departure email
 

anyone seen this from a departing paul hastings associate? I hear he was in corporate:


Evans to Paul Hastings:



An Email from Greg
As many of you are aware, today is my last day at the firm. It is time for
me to move on and I want you to know that I have accepted a position as
"Trophy Husband". This decision was quite easy and took little
consideration. However, I am confident this new role represents a welcome
change in my life and a step up from my current situation. While I have a
high degree of personal respect for PHJW as a law firm, and I have made
wonderful friendships during my time here, I am no longer comfortable
working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and
Napoleonic personalities. In fact, I dare say that I would rather be
dressed up like a piñata and beaten than remain with this group any longer.
I wish you continued success in your goals to turn vibrant, productive,
dedicated associates into an aimless, shambling group of dry, lifeless
husks.



May the smoke from any bridges I burn today be seen far and wide.



Respectfully submitted,



Gregory Evans



ps. Achilles absent, was Achilles still. (Homer)

Paul Hastings departure e-mail
 

I just had it sent from a friend and came over here to see if it was up. Apparently, it's real and hillarious. And now I'll go back to becoming a drone.

Cozen O'Connor
 

Friend of mine in insurance defense (property coverage) wants to know about Cozen O'Connor. What she's looking for:

• well, I think they're full spectrum practice, but I know they have a big first party practice. I'd be interested to know how much coverage they do v. regulatory/compliance, agent/broker issue work. I just read a really good paper on e-commerce issues done by one of their Chicago attorneys. I'd like to refer stuff out if they're good. Or you know, ask them for a job. Just kidding on that last part, except that it'd be nice to know what the firm environment, pay, and requirements are like. Never hurts to keep it in the ol' rolodex, you know.

Auction your home
 

Country music star Barbara Mandrell tried for years to sell Fontanel, her 136-acre Nashville estate that featured an indoor pool, shooting range and helipad. Every time a real estate agent would call, the Mandrell home went into Normandy Invasion mode to tidy the 27,000-square-foot log home for the showing, all to no avail.

Within days, an auction date was set and qualified bidders were invited to inspect the property during a two-week showing period. When the gavel dropped, Fontanel sold for $2.1 million, to the delight of both buyer and seller.


27,000 square feet. Wow. For 2.1 million dollars in my neighborhood, you get a 4500 sq ft house near (not on) a public golf course. What in the hell do you do with 27,000 sq ft?

2.1 mill is a steal

Auction your home
 

"For 2.1 million dollars in my neighborhood, you get a 4500 sq ft house near (not on) a public golf course. What in the hell do you do with 27,000 sq ft?"

Man, I think for $2.1M in my neighborhood you get slightly more than 2000 sq. ft. and a good school district. Woo-hoo!

As for the excess 25,000 sq. ft., I think you open a Barnes & Noble (although, since it would be in Tennessee, I guess you'd have to open a Sam's Club.)

Auction your home
 

Taking us back to the three rules of real estate: Location, location, and feng shui.

It's in Nashville. And it's a "log home," which undoubtedly has lousy feng shui.

Auction your home
 

Lousy feng shui aside, I know the folks who bought it and they have great parties.

If you want to buy a piece, subdivision map coming soon....

Auction your home
 

I thought they don't let you live in the southern states unless you already own a piece.


(Hi!)

Auction your home
 

From the parties I've attended, yup, that would be the case.

(Hi!)

Nobody listed this one in the trial pool...
 

Now with these two out of the way, Slave can make his move on Kerissa Fare. Link to Chronicle story about convictions in drugs-sex-murder cult.

Perkins Coie / Brown & Bain merging
 

According to the Recorder, it's effective July 1.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

It's been awfully dull around here lately.

To liven things up:

Is the Peterson case going south ?

Is the masturbating Oklahoma judge guilty as charged?

Should failure to plead 17200 constitute malpractice?

Talk amongst yourselves

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Why would you ever decline to plead a 17200 claim?

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

No idea, and no interest. The media event around this trial has all the redeeming qualities of slowing down to gawk at a fatal car accident.


Okay, that's some weird shit. But, as Mrs. Finch said, he [ital]is[/ital] just sitting there with nothing to do.


