"No, I am not in disguise; I look like this everyday. Oh, and one more thing, I hate smiling."
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Associate Photo Caption
Friday, January 30, 2009
Things Lawyers Like - Overly Important Sounding Email Sign-Offs
Words are very important to lawyers. Some of the most sacred words for a lawyer are the ones before his or her name at the end of an email or letter. For most people, a typical “Sincerely” will do. That salutation, however, is completely unsatisfactory for a lawyer.
Soon after beginning practice, a lawyer will begin to receive emails and hard copy documents that contain a myriad of sign-offs like “Best Regards”, “Warm Regards”, “Regards” or some other collection of words that pretends to express feelings and importance at the same time. This makes the newly minted lawyer regret ever having used the word “Sincerely” in a formal letter.
In order to compensate for years of using inadequate salutations, a lawyer will often spend considerable time deciding what communication is worthy of a “Best Regards” rather than a “Regards”. For a lawyer, any time spent on something this important is billable work. After all, “Best Regards” may be too sentimental for an email to the client. On the other hand, does “Regards” sound too cold and impersonal? Is the intermediate “Warm Regards” the right call?
For the most nefarious of characters, the lawyer has a special sign-off – “Very Truly Yours”. If you receive an email from a lawyer with “Very Truly Yours” as the sign-off, be warned; this communication is likely crafted to ensure that yours is very truly screwed.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Partner Doppelganger
If Ropes & Gray partner Harry Rubin had a
doppelganger, it would be...
Grammy award-winning comedian Lewis Black.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Vault Announces Firms to Avoid Rankings
In the fall and winter of 2008, Vault contacted more than 18,000 current and former associates at 167 formerly prominent law firms across the country to seek their participation in a new set of rankings it plans to release this week. Participants were asked to rate their current or former firm in terms of how it handled issues related to the slumping economy. Vault compiled this data to calculate its brand new Top 20 Firms to Avoid If You Want a Paycheck rankings, which in 2009 will join its traditional slate of Top 100 Law Firms, Best 20 Law Firms for Diversity and Vault Partner Rankings.
Associates were asked to assign one to five stars on issues such as frequency of interaction with HR personnel, quantity of empty or dark associate offices, farewell happy hour attendance, shrinking or frozen compensation, and ability to switch practice groups before getting kicked to the curb. Other factors such as number of partner offices with closed doors, blatant lying about layoffs, touting “profits per partner” while slashing bonuses and asking real estate associates to actually come into work were considered. The firms were then scored against each other.
Upon learning about the new rankings, Heller Erhman’s former managing partner expressed disappointment that the now defunct firm would not reach the top of any Vault ranking before dissolving. In contrast, Dechert LLP's chairman rejoiced at the reality that his firm was almost certain to finally jump to the top of the law firm heap. Dechert released a statement that it is “delighted and excited about the opportunities for associate diminution that are presented by this bear economy.” Similarly, in an email to the partnership, K&L Gates' chairman noted that while “he’s never paid much attention to rankings,” he definitely has paid attention to the “droves of idiotic, credit-card wielding associates at his firm that would take these rankings in stride.”
Vault claims that these new rankings will help it to stay relevant in a changing United States economy. “We know that these aren’t typical, feel good ratings,” explained Vault Vice President Sally Isaacs, “but the reality is that managing a legal career takes more than just getting average grades at a top tier law school and then defaulting to a New York law firm. Frankly, our readership is looking for less focus on quality of life issues and more insight into the quality and quantity of a potential paycheck.”
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Juror Hasn’t Felt this Rested in Years
Wayne Pullman, an electrician from Portland, Oregon, has had a chronic sleep disorder for the past five years. His wife, Judy, claims he has restless leg syndrome, while his mother-in-law is certain he has sleep apnea. What nobody ever imagined is that the cure was only one call to jury duty away.
After overcoming his initial fear that the jury duty notice was an arrest warrant, Pullman felt nothing but frustration. “I couldn’t believe my bad luck,” explained Pullman. “Not only was I having problems at work because my lack of sleep was making me cranky, but now I had to go listen to a bunch of suits blabber.”
