quillon pic

Free promotional material produced by ROF.


 A Quinn Emmanuel partner who was sacked after allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" has resurfaced with a new firm.

Mark Hastings was "expelled with immediate effect and without compensation" in 2018 after Alison Levitt QC of Mishcon de Reya investigated allegations made by two members of staff.

Quinn said at the time that it "takes allegations of the nature made against Hastings extremely seriously", and "will not tolerate abusive behaviour from anyone within the firm", although it did not specify the nature of his alleged misconduct.

Hastings remained silent until the SRA confirmed in 2020 that it would not be taking any regulatory action against him. 

"Two years ago I left my former firm against a backdrop of certain allegations made against me", he said. "I have always strongly and consistently maintained that the allegations were untrue – but I was unable to speak out publicly until now."

"The last two years have been stressful for me and my family. Now that the SRA investigation has officially closed, I cannot wait to move forward with my career", he said.

The press release for Hastings' new firm, Quillon Law, does not go into that sordid business, describing instead how Hastings "made his name" in the City.

Hastings and his two co-founders were apparently so keen on naming their firm after the hand guard of a sword that they didn't check whether anyone else had already done it, which they had. Quillon Partners, an Indian law firm, will now battle Quillon Law for supremacy in the Google rankings.

Abhik Ghosh, the head of Quillon Partners, told RollOnFriday, "Ever since Quillon Partners was launched last year we have aimed to forge a unique identity, but were rather amused to discover that the firm name is now a little less unique than before".

"Should our paths cross professionally though, we would certainly be interested in swapping notes on our respective paths to choosing this name", said Ghosh.

The similarity of 'Quillon' to 'Quinn' suggests Hastings' path to choosing the name may have involved some unresolved fury at the bastards who fired him*, but that's probably not going to be the official origin story.

Overlapping with other firms is a theme of Quillon Law. Its COO, James Hacking, is somehow also the COO of another law firm, Mantle Law. Potential clients should be reassured, however, that changing one's tie and pocket square precludes any possibility of a conflict of interest.


hack mantle

COOCOO.


Quillon Law did not respond to a request for comment. 

*Not our words, the words of an imaginary Mark Hastings**

**imaginary.

Tags
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 15 October 21 07:44

Good to see people who went through something like this making a fresh start. Good luck to him.

2+2=5 15 October 21 08:53

think RoF clutching at straws here. kinda suggests this is all the work of one man with a beef against former employer. what about the other heavyweight co-founders with zip all to do with Quinn? what possible axe would they have to grind through the launch/naming etc?

Anon 15 October 21 09:56

Surely Mark will look to the excellent Quinn associates he worked with to help fill the associate ranks of this new firm?  

 

Godspeed 15 October 21 10:47

Mark did well to get out of that rat hole of a firm. I wish him all the best with his new venture. 

Sissy Fuss 15 October 21 10:53

As someone who counts James Hacking as a friend, I'm a bit pissed at RoF for needlessly dragging him into what was already a pretty thin and sneery piece.  I don't know anything about the former Quinn dude, or if he actually deserves RoF's mini-vendetta, but I do know that my mate doesn't deserve to be offered up as part of it, just to pad out RoF's vindictiveness.

Cheap and nasty, RoF.

Also, have you never heard of people fulfilling more than one role at a time?

1/10 - could do a lot better.

Luce Lives 15 October 21 11:10

Sissy (or anyone), being COO of two law firms at the same time isn’t normal, is it?

Anyway, it looks like Rof asked Quillon to comment and they wouldn’t. 

🤷‍♀️

Sissy Fuss 15 October 21 11:24

Luce - his company's business model involves providing back office services to law firms without them having to take on permanent head-count.  (He would probably explain it far better than that - I'm probably doing him a disservice.)  Clearly it wouldn't work if the client firms were enormo-firms, but then those aren't the sorts of firms who'd normally look at that kind of model.

But all that's besides the point - my main beef is that there was simply no need to bring my mate into RoF's little b1tching session - it's irrelevant to the story (which was already pretty thin) and smacks of petty nastiness.

Question Man 15 October 21 11:30

@10:43 - are you able to provide documentary evidence that proves that the woman in question was the maternal relation of 10:17?

