Is it normal to get your balls busted at your SA? Forum

[Burlington4174]

You sound like a prestigious partner to work for.

I'm not a partner, and it's not a popularity contest. And basically, as long as you don't make people work gratuitously on weekends, they'll take your assignments, since such a large percentage of folks DO make people work gratuitously on weekends. So, look at all the fucks I give.

But seriously, research the damn assignment the partner gave you, not the one you wish it were. If you have questions ask questions; but don't repeat back to him what you hope he said. Part of the game is to learn how to take instruction from a client, and if you do that "read back" stuff with the client then youll get eaten alive. You should assume we're not just breaking your balls for the yucks.

And yes, taking notes on a assignment while someone is talking a mile a minute and assuming you know things you don't know is really hard, but it remains really hard pretty much forever. Welcome to life as a lawyer!

You're sort of naive and overly cynical, huh? An odd combination.

[stego]

Also - this is the best piece of advice I got for my SA.

Take notes throughout, ask questions. The last thing you say to the assigning attorney before you leave is a restatement of the assignment in your own words to make sure you understand it - if you're wrong, the attorney will correct you. If not - you know what you're doing.

"So you want me to look at recent district cases in the fourth circuit applying their rule for the CFAA and analyze them?"

Partners can sometimes not realize they're being a little opaque, so the rephrasing can really help you feel confident about your assignment.

Fwiw, when Summers do this to me it drives me nuts, since inevitably it is an attempt to take the sprawling, difficult assignment I just gave and to artificially distill it into something simple and linear. I got so fed up with answering, "no, if the recent activity has been in some other jurisdiction and a court in the fourth circuit is likely to change its analysis based on what's gone down in that other jurisdiction so you damn well not just limit your search in that way", that now when someone pulls that rephrasing ploy on me I reply with "not really - the assignment was what I just spent 15 minutes explaining to you." That tends to get the point across. And I get better work product, because people can't hide behind the assignment as they've rephrased it to be easier.

If that's what you meant why didn't you just say that the first time? It sounds like you have difficulty communicating information clearly to SAs.

[Catsinthebag]

From the sound of it, I'd say the only thing to be a bit worried about is the explaining yourself part, e.g. having to clarify things a number of times. In the past, in the event I found myself in a similar situation of coming back with minute detail x missing, I have actually asked whether there was a source or sources, like specialty journal, I was maybe overlooking and then rattled off a few I had already checked... I realize your problem was sort of the reverse and you're not going to ask him to cite to the US Code for you, but if you find creative ways to ask questions while at the same time conveying that you haven't just been sitting there like a turd (not saying you were doing that!), I've found it helps.

[BaiAilian2013]

You sound like a prestigious partner to work for.

I'm not a partner, and it's not a popularity contest. And basically, as long as you don't make people work gratuitously on weekends, they'll take your assignments, since such a large percentage of folks DO make people work gratuitously on weekends. So, look at all the fucks I give.

But seriously, research the damn assignment the partner gave you, not the one you wish it were. If you have questions ask questions; but don't repeat back to him what you hope he said. Part of the game is to learn how to take instruction from a client, and if you do that "read back" stuff with the client then youll get eaten alive. You should assume we're not just breaking your balls for the yucks.

And yes, taking notes on a assignment while someone is talking a mile a minute and assuming you know things you don't know is really hard, but it remains really hard pretty much forever. Welcome to life as a lawyer!

I do the "repeat it back" thing all the time with clients, without using those words. It reads as "active listening" and elicits a positive response. And not doing it with attorneys, especially when you're junior and don't know them yet, can cause a lot of problems.

OP, here is something it took me a while to learn. When you find what you were looking for, don't immediately bound back to the assigning attorney like you're a dog playing fetch. It's exciting that you found the answer, but resist the temptation, unless maybe the assignment was a huge rush. Instead, take the time to get really familiar with the facts of the cases that are right on point, and understand where they fit into the big picture along with the semi-relevant cases you also found - the ones that just touched on the issue but didn't really deal with it, or that dealt with part of the issue, or an issue that is often used as an analogy, etc. Then, type up (don't scrawl on a legal pad, it's less useful later) a brief outline to organize your thoughts, and so that you won't be flipping through cases or getting flustered when explaining your findings. Finally, close your eyes, clear your mind, imagine yourself explaining your findings, and try to anticipate the assigning attorney's questions. Did you shepardize the on-point cases? What were the parties' burdens and the standard of review, if applicable, in those cases? Etc.