Wayne’s luck looked to get even worse when he was selected as juror number four on a patent infringement case regarding light fixtures. Only a couple of minutes into the plaintiff’s opening argument, however, Pullman began to feel a sense of relaxation. He tried to follow the argument that ShineSpec’s new nightlight technology, which helps men urinate more accurately during middle of the night trips to the bathroom, was being copied by the defendant Glow & Grow. Pullman’s attempt to focus was futile. Before he knew it, the whir of the air conditioner combined with lead counsel’s repetitive use of overly technical jargon lulled him into a deep slumber.
“It was truly amazing,” described a bright-eyed Pullman the day after the trial ended. “I fell asleep almost instantly and over the course of the week-long trial I was only interrupted by the judge for lunch breaks and when it was time to go home.” Even though Pullman also fell asleep during jury deliberations he was roused briefly to vote in favor of the plaintiff and award punitive damages in excess of $12 million dollars.
“In the end, what it came down to for me was that I owed the plaintiff a debt of gratitude for the sleep I recovered during this trial.” Since the trial, Wayne has been able to keep consistent resting hours through use of several bar exam preparation videos.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Small Shop Web Flop
No matter what legal issue you face with Heidi, you can
rest assured she will be striking her signature pose.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
GW Launches Document Review Clinic
As a key component of its “Let’s Get Relevant” initiative, The George Washington University Law School launched its first ever Document Review Clinic this semester. The course is taught by 1982 graduate and 26-year document review veteran Peter Craft. “When we sat down last year to re-evaluate our curriculum,” explained Dean Jennifer Williams, “we looked for guidance by surveying what a vast majority of our graduates were doing after graduation. Somewhat surprisingly, greater than 25% or our grads responded that they had found positions as contract attorneys and were engaged in expansive and seemingly unending document review projects.”
With these results in hand, Williams had little problem convincing the faculty to cancel the previous year’s “Higher Education Seminar” in favor of a new clinic titled “The Trick Behind the Click: A Guide to Navigating Even the Most Difficult of Doc Reviews.” Professor Martin Withers was disappointed to see his Higher Education clinic cut, but he understood he could not stand in the way of reality. “Honestly, I think the constitutional issues we often grappled with in my seminar were of great value to my students, but if we can offer Big Law some of the fastest, most efficient document reviewers in the nation then hey, we might really be on to something here.”
The course is primarily designed around Craft’s rather obscure 1997 book, “It’s My Party And I’ll Review If I Want To.” In week one, students must learn to memorize the exact scope of the attorney-client privilege and work product privilege in all 50 states. Other weeks, Craft pairs these “intellectual exercises” with physical training such as having students practice clicking the mouse to tag documents while scrolling down the page via the keyboard using their off hand. Students also learn how to focus for long periods of time on boring tasks while avoiding the urge to check the internet and how to extend the amount of time one can go without blinking.
Craft’s course culminates in a seminar-wide exercise to put together a privilege log. “I put some real pickles in that set of documents”, cracked Craft. “They may call it a privilege log, but getting through this puppy sure can’t be called a privilege!”
While the clinic did show a high attrition rate in the first couple of weeks of the semester, the powers that be are confident that it is here to stay. “As for our doc review clinic, you can flag it ‘responsive’ to the needs of our law students,” beamed Dean Williams.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Partner Doppelganger
If King & Spalding partner Dwight J. Davis had a
doppleganger it would be...
former Daily Show correspondent Rob Corddry.
Read More......
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Deal Reduced To One Long Run-On Sentence
According to all reports, Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP corporate associate Kelly Plowman hit the proverbial jackpot late last week. Plowman, despite being faced with a dizzying array of defined terms, representations and warranties, servicing provisions and preconditions to closing, somehow managed to reduce an agreement for the purchase of a pool of distressed mortgage loans down to one single run-on sentence. The sentence went on for eleven straight single-spaced pages before running out of steam and ending with a period.
“It was something that honestly just hit me the other month after working on the Patterson deal,” explained a triumphant Plowman from her shared office in Manhattan. “I was slogging through conference call after conference call on the reps and warranties and I started to get completely confused. People kept arguing over where we should place this comma or that semi-colon. All of a sudden, I realized that nobody was talking about the periods. It almost seemed like they didn’t matter…and that’s when it hit me…they didn’t!?
Despite sitting on a groundbreaking idea, Plowman was fearful of talking to the partner on the deal, Tracy Tenderson. “Mrs. T” is legendary around Simpson for her draft of a paragraph heavy lease-back agreement as a third-year associate in 1987. “I mean, she rode those hard returns all the way to the partnership,” explained Plowman, “so I didn’t think she’d be anxious to pass the reins.”
