"Thanks" Forum

[FedFan123]

“OK” is fine, as is “Okay.” I don’t really care about hierarchy; I just have an admittedly irrational hatred of “Thanks” without a period. I truly would rather receive “Thanks, dawg.” than “Thanks” without a period.

Thanks with a period is wrong, as I’ve already stated. It should be thanks with a comma

[nealric]

“OK” is fine, as is “Okay.” I don’t really care about hierarchy; I just have an admittedly irrational hatred of “Thanks” without a period. I truly would rather receive “Thanks, dawg.” than “Thanks” without a period.

Thanks with a period is wrong, as I’ve already stated. It should be thanks with a comma

Thx for clarifying. Please bill your time to matter 0005.223.

[FedFan123]

“OK” is fine, as is “Okay.” I don’t really care about hierarchy; I just have an admittedly irrational hatred of “Thanks” without a period. I truly would rather receive “Thanks, dawg.” than “Thanks” without a period.

Thanks with a period is wrong, as I’ve already stated. It should be thanks with a comma

Thx for clarifying. Please bill your time to matter 0005.223.

OK, sure thing

[QContinuum]

That's the result of some consulting firm somehow determining that "just" makes the writer sound weak/uncertain. The partner likely heard that speech, took it seriously, and now they get to perpetuate yet another absurd myth solely designed to make people think outside training consultants are at all useful.

That's my other pet peeve, actually: The myth that it's somehow fatal to ever say "Frankly, ..." or "Honestly, ..." Allegedly, saying "Frankly" or "Honestly" indicates that every other sentence one says is dishonest. Whatever consultant came up with that piece of claptrap obviously took the rule against surplusage to an absurd extreme. Of course one should not write "Frankly" or "Honestly" in a legal brief (unless as part of a quote), and shouldn't overuse them even in casual conversation, but otherwise it's ridiculous to overanalyze it.

Only law students/lawyers could make this into a two page thread

Look blair, this is now a 3-pager!

[nixy]

"Just" is intended to convey that the request is a small one. Language indicating that the imposition is intended to be minimal is to be expected when there is a large power dynamic between sender and receiver. So yeah, it makes the sender sound a bit weak, but that's because the sender is weak compared to the recipient. The partner in this scenario evidently wanted to lord his power over someone that day.

All this is why I always write emails saying “just writing to check in on x” and then make myself go back and delete the “just.”

[nealric]

That's the result of some consulting firm somehow determining that "just" makes the writer sound weak/uncertain. The partner likely heard that speech, took it seriously, and now they get to perpetuate yet another absurd myth solely designed to make people think outside training consultants are at all useful.

That's my other pet peeve, actually: The myth that it's somehow fatal to ever say "Frankly, ..." or "Honestly, ..." Allegedly, saying "Frankly" or "Honestly" indicates that every other sentence one says is dishonest. Whatever consultant came up with that piece of claptrap obviously took the rule against surplusage to an absurd extreme. Of course one should not write "Frankly" or "Honestly" in a legal brief (unless as part of a quote), and shouldn't overuse them even in casual conversation, but otherwise it's ridiculous to overanalyze it.

Only law students/lawyers could make this into a two page thread

Look blair, this is now a 3-pager!

To add to that- a lot of words that are technically surplusage because they don't directly convey meaning actually do have meaning in a social context. When someone starts a sentence with "Frankly", it's usually to indicate what they are saying will be uncomfortable or not what the listener wants to hear. It allows the listener a split second to mentally prepare for bad news. It's not because they are literally feel the need to vouch for the truth of the statement.

[toast and bananas]

How do y'all feel about "Ok." from a junior? Is "Okay." better, or somehow worse?

Neither is correct. It should be “OK” with a comma and then one of “no problem” or “sure thing” or “no worries” directly following (with no ending punctuation)

I mean I generally agree but if we're jettisoning end punctuation I think the capitalization of the "K" is up for grabs. While I do appreciate the sincerity of their acquiescence, the speed at which it is provided is equally important, and sometimes that means forgetting to capitalize a letter or two due to frantic typing.

[toast and bananas]

How many of you use:

"Thanks,

[Signature block]"

People seem to either (1) not use the above at all ever or (2) use it for every single email, no matter the context.

[Person1111]

How many of you use:

"Thanks,

[Signature block]"

People seem to either (1) not use the above at all ever or (2) use it for every single email, no matter the context.

I don't, but it's fine and unobjectionable.

Look, for those of you who are worried, I am not going to lecture this junior associate about using "Thanks" without a period. But as someone else mentioned, people have pet peeves and I don't see why it's not kosher to tell someone that something is a pet peeve. And while I understand the argument that this isn't sufficiently "important" to criticize someone about, that argument seems to ignore the fact that, in a high-end client service job, everything is important. I have always been taught that the key benefit of good typography is signaling competence and attention to detail. If that's the case, why shouldn't I tell someone that their typography is signaling the opposite?

[blair.waldorf]

Quote removed are user request

I don't, but it's fine and unobjectionable.

