• Home
  • News
  • Laid-Off Lawyer Seeks Columnist’s Advice After Firm Claims Misconduct

Layoffs

Laid-Off Lawyer Seeks Columnist’s Advice After Firm Claims Misconduct

Posted May 6, 2009 9:06 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A lawyer laid off from his small law firm took another hit from the employer when he visited the unemployment office. Now he is asking an advice columnist how to proceed.

Here is the lawyer’s complaint, published by the Washington Post: “I was recently laid off from a small law firm where I had worked for 11 months. I was told billables were low and that they ‘had to let me go.’ I was also told that they did not think I had the skill set for the firm's needs. This was a new area for me. When I filed for unemployment, I received a notice stating that the employer said I was ‘suspended for misconduct.’ I do not know how to prepare for this or what to expect since I was never told there was a problem with my work or counseled or evaluated during that time.”

The advice columnist, job expert Lily Garcia, advises the lawyer to ask for a hearing and to explain that the layoff was not due to misconduct. Garcia also says it can’t hurt to call the law firm’s human resources department to ask officials there not to oppose the claim.

Comments

1.

Lily gave good advice (JAG, CALWP)
May 6, 2009 10:20 AM CST

I always liked the signature line from “The Pie” in the New England area. It read:
-——-“There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives.”
There ARE downsides to that solution and I agree that Lily’s advice is better.
:-)

Flag this comment

2.

Tim
May 6, 2009 11:46 AM CST

I agree that Lily gave good advice, with one notable exception:

I doubt this guy will get anywhere by calling, since there’s about a 90% chance that this small firm’s “human resources department” is, in its entirety, the lawyer that had to fire him in the first place.

Flag this comment

3.

B. McLeod
May 6, 2009 12:47 PM CST

Lacking suitable skills is not “misconduct,” but he was also told “billables were low.”  Maybe this is the same firm in the “Question of the Week” several weeks back that fires nearly all its “associates” for low billables in their first year.  The “low billables” must be the “misconduct” they mean.

Flag this comment

4.

K.
May 6, 2009 4:56 PM CST

I guess “low billables” could be misconduct if the boss made clear to the new hire that he/she is expected to “earn their keep” by bringing in some new clients.  But it doesn’t sound like that was the case here.

I have heard anecdotal stories from friends & acquaintances about how common it is becoming to have an ex-employer say the worker was fired, as a means to avoid paying unemployment benefits.  Disturbing!

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.