A. She'll never comment to ATL if she's suiing.
B. I wonder what type of claim she'll file, indeed...

Who's her attorney?

Yawn. This is news?

Comment removed by moderator.

I was fired once for refusing to build an Orc Burrow.

Zug Zug

Tehran burns as ATL festers in trivia.

This is what she gets for not following the company line. . . .I have no sympathy.

SHE doesn't see it as insubordination? clearly, she's the most reliable source on this.

Wait a minute ... I was asleep the day they taught employment law in law school. The firm needs a reason to fire her?

7, go read CNN.com if you'd like geopolitical news.

She is right. Not being a stepford secretary makes her insubordinate.

I thought that the purpose of email was to let everyone know what you are thinking. Otherwise, how will they know?

At will employee=who cares

If she has a lawyer he should be disbarred for accepting any fees from her since she has absolutely no case of any kind.

Her attorney is probably considering filing an unfair labor practice with the NLRB, as the company might have violated her Section 7 rights under the NLRA...as she engaged in concerted activity--discussing working conditions with other employees through the company's email system.

I'll bet anything that if the secretary actually LOOKED like a Stepford wife she would not have been fired.

Another day, another poor ovis aries defiled by Elie. Poor, poor quadrupeds. Who will hear you cry?

Getting ass pounded builds CHARACTER.

I guess I have a lot of character then.

Evan Chesler

No self-respecting attorney would take this case on contingency. Yet, with Obama's economy claiming victims everyday in the legal profession, I surmise the Steford secretary's attorney is an unemployed peon who has no malpractice insurance and thinks he will be the next "rainmaker." The woman was fired for cause. Her email violated established firm policies and sought to undermine the morale of the firm's employees. Unfortunately Obama's economy will spawn many baseless lawsuits from unemployed curs looking for an easy payday or settlement.

I am pounding PE in his ass while he types.

Texas Honeymoon

15-

I would hardly call that diatribe/nonsense as discussing benefits with the employer.

16 - If she looked like a Stepford wife, she would not have been complaining about "character" in the first place. Character and personality are for ugly people. Sorry.

I agree (for once) with PE -- no self-respecting lawyer would take this on contigency.

Bingham McCuTTTchen.

Seriously though, if Bigham doesnt treat its staff with its slightest respect or to respect each staff's thoughts about the firm's progress, how good is the firm? Talk about political ladder, please . . . Just because the staff member doesnt carry a ESQ initial at the end of her signature doesnt mean she doesnt deserve a voice.

15 here. 21 said, "I would hardly call that diatribe/nonsense as discussing benefits with the employer. "

I would argue she is advocating with and for other employees and the working conditions at the firm, not benefits. Just a guess on my part.

PE- I see that finals are over for you. How do you think you did on Con Law?

Two Words: Promissory Estoppel.

--King of TTT

15-
21 here. . . her odds or winning are . . . . .

15 again.

How busy is that regional office of the NLRB? If that region is sitting on its hands with no work, it would be more prone to investigate, whether or not the case has merit. Hiring counsel to represent the firm during the investigation would probably create the most cost. It seems like the firm would get a slap on the wrist from the Board...requiring some type of notice posting. Once again, just my guess.

Jeff Goldblum once tried training with a T. Rex, but he ended up with a broken leg and had to sift through a steaming pile of dinosaur shit.

Her atty prob is busy preparing a settlement demand.

This would NEVER happen at Paul Hastings.

Re: 6,

Not a single remark about the new WoW schtick? I'm incredulous. Whoever you are, please schtick around, as I would much rather read you than PE.

Signed,

not 6

30,

Clearly, the Stepford Secretary is not a Clever Girl.

30, 34: Damn it. Even Nedry knew better than to mess with the raptor fences.
--Elie

Where are pics of said Stepford Secretary?

-Pics or Ban

Look at it this way: crazy client + desperate lawyer = the best show in town. Lets all sit back and enjoy the circus. This "attorney" lacks ethics and i bet you is on the very bottom of the pyramid. She is a crazy, delusional and desperate. They are the perfect match. I guess instead of chasing ambulances he is chasing crazy secretaries!

