Getting Juniors to be responsive Forum

[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.

Income partner. Leaving aside the fact that mentoring is a "soft" contribution that a lot of the committees evaluating you for partnership actually care about, it's also an opportunity to build long-term relationships that may turn into billable work down the road. If people remember you as a good lawyer who put in the time to mentor them and build a relationship with them, they will be a lot more likely to send you work (either as a client or a referral source) than if they remember you as a tyrannical asshole who sent them a redline and left them to drown.

[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.

lol that equity partners actually care about "mentoring associates". Literally all the equity partners care about is making as much $$$$ as possible and squeezing every possible miserable hour out of associates, 95% of whom are going to quit. Your "contributions to the firm as a whole" are all about the bottom line, not joke time spent "training" associates. Did you ever work at a real biglaw firm in your life? Go ask the toxic STB equity partners how much they care about associate development.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Person you are responding to. To get this out of the way, neither. Your anecdotal experience involves an obviously incompetent junior. But psycho redline senior's claims were much broader; I remain oriented to responding to them even as I reply to other users.

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.

Agreed. But first-year teachers have more support and practical knowledge than the first-year associates under psycho redline senior. "Taking stock on a regular basis" presupposes that you know what to take stock of and how to actually improve.

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.

What did she say when you discussed this issue with her in person?

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.

Again, I am rather surprised all of this that is not covered by local court rules is not in a formatting guide. Does your firm not have auto-formatted templates that are automatically populated in Word?

[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.

lol that equity partners actually care about "mentoring associates". Literally all the equity partners care about is making as much $$$$ as possible and squeezing every possible miserable hour out of associates, 95% of whom are going to quit. Your "contributions to the firm as a whole" are all about the bottom line, not joke time spent "training" associates. Did you ever work at a real biglaw firm in your life? Go ask the toxic STB equity partners how much they care about associate development.

Who are they going to squeeze more hours from if everyone quits or never becomes useful? I fully acknowledge that there are toxic partners, but they have a book of business. Do you? Most people can't afford to be an asshole.

[Anonymous User]

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.)

Did you state that the changes were not discretionary and/or generalize the errors into a couple of bullet points?

Also, the errors you mention are mechanical. That does not help juniors expected to deal with discretionary redline changes or style issues.

But when get a professional job, it's the professional's responsibility to try to improve, in addition to incorporating feedback from others.

No, it is not, at least in the manner you suggest. Improvement is a joint effort between employee and employer.

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).

Which one? I have worked in several industries, know people who work in plenty more, and literally not a single one--education, consulting, marketing, big law, government law, government bureaucracy, and generic corporate work--has that expectation.

People who write other types of content look at the edits to their work from their superiors to improve? I would assume so?

If you are asking about publishing, authors and editors work closely together, and editors generally do get specific with authors about why they are making the types of edits they are making. If you are asking about other types of work, I have never been presented with edits unaccompanied by comments as wel.

[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.

In the absence of a clear managerial class, no. The two responsibilities collapse entirely.

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.

That is not the situation we are discussing.

[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.

lol that equity partners actually care about "mentoring associates". Literally all the equity partners care about is making as much $$$$ as possible and squeezing every possible miserable hour out of associates, 95% of whom are going to quit. Your "contributions to the firm as a whole" are all about the bottom line, not joke time spent "training" associates. Did you ever work at a real biglaw firm in your life? Go ask the toxic STB equity partners how much they care about associate development.

Yeah, I've never had a partner say I needed to spend more time with a struggling associate to make them better. Training associates in general? Yeah. Repeatedly working with someone who needs extra handholding? No. Partners just want you to send good work to them and fix issues before they become the partner's problem. As long as you're not scaring off the good associates too or creating an HR situation, they don't care how you do it. (I did know another associate who claimed that the partners had instructed him to make the lazy first years work harder though, which he did by being a jerk. Unclear how truthful he was being.) And most partners expect associates to improve with pretty vague feedback and just generally observing. The Partners that can give specific feedback are rare in my experience.

[Anonymous User]

6th year lit.

