Dangerous E-aisons


In my experience, male partners are awkward, middle-aged, sex-starved men who tend to mistake my professional attentiveness for flirtation. So I guess I should’ve been prepared for what followed after I naively began engaging in a “too personal” email exchange with a balding, overly confident, married equity partner.

I’ll let the actual exchange speak for itself:

Day 1, 1:37 PM | From: BEP (Bald Equity Partner) | To: Me (Law Firm 10)

First, assuming we have a strict Confidentiality Agreement, I was in traffic last night, and this is what I thought of:

Present company excluded,

  • Top three best-looking men in the Chicago Office
  • Top three best-looking women in the Chicago Office

Day 1, 1:46 PM | Me to BEP

Men:

1. RTW
2, 3 (tie). ARD and CKS

Women:

1. That new corporate associate (name unknown)
2. TBR
3. MKC

Day 1, 1:48 PM | BEP to Me

Again, to re-emphasize, present company excluded . . .

Women:

We are of one mind, and I think LAD is who you are thinking of, and I would agree.

Men (I’m a poor judge on the man front, FYI):

1. BEN
2. VLB
3. TBR

RTW?  Really?

I am now off to a meeting. Perhaps we can continue a bit later.

My suggested next topics are:

  • Least-attractive men/women in Chicago office;
  • When was the first time that you knew that I existed?

Day 1, 3:17 PM | BEP to Me

Hello?!?!?!

Day 1, 3:33 PM | Me to BEP

1. That one is pretty mean, so you go first.
2. On my first day as a full-time associate. I think you talked to us about loss prevention.

Day 1, 3:39 PM | BEP to Me

Women:

1. VAA
2. VAA
3. VAA

Men:

1. JED
2. JED
3. JED

2. We are still of the same mind. I remember that loss prevention thing.

Now, guess the first time that I really knew that you existed. Hint: It happened at the all-firm meeting in Arizona, and you were wearing a bikini. I also have a recollection that you did not think I was cool cool.

We need to talk more about River North drinking. I may have a suggestion for you.

Next topic please!!!

Day 1, 3:57 PM | Me to BEP

I am not good at thinking up topics.
If you could punch one person at the firm in the face, with no repercussions, who would it be?

Day 1, 4:07 PM | BEP to Me

Present company excluded?  J/K

VZ. Because he just totally blew off a conference call with my client without giving me any notice or explanation. An attitude thing that we should only discuss over drinks when there is no politically correct roof over our heads.

Who would you punch and why?

Day 1, 4:31 PM | Me to BEP

JD.  He is abusive, and, worse yet, he is largely incompetent. Literally cannot run his own cases to save his life.

Day 1, 4:40 PM | BEP to Me

I can see why you would say that, but he has run a case or two for me, and the result was favorable.
PS: We need better topics.  May I?

Five Questions:

  1. Did you watch Drexel lose last week?
  2. Have you checked out the old holiday pictures displayed in the cafe?  Some oldies and funnies of yours truly.
  3. Pippin’s in River North . . . been there?
  4. Massages—male or female masseuse?
  5. Boxers or briefs?

Day 1, 5:07 PM | Me to BEP

Five Questions:

  1. No. I like to pretend that I didn’t go to my school in the first place.
  2. No, I must make an effort to do so.
  3. No.
  4. Massages—male or female masseuse? Doesn’t matter to me.
  5. Boxers or briefs? I don’t wear either.

Day 1, 5:11 PM | BEP to Me

Five Questions:

  1. I feel the same way about my alma mater.
  2. Right now, before they take them away!
  3. Care to?
  4. Interesting.
  5. Ask me my view of the reverse of this question?

Day 2, 9:37 AM | Me to BEP

Five Questions—

  1. I have extreme Ivy League envy.
  2. Okay.
  3. Probably not the best idea.

Day 2, 9:41 AM | BEP to Me

Five Questions:

  1. I have Big Ten envy.
  2. Not the best idea? Explain.
  3. Go ahead and answer.

Day 2, 10:13 AM | Me to BEP

Five Questions:

  1. What’s so great about the Big Ten? I don’t get Big Ten fascination.
  2. Just doesn’t seem like a good idea.
  3. What’s the question?

Day 2, 10:22 AM | BEP to Me

  1. I LIKE BEING ABLE TO CHEER FOR A TEAM THAT IS ON TV MORE THAN ONCE EVERY 100 YEARS.
  2. NONSENSE. IT’S A DIVE. NOBODY FROM HERE GOES THERE. ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS?
  3. ASK ME THE FEMALE-TO-MALE COUNTERPART TO THE MALE-TO-FEMALE BOXERS OR BRIEFS QUESTION.

