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.

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.

5:05, top 14 apparently not what it used to be because your reading comprehension still questionable - alleged wrong is NOT that they were mean, by terminating her 6 days after she lost her baby. However, glad that you suffer no delusions about working in a large law firm. Now, engrave your post in stone, read it every day when/if you start working at a firm like PH, and let's talk again when you're a 3rd yr.

5:36 - They're called defense attorneys (and I may be one of them on occasion). There is a difference between legal and moral reprehensibility, particularly in at-will employment situations. Those "idiots" from law school are the same people who routinely beat you in 12(b) and 56 motions because you incorrectly assume that the "law" doesn't matter in light of a particular factual circumstance. Guess what. The "law" matters...

5:05 here.

Wow! It appears lots of you hate the things I am saying. I may be a 26 year old 2L, but am I wrong about any of the following:

1. Big law firms are all about the bottom line.

2. Big law firms will place their own interest in making money ahead of my interests as an associate.

3. A big law firm will keep me around and treat me well when (and solely because) it is in their own economic interest to do so. If the situation ever changes and I am not economically viable, they will get rid of me.

4. I am responsable for looking out for my own interests because my firm is only looking out for their own. In a sense, we are adverse.

5. My firm will be fair to me when and if it serves their interest to be fair. If their interest in making as much money as possible dictates another course of action, they will go that route.

I understand and accept these things as a reality of big firm life. It sounds like some of you, who are older than me and have actually worked in a law firm, have (or had) a more rosey perspective of big firm life. Am I wrong about my assumptions? Do they actually care about people and their personal lives, or is it all about the PPP?

6:02 - You beat me to it. What a tool.

See, 6:02, in this little place we call the real world (which you will unfortunately discover very soon), there are more than just numbers. If PH demanded each associate bill 4,000 hours, they would all be "profitable" and they would all be imaginary because no one would work there. If 25 "profitable" associates begin to see what a TTT that place is and leave, then was it really profitable to fire this girl? Things are never as simple as your professor makes them on your finals. You are about to discover this the hard way after you graduate (if you pass the bar).

5:36, you sound exactly like those idiots looking to impose your pet issues on every conceivable situation without regard to the actual facts of a situation.

OK, I have to digress and make the following grammar request: everyone, please, please STOP using "their" when referring to a firm. Don't know if it's worse that "more rosey" but it's close.

5:05: Can you not understand how this fallout from their decision is bad for business? You don't have to disagree that firms are all about the bottom line to think that this was a poor move on the part of the partners involved in this decision. In business you have to consider more than just the short-term consequences. There were certainly factors that went into their decision to terminate her on the day they did. They likely did not factor in that it would result in numerous online blogs criticizing them, 1000+ comments from lawyers, law students, etc. who disagree with their decision, etc. That was just a bad business move.

To 6:22: if we are talking collectively about partners + firm "their" is absolutely correct.

To 5:57: See all the discussion on the other thread re: why she might be v/g but not profitable. See also my original post where I said she admitted that financially, she was a bad risk.

Two issues here: 1) is there discrimination; 2) even if no discrimination, did they handle this badly/dishonestly. I happen to think the answer to both is yes, but even a yes to 2 makes the firm look VERY BAD.

Also, if you really think firms are rational actors who never terminate superstars in favor of political ass-kissers--BWAHAHA! I mean, for serious? If this were true, there would be no workplace discrimination, genius-boy.

5:05 We're not fucking stupid. But we are saying that firms that behave that way deserve less loyalty and deserve to be kicked to the curb. If a firm gets a rep. for firing someone due to sudden decreased productivity due to an illness, why would I prefer them, when I am also rational and want to make money, when there are other firms that won't? Or if they get a rep. for hiding layoffs (which she is clearly alleging) and falsely blaming performance, wouldn't I have to be kinda stupid to want to work there?

Viva transparency.

6:32, 6:22 here. You are absolutely correct. I should have clarified that my digression was primarily due to 6:10's post.

-5:05- / 6:10

You are a bit of a tool, but you understand the reality of BIGLAW a hell of a lot better than 99% of the naive posters on this comment board.

I don't think I would want to work with you, and I sure in the hell would not want to grab a beer with you, but I can't say you are wrong about anything you have written. I have been in BIGLAW for 6 years (yes, even before ATL), and I can't believe that anybody that knows anything about BIGLAW would be shocked by a firm terminating an employee 6 days after a miscarriage. The partners I deal with could care less.