Also, the errors you mention are mechanical. That does not help juniors expected to deal with discretionary redline changes or style issues.

I've been clear from the start that these are formatting errors, and I told her to look at the redline for formatting errors. As I also explained when some mistakes kept happening I gave more specific directions and mentioned it in phone calls. That wasn't enough, only making her make the fixes herself was. I've also been clear that with more substantive edits, those were phone calls. What more should I have to do?

No, it is not, at least in the manner you suggest. Improvement is a joint effort between employee and employer.

Did you see the part where I wrote "in addition to incorporating feedback from others" which you quoted.

Which one? I have worked in several industries, know people who work in plenty more, and literally not a single one--education, consulting, marketing, big law, government law, government bureaucracy, and generic corporate work--has that expectation.

It's not an expectation to try to improve by self-evaluation and observation independent of any direct feedback you get? Seems odd. I mean, in some jobs you get to the point that you can coast with your skillset and don't need to improve, but when you are new, I can't imagine that attitude being welcome.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Person you are responding to. To get this out of the way, neither. Your anecdotal experience involves an obviously incompetent junior. But psycho redline senior's claims were much broader; I remain oriented to responding to them even as I reply to other users.

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.

Agreed. But first-year teachers have more support and practical knowledge than the first-year associates under psycho redline senior. "Taking stock on a regular basis" presupposes that you know what to take stock of and how to actually improve.

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.

What did she say when you discussed this issue with her in person?

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.

Again, I am rather surprised all of this that is not covered by local court rules is not in a formatting guide. Does your firm not have auto-formatted templates that are automatically populated in Word?

This "formatting guide" thing is just nuts. My firm does not have a style guide and I am not aware of any firm that has one. I have worked for many people within my firm (where I have worked for nearly eight years) who have inconsistent and irreconcilable preferences about a wide number of stylistic issues on which there is usually no "right" answer. These include, among others: whether to use one space or two after a period; whether to use one space or two after a colon; whether it is OK to start a sentence with a conjunction; whether it is OK to start a sentence with a transition word like "However" or "Nevertheless"; whether text should be justified or left-aligned; what font to use in a federal appellate court; how to cite unpublished cases; whether to define terms in a brief and which terms need to be defined; whether ellipsis should be typed out as " . . . " or "..."; how headings should be formatted; and a million other style preferences on which reasonable minds can disagree.

A key part of developing a productive working relationship with any given partner or senior associate is figuring out where they stand on these issues and internalizing those preferences, while simultaneously being willing to adjust them when working with someone else. There is a lively debate in this thread about the appropriate amount of direction that a senior associate should give a junior associate to get them to follow these preferences, but let's not pretend like this is some sort of simple issue that some auto-populated, cookie-cutter firm template can solve.

[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.

lol that equity partners actually care about "mentoring associates". Literally all the equity partners care about is making as much $$$$ as possible and squeezing every possible miserable hour out of associates, 95% of whom are going to quit. Your "contributions to the firm as a whole" are all about the bottom line, not joke time spent "training" associates. Did you ever work at a real biglaw firm in your life? Go ask the toxic STB equity partners how much they care about associate development.

I'm a sr associate at a slightly smaller firm than STB, and the partnership is a lot closer to "lockstep" than eat what you kill so maybe it's a lot different at a place like STB, but IME the partners care a loooot about associate development/recruitment. If our group gets the good associates and trains them well, it makes the partners lives a lot easier. Why wouldn't they care?

[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.

Just want to say that psycho senior and lit 6th year haven't even tried to rebut the bolded.

[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.

lol that equity partners actually care about "mentoring associates". Literally all the equity partners care about is making as much $$$$ as possible and squeezing every possible miserable hour out of associates, 95% of whom are going to quit. Your "contributions to the firm as a whole" are all about the bottom line, not joke time spent "training" associates. Did you ever work at a real biglaw firm in your life? Go ask the toxic STB equity partners how much they care about associate development.

I'm a sr associate at a slightly smaller firm than STB, and the partnership is a lot closer to "lockstep" than eat what you kill so maybe it's a lot different at a place like STB, but IME the partners care a loooot about associate development/recruitment. If our group gets the good associates and trains them well, it makes the partners lives a lot easier. Why wouldn't they care?

