I received your letter dated May 11, and I am extremely disappointed that Vinson & Elkins has chosen not to extend me an offer. I remain convinced that V&E is the right firm for me. While it is hard to quibble with the verdict of a panel of 14 people, I believe that a real mistake was made, and I ask that my application be reconsidered.
I assume that V&E's chief objective in hiring new associates is to get the best people it can get. Please consider the fact that in law school, I earned the top score in my section on EVERY PAPER in both of my legal writing courses. (The grading was done anonymously.) My article was selected for publication in the Northwestern Law Review, which is one of the top law reviews in the country. Judge Amy St. Eve, a federal judge with whom I externed, will tell you that I was the best extern she ever had (and her externs were mostly cream-of-the-crop Northwestern students, many of whom went on to federal appellate clerkships). The Judge I work for now, as well as other people with whom I have worked, will tell you that I have unusual talent as a legal analyst. I suggest that before you conclude that I don't measure up to V&E's standards, you ask people with whom I have worked what they think about my work and my abilities. At risk of sounding arrogant, I submit that I would be a standout performer at V&E, even though V&E is an elite firm that can select from among the best candidates.
I sensed that some of my interviewers were uncomfortable with the fact that I am not committed to a specific substantive area of law. I would argue, however, that the tools that we bring to the table as lawyers are far more important than the direct, "relevant" experience we bring. "Practical" experience is no substitute for creative intelligence, intellectual sophistication, and pure tenacity. The career clerk in my judge's chambers has 20+ years of experience, so she knows a lot of things that I don't know. But she is not in my league as a legal analyst and writer. I have seen enough during my clerkship to say with confidence that I am capable of better work - far better work - than most of the "experienced" attorneys who practice before my judge.
As a judicial clerk, I have been deeply immersed in all sorts of cases at every phase of the litigation process. There are many procedural issues that are common across all different substantive areas of law. There are many connections and overlaps between the different substantive areas. Even within a given substantive area, every case is different, turning on its own facts. The relatively inexperienced associates who specialize in a particular area will have only seen a small part of the universe of possible issues that may arise in their area. Given these facts, I am highly skeptical that, say, a 3rd-year associate who has specialized in "oil and gas" is going to be light years ahead of me in that field. The hypothetical 3rd-year associate will certainly know a lot more than I know about the art and practice of lawyering. But it is highly doubtful that her substantive oil and gas knowledge (which of course exceeds mine) will give her a significant advantage over me when it comes time to analyze the next oil and gas case (which will no doubt involve issues that neither of us have seen before). I want to work on interesting, challenging cases, but I don't believe it would be rational for me to arbitrarily limit myself to a specific substantive area of law at this point in my career. I'll find my niche down the road. I would think that V&E would prefer that their new associates be open-minded enough to try different things.
I would also add that there are intangible factors to be considered. I left a lucrative job in my mid-thirties, working hard to score in the top 1% nationwide on the LSAT so I could go to an elite law school. (I was the oldest guy in my class.) When I was a computer programmer, I was a one-man consulting firm, saving my employer (the state of Louisiana) millions of dollars in costs and making the lives of thousands of people (the system's users) easier. Often, I would go to bed at night, half dreaming, half awake, obsessing over a thorny problem that I encountered. When the creative inspiration would come in the morning, those were the greatest thrills of my life. I know what its like to work 80-hour weeks for months on end. I know what's it like to be considered the expert of last resort - the guy they call in the middle of the night when the data gets corrupted and no one else can figure out what to do. I take my work SERIOUSLY and I take great pride in what I do. I would submit that these are the qualities that can make me a "franchise player" at V&E.
I recognize that the chance that you will reconsider and extend me an offer are very slim. (Lawyers tend to be extremely risk-averse and unwilling to do things differently than they've done before.) But please give this request some serious consideration. I suggest that you begin by talking with some of the folks who have worked with me.
