Put not your trust in BIGLAW.

holy shiieett

Could be that you actually didn't know him that well.

the ship has sunk

Sidley is being smart. It divided the class of 2009 into two -- half starting in November 2009, half starting in January 2011. It will then bring in a new class a year after the last class joins. Confusing, but it works, and I respect them for trying to honor all their offers.

Marshall Dennehey Pottstown to $38 k !

Really? We need three posts in one day about this?

I suspect other firms be announcing new or extended deferral programs now that OCI is over and 2Ls have made their decisions.

Kirkland>>>>Sidley

Accusing posters of projection is merely to detract from the fact he did a terrible thing. Speculation (racial, sexuality, socio-economic status, some combination thereof) may be insufficient, but detraction does not negate the fact that there was some causation. It takes a real douchebag to set fire to a church. People who are "fundamentally good person"[s]] don't engage in that kind of heinous behavior.

If this guy's actions were so truly out of character, which seems to be the gist of these testimonials, how can anyone feel comfortable speaking in his defense?

When someone does something that out of character the primary thing they should learn about the individual is that they did not know them nearly as well as they thought. Idiots.

12,

See my comment.

regards,

4

Oh please. Ted Bundy was also nice (even volunteered at a crisis hotline.)

Have fun with that "bias canvas" and "projection" babble.

If I think he's a douche for being a privileged brat who gets off on "pranks" like torching churches, I'm just "projecting" my "insecurities" on his "canvas"? Wait....what insecurities? And where is this canvas again? This is like all so deep.

I just don't understand why you all insist on ruining this wonderful man- Hasn't he suffered enough you cowards???!!!!

Hit me with your best shot you stupid bitch.

Yes, let's all take a moment to reflect on how we, too, are sinners.

Christ. As a prank, he lit fire to a church memorial for the victims of 9/11. There is nothing complex whatsoever about it. This isn't an occasion to navel gaze, or whinge pitiably about social injustice. It's just somebody being a complete asshole, period.

Very glad I turned down Sidley. Suckaz

Well, the insecurity of these comments is affirmed by the post anonymously. If you were secure with yourself and the comment you were making, you'd identify yourself.

I seriously doubt anyone would spew nearly as much vitriol if their name was attached.

The guy just gets douchier and douchier.

Instead of just fessing up to his crime and saying "no excuses":

-he and his friends are trolling cyberspace bitching at anyone who doesn't see how he's so "wonderful".

-his Mom is saying Schroeder's "deferred his job offer" at Sidley (as if it's voluntary) to do human rights work in Switzerland (cuz you know how awful Swiss human rights are).

- He's saying he didn't know it was a memorial but police say he collected the teddy bears up and used them to start the fire.

-He's lawyered up and spreading a bit about "Something must have been put in" his drink.

Well, the insecurity of these comments is affirmed by the act of anonymously posting. If you were secure with yourself and the comment you were making, you'd identify yourself.

I seriously doubt anyone would spew nearly as much vitriol if their name was attached.

I agree w/ the tipster, with one minor edit, thus:

The truth is, none of those concepts comes anywhere close to describing who Brian actually is: somebody who BURNED DOWN A FUCKING CHURCH.

How the fuck am I supposed to criticize people I dont even know without resorting to racist, sexist, or homophobic rants? Holy christ. I have to take the low hanging fruit because I dont have sufficient information to develop a well thought cogent put down with the sparse detail in your shitty blogs. Next you will tell me that I shouldnt criticize at all then. Up yours.

Guys at my high school used to use teddy bears as kindling all the time for church burnings and it was no big deal.

@23 That comment is pretty damn inaccurate too. He burned mementos and a bench, not a church.

English, motherfucker, do you READ it?

22, "the insecurity of these comments is affirmed by the post anonymously. If you were secure with yourself and the comment you were making, you'd identify yourself."

15 here. Why do you care if I'm insecure or secure? Kids leave teddy bears at a church in the hope that the church has body parts of their beloved Daddies. A fairly wealthy and privileged young man uses the teddy bears to try and burn the church, taking away the tiny bit that remains of Daddy. My security or insecurity is irrelevant to this heinous act.

Oh and I'll "spew vitriol" whenever I'd like, thank you. I won't attempt to destroy a church, though, don't worry.

Well allow me to retort

It's an exercise in stupidity reading these comments. The point of the post was not saying you shouldn't call the guy a complete asshole and undeserving of an ounce of sympathy. It's when you add a comment that it has something to do with a) his liberal/conservative outlook; b) his sexuality; or c) support of Obama/Bush, it is simply a projection of your own issues. Learn how to read...

I would like to know: how many of the people defending this guy's actions are people who DON'T know him?

