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

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

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.

No it's not required. At all. You know what happens, oN tHe mAcOsCoPiC ScAlE, if a partner says no to unreasonable client requests (not just outright impossible ones)? Some of them shrug (your point person is often not actually the one who wants to sprint and would be happy to have someone external to blame the delay on). Some of them think about switching firms but decide not to, usually for inertia. And some get furious and leave. In that case, the partner's take-home falls from $5M to $4M, devastating the local marble, caviar and custom yacht industries. And then maybe they have to actually spend more time interacting with their families--double whammy. Yes, business still tends to flow to psychos in that instance, but it would be great for associates if clients had fewer psychos to pick from!

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.

The system doesn't "require" that either. That's just its former construction because it's best for the people who built the system if you work yourself 99% to death until your departure, in which case they would be fine with you finally having a brain hemorrhage. As discussed above, firms could ditch all their unreasonable clients (and partners) and pay you the exact same, if they were willing to be mildly less wealthy. What the job description is, and whose opinion "means shit", is a two-way street. If I don't like it, I tell them to fuck off. And they'll either tolerate that or they won't, in which case I'll have ten offers by next month and they'll have to pay someone a six-figure signing bonus to replace me because no, they don't just have a waiting list of qualified candidates.

And so you see how, on the macroscopic scale!!!, the aggregate response of associates to things like maltreatment and stagnant wages and in-person requirements matters. It has already effected significant positive change and the more people refuse to put up with shitty treatment, the better it will be. Standing up for yourself is not just the morally and personally healthy thing to do; you actually have the power to make things better.

But thanks to you and the other shitty seniors ITT for demonstrating the shitty attitudes behind why juniors get treated with zero respect. Back on topic, I can actually give juniors practical advice here: find yourself people who treat you well and latch onto them until you have a full schedule. If you don't, you're liable to get stuck with partners and seniors who think the business just has to roll on no matter what and your opinion never matters because you're purely there to be the bitch boy 24/7.

[Anonymous User]

Discussions around Skype status drive me insane and I would never work at a firm where those senior to me tracked my status.

How common is it for firms to track this kind of shit? It never occurred to me that this might be a thing in biglaw. Is this enough of a thing to merit its own thread? (Thanks)
- 2L

[Anonymous User]

And so you see how, on the macroscopic scale!!!, the aggregate response of associates to things like maltreatment and stagnant wages and in-person requirements matters. It has already effected significant positive change and the more people refuse to put up with shitty treatment, the better it will be. Standing up for yourself is not just the morally and personally healthy thing to do; you actually have the power to make things better.

You know this will never happen, right? Look to your left, look to your right. 90% of freshly minted T14 types aren't going to do this. If you want to take a stand sure go for it.

Oh, and LOL at partners being okay with a 20% drop in PPP.

[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?

I don't strong believe this but think it's a possibility. The ppl hard to get a hold of will be out too, but they won't care as much. It's not a binary, there's plenty of regular people who are available and responsive but also do turn down work sometimes and don't volunteer to grind.

Two reasons why I think grinders might not survive the next downturn. First, I'm not convinced that grinding is the skill needed to survive. Nobody is getting rewarded for previously billing 3000 when there's no more work. Partners will make cold calculations based on the work still available. They will retain those in practice groups that have work (bk/rx likely) or who can retool. I'm sure "being able to work hard" correlates somewhat but not entirely.

2, and here I'm less confident and possibly extremely naive. But I do think that some of these extremely unpleasant mid/seniors are living on borrowed time. Yes they are currently profitable for the firm. Yes, they are available. But they don't work with others and they drive away valuable juniors. I've heard partners in firmwide meetings say things like "we can't force juniors to want to work with you, you have to develop relationships with them". And I see that people who make partner (at least at my firm, at least the ones I've interacted with) and not like this. So I think it's possible that some of these 6th years would have been eased out if not for the need for bodies in the last couple of years.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

And so you see how, on the macroscopic scale!!!, the aggregate response of associates to things like maltreatment and stagnant wages and in-person requirements matters. It has already effected significant positive change and the more people refuse to put up with shitty treatment, the better it will be. Standing up for yourself is not just the morally and personally healthy thing to do; you actually have the power to make things better.

You know this will never happen, right? Look to your left, look to your right. 90% of freshly minted T14 types aren't going to do this. If you want to take a stand sure go for it.

