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!

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when someone shows this comment page to the managing partner.

Guys in my high school used to fire people after uterus scrapings and blame it on poor work performance all the time, it was no big deal.

She apparently married well, so can literally afford to have done what she's done. Not very sensitive to other associates that just lost their jobs and need the pay, and would probably prefer that lay-offs be kept quiet, at least until they find other employment.

It's unusual to see any positive, supportive, compassionate, or congratulatory comments on this blog. To see nothing but such comments (with maybe 3-4 exceptions) for an entire thread is astounding. The PH associate obviously hit a nerve, one that I wouldn't have thought still functional in Biglaw lawyers. Where does this vestigal admiration for stands on principle come from?

She is (hopefully) going to sue them in the most liberal city in the most pro-plaintiff state, as far as discrimination claims go- she has an excellent chance. I wish her nothing but the best.

One aspect I find interesting is that without the issue of pregnancy the firing is likely unchallengeable. If you are a 4th year somewhere getting good reviews, and then in a downturn the firm lays them off with "performance" reasons as a pretext, there is no recourse. Unfortunately most associates will probably take 3 months severance to keep quiet and we could never know what firms to avoid.

I hope she wins big. I had a bad on campus interview with PH and am glad I turned down their callback.

5:15, please continue these. It will NEVER get old. Every one makes me giggle. <3

Apparently this email is not a hoax. Otherwise she would have denied it when Lat contacted her:

"Update (5:10 PM): We have heard back from the associate in question, who had no additional comment."

What is so heroic about being an impulsive pre-menopausal whiner . . .

For the few of you who think that this woman is complaining because she was fired after a miscarriage, or that she should suck it up because "that's what law firm life is," please read and re-read the post @ 5:02.

4:42 -

You may require compassion only from your friends, but I would hope that you would require honesty from those with whom you deal professionally as well.

5:14 - - Maybe, but the managing partner will probably respond with... What's Above The Law? What's a blog? What's a comment page? What's the internet? What? We have women working here... as attorneys?! When did all this happen? Is the car here to take me home yet?

So does that mean after the next round of associate raises in the coming years, if I happen to sense an impending recession or economic slowdown, while my colleagues are getting axed left and right, I can just get pregnant and make myself layoff proof?

5:08 - Look at the number of female partners. But be careful! Make sure that at least a fair percentage of them have families. I work at a firm with a fair amount of female partners. Many aren't married and most don't have children even if married. I'm not sure if they are any more "female-friendly" than their male counterparts.

For all the "at will employee" people.

Just because you're at will doesn't mean you can be fired for ANY reason. Firings in contravention of public policy are not allowed, even for at will employees and Federal law protects women from being fired for preganancy or pregnancy related reasons, even at will ones.

So if PH fired this woman for any reason related to her pregnancy or miscarriage, they are liable to her, at will or not and arbitration or not.

If they got rid of her because she'd been missing work going for ultrasounds, or because she had to take time off for medical care related to her pregnancy or miscarriage, which resulted in her reduced billable hours, they're liable.

Women who miss a reasonable amount of work for pregnancy are protected.

So while miscarriage doesn't mean you "can't" be laid off, its a pretty stupid move to fire someone right after like that. The appearance of discrimination may be enough to screw the firm.

5:16, that is, sadly, because this blog has been taken over by law students (specifically 1Ls) who are still in touch with their inner hippy. They believe that students will avoid a firm because of this. The simple fact is that PH will have no trouble filling their first year spots. Maybe not all Harvard grads, but people with limited options will no doubt still flock there.

Those of us working are glad we have a job and are keeping our head down.

5:22(2) - Well done.

5:22 (and others): FYI, the managing partner was copied on the original email, as were a number of other higher-ups in the firm. I know this doesn't mean that he's seen this or realizes that many (most?) law students know about this by now, but he likely had his "oh shit" moment about 4 hours ago.

If you can't see what's wrong and objectionable about kicking someone while she's down, while cowardly hiding behind a shield of lies about her performance to cover your business decision, you've got problems. I understand that it's easy and fun to get all saddled up on your contrarian horse and disagree with the bulk of the posters here, but if you really can't see the problem with PH's actions here, go do some soul searching.

PH ASSOCIATE HERE.
Now would be a great time to lobby PAUL HASTINGS TO 190K !!!

I agree with 4:12 PM [#3]
except:
ALL law students, unite! Do not interview with PH this fall!

ATL serves a useful function! Lat's got the forum to put this out and I appreciate it.

PH ASSOCIATE HERE.
Now would be a great time to lobby PAUL HASTINGS TO 190K !!!

5:31 - What is a soul?

PH Partner

this is one of the most awesome posts in the history of ATL.

it's amazing how one associate can destroy an entire firm's recruiting efforts with just one email

good luck PH

Anytime you're going to fire an employee, ESPECIALLY one with a potential discrimination claim (they're pregnant, a minority, etc.) you damn well better leave a paper trail. Not only do you let them know their performance is unsatisfactory well ahead of getting rid of them, but you do so in written communication. Anyone who runs a business knows this, or should. Maybe she deserved to be fired, maybe she didn't, but what we do know is that the partners handled this poorly, at least as a business decision. So don't give me that crap about getting pregnant makes you fire-proof. Everyone knows this is how it works, and how it has to work in order to combat actual discrimination.

That being said, I do think everyone needs to calm down. No one knows what really went on here and immediately denounce PH seems a bit rash.

5:24 - how can you tell from a firm's website the number of female partners who have families?

The silence of PH insiders who might be in a position to defend the firm is deafening.

So if PH fired this woman for any reason related to her pregnancy or miscarriage, it would be illegal? Right.

But, what if this woman was fired because her work sucked, or because business was slow. NOT LIABLE.

The fact of the matter is THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

All of you people are jumping to conclusions, potentially slandering an innocent firm, and taking everything this woman says as gospel. Shame on you!

So if PH fired this woman for any reason related to her pregnancy or miscarriage, it would be illegal? Right.

But, what if this woman was fired because her work sucked, or because business was slow. NOT LIABLE.

The fact of the matter is THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

All of you people are jumping to conclusions, potentially slandering an innocent firm, and taking everything this woman says as gospel. Shame on you!

5:37 - rate them hotornot-style. >6 means she has a family.

This is NOT a women-issue, it is a people issue. If a male associate's father or mother or wife died, I'm sure PH would behave exactly the same way.

You better believe that law students from top schools will shun PH - already at Columbia, me and some buddies have started a campaign not to interview with Paul Hastings.

Let's see how PH tries to recover from this PR NIGHTMARE.

They deserve to burn in hell.

The way this way handled is the way that PH probably advises its clients to handle lay-offs of people who are in some type of protected class (pregnant women, minorities, etc), especially when the real reason for the lay off is because the person committed the sin of getting pregnant or, dare I say, pissed off the wrong person (as opposed to a downsizing). Wanna fire Pregnant Pam or Latino Larry? Find a non-discriminatory reason (performance related), and start to develop the record. It’s a cruel, nasty, thing to do to a good employee (and a human being) but it pays the bills. And I hate to say it, but this type of thing is what all you BigLaw associates who do employment discrimination defense are enabling. Hurts when its one of your own, no?

I thought using performance reviews as a cover-up for layoffs went out of style in the early 90's. How ridiculous that a firm would still want to play pretend, at the expense of their associates, when everyone knows what's going on in this and other industries.

The original Vienna psychoanalysts would describe this as textbook hysteria precipitated by the miscarriage. Only pampered white upper middle class liberals would breathlessly describe this as "courageous" and "amazing". Falling on a grenade is "courageous", turning down 50K to vent your spleen, not so much courageous as spoiled. The vast majority of humanity breaking their backs to feed their family cannot so indulge.

Law used to be a profession. It is now a business filled with classless, greedy trash.

To the author of this email:

I am very sorry for your loss. My mom went through a similar medical procedure once, and it was very hard on her.

Also, you kick ass. Sue the cowardly bastards. And I, for one, will never apply to work there, and should I ever oppose your erstwhile firm, I will take special pleasure in beating them down.

Signed Sincerely,

M. Bradwell

She showed too much intergrity in this email to be blackballed. I'd hire her.

Hey 5:06 - how did a similar mandatory arbitration clause recently work out for OMM in CA? Not so well.

You, sir, are a moron.

Gallion OUT!

Hey 4:00,

You called it: " we're humans first and THEN associates and partners."

By the time you become a partner, you are no longer human. It is a strange for of devolution from human to "a-human."

Work for Biglaw, making a good salary ? The timing and how they did it sucked. But is it unusual. Grow up and get your head out of the roses. The economy is tanking and you will see more of this as layoffs increase around the country. There are a lot of people getting laid off that don't make three figure salaries, don't get 3 months pay and are in danger of loosing the roof over their head. Why would anyone beyond this blog feel sorry for her or any of us. It totally sucks that this had to happen to her at this point in her life, but your naive to think that her e-mail is anything but self serving.

"The original Vienna psychoanalysts would describe this as textbook hysteria precipitated by the miscarriage. Only pampered white upper middle class liberals would breathlessly describe this as "courageous" and "amazing". Falling on a grenade is "courageous", turning down 50K to vent your spleen, not so much courageous as spoiled. The vast majority of humanity breaking their backs to feed their family cannot so indulge."

Go fuck yourself. It is called principle. You have none, so you don't get it.

5:39, you're missing the point by a mile. I don't think anyone is claiming that they know for sure that PH has done something illegal. What they're claiming is that PH has done something reeking of wankerism (firing someone less than a week after a personal tragedy- whether it is a miscarriage, death in the family, medical emergency, I think people would feel the same). You can do something perfectly legal and still be a perfect dick about it.

So true 5:46, so true. 95% of the people on here will realize that within 5 years of Bigfirm practice, whether or not they turn into shambling wrecks of their former selves. Enjoy it before it breaks you, fools. And it WILL break you, one way or another.

Field Marshal DiBlasi

Yeah, and those Viennese psychoanalysts have been proven so right in their field, eh? And who would call them out but the very pampered white upper middle class liberals you speak of? Tool.

Sometimes you just gotta call BS, even if it costs you a significant sum of money. This woman decided it was worth 50K to publicly call out a bunch of a-hole partners for who they really are. It might have been worth 500,000K. I admire her. Firms have changed into the abusive places they are today, and no one has the guts to say so because they are so worried about their jobs and their ability to pay back 150K in loans to their law diploma mill. It's nice to see someone say enough, you bullsh*tting a-holes. And that is exactly what she did.

J. Friendly

S&C fires people all the time for being pregnant, gay, intelligent, kind, etc..., it is no big deal.

H. Rodgin Cohen

Former PH Woman Here - Wow -- glad to see PH finally exposed for being crummy to women. This is nothing new, people. I was there for several years. They have lost TONS of top performing women attorneys because of treatment relating to part-time status (AKA Dante's infermo). Basically if you are a hard charging young associate woman, you are fine. Heaven's forbid, however, you try to have a life. NO NO NO. They don't like that. Almost all the women partners I ever interacted with are either SHEBOTS who have no husbands, partners or lives and devote self 100% to PH or women who do not see their children, or women without children. Every normal woman I saw either went to another firm, where they were treated better, or to the federal government, or home. And, their employment practices not doing as they preach to clients is nothing new. Saw that happen many times. Run do not walk from this place.

You go girl!!

PH has always been like this, they walk all over everybody. Anything goes with it's partners as long as it's kept quite, or not caught. And, it one of them is caught the hired goons crucify the one who complains. No scruples, no integrity, not now, not ever.

