Thursday, February 26, 2009

What Is A Staff Attorney?

"Yolanda Young will be happy to explain in detail. From her recent court pleading, I gather it is somewhat like a legal sharecropper. You have to 'work off the clock,' and probably get paid in script, only negotiable at the 'company store.' Also, the desks would be set up in 'converted filerooms,' which Yolanda speculates do not meet OSHA standards. Anyone that complains gets the tar and feathered, and then their bonus is pressed down to a measly $5,000."

-ABA Journal Commenter

http://www.abajournal.com/news/high-profile_former_staff_lawyer_files_discrimination_suit_against_covingto/

190 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's time we all followed suit. Pro se suits against law schools, lenders, recruiters and big firms! TALLY HO!

Anonymous said...

Pro se's against LPO's that are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. We should flood letters to judges in cases where the illegal practice of law is being carried out.

Anonymous said...

I agree about the suit but this should be a class action--and it should be argued by an uninterested counsel (the age-old adage still holds true about an attorney representing him/herself). Anyone want to volunteer to be named plaintiff?

In the case at bar, Covington needs its collective ass kicked.

Anonymous said...

Please read her complaint prior to forming your opinion, and you just may conclude that this woman is unreasonable, out of touch with reality, and certainly lacks the basic logic skills to be hired as a real associate or partner. For example, she notes that only 5% of attorneys at Covington are black. She also notes that less than 5% of licensed lawyers are black. The logical conclusion of this is that Covington’s numbers actually do a good job reflecting the level of diversity that exists in the legal profession (even if we’d all like it to be higher). Then she makes the insane logical jump that because 30% of Covington’s staff attorneys are black, “One must conclude that Covington deliberately set out to hire five times the national average of black and minority attorneys…” What???? There is no logical connection here, nor any proof or reason that Covington would try to rig the racial composition of its staff attorneys.

Then she goes into a random rant about how staff attorneys are denied certain benefits, pay, mentoring and programs that associate attorneys receive. OF COURSE this happens! What on earth do you expect? That’s the purpose of staff attorneys - they are temporary, expendable labor. That’s why the defendant wanted the work. She went through a temp agency to get this job and said she wanted side work while she pursued other jobs. Yet she wants every perk of a full time attorney?! If your average staff attorney were qualified enough, they would be getting hired as associate attorneys. There’s a reason they aren’t getting hired for those jobs.

There isn’t room here to innumerate the number of ridiculous claims and whines that Yolanda makes about being a staff attorney at Covington. She essentially sounds like a lunatic who is resentful that she’s being treated like all temps are treated even though she knew she was taking a job AS A TEMP THROUGH A TEMP AGENCY!!

In the beginning of her complaint she refers to how blacks are more likely to be friends with blacks, leading people to refer people of their own race to jobs they hear about. Then she whines throughout her complaint that the white employees didn’t hang out with the black employees in their social hours after work. Seriously?! This is not a reason to sue a law firm. And as her complaint suggestions, all ethnic groups are more likely to spend social time with members of their own ethnicity, which is a totally separate issues from law firm life.

Please read her complaint before jumping on board. It reads like an immature child whining about normal workplace complaints with no proof that anything is connected to race. And she seems to have no understanding of the entire purpose of STAFF attorneys versus associate attorneys at law firms.

Anonymous said...

237, isn't that the point of this board, to jump to insane conclusions based on whining about unfairness?

Anonymous said...

But they are using the staff attorney program to brag to their clients that they are installing a program of diversity within their firms. A system of separate but unequal is not a commitment to diversity.

Anonymous said...

Good. "Diversity"....whatever that is...is a load of garbage. Law firms only care about it in as much as their corporate clients care about it.

Anonymous said...

She worked over 2,400 hours a year and only got paid $75,000? During the boom years of '05-06 that comes out to about $30 an hour. Wouldn't it have been better to have just been a temp? Were the benefits that spectacular?

Anonymous said...

Scott Bullock as named plaintiff please.

Anonymous said...

I chuckled yesterday when reading the story about her law suit re staff attorney at Covington. The reason I chuckled is bc/ Deckhert (sp) announced yesterday the layoffs of a myraid of their staff attorneys......it seems staff attorneys are merely feeling the heat associates and partners have been feeling for over 1 year. It is just that it was her turn to go like so many other attorneys at BigLaw firms. Maybe she was spending to much time on her other profit making endeavors or got caught using Covington equipment to work on books, articles etc......heh, no sympathy here. Sounds like she merely is a "gamer" and user, then cries foul when she is caught.

Anonymous said...

You don't say....???
----------------------------
One NY Law School Freezes Its Rates in Year of Tuition Hikes and Deep Recession


Albany Law School of Union University, in a nod to the current recession, is freezing its tuition for the 2009-10 school year.

"My feeling right now is this is the rainy day everybody saves for," said Thomas F. Guernsey, president and dean of Albany Law School, in Albany, N.Y. In "these particularly uncertain times, we want to do what we can to make it easier for students who are the ones who are incurring all this debt." Albany Law School's current annual tuition is $38,900. The school also plans to increase scholarships for the upcoming year from its current annual level of $4.3 million.

That's not to say Albany Law School, which is private and independent, is immune from economic pressures, Guernsey said. Annual giving from alumni is anticipated to be down by 10% for the fiscal year ending on June 30. And the school is considering various cost-cutting measures, such as reducing the number of public programs that involve speakers and travel costs, temporarily halting specialized courses that have a handful of students in them, and converting paper copying to electronic storage. But, he emphasized, the school is not considering layoffs.

Most other law schools have raised tuition for the 2009-10 school year by 3% to 15%. Stanford Law School, for example, announced this month that it would raise tuition for law school students by about 3.75% for the upcoming year. Other schools have not made announcements yet.

Saint Louis University School of Law, another private school, is raising its tuition for the upcoming school year, but only by 3%. In general, tuition has increased by about 5% each year at the school.

"We were very conscious of the challenges of our students in these economic times," said Kathleen Parvis, assistant dean for communications at Saint Louis University School of Law. At the same time, she said, the school's budget is based on tuition, and certain costs, such as utilities and maintenance of the building, have continued to rise.

Budget cuts in some states are forcing public law schools to debate tuition increases. In Missouri, Governor Jay Nixon has proposed to the legislature that if the state's higher education budget does not get cut, there would be no tuition increases at colleges and universities.

"I do think there's a realistic possibility that it will happen," said Ellen Suni, dean of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, where annual tuition and fees total about $15,000 for students living in state and about $29,000 for those out of state, although most students are allowed to establish residency after their first year, she said. Last year, tuition went up by 3.8%.

She said if the state legislature cuts the school's budget, tuition hikes are necessary to offset other costs, such as competitive faculty salaries and library expenses that have gone up by more than 10% each year. And the school already has done some cost cutting, such as instituting a hiring freeze two months ago.

"The hope is you don't have to lay people off, but there's always that possibility," she said.

Anonymous said...

$38K a year is still obscene. That loan debt is unsustainable especially now that the ABA has opened the floodgates to outsourcing. This is just the beginning.

Anonymous said...

this woman is unreasonable, out of touch with reality, and certainly lacks the basic logic skills to be hired as a real associate or partner.
___________________________________

The knee-jerk white response to any claim of discrimination--unless you're the one's claiming discrimination. How tired.

Anonymous said...

She's the next Al Sharpton.

Anonymous said...

I haven't read Yolanda's complaint so I won't comment on the particulars - I did read a couple months back that she was threatening to file a suit - however, will 2:37PM please explain his analysis: you say that staff attorneys are temporary labor - yet they are hired as full-time employees in every firm I've heard of; 2:37 then says that Yolanda went through a temp agency: do firms use temp agencies to hire staff attorneys? that's a new one to me - or did Yolanda start out as a temp then was hired on-staff after being around a while? maybe none of this is important in the grand scheme of things - but if you're going to jump all over Yolanda, at least make sure your premise is straight

Anonymous said...

If that 5 percent is being systematically denied advancement by hiring them for positions specifically to claim that 'we are hiring blacks", but in reality they are staff attorneys onle- then there's a case. I wonder if she's going to seek EEOC action as well? Would be smart on her part.

Anonymous said...

453

they can obtain staff attorneys in different ways. Some are through agencies. Some through direct hires. Some are through temps who are moved up to staff attorneys etc. Whatever their route, they are terminal positions. If I am reading all of this right- she has an interesting argument. that the structure is specifically design to claim that one is not desicriminating against blacks, but that in fact the process within the firm does exactly that. it creates a tiered system that prevents any advancement deliberately.

