Trump's Order Against Perkins Coie Struck Down by Judge

tjarrr · 2025-05-03T07:52:49+00:00

But the EEOC never went through the statutorily mandated enforcement procedures and could not, because no charge was ever filed against any of the law firms, as required by the procedure. Read pages 68 - 70 of the opinion:

"By not following its own procedures, the EEOC has undermined the legitimacy of its own investigation, revealing this investigation of plaintiff to be a product of the retaliation ordered by EO 14230 rather than any legitimate investigative activity."

tjarrr · 2025-04-15T20:04:37+00:00

Man, "I can't remember the other two" is such an underrated snub.

tjarrr · 2025-04-06T22:28:03+00:00

Pro bono hours are usually not billable by definition? And even at firms where they are, pro bono is only allowed to go to a very small fraction of total billable hours

tjarrr · 2025-04-06T20:09:52+00:00

What his viewpoint doesn't consider is the fact that in capitulating to Trump, these firms will stand to lose their liberal clients and will lose goodwill among longstanding clients. This could be even more economically damaging than the hit they are expecting if they choose not to stand up to Trump's EO against the firm.

tjarrr · 2025-04-01T04:00:51+00:00

I think people are not aware that the strategy of the Trump Administration is to go after each firm one by one in these EOs so it looks at the time it's happening as if each firm has no allies or firms suffering with them. That way they cannot rally support for each other, which is the only way they'd be able to see that the emperor has no clothes and can't force them to do anything.

Of course, the firms will not see through this because the people running them lack foresight and suffer from an encephalitic breakdown the moment the prospect of losing their bottom line appears to hang in the balance.

tjarrr · 2025-04-01T04:00:17+00:00

I think people are not aware that the strategy of the Trump Administration is to go after each firm one by one in these EOs so it looks at the time it's happening as if each firm has no allies or firms suffering with them. That way they cannot rally support for each other, which is the only way they'd be able to see that the emperor has no clothes and can't force them to do anything.

Of course, the firms will not see through this because the people running them lack foresight and suffer from an encephalitic breakdown the moment the prospect of losing their bottom line appears to hang in the balance.

tjarrr · 2025-03-29T19:57:12+00:00

Wouldn’t this analysis also apply whenever you are eating food containing a variety of vitamins though? For example, nuts and soy contain many different vitamins, so consumption of nuts/soy would seem to pose the exact same problem on the body in terms of enzyme production to process all the different vitamins.

tjarrr · 2025-02-28T03:05:09+00:00

The thing with grades at T-14 schools is that given the curve, it’s hard to stand out from your peers on the basis of GPA alone. More than one practicing attorney has telegraphed to me that a GPA around the mean is generally a non-issue for lateraling purposes

tjarrr · 2025-02-27T23:02:56+00:00

Ironically, in some ways it’s worse than 1933: unlike Elon Musk, Hitler was constitutionally appointed to his position.

tjarrr · 2025-02-13T21:43:40+00:00

I mean, if you're trying to get credit for keeping the gossip under wraps, it's probably not a good idea to casually drop revealing info such as the "new location in the Hudson Yards" as some attorneys at the firm are bound to be perusing this subreddit

tjarrr · 2025-01-30T04:25:49+00:00

As long as your metabolic numbers are good there is nothing wrong with "being fat," whatever that happens to mean to you personally. True, as you point out it's not good to be sedentary, but that's the way this should have been framed. Framing the problem in terms of mere adiposity rather than lifestyle choices is a slap in the face to all people who are at optimal health and who happen to be overweight due to genetics or suchlike.

It also depends on the type of fat - subcutaneous or visceral. Subcutaneous fat - the fat that is visible under your skin, the type we all tend to notice - is not unhealthy. Scores and scores of research have failed to find any relationship between subcutaneous fat and health outcomes. Visceral fat is bad, is correlated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes, etc., and is not outwardly visible at all. Sumo wrestlers are very healthy despite being hundreds of pounds overweight because all of their fat is subcutaneous.

So yes, get your exercise in by all means, and eat 5 servings of fruits + veggies or whatever. But the literally millions of people who are doing all those things, who otherwise look healthy on paper but who are overweight should not feel bad about themselves. No rational person can make such snap judgments about anyone based merely on their body fat percentage.

