The legal world is buzzing and tittering over a remarkable exit memo sent to firm clients and others by a disgruntled and departing partner at Ogletree Deakins. His detailed version of the events leading to his bitter good-bye was unusual enough that it was leaked to Reuters, and subsequently published elsewhere on the web. In legal circles, it is pretty viral at this point. Why? Because the author is a prominent employment lawyer, and the memo is the epitome of airing dirty laundry, burning bridges to ashes, and throwing a stink bomb on the way out the door…in short, it’s unprofessional conduct, and extremely so.

The diatribe begins with sensational allegation of management misconduct (but without names attached…these are lawyers, after all):

“Simply, as both a member of the firm’s executive committee and its Vice President, as well as the largest originator in the firm, I opposed what i believed to be improper conduct by the firm’s leadership, which ultimately led to our separation. In sum, one of the members of my extended team was being harassed and discriminated by the managing shareholder of one of the offices that I supervised. When she brought her concerns to me, I began investigating the managing shareholder’s conduct. My preliminary finding was that this individual managed the office in a tyrannical manner. An even closer look revealed that this same individual had intercepted emails between the complaining shareholder and me in which she discussed her concerns with me. I also discovered that he had attempted to intercept another lawyer’s emails in the same office whom he deemed “disloyal.” He later began to retaliate against the complaining shareholder by excluding her from office decisions, calling her a “thug,” alleging marital infidelities and disparaging her excellent work product and reputation to the office associates.”

It ended, about 500 words later, with this…

“When the firm failed to take appropriate and decent action, I told the rest of the executive committee that I would trigger an expulsion vote of the individual under our firm shareholder agreement, which provided for a special meeting under urgent circumstances. Per the shareholder agreement, I asked the firm to schedule the meeting. I received no responses from the firm. In the interim, appalled by the firm’s inexplicable lack of action, during individual exchanges with the executive committee members, I told the firm that I would resign and take my team if the firm was unwilling to properly remedy the matter. The firm then ceased upon this statement to claim that I posed a danger to the firm’s clients and asked me to leave.

“This was the first time in the firm’s history that it had ever asked a shareholder to leave without scheduling the requisite shareholder vote call. The firm refused to hold such a call despite several shareholder requests. Clearly, they did not want to have the matter fully discussed at the membership. At the end of the day, I’m fine with leaving the firm, as I cannot be part of a firm that treats its diverse lawyers the way they treated the complaining shareholder. This is not the same firm that I help build into a national powerhouse over the last 8 years.

“Those of you who know me, know that if nothing else I’m principled and very much focused on fairness for all employees. I could have easily turned a blind eye, and all would have been ok. But that’s not who I am, and I hope to never become that person. Frankly, I would do the same thing again today. Which leads us to today. As you might imagine, I have no shortage of suitors desirous of hiring me and my team. I want to take my time and pick the next place carefully. I should be done with my analysis soon. In the interim, my team will continue to handle your matters in the same excellent manner you have been accustomed. I hope to be able to represent you again soon. As you know, my brand of professionalism and service will transcend firms.

“Thank you for you ear and have a great day!”

You don’t do this. You don’t do this, if you are smart, in any job, but leaving this way in a professional setting is a blatant violation of mutual trust and respect among colleagues and peers. The message represents the firm in a terrible fashion that is obviously influenced by the author’s anger and personal agenda. On a professional relationship or partnership, there is a tacit understanding that nobody will burn the building down if there is a parting of the ways. If the angry partner is “focused on fairness for all employees,” he can pursue that objective without spitting on his colleagues on the way out the door.

Part of the letter is simply self-praise and celebrating his own allegedly high principles. The letter itself rebuts that. He has a high opinion of himself, which is not unusual for Big Law attorneys, but the message leaves me unimpressed. This is vindictive, and serves no good purpose. It does, however, tell me that. Some other observations:

• My instincts suggest that this a personal matter, perhaps stemming from a workplace romance, that interfered with sound professional judgment.  If so, the letter is misleading, and leaving out a significant element of the dispute.

• The writer is a jerk. Whether that will impede his career progress in his field or not is hard to assess. Probably not, given the competition.

• This is a poor advertising for the lawyer’s specialty, employment law.  If I were looking for legal representation in an employment law dispute, I would seek an attorney that knows what appropriate conduct for an employee or partner is.  No sane employment lawyer would ever advise a client to leave a job this way.

• If you are going to send an “Up theirs!” letter to clients and other potential sources of business, wouldn’t you want to show your best work? Wouldn’t you make sure that the letter was devoid of typos and misspellings, and served a sterling example of your rhetoric, persuasiveness, and work habits? “…one of the members of my extended team was being harassed and discriminated by” ?  Lower case “i” for “I”? “…that I would trigger an expulsion vote of the individual…” ?  “The firm then ceased upon this statement…” for “seized upon this statement” ? At the end, he slips into unintentional Ebonics with the classic “Thank you for you ear…” The letter is full of mistakes. This guy isn’t even diligent and competent when he writes a career-defining letter: why should anyone trust him with their legal business? He closes with “As you know, my brand of professionalism and service will transcend firms.” Good to know. The letter is “his brand,’ and it’s strikingly unprofessional. What kind of lawyers does Ogletree hire, anyway?

