As the market for legal jobs (other than bankruptcy of course) continues to gloom, lawyers are busy contemplating creative solutions to increase their practice's profitability. Many firms are restructuring their compensation schedules for associate's pay and partner distributions. Some are trying to figure out if they still want those entry-level associates that were deferred and are receiving a stipend.
But some despondent lawyers are simply trying to take advantage of the increasing supply of legal "talent". Tightening legal job market = sweeping layoffs = large demand for legal employment + large supply of candidates = cheap fun for some leveraged lawyers. In particular, an Illinois immigration attorney in need an extra hand and perhaps other body parts, placed a classy advertisement on Craigslist to find exactly what he was looking for. He was quite candid about his desires. Most legal job seekers would not be searching for a job in the "Adult Gigs" section of Craigslist, but that's precisely where this lawyer placed the ad. Most legal job seekers also would stop in their tracks after reading peculiar language in an ad such as this: (But then again, it was the adult gig section, so maybe most job seekers browsing this section would apply-- like this candidate did).
"Loop law firm looking to hire am [sic] energetic woman for their open secretary/legal assistant position. Duties will include general secretarial work, some paralegal work and additional duties for two lawyers in the firm. No experience required, training will be provided. Generous annual salary and benefits will be provided, including medical, dental, life, disability, 401(k) etc. If interested, please send current resume and a few pictures along with a description of your physical features, including measurements. We look forward to meeting you." [emphasis added]
I struggle to understand the logic-- adult gig as a legal sec or legal sec looking for adult gig?
I suppose there's nothing wrong with this advertisement. Attractive lawyers and secretaries can be found (and are often desired) in the most prominent law firms throughout the country. That is certainly not an astounding revelation. But asking for a description of your physical features and measurements---really? This is where I ask: "Are you kidding me?"
But why should he stop there? After all, this lawyer was looking for real talent, and talented legal secretaries must be comfortable handling various positions. Thus, he did what any talent recruiter would do, and followed up with an email to the responding candidate. In addition to the photo and measurements requirements, his job description email to the candidate required the candidate to perform sexually for the attorney. Because as he put it, prior secs were "unable to handle the sexual aspects of the job". What aspects? How about this rather concise checklist: "required to have sexual interaction with me and my partner, sometimes together sometimes separate". We all know he meant recording the partner meeting minutes with a smile.
The lawyer initially denied his involvement with the ad, stating that someone maliciously placed the ad. He later admitted to the ad and the email followup--both of which were traced back to his pc at his office. The job candidate complained, which resulted in a smack in face for "Conduct prejudicial to the Administration of Justice and Misrepresentation to the ARDC
in the Course of a Disciplinary Investigation". Nice.
Not exactly the kind of genius recruiting strategy you would want to explain to the disciplinary committee. At least he'll be able to find himself a strong defense within the Professional Code: candor to the tribunal.
Read the complaint filed with the Illinois Disciplinary Commission; Count III.
The https://www.iardc.org/09CH0053CM.html
As an aside, apparently some legal secretaries are also unemployed Adult Giggers.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Texas traffice violation: $204 for not speaking English!
Leaving a car door open too long (Oregon), leaving a sheep in the cab of your truck without a chaperone (Montana), shooting live game from a moving automobile (Tennessee), failure to stop on a dime, failure to tap the breaks at least 5 times consecutively prior to making a right turn, ah what the heck, you Hispanic people don't speak English so here's one for that too. Seriously, a $204 civil traffic citation for not speaking English. Its happened in Dallas, TX to at least 39 drivers. This may come as a surprise to you, but not speaking English while driving is actually not an offense in Dallas. But nevertheless, some officers handed out the citation despite the presence of their more experience supervisors. This was only uncovered after a formal complaint and investigation took place. Needless to say, the complainant is retaining counsel--small lady.
A police chief in Dallas when questioned about the incident responded: "I was surprised and stunned that that would happen, particularly in the city of Dallas,"
Oh really? Why? Because TX is not red-neck enough or because it's only about 19 miles from the Mexico border? (ok, more like 22 miles).
What's next, driving-while-brown? Wait we have that now, thanks to the Federal Statute under U.S. Immigration Custom Enforcement's (I.C.E.) section 287(g) that allows civil traffic stops to turn traffic stops into visa interviews. Awesome!
Read the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/DN-citations_23met.ART.State.Edition2.4bac015.html?nTar=OPUR
A police chief in Dallas when questioned about the incident responded: "I was surprised and stunned that that would happen, particularly in the city of Dallas,"
Oh really? Why? Because TX is not red-neck enough or because it's only about 19 miles from the Mexico border? (ok, more like 22 miles).
What's next, driving-while-brown? Wait we have that now, thanks to the Federal Statute under U.S. Immigration Custom Enforcement's (I.C.E.) section 287(g) that allows civil traffic stops to turn traffic stops into visa interviews. Awesome!
