Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zow said:

Thanks for this input. All those links were very helpful. 
 

Frankly, your last sentence is a concern of mine as well. We do have a staff member who is pregnant and I worry that she get the vaccine and something happens to the pregnancy then we could be in trouble. 

Tell her to look at how the odds of being on a ventilator if contracting COVID while pregnant are significant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, FBG26 said:

Did any law firms really lose business working from home? Just looking at PPP tracking website and see my former firm and several other IP firms in town all took large sums of PPP funds. my contacts have told me they were just as busy as ever. Seems fishy. 

I own a small boutique firm.  I’m as busy as I want to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our big firm is busy.  Certain practice groups struggled, based on those sectors in the economy getting smooshed, but others did alright.  2020 was a down-ish year for us, but not nearly as badly as the worst case scenarios we modeled last Spring.  I understand many other big firms actually had up years.  2021 off to a good start, I think we’ll have a busy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bigbottom said:

On the client side, our legal spend was up in 2020 (and some of that went to @Otis).

I love this. Please have your accounting folks include in the memo field of the next check “From Bigbottom to Otis”

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Otis said:

I love this. Please have your accounting folks include in the memo field of the next check “From Bigbottom to Otis”

Ha!  Your fellow partner would be so very confused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey laywer bromigos if you are sidney powell who is now saying her defense to the defemation claims is that her filings were so stupid no one should ever have believed them how come the state bars she filed her laswsuits in arent saying ok thanks since you admittedly filed fraudulent hot garbage dumpster filings that you now acknowledge were pure lies we are disbarring you how does that work take that to the bank bromigos 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Quick update from Law School Application World, where Notre Dame Law School went down in infamy yesterday. Apparently in their admission letters this year, they said deposits are due April 15, or whenever we fill the class with received deposits. At 4 pm they sent an email that the class was 67% full, at 5 pm they sent one saying they were 80% full, and by 6 pm the class was full. So if you had been admitted to Notre Dame Law but didn't put down your $600 deposit by 6 pm yesterday, you are no longer admitted. They basically created a bank run on themselves. There is some thinking this will backfire on them, as people who rushed to make their deposit might still end up enrolling somewhere else, and people who would have gone there but got shut out during yesterday's rush will now go elsewhere. 

It's been a crazy year, record number of apps and a messed-up LSAT curve resulting in too many high scores. Apparently you could fill every seat at the top 111 law schools with a 160+ applicant. Georgetown, which normally gets about 9,000 applicants, is expecting a total of 14,000. Here's a quote from their Dean:

“This is a year like no other,” Cornblatt said. “To give you some numbers, if you were applying to Georgetown with a 3.9 [grade-point average] and a 171 [LSAT score] last year, I would have said to myself, ‘This is real strong. I’ll probably say yes to this.’ Now, with the exact same applicant, you better have a reason for me to say yes or you’re not getting in, because I have plenty of you. That’s the careful part of this.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The_Man said:

Quick update from Law School Application World, where Notre Dame Law School went down in infamy yesterday. Apparently in their admission letters this year, they said deposits are due April 15, or whenever we fill the class with received deposits. At 4 pm they sent an email that the class was 67% full, at 5 pm they sent one saying they were 80% full, and by 6 pm the class was full. So if you had been admitted to Notre Dame Law but didn't put down your $600 deposit by 6 pm yesterday, you are no longer admitted. They basically created a bank run on themselves. There is some thinking this will backfire on them, as people who rushed to make their deposit might still end up enrolling somewhere else, and people who would have gone there but got shut out during yesterday's rush will now go elsewhere. 

It's been a crazy year, record number of apps and a messed-up LSAT curve resulting in too many high scores. Apparently you could fill every seat at the top 111 law schools with a 160+ applicant. Georgetown, which normally gets about 9,000 applicants, is expecting a total of 14,000. Here's a quote from their Dean:

“This is a year like no other,” Cornblatt said. “To give you some numbers, if you were applying to Georgetown with a 3.9 [grade-point average] and a 171 [LSAT score] last year, I would have said to myself, ‘This is real strong. I’ll probably say yes to this.’ Now, with the exact same applicant, you better have a reason for me to say yes or you’re not getting in, because I have plenty of you. That’s the careful part of this.”

