on Twitter, or find her on Facebook.
One time, early in my stint in the breadline, I interviewed for a position at a New York non-profit organization. The interview, with members of the organization’s steering committee, was held at the plush offices of a Wall Street law firm - a setting so genteel, so prim, that I immediately felt underdressed despite my perfectly respectable interview suit and conservative heels. All the women who passed through the reception area were wearing knee-length skirt suits and pantyhose; the men looked as though they had come from a photo shoot for Brooks Brothers. The walls were hung with portraits of stately, gray-haired firm elders, hunting scenes, and graceful horses who, I suspected, had pedigrees much more distinguished than my own. I was reading a tattered copy of the previous week’s New Yorker while I waited, and I remember feeling sheepishly self-conscious — both because I hadn’t gotten through a lengthy article about Iceland’s post-financial crash identity, and because I wasn’t reading something … weightier, like The Economist, or the Harvard Business Review.
How, you ask, did I have time to read, reflect, and observe a cross-section of the firm’s personnel? Well, friends: when you spend 45 minutes perched on an uncomfortable settee, waiting for your name to be called, there is little else to do. Eventually, of course, I did make it into the conference room where the interview was being held; once there, I was greeted by five lawyers, all of whom were talking at once. To each other. In fact, I found myself wondering, at various junctures, whether they were aware that I had joined them. One lawyer asked me a complicated question and then (without skipping a beat) answered his ringing cell phone and had a lengthy conversation. I tried to shift focus seamlessly by turning to address the others, but two of them were BlackBerrying while another listened to voicemail messages. When I finally stood up to say my goodbyes, they told me that they were impressed with my qualifications and hoped that I could come back to meet with the members of the steering committee who had been unable to make it to the interview that day. “That would be great!” I said enthusiastically. Perhaps, I mused, given the general level of attentiveness I had observed, they were hoping to organize a flag football scrimmage, and simply needed a few more people to work with (as well as a captive audience, or a referee).
As a new arrival to the breadline, this experience left me with a few thoughts. Among them were, “Are interviews always this suck-ass, or was this a freakish anomaly?” and “Is there a sliver lining in all of this?” Like a convoluted legal argument, the answer to the latter of these questions resolves the first inquiry as well. As I have discovered in the intervening months, there is not a single “silver lining” in all of this, but many, including: freedom from the oppressive sartorial conventions of the workplace, the luxury of dropping by Lat’s office for a mid-day drink from the coffee fountain, and the (admittedly mixed) blessing of life in a lower tax bracket. These perks, however, pale in comparison to one, particularly luminous reward, which I consider the most spangly of all silver linings.
And what might that be?
Stated briefly, dear readers: it’s you. Though the circumstances of our acquaintance are unfortunate, I am no less grateful for your communion. The thoughts and stories you have shared with me are often funny, sometimes sad, and always honest and compelling. In short, you had me at hello. Your responses to last week’s Homework Assignment from the Breadline were no exception. Good job, friends! Your diligence and overall execution have earned you a solid “A” and a gold star from Ms. St. Thomas.
Which, of course, brings me to the first of the questions above: are interviews always this suck-ass? As was clear from your answers, suck-ass interviews are — like bad hair days or unfortunate dates - all too common. The good news, however, is that — like bad hair days and unfortunate dates — even the most excruciating ones can be funny, at least once the immediate discomfort, irritation, or downright humiliation is over. And, dear readers, do you know what’s really funny? I’ll give you a hint: when it comes to interviews (during which we are, presumably, on our best behavior), nothing takes the cake like bodily functions, pratfalls, and colossal social blundering in any form.
Exhibit A comes from our friend Laura, who wrote, “I looked down at my hand [during an interview] and realized I had a booger on the knuckle of my first finger.” Laura had “no idea how long it had been there,” but guessed that it was a keepsake from some innocent nose-blowing in the ladies room, prior to the interview. Horrified, and “not knowing if the two interviewers had seen it,” Laura “tried to get rid of it under the table, debating whether to wipe it on the front of my dark interview suit, or the office’s nice furniture and leave as a souvenir?” Alas, while Laura told us that she “didn’t get the job,” she neglected to disclose her booger-remediation strategy. [Laura: how about a follow-up? You left out the money shot, girlfriend.]
