Happy, sorry about the continued hijack. I’m not sure how this turned into “BigLaw lawyers are tools,” but there you have it.
Which is, of course, not at all what I said. In retrospect, I was not as clear as I could have been. Mr. Excellent played devil’s advocate (and, no offense, did a piss poor job of it). I suggested an alternate explanation, and one that accords with my understanding of BigLaw.
But to the extent that your suggestion is that human beings do not generally take what facts they know and extrapolate from them, we disagree. The truth is that law schools, like any other association of people, tend to develop certain common characteristics. For example, in LA, we’ve found that graduates of the local law schools tend to act in a certain way. I can’t disagree with Happy’s concern that people may tend to look differently at BC because of this incident (although, as I’ve said, this is fleeting – by Friday week we’ll all have moved on to something new).
Oh, but yes – the number of morons permitted to be lawyers is stunning. That is, however, irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Dude, you cannot cannot tell me that the misuse of the the word “affect” in the “interview” didn’t grate. For that alone, that woman should never be employed.
You must have missed the part where I said that I’d be surprised if the issue came up in OCI. But you’re right that law firms are just like any other employer when it comes to sexual harassment (are those M&M’s in your pocket?)
Right. And with the same breath, you disparage the lawyers who represent the needy and downtrodden because they represent corporations as well. Whatever.
If if matters, Oakminster, I still think you’re an asshole. But if you’re ever in LA, hookers and blow are on me.
I think the point is that if you judge lawyers by who they choose to represent, you’re gonna have a problem with the public defenders if you have a problem with the people who defend the Fortune 500. In other words – don’t judge a lawyer by the client.
Anyway, sorry for the hijack. I only posted originally to say that I understand why Happy posted originally, but I disagree with the conclusion that he drew. I didn’t mean to turn this into a huge stinking deal.