Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Have Sex, Will Travel
Cheating Wife Awarded More Than $40 Million BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (March 25) - A judge has awarded the former wife of a multimillionaire businessman a divorce settlement worth more than $40 million even though she admitted having affairs with her rock-climbing guide and a man she met on a flight to China.
In addition to a $24 million payment, Susan Sosin will keep the couple's
$3.6 million Manhattan apartment, $2 million Utah ski house and $800,000 home in Wallkill, N.Y. But she has to vacate the couple's two mansions in Connecticut and three desert properties in Arizona. (Poor baby!) In the divorce granted Wednesday, she also gets to keep $6 million in her brokerage accounts, eight cars and $2.9 million in jewelry, including a ruby piece her husband had bought for her but hadn't given to her prior to their divorce.
Richard Albrecht, attorney for Sosin's husband, Howard, estimated the total value of the award at $43 million, or 27 percent of the estate.
She wanted half, he said. (You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that shit isn't enough? He could have had her killed for a lot cheaper, and gotten a sweet book deal out of it!)
"My opinion is her conduct in this matter affected the award," Albrecht said.
Susan Sosin's lawyer, Frederick Siegel of Stamford, couldn't be reached for comment Friday. A telephone message was left at his office. Howard Sosin, 54, who founded AIG Financial Products in 1987, filed for divorce after discovering his wife's relationships in February 2003. During an upgrade of their computer system, he found hundreds of e-mails between his wife and her lover, according to testimony.
Susan Sosin, 51, admitted in testimony that she had become intimate with a guide while rock climbing in 1996, though she said it was a spontaneous and isolated occurrence. During a flight to China in 2000, she met a married man, and that led to a lengthy affair, according to testimony.
"The parties' marriage has been undeniably marred by the defendant's infidelity," Superior Court Judge Howard Owens stated in his verdict. "Although her sexual relationship was not the sole cause of the breakdown, it did effectively terminate the marriage."
Howard Sosin's wealth was estimated at $168 million. Among the assets he gets to keep are $89 million in bank accounts, 10 of the couple's 18 cars, $960,000 worth of private club memberships and $22 million in fine art.
The couple met in 1978 when Howard Sosin was an assistant professor at Columbia University. At the time, she was married to another man and working in retail.
Howard Sosin served as the president and chief operating officer of AIG Financial Products until 1993 when he left the company. Following litigation, he received $182 million from AIG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, let me get this straight - not only was she cheating on him, but she hits the lottery for effectively terminating the marriage? Sure, she was around when he started amassing his fortune, but hell, was she the founder of AIG Financial services? Ummm, nope. What did she do besides suck him off every once in a while? Nada. Hell, I'll give an occasional BJ if I knew I'd end up with $39.7 million and 8 cars when all was said and done.
To me, the most telling thing about their story is this - "The couple met in 1978 when Howard Sosin was an assistant professor at Columbia University. At the time, she was married to another man and working in retail." Mainly because this effectively equals "Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake." "
It was just a matter of time before this ho-bag did this to him. She was with someone else when she met him. I'm of the belief that these two "admitted" affairs are just the tip of the iceberg with this woman. I'm sure someone like this guy was away on business a lot. I'm not calling him a saint, because who knows? I'm sure he had his slice of angel food cake now and again too. However, she's the one that got busted, not him. Scoreboard him.
Maybe in 1978 he didn't need a prenup, but her affairs cost him not only his marriage but $40 mil as well? Damn, I hope she was a great lay. As a matter of fact, I hope she was fucking pornstar-like in the sack. Sheeeit, for $40 mil, I'd expect on command BJs and anal twice every Sunday.
The other side of the coin is the fact that she was only awarded 27% of the total estate. Let's face it, he's not going to starve any time soon. I mean, if my wife was awarded 27% of my estate, she'd walk away with a ham sandwich (granted, it'd be on really, REALLY good bread, but I digress). I'd just make another sandwich. But still, $40 mil after screwing your rock climbing guide and falling in love with some guy you met on a plane to China?
