He hate me.

I love the "dawned on me tonight." So visually conflicting.

"There is no written policy regarding NOT being able to send mass internal emails. It says to use discretion "

Irony much? That is the whole point. She didn't use any discretion (as if they needed a reason to fire her in the first place) Who is the idiot attorney that's accepting this case?

within should be one word, jeez

You go sister. Go get em.

- Laid-off (former) Bingham Associate

Be it known ---- we are all munch heads

MOAR BAREBACK

A perfect illustration of why this country needs tort reform.

She's going to sue, and probably weasel some money out of Bingham--when she's the idiot who should have easily been able to predict the consequences of hitting the send button.

Absurd.

So she has been a legal secretary since she was 17, but apparently has never heard of the concept of employment at will. She's not union. The firm can decide she abused her discretion in sending out the email and fire her. The firm can decide it didn't like the way she wrote and fire her. The firm can decide any number of things and fire her. If she was truly unaware that sending out a mass email complaining about the decline of character might be an issue, she lacks judgment. Not surprised the firm fired her.

thank god this woman was fired. Mental stability is not her strong suit.

what career?

What a bunch of munch heads!!!

so she's resorting to blackmail?

why are you all such horrible people?

This is a munch head:

http://tinyurl.com/njtpgq

I found her email easier on the eyes than the quinn associate email...

And, for any summers who are reading this, never, ever, EVER send an email out to the Firm. At least until you've made partner. As you can tell by these posts, we're all a bunch of vindictive assholes, and we will strike anyone that draws attention to themselves.

Mystal wrote this.

discretion? she fails to mention that she sent that mass e-mail to all Bingham offices...TWICE, not once, but TWICE within 10 minutes.

@10. Anyone who has actually had a legal secretary for 17 years knows the following: they know where the firm's bodies are buried. She will be able to point to a number of cases worse than her own where the "offender" was not fired or even disciplined. "Employment at will" is a great doctrine, but it can be vitiated by the practicalities of the situation, not to mention sex and age discrimination possibilities.

She has an interesting and somewhat disturbing insight on all this -- she wasn't fired because of the email, she was fired because the email got on ATL. I'm not saying the blog shouldn't run the story, but if they had done so without naming the firm that woman might still have a job today. Worth thinking about.

I found her email easier on the eyes than the quinn associate email...

And, for any summers who are reading this, never, ever, EVER send an email out to the Firm. At least until you've made partner. As you can tell by these posts, we're all a bunch of vindictive assholes, and we will strike anyone that draws attention to themselves.

I believe the "insult" should be that to your "career and reputation," while the "injury" should be your inability to provide for your "family to feed and put a roof over."

But ok, sister. You've got your priorities straight. Go right out there and avenge your "reputation."

@20 twice as in the same email? like ATL's horrible comment engine?

I AM A MUNCH HEAD.

19 is her lawyer.

Forget the CHARACTER email. I'd fire her based solely on her terrible spelling and grammar.

I'm not offended at all by the email-- it's silly, yes, but not a firing offense.

The person that should get canned is whoever posted this on ATL. Just like the quinn associate email-- these are internal, and whoever posted it violated their obligations to the Firm.

BTW, firms are now installing software to trap traffic to ATL, so watch out.

discretion? she fails to mention that she sent that mass e-mail to all Bingham offices...TWICE, not once, but TWICE within 10 minutes.

i'm sure she's reading this right now so i'll save you thousands of dollars in frivolous legal bills (what kind of greedy dipshit lawyer took on this ridiculous case?)..

BARRING DISCRIMINATION, YOU CAN BE FIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE. you look at your boss funny one day, he can put you out on your ass.

That's why I email ATL from my personal account, either after I get home or from my personal iPhone (not my work Blackberry).

I agree with 22, the worst part is this:

"Worse, adding insult to injury I do have a family to feed and put a roof over."

Perhaps she should have thought about that before sending out the e-mail, and I find it a little amusing that she mentions this at the VERY END of her message, you know most people with families that they care about, people that have "character" wouldn't have made this point as a throw-away aside at the end. Blah Blah Blah me me me me me me me me, oh and BTW I have a family that will also be hurt as a result of my poor choices.

@27 Biglaw has been tracking ATL visits for years now. Nothing new there.

And that person will also probably be fired if discovered.

That being said, a firmwide email never remains internal, so that's no protection for her.

And further, whether her email "offended" you or not is not determinative of a firing offense. What's important is whether it hurt the firm--which it did.

9 - Why is this an example for tort reform? If the suit is not meritorious, then Bingham should be able to have it 12(b)(6)'ed for much less than it would cost to settle, or even have it disposed of on summary judgment. Also, her lawyer-friend takes a reputation hit if he's bringing a non-meritorious suit. However, she might have a cognizable claim, and if so, she should be allowed to sue instead of going back one day with a Tommy gun loaded with CHARACTER.

That's the miracle of the law suit. You get all the equipment and know-how you need, plus a familiar brand-name people trust. You'll be on a rocket-ride to the moon! And while you're there, would you pick up some of that nice, green moon money for me --Royce McCutcheon!

An eyeball, big, yellowish, distinctly inhuman, stares raptly between wooden slats, part of a large crate. The eye darts from side to side, alert as hell.

A legend tries to place us - -

ISLA NUBLAR
120 MILES WEST OF COSTA RICA

17 FTW

Colleges are worried about losing their jobs? Man, this economy is worse than I thought.

Mystal, do you want a hot tip in between your moobs?

#30 Nailed It!

29 -- go back to your summer school torts class. there's no way she's paying someone hourly for this.

33 = 1L who does not understand the practice of law.

i'm a little surprised that there is this much of a divide in opinion. ask yourself: is she the type person you would want working for you?

i certainly would not want someone working for me that believes the original email was an acceptable use of firm-wide communication. without her personnel file, i don't know if the email was part of a larger fabric of poor decisions and average ratings. but, i do know that when heads are rolling across the country, attorneys and staff should be conscious of how their words and actions may affect their jobs. her email and follow-up demonstrate she is oblivous to this fact.

and the reason her attorney is transitioning her case to a labor lawyer, is because he has the good sense to not waste his time on this dud.

"i'm a little surprised that there is this much of a divide in opinion."

I don't think there's that much divide, all it takes is one or two friends or family members to post here in support of her, I don't know a single employee/ex-employee of a law firm at any level (associate, secretary, paralegal, partner, etc.) familiar with this story that's remotely sympathetic to her.

We are the cowards hiding behind a blog, and she is the one (with "character," no less) who is pleading with ATL to preserve her anonymity and criticizing us for not standing behind our statements. Makes sense.

@18 - more likely that Mystal proofed this.

#44 - I know who you are. Please prepare for a blumpkin.

My head hurts

19 - She says she has been a legal secretary since she was 17, not that she's been one for 17 years. However I agree that she porbably knows where the bodies are if she's been there for 17 years.

This should be an excellent lesson to all staff and associates at a law firm.
-No matter how "important" you think you are, or how much you think those people value your opinion (likely a dilusion created in your own psyche due to lawyers being respectful and humoring your self-righteous babbling all along) NO ONE CARES ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY! I

If you are a legal secretary, that is all you are...do your job, shut your mouth, and bitch to your girlfriends.

This assistant was surely the biggest HACK at a firm full of HACKS...if you ask me this woman should have been fired long ago for being an indolent waste of money.

