Tag Archives: Tobacco Litigation

How My Shame Journey Opened the Door to Trolling

One day the partner in charge of the document archive called a meeting of the entire staff in the conference room.  This included the Staff Attorneys, the paralegals and the secretaries.  He announced that the document archive would be closing by the end of the year.  I remember he had a smile on his face perhaps expressing that this burden he had been assigned was finally over.  For the Staff Attorneys this was a chilling message.  We all knew these jobs were not career path jobs and the tobacco litigation would end at some point.  On the other hand we had settled in to our well paid, low stress positions.  Because we had been only performing document review we had no real attorney skills.  So, any attempt to transition into another “real attorney” job at a different firm would be difficult.  The prospect of unemployment scared me.

Fortunately the partner who ran the document archive advocated for the Staff Attorneys to other partners at the firm.  One partner for the New York office needed a staff to draft answers for litigation involving a well known pharmaceutical company that had made a drug that allegedly caused heart attacks and strokes.  The New York partner was a bit of a marshmallow in stature from too many years sitting behind a desk and eating at high end restaurants.  His personality, however, was direct and to the point.  There were thousands of plaintiffs filing suit against this pharmaceutical company all across the country and each of these suits required a document called an “Answer” responding to all the points in the “Complaint”.  What this meant for me was not that I would be using my legal skills to draft these answers.  It meant I would be looking at the form answer drafted by one of the associates.  The form answer contained different ways of denying every point on the complaint.  Even simple factual points such as the pharmaceutical company was located in a particular state.  I would be cutting and pasting answers from the form into the new answer I was drafting.

The work was mindless and at a certain point there was not enough work to go around.  I remember billing an entire day to draft an answer that probably took me fifteen minutes to complete.  I did not like being in this situation.  The law firm required me to bill a certain number of hours per year but then did not provide me with enough work to meet that billable requirement.  Nor would they allow me to perform real attorney work because I was a Staff Attorney.  As such, I could be honest, bill a few hours and be fired or I could be dishonest and pad my hours, keep my job but feel guilty about it.  I wanted to work but I wasn’t allowed to.  It was the lawn mower issue all over again.

I became anxious and depressed.  My marriage suffered.  I spent my days arguing with a co-worker through long email chains about whether God was real or not.  I surfed the web.  It was there and then that I discovered a certain website called StarTrek.com.  I start posting on the message board and became a member of the community.  When the members migrated over to another website called SisterTrek.net, I did too.  And so began my foray into the world of internet trolling.  I had a shame-based personality.  I was anxious and depressed because of my job.  I felt overpaid, useless and stuck.  Finally, I had unlimited access to the internet.  That combination of situations made it impossible for me not to troll.

Leave a comment

Filed under Shame

The Shame of Document Review

In February of 2001, I joined a team of seven other Staff Attorneys on the 54th floor of the Bell Atlantic Tower. At first I was relieved to no longer be unemployed and happy to be starting a new experience that could potentially launch my professional career as a practicing attorney.  For the first few days I attended orientation sessions on the lower floors and felt like I was being integrated into the firm.  But after that I spent my time on the 54th floor and rarely visited the floors below.  I quickly found out that the rest of the firm looked down upon us (even though we were physically above them) because we did not have the pedigree they had (that is, the Staff Attorneys did not graduate at the top of their class from a top-tier law firm).  For a time, I was fine with this as I thought this job would be temporary.  I knew I would not be getting a lot of legal experience but the pay was a lot higher than I could make at any other firm that was willing to hire me at the time.  Furthermore, the fact that I worked for Dechert seemed to impress a lot of people.

The truth turned out to be different from the image this job seemed to project to the outside world.  Dechert hired Staff Attorneys to perform a function that was below the dignity of the associates who had the correct pedigree. That function was document review.

The document archive on the 54th floor contained hundreds (perhaps thousands) of bankers’ boxes filled with documents.  The firm hired me just before the mainstream application of electronic discovery.  As such, most of the documents I reviewed were actual, physical pieces of paper.  The documents were collected from the paper files, desks and computers in the offices of various high level (or otherwise important to the litigation) employees of the tobacco company the law firm defended.  The plaintiffs requested these documents be produced during the discovery phase of the litigation.  My job was to review the documents to determine if the tobacco company could withhold the documents based upon the attorney-client privilege.

The attorney-client privilege (basically) applies to all communications between an attorney and client.  The purpose of the privilege is to encourage the free communication between an attorney and client, which in theory allows for more effective representation.  The tobacco company could claim a privilege existed if a document involved an attorney in the distribution list of the document or the document related to instructions or advice from an attorney.  These attorneys could be either in-house lawyers managing the day-to-day legal affairs of the company or external attorneys hired for litigation purposes (as was the firm I worked for).

Attorneys were required to determine whether the attorney client privilege applied but the tobacco companies did not want to pay an associate $200 an hour to review documents.  So this work was performed by Staff Attorneys specifically hired to perform this function and no other.  Later, law firms like Dechert would figure out that they could hire contract attorneys to perform this function and pay them even less than staff attorneys.  This would provide level below the Staff Attorneys that they could look down on.

In one sense it was a mistake for me to take this job because although the pay was great and the firm sounded prestigious, it was a dead-end position and effectively ended the possibility of advancement as an attorney within the legal community.  On the other hand, it makes sense that I did take the job.  It was a safe decision.  I would not be challenged and therefore not have a real opportunity for failure.  It was the culmination of my shame journey because by taking this job I had to finally face all the demons in my life that caused me shame.  This would end up being an excruciating eight-year journey.  But I believe in some strange way it was necessary to get to the point where I am now.

