Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email
(And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)
This is, like, WOW. We don't quite know what to say.
This departure memo, sent by an associate leaving the San Francisco office of Paul Hastings, is extraordinary. It also confirms the rumors -- which have swirled about for quite some time, but without confirmation until now -- of associate layoffs at PH.
We're reaching out for comment to the associate in question and to Paul Hastings. But we wanted to put this up ASAP, to break the story first.
Farewell email below (with a handful of minor typos corrected). "Transition Agreement and General Release," after the jump.
*******************
From: [Redacted]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:14 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: My departure
The circumstances surrounding my departure from Paul Hastings have been deeply disappointing. It is one thing to ignore an email sent as a colleague is waiting to have her uterus scraped after a miscarriage, but it is wholly another level of heartlessness to lay her off six days after that. [Partner X] is the only one who expressed any sympathy after my miscarriage, and I am grateful to him for that.
A business is a business, but it takes very little to convey some level of humanity to carry out even the most difficult business decisions. We are human beings first before we are partners or associates. Had you simply explained that the department is unable to sustain the number of associates in the office, I would have completely understood. Had you explained that the office had been directed to reduce the number of associates and I was chosen because of my high billable rate and low billable hours, I would have appreciated such directness, even though the consequences of blindly raising billable rates to an unsustainable degree is plainly predictable. What I do not understand is the attempt to blame the associate for not bringing in the business that should have been brought in by each of you and to hide your personal failures by attempting to tarnish my excellent performance record and looking to undermine my sense of self esteem.
The last few months have been surreal, at best. Just last year, I had celebrated my engagement and marriage with many of you. In fact, during the engagement party, the head of the department took my then-fiancée aside to express to him what a great attorney I am and what a great future I faced. Indeed, less than a week before this year's bizarre performance review, I was again told by the same partner that my work is great and that the slow business in no way reflected on my performance. A week later, I was given a mediocre performance review and told that I should worry about whether I have a future at Paul Hastings. When I asked for specific examples of my alleged deficiencies, I received no response. When I asked for an explanation as to why I had been downgraded in so many performance categories when I received absolutely no criticism throughout the year and my prior year's review was stellar, I was told that my prior year's performance assessment may have been "over-inflated." What a startling response.
After my miscarriage, I had discussed my concern with several associates that Paul Hastings may use that opportunity to lay me off quickly before I have a chance to get pregnant again. Those associates thought it unfathomable that a firm would be so callous and assured me that Paul Hastings isn't that kind of a place. What a lesson this has been for them - and for me. I would not have anticipated that a partner would tell me one thing and completely renege on his words a week later. I would not have anticipated that a female partner (whom I had looked to as a role model) with children of her own would sit stone faced as I broke into tears just days after my miscarriage. Even a few words of sympathy or concern would have made a world of difference. What kind of people squander human relationships so easily?
If this response seems particularly emotional, perhaps an associate's emotional vulnerability after a recent miscarriage is a factor you should consider the next time you fire or lay someone off. It shows startlingly poor judgment and management skills -- and cowardice -- on your parts. If you should ever have the misfortune of suddenly losing something or someone precious to you, I hope you don't find similar heartlessness as I have.
As for your request for a release, non-disclosure, and non-disparagement agreement in return for three months' pay, I reject it. Unlike you, I am not just a paid mouthpiece with no independent judgment. I will decide how and to whom to communicate how you have treated me. I find it ironic that you would try to buy the right not to be disparaged after behaving as you have. Your actions speak volumes, and you don't need much help from me in damaging your reputation.
I attach the proposed release for any associate who may be interested in reviewing its details.
[Redacted]
*******************
And that's all she wrote. The release that Paul Hastings wanted this associate to sign, after the jump.
Update (5:10 PM): We have heard back from the associate in question, who had no additional comment.
Update (8:20 PM): Previously posted in the comments, but now we can bring it up to the main page. Here is Paul Hastings's statement, from Eileen King, Global Director of Public Relations:
"We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."
Update (5/6/08): Blog reactions to this story are collected here. Additional discussion of pregnancy discrimination cases appears here. Lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings are covered here.
Further Update (5/9/08): The author of the email, Shinyung Oh, has gone public and given an interview. See here.
