Are Anti-Gay Clients Now Too Toxic For Big Law Firms To Take Them?

Law firms aren’t exactly lining up to kill these two men’s marriage.

I was forced out of a large local law firm because of a fear that I, as an openly gay partner, would "offend the sensibilities of conservative clients."  That statement was made separately from the meeting when I was told I was no longer wanted, but one did not need to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots.  That of course occurred in Hampton Roads - not a bright center of the progressive universe except when compared to Southwest Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.  But now large mega firms based elsewhere (perhaps even Richmond?) seem to be firing severe homophobes as clients.  A piece in Think Progress looks at the phenomenon.  Here are some excerpts:

On Thursday, Utah announced that it hired attorney Gene Schaerr to lead its effort to defend marriage discrimination in a case that is likely to wind up before the Supreme Court. Utah’s announcement was mildly surprising because Schaerr is not Paul Clement, the de facto Solicitor General of the Republican Party who defended the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act before the justices.
Schaerr and Clement do share another thing in common, however, beyond their representation of high-profile anti-gay clients. Both men left their jobs at large law firms shortly after taking on an anti-gay case.

Clement left behind a partnership at the firm of King and Spalding after gay rights groups and Coca Cola, one of King and Spalding’s top clients, pressured the firm to drop its defense of the anti-gay DOMA law. He went on to argue the DOMA cases at a small law firm founded by a former Bush Administration official.

Although the circumstances of Schaerr’s decision to leave his law firm are a bid more opaque — the firm, Winston & Strawn, released a vague statement saying that “Gene Schaerr, our former partner and formerly one of the co-leaders of our appellate and critical motions practice, has decided to resign from the firm in order to take a position as Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Utah” — it’s hard to miss the similarities between this resignation and Clement’s. Simply put, lawyers do not typically resign from law firms because they take on a new client — taking on new paying clients is exactly what makes a law firm’s partners valuable to the firm.

Beyond the risk that a major client may balk at the firm’s activities, there’s another obvious reason why large law firms may not want to take on major anti-gay cases. Firms compete for top graduates and recent law clerks in their hiring process, and most new lawyers come from an age group that overwhelmingly supports marriage equality.
[T]he fact that a firm is also engaged in anti-gay defense work can easily be enough to push clients and potential hires into another firm’s arms.

Indeed, both Winston & Strawn and King and Spalding profess to value diversity as, in King and Spalding’s words, “an integral part of our culture.” The firm Schaerr is leaving to become Utah’s top anti-gay counsel offers a generous domestic partner benefit to same-sex couples that effectively cancels out the negative federal tax treatment afforded to gay couples that are unable to marry.

A common defense offered by lawyers who take on unpopular clients is that every party to litigation deserves competent counsel — and this is normally a very good argument. In this case, however, Utah already has plenty of lawyers . . . 

The Tyranny of the Billable Hour - Lawyers' Nightmares

Newly minted attorneys in large firms quickly learn one thing: the only thing that really matters to the firm head honcho's is how many billable hours one racks up.  While you hear platitudes about firm's respecting attorneys' home lives and valuing families, etc., it is all really a lie.  I experienced it myself fresh out of law school and associates at big firms are still living the nightmare of horrific hours at work and little or no social life.  Indeed, many of the very successful attorneys that I have known - success being defined by the amount of money earned - typically have been through one or more divorces and have been absentee parents.  Despite what the law firms claim, you do not get to have it all and you must often choose between family and "success."  A piece in the New York Times looks at the continued dysfunction in the world of law firms.  Here are excerpts:

“THAT bill shall know no limits,” wrote one DLA Piper lawyer to another in 2010 in what the firm is now calling “unfortunate banter” between associates about work for a client. But what is truly unfortunate is the underlying billable-hour regime and the law-firm culture it has spawned. 

Lost in the furor surrounding one large firm’s current public relations headache are deeper problems that go to the heart of the prevailing big law-firm business model itself. Regrettably, as with previous episodes that have produced high-profile scandals, the present outcry will probably pass and the billable hour will endure. 

It shouldn’t. The billable-hour system is the way most lawyers in big firms charge clients, but it serves no one. Well, almost no one. It brings most equity partners in those firms great wealth. Law firm leaders call it a leveraged pyramid. Most associates call it a living hell.