I have a feeling 21 is right: he and his equally-douchey friends are trolling cyberspace for posts about him. If that is the case, he can go fuck himself and the baloney pony he rode in on.

And yes, I would say that in public.

" is: a smart, funny, kind person, deeply devoted to his friends, to his community, and to exploring, understanding, and ultimately improving the world around him. "

ummmmm, did you miss the part where he SET FIRE TO A FUCKING CHURCH IN MANHATTAN!!

Jesus people. I don't care if Manson was your best friend in school and "just a nice guy." He was a fucking murderer. . . just like this guy is an arsonist.

I don't get the anonymous bashing, but I also don't get the anonymous "hey, don't be mean. He's a good guy. Mean people are mean."

No, 29. Nothing wrong with my reading. It's your writing. The post talks about unfair characterizations of the arsonist as "a selfish, entitled Ivy League brat". ATL agrees, saying it's an " astute observation", and tells the arsonist, "Oh, don't worry about what's being said about you on the internet." ATL doesn't limit it to "don't worry about ethnic or political slurs".

Seriously, would be sitting around whimpering about our insecurities if this guy had set fire to a gay church? Or put a swastika on a synagogue? Is that the time to solicit heartwarming testimonials?

Yet this motherfucker sets fire to a 9/11 memorial, and we're supposed to respond by prostrating ourselves and begging forgiveness for our psychological inadequacies.

Beyond pathetic.

Whats remarkable is that everyone here refuses to acknowledge the possibility he didnt know what he was doing. I havent heard ANYONE complain about Sidleys decision and i havent heard ANYONE say Brian shouldnt get punished acc to the applicable law.

were just saying that we know him, this is unlike him, hes not politically averse to 911 memorabilia, and hes a decent guy.

Is this firm-wide or office specific?

He started a fire at a memorial for 9/11 victims using teddy bears. Please tell me why anyone has to be nice to him? If you aren't intelligent enough to ignore the comments that were not PC then you should a) not read this site b) practice law

To the anonymous HLS alum defending Brian: BULLSHIT

Not all of those who summered in 2009 were deferred. The class was yet again divided into two groups, with one group starting in January of 2011, and the other starting in January of 2012. Those starting in 2012 are the deferred portion of the class.

It's so heartwarming to know that ATL is worried about whether Schroeder et. al might "lose sleep over these comments" and to say "please don't fret" over stuff said about the arsonist. Cause when I first read how he burned the teddy bears and cards, I was about to start fretting over whether our stuff was burned too. But then I realized...Hey, I'm being selfish here! A bunch of stuff left for murdered family members may have been torched, but for goodness sakes people, there's an arsonist out there whose feelings are hurt b/c there's bad stuff being said about his torching the stuff!!! Priorities people!

To the douche asking if he knew what he was doing. . . . HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, as if it matters.

If I was so drunk I didn't know I was spewing racist comments, would you still think I'm a racist.

Just like if he didn't know he was using teddy bears at a memorial to start a fire in a church, he's still an awful human being and an arsonist.

Why wasn't Elie involved in this post? "When you absolutely have to get a post that ruins someone's life right the first time, keep Elie away from the keyboard"?

What about that drunk clown from UVA who had the homophobic incident in DC a few months ago?

Where's ATL leaping to his defense? He got LIT up, deservedly so, and so has this clown. I will sleep well tonight.

Wait. Wait wait wait.

This guy tried to burn down the goddamn church where the 9/11 victim's remains are, and we're supposed to think he is a good person?

On behalf of everyone rational, to his avid defenders telling us how lucky they are to know him:

You're crazy. I hope he spends 30 years in jail. If I were his prosecutor, I'd throw the book at that miserable piece of shit.

(BTW, I almost never use profanity. But this act, the audacity of his Harvard friends to lecture us on how lucky we might be to someday meet him, pisses me off)

I started out a year after Brian and he walked with my class. I was not fond of him, and the year he took away from Harvard was rather enjoyable. Lambda had significantly less drama without him, and social gatherings were infinitely less toxic. I am shocked at the number of people defending him.

Can confirm that Sidley gave at least some January 2011 offers to people who summered there in 2009 (the law school class of 2010). So it looks like maybe the firm split its class again.

Has anyone figured out what the logo is on his perp-walk shirt?

This splitting of the class stuff is real grimy.

Oh absy, we hardly knew ye.

If I thought a guy was a nice guy, a smart guy, a good guy and then I found out he torched a bunch of mementos belonging to the families of 9/11 victims because he thought it was a funny prank, I think my first two reactions would be:

1. Maybe I didn't know him as well as I thought I did.

2. Maybe I'm not a very good judge of other people's character.

But that's just me.

