Say Hello to Shinyung Oh, Author of the Paul Hastings Farewell Email
The folks over at the WSJ Law Blog have just given us a late-night treat: an interview with Shinyung Oh of Paul Hastings.
Oh is the author of the famous (and fabulous) PH Farewell Email — aka The Email That Launched A Thousand Blog Comments — and a heroine in the eyes of many Biglaw associates around the country. Here are a few highlights from the interview:
[T]he former associate, Shinyung Oh (University of Chicago ’93, Georgetown Law ’98), a commercial litigation lawyer…. says she sent the now-infamous email because she didn’t want other associates who may be laid off because of downsizing by the firm – but told it is because of their performance – to doubt their own abilities.“I want them to feel like they’re not completely alone and not to worry about their own performance when it’s the firm doing something for economic reasons” and because of a “desire to increase partner profits,” she said.
Inducing crippling self-doubt among associates is one of the most pernicious things about “stealth layoffs,” in which economically-driven dismissals are cast by firms as purely performance-based. We know this from having spoken to stealth-layoff victims, who have described how their self-confidence was shattered when their firms dismissed them, purportedly for poor performance.
While there may be a “six of one, half-dozen of another” quality to this debate — as Dan Weiner of Hughes Hubbard & Reed just told the WSJ Law Blog, “is it economic or is it performance-related is a false dichotomy,” since if you have to make cuts, “you’re not going to pick people randomly” — we still think it’s the better part of valor for firms to take the reputational hit, rather than stick it to their associates. At any rate, it’s certainly fair for law students and lateral candidates to shun firms that get called out for being less-than-candid about their personnel decisions.
Back to the interview. Here’s the $64,000 — or three-months-severance — question: What was Shinyung Oh thinking when she sent out that email?
[Oh said] she knew that the email, which was sent to associates firm-wide, litigation partners in her office and the top management of Paul Hastings, could ruin her chances of landing another big-firm job. She said she isn’t considering suing the firm, and said she doesn’t feel she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.
Oh Shinyung, are you sure? After Aaron Charney settled with Sullivan & Cromwell, he got himself a nice new apartment. Then again, if you were planning to sue, you probably shouldn’t have told the Wall Street Journal that you didn’t feel discriminated against on account of your pregnancy.
As for what’s next, Oh, who immigrated from South Korea when she was eight and grew up in New York and Houston, said she’s not sure. But she said that since the email was posted online, she’s received an outpouring of support from lawyers in the Bay Area and across the country. Several are trying to help her find a new job.
Shinyung, if you’re looking for headhunter recommendations, drop us a line — we can hook you up. And if you ever get the urge to send out another barn-burning, firmwide email, definitely give us a heads up. Based on the way that your email resonated with readers, it’s clear that you have writerly talent that deserves a wider audience.
In all seriousness, we wish Shinyung Oh the best of luck. We commend her for the courage it took to write that farewell email. We have every confidence that she will land on her feet — recall our prior post, quoting a colleague who praised her as someone who “ran a huge class action and got excellent results” — and we look forward to following her career in the years ahead.
Update: Jane Genova shares our optimism about Oh’s future. She writes: Oh “has almost an infinite number of fresh career options, within and outside law…. [enumerates options]…. Being the good solider, girl scout or boy scout has no payoff in the current career marketplace. Bold risks do…. Wild risk is the only secure path.”
P.S. Congrats to Amir Efrati on the interview. Read the full post over here. Check out a copy of Shinyung Oh’s 2006 performance review, also obtained by the WSJ, over here (PDF).
A screencap of her firm bio is saved for posterity, after the jump.
Fired Paul Hastings Associate Talks to Law Blog [WSJ Law Blog]
The New Risky Business - Shinyung Oh’s E-Mail Strategy [Law and More]
Earlier: Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email (And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)
Miscarriage of Justice at Paul Hastings? The Blogosphere Reacts
Nationwide Layoff Watch: Paul Hastings
(208) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
second
Figgety Fareast First.
okay but the real question is: what race is her husband?
WGWAG
PH and I have both learned at our peril: don't mess w/ Korean girls!
Kidding aside, kudos to her.
How am I not first at 2:03 am? Ok, back to due diligence!!
On one hand, I'm glad she's not taking the easy way out and pointing to her pregnancy/likely future pregnancy as the cause of the firing.
On the other, if you were another firm, would you hire her knowing she'd likely get pregnant in the near future? It could be a good PR move. Maybe her salary could come out of the advertising budget...
2:12 - Yes, let's just not hire any women at all unless they provide documented proof that they've hit menopause.
Would it be inappropriate of me to simply point out that this girl is hot? I really hope my firm hires her, so I can enjoy her hotness.
as for the "six of one, half-dozen of another" argument. no they are not rolling heads randomly, but the point was that those laid off are still probably pretty good lawyers.. like that malcolm in the middle episode where the teacher ranks everyone and they are all 99.998 but have a rank... those laid off are still 99.998 good, just not 99.999 good..
I think her face is stretched in the pic. Something is pulling it at the back of her head.
Skeletor?
Senior Partner: I'm sorry, Ms. Oh, we're going to have to let you go.
Oh: But, but, but... My uterus is still bleeding!
Senior Partner: Up or out, bitch!
I'd give her roofies any day.
My hero! Its nice to know there are some people with class and integrity in this profession.
I have mad respect for this woman. Good for her. What PH is doing to its associates is truly reprehensible. Maybe the partners should start looking for work and stop blaming others for their failings.
This girl has some mad courage!
Boycott PH!!!!!
Could not have happen to nicer, more forthright group of partners.
Congrats guys!
About her performance review:
She had some outstandings, some exceeds expectations, and some meets expectations.
What do you need to not get fired or to make partner? All outstandings?
Is it common to fire people who get some "meets expectatins"?
It is so refreshing to see someone stand up for themselves in this day and age and turn down some serious $$$
You go girl!
PH and I have both learned at our peril: don't mess w/ Korean girls!
Kidding aside, kudos to her.
Judgment = outstanding! The delicious Ms. Oh, will be fine. It must feel good to have your soul back. Iong for that occasion.
Lat, won't you delve into who wrote this glowing evaluation in 2006, and why firing partner felt the need to characterize it as inflated? I have a theory, but since you are the original gansta of race baiting, I'll leave the hypothesizing to you.
If you're feeling especially frisky, you might want to find out how evaluation partner feels about his opinion being discounted? What's the mood like in San Fran these days?
