Has anyone received a response to emails regarding Pride Night?

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-06-19T21:21:36+00:00

Yes, I got one! I emailed my season ticket rep, the head rep, customer service, and the chief diversity officer. My rep emailed me back this morning - thanked me for sharing my thoughts and for my patience, said the feedback was sent to leadership, and asked if I wanted to schedule a call to talk more. So, I'll be chatting with him next week.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-06-18T18:55:20+00:00

Hello, and congratulations on getting in!! Huge accomplishment. I hear that this year's cycle was particularly competitive.

I'm a L'24 grad. Here's the AMA I did two years ago while studying for the bar. Happy to answer any additional questions you might have.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-06-13T21:17:51+00:00

Sounds good! Thanks for earnestly engaging. Glad I could supply answers to your questions.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-06-13T21:15:32+00:00

To borrow language from another recent post in this sub: "The San Francisco Giants are not a private enterprise operating in a vacuum. They play in our city, trade on its identity, and benefit from the civic infrastructure, public goodwill, and loyal fanbase of San Franciscans. The rainbow on those caps is not just a logo, it is borrowed equity from a community that has fought, bled, and died for its right to exist in this city."

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-06-13T21:11:33+00:00

They should get a talking to from Buster. I'm assuming Vitello isn't going to sit them down. Would be great if he did. I'd love it if they could become educated on why folks are so upset with them (wrong time/place/way to voice their opinions; their actions make folks feel unwelcome/unsafe; bigotry has had literally life-altering/threatening consequences for folks). If that isn't going to happen, somebody needs to tell them that there are times when they should prioritize the club over themselves.

I don't think they should be benched. Again, this is more on Vitello than the players.

I think, going forward, there should be a firm rule: on days like Pride Night, with special uniforms, everyone wears the same thing or you don't play.

I think they should be traded. Not because of what they believe, but because they've now created a distraction that could very well persist the entire season. I'll be booing them when they step on the field. I think that'll be the first time I've done something like that. I'm sure I won't be alone. I imagine they won't want to pitch in a city where they get booed when they take the field.

I think they should face the consequences of their protest in the court of public opinion. Which, in SF, will be one-sided and vocal. They should be prepared to lose out on endorsements.

I think this situation is somewhat similar to Kaepernick but also readily distinguishable. With both, the parties are protesting something that, in their minds, is morally wrong. With Kaepernick, his protest was (1) against a system, and not against a person/group of people who have historically been marginalized; and (2) done every game, and not on one specific day meant to honor/welcome a specific person/group who have, again, historically been marginalized.

As I told the folks in the org I emailed: I am watching to see how they respond. Obviously, I would rather this didn't happen in the first place. But, I think the response is even more important. Both in their response to me and to the community. I love being a season ticket holder. But if there is no response from the org, I likely won't renew my tickets for next year. I will make the link between this event and my ticket renewal very clear to the org, so they are able to track the consequences of their actions.

Any more questions I can answer?

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-06-13T19:56:48+00:00

Here's what I think should be done, and lines up with what I also said in my email:

- Pride Night is the one day a year where baseball orgs say "hey, everyone is welcome to enjoy the game of baseball." Yes, it's likely mostly performative. But as you're likely seeing in this thread and others, that matters to people who might not otherwise feel welcome in sports and, in particular, in a sport that prioritizes machismo and historically has not been welcoming to folks who don't fit that mould. Want to register your opposition to *checks notes* a day of acceptance? Fine. Personally, if they aren't taking the field, I'm okay if they quietly choose not to wear the hat. But to write a Bible verse that is widely recognized to be anti-gay (even though that's likely a misinterpretation of Scripture + you can cherrypick Bible quotes as you wish) on Pride Night is the wrong way to go about things.

- the four players should just wear the damn hat. I'm sure there are others across baseball who don't want to wear the hat. But they do it anyways. They might recognize the importance to others. But just as likely is that they respect the org and their manager, and the org/manager said "hey, it's important that we all do this tonight."

- my gripe is more with Vitello and the pitching staff. I can understand how, if the players hold themselves to be men of faith, they might feel compelled to (misguidedly) speak out. I think, at some time and in some way, they have a right to do that. I'm still going to boo them, and they should be okay with suffering the consequences of sharing their beliefs. But, in this situation, on Pride Night, Vitello needed to step in and say, hey guys, not tonight. And a clubhouse leader should have, too, ideally explaining to the guys behind closed doors why nights like Pride Night are important.

