[delete] Forum

[Anonymous User]

If I were you I would start looking like yesterday. Bad situation to be in, and just because you had issues with two senior people doesn't mean that you don't already have a reputation that others will want to avoid. I'd lateral somewhere and then change your whole outlook on what this job is supposed to be. A 2nd year reviewing a 1st year's work is pretty normal, one person at least knows what is going on and the other has no idea. I often have juniors review 1st year work before I look since I'm too busy to be catching typos and other shit that a first year gets wrong.

Also, ratting on co-workers is a huge no-no unless you don't care about being fired and want to blow up someone's spot. In the future, go directly to the person and discuss, don't try to put a black mark in with HR in the hopes they'll like you more, they definitely will not.

I'd try and get out ASAP if your team is being disbanded. They may find another place for you or they may say you aren't worth the hassle. Definitely start looking.

While I agree that OP should start looking, I don't agree with the bolded. There have been several relatively junior associates at my firm who raised concerns about superiors and were able to improve their situations. The superiors' behavior was similar to what OP is talking about and higher-ups did get involved. The key is that the practice group is big enough that the associates could realistically avoid working with those superiors again. OP seems to be in a smaller group, which is why I think exploring lateraling would be a good move. I just wanted to provide a counterexample because raising concerns/"complaining" is a lot more common than people think and can help if an associate is stuck in a toxic situation.

[Anonymous User]

This is actually fascinating to read because I had a similar situation when I was a second year with a first year.

Basically, the first year was garbage about availability. I was staffed on two simultaneous deals with them and when shit was hitting the fan they’d tell me they weren’t available for really dumb reasons and so I had to pick up the slack when I was already doing 100+ hour weeks. So, when people asked me how it was working with that first year I’d tell the truth. They didn’t “get” that the only thing they’re good for is to be available when needed and they’d regularly be out of pocket when things were hot and heavy (e.g. a day before an M&A signing) and I’d never work with them again.

Word got back to the first year and they loudly complained how awful I was to work for and I was a prick.

[objctnyrhnr]

I’m not going to sugarcoat this because it would not benefit you in the long run, which (I promise) is my goal in this post.

At best, there is something very fundamentally wrong with your workplace instinct; at worst, there is something fundamentally wrong with your social skills more generally or maybe your basic ability to navigate situations with other people.

Frankly, your thought that “an attorneys higher on the totem pole was rude to me etc., so I will go tell HR and they will (somehow) take steps that will ultimately make my experience better” is very very wrong. Before you lateral—which you should absolutely do—you need to read up on how to actually navigate the workplace because your own instincts are not serving you well here. Not only was your action a poor way to deal with things in biglaw; I would imagine it’s a poor way to deal with things in any white collar job.

Of course, I see what you were going for, but it evinces a very elementary understanding of how the world actually works. In a best case scenario, what did you really think would happen: HR would send a strongly worded email to a couple attorneys who make many times more than the HR rep, then they’d apologize to you, they’d allow you to start again from scratch and suddenly give you more complex work, and you and the attorneys would then talk about plans for the weekend over lunch? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Also, your experience isn’t uncommon in biglaw lit from my perspective as a midlevel associate.

So yes—lateral ASAP but find a way to gain a better understanding of this environment before you begin at the new spot so that you don’t make a similarly misguided move when you arrive.

[cavalier1138]

The senior screamed at me over a mistake and the junior told me that I was getting scut work because I had done bad work and ruined my reputation after I dropped the ball on a project. I didn't think either was appropriate.

You didn't think it was appropriate for the other junior (with more experience) to warn you that your shoddy work product had impacted your reputation and workflow? I'd definitely want to know about that sooner rather than later.

I'm not sure why you thought HR was the right move here. I don't necessarily agree with the prior post about needing to be "tough" in this field (although clearly some partners do think about it that way). But HR should be reserved for something more serious than getting chewed out once over your own fuck-up.

[dabigchina]

Chalk this up as a learning experience, OP. Going to HR is the nuclear option. Be at least a little hesitant about using it.

Otherwise, it's hard to say based on your post whether you were working with unreasonable assholes, or if you truly do suck from a substantive perspective.

