Career Clinic: My secretary is a hindrance not a help!

You shouldn't put up with this and for goodness sake, don't do the work yourself. If you let this situation continue, your own performance will suffer.Make your supervising partner aware of the problem and ask them whether they would prefer to deal with this, or whether they are happy for you to deal with this yourself. If the latter, your HR department should be able to advise you on the specifics of how best to approach this.

Senior Associate, National Firm -19 May 2008 | 13:29

I think this definitely needs to be raised with your supervising partner. I currently work as a legal secretary whilst gaining my degree part-time and I take pride in the fact that I can do my job and I can do it well. As a secretary it is my job to provide assistance for my fee-earners.I remember we had a woman like this in my old place of work. She was so lazy and just used to stand around chatting all day whilst doing no work. When it was raised with her she used to burst into tears and be signed off with stress for 2 weeks because the work was "too much"!

Law Student/Legal Secretary -19 May 2008 | 15:16

If you do the work for her you are masking the problem and you are not addressing the problem at all - quality of work and failure to follow instructions.My tips are:-1. Make sure your requirements are clear and easily understood;2. Tell the secretary calmly and at the time that you require corrections and make sure that again your instructions are clear and easily understood.3. If the quality is consistently below expectation raise with your supervising partner and ask for action. Explain how this position is impeding your performance. It may be that others in the firm have also noticed that the quality leaves something to be desired.4. Understand that your secretary is human and will make mistakes from time to time; it is unrealistic to expect 100% perfection every day but persistent carelessness does not have to be tolerated.5. Be calm and do not show your frustration to your secretary. 5. Managing staff as well as yourself is one of the delights of being a solicitor. There is no mystery; staff need to be given precise instructions on what you want them to do and how you want it presented. Staff will only do things your way if you do that and give them regular and timely feedback on what they are doing well and badly, right and wrong.Good luck !

high street solicitor -19 May 2008 | 16:25

Do you have a doc centre that you could send your work to while the problems with your secretary are being sorted out? In my experience, I've had a very quick turnaround with almost no mistakes when using our central service.

MC Lawyer -19 May 2008 | 17:16

You definitely need to speak to your supervising partner because these sort of things have to be handled sensitively, especially in this litigious age when it seems increasingly difficult to get rid of people however bad at their job they happen to be. You/your supervisor and HR will need to discuss the best strategy, including training, appraisals etc, and how to approach shortfalls in expected standards in a formal way such that if ultimately you need to get rid of this person you will be able to do so within the constraints of employment law.

Anonymous -19 May 2008 | 17:20

You certainly should to do something about this if it is making your life more difficult. The starting point is probably to speak to the other fee earners who she works for (assuming you share her) and see if this is a general problem and how they deal with her. Brilliant secretaries are fairly rare, but so are useless ones, so you need to either sort your one out or ask to have a new secretary allocated to you.

Anonymous -19 May 2008 | 17:27

Your legal secretary has the right to mutual trust and confidence. If, as you say, she is lazy and does make spelliing mistakes in her work, then this should either be raised with her at (a) her appraisal and a requirement to engage in an appropriate level of care concerning her work raised, perhaps monitored over time, with provision of access to training. If then she fails to improve, then (b) the issue should be handled through personnel. It may be that she is not cut out to be a legal secretary (and you do not say whether she is "junior" and therefore on a learning curve. (She could be moved within the organisation to a less demanding role rather than sacking her - you have spent time and money in recruiting her (ask how did you make a mistake!!) If there is a Group Secretary structure then that person should also be included in her guidance and supervision or someone else appointed to oversee what she is doing. You learn from others. And legal secretaries should not be operating alone in your organisation.Also, I worked for a female junior lawyer (having worked succesfully for law firms for 10 years and been trained by the top law firm in Scotland), she was overbearing, could not do a two line letter without changing it (as quite often is the case with junior lawyers/trainees) and she insisted in coming in to work weekends and staying late in the evening and expecting me to churn out her work before doing my function for the other lawyer I worked for (even though she had no right to demand this) including refusing to allow me to delegate to others doing nothing and she was also a nightmare in placing non-urgent and urgent work on the same tapes. Needless to say, I complained and I was given a warning which was removed on a technicality - ie the firm sided with this junior lawyer rather than taking a step back and assessing both parties (which is something your supervising partner should do perhaps). None of which was good employment practice. ie the issue was not my fault but my junior lawyer's fault but meant I was labelled as the problem. Company policy should not be that you are sacked or sackable for raising a complaint. So check you are on safe ground before launching into HR to get her removed.Also bear in mind that the culture of most law firms for legal secretaries is not to have a "voice" within the organisation which is antonomous. She may actually realise she is not doing so well, which is why she is experiencing stress - Stress is not a one way street - fear of reprisal is causative of stress.Ask yourself are you contributing or causing the situation - is she relatively new or has she worked for others - she must have got through probation somehow!

