Big Law - HR meeting out of the blue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This has been an insane few days. Is anyone with me that this is 100% retaliation? I had great reviews with no issues, I came back from leave in September, I had my review in early November where they discussed my great evaluations and everything is fine and dandy and now all of a sudden in Jan, they have this meeting with bogus excuses and when I refer to my evaluations and good reviews they say “we’re not good at giving reviews” and “let’s not focus on reviews” and “law firms are notoriously bad at giving reviews”. Smells like and feels like retaliation for maternity leave.

How many people at your level in your practice group? Doubt it's retaliation, if there was enough work to go around they'd keep you billing. Don't take it personally, its very unlikely it's personal to them.

[Anonymous]

This is op. I’m the only senior associate in this practice group. The next associate is a 3 year that splits time between our group and other groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This has been an insane few days. Is anyone with me that this is 100% retaliation? I had great reviews with no issues, I came back from leave in September, I had my review in early November where they discussed my great evaluations and everything is fine and dandy and now all of a sudden in Jan, they have this meeting with bogus excuses and when I refer to my evaluations and good reviews they say “we’re not good at giving reviews” and “let’s not focus on reviews” and “law firms are notoriously bad at giving reviews”. Smells like and feels like retaliation for maternity leave.

If they wanted to retaliate for taking leave, it seems like your reviews in november, which were after your leave, would not have been great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

She did confirm she’s a woman. Also, she has a 60 day PIP. Assuming she fails to meet the PIP (or however you say that), she will get more time after the 60 days, correct?

This is op. lol, no. There is no more time after the 60 days. I literally pretended I had no idea what a pip was and I asked “so what happens at the end of the 60 days is there an extension usually?” And the HR manager said “there was an instance where we gave an extension because the 60 day window was during the holidays” LOLLL so it’s safe to say no extension.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like there isn’t enough work to go around so they’re pushing out the person who makes the most money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is op. I’m the only senior associate in this practice group. The next associate is a 3 year that splits time between our group and other groups.

So if there's not enough work it makes business sense to cut you. I know it's harsh and it sucks but the partners certainly aren't going to give up the higher billable rate work to you and take the hit themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

She did confirm she’s a woman. Also, she has a 60 day PIP. Assuming she fails to meet the PIP (or however you say that), she will get more time after the 60 days, correct?

This is op. lol, no. There is no more time after the 60 days. I literally pretended I had no idea what a pip was and I asked “so what happens at the end of the 60 days is there an extension usually?” And the HR manager said “there was an instance where we gave an extension because the 60 day window was during the holidays” LOLLL so it’s safe to say no extension.

NP and did they confirm severance terms (3 months paid + 3 months on website)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This has been an insane few days. Is anyone with me that this is 100% retaliation? I had great reviews with no issues, I came back from leave in September, I had my review in early November where they discussed my great evaluations and everything is fine and dandy and now all of a sudden in Jan, they have this meeting with bogus excuses and when I refer to my evaluations and good reviews they say “we’re not good at giving reviews” and “let’s not focus on reviews” and “law firms are notoriously bad at giving reviews”. Smells like and feels like retaliation for maternity leave.

If they wanted to retaliate for taking leave, it seems like your reviews in november, which were after your leave, would not have been great.

This is op. My review/evaluation was in November however the partners wrote the reviews months prior.

It’s complete bullshit to have a review process and formal written evaluations and then a meeting with a committee member to discuss reviews only to then say “we’re not good at reviews, let’s not focus on reviews”. That’s gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This has been an insane few days. Is anyone with me that this is 100% retaliation? I had great reviews with no issues, I came back from leave in September, I had my review in early November where they discussed my great evaluations and everything is fine and dandy and now all of a sudden in Jan, they have this meeting with bogus excuses and when I refer to my evaluations and good reviews they say “we’re not good at giving reviews” and “let’s not focus on reviews” and “law firms are notoriously bad at giving reviews”. Smells like and feels like retaliation for maternity leave.

I’m sure your adrenaline is running high and trying to process all this is a lot. I think the people who know this stuff best are giving you a really good read and it’s not retaliation. Even if it was, at the end of the day you need a new job and that’s where your energy and efforts need to go. I’d find new work, walk out with your head held high, and leave it at that!