You would think this makes logical sense (and I personally think it does, because turnover is costly) but I came from a firm (also closer to "lockstep" than eat what you kill) where there was zero mentorship by the equity partners in my practice group. They just didn't give a rat's ass about the associates beyond working them to the bone and it showed - morale was poor and associate turnover was high. It literally felt like a revolving door with people coming and going all the time. I tried raising this issue during my exit interview with HR and all she said was "oh you know what the partners are like, can't force them to do something they don't want to do". Ok sure Jan.

Am now in house at a regulator and the difference is night and day. My boss is great (bent over backwards to help me with some personal issues, which I'm really grateful for) and the team is very big on teaching and mentoring. I do feel that the leadership sincerely believes in investing in people, and it shows in the longevity of the counsels.

[Anonymous User]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

[Anonymous User]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

Tell her that her job depends on it. If this junior is truly that bad, then it's your job as a manager to have the tough conversation with her or send it up the chain.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Person you are responding to. To get this out of the way, neither. Your anecdotal experience involves an obviously incompetent junior. But psycho redline senior's claims were much broader; I remain oriented to responding to them even as I reply to other users.

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.

Agreed. But first-year teachers have more support and practical knowledge than the first-year associates under psycho redline senior. "Taking stock on a regular basis" presupposes that you know what to take stock of and how to actually improve.

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.

What did she say when you discussed this issue with her in person?

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.

Again, I am rather surprised all of this that is not covered by local court rules is not in a formatting guide. Does your firm not have auto-formatted templates that are automatically populated in Word?

This "formatting guide" thing is just nuts. My firm does not have a style guide and I am not aware of any firm that has one. I have worked for many people within my firm (where I have worked for nearly eight years) who have inconsistent and irreconcilable preferences about a wide number of stylistic issues on which there is usually no "right" answer. These include, among others: whether to use one space or two after a period; whether to use one space or two after a colon; whether it is OK to start a sentence with a conjunction; whether it is OK to start a sentence with a transition word like "However" or "Nevertheless"; whether text should be justified or left-aligned; what font to use in a federal appellate court; how to cite unpublished cases; whether to define terms in a brief and which terms need to be defined; whether ellipsis should be typed out as " . . . " or "..."; how headings should be formatted; and a million other style preferences on which reasonable minds can disagree.

A key part of developing a productive working relationship with any given partner or senior associate is figuring out where they stand on these issues and internalizing those preferences, while simultaneously being willing to adjust them when working with someone else. There is a lively debate in this thread about the appropriate amount of direction that a senior associate should give a junior associate to get them to follow these preferences, but let's not pretend like this is some sort of simple issue that some auto-populated, cookie-cutter firm template can solve.

Also never had a style guide like that anywhere I’ve worked, and I also figured things out by looking at precedent on the system and redlines. I really can’t imagine someone getting to their third year and having that much trouble adjusting to double spaces after periods.

(I loath putting two spaces after a colon but if it’s what the partner wants….)

[Anonymous User]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

Tell her that her job depends on it. If this junior is truly that bad, then it's your job as a manager to have the tough conversation with her or send it up the chain.

Except Lit 6th year can’t really use that as a threat since a senior associate can’t directly get someone fired. Basically telling the junior that the partner gets mad about something is the most you can say. I would definitely stop covering for them if they were being that difficult.

[Anonymous User]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

I'm the corporate redline guy. Why should I spend my time training incompetents in an industry with a 95% attrition rate? No one trained me, I just worked hard and figured it out myself. If you can't cut it as a junior, do something else with your life. For me to spend my time training a non-great junior, there would need to be something in it for me, like I would actively need to like the junior and want to hang out with them, or be convinced that they are rich and a good person to have in my network. Otherwise, its sink or swim.

[Anonymous User]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

I'm the corporate redline guy. Why should I spend my time training incompetents in an industry with a 95% attrition rate? No one trained me, I just worked hard and figured it out myself. If you can't cut it as a junior, do something else with your life. For me to spend my time training a non-great junior, there would need to be something in it for me, like I would actively need to like the junior and want to hang out with them, or be convinced that they are rich and a good person to have in my network. Otherwise, its sink or swim.

