Karma, Baby, Karma

Long time, no post, been busy with work, kids, etc. But last night, I got some fun news.

I used to work for a satellite office of a relatively large law firm. At that time, I really wanted to work in the suburbs, thinking I'd have a shorter commute, less stress/work hours and more time with family. Certainly I was interested in getting ahead in my profession, and I had the impression the firm understood my desires and would work with me for both our benefits.

The job started out well, my boss seemed pretty decent, interesting cases and I made my billable hours without problems. After six months, I got a good review and indications that this would be my job for the future. I had heard rumors that my boss could be difficult to work for, but he seemed ok to me. I was also aware that the current managing partner of the satellite office was going to retire within the next couple of years and my boss was the leading candidate to take over the position. He knew it and did have a tendancy to throw his weight around because of it.

Then, over Christmas, I went on vacation and during that time found out I was pregnant. When I returned to work, I was still having a very difficult time with "all-day sickness" (I ultimately lost 25 pounds with the pregnancy, and only gained back about 10 of those pounds before birth). Also, given my age and weight, I was placed in the 'high risk' category. Due to these circumstances, and the anticipated effect it might have on my work hours, I told my boss early.

Almost overnight, my work environment changed. Suddenly my boss was on my back about every little thing. While I didn't have set work hours, he would be annoyed if I got to work 5 minutes later than when he felt I should be there. He was annoyed everytime I went to a doctor's appointment (which were more frequent because I was high risk). He started cutting my billing hours, then yelling at me for not billing enough. During this time, work did slow down overall, plus none of the other partners wanted to give me work when I was going out on maternity leave soon. On several occasions, my boss yelled at me about something or another, enough that it brought me to tears. My doctor could tell that my work environment was not good and wanted me to go out on maternity leave early, but I didn't have the 'symptoms' to justify a medical leave, so going out early would be without a paycheck.

I also heard from a couple other people that my boss treated them quite poorly over various things. A friend of mine, who got a job at this office on my recommendation, ended up leaving because my boss treated her so badly. I'm sure her leaving didn't sit well with my boss and he probably took some of his annoyance out on me, but I certainly don't blame my friend.

My boss made my life so miserable during this time that I pretty much decided before I did go out on maternity leave that I would either seek to transfer to another office within the firm, or find a new job. As it turned out, my maternity leave got extended into a medical leave due to a torn rotator cuff that required surgery, and when I didn't return after the FMLA leave expired (due to the medical leave), my firm decided they didn't want me back. I'm fairly certain it was my boss' decision, or that he pushed it through the managing partner.

Coincidently, the other two associates at this office did not have families, and thus worked late hours. I'm pretty certain that I was let go because I did have a family, with other obligations that required my time, and couldn't work late hours. One of the associates I kept in contact with said that after I left (along with another associate that quit) she routinely worked until 8-9 pm almost every night and rarely took more than 15 minutes for lunch. In my opinion, the office decided it was better to have 2 associates working 15 hour days, rather than 4 associates working 7-8 hour days. I also know that the other associate that left, did so in part because she hated working for my boss (she had a few cases with him before my maternity leave, but more when I went out on maternity leave).

I suppose it worked out pretty well for me in the long run. I got a decent severance package and unemployment sustained me until I found a new job. I got more time home with my new baby. My new job doesn't pay quite as much, but its close, and the work environment is significantly better. Fortunately, I got my new job before the economy went to hell and I'm plenty busy.

So, the good news? Well, turns out that my ex-boss, Mr. "In the lead for managing partner" didn't get the job. Hah!! Just found out last night when a friend and also former associate ran into a secretary at the office who told her that another partner, a much nicer partner, got the job. Rumor has it that my ex-boss was voted down because the management committee for the entire firm felt that my ex-boss cost too many other people jobs and people didn't like working for him. Gee, wonder where they got that idea from?

All I can say is Karma, baby, Karma.

Seriously

Why are we still allowing Chinese products into our country? They poison our children's toys, they poison our pets' food and now they poisoned their milk (at least it was only their own, but I feel terrible about their babies). Clearly this country is emerging in the shadow of capitalist america by valuing the almight dollar (or yuan) above all else. So much for communism, eh? This is a country that faked the Olympic opening ceremonies, having one child lip-sync to another child because the singer wasn't 'cute enough.'

Unfortnately, chinese products are so cheap, they are practically the only ones you can find in certain markets, like toys. Of course, that's because of our own country's rampant corporate greed that found it was better to hire the chinese company that pays its workers 5 cents an hour with no benefits than american workers that require unreasonable things like health insurance and sick days. Then the american corporation can give its CEOs and boardmembers millions and shareholders thousands, while sure they pass along perhaps a dollar or two savings on the product to the public. Frankly, I would rather pay a little more for something made elsewhere. Definitely going to look for that in the upcoming holidays.

So far so good

So I've been at this new job nearly four months now, and so far, so good. My boss is easy to work for, he gives me plenty to do, but doesn't nag me. He doesn't cut my billing hours (or at least he hasn't complained to me that he's had to). He hasn't said word one about whether I'm dressed appropriately (or complained that I wasn't), or that I have to leave to pick up my kids from school, or even the couple of days I had to work from home because of sick kids.

