News Litigation Europe UK Sacked A&O associate to take action against firm By The Lawyer 3 February 2009 11:23 13 December 2015 21:53 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Haven't left office for 5 days 3 February 2009 at 12:25 Did i miss something? Are lawyers not allowed to have a life outside of work anymore? Ah, hold on. Sorry, my mistake. Reply Link Anonymous 3 February 2009 at 12:48 storm/teacup Literary, sexual or other prowess neither here nor there, sacking her is quite possibly the most stupid thing A&O could have done. Reply Link Mark 3 February 2009 at 15:14 Marriage I just read her stories …Im in love with her…. Reply Link Anonymous 3 February 2009 at 15:19 ridiculous The published chapters contain little to no explicit language, the material is not shocking and does not contain anything other than a fictitious blog on expat life in Moscow. It is clear that A&O is not depicted and this is clearly a blatant case of age discrimination. If she were as old and unattractive as undoubtedly the people who sacked her no one would ever have had second thoughts about the fictitious nature of the writing. If every A&O partner ever to have set foot in the Night Flight would be sacked there would not be many left. I fail to see what is wrong with literature and I fail to see what is wrong with the healthy sexual appetite of a fictional character. Reply Link Anonymous 3 February 2009 at 16:25 Not quite as balck and white as ity would first appear I suspect they were looking for any excuse to get rid of her following her sexual harrasment claim. Reply Link Anonymous 3 February 2009 at 16:30 Really Revelatory? For a “bringing into disrepute” angle to work, there needs to be some prospect of an adverse change in reputation. Good luck proving that one, A&O. Reply Link Rolling Eyes 3 February 2009 at 16:59 Stupid, stupid A&O Some partners ought to have known better. But to put yourself in the firing line like this is just stupid. Taking oneself and one’s firm too seriously makes one look very foolish. I can see A&O is going to have to pay out big money. And then what are they going to say to future associates: “This is a fun place to work!” Like hell. Reply Link Gareth 3 February 2009 at 17:06 If I were Russia From the Lawyer News Daily it does sound like A&O are being a little over-sensitive. I think Russia might have more serious PR problems than alleged ‘face-controlling’! Reply Link Getin Jigiwivit 3 February 2009 at 18:18 Sacked A&O associate to take action against firm What’s wrong with a bit of “A” and “O” anyway, Mr Humphrey? Reply Link Anonymous 4 February 2009 at 04:49 Oh come on.. Just how seriously would you take a senior lawyer who would post photos as such on the www and seems to take more interest in courting publicity over anything else.. imagine if it was a male…do you think he would ever be taken seriously again? Reply Link Anonymous 4 February 2009 at 08:40 Difficult All very well to say it is an overreaction, but how are A&O going to put her in a client meeting with senior execs from TNK-BP and reps of the various Oligarchs? (deal was referenced in her book). How will they be taken seriously? they might just have a fair shot at the “bringing into disrepute” the firm charge. Reply Link Dave 4 February 2009 at 08:40 Pot boiler from bunny boiler The woman’s a complete idiot. I’ve read her blog. It’s complete tosh. Lord knows how she made the grade to get in to A & O. To write under her own name was an act of extreme stupidity. Rather than spending her money with Fox Williams may I suggest that she considers employing a psychiatrist? Reply Link Anonymous 4 February 2009 at 10:45 Think about it… What if all A&O lawyers chose to do the same… the fact is if A&O and the likes didn’t maintain the professional reputation and serious image they have (stuffy as it may seem to some), it wouldn’t draw in the big clients and complex deals and be able to give her good work and pay her that big salary… so it’s pretty rich to want that yet say I’ll do as I please. Reply Link Anonymous 4 February 2009 at 11:48 Manning Stats Perhaps they needed the statistic. One female out means room for one female in. Now they have room for Chelsy Davy…Until she takes up with Harry again. maybe, possibly,…who REALLY cares?? Reply Link Mallika Saraswat 4 February 2009 at 15:18 get over it The firm needs to seriously get over it and realize that its worth, ambience and reputation won’t, in the least, be affected by one of its workers writing a fictional novel that has a bit of sauce in it? Come on now, won’t she be allowed no freedom of speech, for the sole reason of being an A&O associate? this is preposterously gross and immature on the part of the respectable firm. Reply Link Anonymous 4 February 2009 at 15:28 Whackjob (so to speak) I agree with bunny boiler, the woman’s a fruit and nut bar. If she really wanted to write her book, why didn’t she have the sense to do it under a nom de plume? Especially if she was going to use her colleagues’ names and reference her firm’s clients in it. And as for the blog itself, it deserves a nomination for the Bad Sex Awards … if you’re going to do it, at least do it well!! Reply Link Gavin 4 February 2009 at 16:25 Extra curriciular activities Whenever firms are looking for staff they seem to be obsessed with extra curricular activities, is this case then a sign that only some activities (ie typical middle class pursuits) are acceptable? Reply Link Anonymous 4 February 