Going to be lots of people thinking they are making $200k after graduation, who will be leaving with nothing but debt and regrets in 2024!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2021 at 8:57 AM, The_Man said:

Quick update from Law School Application World, where Notre Dame Law School went down in infamy yesterday. Apparently in their admission letters this year, they said deposits are due April 15, or whenever we fill the class with received deposits. At 4 pm they sent an email that the class was 67% full, at 5 pm they sent one saying they were 80% full, and by 6 pm the class was full. So if you had been admitted to Notre Dame Law but didn't put down your $600 deposit by 6 pm yesterday, you are no longer admitted. They basically created a bank run on themselves. There is some thinking this will backfire on them, as people who rushed to make their deposit might still end up enrolling somewhere else, and people who would have gone there but got shut out during yesterday's rush will now go elsewhere. 

It's been a crazy year, record number of apps and a messed-up LSAT curve resulting in too many high scores. Apparently you could fill every seat at the top 111 law schools with a 160+ applicant. Georgetown, which normally gets about 9,000 applicants, is expecting a total of 14,000. Here's a quote from their Dean:

“This is a year like no other,” Cornblatt said. “To give you some numbers, if you were applying to Georgetown with a 3.9 [grade-point average] and a 171 [LSAT score] last year, I would have said to myself, ‘This is real strong. I’ll probably say yes to this.’ Now, with the exact same applicant, you better have a reason for me to say yes or you’re not getting in, because I have plenty of you. That’s the careful part of this.”

That is just nuts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@bigbottomor any of the other guys with employment experience.  I work for an LLC.  I basically run it and the owners aren't substantially involved.  It is technically owned by another LLC that doesn't generate any revenue or do any business.  A family owns that LLC and has been providing health insurance to the employees in that LLC which solely of the family itself.  Health insurance is not offered to the employees of the sub-LLC.

I think something fishy is going on.  I also came across this.  https://healthcareexchange.com/article/common-ownership-what-are-rules

I used to not care, but last year I bought in record revenue while the owner start charging the sub-LLC all kinds of new expenses to reduce my profit sharing while also receiving a PPL loan that they pocketed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my daughter's divorce I just caught opposing counsel lying in a written affidavit to the court.  In affidavit he states he has practiced law in the State of ______________ for the last 21 years.  Well, he was disbarred for 3 years so he lied to the court & our attorney agrees. 

Our attorney says she can't grieve another attorney until the case is over & can't give me advice on it either except to say that I can act how I see fit.   How can I use this to my advantage?  2nd mediation in one week, if no settlement, trial in a month.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shadrap said:

In my daughter's divorce I just caught opposing counsel lying in a written affidavit to the court.  In affidavit he states he has practiced law in the State of ______________ for the last 21 years.  Well, he was disbarred for 3 years so he lied to the court & our attorney agrees. 

Our attorney says she can't grieve another attorney until the case is over & can't give me advice on it either except to say that I can act how I see fit.   How can I use this to my advantage?  2nd mediation in one week, if no settlement, trial in a month.

 

Unless there is prejudice to your daughter that has arisen from the misrepresentation, I’m not sure you’ll be able to get any real advantage from the Court on this.  So the other way you could try to gain advantage is to threaten the lawyer that you are going to file a complaint with the bar, or a motion with the Court (sounds like you’d have to file the motion on your own).  Again, if your daughter hasn’t been prejudiced, this isn’t something I’d feel comfortable doing as a party to the proceeding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2021 at 6:59 AM, BassNBrew said:

@bigbottomor any of the other guys with employment experience.  I work for an LLC.  I basically run it and the owners aren't substantially involved.  It is technically owned by another LLC that doesn't generate any revenue or do any business.  A family owns that LLC and has been providing health insurance to the employees in that LLC which solely of the family itself.  Health insurance is not offered to the employees of the sub-LLC.

I think something fishy is going on.  I also came across this.  https://healthcareexchange.com/article/common-ownership-what-are-rules

I used to not care, but last year I bought in record revenue while the owner start charging the sub-LLC all kinds of new expenses to reduce my profit sharing while also receiving a PPL loan that they pocketed.

Alas, employment benefits law is ridiculously complicated and I don’t feel comfortable opining on the topic. Regarding charging the sub-LLC new expenses, what kind of expenses specifically are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Alas, employment benefits law is ridiculously complicated and I don’t feel comfortable opining on the topic. Regarding charging the sub-LLC new expenses, what kind of expenses specifically are you talking about?