And now, for the second time in this four month period, I'm getting a trip to NYC to wine and dine clients. The firm is paying for me to take whatever train I want, will pay for the taxi fare, and pay for a pretty expensive meal. If I wanted, they'd even pay for me to spend the night in a decent hotel. I opted not, so I could come home to family, but it was nice to know it was an option. My last law firm that was supposedly "more elite" or "more prestigious" never did this. The closest was a "quick bite" in a hotel restaurant when a client was in town for a settlement conference. My last lawfirm also refused to pay for my California bar license or for more than one bar association membership. My current firm says they'll pay for both the license and any extra bar associations I want to join.

Now my salary isn't quite as high, but its not too far off. I know my current firm would love me to bill as much as my last firm required, but they accept that I probably won't. Given that my boss isn't slashing my hours faster than a Ginsu knife, I've actually come close to 'ideal' hours twice and made it once in the last three months. For September, I'll probably come close again. If this keeps up, the only month I'll probably not bill well is December, when the French family comes to visit.

So far, I'm really liking it here. The work is interesting, the people nice, the work environment great. I hope it keeps up.

Shoot Me Now

I can't believe I am going to defend insurance companies. I know I have to do it for a living, but I don't really like it. Usually, I try and convince myself that even though the insurance company is paying my bill and calls the shots, I'm really representing the poor sap insured (whose rates have already increased the moment the lawsuit is served).

Anyway, recently I've worked on cases where the Plaintiff has sued our client, who admittedly was probably negligent, but the plaintiff doesn't sue the party that really caused the wrong. The reason? Because our client has insurance and the really wrong party doesn't. Yup, the Plaintiff presumes that the insurance company will likely pony up at least some money to settle the lawsuit, which is probably right, whereas the really wrong party probably doesn't have two sous to rub together (which may or may not be true). Its annoying because not only does it offend my sense of justice (yeah, I do have one), but it makes more work for me because I then have to prepare a joinder complaint to join the really wrong party into the lawsuit, and serve the complaint (and I have plenty of other work to do, I don't need the extra billables, thank you).

Its not like it costs the Plaintiffs that much extra to add on another defendant, and the plaintiffs in these cases, can well afford the sums. Some plaintiffs (or their counsel) are just too lazy.

Pro Se Pains

Gah, I hate pro se plaintiffs. They flaunt the rules, enforce the ones they choose, get away with not following the ones they don't like. You can't call them up and ask for reasonable extensions, because they aren't reasonable. You can't file motions against them because they just plead "poor me, I have no attorney" to the judge and get away with their vague and incomplete answers to discovery. You are left with no choice but to take their deposition, where they make your life even more difficult by claiming not to understand your questions, or just outright refusing to answer. Sure you can file a motion for that, but then you're forced to retake the deposition.

Its not quite as bad in federal court, you can arrange to have a magistrate sit in on the deposition to make instant rulings and force the plaintiff to answer. The judges are also a lot more likely to grant summary judgment motions, even if the plaintiff could make an argument for his case, but due to his lack of attorney, he doesn't. State court is much more forgiving to pro se plaintiffs and bend over backward. State court judges deny clearly meritorious motions because they too don't want the pro se plaintiff filing even more documents. More often than not, their settlement demands are outrageous, they refuse to see reason and ultimately the client has to pay a ton of money in attorneys fees to either win at summary judgment (if lucky) or at trial. Yeah, its nice to have good billing time, but the headache these plaintiffs put one through, its not worth it.

All in all, pro se plaintiffs are a PITA in every sense of the word. They really should get a clue when they can't find even a sleaze-ball attorney to represent them.

Poor Attorneys

So recently I've been reading a few blogs and forums about the problems many east coast lawyers are facing (I don't know is west coasters have the same problems, all the info I can find seems limited to east coasters). Apparently since the time I graduated lawschool tuitions have risen significantly at "lower tier" schools (i.e. the ones not at the top - Harvard, Yale, etc.) so students resorting to student loans, come out in debt to the tune of $100,000 or more. Thereafter, unless they are at the very top of their class and on law review (or have connections), they can't find worthwhile paying jobs, and many end up doing document review for "biglaw" firms.

Document review is where big company, like Merck, gets sued, due to Vioxx for example, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of documents that have to be produced in discovery in this mass tort claim. Each document must be reviewed to determine whether it must be produced (i.e. relevant to the case) and if so, whether there is any privileged information in it that needs to be redacted. I did a little bit of work in this field when I first got my law license in PA (and frankly I was annoyed that the headhunters didn't tell me about this stuff when I first moved to PA, I could have done with my CA license and made more money than the paralegal jobs I got, but back to the main issue). It was easy work, you pull the document up on a computer screen, code it, go on to the next document. You could set your own hours, 9-5 was pretty much necessary, but you could work more or sometimes a little less, if you wanted or needed to. The only thing is that most of this 'contract work' provides no benefits (although some staffing agencies will allow you to buy into their benefits package) and, of course, its not really stimulating work nor does it provide any real legal experience.