Oh, and LOL at partners being okay with a 20% drop in PPP.

A lot of people leave firms specifically because they're getting slammed or because they work with too many assholes. Literally everyone who does it voluntarily is doing it because something about the firm isn't good enough. So yeah, you will all do it for one reason or another, eventually.

No, I don't expect (most) partners to ever let a nickel out of their pockets. That was a response to the comment that it's *required* to be that way. The point is that the consequences to not jumping on some ridiculous client ask directly mean absolutely zero to associates. None of the shitty things you are ordered to do come from the client; it is 100% from millionaires who feel like they don't have enough.

[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.

Time after you're let go where the firm keeps your profile up on the website. This makes it so you can represent yourself as still employed and ostensibly makes it easier to find a job.

[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.

Time after you're let go where the firm keeps your profile up on the website. This makes it so you can represent yourself as still employed and ostensibly makes it easier to find a job.

I actually once networked with an alum (found by search on firm website). He agreed to meet then told me he'd actually been fired and was in website time. Then proceeded to tell me what a toxic work environment it was. Very illuminating!

[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.

Time after you're let go where the firm keeps your profile up on the website. This makes it so you can represent yourself as still employed and ostensibly makes it easier to find a job.

Different question:

What reason is there for a firm to take your profile down while you're still working at the firm? (Someone I know says they're still employed at their biglaw firm but I noticed that they're no longer on the firm website.)

[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.

Time after you're let go where the firm keeps your profile up on the website. This makes it so you can represent yourself as still employed and ostensibly makes it easier to find a job.

Different question:

What reason is there for a firm to take your profile down while you're still working at the firm? (Someone I know says they're still employed at their biglaw firm but I noticed that they're no longer on the firm website.)

I know at my firm you actually have to opt in to having your profile up. Mine wasn't up for several months after I started because I hadn't gotten around to opting in. I can't imagine why the firm would proactively take a currently employed associate's profile down though.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah at my firm you have to write your own bio and get it approved before you go up on the website. Some people get lazy.

[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.

Time after you're let go where the firm keeps your profile up on the website. This makes it so you can represent yourself as still employed and ostensibly makes it easier to find a job.

Different question:

What reason is there for a firm to take your profile down while you're still working at the firm? (Someone I know says they're still employed at their biglaw firm but I noticed that they're no longer on the firm website.)

I know at my firm you actually have to opt in to having your profile up. Mine wasn't up for several months after I started because I hadn't gotten around to opting in. I can't imagine why the firm would proactively take a currently employed associate's profile down though.

Yeah, having to opt in is relatively common. Why a firm would take an associate's profile down if they're still working there is puzzling to me as well.

[cfcm]

I think my firm also takes down bios when a lawyer goes on secondment.

[Anonymous User]

For the person who mentioned a 600 page document - I wouldn't expect a full defined terms check of the entire document because I wouldn't expect a junior to be editing the whole document. I would expect the junior to be given one particular section of the document, and that particular section should have the correct defined terms, spelling, etc. When I was a first year, I was told that everything I send to someone above me should be as perfect as possible, and that I should treat it as if it was going straight to the client without any further editing for more senior associates or partners. In other words, the work should be taken seriously and there shouldn't be incorrect defined terms or typos because you assume that someone above you will correct it or that it's not worth your precious billable time to fix it. If you, as a junior associate, don't fix it, someone else has to, and your time is worth the least, so it should be you. Clients pay top dollar for us and form is just as important as substance.

Also, maybe your paralegals are better than mine but most of mine could never handle a defined terms check on a 600 page document.

To me, someone who does all of this correctly is someone who has that great "attention to detail" trait that everyone is always looking for. The more you do it, the more automatic it will become to you and the faster and better you'll be at it as you become familiar with typical defined terms, your client's entity names, typical typos, etc. For senior associates, this is all second nature.

If your paralegals can't do a defined terms check then you either have bad paralegals or just...have never asked them to do it so they haven't built up the understanding of how to do it. At my previous firm we pretty much always pushed defined terms and cross-reference checks down to paralegals...they wouldn't actually fix the document but they would flag what was broken (which is most of the time involved in that task). Seriously what are your paralegals even doing if they can't run a defined terms check?

