Getting Juniors to be responsive Forum

[jimmythecatdied6]

This is also a classic line that I will be using for the rest of my life: "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?"

Just amazing.

[Anonymous User]

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?

Probably nothing. Unclear from your posts whether you did, but I would have tossed out the major formatting changes.

I also do not think that any (or at least many) users here are targeting your management specifically or suggesting that incompetent juniors do not exist. The statements are directed at those like psycho redline senior who pride themselves on providing zero guidance beyond redlines.

[Anonymous User]

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.

The first sentence is straight-up false.

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

Did it ever occur to you that there may be a connection between training and professional development and attrition rate?

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

Prove it.

[Anonymous User]

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

Prove it.

I've been fighting the good fight against redline psycho, but this is probably the one point I agree with him on in theory. There are in fact some people that are completely untrainable, whether because they lack the intelligence, motivation, etc. These are the types of people who actually get fired from biglaw early on in their career. That said, I think I've come across maybe one or two of these people in the five years I've been at my firm, so setting a management style based on them is just silly. Red herring.

[Anonymous User]

I think training juniors is also just scary. I'm a midlevel, who barely received any training, aside from a couple "oh, please send me an e-mail so I know you're on it!" which I forgot a few times early on. Otherwise it's always been going into the worksite, trying to find old correspondence and precedents and making it work from there. When I send something in, I rarely get feedback.

I thought it was a shame, but I kind of get it a bit. I was working with a junior and what they were doing was...not good. They were being subtly antagonistic to the client, were billing crazy hours unnecessarily (running allnighters for something that was not due for weeks and they were told to hand off to the paralegals), being unresponsive when there was a deadline coming, etc. But it gets uncomfortable to tell them negative stuff. You don't want to be the bad guy. Maybe it changes when I'm more senior, as my word basically becomes the gospel, but as a midlevel I always feel uncomfortable giving juniors constructive feedback.

[Anonymous User]

I think training juniors is also just scary. I'm a midlevel, who barely received any training, aside from a couple "oh, please send me an e-mail so I know you're on it!" which I forgot a few times early on. Otherwise it's always been going into the worksite, trying to find old correspondence and precedents and making it work from there. When I send something in, I rarely get feedback.

I thought it was a shame, but I kind of get it a bit. I was working with a junior and what they were doing was...not good. They were being subtly antagonistic to the client, were billing crazy hours unnecessarily (running allnighters for something that was not due for weeks and they were told to hand off to the paralegals), being unresponsive when there was a deadline coming, etc. But it gets uncomfortable to tell them negative stuff. You don't want to be the bad guy. Maybe it changes when I'm more senior, as my word basically becomes the gospel, but as a midlevel I always feel uncomfortable giving juniors constructive feedback.

This is really interesting. I think people often conflate being a good manager with being nice. That's not always true. Someone who says "great job" to everything including garbage work product is just as bad as redline psycho. Real and effective management sometimes means rolling up your sleeves and having a tough conversation with someone. As long as you're respectful, they will thank you for it down the road.

[Anonymous User]

I think training juniors is also just scary. I'm a midlevel, who barely received any training, aside from a couple "oh, please send me an e-mail so I know you're on it!" which I forgot a few times early on. Otherwise it's always been going into the worksite, trying to find old correspondence and precedents and making it work from there. When I send something in, I rarely get feedback.

I thought it was a shame, but I kind of get it a bit. I was working with a junior and what they were doing was...not good. They were being subtly antagonistic to the client, were billing crazy hours unnecessarily (running allnighters for something that was not due for weeks and they were told to hand off to the paralegals), being unresponsive when there was a deadline coming, etc. But it gets uncomfortable to tell them negative stuff. You don't want to be the bad guy. Maybe it changes when I'm more senior, as my word basically becomes the gospel, but as a midlevel I always feel uncomfortable giving juniors constructive feedback.

As a midlevel in a very opaque pyramid you're actually pretty well positioned to give feedback like "hey, if you keep doing x, it'll be bad. Partners will get mad at you and you won't last. Just trying to help because I know the adjustment is hard, I've been there". Of course given the minimal authority you have, juniors might just ignore you, but you tried.

[Anonymous User]

I think training juniors is also just scary. I'm a midlevel, who barely received any training, aside from a couple "oh, please send me an e-mail so I know you're on it!" which I forgot a few times early on. Otherwise it's always been going into the worksite, trying to find old correspondence and precedents and making it work from there. When I send something in, I rarely get feedback.