Fortunately, Plowman’s fears were unfounded. When Tenderson started to review the draft agreement, it is reported that tears started to flow down her cheeks. “Now I know most people think I was getting emotional, but that’s not the case,” clarified Tenderson when reached for comment by Litination. “My eyes were just so tired from reading without any breaks that they started to water; like when I cut an onion. But that temporary pain aside, Plowman’s draft was a work of art.”
Unfortunately, opposing counsel failed to see the merit in Plowman’s work. Soon after the document was circulated, it was chopped apart into sentences and paragraphs, and despite several heroic efforts, Humpty Dumpty simply could not be put back together again.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Associate Photo Caption
Friday, January 16, 2009
Things Lawyers Like
Item 2 – Monograms
Need a shortcut to determine whether you have retained a successful lawyer? Look for the lawyer’s frequent use of his monogram. For lawyers, nothing says “I’ve made it” like putting one’s initials all over writing instruments, notepads, cuff links, drinking glasses, portfolios, towels, mugs, paperweights, ties, license plates and shirts. If Charles Darwin and Joseph A. Bank were contemporaries, they would almost certainly publish an article about how natural selection dictates that the dominant lawyers will always be monogrammed.
A step short of the family crest, the monogram provides the successful lawyer with a quick, yet highly effective way to show off his namesake and disposable income. Sometimes, a lawyer will sport a monogram on his cufflinks, breast pocket and ballpoint pen all at the same time. This type of lawyer is called a partner. If you have an important legal question, these are the types of lawyers you will want to seek out.
Be careful, however, as these highly-monogrammed creatures can be dangerous to your bottom line. If cost is a concern, you will want to make sure that a less monogrammed lawyer, called an associate lawyer or peon, is working on your legal issue with the partner lawyer. An associate lawyer will make fun of the monogrammed partner lawyer for several years before giving in and celebrating a particularly successful year of practice by purchasing a monogrammed pen or a pair of monogrammed cuff links.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Class Asks Nintendo To Give Childhood Back
A class action filed against Nintendo today in Delaware District Court is seeking damages as the result of, among other things, a “lost childhood.” The complaint zeroes in specifically on the Nintendo Entertainment System, an 8-bit video game console released in the United States in 1985. Class members claim that addictive games like Super Mario Brothers, Duck Hunt and Mike Tyson’s Punch Out inhibited them from developing basic social and academic skills.
The named plaintiff, Martin Empers, alleges that his obsession with saving Princess Toadstool of the Mushroom Kingdom from the evil King Bowser caused him to bomb pre-Algebra and Geometry. As a result, Empers claims he was never able to catch up in high school math classes and therefore landed at Community College. He is now barely able to make a living selling wireless phone plans. If not for Nintendo, individuals like Mr. Empers allege that they’d have risen to successful positions at places like NASA, Google, or the at least the now defunct Lehman Brothers.
The action’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim is supported by allegations like the following: “Super Mario Brothers gave numerous children a false sense of reality that in life they can get ahead by just jumping on people like they would with the Goombas and Koopa Troopas.” Another part of the complaint claims that, “The only thing that was taking a ‘Body Blow’ while the plaintiffs were playing Mike Tyson’s Punch Out, was their cerebral development.”
Documents obtained by the plaintiffs apparently show that Nintendo was aware that once children started playing video games they would be unable to put them down for hours at a time. A memo from Nintendo management also shows that the plan was to breed a nation of video game players that would allow companies to market games to adults – a clear indication that the Wii concept has been in the works for decades.
Nintendo’s sinister plan, claims the class, was to ensnare the United States in a “tangled web of worthlessness” that would likely culminate in lower education and less civic engagement. Surprisingly, no link was made in the complaint between the use of video games and the recent mortgage-backed securities induced economic crisis.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Partner Doppelganger
If Morrison & Foerster partner Anders Aanestad had a
doppleganger it would be...
doppleganger it would be...
former pro football star and Fox NFL analyst Howie Long.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Jury Unable to Reach Unanimous Decision on Lunch Order
In a development that will certainly lift criminal defendant Freddy Master’s spirits, the 12-member jury empanelled for his trial on charges of aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a firearm was unable to reach a unanimous decision today on whether to get pizza or sandwiches for lunch. Since the court does not permit juries to place "mixed" lunch orders, the stalemate was a devastating blow to those who skipped breakfast.
