- Quickdraw McLaw
- 44 Comments
- 181 Views
It’s that time of year again where the legal community focuses a little more attention on pro bono work. This year that effort includes addressing what the legal community can do to help victims of the shooting on October 1. There are plenty of ways for you to get involved. Even Laughlin Township Constable Jordan Ross has pledged to serve whatever summons and execute whatever court orders are needed to help the victims of the tragedy.
Here are a few resources for you if you want to get involved with pro bono work:
- LACSN Pro Bono Project
- One Promise Nevada
- CASA
- Clark County Bar Association’s list of pro bono opportunities
- Nevada Legal Services
My pro bono every month is being a female attorney. Been asked out numerous times if I am single while on a job interview. Hit on by co-workers. Hit on while i am married.
I could use specifics, but I won't because it will identify me. Treated inappropriately by judges. In light of Weinstein, this is an appropriate convo.
The thing about Weinstein, and I'm sure this is true of some of the people you've encountered, is that dozens and dozens of people obviously knew about it for decades, said and did nothing, poo-poohed complaints, looked the other way, enabled him in one fashion or another, and now that it is all out in the media, why, they are "shocked, shocked to see there is gambling going on in here."
@9:15 – You bring up an interesting issue and I'm hoping you can give some guidance. I'm a male attorney with my own practice. I also employ an associate attorney. I've done interviews in the past for that position and some of the candidates have been female. In one interview, I asked the female candidate if she was married. I wasn't trying to be creepy, I was just trying to learn more about her. I'm married and have kids and didn't think anything of it. She gave me an awkward glance before saying she wasn't married. I felt bad and didn't want her to think I had any intention other than to learn more about her but maybe I shouldn't ask that question in the future? Is it wrong for a male employer to ask a female candidate if she's married?
9:15 — I am a male attorney and I own my own firm and I have hired maale and female attorneys. The answer to your question is yes. It is inappropriate to ask that question in an interview.
Sorry, I meant to address that comment to 9:47.
@9:15, I am digging deep into the recesses on my memory, but if I remember correctly, that question is on the list of prohibited questions. It is right up there with asking age, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.
While I certainly sympathize with your plight and frustration, "being female" is not pro bono publico service. The fact that you are mistreated is unacceptable and requires immediate systemic attention. It does not excuse the need for pro bono service.
I don't think 9:15 was literally arguing that her mistreatment excuses her responsibility to perform pro bono work. I interpreted it as using the day's theme as a device for launching a needed discussion.
@9:15, you've just described what ever decent looking female attorney (and I recognize there aren't many) goes through on the daily. You aren't special. And it's not limited to the legal profession. Men just want their egos (and rods) stroked, and they'll do what they can to make it happen.
If you are uncertain on how to deal with women, may I suggest "The Rock Test"
https://medium.com/@annevictoriaclark/the-rock-test-a-hack-for-men-who-dont-want-to-be-accused-of-sexual-harassment-73c45e0b49af
10:48: that is really pretty good. But it's sad that men need to go through all that visualization to just act right.
The Rock Test is amusing, but doesn't quite work. Even in this same thread we see an example. If a middle-aged guy was interviewing the Rock for a job, he might not see anything wrong with asking if the Rock is married. But, it would clearly be inappropriate in the scenario described above.
In other words, I think that it's a good starting point, but it's just a starting point.
10:46, MAGA, baby, MAGA.
In fairness, 9:24, there's a difference between being a creep and sexual harassment. So I couldn't out the boss that was probably sexually harassing women, but only acting like a creep when I was there, because being wrong on that would be really really bad. Thankfully, it eventually blew up in that guy's face, though admittedly not as publicly as I think we all were hoping.
10:46, asking to be treated equally as men and be paid equally, and not be sexually harassed and assaulted is not asking for special treatment, Jesus.
I commend 9:15 for raising an important topic that has generated some thoughtful responses.
However, my view of how offensive it is to ask the applicant if they are married, is not totally determined by the fact it has been deemed improper to ask. My level of how offended I am is determined by the motive behind the question, and whether the employee would ask applicants of both gender that question.
Granted, it's improper regardless, but lets peel this away a bit.
If an employee only asks this question of female applicants that demonstrates a Neanderthal view that only female employees, and not male employees, could be distracted form their work to address family matters. But if the question is asked of both genders, and is motivated by the fact that the job in question is very demanding and is in no way restricted to a 9 to 5 situation, I can almost understand the rationale.
Many highly sought after, and extremely well-paying positions in Law, Medicine, Management, Advertising, and other fields, often require to be at the beck-and-call of the employer, and there are many ambitious, talented young people who would willingly make such commitment. So, I believe in these instances an employer should, on some limited, proper level, be permitted to explore the level of an applicant's outside commitments–providing that the same question is posed to all applicants, regardless of gender.
I also don't think it is always motivated out of a discriminatory motive to inquire of age or health. Some positions are incredibly demanding. Is it improper for an employer to receive the information that an applicant for a vigorously physical position is a 77-year-old man with a pacemaker? Apparently so.
But back to the marriage question, since it is prohibited, perhaps an employer, if they still believe they need to know about any outside commitments that could interfere could ask, "As you know this is a very demanding job, and particularly when we are preparing for trial our associates are pretty much expected to be available around the clock if need be. Is there anything that you believe would impede with you making such commitment?"
That way if an applicant, regardless of gender, believes that the demands of caring for their special needs children, or them being the sole care-giver of an ill parent, would in fact necessitate some flexibility as to work schedule, they need to inform the employer IMO.
