Discussion of Firms and Life in SF/SV

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Not strictly law-related, but here is an interesting article about Salesforce.com.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It was deleted. Hey, I saved something for posterity! That it was about farts was simply a bonus.

I love to hate the administrators on the old board, now that the Corporate Censors have them by the balls. As this now appears to be the only uncensored forum for discussing law firms, I say:


Fuck Carr & Ferrell!

There. Let's see if those buttheads can reach this. After all, information wants to be free!

:butt: :butt::butt::butt:

[AngryMulletMan]

Article requires subscription and I am link challenged:

Skjerven Files for Bankruptcy as Suit Looms
The Recorder

Facing a lawsuit from its San Jose landlord, the now defunct Skjerven Morrill has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy petition, filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 11, said that the firm has estimated debts of $1 million to $10 million and estimated assets of the same amount. Documents filed with the petition also note that the firm was in arbitration over a suit filed by former name partner Alan MacPherson who left Skjerven in April 2002.

[AngryMulletMan]

This is from an article posted on the website of the State Bar of California. Apparently, there was a dramatic uptick this year in law school applications nationwide, but west coast schools have been especially popular with applicants. This section of the article made me laugh because my own research had indicated I had a greater-than-90-percent chance of getting into all of MY chosen law schools a few years back:

"What this really means is that it's a lot more competitive," Haggerty said. "And it's more difficult to get into law school."

First-year law student James Moering is quick to agree. He applied to six California law schools this year. A graduate of the University of California at Santa Cruz with a 3.8 grade point average, he knew that his Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score — 156 on his second try — made some top-ranking schools a long shot. But with his strong GPA and an internship in a public defender's office under his belt, he felt he still had a good chance at a number of ranking schools. In fact, he says, his research suggested he had a greater-than-90-percent chance of getting into three of his chosen schools.

Then the response letters began to arrive. He was admitted to his "shoo-in" school, California Western School of Law in San Diego, but that was it. He was rejected by one school and put on waiting lists at the remaining four, including first-choice Santa Clara University School of Law.

"I was just shocked I didn't get accepted outright," he recalls. "I just wasn't looking as attractive as I would have in previous years."

AM(poor kid might as well put his LSAT scores on his resume now)M

[frodo corleone]

The amazing thing is that I, too, am shocked because my research had indicated I had a greater than 90% chance of getting in on a three-way with Britney and Madonna, but I didn't, Christina did. And my LSAT was way higher than that dork's.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by AngryMulletMan
A graduate of the University of California at Santa Cruz with a 3.8 grade point average

When did UC Santa Cruz start handing out grades?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
When did UC Santa Cruz start handing out grades?

I think they changed the policy from grades-optional in the mid-90s because UCSC grads were complaining (surprise, surprise) that they were at a competitive disadvantage in grad school admissions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The American Lawyer's 2003 Associate Survey is out, and you can look at it http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1063212116880 here. For a chart breaking the results down by city, go http://www.law.com/special/professio...ty_chart.shtml In this area, the firm's ranked as followed:

1. Orrick (Menlo Park)
2. Clifford Chance
3. Gibson, Dunn
4. Morrison & Foerster (SF) (tie)
Thelen Reid
6. Latham
7. Heller Ehrman
8. Cooley (Palo Alto)
9. Morrison & Foerster (Palo Alto)
10. Paul, Hastings
11. Pillsbury Winthrop
12. O'Melveny & Myers
13. McDermott, Will & Emry (Palo Alto)
14. Wilson, Sonsini (Palo Alto)

A few random observations:

-- You can't conclude that the firms that scored really well or really poorly did so because only a few people answered the survey. The firm here with by far the most respondents, Wilson, also finished last. (Hmmm.) And only two firms had more respondents than Orrick's SV office, which finished tops by a healthy margin.

-- A lot of big names don't show up here.

-- It's unclear what the significance of the last column, Overall Workplace Rating, is since it doesn't tie directly to rank. E.g., Latham ranked ahead of Heller, but has a lower Overall Workplace Rating.

-- IMHO, these surveys are worth what you pay for them.

[leagleaze]

We received a request today from a representative of Carr & Ferrell. The person asked us if we would delete post 542. Em did not refer to a specific board but after a bit of looking around we realized it came from this one.

This was our response:

We can appreciate as [title redacted] for Carr and Ferrell you would find the post to which you refer distressing. LawTalkers however does not control content and we do not delete postings of our users merely for being offensive.

However, we will let the posters know of your distress, and if the poster wishes to change it, that person of course may do so.

With our regards,


LawTalkers

[Seven of Nine]

Originally posted by leagleaze
We received a request today from a representative of Carr & Ferrell. The person asked us if we would delete post 542. Em did not refer to a specific board but after a bit of looking around we realized it came from this one.

This was our response:

We can appreciate as [title redacted] for Carr and Ferrell you would find the post to which you refer distressing. LawTalkers however does not control content and we do not delete postings of our users merely for being offensive.

However, we will let the posters know of your distress, and if the poster wishes to change it, that person of course may do so.

With our regards,


LawTalkers

ROTFLMAO!

You know, I had nothing against C&F personally or any individuals who work there, but I must say that their attempts at censorship of constitutionally protected expression are laughable. Neigh, PATHETIC.

So, at this time I must decline to change the original message.

However, I would welcome more open messages from the powers that be at Carr & Ferrell. Perhaps they could flame me online! Here boys! Bring it Here!

Joy Joy.

Seven

[leagleaze]

Okey Dokey Seven. It stays as it is.

Thanks for the response.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

There's a long article about Orrick available for free on The Recorder's web site. Orrick wants to marry someone, but no one wants to marry it -- or at least that's the gist.

Orrick's name has been tied to iconic government projects since its founding 140 years ago. It helped issue bonds to finance construction of the Golden Gate Bridge and refurbish Carnegie Hall. Such work has given the firm prestige -- it is ranked as the No. 1 bond counsel for U.S. public finance by Thomson Financial -- and close connections to the banking industry. Its client roster includes Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Credit Suisse.

Of Orrick's three practice areas -- finance, corporate and litigation -- the finance work remains its strongest suit, representing 45 percent of the firm's revenue last year. The No. 1 public finance firm in the country, Orrick says it collects between $35 million and $50 million a year in revenue from government contracts.

However, public finance work is low-margin, high-volume work that may not be particularly appealing to potential merger partners.

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by leagleaze
We received a request today from a representative of Carr & Ferrell. The person asked us if we would delete post 542.

Perhaps there should be a menu option called "Letters to the Admins" which has these sorts of requests and your responses, thereby providing a clue to the law firm PR folks that administrative action in their favor will be unlikely in such cases.

. . . LawTalkers . . . does not control content and we do not delete postings of our users merely for being offensive. . . .

This looks like something that can be used to fill that empty space at the top of the page next to the logo.

Edited for word choice.

[c2ed]

Get out there and vote.

[RANT]
What is up with the ballots? I can't stand the fill-in-the-arrow thing. What if someone has palsy and screws up? Real nice. Is it so hard to just have one of those lever pull stations? Ok, so there are 135 candidates so logistically it's not optimal. Which brings me to another rant - 135 people? WTH? Just effed up people, just effed up.

[/rant]

C(gonna go get a Diet Coke, grumble and shake my head at the general populace)deuced

Welcome to law firm hell:

The Recorder Presents: ShitStorm 2003