D.C. AG Office Faces Lawsuit After Firing Attorneys
(And News of Layoffs For Public Defenders in Other States)
We reported last month on the D.C. Attorney General’s office firing 10 lawyers and a manager. As good attorneys should, the recently fired are taking the D.C. AG to court.
The original Washington Post article on the firings said the staff were being let go for performance reasons and for fiscal reasons, “to help close a $3 million deficit in the office’s fiscal 2009 budget.” The American Federation of Government Employees is filing a suit on the lawyers’ behalf, saying there were no performance issues. From the Post’s D.C. Wire:
The American Federation of Government Employees has filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court seeking an injunction to block Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles from firing eight city lawyers in his office. Lawyers for the union said the employees “received satisfactory of better performance ratings in the most recent rating period.” Nickles’ contention that the city lawyers performed poorly is a “pretext to disguise the true basis for the terminations, which is to address the budget,” the lawsuit states.
Not clear as to why only eight lawyers are involved in the suit. We don’t have any other information on the case, but we do know that “satisfactory performance” usually means “barely functioning” in government parlance.
D.C. is not alone in facing legal budget shortfalls. ABC News reports that public defenders in Kentucky, Minnesota, Florida, and Georgia have had to fire many lawyers, leaving them severely short-handed:
Statewide public defenders in Kentucky and Minnesota and local offices in cities such as Atlanta and Miami say budget cuts are forcing them to fire or furlough trial lawyers, leaving the offices unable to handle misdemeanor and, in some instances, serious felony cases.The cuts leave states scrambling to find a solution to a constitutional dilemma: The Sixth Amendment requires the government to either provide poor defendants with lawyers or release them.
Hmmm… have you read our recent post on law school not being a golden ticket?
D.C. Attorney General Fires 11 Staff Members [Washington Post]
Facing Budget ‘Crisis,’ Public Defenders May Refuse Cases [ABC News]
ABC: Budget Cuts Causing “Crisis” in Public Defenders’ Offices [WSJ Law Blog]
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: The D.C. AG’s Office
(19) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
In order to reduce the cost of government or produce greater efficiency at current cost, people will have to transition to the private sector. Do you want your job, or do you want lower taxes and greater government efficiency with the taxes that are taken?
I'll go to a TTT law school. At worst I'll have to take a PD job. ANYONE can get a PD job.
Myth destroyed.
I don't know what is a bigger mess: DC government as a whole or Nickels's management of the AG's office.
From the story on the firings, the paper notes the Union has described some of the attorneys who were fired.
"Another is a father of four who is a member of the Marine Corps reserves "awaiting imminent military orders to leave for Iraq. ... If he is terminated as planned, his family will lose significant benefits while he is deployed.""
Someone check Nickles's email for the one that says "we should fire him before we have to pay him while he serves in Iraq."
"We don't have any other information on the case, but we do know that "satisfactory performance" usually means "barely functioning" in government parlance."
Kash, I normally enjoy your posts, but this is one of the more ignorant things I've read on ATL. It might have prompted a chuckle from people who still think this tired joke is actually funny, but it's a pretty ill-informed suggestion.
I work at a law firm, but I interact with many, many attorneys in local, state, and federal government who are a helluva lot smarter than me, but didn't attend a top law school. They work incredibly hard for decent wages.
Just my two cents...
3:40,
That email can be found next to the one from the Paul Hastings Partner describing the need to fire Shinyung Oh before she gets pregnant again.
Yours Truly,
Peter Nickles
where's the coverage of panel headed by Chief Judge Scirica (3d Cir.) being named to investigate Lat-friend Alex Kozinski??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? the news only broke a DAY ago.
3:48, kash isn't too far off the mark. for every one good one there are three bad ones. Fed govt is perfect example -- for every good one at SEC, DoJ, FTC, there ar numerous bad ones at every other nonsense cabinet department or agency. don't kid yourself just because you've been blessed with a few of the good ones.
I agree with 4:08. There are many excellent lawyers in government service, but DC local government should not be confused with the SG's office or OLC.
4:08 and 4:40 -
Speaking as a government attorney myself, who attended a Top 20 school and has never been in private practice, I've seen a fair share of embarrassments in private practice as well, even from big firms. Painting government attorneys with such a broad brush is offensive and should be noted as such.
hmmm.... and Nickles discovers yet another difference between his staff and the white-shoe'd halls of Covington. Guess those government workers were not quite as "at-will" as you thought.
3:48, 4:49 - It's a snarky aside on a blog. Don't be so easily offended. Big law firms get mocked here too.
I'm not an employment lawyer, but even assuming the ex-D.C. AAGs' allegations are true, what's illegal about terminating an at-will employee for budgetary reasons? What's illegal even about falsely representing that decision as a performance-based one?
I smell a 12(b)(6), or whatever the D.C. equivalent is.
"At worst I'll have to take a PD job. ANYONE can get a PD job."
The makings of ineffective assistance of counsel claims...
Thank goodness for the prejudice prong.
I'm T14, and I have worked for a local government my entire career.
The truth, as always, is in the middle. Gov't attorneys are just like any other attorneys. You have some excellent legal minds and some mediocre legal minds. From my dealings with "Biglaw", I see the same distribution of talent. Some of the associates and partners I've met have been great in their service, but I've dealt with one partner at a V100 firm who didn't seem to have the legal acumen of an undergrad in a con law class.
The real difference comes in the last five years of a gov't attorney's career. The vast majority know their retirement date and coming in is merely "going through the motions" by the time they've put in 25 of their 30 years. Don't get me wrong. Most still try to do a good job, but they aren't afraid to take a 2 hour lunch or cut out right at 5 if they're not busy. This conduct doesn't seem to be tolerated at "Biglaw" any more for the most part. Even the middle-aged partners that I know are expected to put in some fairly long hours which seems to be much different than 15 to 20 years ago when "Biglaw" partners exercised much more leisure once they were in their late forties/ fifties.
Prejudice prong = guilty defendants never get out no matter how incompetent their lawyer was. Strickland is bullshit.
Wow people, far be it from me to defend Kash, but I think she was referring to how difficult it is to receive a negative performance review as a government attorney rather than making a general statement about the abilities of government lawyers. Most federal government attorneys who receive an overall rating of "satisfactory" know it's time to start looking for a new job.
Just to follow up on 8:03 - how many of the government lawyer defenders have any clue how the government rates people? If DC follows the feds, then satisfactory is a pretty low ranking. I've worked in Biglaw, worked for the federal government, then back to Biglaw. I absolutely agree that the best government attorneys are as capable intelligent and hardworking as anyone in Biglaw. But let's not be naive - it's pretty hard to get rid of a federal employee once their probationary period is up, and that leads to "barely functioning."
As with any agency - there are poor performers...even at a big law firm (gasp! ivy league graduates, no less). However, the whole point of the law suit is that people with decent evaluations are being fired. Under the proper procedures - they are allowed time to correct their alleged poor performance. Nickles isn't going through the proper procedures - plain and simple. You can't just fire attorneys...even a firm has procedures. Nickles is too arrogant. He thinks he is above the law.
There are a number of attorneys at the OAG that work very hard for very little. Our pay is less than the federal government. Our pay is a lot less than the law firm environment that Nickles wants to create. We have few if any support staff and supplies. And yet, a number of attorneys choose to work for DC b/c we believe in what we are doing.
What amazes me is that even a good law firm attorney should know that he has to follow the proper procedures. So why doesn't Nickles get it??