NYC to 200k

(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: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:11 pm

do people seriously (i) worry about work monitoring their computer and (ii) not keep a laptop at work? seems completely idiotic . .

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:There can be no statistical analysis when the shitbags running Jones Day won’t release numbers and have a bizarro policy against attorneys discussing comp. I would be absolutely shocked if there wasn’t rampant salary discrimination. They’d probably fire an associate just for bringing up that topic though.


First, they can't legally fire anybody for talking about comp, at least in some of their markets. They're smart enough not to fire people for this since they'll get a massive retaliation claim. Not to mention that they probably know a thing or two about discriminatory practices (they have employment lawyers don't you know), and almost surely track their compensation statistics based on protected classes to ensure that if information leaked out, they would be safe. Let's put it to a vote whose assumption is more reasonable.

Second, please go ahead on your rampage accusing every institution around you of discriminatory practices absent any data to back that up. It's a real effective way to further your cause since I'm sure people who disagree with you LOVE hearing baseless accusations. Best way to get what you want is to offend the world, right? You might, however, want to try a different forum, since this is filled with lawyers (or wanna be lawyers) who actually understand things about evidence, proof, guilt, causality, etc.

Third, it's not a policy - it's a "cultural" thing. Although you clearly don't care about getting your facts straight. Feel free to disagree about whether policy vs. culture makes a difference.

Edited for typos.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:do people seriously (i) worry about work monitoring their computer and (ii) not keep a laptop at work? seems completely idiotic . .


The point is that the TLS's confidence means so little to any right-minded associate, that its outweighed by whatever marginal effort it takes to upload a screenshot.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:do people seriously (i) worry about work monitoring their computer and (ii) not keep a laptop at work? seems completely idiotic . .


Listen, I know it's in your best interest to try and convince people to post screenshots, but it's never in the posters best interest. Yeah, it's a minimal risk, but it's a risk nonetheless. Maybe they accidentally leave some identifying info in the screenshot (happens all the time), who knows. All we know is the risk of posting a screenshot is non-zero, and the reward is zero. The fact that so many V100 lawyers run here and tell us the moment they get a memo is enough of a gift.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:18 pm

I wonder if firms are holding back their announcement to match because they simply want to avoid the ATL/in-house counsel onslaught whenever associate salaries are bumped to reflect inflation.

It's much easier to simply match when the the media shifts its attention elsewhere.

anonnymouse

Bronze
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby anonnymouse » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:25 pm

The rampant anon abuse, done-to-death COL debates, and utterly worthless other tangents here vs the insufferable megapoasters on the other site is a race that is just too close to call.

The only saving grace here is the occasional 180 Yale/Columbia schtick and persistent exposure of the fraud that is Jones Day. Even the DPW clipboards meme got beat to death. Makes me long for the days of NOBONUS and Partner Emeritus (shudder).

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:There can be no statistical analysis when the shitbags running Jones Day won’t release numbers and have a bizarro policy against attorneys discussing comp. I would be absolutely shocked if there wasn’t rampant salary discrimination. They’d probably fire an associate just for bringing up that topic though.


First, they can't legally fire anybody for talking about comp, at least in some of their markets. They're smart enough not to fire people for this since they'll get a massive retaliation claim. Not to mention that they probably know a thing or two about discriminatory practices (they have employment lawyers don't you know), and almost surely track their compensation statistics based on protected classes to ensure that if information leaked out, they would be safe. Let's put it to a vote whose assumption is more reasonable.

Second, please go ahead on your rampage accusing every institution around you of discriminatory practices absent any data to back that up. It's a real effective way to further your cause since I'm sure people who disagree with you LOVE hearing baseless accusations. Best way to get what you want is to offend the world, right? You might. however, want to try a different forum , since this is filled with lawyers (or wanna be lawyers) who actually understand things about evidence, proof, guilt, causality, etc.

Third, it's not a policy - it's a "cultural" thing. Although you clearly don't care about getting your facts straight. Feel free to disagree about whether policy vs. culture makes a difference.


First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.

Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.

Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:29 pm

anonnymouse wrote:The rampant anon abuse, done-to-death COL debates, and utterly worthless other tangents here vs the insufferable megapoasters on the other site is a race that is just too close to call.

The only saving grace here is the occasional 180 Yale/Columbia schtick and persistent exposure of the fraud that is Jones Day. Even the DPW clipboards meme got beat to death. Makes me long for the days of NOBONUS and Partner Emeritus (shudder).


Truth. An amusing aside every few hours for the past week, but yikes if you do this year round.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:do people seriously (i) worry about work monitoring their computer and (ii) not keep a laptop at work? seems completely idiotic . .


Listen, I know it's in your best interest to try and convince people to post screenshots, but it's never in the posters best interest. Yeah, it's a minimal risk, but it's a risk nonetheless. Maybe they accidentally leave some identifying info in the screenshot (happens all the time), who knows. All we know is the risk of posting a screenshot is non-zero, and the reward is zero. The fact that so many V100 lawyers run here and tell us the moment they get a memo is enough of a gift.