Dodgson! We've Got Dodgson Here!

--34

Louis Ziccareli would take the case!

I guess it's crazy plaintiff day on ATL.

There are some posters here that are fundamentally confused about what "self-respecting" lawyers are engaged to do. A client comes to a lawyer with a legal problem, real or imagined. The lawyer's initial task is to a) investigate the preliminary facts, and b) evaluate the legal consequences of those facts and render an opinion to the client on their options. As far as I can tell, that's all this attorney is doing so far. This is actually called practicing law.

Now, if her attorney files suit with no legal basis to do so, then, by all means, fire away.

I personally have no idea if her claim has merit.

Isn't being a dumb bitch just cause for termination?

Jeff Goldblum's character didn't sift through a steaming pile of dino dung in either of the Jurassic Park movies he was in.

41,

Fair enough. But let's take a look at another lawyer who tried to render an opinion to his client. Who might I be referring to, you might ask? That's right, Donald Gennaro. Of "bloodsucking lawyer" fame. He went to Isla Nublar to render an opinion as to the viability of Jurassic Park as an attraction to the wealthy (with a coupon day for the unwashed masses), and look where it got him. Split in two with the upper half being digested in the esophageal gases of a T. Rex.

The moral of the story: practicing law can be deadly.

Do you really think Gennaro was digested in the T Rex's esophagus?? I would have bet on the stomach (with a little help from the intestines).

"Oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'city fathers' who cluck their tounges, stroke their beards, and talk about WHAT'S TO BE DONE WITH THIS STEPFORD SECRETARY???"

41 - nice try. Problem is, the vast majority of people posting on this board have no idea about the practice of law, as they are either law students or doc review bots.

46- good 'Simpsons' reference.

47, majority? You are such a dumb-ass.

If the blog is filled with law students or doc review idiots as you say, how do you explain all the insider tips at BIGLAW throughout the year? Oh, that's right, they fall from the sky. If you are proclaiming to be a crowned prince in the practice of law, then you need to do some self-assessment.

43 is a stupid liar.

This is truly unbelievable! So, when rainmaking partners verbally abuse associates as well as staff members, most law firms simply look in the other direction because, let's face it, money is the only currency that talks in these places. But no, that type of pervasive and disgusting behavior by partners does not undermine the morale of the firm and its employees? C'mon, let's get real here!

When a harmless secretary though sends an email expressing innocuous thoughts, she is terminated. I guarantee that if this secretary or an associate at the same firm had a problem with an abusive but powerful superior and had complained about it directly to the firm's human resource department, nothing substantial would have been done. That abusive superior would still have their job and/or equity. In fact, it is most likely the case that the "complainer" would be the one with the negative mark placed on them for simply trying to address unprofessional practices within the workplace.

It is a sad case that more often than not, law firms put up with the vile antics of their rainmaking partners due to the simple fact that they have clients and bring in revenue. Pursuing profit can coexist with a humane, nonthreatening professional culture. As long as law firms allow business generators to get away with horrible behavior, these incidents by employess will continue to occur because employees do not feel as though have any other legitimate insitutional outlet to express their grievances. It is truly a double standard. Associates and staff are powerless in the face of this abuse and the tables really need to turn. It is just simply unacceptable not matter which way you cut it!

I agree completely with 51, its the same way in my profession, pro football.

I can't believe the Patriots organization let this idiot Bill Belichick say some of the things he says to us...he treats us like crap in our mini-camp, swears at us and constantly browbeats our commitment to the playbook and our workouts. Who the heck is he to tell us what to do?

One of my fellow undrafted rookie free agents made the "mistake" of e-mailing the entire organization about his dissatisfaction with the way the franchise was being run....I can't blame him, what other outlet did he have?

Can you believe that Bob Kraft and idiot Belichick conspired to cut him from the team? Ridiculous. This guy was an integral part of the program, considering he was a 5'10, 175 lb punter out of Jackbat State University vying for third string. Its sad that the Patriots treated him the way they did....he and the Stepford Secretary should meet each other and share litigation strategies.

52, you are so clever (typical asshole lawyer response)..

