Discussion of Firms and Life in SF/SV

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.... 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.

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

[SlaveNoMore]

Flinty_McFlint
Fight! Fight! Fight!

My money's on the ugly one.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
My money's on the ugly one.

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

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
My money's on the ugly one.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.

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.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

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."

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.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by sfiail
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.

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.

Here's something to wake you up:

Legislative and Judicial Use of Sex Toys

And congrats to those who finished the bar exam today.

[Sidd Finch]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(b) People from Hollister are disproportionately likely to wear garments proclaiming "Hollister."

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

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is from yesterday's Recorder:

Knockin' on Google's Door
Going in-house at the hottest company around isn't easy

Alexei Oreskovic
The Recorder
05-18-2004

For months, the hype and hopes generated by Google's impending public stock offering have captivated the world's attention.

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
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.

Less than $1.00 per share? Huh.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Less than $1.00 per share? Huh.

S1 Repurchase
between .30 and $80.