I don't really care, but the purpose was just to point out if people seriously think their firm is monitoring their computer, it's crazy not to keep a laptop in the office

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
anonnymouse wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:S&C matched cravath, including bonus. (Info is sent out individually, so I can only confirm for one class year)


Why is it so hard for you people to snap a photo of your monitor, upload to imgur, and link that here? Assuming you're one of the 100 or so in your class year at S&C, your anonymity is preserved.


I don't understand why you guys feel like you're entitled to a screenshot everytime someone shares the news that their firm matched. Literally every time someone shares, some asshats gotta comment "WHERE'S THE SCREENSHOT BUDDY? PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN"

Get your head out of your ass and be thankful people are taking the time to post news of their match in the first place.

This is what the stress of being in the lower-middle class does to people.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:do people seriously (i) worry about work monitoring their computer and (ii) not keep a laptop at work? seems completely idiotic . .


Listen, I know it's in your best interest to try and convince people to post screenshots, but it's never in the posters best interest. Yeah, it's a minimal risk, but it's a risk nonetheless. Maybe they accidentally leave some identifying info in the screenshot (happens all the time), who knows. All we know is the risk of posting a screenshot is non-zero, and the reward is zero. The fact that so many V100 lawyers run here and tell us the moment they get a memo is enough of a gift.



I don't really care, but the purpose was just to point out if people seriously think their firm is monitoring their computer, it's crazy not to keep a laptop in the office


At DPW you're required to submit your personal laptop to an afternoon and evening browser history check.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.


Glad you accurately use "could" here, rather than just assuming that "could" means "does." Step in the right direction. But sad face to the following arguments: (1) Obligatory Trump association evidencing an ethical problem across the firm. Please hate on defenders of death row inmates too. (2) This has really escalated from a "they probably have bias in their pay without evidence" story to a "there's a conspiracy in which they are actively concealing their implicit bias" story. Love that you're really going for it. (3) Coming back to the use of "could" - still loving the "they could therefore they must be doing it" argument regarding firing people. Come back when you find an example.

Anonymous User wrote:Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.


Sorry, I played in too much. You're right that I shouldn't assume that you're accusing everybody. Just Jones Day. Please just confirm that you've never made a similar accusation about actual bias or even discriminatory impact for which you had no tangible evidence. Oh wait... I assumed again.

Anonymous User wrote:Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.


Dare I say show me the memo or it didn't happen? Again you're going to need more proof than your hunches. Though I'm sure in your learned experience your hunches are always accurate.

Seriously wouldn't it just be easier for you to argue that this might enable discrimination and ask that they change their policy to ensure that they don't do that? It would make you seem way more reasonable than someone who says "JD must be hiding a discrimination conspiracy because they are evil (I mean because they can)." See my point on tailoring arguments to your audience in the previous post.


minnbills

Gold
Posts: 3329
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby minnbills » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.


Glad you accurately use "could" here, rather than just assuming that "could" means "does." Step in the right direction. But sad face to the following arguments: (1) Obligatory Trump association evidencing an ethical problem across the firm. Please hate on defenders of death row inmates too. (2) This has really escalated from a "they probably have bias in their pay without evidence" story to a "there's a conspiracy in which they are actively concealing their implicit bias" story. Love that you're really going for it. (3) Coming back to the use of "could" - still loving the "they could therefore they must be doing it" argument regarding firing people. Come back when you find an example.

Anonymous User wrote:Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.


Sorry, I played in too much. You're right that I shouldn't assume that you're accusing everybody. Just Jones Day. Please just confirm that you've never made a similar accusation about actual bias or even discriminatory impact for which you had no tangible evidence. Oh wait... I assumed again.

Anonymous User wrote:Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.


Dare I say show me the memo or it didn't happen? Again you're going to need more proof than your hunches. Though I'm sure in your learned experience your hunches are always accurate.

Seriously wouldn't it just be easier for you to argue that this might enable discrimination and ask that they change their policy to ensure that they don't do that? It would make you seem way more reasonable than someone who says "JD must be hiding a discrimination conspiracy because they are evil (I mean because they can)." See my point on tailoring arguments to your audience in the previous post.


What is wrong with you? Chill tfo

User avatar
Helmholtz

Gold
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Helmholtz » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:01 pm

minnbills wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.


Glad you accurately use "could" here, rather than just assuming that "could" means "does." Step in the right direction. But sad face to the following arguments: (1) Obligatory Trump association evidencing an ethical problem across the firm. Please hate on defenders of death row inmates too. (2) This has really escalated from a "they probably have bias in their pay without evidence" story to a "there's a conspiracy in which they are actively concealing their implicit bias" story. Love that you're really going for it. (3) Coming back to the use of "could" - still loving the "they could therefore they must be doing it" argument regarding firing people. Come back when you find an example.