PAGE ONE
PAGE TWO
PAGE THREE
PAGE FOUR
Update (5/6/08): Blog reactions to this story are collected here. Additional discussion of pregnancy discrimination cases appears here. Lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings are covered here.
Further Update (5/9/08): The author of the email, Shinyung Oh, has gone public and given an interview. See here.
(944) Comments
Might want to be a little more careful on the redactions on that PDF, particularly page 4...
I think her name appears in the notary line - you may want to black that out as well.
Hey Lat -
Piss poor job redacting that document. I won't post the name of the attorney, but take another look at page four where the witnesses are supposed to sign.
Which PH office/dep't????? PLEASE, tell me this is not characteristic of the firm.
Atty's name is clearly shown on the bottom of Page 4
Atty's name is clearly shown on the bottom of Page 4
Wow, bad taste in including her name here... Also, you missed some sics, Lat.
The last few months has been surreal, at best.
Incredible!
Well, she was hardly writing in the best mental state. If I had a miscarriage and was promptly fired, I might have some subject/verb disagreement issues as well.
Asshole.
I feel terrible for this woman. She's right, we're humans first and THEN associates and partners. That being said, it sounds like she had some performance issues prior to the miscarriage situation coupled with the slow industry growth...
And was this in Atlanta?
This is interesting and all, but does it really warrant the Drudge siren?
you fucked up
"it sounds like she had some performance issues prior to the miscarriage situation"
Oh, please . . .
WTF. who would sign this thing? where's the quid pro quo.
It says San Francisco on the bottom of the form.
Office is named at the bottom of page 2 (for those asking as well as for potential redactions).
Not redacting that name was inexcusable.
Wow. If the facts are as she presents them, then good for her for sending that email. Unfortunately, she probably still killed her career...
C'mon guys. It's the San Fran office (see page 2 and page 4).
And with that Paul Hastings vaults to the top of the list of TTTs populated by the likes of super-shitty firms such as CWT, OMM et al...
Looks like she's could be setting the grounds for a lawsuit. Wouldn't be surprised if the firm refused to respond.
3 months salary would be the quid pro quo... But great for her, not taking their money to expose the greedy bastards!
It was in San Francisco, brainiacs. Also, as dramatic burning of the bridge-type letters go, hers has a odd calmness to it. I'll be rooting for her.
4:02(2) -- the "quo" is that they apparently made any severance contingent on her signature/agreement. Some people might really need that 3 mos., especially if they have student loans, a family, or high medical bills to support and were not expecting to be laid off.
Shame on Paul Hastings! For any of you female law students wondering about maternity leave, looks like a firm to avoid!
Fan-friggin-Tastic. I applaud the hell out of this associate for the flare with which she departs. Burn a bridge? Big deal... I'm sure the whole experience is an epiphany that will have her staying far away from BigLaw for a long time, so kudos to her. And, my sympathies as well, as I know the pain of her personal loss all too well.
And Kudos to the initial commenters who thought first to correct the poor redaction rather than claim 'first' like bleating sheep. I guess there are humans in law after all.
She should sue based on Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Discrimination Based on Sex/Gender. I think she may be able to get past summary judgment - I think, just based on her letter, that a reasonable inference exists that the articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the layoff is a pretext. In addition, I think a jury would be very sympathetic to her - no one likes employers who lay off employees after personal situations like this.
If what this person writes is true, then good for her. She doesn't eat shit like most associates. She probably won't be getting another big law job, but f*ck it.
Partners beware. Not every associate will sell their integrity for 3 months pay in exchange for not calling you on your b.s.
And for every associate out there who feels compelled to rush to PH's defense, you might be suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Partners (rightly so) care about their bottom line. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that too often they don't say that. Instead they tell good associates that they suck, even when it's clear that the partners in question just don't have the business.
Whatever this attorney's name is, you're a tough one. A bunch of people on this board are going to savage you, but I think just as many admire you for speaking your mind and calling these "we don't have any business so let's blame the associates" partners on their b.s.
That's some sh*t. I just went through a similar process at my firm (minus the miscarriage) and we've just had a slew of departures based on unexpected negative reviews and decisions not to promote.
It's to be expected that the firm doesn't promote as many when their business is in the sh*tter, but it's cruel and unnecessary to use a minor or fabricated associate flaw as the pretext for the decision.