In a typical large firm, associates earn far less than the client revenues they generate. For example, a client receives an invoice totaling the number of hours each lawyer spends on the client’s matters, multiplied by the lawyer’s hourly rate, say $400 for a junior associate. Most big firms require associates to bill at least 1,900 hours a year, according to a survey last year by NALP, the Association for Legal Career Professionals. 

At $400 an hour, a hypothetical 2,000-hour-a-year associate generates $800,000 a year for the firm. But the firm typically pays the salaried lawyer one-fourth of that amount or less.

For associates, the goal is simple: meet the required (or expected) minimum number of billable hours to qualify for annual bonuses and salary increases. Billing 2,000 hours a year isn’t easy. It typically takes at least 50 hours a week to bill an honest 40 hours to a client. Add commuting time, bathroom breaks, lunch, holidays, an annual vacation and a little socializing, and most associates find themselves working evenings and weekends to “make their hours.” Most firms increase financial rewards as an associate’s billables move beyond the stated threshold. 

For partners, billable hours are a key measure of associate and partner productivity. More is better. The resulting culture pushes everyone harder. Meanwhile, each partner strives to maximize individual client billings that he or she controls. Those billings in most cases determine a partner’s annual share of the firm’s profits. Their clients also become tickets to other firms. That makes partners reluctant to share too many important client responsibilities with their associates and fellow partners. 

For clients, the consequences of the billable-hour system can be absurd. Fatigue through overwork can produce negative returns — the critical document missed during a late-night marathon review; the error in the draft of a corporate filing that goes unnoticed.

There’s a way out of the mess. But it requires clients to press harder for alternative fee arrangements, courts to back away from policies that embed the billable hour, law firm leaders to stop rewarding excessive associate hours and senior partners to consider the deleterious consequences of their myopic focus on short-term profit-maximizing behavior. 

In fact, a cottage industry has now developed in auditing outside law firm invoices to clients. Even so, as the deceit associated with the billable hour continues undetected, equally insidious consequences of the entire system endure. The episodes of public embarrassment will remain infrequent, and the triggers producing them will be idiosyncratic. DLA Piper’s current notoriety began when a former client refused to pay his roughly $675,000 bill. The firm sued him last year, and its internal e-mails about the matter became subject to discovery. Before long, they landed on the front page of The New York Times. 

DLA Piper said that the comments of its lawyers were “an inexcusable effort at humor.” What’s really not funny is the toll that the flawed system is taking on a vital profession. 

Candidly, life in a big firm is a nightmare and I'd only wish it on my worse enemy.   Most of my clients now want flat fees if the work involved allows it.  I may use an hourly rate and estimated number of hours required to set the flat fee, but once set the temptation to pad hours so prevalent in big firms vanishes.  The result is that clients do not continually get ripped off. 

Law Schools’ Applications Fall, Tuition Costs Soar and Jobs Are Scarce

Having been trapped by circumstances in the legal profession for decades I welcome reports that law school applications are plummeting.  The truth is that there are too many lawyers and from my experience, many of the younger ones are only too ready to cut ethical corners in their quest to make a buck.  Such pressure, of course, often tracks back directly to the insanely high debts they incurred going to law school in the first place while career prospects have greatly soured over the last 5 to 8 years.   Many other attorneys like myself who have come to realize what a lousy profession they are in dream of somehow escaping the world of law.  It's not a coincidence that attorneys have among the highest suicide rates of any profession.  The hours are horrible, clients increasingly expect 24/7 service and the pay outside of the mega firms and ambulance chasing personal injury firms isn't what it used to be.  The New York Times has another article in its continuing expose of  the reality of the legal profession that ought to be read by every individual considering law school.  Here are highlights:

Law school applications are headed for a 30-year low, reflecting increased concern over soaring tuition, crushing student debt and diminishing prospects of lucrative employment upon graduation. 

As of this month, there were 30,000 applicants to law schools for the fall, a 20 percent decrease from the same time last year and a 38 percent decline from 2010, according to the Law School Admission Council. Of some 200 law schools nationwide, only 4 have seen increases in applications this year. In 2004 there were 100,000 applicants to law schools; this year there are likely to be 54,000. 

Such startling numbers have plunged law school administrations into soul-searching debate about the future of legal education and the profession over all.