Can we really be sure that it was not her identical twin, from whom she was separated at birth and who was cast out into a life of poverty gradually working her way up to the position of assistant scullery maid at Quinn Emmanuel, that was being done on that instance?

Or that this wasn't a sting operation set up by Feminist insurgents in the pay of the papacy?

Proof please.

Question Woman 15 October 21 11:58

@11.30 - well done, you're finally recognising the importance of evidence and asking questions. We'll make a broad minded individual of you by the time you qualify.

Now for the questions you meant to ask:

What was the 'inappropriate behaviour' he was accused of?

What evidence was there to support the allegations?

Why did the SRA take no action if he did anything (remember, this was at the height of #Metoo hysteria)?

What does @9.46 think he did in his old job that he should behave better in this one?

Why don't you ask the question above among your list of questions?

You correctly mention proof, please. And without proof he looks like just another victim of misandry.

 

Anonymous 15 October 21 12:51

I’ve heard of dispersed law firms but this seems to be dispersed law firm management. Not particularly unusual in other sectors though.

City 15 October 21 13:14

There does not seem to be any information online about the nature of the findings made by Alison Levitt QC in her report on Mr Hastings’ conduct. But since he was immediately sacked when the report was released, is evidence that his behaviour, as found by the report, was sufficiently bad to warrant that sanction.

Anonymous 15 October 21 13:37

Isn't it bizarre the way disgraced individuals want to put their point in the comment? It just makes everyone who sees the headline say "ooo...50 comments, wonder what's going on there." The "Streisand effect"....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Anonymous 15 October 21 13:46

@City - by your own logic, the decision of the SRA to take no action is evidence that his behaviour was not inappropriate at all.

Anonymous 15 October 21 14:12

@13.37 - what disgraced individuals do you think are commenting?

And there haven't been 50 comments. Unfortunately exaggerated or false accusations are part and parcel of accusations of 'inappropriate behaviour'.

Question Man 15 October 21 14:52

@14:12 - do you have proof that you are not a disgraced individual commenting upon an anonymous gossip thread upon the internet?

Can we really be sure that you are not Ryan Beckwith?

Or, at the very least, a computer program designed to simulate the behaviour of Ryan Beckwith, thereby enabling the Chinese Government to assail message boards across the world with an army of Beckwith clone accounts, ending all civilised discourse as we know it at a point in time perfectly chosen to coincide with the commencement of Milan Fashion Week?

I demand proof!

City 15 October 21 14:52

Anonymous 15 October 21 13:46: no, because the SRA has discretion not to impose a sanction if someone has already been punished following a previous enquiry. They probably decided that his sacking in the teeth of findings made by Alison Levitt QC was sufficient sanction.

Question Woman 15 October 21 15:22

@14.52 - well done, you're finally recognising the importance of evidence and asking questions. We'll make a broad minded individual of you by the time you qualify. Next lesson is on innocent until proven guilty, and that it doesn't matter who I am or who you are, but whether accusations are correct.

What are your reasons and evidrnce for asserting that I are Ryan Beckwith or, at the very least, a computer program designed to simulate the behaviour of Ryan Beckwith, thereby enabling the Chinese Government to assail message boards across the world with an army of Beckwith clone accounts, ending all civilised discourse as we know it at a point in time perfectly chosen to coincide with the commencement of Milan Fashion Week?

Now for the questions you meant to ask:

What was the 'inappropriate behaviour' he was accused of?

What evidence was there to support the allegations?

Why did the SRA take no action if he did anything (remember, this was at the height of #Metoo hysteria)?

What does @9.46 think he did in his old job that he should behave better in this one?

Why don't you ask the question above among your list of questions?

You correctly mention proof, please. And without proof he looks like just another victim of misandry.

Anonymous 15 October 21 15:53

@City 14.52 - but the SRA didn't say that he had already been punished enough, they took no action at all. The only conclusion can be that they don't think he did anything. What were the findings of Aluson Levitt QC which you blame your presumption of guilt on?

City 16 October 21 08:11

Anonymous 15 October 21 15:53: but one of the inferences to draw was that the SRA thought he had been sufficiently punished, given that they have a power to take no action in such circumstances. There does not seem to be any information online about the nature of the findings made by Alison Levitt QC in her report on Mr Hastings’ conduct. But since he was immediately sacked when the report was released, is evidence that his behaviour, as found by the report, was sufficiently bad to warrant that sanction.

