ABA Journal


Law Firms

BigLaw partner sent ‘scathing’ exit email defending recruit to colleagues, clients

May 1, 2013, 01:32 pm CDT


It seems pretty clear from the email's text that the sender's "larger motives" are to persuade the firm to change its ways.

If that is "incomprehensible" to the managing partner, then he needs a referesher course in basic English and the firm needs a different managing partner.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 05 01, 3:38 pm CDT

Good to see a partner defend someone her brought in rather than leave her to the wolves. Prophete has my respect. Ogletree Deakins? Not so much. (But then, it never did . . . .)

By John on 2013 05 01, 5:28 pm CDT

I'm glad to see someone speak up. I worked at an L&E firm for 8 months (the shortest time I have ever been at a job). Ogletree sounds a lot like them, only nicer. Whenever they were confronted with things they didn't want to take responsibility for they would attack the party they were supposed to protect. Wish I could send a scathing letter exposing their deeds but will have to live vicariously thru Mr. Mr. Prophete for now.

By NormaRae on 2013 05 01, 7:37 pm CDT

An email? I am surprised his words weren't written on the firm's walls, and judicial halls and echo with the sound of resignation...

By hmmmm on 2013 05 01, 11:35 pm CDT

It is never prudent to broadcast a 'scathing' writing in a professional setting.

By Yankee on 2013 05 02, 2:40 am CDT

Yankee - It's not clear from the story who was responsible for "broadcasting" the email, or from your comment which party you think was imprudent. As Dylan asked in Desolation Row, "the Titanic sails at dawn, and everybody's shouting, 'which side are you on?'"

By Pushkin on 2013 05 02, 4:18 am CDT

I like how you guys are sticking up for him; it is good to see lawyers not 'jumping the gun' and sensationalized emails taken out of context and without supporting facts.

It is important not to sensationalize the news and instead look at what would drive someone to speak up like he did. When you do not have all the facts.... you must look at who benefitted. The firm must have put his dignity on the line.

Stick together lawyers! Do not let the system divide & conquer what unites us.

By LincolnLawyer on 2013 05 03, 8:50 am CDT

Shame on Ogletree. Its own motives are not incomprehensible at all.

By Curmudgeon, Esq. on 2013 05 03, 9:35 am CDT

Nice to see a man sticking up for a woman lawyer at a firm. You don't see that often.

By Mary Ann on 2013 05 03, 10:16 am CDT

His larger motives may be justified and I can understand him sending an e-mail to all partners and even to the entire firm. However, I do fail to comprehend why he would damage the firm by sending the e-mail also to clients? That is just not right, he should simply have left if he felt that he no longer could support the firm's decisions.

By Lawless on 2013 05 03, 10:33 am CDT

Wow. What is happening to our profession? The comments lead me to fear the lawyers of today have no understanding of why we are here doing what we are meant to do. Ask yourselves, "if you were losing your life, liberties, and pursuit of happiness", which lawyer would you want on your side?
We are warriors and if we can't defend ourselves against wrongs, why think we belong defending others? If our response is "play fair or I will take my marbles and leave" rather than stay and make changes, we should not claim to be lawyers. I would have fired the "team" before they resigned and sent a letter to all clients they did work for that they were no longer part of the firm. I would send a letter to the "team" they lacked the recalcitrant required by the Legal profession and they should become bankers.

By Harry Haywood on 2013 05 03, 11:45 am CDT

God bless the mercenary spirit of Big Law, where firms admit partners whose larger motives are incomprehensible to them.

By B. McLeod on 2013 05 03, 12:11 pm CDT

He couldn't stay at the firm. He was directly disrespected by his colleagues when a recruit he had brought to the firm was treated very badly. Matters were made even worse when the firm retaliated against him once he stood up for his recruit. The firm's actions were awful. If Prophete's presence as a partner wasn't good enough to demand respect for his recruit, I'm not sure what would have been. Additionally, was the female recruit suppossed to stay and continue being harrased and disparaged? No. No one should be harrased in the workplace. It takes a lot to change a firm's culture, not just a partner and his recruit and changing the firm's culture was not worth Prophete or the female recruit's dignity. Good for Prophete for bringing this issue to light and moving on with his professional career.

