Never Too Educated to Be Sexually Harassed!

I curse like a sailor. This is a bad habit that I picked up in college.  At the end of college, I said, I will not curse in Law School, because I want to be more professional.  But, in Law School, people cursed like sailors as well--even the professors.  So, upon graduation, I decided I would not curse during my clerkship.     But Judge Bitch cursed in chambers all of the time.  So, I slid back into my old ways.  However, I promised myself that I would stop when I began the practice of the law. You guessed it--the most unprofessional environment ever was the first small firm that I worked for in New York City.  So, I stopped trying.
But it wasn't the cursing that got under my skin--it was the overall lack of professionalism and, mostly, the sexual harassment.  Well, that's an overstatement.  I was an adult and I could handle it, but I was astounded at the things that came out of my bosses' mouth.

"Wear a low cut shirt to court tomorrow."
"Sleep with the judge if you have to."
"Did anyone see my dental floss?  Oh, it's between Molly's butt cheeks today--nice thong, Molly!"
"You don't have to sleep with him, but he should think it might happen."
"Yah, the folder is in that drawer... don't squat, bend over."

It was a sexually charged environment. There was even talk of not allowing flats as part of the dress code.  It was obvious to everyone that the "girls" in the office were hired based on looks and the boss would inevitably make a pass at every girl in the office.  Whether or not they were welcome advances is another story.  Couple the sexual harassment with the racism and homophobia and it was a bit uncomfortable to work there.

So, Slate published this "Dear Prudence" letter about a similar office experience:

Dear Prudence,

I am a female law student who is employed for the summer (and potentially for the school year) at a small firm that I'm really enjoying. The law office shares a floor of an office building with a bigger law firm, and my cubicle is "on the border." All of the attorneys at both firms are male, but at the other firm, the men are far from politically correct. I have two issues: First, one of the attorneys, "Jerry," often makes comments to me about my appearance. These range from annoying but harmless ("Nice tan") to creepy ("I like that skirt," in a lecherous tone). I have tried to ignore him or subtly indicate his comments aren't welcome, but neither approach has worked. I'm tempted to speak to one of my firm's partners, but I fear it would make me look like a little girl running to a man to fight my battles. I'm also considering documenting all his comments until I have enough for a sexual harassment suit so I can make his firm pay for the legal education I used to nail it. Second, I overhear a lot of conversations I find highly offensive. The men are fond of using homosexuality-based insults, calling one another or opponents "fag" and "homo." The work environment is becoming so unpleasant that I wonder how long I can stand it. What should I do?

—Livid but Lost Law Student

Dear Livid,

I hope you don't view your law degree as a carte blanche to take to court everyone who makes you uncomfortable. If you tell a judge that getting the compliment "I like that skirt" made you unable to discharge your own legal duties, the conclusion may be that you need to find another line of work, not that the firm of Blowhard, Homophobe & Creep owes you a tuition check. The law firm you're working for likely won't be impressed with your enterprising spirit if they find out you've filed suit against the guys next door. Let's deal with Jerry. As you've discovered, being subtle isn't working. I assume your legal education is teaching you to state your position plainly, so do so. Next time Jerry comes over, tell him, "Jerry, I'd appreciate it if you would cease remarking on my appearance. I find your comments disruptive and your tone hostile. I hope you understand what I'm saying and that I won't have to say it again. Thanks." Only if he escalates should you take it to one of your partners, explaining that you've tried to deal with him yourself. As for the frat boys next door—get a sound-blocking headset if you must. Yes, their comments are repugnant, but you don't want to be the Carrie Nation of your floor. Let's hope this is resolved one day when a client of the firm who doesn't share their sensibilities overhears the office banter.

—Prudie

Wow.  I was a little shocked at her advice.  She was less than understanding.  But Above the Law was also heartless about this poor girl's plight:

This discussion raises a larger question: Do female lawyers and law students need to get thicker skins?

If workplace complaints from women lawyers focus these days on uncouth remarks by men, perhaps it’s because the worst of sexism is in the past. The days when Sandra Day O’Connor couldn’t find a job as a lawyer but only as a legal secretary, despite graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School, are ancient history. Now women with credentials like O’Connor’s are eagerly courted by the nation’s top law firms. Women make partner with regularity in Biglaw, and many have risen to become managing partner.

...  Let’s face it: sex is funny. And if you’re going to take human sexuality off the table entirely as a topic of conversation, offices are going to become a lot less fun.

So, because Elena Kagan was appointed to SCOTUS, a young woman cannot be sexually harassed?  When I was young, in college, I felt that men behaiving badly was justified in their mind because I was an undereducated underling.  But, as a woman, I suppose we have to deal with this, even as we crack the ceiling and become CEOs and Supreme Court Justices?  Epic FAIL, ATL and Prudie.  When will women be treated humanely?  Forget about being equal.  Would you want someone to speak to your daughter, mother or wife this way?