They took the payroll protection loan and deposited it into the parent LLC while charging me for the full payroll and rent expenses (which they increased what they charged me for) for the period covered in the sub-LLC.  Nothing illegal, just that the owners do nothing for the business but take out profits (might be in the office 2 hours a week).  Just rubs me the wrong way when I set record sales numbers plus they cash in on the payroll protection and my pay goes down for the year.  They wouldn't even implement a decent covid protocol.  Interesting enough, the share staff person they increased my quarterly charge for missed more than 50% of the last 6 months in three different quarantines.

No worries...just venting.  Won't feel bad later in the year when I say Things Done Changed! (<---NSFW language)

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Unless there is prejudice to your daughter that has arisen from the misrepresentation, I’m not sure you’ll be able to get any real advantage from the Court on this.  So the other way you could try to gain advantage is to threaten the lawyer that you are going to file a complaint with the bar, or a motion with the Court (sounds like you’d have to file the motion on your own).  Again, if your daughter hasn’t been prejudiced, this isn’t something I’d feel comfortable doing as a party to the proceeding. 

Your 2nd sentence hits home.  I do want him as opposing counsel & this may sound one sided but this guy has been really rude to our attorney.  Our attorney, to her credit has taken the high road & never stooped to his outbursts.  This is not a small potatoes divorce.  Over 1.5 million involved, all of it ours.  SIL brought nothing in to the marriage but wants at least half.  This after only 3 years of marriage.  One 2 year child involved.  Going to see how mediation turns out in a week, although pretty sure this goes to trial.

Sorry for the rant, sometimes just good to express a little.  Thank You kindly for thoughts!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, shadrap said:

Your 2nd sentence hits home.  I do want him as opposing counsel & this may sound one sided but this guy has been really rude to our attorney.  Our attorney, to her credit has taken the high road & never stooped to his outbursts.  This is not a small potatoes divorce.  Over 1.5 million involved, all of it ours.  SIL brought nothing in to the marriage but wants at least half.  This after only 3 years of marriage.  One 2 year child involved.  Going to see how mediation turns out in a week, although pretty sure this goes to trial.

Sorry for the rant, sometimes just good to express a little.  Thank You kindly for thoughts!!!

Totally understand. Rant away!  As for opposing counsel, if he’s really a jerk, threatening him with a bar complaint or motion for sanctions may end up having the effect of making him be even more of a jerk, and now one with a personal vendetta against your family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It dawned on me how stupid our jobs are, limited by the billable hour, when a close cousin of mine just got promoted to CEO of a good sized bank. Now that’s how you make loot. Laywering though?  Oof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2021 at 7:46 AM, shadrap said:

In my daughter's divorce I just caught opposing counsel lying in a written affidavit to the court.  In affidavit he states he has practiced law in the State of ______________ for the last 21 years.  Well, he was disbarred for 3 years so he lied to the court & our attorney agrees. 

Our attorney says she can't grieve another attorney until the case is over & can't give me advice on it either except to say that I can act how I see fit.   How can I use this to my advantage?  2nd mediation in one week, if no settlement, trial in a month.

 

Assuming the opposing counsel is licensed to do what he's doing in your jurisdiction now, I don't really see any advantage you have here. 

Respectfully, this is your daughter's divorce and while you may be paying the bill I would strongly encourage you to stay at arms-length and let the attorney handle everything. She probably hasn't said it and likely won't (especially if you're paying the bill), but you're probably annoying the heck out of her. 

I'm also trying think what sort of affidavit opposing counsel would file where he gets into his work history. Was it an affidavit for an award of attorney's fees and costs? If so, did the court find your daughter acted unreasonably in litigation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2021 at 5:36 PM, Otis said:

It dawned on me how stupid our jobs are, limited by the billable hour, when a close cousin of mine just got promoted to CEO of a good sized bank. Now that’s how you make loot. Laywering though?  Oof. 

I have this conversation routinely with my BIL who owns a large non-profit. His actual work hours don't really correlate at all to his income and therefore his potential income isn't really capped. In contrast, where I'm mostly billable (and even my flat fee cases require a fee look-back where I need to ensure the flat fee fills in the ballpark of my hourly rate if it had been an hourly fee agreement) my potential income is very much capped and what I make is directly tied to hours worked. For instance, I billed something like 2600 hours for 2020 and I've explained to my wife that I believe I've hit the ceiling for what we can expect and, frankly, if I keep working at that rate I'll have a heart attack in my mid-40s so we should anticipate a slight reduction over time. 