Read the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/DN-citations_23met.ART.State.Edition2.4bac015.html?nTar=OPUR
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Scalia thinks lawyers aren't a productive part of society.
"Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?...I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything."
What do you expect from a judge that is a literalist? Think of the most traditional lawyering job you can think of, may I suggest a prosecutor. What does a prosecutor do? Bring charges on behalf of the people (the feds, a state, city, county, or other municipality), and facilitate the application of a penal code against the alleged wrong doer. In a nutshell, prosecutors stand in the shoes of the people they represent, and facilitate the adversarial process to reach a just conclusion (obviously this is an ideal, often tainted by political pressures inherent in our public adjudicatory process). Is this not productive for society? Even the most primitive and ancient societies had some concept of a penal system through which charges were brought against the accused, a fact finding process would take place, and ultimately the guilty would pay the price. Perhaps not in the Salem witch trial. But you see my point. Even in this iconic traditional lawyering job, a prosecutor is arguably doing something quite productive for society.
How about lawyers in other areas of legal practice: accident injury, and medical malpractice ; real estate; securities; mergers and acquisitions; civil rights; trust and estate planning; patent, copyright, trademark, trade secrets; etc. What do these guys do? Of course each area of legal practice may be bifurcated into two discrete categories of practice, transactional and litigation, which can generally cross all areas of law. Transactional and litigation practices can be found within all areas of legal practice. Here, Scalia points directly to litigation and states that it offers no semblance of productivity to society. So let's address that directly. We can easily supplant the example of the prosecutor from above with any of the listed practice areas with litigation components, again, that includes almost all areas of practice. At the most rudimentary level, the job of a prosecutor and most litigators is essentially the same. So if you can buy into the view that prosecutors facilitate critical elements of society (e.g. the penal system), then similarly, all litigators facilitate the adjudication and settlement of some essential component of society found in each area of legal practice--- the injured receive compensation; buyers can buy in full confidence; businesses can raise capital and investors can mitigate risk; etc.
Examining the productivity of transactional lawyers is even easier. Transactional lawyers simply facilitate the exchange of bargains and mitigate risks in each area of legal practice. Let's just keep it that simple. Assuming this is true, the wheels of a productive society would slow if not completely halt if people could neither make proper bargains nor live free from risks. Take for example, primacy of contract.
Scalia's remark is quite awkward and damaging to our profession, and even himself (hello--he is a judge!) The only difference between building a car and being a lawyer is that our airbags are built to resist financial impact.
Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/01/scalia-we-are-devoting-too-many-of-our-best-minds-to-lawyering/
What do you expect from a judge that is a literalist? Think of the most traditional lawyering job you can think of, may I suggest a prosecutor. What does a prosecutor do? Bring charges on behalf of the people (the feds, a state, city, county, or other municipality), and facilitate the application of a penal code against the alleged wrong doer. In a nutshell, prosecutors stand in the shoes of the people they represent, and facilitate the adversarial process to reach a just conclusion (obviously this is an ideal, often tainted by political pressures inherent in our public adjudicatory process). Is this not productive for society? Even the most primitive and ancient societies had some concept of a penal system through which charges were brought against the accused, a fact finding process would take place, and ultimately the guilty would pay the price. Perhaps not in the Salem witch trial. But you see my point. Even in this iconic traditional lawyering job, a prosecutor is arguably doing something quite productive for society.
How about lawyers in other areas of legal practice: accident injury, and medical malpractice ; real estate; securities; mergers and acquisitions; civil rights; trust and estate planning; patent, copyright, trademark, trade secrets; etc. What do these guys do? Of course each area of legal practice may be bifurcated into two discrete categories of practice, transactional and litigation, which can generally cross all areas of law. Transactional and litigation practices can be found within all areas of legal practice. Here, Scalia points directly to litigation and states that it offers no semblance of productivity to society. So let's address that directly. We can easily supplant the example of the prosecutor from above with any of the listed practice areas with litigation components, again, that includes almost all areas of practice. At the most rudimentary level, the job of a prosecutor and most litigators is essentially the same. So if you can buy into the view that prosecutors facilitate critical elements of society (e.g. the penal system), then similarly, all litigators facilitate the adjudication and settlement of some essential component of society found in each area of legal practice--- the injured receive compensation; buyers can buy in full confidence; businesses can raise capital and investors can mitigate risk; etc.
Examining the productivity of transactional lawyers is even easier. Transactional lawyers simply facilitate the exchange of bargains and mitigate risks in each area of legal practice. Let's just keep it that simple. Assuming this is true, the wheels of a productive society would slow if not completely halt if people could neither make proper bargains nor live free from risks. Take for example, primacy of contract.
Scalia's remark is quite awkward and damaging to our profession, and even himself (hello--he is a judge!) The only difference between building a car and being a lawyer is that our airbags are built to resist financial impact.
Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/01/scalia-we-are-devoting-too-many-of-our-best-minds-to-lawyering/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)