Oh, I thought she sent it so she would never have to work again. This way she could pretend to her husband that she was looking for a job, but knowing that no one in their right mind would ever hire her again, she could sit home with her next kid, or her adopted one… Good plan.

That’s very cold ohohoh. I hope you learn compassion. Life is too short to be such a jerk.

younes

She comes across well - it will be hard for the firm to paint her as some kind of nut case.

Admirable, yet career suicide. Who’s gonna take a chance on someone who has already proven herself capable of publicly humiliating her former employer?

A firm might seem compassionate and earn some brownie points for recruiting her, no? I can imagine a firm saying, “Hey we picked her up because we’re super hip and sympathetic!”

(A lot of the recruiting brochures out there sound just as cheesy)

she didn’t publicly humiliate the employer; the public humiliation occurred when someone forwarded the email outside of the firm

“I was shocked by the lack of human understanding”. Duh, you work for a law firm that specializes in defending corporate sharks. What the f**k did you expect? A hug?

A ten-year associate?? Don’t law firms have up or out? I have an alternative hypothesis about why she was “fired” other than her being a woman or pregnant. Perhaps it has to do with the fact she’s a 10-year associate in an up-or-out firm system?

Can some explain the up or out system?

the problem here is that by year 8 (2006) you normally would be told that you either are on track or not. Her 2006 evaluation made it seem she was well on track. Of course its no guarantee but to turn around and say you are firing for performance instead of slow business is the problem here.

This is classic Paul Hastings behavior. They are 100% driven by profits and won’t hesitate a second to fire associates in a vulnerable stage in their career. She was screwed and many others have been as well. They are a merciless firm.

I’m no lawyer, but it sounds as though they were asking for her to give up an awful lot in exchange for 3 months salary, and no medical.
Anyone who goes public gets some sort of job. She did the right thing, and she’ll be fine.

Since she has no intention of being hired back by Hastings and that she knew she would be given a poor review by Hastings if she were to use Hastings as her future reference, she made a good move. What she should’ve done is document all dubious practices by Hastings …this would’ve been a smarter move.

I wonder if the disclosure of this performance report violates any client confidences of “Align.” At minimum, it’s interesting to see her encouraged to make sure she’s not discounting her hours.

10:07 is unfortunately right. we are all accomplices.

Rough that she was a 10th year and not yet given the chance to take the lead on a case. Isn’t there anything small lying around?

Back in the day, on a Friday afternoon a partner went around the office and fired 20 associates, all second years, for “performance related reasons.” Of course, it was the firm’s performance, not theirs. Big law management, like management of other institutions never, ever, admit to misjudgment, bad timing or even misfortune. No bad outcome but that someone is to blame and it isn’t going to be “one of us.”

Dear Ms. Oh,
Since you put yourself in the spotlight, I feel it’s my duty to be honest with you.
1. It WAS your performance. As a TENTH year associate, you should now be bringing in lots of work and clients. It is because you are unable to achieve this goal that the firm is suffering. A COMPETENT tenth year associate would be bringing in business. Do you understand now?
2. You get ABSOLUTELY no sympathy from me. I only resent that Paul Hastings wasted a salary on you for this long.
Sincerely,
Reality

She’s a lawyer, she’s paid to come off well. You folks are a bit simple to take what she says at face value and analyze it.

From the e-mail alone, it wasn’t clear whether she had a legitimate gripe or was a whiner. With this additional information about her, I think she’s got real credibility and makes PH look bad. She’ll be able to land squarely on her feet, although maybe not at a huge, national firm. Her story could probably help her get started in politics, if she wanted to.

I can empathize with the lawyer in this article. I recently encountered the same at a Big 4 Accounting Firm in the Southeast. One thing these situations teach you is that if you go in with the attitude that partners bring in business and you expect to stay awhile, it does not work out. In other words, if you are not by nature, training, or desire a “sales” person, it never works out in the long run because your salary goes up, but you yourself aren’t building business, instead believing that partners bring in the business. Here’s the problem: Your high salary equals the need for a higher bill rate. Unfortunately, in this economy (at least in the Accounting industry), the economics don’t add up.

Having said that, still a little display of understanding of a loyal employee with those specific circumstances would have been ideal.

Best of Luck…

I sympathize with her and hope she does well.