Can you read or is your head so far up your ass that you just respond to tidbits you think will give you the W? The thing in it for you is that they'll actually do good work for you, so you don't have to do all the work anymore. You admittedly haven't tried mentoring or training anybody, so you have absolutely no basis to dispute whether that would be the outcome. But whatever bro, enjoy your one marshmallow well the smart kids get their two later on.

[Anonymous User]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

I'm the corporate redline guy. Why should I spend my time training incompetents in an industry with a 95% attrition rate? No one trained me, I just worked hard and figured it out myself. If you can't cut it as a junior, do something else with your life. For me to spend my time training a non-great junior, there would need to be something in it for me, like I would actively need to like the junior and want to hang out with them, or be convinced that they are rich and a good person to have in my network. Otherwise, its sink or swim.

Can you read or is your head so far up your ass that you just respond to tidbits you think will give you the W? The thing in it for you is that they'll actually do good work for you, so you don't have to do all the work anymore. You admittedly haven't tried mentoring or training anybody, so you have absolutely no basis to dispute whether that would be the outcome. But whatever bro, enjoy your one marshmallow well the smart kids get their two later on.

I see reading comprehension is not your thing. Perhaps you are one of the juniors who couldn't cut it?

1. The amount of training necessary to turn a mediocre junior into a good midlevel is substantial. Given the amount of interaction you will have with any one junior, the ROI just isn't there to justify extensive training efforts.

2. The attrition level is enormous. Your training all goes up in smoke when the junior bails.

3. The good juniors don't need much training, and the bad juniors, even with training, are still the underperformers.

4. Do some juniors get the extra attention? Sure, if you are an attractive girl, a charismatic guy, or someone rich and well connected who people want in their network, you can extra personalized attention. But for everyone else in top biglaw its a brutal sink or swim world, with most people sinking.

[Anonymous User]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

I'm the corporate redline guy. Why should I spend my time training incompetents in an industry with a 95% attrition rate? No one trained me, I just worked hard and figured it out myself. If you can't cut it as a junior, do something else with your life. For me to spend my time training a non-great junior, there would need to be something in it for me, like I would actively need to like the junior and want to hang out with them, or be convinced that they are rich and a good person to have in my network. Otherwise, its sink or swim.

Can you read or is your head so far up your ass that you just respond to tidbits you think will give you the W? The thing in it for you is that they'll actually do good work for you, so you don't have to do all the work anymore. You admittedly haven't tried mentoring or training anybody, so you have absolutely no basis to dispute whether that would be the outcome. But whatever bro, enjoy your one marshmallow well the smart kids get their two later on.

I see reading comprehension is not your thing. Perhaps you are one of the juniors who couldn't cut it?

1. The amount of training necessary to turn a mediocre junior into a good midlevel is substantial. Given the amount of interaction you will have with any one junior, the ROI just isn't there to justify extensive training efforts.

2. The attrition level is enormous. Your training all goes up in smoke when the junior bails.

3. The good juniors don't need much training, and the bad juniors, even with training, are still the underperformers.

4. Do some juniors get the extra attention? Sure, if you are an attractive girl, a charismatic guy, or someone rich and well connected who people want in their network, you can extra personalized attention. But for everyone else in top biglaw its a brutal sink or swim world, with most people sinking.

LOL okay keep fooling yourself with your baseless assertions that fly in the face of literally every other post ITT. Point 4 proves you're an insufferable jerk who deserves to grind away for 12 years only to realize that the partnership doesn't want to promote antisocial know-it-alls who think they are god's gift to the world and yet know nothing about how that world actually works.

It's been real folks, but I'm out. I have no reason keep trying to convince this buffoon that his life could be so much easier if he just did his job (I mean all of it), despite him complaining that others he works with also don't do their job.

