More BigLaw TikTok drama! Forum

[MergerQueen]

In the first video, she outlines the fact that she was unable to make sponsored content upon consultation with STB's GC. In the second video, she doubles down on her outrage.

https://www.tiktok.com/@legallypriscill ... 1012127018

https://www.tiktok.com/@legallypriscill ... 7882294826

In your view, is her outrage justified? Or should a third-year associate understand that it's not worth conflicting out of potential matters on the basis that she got $200 to post a discount code?

[urbancowboy]

Her identity (and therefore, employer) is easily identifiable from information she posts on her page (e.g., city, first name, law school, etc.). I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with her making such public remarks as her law firm.

[thisismytlsuername]

::gets paid $307,000 per year to send emails and redline docs::

Is this slavery?

[Anonymous User]

During a SA lunch at my V10 a midlevel went on a legit 15 minute rant on how stupid and antithetical to the entire business model associates trying to become influencers and capitalizing on their BigLaw experience was. I cannot imagine this is the best choice for her career. Hopefully TikTok works out.

[johndhi]

didn't watch either video in full, but the first video seemed like she kind of had a reasonable perspective. second video she seemed a little unhinged.

[MergerQueen]

didn't watch either video in full, but the first video seemed like she kind of had a reasonable perspective. second video she seemed a little unhinged.

Seems reasonable to prioritize the TikTok sponsorship of an associate who you're paying 300 grand over, say, an opportunity to have a client like Sephora (doing $10B in revenue annually)? I think the firm was reasonable. Most frightening to me is that the TikToker doesn't comprehend why the firm would make this decision when she is a third-year associate at a V10.

[MergerQueen]

During a SA lunch at my V10 a midlevel went on a legit 15 minute rant on how stupid and antithetical to the entire business model associates trying to become influencers and capitalizing on their BigLaw experience was. I cannot imagine this is the best choice for her career. Hopefully TikTok works out.

It's frightening to imagine the future of BigLaw as Gen Zers climb the firm ranks...

[Moneytrees]

During a SA lunch at my V10 a midlevel went on a legit 15 minute rant on how stupid and antithetical to the entire business model associates trying to become influencers and capitalizing on their BigLaw experience was. I cannot imagine this is the best choice for her career. Hopefully TikTok works out.

It's frightening to imagine the future of BigLaw as Gen Zers climb the firm ranks...

Associates like that ain't moving up the ranks lol

[Anonymous User]

Her identity (and therefore, employer) is easily identifiable from information she posts on her page (e.g., city, first name, law school, etc.). I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with her making such public remarks as her law firm.

I feel for her since she's a WOC, but her "tell-all" videos are so tacky and make her look dumber than she probably is in real life. People need to find hobbies outside of social media.

[Anonymous User]

I think a firm policy that blanket bans brand partnerships like this is too blunt an instrument; I think she has some valid arguments (clearly aside from "slavery" comment) regarding building her personal brand and monetizing it where the opportunities pose no direct conflict to the firm. I think more flexible firm policies are possible if both sides can work together on it.

But as someone who left BigLaw as a senior and is now "the client" (in-house at a private fund, which seems to be her practice area per STB website), these particular tiktok videos are cringey enough for us that we would quietly ask partners for restaffing or simply shift new matters to another one of the firms we work with. Unfortunately, warranted or not, posting things like this publicly raises questions regarding professional judgment and whether her potential interactions with others on our behalf would be risky. We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

That will be an interesting conversation with the firm GC, and I'm genuinely impressed she feels so passionately about it and is willing to vote with her feet if necessary, particularly in this market. Hope they can work something out.

[Moneytrees]

I think a firm policy that blanket bans brand partnerships like this is too blunt an instrument; I think she has some valid arguments (clearly aside from "slavery" comment) regarding building her personal brand and monetizing it where the opportunities pose no direct conflict to the firm. I think more flexible firm policies are possible if both sides can work together on it.

But as someone who left BigLaw as a senior and is now "the client" (in-house at a private fund, which seems to be her practice area per STB website), these particular tiktok videos are cringey enough for us that we would quietly ask partners for restaffing or simply shift new matters to another one of the firms we work with. Unfortunately, warranted or not, posting things like this publicly raises questions regarding professional judgment and whether her potential interactions with others on our behalf would be risky. We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

That will be an interesting conversation with the firm GC, and I'm genuinely impressed she feels so passionately about it and is willing to vote with her feet if necessary, particularly in this market. Hope they can work something out.

Of course you would have questions about professional judgment - anyone would. I've heard horror stories from associates at Simpson so I hate to defend them here, but let's be real, no billion dollar firm wants its associates mouthing off on social media and comparing the firm's policies to slavery (literally).

[bigboybob]

I have a feeling that a performance review will be coming her way.

Honestly, sounds a little entitled. I'd be turned off if I was a client. Makes over 300k+ a year and risking that for a 5k brand sponsorship video. Personally, I'd quit the social media game and focus on the real work.

[throwawayt14]

I think a firm policy that blanket bans brand partnerships like this is too blunt an instrument; I think she has some valid arguments (clearly aside from "slavery" comment) regarding building her personal brand and monetizing it where the opportunities pose no direct conflict to the firm. I think more flexible firm policies are possible if both sides can work together on it.

But as someone who left BigLaw as a senior and is now "the client" (in-house at a private fund, which seems to be her practice area per STB website), these particular tiktok videos are cringey enough for us that we would quietly ask partners for restaffing or simply shift new matters to another one of the firms we work with. Unfortunately, warranted or not, posting things like this publicly raises questions regarding professional judgment and whether her potential interactions with others on our behalf would be risky. We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

That will be an interesting conversation with the firm GC, and I'm genuinely impressed she feels so passionately about it and is willing to vote with her feet if necessary, particularly in this market. Hope they can work something out.

