Opinions please - am I going to be let go? Forum

[Anonymous User]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

It was (a). He has a right to be upset with me, I'm not disputing that. I deserve the criticism, but how he reacted so harshly seemed to suggest this mistake could have bad consequences. Seems the general sentiment here shares my hunch--start looking around.

[Alive97]

sent it up the latter.

[Catsinthebag]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

It was (a). He has a right to be upset with me, I'm not disputing that. I deserve the criticism, but how he reacted so harshly seemed to suggest this mistake could have bad consequences. Seems the general sentiment here shares my hunch--start looking around.

That's rough, my friend. How bad do you want to stay? If you want to stay and think being canned is imminent, try simply speaking with him? Make one of the checklists folks are mentioning, bring it with you, show it to him as evidence that you understand the gravity of that kind of mistake and, rather than just apologize, you're committed to eliminating the need to apologize to the best of your ability. Even people who sound like him can respect somebody who understands their weaknesses and show a determination to shore them up ASAP. I wish you luck and, if you do this, wouldn't mind hearing how he reacts

[Dessert Fox]

sent it up the latter.

savage

[Anonymous User]

If you stop getting work you are on the way out. Big law firms rarely terminate employees immediately. Usually they first starve you of work first.

[Lincoln]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

As a 0L, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

[Catsinthebag]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

As a 0L, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

First, the contents of my post reflect the nature of any and almost every job, not just legal ones. Second, I am not a 0L. Thank you.

[lawschoolftw]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

As a 0L, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

First, the contents of my post reflect the nature of any and almost every job, not just legal ones. Second, I am not a 0L. Thank you.

'I actually don't even agree that it's a proper assessment. Juniors will undoubtedly make substantive errors. In my few years in private practice, I find that senior associates/partners tend to tolerate a substantive mistake that is made by virtue of lack of experience more so that turning in a pleading/document that contains multiple typos and other sloppy errors. One is attributable to a sheer lack of experience, the other is carelessness. Of the three options you laid out, I think "a" is the most forgivable.

[Anonymous User]

I was in a similar situation and it was ugly from the get. I was at a firm with 400+ attorney's (the firm is now down to 320) and a mixture of nerves, lack of experience, and intimidation all lead to me making careless mistakes.

My situation entailed the firm taking a nose dive one month after I began as an associate. Work was harder and harder to come by which put me in a position to beg for work. Well, the work that I would finally receive after begging was from a disgruntled partner who would finally give me a project that was far too advance for my skill level. Needless to say, the work product as a whole was not my best. I attribute this to being tossed in the deep end without any direction coupled with knowledge that the firm was financially fucked and having partners generally is a shit mood.

I ended up getting let go along with 80+ other attorneys near the end of my second year. It was the best thing for me and I despise that firm to this day. It sounds like your firm is likely in the same boat, to an extent. When the work is flowing and money is being made, no one gives a fuck if you make a typo or have a spacing issue because it generally doesn't matter.

[Catsinthebag]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

As a 0L, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

First, the contents of my post reflect the nature of any and almost every job, not just legal ones. Second, I am not a 0L. Thank you.

'I actually don't even agree that it's a proper assessment. Juniors will undoubtedly make substantive errors. In my few years in private practice, I find that senior associates/partners tend to tolerate a substantive mistake that is made by virtue of lack of experience more so that turning in a pleading/document that contains multiple typos and other sloppy errors. One is attributable to a sheer lack of experience, the other is carelessness. Of the three options you laid out, I think "a" is the most forgivable.

Nah, this speaks more toward taking the paralegal's work and handing it in without double-checking it.

[Lincoln]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

As a 0L, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

First, the contents of my post reflect the nature of any and almost every job, not just legal ones. Second, I am not a 0L. Thank you.

Sorry. Fixed:

As a 0L current law student who appears to have no experience working as an attorney, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

And yes, working at a firm is different than "any and almost every job."