WOW - this took major, major guts. Talk about bravery and integrity - I hope she speaks out and uses forums such as ATL and others to demonstrate how poorly associates are treated in 'down times.' What a truly amazing woman...
The redacting error has been fixed.
If you saw it in the few minutes it was up and unredacted, please respect her privacy and do not attempt to name her.
Paul and Hastings are about to get Sex discrimination pwn3d.
4:02 - the quid pro quo is that employment is at will and they are giving her 3 months pay in exchange for her release.
geeesh, scary stuff. good for her for not taking their hush money!
How long before the threat of legal action causes Lat to take down this post?
Wow, glad to see PH is getting its comeuppance.
Hope her husband has a good job, and good luck to her.
Wait...........the fiim might have lied on the performance reviews? Well I never.............
What firm lays someone off less than a week after a miscarriage? In this era, you have to know there's going to be some blowback. And this is it.
Kudos to that associate. If it is true, then PH has set an all new low as far as money before humanity. I hope she sues them.
This email is also getting circulated as an email forward.
In the email forwarding chain, her name is not redacted.
I don't know if she would care whether or not her name is redacted. She seems to be rather defiant (and good for her).
cruel, not so unusual.
Miscarriage of justice?
But no health insurance. Her health insurance cuts out at the end of this month. Cheap of the firm.
"it sounds like she had some performance issues prior to the miscarriage situation"
Don't think for a second partners on your matters couldn't find performance reasons for laying you off when things get slow. Unless you're one of the 2 or 3 superstars in an office, you've slipped up and if anyone takes the time to scroll through every e-mail and every deal you've worked on, they can always find something, and failing that, they can say that your prior reviews were overinflated as may have happened to this PH attorney.
Women law students, unite! Do not interview with PH this fall!
The name is obviously redacted now, but really the redaction was only a courtesy in the first place. She sent out an e-mail; it's only a matter of time before the e-mail itself ends up in all our inboxes anyway.
Sucks to be a 10th year associate.
San Francisco hates breeders. Surprise surprise.
Seriously though, Lat, redact or don't.
I'm guessing there will be a couple of partners at Paul Hastings SF moving along shortly. That level of tactlessness (not to say heartlessness), combined with an inability to bring in enough work to keep the associates busy, definitely suggests that a partner or two may find themselves looking for a new opportunity.
Any guesses?
She should hire an attorney, draft a complaint, arrange a meeting with PH, and then settle for six figures in return for mutual releases, including preventing PH from seeking to blackball her. If PH doesn't agree, file the complaint and make it all public.
Re: the redcation error. For a Yale guy who worked at Wachtell, Lat is pretty lousy lawyer.
Yeah, I'm not sure she even wants to be redacted. If she's will to forgo around ~50K in severance pay, I doubt she cares if her email gets forwarded. I would have done a quick proofread before hitting send, though. She must have known Lat would have this up by COB.
This woman is my hero! I would not have been as brave as she, nor could I afford to be. Good for her for calling B.S. and for posting the release. I wish her well and hope she eventually has the family she clearly wants.
This is why I come to ATL. Fantastic. This kind of crap happens everywhere, including apparently at Paul Hastings. Attorneys are usually jackasses and horrible managers, so they deserve every bit of trouble them get themselves into. Best line of her email is "What kind of people squander human relationships so easily?" That's the question I asked myself on a regular basis during stints at two Top 10 firms.
Gallion OUT!
What a public relations DISASTER for Paul Hastings and what a truly impressive display of courage by this associate.
Agree with 4:12:
"The name is obviously redacted now, but really the redaction was only a courtesy in the first place. She sent out an e-mail; it's only a matter of time before the e-mail itself ends up in all our inboxes anyway."
Back in the day of Jonas Blank, the Skadden "doing jack s***" summer associate, his email was circulated without his name redacted.
At her level, what would 3 months pay amount to?
Also, is PH ?up or out" in which case she was potentially nearing that juncture?
I like how the drafters of the firm's release feel the need to clarify that release and waive = "give up". With that kind of clarity, who wouldn't hire this firm?
I wonder if they would have also laid off the person in Atlanta for getting shot had they not done the courtesy of passing away from their injuries.
Wonderful letter from a classy person. I wish you the best, unnamed Associate!
