The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Are "high end" lawyers flame?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 17th, 2017 10:49 PM Author: Geriatric Alcoholic Station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33332620) |
Date: May 17th, 2017 10:51 PM Author: mischievous karate resort Yes.
|
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:36 PM Author: khaki cruise ship toaster Honestly, when big firms come in to defend cases I am working on they are TERRIBLE. Here is an example: I have a very serious dog attack case where my client was hospitalized with an infection for three days and has nerve damage in her foot from the bite (along with a nasty scar). They hired Gordon Rees to defend because it was a pitbull and there was no insurance coverage. Probably because of Gorden Rees's "real estate practice" lol.
They have no clue what the fuck they are doing. They put a 2nd year associate on it and she gave me documents in discovery that proved the landlord knew about the dog and failed to enforce its dog policy. Moreover, they tried to argue that my client cut her own foot when there is video on their cameras of my client being attacked. They must have billed 50k so far on this case and we aren't even at depos yet. They would have been way better with a shitty insurance defense firm that knew what they were doing. The partner at Gorden Rees values the case at like 30k when this is probably a 500k case at jury trial. He is just too inexperienced at this to know any better.
Plus, most big firm attorneys have minimal to no trial experience. When I speak to them on the phone they barely know how shit works if you get down into the details. |
 |
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:37 PM Author: Magical meetinghouse what's a gordon reaves? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33332946) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:38 PM Author: khaki cruise ship toaster A fairly large firm: https://www.gordonrees.com/
Has 700+ lawyers according to their website. |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:39 PM Author: Magical meetinghouse OP asked about high-end lawyers (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33332965) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:42 PM Author: khaki cruise ship toaster Zing. I've dealt with Sheppard Mullen and DLA Piper on a couple of wage and hour class actions. I didn't think they stood out in any special way. They are generally pretty good at procedural things, but they do a lot of useless things in litigation that burn client money for no reason. If I was ever in a position where I needed hourly counsel, I would never hire a big firm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33332985) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:43 PM Author: Magical meetinghouse OP asked about high-end lawyers (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33332990) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:50 PM Author: Geriatric Alcoholic Station calishitlawguru is a high end poaster (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333033) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:58 PM Author: Sienna university High end lawyers don't do dogbite law brother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333071) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:35 AM Author: Lilac Plaza Circlehead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333287) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:58 AM Author: Geriatric Alcoholic Station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333420) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:13 AM Author: hateful racy stead wrinkle I've litigated against G&R on a few cases and overseen them as insurance counsel on a couple others. This is completely on par with my experience. They have a method of responding to discovery that they teach associates that violates discovery statutes.
They offered my client a $50k settlement on one case. I got him seven figures at trial. |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:17 AM Author: Supple stubborn philosopher-king explain the violation ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333753) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:20 AM Author: hateful racy stead wrinkle they write out a laundry list of bullshit, mostly nonresponsive objections as a preamble to any discovery responses, then try to incorporate it by reference into each response.
they also like to provide little or no response to some rogs/RFAs, and claim instead that "discovery is ongoing and [client] reserves the right to supplement his response at a later date." |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:21 AM Author: Supple stubborn philosopher-king re #1, I think every firm does that, but includes specific objections as well (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333770) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:21 AM Author: Vengeful hall masturbator (retard) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333772) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:23 AM Author: hot locus Have you ever seen anyone win anything because of a boilerplate objection? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333783) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 11:11 AM Author: umber bipolar sneaky criminal no but it makes the other side jump through additional hoops to get additional information. it's not defense counsel's job to make plaintiffs' lawyer's life easier, it is? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33335264) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 11:36 AM Author: hateful racy stead wrinkle Just drive up the cost of litigation as a tactic to avoid the merits, hehe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33335467) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:28 AM Author: hateful racy stead wrinkle you mean (retard that compelled discovery responses, was awarded sanctions, and won the case) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333804) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:22 AM Author: hot locus Is their a jurisdiction that *does* give significant weight to boilerplate, non-specific objections?
People who put that sort of bullshit fuckery in their discovery responses need to be kicked in the balls more often. |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:27 AM Author: Supple stubborn philosopher-king its risk-aversion, hoping that if they leave out the specific objection they can point to the incorporation by reference.
|
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:28 AM Author: hateful racy stead wrinkle except california's discovery act specifically prohibits incorporating objections by reference (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333810) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:29 AM Author: Supple stubborn philosopher-king this is true yet pretty much everyone, P or D starts discovery responses with "General Objections" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333811) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:32 AM Author: hateful racy stead wrinkle I don't, but I win cases.
it's not that hard to use "general objections" properly - just cut and paste the same goddamn list into each discovery response to comply with the statute. |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:33 AM Author: Gay stag film marketing idea cr
i dont think i've seen a firm, big or small, that doesnt put in this type of boilerplate shit |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:49 AM Author: hot locus My general objections are typically only objections to the retarded "instructions" and "definitions" the propounding party uses.