Of course if I was a little different, I might try to argue that the fact someone was nice to me (another top law school grad) somehow trumps the fact they thought it's funny to torch the teddy bear of some kid who lost his father on 9/11 when judging that guy's character.

Or I might argue he didn't really know what he was doing -- i.e., torching the memorial would be perfectly cool as long as they weren't 9/11 victims...or it would be perfectly cool if he didn't know it was actually a memorial to people and just thought it was funny to torch a kid's teddy bear.

Hey, at least Scalia could make a silk purse out of this guy.

I saw a Loose Change video that totally convinced me there's no way that Teddy Bears could start a fire like that.

"It’s just the internet, after all."

The permanent, permanent Internet, that will follow this poor guy around for the rest of his life.

I can't believe this story is a day old and this guy is already on youtube spewing his "spin" on the 9/11 chapel fire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw

"CORRECTION: As noted in the comments, and confirmed by emails sent to us directly, Sidley is splitting up the class of 2010. Some are starting in January 2012 and some in January 2011 (which is apparently the earliest start date)."

I make fun of fat and retarded people. Sure as hell I'm making fun of the 9-11 memorial ass-onist.

"It’s just the internet, after all."

See, e.g., the Kash beaver shot picture downloaded from Facebook before she had it removed. It lives on many a computer...

Number of Harvard students who would defend this guy if he weren’t gay: ZERO.

That a gay person would commit such an act so offends the sensibilities of Harvard students that they feel compelled to rush to this guys defense.

The only reason it seems out of character is because Harvard students automatically assume all gay people all fantastic individuals like characters on Will and Grace.

@56 . . . !

"He's saying he didn't know it was a memorial but police say he collected the teddy bears up and used them to start the fire."

Wow, the teddy bear part killed it for me.

I agree.

Just because Brian has a tendency to get drunk and commit arson doesn't mean he's not a nice guy. True, there might be some concerns about his decision-making process and judgment because he decided to torch a chapel housing a 9/11 memorial in NYC ... but really who has not been drunk and lured by the siren call of the flickering flames.

That four months with no paycheck are going to be fun.

If the teddy bears were that flammable, maybe Schroeder can bring a product liability claim against the manufacturer considering he doesn't have anything else to do with his legal degree.

John Wayne Gacy and Theodore Bundy were both described as nice guys and each had ardent defenders. In Gacy's case, he volunteered his time as a clown for kids' hospitals. In Bundy's case, he volunteered for a suicide hotline. I am sure Brian was nice too, just like Gacy and Bundy. We are fortunate though that Brian's sociopathic tendencies were discovered before anyone was critically hurt. Brian deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The fact that he went to Duke and Harvard Law doesn't impress me in light of his true demonic nature. If anything, it casts doubt as to whether these schools exercise good judgment in selecting its student body.

56--

You know, the "start a Kash beaver shot rumor" schtick seems like one that would have legs, in theory. I can tell you it won't go anywhere.

How? I say with absolute certainty that I'm the number one Kash fetishist on this sorry excuse for a blog. Shit, before it was even noon I had twice kashturbated (that is, tossed off while thinking of her loveliness). But even I can tell your comments in every thread are a schtick, trolling for attention. In addition, as much as I lust after Duke's finest, I'm pretty sure her pussy looks a lot like every other pussy in the world.

Why does no lawyer, judge, or intelligent person know how to use a colon properly?

There are two clear lines of comments: (1) The guy's a total moron, he burned a church down; (2) burning a church down does not mean you're not a decent person.

To all of the people in (2): I am infinitely impressed with your ability to look straight through someone and see the contours of their soul.

I've heard that only a few of the Sidley 2010 class are starting in January 2012. Can anyone confirm?

@23, 31, 60, and countless others:

The NYT article regarding the arson (which, yes, is still terrible) makes it somewhat clearer how, if someone did not specifically know what the place was, they might not immediately think "9/11 memorial," especially while intoxicated.

(emphasis added)

"Though the Memorial Park site is temporary and TECHNICALLY A TENT, it is hardly a haphazard repository. The space had a $1 million renovation in 2006; more than 10,000 remains are kept in climate-controlled, walk-in containers, and there is a separate chapel with a fountain. The remains have been dehydrated until they can be identified with DNA technology, and they will eventually be moved to a memorial at ground zero."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01fire.html

As someone who recently lived in New York, I can say I had no idea this 9/11 memorial even existed, let alone what it would look like. A tent with teddy bears is probably pretty much a tent with teddy bears, sans further significance, if you're drunk and aren't stopping to read the cards, no?

