09 February 2010

Kerr & Wagstaffe, Part Deux

A couple days ago, I took up for a SanFran firm which was being targeted via email and an e-petition. Today, I got this email from the same person:
Ken, your piece is fantastic. I enjoyed reading it.

You should not defend Wagstaffe, he is a huge scum bag, egomaniacal and an extreme liberal to boot.

I forgot to mention an associate who used to work there by the name of Holly Hogan who also fit the profile.

You can see her at : link one and link two.

Do you see a pattern, or is it just me?
I'm glad you enjoyed reading the post. Always happy to have satisfied readers.

I'm not defending Mr. Wagstaffe in particular. I have no idea as to his personality, although I'm sure he is confident in himself. Most really good attorneys develop a sort of overbearing self-confidence. After all, if you're going to stand in front of judges or justices and tell them that they are wrong and what they are doing to your client is a travesty, you have to have a strong sense of confidence, purpose, and verity. As to being an extreme liberal, well, everyone has flaws . . . er, he does practice in San Francisco . . . ah, being a liberal doesn't mean you're evil (usually). I've had liberal friends and conservative *ahem* "not friends."

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If he's an extreme liberal, he should be filling his firm with whatever would satisfy your petition, no matter the lack of quality. Instead, the associates all seem to be high quality.

I've also looked at Ms. Hogan's profile, as you asked. Yes, she is very attractive. However, she's also a Harvard Law grad and therefore presumptively very qualified. That's the second highest US News ranked law school and she's the second woman associated with the firm that has graduated from that institution. Another went to UM Ann Arbor (ranked 9th). Basically, unless you can show me that they've been rejecting Yale grads you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the firm isn't hiring for quality. The implication that the guys are hiring good looking women just so that they can leer at them all day doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I repeat, show me the proof that Yale grads (or at least other top ten law schools) have been getting turned away in droves - whatever their ethnic/racial/social group - and I'll have more sympathy for your inference.


Windypundit said...

Heh. What an amusing topic... Let me throw in something else...

Don't forget you're probably looking at professionally produced business portraits. Making the women look attractive is part of the photographer's job.

For example, the men are lit from the side, which brings out some dramatic shadows on their faces. The women appear to be lit with more of a glamor lighting setup: The key light is broad and comes from over the camera.

Also, when the women woke up on photograpy day, they probably paid extra attention to their hair and makeup. The photographer might even have brought in a makeup artist to help.

Ken Lammers said...

You know, I went and looked at the pics on my offices site and they did the same thing. All the guys were lit from the side and the women got the no-shadow treatment.

Claudette said...

I kind of agree that all the females have these feminine petite features. I don't see any women with unappealing proportions to their faces, or short hair for example.

I wouldn't say that proves it's an outright bias, however, because you can't know unless you're in the environment to really experience the vibe and culture.

I mean plenty of Discovery channel specials have already told us outright that for the female gender proportion and facial beauty affect all types of social interactions. I guess I can't expect that a law firm will somehow skirt evolutionary biology, especially since a law firm is engaged in the commercial version of Darwinism.

Claudette said...

I wish we could "test" them. Send them 2 Harvard law grads to interview for a position -- one attractive with mediocre (for Harvard) credentials, and the other one homely and thick but with stellar credentials (for Harvard). Is there anyone out there who would like to be part of our experiment? We will try to cast you for the pretty one and if you are cast as the homely one, we'll lie and tell you you're the pretty one ;)

Ken Lammers said...

Heh. I'm not saying that looks (for either males or females) aren't part of the hiring equation. God gave some guys the genes of Adonis and left me with a genetic makeup more favoring Gimli. Unfortunately, although it pains me to say it, looks are part of merit when being considered for a job wherein a a good portion of the job depends on first impressions. You have to attract clients, make them want to interact with you, make good impressions on judges who don't know you, etc. That's all easier when you're one of the beautiful people.