Who are all you people? Have any of you actually spent more than 5 years at a V50 firm? This kid knows more about life in BIGLAW than you seem to know.

I think focusing narrowly on the legality of the firing decision is a mistake. Regardless of whether or not PH is sued or improperly fired her, they made a poor economic decision. Firms spend a great deal of time and money building relationships. A firm's reputation is critical to the growth and maintenance of its profits. ATL is a site read almost exclusively by lawyers and law students that receives over 20,000 unique views daily. PH's bottom line will be hurt far more by them demonstrating such poor judgment than they would have been by paying an associate they had for 10 years a few months salary to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It doesn't matter whether the firing was legal or not because if PH loses even one referral, or a handful of profitable associates, they have hurt their bottom line even if they face nothing but bad PR.

5:05: Responsible. Rosy. Learn to fucking spell.

As for the substance, 6:30 and 6:31 have addressed that beautifully. Two people have posted about how nice S&C (of all firms!) was in similar circumstances. That should tell you just how terrible this is.

The S&C stories are not comparable if, indeed, PH terminated her for some reason other than her pregnancy. The timing and handling of her termination were bad, yes, but unlike the S&C situations, the firm wasn't trying to retain her.

5:05 here.

To 6:31: You wrote "But we are saying that firms that behave that way deserve less loyalty and deserve to be kicked to the curb. If a firm gets a rep. for firing someone due to sudden decreased productivity due to an illness, why would I prefer them, when I am also rational and want to make money, when there are other firms that won't? Or if they get a rep. for hiding layoffs (which she is clearly alleging) and falsely blaming performance, wouldn't I have to be kinda stupid to want to work there?"

I guess that is my question. I assume that ALL of the big firms are interested solely in profits and that, and that ALL of them will kick you to the curb when you are down, if it serves their economic interest to do that. If you want a firm that pays 160K and puts people above profits for the partners, do you actually have any choice? Does that even exist? My question is am I wrong about my views on the reality of life at ALL big firms?

Yes, the fallout will be terrible. PH will now not be able to hire whiney, entitled law students that live in a bubble and give a damn about crap like this. They are better off without the people this will scare away.

I read the email and this woman sounds like a head case. No wonder the firm wanted to get rid of her. She is unstable. She needs to get on the med's.

Sorry, "whiny."

Yes, 5:05, you are wrong. I worked for a firm that kept a partner (on salary, on health insurance) when she battled cancer twice. They did not de-equitize her. And it was a smart thing to do, because the clients loved her (there is a difference between a book of business and a book of business that RAVES about you) and because she did excellent work.

I have also been in more than one organization with a person with some power targets a person with less power, and starts orchestrating his or her dismissal. Having integrity, and not giving a damn if anyone tried to mess with me, I managed to counterscheme and put a stop to it both times.

A friend of mine has gotten lots of grief from a partner's senior associate pet (she is slightly less senior) because a few times, when working for him, she has come up with pretty clever ideas he didn't think of first. One time he told her that her proposed argument was "unethical" because she wanted to make an analogy between there case, and a similar case where the party had made her argument and won, and the burden of proof was higher at that stage of the litigation. What a mofo. He'll probably make partner.

If you confuse that with instability, you need to get on "med's."

"their" case

The med's what?

I admire the PH associate for taking a stand.

7:01 - my point was the fallout doesn't have to be terrible for the firing to be an unprofitable decision. It only has to exist. The rule of thumb is one profitable associate lost costs a firm between 200-300,000 to replace. Unless you don't think a single associate will leave who PH would prefer to retain over this incident, the timing of the firing was a mistake. Firms can and should think about profits first. They just shouldn't be so myopic that they fire people immediately when a brief delay for the sake of appearances would be cheaper.

- 6:43

Nobody cares about your miscarriage. That is your ego talking. Partners don't care. They are busy and have their own lives. Your personal problems will not determine the firm's business decisions. Again, that is your ego talking. The timing of layoffs is determined by business necessity, not by your personal issues.

Paul Hastings has nothing to worry about here. So long as they maintain top of market compensation, they will have no problem hiring all of the people they will need. The idea that they will be hurt by this is silly and grossly uninformed. Nobody will remember or care about this one month from now.

Remember those fools that thought S&C would be hurt for firing that gay guy? I can assure you that S&C has no shortage of top prospects that want to work for them.