By Jill on 2013 05 03, 12:16 pm CDT

Like LincolnLawyer, I'm impressed with the responses here. It is a well kept secret, or at least aconsistent denial, that "isms" have long been a part of the legal profession and justice system and they remain alive and well. I'm glad Mr. Prophete stood up. I hope others follow suit.

Someone questioned him sending the email to clients. I suspect he did it because there were questions about why he was leaving and he wanted to provide an explanation. Also, many corporate departments value "diversity." By letting them know the firm may have an issue, the clients can force a more reasonable response.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2013 05 03, 12:21 pm CDT

I likewise keyed to the term "incomprehensible." While the partner has said that he left because of the firm's misbehavior, the firm's statement that his reasons for leaving are "incomprehensible" sounds like an admission that it cannot propose an alternative explanation.

By Patrick on 2013 05 03, 12:27 pm CDT

I concur with thoroughly_disgusted "I’m glad Mr. Prophete stood up. I hope others follow suit." In fact....if his larger motive is to attract clients...I would look for him if I wanted an attorney with integrity.

As for Yankee...I presume you are not a lawyer or you are like the office manager in question.

As to Ogletree's managing shareholder, Kim Ebert, please get a clue. The use of big words in a simple situation only means you should likely reconsider being a managing shareholder. Discrimination in 2013 is harder to see but when someone tells you what is going should stand up and do the right thing. The ERA may have failed but you have a duty when you are in a position of power not to let things go back to the days of the suffrage march or Selma, Alabama. JUSTICE FOR ALL!!

By Lisa Ashanay on 2013 05 03, 12:37 pm CDT

Interesting how everyone blindly assumes the allegations are true. I faced a similar situation many years ago where the allegations were quite false but because they were made by someone similarly situated to Mr. Prophete many otherwise intelligent people likewise assumed they were true. Despite the fact that the case was tossed out of U.S. District Court on summary judgment, I am sure that people who want to believe that allegations of discrimination must be true have convinced themselves that the result was due to some legal trickery. I have nothing but sympathy for those who suffer discrimination and nothing but contempt for those who make false discrimination complaints. Unfortunately, both types exist.

By MISSING THEPOINT on 2013 05 03, 12:42 pm CDT

The only thing "incomprehensible" here is what actually happened. The ABA saved itself from a direct critcism of its reporting, which is typically subpar, by saying all the facts aren't in. There's nothing in this email which would indicate whether the claims are true or untrue. All we know is that there is a complaint of discrimination and, predictably, many assume its truth--how you passed the bar is beyond me.

By silencedogood on 2013 05 03, 12:46 pm CDT

@MissingThePoint - you raise a good point. I don't "blindly" accept that the allegations of the associate as true. And it does not sound like Mr. Prophete did either. The issue was in the way the firm handled the allegations. Apparently, the person responsible for investigating the issues, retaliated against the associate.

In my career, I have been on both sides of this issue. In each case, it was very interesting to me the way that things were handled. It highlighted the prevalence and significance of bias in the legal profession and justice system.

I'm curious to know if you ever had a direct conversation with your accuser about the issues. What it a misunderstanding, unconscious bias, ill-will or motives, or really an issue, even though the case was tossed on summary judgment.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2013 05 03, 12:52 pm CDT

What struck me in the response wasn't the "incomprehensible" remark, but the absence of a flat statement "the allegations are untrue." "We will not comment on the specific claims" seems to be an odd response to an allegation that the firm discriminated, retaliated when the discrimination was reported, and asked a shareholder to resign when he resisted the retaliation.

