Shinyung Oh: Back in the News.
A couple of stories have come out recently, retelling the grand tale of Shinyung Oh’s Paul Hastings departure email.
The email is, of course, a classic. But the story is being re-told, again and again, in the context of the layoffs that are taking place all across the country. Shinyung Oh was on the Today show, and recently she was featured in the Los Angeles Times, in a story about the phenomenon of farewell emails:
“It took me a long time to write it,” said [Jason] Shugars, 34, who left Google to become director of ad operations for the music streaming Web site Imeem. “I didn’t want to send out a stale ‘good working with you, please reach me here’ e-mail. Who wants that?”That’s a good question these days, now that thousands of people are finding themselves with pink slips.
The farewell e-mail suddenly has become commonplace, a new art form in the electronic age.
The Associated Press also had a story, warning people about what they say on the way out the door:
Truly angry flameouts are a rarity for that reason — most people understand they will whip through the ether at breakneck speed…. Experts warn against real displays of such anger over concerns that it could hurt a future job search. Many caution against even a hint negativity.
Oh’s memorable email was referenced in both stories.
But Shinyung Oh herself doesn’t think this focus on farewell emails is particularly helpful. Some of her thoughts, after the jump.
As many of you know, Oh has her own blog, Because you never know… She was contacted by the Associated Press for its story, but she declined to comment. According to her, here’s why:
I declined to speak to her because I thought the media was focusing too much on how employees are reacting to layoffs instead of highlighting the unethical manners in which companies are handling layoffs. I asked her to focus on what the companies are doing, and she responded that she would be “happy to talk… about that as well.” Well, sure enough, the article comes out and it’s only about employees and their departure emails. Good thing I declined to speak to her.
From where we sit, Oh seems to have a good point. The human interest angles to “recession stories” often focus on how laid off people are “handling” being laid off. As if “it’s crappy” isn’t a sufficient answer. But the mainstream media seems to gloss over the humans actually conducting the layoffs.
Maybe there is a general sense that there is no “right way” to conduct massive layoffs. But on this blog alone we’ve seen numerous companies handle the issue in strikingly different ways. Some firms really do seem to be doing it better than others. Some firms stonewall the press, hide the facts, and act like their former employees were holding the firm back. Other firms get all the facts out and give laid-off employees the dignity of telling the truth.
Look, it is difficult to come up with yet another angle on the global financial crisis (trust me on this). But let’s try to keep our eyes on the ball. A fiery farewell email is funny (and I’ll post that within a nanosecond of receiving a good one), but terrible communication when laying off hundreds of employees is just as important and newsworthy.
‘Farewell’ takes new tone [Detroit News]
For laid off workers, that oh-so-satisfying, flaming, final e-mail can come back to bite you [Associated Press]
Layoff Coverage [Because You Never Know]
Earlier: Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email (And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
First. "OH", i've wanted to do that.
2L working in public interest the A for my spring break.woo hoo
For fired first year associates the appropriate farewell email is:
Dear Colleagues,
I regret to inform you that I have been Lathamed. My career and life are now ruined. See you never.
Very Truly Yours,
Shit-Canned 1st Year
"Let's nuke the bridge we torched two thousand times before. This time we'll blast it all to hell."
This is meta-news at best. Prettty weak.
Elie Mystal, Ombudsman to the entire U.S. media.
Paul Hastings is number one in crazy departure emails:
From: [REDACTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PM Subject: FW: Goodbye...
As many of you are aware, today is my last day at the firm. It is time for me to move on and I want you to know that I have accepted a position as "Trophy Husband". This decision was quite easy and took little consideration. However, I am confident this new role represents a welcome change in my life and a step up from my current situation. While I have a high degree of personal respect for PHJW as a law firm, and I have made wonderful friendships during my time here, I am no longer comfortable working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and Napoleonic personalities. In fact, I dare say that I would rather be dressed up like a pinata and beaten than remain with this group any longer. I wish you continued success in your goals to turn vibrant, productive, dedicated associates into an aimless, shambling group of dry, lifeless husks.
May the smoke from any bridges I burn today be seen far and wide.
Respectfully submitted,
[SIGNED]
ps. Achilles absent, was Achilles still. (Homer)
excellent reference #3. one of my favorite songs from high school.
I love Oh, she's the hero we all wish we could be. SHINYUNG FTW!!!
Comment removed by moderator.
As an employment lawyer, my advice to anyone contemplating sending off a nasty farewell letter would be: go for it!
Just be sure to relay your intention to defend any and all legal rights you may have in connection with your former employment with the firm, including, but not limited to, the right to bring suit against it for defamation in the event the firm or its partners or employees publish any untrue statements about you, your performance as an employee, or the circumstances of your departure (e.g., if your termination was related to the economy but they called it performance-based, etc.).
How is being laid off from an at-will position unethical behavior? Not so nice, maybe.
Would the firm had to have laid anyone off if the Partners hadn't committed $9 million dollars worth of malpractice in the last year alone?
First with aiding in a Ponzi Scheme (4.5m settlement):
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005560229
Followed by some steep rule 11 sanctions (4.5m sanction):
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202429081570
Comment removed by moderator.
For all of you losers who complain that law students and associates are a bunch of entitled brats, here's your poster child.
9, 13 & 14 = Paul Hastings HR dept.