I just don't get it. But that's not surprising, really.
|
In addition to a $24 million payment, Susan Sosin will keep the couple's
$3.6 million Manhattan apartment, $2 million Utah ski house and $800,000 home in Wallkill, N.Y. But she has to vacate the couple's two mansions in Connecticut and three desert properties in Arizona. (Poor baby!) In the divorce granted Wednesday, she also gets to keep $6 million in her brokerage accounts, eight cars and $2.9 million in jewelry, including a ruby piece her husband had bought for her but hadn't given to her prior to their divorce.
Richard Albrecht, attorney for Sosin's husband, Howard, estimated the total value of the award at $43 million, or 27 percent of the estate.
She wanted half, he said. (You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that shit isn't enough? He could have had her killed for a lot cheaper, and gotten a sweet book deal out of it!)
"My opinion is her conduct in this matter affected the award," Albrecht said.
Susan Sosin's lawyer, Frederick Siegel of Stamford, couldn't be reached for comment Friday. A telephone message was left at his office. Howard Sosin, 54, who founded AIG Financial Products in 1987, filed for divorce after discovering his wife's relationships in February 2003. During an upgrade of their computer system, he found hundreds of e-mails between his wife and her lover, according to testimony.
Susan Sosin, 51, admitted in testimony that she had become intimate with a guide while rock climbing in 1996, though she said it was a spontaneous and isolated occurrence. During a flight to China in 2000, she met a married man, and that led to a lengthy affair, according to testimony.
"The parties' marriage has been undeniably marred by the defendant's infidelity," Superior Court Judge Howard Owens stated in his verdict. "Although her sexual relationship was not the sole cause of the breakdown, it did effectively terminate the marriage."
Howard Sosin's wealth was estimated at $168 million. Among the assets he gets to keep are $89 million in bank accounts, 10 of the couple's 18 cars, $960,000 worth of private club memberships and $22 million in fine art.
The couple met in 1978 when Howard Sosin was an assistant professor at Columbia University. At the time, she was married to another man and working in retail.
Howard Sosin served as the president and chief operating officer of AIG Financial Products until 1993 when he left the company. Following litigation, he received $182 million from AIG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, let me get this straight - not only was she cheating on him, but she hits the lottery for effectively terminating the marriage? Sure, she was around when he started amassing his fortune, but hell, was she the founder of AIG Financial services? Ummm, nope. What did she do besides suck him off every once in a while? Nada. Hell, I'll give an occasional BJ if I knew I'd end up with $39.7 million and 8 cars when all was said and done.
To me, the most telling thing about their story is this - "The couple met in 1978 when Howard Sosin was an assistant professor at Columbia University. At the time, she was married to another man and working in retail." Mainly because this effectively equals "Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake." "
It was just a matter of time before this ho-bag did this to him. She was with someone else when she met him. I'm of the belief that these two "admitted" affairs are just the tip of the iceberg with this woman. I'm sure someone like this guy was away on business a lot. I'm not calling him a saint, because who knows? I'm sure he had his slice of angel food cake now and again too. However, she's the one that got busted, not him. Scoreboard him.
Maybe in 1978 he didn't need a prenup, but her affairs cost him not only his marriage but $40 mil as well? Damn, I hope she was a great lay. As a matter of fact, I hope she was fucking pornstar-like in the sack. Sheeeit, for $40 mil, I'd expect on command BJs and anal twice every Sunday.
The other side of the coin is the fact that she was only awarded 27% of the total estate. Let's face it, he's not going to starve any time soon. I mean, if my wife was awarded 27% of my estate, she'd walk away with a ham sandwich (granted, it'd be on really, REALLY good bread, but I digress). I'd just make another sandwich. But still, $40 mil after screwing your rock climbing guide and falling in love with some guy you met on a plane to China?
I just don't get it. But that's not surprising, really.
|
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Make War, Not Porn
Utah Internet Porn Bill
Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines.
The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
Technology companies had urged Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman not to sign the bill (click for PDF), saying it was constitutionally suspect and worded so vaguely its full impact is still unclear.
The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an Internet access service to a consumer," which could include everything from cable companies to universities, coffee shops, and homes with open 802.11 wireless connections.
"I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause," Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis., wrote in a critique of the law.
Spokesman Tammy Kikuchi said Monday that Huntsman "doesn't have a concern about the constitutional challenge."
