Getting Juniors to be responsive Forum

[aegor]

You shouldn't need for "expectations to be communicated clearly." You should be taking the initiative on your own to learn about your clients, your practice area, the role each document plays, the key commercial considerations, what makes or breaks a deal and how you fit into all of that.

No. This is not the case in law or anything else. Orienting and situating employees is, again, the MO in pretty much every non-toxic workplace, and firms and other legal employers manage to do it all the time without issue. Your hangups are not reflective of the legal industry, let alone workplaces generally.

You should, on your own accord, be reviewing every single change in every document that goes out and asking yourself why each such change was made, and what you can learn from it.

No. First, doing so is inefficient and subject to error. Second, not every change represents an objective problem; it is the responsibility of supervisors to provide high-level feedback about what to pay attention to in the future.

Don't be some passive paper pusher who just waits for assignments to come in, and looks to flip them with the bare minimum amount of work so that they don't fire you. Show some passion about the work, about the clients, about your role in helping companies in a free market economy operate successfully. Take some pride in what you do, and demonstrate that you actually care.

Hello, false dichotomy!

[Anonymous User]

Before I was a lawyer I was a classroom teacher and you're in there by yourself and should be figuring out what worked and what didn't by looking at your student's assessments and behavior without your principal telling you how to improve.

I am not sure what school you taught at. Mine required experience & often licensing--both of which hewed more closely to actual classroom experience than law school does to legal practice--and had extensive orientations, professional development at weekly meetings, informal evaluations by department heads/other teachers quarterly, and formal, week-long evaluations every two years involving numerous teachers and at least one senior administrator (which pool included the principal).

As you note, this is not either-or. But the bar is remarkably low for providing helpful feedback. "Your legal analysis is good, but please restructure the brief draft so that it follows CREAC by COB" takes almost no time to write and is way more efficient for everyone involved. It also has the benefit of being useful.

I am not sure why psycho senior is so committed to being a terrible manager. They sound like an INTJ who is also a KJD. Get a grip.

[Anonymous User]

ETA: I have been working with a junior who I had to ask multiple times to follow the formatting of previously filed documents in the action. It took months for her to start double spacing between sentences, among other things, even thoughI explicitly said to look at the redlines to see how we had to make formatting changes. I guess I could have spelled out each formatting issue, but I don't think it's my job to do that. Pointing to the redline should be enough. If I am preparing something for a partner/court I'm not used to, I look at a previous filing and copy how record citations are done, font size, number of spaces between periods etc. I might miss something, but I want to be as close as possible in my original draft. Anyways, I eventually started sending things back to her to fix instead even though it was less efficient because that seemed to be the only way to fix the issue going forward. If you are are a junior, try not to be like that.

you let it drag on for months.. rather than just having a 30 minute phonecall where you explicitly walked her through typical formatting changes.. and the lesson you took away from that experience is that she's the only cautionary tale here?

don't confuse this with me defending the associate. she may have been terrible/below par. that's frankly besides the point.

[Anonymous User]

ETA: I have been working with a junior who I had to ask multiple times to follow the formatting of previously filed documents in the action. It took months for her to start double spacing between sentences, among other things, even thoughI explicitly said to look at the redlines to see how we had to make formatting changes. I guess I could have spelled out each formatting issue, but I don't think it's my job to do that. Pointing to the redline should be enough. If I am preparing something for a partner/court I'm not used to, I look at a previous filing and copy how record citations are done, font size, number of spaces between periods etc. I might miss something, but I want to be as close as possible in my original draft. Anyways, I eventually started sending things back to her to fix instead even though it was less efficient because that seemed to be the only way to fix the issue going forward. If you are are a junior, try not to be like that.

you let it drag on for months.. rather than just having a 30 minute phonecall where you explicitly walked her through typical formatting changes.. and the lesson you took away from that experience is that she's the only cautionary tale here?

don't confuse this with me defending the associate. she may have been terrible/below par. that's frankly besides the point.

Adding on, why would there not already be an explicit formatting guide for the group or the documents? And as far as people are talking about emulating supervisors' preferred style, why is there not a style guide with key preferences? I am so confused.

[Anonymous User]

ETA: I have been working with a junior who I had to ask multiple times to follow the formatting of previously filed documents in the action. It took months for her to start double spacing between sentences, among other things, even thoughI explicitly said to look at the redlines to see how we had to make formatting changes. I guess I could have spelled out each formatting issue, but I don't think it's my job to do that. Pointing to the redline should be enough. If I am preparing something for a partner/court I'm not used to, I look at a previous filing and copy how record citations are done, font size, number of spaces between periods etc. I might miss something, but I want to be as close as possible in my original draft. Anyways, I eventually started sending things back to her to fix instead even though it was less efficient because that seemed to be the only way to fix the issue going forward. If you are are a junior, try not to be like that.

you let it drag on for months.. rather than just having a 30 minute phonecall where you explicitly walked her through typical formatting changes.. and the lesson you took away from that experience is that she's the only cautionary tale here?

don't confuse this with me defending the associate. she may have been terrible/below par. that's frankly besides the point.