Look, for those of you who are worried, I am not going to lecture this junior associate about using "Thanks" without a period. But as someone else mentioned, people have pet peeves and I don't see why it's not kosher to tell someone that something is a pet peeve. And while I understand the argument that this isn't sufficiently "important" to criticize someone about, that argument seems to ignore the fact that, in a high-end client service job, everything is important. I have always been taught that the key benefit of good typography is signaling competence and attention to detail. If that's the case, why shouldn't I tell someone that their typography is signaling the opposite?[/quote]

Because it’s not necessarily signaling the opposite except to self-important [Personal attack redacted] like yourself

[whrthwldthngsg]

Quote removed are user request

Because its not. If this is your idiosyncratic pet peeve (it is), periodless thanking isn't signalling anything to anyone.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

“cool”

- my emails after 8 pm

[nealric]

Quote removed at user request

Because it’s not necessarily signaling the opposite except to self-important [Personal attack redacted] like yourself[/quote]

Please knock off the personal attacks. It's all fun and games until insults get hurled. Then I have to lock the thread

[Joachim2017]

Quote removed at user request

I was a senior associate in biglaw as well, and would suggest you not raise this with the junior associates you supervise. As a senior associate, its important that those you supervise respect your input and guidance. And if you are going to raise silly pet peeves, it dilutes all of the other actually legitimate input you may give them. You just need to learn to pick your battles when it comes to providing this kind of feedback. This isn't worth raising.[/quote]


The above is the correct answer. You will lose a lot of respect and credibility as someone who's supposed to have sound judgment and perspective. The downsides are not worth the upside of being able to vent about your pet peeve to your subordinates.

[QContinuum]

Quote removed at user request

Because, your personal idiosyncratic view notwithstanding, "Thanks" without a period isn't "bad" typography, and doesn't signal incompetence or lack of care, by any objective reasonable person standard.

There are things it's appropriate to counsel juniors on. Say, the use of emoticons, or the overuse of exclamation marks, or other less-than-professional writing habits. "Thanks" without a period doesn't belong to that category.

[johnnymacaroni]

i get thanked so many times in this job you would think i save lives for a living. is this the case for corporate america elsewhere? i don't remember being thanked so profusely in my old non-law office job, but this was in another country.

do french people reply with "merci, pierre..."

[rcharter1978]

OP has admitted that it's insignificant but bothers him.

Those of you in biglaw describe it as an environment with some unreasonable and unstable personalities in supervisory roles.

I'd think that a junior associate would adopt OPs "grammar hints" and maybe roll their eyes over it and vent to a co-worker about it, but this doesn't seem nearly as bad as the horror stories I've read on TLS.

This seems like an annoyance, but not that big a deal to a junior associate.....but it's clearly driving OP bananas.

[nixy]

How many of you use:

"Thanks,

[Signature block]"

People seem to either (1) not use the above at all ever or (2) use it for every single email, no matter the context.

This is my default, even when the other person has written to me to ask me for something, so presumably should be thanking me.

I also know people who have "Thank you," as part of their signature block, and their messages often read something like,

"Got the document you sent. Thanks!

Thank you,
[signature block]"

If I've actually thanked someone in the body of the email I'll usually delete the "thanks" part, and go with the despised "best," which is still my preferred non-thanks sign-off. No closing seems too abrupt and the rest all seem worse.

[The Lsat Airbender]

How many of you use:

"Thanks,

[Signature block]"

People seem to either (1) not use the above at all ever or (2) use it for every single email, no matter the context.

This is my default, even when the other person has written to me to ask me for something, so presumably should be thanking me.

I also know people who have "Thank you," as part of their signature block, and their messages often read something like,

"Got the document you sent. Thanks!

Thank you,
[signature block]"

If I've actually thanked someone in the body of the email I'll usually delete the "thanks" part, and go with the despised "best," which is still my preferred non-thanks sign-off. No closing seems too abrupt and the rest all seem worse.

TCR.

If I'm asking juniors/paralegals/etc. for something especially annoying I'll upgrade to "Many thanks,", and total strangers might get "Best regards,"

[papermateflair]

How many of you use:

"Thanks,

[Signature block]"

People seem to either (1) not use the above at all ever or (2) use it for every single email, no matter the context.

This is my default, even when the other person has written to me to ask me for something, so presumably should be thanking me.

I also know people who have "Thank you," as part of their signature block, and their messages often read something like,

"Got the document you sent. Thanks!

Thank you,
[signature block]"

If I've actually thanked someone in the body of the email I'll usually delete the "thanks" part, and go with the despised "best," which is still my preferred non-thanks sign-off. No closing seems too abrupt and the rest all seem worse.

This is my general approach, although I switch off between "Thanks," and "Best,"...honestly, no one really pays attention to this (or, I guess, based on the fact that this thread is now three pages, certain people pay VERY close attention to this...), and different cultures have different approaches - I have emails from attorneys in Europe who always say "Best regards" or "Kind regards" or "Most sincerely" - like including salutation, the whole point is to be clear to whoever you're emailing that you're not out of your mind with rage or you're capable of using the regular social niceties.

[notinbiglaw]

My default is

-<my name>

But if I am replying, usually reply with the same thing the sender used, if I am paying attention.

If I knew who OP was though, I'd probably make an exception and make it "Thanks" when he sends me "Thanks,"

[QContinuum]

Incidentally, friends, this thread has now made it onto the ATL hall of fame: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/biglaw- ... ur-emails/

Thanks all

[Splurgles23]

Incidentally, friends, this thread has now made it onto the ATL hall of fame: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/biglaw- ... ur-emails/

Thanks all

Ironically, in that Above the Law post, this Joe Patrice person comes off as petty (and more than a little pathetic) himself. Trying to make fun of someone you've never met or read into their psychology based on their online username on an anonymous message board? He seems like a washed out associate who couldn't make it as a real lawyer...time to let that chip on your shoulder about where other people went to law school go...

[notinbiglaw]

I wouldn't be surprised if ATL paid hls to make his post.

[beepboopbeep]

[Off-topic post redacted. Poster warned.]