Anon 16 October 21 08:41

Anonymous 15 October 21 07:44: yes, it is to be hoped that Mr Hastings’ victims have been able to get on with their lives. 

Anonymous 17 October 21 07:51

@City @ 15th @ 15.53 - but the SRA didn't say they thought he'd been sufficiently punished, rather they investigated the claims and decided to take no action. By your logic, that must mean that he was innocent of any 'inappropriate behaviour'. As you say, we don't know what the findings of Alison Levitt QC were. It would therefore be remiss of us to consider them to be evidence of anything.

Anonymous 17 October 21 08:31

16th @ 8.13 - there are many commenters stating the fact that Hastings is innocent and its going well for all of them. That's because he is innocent and has a new firm.

This is not going well for the commenter implying Hastings is guilty. They can't even say what they think he's guilty of and are having to resort to post under multiple aliases.

Anonymous 17 October 21 08:40

16th @ 8.41- what victims of Hastings? There are none referred to on the article.

Yes, it is good to see Hastings being able to get on with his life.

Observer 17 October 21 10:03

City 16 October 21 08:11; Anon 16 October 21 08:13; Anon 16 October 21 08:41: spot on.

Anon 17 October 21 10:38

If Hastings had been found by the Levitt enquiry not to have engaged in misconduct, he would not have been fired.

Anonymous 17 October 21 12:26

This is not going well for the commenter making false allegations about Hastings.

Anonymous 19 October 21 12:08

@Observer - City 16 October 21 08:11; Anon 16 October 21 08:13; Anon 16 October 21 08:41: are one and the same. They are spot on because by their own logic Hastings is innocent of any 'inappropriate behaviour'.

Anonymous 19 October 21 12:09

@10.38 - if Hastings had engaged in misconduct the SRA would have taken action against him. They didn't so he didn't.

Anon 19 October 21 15:26

Anonymous 17 October 21 12:26: Hi Mark. You wouldn’t have been fired if the QC had found that you had not engaged in misconduct.

Anonymous 20 October 21 10:29

@15.26 - always a mistake to think anyone who disagrees with you must be your target. Makes your argument look undeveloped.

We don't know if the QC found. We do know that the SRA looked at the matter and took no action. If he had engaged in misconduct they would have. They didn't so he didn't.

Anon 20 October 21 11:03

Anonymous 20 October 21 10:23: Anonymous 19 October 21 12:08 is wrong and City 19 October 21 15:24 is correct.

 

Anon 20 October 21 11:05

Anonymous 20 October 21 10:29: Hello again, Mark. As you well know, you wouldn’t have been fired if the QC had found that you had not engaged in misconduct.

Anon 20 October 21 11:41

As lawyers, we draw inferences all the time from the evidence. It is a rational inference to draw that, had the enquiry into his conduct not found any wrongdoing, he would not have been fired.

 

William the Conqueror 20 October 21 12:11

This continues to go well for the many commenters pointing out that Hastings was falsely accused and has nothing to apologise for.

This is not going well for the commenter implying Hastings is guilty. They can't even say what they think he's guilty of and are having to resort to post under multiple aliases.

Anonymous 20 October 21 12:12

@11.03 - Anonymous 20 October 21 10:23: Anonymous 19 October 21 12:08 is correct and City 19 October 21 15:24 is wrong.

 

Anonymous 20 October 21 12:13

@15.26/11.05 - still a mistake to think anyone who disagrees with you must be your target. Makes your argument look undeveloped.

We don't know what the QC found. We do know that the SRA looked at the matter and took no action. If he had engaged in misconduct they would have. They didn't so he didn't.

Harold 20 October 21 12:29

William the Conqueror 20 October 21 12:11; Anonymous 20 October 21 12:12; Anonymous 20 October 21 12:13: so in other words, you agree that the evidence points to misconduct on Mr Hastings’s part and that those commenting here to the contrary are losing the argument.

Anonymous 20 October 21 13:20

@11.41 - no inferences can be drawn from the QC's enquiry as we don't know what its findings were. It is not evidence.

What we do know is that the SRA investigated and found that no action was necessary. It is evidence.

