I have some niche advice for you: take criticism better and accept the fact that you’ll be wrong many, many times. If you take this double down attitude into big law firms like QE you will get decimated. You’re not as smart as you think you are.RedPurpleBlue wrote:Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.mcmand wrote:It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.
Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.
It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.
Selendy/Gay Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
- cookiejar1
- Posts: 867
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
-
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
RedPurpleBlue wrote:Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.mcmand wrote:It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.
Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.
It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.
Wtf
- 84651846190
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
triggeredRedPurpleBlue wrote:Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.mcmand wrote:It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.
Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.
It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
I used to work at Quinn in one of the California offices. Per a contact I have who is fairly in the know, Faith won't be taking the Colgate cases with her, but that could be wrong. From the California perspective, this isn't that big of a deal. The FHFA cases were certainly large for many years but I don't think they've been that large in the last few years. Would be interested to hear a New Yorker opine on how healthy they think that office remains -- I don't know much about it aside from the Products side.
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
My uninformed guess: the pure righteousness and fun of suing banks in MBS cases and of taking on corporate giants generally, combined with the desire to build something for oneself, combined with the realization that even if one could make more reliable $$$ at QE, making $$$ at all costs isn't the be-all-and-end-all in life, led to this.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Did anyone end up responding to recruiters about the firm?
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Second-hand, the general impression I have in New York is that this is really no big deal. Selendy's big work was in the past. RMBS litigation, while a huge source of work for the firm in 2010-2015, had already all but ceased to exist at Quinn before he left, so his departure doesn't have any real impact. Gay's practice was probably more relevant, overall, to Quinn in 2018, but as you say she has not succeeded in taking some of her larger clients with her. I suspect that the reasons given for the departure in interviews are honest: Selendy and Gay were both sick of Quinn's severely dysfunctional partnership culture and the level of personal control John Quinn wields over the firm's management, and had also made their fortunes already and wanted to focus on something else. Quinn as a firm is too bottom-line-oriented to allow even rainmaker partners to step back from the grind and spend significant quantities of their time on pro bono work. I wouldn't be shocked if the end of RMBS meant Selendy was nudged out behind the scenes because he was no longer bringing in the big bucks, either, though this explanation doesn't cover Gay's departure at all.Anonymous User wrote:I used to work at Quinn in one of the California offices. Per a contact I have who is fairly in the know, Faith won't be taking the Colgate cases with her, but that could be wrong. From the California perspective, this isn't that big of a deal. The FHFA cases were certainly large for many years but I don't think they've been that large in the last few years. Would be interested to hear a New Yorker opine on how healthy they think that office remains -- I don't know much about it aside from the Products side.
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Selendy had a number of cases running past 15. His work was enough to keep multiple partners (with teams beneath them) busy.
It's a way bigger deal than you're making it out to be.
It's a way bigger deal than you're making it out to be.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:29 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
I've practiced for 25 years in BigLaw in NY and been very close to a number of these situations. Not this one, but have friends about QE.
These things are about 1 thing: money. I've seen partners making 10M a year pissed off someone down the hall is making $12M. I've seen people who make a million get pissed off that someone got another $50,000 for some stupid reason. No matter how much some people make they are always looking down the hall or across the street and are p.o.ed about it. Sounds crazy but true. Year end came and this person or that person got bumped up and I didn't. And I brought in much more than they did. I'm pissed and I'm out of here
Repeat after me. . . it's always about money. Always.
These things are about 1 thing: money. I've seen partners making 10M a year pissed off someone down the hall is making $12M. I've seen people who make a million get pissed off that someone got another $50,000 for some stupid reason. No matter how much some people make they are always looking down the hall or across the street and are p.o.ed about it. Sounds crazy but true. Year end came and this person or that person got bumped up and I didn't. And I brought in much more than they did. I'm pissed and I'm out of here
Repeat after me. . . it's always about money. Always.
-
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/site ... n%20Update
I think this tells you all you need to know about the culture there.
I think this tells you all you need to know about the culture there.
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
chillRedPurpleBlue wrote:Your argument presumes a lot about me as an individual. What if I come from a family of biglaw lawyers? What if I follow the field? What if I worked at NY law firms before school? What if etc.? I'm not talking down on anyone. I'm just offering a reasonable explanation to why this topic hadn't been created. In the same vein, Posner's sudden retirement may have been news and noteworthy to some in a small niche, but public defenders in Miami, in-house counsel at Microsoft, and the vast majority of the legal world probably just didn't care.mcmand wrote:It's because you don't really know anything yet about a subject you're opining on while talking down to someone else who likely is a lawyer.RedPurpleBlue wrote:Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L.
Not ad hominem to point out you don't know anything yet.
It's completely an ad hominem. "Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false." It's like pointing out that I'm a Catholic priest after I gave an opinion why nobody is talking about some Jewish authorities new interpretation of the Talmud. If I said probably because it applies to a niche and the vast majority of people don't care, that would be valid reasoning. Pointing out I'm a Catholic priest and thus know nothing about the Talmud and the jewish community and have an invalid opinion 1) rests on a ton of assumptions and 2) is attacking my position instead of the actual argument I'm making. A proper, non ad hominem reply would be that actually the Jewish community is X significant percent of the population, and there are Y number of people actively engaged/connected to the topic, so it is unusual that it hasn't been brought up. You have yet to articulate 1) that there is a significant population of people that work at QE on this board or at peer firms and 2) that they are actively engaged/care about this topic.
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
snappyguy wrote:I've practiced for 25 years in BigLaw in NY and been very close to a number of these situations. Not this one, but have friends about QE.
These things are about 1 thing: money. I've seen partners making 10M a year pissed off someone down the hall is making $12M. I've seen people who make a million get pissed off that someone got another $50,000 for some stupid reason. No matter how much some people make they are always looking down the hall or across the street and are p.o.ed about it. Sounds crazy but true. Year end came and this person or that person got bumped up and I didn't. And I brought in much more than they did. I'm pissed and I'm out of here
Repeat after me. . . it's always about money. Always.
Absolutely. John Quinn's response email to Gays exit email talks about how she should be happy with her 100M in compensation from her time at QE
- Impressionist
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 10:24 pm
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
lol oh man what a shitshowjd20132013 wrote:https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/site ... n%20Update
I think this tells you all you need to know about the culture there.
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
Rbs and fhfa litigation... No idea what this consists of but makes me wanna gag. Why join this new firm just to do shit like that?
I don't see how their NY office will survive unless they bring in laterals
I don't see how their NY office will survive unless they bring in laterals
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Anyone interview here yet? Online says they are hiring 30 or more associates. Figured there would be some chatter.
-
- Posts: 428561
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
FYI canceled my interview two days before it was to occur. Never heard back.Anonymous User wrote:Anyone interview here yet? Online says they are hiring 30 or more associates. Figured there would be some chatter.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login