Reality @ 11:30: most junior partners at big law firms don’t “brin[g] in lots of work and clients.” Ever heard of service partners? To expect a 10th-year associate to rival the firm’s rainmakers — much less the partners just above her, who apparently weren’t bringing in much work — is totally unrealistic.

But I’m sure you’re a superstar. Keep living the dream.

It’s hard to tell if the firing partners are mean inhumane greedy bastards, or embarrassed poor communicators in a tough business situation, or managers who are afraid to say anything for fear of an employment suit. Or all three, I’d guess.
But I salute her for not threatening to sue.

I hope she ends up OK. What a courageous person. Lets face it, law is a super-competitive field to make a living in. I give her a lot of respect for sending that email out to people who were probably second guessing themselves. Kudos to her!

Reality — hilarious that you call yourself Reality but don’t know about big firms. Associates don’t bring in work, nor do junior partners. I’m sure in your ultra-prestigious practice it’s normal for associates to bring in work — handling the divorces/DUIs of their frat brothers, etc.

This is pathetic. Every single PH partner must take responsibility for this act of THE FIRM. I am a PH associate, and can’t help but notice what’s been going on lately. It’s all true. At PH, the almighty PPP rules. It’s kind of an inferiority complex thing; they will do whatever it takes to get into the AmLaw Top 15, including undermining associates’ self-esteem by refusing to give positive feedback during economic downturns while they prepare the pink slips. All to cover their asses and up the PPP. Generally speaking, they have no concern for the long-term wellbeing of their associates whatsoever. They will be fair with associates when their bottom line so dictates and screw you the second you’re not profitable to them. They can all go to hell.

I think her email response to her firing was unprofessional, and because she added so much personal info in it which apparently had nothing to do w/ her firing (she cited her miscarriage a number of times in the email ), she comes across as emotionally labile person who doesn’t know personal vs. professional boundaries. I’m a female professional in the medical field, and I and many women I know would never wear our hearts on our sleeves like this if we were fired—its a man’s world, girl, so chin up and move on. And if you’re bitter or upset, talk with the evildoers directly, and not thru some mass email which is sent purportedly to make other associates ‘feel OK’. (I don’t buy that; she sent the email because she was mad and wanted to defend herself in public, not because she really was worried about others; if she’d been worried about others, the email would be much less personal). She’s a lawyer–she knows what kind of firm she’s dealing with; why does she assume they should be tenderhearted with her if they determine they need to fire associates?

This email she sent seems inappropriately bitter and personal, and the grown up thing would have been to give feedback to the higher ups directly, and then just move on. I’m really surprised most people are sympathetic to her public reaction to being fired. If I was the head of a law firm looking to hire, this person would make me very nervous, and I probably would not offer a spot to her.

And, of course, they blame the poor associates to make sure nobody is aware that the partners suck at bringing in work and can’t appropriately forecast their need for associates. They will slit your throat to save a few pennies. Watch out, PH summer recruits, and good luck!

first, my sympathies to Ms. Oh. it appears indisputable that the timing of her termination by the management of Paul Hastings was thoughtless and insensitive. beyond that whether her termination was consistent with BigFlaw practices is not clear. the single review evaluating her performance says almost nothing about her relative standing at the firm and prospects for partnerhship. the amended review does suggest that Paul Hastings lacked work (she was working on an IP matter which she had little experience with) and that Ms. Oh apparently had a time-keeping issue. the sad fact of the matter is that we have entire classes of highly-compensated eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh year associates on the cusp of partnership at BigFlaw who have no business and very few prospects (or the time) for generating business acceptable to their firms, have no substantial client relationships or contacts, and have no experience making court appearances or being in charge of developing and actually trying cases. given these realities, maybe we should not be surprised that even in the best of economic times, there is a relatively low rate of conversion of associates to partner. and when business slows down, it becomes positively mercenary. junior associates, let this be a stark warning to you — it is on you to not end up as a tenth year lawyer with no real litigation experience and few prospects should you not make the cut.

glad someone had the balls to tell these greedy bastards what thousands of associates have been wanting to say for years. BigLaw needs to start acting like a real professional organization, not just a greedy profit center of drones. No wonder everyone I know at biglaw firms are MISERABLE.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in some of the Paul Hastings’ partner discussions tomorrow now that this story has really picked up steam. How f*cking embarrassing for such a snobby firm. Not only can the entire world read how they conduct their performance reviews, but they can see how they somehow made “erroneous” statements in their reviews! How can any client trust them with anything important if they can’t even get their associate reviews right? How could they say she was below billables, and then flip flop and say she is OVER the requirement? Unreal. I would NEVER work for this firm after seeing how they treat associates whom they gave nothing but praise. what kind of business fires good people like that? commercial litigation is not slowing down, if anything it’s heating up with all these financial scandals.

