In this case, it is not out of line to expect a qualified caregiver to accompany him. No one is saying chain him to his bed. But to expect the legal secretaries to keep an eye on him, while also doing the job THEY’RE GETTING PAID TO DO is cowardly on the part of the other partners.
He could get hurt or hurt someone else, and a qualified caregiver needs to be with him.
Paul in Qatar, what’s it to you anyway? Is this your father, or someone in your family?
(I have to wonder sometimes in these board squabbles, do these people know each other in meatspace? Seems odd, otherwise, to get so invested.)
So, Paul, what’s your ideal situation for handling this situation? Keeping on as it is currently? Bear in mind that he got lost in a restroom for half an hour.
Yeah, either that’s one hell of a restroom or… the gentleman in question really does need a caretaker.
As someone else said, that doesn’t mean he has to be chained to his bed, he can still go places and do things, but he really need someone to help him, and by that, I mean not only help with physical obstacles but also mental deficits that are either constant or intermittent.
It’s just your average office restroom. When he was tracked down, the FP was found standing in the handicapped stall, facing a corner, not knowing where he was. If someone (me) had not noticed his walker parked in front of the men’s room for half an hour, who knows how long he might have been in there.
I have to agree with others above about Paul in Qatar’s posts. Paul, you are being beyond ridiculous. A lawyers office is not some place for a guy with fucking dementia to wander off to and expect to be treated with “love and kindness” for the workday as his damn retirement plan. How the hell does this guy get home? How does he get there? “Not safely” is my guess.
A child might want nothing more than to run freely and unsupervised around a toy store until they’ve gotten bored. (Responsible) parents don’t let their children do this because it’s not in the child’s best interests and it’s exactly the same reason people with dementia need to be supervised and appropriate limits placed on their behavior. They’re not able* to evaluate their actions with regard to their environment and consequences.
There’s no love or kindness involved in allowing a person with dementia to endanger themselves or others.
I don’t know how rich your law firm is or just how scared the current partners are to rock the boat but a whacky “throw money at the problem” solution might be to put a bathroom in his office and giving his secretary a Personal Care assistant. Some of that might possibly be charged to his insurance if the wife is onboard.
Eta: I guess what Little Nemo said first response, but plus a bathroom.
I’m not really seeing the issue. The guy worked his whole life to build, in part, the firm in which the OP derives her livelihood. So in his last years he senses he is going downhill. He has decided, with the permission of the others than own the business along with him, that he wants spend a single day a week at the office getting bombed. It’s his office.
As long as the OP is not being asked to do things outside her job description like changing his diaper or something similar, then let it be. Plus, this “lost in the men’s room” could be an excuse because he did something embarrassing in there that he would rather not announce to everyone. He doesn’t seem to be dangerous to others and the danger to himself seems to only be his alcoholism which if it required a guardian would make the system very busy.
Don’t leave his walker beside him when he is sitting at this desk.
Why are people in this thread discussing whether or not this is a problem? teela brown did not open the thread to ask, “Is this a bad situation, requiring intervention?” People who outrank her have already decided that. If you disagree, okay, but as I said above, I don’t understand why people who don’t work where teela does are trying so hard to block intervention.
I wonder, if the workplace in question happened to be a factory, warehouse, a butcher’s shop… would the people working there also be expected to treat him with courtesy and restraint (read, babysit him and keep him away from all the hurty stuff) while doing their own jobs? If he decides he can fly and jumps off a window, will those of you who expect him to be treated nicely by people whose job description does not include “taking care of dementia patients” provide these people’s legal and psychological assistance?
Wait wait wait, do you expect your own secretaries to take care of old men with dementia while at work? Cos last I checked that wasn’t part of any secretary’s work description.
Yeah. And when Teela’s work starts piling up, and her boss comes looking for the stuff she should have been preparing, and finds that it’s not finished - is her boss going to be ok with the excuse that she was lavishing love and care on Old Mr. Grace?
I don’t know how much more clear I could have made my position, which you actually quoted, yet then ask if I expect them to take care of old men with dementia.
No, that is not her job. But her job is also not to tell him how much he is permitted to drink at lunch. If he wants to come back sloppy drunk he can. He is not a factory worker.
Little kids sometimes like to come to “daddy/mommy’s work”. Doesn’t mean it should be a regular thing, and if the kid was getting lost coming back from the bathroom, it wouldn’t be a thing at all. This guy seems to be functioning close to, if not at, the level of a small child. At this rate, it doesn’t matter what he wants to do.
Is the founding partner still a partner? That is, is he still part-owner of the firm? Meaning he still has a right to walk in anytime he wants?
Since the old guy doesn’t seem to need any physical assistance, I see nothing wrong with the firm calling a temp agency whenever he shows up, and have them send someone over to keep an eye on him until he decides to go home.
Perhaps when you (and his regular secretary) know he’s going to the bathroom, you could suggest to one of the men in the office that they might like to take a bathroom break, as well.
In the end, he’s really his wife’s problem. But if she won’t do anything about the firm’s problem, the firm must.
I understood that reference.
Your exact quote was contradictory: on one hand, you don’t think she should be responsible for anything that’s not in her job description and on the other the “like changing his diaper or something similar” appears to indicate that there are only some things not in her job description that you’d have problems with, and that you do consider “babysitting the guy” as a perfectly fine thing to expect her to do, even though you like everybody else know it is not part of her job description.
If you’d left that clause out, then I would have understood us to be in agreement; the clause made your post clear as concentrated squid ink. I hope you’re more clear when writing legal documents.
No, he has retired entirely from the practice of law and no longer owns part of the practice. The offer of the use of an office and a secretary’s assistance is a courtesy given him since he’s the founder.
There are places that are appropriate for folk with dementia, but IMO a law office is not such a place. What liability? What if he injures himself? What if he interacts with clients in some unpleasant or inappropriate manner? What message does it send to younger staff as to the office’s standards? What does it do to this guy’s image? Believe me, the newer hires are going to hear tales of how great he was, but then juxtapose them with what they see.
Hell - if the guy is as dotty as it sounds, maybe the firm should rent an office nearby and just TELL him it is his old office! 
Keep him separate from current clients and people who are trying to work.
Law offices can be highly competitive and often mercenary (I don’t know how large the OP’s firm is, or what type of law they practice.) Often associates are constantly pressured to bill more and more, in the hopes that hey MIGHT someday make partner. And yeah, often the partners - at least the rainmakers - are rewarded lavishly. Personally, I’m not a fan of such a system, but that is my impression of how it often is. Where in such a system do you factor a senile old partner?
When I was assigned to my present office, one of the judges was clearly no longer capable of performing his job either physically or mentally. People who had known him years back would tell me how impressive he USED to be. That’s all well and good, but for the entire time I knew him, he was stealing his salary, and poorly executing his sworn duties.
IMO, his wife - who drove him to and from work - was using the office as a babysitter. Which may be understandable on her part, but offended me to the extent it took up scarce resources those of us who were competent could use.
Since he had such seniority, he had priority in certain things, such as preferred dates for holding hearings in the shared hearing rooms. So he squatted on some of the most in-demand hearing room slots, while producing very little work - and what little he produced was of very poor quality.
If he and his wife were not wiling to have him retire, our office should have declared him unfit (it CAN be a challenge to fire this sort of judge.) But instead, they assigned him work in a manner that he fell short, so it was a protracted and ugly process.
Then, when he was finally gone, his work was assigned to the rest of us. EVERY SINGLE case of his was incredibly fucked up in one way or another. The waste of office resources and the imposition o claimants was incredible and IMO inexcusable.