• Home
  • News
  • ‘Reply All’ Was a Mistake, Peeved Partner Tells Quinn Emanuel Associate

Trials & Litigation

‘Reply All’ Was a Mistake, Peeved Partner Tells Quinn Emanuel Associate

Posted May 19, 2009 2:53 PM CST
By Martha Neil

Observers are openly wondering how long an unidentified first-year associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges will hold his job, after reading a jaw-dropping e-mail thread. It began with a partner's standard-issue firmwide proclamation of victory on Friday in a federal court case involving the trademark rights of the Washington Redskins.

Responding in a series of lengthy e-mails, the associate questioned the morality of the firm's representation of a football team named in a manner that is offensive to a number of Americans—and, after discussing the perceived issue in detail, apparently hit the "reply all" key. This prompted another partner, in response to the associate's response, to question not only the associate's judgment but his writing skills, according to copies of the e-mails posted on Above the Law.

The Los Angeles-based litigation firm represents clients, not causes, writes one unnamed partner in defense of Robert Raskopf in one of the e-mails, and would have gladly won the case for opposing party, had Quinn Emanuel been hired to do so. The associate would do well to avoid indiscriminate use of the "reply all" function in the future the partner says. And additionally, the partner suggests, the associate should "note the lack of any parentheses in this e-mail. It makes it much easier to read."

Contacted by ATL for comment about what the law blog describes as an awesome thread, the associate says "I'm sorry if I worked through it in too public a manner" and describes Quinn Emanuel as "a cool firm with smart, nice and chill lawyers. Honestly."

ATL redacted names from the memos and posted this warning to commenters: "Please don't disclose identities in the comments or we will ban you from the wagon."

Raskopf and the firm did not respond to the ABA Journal's requests for comment.

Additional coverage:

Above the Law: "Second Bar Failure Is Proximate Cause for Quinn Associate's Ouster"

Am Law Daily: "Quinn Emanuel's Raskopf Wins Affirmance of Washington Redskins' Trademarks"

Washington Post: "Appeals Court Sides With Team In Suit Challenging Trademark"

Updated on May 26 to add link to subsequent Above the Law post.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
May 19, 2009 3:06 PM CST

Priceless!  Sometime in the next 20 years, that kid will probably replace me on this site.  He has a natural talent.

Flag this comment

2.

Bill Dickey
May 19, 2009 5:04 PM CST

I hope we don’t have to listen to McLeod’s corny comments for 20 years.  Mabye he’ll get a blog somewhere else.  ABA membership isn’t worth that price.

Flag this comment

3.

LRH
May 19, 2009 7:17 PM CST

Touché, Bill Dickey! 

But somehow it figures that B. McLeod would gush over the antics of the wastrel son of a Goldman Sachs partner, when he chortles with such regular delight at the travails of middle and working class kids with $200K in loans struggling after a BigLaw layoff.

Flag this comment

4.

B. McLeod
May 19, 2009 7:23 PM CST

I do not think an unemployed person who has nothing but $200K in debts counts as either “working” or “middle” class.

Flag this comment

5.

William Stanley Daniel
May 20, 2009 11:06 AM CST

If you have not yet inadvertently pressed or hit
the “Reply All” button instead of the “Reply”
button, key or icon, then odds are that you will.
The “Reply All” icon being right next to the
“Reply” icon sure does not help.  There should
be at least one or two other icons in between
those two, which would really cut down on, if
not actually eliminate, inadvertently sending to
everyone an email reply meant or intended for
just one recipient.  Come on Windows!  Give us
some help out here!

Flag this comment

6.

Scott
May 20, 2009 3:49 PM CST

If you read this moron’s emails, he didn’t hit reply all by mistake.  He meant to send it to the entire firm and defends his decision.  Should have done a little more research before coming up with that headline.

Flag this comment

7.

B. McLeod
May 20, 2009 6:32 PM CST

Something that was intentional can still be a “mistake” (just ask Client 9 from New York State).  I think the “peeved partner” was asserting this was a “mistake” in the way of a misjudgment, not a “mistake” in the way of an accident.

