Before we issued our report on lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings, we reached out to the firm for comment. Eileen King, Global Director of Public Relations for Paul Hastings, told us that "the firm does not comment on employment law matters."

Or something. After being subjected to waterboarding the enhanced interrogation techniques of the American Lawyer, Paul Hastings was moved to speak:

King told The Am Law Daily that while some associates have been let go, they were part of typical annual performance reviews. While she declines to say how many had been let go, King says the numbers were in line with last year's cuts.

"There is always resulting turnover [after performance reviews], but we have not done any layoffs," King says. "It's really normal attrition based on performance evaluations, and the numbers show year over year that we're up in associates. We're a healthy firm in terms of head count and real revenue perspective, and the numbers really say the story in my mind."

We'd be interested in seeing some actual numbers, in terms of this year's cuts compared to last year's cuts. But we'll take PH at its word -- if they say no layoffs, then there have been no layoffs.

Laying off associates? It's just a state of mind. One firm's "layoffs" are another firm's "normal, performance-related attrition."

King says the firm's revenue and head count situation is healthy. Associate head count, she adds, is up "considerably" for the year, and the firm expects to welcome a larger summer associate class than in 2007. Revenue increased 19.9 percent in 2007, to $925 million. Profits per partner were up 19.6 percent, to $1.92 million.

A dramatic increase in PPP isn't necessarily a rebuttal to the layoff claims. As Shinyung Oh, author of the famous PH Farewell Email, told the WSJ Law Blog, in explaining why she sent her dramatic missive, "I want [laid-off associates] to feel like they’re not completely alone and not to worry about their own performance when it’s the firm doing something for economic reasons... [or a] desire to increase partner profits."

Speaking of Shinyung Oh, her bio is no longer on the PH website. Has she been officially terminated?

We're looking into the situation. If you know anything, feel free to drop us a line.

Paul Hastings Denies Reports of Layoffs [American Lawyer]
Paul Hastings scotches lay-off reports [Legal Week]

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Paul Hastings

The folks over at the WSJ Law Blog have just given us a late-night treat: an interview with Shinyung Oh of Paul Hastings.

Oh is the author of the famous (and fabulous) PH Farewell Email -- aka The Email That Launched A Thousand Blog Comments -- and a heroine in the eyes of many Biglaw associates around the country. Here are a few highlights from the interview:

[T]he former associate, Shinyung Oh (University of Chicago ’93, Georgetown Law ’98), a commercial litigation lawyer.... says she sent the now-infamous email because she didn’t want other associates who may be laid off because of downsizing by the firm – but told it is because of their performance – to doubt their own abilities.

“I want them to feel like they’re not completely alone and not to worry about their own performance when it’s the firm doing something for economic reasons” and because of a “desire to increase partner profits,” she said.

Inducing crippling self-doubt among associates is one of the most pernicious things about "stealth layoffs," in which economically-driven dismissals are cast by firms as purely performance-based. We know this from having spoken to stealth-layoff victims, who have described how their self-confidence was shattered when their firms dismissed them, purportedly for poor performance.

While there may be a "six of one, half-dozen of another" quality to this debate -- as Dan Weiner of Hughes Hubbard & Reed just told the WSJ Law Blog, "is it economic or is it performance-related is a false dichotomy," since if you have to make cuts, "you’re not going to pick people randomly" -- we still think it's the better part of valor for firms to take the reputational hit, rather than stick it to their associates. At any rate, it's certainly fair for law students and lateral candidates to shun firms that get called out for being less-than-candid about their personnel decisions.

Back to the interview. Here's the $64,000 -- or three-months-severance -- question: What was Shinyung Oh thinking when she sent out that email?

[Oh said] she knew that the email, which was sent to associates firm-wide, litigation partners in her office and the top management of Paul Hastings, could ruin her chances of landing another big-firm job. She said she isn’t considering suing the firm, and said she doesn’t feel she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.

Oh Shinyung, are you sure? After Aaron Charney settled with Sullivan & Cromwell, he got himself a nice new apartment. Then again, if you were planning to sue, you probably shouldn't have told the Wall Street Journal that you didn't feel discriminated against on account of your pregnancy.

