Oooh, bad move on O'Melveney's part. They're creating even more of a controversy by their actions. Do they think that ATL is going to let this go without any noise? Of course not. Lat is going to have a field day.

They should have learned the lesson from the Nixon Peabody fiasco... if you're a law firm that gets some bad ATL press, you need to laugh about it and not make it a big deal. If you take the bad press seriously and try to deny it or suppress it, you're shooting yourself in your own foot.

JT apologizes for his DDoS attack on ATL earlier.

lawyers are at-will employees, even in California.

So the moral of the story is, Caveat Blogor

www.polijam.com

You have no rights under the NLRA in this situation. Law firm associates are at-will and can be fired for any reason or no reason. Here, OMM can at the very least can justify your termination by saying that you revealed confidential financial information.

Of course, any decent plaintiff's lawyer can always think up some sort of BS cause of action. You could conceivably come up with some sort of weak whistleblower claim. In some states there are prohibitions against taking adverse action against an employee for engaging in off-duty conduct. There are also some free speech laws in some states. Overall though I think the associate who revealed this information is screwed.

OMM is best in Newport Beach!

Welcome to America, kids. In most states, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA). But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't, the very definition of "collective action" means at least 2 people, acting together - which isn't the case here. BigLaw has spent a loooong time defending unionbusting employers, thereby ensuring that workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor.

Maybe there'd be a 1stA claim in there somewhere, but that's not my area of expertise.

I dont think the OMM associate would have any claim if he was fired. A retaliation claim would lie only if he/she was fired for engaging in protected activity--such as complaining about discrimination. General bitching about teh firm's TTT-ness is probably not protected.

Welcome to America, kids. In most states, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA). But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't, the very definition of "collective action" means at least 2 people, acting together - which isn't the case here. BigLaw has spent a loooong time defending unionbusting employers, thereby ensuring that workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor.

Maybe there'd be a 1stA claim in there somewhere, but that's not my area of expertise.

If you're a minority, a woman, or gay, cry discrimination and let slip the dogs of war.

It was me. Sorry, boss.

Welcome to America, kids. In most states, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA). But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't, the very definition of "collective action" means at least 2 people, acting together - which isn't the case here. BigLaw has spent a loooong time defending unionbusting employers, thereby ensuring that workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor.

Maybe there'd be a 1stA claim in there somewhere, but that's not my area of expertise.

I would file a wrongful discharge claim and use Cal. Lab. Code sec. 232.5 as my basis in public policy, but that's just how I roll.

NLRA doesn't apply. Lawyers (especially at biglaw) are "highly compensated employees" exempt from NLRA coverage even if the action was collective action. Any state law whistleblower exception to employment-at-will is also likely inapplicable based on these facts (i.e. there's no illegal activity, just bad treatment of employees). But if someone gets fired and wanted to pay me on an hourly basis, I would make the arguments :-)

You could throw in Lab. Code sec. 232 also.

"But, lawyers, as professionals, are excluded from the NLRA, and even if they weren't"

This is not true. In theory lawyers could form a union. There was even a group of associates at a firm in Arizona who tried to do this.

The problem isn't with the NLRA. That is just one law, and it deals exclusively with unionized work forces. At least 85% of workers today aren't unionized so you have to look towards other laws, namely Title VII and the common law tort of wrongful termination. And in liberal states like California you have similar state laws, with more pro-employee tilts. Regardless none of these laws would protect an employee in this situation.

I also don't agree with this statement "workers' rights under the NLRA are almost laughably poor" - the NLRA is very pro-employee. It was written in the 1930's when the country was basically socialist. Almost anything an employer does with respect to unions and organized employees is an unfair labor practice under the NLRA.

Bye Bye OMM!

Say what you will about OMM, but they have--HANDS-DOWN--the best all-firm retreat: they hold it at the Pasadena Ritz!

this can obviously be settled by burning associates at the stake or tying them to rocks and seeing which one floats when you throw them in the river

Does anyone know whether, in America, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA)? Anyone?

Seems like another great way of laying people off.