[Anonymous User]

Some quality copypasta here, good shit

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think Lit 6th year’s expectations are unreasonable. That’s more instruction than most senior associate are going to give you about something like conforming to the standard style. If you still don’t “get” it while making such figures I don’t think you’re going to be able to handle the trickier stuff that requires independent thinking.

I’d much prefer being told to look at a redline with my mistakes and be warned if a partner is persnickety than get thrown under the bus by the type of associate that sets you up to fail.

Original redline transactional guy sounds unpleasant. But looking at the redline to see your mistakes isn’t a bad idea, and no one is going to care about improving you as an associate if you seem like you’re not trying

[nixy]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

I'm the corporate redline guy. Why should I spend my time training incompetents in an industry with a 95% attrition rate? No one trained me, I just worked hard and figured it out myself. If you can't cut it as a junior, do something else with your life. For me to spend my time training a non-great junior, there would need to be something in it for me, like I would actively need to like the junior and want to hang out with them, or be convinced that they are rich and a good person to have in my network. Otherwise, its sink or swim.

Can you read or is your head so far up your ass that you just respond to tidbits you think will give you the W? The thing in it for you is that they'll actually do good work for you, so you don't have to do all the work anymore. You admittedly haven't tried mentoring or training anybody, so you have absolutely no basis to dispute whether that would be the outcome. But whatever bro, enjoy your one marshmallow well the smart kids get their two later on.

I see reading comprehension is not your thing. Perhaps you are one of the juniors who couldn't cut it?

1. The amount of training necessary to turn a mediocre junior into a good midlevel is substantial. Given the amount of interaction you will have with any one junior, the ROI just isn't there to justify extensive training efforts.

2. The attrition level is enormous. Your training all goes up in smoke when the junior bails.

3. The good juniors don't need much training, and the bad juniors, even with training, are still the underperformers.

4. Do some juniors get the extra attention? Sure, if you are an attractive girl, a charismatic guy, or someone rich and well connected who people want in their network, you can extra personalized attention. But for everyone else in top biglaw its a brutal sink or swim world, with most people sinking.

Dude(ette), you are such an asshole that I have to think you’re just trolling at this point.

(6th year lit associate seems fine. People can nitpick about how seniors/juniors best interact, but 6th year is well within the realm of reasonable reality. Senior Redline is just incredible at this point.)

[Anonymous User]

Imo the issue with 6th year lit isn't what they said, just the choice to jump into a thread already made lively by Psycho Senior (who I'm convinced is a mid btw) with similar complaints shows a bit of tone deafness. Also too lazy to trace it down but iirc their OP was a lot worse, after clarification that they did actually provide feedback etc, sounds a lot more reasonable (or maybe we just didn't read the post that carefully hey its the internet)

[jimmythecatdied6]

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.

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.

Ok, I will ask again what I should have done differently to be a "real manager" in addition to sending the redline and telling her to look at it, following up with additional phone calls and emails about the lingering issues and telling her to look at other filings in the case, and telling her to go back and fix it?

I mean, ideally I want to teach juniors how to figure out the answer for themselves, which is most efficient for all involved. And when the question is "how do I format this motion or brief" the easiest way to get answer for me is always to just look at a previous filing from the case, if one exists (and look at previous filings in that court with that partner if not). I don't know what else to tell someone to do other than that. What else should I be telling her?

- 6th year lit. (I'm not the other person you are replying to who said the system allows attrition FYI)

I'm the corporate redline guy. Why should I spend my time training incompetents in an industry with a 95% attrition rate? No one trained me, I just worked hard and figured it out myself. If you can't cut it as a junior, do something else with your life. For me to spend my time training a non-great junior, there would need to be something in it for me, like I would actively need to like the junior and want to hang out with them, or be convinced that they are rich and a good person to have in my network. Otherwise, its sink or swim.

Can you read or is your head so far up your ass that you just respond to tidbits you think will give you the W? The thing in it for you is that they'll actually do good work for you, so you don't have to do all the work anymore. You admittedly haven't tried mentoring or training anybody, so you have absolutely no basis to dispute whether that would be the outcome. But whatever bro, enjoy your one marshmallow well the smart kids get their two later on.

lol, classic TLS. great self awareness all around