[unlicensedpotato]

OP, here is something it took me a while to learn. When you find what you were looking for, don't immediately bound back to the assigning attorney like you're a dog playing fetch. It's exciting that you found the answer, but resist the temptation, unless maybe the assignment was a huge rush. Instead, take the time to get really familiar with the facts of the cases that are right on point, and understand where they fit into the big picture along with the semi-relevant cases you also found - the ones that just touched on the issue but didn't really deal with it, or that dealt with part of the issue, or an issue that is often used as an analogy, etc. Then, type up (don't scrawl on a legal pad, it's less useful later) a brief outline to organize your thoughts, and so that you won't be flipping through cases or getting flustered when explaining your findings. Finally, close your eyes, clear your mind, imagine yourself explaining your findings, and try to anticipate the assigning attorney's questions. Did you shepardize the on-point cases? What were the parties' burdens and the standard of review, if applicable, in those cases? Etc.

This x1000. Once you have "the answer," you still need to organize the information. Most likely, you don't know all of the relevant facts so the partner may need to take what you found to a different conclusion. The correct answer to the question you were asked isn't enough for that.

[sollos]

Also - this is the best piece of advice I got for my SA.

Take notes throughout, ask questions. The last thing you say to the assigning attorney before you leave is a restatement of the assignment in your own words to make sure you understand it - if you're wrong, the attorney will correct you. If not - you know what you're doing.

"So you want me to look at recent district cases in the fourth circuit applying their rule for the CFAA and analyze them?"

Partners can sometimes not realize they're being a little opaque, so the rephrasing can really help you feel confident about your assignment.

Fwiw, when Summers do this to me it drives me nuts, since inevitably it is an attempt to take the sprawling, difficult assignment I just gave and to artificially distill it into something simple and linear. I got so fed up with answering, "no, if the recent activity has been in some other jurisdiction and a court in the fourth circuit is likely to change its analysis based on what's gone down in that other jurisdiction so you damn well not just limit your search in that way", that now when someone pulls that rephrasing ploy on me I reply with "not really - the assignment was what I just spent 15 minutes explaining to you." That tends to get the point across. And I get better work product, because people can't hide behind the assignment as they've rephrased it to be easier.

You're really tilting at windmills here.

If the assignment was originally as broad as you put it, then no one is going to advise that the summer should repeat back a simplified version of it to reconfirm that that is what was wanted. The point is simply to restate what it is that the attorney originally wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page, which is pretty good general advice.

[Avian]

Also - this is the best piece of advice I got for my SA.

Take notes throughout, ask questions. The last thing you say to the assigning attorney before you leave is a restatement of the assignment in your own words to make sure you understand it - if you're wrong, the attorney will correct you. If not - you know what you're doing.

"So you want me to look at recent district cases in the fourth circuit applying their rule for the CFAA and analyze them?"

Partners can sometimes not realize they're being a little opaque, so the rephrasing can really help you feel confident about your assignment.

Fwiw, when Summers do this to me it drives me nuts, since inevitably it is an attempt to take the sprawling, difficult assignment I just gave and to artificially distill it into something simple and linear. I got so fed up with answering, "no, if the recent activity has been in some other jurisdiction and a court in the fourth circuit is likely to change its analysis based on what's gone down in that other jurisdiction so you damn well not just limit your search in that way", that now when someone pulls that rephrasing ploy on me I reply with "not really - the assignment was what I just spent 15 minutes explaining to you." That tends to get the point across. And I get better work product, because people can't hide behind the assignment as they've rephrased it to be easier.

You're really tilting at windmills here. It drives me nuts when my college students take thought experiments and change up the original conditions thereby missing the whole point of the thought experiment in the first place, which is the same sort of thing you're doing here.

If the assignment was originally as broad as you put it, then no one is going to advise that the summer should repeat back a simplified version of it to reconfirm that that is what was wanted. The point is simply to restate what it is that the attorney originally wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page.

This is pretty good general advice. I had a pretty intensive professor back at undergrad, and I got into the habit of carrying around a notepad to write down his instructions because we got into a rapport of him giving me assignments and me reporting back with my findings. I still carry around a notepad with me, though as a prof. the only use I've had for it now is to remind myself of things to do for my students rather than writing down assignments I've been given from a higher up. But I expect I'll be making more use of it in law.

What sollos said. Also I've actually had partners make me do the whole repeating the assignment back to them thing. If an assignment is really that complicated, then you can alternatively say something like, "So you want me to start by... and go from there?"

