My Problems with O'Melveny & Myers Forum

[FND]

All lawyers are evil, probably.

(I also wanted to add: I totally get not wanting to defend Harvard or opioid companies in the contexts described. I'm not claiming Harvard actually did everything right by the woman in question or that OMM is at all progressive on sexual assault issues. Just that those are very different issues from whether OMM acted unethically.)

someone has an axe to grind and sees everything in the worst way possible. there's no reasoning with someone like that, which is why he/she left

[PeanutsNJam]

Ok, went to blog to see what was going on with above, and OP was right, they did kind of brag about it (text below so others don't have to indulge OP's clear efforts to plug his/her blog). Agree this is in bad taste.

"The colleges and universities group stayed busy in the wake of the #MeToo era representing Harvard University in a Title IX case and advising the University of Southern California’s Board of Directors in an alleged sexual harassment investigation."

I don't see what's wrong with that statement. They're stating the fact that they're representing Harvard and USC (which are very well-known clients) without going into any details. Please tel me why you think this is in bad taste?

My interpretation of that statement is that OMM treats the increase of sexual assault/harassment allegations in the "wake of the #MeToo era" as some type of phase, as if it's an illegitimate fad, and not a revelation of the pervasiveness and systemic cover-up of sexual assault and harassment in both higher education and corporate America.

It's odd to highlight this representation in particular since I highly doubt OMM got even a substantial portion of its annual revenue from Harvard and USC.

OP is nuts though.

[ghostoftraynor]

My interpretation of that statement is that OMM treats the increase of sexual assault/harassment allegations in the "wake of the #MeToo era" as some type of phase, as if it's an illegitimate fad, and not a revelation of the pervasiveness and systemic cover-up of sexual assault and harassment in both higher education and corporate America.

It's odd to highlight this representation in particular since I highly doubt OMM got even a substantial portion of its annual revenue from Harvard and USC.

OP is nuts though.

Pretty much this. I thought the #MeToo was in poor taste. Also think it is a weird case to highlight. I guess I could be way off base, but just doesn't seem that complex in terms of what biglaw typically deals with and doubt it provided meaningful $ relatively to OMM's yearly take.

[FND]

Ok, went to blog to see what was going on with above, and OP was right, they did kind of brag about it (text below so others don't have to indulge OP's clear efforts to plug his/her blog). Agree this is in bad taste.

"The colleges and universities group stayed busy in the wake of the #MeToo era representing Harvard University in a Title IX case and advising the University of Southern California’s Board of Directors in an alleged sexual harassment investigation."

I don't see what's wrong with that statement. They're stating the fact that they're representing Harvard and USC (which are very well-known clients) without going into any details. Please tel me why you think this is in bad taste?

My interpretation of that statement is that OMM treats the increase of sexual assault/harassment allegations in the "wake of the #MeToo era" as some type of phase, as if it's an illegitimate fad, and not a revelation of the pervasiveness and systemic cover-up of sexual assault and harassment in both higher education and corporate America.

It's odd to highlight this representation in particular since I highly doubt OMM got even a substantial portion of its annual revenue from Harvard and USC.

OP is nuts though.

the reason to highlight Harvard and USC is not that the representation is particularly valuable, but because of the name-recognition of the client.

[ghostoftraynor]

I get that, but OMM is a big firm. I'm sure you could find a hundred OMM clients of equal name recognition. In any event, think it was in poor taste. Completely can see why others are ok with it.

[QContinuum]

I get that, but OMM is a big firm. I'm sure you could find a hundred OMM clients of equal name recognition. In any event, think it was in poor taste. Completely can see why others are ok with it.

Sure, but that sentence was meant to highlight the work of OMM's colleges and universities group specifically, as opposed to OMM generally; and Harvard and sports powerhouse USC are two of the biggest school brands in the country.

Agree though that "in the wake of the #MeToo era" was in poor taste and irrelevant. Omitting that phrase would have worked just as well in the press release.

Regardless, concur with the consensus that, on the facts as alleged, there's no indication OMM acted unethically.

[Dahl]

Would Harvard even want that case described as a #MeToo case? I imagine they perceive themselves as being in favor of #MeToo and in ending systematic silencing of victims. It was a weird way to phrase the firms involvement.

There are some very ugly things in our industry, but the adversarial nature of litigation isn't a bad thing, and it seems to be OP's main problem. Even the worst serial killers and rapists deserve worthy representation.

[PeanutsNJam]

Would Harvard even want that case described as a #MeToo case? I imagine they perceive themselves as being in favor of #MeToo and in ending systematic silencing of victims. It was a weird way to phrase the firms involvement.

