Little people can't hear him. And even if they could, they obviously wouldn't understand him.

Seems to me that a well-placed letter or phone call to the right people at that company could result in some very prickly lawsuits for the people named.

This is far more than just rude, it's purely stupid.

I wonder, if a stock guy was passing a tip to someone in the same boisterous manner, would it qualify as insider trading?

"If I were a client there, I'd fast-become a client somewhere else."

In the markets for high-end service industry firms, clients of firms like that don't care if human sacrifice is part of the firm's HR policy...and in fact, such firms do practice a mild variant of that, in the form of worker mistreatment and awful work hours. Put another way, a large law firm's clients care not at all about incidents like this, as they do not affect clients at all.

You know this story is nearly a year old, right?

Amy, you say "If I were a client there, I'd fast-become a client somewhere else," but PW is a huge corporate firm. You're not likely to be a client there -- they don't do that kind of legal work and you can't afford their rates, anyway (partners bill at $700 or more per hour).

As Spartee points out, their clients won't care. Their clients probably admire brutal treatment of employees.

Throughout law school, we were regaled from every angle with (hopefully) laudatory tales of career-ending, client-destroying, indiscretions, usually committed by some thoughtless junior associate in an elevator.

I don't see what's so difficult about imagining clients would find another firm, given that their sensitive, complicated affairs are being handled by a firm that's seen fit to make an inept, indiscreet, ham-handed jerk into the leader of one of it's most important practice areas.

I also don't see the issue is employee treatment, other than tangentially. Rather, it's that that guy on the phone is an idiot. I've never been aware of a client (corporate or otherwise) who admires brutal treatment of employees. That sounds like casual anti-business slur.

Companies admire brutal treatment of employees if it saves them money. You've never heard of a company that pats itself on the back when it successfully bullies an employee into quitting? In cases where the employee was honest and hardworking, but simply not needed, they would typically get severance or unemployment benefits - but not if, instead of laying them off, you can make them so miserable that they quit. Legally this is known as "constructive dismissal," and it is frowned upon by the courts. But it's upon the employee to seek (and pay for) legal counsel, document the bullying, and continue going to work in hell every day for as long as it takes to make their case. Most people will just decide it's not worth it. (What, after all, does that do for your career?) When unemployment is at ten percent, companies simply don't care if employees leave with a sour taste in their mouths. Not an anti-business observation, just one that realistically takes into account the current balance between supply and demand.

Robin says:

"I've never been aware of a client (corporate or otherwise) who admires brutal treatment of employees. That sounds like casual anti-business slur."

My firm has a large employment law division. Enough said.

Robin, those law school tales may be apocryphal urban myths; professional schools are filled with such lore, providing young students cautionary tales that give apparently moral lessons. The fact that a professor may have passed it on means little, unless he provided a case summary to accompany the tale.

Also, I would caution against using "inept" in writing about large-firm lawyers, even in obscure, anonymous settings like this. His professional reputation is worth a great deal to him. I am not saying this fellow is that way, but a lawsuit filed by a national law firm with a vindictive partner behind it can have a significant impact on the target's life.

Regarding your last thought, it is not that clients "admire" service industry firms that don't care about non-equity (i.e., not "making rain") employees. Clients simply don't give a sh-t about such things, unless the firm's antics impact the service the clients actually receive. Clients are focused on achieving corporate quarterly results, managing far-flung operations, avoiding margin-killing regulatory problems, closing thorny deals, winning a multi-jurisdictional case, etc. They hire these firms to help them address such concerns. And if clients feel they need this particular type of service firm to achieve their goals, the clients simply do not care about what a partner somewhere in the firm said once on a train about some soon-to-be-fired employees.

Ms. Alkon's thought that clients might say, "What a loudmouth...his firm must be providing me subpar service as a result," is not, in my experience, how a client purchasing outside counsel services from a national firm would view the matter at all. Such clients have a different set of concerns and incentives than a person would.

Moreover, it comes as no surprise to me that a practice head at such a firm would engage in this behavior. What surprises me is that people relatively unfamiliar with the mores of the admittedly odd professional subculture of large service industry and their corporate clients think they operate in a way similar to the rest of the legal profession. But then, even people within professional fields like law and who have no experience in large national law firms or similar consulting practices, usually don't quite get it. Such organizations are unique in their operations and management procedures. I have never seen any business or other organization quite like it, outside of anthropological studies of tribal cultures with strict hierarchies.

"My firm has a large employment law division. Enough said."