Good for her. She has great credentials (U. Chicago / GULC), great experience (trial / appellate / antitrust), and took the high road (sending a f*&k you, PH, for f*&king me email). I always thought of Paul Hastings as a decent shop. It looks darn ugly to me now.
"Oh" yeah... this gal is hot!
Paul Hastings Blows! Nice job Ms. Oh
Dear Shinyung Oh:
Thanks for your courage. As a mid-level in biglaw, I admire it and wouldn't have the courage that you did to walk away from the severance package and send such a bold (albeit very good) email. My only question for you is this: Why Amir Efrati from WSJ and not David Lat (who broke the story on ATL)? It seems to me that your post got the coverage it did from the loyal readers of Lat site. Oh well-- congrats.
Sincerely,
Biglaw Cog
Dear Shinyung Oh:
Thanks for your courage. As a mid-level in biglaw, I admire it and wouldn't have the courage that you did to walk away from the severance package and send such a bold (albeit very good) email. My only question for you is this: Why Amir Efrati from WSJ and not David Lat (who broke the story on ATL)? It seems to me that your post got the coverage it did from the loyal readers of Lat site. Oh well-- congrats.
Sincerely,
Biglaw Cog
Firing hotties is generally a bad idea.
Reverse sexual discrimination to 190!
Good for you, Oh.
Good for Shinyung! I'm suprised that Roger Lou hasn't added his two cents.
guts and beauty. she's got a great future.
who is roger lou?
I've actually dealt with Ms. Oh. She is a very nice person and a very good lawyer. Shame on Paul Hastings for doing this to her! As I recall, she also did a lot of pro bono so perhaps she has a more rewarding future in front of her doing public interest work full-time.
Why is there nothing in the interview about her being roofied? I thought that's what this was all about . . .
ATL is back! Good job with this story, Lat. Well done!
Shout out to Ms. Oh! Job well done.
She is pretty hot!
For what it is worth, I too have worked opposite Ms. Oh and she is an excellent attorney.
Paul Hastings should be ashamed of themselves.
Game, Set, Match - Shinyung Oh
8:22 - not-so-subtle GULC trolling
That looks like a pretty good performance review.
Bad move PH
Major kudos - very, very impressive (in actions and looks!)
Damn! Brains, integrity and beauty. You go, Oh!
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PM
Subject: FW: Goodbye…
As many of you are aware, today is my last day at the firm. It is time for me to move on and I want you to know that I have accepted a position as “Trophy Husband”. This decision was quite easy and took little consideration. However, I am confident this new role represents a welcome change in my life and a step up from my current situation. While I have a high degree of personal respect for PHJW as a law firm, and I have made wonderful friendships during my time here, I am no longer comfortable working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and Napoleonic personalities. In fact, I dare say that I would rather be dressed up like a pinata and beaten than remain with this group any longer. I wish you continued success in your goals to turn vibrant, productive, dedicated associates into an aimless, shambling group of dry, lifeless husks.
May the smoke from any bridges I burn today be seen far and wide.
Respectfully submitted,
[SIGNED]
ps. Achilles absent, was Achilles still. (Homer)
"is it economic or is it performance-related is a false dichotomy," since if you have to make cuts, "you’re not going to pick people randomly"
That's a load of . . . something. Ms. Oh was a 1998 law school graduate, thus she likely demanded a relatively high billable rate, but yet she was presumably not a business generator. That's all about economics and nothing to do with performance. Weiner's explanation of the false dichotomy itself presents a false dichotomy.
I will impregnate her is she wants.
So where are the PH trolls who claimed she was terrible, and a bad associate etc. Look pretty stupid now.
9:45 - In fairness to Weiner, he makes your point later in the interview: "Expensive people who are underutilized' are the ones firms look at first."
She will be played by Lucy Liu in the Lifetime Channel Movie.
I am a female attorney and recently quit a law firm due to an abusive boss who couldn't have cared less about the staff. He would rant and rave, accuse staff of losing things that he had right in front of him, ask for one thing and yell at you when you didn't produce something that had no relationship to what he originally asked for, insinuates you're stupid when he says "I know you're not stupid"...the list goes on. He runs through paralegals and associates like water.
I wish I had the guts that Ms. Oh did when she wrote that e-mail. You go girl! :)
On another note, it would be nice if the posters would quit referring to her as hot and offering to impregnate her..it perpetuates sexist stereotypes and is offensive.
Go GULC! Them Jesuits do a good job
Dear Ms. Oh,
You are awesome---a credit to the profession. I wish more lawyers had your strength and integrity. Best of luck---other firms would have to be stupid not to hire you.
M. Bradwell
Ms. Oh, thanks for bringing this to light. I was recently laid off by my firm (not PH) and they pulled the same BS, even though just three months earlier I had received a stellar review and was specifically told that I was on a good track for the future. No one even acknowledged that there isn't enough work to go around in my group; instead, the partner I work for treated me like I had become a walking malpractice case overnight and even went so far as to tell me not to go to another firm because I have no business being at one. Thanks for having the courage to stand up to your oppressors. I know that hearing your story has made me feel better about my situation and hopefully it has helped others as well.
The comment at 10:16 has sunk to a new low - I hope lat deletes it.
A quote from her evaluation: "She is very effective in meet and confer sessions, where her pleasant disposition disarms her opponent and masks her ultimately zealous advocacy."
And some wonder why lawyers have such a bad reputation? Apparently even being a nice person is only a mask worn to obtain an advantage. What a sad reflection in more ways than one.
PH sucks, congrats to Ms. Oh
Lat . . . there are many many more firms doing the stealth firing thing. Check out Dewey & LeBoeuf for starters.
And, may I add, she is actually quite stunning! Good luck, Oh!
funny that weiner should give a quote on this issue. if i'm remembering correctly, Hughes Hubbard showed a group of midlevel corporate attorneys the door a few years back (2004? 2005?) under similar circumstances -- their evaluations had been great, until just prior to their layoffs. strange coincidence.
and interesting that now weiner is giving quotes about the pratice.
Roger Lou + Shinyung Oh = match made in heaven.
Interesting that the firm still has her profile up on its website. I guess they want the traffic.
10:48 - Your memory is correct. The WSJ post says:
"Weiner says the firm hasn’t done and doesn’t anticipate layoffs, though it dealt with the issue many years ago."
I don't know if 2004 / 2005 qualifies as "many years ago," though.
Lat - Thanks for deleting the yucky comment.