R.I.P. Paul Hastings. You are toast.

She will get plenty of offers for other jobs at top law firms. trust me. just read her review. period. she is a talented lawyer. Paul Hastings really made a mistake here. Now they look like the most heartless, gutless, dishonest sweat shop in the profession.

I agree with those of you who claim that she does sound bitter, but I can’t blame her. I really would have thought that a so called prestigious law firm could have at least handled the review process and subsequent termination better. And the fact that they were ignorant enough to think they could buy her off with three months pay is startling. Obviously I am not a lawyer, and I have worked for some poorly run companies, but this is really shocking to me. And I’m not even referring to the insensitivity to her personal issues. Someone with experience with firms like this please tell me, will they feel any pain at all from this? Or will associates and clients still be beating down the door to work for and do business with them?

As someone else pointed out earlier, they recently closed an ENTIRE OFFICE (R.I.P. Stamford, Conn.)!! Are these poor desperate souls who are on here trying to bail water for this sinking ship going to deny that this happened?? How many attorney jobs were lost in that move? Does that speak to the viability of a firm when it shuts down an entire office and lays of scores of attorneys? Was that office somehow simultaneously suffering from “poor performance” reviews (after 25+ years of existence)?? Something is truly rotten in the kingdom of PHJW, and we are all now smelling it!

The Stamford office was opened as an accommodation to a partner with one huge client HQed there. Otherwise that office basically did support for NY. When that partner retired, the client also moved on, so the office was closed and the associates there were offered jobs in NY. While yes, they lost one client due to retirement, is the natural cycle of law firms and not indicative of a “sinking ship.” PH has been jumping in AmLaw rankings so they’re hardly doing badly.

As to buying Ms. Oh off with three months’ pay, EVERY associate fired or laid off is asked to sign the same release in exchange for 3 months’ severance; this is standard practice at BIGLAW shops. She’s the one out of thousands of associates who refused to sign the form. So while PH should have been more sensitive above her firing, if you consider laying off associates for “performance” reasons and attempting to buy their silence a problem, it’s an industry-wide issue, not one particular to PH.

She also wants other laid-off associates to feel that they are not alone. Well it should be interesting to see whether those associates are able to find jobs now that she has revealed to the entire world that all of these associates have been laid off or fired.

From my experience, a big part of PH’s problem is that some of the “top” partners are so full of themselves that they make business decisions based on ego rather than a thoughtful analysis of the nearly inevitable consequences of their decisions. They are getting careless.

There are too many egos and much too little communication among them. I think that the PH partners need to discuss some Greek tragedy on their next retreat. Hubris runs amuck.

Hubris also exists on the institutional level. This is what prevents PH from acknowledging its own short-term? financial weakness, and, conversely, requires that it blame associates for poor performance as a way of cutting costs and maximizing PPP. The rain makers will leave if the PPP doesn’t stay high. Hence, it’s not just about paying the hours-starved associate’s salary; it’s also about the long-term consequences of decreasing P’sPP on the firm’s ability to retain rainmaking partners.

Of course, this doesn’t help the poor associate who is shitcanned without a second thought. Adopt defensive measures, my friends.

Your blog shows clearly what non-lawyers know very well: the profession of law is cynical, ammoral, rigged, without solid principle except for personal career and profit, comprised of pimps of a corrupted judiciary, and insinuates itself into every aspect of our culture. Every lawyer swears an oath not to any trancendant value such as truth and justice but to an object: the court itself, i.e., a lawyer wearing a black robe. Corruption of the body is guaranteed with in-breeding. The nazi judiciary swore an oath not to any transcendant value but to a man in a military uniform, Adolf Hitler, and we know what happened. Until we break down the corporate American legal enterprise and reconstruct it into a throughly moral structure that people can trust, and is accountable to the people, the land of the free is a fallacy. The first solution is that we close down all law schools immediately. Young people should look to another means to make their life meaningful. The law crowd will never admit to its own self-pollution but will offer procedural justification for anything they do.