I would also venture to guess she is fat...and as you all know we do not allow tubsters here at CP&S

Kudos to Bingham for cutting the fat (figuratively and literally)

-Denny Crane

Anyone know a good secretary? I am looking to hire one. Munch-heads need not apply.

#1 - liberals despise faux liberty.
#17 - Biglaw lawyers have no life and therefore need this type of distraction to make their day.
#28 - and you've never mis-fired an email, ever?
#30 - don't fool yourself into thinking an employer won't come after your personal devices... use your neighbor's!

Big law is taking the downturn to clean up and clean out.. there won't be a vocal or silent minority by the time they are done. Similar to living under an oppressive regime but you get paid big bucks for subjecting yourself to their written and unwritten rules.

signed, already been swept out (and happily re-employed!)

Her hypocrisy regarding anonymity aside, I hope she wrings a big fat settlement out of Bingham. They could have just called her in and asked her not to send mass emails again and that would have been that. Instead they had to be total dicks and in the process get several more ATL columns disparaging them out of it. Well-played, morons.

Comment removed by moderator.

Her hypocrisy regarding anonymity aside, I hope she wrings a big fat settlement out of Bingham. They could have just called her in and asked her not to send mass emails again and that would have been that. Instead they had to be total dicks and in the process get several more ATL columns disparaging them out of it. Well-played, morons.

41 - rising 3L, to be fair.

33

I was one of the very few who originally responded favorably to her firm-wide email. I still think she should not have been fired. I would take her case. She will likely obtain a modest settlement from the firm, which is probably fair under the circumstances. However, if I were she, I would cease communicating with ATL (or anyone else) until she resolves her case.

She's probably a nice person. Her use of caps is infuriating, and technically declasse, but she's not proudly illiterate. However, if she thought it was good idea to publish this statement to the world, she should get new lawyers. And if she plans on continuing to publish prolix admissions and representations of questionable foundation, she better plan on having a very long and embarrasing deposition.

First, in many states, you can't get unemployment comp if you were fired for cause, so that could be a huge deal for her. Second, as someone else noted, she's been a legal secretary for 17 years. This means that she has inputed time entries into a computer system for many years. Only in recent years have secretaries been eliminated from this process. This means she knows up close and personal how much padding of the time sheets takes place, as do all legal secretaries. I had the same secretary for 25 years in a large firm, and I can tell you that they know everything there is to know about the good, the bad, and ugly of law practice. So, partners at shitbird lawfirm, you best watch out.

Her only mistake was a failure to replace the word "CHARACTER" with "ASS LOBSTER".

She knows where the bodies are buried!!! Holy Sheit, someone get a shovel and move them before she leads the proper authorities right to them!!!

With Obama and the unions in firm control, and card check not far off, law firms had best watch out, because the unions have put a bullseye on large law firms. They want to unionize the secretaries and support staff, and with card check, it'll be a piece of cake to do so. Firing a secretary who has been around this long creates huge ill will among the other secretaries. I hate unions, but I can't wait to see law firms unionized, and see the firms get another big kick in the balls.

1. Plaintiff's first settlement demand - $1MM
2. Defendant's first offer - $25,000

2. Plaintiff's second demand $650,000
3. Defendant's second offer $50,000

Plaintiff unloads dirt alert in draft amended complaint and tenders to defendant's counsel

3. Plaintiff's third demand $500,000
4. Defendant's third offer $250,000

Settled for #375,000 - net to defendant - 200,000

Peace. Out.

58 - It's not just the secretaries, but most of the "staff" that so many on this site like to demean, that know the ugly inside scoop that could cause significant trouble to the firms should it "leak out".

And these days, it is sooooo easy to get the press excited about inside scandal. Best watch your asses.

Comment removed by moderator.

This secretary should take her settlement money and buy herself something nice. Like a beautiful dress. One of those sexy backless numbers. She should go bareback more often, is what I'm trying to say.

64 - you aren't being paid by the word. Summarize your post into two words: ASS LOBSTER. That's what Kash would do.

I truly feel badly for this fired secretary and can empathize with her situation based on observations of the many egregious actions taken against employees in BIG LAW that never get publicized. ATL does a great service by exposing these unjust practices! It is obvious from the secretary's email to ATL that she naively thought her remarks would engender constructive dialogue within Bingham. You might laugh but that was likely her thought. Obviously her comments did not go over so well. Despite this fact, no one is examining the real reason why someone who has been a faithful employee at a firm for so many years would feel compelled to address her grievances over a mass email as opposed to speaking to her superiors or human resources about her concerns. Perhaps Bingham like many other firms do not have constructive channels for employees to address their grievances without fear of retribution. Such channels would have served both Bingham and this secretary well as each party would have likely been able to avoid this p.r. debacle and reputational smear. I am sure Bingham does not want to be dealing with this "issue" and I am sure that the secretary would want to have maintained her livelihood.

As we all know, law firms have "policies" but those policies are most always bent to service the needs of the firm, not the associate or the staff member. So if law firm policies are basically just a sham and really do not protect employees in the least manner, how else are employees expected to voice legitimate grievances without being fired or blacklisted?

Many would agree, that law firms and their partners extensively abuse "At Will" employment by concocting blatant lies about associates and staff members to justify firing them. We all know the example of the associate who was told by a partner that they were doing excellent work one week only to be fired the next week because their work is not up to par. Then, once the firing happens, no one stands up for the employee even though the dismissal may be unjustified and based on fictitious grounds. If anyone crosses the party line, they will likely face a similar fate. The fired person is then dumped on the street as in this case or treated like a cancer to avoided while preparing to "move on". We all know this is true and it is happening more and more everyday to smart, talented and hard working people. Because law firm employees know they are "At Will" they live in complete fear of protesting unjust practices or behaviour within the firm. Of course, this keeps the troops in line but it is really an unproductive, inefficient and just plain stupid way to run a business and build morale or commitment.

It is refreshing that this person actually had the balls to criticize her firm and voice her perspective because if she had done this quietly, not one would have listened or cared. It is evident from so many of the comments by attorneys on these boards, that those attorneys do not respect or value the opinions of people who are less educated than they are. Why then could anyone expect many of the people who inhabit and run law firms to have a different attitude and professional outlook.

16: Genius.

"With in" the firm, Mystal?? Is that what college educated people refer to as "within"? Good God man, give it up.

LMAO at #49...this sounded like a case for DC.

62 -- hahaha. get real. in a garden-variety wrongful term matter like this, she'll be lucky to get $20k.

64 - Very well said.

The reality is that genuine channels do NOT exist within law firms for non-partners to deal with grievances in any way.

The HR folks are hamstrung by the arrogance of partners, whose typical response is "We own the place, if they don't like it they can leave." Which is true but oh so foolish.

This economic cycle is forcing the hand of lawfirms to move away from their Dickensian management ways and into a world more closely resembling the reality of the clients they serve.

LMAO at #49...this sounded like a case for DC.

As stupid as this is, I want to comment here that the latest post from Hope Winters is probably the stupidest post EVER on this blog. There is so much quality content, even from niche players like Rozanne and Marin - why waste space and our time with more mindless crap from Hope Winters? I hate her stuff.

there's probably no explicit policy against taking a shit on your desk, but most people "use discretion." this reminds me of george costanza: "was that wrong? should i not have done that? 'cause i tell you, if anyone had warned me that i shouldn't have done that..."