[Catsinthebag]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

As a 0L, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

First, the contents of my post reflect the nature of any and almost every job, not just legal ones. Second, I am not a 0L. Thank you.

Sorry. Fixed:

As a 0L current law student who appears to have no experience working as an attorney, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

And yes, working at a firm is different than "any and almost every job."

Like most submit-now-take-time-to-understand-never style posters on these boards, you don't even grasp the statement you're responding to, yet you're responding to it with such misplaced confidence that it would be endearing if... wait no, no, it wouldn't be. It's just a waste of pixels.

If a PhD-pursuing scientist hands in to the department chair a report prepared by an undergrad chem major without checking it for substantive errors, and one exists most of the time the chair will be upset or frustrated with the PhD-pursuer. Just like with OP's situation. Just like "any and almost every job."

Important note: nowhere did I say that being a chemist, working at a law firm, or any and almost every job are the same. Nobody with an IQ or an ounce of intellectual honesty could pull that out of what I said.

[Pokemon]

OP, question: the substantive mistake. Did a) you not even know the paralegal made the mistake or did b) you think what was written was correct, or c) did you think what was written might be wrong but weren't sure. Sorry if you said this somewhere but I didn't see it.

If your answer is a) then I can see why he'd be upset.

As a 0L, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

First, the contents of my post reflect the nature of any and almost every job, not just legal ones. Second, I am not a 0L. Thank you.

Sorry. Fixed:

As a 0L current law student who appears to have no experience working as an attorney, you should probably not post responses to questions that deal with substantive legal-employment issues.

And yes, working at a firm is different than "any and almost every job."

Like most submit-now-take-time-to-understand-never style posters on these boards, you don't even grasp the statement you're responding to, yet you're responding to it with such misplaced confidence that it would be endearing if... wait no, no, it wouldn't be. It's just a waste of pixels.

If a PhD-pursuing scientist hands in to the department chair a report prepared by an undergrad chem major without checking it for substantive errors, and one exists most of the time the chair will be upset or frustrated with the PhD-pursuer. Just like with OP's situation. Just like "any and almost every job."

Important note: nowhere did I say that being a chemist, working at a law firm, or any and almost every job are the same. Nobody with an IQ or an ounce of intellectual honesty could pull that out of what I said.

Your example could not be more off. You should really not give advice in this area.

[lurklaw]

Catsinthebag should be chary about giving advice in the legal employment forum, but, in this case, he's absolutely right that the broader and more concerning aspect of OP's "mistake" is that it signals giving zero fucks. OP didn't even glance at the proposed order that he had a paralegal prepare. That's a fucking issue, and anyone who disagrees is going out of their way just to knock down a law student a few pegs. That's not helpful.

OP, if this were your first mistake, it wouldn't be an issue worth discussing here. But the fact of the matter is that you have established a reputation as someone who the partners cannot trust. You absolutely need to be hustling like a mf'er to land a new gig because you're done at your current firm. Best of luck with your transition.

[baal hadad]

I have typo problems

Never really been able to fix it honestly esp when I'm running extremely low on sleep and stressed

I used to have my secretary read stuff but she would not catch them either

I can't wait til I can pawn the proofreading off onto a junior

[Lincoln]

Like most submit-now-take-time-to-understand-never style posters on these boards, you don't even grasp the statement you're responding to, yet you're responding to it with such misplaced confidence that it would be endearing if... wait no, no, it wouldn't be. It's just a waste of pixels.

If a PhD-pursuing scientist hands in to the department chair a report prepared by an undergrad chem major without checking it for substantive errors, and one exists most of the time the chair will be upset or frustrated with the PhD-pursuer. Just like with OP's situation. Just like "any and almost every job."

Important note: nowhere did I say that being a chemist, working at a law firm, or any and almost every job are the same. Nobody with an IQ or an ounce of intellectual honesty could pull that out of what I said.

