Morgan12Oak wrote: stratocophic wrote:
Morgan12Oak wrote:I’m not butt hurt at all. I just don’t get what kind of person gets off on anonymously posting something and exaggerating to make it sound worse than it is (which he/she obviously did). Like I just don't see the purpose of recharacterizing it to make it sound worse for people reading. Even Helen Keller could read that article and figure out that the Moscow office wasn’t immediately folding.
Man, is there any real difference between the office jumping ship right now and the office being pretty much guaranteed to have jumped ship by the time the firm is deciding whether it's going to hire SAs who might be reading this?
Yes, would you call someone who got diagnosed with a terminal disease as “dead today”? The difference is exactly as you mentioned and it’s in the words “pretty much”.
No, but I also wouldn't refer to a law office with the same reverence that I'd give a dying person and I wouldn't take offense over the distinction between someone saying the office was out vs. the office is headed out. This isn't a person and there's no sentimentality to be had over a law office spending 6 more months with loved ones. For that matter, I definitely wouldn't give that level of respect when the subject is an office that's merely looking to switch firms, not closing. My rhetorical question was closer to "is there a substantive difference" than "are they literally gone." My main point is that people are generally talking about the long run of the firm. I doubt that they care whether this particular office is going to pay its next 2 months worth of receivables to Dewey or DLA Piper if it is in all likelihood going to be gone in a shorter time frame than said long run.
In all fairness though, I probably would have specified that they were actively seeking an escape route rather than saying that they already had jumped ship. Either way, this isn't adding any useful information so on this note I'm out.