What to do when your employer wants to hamstring you?

[McStabbington]

Operative Questions:

1) Am I right in thinking, given the information I include below, that I'm being sandbagged at work in preparation for a pending termination?

2) If the answer to Question 1 is yes, then what exactly do I do?

Okay, so background information. I was one of those young J.D.'s who came out of the Great Recession during the period when the supply of young attorneys vastly exceeded the demand. I will edit for concision, and simply say that I went through a period of extended unemployment, during which I was looking for any job whatsoever, but because I was a licensed attorney with a list of academic accomplishments the length of my leg, I could not get a job to save my life because everyone who read my resume automatically assumed that I would just jump ship the first chance I got and tossed the document. So in the meantime, I lost all my assets, lost my home, and only managed to keep a roof over my head because I had one family member who offered to let me move in with her, despite the fact that she was across the country and would force me to abandon my license in the state I was in, and the town she was in was a town of 10,000 with about 25 attorneys in it, 24 of whom are employed in some capacity by a state or municipal government in the area.

So there was a bit of good news, in that I finally, finally got a job as a legal secretary for that 25th attorney. In the entrance interview, I explained my situation, said that eventually I would probably be moving on to become an attorney on my own, but that I would need time to rebuild my finances, pay my debts and restore my credit before I could even think about taking the bar exam and starting my own firm. They hired me the next day, and at the beginning of the next month, moved me to full-time status. My job responsibilities were to essentially do the paperwork that the attorney needed done, first in the criminal files, and then civil files. Now I'm not going to say that I was an ideal candidate from the get-go. There were a lot of hiccups while I learned what I was actually looking at when I saw certain documents, and I still tend to move very slowly and carefully when I'm dealing with something unfamiliar, because I want to make certain I make no mistakes and absorb the process.

But now, here, today, I do a pretty good job of my work. I had to completely rip out a lot of the methods that the Office Manager had taught me and replace them with my own, but in the last nine months I have never failed to log a court date, never had a document I had seen go missing or unscanned for more than a half hour (with the number of documents I can't find instantly in that time numbering at four) and never failed to resolve a court conflict in timely fashion. Clerks of the Court and Prosecutor's Office of five counties know me on a first name basis because they all know that when I call, I'm calling to smooth out a potential scheduling snafu that will cause them headaches in a week or two, but that I am resolving here and now. And in terms of earning billable items, at the time of my nine-month performance evaluation I was averaging twenty billable items per day, which based on how our billing system works means that even if all those billable items were for the minimum possible billable time (5 minutes), I was still earning my firm about two hundred dollars per day over and above my wage.

So what's the problem?

Well, the problem goes back to that original statement that eventually, I was going to move on and start my own firm part, with the fulcrum being my nine-month performance review At that nine-month performance evaluation, when the attorney asked me again, with what in retrospect seemed a bit too much eagerness, whether or not I could sit for the next bar exam, I said that it would probably exhaust all of my savings to do so, but I thought that I could do it. When I asked whether or not he'd be willing to write a recommendation for the bar exam I would be applying for in a week, he said he would. The exact words that he and the Office Manager used to describe my work were "great" and "no complaints." Oh, and by the way, the Attorney and the Office Manager said offhand, they would be hiring on a new worker, but they assured me that my job and hours were not in danger. The new hire was only to help supplement me because we had been so busy.

Two days after that nine-month performance evaluation, my duties were cut to take away the civil files I had been managing. A week after that, and exactly two days before I was going to spend every last dime of my accumulated savings for the bar exam and test prep materials, my hours were cut 20%. The Office Manager, in announcing this, explicitly told me that "we only need you for the criminal files now", so I was only needed on a part-time basis.

