Prestigous SF Law Firm Fires Attorney Who Just Had Miscarriage

05/05/2008 Chicken T. says:

Here's the text of the email. It won't all fit in one post so I'll break it up:

From: [Redacted]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:14 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: My departure

The circumstances surrounding my departure from Paul Hastings have been deeply disappointing. It is one thing to ignore an email sent as a colleague is waiting to have her uterus scraped after a miscarriage, but it is wholly another level of heartlessness to lay her off six days after that. [Partner X] is the only one who expressed any sympathy after my miscarriage, and I am grateful to him for that.
Paul Hastings LLP Paul Hastings logo PH San Francisco ATL Above the Law blog.jpgA business is a business, but it takes very little to convey some level of humanity to carry out even the most difficult business decisions. We are human beings first before we are partners or associates. Had you simply explained that the department is unable to sustain the number of associates in the office, I would have completely understood. Had you explained that the office had been directed to reduce the number of associates and I was chosen because of my high billable rate and low billable hours, I would have appreciated such directness, even though the consequences of blindly raising billable rates to an unsustainable degree is plainly predictable. What I do not understand is the attempt to blame the associate for not bringing in the business that should have been brought in by each of you and to hide your personal failures by attempting to tarnish my excellent performance record and looking to undermine my sense of self esteem.

The last few months have been surreal, at best. Just last year, I had celebrated my engagement and marriage with many of you. In fact, during the engagement party, the head of the department took my then-fiance aside to express to him what a great attorney I am and what a great future I faced. Indeed, less than a week before this year's bizarre performance review, I was again told by the same partner that my work is great and that the slow business in no way reflected on my performance. A week later, I was given a mediocre performance review and told that I should worry about whether I have a future at Paul Hastings. When I asked for specific examples of my alleged deficiencies, I received no response. When I asked for an explanation as to why I had been downgraded in so many performance categories when I received absolutely no criticism throughout the year and my prior year's review was stellar, I was told that my prior year's performance assessment may have been "over-inflated." What a startling response.

05/05/2008 Chicken T. says:

After my miscarriage, I had discussed my concern with several associates that Paul Hastings may use that opportunity to lay me off quickly before I have a chance to get pregnant again. Those associates thought it unfathomable that a firm would be so callous and assured me that Paul Hastings isn't that kind of a place. What a lesson this has been for them - and for me. I would not have anticipated that a partner would tell me one thing and completely renege on his words a week later. I would not have anticipated that a female partner (whom I had looked to as a role model) with children of her own would sit stone faced as I broke into tears just days after my miscarriage. Even a few words of sympathy or concern would have made a world of difference. What kind of people squander human relationships so easily?

If this response seems particularly emotional, perhaps an associate's emotional vulnerability after a recent miscarriage is a factor you should consider the next time you fire or lay someone off. It shows startlingly poor judgment and management skills -- and cowardice -- on your parts. If you should ever have the misfortune of suddenly losing something or someone precious to you, I hope you don't find similar heartlessness as I have.

As for your request for a release, non-disclosure, and non-disparagement agreement in return for three months' pay, I reject it. Unlike you, I am not just a paid mouthpiece with no independent judgment. I will decide how and to whom to communicate how you have treated me. I find it ironic that you would try to buy the right not to be disparaged after behaving as you have. Your actions speak volumes, and you don't need much help from me in damaging your reputation.

I attach the proposed release for any associate who may be interested in reviewing its details.

[Redacted]

05/05/2008 Elise F. says:

Wow. Talk about being caught off-guard.

05/05/2008 Brad "Wow has yelp changed" B. says:

Just more proof that attorneys eat their own.

05/05/2008 Jennifer "yoda mom" P. says:

I smell a lawsuit coming...

