Second first.

First second!

ouch. I'm thinking both litigation associate and support guy are toast at Quinn. But kudos to support guy for standing up.

Lat, can you please ban these "first" comments? Every time I see one I feel icky. It's sort of depressing to think of some pathetic loser's life revolves around posting "first" on an ATL thread. These comments add no information to the comments and only lower the status of your blog.

Our zoo has wild dogs. Pretty cool when they get fed, actually. It's like watching first year associates at a lunch meeting.

Some wild dogs might live at the zoo. Maybe the dingo ate your baby!

@ 2:55 - Sounds like someones a little bitter about not being first!

2:55 - Get bent

I would definitely fire support guy for taking it upon himself to lecture someone who is, without question, his senior. If there was a problem, it should have been brought to the attention of the staff manager or (and I discourage this from staff) the managing partner. The associate can stay depending on how good he is, but needs a lecture on how to treat people.

Where do you stand to make more money, long term...as trial lawyer at Quinn or in fund formation at Schulte?

The litigation support guy is probably in trouble, and there is a good chance he will be fired.

Whether or not what he did was justified in a moral sense is highly dependent on exactly what the associate said, the situation, etc.

Whether or not what he did was awesome is already clear - it was.

Where do you stand to make more money, long term...as trial lawyer at Quinn or in fund formation at Schulte?

Don't be so quick to say the support guy will be canned. There are some support staff out there worth a heck of a lot more than junior associates (who was probably on the receiving end of this email).

For example, there is a paralegal in my home office who basically knows everything there is to know about a huge number of cases -- he knows where the documents are, locates them quickly, and is generally a good guy. He is deeply entrenched and, if he had to, could easily get away with an email like this (though he would be "spoken to" or whatever, no doubt - as would the associate).

Talk about a blaze of glory. I wonder if support guy's soon-to-come farewell email will go off the charts.

members of the support staff should never address lawyers in such a disrespectful manner. indeed, they should know their places and, when experiencing shame over their lowly status, ask themselves why they settled for so little in life.

We has the wild dogs at are zoo to. At festival there Director let out the dogs on the town and we all run threw there town with there dogs nipping and pinching and biting with at my ding dong

If the support person had a problem with the associate he should have confronted him directly and not via e-mail, and certainly not cc'd to the entire NYO. Most attorneys will probably sympahtize with the associate anyway, since we know how easily something that we've worked all weekend on can be screwed up by someone in lit "support." So I don't have much sympathy for the support person. Welcome to the big city, it's not all puppy dogs and ice cream.....

@3:10 - I'll try not to feel too bad for you, knowing you make twice or three times what the "lit support" person makes, even though you had your secretary working on something all weekend. NY to 190k, right?

support staff should be seen and not heard.

new york to 195

3:10 -

I concur that it should not have been cc'd to the entire NYO. It should have been bcc'd.

3:14 -- secretary working on something all weekend? What the heck are you talking about? You obviously have no idea what we do -- if a brief needs to be filed on Monday, who's writing it? Who's editing it? Who's reviewing it? THE ATTORNEYS, that's who.

Get a life, loser.

I would venture to say that some support personnel are more important to a firm than some junior partners. Replacing a good, long-term, entrenched paralegal is harder than making another junior partner. And associates at all levels are fungible.

Where's the money, trial work or corporate?

Where's the money, trial work or corporate?

David - When I hit the send button on my masterpiece, the bcc list will include tips@abovethelaw.com

3:07, you are so right. Be courteous and polite to support staff - it is the right thing to do (I temped as a law firm secretary in college before becoming an attorney, so I know a little about what it feels like on the other side). And yes, many of them are much more valuable to the firm (especially at the early stages of your career) than you are. It's not as simple as "superior/inferior." It always amazes me how many new attorneys make that mistake.

Where's the money...trial work or corporate?

Carl:

What zoo name? I used to be director for zoo. i had many dogs to watch. one day, cha wawa dog bite poodle and i throw cha wawa against cage. cha wawa no more. i no more after that. I fired and now chase wild buffalo and distribute rocky mountain oysters to resurants around country.

Where's the money...trial work or corporate?

Lit support people are kind of cute, similar to the way that a retarded lad earnestly trying to pretend he's a real boy is endearing.

Bronx zoo in NY where the email was sent has african wild dogs

3:22, you're so wrong. Lit support people come and go (mostly go), and it doesn't matter one bit. Most real time-sensitive and large jobs are outsourced anyway. Lit support folks are generally useless and should not be e-mailing the whole firm to show how they've been insulted. No one cares. Get back to work screwing up.