Shinyung Oh - you have done a great thing by exposing this. I applaud you for bringing to light the unfair and callous way you were treated. It is particularly horrible that they treated you so badly right after such a devastating loss. I hope a lot of students and associates vote with their feet and don't go to PH. It sounds like a horrible place to work. I wish you good luck in the future, in both your personal and professional life.
"Yucky" what are you 6?
Down with Paul Hastings!
Reality check.
Your oppressors? For someone who made 10x what the average american made for 10 years running, I think that hardly qualifies as someone who was "oppressed." You all knew what you were getting into when you signed up for these jobs. You didn't know they were giant pyramid schemes? You didn't know about the up or out system? Do you think a corporation/law firm is really going to paint itself in a negative light for the benefit of a slighted off ex-employee? You traded off all of these known downsides for the benefit of a high cushy salary for all those years. I'm sorry, throwing a hissy fit against your former employer in the media and on the blogs isn't classy IMO. I would never hire this woman, as she appears to be nothing more than a loose cannon ready to go off.
If she comes to work at my firm, I want to show her my "oh" face.
I would let her scrape my uterus if she wanted. She is pretty cute.
Go Oh! This woman is my hero, and a hottie too.
A word of advice to law students: some of you will boycott PH this fall thinking it will make a difference. It will not make a difference to the firm because in this economy, BIGLAW does not need new hires, and there will be enough law review editors who will take the PH job anyway because they're not as naive as you. By the time the economy improves, some other firm will be in the spotlight and dumb law students will be "boycotting" it instead.
Instead, you will buy the "lifestyle firm" crap made up by the marking department of another AmLaw 25 shop (or a regional shop if you're not a great student) thinking that life will be better and you can work 9-5, have kids and make partner. You will continue to believe this during your summer associateship and into your 3L year because the summer associate program is designed to deceive you into thinking the firm is great. Once your peers start getting fired around your second year, you will realize that maybe something else is going on. If you manage to stay at the firm for four or five years, you will come to the realization that firms are profit-driven and you will never make partner (or you will be a delusional mid-level). You will continue to receive good, but not outstanding, performance reviews. Then around your 8th or 9th year, the firm will dump you without warning. They will offer you 3-months severance in exchange for a full release and you will take the money. As you sit in your office reflecting on how all of your colleagues know that you just got fired but are pretending that they don't know, you will look back on all of this and realize how dumb and naive you were.
- Bitter 7th year associate (this is redundant but you don't know this yet) at AmLaw 10
funny how people look at that pic and say she's a "hottie" and "quite stunning" (!)
Yes, she is Asian, but come on guys.
"While there may be a "six of one, half-dozen of another" quality to this debate -- as Dan Weiner of Hughes Hubbard & Reed just told the WSJ Law Blog, 'is it economic or is it performance-related is a false dichotomy,' since if you have to make cuts, 'you’re not going to pick people randomly...'"
So, by Dan Weiner's rationale (and I've heard this exact cowardly wordsmithing from many a BIgLaw partner), if Congress suddenly decided (barring Constitutional issues, of course, work with me people!) that it could not afford to keep paying 9 Supreme Court justices, and instead decided to cut the Court down to 7 or 5, the 2-4 Supreme Court justices let go (again, bear with me, I know they are life-tenured) would be let go for "performance-related reasons"? The 2-4 "worst" judges would go? That would be a fair, evenhanded description?
Kinda puts it in perspective. Its not a false dichotomy, its a choice between fair & accurate description of the rationale for letting associates go, and an unfair, misleading excuse of a description. Paul Hastings and those of their ilk (Hughes Hubbard too, I guess?) aren't putting out press releases saying "We have 100 great associates, we can't afford 10, so we're keeping the 90 super-duper stars, and letting go the mere superstars." They simply say "performance-based reasons". Even Fox News wouldn't call that fair & balanced.
Bitter 7th year associate:
I do not deny that you might be right, but you write as if there is some wonderful alternative. This is how a big law firm operates.
But I think it is unfair to deny that some law firms just treat people better than others. Yes, you will work as hard. Yes, you will stay all night at times. Yes, you will work some weekends. But there is a difference when people (partners, seniors and colleagues) are just nicer about it. Contrary to the cynical belief, I think there IS a nicer way of apologetically asking your associate to skip his July 4 party because of work (then ask him to take his girlfriend out for a nice dinner on the firm's expense afterwards) and there IS a nicer way of gently laying someone off due to the lack of work in that department (and being helpful and understanding about it).
And I disagree with your view on hiring. The T6 law review editors and the top 20% at those schools will still be highly sought after by all law firms, and they should rightly boycott any firm which clearly display a blatant disregard for treating their associates properly and decently.
- Mid-level at v5
Ms. Oh IS hot, but that's an awful, awful picture of her.
I interviewed with her back in the fall, she seemed like a really put together and kind person, she's the reason why I took the callback to PH SF, but the place gave me a weird vibe.
Best of luck to you Ms. Oh!
Up with Oh, Down with PH!
Her review was pretty glowing. Notably, her weakest marks where in the partnership/client development skills. But that begs the question of how do bright, hard-working, well liked, personable senior associates like her get business if the partners they're working for don't give it to them? It's not like it's possible for senior associates to suddenly attain million-dollar books of business.
Where do 7th-10th year litigation associates who are told to leave go? Is it possible to make anywhere near the biglaw money again?
You are my hero!
SHINYUNG OH TO MANAGING PARTNER!!!
ROGER LOU -- please chime in !!!
If I were part of a big corporate law firm (which I thank my God every day that I'm not) , I'd love to have Ms. Oh work for my firm. Unlike most corporate law lemmings, this woman actually showed some sack.
In the interest of fairness, where is the 2007 review? How come she didnt give that to WSJ?
Did she hit or exceed her hours in 2007?
Also,did she really expect the partners to talk to her about the "scraping of her uterus"? Isnt that highly perrsonal and not appropriate work dialogue.
Are you retarded?
They canned her at her 2007 review which was held in 2008. Of course it was going to bad, they had it in their mind to fire her at the review.
The correct response if you know that a person has suffered a loss of any kind - a baby in utero, a child, a sibling, a parent - is "i'm so sorry for your loss. " The correct response if someone has shared that they have undergone a medical procedure is "how are you doing? "
It isn't rocket science.
