Life, Death, and Halter Tops
February 26, 2009 by Legal Tease
There have only been a handful of moments in my legal career—nay, in my life—when I’ve felt there was a decent possibility that all the people surrounding me in a particular space were about to collectively crouch down, bare fangs, and storm forward in a sweeping, feral frenzy of rage, ripping out the throat of whichever poor bastard happened to be in charge. Typically, this feeling has only kicked in while, say, waiting on the tarmac at O’Hare during a blizzard, or sitting in my 1L Property Law class on the day my professor announced that she didn’t believe in teaching black letter law. But last Thursday, it happened in a 6th floor conference room in my tense, hungry little corner of BigLaw.
You see, the powers that be at my firm had called a meeting that day. Not just a meeting, but the meeting—the one to address the recent, escalating fear crippling the associate ranks. True, BigLaw can hardly be described as an oasis of calm in any economy, but the paranoia around my firm lately has been palpable. In the past few weeks, each time I’ve heard a knock on my office door before 9 a.m., or received a call from an extension I didn’t recognize, or opened an email addressed to “All Associates-USA,” I’ve felt my body click into a fleeting state of stomach-sinking paralysis, wondering whether I’m about to be told that I’m officially being relieved of my obligation to show up for work on a daily basis. Call me neurotic, but the massive stealth layoffs ripping through my firm lately—paired nicely with radio silence from the firm’s management—can make a girl a little jumpy.
Turns out, though, my fears were totally unfounded. Because, you see, last Thursday, the firm finally stepped up and started talking. They held the meeting—a self-styled Q&A forum for all associates where the firm’s associate management committee promised to address several “topics of interest.” And oh, how they did. They cut through the typical administrative nonsense and dove right into the big topic. The topic that’s undoubtedly been clouding their minds in the past few weeks. The topic that apparently dwarfs any and all other possible topics that might be of interest to any associate. Anywhere. The topic so relevant, so timely, that it merited a good 25-minute discussion. That’s right, friends, my firm finally opened up and addressed this, the Most Important Topic Facing BigLaw Today: whether the firm should adopt a Casual Fridays dress code.
At first, we thought it was a joke, but when the office managing partner squared his jaw and started explaining with a straight face that the firm was considering a Casual Fridays policy whereby associates would be “allowed” to wear jeans one Friday per month, on the condition that they make a small donation to a charity of the firm’s choosing, we realized that this was pathetically real. I looked around the room at the hundred or so associates gathered and saw a throng of slack jaws and mild scowls that no doubt mirrored my own. We all sat there like frozen idiots while management flunky after flunky weighed in on the pros and cons of the dress code situation. But when Astrid, a junior partner on the associate management committee, suddenly stood up and launched into a nasal diatribe about how a Casual Fridays dress code might be “distracting” because—well, she won’t speak for anyone else, but at least as far as she’s noticed—associates are already pretty liberal in interpreting the firm’s business casual dress code and, would you believe it, she even saw one wearing what appeared to be a halter top last quarter—well, it was at this point that a few people actually got up and left.
Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that, Friday or no Friday, the general sight-having population would be done a collective solid if Astrid no longer saw fit to burden them with the vision of all five feet, two inches of her 175 pounds crammed into an apparently limitless collection of undersized, synthetic, dickey-based ensembles fished out of the local Ann Taylor Loft Outlet. Let’s instead focus on the fact that…WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS CRAP WHEN PEOPLE ARE GETTING FIRED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE FIRM APPEARS TO BE PLUMMETING HEADFIRST INTO DISSOLUTION?! Does the firm really think we give any kind of rat’s ass about the dress code—and more troublingly, do they?! Is this persistent refusal to address issues like layoffs in favor of issues like errant halter top sightings some brilliant Machiavellian ploy on the firm’s part to keep its associates in line, or is it just…delusional?
Because here’s the thing: If you’re going to insult us by laying off hordes of our colleagues under some limp performance-based pretense and then leave us in the dark about the state of our own employment, fine, but don’t then humiliate us by calling a meeting where you do nothing but vomit your managerial incompetence all over us by ignoring the elephant in the room. Just…don’t hold any meetings for us. Ever. If you’re going to keep us ignorant and paranoid, at least let us retain some dignity in our ignorance. And at the very least, please just let us get laid off in whatever kind of goddamn pants we want.