There are some very ugly things in our industry, but the adversarial nature of litigation isn't a bad thing, and it seems to be OP's main problem. Even the worst serial killers and rapists deserve worthy representation.

I'd use "are constitutionally entitled to" instead of "deserve" tbh since they "deserve" to eat shit but we are not going to start grabbing shovels, though this is now far afield of this thread.

[Fiddlesticks]

Alright all I'm going to head off. Thanks again for participating in the survey and for your thoughts. If you have any further questions or comments for me please email me at the contact information on the blog. Thanks

This clown has been posting threads like this now and again for years now, presumably because it makes him/herself feel like s/he is sticking it to the firm that s/he left (whether voluntary or not, who knows). Despite this, the firm continues to poll high in the meaningless rankings, makes lots of money and is a top pick among T14 students at OCI every year. BloggerAMG, you gotta give it up; it’s been several years of this insanity.

[BloggerAMG]

Alright all I'm going to head off. Thanks again for participating in the survey and for your thoughts. If you have any further questions or comments for me please email me at the contact information on the blog. Thanks

This clown has been posting threads like this now and again for years now, presumably because it makes him/herself feel like s/he is sticking it to the firm that s/he left (whether voluntary or not, who knows). Despite this, the firm continues to poll high in the meaningless rankings, makes lots of money and is a top pick among T14 students at OCI every year. BloggerAMG, you gotta give it up; it’s been several years of this insanity.

The blog was actually only meant to be one post, but I keep adding to it because shocking things keep popping up in the news about o'melveny. For example, most recently, a third-year associate lost her health and her child while working there and now risks becoming homeless because o'melveny's benefit provider will not pay her disability claim. I didn't create any of that, I just copied it to my blog.

It's only about one post every two months, the place at which bad stuff comes out about o'melveny in the news. I've always viewed reporters as the sole reason why we have justice and decency in America, and this is my way of acting as an amateur reporter. As examples of this remember MeToo, where lawyers covered everything up until reporters expose it. Or notice the opioid crisis where judges actually sealed evidence of wrongdoing in the mid 00s, reportedly leading to over a hundred thousand additional needless deaths, until reporters exposed it and finally fixed the problem.

I'd actually encourage more blogs like this. As noted in the OP, I'm thinking of expanding it to the legal profession as a whole, but not sure if I want to make that kind of time investment. A post every two months feels right for this little hobby. But I guess if I don't hear anything bad about o'melveny for like a year, I might expand it.

[BloggerAMG]

Wow I see we're up to a whopping 58 votes. Thanks to the 58 people who took time to read the post and answer the survey. I'm really glad that at least 60% think at least some of these things are unethical.

[cavalier1138]

The blog was actually only meant to be one post, but I keep adding to it because shocking things keep popping up in the news about o'melveny. For example, most recently, a third-year associate lost her health and her child while working there and now risks becoming homeless because o'melveny's benefit provider will not pay her disability claim. I didn't create any of that, I just copied it to my blog.

In your short stint at the firm, did anyone happen to explain how insurance works?

[nixy]

The reason you see these "bad" things about OMM is because you're focusing on OMM. If you expand your focus, you're going to see that this kind of stuff is everywhere throughout law firms (because adversarial legal system) and other corporations throughout the country (because capitalism), and you won't have time to do anything but post to your blog.

I think one of my strongest reactions to your blog is: what do you think this is going to accomplish? None of what you post is shocking. It might be terrible, but it's not shocking. It's the way law firms work (because adversarial system) and corporate America works (because capitalism) and it's not surprising in the slightest. Your blog seems to operate under the premise that if only people knew what was going on, something would change!! and I really don't understand why you think that. It's not whistleblowing when 1) what OMM is doing is legal and 2) they're not hiding any of it.

[BloggerAMG]

BloggerAMG, you gotta give it up.

I think one of my strongest reactions to your blog is: what do you think this is going to accomplish?

I don't know, what do the 1,900 posts you wrote here accomplish? I get this from people on law forums sometimes, berating me to stop a blog that has one post every two months, when they post multiple times a day with no seeming purpose at all. It's really quite hilarious. Any way, I'm here to do research among the most averse crowd I could find, which is why I used a poll and I'm not engaging in debates. Thanks again to those who voted.

[ghostoftraynor]

BloggerAMG, you gotta give it up.

I think one of my strongest reactions to your blog is: what do you think this is going to accomplish?

