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.
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Selendy/Gay
Don't see another thread about this.
This is a big deal. With Selendy, his favorite co partners, and David Elsberg (who is brilliant and nice) leaving, QE NY seems dead in the water.
It'll be interesting to see how QE reacts to this. I could see them trying to swallow Kas to "fix" things.
This is a big deal. With Selendy, his favorite co partners, and David Elsberg (who is brilliant and nice) leaving, QE NY seems dead in the water.
It'll be interesting to see how QE reacts to this. I could see them trying to swallow Kas to "fix" things.
-
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
1) There is probably a reason for that. Likely nobody else cares about firm politics at a single firm's office in a specific market.Anonymous User wrote:Don't see another thread about this.
2) Don't abuse the anon poster function.
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
There's a reason I am anonymous and people should probably care about one of (the?) most profitable part of the most profitable office of the second most profitable firm in the world spinning off.RedPurpleBlue wrote:1) There is probably a reason for that. Likely nobody else cares about firm politics at a single firm's office in a specific market.Anonymous User wrote:Don't see another thread about this.
2) Don't abuse the anon poster function.
profitable
-
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
I don't know enough to say anything about it.Anonymous User wrote:There's a reason I am anonymous and people should probably care about one of (the?) most profitable part of the most profitable office of the second most profitable firm in the world spinning off.RedPurpleBlue wrote:1) There is probably a reason for that. Likely nobody else cares about firm politics at a single firm's office in a specific market.Anonymous User wrote:Don't see another thread about this.
2) Don't abuse the anon poster function.
profitable
I don't care about firm politics, but a spin-off might be interesting for other reasons.
I mean, people on TLS seem to really like Hueston Hennigan, and that was a very profitable spin-off of Irell.
I also think there were at least some posts about Don Verilli opening a Munger DC office. Not sure, though.
- Mullens
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:34 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Strong statement for a 1L. This’ll make some waves in the litigation world. At the very least, it’s the creation of another (presumably market or above market). Also think this is the future of litigation given the number of recent offshoots and the state of technologyRedPurpleBlue wrote:1) There is probably a reason for that. Likely nobody else cares about firm politics at a single firm's office in a specific market.Anonymous User wrote:Don't see another thread about this.
2) Don't abuse the anon poster function.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
Say more on that last sentence pleaseMullens wrote:Strong statement for a 1L. This’ll make some waves in the litigation world. At the very least, it’s the creation of another (presumably market or above market). Also think this is the future of litigation given the number of recent offshoots and the state of technologyRedPurpleBlue wrote:1) There is probably a reason for that. Likely nobody else cares about firm politics at a single firm's office in a specific market.Anonymous User wrote:Don't see another thread about this.
2) Don't abuse the anon poster function.
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
I’m probably not going to respond, but I got a recruiter email for this and for the first time was actually intrigued. Them coming from QE dampers that a bit though.
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
I just started at QE in a non-NY office and am interested in this. How big of a blow is this? What practice area(s) will be impacted most?
-
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
One I'm glad to stand by, and I feel is likely correct. There is no reason to believe that this topic has a wide audience. Maybe it caters to a sizable niche, but it's still a niche. Also, I have no clue why you needed to point out that I was a 1L. Seems eerily close to an ad hominem. Could have just said you disagreed.Mullens wrote:Strong statement for a 1L. This’ll make some waves in the litigation world. At the very least, it’s the creation of another (presumably market or above market). Also think this is the future of litigation given the number of recent offshoots and the state of technologyRedPurpleBlue wrote:1) There is probably a reason for that. Likely nobody else cares about firm politics at a single firm's office in a specific market.Anonymous User wrote:Don't see another thread about this.
2) Don't abuse the anon poster function.
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
I mean almost every thread here is catering to some kind of niche.
-
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
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.
Last edited by mcmand on Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
OP here.Anonymous User wrote:I just started at QE in a non-NY office and am interested in this. How big of a blow is this? What practice area(s) will be impacted most?
This is a sizable blow. Selendy was the one who landed FHFA and most of the follow-up work. He and his wife have sizeable other practices.