In all fairness to the firm, they did finally address the question of layoffs at the meeting—for about nineteen seconds. When the Astrid Beast’s unsolicited commentary wrapped itself up and the managing partner asked for any questions, after about half a minute of stunned, disgusted silence, some intrepid first-year had the balls to raise his hand and ask whether the firm’s repeated assurances in the past two months that it was not considering attorney layoffs were still valid. The partner shifted his penguin heft at his podium, hesitated, and then, in a moment worthy of the most convoluted LSAT question, delivered this verbatim gem: “I have to be honest, we cannot say that layoffs are no longer not being considered.” Got that? Good. (And please drop me a line if you do, because I still have no clue what the hell he meant.)
And then, without another word about layoffs or firm finances, the penguin assured us—again with a straight face—that the firm will continue to be “completely transparent” in any affairs that affect associates—which, I can only presume, means that if the firm finally decides to consider that Open-Toed Shoe Tuesdays policy that we’ve all been wondering about, the associates will be the first ones to know.
So, there you have it. The big meeting may not have made any of us less paranoid, less gripped with fear and uncertainty, but at least the upshot was nice and clear: Stock up on your jeans, kids. Because, if that giant elephant lying in the corner of the 6th floor conference room was to be trusted, it looks like every day may soon turn out to be Casual Fridays. Donations optional.
An excerpt of this essay is also being published today on everyone’s favorite legal tabloid, Above the Law. Make sure to check it out here!
Good news – you job is safe:
“layoffs are no longer not being considered” = layoffs are being considered
“We cannot say that…” layoffs are being considered; I’m sure you are relieved.
On a related note – this parter must not spend a lot of time in federal court. That kind of convoluted, BS answer is likely to get one held in contempt by most federal judges.
This is funny because its totally true.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again….Your bosses are assholes!
That being said I’m fairly certain that “I have to be honest, we cannot say that layoffs are no longer not being considered.” is big firm partner jargon for “you’re screwed…starting with the dipshit in the back row that asked the question and made me use triple negatives!”
BFW, you should just move down here…we do business casual every day, no one ever gets laid off, and at 5 o’clock (a/k/a lets do lunch at 1pm and not come back) when you go have a drinks with the partners you don’t actually have to go back upstairs to finish. There is a world out there where lawyer’s lives suck less….just saying, think about it.
That is one hell of a crazy meeting. I cannot believe the incompetence you have to deal with on a daily basis. Thank goodness one person asked about it (I can understand everyone else being too freaked out). I wish you the best, but it sounds as though they’re prepared to screw people. Good luck!
I think one thing is clear. Any broad who shows up with a halter top will be laid off. It does not matter if she’s good looking or not. Best not to appear to outlandish, do your work, and keep your head down. Anyone who wants to see a good movie about a cute chick who works at a law firm and then gets terrorized by some dbag security guy at the firm while working late on Christmas Eve should watch the movie P2. Great, man, great. And this woman was stacked.
Sounds good, Al — the part about the flick, that is. Not sure I agree about the halter top. If a female lawyer came in with a halter top at my firm, she might be a hit with the horny partners, but not by me. Trouble is, hardly any of them are good looking, most of them would never do it, and to tell you the truth, Im not sure I can stomach some of the broads that would. I have trouble thinking about them without their clothes on. If those cows actually come in showing some skin, I might start to barf. Then, with my luck, I’d be laid off for being sickly at work. Not a protected category my man.
Great stuff, Legal Tease.
I’m with Southern Lawyer — if this is true, which it seems to weird to *not* be, stop worrying about layoffs and just quit. Your job is going to kill you someday.
This poor beeotch has been tortured at work for quite some time. I think we all feel bad for the beeotch, particularly since she has a good sense of humor about her situation.
Quitting is not in her nature. It’s the irony of the situation, and the high tension that keeps a beeotch like her going.
The Legal Tease is not about to change her stripes. She is, by now, a true “Noo Yawka”, and that is why she is interesting. Imagine how dull it would be for this high powered beeotch to leave the NYC BigLaw environment for anywhere else.
Legal Tease, I know that much – we don’t work at the same Firm. And boy, am I glad, after reading this article. It’s absolutely disgusting when the Firm management doesn’t communicate things to employees. But it’s even worse when they do, and the topic of discussion is some bullshit like dress code. I mean, really? That happened at a Big Law in NYC?
I’m so sorry you have to be there…
Your Firm sucks…
So, what’s with the gratuitous use of the word “beeotch?”
Though, (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) you’re probably right. We’re all the same people here…we live in different parts of the world but we’re all bound by the same personality traits. It’s the kill we love. For me, it’s the smell of a court room and a scotch at 5 o’clock…but that’s just how we do things down here. If I was in NYC I’m sure I would get off on the 2am booty call/report coming in from London (see old post by BFW).
Then again, I still think operates like is just offense. Have the balls to come out and tell me what your intentions are. It’s disrespectful to your employees and not a good way to run a business, in my opinion.