12, insurance?
13 + 14 = Paul Hastings Partner
16, premiums?
Let's call a spade a spade. While it sounds like Paul Hastings has treated associates poorly, and it's certainly the case that many firms are disingenuous about the reasons they're laying off their associates, I take great exception to the basic gist of Ms. Oh's complaints: that a female associate who has had a miscarriage should be treated differently than other associates, all other factors equal.
Law firms lay people off, and they often suck for doing so. They are often dishonest about the reasons they are doing so, and they often lay people off when they have passed their useful lives for the firm, either because it's time to go out instead of up or because business is slow, or for a variety of other reasons. Like many, my firm has recently had layoffs, and I'm less than pleased with the way that they handled them. The careers and lives of good people have been damaged.
However, I would be pissed if my firm chose not to lay someone off because of a medical condition, or because of a recent loss in the family, or because of a miscarriage, or because that person was or was not a member of a protected class. Those kinds of decisions are wrong. While the miscarriage was tragic, and Ms. Oh has my utmost sympathy and empathy, I reject the notion that the fact that she suffered this tragedy entitles her to different treatment or rights in the employment context.
I sympathize with her for being so pissed about being laid off and lashing out, but I think that it was a mistake to do so, and I think less of her as a professional because of it. Not as much as a think less of Paul Hastings as a firm for being so sleazy about all their layoffs, but she' still not someone I would consider hiring.
At an old job, a departing partner (who had just made partner, apparently on a "cold offer" basis) sent a rather scathing e-mail when he announced he was leaving for a client. A day or so later, after those who had arranged the job for him reached out to the client, he sent an apologetic follow-up, although he didn't lose the job. Be careful which bridges you burn!
How about a new genre, the "rescinded offer e-mail"? "It has been a pleasure being under an offer of employment at [firm], and I truly enjoyed my period of impending asociation with all of you. I do not know where you will be able to reach me next, but rest assured that I have cherished my experience of being promised but then ultimately denied the opportunity to become one of your colleagues. It has been an experience that I will never, ever forget."
The Today Show, the L.A. Times - what a PR debacle for Paul Hastings.
Firms may not care about what ATL says about them. The problem is that ATL's stuff often gets picked up by other outlets.
18, small potatoes?
16 -
I think that your malpractice insurance covers negligence. Rule 11 sanctions go beyond the realm of negligence and into the realm of intentional acts.
I would bet that these types of sanctions are exclusions on your policy.
The Ponzi scheme is a closer issue. If you look at the facts it would appear that the partner at least suspected that something was wrong given the great lengths the client wanted to go to avoid state regulatory scrutiny.
Probably covered, but don't you think that it should have raised some red flags?
It did in the mind of the summer associate!
It's the emails that are funny. The song-and-dance between the poor, innocent employee and the big, evil corporation, or the lazy employee and the efficient corporation is tired.
The same sensationalism that brings us murder, accident, kidnapped child, and the-sky-is-falling-save-us-massah-obama brings us pieces on farewell emails.
She's the "what NOT to do" person.
And can someone please tell me if I ever smile like that?
The miscarriage angle is bullshit. She was told of the layoff months before and knew it was coming. She just happened to miscarry shortly before.
I feel bad for her, but glomming onto that and expecting PH to reverse course is a little unrealistic.
i dont get the point of your last paragraph, mystttal
From where we sit, Lat's royal "we" seems to be rubbing off on Elie.
It has been nearly a year since she was laid off and she still won't shut up about it. Guess what, lady - LOTS of people have been laid off since. Stop wringing your damned hands about whether the firm handled it nicely and move the hell on.
Her blog is a maudlin trainwreck, but so much so that it's really an entertaining read.
My friend who works with companies regarding laying off employees agrees with you Elie. I read many of the comments here, and they are really pathetic.
It's really not a surprise that many Big Law posters do not get it. Afterall, many of them lack basic organizational management skills.
Here's the reality: there are good and bad practices for laying someone off or even firing them. Some companies do not employ the good practices, and some do.
Rather than bringing up legal arguments about "it is at-will employment," why don't some of you, for a change, focus on the multiple interests involved for the companies and firms?
For those who still don't get it, one such interest is how you treat the fired employee has an impact on the employees that remain. My friend discussed this with me.
Now, some of you think the fear based approach to employment is the best. But, not everyone agrees that the only choice is the stick (the use of fear).
Some believe in both the stick (Fear of being fired) and carrot (This is a great place to work).
If you only base employee action on fear ("Oh, I may get fired too" versus "See this reinforces that this is a great place to work"). Lay offs are unaffordable. However how you treat people is a sign of what type of employer you are.
19, although I agree with you, I think that employers use the layoff excuse to get rid of "expensive" employees (i.e. mothers and people with medical issues). For example, a substantial percentage of the people laid off by my former firm had taken medical leave within the year before they were laid off. What a coincidence.
I had a similar experience to Mrs. Oh, but I took the money and ran. The horrible situation at that crappy Chicago firm was so bad that I would love to go to the media. Maybe once I find another job, I will breach the contract and pay the $$ back. It will be worth embarrassing them. When I am ready to tell the story about the abuse I suffered, and the abuse many others have suffered from one wretched, horrible, despicable partner, I will get in touch, Elie.
I am offended. Please moderate.
