Second?

Taste has never been ATL's strong suit. It calls itself "a legal tabloid" (closer to the New York Post than the New York Times).

Take it for what it is.

Please change the title.

Lat, c'mon . . . we know you're a tabloid . . . but the title? It would be in good taste to your readers to change it.

Max Power? I think he worked with Rock Strongo and Lance Uppercut. He has a name you must not touch.

Paul Hastings is a bad firm run by bad people.

While it's true that many firms have treated associates coldly in the past, Paul Hastings's behavior is particularly egregious. And as we have seen here on ATL, most firms laying off associates have the decency to admit what they're doing, at least internally.

Paul Hastings apologists are drawing a false comparison when they point out the flaws in the industry as a whole. Even in a bad industry, Paul Hastings is among the worst.

just to dissent, i LOVE the title.

I don't see the problem. It is a term of art:

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

This woman is a hero for speaking out like this and refusing to take Paul Hastings' hush money. I hope that this sends a message not only to the cruel and idiotic partners at Paul Hastings but also to ALL biglaw partners. Think twice next time you consider stabbing a hard-working associate in the back--the Internet never forgets.

Even though it is a term of art as correctly pointed out by 12:34, it belittles what the assoicate went through just so that Latman can have a witty title. Show some respect and get rid of it, Latman...

Good thing there is never more than one side to any story. Let the roasting of Paul Hastings continue posthaste!

Kudos to Max Power for the subliminal slam on POTUS with "internets."

I'd like to know more about the nondisclosure agreement. Is that a typical agreement for associates who are laid off? Is something like it used at other firms? If not, it makes the associate's case that much stronger. It shows that PH knew its conduct was not only despicable, but also potentially illegal.

"Internets" is beyond tired at this point. Can bloggers just quit doing that?

internets

1:02--from what i've seen (i've been on the receiving end of a "separation agreement"), this one is fairly standard, albeit a little less chockful of the legalese i would expect in an agreement to be executed by a lawya (that's me quoting starr jones).

1. Change the title; it's in terrible taste.

2. Where's the mainstream press on this?

3. PH put out it's lame "side of the story." (It's comment non-comment.).

Title is in poor taste and not witty; true wit would be less obvious.

12:52.2: Hi Paul Hastings partner!

Another vote in favor of the title, I think it's hilarious

Consistent with my general impression of Paul Hastings. Got a bad vibe at the reception, went with my instinct... seems to have been a good decision.

Lat, no one from PH is going to email you, even if you do keep it anonymous. They've been firing left and right since the fall. People are either afraid of losing their jobs or buying into the firm propaganda; either way they aren't taking any chances.

So what is the minimum amount of time a female associate must be retained after a miscarriage? Maybe it depends on trimester? If it's first trimester, you get six weeks of absolute job security but if its third trimester you get six months?

The original letter said the emotional vulnerability was caused by "losing something or someone precious to you." Does this mean other losses should enjoy job security? If your grandmother dies can you get two weeks? Is a second cousin is worth a long weekend?

C'mon people. My job performance has been horrid recently. If I can figure out a way to bounce from tragedy to tragedy, maybe I can make it to the end of the year.

I'd like to see some headline related to PH's crappiness every day for weeks.

1:17 pm,

It is too late for you to learn how to be a dignified human being. Your rhetorical points are simply crap. The answer is certainly not less than two weeks, which is what happened here.

1:17: Wow, you really missed the point here. She wasn't asking for job security; she was asking for a little dignity, and transparency, under the circumstances. You're an idiot.

I don't think I'll ever be able to think of PH in the same way again. What a mess.

"So what is the minimum amount of time a female associate must be retained after a miscarriage? Maybe it depends on trimester? If it's first trimester, you get six weeks of absolute job security but if its third trimester you get six months?"

Where is Justice Blackmun when you need him?

1:17 -- Looks like you can always lateral to Paul Hastings! Intelligence not required. Your pathetic slippery slope argument will be loved by all, and you will quickly be on your way to partner. Shorter partnership track guaranteed if you are incapable of bearing children.

WAAAAAA! My firm wasn't nice to me.
WAAAAAA! THis thread title is in poor taste.

Please STFU and killselves.

There are always two sides to a story, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. If the truth is closer to the associate's version, she should be in for a very large settlement. If the truth is closer to PH's, I imagine they'll consider a defamation suit.

