"Our First Amendment rights are very important. Boo Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo"
thus wailed ‘corporate and intellectual property lawyer’ Virginia Pearcy
Yep. She actually broke into tears while being interviewed on the raadio. A 27 year old corporate and intellectual property lawyer, worth a reported $84,000 a year. Blubbering like a little girl who’d lost her puppy because someone didn’t like her little hanging-soldier ‘statement.’ Sounds like the emotional behavior of a 13 year old girl, doesn’t it?
But wait—there’s more!
The sanitized, reworked-over-time-and-retelling, packaged-for-the-newspaper-story version is that little Virginia left home ‘and a mother who couldn’t make ends meet’ when she was 13 years old. She met Steven Pearcy when she was in 8th grade [13 years old]—he was her 31 year old math tutor, going to [University of CA at] Davis and working as a lab tech. She then moved in with Pearcy. “They had their own rooms, and didn’t get romantically involved until after she left UC Davis, they said. ” When Virginia turned 18, they ’suddenly‘ realized they were in luuurve and married. That same day, I believe. Steven was 36.
In an amazing story about the excellence of our educational system, Virginia [age 14] then enrolled at Sacramento City College claiming to be 18. She then graduated with honors from UC Davis and Boalt Hall [UC Berkeley’s law school] at age 20. She then landed her current $84,000/year position straight out of law school. ......
While your flesh is still crawling, I want to point out one other angle. This 31 year old [perpetual?] grad student, scraping together Dorito money as a $5/hour test-tube washer and junior high math tutor suddenly turns it all around and becomes a lawyer. Upon meeting his future wife. Who is 13. Leaves one wondering who actually is the powerful one in that couple, doesn’t it?
The final weasel-out by Steven Pearcy, after the MoveAmericaForward Candlelight Vigil and Brawl last night:
"Whenever we post a political message on the front of our home, the intent is to leave it up until it has reached a sufficient number of people who ordinarily pass by, and in this case, it’s an understatement to say the our displays have done just that,” Steven Pearcy said.
uh huh . . .
$84,000 a year strikes me as a bit low, actually. By the time I graduated from the same institution a year later (no, I didn’t know her, thank <censored by ACLU />), six figures were the norm, particularly at a top firm like hers. With 6 1/2 years on the job, I’ll bet she’s around $200k by now.
Of course, I’m sure she donates it all to the state, commie do-gooder that she is.
Posted by Xrlq on 02/22/05 at 03:58 PMOh, that is rich!
Posted by Claire on 02/23/05 at 08:10 AMFYI, salary ranges at big law firms in the Bay Area: http://ip-confidants.com/ip_hire.htm
Posted by Oriental Redneck on 02/23/05 at 05:32 PMBut apparently Ms P is not as rich as she might have been…
Discrimination? Ageism? Aww.
ThanQ! OR!Posted by Claire on 02/24/05 at 08:55 AMNah, firms don’t discriminate that way. They have rather mechanical pay scales that are generally not published but are widely circulated informally among Greedy Associates (TM), who then use them to argue for their own pay increases. The main difference between the $84k figure and OR’s numbers (aside from the fact that they identify different firms) is that the former is current and the latter outdated. If Skadden pays its first year associates a base salary of $140k, so does Orrick. Neither firm paid anywhere near that much in 1998.
Posted by Xrlq on 03/04/05 at 10:18 AMNah, firms don’t discriminate that way. They have rather mechanical pay scales that are generally not published but are widely circulated informally among Greedy Associates<sup>TM</sup> who then use them to argue for their own pay increases. The main difference between the $84k figure and OR’s numbers, aside from the fact that they identify different firms, is that one number is current and the other grossly outdated. If Skadden pays its first year associates a base salary of $140k, then Orrick pays something pretty close to that, too. However, neither firm paid anywhere near that much in 1998.
Posted by Xrlq on 03/04/05 at 10:23 AM
Next entry: "Congress shall make no law...
Previous entry: That can't be right...
