A Genius Like No Other

January 8, 2009 by  

You know this guy, you do.  Every Big Firm has at least one. You started hearing the lore about him your first week at the firm and you admit that you were part intrigued, part terrified.  You’ve seen him in passing in the halls, usually after most of the firm has emptied out after dark.  Perhaps you’ve even tried to speak to him, only to be met with a distinct lack of eye contact and a half-snort as he scuttled away.  He’s more socially awkward than any mental patient, not fit for human—no less client—interaction.  But, word on the street—and that word’s always mentioned in hushed, reverential tones—is that he’s brilllliant.  Like, crazy genius smart.  That’s why the firm keeps him around.  The brilliance.  He’s the resident Big Firm Savant.  And I’m here to tell you firsthand, the whole “genius” thing is a complete and total fraud.

How do I know this?  Because I’ve spent the last two weeks holed up on an idiot fire drill deal that’s never going to materialize with not one, but two of my firm’s rumored Big Firm Savants.

One, of course, is our old friend, Glenn,  who has the twin distinctions of having billed more hours than any other associate four years running and not having made eye contact since 1993.  The other is Russ.  Russ, a corporate equity partner whose book of business is rivaled in magnitude only by his lack of a personality.  Or emotional range.  Or ability to speak in a voice that doesn’t sound like he was recently plugged back into the Matrix.

Still, when I found out I’d be working with Russ, I figured it wasn’t necessarily all bad.  Sure, I’d have to spend part of the holidays working on a dead-end deal led by a robot with lip chap the size of glaciers and a leadership style that rivals Ted Kaczynski’s.  But on the upside, I’d finally get an inside look at how true legal genius works.  I’d be working side-by-side two infamous Big Firm Savants.  I’d experience the brilliance.

And most intriguing of all, I’d witness firsthand the rumored way that Russ supposedly “comes alive” in front of clients—because that’s part of the legend of Russ, of all Big Firm Savants: They’re corporate mole people around the office, but stick ’em in front of a client and bam, they “come alive.”  They shed their awkwardness and stun anyone within billing distance with artfully delivered soliloquies of razor-sharp legal analysis worthy of the whitest shoe.  They shine.  They must, right?


When I came into Russ’s office for the first all-hands conference call for the deal, a call with about 600 people on it, Russ didn’t even look up, just kept staring at his dual computer monitors.  Glenn, on the not-other hand, had managed to meld into a wall and stare at his fingers so effectively that I didn’t even notice him until his BlackBerry started vibrating.   OK, so maybe genius operates…quietly.

The call started off uneventfully enough, but within only ten minutes, the lead counsel for the other side, a woman who introduces herself as “Helene-but-spelled-like-‘Helen’-it’s-Greek-OK?”, threw down a particularly insulting insinuation about our client—one that begged an obvious response from Russ.  Glenn appeared to be focusing on his cuticles at this point, and Russ just adjusted slightly in his seat, not saying a word, staring even more intensely at his monitors.  The tension was palpable.  Another junior associate on the deal moved forward in his chair and gave me a smirking look—a knowing look, a look that said “Here it is, baby.  This is what all the hype is about.  He’s gonna tear it up!!”

And then…nothing happened.  I looked over at Glenn.  Cuticles.  I looked over at the junior associate, whose smirk was fading.  And then I looked over at Russ.  And that’s when I noticed it.

In the reflection of one of the Yale degrees hovering behind his desk, I noticed what Russ had been staring at the whole time.  On one monitor was a split screen of TheDeal.com alongside some sort of fantasy league stock car website and on the other was an animated screen saver of two camels.  That was it.  And he’d been staring at these gems for the entire call.

Our client piped in, tentatively: “So…Russ?”

At this point, you could hear the lawyers grimacing, Helen grinning, and the clients wondering when their champion, the person who had racked up about $200 in the last ten minutes for doing nothing but saying his name, was going to live up to his reputation as a genius lawyer.  Because that’s the thing about Big Firm Savants—clients fall for the lore just as much as associates do.  I could actually feel what they were thinking through the phone: This guy is hardly saying a word, sounds like he’s not even listening, but, hey, that couldn’t possibly be the case because we’re paying this douchebag $1,200 an hour…so…he must be a genius!  I could also hear them starting to panic.  Rightly so.