This really just confirms my suspicion that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[lurklaw]

Like most submit-now-take-time-to-understand-never style posters on these boards, you don't even grasp the statement you're responding to, yet you're responding to it with such misplaced confidence that it would be endearing if... wait no, no, it wouldn't be. It's just a waste of pixels.

If a PhD-pursuing scientist hands in to the department chair a report prepared by an undergrad chem major without checking it for substantive errors, and one exists most of the time the chair will be upset or frustrated with the PhD-pursuer. Just like with OP's situation. Just like "any and almost every job."

Important note: nowhere did I say that being a chemist, working at a law firm, or any and almost every job are the same. Nobody with an IQ or an ounce of intellectual honesty could pull that out of what I said.

This really just confirms my suspicion that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're a lawyer. Show us, don't tell us.

[Lincoln]

Like most submit-now-take-time-to-understand-never style posters on these boards, you don't even grasp the statement you're responding to, yet you're responding to it with such misplaced confidence that it would be endearing if... wait no, no, it wouldn't be. It's just a waste of pixels.

If a PhD-pursuing scientist hands in to the department chair a report prepared by an undergrad chem major without checking it for substantive errors, and one exists most of the time the chair will be upset or frustrated with the PhD-pursuer. Just like with OP's situation. Just like "any and almost every job."

Important note: nowhere did I say that being a chemist, working at a law firm, or any and almost every job are the same. Nobody with an IQ or an ounce of intellectual honesty could pull that out of what I said.

This really just confirms my suspicion that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're a lawyer. Show us, don't tell us.

Show you what? I responded substantively to OP earlier in the thread. I found Catsinthebag's posts off the mark, and a quick search through prior posts made it clear Catsinthebag is not a lawyer, so I (fairly politely, IMO) suggested Catsinthebag refrain from offering advice about legal employment, since Catsinthebag has zero experience with legal employment.

[lurklaw]

Like most submit-now-take-time-to-understand-never style posters on these boards, you don't even grasp the statement you're responding to, yet you're responding to it with such misplaced confidence that it would be endearing if... wait no, no, it wouldn't be. It's just a waste of pixels.

If a PhD-pursuing scientist hands in to the department chair a report prepared by an undergrad chem major without checking it for substantive errors, and one exists most of the time the chair will be upset or frustrated with the PhD-pursuer. Just like with OP's situation. Just like "any and almost every job."

Important note: nowhere did I say that being a chemist, working at a law firm, or any and almost every job are the same. Nobody with an IQ or an ounce of intellectual honesty could pull that out of what I said.

This really just confirms my suspicion that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're a lawyer. Show us, don't tell us.

Show you what? I responded substantively to OP earlier in the thread. I found Catsinthebag's posts off the mark, and a quick search through prior posts made it clear Catsinthebag is not a lawyer, so I (fairly politely, IMO) suggested Catsinthebag refrain from offering advice about legal employment, since Catsinthebag has zero experience with legal employment.

Address my post 3 above this one for starters

[Anonymous User]

The personality of the person reprimanding you is almost as relevant as what they said. One partner's reply email telling you to correct something could be a bigger deal than another partner's yelling at you. I'm also not sure the partners are necessarily discussing with others. If you're still getting work from the same partners then it's clear they haven't lost all trust in you. I'm only a first year but I've found that I'm more prone to making sloppy mistakes when working for someone I have an awkward relationship with, because there's this inherent desire to want to finish as quickly as possible to get out of any awkward situation. You have to be aware of your weaknesses and control for them or it could spiral and become a self-fulfilling pattern. That said I'd look for other jobs in the meantime. If you put the partner at risk of looking bad to the client it's going to be hard to rebuild trust than wasting some of the partner's time.

[Lincoln]

Address my post 3 above this one for starters

You mean where you say OP has "established a reputation as someone who the partners cannot trust"?

First, I don't know what your basis is for saying anything about OP's "reputation".

