I've told this story, but I ordered two carbs (Waffles and pancakes, maybe?) at a breakfast for opposing counsel. "Why two carbs Raffi? Who eats two different carbs?"
It took like a few weeks for the boss to get over it. "Ok, fix that clause and let's get it out. But damnit two carbs? "
Yes, where I started organizing meetings was a fraught part of being a first year associate. Or maybe it was fraught just for me. But it caused me a *lot* of stress.
Total side note: this is one of the things that makes the biglaw experience so variable. Like, this mess caused me so much misery. You try your best to do the meeting or breakfast or whatever, and then the partner, for who knows what reason, hates it and you get yelled at. 1a/
But I have friends who handled it just fine and are really well-organized on such matters, and that didn't cause them much stress. So if I told them I was up for an extra three hours from 12-3 am organizing the breakfast meeting, they'd think I was nuts.
Also, yes, we had a big in-house catering operation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK. A thread on the case that has me hot this morning. Of course, qualified immunity. What happened? In broad strokes, Plaintiff's family alleges that he was surrounded by the police and beaten to death. There is a video. 1/
The district judge, unsurprisingly, denied qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.
Remember, that you get an immediate interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity. So the officers appealed. On what basis? Well, there's the thing. 2/
They don't and can't really say there was no violation of law alleged, or that it wasn't clearly established. Instead - and I am not joking - their argument is that the Complaint's allegations are not specific enough about what each officer did, so the case should /3
A neighbor has a Halloween setup of three robed skeletons standing in a line and they looked like they're talking, and every time I walk past I think, "Man, that lawyer really got unlucky drawing his panel"
I didn't believe this summary was correct, but in fact yes. The prosecutor moonlighted as a judicial clerk for the very judge who sentenced the man to death - even worse, he WROTE THE ORDER DENYING THE HABEAS RELIEF HE OPPOSED AS THE PROSECUTOR.
Sorry, one minor correction. He worked for the post-conviction judge, I can't tell if it was the same judge for the trial. But that's pretty irrelevant. He was both the prosecutor and the law clerk on the same case.
Judge Willett brings some good-natured 🔥🔥🔥 in a dissent from a decision granting qualified immunity - an officer arrested a man for refusing to identify himself. 1/
Again we see what is now a clear fault line in CA5: a group of judges who believe inroads against QI unfairly subject police officers to undue scrutiny, and a group are skeptical about QI entirely, and in any event don't see much value in not allowing cases to be tried.