If he had engaged in misconduct the SRA would have taken action. They didn't so he didn't.

Odo of Bayeux 20 October 21 13:25

Harold @ 12.29 - so in other words, you agree that the evidence points to no misconduct on Mr Hastings’s part and that the person commenting here to the contrary under multiple names and multiple upvoting their own comments has lost the argument.

In the same way that Harold lost the battle of Hastings. Bit of an own goal there.

Anon 20 October 21 16:15

Anonymous 20 October 21 13:20: we do not know the findings but we are drawing an inference as to what those findings were. The inference is that the QC made findings of misconduct sufficient to warrant a sacking. Otherwise, he would not have been sacked. It is notable that Mr Hastings did not challenge his sacking in the Employment Tribunal.

Remember that the SRA has no jurisdiction to interfere with findings made by the QC. All the SRA was considering was whether, in light of those findings, Mr Hastings should be subject to sanction by his regulator.

So the preponderance of evidence is that Mr Hastings engaged in conduct serious enough to merit summary dismissal, but that conduct did not amount to professional misconduct.

Anon 20 October 21 16:21

Odo of Bayeux 20 October 21 13:25: so in other words, you agree that the evidence points to misconduct on Mr Hastings’s part and that the multiple people commenting and voting here to that effect have won the argument.

Harold lost the battle of Hastings, just like you have lost this argument. Bit of an own goal there.

Anon 20 October 21 17:11

Odo of Bayeux 20 October 21 13:25: there is no evidence that a single person is downvoting multiple times. You are just stomping your feet because you are losing the argument.

Anonymous 20 October 21 19:49

@16.15 - as you don't know the findings you are unable to draw an inference as to what they were. You can't infer that the QC found misconduct as you don't know what she found. Notably the QC hasn't said she found misconduct. Notably the complainants didn't sign NDAs but have never spoken about the allegations. Notably we don't know whether or not Hastings went to an employment tribunal and/or reached a settlement.

The SRA considered thd accusations and decided they were without merit. If Hastings had behaved inappropriately they would have taken action. They didnt so he didn't.

So the preponderance of evidence is that Mr Hastings did not engage in conduct serious enough to merit summary dismissal, because if he had that conduct would have amounted to professional misconduct.

Anonymous 20 October 21 19:51

Harold @ 16.21 - so in other words, you agree that the evidence points to there being no misconduct on Mr Hastings’s part and that the multiple people commenting and voting here to that effect have won the argument.

Harold lost the battle of Hastings, just like you have lost this argument. Bit of an own goal there. That's why you're not calling yourself Harold anymore.

Anonymous 20 October 21 19:55

@17.11 - the evidence of a single person downvoting multiple times is you downvoting multiple times. Each of your multiple downvotes is a stamp of your feet and an acknowledgement that you have lost the argument. Please keep downvoting (stamping) if you agree.

Harold 21 October 21 05:44

Anonymous 20 October 21 19:49; Anonymous 20 October 21 19:51; Anonymous 20 October 21 19:53; Anonymous 20 October 21 19:55: so in other words, you agree that: (i) the only rational inference to draw is that the QC found sufficient misconduct on Mr Hastings's part to warrant his sacking; (ii) the SRA's decision merely indicates that Mr Hastings's behaviour did not amount to professional misconduct; (iii) there is no evidence that one person is downvoting multiple times; (iv) like Harold, you are on the losing side; and (v) this debate is going badly for the person suggesting to the contrary of (i) to (iv) above.

Anon 21 October 21 05:48

Always a mistake to think anyone who disagrees with you must be one person downvoting multiple times. Makes your argument look undeveloped.

Anon 21 October 21 08:24

Anonymous 20 October 21 19:55: "the evidence of a single person downvoting multiple times is you downvoting multiple times" - thank you for agreeing that you have no evidence that one person is downvoting multiple times.

 

Lord Lester 21 October 21 08:50

Blimey.

Just imagine what it must be like having internet rando's endlessly arguing about you like this.

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:08

@Harold 5.44am - so in other words, you agree that: (i) the only rational inference to draw is that we don't know what the QC found; (ii) the SRA's decision means Hastings was innocent of any 'inappropriate behaviour' as they would have taken action if he did anything. They didn't so he didn't; (iii) there is evidence that you have been downvoting multiple times; (iv) like Harold, you are on the losing side; and (v) this debate is going badly for the person suggesting to the contrary of (i) to (iv) above.