Two days after that, I started getting impossible assignments. Allow me to explain what I mean by impossible: the first such assignment was the attorney asking me to write a brief for him for a case I know nothing about, over a law I didn't know, for which the Attorney had done nothing to prepare for but find a few cases that were factually similar but in other states. Attorneys know this as "persuasive case law", which is to say that it means absolutely nothing in telling a judge what he needs to do to uphold the law in his own state. In law school, briefs were usually the end-of-semester project that determined our grade, they covered only material presented in class, and we had 72 hours to complete them. My attorney required the brief by the end of the next business day. I completed the brief in the time allotted anyway.

The Attorney took the document home and reviewed it over the weekend. On the next Tuesday, the Attorney asked me to re-write the brief. On Wednesday, the Attorney asked me to prepare Interrogatories for a client in a Civil Asset Forfeiture case. Interrogatories are a series of questions asked of a client by the opposing party, and have to be done in a certain amount of time. The amount of time in this case was fine; well over three weeks till the final due date, which was good because the client lived 80 miles from our office. And hadn't brought in any documents that the prosecution requested. And didn't speak the same language as me. The Attorney gave me five days.

I did it in five days.

Or perhaps let me be more specific. I arranged for the client to come in with a bilingual friend and work with me for four hours on day four, which should have been enough. On day three, the client called in and rescheduled to day five, cutting my available time to work directly with them to 90 minutes. I got the questions 80% answered, with the remainder being incomplete because they didn't have the documentation with them needed to finish it. And in the meantime, on days one and two I finished re-writing the brief and caught back up with my daily schedule.

As it turns out, the attorney had only two things to say to me regarding the interrogatory. One was to complain how much time I was taking on it, as it wasn't worth that much to the firm. The other was to say that the finished product, turned in five days before the deadline and, to that point, not seen nor touched by the Attorney, was a "Good Job!" Which should explain why, upon timely submission of the Interrogatories to the Prosecution, the Prosecution dismissed the case entirely and returned the assets they had seized to the client.

After this, the massive tasks with the arbitrary deadlines subsided somewhat, but cutting my wages cut out the money I was planning on saving to, well, do things like eat and pay rent when I went to part-time for the bar prep period. But it also made me take a step back and realize, terrible businessman that I am, that I didn't just need to save for the bar. I also needed to save for the business I was going to build after that. Which I hadn't done. So after getting my wages cut, I decided not to spend all my savings on taking the bar.

This decision didn't go over well at the 12-month performance evaluation, which focused entirely on the fact that the Attorney and the Office Manager thought that I was going to sit for the next bar exam. I explained as best I could that I had wanted to do so, but I re-thought my financial position once my wages were cut, and terrible business man that I am, only then realized that starting a new business with $0 savings, bad credit, and absolutely no setup like an office space, client base, or car meant that I really should rethink my choice to spend absolutely all of my money, especially when returning to the point at which I could be homeless or unable to eat again was a very real possibility with me changing jobs. The Attorney spent the entirety of the time trying to argue that there must be some way to reduce my expenses (there isn't; bar prep can't be purchased ala carte because the test isn't performed ala carte), and spent the next few days telling me that I should look into the requirements for having my license in another state apply here (I already have; you need 3 years of active work for reciprocity, which I am precisely 3 years short of meeting the requirements for).

Cut to the approaching 15-month performance evaluation. Between having my hours cut and approximately three weeks ago, the Office Manager spoke with me at a rate of approximately one word per day. In the last three weeks, I've started seeing civil matters turn up in my inbox. No explanation, no description of what needs to be done, no notes. So I do the best I can, which is mainly just scan them in and then turn them over to the new hire who is the one who primarily works on those cases. The Office Manager has then talked to me about me "doing what needs to be done" whenever the attorney puts stuff in my box.

In the past two weeks, the Office Manager has started making me scan, file and mail all the immigration files handled by the OM and another legal secretary on top of my usual duties. I have never handled immigration files before, and much of the work is very time-sensitive, meaning that doing this on time often means prioritizing filing and mailing over the documents I prepare in the criminal files.