41, well said.

I'm not an employment lawyer nor do I know the law in the relevant jurisdiction. That said, two things come to mind:

1. Does she have a mental illness or was she suffering from e.g. a pattern of depression, such that state laws or the ADA might provide her with protection - and if so was the employer aware of this?

2. If the employer is claiming cause (i.e. if that matters in terms of the employment contract or state law), is there a history of e.g. other people violating the firm's e-mail policy in similar ways not being disciplined or if they were disciplined not being terminated (by analogy to cases where an employer has generally ignored its own rules, it could not then rely on them for cause when it singled out an employee it wanted to get rid of).

I have no idea whether there's merit in either of those points in this specific instance (and jurisdiction), but it's enough that I'd be obligated to do some research before calling her claim unmeritorious. Some people on here who claim to be legally knowledgeable are obviously not, and also obviously need some more education in professional responsibility and ethics.

And you are pathetic. The Stepford Secretary would have been canned in any other industry, what is it about law that makes people think they are special? They aren't. In NO other organization would what she did be tolerated, or what fucking "Eekboy" wrote.

But you're right, that was probably the most clever thing ever said about this moron.

54: you should have stopped writing right after " I'm not an employment lawyer nor do I know the law in the relevant jurisdiction." Or before. Either way.

54 again, 55 seems to have issues.

I'm a lawyer and so I think like a lawyer, unlike you. There may or may not be merit in any potential claim she might pursue.

The point is it's stupid (and if you were advising someone like her, unprofessional, unethical and negligent at best) to assume she has no possible claim just because you don't like what she did.

57 - if you're a lawyer, would you ever tell a client "I'm not a XXX lawyer nor do I know the law in the relevant jurisdiction"? If so, you're an idiot. If not, why should anyone else care about your opinion? Talk about thinking like a lawyer.

who's eekboy? honest question.

56 - 54/57 again.

(Very) mildly amusing post by you, much better than 55.

I checked the original story and since she was employed in New York, legally speaking I DO know the law in the relevant jurisdiction. Factually speaking, when it comes to employment law, not so much. My semi-ignorant statements are still a lot more valuable than most comments...[grin]

I do find it interesting that having opined as to two possible legal bases for a claim, the responents are unable to respond with counterarguments of any greater sophistication than "sez you".

I'd be happy for someone to post as to why I'm wrong and New York law offers no protection or the ADA doesn't apply or if it does apply it doesn't cover this situation for whatever reason, because then I would actually learn something potentially legally useful. No CLE credit, but learning notnetheless.

58 - 54/57/60 again. Part of being a lawyer is ethical practice. I know my writing and reasoning is so phenomentally persuasive that I have to alert readers that I may not be legally qualified to give advice regarding certain matters...

If someone comes to me and says "Give me your opinion on my civil law claim under French law regarding an admiralty law claim regarding the loss of my ship in the territorial waters of St. Pierre & Miquelon", my likely response would include some or all of the information:

1. I'm not a French lawyer;

2. I'm a common-law, not a civil-law lawyer;

3. I'm not an admiralty lawyer.

For me to not impart that information and to presume to give a client or potential client legal advice in a situation like that would be unethical, unprofessional, negligent, etc.

If for business or interest reasons I wanted to retain/obtain the client, then I would discuss e.g. getting my opinion vetted by a qualified lawyer, contacting lawyers in e.g. Maine who might be able to put me in touch with an avocat on St. Pierre or Miquelon he or she had dealt with, but otherwise, I'd bid the person "au revoir".

NEVER HIRE LEGAL SECRETARIES!!!

Just recruit a bunch of eager, pre-law undergraduates as interns, give them some fancy title, and delegate secretary work for them.

As for pay, say that it's a non-paying internship. However, they will get a lot of "work experience."

What surprises me even more is why ATL has not picked up on the major Bingham departures last week. The long-time core of Bingham's Boston finance practice, including Jon Bernstein, Bob Barry, Sula Fiszman, Sandra Vrejan and Matt Furlong, have bolted to Morgan Lewis. Word is that they couldn't take the Jay Zimmerman dictatorship any more. This is a major major blow, not just financially but to morale, given that they were all Bingham lifers (until now).