Just curious, would it have been better for PH to just fire her in 3 months without severence?

Once the economy starts to do better, as it surely will, Paul Hastings is going to get absolutely slaughtered in recruiting as students from top schools (ie those with options) will avoid PH like the plague....

1:26 p.m. -- Yes, it would have been much better to wait a couple months, and then fire her without severance. That's what lends credence to her claim that they fired her now so she wouldn't have time to get pregnant again.

I really hope the mainstream media picks up this story . . . I would love to see her on 60 minutes, or at least the Today Show.

The only way the title could have been funnier would be if it contained a reference to uterus scraping.

I think the point of timing misses the entire issue. Its that the firm apparently trumped up a poor review as pretext to kick her out. That's just sad. Contrast that with the way McKee Nelson handled its situation. And ask what is your impression of the two firms both of who have apparently laid off associates? As for me, I had a very positive review after MN for the way it handled a bad situation. I know very little about PH generally, but I certainly have a strongly negative view of the firm now.

If I were a female GC or assistant GC sending this Firm work, I'd definitely think twice now.

The post a topic feature in the community section isn't working. I'd like to start a roll call of law schools in which the associate's e-mail and attachment have been circulated so we can make sure as many law students as possible see this.

1:37: even though I laughed at your comment, that's just wrong.

My name's Max Power. I got it off of a blow dryer.

Perhaps the leading law schools can get together and ban PH from their campuses, as they did with the military for its discriminatory practices. That would put a quick end to these very regrettable acts.

Did this woman work in the employment law group at PH? If so, she probably spent her entire career (i) counseling big corporations on how to fire people, and (ii) defending big corporations that fire people in an unlawful manner. Karma is a bitch.

1:17 is right on.

I choose to believe that some commenters here just like to fan the anti-Biglaw (or anti-PH) flames and aren't really as stupid as their comments make them out to be.

No doubt that the people responsible for this are a bunch of a-holes. No doubt that most law biglaw managers are also. But are'nt they paying us the big bucks to treat us like that? Would you join a kinder, gentler law firm for less money? Even with your loans? If not, may be we are all part of the problem?

That being said, i'm happy that someone got nailed on this, if only so we can reflect.

"Its that the firm apparently trumped up a poor review as pretext to kick her out. "

Which may or may not be actually true. But don't let that keep you away from some good ol' liberal douche recreational outrage.

PH powers are amazing; I didn't know law firms could make associates have miscarriages.

"There are always two sides to a story, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle."

Really? Then I guess prosecutors around the US must have a tough time meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

"No doubt that the people responsible for this are a bunch of a-holes."

Don't you have a term paper due for your 12th grade comp class? You can't actually be a lawyer . . .

"Then I guess prosecutors around the US must have a tough time meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard."

Of course they have a tough time meeting that standard (which is the point of the standard). What are you talking about?

The title is in very poor taste. For those of you who find it hilarious, check in with us if you or your loved one has a miscarriage and tell us all how "hilarious" it is. Assholes.

1:51: must work at PH. Loser.

Au contraire, 1:47(3). In the 1970's, it was considered standard practice for philandering partners to push comely, buxsome young associates down sweeping, internal library staircases before each monthly executive committee meeting.

In the fashion of the white shoe, genteel lawyers of their day, the partners euphamistically referred to this ritual as "clearing the books."

PH is merely reviving the venerable tradition.

I see nothing wrong with miscarriages. In fact, I am having one right now. Leave the title alone and stop being so sensitive. Go back to GULC and UVA were you belong.

Forget 60 Minutes or the Today Show. No one under 50 watches 60 Minutes and no one watches all of the Today Show because most people are getting ready for work when it's on.

If she really wants to get the word out, she should go on Ellen.

PAUL HASTINGS IS FACING A PUBLICITY NIGHTMARE... Can anyone shed light on internal atmosphere / meetings / memos. Has the firm formally addressed this (internally), aside from circulating its "no comment" ???

I think situation has the ability to make the Charney case look like a mere blip on the radar screen.

The notion that PH fired her "because they didn't want her to get pregnant again" is patently ridiculous.

I don't mean to be crude, but isn't it a medical fact that a woman that has had one miscarriage is more likely to have long-term medical issues that may prevent her from getting pregnant?

