And Og forbid something happens to him while you’re handling the request of eleven attorneys.
The partners need to step up. Tell his wife he’s more than welcome, but a qualified caregiver must accompany him. I’m sure everyone’s heart is in the right place, and I’m glad he’s greeted with open arms. But if he’s getting lost in the bathroom just how much actual personal work is he getting done?
Except that’s not the issue here. The OP didn’t say she didn’t like babysitting him; she merely has a whole lot of other stuff she must get done for her job. Courtesy and kindness are what the other partners were exhibiting when they let him come up to the office. This brand of courtesy and kindness may well be what kill him when he falls in the men’s room after a few glasses of wine at “lunch.”
I’m all for the FP coming in. It’s probably good for him and gives his wife a badly-needed break. But he should be assigned a “personal assistant” (actually a caregiver) who accompanies him into the restroom, ensures he doesn’t mistakenly take the elevator to the wrong floor and wander there, etc. That would be a true courtesy to him and to the poor overworked secretaries like the OP.
This. Take it out of his partnership draw if need be.
This is what makes me believe he needs someone qualified to babysit him when he comes to the office. It should not be your job to deal with the FP, especially if he gets combative or “testy.”
To be clear, I don’t often deal with the issue. It’s his own secretary that has the burden of this. I’m only occasionally involved in the matter if she happens to be out on a Wednesday.
It was the “how the partnership ought to handle this issue” question that made me want to put it before the SDMB to see if they came up with any solutions. I like the idea of his family sending along a caregiver to keep an eye on him and escort him to places like the bathroom or anywhere else he wants to go.
Since starting this thread, I’ve been told that the partners who take him to lunch try to secretly negotiate with the waiter to only pour him half-size glasses of wine. It doesn’t work, though; he just drinks it faster and requests refills more often.
I guess this firm had a cadre of hard-drinking partners back in the day when this was more common. A group of them used to get together and get snockered at lunch. Most of those guys are gone, now, though - retired or fired for alcoholism. The retired partner under discussion here is the last surviving member of that group.
Well, his own secretary shouldn’t have to do this either.
There may be another issue. As you put it there was an “agreement” when he turned over day to day management of his firm. Another way to potentially describe that agreement is contractual obligation. It may have been written down in a written contract as part of turning over the firm. Even if it’s just verbal that could still be enforceable although the court case can be tougher to prove.
The senior partners could be looking at having made an agreement that doesn’t make anything that’s going on a breach of that contract by the founder. Trying to “take the keys away” could put them in breach of their agreement. That could potentially see them lose control of the firm. The founder is after all both a lawyer and has the money to hire someone to handle the case. Since you only mention one founding partner, that could put the very existence of the firm in jeopardy depending on what level of control the other partners were contractually given when he still retained control. Potentially that could spell the end of his firm if he really wants to get back at those that tried to take away the keys.
To a point.
If folks want to be courteous and kind to him, fine. I would be, too. But if it’s affecting someone’s job, then we’ve got a problem.
Would this be a good idea? or a disaster:
Maybe the OP could speak to the founder’s wife personally?
Call her at home, and explain that her husband is in actual danger.
Make it a personal issue. Speak to her like you are her sister, not an employee.
Explain that you have personally seen your own aunt or cousin, or someone you loved deteriorate from dementia (a white lie is appropriate here…), and you know the pain it caused in your family.
Then tell the truth: Tell the wife something very specific that her husband did ,and how it could have been critically dangerous. Apologize for intruding into her life, but tell her that you are genuinely worried. You have fond memories of the man when he was the boss, and how wonderfully he treated you and the whole office, etc, etc…so now you want the best for him. Your own family solved the problem with your aunt (remember,white lies are okay) by hiring a caretaker.
Would this be appreciated,or would it get you fired?
Probably get me fired. Like I said, I’m not his secretary, and don’t know his wife or family.
When the man’s secretary returns this Monday, I’m going to try to chat with her and see if she has been given any special instructions on how to deal with his dementia. She’s a non-gossiping type and it might be hard to get any info out of her.
Yes, yes, we all want to be kind and courteous to the Great Man who did Great Things…
…but it sounds like he is both physically and mentally debilitated now. “Being kind” is NOT letting him wander around, drink alcohol when he shouldn’t, and get lost in the men’s room for half an hour! Holy crap, are you people listening to yourselves? This is a situation where he could become a danger to himself or others. It is NOT OK.
Just wait until he starts watering the potted plants. 
But he’s a chimp with a machine gun. :eek:
Certainly the case in a society that values money over human values.
Or in a society that values human beings other than the dementia patients.
All this time, I thought the mentally ill were people. Was I misinformed?
Or a clerk named Ernesto.
The mentally ill are people, and your heart does you credit. But some conditions, such as dementia, require that the person be supervised and protected because they can do themselves or others harm if they are not supervised.
The founding partner is not being supervised. He can cause harm to himself and others. This is not OK.
It is *also *not OK to expect office staff, who are being kept very, very busy with the jobs they’ve been trained for and have experience with, to be responsible for someone who needs full-time care from someone who has training and experience in dealing with a dementia patient, especially if they can find themselves liable for any harm he does because “they were supposed to be keeping an eye on him.”
It’s a business, presumably a busy and successful business, that the gentleman in question founded. Presumably he world want it be busy and successful. If everything stops because the confused founding partner needs supervision once a week and no one- not him, not his wife, not the senior partners- cares enough to bring in someone dedicated to his care, then that will hurt the business he founded. The secretaries that are at work already are not trained and certainly have other duties than supervise the dementia patient.
Da’fuck is wrong with you?
No, you were not. Which is why we make sure they’re not wandering around in a manner where they’re a danger to themselves and others.
To allow someone like that to wander around, getting drunk and disrupting other peoples’ work, simply because it would be “too mean” to stop him, is both harzardous and patronizing.