As a first year lawyer and "reformed" liberal having gone through 7 years of Private East Coast Higher Education let me ask the following: if OMM discovers that the perpetrator is in fact a minority is there a snowballs chance that they actually fire the person...esp if it came out of the NY office? I personally think it is a bad PR move to fire anyone based on blog postings, provided they were not slanderous, of this nature, especially without warning.

Wow. There is no exemption for "highly compensated" employees from the NLRA. Wow. I hope you're a law student.

You cannot be fired for engaging in protected concerted activity. Whether blabbing on a blog is protected or not is a different question. Talking to other employees about working conditions is protected. I would argue that it is impossible to talk face-to-face with all other OMM associates, so a blog is a reasonable way to get your message out. Good luck. Remember NLRA claims have a short statute of limitations.

AT WILL EMPLOYMENT!!!

Does anyone know whether, in America, your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, so long as it's not discriminatory or in violation of another law (such as the NLRA)? Anyone?

OMM turned my into a newt!

I got better...

No way! They fired someone for using a firm computer to log onto a non-business site during work hours and post negative comments about the firm? How dare they!!

This is a very dumb move on OMM's part... trying to strong arm their employees will come back to haunt them, and result in a lot of bad press for the firm.

WTF with ATL's remarkably frequent "technical difficulties" excuse for lack of blogging?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22technical+difficulties%22+site%3Aabovethelaw.com&btnG=Google+Search

A lot of the stuff posted on here about the NLRA is completely wrong:

(a) Non-Union Workplaces still get the protection of the NLRA. Section 7 rights, aside from duty to bargain, are completely independent of having union present.

(b) Professionals are NOT excluded. In fact they are explicitly INCLUDED under the NLRA. Only managerial employees are excluded, and lawyers don't really count as such.

(c) Compensation has nothing to do with your inclusion or exclusion. (I believe)

The biggest problem here is that it must be "concerted action." If two employees sat at the computer and did this together, or if they talked about it, agreeing to send the message, and one sent it alone, that might be enough.

Under the NLRA if you are fired for engaging in protected activity- here collective concerted action- that is a violation. Being At-Will has nothing to do with it. No employer in America can fire someone to quell concerted activity (at least legally- although they get away with it routinely).

People are probably right, though, that they could merely say "leaking confidential information" was the reason.

Labor Lawyer wrote, "The problem isn't with the NLRA. That is just one law, and it deals exclusively with unionized work forces."

Wow, I wish you were opposing counsel in one of my unfair labor practice charges. You're dumber than dirt. So the NLRA doesn't apply unless the workforce is unionized. So it's legal to fire some non-union employee for discussing unionization? It's legal to threaten someone if they attend a union meeting? It's legal to tell employees that you'll move their work to Mexico if they unionize?

No. The NLRA applies to non-unionized employees engaged in acts that could lead to unionization, i.e. protected concerted activity.

Naga . . ., Naga . . ., Not gonna work here anymore, that's for sure.

same crap.. NLRA only applies to unionized workforces or workers attempting to unionize.. has no impact on anyone else

3:07, where does OMM hold its law firm retreat? I've been curious about that.

disclaimer: i am a 2L, not an employment lawyer, but i took employment law last semester.

i am pretty sure 3:04(4) and 3:05 (who i think are the same person) have it right. it would be a state law claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. i have not looked at Cal. Lab. Code 232 or 232.5, but if they are applicable, this would be the best claim because the Cal. Lab. Code would definitely be considered a proper source of public policy.

there is a possible 1st Amendment claim, but it is doubtful - very few jurisdictions would recognize it (can't remember if Cal if one). the claim would again be wrongful termination in violation of public policy, BUT the court would have to recognize the 1st Amendment as a proper source of public policy AND would have to recognize the policy articulated as very generally "freedom of speech," as opposed to "freedom of speech as against state actors." most courts would recognize the 1st Amendment policy as the latter and would say that the 1st Amendment does not give individuals any free speech rights as against private actors, e.g., private employers, foreclosing any viable claim against OMM based on the 1st Amendment policy of free speech.

note to all soon to be summer associates: run away now. o’melveny’s reputation is tanking.

note to all soon to be summer associates: run away now. o’melveny’s reputation is tanking.

