It was the wrong thread - Page 92

Tyrone Slothrop · 12-05-2005, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Confidential to the SJC: ignorance of California law might be considered a plus amongst your constituencies, FWIW.

Democratic mediocrities deserve to be represented on the Court as well?

Hank Chinaski · 12-05-2005, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Democratic mediocrities deserve to be represented on the Court as well?

Wait. Are arguing for Ginsburg to be removed?

Tyrone Slothrop · 12-05-2005, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Wait. Are arguing for Ginsburg to be removed?

He never got confirmed, Hank. The pot thing did him in.

Spanky · 12-06-2005, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, Kathleen Sullivan, Dean of Stanford Law School and leading candidate for a Supreme Court seat under a Democratic president, failed the California Bar last week (well, in July, but you know). See the front page of the wall street journal.

Ouch. That just sucks for her. If she froze up I feel sorry for her. On the other hand if she didn't prepare properly that was one stupid move. I don't care how busy she is, she should have made the time. That failure is going to follow her forever.

Atticus Grinch · 12-06-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Though I feel kinda bad for her, that is really funny. She's an academic. Probably froze up on the "practical" section of the exam.

The practical section is horseshit anyway. There's nothing practical about learning to write a memo in 3.0. In 0.25 yes; in 9.0 yes; in 3.0 no.

Atticus Grinch · 12-06-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Ouch. That just sucks for her. If she froze up I feel sorry for her. On the other hand if she didn't prepare properly that was one stupid move. I don't care how busy she is, she should have made the time. That failure is going to follow her forever.

The reason she failed is the same reason other people fail the attorney exam. After a few years of law practice or academic politics or whatever, you forget how to turn off the parts of your brain that make you capable of writing a good LS essay. Only three years of LS can make you dumb in a smart way. It's like when Homer had to tap the crayon harder up his nose to think that an extended warranty was a good investment.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 12-06-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The reason she failed is the same reason other people fail the attorney exam. After a few years of law practice or academic politics or whatever, you forget how to turn off the parts of your brain that make you capable of writing a good LS essay.

I'd buy that with people who practice, but the last 20 years of her life have included (presumably) grading LS exams.

If I got a low grade from her at Stanford LS, I'd ask for a regrade immediately by someone who knows how to write an answer.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 12-06-2005, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't care how busy she is, she should have made the time. That failure is going to follow her forever.

Agreed. Quinn Emanuel is probably looking like quite the idiots for parading her in front of clients instead of telling her to buckle down.

At least she can still practice in NY, the 9th circuit, and the supreme court.

Atticus Grinch · 12-07-2005, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If I got a low grade from her at Stanford LS

That's unpossible. Stanford is the Lake Woebegon of law schools.

SlaveNoMore · 12-11-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Spanky
Ouch. That just sucks for her. If she froze up I feel sorry for her. On the other hand if she didn't prepare properly that was one stupid move. I don't care how busy she is, she should have made the time. That failure is going to follow her forever.

I'll come out of retirement for this one....

I took this same test.

I PASSED. Apparantly 1 out of 4 on the Lawyers test.

Unlike some Academian Dean, who apparantly is so disconnected from 15 years of her own grads - that she had no idea that "the exam wasn't like practicing law"

Oops. Fuck you Sullivan!!

And if I went to Stanford, I want a refund.

And unlike you, you idiot, I am now admitted in NY (passed), NJ (passed), D.C. (reciprocity), WA (reciprocity) and CA (passed the BAR EXAM - stupid fuck!!!)

Atticus Grinch · 12-11-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'll come out of retirement for this one....

I took this same test.

I PASSED. Apparantly 1 out of 4 on the Lawyers test.

Unlike some Academian Dean, who apparantly is so disconnected from 15 years of her own grads - that she had no idea that "the exam wasn't like practicing law"

Oops. Fuck you Sullivan!!

And if I went to Stanford, I want a refund.

And unlike you, you idiot, I am now admitted in NY (passed), NJ (passed), D.C. (reciprocity), WA (reciprocity) and CA (passed the BAR EXAM - stupid fuck!!!)

This is what separates the Hard Ballers from the mere Old Skoolers --- the Old Skoolers claim they're posting drunk.

Captain · 12-14-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is what separates the Hard Ballers from the mere Old Skoolers --- the Old Skoolers claim they're posting drunk.

What are Hard Ballers and Old Skoolers?

NotFromHere · 01-25-2006, 03:34 PM

No one is surprised.

Ex-‘Survivor’ Hatch found guilty of tax evasion
Reality show winner failed to play taxes on $1 million show prize

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Richard Hatch, who won $1 million in the first season of “Survivor,” was found guilty Wednesday of failing to pay taxes on his winnings.

Hatch was handcuffed and taken into custody after U.S. District Judge Ernest Torres said he was a potential flight risk.

He also was convicted of evading taxes on $327,000 (that's way too high for his talent) he earned as co-host of a Boston radio show and $28,000 in rent on property he owned. He was acquitted of seven bank, mail and wire fraud charges.

Hatch, 44, faces up to 13 years in prison and a fine of $600,000. Sentencing was scheduled for April 28.

Jurors deliberated for less than a day after more than a week of testimony.

Besides the tax charges, prosecutors accused Hatch of using money donated to his charitable foundation, Horizon Bound, an outdoors program he planned to open for troubled youth. He allegedly spent the money on expenses including tips to a limousine driver, dry cleaning and tens of thousands of dollars on improvements to a house he owned.

Near the end of the trial, an explanation for Hatch’s failure to pay taxes was raised by his lawyer — but never mentioned in the jury’s presence. Hatch’s lawyer, Michael Minns, said Hatch caught fellow contestants cheating and struck a deal with the show’s producers to pay his taxes if he won. But Hatch was never asked about the allegation when he testified.

Instead, Minns told jurors that Hatch, who lives in Newport, was the “world’s worst bookkeeper” and said his client never meant to do anything wrong.

redheaded stepkid · 03-06-2006, 10:50 PM

I'm not sure if this board gets much substantive play, but I am casting a wide net for info......

I'm a first year at Ohio BIGlaw and while it may be a little early to have partnership questions, I like to be prepared (and as tax time approaches I am doing a little long-term economic plannin).

When someone becomes a partner at a biglaw firm, what is the typical buy-in? Is it a flat sum? Percentage? What is the basis? Physical assets plus some calculated revenue valuation? Is it all due upon election to partnership or is it a graduated buy-in over time? Is the buy-in tax deductible as a business expense?

thanks.

Hank Chinaski · 03-07-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by redheaded stepkid
I'm not sure if this board gets much substantive play, but I am casting a wide net for info......

I'm a first year at Ohio BIGlaw and while it may be a little early to have partnership questions, I like to be prepared (and as tax time approaches I am doing a little long-term economic plannin).

When someone becomes a partner at a biglaw firm, what is the typical buy-in? Is it a flat sum? Percentage? What is the basis? Physical assets plus some calculated revenue valuation? Is it all due upon election to partnership or is it a graduated buy-in over time? Is the buy-in tax deductible as a business expense?

thanks.

Sometimes flat sum- sometimes tied to the (small) percentage you intitially own. If large typically some financing is offered. At some firms it's a way to fuck you one (they say) last time and line the older guy's pockets.

but it varies. And you can certainly ask. the only reason you shouldn't ask would be if your reviews/feedback have been bad. There's a sock called Ironweed. He had homogenously bad reviews. After his 6th year review he asked details re. partnership, and the guy actually took the NYT's help wanted pages out of his trash can and handed it to him. True story.