1, To 64, not all pussies look the same. Some have large labia majora, some small, some have large labia minora, some not. Some have one labia larger than the other. Some pussies are big and wide, some are small and narrow. Some pussies are attractive, some are neutral, and some are fucking disgusting looking. Your ignorant statement leads me to believe you are lying about having "tossed off"' to Kash, and thus you're either a woman or a homosexual.

Speaking of homos, and in keeping with the pseudo-psychology proffered by those who would apologize for this arsonist, it seems plausible that Schroeder was subconsciously acting out of resentment for an institution that condemns his behavior. Although not a Christian myself, it does make sense to view his degenerate act as being in accord with his otherwise degenerate lifestyle.

I think a lot of the Sidley 2010 class is still waiting to get their letters. I know some got 2011 letters and some got 2012 today. The picture should be more clear in the next day or so once everyone receives the letter.

64 = Kash's gynecologist.

The problem is, who the -deleted- cares whether Mr. Schroder is straight or gay, Latino or Anglo, liberal or conservative? The fact remains that he acted like a filthy little jacka--. Period. Am I being insecure in saying that Schroder is a little self-entitled maggot who deserves not having any future?

Homophobes, the lot of you.

Lest you forget, the man is a homosexual. Ergo, you have no right to criticize his actions.

Plus, it was just a 9/11 memorial. It's not like it was an ACORN or Planned Parenthood office. Know your place, victims. Know. Your. Place.

EQUALITY SECURE

It sounds like the letters relate primarily to NY and Chicago, and not DC, which is significantly busier than the other two major U.S. offices.

WARNING:

health care coverage starting in June 2010...sounds familiar.... bec when we were deferred from Sept 14 to Nov 16 we (NY incoming associates) were promised the same thing.

lie- our coverages starts the day we start work (for most of us nov 16, for the rest, jan 2011)
i think only the chicago office has the nice health care treatment.

76, do you mean to say I'm not covered right now.....

Fine, he's either a douche that set a memorial on fire or he's a douche that set teddy bears on fire.

Please point out where the major miscommunication is about him being a decent guy.

David Lat wrote: "Given the diversity of Team ATL, we are often subjected to racist, sexist, or homophobic attacks."

Hello, what about all the fat comments made about Elie.

I guess there's another way of looking at this.

To the defenders -- just how big a group of assholes were your fellow classmates at HLS that **this** is your definition of a good guy?

80 FTW

Lots of people at HLS are assholes.

In other news, there is evidently now a job opening at Sidley?

I was beginning actually to feel some sympathy for the touchie-feelies on this blog, until I learned that the nutty perfesser at U of Miami Law is suing ATL, and David Lat, for racism.

I read David Lat, and just can't believe what the Florida's version of Jerry Lewis is saying about him. It doesn't jibe with what I know of him, that he's a warm, sensitive guy who only sees the good in people. So he occasionally dons a white hat and robe, and rides on horseback at night burning black churches (using teddy bears as kindling, no doubt)--hey, he's just letting off a little steam. It doesn't get to the goodness that's in his heart.

Affirmative Walrus is spot on.

$60K a year to do nothing isn't bad - enjoy your deferment!.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435131161&Law_Professor_Sues_Above_the_Law_Blog_Alleging_Viciously_Racist_Series_of_Rants

Brian is a wonderful humanbeing who happens to be an arsonist. If you people knew him you would understand.

We know Brian as a kind, outgoing, thoughtful and funny person. He was really involved at school, and is an incredibly fun person to be around and if you're cold he'll warm you up with just a pack of matches and a gasoline soaked rag.

Holy shit, will other firms follow the suit? If so, what should we do? Should we look for other jobs? But "if" we get another job, won't there be double-acceptance issue?

It's rash to bash the Kash gash stash. I've seen it and now I'm Kash gash lashed.

People need to relax on condemning this kid. Everybody's gotten drunk before and done something they ended up regretting later -- if you didn't, you haven't been living your life properly. Very often, this involves lighting random stuff on fire, because fire = pretty.

I live on a beach, so it's relatively easy to get drunk and light stuff on fire -- sand doesn't burn, and the ocean certainly doesn't mind, so I can burn stuff 'til my heart's content, because I don't have to worry about the fire spreading. In the middle of Manhattan, that's obviously not the brightest thing to do, but you can't really blame a guy for being drunk and stupid. Lay off.

This is getting out of hand. I feel the need to relive day 1 of 1L Criminal Law regarding the split between Mens Rea and Actus Res.

Here, the act was obviously horrible. No one is denying. The asshole lit a bunch of memorial teddy bears on fire, near a church, where the remains of 9/11 victims were stored. It reads like a terrible article of the Onion it is so bad. NO ONE IS DENYING THIS.

