The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
S&S Summer booted for Anti-AA comments
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 13th, 2004 12:33 AM Author: excitant umber stage affirmative action Subject: for your edification From jd2b/infirmation:
"Just heard from a friend who's summering at Shearman & Sterling that they fired a summer with a week to go in the program for his comments at a diversity lunch. Apparently there was some speaker extolling the benefits of affirmative action, and this guy argued that it dumbed down institutions.
Anybody else heard anything about this?"
"This is definitely legitimate, and there is a lot more to the story (half of it personally witnessed and the other half on good authority). I don't want to defend the firing, but I understand why it happened, as do the other 100+ summers who got offers (everyone, I believe, except this guy).
First, it was an important client who gave the talk at which the now-infamous summer speech occurred. This occurred in front of about 150 people, including the senior partner and hiring partner, among others. In arguing against the value of diversity, he stated that the CIA's attempt to diversify created a deterioration in the quality of its agents which ultimately led to 9/11. Needless to say, this did not make the partners happy.
As rumor has it, the summer was given an opportunity to write a letter of apology to the client after the lunch, which he refused to do. That is when he was told to clean out his desk.
But this was not the first time he had spoken out at diversity events. There were 2 talks prior to this one at which he gave lectures of approximately 3-5 minutes each, often coming prepared with notes. In addition, when a New York state judge came to the firm to talk about death penalty legislation, the summer referred to one of his opinions as a sham and intimated that he was a political puppet, really pissing him off.
It's not that the guy was so ballsy that he thought he could get away with anything; it's that he didn't know he was doing anything improper. That's the kind of judgment I think people fear most, since you can't correct it.
I have my own views on these issues, and parading clients in front of summers to create a love fest out of a contentious issue may not be the best idea. But the ability to follow the golden rule of "don't f--k up" is about all that is asked of summers, and it is ignored surprisingly often." |
 |
Date: August 13th, 2004 12:39 AM Author: excitant umber stage affirmative action bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170154) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 12:40 AM Author: Nudist frozen gas station Looks to me like he was booted for stupidity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170160) |
Date: August 13th, 2004 12:41 AM Author: ivory lascivious generalized bond national security agency though I agree with him... apparently he has no clue about the meaning of the phrase 'time and place' (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170167) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 12:58 AM Author: maize harsh kitchen How common are summer "diversity" events? More precisely, how easy is it to find a firm that doesn't have any? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170279) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:01 AM Author: Nudist frozen gas station I bet you could just blow it off. They're not going to ding you for that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170299) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:03 AM Author: slate new version They don't make a note next to the "plays well with others" section of your evaluation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170309) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:06 AM Author: Nudist frozen gas station Even if they do, one mark isn't going to get you dinged. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170333) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:04 AM Author: maize harsh kitchen I wouldn't take that chance. I'd go to every event, say nothing, and try not to look furious.
I hope every firm doesn't try this type of indoctrination. Nobody ever used the word diversity until a Supreme Court opinion, from a single justice, in the late 70's mentioned that "diversity" was legitimate grounds for discriminating against whites. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:26 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster with your scores, I'd be happy to not be living in a cardboard box after law school. the last thing you should worry about are partners getting preachy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173516) |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 4:01 AM Author: maize harsh kitchen The Cooley thread was a joke, genius. I'm only applying to T14's. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1177215) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:11 AM Author: ungodly crusty set jewess I thought RWA didn't get a biglaw summer job? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1170373) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:22 AM Author: indecent theatre 172 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1171003) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:36 AM Author: brindle indian lodge mental disorder ditto the 172, hilarious! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1171056) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:24 PM Author: soggy motley prole That was good. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173058) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:40 PM Author: ungodly crusty set jewess You know, RWA has been missing a few days. We know he goes to CCN. Also, when Laura/ Jenna Bush visited the Citigroup building, he was talking about it being close to where he is. Shearman's building is right across the street. I never believed him when he said he's at the top of his class at CCN and can't get a biglaw job. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:22 AM Author: indecent theatre Wow, what an idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1171004) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:28 AM Author: Unhinged Lay Ratface why the fuck would anyone interrupt? it doesnt matter if theyre defending the superiority of the aryan race... you SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL ITS YOUR TURN TO TALK. if you dont get a turn, then you can fucking leave.