Also stuff like "it should be as perfect as possible" and "form is as important as substance" seems pretty ridiculous/impractical to me. At the end of the day we have to actually get the deal done. The vast majority of clients care way, way more about hitting their desired pricing window than if the doc has a few typos in it. No 600 page offering doc is ever going to be perfect, and we only have so long to draft and review it before print.

I honestly think a lot of this advice is a recipe for burning out in 9 months.

Exactly. As a junior, I still delegate quite a bit of menial tasks to paralegals and secretaries...proofing, defined terms, closing sets, signature pages, etc. The external doc review also does my formatting for pp and word if I need them, too. The key is to get this delegated out as soon as you can so I can review it and get it back up the chain. Seems to work fine for me.

At my firm, paralegals, secretaries and other staff are not allowed to do defined terms checks. That's considered legal work and they are told to push back on attorneys and tell them they are not allowed to do that. As for closing sets, it's very unlikely a paralegal or secretary would have the deal knowledge to know what should go into the closing set and what shouldn't...

[Anonymous User]

While I agree that actually fixing the doc should not be done by a paralegal, simply checking to see if capitalized terms are defined in the document (or if defined terms are used in the document) is pretty rote and does not involve any actual discretion. The paralegal just produces a list of words for the attorney to check and potentially fix. Pretty wild that your firm considers that legal work...I don't even think that's a grey area. Hell there's software now that pretty much does that task.

On closing sets....if you never involve your paralegals in deals because your firm considers even defined terms checks to be legal work they won't know what goes in the closing set, but if you actually consider them a part of the team and involve them on the non-legal work aspects (such as updating the checklist as docs / sig pages come in, distributing third party deliverables, defined terms checks, sig pages, etc.) then they can take a ton of the burden off of your attorneys and will develop a decent understanding of how the deals work. Also if there are docs that they wouldn't know should be excluded from closing sets you could just tell them to exclude those docs?

Seriously what do your paralegals actually do if they can't even do defined terms checks?

[Anonymous User]

For the person who mentioned a 600 page document - I wouldn't expect a full defined terms check of the entire document because I wouldn't expect a junior to be editing the whole document. I would expect the junior to be given one particular section of the document, and that particular section should have the correct defined terms, spelling, etc. When I was a first year, I was told that everything I send to someone above me should be as perfect as possible, and that I should treat it as if it was going straight to the client without any further editing for more senior associates or partners. In other words, the work should be taken seriously and there shouldn't be incorrect defined terms or typos because you assume that someone above you will correct it or that it's not worth your precious billable time to fix it. If you, as a junior associate, don't fix it, someone else has to, and your time is worth the least, so it should be you. Clients pay top dollar for us and form is just as important as substance.

Also, maybe your paralegals are better than mine but most of mine could never handle a defined terms check on a 600 page document.

To me, someone who does all of this correctly is someone who has that great "attention to detail" trait that everyone is always looking for. The more you do it, the more automatic it will become to you and the faster and better you'll be at it as you become familiar with typical defined terms, your client's entity names, typical typos, etc. For senior associates, this is all second nature.

If your paralegals can't do a defined terms check then you either have bad paralegals or just...have never asked them to do it so they haven't built up the understanding of how to do it. At my previous firm we pretty much always pushed defined terms and cross-reference checks down to paralegals...they wouldn't actually fix the document but they would flag what was broken (which is most of the time involved in that task). Seriously what are your paralegals even doing if they can't run a defined terms check?

Also stuff like "it should be as perfect as possible" and "form is as important as substance" seems pretty ridiculous/impractical to me. At the end of the day we have to actually get the deal done. The vast majority of clients care way, way more about hitting their desired pricing window than if the doc has a few typos in it. No 600 page offering doc is ever going to be perfect, and we only have so long to draft and review it before print.

I honestly think a lot of this advice is a recipe for burning out in 9 months.

Exactly. As a junior, I still delegate quite a bit of menial tasks to paralegals and secretaries...proofing, defined terms, closing sets, signature pages, etc. The external doc review also does my formatting for pp and word if I need them, too. The key is to get this delegated out as soon as you can so I can review it and get it back up the chain. Seems to work fine for me.

At my firm, paralegals, secretaries and other staff are not allowed to do defined terms checks. That's considered legal work and they are told to push back on attorneys and tell them they are not allowed to do that. As for closing sets, it's very unlikely a paralegal or secretary would have the deal knowledge to know what should go into the closing set and what shouldn't...