On the other hand, there is virtually ZERO evidence he intended to do any of this. (Forget, for the moment, legal definitions of recklessness and knowledge).

You're telling me, that, when you are three sheets to the wind, and you are dared to start a fire, that you will automatically assume some teddy bears you see laying on a sidewalk are there for an unmarked tomb of 9/11 survivors? Are you kidding me? I live in NYC and I can tell you I never knew this fucking thing existed. There is no sign. No nothing. The asshole was drunk. He acted stupidly, but not angrily or maliciously (this, of course, is my guess). Really stupidly.

I find evidence of this in the fact THAT HE TURNED HIMSELF IN. Why would he have done that? The damn church didn't burn down. All the cops found where some burn marks from some burned teddy bears. Do you really think they were going to waste man power tracking this guy down? He probably could have gotten away without consequence! (depending on his friends and how tight their lips were)

But he turned himself in.

Look, on a legal level, the guy acted with knowledge (which, as I recall, is all that is required for arson). He should get everything he has coming to him.

On a moral level, I still doubt this was anything other than extreme drunken d-baggery gone awry. That make the guy a d-bag, and a huge one at that. But he's not some psychopathic maniac.

I personally know of two law students, one at a T-25, and one a T-14, each who were involved in felonious assaults and batteries while sober (while law students). I would rank, on a moral level, these people far worse.

Since Hitler was obviously worse was Pol Pot a good guy?

"Let's just ignore recklessness"?

Um... you're comparing a guy get drunk and lighting a teddy bear on fire to Pol Pot? Wow, psycho much?

I'll throw this out there: If I was really, really drunk and didn't know any better, and saw a teddy bear lying on the sidewalk... there's a pretty good chance I'd light it on fire. Why? Why the f*** not? I'm 35 years old and I still do flying jump kicks into Village Voice dispensers and garbage cans when I'm drunk. Why? Because that's what being drunk is for! Come on, people.

92 here,

No, I'm just demonstrating why your comparative argument is an utter failure.

If you're 35 years old and are compelled to light teddy bears on fire, you aren't just pathetically immature, you should also seek counseling immediately.

Have a good night

93 here (not 91, so your response to me didn't parse... anyway): You say "pathetically immature," I say "young at heart." Whatever tickles your fancy. I knew Biglaw robbed kids of their social lives and anything resembling fun, but I didn't think it deprived them of their senses of humor as well. I feel very sorry for you.

85

That is funny as hell. They say that only a fool has himself as a client. And 22 mil is a lot of money. So is lat the fool that represents himself, or is he the fool that lets elie represent him. Either way- comedy gold

90: Yes, most people have got drunk before and done things that they later regret. However, we're talking about someone who has graduated from law school and was on the cusp of being a lawyer for a top law firm in NYC (sans all that deferral stuff). When you're a lawyer, representing clients, in a holier than thou profession where you're expected to scrupulously follow the law, stunts like this are particularly stupid and are likely to have a particularly severe effect on your career.

I'm not going to pile on with the moral indignation side of the story, but at the very least, in a very tight legal market during a downturn, you'd be well-advised not to do anything that would give your firm a reason to let you go, especially something criminal, embarrassing, and offensive that's going to reflect negatively on not only you, but your law firm and your alma mater (somehow, I don't think HLS is thrilled about the negative PR and it's going to be quite awkward when he goes into HLS Career Services begging for help to find another job).

Yes, he made a very stupid mistake. Should he lose his legal career for it? No. But, can you blame Sidley for immediately cutting ties with him? No, as well. And, could you blame the NY Bar for at the very least, giving him a very hard time with character & fitness? No -- sure it was more stupid than malicious, but someone who's lighting the property of others on fire (even if drunk) might not necessarily strike me as having the right mindset and maturity to be a lawyer.

94/95: It's much closer to "pathetically immature" than "young at heart," especially considering we're talking about someone who is about to become a lawyer. Indiscriminately burning random stuff that you come across is something you'd expect from a delinquent adolescent, not an HLS grad and would-have-been Sidley associate.

"Young at heart" means having fun with your friends, drinking, being wild, rowdy, and sure, doing ridiculous stuff sometimes. But, you're way over the line when you're talking about setting random crap on fire -- that's dangerous, destructive, and criminal. It's only "no big deal" to some posters because there wasn't any damage to the chapel, but suppose (and it's not a stretch) his fire did spread and cause some damage to it. We're talking about full-blown arson, perhaps murder (if someone was caught in the chapel), and serious jail time.

