The letter from Clarissa came on Wednesday, in the middle of that case, as a PDF attachment to an email. It had been countersigned by each of the equity partners. I have kept a copy of it in the file that I have at home for personal stuff and, every now and again, I read it to remind myself why I have done what I have.
‘Dear Jonathan,’ it started. ‘We were deeply disappointed by the very negative attitude that you displayed at the partners’ meeting when the senior partner raised for discussion the issue of whether we should continue to do legally aided work. As she made very clear from the moment she introduced the issue for debate, she was doing no more than initiating discussion about a process of enquiry and consultation that, no doubt, will take some months to conclude. Your intemperate attempt to block that discussion and your dismissive rejection of the good intent of the equity partners traversed the unity upon which this firm has always been based. Please may we ask you to reflect upon this and avoid any repetition of the type of incident that occurred at the meeting? We trust that you will also observe and respect the confidentiality that attaches to partnership meetings and not discuss this issue with others, especially other employees of the firm; I have to warn you that any breach of this requirement would be regarded very seriously.
‘We are also deeply disappointed to learn that you decided, without discussion with any of us, to clear many of your own appointments with privately paying clients to cover for Mr Pedersen’s legally aided work in his absence. This should not have occurred. In future you must discuss any material changes to your work pattern, such as those which have now occurred at your sole election, with one of us. You have elected to cover for Mr Pedersen until the end of this week. After that you must return to your normal duties please, unless specifically agreed with the senior partner. Again, we regret to say that any breach of this requirement will also be regarded very seriously.
‘Please keep a copy of this letter for your records. Yours ever, Clarissa.’
I have learnt never to reply to an email in anger. However, I did email back immediately to say: ‘Dear Clarissa. Thank you for your email. I will respond to it formally once I have had time to reflect upon its contents. Please be so kind as to keep a copy of this email and of the email that I intend to send to you. As ever, Jonathan.’ Then I wrote out a draft of my reply and played around with its wording during the day. I also printed off a copy of the letter that Clarissa had sent, avoiding the mistake of forwarding it to anyone; I had no doubt that my emails over the work system would be policed from that point onwards.
The trick in replying to that sort of email, I think, is to keep it short and not give anything away. I imagined myself in an employment tribunal being cross-examined about my reply in a claim by me for wrongful dismissal. How would it stand up to scrutiny under heavy artillery fire? Further, I made very sure that I did not discuss the letter that I had received or my reply with anyone so that, if asked to account for myself on oath in court, I could give a truthful reply that I had kept it all to myself. So, this is what it looked like when it was finally sent out the following day, Thursday:
Dear Clarissa,
It was good of you to speak to me yesterday. Thank you.
Please can I assure you that my commitment to the work of this firm remains as absolute as it always has been. As you know, I have worked for this firm for many years now, much longer than several of the equity partners, and I take my responsibilities as head of the family department exceptionally seriously. I am sure that, on reflection, you will want to recognise the considerable efforts that I have made to build up this side of the firm’s business and will accept that I have done so. I am also sure that, if you reread my contract of employment, you will want to pay particular attention to the passages within it, especially those in paragraph 2.7, which state that I am responsible for the day-to-day management of the firm’s family law practice. I have not done anything that takes me outside the parameters of the contractual expectations of that document and have no intention of doing so either.
I do not accept that I behaved in an inappropriate way at the meeting last Thursday. Please find attached the minutes of the meeting that I made immediately afterwards. My complaint was that the issue of the continuation of the firm’s legal aid contract was raised without notice at the meeting; it was not on the agenda and nobody had told me that the issue would be raised, despite my responsibilities as head of the family law department. I am sure that you will acknowledge that its omission from the agenda that was circulated a week before the meeting was regrettable and procedurally irregular, although I am also sure that pressure of work must have played a part in the oversight that occurred.
As to Mr Pedersen’s work, the decisions that I made fell squarely within the responsibilities that are delegated to me under the terms of my contract. I had to act quickly because there were court hearings to cover. I made emergency provision to cover his court duties this week but intend to revert to covering my own work (together with the backlog that has been created by the need to take the urgent steps that I did) next week. The effect has been that I have taken on a very considerable additional workload this week to the significant disadvantage of myself and of my family. I had hoped that my efforts might have received recognition, but I anticipate that there must have been some misunderstandings and misperceptions. Nobody has ever doubted my commitment to my clients and I am sure that you will be good enough to accept that there is no basis whatsoever for doing so now.
It has always been a great pleasure to work with you and the other partners and I very much look forward to continuing, over many years ahead, the very good relationship that we have all developed. In particular, you and I have always worked in a collaborative and friendly way for the better good of the firm and those that it employs. You will recollect, no doubt, paying tribute to our good relationship and to my efforts for the firm during the partners’ meeting last year in terms that feature very clearly within the minutes of that meeting, a copy of which, like you, I have retained.
With best wishes and many thanks.
As ever, Jonathan.’ As I pressed the send button, I muttered, ‘Chew on that, you bitch,’ and got on with my work. She didn’t reply.