2009 at 16:43 nominative determinism with a name like that, how could she not write saucy potboilers?! Reply Link Dave 4 February 2009 at 17:21 Malilka’s comment Malilka – surely the point here isn’t damage to A & O’s reputation, but simply that someone who behaves as stupidly as this associate has is not someone who should be working for a pukka firm like A & O? The girl asked for trouble and got it. Clearly she was using the blog as a silly publicity stunt. She’s achieved that end. However, I can’t see her having a successful writing career, and her chances of working for a reputable law firm again are similarly doomed. A classic own goal. Reply Link Anonymous 4 February 2009 at 22:31 Sad state of affairs Everyone here so far has sought to debate the issue of whether the actions taken by A&O are right or wrong – censorship has been one of the main issues discussed of late. What has not been discussed is the actual impact that Ms Dare’s actions have had on A&O, the people she worked with and the legal community generally. All that Ms Dare has achieved is to show just how selfish she is and how little she values those around her. Lets look at things in the cold light of day shall we, she named many of the people she worked with in her “blog”, portrayed them in a very bad and extremely unfair light and generally pissed off everyone around her – the main reason for doing this? An over inflated ego, a sad need to sensationalise her life and an even sadder need to see her name up in lights. Based on her actions, can anyone really say that they are surprised that she got the boot? The real news story her that should be told is this – a 40+ year old lawyer earning loads of cash was deluded enough to think that she could keep her day job with A&O after running down all of the people she works with and crapping all over the firm that pays her bills. Reply Link rodney 6 February 2009 at 07:26 ignorant comments from anonymous Anonymous/Dave Both of you seem to have much to say here, however you are both sadly misinformed – comprehension issues? First this was NOVEL i.e. fiction, (look that up in a dictionary!) not a blog, stated quite clearly on the website. You assume its a blog because it was uploaded on a weekly basis. 2nd, this an issue about freedom of speech/expression (that you have inherited thru the actions of people like her, albeit in your case to show your ignorance by writing here) and the “rights” a company has over ones out of office imaginative endeavours. I know for a fact her clients have stood by her, I also know 2 heads of ivory tower global firms, (yes bigger and better than A&O, but less puritanical) who would not take such action. 3rd, the pics on her website are no less revealing than any magazine advert. What seems to scare you two men, (your gender is obvious) is the fact that a woman is expressing her sexuality, as she has a right to do, in her own time in the same way men may do. People like you two are obviously threatened by that. If a male, professional engineer wrote this, this would not even make the press (and save us all from your obvious mysogyny and fragile masculinity expressed via your lack of intellectual debate). And why should she not defend herself, and fight for her rights over this? As a client, I would prefer someone who would not bow down to the system, and fight my case and rights for me. Thats the mark of a good lawyer, to think outside the box, to challenge and defend the interpretation of the legal framework. Sadly you two represent everything pathetic about the male gender, which is embarassing for the rest of us males. Reply Link Anonymous 6 February 2009 at 10:26 Speaking as a woman What rubbish.. if a man (engineer, lawyer, CEO) were to do the same (post photos of himself in his underwear) on a site under his professional name, not only would people not take him seriously, it would probably be deemed even more stupid and strange and he would never live it down. It would definitely hit the press and cause an even greater sensation as compared to this. Do you think he would get away with the excuse that he is “expressing his sexuality”? And what would that say… that somehow it is still more natural for a woman to “express her sexuality” by posting photos of herself in her underwear. There is nothing “scary” about the photos except that it serves to encourage the continued objectification of women and I am sure many women would agree. Finally, ultimately it is the way this has been handled which is in issue. A&O has a legitimate interest to protect too – the fact is, different business people will have different views of the site (and what the material demonstrates about the person and firm). Writing under a pen name (sans photos) would have been a compromise and struck a balance between the respective interests, but it seems she would have none of that. Reply Link Anonymous 6 February 2009 at 12:37 further to anonymous’ mysognyous rant Anonymous – and why would people not take someone, either male or female serious? Because of perceptions such as yours? Does it effect their work performance? How so? No, its small and narrow minds such as yours that would think that one’s professional performace would be impacted, or they would be taken less professionally. As for creating a greater media sensation – how so and why? There is no gender comparative issue here as to who or what is a more ” natural” (to use your term, which, has no relevance nor meaning in