Day 2, 10:53 AM | Me to BEP

  1. Okay, okay, you don’t have to yell. I understand. But if that is the rule, then you could equally have ACC envy or SEC envy . . . you could even have Conference USA envy.
  2. I’m dating someone.
  3. What is the female-to-male counterpart to the male-to-female boxers or briefs question?

Day 2, 10:56 AM | BEP to Me

  1. AGREED. I like Conference USA a lot.
  2. GOT IT. YOU ARE IN DEMAND!!! WHAT’S THE STORY WITH THAT “SOMEONE?”
  3. Thongs or granny panties? FRENCH-CUT BIKINI. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THOSE?

Day 2, 1:17 PM | Me to BEP

  1. I think it would have been really fun to go to an SEC school. Although an Italian girl from the Midwest might have some trouble fitting in with southern belles.
  2. I just happen to have a rule that if there is a “someone” with whom I have dated for over two months, then I can’t get drinks with “anyone” else.
  3. I don’t even know what that means. You are more knowledgeable than I about women’s lingerie.

Day 2, 1:25 PM | BEP to Me

Ok, I’m liking this exchange (and have several thoughts and comments on the low-rise issue), but I gotta go to yet another meeting. Can we adjourn for the night and pick it up tomorrow? Also, can I propose a new rule to our email conversations? RULE 1. No leaving the office in the middle of an email conversation without providing notice (it’s kinda like hanging up on somebody). Have a good night. Google French-cut bikinis.

*THE END*

After that assignment of obviously non-billable panty research, we haven’t emailed or talked since. I don’t know why, but we haven’t. He probably realized that he was dangerously close to crossing (leaping) over the sexual harassment line—and that I wasn’t interested.

Would he have hopped over said line like a perky bunny rabbit if he thought I was open for business? Probably. But he’s not stupid. He’s not going to get sued and possibly fired over a long shot. A slam dunk, maybe. But not a Hail Mary.

And what about me? Was I partly responsible for this embarrassing cyber-infidelity?

I’ll admit, I was receptive to his initial “inquisitive” email because, let’s face it, the guy’s a player. His best friend is the managing partner. Why not develop a friendly rapport? But I certainly didn’t think I was encouraging an open invitation to an adulterous affair.

And to be perfectly honest, I didn’t want to alienate him. I need this paycheck. I don’t have a trust fund, and the giant cock-block of billable hours has left me without the high-earning husband I want (and need.) Yes, I intend to marry for money. Sorry.

So I did what any smart, political, tough woman would do: I tiptoed around his fragile, pathetic, bald ego and deflected his suggestiveness as best I could without calling Gloria Allred—or Gloria Steinem—or any other sassy feminist named Gloria.

Why ruin his career and marriage over a few impolitic (okay, lame) emails? More importantly, why ruin my own career over said impolitic emails? I sure as hell don’t need a “victim” or “whistleblower” label on my forehead. If things got really creepy, maybe. But they didn’t.

That being said, the next time some wannabe cool partner looking to reclaim (or reinvent) his college ladies’ man persona tries to strike up a flirty email relationship with me, I’m just going to ignore him. Unless he’s cute. And single.

Law Firm 10 may lack the dazzling, magnetic charisma of a girl from the hottest sorority in school, but she (arguably) makes up for that with her wit, humor, and low-maintenance-ness. Read more from Law Firm 10.

31 Comments

  1. Alma Federer

    January 22, 2009 at 5:23 am

    This illustrates EXACTLY what pretty women like us face in the law firms (and elsewhere).  We have to remain friendly, but not too much so, for fear that we will be objectivized by the men who run things and who are trying to recapture their youth (if they even had a youth).  More likely, these fat and balding wonks never were able to talk to, let alone control, pretty women, let alone pretty woman lawyers.  More likely, the women in law school wouldn’t talk to, let alone, sleep with wankers like the balding fat partners now trying to titilate their egos by having pretty women like me respond to them.  The e-mail exchange is sick, but what choice did the writer have?  Either NOT respond (and be dubbed a stuck up bitch), or respond, and risk the potential of having this dork taking her to a fancy hotel for a quickie while his wife and 3 kids are at home.  When men understand our situation, perhaps they will treat us differently, but I doubt it, since most men think directly thru their dicks.