Is Shinyung Oh currently employed? What has she been doing since she was laid off by Paul Hastings? Has she applied for new law firm jobs or other legal jobs but was rejected because of the famous email?
I want to know if disputes like this with your former employer would permanently damage your career.
Is Shinyung Oh currently employed? What has she been doing since she was laid off by Paul Hastings? Has she applied for new law firm jobs or other legal jobs but was rejected because of the famous email?
I want to know if disputes like this with your former employer would permanently damage your career.
Shinyung Oh ... oH... OH please don't go!
This lady again? She drives me crazy. Why would she think she deserves special treatment. The world is a cold nasty place. I bet she would've left Paul Hastings in a heartbeat if she received a better offer even if her departure left the firm in a lurch. Why does she think she deserves any better?
Comments are being removed from this post faster than Shinyung can say........
I've never been a fan of Shinyung. Granted, it was unfortunate that she got laid off after a miscarriage, which had to be double traumatic for her, but things happen in life. Nobody is owed anything by an employer. Move on.
Why can't this woman move on already? It's obvious she is still bitter and won't be content until Paul Hastings becomes Heller & Thelen. She was Fired for having low billables, hours and the work was not there. I don't know if she ever tried to develop business but most associates realize by their 7th year that they have limited futures in firms if there is not enough work or too many associates in their class year. Most people would try to put this incident behind them instead of making it the center of their life almost a year later. Im sure she's also peddling a book or Lifetime movie now.
Why can't this woman move on already? It's obvious she is still bitter and won't be content until Paul Hastings becomes Heller & Thelen. She was Fired for having low billables, hours and the work was not there. I don't know if she ever tried to develop business but most associates realize by their 7th year that they have limited futures in firms if there is not enough work or too many associates in their class year. Most people would try to put this incident behind them instead of making it the center of their life almost a year later. Im sure she's also peddling a book or Lifetime movie now.
Why can't this woman move on already? It's obvious she is still bitter and won't be content until Paul Hastings becomes Heller & Thelen. She was Fired for having low billables, hours and the work was not there. I don't know if she ever tried to develop business but most associates realize by their 7th year that they have limited futures in firms if there is not enough work or too many associates in their class year. Most people would try to put this incident behind them instead of making it the center of their life almost a year later. Im sure she's also peddling a book or Lifetime movie now.
39-41 obviously PH PR dept because ATL readers know not to click ten times on 'post comment'. Anyway, the inconsiderate WASPs at PH could have averted this fiasco by issuing their mongrammed coat hangers to her at the start of her employment. It's a little too late to approach her with that subject after the fact... what a bunch of morons.
Some of the commenters are out of line (36, 26, 19). I think Shinyung's main beef with PH was the fact that her termination was "performance based" rather than based on the fact that there was not enough work for her.
I am sure that her hours were even lower if she was going through a difficult pregnancy. I am sure the greedy partners were sitting there calculating how much money they were losing on a pregnant associate who was behind in hours, who would be taking maternity leave.
I'm sure the employment attorneys trolling this site will agree, because they see it all the time, the greedy cheap a-hole partners don't care if someone has medical issues or is pregnant. They will do what they can to terminate such person and try to avoid a lawsuit at the same time. Claiming that the person performed poorly is a perfect excuse.
Everyone can agree that blaming the associate for low hours when there is no available work, is bullsh*t. You don't need to kick someone when they are already down. Admit that there is a lack of work, give the employee a good severance package and assist the employee in finding another job.
Good for Shinyung. If she received excellent reviews when she was making her hours, and less favorable reviews when the practice slowed down and she probably missed work for medical reasons, then something doesn't pass the smell test.
If PH was slow and Shinyung's head was on the chopping block, then they could have at least treated her in a respectable manner and not place the blame on her.
With regard to Shinyung burning bridges with her email, it is sad to say that ANY employee seeking any sort of retribution for poor employment practices is burning a bridge. Individuals that hire an employment attorney and reach the litigation stage will probably face issues in attaining another job if the court documents surface.
Basically, any employee that stands up for their rights will be burning a bridge. I commend the people who have the courage to stand up for their rights and make inhumane termination practices and employment discrimination public. Those are the people that actually change the way employers operate and make the situation better for the next guy.
Losing your job is not fun, no matter what the circumstances are, but an employer should be humane.
We don't need to hear stories about people jumping out of windows because the assholes they worked for couldn't admit their own shortcomings.
Oh is the last person anyone should be taking pointers from about how to get laid off well. Whatever she says, do the opposite.
she's cute. i'd bang her.
Oh is a horrible writer. Convoluted, confusing, emotion-laden. No wonder Paul Hastings fired her.
You have to be bad if you're: (a) a minority, and (b) a female, and the firm STILL lays you off.
43 = Shinjung (sp?)Oh
Because of this woman, I still dry heave when I hear the words "uterus" and "scraped. Curse you psycho lawyer lady.
I think some of these comments are by Paul Hastings partners who are bent out of shape by the amount of press coverage this story continues to get. They got what they asked for.
The only thing at Paul Hastings that is bent out of shape is the monogrammed coat hangers.
I agree with 31. When I was laid off, along with several other associates, it all "just happened" to be women with kids. The ones not laid off, women without kids (or spouses even). That speaks volumes.