7:07, I agree her e-mail didn't come across as the most professional. However, I think we need to cut her some slack, because she's clearly going through a lot right now -- a new marriage, a miscarriage, and getting fired. She very well may have had a few drinks before writing that, possibly more than a few. On my last day at my old firm (I left on good terms), I had way too much to drink at my good-bye party and fired off a few e-mails that I later wished I'd worded differently. Nothing like this, but I still would have said things differently if I'd been sober.

Of course, you could be right, she could have been a difficult person all along.

5:05 here.

Thanks 7:17. I hope that is more representative of the type of people I will encounter in my career.

to 7:41: I feel bad just writing this, but is it possible that the nature of the conduct alleged here will cause PH to lose only the least profitable of its associates (e.g., people that intend, in the future, to take 18 weeks of paid leave)? Again, I know I sound like a jerk, but if a firm learns that a female associate becomes pregnant after she leaves the firm, do they not breath a sign of relief? Do they not feel that they dodged an "18 weeks of full pay for no billables" bullet?

These are just questions.

7:41.2 - Absolutely. Ooh, it's reverberating in the blogosphere! This is gonna be HUGE!

7:41(2) - S&C's issue has definitely reverberated within the gay community and has, no doubt, caused S&C recruits to more seriously consider DPW, Cravath or Cleary than they would have before.

Just because S&C's recruiting numbers won't show a real decline doesn't mean that stories such as this don't have some impact on recruiting.

BTW - you should see the ridiculous number of top tier sponsorships that S&C is taking at gay events now. I don't think that's because they recognize that the Charney incident had no impact on recruiting.

Just because she is 9 years out of law school does not make her a "9th year." We don't know her billable rate or salary. Should could be considered by the firm as a 5th year, for all we know. If the PH HR people on this board care to respond to this question, feel free.

Is it just me or would the NYC people our there be shocked if a story like this (the false review and layoff part, not the general social awkwardness part) came out about a v5 or v10 firm? I just don't see a Cravath (at least they never did while I was there), or a Davis Polk doing something like this. Cravath at one point (long before the internet) rolled back salaries once but underhanded layoffs just wouldn't happen. That's part of the reason everyone was so outraged at Shearman.

But on this forum, the sentiment seems to have shifted, people are quick to say that BigLaw is a business, and the majority opinion seems to be that PH just should have WAITED to lay her off.

Is Cravath also not a well run business? Why has the generally accepted view of layoffs shifted in 6 or 7 years to it being acceptable?

How many nights of law study does it take to send an emotional email? Nothing in her background told her to hire a lawyer ?

I think the moral of this entire story is - or should be - that each of us, when we least expect it, is subject to tragedy and loss. It may be difficult for a 25 year old who's had life handed to her/him on a silver platter to understand, but even s/he or her/his mother or husband/wife or byofriend/girlfriend or child could be hit by a bus at any time (etc. ). I personally have experienced such sudden and unexpected tragedies and have been fortunate enough to work with people who have had my back and given me the time and space needed to take care of the personal things. Do you really want to work at place where they don't?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

I have read her email a few times and can't help but think that PH is better off without this woman. She has an entitlement complex. Notice how she notes the firm may have fired her now in order to do it before she got pregnant again. She views being pregnant as a shield of immunity. A shield that somehow prevents her from being fired for performance reasons. She knows this is not the law, but she also knows that, as a practical reality, most firms won't fire pregnant women regardless of poor performance for fear of litigation. (Even baseless suits are costly to defend).

I would bet that she is the type that, after giving birth, feels entitled to go home by 7:00 every day, even when her co-workers must stay late, bill less hours, not work weekends, never have to travel, never spend the night at the printer, never bill 90-hour weeks for a trial, etc., and not have anybody call her out for that. Of course, she will expect to be paid the same as those of us that do have to bill 90 hour weeks for a 12 week trial, won't she. She expected special treatment based on one personal situation (miscarriage), and would no doubt have expected special treatment in the future based on another personal situation (baby at home). Good for you PH for getting rid of her now.

To the commenters whining about the fact that we only have one side of the story to go on: all true, but whose fault is that?! It's not as though *she* tried to coerce *them* into signing an agreement not to disparage *her.*

People keep saying "BigLaw is a business." It's not. Not a real one anyway. Before going to law school, I worked in business, first for "Big Pharma" and then in consulting, and what a difference.

