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

[pancakes3]

probably splitting hairs.

also, "dismissive or (needlessly?) assertive" may be worse.

[kcdc1]

To clarify, I was saying that explaining once and letting the SA sink or swim is a defensible practice, but that refusing to handhold will increase the likelihood that the SA displays his or her incompetence. As compared to an assigning attorney who handholds, you should reasonably expect more mistakes. One could argue that you should even be more forgiving of mistakes. Or you could take the sink or swim tack on work product too.

[Anonymous User]

To clarify, I was saying that explaining once and letting the SA sink or swim is a defensible practice, but that refusing to handhold will increase the likelihood that the SA displays his or her incompetence. As compared to an assigning attorney who handholds, you should reasonably expect more mistakes. One could argue that you should even be more forgiving of mistakes. Or you could take the sink or swim tack on work product too.

You're right. But displays in incompetence are a good thing, since they creats a spread in work product which means you can actually write a meaningful review that doesn't just say "seemed fine with the menial shit I gave her to do".

Even with juniors, if me or the midlevel have bandwidth to step in on mistakes, we might give more latitude to a junior just to see what will happen. And in turn, I see the same thing being done to me by partners. Part of the lawfirm assholery has a pedagogical purpose - the most PLEASANT person to work for is often not the one you will learn the most working under.

[pancakes3]

i mean... do you think it's necessary to give meaningful reviews to summers?

isn't the system currently constructed to rubber stamp summers into offers barring *social* underperformance, not actual underperformance?

it'd be one thing if the SA program was legitimately used to cull the herd and discern who has "it" and who doesn't - and you do have a point in that 1L GPA + interviews leave a lot of room for error in determining who has legitimate lawyering skills. however, i think it's more of a rubber stamping process and if you're looking for meaningful reviews and spotting incompetence - you should at least give notice because i don't think that's the expectation. we're told both on TLS and off that this is a job interview - not the actual job, and we'll be treated with kid gloves. if a "tyrannical" (for lack of a better term) is sinking offers then i don't think that's cool.

[kcdc1]

do you think it's necessary to give meaningful reviews to summers? . . . i think it's more of a rubber stamping process and if you're looking for meaningful reviews and spotting incompetence - you should at least give notice because i don't think that's the expectation.

This is ridiculous and smacks of entitlement. Yes, competency expectations for SA's are low, and yes, the vast majority of SA's will receive offers. But that doesn't mean you're not being evaluated. An unusually high level of incompetence may not lead to a no-offer, but it might cause your colleagues to think you're an idiot who they'd rather not work with.

[Anonymous User]

i mean... do you think it's necessary to give meaningful reviews to summers?

isn't the system currently constructed to rubber stamp summers into offers barring *social* underperformance, not actual underperformance?

it'd be one thing if the SA program was legitimately used to cull the herd and discern who has "it" and who doesn't - and you do have a point in that 1L GPA + interviews leave a lot of room for error in determining who has legitimate lawyering skills. however, i think it's more of a rubber stamping process and if you're looking for meaningful reviews and spotting incompetence - you should at least give notice because i don't think that's the expectation. we're told both on TLS and off that this is a job interview - not the actual job, and we'll be treated with kid gloves. if a "tyrannical" (for lack of a better term) is sinking offers then i don't think that's cool.

No firm -wants- to give 100% offers. We have to for marketing reasons. That being said, not all offers are the same. Everyone loves to gossip about particularly shitty summers and juniors. If you have an offer to return but half of the 29th floor has heard you're a complete fucking idiot, good luck working with anyone on the 29th floor. And even more notably - just because there are so few of them - people absolutely notice 'good' summers and try to grab them for their groups when they come back as real associates.

[lavarman84]

To clarify, I was saying that explaining once and letting the SA sink or swim is a defensible practice, but that refusing to handhold will increase the likelihood that the SA displays his or her incompetence. As compared to an assigning attorney who handholds, you should reasonably expect more mistakes. One could argue that you should even be more forgiving of mistakes. Or you could take the sink or swim tack on work product too.

