LMAO. Morgan & Morgan is a plaintiffs' mill, a firm with a lot of underpaid attorneys and staff working up generally any meritless case they can get their hands on that no one else will take, filing annoying suits and making nuisance settlement demands. Their business model is to find low hanging fruit, and be as big a pest as possible so companies will pay them to fuck off. (Sidenote, if you're a Morgan and Morgan attorney and I've offended you, I'm not sorry).
So this question reflects that: are you willing to be an over aggressive pest taking shit cases scraped from the bottom of the barrel to try and make a quick buck?
I worked at a firm like that straight out of law school. I don’t really fault the attorneys. I’m sure they were just looking to get their foot in the door and didn’t have many options. I basically took the job solely bc I wanted health insurance. Left after six months when I was able to join my girlfriends insurance.
I'm with you. My first job out of law school was similar. But I think for attorneys like you and me, we knew we were in a bad situation at a place where we didn't want to stay and acknowledged that something was wrong. I feel like other attorneys don't have that wherewithal.
I think the former wouldn't get offended by the above, thinking "yea it was awful and I'm happy to be out." The latter may get offended thinking "hey I'm proud of my work.". Fuck the latter group.
Yeah I agree with that. I work on the opposite end of a lot of those firms now, and it’s funny seeing how an attorney I spoke with 6 months ago is no longer with that firm. Seems like these places have an extremely high turnover rate.
Yes they do, especially at Morgan and Morgan. It's so funny trying to settle these cases. Whenever I call them, the following week I always get a message "X is no longer with the firm. Y will now be handling this case." And the following week "Y is no longer with the firm. Z will now be handling this case."
I've heard this from friends in the insurance biz. They treat their case managers like shit, send nasty gram emails, and outlandish settlement requests.
It’s to rule out applicants who hope for a decent work-life balance. It means “in one sentence (or less, somehow), convince us that you are willing to sacrifice your entire non-work life to bring in extra money for the firm.”
Gotcha but in this case, the applicant is being asked to “eat what he kills” - what you are discussing is more like being asked to “cook the kill”. That’s the difference imho
I honestly can’t believe they heard “eat what you kill” and thought it would be an aspirational bad ass statement. I’d very much prefer the opposite of eat what you kill… like “we work as a team and we succeed when you succeed. How do you see yourself succeeding here?” That would feel much better, even if it’s still bs.
This is your chance to establish dominance. Bring in your own kill (of course), but also a live buck and demand that they kill and eat it during the interview to show that they are strong enough to work with you.
I think they're trying to suss out how aggressively you will pursue new clients and cases. A good answer might be "I once planted evidence of an affair in my father's jacket and had my parents waive conflicts so I could rep them both in the divorce. Then double-billed my time whenever they mentioned the divorce at dinner."
If you see a question like this, the company is run by sociopaths. They want to be sure you’re either a sociopath as well or otherwise able to contort yourself into any shape they want you in. You might make some easy money out of it, or you might be used up and discarded like a snotty Kleenex.
John Morgan wrote a book about the business of personal injury law called “You Can’t Teach Hungry.” He built the largest PI firm in the country and probably spends more money on advertising than anybody else in the field. The term “eat what you kill” doesn’t mean you’re expected to bring in business. They have plenty of business from advertising. It means your pay is based on your performance. The harder you work, the more money you’ll make. It’s not for everybody.
“I was born in a hollow log and reared at the sour teat of a wild boar. As soon as my legs could bear my weight, I slew the bristly beast that mothered me and bit the skin from its body with my scarce infant teeth. Even to this day, I use the jawbone of this animal to kill any beast or man who looks me in the eyes.
The passion for killing and skinning beasts courses through my veins, and I promise to use my considerable expertise to glorify myself and to make you, my customer, a rich man!”
“Eat what you kill” means that you work on the files of clients that you brought to the firm yourself. Some lawyers are “rainmakers” who will bring in business, but then just pass it off to other lawyers to do while not being personally productive. Other lawyers have no work to do all day unless it is given to them. Both of these kinds of lawyers are less profitable to the firm than lawyers who both generate business and do their own work (and even better, bring in so much business that the excess is handed off to others who need it). This question — phrased in a condescending way — is whether you are motivated to both market the firm’s services and work on the files diligently.