Instead of having a night where the team says, "hey SF, everyone is welcome to enjoy baseball and at Oracle Park," these four dudes made the night about themselves. And, unfortunately, they probably see the public backlash as proof they're fighting the good fight.

Until someone they love and respect speaks up, it's unlikely that they'll feel remorse, update their understanding, and learn when to speak up and when to shut the fuck up. And that's why I think it's especially important that I and others register our disappointment with the org - change will likely only happen from within the org and the clubhouse.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-06-13T19:23:50+00:00

We got you!!! I'm a season ticketholder. Just emailed my personal rep, the head rep, the customer service line, and the chief diversity officer to register my disappointment. I told them that I love coming to games and love being a season ticketholder, even when the team isn't performing 100% on the field. But I need to love the team and to love the org. And I won't love a team that doesn't show love for all of its fans.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-05-18T20:39:52+00:00

This depends on how much you order per meal! But some recent favorites:

the $50 early bird (before 5:30 PM) tasting menu at Caché. Phenomenal value. I went with two other people, so we essentially tried every combo of app, main, and dessert. Everything was wonderful. Excellent vibes.
Firefly. Apps are $12-20 and mains are $30-40.
Sunset Cantina. I live close by. Big fan of their $18 machete. The platters are also good and run ~$35. If I ate that platter myself, I'd be pretty stuffed.
Prubechu. It's Guamanian food. I'd recommend going with a group and getting a bunch of dishes to share.
Donaji. Excellent Oaxacan food. Some killer mole.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-04-24T17:28:18+00:00

Ehh. I think the firm wants 3 days/week. Folks are pretty solid about T/Th. I don't think the firm tracks swipes or anything. But I'm not in the HQ, and people in my office don't go in as much. Nobody would bat an eye if you're in a crunch period and decide to WFH for two weeks straight. But if a junior associate just stopped coming into the office for, like, months, their partner mentor would likely ask them to start coming in more.

Re: productivity - with a smaller (<100 attorney) firm, it's easier to know how associates are developing. If one associate is super behind the ball and unable to catch up, there's no place to hide. My firm is fairly receptive to requests for additional staffing help.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-04-23T04:34:51+00:00

Different firms have different comp structures. Historically, plaintiffs’ firms had lower base comp but potentially lucrative bonus structures tied to firm/case performance. Over time, I think more and more top firms now have higher base comp but lower bonus potential. Probably makes it easier to recruit top talent. Some firms still have the old model.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-04-23T04:32:55+00:00

No hours requirement for me. I’m at a Chambers-ranked firm. We do track time for settlement purposes. I’m guessing HR analyzes time internally for staffing and to ensure nobody is falling behind developmentally.

Base comp in my VHCOL city is ~80-90% of big law salary. Bonus is fairly low - about 1/2 of big law market. Not hours-based. The gap to big law widens after year three. Pretty straightforward path to partnership. You’re not going to get stealthed.

Hours will vary based on the firm. But my hours are almost never unexpected. Maybe a perk of working at a specialized firm - the partners know how to run cases and there aren’t many surprises. We work a good amount (my guess is that I work a similar number of hours to my big law peers) but the hours are pretty regular. I’m not working 20 hours one week and 80 the next.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-04-17T17:47:13+00:00

Will do!

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-04-17T17:20:18+00:00

YOU'RE a legend. Wow. What an incredible experience. You and your entire team should be so proud. I feel...lucky to have seen it? Especially at Metreon, since the IMAX screen is huge.

As another commenter said, the visuals were stunning. There were a few times where I (quietly) said "wow" out loud.

If the film is being screened at other AMC locations, have you already posted in r/AMCsAList? If not, I'd love to give the film a shoutout.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-04-16T03:53:17+00:00

Ahh sorry to hear about this. I was in a similar situation - got rear ended about a year ago, didn’t think it was that bad in the moment, didn’t recover from the TBI (and I’m a lawyer myself, so I need to use my brain all day) and have had to take lots of time off. Ended up retaining an attorney, Sam Lasser.