You're right. But displays in incompetence are a good thing, since they creats a spread in work product which means you can actually write a meaningful review that doesn't just say "seemed fine with the menial shit I gave her to do".

Even with juniors, if me or the midlevel have bandwidth to step in on mistakes, we might give more latitude to a junior just to see what will happen. And in turn, I see the same thing being done to me by partners. Part of the lawfirm assholery has a pedagogical purpose - the most PLEASANT person to work for is often not the one you will learn the most working under.

Sounds like you're an incompetent leader and the people above you are incompetent leaders.

[Anonymous User]

To clarify, I was saying that explaining once and letting the SA sink or swim is a defensible practice, but that refusing to handhold will increase the likelihood that the SA displays his or her incompetence. As compared to an assigning attorney who handholds, you should reasonably expect more mistakes. One could argue that you should even be more forgiving of mistakes. Or you could take the sink or swim tack on work product too.

You're right. But displays in incompetence are a good thing, since they creats a spread in work product which means you can actually write a meaningful review that doesn't just say "seemed fine with the menial shit I gave her to do".

Even with juniors, if me or the midlevel have bandwidth to step in on mistakes, we might give more latitude to a junior just to see what will happen. And in turn, I see the same thing being done to me by partners. Part of the lawfirm assholery has a pedagogical purpose - the most PLEASANT person to work for is often not the one you will learn the most working under.

Sounds like you're an incompetent leader and the people above you are incompetent leaders.

Maybe. That's why I became a lawyer and not a general. Shame of it is, I'm (metaphorically) the one writing your review, so you should figure out how to work with a shitty leader like me.

[dixiecupdrinking]

If nothing else, this thread is a good education for summers in the kind of bullshit politics they'll need to learn to wade through.

[lavarman84]

To clarify, I was saying that explaining once and letting the SA sink or swim is a defensible practice, but that refusing to handhold will increase the likelihood that the SA displays his or her incompetence. As compared to an assigning attorney who handholds, you should reasonably expect more mistakes. One could argue that you should even be more forgiving of mistakes. Or you could take the sink or swim tack on work product too.

You're right. But displays in incompetence are a good thing, since they creats a spread in work product which means you can actually write a meaningful review that doesn't just say "seemed fine with the menial shit I gave her to do".

Even with juniors, if me or the midlevel have bandwidth to step in on mistakes, we might give more latitude to a junior just to see what will happen. And in turn, I see the same thing being done to me by partners. Part of the lawfirm assholery has a pedagogical purpose - the most PLEASANT person to work for is often not the one you will learn the most working under.

Sounds like you're an incompetent leader and the people above you are incompetent leaders.

Maybe. That's why I became a lawyer and not a general. Shame of it is, I'm (metaphorically) the one writing your review, so you should figure out how to work with a shitty leader like me.

Or I can choose not to because I have options. But I also purposefully chose a firm that has a reputation for avoiding shitty people (and it's why I decided against the NY market).

Shame of it is, there are associate stuck under you who will probably end up leading like you do. The reality is that you can be an incredibly pleasant person to work for and still lead. You can be a boss that people enjoy working under and still teach them a lot. It's actually really easy. Because most people actually care about their work product so they're going to take criticisms to heart. The ones who don't care aren't going to suddenly care because you treat them like shit.

[Anonymous User]

Most people are incapable of producing good work product and frankly are just marking time / keeping a seat warm for a few years. And if you do have a chance at being a good corporate lawyer, then you'll want to work for people who are tough and unforgiving, because it's under those people (who generally have the most and best deals) that you'll learn the most and improve fastest.

If you want to actually be -good- you will be competing against people who are going to work unimaginably hard and are as smart or smarter than you. It is almost necessarily an unpleasant business to turn into a good lawyer. Attorneys who kiss your ass and make life more pleasant are just setting you up to fail, and should be avoided. Your counterparts or your competition won't care about your feelings when they kick your ass.

