Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Non, pas de repas gratuit

We are all, I expect, acquainted with the saying "There's not such thing as a free lunch." This bleak sentence articulates the sad truth that in some way when ever you get something, you're going to be giving something--- even if you think you are getting it for free.

Well, I have learned that this is true. Especially in the case of free lunch.

Let me elucidate here: (Points if you know what song that is from!)

After several of my friends and co-Cornell in Hollywood internship program participants, snobbishly bragged about the free-luncheon perks of their internships, I was feeling pretty hoity-toity when I was informed that Lawyers R Us was going to treat me and few others to an afternoon repast. So enthusiastically I sauntered off with several other coworkers for my first prolonged encounter with a sexist, snobby and rich-enough-to-be-shockingly-rude Los Angelian.

The meal was one of profound inner turmoil and agonizing discomfort due to my unfortunate discovery that the host, the head-honcho of the company whose connection with a past employer of mine got me my job, was an appalling vulgarian with no sense of decorum or respect for his company. I shall refer to him as Mr. Appalling. Mr. Appalling's impression of polite luncheon conversation was to first lecture us all the various reasons why the drug trade should be a federal industry. A little controversial, I thought sipping my water quietly, but perhaps he'll settle down to more appropriate discussion such as the weather or someone's vacation plans once the food arrives. No chance. I listened in disbelief as Mr. Appalling finished discoursing on that subject and began explaining the merits of prostitution. Essentially, it was a good and harmless thing, and everyone who did not share that opinion should just get a grip and come to terms with their repressed sexual urges. But not, male prostitution. That's just wrong and weird. There should not be any male prostitution.

If that was not enough to put me in convulsions, he then called for the dissolution of the Catholic and Jewish religions in the United States, since we all know they are just money-laundering vacuum. This was accompanied by some amazingly offensive remarks about Catholics that I do not care to repeat.

And for desert he recounted, especially for my benefit---how so I don't really care to ponder, the shameful character of women who claim to have been sexually assaulted in the workplace. They really are just lazy and trying to cheat men out of money so they don't have to work in these tough economic times. Oh and most of them have had sex before so are (offensive word for sexually active women) and therefore clearly will always consent to inappropriate sexual advances.

Where on earth had this barbaric patriarchal egomaniac come from? Could he please just crawl back to the primeval scum he had clearly originated from? I sat there torn between my desire letting him have a piece of my mind and the deference I ought to show him as some one of higher rank in the company, my employer, and someone who was doing me a tremendous favor by giving me a job for the summer. This was all perhaps doubly shocking to me, having previously heard only positive testament to his character. So there I was, miserable and nibbing at God-knows-what as dish after dish of exotically-named uncooked sea life was forced upon me--- Mr. Appalling having insisted on ordering for everyone between fits of drooling over the waitresses--- making an increasingly feebler show of appearing anything resembling at-ease and completely at a lost of what to do.

Reflecting on the horrible experience as I tried not to cry into my keyboard upon returning to work, I derided myself for failing to speak up. Not only had I sat there quietly and politely, though perhaps turning purple and green with anger and disgust, and failed to stand up for the suffering endured by the thousands of women Appalling was so brazenly unconcerned with, but I had also failed to stand up for myself and my religion. I was an educated person, familiar with the true reality of the issues he was claiming to be knowledgeable about, and yet I still was not able to defend or articulate my views. Instead I was spineless and silent, too nervous about crossing the rules of social decorum which Appalling clearly felt did not apply to him. Like most other women, I was deferential and patient toward the man, and endured whatever inner pain and discomfort he felt entitled to inflict.

On top of this self-hated, I raged against the injustice of it all. Appalling should clearly have been aware of obligation all his employees at the table felt toward him, and avoided putting us in such an uncomfortable position. Instead his sense of self-importance and power-hunger allowed him to take advantage of his station and lord it over us free of consequences. He had his own feudal kingdom and made sure the rest of us knew it. We all understood we were to grovel for our grub. And we did. Had any of the others adults at the table seemed at all on my side, I probably would have piped up. Yet, knowing the score, they all sat there stone face and obedient to the boss. The help submissively stood facing the corner as the master strolled about doing whatever he pleased. And it is a dreadful feeling, dutifully hiding one's face in the corner, feeling alone, angry, debased, and ill-used.

In short, it was a harrowing and awful experience, that I can only hope I learned from it and never have to do it again.

Les noms imbecile -- Le supplice ajoute d'etre secretaire

(translation: Stupid Names -- The further Torture of Being a Secretary)

As the general populace may or may not know, during my stint in LA this summer, I am working 3/4 days a week at a law firm I will refer to as Lawyers R Us. It is tedious and uninteresting work that I do, but Lawyers R Us is paying me, so who am I to complain?

One of my tasks is 'indexing' which basically entails arranging various papers in chronological order, fastening them into binders and/or folders and typing up long table-of-contents pages. As such, I am often typing the same words over and over and over again. A brief sample of these words would be something including: plaintiff, defendant, subpoena, admissions, declarations, reply etc. Company names are also something that frequently is included in the title of documents, so as you would expect I am often typing Fish Products Processing Company or Disgruntled Former Employee or Money-Hoarding Step-Daughter repeatedly. Typically, this affords me no more irritation than one would expect from typing anything fifteen hundred times. However, recently this has changed.

Enter company with really stupid name.

Little did I know what teeth-grinding frustration I was letting myself in for when I sidled merrily up to Secretary Candice and pronounced myself finished with Task Past and ready for Task Future. Task Future was handed to me in the disguise of a typical stack of jumbled and disorganized papers that I have become so familiar with. But upon extracting the first document and perusing its title, I realized this task would be different from any task I had yet completed.

The company in question had ill-advisedly opted to name itself something akin to Angry Gorilla.

Yes, Angry Gorilla.

There I was, now forced into several hours of typing Angry Gorilla, Angry Gorilla, Angry Gorilla, Angry Gorilla, Prestigious Company's Objection to Special Interrogatories Set One (1) Propounded by Defendant Angry Gorilla. Plaintiff Tarzan and Dumbo Inc.'s Reply to Defendant Angry Gorilla's Proposed Notice of Eviction. Oops! Delete, Delete, Delete.

Had I been transcribing some brilliant scientist's notes on his ground-breaking animal behavior study or penning Lion King 5, I would have been more than content to punch out 'Angry Gorilla' incessantly on the keyboard and hear the word ringing in my head, accompanied by the parade of all the various things one's mind associates with the enraged jungle mammal. But in the context of a legal document? What utter rot! The imbecilic adjective-noun pairing turned torture device morphed every impressive and formal line of clean and beautifully precise jargon into some sort of drunken, tasteless joke, that only it found amusing at the expense of rest of the universe's inner peace and sense of balance. I silently sent wrathful psychic energy out to wreck havoc on the boorish, pea brain fraternity brothers who I expect thought it was such a hilariously drole idea to name their company such unprofessional drivel.

I hope the opposing counsel discovers every opportunity to mock them on this point. Then they might begin to know the a small fraction of the pain it is to be a secretary.