Furriest!

During my summer clerking for an SF firm, I became friendly with a named partner secretary, who told me the following story:

Young associate ‘Smith’—to whom she was assigned when she joined the firm—was downright shitty to her—treated her like a ‘dog’ (in the zoo or otherwise).

So every time the associate missteped she would copy the offending document/pleading and send it on to her other assigned attorney (the named partner) attached to a memo, copy of the offending document attached, mistake circled in red.

This goes on for a few months. Whereupon Mr. ‘Smith” inquired “why are you trying to do this to me”. During the ensuing conversation a truce was brokered, and Mr. ‘Smith’ was never rude to a staff member again.

IMPORTANT LESSON: The support staff, if properly motivated, can torpedo the career of any associate they chose. BE NICE, VERY NICE.

Probably stupid to copy it to the whole firm, especially since the e-mail gives no background on what the associate did. If the associate truly acted like a douchebag, it would have been a lot more effective to quote what he/she said. Without that, it just comes off as petty. If you're going to rat someone out, do it right!

3:22, you're wrong, at least when it comes to my firm. Lit support / paralegal people _who are excellent at their jobs_ (that's key) are just as valuable to the firm as incoming associates. I've seen many associates taken to task for treating them like crap.

On the other hand, if you go out of your way to befriend them (which is a nice thing to do anyway) you will thank your lucky stars when you are in the office at 3:00 a.m. plowing through a project with the benefit of their expert assistance. Or, if you prefer to be mercenary about it, make nice and your work gets top priority.

Great post. This is hilarious.

Such public airings of dirty laundry are usually frowned upon. People are under a great deal of stress, and this stuff happens. Trying to harm the reputation of the associate isn't going to help. I'd let the support staff guy have it. As for the associate, it depends on how he really spoke to the support staff person, who could be over sensitive. At a place like Quinn, this probably wasn't the first time the support staff person was dressed down (if that even happened) after a screw up DURING TRIAL.

During my summer clerking for an SF firm, I became friendly with a wild dog.

The quality of litigation support staff can vary widely -- LIKE THAT OF ASSOCIATES -- but if you take the view that they are "retarded" or consistently mess things up, I think you are ignoring the enormous pressure they are under. Supporting attorneys is VERY tough, with all the deadlines and minimal notice. I've never had a position supporting attorneys; I am one. But I'm not a dick. And I feel bad when I give minimal notice. And I feel incredibly grateful when litigation support pulls through -- which is most of the time. Although this lit support guy truly crossed the line and doesn't deserve too much sympathy (you've got to rise above it, dude, and be professional), if the associate's email was anything like I imagine, he's a prick.

Are we really so self absorbed that we are only nice to support staff because they can wreck our careers? We all blow up on occasion, but anyone who treats staff poorly on a consistent basis should be fired.

No wonder people hate lawyers.

3:02 is right. This e-mail is awesome.
And although the litigation support guy obviously missed something (the graphic), the litigation associate deserves this e-mail. I imagine he is just the type of person that makes me feel icky about being a biglaw lawyer: someone with an inflated sense of self, who truly feels that his law degree entitles him to treat others like crap. No one is perfect; try being a little human.

"During my summer clerking for an SF firm, I became friendly with a wild dog."
Yea, funny. Good luck in life.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

WGWWD?

3:33 & 3:48

Was that the summer after or before band camp?

The sad thing is, even though the associate in question is probably a d-bag who deserves to be fired, if anyone is going to be reprimanded, it's likely the support staffer who wrote this email.

The associate will likely come up with some excuse (stress, late nights at the office, repeated incompetence of support staff) that will pacify the partners and the HR people. But the drafter of this email has no such excuse for sending it to so broad an audience.

A qualified associate brings value to the firm (through billable hours) and is far more difficult to replace than most support staff. So if anyone gets in trouble, it won't be the deserving d-bag.

That's just the way the office food chain works folks.

We had the wild dogs%%% We had the wild dogs%%%

I'm a litigation support guy. (Multimedia/trial support. I'm in the courtroom.) I wouldn't copy the whole firm on something like this... but I could get away with it if I did. I'm much more likely to just cc a few key partners and have the associate dealt with. Or just go sit down and have a good long chat with the litigation section head, or a couple of members of the executive committee.