Russ leaned in, asked Helen to repeat her question, responded with a stunning show of verbal dexterity (“We’ll look into it.”), and then proceeded to say nothing for the rest of the call, staring at his monitors the whole time.  When the call ended, I asked him about the issue Helen had raised earlier—the one we’d be “looking into.”

“Hmm.  Look into it.”   Still staring at the monitors.  The one with the camels, I think.

“Um…OK.  But—I’m sorry, this is just my own ignorance here, but—I’m just not sure what the issue even is.  Could you— What is it I’m looking into, exactly?”

And now he looked up for the first time, eyes practically tearing with condescension.  And a little something else.  Amusement, maybe?  “Don’t know.  That’s why we’re looking into it.”

Um.  OK.  I was starting to feel like a ten-year-old kid who’s beginning to suspect that her parents’ stock answer of “Because I said so” to her more specific questions was maybe just a front.  If this is what my firm considers genius, I shudder to think of the metric for moron.

So.  I stumbled out to the elevator with Glenn, waiting for a few crumbs of brilliance about this deal to shake out somewhere.  Anywhere.  They didn’t.  For every question I asked, he gave an increasingly more condescending shrug and tossed it off with an unsteady “Well, that’s…that’s not relevant on this deal.”  Hm.  I was starting to sense a trend here.  Before getting on the elevator, Glenn did, however, offer one nugget of advice—that I get him “a first cut of all the deal docs by Thursday.”  Which was two days away.  And New Year’s Day.

“Wow, OK.  Look, you don’t— or I mean, Russ doesn’t actually expect these docs to be done in two days?   On New Year’s?  Is—is he insane?  Or just, you know, some kind of asshole?”

Glenn stopped in his tracks and for the first time ever, made eye contact with me.  Well, his gaze landed somewhere near my brow bone, but at least it was close.  Apparently I had crossed a line.  The line that separates the Big Firm Savants from those who…have recently discovered they’re full of crap.

“He’s not insane.  That’s just…Russ. “ He looked back down and scurried into the elevator, looking up again just before the doors closed. “He’s actually kind of a genius.”


So, there it is, friends. I started the New Year holed up in my office drafting documents for a deal I didn’t even remotely understand, while the two Big Firm Savants spent it somewhere far away from here, probably with champagne, or at least cheap wine, focusing on anything but work.

So, it turns out, I did learn something from these two Big Firm Savants—these drooling maniacs who have the whole firm not only excusing their flagrant social incompetence, but also citing it as proof of their brilliance.  They’ve cracked the code.  They’ve figured out that the key to having people think you’re the Stephen Hawking of the legal world isn’t, apparently, to toil away like an eager sponge, soaking in pools of legal knowledge and squeezing them back out to anyone who’ll listen.  No.  The key is to face your computer monitors away from your office door, stare at the floor as much as possible, answer any question you don’t know with a scowl, and fool the suckers around you into thinking you’re…thinking.  And then have someone else figure out what the hell you’re even supposed to be doing on a daily basis.  And then go home early.

So, no, these so-called Big Firm Savants are not, in fact, legal geniuses.  Not even close.  But the more I think about it, I have to admit they sure as hell are brilliant.

An excerpt of this essay was also published today on Above the Law, one of our favorite websites/ addictions.  Make sure to check it out here!


44 Responses to “A Genius Like No Other”

  1. wow on January 8th, 2009 10:59 am

    This story is amazingly useless.

  2. I DO know this guy! on January 8th, 2009 11:18 am

    He’s legend in town. And I’m still trying to figure out why and how. He looks like an overgrown cupid – chubby, curly baby hair, rosy cheeks… He’s either asexual or a closet homosexual. He’s in his late 40’s or early 50’s – hard to tell because of the cherubic appearance. He lives with his mother and, I believe, some cats. He doesn’t drink with the rest of the firm. He doesn’t play golf with anyone. He’s very passive aggressive and smiles when he tells you in front of the staff how you’re never going to make partner. He falls apart as soon as any case he’s working on gets remotely near trial and tries to pawn them off on other attorneys in town. Yet, his book of business is huge! I don’t get it. It’s times like these that I don’t care that corporate clients get screwed by the billing system. If they would just choose representation that is actually worth their money, instead of relying on, and perpetuating, urban myths, the rest of us hard-working, sincere and just-plain-good people could get ahead in this rat race.