I don't know, what do the 1,900 posts you wrote here accomplish? I get this from people on law forums sometimes, berating me to stop a blog that has one post every two months, when they post multiple times a day with no seeming purpose at all. It's really quite hilarious. Any way, I'm here to do research among the most averse crowd I could find, which is why I used a poll and I'm not engaging in debates. Thanks again to those who voted.

OP you aren't here to do "research." If you were, your post would have been significantly less suggestive of the result you wanted. And, you did engage in debates. You just stopped once you got backed into a corner. Which is fine, but lets call it what it is.

[rcharter1978]

I've only read through the first page, but I think the premise that attorneys inherently have poor ethics versus the rest of the population is pretty insulting.

As someone else said, maybe attorneys get this reputation because, as part of our profession, we recognize that everyone has the right to a zealous defense....even if said person is shitty.

I actually think it's an important ideal, but it doesn't sound very idealistic when you're zealously defending the Harvey Weinstein's, the Sacklers and the Jeffrey Epstein's of the world. However, as many people feel that Harvey Weinstein is a piece of shit who doesn't deserve a vigorous defense.....that many people felt the central park 5 didn't deserve a zealous defense. And twice that number of people don't feel Curtis flowers deserves a zealous defense and should be hung from a tree.

Once you start to pick who gets what based on how shitty or great they are, the whole system of devolves.

The average person isn't going to consider that when they have a kneejerk reaction that this is all unethical.

[PeanutsNJam]

BloggerAMG, you gotta give it up.

I think one of my strongest reactions to your blog is: what do you think this is going to accomplish?

I don't know, what do the 1,900 posts you wrote here accomplish? I get this from people on law forums sometimes, berating me to stop a blog that has one post every two months, when they post multiple times a day with no seeming purpose at all. It's really quite hilarious. Any way, I'm here to do research among the most averse crowd I could find, which is why I used a poll and I'm not engaging in debates. Thanks again to those who voted.

Nobody is telling you to stop blogging altogether, but maybe improve the quality of your posts? Or give up spamming the same thing on TLS? For example, the entire discussion about the Harvard thing diminishes your credibility. Also, I don't see how it's "amateur reporting" to re-post things that other journalists have already reported. You're not revealing secrets, you're just repeating what other websites/news agencies are saying. Maybe you're being ignored because everything you're saying is already public information that people already read.

Your larger point, which is that lawyers in law firms such as OMM engage in bad-faith/malicious, if not unethical, conduct isn't really that objectionable, and I don't think you'll get much resistance re: that point alone. It's really more about everything else that people here are objecting to.

[JusticeJackson]

I just googled around and found your name and some of your other posts. You should 100% see a psychiatrist. I don’t want to say more because I don’t want you to get defensive over this. It’s really something that would help you.

[beepboopbeep]

BloggerAMG, you gotta give it up.

I think one of my strongest reactions to your blog is: what do you think this is going to accomplish?

I don't know, what do the 1,900 posts you wrote here accomplish? I get this from people on law forums sometimes, berating me to stop a blog that has one post every two months, when they post multiple times a day with no seeming purpose at all. It's really quite hilarious. Any way, I'm here to do research among the most averse crowd I could find, which is why I used a poll and I'm not engaging in debates. Thanks again to those who voted.

OP you aren't here to do "research." If you were, your post would have been significantly less suggestive of the result you wanted. And, you did engage in debates. You just stopped once you got backed into a corner. Which is fine, but lets call it what it is.

i, for one, am looking forward to OP's Nature article

[BloggerAMG]

I just googled around and found your name and some of your other posts. You should 100% see a psychiatrist. I don’t want to say more because I don’t want you to get defensive over this. It’s really something that would help you.

I guess I should address this. I actually saw a very highly credentialed therapist due to the horror show of working at O'Melveny. He said I was fine, but that I needed to leave that place. I talked about this on the blog. My current profession actually requires the utmost of mental discipline and clarity, where I compete with some of the smartest people in the world. It requires more than lying and arguing all the time. Right now I feel as good as I felt before entering the law. Very little stress, worry, anxiety or cognitive dissonance.

But I'll gladly visit another ... on one condition, that you go with me and take the psychopath test. I have no doubt that are many objectively diagnosable sociopaths and psychopaths in the profession. The survey results are one indicium. Over one-third didn't any of the items above were unethical at all.