Lakers just got Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown!!Maybe OMM can take its associates to Lakers games when we are in the Finals!

note to all soon to be summer associates: run away now. o’melveny’s reputation is tanking.

ATL has no power to shape opinion. During interviews and recruitment, the rumors and stories posted on ATL get zero attention. I love how important you all think you are though, it's amusing.

Latham & Watkins FTW?

Anon @ 3:24 has it mostly right.

1 - Absolutely true

2 - True - I worked with some lawyers once who were unionized. The were IBT - and worked for DEP in NYC.

3 - Comp. may be a factor, but is a very minor one. Highly compensated employees can absolutely belong to a union. Think airline pilots or baseball/football players.

Some of the 'Labor Lawyers' here should have been familiar with the recent Cintas decision. Cintas Corp., 344 NLRB No. 118 (NLRB June 30, 2005) - which held that exchanging info about comp and other terms and conditions of employment - whether or not protected by a confidentiality provision in the handbook - is protected Section 7 activity.

Also, in NY, they are likely protected by the NY Recreational Activities Act. But if they were fired for Section 7 activity, the Board can offer reinstatement (several years down the road, more likely than not) and back pay.

The Board would love to stick it to a management side firm like OMM, if for no other reason than they should know better.

3:19: "during work hours"... Working at a firm is not a 9-5 job.

Didn't anyone go to this training?

Blogging in the Workplace

http://www.ali-aba.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=courses.course&course_code=TSNU05

Anyway, the employees have no rights here. Whistleblower laws don't protect you from talking to blogs or journalists, but to the relevant authorities (government/cops/etc). And they weren't whistleblowing about illegal activities, just things they didn't like. They might not even be eligible for unemployment benefits if they get fired and the firm says that they were fired for cause.

FYI: That Board decision was upheld earlier this year, at Cintas Corp. v. NLRB, No. 05-1305, at *6 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2007).

I know for a fact that all summer associates at OMM in 2007 received an offer. The NALP forms will be out in two weeks and this will be confirmed.

I am an associate at OMM/NY and I have always thought of the firm as a nice congenial place to work until recently. I have heard such horror stories that I cannot even believe it. One associate told me that a previously "nice" partner told her that she shouldn't have ever become a lawyer because her work product was so poor. Another associate told me about a partner yelling at him, something that was virtually unheard of a few months ago.

The OMM partners are trying to get rid of people and that is very very clear.

Oh yeah, I'm writing this from my OMM account. I don't really care much anymore. This place has turned into a house of horrors.

Just get me in front of a jury with a terminated young associate against a bunch of fat cat partners. $$$$

How would they know who posted the comment unless only one OMM associate has posted a comment?

3:00: no way, LW is much better than OMM in OC. and in LA, and in NY, and in San Fran, and in DC...

My firm used to have websense to block us from MP3, file sharing, adult, and other deemed inappropriate websites. For some reason, websense was removed last year. Now, I spend the first half hour after lunch watching porn and then the next half hour downloading mp3s.

3:55 Latham OC is in Costa Mesa. That was the joke...

3:58 hit the nail on the head.

3:49... oh really? did you forget about the ass grabber?

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/08/xsummers_more_on_the_omelveny.php#more

3:52 If you're so good, find us.

I am an OMM-NY associate who is on the road and I can tell you that everything horrible that has been said about the firm is TRUE.

I've heard that the layoffs are true, the poor performance reviews based on untruths are true. There is a concerted effort being made in NY to get rid of people and make people miserable and blame them for their own misery.

All the associates think the partners have lost their minds. It's turned from a great place to work to a horrid place to work with underhanded lying sneaking partners.

The partnership is going to have a meeting with the associates on Monday. It is SURE to be full of lies and half-truths and also blame the associates for anything that is wrong.

stay tuned for more craptastic news from OMM

3:49 "associate at OMM/NY" = liar

Pursuant to firm security code 257-alpha-foxtrot, I order all activities directed at finding the OMM gadfly to cease.

