Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Posner
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Posner » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:39 am

...
Last edited by Posner on Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
BaiAilian2013
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby BaiAilian2013 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:39 am

rando wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:I feel jipped by the direction of the thread.


Agreed. This was a good thread (if I do say so myself) and we had some great discussion going. Scally de-railed yet another thread.


Once again, I did not derail it. I will not twiddle my thumbs when being compared to someone who says "gay". Not sure why I'm to blame, when I wasn't the instigator.


I just read through this thread and while Scally's posts are sometimes a bit naive or off-base, FlightofEarls totally derailed this thread with an overly PC rendition of what is apparently a racist term. Scally obviously went a bit overboard with the defense, but with all the bashing of Scally on TLS in general, I can see where s/he is coming from.
In further defense of Scally, his/her long defense post was completely coherent and did clear up a distinction I hadn't been reading carefully enough to notice.

I'm wondering if there's some regional variation in the usage of 'gipped'. What bwv812 originally said was not just that it is an ethnic/racial slur, which is true, but that it is "widely viewed as a racial slur," which, at least in my neck of the woods, is quite false.*

*These comments are not intended (lol) as a contribution to the discussion of whether or how harshly someone should be called out for using the term.
Last edited by BaiAilian2013 on Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:43 am

BaiAilian2013 wrote:In further defense of Scally, his/her long defense post was completely coherent and did clear up a distinction I hadn't been reading carefully enough to notice.

I'm wondering if there's some regional variation in the usage of 'gipped'. What FlightoftheEarls originally said was not just that it is an ethnic/racial slur, which is true, but that it is "widely viewed as a racial slur," which, at least in my neck of the woods, is quite false.*

*These comments are not intended (lol) as a contribution to the discussion of whether or how harshly someone should be called out for using the term.


This is absolutely credited. I didn't know it was a slur until about a year or two ago.

Flight of the Earls definitely started it, and I don't blame Scally for the innocent mistake... but he could have still deflected the criticism in a way that didn't derail the thread. It isn't like this is his first time de-railing a thread, and he is getting quite a reputation for bad posting.

It would be nice if this thread got back on track.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Fark-o-vision » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:04 am

I have a question for clarification on the original topic.

Is the suggestion that actual work won't go up too much, but that because of extraordinarily small hiring classes the industry may face a shortage of trained and talented labor, thereby forcing biglaw into attracting talent from Midlaw and boutique firms? If this is the case, doesn't this fundamentally change the way Biglaw will operate? After all, an individual whose grown comfortable in a firm and has developed a skill to the extent that they're being noticed is likely to be making decent money already. Would the small bump be enough to attract both the level and volume of talent required to fill these holes, or will the entire compensation model be changed?

If we are talking about an up-tick in actual work, though, I don't see how this doesn't help us. Even if we lack the training required to do the work someone is going to have to. The distribution of labor may mean that they're getting a lower efficiency yield from mid levels, but won't that sacrifice have to be made? After all, they can't will more talent into the market and there isn't any reason to believe that lawyers from these classes will get any specialized training. Many of the unemployed will have expected skill atrophy, while the shitlaw associates have learned insurance defense and how to file bankruptcies (all references to "that guy" are unintentional).

User avatar
FlightoftheEarls
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby FlightoftheEarls » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:12 am

This is becoming absurd - for those of you 0Ls who haven't been here too long, I'd like to think I'm a well-known enough poster who has built enough capital with the members of this board that people would recognize that I'm not in this thread merely to derail anything or create an issue with whoever this poster is.

Scally posted something that was inappropriate. Regardless of whether you all are familiar with the fact that it is, in fact, racially offensive to describe something as "gypped" or "jipped" - I don't really care. It is. Just because people in your region don't find it offensive is irrelevant, and an embarrassingly weak argument. Somebody pointed out that fact to Scally, and he admitted that he was unaware and apologized. Which is great. But his defense was simply, in summary: "I didn't know, sorry. But to be clear, it basically just means 'cheated' the way I said it and was not anything racially offensive."

Which is cool, but that isn't a defense and that should be pointed out. The reason it means "cheated" is because that's the racial connotation of the word. Apart from how much social awareness there is about what "gypped" means, it is no different from using "jewed" for when somebody is being "stingy," using "gay" when something is "lame" (or "stupid" or "idiotic" or many of the other alternate descriptions I'm sure many of us have used to explain the word that they didn't realize was offensive).

Scally's longwinded rant on his intent has nothing to do with the content of my post. I didn't critique him for using the word inappropriately when he didn't know what it meant. Everybody makes mistakes, and yes the word is used far more frequently than it should be. I was ridiculing what appeared to be his ridiculous justification that "jipped" just means "cheated," but he supposes it's wrong because it stems from "gypped." To me that's no different than justifying saying "I got jewed out of XYZ" and saying you didn't realize it was offensive, and you understand it now - you only said it because "jewed" means you were shafted out of money. That's simply an absurd defense, and by no means appropriate. That is the issue I took with what Scally said, and I think the comparison was incredibly apt.

Sorry for another post that this thread surely doesn't need - it is a great topic and we should get back to it. That was merely a comment that should be pointed out for what it was - regardless of the forum or topic, that's simply inappropriate. With that said, apologies for whatever disruption I am perceived by some of you to have caused.