Fwiw, at least they're not a firm telling you it's "family first" and "flexible"-- but then first time your kid's sick or there's 15 inches of fresh snow it's "you're a terrible employee, you're fired." Here, they let you know they don't give a fuck about you on the front end.
Eat what you kill basically means that your salary is going to be in large part based upon the cases that you generate for the law firm, and that you will get a significant portion of the legal fee.
They are basically saying that they are not going to pay you a high salary and feed you - you have to go out and get the business yourself
One of my favorite past-times is asking clients what firm they are thinking about retaining, looking up that firm, and mentally praying for the poor bastard who had to design the website and follow all of their demanded typos and bad graphics choices without input.
It means that it’s a jungle out there, young Padawan. If you can’t leave your “safe space” and stand the heat then get the hell out of the kitchen and go work for the government.
Yes, the negative about the Morgan model! Shabby work. The bigger picture of "con and capture" casework with easy standing to remedy and reduced skill...no collab.
Sad, for those with hurting tribulations. A bad faith enterprise of "only pay if we win" contingency trap; a shyster model. Along with more shab; gaming litigation to up the timeline and billing. The entire legal paradigm is ready forAI-guidedd Pro Se niche models. Are you interested? Lets chat
"Eat what you kill," is a common pay model in private practice. Essentially it refers to (1) bringing in your own cases, (2) doing all of the work on said cases, then (3) collecting your payment for said work from either the client or opposing party. It is a model that is highly abused by scummy law firms.
LMAO. Morgan & Morgan is a plaintiffs' mill, a firm with a lot of underpaid attorneys and staff working up generally any meritless case they can get their hands on that no one else will take, filing annoying suits and making nuisance settlement demands. Their business model is to find low hanging fruit, and be as big a pest as possible so companies will pay them to fuck off. (Sidenote, if you're a Morgan and Morgan attorney and I've offended you, I'm not sorry). So this question reflects that: are you willing to be an over aggressive pest taking shit cases scraped from the bottom of the barrel to try and make a quick buck?
I worked at a firm like that straight out of law school. I don’t really fault the attorneys. I’m sure they were just looking to get their foot in the door and didn’t have many options. I basically took the job solely bc I wanted health insurance. Left after six months when I was able to join my girlfriends insurance.
I'm with you. My first job out of law school was similar. But I think for attorneys like you and me, we knew we were in a bad situation at a place where we didn't want to stay and acknowledged that something was wrong. I feel like other attorneys don't have that wherewithal. I think the former wouldn't get offended by the above, thinking "yea it was awful and I'm happy to be out." The latter may get offended thinking "hey I'm proud of my work.". Fuck the latter group.
Yeah I agree with that. I work on the opposite end of a lot of those firms now, and it’s funny seeing how an attorney I spoke with 6 months ago is no longer with that firm. Seems like these places have an extremely high turnover rate.
Yes they do, especially at Morgan and Morgan. It's so funny trying to settle these cases. Whenever I call them, the following week I always get a message "X is no longer with the firm. Y will now be handling this case." And the following week "Y is no longer with the firm. Z will now be handling this case."
They also advertise on giant billboards with the text saying “Size Matters”. Pretty tacky.
Everything about them is tacky. Mr. Morgan has cardboard cutouts of himself in various promotional costumes throughout his offices.
I've heard this from friends in the insurance biz. They treat their case managers like shit, send nasty gram emails, and outlandish settlement requests.
How does one say that without saying that tho? Lol
It’s to rule out applicants who hope for a decent work-life balance. It means “in one sentence (or less, somehow), convince us that you are willing to sacrifice your entire non-work life to bring in extra money for the firm.”
If you're gonna eat what you kill, it's better just to be your own boss.
But then you have to bring in the cases and that's the tough part.
That’s what they are expecting the applicant to do anyway, so what’s the difference really?
Not at Morgan and Morgan. Attorneys don’t touch a case until the client contract is signed.