ok i got mad. next time i swear i will cum in her ear. lolz what am i talking about?! lolz im on the law board. let me take a moment to say THIS:
New Jersey governor James E. McGreevey confirmed on Thursday that he is gay, has had an extramarital affair with another man, and will resign from office on November 15, one year before his term ends. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 11:38 AM Author: Spectacular institution mad-dog skullcap What the hell? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172040) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 11:36 AM Author: provocative trump supporter If the story is true, this guy was fired for being a loose cannon in front of clients. It doesn't matter what the topic is -- that is the number one most effective way to anger partners out and get fired. At one of my summer firms, the only summer to get fired in the last three years was fired for arguing with a lawyer in front of a client. The subject was a point of law, nothing political...but if you can't suck it up in front of the client, you're gone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172019) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 12:32 PM Author: odious hideous persian This guy is not a loose cannon at all. It was in the context of a diversity lunch where the speaker asked for participation and involvement. He was also a highly rated summer (from what i have been told) S&S should be ashamed of themselves. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172387) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 12:36 PM Author: Peach quadroon I witnessed the events that were described. He is by all accounts a loose cannon and made lengthy political comments at a number of other summer events. The diversity lunch in question was an optional event, and he came prepared with studies and statistics to cite.
He was not a highly rated summer, was widely disliked, and was already not getting an offer at the time he made his comments. Most people were surprised he was fired, but I didn't meet anyone who was hoping he'd get an offer. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:11 PM Author: odious hideous persian He was a very highly rated summer. He received, not "good" but "excellent" on almost every project. And the tax dept was going to give him one of the few offers they give. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172644) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:14 PM Author: Peach quadroon Litigation hated him, and his reviews there were bad. His work product was fine (let's be honest here, it's not all that hard to get "excellent" ratings on your reviews), it was his personality and most of all his big mouth that caused problems. Tax may have liked him, but you get your offer from the firm as a whole and Shearman wasn't planning on giving him one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172662) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:40 PM Author: odious hideous persian this is not what they told him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172842) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:32 PM Author: provocative trump supporter Unless you're prepared to dispute the events as described, I stand by my perspective that this guy's a loose cannon. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are -- you bow and scrape in front of clients. It's a very basic rule of behavior. You can crusade in the streets for any cause you want on your own time. If the firm is having a diversity lunch, it's likely that the firm has a different perspective on the question than this guy has. Publicly challenging firm policy in front of clients is committing career suicide. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172809) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:40 PM Author: odious hideous persian he wasnt fired because he offended a client, it was because he offended other lawyers at the firm. All the lawyers who complained were not at the event. Plus, he offered to write an apology letter the next day, the firm said it wasnt necessary. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172839) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:43 PM Author: Peach quadroon "All the lawyers who complained were not at the event."
That isn't true. I thought complaining was going a bit overboard, but I know several of the associates who complained and at least some of them were present during the lunch. I don't know if any partners complained, but at least one was very visibly upset during his comments.
I don't have any information about the letter of apology, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't want one. They were pretty much done with this guy before he made this last screw up, he just made it easy for them. I'd normally feel sorry for a summer, but he really has a problem controlling what comes out of his mouth. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:50 PM Author: glittery nofapping shitlib what exactly did he say that so offened everyone? Did he keep on arguing with the guy back and forth and wouldnt let go? Did he say anything racist? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172877) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:53 PM Author: Peach quadroon The first post sums it up fairly well, though it was a longer comment than that would suggest. He also mentioned how the first female military pilot crashed her plane. I didn't perceive the comments he made as racist, but others did. They were certainly tactless and not appropriate for a feel-good recruiting event. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172884) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:58 PM Author: glittery nofapping shitlib how many diversity/ death penalty events does S&S has? while the summer showed poor judgment, i think if S&S is going to have so many events cramming diversity discussions down everyone's throat, they should allow people to comment and argue with it. Its not as if this summer raised these comments out of the blue during lunch, it was during a diversity discussion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172904) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:02 PM Author: provocative trump supporter First of all, this was not a required event. Second, if you disagree about the way the summer program is being run, you make an appointment to talk to the co-chairs in private. You DON'T argue with them in front of a big crowd of people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172920) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:33 PM Author: soggy motley prole When adding the other comments, the guy sounds like a loose cannon.
