More BigLaw TikTok drama! Forum

[Anonymous User]

The thing is, none of us knows anything about her work ability and general standing with people she works with regularly (the mistakes she talks about in one of the videos notwithstanding). You can speculate if you like but that’s all it is. Also, unless you can point to a white dude who has been fired for such behavior, the comparison isn’t helpful.

There was a white man at Northwestern with a prominent TikTok account. His offer to summer at Sidley Austin was revoked on account of the controversy that it stirred up.

The controversy there that doesn’t exist here was that he was accused of sexual assault.

Edit: I should clarify and say that I’m not saying that I think what this woman is doing is a great idea, at all. She may yet get fired. I just think all the “a white guy would never get away with this” talk is kind of gross.

I remember that and actually it's a great example. He wasn't even accused of SA, just if some third hand rumors of having a bad dating reputation. But he got canned as soon as there was any possible reputational concerns. So yeah, I do think it shows that white guys get less leeway.

I'll also note that nobody directly answered the question: do you honestly, genuinely believe that a white guy would get the same leeway? Instead of arguing about can you prove it, what do you actually think?

[Anonymous User]

Idk why everyone is on STB's side here. Yes, STB is objectively in the right, but I do quite enjoy the thought of STB GC and HR having multiple meetings about this situation and being terrified about what to do. The TikToker is obviously annoying, but at the end of the day this is great content and I am very much hooked on how this all ends up lmao. Plus, STB is clearly on notice of the issue so I think any associates staffed on similar deals aren't going to get blamed for her not responding to emails after 5:00 PM on a Wednesday.

[Anonymous User]

I'll also add, I'm not too bothered by POC getting extra leeway or a mild affirmative action boost etc. Seems fair historically. And frankly, firms have to be conscious of how things look in PR and to clients.

But I really can't stand the gaslighting and lying about it, and calling people racist for noticing the facts. That's not helpful to anyone and just breeds resentment.

[Anonymous User]

I'll also add, I'm not too bothered by POC getting extra leeway or a mild affirmative action boost etc. Seems fair historically. And frankly, firms have to be conscious of how things look in PR and to clients.

But I really can't stand the gaslighting and lying about it, and calling people racist for noticing the facts. That's not helpful to anyone and just breeds resentment.

Whats racist is assuming that she's there because she's black. Maybe her dad is a client. Maybe a partner thinks she's hot. Maybe she's on a pip and will be out the door shortly. Maybe she's an amazing writer and they put up with stupidity because she's good at something specific. We know nothing but the color of her skin and that she makes idiotic videos.

[Anonymous User]

I'll also add, I'm not too bothered by POC getting extra leeway or a mild affirmative action boost etc. Seems fair historically. And frankly, firms have to be conscious of how things look in PR and to clients.

But I really can't stand the gaslighting and lying about it, and calling people racist for noticing the facts. That's not helpful to anyone and just breeds resentment.

Whats racist is assuming that she's there because she's black. Maybe her dad is a client. Maybe a partner thinks she's hot. Maybe she's on a pip and will be out the door shortly. Maybe she's an amazing writer and they put up with stupidity because she's good at something specific. We know nothing but the color of her skin and that she makes idiotic videos.

I don't think anybody made the claim that she's there because she's black.

I think they argued that they take her race into account when navigating this TikTok situation in a way they wouldn't if the associate was white.

I'm not endorsing this argument, but I think your response is disingenuous since you're strawmannirg.

[Anonymous User]

I'll also add, I'm not too bothered by POC getting extra leeway or a mild affirmative action boost etc. Seems fair historically. And frankly, firms have to be conscious of how things look in PR and to clients.

But I really can't stand the gaslighting and lying about it, and calling people racist for noticing the facts. That's not helpful to anyone and just breeds resentment.

Whats racist is assuming that she's there because she's black. Maybe her dad is a client. Maybe a partner thinks she's hot. Maybe she's on a pip and will be out the door shortly. Maybe she's an amazing writer and they put up with stupidity because she's good at something specific. We know nothing but the color of her skin and that she makes idiotic videos.