63 you're right, I just checked Bingham's website and they are all gone. As to ATL not picking up on it, Binghamites are so terrorized that JayZ is reading their e-mails and tapping their phones that I am not surprised this news hasn't leaked out yet.

I'd love to know just what exactly was she hoping to accomplish by sending this broadcast e-mail throughout her firm?

It showed poor judgment on her part, unprofessionalism, and that she obviously had WAY TOO MUCH time on her hands.

People like this never cease to amaze me.

This secretary needs to stop obsessing over this situation. She created her own "departure" and she sounds very mentally disturbed. She seems like she needs help but that is not the firm's responsibility or problem to deal with. She was an employee and that was it. Their role is to be her employer not her therapist. There was no reason for them to find out why she felt the need to send out anything (as another stupid poster mentioned). They have to protect themselves because she is obviously a liability to the firm.
As for this attorney- if he is unprofessional enough to take a client whom he knows is not only unstable but has no basis for a lawsuit then he deserves any backlash that comes his way. Like others have said he is most likely not experienced, has no idea what he is getting himself into and must have not paid attention in law school when they discussed ethics. This attorney might just be as ignorant and stupid as the secretary which would explain why he took her case. As for being disbarred- you can't be disbarred just for taking a case that some might view is a case with no basis. If this attorney is dumb enough to think that they have even a slim shot at gaining anything then that just makes him a bottom of the barrel lawyer. While there might not be a legitimate reason for disbarring him (gee i wonder how so many of these idiots even pass the bar) one thing is for sure- his career will end up in the toilet along with the crazy client he is choosing to represent.

No seriously. Laura Dern's character sifted through Dino Droppings in JP I. Goldblum just stood and watched and commented on her pluckiness. In JP II -- no dino poop at all. In JP III, Sam Neill and the two other remaining adult characters sifted through poop looking for the phone. Mr. Goldblum's hands remained clean in his two movies.

63 - you're right. Scour the legal announcements and you see that other partners with robust books of business have recently bolted in favor of other firms. Seems the snake oil salesman in the Hermes ties and his dictator sidekick, a Westpointer who didn't cut it in the military and thinks a law firm is a better place to impart "the life," are really bringing out the best in people these days. You bet your booties the firm is scouring people's email accounts. Just wait until the economy rebounds -- can you say full scale bolting? If anyone is left, that is. Bingham had more layoffs last week that also managed to stay under the radar -- again.

51 - you nailed it, buddy. Between a parochial management team and partners who think little about destroying the financial lives of its employees and their families in lieu of paying clients is an acceptable way of generating the immediate revenue required to maintain their profit margins and their lifestyle.......says it all right there. Bingham obviously isn't the only one but in the same week that the firm was laying off a slew of people, they were buying expensive bottles of port, in my office and no doubt others, for a round-the-country meeting featuring, you guess it, JayZ.. How many layoffs did it take to fund that little party, all the while preaching the "we are doing this in the best interest of the firm" gospel? I was one of those lawyers and saw the string of emails laying around. In my house, you don't drink expensive booze if you can't afford to pay the bills.

To everyone else who commented about Stepford's case (or non-case), touche. With so many people worrying about and trying hard to keep their jobs through this economy, if the dumb ass didn't have the good sense to know when to keep her mouth shut, she deserves what she got. I would have fired her -- on the spot -- for using my equipment to preach her rambling shit.

C'mon -- all you employment lawyers out there know exactly what is going to happen. She has hired some lowlife plaintiff's lawyer, she will claim she was fired on account of her race, gender and/or age -- maybe even the whole enchilada -- a demand letter will follow, he'll get some nuisance money and she'll think she's won an epic battle to defend her civil rights. Happens all the time.

@ 54 - Nice try on raising the tone. Appreciated even if doomed to failure.

24 hit the nail on the head. bottom line: as long as you don't have an "ESQ" at the end of your name, in BigLaw, you don't count! support staff are just pawns to them. in this recession, whatever cuts they need to make, starts at the bottom - always.