Had I not found a new job relatively quickly, which is significantly better than my old job, I was going to consult on whether I had a civil action (although I understand that such could also be a kill-shot to my legal career, so it only made sense if I could get a 'big enough' settlement or verdict).
49 = Ms. Oh
"19, although I agree with you, I think that employers use the layoff excuse to get rid of "expensive" employees (i.e. mothers and people with medical issues)."
________________________________________
Wait...so you're saying that firms will actually seek to cut first the "expensive" lawyers, who they don't make as much "money" on, so the partners can buy more "stuff" for their "families"????
The nerve of those a*holes!
I'm thinking I might take that new chick from Logistics. If things go well I might be showing her my O-face.
"Oh... Oh... Oh!" You know what I'm talkin' about. "Oh!"
she's cute. i'd bang her.
____________________________________________
I sympathize with her, but eyes and smile both look crazy. You must be willing to bang anyone.
I'd like to know what week she miscarried. I don't know what the statistic is, but a lot of pregnancies end up in miscarriage in the first few weeks (that's why the ob won't even see you until week 6 and you are advised to not tell people about the pregnancy until week 10). So it's actually a very common occurrence. I'm sensitive to this associate. But my wife had an ectopic pregnancy, which nearly killed her. And a family member delivered her child still-born after the baby died at week 38. A miscarriage before the 10 week mark is terrible but others have quietly suffered far worse.
43 here, there are a lot of men on this site!
53, ease off the quotation marks.
Employment laws are in place to protect pregnant women and people with medical issues. Unfortunately, there is a huge disincentive to enforcing such laws.
There are a lot of insensitive jerks on this site.
My guess is that you are a bunch of self-entitled people who have never faced adversity, and therefore, are unable to experience empathy.
Fortunately for you, you have a forum (ATL comments) to anonymously exhibit your sociopathic behavior.
56, shut up, until you have carried a child and have lost it, don't try to compare how bad one experience is compared to another. For many women, the moment they find out they are pregnant, the begin to imagine their child, what it will look like, birthday parties and the new happy grandparents. It is not your place to judge how someone should be affected by a miscarriage, whether the woman suffers a miscarriage in week 4 or week 26
These comments really make me lose faith in the human spirit and reaffirm my belief that men are insensitive pieces of shit when it comes to child-bearing.
I see nothing sociopathic about monogrammed coat hangers.
31 and 51 got it right. Whether it's stealth or official, in a form of a pink slip or advice to seek other employment, an awful lot of firms are showing the door to females who took maternity leave and other employees who took medical leave. Although it's all about the billable hours, humane medical leave policies are one of the benefits BigLaw associates are supposed to get in exchange for the hours and the grind.
57,
How about trying to keep your job based on your value to the company and not because the firm feels compelled to keep you around. Now that is adversity!
The bottom line is that if Ms. Oh was worth worth keeping around, she would still be there: she wasn't.
She needs to move on; her 15 minutes is up. Plus that smile scares the shit out of me.
Have any of these firms heard of the ADA?
56,
I am a guy, and you sir are an insensitive douche.
58 doesn't know what she's talking about. A miscarriage in the third trimester is far more physically and mentally traumatic than one at week 4. You are the insensitive one if you can't distinguish those two situations.
61 - how about the FMLA or ADA, or numerous other laws that are in place to protect people.
"Feeling compelled" is different than being prevented from discriminating under various employment laws.
62, yes they are, and they're counting on the economy as a "legitimate" excuse.
welcome back, shinyung! missed your presence here!
It can't be said enough, "This is a miscarriage of justice."
36,
You don't lie about someone's performance when firing them, especially after they return from a miscarriage, you moron.
19 wrote "I take great exception to the basic gist of Ms. Oh's complaints: that a female associate who has had a miscarriage should be treated differently than other associates, all other factors equal."
Sorry. That makes her different. You are an idiot if you don't recognize that.
64, I am sure a 42 year old woman who has been through numerous fertility treatments would disagree with you.
My point was, and still is, that it is not anyone's place to judge how someone should feel after a miscarriage, no matter what the timing is, end of story. It is not your place either.
This isn't something that should even be up for debate.
All the PH morons had to say was "sorry, we don't have enough work for you." Also, it might have been worth a few months of salary payments to put a little space between they lay off and the miscarriage. This idiotic move has greatly harmed the reputation of Paul Hastings. It wasn't worth it.
Just to rub salt into the wound, Paul Hastings just hired the OctoMom.
58, 63, & 71
Read this
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182572?tid=relatedcl
This is anguish on a level that you can't fathom. Don't compare miscarriage at 4 weeks with delivering a stillborn. When you become parents, you will understand.
She needs to move on...a little less blogging and more hide the sausage....unless she's over that whole having a baby thing.
Resentment and hostility is not healthy and to carry it for so long will not help Shin....but I know some of you would show her your OH FACE! OH OH OH...........
OH.
The good news is "Commenter 83" got Shin's old job.
Funny how that works. Must've been the pink sweater.
74 from 71, are you actually reading what I wrote?
Again, I just don't think it is fair for anyone to judge how someone else SHOULD feel. That is my point. Again, this is not something that should be up for debate.
What should we debate next? "I am more emotionally damaged than my friend because my dad died when I was 35 and my friend's dad died when she was 4." How about: I suffer more emotional scars from seeing the aftermath of a suicide bombing in Iraq than my buddy who witnessed the death of his brother after they were in a car wreck."
