Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

Not to be pedantic but do we know Goverski is an equity partner? Wilkie has a sizable non-equity class, I think nearly as large as their equity headcount. Some firms treat non-equity partners more like counsel or of counsel now.

Honestly, it’s irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

At some firms people never make equity partner. You can wind up a permanent of counsel or non-equity partner. The non-equity designation changes the dynamics of the partnership pipeline. I think you might not be familiar with the variety of ways that big firms are handling this, especially as industry consolidation is pushing overall headcounts up and a lot of firms are dealing with a large class of older equity partners who have no interest in retiring.

Yeah yeah all of this is off topic, but comments like "omg where do you work that people aren't equity after 11 years" reflects a lack of knowledge about the industry. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when it was up-or-out after around 10 years. Some firms are still like that but they are increasingly in the minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

At some firms people never make equity partner. You can wind up a permanent of counsel or non-equity partner. The non-equity designation changes the dynamics of the partnership pipeline. I think you might not be familiar with the variety of ways that big firms are handling this, especially as industry consolidation is pushing overall headcounts up and a lot of firms are dealing with a large class of older equity partners who have no interest in retiring.

Yeah yeah all of this is off topic, but comments like "omg where do you work that people aren't equity after 11 years" reflects a lack of knowledge about the industry. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when it was up-or-out after around 10 years. Some firms are still like that but they are increasingly in the minority.

DP, but yeah, and Wilkie is one of the firms that went to this two year track back in 2019. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/repeat-after-me-partnership-without-equity-is-not-a-partnership/

Goverski barely made partner two years ago after being an associate for 8 — I don’t think she’s on the fasttrack to equity and to me your comments make you sound like an old.

[Anonymous]

Two tier track not two year, sorry

[Anonymous]

Pages and pages of posts to cover up fact that someone erroneously called a woman partner, whether equity or non equity, a “baby lawyer.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

At some firms people never make equity partner. You can wind up a permanent of counsel or non-equity partner. The non-equity designation changes the dynamics of the partnership pipeline. I think you might not be familiar with the variety of ways that big firms are handling this, especially as industry consolidation is pushing overall headcounts up and a lot of firms are dealing with a large class of older equity partners who have no interest in retiring.

Yeah yeah all of this is off topic, but comments like "omg where do you work that people aren't equity after 11 years" reflects a lack of knowledge about the industry. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when it was up-or-out after around 10 years. Some firms are still like that but they are increasingly in the minority.

DP, but yeah, and Wilkie is one of the firms that went to this two year track back in 2019. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/repeat-after-me-partnership-without-equity-is-not-a-partnership/

Goverski barely made partner two years ago after being an associate for 8 — I don’t think she’s on the fasttrack to equity and to me your comments make you sound like an old.

Still beating a dead horse? It’s just a simple sentence, “I was wrong to call her a baby lawyer.” Try typing it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pages and pages of posts to cover up fact that someone erroneously called a woman partner, whether equity or non equity, a “baby lawyer.”

And people wonder why their arguments aren’t taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

At some firms people never make equity partner. You can wind up a permanent of counsel or non-equity partner. The non-equity designation changes the dynamics of the partnership pipeline. I think you might not be familiar with the variety of ways that big firms are handling this, especially as industry consolidation is pushing overall headcounts up and a lot of firms are dealing with a large class of older equity partners who have no interest in retiring.

Yeah yeah all of this is off topic, but comments like "omg where do you work that people aren't equity after 11 years" reflects a lack of knowledge about the industry. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when it was up-or-out after around 10 years. Some firms are still like that but they are increasingly in the minority.

DP, but yeah, and Wilkie is one of the firms that went to this two year track back in 2019. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/repeat-after-me-partnership-without-equity-is-not-a-partnership/

Goverski barely made partner two years ago after being an associate for 8 — I don’t think she’s on the fasttrack to equity and to me your comments make you sound like an old.

Still beating a dead horse? It’s just a simple sentence, “I was wrong to call her a baby lawyer.” Try typing it out.

I’m not the PP who used that term but you don’t seem to have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about so I won’t take it personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

At some firms people never make equity partner. You can wind up a permanent of counsel or non-equity partner. The non-equity designation changes the dynamics of the partnership pipeline. I think you might not be familiar with the variety of ways that big firms are handling this, especially as industry consolidation is pushing overall headcounts up and a lot of firms are dealing with a large class of older equity partners who have no interest in retiring.

