OT: Lawyers and Law School Grads, Regrets?

[SectionC3]

As a recent UB Law grad, I thought I'd offer a few general observations on this thread:

 

1. Before I start, a little background: Graduated from a SUNY College in Western/Central New York with a bachelor of arts I'd prefer not to mention in the interest of maintaining anonymity and secondary education certification. Went straight from undergrad to UB Law; earned law review membership and moot court, worked 15-20 hours per week during the semester and graduated with honors. After graduation, turned down an offer to work at a wonderful firm in the Buffalo area, accepted a position outside of Western New York where I'm not responsible for billable hours and intend to return to Buffalo in the next year or so.

 

2. To those considering law school, i.e. Johnny B. and the "Ivy" daughter, I have a couple of suggestions:

 

a. DON'T take a Princeton, Kaplan or other LSAT course. It's a waste. I bought the ARCO book by Thomas Martinson, spent 3 hours a night with it for about 6 weeks, and scored in the 90-95% percentile range on the LSAT. You're better served by buying a book like that for $20 and working the practice problems until you get every single one right. Thereafter, I taught an LSAT course for a company I wish not to name. I wouldn't take a course like that, and here's why: the actual classroom sessions are poorly planned and essentially parrot the material contained in the texts distributed to the students. More importantly, though, what the places with the larger class sizes don't tell you is that students who don't have a prayer of getting into law school are grouped into the same class as those who are there to try to boost the 159 to a 164. I had a group where a few of the students scored a 120 (rock bottom) on the preliminary test, while other students were over 155 (generally good enough to get into a Tier II law school). My problem, then, was to try to figure out whether to help the lower end of the class score well enough to get into law school, or help the higher-end folks boost their scores and get into a Tier I or Tier II school. Those responsible for supervising classroom instruction offered no advice in this regard. Thus, if you're moderately intelligent and willing to work, a $20 book with three or four practice tests and a "can-do" attitude should be enough to get you where you need to go on the LSAT.

 

b. Have a plan when you go to law school and be willing to work. I’m not even sure where to start with this . . . . I guess this is directed more toward the “Ivy” daughter. UB Law is a wonderful place and a great school. If you work hard during the first year, make “A’s,” get on law review and present yourself well during August recruiting following your first year, it is well within the realm of possibility to get a job paying close to six figures (though not in Buffalo). If you don’t do as well academically during your first year and therefore don’t get a job in summer recruiting, you’ll have to compete in Moot Court, boost your grades, and give it a shot again next time around. On the other hand, law review and moot court membership doesn’t necessarily guarantee anything either. I know a few law review colleagues who were still looking for jobs six months after graduation, while others accepted positions in medium-sized firms from Buffalo to Albany and all places in between with average starting salaries of between $37,000 and $54,000 and billable hourly requirements of about 1800 hours a year. The money may sound somewhat pedestrian, but consider this: those who take the six-figure jobs in New York City, Boston, D.C. etc. have hourly requirements in the 2000 to 2200 range. What that means is they’d better learn to enjoy spending nights and weekends in the office. Moreover, from what I hear from those I know in the “fancier” jobs, just about all of the big paycheck is spent every week, whether it be on rent (Manhattan is expensive), loan payments due on the 15th of the month, or, as comes with the "big firm" job, the obligation to “accessorize” – i.e. the women have to have the expensive handbags, and the men need something other than suits purchased at a store in the Galleria Mall. The lesson is, I guess, that everything comes with a price, and while it’s easy to go to a big city and make the big bucks, bear in mind that whoever is paying you is probably getting a heck of a lot more out of you than you’re getting out of them.

 

c. Academic environment at UB v. a “Top 14” school: Again, UB is a great school and one can start a great career there. This is a close call, but if the goal is to make money quickly and live in a big city (and spend some serious time in the office), the higher-ranked school is the way to go. That said, if the “Ivy” daughter doesn’t ace the LSATs and ends up at UB, she should be wary of establishing a mindset that the Ivy pedigree will make UB a breeze. I dealt with a number of Ivy and Ivy League “flunky school” grads (sorry, Colgate), and while some were extremely nice (two of my best friends in law school are from Cornell and another outstanding private school in the North Country), for the most part I found that there were more than a few who liked to hear themselves talk and had a hard time squeezing their egos through the door. I happen to be the first to finish college on my father’s side of the family, worked throughout high school, college and law school, and am not in the business of taking any crap from people like that. Needless to say, many “Ivy” classmates provided wonderful motivation. Any time I felt like closing the books a little early on the weekend or leaving the library before midnight, a casual reminder of a particularly pompous classmate would cure that thought very quickly. In the end, things worked out pretty well for me, and to a certain extent, I have my interaction with some of my more “privileged” classmates to thank.