“Thirty years ago if you were looking to get on the escalator to upward mobility, you went to business or law school. Today, the law school escalator is broken.”  

After the normal dropout of some applicants, the number of those matriculating in the fall will be about 38,000, the lowest since 1977, when there were two dozen fewer law schools, according to Brian Z. Tamanaha of Washington University Law School, the author of “Failing Law Schools.”

The drop in applications is widely viewed as directly linked to perceptions of the declining job market. Many of the reasons that law jobs are disappearing are similar to those for disruptions in other knowledge-based professions, namely the growth of the Internet. Research is faster and easier, requiring fewer lawyers, and is being outsourced to less expensive locales, including West Virginia and overseas. 

Last spring, the American Bar Association released a study showing that within nine months of graduation in 2011, only 55 percent of those who finished law school found full-time jobs that required passage of the bar exam. 

“Students are doing the math,” said Michelle J. Anderson, dean of the City University of New York School of Law. “Most law schools are too expensive, the debt coming out is too high and the prospect of attaining a six-figure-income job is limited.”

“In the ’80s and ’90s, a liberal arts graduate who didn’t know what to do went to law school,” Professor Henderson of Indiana said. “Now you get $120,000 in debt and a default plan of last resort whose value is just too speculative. Students are voting with their feet. There are going to be massive layoffs in law schools this fall. We won’t have the bodies we need to meet the payroll.” 

I feel some sorrow for the new attorneys who are finding themselves in a career nightmare.  If they are smart, they will find a way out of law early enough to find other careers.   For those of us older attorneys, we are sadly trapped unless we win the lottery.

Thomson Reuters Opposes Minnesota's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

The list of companies that the Bible thumping hate merchants at American Family Association and its Christiofascist allies need to boycott just keeps on growing.  While no where near as powerful or with as strong a grip on global business, Thomson Reuters has joined the list of progressive companies that are opposing the effort of the hate family values organizations that seek to drag America back into a Middle Ages mindset and force same sex couples into a 4th class citizenship status.  Minnesota United for All Families has issued a press release on this latest slap in the face to the knuckle dragging forces of the far right.  Here are highlights:

Thomson Reuters, a company with thousands of employees in Minnesota, announced today that it firmly and clearly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the freedom to marry for committed, same-sex couples in our state. With its historic announcement today, Thomson Reuters joins Fortune 500 companies General Mills and St. Jude Medical in opposing this freedom-limiting marriage amendment.

This news comes on the heels of a statement from leaders of seven major Minnesota law firms in opposition to this amendment, saying in the Star Tribune today that, “the marriage amendment endangers our business climate, signaling that ours is a community that does not welcome members of the LGBT community. This directly impacts Minnesota businesses, including law firms, which are dependent on attracting and retaining the best and brightest talent, regardless of sexual orientation.”

Thomson Reuters said, “As we’ve heard from employees, recruiters and customers, one thing has been very clear: we’re a better place when we have a rich variety of perspectives, talents, backgrounds, lifestyles and experiences in our workplace, and within the broader community from which we recruit. We believe that building a culture that thrives on diversity and inclusion and provides equal opportunities to everyone is a critical factor in our ability to serve our customers and be successful. …We believe the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, if passed, would limit our ability to recruit and retain top talent. For this reason, we do not believe that the Amendment would be good for Thomson Reuters or the business community in the state.”

The law firms noted in the Star Tribune piece include among others Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, a large international firm for which I have served as local counsel in the past.  Here's portion of what these legal powerhouses had to say on the vicious anti-gay amendment on the ballot in November:

As leaders of law firms, we write in our individual capacities to express our personal opposition to the Minnesota marriage amendment that will be on the ballot this fall.

The marriage amendment would embed in the Minnesota Constitution a definition of marriage as being solely between one man and one woman. In so doing, it strives to prevent future judicial or legislative action that could allow our gay and lesbian citizens to marry and enjoy a right that is available to all others.

 

As lawyers, we also believe that this issue is more important than just its impact to the business climate. The amendment uses the ballot to restrict the rights of our fellow citizens, and to embed those restrictions in our state Constitution. Simply put, it is a bad precedent to use the Constitution to deny the civil liberties of a few.

We will be voting "no" on the marriage amendment and encourage our fellow members of the bar to join us.