Flag this comment

8.

User name removed by moderator.
May 20, 2009 9:42 PM CST

Comment removed.

Flag this comment

9.

A reader
May 21, 2009 6:59 AM CST

Actually, Scott, if you try the old elementary school English trick of reversing the “sentence” parts, I think that you’ll find the headline actually says “Peeved Partner Tells Quinn Emanuel Associate [that] ‘Reply All’ Was a Mistake.”  Ummm, I think the headline was dead on, actually…

Flag this comment

10.

Anon
May 22, 2009 3:54 AM CST

Teaching 1st years how to move the reply all button should be mandatory training. I have it on the complete opposite side of the screen as the reply button.

Flag this comment

11.

S. Owens
May 22, 2009 4:18 AM CST

Ok folks - Here are instructions on how to move the button. This has been possible with any recent version of Outlook.

1. Right click the ‘Reply All’ button
2. Go to ‘Customize…’ - the customize box will appear but you need not bother with it.
3.  Click and drag the button left or right to whatever location you feel is least likely to cause unfortunate accidents.
4. Close the customize box.

Alternatively, you can remove the button altogether. Replying to all will still be possible using the shortcut keys (Ctrl+Shift+R) or by going to the Actions menu and then clicking ‘Reply to All’.

To remove the button, follow the steps above but instead of dragging the button left or right, drag the button down into the Customize box. When you let go of the mouse button the ‘Reply All’ button will be removed.

To re-add the button, follow the steps above, but when the Customize box appears select ‘Actions’ under categories on the left, and then scroll down on the right to find the ‘Reply All’ button. You can click and drag it from here up to the toolbar. If the ‘Reply All’ text does not appear next to the button, simply right click the button and select ‘Image and text’.

I think it is just best to move the button. Sometimes we all need to be saved from ourselves!

Flag this comment

12.

Chris Daniels
May 22, 2009 5:28 AM CST

S, Owens for President!

That is the most useful post in the history of posting after articles.

Already followed the directions and they work precisely.

That may have just saved my career….

Flag this comment

13.

R.Morgan
May 22, 2009 5:29 AM CST

Many thanks for the simple directions from S.Owens on how to customize the “Reply to All” button in Outlook.  Now if someone could figure out how to avoid repetitive emails when compiling email threads for e-discovery…

Flag this comment

14.

Hadley V. Baxendale
May 22, 2009 6:43 AM CST

I made that mistake a year or two ago.  I made an ironic (or sarcastic) remark about a firm-wide notice.  More recently this firm has moved the “reply to all”  button way over to the right

Flag this comment

15.

Trinity Hall
May 22, 2009 6:59 AM CST

“Hadley’s” post raises this question:  Can anyone come up with a better email story than the Quinn Emmanuel associate’s email blunder?

Flag this comment

16.

FirstYearAssoc
May 22, 2009 7:09 AM CST

The firm and the associate should be happy that was all that was said.  We often get e-mails from partners, congratulating a recent MSJ win or a recent appeal.  Other times, we get e-mails badgering us for not “reporting” to clients every 30 days and not returning phone calls of clients within 24 hours.  The younger associates often reply, although only to their friends in the firm, with smart remarks, one time someone wrote a comical “resignation letter” and sent it to the younger associates in the firm when the partner’s e-mail read “if you cannot comply with the reprting requirements, resign now.”

Thankfully, no one has hit “reply all”.

Flag this comment

17.

Susan
May 22, 2009 7:11 AM CST

If you need to move the “reply all” button in order to avoid mistaking it for the “reply” button, then your issues go beyond having the two next to one another.  How about attention to detail?  Has that skill suddenly been lost?  Is it not an important aspect of an attorney’s job?

Flag this comment

18.

Heather
May 22, 2009 7:29 AM CST

Interesting that most of the comments focus on the pros and cons of the “reply all” button rather than on the content of the controversy. It is racists to continue to use the Redskins name. Perhaps they should just change their name to the Washington Sambos. There are afterall more African Americans on the team and in Washington, DC than Natives Americans. And there is almost no focus on the importance of people standing up for the right thing within the large firm structure. Lemmings. A cheer for the “reply all” button and a “tsk tsk” to Quinn Emanuel for taking this case. I know where I will never bring my legal business.

