Teacups In The Trenches

Why are they so sad?  The ABA, who brought you the new rule that it’s unethical to use words that hurt feelings, tells of a study that it’s because they’re bullied.

Bullying is rampant at law firms, but many law firm leaders are reluctant to punish the offenders, according to a new survey.

Rampant? That’s horrifying and exhausting.  Nobody likes bullying. But then, what exactly does this terrible thing, “bullying,” mean?

The survey received responses from 124 law firms, including the nation’s top 100 law firms. Among the AmLaw 100 firms, there was a three-way tie for the most common detrimental behaviors. Ninety-three percent cited bullying and lack of respect; not being a team player and having a “me-first” agenda; and poor management habits such as getting in on time.

Nope. No clue there as to what bullying means. In fact, nowhere in the ABA Journal article is there any attempt to define bullying, or describe the conduct complained of. But fortunately, there is a link to another post which provides this:

The top five most common detrimental behaviors that firm leaders cited, say Parnell and McKenna, include: “bullying behavior and lack of respect” (by 89% of respondents); “not being a team player with a ‘me-first’ personal agenda” (84%); “poor matter management habits like getting in time, etc.” (80%); “failure to achieve work quality standards” (76%); and “negative attitude infecting others” (69%).

Oh wait. That doesn’t define bullying either. There is a link to yet another post, albeit to Law.com. Maybe that says something?

That’s one takeaway from a survey released Friday by industry experts Patrick McKenna and David Parnell, who polled 124 law firm leaders and found that nearly all of them (93 percent) reported “bullying” at their firms.

Well, this is a problem.  Even though they put “bullying” in quotation marks, they offer no definition, no description, no explanation, for what they’re talking about.

The dictionary definition of bullying is to “use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.” That sounds remarkably like what a superior is supposed to be doing with a subordinate.  Can that be what they’re complaining about?

There may well be partners who are abusive toward associates. Maybe they scream at them, call them mean names, make irrational and unnecessary, even inappropriate, demands of them. We certainly hear stories of such improprieties from time to time, suggesting that the vetting process from associate to partner somehow manages to fail to weed out individual lawyers who can’t play well with others.

But when the complaint rate hits 93%, we’re no longer talking about that one outlier partner who is so intemperate as to scream curses at associates for a single typo in a brief done in an all-nighter when the partner knew it was due for weeks but failed to timely assign it.  After all, who does this partner think he is, a cop?

This is why a definition of bullying is critical. Its absence is disgraceful. Perhaps we can dismiss this nonsense because the study was based on a silly definition, or more likely, no definition at all. People could use the word “bullying” to mean whatever they felt it to mean. It’s already on the list of words untethered from definitions. Of course, you would expect the ABA Journal to notice this missing detail, but they are deeply passionate about such matters as bullying, and couldn’t possibly pass up the opportunity to cry about it.

If it’s true that this is how lawyers feel, that 93% believe they are bullied, and there is no reason to doubt the number, we have a bigger problem than definition. We’ve become a profession of whiners and crybabies. That’s fine if you’re a transactional lawyer, since no one expects much of you, but it’s not fine if you’re a trial lawyer.

If you’re the lawyer standing next to a defendant in the well, whose life is about to be sacrificed to the gods of forever, you don’t have the luxury of hurt feelings. Your adversary is going to demean your heritage. The judge is going to be dismissive and not value your opinion. The cop will call you mean names. And your client may not be nearly as concerned about your work/life balance as you feel he should be.

Too fucking bad.

If you feel you’re being inappropriately bullied, deal with it. Tell the partner to shove it. Tell the managing partner what your beef is. And if they don’t give a damn, move along. But don’t whine about it. Don’t complain about it. We are not a profession of whiners, but fixers.

Yet, you laugh at this old dinosaur who doesn’t get it, who doesn’t appreciate how much words hurt or how important your feelings are. There is no reason why the partners can’t change their ways, the firm can’t recreate itself around your feelings. What is so hard about being respectful of you?

The answer is nothing. And everything. This isn’t to excuse, forgive or normalize lawyers who needlessly behave like jerks. That’s the sort of simplistic dichotomy argued by the intellectually challenged. But the flip side is that your fragile sensitivity has no place in the law either.