5:39
"All of you people are jumping to conclusions, potentially slandering an innocent firm, and taking everything this woman says as gospel. Shame on you! "

You're right. We don't know what happened. Maybe the associate in question is a liar. But it goes against a lot of collective life experience to believe that an associate would tell a law firm to take its 3 months severance and shove it, burn- no- napalm her bridges, just to vent. Associates have been hearing from friends and colleagues that firms are laying people off, but often for performance based reasons that didn't exist on prior reviews. It's clear that many firms have suffered a transactional work slow down and combined with increased labor costs, and keeping up with PPP, the associate ranks are being trimmed, especially at the mid-levels. Firms can fudge PPP, but they cannot fudge payroll.
If Paul Hastings didn't do anything wrong and this associate is really a poor performer, then our bad. In the meanwhile I don't have a lot of sympathy for the megafirm that fired a woman 6 days after her miscarriage. In fact, you're a pretty big tool if your heart bleeds for PHJW. Innocent firm? C'mon, are you a marketing plant?

Even assuming the absolute worst (i.e., they fired her because her pregnancy-related absences were bothersome), they will recover. First, if pressed on this issue, they will more likely be able to say-and prove- that the dismissal is tied to the soft economy, etc. - who would be able to question that. But regardless of whether her dismissal is due to anti-pregnancy discrimination, or merely the need to cut expenses (and subsequent lying that it was performance-related), they will recover the same way any firm recovers-- time and the reality of law firm recruiting. By next year, and certainly the year after, people will forget about this, and next year's first year law students are not even reading law blogs. Also, law students and lawyers need jobs, and there are only so many high-paying jobs to go around, so it is a simple issue of supply and demand, particularly when the unfortunate truth is, many large law firms have some "scandal" in their past, or at least a few partners (or more than a few) who can make your life a living hell.

This is the greatest thing I've seen on this site in a few years. Very brave. Thank you very much, Redacted, for being an amazing human being. (Sorry for your loss, not that that helps too much)

Another former PH woman attorney here - I agree with 5:57 - PH is an AWFUL place to work if you're a woman (and honestly, not so good even if you aren't!).

Have to disagree 5:59. This is the kind of thing it takes a long time to recover from. At least among women, who can empathize with this pitiful treatment. I'm sure, however, that there will be no end of underqualified a-hole guys running to fill the PH summer class when the women stay home. Too many a-holes in this profession, period.

- A guy who hates d-bag lawyers and law students

From the PaulHastings website:

"[O]ur San Francisco office handles all areas of employment counseling and litigation as part of our world-class Employment Law practice."

Awe. Some.

5:16(1): I'm not sure how I follow how this woman did the other laid off associates a disservice, unless you're claiming that once it's public that PH is laying off, there will be no more 3 months' severance to buy their silence.

Because the release makes them characterize it as a resignation and PH will claim performance related reasons for the departure. In a slow market, laterals with poor performance don't find new jobs. But laterals who have been laid off do find more sympathy. The poor performance to bury a firm's low hours approach was used in the early 90's and early 00's. Anyone in Biglaw at those times can name the firms who used those moves - and people don't forget. I would not work for those firms as an attorney, nor hire them as an in house.

5:47- please tell us what you mean about OMM's arbitration clause. I have not heard about it.

This would be a good post idea, Lat.

@ 4:33: There have been layoffs at PH across the firm. A former PH partner who recently joined my firm said that PH does layoffs a few at a time so that it doesn't get picked up by the media. The numbers from NY are at least something like 10-15.

She was in litigation. And she sent the email to ALL ASSOCIATES! Awesome.

6.05. You don't need to be so coy. The list of firms that lied about their economic layoffs by calling them performance-based would be led by Wilson Sonsini.

I have to give Paul Hastings props. That is a well-drafted release. Very tight.

But if the employee tells you to stick it where the sun don't shine, then there's not much you can do.

What about layoffs in the ATL office? Just in Jan '08 went to 160K for first year salaries. Bad PR for a firm to make such a bold move in the Atlanta market only to start laying people off a few months later.

A smart 3rd or 4th year woman associate in PH DC recently announced she was leaving to go to fed gov't job and specifically told anyone who would listen including woman mging partner of office that she was leaving because "she did not see a future at law firm for WOMEN"

And if they say they have women managing partners of offices -- run even faster -- these women are the worst of them all!

PH Should EAT A DICK

PH is known for bullsh*t reviews. Only 80% of the associates got bonuses this year, and that other 20% was a mix of not meeting hours (because PH doesn't generate enough work for all their associates) and those who got screwed.

Get out while you can. It's going to be worse this year.

The problem with good but not top large law firms and good but not top law schools (like USC) is that they are willing to treat their employees / students like crap in order to reach the top... which honestly will never be in their reach - they should stop trying so hard and start treating their people well... that is what will truly make them a law firm / school that people want

PAUL HASTINGS = EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!

The story has been picked up by Jezebel:

"Would Your Job Fire You For Having A Miscarriage?"

http://jezebel.com/387367/would-your-job-fire-you-for-having-a-miscarriage

Why do you think an angry ex-employee is telling the whole truth?

Just because she has other things going on in her life doesn't mean that she's automatically immune from the review process that everybody else has to go through.

She's certainly angry. That doesn't make her right.

It is just so damn punk to reject that offer. Punk rock law move of the year (and it is early).

I hope she shit on her desk before leaving. I am certain that is the only way this could be more punk.

6:16, I agree to a certain degree, but look at PPP. PH now has a solid argument that it's become the "Big Four" (or that OMM is out of the "Big Three"). Now, it may be in part because of dubious shit (aka "business decisions," even if carried out monunmentally poorly) like this, but its partners can't complain.

If you don't agree with the terms of the release agreement, DON'T SIGN IT!

I still don't understand what the huge injustice is here. Can someone explain it to me? Unless the woman was fired solely because of the miscarriage (which is still in factual dispute at this point), I don't see what the problem is. It's common knowledge that biglaw downsizes midlevels via puffed up negative reviews in recessionary downcycles. That's part of the risk one signs up for when one agrees to a $200K plus job.

A firm that treats women like fecal matter will treat all their employees like fecal matter.

6:10 - I actually started to write a few firms out, but then I thought I would miss the ones where I didn't personally know associates. My personal faves are DLA Piper and Shearman.

6:05(2)--Please name names. Also, let's start keeping track of the firms doing this during this cycle(didn't Lat characterize it as a "soft-layoff").

6:22 - stop being such an incredible moron. The associate's gripe with the whole process is that the partners couched her firing in terms of her poor work-product. The partners didn't have the class to acknowledge and admit that the firm did not have sufficient work (i.e. they are failing at their jobs) and instead blamed the associate for her allegedly poor work and fired her.

Oh, and there is the little issue of inhumane treatment, too...

Firms that have done this include:

Cooley
Wilson Sonsini
Paul Hastings
any others?

It seems that a partner in the employment dept at PH has written "Ten Steps of Communicating the Layoff Decision,” The California Labor Letter, Aug. 1995, at 6.

I wonder if anyone at PH read this??

If this attorney was performing and helping the firm, she would not have been fired. It's simple, this profession is about one thing: PROFITS. Profits come from one thing: PERFORMANCE. Do all you "female law student unite and boycott PH interviews" automatons really believe a managing partner just decided, "I don't like pregnancy, I like boys better, girls are icky" and up and fired a top-performing associate? Nope. Be a top performer, never worry about your job.

These comments do have a law student feel to them.

Yes, PH will experience some backlash in that they won't be able to hire the same quality of student that they normally would, especially women, but the fact of the matter is that not all students at T14 schools who want biglaw jobs get them.

The difference in quality between the last students to get biglaw jobs at firms similar to PH and those that do not is likely not that great.

In other words, that G'town grad who is deciding between being a contract attorney and an associate at PH is going to become an associate at PH.

That's not to say PH doesn't give a damn. Firms certainly care about their images, but I guarantee you no one is losing sleep over this except the partners who handled it.

6:27 - I think Lat called them "stealth layoffs": economically-motivated firings, but disguised as performance-related.

Good for the firm, because they don't have to admit that their business is tanking.

Bad for the associates, who get saddled with the baggage of bad reviews.

Incredible

I know some great labor and employment firms that would love to represent this atty

I once worked at a firm where a partner interrogated a woman that was 9 months pregnant in secret to try and find out if another partner was going to leave the firm - 6 days from delivery. The interrogation only stopped when the woman said "... this is wrong, stop this ..."

The woman told me right after and I raised hell with H.R. at the firm - and, believe it or not, the H.R. people called her in the hospital on the day of her delivery to see if "... she thought she had been interrogated ..."

Large law firms are often the worst offenders when it comes to the treatment of employees

I, too, admire the courage of redacted. One of the firms with which I summered no-offered me, claiming that I showed a disturbing lack of understanding of basic legal principles on in an area of law and performed below the rest of the summer class. I am now a COA clerk for an active judge. I authored an opinion involving the exact issues in that area of law that the panel largely adopted and published some months ago. I am returning to a better, higher ranked firm in the city in question. It is certainly hard to say whether redacted was a poor performer. However, I will always believe that the performance excuse in my case was a pretext for one of the senior partner's disdain for my homosexuality. Though I am not naming the firm now, I did discuss the matter with the outlaws chapter at my school at the time, and appropriate action was taken by them. I also refrain from naming them as I feel obligated to stay way from such public matters while I am with the circuit.

To 5:08 or whoever wanted to know how to pick women-friendly firms:
The best firms for women in my experience are the gay-friendly firms. Unlike most firms that simply say they're women-friendly for PR points, these firms really do take it to heart, and they treat associates with a lot of respect. Plus their liberal-ness makes them more open to women-friendly policies. The # of women partners at a big firm means nothing, b/c most of them clawed their way to the top and are not exactly willing to give young female associates a hand.

"I once worked at a firm where a partner interrogated a woman that was 9 months pregnant in secret to try and find out if another partner was going to leave the firm - 6 days from delivery. The interrogation only stopped when the woman said "... this is wrong, stop this ..."

I don't get whats the big deal about this one....

For those who harp on about Biglaw being a business, someone above got it exactly right: Biglaw IS a business, and this is an appalingly poor business decision. Whether her performance really was bad or not, the way they went about it was obviously terrible, to motivate a bridge-burning outrage like this email.

And I completely disagree with people who say PH will totally recover next year - this one is BAD. This is an absolute PR disaster, both for recruiting AND client relationships. This is not like refusing to match Cravath's bonus or retroactively raising the billable-hour target (those, law students may forget, and clients will ignore); this really exposes the culture of heartlessness of the partners.

As a 1L female at one of PH's main recruiting grounds, I know who not to bid on come August.

6:31,

You, sir, are an idiot. Do you even work at a law firm? Do you think the other associates just shrugged their shoulders over this? There will obviously be no mass walkout, but poor morale leads to (i) less motivated associates which leads to less efficient PERFORMANCE and (ii) the top PERFORMERS you speak of looking elsewhere for jobs. What happens then? The firm loses PROFITS.

PH will care about this not because an associate was fired, but because of the impact it will have on the associates that they don't want to leave. Why? Because they know that the associates they don't want to leave, can and will.