Therefore, if PH's goal was to have only women who would not get pregnant, then it would hire as many women as possible who have had at least one miscarriage.

1:55-- I don't work at PH (but I admit I may be a loser as you define it, which makes me immensely proud).

"PAUL HASTINGS IS FACING A PUBLICITY NIGHTMARE"

Wrong. PH is facing idiots on the internet(s) writing in all caps.

Associates are not the only layoffs for PH. Project RIF includes staff and expected to happen before summers begin on Monday.

Associates are not the only layoffs for PH. Project RIF includes staff and expected to happen before summers begin on Monday.

How many summers does PH have in SF?

Instapundit molests collies.

1:07
Why should the mainstream press be concerned about one individual being terminated, either lawfully or unlawfully, at a law firm that 99% of the population has never heard of? The world does not revolve around employment decisions at law firms.

2:11 - somewhere around 12, I think.

Miscarriage

You don't get "immunity" from being laid off because something tragic recently happened to you in your personal life. I don't see any problem with letting her go 6 days after this tragic event. She needs to get over herself and understand that it's just business (subject to the note below), and that Paul Hastings' business is not about her personal life. Also, although it is not clear from her email, I would be interested to know whether she was terminated as part of a "round' of layoffs, with several people being let go on the same day. If so, Paul Hastings really didn't have the option of waiting. What were they supposed to do, hold off on letting a whole group go so that this woman could recover emotionally?

Having said all of that, it is wrong, immoral and illegal to fire a woman for getting pregnant, wanting a family, having children, etc. Although she does not appear to have any actual evidence that this is what happened, I hope justice is served on PH if that is the case.

This blog makes me feel bad about myself. Lawyers are mean to each other.

2:11-- I think its 15-20.

2:16 asks a good question - were other layoffs the same day?

i meant it's.
-2:30

Out of curiosity: if she signed this agreement, which says its a resignation, would that be significantly worse for her future job search than if they openly admitted its an economic layoff? Would future employers automatically assume that (i) it was a forced resignation and (ii) it was not due to the slowdown in work?

2:03, you're not just crude, you're also wrong. And stupid.

2:36, and you are a poopyhead. Now that that's out of the way, can you explain to me how the fact that PH fired her after a miscarriage shows that they wanted to fire her before she got pregnant again?

The only way this makes it into the mainstream press is if they cover the reaction to the story.

There's really nothing interesting here to anyone but lawyers with familiarity with biglaw.

Heh. First this comment:

"1:26 p.m. -- Yes, it would have been much better to wait a couple months, and then fire her without severance. That's what lends credence to her claim that they fired her now so she wouldn't have time to get pregnant again. "

So they couldn't have fired her even if (not because of) she got pregnant? Must be nice to have that kind of immunity. Must suck to be a man at that firm, though.

Then this comment:

"Having said all of that, it is wrong, immoral and illegal to fire a woman for getting pregnant, wanting a family, having children, etc. Although she does not appear to have any actual evidence that this is what happened, I hope justice is served on PH if that is the case. "

Not only does she 'not appear to have any actual evidence of this', she does not even hint that this is the reason she got canned. Is anyone else claiming this is why she got canned?

title's great, keep it.

title's great, keep it.

I did not read all of yesterday's comments so I apologize if someone has alreadly mentioned this, but she was probably let go at this time so it was in advance of the summer program. I think that the firm will be able to claim this and such a reason would have some legitimacy if her performance was bad. It is still disturbing that no one seemed to have expressed sympathy about her recent unfortunate event.

title's great. keep it!

It makes me sick that members of our profession might have internally discussed when to fire a colleague so that they could do so before she got pregnant again.

I think part of the discussion here should be about the political nature of performance reviews. I think it's pretty clear that law firms use reviews not as a way to help the associate but as a way to help themselves.

In boom years, they want the mediocre associates around, because there will be plenty of billable hours for everyone and even poor performers can be made profitable. In past years, I've known many associates with clearly no future in biglaw to get surprisingly positive reviews. Why? Because the law firm wanted them to stay.

In a recession, only the best associates can consistently remain busy. Now all those mediocre associates suddenly start getting scathing reviews. Why? Because the law firms want those associates to either leave on their own or to have a pretext for firing them.

I think it's time we put an end to this unhelpful practice and began outing those firms who use performance reviews in this manner.