Finally, if you are not willing to change your verdict on me, would you please do the favor of giving me some honest feedback about why you were not impressed enough with me to make an offer? Is it my age? (I'm 39, but I'm healthier than most 25-year-olds.) Is it that I'm losing my hair? (I am willing to undergo transplants!) Is it the fact that I wore a pink shirt to my interview? (My wife picked it out.) Is it the fact that I took the Louisiana bar exam before taking the Texas bar exam? (I took the Louisiana exam because I wanted to get licensed in my home state, and I wanted to get it out of the way first because I had to learn all that civil code stuff.) Is it because I have spent most of my life in Louisiana? (Houston is only a 3-hour car ride or a 40-minute plane ride from Baton Rouge.) Is it because I have a minor speech impediment (a "lacerated S")? Is it because I am introverted? Do I come across as arrogant? Too timid? Is it because I'm not committed to a specific substantive area of litigation?
You judged me as a qualified candidate based on my paper credentials, as evidenced by your willingness to expend the resources to bring me in for an interview. I assure you that I am a much better lawyer than even my paper credentials suggest! Please give me another look. It would be a shame if V&E and me are deprived of a mutually profitable relationship because I failed to present myself well in person on May 8.
Date: June 30th, 2006 2:06 AM Author: Bull Headed Telephone
it's especially sad because he was a computer programmer before the dotcom boom (assuming that wasn't another foolish career change) and should have made millions of dollars off some start up
Date: June 30th, 2006 10:31 AM Author: spectacular native halford
You know I've occassionally thought about emailing to ask why I didn't get an offer at a particular place (for self improvement purposes if there's something obvious I'm screwing up.) This email has scared me straight.
Date: June 30th, 2006 11:59 AM Author: Carmine jewess
It's actually ok to send the recruiter a brief email and ask for feedback. Worst thing that can happen is they'll ignore it and you'll never see them again. Best thing that can happen is that the hiring partner is a nice guy and he'll answer you himself (I do know someone this happened to).
Date: June 30th, 2006 1:56 AM Author: Flatulent associate
An absolute classic.
"Is it my age? (I'm 39, but I'm healthier than most 25-year-olds.) Is it that I'm losing my hair? (I am willing to undergo transplants!) ... Is it because I have a minor speech impediment (a "lacerated S")?"
How about all of the above? And nice job of highlighting everything that likely turned them off the first time.
Date: June 30th, 2006 1:59 AM Author: Sooty bearded puppy center
i love the glaring grammatical error in his last sentence
also, i love the pithy "this is a guy i interviewed last week. WTF?" by the guy who forwarded the email.
finally, i love how he butresses his academic qualifications with this amazing factoid: ", I earned the top score in my section on EVERY PAPER in both of my legal writing courses. (The grading was done anonymously.)"
Date: June 30th, 2006 2:04 AM Author: Poppy brunch stock car
This letter should be made into a template where you can just add the firm that dinged you and your law school; every firm that ever dings an xoxo poster should receive this letter.
Date: June 30th, 2006 2:16 AM Author: Flatulent associate
This is exactly what would be great about it. The first one they get will get passed around the office and everybody will laugh at the dude who sent it. Then they would receive 10 more identical letters the next day, and they would quickly realize that the joke was on them.
Date: June 30th, 2006 2:13 AM Author: Vivacious Pearl School Cafeteria Dingle Berry
Dear Greg Luce:
I was messing around on the internet last night when I came across an (embarrassing) email you had sent to Vinson & Elkins - a moderaltely prestigious law firm located in some shit state - expressing your wish to be reconsidered for an associate position. Your letter was long, self-aggrandizing, immodest, disrespectful, and poorly written. The email was posted on a discussion board, by some random person (rumor has it the poster was a sneaky V&E summer associate), and many posters rightly ridiculed you for it. Here is the link:
Date: June 30th, 2006 2:18 AM Author: Drab abode pistol
99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 437 is his student note.
Author footnote:
* I wish to thank Professor Max Schanzenbach and Professor Anthony D'Amato for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this Comment. I also wish to thank Professor D'Amato for teaching me to "think like a lawyer" - and Clinical Professor Susan Provenzano for teaching me to write like one. I thank the editors and staff members of the Northwestern Law Review for their judicious editorial work. I am especially grateful to Executive Editor Chiawen Kiew for graciously accommodating my last-minute revisions. Finally, I thank my family and friends who believed in me - especially my wife Josefina who patiently endured many nights as a "library widow" while I prepared this Comment.