Probably. Hard to imagine that this was a tactical decision; it looks like the just didn't consider the full range of claims. Given that the trial court (jury?) did determine that the plaintiffs had been stiffed on wages/overtime owed, this is a hell of a tough case for the defense. (For those who didn't read the article, the lawyers got their clients -- now their adversaries -- some 90 million for unpaid wages on a claim with a 3 year statute of limitations. If they'd used 17200, they could have extended that to 4 years, according to the malpractice suit.)

That said, the case law on 17200 has gone through a number of gyrations over the years and there may have been some obstacle to including it the claim. Though I can't think of what that would be, at least not till I finish my coffee.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

The more interesting aspect of the case was whether the trial court's certification order for certain claims (i.e., the Labor Code claim) absolved class counsel of responsibility to investigate and assert other claims that were reasonably related to the facts pled in the complaint. They were shooting for a "speak now or forever hold your peace" rule (also known as "Hey, brainiac, you think you can do any better than this?"). Guess not. It's not just § 17200 --- you'd better whip out the LARMAC before moving to certify the class to make sure there isn't an obscure statute or tort theory arising from your claims, because absent class members are more ornery than class reps.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Why would it? The certification order does not rule out that other claims might have been certified had they been pled, does it?

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Things a little slow at the office?

(You want me to kick Atti's ass, you gotta pay my rates.)

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Hmmmm, I bet I could garner a pretty good PPV FB audience if I promoted a fight between you and Atticus. It might be a little awkward for you though, it's pretty hard to fight while you are simultaneously sporting wood. Perhaps wrestling would be better? I'll cut you in for 30%.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

No, but the certification order was argued to be analogous to a "retention order" between class counsel and the class, taking the place of a retention agreement between an attorney and client and circumscribing the attorney's duty of care. If the retention agreement had said, "You have retained us to bring claims A, B and C," the client could not (the argument goes) say it was the attorney's fiduciary duty to give advice regarding claim D. The court rejected this line of thinking (where, at least, claim D arises from the same set of operative facts), saying that your fiduciary duty extends to getting informed consent from the class rep to waive claim D.

I don't think it's a bad decision, necessarily. But in analogizing to the situation of individual clients, it glosses over the fact that the vast majority of little fuck-ups in communication between attorney and client are resolved with a shrug because the client basically still likes the lawyer, and the lawyer got an opportunity to choose to be in an intimate fiduciary relationship with that individual client --- good attorneys can smell the potential clients who will fuck them over in a heartbeat. In a class of thousands, someone's going to be the asshole. In the class context, decisions will get driven by anticipating the most assholish common denominator. I suppose there's no good solution to this.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Live by the sword, die by the sword, I say.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

My money's on the ugly one.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

OK, you're on. $10 on the pretty boy.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

I'm sure you would think that, bitch.

Okay, seriously -- I think the argument was creative but off-base, because the court in ruling on a certification motion is not in a position to assess whether the representation should be expanded to include claims that counsel has not suggested should be included.

I also think that, even if this were a case of individual representation rather than class representation, that the defense of informed consent would be extremely difficult -- and, in all likelihood, not particularly relevant.

Difficult because how do you show that your client knowingly gave up claims that could have increased his damages by 30%? What's the reason for doing this? (I am assuming that the Labor Code provision either did not include more remedies than 17200, or that the remedies of the two claims would not be mutually exclusive. Fucked if I know whether that's right.) Particularly if, as it seems from the press, the claim just wasn't really given full consideration.

Not relevant because if this was a good tactical decision, it's okay regardless of consent -- I believe.

Just to liven things up . . . .
 

Concur. While there are in fact L&M judges in the Bay Area who might actually peer over the bench and say, "Counsel, before I sign this certification order, have you considered moving to amend to add a cause of action for unfair business practices to increase your damages by 30%?", I agree I don't want to live in a world where the judges' duty of procedural fairness to absent class members involves brainstorming and filling in the gaps for plaintiffs' class counsel.

Unless, of course, the judge also peers over the bench at me when I'm defense counsel and says, "Have you considered bringing an Anti-SLAPP motion? Yeeesssss, an Anti-SLAPP motion strikes me as a FAAABulous idea."

Online Jobs Search
 

Has anyone noticed that the online jobs sites (Monster, careerbuilder) are overrun with postings from some pretty crappy headhunters?