I have given thought as to how to fix this but, from a career perspective, I think I could only slightly improve it by raising my rates and by trying to get several associates working directly under me but even then that's kind of negligible. 

In the law world it seems like the only lawyers without a seriously limited ceiling are the PI guys. 

Edited by Zow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2021 at 10:29 AM, FairWarning said:

IDK how much lawyers make, but my friend has a kegerator with Three Floyds in the lounge of his downtown Chicago office.

Whoa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2021 at 10:14 AM, shadrap said:

Your 2nd sentence hits home.  I do want him as opposing counsel & this may sound one sided but this guy has been really rude to our attorney.  Our attorney, to her credit has taken the high road & never stooped to his outbursts.  This is not a small potatoes divorce.  Over 1.5 million involved, all of it ours.  SIL brought nothing in to the marriage but wants at least half.  This after only 3 years of marriage.  One 2 year child involved.  Going to see how mediation turns out in a week, although pretty sure this goes to trial.

Sorry for the rant, sometimes just good to express a little.  Thank You kindly for thoughts!!!

Good. This is the kind of opposing counsel you want on the other side at a trial. If the guy is a d-bag odds are the judge knows it already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zow said:

Assuming the opposing counsel is licensed to do what he's doing in your jurisdiction now, I don't really see any advantage you have here. 

Respectfully, this is your daughter's divorce and while you may be paying the bill I would strongly encourage you to stay at arms-length and let the attorney handle everything. She probably hasn't said it and likely won't (especially if you're paying the bill), but you're probably annoying the heck out of her. 

I'm also trying think what sort of affidavit opposing counsel would file where he gets into his work history. Was it an affidavit for an award of attorney's fees and costs? If so, did the court find your daughter acted unreasonably in litigation?

yes, affidavit of attorney fees.   the only unreasonable act in this whole thing was opposing counsel, on the day of a hearing, saying that we postponed it.   We didn't & he was reprimanded somehow.  He was not ready for that hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shadrap said:

yes, affidavit of attorney fees.   the only unreasonable act in this whole thing was opposing counsel, on the day of a hearing, saying that we postponed it.   We didn't & he was reprimanded somehow.  He was not ready for that hearing.

Gotcha. 

Unless your daughter is at risk to paying his attorney's fees and he lied on the necessary affidavit there probably isn't any prejudice to your daughter with the lie. I'd have faith that your daughter's attorney will point it out when and where she can if she thinks it'll help the case. Odds are the judge is already aware of the opposing counsel's nonsense (especially if there was a reprimand) and it may be best to just continue to let the opposing counsel dig his own grave. 

I wish your daughter the best in mediation. Generally, a mediated outcome is likely a better result than a trial outcome (your daughter should, of course, listen to her attorney's advice as to whether to reach certain outcomes/settlements/agreements in mediation).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zow said:

Gotcha. 

Unless your daughter is at risk to paying his attorney's fees and he lied on the necessary affidavit there probably isn't any prejudice to your daughter with the lie. I'd have faith that your daughter's attorney will point it out when and where she can if she thinks it'll help the case. Odds are the judge is already aware of the opposing counsel's nonsense (especially if there was a reprimand) and it may be best to just continue to let the opposing counsel dig his own grave. 

I wish your daughter the best in mediation. Generally, a mediated outcome is likely a better result than a trial outcome (your daughter should, of course, listen to her attorney's advice as to whether to reach certain outcomes/settlements/agreements in mediation).  

okay, how about this:

before mediation we reach out to opposing counsel through an independent attorney or myself.  State that if negotiations from his side are extreme( I know this is delicate) we are informing the court that he lied.

Opposing counsel has a vested interest because of the fee agreement he entered into with my SIL.  His fees are based on what his side gets money wise.  If he is removed from the case I'm assuming he gets nothing from my SIL.  Some big stakes here for everyone involved.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shadrap said:

okay, how about this:

before mediation we reach out to opposing counsel through an independent attorney or myself.  State that if negotiations from his side are extreme( I know this is delicate) we are informing the court that he lied.

Opposing counsel has a vested interest because of the fee agreement he entered into with my SIL.  His fees are based on what his side gets money wise.  If he is removed from the case I'm assuming he gets nothing from my SIL.  Some big stakes here for everyone involved.  

