Advice for class of ‘19, ‘20, ‘21 re lack of training Forum

[ClubberLang]

lol at the "proFesSiOnAl eThiCs" comments and calling someone a bad person for not jumping high enough

No. You can say that this is what's needed to survive in biglaw (though it's evidently not, at least right now in the short term). You can give advice on how to get along with seniors. But no, I am not a responsible to you personally. I'm not doing this for fun or to do you a favor. It's a job, and you're the supervisor. This is an abusive mentality, like a McDonalds supervisor who tries to guilt staff to do overtime.

Great analogy. Being a lawyer on $200k+ salary is exactly the same in terms of professional responsibility, negotiating posture vis-à-vis employers, etc. as a McDonald's cashier making $12/hr.

An analogy doesn't have to be precise to make a point. That's why it's an analogy. But to your comments:

Salary: if the argument is "you're being paid to suck it up" I accept that. But don't pretend its about being a good person or complain about how much work you seniors have to do. You get paid too, last I checked a bit more than us.

professional responsibility: lies with the partners who took on the work. If I communicate my unavailability, no it is not my professional responsibility

negotiating posture: this actually doesn't really help your case--the current negotiating posture is "you need bodies"

Realistically you absolutely can just turn down work from seniors on weekends if you want. But understand that there are consequences for that. Right now things are so hot that you probably won't be shown the door immediately, but know that people are not going to want to work with you. You may not get your bonus (if that matters to you), and you're going to be one of the first ones on the chopping block if things slow down, which is also likely to be a time when it's not so easy to find a job. If you're okay with that then by all means, but even in this economy I'm not sure a junior who just outright refuses to work on weekends/late nights would last more than a year or two. You're paid a lot of money to be available all the time, and if midlevels and seniors are constantly finding that they have to pick up the slack for you then you're really not adding value and they'll try to avoid having you staffed on deals with them.

This is dead on. I'll just add from a lit perspective that by turning down work and doing things at your own pace, you won't get interesting work or good experience. That may not matter much, depending on what you want to do, but when interviewing to go to another firm the number one thing that comes up is your substantive experience. The market is not exactly scorching for people who have been doing cite checks, research, and doc review for 2 years.

[Anonymous User]

I am willing to be proven wrong, but some of this comes across as "The client is always right." There is a difference between turning down important, time-sensitive work and deciding not to unquestioningly accept major inconveniences because of some bullshit internal deadline or a psycho client that partners could reason with but choose not to.

[Anonymous User]

lol at the "proFesSiOnAl eThiCs" comments and calling someone a bad person for not jumping high enough

No. You can say that this is what's needed to survive in biglaw (though it's evidently not, at least right now in the short term). You can give advice on how to get along with seniors. But no, I am not a responsible to you personally. I'm not doing this for fun or to do you a favor. It's a job, and you're the supervisor. This is an abusive mentality, like a McDonalds supervisor who tries to guilt staff to do overtime.

Great analogy. Being a lawyer on $200k+ salary is exactly the same in terms of professional responsibility, negotiating posture vis-à-vis employers, etc. as a McDonald's cashier making $12/hr.

An analogy doesn't have to be precise to make a point. That's why it's an analogy. But to your comments:

Salary: if the argument is "you're being paid to suck it up" I accept that. But don't pretend its about being a good person or complain about how much work you seniors have to do. You get paid too, last I checked a bit more than us.

professional responsibility: lies with the partners who took on the work. If I communicate my unavailability, no it is not my professional responsibility

negotiating posture: this actually doesn't really help your case--the current negotiating posture is "you need bodies"

Realistically you absolutely can just turn down work from seniors on weekends if you want. But understand that there are consequences for that. Right now things are so hot that you probably won't be shown the door immediately, but know that people are not going to want to work with you. You may not get your bonus (if that matters to you), and you're going to be one of the first ones on the chopping block if things slow down, which is also likely to be a time when it's not so easy to find a job. If you're okay with that then by all means, but even in this economy I'm not sure a junior who just outright refuses to work on weekends/late nights would last more than a year or two. You're paid a lot of money to be available all the time, and if midlevels and seniors are constantly finding that they have to pick up the slack for you then you're really not adding value and they'll try to avoid having you staffed on deals with them.

