Lawyer of the Day: Former Pillsbury Associate Doesn’t Know His Place
In these tough economic times, I’m sure many people have been tempted to sightly exaggerate their credentials, experience, and competence.
But you shouldn’t lie exaggerate to clients. At least not if you want to be a member of the bar in good standing. The National Law Journal reports that a former Pillsbury associate is getting his law license pulled for 60 days:
A former Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman associate who told clients that he was senior counsel at the law firm will have his license pulled for 60 days.A District of Columbia attorney disciplinary committee has recommended that Garland H. Stillwell hand over his license for misrepresenting his employment status at the Washington firm.
But there were other aggravating circumstances to Stillwell’s case:
The committee also found that Stillwell charged personal expenses to Pillsbury Winthrop’s pro bono accounts and represented a client in a matter that created a potential conflict of interest within the firm without disclosing it or seeking a waiver.
Stillwell is not at Pillsbury anymore. That’s hardly surprising.
But he is still employed at a law firm. Let’s check-in after the jump.
The NLJ reports where Stillwell currently draws a paycheck:
Stillwell did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. He is listed as an associate on the Web site of O’Malley, Miles, Nylen & Gilmore in Calverton, Md.
On the O’Malley website, Stillwell is listed under the Administrative Law Practice Group. Stillwell’s bio is sparse on interesting details, but we learn that he graduated from Howard in 1985, received a J.D. from Boston College Law School in 1988.
A guy who graduated from law school 21 years ago? Maybe Stillwell thought he should be a senior counsel?
Obviously, we don’t have all the details on this situation. At some level, given Stillwell’s transgressions, his punishment seems light.
We reached out to O’Malley’s managing director, John P. Davey. He has not responded to our requests for comment.
In the meantime, remember that exaggerating aspects about your personality is one thing, but when it comes to the resume you should probably stick to the facts.
60-Day Suspension for Associate Who Inflated His Job Title [National Law Journal]
(78) 
Comments
Firsty
First! Biatches!
2, not first
-1
Mystal has been lactating since puberty.
There's no such place as "Boston College of Law"
OMNG! WTF!
SMU's Waco campus is releasing its recent results.
I think knowingly charging personal expenses should be enough to be disbarred. This guy shouldn't be a lawyer. I wonder whether he told his new firm he was being reviewed?
MysTTTal
I heard about this weeks ago while riding on the Acela.
He should have been praised and/or promoted for actively recruiting business, conflicts be damned.
This guy is a prime expample of why expanding the use of screens to cure imputed disqualifications is BS.
As a gesture of goodwill, I am sending Elie a breast pump.
who cares. (1) being "senior counsel" makes your clients feel better about paying your firm money; (2) expensing out of the pro bono accounts is simply harvesting some of the extra cash generated from the senior counsel designation; (3) conflicts schmonflicts, why be diligent about giving business to your competition.
Comment removed by moderator.
hey 15, wow you is so controversial!!!
associates age 65+ = senior associates?
The Mud People shall have their revenge!
5 - there is a Boston College Law School http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/home.html
5 - there is a Boston College Law School http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/home.html
Isn't counsel just another word for attorney? I refer to associates on the other side as "opposing counsel" or "X's counsel" all the time.
It sounds like this guy was trying to find a respectable way to describe the fact that he was a 20th year associate. He obviously went over the line, but it doesn't sound like it was malicious.
His firm bio says he is "President-elect, Prince George’s County Bar Association"
Now that's even more interesting than anything in this article
"BITCH SPREAD DA BUTTCHEEKS SO I CAN SMELL THE JUICY INSIDES"
-Overheard on the Acela
A 21-year associate? What kind of non-peer firm hangs on to these types of underachieving relics?
If it's true that he's a 21 year associate, I'd say he qualifies well for a senior counsel position.
Fudging on expenses is not uncommon to peer firms, including partners. Only trouble is that he got caught and others haven't.
I'd be interested in what the conflict was, and what the scope of his representation was. Was this a case where he gave a friend or family member some advice about a lawsuit or contract, when unbeknownst to him the other party was a firm client?
i feel like there's always some danger when you deal with conflict checks. Big firms have thousands of clients operating under several different names and through various subsidiaries. It sound like this guy was negligent about the conflicts check, not like he was trying to get around it.
19/20 - oh wow really?
19 - "there is a Boston College Law School"
Yes, we know, but the attorney's profile on the O'Malley website lists: "Boston College of Law"
I will pork your arse!!!!!