But, if you joined Chicago to do Koch work, or DC to join the Bill Burck Trump defense circus, those will be fine. Products in NY will be the same except the Colgate work will move over with Faith, I would expect
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
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: 569
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
Absolutely true, but there also aren't threads on a lot of topics here, and that shouldn't be surprising given the size of the TLS community relative to the size of the legal world.A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean almost every thread here is catering to some kind of niche.
- TLSModBot
- Posts: 14835
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Rather than "Well, actually what I meant"ing or "you don't know me!"ing your way out of this (and poorly), maybe just take the L for what was very obviously misdirected snark coming from bad assumptions and/or lack of knowledge.
This is a big deal, and even were you "coming from a family of biglawers" (lol. Jfc lol) a 1L still doesn't know shit about what is or is not relevant to practicing lawyers and cannot speak for them.
This is a big deal, and even were you "coming from a family of biglawers" (lol. Jfc lol) a 1L still doesn't know shit about what is or is not relevant to practicing lawyers and cannot speak for them.
- TLSModBot
- Posts: 14835
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Getting back on-topic, I'd be interested in hearing what the logic behind the split is (like what the hell kind of freedom or PPP are these guys expecting that they wouldn't have in QE?)
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Mullens
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:34 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Predictive coding and othe discovery technology allows smaller teams to conduct the massive litigation that used to only go to biglaw firms. Combine that with pressure from in-house clients to lower cost and the increased use of contract attorneys and I think you will see more biglaw offshoots pop up.jd20132013 wrote:Say more on that last sentence pleaseMullens wrote:Strong statement for a 1L. This’ll make some waves in the litigation world. At the very least, it’s the creation of another (presumably market or above market). Also think this is the future of litigation given the number of recent offshoots and the state of technologyRedPurpleBlue wrote:1) There is probably a reason for that. Likely nobody else cares about firm politics at a single firm's office in a specific market.Anonymous User wrote:Don't see another thread about this.
2) Don't abuse the anon poster function.
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
This. The news coverage has said they’re interested in doing entrepreneurial and pro bono work. What does that mean?Capitol_Idea wrote:Getting back on-topic, I'd be interested in hearing what the logic behind the split is (like what the hell kind of freedom or PPP are these guys expecting that they wouldn't have in QE?)
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:12 pm
Re: Selendy/Gay
Dude you seem like the worst. Settle down and don’t take yourself so seriously. And yes, that was an ad hominem.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.
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
OP again.Anonymous User wrote:This. The news coverage has said they’re interested in doing entrepreneurial and pro bono work. What does that mean?Capitol_Idea wrote:Getting back on-topic, I'd be interested in hearing what the logic behind the split is (like what the hell kind of freedom or PPP are these guys expecting that they wouldn't have in QE?)
I bet this is never admitted but I would guess it's partially political. QE NY was very liberal. They sued banks because they wanted to, not just because they made money off of it. I really doubt they like the way that Bill Burck has built the white collar defense practice and doubt they like his white supremacist clients.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Also because it may finally be untrue-
OCEANS RISE
CITIES FALL
QUINN REMAINS (???)
OCEANS RISE
CITIES FALL
QUINN REMAINS (???)
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
FascinatedWanderer wrote:Dude you seem like the worst. Settle down and don’t take yourself so seriously. And yes, that was an ad hominem.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.
QE has plenty of liberal partners.
- TLSModBot
- Posts: 14835
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
Anonymous User wrote:Also because it may finally be untrue-
OCEANS RISE
CITIES FALL
QUINN'S REMAINS (???)
-
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Selendy/Gay
with so many biglaw partners packing up and leaving over the last few years, this seems like a great time to be a young litigator. There wasn't a lot of press on this, but a former (young) Cravath partner left early last year to join a boutique formed by other former Cravath attorneys, too. https://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017 ... h-partner/
Add that to Kaplan & Co, Wilkinson Walsh, Hueston Hennigan,the new Munger outpost (though query how large that will become), I think that this is all great for those coming off of clerkships or even young litigators already at large firms wanting to make a jump.
Add that to Kaplan & Co, Wilkinson Walsh, Hueston Hennigan,the new Munger outpost (though query how large that will become), I think that this is all great for those coming off of clerkships or even young litigators already at large firms wanting to make a jump.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login