Currently writing a brief responding to a shitlaw brief that's so bad its good
| Mustard talking piazza | 02/19/18 | | Sapphire whorehouse boistinker | 02/19/18 | | duck-like fragrant giraffe | 02/19/18 | | Sapphire whorehouse boistinker | 02/19/18 | | Mustard talking piazza | 02/19/18 | | duck-like fragrant giraffe | 02/19/18 | | Sapphire whorehouse boistinker | 02/19/18 | | Mustard talking piazza | 02/19/18 | | Sapphire whorehouse boistinker | 02/19/18 | | Mustard talking piazza | 02/19/18 | | Sapphire whorehouse boistinker | 02/19/18 | | Chestnut plaza | 02/19/18 | | nighttime histrionic masturbator | 02/19/18 | | cracking electric furnace senate | 02/19/18 | | Hateful Pisswyrm Stage | 02/19/18 | | Beady-eyed library | 02/19/18 | | Mustard talking piazza | 02/19/18 | | Tantric jew abode | 02/19/18 | | hideous razzle native faggotry | 02/19/18 | | amber violent brunch | 02/19/18 | | Mustard talking piazza | 02/19/18 | | amber violent brunch | 02/19/18 | | Sapphire whorehouse boistinker | 02/19/18 | | nighttime histrionic masturbator | 02/19/18 | | Doobsian Sooty Home Kitty | 02/19/18 | | Hairraiser roommate | 02/19/18 | | Chestnut plaza | 02/19/18 | | fantasy-prone half-breed | 02/19/18 | | Pearl Therapy | 02/19/18 | | bearded circlehead | 02/19/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:31 AM Author: Sapphire whorehouse boistinker
him: type up shit, bang hot secretary, go to happy hour to network, hustle enough money through BS settlements to lead a chill UMC lifestyle
u: bill 2400 hrs to make 50K bonus, have to be on call 24/7, miss all your family events, cancel vacations AND have to take his shitbrief seriously and respond in an exemplary fashion so that you wont get chewed up by a jew partner
the jokes on you my friend
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435447) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:59 AM Author: Mustard talking piazza
Litigators usually don't go in-house, but occasionally generalist roles open up where litigation is helpful. It doesn't hurt I have some regulatory and random niche experience as well. In house jobs where corporate guys are favored probably outnumber litigation ones by 5:1 or more, though, esp. if you strip away non-legal roles like bank compliance. I think I have a reasonable shot at landing one of them because the fit is the best out of any in-house job I've had a chance at so far, and they're pretty clearly favoring a litmo with a broad range of experiences.
Absent mass public layoffs like those in '08-'10, biglaw does not offer traditional severance. But the time after you get told to find something else is, in effect, severance since no on expects you to work and you'll get paid a full salary anywhere from 1-12 months (though in practice really 1-3, unless you're a new mother or something similar). I am not entirely sure about unemployment since associates rarely if ever actually get "fired," they almost always resign or get put on unpaid leave or something like that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435471)
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:33 PM Author: nighttime histrionic masturbator
I would be your worst nightmare. I decimate anal biglaw dorks in state court all the time. The most predictable thing about you guys is that you all feel the need to respond to and thoroughly debunk whatever I put into an MSJ, no matter what.
I love filing lengthy, well written MSJs (from a polish standpoint) with a bunch of inadmissible/irrelevant stuff that makes your client look like shit, and a bunch of threadbare legal arguments that aren't even entirely supported by the cases cited. Of course, you can't have your client look like an asshole so your reply also contains a bunch of irrelevant shit to correct the record (only further drawing attention to it). You revel in pointing out the inconsistencies and distinctions between my cases and arguments. You shoot down every argument in painstaking detail, no matter how frivolous. You likely go over the line a bit, and say that my central argument is NOT THE LAW and WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED. All the while, you were unknowingly making admissions that hurt you badly on the "real" argument, as was the point of my smokescreen of sophistry.
Then the morning of the hearing comes, and I file my laser-focused reply brief, citing all of the cases that you hoped I wouldn't find (and probably some you weren't aware of). They weren't necessarily your main focus because you had seven other somewhat frivolous arguments to deal with. However as to the real argument, the overstatements in your response are completely debunked as I run through a series of posterboards split down the middle, quotes from your response on one side and directly contradictory quotes from my case law on the other. I probably even took a pot-shot at the length and breadth of your response (even though I caused it). By the time it's your turn, the judge won't even listen even though you were actually right on the law and I am just a charlatan.
My favorite one has to be a case where I knew they would rely heavily on depo testimony from a third party witness to try to create a fact issue. I used a very short paragraph with a couple of depo quotes taken slightly out of context and a bit of my own innuendo to imply that the witness and defendant's corporate rep had an affair. The response went on for about 2 full pages debunking the idea of this "affair." Lmao @ biglawyers
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440509) |
|
|