  2. lawyer

    January 22, 2009 at 5:45 am

    you people are so shallow. what about enjoying the little things in life? im so sick of this micro world bs. theres bigger issues than this lawyerly edition of the office.

  3. BL1Y

    January 22, 2009 at 6:05 am

    Yes, there are bigger philosophical issues. Like Confucious say:  “Man who go to go to bed with itchy asshole, wake up with smelly finger!”

  4. Anonymous

    January 22, 2009 at 6:34 am

    If I could punch one person on this site in the face, with no repercussions, it would be Law Firm 10.  Are you really that dumb?  You talk underwear with a partner to keep your job and then you post his emails.  Smooth.

  5. Bill Dugan

    January 22, 2009 at 6:39 am

    Yes, she is a real dipshit.  And she thinks she’s a “10, “no less!  She probably looks like a cross between Kathy Bates and Rosie O’Donnell.  How sad is that–the only thing sadder that in the pool of female lawyers, she may well be a “9”.  With all of that said, is it any wonder we men are so bitter when this is what we have to pick from.  Oh, and that Alma (below) probably is no prize either.

  6. BL1Y

    January 22, 2009 at 7:14 am

    Alma: It’s objectify, not objectivize, or did your web browser’s spellchecker call in sick today?  And yesterday.  And really, are we back to having fake BL1Y again?  I thought that guy quit.

  7. BL1Y

    January 22, 2009 at 7:22 am

    “Dangerous E-laisons” was a fine title.  “E-Dork” is lame.  Change it back please.

  8. Real Deal

    January 22, 2009 at 7:43 am

    Alma: I agree.  And I’m a dude.  Most of these partners putzes have never even talked to a cute woman, let alone controlled one.  It’s REVENGE OF THE NERDS.  In a weird way, being a hot woman and “cool” jocky guy are the same thing at a law firm.  The geeky partners get a chance to exact their revenge.  As for Law Firm 10, don’t pretend to be so innocent, sweetie. You knew exactly what you’re doing.  Which is why I’m in love with you.

  9. Ex-BigLaw

    January 22, 2009 at 8:30 am

    “Yes, I intend to marry for money.”
    Then don’t be surprised when he leaves you for a 19 year old when you’re 40. 
    And guys – Don’t let yourself be taken advantage of by women who know exactly what they are doing.  DON’T BE A MORON – INSIST ON A PRENUP.  If she doesn’t want to sign one, don’t let her BS you and tell you it’s not “romantic.” Things don’t always work out like you hope they will, and what you don’t need is to pay out 50% of your income for 20 years after she turns into a bitch.  If there’s no prenup, this is all a sales pitch.

  10. Bill Dugan

    January 22, 2009 at 8:51 am

    I think given the commentary, that the men ought to bone as many women as they can, while they are still fresh, preferably without any commitments, and then only marry after they are all F***ed out and tired of the sex scene. .  On the female side, ideally women should try and find a stable guy with money that will not leave them once they get dry and bitchy (which inevitably occurs by age 41, if not earlier, in about 98% of the females).  Barring that, the females should try and hook a guy with money that they ultimately know will dump them, so when that dumping happens, they can be thereafter be supported for the next 20 years while the ex is remarried to and probably boning a new semen receptacle.

  11. lawyer

    January 22, 2009 at 8:53 am

    Yes marry me for my money, so i can pump you with 3 kids and then leave you for a 19 year old.

  12. Anonymous

    January 22, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Boy, this was dull.

  13. Alma Federer

    January 22, 2009 at 10:44 am

    Most of you men prove my point.  Other than “Real Deal” the rest of you guys are only after 1 thing, and that’s not what I want.  As a woman who has worked hard to become a lawyer, it is NOT enough for me to just serve as a “semen recepticle” for men like you.  I need a relationship with a guy who cares about me, not someone who is only interested in me because I am still young and nubile.  Guess what, in 20 years, you won’t be as handsome as you are today, either, so why hold me to a standard of being an Angelina Jolie, particularly since you guys can’t be Brad Pitt’s.  And BL1Y, maybe by the time youre a 5th year associate, you will have graduated to more mature books than the Animal House jokebook.  The Confucious stuff really does not turn me on.