 

d. “I don’t want to be suing everyone all the time”: This is a misconception. What people don’t realize is that, for the most part, it takes two lawyers to conduct a trial. So, while a “trial lawyer” may be responsible for suing someone, it takes a “trial lawyer” to defend the suit. Some of the ill-informed folks here may not like “trial lawyers” per se, and to some extent they may have a point. However, I doubt you’ll hear too many complaints if you choose to practice insurance defense and therefore defend the father who gets sued because his kid got into a car accident with the father's car. In any event though, the “trial lawyer” complaints expressed in previous threads are for the most part ill-informed. Anyone who bothers to “google” the afore-discussed McDonald’s coffee case will realize a couple of important things: (1) the coffee was served at 190 degrees – approximately 40-50 degrees hotter than industry standards, and therefore in clear breach of McDonalds's duty to serve coffee that wouldn't melt human skin in 2-7 seconds; and (2) the punitive damages award was reduced by the court to a figure in the neighborhood of $400,000 before a confidential settlement was reached. That may seem like a lot of money, put the nature of damages, at least in that regard, were punitive, which means they were supposed to punish and deter future similar conduct. There, the damages as reduced by the court amounted to just a few hours of coffee sales at McDonalds restaurants. All of the proponents of tort reform should think very carefully about this before spouting off with ill-informed opinions. Such deterrence encourages responsibility. I doubt those proponents of tort reform on this board would be willing to strap their kids into a Ford Pinto, throw some Firestones on the car, and hit Niagara Falls Boulevard or the 290 during rush hour. In any event, my opinions on “trial lawyers” aside, most lawyers don’t conduct trials and are instead engaged in paperwork or motion practice. This would be a silly reason to forego law school.

 

e. What to expect as a young lawyer: Without revealing where I work or my salary, I will say that life after law school can be grueling. I work anywhere between 60-80 hours a week and come home so tired at night that I can barely string two coherent words together in conversation or on paper (as if you haven’t figured that out already by reading the above). That said, I love my job and am very happy with my decision to attend law school. I note, however, that if things don’t work out financially in the next 10 years or so, I will have no problem leaving a job paying less than 1.5 times the average teachers’ salary per year to make use of my teaching certification, enjoy the summers and accrue outstanding retirement benefits.

 

 

3. A brief comment on the Medical Malpractice discussion: I think it’s interesting that people generally choose to attack lawyers on this issue. If ever there exists a profession where a certain standard or care and prudence is required, medicine is it. Most people don’t realize that in order to pursue a medical malpractice action in New York State, a plaintiff invariably needs the friendly testimony of a medical doctor to merely survive summary judgment. In other words, if a doctor doesn’t say another doctor screwed up, it’s tough to maintain action against the doctor that screwed up. In any event, and I say this in the most conciliatory manner possible, I’d be interested to see the statistics regarding recovery caps and insurance premiums. The big assumption in that argument, I suspect, is that insurance companies would be willing to lower premiums in conjunction with a ceiling on potential malpractice recovery

[blzrul]

Apologies for those who hate off-topic posts. So I graduated from college last year and after hesitating last spring, I am thinking I may go through with law school this fall. I know there are a few people here who have gone to law school have been to law school and some who are now lawyers. If there are any folks who took a non-traditional career after law school I would be interested in hearing about them too.

 

Basically, I am curious about advice about knowing whether law school is the right thing to do and advice about the field in general. Also any advice about the law school experience itself.

 

Anyway, looking forward to hearing from some of you folks.

 

Thanks.

175535[/snapback]

There's plenty of work you can do without suing people. You could defend people if that's your bent.

 

My sister is an attorney. She started out working for a firm that represented school districts, so she had all sorts of fun defending the schools from suits of all sorts, from the mundane to the ridiculous. She enjoyed it but she didn't like the firm, so she left. Her next position was with the state legislature where she wrote legislation - it's really a craft.

 

She's taking some time off to raise kids but plans to return and do mediation.