I would like all law students considering a job here at OMM to understand that we were merely attempt to identify this individual in order to provide him/her with a special bonus.

Very best regards,

O.

4:07: ask me a question about OMM/NY that only an associate in that office would know. I'll prove it bozo.

How about how often Bruce sends around floor plans? How about Friday morning breakfast? How about the 30 and 31 floor reception areas? What would you like to know? How about time sheet reminders and the partner reception this week? What would you like to know?

4:12 -

What color underwear am I wearing today?

Very best regards,

O.

they can tell who you are by IP address since each computer has a unique address. They can see what time messages were posted (left their server) and then narrow it down from there.

4:15 blue. To match the mood of associates.

4:07---you have been called out by 3:49. Are you going to answer the bell or does 3:49 get the TKO?

4:07---you have been called out by 3:49. Are you going to answer the bell or does 3:49 get the TKO?

3:49 -- doesn't make the shit you're selling true

Was thinking of bidding on OMM for OCI in the fall. Now, not so much.

ding! ding! ding!

3:44 has it right. I'll add that I've personally known of a law firm in NYC (since split up a couple of years ago) at which the associates were members of a bargaining unit (i.e., unionized), certified by the NLRB. So it happens.

You just need someone at OMM who'd be willing to be Norma Rae.

And there really are a lot of stupid people here masquerading (I hope) as labor lawyers.

Guys at my high school were in witch-hunts all the time. It was no big deal.

OMM partners blow AIDS-riddled goats in Hell on prime time with erections.

David: The question is not whether you have a cause of action but why you would sue in the first place. Like it or not, a filing of a lawsuit against a BigFirm is asking for a "blacklisting" by other firms. You ruin any chance of using the firm for a reference and your name will appear on any background check you ever have run on you. Not a wise move. If you do sue, you better be sure you're going to win.

That said, the THREAT of a lawsuit and negotiating an amicable departure is a tried-and-true tactic. Negotiating with an employer to get at least a neutral evaluation -- and allow for you to get another job quickly -- may be the best possible outcome.

I'll try to post more on my own blog on an interesting topic.

4:07 You don't have to believe it. It's what I've been told. I'm just reporting what I was told by other associates. The atmosphere here is horrible.

On all these OMM threads there is always some OMM apologist (partner maybe?) who says it's not true.

Yeah, all these threads about OMM are false. WRONG.

OMM's New York office is run by partners who, for whatever reason, have suddenly decided to turn on the associates.

Thanks, 4:28, for the info. I've always wondered about that. I figured even if it were relatively easy, most firms would still think it was either too expensive or wouldn't have the IT guy expertise to actually do it. But your info makes me feel even better.

3:49 gets the TKO. That was definitely written by an OMM associate.

I think any claim under the NLRA is a long shot, based on the facts as we know them. Anyway, all you're going to get on a section 7 claim is backpay and reinstatement, and who wants that? I think in California you'd be able to make out a cognizable claim for unlawful termination in violation of public policy, and then you could go after emotional distress and punis. But I don't know New York state laws well enough to advise on them.

What I do know is that between talk of "highly compensated employees", "NLRA only applies to unionized employees", and "at will employment!", there is a lot of BS flying on this board.

In response to one earlier poster, though, I do think you could get away with telling your employees you'll move the plant to Mexico if they unionize, as long as it's in the company by-laws or charter.

Maybe the OMM summer who was fired for drunkenly inappropriate comments had it right.

3:00 forgets that Irell has a Newport Beach office.

OMM ASSOCIATES WHO BLOG FROM THE OFFICE TO 190k !!!

In related news, OMM-NY is officially a TTT firm.

Why doesn't OMM just block the site if it's that big of a deal? I am told that my firm blocks porn sites. Not only that, but whenever someone tries to visit a blocked site, an email is automatically sent to someone in IT saying who tried to access what site.

4:41 is drinking the Koolaid. I can only imagine that it's sarcastic.

I know 5 people who were "laid off" and given til March to find another job. Most law firms give 6 months.

