i was at the ct house today and lawyers were telling me that morale at the office is not good!
I know many PDs and they tell me they are not unhappy with Carlos.
Why did Rumpy have such a hate of Bennett and now such an issue with Carlos? Maybe Rumpy was fired by the PD????
Listen, most PDs think the office is just fine and the morale there is clearly a hell of a lot better than the morale at the SAO.
Please stop bashing Carlos Martinez. If you know him, and I do, he is a really hard working and caring guy.
The PDs office is still a fine place to work. Maybe it's a tighter ship now, but it's still a very good office with decent morale.
For example - I was at a happy hour for a B-level PD leaving the office for private practice. None other than Carlos Martinez himself was there, drinking a beer and chatting with young PDs. They were joking with him and calling him "Carlos." I was amazed. In all my time at the SAO, I saw KFR twice, and one of those times was when she interviewed me.
As a current PDO employee I can do nothing else but laugh at this article and some of the comments which have followed. Rump, your complete back off of your previous militant stance on these issues is telling in that, you realize that most of what you've been spouting have been unsubstantiated lies and the grumblings of some whinny babies. Lets discuss...
The large raise for one employee: He actually deserved it. Go ahead, publish the name.
Dress Code for Jail: There is no dress code for jail. The dress code "change" was the office merely asking that you not wear jeans in the OFFICE. There was never a mention on what you can and can't wear to jail, in fact if you want to wear jeans to jail, then do so, just not in the office. Remember fellow PD employees, we do work in a professional law firm. How many other law firms allow their attorneys to walk around the office on a regular basis in jeans?
Nepotism?: Every attorney in this office has earned their right to be hired. The hiring process in our office was made to weed out the pretenders, and then send them over to the SAO. There is no one in this office who is employed in a position which he or she is not qualified for.
Supervising attorneys looking over the work of their attorneys who they are responsible for? What's wrong with that? They are doing their job. And with good reason. Word is the office just fired someone because he wasn't doing his. Note to all PDO's: "You work for your client's, not for yourselves."
[there was one portion of this comment we edited out- the only way we can do this is to copy the comment from the comments section and then post it here. We did that because it makes reference to a very serious charge we did not publish and will not unless we have evidence, which we do not have. We have allegations made by current employees, but no verification. Under the circumstances, we cannot publicize it.]
All in all, this article, and for the most part, this blog, is a bunch of hot air. It fans the flames of the so called "turmoil" when in fact, there is no turmoil.
[Rumpole asks one simple question: if the blog is so bad, why read it? Or did you mistakenly log on to the site while trying to find www-self-righteous dot com?]
And to any of my fellow employees who are in "turmoil", remember this...
You are a lawyer. You are a professional. Bound by a higher calling, a higer code of ethics, and in a profession which demands a higher work ethic. Start acting like it!
This job is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be hard. Being hard is what makes it great. Your boss is supposed to be tough. You are supposed to be sharp. You are supposed to put in long hours. People's freedom and rights hang in the balance. If you don't like it, then head over to ABP in the courthouse and make me a breakfast sandwich in the morning.
Perhaps that job will better suit your work ethic.
keeping it real
Rumpole responds: The nepotism thing is tricky. It is apparently a "step parent" relationship, and does that qualify for nepotism? Additionally, it has been said the individual did not pass the Bar background check. But is that true? And even if it is true, perhaps the individual is otherwise a quality person and will be a great lawyer if given a chance. All we are reporting is that assistant public defenders have been complaining to us.