Am I unreasonable for hating my boss? Forum

[Anonymous User]

How unreasonable am I to hate my boss?

I'm actually on the verge of quitting. Offer in hand already, just waiting for conflicts to clear before I give notice. Over the past few years I've been at my current firm, I've really come to resent the partner I work for. I often wonder whether I'm being unreasonable, or if his behavior is truly unacceptable. Please know that I've never had an issue with billables and have never had a "talking to" about poor work product, so those aren't the reasons why I detest the man and find him plain despicable. But, below are some:

- Has made sexually suggestive jokes at work (I am female).
- Never lets me or the other associates sign our own documents (not going to specify what kind here to maintain anonymity); peers at our level at our competitors are already signing their own. I suspect my boss wants credit for what we do while putting in minimal effort.
- Works remotely for months out of the year (goes on vacation), refuses to sign on remotely and asks us (associates, paralegals) to scan and send him everything he needs so it's in his inbox.
- Ignores my requests for different kinds of work so I can learn new things and continually gives me the same work (higher margin work that forms the bulk of our practice, but still, I'd love to diversify...).
- Makes fun of clients who are of a certain ethnic minority group and cannot speak fluent English.
- Brings attorneys/clients visiting from certain countries to visit me in my office and encourages me to "speak our language" with them (I am of a certain minority group and was raised abroad, so I speak a foreign language fluently), even though I don't work with these clients or know who these people are...
- Throws temper tantrums at work, slamming things like drawers and files around his office. Also curses and complains loudly so everyone in the vicinity can hear and is on the edge.

I could go on and on, but I'm afraid I might out myself if I go into more specifics. So is it just me, or are all partners in biglaw such horrendous personalities? Beginning to wonder if things will be this bad no matter where I go. I don't mind being pushed to work hard, but the things I've put up with where I am are not things I signed up to do...

Thanks!

[zot1]

Jump ship.

[Nebby]

Sounds like a terrible boss.

[jbagelboy]

This is worse than my experience.

Honestly, I don't even think its unreasonable to hate your boss even if he didn't do all or even most of those particularly unattractive things. People that make you do shit can be hated.

[Genius]

Not to crap in this thread but your boss (who sounds terrible) isnt the worst. Trust me.

Your boss sounds like a top 30% in the shitpartner category. You dont really feel professional depression and anxiety until you work with a top 10% shitpartner.

[Anonymous User]

I've had all this plus being asked to do or keep quiet about actually illegal stuff, so it can be worse. But yes, it's awful. Good for you that you're finding a new place; hopefully you can avoid further racism/sexism there.

Not to crap in this thread but your boss (who sounds terrible) isnt the worst. Trust me.

Your boss sounds like a top 30% in the shitpartner category. You dont really feel professional depression and anxiety until you work with a top 10% shitpartner.

I agree they could be worse, but there's plenty here that would cause reasonable people to get depressed or anxious.

[1styearlateral]

FWIW I know some partners don't allow associates to sign documents as a method of insulating the associates from malpractice, etc. If something gets fucked up in the papers, the blame is all on your boss (whether with the court or a client) and not on you. I don't normally sign documents on cases assigned by the senior partners, but most lower-level partners will allow me to sign my own documents.

To get around your issue, why don't you put your name directly under his, so that people could at least surmise that you worked on the document even though your boss signed off on it. It's a win-win for both you and your boss.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I know some partners don't allow associates to sign documents as a method of insulating the associates from malpractice, etc. If something gets fucked up in the papers, the blame is all on your boss (whether with the court or a client) and not on you. I don't normally sign documents on cases assigned by the senior partners, but most lower-level partners will allow me to sign my own documents.

To get around your issue, why don't you put your name directly under his, so that people could at least surmise that you worked on the document even though your boss signed off on it. It's a win-win for both you and your boss.

OP here. I would, except I'm pretty sure my boss would think I'm trying to start a revolution of sorts if I did that. We have pre-written templates with his (and another partner's) names on them in the signature block, so basically all I can do is prepare the documents for his review, with the signature block pre-prepared. Sometimes I suspect this is his way of hiding to clients how little he actually does (and how often he's on vacation/is actually clueless about what's going on with their matters).

[run26.2]

FWIW I know some partners don't allow associates to sign documents as a method of insulating the associates from malpractice, etc. If something gets fucked up in the papers, the blame is all on your boss (whether with the court or a client) and not on you. I don't normally sign documents on cases assigned by the senior partners, but most lower-level partners will allow me to sign my own documents.

To get around your issue, why don't you put your name directly under his, so that people could at least surmise that you worked on the document even though your boss signed off on it. It's a win-win for both you and your boss.

OP here. I would, except I'm pretty sure my boss would think I'm trying to start a revolution of sorts if I did that. We have pre-written templates with his (and another partner's) names on them in the signature block, so basically all I can do is prepare the documents for his review, with the signature block pre-prepared. Sometimes I suspect this is his way of hiding to clients how little he actually does (and how often he's on vacation/is actually clueless about what's going on with their matters).

I'm not going to argue your boss isn't terrible. But the point about signing is so minor as to not be worth mentioning. This is part for the course with many partners. And who cares? I, like most people, I expect, would not look at the signature line and think the signer wrote the doc. What matters is whether you actually wrote it and can talk meaningfully about how you did it/what you know about hat type of doc.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I know some partners don't allow associates to sign documents as a method of insulating the associates from malpractice, etc. If something gets fucked up in the papers, the blame is all on your boss (whether with the court or a client) and not on you. I don't normally sign documents on cases assigned by the senior partners, but most lower-level partners will allow me to sign my own documents.