Comment removed by moderator.

20: Well said

The firmwide email, on its own, was probably not really a firing-worthy offense. In a normal economy, it would have probably triggered a warning that this was not great discretion and not to broadcast any more messages. Had the message said something like, "Free Tickets" or "Sponsor My Walk-A-Thon" or "Doughnuts in the Breakroom" would there have been an issue? Most likely not. So this seems like a discretion issue. So I'm thinking there is probably some additional background about what made her on the likely-to-be-let-go list and the email just tipped it over.

I'm disappointed in the ATL commenters' ragging on her skills. I'll agree that the poor writing skills definitely need work, but that alone does not ruin a legal secretary's career. The older ones, especially, don't seem to have entered their jobs at a time when college was mandatory, so for these senior secretaries, there's a tradeoff with experiece, and YES, knowing where the bodies are buried. A little institutional memory goes a long way. Also there can be good working chemistry and loyalty with a long-term mentor attorney who values the secretary's other skills, which are not so easy to hire (especially at the low pay/benefits offered) with someone new, like being great on the phone, getting to work on time and keeping breaks short, being flexible with overtime, doing little favors and errands, knowing the computer/filing system inside out, knowing who to call for favors or help with old systems, getting long documents assembled accurately and fast, never failing at FedEx, having a good sense of timing for interruptions, etc.

I just left NYC biglaw, and I had a less educated secretary, but she had a great handle on these other kinds of soft skills that made her a desirable secretary among the associates. When I left, people fought over my office to get her. I respect what she had to offer, and we worked well together. I learned a lot from her about how the firm functioned, and I feel she did her best work for me because of the mutual respect. Food for thought.

On the off-chance the former Bingham secretary reads this: please do NOT communicate with ATL or anyone/thing else without clearing it with your lawyer first.

I'm a lawyer (not in NY) and I sympathize with this woman. Maybe if I was in charge I would have fired her, I don't know, but even if I had I wouldn't have been gleeful about it as so many on this board seem to be, like bystanders chortling at a traffic accident. Here's another reason lawyers are sometimes referred to as vultures...

I don't know all the facts, maybe if I did I'd be less sympathetic. I find it interesting (and disturbing) that most posters seem incapable of distinguishing between being terminated from at-will employment generally ("you're being downsized") and being terminated "for cause" with its effects on unemployment etc. (at least one poster did recognize this).

I also find it extremely bothersome that so many posts seem to focus on the writing skills or alleged lack thereof of this woman. As if sending out the same original e-mail or this message to ATL would have been less objectionable if written in highfalutin' legalese or rhyming couplets or iambic pentameter or whatever.

I've known people who forwarded external e-mails (contrary to explicit law firm policy) that distributed a virus and required hours of IT work to clean up, and they at most got a verbal warning. I keep examples like that in mind when I look at this situation and this woman's e-mail seems nowhere near as harmful, less clearly a violation of policy, etc.

She did not do herself any favors here.

80 - She's not looking to do herself any favors. She's looking to open your eyes.

She's a much better writer than most lawyers.

The only way to light a fire under the ass of a law firm is to go directly to the Chairman or COO with a grievance and request that action be taken. Forget about other partners and human resources. They are panzy asses, useless and simply don't care. If you feel you have a serious problem with your firm or have been treated unjustly and outside the realm of professional practice, demand an appointment with the top brass, not even anyone on the Executive Committee. If you still can not be heard, you know you are in the absolute wrong place and move on. Aggrieved lawyers and staff do have power. Karma is a real bitch and it hurts!

Leave me alone! Why are you so arrogate??

Yawn. Who cares.

We and our colleges are arrogate munch-heads!

Move on -- you'll be lucky to get your dignity back, let alone any money from a settlement.

so she alienated her bosses and now she attacks ATL posters thereby alienating a good number of other lawyers across the country? great strategy.

81=the secretary

second 86. cut your losses and shut the hell up.

"It is evident from so many of the comments by attorneys on these boards, that those attorneys do not respect or value the opinions of people who are less educated than they are."

As an attorney, I don't value any opinion that was neither solicited by me or specifically directed at me, it has nothing to do with "Stepford Secretary's" education, or lack thereof.

What she did was patently ridiculous, if she wanted to rant, send the rant to HR, or all partners in her group, I can guarantee the first-year associate or mailroom worker overseas cared nothing about what she had to say.

I can't believe idiots are still defending this woman, are you all related to her?

Should I not have done that? Was that wrong? I tell ya, I gotta plead ignorance on this one. I mean, if anyone, at any time had told me that this type of thing was frowned upon...

Get out, George.

91, nice Costanza quote

33 - This is an example of the need for tort reform because it is a claim without any merit yet the plaintiff and attorney are not afraid to bring the claim because unlike in other countries the losing party does not have to pay the court costs of the victorious party.

So Jerry Maguire. That movie had a happy ending.

33 - This is an example of the need for tort reform because it is a claim without any merit yet the plaintiff and attorney are not afraid to bring the claim because unlike in other countries the losing party does not have to pay the court costs of the victorious party.

90 - your opinion was neither solicited by me, nor specifically directed at me. So you should STFU.

Please note, the opinion that you should STFU was specifically directed at you, so you should be interested.

I've read some stupid stuff on ATL but yours takes the cake. I suppose someone shouting a warning like "danger, the theatre's on fire" would not interest you both because you did not solicit that opinion and because it wasn't specifically directed to you, "Mr. Attorney sir, the theatre is on fire, please feel free to use my unworthy body as a shield to ward off the flames".

79 -- the difference btwn being laid off and being fired matters to her, undoubtedly, and affects her rights to unemployment benefits. But it does not affect her rights to her job; she is not union, and although I do not know the employment policies/handbook and Bingham specifically, I would assume the firm is smart enough to have avoided creating an unintentional contract with its employees. Thus, although the difference between "laid off" and "fired" matter to her personal situation, it has a minimal impact legally in terms of wrongful termination. A misguided "for cause" (not that I think personally this was misguided, on the basis of the albeit limited facts presented) is not illegal, just perhaps poor business sense. If it was legitimate -- i.e., non-discriminatory -- then it is fine. I think that's the point others here have had. Yes, if they handled this vastly different than they handled other indiscretions, perhaps she can point to, say, gender discrimination. Maybe she'll be lucky and there will have been a male staff member with a similar mass email rant. Without that kind of evidence, though, I bet she is SOL.

98 - thank you for restoring my faith that people can have rational on-line discussions even when they have areas of disagreement.

96 - I just don't think the "examples" that I've heard about are enough to reform the entire system, when the statistics show that, while it has flaws, the system works.

The email was ill-advised. Were it my firm (ha!), a stern warning would have been in order including a clear message that the next evidence of a lack of discretion could result in us reaching the conclusion that she lacks what it takes to be a good legal secretary. Summary termination may have been an overstep, and it looks defensive, particularly given the (admittedly fuzzy) theme of the email.

Communicating with ATL was beyond ill-advised. I know you're hurt and angry, woman, and I have some sympathy, but you just got fired for inadvertently stumbling over the line of appropriate. It's not a good time to go charging over that line on purpose now that you know where it is.

This is why you never should go to Texas.

