Stuck on Repeats

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Or Steve Spurrier.

Good point. If I never see another toolish former frat boy drunkenly stumbling into the Dew Dropp Inn on Saturday afternoons in September wearing cargo pants and a burgandy t-shirt reading "GO 'COCKS!" it will be too soon.

[BackInTheNewYorkGroove]

If I were Jewish and observant, my soon to be Prufrockian spot of thinning hair would be concealed by a yarmulke.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The usual mishmash, with an extra dose of Oh In Hye (you'll thank me later):

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1199

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1200

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1201

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1202

TM

Well done. All this talk about law stuff was killing me.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't want to sound like a dickish New York lawyer, but I've found that when you deal with a non-national firm on even the not-so-super-complex matters that a scrub like me typically handles, they are often in over their head and focused on the most random shit. And my fees end up being higher because of the learning curve. But maybe it's just my practice area.

TM

In my experience, at least in fairly complex commercial litigation cases, the size (or breadth) of the firm has almost no correlation to ability. I have worked with Kirkland (for example) on several cases, and some of their lawyers are really good while others are terrible. The latter is true of almost every law firm I've come across. They are no better at "litigating" than my small Chicago firm (although we practice all over the country). In fact, when it comes to deposition skills, I would say they are generally worse than us. But I bet their pleadings are proofread a few more times than ours.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

In my experience, at least in fairly complex commercial litigation cases, the size (or breadth) of the firm has almost no correlation to ability. I have worked with Kirkland (for example) on several cases, and some of their lawyers are really good while others are terrible. The latter is true of almost every law firm I've come across. They are no better at "litigating" than my small Chicago firm (although we practice all over the country). In fact, when it comes to deposition skills, I would say they are generally worse than we are. But I bet their pleadings are proofread a few more times than ours.

See edits above.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

See edits above.

Well played. I am going to have Kirkland draft my posts from now on.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Well played. I am going to have Kirkland draft my posts from now on.

1.0 - Review and revise online posting re: stuff

You owe me $1,000.00.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

In my experience, at least in fairly complex commercial litigation cases, the size (or breadth) of the firm has almost no correlation to ability. I have worked with Kirkland (for example) on several cases, and some of their lawyers are really good while others are terrible. The latter is true of almost every law firm I've come across. They are no better at "litigating" than my small Chicago firm (although we practice all over the country). In fact, when it comes to deposition skills, I would say they are generally worse than us. But I bet their pleadings are proofread a few more times than ours.

I didn't know Kirkland did bad check litigation.

zing!!!


Since I'm the only one that can comment on complex litigation I will say that the Kirklands of this world have a major weakness due to the number of bodies they throw at a file. We'll see 10 different factotum churning over the course of a file, and then no one person knows the whole file.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Well played. I am going to have Kirkland draft my posts from now on.

I would not advise that. I can't tell you how much time I had to spend fixing the embellishments that a certain Kirkland partner kept adding to our joint defense briefing. Ugh.

Then again, he's a fancy rich big shot and I'm just some schlub. Maybe I need to start writing like him.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I didn't know Kirkland did bad check litigation.

zing!!!


Since I'm the only one that can comment on complex litigation I will say that the Kirklands of this world have a major weakness due to the number of bodies they throw at a file. We'll see 10 different factotum churning over the course of a file, and then no one person knows the whole file.

Man, I am getting zinged left and right. This is not the way to attract newbers.

But you're absolutely right about the number of people they put on a file.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Man, I am getting zinged left and right. This is not the way to attract newbers.

But you're absolutely right about the number of people they put on a file.

Oddly enough, in the aforementioned joint defense situation (complex litigation, natch), we only saw the aforementioned fancy-assed, old, rich partner, a junior partner (since moved on) and a smoking hot young associate who showed up to carry papers at the one deposition we attended before getting the settlement papers signed whose hotness helpfully distracted me from the fact that there wasn't any point to me being there given the impending settlement.

So, yeah, in that instance they didn't seem too loaded up on factotums.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Good point. If I never see another toolish former frat boy drunkenly stumbling into the Dew Dropp Inn on Saturday afternoons in September wearing cargo pants and a burgandy t-shirt reading "GO 'COCKS!" it will be too soon.

Gay or Southern?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Since I'm the only one that can comment on complex litigation I will say that the Kirklands of this world have a major weakness due to the number of bodies they throw at a file. We'll see 10 different factotum churning over the course of a file, and then no one person knows the whole file.

I think this is the strength and the weakness of big firms in litigation. I recently tried a case for a client that normally goes to a particular biglaw firm. The client came to me after the biglaw firm shunted them from one service partner to another. With me, they got better service, direct attention from someone with actual trial/lead counsel experience, and much lower rates. (Plus a kick-ass, take-names, suck-it-bitches kind of result.)

A friend works at that same biglaw firm and has been working on the sort of sprawling nationwide litigation that the firm is perfect for -- where they need 120 lawyers and lots of cogs and a good system for filtering data up to the top person. But they had no business handling the case I did.

Overall, though, this discussion reminds me of a statement I read about fiction journals, which I'll adapt here. Lawyers who tell you that only big/NYC/national law firms are smart, sophisticated, competent, etc. are snobs who should be ignored. Lawyers who tell you that only lawyers from small or midsize or local or boutique firms are smart or sophisiticated or skilled lawyers or effective are snobs in drag, who should also be ignored.

[Sidd Finch]

law firms blah blah blah

And now I'm talking about law. We need some posts about anal sex. Or the Olympics -- that's always been good material. I mean, who will ever forget AG's great line, "I will become interested in the women's marathon the day the winner does not look like she's fleeing her napalmed village"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Overall, though, this discussion reminds me of a statement I read about fiction journals, which I'll adapt here. Lawyers who tell you that only big/NYC/national law firms are smart, sophisticated, competent, etc. are snobs who should be ignored. Lawyers who tell you that only lawyers from small or midsize or local or boutique firms are smart or sophisiticated or skilled lawyers or effective are snobs in drag, who should also be ignored.

This is sophistry, since everyone ignores me already, if you describe me and suggest that sort should be ignored, you will have won the argument ab initio.