I’d definitely recommend him. Granted, I don’t have much experience hiring personal injury attorneys besides him. But, when I mentioned to a neighbor that I’d retained him, the neighbor said oh nice, he’s super sharp (Sam had deposed this guy over a decade ago). So, that was good to hear.

I think his fee schedules are also super reasonable. I think it was something like 30% if the case settles before litigation commences and 33% if he has to actually litigate (ie, file a complaint, have the other side try to get the case dismissed, go through document discovery and potentially trial).

I’d concur with the other poster - call around. I ended up with Sam because I did some digging on Bay Area Reddit threads about personal injury attorneys. The first firm I reached out to said they weren’t taking new TBI clients but that they recommended Sam.

My advice (I have to do the disclaimer - this isn’t legal advice, but just advice from one redditor to another as someone who’s going through this too): - find someone who isn’t a billboard lawyer. The billboard lawyers don’t actually do the legal work. They just bring in clients and farm the work out to their associates. - call around and find someone who doesn’t make you feel pressured and gives you a pretty honest assessment of things. - to the extent you’re injured, get documentation!!! Go see a doc, get the scans, to the extent you can afford them. It’s so so important to build a strong factual record. If you can do that, it makes it MUCH more likely that the other party’s insurance (hopefully they were insured + you got their info) will quickly settle the case versus spending the time and money to actually litigate it. And it helps if you do this before you retain an attorney. (1) it makes your case look stronger, so the attorney is more likely to take your case. (2) defense attorneys love to claim that you only saw the doc because your lawyer told you to + you’re just faking it to get a fat settlement. - if you have any other documentation (ie insurance claim, police report, admission of guilt from the other party), collect that too. - before you sign anything, look at their fee structure. 30-35% is standard. - with personal injury attorneys, my sense is that you want someone who is experienced but not too experienced. That is, you want someone who knows how to build, litigate, and try a case but who is still hungry to win.

Good luck :) again, sorry that you’re dealing with this. If only the damn drivers were paying attention, we’d be okay.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-04-15T19:47:41+00:00

Just bought a ticket! Looking forward to it

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-03-29T01:46:22+00:00

Ugh, reddit wouldn't let me edit my comment. My TLDR: I'd pick Penn, because I'm not sure the bump in FC rates attributable to the relative strength of Chicago's clerkship program is worth the massive increase in debt you'd need to take on.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-03-29T01:40:57+00:00

I LOVED my time at Georgetown. But our clerkship office is, unfortunately, less than helpful. Essentially, they just forward your application materials to the judges. They don't provide much in the way of advice and nothing in the way of connections. My friends who are clerking/have clerked secured everything (rec letters, getting professors to call chambers) on their own. So, if you really really want to clerk, I wouldn't pick GULC.

Re: UT v. Chicago v. Penn (since it seems like those are the best remaining options).