  14. BL1Y

    January 22, 2009 at 11:07 am

    Alma: Please read the post where I said that the “Confucius” BL1Y is not from me.  And, it’s a little oversimplified to say that we only want one thing.  While we may want sex more than anything else, we also want food, booze, sports, jokes, toys, and (on occasion) good conversation and companionship.  Of course we want women for sex, they’re the only people we can have heterosexual intercourse with.  But, we’re not blind to efficiency.  If we can get sex and other stuff we like, we’re going to take that into consideration.  But, at the end of the day, I can get all of the other stuff I want in life without a woman.  Sex is the only thing we absolutely need you for.

  15. Real Deal

    January 22, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Who the hell is this Bl1y guy?  He’s painful.  Do you get paid the Bitter Lawyer people to annoy readers?  Are you for real?  Are you really a lawyer?

  16. Alex Hump

    January 22, 2009 at 11:49 am

    I think BL1Y ultimately means well.  After all, he taught me (and probabley some others) all about tit measurements yesterday.  But we men must remember that when it comes to women we can’t just “hump ‘em and dump ‘em”–that is what Alma is railing about.  We must be more sensitive to their needs and desires, got it BL1Y?  It’s not all about men satisfying their carnal desires.  I’ve been trained over the years to be more sensitive to these women issues.  And, BL1Y, you will see that by being more sensitive, you will, in the end, get what you need, which is the physical outlet we so require for heterosexual sex. If we are insensitive, we will wind up “holding our own” and that doesn’t work for any of us.

  17. SDL20

    January 22, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Me to BEP
    1. Why are you such a douche?

  18. Jack Wisen

    January 22, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Is this woman a dunce or what?  She’s bitching about having an unattractive partner potentially come on to her yet she continues to correspond with the d-bag partner on the topic of his/her undergarment preferences?  Puh-Leazzze!  The sleasy partner should know better, but she could have better deal with it by just ignoring any references to subjects sexual in nature.  By continuing to respond, she was just encouraging this ass to push the envelope further, giving himself more jollies as he figuratively moved his hand up her leg.  If it hadn’t stopped, who knows where it would have led.  The best advice is, for a woman, to ignore this stuff.  The d-bag will get the hint much quicker that way.  Something tells me this woman was enjoying the attention, particularly since she is now publicly reporting on it to us.  And I agree with the poster below that this woman is probably NOT a 10, but probably better looking than Rosie O’Donnell.  That is not a particularly difficult hurdle to beat.

  19. chad_broski

    January 22, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    It was actually smart of LF10 to keep up the chain – she is now termination-proof. If she ever gets asked to leave, this little evidence of harassment could lead to some nice settlement dough (assuming it’s true – it’s tough to believe a partner at a big firm would be so stupid as to put such blatant harassment in an email, but some of these people will surprise you, especially the horndogs).

  20. Anonymous

    January 22, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    Chad, I’ve seen worse. I knew of a partner at what was then a large firm satellite office with 100 lawyers who, at a staff meeting, proceeded to tell the women lawyers that although he was married, his marriage stunk, and that he was available for no-strings attached sex with any female 6th year+ associate knowing that partnership would be a paramount consideration to those women who had toughed it out that far.  There were also men in the room!  I would like to find anyone who can point to a bigger douche than him.

  21. BL1Y

    January 22, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    @1:36: I’ve had a coworker say that she hates white people.  At work.  With white people around.  She also admits to hating America and Americans.

  22. Ctrl+Alt+Del

    January 22, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    To be frank, this is the worst piece of shit I’ve read in a long time.

  23. Anonymous

    January 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    Agreed. It’s hard to follow.  Who cares if she is beautiful if she can’t write.  This is the opposite of what the partner thought.  We have to read this crap.  He only wanted to screw her.

  24. Anonymous

    January 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    This chick likes to flirt.  So does the Bald Partner.  Nothing too shocking here.

  25. big booty chick

    January 23, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    i just love flirting with partners hoping they promote me. I love law firm 10’s posts. Keep em coming!!!

  26. Al2

    January 23, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Yawn

  27. Lady of Liberty

    January 25, 2009 at 7:18 am

    Good one.  Stuff like that happens to me.

  28. lucabrazziere

    January 26, 2009 at 9:28 am

    my comment is going to be as snoozefesty as this post. i think she handled the email exchange well. that is all.

  29. LaraD

    January 26, 2009 at 11:12 am

    true this is not unusual stuff at some firms

  30. Anonymous

    January 28, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    nobody picked up that she was allegedly wearing a bikini at an office week-end. this in itself casts a shadow on her behavior within the firm.

  31. anonymous

    January 29, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Silly Law Firm 10.  She must have forgotten that looking good in a bikini is a valid defense to sexual harassment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>