 

I work with several people who have law degrees but don't practice any more - for whatever reason. One's in sales, one's in marketing, another one is a technical type person. It is nice to have a "craft", which is really what's cool about being a doctor or lawyer.

 

An education never hurt anyone - just be sure you understand your motives and if your gut reaction is "I'm not sure I see myself doing that but I could make a ton of money" then maybe it's not for you.

[BuffaloBob]

Bob, your bullsht flows so naturally from your mouth that I'm sure you would make a great ambulance chaser and would make an even better politician. You are the first person I've ever heard hold up the McDonalds coffee case as an example of good law practice. Bravo.

177029[/snapback]

 

You aren't very intelligent are you? I cited the facts. If you don't see why McDonald's should have been held accountable based on the FACTS, then it is not likely you will understand much else that I write. But bravo to you for just simply labeling what I wrote as stevestojan rather than actually disputing the facts or intelligently debating the conclusions drawn from them. That would have taken some intelligent thought which I see now is not forthcoming.

 

Oh, and the personal attacks and insults are VERY effective. When unable to say anything intelligent, always simply dismiss what was said without support and throw in a few insults! Bravo to you! And by the way, many people other than me have drawn the same conlsuion from the actual facts of the case I have, and no, they are not all lawyers! But you wouldn't know that because you would rather ignore the facts and spew your ignorant hatred for some group, in this case lawyers. How very unintelligent of you.

 

You are so quick to ask everyone for stats and figures to back up statements, then just like the hyprocite lawyer you are, you make a statement like the above about c-sections. Show me reimbursement rates for c-sections Bob. Guess what? You don't get paid extra for doing a c-section. But I guess that doesn't fit into your nice lawyer argument. Just like a malpractice hack, why let the facts get into the way of a good argument to sway a jury that doesn't know better.

 

177029[/snapback]

 

Bravo to you again for at best, misunderstanding or at worst, mischaracterizing what I wrote, and then throwing out another personal insult on that basis. Very impressive! So let's see, if we look back at what I ACTUALLY wrote, we will see that I asked GMAC to back up his conclusion that the increase in the number of C-Sections is due to trial lawyers and potential lawsuits as he stated. I merely provided another possible explanation of why this trend is up to demonstrate the flimsyness of his conclusion (actually his unsupported opinion) without the benefit of actual factual support. In no way do I state as fact that the real reason for the upward trend is the desire to increase revenue by billing for an unnecessary procedure. It is simply but one example demonstrating the obvious reason why he should provide a source of fact to support his position. Otherwise it will remain an unsupported opinion and as such remain entitled to little or no value.

 

Want some stats Bob? Here's one, every medical student is taught how to practice defensive medicine from day one. That's not for the betterment of patients, thats just to protect ourselves from scum ball hacks looking to make a buck on our backs. But that has nothing to do with the tort system in this country right? That's not the lawyers' fault, thats the fault of the medical schools.

177029[/snapback]

 

OK, yes I would like some stats, but funny, I don't see any! All I see is you blowing smoke about something of which I am sure you have absolutely ZERO personal experience! Unless of course you've been to medical school recently. All I see is you repeating something you probably heard on Rush Limbaugh. Oh well wait, then in that case it must be true! No cites needed to back that up!

 

I would love to see some facts regarding this defensive medicine, particularly the part about it not benefitting patients or improving medical care. Until you cite specific procedures and/or practices which are taught in medical school and then demonstrate how they are not helpful or beneficial to patients, you are simply blowing smoke, nothing more. Oh wait, you heard it somewhere so it MUST be true!

Here's another stat Bob. Every state that has caps on non-economic damages and contingency fees for ambulance chasers has lower malpractice premiums across specialitys but more importantly, the rate of increase in premiums over the past decade is less than half that of those states without caps. 

 

I guess thats just the insurance industry pulling the wool over our eyes right?

 

Don't let the facts get in the way of the garbage you spew, Bob. That would be unlawyerly.

177029[/snapback]

 

OK, another stat? I still haven't seen the first stat, but please by all means, provide us a cite to this data from an objective source that proves this assertion. Until you do, you are doing the very thing of which you accuse me: That is, spewing garbage!

 

You are too funny dude! You are precisely the kind of guy big business and the insurance industry loves. A guy who'll believe anything he hears, and then passes it along as fact to the other sheep who will believe it without any proof or even a mere citation to the FACTS! And yet you would be the first guy in line to sue a doctor or hospital if you, or one of your loved ones was harmed by a doctor not exercising ordinary care or a hospital cutting corners to increase its profits!