05/05/2008 Chicken T. says:

She can sue, but I doubt she has a good case. There are two sides to every story. I'm sure the firm has a legitimate non discriminatory reason for terminating her. This firm in particular is well-known for its labor and employment practice. They wouldn't terminate anyone, let alone someone coming off a pregnancy, unless they had a papertrial to back things up. I'm sure this attorney barely billed any hours in the last couple years. Billable hours are the most important element of an associate's performance at a law firm. I'm also sure that she didn't show any client development potential, which is important for senior associates. She can sue and claim she was terminated because the firm though she'd get pregnant again, but it all just doesn't add up. She probably won't receive much from a lawsuit.

05/05/2008 Nancy "Now with 27 percent more oobleck!" w. says:

You're "...sure this attorney barely billed any hours in the last couple years." and you're "...also sure that she didn't show any client development potential..."?  Do you work for PH?

05/05/2008 Chicken T. says:

No, but I know how things work in BIGLAW firms and she is really asking for it if she got terminated. It's all about generating revenue for the partners and she obviously was not doing that.

It's sad that she's blaming it on her misscarriage when the firm probably wanted her out a long time ago and just waited for her to get back to do it.

05/05/2008 Tu L. says:

Well, she talks about how "stellar" she is in her job, but honestly many of us would like to believe we're excellent employees.  For somone who believes she is an excellent employee, why was she worried about being laid-off.  There has to be a reason behind it.  Maybe there was some history or other underlying issues she's feels would color her poorly so she's going to say they fired her because of a miscarriage.  This is a law firm they just don't fire someone for a miscarriage.  They have to CYA when you fire someone now a days.

05/05/2008 James "the Lames" M. says:

This is me holding my tongue.

05/05/2008 Nancy "Now with 27 percent more oobleck!" w. says:

What James "the Lames" M. said. 'cept I'm not going to actually hold my tongue - that gets kind of gross after a while and makes me gag.

05/05/2008 Mister "One Sexy Motherfucker" J. says:

I wonder what Bob Loblaw would have to say about all this?

05/05/2008 Rick "Mr. Smiley" G. says:

It can certainly go both ways...  Law firms of any size don't want to attract this kind of attention, so why would they do something like this?  Good employee?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Weird law firm..  Sure.  I've seen weirder stuff.

05/05/2008 Jennifer "yoda mom" P. says:

"but honestly many of us would like to believe we're excellent employees.  For somone who believes she is an excellent employee, why was she worried about being laid-off.  There has to be a reason behind it."

Uh wtf. Lots of excellent employees worry about getting laid off during recessions.

05/05/2008 Gerald "Ford" C. says:

wow... that lady got some serious ballz.  bravo.

05/05/2008 Andrew "cilantro = soap" C. says:

it sounds like the terminations were more widespread that just this woman i.e. they could say they were "thinning the bench" in tough times.

good luck to her if she is going for a lawsuit.

05/06/2008 Jennifer "yoda mom" P. says:

Well this lawyer's bio hasn't been taken off the PH website.

05/06/2008 Joyita "Not home. please leave a message after the beep." A. says:

Every year in the county, everyone worries as the end of the fiscal year approaches, regardless of performance. It's all about seniority, baby.

05/06/2008 Tu L. says:

Many companies have lists of who they would get rid of when lay-offs come rolling around.  Usually you get rid of under performers, problematic employees, etc.  When a recession comes around, everyone worries, but there's a reason why companies trim the fat the way they do.

05/06/2008 Jennifer "yoda mom" P. says:

Everyone knows about the fat-trimming. You also get regular reviews at work both formal and informal, and if this 10-year associate was underperforming, her boss should have (1) pointed that out to her and (2) helped her get moving in the right direction again and (3) after x time of re-evaluation given her dings in her reviews and possibly a warning. Attorneys would have been anal about making a paper trail. If that attorney was fired for poor performance, then PH has certainly kept a pile of documentation. That lawyer should also have kept track of her own performance, and if all she got was glowing reviews, then something is not right.

05/06/2008 dana c. says:

wow just wow

05/06/2008 Selby J. says:

The irony is that Paul Hastings represented Spelling Productions in the landmark case establishing pregnancy discrimination.  Spelling lost.  Having once worked for 5 years @ PHJW I am somewhat familiar with the firms attitude towards its employees.  This is not entirely unexpected.