I thought it was a shame, but I kind of get it a bit. I was working with a junior and what they were doing was...not good. They were being subtly antagonistic to the client, were billing crazy hours unnecessarily (running allnighters for something that was not due for weeks and they were told to hand off to the paralegals), being unresponsive when there was a deadline coming, etc. But it gets uncomfortable to tell them negative stuff. You don't want to be the bad guy. Maybe it changes when I'm more senior, as my word basically becomes the gospel, but as a midlevel I always feel uncomfortable giving juniors constructive feedback.

Couldn't agree with this more. Most successful biglawyers want to be the kind of person that their colleagues like. Most also have zero management experience or training. So when they become midlevels, they don't know what they're doing with juniors and they often default to "I don't want to do something that will result in me being less liked." That doesn't always mean that they give false-positive feedback when a junior turns in bad work, but it DOES often mean that they give no feedback at all when the junior's work isn't good enough - rather than having a potentially difficult conversation with the junior.

[Anonymous User]

I think training juniors is also just scary. I'm a midlevel, who barely received any training, aside from a couple "oh, please send me an e-mail so I know you're on it!" which I forgot a few times early on. Otherwise it's always been going into the worksite, trying to find old correspondence and precedents and making it work from there. When I send something in, I rarely get feedback.

I thought it was a shame, but I kind of get it a bit. I was working with a junior and what they were doing was...not good. They were being subtly antagonistic to the client, were billing crazy hours unnecessarily (running allnighters for something that was not due for weeks and they were told to hand off to the paralegals), being unresponsive when there was a deadline coming, etc. But it gets uncomfortable to tell them negative stuff. You don't want to be the bad guy. Maybe it changes when I'm more senior, as my word basically becomes the gospel, but as a midlevel I always feel uncomfortable giving juniors constructive feedback.

Couldn't agree with this more. Most successful biglawyers want to be the kind of person that their colleagues like. Most also have zero management experience or training. So when they become midlevels, they don't know what they're doing with juniors and they often default to "I don't want to do something that will result in me being less liked." That doesn't always mean that they give false-positive feedback when a junior turns in bad work, but it DOES often mean that they give no feedback at all when the junior's work isn't good enough - rather than having a potentially difficult conversation with the junior.

Lol - is this Alice in Wonderland? Go to Kirkland and see how much the successful SPs want to "be the kind of person that their colleagues like." Go look up Andy Calder or Scott Barshay and see how much they care about what their colleagues think of them.

In reality, they successful biglaw people only care about $$$$ and prestige, and are perfectly happy to annihilate their associates and service partners to fund another mansion or two. Ever wonder why this profession is full of people on anti-anxiety meds, people who are obese, people who are divorced, people who are in therapy, and people who check every other metric of objective misery?

[Anonymous User]

I think training juniors is also just scary. I'm a midlevel, who barely received any training, aside from a couple "oh, please send me an e-mail so I know you're on it!" which I forgot a few times early on. Otherwise it's always been going into the worksite, trying to find old correspondence and precedents and making it work from there. When I send something in, I rarely get feedback.

I thought it was a shame, but I kind of get it a bit. I was working with a junior and what they were doing was...not good. They were being subtly antagonistic to the client, were billing crazy hours unnecessarily (running allnighters for something that was not due for weeks and they were told to hand off to the paralegals), being unresponsive when there was a deadline coming, etc. But it gets uncomfortable to tell them negative stuff. You don't want to be the bad guy. Maybe it changes when I'm more senior, as my word basically becomes the gospel, but as a midlevel I always feel uncomfortable giving juniors constructive feedback.

Couldn't agree with this more. Most successful biglawyers want to be the kind of person that their colleagues like. Most also have zero management experience or training. So when they become midlevels, they don't know what they're doing with juniors and they often default to "I don't want to do something that will result in me being less liked." That doesn't always mean that they give false-positive feedback when a junior turns in bad work, but it DOES often mean that they give no feedback at all when the junior's work isn't good enough - rather than having a potentially difficult conversation with the junior.

Lol - is this Alice in Wonderland? Go to Kirkland and see how much the successful SPs want to "be the kind of person that their colleagues like." Go look up Andy Calder or Scott Barshay and see how much they care about what their colleagues think of them.