ANON -19 May 2008 | 17:48

I agree with the comments above about making your requirements clear and if she makes persistent mistakes, go through them with her and make it clear in the nicest possible way that you do not want a recurrence. If that does not work, talk to your supervising partner. Who else does this secretary work for - have you mentioned it to them? But be careful. There is a post here about someone who suffered when a complaint was made against her. I have suffered in the past when I complained about a secretary's rude behaviour as the partners took her side rather than mine. Remember secretaries run the firm, you can't manage without them (generally) and they deserve respect. But not when they are doing a poor job. If she has less than a year's service it is comparably easy to get rid of her. If she has over a year's service the firm would need to tread carefully and follow the right procedures. It may just be that she should be doing a different job somewhere else in the firm, or she just doesn't have the attention to detail that is needed of a legal secretary and should work elsewhere.

Helen -20 May 2008 | 13:07

Agree with a lot of the posts above. However, have you actually broached the subject directly with the secretary? You should definitely do this before raising it with your supervising partner. It is best to try and sort out any problems you have directly with your secretary as she needs to respect you and complaining to a senior partner without giving your secretary the opportunity to remedy these problems will only make matters worse.

In house lawyer -20 May 2008 | 17:22

Mine is the same. She's much worse than just useless, she's loud, messy and ignorant. I certainly wouldn't dream of ever giving her work to do. My advice, for what it's worth, is not to stick your size elevens in just yet. Secretaries are often in situ for 8 years, longer than most associates stay in a firm. Long-term partners will have a good relationship with secretaries generally and their own in particular. You should be careful about how she could damage your own career and/or prospects. In my experience secretaries are often jealous and bitter - especially towards junior office members. Let's be clear - there's a reason she works as a secretary and not for NASA. You can come to your own conclusions as to why that is.

Associate, US firm -21 May 2008 | 11:28

US associate: "In my experience secretaries are often jealous and bitter - especially towards junior office members. Let's be clear - there's a reason she works as a secretary and not for NASA. You can come to your own conclusions as to why that is."How arrogant! With an attitude like this, are you surprised that the secretaries you've dealt with are coming across as bitter?! And in my experience, secretaries tend to get the sh1tty end of the stick most of the time and if you treat them decently and courteously, as with anyone, you are more likely to get a good response.

Partner, City firm -21 May 2008 | 13:12

I believe the above illustrates my point. Your secretarial support consists of no help but lots of attitude, you raise it and this is somehow your fault. My secretary doesn't get the shitty end of anything. She sits on the internet for forty five grand a year. She isn't mining coal or off-shore fishing. Also, city partner - you may find that the way a secretary treats you and, say, a trainee - are probably two very different things.

Associate, US Firm -21 May 2008 | 14:31

If an associate produced routinely shoddy work they would be pulled up for it and ultimately sidelined or asked to move on. Why is there such a culture of tip-toeing round the secretaries for fear of upsetting them? Partners would never treat under-performing associates with such timidity. Given the increase in outsourcing of secretarial work, perhaps the balance will finally tip in favour of over-worked fee-earners who just need help to get their work done. You are completely entitled to raise it as you deserve proper secretarial support to enable you to get on with your job.

associate, city firm -21 May 2008 | 16:36

To US Associate - if your secretary is surfing all day, what precisely are you up to? With your attitude and a downturn in markets she'll be cheaper to keep than you!