Another friend, BH, shared a story that, he told me, has become “the stuff of legend” at his firm. “Back when I was a first year associate,” wrote BH, “we had a 2L candidate come through the office. Let’s call him Bill. Bill had an afternoon schedule of lunch with two associates, followed by a series of six interviews with a mixture of associates and partners; I was scheduled to be his last interview of the day.” Lunch interviews, as we know, can be fraught with peril, and Bill’s, it seemed, went particularly poorly; an eyewitness told BH that Bill “had sweated profusely throughout lunch, and disappeared for about 20 minutes during dessert.”
After that, things continued to go downhill for poor Bill. “Before his interview with the managing partner,” BH explained, “Bill had had to wait outside his office while the partner wrapped up a conference call.” The partner’s secretary and an associate both noticed that the candidate did not look well, but when they asked him “if he was feeling okay, Bill assured them that he was fine.” Eventually, the managing partner finished his call, and the associate took Bill into the managing partner’s office. “Just as the associate was introducing Bill to the managing partner,” BH wrote, “Bill projectile vomited all over the managing partner’s office.”
But wait: it gets better. Bill, who had “driven close to 100 miles that day for the interview, was determined to soldier on despite his illness, because rescheduling would be difficult.” He insisted that he felt much better, and that the proverbial show go on. After meeting with an associate, Bill was taken to his penultimate interview, this one with another partner. BH continued, “the partner had been on conference calls all afternoon and was completely unaware of the mess — literal and figurative — Bill had created that afternoon, but he did notice that Bill seemed somewhat off. The partner asked Bill how his afternoon had gone, and Bill responded that it had not been great.” Despite gentle prodding, Bill declined to give specifics, “but he assured the partner it had been a disaster. The partner then said (and, again, bear in mind that this partner had no idea what had already happened), ‘Cheer up, whatever happened can’t be too bad. It’s not like you puked on someone or anything like that.’”
Oh, Bill. Though I regret your total interview fail, you have done a great service. I think I speak for many of us when I say, “Thank you, projectile vomiter, for lowering the bar to nearly unmatchable depths.”
Of course, awkwardness comes in many forms, some of which do not require a mop (or at least a Kleenex). One reader told us about a meeting with a candidate for an associate position where he was among the interviewers. “The conference room in which we met (four men plus the young woman who was the interviewee) was an interior space with no windows,” wrote Ken. “In the middle of the interview and with no warning (with no windows, how would we know?), a thunderstorm caused a power outage and plunged the room into complete darkness. From somewhere in the dark, a female voice asked, ‘Is this part of the interview?’ We assured her that it was not, but it was real awkward for all of us to find the door in the dark without more personal interaction than was appropriate.” (“Um, guys … those aren’t two pillows.”)
One of my personal favorites came from Jennifer, who told me about a candidate she interviewed at her [then] law firm. “By the time the candidate got to me,” Jennifer said, “he had met with 3 other partners and had clearly decided my firm was NOT the right place for him. But, he was there and committed to meeting with me, and probably had already told people at his firm he was out for the day.” (Points for pass completion, Nameless Candidate!) So, while Jennifer was “glowing about the wonders of the firm, he asks if it’s ok if he eats his lunch while I’m talking. And, before I can say anything, he pulls a peanut butter sandwich (I could smell it) out of a foil wrapper and starts munching on it. I offered to get him some water, but he already had some.” Nameless Candidate: I commend you. You may be a douche, but at least you were a prepared douche.
Your bad interview stories were characterized by a few recurrent themes. One, not surprisingly, was cell phones, which have a way of ringing at the darndest times. Our friend Erika, for example, told me about her interview with a firm that had been courting her aggressively for eight (yes, eight) months. “The partners came in and we were about to start the meeting when my phone rang,” she wrote. “Of course I went red, of course I grabbed it to shut the damn thing off. One of the partners smirked at me and asked innocently what phone that was. I said ‘It’s a Motorola’. He smirked again and said ‘Well, I have one of those and MINE has an OFF switch. Doesn’t yours?’ Erika “excused myself to the group and walked out,” and then “told the partner who raced after me frantically that, if this was how they were going to treat me while they were still in the romance phase, I wasn’t going to stick around to see how they behaved in the marriage.” As always, Erika, you are our hero.
Since a considerable number of us have, at one time or another, shed tears of quiet desperation in the office bathroom, it is not particularly surprising to learn that many bad interviews simulate the workplace experience in this respect. One friend told me about an interview she went on while she was employed at a Big Law Firm, where the work conditions had become “impossible.” “During this time,” she wrote, “I got an interview at [a different] Big Law Firm through a couple of contacts. The interview began rather normally, but by the end, I was in tears, sobbing and repeating to the personnel director: ‘I just want a normal job.’ Needless to say, I did not get the normal job I was seeking.”