Tell us more about the “budget” of hours mentioned in the performance review.

Wake up and smell the motion to dismiss. We not your mother, your father-confessor, your fraternity, or your personal friends. We are your employer in an at-will employment arrangement, and we do what the law requires of us. We are service providers, as were you, running a service business in a service industry. You want a performance review? I’d say you received it. Good luck.

Hey BigLaw Partner, so am I, but better than you. Your coming downfall will be the result of your smarting off without having read the documents. There is going to be no motion to dismiss because there is not going to be any lawsuit. If you would stop dribbling whatever that is from your mouth and pay attention to what others are saying you might learn something. But more likely you are just going to walk into your disgrace unawares. You want a performance review? No? Well, you just got it anyway. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

This performance review is actually a good read for law students seeking to understand what firms value. Clear defensible positions, well-researched. Client development. A little charm. That’s all there is to it.

To as @2:17

It is a man’s world and they play hard ball. This move by her was hard ball. S***w me, and pay the consequences. Seems perfectly just to me.

Everyone goes into the profession full of a heady burst of idealism, energy, enthusiasm and most end up like Ms. Oh — chewed up and spit out and scratching their heads, wondering what the hell happened.

It takes extraordinary courage for Ms. Oh to do what she did. Her experience should be a huge warning to any sensible person looking to enter the profession in private practice. If someone like her (repeatedly commended for her efficiency and initiative) didn’t make it, how will you? And even if you believe (as you probably will) that you’re “better” than her — how will you handle defeat if it is handed out arbitrarily, at the whim of a top billing partner who has taken a dislike to you for no particular definable reason?

1. Her firing was insensitive and poorly executed.

2. her review establishes that she is, like many senior associates / of counsel at BigLaw, good enough to do the work in effective fashion, but not in the “outstanding” range that makes you a shoo-in for partner (or at least grants you better job security). “Meeting expectations” (and in some cases, “exceeding expectations”) is actually tantamount to underperforming in a BigLaw system that requires attorneys to exceed expectations by a significant margin every year in order to advance (and have job security). Candidates that get “outstanding” across the board are going to keep their jobs (and will probably make partner); those that average out to “meeting expectations” or to a grade that makes thenm exceed expectations by a not-big-enough amount are in the firing line.

3. She appears to have worked on one matter during the review period. No other matters are mentioned. That plus only falling within a few hours of budget sets her up to be the victim of firm politics — maybe her defenders aren’t as highly regarded as other partners in the firm who want their turf protected at the expense of her defenders.

4. None of this is her fault — she appears by all accounts to be an excellent attorney who will enjoy a terrific career. It’s just a messed up BigLaw system chewing up another victim.

5. Her e-mail gambit appears to have paid off given the outpouring of support. That said, it is a risky move that is best not taken. Never, ever burn bridges. Even if you hate the place you work. There are always a few people who like you and support you and, if they still maintain loyalty to the place you humiliate, you risk their good graces.

As I commented in the earlier post - I’ve been there. I think it is morally reprehensible when a firm will trash an associate’s reputation in order to hide from the market place the firm’s own economic problems. It also puts you in a very difficult position when interviewing — was I fired or layed off??? I think Ms. Oh’s parting memo was beautifully said - she spoke the truth and held a mirror up for the firm. These are places which only in their bizarro world could someone crap on you and tell you that you have no future at the firm and in the next sentence ask you to take a deposition and write a brief for them before you leave.

Oh no, an associate dared to express her opinion that she was mistreated! Rather than worry about the impact of this disclosure on the Firm, or worry about whether this type of insensitivity is in the best interests of BigLaw, let’s all bash the associate.

looks like she was on track to become Of Counsel, but not Partner.

Paul Hastings is finished — what student interested in self preservation would EVER agree to work there? I agree that PH ain’t alone — BIGLAW (and even SMALLAW) is like this. But PH is the one in the news and it has NOT handled Ms. Oh’s departure well. I wonder what the PH recruiters say/said on campus (law students: please fill us in!!)? Do they just “trash” Ms. Oh in order to preserve the ability to recruit?

Let’s begin the PH deathwatch. Perhaps a merger would save it, but what sane law firm would want to touch PH?