General Counsel Client -21 May 2008 | 17:21

All secretaries have seen the good, the bad and the ugly via traineeship. They know who the Partners tomorrow are - unfortunately, they do not also get a say in who gets kept on and who does not at the end of the traineeship (unless indirectly) - if they did, then there would be an awful lot nicer law firms out there - with lawyers objectively doing their work productively and for profit rather than piddling around subjectively in secretaries not NASA livestyles - incidentally you overworked sorry pathetic excuses for a decent person haven't got a lifestyle either: the client's look decidely more attractive most of the time!Perhaps this secretary is following government initiative (which as lawyers you caused) - fat catting the system - ie, failing and getting a lot of money to do so - she obviously has pressed your button and if you fire her she will get even more. Less is more: I bet you gave her a payrise last year for doing nothing - she may only be learning from what you are actually teaching in society: New Labour policy - be seen to fail and get large bonus!!! If the wrong signal is being sent - who's responsible!! Hee hee

ANON -21 May 2008 | 22:22

Aside from my little bit of hypothetical subjectivity above: the information that is relevent to this article be it hypothetical or otherwise is that the secretary is signed off FOR STRESS. That indicates that the issue is "reactionary" rather than that she is the "cause" of the situation. Also typos: stress - we are not getting told something of significance here which I would hedge a bet relates to the conduct of the fee earner (he is not likewise signed off for stress - although he will never forget this secretary!). What he is indicating is that he is unclear or unable to "know" how to deal with the issue - do firms need to have a "Stress policy", ie look at the "reciprocity and mutuality" in the relationship/department culture - without resorting to the "transfer" /"transfer and sack" buttons traditionally used in law firms. Also, this secretary should be using XP or VISTA which underlines typos so she may not be checking her work, rather than that she is actually incapable.If she is signed off for "stress" then she may fall under the DDA 2005 and could ask for a "reasonable adjustment" : I am unsure of the scope of the DDA - do you have to be diagnosed with a mentall disability before it kicks into play? I would be inclined to look at the degree of reciprocity in the organisation as this secretary is being "harmed" by something and stress is a "natural" occurance to something whether it be action or inaction. This secretary is now in the category "personal injury" within the organisation - you have a choice - deal with it well, ie raise the mutuality level or deal with it badly in which case things will get decidely worse for her and possibly the organisation too - the fee earner will move on relatively unscathed - and if he is causing the issue will go on to do it elsewhere if there is a vulnerable person available. Nip it in the bud if you can but by raising the mutuality within the culture of your organisation, not trashing it for the inspection of the courts.

ANON -22 May 2008 | 09:53

The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 is perhaps something all fee earners should find the time to delve into - just google. An employer must not physically or mentally impair an employee.Not to be taken lightly.Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Health & Safety works on a contract of employment from day one, not after one year's service.

ANON -22 May 2008 | 10:02

ANON, I would be able to take your rant a lot more seriously if it wasn't for the shocking grammar, and I quote, "client's are more attractive..."

trainee -22 May 2008 | 17:13

A number of points: never underestimate your secretary's intelligence - many have University degrees and qualifications that can match if not better the lawyers that they are working for; never underestimate your secretary's knowledge of employment law - it's surprising the number of lawyers (whether it be magic circle, in-house counsel or US firms) who do not even possess a basic knowledge - worse still, HR teams who do not even know the contents of the Company's handbook; arrogance, "god syndrome", poor interpersonal and people management skills is the downfall of many a lawyer - once this is recognised and addressed, law firms will be a better place for all concerned.