Dear Lat (and 1400 commenters),
This beating up of PHJW is getting old. They fired one associate (and likely some others). They obviously lied about the obvious reason(s). They have some slow groups. Everyone needs to grow up. A young lady at Bingham was roofied--that's a scandal. Firing one person during a slow time is not.
Miscarriages put pro-choicers in an awkward position.
If a woman miscarries, you would offer her sympathies and condolences (see 1:30 PM). But if she has an abortion, you wouldn't say anything.
The review was not that glowing. At my firm "meets expectations" = sucks. Here, if you are making partner, you had better be getting all "outstanding" or the higher version at my firm. It is easy to get good reviews in good times when there is plenty of work. I am sure that her work was very good, but it doesn't seem like it was so excellent that they would make her partner in what is essentially a commodity practice if she didn't have a bunch of business. It's a myth that all you need to do to make partner at a good firm is to work hard and do good work when it is available.
Let me say this again: It's a myth that all you need to do to make partner at a good firm is to work hard and do good work when it is available.
I a not sure how to feel about this whole thing. A lot of this is just that large law firms pay you a lot, need a constant turnover and do have to get rid of people. At my firm, one of three conditions needs to be present for you to be safe: you have to be busy, you have to be truly exceptional or you have to be well-protected by someone powerful. If none of those three is true, your days might be numbered.
Is PH lame not just to admit that there are business reasons for the layoffs and that they don't have enough work because the firm is hurting? Sure. Is it pathetic that partners are so quick to cut associates when things are slow after they have jacked up the billing rates constantly and gotten rich because of it? Definitely. Does it totally suck that by the time you are senior enough (say, 5th year or so) to actually generate some business your rate is too high (probably over $500/hr) to do so for most small clients who might actually be able to get pitched by an associate? Of course it does.
But these things are part of the game at a large law firm. It's a little disingenuous to take the money for ten years and then be offended by the whole system if you didn't make partner. Sure, we would all like to make partner, but we likely won't. Making $300k a year in my early thirties tends to lessen the sting for me, though.
Now, the whole pregnancy/miscarriage thing, I am not sure if they changes things much. Is it tragic, sure. And you might like to think that your co-workers would treat you well or protect you in a time of personal difficulty. But that's not always going to be the case at a large law firm. I think that it totally sucks that PH is so heartless, but I'm more offended that they're liars about the reasons that they need to lay people off. Plenty of firms have handled this well, and that should be a lesson to law students. But is it so surprising that an employment law firm tried to hush up layoffs via standardized confidentiality agreements and severance payments? It is not.
Is this style of asking questions and then answering them getting old? It is.
11:14 = Paul Hastings partner
1:37 - This scandal resonates more than Roofiegate because it has wider applicability.
How many of us are going to get roofied (at our firms)? Hardly any.
How many of us are going to get laid off? Hundreds, by the time this recession is over.
10:12, Any chance you work at MW&E DC?
McDermott Will is doing stealth layoffs, including with a release like the one with PH.
1:37 = Paul Hastings Partner?
This lady rocks! Way to stick it to PH!
1:43,
Getting roofied and raped is significantly worse than getting fired. There are plenty of law jobs out there at firms comparable to PH, even for 10th years. If for some reason there are not, then PH has no obligation to keep her on, either.
Yes, hundreds of us are going to be in the same boat. My practice group is incredibly slow right now, and I'm concerned myself. I will not, however, make an unprofessional ass out of myself just because the firm laid me off during a slow time. Know what I'll do? Keep my mouth shut, realize that there are hundreds of others like me around the country, take a two-month paid vacation to visit friends and family, and then get another job. Hell, a bunch of us should go together! Shinyung, you in?
1:39, I'm pro-choice and it doesn't make me feel awkward. But I guess that's how you react when your mind is open enough to account for the possibility of a multitude of life choices and emotional priorities.
It works like this: if your beloved pet fish died I would express sympathy to the extent it sounded like such sympathy would be welcomed. But if you flushed your guppies down the toilet because you didn't want them anymore, there isn't exactly any reason for me to tell you I'm sorry for your loss.
Yes, I compared a fetus to a fish. Deal with it.
No, I am not a PH partner (though I wish it was--sounds like a sweet deal). I'm a mid-level at a different firm.
-1:37
Many reviewing attorneys lack guts from an HR perspective. When partners meet, they speak their minds behind closed doors but don't tell the associates the truth. I know of associates who think they are still on track for partner when the partners have already decided that the associate isn't going to make it. They give 2s (exceeds expectations) on reviews because, on a law firm compensation and promotion scale, you need to have 1s (outstanding). But associates don't know that exceeds expectations isn't going to cut it. So they are surprised when they are told things aren't working out.
1:39 is generally correct. You need to be out on the job a while to know the real truth. It's a juggle out here. The money makes it worth it, until it doesn't. LIve with that in mind. Pay off your debt, learn everything you can and have a back up plan so that a layoff actually provides a launching point for something that makes you more happy. Don't fall into the fancy car, watch, clothes, house thing because you cash flow might not always be what it is now.
1:37 = PH Marketing Dept.
Hey 1:23. I am not retarded.
They did not let her go at her review. That was months ago.
My point is, she may not be the stellar employee she claims to be.
In addition, certain topics are not clear cut. Talking about miscarriage/abortion/female issues is a slippery slope in the workplace.
Hey boys, wanna talk about erectile dysfunction at your reviews.
Some things are personal.
There is a partner at my firm who fits the bill. He heads up recruiting, acts very approachable for a partner, pretends to be happy with what I produce, but gives brutal reviews. It is so passive/aggressive and it makes me hate him. I also wonder how the partners don't see what a tool this guy is. He talks a big game about respect and responsiveness, but he is always late on meetings and assignments, he does not return calls or emails with questions on an assignment and then has the balls to yell because I overbilled or did not do the assignment right. When I am in the middle of trying to understand an assignment, he takes calls from his nut-case wife about the house they are building or the country club he wants to join. He talks about the importance of negotiations and finding common ground, but it is his way or no way. My experience is that most partners protect their own even when they know the person is a complete a-hole.
It's also a jungle
I assure you, I am not a PH partner or the "PH Marketing Dept." I have no skin in this game, other than standing up for a firm that's getting unfairly beat up over what amounts to a callous discharge (hee hee). Flame away, though, if you can't believe that someone neutral might feel differently than you do.
-1:37/2:03
all points of view are welcome here 2:31, just admit it you love Paul Hastings!!!!