Adding on, why would there not already be an explicit formatting guide for the group or the documents? And as far as people are talking about emulating supervisors' preferred style, why is there not a style guide with key preferences? I am so confused.

To be clear, I always send an example document to an associate who has never worked on a matter in Usual Court when we start and say "use this as an example of formatting." If there are previous filings, I would send one of those since it's got the caption etc. I did call her after the first time and was like "hey, I just sent a redline around, there were some formatting changes to conform with the style we use and Usual Court's rules. check it out for next time. Good job on [substantive issue]." The second time, there were still multiple formatting/citation style issues, so I made a redline and sent it directly to her, saying "hey, made some changes to conform to our usual style, please take a look for for your own information." The third time, the spacing was still a thing, so I emailed her letting her know that was an issue, and that my admin was fixing it The fourth time I sent it back and told her to fix it. There was also at least one phone call in the mix where I mentioned spacing but I guess it didn't stick.

I mean, in retrospect it would have resolved faster if I had listed every single thing wrong in an email or call, but that seems like it would be pretty aggressive so send a 15 point list in the first instance. It's also not necessary for most juniors. I've worked with first years who all they needed was a redline showing thee formatting/style issues and it never happened again. But this girl was a third year by then.

I've never worked at a firm that had explicit formatting guides. Both places I work focus on work at Usual Court so we just (1) check the rules if we aren't sure and (2) look at other stuff from the partner to make sure it's to the partner's preferences. That's what I was trained to do at my first firm and what I do at my current firm if I have to do something outside Usual Court.

[Anonymous User]

Before I was a lawyer I was a classroom teacher and you're in there by yourself and should be figuring out what worked and what didn't by looking at your student's assessments and behavior without your principal telling you how to improve.

I am not sure what school you taught at. Mine required experience & often licensing--both of which hewed more closely to actual classroom experience than law school does to legal practice--and had extensive orientations, professional development at weekly meetings, informal evaluations by department heads/other teachers quarterly, and formal, week-long evaluations every two years involving numerous teachers and at least one senior administrator (which pool included the principal).

As you note, this is not either-or. But the bar is remarkably low for providing helpful feedback. "Your legal analysis is good, but please restructure the brief draft so that it follows CREAC by COB" takes almost no time to write and is way more efficient for everyone involved. It also has the benefit of being useful.

I am not sure why psycho senior is so committed to being a terrible manager. They sound like an INTJ who is also a KJD. Get a grip.

When I was teaching, my principal, lead teacher, and program director at my master's program would observe my teaching and give formal feedback. In my first year, I'd have a classroom observation maybe once a month on average (sometimes spanning multiple class periods). In my second year, it was maybe four times all year? Obviously getting an outside perspective is super helpful, especially as a first year teacher. But my point is that you're not supposed to just keep teaching the same in between evaluations and only change in response to the evaluations of other people. As a new teacher, you should be trying to improve by taking stock on a regular(daily) basis, not waiting for someone else to tell you what you are doing wrong.

(My HS's general "professional developments" were a joke, and my department was good at sharing resources etc. but the department head wasn't really in charge of training me to teach, just more of a first among equals thing. I was at a school stretched thin in terms of personnel and resources)

You say:

But the bar is remarkably low for providing helpful feedback. "Your legal analysis is good, but please restructure the brief draft so that it follows CREAC by COB" takes almost no time to write and is way more efficient for everyone involved. It also has the benefit of being useful.

I don't see how that is much different than what I initially did. I said the brief was good, asked her to look at the redline to see how the formatting was changed. I asked my admin to make the fixes the first time because she is faster and we were under a time crunch (and the partner wanted it fixed ASAP). I also explained some office politics please never sending Partner A something that isn't already formatted correctly because he WILL get angry (and had, but at me because he doesn't ever talk to juniors directly), so for her sake and mine please try to format it the right way and send to me to quick look before sending to him. Other associates are able to follow that, she wasn't. There have been other issues where I have tried to explain that Partner A had X feedback, could she please change it/add a case on that point etc., and she argued with me about whether it was necessary. I finally made them talk to each other because maybe she thought I was just making it up? Who knows. Anyways, I honestly want to try to make working for Partner A as painless as possible for a new associate, but if they don't want to listen, I'm not sure what to say. Partner A isn't going anywhere.