But, do you think the guy should have been fired if he merely challenged the notion of diversity at this event? |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:43 PM Author: provocative trump supporter I don't know whether I would have fired him myself in that hypothetical, but I wouldn't blame a cautious law firm for doing so. Summer associates simply do not get to set firm policy about diversity or anything else. If they disagree with partners about the value of the programs they have to sit through, they need to bring that up in private, if at all. I'd feel the same way about a tactless summer who used a firm forum as a bully pulpit for a left-wing cause (like attending a luncheon about professional ethics and publicly criticizing the firm's choice to represent tobacco clients). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173188) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:45 PM Author: soggy motley prole There was an outside speaker there who invited comment. It seems like a proper forum for debate.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding though. Was this an in-house guy giving a talk on firm policy? |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:49 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary From the OP, it was not just an outside speaker, but in fact an important client.
And I suspect it would have been possible to raise a legitimate issue in a tactful manner and not get into trouble. It seems that what went over the line was the manner in which this person confronted this client. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:58 PM Author: soggy motley prole Well, if that's the case, then fine.
But, I'm sure the client, no matter how rich and powerful, has been questioned before. I think he can take it, and would probably appreciate a good debate. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:02 PM Author: provocative trump supporter >But, I'm sure the client, no matter how rich and powerful, has been questioned before. I think he can take it
It doesn't matter whether he can take it. He's a client. Clients are to have their dicks sucked, across the board, no matter what they do. Again, basic firm etiquette. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:07 PM Author: soggy motley prole So, someone should be fired for asking a relevant, hot topic question during Q&A at an event where a hot topic is discussed?
Shouldn't the client have expected this type of question? The client wasn't coming in and asking for work to be done. He was giving a lecture on a controversial issue. I don't see why someone should have his career ruined for asking a question, even if the herd mentality at the firm normally wouldn't permit it.
It's ridiculous, and there's no way you would be defending this if the topic had been anything else. In fact, we all know this never, ever would have happened if the topic had been anything but this topic. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:13 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary There are other hot button issues besides race, but surely that contributed to the problem.
But that is exactly the point. As a professional lawyer you have to show good judgment about how you present yourself to clients, PARTICULARLY when the issue is a controversial one and you are disagreeing with the client.
I think you have bought into the notion that this person is a martyr without actually knowing the facts, and without due regard for the fact that law firms cannot afford to tolerate a "The client was asking for it!" attitude. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:21 PM Author: soggy motley prole You don't know the facts either. If the guy was a jerk and constantly make errors in judgment, then fine, don't give him an offer.
But, that's not what happened. He was fired as a summer after questioning diversity.
And, the client and the firm was asking for it, to use your words. If you have a discussion on a hot topic, people will espose views that others strongly disagree with and some will be offended. I call this a reasonable expectation. You call it "asking for it." Whatever. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:26 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary Again, firms cannot tolerate that sort of attitude. Clients will behave unreasonably, and even outrageously, and lawyers are supposed to be the people who will stay calm and reserved despite such behavior. We are also supposed to be able to discuss sensitive matters without offending anyone. This is the sort of stuff that lawyers use to sell expensive legal services to clients.
Now, if you want to assume this person was as tactful as anyone could expect, and he got fired anyway, then fine ... you can call this an unreasonable reaction. But in general, we all need to understand that what a firm considers to be reasonable behavior in front of a client is far more restrictive than what would be required in other contexts ... and for good reason. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:26 PM Author: provocative trump supporter >Shouldn't the client have expected this type of question?
I repeat, doesn't matter. When you see a client, get on your knees and suck his dick. When he says 2+2=5, nod and smile. This goes triple if you are a lowly 2L.
>In fact, we all know this never, ever would have happened if the topic had been anything but this topic.