According to second-hand reports, the lunch discussion, led by de facto jury foreperson Claudette Platt, started out smoothly with most debate centering on the issue of toppings. Consensus started to falter, however, when previously silent juror number 7, Kevin Holbert, stated that he was sick of pizza since he had it for dinner last night. As soon as Holbert spoke up, other jurors started to indicate displeasure with their previous vote for pizza.
"I hadn't really thought about my lunch vote until that juror number 7 guy spoke up," explained juror number 4, Stephanie Jackson, when Litination reached her for comment while she was standing in line for the communal juror bathroom. "When Claudette mentioned pizza I was excited, but then I remembered that I had pizza twice this past weekend and I also like sandwiches so I just got really confused about what I was thinking."
Ms. Platt tried to regain the group's focus by having each juror say one thing positive and one thing negative about sandwiches, but this failed to get the group back on board with voting for pizza. At first, it seemed like the idea was working, but when it was Kevin's turn to speak the wheels came off the wagon. After stating his negative (sandwich rolls are sometimes hard to chew) he made an impassioned plea for the use of pepperoni on an Italian hoagie as opposed to adding them to a plain cheese pie.
At the time this story went to print, the most recent secret ballot indicated an 8-2-2 split with 8 still in favor of pizza, 2 indicating a preference for sandwiches and 2 votes for a new entry, salads.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Things Lawyers Like
Item 1 - Old Law School Textbooks
Nothing makes a lawyer feel more secure than sitting in an office with a bookshelf that includes several large law school textbooks. These books help lawyers forget that their law school training actually did not teach them anything practical. Sometimes if an issue comes up that confuses a lawyer, he or she will consult one of these textbooks while saying “I know I learned something about that in this seminar that I took.” This search is almost always futile.
A lawyer will also usually display old textbooks in a home office or den in order to give the room a sense of authority. These textbooks will often be interspersed with other important non-fiction books such as a presidential biography or “The Tipping Point.” These allow lawyers to say things like “I’m not a psychologist, but I think I know why people eat junk food.” If you ask a lawyer about any of these books, be prepared for a long story about an old professor or a barrage of relatively useless factual information. It is best not to touch these books as they are one of a lawyer’s most cherished possessions.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Associate Photo Caption
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Local Attorney’s New Suit Fails to Meet Expectations
Despite high hopes, early reports indicate that local attorney Matt McMichael's new suit is going largely unnoticed. Michaels, a fourth year corporate attorney at LePeters & Patterson LLP who normally wears some combination of gray and black dress pants with a blue or white button-down shirt, came up with the new suit idea after he received a $150 Visa gift card from his grandparents for Christmas. On December 27th, he consulted with a sales associate at his local Macy's and decided that a Black Calvin Klein Pinstripe Suit would "make the best statement at the office."
McMichael initially envisioned receiving additional attention from clients as a result of the new suit, but quickly remembered that he had not been to a client's office in almost a year. His next thought was that he might have a video conference with attorneys in other offices, but that idea soon faded since those practice group meetings normally take place on casual Fridays. Forced to lower his expectations, Peters decided to unveil his new pinstripe suit this past Monday in an attempt to show the work week that he means business.
So far, the only comment McMichael has received was a "Why are you wearing a suit?" inquiry from a confused paralegal that stopped by his office to drop off some due diligence binders. McMichael did try to get his assistant's attention by stopping by her cube to see if he received any mail, but she just responded with an "uh, no" without even looking up from her Google chat session.
Despite the limited exposure, McMichael plans to continue wearing his coat and tie throughout the afternoon; even during a two hour conference call he has scheduled for 3PM. McMichael also purportedly plans to stop by a couple of fellow associate offices on his way to "a pro bono meeting." Faced with the "Why are you wearing a suit?" question, he plans to answer with "Don’t hate the player, hate the game" or something similar. McMichael may also give the recipient of his witty comment a couple six-shooter gestures as he backs out of their office.
Regardless of the afternoon’s result, it is highly likely McMichael’s new suit will be headed back into his closet until his next friend’s wedding.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Small Shop Web Flop
There are three questions raised by this web gem.
1) How does one become "Pennsylvania's Premier Dog Bite Lawyer"?
2) Is it possible to have a full-time job as a lawyer if you ONLY handle dog bite claims?