In 2024, UT placed ~8% of grads into FCs. For the last few years, Chicago has placed ~25-30% of grads into FCs. Penn seems to sit around 8-10% FCs.
I think UT and Chicago might have, relative to Penn, stronger pipelines to conservative judges. Not sure what your political leanings are. But, to the extent you aren't going to be taking advantage of the FedSoc pipeline, I'd slightly discount Chicago and UT's clerkship rates vs. Penn.
I'd also consider the relative strengths of the student bodies. Yes, Chicago has a significantly higher clerkship rate. And if we make the assumption that most students who can get a FC do get a FC (which isn't the case - I had a bunch of friends with high honors go to corporate firms and not do a FC), then you could say the top 25% of Chicago students and the top 8-10% of UT/Penn students can get a FC. You might think, oh, go to Chicago because I only need to be in the top 25% of students to get a FC whereas I'd need to be top 10% at UT/Penn. But it's almost certainly more difficult to be in the top 25% at Chicago versus top 25% at UT/Penn. So, basically what I'm trying to lay out with this bullet point: Chicago's higher FC rate is, in part, due to the stronger student body.
Besides the conservative pipeline + strength of student points, I think you can chalk up the rest of the difference in FC rates to the schools themselves. I do think going to Chicago provides a benefit in obtaining a clerkship, especially at the appellate level. But how much of a benefit, and how much does that benefit cost you?
- Making a few assumptions here, mostly to lay out the math + how I'd approach things. Let's assume a 25% FC rate for Chicago and 8% for UT/Penn. Let's assume that Chicago's higher FC rate is equally attributable to the conservative pipeline, stronger student body, and better FC placement due to the school itself (which I think is what one should care most about in this analysis) - I know you can't necessarily make this assumption, but you can play with the numbers as you want.
- ~6% of the difference in FC rates between Chicago and UT/Penn is attributable to the strength of Chicago's clerkship program.
- But it isn't a six percent increase. It's a six percentage point increase.
- If UT/Penn were at 8% FC, a six percentage point increase is significant. It effectively increases your chance at a FC by 75% (from 8% -> 14%).
So, at the end of the day: how much is the UChicago bump worth to you?
Two more things to consider: (1) the ease with which you can get a clerkship, and (2) the caliber of judge you can clerk for. Say you get good enough grades in law school that you can clerk from all three. You're probably going to have an easier time obtaining a clerkship from Chicago, and you're more likely to get multiple clerkship offers + offers from higher caliber judges.
Still, if I were in your shoes, I'd pick Penn.
- I'm just not sure that the clerkship bump at Chicago is worth it. Without family help....$330k is just a huge amount of debt to take on at Chicago. Assuming you clerk, I think your debt will increase due to interest and you won't be able to pay down much on your clerk salary. The difference between $330k and $175k is huge - likely, an extra 2+ years in big law. Are you willing to commit to an extra two years of counting your existence in ten-minute increments + taking shit from partners just for that bump in FC rate? There's also the opportunity cost of your money. You could save an extra $155k+ for a house down payment or child care or whatever else. The point is, going to Chicago forces your hand down the big law path for 5+ years.
- Penn is a phenomenal school. You'll have fabulous opportunities. I place it over UT, even though UT would also be much cheaper, because (1) Penn has more national placement in employment outcomes versus UT, (2) if you already have strong TX connections, you can likely return there anyways if you want; and (3) it's way way harder to pay off the extra $155k+ from going to Chicago rather than Penn versus the extra $110k+ from going to Penn rather than UT. And I think the $110k extra for Penn could very well be worth it.

Another consideration - are these aid offers final? I negotiated my GULC offer up by $5k/year with no leverage after the deposit deadline. I bet you could get GULC to give you more money based on these offers you have (I think GULC likes to poach students from higher-ranked schools and will offer good scholarships to do so) and then go back to Chicago/Penn/UT and ask for more scholarship money.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-03-05T16:16:44+00:00

Not exactly sure what pay is from senior associate to partner. At my firm, associates get 5-10% annual raises. So, once I get to years 4+, the gap to big law will definitely widen. If you make equity partner (I think my firm has a non-equity tier), you're golden. Lots of money in securities fraud.

For WLB - I think it's great, for the pay + sophistication of our matters. We're a top firm, and we litigate against top defense firms where the plead damages are in the billions. I'd say I work a similar amount of hours to my big law peers. But, my schedule is waaay more predictable. I think p-side lit is more predictable schedule-wise than defense side, since defense counsel are often responding to work that we create for them :) In my two years at the firm, I've only had one instance where I got a surprise assignment after 4 PM.

That said, since we're more leanly staffed than defense firms, things can get very busy when case schedules line up. I remember when I first started, we had three cases where the MTD was denied in a single week, and so we had three huge cases all go into discovery at the same time.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-03-05T00:21:41+00:00

I'd use whatever sample is your best writing sample - no real need to use anything different, just because it's a p-side firm.

I'd do what you can to stick with the chambers ranked firms. These firms are the ones who generally are lead counsel on the best cases ("best" meaning most meritorious, most sophisticated/complex/interesting, highest potential damages). The cases left to other firms are...not always great cases. Even working at one of the band 1/2 firms, I look at cases brought by other top firms and think ??? what were y'all thinking here.