  3. Anonymous on January 8th, 2009 12:06 pm

    My version of this guy is named David. But don’t call him because “Dave” because he’ll snap your head off. And that’s the only time he’ll talk to you. He’s short, barrel-shaped, rude, doesn’t look at anyone’s face and never attends any firm functions, even the mandatory ones — and NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING because they’re always like, “oh he’s working so hard, that’s how he is, he’s an animal” blah blah blah. What a load.

  4. Bill Dugan on January 8th, 2009 12:59 pm

    There are douchebags like this at every firm. You are lucky enough to have and work with two of them at the same time. I was hoping you were going to tell us you had a menage-a-trois with these two douchebags, but didn’t have to worry about protection because they were both nutless. But you didn’t. Oh well, there will be other opportunities with men for you to practice your Kegel exercises. I can think of one guy just dying to get in there, the way I am with Julie. Happy new year!

  5. Strunk on January 8th, 2009 1:12 pm

    This is not very well written:

    “a corporate equity partner whose book of business is rivaled in magnitude only by his lack of a personality. Or emotional range. Or ability to speak in a voice that doesn’t sound like he was recently plugged back into the Matrix.”

    I don’t understand if he’s supposed to have a big book of business or not. “Rivaled in magnitude” sounds like it’s big, but then “lack of personality” sounds like it’s nonexistent. Can you have a really big lack of personality? Ordinarily we think of people with a “big” personality as having, well, a lot of personality. Next comes “[o]r emotional range.” Clearly you think he has little emotional range, but we’re still operating off of “rivaled in magnitude” here. And then, “ability to speak [etc.].” Again, what does it mean that his book is “rivaled in magnitude” by his ability to speak in a way that you don’t think he can speak?

    If the point is that he doesn’t have a book of business, well, you could have said it much better.

  6. uh on January 8th, 2009 1:13 pm

    This is terrible writing.

  7. El on January 8th, 2009 1:34 pm

    1.13 – you’re an idiot. Are you even a lawyer? Not that it matters, really. The legal tease is some of the freshest writing on this often trying profession I’ve seen. Keep it coming.

  8. how? on January 8th, 2009 1:39 pm

    So how do these guys get clients? They must do something right (or have associates do it right) because presumably they did a good job for clien A, who then recommended them to client B, and so on. Gotta wonder how they even got client A if they are so socially inept.

  9. Anonymous on January 8th, 2009 1:51 pm

    Yea, she’s hot. And she’ll spread ’em for the right guy (and the wrong guys too). Go for it. Time for the Southern Lawyer to come on looking for poon.

  10. Strunk is an idiot on January 8th, 2009 2:14 pm

    “a corporate equity partner whose book of business is rivaled in magnitude only by his lack of a personality. Or emotional range. Or ability to speak in a voice that doesn’t sound like he was recently plugged back into the Matrix” means: he has a large book of business (which is surprising to the BFW, considering what a tool he is), and this book of business is so big that it is rivaled only by his LACK of personality . . . or LACK of emotional range, i.e. he is like a robot . . .or LACK of ability to speak in a normal voice.

    So, Strunk, your lack of ability to understand a grammatically correct, artfully crafted set of sentences makes me think that you have probably received no education whatsoever.

    Furthermore, given how everyone is entitled to have their off-days, I would appreciated it if you would NEVER again comment on this blogger’s grammar. Take this shit to ATL. We read these posts for substance, not to criticize her grammar.

    FYI – I am NOT the author, nor do I usually comment on this blog. Rather enjoy it quietly, as should anyone else who reads it and has nothing interesting or constructive to say. Your other alternative is to simply not read it.

  11. Southern Lawyer on January 8th, 2009 3:05 pm

    I agree. Strunk is an idiot! If you really didnt understand what she was saying, then you are a F***ing moron!

    That being said…BFW, I hate the people you work with.

  12. Xuan Lin on January 8th, 2009 3:55 pm

    I do not understand why our poster has so much trouble adjusting to smart male lawyers. Some might think she may be alienated by the fact that they have achieved success in the profession; indeed, my boyfriend, long a hard-working big-law firm associate, has related to me that it can certainly be war in the trenches with associates; and often between the sexes. Males do not accept females as equals, and females do not accept being treated as second class citizens (and rightly so, I say).

