It was the wrong thread

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Iwant to make sure I have thje procedural history right: writer files FOIA statements; FBI jerks him off for a while; wter files suit to force disclosure and court orders same. The $470K is a recovery of attorney's fees and not damages, right?

Your understanding is correct.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Iwant to make sure I have thje procedural history right: writer files FOIA statements; FBI jerks him off for a while; wter files suit to force disclosure and court orders same. The $470K is a recovery of attorney's fees and not damages, right?

Correct - mostly prevailing party. Took the citizen/journalist that much to make the FBI follow the law.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Correct - mostly prevailing party. Took the citizen/journalist that much to make the FBI follow the law.

Without a record, I would be speculating, but if the same tactic was used in court, I would have awarded the same amount again in Rule 11 sanctions.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Without a record, I would be speculating, but if the same tactic was used in court, I would have awarded the same amount again in Rule 11 sanctions.

I note Bryan Cave got a good chunk of this. Good for them. That ought to encourage a couple more similar cases.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I note Bryan Cave got a good chunk of this. Good for them. That ought to encourage a couple more similar cases.

I cannot comment as my firm represents the US Government on very important high tech matters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I cannot comment as my firm represents the US Government on very important high tech matters.

Kind of tough to watch that ship sail away, especially when it is so low in the water, huh?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Without a record, I would be speculating, but if the same tactic was used in court, I would have awarded the same amount again in Rule 11 sanctions.

I'm not sure you can do that, but don't let that stop you, vis-á-vis the FBI. Those guys are sanctimonious assholes whose souls have been twisted into pretzels by the ability to lie for the good of America. Being a professional liar will fuck up your moral compass with a quickness.

And to any "Special Agents" reading this, yeah, I'm talking about you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I'm not sure you can do that, but don't let that stop you, vis-á-vis the FBI. Those guys are sanctimonious assholes whose souls have been twisted into pretzels by the ability to lie for the good of America. Being a professional liar will fuck up your moral compass with a quickness.

And to any "Special Agents" reading this, yeah, I'm talking about you.

what about "change agents?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Three amusing takeaways.

1. Who in the industry didn't see this coming seven to ten years ago? That could only accrue from willful ignorance or blissful self-delusion.

I wish I could say I saw it coming -- I thought it was my firm.

2. Why is this only focused on big firms? Medium sized firms are also getting hammered.

Because they have journalists who cover them, so a writer from TNR can start with the reporting other people have done.

3. When was law - big, small, or medium, all practice specialties - a collegial, communal environment, in which people were more interested in being part of a "profession" than making money like any other business?

Law firm dynamics were surely very, very different before partners learned what they could be making at other law firms and started jumping around.

And the irony of discussing that on this board is not lost on me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Law firm dynamics were surely very, very different before partners learned what they could be making at other law firms and started jumping around.

And the irony of discussing that on this board is not lost on me.

my first big law seemed a very nice place to be a partner. the partners weren't told what other partners billed, nor their books, so they could hardly in fight. there was a guy with a corner office who had basically written Mi. condo law 20 years before, had enormous billings and got the corner. then the field turned into commodity. when I was there he sat in that corner office doing nothing. he billed 800 hours (we were just starting to learn what others did).

point is, mid 80s things were friendly!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Law firm dynamics were surely very, very different before partners learned what they could be making at other law firms and started jumping around.

And the irony of discussing that on this board is not lost on me.

One of the great things about having departed Biglaw for a boutique is that I have to work pretty hard to get myself to really care about the pending demise of these places. I mean, the problem isn't that the lives of the Biglaw partners are bleak and miserly because they need to make iBanker amounts or that they're failing to reproduce themselves and so populate the world with more baby reptiles. The problems are that Biglaw increasingly sucks at providing quality legal services because they are more focused on their own needs than their clients'; and that Biglaw's main need is the soak clients by ginning unnecessary or fabricated hours constantly.

There is always a simple option for a good lawyer - find some compatriots, do some good work, treat clients fairly, and money that is really pretty damn good by any reasonable standards, though perhaps not enough to average $1.5M ppp. All these whiners are choosing the life they complain about.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is always a simple option for a good lawyer - find some compatriots, do some good work, treat clients fairly, and money that is really pretty damn good by any reasonable standards, though perhaps not enough to average $1.5M ppp. All these whiners are choosing the life they complain about.

there were people at my last biglaw that saw themselves as parallel to me, and they would talk about doing this, but most of them get unhappy at one BL and jump to another, too chicken to try and make it. They somehow fail to realize 1) they have now quit several BL firms, and found them repugnant, and 2) even if the boutique crashes and burns, every BL would hire them (patent being a field marketable to these hell holes) so there is no real risk

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One of the great things about having departed Biglaw for a boutique is that I have to work pretty hard to get myself to really care about the pending demise of these places. I mean, the problem isn't that the lives of the Biglaw partners are bleak and miserly because they need to make iBanker amounts or that they're failing to reproduce themselves and so populate the world with more baby reptiles. The problems are that Biglaw increasingly sucks at providing quality legal services because they are more focused on their own needs than their clients'; and that Biglaw's main need is the soak clients by ginning unnecessary or fabricated hours constantly.

There is always a simple option for a good lawyer - find some compatriots, do some good work, treat clients fairly, and money that is really pretty damn good by any reasonable standards, though perhaps not enough to average $1.5M ppp. All these whiners are choosing the life they complain about.

It's not just law. Commoditization is savaging professionals in every industry. The bean counters rule all, and they are unbeatable because, what's the argument against them? There is no rational near term argument against a ruthless rush to optimal efficiency. The only argument is a long term one: That sooner or later, nobody will be able to afford what's being produced so damn efficiently. And nobody in a position to make a difference has ever given a fuck about the long term.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there were people at my last biglaw that saw themselves as parallel to me, and they would talk about doing this, but most of them get unhappy at one BL and jump to another, too chicken to try and make it. They somehow fail to realize 1) they have now quit several BL firms, and found them repugnant, and 2) even if the boutique crashes and burns, every BL would hire them (patent being a field marketable to these hell holes) so there is no real risk

It took me a while to realize it. But, several years out now, I can't help but laugh at the whining.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's not just law. Commoditization is savaging professionals in every industry. The bean counters rule all, and they are unbeatable because, what's the argument against them? There is no rational near term argument against a ruthless rush to optimal efficiency. The only argument is a long term one: That sooner or later, nobody will be able to afford what's being produced so damn efficiently. And nobody in a position to make a difference has ever given a fuck about the long term.

I was at the annual outside counsel meeting for my biggest client, and their outside counsel laison was explaining that document review should never been done by a lawyer, and typically should be done somewhere like India.

All I could do was think of how many more years adder has until he can retire.