Another reader, “Lisa,” told us about her interview with a judge, who - due to his secretary’s scheduling error - believed that Lisa had arrived for her interview 45 minutes late. After a blistering rebuke by the judge, the stunned - and shaken — Lisa proceeded to her interviews with the law clerks. Despite her best efforts, she burst into tears while talking to the first clerk. Whoops. But, wait - there was another clerk! Hope, for Lisa, sprang eternal. “Interview with second clerk came, and she was super-nice, too,” Lisa wrote. The clerk “handed me a poem of apology the judge had written for me - a limerick (he was a bit eccentric that way),” but when she said, “‘I’m so sorry you were put through that,’” Lisa “burst into tears, again. At this point, I’m just thinking ‘at least I haven’t cried in front of the judge yet.’ I pull myself together, yet again.” Finally, Lisa met with the judge himself, “and by this time I’m sure I’m all cried out. Seriously, how emotional can one person be? The interview was endless - or so it seemed - and about 45 minutes into it the judge said, “I really have to apologize about how we started out, I’m so sorry … .” Yup, burst into tears. Again.” Fortunately, Lisa was interviewing with another judge that day, so she figured she still had a chance. “Nope,” she lamented. “That judge knocked on the door to ask “Judge A” a question, almost as soon as I had that thought. Looked at me sitting there, in tears. Three strikes.”
Alas, many of your stories — too many for me to do them justice here - touched on two common features of bad interviews: the interminable wait, and the bait-and-switch. If you’ve had a bad interview, there is a good chance that its unpleasantness was attributable to (or exacerbated by), a partner, recruiter, or anyone else with whom you might interview forcing you to endure an endless wait, during which your composure deteriorated and the “best foot” you planned to put forward twitched with the urge to boot your tormenters. Similarly, many of you have been lured by the prospect of an interview for a position that seemed “perfect,” only to find that you are, in fact, being considered for a different job entirely. These stories are rendered with a degree of anger and frustration that, it some cases, has lingered despite the passage of months or years. Why? In my humble opinion, it is because they encapsulate the helplessness, fear, and resentment of being unemployed. You may be a qualified attorney, a stellar member of the profession, and a lovely person. But when you are waiting for an hour in the reception area, the message is loud and clear: your time doesn’t matter, and the jerk you’re waiting for doesn’t care what you went through to get there or how high your hopes are. Similarly, the “bait and switch” is particularly painful because it denigrates the experience you have worked so hard to accumulate, and casts you as unqualified and, ultimately, disposable. I’m sorry, dear readers, that so many of you have felt the sting of this kind of dismissal and disrespect. I know just how you feel.
On a happier note, I have some good news. Remember our friend Sara Beth, whose interview for a dream job ended with her captivity in a revolving door? Sara Beth wrote to me with the following update, which I thought I’d share with you:
So great news…. I got the job! You know, the one where I got trapped in the glass revolving door after the interview? My husband says they’re only going to keep me until the statute of limitations runs on the state premises liability statute, but I’m more optimistic.
Godspeed, Sara Beth! And Godspeed to the rest of you, too. Keep the lighthouse in sight.
______________________________________________________________________
Roxana St. Thomas is a laid-off lawyer living in New York. You can reach her by email (at roxanastthomas@gmail.com), follow her on Twitter, or find her on Facebook.
(75) Comments
Comments
first!
Here's a question I would like to ask Roxana: has she really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
TL DNR
So you're telling that 1) you didn't get the fucking job and 2) we have to put up with your poorly written regurgitations of other people's experiences as a result. Just fucking great. Please an hero ASAP.
yadda yadda yadda, all bullshit. next.
Please for the love of god, stop posting these melodramatic ramblings.
BARK! BARK!
What's that Lassie? Roxana is full of shit?
This "article" for lack of a better term, reminds me of how resentful I used to feel when I was assigned to the hiring committee early in my career. Inteviewing potential cogs always cut into my billable time and I always was saddled interviewing socially inept misanthropes. If you want to make an impression at an interview, don't try to prolong it.
Roxana = man.
No female attorney would write about a "money shot."
I scanned the italics and thought it said "last" instead of "latest." We can all dream, I guess.