Anonymous said...

The knee-jerk white response to any claim of discrimination--unless you're the one's claiming discrimination. How tired.
________________________-
How tired is your racist put down based entirely upon skin color - showing prejudgment based upon skin color of everyone with that skin color while complaining of racism? You don't mind racism just as long as you are the one doing the discriminating. How tired. How tragic.

Anonymous said...

Her complaint appears to be written by a twelve year old. She has extremely poor reasoning skills and is an unreasonable prima donna throughout the complaint.

Read the e-mails at the end of complaint supposedly supporting her case. They largely support her adversaries.

She's just an Al Sharpton-like shakedown artist. If she actually had a case, it would have been settled already. She's just trying to embarass the firm now.

She was a lowly permatemp that was given a staff attorney job to review documents and the work was way over her head.

She's just an AA gravy train rider, all the way to the end. No talent or intelligence just poorly reasoned arguments and greed.

Anonymous said...

well- we will see what the court thinks eventually. Many of you seem to be trying to spin the situation, but as I said above- her idea is not a bad one. I can't speak for the execution of it because frankly I am not going to waste time reading her brief. But her idea that there is a caste system is a novel,a nd potentially effective argument about the legal industry. This will, at the very least, probably embolden someone else who can argue it better evne if she can't.

Anonymous said...

I also don't have time to read through that long winded complaint. The fact that these arrogant partner pricks are going to have spend the time and aggravation defending themselves in this action is good enough for me.

Anonymous said...

I am 952. I should also point out that I like her guts regardless of her writing skills. I am sure a lot of people here are brilliant writers, but how many of you would have the guts to do this? You may call her a fool, but she's got guts, and she's getting the media for it. Even if this does not work out, she is making a name for herself, and in our society- that counts for a lot.

Anonymous said...

This is a prime example of why people should STFU at work. People are cooped up together for extended periods of time and start to lose their inhibitions with each other. You should NEVER talk about anything related to religion, race, or politics at work. I don't care how bored you are. You never know if there is a Yolanda Young hiding in the bushes, who is going to take something out of context. Put your earphones on, click, collect your paycheck, and pass GO.

Anonymous said...

She's not ever going to ever do anything of significance in the law. She's just a permatemp that got lucky with a staff gig and flamed out, miserably and pathetically.

Because she is not a white male, she can scrape together some sort of ridiculous charge of racism to embarass and shakedown the firm.

She's just a Tawana Brawley type (who also went to Howard undergrad, maybe they've swapped stories). Another mertiless, tarring and feathering of an otherwise serious, reputable law firm.

Law is tough business, many people get treated poorly and get run out. It doesn't mean you get to cash in and live like Oprah.

As the complaint indicates, she is just someone who lacks the capacity to function even as a staff attorney. Many share this, so she shouldn't feel bad, just find a line of work for which she is a better fit.

Anonymous said...

Some of you are really funny who keep putting her down. What hell do you know about suceeding? What the fuck have you done in life that's half as braze or ballsy? I am impressed by her chuzpah.

Anonymous said...

OK by me! C&B provide pro bono legal services for the vicious terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay.
Hope she bankrupts them to death!

Anonymous said...

OK by me! C&B provide pro bono legal services for the vicious terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay.
Hope she bankrupts them to death!

Anonymous said...

less than 5 percent of the people at Gitmo were involved in any fighting or terrorist activities. A fact easily discovered by doing research on the net according to the militaryown estimates.

Anonymous said...

The firm will squash her, but she tried. At least she wasn't a lay down.

Anonymous said...

Isn't President OBAMA!'s idiot coward AG Eric Holder a C&B guy? WTF is up with these assclowns always alleging racial bullshit.

Anonymous said...

8:25 AM your are freaking idiot take a look at what happened in Harrison NY. SINCE OBAMA became President your are really seeing people true colors.

Anonymous said...

Hey moron -- http://humbleapostrophe.com/your-you-are.html

Anonymous said...

Anyone else heard of the new gig at Latham & Watkins?

Anonymous said...

I heard Covington has agreed with Young that their staff attorney make up does allow for the appearance of discrimination, so they'll just hire white staff attorneys from now on...

Anonymous said...

Discrimination against blacks? Have you seen the Nigerian cliques that look out for and only hire each other? The Nigerians are the only ones working now.

Anonymous said...

12:40 is right that, when it comes to doc review, there is a lot of discrimination against white attorneys.

Twinkles said...

Last I heard, Covington does direct hires and often recruits via staffing agencies, but even the vast majority of those are direct hires. The agency is nothing more than an empty shell to forward people.

I always think of Covington as having two tiers of staff attorneys. The ones who are recruited via a staffing agency for the most part are the worst off. Usually, the projects are much shorter and bottom of the barrel.

I think the ones who stay for a period of years are better off, but that's relative. I don't know how the staff attorneys can even think that their jobs are in any way stable. I know a guy who was there for 3 years and he literally walked in one day and they said collect your things by noon, you are no longer needed. Just so you know, he's white.

With this woman, she is just very bizarre. I'm surprised someone just hasn't requested that the bar association do a little investigation as far as her sanity.She's just looking for some money plan and simple.

If she or any other law graduate, let alone licensed attorney, could not perform basic document review, it's time to go back to grade school and start over.

Anonymous said...

if it was so bad then why is she suing over losign the job?

Anonymous said...

P.S. Teh cartoon of teh fat guy eating 0Ls is hilarious

Anonymous said...

I am questioning whether some of you are lawyers.

Anonymous said...

At least Sally Mae doesn't discriminate

Anonymous said...

Aren't there law firms with dedicated document review departments - i.e., that have attorneys on staff who do document review only for that firm?

Anonymous said...

I don't think document review has been killed by outsourcing, onsourcing, or technology. I think it's dead because the clients don't want to/can't spend the money on it now. It'll pick up again.

Anonymous said...

legal work in India for American firms. "But the truth is, I'm busy, thriving and eager as ever."

That's no small accomplishment, especially in a global recession. But recruiters, business owners and employees themselves say that despite its own financial woes, India is, so far, a relative land of opportunity.

Last month, one of the country's leading financial newspapers went as far as declaring 2009 "The Year of India." Word of such optimism is spreading to this country, where Stephanie Bartosiewicz lost her job at a New York City management consulting firm last fall. A few weeks ago, she picked up and moved to India, a country that had always intrigued her.

"It sounds like a naive thing to say — but it feels like I can't lose," says the 29-year-old, who's looking for work in Mumbai and amazed how cheaply she can live there. "If nothing else, at least it's a grand adventure."

Lisa Johnson, director of consulting services with Cartus Corporation, a global relocation firm based in Connecticut, has heard the buzz, too, and believes there's something to it: "India is one of our hot topics," she says.

An annual survey done for Cartus and the National Foreign Trade Council found, for instance, that India replaced Germany last year as one of the top four countries where multinational companies planned to move employees. The other three were the United States, China and the United Kingdom.

Rosen's company has hired four other Americans to work in India in recent months, an unprecedented number.

"The American dream, as such, is there," says Ganesh Natarajan, president of Mindcrest. "I'm not saying it's gone from here, but it's that same kind of feeling."

In this economy, he and others say they're getting more applications than ever from Americans looking for work in India. And that, they say, matches well with a demand for management skills that's been growing in India over the past few years.

"There's no shortage of entry-level types of people for relatively routine kinds of jobs in India," says Colin Gounden, the CEO of Grail Research, a data-mining company with offices in several countries, India included. "But for the more skilled jobs, the more knowledge-intensive it is — those have been consistently in short supply in terms of talent."

Steve Watson, an executive recruiter in Dallas, also is seeing more applicants — from business-school graduates to experienced veterans who view international experience as a way to stay competitive in a tough job market.

"Moving up in today's world really is requiring an overseas assignment," says Watson, international chairman and managing director at Stanton Chase International, an international executive search firm.

He is among those who see India and China as the top two markets for opportunity. And, he says, India is often more attractive to applicants because it's more Western and language is less of an issue.

That doesn't mean making the transition to India is always easy.

Rosen, a Chicagoan who was working in New York before she took the job in India, misses bagels and a good slice of pizza. She also hates having to turn on a heater for hot water, which regularly runs out during her morning shower.

