Add RSS RSS

WSJ Law Blog

Say Hello to Shinyung Oh, Author of the Paul Hastings Farewell Email

Shinyung Oh Paul Hastings.jpgThe 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

Continue reading "Say Hello to Shinyung Oh, Author of the Paul Hastings Farewell Email"

The Changing of the Guard at the WSJ Law Blog

WSJ Law Blog Peter Lattman Dan Slater Above the Law blog.jpgIt looks like we have someone new to compete with the next time a Biglaw associate sues her wedding florist -- or someone new to shamelessly lift stories from, when we lose the race to the keyboard.

The Wall Street Journal's longtime legal blogger, the super-talented Peter Lattman, is abandoning the legal blogosphere, where his presence will be sorely missed. He's moving over to the print side, to cover the world of private equity for the newspaper (which, it should be noted, he wrote for frequently during his time as a blogger). Lattman's shoes will be filled by Dan Slater, another lawyer turned journalist, who will introduce himself to the readership tomorrow.

Congratulations to Messrs. Lattman and Slater on their new gigs!

Breaking News: The Law Blog Passes the Torch [WSJ Law Blog]

Featured Survey Results: And The Winners Are . . .

The time has come, and the crowning of ATL's Lawyer of the Year and Second Favorite Blog After ATL, both of which are sponsored by ATL and Lateral Link, is at last upon us.

In all, a whopping 4,186 votes were cast, with 2,683 of you voting for Lawyer of the Year and 1,503 weighing in on which blog you like second-most after this one. Find out how it all turned out after the jump.

Continue reading "Featured Survey Results: And The Winners Are . . ."

Congratulations to Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and... Loyola 2L!

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Chief Justice Loyola 2L Lawyer of the Year Above the Law blog.jpgLast week, the ABA Journal named former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales its 2007 Lawyer Legal Newsmaker of the Year. Now we bring you news of two more Lawyers of the Year.

The National Law Journal went highbrow and international. The NLJ selected Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, as its Lawyer of the Year:

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is not exactly a household name to the legal profession in the United States. We think he should be.

Chaudhry, the chief justice of Pakistan who was dismissed from office by President Pervez Musharraf after the imposition of emergency rule, has been a strong voice for the preservation of the rule of law in Pakistan — one of the United States' key allies in the war on terror.

Meanwhile, the WSJ Law Blog stayed domestic. Their honoree may be, for better or worse, more well-known that former Chief Justice Chaudhry (at least to readers of ATL). Their pick: celebrity commenter Loyola 2L!

[W]hen the nominees were put to an unscientific vote, Loyola 2L won in a landslide.... And before you start whining, “But he’s not even a lawyer!,” we never said we were strict constructionists!

So who — or what — is Loyola 2L? For the non-cognoscenti, he, or she, is purportedly a second-year student, or “2L,” at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. And his claim to fame? For over a year, Loyola 2L has beaten a loud and consistent drum of discontent around the Web by posting in online forums about the job prospects for graduates of nonelite law schools.

If you're hoping that this honor will bring Loyola 2L to unmask himself (or herself), don't hold your breath:

[W]hile he’s presumably a “3L” by now, he still clings to the moniker. And anonymity. In responding to a call to identify himself he said, “Outing myself . . . would only add to the current difficulties in my life.”

For today, L2L, put the complaining on hold, and bask in the limelight. You've earned it!

P.S. Thanks for all of your nominations for ATL's own Lawyer of the Year contest. We'll put up the poll shortly.

The Lawyer of the Year: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry [National Law Journal]
The Law Blog Lawyer Of the Year: Loyola 2L [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: ATL Lawyer of the Year: Nominations, Please

ATL Lawyer of the Year: Nominations, Please

Alberto Gonzales 5 Alberto R Gonzales Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpgPart of a blogger’s job description is to shamelessly rip off stuff from the mainstream media. So we’re going to follow in the footsteps of the ABA Journal and the WSJ Law Blog, and name ATL’s first annual Lawyer of the Year. (Of course, it's not that original an idea to begin with, insofar as it's inspired by Time magazine's Person of the Year.)

