Top Law Schools

Apparently this is a thing, and I have no clue. What say you TLS

I've always been conscious about who I put in the to and cc lines when I originate an email. I think some people care but will never yell at you about it out of concern of looking too petty. However, if there's like a distribution list, I'll just hit reply all. I couldn't imagine any gives a shit about reordering it.

I've actually heard partners say that they don't like it when a lower-ranking person's name comes before theirs in an email, and that best practice is to list recipients in descending order of seniority and use alphabetical order for people of equal rank.

I wish I were making this up.

Yes, huge deal. Partner always goes before me. Will get irritated if memo is to me and cc them. Even the most laid back partner notices.
May be a relic from before computers.

"Consider implications and consequences of use of To/CC fields: 0.1"

Desert Fox wrote:Apparently this is a thing, and I have no clue. What say you TLS

It is, and it's not unique to law. I got chrewed out at my pre-law school job by a manager for CCing her on an email to my boss, because they should have both been in the "To" line since they're equals.

People have so little self-esteem.

I always use the cc line as a "hey this isn't something you need to deal with but it is something you need to know line."

Pneumonia wrote:I always use the cc line as a "hey this isn't something you need to deal with but it is something you need to know line."

Come back in two years with your no-offer.

It is ok DZ I have invested in some neat boat shoes so I know I'm good to go.

If I have learned anything from tls/forums today it has been that the key to getting an offer is to memorize a list of BigLaw do's and don't's rather than to be socially aware.

Jesus, it's this sort of crap that I'm not looking forward to... Pple are so damn sensitive.

Pneumonia wrote:It is ok DZ I have invested in some neat boat shoes so I know I'm good to go.

If I have learned anything from tls/forums today it has been that the key to getting an offer is to memorize a list of BigLaw do's and don't's rather than to be socially aware.

Touché. You'll be fine.

suzige wrote:Jesus, it's this sort of crap that I'm not looking forward to... Pple are so damn sensitive.

The word you're looking for is megalomaniacal: "a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, omnipotence, and by inflated self-esteem."

idk, isn't there such a thing as putting a supervisor as a CC? I mean, show your boss or some other higher up that you're doing the work. You know, an FYI of sorts...

Never encountered this being an issue or mentioned either as a SA or in my previous non-law job. But I don't doubt someone out there will find a way to be offended by e-mail etiquette.

Pneumonia wrote:I always use the cc line as a "hey this isn't something you need to deal with but it is something you need to know line."

That's also how I understood the CC function.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

suzige wrote:Jesus, it's this sort of crap that I'm not looking forward to... Pple are so damn sensitive.

The word you're looking for is megalomaniacal: "a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, omnipotence, and by inflated self-esteem."

yay.

This is news to me, but maybe I don't CC a whole parade of people very often. I CC the partner on the matter when I e-mail a client, and I CC the relationship partner, sometimes, when I e-mail the partner who is directly working on the matter with me. Because it's not TO him, I'm just keeping him apprised. If this is a huge faux pas, no one has told me yet.

jrf12886 wrote:Never encountered this being an issue or mentioned either as a SA or in my previous non-law job. But I don't doubt someone out there will find a way to be offended by e-mail etiquette.

Pneumonia wrote:I always use the cc line as a "hey this isn't something you need to deal with but it is something you need to know line."

That's also how I understood the CC function.

This is right IMO.

The order of recipients is the far dumber and more insidious issue. No one has ever said anything to me about it (because you can't say anything about it without looking like a sensitive dick) but you can't help but notice when every single email that you receive from others on a case has the recipients in order of seniority.

For me, here is the money question: You hit reply all and outlook prepopulates the To field OUT OF SENIORITY ORDER. Do you reorder? I would say no but maybe I am going to get the talk soon.

I typically CC in order of seniority for my project only because I have noticed this is what more senior people do

Got a specific talk about this at orientation.

Don't forget to rearrange to conform to to etiquette when using reply all.

rayiner wrote:Got a specific talk about this at orientation.

Really?

Desert Fox wrote:

rayiner wrote:Got a specific talk about this at orientation.

Really?

The memory is fuzzy, and it could've been something more informal, but I remember getting talked-to about it in front of other people.

rayiner wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

rayiner wrote:Got a specific talk about this at orientation.

Really?

The memory is fuzzy, and it could've been something more informal, but I remember getting talked-to about it in front of other people.

lol