05/06/2008 Bella "Please FUC my reviews! http://www.yhelp.org!" W. says:

Oh wow. Um- I'm familiar with Paul Hastings- well at least my company is.

05/06/2008 Perci N. says:

She needs to get her head out of her womb. Nobody fires anyone for having a miscarriage. She's a dumb lawyer looking for someone to blame for her problems.

05/06/2008 Ringo B. says:

it's called sour grapes - what a loser

05/06/2008 Gerald "Ford" C. says:

darn... what was the lawyer's name Jennifer P.?

05/06/2008 Lise "I can't think of a nickname" L. says:

Perci - she isn't claiming that she is being fired for having a miscarriage. The claim is that they are letting her go for fear of her getting preg again and going out on maternity leave. That happens more often than you would think.

The question is whether her previous performance reviews were as stellar as she indicates in her email. If so, and if there is no paper trail leading up to her so-so performance review, then yes she might be able to make a case, especially if the others let go at the same time DO have dings in their records prior to being let go.  There is a lot of info not available to us, but its silly to dismiss it out of hand.

05/06/2008 Alan S. says:

Is this really *all* the story?

No offense to the orginal poster, but every story has two sides.

05/06/2008 Gil "chickencat" S. says:

Large law firm being harsh, aggressive, and inhuman - is this supposed to be news?  Probably not an illegal termination, just an example of how these firms work.  

What you don't see in the story is the behind-the-scenes story of how a large partnership makes decisions.  The partners run the associates like slaves, using their desire to perform well and become partners to get hard work and obedience out of them.  Partners are even more vulnerable, scared, and hardworking than associates.  They get fired unceremoniously too.  The partner's main interest is collecting on billable hours, getting origination and supervision credit for as much work as possible even if someone else did it, and, sometimes, amassing resources within the firm in support of his/her practice.

People get fired for all kinds of reasons.  Usually it's the constant process of culling the herd because there's only room for a few breeding bulls.  Sometimes there's a little slack and the firm knows it can cut labor and build it up again quickly if it needs.  Sometimes one's practice becomes obsolete.  No matter how good you are at what you do, if you're with a practice group or under a partner who doesn't perform it rubs off on you.  You don't want to be the king's butler when the king gets hanged.  It could be something as simple as a client that didn't pay or a lawsuit that failed.  There's lip service about training and professional development, but every person, partner, an division is accountable to a bottom line.  At the end of the day they don't care /why/ you didn't bill 1800-2000 collected hours per associate this year, they just care you didn't.  When someone's going to be fired, it's the one with 1400 hours, however brilliant their work, not the one with 1900 mediocre but lucrative hours put in.

If they didn't do that the firm would make less money, partner compensation would drop, the most productive partners would abandon ship and get picked up by stronger firms, and the whole firm would eventually be roadkill - imploded like Brobeck or they would have to all merge under unfavorable terms with some unglamorous insurance defense mill headquartered in Cincinnati or Indiana.

05/06/2008 Gil "chickencat" S. says:

The release is interesting.  Well-written, plain English, and short.  Only a couple provisions of questionable validity.

05/06/2008 jack "one of those preachy vegetarians" p. says:

Regardless of whether they had cause to fire her or not, it was stupid to do so after a miscarriage b/c now it is all over the internets.  Firms have no sense of PR, and they are going to end up getting sued & settling quick just to keep their asses off the front page [of the recorder].  Of course, what do I know, I'm just some jackass desperately trying to avoid biglaw.

05/06/2008 Laurence W. says:

In my mind, the story here is that the firm did a very poor job of firing her.  Everything else is speculation: none of us knows whether there was an illegal discriminatory pretext for the firing, just as none of us knows whether she was a poor performer.  What we do know is that they fired her in such a manner that she's pissed to high hell (justly or unjustly), and is slamming the crap out of them all over the internet.  Oops.  

It reminds me of the bit in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" where he explains that patients are much less likely to sue a nice doctor than a mean doctor, even when both commit malpractice.  Point being: it's good to be nice, even when you're screwing someone over.