6:22
Law firm partners need to understand that they now risk being outed when they engage in underhanded practices. This associate sounds like she's got enough going for her that she'll recover. PHJW now has to deal with this PR clusterf*ck and its new reputation for laying off associates because it lacks the work to keep them busy. If it were just a lack of work, that would be understandable in light of the economic downturn. The accusations that PHJW also treats women like sh*t and will get rid of an associate less than a week after a miscarriage is just becoming public knowledge. Lots of firms engage in these type of shifty practices, but as some here have pointed out, it is a rare associate who denounces them in such a public way. Big law firms pay great, but they don't pay enough to buy loyalty from partners or associates anymore. Firms generate a lot of bitter lawyers who resent eating all the sh*t force fed to them by somewhat less than honest partners. True, many eat a lot more sh*t for a lot less money, but how can any of us resent an associate who tells the firm the firm that they are full of it?

This just in via self-reporting email: Partner at Wachtell calls in a minority, physically handicapped, bisexual senior associate to give stellar reviews, spends 28 straight hours regaling the associate with stories of her (of course) awesomeness, then... turns into a giant preying mantis and spits fiery daggers at her because she's secretly pregnant!?!?!?!? Aarharghghghhhhh!!! (FN: Associate was dead weight, billing 1400 hours two years straight in NYC and receiving complaints from clients. Previous performance evals said to "shape up." Shhhh....)

6:05(2) - you really think it is easier to find a job when other firms know, or suspect, that you have been laid off - as opposed to just making a career change?? Get real.

-5:16(1)

6:22 and your ilk, you are fighting a losing battle. PH Partners, Associates, idiotic defends, please allow me to explain why attacking this lady is doomed to failure.

1) So far everyone has seen through your attempts to focus on the miscarriage issue. No one here believes that she was fired BECAUSE of this sad event. So playing the whole "what, she shouldn't have been fired coz she was pregnant even if she sucked at her job" is a non starter. The POINT, which you misses so I will write in all caps is YOU SHOWED YOU ARE A TOILET FIRM BECAUSE YOU FIRED HER 6 DAYS AFTER HER OPERATION and then YOU SEEK TO PORTRAY IS AS PERFORMANCE AND NOT ECONOMY. 6 days, after a traumatic experience, and then to sully her rep. For shame PH, for shame.

2) Attacking her performance is also a non starter. I don't see why firms do not get this into their head. Simple fact, would you fire her now after her operation if you were as busy as you had been. The answer is no. Sorry, but playing performance card is disgusting. Here is the flip side, now is the best time to be fired for sucking, as even if you are twerrible, everyone will think real reason was economy.

3) The fact that she turned down a severence to tell PH to stick it makes me suspect, and most non biased readers, that there is an once of truth. And even if she didn't have steller, and even if she was bad, to handle it this bad (6 DAYS!!!!!) GIVES HER STORY A CREEDENCE IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD IF YOU HAD WAITED A MONTH.

PH, You suck!

"Why do you think an angry ex-employee is telling the whole truth?"

Because it would be very odd for someone to turn down a nice severance package in order to make up a story about the firm. Sure it's possible, but it's unlikely enough that her story rings true (especially to those who've seen how PH operates).

6:36(1) - do you think you learned your lesson if you're going to a 'higher ranked' firm? Sorry, but as much as PH is going to take its lumps for this, all biglaw is the same. I work at a firm that is well-known for being a high quality of life joint in exchange for market base but meager bonuses, and we've recently had our eyes opened too. Be careful out there man.

Interesting that no one's asked whether this woman does employment defense, because if so, I bet she herself has defended worse. Of course, those employees deserved it, not being sophisticated and liberal like her.

It doesn't take balls to send this email if you're a laid-off senior associate woman with no clients who is looking to get pregnant. Career may be over (sad, but true). I honestly don't mean that as an insult. She may be looking for a better deal than severance, and you can't really blame her. She may just be understandably pissed.

No clue if she has a case that will get past summary judgment but PH looks so shitty for this (not to assume her veracity, but if you work at a big firm, you know it certainly ain't impossible).

6:39:

Didn't say the firm won't care. Just saying they probably didn't fire her for being pregnant/miscarrying. Probably let her go (as opposed to a different associate) because she underperformed compared to other associates. You're exactly right, why would a law firm (let's concede they're smart) potentially alienate or damage the morale or its associates by laying off a well-performing recently pregnant attorney? They wouldn't - unless you're really suggesting they're that ignorant...?

Imagine how good it must have felt immediately after hitting the send button. That's a sensation I will sadly never experience.

I would add this as an update to the main post, but can't do so at the moment (because Movable Type is "upgrading" itself). So I'm posting this in the comments for now, and I'll add it to the main post later.

Here is Paul Hastings's statement, from Eileen King, Global Director of Public Relations for the firm:

"We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."

Hey look: Lat's wish came true! A million comments after just a few capital letters - WOW.

Ahh, the sweet sweet aroma of one-sided sour grapes... drink it in, men.

PH got pwnt, serves them right.

LULZ.

She failed at sh*tting out a kid (seriously, how hard is that??). And then she failed at keeping her job. Classic 1-2.

How about lay offs in other PH offices?

"We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."

haha, not too internal anymore now is it?

Add me to the number who view this woman as a heroine. Given the eloquence of her email, it's totally implausible that her work product was anything but excellent.

And, I have seen other law firms fabricate false reviews to bolster justification for layoffs or no-partnership offer, and that is just plain nasty and dishonest. I don't doubt that that is what happened to her and it disgusts (but does not surprise) me.

=O

Surprise! Two sides to a story... NO WAAAAAYYY?!?!?!?!?!

6:34 care to name your firm? sounds like it's just as evil and inhuman as ph.

6:49 i'm sure you're at ph, cause you've got that same bad evil attitude. people that behave like this (and you) get theirs in the end. karma is a bitch.

6:42, you suck at expressing your thoughts with the written word. I mean, you really suck.

If you disagree with the description of what occurred, then you ARE commenting!

this is just another excuse for big law firms to decrease assoc ranks and increase staff atty ranks. hope all of you are among the chosen few before the unsupported claims of poor work product or other made up deficiency are raised during your review

Yet another female former PH associate -- This type of firing is very typical for PH. As a general matter, PH is a terrible place to work. I am glad to have left when I did.

While I don't work at PH, I would think this would be devastating to associate morale at the firm. Part of the reason associates are willing to work hard and effectively is because they (rightfully) expect that the firm will recognize their hard work and that their loyalty will be reciprocated in kind by the partnership. If my firm did anything like this to a fellow associate (assuming the associate wasn't absolutely terrible) - which I don't think it would - I would probably leave. This is not the way to treat people.

I hope Lat can get a response from PH, and that he'll post it. This seems like a big deal (to me, at least). I really want to see how PH can spin this.

The reason to fire a good associate is that they are senior and their billing rates are high. Good engineers are fired for the same reason.

Reading comprehension, people, she mentioned in her email that her billing rates were high.

Can anyone comment on how PH's NY office stacks up for women?

Shame on PH. This will have consequences during recruiting season at the top schools. Let this be a lesson to other BigLaw firms out there about treating women attorneys like shit.

This doesn't surprise me at all. I figured this is just how all firms work. My firm won't fire you outright for being a jerk or doing poor work. First, they'll cut your work for 6 months so they can give you a bad review for missing hours. Then they'll tell you to find new work. For a career that involves so much confrontation, partners are very nonconfrontational when it comes to managing associates.

7:13 - See Lat's posting at 6:49. Paul Hastings statement:

"We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."

5:16(1): I suspect that since you're questioning me, you haven't been a lawyer in a tight market.

When attorneys are laid off, other attorneys think "there but for the grace of God, go I." In other words, when you know that a firm is laying someone off, you know why they are looking for a job - not because they are restless, have personality conflicts, poor performance, or asked to leave. If there is a lag in their employment history, it isn't a big red flag. Interviewing attorneys in those positions are likely to get a bit more of a pass. (My firm picked up a lot of junior finance associates recently and repurposed them.)

Attorneys who have been let go in a stealth lay-off for performance reasons can have a hard time securing a new job. The firms interviewing them don't know that their current/former firm is laying off - and technically, the associate isn't supposed to say that, since it is characterized as a performance-related termination. Further, the firm would flat out deny a lay-off. Also, a lot of these associates are let go in small numbers and at the mid-levels, so people don't get wind of large groups leaving or law students don't hear about it. And once branded as having performance issues, a new firm is going to be pretty cautious about taking the associate on. Even if the new firm isn't told it's a performance issue, they will want to know why the associate wants to make a change - and whether there are any issues they must be concerned with.
At a previous firm, our hiring director knew instantly when people were being stealthily laid off, because we'd receive a lot of resumes from one firm - numbers we wouldn't normally see.

As one poster said, superstars never have to worry. That's not really true everywhere. In small groups, a superstar junior associate could lose out to a great midlevel or senior who can handle matters on their own (with a higher billing rate) and has more client development potential. Or, another group might keep a cheaper junior associate and cut a mid- or senior-level associate. True, good performance can help - but it isn't the only factor.

- 6:05(2)

7:13, meet 6:49 (though it is hard to find).

lets face it. not all law firms are evil. but, PH is.

i'm curious as to whether PH will say something about this. while they disagree and don't comment (or whatever bs was said by the PR person), at some point to save face, they'll try to spin it to paint them in a slightly better light. of course, it's pitch black around them right now.

having experienced a mc, my heart goes out to the young associate who gave up (best guess) $50k plus to instead out the firm. i wish her happiness in life and furture employment with a firm that shows more compassion and humanity.

Not to sound heartless, but what exactly did PH do wrong here?

Is it becuase they lied to her about why they laid her off?

Is it because they laid her off after she had a miscarriage? If so, I don't see why having a miscarriage should make her immune to getting laid off. Did they fire her BECAUSE she had a miscarriage? Why would they do that? They don't like women having babies?

Sorry, I'm confused.

She was a commercial litigator in SF. Not an area that has seen a significant slow-down. This email has made the rounds in Silicon Valley, with her name and all the original recipients' names attached. When she burns her bridges, she uses napalm.

I say good for her. PH is behaving disgracefully.

7:17 - great post.

7:18, not only are you confused, you're late for the show. Read the previous 250 comments, which will answer your questions dozens of times.

There are federal protections against firing women for being pregnant = cause of action!

7:23, for Christsakes, you, too, are late for the show.

Lat says he was able to contact her -- you mean she wasn't immediately escorted to the street??

Okay, I still don't see the problem.

A) I still see a 50/50 factual dispute as to whether or not she was fired because of a miscarriage. There is indeed 2 sides to every story. I don't think it's far that you guys are slandering the firm without knowing all the facts. For all we know, this woman can be nothing more than a sour grapes ex-employee with an axe to grind.

B) It sucks that she was fired 6 days after a miscarriage, but unfair things like that happen all the time in life. When my father passed away, the bank still demanded their mortgage payment.

C) Firms do indeed use b.s. negative performance reviews to push overpriced midlevels out of the firm in a recessionary downcycle. This does indeed suck, but isn't it a widely publicized common practice? Surely, this woman knew what she was getting into when she accepted her first year offer.

C)

I really hope PH is an outlier. This kind of heartless conduct is shameful.

5:15 does the best job of summing everything up - check that out for a quick overview

7:14 -- the NY office of PH stacks up pretty shittily for women. The number of women partners tells all.

7:28, you are retarded. Slander is spoken, libel is written. Also, the bank demanded "ITS" mortgage payment.

p.s. you are retarded.

While I'm sure I will be attacked for being naive, I really do not think that this would happen at most good law firms (broadly speaking). I certainly don't think it would happen at mine.

"Given the eloquence of her email, it's totally implausible that her work product was anything but excellent."