As for what’s next, Oh, who immigrated from South Korea when she was eight and grew up in New York and Houston, said she’s not sure. But she said that since the email was posted online, she’s received an outpouring of support from lawyers in the Bay Area and across the country. Several are trying to help her find a new job.

Shinyung, if you're looking for headhunter recommendations, drop us a line -- we can hook you up. And if you ever get the urge to send out another barn-burning, firmwide email, definitely give us a heads up. Based on the way that your email resonated with readers, it's clear that you have writerly talent that deserves a wider audience.

In all seriousness, we wish Shinyung Oh the best of luck. We commend her for the courage it took to write that farewell email. We have every confidence that she will land on her feet -- recall our prior post, quoting a colleague who praised her as someone who "ran a huge class action and got excellent results" -- and we look forward to following her career in the years ahead.

Update: Jane Genova shares our optimism about Oh's future. She writes: Oh "has almost an infinite number of fresh career options, within and outside law.... [enumerates options].... Being the good solider, girl scout or boy scout has no payoff in the current career marketplace. Bold risks do.... Wild risk is the only secure path."

P.S. Congrats to Amir Efrati on the interview. Read the full post over here. Check out a copy of Shinyung Oh's 2006 performance review, also obtained by the WSJ, over here (PDF).

A screencap of her firm bio is saved for posterity, after the jump.

Fired Paul Hastings Associate Talks to Law Blog [WSJ Law Blog]
The New Risky Business - Shinyung Oh's E-Mail Strategy [Law and More]

Earlier: Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email (And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)
Miscarriage of Justice at Paul Hastings? The Blogosphere Reacts
Nationwide Layoff Watch: Paul Hastings

Rumors of lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings have been circulating for quite some time, since late last year. For example, back in November, we heard that the firm laid off / fired several associates in the real estate group. But we heard that secondhand, and we were unable to get confirmation, so we never wrote about it.

(That happens all the time, by the way. We get lots of gossip, but much of it never sees the light of day.)

Why has the PH layoff news been so elusive? One source explained: "A former Paul Hastings partner said PH likes to do its layoffs a little at a time, so they stay under the radar. I guess that didn't work out too well this time."

You can say that again. This week's bombshell -- an emotional farewell email from an associate in San Francisco who was laid off six days after her miscarriage (hereinafter "the PH Farewell Email") -- confirms the rumors: Paul Hastings has been laying off associates. But it has been doing so quietly, in small clumps, spread out over many months.

If the other laid-off lawyers got the same deal as the author of the PH Farewell Email, they received a three-month severance package. This appears to be standard or "market" for the latest round of Biglaw layoffs. For more details about the Paul Hastings severance deal -- e.g., health insurance, vacation, access to firm email and voicemail -- see the agreement (which also provides that the departure "is and will be classified as a resignation").

Also note the agreement's strict confidentiality provisions. In a nutshell, Paul Hastings has been buying the silence of the laid-off lawyers -- and up until this week, the strategy was working quite nicely. PH isn't a leading employment-law shop for nothing. They know how to draft a tight agreement, how to keep firings on the down-low, and how to keep terminated employees silent.

But now, in the wake of the PH Farewell Email, the floodgates have opened. Yesterday we solicited tips about Paul Hastings lawyer layoffs -- and we received a wealth of information, from current and former PH lawyers, no longer afraid to speak out. (Of course, to be on the safe side, most of these sources emailed us from home, using their personal email accounts.)

The results of our investigation, after the jump (i.e., click on the "Continue reading" link below).

This is, like, WOW. We don't quite know what to say.

This departure memo, sent by an associate leaving the San Francisco office of Paul Hastings, is extraordinary. It also confirms the rumors -- which have swirled about for quite some time, but without confirmation until now -- of associate layoffs at PH.

We're reaching out for comment to the associate in question and to Paul Hastings. But we wanted to put this up ASAP, to break the story first.

Farewell email below (with a handful of minor typos corrected). "Transition Agreement and General Release," after the jump.

*******************
From: [Redacted]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:14 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: My departure

The circumstances surrounding my departure from Paul Hastings have been deeply disappointing. It is one thing to ignore an email sent as a colleague is waiting to have her uterus scraped after a miscarriage, but it is wholly another level of heartlessness to lay her off six days after that. [Partner X] is the only one who expressed any sympathy after my miscarriage, and I am grateful to him for that.