As it is, I feel for document review attorneys who are struggling to pay off these huge loans, working jobs for $25-$30 per hour ($50,000-$60,000) without benefits. Now apparently the ABA (who accredits the multitude of these lower tiered but expensive lawschools) has decided that its "OK" for biglaw firms to outsource their document review projects to India. You have got to be kidding me. Work that requires a US law license can now be done by someone with who knows what legal training and certainly no US law license in another country? Naturally the lawfirms love it. Why pay a US attorney $30 an hour when his/her Indian counterpart will do the same work for $5 an hour? Hell, they might not even tell their client they've outsourced the work, thereby pocketing the difference when they bill out the work at $150 per hour.

Its bad enough that the market is glutted enough with too many lawyers, with huge debts, that sink non "biglaw" salaries down to $60,000-$70,000, even for lawyers with significant experiencee (just no clients). Now there will be even more out of work attorneys, who will be forced to take just about any job, so employers will lower salaries even more. All the while lawschools advertise that their graduates earn up to $160,000. Yeah, some do, but only some, not the majority, yet everyone has to pay the high tuition. You don't get a tuition refund if you fail to make top 10%. Maybe they should.

Mixed Bag

So given how I lost both of my last two jobs after I gave birth to my children, I was following with interest the case of Todaro v. Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, which is in the Eastern District of NY. In this case, one plaintiff, an associate, left her job citing hostile work environment, after she received a paycut from $102,000 to $77,000 shortly after telling her employer she was pregnant. The employer claimed the associate's work product quality had decreased. The other plaintiff, a paralegal, was actually let go after she returned from maternity leave and proved that she received raises every year of her employment except the two years she gave birth.

Details about the cases are at:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423744292 and

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423970420


The paralegal received a judgment of $203,838 (plus punitive damages, which are being contested); the associate got $16,499, apparently only because after her pay cut, the next lowest paid associate still made $20,000 more than her, thus violating the Equal Pay Act.

Now, I don't know all the details of the case, but I have to wonder what difference there was between the two. Either there was discrimination against pregnant women/mothers, or there wasn't. I did notice that while the firm touted itself as 'women friendly,' apparently only one other woman at the firm had kids, a named partner (though no mention is made as to their ages or what her family situation is like).

Did it make a difference that the paralegal was fired, while the associate quit? How many people do you know could stay in a job with a 25% pay cut? Does this mean that all an employer has to do is cut a pregnant woman's salary and claim that work product was 'going downhill?' Some women blossom in pregnancy, but for some (myself included) its a miserable experience that I couldn't wait to be done with, I was sick and exhausted all the time. I'm sure my work wasn't as "top notch" as it is normally.

Did it make a difference that the associate got a bunch of perks (golf clubs and lessons, a five figure wedding gift, paid off car lease) that most jurors would never see in their jobs? Maybe. Hard to know when one doesn't know the jury make-up (although in my experience, high paid professionals are never jurors).

In any event, I thought this case was a real mixed bag for women's rights.

Those Who Stand

When I started my new job in the city, I began using public transportation again. This time, however, I was using a trolly/subway instead of the train. The main difference I've noticed, is that while people do their best to sit on the train, most want to stand on the trolly and subway. What's annoying is that they stand right at the doorway. Now if the person gets on at one stop and is getting off at the very next stop, or perhaps the one after that, I can understand standing near the door. But when one is taking up space at the door, making it difficult for other passengers to get on, and move past them for several stops, I want to yell out "hey, take a seat!"

I mean really, do you have to block the door just to make sure that you're the first one out the door? Are those few precious seconds that are saved because you reached the exit first that necessary? Are you that important that you must reach your destination a few seconds before me? Its annoying enough when I have to move through several of you to get into the trolly so I can sit down. On the few occasions that I have my baby stroller and therefore must stand in the area you are at because the stroller is too big to move down the aisle, I'm pissed.

Hey! Take a seat!

A Night Out

So my husband and I had a night out last night. Our first dinner sans kids in about four years. We went to a nice restaurant and then to see Spamalot.

I know that a Sunday evening performance isn't exactly the prime "dress up" night like Friday or Saturday, but I was really shocked to see how casual some people were dressed at the show. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but even when my parents took me to shows as a teenager on Saturday or Sunday afternoons, I always wore a dress and my father always wore a suit. My mother either wore a dress or a nice pants suit.

But my how times have changed. I saw people last night wearing jeans or shorts and T-shirts. Its not like they were sitting in the 'cheap' seats either. These were people that had paid at least, if not more than the $85 a ticket my husband and I paid for seats in the third row of the first balcony. The only time I ever wore casual clothes to a show was the few times I sat outside a theatre in London while a lawstudent waiting for returns (I had to wait nearly 6 hours in line to see Phantom, but got the best seats ever, second row of the Dress Circle).

Just seems to me that theatres should impose a dress code, like some restaurants do. You won't see jeans and T-shirts at Le Bec Fin, you shouldn't see them at the Academy of Arts. Its a sign of respect to the performers to dress up and at least pretend that going out to the theatre is special.