How ridiculous is that?
I am not trying to say that one situation is worse than the other, I am just saying that it IS NOT ANYONE'S PLACE TO JUDGE HOW SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD FEEL IN THAT SITUATION! We weren't in that person's shoes, we didn't live their life. Accordingly, what they feel as a result of their experiences is not for us to judge.
Do I need to put that in bold next time?
71 -
"My point was, and still is, that it is not anyone's place to judge how someone should feel after a miscarriage, no matter what the timing is, end of story. It is not your place either."
True. But it's not an employer's place to worry about how she feels either, or why. If PH felt it was time for her to go, they were perfectly correct in getting rid of her. Everyone has a story, but employers can't keep places afloat worrying about everyone's personal circumstances.
77. we can't tell them how to feel but we can tell them how to act.
to me, its virtually fraud for a firm to "provide" benefits such as maternity leave and medical leave, but not write (at least in fine print) that one's use of these benefits may be detrimental to your future with the firm if you otherwise don't meet your billable hours requirements and/or bill at least as much as your peers that didn't need/use these benefits. What's the point of having "benefits" if they hurt employees instead of, you know, benefiting them?
Agreed, 78.
Put another way - what if PH had kept her on for, what, another 6 weeks? What if they had decided to lay her off, knew about the miscarriage, and decided to wait until they thought it was a more "appropriate" time to tell her their decision? Would that be any better? It seems like there's something extremely insulting and overly paternalistic in the firm deciding it knows best about how much an employee can emotionally handle at a given time. I know I wouldn't want to find out people had decided to let me go but kept me around for a while anyway because they thought I was too fragile to hit with the layoff news. If that had happened, she would be accusing them of being even more disingenuous, of not taking her seriously as an attorney, of considering her less resilient because of her pregnancy. And she'd be right.
Once they decide to fire you, it's really best for them to just get it over with, despite possibly timing inconveniences. Sorry.
True pimps resign in cake-form...
http://www.crispyontheoutside.com/2009/03/18/icing-on-the-i-quit/
78, that comment was in response to another post, therefore you are taking my words out of context.
If they didn't have enough work for her fine, lay her off. Don't tell her it was performance based when that is bullshit.
80, under the Family and Medical Leave Act, employees are allowed maternity and medical leave, it has nothing to do with what the firm's policies are. The firm cannot retaliate against an employee for taking such leave.
I can't believe how little attorneys know about employment law.
Yes 84, but the firms are penalizing those those took their FLMA leave and calling it economic necessity.
19 here. 31, 51, 60, you're right. If it's true that some law firm is firing lawyers just because they have kids or have a lot of expensive medical issues, then that's illegal and should be exposed. Do you have any real evidence of this not colored by your belief that it's going on? The plural of anecdote is not data. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?
It appears to me that Ms. Oh's situation is a different illegitimate behavior - firms are firing people for permissible reasons and a few fired associates are crowing loudly think that they are entitled to their jobs forever, in part because they are in some group they perceive as being discriminated against. This is pathetic, and an insult to all the women (and men) with kids, or have suffered miscarriages or other health problems, or have to take care of sick parents, etc.
I am unconvinced that anyone has demonstrated that PH or any other firms are firing women or mothers because they're "more expensive." Come on, even the total costs to a group health plan (partially reflected in future premiums) for a major operation is like a few months of the employment costs of a senior associate. And they probably don't know how much group plan members are spending on health care - ever heard of HIPAA? Behaving like this wouldn't make much sense - if people really are strong performers deserving of avoiding deep layoffs, why layoff them off anyway just because they are mothers or have had health problems? Because they "hate women"? I'm sensitive to the implied discrimination related to the perception that mothers will work less or not meet demands, but my personal belief is that adverse employment actions related to that kind of discrimination is less of a negative factor for women than the positive factors associated with firms' efforts for diversity, offering part-time options, etc. Lots of GCs and in-house attorneys are women with children (in my experience, more so than are associates), and my firm goes out of the way to get
good senior associates who are mothers to work with clients like these.
Just because you're sick or a mother doesn't mean that you have any more rights to a job that healthy single people. Biglaw is an up or out game. That's what pisses of Ms. Oh. She has discovered that not everyone thinks as highly of her abilities as she does. Everything I have read from her suggests that she is unprofessional and lets emotion drive her to make outrageous statements or send outrageous e-mails. Describing using chopsticks on a miscarried fetus is intended to be offensive and provoke our anger at Paul Hastings, but all she did was demonstrate how inappropriate and immature she is. If that sort of behavior was not the reason for her firing, maybe it should have been, no different from a man being fired because he's too angry and threatening to people. It sounds like PH made exactly the right decision to fire her, and she'll never work in Biglaw again after behaving the way that she did.
86 = hot & bothered PH partner
86 = EPIC FUCK.
85, 84 here. Agreed.
86, Have you though about this, fuckhead? Apparently Ms. Oh received glowing reviews when there was enough work for her. Then, all of a sudden, work slows down, and Ms. Oh is a crappy associate and it is her fault. Fuck that!
Would I have handled the situation in the same way Mrs. Oh did? Probably not, but I wasn't there.