Agree with 6. These are pointless. If I wanted to read ramblings of a fat whore I'd go to Rosie.com.
nooooooooo it's back. What does it take to do this monster in??
i endorse #4
10,
Roxanna = Lat
I thought that was obvious by now.
KILL IT WITH FIRE.
Previously laid off, now government safe. So I don't give a shit about this stuff anymore.
Can we finally, at long last, drop the pretense that this column is non-fiction? After months of breathlessly detailing every minute of her empty life, "she" (and by "she" I mean David Lat, the author) suddenly remembers an interview like this at S&C that she hadn't previouslu mentioned? Come on.
I am boycotting every advertiser of this site until this shit goes away.
FUCK YOU SOUL CALIBER!
Thanks for the laugh, 14. I concur.
Do you also write Jean Teasdale's column for The Onion?
Actually I liked the stories. I remember an interview many years ago when I was unemployed where the lawyer had a stereo on in his office listening at full volume to heavy metal music while he interviewed me. It never even occurred to him to turn it off or down. It was a crappy franchise law firm whose offices were filthy and covered in boxes with a bunch of stressed associates running around at 9 on a Friday night. The real kicker was the pay was 30K a year and the billable hour requirement was 300 hours a month. I smiled and walked out the interview and told him thanks but no thanks.
what a giant load of carp!
seriously, kill this weekly screed and put us all out of our misery.
"Roxana" is clearly tapped out for material, and this formula of asking stupid questions of the readers is NOT working. perhaps ONE of the multiple stories she shared was remotely entertaining. the rest were just f***ing stupid e.g. the lights off interview with the female candidate. sounds like the candidate was being funny and the socially awkward retard male associates didn't get that, AND they were all hung up with the fantasy of copping a cheap feel that nobody would know about (probably the first feel of a boobie they would ever have).
Lawyers are pathetic losers. seriously, as a lawyer i get depressed at the notion i am one of you all.
arent fox just started rescinding offers
arent fox just started rescinding offers
20 = roxana
I Failed The BAR!
make...it...stop....can't take...anymore
Instead of boring job interview stories, can ATL do something like the Penthouse Forum? "Dear Elie, I never thought it would happen to me, but . . ."
Hey Roxy, don't let the haters get to you. You are a remarkable writer with a bright future.
A fan
I'm unemployed too - can I come to ATL's office and have a coffee from Lat's coffee fountain?
Roxana--on behalf of all women everywhere, please stop talking about crying at work. Even in my darkest hour, or most frustrating moment, tears were not an option. Maybe that's because I HAVE A SPINE (I mean, played college athletics).
THERE SHOULD BE NO CRYING AT WORK. NO MATTER WHAT.
--a female
Third paragraph, second line:
What is a "sliver lining."
This is actually better than the typical Roxanna doggerel.
Roxanna seems to run with a very weepy crowd. Is this really normal? I have never been in a ladies room but now I picture it teeming with sobbing lawyers jabbing out plaintive texts to other women sobbing in other firm's ladies rooms.
30 -- there, there sweetie. Let it out. Come on, you'll feel better.
This column is continuing proof that big law really needs to cut the fat and keep dropping associates. Good luck finding a new gig after writing this drivel.
these stories were not interesting.
Roxana is an embarassment to working women everywhere.
I can't tell you how much I hate this column.
Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate this column.
When is it going to stop?
Love the column. Keep it going. Rock on, Roxana!
Funny stories, and great tone. Don't listen to these asshats Roxanna. Most of them are probably still bitter about not being touched in a "special place" when they visited Never-Never Land as kids.
38 is a sexual abuse knocking faggot
38 - i don't even know where to begin, but the fact that you wrote what you wrote, and clearly think that it is clever, combined with the fact that you then endorse Roxanna... well, that says it all. seriously, Lat, pull Roxie - the only people who appreciate her are functionally retarded.
Is Roxy the one everyone keeps calling a walrus?
Partner Emeritus--
Your lack of compassion for others is a credit to your dying breed. It's animal-like, and beautiful in a way... once it's extinct.
You and the dinosaurs now have something else in common besides your looks.
