Top Law Schools

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... rism-suits

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn, New York, also accused Facebook’s lawyers -- by sending a first-year associate to a hearing -- of not taking seriously lawsuits with implications of international terrorism and the murder of innocent people.

“I think it is outrageous, irresponsible and insulting,” Garaufis told the attorney Thursday. The judge ordered Kirkland & Ellis LLP, the law firm representing Facebook, to send a more senior lawyer to the next hearing on Sept. 28 because he wanted to “talk to someone who talks to senior management at Facebook.”

Good to know K&E gives first years such substantive experience!

Anonymous User wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... rism-suits

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn, New York, also accused Facebook’s lawyers -- by sending a first-year associate to a hearing -- of not taking seriously lawsuits with implications of international terrorism and the murder of innocent people.

“I think it is outrageous, irresponsible and insulting,” Garaufis told the attorney Thursday. The judge ordered Kirkland & Ellis LLP, the law firm representing Facebook, to send a more senior lawyer to the next hearing on Sept. 28 because he wanted to “talk to someone who talks to senior management at Facebook.”

Good to know K&E gives first years such substantive experience!

Lean staffing! Market shattering comp!

Were there questions the associate couldn't answer or something?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man ... -1.2802454

Looks like he was actually a third year (Bloomberg story botches this because he lateraled recently, but he's a 2013 grad). NY Daily News article is cringey as fuck but the quotes from the judge seem nuts.

The judge appears to be unhinged, and I feel bad for the associate, though I'd like to know what prompted the rant. My guess is that the associate couldn't answer some unfair, irrelevant questions.

Comments on this judge are pretty informative:

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=8#comments

Sounds like Facebook drew the black bean with this guy.

I could definitely imagine some third year lawyer being sent to court to handle an appearance but not having even the slightest ability to agree to stuff. Judge is almost certainly right that this poor guy doesn't talk to the client.

bk1 wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man ... -1.2802454

Looks like he was actually a third year (Bloomberg story botches this because he lateraled recently, but he's a 2013 grad). NY Daily News article is cringey as fuck but the quotes from the judge seem nuts.

Burcher "slunk out"... "blandly replied"... and "sputtered"...

Solid reporting there, NYDL. I felt like I was there!

"Out firm gives associates early responsibility!"

Here's the full transcript of anyone is interested. http://nylawyer.nylj.com/adgifs/decisio ... script.pdf

MR. BURCHER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: No. Don't say anything else.

lol, literally told the guy to shut the fuck up.

isnt it weird how the K&E associate didnt but in and correct the judge when the judge said "KE sent a first-year associate here..."? i.e., "Your honor, I have practiced for 3 years, but this is my first year at KE"

Instead he just accepted it

Anonymous User wrote:isnt it weird how the K&E associate didnt but in and correct the judge when the judge said "KE sent a first-year associate here..."? i.e., "Your honor, I have practiced for 3 years, but this is my first year at KE"

Instead he just accepted it

well at that point, what do you say to this guy? I bet the associate could just see where this was going and figured it wasn't worth even arguing with him

Yeah, interrupting the judge to point out the judge's fairly trivial error would probably have made things worse.

judge maybe uses AOL?

MR. TOLCHIN: So the Communications Decency Act, it's very short,
basically a sentence that says that the social media platform can't be regarded
as the publisher or the speaker of the content. And obviously those words come
from defamation law. It goes back to we all remember the AOL days, Prodigy.

THE COURT: What do you mean we remember the AOL
days? Some people use AOL. So if that's a disparaging
statement, I take personal issue with it.

Anonymous User wrote:isnt it weird how the K&E associate didnt but in and correct the judge when the judge said "KE sent a first-year associate here..."? i.e., "Your honor, I have practiced for 3 years, but this is my first year at KE"

Instead he just accepted it

Yeah it's not weird. When a federal judge is yelling at you about how your firm didn't send someone with experience, saying you have 3 years experience rather than one isn't going to help you.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:isnt it weird how the K&E associate didnt but in and correct the judge when the judge said "KE sent a first-year associate here..."? i.e., "Your honor, I have practiced for 3 years, but this is my first year at KE"

Instead he just accepted it

Yeah it's not weird. When a federal judge is yelling at you about how your firm didn't send someone with experience, saying you have 3 years experience rather than one isn't going to help you.

I also suspect at that point the judge was madder than it appears in the transcript (he got triggered by the associate referring to terrorism as "unfortunate" or whatever).

The personal offense over AOL was a bad sign...

could have been joking about the AOL thing -- humor/sarcasm never translates to writing, especially court transcripts. More likely, though, this judge is insane and gets triggered at everything.

He's clearly insecure about being in the eastern district, too. And a million years old. Sounds like an all-around asshole.

The judge wanted to lecture Defendant for failing to settle the case out of court, but got cock-blocked because the lawyer was too low on the totem pole. So he had to get his rocks off another way.

I like the random, general disparaging mark about "They do a lot of things in Texas that I don't like very much either." What an embarrassment to the bench.

But you're not biased at all.

The good thing is that the partner, assuming the person is rational, will not hold it against the associate. S/he didn't do anything inappropriate in their representation and took the medicine like a champ, warranted or not.

Judge was mad at the firm, not the suit in court.

(Oh, and plaintiff's attorney has skills.)

What an asshole judge. Attorney got to say roughly 3 things, all of which were cogent, before randomly getting lectured and shat on for no reason.

Calling terrorism unfortunate is kind of tone-deaf, though. And I don't think there was no reason, even though it was absolutely not the associate's fault.