[smallfirmassociate]

Am I the only one who is not offended by what angry midlevel is saying? Ideally the conversation between the person assigning the work and the person receiving it will be fairly sophisticated. It should involve some back-and-forth, some questions and clarifications, etc. In that case, you aren't really going to distill the assignment down to a one-sentence thesis statement without losing some of the nuance of the project.

Sure, the assigner needs to be realistic with SA's, but I can totally understand the inclination to discourage the type of "summarizing" that so many ITT are approving. I also don't buy that all SA's are completely incapable of doing complex legal analysis, preferably on the spot. It might not be the most refined, but a good law student should have some instinct about what to ask to understand the assignment better. If the SA or associate doesn't pay attention and understand the situation well, then IMO that can lead to the type of (often avoidable) constant redirecting and interruption that this thread is about, which is not a good look to the gatekeeper.

[smallfirmassociate]

To extrapolate: I'll give an example from an actual assignment I had as a second or third year associate. We believed that OP had violated a pretrial order and also failed to follow a certain Federal Rule re: discovery. I received a typical assignment: find similar cases to determine our recourse, sanctions / atty fees, similar cases, factors the court considers, etc. My instinct said to ask a few questions, so I did: Was our client harmed or prejudiced by various non-disclosures? Did our client have independent access to the information? Was a certain document lost or destroyed / which party had it last? Did we ask OC to comply prior to filing motion with court?

A few clarifying questions is all. Took maybe 45 seconds. When I got into the research, I realized that most of that information was relevant, and since I already had it, I didn't have to go back and bug the partner. I had never researched this rule at all, but these questions are some combination of instinct and common sense with a minimal amount of experience dealing with other discovery issues. They just seemed like the type of questions that may be important, and I am absolutely sure that I am not the only associate who would come up with them on the spot.

I think it is reasonable for the partner to assess an SA's instincts and to train her to approach assignments that way. Part of that approach, IMO, might mean following along for the whole conversation and understanding the nuances of the issue instead of trying to distill it to a law school prompt.

[20160810]

You sound like a prestigious partner to work for.

I'm not a partner, and it's not a popularity contest. And basically, as long as you don't make people work gratuitously on weekends, they'll take your assignments, since such a large percentage of folks DO make people work gratuitously on weekends. So, look at all the fucks I give.

But seriously, research the damn assignment the partner gave you, not the one you wish it were. If you have questions ask questions; but don't repeat back to him what you hope he said. Part of the game is to learn how to take instruction from a client, and if you do that "read back" stuff with the client then youll get eaten alive. You should assume we're not just breaking your balls for the yucks.

And yes, taking notes on a assignment while someone is talking a mile a minute and assuming you know things you don't know is really hard, but it remains really hard pretty much forever. Welcome to life as a lawyer!

"The devil wears Joseph A. Bank."

-Desert Fox

[kcdc1]

I think what the mid-level anon is actually annoyed about is when junior attorneys say things that suggest they don't understand the assignment anon spent time explaining. If the summary were spot-on, I doubt it would be annoying. In other words, anon is annoyed by incompetence, which is understandable enough. But if that's the case, anon should probably try to avoid assigning work to SA's.

[20160810]

I think what the mid-level anon is actually annoyed about is when junior attorneys say things that suggest they don't understand the assignment anon spent time explaining. If the summary were spot-on, I doubt it would be annoying. In other words, anon is annoyed by incompetence, which is understandable enough. But if that's the case, anon should probably try to avoid assigning work to SA's.

The summer associate program is part joke, part charity, part mentorship, part audition. Yes we like them to be good but if you confuse the hell out of them instead of teaching them you as the attorney have failed. If a summer doesn't have a clue how to do an assignment it's almost always the assigning attorney's fault.

[kcdc1]

IMO, a person who explains once and refuses to explain again is more interested in having someone to yell at when things go wrong than in actually getting things right. Exceptions apply where the junior has proven him/herself incompetent and repeat explanations are wasteful.

[DELG]

I'd be more concerned if a summer/first year didn't sum up their understanding since they so easily get it wrong.

[HonestAdvice]

I think what the mid-level anon is actually annoyed about is when junior attorneys say things that suggest they don't understand the assignment anon spent time explaining. If the summary were spot-on, I doubt it would be annoying. In other words, anon is annoyed by incompetence, which is understandable enough. But if that's the case, anon should probably try to avoid assigning work to SA's.

The summer associate program is part joke, part charity, part mentorship, part audition. Yes we like them to be good but if you confuse the hell out of them instead of teaching them you as the attorney have failed. If a summer doesn't have a clue how to do an assignment it's almost always the assigning attorney's fault.