The WSJ crew is still accepting nominations, so we don’t know the identity of their pick. But the ABA Journal’s honoree for 2007, Alberto Gonzales, has generated some controversy. The Journal's editor and publisher, Edward A. Adams, explained the pick to the Washington Post: "It's about who has had the most effect in the world of lawyers this year. We're not saying Gonzales is good or bad. We're just saying this is the leading newsmaker in our part of the world."

Additional discussion, plus how to submit your nomination for ATL's Lawyer of the Year, after the jump.

Continue reading "ATL Lawyer of the Year: Nominations, Please"

Legal Eagle Wedding Watch 10.14 and 10.21: Plantation, All I Ever Wanted

Legal%20Eagle%20Wedding%20Watch%20NYT%20wedding%20announcements%20Above%20the%20Law.jpg

A brief tour of things we don't have room to explore in this double edition of LEWW:

- This bride is foxy and forty-eight; this bride is twenty-six and hyper-annoying.
- Some MoFo lesbians have made a match of it.
- Graduating cum laude from Harvard wins you admission to a tier-4 law school.

But on to our five featured couples:

1.) Isabel Gillies and Peter Lattman

2.) Lisa Rosenberg and Jonathan Goldin

3.) Ceara Donnelley and Nathan Berry

4.) Jessica Sebeok and Scott Shuchart

5.) Deneta Howland and Bryan Sells

More about the nominees, after the jump.

Continue reading "Legal Eagle Wedding Watch 10.14 and 10.21: Plantation, All I Ever Wanted"

Brokeback Lawfirm: A Settlement Linkwrap

Aaron Charney Sullivan Cromwell settlement Above the Law blog.jpgThe celebrated case of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was fun while it lasted. As we mentioned last night, the fun is over: the parties have reached a settlement.

But the case was good to us -- and we intend to give it a proper sendoff, with several post-mortem posts. If you have any info or gossip about the case that you'd be willing to share, please email us.

This post is the obligatory linkwrap. We've collected and read various reactions to the settlement news, so you don't have to.

Links and excerpts, after the jump.

Continue reading "Brokeback Lawfirm: A Settlement Linkwrap"

Loyola 2L Hits the Big Time (Even If Not the Big Law)

Will Work for Food 2 Above the Law blog.JPGOn the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, there's an excellent article, by Amir Efrati, about the not-so-hot job prospects for non-top-tier law school graduates. Here's the lede, which nicely summarizes the situation:

A law degree isn't necessarily a license to print money these days.

For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market.

It's a most worthwhile piece (although somewhat reminiscent of this article, by Leigh Jones for the National Law Journal). Here's our favorite part:

Some un- or underemployed grads are seeking consolation online, where blogs and discussion boards have created venues for shared commiseration that didn't exist before. An anonymous writer called Loyola 2L, purportedly a student at Loyola Law School, who claims the school wasn't straight about employment prospects, has been beating a drum of discontent around the Web in the past year that's sparked thousands of responses, and a fan base. ("2L" stands for second-year law student.) Some thank "L2L" for articulating their plight; others claim L2L should complain less and work more.

Loyola's Dean Burcham says he wishes he knew who the student was so he could help the person. "It's expensive to go to law school, and there are times when you second-guess yourself as a student," he says.

One tipster quips: "Loyola Dean David Burcham wants to find and help Loyola 2L. How? By refunding his tuition?"

So, will the real Loyola 2L please stand up -- and email us? We'd love to discuss potential opportunities with you. Thanks.

Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers [Wall Street Journal]
The Dark Side of the Legal Job Market [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: It's Hard Out Here for Non-Top-Tier Law School Graduates

Nixon Peabody ThemeSongGate: A Synopsis

Nixon Peabody LLP horrible theme song Above the Law blog.jpgRight now some of you are probably thinking: "Enough already about Alberto Gonzales and Michael Vick! Isn't there anything else you can write about?"