By trialdog on 2013 05 03, 12:59 pm CDT

@thoroughly_disgusted: With respect, you appear to not only be accepting that the allegations are true, you are also accepting the allegations of retaliation. To answer your question, there were many direct conversations with both of the "accusers" and I can assure you beyond all reasonable doubt that that the two of them were motivated by self-serving ill will. Your reluctance to take my word for it is an illustration of the power of such an allegation. My point is that there are two sides to every story, as #18 correctly indicates. Aside form the parting shot, I'd say this poster has it exactly right.

By MISSINGTHEPOINT on 2013 05 03, 1:10 pm CDT

Astounding how many commenters simply assume the allegations are true, "shame" on Ogletree, etc. One thing all of you lawyers ought to know well is that there are two or more sides to this story.

By BJJT on 2013 05 03, 1:25 pm CDT

@missingthepoint - as a general proposition, I accept that there are two sides to every story, and when it is in my interest to hear them and make a judgment, I invest the time and effort. This is not the case with you. I am perfectly content to allow you to characterize my statements and believe that " appear to not only be accepting that the allegations are true, [but I am] also accepting the allegations of retaliation." It is self-serving ill will for me to do anything other than that. Afterall, your word is beyond challenge and reproach. Perhaps that is why you were on the receiving end of a discrimination suit.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2013 05 03, 1:30 pm CDT

@BJJT, true, but if the allegations were outright false, don't you think Ogletree's response would have been something a little more forceful than "We will not comment . . . "

By linovo on 2013 05 03, 1:35 pm CDT

All law firms have their abusive jerks, its just not all lawyers can be "diverse" so they have a reason they were singled out.

When you move on you should move on.

By Toomuchinfo on 2013 05 03, 1:47 pm CDT

For those who are complaining that all of the facts were not in, and so we should refrain from judgment, Ogletree's response to the allegations could have provided its side of the story, but it chose not to. Ogletree never denied the allegations. And for any woman who has worked in a big law firm, it certainly is not "incomprehensible" that women are discriminated against on a routine basis.

By omjen on 2013 05 03, 2:23 pm CDT

I would have expected more professionalism from a partner leaving a firm. Most of us have left firms because we did not like the culture or how the firm handled matters. However, that is no excuse to
air our concerns and opinions about the firm to clients. The clients are looking to the firm to handle their legal battles, not to be pulled into the middle of someone else's fight. The email was sent by a disgruntled employee who was attempting to lash back at the firm.

By Disgruntled Employee Lashing Out on 2013 05 03, 2:52 pm CDT

How does the ABA know that I rise every morning in great anticipation of finding out every morsel of internal big law politics?
Thanks ABA for reminding me why I canceled my membership.

By ex-big law lackey on 2013 05 03, 2:56 pm CDT

OMJEN, I have never met a woman lawyer that was routinely discriminated against. I have hired many women in my practice over the years and everyone of them were tough as nails and admired by everyone they had contact with. They had that "in charge" grit that simply made it clear they could take care of themselves and would put up with no bull from anyone. They walked into a court room and were in charge. They came to meetings and were in charge. Again if Ogletree had a an attorney whether man, woman or gay and that person allowed themselves to be discriminated against, they should not be lawyers. For women lawyers, there are many role models they need to look to as a comparison.

By Harry Haywood on 2013 05 03, 3:09 pm CDT

It is hardly surprising that Mr. Prophete, as a black attorney, would be particularly sensitive to the sort of atmosphere described in his email. It is also hardly surprising that his former firm, having ignored internal efforts to change its culture, would respond by circling the wagons. I applaud Mr. Prophete for his apparently "incomprehensible" commitment to integrity.

By Mike Appleton on 2013 05 03, 3:21 pm CDT

WOW !!

By BIG DOGG on 2013 05 03, 3:26 pm CDT

Harry Haywood@ 29, what a gob-smacking example of a "blame the victim" mentality. As Prophete tells the tale, the woman was discriminated against, she complained, and was retaliated against. When a partner objected to the discrimination and threatened to resign if it wasn't addressed, he was asked to resign. What magical powers do you think they should have used to not "allow" themselves to be discriminated against? You might as well say that mugging victims shouldn't "allow" themselves to be mugged.

