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

I actually did this... explaining my absence from the boards for many months. Comments are too short to leave anything of substance. But if I can succeed, any careful litigator can.

1. Budget - plan on 18 mos. b/f you turn a profit. That means either (a) substantial savings, or (b) a line of credit from your friendly banker. (b) is a MUST have. It's easy if you have a carefully-thought-through business plan.

2. Office. NO on the virtual office. There's prestige associated with having a downtown office address where you are every day. Check out subleases on Craigslist. I paid ~$1100 for a corner office on the 22nd floor in (sorry, it'll give me away) Boston. I got a sweetheart deal, but they're not that unusual.

3. Business. Takes 18 mos. to really get it going, more or less. I kept names and phone numbers of EVERY client at my old office. Called/wrote/e-mailed them when I set out on my own. Took ~9-12 months, but I think the budget analysis won them over in the long run... I'm ~40% cheaper than big firms.

4. Business, cont. I took a bunch of dog cases at first. Some generated revenue, some didn't. Most ensured that (a) I had grateful clients, and (b) they'd refer business to me. That's been positive. Think of the bar lawyer referral services... Great source of leads.

5. You need ~4-10 yrs experience before you do this, IMHO. To be brief, you need to know the basics of litigation (how to obtain an order of notice, standard discovery objections, pragmatics of the cost/benefit analysis). Not the best idea for a newbie lawyer - spend 2-3 years in some scut-work firm before starting on your own.

Nice; a somewhat useful column for solos, and the lawyer-wannabes start spewing their vitriol. Having left my big firm & started my own shop, I can say the stuff covered here is ABSOLUTELY essential to any successful solo/small firm practice.

Query: how many of the moron commenters have ever (a) written a client retainer letter, (b) done an intake interview, (c) prepped bills for clients, or (d) done half the crap covered here. Pretty close to nil, I suspect. Yah, it does read a bit like SPU propaganda, but so flippin' what? If the readers can't differentiate style from the underlying substance, they're doomed as lawyers.

@9 You've just about got it, except for the $100k/yr salary. Probably it's more like $75k/yr, although the useless f*ck might have gotten a locality raise. Still, you get what you pay for.Real lawyers from real law schools command upwards of twice that, & so you either get (a) earnest do-gooders, or (b) good b*llsh*tters. Either way, it's NOT the best and brightest. Well-meaning? Yes. But competent? Not necessarily.

- ET! (who regularly hunts financial fraud on the civil side of things)

@15: Bob Collings is a MJ for life - he'll have no trouble being reappointed.

@9: Exactly so.

I'd have thought the line AUSA was cowed by Delahunt (who's full of bluster but still pretty good) & caved in. But I can't figure out Lang's involvement. I'd have not thought the US Atty's office would get star-struck.

My goodness, it's a beautiful, big "screw YOU" to both the SEC and BOA's counsel. He throws down the gauntlet to the attorneys (by telling them they'll try the case in 4 1/2 months...) & instructing the SEC to pursue BOA's lawyers. Totally worth a read and a nasty, snarky laugh at the boyz/girlz who thought they were too clever by half. The only down side? It' Andy Cuomo's wet-dream.

I find myself underwhelmed with concern for the poor 2Ls. Sorry, kiddies, but you'll end up working in an environment where heavy-handed behavior is the norm. If you can't handle that, don't bother applying at my firm.

I'm part of the listserv in question. I don't like the job seekers' advertisements and ignore them. But I think the REAL problem is w/the idiots who spam the listserv with their "stop this nonsense" and "please remove me from list" e-mails.

Without knowing more, it IS a jackass move by BoA. I've lived in both worlds (the Hill and big-firm litigation), & I know it'll inspire the congressional staff to give BoA a well-deserved m****rf**k. Even though BoA's policy is to archive the truly incriminating e-mails on the IT Department intern's girlfriend's Dell Inspirion 9200.

But with all this, how come we've not seen the whole Towns letter in all its splendid, pecanish glory?

Heh, I truly hope they identify and fire the motherf*cker. And hang him/her out to dry... Sure, I don't like Rush, but posting fabricated quotes on a public site is just beyond the pale. To the kid who did it: better put your insurance carrier on notice. Although I wouldn't TOUCH an action seeking to overturn the inevitable denial of coverage.