Anon -22 May 2008 | 17:43

A wee trainee - so did you google for the H&S at Work Act 1974 and the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 - are you now engaged in drafing the "Stress policy" for your organisation - if not - why not?Glad to have shocked that was the objective!As for the grammer do you want it in sink estate or aesethetically pleasing good old fashioned plain English, I can do shorthand, rusty French and a bit of Latin too if you like.Tip : don't get bogged down in the procedure so much so that you never reach the substantive."'s" is trivial over the issue of "Stress" and a fee earner not knowing what to do about it within an organisation. You are still on a learning curve - make sure you learn.I suppose I should hammer home the point about Health And Safety working upon a contract of employment from day one not from year one - correct me if I am wrong, but a person with a Health & Safety issue can access a Tribunal from day one of a contract of employment it is irrelevant that they have not been in post for a year! That is because the law is supposed to protect and safeguard from harm by acts or omissions.The actual issue posted is quite serious not least because the government welfare reforms which come into force in October 2008 mean that people who are on benefits and are within core jobless categories including "mental health disability" are expected to engage in work and / or be assisted to retain their jobs if signed off for mental disability - I doubt many firms are even ready for October 2008. This fee earner does not know what to do concerning his secretary who is making typos and appears lazy and she is experiencing stress ...There will therefore be an issue of "job retention" and if she gets diagnosed with a mental disability (I am unsure if "stress" is enough over say "depression") then she will come under the DDA 2005 and "reasonable adjustment".Also anyone can be affected by mental disability the statistics are one in four - that does not also follow that it is always a permanent afflication - people do recover or recover to a degree.Core jobless categories are: NEET (young people not in education employment or training); homeless; disabled; substance and alcohol abusers, mentally disabled; over 50s; lone parents, etc, etc. Some may even be lawyers or secretaries.If looking to do a "stress policy" liaising with a local hospital or private health provider might be a good idea: occupational therapy.There is a lot of stigma and discrimination when a person is labelled with a mental disability largely through ignorance: sometimes its genetic and sometimes its "caused" by circumstances.So all of you upstarts out their who somehow consider they are privileged in some way over others because they got a degree, would that you did actually know what your secretary's lifestyle is in comparisons to your own and others in your peer group: why not do a workplace evaluation and take a Friday to Sunday timeframe on a specific weekend and ask - I bet there is an academic/research fellow who would like to do quantative and qualitive analysis on this somewhere. Might make for an interesting read I reckon.

ANON -22 May 2008 | 22:10

ANON makes many assumptions. The poster did not mention stress, just that his secretary is lazy and useless. Anon refers to lifestyle comparisons. I had a secretary whose disposable income was much greater than mine because she kept her entire take home pay (her husband paid household bills). I have had secretaries brighter than many lawyers I know. The issue is what to do about an underperforming secretary. In my experience it is very difficult. Where I work the fee earners walk on eggshells around the support staff, and HR is no better. Underperforming fee earners are disposed of ruthlessly; bad secretaries are never sacked. And they are quick to scream about bullying and stress knowing these are buzz words which will alarm HR. (It's OK to subject fee earners to bullying and stress though, they don't mind do they?) I had a similar experience to the poster, tried to resolve it, got a mouthful of abuse and now do most of my work myself. Which is a shame because my secretary is very bright and able, she just can't be arsed most of the time. Incidentally, I was once a secretary at a law firm.