By Bama on 2013 05 03, 3:39 pm CDT

@ #9, Mary Ann who stated, "Nice to see a man sticking up for a woman lawyer at a firm. You don’t see that often."

Helen Lovejoy: So, Bart. How's school going? Jessica always gets straight A's.
Bart Simpson: Well, in my family grades aren't that important. It's what you *learn* that counts.
Reverend Lovejoy: Six times five. What is it?
Bart Simpson: Um. Actually numbers don't have much use in my future career. Olympic gold medal rocketsled champ!
Helen Lovejoy: Hmm, I didn't know the rocketsled was an Olympic event.
Bart Simpson: Well, no offense lady but what you don't know could fill a warehouse.

A warehouse, Mary Ann. That you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you work somewhere that such things do not exist, I suggest moving on.

By Voice of Reason Prime on 2013 05 03, 3:49 pm CDT

At #16, Lisa Shanaynay, who missed the entire point by saying, "As to Ogletree’s managing shareholder, Kim Ebert, please get a clue. The use of big words in a simple situation only means you should likely reconsider being a managing shareholder. Discrimination in 2013 is harder to see but when someone tells you what is going on…you should stand up and do the right thing. The ERA may have failed but you have a duty when you are in a position of power not to let things go back to the days of the suffrage march or Selma, Alabama. JUSTICE FOR ALL!!"

As to Lisa Shanaynay, please get a clue. Part of the responsibilities of being a managing shareholder means you must consider all aspects of a given allegation. While discrimination in 2013 may be harder to see (maybe (or to you)), when someone tells you what is going should stand up and do the right thing--which, of course, means that allegations can also be false, and often are. People have a duty when in a position of power not to let political ideology interfere running a business even if one side really really really feels it's important. FOR DUTY AND HUMANITY!!

By Voice of Reason Prime on 2013 05 03, 4:01 pm CDT

Bama: Anyone in the profession of protecting individual rights must have backbone. You asked a question, and my answer would be, what advise would you give a "paying" client that came to you with the same complaint against the employer? My advise to the "victim" would be the same: What would you advise a paying client that came to you complaining of the very thing you are complaining about? What do you think the answer would be? What would your answer be, Bama? If you just make excuses and have no real answers or willing to fight, you should not call yourself a lawyer. That's the business we are in. The "fight" not flee business. Ask yourself one more question, that being: did Prophete solve any problem or help the "victim"? I would say not as much as he could have.

By Harry Haywood on 2013 05 03, 4:15 pm CDT

I have been handling employment discrimination cases and partnership breakups for 30 years. Based on that experience the two most likely scenarios at work here are:

1. The female shareholder was treated unfairly, Mr. Prophete was indignant at the firm's response,and left the firm, taking several associates with him.

2. The female shareholder had no legitimate grievance, Mr. Prophete's indignation was misplaced, or a pretext for a departure for other reasons.

Based on the evidence presented it is impossible to discern the facts and reach any rational conclusion about what actually occurred. Why would any responsible attorney, given this factual vacuum, jump on either side?

By Mike Poulin on 2013 05 03, 4:52 pm CDT

If I understand the matter, the female shareholder (not associate) made some strong objections to how she was being treated, and her belief was that the treatment was discriminatory. By her position I would believe that she must have shown some qualifications and credibility. Yes? She felt that the response was lacking and Mr. Prophete somehow found out. (I presume she told him, but I don't know that fact.) She also alleges that retaliation occurred. He went to management and said, this is unsatisfactory, we need to do a better job (maybe investigating so that a full response could be made?). If we can't do a better job, then I will leave.
Management said "don't let the door hit you on the butt." (We don't care to discover if discrimination was the motivating factor.)
I know that Ogletree has a employment section. By now they should have recognized that when an employee gets a weak response, and bad things start to happen, the employee further believes that discrimination was the motivating factor. As a firm their response was extremely shortsighted and they should know better.
Do you know how many consultations I would not have to have if employers did a better job investigation and communicating? Usually it is the communication and I blame the legal field for that - because an apology has been interpreted as guilt and intent. Damages in employment are mainly driven by lost wages, and if there are no lost wages and the employer takes some disciplinary action, up to and including termination if warranted, then I could find another area of law.

