Add RSS RSS

Reversed Perk Watch: No Soda For You

Quinn logo.jpgWe are fighting two wars, the economy is in the toilet, and the assassinations of Biggie and Tupac remain unsolved, but our elected leaders have spent a lot of time concerning themselves with soda (a.k.a: pop). Literally, the President of the United States is concerned about this.

Here in New York, wealthy overlord mayor Michael Bloomberg has an entire ad campaign running against soda. It’s probably just a precursor to the soda tax that is often talked about.

As a meat-eating smoker who detests physical activity and enjoys it when cows are fed beer, I’m immune to the so-called “doctors” and their calls for basic health. To me, taxing soft drinks is a violation of the social compact.

But in Biglaw, the war against soda is on. Foley & Lardner has already taken up arms against soft drinks. And it looks like Quinn Emanuel will be next.

Details after the jump.

Anybody who has ever purchased a soda fountain knows that soft drinks are extremely cheap. The markup on a 16-ounce serving of Coke is worse than, well, the markup on three grams of coke.

But we are in a recession, and I suppose you can’t just give things away for free anymore. Quinn Emanuel New York associates received this email yesterday:

Sorry I didn’t reply sooner. Beginning Tuesday/Wednesday of next week, there will no longer be free soda in the NYO with the exception of conferences and the occasional Follies. Soda machines will be installed on 22, 24 and 3B. Soda is scheduled to cost $0.75. If there is a change to the current arrangement, I will send an update.

Free soda for clients? Yes! Free soda for employees toiling away all night? Surely you can’t be serious.

In Quinn Emanuel’s defense, seventy-five cents a can is eminently reasonable. Subsidized soda? To quote one former QE lawyer, yumyumyumyumyum!

Earlier: Biglaw Perk Watch: Clifford Chance’s Lingerie Allowance?
Reversed Perk Watch: Soda Subsidy Slashed at Foley & Lardner

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:35 PM

Thirst!

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:37 PM

Fecund

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:37 PM

eek!

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:38 PM

Really, you smoke?

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more repulsive.

Now I'm curious. What brand?

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:39 PM

I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:39 PM

Please say Kool.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:40 PM

My money is on Newport Menthols.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:41 PM

Flavellas are cool.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:44 PM

Sorry I didn’t reply sooner. Beginning Thursday/Friday of next week, there will no longer be free toilet paper in the NYO with the exception of conferences and the occasional Follies. Toilet paper machines will be installed in the bathrooms on 22, 24 and 3B. TP is scheduled to cost $0.25 per sheet. Of course you are always free to bring your own, in which case you only have to pay the "corking fee" of $0.50. If there is a change to the current arrangement, I will send an update.

10 Posted by JaKe Emeritus | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:44 PM

I'm tired of paying higher insurance premiums and higher taxes because some uninsured pauper who is morbidly obese and fails to exercise has a heart attack.

Refusing to provide health care to the unhealthy and uninsured is the single best way to improve the health of this country--and to increase my net worth.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:44 PM

Newports ARE menthols, 7. They're the only menthol cigarette worth smoking, btw.

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:44 PM

Facebook Poll:

Should Chicagoans riot now that the obviously racist IOC has insulted Obama and rejected the city?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. Only if Elie leads with the first torch

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:45 PM

Elie just admitted he's a meat-eater. NOW we know why Lat picked him.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:45 PM

This is the beginning of the end for QE. I hear they are also installing pay toilets in all of their offices.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:46 PM

This sort of trivial cost cutting is just more proof that Biglaw is out of money, people. I guess Quinn is in money trouble now, too.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:47 PM

Am I not at BigLaw? We lost our free soda machine years ago. Now we have to scavange the leftovers from conference rooms after clients leave.

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:51 PM

My BigLaw firm has never given us free soda. Do we not thirst?

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:51 PM

QE is notorious for having no perks. Their offices are crap. While they keep patting themselves on the back for not freezing salaries, they make their associates pay for that in all sorts of creative ways.