Have your fun, sure, but burning stuff in a densely populated metropolitan area, next to buildings goes far beyond just having some fun, and being young at heart. He did something really stupid, he's already paid for it (Sidley firing him), and will probably pay for it more in the future (who is going to want to hire him now). Probably too steep of a price, but as another poster pointed out, if he's pulling this crap in his thirties, he deserves whatever punishment / stigma he gets for it.

WTF???

Law Professor Sues Above the Law
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435131161

Correction, he's 26, not in his thirties, but still, a 26 year old, much less a law school educated 26 year old, should know better than to commit arson. If you're that uncontrollable when you're drunk, then maybe you should drink less.

In response to #68...

"The NYT article regarding the arson (which, yes, is still terrible) makes it somewhat clearer how, if someone did not specifically know what the place was, they might not immediately think "9/11 memorial," especially while intoxicated."

Does you mean that just because it was not properly marked as a 9/11 memorial that it is quite understandable that Brian lit it on fire? Because usually torching stuff in the street (regardless of its designation) is generally frowned upon in my city.

Or are you saying that being drunk is an acceptable catch-all excuse for illegal behavior? I've had a few friends that have attempted such a strategy with the police and it did not seem to have much weight.

Please elaborate.

Yeah, I've done some stupid s--t when I was hammered before, up to and including while I was in law school. But setting fire to a church?

Come ON man - this is not your ordinary run of the mill drunken foolery. I know plenty of guys who've cheated on their wives, and plenty more who've ended up arrested for public intox, open container, possession, fighting, DUI, and whatnot. I even know some guys who walked into a closed McD's where they'd forgotten to lock up and made fries when they were drunk! (They left money on the counter.)

But SETTING FIRE TO A CHURCH?

For g-d's sake man, that's so over the top, and in a bad way, I can't imagine how both crushed and warped you would have to be to even THINK it, let alone DO it. This guy needs help, and the legal profession needs him like it needs a hole in the head.

Why are his defenders harping about anonymous attackers when they're anonymous as well? If he's such a great guy and you want to defend him (like in the above testimonial) slap your name on your defense.

I'd upper deck this guy's toilet.

I'd upper deck this guy's toilet.

devoted to his friends, to his community...and to burning down buildings

devoted to his friends, to his community...and to burning down buildings

don't know the merits of the suit against ATL, but i'm happy about it. Hard to believe a fellow YLS alum is behind this trashy, pathetic operation.

To the Defenders:

Did he set a memorial on fire?

Did he set Teddy Bears on fire?

Explain how these are good things to do that should be defended.

Once all the flak is removed, one indisputable fact remains: a person attempted to burn down a church. That is arson, and it is criminal. End of story.

Whether he is gay, Hispanic, HLS, or whatever (or not) is irrelevant. He's still an asshole and a criminal.

It does not matter if he was drunk/rufeed. A drunk man's words or actions are a sober man's thoughts. If this person truly contemplates attempting to set churches on fire in his spare time, that shows a callous disregard for others and exceptionally poor judgment. I (regrettably) have before been drunk to the point I did not know where I was or the names of the good friends I was with. I did not attempt to commit any criminal acts against other persons or property that evening (though I certainly had chances to), because my moral compass tells me otherwise.

Which is why I do not support Sidley's revocation of Schroeder's offer. He would have been a fabulous addition to the cult criminal enablers running the FTT BigLaw community. He would have no problem burying people in discovery for years to avoid turning over the hot document proving a company's criminal liability, or helping corporations to develop Ponzi schemes and evade responsibility for it. Why on earth Sidley thought to cut such an amoral, talented young man loose is beyond me. In ten years, he could very well have orchestrated the dealings of the next Enron, and still slept soundly that night.

But we can all take solace in the fact that, due to the revolving-door anti-meritocratic, character-less FTT BigLaw hiring policies, Sidley's loss will ultimately be another BigLaw's gain.

Mission Accomplished!

Retired partner here: I've got a question: Realistically speaking, how can a law grad wait a year or two to start working for BigLaw? I can't understand why anyone would put their career on hold in return for a questionable promise of employment that far into the future. It would seem to me that you should take whatever money you can get, then go in a different direction at full speed.

There was a family that lived down the street. They had a daughter in college. She was pissed at her boyfriend for cheating on her. She got very drunk and went over to his apartment. She set a small fire on his outside deck to get his attention. She wasn't trying to hurt anyone. The fire spread. Ten college kids died in the blaze. She pled guilty to second degree murder, and was sentenced to ten life sentences. She was crushed. Her parents were crushed. The dead kids parents were crushed. So much for getting drunk.

The ship be sinking...