Southern Lawyer, I think Mr. Hump likes the Legal Tease poster, so his use of the term beotch might be his “term of endearment”. Nonetheless, he should be more respectful. Mr. Hump, please be more respectful to the Legal Tease going forward.
Gosh, things don’t look promising at the BigLaw firms. Where I work, there are only 3 partners and 3 associates and we work hand in hand on everything. Since things are run pretty lean at my firm, there are not any hints of layoffs. Besides, in my field, the subprime crisis is not relevant.
So, if youre thinking of making a change, you could always consider PI and WC, and you will have a steady clientele.
Since the work is steady, I don’t have to rely on anyone (especially dorky Men) for support. I will be doing fine on my own, thank you, without the need for silly men like those above who are trying to nuzzle up to you because you are bringing home a pay check.
Steer clear of these losers, even if they are chummy to you now, because once they steal your heart (after sex), you will be very bitter.
Nice kicker.
Not me, Eileen, I could care less about the Legal Tease. She may be a good writer, but the last thing I care about is boning her. I will say, however, that some of the other s on the site probably have have other designs. Suffice it to say, however, that NO ONE has any designs on you.
Men should not care if you have a huge paycheck. I don’t think any man worth his salt would be interested in navigating your curves. It’s just not worth it.
I remember when I was in college, and perpetually horny. We’d do things on Friday and Saturday nights that we regretted on Sunday afternoon after we sobered up. I can recall waking up in the apartment of some fat sloppy dame, who was literally all over me, totally nude, when I awoke, and it was NOT a savory situation. She reminded me of what we did the night before, and I vowed I would never sink that low again and have tried to live up to that. I will never bone a woman drunk that I won’t be seen in public with. All men should have the same standards I do.
Good man, Dugan, its good to hear you have set some minimum standards for yourself. Let’s all of us limit the meaningless sex only to those women that are presentable enough to take OUT for breakfast. If the broad is too sloppy to be shown in public, then it should also be verboten to play with her pubics the nite before.
Good man, Dugan. We can only hope others adopt your high standards!
Great, Dugan has recruited at least 1 or 2 new jerks to go with his normal cadre of dunces. Not only is his buddies, the “Humpster” and Southern Lawman in his camp, he’s now found some new dunce, Alpha JD, to take up his cause. Like we really beileve this guy is more than a wimp!
Who in the world are these dopes that they think the female lawyer population should bow and curtsey before them? Is it because they now have JD degrees? Guess what you dopes, so do we women have our law degrees, and we’re not going to be impressed with you; either with your inadequate JD’s or your inaedquate anatomies.
As we are our own women, we really could care less if you were all big men on campus (BMOC’s) or are now big men at the office. You talk a big line, but I don’t see any of you with beautiful women on your arms @ work or after work.
So go home and watch pay per view. Maybe there you will find your ideal women to give you what you need, because we women lawyers are just not interested. And just don’t mess up the TV screen in your moment of passion.
Eileen DeBonis, you are like a broken record and are very annoying. Do not speak for all women when clearly YOU are the one with the emotional baggage.
Bite me, NYU ‘06. I knew a guy from NYU and he was a real loser. Now I see there are 2 in the class of 06. Besides, I have 3 years more experience than you in the law, so why would I listen to you, anyway? I can’t tell if your a man or a woman, but it doesn’t matter. I am my own woman, and you add nothing to the mix. Besides, what you call emotional baggage is no more than experience. If you think you don’t learn from your own experiences, you should go back to NYU with the other asswipers there.
Eileen, you are not my type either What I want. is a pretty young vibrant college grad, untainted by the extra mileage some of these older lawyer women, like you, carry around with them. I would never date a woman lawyer. Too much negativity; most are real know-it-alls, like you, and most are not particularly attractive. We haven’t seen you so we can’t verify your claims, which could well be dubious. Woman lawyers are harsh, not soft and fluffy. I prefer the Scarlett Johanson type to the types of bruisers I went to law school with. Once the women lawyers get much over 30, they also start making mating noises, which is another turn off.
Me, Making mating noises? WTF –never with you, fella, or with the other humps on this page. There are ample opportunites for me to date, but not mate.
Eileen,
You are such an easy mark. I hope you are transactional, because your skin is way too thin for anything adversarial.
Snively, I’ve been with women like this. They complain about you bitterly until you’re in the sack with them, and when that occurs, then they can’t get enough.
You tell ‘em, Al. I agree 100% with you, my man.
[...] break it to you, but Big Law’s a pretty uptight place—the kind of place where wearing jeans is cause for a firm-wide meeting. Nose rings don’t even make the agenda. And if you think that people who disapprove of nose rings [...]