Finally, given other recent topics here, I’ll address the question of whether the source of the leaked memo was engaging in cyber-shaming, and whether it was justified. First of all, the motives and intent of the leaker are unclear—it could easily be an ally of the author, or even the author himself. Second, this is not cyber-shaming, because the author cyber-shamed himself. Send a juicy, incendiary e-mail like this to more than one or two trusted individuals, and you either presume that it will be forwarded, or you are an idiot.

If you want to know why I am not using the name of the lawyer in this post, I have three reasons:

1. The post is about the ethics of leaving.he ethical analysis doesn’t require that the author be named.
2. Did I mention that the letter shows that this guy is a jerk? I will go to the mat to stop a litigation-threatening post subject from using threats to censor Ethics Alarms when I have to, but it is a time-consuming job that I don’t want to bring on myself needlessly.
3. I don’t care who the lawyer is. I do care that everyone knows that what he did was unprofessional. If you want to know his name, follow the links.

Here is the whole letter:

 EMAIL TO CLIENTS AND COLLEAGUES

From: XXXXXXXX
Date: March 20, 2013, 4:16:27 PM EDT
To: XXXXXXXX
Subject: Re: DEPARTURE FROM OGLETREE

On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:03 PM, XXXXX wrote:

Dear friends and colleagues,

I wanted to contact you to let you know that starting today, I will no longer be with Ogletree. As good friends and clients, I believe that you are owed an explanation concerning the abrupt reason for my departure. While this is a long and entangled story, I will do my best to provide you the readers digest version of the events.

Simply, as both a member of the firm’s executive committee and its Vice President, as well as the largest originator in the firm, I opposed what i believed to be improper conduct by the firm’s leadership, which ultimately led to our separation. In sum, one of the members of my extended team was being harassed and discriminated by the managing shareholder of one of the offices that I supervised. When she brought her concerns to me, I began investigating the managing shareholder’s conduct. My preliminary finding was that this individual managed the office in a tyrannical manner. An even closer look revealed that this same individual had intercepted emails between the complaining shareholder and me in which she discussed her concerns with me. I also discovered that he had attempted to intercept another lawyer’s emails in the same office whom he deemed “disloyal.” He later began to retaliate against the complaining shareholder by excluding her from office decisions, calling her a “thug,” alleging marital infidelities and disparaging her excellent work product and reputation to the office associates.

I brought the matter to the firm’s full executive committee suggesting that this individual was unfit to be a shareholder in our firm, let alone to be office managing shareholder. For economic reasons – and perhaps unstated others – the firm decided to turn a blind eye to this misconduct because it “would not be in the firm’s best interest to risk losing him” and because they did not want to “offend him.” This response was completely unacceptable to me, and I began to vigorously oppose the firm’s laissez-faire attitude towards the complaining shareholder. I asked the executive committee to at a minimum require the individual to step down as managing shareholder and to require him to issue in-person apologies to the complaining shareholder, the office and me. Again, the rest of the executive committee refused to make these simple and appropriate accommodations.

When the firm failed to take appropriate and decent action, I told the rest of the executive committee that I would trigger an expulsion vote of the individual under our firm shareholder agreement, which provided for a special meeting under urgent circumstances. Per the shareholder agreement, I asked the firm to schedule the meeting. I received no responses from the firm. In the interim, appalled by the firm’s inexplicable lack of action, during individual exchanges with the executive committee members, I told the firm that I would resign and take my team if the firm was unwilling to properly remedy the matter. The firm then ceased upon this statement to claim that I posed a danger to the firm’s clients and asked me to leave.

This was the first time in the firm’s history that it had ever asked a shareholder to leave without scheduling the requisite shareholder vote call. The firm refused to hold such a call despite several shareholder requests. Clearly, they did not want to have the matter fully discussed at the membership. At the end of the day, I’m fine with leaving the firm, as I cannot be part of a firm that treats its diverse lawyers the way they treated the complaining shareholder. This is not the same firm that I help build into a national powerhouse over the last 8 years.

Those of you who know me, know that if nothing else I’m principled and very much focused on fairness for all employees. I could have easily turned a blind eye, and all would have been ok. But that’s not who I am, and I hope to never become that person. Frankly, I would do the same thing again today. Which leads us to today. As you might imagine, I have no shortage of suitors desirous of hiring me and my team. I want to take my time and pick the next place carefully. I should be done with my analysis soon. In the interim, my team will continue to handle your matters in the same excellent manner you have been accustomed. I hope to be able to represent you again soon. As you know, my brand of professionalism and service will transcend firms.

Thank you for you ear and have a great day!

i can be reached at [redacted] or [redacted] with questions. Thx

_________________________

Pointer and source: Above the Law

Graphic:  UCA News