The issue with this is that the most junior personal almost always writes the review so making the assigning attorney look bad is the worst possible outcome.

[First Offense]

I think what the mid-level anon is actually annoyed about is when junior attorneys say things that suggest they don't understand the assignment anon spent time explaining. If the summary were spot-on, I doubt it would be annoying. In other words, anon is annoyed by incompetence, which is understandable enough. But if that's the case, anon should probably try to avoid assigning work to SA's.

The summer associate program is part joke, part charity, part mentorship, part audition. Yes we like them to be good but if you confuse the hell out of them instead of teaching them you as the attorney have failed. If a summer doesn't have a clue how to do an assignment it's almost always the assigning attorney's fault.

The issue with this is that the most junior personal almost always writes the review so making the assigning attorney look bad is the worst possible outcome.

...

I have no idea what this sentence is saying.

[lavarman84]

I'd be more concerned if a summer/first year didn't sum up their understanding since they so easily get it wrong.

I got an assignment today and there was one part I didn't quite understand. Asked the lawyer to explain it again. Still didn't understand it after they explained. I figure I'll do the parts I do understand and then ask about the parts I don't if it doesn't become more clear.

But yea, it can be tough to understand the instructions on the first go-around. Sometimes, they leave things out. Sometimes, it's simply my ignorance. Although, some attorneys are good at explaining what they want.

[clshopeful]

I'm not an SA, but undergoing same problem. I begin my clerk position, and immediately am hit with a contract assignment. Atty explains what I'm supposed to do in about 2 minutes; I barely catch all of it. To make it worse, he misspoke several times ... "You're right, I mean absorb THAT contracts terms into this one" and "crap, I forgot there are amendments to this.. The amendment sections are on the server, look those up to see if they change anything"

Any legal office I've ever worked in, I'm usually thrown to the deep-end immediately, with barely enough instruction/knowledge to do the task. It sucks

[Anonymous User]

IMO, a person who explains once and refuses to explain again is more interested in having someone to yell at when things go wrong than in actually getting things right. Exceptions apply where the junior has proven him/herself incompetent and repeat explanations are wasteful.

Like everyone else, you're missing the point. I give assignments to about 6-8 summers a year; at this point I have worked with like 50 summers over the years, and countless wet-behind-the-ears first years. I pretty much know what the expected level of summer knowledge and note-taking ability should be. My explanations hit that level, adjusted for whether, for example, you've taken corps yet or not.

A summer assignment is part of a job interview. A job interview where everyone gets an offer, sure, but still an interview.

Also remember that every second I teach you is a second I'm not home with my kid. Don't get me wrong, you seem like a fine sort, but I like my kid more. If I gave every summer I work with the kinds of explanations they probably want, Id be adding an hour to my day. Not cool.

Think of it this way: I am giving you this assignment - and I do try to give substantive assignments - to give you a chance to show something. Part of "showing something" is taking careful notes, learning as much as you can and then coming back with targeted, well thought-out questions.

FWIW, you'd be amazed both at how bad some summer work is and how good some other summer work is. The variance is incredible. I've had summers who are better by week 2 than many of my first years and summers who never produce a single paragraph of useful work product, and everywhere in between. Y'all are not fungibly awful.

[kcdc1]

IMO, a person who explains once and refuses to explain again is more interested in having someone to yell at when things go wrong than in actually getting things right. Exceptions apply where the junior has proven him/herself incompetent and repeat explanations are wasteful.

Like everyone else, you're missing the point. I give assignments to about 6-8 summers a year; at this point I have worked with like 50 summers over the years, and countless wet-behind-the-ears first years. I pretty much know what the expected level of summer knowledge and note-taking ability should be. My explanations hit that level, adjusted for whether, for example, you've taken corps yet or not.

A summer assignment is part of a job interview. A job interview where everyone gets an offer, sure, but still an interview.

Also remember that every second I teach you is a second I'm not home with my kid. Don't get me wrong, you seem like a fine sort, but I like my kid more. If I gave every summer I work with the kinds of explanations they probably want, Id be adding an hour to my day. Not cool.

Think of it this way: I am giving you this assignment - and I do try to give substantive assignments - to give you a chance to show something. Part of "showing something" is taking careful notes, learning as much as you can and then coming back with targeted, well thought-out questions.

FWIW, you'd be amazed both at how bad some summer work is and how good some other summer work is. The variance is incredible. I've had summers who are better by week 2 than many of my first years and summers who never produce a single paragraph of useful work product, and everywhere in between. Y'all are not fungibly awful.

