Selendy/Gay

(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
cookiejar1

Silver
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby cookiejar1 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:43 am

RedPurpleBlue wrote:
mcmand wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.


It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.

Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.


Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.

It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.


I have some niche advice for you: take criticism better and accept the fact that you’ll be wrong many, many times. If you take this double down attitude into big law firms like QE you will get decimated. You’re not as smart as you think you are.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby jd20132013 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:26 pm

RedPurpleBlue wrote:
mcmand wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.


It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.

Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.


Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.

It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.



Wtf

User avatar
84651846190

Gold
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby 84651846190 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:27 pm

RedPurpleBlue wrote:
mcmand wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.


It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.

Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.


Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.

It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.


triggered

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:53 pm

I used to work at Quinn in one of the California offices. Per a contact I have who is fairly in the know, Faith won't be taking the Colgate cases with her, but that could be wrong. From the California perspective, this isn't that big of a deal. The FHFA cases were certainly large for many years but I don't think they've been that large in the last few years. Would be interested to hear a New Yorker opine on how healthy they think that office remains -- I don't know much about it aside from the Products side.

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:59 am

My uninformed guess: the pure righteousness and fun of suing banks in MBS cases and of taking on corporate giants generally, combined with the desire to build something for oneself, combined with the realization that even if one could make more reliable $$$ at QE, making $$$ at all costs isn't the be-all-and-end-all in life, led to this.

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:02 pm

Did anyone end up responding to recruiters about the firm?

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:36 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I used to work at Quinn in one of the California offices. Per a contact I have who is fairly in the know, Faith won't be taking the Colgate cases with her, but that could be wrong. From the California perspective, this isn't that big of a deal. The FHFA cases were certainly large for many years but I don't think they've been that large in the last few years. Would be interested to hear a New Yorker opine on how healthy they think that office remains -- I don't know much about it aside from the Products side.


Second-hand, the general impression I have in New York is that this is really no big deal. Selendy's big work was in the past. RMBS litigation, while a huge source of work for the firm in 2010-2015, had already all but ceased to exist at Quinn before he left, so his departure doesn't have any real impact. Gay's practice was probably more relevant, overall, to Quinn in 2018, but as you say she has not succeeded in taking some of her larger clients with her. I suspect that the reasons given for the departure in interviews are honest: Selendy and Gay were both sick of Quinn's severely dysfunctional partnership culture and the level of personal control John Quinn wields over the firm's management, and had also made their fortunes already and wanted to focus on something else. Quinn as a firm is too bottom-line-oriented to allow even rainmaker partners to step back from the grind and spend significant quantities of their time on pro bono work. I wouldn't be shocked if the end of RMBS meant Selendy was nudged out behind the scenes because he was no longer bringing in the big bucks, either, though this explanation doesn't cover Gay's departure at all.

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:16 am

Selendy had a number of cases running past 15. His work was enough to keep multiple partners (with teams beneath them) busy.

It's a way bigger deal than you're making it out to be.

snappyguy

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:29 pm

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby snappyguy » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:36 pm

I've practiced for 25 years in BigLaw in NY and been very close to a number of these situations. Not this one, but have friends about QE.

These things are about 1 thing: money. I've seen partners making 10M a year pissed off someone down the hall is making $12M. I've seen people who make a million get pissed off that someone got another $50,000 for some stupid reason. No matter how much some people make they are always looking down the hall or across the street and are p.o.ed about it. Sounds crazy but true. Year end came and this person or that person got bumped up and I didn't. And I brought in much more than they did. I'm pissed and I'm out of here

Repeat after me. . . it's always about money. Always.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby jd20132013 » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:39 pm

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/site ... n%20Update


I think this tells you all you need to know about the culture there.

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:40 pm

RedPurpleBlue wrote:
mcmand wrote:
RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.


It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.

Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.


Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.

It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.


chill

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:42 pm

snappyguy wrote:I've practiced for 25 years in BigLaw in NY and been very close to a number of these situations. Not this one, but have friends about QE.

These things are about 1 thing: money. I've seen partners making 10M a year pissed off someone down the hall is making $12M. I've seen people who make a million get pissed off that someone got another $50,000 for some stupid reason. No matter how much some people make they are always looking down the hall or across the street and are p.o.ed about it. Sounds crazy but true. Year end came and this person or that person got bumped up and I didn't. And I brought in much more than they did. I'm pissed and I'm out of here

Repeat after me. . . it's always about money. Always.



Absolutely. John Quinn's response email to Gays exit email talks about how she should be happy with her 100M in compensation from her time at QE

User avatar
Impressionist

Bronze
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Impressionist » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:06 pm


Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:35 pm

jd20132013 wrote:https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/sites/americanlawyer/2018/02/16/quinn-unloads-on-faith-gay-100-million-for-ingratitude-and-deception/?kw=Quinn%20Unloads%20on%20Faith%20Gay:%20%24100%20Million%20for%20%27Ingratitude%27%20and%20%27Deception%27&et=editorial&bu=The%20American%20Lawyer&cn=20180216&src=EMC-Email&pt=Afternoon%20Update


I think this tells you all you need to know about the culture there.


lol oh man what a shitshow

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2332
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Rahviveh » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:56 am

Rbs and fhfa litigation... No idea what this consists of but makes me wanna gag. Why join this new firm just to do shit like that?

I don't see how their NY office will survive unless they bring in laterals

Anonymous User
Posts: 310183
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Selendy/Gay

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:21 am

Anyone interview here yet? Online says they are hiring 30 or more associates. Figured there would be some chatter.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.