Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Insensitive Employer of the Week: Paul Hastings

Paul_hastings_llp_paul_hastings_l_2 You would think that a top law firm with one of the best labor and employment law groups in the country would know better than this (via Above The Law):

This departure memo, sent by an associate leaving the San Francisco office of Paul Hastings, is extraordinary. It also confirms the rumors -- which have swirled about for quite some time, but without confirmation until now -- of associate layoffs at PH . . . .

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 . . . .

A 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-fiancée 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.

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? . . . .

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.

Ouch.

The firm response: "We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."

And though these are just allegations, I come from the same environment and only can say that I know of very similar circumstances, and worse, happening around me when I wore the associate manacles. 

But the fact that law firms might be morally bankrupt should be really no surprise. What is a surprise is that an experienced labor and employment firm was so (allegedly) callous in handling one of its own.

As they say, they eat their young in this business.

BTW, the associate who wrote this gave up some money by failing to sign a release and waiver (only wrote hundreds of those in my law firm days) and going public.  Good for her.  If you ever wondered what one of these babies look like, Above The Law has the whole thing here.  And ask yourself: is this really an agreement between equals or just a bully throwing its weight around.

PS

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2008/05/insensitive-emp.html

Labor and Employment News | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e5522913f48834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Insensitive Employer of the Week: Paul Hastings:

Comments

I feel sorry for this woman, I really do. But I don't know what they put in the Kool Aid at these firms--it must just be money.

Every associate at every large firm can list 100 reason why *their* firm is "different" than all the other big firms. But at the end of the day, they're different only in degree and not kind. It makes it hard to feel sorry for the lemmings that keep getting sucked into these environments.

With all the talent out there, you'd think some of them would step up and start a new paradigm.

Posted by: Jochanan | May 6, 2008 8:49:52 AM

Paul Hastings also once fired an attorney for refusing to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement. So whether they're "one of the best labor and employment law groups in the country" depends on what factors go into the adjective "best"....

Posted by: Scott Moss | May 6, 2008 8:51:12 AM

Have you ever met anyone who has worked at a big law firm for any period of time who does not have a stock of horror stories like this one?

Posted by: J H Mouser | May 6, 2008 9:25:52 AM

Wow. I wish I'd seen this before I wrote my employment law final exam!

Posted by: eric | May 6, 2008 10:33:15 AM

Fact: H. Rodgin Cohen wears David Lat pajamas.
Fact: Before he goes to bed Jim Sandman checks his closet for Kashmir Hill.


Fact: Fear is not the only emotion David Lat can smell. He can also detect hope, as in "I hope I don't get profiled on Above The Law by David Lat.”


Fact: A study showed the leading causes of death among partners in the AmLaw 100 are: 1. Heart disease, 2. David Lat, 3. Cancer.

Posted by: D. Lat fan | May 6, 2008 12:02:14 PM

Post a comment