Airtight legal argument, 6:51. You'd make a great labor/employment lawyer . . . too bad PH isn't hiring right now. Add me to those who think this overwrought parting email is not "brave", "courageous", "amazing", or the work of a "heroine." Time to grow up kids - the U.S. business model works (and provides you with you six figure salaries) because it is driven not by sentimentality, but by merit. In if you're not good at what you do - and this woman would not have been fired if she were good/productive - you've got to go. If you think this is ruthless, think of the alternative, which is the kinder, gentler business model of Japan or Europe, where businesses are hamstrung by regulations preventing the efficient shedding of poor performers. Fortunately, those economies are subsidized by American aid, which in turn is possible because of our robust business practices. I, for one, would not cut off the branch we are all sitting on. As a 3rd year associate at a BigLaw firm, I wish there was more trimming of the fat - I resent subsidizing all of these underperformers.

Does it surprise anyone? Paul Hastings does represent Wal-Mart after all.

7:17(1) is spot on about the hiring/firing dynamic. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly.

We really DON'T know what happened here. For example, she could have bolloxed up a major project. Some mistakes are one-offs. But I also lived through the era of stealth layoffs, too. Stealth layoffs are unfair and shortsighted - except for SF/LA/NY and maybe Chicago, legal markets can be tight-knit and stories get told. And, that associate you fired might actually become a referral source if you treat him/her with respect. Crazy? I've seen it happen first-hand.

But crediting her story, gawdalmighty that was a crappy thing to do. A question to the PH folks reading this: Is the SF MP really so clueless as to sign off on this? Or was this a rogue department head with a personality conflict? Either way, it was handled abysmally.

-- ET!

7:18 - your comment indicates everything that is wrong with our profession. How can you ask what they did wrong? Moreoever, how can you give even remotely decent advice to your clients? Or do you only worry about the letter of the law and not the business implications of handling lay-offs like a bunch of frat boys selecting pledges?

7:28 - You are retarted. In New York, the distinction between libel and slander no longer exists. You cannot bring a "libel" tort in a New York court. Both libel and slander are now categorized as slander. Look it up.

7:33, time to go see your shrink.

7:28: and why does New York matter here?

I can't help but think that most of these comments are coming from law students or very junior associates. Reality check: 1. As we head into a downturn, most partners do not give a damn whether you refuse to interview with their firm. They don't need you, because they can't keep you busy right now (they can't even keep the associates they already have busy). In other words, you have no market power right now to effect any changes in the profession or at any particular firm. This will change in a few years, but it is the reality of the market right now. 2. Getting a job is going to be much tougher this Fall than any year since 2001, and before that, 1994. Those firms that are not on your "avoid" list are going to be hiring way fewer people, and you may not be in a position to be selective unless you want to find yourself unemployed.

Also, you will be very unhappy and disillusioned if you go to a big firm and do not understand the following. 1. If you cannot, for any reason whatsoever, bill 1800+ hours per year (often much more), you are a drain on your firm's bottom line, and the junior partners will view you as deadweight and will resent you (only senior partners get to play "grandparent" and spew nonsense about how the firm supports work/family balance . . . junior partners that have to actually get the work done and don't have that luxury). 2. Working at a top tier firm at 160K involves a tradeoff. You get more money, but you won't get work/life or work/family balance regardless of what the firm tells you. 3. (Most Important) Law firms are businesses and their sole goal is to make as much money as possible. If the economics dictate that you should be terminated a month after your child just happens to die of cancer, they will not hesitate to do so. Nobody cares about your feelings or your personal problems. The only thing any partner cares about is whether you are making money for the firm (either by generating business or billing hours). Nothing else in this world matters. The only reason lip service is paid to anything being important other than profits is because of the belief that paying lip service to those others things will result in increased profits.

This I know after 17 years at a major law firm, 9 as an associate, 3 as an NEP, and 5 as an equity partner.

7:38 - It's "retarded", not "retarted", you retard.

How about the LA office for overall shittiness? Any departments that are particularly bad (or not so bad)? Any PH defenders out there? Or is it really that bad?

Thanks for the lesson on NY law, 7:28. Too bad it's not relevant. This is the internet, and what's more, most of these comments are probably coming from outside NY, so PJ abounds all over the place.

You're still a tard.

7:41 - if the economy is going to change in a few years as you say why would it be hard to get a job this fall for a starting position in mid 2010?

If "overpriced midlevels" are being pushed out of the firm, the only reason they are "overpriced" is because that is what the firm prices them at. I don't know about you, but I don't have a say in whether I'm "overpriced" or not. I imagine some associates might actually prefer to have a job, and be less "overpriced" (and take a pay cut) than be laid-off in this market, but it doesn't seem like firms offer that option. Starting at 160k is nice, thanks to all the greedy law students that clamored for it, but at firms that are trying to maximize their PPP to the greatest extent possible, it doesn't leave a lot of room for adjusting billable rates and accounting for slowdowns, and at the end of the day, maybe it just means more associates have a shorter tenure at the firm.

5:08, for a firm that treats women crappy look at Clifford Chance NY. The partners will pinch your butt and call you "doll" or "babe" while giving the good work to males. And this for the summers, much less the associates.

Also, Lat never posts as a guest on ATL. As you can see above he has a profile that he uses. All of the puffy-sounding comments are actually from real ATL fans. Deal with it.

If anyone wants to report this to the SF Chronicle, just send an email to chroniclewatch[AT]sfchronicle.com.

I already sent them a link to ATL and a line about why this would be a good news story. Hopefully they'll get a few more and it'll run.

Firms have no foresight, that's why.

7:33 - "and this woman would not have been fired if she were good/productive"

I hate to burst your bubble, but good people get fired/laid off all the time. Watch your back - if the economy gets much worse, you could very well be one of the "underperformers" to get the ax.

The naivete of your post is breathtaking...

The reputation of PH is forever tarnished. Cooley still hasn't recovered from its layoffs in 2002. Who would choose PH with knowledge of this?

I'm clearly in the minority, but as a woman, I'm discouraged by histrionic, burn-the-bridges emails like this--even if it is comparatively calm.

I'm sorry for her troubles, but something doesn't sit quite right about this story. In my experience, people who go to lengths like this are never stellar contributors they think they are.

7:14 - if they had told her that was the reason they were firing her, then she probably would not have sent the e-mail that she did. Re-read her e-mail (and the 250 comments that follow) -- her problem is that her termination was economic, and instead of having the balls to say so, PH wussed out and blamed her performance, probably in a sad attempt to avoid an employment discrimination suit.

Then read 7:17's post to understand why they would do that.

Why not "accept" the offer and then send out a sly "goodbye" email thanking the one person who was supprtive (there must have been one, maybe in the mail room) and noting how much she enjoyed slaving for the partnership for X long years. Maybe even a quick note that she was sorry to learn after Y years of perfect reviews that the firm suddenly found fault with her work. Basically dare the firm to not pay her.

7:41 - You are correct. Now go pick a client and bill it at $650/hr. for the time you spent writing that tidy little BigLaw primer. You must be a very productive partner if you have the time to read and post on ATL. You're like the old guy at the college bar - you may be older and wiser than us young whipper-snappers, but nobody wants you here.

6:49(5) -- you're a jerk.

My sympathies to the author of this email for her recent loss.

Devious, 7:49. Then that person could leak it.

7:33
You are being naive if you think law firms are meritocracies. Even an equity partner can be cut when they they fail to navigate extremely dicey law firm politics. Some partners excel in practices that can no longer support very high billing rates. At that point a firm's management committee might well tell first class lawyers to go take a hike. Do you think that Thatcher Proffit only fired under performers when associates' billables went from 200-300 hours per month to nearly 0?

6.08 - the decision regarding OMM's arbitration policies is at:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30F069FE0BC1EB8C882572DB0056BB91/$file/0456039.pdf?openelement

http://www.howardrice.com/uploads/content/Labor%20&%20Employment%20Alert%20-%20May%202007.html

But really, just follow the long line of California decisions beginning with Armendariz to understand why its very hard to make mandatory arbitration in employment discrimination cases stick in California.

7:41, you don't even get it - at all.

7:41 - 7:49 is right. I will add that 7:41 and those like him/her is why law is a dying profession. too bad we were never part and will never be part of the real profession of law. Hey 7:41, one more thing, you must be a very, very bad business person if you are willing to go along with what you profess law is all about. If you want to make money - get out of a law firm as soon as you can and explore your options in the business world.

741- I wouldn't be so sure about this Fall. Smart firms will be hiring b/c by Fall 2010, when the kids will be associates, we will be booming again.

7:46 - You are ignorant of basic economics. Law firms do not fire employees who make them more profitable. That means retaining associates who meet or exceed their billable hours requirement and putting pressure on those who don't (or laying them off in a bad economy) to move on. Also, naivete is never "breathtaking" - you are a poor writer.

"Nobody cares about your feelings or your personal problems. The only thing any partner cares about is whether you are making money for the firm (either by generating business or billing hours). Nothing else in this world matters. The only reason lip service is paid to anything being important other than profits is because of the belief that paying lip service to those others things will result in increased profits."

This explains why lawyers are not good managers or succesful in business. They have no idea how human beings work.

7:43 --- If 2000-2003 is any predictor, the firms lag in their hiring and will rather have a year or two of 2200-2400 hour billing than bank on a quick recovery. I agree with 7:41; I expect this will be a tough hiring year.

7:41 is about right in general. All of you gullible kids are jumping on the bandwagon and defending the "brave" associate, but you know half the story.

If a firm lays off 20 people in an office, they will call it a lay-off, because they have to. If they are just laying off a couple of people in each of their offices, they will shed less profitable employees. Invariably, these are weaker associates and/or those with lower billables. Are these people laid off becaue the firm is slow or fired for being sub-par? It's really a matter of semantics. I think it is fair to say they are fired for performance reasons. Sure, the bar for acceptability changes in a weaker economy. That doesn't make a performance-based termination any more of a lay-off.

The miscarriage strikes me as, unfortunate, but irrelevant. I am sure neither that, nor prospective pregnancy, was the reason for the termination.

Hire Loyola 2L!!!!!!

These T14 spoiled associates have been pampered their whole lives. Even during the boom years, they are constantly whining not satisfied with salaries of over $165K+. God forbid the economy goes south and you have to get rid of some of the overpriced dead wood; they will cry wah-wah, scream racism and homophobia, and will smear you in the press with all their left wing commie, racial-sexual identity politic ideologies that they learned in their ivy-league institutions. I say thank god for the credit crunch. Good riddance to all these spoiled T14 grads.

7:58 - but law firms do frequently fire employees who would make them profitable if there was enough work to go around. Hence, "good employees". I am not 7:46 but his/her point was pretty to understand. Your inability to do so is, dare I say, breathtaking.

So this is what a quality lawyer should do when they have a dispute?

@7:41 here - you've got a couple of years on me (my shop has a different seniority scale, but I'm still an EP) and all I can say is... wow. Just, wow.

You're ¶1 is right. But your ¶2 is just way out there. First, if you're losing money on mid-level associates billing 1800 hrs., your realization ratios are all screwed up. First years, maybe, but not your 3-7 yrs.

You're right that $160k doesn't buy a lot of family values.

But while your final proposition may true as an abstract concept, that's not how firms REALLY handle it. At least the good ones... Only the most short-sighted of shops are as callous as you portray (Jones Day, anyone?).

No matter what, you fire associates gently unless the kid's farked up spectacularly, doesn't get it, and you want to send a message. You also make a couple of phone calls to see if a second-tier firm can hire them. As for our author, I'd keep her for a month or two, let her go gently (and tell her the goddamn truth, that it's economic + a factor of her being the slowest gazelle in the herd). Then you'd have a person who doesn't want to motherfark your firm.