As I have said elsewhere on this thread, a very similar thing DID happen at a major firm where I spent a summer, and it had zero to do with race or politics. A summer opened his big mouth to challenge a partner on a point of law in front of the client. He was gone before the end of the day. That's all it takes, because this is such a gigantic breach of etiquette and shows such poor judgment. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:40 PM Author: soggy motley prole You're not going to be very good counsel if you nod when your client tells you 2+2=5. Counsel's job is to be honest and give candid advice.
Anyway, your story is different. A conference with the client is not the time to have arguments about the law. It seems to me that a lecture with a Q&A session is the time to talk about diversity. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:56 PM Author: provocative trump supporter >Counsel's job is to be honest and give candid advice.
At a big firm, it's the PARTNER'S job to do this. It's the summer's job to sit still and look pretty. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:59 PM Author: soggy motley prole I agree. But, the summer wasn't questioning the client on a client matter. It was a discussion about an outside political issue. I think you're conflating lots of things here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174173) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:05 PM Author: provocative trump supporter It doesn't matter what the topic was. If you're sucking a client's dick, you don't contradict him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174203) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:09 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster It'd be like telling your client that you disagree on his stance on abortion. If it doesn't directly affect a client matter, it's a good idea to agree with your client or keep your mouth shut. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174217) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:11 PM Author: provocative trump supporter Yup. Even if the client asks your opinion. What a coincidence, the summers all agree with him! The smart ones, anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174229) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:12 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster nice observation :) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174244) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:04 PM Author: Peach quadroon There was diversity training, which was mandatory, and I think 2 lunches. The lunches were optional, and many people chose not to attend because of lack of interest, work, or conflicting lunch plans. I wasn't aware that the death penalty discussion happened and didn't attend that event. There are lots of little discussions on various types of practice and pro bono work, so having one on the death penalty isn't all that special.
I thought there were perhaps more diversity events than people needed and didn't care for them myself, but this is the workplace and publicly arguing with the firm's presentations isn't appropriate. Law is a service profession, and that involves a certain amount of common sense and the ability to bite one's lip at times. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:42 PM Author: soggy motley prole So, no challenging questions. Only rah-rah diversity comments allowed.
If you're going to have a speaker come in to talk about a political issue and then invite comment, you should certainly permit people to have a discourse. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:49 PM Author: ungodly crusty set jewess I'm going to guess that the guy was fired more for the way that he said things instead of the things that he said. There are very tactful ways of saying the most difficult things. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173230) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:23 PM Author: glittery nofapping shitlib i spoke to some friends at shearman and they disagreed on whether his comments were offensive/appropriate or not.
One said they were, and that he went on for too long, another said that he sounded very persuasive, and made good points that seemed perfectly appropriate for this event.
One thing they both agreed on is that he didnt fight with the speaker or interrupt him. He asked a question (that was a little long), along with specific studies cited (a stanford study and a yale study), and didnt respond or continue after that. One friend told me that it was all phrased in the form of a question and never specifically mentioned his opinion.
In my opinion the firm went a little far. It was supposed to be an open discussion about diversity.
As long as he didnt yell or argue, and didnt say anything racist, the firm should not have fired him. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:45 PM Author: Titillating Sticky Stead If it was just a long question, with no persistent follow-ups or loud over-talking, it sounds like this guy did nothing wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173660) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:09 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary It is impossible to tell even in that case. If the substance was inappropriate, or even if it was just presented in a tactless way, it would not take violating Robert's Rules to make the behavior unacceptable.
|
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:48 PM Author: Honey-headed aromatic stain abode Wow, what a fucking idiot. What school was this moron from? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172870) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:23 PM Author: provocative trump supporter Yeah, that's what I _really_ want to know. I have a friend at S&S Palo Alto...maybe I get some info from that source. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173054) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:25 PM Author: Glassy Dead Sandwich Selfie He was from Columbia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173078) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 10:41 PM Author: ruby razzmatazz pit electric furnace Let's get a name out here. We all need to know who this summer's Jonas Blank is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1176006) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:49 PM Author: Fragrant psychic stage He got what he deserved. Let this be a lesson to you big mouthed tools on the board who insist on arguing about everything all the time. Shut your pieholes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172875) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:55 PM Author: Boyish theater Ummm, this is a message board. What are you expecting? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1172891) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 1:59 PM Author: Fragrant psychic stage shhh
Be quiet and be a good little Biglaw worker bee. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:20 PM Author: Flatulent Field they won't learn. See the fellow above defending his sort of behavior. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173032) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:25 PM Author: Glassy Dead Sandwich Selfie Well, obviously his behavior was dumb. But I think it's terrible that S&S would have a lunch pushing a particular political agenda, invite comment, and then fire a guy for commenting.
