Poon doesn't count, that loser couldn't even swing Munger. Lat went to WACHTELL where his PRESTIGIOUS EXIT OPTIONS included rating ERISA HOTTIES.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7216183)

"We don't understand this commenter's ire towards our post. We praised Eumi Choi as a "tough, smart, no-nonsense" prosecutor, as well as a "strong Asian woman." We also described her as "fabulous" and "yummy." What part of that was unclear?"

Okay, the "we" usage there is not so bad (although he obviously has some issues). But it's followed up with:

"(Also, for the record, we're Asian ourselves -- and were raised by a mom who's a lot like Eumi Choi. So we obviously have no problems with powerful Asian females or Asian lawyers in positions of power.)"

Wtf? Did he forget how to use personal singular pronouns after years of pretending to be female and referring to himself in the third person?

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/12/what_part_of_fabulous_do_you_n_1.php

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7216233)

I'm not sure why he thinks people like this feminine / flamboyant persona -- people read UTR *in spite* of that persona, not because of it, especially after he outted himself and it became clear it was all a (very strange) act.

As far as I'm concerned ATL is all the worst aspects of UTR with none of the strengths (which was the information, which apparently has all dried up for him now).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7216447)

Although the thought of him actually trying to call partners and get confirmation is rather funny. I bet he pretends to be from the Wall Street Journal or something.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7216466)

I really dislike his calling partners for confirmation. It sets a very bad precedent -- this year it's only him calling them, next year it'll be 100 bloggers calling them (especially if his calls result in something meaningful, like reporting a bonus before Greedy or identifying a hoax).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7216507)

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/help_wanted_explained_1.php

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/morning_docket_help_wanted.php

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/nonsequiturs_10206.php

Looks like he got a couple of idiots to work for him for free:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/nonsequiturs/

http://www.abovethelaw.com/morning_docket/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7216421)

I also read Brian Leiter's blog from time to time to see what he's ranting about, but that doesn't mean I endorse him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7218179)

you read lat's blog because you get something from it - cool, no problem. you read letier because you get something from it ("to see what he's ranting about") - cool, no problem. but if you read leiter's blog, don't like it, and then bash it incessantly, why read it in the first place?

anyway, i'm just biased against blogs in general because 99.999% of them are filled with prattling idiocy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7218192)

it's when people have nothing to talk about (99.99% of blogs) but still keep prattling in an attempt to sound important/like thier life matters that i can't stand

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7218213)

http://www.irell.com/professionals-22.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7216306)

"Whether you agree or disagree, it's one of the most well-written and thoughtful postings we've read in a while (although, to be sure, the standards for message-board discourse aren't set very high)." (linking to this thread)

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/12/associate_bonus_watch_shearman.php

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7218085)

http://www.dwt.com/lawdir/attorneys/LockeGary.cfm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7218154)

My money is on Opinionista.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7218162)

"Here's a synopsis of our WLRK experience. We worked with some brilliant people, some of whom remain good friends to this day, on some phenomenal cases; learned a lot and got a ton of experience (e.g., depositions, a trial, appellate briefs), despite being so junior; and did very well for ourselves financially. This allowed us to move to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and then into blogging and freelance writing, without downsizing our lifestyle. "

...

"When we were at WLRK, we billed around 2700 hours a year (and worked quite a bit more -- we weren't very efficient). Those hours are nothing to sneeze at. But we had friends at other firms who worked just as hard or harder than we did, yet made significantly less. Several of them would tell us, especially around December, "I wish I had taken that Wachtell offer."

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/12/associate_bonus_watch_wachtell.php#more

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7219388)

you can't deny that Wachtell associates PWN the shit out of tools billing 2700 hours at Weil Gotschal or a similar Milbank pay scale dump

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=545621&forum_id=2#7219436)