Stub Year Confusion Forum

[Elston Gunn]

(also, weren't you just recently worrying about whether you should be getting more to do than doc review?)

Oh wow, you’re right, this was the same person who was worried that he was doing doc review despite being “T14 and at a V5.”

avenuem, very seriously, I don’t know how you come off in person, but you should do some self-reflection to make sure you aren’t alienating your coworkers. You have every right to be proud of where you’ve gotten, and it’s great that you take pride in your work, but the way you fail in Biglaw is when nobody wants to work with you. Usually that happens because the person is incompetent, but if everyone thinks you have a bad attitude, that’s just as bad (and sometimes worse as a junior).

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

I don't think anyone ever really believed that no stub has ever done good work, but by and large most stub work is somewhat meaningless and mistakes are expected, so statements like that are meant to comfort OP that mistakes are normal at this point in OP's career. Then you came in hot with your take and if you think that your initial post wouldn't come across as arrogant to 95% of people, including the people you're doing your great work for, then your EQ is as low as your IQ is high. That initial rant started a chain of somewhat ad hominem attacks, but I'm sure everyone has gotten something from a stub that was not useless and was in decent shape so I don't think anyone is flatly disagreeing with you, they're mostly just acknowledging that even if your legal work is top notch for your class year, you'll need to spend the time your classmates are using to improve their substantive skills working on your soft skills. But who knows, maybe you're pleasant and well-adjusted in person and just a keyboard warrior.

That said, most stub work does tend to be the lowest hanging fruit and even stubs at firms like Cravath or wherever else are not substantially involved in drafting main deal docs, so to the extent a stub turns something in that doesn't get revised, it would still be a crazy leap to extrapolate that "I must be a great associate and all of my other classmates that needed revisions aren't on my level." Maybe that isn't what you intended to say, but it absolutely came across that way.

I appreciate your honest post. You acknowledge that stubs can do good work. You acknowledge that people flamed me on a personal basis, and not based on reason (except Nixy at some points included reason in her flames). And you acknowledge that I came off like a dick. I am. But being a dick doesn't make the substance of what I say wrong, just made it harder to hear for some people. Knowing you heard it is all I need. But I'll take you words to heart and act like this is reddit, where I sugarcoat things so that it's easier to swallow.

@Nixy Let's not go back to that thread. Even there people got angry at me for believing that coming from a T14 to do doc review is at least worth worrying about. I did get more than doc review since that thread and I did good work. While being a stub. Next time I'll be more receptive to yours, others, and OPs feelings while making my points.

Lastly, online I'm 50% dick, 100% fact. In person I'm a mixture of fact and not dick.

[LawrenceGazebo]

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

I don't think anyone ever really believed that no stub has ever done good work, but by and large most stub work is somewhat meaningless and mistakes are expected, so statements like that are meant to comfort OP that mistakes are normal at this point in OP's career. Then you came in hot with your take and if you think that your initial post wouldn't come across as arrogant to 95% of people, including the people you're doing your great work for, then your EQ is as low as your IQ is high. That initial rant started a chain of somewhat ad hominem attacks, but I'm sure everyone has gotten something from a stub that was not useless and was in decent shape so I don't think anyone is flatly disagreeing with you, they're mostly just acknowledging that even if your legal work is top notch for your class year, you'll need to spend the time your classmates are using to improve their substantive skills working on your soft skills. But who knows, maybe you're pleasant and well-adjusted in person and just a keyboard warrior.

That said, most stub work does tend to be the lowest hanging fruit and even stubs at firms like Cravath or wherever else are not substantially involved in drafting main deal docs, so to the extent a stub turns something in that doesn't get revised, it would still be a crazy leap to extrapolate that "I must be a great associate and all of my other classmates that needed revisions aren't on my level." Maybe that isn't what you intended to say, but it absolutely came across that way.

I appreciate your honest post. You acknowledge that stubs can do good work. You acknowledge that people flamed me on a personal basis, and not based on reason (except Nixy at some points included reason in her flames). And you acknowledge that I came off like a dick. I am. But being a dick doesn't make the substance of what I say wrong, just made it harder to hear for some people. Knowing you heard it is all I need. But I'll take you words to heart and act like this is reddit, where I sugarcoat things so that it's easier to swallow.

@Nixy Let's not go back to that thread. Even there people got angry at me for believing that coming from a T14 to do doc review is at least worth worrying about. I did get more than doc review since that thread and I did good work. While being a stub. Next time I'll be more receptive to yours, others, and OPs feelings while making my points.

Lastly, online I'm 50% dick, 100% fact. In person I'm a mixture of fact and not dick.

Pathetic.