That is not a great review for a person of her seniority, and it is stale -- more than a year old. Why doesn't she post her 2008 review? If she wants to believe this is not performance related, then fine. It sucks to be told you suck. I understand. I know someone who worked with her. The person who worked with her was not at all surprised she would be terminated for performance reasons. Various people on here have said that they thought she was a poor or, alternatively, great associate. I don't know who is right, but the firm has allegedly asked about 25 of its 1200 lawyers to leave. Isn't performance the most logical explaination for asking someone to leave, as opposed to someone else?
There is no question that it would be wrong to give a great associate a performance-based termination. But do you people really think that there was no performance reason here? Sure the department may have been generally slow, but they still have to pick people to fire.
Finally, there was an implied threat of litigation in her letter. If she is now backing off that, I kind of wonder why she included mention of getting fired before she could get pregnant and the like in her email. Was it a a way to bad mouth the firm based on a totally phony theory?
PH can do what it wants and it does not matter to me if she was a good or bad employee. I do admire that she believes enough in herself to tell them to pound sand. Most people just stay and suck up the abuse.
I am an expert on Paul Hastings.
I spent many years there pre and post tech-bubble burst. This firing is so classic, a perfected art form by Seth Zachary and his overlords. In good times - binge hire; first sign of economic trouble - start the quiet associate layoffs on a rolling/quarterly basis. Only one goal: Keep those PPP's from falling by whatever means necessary.
It's a shame. The economic downturn cycles are too long in between for graduating law students to know the PH modus operandi and catch on.
2:31, I think the real point is the fact that only SOME firms are singled out. Other firms are doing the same thing (layoffs) but they are not being flamed because some firms have been able to stay below the radar. Lat should post a survey for each AMLAW 100 firm, by name, asking for news of layoffs.
2:25, dude, I think we've worked for the same guy.
2:46 Chicago firm?
2:45, maybe the other firms have been handling it better. Whatever else you wanna say about her or Paul Hastings, you have seriously, SERIOUSLY bad timing if you fire someone right after she's had emergency surgery AND lost something dear to her.
2:37, I agree - it is not great. It's literally outstanding.
There is a guy at PH- San Fransisco's summer class named Roger Lou. Goes to AU (in D.C.). Can anyone confirm if its the same guy that posts all over ATL in messy English?
2:49, nope. But sounds like your partner has an identical twin in Los Angeles.
3:02 -- Haven't heard that. Roger Lou, the dude who signs all his posts "with respect," rocks. I hope he landed the job at PH because, aside from all the crap said about the firm on this site, it really is a great place to work, good work-life balance, little "face time", and great environment.
Happy PH mid-level (San Fran.)
2:52 -- No it isn't. The client / practice stuff is the most important when you are that senior. She "met" expectations, which is worse than it sounds. Think of it like a "C." You are likely toast unless you are outstanding or at least exceptional there.
One thing to note, as at most firms, PH's performance review metrics change considerably as associates move from junior to mid-level to senior associate. As an associate gets more senior, things like business development matter more. First, I am not sure why she got a mid-level performance review last year if she is a 10th year - maybe she took a class hit when she lateraled. But second, even if she did get a glowing review one year (and parts of the review are glowing, other parts are not), her less-glowing review the next year may have been a function of the higher standards to which she was held.
she kicks some major butt - it was gutsy and good for her officially outing herself in grand style. On another note - she's cute thats it - but seriously you white guys and your asian fetishes get some perspective - no wonder asian women think white dudes are weird.
Agreed, as you get senior, burden of proof changes. You need full support for promotion. No if, ands, or buts allowed.
3:03, his wife has a twin. Seriously. Scarey that these d-bags are everywhere.
The bottom line in virtually all BIGLAW firms is that you either: (a) have a book of business, or (b) work for a partner who has a big book of business and can cover your ass. Just being good at what you do isn't enough because the partners are allegedly good at the same thing, and when you reach the 10th year associate level, you're competing with them. In such a competition, s/he who has the book of business wins.
Fortunately, I've been in-house for the past few years and wouldn't go back to a firm unless I had a huge paycheck and a guaranteed time period in which to build a book of business.
2:37, are you thick. She said that she was told all good things until the 2007 review -which is what I assume you were refering to as we are still in 2008 - gobshite.
other law firms arent being flamed because likely there was better overall treatment and the associates who left dont want to out themselves and be embarrassed...its that simple...PH must be a REALLY crappy place if their own associates are talkin so publicly - this DOES happen everywhere else - but obviously PH must be a crappier firm to work for.
PH Expert Here Too! PH evaluations are not known for being inflated. In fact, when I was there they limited the outstandings someone could get. When I was junior, there was a rule that you had to get a certain number of "need improvement" even if you were great. People - this is supposed to be one of the top labor and employment firms in the country -- they are generally smart enough to know that you don't want to give glowing evaluations all over the place. You want to find some issues to put down, especially when it comes to senior people. Based on my experience, and I received many evals during my tenure, this is an excellent evaluation. All those who claimed she was supbar are either dumb, nasty, or just drinking the Kool Aid and think "she was getting fired,she must be no good. I am good and I will make partner. Dream on, my friend Dream on. It is a very strange place. I've seen people with no business make partner because there was room for a partner in their group; I have seen people with business and tremendous rainmaking stills not make partner because their group was already too top heavy and the partners didn't want to share. These people generally left and found happy new homes. But good gosh you leave on your own. Then they are shocked and the associates start saying you must have gotten a bad eval. Nuts. Kudos to Ms. Oh. She showed the kind of guts that you all wish you had -- and I am actually embarassed for the firm to have handled this so poorly. CMON PH, you are an employment firm -- my dad owns a diner and he would know better to fire a minority woman who just had a miscarriage. Instead, document the issues, and fire later, assuming there are issues. Boy did someone screw up royally in San Fran.
So, when times are slow, should firms fire the partners?
8:04, re: your "What do you need to not get fired or to make partner? All outstandings?"
Evidently, yes at a minimum. Did you not notice that review form recommended that only 10% of associates get "outstadning"?
(Oh, and btw 8:04, "meeting expectations" category is not realy a good sign.)
I'm curious about these firms in which "Meets Expectations" means you're not doing well. How does such a firm define "Expectations"?
"We expect you to fail and not make partner"?
"We expect you to produce subpar work"?
One would hope that "Expectations" means "Doing the job at a competency appropriate for your seniority and for someone on track to make partner."
9:39am posted the infamous 2004 "smoke from burning bridges" email. Does anyone know which PH office? I've always thought that it had a "NY" feel to it...