Of course. Let's go back to the story of Nixon Peabody, and its ridiculous law firm theme song!

(In preemptive response to those of you who are sick and tired of this story: relax. It's on its last legs. But if the New York Times writes about us, of course we're going to acknowledge it. Capice?)

For those of you were on vacation last week -- and we know many of you were, based on all the "Out of Office AutoReply" messages we received -- you missed a fun story here at ATL.

But don't worry. If you don't have time to read our voluminous coverage of the Nixon Peabody theme song, here are some cheat sheets.

You can read this New York Times story, by Michael de la Merced, which nicely summarizes the saga. Or this post, by Peter Lattman, over at the WSJ Law Blog.

Best of all, for those of you who can watch videos -- some of you can't, 'cause you don't have a private office -- check out this awesome video. It appeared over the weekend, but we're reposting it, because many of you don't visit ATL on the weekend (and it would be a shame for you to miss it).

Unauthorized Enjoyment of Song Irks Law Firm [New York Times]
Everyone’s a Winner at Nixon Peabody! [WSJ Law Blog]
Re: Nixon Peabody [YouTube]

A Summer Associate Etiquette Manual: Special Katten Edition

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Abovethelaw Above the Law legal tabloid blog.jpgLast week we told you about a fellow at Katten Muchin Rosenman in Chicago, who managed to achieve the impossible feat: he got fired from a summer associate gig. This is even more impressive than merely getting "no-offered" at the end of the summer. We wrote:

1. A summer associate in the Chicago office of Katten was fired earlier this month (believed to be the week of July 9, 2007).

2. His employment was terminated because (a) he allegedly engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with female summer associates, variously described as "repeatedly smack[ing] the asses of female summers" or "playing grab ass with female summers," and (b) he allegedly made racially insensitive jokes, in front of multiple attorneys.

In the wake of this story, a reader sent us this message:

Apparently, the WSJ Law Blog "Rules of Etiquette" for summer associates need minor revision. Here are my suggested changes.

You can check out the new and improved etiquette handbook, after the jump.

Continue reading "A Summer Associate Etiquette Manual: Special Katten Edition"

AutoAdmit Leads to AutoRescind

Some very interesting news, reported by Amir Efrati over at the WSJ Law Blog:

AutoAdmit xoxohth Anthony Ciolli Above the Law blog.JPGThe Law Blog has learned that law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge rescinded its job offer to Anthony Ciolli, the 3L at Penn Law who resigned as “Chief Education Director” of AutoAdmit last month. H[e] resigned in the wake of a WaPo exposé on how the site in part served as a platform for attacks and defamatory remarks about female law students, among others (see our earlier post here).

Charles DeWitt Charles E DeWitt Jr Above the Law blog.jpgCharles DeWitt (pictured, left), a managing partner at Edwards Angell’s Boston office, where Ciolli was slated to be a litigation associate, told the Law Blog: “He worked for us last summer. He’s not going to work for us in the fall.”

Ciolli took time from working on final exams to talk to the Law Blog. “Three years of legal education has been wasted because of an unmoderated message board,” he said, adding, “The timing is absolutely horrible.” The 23-year-old, who contributes to First Movers, a blog written by law students and graduates, added that “I don’t know what I’m going to do next.”

Anthony Ciolli Anthony Cioli AutoAdmit xoxohth Above the Law blog.jpgYou can read the whole post, which recounts the fascinating correspondence between DeWitt and Ciolli (pictured at right), over here.

Commentary from Professor Dave Hoffman, who has written extensively about AutoAdmit / Xoxohth in the past, appears at Concurring Opinions.

What do we think? Eh, we generally steer clear of this subject. What do YOU think?

(In this poll, which we admit is vaguely worded, you can substitute "fair" or "appropriate" in the place of "justified," if you wish. We're just trying to get a general sense of how many of you agree, and how many of you disagree, with what Edwards Angell did.)

