New associate banter

(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.
User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby quakeroats » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:01 am

Desert Fox wrote:
quakeroats wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:An average dood in Thailand isn't payin 2500 dollars for a shitty apartment. Plus hookers are cheap. You might make 16 times what he does, but don't assume your life is better.


Per capita GNI in Thailand is $5200. You make more than 30 times that.


And if you work NYC biglaw you live in similar third world conditions.


Think about the position one must occupy in the world for this to be funny.

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby quakeroats » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:13 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
quakeroats wrote:Remembering that our failure would count as success for almost anyone else does wonders for one's mental health.

Actually, that sounds like a pretty good recipe for guilt if, in fact, you just don't like working biglaw. Just because it's objectively a pretty good deal doesn't mean everyone's going to enjoy it, and spending that much time on something you don't like is miserable, even if there are people who have it a lot worse in the world.


You could feel guilty for your privileged position, but that's not going to help anyone, you included. A better way forward is to be humbled by the amazing opportunity that's before you and charitable with the surplus.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby skers » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:41 am

Yeah, stop whining. There are kids starving for billables in Africa.

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby quakeroats » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:49 am

TemporarySaint wrote:Yeah, stop whining. There's kids starving for billables in Africa.


It's all a matter of perspective really:

"If you're automatically sure that you know what reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won't consider possibilities that aren't annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience [a miserable situation] as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down. Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily true. The only thing that's capital-T True is that you get to decide how you're gonna try to see it."

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/da ... -own-words

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:42 am

I actually think "try to keep your problems in perspective" is a really good piece of advice, though it's being offered in a particularly off-putting way here.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8441
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby thesealocust » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:50 am

There's a big difference between "you are empowered to choose your response to circumstances and your perspective, which can help you through challenging circumstances" and "OTHER PEOPLE HAVE IT WORSE SO FALL TO YOUR KNEES AND LAY SACRIFICE BEFORE THE ALTER OF ~BIGLAW~ IN THANKS THAT IT TOLERATES YOUR PRESENCE IN ITS SHELTERING LIGHT"

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby wiseowl » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:19 am

This thread is Exhibit A why the new law grads forum holds very little interest for me.

redsox550
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:15 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby redsox550 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:54 pm

TemporarySaint wrote:Yeah, stop whining. There are kids starving for billables in Africa.


lol, +1

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby Old Gregg » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:31 pm

wiseowl wrote:This thread is Exhibit A why the new law grads forum holds very little interest for me.


And your solution is to post in the forum with law students...

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6043
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Stanford4Me » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:16 pm

Am I the only one who finds it exceedingly difficult to coherently restate facts in paragraph form?

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby seespotrun » Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:42 pm

Stanford4Me wrote:Am I the only one who finds it exceedingly difficult to coherently restate facts in paragraph form?

No, definitely not. Oddly enough, that is one thing I've struggled with over the past year. I've found that sticking to the chronology (as opposed to categorical facts) greatly improves my statements of facts.

User avatar
Anastasia Dee Dualla
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:03 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anastasia Dee Dualla » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:37 pm

seespotrun wrote:
Stanford4Me wrote:Am I the only one who finds it exceedingly difficult to coherently restate facts in paragraph form?

No, definitely not. Oddly enough, that is one thing I've struggled with over the past year. I've found that sticking to the chronology (as opposed to categorical facts) greatly improves my statements of facts.


I find the exact opposite. When in chronological order, I tend to "State all the facts" instead of limiting my statement to relevant ones.

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby seespotrun » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:03 pm

Anastasia Dee Dualla wrote:
seespotrun wrote:
Stanford4Me wrote:Am I the only one who finds it exceedingly difficult to coherently restate facts in paragraph form?

No, definitely not. Oddly enough, that is one thing I've struggled with over the past year. I've found that sticking to the chronology (as opposed to categorical facts) greatly improves my statements of facts.


I find the exact opposite. When in chronological order, I tend to "State all the facts" instead of limiting my statement to relevant ones.

Can't you just state the relevant facts in chronological order?

User avatar
Anastasia Dee Dualla
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:03 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anastasia Dee Dualla » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:18 pm

seespotrun wrote:
Anastasia Dee Dualla wrote:
seespotrun wrote:
Stanford4Me wrote:Am I the only one who finds it exceedingly difficult to coherently restate facts in paragraph form?

No, definitely not. Oddly enough, that is one thing I've struggled with over the past year. I've found that sticking to the chronology (as opposed to categorical facts) greatly improves my statements of facts.