I cannot wait to see the fallout of this - there is no way PH can afford not to address this situation head on. 4:15 said it best..
Awesome! Kudos to her for standing up for herself.
Agreed that it's cheap of PH not to have offered health insurance for the duration of her "employment."
snap, 4:11
way to go, lat -- keep this on the front page as long as possible.
shame on Paul Hasting!
I had a callback with PH. They seemed like total douches.
Glad I'm not going to work for this rancid shit stain of a firm.
4:16 - 60-70K (after taxes) approx.
Regardless of whether she wanted her name redacted, it's sloppy of Lat to redact the doc incompletely.
Why can't they just tell the truth? We're sorry, we don't have enough business. Take a paycut or be laid off or even, sorry, but we have to lay you off. Six days after a miscarriage, though. Good luck with that one, PH recruiting office!
What was PH's reputation before they set it in stone for at least the next 5-10 years today?
YOU GO GIRL!!!
She was an employee at will. CAN BE FIRED AT ANY TIME. Where's the case?
That's why you make partner first, and babies after.
And don't cry miscarriage as a legitimate reason you should not be laid off. The next person in line for layoffs doesn't deserve it instead simply because he/she did not recently have their "uterus scraped out."
Layoffs suck regardless, but you don't get a pass because you were pregnant.
If you wanted a profession with a "heart," you should have never applied to law school - everyone knows that. And certainly never should have accepted a job with a top tier firm.
I feel no worse for her than anyone facing a layoff.
I really feel for this poor woman. She is Flat. Out. AWESOME. If I didn't know any better, I'd sue her for copyright infringement, since those might as well have been my words (sans the miscarriage... very, very sad).
Good for her. Truly awesome.
F
I
R
S
T
!
If this is a PR disaster, I wonder if clients might think twice about PH's employment practice
PH to 190K....PPP!
Don't we need to know her name to come up with a nickname for the forthcoming litigation (ala Charney)? Miscarriage of Justice isn't very catchy.
This is standard for biglaw. Nice to see she told them to shove it. Most are too scared to pass up the money and become unemployed immediately. Wait to see if she sues but wonder if the pre-filing publicity helps or hurts her.
Regarding an employment discrimination claim, PH makes all of their employees sign a binding arbitration agreement for such claims (I received a summer offer there, which I declined, and saw all of the forms). It would be fun to watch one of the leading firms in employment law get sued for pregnancy / sex discrimination though. I guess it depends on how well those arbitration agreements hold up.
Sympathies and props to the letter's author -- I thought it read really even-keeled...
4:23 - hi PH partner - now get off this blog and start drumming up some business!
Re: the redaction error.
For a Yale guy who worked at Wachtell, Lat is a [potentially] [recklessly negligent] [former] lawyer.
PH should be toast recruiting wise, but due to the tough job market right now, they won't be effected much.
CWT to second shittiest firm ever!!!!!!
To quote Lat, "like, WOW"
That is some amazing stuff, so impressive and so brave! Not sure that I would have the courage to publicly call PH out on their BS and pass on the $60-70K. She'll certainly be able to pass on integrity and class to any future children. Good luck!
Good for her! I hope NO ONE interviews at Paul Hastings. Firms need to understand that there will be consequences when they treat people like this.
Wow, does anyone there know people working there now? I'm wondering if there's a panic yet.
What practice group was she in?
I agree the miscarriage is not particularly relevant other than to garner sympathy and to show the complete lack of tact by this firm. Yes, she shouldn't be kept on and somebody else laid off because of her personal misfortune, but as an employer you just can't treat people like this.
PH has fired a number of associates in the last 3 months from a number of departments including Labor and employment.
4:23 - your point, harsh as it is, is valid... on one level, you should feel no worse for her than anyone else facing layoffs due to capacity and having it labeled performance. But, in fact, I feel better for her for having the balls to turn down the pay and call it as she sees it. At least, I would feel better for her, had she not had her personal loss.
"She was an employee at will. CAN BE FIRED AT ANY TIME. Where's the case?"