 

Oh, and BTW, how is such a lawsuit the fault of an attorney? You see, the lawyer dos not initiate such a lawsuit, it's the person who HIRES the lawyer who does. Here's an anology you just mind understand, even with your limited capacity:

 

Guns don't kill people, they have to actually be employed by people to do so. The gun does not have to be used for bad purposes. In fact, guns can't even advise people not to use them for bad, as (believe it or not) lawyers quite often do. Now I KNOW you wouldn't blame guns for the illegal deaths and injuries and other crimes they may be used to perpetrate. I know you wouldn't advocate getting rid of guns! That would be highly un-rightwing conservative of you!

[BuffaloBob]

What about your facts Bobs, as RTB pointed out, you haven't brought one out yet. Are you just believing everything the trial lawyers tell you?

First of all, I can't believe you haven't casually heard on the news or in the paper at any point that c-sections are becoming increasingly popular. But since you need them,  here are a few facts for you:

 

In 1970, C-sections represented 5 percent of all deliveries but, by 2002, had surged to 26 percent of all deliveries.

 

Much of it is due to the fact that docs are paranoid about being sued for malpractice - specifically if the child ends up with CP they will be blamed, so at the slightest hint of potential trouble they go for the c-section.

 

177131[/snapback]

 

First of all, just because something is said casually on TV or in the news does not mean that it is accurate, particulary when such facts are coming from a source that is trying to sway opinion. Lot's of ways to present data to make it serve the purposes of the presenter, as is evidenced every day on this board when people cite only those stats that can support a conclusion they wish to draw and which they want others to draw as well.

 

That is why these stats you cite now are meaningless unless you provide a cite so that it can be verified that they are actually accurate as well as objective and not intentionally or even unintentiionally skewed, leading others to draw incorrect conclusions.

 

Moreover, you then draw the conclusion that the primary reason for this upward trend is paranioa among doctors that they might be sued. Based on what? Not only does this conclusion completely ignore other explanations for the increase in the procedure, but other possibly critical stats are missing, such as the effect on infant and mother mortality in view of the increased use of this procedure. Indeed, if the infant mortality and that of the birth mother have coincidentally gone down, perhaps the use of this procedure has actually benefitted, even if some doctors do it out of paranoia in cases which do not indicate its necessity.

The ACOG says that 76% of their members have been sued. (yes, I know this is their membership only, not all)

 

and here is a nugget I found:

 

According to 2001 Jury Verdict Research data, in just a one year period (between 1999 and 2000), the median jury award increased 43 percent. Further, median jury awards for medical liability claims grew at 7 times the rate of inflation, while settlement payouts grew at nearly 3 times the rate of inflation. Even more telling, however, is that the proportion of jury awards topping $1 million increased from 34 percent in 1996 to 52 percent in 2000. More than half of all jury awards today top $1 million, and the average jury award has increased to about $3.5 million. It is clear that the increasing proportion of multimillion-dollar jury awards is driving the boom in claims costs.

the best thing you can do is talk to an obgyn, which you obviously have not done.

177131[/snapback]

Once again, whose nugget is this. Please provide me a cite. Until you do, I have no way of establishing the veracity of this data or at least to ascertain the objectivity of its source. Moreover, once again I can demonstrate other conlcusions that could be drawn from this data (even assuming it is accurate and objective) that does NOT CLEARLY lead to the conclusion you draw.

 

For example, settlement payouts could have increased because insurance companies were settling more meritorious cases rather than letting them get to a jury in the first place. In that case, of course the median settlement figure would go up because meritorious cases will warrant compensation (unlss of course you subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as a meritorious case and that hospitals should be able fall short of reasonable care in the interest of profits as long as its not you or your family that are harmed by it). Indeed, this may have actually saved them money overall from previous years because they settled them rather than let a jury be outraged by their conduct. You see, just because the medium number went up doesn't mean that thier overall payout wasn't the same or less!

 

Same with the median jury awards. If less cases get to a jury, and only the most eggregious ones are permitted to go to trial (either because the plaintiff won't settle cheap or the defnse wants to roll the dice because it may be a chance to get off scot free) then why would the median award going up be that surprising?

 

Moreover, how much of that increase is due to some really big cases having an aberrant affect on the stats, such as the cigarette awards that were huge, and deservedly so?