this context what-so-ever) expression of ones sexuality. Expression of ones sexuality is the absolute and fundamental right of the individual. Your bourgeois mentality would relate this to the objectification of women. Do you believe she feels objectified by this? Its people such as you that would objectify women from such pictures. The link between what a person does in their private life and how that impacts a firms “interests” is a tenuous link indeed, and one that is an issue here. Identifying that in the conservative rant you have inflicted upon us is worth examining and challenging. As is the issue of freedom of expression as an individual as opposed to a mandated (and yes possibly outdated) set of imposed “rules”. Or are you one that never questions the system, conforms because you are too weak of character to ever question it? The world develops and changes because of people who question, who challenge the status quo. If not for them, women would not be contributing to the workforce, the 37.5hr week would not exist, and society would be stuck in the misogynous dark ages. Unfortunately for all that change, there will be people like yourself, who will feel threatened and seek the comfort of the status quo – and therefore seek to have others conform to exactly that. Perhaps you lead such a puritanical and secure life you have never stepped outside the bounds of the status quo or “conformity” to have ever challenged anything? To use a Deidre Dare analogy, perhaps therefore you have ever only ever used 10% of your life? I assume there is a role for boorish dullards in this world, although cannot think of one right now. Reply Link Maria 6 February 2009 at 13:07 comment by “rodney” “Rodney’s” comments look very suspicious, I think “rodney” may be a woman. Reply Link Anonymous 6 February 2009 at 15:06 Response to Ranting Rodney Hmm.. there is no “gender comparative issue” here… I believe you were the one who was doing the comparing with the statement “If a male, professional engineer wrote this, this would not even make the press”. I was responding to this by stating that in reality (whether justified or not), it would create a greater media sensation because senior male business professionals would not get away with posting photos of themselves in their underwear in this way without having their professionalism and sense of reality etc. questioned. Just as in reality, for a fact, there are enough people who consider this site to be unprofessional (I could quote statistics too). Who are you to say that the views of other people on this matter are not equally valid? The point that was being made was about BALANCE between different interests and views, recognizing and respecting everyone’s right to think differently and freely. Isn’t that your point? Also, just because a woman would not feel objectified, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t serve to encourage men to objectify women generally. Lastly, I believe you are the only one “ranting”. Reply Link Ummmmmm 7 February 2009 at 03:32 DD herself?? A lot of these “Anonymous” sound remarkably similar to the mental gibberish of this Deidre. Is it you Deirdre??? Reveal yourself! Reply Link Rodney Constable NZ'er living in Asia, after NY, Bermuda and London who doesnt hide behind anonimity 7 February 2009 at 03:58 Maria …Rodney …is in fact …my real name I dont hide behind anonimity, as I am not afraid to state what I think or believe openly. Interesting how anonymous puritans which such basic bourgeous attitudes, do however. Why is that? Frankly anynomous, its such basic thinking people like you in this world, that does not move us on. I trust you are not a litigator, as I feel for your clients. AM sure you have never thought outside the boax for them, andnever will. But if so, perhaps you suit a conservative dullard “magic circle” firm such as A&O. Make sure you wear the grey british post imperial (yes you lost the empire) face that matches your grey suit and personality when you interview. I am sure you will be spared the wrath of unemployment that is sweeping the old world. Good luck Mr Boorish. Reply Link Peter Parker 8 February 2009 at 19:16 Rodney – or should we say Deidre So its all fiction and its a novel not a blog … oh I am sorry then, I must have missed that when I read the “novel”. But thats fine, lets take anyone who has commented so far, take that person personal live, talk about it all over the internet and then just say “its fiction”. Lets put this to bed shall we as its really really getting old. Reply Link Anonymous 9 February 2009 at 11:15 You’re losing it “Rodney” For all your talk about freedom of speech/thought/expression, all you have for people with a different view point (which are mainly based on consideration for the other parties involved), are petty, personal insults. You make unfounded assumptions and shallow, passé, pseudointellectual arguments (for one, you go on about misogyny without basis and ignore the undertones of misandry in the “blog”) which no one really cares to engage you on. But this I will say, you may sincerely believe all this to be about “thinking out of the box” but not surprisingly, people see it otherwise. And to many people, there is nothing still more valued than discretion, loyalty, consideration, maturity and a grip on reality, especially in one’s professional adviser. I can be pretty sure this is not confined to the “bourgeoisie”. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.