Nevertheless, I would be really pissed off. I have been in this situation. I was really close to the partners in my group, received great reviews and bonuses, then work started to trail off. When discussed with my practice group leader, he said "not to worry, you are doing a good job and what is expected of you, etc., etc." Then months later, I am shown the door and am told that it was due to performance reasons. I asked to see my reviews and they were so contrived. The partners that wrote negative reviews were people that I worked with maybe once and were in different practice groups (since I was low on work, I would help litigation).
To this day, I do not understand why they did that, other than to try to keep their unemployment insurance from going up. It was clear that I did not have work, they needed to make a cut for economic reasons and my reviews were conjured up in a way to make it look like my fault. Some of the partners even told fellow associates that I was let go for economic reasons.
Now, back to Mrs. Oh, take being pissed off under a scenario that I am guessing is close to mine. Then, add the fact that you have been through a traumatic experience, everyone in your practice group knows about it and you think that the partners in your group are your friends (partners at my former firm certainly led me to believe that they were my friends, and I don't trust people).
How incredibly pissed would you be if people you trusted treated you like that when it wasn't necessary?
Again, I wouldn't recommend this for everyone, because any level of calling a firm's bullshit (from lying about your performance to obvious discrimination) is going to hurt you.
Working for Big Law isn't the fucking holy grail some of you stupid double ivy assholes think it is. What kind of life do you really have? Do you see your family? Are you happy? Are you an alcoholic? Do you constantly worry? Big Law definitely isn't a place for working mothers, I don't care how much things have changed.
Big Law is fine for a couple of years. For you youngsters, pay off your debt, attach yourself to a good mentor and get close to a big client that you can go work for or steal when you start your own firm.
In my experience, a vast majority of partners in Big Law are greedy, egomaniacal, delusional assholes. There are a few that I hope end up in a car together and burn to death.
86,
I love lawyer bs: "Everything I have read from her suggests [TWO EMAILS, MAYBE?] that she is unprofessional [LIKE YOUR POST IS SOOO PROFESSIONAL] and lets emotion drive her to [YOU SURE KNOW HER WELL BASED UPON TWO EMAILS] make outrageous statements or send outrageous e-mails [MANY PEOPLE AGREE THAT HER VIEWS ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED].
89, I 'm jealous. I have been in around 6-7 months and can't stand much more. Hours way low, and when I do have work a couple of the partners are just complete monsters. I can't envision making it another 17 or 18 months to make it 2 years, but I expect them to can me in the next few months anyway based on my hours. You literally have to fight for scraps and kiss ass now to get doc review. Brutal. Wish to hell I had never gone to law school.
91, 89 here. Hang in there. I spent 8 years with the same feeling, and trust me, it was not fun. A lot of attorneys in my class year are going out on their own. When they leave, clients want to work with them, especially when they get the same work for maybe 1/2 the price.
The big firm model is obsolete, especially in this economy. I don't want to make you feel worse. When I was getting to the point that I felt I could not take it anymore, I started to focus on where I wanted to be in 5 years, which was not working for a bunch of assholes. Start thinking about an area of law that you are passionate about and use the firm's resources to learn more about it (you need CLE credits, right?). Do you belong to your local bar association? Start networking and learning about what you want to do.
Don't worry, you will be happy. Just come up with a game plan and work on it. Also, save your money. :)
Okay, let's just concede that PH treated Oh horribly. At some point, she MUST move on. It's been nearly a year. She's got a lot of good things happening now - writing, pregnancy, taking classes, handling some of her own cases - isn't it time to suck it up, hold her head high, and stop talking about this? No amount of sour grapes from former associates will make a firm say "ah, yes, we are gigantic assholes," so what's the point? It can't possibly be to spread awareness about the firm's actions - this thing has gotten way, way more press than it needed in the first place. PH is clearly pretty non-plussed by the bad PR. You know why? Because it doesn't matter right now. Law students (whose collective memories are about 3 years long, max) aren't really in a position to get up on any I Will Not Work There horses, as summer hiring is already a pretty desperate landscape. Clients don't really care, either. So...what's the point in continuing to be so bitter?
Story submitted to Digg:
http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Phenomenal_F_ck_You_Departure_Email_to_Law_Firm_Partners
Click on it, so we can expose the practices at PH and firms like it to people outside of the law practice!
93, I agree, it probably isn't healthy for Mrs. Oh to continue focusing on her experience. Plus, the blog might not inspire confidence in clients.
On the other hand, I hope the bad PR PH suffered from this situation is a lesson to other law firms. Mrs. Oh was a martyr of sorts and maybe she will be in the back of the minds of a bunch of partner fucks that think it is a good idea to tell an associate that is down on their luck that they are being canned for performance reasons, when the truth is, their firm is struggling financially.
Thanks Mrs. Oh!
92, I am saving all I can but I will be lucky to last one year. Many classmates at other firms already fired. Just not enough hours for everyone and I do not have the will to fight for the hours. In a healthy economy where there's enough for everyone I'd be able to hang in for 2 years, but not in this one.
95 - not to nitpick, but her name isn't Mrs. Oh, it's Ms. Oh. Her husband has a different last name.
97, 95 here duly noted.
I love these jerks reading comprehension. She's not pissed about being terminated. She's pissed the firm fired her for bullshit reasons rather than simply being honest and just saying, there's not enough business at the firm to sustain her salary.