Law firm performance reviews are notorious for "grade inflation," at most places at least. There's just no incentive to pan you in a review unless they want to get rid of you immediately. So the fact that this associate previously had positive reviews is hardly noteworthy.

"It makes me sick that members of our profession might have internally discussed when to fire a colleague so that they could do so before she got pregnant again."

I "might have" just killed your whole family. How are you feeling now?

Fact: H. Rodgin Cohen wears David Lat pajamas.

Fact: Before he goes to bed Jim Sandman checks his closet for Kashmir Hill.

Fact: Fear is not the only emotion David Lat can smell. He can also detect hope, as in "I hope I don't get profiled on Above The Law by David Lat.”

Fact: A study showed the leading causes of death among partners in the AmLaw 100 are: 1. Heart disease, 2. David Lat, 3. Cancer.

Boobies

Dear Biglaw: Start paying for tubal ligations. Promote the women who render themselves barren - they don't want kids, you don't want them to have kids, everybody wins!

1:57: "were you belong"?

1:57: "were you belong"?

I think the title is fantastic. I just wish I had thought of it.

2:48 (2) Gets it right, the issue here is about the way that she was terminated and given poor reviews if those reviews were unwarranted. Layoffs due to economic downturns (exclusively) should not be done in a manner that brand those associates who are being laid off unnecessarily or unfairly. The pregnancy and miscarriage are most likely unrelated to the firing, but they do make the events much more dramatic.

PH is busted

It is obvious that more associates than employers read ATL. If she can win the burden-shifting fight and establish that she was laid off because of her pregnancy, more power to her and any recovery would be well deserved. PH, however, had and has the right to lay off whatever employees it wants to so long as the decision was not related to a protected classification.

I think it is funny how many people assume that all the PH partners knew about this miscarriage. HIPAA aside, do you really think your Biglaw partners know or care about what is happening in your life? That isn't to say that they shouldn't know or care -- but they don't. Period.

From 2:41: "2:36, and you are a poopyhead. Now that that's out of the way, can you explain to me how the fact that PH fired her after a miscarriage shows that they wanted to fire her before she got pregnant again?"

2:41, it's 2:36 here. I may be a poopyhead, but what the hell are you asking me for? I responded to 2:03's woeful lack of understanding about reproduction. To quote:

"I don't mean to be crude, but isn't it a medical fact that a woman that has had one miscarriage is more likely to have long-term medical issues that may prevent her from getting pregnant?"

That's not a medical fact. That's someone talking out of his or her ass. A medical fact is that as many as 30% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage and, in many cases, the women go on to conceive and carry to term.

To answer your question, I don't fully understand the logic that would support the idea that PH fired her after she miscarried because they wanted to fire her before she got pregnant again.

I don't pretend to know how partners think. Having personally miscarried and then conceived in the very next cycle, I do know (was informed by my ob) that a woman is often very fertile in the ovulation cycle immediately post-miscarriage.

Maybe someone at PH knows that little nugget of info and acted on it. Maybe the associate posted a big color chart of her fertile days in her office and they knew the next window was a'coming. Or maybe, just maybe, they simply mishandled the situation Big Firm managment-style.

Love,
Poopyhead

3:22 - of course you didn't - you're a flaming retard, as evidenced by your preferences.

Gallion OUT!

The big question is whether or not they terminated her because she was going to get pregnant. If she was earmarked for termination based on not pulling her weight and not on the pregnancy, then I see no problem with how they handled this situation. In retrospect, there's no doubt that they should have waited at least two more weeks, but this is more a problem of employment laws dictating callous business practices. As soon as she got pregnant again, she would have received the same shield. If they laid her off *because* she was obviously going to get pregnant again and not on lack of merit, then there is a clear problem, but from one of the best employment law firms, I seriously doubt this was the case.

Thanks for the props, 3:21, and I agree. But I also think part of the unfairness stems from the unduly positive reviews she had been receiving in years past. The firm admitted as much when they said her earlier reviews were overinflated.

Firms do a huge disservice to associates by stringing them along with false hopes and promises. I know quite a few senior associates and counsel who are continually told their performance is strong and they have a solid future with the firm. However, looking at my firm's past behavior, these senior associates and counsel will never make partner. They are simply being strung along until they are no longer profitable.