Law Firm Rescinds Offer to Ex-AutoAdmit Executive [WSJ Law Blog]
Latest Xoxohth Fallout [Concurring Opinions]

Democrats: Please Stop Being Mean To Monica Goodling!

Monica Goodling 5 Monica M Goodling Monica Gooding Alberto Gonzales Above the Law blog.jpgThe House Democrats just won't leave Monica Goodling alone. Even after the Justice Department lawyer invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, the Dems still want to have a little "conversation" with her. From the NYT:

House Democrats on Tuesday requested a private interview with an aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales who has asserted her constitutional right not to testify at a public hearing about the dismissals of United States attorneys.

Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sought the interview in a letter to a lawyer for the aide, Monica Goodling, who is on leave as the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House.... Mr. Conyers’s letter said that House lawyers wanted to question Ms. Goodling to evaluate the legality of her refusal to testify. It said she could not assert the privilege as a blanket justification not to appear.

Look, guys, she's just not that into you. Can't you just leave her alone? Go beat up on Kyle Sampson some more -- we think he still has some lunch money left in his pockets.

(Our suspicion: Chairman Conyers wants to offer Goodling a babysitting job. 'Cause John Conyers loves making lawyers babysit his children. He thinks the kids absorb legal knowledge by osmosis. And he's heard about Goodling's legendary brownies!)

Meanwhile, over at the WSJ Law Blog, Peter Lattman gets in a cheap double entendre at Monica's expense:

Monica Goodling Congressional Democrats to Goodling Unzip It Monica M Goodling Above the Law blog.jpg

Are we this poor woman's only defenders?

Democrats Seek to Interview Gonzales Aide [New York Times]
Congressional Democrats to Goodling: Unzip It! [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Monica Goodling (scroll down)

Evolving Standards of Decency... in Janet Reno's Hairstyles?

Janet Reno hairstyles Above the Law blog.jpgA friendly warning to Peter Lattman and the WSJ Law Blog: "Hey guys, step off our turf!"

In a post this morning comparing President Bush's purge of U.S. Attorneys with President Clinton's, the WSJ Law Blog includes the graphic at right, showing three different WSJ "hedcuts" of former Attorney General Janet Reno. They pose the following "Law Blog Bonus Question": "Which of Reno’s three dot-drawings do you prefer?"

Despite the attempt to mask the inquiry as focused on "dot-drawings," we see this post for what it really is. It's a clear incursion into our blogging territory: evolving hairstyles of legal celebrities (e.g., Judge Janice Rogers Brown).

So back off, guys! We leave the options backdating and Vioxx litigation to you. Why can't you leave the hair and make-up of former AGs to us?

WSJ Law Blog readers agree with us. Right now there are a ton of comments to the post, but only two address the "Bonus Question" -- which one of them criticizes as "rather inappropriate."

Inappropriate for an MSM blog about "law and business, and the business of law"? Sure. But certainly not inappropriate for an online legal tabloid.

Time for a poll. We know that ATL readers are very knowledgeable about hair. But just to be perfectly clear, in the graphic at right, the hairstyles are (left to right) Janet With a Perm, Janet With a Part, and Janet With Bangs.

Bush’s U.S. Attorney Purge Vs. President Clinton’s . . . Discuss [WSJ Law Blog]

Timestampgate: Snell & Wilmer Associate Resigns

Snell Wilmer LLP Character Comes Through Above the Law blog.jpgLast week, we did an item on Judge Dale Kimball (D. Utah) benchslapping some Snell & Wilmer lawyers for allegedly engaging in questionable conduct involving the court's time stamp machine and outside drop box.

Yesterday the WSJ Law Blog put up a post on the controversy. Most of their post will be familiar to readers of our earlier item. But here's a new tidbit they unearthed:

The Law Blog spoke with Alan Sullivan, managing partner of Snell & Wilmer’s Salt Lake City office, who said that his law firm took responsibility for the improperly dated court filings. He also confirmed said that a Snell & Wilmer associate staffed on the Yamaha matter resigned from the law firm on Friday.