The problem is Bob, that if you did I'm sure you'd come back and say they were just a shill for the insurance companies.

177131[/snapback]

Nope, the problem is that you are willing to accept any stats presented to you that on their face support the conclusion you want to draw and then draw the desired conclusions. And as for talking to an OBGYN about his insurance premiums is unavailing! That is like telling me to ak the opinion of an attorney as to why his malpratice premiums are high. How the frig does he know accept for what his insurance agent tells him or the insurance industry tells him??

[BuffaloBob]

Here is a very good and objective article written by a physician who has actually a great deal of experience in patient compensation and insurance and he is a former President of the AAFP.

 

AAFP Article

 

As he rightly points out, there are many factors contributing to increasing malpractice premiums. One huge factor is the economics of the insurance industry. They exacerbated their situation when times were good by undercharging for premiums, and when the economy took a dive, they were caught with their pants down. And when they got caught with their pants down, they bailed out of the busniess altogether, only further aggravating the problem because they left fewer insurers out there writing med-mal policies.

 

Also, as he rightly points out, one of the biggest factors in the recent increase in awards and settlements (it should be pointed out here that the stats gmac cited are for med mal claims only, not all types of cases) is the rapidly increasing cost of medical care itself. (He even cited stats to indicate that defendants prevailed in 60% of cases brought and that the actual number of cases filed have gone down). The skyrocketing cost of healthcare is going to naturally increase awards because the compensation for those awards is largely the cost of continued medical care into the future for a successful plaintiff patient who has been harmed.

 

Another issue he raises which is so true: There's a whole lot of actual malpractice going on out there, much of which goes unreported (Take my friend whose experience I recounted in a post earlier in this thread) with the arrogant dumbass doctor that misdiagnosed his father and would have surely killed him had they not gotten a second opinion, and they haven't sued nor reported his error to anyone. If there are people out there fugging up through greed or carelessness, of course here are going to be lots of claims for it when it hurts somebody!

 

Then he even cites as an example the state of Nevada, where they placed caps on tort recovery for pain and suffering except in the case of outrageous acts of gross negligence and yet it had virtually no impact on premiums, as reported by physicians in the state. Oops, this does not seem to comport with RTDB's "stats" he got from Rush where all sattes passing tort reform have seen a decrease in premiums.

 

Anyway, the point is you can cite stats and use them to support the political bent of your opinions, but the problem is far more complex than: its scumbag no-good trial lawyers and stupid jurors causing this crisis. The reality is, there are a whole of hospitals cutting corners to save a buck and causing people ahrm, and there are a whole lot of doctors out there who ain't all that and probably shouldn't be practicing but because it is an unwritten rule to just cover it and shove the guy out the door, he/she is free to go elsewhere and wreak his /her havoc.

 

And as for jurors being easily incited into being irresponsible with awards (no doubt also the fault of scumbag trial lawyers if it were actually true), I can only speak from my own personal experience. I have sat on two jury trials for car accidents over the past three years. In both of them, the fault was clearly the plaintiff's all the way and was clearly the result of the plaintiff not behaving reasonably or exercising ordinary care (in fact, in both cases the defendant was issued citations for violating the traffic laws). In both cases, the plaintiff's suffered serious injuries, including compound fractures requiring multiple surgeries (a little girl), permanent deafness, serious facial scars that would never go away, etc as well as significant economic loss from huge medical bills, loss of income for being out of work, etc.

 

And yet in both cases the plaintiff's went home in lesser economic positions than they were in before they were hurt because 1) numerous people on the jury were reticent to award money, even in an amount to simply make them economically whole through compensatory damages for lost wages, damage to property and out-of-pocket medical expenses caused by the defendant's carelessness and stupidity, let alone awarding them money for the pain, suffering and disruption in their lives that these accidents wrought on them; and 2) because the defendants typically were either under-insured or not insured at all and were virtually certain not come up with even some of the money themselves.

 

I find it hard to comprehend how people cannot justify pain and suffering compensation to victims of the stupidity, greed or carelessness of other's when it is clear thay have actually suffered for it. I mean, is there anyone who thinks that a little girl who has suffered a compound fracture of the leg and has had to endure multiple surgeries and a bodycast for 6 months hasn't suffered, or for a guy whose eardrum has been busted and tympanic bones destroyed and has lost permanently the hearing in that ear? in't entitled to compensation above being made whole economically. How much would you accept as payment to have that done to you voluntarily? But to not even ensure that their past and future medical bills, lost wages, property damage etc. have not been compensated? Don't tell me juries are basically full of idiots throwing around money will-nilly. They do it when the behavior they observe is outrageous on the part of the defendant.

