The "ethics complaint" serialization, part 2

I've gotten criticism for posting this, even with the permission of its original author and the knowledge that it's been out there circulating in email for a few weeks.

I've gotten criticism for posting this without "naming names" and being more explicit.

I'll keep to the what I think is both right and useful, that being that I'll post what tends to illuminate both the emerging knowledge of disfunctionality (is that a word? by that I mean that if one seeks the appointment of one's governor to accomplish job A, then one ought to be accountable for whether or not he or she gets anywhere CLOSE to accomplishing job A, not to mention actually furthering the cause of anti-A [that being not providing competent and effective indigent defense services]).

So here is installment two (for context see here):

Once the change in management came into effect, the lack of understanding or respect for the dependency system and the rights of the children to permanency became clear. A practice which engaged unethical acts began. The rights of the indigent people we have been appointed to represent and protect were unprotected. The management team which included the Office Administrator, [name], housed in the [town] office, created a hostile, offensive, abusive work environment from the onset, by engaging crude and condescending behavior. Attorneys were expected to perform acts that were not part of their job duties and have been chastised for their inability or unwillingness to do so. The Office Administrator failed to supply employees with answers to much needed policy questions with regard to the amount of annual or sick leave and the manner in which this is accrued. Instead she lied and mischaracterized information and has failed to provide any concrete answers to questions about procedures and benefits. She regularly demeaned support staff and criticized employees for seeking personnel answers on the State of Florida’s People First website. When confronted about representations that were made by both [RC actual] and the administrator, the administrator described these representations as "myths" and employees as being misinformed but failed to correct the errors in communication. Moreover, any questions regarding issues that effect employees were treated as complaints and the attorney or support staff was criticized for requesting any information.