This is dead on. I'll just add from a lit perspective that by turning down work and doing things at your own pace, you won't get interesting work or good experience. That may not matter much, depending on what you want to do, but when interviewing to go to another firm the number one thing that comes up is your substantive experience. The market is not exactly scorching for people who have been doing cite checks, research, and doc review for 2 years.

The funny thing about this is that firms hiring laterals usually have no insight into what you've done (and whether it's substantive). As long as you've gotten some modicum of substantive work, you can just act like all that you've been doing is substantive and get great lateral offers. Source: my own experience lateraling as a junior.

[jotarokujo]

Realistically you absolutely can just turn down work from seniors on weekends if you want. But understand that there are consequences for that. Right now things are so hot that you probably won't be shown the door immediately, but know that people are not going to want to work with you. You may not get your bonus (if that matters to you), and you're going to be one of the first ones on the chopping block if things slow down, which is also likely to be a time when it's not so easy to find a job. If you're okay with that then by all means, but even in this economy I'm not sure a junior who just outright refuses to work on weekends/late nights would last more than a year or two. You're paid a lot of money to be available all the time, and if midlevels and seniors are constantly finding that they have to pick up the slack for you then you're really not adding value and they'll try to avoid having you staffed on deals with them.

it's hard to get fired before the end of year two just for refusing work. year three is where it's actually a decent possibility at most firms is my intuition, could be wrong though.

[Anonymous User]

Re professional ethics - of course if there's a court date it needs to be met. But hypothetically if you have literally no time to do something, just not enough hours in the day, what would you do? You can't slam work on someone and just say "haha you gotta get a time machine sucker, professional ethics".

But really my point isn't to be r/antiwork. I'm not arguing with we don't have to work. It's about attitude.

[Anonymous User]

lol at the "proFesSiOnAl eThiCs" comments and calling someone a bad person for not jumping high enough

No. You can say that this is what's needed to survive in biglaw (though it's evidently not, at least right now in the short term). You can give advice on how to get along with seniors. But no, I am not a responsible to you personally. I'm not doing this for fun or to do you a favor. It's a job, and you're the supervisor. This is an abusive mentality, like a McDonalds supervisor who tries to guilt staff to do overtime.

Great analogy. Being a lawyer on $200k+ salary is exactly the same in terms of professional responsibility, negotiating posture vis-à-vis employers, etc. as a McDonald's cashier making $12/hr.

An analogy doesn't have to be precise to make a point. That's why it's an analogy. But to your comments:

Salary: if the argument is "you're being paid to suck it up" I accept that. But don't pretend its about being a good person or complain about how much work you seniors have to do. You get paid too, last I checked a bit more than us.

professional responsibility: lies with the partners who took on the work. If I communicate my unavailability, no it is not my professional responsibility

negotiating posture: this actually doesn't really help your case--the current negotiating posture is "you need bodies"

Realistically you absolutely can just turn down work from seniors on weekends if you want. But understand that there are consequences for that. Right now things are so hot that you probably won't be shown the door immediately, but know that people are not going to want to work with you. You may not get your bonus (if that matters to you), and you're going to be one of the first ones on the chopping block if things slow down, which is also likely to be a time when it's not so easy to find a job. If you're okay with that then by all means, but even in this economy I'm not sure a junior who just outright refuses to work on weekends/late nights would last more than a year or two. You're paid a lot of money to be available all the time, and if midlevels and seniors are constantly finding that they have to pick up the slack for you then you're really not adding value and they'll try to avoid having you staffed on deals with them.

This is dead on. I'll just add from a lit perspective that by turning down work and doing things at your own pace, you won't get interesting work or good experience. That may not matter much, depending on what you want to do, but when interviewing to go to another firm the number one thing that comes up is your substantive experience. The market is not exactly scorching for people who have been doing cite checks, research, and doc review for 2 years.

The funny thing about this is that firms hiring laterals usually have no insight into what you've done (and whether it's substantive). As long as you've gotten some modicum of substantive work, you can just act like all that you've been doing is substantive and get great lateral offers. Source: my own experience lateraling as a junior.

A lot of the stuff from seniors here is what they wish was true instead of what is.