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

[urbancowboy]

I think a firm policy that blanket bans brand partnerships like this is too blunt an instrument; I think she has some valid arguments (clearly aside from "slavery" comment) regarding building her personal brand and monetizing it where the opportunities pose no direct conflict to the firm. I think more flexible firm policies are possible if both sides can work together on it.

But as someone who left BigLaw as a senior and is now "the client" (in-house at a private fund, which seems to be her practice area per STB website), these particular tiktok videos are cringey enough for us that we would quietly ask partners for restaffing or simply shift new matters to another one of the firms we work with. Unfortunately, warranted or not, posting things like this publicly raises questions regarding professional judgment and whether her potential interactions with others on our behalf would be risky. We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

That will be an interesting conversation with the firm GC, and I'm genuinely impressed she feels so passionately about it and is willing to vote with her feet if necessary, particularly in this market. Hope they can work something out.

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

She did. She said it on TikTok and, at least, purports to have said it to those at her firm as well.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

She did. She said it on TikTok and, at least, purports to have said it to those at her firm as well.

Let's just remember that STB is a firm that's a bit more tolerant of associate (and partner) missteps than others, especially if they're in groups that are buried in work (which this tiktoker's generally is). See, e.g., https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/probabl ... four-acts/. (The associate in that email chain is still employed, based on the firm's website.)

[Anonymous User]

We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

She seems to be talking out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. In another video, she brags that her "mommy and dad" have multiple properties and paid her tuition.

[thisismytlsuername]

Oh, she is for sure going to get fired or otherwise exited because of all of this.

[Anonymous User]

Optics of firing a black female associate over something like this = not great. Not convinced she'll get fired. Might get a "warning".

[Anonymous User]

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

She did. She said it on TikTok and, at least, purports to have said it to those at her firm as well.

Let's just remember that STB is a firm that's a bit more tolerant of associate (and partner) missteps than others, especially if they're in groups that are buried in work (which this tiktoker's generally is). See, e.g., https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/probabl ... four-acts/. (The associate in that email chain is still employed, based on the firm's website.)

Are you personally familiar with this situation or is the name of the associate mentioned somewhere in the article? Didn't see it but given ATL's terrible formatting it's possible I missed it.

[Anonymous User]

lol same practice group/firm as this person, did not know about this because I am old and lame

[Anonymous User]

Oh, she is for sure going to get fired or otherwise exited because of all of this.

Yeah..

Like others have said, to me this is so glaringly bad from an optics perspective. I admire people that have the entrepreneurial spirit to go out and try to build a personal brand while doing biglaw, but I wouldn’t want any of these people on my outside counsel deal teams as a client.

[basketofbread]

I think she has a point about being more valuable as partner material if she builds a robust profile outside of the firm. I feel like the people who make partner (at least in my lit group where almost nobody makes partner) have some special star quality or outside experience. They don’t achieve it by keeping their heads down and being great workers - those people become perma-counsel.

This is probably not the best example but look at a guy like Alex Spiro. Independently got famous by defending high profile clients, then leveraged that into a partnership at Quinn. He is retained in seemingly every criminal case in the news and that’s because he’s a rare famous lawyer.

I think she has a point. Whether or not she can achieve notoriety that will end up being useful is a question, but it’s hard to predict how fame works out. If it was easy everyone would do it.

[Anonymous User]

I think she has a point about being more valuable as partner material if she builds a robust profile outside of the firm. I feel like the people who make partner (at least in my lit group where almost nobody makes partner) have some special star quality or outside experience. They don’t achieve it by keeping their heads down and being great workers - those people become perma-counsel.

This is probably not the best example but look at a guy like Alex Spiro. Independently got famous by defending high profile clients, then leveraged that into a partnership at Quinn. He is retained in seemingly every criminal case in the news and that’s because he’s a rare famous lawyer.

I think she has a point. Whether or not she can achieve notoriety that will end up being useful is a question, but it’s hard to predict how fame works out. If it was easy everyone would do it.

Fair point, but I think a trial litigator that represents celebrities is different than someone doing funds at Simpson. Your clientele in the latter situation is not going to care in the same way someone like Jay-z or Elon would.

[throwawayt14]

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

She did. She said it on TikTok and, at least, purports to have said it to those at her firm as well.

Indefensible and deluded.

On a lighter note than someone getting paid $300K comparing being in the top 3% of wager earners in America to slavery, she misspells "Tiktok" as "Titkok" on her website, which I chuckled at.

[Anonymous User]

I think she has a point about being more valuable as partner material if she builds a robust profile outside of the firm. I feel like the people who make partner (at least in my lit group where almost nobody makes partner) have some special star quality or outside experience. They don’t achieve it by keeping their heads down and being great workers - those people become perma-counsel.

This is probably not the best example but look at a guy like Alex Spiro. Independently got famous by defending high profile clients, then leveraged that into a partnership at Quinn. He is retained in seemingly every criminal case in the news and that’s because he’s a rare famous lawyer.

I think she has a point. Whether or not she can achieve notoriety that will end up being useful is a question, but it’s hard to predict how fame works out. If it was easy everyone would do it.

Honestly, I'm not so sure that her habitual carelessness and intern-level errors (and lack of shame, as evidenced by her posting them for the internet to see) would inspire me to retain her as counsel.

https://www.tiktok.com/@legallypriscill ... 0176232751

https://www.tiktok.com/@legallypriscill ... 3644995886

https://www.tiktok.com/@legallypriscill ... 4282901807