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:52 PM

"meat-eating smoker who detests physical activity"

Disgusting

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:52 PM

17, you could use some of that $600 you're paid per day to buy soda.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:52 PM

"meat-eating smoker who detests physical activity"

Disgusting

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:52 PM

"Foley & Lardner has already taken up arms against soft drinks"

Any firm with "lard" in their name should not be lecturing about health issues

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:55 PM

This reverse perk watch is boring. Firms are cutting back, but does this mean you are going to report on every single little cut? No more notepads with the firm name? No more heavy ballpoint pens to take from the conference rooms? No more seamless web without client No.??

Whatever! Just do the major stuff = salaries, bonuses, vacations

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:56 PM

who cares? soda? really? this is news. epic fail

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:56 PM

No big deal. There is no such thing as a free lunch anyway (or free soda). The cost of that "free" soda was just being taken out of your compensation. So instead of paying for it later, you are just paying for it now.

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:57 PM

Suck on my prestige lubed man spear, homos!

Skadden Demure

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:58 PM

I don't understand the connection between Elie being a meat-eater and Lat being gay . . . wait a second, I think I've got it!!! So that's how Elie got his job?

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:58 PM

would this apply to Fresca or Tab, my faves.

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:59 PM

fuck you entitled motherfucking associates. you get over 150k/ yr and ur bitching about lack of free soda. what a bunch of fucking whiners, go put ur tampons back in.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 1:59 PM

You are disgusting, Jake, if you think that poor people should not have a right to basic health care.

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:01 PM

someone call someone or ... bring 29 a soda.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:04 PM

Hey, 29. Do you realize how dumb you look when you write "ur"? Just asking.

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:06 PM

23 - right on bro

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:06 PM

No more bar stipend:

"Annual base compensation for entry level associates in 2009 stands at $160,000 plus a $10,000 interest free loan and year-end bonus."

http://www.quinnemanuel.com/work-at-quinn/the-package.aspx

35 Posted by Elie Mystal | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:06 PM

If there is a cigarette company that would like to advertise with Above the Law (or send me free smokes), please email me at tips@abovethelaw.com.

Until then, I'll keep my preferences to myself.
--Elie

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:06 PM

Quinn remains . . . thirsty.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:07 PM

30 - No one has a RIGHT to health care. Whether we bestow it on all or not, it's a privilege. It's a privilege that my employer picks up most of the cost for my health care. It's a privilege that the government pays for many today under Medicaid.

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:09 PM

I had to double-check that post by JaKe Emeritus because it's nonsense, and I suspected that one of the copycats was posting in his name. How do you pay higher health insurance premiums based on an uninsured having a heart attack? I understand higher taxes, but how higher health insurance? Are you sure you're (ur, for 32) preeminent?

39 Posted by Soda Popinski | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:10 PM

In Soviet Russia, Soda buys you!

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:11 PM

My friends from high school used to lose their soda free soda privileges all the time. It was no big deal.

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:13 PM

Elie. First, I love the avatar. Seriously. I'm not saying that in the way that others on here post obviously solicitous compliments but don't mean it. You take a lot of heat in the comments, but you keep a level head when you respond.

Second, why does Kash never respond in the comments? I'd love to see her avatar selection.

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:13 PM

38, when a hospital treats an uninsured person, which they must do by law, and that person never pays the bill, who really foots the bill?

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:13 PM

QUINN REMAINS ... THIRSTY

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:13 PM

40 FAIL.

avatar
45 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:13 PM

Obama promised me it would rain corn bread. Wheres my cornbread mutha fucka?

Kwame Chuck Chuck

avatar
46 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:14 PM

If the Coca-Cola Co. had hired Bob, the associates would have kept their free soda. But they didn’t. They hired someone else. So it was incumbent on Bob to kick their ass in the NYO. It is really that simple...