[nixy]

Yeah, I feel like going to HR is appropriate if someone is doing something illegal (stalking you, harassing you, discriminating against you based on your race/gender/etc.), or wants you to do something illegal. They're not really a resource for getting yelled at once over a mistake or told something you don't want to hear about your work.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Yeah, I feel like going to HR is appropriate if someone is doing something illegal (stalking you, harassing you, discriminating against you based on your race/gender/etc.), or wants you to do something illegal. They're not really a resource for getting yelled at once over a mistake or told something you don't want to hear about your work.

Another perspective of the same fact is that HR has no power except when they wield the sword of explicit federal/state laws that prohibit whatever problem you're complaining about. (And even then that power is pursuant to an economic weighing between the hassle/expense of fixing the problem and the negative EV of whatever lawsuit/sanction/bad PR is at stake.)

[TigerIsBack]

Why do people on TLS keep calling it "the HR"?

[nixy]

Why do people on TLS keep calling it "the HR"?

I assumed it’s the same person posting anon.

[objctnyrhnr]

It’s anecdotes like this that make me feel like not being a K-JD should be worth more in law school admissions than it currently is. Even if somebody’s bottom rung at whatever entity they might work at pre-LS, the experience is intrinsically valuable for a few reasons including the fact that it would inform one’s behavior in situations like this.

And if my guess is wrong and the OP is actually not a K-JD, OP’s action is even more concerning.

[JusticeSquee]

It’s anecdotes like this that make me feel like not being a K-JD should be worth more in law school admissions than it currently is. Even if somebody’s bottom rung at whatever entity they might work at pre-LS, the experience is intrinsically valuable for a few reasons including the fact that it would inform one’s behavior in situations like this.

And if my guess is wrong and the OP is actually not a K-JD, OP’s action is even more concerning.

Ehh, this seems like a bad take. The concept of “don’t rat out your peers” is pretty universal. This is just bad judgment, don’t think experience has anything to do with it.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw partner here who regularly leads large teams on matters. My advice to you is to lateral ASAP and think about what you can do in the future not to end up in the same position. My experience has been that while poor treatment of an associate happens from time to time, if it is occurring regularly to one associate in particular, then it makes sense to examine the common denominator. Weak performers (not careful enough, miss deadlines, not organized, substantively lagging peers, poor attitude) are spotted really quickly by other team members and biglaw is not a very forgiving or understanding place. The anger/frustration being directed at you is usually the culmination of long simmering resentment by your teammates at your sustained underperformance. While you may think it is coming out of nowhere and just related to a single ball you dropped, in fact it is almost always the case that your teammates have had to put up with you for a long time and finally are at wit's end and snap.

Reporting "meanness" to HR is a big mistake. HR is powerless in biglaw - they work for the lawyers and not the other way around. The way I see it is that you couldn't work out your issues with your co-workers and had to run to mommy to step in and fix things for you. You are an adult now in an industry that is known for, and takes pride in, its toughness. If you can't resolve your own interpersonal problems, how can you be trusted to handle an important case and fight for your clients, especially in litigation?

Lateral ASAP.

This is a really toxic and frankly, out of touch take. I recently discovered (for lack of a better term) a situation where a midlevel threw a diverse first-year associate under the bus for "performance issues," when as far as I could tell, the first-year's work was good. Partners aren't very good at spotting other partners, seniors and midlevels who are terrible to work for and who consistently throw people under the bus for nonsense reasons--in large part, because they're incentivized not to when deals are getting done/cases are handled and money is coming in. While I agree going to HR was a bad idea, and that OP should have figured out another path, I've also met associates who weren't aware of what was happening to them (getting screwed) because they relied on a system that cannot be trusted to have the best interests of associates in mind (or you know, clearly communicate feedback).

[objctnyrhnr]

It’s anecdotes like this that make me feel like not being a K-JD should be worth more in law school admissions than it currently is. Even if somebody’s bottom rung at whatever entity they might work at pre-LS, the experience is intrinsically valuable for a few reasons including the fact that it would inform one’s behavior in situations like this.

And if my guess is wrong and the OP is actually not a K-JD, OP’s action is even more concerning.

Ehh, this seems like a bad take. The concept of “don’t rat out your peers” is pretty universal. This is just bad judgment, don’t think experience has anything to do with it.

I think “bad take” is a little harsh, but I definitely take your point. Ultimately, there will be K JDs who have the natural common sense to refrain from doing what OP did, and there will be non-K JDs who lack it.

That said, on balance, I maintain that a given K JD is more likely to “run to mommy” (to quote a recent poster) in the manner that OP did than a given person who’s already been in a work environment for a couple years.