The Legal Industry's Growing Two Caste System

I have often told my children that I'd never pay even a penny towards their education costs if they were to go to law school. Why? Because in general law sucks as a career. To do well in larger firms one needs to sacrifice family and much of a private life because of the grueling hours. And then there's the constant back stabbing and fighting over how the firm pie is divided up. And on top of that, at least in many parts of the USA, being openly gay is a sure ticket to being shown the door - something I found out personally seven years ago. Now, the law firm plantation system is taking on a new modification. In addition to associates who will work like dogs to enrich the partners big firms are adding a "non-partner" track for attorneys. These lawyers will do largely the same work - and no doubt be billed out to clients at much the same rate as partner track associates - and add to the profits of the partners. The only positive (which will need to be borne out over time and proven to not just be a case of less pay for the same work) is that for less pay, these folks may actually be able to have a life and put in fewer hours. The New York Times looks at this growing form of legal serfdom. Here are highlights:
*
The nation’s biggest law firms are creating a second tier of workers, stripping pay and prestige from one of the most coveted jobs in the business world. Make no mistake: These are full-fledged lawyers, not paralegals, and they do the same work traditional legal associates do. But they earn less than half the pay of their counterparts — usually around $60,000 — and they know from the outset they will never make partner.
*
Besides making less, these associates work fewer hours and travel less than those on the grueling partner track, making these jobs more family-friendly. And this new system probably prevents jobs from going offshore.
*
But as has been the case in other industries, a two-tier system threatens to breed resentments among workers in both tiers, given disparities in pay and workload expectations. And as these programs expand to more and more firms, they will eliminate many of the lucrative partner-track positions for which law students suffer so much debt.
*
“For a long time the wind was at the back of these big law firms,” said William D. Henderson, a historian at Indiana University-Bloomington. “They could grow, expand and raise rates, and clients just went along with absorbing the high overhead and lack of innovation. But eventually clients started to resist, especially when the economy soured.”
*
So now firms are copying some manufacturers — which have similarly inflexible pay because of union contracts — by creating a separate class of lower-paid workers. At law firms, these positions are generally called “career associates” or “permanent associates.” They pay about $50,000 to $65,000, according to Michael D. Bell, a managing principal at Fronterion, which advises law firms on outsourcing. These nonglamorous jobs are going to nonglamorous cities.
*
“It’s our version of outsourcing,” said Ralph Baxter, Orrick’s chief executive. “Except we’re staying within the United States.” Similar centers have cropped up in other economically depressed locations. WilmerHale, a 12-office international firm, has “in-sourced” work to Dayton, Ohio.
*
“There’s a big, low-cost attorney market there,” said Scott Green, WilmerHale’s executive director. “That means we can offer our services more efficiently, at lower prices.” What’s good for clients, of course, isn’t quite as good for those low-cost lawyers.
*
Lower salaries make it even more difficult for newly minted lawyers to pay off their law school debt — like the $150,000 in loans that David Perry accumulated upon graduation from Northwestern University School of Law in 2009.
*
Heather Boylan Clark, 34, was a seventh-year associate at Jones Day before applying for a career associate position after the birth of her second child. She makes 40 percent less than before, but says she still does “challenging work,” and, more important, has greater control of her schedule. “I’m not killing myself to be hitting specific numbers of billable hours in any given year,” said Ms. Boylan Clark, a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law. “Now I’m always home for bedtime.”
*
My advice? Avoid law as a career. There are many other options where one can be happier and have more of a life than in big firm sweatshops.

Gay Bullying Didn't Cause King & Spaulding's DOMA Change of Course

The professional Christian set which loves to portray intolerant, hate peddling Christians as constantly persecuted by those mean, intolerant gays. Meanwhile, it is they themselves who are the ones actually doing the bullying and persecuting of others. When the story broke that King & Spaulding was withdrawing from the defense of DOMA, the professional Christians raised the typical hue an cry about gays bullying the firm into violating its ethical duties to a client - ignoring the fact that no law firm ever has a duty to represent any given litigant. Even the Washington Post fell for this line of bullshit in an editorial that criticized HRC laying into King & Spaulding.