[legalpotato]

I am willing to be proven wrong, but some of this comes across as "The client is always right." There is a difference between turning down important, time-sensitive work and deciding not to unquestioningly accept major inconveniences because of some bullshit internal deadline or a psycho client that partners could reason with but choose not to.

But, you see, that is the exact mentality required in a service industry. Trying to talk sense into the client (this closing can actually happen next week, NBD) will result in that client not being your client for long.

Being a lawyer does not mean you are some sacred guardian of society, like some professors would have you believe. Have you ever seen Eyes Wide Shut?

We are Tom Cruise. That 100k bonus hits our account and we think we are hot shit. We show up for the orgy. We quickly find out that although the elites at the orgy might humor us, but we are really no different in their eyes than the maid, caterer or person who brings them their coke. Worse, we are a 5'8" manlet wearing shoes with a 4" lift. We are not welcome at the orgy, and if we try again, it will not end well for us.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Have you ever seen Eyes Wide Shut?

We are Tom Cruise. That 100k bonus hits our account and we think we are hot shit. We show up for the orgy. We quickly find out that although the elites at the orgy might humor us, but we are really no different in their eyes than the maid, caterer or person who brings them their coke. Worse, we are a 5'8" manlet wearing shoes with a 4" lift. We are not welcome at the orgy, and if we try again, it will not end well for us.

Have you ever seen The Firm?

We are Tom Cruise. That $90k starting salary and firm-backed mortgage hits our account and we think we are hot shit. We show up for the stub year. We quickly find out that although the partners at the firm might pay us handsomely, we are really no different in their eyes than the associates who keep dying in suspicious boating accidents. Worse, we are a 5'8" manlet wearing Allen Edmonds with a 2" lift. We are not welcome to snitch to the FBI, and if we try again, it will not end well for us.

[Lawman1865]

This has been an interesting thread. I think my primary surprise is how many people complain about junior unavailability. I'm not sure if it reflects the average experience out in the biglaw world, or if it's just due to the sample size and type of people of TLS, but in my one data point having worked at two different firms, as well as a secondment at a bank, every person who I worked with (except for one counsel and one legal assistant who only lasted a couple months) was hard-working, very reasonably available on weekends and pretty motivated to get their work done. I'm not saying that's everybody's experience, and I guess I should count myself lucky to have been surrounded by people who were interested in making our mutual lives better by not leaving the other one out to dry, but just saying that it's interesting to hear. I'm also not saying that's ok or a reasonable expectation. It can be incredibly hard, toxic and destructive to work such hours (as I often have), but I guess it would be harder if I didn't have the other person working such hours alongside me.

In any case, this has been an interesting survey about what to expect, and how seniors and juniors think about work culture... I'm somebody who checks my phone constantly for emails, but have gotten better about putting something aside if it's something I know can get done in the morning, particularly on a weekend.


PS - Also this doesn't mean I haven't worked with bad co-workers, just means that they were bad for other reasons (e.g. personality, work product, attitude, etc). I also guess I should make an exception for some partners, they can sometimes suck.

[Anonymous User]

But, you see, that is the exact mentality required in a service industry. Trying to talk sense into the client (this closing can actually happen next week, NBD) will result in that client not being your client for long.

Required? No.

Being a lawyer does not mean you are some sacred guardian of society, like some professors would have you believe. Have you ever seen Eyes Wide Shut?

We are Tom Cruise. That 100k bonus hits our account and we think we are hot shit. We show up for the orgy. We quickly find out that although the elites at the orgy might humor us, but we are really no different in their eyes than the maid, caterer or person who brings them their coke. Worse, we are a 5'8" manlet wearing shoes with a 4" lift. We are not welcome at the orgy, and if we try again, it will not end well for us.

Love that film, but no, I would never want to go to the orgy in the first place.

[Anonymous User]

We are Tom Cruise, 5'6 cast in a role for a character who is 6'5.

[legalpotato]

We are Tom Cruise, 5'6 cast in a role for a character who is 6'5.

This is the takeaway.

Wearing 4" lifts which we think are well disguised and are passing as a 5'10", but to everyone else we look like clowns on stilts. Showing off our rolex submariner (not dateless) thinking that the scions will think of us as their "peer", but in reality instantly outing us as a rube to the elites with their pateks.