"That really kills me on a daily basis," she says with a slight chuckle.

Dan Baxter, a 35-year-old Canadian, has found that it can be very difficult to find work in India if you don't have a job lined up before you get there. He works in Mumbai as a senior vice president for Fleishman-Hillard, a global marketing and communications firm, but his wife is still looking.

"There is a lot of red tape and preference for hiring Indians where possible," Baxter says.

He says being a Westerner in India still can have distinct advantages.

"In many cases, it is assumed that we come with new or rare skills and can teach Indian clients and colleagues things we learned elsewhere — though I don't know for how long," Baxter says. "I'm sure that India will take our knowledge, learn it better than us and sell it back to us sooner than later."

Anonymous said...

The LPO liars with their used car salesman crap do their lame public relations crap here because they know all they have is sham shoddy sweatshops that many in biglaw won't even touch. If they had what they said they had, they wouldn't be so worried about this blog and what is said here. They wouldn't bother constantly posting their third-rate spam. You know something's wrong with their story when this is how they operate. Pure sleaze.

Anonymous said...

I read the complaint. Its very poorly drafted, and I can see why, if this is an example of her work product, she has had trouble. It really is very poor quality, and I would be ashamed to put my name on something so poorly written.
Having said that, she does have an argument here, and that is, if she can prove it, that blacks were hired into jobs with no room for advancement and that this occurred as the result of some sort of racial design, as that would violate the law and expose C&B to liability.
The fact that it appears that almost all of the firms black attorneys were in these positions with no room to advance really hurts them, even if they did not do this on the baisis of racial intent, the law also looks at effect.
In this case its pretty clear, based on what we have been told, the C&B policy has, at least at some sort of face value, created a policy which results in a de facto racial discrimination situation.
I would not want to be C&Bs insurance carrier right now. But then again, this women seems like she can barley talk, so she very well may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Also white people who wanted that job but could not get it because C&B was using it to fill "diversity" slots also could have a cause of action.
This is the funny thing about law firms sometimes, you look at who is a partner and its almost all white males, they know it too. SO what do they do? They come up with a way that they think will improve the firms image in this regard, and instead wind up exposing themselves to liability. Makes me wonder why these guys get paid the big bucks...
Anyway, the thing I wonder is if she took this to the U.S. E.E.O.C. if she did, and they declined to take her case and instead issued her a right to sue letter, then that probably means she has very little of a case, as those letters get issued when the U.S.E.E.O.C. determines that there is not enough evidence to warrant further action.

Anonymous said...

Yolanda is a typical whiner who has benefited from AA all the way.

Anonymous said...

ad

Anonymous said...

The Legal Implosion is Here...

From the Washington Post:

LATHAM & WATKINS CUTS 190 LAWYERS...MORE BIG CUTS TO COME!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702751.html?hpid=topnews

PEOPLE WE ARE IN AN IMPLOSION!!

Anonymous said...

"Anyway, the thing I wonder is if she took this to the U.S. E.E.O.C. if she did, and they declined to take her case and instead issued her a right to sue letter, then that probably means she has very little of a case, as those letters get issued when the U.S.E.E.O.C. determines that there is not enough evidence to warrant further action."

You're wrong about this. It may seem that way, though, since the great majority of plaintiffs lose in federal court.

Anonymous said...

LEGALCRASH.COM

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LEGALCRASH.COM

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LEGALCRASH.COM
MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LEGALCRASH.COM

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LEGALCRASH.COM
MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!!

LEGALCRASH.COM
MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LEGALCRASH.COM

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LEGALCRASH.COM

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LEGALCRASH.COM

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LEGALCRASH.COM
MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LEGALCRASH.COM

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LEGALCRASH.COM
MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!!

LEGALCRASH.COM
MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

LAWYERS ON THE STREETS!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

ECONOMY IN FREEFALL!!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

LEGALCRASH.COM

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

MORE CUTS TO COME...
LEGAL IMPLOSION IS HERE...
MASS SLAUGHTER - ECONOMIC CRASH!

MASS EXTINCTION OF LAW JOBS
ATTORNEYS ON THE STREET
FEWER JOBS FOR LAWYERS -
PERMANENT DOWNSIZINGS HAVE ARRIVED!

Anonymous said...

Well now, that's 190 elite lawyers with health insurance and pay for six months.

Maybe one of them can help out a struggling solo, who may not even have health insurance, who is trying to help somebody who can't afford legal services. There are many such people, and many such lawyers, outside the big law world.

These redundant lawyers who are so much smarter and more efficient should be able to do a lot of good, now that Goldman Sachs doesn't need them.

Anonymous said...

I just finished a 2 week project at one of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the country. We were in their litigation department. To say things were quiet would be a complete understatement. It was downright creepy to witness the furrowed expressions of the associates and partners on the floor. They literally had nothing to do during the entire time.

One rainmaker partner had a few meetings. One extremely stressed out middle aged guy with an office that looked like it had been exploded was drafting pleadings the from 7am to 7pm every day we were there. I admired him.

Everyone else was doing nothing the entire time. The secretaries were not sending faxes. The lawyers were not making phone calls.

The large law firms are collapsing under the weight of their bloated structures.

Anonymous said...

Hudson has a 6 month project listed on Monster but for non-admitted J.D. only. It says no admitted attorneys will be considered. What would be the reason for that other than age discrimination?

Anonymous said...

This is not just a recession, it's something much more.

The biggest credit bubble in US history has exploded (the subprime crisis was only the "detonator")...

All the excessive credit we had over the past 30 years has been outed as illusory. So all the liquidity and credit has been sucked out of the banking system. It turns out this credit was the lifeblood of our economic system, and we don't have it anymore.

Obama's stimulus package, while laudable, won't bring bank credit back so easily, because it doesn't address the central problem. The banks must be taken over and reformed -- QUICKLY -- or a year from now, this generation will *know* what a Depression is.

Anonymous said...

111

Thanks for injection some knowledge of EEOC actual knowledge into this. Let me add also the reason many of these cases lose is related to the conservative nature of the bench with the Courts choosing to interpret laws narrowly in the extreme. This is why you are starting to see push back from Congress about this, including the recent legislation regarding women's rights in the workplace that the Courts had choosen to narrowly define. There seems to be a lot posters here who are bigots mostly so they look at the law through that perception. The reality is that I have no idea what the merits of her case is. But they pretend they do.

Anonymous said...

Reading the other comments, I am over this site. There should be some attempt at moderation, but instead the most out there things possible are a llowed to flourish here. Why is every lawyer's site like this? Whether it's ATL or JD or this site, mostly a lot of nasty personalities?

Anonymous said...

@11:17

Lawyers with nasty personalities? Whodathunkit?

Anonymous said...

"Everyone else was doing nothing the entire time. The secretaries were not sending faxes."

And this is new, how?

Anonymous said...

Yolanda will lose. There is no way this is getting to a DC jury. The case will be removed to federal court and be will decided by a federal judge (who probably attends the same cocktail parties and charity events as the Covington partners) on summary judgment.

Anonymous said...

The problem with this site and sites like it is that you can never really have a normal dialogue, because it's all "Anonymous said..."

Because underemployed lawyers tend to be lazy whiners, and paranoid ones at that, there is a great obsession with anonymity here, for fear of tipping off the high and mighty temp agencies that we're criticizing them, which would supposedly result in the blacklisting of specific posters.

Have people here never heard of using nicknames? Nicks would at least create some continuity here, so readers would actually see dialogues between different regular posters. Some of those dialogues might actually become constructive debates and lead to progress, and actually organizing temp lawyers in a fruitful way to get something done.

But this irrational and self-centered crutch that posters here use, fear of being found out by agencies or others offering jobs, torpedoes any efforts here to make this thing a useful exercise.

Hence it will always degenerate into nonsense and whining.

Anonymous said...

Yolanda will lose. There is no way this is getting to a DC jury. The case will be removed to federal court and be will decided by a federal judge (who probably attends the same cocktail parties and charity events as the Covington partners) on summary judgment.

11:31 AM

---------------------------------

All DC juries are in "federal" courts--it's not a State, remember?? I do agree, however, that partners (in any elite law firm) are friends/colleagues-maybe even frat brothers or sorors) of federal judges, as many judges are plucked from these very firms and certainly have gone to the some of the same schools as these partners.

Anonymous said...

Is it age discrimination for the Hudson project to consider non-admitted JDs only and specify that admitted attorneys should not apply? What is the valid reason? A JD who repeatedly failed the bar can apply but those who are admitted are told not to apply.