I find the exact opposite. When in chronological order, I tend to "State all the facts" instead of limiting my statement to relevant ones.

Can't you just state the relevant facts in chronological order?


Obviously, I could. My point was, I have more trouble excluding irrelevant facts when writing them chronologically as opposed to categorically.

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby seespotrun » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:19 pm

Anastasia Dee Dualla wrote:Obviously, I could. My point was, I have more trouble excluding irrelevant facts when writing them chronologically as opposed to categorically.

Yeah, I immediately regretted my argumentative douchebag question.

User avatar
Anastasia Dee Dualla
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:03 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anastasia Dee Dualla » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:29 pm

seespotrun wrote:
Anastasia Dee Dualla wrote:Obviously, I could. My point was, I have more trouble excluding irrelevant facts when writing them chronologically as opposed to categorically.

Yeah, I immediately regretted my argumentative douchebag question.


I just assumed I hadn't been clear. No worries.

desertlaw
Posts: 679
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby desertlaw » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:23 am

2 days into Biglaw. So much struggles just to read a few pages of English.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby rad lulz » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:25 am

seespotrun wrote:
Anastasia Dee Dualla wrote:
seespotrun wrote:
Stanford4Me wrote:Am I the only one who finds it exceedingly difficult to coherently restate facts in paragraph form?

No, definitely not. Oddly enough, that is one thing I've struggled with over the past year. I've found that sticking to the chronology (as opposed to categorical facts) greatly improves my statements of facts.


I find the exact opposite. When in chronological order, I tend to "State all the facts" instead of limiting my statement to relevant ones.

Can't you just state the relevant facts in chronological order?

Protip: write the analysis, then the facts

Anonymous User
Posts: 273071
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:51 am

Current project is a bit mundane. It's like the patent prosecution version of doc review. I've dumped a month of billables on it, and my supervising attorney said today that the timeline looks like this may take me into Thanksgiving.

DwightSchruteFarms
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:19 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Current project is a bit mundane. It's like the patent prosecution version of doc review. I've dumped a month of billables on it, and my supervising attorney said today that the timeline looks like this may take me into Thanksgiving.


Enjoy it. I started out iwth a brutal first assignment (fat filing that I was given 1 week to do) and then that was followed by another huge filing which took me an additional 2 weeks. Now I'm doing doc review and I love it. Easy billables. Chill days at work.

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby seespotrun » Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:15 pm

rad lulz wrote:Protip: write the analysis, then the facts

I've always done that. But there are times when you need to include facts that you do not refer to in your analysis for purposes of well-poisoning.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby 20160810 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:33 am

thesealocust wrote:There's a big difference between "you are empowered to choose your response to circumstances and your perspective, which can help you through challenging circumstances" and "OTHER PEOPLE HAVE IT WORSE SO FALL TO YOUR KNEES AND LAY SACRIFICE BEFORE THE ALTER OF ~BIGLAW~ IN THANKS THAT IT TOLERATES YOUR PRESENCE IN ITS SHELTERING LIGHT"

Am I mistaken in thinking Quakeroats is a boomerish nontrad?

He definitely fits the profile. Nontrads seem to love justifying the time they wasted before law school by blowing themselves for having MOAR PERSPECTIVE. Then again, quoting DFW screams K-JD, so I could go either way on this one.

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6043
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Stanford4Me » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:45 pm

That moment when you do a few hours research on a statute and later find out there's a clear exemption that you somehow overlook.

I swear I'm not incompetent.

run26.2
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby run26.2 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:22 pm

wiseowl wrote:This thread is Exhibit A why the new law grads forum holds very little interest for me.

Yeah. But the whole site is like this. Humblebrag everywhere. Disputes that continue on for pages over petty details. Inane questions, whose answers are matters of personal preference or common sense.

At the same time, occasionally there are interesting points about the current state of the law or insights into different firms or practice areas. If anything, there is a lot of value in the forum as a sounding board, before talking to other attorneys about the industry.

So for me, I take the good with the bad.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8441
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby thesealocust » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:16 pm

run26.2 wrote:Yeah. But the whole site is like this. Humblebrag everywhere. Disputes that continue on for pages over petty details. Inane questions, whose answers are matters of personal preference or common sense.


I mean, if it's true of TLS, it's still just a microcosm for our profession and all the wonderful specimens of humanity[FN1] it attracts :lol:

[FN1] not excluding myself from this description




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.