Sunday, February 10, 2008

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall



Who is the most sleazy temp recruiter of them all?

Nominations are now being accepted. The winner will receive the "Temporary Attorney Sleazy Recruiter Recognition Award" and will have their name prominently displayed on the right.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't no where to begin.

Anonymous said...

woops. know:)

Anonymous said...

Is the award to an individual recruiter or to his/her recruiting firm?

Anonymous said...

Eileen is the witch!

Eileen is the witch!

Anonymous said...

I think maybe we should switch it around sometime, which are the GOOD ones. They are pretty much all sleazebags...but a few good one stand out here and there....It's a lot easier to recognize and promote the good ones rather than bash the same ethically challenged recruiters over and over again...it has only minimal utility.

Anonymous said...

Ethical recruiter.

Oxymoron.

Anonymous said...

hey, how's that xoxohth defamation lawsuit working out? is that what inspired you?

Anonymous said...

Eileen is the Queen of Mean.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 11:18 PM. You should also have a contest for the best recruiter you worked with. There has to be one! maybe? Even Sodom and Gamorah had three good people: Lot, wife, and Lot's daughter.

Anonymous said...

I know this is a NYC Blog, but my vote goes to the Philadelphia Branch of HireCounsel. They repeatedly post fake ads on Monster, seeking candidates for jobs that do not exist. I especially love the ads seeking attorneys fluent in Cantonese, French, Urdu, etc. What is the point?

maynelaw said...

6:26

Lot had 2 daughters, and they both ended up sleeping with him. Plus his wife didn't listen go God and turned into a pillar of salt. Love your concept of "good"

Anonymous said...

Andrew Rider, Julie Zuckerburg, and Allan Cohen all get my vote!

Anonymous said...

Allan Cohen, because he pretends to be on your side. Check his horns....

Anonymous said...

any of the cunts at Update. They are all equally bad.

Anonymous said...

To the poster who listed Andrew Rider - can you list the reasons why? He is the only one I kind of had respect for? Should I be watching my back? What should I be watching out for?

Anonymous said...

Julie Dailey and Lauren Gibson from HUDSON!!!!

Anonymous said...

As a naive law grad, Andrew Rider stuck me at Milberg without informing me that defense firms discriminate and will blackball anyone who has worked at a major plaintiffs firm.

Quillo said...

who likes black balls?

Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:39 pm. Those two cunts lie so often that I don't think they know when they're lying anymore.

Has everyone heard about their scheme to get the McCarter people to work more hours? They keep missing deadlines, so they are bribing people to work more hours-- $7.50 an hour extra for every hour past 55-- $15 for every hour past 70. People who bill the most are entered into a drawing to win a free TV!!! Isn't there something unseemly about all that?

Anonymous said...

People who bill the most are entered into a raffle?

The law profession really has hit a new low.

Anonymous said...

Although I already casted a vote, I am casting another for Julie Dailey and Lauren Gibson from Hudson. I think that they are as sleazy, if not more, than HireCounsel.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree about Hudson's Julie Dailey and Lauren Gibson. I have never met people who are more petty and dishonest than they are.

For example, one guy who was being let go from Dechert when the Vioxx case settled got a temp job with Morgan Lewis through a different agency. He made the mistake of being honest with them. He had done a previous job with Morgan through Hudson, so they pulled out the non-compete clause of his contract, and Morgan withdrew the offer. He then was forced to take a job for Hudson at the cesspool that is the McCarter/Seroquel project.

Anonymous said...

[REDACTED]

Anonymous said...

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement. (See: defamation, slander, libel per se, public figure)

Tyler Durden said...

But remember:
1) Truth is a defense to libel and slander, and
2) Damages are based on actual harm to reputation in the community. So if you have a general reputation as a sleazebag, someone calling you a sleazebag does not cause actionable damages.

Anonymous said...

"an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others."

As we all know, truth is an absolute defense. Additionally one would have to show harm to reputation.

So, if it's true, libel does not apply. Further proving "harm to reputation" for one of these sleazy temp recruiters would also be quite difficult.

