not a sentence:

A court-appointed examiner in the Refco bankruptcy case has there are grounds to sue Mayer Brown for malpractice in the case.

Kiss those raises good bye Mayer associates.

Billy, proofread before posting. You're making it too easy for the haters.

ruh-roh

Mayer Brown has commented - according to the WSJ law blog.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/07/11/the-refco-fallout-touches-two-law-firms/

Merckster: I think you want a "said" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Also, you have an annoying way of letting the hyperlink fill the space between the words; it should end with the last letter (see, e.g., the "Reuters article" link above).

Bottom line: you're fired.

I think Merck must have pictures of Lat having an orgy with Aaron Charney and Gera Grinberg. That is the only way he is allowed to come and stink up this website once every 10 business days.

yawn. johnny said tommy said bob should have known that jake was kissing sally. when (if) this gets to trial it will be newsworthy. isn't there anything else more exciting to be covering?

Lat, you kind of mischaraterize the statement in the reuters article when you say:

"A court-appointed examiner in the Refco bankruptcy case has there are grounds to sue Mayer Brown for malpractice in the case. Ernst & Young and Weil might be on the hook too, but these are "close calls" according to the examiner (with the obvious implication that with Mayer Brown it is not a close call)."

In fact, the writer does not distinguish between Mayer Brown and Ernst & Young on the basis of the strength of possible claims for professional negligence/malpractice, but instead distinguishes between the two in regards to a possible suit for fraud. See the full statement below:

"Joshua Hochberg, the examiner, said there are grounds to sue Grant Thornton LLP, Ernst & Young LLP and the law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP for professional negligence. He also found grounds to sue Mayer Brown and Ernst for helping Refco commit fraud, though it was a 'close question' as to the auditor."

Come on Lat, you worked at Wachtell, I know you are better than this. If you are going to collect stories on legal news please make sure you don't give all of us who read this blog a false impression of what they say.

It's not Lat, it's someone else.

Correction to the 3:25 post:

Billy Merck, you mischaracterized the reuters article.

Lat, I apologize, I forget that you are not the only one posting here. I should have know you would not have made that kind of error. Please come back and bitch slap Billy Merck for all of us. Thanks.

of course, it is Lat's blog so he has some responsibility.

i think it's funny that this post has been up for more than an hour, yet none of the errors identified have been corrected.

Billy Merck is Busch League.

Correction, Billy Merck is NBA Summer League.

Does Merck get paid to fill-in for Lat, or is he just a glutton for punishment? I guess that no one cares because so many of you hate Merck, but God damn, every time he writes for ATL there is a complete dork fest over who can insult his grammar and article selections the most.

Actually, I am not blasting his grammer - I don't care about that. I am blasting his mischaraterization of the article. So I am attacking substance, not mere grammar. I don't care where he is from, I did not even know he he was a "good ole Southern boy," but I do care that if he get the substance right. I think even in the South they care about substance right? Cause I have already accepted they don't care about good ole grammar.