Like others have said on this thread...firms are horrible, horrible places in terms of terminating employees. Associates are often giving shit reviews by partners who are desperate to keep their own jobs.
I also love how so many firms love to deny associates access to their reviews and personnel files.
If you don't have access to these files and you are being stealth laid off, the first thing you need to do is demand a copy of that file, make copies and/or corrections to the reviews.
If someone tries to get you to talk severance or whatever, tell them you need to see your entire file and you want to sleep on whatever agreement they want you to sign. If they refuse to give it to you, report their asses to the state (At least in California denying employees access to their personnel files is unlawful). If they have it right in front of you. Many times the HR person will have it with them during your termination meeting (See termination, Roxana).
After reading the file, wait 24 hours and negotiate your severance with the knowledge that if the firm is terminating you--they best pay for your unemployment benefits you won't be able to get and the new Cobra subsidy.
Also? Fuck all of you commenters who don't fucking get it. As an employment lawyer who is up to her eye balls in termination counseling, I can't wait for those asshole partners to shit can your ass.
Wasn't Oh a very senior associate?
If PH intended to make her partner eventually, they would have kept her around despite her low hours. Other PH lawyers billed under 1800 hours last year and are sitll at the firm.
I agree with the poster who said that law firms are an up or out world. This is particularly true at PHJW where they do not have non-equity partners and they are aggressively shrinking their "of counsel" program. Isn't it possible that Oh's performance was good, but for whatever reason, PH didn't view her as partner material? (Maybe because she demonstrated some of the qualities apparent on her blog?) And they've made several working mothers partner, so please don't tell me they forced her out because she wanted to be a mom.
As far as the timing, it certainly wasn't great. Should they have waited a few more months when she was pregnant again?
I'm so tired of all the whiners who cry and moan because their firm laid them off and claimed it was--gasp--performance based. Face it, you're not the star you thought you were or you'd still be at the firm. Only about 10-25% of BigLaw attorneys have been laid off. If your firm thought you were as great as you seem to think you are, then you would still be at the firm.
Quit acting like victims. Take charge of your own careers. Do everything it takes to master your practice area, attract clients and be the best lawyer possible.
Thanks 99! I have posted numerous times, basically attribute the posts that make sense to me. ;)
From experience with a couple of asshole firms, if you you take medical leave, are pregnant or are a mother, watch your ass. Keep a written log of projects and feedback on the projects. If the question regarding your performance are raised, have your log as a back-up. If you feel that partners are giving work to other associates, because you are pregnant, etc., record this. Sometimes firms try to starve associates they want to get rid of. Finally, if you feel that your termination is imminent and you might get screwed on severance, hire an employment attorney.
If you are the victim of a stealth layoff, (i.e. performance rather than economic based reason) ask for your reviews during your termination meeting and do not sign anything until you have time to review it. At this time, I would encourage all associates to document their performance on projects to refute a bad performance review. If you have to sign an agreement upon your termination, you should try to negotiate the official reason for your termination. You are better off with a "layoff" excuse than a performance based reason. It might be worth retaining an employment attorney to negotiate the reason for your termination and to secure favorable letters of recommendation.
No, I am not an employment lawyer, I have just met too many assholes. I am now a solo practitioner and thankfully like myself.
100, STFU. The notion that someone has complete control over their career at a Big Law if ridiculous. Do you represent real estate developers, REITs, TICs, estate planning clients decimated by the Madoff fund, practice in the structured financial products area, etc.? Do you have a crystal ball?
Let me guess, you are a generic commercial litigator and your practice area hasn't been directly affected by the economy because you wear so many hats. (No offense to commercial litigators).
To answer your question, PH should have nutted up and told her that they did not have enough billable work for her, rather than attack her performance. I refuse to believe that her performance would have taken a dive over a year, unless, of course, she was distracted by a difficult pregnancy.
I hope that what is taken from this story is how law firms should treat laid off associates (not touching the pregnancy issue).
Shinyung is a martyr. Hopefully her story has scared firms enough so the know that they need to treat laid off employees in a respectful manner. I am sure it has not helped her career, but hopefully firms have heard this story and have laid off associates in a dignified manner.
103 - wake up. Firms don't give a shit about Shinyung Oh's story. Not a bit. The fact that she labors under the delusion that PH (or any other) partners troll the comments of her blog would be really laughable if it weren't so damned sad. Her story didn't "scare" any firms into doing anything different, nor should it. There's no real downside for them, other than breeding ill-will among people who aren't on their payroll anymore. There are some really nice people in Biglaw partnerships. There are also a lot of insane assholes who would slit their mothers' throats for an extra nickel. Sadly, the latter tend to be the majority. Do you really think they give a flying fuck about how they're perceived? Hint: they don't. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, they will still have plenty of people lined up to take whatever shit is necessary to stay employed/become employed and continue the income stream.