And I don't think it is obvious that the litisup guy missed anything. Trial Graphix is an outsource company (with a NYC office). To me, it looks like the litisup guy is saying that neither he nor the vendor had any idea what the associate was talking about, and the associate couldn't clarify with a bates number. In other words, the associate wanted someone to take the fall for his lack of communication.

3:54: I'm not an insider, but Quinn isn't the usual office food chain.

On Day One of orientation at my firm a Partner issued us 2 important warnings.
1. Treat the staff badly and you'll be in big trouble.
2. Notwithstanding the above, the partners recognize that many of the staff members are whining gossiping bitches, so just be careful and look out for yourself.

3:54 - you positive about your place in the food chain?

3:43: Excellent point. Why not be decent simply because you should be decent? I think a major problem is that many BIGLAW attorneys have never had a support staff job before and have no idea the politics behind it. I've seen 26-year-olds speak with zero respect to women their frigging grandmother's age. It's unbelievable.

With that said, I think it is important to know that being disrespectful to support staff can have repercussions. These people are "below" you in the hierarchy but, believe me, you want as many people on your side as possible when the shit hits the fan. I had a paralegal come back to the office at eleven to help me without being asked because he caught wind of the fact from another paralegal that I was up the creek. He told me point-blank that he wouldn't have come in if I'd been shitty to work with.

4:04 - I've also seen female secretaries in their late 50's treat incoming female associates like shit while they treat the male associates like their favorite grandchildren. Let's just say there's lots of blame to go around, on all sides of this equation.

4:02 - That wisdom is equally applicable to wild dogs.

4:04, that's what a lot of people right out of law school don't realize - you _need_ the help of those who are "below" you in the food chain, as much as you'd like to think you're the World's Greatest Gift to the firm and will always finish every project on time and perfectly working completely by yourself.

Attorneys should realize that many support staff are just as smart as they are. The staff person simply had different opportunities and/or made different choices in life.

I know I could not run my practice without the support of top-notch paralegals and other staff. Every person is part of the team. On more than one occasion, they have taught me a thing or two or saved my butt by catching an error.

4:15 - Sorry, I got lost in there somewhere... are you speaking about the value of support staff or wild dogs?

Staff have a place, attorneys have a place, associates have a place and partners have a place. This lit. support guy did NOT know his place and should be fired. Gossip is bad enough, an email calling out an attorney to such a huge list is totally unacceptable, unprofessional and displays exactly the different levels both in status and responsibility there are between lawyers and staff.

I'm POSITIVE the attorney was a dick. Too bad. He's your boss. At a minimum, he's above you. Deal with it or get a new job.

And this "support worth more than attorney" stuff? What a load of crap. I've been in a law support role, and am now a lawyer. We bill, we are highly trained and educated, we MAKE MONEY for the firm. There's no choice between support staff and lawyers.

Why are partners afraid of pissing off support staff? 1) good people should treat their employees well. 2) you can't get a rep for being rough on the support staff or you'll have (minor) hiring trouble. 3) attorneys rarely sue law firms for work environment crap, support staff do it all the time.

Obviously, be kind to people. It a better way to go through life. However, when you run into a dick in law, and there are probably more jackass lawyers than there are not, you simply MUST have a thick enough skin to not react in such a foolish, immature and career killing way.

4:17 -- Support staff ... hence the use of the terms "support staff" and "support person."

Really, the wild dog thing was only marginally funny the first time. Now, it's just stupid.

4:18 obviously hasn't had to hire many support staff people lately. The labor pool is a bit shallow these days.

Staff have a place, wild dogs have a place, associates have a place and partners have a place. This lit. support guy did NOT know his place and should be fired. Gossip is bad enough, an email calling out an wild dog to such a huge list is totally unacceptable, unprofessional and displays exactly the different levels both in status and responsibility there are between lawyers and staff.
I'm POSITIVE the wild dog was a dick. Too bad. He's your boss. At a minimum, he's above you. Deal with it or get a new job.
And this "support worth more than wild dog" stuff? What a load of crap. I've been in a law support role, and am now a lawyer. We bill, we are highly trained and educated, we MAKE MONEY for the firm. There's no choice between support staff and lawyers.
Why are partners afraid of pissing off support staff? 1) good people should treat their employees well. 2) you can't get a rep for being rough on the support staff or you'll have (minor) hiring trouble. 3) wild dogs rarely sue law firms for work environment crap, support staff do it all the time.
Obviously, be kind to people. It a better way to go through life. However, when you run into a dick in law, and there are probably more jackass lawyers than there are not, you simply MUST have a thick enough skin to not react in such a foolish, immature and career killing way.