[Anonymous User]

But, you see, that is the exact mentality required in a service industry. Trying to talk sense into the client (this closing can actually happen next week, NBD) will result in that client not being your client for long.

Required? No.

Oh thanks for registering your well-reasoned disagreement...

But seriously, please tell us, based on your eminent wisdom that apparently does not require explanation, where this argument fails. Sure, a partner can tell a client no once in a while. I've seen it happen when the partner knew the team was overworked and the deadline was completely unreasonable. But if the CEO doesn't get to close when she wants and the answer as to "why?" is "our lawyers held things up" you bet your ass they are going to rethink giving more business to that firm.

That's to say, on the microscopic scale, you're right that it's not required in every instance. But on the macroscopic scale, if this whole biglaw gravy train is to continue, it does need to happen. It's 100% required - the partners and you know it.

Maybe you want out in two years, so you don't care about whether your firm holds onto clients with deep pockets. But because the system requires firms to be responsive to unreasonable client asks, because you're hired to be a part of the system, and because you're paid as a result of that system continuing to work, your opinion on what is/isn't required isn't going to mean shit. It's a well known part of the job description, pal, and you better get used to it.

[Anonymous User]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times -- partners are paid to be managers and attorneys, but they only want to focus on the one that they went to school for. The same can be said for senior associates, based on this thread. It's a shame that most lawyers' heads are so far up their own asses that they don't realize something like bringing in actual managers/consultants to help handle the "managing" aspect would go so far in combatting burnout, attrition, etc. while still allowing them to focus on the parts of Rule 12 that get them going.

[Anonymous User]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times -- partners are paid to be managers and attorneys, but they only want to focus on the one that they went to school for. The same can be said for senior associates, based on this thread. It's a shame that most lawyers' heads are so far up their own asses that they don't realize something like bringing in actual managers/consultants to help handle the "managing" aspect would go so far in combatting burnout, attrition, etc. while still allowing them to focus on the parts of Rule 12 that get them going.

Totally agree - most attorneys make absolutely terrible managers. A lot of the problems ITT would be fixed if managers actually did their job by (1) setting clear expectations with an understanding of the junior's actual/expected capabilities/knowledge, (2) checking in and offering support where needed, and (3) thinking ahead to make the job easier on their subordinates.

But a few things can be true at the same time:

• A partner / senior can be a bad manager and you still have an obligation to complete an assignment and do it well (i.e., you can't pass blame, even if your boss sucks)

• A partner / senior can be a good manager and still expect you to have some base level of drive / ambition / grit to get something done on your own without them having to intervene (i.e., even good managers don't have to do your work for you just because they are good managers, and it's not unfair for them to expect you to go the extra mile even on a night/weekend)

[Anonymous User]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times -- partners are paid to be managers and attorneys, but they only want to focus on the one that they went to school for. The same can be said for senior associates, based on this thread. It's a shame that most lawyers' heads are so far up their own asses that they don't realize something like bringing in actual managers/consultants to help handle the "managing" aspect would go so far in combatting burnout, attrition, etc. while still allowing them to focus on the parts of Rule 12 that get them going.

Totally agree - most attorneys make absolutely terrible managers. A lot of the problems ITT would be fixed if managers actually did their job by (1) setting clear expectations with an understanding of the junior's actual/expected capabilities/knowledge, (2) checking in and offering support where needed, and (3) thinking ahead to make the job easier on their subordinates.

But a few things can be true at the same time:

• A partner / senior can be a bad manager and you still have an obligation to complete an assignment and do it well (i.e., you can't pass blame, even if your boss sucks)

• A partner / senior can be a good manager and still expect you to have some base level of drive / ambition / grit to get something done on your own without them having to intervene (i.e., even good managers don't have to do your work for you just because they are good managers, and it's not unfair for them to expect you to go the extra mile even on a night/weekend)

I think the bad/good manager point is where people are getting hung up. The problem is that in biglaw -- an industry where 90% of people know they will not be there in three years, there is absolutely zero reason to do anything to help the "bad" manager (assuming someone doesn't have respect for the bad manager), especially in this market where associates who do good work and still hit their hours have zero chance of being fired because they refused to take on a weekend assignment from a dick. And I don't think anyone is saying a good manager is one who picks up the slack, the good manager is the one who doesn't have to pick up the slack because they've garnered the junior's respect, and the junior thus has an incentive to help them (they don't want to make that person's life miserable). The mutual respect poster has it totally right.