Life as a biglaw attorney is a shit sandwich; at most firms, it's always lunchtime.
here, here #102!
in these times, i'm not sure how bad the stigma of being the subject of a "stealth lay-off" is. let's face it, there's a thousand of "us" that got laid off in the past few months, hundreds in the month of March alone (on a related sidenote, i love it how the snobbery of the elite schools against second tier schools translates into the snobbery amongst biglaw associates that have hung onto the jobs and those who haven't--is there any solidarity anywhere?). so i would hope that if you get laid off, this event would not tarnish your legal career as much as people fear it would. there's always a bottom tier of billers at any firm, and during economic downturns, it's those people the firm will look to cut first to keep their revenues as high as possible.
which brings me to my main point--people like #100 should be knocked off their righteous podiums. just because you haven't gotten your pink slip doesn't mean you're not quivering in your boots or immune to the stealth lay off too. it's people like you that would judge your own peers for being laid off and actually make people like Oh into public heroes. the fact is, it's us against them. partners v. associates. always has, always will be. so, please, show some sympathy to the your fellow biglaw associates. get some people skills, man. just because they didn't make the hours you did doesn't mean you're better. it just means you worked more (which might account for your lack of people skills). and since when does that make you a cool guy?
btw--thanks for the worthless advice. for the vast majority of associates, they are far too junior to have "mastered" anything (except maybe doc review or writing a memorandum about blahblahblah), let alone secure their own clients.
if you are a senior associate and have reached your eighth year, in a normal economy the firm would have kept you on, but now they are telling you that you don't have a future and you need to leave within a certain period of time. is this a layoff? the firm would argue it's just part of the normal "up or out" process that exists in any economy. how would this scenario be perceived by other firms when you look for a new job?
Why is it that if any "minority" other than a white/Asian woman claims discrimination, their claims are summarily dismissed, regardless of circumstance; but this woman of questionable literacy can protest her firing by sending an email centered around her uterine scraping and create an entire blog devoted to the perfidy of her firm, and she has complete credibility to most of the posters on this board?
Forget about associates not bringing in work. Any PH associates brave enough to start the list of "virgin" PH partners who have never brought in work?
It seems like all of the Paul Hastings partners have mobbed the comments for this article. D-bags: it's too late for damage control. I'm a HLS 1L with a firm job this summer, and I will never work for Paul Hastings. I imagine many others feel similarly.
107 -- questionable literacy? Yeah right. Oh, and by the way, you hired her and employed her for years.
I am sorry, I don't get it. Why is Paul Hastings the horrible employer in all of this? Ms. Oh was a seventh year associate with (presumably) no business. During her time at Paul Hastings she probably made over $1.5 million. Where are her clients? Where is her right to be employed for life?
If she had great reviews (which we only know about from her self-serving letter) all throughout her career, but then the last six months, her hours sucked, her work sucked and she was an all around B...!ch, then what do we have? A seventh year with no clients, low billable hours and declining work product, where is her right to employment for life again?
It sucks that she had a miscarriage. Should that insulate her from law firm realities? I have been laid off before, and I have quit several jobs for other opportunities. I have learned that burning bridges is not the best way to go in the long run.
Does Ms. Oh have another prestigious position with a top law firm (and get off the Paul Hastings TTT bit - they are top 50 easy and that beats the crap out of the vast majority of law firms out there) or is she still on her rant?
I predict that Ms. Oh will never have a real job again. She will possibly be a poster child for some group or media outlet, but she will never be a real lawyer ever again. Great job Ms. Oh, you have destroyed your own legal career. Paul Hastings only laid you off. There is life, and jobs, after being laid off. If you don't burn your bridges. Ms. Oh is the Queen of burnt bridges.
111, is the king of being a Paul Hastings brown noser. Get back to work, sir. You don't want to be next on the PH chopping block.
107 -- questionable literacy? Yeah right. Oh, and by the way, you hired her and employed her for years.
__________________________________________
Sweetie, not everyday who isn't weeping and gnashing their teeth over this woman's "plight" is a Paul Hastings partner--stop being an idiot.
And, yeah--questionable literacy. Go to her blog. She get's applauded for poorly written garbage that would have a lynch mob forming for Elie here. Learn to read.
111:
110 here. I don't work for Paul Hastings. I wish I did.
Think about it for a second. If Ms. Oh was oh so wonderful, had clients, produced great work product, was a great all around person, helped out on the weekends and pulled all nighters, do you really think she would have been laid off? Do You???
I have worked with, what I presume to be, her type. They work when they want to, they get "their" hours most of the time, but when the going gets tough, they have to go home!
How many other worthy (presuming that Ms. Oh is worthy) lawyers have been laid off in the last year? Some of them have gotten jobs. I know of one laid off attorney who, as a response to being laid off, took a client and became a lateral hire - as a partner at their new firm! Now that is they way to go out in a ball of glory! Not the way Ms. Oh did, crying about her miscarriage and ranting on how unfair everything is as to her own situation. I am truly sorry about the miscarriage, it is a terrible thing to have gone through. My mother had two of them after I was born and she was very sad about it. She did not have a fat law job ripped out from under her, but I can assure you, that if she had, she would not have written a soppy letter decrying how unfair it all was. She would have found a way to make them pay, and further her legal career. Something Ms. Oh has failed to do in spades!
Reality sucks, deal with it in a way that does not ruin your own career. Ms. Oh ruined her career. Paul Hastings just laid her off.
Anyone in big, middle or even small law would be crazy to hire Ms. Oh. She is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and not in a good way. Anyone who would even consider hiring her should have their head examined and should hire one of the thousands of lawyers who have been laid off, but who had enough sense to preserve their own career potential.