It wasn't a substantive structure issue (I honestly had to Google CREAC), it was the way the record was cited, the way headers were formatted/capitalized, the spacing between periods, the way quotes were formatted, and the way emphasis was shown, and the way footnotes were formatted.

Also, it's unclear if you are calling me a "psycho" or conflating me with the guy who made the ADD comments. I'm a different person. He seems like he's transactional. I'm in litigation.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how that is much different than what I initially did. I said the brief was good, asked her to look at the redline to see how the formatting was changed. I asked my admin to make the fixes the first time because she is faster and we were under a time crunch (and the partner wanted it fixed ASAP). I also explained some office politics please never sending Partner A something that isn't already formatted correctly because he WILL get angry (and had, but at me because he doesn't ever talk to juniors directly), so for her sake and mine please try to format it the right way and send to me to quick look before sending to him. Other associates are able to follow that, she wasn't. There have been other issues where I have tried to explain that Partner A had X feedback, could she please change it/add a case on that point etc., and she argued with me about whether it was necessary. I finally made them talk to each other because maybe she thought I was just making it up? Who knows. Anyways, I honestly want to try to make working for Partner A as painless as possible for a new associate, but if they don't want to listen, I'm not sure what to say. Partner A isn't going anywhere.

This representation is very different from what you said earlier. I have my doubts about what actually went down, but regardless if the junior isn't getting what you're saying from redlines or short emails about broad topics like "formatting," then as a manager you are accountable both to the firm and to the associate to be more explicit.

Should you have to spell out every. single. formatting. issue? Of course not. But that's beside the point. Is this junior doing a poor job by ignoring the simple changes in the redline? Yeah probably, especially for straightforward things like double spaces after the period. But that's also beside the point. You're a manager, so manage. The most basic principle in management is that the buck stops with you, so I'm not going to agree with you on anything that puts the onus on the junior figuring it out themselves. Complain all you want, but it's still your responsibility. Sorry if we agree on that point - it doesn't come out in your posts.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how that is much different than what I initially did. I said the brief was good, asked her to look at the redline to see how the formatting was changed. I asked my admin to make the fixes the first time because she is faster and we were under a time crunch (and the partner wanted it fixed ASAP). I also explained some office politics please never sending Partner A something that isn't already formatted correctly because he WILL get angry (and had, but at me because he doesn't ever talk to juniors directly), so for her sake and mine please try to format it the right way and send to me to quick look before sending to him. Other associates are able to follow that, she wasn't. There have been other issues where I have tried to explain that Partner A had X feedback, could she please change it/add a case on that point etc., and she argued with me about whether it was necessary. I finally made them talk to each other because maybe she thought I was just making it up? Who knows. Anyways, I honestly want to try to make working for Partner A as painless as possible for a new associate, but if they don't want to listen, I'm not sure what to say. Partner A isn't going anywhere.

This representation is very different from what you said earlier. I have my doubts about what actually went down, but regardless if the junior isn't getting what you're saying from redlines or short emails about broad topics like "formatting," then as a manager you are accountable both to the firm and to the associate to be more explicit.

Should you have to spell out every. single. formatting. issue? Of course not. But that's beside the point. Is this junior doing a poor job by ignoring the simple changes in the redline? Yeah probably, especially for straightforward things like double spaces after the period. But that's also beside the point. You're a manager, so manage. The most basic principle in management is that the buck stops with you, so I'm not going to agree with you on anything that puts the onus on the junior figuring it out themselves. Complain all you want, but it's still your responsibility. Sorry if we agree on that point - it doesn't come out in your posts.

I mean, what I initially said was "It took months for her to start double spacing between sentences, among other things, even though I explicitly said to look at the redlines to see how we had to make formatting changes." (typo fixed) How is that not consistent with what I said later? I told her to look at the redlines, she kept single spacing after periods, and it took multiple go-rounds to get her to do it the right way in the first draft.

And yeah, obviously the buck stops with me. That's why the partner yells at me instead of her when she sends stuff to him that's wrong and why I at least want her to send it to me first so it can be fixed before it goes up the chain. As I have explained in this thread. Like, when I started six years ago, a second year told us "hey, always run a redline if it hasn't been done already to see what changes the seniors and partner make to your motions to learn" and we (the first years) were like "OK cool." Now, if you try to give advice to juniors on this forum about how to improve and keep seniors and partners happy, it's all "how DARE you COMPLAIN!"

I mean, at the end of the day in my own practice, I am going to cultivate working relationships with juniors who are proactive about improving and don't argue when you try to help them fix something. I will also praise those juniors to the partners. And I try to shield juniors from nutty partners and help them look good, but if they are resistant, then at some point I will stop trying to shield them from partners seeing errors in their work product.

