1st year major market Corp - Consistently doing shitty job Forum

[20160810]

It kind of flies in the face of reason that the firm would hold a meeting designed to correct issues "before his review" when they have the specific intention of firing him soon. More likely is that IF OP does not improve, he'll eventually get fired. Firm management is irrational if they're holding this meeting without any chance of allowing the OP to improve.

This thread, starting with the first reply, is a pretty good example of why someone in OP's situation should NOT consult TLS.

Are you an attorney, a law student, or a 0L?

I am a possessor of common sense with respect to employee performance. And this thread is a shitshow.

This is code for "I am not speaking from personal experience and my resume includes several HIGH-LEVEL fraternity chairmanships."

[El Pollito]

yeah listen to the guy without a law job instead of all of the people who work at firms

[A. Nony Mouse]

It kind of flies in the face of reason that the firm would hold a meeting designed to correct issues "before his review" when they have the specific intention of firing him soon. More likely is that IF OP does not improve, he'll eventually get fired. Firm management is irrational if they're holding this meeting without any chance of allowing the OP to improve.

This thread, starting with the first reply, is a pretty good example of why someone in OP's situation should NOT consult TLS.

Are you an attorney, a law student, or a 0L?

I am a possessor of common sense with respect to employee performance. And this thread is a shitshow.

0Ls shouldn't be posting here.

You can share your "common sense with respect to employee performance" when you get a job as a lawyer.

This is absolutely correct. Alive97, I know you're convinced that no one on TLS knows what they're talking about, but different professions have different norms and practices. The people posting in this thread are practicing lawyers in biglaw firms. If they overwhelmingly say the OP is on his way out and needs to find a new firm, the OP should listen to them, and you should not be commenting.

(I also don't agree that your take is "common sense," because of the point about firms creating a paper trail/covering their ass, but that's a different issue anyway.)

[Alive97]

The paper trail is an angle I hadn't considered, but I'm not sure it's part of a magical biglaw black box. You guys are talking about something that is dependent on the firm and the people, and I think you should consider whether there is a negativity hype factor in this thread. One guy says he's never heard of this happening (and therefore is not speaking from experience), another guy says this happens but the people aren't fired and they stay for years, and so on.

I won't post in here again, but just look at the first reply. I think reasonable people can make an assessment that 1) no one here knows whether the OP is going to get fired, and 2) people are speaking a bit more boldly on the internet than they would in real life.

[Tls2016]

The paper trail is an angle I hadn't considered, but I'm not sure it's part of a magical biglaw black box. You guys are talking about something that is dependent on the firm and the people, and I think you should consider whether there is a negativity hype factor in this thread. One guy says he's never heard of this happening (and therefore is not speaking from experience), another guy says this happens but the people aren't fired and they stay for years, and so on.

I won't post in here again, but just look at the first reply. I think reasonable people can make an assessment that 1) no one here knows whether the OP is going to get fired, and 2) people are speaking a bit more boldly on the internet than they would in real life.

Anyone who has worked at a biglaw firm knows OP is getting fired. Meeting with HR to go over your performance is a really bad sign. I've never heard of a performance problem being so extreme that people won't work with a first year after a couple months and need to get HR on the case.
I don't think OP understands the basic parts of his job, like emailing in a timely manner.

[LeDique]

I love how Alive97 is so convinced that TLS is just a cyborg hivemind regurgitating incorrect information that his completely uninformed take on the situation must be correct.

The paper trail is an angle I hadn't considered

(hadn't considered the most obvious reason to anyone experienced with employment practices) (possessor of common sense!!)

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

The paper trail is an angle I hadn't considered, but I'm not sure it's part of a magical biglaw black box. You guys are talking about something that is dependent on the firm and the people, and I think you should consider whether there is a negativity hype factor in this thread. One guy says he's never heard of this happening (and therefore is not speaking from experience), another guy says this happens but the people aren't fired and they stay for years, and so on.

I won't post in here again, but just look at the first reply. I think reasonable people can make an assessment that 1) no one here knows whether the OP is going to get fired, and 2) people are speaking a bit more boldly on the internet than they would in real life.

Anyone who has worked at a biglaw firm knows OP is getting fired. Meeting with HR to go over your performance is a really bad sign. I've never heard of a performance problem being so extreme that people won't work with a first year after a couple months and need to get HR on the case.
I don't think OP understands the basic parts of his job, like emailing in a timely manner.

Theres also a big difference between being mediocre (a lot of biglaw attorneys) and being bad. The mediocre attorneys never get a talking to by HR....mediocre attorneys can last for years in biglaw, but that's completely different to being told off by HR. It's as if the partners already started a formal case against OP.