Second, like I said earlier, nothing OP did would be grounds for getting fired at my firm.

Third, as I also said earlier, regardless of my opinion on OP's mistakes, those comments from a partner certainly aren't good, so it's probably not a bad idea to for OP to polish the resume.

All that being said, some partners are just difficult. I have one partner who calls everyone a "fucking idiot" on a daily basis, but as far as I know, he's never had anyone fired. OP is in the best position to know what the situation is at his firm.

[lurklaw]

0L's, ^this is what it looks like when a lawyer concedes defeat. Lots of hand-waving.

[Anonymous User]

OP - 4th year biglaw lit associate here. Unfortunately I cannot tell you whether you will be canned as it is highly firm and economy specific. I will say though, that your mistakes sound like mistakes I have made constantly over the course of my career and your partners sound like a partner who once chewed me out and threatened that I wouldn't last six months - and yet I got my bonus that year and advanced in class anyway. Some partners demand completely unreasonable standards of perfection from associates such that if every associate who got that talk from a partner was out the door there would be nobody left to staff cases. Some partners use associates as punching bags for their own stress. Do good work for the non-insane partners and the other partners will find someone more junior to pick on.

As for the specific issues you face, they are common even among senior associates. The amount of shit you do not know and do not know that you do not know is staggering when you are a general litigator and you are bound to fuck up along the way.

Typos are one of those things that you get better at spotting with time and experience because you learn what to look for quickly. Stuff like consistently formatted brief headings, common BB mistakes, inconsistent formatting within a document, defined terms, two spaces between sentences, periods inside vs outside the parens...this crap is all very visible to senior associates or partners and juniors dont even notice no matter how many times they read the document. Just keep working at it and you will improve with time.

As for court rules you are a biglaw associate. You are not going to have a grasp of court rules because you are hardly ever in court or filing documents. Again, experienced senior associates have not seen enough situations to have a good grasp of local rules for the courts they are typically in. You will screw up in ways that you probably do not even understand because you have no idea what to look for. Do you have a managing clerk's office that is experienced with all the local courts? If so, run everything even remotely procedural by them before confirming with the partner.

[Lincoln]

0L's, ^this is what it looks like when a lawyer concedes defeat. Lots of hand-waving.

I didn't realize it was a competition, and I'm not sure what I lost, but I'm glad you feel victorious.

[Lincoln]

OP - 4th year biglaw lit associate here. Unfortunately I cannot tell you whether you will be canned as it is highly firm and economy specific. I will say though, that your mistakes sound like mistakes I have made constantly over the course of my career and your partners sound like a partner who once chewed me out and threatened that I wouldn't last six months - and yet I got my bonus that year and advanced in class anyway. Some partners demand completely unreasonable standards of perfection from associates such that if every associate who got that talk from a partner was out the door there would be nobody left to staff cases. Some partners use associates as punching bags for their own stress. Do good work for the non-insane partners and the other partners will find someone more junior to pick on.

As for the specific issues you face, they are common even among senior associates. The amount of shit you do not know and do not know that you do not know is staggering when you are a general litigator and you are bound to fuck up along the way.

Typos are one of those things that you get better at spotting with time and experience because you learn what to look for quickly. Stuff like consistently formatted brief headings, common BB mistakes, inconsistent formatting within a document, defined terms, two spaces between sentences, periods inside vs outside the parens...this crap is all very visible to senior associates or partners and juniors dont even notice no matter how many times they read the document. Just keep working at it and you will improve with time.

As for court rules you are a biglaw associate. You are not going to have a grasp of court rules because you are hardly ever in court or filing documents. Again, experienced senior associates have not seen enough situations to have a good grasp of local rules for the courts they are typically in. You will screw up in ways that you probably do not even understand because you have no idea what to look for. Do you have a managing clerk's office that is experienced with all the local courts? If so, run everything even remotely procedural by them before confirming with the partner.

I agree with all of the above.