Career-wise, studies show that it's easiest to make a move at the mid-level associate stage (when other firms or in-house departments can still afford you) or at the partnership level (when you can bring your book of business with you). From what I've seen, it's much harder when you're a 10th year associate or counsel, have a big mortgage and kids in private school, and can't afford to take the salary cut that a move at that level would require. And you never would have ended up in that position if your firm had been honest with you from the start about your performance and your future chances.

That's the true tragedy here. That associates make life plans based on reviews that are largely lies.

IF YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMMENT ON THIS THREAD!!!!

3:42 - You make a very good point, I have no doubt that many careers are hurt by reliance on overinflated reviews. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way for associates to avoid this problem and I can't envision any realistic remedy.

Guys at my high school used to promote women who had tubal ligations and couldn't bear children all the time, it was no big deal.

herpes.

I just can't see what the "right time" to fire her was in relation to her miscarriage, sorry. It was never going to be easy to deal with getting fired, and they offered her 3 months' pay. She was an associate for TEN. YEARS. Did she think she was going to suddenly make partner? Continue at an overpriced associate's salary indefinitely without bringing in business, even when business was slow?

Her pregnancy and miscarriage do not prevent her employer from making decisions based on her productivity.

Her behavior makes me question her judgment, and makes me think they were right all those years when they did NOT make her a partner. (And I wonder how good her past reviews really were, if they were really so great why couldn't she make the cut.) They make a business decision to let her go-- and (1) she sends out an email to everyone, (2) making references to her "uterus being scraped"- graphic and extremely personal references that served no purpose but to gratuitously personalize the dispute, and to seek shelter in her womanhood from the big bad men. It puts them in a trick bag-- if they ignore her they are callous; if they respond in kind they are low-class. Did any of the partners bother to tell her if their wives have cancer? If they had prostate procedures done? Or is that irrelevant, compared to her personal feelings and (don't forget) her uterus?

Her behavior is disgusting. She had 10 years to make partner and couldn't make it. Now we are supposed to think the firm that spent a decade with her fired her out of hate. Right.

Lat's shining moment. How cute. See you all in three days when no one remembers this!

2:48 is spot on.

Lat, could you remove Jezebel link? Post is inaccurate, misleading, false, nasty - take your pick.

I really loved those pants.

Wait, she had herpes? This puts a new spin on things.

WHY DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT THIS?

Paul Hastings, Sutherland, OMM... they are all the same s*&t qualtiy firms that in-house lawyers, such as myself, call hesitantly when better firms, with better attorneys, are too tied up handling our better projects. Get a f&*king clue-- banks and other so-called "institutional clients" only use TTT firms for TTT work, and this will not impact our hiring decisions (re: which outside counsel to hire) whatsoever!

In business news, the Dow Jones is up 62.55.

4:27 - Nice job. You were almost convincing. You should try a local theater group.

4:26--- who had herpes?
4:27--- preach on.

Thanks, 4:27.
Here comes the clusterf$%k........

damn! thought my previous firm was low class for the way it handled its staffing mistakes but even it didn't condition severance to execution of any non-disclosure agreement!

"She had 10 years to make partner"

Yeah. So many people make partner in years 1 through 6. Idiot.

"See you all in three days when no one remembers this!"

This won't be forgetten.

"The big question is whether or not they terminated her because she was going to get pregnant"

No. Any employer that isn't stupid wouldn't can someone a few days after she miscarried. Classless act. The actual legality is irrelevant, which is plain to see given the comments here.

4:07's "Did any of the partners bother to tell her if their wives have cancer? If they had prostate procedures done? Or is that irrelevant, compared to her personal feelings and (don't forget) her uterus?"

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but on many occasions, I've had to sit through partners bitching about issues, both personal (wife's spending habits, difficult teenage children) and professional (other partners, staff, admin red tape). I would have welcomed more serious personal issues to which I would have had sympathy.

Okay, for those not clever enough to get the point of her email:

1) Why the firing and bad review look discriminatory: Ms. X has wonderful reviews, she gets engaged, at firm engagement party, her fiance is told what excellent work she does, and post-marriage, she suddenly gets a bad review with NO warnings that she was doing worse and NO negative comments from any supervisors leading up to the bad review. This looks like potential: gender discrimination, marital status discrimination, and perhaps even pregnancy discrimination (if she was pregnant at time of bad review.)