Anonymous said...

11:51

It's not age discrimination because there is no real correlation between age and having passed the bar exam, at least no statistical deviation from what one would expect.

My guess is that Hudson may have had problems with too many barred attorneys leaving projects to take permanent jobs. Unbarred JDs will likely last much longer on a project, and if there's no absolute reason to use licensed attorneys and they cost more, why use 'em?

Hudson knows that unlicensed JDs won't even have time to prepare for the bar exam while working on a project, so they pretty much have a captive group of temps who will stick with it for the duration.

Anonymous said...

Another thing I should mention about the Hudson project is that it is long -- 6 months.

Maybe orientation and training is critical on this project and Hudson and the client can only afford one training session.

To keep retention to a maximum and prevent attrition, they're not hiring licensed attorneys who have better chances of getting a permanent gig.

If the project were 2 weeks or a month long, maybe they'd be less worried about losing people and having to train a bunch of newbies halfway through.

Anonymous said...

12:07 you are not making any sense. Of course most who have just graduated ate younger. Also lots of us have been doing doc review for years. We aren't going to leave for
permanent jobs. Even if there were permanent jobs available, those awaiting admission would be more likely to leave for them than those who have been doing doc review for years.

Anonymous said...

12:16 if they were afraid of people leaving, it would make sense to require a couple of years of doc review experience, not non-admitted JDs.

Anonymous said...

to clarify the Yolanda/EEOC issue- the right to sue letter is more procedural than anything - the EEOC reviews the claim and can decide to take action on its own or it can issue the right to sue letter, meaning that the person can then go into federal court and file a Title VII, 1983 claim etc. - most federal discrimination statutes require that you first file an EEOC claim and exhaust that remedy prior to filing a civil suit - the fact that you receive a "right to sue" is not determinative of the substance of your claim

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification 1:47. Do you have any opinion on why admitted attorneys are being kept out of 6 months of doc review work and only non-admitted JDs are being considered?

Anonymous said...

The reason Hudson wants non-admitted JD's is that they can pay them less money than attorneys with a license. Its not that hard to figure out...

Anonymous said...

147

The EEOC involvement- especially if they find cause- can be very helpful for plaintiffs as far as I remember. But, you are right that it's not going to substantively determine the outcome.

Anonymous said...

2:00 is right. This is about how much they have to pay the temp. I think people engage in too many conspiracy theories, and end up terrifying themselves with what they dream up.

Anonymous said...

2:00 that doesn't sound right. First of all, the ad says top rate of pay and OT. Second, lots of admitted attorneys would jump at even a below market rate job since there is so little out there and so many are unemployed. They can offer whatever rate to admitted attorneys they want, as long as it's above minimum wage.

Anonymous said...

I think Robert Half and Peak have both at one time or another during this dry spell offered $25 per hour to admitted attorneys for doc review. The argument that they would have to offer more to admitted attorneys doesn't hold up.

Anonymous said...

I'm admitted and experienced. I've been looking for months. I would take it whatever the rate is. I couldn't afford to pass it up.

Anonymous said...

It's not about what you claim you would be willing to do. It's about other people's perception of what the market is.

The perception, right or wrong, is that barred attorneys will expect a certain rate while non-barred attorneys will not. The client probably beleives this. The Agency representing the client went along with it. End of story. No conspiracy or complexity needed.

This perception is not about your personal reality or circumstances. It's about what people believe. Is it fair? No. But, it is reality.

Anonymous said...

Follow up:

The client probably requested it so saying "but I know of another circumstance" is irrelevant. Again- it's not about what you want. It's about what the client asked them to fullfill with the order. The client's perception and need dictated what you see in the ad.

Anonymous said...

2:38 that's ridiculous. They could have just listed the project for both admitted attorneys and non-admitted JDs. They know every rate that every other agency offers. They also know that admitted attorneys are desperate for work. Probably they have also heard of supply and demand and know they can offer lower rates and get admitted attorneys now. You seem to think they are complete idiots who can't figure that out.

Anonymous said...

2:40 the original question was whether this was age discrimination. It wouldn't be okay if the client wanted it for discriminatory purposes, would it?

Anonymous said...

Okay- look I am tired. I got to go back to studying since I am actually trying to not do doc reviews forever.

Many of you just don't get it. You are too self absorbed to get it.

I am not arguing with you about what should be. I actually agree with you about what should be teh case.

I am simply explaining perception of clients, and that the agency is doing whatever the client requests.

What should be the case is irrelevant to that reality.

Your self absorption goes on and on about irrelevancies like what you would be willing to do, market economics, etc.

The problem of course is that I agree with you about the things you are saying, but ultimately realize it's irrelevant because the issue is what the client law firm wants.

So you get mad with me because you don't like that reality. That these people have power over your lives. You should be angry. Just not at me. I am stating the reality. Not whether I like or agree with it or not.

Anonymous said...

Clients ain't buying the bump, so why deal with the hassle?

Anonymous said...

2:55 u had time for such a long response but not a simple yes or no to whether it would be ok if the client wanted it to discriminate based on age. U had lots of time to be insulting to fellow temps but none to answer that question. Just noticing.

Anonymous said...

As far as the Hudson project, people have already made good points that this is about perception of the market rates, not age discrimination (For what its worth, federal age discrimination protection only kicks in at age 40, so that's unlikely to apply in our situation where the vast majority of barred doc reviewers are approximately 25-35)

my guess is that the agency and client figured the work was "simple" enough that they could low ball and pay non-admitted temps well under $30.00 - they assume that barred attorneys would scoff at such a low rate - however,

as others have pointed out, the overall market for contract attorneys is so bad, an agency could post: "admitted attorneys, at least 2 years of doc review experience required" and get plenty of resumes at $26-$27 per hour - people have been desperate the last few months - you'd think the firm and agency would realize they can get experienced, solid people at a cheap rate - simple supply and demand

to the moron who said experienced people are more likely to leave for permanent gigs: what planet are you on? haven't you read the news the last few weeks about all the biglaw associates getting canned? what jobs are people leaving doc reviews for?

Anonymous said...

3:30 you made some good points but missed the mark on age discrimination. There are doc reviewers who are over 40 so the qustion would be whether the ad was intended to exclude them. Hiring decisions about doc review are often made by pretty young people. So many are looking now. Might this be someone's idea of making sure that only the youngest would be on the project? Isn't the impact of it that the reviewers will all be under 30. A couple of months ago I saw an ad for another agency (maybe Peak) that required admitted attorneys but said they had to have graduated in the last couple of classes. What's that about? It wasn't a law firm job, it was a doc review project that was supposed to last for 1 or 2 months. If that wasn't about age, what was the reason?

Anonymous said...

why do you care? the thread started on something that at least had the chance of being provable. Now we have moved into completely speculation.

Anonymous said...

4:32 why not discuss it? You don't care because you feel it doesn't create a problem for you but maybe others feel it may affect them.

Anonymous said...

Age discrimination is a valid concern. The idea behind using JDs and "recent classes" is to get younger, cheaper, less jaded, more debt crippled new law school grads. Yes, cheaper and more subservient.

Why you want just a JD except to save on cash? A JD is by definition someone that graduated law school but cannot practice law. This means either they have been deemed unfit to practice law or failed to pass the bar at least once (or many times) or did not even take the bar at all. In other words, an inferior candidate.

It's a cut rate solution and could involve work that is being pulled back from India due to the upcoming removal of tax incentives that have created the outsourcing bubble.

Either way, it's a cheap client looking to use inexperienced coders at a reduced price, say $18 or $20 per hour.

Anonymous said...

I have three JDs from three different schools (a tier 3, a tier 2, and a tier 1 school), but never took the bar, and I've been working doc review pro bono for a charity in Romania for 10 years. My law school debt was bundled into junk securities and helped sink the nation of Iceland.

Anonymous said...

5:16

Since law firms aren't hiring as much, maybe when you see an agency ad for JDs, they will select from among the pool of JD applicants only what appears to be the cream.

Thus they'd exclude candidates who are obviously inferior, like people who've taken the bar seven times, people with crappy grades, and people with shitty work experience.

There are so many JDs out there, graduating from so many different schools, and there are so (comparatively) few permanent jobs out there to accommodate them all, that the agencies can afford to be selective and just hire very recent JD graduates from decent schools with decent grades.