-- ET!

8:06 - I would say yes. What would you do differently, quality lawyer that you are?

So at 300 comments are we a "Hattrickterf*ck"?

Any other good names a 300-post thread?

'The miscarriage strikes me as, unfortunate, but irrelevant. I am sure neither that, nor prospective pregnancy, was the reason for the termination."

Irrelevant? It doesn't matter that it wasn't "the reason for termination" you tool.

It is a very traumatic event. See, the problem is, you don't understand morality.

Your colleagues at a firm can feel sympathy for your misfortune at having a miscarriage and still agree you have to go because you are subpar as a professional without being heartless miscreants. The law firm is a business, not your family, and all of you law students reading this site (and so troubled by the thought that you will eventually have to work for a living) have been disserved by marketing propaganda suggesting otherwise.

8:00 and his/her "the miscarriage is irrelevant" ilk are missing a broad point. Step back from your myopic analysis of whether PH broke any rules and think about how you would respond if the former PH employee were your sister. Something like this:

Your sister and your brother-in-law excitedly announce that they are pregnant. The family is overjoyed. Everyone is very proud of her - she's a senior associate at a big firm and doing well there. At an engagement party for your sister and brother-in-law, one of the partners even pulled your BIL aside to tell him how great your sis is, and what a great career she has ahead of her. Recently, your sister called you to tell you about a completely bizarre rview she had at work. Despite getting rave reviews from someone a week earlier, they gave her crappy marks in all areas. You suggested she ask for explanation, and she said she already had - they blew her off. Fast foward to last week, when you got a phone call with horrible news: your sister had miscarried. You were concerned for her health, and your BIL told you she was having a D&E to minimize her pain and risk of excessive bleeding. The family was heartbroken. Your sister went back to work as soon as she was able. When you called to see how she was doing, you were surprised to hear that only one person at work had said anything about her miscarriage. She sounded like she was taking it in stride, but you could tell the whole thing was really wearing on her. As you thought about planning a trip to go visit her and BIL, she called you to tell you she had just been fired.

[end scene]

Seriously, you wouldn't find that to be extraordinarily shmucky? Interesting moral compass.

"Fortunately, those economies are subsidized by American aid, which in turn is possible because of our robust business practices."

Correction -- those economies are subisidized by the preposterous debt of the American consumer, which is subsidized by China.

When China stops buying our t-bills, then maybe you can tell us all about our robust business practices. Thanks

Oh come on, while it's really great that she had the balls to write this letter, the fact is that her old firm will tear her a new as*hole if she tries to sue them. Just because the facts add up in her letter doesn't mean they will when her firm brings out the big guns. And no, they aren't going to offer her a settlement either.

And personally, I think it's crappy that she pulled the miscarriage card. Using dead babies for sympathy is tacky.

This just proves how poorly law firms manage people. Even if they were completely in the right, failing to see the PR buzzsaw coming for them and failing to handle this in a manner that could have avoided this public humiliation suggests to me that they have no idea what they are doing, which is consistent with every law firm I've ever dealt with. If I were running PH, the first thing I would do is fire the partners stupid enough to put the firm in this position. All they had to do was treat this woman a little better, and they could have achieved their goals without all of this. Idiots.

8:14 - "PR buzzsaw" may be a little premature. One post on ATL with a bunch of self-serving, self-congratulatory comments by sniveling law students and junior associates is no PR buzzsaw.

If the midlevel were say billing at $400 an hour, and billed 1800 hours (and all those hours were billed and actually collected), then the midlevel isn't covering her salary plus market bonus using the ratio of thumb that I've been told is generally how it works to find out whether you're profitable (one third salary, one third admin, one third profit).

8:14 -- Look, I appreciate that a miscarriage can be difficult and unfortunate -- emotionally, physically, etc. But that has nothing to do with whether she was terminated, or whether she should be terminated, or when she should be terminated.

It is patently unfair to other associates who are performing at a higher level to retain her, just because she is having a difficult time because of a miscarriage. In other types of business, good people get canned at the worst possible moment all the time. Life isn't always pleasant. It's only when it comes to our fancy pants legal jobs, that you see this stunningly naive sense of entitlement.

7:41 here.

7:49: I am sure that you are correct that nobody, law students and junior associates that is, wants to hear the things that I said. You guys have been sold so much bull that it is only natural for you to react strongly when presented with the harsh, cruel reality of the situation.

7:56. I am one of the few on this board that really does understand what happened here.

7:57. I do not mean to patronize, but the sooner you realize that law as a profession is dead and buried, the sooner you will be able to adapt and thrive in the current legal environment.

And those of you challanging me about hiring being slow this Fall, how many of you are actually members of the hiring committee at a major law firm?

I don't have time to post any more. I know you people are going to make fun of me and I guess that is what I should expect. I actually do wish all of you the best with the choices you make.

ATL to 500 comments!

Exactally why do you think that she should be treated differently than any other associate male or female. There is never a good time to be laid off and many people have very real problems that aren't announced to everyone at work. So this makes her courageous. Her e-mail while well written certainly isn't an indication of her legal ability.

I can't believe everyone is missing the REAL issue here -- did Paul Hastings forget to include a valid 1542 waiver?

Damn I feel lucky.... I rejected summer offers from PH and Sutherland Asbill in favor of another v100 firm that seems to be in a significantly better position than these 2 firms.

PH in particular should be concerned about the message it's sending to its applicants. I know no one who would like to work for a firm that acts in this manner towards its associates. Beyond unprofessional, this is immoral!

I am astonished that the associate was levelheaded enough to write such a toned-down and eloquent message to the firm. Although stern in its tone, it reads like a fair representation of very bad facts.

Why was this woman fired?

Read Freakonomics or the Undercover Economist.

Using dead babies as sympathy to circumvent the basic rules of economics is pathetic.

At least their website recognizes that they "continue to set new standards and have been recognized as a leader in the legal profession." Unfortunately, it's probably not a new standard that is good for client relations when Wal-Mart is trying to put on a big smiley face with respect to its diversity mandate.

http://www.paulhastings.com/careers_attorneys_diversity.aspx

We are recognized as a firm of choice for diversity and inclusion. We have continued to recruit more diverse classes of new associates and elect more diverse classes of new partners. More than 35% of our firm management and leaders come from diverse backgrounds. We are ranked among the top 30 law firms for gender and ethnic diversity. We have been named a Best Place to Work for GLBT Equality by the Human Rights Campaign and one of the top family-friendly firms in America. We continue to set new standards and have been recognized as a leader in the legal profession.

8:20 - I don't understand what you mean. $400 x 1800 = $720,000. If one third goes to admin, that leaves ~$480K. If we assume the midlevel is making $300K (which he/she probably isn't), that would still leave $180K in profit. While it would be correct to say that associate is not carrying his/her weight, it's not to say the firm is not making a profit off of the associate.

Every law student feels that the law firm that gets them will be lucky. Law students are a dime a dozen and jobs are drying up. Just look at the recent news 8,000 to be laid off at UBS. What up and see the truth, very few summer to first years make it past the third year. Your job is on the line every day.

8:14(1) - YOU are the one that has been disserved. By who, I don't know. Parents? Teachers? Friends? Basically, whoever is responsible for making sure you wind up less clueless than you are.

The surest sign of a social retard is the inability to identify socially retarded behavior. Apparently, you think PH handled this in a reasonable way. If the sheer number of comments are not enough to tell you otherwise, then the content certainly should.

"Okay, I still don't see the problem. . . .

B) It sucks that she was fired 6 days after a miscarriage, but unfair things like that happen all the time in life."

Totally. It reminds me of the time my friend's dad died. I asked him to play the golf the next day and he was like, "No, I'm grieving." So weird.

Or that time a kid was hit by a car and I had to step over her to cross the street. People were upset just because - what - I'm in a hurry? I don't get it.

I also hate when people send flowers when someone in the office is sick. Did the sick person win an award or something? I'm not paying for that

Sincerely,
A Shocking Proportion of Biglaw Partners

---6:03 PM

"Have to disagree 5:59. This is the kind of thing it takes a long time to recover from. At least among women, who can empathize with this pitiful treatment. I'm sure, however, that there will be no end of underqualified a-hole guys running to fill the PH summer class when the women stay home. Too many a-holes in this profession, period.

- A guy who hates d-bag lawyers and law students"

I'm sure that enlightened attitude has gotten you a lot of dry, enthusiastic handjobs from the ACS girls at Fordham

7:410 Partner:

You are indeed right.

Dear Associates:
partners care about only one thing: do you make money for members of the firm? Preferably, lot and lots of money? If not, don't be surprised if you get cut.

Judging by the comments of the partners here, the only fault with Blachman's Anonymous Lawyer was that he was too nice.

8:00 -
"I am sure neither that, nor prospective pregnancy, was the reason for the termination."

Oh really? How can you be so sure? You're assuming this, just as much as everyone else is assuming the opposite.

The underlying problem is equating billable hours with good performance. In my former life as a chemical industry manager and chemical engineer, I know that it is possible to decouple the two economically, by making use of the large recruiting and training costs in the dominant model.

When the Fortune 500 company I worked with moved to flexible schedules, accommodating work-life balance, we retained chemists and chemical engineers whose expertise and training could still be tapped into by those who were able to bill more hours. And as personal demands eased, these professionals were able to increase their billing without incurring retraining or recruiting costs.

The downside of this would be salary compression and fewer jobs for those right out of school. For many firms, however, eliminating bloated summer associate recruiting budgets and the need to invent ways of covering costs of training new associates, as well as ending the churning of the mid- to senior-associate ranks would be welcome.

Having a stable organization, with an experienced, competent workforce would be a sustainable, marketable edge over the competition. And having the flexibility in such an organization to treat your coworkers and employees humanely, while still making a healthy profit, would be priceless.

-- Just a patent guy.

8:20: I'm sure the mediocre review was also useful to keep her from getting a market bonus...

8:23: I don't think that many people would say that she should be kept around indefinitely because of the M/C - just that PH could probably afford to keep her for another month. And, I'm not sure you could really characterize this woman (accepting her email as true) as dragging down better performers - she had good reviews when she had good hours. I'm sure that there were years where she outworked others. There are ebbs and flows.

This is just what happened to me at PH last year. I was in my office, having my ass scraped, when I was fired without any warning.

If everyone is going to boycott PH for a lying screed, more power to them. PH has said that her story is wildly inaccurate. Of course she wants to try to extort PH for a bigger exit payment. Of course she's bitter that she's being fired for underperforming. It sounds like we only have half the story, and it's an emotionally biased half at that.

LOL@8:26: "Using dead babies as sympathy to circumvent the basic rules of economics is pathetic."

Actually, what's pathetic is using a 5th grader's understanding of economics to imply that PH made a good business decision. Yes, its better to make money than lose money. Congratulations on figuring that out. Did you ever think PH might be paying a price for handling it like this? I could explain, but maybe you should just read a few comments, or better yet, stop checking your common sense at the door when you read the economics books you claim to have read.

It's wrong to layoff associates during a slowdown before partners take a big hit in their own paychecks. They are concerned with their own pocketbooks and attracting star partners. What they should be concerned with is keeping a good pool of talent available in junior hiring. What people making the economics arguments here miss is that law firms offer stability in place of high compensation (in the productive mid-senior associate ranks). $250K/year is nothing when compared with what partners earn. Highlighting this termination and any others that follow is useful in pushing back. Top students with options should unite and avoid even interviewing with firms that engage in layoffs. Doing so balances the power and that is clearly what this website is effective at doing. Until I see PPP at the top firms start to decline (significantly) in this cycle I don't think the argument that this is normal or to be expected holds.