A business is a business, but it takes very little to convey some level of humanity to carry out even the most difficult business decisions. We are human beings first before we are partners or associates. Had you simply explained that the department is unable to sustain the number of associates in the office, I would have completely understood. Had you explained that the office had been directed to reduce the number of associates and I was chosen because of my high billable rate and low billable hours, I would have appreciated such directness, even though the consequences of blindly raising billable rates to an unsustainable degree is plainly predictable. What I do not understand is the attempt to blame the associate for not bringing in the business that should have been brought in by each of you and to hide your personal failures by attempting to tarnish my excellent performance record and looking to undermine my sense of self esteem.

The last few months have been surreal, at best. Just last year, I had celebrated my engagement and marriage with many of you. In fact, during the engagement party, the head of the department took my then-fiancée aside to express to him what a great attorney I am and what a great future I faced. Indeed, less than a week before this year's bizarre performance review, I was again told by the same partner that my work is great and that the slow business in no way reflected on my performance. A week later, I was given a mediocre performance review and told that I should worry about whether I have a future at Paul Hastings. When I asked for specific examples of my alleged deficiencies, I received no response. When I asked for an explanation as to why I had been downgraded in so many performance categories when I received absolutely no criticism throughout the year and my prior year's review was stellar, I was told that my prior year's performance assessment may have been "over-inflated." What a startling response.

After my miscarriage, I had discussed my concern with several associates that Paul Hastings may use that opportunity to lay me off quickly before I have a chance to get pregnant again. Those associates thought it unfathomable that a firm would be so callous and assured me that Paul Hastings isn't that kind of a place. What a lesson this has been for them - and for me. I would not have anticipated that a partner would tell me one thing and completely renege on his words a week later. I would not have anticipated that a female partner (whom I had looked to as a role model) with children of her own would sit stone faced as I broke into tears just days after my miscarriage. Even a few words of sympathy or concern would have made a world of difference. What kind of people squander human relationships so easily?

If this response seems particularly emotional, perhaps an associate's emotional vulnerability after a recent miscarriage is a factor you should consider the next time you fire or lay someone off. It shows startlingly poor judgment and management skills -- and cowardice -- on your parts. If you should ever have the misfortune of suddenly losing something or someone precious to you, I hope you don't find similar heartlessness as I have.

As for your request for a release, non-disclosure, and non-disparagement agreement in return for three months' pay, I reject it. Unlike you, I am not just a paid mouthpiece with no independent judgment. I will decide how and to whom to communicate how you have treated me. I find it ironic that you would try to buy the right not to be disparaged after behaving as you have. Your actions speak volumes, and you don't need much help from me in damaging your reputation.

I attach the proposed release for any associate who may be interested in reviewing its details.

[Redacted]

*******************
And that's all she wrote. The release that Paul Hastings wanted this associate to sign, after the jump.

Update (5:10 PM): We have heard back from the associate in question, who had no additional comment.

Update (8:20 PM): Previously posted in the comments, but now we can bring it up to the main page. Here is Paul Hastings's statement, from Eileen King, Global Director of Public Relations:

"We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."

Update (5/6/08): Blog reactions to this story are collected here. Additional discussion of pregnancy discrimination cases appears here. Lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings are covered here.

Further Update (5/9/08): The author of the email, Shinyung Oh, has gone public and given an interview. See here.

Some minor email amusement, in the spirit of Skadden Arps and Pepper Hamilton, courtesy of the Chicago office of DLA Piper:

This is a pretty cool goof by Bill Rudnick, the new head of DLA Piper's Chicago office. A group of partners just came over from Locke Lord Bissell, and apparently one of them went back to Locke Lord within a week.

Around 8:30 p.m. last Wednesday, three messages went out to the Chicago office all within a couple minutes. The first e-mail below went out first, followed by a "recall" message, and then the last message below.

Read the emails, after the jump.

From one of our tipsters:

Richard Rosenbaum, president of Greenburg Traurig, made the following group email faux pas. He used the company listserv to send two emails soliciting contributions for the McCain campaign, proving that law students aren’t the only bumbling souls who screw up listserv etiquette. From Rosenbaum's first email:

“As we have said on a number of other occasions, our firm does not support any particular presidential candidates as a firm. We are a business catering to a wide range of clients and employing lawyers and staff with a wide variety of interests and preferences in the political arena…”

Blah blah blah, a bunch of politically correct qualifiers, then BANG! The money-grab:

“I have recently been named a National Co-Chair of Senator McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. As has previously been the case, over the next several months I will be working alongside several other leaders from the American business and legal communities to personally solicit contributions and other political support for Senator McCain's presidential campaign.”