I bet this doofus also used the title "Esquire" on correspondence, which should, alone, result in disbarment for extreme douchebaggery.
Um, a Pillsbury press release describes him as a senior attorney. Maybe he was demoted since then? See:
http://www.pillsburylaw.com/index.cfm?pageid=19&itemid=4931
Is senior attorney even an official designation, or just, as others have commented, the fact that 21 years in practice makes you senior time-wise to most others practicing law? That seriously cannot have been a major part of why he was disciplined, thus making the title for this story on ATL rather misleading.
25,
Fudging on expenses is both wrong and incredibly cheap. Anyone who trys to steal an extra $200 bucks from a client or their firm is an unethical idiot. The rest of the charges don't strike me as being that bad, but fudging expenses warrants the suspension hands down.
Don't steal form clients or your firm. That's not a hard rule to follow.
Garland H. Stillwell, a senior land use attorney in Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP's Washington, DC, office, will serve as secretary of the Prince George's County Bar Association in Maryland. He was elected in June 2006 and will serve the 2006-2007 term.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Another Alcee Hastings in training.
So Pillsbury calls him "senior attorney" and the guy refers to himself as "senior counsel". What is the big fucking deal? Anything outside of "partner" or "associate" (except maybe "non-equity partner" and "contract attorney") is a made-up term meaning whatevs to the person using it. Senior Counsel, Of Counsel, Counsel. The only official meaning is "not a partner in the firm". The rest is bullshit titles and I don't see why the guy's violations included saying "senior counsel" instead of "senior attorney".
ASSOCIATES LIE
THE HAMMER FALLS
QUINN REMAINS
Pillsbury has associates, senior associates, counsel senior counsel, and partners. Senior counsel is (as far as I know) reserved for former partners who continue on with the firm in some capacity. Stillwell was no senior counsel.
is it just me or has abovethelaw become really boring? it was exciting with the salary raises a few years ago, and then useful to see if your firm was next for layoffs - but the demise of biglaw is the demise of this site too
More interesting dumb lawyers:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4247723
Lawyer of the day: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/lawyer-charged-with-billing-during-sex.html
Maybe Elie should focus more on reporting news, rather than pursuing these tawdry vendettas against people by notifying their current employers of their past transgressions. It may not be libeolous, but it's trashy and unnecessary.
Kimm Alayne Walton, J.D., the so called "Job Goddess," author of several books on getting attorney jobs, including "Guerrilla Tactics for Getting the Law Job of Your Dreams," tells her readers in the Guerrilla tactics book to list on your resume that you were an "Associate" when in fact you were a "Staff Attorney." Is that any different than this situation?
41,
I agree. Let the new firm do its own due diligence and either find it or not (and no reason to assume the attorney wasn't upfront with the new employer from the beginning).
Why does ATL need to contribute to this guy's misery by informing his new employer?
The state bar already chose the appropriate level of punishment. ATL piling it on is trashy.
-Frequent ATL reader
So, this guy said I am a "Senior Counsel". Who cares? 60 days for that sounds pretty petty.
40, You fail to mention the client is named "Ms. Anal Sheikh" which makes the article so much better.
This would never happen to Louis Zaccareli, Esq!
I agree. The state bar already chose this guy's appropriate punishment.
If his new firm didn't do its due diligence and didn't know, then ATL has really screwed this guy (but maybe he deserved it some for not being up front).
If the guy was upfront with his new firm, then all this additional publicity is going to subject the decision to hire him to add'l scrutiny in the firm and thereby still harm this person.
So, why does ATL need to do that?
This comment is addressed to post no. 42.
Ms. Walton's suggestion is an ill advised one. While an associate and staff attorney are in the same genus as a monkey, they are two different types of monkeys. The former tends to be a more accomplished monkey on paper whereas the latter is lacking certain criteria. So yes, it is a material misrepresenation.
Dear bedwetters,
this was publicized BEFORE it ever showed up here, I saw it on the Legal Profession Blog days ago.
The "senior counsel" thing is nothing. They should not have wasted their time pursuing such a charge.
The billing of personal expenses is the problem, and a very serious violation.
49,
So, Legal Profession Blog did something despicable, therefore nobody should suggest ATL abstain from doing the same despicable thing?
"So and so did it first" is not the most persuasive argument I've ever heard for the moral acceptability of a course of action.
