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.