In the last week, the Office Manager has spoken with me three or four times a day, at length, about new procedures that I am to perform when carrying out my duties, all ostensibly about reducing inter-office paperwork, but mostly involve me saving files electronically and e-mailing the attorney to say that something is in the file rather than making a paper copy and handing it to attorney to read, which is actually slower and increases the risk of a document slipping past the attorney.

Three days ago, the Office Manager rather loudly discussed renting out an office space with another attorney; the only office available is either mine or another attorney with a rental agreement whom has shown no sign of moving out.

Yesterday, the Office Manager handed me a certificate of completion for a client with a note that said that the attorney had already filled out documents necessary to re-enter an old case for a client, and that all I needed to do was turn in the certificate to the prosecutor.

Because it's my job, and because it was unusual in the extreme for a criminal file to go through the Office Manager to me rather than come from the attorney directly, I looked at the file, and the court repository, and talked with the prosecutor. No such documents had been submitted, and if they weren't submitted by the next business day, which would be Monday, the client would have a warrant sworn out on him for failure to appear for court. Needless to say, the documents have already been submitted. Because that's my job. I should add that since my hours were reduced, we've had two occasions where warrants were sworn out on clients because I was not handed any documents saying that we were involved in a case, and therefore could not submit the appropriate documents, something that never happened prior to my hours being cut, even when I was a fresh hire who didn't have the first clue what I was doing.

So I apologize for the length of this post, and I realize that some of this is me venting. But given these facts, am I right in thinking that, at minimum, my Office Manager (if not the Attorney) is trying to sandbag me in preparation for a termination? I cannot believe that anyone would go to the point of either deliberately screwing up a client's case to pin me for having a warrant sworn out, or at least interfering in such a way that, had I taken the OM's word for it, would have resulted in such an occurrence, but looking at that note, it's incredibly hard to come to any other conclusion.

If so, what exactly do I do? I do have some options. One of the advantages of being conservative with my money in preparation for starting my own business is, quite obviously, that I have savings that I can draw on. And I've paid off my credit card, as well as every loan I could and establishing a regular payment schedule on my student loans. Long story short, I could survive a move to another location and probably about three months of unemployment. But this is obviously not ideal, nor is it good for my reputation, which is vital for an attorney just starting out. So if I've got a firing coming, what do I do to preserve my reputation and jump to a better location, since I still obviously will need another job similar to the one I have for the years I need to save up?

[Mauve Shirt]

Yeah, you're being set up for a fall, judging by your description and having not heard the office manager or attorney's side.
Perhaps move somewhere with a low cost of living and try to score a gig as a public defender? It's what my lawyer friend had to do when he found himself similarly unemployable due to overqualification. He had family to live with in the area though.

[Aedilred]

In some jurisdictions (I don't know where you are or what the specific laws are there) constructive dismissal is a thing. That might be worth looking into if you think that's effectively what's going on. Obviously we can't dispense legal advice on the forum and you're probably better-placed than most of us from that perspective anyway. It certainly doesn't sound like they have your best interests at heart, though.

It is worth taking a step back though and looking over everything that's happened out of context on a case-by-case basis. It's common to see coincidences as patterns, and to construe new inconveniences or lack of consideration on the part of others as deliberate slights. Is it possible that you've been given extra duties above your qualifications because they're trying to encourage you, or because there's been a reshuffle elsewhere which leaves someone who'd previously have done it unable to, for instance? Are changes in practice being applied universally, or just to you? Is any of it in direct response to something you've said or done - you've said that you've had to modify a number of the existing methods, for instance?

With things like being given a short-notice quick-turnaround brief, that sort of thing happens. It sucks, but it's all part of the fun, and I wouldn't see anything intentionally hostile in that. People higher up the food chain tend to work to their own schedules and assume people reporting to them will adjust to theirs. If you're managing to complete the work in time, that goes to show that they're not necessarily wrong in that, and if you don't tell them there's a problem (assuming there actually is a problem and it's not just that the pressure is getting to you) they won't know. You call these "impossible assignments", but that you've completed them in the allotted time indicates that they're not actually impossible, just hard.

