The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Currently writing a brief responding to a shitlaw brief that's so bad its good
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:28 AM Author: Frisky wine dingle berry sex offender the complete lack of logic, repeated contradictions, non sequiturs, etc. actually make this somewhat challenging to respond to because it's impossible to actually figure out what the shitlawmo is arguing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435444) |
 |
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:31 AM Author: Flickering dilemma pervert 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 |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:33 AM Author: cordovan titillating trust fund knife How's shitlaw? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435449) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:35 AM Author: Flickering dilemma pervert (MAF guy slaving away in BIGLOL) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435451) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:39 AM Author: Frisky wine dingle berry sex offender To be fair,
I got no bonus and am on the verge of being canned for low hours due to me coasting for a year, and now I'm just trying to save face for a few months to assure a good landing. So while I'm up late on a Sunday and will probably pull an all nighter doing something I hate (litigating), it's just a slight bump on the road of otherwise spending 3 out of 5 days of the week billing 0 and poasting on my phone. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:41 AM Author: cordovan titillating trust fund knife 180, smooth sailing, brother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435457) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:42 AM Author: Flickering dilemma pervert why do you need to work the last few months to assure a good landing? references? severance? obvious that you want to get canned so why bother working at all?
also what do u plan to do after this? |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:46 AM Author: Frisky wine dingle berry sex offender References for one. I have a couple of in-house options in the pipeline right now, but assuming they don't work out, I'm going to end up at another biglaw firm and it'd be good to have references at my current firm for future in-house apps, since my references right now are getting a bit stale.
Also I haven't been given a real talk yet, so I can keep putting that off as long as I have decent months. But I've gotten signals that my hours were a problem, so it's definitely in the pipeline if I kept billing double digits. Also, just based on what I know from others before me who have gotten the boot, having some work and being a team player gets you a longer leash in terms of time after the hard talk as opposed to just giving up. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:50 AM Author: Flickering dilemma pervert i thought litigators dont get inhouse? also does biglol offer severance? maybe biglaw considers it as firing for cause rather than layoff? can u get unemployment? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435465) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:59 AM Author: Frisky wine dingle berry sex offender 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.
|
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:07 AM Author: Flickering dilemma pervert good luck bro
|
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:37 PM Author: elite bull headed mother stage at my last firm, there was three month severance where you still worked there but there was a hard end date. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440528) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:51 PM Author: Federal mewling shrine in-house job exit ops favoring litmos with a broad range of experience . . . law really does open a lot of doors (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440632) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:17 AM Author: stirring orchestra pit Thank you for the exemplary fashion part (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435493) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:37 AM Author: Garnet Sadistic Factory Reset Button Shitbriefs are often like that. You have to make their argument before you can make your own. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435454) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:44 AM Author: harsh sound barrier What if the judge agrees with your improved version of their argument and not your rebuttal? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435459) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:48 AM Author: Frisky wine dingle berry sex offender at least the plaintiff isn't pro se. i've only had that happen one time in biglaw, but it was my most hellish experience because the hyper-neurotic partner managing the case refused to call them out for anything out of fear of being a "bully." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435463) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 7:56 PM Author: Aqua Excitant Stag Film This is bad advice if they are raising an issue where they carry the burden. In that case, you can call them stupid without actually calling them stupid buy repeatedly pointing out their failure to satisfy their burden. Maybe they’ll get a chance to refile and u can bill some more (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440235) |
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:31 AM Author: insanely creepy pit spin, ratfucks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435445) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 3:50 AM Author: Judgmental bossy lettuce pocket flask my GOAT favorite shitlaw brief cited Carbolic Smoke Ball as *THE* authority (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435466) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:02 AM Author: Frisky wine dingle berry sex offender this guy pretty much just stole all of our cases from our original motion and copy and pasted them into his opposition without thinking or proofreading. So it ends up something like (diff area of law):
Detail X is, by law, supposed to be disclosed on the document. See 123 vs 789 (1999) ("Detail X does not need to be disclosed."). |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:11 AM Author: Judgmental bossy lettuce pocket flask priceless (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35435486) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 7:50 PM Author: Flickering dilemma pervert 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440205) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:33 PM Author: Federal mewling shrine 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 |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:36 PM Author: Black foreskin depressive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440520) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:40 PM Author: pearl milk (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440553) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:44 PM Author: elite bull headed mother stage lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440582) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:49 PM Author: hyperventilating trailer park potus lol you sound like my uncle (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440622) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:55 PM Author: concupiscible alcoholic chapel patrolman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440649) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 8:46 PM Author: lavender therapy sweet tailpipe Does the brief ever mention JUICEJUICEJUICE? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897297&forum_id=2#35440601) |