Everyone here is viewing the incident from the risk-averse law student toe-the-line perspective: the fact that firms fire people for this stuff is the evidence that he deserved to be fired.
They're well within their rights to fire the guy, but I've lost all respect for Shearman. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:27 PM Author: provocative trump supporter >the fact that firms fire people for this stuff is the evidence that he deserved to be fired.
Well, it's evidence that he begged to be fired. And if you beg to be fired, then you DO deserve to be fired. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:31 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary Law firms are businesses, and the only product they sell is the services of the attorneys. Therefore, the attorneys at a firm MUST know how to behave around clients ... otherwise, they really can jeopardize the entire firm.
|
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:58 PM Author: Glassy Dead Sandwich Selfie Sure. And if they fired him to appease an existing client, I'd have no problem with that.
But they could easily just have not given him an offer if client-appropriate behavior was the real concern - how much client contact was he going to have in his last week? |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:07 PM Author: provocative trump supporter I disagree. You never know. If you believe someone doesn't have good social judgment, you get him the hell out that very day, because you don't know what he'll do next or who will be around to see him do it. He's dangerous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173361) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:16 PM Author: soggy motley prole Subject: You're begging the question... It's only bad social judgment to question the diversity gods in certain circles. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173439) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:19 PM Author: Flatulent Field no it's bad judgement to call out clients on anything if you're just a summer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173462) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:21 PM Author: soggy motley prole So, it's bad judgment for a summer associate at an event for summer associates to comment when comments are invited? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173472) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:22 PM Author: Flatulent Field If the comments make the firm look bad, yes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173483) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:24 PM Author: soggy motley prole So, any comment questioning the diversity mantra makes the firm look bad? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173500) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:26 PM Author: Flatulent Field no, it's up to the firm to jusdge what makes them look bad (not up to you and me to determine it for them). If they think the guy embarassed them or has potential to embarass them then they shoudl fire him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173515) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:29 PM Author: odious hideous persian yes, and the firm decided that conservative viewpoints embarrass them.
Its quite ironic someone was fired for espousing an alternative viewpoint during a "diversity" lunch. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:31 PM Author: soggy motley prole Well, the whole point of this thread is to question the judgment of the firm. Don't hide behind some agency argument.
Does a polite, yet pointed question criticizing diversity during the designated question and answer period of a diversity lecture harm the firm? |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:36 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster probably not, which is what the guy should have done (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173593) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:42 PM Author: soggy motley prole According to some accounts, it is what he did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173639) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:50 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster If he politely asked a question during the q&a session, and was fired based on this, then it's completely out of line for him to be fired. The likelihood of that causing him to be fired is next to nothing, though (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173693) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:52 PM Author: soggy motley prole That was circular. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173703) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:00 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster No, I'm just doubting that he was fired for the single act of asking a polite question during a Q&A session on diversity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173748) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:02 PM Author: soggy motley prole You said they wouldn't have fired him for making a polite criticism, so he didn't make a polite criticism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173767) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:06 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster I'm saying that I doubt a firm would fire a summer associate for asking a polite question during Q&A. Thus, if the summer associate was fired, I would expect he did more than ask a polite question. It's not circular |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:11 PM Author: soggy motley prole I understand what you're saying. You're saying the firm would never do X, so the firm would never do X. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173815) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:15 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster No, I'm saying the firm would never do X because of Y, so if X did happen, Y must not be the reason for it. Or, I'm presenting a rule (Y does not cause X), then applying it to a situation. Take Kaplan |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:23 PM Author: soggy motley prole You're also saying that the firm would never fire someone for asking a polite question, so the firm didn't fire someone for asking a polite question.
I understand that in the world of LSAT prep courses, that kind of argument cuts it. In the real world, we call it circular.