In general it is more expensive to employ two people to do one job than one, even if the number of hours remain the same. It's just the way things go. And although people might well mean it when they say a job isn't in danger, as circumstances develop and it becomes apparent that there are cutbacks that can be made, sometimes that situation can change, especially if you've made plans based on what an employee has said they'll do and then they change their minds so that what looked like a temporary situation becomes a permanent one, or vice versa. I've been on both sides of that fence.

I would suggest you consider your overall relationship with your OM and/or the attorney(s) in question and, having gone over the above considerations and determined the validity of each of the complaints you might have, consider approaching them and discussing the situation openly (and professionally), explaining the most egregious problems you have encountered, why it is unsatisfactory not just to you but to them/the firm (e.g. clients are getting warrants sworn out on them when they need not) and, if appropriate, propose solutions. If your relationship with them is at the stage where you don't feel able to do that, it's probably already too late anyway.

[JustPlayItLoud]

The initial cutback to part time could have been a financial decision for them. Not sure what kind of benefits you're eligible or likely to become eligible for, but full time employees can be pretty expensive. That's why so many places famous for low wages and oppressive conditions tend to have a large part time work force. Given the increased workload it could have made financial sense to go from one full timer to two part timers. The same thing has happened to me.

It seems like the worst of the problems started after your employers found out you wouldn't be taking the bar. Just to offer a suggestion of a different possibility, could they have been trying to push you into taking the bar and your career to the next step? What if the new hire was intended to start taking over some of your workload in the hopes that they might take you on as a full-fledged attorney? Having been screwed time and again by employers I find it unlikely, but I don't really work in the "professional" world. If it is the case you may be looking at being little more than an overpaid paralegal, but with the occasional opportunity to get some actual time in court. Maybe they're seeing you as an opportunity for you to advance and make a little more money and for them to get a bargain on an attorney for a little while.

[RedCloakLives!]

Just to offer a suggestion of a different possibility, could they have been trying to push you into taking the bar and your career to the next step?

I agree with JPIL and I will develop the counterpoint: per your statements, you have done well, so they like you and are trying to help you, and maybe even bring you in as a junior attorney.

They cut back your hours to allow you more time to study for the bar exam, and also to toss some Real Stuff at you. Those were not Impossible Tasks. They were the typical ill-defined situations that professionals get paid to deal with all the time; they threw those at you, and you handled them -- you passed that test.

The time comment on the interrogatory wasn't a complaint; it was just explaining how things work. In training, step 1 is to see if the junior person can do it Right; after that step 2 is to get them to do it Faster. You made it past step 1.

But then you didn't take the Bar Exam -- lame! Based on what you said, they thought you were going to. The attorney belabored that point because they'd rather have you there as an attorney because then you could contribute more to the operation.

Every shred of evidence that you see as negative can be taken as a positive. Consider it -- all the post-grad bad stuff that happened to you may be throwing off your perceptions, and causing you to interpret things negatively by default.

[And they never had to hire to you begin with. Appreciate the opportunity they gave you. There is a tendency for beginning lawyers to be self-centered, to have their heads stuck so far up their .... that they can't see straight. Or see other people's points of view -- which is one of the critical skills. If I were running that office, based on what you have stated, I might think your major error was not taking the bar exam.]

Well, only one of us is right, and it might not be me, and you'll be the one finding out. L.L.A.P.

[Crow]

I agree with JPIL and I will develop the counterpoint: per your statements, you have done well, so they like you and are trying to help you, and maybe even bring you in as a junior attorney.

They cut back your hours to allow you more time to study for the bar exam, and also to toss some Real Stuff at you. Those were not Impossible Tasks. They were the typical ill-defined situations that professionals get paid to deal with all the time; they threw those at you, and you handled them -- you passed that test.

The time comment on the interrogatory wasn't a complaint; it was just explaining how things work. In training, step 1 is to see if the junior person can do it Right; after that step 2 is to get them to do it Faster. You made it past step 1.