Date: June 30th, 2006 2:28 AM Author: Drab abode pistol
Well this email is starting to circulate widely (there were 50+ people it was forwarded to before it got to me). At this rate no one is going to want to hire him.
Date: June 30th, 2006 2:32 AM Author: Vivacious Pearl School Cafeteria Dingle Berry
GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE GOERGE LUCE NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW EMPLOYMENT FIRED GOERGE LUCE INCOMPETENT NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW FIRED TOO OLD DISRESPECTFUL BAD ASSOCIATE HISTORY FIRED GEORGE LUCE
Date: June 30th, 2006 10:23 AM Author: walnut multi-billionaire community account
Her blog is entitled "It's Easy to Find Jesus When You've Run Out of Cocaine," which I assume is a dig at the president, which seems pretty ballsy when you work at V & E in Houston. Small wonder she's hidden/deleted it.
Date: June 30th, 2006 10:42 AM Author: pink appetizing office cumskin
This could and should get him fired from his clerkship. You think the staff attorney -- or the judge who hired her -- appreciates a clerk talking about how inferior her lawyerly skillz are?
Date: June 30th, 2006 5:20 PM Author: Bonkers Principal's Office
Yeah, I already copied that section for pasting:
"The career clerk in my judge's chambers has 20+ years of experience, so she knows a lot of things that I don't know. But she is not in my league as a legal analyst and writer."
Date: June 30th, 2006 12:03 PM Author: excitant mauve sanctuary
He might not have been on law review at Northwestern. In fact, he could have had bad grades. He just said that he got a paper published on the NU law review.
Date: June 30th, 2006 12:05 PM Author: Carmine jewess
True. I posted that mostly to bring Joe_Vaj out of the woodwork for some trolling fun.
You could be law review at Harvard, but if you're a giant douchebag like that dude no one will want to hire you. I think we all know someone like that.
Date: June 30th, 2006 12:02 PM Author: Irradiated Slate Son Of Senegal
holy crap. I know that guy. I graduated in his class at NU. He was a 2005 grad so he has been out of work for awhile. He was weird, although not as weird as Zve Rosenberg
Date: August 13th, 2006 2:40 AM Author: Clear clown Subject: That's incorrect, ttboy
Close but wrong. In the 2005 class, Zvi was the third youngest. Hudson Hollister was younger than Zvi and Mike Lawyer was the youngest in the class.
Btw, from what I heard from another 1L in our section at the time, George Luce got a C+ in Civ Pro with Hoskins. I wonder if that's true. Anyways, he sure was a nice, friendly guy. I'm sorry to see him getting so publicly pwned.
Date: June 30th, 2006 6:27 PM Author: Stirring psychic
he would either be listed as an editor during his 3L year or a staff member during his 2L year. sometimes though, people write on and their names don't make the first edition of the staff member section.
Date: June 30th, 2006 6:28 PM Author: Carmine jewess
OK, I didn't see staff members listed anywhere, but he was never listed as an editor. So does that mean he wasn't on LR? Or that he may have been on as a 2L but quit as a 3L or something?
Date: June 30th, 2006 5:16 PM Author: Aqua apoplectic corner travel guidebook
Which basically says he can't pick his own clothes out, but was concerned enough about it to seek to distance himself from the decision by throwing her under the bus.
Date: June 30th, 2006 5:22 PM Author: Bonkers Principal's Office
"The career clerk in my judge's chambers has 20+ years of experience, so she knows a lot of things that I don't know. But she is not in my league as a legal analyst and writer."
Better hope the clerk's office doesn't get wind of this statement before the firm calls to re-check his credentials.
Date: June 30th, 2006 5:27 PM Author: Aqua apoplectic corner travel guidebook
After rereading the email, I now think this has to be flame. How about when he says Lawyers are risk averse. Why say something so stoopid? I mean that is like right off XO.
And he says, "At risk of sounding arrogant ..." Who would say something so stoopid.
If not flame, something like this should really ruin his career if their was any justice in the world.
The best part about this thread is that someone reading this thread is going to, at some point, run into "George Luce" during the course of his/her career. And promptly burst out laughing.