"I've read some stupid stuff on ATL but yours takes the cake. I suppose someone shouting a warning like "danger, the theatre's on fire" would not interest you both because you did not solicit that opinion and because it wasn't specifically directed to you,"

That's even dumber than Stepford Secretary's e-mail, if a theater is on fire that I'm present in attendance, don'tcha think a warning is specifically directed at me as opposed to someone e-mailing that the theater is on fire to someone in Africa? Do you not get the difference there Einstein?

Analogizing again to the idiotic e-mail, sending it to people in other offices is not solicited to them or specifically targeting them, since they don't give a flying fuck about what she has to say. A mailworker in an overseas office cares not about her plight and can do nothing about it, how much more can I spell this out for you

Seriously, go slap your parents for raising a kid so fucking stupid.

-90, (oh and please respond withe more logic there, 97, I love it when people post things like )"I've read some stupid stuff on ATL but yours takes the cake" and ironically post something that truly does take the cake, my God you suck)

Not all biglaw lawyers are assholes, Secretary. Best of luck with your lawsuit, but don't let it consume you. Go find a small or boutique firm to work for (they don't usually read ATL as much), or use this whole experience as a reason to leave law entirely and move on to something more satisfying.

Just don't do anything more to dwell on this. The frustration and pain in your letters are incredibly apparent. It's time to let go a little. Don't write a book about the experience, don't write any more letters or articles (especially don't write anything before asking your attorney!), and don't get more involved in the case then you need to. Let your attorney handle the case, while you go off and find peace and character somewhere.

I would also be interested to get Michael Ray Robinson's expert analysis on the trend her ship is showing, and how far said "trend" could decline?

103 - if a warning directed to a theatre as a whole is "specifically directed to you", then an e-mail directed to a law firm as a whole is "specifically directed to you" (if you're in that law firm).

If you consider general communications like warnings to be specifically directed to all who receive them, then so too with mass e-mails. You can't have it both ways.

I would agree that a general warning would be "directed to you" but your modifier "specifically", coupled with your opinion that a firm-wide e-mail was not "specifically directed" to the recipients, made my interpretation of your post valid and correct.

What you really meant is, you're not interested in this woman's opinion. Fine, no problem. Follow her advice and DON'T READ IT.

Isn't this what Jerry McGuire did? Send out a heartfelt but critical memo and get fired for it?

Comment removed by moderator.

108 here. I meant to say pissed "off" not "of"

107, fashionably late to the party, are we?

Yes, only Jerry McGuire's message was not obscured by shoddy composition, grammar mistakes, and spelling errors.

The least this secretary could have done is print leather bound copies for the entire firm so it might be interpreted as a joke. HAHA- get it? Guys? Hello?

You know how I know she's stupid? She saw "The Stepford Wives"

@108: I liked your DFW-style ever-tightening circle of irony until you blew it by being sincere. oh well.

Lesson = Big Law sucks and any illusion that employment at a firm such as BM includes any sort of true kindness and empathy is a mistake.

The secretary's greatest mistake: actually thinking that the people she worked with had a heart.

Note to secretary:

You have seen the true nature of the machine in which you spent ten years of your life. You are now victim to further insult by many nameless and faceless wrankled law students and legal professionals who, despite any ideals most once had, are slaves to giant corporate firms or wish that they were.

My advice is to you is to take the years of experience you now have in your career and go find a small firm of good lawyers to whom you can send an off-beat email to once every ten years or so without being crucified for doing so.

[And yes ATLers, she does have a career. Making over 150k is not a requisite for one to have a career]

Lesson = Big Law sucks and any illusion that employment at a firm such as BM includes any sort of true kindness and empathy is a mistake.

The secretary's greatest mistake: actually thinking that the people she worked with had a heart.

Note to secretary:

You have seen the true nature of the machine in which you spent ten years of your life. You are now victim to further insult by many nameless and faceless wrankled law students and legal professionals who, despite any ideals most once had, are slaves to giant corporate firms or wish that they were.

My advice is to you is to take the years of experience you now have in your career and go find a small firm of good lawyers to whom you can send an off-beat email to once every ten years or so without being crucified for doing so.

[And yes ATLers, she does have a career. Making over 150k is not a requisite for one to have a career]

Lastly, it is comical that so many of the same lawyers who can't now find a job or who have recently lost their job are ready to slam this women, all the while expecting sympathy from others because they don't have the income that they expected.

Lesson = Big Law sucks and any illusion that employment at a firm such as BM includes any sort of true kindness and empathy is a mistake.

The secretary's greatest mistake: actually thinking that the people she worked with had a heart.

Note to secretary:

You have seen the true nature of the machine in which you spent ten years of your life. You are now victim to further insult by many nameless and faceless wrankled law students and legal professionals who, despite any ideals most once had, are slaves to giant corporate firms or wish that they were.

My advice is to you is to take the years of experience you now have in your career and go find a small firm of good lawyers to whom you can send an off-beat email to once every ten years or so without being crucified for doing so.

[And yes ATLers, she does have a career. Making over 150k is not a requisite for one to have a career]

Lastly, it is comical that so many of the same lawyers who can't now find a job or who have recently lost their job are ready to slam this women, all the while expecting sympathy from others because they don't have the income that they expected.

Amen 114!

The fact that everyone (even Elie) recognized that this secretary would be fired on account of the e-mail should be some hint to her (and her attorney) that she did not use discretion.

Agree with 113 but not 114 and 115. Idiots.

117 - Everyone and Elie loves that the secretary was fired because 1) they understand Big Law 'culture' - or lack thereof and 2) it makes for wonderfully rabid blogging.

117 - Everyone and Elie loves that the secretary was fired because 1) they understand Big Law 'culture' - or lack thereof and 2) it makes for wonderfully rabid blogging.

"Bingham terminated me for violation of policy.... It says to use discretion. I'm sure that policy has been or will quickly be updated."

discretion
Pronunciation: \dis-ˈkre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the quality of being discreet : circumspection ; especially : cautious reserve in speech
2: ability to make responsible decisions

I'd say there are two causes for termination here for any secretary, violation of the email policy and for not knowing what "discretion" means.

Way to get someone fired ATL. Glad to see you're doing your part in increasing unemployment.

20 is probably a really good lawyer. Rather than being a snotty ass like most of the other posters, he/she analyzes the situation. Nice.

108 here. So ATL decides to remove my comment because I said Mystal can't spell??? Great.. this is great for a blog..

And if the above stated reason is not the actual reason why you deleted my comment, can you care to explain why else was my comment deleted?

67-Too long. Did not read.

CHARACTER without JUDGMENT won't get you very far.

Also, it helps if you're willing to put out.

124 - yeah, there is a great conspiracy hiding Mystal's incompetence. Too bad they missed the other 10,000 identical comments this month. Moron.

"She's not looking to do herself any favors. She's looking to open your eyes."

Yeah, because her email was so profound. Who the f-ck is she to lecture hundreds of people on character? Seriously?

Whether her stupidity is worth firing her over, well, I never had any employer who would have looked kindly on sending all their employees a rambling mess exhorting more character from the employer. Even as a kid in a hot dog stand, I understood my place, and it wasn't to lecture the employer. A law degree and cubicle "office" didn't change that fact at all. Lecturing the boss is always and everywhere a bad move.

I cant wait till the DISCOVERY stage.

I bet her lawyers will ask for internal communications regarding her termination. That would be a juicy story. Now, that said, to avoid embarrassment, the firm would likely settle before trial.

Not saying I'm an expert in this area - but could she possibly have a claim under section (90?) of the Restatement? I believe it's called "promontory estoppel" (sp?)