 

Do some people abuse the system? Always. But there are many safeguards in the process to make it enourmously difficult to get a case to the jury without some merit to the case. And whose fault is it that the system is abused? Oh yes, it's not the fault of the idiot bringing the suit, it's the lawyer's fault for taking the case. But the reality is that the factors that contribute to high premiums are manifold and abuse of the system is but only one for which there are many safeguards, including the jury system.

[Bill from NYC]

Thanks to all for your responses. My daughter will read them, and they will help her make her decision. I could not have asked for a better Christmas present from the TBD community.

May God bless you all.

 

BfNYC

[MelissaInPhilly]

Apologies for those who hate off-topic posts. So I graduated from college last year and after hesitating last spring, I am thinking I may go through with law school this fall. I know there are a few people here who have gone to law school have been to law school and some who are now lawyers. If there are any folks who took a non-traditional career after law school I would be interested in hearing about them too.

 

Basically, I am curious about advice about knowing whether law school is the right thing to do and advice about the field in general. Also any advice about the law school experience itself.

 

Anyway, looking forward to hearing from some of you folks.

 

Thanks.

175535[/snapback]

 

I am not a lawyer, but I worked for many years as a legal secretary (too many years, I might add). I can't offer insight into the pros and cons of law school, etc., but let me say that many of the attorneys I worked with were uh, um, very unpleasant people, especially at the large law firms. Many of them seemed miserable and unhappy. Perhaps this is because they were overworked. Anyway, the attorneys who work in the public sector seemed to be more content with their choices, even though they weren't making nearly as much as the big firm types.

[blzrul]

I am not a lawyer, but I worked for many years as a legal secretary (too many years, I might add).  I can't offer insight into the pros and cons of law school, etc., but let me say that many of the attorneys I worked with were uh, um, very unpleasant people, especially at the large law firms.  Many of them seemed miserable and unhappy.  Perhaps this is because they were overworked.  Anyway, the attorneys who work in the public sector seemed to be more content with their choices, even though they weren't making nearly as much as the big firm types.

184337[/snapback]

Hey Melissa, me too! I worked in the biggest firm in my city, where if you weren't "H-Y-P" (Harvard, Yale or Princeton) Law you got picked on. Oh those poor guys from Brown and Cornell.

 

I agree with your assessment - many of the guys who were fun and easy to work with were totally stressed and only there for the money. They lived for the day when they made partner and could then torture associates themselves. Many were open about their unhappiness but were trapped by student loans, families etc.

 

Those who left to practice general law or go into public sector expressed great relief at having the pressures lifted and they enjoyed the work much more.

 

I guess it's a question of values and priorities. I will say I witnessed on or two of the hardest cases have epiphanies based on life situations but they were rare.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Project/Program Management.  Mostly IT related stuff.

175685[/snapback]

 

W00t!! Another egghead!!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If I may add my two cents:

 

After being eleased from a Nazi prison camp and swapped in a prison exchange, my gradfather (who spoke very little English) went to Harvard Law. (He had a degree from a university in Poland). He worked as a dishwasher in the Harvard kitchen among other jobs to pay his way through law school.

 

When he graduated, he didn't go into a high-paying firm in the Boston area. instead, he put his degree and skills to use in assisting low-income immigrants through the system (mainly Portugese immigrants on Cape Cod).

 

Not all lawyers are greedy, arrogant, unethical scum. (ie Johnny Cochran) Some actually are good people.

[Alaska Darin]

W00t!! Another egghead!!

185243[/snapback]

Actually, manager of "eggheads" or as I like to call them "Pancakes and Fish" people. As in: They're good people but we like to keep them behind locked doors, with as little interaction with the customer as humanly possible. Give them pancakes and fish for meals because you can slide it under the door, minimizing their chances of escaping.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Actually, manager of "eggheads" or as I like to call them "Pancakes and Fish" people.  As in:  They're good people but we like to keep them behind locked doors, with as little interaction with the customer as humanly possible.  Give them pancakes and fish for meals because you can slide it under the door, minimizing their chances of escaping.

185376[/snapback]

 

Gee, thanks.

[Alaska Darin]

  Gee, thanks.

185529[/snapback]

No problem!