City Lawyer -23 May 2008 | 11:26

City Lawyer, I see where you are coming from - I am cherry-picking issues throughout the posts with an obvious objective along the lines of "Devil's Advocate". I am quite astounded at the prejudice and ignorance. Also knowledge of employment law appears to be lacking (amongst lawyers) and possibly professionalism and ethics. The Welfare Reforms will hit the system soon and I don't get the impression anyone is aware let alone prepared. 2.6 million people are on incapacity benefit across core jobless categories in the UK. The statistic for Scotland is 285,000 so the bulk of the press headlines relate to England. Firms do need to consider having a stress policy as aside from the genetically disposed that is often a route into mental health and "job retention" is a really serious issue and statistical data is now becoming available. Also you have clients who may need assistance with this concerning recruitment and retention. The target figure for 2008-2010 for Scotland is 66,000 off IB - how are your staff going to deal with a manic depressive who may or may not be recovered (people often yoyo/relapse)- s/he has a right to work: if s/he is over 50 may not have worked for years and need upskilled. The Third Sector is meant to take up flak, but the Third Sector are subjected to short-term contracts linked to funding regimes - where are they to get the extra funding necessary to take on volunteers who also need access to training, equipment (computers) and skills development which costs money, an assertive training course can cost from £20 to £200 each - small charities do not have the funds to meet the demand. Plus the Welfare Reforms should not mean that people who do engage on a "what I can do" premis are then trapped in the Third Sector for no financial benefit with no regulation covering "volunteers" - there is plenty covering "employees". Whilst I appreciate firms do Pro Bono work for charities there is a lot more that could be done, ie co-opted trustee positions on small localised charities management committees, engaging in "volunteering days" where the professional rolls his/her sleeves up and gets their hands dirty, ie grass roots down to earth decency working with people whose lived experiences can be horrendous. You could specifically send some of the "upstart toe rag" lawyers out 1 day a week/month to give them a reality check and this could include legal secretaries too. You have your team building away day/weekends but what do you actually learn : I doubt how to be a decent person in society. Also bear in mind many people who have a mental disability never engage with services - stigma/discrimination and many of you could usefully have CBT. The issue really is not that you have a legal secretary or a fee earner being subjectively disruptive but what and when you do something about it - as one rotten apple impacts on everyone : sacking is not the way as the legislation will tie everyone in knots and impact on many people while the disruptive person is largely unscathed. If you transfer or sack the reality is they just move somewhere else and some other vulnerable person is affected - dealing with the behaviour is perhaps the way forward - it usually takes the form of an abuse of power, so don't automatically assume that the fee earner is innocent: that fee earner may cost a company a fortune either directly or indirectly (high turnover of staff, company image and reputation) also bear in mind the Partnership Act which I am unsure how LLP now acts. If I ask a simple question : identify the firms secretaries know have a high turnover of (a) secretaries; (b) fee earners, without even asking for names of who's who, I wonder what the response would be - the profession does know the market.

ANON -23 May 2008 | 14:51

My mind did not stop working on this at the weekend - if you make me think, I do so. What about this for a solution to company problems concerning problem secretaries; (problem fee earners below equity partnership); (problem HR and others). On the Appraisal forms, notify what the company considers the worth of the employee is as a bonus - let them know the figure. Then have a couple of boxes (a) 'justify' how your professionalism and ethical conduct in this company and society determines that I should give you all of this sum or a pro rata share of it: (b) personal integrity and societal development - 'justify' why this company should give you all or a pro rata share of this sum - provide one example or one reason from your time you have been employed in the last year of working for this company. Then have a couple of boxes - this sum of money is released (a) in total to you - because ....(b) in a pro rata share because .... the remaining sum is being donated to: (a) a Law Centre near you; (b) a Secretaries/lawyers benevolent fund; (c) a Citizen Advice Bureau near you; (d) a charity of your choice Reckon on a lot of folks behaviour changing over night - theory mummy does not give you pocket money if you are a naughty person.

ANON -24 May 2008 | 10:34

To the person who thinks Secretaries are not of the calibre "NASA Scientist" to use your anology: the secretaries actually get their bosses to the launch pad, assist them to take off, ensure they have a smooth flight and that they land safely. They are working on the most important documents which may mean you are paginating, photocopying, filling in the blanks in pro forma's. If there was a catastrophe tomorrow, a secretary would (a) cope; (b) manage the situation; (c) know what to do and who to contact/where to look, she probably could even google for the legal points, find the relevant book in the library and read it, understand it and do the job for her boss blindfold : - some of us the unrecognised superstars - most of us could function without our boss, but vice versa I'm not so sure. Make sure your not a space cadet on this issue.

ANON -24 May 2008 | 12:01

I recently complained to my supervising partner about my secretary, who is not performing. He in turn raised this with the head of department. However, nothing was done and I think (second-hand info I have been told) they are tiptoeing around the secretary in question because she has recently raised a grievance (nothing to do with me) against the firm. I think that management are therefore hamstrung and afraid to act for fear of being accused of victimisation. All very frustrating and I have not got the patience to give my firm more time to handle and to manage her out in a way that reduces the risk of her taking action against the firm.