In business, you have professional managers -- people who are promoted largely based on their ability to understand, motivate and relate to other people. They're not perfect, but they are infinitely better than law firm partners, most of whom are excellent at uncovering minutiae in a document but know next to nothing about how to treat people, and many of whom are just downright nasty.

Paul Hastings is no better or worse than any other big firms in New York. They're all terrible places to work and no matter where you are you'll be subject to unnecessary shit from partners and senior associates.

Take S&C. When the Charney scandal came out their strongest defense was that they didn't single him out for bad treatment: They treat ALL of their associates like shit; gay or straight, male or female. Is that really an environment you want to spend your 20s and early 30s? You're throwing away the prime of your life.

Some firms are better than others. Everyone I know at Wachtell and Quinn is quite happy. But S&C, Cravath, Simpson, PH, DPW and most of the rest are just as horrible as one another.

5:05,

I am a 26 yr old 3rd year at a V20 firm in New York. (yes I am foreign, yes I can sound just as big a douche as you). You remind me of that Dick in Good Will Hunting. You feel all cocky coz you think you have "figured out" how big law is.

I work for a firm that has seen its cap markets group come to a near halt. Associates that were billing 240 hours a month, who started billing 10 hours in January. We had a meeting, partner said that if things did not get better by August he would have to make changes but not before then (this was January). Work has started to pick up again. Still slow but hopeful by August it will be better. If not, people will be let go, but there will be no cover up, no performance issues.

I have a friend who I graduated with down in Richmond. He is in Real Estate for a decent V100 firm. In January they too were told changes would be made if it stayed bad. 2 weeks ago 6 associates, from 2yr to 9yr, were let go but with 4 months to get something/severence etc. I don't know what associates were involved, but they have been assured good references, and that their departure is sad, unwanted and a reflection on the economy and the partners. My friend said the meeting was really sad, as the partners opened themselves up and admitted they had failed to plan for this, and were making the cuts to prevent others. The rest of office told there will be no more cuts.

PH is a business, as is most BIGLAW. This didn't make sense for 2 reasons, and I am surprised that someone who knows as much as you 5:05, failed to spot the issue. First, they let go an associate in a cold manner that had gone through the 2nd worst experience a woman can go through (I put the death of a child already born slightly ahead), 6 days after. This is head scratching as it is a bad BUSINESS decision. By bad business I mean not that she was fire proof, but that they should have waited a while to let the grief pass (even if it meant delaying other lay offs for a week) OR they should have discussed the situation with her in a sensitive manner. REDACTED, I know the past few days have been terrible on you, however.....

Second, and this is the real point, and is what I tried to sho you the other side of how to handle it, they are making it out that these lay offs are ONLY performance based and not economy based. This is especially bad to do after she has suffered her grief, but regardless it is a shitty thing to do. Would redacted have been let go if they were as busy as they were last year? Of course not. So why not admit the economy sucks. Why make up a bad review?

I tried to express something similar on the Sutherland posts. It is a simple concept. In a shitty economy, there is nothing to be gained from letting people go and saying it is performance based. Of course, deep down, we all KNOW that THESE associates were let go because the firm looked at all their associates and got rid of the disposable ones, the point is that THESE associates are being let go NOW because of the ECONOMY. Thus the lay offs are economy based, not performance.

See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 5 years you're gonna start doin some thinkin on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certaintees in life; One, only shitty firms do this when there is a less shitty alternative that achieves same result even if it knocks their prestige, and 2, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin education developing a cynicism that you coulda lost if you had traded your DVD of the Firm for Its a Wonderful Life.

10:21,

I am Roger Lou and I go to the Harvard Law School because HLS the only good law school to obtain the national recognition in mother country. Ministry of Pride in mother country are proud of me for my victory at HLS, and Pride Ministry are proud of you for your continued success in the big law in the New York.

Me love you long time,
诶比西

10:35, foreign as in British, but thanks for playing.

10:16. I love it when "business" people refer to law as not being a business, or when people refer to lawyers as bad managers. Well, big firm partners are pretty darn successful as business people and managers, are they not? Want proof. Look at the growth, in percentage terms, of the profits at the largest law firms over the past decade. That is how you business types measure success, by growth in profits, right. That is how managers are judged in the "business" world, no? Looks like them lawyers are getting something right.

"Certaintees in life." Is that one of those cute little Britishisms, or just a typo?

Seriously though, nice rip on the 2L.