[PvblivsScipio]

Most people are incapable of producing good work product and frankly are just marking time / keeping a seat warm for a few years. And if you do have a chance at being a good corporate lawyer, then you'll want to work for people who are tough and unforgiving, because it's under those people (who generally have the most and best deals) that you'll learn the most and improve fastest.

If you want to actually be -good- you will be competing against people who are going to work unimaginably hard and are as smart or smarter than you. It is almost necessarily an unpleasant business to turn into a good lawyer. Attorneys who kiss your ass and make life more pleasant are just setting you up to fail, and should be avoided. Your counterparts or your competition won't care about your feelings when they kick your ass.

You're basically just saying it's okay to be an asshole because it makes people better . And hiding by posting anon.

The fact that you think there's only ONE way to become a good attorney is laughably wrong. If you're as senior as you say you are then you know there are several approaches that are effective. The attorney who will smile and joke while she slides a knife between your ribs. The screamers and tantrumers. The ones who are just cold and hard to read. I could go on...

The way these attorneys work is partly natural disposition and partly the way they were trained, picking up from their mentors. You repeatedly say pleasant people aren't good mentors and you need someone who is tough and unforgiving. You seem to miss that you can be BOTH pleasant to work with but also tough and unforgiving. This may shock you, but there are ways to point out mistakes and teach lessons that don't need you to be an asshole. Some of the best attorneys I've worked for are the ones who will nitpick and tell you everything you did wrong, but will also take the time to explain WHY you did what wrong and how to make it right. They do this all without raising their voice, belittling, or insulting. It need not be an "unpleasant business". Your attitude is fucked up and it's people like you that make this profession, and particularly biglaw, so terrible.

[stego]

So ITT somebody used the fact they have a kid as an excuse for why they don't like to communicate assignments clearly to summers. Lol.

[kcdc1]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

[PvblivsScipio]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

And that's fine, but anon has gone out of the way to say working for pleasant people = bad training. That's simply not true.

[Anonymous User]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

This only holds true if they explain why your work product sucked. What generally happens instead is that you just don't get any more assignments from that partner. I can handle getting yelled at, but this profession is so passive aggressive that you generally don't even get feedback.

[smallfirmassociate]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

I think it's kind of that, but I also think people ITT are making this way too complicated. The dude straight up said his concerns and people are reading tea leaves to make it more. What I gather is:

- Summarizing assignments wastes attorney time and removes nuance from the assignment. Those nuances, if properly considered, can result in better work product.
- It's a valuable skill to learn not to waste the time of the assigning attorney if you want to get work in the future.
- It's not that attorneys don't want to help guide SA's and associates, it's that they are busy and excessive guidance defeats the purpose of delegating work. SA's have a hard time understanding this, but there's no such thing as "it's just five minutes." My entire life is full of "just five minutes" shit.
- If someone can't take the ball and run without every single detail colored in, despite the inherent stress of feeling a bit rudderless, then that person is unlikely to do well as an attorney.
- Sometimes people who you think are assholes make you better in life.

I get why the guy's personality is rubbing people the wrong way, but I don't find any of the above to be unreasonable. To the contrary, it's damned good advice IMO and gives SA's and young associates solid perspective on how they fit into this mess that is law practice.

[kcdc1]

No, he said it's unpleasant to become a good lawyer. It is unpleasant to work with no margin for error. Your boss might be personally pleasant, but if you know screwing up is going to damage your reputation and your career, you're going to be stressed out.

[Anonymous User]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

I think it's kind of that, but I also think people ITT are making this way too complicated. The dude straight up said his concerns and people are reading tea leaves to make it more. What I gather is:

- Summarizing assignments wastes attorney time and removes nuance from the assignment. Those nuances, if properly considered, can result in better work product.
- It's a valuable skill to learn not to waste the time of the assigning attorney if you want to get work in the future.
- It's not that attorneys don't want to help guide SA's and associates, it's that they are busy and excessive guidance defeats the purpose of delegating work. SA's have a hard time understanding this, but there's no such thing as "it's just five minutes." My entire life is full of "just five minutes" shit.
- If someone can't take the ball and run without every single detail colored in, despite the inherent stress of feeling a bit rudderless, then that person is unlikely to do well as an attorney.
- Sometimes people who you think are assholes make you better in life.