When a mean old partner tells you the brief you prepared for her sucks, maybe it’s because it sucks. Maybe it’s because you failed to do an excellent job. Maybe you wanted to see how little you could get away with, under the notion that if it didn’t fly, you could always make it better. After all, it’s not like you should do excellent work the first time when you might be able to get away with mediocrity.

And you had really important things to do besides your work. Why didn’t the partner appreciate that you have a life?

As much as the glaring omission of what “bullying” means reflects a disturbing gap in thought at the ABA Journal (and the other posts linked, though they don’t get to enjoy the imprimatur of the ABA legacy), the fact that 93% of lawyers feel that they’re being bullied under any definition is outrageous. Either this is a profession replete with terrible jerks, or one replete with fragile little teacups.

And if the latter, which it most assuredly is, then their cries inform us that they’re unworthy of being in the trenches where everyone is going to bully them. There are no safe spaces in the trenches. If you can’t take it, get the hell out.

70 thoughts on “Teacups In The Trenches

  1. Marc Whipple

    See, this is one of the many reasons Generation X is the Screwed-est Generation. When I compare my work ethic to my father’s, and don’t even get me STARTED on my grandfathers’, I feel like quite a punk.

    Then I see the way Millennials act and start seeing myself as some kind of Dickensian tyrant, with a healthy dose of “get off my lawn, you little snot”-opathy.

    I mean, I know every generation thinks the one after it is to be despaired over, but is it me or is the curve steepening sharply here? I’m probably a lot more sensitive to criticism than my father etc, but I distinguish clearly between being *sensitive* to it and not expecting it, especially when I deserve it. When the Hell did this happen? HOW the Hell did this happen?

    1. SHG Post author

      The “every generation” trope depends on all things being equal. They’re not. I’ve written about this numerous times, but the quick and dirty is that it began with the misguided “I’m Okay, You’re Okay,” school of feelz that enabled people to embrace the worst of our nature rather than to work harder to be better and stronger, couple with the internet which enabled everyone to find a tribe of people who would encourage them to be the worst they could be.

      This never existed before. That could explain how the hell this happened.

  2. VPJ

    Why do mean people bully others? Well, it seems that it works. With the ABA, anyway. (see the ABA’s refusal to publish a report on Trump’s being a libel bully because they thought he’d sue)

      1. Marc Whipple

        See, you’d think the ABA is run by the aforementioned Millennials. Because good Lord, how could the freaking ABA not have lawyers CLAMOURING to represent them for free (assuming they don’t have their own counsel, which they do) if Trump sued them for defamation? How could they not know he wouldn’t have a chance in HELL to win? One of the few times they could have done something with very little chance of blowback and every chance of success, and they punk out. What the Hell, ABA?

          1. Agammamon

            I think its actually a *political* move to support the ABA’s preferred candidate. I don’t think they’re really scared of Trump suing, but saying they’re potential victims of his cringing away from another kickin’ is another ‘Trump is awful’ story for the news to run with. And they’re fine with this tactic because being a ‘victim’ gets you Virtue points and more power to bully others.

            Still disgraceful tho’.

            1. SHG Post author

              When the ABA decided to abandon law in favor of social justice, I joked that their next initiative would be to make driving any car but a Prius unethical. Instead, they decided to become a political PAC. I wonder how their tax exempt status is doing?

            2. VPJ

              But wouldn’t an actual threat be more victim-y?

              And for that matter, wouldn’t a blustery threat met with a Marc Randazza-like response (“murum aries attigit”) be more effective at making Trump look weak?

            3. Agammamon

              If Trump looks weak then they aren’t victims. They don’t get sympathy. They don’t get a bunch of people piling on Trump going ;you’re such a meanie!’

              People might think that a frenzy of lawyers could handle a litigation threat on their own. Those people MIGHT STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ABA!

              And then where would the ABA be? Heck, if you’re not a victim that opens up the possibility that you might be a *bully*.

  3. Thomas Downing

    It can get worse – beyond teacup? teacup squared? I don’t know the right term, but I’ve seen it.

    In an engineering firm, as in law, one would hope that technical decisions would be made on the basis of fact and reasoning.

    Person A: here’s the solution I think is right.
    Person B: i think that’s a silly idea, why do you propose it?