One question though, is it not true that "performance" and "lack of business" cannot co-exist as reasons for laying somebody off. Perhaps the performance standard for avoiding getting canned rises during bad times when firms don't need as many people, and an associate is let go even though he would have been retained during good times. Isn't that still a performance-based termination? Just under a higher standard.

Not saying that happened here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s

10:43, your post is nonresponsive and irrelevant to the point 10:16 was making. please read again for comprehension.

5:05 is a tool who will one day see the light. As someone here already said, it's one thing to know that big law is business, it's another to work with jerks every day of your life (no weekends off in big law!)

People who argue that this woman may not be telling the whole truth have a point. But what most people on this board have been saying is that if her account is true, then PH partners who fired her are inhuman. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior, and in my mind money certainly doesn't excuse it, especially when it's someone you know well.

10:51, it is an exact quote based on the boston accent.

But you raise a good point. My thoughts are that at this moment in time (May) so long after year end reviews and so long after typical firm hoping (February/March depending on bonus) that these lay offs are economy based. I am not saying that all lay offs are economy based. Some are performance based, but typically it is a word in January that this firm may not be a good fit [which it actually looks like this lady may have been told based on her email].

But if you work in big law you know, as I do, that there are [were?] a lot of fecking idiots working at top 100 firms that were not up to much, but were lept because things were busy. While they should have been let go years ago for performance reasons they never were, as every firm needs worker bees, even stupid ones, when things are crazy. But if you allow that to happen and do not trim the fat at review time, can you honestly hide behind performance when the REAL reason you fire them is economy,

Again, I think you raise a good point, and one I have touched on before (I hope). The majority of associates let go in the mnner PH let go this lady, are probably the fat I mentioned above (not all, as sometimes a partner just takes a dislike to a good associate). But I still think economy the reason.

To 11:00. You are correct, my post was not responsive to 10:16. Mine made a concrete point about why the data does not support the popular assertion that big firm lawyers are bad managers. 10:16 engaged in a whinefest about how lawyers should be be nicer, treat people better, blah, blah, blah. No need for a response there. You know, world peace would be nice too, but it ain't gonna happen. Maybe every child should get free health care too, blah, blah, blah. I work in biglaw, and if you can't handle being treated like something less than a human being, you are not going to cut it for very long in this world. Go teach second grade if you can't handle having your feelings hurt.

11:19 - c'mon, I have stories from working at a v10 shop about law firm partner management skills that both shock and humor my friends that work at real businesses. Most of BigLaw partners haven't had a job outside of a law firm and never developed real people skills. The things I've and others have seen (insulting people's appearance in a meeting, telling someone in front of a client that they smell bad, throwing coffee on support staff) just wouldn't fly in the business world.

I wonder if the anger expressed in many of these posts is from female law students that, perhaps for the first time, are learning that they are borrowing a whole lot of money, and spending three years in school, to go into a profession that is still not very female friendly? Yes, progress has been made, in the sense that women can now be employed at big firms, and can even make partner. However, law firm culture still puts women to a Hobson's choice. Do you want to have children and be able to spend time with them, or do you want to spend your nights and weekends working, and to pour almost all of your emotional and physical energy into doing what it takes to survive at a big law firm? I feel badly for the female law students that were sold a bill of goods.

10:43,

Just because profits have increased at law firms does not mean that biglaw partners are good managers. All they did was increase billables and decrease the number of equity partners. Doesn't take a genius to come up with that formula.

Male attorney who left biglaw for a small boutique of former biglaw partners here. PH's conduct was inexcusable. "This is how biglaw is" is not an excuse. All the negative comments here show that those who will thrive in biglaw are greedy socially retarded sheep and the sycophants who love them. Big firms are not the be all end all. Other options besides the government exist. You can still represent big clients and work on exciting cases. Get out while you can. If the best up and coming talent escapes, biglaw will collapse on its own weight, save for those key firms that continue to recruit and promote the best talent. All the b.s. wannabes likes PH will become obsolete. Too expensive, and a demonstrated lack of judgment.

11:58: the number of equity partners did not decrease at the top tier, equity only, shops (Cravath, WLRK, Sullivan, Simpson, etc.) These firms have seen some of the biggest increases in profitability.

Also, increasing associate billables means that the partners increased the productivity (measured as revenue per lawyer . . .the only thing that counts) of those below them. That is the sign of a successful manager.

12:09,

"Also, increasing associate billables means that the partners increased the productivity (measured as revenue per lawyer . . .the only thing that counts) of those below them. That is the sign of a successful manager."