This doesn't mean you're wrong. Maybe the firm would never do that. But, some first hand witnesses of the events think that happened. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:28 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster "I understand that in the world of LSAT prep courses, that kind of argument cuts it. In the real world, we call it circular." uh, whatever that means. I'm presenting a rule and applying that rule to a set of facts
|
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:26 PM Author: odious hideous persian he wasnt fired becasue of the client. The client was fine with it and had no problems. It was the other lawyers in the firm who were offended. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173523) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:32 PM Author: soggy motley prole That strengthens my argument that this was done for political reasons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173568) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:38 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster Any firm you work for as a summer, if the lawyers think you have the potential to make the firm look bad in front of clients, you'll probably get fired (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173606) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:38 PM Author: odious hideous persian im agreeing with you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173613) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:41 PM Author: soggy motley prole I realize that. I was just making sure everybody else knew. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173634) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:27 PM Author: Peach quadroon Yes, if the summer associate realizes or should realize that the request for comments is perfunctory. Biglaw is big business. That involves putting up with comments you don't agree with in silence at times and realizing when your input isn't genuinely desired.
You're invited to give comments on many topics during your OCI interviews, but that doesn't mean that some comments won't result in negative consequences. The summer is a very long interview, not a pleasure cruise. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:28 PM Author: soggy motley prole He asked a question about diversity during a diversity lecture. He wasn't going far afield. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173541) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:34 PM Author: Peach quadroon Being on topic isn't the same as being appropriate. Law firm events aren't a place to have a political conversation or a stimulating argument, they're a place to nod your head and eat your free food. There seems to be a lot of biting your tongue in the practice of law as well, even if the comments you want to make are on topic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173574) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:38 PM Author: soggy motley prole Well, as I understand the facts, the guy wasn't rude or loud and the client wasn't offended.
I understand there's a risk to opening your mouth, but why fire the guy? If you think he's a risk, then don't give him an offer. But, by firing him, you send the message that any movement from the party line on diversity is career ending. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:41 PM Author: Glassy Dead Sandwich Selfie Which is precisely why I have no respect for Shearman now. I hope this will turn into a real black eye for them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173637) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:44 PM Author: odious hideous persian the guy should go public with this. Fox and the nypost will eat this up. It doesnt matter what S&S's explanation is. They will look awful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173652) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:44 PM Author: Peach quadroon I thought firing was a bit much and would have thought no offer would have been a better option, but I can understand why they did it.
I don't think this is a liberal/conservative issue, despite the overtones. If someone had stood up during a securities law presentation and questioned the firm's respresentation of large corporations, I think the result would have been the same. Questioning firm policy in public is not going to be rewarded anywhere. It isn't law school, and people who think it is might find it easy to get in trouble. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:48 PM Author: soggy motley prole Please, none of the lawyers who were offended by the question would have been offended by some criticism of big business. People just don't care as much about that, and nobody gets offended by anyone else's position on a question of securities law.
If the firm didn't want to have a discussion of a hot topic, it shouldn't have had a discussion of a hot topic. People get offended. Nobody should get fired for merely asking a question.
Unless, of course, this speech was some kind of test to root out dissenters, which I doubt. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:12 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster He's not saying that the summer would be fired for questioning big business, he's saying the firm would fire him if he questioned the firm's policies in a public space. As a summer associate, you don't have that luxury. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173824) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:17 PM Author: soggy motley prole The firm had a diversity lecture followed by Q&A. Was the firm so presumptuous as to believe that everybody at S&S, a very large firm, agreed with "diversity" as it has come to be understood?
Furthermore, no one has contended that the summer stood up and challenged the firm's policy. He asked a pointed question about diversity generally and supposedly never stated his own views. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:21 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster I think you're assuming the best possible scenario for this guy. Further, in your rosy scenario taking the best of what the guy had to say, he was presenting studies directly clashing with what a judge had to say when the law firm brought in that judge as a guest. Not smart any way you spin it. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:26 PM Author: soggy motley prole Yes, I'm explicitly making the best assumptions for the guy. Somehow people still defend the firings.