Take a little time to let your thoughts stop swirling so you can soul search on what you want your next move to be.

[Anonymous]

Have you signed anything?

I think you should try to negotiate beyond sixty days. Maybe you could negotiate sixty days full time but then another two or three months part time. This would give you more time to find another job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

She did confirm she’s a woman. Also, she has a 60 day PIP. Assuming she fails to meet the PIP (or however you say that), she will get more time after the 60 days, correct?

This is op. lol, no. There is no more time after the 60 days. I literally pretended I had no idea what a pip was and I asked “so what happens at the end of the 60 days is there an extension usually?” And the HR manager said “there was an instance where we gave an extension because the 60 day window was during the holidays” LOLLL so it’s safe to say no extension.

NP and did they confirm severance terms (3 months paid + 3 months on website)?

This is op. There was no discussion about severance at all or stay on website. There was no opportunity for me to speak which is better because I can follow up in writing and it will be a paper trail. They sent me the pip as an email and asked me to sign which I have not. I plan to make comments to it and send back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

I am so sorry OP. This sucks. Work your network. You will survive this.

-BTDT in 2008

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they are actually saying is that you are a fine associate, hence the good reviews on the work you were doing, but not partner material, which is the next step. Now you are too expensive to use on the matters you are qualified to cover. Your good reviews will help you find a new position, but keep in mind they will know you were considered not partner material, so don't try to bluff that.

+1. It might not feel like it, OP, but this is a show of respect to you. They have enough respect to do this as gently as possible. They don't have to, but they did and that speaks well of all involved, including you.

OP is 3 months removed from paternity leave and has good reviews. 60 days is better than having to defend a lawsuit

That is far from a show of respect. It smells of retaliation for her leave- it may not be retaliation but it’s not a great look for them, especially considering her great reviews. They have deep pockets and they should give her at least six months and allow her to resign.

No, it's not retaliation. And you're not a lawyer because no attorney would use the phrase "not a good look" when referring to a law firm. OP needs to get a new job. That's it. No lawsuits, no complaints to D.C. Commissions. No fuss. She can negotiate for severance and staying on the website. YOu do not burn bridges in the D.C. legal community. .Everyone talks and OP will not be able to get a new job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This has been an insane few days. Is anyone with me that this is 100% retaliation? I had great reviews with no issues, I came back from leave in September, I had my review in early November where they discussed my great evaluations and everything is fine and dandy and now all of a sudden in Jan, they have this meeting with bogus excuses and when I refer to my evaluations and good reviews they say “we’re not good at giving reviews” and “let’s not focus on reviews” and “law firms are notoriously bad at giving reviews”. Smells like and feels like retaliation for maternity leave.

If they wanted to retaliate for taking leave, it seems like your reviews in november, which were after your leave, would not have been great.

This is op. My review/evaluation was in November however the partners wrote the reviews months prior.

It’s complete bullshit to have a review process and formal written evaluations and then a meeting with a committee member to discuss reviews only to then say “we’re not good at reviews, let’s not focus on reviews”. That’s gaslighting.

Unfortunately, it's not retaliation. The firm just doesn't have enough work. It's how BigLaw works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

She did confirm she’s a woman. Also, she has a 60 day PIP. Assuming she fails to meet the PIP (or however you say that), she will get more time after the 60 days, correct?

This is op. lol, no. There is no more time after the 60 days. I literally pretended I had no idea what a pip was and I asked “so what happens at the end of the 60 days is there an extension usually?” And the HR manager said “there was an instance where we gave an extension because the 60 day window was during the holidays” LOLLL so it’s safe to say no extension.

NP and did they confirm severance terms (3 months paid + 3 months on website)?

This is op. There was no discussion about severance at all or stay on website. There was no opportunity for me to speak which is better because I can follow up in writing and it will be a paper trail. They sent me the pip as an email and asked me to sign which I have not. I plan to make comments to it and send back.

This sucks, OP, but I think your time and energy would be better spent looking for another job at this point.