I get why the guy's personality is rubbing people the wrong way, but I don't find any of the above to be unreasonable. To the contrary, it's damned good advice IMO and gives SA's and young associates solid perspective on how they fit into this mess that is law practice.

If law school doesn't teach you how to practice law, and attorneys don't have the time or inclination to provide any guidance as to how to practice law, who exactly is it that teaches you how to practice law? Are some people just born knowing exactly what it is that they're supposed to do in a law firm?

[smallfirmassociate]

If law school doesn't teach you how to practice law, and attorneys don't have the time or inclination to provide any guidance as to how to practice law, who exactly is it that teaches you how to practice law? Are some people just born knowing exactly what it is that they're supposed to do in a law firm?

Mostly, yeah, it's based on your existing traits and being able to learn on your own through the type of monkey-see, monkey-do that little kids use to learn how to take a shit on the toilet or whatever. That's the big "secret" of practicing law. Put it this way: if people REALLY needed law school and a few years of practice before others could determine if they can be good lawyers, then why do many law firms offer SA's jobs after a 1L gig? Or even a 2L gig for that matter? Shouldn't it take three years of law school, plus another 2-3 years in a residency or intern type of position before getting hired? Shouldn't it take that long to follow someone's progress and see if they are learning?

Nah, it's mostly about the traits you already have on day 1 of law school, or the traits you have at the end of 1L year. The rest is a convoluted game.

Biglaw hiring is mostly a numbers game. Try to screen out people who are complete screw ups and then offer the rest, hoping you get 2-3 good lawyers out of every ten. Those are the ones who will be able to learn within the system. The ones who don't learn -- who cares? They'll be gone soon enough.

(Also, you said lawyers don't provide "any" guidance. That's not true. Just minimal to moderate at best, but certainly some. A lot of it is provided in a manner too subtle for many to pick up, but it's there.)

[patentlitigatrix]

So ITT somebody used the fact they have a kid as an excuse for why they don't like to communicate assignments clearly to summers. Lol.

If I have four kids, does that mean I basically get a pass on communicating with any humans at work? Because that would be awesome.

[lavarman84]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

This simply isn't true. I've worked for people that are perfectionists. I've worked for people who nitpicked every single thing I did. But these were also kind people who knew how to give feedback without making a person feel like shit.

It's really that simple. You can nitpick every detail. But if you know how to give feedback, you can still be pleasant to work for and get your point across. The people who give a shit will learn. And they'll love you for it.

This idea that you get better work product when you make people stressed, paranoid, and fearful is just ludicrous.

[Anonymous User]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

This simply isn't true. I've worked for people that are perfectionists. I've worked for people who nitpicked every single thing I did. But these were also kind people who knew how to give feedback without making a person feel like shit.

It's really that simple. You can nitpick every detail. But if you know how to give feedback, you can still be pleasant to work for and get your point across. The people who give a shit will learn. And they'll love you for it.

This idea that you get better work product when you make people stressed, paranoid, and fearful is just ludicrous.

I think you're generally wrong and unlikely to succeed with your attitude.

Whether you give a shit or not has surprisingly little to do with whether you learn or not; most of the people who drop garbage on my desk are trying as hard as they can, and plenty of the best people who worked under me were not really into being lawyers long term. Ability to work like a dog and giving a shit are NOT the same thing because the talent for grueling work is as much a god-given thing as the ability to read fast or sleep less. I can pull a 16 hr day and roll into the office the next day raring to go - that's not effort, it's just how it is.

"Giving a shit" isn't about whether you learn, it's about whether you can build yourself up to a professional standard.

Demanding people give you a model for how you need to treat yourself as a professional. Put different, I've never worked under someone who kicked my ass who wasn't harder on themselves. Rarely do you see hypocrites - when someone makes you rewrite a three line cover email nine times till you get it right (has happened to me) or rakes you over the coals for a single grammatical error in a 35 page document (had happened to me), you know they got where they are by stress dreaming over the same shit.