Pretty girl, certainly. Might be out of her depth on this. Still, I'd really like to know the substance of those conversations.

Interesting point, #51.

@ #54, I'm sorry you're so hateful, but I nonetheless think you might have a valid point.

-- ET!

I love reading the comments on this blog. They remind me of behavior I need to watch out for when hiring associates.

1. I will happily motherfuck a client over bills when I perceive the benefit outweighs the cost. For my firm, that is seldom. But not never.

2. I always assumed that Mystal included grammatical errors as a sop to the idiotic, pedantic cretins who regularly populate this blog. I'm sorry that Lat is put out about it; I find it kind of amusing.

3. To all the haters, yes I'm a partner at my firm, and yes I have decision-making authority. And I find cynics somewhat distasteful, for what it's worth.

4. To the other readers, the practice of law CAN be both fun and rewarding!

-- ET!

@ 131. Objectively bad judgment? Yes. Or more precisely, a cautionary flag that raises questions about the potential for other episodes of bad judgment (such as ... say, burning things). Let's face it, aside from the top and bottom ~15% of lawyers, there isn't a HUGE amount of difference in aptitude that can't be trained around. I teach associates how to write, how to prepare witnesses, etc., etc.

But I still have to take a lot of things on faith - that the associate won't ignore an opposing motion, that the associate will treat clients with respect, etc., etc. My faith is a little stronger knowing that an associate conforms with behavioral expectations that are the norm in -- let's face it -- a very conservative profession. My clients come to me with problems, and they want a sober, serious lawyer who will treat their problems with care and diligence.

And that's why image DOES count. In addition to BEING competent, a lawyer should APPEAR competent -- if only for the purpose of comforting a very nervous client. And in this universe, competence is (perhaps erroneously, I concede) correlated with conservative dress & appearance. And while the law students may laugh at it, putting on a suit & tie helps reinforce my focus. I wear play clothes when I play with my kids; I wear work clothes when I'm suing people.

While there may be clients who prefer younger, hipper lawyers, they're on the margins. Likewise, I know I may miss the opportunity to hire a truly stellar legal mind by virtue of my prejudices -- but that's a consequence I'm perfectly willing to accept. Finally, if you think your personality is so ill-formed that it's defined by a tattoo or two, I suspect you wouldn't be happy at my shop.

-- ET! (who's actually hiring right now, market notwithstanding)

P.S. 67 is right - it shows unf*cking-believably bad judgment to set fire to a 9/11 memorial if you're working at Sidley. Even if it was an aberration, it was such an enormous one as to disqualify him from ever earning my respect.

@184/197. You're probably right about him passing the bar & his future career arc. [Full disclosure: I've done work for my state's C&F cmte. & have seen a lot... Turning himself in was exceptionally prudent.]

@ others. It's axiomatic that drunk people do stupid things. But I've always thought that intoxication brings out otherwise latent behaviors still extant but otherwise suppressed by civilized society. I wouldn't want to work with an attorney who used the "N word" or the "F word" (for orientation) when intoxicated, because to me that signals an underlying fundamental disrespect for those groups. Similarly here.

@ AA/Lamda haters. Now, really. Unfortunately, Kash may have included that stuff for cheap-shot purposes (although I'd prefer to think not). Still, it's foolish to equate bad judgment with lack of intelligence. The former is present in spades, but there's *no* evidence of the latter. And I happen to know that HLS students are pretty damn smart. Now if they could only develop a standardized test for wisdom...

For law students (many readers, I suspect), Mr. Schroeder has just become an object lesson on the consequences of uncontrolled intoxication &/or reckless choices. It's a shame he had to sacrifice his career to inform others. See http://www.despair.com/mis24x30prin.html

@187/188. Thanks. Most commenters are pretty juvenile, but like it or not, they'll probably be fellow members of the Bar. Maybe they'll read the sensible comments and incorporate them, maybe not. It's sort of like puppy training, I think?

-- ET!

Part of being a good lawyer is knowing what you don't know. I'm a pretty good civil litigator, but I got mauled the one time I stepped into the criminal arena. But my heart still goes out to the S&C kids who dropped the ball. It's an awful, easily-made mistake that should have never happened. And they'll have to live with it...

