5 ms·

FWIW he mentions that there is no IT department in the firm, and that he works under administration.

DennisP 5y ago
And he's working from home, so "clock in" basically means logging in.
rhino369 5y ago
This is the actual red flag. A mid-size firm simply couldn't function without IT. They could outsource it to a contractor, but, in that case, they'd never then hire someone for 90k to do one small IT task. If there is any true to this, he's probably on the books as an "Litigation Support Tech" and his job probably involves (or is supposed to involve) more than he's describing--like interfacing with vendors who do the actual data/document processing.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  You’d be surprised. I interviewed at a multi-million dollar firm and there were two IT people there for the whole firm.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    Two is infinitely more than zero.
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      My point was that they may not even be big enough for one. “Plug and play” might be good enough for now (a shared drive means someone is around though, someone had to set it up).
      - rhino369 5y ago
        There are definitely small firms that rely on the young paralegal who is a self taught super user. But that sort of firm wouldn't pay someone 90k for doing a small part of all IT. Slight chance this person was hired as a "case assistant" or "litigation support" and not IT. Firms definitely hire that sort of person--though they usually bill their time--so hopefully the OP isn't submitting fraudulent time entries. But 90k is a lot for that sort of role without expectation that you are performing other tasks.
        withinboredom 5y ago
        I’m still skeptical. I was hired at ridiculous rates once ($2k an hour) to validate DKIM signatures by a small time firm. 90k to be “on call” and validate things seems totally reasonable even from a small firm.
        rhino369 5y ago
        Courts don't actually require you to check hashes like the OP claims. They do remarkably little evidence authentication unless the opposing party contests the evidence. Digital evidence is by default produced to the other side by low quality TIFF files. If you want to accuse the other side of manipulation, you bring in an expert (who probably bills at nearly 1000 bucks an hour). I didn't take this as a sign of OP being false because its likely he just doesn't understand why the firm wants to him to validate hashes. The likely reason is other employees fucked up transfers.
        withinboredom 5y ago
        Nailed why I was hired. :)

And he's working from home, so "clock in" basically means logging in.

This is the actual red flag. A mid-size firm simply couldn't function without IT. They could outsource it to a contractor, but, in that case, they'd never then hire someone for 90k to do one small IT task. If there is any true to this, he's probably on the books as an "Litigation Support Tech" and his job probably involves (or is supposed to involve) more than he's describing--like interfacing with vendors who do the actual data/document processing.

withinboredom 5y ago
You’d be surprised. I interviewed at a multi-million dollar firm and there were two IT people there for the whole firm.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Two is infinitely more than zero.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    My point was that they may not even be big enough for one. “Plug and play” might be good enough for now (a shared drive means someone is around though, someone had to set it up).
    - rhino369 5y ago
      There are definitely small firms that rely on the young paralegal who is a self taught super user. But that sort of firm wouldn't pay someone 90k for doing a small part of all IT. Slight chance this person was hired as a "case assistant" or "litigation support" and not IT. Firms definitely hire that sort of person--though they usually bill their time--so hopefully the OP isn't submitting fraudulent time entries. But 90k is a lot for that sort of role without expectation that you are performing other tasks.
      - withinboredom 5y ago
        I’m still skeptical. I was hired at ridiculous rates once ($2k an hour) to validate DKIM signatures by a small time firm. 90k to be “on call” and validate things seems totally reasonable even from a small firm.
        rhino369 5y ago
        Courts don't actually require you to check hashes like the OP claims. They do remarkably little evidence authentication unless the opposing party contests the evidence. Digital evidence is by default produced to the other side by low quality TIFF files. If you want to accuse the other side of manipulation, you bring in an expert (who probably bills at nearly 1000 bucks an hour). I didn't take this as a sign of OP being false because its likely he just doesn't understand why the firm wants to him to validate hashes. The likely reason is other employees fucked up transfers.
        withinboredom 5y ago
        Nailed why I was hired. :)