"Who the f-ck is she to lecture hundreds of people on character? Seriously?"

If its hundreds of clones of herself, I'm sure they'll listen...in the follow up e-mail, the count of uses of the words:

"I" or a contraction containing "I' = 37

"me" = 10

"my" = 16

Grand total of self-references, = 63

Number of references to "Bingham" = 6

to "firm" = none

to "you" or a similar reference = 8 (9 if you include the munch heads reference)

Total references to Bingham or "us commenters" = 14 (or 15 if you count munch heads)

reference ratio = 63 to 14 (or 15) in favor of self-references.

But give her credit, she mentioned her family at the end of the e-mail.

The key word here = narcissism.

131: That would be 9:2, if you had even a rudimentary understanding of the conventions of ratio.

Math major here dumbass, I didn't reduce the ratio because of the potential for some to perceive the reference to munch heads to count. Saying the ratio would be 9:2 or 21:5, depending on that would have been confusing and unnecessary.

Going go out on a limb, guessing you have less than a rudimentary understanding of the conventions of a woman's sexual organs. Is this idiot day again on ATL?

132 = Troll

131/3 = Sukka

Look--This is an awful law firm. This is a second rate firm with a 1980s business model struggling to hold on. The notion that this secretary somehow harmed this firm with this silly e-mail is insane. Firing this secretary is like Bingham putting a Band-Aid on a heart attack. What this firm really needs to do is clean house with the terrible partners.

Look--This is an awful law firm. This is a second rate firm with a 1980s business model struggling to hold on. The notion that this secretary somehow harmed this firm with this silly e-mail is insane. Firing this secretary is like Bingham putting a Band-Aid on a heart attack. What this firm really needs to do is clean house with the terrible partners.

124 - 79 et al. I read your post, agreed with some but not all (like you with my post!) but like you, I can't understand why in the world it was deleted. Maybe because trying to have a reasonable discussion and airing principled disagreements with others is officially discouraged on this blog...

Anyway, I know/recognize what you mean about lawyer egos, I'd say those who are really, really secure (psychologically) are actually able to take advice from others if it's useful. Those who are more insecure, which seems to include most lawyers, are unable to take advice except from other "important" people lest they admit even to themselves that other people can sometimes have insights or good ideas.

A loose analogy might be drawn to medical malpractice, if I recall correctly some studies have shown that the most arrogant/quick to anger doctors tend to have the most malpractice claims, not only because they annoy patients but because they get angry at e.g. nurses or more junior doctors/interns who "presume" to warn them if they're about to do something wrong, with the result that soon they stop getting warned and so make more mistakes.

Glad she sued. More people should sue. Just because.

Hey #83, I work for Bingham. The folks at the top don't care about grievances and in fact, get rather annoyed when they receive such missives and promptly forward it to someone else whose time is less valuable to deal with it. I didn't understand 99% of what Stepford Secretary was writing about however her use of the word "Stepford" really said it all. Owing to the COO, Bingham has imparted a very militaristic view about how it defines loyalty and controls its image. They LIKE making examples out of people. #135 has it right. Bingham has a published performance improvement policy and she may have a case if in fact, the firm did not abide by its own published policies on the one hand and imposed its on interpretation of another, less defined policy. This firm talks the talk to make all of the "best places to work" lists but definitely does not walk the walk.

Regarding #78's post, very well said however, I disagree on your point about the need to write well. She is a secretary for godsakes, whose primary job does not require a college education but rather, requires some pretty basic writing and spelling abilities to function successfully in that job -- the kind of ability that we all learn or should have learned -- in grade school. You know, phonics, verbs and all the rest? Has nothing to do with legalese or prose as another commenter wrote. To judge this skill as merely an accessory of what should be a primary function is probably what engenders many of the negative responses on this blog about secretaries because there are so frustratingly many out there just like this poor woman. Never mind the obvious lack of judgment, regardless of the harmlessness of her intent. That this is what comes out of a secretary with so many years of experience is just sad.

If this post ends in 9 Stepford Secretary is a minority

61 -- Yes, do keep winging about "unions." Those at the top want to keep you blindsided until the very end when they Bangalore, Shanghai, or Manila your job. All attorneys under partner level need unions to keep that from happening.

Should not the secray terry no how two use the grammatic Allie coorrecct use of the english language? Eye's never trusted de secretarys to 100 proofread my dockyoumints. Dis is towtally Y leigh Gal sex-a-terrys R know lawnger kneaded at lawwwwfirms N E More. D own lee ting my's was yous ful four was covering four me whens Eye shode up leight oar win ay kneed'ed some won too make copys on the faxamanator 2000.

SinCerealllly\\\\\======

Stewpid StepFord Haytor

Hoo did knot no that the aks wood drop on her hed once theigh red her emale.

CharacTTTer

142,

The 5 minute effort involved in creating that still rises to a scary level.

Oh, the story about what is going down at Dewey & Leboeuf is just too awesome!

139: This is 78. I agree -- you'd think legal secretaries would have basic writing skills. At the NYC firm I worked for, at least, there was a really low pay scale, so unfortunately that limited the candidate pool. Considerably. Most were only high school graduates, none at the top of their class, some from pretty disadvantaged or immigrant backgrounds, with really long commutes into Manhattan. For the associates, we felt pretty lucky to get someone with the soft skills, because so few had the hard skills; those who had both were reserved for the more senior attorneys. Every year, I submitted a really glowing review for my secretary's soft skills, but I also had to tell her, off the review sheet, that she really needed to work on her writing and spelling.

I truly wish the firm would have invested a little time providing the secretaries and staff training on writing skills, which would have been easy considering all the great attorney writers available with so little to do lately...

What is all this talk about her "meritless" claim? I think it's pretty obvious she has a solid claim pursuant to Restatement Section 90.

146 - in fairness to Bingham, they do try very hard to provide secretaries and staff with training including some of these basic areas and skills because these complaints are not new. But, before you can figure out who needs what kind of training, you need to test and many of them were insulted by, balked at, or felt threatened by any level of testing, let alone retraining. At some point, you also have to draw the line between being a business, which they are and an elementary school teacher, which they aren't. BTW, if you haven't learned how to spell and write by the time you get to college, if you do, you aren't going to learn it there.

1) she has no cognizable suit against her firm

2) I took her post today to suggest she wants to sue ATL posters for their comments about her on this board! Get ready for subpoenas!

3) she sounds to me like a basically well-meaning but misguided person, with a little trouble understanding boundaries, and perhaps recognizing certain hard business/legal realities. I don't think she really understands today why what she did was not appropriate.

Sounds like her "having an attorney" might mean no more than having made a phone call or two to someone she knows from having worked with, and that guy is telling her to call someone who will tell her he can't ultimately help her. If someone does take her case against the ex-employer on contingency, it won't be around very long before it's dismissed.

Personally I get calls all the time for implausible causes of action- i.e., someone wants to sue an employer who fired them for what sounds even by the claimant's description like a valid reason. In those cases I would tell them something like "well, in a case like this I require a $10,000 retainer, and 1/3 of any recovery I get you above $10,000."

Asking people to put up an amount you know they won't pay, is easier than trying to tell them they don't have a case (and anyhow when you got through explaining it a dozen times they'd just put down the phone and say you weren't a "good lawyer" anyway).

Best of luck to this lady. She seems like a very decent person.

the 149th munch head wins a free cup of coffee. yipee!