But then you didn't take the Bar Exam -- lame! Based on what you said, they thought you were going to. The attorney belabored that point because they'd rather have you there as an attorney because then you could contribute more to the operation.

Every shred of evidence that you see as negative can be taken as a positive. Consider it -- all the post-grad bad stuff that happened to you may be throwing off your perceptions, and causing you to interpret things negatively by default.

[And they never had to hire to you begin with. Appreciate the opportunity they gave you. There is a tendency for beginning lawyers to be self-centered, to have their heads stuck so far up their .... that they can't see straight. Or see other people's points of view -- which is one of the critical skills. If I were running that office, based on what you have stated, I might think your major error was not taking the bar exam.]

Well, only one of us is right, and it might not be me, and you'll be the one finding out. L.L.A.P.

I like his outlook!

Treat things as if his perspective is the right one, and I assure you that even if he is wrong, things will turn out better for you in the end.

[Anarion]

It's strange that you're being given so little information about what's going on. Whether they were or are considering hiring you or whether they're setting you up for a fall I can't really tell.

All state bars have an ethics hotline that can be called by googling for whatever state you're in. You might want to ask them. Also keep a daily record, routinely, of your day's assignments, filings etc. Do it every day, no exceptions.

[Jay R]

Do *not* call the ethics hotline unless you are already through doing any business with this firm, ever.

One of two things is most likely happening.

1. You told them that you would not commit long-term to them, but were only using them for convenience at the moment. with a perfect willingness to sever the relationship at any time. Therefore they are not committing long-term to you, but are only using you for convenience, and have to be prepared for you to sever the relationship at any time - particularly when you said that you would be taking the exam, which you had told them was the time you'd be leaving.

2. They are considering you as a potential attorney, and are testing your willingness to do that level of work before telling you they are considering it.

The first one is neutral and fair. They have to have a backup plan for if you leave.

The second one is positive, and exactly what you want long term.

Don't assume anybody's working against you (but prepare your private file to defend yourself with). Do the work you're assigned, and take the bar exam at first opportunity.

One other consideration. Legal secretaries are under the Office Manager; attorneys are above him. If they are testing you as a potential attorney, then he may be uncomfortable with you being promoted above him. This doesn't mean that he'd sabotage you, but it could make him awkward and uncomfortable around you. Your response is to be as gracious and friendly as possible, and to silently forgive him his human frailties.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jay R
Your response is to be as gracious and friendly as possible, and to silently forgive him his human frailties.

One of the best pieces of advice ever given on this forum, and worthwhile to remember in nearly any situation.

[Douglas]

I agree with JPIL and I will develop the counterpoint: per your statements, you have done well, so they like you and are trying to help you, and maybe even bring you in as a junior attorney.

They cut back your hours to allow you more time to study for the bar exam, and also to toss some Real Stuff at you. Those were not Impossible Tasks. They were the typical ill-defined situations that professionals get paid to deal with all the time; they threw those at you, and you handled them -- you passed that test.

2. They are considering you as a potential attorney, and are testing your willingness to do that level of work before telling you they are considering it.

Honestly, this exact possibility is what immediately came to mind when I got to the "impossible assignments" part of your post. Handling clearly defined tasks where everything is ready to go is entry level work. The higher ups are the people who create those task definitions and make everything ready to go, and your "impossible" tasks sound like exactly the sort of messy cases where such efforts are required.

Your perception of it might be accurate, or it could be completely off base. The bar exam is presumably difficult and something extra study time would be useful for, and they may have had that in mind when they cut your hours; they could have just not thought of or not realized that your financial situation was that borderline that the reduction would impact you monetarily that much.

[veti]

Your employer is not good at communicating. Welcome to the world of work. However, there's no reason to believe they're planning to axe you. (If they want to fire you, why haven't they already done it?)