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:15 PM

42--

Have you seen what the uninsured pay, when they pay? They're the ones that are subsidizing our negotiated rates, and paying for the treatment of the uninsured-and-non-paying.

38

48 Posted by Quinn_Remains | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:16 PM

TEMPERATURES RISE

PERKS FALL

QUINN REMAINS ... UNCAFFEINATED

49 Posted by The Plebe | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:17 PM

Oh Jake...

Your naive belief in the market system is, well, kinda cute.

Let me make this clear. Anyone who thinks that they are not paying for their fat neighbor under a market economy is wrong. You do.

Hospitals and insurance companies know almost exactly what percentage of people are going to default. That's why people go to business schools and get MBA's and that's part of what they get paid great money to do.

Okay, because of that, they know exactly what to charge you in your premiums, in order to recoup those costs. Your insurance premium is higher, as is your hospital bill.

Plus, your overweight (or cancer-stricken) neighbor is more likely default because of very high hospital bills. So you pay extra for them twice.

avatar
50 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:17 PM

No soda at work for free sucks. I'm sorry for you. Nothing better than my lips on an icy cold can of sweetened pop. Actually I lie, one thing better, a sweet discount on Chrometa, today only.

http://www.chrometa.com/atl

Quinn associates, bill more hours, get bigger bonus, offset cost of soda. Only with Chrometa.

avatar
51 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:17 PM

38- Because the hospitals treat them for free, but pass on the cost to their other customers in the form of higher fees for service. Those higher fees are in turn passed from the insurance company on to the consumer.

That is the part people don't get about the health insurance problem- people get sick whether they are insured or not. If you don't want to contribute towards them having coverage for preventative care, you will just contribute even more when they have a heart attack. (both via taxes AND higher premiums)

avatar
52 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:18 PM

47, we're talking about the "uninsured pauper" who is presumably "uninsured-and-non-paying."

avatar
53 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:18 PM

FUCK YEAH QR!

avatar
54 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:19 PM

Elie writes the first three paragraphs about not drinking soda for health reasons and puts Quinn's logo up.

THEN, we learn that Quinn still has soda, they're installing vending machines for economic reasons?

My question is this:

Is Elie a moron or just a terrible writer?

55 Posted by JaKe Emeritus | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:19 PM

This post is addressed to Commenter #38:

You are a moron. Insurance premiums rise because of uncompensated care. I have chosen "USA Today" as my source because you are likely unable to cognize more sophisticated newspapers: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm

avatar
56 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:20 PM

who gives a f***.

avatar
57 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:23 PM

37 -- The rest of the western world disagrees with you. You're the last remaining idiot that hasn't figured out that health care is a human right.

avatar
58 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:25 PM

I would love to see Kash's avatar.

Zoidberg

avatar
59 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:25 PM

39 FTW!

avatar
60 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:27 PM

Perhaps this is common knowledge, but JK.E. and The Plebe are the same person. Sad.

avatar
61 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:27 PM

Poor people would be cooler if they weren't so poor, smelly, and odd looking.

Rich UVA2L

avatar
62 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:30 PM

51--
Are you serious? Hospitals just treat the uninsured for free? They don't send their bill to collection and sue them? Why do I have insurance then? And, why do the insurance companies just forgo their obligation to shareholders and policyholders and pay those fees that are shifted from the uninsured to the insured?

51, are you sure you're not one of the administrative assistants that poked their heads into the previous post?

38, 47

63 Posted by lipservice | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:30 PM

WACHTELL STILL HAS SODA
YES!

avatar
64 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:34 PM

JaKe(55),
So, you're buying the results of a "study" conducted by an advocacy group that "favors expanded health care coverage"?

If this is the case, then there should be many pending class-actions and shareholder suits against insurance companies to put an end to this nonsense. So many lawsuits that the deferred classes would need to be called in!

38, 47, 62

avatar
65 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:35 PM

62 -- Because the uninsured are poor and have no assets you moron. That's why they are uninsured.