A question: Was the associate in question entirely responsible for the alleged conduct? Or did partner Tracy Fowler, who remains at Snell & Wilmer, know anything about it?

In case you're curious, we believe that this individual is the associate who resigned last week. Her bio on the Snell & Wilmer website was functional as of Friday, but it has since been taken down. If you go to where her bio used to be, you're informed that "the current record has been deleted."

Thank God for Google Cache and Archive.org. For those of you who are curious -- nobody's forcing you to look at it -- a screenshot of this associate's bio appears after the jump.

Continue reading "Timestampgate: Snell & Wilmer Associate Resigns"

Peter Lattman Really WAS Out of Town on Assignment

But it was much more fun to speculate that he was pulling a Judith Miller, hiding out because of his role in Brokeback Lawfirm.

As it turns out, there's pretty much no doubt that Aaron Charney leaked the Goldman Sachs / Sullivan & Cromwell reviews to Peter Lattman and the Wall Street Journal (as if there was much doubt before). The newly available S&C motion to dismiss states, on page 8, that at the February 1 TRO hearing before Justice Charles Ramos, "Charney admitted that he had the stolen documents described in the Wall Street Journal." Unless someone else stole the documents, and Charney just happened to stumble upon them and pick them up, his confession to possessing the stolen documents is tantamount to an admission that he stole the documents.

As for Peter Lattman and his story about the Microsoft antitrust case in Iowa -- which is now "DOA," as Lattman puts it, since the parties have settled -- we do feel bad for Lattman.

The poor guy spent a week in "snowy, subzero Des Moines." And he's not even running for president.

Microsoft Settles Iowa Antitrust Class-Action :-( [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: And Lindsay Lohan Really Was Suffering From 'Exhaustion'
Brokeback Lawfirm: The S&C Motion to Dismiss

Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney: A Photo Essay (Part 1)

New York Supreme Court 2 60 Centre Street 60 Center Street Above the Law.jpg

Here is the first set of our photographs from yesterday's hearing in New York Supreme Court in the lawsuit(s) between Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell (litigation nickname still to be determined).

We've taken a page from the Lavi Soloway playbook: these photos are thumbnail images. If you click on the thumbail, you'll be able to see a larger version of the picture, in all of its glory.

More photographs, after the jump.

Continue reading "Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney: A Photo Essay (Part 1)"

Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney: S&C's Complaint

H Rodgin Cohen 2 Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGThe WSJ Law Blog has just posted a copy of the Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney complaint. You can access it by clicking here (PDF). How exciting!

We'll have some thoughts on it shortly. If you've already read the S&C Complaint, please opine in the comments.

Lavi Soloway's already all over the story. As Soloway points out, Charney is now represented by counsel.

So if you play for Team Aaron -- no, not in THAT sense (although there's probably a lot of overlap) -- you should feel a lot better. You no longer need to stay up at night, worrying about your boy proceeding pro se against a Biglaw behemoth.

P.S. The PDF of the S&C Complaint is a little blurry. But don't look a gift horse in the mouth; you gotta love those MSM resources. Thanks, Wall Street Journal!

Update: We've now had the chance to read the Complaint. Our thoughts on it appear here and here.

S&C Strikes Back at Now-Former Associate [WSJ Law Blog via Lavi Soloway]
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP v. Aaron Brett Charney (PDF)

Some Fun With Blind Items: Bad Bosses

WSJ Law Blog Peter Lattman Above the Law.jpgThe Justice Department's Shanetta Cutlar isn't the only idiosyncratic manager in the legal profession. The WSJ Law Blog offers up some interesting blind items about bosses from hell challenging supervisors in the world of private practice.

From the main post:

[Wall Street Journal columnist Carol Hymowitz] interviewed Gary Hayes, a psychologist and consultant, who says he worked with a New York law firm where a senior partner flung heavy law books across the room at an associate.