Here are the reasons why this job was particularly shaming to me.  First, document review (for me) was the most boring, dehumanizing, depressing activity I could ever have conceived in my life.  I had graduated from law school.  I passed the Pennsylvania bar on my first try. I wrote opinions for a judge and now I was sitting in a cubicle reviewing boxes of documents day after day within a law firm that treated me as if I were a lower form of life and did not really deserve to be there.  Furthermore, I was not expanding or developing my skills as an attorney and therefore becoming less and less marketable the longer I stayed in that position.

Second, Law firms are very hierarchical and uniquely tailored to humiliate someone with a shame-based personality.  Because Dechert was one of the more prestigious law firms in Philadelphia, many attorneys who worked there took a snooty, condescending attitude towards other less prestigious firms.  Within the firm itself many of those at the top of the hierarchy looked down upon the ones below.  Part of this had to do with the legal pedigree but it also had to do with the amount of money they made relative to one another.  There were the partners on the top making millions of dollars every year.  There were the associates making hundreds of thousand every year.  There were paralegals and secretaries making tens of thousands every year. Staff Attorneys (the group I belonged to) were a new development and were wedged somewhere in between the associates and the paralegals.  Associates especially looked down on the staff attorneys not only because the staff attorneys lacked both the pedigree and made less money but also because the associates existed underneath the partners who looked down upon them. The associates naturally wanted to pass this shame along to the next rung. Such is the dynamic of shame.

Meanwhile, if I told someone who did not work at Dechert that I worked at Dechert they would always be very impressed.  I always felt ashamed and tried to down play it by explaining that I was a Staff Attorney performing document review and not really a part of the firm.  For some reason, these people usually would not accept this.  They would tell me I was cutting myself short.  But to me it would be too shameful to take credit for working at a firm that I felt did not really want me as an employee.

I must answer the eight hundred pound elephant of a question.  Why did I not leave this job for another job that would give me legal experience and less misery?  Shame kept me there. I did not feel like I could go out on my own because I did not have any experience.  I wanted someone to take me under their wing.  At the same time I did not leave because the salary was too good but the longer I stayed, the less experience I had and the less likely I would be able to get a job with a different firm who would give me experience.  Ultimately, it was safer to stay there than to leave and I was afraid of change.  In this sense I cannot really blame Dechert.  That firm employed me after all.  For a shame-based person it was not a pleasant place to work.

Leave a comment

Filed under Shame

Moving to Philadelphia and More Interviews

My wife and I drove down from Scranton to Philadelphia to find an apartment.  We found a place in a yellow brick, art deco, high rise across from the famous art museum where Sylvester Stallone ran up the steps in the movie Rocky.  The weekend before my wife started her job we rented a Uhaul, packed up our stuff and drove it down.  Hughey, our dog, was young at the time. I remember the day we moved in and were in the process of unpacking, my wife and I went out to dinner.  When we returned to our new apartment we found Hughey nested in the clothes in our open suitcase.

My wife left for work Monday morning.  I spent my days sending out resumes, listening to Howard Stern in the morning, walking Hughey and playing Civilization on my computer.  I started to get worried that I was not bringing in any income.  Our bills continued to rise and I began to sink into depression because I felt I had no options.  But then suddenly I received a call from a law firm called Dechert.  I had never heard of this firm.  I did not even remember sending a resume to them.  My wife (being in the recruiting business) recognized them as one of the most prestigious firms in Philadelphia.

I interviewed first with a partner on the 54th floor of the Bell Atlantic Tower.  This partner ran the document archive the firm maintained as part of the legal defense for a prominent tobacco company.  At the time I interviewed (the year 2000) the tobacco litigation had been going on for some time and was in the final stages before it wound down.

The partner who interviewed me was a Harvard graduate.  Most of the attorneys who worked at Dechert graduated from Ivy League or equivalent law schools.  They were all very proud of their pedigree.  I felt insufficient having graduated from a third tier law school in Louisiana.  This partner, however, seemed interested in me precisely because I had gone to law school in Louisiana.  It was like he thought I was an exotic species.  During the interview he told me that the position was not a regular associate position but rather a Staff Attorney position where I would perform work that was below the Associates and that I would never be eligible for a promotion. What I did not totally understand was that I would also not receive the experience I would need to fully become an attorney. But at this time I was more interested in earning money than gaining work experience.

At the same time I interviewed with Dechert I also interviewed with another smaller firm.  This firm was on a lower level than Dechert and seemed ashamed of itself in relation to Dechert and impressed that Dechert was interested in me.  It was clear that this firm would have given me trial experience and put me on the partnership track (something that I would not be offered at Dechert).  On the other hand I would have been paid half as much as what Dechert offered me.  At the time, both my wife and I had student loans we were paying off and the money Dechert offered me was too much to pass up.  I remember talking to my friend Tim who lived in Washington, DC at the time.  I told him I could take the difficult job with the firm nobody heard of that paid less or the easy job with the prestigious firm that paid more.  At the time it seemed like a no-brainer.  I would later learn that I had made a mistake.

I remember my father congratulated me and told me he was proud of me for getting a job with such a prestigious firm.  I should have known that was an indicator that I had made a wrong decision.

Leave a comment

Filed under Shame