https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13947367/kamala-harris-performance-review-san-francisco-lawyer.html

EXCLUSIVE Kamala Harris received poor marks for leadership as a lawyer in San Francisco, documents reveal

Kamala Harris received poor job performance reviews when she worked as a civil lawyer for the City of San Francisco, according to a copy of city documents obtained by DailyMail.com.

The now vice president took a job with the City of San Francisco after she resigned from the San Francisco district attorney's office after she led a poorly organized coup to overthrow Chief Deputy District Attorney Darrell Salomon.

'I've become disillusioned and disappointed with the top leadership of the district attorney's office,' Harris said publicly as she resigned, complaining about the 'dysfunctional' leadership and 'low level of morale' in the office.

But Harris' leadership skills in her new job were not that impressive either.

Harris left the district attorney's office to work for city attorney Louise Renne, as a deputy attorney to run the Child Services Unit for the city in 2000.

But as she plotted to challenge her old boss District Attorney Terrence Hallinan for his job, she was not taking her new job seriously.

By September 2002, Department of Human Services issued a performance review for the team that was less than favorable.

Although Harris and her team got favorable ratings for her quality of work, creativity in her advice, and understanding of problems, they got less favorable marks for other important metrics.

On a scale of one to five, Harris only got a '2' on whether she was 'thorough, helpful, and proactive and only a three on whether she showed good judgement.

Harris also got a '2' rating for recognizing deadlines, fast turnaround, and anticipating their needs. Even more embarrassing was her failure to return phone calls and emails promptly.

The survey was based on a 'group rating' by court officers, of the entire unit according to the survey's conclusion.

'Job performance varies dramatically by individual attorneys, which indicates a lack of communication and leadership in the unit,' the performance review read.

'A '3' rating is not a lack of opinion, but is a true middle score,' the review concluded.

Harris' performance review is one more example of how she offered only average or even poor leadership in her position after running a successful campaign to achieve it.

Harris was appointed to two high-paying part-time state board positions while she was dating then-state assembly Speaker Willie Brown, but was frequently absent for the meetings, even though they were only held once or twice a month.

After campaigning and beating Hallinan in 2003 for the job of district attorney, conviction rates fell on her watch followed by a scandal in the the crime lab that prompted her to dismiss over a thousand cases.

As vice president, Harris is now running for president on her record of service as a prosecutor, despite a mixed record.

'The great thing about being a prosecutor, and I've talked with many prosecutors over the years all over the country, is you only got one job, which is to do the right thing,' she told radio broadcaster Howard Stern on Wednesday.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5610520&forum_id=2#48190069)

Your legal advice is of the highest quality: 4 / 5

You are thorough in your approach to your work: 2 / 5

You show creativity in your advice and proposed solutions: 4 / 5

You are helpful in diagnosing our issues and assessing our needs and policy objectives: 2 / 5

You give us options, help us understand their advantages and disadvantages, and let us choose: 2 / 5

You demonstrate an understanding of the immediate problem or objective at hand: 5 / 5

You provide proactive legal representation including education: 2 / 5

You show good judgment: 3 / 5

You are accessible: 4 / 5

You recognize our real deadlines and keep your promises in meeting them: 2 / 5

You do not wait for us to initiate everything; you anticipate: 2 / 5

You return our phone calls and emails promptly: 2 / 5

You document your work well: 4 / 5

Your advice memoranda, letters, other communications and documents are easy to read and understand and are free of legalese and jargon: 5 / 5

You listen well to what we have to say and what we want: 3 / 5

You provide regular and clear communications: 2 / 5

You relate to us well: 4 / 5

You keep us sufficiently informed on progress and developments: 2 / 5

You provide work product that is timely and meets mutually understood expectations: 2 / 5

You let us know in advance what you are going to do: 2 / 5

Your advice is practical: 2 / 5

You project confidence when making presentations on legal matters: 4 / 5

You provide adequate explanations on case strategies, including why certain positions cannot be pursued: 3 / 5

You involve us at major points in the work assignment: 3 / 5

You understand our views: 2 / 5

You provide feedback on positive means to avoid risks or problems revealed during litigation: 2 / 5

Your non-lawyer staff (including paralegals, secretaries and administrative staff) is professional and provides high-quality service: 5 / 5

You helped us achieve our objectives: 3 / 5

You have made our people more effective at what they do: 2 / 5

Overall, we would rate your service of the highest quality: 2 / 5

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5610520&forum_id=2#48190070)

https://x.com/ThickShelledEgg/status/1845125561154171353

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5610520&forum_id=2#48190087)

By September 2002, Department of Human Services issued a performance review for the team that was less than favorable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5610520&forum_id=2#48190162)