Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:32 pm

:arrow: I didn't think it was appropriate to link to the guy's profile. I didn't do that. So I'm editing the original post.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:43 pm

Boaltie here, had an interviewer who couldn't stop trashing another school for the quality of its students. The fact is it happens, firms have schools they like better than others, happens all the time. At least this guy was honest about his preferences.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Boaltie here, had an interviewer who couldn't stop trashing another school for the quality of its students. The fact is it happens, firms have schools they like better than others, happens all the time. At least this guy was honest about his preferences.


Honesty is nice, but I'm sure he didn't tell them to their faces. So it's really not honesty at all -- it doesn't benefit me to hear it, and it generally just comes across as snarky and rude.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:27 pm

--LinkRemoved-- ?

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

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby bwv812 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:07 am

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
spanktheduck
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby spanktheduck » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:34 am

Of course the school didn't do anything. Nothing the interviewer said was inappropriate. He may have been rude, although he may have been attempting to see how you would reaction. Unless the interviewer asks you something illegal, the school does not care. Also, outing him is a real dick move. He is a partner at a major law firm, you are a 2l.

Is it me or are there more posts this year from 2l's complaining about rude interviewers, even where the interviewer wasn't really that rude?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:46 am

spanktheduck wrote:Of course the school didn't do anything. Nothing the interviewer said was inappropriate. He may have been rude, although he may have been attempting to see how you would reaction. Unless the interviewer asks you something illegal, the school does not care. Also, outing him is a real dick move. He is a partner at a major law firm, you are a 2l.

Is it me or are there more posts this year from 2l's complaining about rude interviewers, even where the interviewer wasn't really that rude?


The bold is relevant why? You mean to say that OP should refrain from calling someone out who said something stupid and rude because that someone has a successful career? What a tool you must be. Are you for real?

User avatar
spanktheduck
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby spanktheduck » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:58 am

Anonymous User wrote:
spanktheduck wrote:Of course the school didn't do anything. Nothing the interviewer said was inappropriate. He may have been rude, although he may have been attempting to see how you would reaction. Unless the interviewer asks you something illegal, the school does not care. Also, outing him is a real dick move. He is a partner at a major law firm, you are a 2l.

Is it me or are there more posts this year from 2l's complaining about rude interviewers, even where the interviewer wasn't really that rude?


The bold is relevant why? You mean to say that OP should refrain from calling someone out who said something stupid and rude because that someone has a successful career? What a tool you must be. Are you for real?


It's recognition that he has earned the right to talk that way to a law student, especially in an interview. OP, as a 2l, has not. It is reality. If you call out your boss, you will get fired. You might not like it, but that is the way it is. We all deal with it, bitching about it and running to the law school (who obviously was going to do nothing) is pathetic and makes you look like a child. We are in law school, it is time to suck it up.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:03 am

spanktheduck wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
spanktheduck wrote:Of course the school didn't do anything. Nothing the interviewer said was inappropriate. He may have been rude, although he may have been attempting to see how you would reaction. Unless the interviewer asks you something illegal, the school does not care. Also, outing him is a real dick move. He is a partner at a major law firm, you are a 2l.

Is it me or are there more posts this year from 2l's complaining about rude interviewers, even where the interviewer wasn't really that rude?


The bold is relevant why? You mean to say that OP should refrain from calling someone out who said something stupid and rude because that someone has a successful career? What a tool you must be. Are you for real?


It's recognition that he has earned the right to talk that way to a law student, especially in an interview. OP, as a 2l, has not. It is reality. If you call out your boss, you will get fired. You might not like it, but that is the way it is. We all deal with it, bitching about it and running to the law school (who obviously was going to do nothing) is pathetic and makes you look like a child. We are in law school, it is time to suck it up.


Oh, so your position is that people can "earn" the right to say stupid things and not get called on it. Yeah, you are a tool.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:34 am

bwv812 wrote:Who cares? It's highly, highly unlikely he's going to be interviewing at SLS or Boalt.

Outing the guy is just a dick move, too... and more dickish than whatever he said.


He did interview there.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 am

Anonymous User wrote:
spanktheduck wrote:Of course the school didn't do anything. Nothing the interviewer said was inappropriate. He may have been rude, although he may have been attempting to see how you would reaction. Unless the interviewer asks you something illegal, the school does not care. Also, outing him is a real dick move. He is a partner at a major law firm, you are a 2l.

Is it me or are there more posts this year from 2l's complaining about rude interviewers, even where the interviewer wasn't really that rude?


The bold is relevant why? You mean to say that OP should refrain from calling someone out who said something stupid and rude because that someone has a successful career? What a tool you must be. Are you for real?


Couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:27 am

spanktheduck wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
spanktheduck wrote:Of course the school didn't do anything. Nothing the interviewer said was inappropriate. He may have been rude, although he may have been attempting to see how you would reaction. Unless the interviewer asks you something illegal, the school does not care. Also, outing him is a real dick move. He is a partner at a major law firm, you are a 2l.

Is it me or are there more posts this year from 2l's complaining about rude interviewers, even where the interviewer wasn't really that rude?


The bold is relevant why? You mean to say that OP should refrain from calling someone out who said something stupid and rude because that someone has a successful career? What a tool you must be. Are you for real?


It's recognition that he has earned the right to talk that way to a law student, especially in an interview. OP, as a 2l, has not. It is reality. If you call out your boss, you will get fired. You might not like it, but that is the way it is. We all deal with it, bitching about it and running to the law school (who obviously was going to do nothing) is pathetic and makes you look like a child. We are in law school, it is time to suck it up.


Nothing gives anybody the right to be an as*hole.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:06 am

Anonymous User wrote:Nothing gives anybody the right to be an as*hole.


Unfortunately, all the as*holes disagree.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273099
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:38 pm

I believe Fried Frank (DC/NYC) didn't come to Boalt's OCIP. No wonder, what with the lousy partner(s) there hating on us hippies.

yellowjacket2012
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:01 pm

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby yellowjacket2012 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:01 pm

I agree with a bunch of posters above who have pointed out that it doesn't really make a lick of difference who you are, partner, founder, whoever - you're not licensed to be a jerk to the janitor, your mother, or a law student interviewee.

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

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby bwv812 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:08 pm

.
Last edited by bwv812 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NYAssociate
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby NYAssociate » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:10 pm

.
Last edited by NYAssociate on Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yellowjacket2012
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:01 pm

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby yellowjacket2012 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:10 pm

bwv812 wrote:It may have been unprofessional for him to badmouth other schools, but he wasn't really being rude or a jerk or anything.

Okay, I concede its different - but my point is more at the guy who said he's "earned it" because he's a partner and you're a 2L. That's a pretty messed up attitude to take at the outset of entering the legal profession.

Partners, and any other experienced lawyers, for that matter - deserve respect based on seniority, but that logic doesn't work the other way, i.e. they don't "earn" the right to be a tool based on seniority. Just because something is the way it generally tends to be doesn't justify it being that way.

User avatar
spanktheduck
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Stanford & Berkeley: Fried Frank DC

Postby spanktheduck » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:10 pm

Earned is the wrong word. I meant that he is a partner and can get away with saying what he wants (within reason). Complaining about it as a 2l just comes across as whining b/c there is nothing anyone can do about it and OP should understand that there is a pecking order and that as a 2l, he or she is at the bottem. The partner is at, or close to the top. It doesn't make it right, it just is reality and complaining about it doesn't do anything except reflect poorly on the OP. This is especially true when the partner doesn't even say anything that badly, as is indicated in the OP.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.