Why hasn’t anyone noticed that she’s hot and deserves better. Hot woman shouldn’t’ have to suffer the indignities that other women do. We get to look at them and enjoy their beauty. She’s hot and smart, all the better. That’s the crime here.

Chicago associate, plenty of other law students will be willing to work there for the salary, knowing full well they do not plan on staying. So PH will have to recruit deeper into the class or go to schools they typically don’t go to. When you wave around that kind of money, plenty of people will go for it.

If she was valuable enough to the company she would still be there.

What are we angry at: (1) that she was fired or (2) how she was fired.

Only two is valid (IMO), but she will regret her response to the firing; it was over the top and will damage her career far worse than being fired. She is not FORVER on the internet for THIS.

However, if she just had a miscarriage she is not herself and SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM EMAIL UNTIL SHE NORMALIZES. I hope firms do not hold it against, but I know they will.

I WOULD NOT HIRE HER—WOULD YOU?

So as long as she can live with the consequences, so be it.

“Women kill for eyebrows like that.” — Elaine Benes

Sounds like other commenters have expressed my view, like 10:58am, 8:56am, 8:19am, 2:22am, 11:30pm (yesterday) and 10:07pm (yesterday). If she had a future at that firm, she shopuld have known it. It looks to me like the 2006 year end “performance review” had some nice things, but a lot of ho-hum remarks as well. If that wasn’t a wake up call for her, she didn’t deserve to be there a day longer and should have left as soon as she read that. And her resorting to some off-hand comment by a partner at her wedding to her husband, about how bright her future loooks, is bush league in my view. Is that reliable evidence? Come on. If she was truly as valuable to the firm as she now wants everyone to think, her 2006 performance review would have more clearly reflected that. But it didn’t. And her subsequent conduct showes immaturity, if not unprofessional behavior. If she did have the sound judgment and valuable business sense that the firm truly needs, she wouldn’t have had to see some “performance review” document to tell her this. Actually, if she were that person, she would have already known the answers to any questions she might have had. Good luck to her. She is bright and capable. And the partner is correct: she could have a bright future — if only she lets herself.

“Bottom Line” = “Reality”

Responding to Lawyer: The review isn’t really ho-hum. But that isn’t the point: The point is that the way she was treated was ridiculously cruel (given the circs). Read her memo — that’s her grievance

Responding to “if it were so”: sure people will sign up after PH goes “deeper” into a law school class (i.e. folks with crappier grades). Doesn’t that signal a downward spiral? Also, it occurs to me that CLIENTS might flee — hey if this is the way the firm treats its associates, what about clients?? Also: If you were fighting off a plaintiff in an employment case, would you want PH representing you in front of a judge? Of course, there could be no leakage of this incident into the client’s case that would be admissible, BUT: everyone knows what everyone else is thinking, right?

Wow, Chicago Associate has managed to say the dumbest thing I’ve read on this matter so far. Congrats. You beat out all the idiots on abovethelaw.

217 is 100% on target. Oh had several choices and the one she opted for produced the least economic benefit to her and extracted the greatest cots to her. This is like telling a cop to F off when he gives you a ticket. One moment of euphoria followed by hours of remorse.

Very bad business judgment. Very unprofessional move. I would be hard pressed to hire her at my firm. And, my guess is that she wasnt fired for having a miscarriage. If she was a profit center for her firm, she would still have a desk.

My favorite WSJ cartoon:
Man in suit jacket and tie is seated at desk. Man in shirt and tie stands nearby. Caption:
“I’ve made some managerial mistakes, Ed, so you’re going to have to go.”

She is the President of “Shinyung Oh” at all times, although she acted as an associate at PH. The firm should have acted consistent with her performance review and if she was underperforming, let her know and told her how to out-perform. But they did not do that, and they appear to hide behind nebulous reasons, giving her the budget ax.

I’ve been laid off several times by budget cuts. No prospective employer asks my boss, “Why didn’t you do more to keep Whitney? She was a star performer!” Instead, it is the employee’s fault that they were let go in a down market.

You high-and-mighty — Remember to ask the employer why they did not keep that person when you make your next hire.

It seems this is the first time she has encountered turbulence in her career. Most lawyers would dream of being in her position - 10 years at a top law firm, good benefits, retirement funds, 3 months severance.