You make the index, then hand to paralegal/secretary.

[LBJ's Hair]

At my firm, paralegals, secretaries and other staff are not allowed to do defined terms checks. That's considered legal work and they are told to push back on attorneys and tell them they are not allowed to do that. As for closing sets, it's very unlikely a paralegal or secretary would have the deal knowledge to know what should go into the closing set and what shouldn't...

you make the list yourself (ie an email) and the para pulls the PDFs together, bookmarks it, etc. can take forever if there are a ton of documents but doesn't require much thought. so good use of their time and not yours.

genuinely what you use paras for if not cross-reference checks, closing indices...

[Anonymous User]

At my firm paralegals do not do defined term checks or closing sets either. We have software for defined terms that makes it a bit quicker, and a junior builds out the closing sets, usually overinclusive and then a senior pares it down. Our paralegals are mostly there to file certificates of formation, send signature pages, etc. But we only have a couple paras and our firm doesn't have NY billing rates for attorneys

[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.

Midlevel corporate associate here. Not too surprising to me to read this and understand your frustration. But what is stopping you from asking the midlevel/senior what's going on with the deal? Not saying the onus should be on the junior to do this all the time, but there are very common reasons for which information doesn't trickle down (unfortunately), for example: 1) people forget what it's like to be a junior/don't realize you do not have the background/don't want to insult you by assuming you don't know what's going on and 2) they are just really busy and forgot. Seems to me both of these have been exacerbated by remote work. Long story short, it would be in your interest to speak up and ask questions. Shows you are engaging with the deal, and will prime the midlevel/senior to start feeding you more info going forward.

Re flowchart/timelines: Have you reached out to a practice manager, associate advisor or other resource to ask about what training materials may be available? Would be surprised if there is truly nothing.

[Anonymous User]

It’s not just the taking off tons of evenings and weekends, it’s the playing dumb like they had no idea we’d be working on the deals with 250 emails flying around at those times. It’s also the constant delayed responses saying I can jump on this in a few hours, when they know that means the midlevel/senior will have already done it. Being a junior can suck. I felt like I was standing on the sidelines in my pads with my helmet ready, just waiting to check in for a few plays at the least desirable times. That’s awful and not how it should work, but now days the juniors are often nowhere to be found and then are like oh let me tie my cleats, oh where’s my helmet every time you call their number (to take this analogy too too far).

These juniors came into big law in a world where weekdays and weekends completely blended together during the pandemic. There has been an excess of work going around and firms are bleeding talent.

These juniors should be commended for taking some small steps towards re-establishing boundaries. Because even with these small push backs, the juniors are still going to bill an obscene amount and help pad that partner’s paychecks. It’s not like they’re losing the firm money at 2000, 2100, or more hours.

Yeah, except them "establishing boundaries" means the burden falls on the mid and senior associates above them. You aren't "sticking it to the man", you are hurting your "fellow man".

I don't know who needs to hear this but senior associates are not workers to be in solidarity with, they are middle managers

So the above I think is the general attitude of some juniors that have become much more ubiquitous post-covid and is enraging.

The current attitude ITT of juniors is "protecting muh boundaries" - that is fine, but timelines aren't changing. Workload is not changing because of your boundaries. Share partners are not working more because of your boundaries. Instead, Seniors/Mids are just working more.

Honestly, I think everyone can do a bit more with the protection of boundaries. Not saying this is always the case, but I see a lot of assignments that are coming in, presented as a firedrill, but realistically could have waited a few days. Even this week I saw a junior on one of my deals pull an all-nighter, purely because someone higher on the foodchain overpromised something. The client even indicated they didn't need it so quickly per se, but in a desperate need to impress, a junior's night was ruined.

I obviously think it's insane associates are not willing to put in the work an generally weekends are fair game, but let's not act a lot of this work pressure comes from type a folk that can't say no or manage expectations. This obviously doesn't fall squarely on the shoulders of the seniors (it all starts with the partners), but I truly believe this whole idea that we all are doing important work and that if it wasn't done by a certain deadline it all would fall apart, is just a joke.

Yes you are right. If a partner burns you with a fake deadline, do your best to avoid that partner. But the push back here is coming from the idea that it is OK to push back on seniors/midlevels and that somehow this "boundary setting" will flow up. It doesn't. The senior/midlevel just has to do your work in addition to their work. That is why current crop of juniors is generally frowned upon. There are good juniors who get it though.

