vicarz | (no subject)

I have reviewed (in part). We need to discuss these substantive changes. [circled] We can do that after our 2:30 mtg today, weds (pm) or Thurs. morning (w/ our 7:30 AM Appt)

The first 9 pages of my 30 page draft, which is due 5/29 (the aforementioned Thur), were attached marked out more than left alone. Most of the substantive changes noted were rewording happy for glad, though she did attack pretty much everything I did. I actually took her input on another brief and incorporated it, with her comments regarding the litigation of this case, into this piece. Even I am surprised at how she tore this up, more so because she really did reword what I wrote without changing the meaning for the most part. It seems I have a problem.

Response to settlement proposal:
Have talked to parties involved and your offer is rejected.

Had better days, but it was a good weekend and I was ready for this. However, soon my cup o' fuckyou will runneth over.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Without question, but the question me and others familiar with my work in litigation are posing is whether this is appropriate criticism or timely made.

being unfamiliar with your litigational past... I am not one that can help with this judgement call. However, you have my warmest sympathies if she is just being Uber Bitch Crotch on Fire!

It sounds to me like nit-picky criticism and absolutely not timely. Is this personal? Or just casual asshattery? Some people take delight in making others scramble, especially if it is to their own tune. I hope that the rest of your week is up from here.

No, she's on a mission to show her worth by trashing everyone around her. I'm not the only one, but due to being the lead on an important series of cases, I have the most exposure to her.