The "smoke from burning bridges" email from from the San Diego office.
A "meets expectations" is like a "c" grade in school. You are doing well enough in that category to get moved along, but you aren't getting any accolades. You probably need to be getting accolades (at least "exceeds expectations," if not "outstanding") to make partner.
But apparently "meets expectations" doesn't mean you "get moved along," but rather "expect to be fired, TBA."
I wonder how PH clients feel about the use of this metric:
"You fucked up my trial and lost me millions!"
"Yes, but we met expectations!"
10:12am: Wonder if your former boss was mine as well? LOL! Final straw was an "FY" when I pointed out an error, and no apology the next day after he realized that I had been right. Sad thing is that for most part, partner was nice guy - except for Hyde/Jekyll personality triggered by stress, time constraints, etc. Not a good thing for a BigLaw partner.
5:05, you can always hope but sadly, not the case.
2:20,
Talking about miscarriage/abortion/female issues may be a slippery slope in the workplace, but do such discussions with partners arise casually? Ever occur to you that she needed to advise partners/others re: situation b/c she was out of office due to MD appts and eventually for D&C after miscarriage? Don't know about you but in NYC, partners don't particularly like it when associates are MIA for couple hours a day.
1:39 - you're an idiot if you don't realize difference between a miscarriage (no choice) and abortion (choice), and that pro-choice people have nothing to say about either if pregnancy is not their own. Furthermore, I've never heard a woman discuss abortion beyond her close circle.
1:39, agree with you on everything except statement re: take the money for ten years and then be offended by the whole system if you didn't make partner. In my experience, very senior associates generally realize that likelihood of making partner at biglaw firm very slim. By 10th yr, both firm and associate usually satisfied with status quo, with associate at risk to be cut loose. As you said, just part of the game (deal).
Summer programs start Monday at most BigLaw Shops. What's PH telling those summers?
Rock on Ms. Oh! Oprah should be your next stop! Sometimes in life we are called on to take a stand, or put our heads down. Ms. Oh took a stand.
Her description of the female PH partner as "stone faced" was memorable; it's up there with the raging fire at O'Melveny & Myers. On the other hand her assertion that two other associates left PH "with their tails under their legs” wasn't very diplomatic. Still on balance this is one of the best stories on ATL recently.
6:48 - the usual BS with lots of free booze to distract them further.
Female PH partners are not known for their warmth, 7:09, so no surprise there. Btw, do we like anyone at PH? Aside from the staff, who are probably all very nice.
any gossip on whether there's been any damage control at PH - got to imagine people are asking what to tell the summers.
I'm sure they're telling the summers that "We're doing fine! No layoffs here! They were just poor performers, all of them... recruiting sometimes screws up and hires several years' worth of bad laterals... Ooh, look cocktails!"
I know the partner in question and she is actually quite warm (this situation aside) and a really lovely person.
There are actually quite a few nice people at PH (even in the SF office) partners, associates, and staff.
7:56: Warm, lovely? How many associates has she helped advance to partner. Esp. women? Do they have a slurpee machine with the Kool Aid in San Fran like they do elsewhere?
Cutest PH partner? Nominees?
I know that partner too, and I thought she was a warm and lovely person... but I guess I was wrong.
I wonder how many female GCs have read about this episode and are taking their business elsewhere?
8:03 excellent question. Female GCs do not like this kind of bad press on a firm esp. regarding women's issues.
so cal ph associate. absolutely no damage control here. partners are completely ignoring it.
I'm kind of curious if PH's employment dept clients are taking stock of the quality of their counsel.
PH Employment Partner: "Now, you should really take my advice on this matter..."
Client: [laughter] *click*.
8:07: how can they ignore? Some of the summers may very well ask their advisors about this incident and the future of the firm and women treatment in general. They should at least have a story. Whew am I glad this isn't my firm.
8:00 Seeing that she's the only female partner in litigation, I'd say she's helped no other women to partnership -- but maybe she wants it that way.
Has anyone noticed that there seem to be a lot of disgruntled PH people (past and present) on the boards. Maybe not that unusual for a big firm, but not good.
Evilest PH partner....talk amongst yourselves...and post here!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X8NJKS9GLHo&feature=related
2:25 PM (re: prick who heads up hiring). I hope that the higher ups in our DC office find a better partner to head up recruitment.
2:46 / 2:49. Its 11:46 --- yes; same firm.
3:51 PM,
We speak of the same 2-face. I'll summarize: no balls, no book, and no chance he would ever say a bad thing to an associate about his/her work in person (then he would lose his ability to "anynomously" rip them to shreds for the first time in the year-end review).
To all you who think the letter was unprofessional--you are all cowards. Actually she's a coward too. I would have blowed up teh place with grenades instead of taking that bullshit like a bitch.
Paul Hastings Blows!!!!
Dearest Mrs. Shinyung Oh (and if you prefer Ms. or Miss., then I am apologizing):
I am the Roger Lou. I am writing you to discussing the firm of Paul Hastings and to offer you the proposal for marriage.
Roger likes rainbows, and baseball, and Asia girls, and U.S. of A. He comes here to this great nation for great opportunities to study law and learn of the jurisprudential system of American studies. First I decides to go to Harvard Law School (best in Asia) but then when education visa gets messed up and school no shows no remorse or acceptance, I decides to go to America's University, Washington College of Law (best in America). So Roger now is studying what they call as a "1L" in DC's east coast, but he moves for you to San Fransisco to be in holy matrimony. This might be wierd way of proposal, especially if the Shinyung Oh is married already, but I love you and your dogged persistance and fine tooth comb that your letter to firm used, so we will marry and you can make me the citizen of the great U.S. of A.
With respect,
诶比西
Shingyung Oh to Shinyung Lou !!!
I think the lesson learned from this debacle is that Asian girls in law are more trouble than they are worth. If any of you interacts with Asian girls you know what i'm talking about.
The miscarriage issue was an obvious non-starter that most people got hung up on. The real issue was the stealth firings, which I fear that most firms are practicing in. PH was not the first and, unfortunately, will not be the last, but hopefully Ms. Oh's email will make firms evaluate their options very carefully in the future.
Are people really outraged that a BigLaw firm was doing stealth firings? How is this a surprise to anyone, given that over the past 3 months or so a different firm each week has been accused of doing this? There is certainly a lot of hype about something we already knew, though I suspect it's all schadenfreude.
