Is part of getting “good” at Biglaw learning how to be okay with mediocre work? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Do you, to a degree, have to lower your standards for the work product you produce in order to become more efficient/able to handle a higher amount of work?

*big law first year, anon bc prior post history could out*

[target_corp]

If we're talking about corporate--I mean, not really, no.

Over time, you do have to make judgment calls about where to spend your time--conceptual items vs. making sure all the defined terms are bolded or whatever--and have to rely on juniors (like you) and staff to fill in the details you simply can't get to. That piece can and does trip more senior folks up.

[kaiser]

No, not from my experience. You are expected to maintain and even improve upon the substantive quality of your work, all the while becoming more efficient in doing it. Sacrificing quality of work so that you become more efficient isn't really the answer. The key is to find ways to internalize and streamline good habits so that the quality holds up, even as you become quicker and more efficient. Also, while you are expected to handle more matters and become more efficient, you eventually get the ability to delegate downward as needed.

[randomthrowaway]

Lol, no. The more experience you have, the quicker you're able to finish assignments because you've done it many times before and being able to push down the time intensive grunt work like due diligence, etc. frees up a lot of time.

[showusyourtorts]

If being 'good' in biglaw means that you can successfully handle more work, then I agree with the above posters.

Counter-factually, if being 'good' in biglaw for purposes of this question means being able to more sanely cruise through years 3 - 5 of being an associate with no desire to make partner but with the least stress possible..... then I'd say that yes, it probably is very helpful to become okay with mediocre work (or, at least, making mediocre impressions upon partners).

[Anonymous User]

It depends on what you mean by "mediocre." Would I prefer that a brief have no typos and be thoroughly cite checked and everything is perfect? Sure. But that's rarely possible, and honestly rarely worth the cost of the time. It's about learning what matters and spending the most energy there. Quality substance matters, but even then some briefs are more important than others. It's not that some briefs should be "more mediocre" - it's that writing a perfect amazing brief won't get you a better result than writing one that is just fine, so why should a client pay for you to write the most perfect discovery brief that has ever been seen? Not worth it. But should the client pay for you to write an amazing summary judgment brief so you don't have to go to trial? Absolutely worth it. Spend the time and money where it counts.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Absolutely not. A big part of getting “good” at big law is realizing what actually matters and what does not.

[Jchance]

Absolutely not. A big part of getting “good” at big law is realizing what actually matters and what does not.

+1.

[hdr]

Clients aren't paying you to do mediocre work. You're expected to produce high-quality work and you're judged on hours billed, not your volume of work product. That said, there are areas where you don't need to strive for perfection, like Bluebooking something that's not being filed in court (unless you work for a partner who really cares about that). Part of being a good associate is knowing what matters and what doesn't.

[Lacepiece23]

In a sense it is. By time you’ve written your 100th brief, you will feel like some things are on auto pilot. You will spot the issues easily and you will find typos/grammatical errors even when you’re hungover. It just become easier. So, the work feels mediocre.

But in actuality you’re producing great junior work. And if you really want to be stellar, you won’t feel apathetic by then and go above and beyond.

In the end, yes you will produce mediocre work and get by. But mediocre is relative.

[jotarokujo]

my interpretation of "good at biglaw" is not actually being a good or ideal associate. WHen I interpret "good at biglaw" i think "surviving as long as possible with the least stress possible". Under my interpretation of "good at biglaw", then yes the #1 thing you can do is to care less, which includes being okay with putting out mediocre work.

people in this thread seem to be taking "good at biglaw" to mean actually being a productive associate. under that understanding, they are correct, don't be okay with mediocre work.

[hdr]

my interpretation of "good at biglaw" is not actually being a good or ideal associate. WHen I interpret "good at biglaw" i think "surviving as long as possible with the least stress possible". Under my interpretation of "good at biglaw", then yes the #1 thing you can do is to care less, which includes being okay with putting out mediocre work.

people in this thread seem to be taking "good at biglaw" to mean actually being a productive associate. under that understanding, they are correct, don't be okay with mediocre work.

Even if your goal is coasting, doing mediocre work isn't a smart strategy. When you develop a reputation for doing good work it's much easier to get away with being unavailable on weekends, etc. Partners are more likely to put up with it and to continue staffing you on matters. No one wants an associate who does mediocre work and who is routinely unavailable on short notice.