The purpose of this post is both to warn and to seek guidance. First the warning. Most of the legal job postings on job boards are by headhunters with no real ties to the firm or other employer posting the job. From my experience they simply conduct their own searches of firm websites and then post the ad on the job site as if they have some angle on the job. They almost never do. (This probably wasn't news to most of you.)

Finally, the question. What can a job seeker do other than happhazardly troll firm/corporate websites em'sself? This doesn't seem particularly effecient or thorough. I know job searches aren't supposed to be fun, but there's got to be a better way. I know, I know. Personal contacts etc. Assume I'm using all of those at my disposal. Are there other sites with the real deal on jobs that I don't know about?

The only thing I've come up with is to use the job site's crappy hh posting as a clue to the identity of the firm (It works with firms; in-house gigs are much harder to decipher). I'm often successful at finding the corresponding posting on the firm's own website.

I want to find a way around these crappy low rent head hunters. It's sad to think that they've drained most of the value from online job boards.

Online Jobs Search
 

My husband used legal authority to great success. They do all the reading of firm websites, trolling of other job boards, scanning classifieds for you, so that you can be relatively sure that they have found all the jobs that are advertised. From there, he directly mailed/faxed/emailed his resume.

Good luck.

Has everybody died?
 

Here's something to wake you up:

Legislative and Judicial Use of Sex Toys

And congrats to those who finished the bar exam today.

Any real estate lawyers out there?
 

I'm hoping people are reading this board, even though they don't seem inclined to say anything on it. My firm is looking for a real estate associate -- in the 2-4 years experience range. Good pay, good atmosphere, a small but very active, very successful, and very entreprenuerial group.

Plus, you would get to meet me IRL. I mean, what could be a better perk than that?

If you're interested, or know anyone who might be, PM me.

multiple choice quiz
 

Which of the following is true:

(a) There are many, many people from Hollister elsewhere in California.

(b) People from Hollister are disproportionately likely to wear garments proclaiming "Hollister."

(c) Many people not from Hollister nonetheless wear garments proclaiming "Hollister."

(d) Tyrone's sample size is too small.

(e) All of the above.

Full credit not given unless you explain your answer. Variants of d) substituting alternative words may result in disqualification. High scorers may be eligible for employment with Finch & Sons P.C.

multiple choice quiz
 

Well, they have a heritage of which to be proud.

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pict...t-jul47_bp.jpg

going in-house at Google
 

From today's SFGate
Google Inc. apparently doesn't handle bureaucratic paperwork as smoothly as its online search engine sorts through billions of Web pages.

For nearly three years, Google neglected to register more than 23 million shares of its stock with securities regulators, an oversight that injects an unexpected legal risk into the Mountain View-based company's highly anticipated IPO.

The bungling, disclosed in Securities and Exchange documents filed Wednesday, means the shares may have been illegally issued, exposing the company to possible lawsuits.

In an attempt to set things right with hundreds of affected employees and consultants, Google is offering to buy back 23.2 million shares and 5.6 million outstanding stock options for $25.9 million, including interest payments.

going in-house at Google
 

Less than $1.00 per share? Huh.

going in-house at Google
 

S1 Repurchase
between .30 and $80.

Multiple Choice on "Hollister"
 

A case I'm working settled yesterday, so as any highly-paid, well-educated lawyer working for a prestigous law firm would do, I went to the mall. Lo and behold, there is a store called "Hollister Co." (see website: http://www.hollisterco.com/webapp/wc...?storeId=10251)

So I think the answer to Mr. Slothrop's original quiz is (c).

going in-house at Google
 

So basically it's an empty offer that no one will take. Cool.

going in-house at Google
 

Yeah, that's some quality work right there by Wilson Sonsini--not only did they fail to file the paperwork, they get to bill Google for the rescission offer too--which nobody is going to do. Good going Death Star, keep on rockin!

Didn't Gray Cary represent Google prior to WSGR?

Not positive it's WSGR's mess, but I could certainly be wrong...

No. Google has been a high profile client of WSGR from very early on. It was reported that Larry Sonsini incorporated them himself in 1998 (i.e. he had the associate put his name on the Cert. of Incorporation). Their current GC is also a former Wilson partner, who in other news, is being looked at for alleged accounting problems at his last employer, where he acted as CFO.

Can't lay this on on Gray Cary, this is all WSGR.