- Quickdraw McLaw
- Job Tips
- 24 Comments
- 92 Views
One of our readers wants your input: what is the best way to find a good secretary in Las Vegas? Is there a secret to finding these needles in a haystack? Do you recommend putting an ad in the RJ, using Monster or Craigslist, or just ? Do recruiters look for secretaries–and if so, is it worth the money? The reader works in a two-attorney office–does that change your advice?
They should start with a posting like this: https://randazza.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/job-posting-paralegal-legal-secretary/
Great secretaries are hard to find, but when you do, they are extremely loyal. Usually word of mouth is the best way to get a great secretary. If you know one, then ask her for help in finding another one. That secretary will know at least 10-20 other great secretaries. Also, depends on the pay and benefits. You can get anyone for 45K, but if you want a great secretary, she will be kind and politely refuse and then trash you behind your back. If you can't pay and give the benefits, don't complain about the quality (or lack thereof) you will receive.
You mean "she" or "he" right?
If you need "she" or "he" to make you feel better, then yes, that's what I meant.
So are you saying 45K is too low? If so, what is the going rate for a good secretary?
Just trying to help you from coming off like an old timer misogynist. Not sure it worked though.
45K is too low. Bad economy or not, a great secretary will not leave where s/he is for anything less than 55K and higher, plus other benefits. To my knowledge, most good secretaries are in the range of 56-62K/year. However, if you happen to get one, they are worth every penny and in the long run, should you lose the secretary, to replace will usually cost you 2 other secretaries just to keep up with the one you lost. Be kind and they will stay loyal to you forever.
9:10 – Yeah, we need to make sure that peoples' feelings are made paramount and ignore what goes on in the real world. Right? Isn't that what political correctness really is? The PC police are constantly on the lookout for things about which they can pretend to be offended. It's a waste of your time if you ask me.
Now to address the actual question, I've had wonderful success with this method, twice: Find someone that works for an attorney who is retiring. This takes a little more work than simply placing an ad; but it is well worth the effort. If you can find this person, you've struck gold. That person will work hard for you and even teach you a few things.
For $55-$62k / year, you can get an associate. An associate is better than a secretary because they can write your briefs and make your appearances. Use a program like Cleo or mycase and you just removed the need for a legal assistant.
Unless you're a brand new attorney and don't know anything, you can hire a younger assistant out of a paralegal school. They are eager, willing, and easier to train. I've had way too many assistants with 15+ years of experience who screwed up my files because they wouldn't follow directions.
9:10 am: How does using she make one misogynist? And why did you assume it was a male? Are you perhaps a misandrist who is projecting the hate?
Um, not all paralegals and executive assistants are female, so get your head of a bucket!
out
My firm doesn't really distinguish between paralegals and secretaries… Do you guys see a distinction? If so, what?
I have worked with attorneys who don't distinguish between associates and secretaries.
It all depends on the firm. Some small firms call the person whose main job is to answer the phone a paralegal. I worked at a firm where they were more akin to associates – had offices and secretaries. I think one was an attorney who had been licensed in another state who just didn't want to be an attorney any more.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/time-start-shutting-down-law-161153410.html
What happened with the Gordon Silver secretaries? There might be some decent ones looking for work. Lionel Sawyer secretaries were definitely seeking jobs, so I presume they did not all go with their attorneys to their new firms.
Ninth Circuit Mandamus Actions (9th Cir. – June 29, 2015)
Today is apparently "Judge Jones" day in the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Jones, from the District of Nevada, is the subject of not one, but two (unrelated) published mandamus opinions today. The first stems from his routine practice of denying pro hac vice status to U.S. government attorneys. The United States finally got fed up with the practice and filed petitions for writs of mandamus. In that one, the Ninth Circuit declined to formally issue the writ, since Judge Jones had technically reversed the practice in the particular case in which the writ was filed, but still issued a published opinion that essentially made clear that Judge Jones should cut it out.
In the second opinion, the Ninth Circuit in fact issues a writ, in a case in which Judge Jones had involved himself in a criminal plea negotiation, and also assigned the case to a different judge on remand.
So not an especially good day for Judge Jones.
The criminal mandamus case was unanimous. The pro hac case, by contrast, was authored by Judge Milan Smith, but Judge Wallace concurred. Judge Wallace's main beef was that the court shouldn't have issued an advisory opinion (and he's got a point there), and that the problem was best resolved by the Judicial Council of the Circuit rather than on a writ. My sense is that Judge Smith didn't think that such a remedy was effective, particularly given how long Judge Jones has continued his practice, and felt like a more immediate response (e.g., a published opinion) would be preferable.
Two tiny additional things. First, I thought it was interesting that in the criminal mandamus case, the Ninth Circuit never once mentioned that the judge at issue was Judge Jones. Not once in the text, and (interestingly) not even in the caption. Usually — like in the pro hac case — you've got a line that says "On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding". But in the criminal mandamus case today, the court leaves out that last part — the part with Judge Jones' name. The only way you can tell who we're talking about is by reference to the district court case number, which ends with "RCJ"; i.e., Judge Jones.
The second interesting thing is that one of the members of the pro hac opinion is Judge Wallace. He was, indeed, the judge who concurred. That puts him in a slightly tough spot, because guess who was a law clerk for Judge Wallace after graduation? That's right: Judge Jones. Gotta be tough to preside over the alleged misconduct of a former clerk of yours.
Neat little opinions today. A little insight into some justice as practiced in one particular courtroom in Nevada.
Judge Jones is horrible.
Got a cite or case number? Those opinions aren't showing up on the Ninth Circuit's website.
Never mind. http://calapp.blogspot.com/2015/06/ninth-circuit-mandamus-actions-9th-cir.html. Can't tell if 12:59 is the original author or just copied and pasted.
Judge Jones does suck. You suck, Judge Jones.
So much sweeter when the Circuit says that
Ball-less… the thing with refusing to name the culprit. Attorneys are as bad, even worse, than cops when it comes to policing their own. Next time you're secretly bitching about some horrible attorney committing malpractice on the public, give some thought to how you're supporting him/her by looking the other way. Admit it, you do it.