[nixy]

Next time I'll be more receptive to yours, others, and OPs feelings while making my points.

The bigger issue is probably picking your battles. Going off being a dick on an issue not really pertinent to the overall point because you were offended by the idea that your value as a stub wasn’t being recognized didn’t move the conversation forward in any way.

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

Pathetic.

You're so garbage you can't articulate any coherent response, just an insult like others before you.

What a wonderful contribution. Here's a gold award for you.

Next time I'll be more receptive to yours, others, and OPs feelings while making my points.

The bigger issue is probably picking your battles. Going off being a dick on an issue not really pertinent to the overall point because you were offended by the idea that your value as a stub wasn’t being recognized didn’t move the conversation forward in any way.

Nevermind the fact that the thread only went off the rails because of the visceral, knee-jerk reaction most of you had to missing my point that stubs/first years can do good work and focusing on me personally.

Good point, kind stranger, take my updoot.

[emc91]

Jesus. I hate this profession.

[Wakhancorridor]

Is V5 a thing? Like do we take Latham or Skadden associates more seriously than Kirkland or Gibson associates lol

[dyemond]

This is garbage conventional wisdom that people spout.

You're right on some things, like how all associates should gift secretaries (I only recognize you because I just finished reading that thread). But you're wrong on junior work being useless. I'm a stub. I just did part of a big project, along with many other stubs, juniors, and midlevels (we all had the same exact task, because it was a divide and conquer project). ZERO of my work on the project had to be corrected. Others work did have to be corrected. Why? Because even though we did the same work, I used enough time and attention to get everything right. Also at a V5 that prides itself on not fucking up, so that helps. It pisses me off when people say all stub/1st year work is bad. It's bad if you suck. But you don't have to suck because you're a first year/stub.

Edit (in case anyone is wondering): The managing associate on the project circulated the final draft and I did comparisons to confirm if any changes were made to various sections. This is another indicator of being competent (not sucking). You find ways to check your own work without direct feedback.

This post is AMAZING. I'm sure you did fine on this project. I'm sure other people did have to be corrected. But extrapolating so broadly beyond that based on, what, maybe 2 months' work in your current job? is really really weird. Further, "Nobody is doing good work as a stub" is not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that (as you seem to interpret it) literally all stub/1st year work is "useless."

And your offense at being lumped in with the ordinary mortal stubs doesn't at all help the OP, because even if you are the embodiment of the principle that stubs make amazing contributions to their firms (or at least at the V5 where they pride themselves on not fucking up, compared to all the other biglaw firms which are totally good with people fucking up), that's not useful to someone who is still adjusting to a job that law school doesn't actually train you for. You being offended that your work isn't being properly valued doesn't actually say anything about whether the OP should be worried (and OP, I agree with everyone that it's a big adjustment and you're almost certainly fine).

Let's be honest, Nixy. Whose claim is truly more ridiculous?

My claim that stubs/1st years can do good work or this person's claim that "Nobody is doing good work as a stub."

You're painting over this person's black-and-white, absolute, broad-brush statement to make it look as if it is "not a claim that literally everything every stub turns in needs to be corrected in some way, or that literally all stub/1st year work is 'useless.'" Dishonest. The word "nobody" means "nobody," not "some stubs," not "maybe 2 in 100 stubs," but "none," "zero," "nilch." Meanwhile, my claim that stubs/1st years can do good work acknowledges that it's possible for stubs to do good work. Is it really me who is being absurd? No.

But you're jumping on the same bandwagon, as people do when you challenge conventional wisdom. Idiots. Enjoy your delusions. I'm done. But thank you, because dishonest as you were, you're the only one who made an argument based on reason. But I'll restate what you all know in your hearts to be true: You might dislike me or my post personally, because of how I phrased things in a way that some found "arrogant" and maybe rattled feathers by mentioning being at a V5 (none of this matters). But what you must admit and what does matter is that putting me and my posts aside, stubs/first years can do good work. This is a truth.

lol ok stub

[nixy]

Pathetic.

You're so garbage you can't articulate any coherent response, just an insult like others before you.

What a wonderful contribution. Here's a gold award for you.

Next time I'll be more receptive to yours, others, and OPs feelings while making my points.

The bigger issue is probably picking your battles. Going off being a dick on an issue not really pertinent to the overall point because you were offended by the idea that your value as a stub wasn’t being recognized didn’t move the conversation forward in any way.

Nevermind the fact that the thread only went off the rails because of the visceral, knee-jerk reaction most of you had to missing my point that stubs/first years can do good work and focusing on me personally.

Good point, kind stranger, take my updoot.

I have a hard time thinking that if you're like this online, none of it shows through in real life.