I see her as nothing but a spoiled brat, using whatever excuse possible to try and strike back at the firm, to which she obviously expected to be named a partner. Grow up, it’s brutal out there. If this the worst thing to ever happen to her, she has lived a charmed life.

Temp attorneys experience far worse treatment on a daily basis…our jobs are being sent to India, we can get fired at any moment of any day. We have zero stability and few benefits. We do much of the work of staff attorneys and associates, with none of the rewards.

On an abstract level, of course things should be handled differently. Unfortunately she chose a profession known for its boorish treatment. All in all, ten years of hefty salary and good benefits at a solid firm is truly a wonderful gift. Sure she earned it through her hard work, but many others working just as hard will never reach the dream job she enjoyed for ten years.

Sorry, she is nothing but a contemptuous brat.

She actually did help her fellow laid-off associates. Because it seems that PH was saying that it was firing people for cause, all the other stealth laid-off associates will be more sympathetic because those interviewing them will now realize they didn’t have performance problems.

The review wasn’t ho-hum, the only “meets expectations” she got was for hours, and the amendment points out that she was actually overbudget on hours. (So I am guessing that means it shouldn’t be considered a “meets expectations.”) And who says the numerical error was her fault?

She has got almost as many outstandings as exceeds expectations. If she wasn’t partner track, she should have been told. All of her coworkers (save one) who commented on her abilities (on above the law) have said she was very good, and two have said that the firm was deliberately not giving her enough work so they could complain about her hours and shoo her out the door. Several of her former opposing counsel (I think the tally is five) have publicly said she was an excellent attorney and that they would jump at the chance to hire her.

So, sounds like the lady wasn’t given a fair shake. If her high billing rates meant she was a liability, they should have either lowered them (or never set them so high in the first place) or told her the TRUTH and gave her the recommendation she deserved so that she would be at a new firm, saying nice things about PH. Instead, they orchestrated a PR disaster. Good job.

She was on track to make junior partner. The issue was whether they felt she would eventually develop into a liason between Align and Paul Hastings, enough to support her large salary — or whether they could afford to keep her, regardless, b/c of the downturn in the economy. A decision was probably made high-up on management committee level that a number of layoffs needed to be implemented, and her relationship with Align simply wasn’t strong enough to keep her. So they gave her the axe, despite her strong performance on that case.

This, in the whole scheme of life, is trivial drivel. The attorney in question performed a service for which she was compensated. She was never promised a rose garden, a partnership opportunity or lifetime employment. Think about all of the attorneys out there who rely exclusively on their own talents and abilities to earn a living–without some paycheck guaranty twice a month. If she wants to be a partner, let her start her own firm and build it herself. PH gave her the opportunity, training, exposure and money to build her career. She should stop her whining and move on. Next thing we know, she’ll be on You Tube whining away about how she was fooled and mistreated. Next!!

Their behavior is clearly unacceptable. Are people overlooking the fact that she had a miscarriage 6 days prior to her dismissal??? No matter who she is, no matter what they allege about her performance, no matter how tough the law field is - you just don’t fire people 6 days after they’ve had a miscarriage. Even from a business perspective, treating people more humanely is important as clients, such as myself, don’t want to do business with firms that treat its employees without basic human respect.

Tell the truth. If business is bad these days, then say so. But don’t piss on someone’s performance when it is clearly written otherwise: “Performance is exceptional, extremely effective, and is expertly demonstrated”. The partners at Paul Hastings look like buffoons. And nobody wants to work for or work with a buffoon.

I saw multiple “meets expectations” assessments. But isn’t just one enough? I’m “Lawyer” at 11:18am and I think “A-1 Associate” and too many others are offended at offensive behavior. In law, you get an opportunity, not a bunch of hugs. In the business of law, one needs to have thick skin or go home. Hopefully Ms. Oh will learn from this and do the former.

BigLaw Partner at 8:19. Thanks for proving that big law firms like PH are miserable places to work. Nobody asks for you to be our mother, but any good professional organization does treat it’s employees, especially it’s very talented ones, like friends. I bet your life and your work are both miserable.