If juniors reading this thread want to take my anonymous advice here, they are free to. If juniors think it's not their responsibility review redlines to improve and only want direct, explicit detailed feedback, then I guess they do that and see how it goes.

[Anonymous User]

I don't see how that is much different than what I initially did. I said the brief was good, asked her to look at the redline to see how the formatting was changed. I asked my admin to make the fixes the first time because she is faster and we were under a time crunch (and the partner wanted it fixed ASAP). I also explained some office politics please never sending Partner A something that isn't already formatted correctly because he WILL get angry (and had, but at me because he doesn't ever talk to juniors directly), so for her sake and mine please try to format it the right way and send to me to quick look before sending to him. Other associates are able to follow that, she wasn't. There have been other issues where I have tried to explain that Partner A had X feedback, could she please change it/add a case on that point etc., and she argued with me about whether it was necessary. I finally made them talk to each other because maybe she thought I was just making it up? Who knows. Anyways, I honestly want to try to make working for Partner A as painless as possible for a new associate, but if they don't want to listen, I'm not sure what to say. Partner A isn't going anywhere.

This representation is very different from what you said earlier. I have my doubts about what actually went down, but regardless if the junior isn't getting what you're saying from redlines or short emails about broad topics like "formatting," then as a manager you are accountable both to the firm and to the associate to be more explicit.

Should you have to spell out every. single. formatting. issue? Of course not. But that's beside the point. Is this junior doing a poor job by ignoring the simple changes in the redline? Yeah probably, especially for straightforward things like double spaces after the period. But that's also beside the point. You're a manager, so manage. The most basic principle in management is that the buck stops with you, so I'm not going to agree with you on anything that puts the onus on the junior figuring it out themselves. Complain all you want, but it's still your responsibility. Sorry if we agree on that point - it doesn't come out in your posts.

I mean, what I initially said was "It took months for her to start double spacing between sentences, among other things, even though I explicitly said to look at the redlines to see how we had to make formatting changes." (typo fixed) How is that not consistent with what I said later? I told her to look at the redlines, she kept single spacing after periods, and it took multiple go-rounds to get her to do it the right way in the first draft.

And yeah, obviously the buck stops with me. That's why the partner yells at me instead of her when she sends stuff to him that's wrong and why I at least want her to send it to me first so it can be fixed before it goes up the chain. As I have explained in this thread. Like, when I started six years ago, a second year told us "hey, always run a redline if it hasn't been done already to see what changes the seniors and partner make to your motions to learn" and we (the first years) were like "OK cool." Now, if you try to give advice to juniors on this forum about how to improve and keep seniors and partners happy, it's all "how DARE you COMPLAIN!"

I mean, at the end of the day in my own practice, I am going to cultivate working relationships with juniors who are proactive about improving and don't argue when you try to help them fix something. I will also praise those juniors to the partners. And I try to shield juniors from nutty partners and help them look good, but if they are resistant, then at some point I will stop trying to shield them from partners seeing errors in their work product.

If juniors reading this thread want to take my anonymous advice here, they are free to. If juniors think it's not their responsibility review redlines to improve and only want direct, explicit detailed feedback, then I guess they do that and see how it goes.

as the corporate ADD redline guy, +1 to all of this. I took this advice to heart myself, of course, and its why I was always considered a top 5% junior, not just someone looking to cruise, get a paycheck, pay back some student loans and bail.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe your software is different but IME it's not always easy to get formatting from redlines. Especially stuff like double spaces. How hard is it to say "hey fyi pls double space"?? This is like anti-managing.

Is it true that since lawyers are such bad managers, it's smart to learn how to self train / read their minds etc? Sure. But that's not a reason to double down on bad management.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe your software is different but IME it's not always easy to get formatting from redlines. Especially stuff like double spaces. How hard is it to say "hey fyi pls double space"?? This is like anti-managing.

Is it true that since lawyers are such bad managers, it's smart to learn how to self train / read their minds etc? Sure. But that's not a reason to double down on bad management.

I made sure the formatting issues were reflected in the redline before sending (but you are correct, the default settings for redlines often ignore stuff like spacing).

But as I said before, the first go-round there were so many things "wrong" listing them all would have seemed pretty over the top. I did explicitly say to double space on other iterations since that issue lingered. that still didn't fix it, only making making her make the changes herself did (instead of fixing it myself or having my admin or other staff fix it (if it's a big brief, it takes a LONG TIME to put in all the extra spaces. I don't think there is a way to automate it since a program can't tell what is a period at the end of a sentence, and what is a period in a citation or abbreviation or something.))