The case turns on the fact that Federal and State law both say that, while an at-will employee can be fired at any time, employees--at-will or otherwise--cannot be fired FOR ANY REASON. They probably shouldn't say that, private autonomy and all that, but they do. And you're an idiot.
this woman is rightfully outraged, and her reaction is understandable. however, by blowing the whistle on the scum powers-that-be at PH, she has just successfully also called out all other casualties of layoffs at the firm who were hoping to find a job quickly and quietly, before anyone had a chance of exposing their dirty little secret.
not everyone can afford to be so noble, or perhaps are smart enough to realize that retaliation without regard to how it may affect others who have been similarly screwed is actually not all that heroic.
Sorry - that's for 4:23(1) Signed 4:28(1)
My theory is that Lat left the document imperfectly redacted on purpose, then "fixed" it after leaving it up for a few minutes. He is mischievous like that.
It is an incentive to check ATL constantly. Often the first versions of posts have information and off-color jokes that get removed through subsequent, sanitizing edits.
ahhh...the weapon of the impotently angry. While we must sympathize with this woman, we must not adopt every letter of her raving screed as truth.
PH Partners = A bunch of sorry-ass pathetic losers.
I was planning on interviewing for a bunch of PH's offices this fall, I'm glad this came out when it did. Having talked to some of my friends about this, I'm very curious to see how many of us are actually willing to interview at PH this fall. Welcome to Harvard, suckers...
The settlement value of a sex discrimination suit for her is likely at least 3 months of salary (probably more, see, e.g. Charney and his reported home purchasing habits). This way she gets to spread the gospel of PH and still get paid.
At least the top tier a-hole firms are consistent. Don't plan on taking full maternity leave if you want to be around in two years (maybe a week or two is okay). And completely forget about paternity leave. That is just another way of saying "non-partnership track."
I know of a number of Real Estate and M&A associates in the NY office that have been laid off in the past few months. I was wondering why this spate at PH hadn't appeared on this forum yet.....
I think the most offensive part of that agreement is the "(i.e., give up)" after "release and waive," as if your laid-off associate is an idiot who doesn't understand basic legal jargon. Condescending bastards.
If female law students--and even perhaps males--are really outraged by PH's actions, they should boycott interviews with PH next fall.
LA office
EMPLOYEE AT WILL.
Getting your "uterus scraped" does not make you layoff immune.
quoting 4:23:
If you wanted a profession with a "heart," you should have never applied to law school - everyone knows that. And certainly never should have accepted a job with a top tier firm.
I feel no worse for her than anyone facing a layoff.
---------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but why does it have to be this way? the rules were set by dead white men but the game has changed. instead of being a sheep and remaining prisoner to the inhuman and anachronistic way in which some firms are run, you could grow a spine and stand up for what is right, like the associate who wrote that letter. many other firms (incl. huge biglaw ny shops like the one where i worked) have instituted changes as a result of associate-led initiatives. PH just proved its not playing in the same league as those firms, so good luck to it in attracting top talent in the yrs to come.
"It is one thing to ignore an email sent as a colleague is waiting to have her uterus scraped after a miscarriage, but it is wholly another level of heartlessness to lay her off six days after that."
I'm confused -- did someone send the associate a work email that she wasn't able to respond to (b/c of the miscarriage, and that this was the purported performance issues that got her laid off), or did she send an email re: her miscarriage to other colleagues who subsequently ignored it?
Not to mention that there should not be comma after "i.e."
4:23, I think the author would agree with you that someone shouldn't get job protection just because she was pregnant or had a miscarriage. (See the part where she talks about difficult economic decisions being made in a professional manner, etc.) What she's asking is that the firm treat her fairly and with compassion; namely, that the firm give fair reviews, and not suddenly claim that her work was of poor quality just because it appeared expedient to do so. Being told that you were fired for performance reasons, rather than economic ones, hurts one's esteem and undermines one's lateral opportunities.
My sympathies to the author for her loss, and sincere wishes for her healing.
Even the associate doesn't think that her miscarriage should have saved her her job - all she was asking for was honesty and compassion at a time of extreme personal pain, not to save her job. Obviously honesty and compassion was too much for PH.
Looks like Paul Hastings is 2 for 2. Remember this gem from a few years back?
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)
Hopefully, since she's in CA, the vacation payout will soften the financial blow of turning down the severance.
4:23 - I think you have comprehension problems. She didn't claim miscarriage was a reason she shouldn't be laid off. She said being laid off 6 days after her miscarriage made them heartless d-bags -- and it does. Making up reasons like poor performance and showing this as a resignation are also d-baggery.
