Jump to content

Ojo Rojo

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1607
  • Joined

Everything posted by Ojo Rojo

  1. I am. What's the question?
  2. There goes the no-hitter.
  3. Based on latest ESPN article, dude is turbofucked. Minimum one year suspension expected once all the dust settles from the criminal investigation. And then some team is going to have to take a big risk allowing him to play. He might never pitch in MLB again. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
  4. Brad Hand cut by Blue Jays. Not sure if anyone else has picked him up. He's been really good, but has sucked this year since getting to Toronto. Should the 'Stros pick him up?
  5. This is what I have pretty much experienced myself. I just haven't done enough of it and not with the right focus. I once interviewed at another firm years ago. One of the partners I was interviewing with had a very large book and good clients so I asked him, "What do you do?" He laughed and said, "Hang out at bars, mostly." I think I could do that.
  6. No way No. 1 is true. These guys are professionals. Graveman is a professional. He'll go today or tomorrow. I think almost all of Dusty's decisions have been within the realm. Sometimes players don't execute; other shit happens. Not every failure, bullpen or otherwise, goes back to a manager's decision.
  7. Oh, I know. I probably shouldn't have responded. You are exactly right about the marketing direction. That's what all of the marketing consultants I've dealt with have told me. That's the conventional wisdom of the legal marketing gurus in print. That's what friends and peers have told me. I haven't taken that step because when you aren't getting enough quality work, it's counterintuitive to cast a narrower net. Also, I'm having a hard time conceptualizing the identity of our firm given the specialties of the individual lawyers in it. It's not a natural fit of practice areas, I'm afraid. That may not matter, though it would be easier to market a firm with a single specialized practice area than marketing a small group of individual lawyers, each with their own specialties.
  8. I've considered it and consulted with people inside and outside of my firm and I don't think that's it. I've led this firm through some serious adversity since being thrust into this role, which at the time involved putting out a flaming pile of dogshit. Shortly after I got us through crisis mode, one of our major rainmaking partners died in a tragic accident, so not only did I have to recover the business from that blow, I also tried to take care of his family as much as I could. It's been a very tough road, but we're still here.
  9. Yeah, but exhibits are usually already named in sequence: Ex. A, Ex. B, Ex. 1, Ex. 2, etc. (I know this is getting old, so I'll stop soon.)
  10. I can see that, but if you do need to see the order something was filed, just go to the clerk's website and look at the docket. Plus, the names of filed documents will be different. "Motion" followed by "Response" followed by "Reply," etc. It should only really be a problem if you have a document with the exact same name, which would be fairly rare with court filings. How often are documents with the exact same name filed on the same day or in succession? I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
  11. Yeah, this is a good point too and has happened to me. My control for this is that I number each version in the name of the file. That way, even if the date changes I can still see the order of the different versions. I very rarely have to recreate or show the chronology of changes or the dates of changes to a file. If I did, there would still be a way to do that in MS Office by using version history. You can even restore a prior version with the original date.
  12. Okay, sure.
  13. I care if it's something I'm working on too or will need to refer to later. I'm talking about files that are saved to a server and everyone has access to them. Files saved to your own drive are a different story - don't care about those. It wouldn't be as bad if they didn't put the date in the beginning of the name. If it's a sorting issue, you can always sort by date without having the date in the name of the file.
  14. Never.
  15. Do it every day. Putting the date in the name doesn't help you when you have multiple revisions on the same day. Plus, windows automatically includes the time of the last revision, in addition to the date. So you can list by date and the earliest versions will show up in order based on time and date. What I do is, if it's my revision then I'll put a parenthetical with my initials (BMF) and Rev. X. Each successive revision of mine will be X+1. Works for me. And when they ask for my latest version, I tell them, "It's the one with BMF on it."
  16. New tradition, you say?
  17. Something could be pointless without being redundant.
  18. When people save files with the date in the name. Totally pointless, redundant and confusing.
  19. No. Drafting leases and related documents between mineral owners and oil companies.
  20. Ain't that the goddamned truth. If I could fire my C clients I think I'd be the happiest person alive.
  21. Yeah, this has been a problem for us for a long time. Lack of a clear identity makes marketing tough. We do have core areas - commercial litigation, corporate, IP and family law. Those core areas themselves are all over the place. The roster of lawyers we have, which I mostly inherited when I took over as managing partner, has dictated the firm's practice areas. If I could start from scratch, I would be a boutique that just did one thing and I know what that one thing would be. The problem is that I/we have never had enough work in our core practice areas to leave all of the ancillary work behind. Have a business owner client who wants to do a name change for their kid? Sure, I'll do that - I need the billable work. That has led to forays into all kinds of weird shit, which is stressful in an of itself, because you have to get into an area you don't know, with itinerant risks, and you have to reinvent the wheel every time with forms, etc.
  22. If they supported his quads I might give them a pass...
  23. Not a fan of Breg's black cleats.
×
×
  • Create New...