Flag this comment

19.

William Strubbe
May 22, 2009 7:37 AM CST

I am a solo practitioner. I would love to have the Redskins as a client, and would promise not to say anything to anyone about their name if they would retain me. 
Seriously, isn’t the message that we are not hired - by clients or firms - to give political or other opinions irrelevant to the representation, no matter how bright or funny they seem?  Especially while someone else is paying us to perform legal work?

Flag this comment

20.

Mike
May 22, 2009 7:54 AM CST

Given the way this first year associate writes, I wonder why he had not been fired yet. And yes, he did this on purpose. He would have found the “reply to all” button even if it had been on the reverse side of the email, or in the lower right corner of his screen.

The question whether lawyers should do whatever they are paid for is another discussion. One needs to control one´s greed to refuse matters one does not really approve of. For a European, the Redskin would not have one where one raises eyebrows, but you US guys have become so hyper on anything that may look discriminating that there is overreaction all along….

Flag this comment

21.

Mike Sperry
May 22, 2009 8:32 AM CST

More evidence for our Reply To All Monitor tool from Sperry Software!
Smart people (like many readers here) will take the time to move the Reply To All button, but there will be those that won’t and are exactly the ones that should.  It has happened in the past and it will happen again.
(Warning, shameless self plug): For more information go to http://www.SperrySoftware.com/Outlook/Reply-To-All-Monitor.asp.

Flag this comment

22.

kd
May 22, 2009 8:46 AM CST

Maybe it’s worth discussing why exactly it is taboo to use reply all in this instance.  The original message was sent to ALL, and it was sent to ALL to convey “Look what I did!”  “Aren’t I great!”  “Shouldn’t everyone be proud of me.”

Flag this comment

23.

Friday reader
May 22, 2009 8:49 AM CST

15 asked if anyone had a better e-mail story.  I don’t know if this is a better one, but it’s a story.  About 10 years ago some brand new summer associates were going through e-mail training at the firm where I worked.  One of them decided to create a practice e-mail.  In the “to” field he typed “Us.”  In the body of the e-mail he typed a joke that started along the lines of “a grasshopper went into a bar…”  When he was finished, he pressed “send,” thinking the message wouldn’t actually go anywhere, at least not outside the training room.  Well, Outlook translated the “Us” from the To field into “DC All Users” and sent the message to every e-mail account in the firm’s DC office. 

At the end of the summer, the summer associate did not receive an offer.  Coincidence???

Flag this comment

24.

Janine
May 22, 2009 9:06 AM CST

The firm has “chill lawyers?” I’d fire the guy on that ground alone.

Flag this comment

25.

Andy the Lawyer
May 22, 2009 9:06 AM CST

Washington Redskins?  Could be worse.  “CSA” (short for Confederate States of America) is a mockumentary, now on DVD, couched as a BBC look back at 150 years of history after the south won the Civil War and slavery and racism became not just enshrined but entrenched elements of American culture.  One of its more memorable speculations involves the “New York Niggers” championship baseball team.

Jarring to read?  Unacceptable to hear in civilized society? You bet., and rightly so. But hardly with the level of emotional outrage of reading “Redskins.”  I’ll leave it to the pshcholinguists among us to figure out why.

As for the hapless first year associate, his tale provides a lesson to all newbies.  Choose your battles with more forsight than he did.