*
But then comes the rest of the story to quote the late Paul Harvey's line. First, every law firm has the option of saying "no thank you" to a case for any number of reasons. Moreover, most large firms have a procedure for taking on large cases - especially those that involve high levels of controversial issues. I was once a member of a large firm where a single partner (with a large ego) took on a very controversial case and all hell broke out amongst the partners who were blinded sided and learned of the situation from the newspaper. The reality is that King & Spaulding could always have said "No" from the outset. And if it did want to take the case, as in my former firm, an internal policy existed for making that decision. Now we learn that Paul Clement - either in a moment of unbridled egotism or compelled by his own homophobia - committed King & Spaulding to the case without following the firm's mandated procedures. Hence the likely real reason for the firm's about face on the case and Clement's possibly forced resignation from the firm. Timothy Kincaid has a piece at Box Turtle Bulletin that looks at the rest of the story if you will. Will the Washington Post do a retraction? What about the whining Christianists? Here are highlights from Tim's piece:
*
King & Spaulding dropped the DOMA defense because Paul Clement never had it approved in the first place. He signed the case without following procedures or giving the firm an opportunity to measure the benefits or detriments of such a course of action.
*
The Fulton County Daily Report decided to look into things and found an entirely different chain of events than that which the big papers just assumed had happened. (Via WSJ)
*
But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding”s business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.
*
The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.
*
The King & Spalding sources, according to the Daily Report, said that there was widespread, adamant opposition to the DOMA case within the firm. “”It sticks a finger in the eye of people,” said one source, referring to the firm’s gay lawyers and staff.
*
And, a source said, the case did not fit the firm’s business mission. “King & Spalding is a corporate law firm—not a constitutional firm.”

Was Coca-Cola Behind King & Spaulding's Change ot Heart on DOMA?

The speculation continues as to what prompted King & Spaulding to withdraw from the defense of DOMA. While the unhinged Christianists like racists loving Tony Perkins at Family Research Council lament that King & Spaulding was "bullied" by gay rights organizations into dropping "the most high-profile client on its books: the U.S. House of Representatives," the real truth may be that it was the business community that prompted the law firm's sudden withdrawal. Specifically, it may be Coca-Cola among other that "opened King & Spaulding" to its disastrous decision to defend bigotry. Talking Points Memo looks at the situation. Here are highlights:
*
When the Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding announced on April 18 that it would represent the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, it apparently didn't realize what a mess it had made for itself.
*
Exactly one week later, the firm reversed its decision, prompting a high-profile partner -- former Solicitor General Paul Clement -- to resign publicly, and House Speaker John Boehner's staff to issue a statement criticizing the firm for "its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter."
*
As public relations debacles go, this was a doozy. But the firm must have calculated that the alternative would have been worse. In the intervening week, a series of public and behind-the-scenes developments made it clear that the firm would suffer recriminations for defending what many of its top clients and future recruits -- not to mention gay rights advocates -- consider to be an anti-gay law.
*
Sources with knowledge of the backlash confirm that one of King & Spalding's top clients, Coca Cola, also based in Atlanta, directly intervened to press the firm to extricate itself from the case.
*
Other King & Spalding clients likewise conveyed to the firm that its decision to take the DOMA case could cause them problems, both internally and with customers, according to sources who spoke with TPM. It also faced its own internal backlash.
*
Other high-powered law firms in New York and Washington, D.C., wanted nothing to do with the case from the outset. King & Spalding will still pay some price for its original misstep -- and they'll definitely have to swat away gnats in the conservative movement. But it's likely a smaller price than they would have paid if they hadn't cut bait so quickly.
*
Clement will now take up the case as a partner for Bancroft, LLP -- "a boutique firm made up of former Bush administration lawyers," as one LGBT advocate familiar with the pressure put on King & Spalding described it. It will thus be largely immune from public blowback.
*
Additional discussion of the King & Spaulding about face and the law firm's motivations can be found here.