Am I understanding correctly that you basically want to blackmail the opposing counsel to negotiate in a manner that you deem to be reasonable? Am I also understanding correctly that you believe his fees are contigent upon a monetary recovery for his client (in other words, have you seen the fee agreement)? 

Commenting for now just on the latter issue it would be very uncommon - at least in my jurisdiction - for a divorce lawyer's fees to be contingent on a particular monetary outcome. I have never seen such a thing in my jurisdiction and I would imagine my state's bar association would frown pretty heavily upon it. Personally, all of my fee agreements for dissolution matters are an agreed upon hourly rate. In other words, my fees aren't contingent upon a particular outcome and I am therefore not personally vested in an outcome. This probably a good thing from a policy perspective because it is the client - not the lawyer - that ultimately authorizes a particular settlement offer or agrees to accept a settlement offer from the other side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zow said:

Am I understanding correctly that you basically want to blackmail the opposing counsel to negotiate in a manner that you deem to be reasonable? Am I also understanding correctly that you believe his fees are contigent upon a monetary recovery for his client (in other words, have you seen the fee agreement)? 

Commenting for now just on the latter issue it would be very uncommon - at least in my jurisdiction - for a divorce lawyer's fees to be contingent on a particular monetary outcome. I have never seen such a thing in my jurisdiction and I would imagine my state's bar association would frown pretty heavily upon it. Personally, all of my fee agreements for dissolution matters are an agreed upon hourly rate. In other words, my fees aren't contingent upon a particular outcome and I am therefore not personally vested in an outcome. This probably a good thing from a policy perspective because it is the client - not the lawyer - that ultimately authorizes a particular settlement offer or agrees to accept a settlement offer from the other side. 

yes. 

His fee agreement was mentioned in affidavit as special fee agreement.  Since SIL has only paid the initial fee of $2000 & nothing in the last year I can only surmise what that entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, shadrap said:

yes. 

His fee agreement was mentioned in affidavit as special fee agreement.  Since SIL has only paid the initial fee of $2000 & nothing in the last year I can only surmise what that entails.

You mentioned getting an independent counsel involved and at this point I think your issues may be jurisdiction-specific enough that I probably cannot be of much more help to you and would suggest you speak to independent counsel in your jurisdiction. 

For just mere general commentary (again, consult with an attorney in your jurisdiction for specific legal advice), if I were you I would tread very carefully with the idea of pressuring opposing counsel in the manner suggested as doing so may be a criminal action and/or possibly be considered unreasonable behavior that could negatively impact your daughter's case. Also, if I were your daughter's counsel and you did the aforementioned without my blessing I'd be very, very annoyed. 

Edited by Zow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, shadrap said:

okay, how about this:

before mediation we reach out to opposing counsel through an independent attorney or myself.  State that if negotiations from his side are extreme( I know this is delicate) we are informing the court that he lied.

Opposing counsel has a vested interest because of the fee agreement he entered into with my SIL.  His fees are based on what his side gets money wise.  If he is removed from the case I'm assuming he gets nothing from my SIL.  Some big stakes here for everyone involved.  

50/50 shot this approach backfires spectacularly. If I’m him, and I’m a total jerk, I immediately file an affidavit bringing the error to the attention of the Court and apologizing for the oversight) what prejudice could there be then?), and then I basically make it my life’s mission to make this proceeding as miserable as possible for your daughter. Of course, I’m not that kind of person, so I’d never do that. But I’m also not the kind of person that would be comfortable trying blackmail the lawyer to get a more favorable settlement. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, shadrap said:

yes. 

His fee agreement was mentioned in affidavit as special fee agreement.  Since SIL has only paid the initial fee of $2000 & nothing in the last year I can only surmise what that entails.

I’m pretty sure that contingency fees are prohibited in most jurisdictions in divorce proceedings. My guess is that the fee agreement provides for an initial retainer, with hourly fees billed against the retainer, and the remaining balance collected upon final settlement. If he were to get kicked off the case, I’d imagine that the agreement provides for payment of hours expended on the case in excess of the initial retainer. 

Edited by bigbottom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I’m pretty sure that contingency fees are prohibited in most jurisdictions in divorce proceedings. My guess is that the fee agreement provides for an initial retainer, with hourly fees billed against the retainer, and the remaining balance collected upon final settlement. If he were to get kicked off the case, I’d imagine that the agreement provides for payment of hours expended on the case in excess of the initial retainer. 