These are people who may have skipped or failed their first bar attempt, but it doesn't necessarily make them bad candidates for doc review.

Anonymous said...

"they will select from among the pool of JD applicants only what appears to be the cream."

Right in places like the HHR dungeon they only accept the "cream". Have you ever worked on a temp project? They don't want the "cream". They would rather have a URM from a TTT than a white or asian graduate from a prestegious university.

An utterly unpersuasive argument, and one that only further shows that this practice is indeed an age based hiring decision. Thus it is discriminatory on its face.

Anonymous said...

Why exclude those who have proved themselves by passing the bar, getting admitted and working a couple of years doing doc review from a project that is advertised as paying top dollar + OT but consider those who failed at least once and are not admitted? The ad says it's perfect for those awaiting Feb bar results. That sounds like they are aiming at those who failed at least once. Why take them but refuse to even consider admitted, experienced attorneys who would be willing to take any rate out of desperation?

I've been looking for work for months due to doc review disappearing. I'm admitted. I'm experienced. I'd take even a really low rate. Something long-term finally comes up and I can't even apply because they would rather have someone who isn't admitted or experienced and has only graduated.

Anonymous said...

They don't want us permatemps, they want hungry newbies. It sounds like another HHR project. Same deal.

Anonymous said...

I'm a hungry permatemp. Why are only newbies wanted on the HHR projects? Doesn't it mean they only want reviewers who are under 30?

Anonymous said...

I agree, but that's how they roll. They don't want jaded permatemps. They used to start off @ $19 per hour or something like that. I wonder what the rate is now, $20?

Anonymous said...

I'd gladly even take an HHR project now. I've never actually worked there but I've heard about them. I can't apply though, I'm actually admitted and must be punished.

Anonymous said...

Hungry newbies? I have seen so many newbies with the attention span of fleas who do nothing but text each other all day and play online, if the internet is available. Jaded permatemp? No way. I work much harder than any newbie I've ever met. It seems to me that a lot of admitted attorneys work much harder than a lot of newbies.

These terms - hungry newbie and jaded permatemp - sound like age based bigotry. They attach positive meaning to being inexperienced and unadmitted and negative meaning to being admitted and experienced.

Anonymous said...

How else can you make the unadmitted and inexperienced sound superior to the admitted and experienced other than by using loaded phrases like "hungry newbie" and "jaded permatemp"?

Anonymous said...

Well, I don't think those were used by Hudson in their advertisement.

I would agree, however, that we jaded permatemps are getting pretty hungry.

Anonymous said...

Ya gotta be hungry in dis industry. Ya gotta be willing and able to woik for doit cheap wages. Me, I graduated myself from Brooklyn Law School, I been around da block. I ain't shittin' yiz. I been in some fuckin' perilous predicaments. Like right now I'm on a project out in Hoboken... no jokin'... We got 27 guys and goils in dere, all doin' their ting. All graduates of Brooklyn Law, or as we like to call it, Crooklyn Law. Ha ha ha ha! And we're all makin' 17 bucks and hour plus change... Not bad if you can get a pizza delivery gig on da side, like me! No, it's not all dat fuckin' bad...

Anonymous said...

I didn't realize that Joey Bagadonuts attended Brooklyn Law School. How charming.

Anonymous said...

It's kind of amusing hearing you all go on about how it was Hudson's decision to hire only non JDs. Has it occured to any of you that this was the FIRM'S directive? If the firm asks them for 20 barred attorneys, and pays the rate for admitted attorneys, the agency will just send them whatever they feel like?

Has NO ONE here ever worked in sales? I worked in sales before law school, and if you didn't give the client what they wanted, it was good bye business.

Anonymous said...

It's kind of amusing hearing you all go on about how it was Hudson's decision to hire only non JDs. Has it occured to any of you that this was the FIRM'S directive? If the firm asks them for 20 barred attorneys, and pays the rate for admitted attorneys, the agency will just send them whatever they feel like?

Has NO ONE here ever worked in sales? I worked in sales before law school, and if you didn't give the client what they wanted, it was good bye business.

Anonymous said...

Gee, wow you're a genius!

Anonymous said...

11:09 guess you are too busy thinking you are brilliant to pay attention to the posts otherwise you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement.

Anonymous said...

He's not a genius to point out it was the client's decision. But several of you make it hard to not put you down. I am one of the people that repeatedly defend you against the obvious trolls.

But, in a thread about one subject, a woman suing over race discrimination, you flip the conversation back to being about you by saying somehow the Hudson staffing of non-bar JDs is a sign of age discrimination. How crazy nuts narcissist and self absorbed do you have to be to come to that conclusion?

I don't expect the nutcases here to change, but it is funny to observe the self absorption in action. As I said, it sucks that this is what the client wanted, but it's not some great conspiracy against you.

Anonymous said...

It's not a conspiracy theory, just a discussion of thoughts and ideas. Does it threaten you when people discuss such things?

Don't be so paranoid.

Anonymous said...

IF an agency collaborated with a law firm to discriminate, they could both be on the hook, couldn't they?

Anonymous said...

11:23 maybe your'e new here, but more than one topic is often discussed in a thread that begins with a post on one topic. Actually since the original thread was about one alleged form of discrimination, discussing other forms of discrimination is pretty on topic anyway. Clearly, you don't feel that age discrimination would adversely affect you, but not everyone feels that way. Maybe it is kind of self-centered to think that discrimination only matters if you think it personally affects you. If what the client wants is to discriminate that doesn't some how make it ok.

Anonymous said...

I've been here long enough to know some of you, as I said, are self absorbed to the point that if faced with a topic not about you- you will push it back to being about you. I am sure you feel alot of things. The question is not what you feel. The question is whether those feelings are reality or fantasy based. Unfortunately, at least on this topic, it's mostly fantasy.

Anonymous said...

11:51 you seem to be the one who wants everything to be about you. You are also abusive and intolerant of the fact that others clearly wish to continue the discussion.You have nothing to offer but childish name-calling when you don't get your way.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is about us. We are discussing the job market and the ways to find work. I don't know how this could be a self-absorption issue.

Please explain your reasoning. Are you another one of those idiot LPO trolls? What is your stake in this discussion.

We have stated our position, that of licensed temp attorneys seeking work. What is your stake and angle on this discussion?

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, no answer, eh? I figured the LPO troll would disappear once called out.

Anonymous said...

actually this post was not about you or your job situation. it was about someone suing over their job situation. like I said, completely self involved behavior.

Anonymous said...

Unless you just arrived on this planet or this blog yesterday, you know that posts usually don't stay on whatever was in the original comment without deviation. You can post about the original post if you like but insulting others because they dare deviate and speak of other things is juvenile. You sound like a child which probably is why you are not interested in age discrimination. Others are. We can talk about what we like. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

pathetic lack of information being shares on this blog.


Work to help one another. Dumb fukiiin idoiots. dumb fuks with this shit. you clogged up the legal industry and fuked normal peple.

this blog is a dumb fikin joke now.

nothing here

Anonymous said...

1:00 here's an idea. If you have something to add about the original post, just say it.

Anonymous said...

it's method of changing topics that's the problem. If you wanted to talk about yourself, just do so. Don't pretend age discrimination was a real concern when in fact it was just a ploy to change topics.

Anonymous said...

Listen you idiot, it is a real concern. Someday you may have it yourself.

It really seems like you have nothing to say about the original topic. You don't really seem interested in it all all since you aren't discussing it.

Anonymous said...

I work for an agency. Yes, I know, I am sooooo evil. I will tell you right now why they are looking for non-admitted candidates. The rate is going to be low, probably around $20/hr. Yes, some admitted candidates may take the job for now, but as soon as a review for $35/hr surfaces they will jump ship. Since this is a long-term project, the economy may get a bit better in 3 or 4 months and then the agency loses everyone and has to explain to the client why they need to retrain a new crop of reviewers. We can pretty much assume the client will be pissed off and ask the agency why they didn't see it coming. Guess who they are not using for their next project? No conspiracy here people. Pretty cut and dry. Find a new conspiracy to occupy your time, or go back to agency bashing. We love to read your comments. Why don't you do a top ten of the most evil recruiters. We would love to see how we compare to our colleagues and battle it out for the top spot.

Anonymous said...

3:16 I kinda think you're more likely the same jerk who has been posting the same line since yesterday, only now you're pretending to be from Hudson. If the economy gets better, JDs awaiting admission will probably leave to get out of doc review. Admitted attorneys who have been doing this a couple of years have to worry about the agency being angry if they jump.