No, 8:38, you insufferable moron, PH simply said that they "disagree with the person's description of what occurred ... "

Even though big law firms are a business, they are only as good as the people that run them. We should not be willing to accept money as a replacement for integrity and honesty, that is why things like this happen-businesses think they can get away with it. At what point are people willing to just lay down and take whatever is handed to them because they are afraid? or because a paycheck is worth more then personal integrity? I am glad that this woman was not part of the flock, maybe if there were more people like her we could change the game.
I am encouraged by this woman's email and wish her the best of luck.

Paul Hastings to MANDATORY INFINITE UNPAID WEEKS OF MATERNITY LEAVE!!!! Top that!

8:35 (2) --- It really isn't rational to think that a firm would fire a great associate, just because of a miscarriage or prospective pregnancy. The cost of maternity leave isn't seen as a significant expense.

8:35 (3) --- fact is that when a firm isn't planning on firing you, reviews often are "inflated."

Another former PHJW female attorney -- Wow is right. Good for her for standing up for herself. Not only has PHJW been doing these type of layoffs for years and it never gets picked up but there treatment of female attorneys is horrible. Take a good look at the women partners there and the majority of them don't have kids, had kids after they made partner or latereled in from another firm. The firm tries to bill itself as family friendly, work/life balance but so untrue -- people need to be aware of what they are getting into when they sign up to go there. Flat out rule -- no part-time partners (but there are "unofficial" part-time partners, i.e., the men that make partner and don't have enough work to support themselves).

Funniest comment of the day: "Of course she wants to try to extort PH for a bigger exit payment."

Not an extortion expert here, but I'm going to guess that when you try to extort money from someone, you threaten to make something public so you'll get paid to not actually make it public. I'm going to go out on a limb and say she did not help her chances of extorting money here.

Amen, 8:35(3).

What everyone seems to be missing is that this is the reality of associates at all big firms: it doesn't matter how good you are at practicing law, how much clients like you, or how good your reviews were in the past. It doesn't really even matter who you work for or if you are valuable to his or her practice or how much goodwill you think you've built up over years of loyal servitude.

What matters is that you bill bill bill - make your hours, keep your head down, and you'll likely last as long as you can stand it (whether or not you'll make partner is another question).

Let's not, though, continue to confuse legal talent (aka "performance") with what the firms really value - money. That's why places like Paul Hastings' actually do things like fire a woman days after a miscarriage - they are never thinking about what is best for you, only what is best for them. Keep that in mind while you practice and maybe you'll survive.

The people that should really be concerned are clients - we don't have your best interests at heart, my friends, when we are forced to prioritize staying on budget over being efficient and effective in our representation of you.

To the people saying that employment is at-will or law firms should only be driven by economics: Fine, we get that. But firing an associate because a partner can’t generate enough work and then blaming it on performance issues is very low. They should have been honest. And firing an associate for trumped up performance issues *six days after a miscarriage* is heartless and inexcusable. If Paul Hastings had to fire this associate because there was simply no work for her, they should have been honest about the reasons, and they should have waited a month to break the news to her and swallowed the cost in the meantime. That’s just plain human decency. It’s bullshit that associates are expected to totally sacrifice their personal and family life for the firm, and then the partners won’t hesitate to stab them in the back at the worst possible time if it would save them a few bucks. And anyone who believes that "there are two sides to every story" and the PH was in the right here is being very naive and has obviously never seen first-hand how a corporate law firm will screw its associates.

For those of you simply focusing on the "economics" of this decision, you all ignore the politics of law firm life. As a former PH associate in two offices, I have seen many high billers in previous years let go or pushed out in slow times because they didn't reside firmly in the arse of one or two partners. Assuming the "poor performance" was a proxy for low hours and the entire practice group is slow, there is no reason to think her hours were any less than her peers. The only difference I can see is that she was probably more concerned with starting a family than complimenting the partners on their Brooks Brothers taste in shirts, or oogling their 2009 BMW purchase. Unfortunately, while at PH more than once I witnessed the "accolades" followed by "poor review" at an expedient time for the partnership.

The issue here is not about whether her performance was stellar or not--it's about tact, which this firm obviously doesn't have. Running a profitable business and treating employees with respect are not mutually exclusive goals. And for those posters with the "that's the way it is" attitude: there is no pride in working a terrible job and stepping on others to get ahead. Stop drinking the kool aid.

Word on the street about 2 weeks ago was that PH dequitized approx 40 partners. And there was some gossip that this was announced at annual partner retreat??? Welcome to Palm Beach, here's your new "salary," forget abou the units. OUCH.

You people have been stuck in law-world far too long...it's not just about the law here. Maybe she wins on a sex discrimination claim in California, but that's really just small potatoes. What matters here is if this gets traction in the media (and I hope it does). That's where the hammer comes down, and that's what scares clients away and hurts business. A big shop like PH could weather the storm of a lawsuit or settlement, but they could get walloped in the press.

obviously her account is going to be one-sided and should be taken with something of a grain of salt. however, she felt like she was treated unfairly enough to leave $50k on the table, so that grain isn't too big in my case.

Former PH-er here too...8:51 has it right. There are male partners billing less than reduced schedule female attorneys, yet the female attorneys are told "there are no part time partners." Female attys were just being penalized for being honest. Fat A** partners sat on fat**** and collect their big dough while relegating females to associate/counsel status.

As a white man, I am OK with mistreatment of people of different races or gender. They just need to learn to live with mistreatment and stop complaining.

When I worked at PH in the early 1990s and they had layoffs, at least in the office I worked in, they made it clear that these were great lawyers but it was all economics. They got severance, use of office etc. While no one wants to be laid off, I thought PH handled it well then. And these were HLS grads and other top people. Now management is different. It's all about the buck for the partners. Laterals have no sense of the history of the firm, no interest in training associates, no interest in the institution. Someone told me some time ago that the firm is being run by a bunch of Finley Kumble former lawyers now. And we know what happened to that firm.

I am outraged that they only offered to let her access her voicemail through July. What's a girl to do to get her messages after that?

8:48 = funniest comment in this entire thread

Guys at my high school used to lay off chicks after they had miscarriages all the time .... and they were douches.

For those complaining about the amount of compassionate posts seemingly from law students: Yes, you're right. We are concerned about being more than just a slave to a paycheck. We're sorry that you're so bitter you can't see how abysmally this poor woman was treated. I love the posts on "where was the duty..." The firm's attorneys breached a duty to act like human beings. That still does matter these days.

9:10 - Did they use douches after the miscarriage, but before laying off? Because otherwise, that's just gross.

The people on this thread who are cheering this woman on are clearly real associates, and the morons who are siding with PH are the law student trolls who come here from autoadmit and think it's fun to be contrarian assholes. Anyone who has worked at a law firm would not question this woman's story because we all know that partners don't give a shit about their employees. AND there are several other comments on this post by other former PH women who are saying that PH treats women poorly, so there's every reason to believe this woman's version of events.

Thank god we now have a place to call these partners out when they cross the line. I wish more emails would go out like this--then maybe partners would think twice before they treat associates so cruelly.

PH is so screwed.

A) On recruiting

B) On general publicity

C) On the law suit. CA law is so pro employee that this should be entertaining to watch. As others have noted the arbitration won't likely hold up so we'll hopefully get to watch the whole thing unfold in court!

One thing's for sure -- there are a lot of unhappy campers amongst the associate ranks.

TO ALL THE "REALISTS" OUT THERE WHO ARE POSTING THIS IS JUST A LESSON IN HOW THE REAL WORLD WORKS:

Your comments are (in some cases) respectable but they are dead wrong, even when viewed from your bottom-line perspective. 8:54 is a great example -they are only doing "what is best for them" - no, they are TRYING to do what's best for them, and in this case they messed up big time.

I personally know a partner at Shearman who says that the popular view over there is the firm made a mistake by laying off people back in '02. The harm it did for their reputation outweighed the LARGE amount money saved by laying off several people, in the opinion of many. And it wasn't even a highly criticized move, just an economic layoff during hard times.

So now you guys think PH made a wise business decision by laying off ONE person (read: this doesn't save them much money) and taking a chance that this would get out? For those of you who think the miscarriage doesn't matter: wrong, the fact that it doesn't matter to YOU is what doesn't matter. Perception is reality. This is a horrible PR incident for the firm no matter what your individual opinion is. They probably suffer more damage to their reputation for laying off ONE person than Shearman did for laying off several people.

Those who think otherwise have been stuck in the biglaw bubble for so long that they've lost their ability to think straight. I guarantee you that anybody who knows anything about management (i.e., not the clueless lawyers posting here) would say this is a perfect example of how NOT to act in the company's best interest.

The whole moral/emotional side of the debate is pointless because this was a retarded move no matter how you feel about that.

Lat, can we just go back to the NY to $190 posts? These layoff stories are so damn depressing. If this keeps up, I'm going to have to switch to reading Perez Hilton to get cheered up. Think of your advertisers man!

If you lawyers knew anything about medical science, you'd know that you can't have a miscarriage in this day and age unless you were negligent in your pre-natal care. She was probably smoking or drinking or worse.

I have now sent this story to the SF Chronicle, WSJ Law Blog, and LA Times. If others do so as well, PH will get the media coverage they deserve.

9:20 - nice work. I will follow

9:18 pm = Paul Hastings Partner.

Wow. I thought Paul Hastings treated me like shit when I worked there as a paralegal. This is some new shit entirely.

9:18, you sound like a doctor. Probably HER doctor. If you doctors knew anything about legal sciences, you'd know to keep your piehole shut lest you get sued for negligence.

In this day and age, you won't be able to get malpractice insurance with a mouth like that. No wonder you idiots want tort reform - you're morons.

"We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."

"We'll comment on internal employment matters, and then in the same comment deny that we comment on internal employment matters."

PH, you manage to out-f*ck yourself at every step. Cheers.

9:18 = law student with a liberal arts degree

As a former PH associate, I find this completely unsurprising. On more than one occassion associates in my office were subject to the Seth and Greg "pep" talk about how the firm was not interested in quality of work, but merely dollars. They expressly stated that they only wanted "high value" mega-clients and the way to attract them was simply to charge more, with the implication that clients believe that a firm that charges $650/hr is better than a firm that charges $500. Perhaps the associate in this post didn't get the message from the top that "high value" clients don't flinch at thousands of hours of attorney time at whatever price, and rarely question the bills. It left a bad taste in my mouth then and it still does. Maybe this twisted logic will finally be exposed for the sickness that it is in this time of belt tightening.

Not funny at all 9:18.

9:18

Join the ranks of the breathtakingly ignorant.

Can someone explain the uterus-scraping thing?

9:18
You are a sick, sick individual, but worse, you're just stupid. Based on nothing at all you've surmised this woman drinks and smokes while pregnant because you think one can't have a miscarriage unless one is negligent? You're just an idiot, but I must be an idiot too for responding to you as you are such a dick. I hope that you a stricken with a loathsome disease- other than stupidity- of which you clearly suffer an acute case.

9:18: My wife had a miscarriage and it is not something to joke about. I hope you go to Paul Hastings--you deserve each other.

9:22 - it reminds me of that episode of The Office when Dwight "shuns" Jim, only to "un-shun" in order to offer a retort and then "re-shun"

This just in from Seth and Greg..."Paul Hastings announces mandatory sterilization of all fertile female associates in order to avoid embarrassment of laying off associates who recently miscarried."