I'm not sure PH comes out any worse than other BigLaw shops having some economic difficulties after this. Callous? probably. Bottom-line driven? absolutely. Different from any other BigLaw firm? not at all.
1:35, you're kidding, right? Assuming truth of stealth/pretext firings at PH (and here, I'll take that bet), PH looks worse b/c it didn't have the balls to be upfront like TPW, CWT, McKee, etc. Perhaps it thought that stats would work in its favor to deflect scrutiny - after all, PH has about 1200 attorneys world-wide. However, entire situation is specious given that it's May already. Does PH nornally conduct associate reviews in April?
Serious Question: My firm has, out of the blue, decided that all associates are having a mid year review. Normally on junior associates do. Do you think this is setting things up? Its a v100 firm. They wouldn't be that stupid, now, would they??
http://www.paulhastings.com/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsId=438
Ironic that back in Jan 2008, PH was named Employer of Choice among PRC firms. Given high number of female associates, wonder if China's one child policy had any impact?
Dearest Mrs. Shinyung Oh (and if you prefer Ms. or Miss., then I am apologizing):
I am the Roger Lou and am writing again because my love of the life -- Shinyung Oh -- no has responded to the offer of my hand in marriage and entering into holy matrimony.
Let me be clear about my love for the Mrs. Oh so that she does not get mistaken. I want to love the Mrs. Oh forever and to the moon and the stars and the sun. And the Roger and the Mrs. Oh (who will become the Mrs. Lou) have "bonafide marriage." This marriage with bonafides is what the great U.S. of A.'s Department of Immigrants said is needed for Roger to get "citizenship" so he no needs the student visa to go to HLS or America's University, Washington College of Law.
Please, if you are the Mrs. Oh (soon to be Mrs. Lou), or you know well the Mrs. Oh (soon to be Mrs. Lou), please respond to the Roger Lou so he knows to come to San Fransisco for the bonafides.
With respect,
诶比西
Firms, in good faith, will institute mid-year reviews in order to provide timely feedback and to give people a chance to turn things around before compensation decisions are made. Many associates ask for this kind of review and many firms have not provided such mid-year feedback. So this might be a really great thing. But ,mid-year reviews also serve as convenient evidence that the firm told an associate about problems and make it easier to let people go later.
My advice is very simple. DO NOT BE A PASSIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. If they tell you you are doing a great job, make sure you ask if there is anything you can be doing to continue to grow/excel. If they tell you you need to improve, ask for concrete advice on what you need to be doing, make sure you do what they tell you and get someone to commit to helping you achieve your goals such as by giving you assignments/opportunities. Then stay on top of the process. If they tell you you are in trouble, ask for more frequent input/reviews or find some other way to get a commitment that you are actually making progess. This is not a foolproof way to avoid getting fired, but will make it harder for them to let you go if they see and have to affirmatively acknowledge between reviews that you are trying. Most importantly, you need to do all this with poise. You will be mad, hurt and want to say FU, but don't do that. Accept the comments and try to make some changes. This is both because there might be some seed of truth in what they are saying, but more about buying time so that you can decide what you want to do with your career on your own terms and timetable. If you think they are full of crap, use your "improvement" period to find something else. If you like the firm and want to keep you job, then do all you can to take the advice.
Dear 诶比西 (aka Roger),
Thank you for your intesting in Shinyung Ho. Me name is Suk Yu Wang, and me are a native of China and citizen of the great U.S. of A. For 27,800 Renminbi, I Suk Yu Wang will marry Roger Lou in the bonafide marriage. Please marry me and I love you long time.
Suk Yu Wang.
what is a "renminbi"?
5:03 -
The point is that there are many firms doing this. It's true that a few firms came forward about the layoffs, but I'd venture that for each one of those, there are two or three that are quietly laying people off. PH looks worse because they got busted, but they are no different from these other firms.
Roger Lou to Asian Fusion !!!
Roger Lou to Shrimp Lo Mein !!!
Roger Lou to Chairman Mao !!!
Roger Lou to Ho Chi Minh !!!
Roger Lou to Shinyung Ho !!!
Roger Lou to Egg Drop Soup !!!
Roger Lou to 1 Chinese yuan = 0.143111 U.S. dollars !!!
Roger Lou to infinity and beyond !!!
Funny how this story is already reaching other jurisdictions' blawgs.
paul hastings associate here (san fran.).
there has been a lot of paul hastings hating here. i don't agree. i didnt know sihnyung--she was much more senior than i am. it seems like her lay off was handled pooryl by the firm, but for those of us who like it here (which probably included her--since she worked here for almost a decade), i thinks its a damn good place to work. lots of money and laid back people. also, relatively good balance (few weekends / good bonuses). i suspect that 1/2 the posts on this board are by trolls and 2Ls taking a break from studting for exams. in short-- paul hastings is a great place to work and i am happy that the firm protects the ppp (which i hope to one day be able to dip into)!!!
aside--can someone please clarify who "roger lou" is and why there are so many pro-roger lou comments? never heard of him before--was he once at ph? which office?
Have you ever seen Roger Lou use Internet? He totally enjoys it.
8:39 am.
1. Paul Hastings-SF is a shit hole. Morale is low and this story certainly does not help.
2. Roger Lou is the head of the Mexican Mafia, a prison gang headed out of Pelican Bay. He formerly was associated with the Atlanta office of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan.
Dear 8:39. It is great you are happy at PH San Fran. Several on the boards have said PH is a great firm for training. I agree with that statement. But, long term prospects are not good. Until recently, there was very little up from the ranks promotion to partnership. PH started to promote a few more in the last couple of years. Laterals are key and the golden people. Associates are fungible. The partners are there to protect their own a**** and not to promote you. Just know that. And when things slow down, the chopping of associates and ocs begins. Maybe this isn't so unusual, but please have your eyes wide open.
Laterals are king at every firm. Home grown = inert. With all the firm's flaws, you continue to stay, thereby confirming that the firm can treat you like crap with litte/no risk. With every year you stay, the firm gets more confident about your complacency. With every year you stay, the firm understands that you are more invested in staying and they need to do less to keep you. The firm's view is confirmed when they don't promote you or pay you your worth, Easier to bank on home grown staying because your track record proves that you are not at risk If you stay despite all this, you might as well put the word SUCKER across your forehead because you have doomed yourself to your own loser status. The only homegrown people that are treated well are those who prove that they know they are not expendable. This is usually the people who make it clear they will leave if they are not treated well. But if you make the threat, you better mean it and be prepared to actually walk. Only then will they counter and by then you have probably found out that you really CAN lateral and be a king somewhere else. This is the perverse logic that is law firm management. Not an MBA in the bunch.
