Top Law Schools

Have they started offering CBs at the San Diego office yet? Also, any other information about the firm (especially the SD office) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

CBs have already started.

Anonymous User wrote:CBs have already started.

Do you know when they started?

bump

..

Anonymous User wrote:Would you really fucking work there? Do you have no other options? Do you understand that they are the ultimate scumbag lawyers—the majority of their practice involves making up claims against companies because their stock fell. People in my office compare them to ambulance chasers, but I think that’s unfair to ambulance chasers—at least ambulance chasers target people with some culpability. When I was a clerk (district court and court of appeals) I would beg the judges I worked for to sanction those lying pieces of shit (they would objectively lie in every single motion/pleading/brief they filed). Luckily, if you google hard enough, you’ll realize enough judges are sick of their shit.

Maybe you'll make some money, but there is not a scummier outfit in the legal practice.

Sound like you didn't get an offer.

Anonymous User wrote:Would you really fucking work there? Do you have no other options? Do you understand that they are the ultimate scumbag lawyers—the majority of their practice involves making up claims against companies because their stock fell. People in my office compare them to ambulance chasers, but I think that’s unfair to ambulance chasers—at least ambulance chasers target people with some culpability. When I was a clerk (district court and court of appeals) I would beg the judges I worked for to sanction those lying pieces of shit (they would objectively lie in every single motion/pleading/brief they filed). Luckily, if you google hard enough, you’ll realize enough judges are sick of their shit.

Maybe you'll make some money, but there is not a scummier outfit in the legal practice.

Don't go overboard here.

Just remember that there is yin and yang in everything. Without firms like Robbins Geller half, maybe more, of the biglaw litigation work would disappear.

And let's be fair about these types of firms, from Robbins Geller to Lieff to Labaton to whatever plaintiffs' firm you want to name, they are not really ambulance chasers. Do you consider cases like Enron ambulance chasing? What about Worldcom? Or MBS suits? And most of these firms are representing institutional class investors, sometimes very sophisticated ones, and nowadays the plaintiffs are as likely to be Morgan Stanley as it is John Stanley.

As far as sanctions go, post PLRSA and SCOTUS decisiosn like Basic, Matrixx, etc., there really isn’t much in the way of true frivolous pleadings. When plaintiffs’ firms get sanctioned it’s because of fees. This is a side of litigation that generally does not come to light on the defense side unless the client decides to proceed with a malpractice claim, which happens probably more so than people think (at least the threat of it). Also, defense firms renegotiate their fees post-settlement more often than not. When the plaintiffs’ firms renegotiate their fees it’s usually because a judge decides, based on some Cy Pres calculation, that the requested fees are unreasonable. They are just two different sides of the same coin.

Don’t let your sanctimonious pursuit of righteousness blur your reality.

Anonymous User wrote:Would you really fucking work there? Do you have no other options? Do you understand that they are the ultimate scumbag lawyers—the majority of their practice involves making up claims against companies because their stock fell. People in my office compare them to ambulance chasers, but I think that’s unfair to ambulance chasers—at least ambulance chasers target people with some culpability. When I was a clerk (district court and court of appeals) I would beg the judges I worked for to sanction those lying pieces of shit (they would objectively lie in every single motion/pleading/brief they filed). Luckily, if you google hard enough, you’ll realize enough judges are sick of their shit.

Maybe you'll make some money, but there is not a scummier outfit in the legal practice.

Seriously? These firms actually have fairly sophisticated finance people looking at bloomberg all day, they don't just file strike suits for stock price drops. And while RG is known for filing as many cases as possible (because securities fraud) is their bread and butter, other plaintiff's lit firms maybe do 1 - 4 a year. And if firms like these are so scummy, why do former V5 associates and former Art. III clerks go and work for them?

It is funny how defense side people look down on these firms, because without them, the amount of biglaw jobs would be dramatically less.

..

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Would you really fucking work there? Do you have no other options? Do you understand that they are the ultimate scumbag lawyers—the majority of their practice involves making up claims against companies because their stock fell. People in my office compare them to ambulance chasers, but I think that’s unfair to ambulance chasers—at least ambulance chasers target people with some culpability. When I was a clerk (district court and court of appeals) I would beg the judges I worked for to sanction those lying pieces of shit (they would objectively lie in every single motion/pleading/brief they filed). Luckily, if you google hard enough, you’ll realize enough judges are sick of their shit.

Maybe you'll make some money, but there is not a scummier outfit in the legal practice.

Don't go overboard here.

Just remember that there is yin and yang in everything. Without firms like Robbins Geller half, maybe more, of the biglaw litigation work would disappear.

And let's be fair about these types of firms, from Robbins Geller to Lieff to Labaton to whatever plaintiffs' firm you want to name, they are not really ambulance chasers. Do you consider cases like Enron ambulance chasing? What about Worldcom? Or MBS suits? And most of these firms are representing institutional class investors, sometimes very sophisticated ones, and nowadays the plaintiffs are as likely to be Morgan Stanley as it is John Stanley.

As far as sanctions go, post PLRSA and SCOTUS decisiosn like Basic, Matrixx, etc., there really isn’t much in the way of true frivolous pleadings. When plaintiffs’ firms get sanctioned it’s because of fees. This is a side of litigation that generally does not come to light on the defense side unless the client decides to proceed with a malpractice claim, which happens probably more so than people think (at least the threat of it). Also, defense firms renegotiate their fees post-settlement more often than not. When the plaintiffs’ firms renegotiate their fees it’s usually because a judge decides, based on some Cy Pres calculation, that the requested fees are unreasonable. They are just two different sides of the same coin.

Don’t let your sanctimonious pursuit of righteousness blur your reality.

There's a huge difference between the plaintiff side firms you named. Some are very selective, and only bring cases with merit. Others (RG) are volume law firms that bring a lot of bullshit claims. I saw numerous RG briefs, and they RG is much more comfortable outright lying in their briefs. I would proudly work for Lieff, and I would only work for RG if it was my only offer.

$$$$$$ wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Would you really fucking work there? Do you have no other options? Do you understand that they are the ultimate scumbag lawyers—the majority of their practice involves making up claims against companies because their stock fell. People in my office compare them to ambulance chasers, but I think that’s unfair to ambulance chasers—at least ambulance chasers target people with some culpability. When I was a clerk (district court and court of appeals) I would beg the judges I worked for to sanction those lying pieces of shit (they would objectively lie in every single motion/pleading/brief they filed). Luckily, if you google hard enough, you’ll realize enough judges are sick of their shit.

Maybe you'll make some money, but there is not a scummier outfit in the legal practice.

Seriously? These firms actually have fairly sophisticated finance people looking at bloomberg all day, they don't just file strike suits for stock price drops. And while RG is known for filing as many cases as possible (because securities fraud) is their bread and butter, other plaintiff's lit firms maybe do 1 - 4 a year. And if firms like these are so scummy, why do former V5 associates and former Art. III clerks go and work for them?

It is funny how defense side people look down on these firms, because without them, the amount of biglaw jobs would be dramatically less.

RG absolutely files strike suits. There is a huge difference between RG and Lieff. I don't look down on plaintiff attorneys. I almost was one, and may be one in the future. I look down on people that have no integrity. I have seen RG's work on many occasions. I worked on several RG matters as a clerk and I have been opposite them in practice. They have no integrity.