By Amy on 2013 05 03, 4:52 pm CDT

It was really bad form for this lawyer to let his criticism get out in this way. No one is going to trust him after he bit the hand like this. His greater purpose, that Ebert is faining ignorance about, is creating a rift between the firm and their big clients who have policies of requiring big firms to hire at least some underrepresented minorities, even if it means trusting someone who got one or two Bs at a top 10 lawschool with duties that half the 3Ls at a top 100 schools could do just fine. If a firm want to bill Walmart 10,000 hours a year, Walmart can make them do this, but the firm hates every minute of it (every minute of every billable hour). Why should their hires represent the society it serves when the firms members are far superior to society?

Your typical big law associate is someone who would do anything to get into big law because they think it is their ticket to driving a Ferrari one day. While most of these tool bags never make partner, the members of any firm are going to be at lease 75% these types. The reason the girl in this story deserves exactly what she got from this firm is that if she had heard her own story regarding that firm, and it was her only shot at big law, she would have still gone to work for them. It is that simple. She did not join big law to be treated like a decent human being, she joined to one day drive a Ferrari. She entered an environment where she should have known the firm would have zero accountability for how it treated her and any outside interference will get her blacklisted.
This partner, and the associate he was probably fooling around with, have a future. That future includes private practice, where they could make much more money if they know what they are doing.

By Reality Check on 2013 05 03, 4:54 pm CDT


So we have Harry Heyman telling us if a woman could not have been raped (professionally), because women have ways of repelling that. Todd Akin, is that you?

Then Reality Check telling us of women, they're all asking for it. Gerard Depardieu, I see you!

By Jill on 2013 05 03, 5:26 pm CDT

How dare any partner make a wave and defend anyone other than his other partners, who are paying him bucko bucks to keep his mouth shut and keep harassing all the women out of law!

Big boys, watch out. You've been begging me for a job the last four years because you got out of law school and have no clients and I have a firm, so you better learn how to be "diverse" if you want work from me.

By Done with the Law on 2013 05 03, 5:34 pm CDT

Reality Check! You really need a reality check.

You don't go to any job to be "treated" like a piece of ass and be harassed because you are a woman and women are considered "strumpets" regardless of whether you are sleeping with the partner or not.

You go there to make a living and hopefully at least get cordiality and respect from your colleagues for the job that you do.

By Done with the Law on 2013 05 03, 5:38 pm CDT

At #40, Done with the Law, who sputtered "Big boys, watch out. You've been begging me for a job the last four years because you got out of law school and have no clients and I have a firm, so you better learn how to be 'diverse' if you want work from me."

Every single client who has ever come to my firms and asked me to tell them some meaningless aggregate statistics about meaningless minutia has never once gotten that information, and well over 90% of the time, they don't leave, not even insist. Why? Because they really don't actually care, they just want the best they can get for the money they can spend. Which, of course means that paying attention to a meaningless aggregate statistic isn't actually in their best interest.

By Voice of Reason Prime on 2013 05 03, 5:46 pm CDT

Don Prophete Rocks! He's proof that the noble lawyer still exists and he should be invited to speak at firms and organizations across the country. Discrimination (and killing the messanger tactics) are rampant at BigLaw firms. You can bet associates will be lining up to work for a partner with the courage to stand up for what's right.

By Happy inHouse on 2013 05 03, 5:46 pm CDT

#11: Harry, if we lawyers are unwiling to demand 'fair play', how in the world can we expect others to do so? The essence of the law is fair play, NOT the sort of 'win at all costs' kind of mentality that you appear to be pushing in your post (#11).

You need to rethink your priorities.