This is also consistent with my understanding (and accurately reflects how my fee agreements are structured for this type of representation - albeit in a different jurisdiction). 

I could see a scenario where opposing counsel kind of has a personal interest in that any settlement whereby there's a monetary cash offset or whatever from wife to husband and opposing counsel may request that such payment run through his office (in part so that he makes sure he gets paid) but, ethically, a lawyer should technically put that interest aside when advising his client at the mediation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

50/50 shot this approach backfires spectacularly. If I’m him, and I’m a total jerk, I immediately file an affidavit bringing the error to the attention of the Court and apologizing for the oversight) what prejudice could there be then?), and then I basically make it my life’s mission to make this proceeding as miserable as possible for your daughter. Of course, I’m not that kind of person, so I’d never do that. But I’m also not the kind of person that would be comfortable trying blackmail the lawyer to get a more favorable settlement. 

Noted & with all due respect to you & Zow.

We thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

at least in wisconsin if you threaten to accuse someone of a crime in order to gain a pecuniary advantage you are in fact committing a a crime yourself under wisconsin statute 943 point 30 so dont turn this into something where you could end up in the cross hairs take that to the bank brohans 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2021 at 7:36 PM, Otis said:

It dawned on me how stupid our jobs are, limited by the billable hour, when a close cousin of mine just got promoted to CEO of a good sized bank. Now that’s how you make loot. Laywering though?  Oof. 

No offense GB but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that every CEO of a successful company could be a successful lawyer.  However, the reverse isn't even close to being true.  

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chet said:

No offense GB but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that every CEO of a successful company could be a successful lawyer.  However, the reverse isn't even close to being true.  

Oh c'mon Chet, while I'd agree that there's probably an overlap in the corresponding skillsets and that many CEOs could probably also be successful lawyers it's certainly not all of them. 

Heck, take my anecdotal example with my BIL above for instance. He's CEO (or whatever the non-profit equivalent is of his company) and is great at it but IIRC he didn't even get in to law school. Further, and it's this mindset that makes him good at what he does because he can identify a particular path and plow ahead without hesitation, he'd struggle to be a lawyer because of a lack of an ability to see multiple sides of the same coin and present them in a particular setting. It's just a different way of thinking or approaching a situation that is, I think, an actual skill and I surmise that not all CEOs have it. 

 

I'm not at all pretending that all lawyers or even many lawyers would make serviceable to great CEOs.  I'd also probably agree that it'd be easier going from CEO to lawyer or that more CEOs would be great lawyers than the vice versa. But give some credit here. 

Edited by Zow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chet said:

No offense GB but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that every CEO of a successful company could be a successful lawyer.  However, the reverse isn't even close to being true.  

This isn't even remotely true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/26/2021 at 3:01 PM, chet said:

No offense GB but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that every CEO of a successful company could be a successful lawyer.  However, the reverse isn't even close to being true.  

Not sure I could disagree more. There are some overlapping qualities for sure, depending on the kind of lawyering we are talking about and seniority level. But yeah, I have come across plenty of senior executives who I believe would be awful in certain legal roles (for example, those who can’t be bothered with the details).  Sure, some CEOs would make good lawyers. And some lawyers would make good CEOs. 
 

While there are far fewer CEOs than lawyers, I also think there’s more than a dash of luck/right place and right time in becoming a CEO. Just like there are a zillion wildly talented musicians out there, only the very select few “make it.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is huge. 


https://abovethelaw.com/2021/05/ropes-grays-reopening-plan-puts-an-end-to-the-5-day-in-office-workweek-for-associates/amp/

I imagine if a number of top firms go this way, the rest of Biglaw will have to follow suit.  If I’m a young associate and I have the option of being in the office 5 days a week, or for the same pay being on a flexible schedule in which it is “recommended” that I be there 3 days a week?  Yeah, that’s pretty easy.

Curious to see what others here think.  I’m a big fan (including for selfish reasons, given the 1.5 hour commute I normally have each way; and given that if associates are in the office 3 days a week, then partners will probably be there, what, 2?  1?).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Otis said:

This is huge. 


https://abovethelaw.com/2021/05/ropes-grays-reopening-plan-puts-an-end-to-the-5-day-in-office-workweek-for-associates/amp/

I imagine if a number of top firms go this way, the rest of Biglaw will have to follow suit.  If I’m a young associate and I have the option of being in the office 5 days a week, or for the same pay being on a flexible schedule in which it is “recommended” that I be there 3 days a week?  Yeah, that’s pretty easy.