There IS a concerted effort by partners to be jerks. I have never heard of this many "no bonuses", layoffs and poor performances at the firm. In most years (I've been here several years) people are happy. There are no disgruntled meetings in associate offices behind closed doors.

4:41: You are obviously not in these meetings because either you're a partner or the other associates hate you.

4:41: stop being such a blowhard. Your fellow associates are being harmed. Take your head out of your partner's butt and figure it all out. Idiot.

Calm down. If OMM wanted to actually fire or punish the 'evil doer,' they would just do it, without announcement. My guess is that they are announcing an investigation to chill blogging.

Can those of us new to this story get a summary of the goings-on at OMM? My curiosity is piqued.

I work at OMM and the NY lottery site is websense blocked. No to gambling during work.

But they can gamble with our futures. Why is that not blocked?

WHY WHY WHY

4:46 -- if you billed enough hours to get a bonus, then you made the OMM partners very rich. Joke's on you. Thanks for playing, ass clown.

Can someone get me a job at OMM-NY?

4:48: You could definitely say that Irell is better, but they're very different. Irell is almost all litigation in Newport and OMM is almost all corporate.

4:53 Read all the OMM posts.

Layoffs, quietly right before Christmas (happy holidays!)

An extraordinary number of bad performance reviews with many instances of damned if you, damned if you don't to avoid giving any bonus. Whatever thing you didn't do well is the thing that got you no-bonus'd even if you did 99 things well that 100th thing sunk you.

A lot of no-bonus or low bonus.

Partners suddenly being nasty to associates in what used to be a nice environment.

No work for a long time which has resulted in cranky partners blaming associates and unceremoniously dumping them.

Some associates saying their performance reviews were either negatively skewed or blatantly untrue.

But we have assistants surfing the web all day and being paid and associates being laid off.

Nice.

Hahaha Mets fans. No deal and it's 5PM. Santana turns into a pumpkin!

4:41(2) - where do I send my resume, I'll take NY scale with no whining.

NO CAUSE OF ACTION. AT WILL. That's beside the point though.

Like we saw on a smaller scale with Nixon Peabody's response to ATL's jokes about the song, the way a firm chooses to react to a crisis -- real or perceived -- defines its "character."

OMM may not like its associates railing against it on an anon blog. What's the solution? Kill the messenger or try to improve assoc morale?

Use TOR to cloak your trail on the web. EFF recommends it. See torproject.org

This open source software was developed so that military people could hide the IP address (and geographic location) of where they access a site from. Technically, it is an [The] Onion Router.

I am telling you that Monday's meeting will be "Here drink this Koolaid and feel better."

It's Gargamel (the wizard) or Azriel (the cat). You're knowledge of Smurfs is not terribly very smurfy. So smurf off.

It is Azrael. www.bluebuddies.com

Hey t14 1L at 4:18:

heres an idea: GET OVER YOURSELF!

This is definitely one of the dumbest PR moves I have ever seen by a big firm. Lat, take them DOWN!

I can tell you that the OMM NY partners have this really strange "We're right and you're wrong." attitude toward associates. No matter what they do, they are right. No matter what associate at the moment does, wrong. One associate told me there was something on the performance review that em didn't even DO and they protested it TWICE And both times the partners were like well get over yourself. It's good enough for us. Oh yes, we checked, it was you. Associate: no, that wasn't me. Partners: oh yes it was. Associate: I can prove it. Partners: no need. We're not listening.

NO BONUS FOR YOU. NEXT!

4:18- you will be lucky to get a job at such a place, T14, whatever....

Query whether an associate who is promised a partnership track with good performance is an employee at will?

Second, even if an employee at will, can an associate be fired for speech?

It seems like confidentiality is so important t at a law firm an associate can be fired for publishing confidential information.

That said, this is a public relations nightmare for OMM. Who would want to work there now?

One year ago OMM would have been upset that associates were upset. Now they're upset that associates are LEAKING that they're upset. My how times have changed.