9:18 clearly you did not read the chapter on embryonic lethality of genetic defects, congenital malformations and the like. Either that, or you are right and that's what kept you from being spontaneously aborted.

Amazing that the PH comment did include the customary "we take allegations of unlawful action seriously. we are committed to non-discrimination. blahblahblah."

PH's arbitration agreement has already been held not to apply to discrimination claims.

My favorite part of the letter is where she was told that her prior positive reviews were over-inflated. WTH? Or, PH just preferred her when she was single.

Small comment: let's all blow-off the blow-hards looking for attention by being over-the-top in their comments here. It's one thing to say you see no unfairness here, that is fine, but the people just looking for attention need to be ignored.

Seriously, is uterus-scraping a standard part of a miscarriage? I'm honestly curious.

I don't care if PH had every reason in the world to fire this woman--and every right. They are A-holes for the way they did it. Period. Any law firm with PPP north of $1M can afford to wait more than six days after an associate's miscarriage to lay her off.

Thankfully, PH will pay.

What law student (male or female) would want to become an associate there now? One without any other options, of course. The impact of Redacted's email on recruiting will be profound--even if the hiring market is tight this fall, as 7:41 and others predict (probably accurately). Those willing to go there now will be much less qualified than if Redacted's grievances had never been circulated.

Retention, will likewise be effected. Many highly regarded associates are probably already looking for the exits--either because they fear they may be next or because they are just as disgusted as 90% of the commenters on this blog. The dearth of PH associates defending the firm is ominous.

Just as significant--what sensible client would retain PH for labor and employment matters now? It would be like hiring a fox to guard a henhouse. Their conduct evidences horrendously poor judgment (if not actual discrimination).

As for Redacted herself, someone please find this woman a better job than she had before. She deserves it--for her courage, if not her tact.

How does this have almost 400 comments?

This is why women should not be allowed in the work place. They bring their personal lives in and get upset when everyone around them doesn't drop everything and pay attention to them.

How's a miscarriage different than an abortion?

So, help me out here. The other day everyone was up in arms about abortion and St. Thomas law.

HOW'S A MISCARRIAGE DIFFERENT THAN AN ABORTION?

The baby dies either way. In one case we're really sad, in the other we make "Roe" birthday cakes every year to celebrate Choice. In both cases all we care about is the mother. When do we care about the baby?

That's why miscarriage is so bad. The baby, who the mother was loving and waiting for, died. It's like I'm reading a whole different message board than I was just last week. So at least a few people on here realize that the baby was a person and she's gone now.

She was a 10th year associate with no book. She had it coming.

Come on Eileen.

9:36, maybe we could start Redacted a PayPal account- you know, roll the money over from the one we started for the 8th grader who pwn3d Conyers. I felt bad about that account since we only gave the girl money because she was black and from Detroit. Redacted is from San Fran and she's fired, so it should be okay to give her the money. What do you think?

9:37 - How's a miscarriage different than an abortion?

Duh, it's the mother's choice. Her choice is what differentiates a baby from a fetus. Geez, it's like you've never read Roe v. Wade before.

9:39 - why not just tell her that in three months?

9:37

You've joined the ranks of the breathtakingly stupid as well.

@ 9:34

Re: "uterus-scraping" - she's referring to a dilation and curettage, i.e., D&C. This is commonly done post-miscarriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage

9:42 -- I think the point the poster was making is that, to the extent you are outraged over the termination of a potential life when an abortion occurs, you should be sad when the same occurs in a miscarriage.

"This is why women should not be allowed in the work place. They bring their personal lives in and get upset when everyone around them doesn't drop everything and pay attention to them."

Actually, you're the one looking for attention by saying something so ridiculous that I don't even think you actually believe it yourself. And I doubt you'll get much attention other than this post.

"PH's arbitration agreement has already been held not to apply to discrimination claims."

A release is invalid if it prevents an employee from filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, however it is lawful to get a release stating that an employee agrees not to file a discrimination lawsuit under Title VII.

9:41, I think Redacted is going to do just fine monetarily after all of this. The girl who brought on a can of Conyers pwnage still deserves a trip.

And it's not because she's black and she's from Detroit. It's because she's f*cking awesome.

Look how all the former PH associates come out of the woodwork to denounce their former firm...

Wow. That place must really be awful.

8:41 is a Star. A hero. Why can't the Partners take the burnt in case the economy is doing bad? That too, when it's only been 5 months since a year (2007) which was the most profitable ever. It was their stupid decision to over-hire. Why to screw the life of an associate bcz. you were dumb to hire him in the first place? The economy is going to bounce back one day or another.

Also, 7:41 if money is all that you seek, you are off to hell....

PH is a butcher's shop......

This is truly dreadful publicity for the firm regardless of the merits. It will be interesting to see what happens to recruiting there.

All you employment law "experts" are insane if you think she has a claim. This wasn't like the Charney case. At all.

9:45 - you need to look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary. 9:37 was making a pro-life point about how a baby is a baby regardless of miscarriage or abortion.

Roe v. Wade isn't even set in stone anymore... I mean, with Justice O'Connor gone, the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision, which was founded on the BS idea that the Supreme Court must adhere to its own stare decisis on abortion, under some even more BS detrimental reliance theory, it's only a matter of time before the "penumbras" of the constitution are interpreted to be what they are - BS, and Roe is overturned. But, this is neither here nor there.

PH DC is also a bad place to be a woman associate, so this story does not surprise me at all.
kudos to Redacted for sending the email.

"A release is invalid if it prevents an employee from filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, however it is lawful to get a release stating that an employee agrees not to file a discrimination lawsuit under Title VII."

9:46, the previous post was talking about PH's mandatory arbitration agreement, and whether it could be enforced to compel arbitration of Redacted's discrimination claim (assuming she brings one). Redacted didn't sign the release, so the release, its contents, and whether or not it is enforceable is not relevant.

9:51 somebody call Gloria Allred , quick!! I bet she'll make it into an employment claim and a discrimination claim and just plain nastiness claim and PH will be F***ed. Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid PH

I'm not sure which looks worse--the "Labor & Employment" practice at Paul Hastings or the "Information Capital & Political Intelligence" practice at Sonneschein.

I'm starting to wonder why people ever listen to the advice of lawyers...

How is PH "heartless"? If you haven't noticed, we are living in a capitalist economy, and everybody is under the same pressure. I'm sure if they could, PH would have let her work there work there another year, allowed her to bill as little hours as she wanted, and bought her a new baby. But they can't. Firms keep raising salaries and other firms have to catch up and it gets really hard when the economy goes south.

The fact that they offered her $50,000 to shut up is mind-boggling for Walmart employees making $7 an hour that have to go through the same bullshit as everybody else.

Of course, these semi-hippies will blame it all on the "greed" of the PH partners. Well, if they are so greedy for wanting to maximize their profits, why do you want to work in this industry so bad? Obviously, there are lot of greedy people in law, considering we measure how good jobs are by their starting salaries and firms by PPP. If you didn't care about money, go work at a nonprofit.

I was pregnant at a BIGLAW firm that shall remain unnamed. I asked for a review several times before my maternity leave b/c I'd be away from the office for a while and didn't want my next review to be stale. The firm put me off for about two months. Two days, no exaggeration, before I gave birth I was blindsided by a last-minute, negative review by a male partner who had previously had nothing but praise for my work and a female partner who was pregnant (but not out about it) at the time. Great note to leave on.

I took my entire paid maternity leave, went back full-time for full pay, evaded work except for pro bono projects, and looked for another job. I quit a few months later and went elsewhere. It was fabulous.

You go, Redacted.

9:47, sorry, the comment on the PayPal was trolling. I regret it. Young Keisha was legit. I still have a $20 for her.

9:52, I think 9:45 was making fun of pro-choice "logic" and so was also being sarcastic. Correct me if I'm wrong, 9:45.

9:37

9:34 she likely required a D&C because she was far enough in her pregnancy at the time when the spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) occurred that the lining of her uterus did not fully shed the products of conception that had attached. This presents a risk of infection of the uterus as well as a risk of excessive bleeding if not removed, which may occur through D&C or through chemical means (although clinically less effective).

As a current (female) PH 3rd year, this incident will make me take the recruiter calls more seriously.

10:04: Exactly right -- 9:45

Wow. This has become a comment quatrafuck.

wow...

9:41 @ 9:47. No problem. I'll match your $20.

Keisha to ATL-reader-paid trip!

Lat to opening the Keisha fund!

Picked up by the Volokh Conspiracy:

http://volokh.com/posts/1210034248.shtml

Current PH associate chiming in here. Received the farewell email earlier today and was entirely shocked, disgusted. Sad I have to read ATL to get news on my own firm. I was wondering if PH has been laying off, and between today's event and some of the info gleaned from the posts it seems the m.o. has been some sort of stealth action to have the dismissals go under the radar. I guess the firm got arrogant with these "stealth" maneuvers and is now paying the price. And deservedly so. Just one person here, but my belief is this will cause not just an external crisis, but also internecine. My reaction is, of course, like most the posts here, based on a judgment that assumes the facts of the farewell msg are true - this is likely but remains to be seen . . .

As a male rising 2L, this type of behavior from PH makes me think I'll have a better chance of getting a summer offer if I walk into my Fall Recruiting interview with my nuts hanging out of my suit pants.

Is biglaw really this chauvinistic still? I mean, c'mon, it's like 2008 people.

10:02 here: Just clarifying that I requested the review on the advice of several women who had returned from leave and gotten screwed by the delay between their reviews and/or the three-month gap out of the office. I would've preferred deferring reality until after my leave, otherwise.

We still have a couple of hours do honor our friends south of the border with a "Cinco de clusterf*ck."

500th commenter gets a six-pack of Corona, courtesy of the Conyers paypal account.

10:04 - and i was seconding 9:45's sarcasm about pro-choice logic by being sarcastic myself about how the "choice" determines whether it's a baby or not and thus whether or not we should be sad. Hope we're all clear.

We can also be clear that PH made a completely bone head move, as they are prone to do. A former associate (now partner) once sat with me at a bar while a partner (and his friend) groped a female summer associate on the dance floor. The associate made partner and the partner-groper was eventually shuffled to another office, presumably to continue his groping. Bottome line, PH, in it's drive to become one of the big boys, has completely lost its mind.

9:26(1) is right on target. Seth and Greg have repeatedly told associates that the firm is not interested in clients that would bring in $200-300k, for example. They only want mega-clients. That makes it tough to build a book as a junior lawyer unless your dad is the CEO at IBM. If the partners that redacted was working for had run out of work, she was effectively stuck. My best wishes go to her and her family for her loss.

I don't understand what all the harping is on partners firing associates. Let's say you are in charge of organization A. Organization A is at a point where it's time to trim the fat or cut your own salary. What do you do? Trim the fat. As a current greedy associate, if I ever make partner I will be a greedy partner. So what?

That said, what a f*ck up this is. As Redacted said, it wasn't just that they fired her, but that they were callous about it. They don't need to stab someone in the eye when they're trimming the fat.

everybody, just remember this next time you feel obligated to be loyal to your firm.
it is not even about $$$$ because it would have cost nothing to be nice and say 'sorry, but we have no clients, so you have no work, so we don't feel like paying you, but we're sorry about your loss'

SERIOUSLY - PH MUST BE A REALLY CRAPPY TO WORK. THERE ARE NO PH ASSOCIATES WHO ARE DEFENDING THE FIRM, BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS FORMER ASSOCIATES WHO SUPPORT THE EMAILER. I THINK ANY ATL REGULAR KNOWS THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS THE "ITS NOT AS BAD AS EVERYONE THINKS" OR "ITS THE SAME EVERYWHERE ELSE" COMMENTS.

