Another email said the law firm was “very short of associates” and Quinn would “make sure everything goes more than smoothly if you wouldn’t hire our people.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/10_fee_clawback_provision_in_quinn_emanuel_partnership_contract_violates_et/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36164373)

I walk past their offices all the time and take a peek. Looks like they have subterranean offices (think of something like a garden apartment)? I imagine those are for like back-office staff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165314)

ordinary course of wishing each other well is beyond the firm's instinct or ability. This course remains in

our view the correct way forward."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36164467)

Also LJL @ anyone working in an industry where bosses shit on departing employees publicly like this (dood wrote this in Reply All to the departing partner's farewell):

Faith, I wish I could join in the high minded sentiment you express here. Some day maybe I will be able to. But not yet. At this time I am still perhaps too mindful of other facts.

Such as that you really were not very well known at all when you joined us from White and Case.

That during your time with us we supported you in every way we could and, I think, made you a legal star.

That during your time with us you were paid well over $100m—far more than you ever dreamed you could earn.

That when you wanted to take time off to go to graduate school, we supported you.

That when you wanted to come back part time, we supported you.

That you planned your departure in secret, we now know, for months.

And let us know that you were leaving, not even with a phone call, but with an email to me and to peter, attaching a proposed form of joint press release.

That you are now planning to take as much of our work as possible.

And to recruit as many of our attorneys as possible.

I can tell you that virtually all of the attorneys you name here are pretty angry with you.

There must be a poem about deception or ingratitude that would be more apposite?

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/02/john-quinn-is-not-happy-about-selendy-gay-and-he-sent-the-angry-reply-all-to-prove-it/?rf=1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36164401)

Do you think Samuel Butler sent a memo out like this when David Boies left Cravath?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165104)

If this is the omnia contra omnes world you want to live in, fine (there's a case to be made for it, for sure--perfectly competitive market, baby!), but make sure not to bitch about the consequences of it as firms become ever more mercenary, partnerships become ever less stable, career trajectories become ever less predictable, and the behind-the-scenes dynamic of partnerships continues to be more and more like a red wedding

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165176)

We're already in a mercenary, unstable biglaw world. ITE destroyed the last vestiges of the old school gentleman's nature of the profession.

Biglaw firms treat 90-95% of their attorneys like shit - firing associates in years 1-2 with little notice, de-equitizing slow partners, increasing comp spreads to 20-1 or more, etc. No one owes the firm shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36174064)

"you were paid well over $100m"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165077)

Also how is the no poach different than a post term nonsokicit/hire clause you see in a lot of contracts?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36164470)

Nor is it a fee sharing arrangement. Rather it's saying we will have damages if you leave and a reasonable estimate of those damages would be 10% fo what you were going to bring in.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36164541)

What makes it harder for a client to switch firms? Because their lawyers make 10% less on every bill? How the money is split up doesn't affect how much the client pays.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165156)

i disagree. no law firm is gonna represent clients for free, so this is basically saying you cant represent former clients of ours. it's precisely restricting who their former clients can represent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36164543)

No it's not. The firm can choose to represent clients for free. That it chooses not to doesn't make the restriction on receiving payment for said representation a restriction on actual representation.

Suppose the provision said, "You can't represent our former clients, unless you send us a certified letter informing us that you're doing so and give us three days notice."

Law firm responds: "Well, we don't feel like sending certified mail or giving three days notice, so this is REALLY a restriction on representing former clients therefore invalid."

Obviously absurd. If you can do something but don't feel like it, then you can't argue you are constrained from doing it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165043)

[I think that's accurate, but I only skimmed the doc.]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165426)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36165397)

crazy companies pay these profit margins

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36171357)

yet when 1st year salaries went from 160 to 180 many GCs came out publicly bitching.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3991278&forum_id=2#36171369)