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:10

@5.48am - but there is one person downvoting multiple times. Nobody is denying it.

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:11

@8.24 - thank you for agreeing that you have been downvoting multiple times.

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:11

@8.50 - one person brought him up and was put in their box. That's not an argument.

Sad 21 October 21 10:15

Lord Lester 21 October 21 08:50

 

Yes, it is rather sad. The tit for tat is grim. But the guy contending that Hastings must have been fired because the Silk found misconduct justifying a sacking, is obviously right.

 

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:43

@Sad - its awful sad, they were put back in their box and can't accept it. Everyone can see it.

But clearly since we don't know what the QC found (and whether they still stand by those findings), we can't say if it justified the sacking or not.

What we can say is that the people saying Hastings is innocent of 'inappropriate behaviour' because the SRA investigated and took no action are obviously right.

Anon 21 October 21 11:10

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:08: so in other words, you agree that: (i) the only rational inference to draw is that the QC found sufficient misconduct on Mr Hastings's part to warrant his sacking; (ii) the SRA's decision merely indicates that Mr Hastings's behaviour did not amount to professional misconduct; (iii) there is no evidence that one person is downvoting multiple times; (iv) like Harold, you are on the losing side; and (v) this debate is going badly for the person suggesting to the contrary of (i) to (iv) above.

Anon 21 October 21 11:12

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:10: so in other words, you agree there is no evidence that one person is downvoting multiple times.

Anon 21 October 21 11:13

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:11: thank you for agreeing there is no evidence of multiple downvoting by a single person.

Anon 21 October 21 11:27

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:11: yes, Lord Lester QC was found, further to a fair process, to have harassed a woman and abused his position, and nothing said by the BSB alters that.

City 21 October 21 11:35

Sad 21 October 21 10:15: agreed. The Silk obviously made findings of misconduct against Mr Hastings.

Anon 21 October 21 11:52

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:43: what is sad is that you cannot accept that you are wrong about Lord Lester QC. Remember that Lord Lester was found, following a fair process, to have harassed someone and abused his position and that nothing said by the BSB alters that.

And it is also sad that you cannot accept the obvious inference that Mr Hastings was found by the QC to have committed misconduct sufficent to warrant being sacked. Remember that the QC's remit was to find whether or not misconduct had happened. The findings are delivered. Mr Hastings was fired.

Anon 21 October 21 11:54

Anonymous 21 October 21 10:43: yes, there is no evidence that anyone is downvoting on multiple occasions. You are just stomping your feet because the overwhelming number of people reading these comments disagree with you.

Question Man 21 October 21 12:47

What evidence do you have that there have been multiple downvotes? 

Have you obtained independent certification that verifies that you are holding your internet enabled device the right way up? Can you be certain that they are not upvotes which you are looking at upside down?

Do we really know that there have been multiple such votes?

What evidence allows us to disprove the theory that the original votesperson just pressed the vote button really hard? Perhaps with the aid of a pneumatic exoskeleton which imbued them with the strength of a hundred men?

You have no proof and I have won the Internet again.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:00

@11.27 - what evidence do you have that the word of the BSB does not alter anything?

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:27

Just to get a concise summary here, is it correct for me to understand from all of this that the SRA cleared Mark Hastings of all wrongdoing?

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:35

@11.19 -  in other words, you agree that: (i) the only rational inference to draw is that we don't know what the QC found; (ii) the SRA's decision means Hastings was innocent of any 'inappropriate behaviour' as they would have taken action if he did anything. They didn't so he didn't; (iii) there is evidence that you have been downvoting multiple times; (iv) like Harold, you are on the losing side; and (v) this debate is going badly for the person suggesting to the contrary of (i) to (iv) above.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:36

@11.10 - so in other words, you agree that: (i) the only rational inference to draw is that we don't know what the QC found; (ii) the SRA's decision means Hastings was innocent of any 'inappropriate behaviour' as they would have taken action if he did anything. They didn't so he didn't; (iii) there is evidence that you have been downvoting multiple times; (iv) like Harold, you are on the losing side; and (v) this debate is going badly for the person suggesting to the contrary of (i) to (iv) above.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:37

@11.13 - thank you for agreeing there is no evidence of multiple downvoting by a single person.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:38

@11.27 - no he wasn't because the process was voted to be unfair. As you say, he was cleared by the BSB.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:39

@City @ 11.34 - no, we don't know what the QC found. But we know Hastings is innocent of any 'inappropriate behaviour'.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:42

@11.52 - what is sad is that you cannot accept that you are wrong about Lord Lester QC. Remember that Lord Lester was not found, following a fair process, to have harassed anyone and abused his position and was cleared by the BSB.