[NoLongerALurker]

No doubt this dude is someone who everyone talks shit about him behind his back but he either doesn't realize it or he does realize it but somehow thinks it's everyone else being jealous/wrong haha

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

Is V5 a thing? Like do we take Latham or Skadden associates more seriously than Kirkland or Gibson associates lol

You recognize the V5 when you're not sour grapes.

"Re: Second-tier DC firms vs. NY V5"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=302769

"V5 vs. Lit Boutique: Help me decide"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=304636

"V5 v V50"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=303847


It's so funny how on a thread about lawyers, maybe two of you argued in response to my point and both acknowledged it's truth that stub/first years can do good work. Meanwhile, the rest are raging because I let slip that I'm at a V5 or that I made one comment last month about being from a T14. The jealously is not a good look.

[nixy]

Is V5 a thing? Like do we take Latham or Skadden associates more seriously than Kirkland or Gibson associates lol

You recognize the V5 when you're not sour grapes.

"Re: Second-tier DC firms vs. NY V5"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=302769

"V5 vs. Lit Boutique: Help me decide"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=304636

"V5 v V50"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=303847

...but the poster you're responding to didn't post in any of those threads.

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

Is V5 a thing? Like do we take Latham or Skadden associates more seriously than Kirkland or Gibson associates lol

You recognize the V5 when you're not sour grapes.

"Re: Second-tier DC firms vs. NY V5"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=302769

"V5 vs. Lit Boutique: Help me decide"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=304636

"V5 v V50"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=303847

...but the poster you're responding to didn't post in any of those threads.

Oh, sweet child, I never said the poster posted in those threads.

The poster asked "is V5 a thing," so I was providing concrete, actual threads where TLS posters recognize that V5 is a thing.

[LawrenceGazebo]

Is V5 a thing? Like do we take Latham or Skadden associates more seriously than Kirkland or Gibson associates lol

You recognize the V5 when you're not sour grapes.

"Re: Second-tier DC firms vs. NY V5"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=302769

"V5 vs. Lit Boutique: Help me decide"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=304636

"V5 v V50"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=303847


It's so funny how on a thread about lawyers, maybe two of you argued in response to my point and both acknowledged it's truth that stub/first years can do good work. Meanwhile, the rest are raging because I let slip that I'm at a V5 or that I made one comment last month about being from a T14. The jealously is not a good look.

Embarrassing.

[Elston Gunn]

Yeah dude we’re all so jealous, since none of us had the opportunity to go to a T14 or work at Latham.

[NoLongerALurker]

To the stub year's credit here, it's definitely the case that stubs can do good work on an assignment. In fact, most stubs are eager to please and fresh-off-the-bench in a way where they probably are more likely to do good on a small discrete assignment than a lot of slightly more senior juniors.

It's also definitely the case that all stubs necessarily are bad at seeing the big picture, because there's literally no way someone 2 months into a new career can possibly understand the big picture. In fact, if they think they can, they're probably more dangerous than those who admit they can't. They just don't have access to it. I'd daresay a stub year making long posts about how "good" he is to try to prove everyone wrong here is probably demonstrating this point precisely, focusing on whatever piece of a memo or report or whatever they slapped together and failing to see the forest for the trees in terms of their value to the deal.

When someone says stubs are universally bad, they're usually talking about big picture. A stub can't lead a deal. A stub can't do a good job advising a client on a broader transaction. And that's fine. Stubs will also make stupid embarrassing growing pain mistakes -- maybe the stub in this thread is immune from that (some stubs are really sharp and polished immediately -- a truth that's often overlooked in these conversations -- so all the power to the stub here if so, I guess..).

But in my experience, when midlevels-through-seniors talk shit about stubs (and this kind of conversation is usually the kind of conversation that leads to stubs not getting work, and thereby actually impacts their career), the conversation isn't "oh, the sub didn't know what they were doing" or whatever. The conversation is "Oh, he definitely thinks he's hot shit and sucks to work with. Just staff me with someone else if you can." Respectfully, non-OP-stub, I think you should worry that you come across like this more than you realize irl. Maybe you don't, but I'd be surprised if you didn't based on the past couple pages here.

[Wakhancorridor]

Is V5 a thing? Like do we take Latham or Skadden associates more seriously than Kirkland or Gibson associates lol

You recognize the V5 when you're not sour grapes.

"Re: Second-tier DC firms vs. NY V5"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=302769

"V5 vs. Lit Boutique: Help me decide"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=304636

"V5 v V50"
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=303847


It's so funny how on a thread about lawyers, maybe two of you argued in response to my point and both acknowledged it's truth that stub/first years can do good work. Meanwhile, the rest are raging because I let slip that I'm at a V5 or that I made one comment last month about being from a T14. The jealously is not a good look.