That's fine. You can of course give SA's real work and dispense with the handholding. Just don't act surprised / get annoyed when half of them fuck it up. Many - though not all - are incompetent and require handholding.

[Anonymous User]

That's fine. You can of course give SA's real work and dispense with the handholding. Just don't act surprised / get annoyed when half of them fuck it up. Many - though not all - are incompetent and require handholding.

Not to speak for the other anon, but I don't believe he's saying he's surprised and annoyed by the work product, but by certain approaches. Lawyers don't give SA's work expecting product that's ready for prime time. It's more about how the SA conducts himself and the process he uses. Work product is somewhat important, but it's secondary to doing things the right way and showing potential, IMO.

[pancakes3]

That's fine. You can of course give SA's real work and dispense with the handholding. Just don't act surprised / get annoyed when half of them fuck it up. Many - though not all - are incompetent and require handholding.

Not to speak for the other anon, but I don't believe he's saying he's surprised and annoyed by the work product, but by certain approaches. Lawyers don't give SA's work expecting product that's ready for prime time. It's more about how the SA conducts himself and the process he uses. Work product is somewhat important, but it's secondary to doing things the right way and showing potential, IMO.

the very narrow question here is why giving a summary at the end is viewed as detrimental conduct. based on the responses by associates it seems to be positive with a few exceptions taking a very strong negative view of it.


on an unrelated note, i've noticed that i'm using the word "just" way more than i should and it comes off as either valley-talk-ish, or beta af e.g. "just checking in", "just wanted to know", "just replying" etc.

[HonestAdvice]

I think what the mid-level anon is actually annoyed about is when junior attorneys say things that suggest they don't understand the assignment anon spent time explaining. If the summary were spot-on, I doubt it would be annoying. In other words, anon is annoyed by incompetence, which is understandable enough. But if that's the case, anon should probably try to avoid assigning work to SA's.

The summer associate program is part joke, part charity, part mentorship, part audition. Yes we like them to be good but if you confuse the hell out of them instead of teaching them you as the attorney have failed. If a summer doesn't have a clue how to do an assignment it's almost always the assigning attorney's fault.

The issue with this is that the most junior personal almost always writes the review so making the assigning attorney look bad is the worst possible outcome.

...

I have no idea what this sentence is saying.

Junior associates are as inexperienced at giving assignments as summers are at getting assignments. The issue is that the junior is going to write your review, and in all likelihood nobody will ever look at your work product again. It's not even guaranteed that the person writing your review will look at your work product so your entire task is really just to make the person writing your review like you. If you get that person in trouble by telling a partner you didn't understand the assignment then they're not going to like you.

[First Offense]

Who is suggesting tattling to a partner?

[Anonymous User]

That's fine. You can of course give SA's real work and dispense with the handholding. Just don't act surprised / get annoyed when half of them fuck it up. Many - though not all - are incompetent and require handholding.

Not to speak for the other anon, but I don't believe he's saying he's surprised and annoyed by the work product, but by certain approaches. Lawyers don't give SA's work expecting product that's ready for prime time. It's more about how the SA conducts himself and the process he uses. Work product is somewhat important, but it's secondary to doing things the right way and showing potential, IMO.

the very narrow question here is why giving a summary at the end is viewed as detrimental conduct. based on the responses by associates it seems to be positive with a few exceptions taking a very strong negative view of it.


on an unrelated note, i've noticed that i'm using the word "just" way more than i should and it comes off as either valley-talk-ish, or beta af e.g. "just checking in", "just wanted to know", "just replying" etc.

Quoted anon here. I agree with your framing of the question. What I disagree with is characterizing angry midlevel's response as one that complains about work product or the talent or ability or knowledge of young SA's or lawyers (e.g. by telling him not to "act surprised / get annoyed when half of them fuck [the assignment] up"). I see his response as being about the proper way to teach the young bucks and discouraging bad habits, not about his personal aversion to the summarizing practice or the effect it has on final work product. I think angry midlevel is aware of SA work product levels and knows and/or doesn't care about ways in which his actions might cause it to be marginally better or worse. The bigger issue is teaching them how to lawyer properly in the long-term (err, middle-term; 6 - 18 months), not getting them to produce better work product in a three-month summer timeframe.

Perhaps that was all clear and I'm being redundant, but just to clarify.

(I don't think the "just" comes off like a valley girl. More like dismissive or (needlessly?) assertive.)