Supporters of the Utah bill, such as advocacy group Citizens Against Pornography, had pressed for the measure as a way to give parents more control of their home Internet connections.
Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that the Utah attorney general claims hosts material that's harmful to minors must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.
Lobbying group NetCoalition, whose members include Google, Yahoo and News.com publisher CNET Networks, had written a letter to the Utah Senate saying the legislation could affect search engines, e-mail providers and Web hosting companies. "A search engine that links to a Web site in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the Web site," the letter warned.
A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.
---------------------------
I agree parents need ways to keep their kids from Internet porn, but there's this thing called firewalls and parental filters already on the market that does this very thing. Hell, since they're wanting to do some parenting for us parents, how bout they come over to my house and ya know, help them with their homework or something. That would free up some time for me to go have a few drinks & wings at Hooters!! So could a customer sue their ISP for something their kid accessed that was non-porn like FHM or Maxim? This law is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Next they'll try and find a way to get in boys' brains and block any indecent thoughts, normally raging in teenage boys. Good luck with that one.
Although, on public computers (such as library computers), I'd like to see that a policy like that applied to the public entity. It's very disconcerting to be at the local library with my kids and see some guy a few computers down streaming graphic porn. Because I then start to wonder how long it's been since he last had a girl (if at all) because, let's face it, these guys aren't Brad Pitt types - if they were, they'd be starring in the porn, not cutting & pasting. Hopefully he at least waits to go home to finish the job rather than soil the bathroom for everyone else.
Some interesting things in the bill.
It provides $100,000 for PSAs for people in Utah telling them the dangers of porn (after all sex is evil and bad, now let's go shoot something instead!), how to find out if your family members are accessing the sites and what to do about it. $50,000 to research the adult sites (can I sign up to do the research? I'm sure my brother would be willing to research the gay sites for them.). $100,000 to create and maintain the adult site list (hell, I'd be willing to do this too).
The attorney general will send the content provider warning them that their site is going to be put on the list unless the content is blocked for minors. That's going to be one busy attorney general! What else is he going to be able to work on? Hell, what else would he WANT to work on?
|
Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines.
The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
Technology companies had urged Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman not to sign the bill (click for PDF), saying it was constitutionally suspect and worded so vaguely its full impact is still unclear.
The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an Internet access service to a consumer," which could include everything from cable companies to universities, coffee shops, and homes with open 802.11 wireless connections.
"I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause," Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis., wrote in a critique of the law.
Spokesman Tammy Kikuchi said Monday that Huntsman "doesn't have a concern about the constitutional challenge."
Supporters of the Utah bill, such as advocacy group Citizens Against Pornography, had pressed for the measure as a way to give parents more control of their home Internet connections.
Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that the Utah attorney general claims hosts material that's harmful to minors must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.
Lobbying group NetCoalition, whose members include Google, Yahoo and News.com publisher CNET Networks, had written a letter to the Utah Senate saying the legislation could affect search engines, e-mail providers and Web hosting companies. "A search engine that links to a Web site in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the Web site," the letter warned.
A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.
---------------------------
I agree parents need ways to keep their kids from Internet porn, but there's this thing called firewalls and parental filters already on the market that does this very thing. Hell, since they're wanting to do some parenting for us parents, how bout they come over to my house and ya know, help them with their homework or something. That would free up some time for me to go have a few drinks & wings at Hooters!! So could a customer sue their ISP for something their kid accessed that was non-porn like FHM or Maxim? This law is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Next they'll try and find a way to get in boys' brains and block any indecent thoughts, normally raging in teenage boys. Good luck with that one.
Although, on public computers (such as library computers), I'd like to see that a policy like that applied to the public entity. It's very disconcerting to be at the local library with my kids and see some guy a few computers down streaming graphic porn. Because I then start to wonder how long it's been since he last had a girl (if at all) because, let's face it, these guys aren't Brad Pitt types - if they were, they'd be starring in the porn, not cutting & pasting. Hopefully he at least waits to go home to finish the job rather than soil the bathroom for everyone else.
Some interesting things in the bill.