I don't think anybody made the claim that she's there because she's black.

I think they argued that they take her race into account when navigating this TikTok situation in a way they wouldn't if the associate was white.

I'm not endorsing this argument, but I think your response is disingenuous since you're strawmannirg.

Nah, they're right. If a white guy bashed his firm on TikTok, the managing partner would fly him private to Pebble Beach for a round of golf. He'd be congratulated for his ambition, they'd toss back some beers, and then they'd do the secret white handshake while trading politically incorrect jokes. After the trip, Mr. Lily White Entrepreneur would be made partner instantly.

[Anonymous User]

I'll also add, I'm not too bothered by POC getting extra leeway or a mild affirmative action boost etc. Seems fair historically. And frankly, firms have to be conscious of how things look in PR and to clients.

But I really can't stand the gaslighting and lying about it, and calling people racist for noticing the facts. That's not helpful to anyone and just breeds resentment.

Whats racist is assuming that she's there because she's black. Maybe her dad is a client. Maybe a partner thinks she's hot. Maybe she's on a pip and will be out the door shortly. Maybe she's an amazing writer and they put up with stupidity because she's good at something specific. We know nothing but the color of her skin and that she makes idiotic videos.

I don't think anybody made the claim that she's there because she's black.

I think they argued that they take her race into account when navigating this TikTok situation in a way they wouldn't if the associate was white.

I'm not endorsing this argument, but I think your response is disingenuous since you're strawmannirg.

Nah, they're right. If a white guy bashed his firm on TikTok, the managing partner would fly him private to Pebble Beach for a round of golf. He'd be congratulated for his ambition, they'd toss back some beers, and then they'd do the secret white handshake while trading politically incorrect jokes. After the trip, Mr. Lily White Entrepreneur would be made partner instantly.

Did you just spoil the plot of S2 of Partner Track without warning?

[Anonymous User]

I'll also add, I'm not too bothered by POC getting extra leeway or a mild affirmative action boost etc. Seems fair historically. And frankly, firms have to be conscious of how things look in PR and to clients.

But I really can't stand the gaslighting and lying about it, and calling people racist for noticing the facts. That's not helpful to anyone and just breeds resentment.

Whats racist is assuming that she's there because she's black. Maybe her dad is a client. Maybe a partner thinks she's hot. Maybe she's on a pip and will be out the door shortly. Maybe she's an amazing writer and they put up with stupidity because she's good at something specific. We know nothing but the color of her skin and that she makes idiotic videos.

I don't think anybody made the claim that she's there because she's black.

I think they argued that they take her race into account when navigating this TikTok situation in a way they wouldn't if the associate was white.

I'm not endorsing this argument, but I think your response is disingenuous since you're strawmannirg.

Nah, they're right. If a white guy bashed his firm on TikTok, the managing partner would fly him private to Pebble Beach for a round of golf. He'd be congratulated for his ambition, they'd toss back some beers, and then they'd do the secret white handshake while trading politically incorrect jokes. After the trip, Mr. Lily White Entrepreneur would be made partner instantly.

Did you just spoil the plot of S2 of Partner Track without warning?

I really wouldn't want to be a black person working with any of you

[Anonymous User]

I'll also add, I'm not too bothered by POC getting extra leeway or a mild affirmative action boost etc. Seems fair historically. And frankly, firms have to be conscious of how things look in PR and to clients.

But I really can't stand the gaslighting and lying about it, and calling people racist for noticing the facts. That's not helpful to anyone and just breeds resentment.

Whats racist is assuming that she's there because she's black. Maybe her dad is a client. Maybe a partner thinks she's hot. Maybe she's on a pip and will be out the door shortly. Maybe she's an amazing writer and they put up with stupidity because she's good at something specific. We know nothing but the color of her skin and that she makes idiotic videos.

I don't think anybody made the claim that she's there because she's black.

I think they argued that they take her race into account when navigating this TikTok situation in a way they wouldn't if the associate was white.