Tell that to someone with an MBA. They will laugh at you. Let me guess, English major? Or is it PoliSci? Oh, you went straight from undergrad to law school? What a surprise.

12:09,

Cravath and WLRK are the best U.S. firms. They have no relevance to a general statement about whether partners are good managers.

Good managers?

Partner: Hey associates, we have more deals this year. Get the work done. I will pay you a big bonus.

Associate: Do I have a choice?

Partner: No.

Associate: OK.

5:05--

Profitability may drive firm decision-making, but it shouldn't be used to rationalize inhuman behavior, or to permit a firm to terminate an associate based on lies.

Also, you're a major-league fuck nut who probably kicks dogs and children and will beat your wife--

WHOA! Redacted posted a video on YouTube!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

12:18

If you have a rebuttal, why don't you make your point. Revenue per lawyer is a direct measure of productivity (netting out expenses per lawyer) in a law firm context, where billable hours are the sole source of revenue.

Why is it the legal profession is so full of little chumps like you that get all whiny and emotional and can't make an argument when somebody disagrees with them. Do you have a point or not? Do you need a tissue first? Was some big, bad partner mean to you today?

law schools need to start offering some sort of communication classes to its students. A lot of you clearly haven't interacted with other human beings very often.

I think it is interesting that people are having such strong reactions to the comments made by this "5:05." He/she has really touched a nerve here. I doubt people would react so strongly to his/her comments if they believed that he/she was way off base and clueless. If that were the case, everybody would probably just ignore this poster, yet his/her posts seem to get more attention than the plight of the PH assoc. that got canned. Go figure. Anyway, I hope he/she is wrong. Discrimination on the basis of gender is unacceptable, but so is being a jerk to the people that are making you rich. The law really needs more women. I hope the PH woman lands on her feet.

Remember, people, there are a couple of issues here. One is that one of the premier employment practices in the country (PH) did not follow its own practices. If someone is non-performing, you document the non-performance. Duh, employment 101. If it is economic, be decent and say that. Perhaps PH was justified in letting this woman go, but they handled it miserably and instead of roling over like countless PH alums, she did something about it.
Second, and more importantly, is if you read the various posts of people who have worked or work at PH, there seems to be a theme regarding women and lack of advancement opportnities/a senior associate and of counsel ghetto. Those of us who have been there know that PH pretty much only makes changes if deemed to be "market" necessary. So, what is the market when it comes to women partners and part-time partners. The experience of several on these boards seems to be that PH has lost some great women to other firms because of inflexibility. As somene at another firm told me "we are not out there looking for reduced schedule people but why would we ever want to lose a stellar attorney simply for being inflexible." Clients don't care if someone is in the office 12 hours versus 8 or 6 hours or even at all -- they want their work done well, efficiently, and they want to be able to communicate with the attorney. This does not require a full time drone and can be accomplished many different ways.

Increasing profits aren't a sign of a good manager if more money was left on the table. Did those law firm managers maximize profits? Or is what they sell so valuable, and the market so constrained (by the bar) that its hard not to make money, especially as the economy increases. Anyone who thinks that law firms have good management are living in a dream world.

I just think it is funny when people are like OMG the client wants a response tomorrow!

The client doesn't want a response tomorrow. The client wants you to solve their problem. The partner (who is such a good manager) lets the project fossilize on his desk, and hands it out last minute.

At one of the firms I interviewed at, one of the partners was known for being a fire-sale, last minute guy. He was also nice, so associates liked working with him, but two associates I met told me that he's great, but his approach to time-management was so stressful to them that they chose to work with other partners.

If you have last-minute motions, that is the only excuse for not properly managing the workload. And yet we hear about last-minute freakouts all the time for motions that a firm had a month or more to write.

That, my friends, is bad management, and it takes a toll on your human capital (that means your people, for the social idiots out there) so that it takes them longer to do poorer quality work.

If I could get the talented law students that Cravath hires, and force them to work 1800 hours tops, and manage their workload, the work product would be VASTLY superior.

