Founding partner has dementia, insists on coming in to work

[Brayne_Ded]

@teela_brown

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.

As stated elsewhere, the law firm needs to think long and hard about providing a courtesy service that is costing them money in lost working time and entails a high risk of either a physical accident or embarrassing situations involving clients. I must admit that I was totally unware that lawyers could be so soft-hearted.

Anyway, it’s not the OP’s problem, the current partners have to figure out what to do.

[Zyada]

There are non-alcoholic wines. I wonder if the partner who is taking the retired partner to lunch could get the bar to sneak that into the wine glass.

Also, he needs to check to make sure the wife is aware of what is going on and that there aren’t any bad interactions with meds the guy is taking.

Unfortunately, this may be something out of Teela’s control.

[Carryon]

This is simply another variation of the “we have an incompetent employee and no one will fire him” complaint, I hear so often.

Whether or not it’s in anyone’s job description is irrelevant unless you have a CBA which stringently defines those because job descriptions can be changed at will to suit needs.

Whether he has dementia or has a substance abuse problem or is simply the boss’s lazy nephew, the problem is the same.

Often there are no good outcomes for individuals who have direct issues with this or similar problems.

I deal with finding people jobs for a living, and my advice to them is the same as this:

When a situation like this comes up, ask yourself, “Can I live with this?” If so, live with it and don’t let it bother you. If you cannot, find another job. Right now is one of the best times to seek new employment.

Unfortunately, I also deal with many high level executives and the only way they ever see themselves as being wrong is when they lose talent. This usually takes a LOT of talent to go before they will even begin to admit their policy is wrong. But you’re not doing yourself or any other of your coworkers any favors by staying at a company that doesn’t treat you as you feel you should be treated.

So you’re going to have to live with it or change.

[nearwildheaven]

@Dinsdale

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.

It’s a terrible situation for everybody.

Many years ago, I temped at a pharmacy that had fired a 60-something pharmacist a few months earlier, because he started making really bizarre mistakes, something he had never done before, and he seemed completely unaware that he was doing this. (He did deny that he was drinking of taking medication that could account for this.) It broke their hearts to do this, because they all really liked him, but this was just something that had to be done.

In the meantime, he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and his family was suing the company as a result. IDK what ended up happening.

[Dinsdale]

@nearwildheaven

Many years ago, I temped at a pharmacy that had fired a 60-something pharmacist a few months earlier, because he started making really bizarre mistakes, …

Was that Mr. Gower? He coulda killed that kid!

@Carryon

This is simply another variation of the “we have an incompetent employee and no one will fire him” complaint, I hear so often.

Phrased well and succinctly. Thanks.