@ 5:38 - I laughed so hard I almost peed my pants. Thanks! -- ET!

7:17(1) is spot on about the hiring/firing dynamic. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly.

We really DON'T know what happened here. For example, she could have bolloxed up a major project. Some mistakes are one-offs. But I also lived through the era of stealth layoffs, too. Stealth layoffs are unfair and shortsighted - except for SF/LA/NY and maybe Chicago, legal markets can be tight-knit and stories get told. And, that associate you fired might actually become a referral source if you treat him/her with respect. Crazy? I've seen it happen first-hand.

But crediting her story, gawdalmighty that was a crappy thing to do. A question to the PH folks reading this: Is the SF MP really so clueless as to sign off on this? Or was this a rogue department head with a personality conflict? Either way, it was handled abysmally.

-- ET!

@7:41 here - you've got a couple of years on me (my shop has a different seniority scale, but I'm still an EP) and all I can say is... wow. Just, wow.

You're ¶1 is right. But your ¶2 is just way out there. First, if you're losing money on mid-level associates billing 1800 hrs., your realization ratios are all screwed up. First years, maybe, but not your 3-7 yrs.

You're right that $160k doesn't buy a lot of family values.

But while your final proposition may true as an abstract concept, that's not how firms REALLY handle it. At least the good ones... Only the most short-sighted of shops are as callous as you portray (Jones Day, anyone?).

No matter what, you fire associates gently unless the kid's farked up spectacularly, doesn't get it, and you want to send a message. You also make a couple of phone calls to see if a second-tier firm can hire them. As for our author, I'd keep her for a month or two, let her go gently (and tell her the goddamn truth, that it's economic + a factor of her being the slowest gazelle in the herd). Then you'd have a person who doesn't want to motherfark your firm.

-- ET!

Great points, 9:44(1) and 10:04! It might just be my intense dislike of fraternities, but I'm hoping they get clobbered.

-- ET!

Can't wait to see the name associated with that twaddle. Really does a disservice to the 5:42-types doing God's work in the trenches.

But it did have a nice effect: I'm playing my bootleg Tracy Chapman instead of Tsaichovsky while motherf*cking opposing counsel in the case. Nothing quite so sweet as knowing the author's had a positive effect on somebody in the real the world.

Chump.

-- ET!

Hey Phil;

Hope you've read the comments!

Chump.

-- ET!

Not my style of practice, and I won't excuse his violations of law. But I've worked for people like that in the past & it can generate results (albeit through a mechanism I don't really like). And it seems he's paying staff upwards of $75k - plus bonuses. In Vegas, too.

Hazard pay indeed.

-- ET!

Heh-heh.

Lat, thanks for running this series - the whole kerfuffle nigh made me wet my pants from laughing so hard!

In fact, I'm almost ready to take back my previous post. Phil, come work for my shop. I'll even pay you pretty well, too.

To laugh at your biatch ass.

-- ET! (who has resolved never, never, never to hire a HLR student when he becomes a circuit judge)

P.S. Somebody, please tell me that http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/hlr_in_toilet_flush_flush.php#comment-601475 is a joke. Otherwise, my head will explode.

8:23 p.m. - you've articulated my reasons for irritation quite nicely. Thank you.

8:40 a.m. - Pfiffle. But I stand behind my comments, which is why I post under an easily-traceable user name.

I'd say more but I don't have time to develop my thoughts articulately. I think some outrage is also directed to the fact that this kid has a golden career track laid out in front of him. He'll do quite well without having to really exert himself. But his statements demonstrate an astonishing lack of self-awareness.

-- ET! (who'd write more but has to get back to killing others' babies in order to feed my own)

The unspoken truth's now on the table. The position of "editor" at a law review has nothing to do with editorship. It's all about the resume (more precisely, enhancing hourly rates by claiming that associates are "Harvard Law Review" material and thus worth $350-450/hr).

What's a shame is most clients won't (a) learn about this silliness or (b) even care that HLR runs a shabby operation. And in a year or two, it'll all be forgotten. *sigh*

-- ET!

P.S. I walk by the statue regularly. It's clear that Phil saw precisely what he wanted to see, rather than what the statute represented to the rest of its viewers. And in failing to verify his preconceptions, he committed one of the gravest errors a lawyer can make.

Aw dammitall, I forgot...

There actually IS a statue that portrays what Phil wanted to see. The statue's outside the Borders book store off of School Street in downtown Boston. I've always found it to be a pretty ham-handed piece of solipsism, but at least it exists.

-- ET!

9:57 p.m. Exactly.

A bit irrelevant, but worth saying. I sort of feel my prior comments were unduly harsh. I imported my own social perspective (married, middle-aged, partner, etc.) into my critique of the article. While I might view the article as hopelessly naive, I didn't take into account the fact that the author is still pretty young. What sounds cloying to me might sound idealistic to somebody who's not spent a couple of decades working in the real world. So, my apologies to you, Mr. Telfeyen.

-- ET! (who, despite his propensity for slightly-malicious snark, is being sincere here)

Dang. No winners here, none at all.

My two-sizes-too-small heart goes out to Judge Somma; I think people who are happy are not generally arrested in the circumstances he was found in.

I think negotiations were close to the vest; I haven't heard anything about what really happened.

--ET!

(hmm, maybe I should start polishing up my resume...?)

Hehe... This has really brightened my day, thanks.

From my vantage point, I don't really care too much about the supposed plagarism. That's more of a concern for academics than folks in the trenches like me. If the student wrote the Ames brief & turned it into a note, more power to her.

But what it DOES do is reemphasize my belief that journal work is an imperfect proxy for legal ability. Student editors may be diligent & bright, but they lack the real-world experience necessary to critically evaluate articles, notes, and the like. If I could only get everyone else to believe that law review is a net null on the resume, we'd all be set!

-- ET! (who also wants a pony, while he's dreaming)

4:46(2) - with you 80% of the way, but... I've seen (well, done) things just to mess with opco's head. If it distracts opposing counsel from their agenda, and if it won't embarrass my side too much if the judge sees it, it's cool. I would have liked to have seen the whole transcript to see if Ms. B took the deponent to the cleaners. The comment does seem classless, on first look.

-- ET