Top Law Schools

johndhi wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:29 pm

didn't watch either video in full, but the first video seemed like she kind of had a reasonable perspective. second video she seemed a little unhinged.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:25 pm

During a SA lunch at my V10 a midlevel went on a legit 15 minute rant on how stupid and antithetical to the entire business model associates trying to become influencers and capitalizing on their BigLaw experience was. I cannot imagine this is the best choice for her career. Hopefully TikTok works out.

MergerQueen wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:25 pm

During a SA lunch at my V10 a midlevel went on a legit 15 minute rant on how stupid and antithetical to the entire business model associates trying to become influencers and capitalizing on their BigLaw experience was. I cannot imagine this is the best choice for her career. Hopefully TikTok works out.

It's frightening to imagine the future of BigLaw as Gen Zers climb the firm ranks...

urbancowboy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:17 pm

Her identity (and therefore, employer) is easily identifiable from information she posts on her page (e.g., city, first name, law school, etc.). I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with her making such public remarks as her law firm.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:50 pm

I think a firm policy that blanket bans brand partnerships like this is too blunt an instrument; I think she has some valid arguments (clearly aside from "slavery" comment) regarding building her personal brand and monetizing it where the opportunities pose no direct conflict to the firm. I think more flexible firm policies are possible if both sides can work together on it.

But as someone who left BigLaw as a senior and is now "the client" (in-house at a private fund, which seems to be her practice area per STB website), these particular tiktok videos are cringey enough for us that we would quietly ask partners for restaffing or simply shift new matters to another one of the firms we work with. Unfortunately, warranted or not, posting things like this publicly raises questions regarding professional judgment and whether her potential interactions with others on our behalf would be risky. We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

That will be an interesting conversation with the firm GC, and I'm genuinely impressed she feels so passionately about it and is willing to vote with her feet if necessary, particularly in this market. Hope they can work something out.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:50 pm

I think a firm policy that blanket bans brand partnerships like this is too blunt an instrument; I think she has some valid arguments (clearly aside from "slavery" comment) regarding building her personal brand and monetizing it where the opportunities pose no direct conflict to the firm. I think more flexible firm policies are possible if both sides can work together on it.

But as someone who left BigLaw as a senior and is now "the client" (in-house at a private fund, which seems to be her practice area per STB website), these particular tiktok videos are cringey enough for us that we would quietly ask partners for restaffing or simply shift new matters to another one of the firms we work with. Unfortunately, warranted or not, posting things like this publicly raises questions regarding professional judgment and whether her potential interactions with others on our behalf would be risky. We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

That will be an interesting conversation with the firm GC, and I'm genuinely impressed she feels so passionately about it and is willing to vote with her feet if necessary, particularly in this market. Hope they can work something out.

throwawayt14 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:50 pm

I think a firm policy that blanket bans brand partnerships like this is too blunt an instrument; I think she has some valid arguments (clearly aside from "slavery" comment) regarding building her personal brand and monetizing it where the opportunities pose no direct conflict to the firm. I think more flexible firm policies are possible if both sides can work together on it.

But as someone who left BigLaw as a senior and is now "the client" (in-house at a private fund, which seems to be her practice area per STB website), these particular tiktok videos are cringey enough for us that we would quietly ask partners for restaffing or simply shift new matters to another one of the firms we work with. Unfortunately, warranted or not, posting things like this publicly raises questions regarding professional judgment and whether her potential interactions with others on our behalf would be risky. We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

That will be an interesting conversation with the firm GC, and I'm genuinely impressed she feels so passionately about it and is willing to vote with her feet if necessary, particularly in this market. Hope they can work something out.

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

urbancowboy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:27 pm

throwawayt14 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:24 pm

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

She did. She said it on TikTok and, at least, purports to have said it to those at her firm as well.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:50 pm

We would say the same if these videos were posted by one of her colleagues benefiting from "connections that mommy and dad had, and legacy, and immense wealth" (to her comments at ~2:00 mark in 2nd video).

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:40 pm

urbancowboy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:27 pm

throwawayt14 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:24 pm

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

She did. She said it on TikTok and, at least, purports to have said it to those at her firm as well.

Let's just remember that STB is a firm that's a bit more tolerant of associate (and partner) missteps than others, especially if they're in groups that are buried in work (which this tiktoker's generally is). See, e.g., https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/probabl ... four-acts/. (The associate in that email chain is still employed, based on the firm's website.)

thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:25 pm

Oh, she is for sure going to get fired or otherwise exited because of all of this.

basketofbread wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 7:36 pm

I think she has a point about being more valuable as partner material if she builds a robust profile outside of the firm. I feel like the people who make partner (at least in my lit group where almost nobody makes partner) have some special star quality or outside experience. They don’t achieve it by keeping their heads down and being great workers - those people become perma-counsel.

This is probably not the best example but look at a guy like Alex Spiro. Independently got famous by defending high profile clients, then leveraged that into a partnership at Quinn. He is retained in seemingly every criminal case in the news and that’s because he’s a rare famous lawyer.

I think she has a point. Whether or not she can achieve notoriety that will end up being useful is a question, but it’s hard to predict how fame works out. If it was easy everyone would do it.

urbancowboy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:27 pm

throwawayt14 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:24 pm

I don’t watch Tiktok for security reasons, but if she actually referenced an anti-moonlighting policy as comparable to slavery, she should be immediately terminated.

She did. She said it on TikTok and, at least, purports to have said it to those at her firm as well.

basketofbread wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 7:36 pm

I think she has a point about being more valuable as partner material if she builds a robust profile outside of the firm. I feel like the people who make partner (at least in my lit group where almost nobody makes partner) have some special star quality or outside experience. They don’t achieve it by keeping their heads down and being great workers - those people become perma-counsel.

This is probably not the best example but look at a guy like Alex Spiro. Independently got famous by defending high profile clients, then leveraged that into a partnership at Quinn. He is retained in seemingly every criminal case in the news and that’s because he’s a rare famous lawyer.

I think she has a point. Whether or not she can achieve notoriety that will end up being useful is a question, but it’s hard to predict how fame works out. If it was easy everyone would do it.