In reality, they successful biglaw people only care about $$$$ and prestige, and are perfectly happy to annihilate their associates and service partners to fund another mansion or two. Ever wonder why this profession is full of people on anti-anxiety meds, people who are obese, people who are divorced, people who are in therapy, and people who check every other metric of objective misery?

(not either of the quoted anons)

Yea, this is why I turned down my KE offer lol. This isn't Alice and Wonderland it's like 95% of other workplaces... choosing to stay at KE is a whole different bag of worms. The partners at my firm definitely would care if a partner fired off an Andy Calder style email.

That said, I'm a way overworked still junior that wasn't ever trained (first year 2020-2021, so like 80% of the mids/seniors I worked with quit and the partners just... never really replaced them on clients because I guess they thought I could handle it or they just didn't have additional bodies).

I'm now starting to get juniors on my clients/deals (dumb, I need seniors), and I agree with the first two anons but would also add that part of why it can be hard to give negative feedback or crush a junior with an assignment is because I know how it feels, and I'm not entirely deluded enough to think it 'helped' me to 'get better.' Like, sure, have I learned a lot from associates going hard on me? I guess? But I also don't need to feel immense pressure to learn under fire and be reprimanded when things that I've never done aren't perfect and no one is there to help or review. I also can learn by being given carrots rather than sticks, and carrots are fairly scarce it seems.

Also, honestly my clients are giving such insanely short turnarounds these days (given initial 10-K draft Monday night, turn by Thursday), that there's basically no way I could train a junior anything on that in that amount of time and also form check/get comments of my own in/input into the company's master bc they refuse to do it themselves.

Edit: don't know why some is in italics

[Anonymous User]

I think people see the way nasty SPs behave and think they can do the same. But they can't. Life isn't fair and good behavior isn't always rewarded. But those share partners get away with bad behavior because they are valuable to the company. Not as managers but as rainmakers, or sometimes as niche experts.

But let's not kid ourselves, the vast majority of us will never be rainmakers. Especially the autists itt. Your value is as a middle manager. So learn how to manage.

[Anonymous User]

As a midlevel in a very opaque pyramid you're actually pretty well positioned to give feedback like "hey, if you keep doing x, it'll be bad. Partners will get mad at you and you won't last. Just trying to help because I know the adjustment is hard, I've been there". Of course given the minimal authority you have, juniors might just ignore you, but you tried.

As a junior who got feedback like that, I agree with you and want to emphasis how important it is to be a manager and not an asshole boss.

The feedback wasn't "I'm yelling at you, speaking in what most would regard as an angry tone, and acting like I'm your boss, take this life-vest or you'll be Leonardo DiCaprio #235, sinking."

Instead, it was "Thanks for this draft. The partners don't have much time. It's better if you take this X page document and make it X - 60%."

The mid-level was still my boss, in the sense of seniority (not actual employment authority), but he wasn't a dick to me, he MANAGED rather than acted in a way that says I'm being your boss, and he taught me something I've been applying since.

Also, niceness works too. At the risk of sounding sexist, I think that it's a fact that women are nicer in general. Even if they only do it because of sexist generalizations I am reinforcing. But because they are nicer, they are my favorite people to work for and I'm more likely to do my best work for them and to want to work with them than I am anyone else.

Last thing I'll say is I came into biglaw being responsive, so this is less about what makes me responsive and more about what makes me want to work for someone, give my best, and how they can help me develop.

[Anonymous User]

I think training juniors is also just scary. I'm a midlevel, who barely received any training, aside from a couple "oh, please send me an e-mail so I know you're on it!" which I forgot a few times early on. Otherwise it's always been going into the worksite, trying to find old correspondence and precedents and making it work from there. When I send something in, I rarely get feedback.

I thought it was a shame, but I kind of get it a bit. I was working with a junior and what they were doing was...not good. They were being subtly antagonistic to the client, were billing crazy hours unnecessarily (running allnighters for something that was not due for weeks and they were told to hand off to the paralegals), being unresponsive when there was a deadline coming, etc. But it gets uncomfortable to tell them negative stuff. You don't want to be the bad guy. Maybe it changes when I'm more senior, as my word basically becomes the gospel, but as a midlevel I always feel uncomfortable giving juniors constructive feedback.