Google still has the bio cached (as of now at least) — Go to Google and search for:

paul hastings oh san francisco

and then hit the ‘CACHE’ link rather than the proffered result link at the top of the entry. (It was the first result entry for me, but that might be different for anybody else.)

some on this board are completely missing the point. This isn’t about some BigLaw firm’s right to fire someone. It’s about the WAY THEY HANDLED IT. Even her so-called “friends” turned their back on her. The entire firm turned their back on her, after giving her stellar reviews. What kind of ammoral skells operate in this way? Nobody is asking BigLaw to coddle everyone. But there is a certain minimum level of respect and professionalism that is expected. And PH blew it. They probably do this all the time without a blink of an eye, but this time they ran into the wrong girl. What Ms. Oh has done will change the way PH treats it’s firing procedures, you can bet on that. It’s sad that a PR disaster is necessary before people start treating associates with respect and dignity. Ms. Oh has done a huge service for other BigLaw cogs. All BigLaw firms should watch their backs, you can’t continue to treat us like dirt and get away with it. We are one click away from pulling the curtains back on your miserable sweat shops.

There’s a reason lawyers have a bad name, and one of them is how inhumane they can be, particularly as they aspire to manage their firms. Lawyers are notoriously bad business men/women and managers. (Obviously, there are exceptions to this general rule.) Ironically, outside the law bubble, what this associate did would be considered admirable, and she would be happily hired by any number of companies in other industries. I agree with “missing the point” - she did not only this firm but all law firms a favor by telling them you don’t have to be an a–h— to be a lawyer. Try it some time.

What I find interesting as a controller and HR manager is that I know, from experience, what our counsel would tell me if I suggested firing someone in the manner described, with the ’supporting’ documents at PH’s disposal. ‘At Will’ - Jesus, what a stupid ass remark. Has any real personnel issue attorney ever suggested to a client that ‘At Will’ is anything more than a red flag to wave in front of a jury? (Yeah, they had good reviews, but we didn’t really mean them, and besides, we have the right to fire anyone we want to.) Sure, every person in my firm is hired ‘At Will’, and it is generally boiler plate with no more standing than circumstances permit. No HR person would push ‘At Will’ across the table as a bargaining chip in the discussion. And if our lawyer spent more than two seconds on it, we’d find another lawyer.

Since what is really evident here is that too many lawyers can’t take or don’t believe their own advice when it comes to firing, I think I’ll go find a good HR consulting firm to give my money when questions come up. Cheaper too, and the bills aren’t by the five minutes.

I knew Shinyung well in law school — she was grounded, smart and not one to draw unnecessary attention to herself. Based on that past experience, I have no doubt that she is in the right on this entire matter. Good luck to you Shinyung.

Should have been ‘getting my advice..’. Hell, its Friday and raining. Think I’ll go fire someone…

Weird-the first version of the review I saw didn’t include those latter pages. Still a strong review.

So her law firms was composed of scumbags. What’s new? That a young lawyer looses her career for any reason is something we shold care about. Lawyer leaches should get he news: the world is better off without youseall.

I second 1:55. I was also a classmate of Shinyung at Georgetown, and I’ve had the good fortune of being her colleague for a spell at the same shop. She is a terrific person in every respect — bright, compassionate, trustworthy to a fault. Initially, before her identify was revealed, I had the same measured skepticism to her story as many. Now, based on what I know of her character, I believe every word.

No tears for her. Who does she think she is? Does she shed tears for every RIF or termination her clients asked Paul Hastings to help with? She probably cleared over 180K /yr which is 4+ times the average American salary! I’m sorry she miscarried, but what does that have to do with her termination? My bosses don’t know what goes on in my personal life, and even if they knew she was pregnant, what were they supposed to do? Keep her job open until she felt better? She knew her job was “employment at will” - stop crying about and have your law school friends get you that sweet general counsel job you’re shilling for.

I have had a miscarriage myself and was completely devastated for months, barely being able to function at work. Try taking a deposition while still bleeding and cramping from your miscarriage. Given that she was fired right after, her composure is outstanding and I applaud her bravery. I did not even dare tell anyone of what happened or take time off and because of that it took me probably a lot longer to recover than it otherwise would have been. I cannot even imagine what it must have felt to be fired in such a circumstance.

i didn’t read any of the above comments or opinions, as frankly, everyone has one (it’s an old joke) and many of them are from those who are one. but kudos to ms. oh for going public. she comes off strong and well, and the institutional crap that many big law firms impose on those whom they for whatever reason let go deserves to be roundly condemned. and it should be no surprise that this firm, which has (had?) a reputation as a premier labor/employment law firm, should in fact in the conduct of its own affairs so badly screw up. i never thought much of paul hastings in times past, but now my opinions are confirmed. good for you ms. oh, i don’t think you’ll have trouble finding work at another firm, unless it’s the kind of place who would be threatened by your otherwise meeasured and lawyerlike response, and you wouldn’t care to work there anyway. you’ll do well, thanks for the courage to stand up and to stand out.

please see my comments of even date and time on immediately prior blog item re firing associates generally. thanks.

