Kasowitz is calling people with offers right now and... Forum

[hoos89]

.

[Anonymous User]

my friend who got said call from Kasowitz did not get any sort of 24 hour deadline. And they did not say they were taking the offer away. They just strongly suggested that the offeree consider NOT accepting. So my friend declined immediately. Probably would have declined anyway though.

sounds like they "took" away the offer, at a minimum these people have a pre-SA, post-SA no-offer offer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

[hichvichwoh]

.

[IAFG]

Leaker, I am not speculating about you as a person or what course of conduct you might engage in in the future. I am just saying, I think people have negative opinions about the class of people who leak to ATL.

Do you think the firm honestly thought there was ANY chance that this wouldn't end up all over the internet?

Oh, duh, of course not. I just wouldn't want to be identifiable as a leaker.

[Anonymous User]

my friend who got said call from Kasowitz did not get any sort of 24 hour deadline. And they did not say they were taking the offer away. They just strongly suggested that the offeree consider NOT accepting. So my friend declined immediately. Probably would have declined anyway though.

sounds like they "took" away the offer, at a minimum these people have a pre-SA, post-SA no-offer offer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

yeah if they did not technically take it away , they took it away for all intents and purposes

[hichvichwoh]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

[Anonymous User]

Leaker, I am not speculating about you as a person or what course of conduct you might engage in in the future. I am just saying, I think people have negative opinions about the class of people who leak to ATL.

Do you think the firm honestly thought there was ANY chance that this wouldn't end up all over the internet?

Oh, duh, of course not. I just wouldn't want to be identifiable as a leaker.

Well remind me next time you get fucked over to think about the consequences of my actions before I try to help out you and future people in your position.

[IAFG]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

I agree with this. Did the firm deserve to get ratted out? For sure. Would it have been more prudent to stay out of it or share almost no detail about your particular experience? Yes.

[hichvichwoh]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

I agree with this. Did the firm deserve to get ratted out? For sure. Would it have been more prudent to stay out of it or share almost no detail about your particular experience? Yes.

Yup, the only problem is that an effective leaker is one who discloses more detailed information, which is often specific to the person. WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE!?!?!?!!?!?

[Anonymous User]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

I agree with this. Did the firm deserve to get ratted out? For sure. Would it have been more prudent to stay out of it or share almost no detail about your particular experience? Yes.

New poster.... Totally agree. I would have accepted another offer, gossiped privately about it, and that would be all.

[Anonymous User]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

I agree with this. Did the firm deserve to get ratted out? For sure. Would it have been more prudent to stay out of it or share almost no detail about your particular experience? Yes.

I really don't want to get into an argument about this, but I will say that the level of detail is why you are talking and thinking about it, and that is what I wanted. A simple headline wouldn't do it. I wanted the whole story out there, not just the tag line.

[thesealocust]

Leaker, I am not speculating about you as a person or what course of conduct you might engage in in the future. I am just saying, I think people have negative opinions about the class of people who leak to ATL.

Do you think the firm honestly thought there was ANY chance that this wouldn't end up all over the internet?

Oh, duh, of course not. I just wouldn't want to be identifiable as a leaker.

Exactly. I'm guessing a lot of people ITT didn't read page 2 of the ATL blog post and the lengthy tell-all email.

Big difference between leaking/whistle blowing and doing so like this.

[Old Gregg]

The long and short of it is, firms have like 80,000,000 qualified, bright, over-eager choices. Why increase the risk that some will see you as a risk - even if the unreasonably see you as a risk?

Because a lot of people "leak" anyways. Bonus posts exist on ATL for a reason.

[Anonymous User]

If you leak shady behavior as a law student, will you leak what you percieve to be shady behavior you witness at your firm?

I think the latter is not nearly as likely. Even if you witness shady behavior at your firm, you're likely to have friends who you are loyal to who work at the firm. You're much likely to reveal something damaging about the firm because you care about hurting these peoples' careers.

Would you bet your reputation on someone who leaked to ATL in one situation not leaking again in a different one?

you can speculate about me all you want. I shouldn't have named names, people are right about that. I didn't know ATL would copy and paste my entire email, but it's okay. That's on me and I will learn from it. I emailed again and asked for her name to be taken down, but no response yet. However, I stand by my decision to leak this so it wouldn't happen to other students again (hopefully). I already tried OCS. If it were you and your friends, you might have the conviction to get over the fear of potential consequences in your own career to help out the career of (many) others.

They took down Mindy Lindenman's name down. It would be easy for anyone to find anyway. And I think it should have stayed. She's the Director of Legal Recruiting and should be held accountable for this mess.

[Gorki]

Firms do not care about us folks THAT much. Yeah they want to attract new recruits to keep the junior associate ranks filled, but at the end of the day [in Russian accent] "it is simply business, my friend."

[Anonymous User]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

I agree with this. Did the firm deserve to get ratted out? For sure. Would it have been more prudent to stay out of it or share almost no detail about your particular experience? Yes.

I really don't want to get into an argument about this, but I will say that the level of detail is why you are talking and thinking about it, and that is what I wanted. A simple headline wouldn't do it. I wanted the whole story out there, not just the tag line.

Just curious, are you more mad at the fact that they treated you differently based on a false assumption or that they didn't abide by the 28-day rule? It seems like after they realized the fuck up, abiding by the 28-day rule was not an option they could consider without severely damaging the prospects of the people who already accepted and the people who were likely to accept unless they put this pressure on.

[bk1]

Does ATL accept snapchats?

[Anonymous User]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

I agree with this. Did the firm deserve to get ratted out? For sure. Would it have been more prudent to stay out of it or share almost no detail about your particular experience? Yes.