All that said, if there is a senior/midlevel who is putting fake deadlines on you, then that is fine, feel free to push back. But understand that this really is not all that common. You will KNOW when it is fake. There is an infamous KE associate in Austin who is directly responsible for probably like 10 juniors leaving so far, and he is famous for making up his own diligence assignments, giving fake deadlines etc. Only the most desperate juniors have to work with him. The partners know about him (have had conversations where they call him a "psycho") but keep staffing him because he gets the deal done (by breaking the backs of his subordinates). This is a person juniors should push back on. Not the nice senior who is overworked and trying to juggle fake deadlines set by partners.

Coming back to this one for a second - very, very curious about who this is referring to. I'm very familiar with the pretty limited subset of senior associates this could be referring to, and it would surprise me to hear that about any of them (not saying it's not true).

[Anonymous User]

Discussions around Skype status drive me insane and I would never work at a firm where those senior to me tracked my status.

How common is it for firms to track this kind of shit? It never occurred to me that this might be a thing in biglaw. Is this enough of a thing to merit its own thread? (Thanks)
- 2L

Hah, I think it is very uncommon, but I had it happen recently. Which was a bit of an unpleasant surprise as my partner is always worried about her Skype status (she's an accountant) and I made fun of her for it, acting like it was so paranoid. Anyways, I seriously got called out on an e-mail with two other associates by one Senior Associate to keep my status on (I always turn it off). I almost quit on the spot, but thought better of it, laughed in private, and just kept it off anyway.

[Anonymous User]

These juniors came into big law in a world where weekdays and weekends completely blended together during the pandemic. There has been an excess of work going around and firms are bleeding talent.

These juniors should be commended for taking some small steps towards re-establishing boundaries. Because even with these small push backs, the juniors are still going to bill an obscene amount and help pad that partner’s paychecks. It’s not like they’re losing the firm money at 2000, 2100, or more hours.

Yeah, except them "establishing boundaries" means the burden falls on the mid and senior associates above them. You aren't "sticking it to the man", you are hurting your "fellow man".

I don't know who needs to hear this but senior associates are not workers to be in solidarity with, they are middle managers

So the above I think is the general attitude of some juniors that have become much more ubiquitous post-covid and is enraging.

The current attitude ITT of juniors is "protecting muh boundaries" - that is fine, but timelines aren't changing. Workload is not changing because of your boundaries. Share partners are not working more because of your boundaries. Instead, Seniors/Mids are just working more.

Honestly, I think everyone can do a bit more with the protection of boundaries. Not saying this is always the case, but I see a lot of assignments that are coming in, presented as a firedrill, but realistically could have waited a few days. Even this week I saw a junior on one of my deals pull an all-nighter, purely because someone higher on the foodchain overpromised something. The client even indicated they didn't need it so quickly per se, but in a desperate need to impress, a junior's night was ruined.

I obviously think it's insane associates are not willing to put in the work an generally weekends are fair game, but let's not act a lot of this work pressure comes from type a folk that can't say no or manage expectations. This obviously doesn't fall squarely on the shoulders of the seniors (it all starts with the partners), but I truly believe this whole idea that we all are doing important work and that if it wasn't done by a certain deadline it all would fall apart, is just a joke.

Yes you are right. If a partner burns you with a fake deadline, do your best to avoid that partner. But the push back here is coming from the idea that it is OK to push back on seniors/midlevels and that somehow this "boundary setting" will flow up. It doesn't. The senior/midlevel just has to do your work in addition to their work. That is why current crop of juniors is generally frowned upon. There are good juniors who get it though.

All that said, if there is a senior/midlevel who is putting fake deadlines on you, then that is fine, feel free to push back. But understand that this really is not all that common. You will KNOW when it is fake. There is an infamous KE associate in Austin who is directly responsible for probably like 10 juniors leaving so far, and he is famous for making up his own diligence assignments, giving fake deadlines etc. Only the most desperate juniors have to work with him. The partners know about him (have had conversations where they call him a "psycho") but keep staffing him because he gets the deal done (by breaking the backs of his subordinates). This is a person juniors should push back on. Not the nice senior who is overworked and trying to juggle fake deadlines set by partners.

Coming back to this one for a second - very, very curious about who this is referring to. I'm very familiar with the pretty limited subset of senior associates this could be referring to, and it would surprise me to hear that about any of them (not saying it's not true).

