To hear about how origination credit is racist (courtesy of the NYC Bar).
Description:
Origination credit sharing is one of the most difficult things to talk about for anyone, in particular for women and diverse partners, who tend to be more junior and inexperienced in asking for what they deserve. Law firm culture heavily weighs origination credits (billing attorney credits) when making compensation decisions, rewarding those partners who are able to succeed at client generation and client retention. This system encourages hoarding of these credits and disproportionately impacts the diverse population at firms. We will discuss the complications with the current system, and explore how firms are moving forward with a fairer system that rewards collaboration, client assignments or does away with credits all together. We will also hear from the client side of the Bar, as the panel will include a Diversity and Inclusion professional and a General Counsel, who will discuss what they are doing to help firms improve. Please join us for this discussion and great panel of thought leaders on this topic.
https://services.nycbar.org/EventDetail?EventKey=DIVOCT2020&WebsiteKey=f71e12f3-524e-4f8c-a5f7-0d16ce7b3314
I can proudly say that I NEVER liked this woman, primarily because of all the times she dicked around with pretending to hold the football for Charlie Brown. But it turns out she may have been up to far worse, as the de facto Karen of NOW.
How is it that this all could have gone unreported for so long? Others must be complicit. We need names!!
Time's up, NOW. We demand action, NOW. Get off your racist asses, NOW (I'm going to have so much fun with this, I may never stop).
It might be said that a freakshow by any name is still a freakshow. For those who have ever wondered at the degree of skill (vel non) shown by Harvard Law grads in their efforts to draft pleadings, consider who it was that taught them.
It may be open to debate whether Professor Bruce Hay still retained a shred of human dignity after the publication of his saga in New York Magazine and The Cut. Apparently, even he came to realize that the stories perhaps did not present him in an entirely favorable light. A less pitiable train wreck of a man might have stopped there, in an effort to cut his losses. But not Hay. Oh Hell no.
In this groveling, prolix (and, of course, pro se) Complaint, Hay boldly tracked down the last vestiges of his professional and social reputation, and beat them to death with his mad drafting skills. Beyond the utter disregard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and the embarrassing errors of basic grammar, the substantive allegations of the Complaint tend to undercut its claims. At one point, Hay expressly acknowledges that he has deliberately included some claims despite his knowledge that he allowed the applicable statute of limitations to expire. Because he "had no alternative." Masterful. The simple fact that nobody took away Hay's keyboard and put him in restraints suggests that he has no friends left in this world. His unparalleled marvel of a pleading is likely to make future textbooks as an illustration of a 12(b)(6) ruling, awaiting its moment and pages upon which to be memorialized.
Colleagues, this is what it takes to be a professor of civil procedure at Harvard Law. Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair!
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.541599/gov.uscourts.nysd.541599.1.0.pdf
My firm offers a very reasonable (i.e. too reasonable) flat-fee deal for creative people which results in an incredible flood of crap coming in the door for clearance and fair use review.
The documentaries are the worst since anyone with a phone can make one. At least half are unwatchable: hours and hours of nothing really happening, pockmarked, greasy-haired filmmakers inserting themselves into the doc for no good reason, terrible sound & lighting, cringe-making narration, unidentified talking heads or voices, manic, poorly designed graphics, super depressing topics and/or overly-preachy screeds.
Oh and tons and tons of crying.
My paralegal and I compare notes as to when we'd stop watching if we could.
She's a martyr and will endure any movie for at least 30 minutes before calling it quits, while I give a film exactly 10 minutes to grab me and if it's a comedy and I dont laugh in those ten minutes, its OVER.
Despite crowded cities and worked-up mobs, until the late 19th century, it was widely understood that “street politics” demanded the right to protest, gather, assemble, and shout on busy streets and parks.
[S]o widely accepted was the fundamental right to gather and protest that it was “included virtually without comment in the First Amendment.” Moreover, “in the first United States Congress a discussion of the proposed Bill of Rights amendment [regarding assembly] was declared beneath the dignity of the members.”
We have, in short, acceded to a regulatory regime that forces protesters to both seek government permission to assemble, and then to be at the mercy of state claims about potential lawlessness, rioting, inconvenience, or traffic, when the government seeks to quell protest.
In the wake of George Floyd’s death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims. The current situation in Portland is a telling example. Every night for the past two months, a mob of hundreds of rioters has laid siege to the federal courthouse and other nearby federal property. The rioters arrive equipped for a fight, armed with powerful slingshots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles, and explosive devices. Inside the courthouse are a relatively small number of federal law enforcement personnel charged with a defensive mission: to protect the courthouse, home to Article III federal judges, from being overrun and destroyed.
What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the Government of the United States. In recent nights, rioters have barricaded the front door of the courthouse, pried plywood off the windows with crowbars, and thrown commercial-grade fireworks into the building in an apparent attempt to burn it down with federal personnel inside. The rioters have started fires outside the building, and then systematically attacked federal law enforcement officers who attempt to put them out—for example, by pelting the officers with rocks, frozen water bottles, cans of food, and balloons filled with fecal matter. A recent video showed a mob enthusiastically beating a Deputy U.S. Marshal who was trying to protect the courthouse – a property of the United States government funded by this Congress – from further destruction. A number of federal officers have been injured, including one severely burned by a mortar-style firework and three who have suffered serious eye injuries and may be permanently blind.
Largely absent from these scenes of destruction are even superficial attempts by the rioters to connect their actions to George Floyd’s death or any legitimate call for reform. Nor could such brazen acts of lawlessness plausibly be justified by a concern that police officers in Minnesota or elsewhere defied the law.
Remarkably, the response from many in the media and local elected offices to this organized assault has been to blame the federal government. To state what should be obvious, peaceful protesters do not throw explosives into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch fecal matter at federal officers. Such acts are in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.