Anonymous said...

I highly suspect that 3:16 is a troll/flame - but he does make a legitimate point: every barred attorney who takes crappy pay like that is going to jump at the first opportunity and the agency will have to bring in a whole new crop - something to think about

Anonymous said...

Nothing to think about. New grads won't want to make a career in doc review (especially considering what's been going on). They are very likely to jump. Doc reviewers who have been doing this for years wouldn't be so quick to leave considering what they have been through and their need to stay on good terms with an agency like Hudson. 3:16 is a silly flame.

Anonymous said...

316 is a different "jerk" from me, the guy who said some here are self absorbed. Please note that I say "some are self absorbed. I don't believe all are.

There are a plenty of things wrong with our industry that does not require vast conspiracy theories.

I don't know how a discussion about one woman's courageous decision to sue over alleged racial discrimination is the same as how you would work on a doc review for which they requested unlicensed JDs.

Economically, there is a reason why they didn't hire you- they are afraid you will leave the project. This perception may not be fair to your circumstance, but it's self absorbed to pretend this is not a realistic assumption.

There is real age discrimination in the legal industry. No doubt about it. Age, race, gender etc are all factors. But, you really want to discuss why you didn't get the doc review because you are suffering in an economic down turn. That's a fair discussion. Just don't pretend it's about discrimination.

You can call me a troll for saying this or a jerk. But frankly, I think some of you are jerks for not being able to have any awareness outside yourself. If you take that attitude, why should anyone care about your circumstance either?

Anonymous said...

Listen out of touch. This is about age discrimination. It is about projects where no reviewer is over 30. Someday you'll get that.

Stop pretending you are interested in discussing the original post. If you were, that is what you would be talking about.

Anonymous said...

502

Okay, if you say so. It's not because you are self absorbed so you are trying to shift a discussion about discrimination back to yourself. It's because you "really" do care about discrimination although your argument makes no sense in the real world. But, I am the one out of touch. Sure. Whatever floats your boat. The lesson from this for me is it's like the crazy guy on the subway. The best approach is to move to the next train rather than engage their insanity.

Anonymous said...

5:25 you're acting a bit crazy. If you want to talk about something else, do it instead of going on and on with your inane insults.

Anonymous said...

the admitted v. non-admitted thing is clearly a money and continuity issue. its not an age issue.

i have been on a few projects over the years and i would say that 75% (educated guess)of the attorneys are constantly trying to get a feel for what else is out there. of that group a good 50% or so would jump ship if they got something better i.e., longer, pays more, etc. and that fine, they should be looking out for themselves.

so, its a money and a security issue. they want to pay less and hope for less chance of attorneys jumping off the project. the problem they would normally have is that many unadmitted attorneys may end up getting perm jobs, thats probably not much of a problem these days.

Anonymous said...

It isn't clearly a money thing at all. Someday you may actually understand that it is a lot harder to get a project if you are over 40. This is not just about one ad. There was another recent ad seeking admitted attorneys but only those who were in the last couple of classes. That was for a 1 - 2 month project.

The most likely to jump are the newbies. You talk of other projects as though there were any. If the economy improves, presumably it won't just be in doc review. New grads will be the first to run out of doc review when other opportunities open up. They will not worry about screwing Hudson, Peak or whoever, they won't look back. Those of us who have been doing this for years are the ones with the stake in staying in the agencies' good graces. After the last few months, we are far less likely to leave a project that we know exists for a new one that could be gone in a day or two (like most of the recent projects).

The fact that ads that would result in excluding reviewers who are over 40 have started appearing recently is a genuine concern to those excluded during these hard times. It is harder for us to get any jobs no matter what they pay. Maybe that is news to you, but you'll probably get the picture eventually.

Anonymous said...

6:46, ive been doing this for years. i just got off a project that lasted about a month. most people had been out of work for at least a month if not more. still, much of the talk was what kind of project would you jump off for. yes, some people are loyal to agencies for reasons such as benefits with specific agencies (i am one of them) most are signed up with at least 5 agencies and bounce around if they can.

im under 40 and i am having as hard a time as most finding work. virtually every project i have been on has had numerous people over 40 and some over 50 and even up to 60 so...maybe in some cases it would be harder for those over 40 to get work, its definitely not the rule.

just because an ad asks for unadmitted JDs it does not mean age discrimination is afoot.

Anonymous said...

I don't see what the problem is in hiring admitteds. Even if the market in a few months, all the real attorneys who had real perm jobs at big firms will get the jobs first.

And besides, if you were unable to get a perm job up until now and have been doing doc review even in the bull market, why would a doc review resume all of a sudden be attractive to employers?

Anonymous said...

It's not an age thing at all.

I've heard a lot of stupid whining on this site, but this takes the cake.

Anyone here who really thinks this is age discrimination should tear up his/her law diploma, because you clearly didn't learn a fuckin' thing in Con Law.

You have to show they are using other things (like bar admission or lack thereof) as a proxy for age discrimination, and you have to show that there are no other reasonable explanations available to them.

In this case, there are at least three other really really good, obvious reasonable explanations of this sitting right under your noses, but you refuse to look at them.

By the way, even if they were primarily motivated by age discrimination (which is ridiculous), as long as they can point to other reasonable explanations for this, they are OK.

There's a lot of precedent for this in SCOTUS decisions on race and other protected classes... I'll leave it to you to find them.

Anonymous said...

Is this new unadmitted JD project at HHR? Will Lisa Hart be making a cameo to torture the temps? Lisa Hart is like Shamu on crack.

Anonymous said...

2:23 By "stupid whining"you mean that this doesn't affect you, in fact, if anything it helps you - so you're all for it. The fact that you are busy thinking up pretexts shows that you actually prefer age discrimination because it increases your chances. Your lack of understanding of the law shows that you learned nothing in law school, even if you managed to graduate. Probably you are one of those who are eligible for the Hudson project because you graduated but didn't manage to get admitted.

Anonymous said...

Should have read 7:23 By "stupid whining"you mean that this doesn't affect you, in fact, if anything it helps you - so you're all for it. The fact that you are busy thinking up pretexts shows that you actually prefer age discrimination because it increases your chances. Your lack of understanding of the law shows that you learned nothing in law school, even if you managed to graduate. Probably you are one of those who are eligible for the Hudson project because you graduated but didn't manage to get admitted.

Trollop said...

Her suit is real, but the commenter is much more racist than any law office could. Come on, sharecropping? Read it for the attitude--it's horrible. I remember when this blog used to have value...

Anonymous said...

533

thanks for illustrating why you are the nutbag on the subway. I say something- you repeat it back. Like I said- got it. You really care about the issues despite the fact that others have given you logic arguments that refute your conspiracy. Do you know how many older lawyers I have worked with on projects? Do you know my age ? Jesus but you are nutjob.

Trollop said...

5:02

Age discrimination only protects the old--never the young. I suppose you have a law degree? Thanks for making us look good.

Anonymous said...

7:34

Whaaaa? First of all, I'm 37. Second of all, I am currently working at a good law firm in LA, not temping. Third off, I've never done doc review in my life, I'm just here to collect info about doc review in case I ever have to do it when I move to another city. Fourth, I passed the bar 10 years ago.

You don't have to believe me on any of that, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!!

Anonymous said...

7:23 you are refusing to look at the impact of requirements that seem to make no sense whatsoever (admitted but only last 2 classes for a 1 - 2 month doc review) and result in excluding all reviewers who are over age 40.

Anonymous said...

7:39 that is the worst fake story I have heard yet.

Anonymous said...

739 - don't know if his story is fake, but what about that fake story that you told here yesterday? It's funny you are telling other people they're making up fake stories when you are the biggest liar around here yourself!

Anonymous said...

734

No , they mean you are making shit up to somehow single yourself out because you don't like that the top of race discrimination was not about you. It's what self absorbed people do. I am not in DC and her situation does involve me.

Yet, I was interested in knowing about her taking this risk because I thought-at least for a change- right or wrong- someone is doing something other than bitching.

If you truly believe you are facing age discrimination- bring a case that proves it. What's making you so angry here is that we are not buying your arguments because we can easily come up with an argument that refutes it.

This is why I wanted to talk about her because I think it's really cool of her and, at least on the surface, it looks like she has an okay, if no winning claim. I don't know her personally. She could be a complete nutball too, but at least I respect her action for testing her arguments.