To get around your issue, why don't you put your name directly under his, so that people could at least surmise that you worked on the document even though your boss signed off on it. It's a win-win for both you and your boss.

OP here. I would, except I'm pretty sure my boss would think I'm trying to start a revolution of sorts if I did that. We have pre-written templates with his (and another partner's) names on them in the signature block, so basically all I can do is prepare the documents for his review, with the signature block pre-prepared. Sometimes I suspect this is his way of hiding to clients how little he actually does (and how often he's on vacation/is actually clueless about what's going on with their matters).

I'm not going to argue your boss isn't terrible. But the point about signing is so minor as to not be worth mentioning. This is part for the course with many partners. And who cares? I, like most people, I expect, would not look at the signature line and think the signer wrote the doc. What matters is whether you actually wrote it and can talk meaningfully about how you did it/what you know about hat type of doc.

At some point I want to begin building a reputation, and if my name isn't on any legal documents that's a bit hard to do. After a couple years, I want to get credit for the work I do, and as it is, my work is being filed with minimal (if at all) review in many cases. Why can't I sign it? My peers at our competitor firms are doing this already.

[run26.2]

FWIW I know some partners don't allow associates to sign documents as a method of insulating the associates from malpractice, etc. If something gets fucked up in the papers, the blame is all on your boss (whether with the court or a client) and not on you. I don't normally sign documents on cases assigned by the senior partners, but most lower-level partners will allow me to sign my own documents.

To get around your issue, why don't you put your name directly under his, so that people could at least surmise that you worked on the document even though your boss signed off on it. It's a win-win for both you and your boss.

OP here. I would, except I'm pretty sure my boss would think I'm trying to start a revolution of sorts if I did that. We have pre-written templates with his (and another partner's) names on them in the signature block, so basically all I can do is prepare the documents for his review, with the signature block pre-prepared. Sometimes I suspect this is his way of hiding to clients how little he actually does (and how often he's on vacation/is actually clueless about what's going on with their matters).

I'm not going to argue your boss isn't terrible. But the point about signing is so minor as to not be worth mentioning. This is part for the course with many partners. And who cares? I, like most people, I expect, would not look at the signature line and think the signer wrote the doc. What matters is whether you actually wrote it and can talk meaningfully about how you did it/what you know about hat type of doc.

At some point I want to begin building a reputation, and if my name isn't on any legal documents that's a bit hard to do. After a couple years, I want to get credit for the work I do, and as it is, my work is being filed with minimal (if at all) review in many cases. Why can't I sign it? My peers at our competitor firms are doing this already.

I get where you're coming from, but there are other (better) ways to build a reputation. And the problem may be related to things other than simply withholding your ability to sign.

Do you appear in these cases? Is your name anywhere at all on the submission (i.e., you sign a cert of service or something)?

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I know some partners don't allow associates to sign documents as a method of insulating the associates from malpractice, etc. If something gets fucked up in the papers, the blame is all on your boss (whether with the court or a client) and not on you. I don't normally sign documents on cases assigned by the senior partners, but most lower-level partners will allow me to sign my own documents.

To get around your issue, why don't you put your name directly under his, so that people could at least surmise that you worked on the document even though your boss signed off on it. It's a win-win for both you and your boss.

OP here. I would, except I'm pretty sure my boss would think I'm trying to start a revolution of sorts if I did that. We have pre-written templates with his (and another partner's) names on them in the signature block, so basically all I can do is prepare the documents for his review, with the signature block pre-prepared. Sometimes I suspect this is his way of hiding to clients how little he actually does (and how often he's on vacation/is actually clueless about what's going on with their matters).

I'm not going to argue your boss isn't terrible. But the point about signing is so minor as to not be worth mentioning. This is part for the course with many partners. And who cares? I, like most people, I expect, would not look at the signature line and think the signer wrote the doc. What matters is whether you actually wrote it and can talk meaningfully about how you did it/what you know about hat type of doc.

At some point I want to begin building a reputation, and if my name isn't on any legal documents that's a bit hard to do. After a couple years, I want to get credit for the work I do, and as it is, my work is being filed with minimal (if at all) review in many cases. Why can't I sign it? My peers at our competitor firms are doing this already.

I get where you're coming from, but there are other (better) ways to build a reputation. And the problem may be related to things other than simply withholding your ability to sign.

Do you appear in these cases? Is your name anywhere at all on the submission (i.e., you sign a cert of service or something)?

No, I and the other associates are basically invisible. Also, I am not in litigation, though we have done the occasional bit of litigation which associates definitely are not a part of.

[JusticeJackson]

.

[Anonymous User]

I work(ed) for a senior partner who had an "associates don't exist" policy. I don't think it is particularly worth quitting or hating someone over, but I agree it is annoying when you get 0% recognition from either the client or internally in the firm because the partner goes out of their way to claim everything, even on irrelevant things like internal announcements. Unfortunately, people like that exist at most firms.

[Anonymous User]

I work(ed) for a senior partner who had an "associates don't exist" policy. I don't think it is particularly worth quitting or hating someone over, but I agree it is annoying when you get 0% recognition from either the client or internally in the firm because the partner goes out of their way to claim everything, even on irrelevant things like internal announcements. Unfortunately, people like that exist at most firms.

Yeah, I think this is my issue. I see associates at other firms getting credit for bigger projects than some that I work on, and yet my boss's name goes on quite literally almost everything. Even matters he knows absolutely nothing about. That, combined with all the other behavioral issues, makes me feel like I'm working for a racist/sexist narcissist. I hope he is an exception.