Not that poster and I have no first hand knowledge of this, but I'd bet just about anything it is a certain mid level that used to be in Houston. Obviously won't out my guess here, but if you have worked at KE Houston or have friends that did, I bet it won't be hard to figure out who is being referenced.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, except them "establishing boundaries" means the burden falls on the mid and senior associates above them. You aren't "sticking it to the man", you are hurting your "fellow man".

I don't know who needs to hear this but senior associates are not workers to be in solidarity with, they are middle managers

So the above I think is the general attitude of some juniors that have become much more ubiquitous post-covid and is enraging.

The current attitude ITT of juniors is "protecting muh boundaries" - that is fine, but timelines aren't changing. Workload is not changing because of your boundaries. Share partners are not working more because of your boundaries. Instead, Seniors/Mids are just working more.

Honestly, I think everyone can do a bit more with the protection of boundaries. Not saying this is always the case, but I see a lot of assignments that are coming in, presented as a firedrill, but realistically could have waited a few days. Even this week I saw a junior on one of my deals pull an all-nighter, purely because someone higher on the foodchain overpromised something. The client even indicated they didn't need it so quickly per se, but in a desperate need to impress, a junior's night was ruined.

I obviously think it's insane associates are not willing to put in the work an generally weekends are fair game, but let's not act a lot of this work pressure comes from type a folk that can't say no or manage expectations. This obviously doesn't fall squarely on the shoulders of the seniors (it all starts with the partners), but I truly believe this whole idea that we all are doing important work and that if it wasn't done by a certain deadline it all would fall apart, is just a joke.

Yes you are right. If a partner burns you with a fake deadline, do your best to avoid that partner. But the push back here is coming from the idea that it is OK to push back on seniors/midlevels and that somehow this "boundary setting" will flow up. It doesn't. The senior/midlevel just has to do your work in addition to their work. That is why current crop of juniors is generally frowned upon. There are good juniors who get it though.

All that said, if there is a senior/midlevel who is putting fake deadlines on you, then that is fine, feel free to push back. But understand that this really is not all that common. You will KNOW when it is fake. There is an infamous KE associate in Austin who is directly responsible for probably like 10 juniors leaving so far, and he is famous for making up his own diligence assignments, giving fake deadlines etc. Only the most desperate juniors have to work with him. The partners know about him (have had conversations where they call him a "psycho") but keep staffing him because he gets the deal done (by breaking the backs of his subordinates). This is a person juniors should push back on. Not the nice senior who is overworked and trying to juggle fake deadlines set by partners.

Coming back to this one for a second - very, very curious about who this is referring to. I'm very familiar with the pretty limited subset of senior associates this could be referring to, and it would surprise me to hear that about any of them (not saying it's not true).

Not that poster and I have no first hand knowledge of this, but I'd bet just about anything it is a certain mid level that used to be in Houston. Obviously won't out my guess here, but if you have worked at KE Houston or have friends that did, I bet it won't be hard to figure out who is being referenced.

Yep, pretty easy guess. Although there's so many psychopaths in the upper ranks of the Houston and Austin offices, who knows.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know who needs to hear this but senior associates are not workers to be in solidarity with, they are middle managers

So the above I think is the general attitude of some juniors that have become much more ubiquitous post-covid and is enraging.

The current attitude ITT of juniors is "protecting muh boundaries" - that is fine, but timelines aren't changing. Workload is not changing because of your boundaries. Share partners are not working more because of your boundaries. Instead, Seniors/Mids are just working more.

Honestly, I think everyone can do a bit more with the protection of boundaries. Not saying this is always the case, but I see a lot of assignments that are coming in, presented as a firedrill, but realistically could have waited a few days. Even this week I saw a junior on one of my deals pull an all-nighter, purely because someone higher on the foodchain overpromised something. The client even indicated they didn't need it so quickly per se, but in a desperate need to impress, a junior's night was ruined.

I obviously think it's insane associates are not willing to put in the work an generally weekends are fair game, but let's not act a lot of this work pressure comes from type a folk that can't say no or manage expectations. This obviously doesn't fall squarely on the shoulders of the seniors (it all starts with the partners), but I truly believe this whole idea that we all are doing important work and that if it wasn't done by a certain deadline it all would fall apart, is just a joke.