There's some stuff out there also about how the Gen Z/Millennial borderline (most juniors) is a group that especially doesn't have much respect for the "loyalty to the business" idea (or at least, moreso than previous generations), so that may also be a reason that there's such disagreement on these points.

[legalpotato]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times -- partners are paid to be managers and attorneys, but they only want to focus on the one that they went to school for. The same can be said for senior associates, based on this thread. It's a shame that most lawyers' heads are so far up their own asses that they don't realize something like bringing in actual managers/consultants to help handle the "managing" aspect would go so far in combatting burnout, attrition, etc. while still allowing them to focus on the parts of Rule 12 that get them going.

Totally agree - most attorneys make absolutely terrible managers. A lot of the problems ITT would be fixed if managers actually did their job by (1) setting clear expectations with an understanding of the junior's actual/expected capabilities/knowledge, (2) checking in and offering support where needed, and (3) thinking ahead to make the job easier on their subordinates.

But a few things can be true at the same time:

• A partner / senior can be a bad manager and you still have an obligation to complete an assignment and do it well (i.e., you can't pass blame, even if your boss sucks)

• A partner / senior can be a good manager and still expect you to have some base level of drive / ambition / grit to get something done on your own without them having to intervene (i.e., even good managers don't have to do your work for you just because they are good managers, and it's not unfair for them to expect you to go the extra mile even on a night/weekend)

I think the bad/good manager point is where people are getting hung up. The problem is that in biglaw -- an industry where 90% of people know they will not be there in three years, there is absolutely zero reason to do anything to help the "bad" manager (assuming someone doesn't have respect for the bad manager), especially in this market where associates who do good work and still hit their hours have zero chance of being fired because they refused to take on a weekend assignment from a dick. And I don't think anyone is saying a good manager is one who picks up the slack, the good manager is the one who doesn't have to pick up the slack because they've garnered the junior's respect, and the junior thus has an incentive to help them (they don't want to make that person's life miserable). The mutual respect poster has it totally right.

There's some stuff out there also about how the Gen Z/Millennial borderline (most juniors) is a group that especially doesn't have much respect for the "loyalty to the business" idea (or at least, moreso than previous generations), so that may also be a reason that there's such disagreement on these points.

lol I don't think generation gaps work that way - most of the seniors are not "boomers". But I do think the market point you make is a huge source of disagreement.

Most seniors probably started law school while the world was still reeling from the '09 crash - I can safely say that even in 2012 we were still dealing with the fallout. Law firms weren't hiring as much - biglaw didn't just hire anyone with a pulse. And once we got in, we were all aware that our firm likely laid off a substantial amount of attorneys in '09, so a lot of us were more willing to jump on grenades to put ourselves in good graces in case '09 happened again.

Think a lot of class of '20 may have been in high school or even junior high in '09, so probably didn't really know what was happening. Then they came of age during an economic boom, and now they are hired into an environment where law firms open up offices in b***f*** middle of nowhere just to get bodies. So they don't have the same sense of urgency that more senior ppl may have.

Which is somewhat of a disservice, because at some point the pendulum will come back again, and there will be a culling. And it will be brutal.

[Anonymous User]

lol I don't think generation gaps work that way - most of the seniors are not "boomers". But I do think the market point you make is a huge source of disagreement.

Most seniors probably started law school while the world was still reeling from the '09 crash - I can safely say that even in 2012 we were still dealing with the fallout. Law firms weren't hiring as much - biglaw didn't just hire anyone with a pulse. And once we got in, we were all aware that our firm likely laid off a substantial amount of attorneys in '09, so a lot of us were more willing to jump on grenades to put ourselves in good graces in case '09 happened again.

Think a lot of class of '20 may have been in high school or even junior high in '09, so probably didn't really know what was happening. Then they came of age during an economic boom, and now they are hired into an environment where law firms open up offices in b***f*** middle of nowhere just to get bodies. So they don't have the same sense of urgency that more senior ppl may have.

Which is somewhat of a disservice, because at some point the pendulum will come back again, and there will be a culling. And it will be brutal.