By David W. Simon on 2013 05 03, 5:58 pm CDT

Mr. Lat,

I can't tell if this is supposed to be a news story, op-ed, or just a blog post set out as real journalism since your opinion oozes out of every unjustified conclusion and assertion you "add" into the story. What ever the truth is, you sure didn't do it any justice. I hope you didnt go to law school becuase if you did, your legal research and writing professor should be ashamed or fired.

By Nathaniel Brown on 2013 05 03, 6:46 pm CDT

Clarification: Mr. Lat was the author of the "Above the Law" article cited at in this one.

By Nathaniel Brown on 2013 05 03, 6:52 pm CDT

@34-Voice of Reason Prime....clearly you selected a bad name to preface your message of me needing to get a clue because you missed the point!!! LOL. You also need to read better. SMH.

Most who think discrimination is automatically false are usually the ones who discriminate the most. They say stupid things like “I am unable to see color and/or gender. We are all just human!”
I would like to tell those stupid people….we are not all created equal. If we were, men would have babies and women would not need to squat to pee. But I close my mouth because I know I want to get fed and that would be a sure fire way to lose a good job! LOL.

But going back to my distaste of the managing partner’s response….if a managing partner tells media that "Don Prophete’s letter constitutes an attack on our firm by someone whose larger motives are incomprehensible to us" then that person has failed to reject the notion head on and is open for comments referring to her as clueless. Why would you think that was a good response? Maybe you have thought mistreatment and/or discrimination of women or other minorities is only bad when it looks like a pre MLK situation? If you think this partner speaking out was in poor taste because both sides of the story was not told and the managing partner’s response was appropriate....I just have to ask you….where would women and other minorities have been without people like him?!

Well, since you likely need a clue too, I’m happy to tell you that discrimination does not look like Jim Crow laws anymore. The forced choice to take a backseat to opportunities, respect and advancement facts have yet to reach the courts. This is new day in which these kind of facts have yet to be tested under the law. WATCH OUT!!!

As a final point…a managing partner has multiple duties....I only discussed one. If you think it’s good form for all women to have to march again for their rights to respect, opportunities, advancement, etc....well then I say REALLY watch might get your wish!

By Lisa Ashanay on 2013 05 03, 7:32 pm CDT

There's very little point to a "he-said, she-said" story - even one between BigLaw partners! - if neither side will say what their side of it is.

I think it's a waste of breath to try drawing lessons from this one, other than the lessons we ought to be drawing regardless of whether there's any particular story at all.

By Avon on 2013 05 03, 9:51 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By Voice of Reason Prime on 2013 05 03, 10:39 pm CDT

"Such public airing of internal law firm disputes is highly unusual, at least in part because a partner's criticism of his or her law firm could violate anti-disparagement provisions often included in partnership agreements".

And the Wizard of Oz admonished the crowd, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

The far-reaching hoax that is Big Law is finally being exposed - and it appears that this is making its members quite uncomfortable.

By Non-Practicing Attorney on 2013 05 03, 11:06 pm CDT

I wonder if she had to feed any partners with chopsticks.

By B. McLeod on 2013 05 03, 11:14 pm CDT

Good for Mr. Prophets! Why should Ogletree be exempt from the complaints he made. It took a lot of guts to stand up for what is right. Applause! Aplause!

By Susan Henderson on 2013 05 04, 1:38 pm CDT

As someone who is very close to people at this firm and heard about this situation BEFORE it was made public, while it was still happening, I can assure all of YOU, including MISSING THE POINT, that the problem here is the failure to investigate the allegations, and then, regardless of whether they were true, the attempt to stop any investigation, the threatened retaliations, the go-arounds and deliberate misrepresentations about what was being done, in short, the denial and failure of the firm to handle this properly. HANDLE IT PROPERLY. The result is all of the mess being debated here. If they had properly handled it, none of this would have happened. But instead of trying to do something about it, they dismissed Mr. Prophete from the firm ("voted to ask him to resign"), part of a calculated effort to stymie investigation into the conduct of the alleged discriminating lawyer and refocus the glare. There is a lot that isn't reported here. But the issue is not so much the truth of the allegations, but the lengths the firm went to in order to avoid dealing with it. That is what is incomprehensible. And from an employment law firm at that. Really????