[notinbiglaw]

OP, you need to find a new firm and find some people to mentor/coach you. What you're describing is hard to salvage.

You're going to be one of the first to be cut (from new work at least, if not firm's payroll altogether) whenever it's time to trim staff. Your continued employment depends a lot on the firm/group having enough business to need your warm body for busy work even though nobody likes you.

[cavalier1138]

The concept of “don’t rat out your peers” is pretty universal.

I don't think that concept is quite as universal as you think, but the OP also wasn't "ratting out" any peers. They reported two senior (at least relative to the OP) attorneys. The issue was that they chose to do it over the wrong thing.

[Anonymous User]

The “tattling” I think is a huge issue.

I had someone more senior from my team send an email to my comp manager that they thought I was too abrupt with them, basically tattling. The entire team from my office then refused any work with the person due to not being able to trust working with them and we were supported globally.

People don’t like it when someone seems to just go around their back and others definitely see the reasoning why one wouldn’t want to work with that person.

[Person1111]

I frankly think "never go to HR, ever" is the easiest rule. It's obviously over-broad, but HR is not your ally - not in a law firm and not anywhere - and identifying the rare instances where it is appropriate is more difficult than just resolving never to use it at all. And, yes, tattling on your co-workers is a huge red flag, and I would do everything in my power to avoid working with someone who did it - no matter the merits of their complaint.

[objctnyrhnr]

I frankly think "never go to HR, ever" is the easiest rule. It's obviously over-broad, but HR is not your ally - not in a law firm and not anywhere - and identifying the rare instances where it is appropriate is more difficult than just resolving never to use it at all. And, yes, tattling on your co-workers is a huge red flag, and I would do everything in my power to avoid working with someone who did it - no matter the merits of their complaint.

Seconded in its entirety.

[nixy]

Totally fair. I wish it weren’t true, but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

[Anonymous User]

I’m one of the anon posters who went to HR (actually our lawyer development person) regarding a partner. I was ready to quit on the spot, but everything was sorted out. I think going to someone if the person who you work for (this partner provides me 80-90% of my work) is so bad that you would rather quit than work with them is okay. But, as others have mentioned, you have to be perfectly okay with quitting at that point.

The partner and I haven’t spoke about the incident, but he is a lot better to work for now. I think, for him, having no associate working for him is worse than anything I’m doing “wrong,” so that may be why he has reined it in a bit. I still get yelled at, but not nearly as long and as frequently as before. It’s to a point now where I can deal with it without the constant anxiety I had before.

[papermateflair]

In most big law firms, personality conflicts, work product issues, and similar things are usually handled outside of the HR process. HR handles a lot of things for non-attorneys (like compensation discussions, performance issues, etc) that attorneys will handle themselves internally. It doesn't make a ton of sense, but that's the way it is. Obviously there are times to go to HR (if you're being harassed, if you need to talk about going out on FMLA, if you need ADA accommodations, etc.) but most run of the mill issues are handled outside of HR. Going to HR because someone criticized you isn't how things work in law firms. It probably seems like we're all piling on, OP, but I think it's important for you to understand the "unwritten rules" of law firm life if you want to be successful.

That doesn't mean you need to put up with abusive behavior or anything like that. If a senior associate behaved inappropriately towards you when giving you criticism, talk to someone about what to do - maybe start with a junior or mid-level you trust and find out what the scoop is, and if they think it makes sense to raise it up the flagpole to someone more senior. Maybe consider talking to a partner mentor to see how they suggest handling it (without naming names, if possible). Ultimately, if the partner who oversees the senior thinks the behavior was inappropriate, then it's up to them to fix it. If they don't care about it, then, well, that sucks and isn't the way things should be, but the reality is that you're working for a small business (each partner with their own clients is their own little business), or a series of small businesses, and it's up to the "boss" to figure it out.

[Person1111]

In most big law firms, personality conflicts, work product issues, and similar things are usually handled outside of the HR process. HR handles a lot of things for non-attorneys (like compensation discussions, performance issues, etc) that attorneys will handle themselves internally. It doesn't make a ton of sense, but that's the way it is. Obviously there are times to go to HR (if you're being harassed, if you need to talk about going out on FMLA, if you need ADA accommodations, etc.) but most run of the mill issues are handled outside of HR. Going to HR because someone criticized you isn't how things work in law firms. It probably seems like we're all piling on, OP, but I think it's important for you to understand the "unwritten rules" of law firm life if you want to be successful.