You're little blurb about the insurance companies shows you are a sadly arrogant moron.

Here is how the process works (I have no expertise in insurance law, but I DID take freshman economics): The hospitals must charge fees that cover their costs and make suitable profit. Because treating the uninsured raises costs, it forces hospitals to raise fees for everone. Insurance companies end up paying these fees because when the insured legitimately go to the hospital, their now higher fees are passed onto the insurance companies.

Thanks for playing. Thanks for sounding arrogant, and most of all thanks for letting me pwn you.

avatar
66 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:35 PM

Poor people dress funny.

avatar
67 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:37 PM

i love the soda we have at work
coke
diet coke
sprite
pepsi
diet pepsi
ice tea
hawaiian punch
tahitan treat

avatar
68 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:39 PM

no one at quinn is obese

avatar
69 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:41 PM

65--Last time I went to the hospital, the hospital billed my insurance company $3,700. The "negotiated rates" that the insurance company paid amounted to $1,300. I remain of the view that it is the uninsured, who is on the hook for $3,700, and may only be able cough up $2,000 before the hospital calls off the dogs, that pays not only for his care but for the artificially low cost of my care. No one is willing to acknowledge that hospitals and insurance companies profit from the uninsured.

38, 37, 62, 64

avatar
70 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:43 PM

Foley is doing much better than many V100 firms. They've resisted layoffs and have poached many high-profile partners from other firms. Who cares if they charge for sodas??

avatar
71 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:44 PM

Do poor people deserve treatment?

avatar
72 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:44 PM

38- 65 handled it for me quite nicely. Why don't you try suing people without assets or jobs, that'd work well. Also, you do realize that every business works this way?

For example, a retailer like Best Buy charges YOU more to make-up for the cost of insurance they have to carry to cover them when people shoplift. Guess you need to sue them too. Good luck with that.


-51

avatar
73 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:45 PM

69, no what is more likely is that the uninsured pays $0 because he is poor and has no assets. That is why he is uninsured. Or he declares bankruptcy, which is easy because he has no assets. If you're trying to argue that "uncompensated care" for the uninsured does not drive up the cost of health insurance/care for everyone else you must be the biggest idiot in the world, because even Obama acknowledges that uncompensated care is driving up costs for the insured.

avatar
74 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:49 PM

69-HAHAHHAHAHAHA. You think most Americans even have $2,000 to give? What about the 5-day intensive-care requiring uninsured's bill that costs $200,000? What about the John Doe in a coma for the last 100 days?

The amazing thing is that your uninformed rambling is not only wrong, it's absurd in view of the current climate. Hospitals don't make their profit off of the uninsured, they barely make any profit at all. The cost of treating the uninsured is SO high that it is driving hospitals out of business all over the country, in spite of their apparently high fees.

You are clearly a silver-spoon fed dolt that has no concept of the economics around the United States.

avatar
75 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:50 PM

73,
"Obama acknowledges that uncompensated care is driving up costs for the insured"
This dude can't even sell the IOC on Chicago.
What is wrong with you people? Obviously, Obama and other advocates want you to think that you're already paying for the uninsured, so that you're more in favor of a government takeover of healthcare. Why do you believe him?
True, there are the truly poor, who will never pay their bill. In fact, they might already be on Medicaid. But, right above them are the sort-of-poor, who roll the dice by going without health insurance, and occasionally have to go the doctor for penicillin or to the hospital for a broken arm. They will pay full freight. There are also uninsured that will get cancer, and they will pay full freight until their family is broken and left destitute.
38, 37, 62, 64, 69

avatar
76 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:52 PM

74,
Glad I entertain you. Question for you: If hospitals make no money off the uninsured, why do they even bother writing up a bill for $3,700? Why not just have their normal rates for the uninsured be the negotiated rates for the insured? Give it a little thought before you lapse into a kneejerk chortle.