By MsMaam on 2013 05 04, 7:45 pm CDT

So you're saying that when he wrote "I cannot be part of a firm. . ." that was because he had been forced out, not because he was leaving voluntarily due to events he found unacceptable? So the firm is correct in saying that this is a characterization Prophete slapped on his abrupt departure after actually being forced out?

By B. McLeod on 2013 05 04, 9:04 pm CDT

Ms. Maam - your commentary is what I gathered from the article. While the response of the firm is disdainful, it is quite normal. The concept is known as the psychology of oppression. The events described in the article, and your posting characterizing the events, are a textbook example of the concept .

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2013 05 05, 12:17 am CDT

I am a woman, and I see how the "black mentality" is always crying "discrimination" so here he used a woman's issue to get ahed with his agenda, is that not what all "community organizers do" they pilage and rape those that have, by screaming "victim" and line their agenda is to line their own pockets. Why are the rest of you so blind?

By victimsyndrome on 2013 05 05, 12:41 pm CDT

Love the comments, hate the solutions (or lack thereof). Love the attacks on my comments. One final Question for everyone: Who would you hire to defend your child from the death penalty? Mr. 44 "lets play fair" even though the "essence" of American Jurisprudence is based upon the "adversarial doctrine" NOT the "play fair" doctrine? #36 Mike with experience in this area, but only ability to see "two likely scenarios" no solutions offered? Bama and the rest that think I am a bully or victim blamer still gave no solutions of what they would advise the client to do, even when invited to do so? The closest good answer was #53 Msmaam, and I agree the real problem with these quitters, complainers, and applauders(#52), is failure to deal with the problem!!!

Citizens hire lawyers to deal with problems - NOT QUIT -. Hope someone will step in and tell Prophete what he should have done!! I can tell you had I been him it would not have been me and my team staring a "new firm" but BIG Law would have been relocating. Never leave potential competitors undamaged, unchanged, and holding all the marbles. Be a lawyer and actually help persons in need, or go work in a bank - or as #56 may be suggesting go to Washington D.C.

One last word of advice: shoot the messenger before we lose our 2nd amendment rights! This may sound like I am being silly, but without really tough lawyers willing to fight for our life, liberties and pursuit of happiness, we will all be wondering why nobody plays fair anymore. Back to my last question: I would want me and my team of lawyers that are willing to FIGHT for anyone that has been wronged - even if it means to blame the victim or BigLaw just depends on which one I represent.

Lawyers are the new age hired gunslingers only we use the law for bullets and the court for the guns. I will say to Mr. David play fair "sorry you came to court with a single shot rifle and my 20 clip magazine may seem unfair - I will not let you go get a bigger gun even if that would be the FAIR thing to do".

I will leave you with one final thought: Lawyer Jokes are funny and a fact of life for those of us that took up this wonderful profession - but jokes for lawyers are not funny and should never be a fact of life! See you all at the Blind Lady a bar for real lawyers.

By Harry Haywood on 2013 05 05, 1:50 pm CDT

@56-victimsyndrome - correct me if I'm wrong, but you sound like a "white" woman. One of those who demanded the right to vote and changed your stance on the issue when the first legislation was written to include "blacks." You also sound like one of those who quips, "so look what 'they' did to women" when a "black" person complains about discrimination. In the words of Sojourners Truth, "Aint I [the black woman] a woman."

I actually have a suggestion to resolve the issue, when "white" women stop complaining about equality and parity to "white" men; "Jews" stop complaining about equality and parity to "Christians" and "Muslims;" the "disabled" stop demanding access same as the "norma; " and the "poor" stop asking for a liveable wage and decent education similar to the "rich;" then "blacks will stop asking for equality with "whites." And, of course, white men have to stop fighting the war on terror (and drugs) to keep "ragheads from stealing their wife and kids or drugs for the same reason, then we can all chill. In essence, everybody should stop complaining.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2013 05 05, 6:02 pm CDT

Yes, by all means, all of you stop complaining. Harraumph!

