Fired for Doing Too Good of a Job?

Kia Franklin

This appears to be the story of a lawyer who lawyered a little too hard, and maybe didn’t buy into the good ol’ boys network enough. Her job was to invesitgate lawyer misconduct in most of NYC on behalf of victims of legal malpractice. Her biggest mistake, it appears, was doing her job indiscriminately, without affording special treatment to certain lawyers that had relationships or reputations with folks in the Disciplinary Department. In other words, her biggest mistake was actually wanting to hold people accountable rather than quietly dismissing claims against the people who qualified as “special” cases.

The woman, Christine C. Anderson, is seeking redress against her supervisors and others for:

[firing her] because she openly voiced her concerns about “a pattern and practice of whitewashing and routinely dismissing complaints leveled against certain select attorneys.” Ms. Anderson, 62, who is black, also said she was a victim of age and race discrimination.

The complaint says that, after voicing concerns about a complaint that she suspected was dismissed for relational/reputational reasons, the findings of one of Ms. Anderson’s compelling investigations “disappeared” and she was eventually fired.

Lawyers are supposed to be zealous advocates for their clients. Ms. Anderson alleges that she was fired for being overly zealous about maintaining the integrity of her profession and protecting the public against legal malpractice. She says she was harassed because she, an older black woman, did not buy into the good old boys framework. If she’s right, her case is important not just because no one deserves to be fired for retaliatory reasons, and not even just because everyone should be able to work in a harassment-free environment, but from a bigger picture, her case is important as an access to justice issue. After all, what does access to the courts really mean if you can’t be certain that your lawyer is going to handle your case competently and professionally?

That’s what Ms. Anderson seems to think, and I agree.

Posted at 2:46 PM, Nov 02, 2007 in Civil Justice | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Kia: I want you to express opposition to the racial disparity in the rate of Bar exam pass rates. The exam has no reliability. It has no validity. It is an ultimate employment test, without correlation with the ability to do the job. That violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They know the social security number, thus everything about the candidate, including the race. That violates the Privacy Act of 1974.

Why won't you blog about that racial discrimination scandal?