No, I'm not going to interpret "and" to mean "or" and "or" to mean "and." No, you don't get to write your own private (and more favorable) version of the discovery rules and impose them on me. |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:32 AM Author: hot locus But has that *ever* worked? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333818) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:35 AM Author: Supple stubborn philosopher-king No idea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333831) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:45 AM Author: Stirring bearded theatre See, it depends on the state. In California you actually need that fuckery because discovery in California is what happens when mentally ill people are allowed to make law. Also, in federal court in the world of the new Rule 37 where you have the new 6 factor test and they've done away with "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, blah, blah , blah" you are also better off with a lot of form objections because the law is quite unclear still. But the form objections dont mean you can just not respond. You have to have shit on top of them.
But in some states like Florida the judges are so used to short and simple discovery responses that if you even try that shit about "discovery is ongoing and we reserve the right to supplement our non-response" shit you are asking for sanctions. They have zero patience in Florida for what is no big deal in CA. CA will give you a solid two maybe 3 attempts to actually supplement before you are sanctioned. In Florida the judges will punk you way sooner. Practice if Florida is way better as a result and I would quit the law before I practiced in CA. |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 9:26 AM Author: charismatic hyperventilating indirect expression dilemma 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33334706) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 9:27 AM Author: Supple stubborn philosopher-king CA offices make up a yuuuge portion of our firm's revenue... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33334712) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:17 AM Author: hot locus I love when the opposition is a smaller entity that hires biglaw. The massive legal bills force early resolution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333752) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 9:34 AM Author: Shimmering Affirmative Action Liquid Oxygen Why are you surprised she gave you those documents in discovery? Is hiding evidence that common in shitlaw? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33334742) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 9:38 AM Author: Spectacular senate Does the pope shit in the woods? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33334770) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:39 PM Author: galvanic orchestra pit Do you need one (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33332966) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:52 PM Author: Stirring bearded theatre Depends on the type of matter. Anything regulatory -- no. Only biglaw has the experience and the connections and they are worth every penny. Litigation -- generally yes, total flame. I have no fucking clue about transactional. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333041) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:47 AM Author: Coral Principal's Office Police Squad Some regulatory.
Some regulatory stuff is the domain of midlaw and boutiques. My group is regularly hired/brought on by big law to handle niche regulatory issues for their clients |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:20 AM Author: hateful racy stead wrinkle CR. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333764) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 1:45 AM Author: Ivory Library This is CR, especially as to regulatory. I just hired a partner at a BIGLAW firm solely due to his weight with the SEC. I expect to pay out about 3-5M in legal fees in this matter alone, but it's completely worth it. Anything govt related requires connections in order to save $ or make the allegations disappear. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333608) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:25 AM Author: Coral Principal's Office Police Squad Yup. But those connections are not always biglaw. That's what the superstudy azn drones miss. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333792) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:57 PM Author: Gay stag film marketing idea I've definitely met and worked with biglaw partners who cost absurd amounts per hour who I wouldn't want to represent me in any case, ever, even if I didn't have to pay. And I've met some who who are worth every penny of their four-digit billing rate. It depends. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333063) |
|
Date: May 17th, 2017 11:59 PM Author: Sienna university (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333073) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:29 AM Author: Canary tattoo (rowan (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333250) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:31 AM Author: Out-of-control Stain Hell (David boeis) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333814) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:21 AM Author: Topaz concupiscible bawdyhouse I agree that shitlaw dudes can be bad on papers but good on valuing a case and arguing in court.
If it's a high value case that wins or loses before trial I'd go biglaw pretty much every time. I could see going to a boutique or noted local trial guru if it's the type of thing that goes to trial. |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:50 AM Author: ruddy wonderful menage pozpig as an inhouse, I've worked alongside with and negotiated against biglaw types on vendor/client contracts. those biglaw attorneys were absolutely worthless (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333357) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:56 AM Author: razzmatazz point blood rage Yea. Not all high end, top tier attys are at the top tier firms. You may have someone at the lower Vault range that is an expert in Y and you go to that person re Y and nothing else. They tend to have familiarity with the business overall and what others in the industry are doing (especially useful if a new law comes out and we want a conservative approach). General corp stuff can go to the cheapest bidder with decent enough work product. It's the more complex, unknown areas of the law where a high end lawyer is worth it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333401) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 2:21 AM Author: Vengeful hall masturbator weird post. the formula is higher risk, higher end. your bullcrap about "unknown areas of law" is fucking stupid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33333771) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 9:52 AM Author: bespoke tan nibblets No but if you're in house, if you lose the case or the deal docs got fucked up, you hired Gibson Dunn or whatever the best, not Gordon Rees so management can't get mad. The whole thing is a scam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33334830) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 11:40 AM Author: ruddy wonderful menage pozpig its all a self serving cycle of CYA shit and giving work to firms from which the CLO came (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33335489) |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 9:53 AM Author: Copper cracking ticket booth I do plaintiff-side securities lit, and frequently go up against STB, Kirkland, Skadden, Latham, etc.
Generally, they do good work and their briefs are almost always well-written and catches all the issues.
|
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 12:04 PM Author: bespoke tan nibblets (Coughlin stoia associate)
I did almost exclusively securities lit during my biglaw days. Great becuse discovery is stayed. Terrible because zero exit options if you don't want to be a shitigator. |
|
Date: May 18th, 2017 11:57 PM Author: Supple stubborn philosopher-king except 500K in house lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3618097&forum_id=2#33341159) |