It provides $100,000 for PSAs for people in Utah telling them the dangers of porn (after all sex is evil and bad, now let's go shoot something instead!), how to find out if your family members are accessing the sites and what to do about it. $50,000 to research the adult sites (can I sign up to do the research? I'm sure my brother would be willing to research the gay sites for them.). $100,000 to create and maintain the adult site list (hell, I'd be willing to do this too).
The attorney general will send the content provider warning them that their site is going to be put on the list unless the content is blocked for minors. That's going to be one busy attorney general! What else is he going to be able to work on? Hell, what else would he WANT to work on?
|
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Ass, Meet Switch
5-Year-Old Cuffed, Arrested in Florida
5-Year-Old Girl Cuffed, Taken Away in Police Cruiser in Florida After School Outburst
The Associated Press
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. Mar 18, 2005 — A 5-year-old girl was arrested, cuffed and put in back of a police cruiser after an outburst at school where she threw books and boxes, kicked a teacher in the shins, smashed a candy dish, hit an assistant principal in the stomach and drew on the walls.
The students were counting jelly beans as part of a math exercise at Fairmount Park Elementary School when the little girl began acting silly. That's when her teacher took away her jelly beans, outraging the child.
Minutes later, the 40-pound girl was in the back of a police cruiser, under arrest for battery. Her hands were bound with plastic ties, her ankles in handcuffs.
"I don't want to go to jail," she said moments after her arrest Monday.
No charges were filed and the girl went home with her mother.
While police say their actions were proper, school officials were not pleased with the outcome.
"We never want to have 5-year-old children arrested," said Michael Bessette, the district's Area III superintendent.
The district's campus police should have been called to help and not local police, he said.
Bessette said campus police routinely deal with children and are trained to calm them in such situations.
Under the district's code of student conduct, students are to be suspended for 10 days and recommended for expulsion for unprovoked attacks, even if they don't result in serious injury. But district spokesman Ron Stone said that rule wouldn't apply to kindergartners.
"She's been appropriately disciplined under the circumstances," he said.
The girl's mother, Inda Akins, said she is consulting an attorney.
"She's never going back to that school," Akins said. "They set my baby up."
--------------------------
My favorite part of that story is where the mother said "They set my baby up." I realize calling the police may have been overkill, but when in God's name are people going to take responsibility for their children in this country? If I had done that at five years old, I'd have been afraid to go home for fear of the spanking my father would lay on me.
As a matter of fact, if one of my children would have done this, they'd be begging the police to keep them in Juvenille Detention for fear of what they have awaiting them at home.
To all you fucking idiots out there that don't take responsibility for your own actions and think it would be a grand idea to impart your views onto an innocent child, get a dog instead. Yeah, you have to have a license, but at least we'll only have to deal with your ignorance instead of your ignorance squared.
|
5-Year-Old Girl Cuffed, Taken Away in Police Cruiser in Florida After School Outburst
The Associated Press
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. Mar 18, 2005 — A 5-year-old girl was arrested, cuffed and put in back of a police cruiser after an outburst at school where she threw books and boxes, kicked a teacher in the shins, smashed a candy dish, hit an assistant principal in the stomach and drew on the walls.
The students were counting jelly beans as part of a math exercise at Fairmount Park Elementary School when the little girl began acting silly. That's when her teacher took away her jelly beans, outraging the child.
Minutes later, the 40-pound girl was in the back of a police cruiser, under arrest for battery. Her hands were bound with plastic ties, her ankles in handcuffs.
"I don't want to go to jail," she said moments after her arrest Monday.
No charges were filed and the girl went home with her mother.
While police say their actions were proper, school officials were not pleased with the outcome.
"We never want to have 5-year-old children arrested," said Michael Bessette, the district's Area III superintendent.
The district's campus police should have been called to help and not local police, he said.
Bessette said campus police routinely deal with children and are trained to calm them in such situations.
Under the district's code of student conduct, students are to be suspended for 10 days and recommended for expulsion for unprovoked attacks, even if they don't result in serious injury. But district spokesman Ron Stone said that rule wouldn't apply to kindergartners.
"She's been appropriately disciplined under the circumstances," he said.
The girl's mother, Inda Akins, said she is consulting an attorney.
"She's never going back to that school," Akins said. "They set my baby up."