[Desert Fox]

I think the most likely reason is that HR is in charge of work assignments at this guys firm, and that they are being told not to staff him on cases. HR may be doing this on their own. But the real problem isn't the meeting, it is the fact that people think he sucks so bad they will not staff him on their cases. "Anybody but him" is a deathblow.


Re: "it's illogical to have this meeting and fire him anyway"

Well that's just what happens in biglaw. They make a big deal about giving you a warning. Maybe they are sincere and maybe not. But nobody truly gives you a second chance.

[rpupkin]

Re: "it's illogical to have this meeting and fire him anyway"

Well that's just what happens in biglaw. They make a big deal about giving you a warning. Maybe they are sincere and maybe not. But nobody truly gives you a second chance.

It's what happens in most professional environments. If you're going to fire someone, you want to start documenting the employee's problems in advance of the firing. And this practice isn't just limited to URM employees. White males sue for wrongful termination, too.

[Johann]

It kind of flies in the face of reason that the firm would hold a meeting designed to correct issues "before his review" when they have the specific intention of firing him soon. More likely is that IF OP does not improve, he'll eventually get fired. Firm management is irrational if they're holding this meeting without any chance of allowing the OP to improve.

This thread, starting with the first reply, is a pretty good example of why someone in OP's situation should NOT consult TLS.

Are you an attorney, a law student, or a 0L?

I am a possessor of common sense with respect to employee performance. And this thread is a shitshow.

biglaw is not run by common sense. its a really mismanaged industry. probably the most mismanaged industry that is somewhat profitable.

[Alive97]

Sorry to break my promise, but when I was a paralegal at a biglaw firm, I was straight up kicked off one of my first cases by a counsel. My manager held a meeting where she very clearly did not have a high opinion of my status. But I went on to do well and eventually her opinion did a 180. I don't think there's a biglaw associate secret sauce that says employee performance should be addressed irrationally, and I think the claim that a meeting with HR at this firm is a death knell is premature. But I'm sure OP is in full on panic mode in response to this thread, so my words are probably for naught .

[Desert Fox]

Sorry to break my promise, but when I was a paralegal at a biglaw firm, I was straight up kicked off one of my first cases by a counsel. My manager held a meeting where she very clearly did not have a high opinion of my status. But I went on to do well and eventually her opinion did a 180. I don't think there's a biglaw associate secret sauce that says employee performance should be addressed irrationally, and I think the claim that a meeting with HR at this firm is a death knell is premature. But I'm sure OP is in full on panic mode in response to this thread, so my words are probably for naught .

No offense, but paralegals have zero fucking understanding of how the associates are managed. You are closer to the guy who cleans the fridge than an associate.

[cheaptilts]

Sorry to break my promise, but when I was a paralegal at a biglaw firm, I was straight up kicked off one of my first cases by a counsel. My manager held a meeting where she very clearly did not have a high opinion of my status. But I went on to do well and eventually her opinion did a 180. I don't think there's a biglaw associate secret sauce that says employee performance should be addressed irrationally, and I think the claim that a meeting with HR at this firm is a death knell is premature. But I'm sure OP is in full on panic mode in response to this thread, so my words are probably for naught .

No offense, but paralegals have zero fucking understanding of how the associates are managed. You are closer to the guy who cleans the fridge than an associate.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sorry to break my promise, but when I was a paralegal at a biglaw firm, I was straight up kicked off one of my first cases by a counsel. My manager held a meeting where she very clearly did not have a high opinion of my status. But I went on to do well and eventually her opinion did a 180. I don't think there's a biglaw associate secret sauce that says employee performance should be addressed irrationally, and I think the claim that a meeting with HR at this firm is a death knell is premature. But I'm sure OP is in full on panic mode in response to this thread, so my words are probably for naught .

You need to stop posting in this thread or you'll get banned again.

[Johann]

Sorry to break my promise, but when I was a paralegal at a biglaw firm, I was straight up kicked off one of my first cases by a counsel. My manager held a meeting where she very clearly did not have a high opinion of my status. But I went on to do well and eventually her opinion did a 180. I don't think there's a biglaw associate secret sauce that says employee performance should be addressed irrationally, and I think the claim that a meeting with HR at this firm is a death knell is premature. But I'm sure OP is in full on panic mode in response to this thread, so my words are probably for naught .

No offense, but paralegals have zero fucking understanding of how the associates are managed. You are closer to the guy who cleans the fridge than an associate.

paralegals paid 40k are totally treated the same as someone earning 4x salary.