And it is also sad that you cannot accept there is no obvious inference that Mr Hastings was found by the QC to have committed misconduct sufficent to warrant being sacked. Because if had committed misconduct the SRA would have taken action.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:49

@11.54 - yes, there is evidence that anyone is downvoting on multiple occasions. You are just stomping your feet because the overwhelming number of people reading these comments disagree with you. Thanks for the continued stomping though.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:49

@11.13 - thank you for agreeing there is  evidence of multiple downvoting by a single person.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:50

I completely agree with William the Conqueror, as do all other commenters.

Anonymous 21 October 21 13:52

@11.54 - no, you have no evidence that I have feet, or that I am capable of independently mobilising my legs.

Question Woman 21 October 21 13:59

@12.47 -  well done, you're finally recognising the importance of evidence and asking questions. We'll make a broad minded individual of you by the time you qualify. Next lesson is on innocent until proven guilty, and that it doesn't matter who I am or who you are, but whether accusations are correct.

The evidence of the multiple downvotes is the multiole downvotes?

What is your evidence that I am not holding my internet enabled device the right way up? Or that I am not certain they are not upvotes which you are looking at upside down?

We know that there have been multiple such votes because we have seen them.

Pushing the vote button really hard doesn't generate multiple votes. What is your evidence that you are wearing a pneumatic exoskeleton which imbues youwith the strength of a hundred men?

What is your evidence that I have no proof and you have won the Internet again, or ever. But at least you admit you are the same person posting multiple times.

Now for the questions you meant to ask:

What was the 'inappropriate behaviour' he was accused of?

What evidence was there to support the allegations?

Why did the SRA take no action if he did anything (remember, this was at the height of #Metoo hysteria)?

What does @9.46 think he did in his old job that he should behave better in this one?

Why don't you ask the question above among your list of questions?

You correctly mention proof, please. And without proof he looks like just another victim of misandry.

Anonymous 21 October 21 14:03

@11.54 - as 13.01 and 13.52 pointed out, you have no evidence that anyone has feet. In the same way that you have no evidence that any of your accusations of inappropriate behaviour actually happened.

Amused onlooker 21 October 21 14:56

So to sum up the views of the commentators:

(i) Mr Hastings was found to have committed misconduct;

(ii) Lord Lester QC was found, following a fair process in the House of Lords, to have harassed a woman and abused his position, and was not subsequently acquitted by the BSB, which had no power to interfere with the findings of the Lords, but which (notwithstanding those findings) gave him clearance to practise; and

(iii) There is no evidence that a single person is downvoting multiple times, and the voting shows that the vast majority agree with this point and points (i) and (ii) above.

Anonymous 21 October 21 18:06

@Amused downvoter @ 14.56 - yes,

(i) Mr Hastings was found not to have committed misconduct;

(ii) Lord Lester QC was not found by the House of Lords to have harassed a woman and abused his position, and was subsequently cleared by the BSB; and

(iii) There is evidence that a single person is downvoting multiple times and stamping their feet, and everyone agrees with this point and points (i) and (ii) above, especially the stampy downvoter.

Anonymous 21 October 21 19:47

@12.56 - you have no proof that I have no friends, or that I am wasting my life posting obsessively on RoF comment threads, or that I have feet in the sense commonly understood by doctors rather than unsightly noodle-like appendages incapable of bearing my own weight.

Related News

Law Firm Satisfaction Survey

If you work in private practice, please take RollOnFriday's quick survey measuring how happy you are with your firm. We use the results to rank firms and write stories and reports.

Your firm*
Your role*
Your sex
How satisfied are you with your pay?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's management?*
How satisfied are you with your career development?*
How satisfied are you with your work/life balance?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's culture?*