38, 37, 62, 64, 69, 75

avatar
77 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:54 PM

37 et al, I've said this before to notable reactionary furor but it has to be said again: nothing is a right until we, in our collective, considered wisdom, declare it to be so.

When we liberated our nation from England by use of the common man's weapon, we decided that every man had a right to bear arms. When we made suffrage universal and, slowly, realized that democracy depended upon an educated citizenry, we decided that education is a right. For a couple of decades we enjoyed a "right to work" which was supplanted by rights to be free from overwork or abusive work environments. Both created by humans--legislators and jurists. And so it goes with marriage, abortion, environmental justice. Animals even have rights now!

So what I'm saying is: if we decide that health care is a right, and I think we are heading that direction, then it will be a right. And why not? It's certainly as compelling to me as education.

avatar
78 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:54 PM

I'm 38, 37, 62, 64, 69.

I think that the uninsured, even though they are clearly poor because they are uninsured, pay more for health care than insurance companies do because insurance companies "negotiate."

I think that when Hospitals, oligopolists with extremely high barriers to entry, experience higher costs because they have to provide uncompensated services, they DO NOT pass those costs onto their legitimate paying customers.

I am the dumbest man alive.

Owned.

avatar
79 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:59 PM

76-- Stop embarassing yourself. Your question doesn't even make any sense. Hospitals, like every other business in the world, charge uniform fees to all clients. They have no way of knowing when the person walks in the door whether they can pay. They try to recover as much money from each patient as they can, however the uninsured, i.e. poor, frequently end up being insolvent and unable to pay.

What, exactly don't you understand? Do you think the hospitals should charge different prices for the same treatment based on economic need? You really are a moron, aren't you? No, they charge the same, high prices, because they know they will only be able to recover a certain percent of their total charged fees due to the indigent.

pwnd.

avatar
80 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 2:59 PM

This disappointing law firm literally advertises in airports. Maybe if they didn't throw their money away in that fashion, they could afford sodas. This is a mess of a law firm.

avatar
81 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:00 PM

I smoked for a little over 20 years (I quit 5 years ago) and my brand was Newport. Though I'm a white guy (Jewish, even), I'm more hood than Elie. I know Elie's type and he's a Marlboro Light smoker. Guaranteed.

avatar
82 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:03 PM

Mr. Pwnd,
From whom do they collect the "same, high price"?
Not from the destitute.
Not from the insured.
Who? WHO?

76, et al.

avatar
83 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:04 PM

Jerkoff, you do realize that most hospitals are public companies? There is no mystery here. Hospitals write off huge amounts of money in unpaid bills. It's in the financials.

You're alleging that this commonly known fact is a lie as a result of a liberal conspiracy? Go to UnitedHealth's 10-Ks on sec.gov (by your intelligence, I'm guessing you aren't a securities lawyer).

I have concluded you are a troll, because you sound too stupid to be an actual human being. If you are serious, please go read a book and apologize to us all for having been so stupid.

Pwnd.

avatar
84 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:05 PM

81: I went to school with Elie. He smokes Capri menthol 120s.

avatar
85 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:05 PM

82, the rare person who is uninsured and rich, someone who is vastly outnumbered by the uninsured and poor who pay nothing. Are you really that dense?

avatar
86 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:07 PM

85,
I'm moving on to the Letterman post. You're hopeless. Maybe Obamacare will have a cure for that.
82, etc.

avatar
87 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:08 PM

49 - Epic fail. MBA's learn things like marketing, accounting, finance, and other "business" topics. MBA's do not make these type of calculations. Try actuaries. They might be a better bet.

Also, what a stupid Avatar.

avatar
88 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 3:10 PM

ARGH you're stupid. They collect "the same high prices" from the insurance company.