Assignments with ridiculous deadlines? That's normal, that's life, get used to it. If you can meet the deadline, great; if you can't, then do what you can. Ideally you'd also tell the person giving you the assignment, but a lot of bosses don't want to hear that, they'd rather get a half-assed assignment done on time than extend the deadline by half a day. (That's because time is money.) If you can meet these deadlines to a high standard, and do it consistently, then you're an outstanding employee and it wouldn't be a bit surprising if they want to take you on as a full attorney.

There is certainly a problem between you and the office manager, and I'm not sure what you can do about that. (My suggestions would be based on a very different work culture, so I won't even offer them here.) But don't assume the OM is some malign mini-boss who's squaring up to crush you just because that's what he does. It's entirely possible that he's feeling a lot of pressure in his own job, and that's why he's screwing up - depression is very common, and a common symptom is "pretending you have done things you should have done, even though it's trivially easy to confirm that you haven't". My default assumption would be that this is not a conspiracy, but a rooster-up.

(If it happens again, you really should do something about it, because if the OM is doing that sort of thing then he's a danger to the whole firm. I would suggest talking to the OM's boss. But before you try to have that conversation, make sure you've got fully documented evidence that your version of the story is true.)

[Chen]

I definitely don't see any sandbagging going on. It seems like they were preparing you for some of the jobs you might have with them as an attorney before you told them you weren't going to take the bar. After that they just continued giving you more duties that a legal secretary would need to deal with. Nothing seems like intentional sabotage. Just looks like the way stuff happens in the real world; "Unreasonable" deadlines, ill-defined tasks, having to do things that technically aren't part of your usual job etc.

[Grinner]

I definitely don't see any sandbagging going on. It seems like they were preparing you for some of the jobs you might have with them as an attorney before you told them you weren't going to take the bar. After that they just continued giving you more duties that a legal secretary would need to deal with. Nothing seems like intentional sabotage. Just looks like the way stuff happens in the real world; "Unreasonable" deadlines, ill-defined tasks, having to do things that technically aren't part of your usual job etc.

While the outcome of this thread is altogether heartwarming, I have to wonder about the last incident he mentioned. I don't work in the same sort of environment, but I find it odd that someone would have a document saying something had been done when it clearly hadn't. Mistakes happen, but that would have been an extremely costly mistake and, as I understand it, fairly rare mistake. Coincidence?

[Chen]

While the outcome of this thread is altogether heartwarming, I have to wonder about the last incident he mentioned. I don't work in the same sort of environment, but I find it odd that someone would have a document saying something had been done when it clearly hadn't. Mistakes happen, but that would have been an extremely costly mistake and, as I understand it, fairly rare mistake. Coincidence?

The OP mentioned that this mistake had happened another 2 times since their hours were cut. It's possible its an issue with the new hire or possible its just a mistake. They happen. I don't see why you'd attribute it to malice. I would have personally followed up with the office manager about it though. Or the attorney themselves. Perhaps there were crossed wires somewhere. Or maybe the officer manager is really trying to sabotage things. But it's not the assumption I'd make to start with.

[Anarion]

The OP mentioned that this mistake had happened another 2 times since their hours were cut. It's possible its an issue with the new hire or possible its just a mistake. They happen. I don't see why you'd attribute it to malice. I would have personally followed up with the office manager about it though. Or the attorney themselves. Perhaps there were crossed wires somewhere. Or maybe the officer manager is really trying to sabotage things. But it's not the assumption I'd make to start with.

I continue to be concerned about the lack of information being shared. It doesn't have to be malice, it could just be mistakes. But if they're really so busy that they're practically underwater, I'm not sure why they'd cut the OP's hours, especially after the announcement about not sitting for the bar.

Also, I didn't mean the ethics violation hotline in my note above (which would sever all relationships if you call it). I meant the one where a person can, confidentially, ask for individual advice.

[Jay R]

Don't forget that when work is piled on you, it usually has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with the fact that the work needs to get done.

The most likely reason for forcing somebody to shovel out the stables is that the stables are full of horse dung.