I really don't want to get into an argument about this, but I will say that the level of detail is why you are talking and thinking about it, and that is what I wanted. A simple headline wouldn't do it. I wanted the whole story out there, not just the tag line.

Just curious, are you more mad at the fact that they treated you differently based on a false assumption or that they didn't abide by the 28-day rule? It seems like after they realized the fuck up, abiding by the 28-day rule was not an option they could consider without severely damaging the prospects of the people who already accepted and the people who were likely to accept unless they put this pressure on.

Mostly angry about not foreseeing this and acting as though they valued abiding by NALP--and if it really is a numbers game, why hasn't this ever happened to them before? And if it has happened, they should have warned people to accept early if they wanted a spot. Honestly, I'm not that angry, just tired, and sympathetic to my friends who didn't have other offers yet and weren't given a choice or any "pressure." I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again and start a dialogue about what can be done about this.

[what to do]

Leakers/whistleblowers/snitches are public goods. They are potentially harming themselves to bring useful information to light. For this reason, i think it's completely consistent to on the one hand applaud and encourage whistleblowers while simultaneously saying that you would never be one yourself.

I agree with this. Did the firm deserve to get ratted out? For sure. Would it have been more prudent to stay out of it or share almost no detail about your particular experience? Yes.

Does any of this change the fact that I think it's hard to be you? No.

[hichvichwoh]

I think, on the plus-side, if you accept a Kazowitz offer after being given an ultimatum, then receive another offer from a better firm, there's not much stopping you from accepting your new offer.

[Anonymous User]

Mostly angry about not foreseeing this and acting as though they valued abiding by NALP--and if it really is a numbers game, why hasn't this ever happened to them before? And if it has happened, they should have warned people to accept early if they wanted a spot. Honestly, I'm not that angry, just tired, and sympathetic to my friends who didn't have other offers yet and weren't given a choice or any "pressure." I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again and start a dialogue about what can be done about this.

I mean, this could have been a freak incident too, right? Like I don't think this has happened before to them (or we'd hear about it somewhere on the internet) so their yield calculations have been right on or about right on for a while. It's totally possible that this was an outlier year where last week (when a lot of people started accepting offers) they got a slew of acceptances and realized that their yield rate would be significantly higher than in past years, to the extent that some people would be no-offered.

I totally agree that treating you differently by not even giving you an option to accept was wrong but their general reaction seems pretty reasonable after the problem had already materialized. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do?

[Anonymous User]

Mostly angry about not foreseeing this and acting as though they valued abiding by NALP--and if it really is a numbers game, why hasn't this ever happened to them before? And if it has happened, they should have warned people to accept early if they wanted a spot. Honestly, I'm not that angry, just tired, and sympathetic to my friends who didn't have other offers yet and weren't given a choice or any "pressure." I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again and start a dialogue about what can be done about this.

I mean, this could have been a freak incident too, right? Like I don't think this has happened before to them (or we'd hear about it somewhere on the internet) so their yield calculations have been right on or about right on for a while. It's totally possible that this was an outlier year where last week (when a lot of people started accepting offers) they got a slew of acceptances and realized that their yield rate would be significantly higher than in past years, to the extent that some people would be no-offered.

I totally agree that treating you differently by not even giving you an option to accept was wrong but their general reaction seems pretty reasonable after the problem had already materialized. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do?

Sure, AFTER they messed up what else could they do? But the fact is that they messed up. How can you hand out like 20 extra offers? Who knows how many people got that call. If there were only 7 spots left, and 7 people accepted on one day, yeah that's maybe a freak accident. But if 27 people still had offers, and only 7 spots were left, they should have told people to accept or bust.

[Anonymous User]

Mostly angry about not foreseeing this and acting as though they valued abiding by NALP--and if it really is a numbers game, why hasn't this ever happened to them before? And if it has happened, they should have warned people to accept early if they wanted a spot. Honestly, I'm not that angry, just tired, and sympathetic to my friends who didn't have other offers yet and weren't given a choice or any "pressure." I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again and start a dialogue about what can be done about this.

I mean, this could have been a freak incident too, right? Like I don't think this has happened before to them (or we'd hear about it somewhere on the internet) so their yield calculations have been right on or about right on for a while. It's totally possible that this was an outlier year where last week (when a lot of people started accepting offers) they got a slew of acceptances and realized that their yield rate would be significantly higher than in past years, to the extent that some people would be no-offered.

I totally agree that treating you differently by not even giving you an option to accept was wrong but their general reaction seems pretty reasonable after the problem had already materialized. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do?

Sure, AFTER they messed up what else could they do? But the fact is that they messed up. How can you hand out like 20 extra offers? Who knows how many people got that call. If there were only 7 spots left, and 7 people accepted on one day, yeah that's maybe a freak accident. But if 27 people still had offers, and only 7 spots were left, they should have told people to accept or bust.

granted, I don't know how yields work, but it's probably way more than 27.

[09042014]

I think, on the plus-side, if you accept a Kazowitz offer after being given an ultimatum, then receive another offer from a better firm, there's not much stopping you from accepting your new offer.

Obviously this is the correct way to play it. If you have one offer and are waiting. Take Kazo, then keep looking. I doubt Kazo will even care, since you are solving their overcrowding problem.

[84651846190]

Leaker, I am not speculating about you as a person or what course of conduct you might engage in in the future. I am just saying, I think people have negative opinions about the class of people who leak to ATL.

Some people may have such negative opinions. But people are just as likely to not want to hire you because you have a weird laugh or you part your hair weird. Acting like it's a universal negative trait that forever scars you is a little over the top.