I guess I just feel like after three years in a law firm, you should realize that double spacing after sentences is a common thing, and check whether it's single or double before you write a whole brief if you aren't sure? I get that if you are used to typing one way, it can be hard so a few accidental single spaces might slip through but still. I've had to adjust to matters where we were single-spacing after periods, and I noticed the previous filings were like that and just followed it without being told. Because it would be insane for me to expect someone else to sit me down and list all the things that are different at New Court instead of Usual Court. I try to figure out New Court style and ask an associate familiar with New Court if I can't. No one tells me to check the Rules and the judge's preferences at New Court before I start drafting, i do because i learned as a junior to check those things before you start. And so my advice to juniors is to look at an example and look at the relevant rules before drafting something, it's more efficient. Will a senior sometimes need to make changes because you missed something and the senior is more experienced? Yes, that's fine, that's what I'm here for. But the faster you pick up on stuff, the more useful you are.

I think the "bad management" was not making her fix her own mistakes from the beginning, since that was what worked, but on the other hand, doing that isn't necessary for most associates, so it would seem extra harsh.

[Anonymous User]

There are firms where people actually revise docs on the system themselves instead of sending hand scribbles, tracked changes or PDF comments for the original drafter to then run and revise? And then on top of that they run a redline showing the changes for them too? Am I following correctly?

[Anonymous User]

There are firms where people actually revise docs on the system themselves instead of sending hand scribbles, tracked changes or PDF comments for the original drafter to then run and revise? And then on top of that they run a redline showing the changes for them too? Am I following correctly?

I actually prefer chicken scratchings bc I retain version control and when I turn the comments I get a better idea of what's changing.

Also I'm done responding to Lit Psycho here but are they really spending extra time on redlines but refusing to give normal feedback????

[Anonymous User]

If juniors reading this thread want to take my anonymous advice here, they are free to. If juniors think it's not their responsibility review redlines to improve and only want direct, explicit detailed feedback, then I guess they do that and see how it goes.

as the corporate ADD redline guy, +1 to all of this. I took this advice to heart myself, of course, and its why I was always considered a top 5% junior, not just someone looking to cruise, get a paycheck, pay back some student loans and bail.

I don't think a single person ITT said a junior shouldn't look at redlines, or that doing what made the two of you successful is bad. Obviously it would be great if everyone could self teach. We all know you're making valid points about how to be successful.

But the question ITT, which is about getting juniors to be responsive mind you, is what you do about it when they don't self teach. If you intentionally leave those juniors in the dust without mentoring/teaching them on their level, then you're a bad manager, period. Doesn't mean you can't be successful as an attorney doing that - lots of successful attorneys are bad managers. It just means that you're failing as a manager.

And again, complain all you want about juniors not doing what they should do in order to be successful. I work with some objectively terrible juniors who ignore half of what I say, and I get incredibly frustrated working with them. But in the end of the day you are responsible if a junior doesn't hold up their end of the bargain. That's not just about taking the fall for bad work product. It also includes trying to coach them, no matter how many tries it takes. And as others have pointed out, taking an interest in the development of your juniors will pay off because they will actually want to do good work for you. It's not just a one-way street.

[Anonymous User]

There are firms where people actually revise docs on the system themselves instead of sending hand scribbles, tracked changes or PDF comments for the original drafter to then run and revise? And then on top of that they run a redline showing the changes for them too? Am I following correctly?

I actually prefer chicken scratchings bc I retain version control and when I turn the comments I get a better idea of what's changing.

Also I'm done responding to Lit Psycho here but are they really spending extra time on redlines but refusing to give normal feedback????

How is the following "refusing to give normal feedback"

I said the brief was good, asked her to look at the redline to see how the formatting was changed. I asked my admin to make the fixes the first time because she is faster and we were under a time crunch (and the partner wanted it fixed ASAP). I also explained some office politics please never sending Partner A something that isn't already formatted correctly because he WILL get angry (and had, but at me because he doesn't ever talk to juniors directly), so for her sake and mine please try to format it the right way and send to me to quick look before sending to him.

and

But as I said before, the first go-round there were so many things "wrong" listing them all would have seemed pretty over the top. I did explicitly say to double space on other iterations since that issue lingered. that still didn't fix it, only making making her make the changes herself did

Like, this was part of multiple phone calls about multiple things on the matter, plus emails. With normal human pleasantries and all that. She knew that other people were fixing the spacing because I mentioned it to her and I asked her to fix it going forward. Finally I stopped having other people fix it and told her to fix it. What is the missing part of "normal feedback" that i am not doing. Directing her to the redline is the first step. That's honestly how I've received that type of nit pick feedback from more senior people. Bringing up the issue directly when she kept doing it seems like the next step. Telling her she needed to go back and fix the spaces was the final step, and that worked. What else could I have done to not be a "psycho?"