--------------------------
My favorite part of that story is where the mother said "They set my baby up." I realize calling the police may have been overkill, but when in God's name are people going to take responsibility for their children in this country? If I had done that at five years old, I'd have been afraid to go home for fear of the spanking my father would lay on me.
As a matter of fact, if one of my children would have done this, they'd be begging the police to keep them in Juvenille Detention for fear of what they have awaiting them at home.
To all you fucking idiots out there that don't take responsibility for your own actions and think it would be a grand idea to impart your views onto an innocent child, get a dog instead. Yeah, you have to have a license, but at least we'll only have to deal with your ignorance instead of your ignorance squared.
|
Friday, March 18, 2005
Quick Friday Random Post
Here I am, sitting at my desk working on a medical records summary. I have the Red Hot Chili Peppers Blood, Sugar, Sex, Majik playing in the background and it occurs to me that I am listening to the best album in the history of music, bar none. Every freaking song is funkalicious.
Yes, I know this doesn't count as a real post, but it'll have to do for this week. So fuck you. Or, better yet, fuck me.
Please???
|
Yes, I know this doesn't count as a real post, but it'll have to do for this week. So fuck you. Or, better yet, fuck me.
Please???
|
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Now Taking Requests
Ok guys, here's your homework assignment, if you choose to accept it: I need stuff to write about. I'm in serious writers' block mode. I'm not sure if it's because my work is so all-consuming right now or if it's just because I have no more creativity. So, anything you guys want to know or want me to write about, ask away. If I can come up with something, I'll oblige. If not, you all can stand there and throw tomatoes or rocks or some shit at me.
Deal?
|
Deal?
|
Monday, March 14, 2005
New Ink
Yes, that is my left arm. Further, that is brand spankin new ink. Had it done Saturday. I absolutely LOVE it. For the longest time, I've wanted to do something that would honor my kids forever. Now I have. It's a little bigger than I thought it would be when I designed it, but I think it came out great.
Happy Monday to all!!
|
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Week 1
Guess who's back. Back again? JP's back. Tell a friend.
Sorry for neglecting you guys for so long. It's been a tough week. Yes, as of yesterday, I have officially worked here for one solid week. To say that it's been challenging would be a colossal understatement. First of all, I've never done defense work in my life. It's so totally different that I can't even begin to 'splain it here, so I won't even try. Suffice it to say that when you're assigned 50 cases on your first day and they keep giving you more as the days progress, it's tough enough. But, when you don't know what the hell you're doing, it's downright discouraging. However, every day I feel a little more comfortable as I learn their system.
There are some advantages and disadvantages of working here. So, rather than boring you with details of my job and the method in which they prefer things to be done, I will give you my Week 1 list of pros and cons.
Pros:
1. Office Building is downtown. I had forgotten how nice it is to be downtown. Yes, I have to be more 'dressy' than I was (I'll hit that con later), but being downtown is so nice. I mean, everything's so convenient. My bank is a block away, unlike the half mile trek I had to do at my old firm. There are roughly 5,000 places to choose from for lunch within a 3 block radius. The women down here are fucking gorgeous, for the most part (a little eye candy NEVER hurts). The max line is about a block from my office and about 3 blocks from my house, so I can ride it in (takes about a half hour) if I need to - which I have needed to since Vicki has been house-sitting in Southwest Portland and will be doing so for the next week and a half.
2. Money flows like wine. This is a good thing in a firm. They're not tight-assed. They have money and they're not afraid to spend it. The computers are all new. The phone systems look like they took them right off the set of 24. I asked for a headset for my phone and the IT dude brought it to me about 5 minutes later (fuck you, Chip!!!! - if he saw these phones he'd cream his panties in about 2 minutes). If you need something, you just order it. It appears in your office within a day. Just yesterday, we had a case settle during trial. Our exhibits included $1000 worth of toys. We all split them up and took them home. I ended up with about $100 worth of stuff for my kids. Very cool. This brings me to...
3. My salary is wonderful! I can't stress this enough - I totally underbid myself at my last job. I thought I had a handle on the market. I clearly did not. As of right now, I don't think I'm worth what they're paying me, but as soon as I get everything under control, I will be a veritable bargain.