If there’s a moral

Flag this comment

26.

mindblown
May 22, 2009 9:37 AM CST

I guess what’s surprising to me is not his feelings about the case, but the means in which he conveyed it. There will always be disagreement over the moral stance some lawyers take. Even as a plaintiffs’ attorney I am sometimes shocked and horrified at the antics of the plaintiffs’ bar to drum up class actions. Just as I was shocked and horrified at the stance I sometimes I had to take on behalf of a client while working at a biglaw defense firm. Ok, he sent the initial email reply all - mistakes are made and yes, it was horribly written. But the true multi-car train crash aspect to me was that he then pasted the PRIVATE email response from the partner down the hall into ANOTHER email to the firm that was even less coherent and relevant than the first. THEN he proceeded to suggest that the firm drum up efforts counter to their client’s interest, which seemed grossly unethical. I appreciate his sentiment, whether it’s valid or not, but the lack of cognizance of how wrongly he went about it is staggering. It reminds of the article about the guy who was busted on Halloween in a fairy costume on Facebook, who had reported in sick on an emergency document review project or something. I can’t believe the things people post on the internet or send through email - it’s the lack of judgment that, to me, is just appallingly scary.

Flag this comment

27.

R
May 22, 2009 10:29 AM CST

People: the first-year INTENDED to send his email to everyone at the firm. He didn’t hit “reply to all” by mistake.

I agree with mindblown (#26) that the rest of the first-year’s actions were even more mind-blowingly off base.

And the first-year’s emails were just execrable in content and style. Native Americans deserve a better defender than that!

By contrast, the email in defense of Robert Raskopf was perfect: strong and concise. No double parentheticals. I’d hire THAT lawyer in a heartbeat.

Flag this comment

28.

Raleigh
May 22, 2009 10:46 AM CST

This kid should take the high road and quit; he shouldn’t take a pay check tainted with the income from this matter; if he does not quit, the partners should help him take the high road and preserve his integrity for him; as a result of all this press, some partner somewhere is getting dressed down or fired by a redskin general counsel, and so should this kid.

And as to the button debate:  Emails are forever; don’t type it, if you don’t want to share it, regardless of the buttons you push, because someone else will forward it anyway.

Flag this comment

29.

BC
May 22, 2009 11:30 AM CST

This clueless first year has indeed been fired by Quinn Emmanuel (see Above the Law, among other places).  Perhaps not coincidentally given his emails, he failed the CA bar exam for the second time and was canned when the firm found out.  For a kid with a JD from Yale and a Masters from Cambridge you would think the kid would be a little more competent.

Flag this comment

30.

Charis P
May 22, 2009 2:30 PM CST

One should not assume that degrees from Yale and Cambridge are definitive indicators of intelligence, acumen or skill with the written word.  It is more likely than not that this person gained access to many places by virtue of his family pedigree.  Having a father that is a partner in Goldman Sachs tends to open doors that would otherwise remain closed due to lack of any actual merit.

Flag this comment

31.

Friday reader
May 22, 2009 4:03 PM CST

Charis, I don’t think the associate’s father was a partner at Goldman Sachs.  A poster on one of the other sites debunked that theory.  They have the same name but they are probably not related.

Flag this comment

32.

Julie Jones
May 22, 2009 6:34 PM CST

Am I the only one concerned about how the internal emails came to be posted on ATL?  Did someone hit the “Foward to World” button by “mistake”?

Flag this comment

33.

JimB
May 23, 2009 7:53 AM CST

To No. 23:
I wonder about the hiring standards of any firm which sees a need for “e-mail training” for its summer associates, who presumably had college degrees and at least a year of law school.  (Even 10 years ago, e-mail was not that new or difficult!)

Flag this comment

34.

Jeffrey A. Schwartz
May 26, 2009 11:10 AM CST

If there was a “Reply All” button here, I would hit it—so no mistaking my intent. The correct moral stance on defending the use of “Washington Redskins” because it may be offensive to some members of society is to not only continue to use it, but to find as many ways as possible to offend the subject community, until they shut their effing mouths, then back off so they understand that whining gets you nowhere. I just don’t understand what has happened to this country, where whiners were once not only not indulged but made sport of. MEN—stop eating soy products. It turns you into simpering wussies.

Flag this comment

35.

Eric in the Red
May 27, 2009 9:06 AM CST

Regardless of which button the associate pressed, he showed a fundamental lack of professional judgment. It is absolutely inappropriate to openly express a personal opinion regarding the morality or immorality of a particular client. If an attorney has personal misgivings about representing a client, they should end their representation or not work for the law firm.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

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

Commenting has expired on this post.