Per Diem and Part-time Jobs for Part-time Pay: Glorified by the Media

Well, I take on per diem work. I think lots of solos do.  When you don't have enough of your own clients to keep you busy, then you have to do what you have to do--even if that's making a court appearance for $50.  I have been paid more, but that's the going rate.  It sucks, but you have to look at the long term picture and at the end of a slow month, $500 means too much to let it go.

I was in court today on a per diem matter in Civil Court. I checked the calendar and noted that my case was 188 on the calendar.  All I had to do was yell out, "Plaintiff, application!"  Easy schmeezy, right?  This is what the calendar call sounded like (I actually wrote it down, because I couldn't believe what I was hearing):
one huded one personal touch and dandho
one huded too so non jury personal touch
one huded tree rental surrogates altight
one huded foh wess end buy de parsippany.

She's still warm.  Can you go to a compliance
conference for me on Friday?  Lemme know
what happens.

Yah, he sounded liked he had a whole keg of beer and went to work to call the calendar call.  Now, if he wasn't actually drunk--THAT is job security.  You are hired to call out the calendar and little else, you somehow are no longer able to to do the one task you were hired to do and you still get to do it.  Thank God that I noted the number and the numbers were somewhat discernible.  I heard "one huded aay ate" and stood quickly to get my adjournment and leave.  He said something to me, when I asked for the date.  I just repeated myself and skedaddled.  I laughed all the way to my office.  That's the nice side of per diem work.

So, just to summarize, you are a warm body sent to court to get adjournments and such and you're paid.  I could be a chimp with a pipe in plaid pants and accomplish the task.  Essentially, I'm doing the work that any first year associate in a small to mid-sized firm SHOULD be doing to learn the ins and outs of court, but the firms that hire me are too cheap to take someone on full-time. It's outsourcing on a small scale.

Then I ran into this delightful article about per diem work, which doesn't mention it by name.  Instead, the article is entitled: Lawyers seek more work-life balance; firms accommodate them
So nice of them to do that.  But you and I and the chimp that wants to go to court instead of me, knows better.  But here are the high points (with italics):

By day, Katie Birmingham is all about her inner foodie, as chef-owner of  her Atlanta  eatery, Noon Midtown. By night, Birmingham's a barrister for Counsel on Call, a law firm that gives its network of lawyers the choice to take on as much or as little legal work as desired.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck--it's per diem work.  Call it like it is.


Though she loves the law and has practiced since 2003, Birmingham loves cooking just as much, and left the big Atlanta firm Kilpatrick Stockton in 2008 to have the flexibility to do both. Hmmm... in the midst of the recession, she "left" KS to open a restaurant and be a per diem attorney.

"Cooking is such a strong passion for me; it always has been," she said. The flexible scheduling with Counsel on Call "gives you a little bit more control over your time and, as a consequence, more control of your life."  I agree.  This is a perk.  But I wish my time, resulted in more money.  I doubt Atlanta pays more.
****
Now onto the part of the article that talks about screwing attorneys (even partners) out of money under the guise of work-life balance.


"The legal profession right now is changing so much. First, there are fewer jobs now in the industry. Second, you have a squeeze on rates, which makes it hard to bill a premium on associates," said Stephen M. Paskoff, an attorney, founder and president of ELI, an Atlanta-based employer consulting firm that specializes in harassment, wage and hour compliance and other workplace training. "I do think there's a greater appreciation for diversity."

Part of that diversity appreciation comes from a realization by law firms they risk losing good lawyers by holding on to rigid standards. "For today's people coming fresh out of law school, it's not at all unusual for them to talk to you about their desire to have balance of life," said Roger Quillen, chairman and managing partner of Fisher & Phillips, a national labor and employment law firm based in Atlanta.  

Andria Lure Ryan, a partner at Fisher & Phillips, works on a reduced schedule. As a single mom, she's juggling her kids' wrestling, softball and volleyball practices and games and other activities. She's wired, though, so whether she's in the office or at her youngest daughter's softball game, she's never more than a iPhone "beep" away. "If I’m not responsive to my clients when they need me to be, then I’m going to lose my clients."

There is a trade-off: Ryan earns roughly 25 percent less than her peer partners who do not work a reduced schedule, but she said it's worth it.
*********

With more lawyers seeking time do engage in activities beyond familial obligations, more firms are formalizing leave policies tailored for that.

"A couple of generations ago, it was unheard of for you to think you could be an effective lawyer and work reduced hours. It's no longer," said Vanessa E. Goggans, human resources partner at Morris, Manning Martin in Atlanta. Reduce your hours and your pay, or join the bread line.

Am I the only one that sees this as a way of reducing salaries?  Am I the only one who sees per diem as a means of outsourcing your grunt work as an alternative to hiring a first year associate?  Tell me if I'm wrong, please!  I want to think that law firms are doing this for the benefit of associates, but I somehow doubt that work-life balance is on their balance sheets.

