It was the wrong thread

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Really. NExt thing you know, they'll be getting copies of judicial opinions shrunk down and encasing them in lucite.

Damn corporate lawyers shouldn't get all the cool stuff.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How long did you spend editing this post?

How long should I have spent?

Kind Regards,
ncs

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
How long should I have spent?

Kind Regards,
ncs

Its polish and refinement suggest too much.

Best,

Burger

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
You haven't seen these? (Actually, cover pages of briefs, rather than decisions, but same point). Personally, I prefer things like engraved baseball bats or golf clubs for deals with nothing to do with baseball or golf.

Mr. Man's company has been known to give out actual guitars as deal toys. His company has something to do with guitars. I doubt that the guitar-deal-toys are particularly nice guitars (to guitar snobs), but still.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Accomplishments in the plaintiffs' world are often measured in $$

Then buy a fucking Bentley. Hanging a check on the wall is for proles who vacation in Jamaica.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
Then buy a fucking Bentley. Hanging a check on the wall is for proles who vacation in Jamaica.

Not if its the original check.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I doubt that the guitar-deal-toys are particularly nice guitars (to guitar snobs), but still.

Of course not. to get good ones they'd have to buy the competition's guitars. Hah!





I don't know what company he works at, or if this even makes sense, but structurally it was set up to cleanly to let pass.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
Then buy a fucking Bentley. Hanging a check on the wall is for proles who vacation in Jamaica.

I can't recall ever seeing someone hang a check on the wall for a few thousand dollars.

Maybe someone at the NFL has the cancelled check for $3 on the wall, though.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my last large settlement I resisted getting the $$$ wired because I wanted to have a copy of the check. everyone insisted on wiring it though and I couldn't argue because my sole reason for the check was arguably selfish.

For my most recent closing, I framed a copy of the Fed Ref number of the funding wire.

[Replaced_Texan]

The Rule Against Perpetuities in action!

[Penske_Account]

I am surprised there has not been more board chatter about the below incident....wasn't it rumoured that, back in the day, PLated was a janitor at AK.....could he haven risen to paralegal and then.........say it ain't so!!!

the Anderson Kill & Olick paralegal who duped his firm into promoting him to a lawyer and then pulled off the charade for two years before being caught.

eta: is this outable? If so, someone please delete.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Interesting speech by the GC of Cisco on the legal profession and the need to adapt.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Interesting speech by the GC of Cisco on the legal profession and the need to adapt.

Good read.

Translation: the law firm economic model is fucking stupid (read: lawyers understandings of economic and markets is for shite).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Good read.

Translation: the law firm economic model is fucking stupid (read: lawyers understandings of economic and markets is for shite).

I'm not sure the "read" part is right, though. The problem is developing a model of value-added billing that can be known in advance. While it's one thing to use "off the shelf" products for standard agreements, it's another thing to use off the shelf for litigating a major case. There's not much way to do that. The contract with morgan lewis for fixed fee on litigation is also probably a bad idea--I can imagine ML settles cases instead of litigating them. Wouldn't you?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure the "read" part is right, though. The problem is developing a model of value-added billing that can be known in advance. While it's one thing to use "off the shelf" products for standard agreements, it's another thing to use off the shelf for litigating a major case. There's not much way to do that. The contract with morgan lewis for fixed fee on litigation is also probably a bad idea--I can imagine ML settles cases instead of litigating them. Wouldn't you?

I see your point. Honestly, litigation is as foreign to me as marine biology, but on the deal side, the supermajority of the profession that maintains stuck in the mud in the billable construct as contrasted with a percentage of the deal take (a la the bankers and brokers) are absolutely economically retarded (at least on a markets basis).