Following up on 113, this is absolutely a true story. The girl was loved by all, actice in everything, and a great student with a great future. Her parents were professionals. The town wanted to lynch her from a lamp post. The family had to move out of town in order to get away from death threats and such.

as one of Brian's "defenders"- I summered with him and was relatively friendly with him at that time- I think 110 hits the nail on the head:

everything you say is true, except you throw in "hes an asshole" which is, i think, the point. hes not. hes a criminal, apparently. hes not going to be a Sidley Austin attorney, apparently. dont know any of his friends who are trying to reverse sidley's decision or get him off without any legal consequence.

he did a despicable thing, its no legal excuse, the facts are what they are. sometimes a total prick commits a stupid/horrible crime. sometimes a good guy makes a stupid/horrible and criminal mistake.

this is the latter. thats all anyone is saying.

112--

With respect to not FTTs, because there simply isn't other substantive legal work to go to. The U.S. government has been flooded with applications (most of which require multiple years of experience anyways), the state governments are frequently in hiring freezes, private practices in general are not hiring (whether small, medium, or large), and public interest firms are being squeezed by fewer donations.

I suppose there's always JAG (which itself has seen a dramatic increase in applications), but that's no small commitment--four years active, four years inactive, with the potential that you'll be called back during the latter four years (unlikely, but possible). Great opportunity, but you're stuck if it turns out it wasn't for you after all. Plus, JAG requires a character evaluation, which means self-entitled, amoral FTT hacks dumped from BigLaw rolls wouldn't be accepted into the program anyways.

I agree with you that anyone with problem-solving and rational thinking ability would start proactively looking for backups immediately. Unfortunately, that is not the FTT way. In addition to lacking any sort of rational problem solving ability, they see public service, or any other non-BigLaw career, as "beneath" them due to a hubrissive misplaced sense of self-righteousness that they actually deserve a job at an Am100 simply by graduating from an FTT. Just look at the September Legal Eagle Wedding post a while ago, where it was considered a "problem" by the FTT elitist zealots that the groom wanted to go into JAG.

drunk people do stupid things, let it go

--a smart, funny, kind person, deeply devoted to his friends, to his community, and to exploring, understanding, and ultimately improving the world around him

Folks will let it go after he is convicted of a violent felony, loses his right to vote, etc., and does his time for arson like others before him who have deliberately set fire to a church.

-- John Q. Public

In response to #116...

If setting fire to a chapel housing a 9/11 memorial does not make you an a$$hole what does? You must set a very (VERY!) high bar for being an a$$hole.

I consider people that cut me off in traffic without the use of blinkers as a$$holes. I consider people that buy a shopping cart full of items in the 10-items-or-less express checkout line at the supermarket as a$$holes.

Therefore, based upon my lower a$$hole standard, I assume that setting a chapel housing a 9/11 memorial as being sufficient to count as being an a$$hole.

You state "sometimes a total prick commits a stupid/horrible crime. sometimes a good guy makes a stupid/horrible and criminal mistake."

But sometimes "a stupid/horrible and criminal mistake" can get you reclassified. On the basis of his actions he has earned himself the title of "total prick."

Can you actually say with a straight face - "Yeah, Brian set a chapel housing a 9/11 memorial on fire during a drunken arson bender...but outside of that he's a really nice guy"?

And you sir may very well be an a$$hole too...

@ 118.

"drunk people do stupid things, let it go."

And sober people mock them endlessly for it. The Germans even have a word for it - "Schadenfreude" - the taking of pleasure from the misfortune of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD: PLEASE STOP EXTENDING START DATES. THERE ARE OTHER FOLKS IN THE PIPELINE WHO'D LIKE BIGLAW JOBS TOO, AND THEY DID NOT HAVE THE "CHOICE" TO BE DEFERRED...THEY ARE STUCK IN NO-RECRUITMENT LIMBO.

[end rant]

28 wins the thread.

Do they practice religion in What?

120, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by so diligently avoiding typing asshole?

amazing how this post brought out so many sociopaths, like the poster who starts fires on beaches and is frustrated that sand doesn't burn, or the one who admitted he may set teddy bears on fire. if we want to deter these people (assuming they are in fact different individuals), schroeder's punishment should be exemplary.

In response to 124,

Sorry about that. Years of sending internal emails afraid that some word-search program would flag my emails for inappropriate language has made such typing second nature. I wholehearted apologize.

Brain Schroeder is an asshole. A big fucking asshole.

Formerly #120.

@101 - I think maybe what @68 meant was that if not for the fact that it was a "9/11" church/tent/chatauqua/trailer (whatever the hell it is...), this would not have resulted in a single raised eyebrow - not from the cops, not from the press, not from the blogosphere, and certainly not from his putative employer. Not in the NYC I know, anyhow - there are bigger fish to fry (pardon the pun).