    If A just sulks, (I’ve been bullied,) that’s teacup. If A defends with reason and fact, but looses the day, and sulks, that’s still teacup. But what is it when A defends and the A solution is adopted with the endorsement of B, but still sulks because of the challenge? I’ve seen this happen increasingly.

    Just looking for a catchy label for that one.

    1. Marc Whipple

      That sounds like plain old prima-donna-ing to me, if I may so casually verb a borrowed compound noun. See it sometimes with techy types. (E.G. “rockstar” programmers.) The butthurt is often strong with them, even when they get their way.

      Not quite the same thing, IMO, although I’m not sure how to precisely express the difference. It’s more about the fact that they really do have the chops and don’t like it when lesser beings challenge them. Maybe because they’re insecure underneath, but more likely because they’re just obnoxious a-holes with poor social skills.

    2. RobertB

      If I read your post correctly, you are hypothesizing the following scenario:

      A: Here is the correct answer.
      B: That’s silly!
      A: No it is not silly because of X, Y, and Z.
      B: Oh.
      A: I am displeased that you characterized my correct answer as silly.

      And you think that A is the person who comes off looking like a fragile teacup here? An alternative reading is that A is a valuable contributor to the team and is tenaciously defending her ideas, while B is inexplicably mouthing off when someone comes to him with a good solution rather than trying to elicit the information he needs to evaluate the proposal.

      The scenario where A just gives up without a fight is the only one where she’s showing objectionable fragility.

      1. Marc Whipple

        There is “displeased,” and there is “petulant and pouty.” I think the OP was talking more about the latter. I certainly was. Tenaciously defend your ideas, absolutely. Let people know when they are out of line, most definitely.

        Laugh at somebody challenging your Jedi Mastery, even. Fine. Sort of a jerk move, but whatever.

        But when a grown m… person in their forties literally sulks for a week and gives people the silent treatment because they had to defend their preferred approach to a problem in a meeting, even though they were right and got their way, we are not talking “tenaciously defending ideas,” we are talking butthurt prima donna. That’s the kind of thing I mean.

        1. RobertB

          I agree that it’s wholly unreasonable to sulk for a week because your ideas were challenged. On the other hand, I think it’s extremely improbably that most of the survey respondents described in this post were using “challenging my ideas” as the standard for bullying. I can assure you that there exist people out there who, in B’s position, will rip on A out of insecurity or to live out their failed dream of being an insult comic, even when they’re wrong and A’s contribution is evidently useful. My theory is that that those are the sort of people most respondents are calling bullies.

          1. Agammamon

            My experience is that there are plenty of ‘A’s’ who will also lash out at any perceived criticism, far out of proportion, often because of their own insecurities about their performance and position.

            Some will do it as part of an unconscious attempt at gaining a dominant hand in the senior/subordinate relationship.

            Some will do it because they’ve never been censured before and don’t know the difference between ‘my boss is a dick’ and ‘my boss is a dick but I *did* screw up’.

      2. SHG Post author

        The only thing your comment shows is your bar for “objectionable fragility.” Is there a reason why anyone would care what your bar is?

  4. RobertB

    This post sounds like something that would be written by someone who bullies his associates and doesn’t treat them with respect. In my experience young associates at big law firms are pretty fucking good lawyers.

    1. SHG Post author

      I had no doubt that someone would show up to say this. The only question was how long it would take. Not long at all.

      1. Marc Whipple

        That was either a master-level troll, or a *really* good illustration of why you can be so short with commenters. A few years of that would make anybody a bit irritable.

        (Or maybe it was both.)

        1. SHG Post author

          Comments like Robert’s (at least this one) serve a useful purpose. He makes himself the poster boy for his opposition. Here, he dives into the logical fallacy of begging the question. Later, he displays Millennial narcissism. And he’s utterly clueless that he’s doing so.

          Sometimes, I point it out. Other times, I assume readers are aware enough to see it for themselves. Whatever. Trying to explain every stupid, irrational or factually erroneous comment requires an order of magnitude greater effort than required to write the initial comment. There’s only so much time and effort I’m willing to dedicate to undoing the stupid.

          And not to belabor an obvious point, but they come here to spew. It’s not like anybody ponders, “I wonder what Robert feels about this.”

          1. Richard G. Kopf

            Dear Mean Ass,

            You’re wrong. I care deeply about what Robert feels (so long as he fucking* keeps out of my courtroom).

