Ari Cohn Profile picture
23 Sep, 7 tweets, 2 min read
The worst part of this piece about leaving BigLaw is that everyone but me stayed anonymous.

All they said was basically "the extreme hours and stress weren't worth it to me"

That shouldn't be cause to fear for your career. That it is, is an indictment.

businessinsider.com/former-big-law…
2/ Everyone has BigLaw horror stories. But more often than not, those aren't the singular reason why people choose to leave. It's much more, in my experience anyway, overarching quality of life and/or professional interests/satisfaction concerns.
3/ Few BigLaw expats that I've met are out there trash talking their own firms. Who even does that?

For my part, I worked with some ridiculously talented lawyers who happened to also be nice people and good colleagues that I learned a great deal from and think of fondly.
4/ And it's not like firm don't understand *why* people leave, whether it's because they just aren't fulfilled by the work or want more time.

They get it, and I certainly don't think they're ever *offended* by it. To the contrary, they want to maintain good relationships!
5/ But while that's true on an organizational level, unfortunately some individual lawyers do see that kind of move as one of laziness, insufficient commitment, or inability to hack it in practice.

And that's terribly shameful.
6/ Obtaining personal life balance according to one's own needs is not, should not, be seen as anything other than a personal calibration that nobody else has the appropriate knowledge to critique.

It says nothing about one's skills or commitment to their profession, at all.
Anyway, this has all been a very long way of saying that as a profession, we should stop making people feel like their professional reputation will be hurt if it's ever discovered that they made a move to do work they find more fulfilling or to have more time for a life. It's bad

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ari Cohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AriCohn

23 Sep
1/ Business school profs have just *got* to stop writing these articles about Section 230. Or at least have someone with an understanding of the law review it. It's embarrassing.

This one comes to us from a dean at @MITSloan, and it's a doozy.

cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021…
2/ The theme of the article is clear from the top: Section 230 is Very Bad because it makes it difficult to hold platforms available for misinformation/disinformation that people spread online. Image
3/ But what Professor Cusumano doesn't grapple with (they never do) is whether platforms could be held accountable by law for such user content even without Section 230.
Read 21 tweets
21 Sep
In fact it very much is, and the authors of the bill have said so explicitly.

The purpose of Section 230 was to reduce barriers to websites deciding for themselves what content to permit, and what rules to impose. And that's exactly what is happening.
Displaying either ignorance of how the law is applied, or rank dishonesty (made more likely by the "original purpose" claim)

Courts would still dismiss lawsuits based on content moderation decisions under (c)(1), where most of them are resolved.

They...have? Section 230 does not protect against the enforcement of criminal laws. It's dishonest bullshit all the way down with her.

Read 4 tweets
4 Sep
1/ Do you *want* First Amendment lawsuits, @AustinISD?

Because this is how you get First Amendment lawsuits, @Geronimo4AISD @yasminwagneratx @aratisingh @ofeliaforaisd @FosterintheAtx @KristinAshy @LYNNforAISD @Noelita4AISD

So many problems here: A thread. Image
Teachers, like other government employees, retain a First Amendment right to speak as private citizens (i.e., not in their official capacity) on matters of public concern.

Teachers *cannot* be forced to only speak as if they are in the classroom with students 24/7/365. Image
3/ The list of things that social media accounts will be screened for is broad, vague, subjective, and viewpoint-based.

Many things that could be deemed as one of these things are nevertheless constitutionally protected and protected from retaliation from @AustinISD. Image
Read 29 tweets
7 Jul
This is even more stupid than I expected
I briefly explained why the whole "Section 230 is unconstitutional" argument fails here: et seq.
"Section 230 is unconstitutional and we hate it, but threatening to repeal it constitutes government coercion sufficient to make Facebook a state actor"

Wow. Just wow.
Read 8 tweets
6 Jul
When the bedrock, lead-off of your case is that college students not wanting to date Trump supporters reveals a predilection for infringing on people's rights, you've lost the argument in a way that veers way too close to incel-ville.

Yikes.

nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/… Image
He literally CANNOT stop talking about who college kids want to date. Image
Oh good, I was beginning to get worried that he was ignoring the mating preferences of us non-students. Phew.

This. is. so. weird. Image
Read 8 tweets
30 Jun
Motion for preliminary injunction GRANTED. Thoughts to follow, but this does not portend well for Florida.
The court analyzes preemption under 230(c)(2)(A), but doesn't touch (c)(1). Normally this would bother me, because that's not how #Section230 works. But if you read it, Hinkle doesn't really decide between the 230 interpretations; this reads more like an "even if FL is right"
Hinkle was obviously not swayed by Florida's attempt to brush off platforms' curation as meaningless and expressionless. He seems to understand that those functions are vital for their products to be usable.
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(