Friday, October 08, 2004

These damn planes flying overhead recently have made life in the office marginally more annoying for the past few months. There's a new flight path. It's unpleasant.

I don't want to respond extensively, at least not at this point in time, to the comment thread below venturing some guesses as to my identity. But I did want to mention that there are practice areas, here and everywhere, that incorporate aspects of both transactional and litigation work. Corporate restructuring is the first that comes to mind. That's not to necessarily say my practice is in one of these areas.

There are associates who've mentioned they'd like to leave this evening in time to get home and watch the Presidential debate. I have trouble understanding why anyone working at a place like this can really bring himself to care. Under either administration, our salaries are safe.

"These damn planes flying overhead recently have made life in the office marginally more annoying for the past few months. There's a new flight path."

Obvious red herring.
Or maybe AL wants you to THINK it's a red herring. *mysterious Twilight Zone theme music*
The only litigation aspect that I can think of associated with "corporate restructuring" is the bankrupcty aspect. Certainly someone practicing in the are of corporate restructuring is not litigating lawsuits by creditors as well as doing the transactional work associated with the restructuring, at least not at a big firm.

I must admit that I am not too familiar with bankrupcty, but I have never heard of a motion for summary judgment being filed in one.
Some lawyers in big firms do both transactional work and litigation. I just closed a financing transaction where my cocounsel was a Biglaw partner -- he does financing and workouts, and the litigation that results when the financing and workouts go bad. I do mostly business work -- not at a firm as large as his, but large enough that it flirts with the AmLaw 200 -- and nevertheless have tried three cases this year, where the central issues involved my particular practice focus. I also review most of the pleadings when my litigation partners are working for my clients. I know other business lawyers who have some involvement in litigation for similar reasons. So it's quite possible that AL would do mostly transactional work and participate in some litigation work, as AL describes.
Our salaries are NOT safe regardless of who wins.

In the debate, Kerry promised tax increases on families earning over $200,000 a year.

I do the biglaw thing, and my wife is a GP doctor. If that SOB wins, my taxes are going up.
I know of some transactional corporate lawyers that have SOME involvement in litigation, but they are not drafting motions for summary judgment or actually trying cases. They will be involved in a litigation matter if the lawyer was involved in the transactional matter that went south (and the partner, therefore, has a good command of the relevant facts) or if the partner is an expert in the area of law at issue. A good example would be an ERISA partner I know who is tapped for litigation matters quite often. He does a fair amount of litigation work, but he never drafts motions for summary judgment (or any pleadings for that matter) or tries cases (the thought of him trying a case is comical). I know of no Biglaw partners who take the lead on transactional deals and who also take the lead on litigation matters.
About $15,000 more a year, assuming that he just sends it back to Clinton-era.

And that's assuming he doesn't hammer us with a capital gains tax hike too.

That's money I'd rather have than the damn government. Pay for your own retirement and health care, people, or better yet, die off, so I don't have to pay for either.

Of course, Monday is also the firm's mandatory pro bono day for me. Time to go sabotage some homeless people's legal cases.

I could try to combat your ignorance by telling you about cycles of poverty and barriers to education. Unfortunately, it's hard to appeal to someone's sense of humanity when their soul is rotting away. You'd retort with a well-rehearsed line about "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps," pointing to an exception to the rule: someone who achieved in spite of the hand he was dealt. Nevermind that you were dealt pocket aces at birth, afforded the best education, and encouraged to succeed throughout your life. No, what you SHOULD do is to continue holding the entire indigent population standard, asking them to overcome a challenge you yourself have never had to face, let alone conquer.

I mean, you've figured it out, right? This whole "life" thing--it's all about money, isn't it? Those fools out there, seeking love, passion, and meaning. Those morons who lend a helping hand to those around them who are less fortunate. Chumps, they are. If only they were privy to your secret, your insight into the essense of the universe. Man, I'm in awe of you. All I can say is, congratulations. You've made it. You've secured your 6 figure salary and you've escaped a $15,000 tax bill. And you don't have to help anyone or contribute to society to boot! Kudos! You must feel very good about yourself.

Congratulations on being devoid of love and compassion. At least you have money, which in turn gives you happiness and meaning in life. Right?

8:24PM, reading your comment made me think of a bumper sticker i once saw that would apply to you nicely. "if only closed minds came with closed mouths."
Funny, it made me think of a different one: "Feed the homeless to the hungry."
11:06PM: Sorry, but I lost my World's Smallest Violin, or I would have played an accompaniment to your self-serving, false compassion. Why don't you drive down to the ghetto and start handing out your property. Try not to get a bullet in the head while your at it.
"Nevermind that you were dealt pocket aces at birth, afforded the best education, and encouraged to succeed throughout your life. No, what you SHOULD do is to continue holding the entire indigent population standard, asking them to overcome a challenge you yourself have never had to face, let alone conquer."

Shit like this makes me seethe. I don't know about 8:24's personal background, but I personally had NONE of that stuff 11:06 refers to. Yet I don't feel like giving any more of my money to the government. There are biglaw attorneys out there who work feverishly hard for their money, because they remember how scary it was not to have any at all. In my experience it's the people who have come farthest in life who are most reluctant to give up what they have earned. So 11:06, get your sanctimonious head out of your ass, and realize that you're just as prone to stereotyping and closed-mindedness as any Republican.
Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another
Right now
Hate to pile it on to 11:06, but here is my rub with people like him:

You say that there is more to life than money. Stop and smell the roses. Fine, works for you, great. But, while smelling the roses you run into a homeless guy, your instinct is not to start working harder so YOU can support him, your instict is to tax the "money-grubbing-workaholic" jerks who make more than $200K and use THEIR money to do what YOU consider right. They sold their soul for money, and as such should be punished.

Maybe you do work hard and make more than $200K a year and think taxes are too low. DONATE MORE!!!!!!!! I doubt that government will return any of your money. If you can't donate to government, donate to your favorite homeless shelter, church, college, or WFV chapter, whatever floats your boat.

Well another problem is that as you ramp up the taxes on "the rich", they might stop to smell the roses. Because, as you rightly pointed out, they work to have money, don't they? As they keep less of that money, they are less likely to keep working as hard. Who is gonna be taxed then? People making $150K? See, now we are talking about middle class couple where both spouses work, aren't we? Also, what if the soul-less rich simply leave as taxes get higher, who are you going to tax then? Of course, if rich (pun intended) cheat on their taxes and then leave, the ugly Republicans will just pardon them. Ooops, it was Clinton. Sorry.
Look, God put me here and the poor there. Who are you to argue with God? We must preserve the status quo because things are the way God wants them.
Hmmm, obviously not the smart bunch here. Probably never even looked at a federal budget. You know, they put them up on the web so you can review them.

By the by, we will overspend our tax revenue by about a half a trillion dollars this year. How much of that is going to the poor? What will raised taxes pay for again? Oh, maybe some of you are the interest-only-mortgage-lease-the-benz crowd.

I vote for AL being a secretary.
Doesn't it all go to Halliburton? (just kidding--tho' some Dems believe it to be so)

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?