            All the best.

            RGK

            * Robert said “fucking” so I can too! We are both sensitive and tough at the same time.

            1. Jim Tyre

              Dear Judge Kopf,

              Use “fucking” as much as you want. But please, don’t make us think about Scott’s ass. That crosses the line.

        2. zoe

          “Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let ’em crash.”

    2. Patrick Maupin

      It’s difficult to explain the meaning of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote to a generation that is perfectly comfortable living a completely fact-free existence.

  5. Jim Tyre

    Of course, you would expect the ABA Journal to notice this missing detail,

    Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

  6. F5

    I find this sentence “There are no safe spaces in the trenches” funny because trenches (at least the usage in war you’re alluding to) are supposed to be a safe place from enemy fire.

    Of course the fact that lawyers are not actually avoiding bullets or mortar fire, or that being told what to do or being criticized in the workplace is not the same as being bullied only serves to add to the irony.

    Maybe we should add trenches to the list of words that are no longer tethered to their definitions?

    1. SHG Post author

      (at least the usage in war you’re alluding to)

      I, for one, love to be told what I’m “alluding” to by someone who wants to then find it ironic.

      1. Charles

        “Safe Spaces: Life in the Trenches in World War I”

        In this documentary, we examine the near-total safety of life in the trenches of northern France. The trenches were so safe, in fact, that soldiers were able to ignore entirely the bombs dropped from primitive airplanes, standing water, cold, disease, new-fangled tanks that could run right over the top of the trench, and even the occasional solider who slipped past enemy lines to shoot at them despite being in their “safe space”. Many soldiers were known simply to don their gas masks when alerted to a poison-gas canister, without even looking up from their letter writing: “Mum, I am writing to you from my safe space.” After the war, American lawyers adopted the phrase “in the trenches” as a metaphor for the same sense of safety they felt when litigating in the courtrooms of the United States.

          1. Charles

            I know this is your blog and all, but I’m glad you stopped. F5 might have tried to explain the phrase “war stories” next.

  7. Mr. Median

    What some don’t realize is that working in Biglaw is a lot like working at Wal-Mart. For one thing, almost everyone at Wal-Mart is easily replaceable. People who get that usually don’t whine about ‘bullying,’ or at least they shouldn’t. You can always push back — and that’s on you, not the ABA — but then you may no longer work at Wal-Mart.

    1. SHG Post author

      Ah, but when the toss your overly sensitive butt out of Wal-Mart, there’s always Dairy Queen.

      I suspect they could fill the Biglaw jobs of unappreciative little shits quite easily these days. They’re not that special.

      1. Mr. Median

        “I suspect they could fill the Biglaw jobs of unappreciative little shits quite easily these days. They’re not that special.”

        They do it every year. Why expect this year to be any different?

  8. Erik H.

    I don’t think the ABA knows what “rampant” means.

    93% of people ranked bullying as relatively important within their firm.

    So the fuck what?

    The ABA is presenting this as if 93% of folks were bullied. But that isn’t true.

    In fact, the better-behaved that a firm is, the more likely it is that bullying will rank relatively high, because there will be fewer comparators.

    And the larger the firm is, the more likely it is that someone will have heard of some bullying somewhere–even if the bullying rate per lawyer is the same across all firms.

    1. Erik H.

      In other words, when you say “If it’s true that this is how lawyers feel, that 93% believe they are bullied”

      That isn’t true. It’s just how the ABA has chosen to spin it. You COULD properly say “if people were forced to name problems at a law firm, whether or not they would have spontaneously named any at all, or even would have thought their firm had any problems, 93% of them would choose bullying, most likely because it was on the top of a multiple choice list of options. Also, we probably got a lot of selective responses, and we have no way to screen for that.”

      1. SHG Post author

        We got it the first time, but would you like to re-explain it again? The the second time might have been completely unnecessary, but your story-telling skills are spell-binding. I could sit here and read you re-explain this all day long.

  9. MJB

    I am a regular reader of your and admire your style and wit, but you are mistaken in saying the “use of superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants” sounds remarkably like what a superior is supposed to be doing with a subordinate.

    Bullying should not be falsely compared with leadership, which if distilled to a simple enough concept to teach to a toddler, is nothing more than the art of persuade someone to do what they out to be doing in the first place.

