Discussion of Firms and Life in SF/SV

[NotFromHere]

I believe that spring has finally arrived. The panhandlers and the wackos are out in full force.

I saw a very interesting sight on my way back from lunch today. A guy in an SL500, convertible top down. Had a sheet on his head - draped like it was scarf. He was very tan - probably darker skinned originally - had HUGE gold sunglasses with large gold frames - the sides looked like gold nugget but it was hard to tell. He was shirtless - and athletic looking.

No chest hair. I guess I could have asked him if he shaved or waxed, but by the lack of discussion on personal grooming on the FB, I probably would not have gotten a response.

The sheet - white, looked like enough fabric to be a flat, twin sheet - was attached to his sunglasses with large gold clips. And by large I mean money clip large. He appeared to have no hair on his head. But a very large gold watch - looked like nugget jewelry. I've never seen a sheet worn on a head like this. It was odd.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
No chest hair. I guess I could have asked him if he shaved or waxed, but by the lack of discussion on personal grooming on the FB, I probably would not have gotten a response.

I shave.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I shave.

1. Chest
2. Legs
3. Balls
4. All of the above.

The rest of you guys are chicken shits. Not 1 single response other than the sarge here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
1. Chest
2. Legs
3. Balls
4. All of the above.

The rest of you guys are chicken shits. Not 1 single response other than the sarge here.

Response to what? You didn't ask a question.

I don't shave.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Response to what? You didn't ask a question.

I don't shave.

I did. On the FB. Days ago.

[notcasesensitive]

who's handling it?


ETA - nevermind. Simpson Thatcher reps underwriters, Wilson Sonsini reps google. Here's the filing - http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...tm#toc16167_20

[Antiquity]

Crisis at Boalt Hall


CARRYING signs with slogans such as "Don't Terminate My Future," and "Raise Taxes Not Fees," Boalt Hall School of Law students gathered yesterday in their verdant courtyard on the UC Berkeley campus to protest a $5, 000 fee increase Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to impose on them this fall -- on top of another $3,000 fee increase this year.
The fee increase will push the bill at Boalt this fall to $22,500 a year, not including room and board. Schwarzenegger's rationale for the exorbitant increase is that most law graduates will earn "significantly higher income levels after graduation than other graduates." But conversations with students show that many were admitted to Boalt precisely because they don't want to go work for a private firm, but are committed to public-interest law which pays far less. Many students are already carrying huge debts. First-year student Freeda Yllana, 24, had hoped to get a job dealing with domestic violence or environmental law when she graduates. She took out a $27,000 loan just to get this far, calculating she would end up with loans totaling just under $100,000 by the time she graduates. But now she thinks that the latest fee increases -- sprung on students after they had already enrolled -- will make that an impossible goal. "It's really unfair to put a $5,000 tax on me," she says.
What especially rankles many of the students is that none of the new fees will go to improve their education at Boalt, but instead will just disappear into the bottomless money pit in Sacramento.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Antiquity
Crisis at Boalt Hall


What especially rankles many of the students is that none of the new fees will go to improve their education at Boalt, but instead will just disappear into the bottomless money pit in Sacramento.

Not that it's a politically viable solution, as the point is to raise revenue, but couldn't the critiscism aimed at this by some students be to use the tuition hikes to fund a more generous loan repayment subsidy for those with low-income jobs?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
who's handling it?


ETA - nevermind. Simpson Thatcher reps underwriters, Wilson Sonsini reps google. Here's the filing - http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...tm#toc16167_20

Regardless, I'm pleased to see someone sticking it to the underwriters by using the auction process to allocate shares, rather than letting the underwriters take their pound of flesh for minimal work.

[c2ed]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not that it's a politically viable solution, as the point is to raise revenue, but couldn't the critiscism aimed at this by some students be to use the tuition hikes to fund a more generous loan repayment subsidy for those with low-income jobs?

It just seems incredibly petty and ill-conceived as a way to raise money for Sacramento. There are about 300 or so in a class, right? So adding on this tax will add only about $450,000 to the Guvernator's revenue flow/year. I know he's looking at tuition hikes across all of the UC/CSU/community college campuses, but this seems rather dumb.

IMHO, if they're going to raise tuitions, the tuition should go directly to the school where the tuition is being raised. Money raised and collected by the government can go to a lot of places, but it seems to make more sense to allocate those funds to be spent in areas with as close ties as possible to where they are taken, and funds from any tuition hike (whether at Boalt or Vacaville Community College) should at least go to the relevant school or related school system.

C(anyways, I thought Republicans were for letting all the higher-income people keep all their money because it helps commerce)deuced

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
1. Chest
2. Legs
3. Balls
4. All of the above.

The rest of you guys are chicken shits. Not 1 single response other than the sarge here.

all of the above - though legs with clippers, it's too much work to keep them totally clean. I must say, that I sinced I've been doing this I have a whole new respect for what women go through.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Antiquity
Crisis at Boalt Hall
CARRYING signs with slogans such as "Don't Terminate My Future," and "Raise Taxes Not Fees,"

Wahhh. This is so ridiculous. Don't tax me for a commodity that will primarily benefit me. Tax the other guys. Fuck off.

Schwarzenegger's rationale for the exorbitant increase is that most law graduates will earn "significantly higher income levels after graduation than other graduates."

This rationale is disturbing to me because it smacks of socialism. From each according to his (future) means.

But conversations with students show that many were admitted to Boalt precisely because they don't want to go work for a private firm, but are committed to public-interest law which pays far less.

Bullshit. I doubt that Boalt has a significantly higher percentage of students going into PEL.

What especially rankles many of the students is that none of the new fees will go to improve their education at Boalt, but instead will just disappear into the bottomless money pit in Sacramento.

This is the only valid critism I've seen.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Regardless, I'm pleased to see someone sticking it to the underwriters by using the auction process to allocate shares, rather than letting the underwriters take their pound of flesh for minimal work.

I agree in this situation. A deal like this sells itself. Did you happen to read any of the S-1? Very interesting and somewhat novel approach, in that it reads very folksy.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

This is the only valid critism I've seen[of raising tuition for Boatees:]

What especially rankles many of the students is that none of the new fees will go to improve their education at Boalt, but instead will just disappear into the bottomless money pit in Sacramento.

I'm surprised you aren't in favor of Boalt charging market tuition. High tuition deters law students from taking full time jobs to support left-wing causes.

It's great how no one wants to pay for the poor to have legal services. Most lawyers don't want to provide the poor legal work. (The pro bono they do, if any, isn't to help the poor it's to do things like prevent garbage dumps and prisons in their neighborhoods.) Taxpayers don't want to pay lawyers to do it. The minority of lawyers that want to give the poor legal work want the public or other lawyers to subsidize their desire to help the poor.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
The minority of lawyers that want to do pro bono want other lawyers to subsidize their desire to help the poor.

So? I'm expected to subsidize the lawyers in my firm who get pregnant or get cancer and don't pull their weight. You don't see me complaining about it. At least not with this sock.

No firm has ever broken up over a struggle between partners who want to do more pro bono work and partners who want to do none. Instead, they break up over the far more venial --- and eternal --- debate between those who want to do more contingency work and those who want to do none, going to show you that lawyer A will not tolerate subsidizing the draw of lawyer B in any given year, even when there is indisputably an enormous payoff at the end of the subsidy. You can imagine how much harder it is to foster long term return thinking when the payoff of pro bono is more ethereal, like the firm's ability to land government hourly work or draw qualified minority associate applicants.