[Anonymous User]

There are firms where people actually revise docs on the system themselves instead of sending hand scribbles, tracked changes or PDF comments for the original drafter to then run and revise? And then on top of that they run a redline showing the changes for them too? Am I following correctly?

6th year lit. In the two firms I have been at, the usual flow is that a junior or midlevel drafts something and sends it to a more senior associate. The senior makes edits and then sends that draft to the partner, copying the junior and ideally giving the junior credit for doing the lion's share. The senior wouldn't send the partner showing the fixes that they made to the junior's work. Then the partner(s) and client make changes (usually sent to the senior or midlevel to make), it gets sent around to everyone and the senior or midlevel finalizes, proofreads and files it. (Obviously there are often more steps). If you are a junior, it's helpful to see what changes are made to your work, so if no one is running redlines against your original version, it's helpful to do that so you can see what changed.

Obviously there are cases where there is just one associate, a midlevel or senior usually, basically doing all the drafting AND entering changes in the system, in which case that single associate is aware of changes being made. This advice only applies if a junior "takes a crack at it" and then a midlevel or senior takes over from there to get it to the finish line.

[Anonymous User]

What else could I have done to not be a "psycho?"

I don't think it's your series of emails/convos with that junior that's drawing ire, but rather the following which has colored everyone's perspective on you:

I don't think it's crazy to expect juniors to be proactive about improving (in addition to direct feedback from seniors and partners). You're an adult. Before I was a lawyer I was a classroom teacher and you're in there by yourself and should be figuring out what worked and what didn't by looking at your student's assessments and behavior without your principal telling you how to improve. As a lawyer, you should likewise be thinking about what skills you need to improve on and figuring out what good lawyers do and trying to imitate that.

You take "a good lawyer should do X" (totally true) a step too far by (1) expecting people to do that (which is irrelevant when it comes to good management - always prepare for the worst) and (2) throwing shade like "you're an adult" and a misleading example about teaching.

I'm not excusing objectively bad juniors. I'm just calling you on your management perspectives.

[jotarokujo]

If juniors reading this thread want to take my anonymous advice here, they are free to. If juniors think it's not their responsibility review redlines to improve and only want direct, explicit detailed feedback, then I guess they do that and see how it goes.

your only counter to the idea that explicit feedback is much more efficient to learn from than trying to divine lessons from unexplained redlines is "it feels mean". that's not very compelling. i think juniors should have a somewhat thick skin when they are learning. it's their job

there's a reason when a professor gives back an essay, they are considered a shit professor if they dont explain why points were taken off. if you care about juniors improving, the best way to do that is to be explicit. you don't have to care about juniors improving, but don't complain that they aren't improving if you are using obviously subpar methods

and yeah there is variance between juniors - why wouldn't there be unless you were at a top firm like susman or keker. even at those places there's variance. you could choose to just work with the most gunnery juniors too

[Anonymous User]

What else could I have done to not be a "psycho?"

I don't think it's your series of emails/convos with that junior that's drawing ire, but rather the following which has colored everyone's perspective on you:

I don't think it's crazy to expect juniors to be proactive about improving (in addition to direct feedback from seniors and partners). You're an adult. Before I was a lawyer I was a classroom teacher and you're in there by yourself and should be figuring out what worked and what didn't by looking at your student's assessments and behavior without your principal telling you how to improve. As a lawyer, you should likewise be thinking about what skills you need to improve on and figuring out what good lawyers do and trying to imitate that.

You take "a good lawyer should do X" (totally true) a step too far by (1) expecting people to do that (which is irrelevant when it comes to good management - always prepare for the worst) and (2) throwing shade like "you're an adult" and a misleading example about teaching.

I'm not excusing objectively bad juniors. I'm just calling you on your management perspectives.

Ok, but how is that "refusing to give normal feedback" though? If you don't disagree that I should have handled it differently, and you agree

And I disagree you should manage all juniors by "prepar[ing] for the worst." As I've explained here multiple times, my usual way of doing things is to send an email to the junior with something like "FYI, here's a redline of the changes I made. Sending to partner. Thanks for the work/good job on the brief." (In the individual case at issue, I talked to her on the phone as well the first time and multiple times after.) And then I copy them when I send to the partner. If sat down and typed up an email with a list of everything wrong with all formatting, law citation and record citation errors in the junior's motion or brief and sent it, instead of just sending a redline and telling them to look at it, that would honestly seem pretty psycho to me. That works for most associates. Those are the associates I want to continue to work with. I'm not going to jump to the more stern and direct talking to the first time because those associates don't deserve or need that.