LIES! Watch Out, Kansas City! Bull Alert!

I saw this headline ("Study: Life After Law School Gets Tougher") and was happy--over the moon! As you know, more news coverage is good news. And then I read on and somehow this reporter skews the news into something positive. I took Journalism in college, and I could hear my professor saying: "Journalism 101: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" What's up with dropping your uneducated opinion into a news story, Steve Vockrodt???

So, although the title sounds accurate, the article says...

Here are a few survey findings that stick out from NALP’s report:
• Between 3,200 and 3,700 graduates in 2009 had their start dates at law firms deferred past Dec. 1. The usual start date is around September.
• About 25 percent of respondents said their jobs were temporary, although that figure includes judicial clerkships.
• Many of those who did find jobs weren’t happy with them — about 22 percent of 2009 graduates were looking for a different job, double what the figure was in 2000.
If those figures seem grim, there’s one that contradicts the perception of an entirely ugly job market. The overall employment rate for 2009 law school graduates was 88 percent, down just a bit from the recent high of nearly 92 percent in 2007.That’s not bad, but it’s clear that the dynamic of employment options has changed and may continue to change during the next couple of years.

“Members of this graduating class were more likely to be working part-time, working in a temporary job, working in a job that does not require a JD, working as a solo practitioner or working but still looking for another job than their peers who graduated in the classes before them,” says James Leipold, NALP’s executive director.

What's wrong with this picture, folks? Surely, you've read the scam blogs long enough to say, right??? I'll tell you what's wrong. 88 percent of law graduates are employed, OF THE PEOPLE THAT REPORTED.

Yep, the shame factor is not computed into the NALP survey and certainly not mentioned by this reporter. What's the shame factor? It's the same thing that keeps me from revealing my identity to the world, or any of us for this matter (except Nando and L4L). It's the same thing that keeps all of us from passing out pamphlets in front of our alma mater. It's the reason why you comment anonymously. So, if you adjust that 88% downward, for the number of graduates that are too ashamed to tell their law school that they are STILL unemployed--we're looking at something like 50%. If you adjust that figure, by taking out the 10% or so that are employed--in temporary document review--we're at 40%.

Hang in there, law school grads!

Suck it, Steve!

(written by Angel, posted by HardKnocks)

Do Women JDs Receive Equal Compensation?

I ran into this article about women's salaries, JDs v. MBAs--who has a better chance of earning the same salary as their male counterparts?   According to the article, it's female JDs.  Well, with those of us that are blessed enough to land a Big Law job, I'm sure that is true.  There's no justification for paying a first year female differently than a male.

Also, women holding professional degrees (J.D.s, M.B.A.s and M.D.s) fare even worse -- over the course of their careers, they will earn $2 million less than the men in their graduating class, says Lang. "How's that for a graduation gift?"


But what about shit law?

When I was a shit law associate, I was painfully aware that the men in my office were making more than I was.  There was a guy named Ken who was married and roughly my equal as an associate.  BUT, I was more experienced than he was and I was often helping him with his cases.  He graduated a year after me, but was a bit older because he was a non-traditional law student.  He carried a lesser caseload. I was definitely the workhorse at the firm.  He was married, but his wife earned tons more money than he did.  After a couple of years, I found out that he was making $75K when I was making $60K.  I also found out that his bonus was larger than mine was.   In fact, I received less of a bonus than all of the associates.  But when I received that disgraceful bonus, and subsequently found another job, my boss almost cried.  For the next 4 years, he would call me up from time to time and ask me if I'd like to come back.  I wanted to ask him why he didn't pay me fairly.

Since I know that I was valued, but not compensated thus, I imagined a million and one reasons why I was paid the least and worked the most.  The hierarchy in my office was as follows:  (1) married men, (2) single men, (3) married women and (4) me, a single woman.  Maybe the married men were paid more because they had to support a family, even though their wives worked.  And the married women did not work as hard as I did because they could always fall back on their husbands.  One of the married chicks, Belinda, would just say no to my boss when he asked her to work weekends or stay late.  "My husband is waiting for me," and she'd walk out of the office.  But I had no one to lean on (not even a boyfriend at the time), so I had no leverage.  There were a couple of times that my boss would push the envelope so much that I couldn't breathe, and I would have a break down and quit, saying that my father would support me and I don't have to deal with his bullshit.  But in the end, my boss probably knew that my blue collar father could not help me that much.

When I went to the next firm, it was the same dynamic.  Even the only female partner earned less than the male partners--although she was the most well known attorney at the firm.  She too was single.  And the firm had a rotating door for female associates.  They couldn't hold onto them for longer than a year.  I really think that the main partner, a man, was much harder on the women associates.

In the end, is it still a good old boy's club?