    Bullying is in fact detrimental to what a superior is suppose to be doing with a subordinate, because it weakens the superiors “ethos”, thus weakening their ability to persuade.

    P.S. not all millennials lack “logos”, or are persuaded by “pathos”.

    1. SHG Post author

      Bullying is not compared with leadership at all, falsely or otherwise. Your comment is gibberish. Stop reading SJ immediately. It has done you no good at all. If it’s responsible for your comment, then I am deeply ashamed at having made you stupid.

  10. MJB

    You said that the definition of bullying is comparable or “sounds remarkably like” what a superior is supposed to be doing with a subordinate. A superior should be leading their subordinates , not bullying. Leading is “an act or instance of guiding; directing”, and is incomparable with bullying.

    1. SHG Post author

      I said what I said. It’s all there in writing. You don’t get to rewrite it through whatever filter is in your head.

      Perhaps what you meant to say in the first place is that a *good* boss demonstrates leadership, as that’s a more effective management style. Which is something I would certainly agree with. But whether someone is a good boss or just a mediocre boss, if you take his paycheck, you do his work. Being a less than good boss is not bullying.

  11. MJB

    I meant nothing of the sort. Leadership isn’t just a quality that *good* bosses posses. The nature and purpose of a superior is to lead; just as the nature and purpose of subordinates is to obey and follow.

    If I have not distorted what you wrote through my “filter in my head” and, objectively, you likened bullying to what a superior is suppose to be doing with a subordinate. Not only are you comparing bullying to what a superior should be doing, or its purpose; to lead, but you are claiming that superior should be doing something that is incomparable and detrimental to its final cause.

    1. Patrick Maupin

      the nature and purpose of subordinates is to obey and follow.

      Fuck that.

      Fuck you.

      Fuck your fucking religious/authoritarian high horse. I’ll do what I think is right, and if my boss doesn’t think I’m providing sufficient value, he knows how to show me the door. He also knows that “obey” isn’t in my vocabulary, and so far, he’s OK with that.

    2. Patrick Maupin

      And one more thing — anybody who thinks that (outside of a military organization) “leadership” involves getting people to “obey” has zero business lecturing anybody about any topic.

      Fuck you again.

  12. MJB

    If I am mistaken please tell me how so I can concede. I have no doubt you possess the intelligence and logic to do so, but if you choice only to rebuttal with ad hominem it will lead me to believe you lack the humility to admit when someone has found a gap in your own reasoning; albeit a small one.

    1. SHG Post author

      Nope. Doesn’t work that way. I write the post under the assumption that it’s comprehensible to people with at least minimal reading abilities. If you fall below that, you’re on your own. I don’t re-explain it in small words whenever a commenter lacks the capacity to understand it.

      And if this makes you think I “lack the humility,” who gives a shit. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are not the center of my universe, sunshine. If you had ever read SJ before, you would know this. So, you’re a liar as well as an idiot. I’m shocked.

      And nice of you to start your third thread here, because you are so special. Too bad you weren’t smart enough to use the reply button.

      1. MJB

        I apologize for failing to use the reply button. I would think writing cogent logical proses would be a sufficient condition for a minimal reading abilities. I understand you are not one to re-explain yourself. I have been reading your blog for a few months now, and correct me if you think I am lying, but I do think you enjoy winning arguments and exposing someone else’s logical fallacies.

        “Bullying is to “use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.” That sounds remarkably like what a superior is supposed to be doing with a subordinate.”

        Am I wrong in understand that as you likening bullying to what a superior is suppose to do with a subordinate ? If I am not and this is in fact what you objectively stated then your understanding of a superior/subordinate relationship may be distorted.

        You may very well not care if you lack humility, but I didn’t say that because I think i’m the center of your universe, I would piety you if I was. I apologize if it sounded condescending or judgmental, but I said it out of a strong desire to will good of you. Much like a doctor telling their patient they have high blood pressure; not out of judgement but out of willing good for the patient.

        1. SHG Post author

          Sigh. These aren’t arguments, and it’s not about winning or losing. You’re entitled to disagree with me, as is anybody else, and that’s of no moment to me. I don’t write for anyone’s amusement but my own.