Couldn't agree with this more. Most successful biglawyers want to be the kind of person that their colleagues like. Most also have zero management experience or training. So when they become midlevels, they don't know what they're doing with juniors and they often default to "I don't want to do something that will result in me being less liked." That doesn't always mean that they give false-positive feedback when a junior turns in bad work, but it DOES often mean that they give no feedback at all when the junior's work isn't good enough - rather than having a potentially difficult conversation with the junior.

Lol - is this Alice in Wonderland? Go to Kirkland and see how much the successful SPs want to "be the kind of person that their colleagues like." Go look up Andy Calder or Scott Barshay and see how much they care about what their colleagues think of them.

In reality, they successful biglaw people only care about $$$$ and prestige, and are perfectly happy to annihilate their associates and service partners to fund another mansion or two. Ever wonder why this profession is full of people on anti-anxiety meds, people who are obese, people who are divorced, people who are in therapy, and people who check every other metric of objective misery?

I'm the quoted. I actually work at Kirkland. I should have referred directly to midlevels instead of using "successful biglawyers" in a post that was obviously about midlevels. Most associates who become midlevels have spent the first 3 years of biglaw (and probably all of their lives leading up to biglaw) trying to be liked and feeling uncomfortable when they are the asshole (if they have ever been the asshole). Most of them probably avoided conflict with a 2L on law review who was supposed to cite check whatever article was their responsibility. The vast majority of these 29-year-old 4th years never become share partners. There is survivor bias in saying "biglaw lawyers are assholes because biglaw partners are assholes." No, most biglaw lawyers are actually very pleasant, and the pleasant ones disproportionately leave biglaw in part because of how many unpleasant ones manage to rise to the top (especially at K&E). It makes no sense to look at biglaw partners to explain behavior of biglaw midlevels.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, the biggest driver of conflict/dissatisfaction is lack of emotional intelligence at all levels. Maybe it's a function of the law firm environment, but being able to understand what is motivating someone to behave a certain way and then knowing how to interpret that/shift it/respond to it is a really important skill that a lot of (particularly younger) lawyers seem to lack. And in general I think people at the top have more EQ than juniors - maybe this is just lit, but you have to have EQ to deal with clients in difficult circumstances, and the juniors I have seen not make it or hate their experience are often those that don't know how to read cues and adapt.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, the biggest driver of conflict/dissatisfaction is lack of emotional intelligence at all levels. Maybe it's a function of the law firm environment, but being able to understand what is motivating someone to behave a certain way and then knowing how to interpret that/shift it/respond to it is a really important skill that a lot of (particularly younger) lawyers seem to lack. And in general I think people at the top have more EQ than juniors - maybe this is just lit, but you have to have EQ to deal with clients in difficult circumstances, and the juniors I have seen not make it or hate their experience are often those that don't know how to read cues and adapt.

Hmm this is a good point. There's a difference between being an asshole because you're an asshole or don't care, and not knowing that you're being an asshole. Some of the seniors itt seems utterly oblivious to how they can be perceived.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, the biggest driver of conflict/dissatisfaction is lack of emotional intelligence at all levels. Maybe it's a function of the law firm environment, but being able to understand what is motivating someone to behave a certain way and then knowing how to interpret that/shift it/respond to it is a really important skill that a lot of (particularly younger) lawyers seem to lack. And in general I think people at the top have more EQ than juniors - maybe this is just lit, but you have to have EQ to deal with clients in difficult circumstances, and the juniors I have seen not make it or hate their experience are often those that don't know how to read cues and adapt.

Hmm this is a good point. There's a difference between being an asshole because you're an asshole or don't care, and not knowing that you're being an asshole. Some of the seniors itt seems utterly oblivious to how they can be perceived.

The fact that you complain about seniors shows that you literally have no clue how rainmaker partners behave (and some service partners as well). The juniors whining about seniors would be having nervous breakdowns if they had to deal with people like Andy Calder and Scott Barshay.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, the biggest driver of conflict/dissatisfaction is lack of emotional intelligence at all levels. Maybe it's a function of the law firm environment, but being able to understand what is motivating someone to behave a certain way and then knowing how to interpret that/shift it/respond to it is a really important skill that a lot of (particularly younger) lawyers seem to lack. And in general I think people at the top have more EQ than juniors - maybe this is just lit, but you have to have EQ to deal with clients in difficult circumstances, and the juniors I have seen not make it or hate their experience are often those that don't know how to read cues and adapt.

