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.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
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!
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!
Monday, August 18, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)