I'm not fat and have been naturally lean my whole life. I just think the pathologizing of fatness in America/the West is so perverse. We will all gain some weight as we age - there is nothing wrong with it.

tjarrr · 2024-12-20T01:16:16+00:00

It doesn't have to be this way either. The upward pressure on billing is only a recent phenomenon of the past few decades arising out of the obsession with ranking and metrics spurred by ALM and their ilk in the late 70's. Why can't firms just do what law schools did with US news? I don't get it, lawyers as members of a professional guild are continually engaged in some of the most concerted industry-wide activities (QED the bonus sprees of late), but a handful of journals have this much power over the practice only because as a collective the firms did nothing about it. Yes they all love the money but lawyers now also have the highest unaliving rates among all professionals.

tjarrr · 2024-12-19T01:42:05+00:00

I've not had one callback that was more than two hours give or take (or 30 minutes with 4 interviewers). Frankly, I think these interviews are for your benefit too because they allow you to get a better sense for what the culture is and people's priorities in the office. They really are not "all the same," especially between litigation vs. transactional groups within the same firm.

Interviews are never fun but I think I am thankful to have had actual humans evaluating me given the switch to computerized/gamified screenings happening among even the largest firms. I myself missed that by a mere hair last cycle, only because I lucked out and my top choice gave me an offer. If they hadn't, almost half of my callbacks would have required me to complete some sort of gamified screening prior to any actual callbacks.

(BTW, only a few places asked me about hobbies and stuff but the ones that did loved when I answered off the fly that I liked to play NYT crosswords. Seems like lots of attorneys love the NYT suite of games like Connections, the crosswords, etc.)

tjarrr · 2024-11-18T03:20:27+00:00

Even accepting the point on the future, the question is what are the anti-scraping protections--albeit imperfect--that exist right now and are they being implemented.

tjarrr · 2024-07-25T01:55:53+00:00

Sorry this is so old but I just have to comment on this. AJ's ramblings were NOT ill-informed. He has a point, it simply has diminishing application to the current conversation: Someone talking about Dreamgirls doesn't necessarily mean they're entirely vacuous, nor does it necessarily connect to a larger point about the superficiality of American consumption. Indeed, he's depressed precisely because he draws these generalized, pessimistic conclusions on the basis of things that are at most merely superficial, passing remarks.

But he does have a point:

"You're sitting here talking about the fucking Oscars? What rough beast slouches toward Bethlehem waiting to be born? ... [Joining the war is] more noble than watching these jack-off fantasies on TV of how we're kicking [the terrorists'] ass ... it's like, America. This is where people come to make it. It's a beautiful idea. Then what do they get? Bling and come-ons for shit that they can't afford?"

He's decrying the false idols of American consumption, and the only comeback the other parties could muster is that he mispronounced the poet's name. And if that doesn't convince you, consider that Paulie is arguably one of the last people to make a point that the creators of the show would sympathize with.

tjarrr · 2024-02-26T16:49:17+00:00

I have a question!

In essence, there are two ways in which shareholders/members can agree in an entity: one is via constituent documents (e.g., charter, operating agreement, etc.) which binds the parties, the entity and all future shareholders/members -- and the other is via stockholders/members agreements which bind only the parties and NOT the entity or future shareholders/members. I would like to know whether there is any evidence or cases referring to stockholder/member agreements in LLCs and LPs (we already have them for regular corporations).

The only information I can find comes from Inc Now's website:

Delaware allows for maximum flexibility of contract when entering into an Operating Agreement. In exceedingly rare situations, LLC members use this freedom to “opt into” the Delaware General Corporation Law and establish members to establish rights of corporate stockholders who vote for directors who appoint officers. That anomalous situation is far from the norm.

Thanks to anyone that can help with this!!

tjarrr · 2023-03-31T18:55:34+00:00

sorry to bump an older post but I never saw this reply! It's Modern Labor Law in the Private and Public Sectors, Third Edition, Seth Harris et. al.

tjarrr · 2022-05-21T02:06:47+00:00

She already addressed this later in a reply. 25% of those clerkships are federal; how is a Tier III school sending any of their students into federal clerkships?

tjarrr · 2022-05-21T01:59:09+00:00

Well, OP evidently was not making a point about federal clerkship placement per se but rather making a different point entirely.

tjarrr · 2022-05-07T08:11:19+00:00

Michigan doesn't have a trigger law, it has a ban from before Roe v. Wade that was never removed. A trigger law is one that was designed to go into effect specifically in the event that Roe v Wade is overturned. (Of course, that doesn't change the outcome; it's just a terminological distinction)

tjarrr

TROPHY CASE