jkpolk wrote:This has already been said, but fucking of course the law firms, i.e. the self-described "productive" partners, would blame their shit on people "not pulling their weight."
For the dead-weight equity partners, boo fucking hoo, that's the risk you took when you made an equity partner. The possibility of a couple people spending their time on their new boat is priced into the model so not "under performing."
And literally FUCK the firms for saying any associate is under performing. It's a job that people do for money. There is no skin in the game other than the continued paycheck. If management doesn't like performance, the answer is not to passive-aggressively waive "underperforming" at people through some poll - management should work with folks, figure out whether expectations are reasonable, etc. or, alternatively, put on grown up pants and accept it as life, we aren't automatons. People can only work as much as people can work/are given opportunities.
If law firms are systematically hiring idiots/the wrong people who can't mentally do the work, that's not the fault of the associates in question. Revisit hiring models. Ask a fucking battery of consulting "thought process" questions regarding how someone would tackle a legal issue. If hiring is the problem, that's all on the firms, not the employees (and i seriously doubt this is the problem).
You mean to tell me a 20 minute interview discussing fly fishing or college football isn't the best way to judge a future associate's legal skills?