          Your first gap is that you made a serious mistaken assumption in what I wrote. I don’t accept the dictionary definition of bullying as being the definition referred to by the statistics in the post or applicable to an employment situation. An employer has superior influence over an employee. He decides to hire and fire, to promote or demote, what to pay and whether to pay more (or less). That’s the nature of an employment relationship. The employee is, in essence, forced to do work in order to retain his job or receive pay. That’s the nature of an employment relationship.

          With some inapplicable exceptions, employees work because they get paid. Management directs because that is it’s prerogative and because it does the paying. It’s asymmetrical and, in essential respect, the same as the flawed definition of bullying. An employer does not have to ask “please” to get an employee to perform his job. His position as employer, with all the asymmetrical power is entails, is inherently intimidating. Don’t do it and you lose your job. That’s the nature of the relationship. It may be good practice to manage by inspiration, but it is not a requirement of an employer and failure to do so is absolutely not bullying.

          But that’s not bullying. So whenever you try to substitute the word bullying for what I’m talking about, you’ve completely missed the point. Anything after that is based on this mistaken premise that an employer/employee relationship is bullying. It’s not. And that’s why, in the post, the initial question was how to define bullying, because it’s undefined and a vague and meaningless term. For many Millennials, it’s anything that doesn’t make them feel special. For others, it might be abusive behavior, like calling employees names (hey, shithead, get that brief done by noon) or demanding that they perform work beyond their function (pick up my dry cleaning).

          So yes, you were wrong from the outset, and your “argument” was based on your failure to grasp the point I was making which, apparently, seems to have been readily understood by everyone else. Now we’re done with this nonsense. You’ve used up more than enough of my time.

          1. MJB

            I did not think you accepted the dictionary definition of bullying as being the definition referred to by the statistics, it is out of scope of what i’m saying. I do understand your point that the ABA journals lack of defining the term “bullying” probably caused the perceived rampant rates of bullying because of millennials feelz.

            My point of issue is fundamentally on the natural relationship between supervisor and subordinate. Yes superiors have inherent influence and power over their subordinates. But should superiors “bully” or use their inherent power and influence to intimidate their subordinate to do their will? If intimidation is to use fear, is fear what employers should be using to get work out of their employees?

            I disagree but I wont go on any further to save us both the time. Thank you for your response. I will refrain from further frivolous comments, but I will continue to enjoy reading your blawg, even after your strong recommendation not to.

        2. Erik H.

          “I would think writing cogent logical proses would be a sufficient condition for a minimal reading abilities.”

          This is the best sentence in the whole thread.

    2. Davd

      So you can concede? You’ve got to be kidding. How narcissistic can you be that you think anybody cares whether you concede. Unbelievable.

      1. MJB

        Let me rephrase that, if I am mistaken please tell me so I can gratuitously concede. Your right that did sound narcissistic. I hope not from my own narcissism but from my fallibility to turn a phrase.

  13. B. McLeod

    They should just change the name of ABA Journal to “Disturbing Logic Gap.” It is a regular occurrence there.

  14. losingtrader

    Thanks so much for this post. It sets the all-time record for new SHGism’s.
    As to the subject of the post:
    I know it’s only tangential to the practice of law, but what’s the answer to the bullying of actual clients, Many of them have paid in advance.

    Oh wait, NVM. Question answered.

  15. albatros183

    As a none law talkin’ chicken, I would say two things about this rant:

    1) people that cannot take criticism or push back at bullies should not be defending people
    2) In you quest for another name for “teacups” I suggest Law talkin’ “chicken”

    Subtle I know but I may have a problem with Futrama

  16. Billy Bob

    In other words, if you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Is that what this is all about? Good Grief, if the responses are accurate and the stats correct, it would appear the legal profession leads the pack in “bullying” behavior–what ever that might be? Who woulda thunk? And to think, we took the LSAT and contemplated going to “law school”? The law gods mercifully intervened and prevented that horrible option. Those of you slugging and slogging it out, we respect you. while “feeling” sorry for you at the same time. You made your bed, now lie in it.
    An interesting discussion, and we thought construction work was a terrible occupation! We get less bullying on the constructions sites than you lawyers in your fancy mid-town offices, it would appear. We get dirty hands, you got dirty mouths and bags under your eyes from smarting so much at underlings who write sloppy draft petitions. It’s a bloody mystery to those of us on the outside looking in. Trust it.

Comments are closed.