Most of my clients started as biglaw associates. They are patently as smart as me. They are generally as hard working (the myth of in house no-stress utopia is just that). But they're not PROFESSIONAL like you have to be when someone is paying your firm literally millions of dollars for your output. Even a tiny rattle in a BMW is infuriating.

To bring this back to the point: I have very little to TEACH you in the sense of explaining something complex. You are as smart as me, more or less, otherwise you wouldn't have been hired. You've been taught legal analysis, because you went to law school. You may not know corporate finance or accounting, but to be fair most lawyers, even transactional ones, don't REALLY know it either and we can never teach it as well as a good book. So what am I here for? It's not to coddle your ass and it's not to teach you in the sense of Miss Smith in 1st grade. It's to give you things to practice on that are appropriate for your skill level (you're not going to learn shit drafting a full Asset Purchase Agreement as a summer, but you'll probably get something out of doing a simple cross-receipt), and to give you a model to watch and learn from. Anything else we do is wasting both your time and, more importantly, mine.

[Anonymous User]

.

[gk101]

I think what anon is saying is that you learn quickest when you work for someone who demands perfection, and it is inherently stressful to work with for such a person -- even if they're pleasant enough in conversation. Operating with the knowledge that you have no margin for error makes you paranoid, but it also makes your work product better.

This simply isn't true. I've worked for people that are perfectionists. I've worked for people who nitpicked every single thing I did. But these were also kind people who knew how to give feedback without making a person feel like shit.

It's really that simple. You can nitpick every detail. But if you know how to give feedback, you can still be pleasant to work for and get your point across. The people who give a shit will learn. And they'll love you for it.

This idea that you get better work product when you make people stressed, paranoid, and fearful is just ludicrous.

I think you're generally wrong and unlikely to succeed with your attitude.

Whether you give a shit or not has surprisingly little to do with whether you learn or not; most of the people who drop garbage on my desk are trying as hard as they can, and plenty of the best people who worked under me were not really into being lawyers long term. Ability to work like a dog and giving a shit are NOT the same thing because the talent for grueling work is as much a god-given thing as the ability to read fast or sleep less. I can pull a 16 hr day and roll into the office the next day raring to go - that's not effort, it's just how it is.

"Giving a shit" isn't about whether you learn, it's about whether you can build yourself up to a professional standard.

Demanding people give you a model for how you need to treat yourself as a professional. Put different, I've never worked under someone who kicked my ass who wasn't harder on themselves. Rarely do you see hypocrites - when someone makes you rewrite a three line cover email nine times till you get it right (has happened to me) or rakes you over the coals for a single grammatical error in a 35 page document (had happened to me), you know they got where they are by stress dreaming over the same shit.

Most of my clients started as biglaw associates. They are patently as smart as me. They are generally as hard working (the myth of in house no-stress utopia is just that). But they're not PROFESSIONAL like you have to be when someone is paying your firm literally millions of dollars for your output. Even a tiny rattle in a BMW is infuriating.

To bring this back to the point: I have very little to TEACH you in the sense of explaining something complex. You are as smart as me, more or less, otherwise you wouldn't have been hired. You've been taught legal analysis, because you went to law school. You may not know corporate finance or accounting, but to be fair most lawyers, even transactional ones, don't REALLY know it either and we can never teach it as well as a good book. So what am I here for? It's not to coddle your ass and it's not to teach you in the sense of Miss Smith in 1st grade. It's to give you things to practice on that are appropriate for your skill level (you're not going to learn shit drafting a full Asset Purchase Agreement as a summer, but you'll probably get something out of doing a simple cross-receipt), and to give you a model to watch and learn from. Anything else we do is wasting both your time and, more importantly, mine.

I didn't think saying "you can demand perfection and still be kind about it" was that controversial but go you dude. thank god I have yet to work with someone like you