Or you're in front of one of them surly killjoy judges.

2000? 2400?
 

Atticus is exactly right. 200 hour-months are like heroin; its easy at first, but eventually to achieve the high/goal, you gotta start stealing/padding.

I've only been at this for about 5 years and only at 2 BigLaw firms, but the people alleging 2400 hours billed are all the same guy/gal: they're always on the "monster litigations/transactions", always at the office 12 hours a day, always complaining/bragging about how many hours they're working, and yet seem to spend a lot of time chatting with people, generally enjoying themselves, and never seem to produce a whole lot more work-product than anybody else. Now, maybe they're just happy workaholics, but I suspect that they're filling in their timesheets at the end of the day by going "Let's see, I was here 14 hours today, less 1 hour for lunch, less, say, 1/2-hour for bullshitting, so that leaves 12-1/2 hours, divided by 3 cases, that's 4.3 each! God, my bonus is gonna be great!"

Look, I'm no Puritan when it comes to padding a little, but there are a lot of people out there giving themselves way too much leeway on the issue. With rare exception, almost none of us are capable of providing our clients with 2400 hours worth of high-quality work in a year.

2000? 2400?
 

If you bill 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, that's 2500 hours. If you regularly work into the evening and on the weekends, that's not hard to do. Which is not to deny the existence of the species of GA you describe.

2000? 2400?
 

Working ten hours a day, every day, for a year is one thing. Billing ten hours a day, every day, for a year is quite another. At 50 full weeks of billing, your two work weeks of non-billing is eaten up --- and exceeded --- by the 14 state court holidays we'll have in California in 2004. So either you're working ten hours on New Year's and MLK and Lincoln's and President's and Cesar Chavez (okay, who am I kidding) and Memorial Day and July 4th and Labor Day and Columbus Day (who am I kidding) and Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving and the day after Thanksgiving and Christmas and New Year's Eve, or you're not taking any vacation or sick days at all.

Can you eat a sandwich at your desk every day for a year? Do you ruminate on potential Rule 56 motions at the urinal? Are you one of those guys who always does his MCLE hours on weekends? I think it's far more likely that a person writing down 2,400 or more without a trial (or whatever Slave does --- supposedly) is doing what Frodo's suggesting: counting hours at the workplace and allocating them among clients who don't care about how much they're billed.

I wish we could get to a place in this profession where every second year writing down 2,500 gets one "talking to" by Sidd about the evil of padding and another talking to by Sebby about the dangers of toolishness. The ancestors of the people billing more than 2,200 were doubtless suggesting to Pharoah that maybe his tomb should be constructed with even bigger sandstone blocks, seeing as how we're all already out here in the desert and everything.

2000? 2400?
 

my last big law had a PI group for awhile- until conflicts killed it- (you ever see a potential defendants conflict check for representing the estate of an airplane crash fatality? )

Anyway those guys had it made. end of the day "10 hrs. Work on Ford case."

2000? 2400?
 

Could you clarify. I read this to be anti-semitism*, implying that all the padders are Jewish. To give you the benefits, however, it might be possible you worked with an Egyptian guy who did the ole 2350.






*Yes I realize that semites might include the Egyptians, technically. I'm speaking in the vernacular.

2000?
 

No doubt. I was mainly speaking about myself. I've billed over 2400 more than once, and always as the result of being in a trial that lasted over a month.

Oh me, me oh my
 

One has to wonder.

Personally, I doubt Cooley will find a marriage partner. They are too big, with too many weak points and too many potential conflicts, to attract a high-end firm that wants to use them to start a No. Cal. base. Perhaps they might attract a mid to lower level player -- a la Pillsbury Winthrop -- but even then, it would be tough. And one has to wonder if the egos of the main rainmakers, assuming any are left, would allow that.

I suspect they'll survive, but in drastically reduced form. Maybe they'll even find their soul again -- once upon a time, Cooley was regarded as the humane, cool biglaw firm.

Ahem
 

Correct. December is always one of my busiest months.

2000? 2400?
 

Life is much different as a transactional attorney. 2400 is barely above average in my group. And for every 180 month, you have a 240 month which more than offsets it. Holidays play no part - Aside from Christmas and Easter, no one much gives a shit whether you want to celebrate a holiday. It is a sad, sad lifestyle.

2000? 2400?
 

No wonder you're so cranky all the time.

2000? 2400?
 

Exactly. See Sidd, I really am a nice guy, it's just this job thing that has me so bent.

2000? 2400?
 

Your sources suck. I do not think that any slave, Hebrew or not, who volunteered to schlep larger sandstone blocks could be called a padder.

• So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.

Exodus 1:11-14. Sounds like Latham, actually. Shalom!