“The associate told me it was all right since the partner intentionally threw to miss — not hit him,” says Hayes. “But the associate soon moved to another firm.”

It's okay to hurl F.3ds at your underlings, as long as you have crappy aim.

And from the comments:

"In the eighties there was a story making the rounds about a partner at a major firm (yes I do know which one) who punctuated a heated discussion by ripping a telephone out of the wall and flinging it across the room at another partner. Does partner v. partner mean it’s ok?"

"There is a certain partner at a certain well-known firm who is reputed to have hit her secretary in the head with a phone."

"It just happened to me on Monday. A partner started yelling at me, reaching a high-pitched crescendo, because I handed him a photocopy of the wrong e-mail in an informal discussion. I almost started laughing, which infuriated him even more. The guy was on the verge of a stroke. I pity the man. He is a punishment to himself."

If you'd like to enlighten us about these blind items, or speculate as to the individuals involved, you may do so -- at your own risk -- in the comments.

We will remind you, as we've done before, that under Section 230, YOU are responsible for any defamatory comments you post. We are providing the forum for discussion, but YOU are the speaker or publisher of your own remarks.

(And only YOU can prevent forest fires.)

The Scream [WSJ Law Blog]

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: WSJ Law Blog Comments Policy

H Rodgin Cohen 2 Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGLast week there was some speculation over what happened to certain particularly delicious reader comments posted over at the WSJ Law Blog, concerning Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

As explained here:

"[N]o work is getting done [at S&C]. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings)..."

Over at the WSJ Law Blog itself, there was some meta-commentary about the deletion of these comments:

"Why are comments being deleted from the board? There were definitely a few on here that were posted since 7:35 AM today."

"[O]ne of my finest writings was summarily removed by the WSJ Law Blog thought police. Why don’t we all keep parallel logs of our writings as each is entered, and if the law blog continues with its caprice in 2007, et seq., we loggers can then start a class action against WSJ law blog. Coul[d] be fun!"

"I am a gay blogger and WSJ expunged me without my consent. It felt GREAT."

"A post regarding the attractiveness of one of the attorneys mentioned in complaint ([Melissa] Sawyer) was removed, I know that much because I remember it being there. And after looking up her profile myself . . yes, she is a fox."

We followed up with Peter Lattman of the WSJ Law Blog, to find out why certain S&C-related comments were getting zapped. We received a response from Bill Grueskin, managing editor of WSJ.com.

We reprint Mr. Grueskin's response, and explain ATL's own policy on reader comments, after the jump.

Continue reading "Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: WSJ Law Blog Comments Policy"

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: WSJ Law Blog = Bermuda Triangle for Comments?

H Rodgin Cohen Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGA very interesting exchange appeared in some recent comments about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

We're bringing the exchange up to the main page, for the benefit of those of you who can't keep up with all the comments. Here it is:

I wonder if ANY work is getting done over [at Sullivan & Cromwell]. I bet people are just sitting around and gossiping all day.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2007 04:33 PM

Of course no work is getting done. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings...

Posted by: None | January 19, 2007 04:44 PM

4:44: What are some of the conpiracy theories you have come up with thus far?

Posted by: Dr. Kravath | January 19, 2007 04:45 PM

Please say that these comments can be recreated for those of us whose free time allows for the constant refreshing of only one legal gossip blog.

Posted by: new anon | January 19, 2007 04:47 PM

Our response to all of this:

Peter Lattman WSJ Law Blog Wall Street Journal Peter Latman.jpg4:44 PM: We have an email into Peter Lattman [at right] about this. Also, please note that ATL has a general "no moderation" policy with respect to comments. So if the WSJ Law Blog posters would like to reproduce their comments here, they are welcome to do so.

(An exception to our "no moderation" policy: We pull comments that appear to be accidental duplicates -- e.g., double- or triple-posted comments.)

Posted by: David Lat | January 19, 2007 05:25 PM

We will let you know if and when we hear back from Peter Lattman.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)