Yeah yeah all of this is off topic, but comments like "omg where do you work that people aren't equity after 11 years" reflects a lack of knowledge about the industry. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when it was up-or-out after around 10 years. Some firms are still like that but they are increasingly in the minority.

DP, but yeah, and Wilkie is one of the firms that went to this two year track back in 2019. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/repeat-after-me-partnership-without-equity-is-not-a-partnership/

Goverski barely made partner two years ago after being an associate for 8 — I don’t think she’s on the fasttrack to equity and to me your comments make you sound like an old.

Still beating a dead horse? It’s just a simple sentence, “I was wrong to call her a baby lawyer.” Try typing it out.

I’m not the PP who used that term but you don’t seem to have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about so I won’t take it personally.

Only in your upside down world. The gaslighting from the Blake supporters rivals Blake’s.

A litigator who has been practicing for over a decade is not a baby lawyer. And yet you both, assuming for the moment there is actually two of you, can’t admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

At some firms people never make equity partner. You can wind up a permanent of counsel or non-equity partner. The non-equity designation changes the dynamics of the partnership pipeline. I think you might not be familiar with the variety of ways that big firms are handling this, especially as industry consolidation is pushing overall headcounts up and a lot of firms are dealing with a large class of older equity partners who have no interest in retiring.

Yeah yeah all of this is off topic, but comments like "omg where do you work that people aren't equity after 11 years" reflects a lack of knowledge about the industry. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when it was up-or-out after around 10 years. Some firms are still like that but they are increasingly in the minority.

DP, but yeah, and Wilkie is one of the firms that went to this two year track back in 2019. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/repeat-after-me-partnership-without-equity-is-not-a-partnership/

Goverski barely made partner two years ago after being an associate for 8 — I don’t think she’s on the fasttrack to equity and to me your comments make you sound like an old.

Still beating a dead horse? It’s just a simple sentence, “I was wrong to call her a baby lawyer.” Try typing it out.

I’m not the PP who used that term but you don’t seem to have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about so I won’t take it personally.

Only in your upside down world. The gaslighting from the Blake supporters rivals Blake’s.

A litigator who has been practicing for over a decade is not a baby lawyer. And yet you both, assuming for the moment there is actually two of you, can’t admit it.

I’m not sure what your problem is exactly, but I have repeatedly said I would not use that phrase on anyone, though I have heard associates at my firm call new partners “baby partners.” And PP who did used the term “baby lawyer” in referring to Goverski said a three hours ago at 14:40 that “it was not an appropriate term.” Meanwhile you guys are talking out of your butts about how obviously any 2nd year partner must be equity already, so maybe you should slow your roll in critiquing this board in their depth of law firm knowledge lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

JC, where do you work that people aren’t equity partners after 11 years?

At some firms people never make equity partner. You can wind up a permanent of counsel or non-equity partner. The non-equity designation changes the dynamics of the partnership pipeline. I think you might not be familiar with the variety of ways that big firms are handling this, especially as industry consolidation is pushing overall headcounts up and a lot of firms are dealing with a large class of older equity partners who have no interest in retiring.

Yeah yeah all of this is off topic, but comments like "omg where do you work that people aren't equity after 11 years" reflects a lack of knowledge about the industry. It's not like it was 20 or 30 years ago when it was up-or-out after around 10 years. Some firms are still like that but they are increasingly in the minority.

DP, but yeah, and Wilkie is one of the firms that went to this two year track back in 2019. https://abovethelaw.com/2019/08/repeat-after-me-partnership-without-equity-is-not-a-partnership/

Goverski barely made partner two years ago after being an associate for 8 — I don’t think she’s on the fasttrack to equity and to me your comments make you sound like an old.

Still beating a dead horse? It’s just a simple sentence, “I was wrong to call her a baby lawyer.” Try typing it out.

I am the PP who called her a baby lawyer (not the PP you are replying to btw) and I literally posted a page or two ago that I was wrong to call her a baby lawyer. Try reading.

[Anonymous]

The lawyers and their boring back and forth over the phrase “baby lawyer” has killed this thread. Perhaps a targeted campaign from Blake’s PR team. In other news, BF responded to Leslie Sloane’s MTD.

[Anonymous]

I saw she did a promo event with Anna Kendrick. Surprised Blake's haters didn't flood this thread with the usual negative comments about her looks. I thought she looked nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw she did a promo event with Anna Kendrick. Surprised Blake's haters didn't flood this thread with the usual negative comments about her looks. I thought she looked nice.

She had her usual crazy interview persona. The look on Anna Kendrick’s face is priceless.