Oh me, me oh my
 

What are they regarded as now?

Oh me, me oh my
 

Typical SiVal firm, which means they are still cooler and more humane than NY firms, but it's all relative.

2000? 2400?
 

oh so you were equating the padders to the slave masters, and I guess analogizing to young P senior A guys skimming off the work of the newbies. Remind them then Atticus, for the bonus and extra shares they are running a serious risk of dead first born son.

2000? 2400?
 

{Sigh.} I guess the reason Jesus got away with using parables is that he gave us 102,500 Sundays in which they could be explained by certified technicians. I don't have the same patience or manpower. Shalom!

2000? 2400?
 

2 Corinthians 1:6
If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer.

Ephesians 4:2
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

1 Thessalonians 5:14
And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.


As you read this, you will notice links that consist of a name plus numbers separated by a semicolon. These are references to verses in the Bible related to the ideas presented here. You can click on those links to view the verse in a separate window. For example: John 3:16 refers to the part of the Bible called the Book of John, the third chapter of that book, and the 16th verse of that chapter. The website where these links are found contains the Bible in a searchable format in many languages in addition to English (e.g. French, Spanish, German, Arabic and others). You may be able to view the references in your native language.


Christians should be patient.

From the Bible verses listed above, it is clear Christians should be patient with other people. This means continuing to be loving and kind toward others even when they do bad things to you. It means being kind even to people who have done wrong.

Note how this is different from the common idea in our culture of "tolerance." The popular notion of tolerance is that there is no such thing as good and bad, or right and wrong, therefore we must accept people no matter what they do. Christians recognize that some acts are wrong. The Bible calls this sin. Christians are expected to love and accept others even when they do wrong or sin. This is patience. This is true tolerance.

How can I be patient?

Sometimes people do things that are so infuriating it seems impossible to be patient. Yet Christians are expected to be kind and loving even in these situations. How can I be patient in extremely difficult situations? The Bible teaches that Christians have a special source of power to live life in a way that pleases God. That power is the spirit of God living in each Christian ( John 14:15-21). By praying to God we can ask for help to be patient.

2000? 2400? Legal Theology???
 

I'm from back east.does whiff translate here? or should i do a response from gsm's lingo- "you are 10% correct Frodo"

2000? 2400? Legal Theology???
 

Hank, you don't litigate, do you?

And just because I'm trying to reach 2400 hours and can't leave the office yet (I kid), I don't believe the "common idea" of tolerance in "our culture" means there is no good or bad. I think it just means not making final determinations on something's value (particularly not something has complex as human behaivor) without first trying to understand what it is/means and how your own biases (educated or not) play into your interpretation of it. I think this concept dovetails nicely into your promotion of Judeo-Christian patience.

This is way better than the conversations about the prestige of Franklin Pierce Law Center on the other board.

OK, this Penske-style time machine shit is too freaky. Cut it out.

Oh me, me oh my
 

Let's put it this way: There are rumors that Steve Neal has grown a goatee and that he periodically stops GAs in the hallway and demands that they give him their Agonizers.

Oh me, me oh my
 

From the Cooley website:

http://www.agonybooth.com/evil_spock.jpg

2000? 2400?
 

Originally posted by sgtclub

If you're the sort of GA who can only impress GPs by billing a lot of hours, 2400 won't do it. There are GPs who bill around 3000, at least during a good economy.

Paul Hastings
 

I am reliably advised that Paul Hastings is looking to hire mid-level laterals to do corporate work in its SF office.

Spring has Spring
 

I believe that spring has finally arrived. The panhandlers and the wackos are out in full force.

I saw a very interesting sight on my way back from lunch today. A guy in an SL500, convertible top down. Had a sheet on his head - draped like it was scarf. He was very tan - probably darker skinned originally - had HUGE gold sunglasses with large gold frames - the sides looked like gold nugget but it was hard to tell. He was shirtless - and athletic looking.

No chest hair. I guess I could have asked him if he shaved or waxed, but by the lack of discussion on personal grooming on the FB, I probably would not have gotten a response.

The sheet - white, looked like enough fabric to be a flat, twin sheet - was attached to his sunglasses with large gold clips. And by large I mean money clip large. He appeared to have no hair on his head. But a very large gold watch - looked like nugget jewelry. I've never seen a sheet worn on a head like this. It was odd.

Spring has Spring
 

I shave.

Spring has Spring
 

1. Chest
2. Legs
3. Balls
4. All of the above.

The rest of you guys are chicken shits. Not 1 single response other than the sarge here.

Spring has Spring
 

Response to what? You didn't ask a question.

I don't shave.

Spring has Spring
 

I did. On the FB. Days ago.

google ipo
 

who's handling it?