4. Having an office is very nice. I don't think I could ever go back to a cubicle. If I have a phone call I need to make (and by "phone call" I mean calling my favorite Asian phone sex operator), I just close my door and nobody can hear what I'm doing. Likewise, it gives me a respite from people walking by my office and doing the "one-eyed peek" to see what I'm working on.
5. I have "people" that do stuff. After I get done working on a file, I place it in my outbox and it magically makes its way back to central filing. Everything goes in my outbox - mail, interoffice memos, filing, notebook requests, etc., and they all make their way to where they belong. I really don't ever have to get up, if I don't want to. The notebook request thing is cool. There are "litigation support" people here that take care of putting together notebooks, making up labels for stuff, you name it, they do it (haven't asked for a hand job yet, however). Hell, they'd copy stuff if I asked them to. Of course, I'm too nice of a guy to bury them, so I do a lot of stuff myself. I'm sure that'll change in the next month.
Cons:
1. Jeans are a thing of the past. I'm a casual guy. I feel most comfortable in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. Then why, you ask, am I sitting at my desk wearing a pair of Gap khakis and a black CK button-up collared shirt? See "Pro #3," above. It's funny, they have a section in the "handbook" about what they call "Casual Friday," and it says "no member of the Firm may wear denim of any sort, except as a shirt." Ok, I don't know about you, but that defeats the whole purpose of Casual Friday. The purpose is to dress down a day and not get so burnt out on looking so "professional." But as long as they keep paying me, I'll keep dressing up.
2. Beer in the fridge and wine in the cellar are things of the past. One of the best perks at my last job is now gone. If they don't let you wear jeans, do you actually think they'll let you drink on the job? Not so much. I bet that more that one attorney/partner has a bottle stashed somewhere (attorneys do drink a lot), but I don't think they'd be very sympathetic if I got caught doing the same and yelled "I learned it by watching YOU!") Dammit!
3. Lots of rules and regulations. My "office manual" came in a 3" binder and was packed to the rim with procedures, guidelines and regulations. I'm not much for any of that stuff, so I'll just act my version of professional and hope for the best. I don't think I'll be reading all 3" of that shit anytime soon.
4. I have to bill my time. Every second of my time here at the firm has to be accounted for. Not used to that either. So far, I've been doing pretty well, but I can see myself forgetting from time to time. It's the ADHD in me. However, I figure if I get in the habit of doing it, it'll become easier as time goes on. I'm billing an insurance company as we speak. I'm not kidding. Really.
5. It's more stuffy here. For the most part, my co-workers are very nice. However, there are some stuffy old timers here. I'm not the best person to be around these people, as I tend to instigate stuff (hard to believe, I know). I don't mind professionalism, just don't walk around like you got a stick up your ass or something. Be nice to me and I'll be more than nice back. Be not so nice to me, or snub me, and I'll probably tease you at some point. Guess I better keep my resume handy.
There you have it. Week one in a nutshell. So far, the pros outweigh the cons. That could change at any moment. The good news is that they wait until after your 90-day probationary period to have the stick surgically implanted in your ass. It's not an elective surgery, but the Firm does pay for it.
|
Sorry for neglecting you guys for so long. It's been a tough week. Yes, as of yesterday, I have officially worked here for one solid week. To say that it's been challenging would be a colossal understatement. First of all, I've never done defense work in my life. It's so totally different that I can't even begin to 'splain it here, so I won't even try. Suffice it to say that when you're assigned 50 cases on your first day and they keep giving you more as the days progress, it's tough enough. But, when you don't know what the hell you're doing, it's downright discouraging. However, every day I feel a little more comfortable as I learn their system.
There are some advantages and disadvantages of working here. So, rather than boring you with details of my job and the method in which they prefer things to be done, I will give you my Week 1 list of pros and cons.
Pros:
1. Office Building is downtown. I had forgotten how nice it is to be downtown. Yes, I have to be more 'dressy' than I was (I'll hit that con later), but being downtown is so nice. I mean, everything's so convenient. My bank is a block away, unlike the half mile trek I had to do at my old firm. There are roughly 5,000 places to choose from for lunch within a 3 block radius. The women down here are fucking gorgeous, for the most part (a little eye candy NEVER hurts). The max line is about a block from my office and about 3 blocks from my house, so I can ride it in (takes about a half hour) if I need to - which I have needed to since Vicki has been house-sitting in Southwest Portland and will be doing so for the next week and a half.