    So perhaps we will need to figure out whether the Legal Tease might do better in an environment less populated with dominant male types; those who prefer to subjugate women rather than promote them. In fact, it was a similar issue that Laslow thought would lead to a catastrophic conclusion in 1981. It has not yet happened, but all the seeds are there. Stay tuned.

  13. Anonymous on January 8th, 2009 11:39 pm

    This was entertaining. Comments re: bad writing are ridiculous. So are Partners like the one referred to in post (but there are plenty of them).

  14. TRUE STORY on January 9th, 2009 2:13 am

    Once, I met someone who other people said was smart, but I didn’t think he was very smart. IM SRS IT RLY HAPPENED.

  15. Anonymous on January 9th, 2009 5:31 am

    While Xuan Lin makes interesting observations on the battle of the sexes, it is “Anonymous on January 8th, 2009 1:51 pm” that really can pick em.

    He/she said “Time for the Southern Lawyer to come on looking for poon.”

    And ,wouldn’t you know it, within an hour or so, in comes the Southern Lawyer, looking for poon –this time, joining in bashing a twerp that dared to criticise the blogger, and again angling for that tryst.

  16. Anonymous on January 9th, 2009 2:53 pm

    Yes, I say the Legal Tease should spread for the Southern Lawyer. He needs it.

  17. Bill Dugan on January 9th, 2009 8:10 pm

    I agree. That poor bastard probably needs more than a good lay. A blow job or two won’t hurt either. Of course, someone will have to travel.

  18. Eileen DeBonis on January 10th, 2009 8:09 am

    For once I agree with these people. The Southern guy is typically suave, but his aim is clear. To the writer of the post–be forewarned. If we can smell it coming, you should too. Of course, you have not made the best choices so far, so under that line of thinking, how bad can another misdirected shot of spunk be? I warn you, be careful, or you’ll be movin’ way down’ South to raise a white trash rugrat while your spouse gets drunk every night, like Stanley Kowalski. Again, though, this Southern lawyer is no Marlon Brando.

  19. Alex Hump on January 11th, 2009 6:31 am

    Eileen, iighten up. Here’s someone you or someone with your sexual attitudes would appreciate:

    A crusty old Marine Sergeant Major found himself at a gala event hosted by a local liberal arts college. There was no shortage of young, idealistic ladies in attendance, one of whom approached the Sergeant Major and asked,’Excuse me, Sergeant Major, but you seem to be a very Serious man. Is something bothering you?’

    ‘Negative,ma’am. Just serious by nature.’

    The young lady looked at his awards and decorations and said, ”It looks like you have seen a lot of action?”

    ”Yes,ma’am, a lot of action.’

    The young lady, tiring of trying to start up a conversation, said, ‘You know, you should lighten up a little. Relax and enjoy yourself.’

    The Sergeant Major just stared at her in his serious manner.

    Finally The young lady said, ‘You know, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but when is the last time you had sex?’
    ‘1955’ , he replied.

    Well, there you are. No wonder you’re so serious. You really need To chill out! I mean, no sex since 1955!

    She took his hand and led him to a private room where she proceeded to ‘relax’ him several times.

    Afterwards, panting for breath, she leaned against his bare chest and Said, ‘Wow, you sure didn’t forget much since 1955.’

    The Sergeant Major said in his serious voice, after glancing at his watch, ‘I hope not; it’s only 2130 now.’

  20. Newbie on January 11th, 2009 9:33 pm

    I’ve had two revelations while reading this blog. First, never read the comments. Second, we lawyers need to get out more.

    And as for the “battle of the sexes”, there’s no win-win situation. In my experience, if you treat women equally or are generally nice to them women either think you’re not being genuine or you’re weak. If you explain that you were being genuine, then you’re definitely weak. Our profession is one of Alpha personalities for better or for worse.

  21. Alma Federer on January 12th, 2009 7:02 am

    Newbie is right. Males can’t be soft, as the female alphas simply wont accept that. If males are ultimately to act as protectors, the female, in order to be submissive to it, must see the male as worthy enough to let down her guard. Hence, being soft (or nice) will appear as weakness. In the animal world, no female worth her salt, will allow a weak male to mount her, for fear that the offspring will also be weak and sickly. If they are, they will not survive in the wild.

    It is very similar in the human world, particularly as it applies to female lawyers. You don’t see many “passive” female lawyers. Most are alpha types, if not outright bulldogs. The last thing you will ever see, in a pack of alpha female lawyers, is submission to any men who are not at least as string.