And I think the teaching example is appropriate because the disconnect here is that some people come into law with the idea that it's other people's job to teach them. But when get a professional job, it's the professional's responsibility to try to improve, in addition to incorporating feedback from others. You aren't a student anymore and other attorneys aren't your professors. Maybe that's a better way of phrasing it than "you're an adult" because I guess not adults are interested in improving by reviewing redlines. And those people try to argue that it's part of biglaw insanity, but it's a normal expectation in the one other profession I have been a part of (that get paid way less). I can't speak to other professions, but I suspect the same holds true. People who write other types of content look at the edits to their work from their superiors to improve? I would assume so? So again, a senior associate telling a junior to look at redline is helping the junior, and expecting junior to look at it instead of expecting me to type up a list of errors while I am also making edits on the document is backwards because it's more to their benefit than mine to improve. I can just not use them going forward and/or make their mistakes their problem instead of fixing them.

[Anonymous User]

If juniors reading this thread want to take my anonymous advice here, they are free to. If juniors think it's not their responsibility review redlines to improve and only want direct, explicit detailed feedback, then I guess they do that and see how it goes.

your only counter to the idea that explicit feedback is much more efficient to learn from than trying to divine lessons from unexplained redlines is "it feels mean". that's not very compelling. i think juniors should have a somewhat thick skin when they are learning. it's their job

there's a reason when a professor gives back an essay, they are considered a shit professor if they dont explain why points were taken off. if you care about juniors improving, the best way to do that is to be explicit. you don't have to care about juniors improving, but don't complain that they aren't improving if you are using obviously subpar methods

and yeah there is variance between juniors - why wouldn't there be unless you were at a top firm like susman or keker. even at those places there's variance. you could choose to just work with the most gunnery juniors too

A professor's job is to teach and should help struggling students and superstar students alike. My job is to do work for a client. The junior's job is work for the client. I help train juniors as as secondary responsibility of my job, but if a junior can't understand the instruction to look at the formatting changes in a redline and don't make those mistakes going forward, and argues when I call them when they keep doing it, and argues when I pass along substantive feedback from the partner, there comes a point where it's not worth my time to try to help develop that person as an attorney and my goal shifts to "how can I get this person to cause the least amount of problems until this matter is over." So the management style shifts. Like it or not.

And back to the professor example, if a professor gave you back an essay with feedback, and you kept ignoring it, she might stop wanting to help you too.

ETA: also "unexplained redlines" um, how much explanation do formatting changes need? Unless there is some special trick like how to change all the straight quotes to smart quotes or something, saying they should look at the redline is more guidance than most partners and seniors give.

[Anonymous User]

A professor's job is to teach and should help struggling students and superstar students alike. My job is to do work for a client. The junior's job is work for the client. I help train juniors as as secondary responsibility of my job, but if a junior can't understand the instruction to look at the formatting changes in a redline and don't make those mistakes going forward, and argues when I call them when they keep doing it, and argues when I pass along substantive feedback from the partner, there comes a point where it's not worth my time to try to help develop that person as an attorney and my goal shifts to "how can I get this person to cause the least amount of problems until this matter is over." So the management style shifts. Like it or not.

And back to the professor example, if a professor gave you back an essay with feedback, and you kept ignoring it, she might stop wanting to help students too.

Where TF did you get this idea? Did your firm tell you that? Law schools don't teach lawyers. Lawyers teach lawyers. And the biglaw model of cycling through wave after wave of associates is built on people like you manning up and doing some teaching. If you think it's not worth your time, then you're just passing the responsibility (or cost) of that junior on someone else.

And your professor example doesn't prove your point. A professor's job is to teach. Whether or not they want to help the student is irrelevant.

[Anonymous User]

A professor's job is to teach and should help struggling students and superstar students alike. My job is to do work for a client. The junior's job is work for the client. I help train juniors as as secondary responsibility of my job, but if a junior can't understand the instruction to look at the formatting changes in a redline and don't make those mistakes going forward, and argues when I call them when they keep doing it, and argues when I pass along substantive feedback from the partner, there comes a point where it's not worth my time to try to help develop that person as an attorney and my goal shifts to "how can I get this person to cause the least amount of problems until this matter is over." So the management style shifts. Like it or not.

And back to the professor example, if a professor gave you back an essay with feedback, and you kept ignoring it, she might stop wanting to help students too.

Where TF did you get this idea? Did your firm tell you that? Law schools don't teach lawyers. Lawyers teach lawyers. And the biglaw model of cycling through wave after wave of associates is built on people like you manning up and doing some teaching. If you think it's not worth your time, then you're just passing the responsibility (or cost) of that junior on someone else.

And your professor example doesn't prove your point. A professor's job is to teach. Whether or not they want to help the student is irrelevant.