5:05, let me explain why you are an idiotic scumbag that I hope I never work with, work on the other side from or employ (though I would enjoy firing your sorry ass). I have copied your assumptions below, and the problem is not that you are wrong, but that you are missing something:

1. Big law firms are all about the bottom line. [ALL GOOD BUSINESSES ARE ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE ON THIS BOARD, IN YOUR SCHOOL OR IN THE WORLD WHO FIGURED THIS OUT? NOBODY THINKS LAW IN THIS DAY AND AGE IS NOT A BUSINESS. BUT GOOD TO SEE THAT ECON 101 WORKED OUT WELL FOR YOU]

2. Big law firms will place their own interest in making money ahead of my interests as an associate. [AGAIN, YOU REALLY HAVE AN AMAZING INSIGHT INTO HOW BUSINESS WORKS. MAYBE YOU COULD WRITE A BOOK ON IT, YOU COULD CALL IT "REALLY OBVIOUS FACTS THAT I ASSUME ONLY I KNOW"]

3. A big law firm will keep me around and treat me well when (and solely because) it is in their own economic interest to do so. If the situation ever changes and I am not economically viable, they will get rid of me. [ A GOOD BUSINESS WILL TREAT EMPLOYEES WELL, EVEN EMPLOYEES AT WILL, BECAUSE IT IS A) THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND B) BECAUSE HAPPY WORKERS ARE PRODUCTIVE WORKERS. ANY FIRM THAT MISSES THIS IS A SHIT SHOP THAT PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID AND IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY PARTNERS ARE NOT GOOD MANAGERS]

4. I am responsable for looking out for my own interests because my firm is only looking out for their own. In a sense, we are adverse. [POSSIBLY TRUE, BUT IF THE PLACE YOU WORK IS LIKE THAT THEN IT IS NOT A GOOD FIRM. IN A GOOD FIRM THE INTERESTS SHOULD BE ALLIGNED. AGAIN, DIGGING INTO YOUR BEST SELLING SEQUEL "REALLY, THIS IS OBVIOUS SHIT THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW" IF I WORK WELL AND HARD I SHOULD BE REWARDED THROUGH PRAISE PAY AND PROMOTION. MY INTEREST IS THAT THE FIRM DOES WELL AND IS PROFITABLE SO I CAN HAVE MY 3 Ps. THUS I HAVE INTERESTS AS PARTNERS WHO WANT PROFITABLE FIRM SO THEY CAN MAKE MONEY]

5. My firm will be fair to me when and if it serves their interest to be fair. If their interest in making as much money as possible dictates another course of action, they will go that route. [THIS IS WHERE I THINK YOU MISS THE POINT. AS A BUSINESS, IF THINGS GO BAD YOU TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION. IN A BUSINESS, YOU FIRE POOR MANAGERS, POOR PRODUCERS AND DEAD WEIGHT EMPLOYEES WHO WILL NOT HELP BOTTOM LINE. IN A LAW FIRM THIS IS EQUITY PARTNERS WHOSE BUSINESS HAS DRIED UP, NON-EQUITY PARTNERS WHO SERVICE THIS BUSINESS AND POOR ASSOCIATES. MOST FIRMS SKIP THE EQUITY PARTNERS, MOST SKIP THE NON-EQUITY PARTNERS, WHICH LEAVES THE ASSOCIATES TO BEAR A HIGHER BURDEN. BUT REGARDLESS, YOU TREAT THE LAY OFFS IN A GOOD BUSINESS MANNER, NOT A CALLOUS, LETS MAKE SHIT UP AND SAY THAT THEY ARE SO BAD WE HAVE TO FIRE THEM APPROACH JUST TO SAVE FACE. THAT IS BAD BUSINESS. CITI FIRED 17,000 EMPLOYEES. DO YOU THINK THEY ALL HAD NEGATIVE REVIEWS, OR DO YOU THINK THEY WERE TOLD, TIMES SUCK, WE HAVE TO MAKE CUTS, WE ARE SORRY TO DO THIS TO YOU, HERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES. THAT IS WHAT GOOD BUSINESSES DO. NOT THIS PH BULLSHIT]

I understand and accept these things as a reality of big firm life. [YOU UNDERSTAND NOTHING]

I doubt PH did anything worng here.

