Cooley / Musk Forum

[Anonymous User]

Cannot imagine coming into a thread about Elon Musk being a dick and writing multiple dissertations defending Chevron in your free time.

[thisismytlsuername]

Seems like Gibson needs to keep its associates busier.

[ExpOriental]

Cannot imagine coming into a thread about Elon Musk being a dick and writing multiple dissertations defending Chevron in your free time.

Yup, there it is, like clockwork. When totally unable to respond to the substance of Donziger's misconduct, just deflect and accuse the opposition of being a shill for Chevron. It's straight out of Donziger's own playbook.

I could give a shit about Chevron. I wouldn't have felt a shred of sympathy for it had Donziger's scheme succeeded. My beef with Donziger is due to his false and profoundly hypocritical accusations of corruption on the part of the SDNY judges that held him to account. He's now suckered a wide swathe of people - including some of our dear anons, apparently - into believing that federal judges in this country engage in the kind of pay-to-play corruption that Donziger so eagerly employed in Ecuador. Witness any social media commentary on this subject for proof.

There are all manner of legitimate criticisms one can level at the federal judiciary, but any practicing attorney here is doubtlessly aware that bribery is not one of them, and that's something I'm actually grateful for as a lawyer. I think it's incredibly corrosive to loudly disseminate self-serving lies to the contrary.

[Anonymous User]

Cannot imagine coming into a thread about Elon Musk being a dick and writing multiple dissertations defending Chevron in your free time.

Yup, there it is, like clockwork. When totally unable to respond to the substance of Donziger's misconduct, just deflect and accuse the opposition of being a shill for Chevron. It's straight out of Donziger's own playbook.

I could give a shit about Chevron. I wouldn't have felt a shred of sympathy for it had Donziger's scheme succeeded. My beef with Donziger is due to his false and profoundly hypocritical accusations of corruption on the part of the SDNY judges that held him to account. He's now suckered a wide swathe of people - including some of our dear anons, apparently - into believing that federal judges in this country engage in the kind of pay-to-play corruption that Donziger so eagerly employed in Ecuador. Witness any social media commentary on this subject for proof.

There are all manner of legitimate criticisms one can level at the federal judiciary, but any practicing attorney here is doubtlessly aware that bribery is not one of them, and that's something I'm actually grateful for as a lawyer. I think it's incredibly corrosive to loudly disseminate self-serving lies to the contrary.

A year ago I would have agreed, but I've heard some stories recently that at the very least represent petty corruption. The sort of thing where if one party doesn't play ball then they're going to expect some unpleasantness.

That said, I agree with you about Donziger here -- the worst post was the one that claimed he was under house arrest as though that was a punishment. It's just willful ignorance of how contempt works (or lying about it).

[peoplearehungry]

Got played by this thread. Thought I might see something interesting on the Musk/Cooley spat. Instead, read a page and a half about Chevron. You've done it again, TLS.

[Anonymous User]

I have never cared about any legal case as much as ExpOriental does about this Chevron case. Including cases that I was being paid to care about.

[Anonymous User]

The Chevron people need to leave this thread. Such a bad derail.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

[Anonymous User]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

So a litigator's client is a lunatic and you tell somebody in whatever group this associate was in that they have to fire their associate? It's not about principles, it's that a partnership isn't going to operate well when one client can screw other partners like that.

[ExpOriental]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

It's not just "principles," though I completely disagree with your flippant dismissal of having principles to begin with. I can't speak for you, but I don't put a price on my dignity. Or, at least, the number is high enough that it's entirely unrealistic. I can completely understand why Cooley, as a partnership, sees that level of obsequiousness to a client as beneath them.

Moreover, the point I made further upthread, and that some other commentators are making (I think I saw an AmLaw article quoting a few managing partners on this point), is that it won't stop there. When you let a client exert that kind of control over the firm, you are letting them know they can override the firm's autonomy and judgment. It's just a matter of time before the client starts insisting on unethical conduct. And you know someone like Musk is going to start making those demands very quickly.

So as I see it, Cooley really didn't even have a choice here. There is no ethically sound path forward with a client like this.

[Anonymous User]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

You think so? I'm not sure that would work. Would have definitely come out eventually, maybe Musk would even brag about it. It's also extremely unethical, and I'm saying that not as a moral point but as a regulatory risk.

[Anonymous User]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

Jesus, I hope this is a troll post.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

It's not just "principles," though I completely disagree with your flippant dismissal of having principles to begin with. I can't speak for you, but I don't put a price on my dignity. Or, at least, the number is high enough that it's entirely unrealistic. I can completely understand why Cooley, as a partnership, sees that level of obsequiousness to a client as beneath them.

My dignity was on sale last night when I responded "will do, thanks" at 11 PM instead of dozing off to sleep watching the game, and every associate has been selling it since the day they walked in their firm. If my firm paid me like...$100k? $200k? 500k? (whatever it is, pick your number) to go to a peer next week, that would be incredible, and almost everyone would do the same thing.

Moreover, the point I made further upthread, and that some other commentators are making (I think I saw an AmLaw article quoting a few managing partners on this point), is that it won't stop there. When you let a client exert that kind of control over the firm, you are letting them know they can override the firm's autonomy and judgment. It's just a matter of time before the client starts insisting on unethical conduct. And you know someone like Musk is going to start making those demands very quickly.