Of all the female associates I have ever known, all of who wanted to be "paid equally", I've never known only a small number that agreed that being paid equally also means billing equally. If you want to get paid like a man, then bill man hours. If you are billing what you are supposed to, by all means pay women and men the same. and in my experience when the woman is billing equally, she's also getting paid equally.
*I've only known a small number. . . **
I was the one who originally asked whether it is improper to ask the candidate if they are married. I was more interested in whether that question comes off as wrong or creepy if it's a male asking a female. I appreciate the responses because it never occurred to me that this type of question could lead to a lawsuit over discrimination and I've read up a bit more on improper questions to ask in an interview.
But the real reason I would even be interested in asking that question is because I'm married and have kids myself and I like to talk to people about their families. I understand that people have family commitments outside of the office, just like I do, and that would never affect my decision in whether to hire that person. But I guess we've become so regulated and sensitive that asking somebody a simple question in a job interview like "are you married?" or "do you have kids?" can lead to litigation.
It seems that you could get better results by asking something like, "what do you like to do when you're not working?" If the interviewee has a family, they might mention it then. It will also give you an insight into their personality. And I think (though I could be wrong, of course) that this would keep you out of litigation.
People ask "what do you do outside of work?" or "what do you do for fun?" and for me the answer always includes "hang out with my wife and kid." So maybe ask that, and if she wants to talk about it she will? Also, like 90% of married people wear rings, so if I'm really curious I usually go with that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To all the Rs here who are using Weinstein as a weapon against those damn libs who covered for Weinstein for years – this is why the Access Hollywood tape is important and still matters. Don't sit there and say "Hillary lost, get over it." Everyone knows that. But you don't get to sit there and use "we won, get over it" to deflect from the fact that we voted someone who admitted to sexual assault as our President. That still matters, just like those who covered for Weinstein matter. It is possible to look at both of them and say both are wrong and that neither should be in a position of power. Don't make the same mistake those damn libs made.
Not that the subject matter isn't important, nor that the victims shouldn't have been subjected to that sort of conduct, but it's somewhat amusing the level of claimed shock and outrage about the Weinstein allegations. The concept of the "casting couch" has been the subject of comments and jokes for decades.
So yes, much like the movie Casablanca.. I'm shocked that there is gambling going on inside this building…
So the RJ is reporting that Eric Paddock just fired Jonathan Barlow from Clear Counsel as his attorney in the Steve Paddock Estate. I've been seeing Barlow's firm more and more these days… does anyone have experience with them?
I litigate against Barlow all the time. Good guy, skilled attorney, honest. If Barlow and Paddock parted ways, I suspect it's because Eric wanted to do something that was either unethical or legally not feasible. Eric, I work for one of Barlow's competitors. Don't bother calling us because we sure as shit won't take you on as a client if you can't make it work with Barlow. I would guess other probate litigation firms will also see this as a red flag.
Seconded. Also, for those interested, Barlow's petition did a good job explaining why the first-to-file fuckers are morons.
Better not say anything derogatory about Danley or it will be deleted.
Blog is dead.
Justin Watkins, of Atkinson & Watkins aka Battle Born Injury Law fame, as well as State Assemblyman, won't run again for his seat in District 35 for 2019. One term assemblyman, says he can't serve his family and business as well as his district. Did he find out it just sucks being in local politics? Is there something more to this?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/las-vegas-democrat-justin-watkins-will-give-up-assembly-seat/
We heard through the grapevine that it was very hard on his practice and on Marni's work to have to be up north for that long. Remember when Justin ran, Troy was still alive. With Troy's passing, that left Justin with the practice. I am not a D and not in his district but Justin is a decent guy.
When your marriage is on the rocks and your wife gives you an ultimatum-either quit politics or lose your family-you chose wisely. In Watkins' case, giving up his dream was worth quieting the whiny wife. What a shame. I know Justin but don't know his wife. From what I've heard, this was her decision not his. I see lots of regret and resentment in his future.
8:51 you are full of more crap then Trump. Their marriage is fine.
Why? Politics sucks. Sit down, shut up, do what you're told to do. Most people who enter politics wants to make a difference. Can't do that unless you're on top and you have to make a deal with the devil to be on top. He's a good lawyer. Why would he want to put up with Carson City?
8:51– I know Marni and Justin. You are completely full of crap.
If you "know" Justin but don't know Marni, then you don't know Justin, you know of him.
Justin and Marni are good people and good attorneys. If he gave up politics to spend more time with his family (and to support them by running his firm), he made the right choice. IMHO.
Just passed the bar. I have a hearing in front of Bulla this month, what can I expect?
Have a thick skin.
So true. Like many of our judges who are nasty for no reason.
Once you go discovery, you never go back. Sorry, could not help it.
If I were the boss … ha ha … There is no way I would hire single women or men. I would prefer recently married of both genders. Who wants to deal with the aftermath of the dating scene. Gotta leave because they have a date. Gotta leave or can't deal because I just "broke up." I think the marriage question is important. I'd rather have someone working for me who is working to give their kids, or future kids, an amazing future. I would want someone who isn't dealing with the dating scene, late nights, etc. As for getting hit on, as an older woman, get a spine and tell them NOT interested. Walk away. You'd be amazed if you get that rep, you won't have any guy – single or married, hitting on you unless, of course they're trying to rattle you before a hearing or trial. Tune them out. Men against men, they just posture and pump out their chest to try to intimidate. I can kick your a#$%n if you let me. With the ladies, they sleaze. Recognize them for who they are and move on. Quit being offended or swoon, you're not a damsel in distress. You are a lawyer, your client deserves your best.
Thanks Harvey. On another note, as a partner with kids, soccer games pull far more attorneys away from the office than dates. I cannot decide if this comment is misogynistic or just ignorant.
…or just troll bait.