1. Performance: I would not be surprised if this woman had performance issues. (a) If she plans to sue, she muddied the waters on her damage claim. One type of damages available for wrongful termination is lost wages while looking for your next job. Here, she has given the firm an opening to claim that, if she is now of of work for several months (she will be), that was caused by her own conduct after her termination in making an internet sensation out of her story. A good employment lawyer would know that. (b) If she does not plan to sue, I would question her maturity of judgment based on her conduct. Is it really professional to send out a firm-wide email with explicit references to her personal, tragic situation, using the words uterus and scraped in the same sentance? I would not be surprised if her maturity of judgment was lacking. (c) I note that she is pretty vague regarding her alleged past performance reviews. Why does she not state, "during my June 2006 performance review, I was told I excelled at _______." "I received a rating of ____ in the area of _____ during my year-end review for 2007 from partners ____ and ____." Or "In June 2005, we set a performance target of _____. I met that target in ______." I just don't believe her when she talks about her past reviews in glowing terms. An experienced employment lawyer would know that detail is critical to credibility in this situation. Hers is lacking.

Timing: Very, very bad timing for her. I wish it had not happened 6 days after she miscarried. But I would expect a firm to keep businees issues separate from personal ones, and proceed with layoffs on a schedule dictated by business concerns. If I were her supervising partner, I would have waited at least 2 months, but that is because I put human relationships above business concerns, especially where personal tragedy is concerned. But I recognize that this is not required by law or standard business practices.

Karma: PH helps big corporations fire thousands of people every year, either by counseling before the fact, or defending the conduct after it has occurred (another poster made this point). Do you suppose any of the thousands of people this woman helped fire were terminated shortly after they suffered a tragic event in their lives (death of a relative, miscarriage, etc.). KARMA. What comes around goes around.

11:20--hit the nail on the head.

12:09,

""Also, increasing associate billables means that the partners increased the productivity (measured as revenue per lawyer . . .the only thing that counts) of those below them. That is the sign of a successful manager.""

In law, law firm partners (managers) do not use management skills to increase associate billables (productivity). All the partners do is give the associates more work, and ask that it be done. There is at least an implicit promise that billing more hours will lead to a larger bonus.

This has nothing to do with "managing" people. Now, go back to studying for your con law final, you db.

"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. "

Since you said t14 school, we will assume you attend Georgetown, Northwestern, Duke, or Cornell. You don't have many choices besides sh!tholes like PH. Good luck getting a job.

11:57

This was an email, not a damn opening statement. Don't be a moron. If what she says is true, she has more than made out a prima facie case.

To Mr. 5:05,

You have established two things with your posts.

1. Law students are clueless. Even 2L's at T14 schools, like you, know next to nothing about law firm life and practice.

2. When lawyers respond to arguments made by clueless 2L's, they demonstrate the emotional maturity of seven year old children. They rant, scream and make petty personal attacks. They appear unable to simply rebut the points made by clueless 2L's without having a tissy fit.

2:57, I disagree with point 2. I think this git needs to be taken down a peg or two, and I see nothing wrong with people attacking his post. Most I read explained where he was wrong without namecalling (or as well as name calling).

My heart aches for this woman's loss.

Cheers to those who have pointed out that humanity and the bottom line need not (indeed, cannot) be mutually exclusive. I worked at a "biglaw" firm when I had a miscarriage and the partners and others were supportive, compassionate and appropriately accommodating. And that's why I would never trash the firm's name (at least not on that basis!).

Follow-up report on firmwide layoffs at Paul Hastings:

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/nationwide_layoff_watch_paul_h.php

4:46 go take your bleeding embryo/scraped uterus crap somewhere else. A miscarriage is not the end of the world and the partners do not need to give a hoot about your personal problems.

Your partners were putting on a front to appease you. They really didn't give a crap about your miscarriage, and you are really naive (or else oblivious) to think they did. Of course, you probably slept your way so they have to fawn all over you. Yep. Seems like laying on your back is the only thing a breeder like you can excel at.

To the writer who says a woman has to sleep her way to the top...

What a crass, sexist, totally clueless a*s you are. What come around goes around and it will definately go around to you. Wish I could be there to see it.

PH is no different than the other mega-defense firms. The heirarchy in these firms is mediveal. The only thing they care about is money -- not nuturing and developing new attorneys to carry on the fine reputation of the firm. Ever since fast tract was instituted in CA the defense firms have mushroomed -- it gives them an excuse to bill, bill, bill. I too was married while I worked for a firm and everyone came, then 9 months later I was out the door and no reason given to me as to why -- now when I look at my wedding pictures all I see is the smug faces of my tormenters. Lesson learned -- don't invite your co-workers or bosses to your wedding if you work for a law firm. They don't call defense work the "dark side" for nothing.

Women and minorities are easy targets, and often get hit disproportionately when times are tough. Happens at many TTT firms.

Milbank TTTweed...