Yeah, Baron was definitely the right choice for this. His toys can take the psychic damage from the lawyer and only Baron gets more lawyer stink on him.
Oh, she’s pragmatic alright. Notice how she’s only admitting it after getting fired. I’m sure she’ll try and improve herself by learning how not to get fired while she’s abusing the client. Or at least delay the inevitable a few paychecks longer. Fatter paychecks next time, too.
Milking the client is a remarkably hands-on, pragmatic business. The word you’re looking for is “morals”. Anything like that may or may not have been surgically removed beforehand. Possibly as a sign-on requirement and/or bonus.
No, it’s pragmatism. It’s a lot better to keep a client and not get paid that much right now than to burn ’em and loose ’em and any business they might have directed your way. Morals has nothin’ to do with it. You only think it does because we’re thinking of the Fortress as the good guys in this. Comparatively speaking. They could be the mafia and the point would be the same. It’s not pragmatic to burn a client. It’s wasteful with a short-term gain.
The company and its managers? Complete cowards. Decaf pretty much called them out on that. Next time something stupid happens, like DeeDee dropping some badword with big (perceived) risk of suing, they’ll run to the lawyers again. Possibly the exact same lawyers. Pretty sure the managers don’t blame lawyer lady in the slightest for what she’s done. They asked, she delivered.
They could be stupid enough to ask for that again, people often repeat old mistakes. But even if they go to her again, there’s a loooot of business and therefore money she hasn’t got between the two scenes.
Burning clients isn’t pragmatic unless they’re bad clients, and some are. She’s greedy. There’s a difference,
She’s a consultant, so it’s natural for her to have lots of clients to “milk”, and so most of the time not be on-site for any one client. She might still get some money, a retainer to be available at need. (He who pays the largest retainer gets served first, and possibly with a real lawyer rather than the paralegal intern.) Times so many clients… why’s she working again? Oh right, to get more money. So you were right for that part.
Anyway, I guess I’m saying this doesn’t constitute burning a client. They just decided to shelve this one “project”, and since that’s the only reason she’s currently there, she goes. The thing most off here is probably that they’re treating her like an employee when she’s not, which she knows very well indeed.
O.K., let’s say you have experiences with two different lawyers, Abigail and Bernice.
You have a horrible experience with Abigail. You have a wonderful experience with Bernice. Your friend has a legal problem and wants to know who to hire. Who would you recommend?
She’s not on a retainer. She’s not on a project. She is fired and this company is not likely to recommend her to anyone else. That’s what I mean by Burned. No more money.
On the negative side she’s been disengaged by a company whose manager wields action figures to pass on news
On the positive side she’s been disengaged by a company whose manager wields action figures to pass on news
This could be seen as a net win for Lawyer Lady
Win or Lose, lawyers get paid.
Arrgh! I was looking forward to Rex doing it. Although Joker doing it is much better, I admit.
They were a cash cow? Man, she must be a bottom feeder.
Some people contend that calling a lawyer a “bottom feeder” is redundant.
Well, she clearly can’t be just called a “bottom” and “feeder” just isn’t quite evocative enough.
Though I do feel sorry for catfish being lumped in with lawyers.
Well, evileeyore, your avatar is a cat… and you’re defending catfish… but Eeyore is evil. I’m confused.
The differences between lawyers and catfish:
Catfish are tasty when fried, lawyers are not legally edible when fried.
100 catfish at the bottom of a lake is a normal day for catfish, 100 lawyers at the bottom of a lake is a good day for everyone else.
I’ve never been served papers by a catfish, but I have had catfish served on paper.
Admiring the buns on your catfish will get you thanks from the cook, admiring the buns on your lawyer will get you a harassment suit.
A good catfish is exceptionally fine to have when you are on the trail, a good lawyer is exceptionally fine to have when on trial.
Congratulations evileeyore! Hats off to you, Sir 😉
Yeah, Baron was definitely the right choice for this. His toys can take the psychic damage from the lawyer and only Baron gets more lawyer stink on him.
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but it does make sense.
Lawyer Lady is a pragmatist, which is good. I love hopw she doesn’t even hide the fact she was milking them.
Wouldn’t a pragmatist have avoided getting fired because she’d been abusing the client?
Oh, she’s pragmatic alright. Notice how she’s only admitting it after getting fired. I’m sure she’ll try and improve herself by learning how not to get fired while she’s abusing the client. Or at least delay the inevitable a few paychecks longer. Fatter paychecks next time, too.
Milking the client is a remarkably hands-on, pragmatic business. The word you’re looking for is “morals”. Anything like that may or may not have been surgically removed beforehand. Possibly as a sign-on requirement and/or bonus.
No, it’s pragmatism. It’s a lot better to keep a client and not get paid that much right now than to burn ’em and loose ’em and any business they might have directed your way. Morals has nothin’ to do with it. You only think it does because we’re thinking of the Fortress as the good guys in this. Comparatively speaking. They could be the mafia and the point would be the same. It’s not pragmatic to burn a client. It’s wasteful with a short-term gain.
The company and its managers? Complete cowards. Decaf pretty much called them out on that. Next time something stupid happens, like DeeDee dropping some badword with big (perceived) risk of suing, they’ll run to the lawyers again. Possibly the exact same lawyers. Pretty sure the managers don’t blame lawyer lady in the slightest for what she’s done. They asked, she delivered.
Also, “lose”, not “loose”.
They could be stupid enough to ask for that again, people often repeat old mistakes. But even if they go to her again, there’s a loooot of business and therefore money she hasn’t got between the two scenes.
Burning clients isn’t pragmatic unless they’re bad clients, and some are. She’s greedy. There’s a difference,
What business would that be?
She’s a consultant, so it’s natural for her to have lots of clients to “milk”, and so most of the time not be on-site for any one client. She might still get some money, a retainer to be available at need. (He who pays the largest retainer gets served first, and possibly with a real lawyer rather than the paralegal intern.) Times so many clients… why’s she working again? Oh right, to get more money. So you were right for that part.
Anyway, I guess I’m saying this doesn’t constitute burning a client. They just decided to shelve this one “project”, and since that’s the only reason she’s currently there, she goes. The thing most off here is probably that they’re treating her like an employee when she’s not, which she knows very well indeed.
O.K., let’s say you have experiences with two different lawyers, Abigail and Bernice.
You have a horrible experience with Abigail. You have a wonderful experience with Bernice. Your friend has a legal problem and wants to know who to hire. Who would you recommend?
She’s not on a retainer. She’s not on a project. She is fired and this company is not likely to recommend her to anyone else. That’s what I mean by Burned. No more money.
Hmmm… I hadn’t realized how serious things have gotten in this “comic”!
We are literally arguing semantics. Don’t take it too seriously.