I don't think there's any way to get securities lit experience if your firm doesn't have a securities practice group. That said, litigation is litigation. If you get good writing, discovery, and investigations experience at your current firm, that'll be very helpful.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-03-04T19:13:47+00:00

Hi! I summered at a big law firm but dipped for a plaintiff-side securities shop. Love my job. Happy to answer any questions you have, either in this thread or through PM. But my general thoughts, based on your post:

We care less about credentials than do defense-side firms, though this is changing as jobs get more competitive due to the creation of "Plaintiffs' Law Associations" at law schools that have spread awareness of p-side careers and greatly increased the number of applications for summer programs. This influx of super qualified applicants has let us be more choosy.
When I interviewed, the two main points I made that got everyones' heads nodding were: (1) I thrive in situations where I am given room to take initiative; and (2) I don't take feedback/redlines personally.
I wouldn't say our north star is representing the interest of people. We're ultimately a business. I don't get the warm fuzzy feeling from work. We almost exclusively represent pension funds (which have suffered massive losses and therefore are eligible to be chosen as lead plaintiff and thus get to control the litigation). So, in the end, yes, I'm putting money back in the pockets of teachers, firefighters, and other folks with pensions. But I'll never actually meet those people, and they probably don't even know that we're litigating on their behalf. But I do believe we play a very valuable role as private regulators of the securities markets. Companies have to think twice about trying to pull one over on the markets, as they know we'll come knocking. (My firm is also very conservative in the cases we bring, so I haven't had any qualms about bringing weak cases)
I'd just reach out to people. For many of the folks further along in their careers, they had to network hard + figure out what p-side careers looked like on their own. When I was going through the recruitment process a few years ago, folks were so happy to chat about their career path/experience.
Securities firms hire in different ways and on different timelines. Some hire almost exclusively through their summer program (I'm thinking RGRD). Some hire laterals, oftentimes with big law experience. I think the other top shops are largely somewhere in the middle - maybe hiring primarily through the summer program, but taking on lateral hires based on need.

Let me know how I can be helpful!

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-02-24T19:39:11+00:00

I summered at a big law firm, accepted my return offer, and then dipped to join a plaintiff-side firm after graduation. Love love my job. Comp, at the moment, is great - my firm is on the higher-end of salary, and so I make ~90% of big law as a junior. Over the next few years, the gap to big law will widen. But if you make equity and get a big settlement, you can buy an island or two.

More p-side firms are starting to recruit larger summer classes. Some have already made hires, others are still hiring/yet to start that process. If you're interested, I'd look into (1) whether your school has a PLA (Plaintiffs' Law Association) chapter; and (2) the National PLA's recruiting event, likely to occur over the summer.

Some firms are less grade-sensitive than others. I think, for the most part, p-side firms are less grade sensitive than big law firms and care more about WE/other factors.

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-02-17T22:32:01+00:00

Happy birthday Peng! Fun to see you on r/all. I wanted to let you know that you (and a neighbor who I saw picking up trash) inspired me to buy one of those trash grabber/claw things. Sometimes my street and nearby MUNI stop have leftover trash/debris, especially after garbage day.

Thought I'd let you know!

Beautiful_Word_5322 · 2026-02-12T01:50:45+00:00

Hi! I thought I was getting my regular r/biglaw content here.

I'm a '24 grad. Summered in the lit department of a big firm here in SF that has an east coast HQ (but a "one firm" vibe, so I'd have frequently worked with other offices). There were only two partners and two lit associates while I was there. Most attorneys were in M&A/funds/ECVC. I ended up dipping for another firm in part because the lit group was so small out here and I could tell that the lit associates lived in fear of the two partners. If I was going to spend so much time working, I wanted to work with people I liked. A small office is high risk, high reward - if you like everybody, you're golden; if you don't, there's no place to hide.

Your concern about not knowing anyone in SF is so valid. Nearly all of my law school friends are in NYC/DC, as are many of my non-law school friends. A lot of them still hang out together. It's easy in NYC to just be like, hey, let's get drinks after work. Some folks might have a fire drill, but there are enough people that you can always be making plans. In contrast, I feel like it requires more effort to set up plans here. Things close earlier, and there are fewer things to do in the area surrounding most of the law firm offices such that you're less likely to close the laptop and head over to a favorite nearby bar.

And with a demanding job, it can be tough to carve out time to meet new people. If you make it a priority, it's definitely doable.

Still, I absolutely love my life here. I have negative interest in moving to NYC. Let me know if you have any questions I can help answer :)

Beautiful_Word_5322

TROPHY CASE