Fee earner, city firm -25 May 2008 | 16:18

If you don't take this up with your superiors you will become frustrated and stressed, with adverse consequences both for your career and your health.

DMJ -26 May 2008 | 23:13

Not read the many pieces written by ANON but I would ask if your supervising partner would care, would he/she do anything about it? If yes, get him/her to deal with it - that could mean verbal then written warnings but on the plus side potential improvements in performance through HR endorsed improvement schemes (fat chance you might say, and generally i have to say they don't work because the problem is with attitude). If she has an attitude problem and your partner does not care, suggest you pile her with work and if she makes mistakes keep going back to her and ask her to correct and if she works with other secretaries, so much the better - nothing like a bit of public humiliation. If she doesn't care about that then in time she will move on because nobody, not even legal secretaries who do indeed have the sh1tty end of things in law firms will have had enough. What about all the filing as well that you probably do yourself now? Get her to do that as well and if she can't keep up and has to ask the other secs to help her, she won't be popular with them either. There are ways - though sorry to say no easy way.

May -27 May 2008 | 17:50

To the 27 May poster - she would then have grounds to sue you for "constructive dismissal" on the premise the employer's conduct was completely unreasonable such that she had to leave the company. You would then be forced into (a) covering her post probably via agency - you may or may not get lucky; and would have to engage in a not inexpensive round of recruitment albeit this is usually outsourced to agency. Plus even if she is quite terrible the atmosphere in your organisation would be dire as secretaries do not like to see or participate in these sort of tactics nor do ethical/professional fee earners, morale would go down very low, there would possibly also be a climate of fear and it may escalate whereby secretaries/fee earners who do have a backbone possibly humanitarian streak would have a word with either HR/the fee earner being shitty directly/with the supervising partner and may then also become a target of mismanagement. If she went through the grevience procedure this would involve HR, someone of an Executive function in the company/Managing Partner and if there is an appeal will involve senior management - who probably have got better things to do when the issue is that the secretary needs some guidance, supervision and training to improve performance with an indirect chat to her fee earner to behave himself/herself concerning staff as the company does not want a recruitment high turnover of secretaries/fee earners as a consequence of the now embedded "smiliing knife" culture eminating from two of you: all because of some typos and possible laziness which needed an appraisal, an empathetic ear, some direction and support. If you give her the necessary supervision, guidance and training and she does not improve then warn and sack - a Tribunal should have no problem with that if it came to that. Respectful behaviours in an organisation generally ensures everyone does what they are expected to do without the degeneracy of the office politics impacting on their already demanding lifestyle. Reciprocity is usually provided at the level it is received - low or high, but the law steps in as she has the contractual right to mutual trust and confidence in an organisation - now where does that feature in the 27 May poster's scenario.

ANON -28 May 2008 | 00:29

Dear ANON, you appear to prefer to misunderstand what i said. By giving the sec lots of work to do, you are not asking her to do any more than what all other secs are already being asked to do and do in fact do do. That's why they are there - to do as much as they can to support fee earners to do their bit and not be burdened by work that is not cost-effective for them to do (like filing and correcting simple letters umpteen times). Anecdotal perhaps, but my firm has been involved in successfully persuading two such people to move on - entirely their decision you see - after their position became totally untenable with their bosses (me included), their co-workers (other secs) and ultimately themselves. If you're not so hot at your job but prepared to improve yourself, there's a chance. But if you have bad attitude, employers should not shy from asking them to do what they are contractually bound to do. Yes, give them lots to do, and they can shape up or if things don't work out, ship out. Despite threats of taking us to the tribunal after they left, do you think they did? Sure, they got solicitors to write us pathetic letters asking for compensation, but all based on fiction and they knew it. We said 'see you in court' (well, not quite but you know what i mean, we rebuffed all allegations). Do you think the secs took things any further? No.

