After the weekend's hiatus, this morning we have a round-up of Coudert post-mortems.  Astonishingly, and unforgivably, The New York Times has yet to take note.  Unless they're saving up their ammo for a behind-the-scenes feature, the reaction can only be:  What up?!?

The Financial Times, always a favorite (think The Wall Street Journal with cheek), observes drily that "the firm's recent history makes poor reading."

The Lawyer comes to bat with no less than two stories and an editorial.  First it tallies up who's probably going where, from which offices, as well as providing a timeline of low points over the past five years and describing the final three-and-a-half hour partnership conference call, in the words of one there, as "sad and gloomy."

But I have indeed saved for last the best, or at least the most scathing (bordering on vituperative—Coudert fans, you have been warned):  Caitlin Griffith's roundhouse punch at the woebegone firm:

• "couldn't bear very much reality;"
• "high farce;"
• "euphemism after euphemism;"
• "Come off it!  'Strengths of the firm?'"

The woes clearly go back a decade or more, and unless one can excavate lessons from Coudert's grave, one can only observe with sadness and gloom.