According to Above the Law, the first-year associate at Quinn Emanuel who sent the e-mails challenging the firm’s representation on the Redskins case (see previous post here), has been fired for failing the California bar for a second time.
Read the story at Above the Law here.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:03 PM – By David Lat and Elie Mystal
Yesterday, we reported on an associate at Quinn Emanuel who had strong views about the firm’s recent victory in the Pro Football v. Harjocase, in which the D.C. Circuit upheld the Washington Redskins trademark in the moniker “Redskins.” We, along with many readers, speculated about whether the first-year associate would be able to hold onto his job after yesterday’s publicity.
We are now able to report that the Quinn associate was let go from the firm yesterday — but not because of the various “reply-all” emails.
Instead, the associate was let go because he failed the California bar exam. For a second time.
(Thus, as noted in the comments, any email indiscretions by him essentially amounted to harmless error.)
The firm declined to comment about individual personnel matters, but multiple sources report that it is the standing policy of Quinn Emanuel to part ways with associates who fail the bar multiple times.
But we shouldn’t necessarily look at the emails as an attempt to go out in a “blaze of glory.” As we understand it, the associate sent the first reply-all email — the one that was not meant to “rouse some rabble or down some debbies or outcrunch some crunchies” — before he found out that he failed the bar for a second time.
As for the rest of the emails, that might be a different story. More details, and a colorful “no comment” from the associate himself, after the jump.
By Monday of this week, when the associate sent out his last and most politically charged email, we believe that he knew he hadn’t passed the bar (since CA bar exam results were made available to candidates last Friday). But the Quinn sources we spoke with couldn’t offer any insight into how any such knowledge might have affected his decision to send out a follow up, firm-wide email.
The associate didn’t offer us any additional insight either. But he doesn’t appear that broken up about everything that happened to him yesterday. While declining to comment on the specifics of his departure from the firm, he did have this — somewhat elaborate — no comment:
that’s cool that people want to know how the story ends. i’m biased, but it is a pretty good story. 🙂
but… i promised some buddies that i wouldn’t talk about it until after the redskins mascot is changed. here’s to hoping we can chitchat about it soon!
have a good one…
Who needs a job when you have a cause? Maybe attorneys representing the Washington Redskins will one day be sitting across the table from this guy?
We wish him the best of luck.
After lawyer has public meltdown, is he entitled to privacy? [True / Slant]