Thanks 9:14. Good points, but you do sound like you work at my firm. That is same logic they had in email. Personally, if I was a senior associate who does not normally get reviews and this poped up, i would be checking the wall for writing.
I guess my real question is, if I feel the review is bs, should I challenge it, should I do my best to change, or do I jump before pushed. Obviously I should change, but my thought is if it is a bs review, and either things beyond what I can change (hours) or things I believe not an issue (work product) should I see this as an excuse to get rid of me regardless of what I do?
2:01, trust your gut. If you think the writing is on the wall, then do whatever you can to save your own skin. Try not to blow up. It is not productive. In as professional manner as possible, ask probing questions about any review comment that you feel is not based in reality. Make them give you the details, as I have seen partners make claims that are inconsistent with the facts available at the time. If the partner making the claims is known for writing reviews that are full of crap, make sure that your protector knows it happened so that maybe someone can campaign to save you. Then, absolutely take matters into your own hands and try to find some other options. If they really want to fire you, you will have something else before that can happen. If they don't want to fire you, they will tell you that when you tell them you have some other options and want to know if you should take them. You will either hear that they don't want you to leave or you will hear a good luck. In either case, I promise you will feel relieved. The people that I know who are miserable are the people that did not get a clue before the firm told them they had 3 months.
BTW, I am not saying to take it like a sheep. I am saying to take it like a litigator. Assess your case, figure our a plan and strike in a manner that plays to your hand. If that happens to fit what your firm wants, great. But the goal here is to win your case, not theirs.
Dearest friends on www.ABOVETHELAW.COM:
This is the Roger Lou writing to tell all of my friends on website of good news of my impending move to San Fransisco to be with the only woman I am in love today with -- the Ms. Shinyung Oh (soon to be the Mrs. Shinyung Lou).
Roger proposed the holy matrimony with the Ms. Oh-Lou and she called up the Roger on his telefax to say the "I do." We will be married at the bonefides for the citizenship for Roger and we register for all my friends to buy us presents at Pottery Barn and Pier One Imports. Wedding will be in the where else? Chinatown, San Fransisco in this year of the rat.
With much love, we inviting you to the wedding.
With respect,
Mr. and Mrs. Roger Lou ... 诶比西
Congratulation, Mr. Lou and Ms. Oh, on the upcoming nuptials.
Sincerely,
Your friends at Paul Hastings
WEDDING OF
Roger Lou
&
Shinyung Oh
傳統中式婚禮喜帖
傳統中式婚禮請柬通常為紅色折疊式請柬。紅色封面通常有龍鳳呈祥等吉祥圖案﹐金色喜字通常必不可少﹐更有吉祥話語用書法藝術表現出來。
在請柬的內頁通常是粉色香味紙﹐婚禮時間﹐地點﹐新郎﹐新娘姓名印在粉紅色紙上﹐中英兩種文字。粉色內頁和紅色封面由金色細線綁在一起。
喜帖內容可以印英文﹐中文或兩種文字同時印在左右。我們提供統一的中文喜帖內容。您如果需要印自己的中文內容﹐請在下訂單之後把中文內容傳真給我們﹐並寫清楚您的
i thought that hsinyung was married already? who is roger lou and when did she and he decide to tie the knot. odd. oh well-- congrats !
"is it economic or is it performance-related is a false dichotomy," since if you have to make cuts, "you’re not going to pick people randomly"
Really, Weiner? What about the fact that when all is said and done, some firms will have made significant cuts and some will have not? Is that another "false dichotomy"? It is understandable why a partner from quasi-shitty Hughes Hubbard would start defending firms that can't afford their associates.
12:59, you are the kind of associate firms love to fire. Sanctamonious bastard.
You have to respect the chutzpah. Telling it like it is. Funny thing is, PH is rumored to have the premiere employment law practice around. Clients beware, if this is the sort of RIF strategy that the firm employs for itself.
I had a similarly disheartening situation, at a small (but very rich and prominent) plaintiff's firm. They fancied themselves true liberal crusaders. I was told I'd make partner in two years. Two years went by with nothing but good reviews and bonuses etc. -- no negative feedback whatsoever. Then at the partnership meeting one partner announced she had reviewed my billings the night before, and decided I was not "productive" enough with my time. And that was that. No partnership for me.
Adding insult to injury was the fact that "my" guy (the parnter who was supposed to be my champion and who told me before the meeting that my partnership was a "done deal") stood by and did nothing while I was mugged. Told me he was "pissed off" about it, but what could he do, really?
Then the whopper: my champion (a "happily" married family guy; soccer dad, etc.) was having a secret affair with the partner who torpedoed my career. Sleeping with the enemy. I wondered: could this explain his anemic defense of my interests?
Anyway, I left with a great deal of anger. Not even a 3-month severance to spend (or refuse defiantly). Just bad memories, and a hard-learned lesson that law firms exist to make money. Big or small, liberal or conservative, their decisions will have little or nothing to do with loyalty or humanity. Expect more at your peril.
And again, good for you Shinyung. You've told it like it is and you've really touched a nerve.
Shinyung, you have taken a principled stand for what you believe to be right. It is consistent with the person I've known and admired from our days in college. I am so proud of you.
Whatever the Roger Lou "joke" is, nobody's laughing except for you losers who keep whipping it to death.
Harvey's a c#*ksucker.
Paul Hastings is a sinking ship.
I typed in her name in the Yahoo search engine. Looks like she found a new job already at Holme, Roberts, & Owen LLP.
http://sanfrancisco.citysearch.com/profile/38243153/?brand=smx_yp-nc
I think the real story is that a woman who apparently was a big law associate for TEN YEARS hadn't figured out that she would need to bring in business to survive.
There is no shortage of worker bees. The life expectancy of a big-law worker bee is about seven years, max. So, she had a really good run. Longer than should be expected.
Granted, all that aside, I'm still a fan of her decision to speak up rather than let her work reputation get quietly disparaged.
It's 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.
Ms. Oh is in the 1%.
The PH release is bizarre - management really embarrassed themselves. Kudos to Ms. Oh for not signing.
Wow, it's reassuring to know someone can be that cute and smart at the same time... What a shame she's already married... I'd be glad to take her far away from those bastards... Maybe to Seoul?