By B. McLeod on 2013 05 05, 8:29 pm CDT

People, people, people. Do you believe everything a prospect tells you when they walk into your office? Critical thinking, anyone? There are two (or more) sides to everything, this situation included. Might it be that the firm chose the high road? In whose interest would it be to prolong a dispute? You've got one side of the story, told by an interested party with an axe to grind. He had his chance to step away from the precipice and behave like a grown-up and he didn't take it. Still hasn't judging by the content of his email. Even if there is some truth to the allegations, reserving judgment might be sensible, dontcha think? This seems like a disproportionate reaction given the known facts. Any chance there might be more going on the background? My guess is that concerns over investigations, client service, ethics, etc. were not driving this situation. Baser motives are at issue here.

By Don's Maserati Mechanic on 2013 05 06, 2:47 am CDT

@49. Voice of Reason misspelling my name means one of two cannot read or you're a racist. I took the high road and thought you could not read. But....since the irony is I should have recognized your racist remark with a reference to the old tv show Martin and his nosey neighbor Sheneneh Jenkins.....well...geez...i'm totally sorry. I try to avoid speaking with racists....but happy to know I can do so without losing it.

I would take the time to address your response....but knowing you are a racist keeps me from recognizing any intellectual worth in it. So....good bye...we're done!

By Lia Ashanay on 2013 05 06, 4:11 am CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By Voice of Reason Prime on 2013 05 06, 2:15 pm CDT

Wow. Voice of Reason Prime (62) sure proves Lia A's point - simply by being removable!
How eloquent.

By Avon on 2013 05 06, 9:45 pm CDT

Oh now, most of us have been "removable" at one time or another. The way I see it, you never have said nothin' if you haven't been removed ("Another Andy" possibly being the exception that proves the rule).

By B. McLeod on 2013 05 07, 12:15 am CDT

@61, Lia Ashanay who comments on irony, yet misses it entirely, and decides that a pop-culture reference to an old "Martin" character defines one as a racist.

Also @ the moderator who allows one poster to call another a "racist," yet seems to have a problem with "ignoramus" or an old character from the old TV show "Martin." Anyone else note the irony there? However, you need not remove Lia's posts on my accord, she can say what she wishes.

1) Lia, whatever position you are trying to articulate would be better served if you addressed the points, instead of just stating your feelings about how I post.

2) It does wonders for you credibility when, in post 61, YOU SPELL YOUR OWN NAME WRONG. Well, unless your earlier posts have the name spelled wrong, in which case, the point still remains.

How about this:

"@61. Lia Ashanay…you misspelling your own name means one of two things…you cannot spell or you cannot reason. I took the high road and thought you could not spell. But…since the irony is I should have recognized your inability to reason once you commented on the tone and manner of posting instead of the actual arguments presented...well…geez…I’m totally sorry. I try to avoid speaking with those who cannot reason...but, since they put themselves out there, I'm happy to point out their failures to other readers."

My point remains the same: the only way your original statements have any validity is if you take a particular side. If you understand why you can take a side based on the information that you have here, you can understand why Kim takes a side based on the information that he has. The issue is that he has orders of magnitude more information than you have.

He's not wrong 'cuz yew sez so.

By Voice of Reason Prime on 2013 05 07, 1:53 pm CDT

@63, Avon who draws an erroneous conclusion, offers flawed reasoning, and also spells Lia's name wrong:

Um, being removable really has no bearing on the points being addressed. Much like Gavin (post 64 (and an old "Love Boat" reference for those of you offended by bad characters in bad TV shows)) noted, being removed just means spirited debate and subjective moderation. Nothing more.

By Voice of Reason Prime on 2013 05 07, 2:03 pm CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.