DOMA Defending King & Spaulding Puts Gag Rule on Employees

In my view, HRC needs to immediately revise the rating of Atlanta based law firm King & Spaulding to a Zero rating - or even a less than zero, if that's possible - now that the news has come out that the law firm has contracted with the GOP to bar any and all employees (both attorneys and staff) from engaging in any conduct supportive of same sex marriage. At least one progressive organization has begun a petition campaign against the firm and prominent law schools - if their non-discrimination policies mean anything more than the paper they are written on - need to block King & Spaulding from on campus interviews. Here in Virginia, that would mean the University of Virginia School of Law, William and Mary's Marshall Wythe School of Law and Washington & Lee Law School would all slam their doors in King & Spaulding's face. Will it happen? I'm not holding my breath given the spinelessness the law schools have exhibited in the past in their handling of documented anti-gay law firms. First, these highlights from Metro Weekly on the gag order provision of the GOP contract:
*
All of King & Spalding's employees – lawyers and non-lawyers – are barred from advocating for the Respect for Marriage Act – the bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act – in the 112th Congress, according to the terms of the contract to defend DOMA that King & Spalding partner Paul Clement signed on the firm's behalf on April 14.
*
The contract, which was entered into with U.S. House of Representatives General Counsel Kerry Kircher on behalf of the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA in court, contains a provision that prohibits all King & Spalding attorneys and non-attorney employees from any advocacy to "alter or amend" DOMA.
*
Human Rights Campaign vice president of communications Fred Sainz, whose organization has harshly criticized King & Spalding for taking the case, told Metro Weekly, "This particular provision adds insult to injury. Not only is K&S promoting discrimination, they also are muzzling their own employees from opposing discrimination and doing what's right."
*
What's more, Jon Davidson, the legal director at Lambda Legal, told Metro Weekly that in some states the provision might be illegal. Davidson specifically pointed to California, where King & Spalding has two offices, in which Labor Code Section 1101 states that "[n]o employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy ... [f]orbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics ...."
*
The current president of the Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia, Brian M. Basinger, is an associate at King & Spalding and did not respond to multiple messages seeking comment. Based on Davidson's comments, in which he said that it was possible that a King & Spalding lawyer could be prohibited from serving on Lambda Legal's board since it has advocated for the repeal of DOMA, it is possible that Basinger would be prohibited under the contract from serving as president of the Stonewall Bar Association based on the group's activities if they include anti-DOMA advocacy.
*
Jeffery Cleghorn, the immediate past president of the Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia and a member of the board of directors of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, spoke to Metro Weekly about the decision of King & Spalding to take this case and the firm's place in the Atlanta legal community. . . . "As a past president and a gay lawyer in Atlanta, though, I do think I can say that, for gay lawyers throughout Georgia, we are traumatized by the decision of this law firm and this business to take on a client that is in essence trying to do harm to us and our families and LGBT Americans across the country."
*
Huffington Post has coverage on the grass roots effort to generate backlash against King & Spaulding. Here are highlights:
*
A progressive organization is targeting employees at the law firm King & Spalding with an online campaign aimed at preventing House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) from using taxpayer money to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a case that one of King & Spalding's partners has agreed to lead.
*
More than 31,000 individuals have signed a petition started by the grassroots organizing group CREDO Action objecting to House Republicans hiring King & Spalding partner Paul Clement, who previously served as President Bush's solicitor general, to defend DOMA using public funds.
*
Because CREDO wants employees of King & Spalding to know about the petition, the group has targeted them with Facebook ads that direct them to it. On Facebook, it's possible to target ads toward people who list specific employers. There are approximately 450 people on the social networking site who are associated with King & Spalding. Some of them may be former employees, and there are likely a large number of individuals who don't list their place of work on their profiles. But that group, at the very least, represents a network of people affiliated with the firm.
*
"It's appalling that a company like King and Spalding that actively touts diversity as a core value would turn around and defend a discriminatory law that treats its own employees like second class citizens," said Lockshin. "As a company that works for social change, we know that corporations have a choice. CREDO has chosen to stand up for marriage equality. And we thought it was important that the lawyers and staff at King and Spalding face the choice their company has made to stand on the wrong side of history."

Office Share Opportunity

One of my sub-tenants is moving out because his wife has accepted a position in the Czech Republic and as a result, I have an office available for rent. The rental includes a private office and shared use of the firm lobby area, the main conference room and the private kitchen that serves the office. The current tenant has paid $500.00 per month, but rent is negotiable and depending upon the tenant's requirements could possible include Internet access.

*

The law office is located in the heart of Norfolk's upscale and pedestrian friendly Ghent neighborhood and close to downtown Norfolk without the need to park in parking garages. Restaurants, Starbucks, shops and other amenities are just steps from the main office area entrance on the first floor. The firm's space is on the second floor so that even in tropical storms or hurricanes (we are in the midst of hurricane season), flooding is not an issue. area.