Not sure why law firm IT departments don't do the same thing that most accounting/finance shops do with their servers and severely restrict most websites employees can visit on their work computers. This is all anecdotal, but I have friends in Boston at big banks who can't visit facebook, myspace, espn.com, etc. from their work computers. I don't see any of them protesting too much because they have work to do and they have realized that work product is better and faster when one is not distracted. Anyone have an answer?

6:03

Big law firms base their business model on inefficiency, not efficiency. If an associate is distracted by emails, blackberry, phone calls, websites, etc. it will take them longer to do their work. The powers that be know that associates will not bill 100% honestly by excluding those brief internet excursions to ATL or myspace so in the end that equals more billable hours.

I recall a study out of UC Irvine a few years ago that found the average worker is distracted by an email or phone call on average every 11 minutes, and that after each distraction it takes 25 minutes to reach full working efficiency again.

In OMM's case, they represent MySpace and other major online sites and associates need to access these for various legitimate reasons too. I also don't think it bodes well to block your own client's website! Just saying.

3:44: So, is the firm's issue that the memo itself was posted on the internet or that people are posting information themselves that emanates from the memo? At-will employment issues aside, is the firm essentially saying that associates shouldn't share this information period, or that they shouldn't share it via the internet? It seems ridiculous to fire an employee merely for sharing a firm's compensation with an outsider.

I am not a lawyer. I haven't even played one on TV.

But I have been on the job market. I examine companies from all angles before considering a job.

With publicity like this, OMM would not get my application.

How long till this impacts their hiring? What goes around comes around.

Warren Christopher was secretary of state during Clinton's first term. It's much easier to see him simply retiring though than leaving back to politics. He's in his 80s.

Mets got the deal done. No details yet. Fuck off 5:02.

mlb.com

5:59, yes, an at-will employee can be fired for speech (by OMM, though possibly not by a government employer). State action much?

I'm wondering where all of this is coming from. I work at OMM and, for the most part, I like both the work and the people. The only place I hear most of this shit is on ATL. Am I unbelievably out of the loop AND crazy lucky? I'm not saying it's a perfect firm, but nowhere is. Seriously, where the hell is all of this coming from? I really want to know.

6:49: what office?

6:41,

Government employers can terminate employees for speech on basically the same terms as private employers. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).

OMELVENY HAS BECOME A TTT IN DECLINE.

Dear 6:49 pm:

If the investigation leads to the ID of the tipsters, we will all know the answer soon.

Anyone with the poor judgment to transmit an OMM memo to ATL using the firm servers/computers might not be cut out for big law in any event.

Maybe OMM can start giving all associates lie dectector tests on a quarterly basis.

Official list of firms not to work for:

1. Cadwalader
2. O'Melveny
3. Shearman & Sterling

7:38 - Why not Shearman? 2001 layoffs?

6:49 - don't be a dbag....i have buddies at OMM who are desperately searching for new jobs...That ship is sinking - I suggest you get the fuck out while you still have a job...

6:49 - are you for real?? I don't know about the crazy lucky, but you sure are unbelievably out of the loop, or a partner.

HOW IS IT THAT THESE IDIOT LAW FIRMS DON'T GET IT???

IF YOU DO THE RIGHT THING, YOU WON'T GET CALLED OUT (SEE LATHAM BONUSES). AND IF YOU DO GET CALLED OUT (SEE LATHAM SPECIAL BONUS TALK CIRCA NOVEMBER/DECEMBER), DON'T DEMAND THAT THE INCRIMINATING INFO BE TAKEN DOWN (SEE NIXON PEABODY), DON'T SEND AN E-MAIL FULL OF EXCUSES TO THE BLAWG (SEE QUINN EMANUEL), AND DON'T GO ON A WITCH HUNT (SEE O'MELVENY). BECAUSE YOU WIND UP LOOKING WORSE THAN BEFORE.

IF YOU SCREW UP, FIX IT WITHOUT MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT AND MOVE ON. OR IF YOU THINK YOU DIDN'T SCREW UP, STICK TO YOUR GUNS.

PS YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF YOU POST FROM WORK (SEE GIRL THAT FORWARDED BONUS E-MAIL FROM WORK ACCOUNT WITHOUT REMOVING HER NAME).