4:21 - you're right, I haven't, I would never be mean to my support staff. They're f-in priceless. :)

Get over yourself. The associate is not the support person's boss.

I think 4:18 said "at a minimum, he's above you". Or do attorney's take dictation from secretaries at your firm?

4:26 = support staff who doesn't know his place.

While I can understand where the lit. support guy is coming from, it is totally unprofessional to write an email like this.

He should of followed the chain of command to report the problem. However, I doubt it would have done much good.

It is kind of ironic that calling someone out for what they really are will lead you to lose your job. Sometimes you just need to keep your mouth shut - as hard as it may be. Life is unfair.

And while you're getting over yourself, read the e-mail again. The author didn't call the associate a dog; he said that he shouldn't be treated like one.

This whole thing is stupid. Everyone knows that the way to deal with incompetent support staff is to be nice to their faces but trash them to all of your fellow associates behind their backs. Word spreads and problem solved.

And whoever says the associate is not the support person's boss (4:26) has clearly never worked in a firm. Think of it this way: support person tells partner, "I didn't do X because only the associate told me to do it and the associate is not my boss." Support person = pwned.

4:31 - while you're browsing monster.com for a new job and playing minesweeper or whatver the f- my secretary does all day, why don't you note the difference between 4:18 and 4:23.

4:26 = someone who managed a company back when you were still still trying to get laid at your junior prom. Playing superior to the "lesser" people is rarely a wise career move. Good luck to you.

4:31 and 4:34 - My work is done here.

I have seen the support staff vs. associate battle go both ways and know of many junior associates who don't ask the staff to do anything, either because they live in fear of a secretary who has been around for 30 years and who won't give them the time of day, or because in the hierarchy of law firms junior associates only get help when everyone else's requests are taken care of. I agree that you should be respectful of the staff, and not just for purposes of promoting your own self-interest. But, the fact that the litigation support person thought that it was ok to scold the associate and cc the entire NY office makes me think this could be a situation where the staff member has as much of a superiority complex as the d-bag associate being called out. Just as a junior associate needs to understand the importance of being friends with the staff, some staff members have a chip on their shoulders (perhaps rightfully so based on past experiences) and do not even pretend to show respect to young attorneys.

For me at least, coming out of law school just three years after college and being told to manage people who were experienced, educated and, in many cases, much older was one of the biggest adjustments I had to make.

I think a real issue is that nothing in law school, or in being a young lawyer, prepares people to manage and supervise others. Associates feel the brunt of this when dealing with partners, and complain about it, but of course many of them don't apply the same lessons in dealing with support staff (or outside vendors, for that matter).

It's also not just a matter of respect. I think most associates at least try to respect paralegals, secretaries, etc., and an attorney who is outright mean or nasty is usually shunned and reviled by other attorneys as much as they are by the staff. Trying to find the right balance between being decent, but at the same time setting expectations and making sure the work is done right, is the real challenge. And, again, young associates at least in my experience get virtually no training or feedback in this area, in spite of the enormous impact it can have for clients - in terms of costs, time and, indirectly at least, results.

Support staff,

If you don't like working with lawyers, stop working at law firms.

You could have gone to law school like everyone else, but didn't. That was your choice. Now get back to playing solitaire.

We just had a new secretary start at our firm. She had 30 years of baggage, which she dumped no us on her first day. She made no effort to even attempt to understand how things are done here. Apparently, it is her way or the high way. Consequently, she used to work at bigfirms where this crap was tolerated way too long. Those who don't want to operate with the team need to be put in their place.

Whatever the problem is with a secretary or support person, the person to "put that person in her place" is a manager, not some self-important associate. For a similar reason, this e-mail was misguided.
You're getting paid real money kids, time to grow up.

I used to work for Biglaw in DC and am now in a smaller market. It seemed like a lot of DC associates had problems getting along with staff members at various firms, but that is not a problem at all in the market where I am located now. Have other DC associates experienced significant problems with secretaries who seem to ignore associate requests or do such a bad job that it is easier for the associate to complete the task himself?

At my firm I can name SEVERAL support staff member who could get a large portion of the associates fired on little more than their demand.

Alright, let's put it this way -- some support staff members are VERY reliable, professional and valuable to the firm. None of the support staff members who fit that description would send an email like this.
*Conclusion: both the associate and the litig support guy in this case have very poor judgment (assuming there is some truth to the support guy's email, which may or may not be the case). It's safe to say neither of them are particularly great at what they do.