ANY CURRENT PH ASSOCIATE WANT TO DEFEND THE FIRM?

LAT - CAN WE GET AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE WEBSITE DEDICATED TO FIRM LAYOFFS/MISBEHAVIOR SO THAT THERE CAN ACTUALLY BE SOMETHING CONCRETE TO LOOK BACK ON OTHER THAN "I REMEMBER WHEN XXX DID THIS..." COMMENTS. IT MAY ACTUALLY CREATE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LAW FIRMS IF THEY KNEW THAT THEY WOULD BE FOREVER ENSHRINED IN THE HALL OF SHAME FOR ALL FUTURE ATL VISITORS TO SEE.

SERIOUSLY - PH MUST BE A REALLY CRAPPY TO WORK. THERE ARE NO PH ASSOCIATES WHO ARE DEFENDING THE FIRM, BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS FORMER ASSOCIATES WHO SUPPORT THE EMAILER. I THINK ANY ATL REGULAR KNOWS THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS THE "ITS NOT AS BAD AS EVERYONE THINKS" OR "ITS THE SAME EVERYWHERE ELSE" COMMENTS.

ANY CURRENT PH ASSOCIATE WANT TO DEFEND THE FIRM?

LAT - CAN WE GET AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE WEBSITE DEDICATED TO FIRM LAYOFFS/MISBEHAVIOR SO THAT THERE CAN ACTUALLY BE SOMETHING CONCRETE TO LOOK BACK ON OTHER THAN "I REMEMBER WHEN XXX DID THIS..." COMMENTS. IT MAY ACTUALLY CREATE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LAW FIRMS IF THEY KNEW THAT THEY WOULD BE FOREVER ENSHRINED IN THE HALL OF SHAME FOR ALL FUTURE ATL VISITORS TO SEE.

Are there any women attorneys who are NOT partners who had a baby and didn't get a negative review about it?

Please let me know. I am a little concerned......

10:15, you haven't a clue. All you have is HER side of this.

Gratuitous comment-upper.

I HEAR PAUL HASTINGS HAS THE SAME "HERPES EPIDEMIC" AS SUTHERLAND.

A guy at my high school used to own a Herpes extermination company, and was hired to sanitize all of PAUL HASTINGS and SUTHERLAND offices. He said he sprayed each partner in each office with Valtrex, and that "it was no big deal."

FRAT STUD's dear friend, Juan Carlos.

It is not like Redacted is going to have any trouble finding a new job. In case the rest of you haven't noticed, my phone is still ringing off the hook with recruiters.

Partners seem to think that just because the market is shit, they can do whatever they want and we just have to take it up the arse. The market for biglaw associates remains tight. We can still vote with our feet.

10:23/10:24 Nice double posting. Ever close to the 500 quitaclusterf*ck.

10:23/10:24 Nice double posting. Ever close to the 500 quitaclusterf*ck.

PH had EEOC consent decree early 1990s/NYC.

Policy or no, I don't see how PH can possibly NOT comment. This is a complete sh*tstorm.

One time, at band camp, I had a miscarriage.

I'm sure those PH summer associates just can't wait to join the firm!

See 6:49 PM ---> Lat himself posting in the comments.

From his avatar pic, he looks Asian. Since when is Lat Asian?

Sure, if "it's the same everywhere else" is defending the firm, here's one PH associate willing to say that. Office-by-office and dept-by-dept, any of the big firms (and probably small ones too) are potentially just as capable of handling a situation so atrociously.

It's definitely been a bad couple weeks for PH.

10:20: Because they're disingenuous, passive-aggressive cowards about it.

10:24 - yes, there are, even at big firms. (I'm one of them, actually two babies, no bad reviews). You have to look carefully when you're interviewing - if you're a female recruit and you don't meet at least a few women with kids, you are probably not at a place where women with families can survive. It is never easy to be a working mom in a difficult and unpredictable career like ours, but there are some places where it is nearly impossible.

The bottom line is that this letter undercut its own potential legitimacy as an indictment of unprofessional business practices at Paul Hastings with the unnecessary preface concerning this woman's miscarriage.

Assuming that she was actually treated as callously as she claims, and one has to accept that the tremendous hormonal imbalance that comes after a miscarriage might have made her a bit sensitive, what does that have to do with her firing?

Paul Hastings will clearly defend itself by saying the performance reviews were legitimate and that she has trumped up all of her claims about prior compliments concerning her work product. Because of the personal nature of this letter the firm will also be able to discount it by saying that the woman was simply vindictive because her termination came at a time that was inconvenient to her personal life.

As I understand it, all of the efforts undertaken by lawfirms to recruit female associates were directed toward a desire that this profession treat women equally to men, not as individuals based on gender stereotypes. This woman's selfish and hysterical screeching seems more akin to a ranting housewife waving a rolling pin at a husband who comes home late with lipstick on his collar - the husband may have been wrong, but the way his wife handled it makes her look even more ridiculous.

In the end, the firm's actions in this case are a compliment to the success of gender-neutral business practice at this office, as it shows that equal treatment is the order of the day at Paul Hastings. Here, the firm did nothing more than rise above personal concerns to treat this woman like anyone else. Women who desire true equal treatment will look to Paul Hastings actions in this case as empowering.

Anybody who thinks PH can simply go lower into the class at their respective schools has no idea how law firm recruiting is done.

It's not like there's some kind of law student lottery every year in which the best firms get the top picks and lower ranked firms are left to offer students after the Wachtells and Cravaths of the world have filled their allotment. Every firm in a given range in a given city is interviewing the same students at the same time. If all the kids PH offers tell them they're going to Latham/Cooley/Wilson Sonsini/wherever in mid-November, at best PH is going to be left with the winners who couldn't get any Big Law offer, but even that is something of a pipedream since you're now looking for kids outside of the OCI process that PH and all other major firms use to do their recruiting.

Hi 10:27 (Juan Carlos),

First time poster here. I'm junior in PH's NYC office and am curious about the "herpes epidemic" that you write of. In two years with PH, I've never heard of this (although I have heard of it with Sutherland).

could somebody name some clients of paul hastings so that i can boycott them?

10:35 - how would you know it's the same every place else? Have you worked anywhere else? I could not imagine this happening at my firm. It seems like the associates are really just seen as cannon fodder at PH. All law firms are businesses, but it is unbelievable that a 10th year associate would be treated like this. I'm not saying you can't lay her off, but the way it was handled was terrible.

The grass really is greener elsewhere.

But 10:35, PH is an employment law firm. Big clients pay big money for their counsel. This is DUMB. Sure a firm can do economic layoffs, sure a firm can do performance based firings, but PH handled this wrong and the poster called them out on this. When I was there, PH was known to give the severance agreement to various people. I left on my own so didn't get a chance to have the doc in front of me but I wouldn't have walked cheaply. There's a LOT of male chauvinists there. Sure, there are good people; men moreso than the women, I would say. I had some great mentors. But they can't follow their own employment advice -- i saw people who should have been fired who weren't - because firm didn't document it like they tell their clients to do. If someone did a survey of all the women associates and counsel of the last 10 years who have come through the place, most of them are gone....and we know they can't all be poor performers. C'mon.

10:37, seriously?

10:37(2) -- are you a feminazi-lesbian or a douchbag?

10:37(2) -- are you a feminazi-lesbian or a douchbag?

10:37 - you are a sexist pig. hormonal imbalance after miscarriage? Please.

10:25--oh, ok. because paul hastings says it's not going to comment on the situation, i should forever withhold my judgment on what happened. brilliant strategy.

10:42.....i have your checking account number, you left it on the backseat of a cab with your social security card

10:37(2) = a solid defense of PH in this case. Thoughtful, well-reasoned.

Are you a defense-side employment litigator?

Whoa - I hope law students remember this (a) during Fall Recruiting this year and (b) when the economy turns in a year or two, salaries go up yet again and the lunches and retreats get even more lavish.

PH is taking a beating here, and it appears deservingly so. But how many BigLaw firms would do the exact same thing? I'm guessing some would be smart enough to avoid this massive a blunder, but most, if not all, would do something just as underhanded.

I almost feel worse for the people left behind at PH and other BigLaw shops.

Hi 10:27. Also a first time poster here, also junior in a PH office, and also curious about the "herpes epidemic" that you write of. In my time at PH, I've contracted several STDs, but not herpes (unless that's the one with the large, circular, weeping sores, in which case, please disregard).

I was at Paul hastings in the late 90's when they laid a lot of people off. Not a nice place.

Does anyone know how many women partners at PH vs. associate/counsel. WE can discuss later if any of these gals have lives. Would just be curious how the ratios look. Like NY/DC/Atlanta..how many women partners/total lawyers??? (And PH people STOP saying it is because women have not made it up the chain -- women have been 50 pecent at law schools since probably 1989)

Fact #1: she had a miscarriage immediately before she was fired.

Fact #2: her employment involuntarily ended.

There is little short of criminal conduct that justifies such callous conduct amongst professionals.

For those of you who don't get it, you are pathetic.

Wow - that's a lot of comments. I guess a couple of thoughts strike me.

This is a very unfortunate situation. PH handled this as poorly as any firm could. How much would a couple of extra months cost them to wait and deliver the bad news, if that is the path they were convinced they should follow? I gotta think that this situation would have unfolded in a completely different way if they had delivered the bad news in June and given her until September.

Moreover, why are we, as associates, so willing to fall for this "law is a business" mantra? Fine, law is a business. But do we work in a Martha Stewart sweat shop or do we work for Google? There are different ways to manage businesses - and law firms should realize that, while associates may be fungible, at the end of the day, we are also the people that generate all of the revenue.

A law firm that is willing to, in a downturn, cut associate jobs first and ask questions later is closer on the child labor sweat shop end of the spectrum than the well run and responsible company end.

Isn't the right answer that partners should also take a hit on comp and their lifestyle. I'm sorry, but maybe little Johnny needs to cut out either tennis or gymnastics. Or maybe the family should cut the vacation to Fiji back a couple of days. PPP have been through the roof the last decade (far more so than associate salaries) and those amounts should return to earth before a well run and managed firm would start cutting associates.

I still hear law students talk about the Shearman layoffs 7 years ago. 1Ls were in high school when that happened - but they still know the story. These kinds of stories have legs and, putting aside the issue of being good corporate citizens (and just good people, generally) there is a very good business case to be made for not creating PR disasters such as this one.

I guess the lesson that should be clear here is that, despite their willingness to tell us that law is a business, a lot of big law partners just aren't good business people or managers.

10:27 / 10:39,

- The "herpes epidemic" at Sutherland is 100% true and has been commented about on this board and elsewhere. Many Sutherland insiders have confirmed it, and the firm now reportedly provides free Herpes treatment / educational pamphlets to its employes.
- I am not with PH, but suspect that the herpes comments are just trolling.

10:27 / 10:39,

- The "herpes epidemic" at Sutherland is 100% true and has been commented about on this board and elsewhere. Many Sutherland insiders have confirmed it, and the firm now reportedly provides free Herpes treatment / educational pamphlets to its employes.
- I am not with PH, but suspect that the herpes comments are just trolling.

10:37 - So, PH, you've been banging your heads together all day today and that's all you could come up with?

FAIL.

Partners we hate at PH...let's discuss with names