And, the same goes for the judge. If he asks him a tactful question about a ruling, no harm. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:31 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster however, asking the judge a question about a ruling that insinuates (sp?) that the judge's ruling was incorrect and even citing cases that would go the other way is probably a bad move when a firm brought the judge in for a big corporate love fest, which are the reason why judges are brought into firms to "speak" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173953) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:43 PM Author: soggy motley prole If they had a Q&A session, then obviously they planned for discourse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174048) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:47 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster talking in general terms, yes. If that discourse is a question citing studies that is made to disagree with a judge that was brought in so that the lawyers could kiss his ass, and that discourse came from someone interning at the firm, the lawyers were right in reprimanding him. If that intern was already on some of the lawyers' bad sides, then it's no surprise he was fired. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:52 PM Author: Glassy Dead Sandwich Selfie I don't think the firm policy analogy is apt at all.
I think if it were a lunch on the Public Value of Large Firm Representation, with comments invited, it would probably be appropriate topically. The reason your analogy doesn't work is that someone who thinks large corporations shouldn't be represented might not do the best job of representing them. If S&S were a plaintiff's side race discrimination firm, then nobody would be questioning it.
If it's an important component of *firm policy* that AA is a sacred cow, then they probably should fire the guy. And then they should be publicly humiliated for having that firm policy. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:06 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary From my limited experience, firms usually just do not extend offers if the problem is competence. But if they have a problem with behavior, they might fire you, and for the usual reason ... people need to know that there will be consequences for certain kinds of behavior.
Incidentally, there are conflicting reports just on this board about whether the client was upset or not, and whether what the person did was justifiably cause for offense (if he did connect diversity hiring to 9/11, for example, that does in fact show poor judgment, even if the client was not personnally offended). So, I do not know which is the case.
But I also have no reason to believe that the firm was doing anything but protecting its own financial interests, which in my experience is usually what they do. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:09 PM Author: soggy motley prole I understand there's a question of fact here. But, let's assume I'm right about the summer's tactfulness. Then, the decision is indefensible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173805) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:20 PM Author: Narrow-minded Messiness Parlour These diversity panels are pretty new at law firms, yes? My understanding is that their purpose is to make the white shoe workplace a little more tolerable for blacks and other minorities, and teach white professionals a bit more about ways to interact with blacks without being offensive. It's sensitivity training, and this guy failed miserably. I think it's pretty much time for the outspoken conservative WASP or Jew to shut his piehole. It's not like a panel on Sarbanes-Oxley or something, where it might be interesting to get into a debate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173870) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:22 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster yeah, this isn't O'Reilly Factor, it's a law firm function where lawyers can kiss a judge's ass. it's business (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173882) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:21 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary Sure. Basically by definition, if you assume the summer did nothing wrong, then getting fired for doing nothing wrong is impossible to defend.
But as others have pointed out, that hypothesis is not very likely. I think the most one could reasonably suspect is the case is that the summer's behavior was close to the line, one way or another, and thus that reasonable people could disagree about whether the behavior was inappropriate. In that case, one could worry that the firm was being overly cautious.
And yet, being overly cautious is what lawyers are supposed to do, and I think people in general need to understand that behavior which might be acceptable in many other contexts may indeed be considered over the line by law firms. Again, that makes financial sense: no one wants to see their lawyers even coming close to exhibiting poor judgment. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:29 PM Author: soggy motley prole From what I've read, it seems that the summer has his defenders and his detractors. I really don't know what happened and neither do you.
And, the firm could have denied him an offer. Instead, they fired him before the summer was over. This is an extreme measure, and I think it sends a very strong message about speaking out against diversity. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:18 PM Author: Mind-boggling obsidian sanctuary Agreed on the first point. Again, my only caveat is that when trying to understand firm decisions, the first rule is to look for a profit motive.
As for firing him instead of denying him an offer, again, my general sense is that firms deny people offers for incompetence, but will fire people for bad behavior. If this was anything, it was in the latter category, so it does not make much sense to say they could deny him an offer but should not have fired him.
And firing someone, frankly, is not that "extreme". People get fired all the time in the real world (it is not like getting expelled from school, for example). The employer's reasons for firing someone really don't have to be better than thinking that they do not want him or her as an employee ... that is the nature of at-will employment.