Lawyers teach lawyers, but as I said above, it's a secondary responsibility of a senior associate. The first responsibility is working for the client, which means producing a final product that is good. If I keep putting in time with one associate who keeps making the same mistakes and is resistant to learning, it's not my job to keep spending time on training them. And as I also said above, I am happy to train juniors, generally, and most seem to appreciate my style of feedback. Am I responsible for continuing to give this person work when I know it's not cost-effective to the client compared to other juniors? Am I responsible for continuing to try to hide her mistakes from the partner when she doesn't seem to care about pissing him off? Should I give this person assignments with more responsibility? Of should I instead reward the juniors that thank me for the feedback and are always trying to improve?

And helping is part of teaching. There is a world of difference between what a professor owes to students when they or someone else has paid tuition to pay the professor's salary, and my responsibility to a junior when the client pays our firm for services and the firm pays junior and me.

[Anonymous User]

A professor's job is to teach and should help struggling students and superstar students alike. My job is to do work for a client. The junior's job is work for the client. I help train juniors as as secondary responsibility of my job, but if a junior can't understand the instruction to look at the formatting changes in a redline and don't make those mistakes going forward, and argues when I call them when they keep doing it, and argues when I pass along substantive feedback from the partner, there comes a point where it's not worth my time to try to help develop that person as an attorney and my goal shifts to "how can I get this person to cause the least amount of problems until this matter is over." So the management style shifts. Like it or not.

And back to the professor example, if a professor gave you back an essay with feedback, and you kept ignoring it, she might stop wanting to help students too.

Where TF did you get this idea? Did your firm tell you that? Law schools don't teach lawyers. Lawyers teach lawyers. And the biglaw model of cycling through wave after wave of associates is built on people like you manning up and doing some teaching. If you think it's not worth your time, then you're just passing the responsibility (or cost) of that junior on someone else.

And your professor example doesn't prove your point. A professor's job is to teach. Whether or not they want to help the student is irrelevant.

This actually is evidence for the opposite - at most top biglaw firms that have low associate retention there is very little emphasis placed on training of junior associates because so many of them leave. That's built into the business model. It's irrational to spend a lot of time giving more than the most basic training to people you know will be gone in 1-2 years.

[Anonymous User]

Lawyers teach lawyers, but as I said above, it's a secondary responsibility of a senior associate. The first responsibility is working for the client, which means producing a final product that is good. If I keep putting in time with one associate who keeps making the same mistakes and is resistant to learning, it's not my job to keep spending time on training them. And as I also said above, I am happy to train juniors, generally, and most seem to appreciate my style of feedback. Am I responsible for continuing to give this person work when I know it's not cost-effective to the client compared to other juniors? Am I responsible for continuing to try to hide her mistakes from the partner when she doesn't seem to care about pissing him off? Should I give this person assignments with more responsibility? Of should I instead reward the juniors that thank me for the feedback and are always trying to improve?

And helping is part of teaching. There is a world of difference between what a professor owes to students when they or someone else has paid tuition to pay the professor's salary, and my responsibility to a junior when the client pays our firm for services and the firm pays junior and me.

Quit your circular reasoning. It's not secondary simply because you say it's so. You're a manager, so sack up. Your professorial point falls short yet again. Who pays whom is irrelevant to your job description, but regardless the firm pays you to manage juniors. All I hear from your posts is that you're trying to pass responsibility for training off on others at the firm, which is remarkably similar to the lazy junior behaviors you seem so concerned with.

This actually is evidence for the opposite - at most top biglaw firms that have low associate retention there is very little emphasis placed on training of junior associates because so many of them leave. That's built into the business model. It's irrational to spend a lot of time giving more than the most basic training to people you know will be gone in 1-2 years.

You're literally arguing that the tragedy of the commons is the optimal solution. Nobody is incentivized to train juniors, so some juniors keep performing poorly and others rise to the top. Good ones that want a life outside of work get crushed and leave. Bad ones who aren't trained properly don't get work and leave. Does that sound efficient? And as we know, firms are trying their darnedest to keep people for longer because, wait for it, that makes them more profitable.

And that's just on the macroscopic scale. I'll say it for the last time, I find that putting in an hour of time mentoring saves me many more hours on the back end when I get higher quality work product from a motivated junior. Sure, there are some associates who are truly untrainable, but on the balance being a real manager up front works out better for me. Maybe it's different in transactional practices where there's a wider bench of associates to draw from and where matters run for shorter periods of time, but I'd much rather train my juniors to be competent than have to tough it out for two years on a case as the only competent non-partner.

[Anonymous User]

If nothing else, self interest should make you want to develop associates. There's only so far you can go based on good work and a ton of hours. Eventually partners will look to your contributions to the firm as a whole. Unless you're a rainmaker, your ability to manage and develop associates is important.