I'm not endorsing this argument, but I think your response is disingenuous since you're strawmannirg.

Nah, they're right. If a white guy bashed his firm on TikTok, the managing partner would fly him private to Pebble Beach for a round of golf. He'd be congratulated for his ambition, they'd toss back some beers, and then they'd do the secret white handshake while trading politically incorrect jokes. After the trip, Mr. Lily White Entrepreneur would be made partner instantly.

Did you just spoil the plot of S2 of Partner Track without warning?

I really wouldn't want to be a black person working with any of you

Yeah, I treat everyone like an accountable, intelligent, responsible adult and hold everyone to normal professional standards. It's a total nightmare!

[Anonymous User]

Her laugh is beyond annoying and inauthentic, and more importantly she has a total lack of perspective or judgment and I can't believe STB is letting her stick around. She's gonezo the second they can send her off, and she absolutely deserves it.

[Anonymous User]

A comment (with over 70 upvotes) from a reddit thread about this tiktoker:

"Tbh the firm has its hands tied. If they fire her, ask her to delete her TikTok, or reprimand her in any way then she will almost certainly cause an even bigger headache. She will post videos about it of course, probably make it about her being a black woman, potentially sue, and also give the firm negative PR. I think they’re hoping the problem goes away on its own either by her choosing to do tik tok full time or going in house or something. There’s no way they’ll let her continue this as a senior."

It is not racist to acknowledge that firms take into account several factors when considering whether or not to fire someone. In today's political climate, one of those factors is race. This should not be a controversial take.

[Anonymous User]

I really wouldn't want to be a black person working with any of you

The odd syntax here means you aren't black right? But you take it on your to speak for them. How kind of you.

[Anonymous User]

Her laugh is beyond annoying and inauthentic, and more importantly she has a total lack of perspective or judgment and I can't believe STB is letting her stick around. She's gonezo the second they can send her off, and she absolutely deserves it.

This. 100%.

Also waiting for this to hit fishbowl.

[Anonymous User]

Can we just stick to discussing the cringe aspects of her videos and not concern ourselves with whether she would still have her job if she weren’t an underrepresented minority? I don’t think the question itself is racist but this is moving into territory that is likely going to result in this thread being shut down. Don’t want this to happen as the thread has been entertaining.

Second this. This is a highly entertaining situation and you folks are risking this glorious thread. Looking forward to seeing how it all plays out.

Separately, I went down the biglaw Tik Tok rabbit hole and found a creator who isn't cringe:
https://www.tiktok.com/@mannatplease/vi ... 1549069610

[PaperView]

She went back to making normal videos. Her latest video includes statements that suggest commitment to her job even though she's not at her desk for a lot of it. I think she will be fine and STB does not need to fire her. But I do not expect her to make partner.

It is not racist to consider or to acknowledge that a firm considers her race in deciding whether to take adverse employment action. Only a lawyer who knows nothing about employment law would fail to account for any applicable protected classes before taking an adverse action. Does she have a disability? If yes, take steps to protect yourself and mitigate the risk of a viable disability discrimination claim prior to acting. Same thing for racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. You don't operate at STB's level of success and immediately fire someone without getting your ducks in a row. That would be stupid. Of course they should account for race and other factors from a purely legal POV. They're not stupid.

"Simpson Thacher’s Labor and Employment Practice is well-versed in representing and advising management in labor and employment law matters. ... we provide counsel on transactions, offerings and noncompete agreements—as well as on important workplace issues such as discrimination, wrongful termination and sexual harassment. We advise human resources departments and line management—and where necessary, we appear before the courts and agencies that resolve those disputes."
https://www.stblaw.com/client-services/ ... employment. They know what they're doing and if they act it won't be blindly or rushed.

On the other hand, it is racist to assume the girl only has her job because of her race or that STB will do nothing because of her race. Lastly, it was apparent from her last TikTok in which she discussed Simpson that she had finished her fight. I hope that's right, that she continues making normal videos and doesn't go back to fighting the issue, and that she doesn't derail her career. I'm also not surprised she fought as long as she did because she is headstrong (maybe to a fault within the confines of biglaw).