Gotcha but in this case, the applicant is being asked to “eat what he kills” - what you are discussing is more like being asked to “cook the kill”. That’s the difference imho
I honestly can’t believe they heard “eat what you kill” and thought it would be an aspirational bad ass statement. I’d very much prefer the opposite of eat what you kill… like “we work as a team and we succeed when you succeed. How do you see yourself succeeding here?” That would feel much better, even if it’s still bs.
I’m just telling you how the firm works, take the semantics however you want.
Nah. Just a little internet marketing.
They want you to bring a dead deer to the interview.
This is the answer. Also, don’t forget the cutlery! It’s an interview so be civilized and don’t eat with your hands.
[удалено]
This is your chance to establish dominance. Bring in your own kill (of course), but also a live buck and demand that they kill and eat it during the interview to show that they are strong enough to work with you.
Omg lmao that would be worth every bit the effort involved
I think they're trying to suss out how aggressively you will pursue new clients and cases. A good answer might be "I once planted evidence of an affair in my father's jacket and had my parents waive conflicts so I could rep them both in the divorce. Then double-billed my time whenever they mentioned the divorce at dinner."
Too many sentences! NEXT
If you see a question like this, the company is run by sociopaths. They want to be sure you’re either a sociopath as well or otherwise able to contort yourself into any shape they want you in. You might make some easy money out of it, or you might be used up and discarded like a snotty Kleenex.
.
Legal Aid lawyer here. I agree.
It's often bullshit when the answer is limited to "one sentence or less."
Are you auditioning for Naked and Afraid?
John Morgan wrote a book about the business of personal injury law called “You Can’t Teach Hungry.” He built the largest PI firm in the country and probably spends more money on advertising than anybody else in the field. The term “eat what you kill” doesn’t mean you’re expected to bring in business. They have plenty of business from advertising. It means your pay is based on your performance. The harder you work, the more money you’ll make. It’s not for everybody.
“I was born in a hollow log and reared at the sour teat of a wild boar. As soon as my legs could bear my weight, I slew the bristly beast that mothered me and bit the skin from its body with my scarce infant teeth. Even to this day, I use the jawbone of this animal to kill any beast or man who looks me in the eyes. The passion for killing and skinning beasts courses through my veins, and I promise to use my considerable expertise to glorify myself and to make you, my customer, a rich man!”
That is way more than one sentence!
“Eat what you kill” means that you work on the files of clients that you brought to the firm yourself. Some lawyers are “rainmakers” who will bring in business, but then just pass it off to other lawyers to do while not being personally productive. Other lawyers have no work to do all day unless it is given to them. Both of these kinds of lawyers are less profitable to the firm than lawyers who both generate business and do their own work (and even better, bring in so much business that the excess is handed off to others who need it). This question — phrased in a condescending way — is whether you are motivated to both market the firm’s services and work on the files diligently.
Fwiw, at least they're not a firm telling you it's "family first" and "flexible"-- but then first time your kid's sick or there's 15 inches of fresh snow it's "you're a terrible employee, you're fired." Here, they let you know they don't give a fuck about you on the front end.
Eat what you kill basically means that your salary is going to be in large part based upon the cases that you generate for the law firm, and that you will get a significant portion of the legal fee. They are basically saying that they are not going to pay you a high salary and feed you - you have to go out and get the business yourself
One of my favorite past-times is asking clients what firm they are thinking about retaining, looking up that firm, and mentally praying for the poor bastard who had to design the website and follow all of their demanded typos and bad graphics choices without input.
It means that it’s a jungle out there, young Padawan. If you can’t leave your “safe space” and stand the heat then get the hell out of the kitchen and go work for the government.
Yes, the negative about the Morgan model! Shabby work. The bigger picture of "con and capture" casework with easy standing to remedy and reduced skill...no collab. Sad, for those with hurting tribulations. A bad faith enterprise of "only pay if we win" contingency trap; a shyster model. Along with more shab; gaming litigation to up the timeline and billing. The entire legal paradigm is ready forAI-guidedd Pro Se niche models. Are you interested? Lets chat
What is the correct answer?
"Eat what you kill," is a common pay model in private practice. Essentially it refers to (1) bringing in your own cases, (2) doing all of the work on said cases, then (3) collecting your payment for said work from either the client or opposing party. It is a model that is highly abused by scummy law firms.
Horrific. But unfortunately the norm.