Would you be willing to take the psychopath test, JusticeJackson? I'll pay for it. Would any of the people who voted "No, none of them are unethical" be willing to take that test? Let me know. If the answer is no, please remember that, remember what you are, and what you do in society. This isn't some cutesy nonsense that you can argue. Many of you are doing profoundly evil things, in some cases causing deaths by the thousands. You are utterly despicable people, hiding behind a profession that does not police you, and anonymity. The opioid crisis, a crisis created by lawyers and judges who hid wrongdoing rather than cure it, is just example. There will be more. That's what you do for a living. That's what you grew up to be. That's your contribution to the world.

[nixy]

Sure, I’d happily take that test (I’d imagine most psychopaths don’t actually think they are psychopaths so no one has any reason not to), but the implication that disagreeing with you about the ethics of OMM’s actions means we’re psychopaths is pretty insulting. Did you actually take ethics in law school and pass the MPRE?

And your comment on the survey results makes clear you’re not actually interested in discussing these matters, you just want to be able to paint lawyers as psychopaths. You’ve already decided what is and isn’t ethical, your survey is just to judge the rest of us.

I post here because I like it. I feel like it accomplishes helping other people, learning more info myself, and passing the time. I’m not tilting at windmills. If you just enjoy writing the blog, have at it, but again, it presents as though you’re trying to whistleblow on things that aren’t illegal or surprising to anyone with any familiarity with the legal profession. If that’s not what you’re trying to do, that’s great.

[beepboopbeep]

Yea, same, I love taking psych tests. Got a good online link that you prefer, AMG? More than happy to do this, but I'm not going to pay money for it or anything.

I am not sure that calling people who disagree with you literal psychopaths is a good look, but I get the sense you've given up on convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you. That's fine. Fun thread anyway.

e: disagree/agree, potato/potato

[beepboopbeep]

Would you be willing to take the psychopath test, JusticeJackson? I'll pay for it. Would any of the people who voted "No, none of them are unethical" be willing to take that test? Let me know. If the answer is no, please remember that, remember what you are, and what you do in society. This isn't some cutesy nonsense that you can argue. Many of you are doing profoundly evil things, in some cases causing deaths by the thousands. You are utterly despicable people, hiding behind a profession that does not police you, and anonymity. The opioid crisis, a crisis created by lawyers and judges who hid wrongdoing rather than cure it, is just example. There will be more. That's what you do for a living. That's what you grew up to be. That's your contribution to the world.

My current profession actually requires the utmost of mental discipline and clarity, where I compete with some of the smartest people in the world. It requires more than lying and arguing all the time. Right now I feel as good as I felt before entering the law. Very little stress, worry, anxiety or cognitive dissonance.

What do you do now?

[rcharter1978]

I just googled around and found your name and some of your other posts. You should 100% see a psychiatrist. I don’t want to say more because I don’t want you to get defensive over this. It’s really something that would help you.

I guess I should address this. I actually saw a very highly credentialed therapist due to the horror show of working at O'Melveny. He said I was fine, but that I needed to leave that place. I talked about this on the blog. My current profession actually requires the utmost of mental discipline and clarity, where I compete with some of the smartest people in the world. It requires more than lying and arguing all the time. Right now I feel as good as I felt before entering the law. Very little stress, worry, anxiety or cognitive dissonance.

But I'll gladly visit another ... on one condition, that you go with me and take the psychopath test. I have no doubt that are many objectively diagnosable sociopaths and psychopaths in the profession. The survey results are one indicium. Over one-third didn't any of the items above were unethical at all.

Would you be willing to take the psychopath test, JusticeJackson? I'll pay for it. Would any of the people who voted "No, none of them are unethical" be willing to take that test? Let me know.

If people disagree with your definition of ethics, particularly in the context of the legal profession and duties owed to a client, they are psychopaths or sociopaths?

That doesn't sound like a very mentally disciplined viewpoint at all.

It seems like you have an amazing life and a great career. I have to wonder why you dedicate time and effort to this, when you posit that lawyers.....as a group, are inherently less ethical.

If this is your view then you aren't going to change the practice of law with your blog and polls. All you are going to end up doing is what you imply you hated doing.....arguing with people.

ETA: lawyers and judges caused the opioid crisis? Lawyers are killing thousands of people? Come on now.

You said your mental health provider advised you to get out of law, and it sounds like this type of burning, illogical rage when faced with disagreement and conflict may be part of the reason why.

If that's the case, you should probably stop engaging with people because you're going to end up having a rage stroke.

[PeanutsNJam]

Gotta love people who broadcast strong opinions but then don't want to debate or argue them and then try to play that off as taking the "high ground" or being principled and disciplined, when instead they just: (1) can't actually support their position with arguments/evidence; and (2) can't ever admit that they're wrong (a classic sign of narcissism).