How does one "hand over" his law license? Anybody else here bewildered by the fact that the NLJ would use such a phrase? It's not like a little card you get from the DMV.
How is this newsworthy? Aren't there a glut of these sanctions published every week in the appropriate bar publication/lawyer's weekly?
FAT CLAMS!!!!!!!
"Sightly" =/= "Slightly"
Good job MysTTTal. You're making my life terrible/awesome.
Carlos Spinelli had to give up his license to bill altogether for traveling in coach and expensing business, and meanwhile this clown is going to be bar association president? Curious. I guess Garland was just entitled to some walk around money.
ATL, you should never have called his law firm and then publicized this story like you did. He was punished by the state bar for 60 days. The punishment fit the crime. He doesn't deserve national publicity, let alone be called out like that to his employer. It's not like he went public with who he was going to fire ahead of time, or made arbitrary layoff decisions that affected large numbers of jobs and families. Those are fair game. This is not. What, are you now acting like the kid who always sat in front of the class with his hand permanently in the air, calling out any transgressions among peers, only (which I expect shortly) to get all snarky and self-righteous about calling out the transgressions?
You should take a long look in the mirror, because you are a straight up d-ck. Very disappointing.
"In these tough economic times, I'm sure many people have been tempted to SIGHTLY exaggerate their credentials, experience, and competence."
SIGHTLY???
What are you credentials MysTTTal????
56,
Just to let you know, I was voted biggest gunner in my law school and I am commenter 47 and 50.
Gunner does not equal tattle-tale.
Seems like all kinds agree that this was a bullshit move by ATL.
this site sucks. i hate that every day we now have a post designed to ruin someone's life. Lat, you need to get on this, or the site's toast.
No more posts seeking to trash associates.
What ever happened to the ATL position that partners are public persons and associates are not?
Do we really want ATL to be a place where we're calling out any embarrassing/personal information we can get our hands on that happens to be in the public sphere (bar punishments, what people paid for their houses, etc. etc. etc.)?
Doing this is clearly legal. Is it something ATL should feel good about? Is it something that ATL thinks will increase readership? Why is ATL engaging in this behavior so regularly now?
In fairness to Elie, this disciplinary case was also written about in the "National Law Journal", which is a pretty widespread publication.
It's all a big mistake. He was telling his Mexican clients that he was "Señor Counsel"
57 - I think we know said credentials do not include "member of the bar" in NY or NJ...
61,
Others behaving despicably does not justify ATL behaving despicably.
Besides, your point may be true about this particular instance of "ATL Hitman", but posts like this have become a regular fixture of this sight lately.
Even if this instance is less egregious than the others (which premise I acknowledge but disagree with), the fact of the matter is that posts of this nature have recently become regular practice around ATL and should stop altogether.
His bar association punished him as they should have. There is no reason for ATL to pile on.
It is shameful behavior, and ATL need not engage in it.
What does one do when suspended from the practice of law for 60 days? Collect unemployment?
Why is this article shameful? This is a PUBLIC matter. No one actually reads the dc bar reports but they read ATL. Forget the stupid name issue - read the DC Bartreport. This lawyer enagaged in some very shady dealings. If more folks know what he did that is BETTER for the public. He shouls get an opportunity to respond but he did some unethical things (that he admits to doing!.) I would NEVER hire him. The public should be informed for this.
So it was published. So someone else did it first. I hope that's not the standard by which anyone lives their lives. "In defense of Elie", 61? What-TF-ever.
Elie abused power in a way that just might have ruined multiple lives. I hope this guy doesn't have kids that he has to feed now that his boss has been called. I also hope that ATL thinks through their editorial policies, and never does something like this to a non-public associate again.
62 = best. comment. ever. ever.
62 = winnAr!
68=62
62 should replace Elie immediately.
I'm not surprised by this at all. I couldn't stand the man when I worked there with him.
I'm not surprised by this at all. I couldn't stand the man when I worked there with him.
the Legal Profession Blog did not mention him by name, but included a link to the decision.
Sorry, but this is a published opinion and a newsworthy item. I can't see how it is "despicable" to write a link about the guy's case.
62 wins.
MysTTTal
methinks mysTTTal wants to ruin the life of someone who isnt as right wing as that other guy to seem "fair"
Wow.
So, an associate lies about his position and faces disciplinary action by the bar; but, law firms lie about their reasons for dismissing hundreds/thousands of associates for "performance" and do not face any action by the bar. Nice to see that justice is evenhanded, with the backhand going to associates.