So go ahead with your continued, cheap threats. You'll never do anything and if you did, you would lose.

It would make great reading in the NY Law Journal or NY Post,however.

Anonymous said...

Wow as a non attorney just seeing this site for the first time you fuckers really need to get a life and find something a little more constructive to do with your time. Maybe if you all had real jobs....

Anonymous said...

It would be really fun if a agency bought a libel suit because then all of their business records pracitces, emails, phone logs, and interaction with major firms would be discoverable, which would possibly lead to all sorts of fun things coming out

Anonymous said...

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH, Julie and Lauren, did we hurt your feelings?

Anonymous said...

Poor Julie and Lauren. Welcome! I love when the parasites of this profession feel the need to post on message boards. Hudson blows.

Anonymous said...

What??!! Someone that is not an attorney, but has an interest in what we say about legal recruiters is viewing this website for the first time? That is crazy.

I figured that by now all of the legal recruiters had this site bookmarked just to find out who will win the contest for the biggest asshole.

It is looking like Julie Dailey and Lauren Gibson from Philly have the lead.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Wow as a non attorney just seeing this site for the first time you fuckers really need to get a life and find something a little more constructive to do with your time.
___________________________________

Such as peruse blogs devoted to professions to which I don't belong? I'll get right on that!

Anonymous said...

I would love to nominate for the Best Recruiter out there. I think it should go to Arnie Blalark. He has always been good to me and always takes my calls. GO Arnie!!!

Anonymous said...

I second that motion. Arnie is a good guy.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Rider & Scott Krowitz are the sleaziest NYC recruiters that I've dealt with.

Anonymous said...

Sean that used to be with De Novo and is now with some no name agency has got to be the worst. What is up with that guy?

Anonymous said...

I vote Shawn Treadwell. He's a sleazy scumbag and would beat up and old woman over a nickel on the street. So just imagine the things he does and is willing to continue to do to us.

Anonymous said...

And Shawn Treadwell, if you're reading this, go fuck yourself.

Anonymous said...

They are all pretty sleazy. The temp attorneys are so much smarter. I don't know why these people temp--they are usually very bright, funny...and usually have so much more potential than recruiters..but temping for a while just kills their confidence

Anonymous said...

Yeah, what's up with Sean? He used to be a cool guy but recently sent me some very scathing e-mails...after I couldn't finish the project

Anonymous said...

7:36-which Sean?

Tom Barasso said...

how come nobody ever talk about the Barasso project? I hear that place is the absolute worst...

Anonymous said...

HireCounsel. No overtime pay, no email at your computer, no air conditioning, signs discouraging cell phone usage, complete disorganization, general negative atmosphere.

Anonymous said...

I hope these comments cause them to truly reflect on their behavior and how many it has affected.

I know I'm supposed to add something funny and/or sarcastic but too many temps have been affected by such pettiness on their part and I am glad to have a place to comment.

Here's my vote, in order.

1. Julie, unprofessional on all counts
2. Shawn, lack integrity

Anonymous said...

Big Butt Sandrene of DeNovo!

Anonymous said...

It would be far more constructive if someone would list who are the "quality" recruiters (if any)......that way, we all can give our business to those on that list and avoid the others. The only way to see all of this complaining halt is to get those who hire to only hire "quality"..not those repeatedly appearing on these messages and responses. Get them where it hurts - in their pocketbooks. Then, they'd have to close shop and leave New York City - drive them out with business tools.

Anonymous said...

I nominate fake blonde Jenn from Hudson who is rumored to have replaced Julie Z. / Napolean. She oversaw the firing of a whistleblower and attempted to put a sock in the rest of the lot through jumbo bagels. Some of those people flocked to the bagels like Pavlov's salivating dogs and remain part of the Hudson/Hughes Hubbard psych experiment.

Anonymous said...

Evelyn Louie of DeNovo...can she be any greedier? Once Sean left, DENOVO joined sweatshop hell.

Anonymous said...

Julie Dailey blows!!!

Anonymous said...

I nominate Evelyn Louie