I went to an Antitrust Law Seminar today. Actually, let me just pull some language from the invite to be more precise about it:
"For some years the Antitrust Section of the New York State Bar Association ("NYSBA") has presented a summer program for law students who are interested in the practice of antitrust law and who are working in the New York City area in the summer."
My firm had sent the invite along to the summer associates; many other firms did the same. I'm marginally curious about antitrust law; the thought of a little field trip and a change of scenery perhaps was also a factor. So that was from 9-11 this morning.
The session was in another firm's cafeteria. The tables had little table tents advertising a summer of pork, or some promotion like that. Pictures of truly grotesque looking food that made me very glad that my firm doesn't have a cafeteria. This cafeteria was actually run by the same people who do dining services at the law school; another reason to be very, very thankful my firm doesn't have a cafeteria. It's weird, because before the summer I would have said that a cafeteria is a plus -- now I would definitely say it's a minus. You don't really want to be stuck in the building all day. You want to get out, even if it's not for a "summer associate lunch" but just for something quick and cheap. You want the break. Especially as a summer associate, when what you're doing really isn't uber-critical. So if you're thinking how I was, that a cafeteria at the firm would be kind of cool because you'd always have people to eat with and wouldn't have to go find something every day -- take my thoughts under advisement. I think you'll be glad you don't have a cafeteria. Trust me on this one.
The session also featured marginally decent crumb cake and completely inedible scone-like bricks which could have done some damage if thrown at the speakers. I couldn't see the speakers because there was a big column in my way. I guess I could have moved. I guess.
A significant fraction of people were taking notes. I took very brief notes, but only to facilitate the writing of this post. Here are my notes, along with the explanation for why I wrote them:
"Like it... boss is here" -- the first speaker said she's liked her time at the firm so far... and mentioned that her boss was right there. So her statement was obviously 100% credible. :) I don't mean to say she doesn't like her job -- how do I know whether she likes her job -- just that it's not like there was anything else she was going to say.
"Antitrust is antitrust" -- I think that was from someone saying that it didn't matter where you did antitrust work, but that antitrust is antitrust wherever you do it. Clearly this was a helpful comment. "Work is work" -- thanks, but what is it exactly that you *do*?
"Antitrust monthly" -- one guy said antitrust is relatively academic and that you can publish a lot, in places like "Antitrust monthly," "Antitrust magazine," "Antitrust reports," [please assume my quotes are invented from this point on in the paragraph] "Antitrust weekly," "Antitrust daily," "Antitrust hourly," "The Journal of Antitrust," "Antitrust Review of Books," "Antitrust Gone Wild," "The Antitruster," "U.S. News and Antitrust Report," "Antitrust Illustrated," "Antitrust & Stream," "Antitrusteur," "Mother Antitrust," "The Antitrust Reader," "Antitrust Digest," "PlayAntitrust," "Rolling Antitrust Stone," "Antitrust Aficionado," "Antitrust for Kids," "3-2-1 Antitrust," "Archie, Veronica, and Antitrust," "Mad (about Antitrust)," "The Antitrust Lampoon," "Everything you ever wanted to know about Antitrust but were afraid to ask," "The New Republic of Antitrust," "Antitrust Travel & Antitrust Leisure," "A: The Antitrust Magazine," "Martha Antitrust Living," "AntitrustStyle," "Better Homes and Antitrust," "Mother's Antitrust," "Men's Antitrust Health," "Vanity Antitrust Fair," and "TV Antitrust Crosswords." Phew.
OK, now that I've run that joke into the ground...
"For some years the Antitrust Section of the New York State Bar Association ("NYSBA") has presented a summer program for law students who are interested in the practice of antitrust law and who are working in the New York City area in the summer."
My firm had sent the invite along to the summer associates; many other firms did the same. I'm marginally curious about antitrust law; the thought of a little field trip and a change of scenery perhaps was also a factor. So that was from 9-11 this morning.
The session was in another firm's cafeteria. The tables had little table tents advertising a summer of pork, or some promotion like that. Pictures of truly grotesque looking food that made me very glad that my firm doesn't have a cafeteria. This cafeteria was actually run by the same people who do dining services at the law school; another reason to be very, very thankful my firm doesn't have a cafeteria. It's weird, because before the summer I would have said that a cafeteria is a plus -- now I would definitely say it's a minus. You don't really want to be stuck in the building all day. You want to get out, even if it's not for a "summer associate lunch" but just for something quick and cheap. You want the break. Especially as a summer associate, when what you're doing really isn't uber-critical. So if you're thinking how I was, that a cafeteria at the firm would be kind of cool because you'd always have people to eat with and wouldn't have to go find something every day -- take my thoughts under advisement. I think you'll be glad you don't have a cafeteria. Trust me on this one.
The session also featured marginally decent crumb cake and completely inedible scone-like bricks which could have done some damage if thrown at the speakers. I couldn't see the speakers because there was a big column in my way. I guess I could have moved. I guess.
A significant fraction of people were taking notes. I took very brief notes, but only to facilitate the writing of this post. Here are my notes, along with the explanation for why I wrote them:
"Like it... boss is here" -- the first speaker said she's liked her time at the firm so far... and mentioned that her boss was right there. So her statement was obviously 100% credible. :) I don't mean to say she doesn't like her job -- how do I know whether she likes her job -- just that it's not like there was anything else she was going to say.
"Antitrust is antitrust" -- I think that was from someone saying that it didn't matter where you did antitrust work, but that antitrust is antitrust wherever you do it. Clearly this was a helpful comment. "Work is work" -- thanks, but what is it exactly that you *do*?
"Antitrust monthly" -- one guy said antitrust is relatively academic and that you can publish a lot, in places like "Antitrust monthly," "Antitrust magazine," "Antitrust reports," [please assume my quotes are invented from this point on in the paragraph] "Antitrust weekly," "Antitrust daily," "Antitrust hourly," "The Journal of Antitrust," "Antitrust Review of Books," "Antitrust Gone Wild," "The Antitruster," "U.S. News and Antitrust Report," "Antitrust Illustrated," "Antitrust & Stream," "Antitrusteur," "Mother Antitrust," "The Antitrust Reader," "Antitrust Digest," "PlayAntitrust," "Rolling Antitrust Stone," "Antitrust Aficionado," "Antitrust for Kids," "3-2-1 Antitrust," "Archie, Veronica, and Antitrust," "Mad (about Antitrust)," "The Antitrust Lampoon," "Everything you ever wanted to know about Antitrust but were afraid to ask," "The New Republic of Antitrust," "Antitrust Travel & Antitrust Leisure," "A: The Antitrust Magazine," "Martha Antitrust Living," "AntitrustStyle," "Better Homes and Antitrust," "Mother's Antitrust," "Men's Antitrust Health," "Vanity Antitrust Fair," and "TV Antitrust Crosswords." Phew.
OK, now that I've run that joke into the ground...
posted by Anonymous @ 11:21 AM
<< Home