(no subject)

[vicarz]

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.

Comments

[vicar.livejournal.com]

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.

[dashrippington.livejournal.com]

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!

[frontdoorangel.livejournal.com]

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.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

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.