Retired partner here: During the first 10 years or so of my partner years, I regularly would get stuck interviewing potential associates. This was in the old days when partners actually interviewed potential associates, many of whom had not clerked for the firm (in the old days, summer associates were known as summer clerks). Anyway, I found that most of the interviewees were incapable of carrying the conversation. They waited for me to ask questions, when I figured anyone worth hiring would have their own questions to be answered. Well, I found it all a waste of time, because the pansy-ass members of the recruiting committee usually decided who would get hired, and our thoughts rarely counted for shit. I always ran like hell to get away from doing these interviews, because so many of the interviewees were just plain losers in my view, even though they were top of class at top law schools. I'm glad I'm retired and don't have to put up with this shit anymore.
Roxana, get a job already. The recession is over.
Don't ask for whom the breadline tolls.
Well, la-dee-FRICKIN-da! Hey LaTTT and MysTTTal - I bet I can write something better than this JACK SQUAT. If you need me, I'll be IN A VAN, DOWN BY THE RIVER. (Where Roxana will be soon if she keeps on putting out TTT ranTTTs like this).
I've always enjoyed these columns, and reading the comments. The columns amuse me, and the comments remind me of why I hate so many people that I work with at biglaw.
Why do people put 'hat' at the end of 'ass', like 38 did?? It looks stupid, sounds stupid, & is stupid.
45 -- Don't ask for whom the breadline trolls. Every time I read this column I rage.
FUCK YOU ROXANNA YOU DIRTY FILTHY MYSTAL???
OMG!!!! I cannot believe that Sara Beth's husband told her she would be fired after the statute of limitations runs. Women in this profession have it so hard!!!! They need loving support from their husbands, not grim predictions.
Sara Beth: You go, girlfriend!!!!! Prove your mean old husband wrong!!!!
I lied, Roxana's job died.
I'm Barack Obama?
Can we delete comment 38 please? The child-sex stuff is a little over the line
"He smirked again and said ‘Well, I have one of those and MINE has an OFF switch. Doesn’t yours?’ Erika “excused myself to the group and walked out,” and then “told the partner who raced after me frantically that, if this was how they were going to treat me while they were still in the romance phase, I wasn’t going to stick around to see how they behaved in the marriage.” As always, Erika, you are our hero."
Really, what's wrong with what the partner said? Erika should have been ashamed of leaving her phone on; certainly, she should not have been indignant at the Partner's joke! I don't care who you are or how much the firm was interested in you.
I am generally annoyed by bad cell phone etiquette, but I have to agree that Erika is also my hero. Yeah she fucked up but she should never allow herself to be chided like a child.
I would have given puke boy an offer. It's not like your not expected to show up to work and to actually work when your sick. He's a trooper.
Crybaby deserved the no-offers. Sometimes you get a raw deal and it is all in how you handle it. She behaved like a child.
54
I would have no problem no-offering Erika for the phone call because I wouldn't be sure if it was a mistake or a manifestation of the typical gen z behavior.
I just don't see the need to try to belittle her.
54
I think it's clear that Erika was not interviewing for a summer associate or a first-year position. I got the impression that she was being interviewed for a lateral position by persons who would possibility become her partners and peers. That being the case, her interviewers should have treated her with respect as an equal and not in a berating tone as a child. It was an honest mistake. She should have apologized sincerely, and any interviewer without an over-inflated ego should have accepted and moved on.
Furthermore, I think she handled the matter in a classy way. She was not "indignant". She didn't say something snarky about her interviewer's lack of professionalism. She didn't defend her mistake. She made a decision about whether should would allow this firm to recruit her, and professionally excused herself, not wishing to take up any more of their time.
Yup. My hero.
Who would want to work with such jerks? I remember, some nearly 30 years ago, being flown out to Chicago from my "Top Ten" law school for an interview at a large international (or so they say) law firm. They assigned two real jerks that looked and acted like the boobs the writer describes concerning her interview (second year associates in the tax department from lousy local Chicago law schools) to "host" me for lunch (the apparent upside was that they got a free lunch at a decent restaurant; the downside is that they have to spend their lunch with a law student having superior academic and work credentials, which weren't hard to establish by comparison). The first five minutes consisted of the two of them talking to each other, ignoring me, complaining how they didn't want to "waste their valuable time being there", until the unattractive female associate proclaimed that I didn't have her "wealth of experience' to do international tax or international corporate law. I replied that she had no need to worry, I had no desire to work with a*****s". Do you really want to work with such d******ts? I'm glad I didn't waste my time; the author shouldn't waste hers, no matter what her job situation may be.
53 = mackenzie phillips
30 - I agree there should be no crying in front of others, especially during an interview, but I've seen and had it happen at work, usually in the privacy of the associate's office. I once had a partner be unnecessarily cruel to me while I was pregnant, so my emotions were a bit lopsided anyway. At least I waited till I got to my private office to let my tears loose.