[Anonymous User]

She went back to making normal videos. Her latest video includes statements that suggest commitment to her job even though she's not at her desk for a lot of it. I think she will be fine and STB does not need to fire her. But I do not expect her to make partner.

It is not racist to consider or to acknowledge that a firm considers her race in deciding whether to take adverse employment action. Only a lawyer who knows nothing about employment law would fail to account for any applicable protected classes before taking an adverse action. Does she have a disability? If yes, take steps to protect yourself and mitigate the risk of a viable disability discrimination claim prior to acting. Same thing for racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. You don't operate at STB's level of success and immediately fire someone without getting your ducks in a row. That would be stupid. Of course they should account for race and other factors from a purely legal POV. They're not stupid.

"Simpson Thacher’s Labor and Employment Practice is well-versed in representing and advising management in labor and employment law matters. ... we provide counsel on transactions, offerings and noncompete agreements—as well as on important workplace issues such as discrimination, wrongful termination and sexual harassment. We advise human resources departments and line management—and where necessary, we appear before the courts and agencies that resolve those disputes."
https://www.stblaw.com/client-services/ ... employment. They know what they're doing and if they act it won't be blindly or rushed.

On the other hand, it is racist to assume the girl only has her job because of her race or that STB will do nothing because of her race. Lastly, it was apparent from her last TikTok in which she discussed Simpson that she had finished her fight. I hope that's right, that she continues making normal videos and doesn't go back to fighting the issue, and that she doesn't derail her career. I'm also not surprised she fought as long as she did because she is headstrong (maybe to a fault within the confines of biglaw).

You're straining mightily to characterize this TikToker as anything other than an idiot (which she is). Even if she goes back to "normal videos" and has "finished her fight" the fact remains that she disparaged her firm on social media.

[Anonymous User]

Why is it racist to at least suspect someone of being (comparably) underqualified for their job when their employer lowers the objective metrics for hiring people of that given category? You have to be an idiot not to at least suspect it.

[PaperView]

[Omitted because of length]

You're straining mightily to characterize this TikToker as anything other than an idiot (which she is). Even if she goes back to "normal videos" and has "finished her fight" the fact remains that she disparaged her firm on social media.

I don't care to categorize her at all. I am talking about her conduct which I would characterize using the words of the great Marshall Mathers, "What I did was stupid, no doubt it was dumb, but the smartest shit I did was take them bullets out of that gun."

She made poor decisions but she was smart enough to stop making it worse by going back to her usual videos. I think STB would be well-within its rights to fire her, just like a firm I recently commented on was well within its rights to rescind its offer to someone for making a stupid counter-offer. It's almost like some people here are itching for her to be fired. That's why I said something. Why? Are our lives so poor?

[Tableau]

[Omitted because of length]

You're straining mightily to characterize this TikToker as anything other than an idiot (which she is). Even if she goes back to "normal videos" and has "finished her fight" the fact remains that she disparaged her firm on social media.

I don't care to categorize her at all. I am talking about her conduct which I would characterize using the words of the great Marshall Mathers, "What I did was stupid, no doubt it was dumb, but the smartest shit I did was take them bullets out of that gun."

She made poor decisions but she was smart enough to stop making it worse by going back to her usual videos. I think STB would be well-within its rights to fire her, just like a firm I recently commented on was well within its rights to rescind its offer to someone for making a stupid counter-offer. It's almost like some people here are itching for her to be fired. That's why I said something. Why? Are our lives so poor?

I don't know that people are itching for her to be fired so much as confused about how and why she still has a job at STB provided her bashing of her firm on a public platform and generally egregious recent videos. If anything there seems to be a general sense of unfairness perceived by some. I don't necessarily share in this opinion but it does seem that most of the outrage is based in shock.

With that said, I do think there are a few reddit users that are being unnecessarily harsh and seemingly spiteful in their commentary about this individual.

