I'm sorry. I received enough negative responses to my April Fools Day post that I've been persuaded to remove it from the site. In retrospect, I should not have named names, even in jest. The attorneys I called out for their behavior in the recruiting process, as litigators, and as representatives of the profession are not necessarily bad people, and the accusations I made were based mostly on speculation and rumor, not fact. The firms I discussed, and the specific people I mentioned, were meant as examples of larger trends in the profession, but I did not intend the post to be taken literally, or those specific individuals and firms to feel wronged by it. I also did not intend to encourage associates at those firms to take the actions they did. I apologize for that.

It was also probably a mistake to discuss actual resumes on the site, and mention the rejected candidates by name. Even if someone is not a good fit for my firm does not mean that there is not a firm out there that would embrace them. I apologize for speculating about what firms those might be, and discussing their hiring standards. I should not have assumed that I was qualified to discuss the hiring standards of other firms and speculate about which of my competitors would feel comfortable hiring felons and other unsavories. While I had reason to believe the information I was working with was accurate, I have since been informed that it may have been outdated. If I gave any readers the impression that there are specific firms that are not bothered by hiring sex offenders and/or other repeat offenders awaiting sentencing, those impressions may be inaccurate. It is possible that some of the firms I mentioned by name used to have more liberal hiring policies than they currently do.

If the April Fools Day post led any current law students to believe that they can be hired without graduating or taking (and passing) a U.S. bar exam, that was a misunderstanding and I did not intend to leave that impression. If any paralegals were offended by the photo illustration that accompanied the post, again, I apologize. If you are a personal acquaintance of the hiring partner mentioned in paragraph three, who I may have insinuated was cheating on his wife, please disregard that paragraph entirely. I did not realize he and his wife are currently separated. And for the readers who took issue with my discussion of clerkships, and the judges I specifically listed, I was unaware that two of those judges are currently in prison.

Normal posting will resume as planned. I hope the offending April Fools Day post did not cause any long-term repercussions.