The photo above shows the front facade of the historic building in which the office is located. The photo at left resembles the front lobby

Any local readers who might be interested or know of others who might be interested, please contact me either via the e-mail address on this blog or at mike@hamarlaw.com. The office phone number is (757) 622-2008.

Thursday Thoughts

Today was a wonderful day - because the weather was gorgeous, everything seems to be under control at the office, my mom seems to be doing well post minor stroke based on my conversation with my sister, and we took a wonderful sunset cruise with a dozen or so other guys staying at the guest house (photos will be posted once the camera recharges and I can down load them - the photo above is from the boat's website). The boyfriend has gone out with some of the group to a local bar, but yours truly is feeling tired and having withdrawals from not blogging more today. The mix of couples here at the guest house is amazing and we had dinner with a couple from Austin, Texas who are actually Australians. A couple from France is still visiting and a couple from Massachusetts just checked in. I again highly recommend the Oasis and its related properties as a wonderful get away.

*

The boyfriend continues to be remarkable and a true treasure. He has been such a huge positive influence on my life and he makes me happier than he will ever know. Would that the economy would turn around and I might feel like I'm once again making positive headway in my life. The thought of work next week is a bit daunting, especially since I will have several commercial closings and have to go to court in a remote neighboring county on a real estate title defense matter. My office manager and my youngest daughter have been gems and kept the office running smoothly. Each day I work on some matters and respond to e-mail, but they have made being away manageable. Both the boyfriend and I needed the get away. We sincerely hope that when we return to Hampton that the worst of the demolition in the house has been completed. The next 6 to 8 weeks living in a construction site will not be enjoyable.

Law Firm Homophobia: Ex-Fried Frank Associate Sues Firm, Claiming Harassment, Phony Reviews

I have looked at the homophobia that still permeates much of the legal profession - particularly outside of truly major metropolitan areas - in prior posts. However, even some law firms in the largest cities may still have their prejudices. One potential example is Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson in New York City which about to be sued by a former associate attorney, Julie Kamps, who plans to file a lawsuit this week in federal court in Manhattan. Kamps, previously filed a less detailed complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which in a separate proceeding, issued Kamps a notice of right to sue in November indicating that it appeared that discrimination had indeed occurred. In a prior post, I looked at the disconnect between the non-discrimination policies of top law schools and what law firms actually engage in as laid out in a letter to four Virginia law schools. To date, only the College of William & Mary School of Law has responded and the response was less than encouraging as I will discuss in separate post. Meanwhile, here are some highlights from the AmLaw Daily:
*
A former associate plans to file a wide-ranging $50 million lawsuit against Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, accusing the firm of denying her a promotion to partner because she is a lesbian and of doing nothing to stop higher-ups from harassing her, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Am Law Daily.
*
A firm spokeswoman did not immediately provide a comment in response to the suit. Kamps, a graduate of Harvard Law School, worked at Fried Frank from 1998 until January of this year, when the firm terminated her in the middle of an arbitration hearing.
*
In the complaint, to be filed this week, Kamps claims that Janice Mac Avoy, a litigation partner, "knowingly made unwelcome sexual advances and sexual comments to Kamps, both alone and in the presence of others." Mac Avoy allegedly "told Kamps it was 'the biggest regret of her life' that she had not slept with Kamps 'when she had the chance,'" and discussed various sexual acts with Kamps, the complaint states. Kamps also alleges that Mac Avoy encouraged her to "wear women's clothes," because William McGuinness, chair of the firm's litigation department, believed Kamps's preference for men's shirts could "make clients uncomfortable."
*
As we've previously reported, Fried Frank terminated Kamps in the middle of an arbitration session in January, during which Bettina Plevan, a well-known employment attorney at Proskauer Rose, represented Fried Frank. It is unclear why Kamps was fired at that time, and Kamps claims in her lawsuit that she has never received a negative performance evaluation or a solid reason for her dismissal.

*

It will be interesting to see where the case goes. The fact that the EEOC issued a right to sue letter does seem to add credence to Kamps' claims.

Will Recession Force Restructuring of Legal Profession?