That doesn't mean you need to put up with abusive behavior or anything like that. If a senior associate behaved inappropriately towards you when giving you criticism, talk to someone about what to do - maybe start with a junior or mid-level you trust and find out what the scoop is, and if they think it makes sense to raise it up the flagpole to someone more senior. Maybe consider talking to a partner mentor to see how they suggest handling it (without naming names, if possible). Ultimately, if the partner who oversees the senior thinks the behavior was inappropriate, then it's up to them to fix it. If they don't care about it, then, well, that sucks and isn't the way things should be, but the reality is that you're working for a small business (each partner with their own clients is their own little business), or a series of small businesses, and it's up to the "boss" to figure it out.

The bolded is obviously correct in principle, but the line between "abusive behavior" and the ordinary criticism associated with a high-stress, high-stakes, high-compensation job is very fine and not where most young associates think it is. Getting yelled at is part of the job (particularly when you are a junior associate and don't know any better), and the best way to avoid it is to get better at the job or to figure out how to work with people you jive with better.

[Anonymous User]

I posted earlier about junior associates at my firm involving higher-ups and seeing improvement. I think this is really a millennial vs. non-millennial thing. The juniors who raised concerns were definitely millennials, and I think that is why it is becoming increasingly common (at least at my firm) to hear about complaints. There is more emphasis on firm improvement-type initiatives from the younger lawyers than there has been in the past, and people are becoming more open about airing grievances and less concerned with archaic unwritten rules.

[esther0123]

I posted earlier about junior associates at my firm involving higher-ups and seeing improvement. I think this is really a millennial vs. non-millennial thing. The juniors who raised concerns were definitely millennials, and I think that is why it is becoming increasingly common (at least at my firm) to hear about complaints. There is more emphasis on firm improvement-type initiatives from the younger lawyers than there has been in the past, and people are becoming more open about airing grievances and less concerned with archaic unwritten rules.

Also seeing this a lot at my firm, but honestly I find this a little extreme and exasperating at times (and I am considered to be a "millennial" too, but maybe not as junior?). It's one thing if it's legitimate disrespect and yelling (I actually happen to think yelling is not okay in any context... the millennial in me) but it's very annoying when it comes from a group of associates who add zero value to the case because they're constantly messing up, can't take direction, not motivated (unless given affirmation for "trying") and bluntly no "fire" to try the case. Where they don't do something right, they turn around on "bad instruction" or "bad management", instead of trying to figure it out themselves in spite of "bad instruction". Basically from my perspective, I'm resentful for the trouble they're causing without a corresponding output. They are SO high maintenance without much return. Ha, just venting.

[JusticeSquee]

In most big law firms, personality conflicts, work product issues, and similar things are usually handled outside of the HR process. HR handles a lot of things for non-attorneys (like compensation discussions, performance issues, etc) that attorneys will handle themselves internally. It doesn't make a ton of sense, but that's the way it is. Obviously there are times to go to HR (if you're being harassed, if you need to talk about going out on FMLA, if you need ADA accommodations, etc.) but most run of the mill issues are handled outside of HR. Going to HR because someone criticized you isn't how things work in law firms. It probably seems like we're all piling on, OP, but I think it's important for you to understand the "unwritten rules" of law firm life if you want to be successful.

That doesn't mean you need to put up with abusive behavior or anything like that. If a senior associate behaved inappropriately towards you when giving you criticism, talk to someone about what to do - maybe start with a junior or mid-level you trust and find out what the scoop is, and if they think it makes sense to raise it up the flagpole to someone more senior. Maybe consider talking to a partner mentor to see how they suggest handling it (without naming names, if possible). Ultimately, if the partner who oversees the senior thinks the behavior was inappropriate, then it's up to them to fix it. If they don't care about it, then, well, that sucks and isn't the way things should be, but the reality is that you're working for a small business (each partner with their own clients is their own little business), or a series of small businesses, and it's up to the "boss" to figure it out.

The bolded is obviously correct in principle, but the line between "abusive behavior" and the ordinary criticism associated with a high-stress, high-stakes, high-compensation job is very fine and not where most young associates think it is. Getting yelled at is part of the job (particularly when you are a junior associate and don't know any better), and the best way to avoid it is to get better at the job or to figure out how to work with people you jive with better.

Getting yelled at is not “part of the job.” This is a moronic thing to say. Do not put up with people yelling at you.