[Anonymous User]

[Omitted because of length]

You're straining mightily to characterize this TikToker as anything other than an idiot (which she is). Even if she goes back to "normal videos" and has "finished her fight" the fact remains that she disparaged her firm on social media.

I don't care to categorize her at all. I am talking about her conduct which I would characterize using the words of the great Marshall Mathers, "What I did was stupid, no doubt it was dumb, but the smartest shit I did was take them bullets out of that gun."

She made poor decisions but she was smart enough to stop making it worse by going back to her usual videos. I think STB would be well-within its rights to fire her, just like a firm I recently commented on was well within its rights to rescind its offer to someone for making a stupid counter-offer. It's almost like some people here are itching for her to be fired. That's why I said something. Why? Are our lives so poor?

I have no desire to see anybody lose their jobs, but the fact she hasn’t deleted that whole TikTok account is mystifying to me. That’d be the obvious play IMO. Now I understand that influencers can also make money, but making 300K+ as an influencer is very tough so she should delete the account and stick with bigLOL

[Dr Tobias Funke]

The craziest thing about her most recent day in the life video is that she appears to work from home on just her laptop!!!???! No monitor, no keyboard, no mouse!

[Anonymous User]

A comment (with over 70 upvotes) from a reddit thread about this tiktoker:

"Tbh the firm has its hands tied. If they fire her, ask her to delete her TikTok, or reprimand her in any way then she will almost certainly cause an even bigger headache. She will post videos about it of course, probably make it about her being a black woman, potentially sue, and also give the firm negative PR. I think they’re hoping the problem goes away on its own either by her choosing to do tik tok full time or going in house or something. There’s no way they’ll let her continue this as a senior."

It is not racist to acknowledge that firms take into account several factors when considering whether or not to fire someone. In today's political climate, one of those factors is race. This should not be a controversial take.

My guess is that they find her a cushy inhouse job and encourage her to take it.

[Anonymous User]

Why is it racist to at least suspect someone of being (comparably) underqualified for their job when their employer lowers the objective metrics for hiring people of that given category? You have to be an idiot not to at least suspect it.

Do you suspect the same thing of rich people/legacies? or can you not tell because they look like a historically typical biglaw associate (aka white)? Do you also assume the same of women and LGBT people? Also huge lol at thinking hiring is objective... please stop deluding yourself.

It's racist because you are using skin color as a proxy for something that could apply to literally anyone at the firm, but are only applying it to the group with the obviously different skin tone, unless you're going around and asking every attorney if their uncle is a client, as well.

[Anonymous User]

Why is it racist to at least suspect someone of being (comparably) underqualified for their job when their employer lowers the objective metrics for hiring people of that given category? You have to be an idiot not to at least suspect it.

Do you suspect the same thing of rich people/legacies? or can you not tell because they look like a historically typical biglaw associate (aka white)? Do you also assume the same of women and LGBT people? Also huge lol at thinking hiring is objective... please stop deluding yourself.

It's racist because you are using skin color as a proxy for something that could apply to literally anyone at the firm, but are only applying it to the group with the obviously different skin tone, unless you're going around and asking every attorney if their uncle is a client, as well.

Yes. We all think this of nepo babies and legacies. We're simply asking you to apply the same logic.

[throwawayt14]

Why is it racist to at least suspect someone of being (comparably) underqualified for their job when their employer lowers the objective metrics for hiring people of that given category? You have to be an idiot not to at least suspect it.

Do you suspect the same thing of rich people/legacies? or can you not tell because they look like a historically typical biglaw associate (aka white)? Do you also assume the same of women and LGBT people? Also huge lol at thinking hiring is objective... please stop deluding yourself.

It's racist because you are using skin color as a proxy for something that could apply to literally anyone at the firm, but are only applying it to the group with the obviously different skin tone, unless you're going around and asking every attorney if their uncle is a client, as well.

Yes. We all think this of nepo babies and legacies. We're simply asking you to apply the same logic.

Ironically, the tiktoker in question is from a very wealthy family and self-reported that her parents have paid for her many years of schooling.