Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

It’s funny that you don’t realize you’re the troll.

I’m not the one insulting people as ‘not very good lawyers’ and then criticizing firms in practice areas I clearly know little about…

It’s very strange to put quotations marks around a phrase that no one has used.

Here’s the exact quote. Happy?


‘I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

firms that wrote it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

I'm not going to get into it because it's a side convo and not important, but this is again not exactly accurate. Some of these posts really sound like someone plugging these firms into ChatGPT. They are sort of right but off and include inaccuracies that anyone who works in the industry would pick up on. Please, just stop. This doesn't matter but also why are you arguing something you are obviously not educated about?

It’s XOXOhth x DCUM lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

It’s funny that you don’t realize you’re the troll.

I’m not the one insulting people as ‘not very good lawyers’ and then criticizing firms in practice areas I clearly know little about…

It’s very strange to put quotations marks around a phrase that no one has used.

Here’s the exact quote. Happy?


‘I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.’

I stand by this. No litigator evaluates a complaint without reading the counterclaim, particularly when the responding party promises to include further documentary evidence in their response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Thank you, it’s a weird upside down world in this thread.

The fact that PP never heard of Manatt just shows they never got further than being a a jr associate doing doc review at Latham 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

The crazy Blake supporter said several times that she was aware of the reputation of the lawyers that wrote the complaint, and based on that knowledge, felt her allegations should be taken as true. I”m sure you can find it if try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Of course. Harvey’s girl is a ruthless mean girl archetype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

The crazy Blake supporter said several times that she was aware of the reputation of the lawyers that wrote the complaint, and based on that knowledge, felt her allegations should be taken as true. I”m sure you can find it if try.

DP. Any law firm will take any client with money. The only time the choice of a law firm indicates more than “the client paid for it” is when it’s a pro bono or contingency case. If Blake had gone to a top plaintiff’s attorney I might feel differently, but the fact is she paid a giant retainer to one of several firms that can do the exact same thing for any plaintiff with money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Thank you, it’s a weird upside down world in this thread.

The fact that PP never heard of Manatt just shows they never got further than being a a jr associate doing doc review at Latham 😂

Obviously a different poster, but linear thinking not your strong suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

I'm not going to get into it because it's a side convo and not important, but this is again not exactly accurate. Some of these posts really sound like someone plugging these firms into ChatGPT. They are sort of right but off and include inaccuracies that anyone who works in the industry would pick up on. Please, just stop. This doesn't matter but also why are you arguing something you are obviously not educated about?

What exactly do you claim is inaccurate? Because I am a real person who worked at one of these firms and stand by all of it. I also was a partner at another top firm before leaving for a government position but spent a lot of time in California while in private practice.

Okay this is what I found inaccurate. I originally thought it was because you were a law student or someone outside the industry just kind of googling and getting half a story but now I think it might be because your familiarity with these firms is a couple decades out of date:

- Most people wouldn't consider Latham "LA-based" anymore. Latham is considered one of the global firms. Even in the US, their NY office dwarfs LA at this point. I'm pretty sure their SF/Silicon Valley presence has been bigger than LA for a while now too. I consider Manatt an LA firm. I would not describe Latham that way and don't know anyone, either at Latham or who works with them, who would describe them that way.

- Manatt is a totally different firm than it was in the 90s. That was 30 years ago. As was stated upthread, they are a really unique firm because they've invested so heavily in their non-legal consulting business. I think they are best known for their healthcare practice at this point because of that consulting presence, but I worked in entertainment law until recently and their reputation is very strong in that area now. In the last few years they've picked up some major laterals in that area in the LA and NY offices as well. I would absolutely consider them top tier for entertainment, though obviously different than a firm like Latham or O'Melveney because of size. But this isn't some huge IP dispute involving a major studio -- it's fairly small in scale even though the media exposure is large. Manatt would be on my list of top 5 firms for something like this. I don't think I'm unique in this. Their client roster of high profile clients is pretty impressive.

-- Willkie is a mid-market firm with a strong litigation department. They were likely brought on to provide manpower on this case. What you refer to as "mediocre" would be described by clients as "affordable." They have their place in the market and dont' view themselves as direct competitors with any of the other firms mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Thank you, it’s a weird upside down world in this thread.

The fact that PP never heard of Manatt just shows they never got further than being a a jr associate doing doc review at Latham 😂

Obviously a different poster, but linear thinking not your strong suit.

anyone claiming to have an informed take on law firms who doesn’t know the reputation of Manatt for IP/entertainment isn’t worth talking to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

I'm not going to get into it because it's a side convo and not important, but this is again not exactly accurate. Some of these posts really sound like someone plugging these firms into ChatGPT. They are sort of right but off and include inaccuracies that anyone who works in the industry would pick up on. Please, just stop. This doesn't matter but also why are you arguing something you are obviously not educated about?

What exactly do you claim is inaccurate? Because I am a real person who worked at one of these firms and stand by all of it. I also was a partner at another top firm before leaving for a government position but spent a lot of time in California while in private practice.

Okay this is what I found inaccurate. I originally thought it was because you were a law student or someone outside the industry just kind of googling and getting half a story but now I think it might be because your familiarity with these firms is a couple decades out of date:

- Most people wouldn't consider Latham "LA-based" anymore. Latham is considered one of the global firms. Even in the US, their NY office dwarfs LA at this point. I'm pretty sure their SF/Silicon Valley presence has been bigger than LA for a while now too. I consider Manatt an LA firm. I would not describe Latham that way and don't know anyone, either at Latham or who works with them, who would describe them that way.

- Manatt is a totally different firm than it was in the 90s. That was 30 years ago. As was stated upthread, they are a really unique firm because they've invested so heavily in their non-legal consulting business. I think they are best known for their healthcare practice at this point because of that consulting presence, but I worked in entertainment law until recently and their reputation is very strong in that area now. In the last few years they've picked up some major laterals in that area in the LA and NY offices as well. I would absolutely consider them top tier for entertainment, though obviously different than a firm like Latham or O'Melveney because of size. But this isn't some huge IP dispute involving a major studio -- it's fairly small in scale even though the media exposure is large. Manatt would be on my list of top 5 firms for something like this. I don't think I'm unique in this. Their client roster of high profile clients is pretty impressive.

-- Willkie is a mid-market firm with a strong litigation department. They were likely brought on to provide manpower on this case. What you refer to as "mediocre" would be described by clients as "affordable." They have their place in the market and dont' view themselves as direct competitors with any of the other firms mentioned.

Correct. Top firms are billing like $1000/hr for associates now! Nobody wants to pay spoiled Latham associates that much to review text messages and go to lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

It’s funny that you don’t realize you’re the troll.

I’m not the one insulting people as ‘not very good lawyers’ and then criticizing firms in practice areas I clearly know little about…

It’s very strange to put quotations marks around a phrase that no one has used.

Here’s the exact quote. Happy?


‘I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.’

I stand by this. No litigator evaluates a complaint without reading the counterclaim, particularly when the responding party promises to include further documentary evidence in their response.

So then I guess all complaints would end in default because no litigator would ever file an answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ryan is very clearly a closeted gay man and this is a sham marriage, right? He’s extremely effeminate, dandy, has a lisp, and has that perpetually deceptive and devious look in his eyes.

.

Anonymous wrote:Homophobia is a bad look.

Gay dar and so-called gay face are not homophobic, they are backed up by academic research and casually used by members of the LGBTQ+ community.