ETA - nevermind. Simpson Thatcher reps underwriters, Wilson Sonsini reps google. Here's the filing - http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...tm#toc16167_20

SF Chronicle editorial on Boalt Hall
 

Crisis at Boalt Hall


CARRYING signs with slogans such as "Don't Terminate My Future," and "Raise Taxes Not Fees," Boalt Hall School of Law students gathered yesterday in their verdant courtyard on the UC Berkeley campus to protest a $5, 000 fee increase Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to impose on them this fall -- on top of another $3,000 fee increase this year.
The fee increase will push the bill at Boalt this fall to $22,500 a year, not including room and board. Schwarzenegger's rationale for the exorbitant increase is that most law graduates will earn "significantly higher income levels after graduation than other graduates." But conversations with students show that many were admitted to Boalt precisely because they don't want to go work for a private firm, but are committed to public-interest law which pays far less. Many students are already carrying huge debts. First-year student Freeda Yllana, 24, had hoped to get a job dealing with domestic violence or environmental law when she graduates. She took out a $27,000 loan just to get this far, calculating she would end up with loans totaling just under $100,000 by the time she graduates. But now she thinks that the latest fee increases -- sprung on students after they had already enrolled -- will make that an impossible goal. "It's really unfair to put a $5,000 tax on me," she says.
What especially rankles many of the students is that none of the new fees will go to improve their education at Boalt, but instead will just disappear into the bottomless money pit in Sacramento.

SF Chronicle editorial on Boalt Hall
 

Not that it's a politically viable solution, as the point is to raise revenue, but couldn't the critiscism aimed at this by some students be to use the tuition hikes to fund a more generous loan repayment subsidy for those with low-income jobs?

google ipo
 

Regardless, I'm pleased to see someone sticking it to the underwriters by using the auction process to allocate shares, rather than letting the underwriters take their pound of flesh for minimal work.

SF Chronicle editorial on Boalt Hall
 

It just seems incredibly petty and ill-conceived as a way to raise money for Sacramento. There are about 300 or so in a class, right? So adding on this tax will add only about $450,000 to the Guvernator's revenue flow/year. I know he's looking at tuition hikes across all of the UC/CSU/community college campuses, but this seems rather dumb.

IMHO, if they're going to raise tuitions, the tuition should go directly to the school where the tuition is being raised. Money raised and collected by the government can go to a lot of places, but it seems to make more sense to allocate those funds to be spent in areas with as close ties as possible to where they are taken, and funds from any tuition hike (whether at Boalt or Vacaville Community College) should at least go to the relevant school or related school system.

C(anyways, I thought Republicans were for letting all the higher-income people keep all their money because it helps commerce)deuced

Spring has Spring
 

all of the above - though legs with clippers, it's too much work to keep them totally clean. I must say, that I sinced I've been doing this I have a whole new respect for what women go through.

SF Chronicle editorial on Boalt Hall
 

Wahhh. This is so ridiculous. Don't tax me for a commodity that will primarily benefit me. Tax the other guys. Fuck off.

This rationale is disturbing to me because it smacks of socialism. From each according to his (future) means.

Bullshit. I doubt that Boalt has a significantly higher percentage of students going into PEL.

This is the only valid critism I've seen.

google ipo
 

I agree in this situation. A deal like this sells itself. Did you happen to read any of the S-1? Very interesting and somewhat novel approach, in that it reads very folksy.

SF Chronicle editorial on Boalt Hall
 

Originally posted by sgtclub

I'm surprised you aren't in favor of Boalt charging market tuition. High tuition deters law students from taking full time jobs to support left-wing causes.

It's great how no one wants to pay for the poor to have legal services. Most lawyers don't want to provide the poor legal work. (The pro bono they do, if any, isn't to help the poor it's to do things like prevent garbage dumps and prisons in their neighborhoods.) Taxpayers don't want to pay lawyers to do it. The minority of lawyers that want to give the poor legal work want the public or other lawyers to subsidize their desire to help the poor.

SF Chronicle editorial on Boalt Hall
 

So? I'm expected to subsidize the lawyers in my firm who get pregnant or get cancer and don't pull their weight. You don't see me complaining about it. At least not with this sock.

No firm has ever broken up over a struggle between partners who want to do more pro bono work and partners who want to do none. Instead, they break up over the far more venial --- and eternal --- debate between those who want to do more contingency work and those who want to do none, going to show you that lawyer A will not tolerate subsidizing the draw of lawyer B in any given year, even when there is indisputably an enormous payoff at the end of the subsidy. You can imagine how much harder it is to foster long term return thinking when the payoff of pro bono is more ethereal, like the firm's ability to land government hourly work or draw qualified minority associate applicants.