Couple of Clarifications
We have heard from the subjects of a couple of today's posts, and would like to post a couple of clarifications based on what they told us.
First, a source from Davis Polk wants to make it very clear that the marriage bonuses are not "bonuses" per se, but are instead gifts from the partnership, which always happen to be in the exact amount of $500.
Second, we stated in the Mayer Brown post that the firm had not commented on the examiner's report in the Refco case. We made that statement based on the fact that two online sources reporting on the case had reported that Mayer Brown had not commented at that time. The statement was not based on any specific request for comment from ATL. However, we now have received an official statement from Mayer Brown, and it is posted in its entirety after the jump.
Earlier: Does It Pay to Be Married In Biglaw?
Court-Appointed Examiner Blows The Whistle on Mayer Brown In Refco Case
7/11/07 – 2:00 pmSTATEMENT BY MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP
IN RESPONSE TO REPORT OF BANKRUPTCY EXAMINERWe have reviewed the report of the Refco bankruptcy examiner with regard to the
involvement of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP in the matter. We are disappointed by
the report and disagree with its conclusions.After reviewing more than a million pages of documents relating to the firm’s
work for Refco and interviewing 33 witnesses, the examiner acknowledges that he “has
not located direct evidence that Mayer, Brown knew that the . . . [transactions that the
examiner criticizes] . . . were used to manipulate Refco’s financial statements.” This is
an important acknowledgement, as the remainder of the examiner’s criticisms flow from
what we believe to be the unwarranted assertion that lawyers at the firm knew of fraud at
Refco.Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw and the attorneys who worked on Refco matters
have cooperated fully with the bankruptcy examiner’s investigation. Our review of the
evidence available to us shows that our firm acted in a professional, competent and
ethical manner in its work on behalf of Refco.As events unfold, we will work to demonstrate that Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
acted properly and adhered to the highest ethical standards.
The firm has no additional comment at this time.
(15) Comments
First!
Is the $500 marriage gift given to those couples (gay or straight) who opt (or, in most instances, are forced to opt) for the route of a committed partnership instead of a traditional legal marriage?
Anyone from DPW have an answer?
Almost dinner time Billy. What's on the menu today? McDonalds or Ramen?
Wow, only filling in for 6 hours, and already two retractions. Very classy.
Neither one are retractions, you twit.
Neither one is a retraction, you twit.
i still like cheese
Merck-
I don't mean to pick on you, but you really need to go back to the original posts and - at the very least - link to these clarifications. I think that's pretty basic blogging etiquette/ethics. I think your posts are fine, but you need to fix things like this.
I am sure you don't read the comments here any more because many of them are inappopriate and downright mean; that said, all these clarifications were posted in the comments within minutes of the original posts. You should probably just suck it up and read the comments when you guest-post here, but that's just my (anonymous) advice.
Strange that in some firms, if two attorneys start dating, one has to leave. But at DPW, they give you a bonus. Haha.
I work at DPW and had a meaningful encounter in the bathroom of a highway rest stop last week.
Where's my $500 gift?
5:03,
I think it's funny you're posting advice in the comments to read the comments to a guy who doesn't read the comments.
"I said to a blind man, Look, you just gotta..."
Last!
Matt 19:30 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first.
Matt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
so I'm FIRST!
No, last. You're just a twit.
Merck, you suck.
White Merck With Asian Girls