Edit: Also, BaiAilian - you're misattributing quotations.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby thesealocust » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:17 am

edit: n/m
Last edited by thesealocust on Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Scallywaggums » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:54 am

miamiman wrote:... but his long-winded and incoherent ramblings ...

Everything I've posted has been coherent. There was a single exception on another thread, when I allowed myself to become furious with a snub, was distracted, and used one extra "don't" where it didn't belong. This was quickly pointed out and corrected. Since then I've been careful.
Last edited by Scallywaggums on Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Scallywaggums » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:03 pm

FlightoftheEarls wrote:...his defense was simply, in summary: "I didn't know, sorry. But to be clear, it basically just means 'cheated' the way I said it and was not anything racially offensive."

Not. True.
I did explain the origins of the word, and that the original could therefore be perceived as more racist, but I ended that brief description with categorizing "jipped" as "not exactly PC", and thanked bwv for pointing it out to me. I have also acknowledged on more than one occasion that what I said was racist, for clarification.
FlightoftheEarls wrote:... for when somebody is being "stingy,"...

You may not be aware of this, but "stingy" has obvious connotations that need no explanation. The word derives from Stingray, and we Stingrays take a great deal of offense to this. We are a kind species, and sting only in self defense, so the adaptation by humans for aggressive use is a terrible misrepresentation.

I'll assume you didn't know this, and probably aren't the sort of person who calls things "gay" and justifies it by saying "I meant 'lame'", so I'll let it slide... but now you know. Spread the word. Don't be speciesss...ist.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:06 pm

FlightoftheEarls wrote:This is becoming absurd - for those of you 0Ls who haven't been here too long, I'd like to think I'm a well-known enough poster who has built enough capital with the members of this board that people would recognize that I'm not in this thread merely to derail anything or create an issue with whoever this poster is.


O rly????


*Clap.... Clap.... Clap....*

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby stratocophic » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:12 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
miamiman wrote:... but his long-winded and incoherent ramblings ...

Everything I've posted has been coherent. There was a single exception on another thread, when I allowed myself to become furious with a snub, was distracted, and used one extra "don't" where it didn't belong. This was quickly pointed out and corrected. Since then I've been careful.
Posts of this nature are naturally assumed to be the second because tl;dnr.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby Grizz » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:24 pm

FlightoftheEarls wrote:This is becoming absurd - for those of you 0Ls who haven't been here too long, I'd like to think I'm a well-known enough poster who has built enough capital with the members of this board that people would recognize that I'm not in this thread merely to derail anything or create an issue with whoever this poster is.

Scally posted something that was inappropriate. Regardless of whether you all are familiar with the fact that it is, in fact, racially offensive to describe something as "gypped" or "jipped" - I don't really care. It is. Just because people in your region don't find it offensive is irrelevant, and an embarrassingly weak argument. Somebody pointed out that fact to Scally, and he admitted that he was unaware and apologized. Which is great. But his defense was simply, in summary: "I didn't know, sorry. But to be clear, it basically just means 'cheated' the way I said it and was not anything racially offensive."

Which is cool, but that isn't a defense and that should be pointed out. The reason it means "cheated" is because that's the racial connotation of the word. Apart from how much social awareness there is about what "gypped" means, it is no different from using "jewed" for when somebody is being "stingy," using "gay" when something is "lame" (or "stupid" or "idiotic" or many of the other alternate descriptions I'm sure many of us have used to explain the word that they didn't realize was offensive).

Scally's longwinded rant on his intent has nothing to do with the content of my post. I didn't critique him for using the word inappropriately when he didn't know what it meant. Everybody makes mistakes, and yes the word is used far more frequently than it should be. I was ridiculing what appeared to be his ridiculous justification that "jipped" just means "cheated," but he supposes it's wrong because it stems from "gypped." To me that's no different than justifying saying "I got jewed out of XYZ" and saying you didn't realize it was offensive, and you understand it now - you only said it because "jewed" means you were shafted out of money. That's simply an absurd defense, and by no means appropriate. That is the issue I took with what Scally said, and I think the comparison was incredibly apt.

Sorry for another post that this thread surely doesn't need - it is a great topic and we should get back to it. That was merely a comment that should be pointed out for what it was - regardless of the forum or topic, that's simply inappropriate. With that said, apologies for whatever disruption I am perceived by some of you to have caused.

Edit: Also, BaiAilian - you're misattributing quotations.


tl;dr

User avatar
bwv812
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:18 am

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby bwv812 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:31 pm

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby thesealocust » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:49 pm

edit: n/m
Last edited by thesealocust on Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bwv812
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:18 am

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby bwv812 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:59 pm

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
badwithpseudonyms
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:48 pm

Re: Potential Biglaw Understaffing?

Postby badwithpseudonyms » Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:05 pm

bwv812 wrote:
thesealocust wrote:
bwv812 wrote:(Maybe this is what you meant when you mentioned firms competing with one another.)


That's exactly what I meant

Well, they're going to have to get extra midlevels from somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to recruit from midlaw and boutiques (though I suspect many wont want to make the transition to biglaw) as well as other non-traditional sources; they need midlevels, and the traditional biglaw model won't be able to satisfy the demand.

Good try, guys, but this thread is already fucked.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.