[rpupkin]

Sorry to break my promise, but when I was a paralegal at a biglaw firm, I was straight up kicked off one of my first cases by a counsel. My manager held a meeting where she very clearly did not have a high opinion of my status. But I went on to do well and eventually her opinion did a 180. I don't think there's a biglaw associate secret sauce that says employee performance should be addressed irrationally, and I think the claim that a meeting with HR at this firm is a death knell is premature. But I'm sure OP is in full on panic mode in response to this thread, so my words are probably for naught .

No offense, but paralegals have zero fucking understanding of how the associates are managed. You are closer to the guy who cleans the fridge than an associate.

paralegals paid 40k are totally treated the same as someone earning 4x salary.

It's not even a pay thing. There are paralegals paid in the low six figures, but they're still managed like staff, not lawyers. DF is right.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't what a paralegal does and what a first year does basically the same, only the paralegal isn't allowed to talk to anyone? Serious question.

[Desert Fox]

Isn't what a paralegal does and what a first year does basically the same, only the paralegal isn't allowed to talk to anyone? Serious question.

In shitlaw maybe, in big law lit definitely not. In biglaw trans its all secretary work anyway.

[LeDique]

I'd rather not be able to talk to anyone [outside the firm]. Is that an option?

[Anonymous User]

Isn't what a paralegal does and what a first year does basically the same, only the paralegal isn't allowed to talk to anyone? Serious question.

In shitlaw maybe, in big law lit definitely not. In biglaw trans its all secretary work anyway.

What do they do though? When would you choose to work with them over another lawyer or a secretary (in lit)?

[El Pollito]

Isn't what a paralegal does and what a first year does basically the same, only the paralegal isn't allowed to talk to anyone? Serious question.

In shitlaw maybe, in big law lit definitely not. In biglaw trans its all secretary work anyway.

What do they do though? When would you choose to work with them over another lawyer or a secretary (in lit)?

Taking the first cut at the data room for relevant docs, cite checking, putting together exhibits/filings, but honestly mine is so bad that i don't use him/her.

[somewhatwayward]

The good news for you is that at least in my experience is that the people that really struggle still don't get fired (maybe my firm is different for some reason but I don't know of anyone getting fired the whole time I've been here). The couple people who I can think of who really have no idea what they're doing even years into the job are still hanging around, not getting work, sure, but the good thing is they're getting paid the same amount as everyone else and they don't really have to do much work.

The exception is if this is a stealth layoff. Is the firm busy? Is it one of theones people always mention as shaky? How was its performance last year? If that is a possibility you should look into your options asap.

Do you really think firms just keep people around doing no work, paying them hundreds of thousands a year? I think you generally get 2 years around "grace period." But I know my firm definitely firmed a guy after like 22 months on the job. And he lateraled to another firm. It everyone who didn't know the story, he looks like a guy who just lateraled. The only reason I knew about it was because he was on my case and the partner told the senior who told me.

I used to think nobody got fired from my firm. Until I noticed that 4 anti-trust people left within 2 months and one of them didn't even have a job in his good email. I linked in him, nothing. Odd I thought, why would you leave without lining something up. Then I heard my boss tell another guy in my class who worked in that group to get the fuck out of that group and into another ASAP. I realized what was going on. They were shittcanning that group since the partner couldn't bring in work.

There wasn't any major sudden departure of a whole group. Just one or two departures a month for 8 months until nobody remained. Some of it was people leaving on their own (but they could see the writing on the wall).

And this isn't a firm that is collapsing. We are growing. My office's associate count is up 10% even with the firings. They just weren't in the same group.

If you think nobody gets fired at your firm, you just don't know what a firing looks like.

Yeah maybe there is some of that type of stuff...a couple times I have seen someone leave without another job in their good bye email, but I have several senior associate friends and have never heard any stories about layoffs of the type you're describing (although I have heard about a jr who was doing a shitty job, apparently for medical reasons and firm encouraged thus jr to take leave bc his/her rep was taking a big hit).

But the way more telling evidence to me is the fact that those couple of associates that just really suck are still around...some are now third years and some are second years so maybe it's the two-year window you're describing. I know in two cases that the firm and the senior lawyers made several efforts to help the people improve without much progress.

[LeDique]

Why didn't I just become a paralegal

[Good Guy Gaud]

Why didn't I just become a paralegal

amen

[rpupkin]

Why didn't I just become a paralegal

amen

Interesting take. Paralegals deal with much of the same stress and organizational/managerial dysfunction as we do, but their work is less interesting and they're paid a lot less. Their hours are better, and they don't have to think about partnership or being forced out, but, overall, working as a big law paralegal seems unappealing.