Now, of course, Rosenbaum goes on to say that participation is voluntary, etc. But is it really appropriate for a firm President to use group email to solicit campaign funds?

More, after the jump.

We love internecine warfare at law schools and in other academic settings. As the old saying goes -- our cursory Googling doesn't immediately generate the exact wording or source, so we'll paraphrase -- fights in academia are especially vicious, because the stakes are especially small.

As Hillary and Barack do battle in Virginia today, so too do administrators at William and Mary. From a tipster at William & Mary School of Law (interesting factoid: it's one of the oldest law schools in the country):

Today the William and Mary Board of Visitors decided not to renew William and Mary President Gene Nichol's contract. Nichols sent out a pretty amazing email to all students about his resignation, and Michael Powell, former FCC Chairman and Rector of W&M, sent a response. Needless to say, people are talking of nothing else today.

To make the story even better, the law school dean, Taylor Reveley, is now serving as President of W&M. Nichols is joining the law school staff, where his wife is also a professor.

Check out the messages -- Gene Nichol's defiant departure email, claiming he was ousted due to ideological reasons, and Michael Powell's steadfast denial that the non-renewal was based on ideology -- after the jump.

Updates: First, a W&M tipster advises:

William & Mary School of Law is actually THE oldest law school in America (not one of the oldest). See Davison M. Douglas, The Jeffersonian Vision of Legal Education, 51 J. Legal Educ. 185, 197 (2002) ("[I]n January 1780 William and Mary became the first college in America to offer a formal course of study in law.").

Second, another source notes that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is the Chancellor of the College of William & Mary. Perhaps the formidable SOC needs to descend on Williamsburg and restore some order down there.

But it didn't result in a front-page New York Times story on the Zyprexa settlement talks. Apparently reporter Alex Berenson had independent knowledge of the settlement negotiations, and this knowledge was the basis for his story. Details over at Drug and Device Law.

In our brief and breezy post, we never claimed that the email error triggered the NYT story. But we did link to other sources that mistakenly suggested this. So if you read the original post, be sure to read this correction / clarification.

Update: Actually, the correction may itself require correction (or at least clarification). See here.

It Wasn't Pepper's Fault! Berenson Confirms [Drug and Device Law]

Earlier: ATL Practice Pointer: When Emailing Super-Sensitive Settlement Information, Double Check the Recipient List

Or triple check, or quadruple check. Especially when one of the lawyers involved in the case has the same last name as a New York Times reporter.

Assuming the email system in question was Microsoft Outlook, we imagine the panicked Pepper Hamilton lawyer trying to invoke the amusingly ineffectual "Recall" function (à la Judge Marsha Berzon).

Also, we're thinking of getting our last name legally changed to "Boies."

Update: As it turns out, Alex Berenson and Brad Berenson are cousins. Small world!

Further Update: This post is subject to a quasi-correction / clarification. See here.

Still Further Update: Actually, the quasi-correction may itself require correction (or at least clarification). See here.

What's in a Name? Alex Berenson (the crusading reporter) vs. Bradford Berenson (the high-powered attorney). [Starkman & Associates]
Lilly's $1 Billion E-Mailstrom [Portfolio]
How to Recall an E-mail in Microsoft Outlook [eHow.com]

To San Francisco, apparently, to clerk on the Ninth Circuit.

We hope that the author of this email is clerking for one of court's slave-driver judges. He needs to be kept busy, so he won't have time for any more literary endeavors.

"Pleaded" or "pled" may be a matter of personal preference. But turns of phrase like "I had to have breakfast with my unit" and "the inadequate salve of an orgasm" ought to be criminalized -- even in the Ninth Circuit.

Correction: We've heard from the woman who received the email. As it turns out, she works for the Ninth Circuit; the sender does not (although he is an attorney, in southern California). She construes the references to the Ninth Circuit to mean "that the job he currently has is *his version* of the Ninth Circuit -- that is, his dream job."