3) Are the dogs pictured on this website infected with the virus from that Will Smith movie "I Am Legend"?
Jeffrey Harlan Penneys, Esquire
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Jones Day to Freeze Associates
Following a string of recent announcements from law firms regarding salary freezes and reductions in bonuses, Jones Day today announced a ground-breaking program to freeze its associate class of 2006 in response to the current economic downturn. According to a firm spokesperson, “Jones Day is committed to responding to this difficult fiscal environment with creative and proactive approaches that both help our clients and offer our talented attorneys the best path forward. When thawed, these associates will re-enter the workforce with the same vigor that we have come to expect from them as hot-blooded lawyers.”
According to the plan, Jones Day will fly all associates that graduated from law school in 2006 to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation’s headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona. Once there, associates will be cryogenically frozen until a time when the firm can use the additional billable hours. Jones Day has retained a panel of experts to advise them of the time at which to re-heat this associate class. Members of the panel reportedly include MSNBC’s Jim Cramer, Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney and the ladies from ABC’s The View. A rumor that the Jones Day associates will be kept in the same cryogenic containment chamber as Walt Disney is also currently circulating through the blogosphere.
Early reports indicate that most 2006 Jones Day associates are pleased by this course of action. “Honestly, I wasn’t getting much work these days anyway,” stated corporate associate Jason Alpert when reached for comment earlier this afternoon. “Sure, my Mom is totally freaking out about this whole thing, but I keep telling her that when I decided to accept an offer from Jones Day I made a commitment to the firm. In fact, when I was told about this whole initiative the firm actually referenced a clause in my offer letter that says that I could be cryogenically frozen at any time. I can’t believe I missed that the first time around.”
Commentators believe that the class of 2006 is being targeted because they have reached the point in their careers at which most big law associates begin to want more from their firm, including a substantial bump in base salary. According to William Buttonwood, an associate professor of business management at the University of Baltimore, “The first and second year associates generally do not mind hours of never-ending document review or exclusion from strategy decisions. Starting in the third year and extending to the fifth year of an associate’s relationship with a firm, however, the balance of exploitation with appreciation becomes a bit more difficult. Associates, therefore, often feel frozen in time at this point in their career. Jones Day is basically saying let’s crystallize that feeling.”
Friday, January 2, 2009
People’s Court to Resolve TV Circuit Split
Today’s announcement that The People’s Court will review Judge Judith Sheindlin’s (“Judge Judy”) decision in Kelly v. Albright means that a current split between reality television courtrooms should soon be resolved. The issue? Whether Bob Barker’s familiar plea for viewers of “The Price is Right” to have their dog spayed or neutered can be admitted as expert testimony.
In Kelly v. Albright, Judge Judy was presented with a dispute over the surprise neutering of a couple’s Doberman Pinscher by their pet sitter. The plaintiffs, Jeff and Mary Jo Kelly, sought compensation for emotional damages and loss of masculinity from 57-year old veteran pet watcher Linda Sue Albright. In defense, Albright claimed that she should not be liable for any wrongdoing because she was following her civic duty; a duty commonly espoused by TV personality Bob Barker.
Judge Judy immediately cut short Ms. Albright’s presentation of the Price Is Right clip that prompted her action on the ground that its introduction would constitute improper expert testimony. When Albright pleaded for the admission of the clip, Judge Judy simply responded with “zip it or we’re going to commercial.” Without the testimony from Mr. Barker, Albright’s only remaining defense was to claim temporary insanity; a clear loser based on her appearance on a television reality show. After a signature tongue-lashing by Judge Judy, Albright was ordered to sponsor a year’s worth of pet psychology sessions for the unnecessarily damaged Doberman.
Judge Joe Brown’s treatment of this issue in an October 12th episode cut the opposite direction. He admitted pet sitter Patricia Washington’s clip of Barker and then proceeded to rule against the devastated owner of a once manly pit bull. Judge Brown said that “a national treasure like Bob Barker, with a masterful knowledge of the vast array of games played on the Price is Right is clearly qualified to render an opinion as to the management of an animal’s reproductive organs.”
Judge Marilyn Milian of the People’s Court released a statement that the confusion plaguing the average, easily befuddled American as a result of inconsistent cable television judicial opinions must stop. “Now, more than ever, Americans need to know which TV personalities they can rely on. My opinion, the first appellate decision in the People’s Court history, will seek to help mend this growing hole in our national fabric.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