I wish the best for her. And may PH take the beating it so richly deserves for this utter and complete lack of foresight, tact and sensitivity.
4:34, the point is not that she should not have been laid off - the point is that they handled it horrendously.
Maybe she has a rich husband or comes from a rich family, which allows her to so blithely tell PH to go f**k themselves, even if it means giving up their money?
THIS WOMAN IS MY HERO (OR HEROINE).
So did she send this from her office? If yes, I'd like to know what happened immediately afterwards.
The CA vacation payout won't help her any. PH adopts an "unlimited vacation" policy to avoid this.
THIS is why we come here. ATL is officially back!
This woman is my hero. Fantastic job, um, girlfriend!
Based on the allegations in her letter, it sounds like she's got a facial case for sex discrimination and/or pregnancy discrimination. The fact that her first bad review or indication that anything was wrong came *right after she got married* is flirtatiously suggestive that the two are not unrelated. I suspect she was open with others about her desire to have children (something she is certainly entitled to do), so that everyone knew that once she cemented hubby, baby couldn't be far behind. If everything she says is true, it sounds like there's a case to be made that Paul Hastings planned to fire her for starting a family, planting the insincere seeds of justification well in advance of the actual layoff. How fortuitous for them that we wound up in a recession before they had to pay for too much maternity leave, poor law firm.
Isn't PH supposed to have one of the best Labor & Employment practices in the country? You'd think they'd know how to lay someone off tactfully...
Good for the associate. She's a hero.
Lat, how often do you post as guest in your own posts?
Why do they owe her honesty and compassion? Law is a business. The partners aren't her friends or family, and they aren't part of her Oprah love club.
That is incredible. My sympathies for her loss, and additionaly sympathies for having to deal with callous morons at PH. Seriously, facing down a worsening economy with regrettable cuts is one thing - this is the worst case of mismanaged expectations (and terrible PR as a byproduct) I have seen in ages.
Maybe the miscarriage does not make her layoff immune, but I don't think that was her point. Her point was about telling her that she did a bad job when they couldn't even tell her why she did a bad job.
The heartlessness in regard to the miscarriage was just the final straw, I think.
please post on dealbreaker, so that maybe some of their clients will see how disgusting they are
@ 4:42 - You're correct in that "law is a business," but she seemed to be only seeking a bit of grace and at least the *appearance* that her colleagues (and bosses) were people before they were lawyers. Apparently, they weren't, and may have a lawsuit on their hands in the near future.
4:43 -- seems like the miscarriage was a big part of it:
"...but it is wholly another level of heartlessness to lay her off six days after that."
She is pretty much saying you aren't allowed to lay someone off six days after they have had a miscarriage.
Does this mean everybody who took PH's 30 pieces of silver in Atlanta to snub local firms like McKenna Long, K&S, and PoGo are screwed? Hope they like that base salary...
What is it with Paul Hastings and departure memos? Their San Diego office was the subject of the classic "may the smoke from any bridges I burn today" memo several years ago.
-----Original Message-----
From: [redacted]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PM
To: [redacted]
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 [redacted] 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,
[Redacted]
ps. Achilles absent, was Achilles still. (Homer)
This woman is amazing. It's one thing for firms to have maternity leave and family friendly policies, but they are complete fabrications if you are going to be on the chopping block come recession time should you actually decide to use them. I hope this will be a signal to other firms not to put women through the same thing she has gone through and to be upfront with layoffs in the future.
I have the utmost respect for this woman for telling these greedy foolios where to stash their severance pay and for exposing the left-and-right firing that's been taking place at PH since around November. This is NOT an isolated incident and it's about time the firm is exposed.
This woman is amazing. It's one thing for firms to have maternity leave and family friendly policies, but they are complete fabrications if you are going to be on the chopping block come recession time should you actually decide to use them. I hope this will be a signal to other firms not to put women through the same thing she has gone through and to be upfront with layoffs in the future.
Jerry McGuire would be proud of this departure email.
Paul Hastings unceremoniously dumps many associates...how many second years are around after the new batch of first years gets started?
4:41, every now and then. Why do you ask?
While certainly off-topic, I think it's worth noting that Lat posted as "guest." Could it be that even he finds the whole signing in nonsense to be retarded and annoying? Bring back the old format!
