The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Latham is hiring a new PR manager
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 23rd, 2010 9:55 AM Author: Sepia community account google latham watkins PR
anyone know what's going on with that? |
 |
Date: May 24th, 2010 12:29 AM Author: pungent stag film Goebbels and Goebbels LLP? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15067553) |
Date: May 23rd, 2010 9:57 AM Author: sooty zippy hell immigrant buying out rach (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15061224) |
|
Date: May 24th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: Cerise athletic conference institution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15067545) |
|
Date: May 26th, 2010 1:34 PM Author: alcoholic resort keepsake machete (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15089477) |
|
Date: May 26th, 2010 1:37 PM Author: Racy Sanctuary Reading Party here's his pic http://www.hotlikesauce.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Grim_Reaper.jpg |
|
Date: May 26th, 2010 1:38 PM Author: translucent queen of the night liquid oxygen lol, ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15089509) |
|
Date: May 26th, 2010 1:39 PM Author: Naked sapphire location Doesn't have that go-getter edge that made the Latham name famous. I think this guy is the top contender.
http://www.rotherham-ghosts.com/Demon.jpg |
|
Date: May 26th, 2010 1:50 PM Author: stubborn up-to-no-good nowag ceo how about one of those hot chicks whose face and teeth were destroyed by meth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15089588) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 4:50 AM Author: marvelous brilliant rehab (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15095241) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 5:17 AM Author: salmon razzle-dazzle bawdyhouse What's the salary of a PR manager in BIGLAW? 100K? Seems pretty fucking awesome. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15095269) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 5:23 AM Author: hairless iridescent house affirmative action "We want to fire half this year's first years as well. We expect no more than 20% to end up killing themselves. Please find a positive way to spin this.
Thanks, Bob" |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 5:33 AM Author: salmon razzle-dazzle bawdyhouse Amazed a conservative capitalist like yourself wouldn't find some honor in defending a business decision in the court of public opinion. They deserve representation, too. The chain of blame goes way beyond the law firm if you're playing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15095284) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:02 AM Author: hairless iridescent house affirmative action Honor? No.
But yes, if they pay enough for someone who can't get better then they'll find someone to do their dirty work. Such is the market.
"The chain of blame goes way beyond the law firm if you're playing."
Insofar as the economy tanked? Sure. But how they responded to that was all them. Could the partners have said "look, it'll be a shitty year but we can live on $700k/year this year instead of 2+ million"?
But yes, even scum have the right in this country to hire people who to make the world believe that they are not in fact scum. |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:04 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park an analysis was done on one of the blogs and it was supposed to affect their partner income less than 200k a piece.
also, i suspect they lost revenue in their busy ny office at least because of the lathaming, so that affects it too. |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:06 AM Author: hairless iridescent house affirmative action Holy shit. I assumed it was something enormous. Even then I figured that if I were a partner that a "bad year" at $700k, which is still a huge chunk of cash was still alright and much better than having to throw a bunch of young and dedicated professionals of a cliff. But at $200K/head these fuckers deserve every negative piece bad consequence that comes out of this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15095311) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:22 AM Author: salmon razzle-dazzle bawdyhouse Your last sentence is really enough for me here. Additionally, you grossly over-simplify the work these PR managers take on. They're just another corporate worker; the same corporate defender you'd be if you get back into a coveted large firm job. Defending BPs and all the rest of these greedy companies you'll unquestionably critique given your new populist steak.
Most of these PR types are promoting the cases they take on, clients they defend, pro bono work. They're trying to bring in more clients and make more money. They're like marketers. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2010 3:13 AM Author: hairless iridescent house affirmative action I don't think you understand what I'm saying here. I'm not blaming the guy who takes the job. I don't think there's anything inherently "honorable" about it - it is just a job that a guy takes because he needs money. Period. And yes, as an attorney of course I represent unsavory companies and people. But there's nothing "honorable" about it.
Also, regardless of what the PR guy says the firm still behaved terribly. They can hire whoever they want to paint a smile and flowers on it, but it doesn't change the facts. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2010 5:38 AM Author: Appetizing private investor roast beef lets face it - its a dog eat dog world, and you are a loser. tough but true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15104126) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:02 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park so he's supposed to defend both bad and good business decisions because they're business decisions is what you're saying, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15095308) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:20 AM Author: salmon razzle-dazzle bawdyhouse My premise would be that "bad business decisions" as a definition are a) excruciatingly difficult to clearly identity and b) still worthy of public defense - I think its analogous to the argument that all criminals deserve representation despite the crime committed
|
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:22 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park why would you assume a capitalist would defend a bad business decision? that makes no sense.
bad business decisions are not excruciatingly difficult to clearly identify. were/are you a lib arts major? |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:27 AM Author: salmon razzle-dazzle bawdyhouse On the first: because they might not be "bad" business decisions
On the second: he's butt hurt because he lost his job (doing what? glorified doc review? most attorneys are net-losses for the first few years). It may not be a bad decision. These guys bring in the clients and saving money - morally reprehensible, sure - isn't necessarily bad. Even if there is blow back from clients, the precise reason these PR managers are hired is to contain fallout, keeping the bottom line safe. |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:33 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park yah latham's pr managers have contained the fallout and their reptutation is safe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15095325) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:38 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park read page 120, 3rd paragraph about layoff mistakes costing law firms for 10 years
http://www.luc.edu/law/career/pdfs/Kimball_Handout.pdf
|
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:56 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park "If you think about saving money, culling associates is really not the big game. It's the easy game," he said. Blase added that, under his scenario, a mere 3% savings requires a firm to lay off 10% of its associates.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202428052428 |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:59 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park now mr. wild kitties, given what i've posted above on the costs and benefits of layoffs, and the fact that no V10 other than former V10 LaTTTham decided to go with the MASSIVE LAYOFFS option (arguably V10s have more to lose re rep and recruiting), explain how this was a cost-benefit justified business decision.
|
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 8:11 PM Author: Lilac floppy hominid corner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15099644) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 11:38 PM Author: light heady electric furnace nu kittens is a poli sci shithead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15102184) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2010 3:19 AM Author: hairless iridescent house affirmative action "On the first: because they might not be "bad" business decisions"
They were bad business decisions, or at least business decisions that would justifiably cause anger.
"On the second: he's butt hurt because he lost his job (doing what? glorified doc review? most attorneys are net-losses for the first few years)"
Oh? This isn't correct - if you look at junior attorneys billing rates you'll see that they still produce profit. If you think partners have ever hired associates out of the goodness of their hearts then you are absolutely kidding yourself.
Also, whether or not you consider the work "important" or whatnot is neither here nor there.
"These guys bring in the clients and saving money - morally reprehensible, sure - isn't necessarily bad. Even if there is blow back from clients, the precise reason these PR managers are hired is to contain fallout, keeping the bottom line safe."
So you admit that it was morally reprehensible and that there was probably blow back from clients. So what exactly are you upset about? I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to hire PR managers. I'm suggesting that regardless of who they hire they are still scumbags. You don't even seem to disagree on that point.
Let us rephrase the issue: do you think that partners making $2 mill/year or so are good people if they destroy the careers of some junior associates making $160k/year so that they can pocket an extra few hundred grand per head? No extraneous analysis of who has what rights. Just straight up yes or no. |
|
Date: May 27th, 2010 6:20 AM Author: wonderful thirsty trailer park lol, tyft
Rebecca to Bob: Does the suicide count if it doesn't hit the news? |
|
Date: May 28th, 2010 2:56 AM Author: Thriller deranged boistinker space tyft (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1318779&forum_id=2#15103798) |