2) Immediately after she no longer is a member of a protected class (and told coworkers, which was why she was offended that no one offered sympathy) she is fired, following that one bad review.

3) By my count, on the prior thread, three colleagues and one former opposing counsel have commented on her work product. One colleague said she wasn't great, two said she WAS great, one of the two who liked her work said that the firm deliberately gave her less work so that they could complain about her productivity, give her a bad review, and fire her. Opposing counsel spoke of her in glowing terms.

4) She acknowledges that times are financially tough, and letting go of her makes good financial sense, but is angry that the firm (a) isn't being honest about why they are letting her go and (b) that the partner who fired her was stony-faced when she cried about her miscarriage. (b) may or may not have anything to do with discrimination, but it is a shitty way to treat anyone, let alone an employee of 10 years.

Oh, and women can get pregnant right after miscarriages, my mother and a sister both have. Miscarriages are very common and do NOT, as some idiots on this thread have theorized, indicate either maternal irresponsibility or ill health.

That is all.

I think 2:43 pt.1 nails it.

Why are none of you genuflecting?

I am a 2L at a T14 school and I don't understand what the big deal is here. There is no evidence that PH terminated this employee for unlawful reasons. None. All we have is her self-serving version of her side of the story, and even that does not contain a single fact establishing that she was fired because of the fact that she is female, got pregnant, lost the baby, etc. I will not hesitate to seek employment with PH in the future based on this complaint.

4:54, i guarantee that wasserman and other powers-that-be at sutherland are genuflecting! ironic that sutherland and PH hit by bad news so close in time, given that sutherland represented PH in recent lawsuit.

5:05, work a bit harder on your reading ocmprehension and keeping track of who said what. nowhere in here email did the former associate state, allege or hint that loss of job was related to gender and/or medical condition.

In other news, we had cake in my office today.

4:27 -- You don't sound like an actual in-house lawyer, but I have never been wanting for top drawer litigation work from investment banks at PH. Granted, I work with strong partners who can pull in the good work, and not all partners are able to do likewise. But that is true most places outside V5. OMM is a fine firm w/ it's share of quality work, from what I know about it, even though they don't give market bonuses. Sutherland, I don't know about.

5:05 will be the summer who believes that life as an associate is just like that of a summer.

5:05 - thank g-d you have another year of law school to work on your reading comprehension before you go to work. At least 10 commenters here and in the big thread have neatly delineated the wrong doing on PH's part. Go reread and rethink your post.

5:18 - you work at PH, so I just assume you're a baby killer.

To: 4:54

Many associates remember their reviews in glowing terms, without cause to do so. I know. I have given many reviews to junior associates over the years. Some just don't hear you when you are critical (I assume this to be the case because they do not take the corrective actions I suggest). Maybe they just don't want to hear or don't care. But more to the point, I have given many associates good reviews as mid-levels, then given them poor reviews as seniors. Why, because some people simply stop developing at a certain point in their career. Some good juniors never get any better, hit a wall, and cannot cut it as mid-levels. Some mid-levels don't improve beyond, well, being good mid-levels. As seniors, they are given poor reviews, because their work quality is that of a good mid-level. It just happens. Not everybody can continue to advance up the ranks. A series of good reviews does not ensure that things will not go south for you shortly, so I see no evidence of discrimination here.

Also, the fact that a partner said she was doing well at a social event means nothing. It may be that she always did excellent work for that partner and that he viewed her as an important firm asset. However, associates can be and are terminated for pissing off just one partner, even if they are loved by many other partners. I just don't see any evidence of wrongdoing here. Associates are terminated desipte being well respected by certain partners . . . it only takes one to bring you down.

I interviewed at PH's SF office two years ago and know the associate. What a small world...and thank goodness I went to another BigLaw instead of PH.

5:22: I don't agree with you on everything but would like to thank you for saying what I've always believed and others others pooh-poohed: "... associates can be and are terminated for pissing off just one partner, even if they are loved by many other partners."

Ok-- I get the posts but one thing should be clarified. PH IS TTT BECAUSE IT DOES OCI AT SCHOOLS WITHOUT ABA ACCREDIDATION (ala American Univ.'s Washington College of Law) !!!

5:05 = Clueless summer who cries in his office once he comes back as an associate and partners are mean to him.

5:32: nice try but no joy.