"It Was A Risk -- Dating You. Risking My Reputation. Where Was Respect For That?" [Jezebel]

More news from one of ATL's favorite law firms, Quinn Emanuel. See Gawker and Radar.

If your friends are as fabulous as Susan Estrich's, why hide them behind a bcc?

Query: Could this actually be a brilliant viral marketing ploy? Has Susan Estrich harnessed the power of the blogosphere to get all the world to read her paean to QE?

The Art Of The 'To' Line [Gawker]
Fox News' Susan Estrich Has a New Job [Radar Online via Big Law Board]

We love tales of misbehaving DAs. And this one is a doozy. From the Houston Chronicle:

New e-mails released Tuesday show District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal sent and received racist jokes and strategized with political consultants and colleagues about his re-election campaign on his county e-mail account.

Also within the correspondence obtained Tuesday by the Houston Chronicle were numerous sexually explicit images. It was unclear, however, if Rosenthal ever forwarded those files.

Those were just for his personal wank collection.

Among e-mails that concerned Woodfill were video clips of nudity and sex acts and a racist joke forwarded by Rosenthal that compares former President Bill Clinton to a black man. The e-mail says Clinton played the saxophone, smoked marijuana and gets a check from the government each month.

Pot always struck us as more of a white person's drug, but whatever.

Also included within the e-mails is heavy traffic between Rosenthal and Sam Siegler, Rosenthal's physician and the husband of Kelly Siegler, who is running for district attorney. In one e-mail from Sam Siegler to Rosenthal, an attached video shows women having their breasts exposed after men forcibly pulled down their blouses in public. The video called the act "sharking."

Kelly Siegler dismissed her husband's e-mails. "He cusses like a sailor and his sense of humor is crude, to put it mildly," she said. "It's his computer and what he does at work is his business. He's the boss."

Stand by your man, Kelly. As long as there's no kiddie porn in those emails, it's all good.

Oh, and Rosenthal also sent "intimate e-mails to his executive secretary." More details, after the jump.

The firm of Dewey Ballantine was never known for being particularly PC. From a 2004 article by Anthony Lin, for the New York Law Journal:

Nearly one year after lawyers at Dewey Ballantine infuriated members of the Asian-American community by performing a stereotype-laden parody song at their annual dinner, the law firm is again dealing with allegations of racial insensitivity....

On Monday, an employee sent a firmwide e-mail advertising the availability of some puppies for adoption. Douglas Getter, a London-based American who heads Dewey Ballantine's European mergers and acquisitions practice then sent a firmwide reply.

"Please don't let these puppies go to a Chinese restaurant!" Getter wrote in his e-mail.

Now Dewey has merged with LeBoeuf Lamb. Happily, it appears their firm cultures are a good match. Check out this email exchange appearing below -- and note that partner Stephen Best came from the LeBoeuf Lamb side of the marriage.

From: Ralph C. Ferrara
To: DL All Attorneys - US
Cc: Ferrara, Ralph C.
Sent: Mon Dec 17 11:00:29 2007
Subject: German Translation - Completed

Dear All,

Thank you for your many quick responses [to a request for translation of a German document]. The translation has been completed.

Regards, Ralph
______________

From: Stephen A. Best
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 AM
To: Ferrara, Ralph C.; DL All Attorneys - US
Subject: Re: German Translation - Completed

Zieg Heil!!!!!!

Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

Oh, the perils of Blackberrying! If you respond to a firm-wide email on your Blackberry, be EXTRA careful about not hitting "reply all" (unless that is truly your intention).

Of course, the "Zieg Heil" response would have been inappropriate even if sent to a smaller group of recipients. As noted by Wikipedia, uttering the phrase "Sieg Heil" in Germany is "a criminal offence punishable by up to three years of prison."

Two emails of profuse apology, issued within an hour of the offending message, after the jump.

Law school list serve trainwrecks are a staple here at ATL. We've written about several -- see, e.g., Cumberland Law School; Washington University School of Law -- and they tend to be popular with readers.

A student at NYU Law School brought a recent listserv debacle to our attention:

[This listserve controversy] touches on many law school and other legal topics. They include grades, finals, state vs. T14 schools, Jesus, the Constitution, Jesus vs. the Constitution, and [people] who were arrested at Harvard [see April 24, 2:21 AM entry] and feel the need to announce it to the whole law school.