Date: June 30th, 2006 5:57 PM Author: Electric regret menage
I can't believe it's real; it's just too perfect for xoxo...but if it's fake, it was incredibly elaborate to research the names of 4 V&E junior associates who were the original forwarders, etc...
Date: July 21st, 2006 5:56 PM Author: Domesticated galvanic plaza Subject: Confidentiality
You know, Someone should tell Ms. Chatman it is not a good idea to blast stuff like this in e-mail to people you can't trust (or period for that matter) without deleting some names or something. It would be funny if someone let some partners of this firm know about what was going on. I don't think I'd want Ms. Chatman working for me knowing that she can't keep her mouth shut or take measures to insure confidentiality.
Here are the e-mails (all at velaw.com):
rschick, sdavis (PARTNER), jdavidow, dharvin (PARTNER), epipkin, nkornegay, pmehta, grmurphy (PARTNER), jhodge, jreeder (PARTNER), cchatman (the e-mailer herself), kheld (PARTNER), clawson, jpowers, aomar. Then there are the folks that Ms. Chatman sent the e-mail to that most likely leaked it: hrumbaugh, pdennis, tlankau.
Ms. Chatman, If you are reading this... You chose the wrong people to trust. Next time take out names and such before you forward this around.
Date: July 21st, 2006 6:15 PM Author: Domesticated galvanic plaza
I just didn't understand why they didn't hire me and wanted them to reconsider. I was perfect for that job. I just thought that showing them how much I wanted the job they would maybe reconsider. I'm sure I'm smarter than you... You obviously have nothing better to do than sit on a computer and put down other people all day. Get a fucking life.
Date: July 21st, 2006 6:18 PM Author: Translucent submissive home
It actually wasn't a bad letter until you got to the paragraph asking why they didn't hire you and listing all of your insecurities. If you had left that paragraph out (and the line about being smarter than your co-clerk), you wouldn't be the laughing stock of the legal world - there's no way they would have reconsidered and given you the job, but at least you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself.
Also, FYI, telling everybody how smart you are is not the way to get a job, make friends, or accomplish anything else in life.
Date: July 21st, 2006 6:22 PM Author: olive mother
Um, what was the confidential information that she disclosed here? And how would your judge feel about your insulting his career clerk in an email to a bunch of "the wrong people to trust"?
Date: July 21st, 2006 6:31 PM Author: olive mother
I don't think there's much to be gained by getting this email in the hands of the guy's judge. He's a douchebag, but he's doing a good enough job of self-pwning that there's really no reason to add fuel to the fire.
You know, except for the paragraph about his experience as an extern, most of this isn't THAT bad. The last paragraph is probably a bit embarassing, but sometimes people make rash decisions.
You don't trash / insult the abilities of others though. That's classless.
Date: March 13th, 2007 11:30 AM Author: fighting state
Just read a post from a year ago but ill comment anyway...
This guy wasnt hired because he wasnt qualified or because of his age. He wasnt hired becuase hes a COMPLETE DOUCHEBAG. God who wants people like him as co-workers. He'd be a total cancer to the firm and bring down everyones morale and work product.
Date: June 9th, 2007 12:41 PM Author: swashbuckling business firm national security agency
Wow... just came across this thread...
I was in George's section in my first year law class. George is a terrific guy and I hate to see this happening to such a genuinely good person (No, I am not George).
George may have made an error in judgment. If we were all judged solely by the worst decisions we made, none of us would look good in a thread such as this one.
In the event that prospective employers may read this in the future, take it from someone who attended law school with him: George is an industrious, bright guy. He made a mistake and I'm sure he has learned from it.
The real villian in this whole affair was that mean bitch Carliss Chatman that forwarded the email with snarky comments. Yeah, the guy Luce is nuts but Chatman showed TERRIBLE judgment in the way she handled it. Luckily V&E got rid of that bitch but now she is at Morgan Lewis, even a bigger TTT.
Carliss Chatman, I wouldn't hire you to fight a $20 traffic ticket. You suck.
Date: August 22nd, 2008 7:27 PM Author: mustard dilemma
i was gonna jump on board until i noticed she was black. pretty atypical for a black person to be a snarky passive-aggressive bitch. she must have some white blood as a creole.