    Hence, “nice guys” and “sincere” men are seen as wimps. Female lawyers, also being on the hunt to mate, won’t get past the preliminaries with these men, preferring an alpha male who in all likelihood will not be interested in more than a quick roll in the hay with any woman, let alone a female bulldog lawyer. That is why the bulldogs are frustrated; they don’t find attractive the only men left who will give them the time of day (the “wimps”). Those same wimps are only interested in the bulldogs because they are programmed to mate, but not necessarily with these bulldogs.

  22. Alex Hump on January 12th, 2009 2:04 pm

    Never mind letting down your guard, ladies. Just letting down your panties will be enough for me.

  23. Anonymous on January 12th, 2009 4:14 pm

    I enjoy this blog and don’t normally comment, but I just have to say that (most of) the commenters on this blog are completely moronic. If you want to peddle your idiot prose somewhere, try Craigslist.

  24. Anonymous on January 13th, 2009 12:43 am

    please get out more….all of you.

  25. Alex Hump on January 13th, 2009 7:24 am

    The last two commenters are the ones who need to get a life. This blog is good not only because of the poster, who is excelent, but because of the community of individual “regular” posters who interact on the website. Where else can we find a psychological analyst (Xuan Linn), a Republican sexual reactionary (Eileen), a horny guy who needs to find a lay (Bill Dugan), the sophisticated “Southern Lawyer,” and a nice guy like me all get together and figure out and comment on all of these things? If you can’t take this, get humped!

  26. Southern Lawyer on January 13th, 2009 10:50 am

    Alex Hump, you should use “get humped” as a new put-down…like instead of saying..”oh! Snap” …you can say “oh bitch, you just got Humped” but use the capital H to denote that its a proper noun. …just saying..it could be fun.

  27. Anonymous on January 13th, 2009 5:16 pm

    Seriously, that last post by Southern Lawyer really shows why you guys need to get out more. Also, the fact that you have other no-life buddies that comment along with you doesn’t make it any better.

  28. Alex Hump on January 14th, 2009 5:22 am

    Sorry, Anonymous @ 5:16; we get out plenty–the fact that we all come here for comraderie and a few laughs means we’re balanced. Don’k knock us “GUYS”. Last time I looked, there are more than a few women regulars on this blog. I don’t think Eileen or Xuan have dicks, do you?

  29. Southern Lawyer on January 14th, 2009 11:30 am

    Anonymous 5:16 pm, what does it say about you to be commenting on my comments, then? So, when I comment, I need to get out more…but when you comment its ok? Who are you to say I need to get a life because I get a few jollies from reading about other lawyers who live seemingly typical lawyer-ly lives?
    I read BFW’s blogg because it amuses me and for 5 minutes out of my day I don’t have think about how I work for a group of colossal assholes.
    …lighten up.

  30. Bill Dugan on January 14th, 2009 1:14 pm

    Agreed. That anonymous poster is a real asshat. He is probably just pissed that he’s not getting any. He should at least have the balls to put his name up for us, but since he hasn’t maybe he should be called Blue Balls. His Blue Balls, is NOT our problemo! Blue Balls should go get himself a girl and let her teach him a thing or two. Or in other words, teach him to get HUMPED.

  31. Anonymous on January 14th, 2009 2:29 pm


    Your first statement makes no sense. The mere fact that you come here for camaraderie and laughs does nothing to show that you are balanced; NAMBLA members can find camaraderie and laughs on the internet, does that mean they are necessarily balanced?

    Also, your comment regarding “guys” is amusingly weak, and shows how desperate you are to find something to pick at. First, “guys” is often used informally to refer to either sex. See, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guys. Second, I could very well be referring to you, Southern, and Dugan, who all appear desperate for female attention. Third, Eileen and Xuan could very well have dicks; this is the internet after all.

    Finally, if you want to nit-pick, learn to spell.

  32. Anonymous on January 14th, 2009 2:37 pm

    Just saw the extra posts, so quick comment:

    Southern – Commenting itself is fine. The substance of the comment is what leads me to suggest you get out more. You’re free to do whatever you like however, it is your life. It’s merely a suggestion.

    Dugan – Amusingly childish.

  33. Southern Lawyer on January 14th, 2009 6:58 pm

    What is so amusing is that you continue to comment their (our) comments. Maybe you should get out more. It’s merely a suggestion.