Because the hospital charges you $3700, you think it cost them that much to treat you? And you think the insurance companies are swindling the hospitals, large public companies because they "only" pay $1200? How stupid are you? Guess what, the hospital and the insurance company are repeat players in the negotiation game. The hospital knows it will likely be bargained down to $1200, that's why they charge $3700. In all likelyhood, your care cost the hospital $600. If they did not have to pay for the uninsured, the end bill for the insurance company would be lower, maybe $1000, maybe less, i have no idea, but it would be lower. Why? ECONOMICS.

Seriously, in a vacuum you just assumed the insurance company was swindling the hospital and the $1200 was a "good deal?" No, its the MARKET RATE, because ALL HOSPITALS deal with this and thus ALL FEES are inflated.

GO READ A BOOK

PWND.

avatar
89 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 4:00 PM

OCEANS RISE....
CITIES FALL....
JONES DAY STILL HAS FREE SODA.


(and Elie smokes Virginia Slims, no doubt)

avatar
90 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 4:28 PM

pathetic that quinn's PEP is 2mil+ and they are taking away soda privileges. very TTT of the partners.

avatar
91 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 4:33 PM

There are two conceivable reasons QE decided to get rid of the free, teeth-staining cola: 1) because their attorneys were starting to have yellow-tinged smiles like Dwight on The Office; or 2) to deter the company that keeps advertising on ATL "the trick" for achieving whiter snags... (Seriously, if you believe in targeted marketing, what does that say about you, dear reader? Floss away, my friends.)

avatar
92 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 5:17 PM

0.75 for a can of soda? Are they trying to make a profit?

avatar
93 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 6:12 PM

I heard Colt Wallerstein offers free soda. Can anyone confirm?

avatar
94 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 8:47 PM

WTF? They still have occasional follies in NY?

avatar
95 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 9:04 PM

jbq personally stopped follies in LA years ago, when he randomly showed up at one and saw mostly staff and other people he didn't want to talk to. and la doesn't have free soda. but the espresso bar makes up for everything.

avatar
96 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 9:04 PM

jbq personally stopped follies in LA years ago, when he randomly showed up at one and saw mostly staff and other people he didn't want to talk to. and la doesn't have free soda. but the espresso bar makes up for everything.

avatar
97 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 2, 2009 10:35 PM

QUINN REMAINS........THIRSTY.

avatar
98 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:29 AM

Salem is the Negro's Choice.

avatar
99 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:01 AM

If you ask me, which no one did, the bigger story is turning the bar stipend into a bar loan. That's about 8,000 cans of Coke after taxes.

None of this necessarily means Quinn's hurting financially. They've always been uber cheap. The bad economy just provides cover to do crap they would've done a long time ago if they thought they could get away with it. Now they can.

avatar
100 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:54 AM

What world are you living in, Elie? $.75 is "eminently reasonable"? Do you honestly think that .75 is "subsidized"? $.75 a can is more than keystone pricing. Maybe QE isn't making a profit on that soda, but someone sure as hell is.

avatar
101 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:32 PM

99: yeah, the fact that the $10K now has to be paid back is actually a much bigger deal than "no more free fountain soda."

avatar
102 Posted by guest | Permalink Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:35 AM

quinn maybe be cheap, but they obviously still cover the bar. the REST of the above-quoted paragraph reads:

"Annual base compensation for entry level associates in 2009 stands at $160,000 plus a $10,000 interest free loan and year-end bonus. In addition, the firm reimburses associates for reasonable moving expenses, bar application, examination fees and one bar study course. The firm offers judicial clerks a $50,000 signing bonus."

http://www.quinnemanuel.com/work-at-quinn/the-package.aspx

avatar
103 Posted by guest | Permalink Sunday, October 4, 2009 3:24 PM

These idiots bill 2,500 hours a year at $500 an hour, and quinn can't threw these virgins a few cans of soda?

avatar
104 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 5, 2009 12:15 PM

jbq just took away our monday morning bagels.

avatar
105 Posted by lowerpainback | Permalink Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:04 AM

A good post, very helpful information.
http://www.lowerpainback.com/

Post Your Comment