Curious to see what others here think.  I’m a big fan (including for selfish reasons, given the 1.5 hour commute I normally have each way; and given that if associates are in the office 3 days a week, then partners will probably be there, what, 2?  1?).

 

There's no question this is the trend in large and small firms alike.  It seems to make sense, since its not that hard to know if an associate is working or not - you have hours billed in most cases + whatever non-billable work an associate can track.  Even in contingent fee firms, its going to be apparent pretty quickly if someone is slacking.  I think the main point is that the butts-in-chairs time may change, but all of these kids are still going to be expected to produce quality work and be profitable, one way or another.  The hard workers will almost always rise to the top.

On a side note, a friend of mine and I were discussing this a couple weeks ago and reminiscing - when we started practicing there was distinction between firms who had mandatory Saturdays and those who didn't.  Most of the firms who didn't require Saturday hours were no different, just didn't formalize it in writing - but it was expected/required anyway.  Many firms required suits in the office 5 days a week, and business causal on the weekend.  In the evening, I wouldn't leave my office until the partners were gone, and always made sure I got some face time on Saturday if not both weekend days.  The idea a lawyer would show up at a deposition in jeans and a golf shirt - really completely normal these days - was completely unthinkable back then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

There's no question this is the trend in large and small firms alike.  It seems to make sense, since its not that hard to know if an associate is working or not - you have hours billed in most cases + whatever non-billable work an associate can track.  Even in contingent fee firms, its going to be apparent pretty quickly if someone is slacking.  I think the main point is that the butts-in-chairs time may change, but all of these kids are still going to be expected to produce quality work and be profitable, one way or another.  The hard workers will almost always rise to the top.

On a side note, a friend of mine and I were discussing this a couple weeks ago and reminiscing - when we started practicing there was distinction between firms who had mandatory Saturdays and those who didn't.  Most of the firms who didn't require Saturday hours were no different, just didn't formalize it in writing - but it was expected/required anyway.  Many firms required suits in the office 5 days a week, and business causal on the weekend.  In the evening, I wouldn't leave my office until the partners were gone, and always made sure I got some face time on Saturday if not both weekend days.  The idea a lawyer would show up at a deposition in jeans and a golf shirt - really completely normal these days - was completely unthinkable back then.

Funny, the face time thing was still a thing when I started practicing 20 years ago. I don’t think as much anymore. But yeah, you didn’t want to leave before the partners, and if you were there on a weekend, you’d hope it would be noticed.  (Saturdays weren’t required ever for me, but then again it was a bit of a badge of honor to be there on a weekend or late night, stupid as that sounds today.). Associates knew who was busy and there late on a regular basis, and who wasn’t. All of that seems to be gone. 
 

But you’re right, I get hours reports every week. I know who is billing and who isn’t.  The hourly profession is maybe the one type of profession that can so easily translate to the remote environment. 

Edited by Otis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a dinosaur, but I think junior associates who are working remotely on a regular basis are going to miss out on a whole lot of practice observation and mentoring opportunities that will ultimately impact their development. I learned a ton that way in my early years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Call me a dinosaur, but I think junior associates who are working remotely on a regular basis are going to miss out on a whole lot of practice observation and mentoring opportunities that will ultimately impact their development. I learned a ton that way in my early years.

I'm relatively new into my practice compared to many FBGs (<8 years) and I completely agree with you. I learned a ton by being in the office that I would have had a hard time learning if I was remote. I've been training some rookies the last year and they've done well, but it'd be better in person. 

Edited by FBG26
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a bit since I've been in BigLaw at this point, but developing strong relationships with a network of partners is so critical to a junior associate's development and career prospects (not only moving toward partner track at that firm, but in getting recommendations for other jobs down the line).  I just have trouble seeing how I would have managed to do that had I only been coming into the office once or twice a week.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Otis said:

Curious to see what others here think.  I’m a big fan (including for selfish reasons, given the 1.5 hour commute I normally have each way; and given that if associates are in the office 3 days a week, then partners will probably be there, what, 2?  1?).

 

For what it’s worth, most of the BigLaw partners I work with have all been working from the office and have been back for a while now. It’s the associates that are still working mostly remotely. Of course that’s Texas. I work with a few BigLaw partners in LA and NYC and they are still remote. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...