Clients "override the firm's autonomy and judgment" all the time. That's why they change the comments we sent them for review, why they insist on various timelines, and yes, why they ask for their deals to be staffed by certain people. Firms bend over backwards to please them because there is *always* an implicit threat they'll take their business elsewhere. As far as "insisting on unethical conduct," maybe my clients don't have petty loser CEOs apparently vindictive about some associate, but they're constantly plowing forward with "creative structures" which are *legally dubious* (even though we tell them that) and are *certainly* not what a normal person would call ethical attempts to comply with tax/regulatory requirements etc. We're in the fucking business of condoning (and papering) unethical conduct.

So as I see it, Cooley really didn't even have a choice here. There is no ethically sound path forward with a client like this.

The pearl-clutching required to think paying off some associate hundreds of thousands to fuck off is DEEPLY NOT OKAY but that it's "just business bro" if a firm fires 100 of them so PPP can go from $2M to $2.5M is absolutely wild.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

You think so? I'm not sure that would work. Would have definitely come out eventually, maybe Musk would even brag about it. It's also extremely unethical, and I'm saying that not as a moral point but as a regulatory risk.

There's always some chance someone spills the beans when you need an NDA but...I'd take the reputational risk if it meant collecting on a judgment against Tesla. If firms bore grudges for a long time, Latham wouldn't have an OCI line out the door every year.

[ExpOriental]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

It's not just "principles," though I completely disagree with your flippant dismissal of having principles to begin with. I can't speak for you, but I don't put a price on my dignity. Or, at least, the number is high enough that it's entirely unrealistic. I can completely understand why Cooley, as a partnership, sees that level of obsequiousness to a client as beneath them.

My dignity was on sale last night when I responded "will do, thanks" at 11 PM instead of dozing off to sleep watching the game, and every associate has been selling it since the day they walked in their firm. If my firm paid me like...$100k? $200k? 500k? (whatever it is, pick your number) to go to a peer next week, that would be incredible, and almost everyone would do the same thing.

Moreover, the point I made further upthread, and that some other commentators are making (I think I saw an AmLaw article quoting a few managing partners on this point), is that it won't stop there. When you let a client exert that kind of control over the firm, you are letting them know they can override the firm's autonomy and judgment. It's just a matter of time before the client starts insisting on unethical conduct. And you know someone like Musk is going to start making those demands very quickly.

Clients "override the firm's autonomy and judgment" all the time. That's why they change the comments we sent them for review, why they insist on various timelines, and yes, why they ask for their deals to be staffed by certain people. Firms bend over backwards to please them because there is *always* an implicit threat they'll take their business elsewhere. As far as "insisting on unethical conduct," maybe my clients don't have petty loser CEOs apparently vindictive about some associate, but they're constantly plowing forward with "creative structures" which are *legally dubious* (even though we tell them that) and are *certainly* not what a normal person would call ethical attempts to comply with tax/regulatory requirements etc. We're in the fucking business of condoning (and papering) unethical conduct.

So as I see it, Cooley really didn't even have a choice here. There is no ethically sound path forward with a client like this.

The pearl-clutching required to think paying off some associate hundreds of thousands to fuck off is DEEPLY NOT OKAY but that it's "just business bro" if a firm fires 100 of them so PPP can go from $2M to $2.5M is absolutely wild.

Comparing timelines and comments on a draft to the situation at hand is simply intellectually dishonest. I don't think there's really any point to discussing your response any further than that, because I don't think you're approaching this in good faith.

[LBJ's Hair]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

yeah I would never, ever agree to this if I'm on the exec comm at Cooley.

I'm personally making millions and millions of dollars from a bunch of clients that aren't Tesla. I'm firing them before I'm letting them *fire my associates* lmao. we're not Tesla's in-house legal department

so the principle isn't "I'm putting my employees first." it's "LBJ is in charge, not Tesla"

[nixy]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

On the other hand, if I had an excuse for not working with Elon Musk that would let me claim a moral high ground, you’d have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

On the other hand, if I had an excuse for not working with Elon Musk that would let me claim a moral high ground, you’d have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

Yeah, I suspect this was a straw that broke the camel's back. Some clients just aren't worth their bills.

[mwells_56]

Back on track...

Dumb move by Cooley, who could have presumably paid this associate a gigantic severance package (enough so that *anyone* would welcome it) for a "voluntary departure", had everyone involved sign an NDA, and placed them at a peer, and still have it cost a fraction of losing the business. Would've been a win-win-win, but oh, won't someone think of the principles!

If there's one thing I learned from a lifetime of observing my father's import/export business, is that it is oftentimes worth it to drop headache clients that keep causing you issues. This is especially true when your business is doing well regardless, as Cooley is atm. Also the importance of "training your clients" to understand the way you do business. I joke with my Dad that our family business's motto isn't "the customer's always right," it's "if you think we're wrong, you better prove it." Which is hyperbole but you get the idea.

Letting a client control your staffing because of a petty grudge against an associate that doesn't even do work for said client is such an unbelievably dangerous precedent that you have no choice but to say no. It's not about moral principals, it's about being able to run your business.

[NoLongerALurker]

I've actually really enjoyed this thread and it's inspired me to read the various linked opinions and learn about something in depth with which I was only like vaguely familiar. Thanks all.

[Anonymous User]

For what it's worth I would absolutely sign up for a six-figure severance to leave my firm and go down the street to another comparable firm, even if the decision was because some psycho client that I have nothing to do with didn't like my previous employer. I've seen stranger things and I'm only still in biglaw for the money; if you want to give me a second bonus as a windfall, I'm not going to say no.

At the same time, I would find it insane for a firm to choose this option over standing up for itself and its own associates. So I can't imagine this offer ever being presented to me, in part because a firm could not know in advance how I would react to it, and if I reacted poorly and publicized it, the firm could take a massive PR hit.