Lets answer the questions that seem to be consuming people, then. In no particular order:

- Is arson good? No.
- Is getting as blind and stupid drunk as our protagonist did good? No.
- Could our protagonist do with a certain degree of extra maturity and tact? Probably.
- Is it reasonable to assume that a collection of teddy-bears on the street has some extraneous meaning, and is not just a pile of teddy-bears? Yes.
- Is our protagonist the brightest of bears? Apparently not (though I have no direct evidence of this).
- Was the alleged crime blown massively out of proportion by elements of the 4th estate because this is the kind of story that sells papers and advertising? Probably.
- Would the general public be remotely interested were it not for the fact that these teddy-bears turned out (rather like in the story of Goldilocks) to be the wrong ursae to screw with? Doubtful.
- do ad hominem attacks have anything at all to do with our protagonist's guilt or innocence (as the case may be)? No.
- do such attacks serve any purpose? Doubtful.
- does being drunk and stupid justify the alleged crime? No. It explains it - it doesn't justify it.
- Should our protagonist be punished? Probably, though the reason you don't have victims actually meting out punishment is precisely because that's what the justice system is for.

End of discussion.

I'm another one of the "defenders." I think 127's laid it out pretty squarely and fairly (except I'd say Brian's usually bright...though clearly not here).

Jesus f'ing Christ,

If he only happened to get a kick out of burning some other kid's teddy bear, instead of the son of a 9/11 victim, it would not make him a decent guy.

This may be difficult for some of you to believe, but if neither ATL nor a single journalist reported this and Sidley found out about it, there's a pretty good chance he would have still been fired.

Among normal people, those who do stuff like this are considered dickbags. I, like everybody I know, have been drunk on a number of occasions. Neither I, nor anybody I know, have ever done anything approaching this or vaguely in the ballpark of it.

It may be stunning for you to believe, but this would still have raised an eyebrow.

Again, I honestly get the impression you people who are defending him are doing so because you've been surrounded by so many other dickbags that he really didn't seem that bad.

One of those basic lessons to learn when judging people is the fact that someone is nice to you means little.

The fact a top law school grad is nice and acts civilly to me, another top law school grad, (at least to my face) means nothing.

How they act towards some kid they'll never know and who can't do anything for them, however, means a lot.

This is such a basic rule when judging people that anybody who hasn't learned it should thank god they can go into other venues that don't yet require picking business partners or hiring employees.

Joe McCarthy Richard Nixon Studebaker television North Korea South Korea Marilyn Monroe

Brian started the fire!
It was always burning since the world's been turning!

129 FTW. A better judge of someone's character is how that person acts toward random people / people who can't benefit him/her vs. their inner circle (most people are reasonably nice to their friends) or people who can help their career (professors, employers, etc.).

If we're talking about really being a good person, the guy who's aloof / maybe a little snarky to his law school classmates, but who spends a good deal of his free time working in soup kitchens is going to be way ahead of the guy in law school everyone loves because of his outgoing personality, but who spends his free time getting plastered and committing mischief like lighting fires.

#127.

"Should our protagonist be punished? Probably, though the reason you don't have victims actually meting out punishment is precisely because that's what the justice system is for."

I assume that you are talking about the narrow definition of punishment via the criminal justice system and not punishment overall. Usually punishment also takes place separately from the ciminal justice system, even if no criminal liability is discovered (e.g. boycotts, bad press, protests, damaged reputation, loss of employment...).

In the case of Mr. Schroeder, I assume that any chance of a political career or a high profile legal position has been curtailed, as I am sure that this will follow him around for quite a few years to come.

What about firms that have remained silent about class of 2010 start dates? (No sign of deferring... but then again no announcement as to start dates). What's up with that?

@132 - Assumption correct. If I am to believe one of my favourite movies, the justice system takes a dim view of firebugs:

"What do you want to do to the whole world Ronald?"
"hee hee...Burn it...Burn it all!"
"See you next year Ronald"

...

133: Firms really don't know what to expect as to demand for legal services. My firm is generally busy and has been trending upward for several months in terms of average billable hours. This suggests a consistent turn around and we might have a real need for 2010 grads. It is too soon for us to make an informed choice about whether to defer or not. If summers pushed us for a committed date, we would defer to hedge our bets. But there are many of us that believe that next year will be much better than this year and we will need new attorneys. I expect that we will have a much clearer view in April. We do not have plans to cut the class or defer some newbies and not others. It is just too soon for us to tell.

In contrast, Sidley appears to know it overhired or else will have a real challenge integrating attorneys from the 2009 class.

Try to be patient. If a better opportunity comes along, then think about taking it.