Jesus Christ dude

[nixy]

Oh, sweet child, I never said the poster posted in those threads.

The poster asked "is V5 a thing," so I was providing concrete, actual threads where TLS posters recognize that V5 is a thing.

Maybe saying "you recognize the V5" to the person who didn't post about the V5 wasn't the best way to get that point across.

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

Quality post. Not quoting all of it because it's so long, but really appreciate how you acknowledge the point that stub/first years can be good and polished, and do like work, while providing a fair warning that even those who are doing good work can get themselves in trouble with bad personality.

I acknowledge I might seem like a dick IRL more than I think I do, but I'm confident from how people talk about me off TLS and my non-TLS reputation that I do an outstanding job not being a dick in person and with colleagues and that it's only a TLS issue. In fact, I don't think I was even that much of a dick here (despite acknowledging being a dick at all). I think I was really just unapologetically frank in stating that stub/1st years can do good work, providing an example from my own experience, and refusing to back down when people took issue with my admittedly coarse (at times) tone which probably seemed insensitive in the face of OP's concerns (which I never intended to diminish or negate).

I'll never mention being at a V5 or being T14 again, because that only made things worse (though, to be fair, someone else went through my posts to bring the T14 thing into this thread).

Thanks, NoLongerALurker, I'm glad you made a post.

[LawrenceGazebo]

Quality post. Not quoting all of it because it's so long, but really appreciate how you acknowledge the point that stub/first years can be good and polished, and do like work, while providing a fair warning that even those who are doing good work can get themselves in trouble with bad personality.

I acknowledge I might seem like a dick IRL more than I think I do, but I'm confident from how people talk about me off TLS and my non-TLS reputation that I do an outstanding job not being a dick in person and with colleagues and that it's only a TLS issue. In fact, I don't think I was even that much of a dick here (despite acknowledging being a dick at all). I think I was really just unapologetically frank in stating that stub/1st years can do good work, providing an example from my own experience, and refusing to back down when people took issue with my admittedly coarse (at times) tone which probably seemed insensitive in the face of OP's concerns (which I never intended to diminish or negate).

I'll never mention being at a V5 or being T14 again, because that only made things worse (though, to be fair, someone else went through my posts to bring the T14 thing into this thread).

Thanks, NoLongerALurker, I'm glad you made a post.

Sad.

[MrTooToo]

*looks at thread*

*remembers why I only come to TLS during bonus season*

*slowly turns around and walks away*

[avenuem]

This post by a first-year associate is disputed.

Sad.

Still, this guy spends his Sunday reading and writing one-word replies to my posts, unable to actually articulate a coherent thought. Attempting to feel good by putting someone down, because that person is miles ahead of him. But I'm the sad one.

Great contribution. Upvoted!

[thenewguy]

I think it is fair to have expectations for stubs when its a task like putting together a contract review chart or something as opposed to like an ancillary transaction doc that they have never done before using just a precedent from a different purchase agreement. I'm in corporate so using these examples.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I acknowledge I might seem like a dick IRL more than I think I do, but I'm confident from how people talk about me off TLS and my non-TLS reputation that I do an outstanding job not being a dick in person and with colleagues and that it's only a TLS issue.

(Obvious dick who has no idea how people talk about him and apparently makes a habit out of regularly pissing off every single person he interacts with online for some reason, confused in six years about why no one liking you will disqualify you from partnership even if you nail every stub year comma)

Haha I'm just kidding, T14-V5 Prodigy. Can you send comments on the other side's PPM this afternoon? Please don't suck or be lazy.

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

[Anonymous User]

Sad.

Still, this guy spends his Sunday reading and writing one-word replies to my posts, unable to actually articulate a coherent thought. Attempting to feel good by putting someone down, because that person is miles ahead of him. But I'm the sad one.

Great contribution. Upvoted!

You know, reactions to your comments in one word are acceptable. Not every comment anyone ever makes has to be this super long-reasoned, eloquent response that meets your standards. This isn't court.

And assuming you're "miles ahead of him"? Both kind of a wild thing to do, given you don't know him/her, and because you were just ridiculing him/her for putting YOU down. Oh, and also wild because anyone who makes assumptions like that is arrogant in the worst way -- unfoundedly arrogant.

You've done well in life up to this point academically and professionally. But at the end of the day, how you treat people and how people remember you is what matters. You think people don't think of you as a dick outside of this forum...you must either be incredibly good at hiding this arrogance, condescension, and crazy need to be right, or you might wsnt to consider that maybe people (especially people who aren't super close to you, like your colleagues, etc.) don't feel about you the way you think they do.