4:32 do us all a favor then. When your support person is getting ready to go today, ask him/her to do something to something in the office tonight. If the person protests, say loudly, "you'll do it tonight, and stay here until you're done, because I'm your boss." Make sure do it with a partner in earshot.
Report back to us.

4:32 do us all a favor then. When your support person is getting ready to go today, ask him/her to do something to something in the office tonight. If the person protests, say loudly, "you'll do it tonight, and stay here until you're done, because I'm your boss." Make sure do it with a partner in earshot.
Report back to us.

Give me a jar of peanut butter and a wild dog and I'm a happy camper. Unfortunately the same can not be said about a jar of peanut butter and a lit support member.

Didn't those guys who wrote that awful book about going to law school while pursuing not-very-hardcore drug and gambling habits go to work at Quinn Emmanuel? Maybe this d-bag is one of those d-bags.

5:00 do us all a favor and post everything twice. Report back to us.

5:00 confuses being the boss and being a jackass. the boss doesn't say such things, he gets results because respect and deference are owed him. Oh, and the supprt staff gets overtime if they actually have to lift a finger beyond 9-5. By the way, the support staff's job is to SUPPORT LAWYERS.

In a proper setting, no one needs to say "I'm the boss" or "you're not the boss of me." They just do their jobs.

The thing with law firms is that you have no boss and everybody's your boss at the same time. Like junior associates, support staff have lots of competing bosses. Like junior associates, support staff may simply be "too busy" (read: unwilling) to do a project for somebody with a history of being an asshole. If that asshole is powerful, the support staff is unlikely to put his/her project on the back burner. If the asshole is some junior associate with zero power, they very likely will.

You people are out of your respective fucking minds. If an associate (presumably a junior) behaves so badly that a support staffer feels compelled to write an email that is virtually certain to get his ass canned, and copy the whole office no less, then the associate absolutely deserves the humiliation. No one (no one, people!) has the right to degrade subordinate personnel in a business. Just think of how demoralized or crestfallen you all are the minute some douchebag partner decides to make an example of you by biting your head off for some piddly mistake, in front of the whole office. Did you want to quit? You bet your ass you did. The only thing that kept you there was your Mercedes payment.

Think about it, IT staffers don't (generally) have Mercedes payments to make. So why put up with the bullshit. Make a scene, bring down some asshole associate who is too big for his britches, and find a new job.

I'm a former litigation support staff worker and current attorney. I can say firsthand that the problem goes both ways.

(1) Some attorneys are clueless and very snobby. They should cut it out.

(2) Some support staff are total nightmares. They don't work, aren't careful, and get huffy when young attorneys correct their obvious mistakes.

It is a tough balancing act for young associates. On the one hand, they are terrified that, if they criticize or correct (even politely), they will be labeled a troublemaker or staff-hater and won't ever be able to get anything done. On the other hand, sometimes there are staff members who don't want to work, or routinely make mistakes they shouldn't make, which adds immeasurable amounts of time spent by the associate correcting these screw ups. Complicating this relationship is the fact that often the good secretaries, paralegals, etc, are assigned to work with partners, leaving the associates to deal with the unwanted staff members (some of whom may be new and deserve better training than the associates can give, and some of whom seem intent on pulling down a hefty paycheck for a minimal amount of work).

The best advice on this thread for young attorneys is 4:02. Every law firm should pass this on to their new associates. And law firms should pay more attention to what goes on between staff and associates. They'll have an easier time recruiting qualified staff members if it is a nice place for them to work, and they'll get more billables/less writeoffs if associates are not stressing about how to redo the screwed up work of the litigation support staff.

unlike summer associate's salaries, respect is earned.
and not by taking things out on a support person when you really want to have it out with the true boss.
There are many ways that playing superior can backfire.

5:09 = Brilliant

You know, a lot of the comments here seem less than credible. It takes our firm about two years to find a competent litisup hire. We hire new associates every year. I don't think that any of the tough-talking attorneys here have tried to hire any litisup in this century. (Like 4:18).

And Litisup bills at our firm. My billing rate is the same as many associates. I receive tasks from associates and partners. I report to the CKO. He is my boss.