Like the other poster, I am begining to even question if some of you are lawyers here. The point is you aren't proving age discrimination. You are just repeating it must be age discrimination although there are so many arguments a) perception of who will leave a probjec b) number of older lawyers on projects, etc that refute your claim. Your response is always that someone is a troll or a jerk or whatever.

Have you done anything other than doc reviews? I sympathetic if you have not. But when you start making outlandish claims that are not backed up by basic reasoning, you leave yourself open to these questions.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, i just posted above - I meant to direct it to the poster at 741. You are a big fat liar!! You accuse other people of lying and you make up fake stories yourself!! Like that story when you said you didn't get it on with another doc reviewer (male) in the bathrooms at De Novo! I know who you are and I know that you did.

Anonymous said...

7:44 u must also be 7:39. U sound retarded. What fake story yesterday? U don't even know who you're talking to and u come up with stupidity like that. I think u are just another incarnation of the fool who posted "self-centered" over and over again.

Anonymous said...

7:46 you must be that idiot with the posts about being "self-centered". Now you are going off with crazy crap like you are tripping. You sound pretty adolescent.

Anonymous said...

You are self centered because the story wasn't about you, but somehow, it's become about you.

We are no longer discussing real discrimination. We are discussing some idiot who wants to bitch about not being chosen by Hudson for a project that was based on admittance into the bar.

You have yet to prove that it's age based discrimination other than saying "well all the arguments against me are wrong, and I am right because..." Have you yet to give a reason why? There are laws regarding age discrimination. You don't prove a damn thing. You just repeat over and over again to everyone's argument- "Well, no, you r argument is wrong because it's age dicsrimination." No, what it is you are someone who can't come here to discuss issues that relate to a broader subject.

Again- relate your situation to the post? Can you do that by actually linking it?

Anonymous said...

7:44

I know where you're coming from questioning whether some of these people are lawyers.

I'm sure they are lawyers, though. The problem is that many of 'em are "bottom of the barrel" lawyers -- lowest common denominator lawyers.

Whether they've passed the bar or not, a lot of these people obviously learned very little in law school, and are too quick to jump the gun and make allegations about things like "age discrimination" when they don't even understand the first thing about the Constitutional tests to determine whether an ad or hiring practice is prima facie age discrimination.

After a good class in Con Law, and successfully absorbing the concepts and cases taught, this should come as second nature to any American lawyer, but obviously some people here are so muddled and self-centered in their thinking that they throw concepts like this around willy-nilly, without even remotely understanding them.

I think that his is really good proof that, apart from some of us who come here for other reasons, doc review lawyers TEND to be people who didn't really do well in law school, didn't learn much, and/or probably never should have gone to law school in the first place. I certainly wouldn't want them representing me for any reason.

Anonymous said...

7:53 so it was you. You are tripping.

Anonymous said...

This is the website, 7:47 is the same person as 7:37, 7:44, 7:46, and 7:50.

Anonymous said...

Hey 7:55 -- you and 7:53 are one in the same person. Quit arguing with yourself, you cretin!!

Anonymous said...

7:53 all you are proving is that you are some kind of wacko. You have been going off the wall with posts about this for 2 days. The only thing u should be admitted to is a psych ward.

Anonymous said...

I give up. You people are fucking nutjobs. Good luck. I was one of the few people who would defend your nutcase paranoia as just the response to being in a bad industry. Now, I see it's really a problem with who you are.

Anonymous said...

So, who is going to bring one of those Yolanda Young lawsuits against Hudson for age discrimination? Class action?

Anonymous said...

When an obsessed nut job like 8:02 goes on and on like this for a couple of days it is best to ignore him. You are not dealing with someone who is rational. He has been whining nonstop for 2 days. Let him tire himself out.

Anonymous said...

Re: Age discrimination suit

No, they aren't. they will simply whine. I am firmly on board that view now after trying to get past their nutso paranoia. The thing about being paranoid is that its self reinforcing. So, whatever they make up in their imagination is real.

Anonymous said...

8:09 you are just the same army of one, no? Whining for days trying to stop others from talking. Maybe your real problem is immaturity. No professional acts like that.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, happens to disagree with you online that's making your life what it is. Okay. Got it.

Anonymous said...

Stop looking for a discrimination angle. It's just part of the victim mentality that has pervaded our country. There is no cause of action for age discrimination here. Your complaint would be even more pathetic than that comic book cobbled together by Yolanda.

Start looking for honest ways to make money. It may involve a change of location, careers or just plain waiting around for the work to return to NYC. All of the whining and sniveling won't get any of us on a project.

There will be no union, no age discrimination. We just have to wait for the agencies to call and put us back to work. You know, they would love to be billing us out now anyway. They just aren't getting the big projects anymore.

They are putting their "A List" temps to work. I would suggest you kiss a little recruiter butt and get in good with one of them. It beats sitting around dreaming up some fanciful, losing arguments.

Anonymous said...

9:00 I suggest you stop being so dismissive of legit concerns about discrimination.

Anonymous said...

9:00 there you go again.

Anonymous said...

Any over 40 doc reviewer knows that age discimination is pervasive in this business. New ads ruling us out of projects are a valid concern. The question is will it be one or two, which would not be worth acting on, or is it more than that? To take note of these ads and discuss them is totally valid. Having a tantrum because some of us have been discussing it is not.

Anonymous said...

I'm the 3:16 jerk/troll/flame. I am not from Hudson, but another staffing agency that I'm sure you despise equally (though we have unfortunately not made it to your wall of shame yet). This is the rationale that is used, like it or not. Also, as someone else here stated, sometimes it is the client that comes in with a strict set of rules such as: "the reviewers must know Ringtail". Of course as many of you know it takes 2 seconds to learn these system, but many times I have had to inform some great reviewers (yes, we actually do like some of you guys!!) that they were not accepted on a project because they haven't used the software required. We want repeat business, so we do as they ask. If we can negotiate with them we do, but sometimes they give you strict orders on what they want and there is no room for negotiation. Plus, you guys hate us so much, so why should I stick my neck out for you?

Anonymous said...

9:52 your professionalism has won me over.

Anonymous said...

Is that you Scott K?

Anonymous said...

So, I know everyone hates every agency, but if you had to, which one would you choose to work with and why?

kedahun said...

9:52 makes a good point. The law firms and their clients make the stipulations. There seems to be way too much blaming of the individual agencies. Perhaps there may be people at each agency that are hard to deal with, etc, but what they want, as much as us, is warm bodies sitting in a chair billing. They profit; we profit. Well, we all did profit at one time. Those days are probably long gone.

Anonymous said...

I've done many projects and had both good and bad experiences on some of them. Its the client and the luck of supervisor/rules that vary. I agree about Paul, Weiss being a crap place to work and virtually everyone I know does. But I've worked at other places deemed evil by commentators on here and had good experiences. For instance, HHR seems to be one place people hate to work. I did a three month stint there that was absolute cake. Maybe I got lucky - little to no rules/supervision, good perks, a low standard for output numbers, flexible hours, and a really nice couple of supervisors. Again, its project-to-project.

Anonymous said...

Eastbound and down, loaded up 'n truckin'

We go' do what they say can't be done

We've got a long way to go and a short time to get there

I'm eastbound, just watch ol' Bandit run!

YEEEEEHHHHHAAAAAA!!!!

Say it ain't so, Joe!!!

Hosni MuBarack Hussein Obama bin Biden made da STIMULUS PACKAGE and it's gonna SAVE OUR SOULS!!!!

HEEEE HEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Eh Compare(Gumbaree), ci vo suonare Chi si suona? Un friscaletto. E come si suona un friscaletto?
(*whistle*) un friscaletto tipiti tipiti tam.

Eh compare, ci vo suonare. Chi si suona? Un sasofona, E come si suona un sasofona? Tu tu tu tu un sasofona
(*whistle*) un friscalette, tipiti tipiti tam.

Eh compare, ci vo suonare. Chi si suona? Un mandolino. e come si suona un mandolino? a plig a plin, un mandolino,
tu tu tu tu un sasofona
(*whistle*) un friscalette, tipiti tipiti tam.

E compare, ci vo suonare? Chi si suona? u violino. E come si suona un violino? A zing a zing, un violino,
a pling a pling, un mandolino
tu tu tu tu un sasofona
(*whistle*) un friscalette, tipiti tipiti tam.