Again, I think some people in this discussion are not quite grasping yet that law firms are businesses, and summers are just paid interns ... and sometimes, interns get fired. |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 1:13 AM Author: soggy motley prole Yes, they get fired sometimes. I get that. It's not a big deal that they fired someone, but why they fired him is the issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1176543) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:50 PM Author: soggy motley prole Also, there are people on this thread defending the decision even if the best facts are assumed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174114) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 4:53 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster if you're referring to me, I was arguing that there had to be more than him simply asking a polite question (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174132) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:00 PM Author: soggy motley prole I don't know who I was referring to honestly. I know someone was defending it after it was assumed the summer acted tactfully. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174179) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:19 PM Author: fantasy-prone ruddy nursing home this must've been a sight to see.
|
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 2:33 PM Author: maniacal friendly grandma filthpig He goes to your school. I don't suppose you happen to know the guy...? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173137) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 3:03 PM Author: fantasy-prone ruddy nursing home my social circle of ~5 people sadly does not include him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1173335) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 10:40 PM Author: ruby razzmatazz pit electric furnace What's his name? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1176005) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:22 PM Author: Crimson Garrison people should just keep all politics and religion out of the work place. not that I don't advocate speaking about these things in the comfort of your home, but no good has ever come out of speaking about either in the workplace. BTW: I am addressing the issue of the discussion in general, not any party to it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174303) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:27 PM Author: Nighttime exciting sex offender candlestick maker What a stupid idiot. Never piss off the stakeholders whether partners, clients, etc. This concept is so basic that he deserves what happened to him for being clueless. There is a time and place for everything. Knowing when to voice an opinion and when to be quiet is paramount.
|
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:34 PM Author: Razzle scarlet toaster but when you throw around topics like diversity, people get stupid. Exhibit 1: This thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174381) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 5:38 PM Author: Dun thriller menage Would anybody mind filling me in on off the record about this: my email is efladen@stanford.edu, and I'm trying to do a story on it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1174393) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 6:32 PM Author: Nighttime exciting sex offender candlestick maker This is not the best place for source info since most of what you read here are second or third hand accounts of what happened.
Talk to an associate at Shearson. Most of them probably won't talk to you, but a few may off the record.
Once you do the story, please post the link here. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2004 8:24 PM Author: Tan associate This whole thing is ridiculous.
1) The firm is most at fault. They, for one thing, lost me as a potential associate, whether they care or not. If you don't want a diversity discussion, don't have a diversity discussion. To fire someone for civily stating his opinion or asking a question is ironic and stupid.
2) The SA was stupid. He should have recognized the prevailing intolerant culture of the firm, and kept his mouth shut. |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 4:25 AM Author: Sienna painfully honest university background story BigLaw associates are spinelesss corporate whores. If this SA wasn't prepared to spread his legs, he shouldn't have signed on for the job. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1177249) |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 4:51 AM Author: shimmering gay wizard box office Haha! What a stupid douche! Someone should post his e-mail so we can laugh at his dumb ass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1177286) |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 5:48 AM Author: Multi-colored bawdyhouse laser beams What do you win when you win what you win?
Mostly likely that associate either didn't think of that or had a bad answer. Either way indicates that the associate was not well suited for such a firm. |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 10:46 AM Author: soggy motley prole That's cryptic. Do you mean what's the point of even asking the question? Where does it get you?
That's a fine practical point, and if the summer was more mercenary, he would have figured it out. But, maybe he was naive and thought the forum was open for discussion as opposed to a circle jerk. |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 4:13 PM Author: Multi-colored bawdyhouse laser beams "Where does it get you?"
Basically.
"But, maybe he was naive..."
A good reason to not want someone at your firm. |
|
Date: August 14th, 2004 4:54 PM Author: Arousing Public Bath Love Of Her Life I for one will never work at a firm where we're required or supposed to attend anything with the title of "diversity" in it.
Just fucking ridiculous. |
|
Date: August 25th, 2004 9:22 PM Author: Low-t Sepia Senate dude, suck it up. thats every firm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=71984&forum_id=2#1240041) |