Where's the grace in smearing your employer on a blog? Everyone knows even b4 signing up to work in biglaw how the game is played. Negative performance reviews and being shown the door after several years is the tradeoff one makes for making a lavish salary for a few years. Why does this woman get to use the "uterine scraping" defense and get to throw a boo-hoo baby cry fest in cyberspace?
The practice of law would be wonderful if it wasn't for the lawyers.
i don't get why she thought the firm took her miscarriage as an opportunity to lay her off before she got pregnant again. is it harder to lay off a pregnant woman than a pregnant woman who just lost her baby?
There is a way to be human and compassionate while running a successful business, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Do you have to make difficult decisions while running a successful business, yes. Are you going to make decisions that people won't like, yes. Do you have to be a d!ck while doing it, no!
My guess is that we never would have heard from this associate if the partners just said the following:
Officially: "Associate, the firm has made a difficult decision to lay off some of our associates and you are one of them. This is not based on performance and we appreciate the work you have done for the firm, but these are tough economic times. We are sorry, but we have to let you go. Here is our offer, please review it with your attorney."
Unofficially from her partner: "Associate, I know you are going through a difficult time, and this layoff hasn't made it easier. I'm sorry for your loss and I wish you well."
As some have pointed out, she is an employee-at-will. And the firm can fire a pregnant employee, as long as there is no discrimination involved. Just because a woman is pregnant doesn't make her free from being fired (I just couldn't say "fire-proof" LOL) if there is another valid reason for the termination. Why do firms feel compelled to act like there are performance reasons for lay-offs, other than for the fact they don't want to seem like they don't know how to run a business in a downturn? Even finance people can't always successfully run a business (see Bear Stearns).
4:57. You're an idiot. She smeared her employer to their faces (via email of course). People forward emails, so it ends up on a blog.
Smooth moove PH.
Get in there, L2L, there's going to be open spots on the interview list!
And, let me be the second to say that PH could buy its way into the non-terminated associates' hearts with a prompt raise of 1st yr base salaries to $190k.
PHJW requires all associates to sign an agreement to arbitrate as a condition of employment (or at least they did when I worked there ~2 yrs ago).
So while she could conceivably file suit, PHJW will almost certainly move to stay & compel arbitration, where it can be resolved privately.
thats cold!~
To 5:01--I don't know CA law, but my guess is that there is a statute protecting pregnant employees from discrimination, hence why they would want her to be not pregnant for termination purposes.
As a lawyer and a human being (these are not mutually exclusive, folks), I empathize with this woman, and wish her all the best. Paul Hastings, you are sh*t in my book, at least.
@4:57
First, I doubt she was the one to send this to ATL, it was probably one of her co-workers, so she isn't smearing her ex-employer on a blog, we are.
And Second, we should be. We all know that law is a tough profession, but for god's sake, show some tact. If she was going to get fired, they should have waited a month and then done it. This reveals not only that those who fired her are compassionless people, but also that they have no business sense.
For those who say that law is a business, you're right, it is a business, but anyone with any business sense should know that this is a terrible, terrible mistake. This really is inexcusable. I can't wait to see how they spin it to the media. I hope it makes the papers in SF.
4:26, they may have an arbitration policy, but in California, when it is a discrimination claim, good luck compelling arbitration. Even without reading it, if she has a decent lawyer I would bet that the judge will throw out the arbitration agreement as unconscionable.
I am impressed by this woman's courage.
As a woman who is currently a 1L at a top school, what other firms I should put on my avoid list for fall OCI?
And are any firms that are particularly female-friendly?
(and I have seen the maternity leave tables - what I'm looking for is more of a general philosophy of respect rather than firms just trying to match each other)
Wow. I wish I knew the name of the writer so I could tell her that she is a hero; good on her for being brave enough to send such an e-mail, and telling PH to F*&C themselves and their severance pay.
BOYCOTT TTT PAUL HASTINGS!!!
Right on, 5:02
"May the smoke from any bridges I burn today be seen far and wide" is the best line ever. And I applaud this woman for having the integrity to choose the truth over money. I think firms should be called on using the pathetic "work performance" excuse for layoffs. It's unethical -- especially since they don't HAVE TO USE IT.
confidential to david lat: we know you are posting as guest. sign in and give us an avatar of your face!