There's no need to say "unattractive female associate," since almost all female associates are pig shit anyway. Oink, oink!!! Sounds about right for a pig shit female associate.
I have spent the last five days in Argentina crying my eyes out. It's just not fair that Jake Emeritus has wealth, movie star looks, a great job, and is thick as a coke can.
The best way to make Roxana go away is to stop clicking on the link that opens the article and to stop commenting. If it isn't bringing in revenue, it will go away.
Repeat after me:
I pledge to never again click on any link associated with the writings of Roxana St. Thomas.
Although some may criticize Roxana's articles and point of view for any number of reasons, personally, I reserve my ire for distinguished individuals such as commentator # 6 and # 43.
These distinguised personages have helped lead their respective firms over the cliff by wilfully and consciously engaging in practices that priced their firms out of the market, made the work environment of various associates and income partners no better that of highly paid piece meal workers in a sweat shop, and (at the same time) engaging in self serving skimming at the top that led to the weakening and ultimate demise of the very firms that they purported to lead.
Thanks to this far sighted leadership, various tasks that used to be routinely be performed by law firms are being performed by accounting firms and managment consulting firms at more competitive rates, and will ultimately be outsourced.
Finally, due to this generation of leadership, I believe that even attorneys view the law and justice as no better than gambling and trading on futures contracts at Wall Street. And, why not? After all, only investment bankers like the geniuses that have run this economy into the ground could afford the rates charged by our leading firms, and once those investment banking houses went under our national firms went with them. They were, after all, the legal facilitators and the cultural cousins of the same organizations.
Erika's story reminds me of my second interview at Davis Polk many, many years ago. The first interview had gone well and an offer was extended. I asked if I could come back for a second interview to help me make up my mind. They said sure and flew me back up. I arrived on time and was asked to sit in the waiting room, along with several others who must have been clients. During the forty-five minutes of my wait, I saw an obviously senior partner come rushing into the waiting room, yelling down the corridor for his associate bag carriers. The yelling included a lot of truly nasty invective, which continued with even greater force when the associate bag carriers arrived a moment later. When finally ushered in to see the Great Ones, I told them I was very sorry to have troubled them, but the firm definitely wasn't the place for me. Never regretted it.
Female associates tend to be average looking. The upshot is that their competitive nature gets their hormones firing and thus they are promiscuous. I would imagine Partner Emeritus way agree.
PE loves ugly women....why else would he be all about "credentials" thats just another euphemism for nerdy cromagnons.
If Roxana is surprised by women wearing skirt suits that come to the knee and pantyhose, no wonder she can't get a job. Speaking as a femal attorney, pant suits are appropriate, but every skirt suit should be approximately knee length and, unless it's over 90, worn with hose.
too long, did not read
I love the shit talk about female associates. How about the guys? The only reason any of these d-bags can get a glance from a girl is because they make 6 figures. And even with that 6 figure stamp, it's still hard if you look like an underdeveloped troll. I'm still in shock from my big law experience - 90% of the guys look like they got whacked by the ugly stick at birth. No wonder big law morale is low.
The male associate need not be physically attractice - his worth derives from his place in society and huge......income. It is incumbent upon the female associate to make use of her assets the best she can. Ultimately, her pedigree is of no concern to society so long as she is easy on the eyes.
Just like women men will eventually be old and decrepid - but the ones with money can build a lasting legacy. Women - by definition - do not have a legacy. These are things human beings have understood for thousands of years and just because conventional wisdom has tilted towards feminism doesn't change biology.
dustin hoffman played a more convincing chick in tootsie. robin williams in mrs. doubtfire. tyler perry in any film. 80 percent of all commenters are gagging from this shyte.
Having been laid-off myself I can appreciate Roxanna's worries and concerns but it's been eight months already. That's a long while to still be upset at the firm for being laid-off. Maybe Lat can bring my blog in under his warm and all-encompassing wing. ;)
http://laidofflawyer.wordpress.com
Roxana St. Thomas = RST
Her middle name must start with a vowel: A, E, I, O or U;
RaST, ReST, RiST, RoST, or RuST.
Only ReST or RuST are real words. Her middle name must start with an E or a U.
Roxana = 6 letters
St. Thomas = 8 letters
The middle name must have 7 letters and start with an E or a U.
What's her middle name?