An interesting column is in today's New York Times that looks at the legal profession as it is buffeted by the recession and corporate clients seeking to drastically control their legal expenses. The current set up of large law firms is like a plantation system where the partners oversee the laborers made up of the associates. In some cases the partners do little - the real work is done by associates - yet bill crazy amounts for their inflated time. Meanwhile, associates are pressured to bill literally every minute of their time to generate required billable hours and collect fees. Associates often feel themselves to be like rats on a wheel with no way of exiting. Meanwhile life among the partners is no cake walk either and in many firms life among the partner ranks is like being in a piranha tank. Ethics and competence frequently means little and an amoral "rainmaker" may be highly successful while good, ethical attorneys fall by the way side. Of course in conservative areas of the country, being gay is a career killer (no large law firm in this area of 1.6 million people has an openly gay attorney to my knowledge despite the fact that all of the top law schools in the state require firms interviewing on campus to have a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation). Despite the public perception, law is not a career I would recommend to anyone - at least not private practice as it currently exists. Here are some column highlights:

*

The economic downturn is hitting the legal world hard. American Lawyer is calling it “the fire this time” and warning that big firms may be hurtling toward “a paradigm-shifting, blood-in-the-suites” future. The Law Shucks blog has a “layoff tracker,” and it is grim reading. Top firms are rapidly thinning their ranks, and several — including Heller Ehrman, a venerable 500-plus-lawyer firm founded in 1890 — have closed.

*
The employment pains of the legal elite may not elicit a lot of sympathy in the broader context of the recession, but a lot of hard-working lawyers have been blindsided, including young associates who are suddenly finding themselves with six-figure student-loan debts and no source of income.

*

The silver lining, if there is one, is that the legal world may be inspired to draw blueprints for the 21st century. The changes are likely to begin with compensation. . . . Lower pay should mean that associates will not need to work the grueling hours many have been forced to. And it will mean less pressure to go into private practice for law graduates who would rather do something else.

*
Clients are also likely to benefit — and consumers, since legal fees are built into the cost of almost everything. Even before the downturn, big-firm clients, led by the Association of Corporate Counsel, were pushing to phase out the billable hour — which can go as high as $1,000. Tight corporate budgets will give clients more leverage to push to pay by the project or for successful outcomes.

*

Law schools may also become more serious about curriculum reform. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching released an influential report that, among other things, urged law schools to make better use of the sometimes-aimless second and third years. If law jobs are scarce, there will be more pressure on schools to make the changes Carnegie suggested, including more focus on practical skills.

Big L.A. law firms score low on diversity survey

This is an interesting and disappointing story from the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-diversity11oct11,1,661263.story?ctrack=2&cset=true) concerning diversity, or the lack thereof, in large L.A. law firms. One would almost think that perhaps some of these firms should shift their home offices to this area to better fit with their employment practices. Although, frankly the LA figures would be stellar compared to the reality one sees in just about all larger law firms in this area. For the most part, larger law firms remain bastions of white only partners with a few actually having several female partners. Of course, there are NO openly gay associates that I know of, much less partners. All in all, a sad state of affairs. Here are highlights from the Times story:

Large Los Angeles law firms have poor diversity records, with the numbers of female, black, Latino, Asian and gay partners and associates lagging significantly behind their representation in the city's population, according to a study released Wednesday.The 17 Los Angeles-area firms in the report have three or fewer African American partners; all but one have three or fewer Latino partners, and half have three or fewer Asian American partners, placing the percentage of partners in those ethnic groups at less than 5%. In contrast, 2005 census data show that African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans constitute 9.7%, 46.8% and 13.1% of the population in Los Angeles County.

Three firms have no African American partners, one has no Latino partners, one has no Asian American partners, and three firms have no publicly declared lesbian or gay partners.

Similar percentages were found in other large metropolitan areas. Women make up less than 25% of the partners at all 74 firms surveyed in New York with 100 or more lawyers, while 27 of those firms have no Latino partner, 25 have no African American partner, and 21 have no Asian American partner.Of 46 firms surveyed in Washington, 17 have no Latino partner, seven have no African American partner, and 13 have no Asian American partner. The picture is somewhat better in the San Francisco Bay Area. Still, only 7 of 31 firms have 25% or more female partners, with the highest figure 32.7%.

Meanwhile, "purists" worry about passage of a less than all inclusive version of ENDA. This data shows that there is a HUGE need to get some version of ENDA, perfect or not, passed ASAP.