Assuming she was a good worker, she shouldn't have been fired for the e-mail. Yes, Bingham was within its rights to do it. Bingham could have fired her for no other reason than it was Tuesday, if the powers that be over there were so inclined.

Her latest e-mail to ATL has not helped her. Every time she has opened her mouth, she has managed to sound absolutely batshit crazy. Maybe she isn't normally like that, but maybe she is.

Lady, if you are reading, do yourself a favor. Take a few days and spend them with family. Don't talk to about the situation, try not to think about it, and spend time with your kids. Then let it go. Find something else. Sign up with a temp agency or something to get back to work. The cloud over you will not go away until you stop making noise, and the more noise you make, the longer it will linger.

What not about McDermott Will & Emery? Don't they have a weigh in her? Or, more accurately, how's the layoff situation there? Just seeking an apropos, of the moment post.....not, of course, from PE.

53, we ALL do, it's just that after a few years, we get tired of endless pontificating (masquerading as 'humor' or a 'good story') by egotistical blowhards, or clueless 4th year associates who want you to be their office mommy and catch the very same mistakes that a first-year law student would make. By the way, I think the Bingham McCutchen secretary made a very poor decision in sending out an email firmwide like this - you're not paid for your opinion, you're paid to do your work. You don't like the environment, go find another one.

I don't get why any of us are still giving her crap our time and energy. Maybe if we stop reading and commenting she will finally go far far away and find a place with people that understand her. If that's possible.

True 154. Whatever the underlying story is or if she really has as she says acceptable grounds to sue we will probably never know. Gotta be something better on late night tv. Or I'll just reread Sexting.

I'd like to know about office sex at Bingham. Why doesn't someone rant about that.

Firm's should hire Hooters girls and put out calendars for publicity.

If Stepford had a good rack no one would give a damn about her misspelling. BING BING BING BAZOOMAS

PIGS.

I am a secretary for a major corporation in Chicago. If she has got longevity and it has been in law all her years I would bet she knows about "at will" employment and that she might have more on them for a lawsuit. I do have a college degree but in this economy it barely matters. Being a secretary at least pays the bills.

I agree 160. I do think her email was inappropriate but after 10 or 17 years I doubt she is so misguided. She should have found another way to vent though.

she sure did travel the crappy back roads but she might have a Bingham ear to vent to now.

Will she be putting her BING BING BING BAZOOMAS to that ear

why is that? I temped during college but own my own business now. Why is there no ear in Biglaw? Doesn't it take the entire army?

I think someone said earlier that Bingham is like the military but I think they wanted Stepford to do as she was told and scrub the toilets.

BAZOOMA LAW

Agreed 160 and 161. What a bleep bleep bleep to send that email firm wide but I don't think she's smart enough to be so arrogance so she must have just cause for a suit.

!*%$^&@*&*$ it's late and now i'm misspelling. Arrogant

time will tell and only Bingham will know. She should take her sad sorry self and have a few drinks. I know that's what i'm headed to do.

"Why do liberals hate the freedom this country provides?"

You Republican HYPOCRITE!
I'm so bored with your Pro-American Holier-Than-Thou attitude.
Republicans rant & rave about their love for this country, and you don't join the military. You want other people to fight for your right to enjoy your "freedoms."
You rant & rave about your love of this country, but you wear Italian clothes & drive a German car.
You rant & rave about supporting our economy, and you vacation in the South of France!!!!

Give me a break.
Now go fart somewhere else...

115: well said..
The disdain for secretaries by attys. on this post is really quite amusing. Can't wait until the overpaid, arrogant associates discover that both they and their overblown self-importance are classified as "useless eaters".
And Stepford Secy: Lay off the character bit. I am a legal secretary and if character was so important, we would never have arrived and STAYED in BigLaw. And you will not win your case because unless it is a major sexual/racial harassment case, no judge will rule in favor of a secretary against BigLaw. Yeah, I hope you had been stocking up on supplies in the last ten years to make it worthwhile.
Biggest threat to BigLaw: Clients who won't pay, the Partners willing to write off on bills, and associates trying to increase billable hours by doing the job of the secretary..

Am I the only one who noticed the following about Stepford Secretary's 'statement'?

She states, "Well strangely Bingham will not even speak with this lawyer (numerous attempts were made)."

What exactly is there to 'speak' about? He is either filing a formal summons and complaint, or he isn't. The process isn't to speak directly with anyone at the firm, but the firm's counsel, once your complaint has officially been filed.

Then she says in the last paragraph, "My current lawyer is referring me to a labor lawyer."

If your current lawyer, whom you state you've "hired," is not an employment/labor lawyer, then why in the hell did you hire him? And if this is not his area of expertise, what was he hoping to accomplish on your behalf by 'speaking' to anyone at Bingham.

Your statements only confirm that you are being ill advised and are obviously completely clueless concering this process.

My advice to you is to:

1. Stop commenting publicly about this and refrain from sending any more mass e-mails or making blog posts, especially here on ATL about it. You are only giving your former employer more ammunition to use against you in the event you DO in fact find someone who feels you have a case and is willing to take it.

2. In the event you do find an employment attorney willing to take on this matter, I hope you are prepared to fork over immediately $5,000-10,000 in retainer fees, PLUS spend thousands on deposition fees, duplicating expenses, etc. out of your own pocket, while you wait up to 8 years for this entire thing to play out in court/or reach a settlement.

3. Chalk this whole hot, stinking mess up to 'bought sense' and move on.

I can't believe that "Stepford Secretary" sent that e-mail to ALL her colleagues.

LOL

What a MORON!
Reminds me of those morons on Twitter who have to tell the world what time they took a crap.

P.S. You ruined your career by suing your firm. NO ONE WILL HIRE YOU NOW!

I hope that hiring staff managers at other firms who get a resume from an ex Bingham secretary understand that it is not necessarily her. One woman's email should not ruin the careers of others who left the firm. In this sense, her newfound desire for anonymity hurts others.

"In fact, there was absolutely no information in my email at all. "

Truer words were ne'er written.

Well, 156, Mr. JayZ can provide. Seems he ran off with the firm's marketing director a few years ago.. Story is in an old issue of Boston Magazine. Infer from it what you will, it isn't hard. Traded in the old gal for a new one with a pedigree to boost his image. Can you say sleazeball?

I think she's utterly confused. She used bad judgment and now she's scared. Regardless of what she knows or does not know I can't see her suing. But I don't get the frustration behind a ranting mass email either. I wish this woman well.

She wants to maintain her anonymity? She has her name on an email that went out to 2000 employees at that firm (ok, maybe they're down to 1400 now) and all of their best friends. In a few days, it will be public if she moves forward with a lawsuit. What anonymity? She boasts about her forthrightness in the face of all of the guest writers here, of which I am one, yet she too prefers to remain anonymous. She's batshit and I would guess at this point, enjoying her moment in the sun through this blog.

She did say why she got the lawyer 177. Freaked out. Maybe the added attention from ATL is why they considered the need for special counsel. And she said they wanted to talk to Bingham about ATL and prior to termination thought (Lord knows why) there was a chance to rectify the situation. If you are going to dissect statements do a thorough job. Stepford go lay low.

ATL good job. You took a clearly confused frustrated older secretary completely down. Maybe you could go around to hospitals and put pillows over faces.

