Top Law Schools

Just curious what the experience of other associates out there is. I'm what's considered a high-risk/difficult substance practice in a firm where there are less than .5 partners for every associate. Understandably, the partners don't have time to explain things, let you know what to look for in the documents, etc. A few examples of my associate life:

First, I have spent hours of my life waiting outside partners' offices, sending follow up emails, texting them and calling them to get them to review a document by the time that has been requested. They make the deadline very rarely and I am stuck in the position of being chased by other attorneys while waiting partner sign off all the time. I think the worst was when I went to sleep with my phone next to me, got an email several hours later, and it was photos of a hand mark up sent to me over 8 emails. I had to implement and turn those comments to corporate that night, as this was a cross border client and the corporate lawyers were up waiting for these comments so they could send the document out.

Second, I have, more times than I can count, been asked to review a document of a type that I have never seen before. I have not been given even an idea of what the applicable law is or what to look out for other than the fact that I am an [x] type of lawyer, so it has something to do with that specialty. Partner isn't available to answer questions and there are no midlevels or seniors on the deal because we few midlevels/seniors.

Third, I have on multiple occasions emailed partners with questions from clients, other firm attorneys, accounting firms, etc. I typically try to answer the question, tell the partner what I think the answer should be and ask them to confirm. Crickets. Many times, I just never get a response. Same thing with documents that need partner sign off before going to the client. If not pressing, it just doesn't get reviewed or acknowledged as an outstanding item. As a junior, I do get nervous about sending out documents/answering questions without review or discussion and I don't have seniors/midlevels on these deals).

While for some, this may be an environment in which they can strive. I don't think it is for me. I need a little bit more direction and responsiveness and I'm finding that I am putting too much stress and energy thinking about whether I need to follow up with a partner or just make decisions (which they will then call you out immediately if you make the wrong call). What has been the experience of others?

No advice to offer but bumping the thread up since what you described is very similar to my experience in tax, which TLS largely considers a lifestyle group. I hope things will get better for us as we get more senior.

+1 also a junior in tax and also have to deal with this bullshit on a daily basis. The tax is a lifestyle group meme is kind of a flame.

I’m in a low leverage regulatory group, and it’s not at all like this, so I don’t think it’s inherent to leverage. I could see low leverage + heavy deal support focus as being a combination that could lead to this kind of experience more often than not.

Partner isn't available to answer questions and there are no midlevels or seniors on the deal because we [have] few midlevels/seniors.

There is likely a reason you have few midlevels/seniors. Probably, after a few years, people realize the firm provides poor training or work environment and leave. So the org become junior heavy and partner heavy, and lacking in between. Signal of poorly run organization, and should always raise red flags.

Law firms are like any organization--they can be well managed or poorly managed. Well managed organizations provide good training, make sure you are supported, and make sure everyone is accountable from the top down. Poorly managed organizations offer sporadic training and support, and dont hold certain people accountable. People tend to leave poorly managed corporations after a few years, rightfully so.

Also, just an aside --you are in a "high risk" practice, and you review documents of a type you have never seen before, that you are clearly uncomfortable with, and without any guidance as to what to look for? Yikes. Sounds like malpractice waiting to happen...

Also, just an aside --you are in a "high risk" practice, and you review documents of a type you have never seen before, that you are clearly uncomfortable with, and without any guidance as to what to look for? Yikes. Sounds like malpractice waiting to happen...

OP here. Things end up getting reviewed--just often not in a timely manner and not without a fair amount of follow up to get someone to review. As a service industry, this just seems like not a good idea. I guess when your firm has huge institutional clients, it doesn't matter that much.

This is the kind of stuff that makes the job needlessly stressful. SAs take note.

is .5 leverage high or low? I'm at a place with 1:1, and its hard to get partners to do anything since I assume they don't have many associates to farm work out to.

s1m4 wrote:is .5 leverage high or low? I'm at a place with 1:1, and its hard to get partners to do anything since I assume they don't have many associates to farm work out to.

I think OP meant 0.5 partners for every associate. As in 2:1 associate to partner ratio, which is still very low for the V100. 3:1 would probably be "good." Most V100s seem to be around 3-4.5:1 with some peaking out at 5-6:1. If OP is having this nightmarish of an experience, I can't imagine what a 4:1 leverage would do for the junior associate experience. I suspect that it is more bad management combined with a practice area with a steep learning curve than just the result of high leverage.

Here is a list of firms and their leverages: https://www.chambers-associate.com/law- ... e-leverage

K&L Gates is at 1.2 partners for every associate. As in 1 associate: 1.2 partners. Perkins Coie is 1:1. Latham is .5:1. Cravath is .2:1.

Edited to say it another way. K&L Gates .8 associates per partner; Cravath is 4.77:1. So I have to agree with the above poster, I bet there is a marked difference between 2:1 and 4:1.

BrainsyK wrote:

s1m4 wrote:is .5 leverage high or low? I'm at a place with 1:1, and its hard to get partners to do anything since I assume they don't have many associates to farm work out to.

I think OP meant 0.5 partners for every associate. As in 2:1 associate to partner ratio, which is still very low for the V100. 3:1 would probably be "good." Most V100s seem to be around 3-4.5:1 with some peaking out at 5-6:1. If OP is having this nightmarish of an experience, I can't imagine what a 4:1 leverage would do for the junior associate experience. I suspect that it is more bad management combined with a practice area with a steep learning curve than just the result of high leverage.

But more leverage also means more structure. Leverage is bad for getting early substantive work, but it’s better avoiding the kind of shit the OP describes I think.