Jacorky@2:29: You obviously (1) have no knowledge of law firms in general (and BigLaw in particular), and (2) have never known anyone who went through a miscarriage. What she earned is irrelevant - and btw, determined by her firm and/or market forces, not her. Also, she was in litigation so highly unlikely that she had any involvement in, or knowledge of, matters handled by the labor/employmnet practice. Lastly, bosses may not know of your personal life but they need to informed when you need time off for medical procedure/recovery.

I disagree with the no firing after a miscarrage assessment. There is no question that the timing is unfortunate, but thats all it is. There is no crying in Big Law litigation. For the Big Law client who chimed in above, you are full of crap, bc you would not pay ten cents more for a firm that built compassion into its program. This is a business people, this is a profession. And if you have any clue or any maturity at all, you do not fire off an email like that and then leak it to the press. Its despicable, and she will pay the price by never getting another job like this again. If there is a lesson here, that is it youngsters. You want to play in the big leagues, toughen up and keep your mouth shut. If you are opting out of the game, say whatever you want, but dont make the mistake of thinking you are going to make the record and walk off into the sunset. There may be a new sheriff in town, but you are probably not it.

Dear Anonymous@3:35: You are incorrect. I know how lit firms work. What she earns is highly relevant. Unlike other people who are being laid-off in this economy, she has the means to recover and is less likely to have to worry about finding a job. I am in employment litigation and yes, in litigation, I have direct knowledge of the people involved, including but not limited to, their personnel files, workers comp claims, disability claims, and medical records. She knew what what she was getting into when she went to work for PH, and if she didn’t, she’s naive.

As the General Counsel of one of PH’s clients, I intend to bring up Ms. Oh’s situation at our next business review meeting. Frankly, if this is even close to an accurate account, PH will do no more work with us. We require more integrity in our business partners.

“she will pay the price by never getting another job like this again”

I think that was the goal.

What a brave person. Most associates are too frightened to claw back against big-law.

If big-law continues to abuse associates it will only be a matter of time before they are unionized - and then they will really have a problem.

Its good that the subjec6t of law firm firings gets another airing. Unfortunately, I doubt that Paul Hastings has learned anything after all this bad publicity. I sympaphize with the dismissed female associate in this matter, and it is likely that she would have received the same or similar treatment from a few other firms thatI can think of, as well. Mid level and senior associates can be extremely vulnerable to personnel reductions when bizness gets slow–I know ’cause I’ve been there, too! Paul Hastings handled this matter in a completely reprehensible manner. To praise an associate’s work and work ethic and then to turn around and essentially fabricate reasons for dismissal is amoral. PH needs an attitude adjustment on how it treats its own when times ger tough.

To Bottom Line: If you read her email, you’ll see that she recognizes that if layoffs were necessary, she might be an appropriate target, for perfectly legitimate reasons. She objected to how it was handled officially (by lying about the reason) and interpersonally (in the conduct of people she had worked with for years).

Law is such a nasty profession, with a ’screw you’ attitude. I am really surprised that Ms. Oh and others here actually expected decent treatment from their law firms. You guys take joy in pulling the wings off flies, and then you get all crybaby over a person who was legitimately terminated. So what if a mask covered the real reason for termination; that’s how things work in law and in business. You would think a person who has spent 10+ years in the profession would be used to this stuff.

To the point made near the top by “Good Move Actually”: I know of a former attorney from Paul Hastings who did just that - kept documentation of various questionable conduct (e.g., missing discovery deadlines, then leaning on the client to settle instead of coming clean; delaying use of a dispositive fact learned in discovery to continue billing the client to the tune of several million) and used it as leverage to leave on the attorney’s terms. What’s more - the attorney never signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

I wonder if firms will now require new associates to sign the non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement before the start of employment