Right, which is yet another reason why the "we don't have to jump when you say jump" mentality is shortsighted. Not only will it piss off clients in the long term (you could probably care less if you don't want to make partner), but it also means you'll be first on the cutting block if there's another downturn (nobody has a crystal ball, but maybe juniors should think more about this possibility).

[Anonymous User]

As it happens I'm an older junior, and I went to law school precisely because the recession / jobless recovery wrecked my early career. I'm willing to put in the work, and I'm willing to eat a lot of shit. I've done it for a lot less money, I can do it for 215.

But I don't have to like it, so yeah I'll complain about it anon online. When seniors read my criticism of your terrible management, consider that maybe I actually know something and consider that it wouldn't kill you to try and learn how to be a better manager. Also consider that partners don't treat us as poorly as you do and maybe there's a correlation between being nice to juniors and making partner.

Side note, it's going to be really funny when the grinders are the ones fired first in a recession.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe you want out in two years, so you don't care about whether your firm holds onto clients with deep pockets. But because the system requires firms to be responsive to unreasonable client asks, because you're hired to be a part of the system, and because you're paid as a result of that system continuing to work, your opinion on what is/isn't required isn't going to mean shit. It's a well known part of the job description, pal, and you better get used to it.

Most of this issue is actually just poor management (both staff and client) from unqualified and untrained managers (a.k.a., many partners and senior associates).

[Anonymous User]

Maybe you want out in two years, so you don't care about whether your firm holds onto clients with deep pockets. But because the system requires firms to be responsive to unreasonable client asks, because you're hired to be a part of the system, and because you're paid as a result of that system continuing to work, your opinion on what is/isn't required isn't going to mean shit. It's a well known part of the job description, pal, and you better get used to it.

Most of this issue is actually just poor management (both staff and client) from unqualified and untrained managers (a.k.a., many partners and senior associates).

Sure, but I guess the question is what do you do about it? If all gen Z lawyers decided that enough is enough - let's manage better and not make unnecessary fire drills - then in maybe 10-20 years biglaw would be a friendlier place. But it's going to take a while for that change to hit the client side (if it ever does; they will always be motivated to win over shareholders), so in the meantime there's going to be a lot of tension between the old guard, who wants to maintain the current system that works for their pockets, and the new, who don't like it.

I'm all for complaining about bad managers - they 100% make this job worse than it has to be. But the question in this thread was not how we make biglaw better, but rather what juniors without training can do to improve right now. I don't think the correct answer to that is stop working weekends or tell your manager to shape up. That's quite literally part of the perceived problem.

[Anonymous User]

Side note, it's going to be really funny when the grinders are the ones fired first in a recession.

Why do you think the grinders would get fired before the people who are hard to get ahold of on weekends?

[Anonymous User]

Side note, it's going to be really funny when the grinders are the ones fired first in a recession.

Why do you think the grinders would get fired before the people who are hard to get ahold of on weekends?

Because they went to YLS, duh! Pedigree > Profitability.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think my training w/r/t substantive work assignments is any worse than it would be in the office. The major issue for me is not having any background knowledge on the types of deals we're doing or how anything works. I often don't even know when a deal is about to close and I almost never know what stage a deal is in, or what those stages even are. These are the kinds of things I think a first-year would normally learn through osmosis in the office. In WFH, everyone is in such a rush to get off the zoom (understandably so) that mid-levels and partners may as well be speaking a foreign language. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that first-years are obviously dodging work when they take a weekend off after seeing a hundred emails in a day about a deal or something like that. While I'm sure COVID conditions have made associates brazen enough to do such a thing, I can tell you that after a few months I am still unable to distinguish a deal approaching a major deadline from just an abnormally busy day. I think mid-levels would do well to mitigate this by just pinging juniors to update them on what's going on every now and then. At the moment, I'm copied on long emails that I don't understand discussing documents that I didn't know exist. I've been looking for a guide or even just a flowchart that describes timelines or steps to different types of deals but haven't found one yet.

[Anonymous User]

If I were to get the talk in a couple months along with some website time and a paid window to find a new job, I'm sure that I'd be more worried than I'm imagining now, but I also think that I'd ultimately be ok and it would probably be a net positive for my quality of life moving forward.

What does website time mean? Sorry if this is a stupid question.