It's hard to be the focus of comments on a site like this. She is probably just hoping to remain unknown to the few people who don't already know who she is. And I don't think firms will even remember this crap in a month. I'm sure another former Bingham secretary will have no trouble.

I work for Bingham and know this person. We are all surprised and concerned. She is a good person clearly going through something. I have to think she had her reasons. I do know that if she was looking to hurt Bingham she sure didn't use words. Bingham is a good place to work. I hope we at Bingham can all remember to be angry with the person who helped ATL.

182 I work for Bingham also. I've been reluctant to post. I know this woman and I miss her. We are all surprised and concerned. I wish it was handled differently by Bingham. I am sad for her and what she must be going through. LOL I see she can't spell well but she was a wiz on the computer. I for one miss her.

182 and 183 you should go meet her in crazyland.

WOW I hope if I ever meltdown I don't end up on ATL.

182, 183 you know her? U think she plans to sue? Know anything?

I suggest she show her boobs to the judge.

Truly outrageous.

No harm no fowl. Her worst offense was clouded judgment. The content was random but binine. Bingham can rest assured that no other staff will even send a joke out again.

Anybody know who sent it to above the law?

I spoke to her from the bus this morning. If she could take it all back she would. I'm sure no one here has any regrets from their lives. Why not let her and her firm deal with it. I know she does not want to sue but has been left (and yes put herself) in a bad way. Move on.

Boobs. Hope for her that she has big boobs.

She's batshit crazy for sure but I will move on to the next moron.

I used to work for Bingham in Boston. They are likely to meet her half way and put this all to rest. There is the matter of making money. And all firms hate being on these blogs.

Boobs baby and a pink whale tail.

Make it stop LOL. I can't stand reading this crap anymore but it pulls me in like a bad soap opera.

Make it stop LOL. I can't stand reading this crap anymore but it pulls me in like a bad soap opera.

There is still a chance to be classy Bingham

Just shoot the loon and put her out of her misery.

I'm with a small firm that reps mostly a couple of the local unions. There have been talks of branching out. At 9 this morning they discussed stepford not caring about merit but factoring in the attention she gets.

BATSHIT crazy. What's in the water there?

Did the world explode and this is hell?

Stranger cases have happened for worse reasons.

Only in the current mess of our Country. Next she'll be talking on Opera.

Spinning in a world of boobs.

204 you got that right. That's just how warped things are.

200 I'm a secretary let's talk organization.

There is a growing chorus that ATL put her out of a job or made a fool out of this woman. I used to work for Bingham and know how the management of that firm works. And although I don't necessarly agree with a management style that came across to me as petty and exclusive, you know, it just goes back to lack of basic judgment on her part. Virtually all law firms, including Bingham, reinforce the fact that your work email account is their property and subject to review at any time. She may not have known that ATL existed but surely she'd heard of My Space, Facebook, Twitter and all of the other sites out there where such a public email could have been sent, boasted about, critiqued and all the rest, particularly in this climate. At the end of the day, she simply should have shown better judgment than to assume that the entire firm would be interested in her opinions, let alone about the firm, and hit that send button. Her intent may have been noble but I can understand why Bingham would not have perceived her ramblings in that fashion. "Stepford" is not exactly a complimentary way to describe your employer, no matter how you frame it. That she doesn't seem to understand this concept is perhaps a window into why Bingham really fired her.

Women's rights activists forgot to form a typing pool union. oopps broke a nail - worker's comp

Of course they had to fire her. For so many reasons. But really if they kept her would that be sending the message to stay on the straight and narrow? They had to fire her. Any Biglaw would have. i don't totally agree with how it all went down (if it's all true) but they had to fire her. And none of us knows the history or full story to stand in judgment of either party.

If she's older there is a chance she doesn't use facebook or twitter.

208 I agree with most of what you're saying but I didn't get that about her "stepford" reference. I thought it was about co-workers she knows for years acting stepford- like in hopes of assuring their place at the firm. Certainly not a broad reference to partners or the running of the firm.

208 I agree with most of what you're saying but I didn't get that about her "stepford" reference. I thought it was about co-workers she knows for years acting stepford- like in hopes of assuring their place at the firm. Certainly not a broad reference to partners or the running of the firm.

Tatas boobs

I tihink calling you cowards was basically every knock is a boost. She got her just reward and got fired.

211, she may not use either, as I don't, but unless you're dead or jailed, you know they exist. Again, if you are that unsavvy about the tools you're using, you should not be using them.

213, even assuming your interpretation of the word "stepford-like", surely you aren't suggesting that any employer would find it complimentary in such a public forum as a "Bingham all" forum?

216, 213 here. The point you're missing is she was saying it about them (staff) being worried about their jobs. She should have just addressed society directly on the internet. It had nothing to do with how the firm is run. But here termination was correct and we can agree to disagree on this point.

I work with a small LI firm and rumors are around that they are thinking like the union firm.

216 - I work for this firm, I'm not missing anything at all. If the staff is behaving a certain way that has caused her enough concern to speak out, clearly they aren't doing it of their volition and feel some pressure from above, rightfully or wrongfully. Put yourself in Bingham's shoes.

219 if you're saying they were right to fire her I agree with that. Are you staff or lawyer? Just wondering if different groups have different views. Kicking her to the curb was the right move.

They should have put her on probation for the mass email and built more of a case to avoid the possibility of her winning a lawsuit. From some comments in previous posts on this, supposedly they had some problems on record in her file.

If others have sent firm-wide emails of a frivolous nature and gotten away with it, particularly if they are male, or if she is a minority, and they are white, BM will lose big via Title VII.

I'd still love to see this go to discovery phase. We spent enough time on this crap. Shouldn't we get to any good stuff?

union/LI get us more details.

Sorry, Stepford Secretary, but outside of your friends at the firm, no one cares what you think or value. Law firms have evolved into corporations where loyalty is long forgotten and certainly not rewarded. You made a poor choice, and frankly, don't have the right to sue in my opinion.

Just tell me does she have big boobs

They should have put her on probation for the mass email and built more of a case to avoid the possibility of her winning a lawsuit. From some comments in previous posts on this, supposedly they had some problems on record in her file.

If others have sent firm-wide emails of a frivolous nature and gotten away with it, particularly if they are male, or if she is a minority, and they are white, BM will lose big via Title VII.

225 -- There is probably more to this than meets the eye although I agree with 222, the discovery phase would be yummy.

221 you're suggesting there is more to it? Like maybe she would not be suing over the termination but for other problems?

Manager here. I learned long ago to do summary memos and have each signed and signed by a witness. Even with "at will" employment they will come at you. Especially the less educated that worked their way up. For disciplinary actions or just after a simple meeting summarize and have them sign.

Manager here. I learned long ago to do summary memos and have each signed and signed by a witness. Even with "at will" employment they will come at you. Especially the less educated that worked their way up. For disciplinary actions or just after a simple meeting summarize and have them sign.

What's Title VII?

Yeah baby Discovery. I want to see her cards.

Get her to post her boobs.

ATL she answered you once before. Request that she give you some details.

230 clearly not a lawyer

Lunch time. When I get back I want to see details or hear there is going to be discovery.

What she really needed was some stress relief. A good pounding.