@ 60. True, but that's an idealized version of the world you live in. Practice long enough, you'll know that EVERYONE makes mistakes. It happens, despite your best efforts. I want to know where the supervising attorney was in all of this? Those kids HAD to have been supervised, right?

@ 70. Right (except it's Alabama, actually). Procedurally, I find the real villain to be the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied the motion for leave to file an appeal out of time. Sure it's fun sticking it to S&C, but you DON'T DO IT IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE. Instead, you grant the motion, issue a written opinion making fun of S&C, and order the attorneys to attend 20 hours of CLE. And then you hear the appeal on the merits and deny it like you were going to originally...

Cite this as Case Study #1 why appellate judges shouldn't be elected, IMHO.

-- ET!

@60/118. I concur wholeheartedly - didn't mean to imply otherwise - it's a crystal-clear case of malpractice. I also concur that the managing partner at S&C should stand up on this one. I guess I was differentiating between the objective (stuff like this should NEVER happen) and the subjective (well, sometime it does). And I feel the system should be robust enough to tolerate mistakes like this...

Mistakes happen, even to careful lawyers. From your remark about caring for one's professional reputation, I suspect you understand my point. Those young lawyers' professional reputations have been irrevocably damaged. Objectively, that's likely a proper outcome (I wouldn't hire them at my shop). But it doesn't stop me from feeling (a) sorry for them, and (b) mad at S&C for the supervisory failure. As far as I could tell, the kids were 3rd year associates at the time of the malpractice - barely qualified to wipe their own bottoms, as far as I'm concerned.

But life is unfair, & so be it. I'm just put-out that the supervising attorneys at S&C aren't named in the 11th circuit's opinion (which says only "arrangements had been made within the firm for other attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell to take over representation of Maples"). Those are the real baddies, IMHO. And it's them who deserve to be named in the 11th Cir.'s opinion.

-ET!

@ 130. You're a troll. But you wrote a lot, and so you should get some sort of response calling you on your bullshit. Otherwise, casual readers might think you are creditworthy.

1. Quality of schools has nothing to do with it.

2. Reputation. It matters. Really. Even in my market (NE, large one) people know who's done what. They watch & remember. If you croak an assignment for your firm, your opposing counsel will (a) know, (b) remember, and (c) associate your name with the fuck-up. And what that means is, you'll not be trusted ever again. You will have the street reputation of being a fuck-up. Trust me, I always call my friends to learn about counsel I've not litigated against before - "Hey Christy, I'm litigating against a guy who used to work at your shop - what's the word? Is he a stand-up guy?" They'll tell me, because they're partners at their firms, sure, but they're also my friends.

Even if you HATE your firm, you do not EVER blow an assignment or do a half-assed job. Never. Never. Never. If you do, it WILL be found out. And the reputation will haunt you for the next 5-7 years.

My experience w/Ropes has been mixed - I've always been on the receiving end w/r/t litigation. I've found them skilled but sometimes unnecessarily confrontational.

Finally, about schools. In my experience, the kids from Suffolk Law have been far, far better attorneys than the kids from Harvard or BU. Other things being equal, I'll hire the SU kid b/f I hire the Harvard kid. I could detail my intuition about the reasons, but all I can say is (a) your comment ("This is what happens when you hire people from shitty schools") is a masterful troll, or (b) you're so ignorant that further analysis would be wasted.

-- ET!

Time to get my help-wanted advertisements polished up. Kidding aside, GPH is a damn good law firm. Anyone coming out of that shop is going to be (a) well trained, and (b) a fantastic hire. If I were in the market for corporate types, I'd hire them in a heartbeat.

I wish all of them the best of luck - don't worry, in a year or two you'll all land on your feet.

If any really care, I'm in Boston & wiling to provide moral support at [name]@yahoo.com. No contacts in the necessary area, but I'd probably pay for lunch.

Good for him. He seems like a good ("kid"? I don't think so, given his years of real-world experience). Even if he loses, he sounds like a class act.

BTW, who gives a damn about his sexual orientation? Hopefully, none of the lawyers who frequent this discussion board do.

I read the transcript, too. While I though I could do better, I wasn't there. And all things considered, I'll never be. Good job, Atty. Sanders, and congratulations!

-- ET!