Hmm this is a good point. There's a difference between being an asshole because you're an asshole or don't care, and not knowing that you're being an asshole. Some of the seniors itt seems utterly oblivious to how they can be perceived.

The fact that you complain about seniors shows that you literally have no clue how rainmaker partners behave (and some service partners as well). The juniors whining about seniors would be having nervous breakdowns if they had to deal with people like Andy Calder and Scott Barshay.

Mr. Tough Guy being tough cuz he had to take abuse and you should too. It's self-absorbed bootlickers like this, and not the actual monster partners, that make biglaw truly awful. Why would you try to emulate an actual asshole?

Causation and correlation my friend. LOL at anybody thinking that poor management is what makes you a rainmaking partner, and not that rainmaking partners simply get away with poor management.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, the biggest driver of conflict/dissatisfaction is lack of emotional intelligence at all levels. Maybe it's a function of the law firm environment, but being able to understand what is motivating someone to behave a certain way and then knowing how to interpret that/shift it/respond to it is a really important skill that a lot of (particularly younger) lawyers seem to lack. And in general I think people at the top have more EQ than juniors - maybe this is just lit, but you have to have EQ to deal with clients in difficult circumstances, and the juniors I have seen not make it or hate their experience are often those that don't know how to read cues and adapt.

Hmm this is a good point. There's a difference between being an asshole because you're an asshole or don't care, and not knowing that you're being an asshole. Some of the seniors itt seems utterly oblivious to how they can be perceived.

The fact that you complain about seniors shows that you literally have no clue how rainmaker partners behave (and some service partners as well). The juniors whining about seniors would be having nervous breakdowns if they had to deal with people like Andy Calder and Scott Barshay.

Mr. Tough Guy being tough cuz he had to take abuse and you should too. It's self-absorbed bootlickers like this, and not the actual monster partners, that make biglaw truly awful. Why would you try to emulate an actual asshole?

Causation and correlation my friend. LOL at anybody thinking that poor management is what makes you a rainmaking partner, and not that rainmaking partners simply get away with poor management.

Why should I spend my valuable time training third rate juniors when the people running the firm treat everyone else like trash? The juniors are welcome to review the redlines on their own. This isn't some warm happy family - biglaw is all about the benjamins, and you should do whatever maximizes your benjamins, not whatever makes juniors feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[Anonymous User]

Why should I spend my valuable time training third rate juniors when the people running the firm treat everyone else like trash? The juniors are welcome to review the redlines on their own. This isn't some warm happy family - biglaw is all about the benjamins, and you should do whatever maximizes your benjamins, not whatever makes juniors feel warm and fuzzy inside.

"My valuable time" get over yourself bro (I assume this is redline psycho back for another ass whooping). I wish I could take myself half as seriously as you do yourself. K&E must be the home of fragile egos and small...

Literally everybody in this thread has answered your question like 10x. You just refuse to see it peaking out from behind the view of the shit stains from your own asshole.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, the biggest driver of conflict/dissatisfaction is lack of emotional intelligence at all levels. Maybe it's a function of the law firm environment, but being able to understand what is motivating someone to behave a certain way and then knowing how to interpret that/shift it/respond to it is a really important skill that a lot of (particularly younger) lawyers seem to lack. And in general I think people at the top have more EQ than juniors - maybe this is just lit, but you have to have EQ to deal with clients in difficult circumstances, and the juniors I have seen not make it or hate their experience are often those that don't know how to read cues and adapt.

Hmm this is a good point. There's a difference between being an asshole because you're an asshole or don't care, and not knowing that you're being an asshole. Some of the seniors itt seems utterly oblivious to how they can be perceived.

The fact that you complain about seniors shows that you literally have no clue how rainmaker partners behave (and some service partners as well). The juniors whining about seniors would be having nervous breakdowns if they had to deal with people like Andy Calder and Scott Barshay.

Do you want a medal?

I mentioned seniors bc 1) this thread is about the relationship between juniors and seniors 2) my point actually is similar to yours: partner rainmakers can get away with being assholes.