221 here -- she's suing because of the termination but in order to be successful she has to prove disparate treatment as part of a legally protected class (Title VII -- wrongful discharge based on race, sex, age, religion, national origin) or one of the other exceptions to the doctrine of at will employment. If other people in the firm have gotten away with frivilous emails and not been fired, that is disparate treatment. However, according to some other comments on previous posts about this story, supposedly there were other problems she has had in her personnel file, so if that is true, that will come into play and add to BM's case against her. The best case scenario for her is if there are no major disciplinary problems in her file BM can point to and other people who are not of a protected class have frivolously used the firm email system and not been fired.

Give the gal a shovel so she can burry herself with the dead bodies she knows about.

236 based on the Boston Magazine article I'd say that Bingham is willing to provide stress relief.

union here. sorry nothing to report yet. they reached out but the lawyer is out of town or something.

union here. sorry nothing to report yet. they reached out but the lawyer is out of town or something.

union here. sorry nothing to report yet. they reached out but the lawyer is out of town or something.

Whose got the link for the Boston Mag article?

WTF
This is Opra. I wanted her first.

now this is getting a little interesting

All lawyers should be entitled to bitch slap the staff

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
the world's been overcome by fat frustrated secretaries

Oh Bingham please please please let this go to discovery.

246 and pound them

246 and pound them

Of course she could jsut talk to this reporter

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/05/08/ex_employee_alleges_she_was_drugged_at_firms_party/

Oh wow...is this a wet dream? Stepford speak to the reporter.

Oh wow...is this a wet dream? Stepford speak to the reporter.

LOL either works for me 253

crap gotta meeting. somebody hold out a chocolate bar to bait stepford.

Will she wont she

I'm hoping union gives stuff up. If not yeah stepford do a tell all story.

To be continued....
needs more sex

Thanks for the Title VII explaination. I'm a para. I was going to look it up.

243 -- here you go. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/scripts/print/article.php?asset_idx=210531

259 -- YW. I'm a secy.

Nice 261. I bet you can even spell.

I plan to watch this. All either check back in with any updates or ATL post new information. I hope she talks to the reporter. Will look back again next week.

I'll watch too for anything yummy but she hasn't been malicious yet. Strange and outrageous. I don't think she'll talk to a reporter. Hanging my hopes on discovery.

I'll watch too for anything yummy but she hasn't been malicious yet. Strange and outrageous. I don't think she'll talk to a reporter. Hanging my hopes on discovery.

262 -- If I may say so myself, I do wield a mean spellchecker!

237 - there's the kicker because there probably won't be anything in her personnel file because no one has the balls to fill out performance evaluations honestly, least of all about your own secretary. Not worth the hassle. And there likely are people who use those emails frivolously at BM. They do at my firm and probably every other firm. Very annoying but very common. Stepford tho, takes the cake.

I'm not so sure I'm an attorney and unless there's a real problem I see no reason to screw up my secretaries raise. The managers usually do what they feel regardless of the reviews.

I'm not so sure I'm an attorney and unless there's a real problem I see no reason to screw up my secretary's raise. The managers usually do what they feel regardless of the reviews.

The fatter they are the harder they fall

I'm sure bingham knows how to cover themselves.

Discovery discovery discovery. Union or LI don't forget to get us information pronto.

Hey fellow legal secretaries out there?!! Let's unionize. The time is now!!!!

And the Hits just keep on coming!

And the Hits just keep on coming!

273 I'm in :). But good luck with the rest.

boobs babes make a union for big boobs

I was out of town for over a week so I'm just getting caught up. I'm no expert but I say she should do a tell all story. From what I've read there are few comments in her defense. She says character and good people about those at Bingham. Well I don't see posts saying positive things about her. Why protect them? I'd give names and details and let the sniveling little piranhas have at each other. It will also make for really good blogging and entertainment. Talk to the reporter!!!

273 what do you suggest?

Union here. Just got in. I'll keep my ears open.

TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK. Crusty old secretary if you have good reason to sue call the reporter. You're done in law anyway.

But 268, what is the point of doing a review if you aren't honest? I'm in management too and the most frustrating thing is listening to you folks complain and complain but won't be honest with your own secretary. And 228, you know that those summary memos don't mean a thing and in fact, potentially create bigger problems for you if the same people who are complaining enough about performance to cause you to do a summary memo, turn in evaluations that are stellar. Ongoing problem for all managers. Like the rest, can't wait for the discovery phase!

Union. No contact yet. Either still out of town or in court.

But 268, what is the point of doing a review if you aren't honest? I'm in management too and the most frustrating thing is listening to you folks complain and complain but won't be honest with your own secretary. And 228, you know that those summary memos don't mean a thing and in fact, potentially create bigger problems for you if the same people who are complaining enough about performance to cause you to do a summary memo, turn in evaluations that are stellar. Ongoing problem for all managers. Like the rest, can't wait for the discovery phase!

But 268, what is the point of doing a review if you aren't honest? I'm in management too and the most frustrating thing is listening to you folks complain and complain but won't be honest with your own secretary. And 228, you know that those summary memos don't mean a thing and in fact, potentially create bigger problems for you if the same people who are complaining enough about performance to cause you to do a summary memo, turn in evaluations that are stellar. Ongoing problem for all managers. Like the rest, can't wait for the discovery phase!

Something must have transpired today. I'm a distant friend of a friend of a friend who worked with her years ago. Sounded like she's running the emotions of it all and now inside people have turned on her and don't even want to be associated with her. So 278 might have it. You might all get discovery or the tell all.

I think the entire situation is pathetic on both sides. People use bad judgment all the time. Clearly she did but so did Bingham. Nothing good can come out of this.

Nail her to the cross.

Personally would prefer to see Biglaw sweat for a change. I've been inhouse for years now but remember Biglaw well.

Come on people don't give up. Union/LI no word? Can someone give her the name and number of a reporter? Bite fatty fatty fatty....come on.

Come on people don't give up. Union/LI no word? Can someone give her the name and number of a reporter? Bite fatty fatty fatty....come on.

276: there's more out there than you think. Get names and addresses. I'll do the same. :)!

Union. Finally got a little nibble. So they reached out to a couple of reporters. If either her lawyer or Stepford contacts they asked to work in conjunction. No word back from current lawyer though. Will keep you posted.

I still think a tell all would be great.

292 tell me what you have in mind? And who will lead the charge?

I really don't get why we are all still on this???

296 you must be a nerd. Skeletons. And the Biglaw kind are usually nasty.

now I am simply annoyed. Come on Stepford you know you are ready. They hung you out to dry. I'll give you $100 for one good blurb on Bingham.

Oh damn!!! I just woke up. Did she post her boobs?

Could someone say something crappy about Bingham and knock them off the top lists already?? I would really like my firm to take their place.

I hear she's doing a book. 1000 misspelled words.

298 here's an idea. She's gotta be broke. Bingham fired her for cause. And good luck finding another legal job. I'll kick in $10. $110 Stepford.

I used to work with a real fat bastard. I'll put in $20.

I know Stepford since kindergarten and we didn't have a great education. Mostly secretarial focus. She might lack in spelling but she's thorough. The sort of street smart girl always prepared. There are likely notes, recordings and documents. In her case maybe even photos.

304 if you have inside scoop we can give you the $130????

304 if you have inside scoop we can give you the $130????

OMG 303 I think I know...loud and man boobs????

well if she does have goods she'd better file a complaint. No UE and no hope for a new job. But I'll kick in $10. maybe she'll trip over herself again and talk first.

Union. Rumor is contact has been made with additional counsel. Although not with us.