Yes you are right. If a partner burns you with a fake deadline, do your best to avoid that partner. But the push back here is coming from the idea that it is OK to push back on seniors/midlevels and that somehow this "boundary setting" will flow up. It doesn't. The senior/midlevel just has to do your work in addition to their work. That is why current crop of juniors is generally frowned upon. There are good juniors who get it though.

All that said, if there is a senior/midlevel who is putting fake deadlines on you, then that is fine, feel free to push back. But understand that this really is not all that common. You will KNOW when it is fake. There is an infamous KE associate in Austin who is directly responsible for probably like 10 juniors leaving so far, and he is famous for making up his own diligence assignments, giving fake deadlines etc. Only the most desperate juniors have to work with him. The partners know about him (have had conversations where they call him a "psycho") but keep staffing him because he gets the deal done (by breaking the backs of his subordinates). This is a person juniors should push back on. Not the nice senior who is overworked and trying to juggle fake deadlines set by partners.

Coming back to this one for a second - very, very curious about who this is referring to. I'm very familiar with the pretty limited subset of senior associates this could be referring to, and it would surprise me to hear that about any of them (not saying it's not true).

Not that poster and I have no first hand knowledge of this, but I'd bet just about anything it is a certain mid level that used to be in Houston. Obviously won't out my guess here, but if you have worked at KE Houston or have friends that did, I bet it won't be hard to figure out who is being referenced.

Yep, pretty easy guess. Although there's so many psychopaths in the upper ranks of the Houston and Austin offices, who knows.

Yea educated guess is pretty easy here - I had never heard that that person was bad to work for as a junior, though.

[Anonymous User]

So the above I think is the general attitude of some juniors that have become much more ubiquitous post-covid and is enraging.

The current attitude ITT of juniors is "protecting muh boundaries" - that is fine, but timelines aren't changing. Workload is not changing because of your boundaries. Share partners are not working more because of your boundaries. Instead, Seniors/Mids are just working more.

Honestly, I think everyone can do a bit more with the protection of boundaries. Not saying this is always the case, but I see a lot of assignments that are coming in, presented as a firedrill, but realistically could have waited a few days. Even this week I saw a junior on one of my deals pull an all-nighter, purely because someone higher on the foodchain overpromised something. The client even indicated they didn't need it so quickly per se, but in a desperate need to impress, a junior's night was ruined.

I obviously think it's insane associates are not willing to put in the work an generally weekends are fair game, but let's not act a lot of this work pressure comes from type a folk that can't say no or manage expectations. This obviously doesn't fall squarely on the shoulders of the seniors (it all starts with the partners), but I truly believe this whole idea that we all are doing important work and that if it wasn't done by a certain deadline it all would fall apart, is just a joke.

Yes you are right. If a partner burns you with a fake deadline, do your best to avoid that partner. But the push back here is coming from the idea that it is OK to push back on seniors/midlevels and that somehow this "boundary setting" will flow up. It doesn't. The senior/midlevel just has to do your work in addition to their work. That is why current crop of juniors is generally frowned upon. There are good juniors who get it though.

All that said, if there is a senior/midlevel who is putting fake deadlines on you, then that is fine, feel free to push back. But understand that this really is not all that common. You will KNOW when it is fake. There is an infamous KE associate in Austin who is directly responsible for probably like 10 juniors leaving so far, and he is famous for making up his own diligence assignments, giving fake deadlines etc. Only the most desperate juniors have to work with him. The partners know about him (have had conversations where they call him a "psycho") but keep staffing him because he gets the deal done (by breaking the backs of his subordinates). This is a person juniors should push back on. Not the nice senior who is overworked and trying to juggle fake deadlines set by partners.

Coming back to this one for a second - very, very curious about who this is referring to. I'm very familiar with the pretty limited subset of senior associates this could be referring to, and it would surprise me to hear that about any of them (not saying it's not true).

Not that poster and I have no first hand knowledge of this, but I'd bet just about anything it is a certain mid level that used to be in Houston. Obviously won't out my guess here, but if you have worked at KE Houston or have friends that did, I bet it won't be hard to figure out who is being referenced.

Yep, pretty easy guess. Although there's so many psychopaths in the upper ranks of the Houston and Austin offices, who knows.

Yea educated guess is pretty easy here - I had never heard that that person was bad to work for as a junior, though.

You must be thinking of a different person.