[Anonymous User]

Why should I spend my valuable time training third rate juniors when the people running the firm treat everyone else like trash? The juniors are welcome to review the redlines on their own. This isn't some warm happy family - biglaw is all about the benjamins, and you should do whatever maximizes your benjamins, not whatever makes juniors feel warm and fuzzy inside.

"My valuable time" get over yourself bro (I assume this is redline psycho back for another ass whooping). I wish I could take myself half as seriously as you do yourself. K&E must be the home of fragile egos and small...

Literally everybody in this thread has answered your question like 10x. You just refuse to see it peaking out from behind the view of the shit stains from your own asshole.

Also I love how it's all about the Benjamins until juniors play that game too and do the bare min bc they know in this market they can lateral easily.

[Anonymous User]

In my experience, the biggest driver of conflict/dissatisfaction is lack of emotional intelligence at all levels. Maybe it's a function of the law firm environment, but being able to understand what is motivating someone to behave a certain way and then knowing how to interpret that/shift it/respond to it is a really important skill that a lot of (particularly younger) lawyers seem to lack. And in general I think people at the top have more EQ than juniors - maybe this is just lit, but you have to have EQ to deal with clients in difficult circumstances, and the juniors I have seen not make it or hate their experience are often those that don't know how to read cues and adapt.

Hmm this is a good point. There's a difference between being an asshole because you're an asshole or don't care, and not knowing that you're being an asshole. Some of the seniors itt seems utterly oblivious to how they can be perceived.

The fact that you complain about seniors shows that you literally have no clue how rainmaker partners behave (and some service partners as well). The juniors whining about seniors would be having nervous breakdowns if they had to deal with people like Andy Calder and Scott Barshay.

Do you want a medal?

I mentioned seniors bc 1) this thread is about the relationship between juniors and seniors 2) my point actually is similar to yours: partner rainmakers can get away with being assholes.

I'm sure the SPs appreciate your efforts in tearing your hair out to train third rate juniors while they (the SPs) are sipping martinis and buying themselves another mansion.

Rather than work with incompetents who don't "get it" enough to review a redline and self-improve, I would rather give work to the juniors who actually care and starve the useless ones of billable hours so they hopefully get a swift kick out the door.

The analogy is to schools. Some (i.e., public schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually futilely) getting the D- students to a C- level, while others (i.e., private schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually successfully) getting the A students to expand their horizons and become the leaders of tomorrow. Which group do you want to be part of?

[temp69420]

The analogy is to schools. Some (i.e., public schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually futilely) getting the D- students to a C- level, while others (i.e., private schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually successfully) getting the A students to expand their horizons and become the leaders of tomorrow. Which group do you want to be part of?

Came back to this dumpster fire of a thread and this is the first thing I see. Amazing.

[Anonymous User]

The analogy is to schools. Some (i.e., public schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually futilely) getting the D- students to a C- level, while others (i.e., private schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually successfully) getting the A students to expand their horizons and become the leaders of tomorrow. Which group do you want to be part of?

Came back to this dumpster fire of a thread and this is the first thing I see. Amazing.

Expanding your horizons one redline at a time

[Anonymous User]

The analogy is to schools. Some (i.e., public schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually futilely) getting the D- students to a C- level, while others (i.e., private schools) spend an enormous amount of effort (usually successfully) getting the A students to expand their horizons and become the leaders of tomorrow. Which group do you want to be part of?

Came back to this dumpster fire of a thread and this is the first thing I see. Amazing.

Public HS, UG, LS guy here told by many he is on the partner track and will be a leader of tomorrow just leaning back and LOLing right now. A preliminary thank is in order to all my mentors that were nothing like this douchebag. Juniors - don't work for this clown.

First thing, the school analogy is crap cuz redline fetishist is now admitting that even the leaders of tomorrow need training. Can't hand a 5 y/o a redline.

Second thing, redline fetishist fails to understand that the legal industry has shifted from "let's have hundreds of 1st years do diligence and let the competent survive" to "even perma-associates are profitable let's keep them forever as NEPs." Good luck being yesterday's leader.

There's so much more to respond to, like how redline fetishist sometimes acts as if he has the business in mind and other times talks about monopolizing the "good ones" (prolly private school future leaders to the max) which obviously leaves his esteemed world leader colleagues at K&E with the untrainables to staff their matters. Bummer for the bottom line. It's just so much fun watching this dude's ego struggle to defend itself.