  34. Anonymous on January 14th, 2009 8:58 pm


    If replying to comments equates to a need to get out more, it is clear by your sheer amount of posts that you are in a much more dire situation than I.

  35. Bill Dugan on January 14th, 2009 10:00 pm

    Anonymous–I just got back from an hour of hot heterosexual sex. Where were you, playing with yourself. I have a feeling you are a closet peckerlicker.

  36. Bill Dugan on January 14th, 2009 10:04 pm

    Oh, and if you knew anything about women, you would clearly know that those two are females. They are far too hung up on female issues to have dicks. Of course, there’s no proof you have one either, “Anonymous”.

  37. Xuan Lin on January 15th, 2009 7:36 am

    To the Anonymous posters — Dugan is correct. I do NOT have a penis (though I have regular access to one, thank you). I also do not need to get out more. Indeed, like the Southern Lawyer and Alex Hump have posted, this website is here to discuss topics of interest relating to the topic “sweet/hot justice.” I am not here to discuss the law of Crime or other topics that are technical and boring. Besides, I don’t even have a law degree, yet I feel that I can understand and respond to the sexual issues raised on the website. So, if you find this website not up to your legal standards, you should go to a BLOG that discusses the latest legal cases, if there is such a place. Good luck to you.

  38. Alex Hump on January 15th, 2009 11:37 am

    I agree. Why doesn’t this douche just go find a website where you can discuss the law against perpetuities or the law in Shelley’s Case (an old babe). If you don’t like that, go watch the movie Body Heat, where there was an underlying legal issue you can discuss (while we look at Kathleen Turner, when she was still a hot babe–well before the testosterone took over and she gained 100 lbs). If that is not enough, just go get Humped.

  39. Anonymous on January 15th, 2009 9:23 pm

    Quick comments


    You’re childish AND naive? How surprising…
    Your belief that only women can espouse these alleged “female issues” shows just how clueless you are. A male with half of a brain can understand the reasoning behind these “female issues,” and similarly argue them with the fervor that Eileen and Xuan have displayed. The fact that these issues appear so esoteric to you tends to illustrate your lack of understanding of the opposite sex, and would also lend support to the possibility that you have serious problems maintaining any kind of long term relationship.


    You appear quite proud of your name.

  40. Eileen DeBonis on January 17th, 2009 10:53 am

    I once worked with a guy who everyone thought was so smart, but I really didn’t know enough about the area and also about they guy. I did remember his reputation though when he came to my office and asked if I had any cigarettes. I told him I didn’t smoke and then he asked me if I wanted to go out for a drink with him. Since I was very young at the time, I did not know that he was really interested in more. So I agreed to meet him after work at O’Keefes for a beer. He was very protective of me at the bar, but I soon realized he was not that smart after all. He did not know that you should leave your money on the bar for the bartender to see that you wanted a drink. So we waited a long time for that beer. He was interested in me, but I was not interested in him so I did not even kiss him afterwards and I did not hear from him again.

  41. Bill Dugan on January 18th, 2009 2:58 pm

    Anonymous, not only are you are a twat, but you’re a smelly one, at that. You think you know all about me and others on the site, yet you don’t identify yourself. The first thing I’d do if I were you is to grow a set of COHONES, so that you will feel manly enough to comment under your own name, as the ladies and gentlemen do on this site. You should next figure out why you feel you have to make inane comments from the peanut gallery. Finally, once you figure out 1 and 2, you will be in a better position to understand yourself, and then, hopefully find a female sympathetic enough to you to provide you with some comfort.

  42. CuteGeekChick on January 29th, 2009 6:05 pm

    “Alex Hump on January 11th, 2009 6:31 am”

    Brilliant!!! A few people at my Firm had a laugh 🙂 Thank you, Alex!

  43. CuteGeekChick on January 29th, 2009 6:12 pm

    “Eileen DeBonis on January 17th, 2009 10:53 am”

    Really? No, I mean, REALLY????

  44. CuteGeekChick on January 29th, 2009 6:15 pm

    on subject – not all the Firm geniuses are socially inept or idiots, even though there are a few. The ones I’ve seen at my previous Firm and my current one are fun and witty and extremely smart. I guess the type of genious described in the original post usually sits in the office and doesn’t come out for sunlight.

Leave a comment...