6:49 is working in some other building or just so out of the loop that no normal associate talks to him or her.

6:19 I work there and this is my experience. Someone else wrote that someone got dinged and no bonus'd on something on their performance review that wasn't even their work. The rest of the year's work meant nothing. When people bring this stuff to the partner's attention, the partners get very mean.

Partners are going out of their ways to make associates unhappy and unwanted.

The world is changing and partners have no idea how to deal with it. That said, I don't think I'll be applying to OMM this summer.

I'd like to see the partners explain this on Monday but no one will and no associate will ask. The ACAC are ass kissing wussies.

where's the witch hunt coming from - DC or NY?

Is this all going down in DC or NY? Are they having these problems (layoffs and witch hunt) at their LA office?

Hahaha. Hard to believe that OMM didn't envision their latest strategy would end up on ... Abovethelaw!

Unsubstantiated rumours from unamed sources. Why not post something about defamation law, Lat?

Will the Cloverfield monster spare OMM NY?

Lat, I have looked at the Privacy Policy and have a few questions in light of the OMM story.

What is ATL's policy about providing firms with information about a person posting on the site?

Has a firm asked ATL to provide information that could disclose the identity of someone posting on the site?

Does the information that ATL gives/sells to 3rd parties include information that could disclose the identity of someone visiting or posting on the site?

Lat might have to institute the Autoadmit policy of deleting all IP addresses so that people will still post/tip him off.

I CALL BULLSHIT! Omm is going to waste money enlisting people to find some monkey who wrote sh-t to ATL - no way.

Because Shearman is a terrible, terrible firm.

3:32 - the "2l" I think I speak for everyone: "SHUT THE FUCK UP" Take your employment class and shove it up your ARSE...

To 5:00PM

"But we have assistants surfing the web all day and being paid and associates being laid off."

Maybe its because an unproductive first year associate costs five times the amount an assistant does to employ.

Fire five staff members or one first year attorney. Fire ten staff members or two first year attorneys.

Hmm. I wonder which one will affect work product more?

Or, hell. Maybe its just because an intelligent and experienced paralegal is worth more than an empty headed first year associate?

As a past tipster I have been assured of confidentiality.

What you have to worry about (if you work for OMM) is your hard drive.

If you delete a file from your computer you are essentially deleting the directory entry for the file--the file remains on the HD until overwritten with new data (meaning in most cases months or years from now or never).

Only with a program that periodically (or on demand) BOTH deletes all temporary files, browser cash, and other files AND then overwrites the empty space on your work computer's hard drive with random zeros and ones with sufficient passes to meet DOD specifications are the deleted files "gone".

BUT, if an e-mail the information will still be retained in the firm's server for a period beyond your control.

AND, if you install an erasure program on your work computer W/O authorization from the sytem adminstrator you are probably in violation of another firm policy and subject to termination. (This would include email retention policies and executible file and software download policies.)

BOTTOM LINE: Never write an email that you don't want someone to read--especially at work.

11:25, based upon your logic, I'm guessing you'll never have to worry about being laid off by BigLaw. At least not until they let the contract/temporary attorneys go.

11:31

I hope that I don't act like a petulant child who whines about the staff getting to keep their (much, much lower paying) job if I'm ever in the difficult situation of possibly being laid off.

OMM is a gutter rat law firm. Management is run by a bunch of losers.

Uh, it's interesting that no one has mentioned the fact that they replaced all of our laptops very recently. All attorneys got new ones and the old ones went up to IT. They are having a buyback program to allow interested employees to purchase them for something like $200. Before they are sold they will surely be wiped completely clean (everything must go or confidential client information could linger), but for the time being who knows what they're doing with the hard drives? Could be forensic investigations for all we know.

I agree with the posters who think it would be a tremendous waste of resources on the firm's part to bother with trying to figure out who posted what, but in retrospect the timing of this computer swap thing is interesting.

Related: check out the recruiting video they've posted on the new firm website. It's insane. It's amusing if you don't work there, and it's hilarious if you do.

5:23: "Your"

Fool.