To 5:22:

I have been reviewed before, and usually you get a form. (At least at the companies/law firms I have worked at.) From reading what she had to say, it seems that she did as well. So documentation on her side, good, theirs, not so much. Also, not only did I say a partner said positive things about her at a social occasion, I also said that she got no negative comments or no hints up to the performance review that she was doing worse. Plus, and I didn't mention that, at non-social occassions after the engagement party she was complimented on her work.

Let's say she sucked, (which I don't believe, based on the statements of her erstwhile opponent and colleagues), they still didn't do enough to document her allegedly poor performance. Plus we have a colleague saying she was deliberately targeted and given less work so she could be fired.

Don't be so damn naive.

5:05--don't let the haters get you down, I'm on your side (i.e., the side of rationality instead of overblown (and I assume mostly fake for effect) emotion based on only one side of the story).

5:05 sounds exactly like those idiots at my law school who think as long as it's not a legal issue, then everything is fine. These are probably people who have never worked a day in their lives, and can't grasp that there are other things they should worry about in real life than what's taught to them in a classroom / case book.

herpes.

5:05 here.

There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I can assure that I understand the nature of the complaint made by this woman, and I never said that she had accused the firm of doing anything unlawful. I also "get it" that the alleged wrong is that they were mean, by terminating her 6 days after she lost her baby, and also that she disagrees that her termination was based on her performance. I get all that - - but I just don't care. If they acted lawfully, stop crying and throwing your toys! Business is business and personal is personal. I may be a 2L, but I am not dumb enough to think that law firms like PH (and the rest of the AmLaw100) are about anything other than the bottom line. I do not labor under the false belief that my future employer will be sensitive to my personal issues. I do not labor under the false belief that my employer will be fair to me. I would not avoid a PH interview just because somebody else did and then became disillusioned when she learned otherwise.

5:22 - you have good points about people hitting development "ceilings," and you might even be right about "no evidence of wrongdoing," but this wasn't just about whether there's a legally cognizable claim. It's about how a firm handled a particular situation. As previous posters have said, doing something legally doesn't necessarily mean you have made the right decision, or a decision that makes the best business sense. The PR fallout proves a bad decision was made about how to lay off people, legal or not.

5:44

I can't wait until it happens to you.

5:36

Excellent point! Too many dumbass law students and lawyers on this blog who prove why most lawyers are terrible advocates and communicators. Is this really the state of the legal profession? Most posts miss the real issue (lack of professional courtesy) to debate an ancillary legal argument that the woman never raises (discrimination).

These are the same type of people who spout off like this is their inter-personal relationships and in public, and then wonder, when they are alone (and this is no doubt often), why most people think lawyers are douchebags.

5:05, know why you're a D-bag? Because you started your post with "I am a 2L at a T14 school and..."

do positive performance reviews immunize you from being terminated? that seems to be the majority opinion on this board.

To 5:36.

Naive is believing that firms terminate employees that are profitable. Paul Hastings is a business, and their business is making money. If this woman was making money for the firm, either by generating business or by billing sufficient, collectable hours, she would not have been terminated. Firms are not in the business of getting rid of profitable associates. Whether she was "good' or she "sucked" as an attorney misses the point. The question is not one of her legal abilities - - the question is whether it would be profitable for the firm to keep her around. It appears the answer was no.

5:55, no, of course not and no, it is not. commenters are questioning timing of poor review after positive/stellar ones, which firm tries to undercut by characterizing prior year's review as possibly "over-inflated".

"I don't see any problem with letting her go 6 days after this tragic event. She needs to get over herself and understand that it's just business (subject to the note below), and that Paul Hastings' business is not about her personal life."

Please Biglaw, take out the cat o' nine tails and strike me across my naked back!

I will scream out "It's just business!" with every lash.

I've been a bad associate and deserve more doc review!

--Associates in Furs, The Velvet Biglaw Underground

5:57

What law school do you attend?

5:05/5:44 = will go postal and shoot up office in < 5 years. Its a lock. Also, he is a virgin.

5:22 = the reason people hate lawyers and the reason associates hate partners and practicing law (doesn't matter that he is full of shit and pretending to be a partner, the attitude remains). Law firms never fire associates under the pretense of "performance" because asshole partners can't bring in enough work. Seems unfathombale right? Good, go back to class now, clown.