Agreed, 5:09 - best post so far

5:09 -- fwiw, my guess is that this IS a matter of the associate being a complete ass who deserves whatever he gets, but did you ever think of the possibility that maybe the lit support person is just crazy or has a short fuse? One thing that I have learned from working at a law firm is that logical behavior is hardly a given -- by partners, associates, or support staff.

Also, a lot of people here seem to be confusing support staff with litigation support staff. Legal secretaries and paralegals are not litisup. Database admins, presentation specialists, electronic discovery experts, graphic artists -- those are litigation support.

It is a small market. Are there some guys who are prima donnas? Sure. But they are prima donnas for a reason.

5:09 is my kinda guy!

5:26, are you a Quinn insider?

The lit support guy got canned. It seems the associate didn't do anything wrong:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/08/an_update_on_litigationsupport.php

FIRST!

FINALLY FIRST!!

Did I mention FIRST!!!

You know, a lot of the comments here seem less than credible. It takes our pack about two years to find a competent wild dog hire. We hire new human masters every year. I don't think that any of the tough-talking human masers here have tried to hire any wild dog in this century. (Like 4:18).

And Wild dog bills at our pack. My billing rate is the same as many associates. I receive tasks from human masters and their masters. I report to the CKO. He is my pack leader.

5:34, nope, just someone who treats support staff well, but also doesn't jump to the conclusion that the attorney always has to be the arrogant prick in every situation (although, it is frequently the case).

5:33 is correct. I work in litigation support, have a computer science degree, make low six figures and bill out at over $280 an hour. I also have ZERO student loans. Please don't compare me to other support staff. I may never get paid $160,000 a year but I am doing just fine.
All I am asking for is that you respect me and I will respect you. If you ever need to collect, track and produce large quantities of email and other electronic documents it helps to have someone knowledgeable that works for the firm on your side.

If you lit support guys had any real skills (or a CS degree from a non-TTT), you'd be working as software developers. Face it, "lit support guy" means "paralegal who is competent in Access and Powerpoint."

I don't know if this was mentioned before, or if this is even still the case, but one of the things I learned about Quinn when I considered going there a few years ago was that they pay their support staff like 2/3 of market (and it shows). After I learned that, I knew I didn't want to go there, because it shows an obvious lack of respect for support staff, and is a very foolish business decision, indicative of bad management.

SUCKA DONE GOT FIRED!

What a ridiculous and unprofessional email.

5:09:

You live in a fantasy world. Did you see what happened between the associate and the canned lit support guy? No. Neither did I. That being said, you assume that the associate "behave[d] so badly that a support staffer fe[lt] compelled to write an email that is virtually certain to get his ass canned . . . ." On various occasions, as an attorney, I have been treated very poorly by attorneys, and never did I even contemplate sending such an idiotic email.

This makes me want to work for Quinn. They understand that the a business whose sole purpose is to have attorneys make money for the firm should cater to those attorneys. In any other business setting, support staff that hinder the "mission" of a business would be out on the street. Only in law can worthless support staff stay employed while treating 3/4 people with whom they work like shit.

At the end of the day, I'm the one who goes into court and represents that this stuff has been done right. When lit support people start getting sanctioned by the courts, they can start telling me that I'm not their boss. That said, I agree with 5:07. If you're doing your job correctly, you should never have to pull the "I'm the boss" card on anybody. And if somebody is only doing their job because you pulled the "I'm the boss" card, that person should be gone.

My experiences have taught me that one makes a formal complaint ON PAPER through the highest person with the appropriate heirarchy copied. The appropriate heirarchy's lowest person on its totem pole is the one who has the task of talking to the offender. It's a tried and true method that has worked for me and it accomplishes the job by (1) papering the offender's personnel jacket; (2) causing a formal discussion between the offender and management personnel about the contents of the written complaint; and (3) makes the situation known only to those who actually witnessed the offending behaviour. Gossip takes care of notifying the rest in a manner that is unprofessional, so the witnesses should think twice before they talk. E-mails such as that sent are understandably borne out of frustration and are a form of "going postal," but it is better done in a formal chain-of-command, paper method. The old-fashioned way gets resounding results.

"At the end of the day, I'm the one who goes into court and represents that this stuff has been done right. When lit support people start getting sanctioned by the courts, they can start telling me that I'm not their boss"

Yes, you're in a position of responsibility (not necessarily authority), and therefore you are rewarded when something goes well and you take the heat when it doesn't. Good for you.
If the judge is angry becuase you're late, does that make you the subway conductor's boss?

ah, fuckit. I wrote that last one and now I don't really like it. Never mind.