2. Money flows like wine. This is a good thing in a firm. They're not tight-assed. They have money and they're not afraid to spend it. The computers are all new. The phone systems look like they took them right off the set of 24. I asked for a headset for my phone and the IT dude brought it to me about 5 minutes later (fuck you, Chip!!!! - if he saw these phones he'd cream his panties in about 2 minutes). If you need something, you just order it. It appears in your office within a day. Just yesterday, we had a case settle during trial. Our exhibits included $1000 worth of toys. We all split them up and took them home. I ended up with about $100 worth of stuff for my kids. Very cool. This brings me to...
3. My salary is wonderful! I can't stress this enough - I totally underbid myself at my last job. I thought I had a handle on the market. I clearly did not. As of right now, I don't think I'm worth what they're paying me, but as soon as I get everything under control, I will be a veritable bargain.
4. Having an office is very nice. I don't think I could ever go back to a cubicle. If I have a phone call I need to make (and by "phone call" I mean calling my favorite Asian phone sex operator), I just close my door and nobody can hear what I'm doing. Likewise, it gives me a respite from people walking by my office and doing the "one-eyed peek" to see what I'm working on.
5. I have "people" that do stuff. After I get done working on a file, I place it in my outbox and it magically makes its way back to central filing. Everything goes in my outbox - mail, interoffice memos, filing, notebook requests, etc., and they all make their way to where they belong. I really don't ever have to get up, if I don't want to. The notebook request thing is cool. There are "litigation support" people here that take care of putting together notebooks, making up labels for stuff, you name it, they do it (haven't asked for a hand job yet, however). Hell, they'd copy stuff if I asked them to. Of course, I'm too nice of a guy to bury them, so I do a lot of stuff myself. I'm sure that'll change in the next month.
Cons:
1. Jeans are a thing of the past. I'm a casual guy. I feel most comfortable in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. Then why, you ask, am I sitting at my desk wearing a pair of Gap khakis and a black CK button-up collared shirt? See "Pro #3," above. It's funny, they have a section in the "handbook" about what they call "Casual Friday," and it says "no member of the Firm may wear denim of any sort, except as a shirt." Ok, I don't know about you, but that defeats the whole purpose of Casual Friday. The purpose is to dress down a day and not get so burnt out on looking so "professional." But as long as they keep paying me, I'll keep dressing up.
2. Beer in the fridge and wine in the cellar are things of the past. One of the best perks at my last job is now gone. If they don't let you wear jeans, do you actually think they'll let you drink on the job? Not so much. I bet that more that one attorney/partner has a bottle stashed somewhere (attorneys do drink a lot), but I don't think they'd be very sympathetic if I got caught doing the same and yelled "I learned it by watching YOU!") Dammit!
3. Lots of rules and regulations. My "office manual" came in a 3" binder and was packed to the rim with procedures, guidelines and regulations. I'm not much for any of that stuff, so I'll just act my version of professional and hope for the best. I don't think I'll be reading all 3" of that shit anytime soon.
4. I have to bill my time. Every second of my time here at the firm has to be accounted for. Not used to that either. So far, I've been doing pretty well, but I can see myself forgetting from time to time. It's the ADHD in me. However, I figure if I get in the habit of doing it, it'll become easier as time goes on. I'm billing an insurance company as we speak. I'm not kidding. Really.
5. It's more stuffy here. For the most part, my co-workers are very nice. However, there are some stuffy old timers here. I'm not the best person to be around these people, as I tend to instigate stuff (hard to believe, I know). I don't mind professionalism, just don't walk around like you got a stick up your ass or something. Be nice to me and I'll be more than nice back. Be not so nice to me, or snub me, and I'll probably tease you at some point. Guess I better keep my resume handy.
There you have it. Week one in a nutshell. So far, the pros outweigh the cons. That could change at any moment. The good news is that they wait until after your 90-day probationary period to have the stick surgically implanted in your ass. It's not an elective surgery, but the Firm does pay for it.
|