LMM, do you work for a law firm? I've thought, since unemployment benefits are now being extended to people for up to two and a half years, that companies lately must be fighting unemployment claims left and right, and doing anything in their power to keep from being held on the line for premiums. I have mixed feelings on the issue. It's definitely getting ugly out there.

I Googled the article...and it was dated February 19th, 2009. I think it's important to post that as part of this blog. These layoffs are not planned for 2010, as Amy's blog insinuates.

"Such organizations are unique in their operations and management procedures. I have never seen any business or other organization quite like it, outside of anthropological studies of tribal cultures with strict hierarchies."

The more I see statements like this, the more I become convinced that the mores of the law profession culture have absolutely nothing to do with how "ordinary" people behave, either in private or in business. Maybe there's a reason for it -- all professional cultures are inevitably colored by the particular challenges of the work they do. But it seems to me that in law is unique in that this moral apart-ness goes way beyond the demands of the job. I think this accounts for most of the general public's animosity towards lawyers, and it puzzles me a bit that so few people inside the profession seem to realize (or maybe they just don't care) how the public perceives them.

It's been established that sharks do not attack lawyers, out of professional courtesy.

Heh. I only know a few lawyers that I actually like, but that's only because I went to high school with them and usually only see them socially. The one I hired to handle my divorce was someone I didn't know socially, but was recommended by one I did. Better by far that my friend didn't handle the divorce, it could have gotten much uglier than it was.

I would have transcribed it to my laptop and posted it to the internet. Including the dumbass's name.

Amy a suggestion on how to improve the user experience on this blog. Instead of "prev" and "next" links have the links be the titles of the articles. That would be a lot more helpful. Many other blogs do that, so it's def possible.

I'm not American, but i have worked in a law office, and i tend to agree that lawyers et al can be very brutal if they want a staffer "gone". I've witnessed it with my own eyes. It's not pretty. All those lawyer jokes?... they're true! Legal Bigmouth confirmed it.

"I Googled the article...and it was dated February 19th, 2009."

I clicked on the link in the post. That was easier.

Lol, Patterico.

Anyway, I'm amused at all the legal experts sneering to Amy about how those who can afford the services of this firm won't care about this story. This isn't just about the unfortunate layoffs. Of course general counsels at major companies should be wary of a law firm that has no operational security!

These firms handle a lot of confidential information that is surrounded by stress. This firm, if this story is accurate (it probably is), is unqualified to handle that kind of thing. Amy's right, if you're a client, find a new firm.

"I clicked on the link in the post. That was easier."

I prefer to do a more thourough research. A Google search will show not only that article, but anything else that may refute the posting. I like to know as much as I can, not just the pieces that are fed to me.

I also check out such "Last night, we received this information" vague stories on snopes.com to be sure that they are not just urban legends.

Karen, that doesn't make any sense.

Are you saying that the article might has lied about its date? Is that really a reasonable point? You're trying to be a stuck up expert and got caught being silly. You probably didn't read the article, or you would have realized that the information you found was already linked by the blog.

When you say 'this is a piece of information that should be included for analysis', you are obviously claiming the blog post neglected that information. The blog had a prominent link to that information, and had said already that it was interesting despite the date, so your 'correction' is ridiculous. Who cares that this was a year old? It's a hilarious and interesting story, and it's probably accurate. If someone at the firm sees it, they will see the date that Alkon linked without your help.

Also, snopes has been caught being very inaccurate several times and really isn't much of an authority on urban legends. They have a funny blog that seems to miss the truth a lot. You'd already know that if you were telling the truth about your research habits.

For someone that claims to go into deep, deep, deep investigations to know 'everything' about anything she reads (in order to post douchey corrections if anyone missed anything), you seem to trust some lame sources and miss the obvious.

Don't take this the wrong way... I just think you're being silly.

Spartee, are you saying that no major corporate client would care at all that a senior partner doesn't have enough sense to not discuss confidential personnel plans in a loud voice over a bluetooth headset on public transportation?

I'm quite certain that whatever clients this guy himself is responsible for handling, were they to learn this story, would have some serious qualms over entrusting him with their own company's confidential plans. They will easily imagine the guy talking to some associate in the same fashion: "Hey, we're going to be pulling an all-nighter tonight to prepare Acme's tender offer for SmithCo. Remember that the bottom line offer is $3 per share. That's highly confidential, so don't tell anybody."

Would they pull their business from the firm? No. Would they have some serious conversations with the senior partners of the firm about such indiscreet behavior? You betcha.