Perhaps it's just exam stress all around, but having just taken my crim pro final earlier today, the last bit made things extra hilarious.

The reader then included several emails from the thread. But fortunately for us, another NYU law student already collected and posted them over here (which saves us the trouble of cutting and pasting).

More after the jump.

This actually happened quite some time ago -- last month, to be exact. But we're happy to write about it because (1) it hasn't been blogged about elsewhere, as far as we know, and (2) with the passage of time, tempers have cooled. So maybe now people can look back on it with amusement rather than anger.

A summary, from one of the several tipsters who drew our attention to this:

A friend of mine at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama, sent me this. Apparently some girl sent out a mass email about President Bush's veto of some health care legislation. This set off a whole clusterf**k of responding emails, with the debate devolving into one over race and class. From reading through the several threads, it's almost frightening that some of these people are actually going to become lawyers.

[One of the more] recent post[s] is especially enlightening.... [T]he author states that "The powers that be count on sellouts to climb the ladder of success and refuse to help those underneath them. That way they can use you sellouts as tokens...."

However, the most hilarious part of this whole thing is where one of the black (1L) students responds to an Asian student by saying, "To the Asian.....u aint black." Further idiocy follows.

The aforementioned "idiocy," after the jump.

* You've got mail! And you better hold on to it. [CNN]

* Both sides shooting to get SCOTUS to hear D.C. gun case. [New York Times]

* Milberg Weiss asking for home court advantage in trial. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Can anybody do anything based on the Mitchell Report? [Sports Illustrated]

Some etiquette tips for law school deans:

1. If you send one of your students to another law school, for a year-long stint as a visiting student, don't "apologize" for it -- even if that student has a severe peanut allergy, requiring the receiving school to "peanut-proof" itself for the year.

2. If you really must issue an "apology," do so by phone or in person, not by email.

3. If you really must issue an "apology" by email, send it to the individual dean. Do not send it to a listserv consisting of the deans of ABA-accredited law schools.

Because it might get leaked to ATL:

ATL readers: Please take this opportunity to engage in a vicious comments clusterf**k spirited debate over whether schools, airlines, and other institutions go too far -- or not far enough -- in accommodating people with extreme food allergies. Thank you.

Ah, the perils of office romance. This was passed along to us by a tipster, who wrote: "This new lawsuit involving one of Connecticut's largest and oldest firms caught my eye this morning."

Stephanie Ancillai; Thomas Diascro v. Michael Lamoureux

10/29/2007 HHD-CV07-5014300-S

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff Ancillai broke off relationship with defendant, who in turn sent emails to plaintiff and co-plaintiff's superiors at Shipman and Goodwin exposing their romantic relationship. As a result of the emails, both plaintiff and co-plaintiff lost their jobs in the marketing department of the law firm.

Sounds interesting. If you get your hands on the Complaint, please feel free to send it our way.

* Some Fahrvergnügen for Porsche, courtesy of the European Court of Justice. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]

* Surprise surprise: a Yale law professor has issues with Michael Mukasey. Professor (and novelist) Jed Rubenfeld questions the nominee's views of executive power. [New York Times via WSJ Law Blog]

* If confirmed, Mukasey has his work cut out for him. "Clearly the Justice Department has lost its mojo," said WilmerHale partner Reginald Brown. [Legal Times]

* Obama criticizes Hillary in Iowa mailing. [Politico via Drudge Report]

* A (very close) vote is expected this week on Leslie Southwick's Fifth Circuit nomination.
[Fox News via How Appealing]

Additional links, after the jump.

That's the debate currently raging in the Los Angeles office of Skadden. It was triggered by some exuberant, multicolored emails from a Gay Colleague, promoting the Skadden LA AIDS Walk team.

From the delicious (but sporadically updated) Skadden Insider:

[T]he e-mails weren't well received by everyone because "they are pretty aggressive and unprofessional. Just the tone of voice, the five thousand colors, the naming of names of who contributed and who didn't."

Our source continued: "And of course, some ignorant fools are going around saying, "I don't go around calling myself the 'straight associate'! Anyway, it was pretty funny. It was a gay gay gay Friday."

Check out the full post, which reprints the (literally) colorful email, over here.

And read about another instance of public shaming at Skadden, after the jump.