It is true that they took all of our computers and I was surprised because a lot of 1st and 2nd years just GOT new computers so why get even newer ones? It did seem weird. My guess is that they've already got the goods on people SURFING ATL (which in NY is just about everyone except the few associates no one likes or talks to--ie butt kissers/gunners). They can't figure out who posted this way though so it would be a HUGE expense for nothiong.

If OMM looks at our emails they will find, especially right after the holidays, ATL links about OMM stories were emailed all over the firm.

WHY? Because the firm did not tell us about the layoffs and outlandish number of poor performance reviews. I know the 15 in NY who were laid off and only one or two make sense (there is actually a "bad" associate or two in there but the rest are garbage.).

One associate who was not promoted to counsel this year asked about a bonus because em worked very hard all year and said "Okay, I get that you don't want to promote me based on [small matter] and I disagree with that, but I worked hard and gave good work 99 percent of the time, why don't I get a bonus? My review is overwhelmingly positive." The associate tried to say "Okay you don't want to promote me for small matter x and I'm not going to win that one but how about some of my bonus for working hard and doing a good job with other things." They said "We don't see you as a good associate so you do not get a bonus."

It's very Twilight Zone where rationale and reason has gone out the window. They threw no bones this year except to a few. They went out of their way to keep people back and to deny bonuses. No rhyme. No reason. Except to get rid of people which is their goal. Obviously.

My guess is that the firm spin on Monday is a crock of BS and everyone will nod and say thank you OMM gods for not firing me and then we will go back and have secret meetings of 3 and 4 associates and go "This place sucks." which is what the weeks since Christmas have been like with one horror story after another coming to light.

Run away! Run away!

DON'T go to OMM if you are a law student. The NY office SUCKS!

Here we go again. Further evidence that the decision makers in NY (former O'Sullivan partners) have no clue how to run a legit firm. OMM tried to take on a TTT for a little transactional business and it obviously didn't work out. Maybe it's time to move on?

Don't post anything from a work computer you don't want your boss to know about. The things you can do to try to erase something permanently from you computer are very obvious to any IT forensic person that that is exactly what you did. And they do nothing about the company e-mail server and IP records.

And I can assure you that installing encryption, I{ blocking, erasure, or other software that tries to circumvent employer controls or records will get you fired just on its own.

I call total BS. The partners at OMM who could order something like this are either too nonchalant or too arogant to go to these lengths.

I will agree that the recent power reshuffle smells like the Tokyo Fish Market (the new no-three-positions rule mysteriously exempts only the specific positions currently held by the new office heads . . . hmm . . . ), but this seems beyond the pale.

What would they do with the info? Confront a known whistle blower with unequivocal proof that they're paranoid and aggressively mining associate computers? Unlikely.

And the new computer roll out has been planned since AT LEAST MARCH. The new associates got new computers because the ones they had were last generation, and (unlike with blackberries) the Firm changes computers all at once. If the new associates didn't get an upgrade, they'd be stuck with the last generation for like five years.

The former O'Sullivan partners are indeed the culprits, especially in Litigation. Their treatment of associates is deplorable.

AB needs to get rid of them, reinstate bonuses and promotions and make associates happy again. Short of that, the place is going downhill fast and will never be a power in NY.

I would tell ALL top students at top law schools to STAY AWAY from O'Melveny so long as the former O'Sullivan partners are in charge. Stay far away.

I have printed out all the recent OMM postings in the past few months along with comments and mailed them to the powers that be in DC and LA from a hotmail account and a snail mail copy for those partners who don't do email that much.

The way the NY office is being run is a complete black eye to O'Melveny world wide and it does not deserve such a bad rap.

Please let the big guns in LA and DC know what is going on and how everyone is being mistreated and maligned in NY.

These are careers that these power hungry ridiculous NY (mostly former O'Sullivan) partners are toying with. It has to stop.

Associate power. Get some cajones today. Email the Office of the Chair partners in LA and DC. For good measure, print these out and highlight the important comments and send those too. It's like OMM/NY are the killing fields and the rest of the OMM offices are turning a blind eye to the slaughter.

ACT NOW!