May -28 May 2008 | 11:29

Would your responses change if the question were:"My associate is useless and, frankly, lazy - she can't follow instructions and creates more work for me by handing back documents riddled with mistakes.I am a partner whose team has just gone through a difficult time with people leaving so I realise I can't make too much of a song and dance about this (as it would compromise team morale); should I soldier on and just do her work myself or should I raise the issue with my departmental head?"

City Woman -28 May 2008 | 15:26

Dear 27 May poster no I do not "appear to prefer to misunderstand what you say." Yes I agree that a secretary does have to do what she is contracted to do and to a standard of care. But I also 'know' about the practise of overloading or underloading a person for de-hiring purposes. A secretary does not have to put up with such tactics and yes, will develop an attitude (probably introversion because of distrust and lack of mutuality in the relationship). "Anecdotal perhaps, but my firm has been involved in successfully persuading two such people to move on - entirely their decision you see - after their position became totally untenable with their bosses (me included), their co-workers (other secs) and ultimately themselves." I would suggest to you that it takes two to tango and it is very very rare for a secretary to be in the category of "untenable" concerning fee earners - this implies that there is something wrong with the fee earner - bear in mind secretaries usually have worked for very successful fee earners in other companies, possibly even the genuine 'creme de la creme/elite' in the market place - to then find that they are 'untenable' having successfully gone through a recruitment process DOES NOT WASH WITH ME. The chances are the problem is already inherent within the firm - most secretaries go through probation - so you missed an opportunity if you made a mistake - I don't reckon on many lawyers or law firms admitting they made a mistake!!!! "Despite threats of taking us to the tribunal after they left, do you think they did? Sure, they got solicitors to write us pathetic letters asking for compensation, but all based on fiction and they knew it" - I doubt a solicitor's letter from another law firm is based on "fiction" - there would then be a need for referral to the Office of Supervision of Solicitors on the premise of bringing the profession into disrepute!!! Like I said above, solicitors rarely put their hands up and admit their own wrongdoing and I also know they will engage in corruption and smear tactics if necessary too - I did not come down with the last shower: they even corrupt judges. Refuting allegations for a lawyer is standard practice which means a secretary NEEDS to get to the discovery stage in a court case. A lot of the times the other party gives up because they are browbeaten or their lives moves on and so they just leave it to some other person to deal with it if the firm has not already wised up that it could potentially affect the equity layer of a partnership when sailing close to criminality. [To City Woman's post "Would your responses change if the question were: "My associate is useless and, frankly, lazy - she can't follow instructions and creates more work for me by handing back documents riddled with mistakes." Unfortunately, I have had the misfortune to be a fee earner and experience this too - fee earner - no clients, therefore no management, no work, sidelined to minor tasks, etc. You say you are "a partner whose team has just gone through a difficult time with people leaving so I realise I can't make too much of a song and dance about this (as it would compromise team morale); should I soldier on and just do her work myself or should I raise the issue with my departmental head?". The answer is on you should not do her work for her or soldier on - deal with the situation properly : appraise, guide/mentor, train, supervise - if it does not improve/progress then deal via HR. Evidential bundles in court often omit to show how a person is managed within the company - yet the company has tiers of management at fee earner level: if I was a litigating secretary I would want to see the committee papers showing my appraisal, my guidance, training, supervision and if I was a judge - I would be highly suspicious if there is nothing in the evidential bundle by a respondent in the case other than disciplinary process. There is such a concept of 'de-hiring' and it involves concerted and orchestrated conduct within"an organisation to engineer a dismissal. Getting a secretary to do a reasonable days work is just fine - over or under burdening her will impact on her health over time and create a distateful culture within the department/organisation. So I don't buy into 27 May posts as being necessarily above board.

ANON -28 May 2008 | 19:09

One idea to try is to keep amending the work and sending it back for correction (admittedly time-consuming and frustrating). This will highlight to the PA the extent of the mistakes being made and may trigger an improvement. If it doesn't, you then know that the next step of addressing it more directly needs to be taken.

Anon -06 Jun 2008 | 15:24