E compare, ci vo suonare? Chi si suona? a la trumbetta. Ma come si suona a la trombetta? Papapapa a la trumbetta,
A zing a zing, un violino,
a pling a pling, un mandolino
tu tu tu tu un sasofona
(*whistle*) un friscalette, tipiti tipiti tam.

E compare, ci vo suonari? Chi si suona? a la trombona. Ma come si suona a la trombona. A fumma a fumma a la trombona,
Papapapa a la trumbetta,
A zing a zing, un violino,
a pling a pling, un mandolino,
tu tu tu tu un sasofona
(*whistle*) un friscalette, tipiti tipiti tam!

Ziggy played guitar, jamming good with Weird and Gilly
And The Spiders From Mars
He played it left hand
But made it too far
Became the special man, then we were Ziggy's band

Ziggy really sang, screwed up eyes and screwed down hairdo
Like some cat from Japan, he could lick 'em by smiling
He could leave 'em to hang
He came on so loaded man, well hung and snow white tan.

So where were The Spiders, while the fly tried to break our balls?
Just the beer light to guide us,
So we bitched about his fans and should we crush his sweet hands?

Ziggy played for time, jiving us that we were voodoo
The kids were just crass, he was the nazz
With God-given ass
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar

Making love with his ego, Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man, I had to break up the band

Oh yeah
Ooooooo
Ziggy played GUUIIIIIITTTTARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

1029

It varies greatly. It depends primarily on who is working at the agency at the time. But, to be frank, it does not matter. The truth is that no matter what the situation the problem is the nature of the work we do. We are several levels removed from a stable situation. When you think about it, we are not like other temporary workers who often work directly for the client and retain skills that are transferable. Even some temporary substantive legal work is like this. Our problem, again, is the perception of the work we do. In an industry that's all about rating people on superficial markers, this is the lowest end of the totem regardless of whether you have the ability to do more or not.

Anonymous said...

9:00

While I think the arguments about age discrimination are b.s. and I do not know the merits of the racial discrimination case (frankly neither do you so I lump you with the other extremists on this board), discrimination does happen on the basis of gender, race, age, class and several other factors in the law. This is, again, because we work in an industry based on those things. There is no way around this. Look at the law firms, especially big law, they look like they do for a reason, and it is not merit. Merit is the fantasy hoop that you jump through in order to be told no, sorry, the rules have changed once you have jumped through them.

Anonymous said...

This blog is nearly worthless as a sounding board to have a rational debate or plan any kind of concrete strategy whatsoever, because the anonymous posting makes it impossible to follow coherent arguments, ostracize the morons through peer pressure, or build consensus.

It is a board custom-made for lazy, self-centered, entitled whiners, which perhaps not so coincidentally describes many young American lawyers these days to a "T".

No surprise then that nothing constructive ever gets done here, and people are making these back-and-forth infantile, superficial arguments.

Then there's the cretin who whenever anyone chimes in with a post he doesn't like, or which he thinks favors the agencies or LPOs in any way (even if tangentially or hypothetically, for the sake of argument), he comes back with his tired, old, stale "troll" remark.

It's all very hypocritical and lame.

THIS IS A PLACE FOR LOSERS!!!!

Anonymous said...

11:23 - why are you here then? There is a general lack of civility in these posts. Why can't people dispense with vitriol and insults?

Anonymous said...

The reason those firms are on the "wall of shame" that 9:52 referred to is probably due to the fact that, with the exception of Spherion, they are the big players in NY doc review and it stands to reason that more people have been employed through them than the smaller agencies. Ergo, more dissatisfied people.

Anonymous said...

It's no surprise this place is dominated by NYC people, because NYC is where all the greediest people and wannabe Wall Street megalomaniacs went during the past 10 years, all trying to get their piece of the pie.

Now that the House of Cards has tumbled down, the cretins in the psycho ward are all coming out of their cells, drooling and asking, "WHERE MY PIECE???"

These people still don't realize the Gravy Train is all over.

Now, pick up your Tonka Toys and alphabet blocks and GO HOME!!!

There is NO BIGLAW JOB FOR YOU HERE TODAY!!

And NO DOC REVIEW EITHER!!!

Anonymous said...

1141

In fairness, not everyone here is greedy. But, many have been subjected to the same middle class squeeze as the rest of the country while addressing higher prices. It's extremely expensive to live in NYC. Yes, we could possibly leave, but go where? There is also the issue of those of us who have families here. What would we do with them? So, it's interesting when non-NYers argue we are trying to be greedy. That maybe true for Wall Street types or big law, but as a general rule the money people want here is survival money believe it or not.

Anonymous said...

There is one agency that is bigger than Dine and Lex that is not up there.

Anonymous said...

11:52

Right, but a goodly number of the lawyers and wannabe lawyers now stalking the streets of NYC are not originally from Manhattan, or even from New York, but transplants from around the country and around the world.

Let me tell you about my ex-gf. I graduated from a law school in LA and met her there when I was starting 2nd year and she was an undergrad sophomore business major at the same university. (She emigrated from Europe to LA at 19).

I graduated in 2000 and she graduated in 2001, at the cusp of the dot-com boom. At her first job out of college, as an internet consultant with a huge global firm which no longer exists, she was making in the top 5% of college grads... During that time the NASDAQ crashed and she was paid for about 9 months to read Wired and Business 2.0 and surf the web in her office, because they had no clients at all for about 9 months, before this gigantic global company with offices in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Oslo, Brussels, NYC, and like 3 offices in LA dissolved within the space of a few days.

Then she got caught up in the Real Estate Bubble with another huge real estate conglomerate, right as things were peaking... and then, POOF!

That job was gone, but she quickly high-tailed it out to NYC, greedy wannabe capitalist that she is... she hooked up with a crummy real estate agency in Jersey City (what a dump) and now, over a year into the biggest real estate bust in a century, she is scurrying around unemployed and confused, going to meaningless networking socials and self-esteem seminars.

She dumped LA (and me) because of her overwhelming ambition, her greed and the weird allure of NYC -- the glitz, the glamour, and the promise of untold wealth that only NYC seems to have for many people.

She can't say I didn't warn her, though, that life in NYC would be rough in ways that she could have never imagined living in comfy, sunny LA.

Anonymous said...

1208

Yeah, okay, but remember anecdote is not the plural of data. What I am talking about is the per average costs of living here, the typical average New Yorker, and what that average New Yorker earns. I am not discussing the top 5 percent or even the wannabes. Look, I think people here do bitch too much. The problem is not that they don't have good reasons to bitch (they do and so do most of the American public), but that they (like most Americans) tend to respond to the reasons in unhealthy ways.

Anonymous said...

1141 - that was one seriously angry rant. why be so nasty? do you hate nyc for some reason, or are you a native nyorker who hates transplants? Seriously, cool your jets a bit. this is just a blog's comment section.

Anonymous said...

12:08 I am truly sorry to hear about your ex and you. I've been dumped before and it sucks. That said, its not the fault of NYC. Its also been long enough that you should try to get over the demise of the relationship

Anonymous said...

My ex dumped me and her TTT tits and ass got her a pussy pass into Biglaw at CWT. It wasn't long before she was fucking the guy who got her a job (about a week).I can't wait to hear that she got fired. She works in capital markets so it will not be long I hope. Fuck u bitch!!

Anonymous said...

well good for her that she dumped you.

Anonymous said...

5:52-

Always good to know that the legal profession continues to churn out such intelligent, articulate people who are also very mature in their dealings with the opposite sex.

Anonymous said...

5.52...You learned your lesson. Many females who lack the credentials get a "pussy pass" into Biglaw. Anyway, that looks like a poisoned chalice now.

Anonymous said...

finally, you guys are making me laugh!!

Anonymous said...

ME DOK REVYUER!! ME WANTEM JOB!!!

Anonymous said...

Hello, Anon 7:23 and 7:53 that keeps talking about "Con law":

Age discrimination is prohibited by statute, not by the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Litigation Analysts are losers. Especially the men (girly men)lol

Fake Degree said...

There is a fake college degree program on the internet for approximately several kinds of degrees. These programs are for Associate degrees, for Bachelor's, for Master's and even for Ph.D.'s. You only have to do is to go online, explain your experience and demand the degree.

Adams Scott said...

This was a conviction be told great read, thanks for captivating the time to put it together! Touched on some very good...
Marketing communication strategy | Advertising as profession in Estonia | Advertising professional in Estonia