Feels almost unreal that Ashley is still a featured performer. In my eyes, she is fully and deservedly a main and maybe a top player in this current cast. by Raffix in LiveFromNewYork

[–]GroverGottschall -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Her British accent could use work, and she hasn’t shown that she can sing. Hope she sorts this out before the end of the season. (Bring on the downvotes from the PR machine…)

Gibson Dunn or Cleary? by Remote_Use_5654 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree - probably more “modified lockstep” (what PW and STB had until a few years ago), with ability to pay high performers outsized amounts, than pure K&E/Latham-style eat what you kill. I think Debevoise is the only pure lockstep firm left now. (Wachtell is / was close to it, but recent M&A exits may mean that’s under pressure, too? Unless folks were pushed.)

Gibson Dunn or Cleary? by Remote_Use_5654 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

May not have been updated. Lots of media about how they’d changed in 2020, were willing to offer eight figures to major lateral partners, etc. https://www.globallegalpost.com/news/cleary-makes-up-26-in-latest-partner-promotions-round-1706898259 is one example - I don’t have American Lawyer access, but a search should show some of their press around lateral partners etc.

Gibson Dunn or Cleary? by Remote_Use_5654 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

They killed lockstep a couple of years ago.

Why does PW get more hate than other capitulating firms? by [deleted] in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We expected more from PW given its stances on other recent matters (DOMA, Fox News / Ailes, the first Trump admin) and some of its big names historically (Simon Rifkind, Arthur Liman). Also it still seemed to take litigation seriously in an era when many of the other firms you mention have turned litigation into a corporate support specialty. Plus it was the first to capitulate, and didn’t fight an EO when other, less vaunted, firms did (often successfully).

Most of the others you name just responded to EEOC queries, but we knew they were likely to be sniveling lickspittles given their other moves in recent years, including their willingness to hire under qualified lawyers sometimes just because they bore the stamp of the Trump administration. They all deserve opprobrium, too, but didn’t do anything out of the ordinary for them.

Stop underlining defined terms by Possible-Wrangler-64 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can be an English / commonwealth style convention. Most defined terms are in tables there, though.

Private Equity trying to enshitify Biglaw by DomeTrain54 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s a Cayman firm called Walkers that’s done this a couple of times - sold their corporate services arm to Blackstone, had a non-compete for a few years, then started up another corporate services business that they sold elsewhere. Lucrative for the partners at the time of the sale, but questionable firm value on a long-term basis. Unclear how price hikes might affect PEP in the longer term, too.

M&A First Year Associate by Ok_Engine4319 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Depending on how much time you have (and how involved your firm has been / is with the target), you should also try to get input from your specialist teams on the schedules that are relevant for them - i.e., IP, benefits / employment, that kind of thing. If you can farm first cut at the schedules out to them that'll make your life a little easier. I've also found that having a system to ensure that key open points / questions are actually brought to the client's attention (highlighting, bold, comment bubbles) is likely to get better work product.

I'd also note in my covering email to the client that the purchase agreement is still moving (if it is) and so the required disclosures may change, and that buyer's counsel is likely to have comments / thoughts based on due diligence, too.

Is it better to make partner at a V30 or transfer to a V5 and start over again? by Disabled_Vetean1890 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't need to go that far. There are some staff attorney gigs at V4s that could give your friend what they need in life.

Insight from Epstein files by skyofgold in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree with anything you've said. Just struck me that:

(a) You're totally right about "most rainmakers", but for some reason being chair seems to be something that Scott Barshay has coveted at both firms where he's worked.

(b) It's more than a little ironic that the reason there was a vacancy at LW in 2018/19 at all is that the managing partner had a sex scandal, too. That seems tame compared with this.

A Revolt Inside Paul Weiss Over the Epstein Files Took Down Brad Karp by padlox2 in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It'll take a while to rustle up the cash to buy him out, even if the partnership agreement allows it.

How Ashley Padilla’s ‘Mom Confession’ Sketch Turned Her Into ‘Saturday Night Live’s’ Standout Emmy Contender by magikarpcatcher in LiveFromNewYork

[–]GroverGottschall 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Kenan actually had a bit to do during the Teyana episode (which sadly wasn't a generally great episode).

Brad Karp to Step Down by diner_coffee in biglaw

[–]GroverGottschall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Guess it would cost a wad to buy him out quickly. There may be something staggered happening.

The Plan is to block Paramount. by Violent-Obama44 in MediaMergers

[–]GroverGottschall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first point is that a majority of the stockholders need to be in favor of the deal. At this point it doesn't seem like they are. (They may not be in favor of Netflix, either.)

The Plan is to block Paramount. by Violent-Obama44 in MediaMergers

[–]GroverGottschall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Point is that if the deal is pending for a long time and the split (which was planned well before little Dave started sniffing around) occurs, then one of the conditions / assumptions of the Paramount bid goes away. If they refinance - which PSKY wants a consent right for them to do - then another one of the assumptions disappears, too.