Anonymous User wrote:Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.


Sorry, I played in too much. You're right that I shouldn't assume that you're accusing everybody. Just Jones Day. Please just confirm that you've never made a similar accusation about actual bias or even discriminatory impact for which you had no tangible evidence. Oh wait... I assumed again.

Anonymous User wrote:Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.


Dare I say show me the memo or it didn't happen? Again you're going to need more proof than your hunches. Though I'm sure in your learned experience your hunches are always accurate.

Seriously wouldn't it just be easier for you to argue that this might enable discrimination and ask that they change their policy to ensure that they don't do that? It would make you seem way more reasonable than someone who says "JD must be hiding a discrimination conspiracy because they are evil (I mean because they can)." See my point on tailoring arguments to your audience in the previous post.


What is wrong with you? Chill tfo


Yeah I think somebody hit a nerve with the Jones Day crowd, jeez.

OneTwoThreeFour

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby OneTwoThreeFour » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.


Glad you accurately use "could" here, rather than just assuming that "could" means "does." Step in the right direction. But sad face to the following arguments: (1) Obligatory Trump association evidencing an ethical problem across the firm. Please hate on defenders of death row inmates too. (2) This has really escalated from a "they probably have bias in their pay without evidence" story to a "there's a conspiracy in which they are actively concealing their implicit bias" story. Love that you're really going for it. (3) Coming back to the use of "could" - still loving the "they could therefore they must be doing it" argument regarding firing people. Come back when you find an example.

Anonymous User wrote:Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.


Sorry, I played in too much. You're right that I shouldn't assume that you're accusing everybody. Just Jones Day. Please just confirm that you've never made a similar accusation about actual bias or even discriminatory impact for which you had no tangible evidence. Oh wait... I assumed again.

Anonymous User wrote:Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.


Dare I say show me the memo or it didn't happen? Again you're going to need more proof than your hunches. Though I'm sure in your learned experience your hunches are always accurate.

Seriously wouldn't it just be easier for you to argue that this might enable discrimination and ask that they change their policy to ensure that they don't do that? It would make you seem way more reasonable than someone who says "JD must be hiding a discrimination conspiracy because they are evil (I mean because they can)." See my point on tailoring arguments to your audience in the previous post.


Sup shitbag Jones Day apologist.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:06 pm

OneTwoThreeFour wrote:Sup shitbag Jones Day apologist.


Wow, so we hate on the people who stand for evidence-based accusations rather than people who just go around mouthing off on our colleagues? I don't even work there or have an interest in JD. Strange when our values are so skewed that we let our distaste for Jones Day blind us to baseless accusations of systematic discrimination.

Excuse me while I continue to hold the right people accountable.

User avatar
Helmholtz

Gold
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Helmholtz » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
OneTwoThreeFour wrote:Sup shitbag Jones Day apologist.


Wow, so we hate on the people who stand for evidence-based accusations rather than people who just go around mouthing off on our colleagues? I don't even work there or have an interest in JD. Strange when our values are so skewed that we let our distaste for Jones Day blind us to baseless accusations of systematic discrimination.

Excuse me while I continue to hold the right people accountable.


Nah dude, you're definitely super smart and doing your part in protecting the little man (Jones Day leadership). I'm sure you killing it at moot court.

This is a troll though right? I wasn't sure when you compared defending Donald Trump with defending death-row inmates but that theory's making more sense now.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:13 pm

When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:14 pm

Who cares let them be happy wearing suits and getting underpaid

Edit: Jones day, not KE

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?


Agreed. KIRKLAND GIVE ME MONEY

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?


Relative TLS nub here. Can someone explain this Columbia/Yale meme? I keep seeing this...

minnbills

Gold
Posts: 3329
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby minnbills » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?


Relative TLS nub here. Can someone explain this Columbia/Yale meme? I keep seeing this...


Columbia grads think they're hot shit

Anonymous User
Posts: 320773
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?


Relative TLS nub here. Can someone explain this Columbia/Yale meme? I keep seeing this...


Some guy earlier in this thread used "Columbia/Yale" as shorthand for the best law schools, which everybody lol'd at, because clearly he went to Columbia and wants to equate it with Yale.

1styearlateral

Silver
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:55 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby 1styearlateral » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
anonnymouse wrote:The rampant anon abuse, done-to-death COL debates, and utterly worthless other tangents here vs the insufferable megapoasters on the other site is a race that is just too close to call.

The only saving grace here is the occasional 180 Yale/Columbia schtick and persistent exposure of the fraud that is Jones Day. Even the DPW clipboards meme got beat to death. Makes me long for the days of NOBONUS and Partner Emeritus (shudder).


Truth. An amusing aside every few hours for the past week, but yikes if you do this year round.

lol but posted anon. :roll:

The fuck you guys so scared about. Worried you might get outed at your firm for adding to this dumpster fire of a thread?



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.