But learning to care less is important when you're overworked and faced with unreasonable demands. Otherwise you'll burn out. Just make clear at the outset what you can and can't do given time constraints, other matters, etc.

[legalpotato]

Agree with the above - def need to produce quality work.

The one thing I would add is that a big part of being "good" is learning how to not let perfect be the enemy of good. I've had situations where a client asked for something that night, but because a partner honed in on some issues where the client already stated they don't care or other non-substantive nonsense, we end up getting something back to the client at 3 AM and client is very pissed. There is for sure an art to being able to determine when something is good enough or when something warrants the extra time.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Even if your goal is coasting, doing mediocre work isn't a smart strategy. When you develop a reputation for doing good work it's much easier to get away with being unavailable on weekends, etc. Partners are more likely to put up with it and to continue staffing you on matters. No one wants an associate who does mediocre work and who is routinely unavailable on short notice.

But learning to care less is important when you're overworked and faced with unreasonable demands. Otherwise you'll burn out. Just make clear at the outset what you can and can't do given time constraints, other matters, etc.

You'd *think* doing good work would get you some slack cut, but it actually just means you become everyone's first call for everything and most associates don't have the spine to actually refuse enough work to make themselves not slammed.

There is no reward for being good in this job. Partners are only seeking to take as much advantage of you as they can, and if you keep doing good work, they'll just pile more and more onto you until you reach your breaking point. "Good" associates often feel like they can't leave (debt, mental complexes, whatever) and therefore regularly last longer than "bad" associates who don't give a shit because they have an exit strategy, but I assure you, the less people try at this, the happier they are.

That's not a blanket statement with no strategy. If you're trying to last, you will eventually need at least one person to like you. I make sure to do good work for a low-stress partner I like so he keeps staffing me. He's a rainmaker so he doesn't have time to give a shit about stupid little details on any single deal and gives me broad autonomy to run it (and it helps that his clients do a lot of cookie cutter dupes). Makes my life 10x easier than the nitpick service partners who are constantly up your ass about nothing. Conversely, the first time I was staffed with a couple notorious nightmare partners/counsels, I made sure to do a shitty enough job to never get staffed again. Worked like a charm.

Your optimal strategy will vary by circumstance, but *in general*, seeking to do anything more than the bare minimum not to get fired or hit applicable bonus hours is a fool's errand.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Even if your goal is coasting, doing mediocre work isn't a smart strategy. When you develop a reputation for doing good work it's much easier to get away with being unavailable on weekends, etc. Partners are more likely to put up with it and to continue staffing you on matters. No one wants an associate who does mediocre work and who is routinely unavailable on short notice.

But learning to care less is important when you're overworked and faced with unreasonable demands. Otherwise you'll burn out. Just make clear at the outset what you can and can't do given time constraints, other matters, etc.

You'd *think* doing good work would get you some slack cut, but it actually just means you become everyone's first call for everything and most associates don't have the spine to actually refuse enough work to make themselves not slammed.

There is no reward for being good in this job. Partners are only seeking to take as much advantage of you as they can, and if you keep doing good work, they'll just pile more and more onto you until you reach your breaking point. "Good" associates often feel like they can't leave (debt, mental complexes, whatever) and therefore regularly last longer than "bad" associates who don't give a shit because they have an exit strategy, but I assure you, the less people try at this, the happier they are.

That's not a blanket statement with no strategy. If you're trying to last, you will eventually need at least one person to like you. I make sure to do good work for a low-stress partner I like so he keeps staffing me. He's a rainmaker so he doesn't have time to give a shit about stupid little details on any single deal and gives me broad autonomy to run it (and it helps that his clients do a lot of cookie cutter dupes). Makes my life 10x easier than the nitpick service partners who are constantly up your ass about nothing. Conversely, the first time I was staffed with a couple notorious nightmare partners/counsels, I made sure to do a shitty enough job to never get staffed again. Worked like a charm.

Your optimal strategy will vary by circumstance, but *in general*, seeking to do anything more than the bare minimum not to get fired or hit applicable bonus hours is a fool's errand.

I'm really surprised at the number of people who think that doing well in BigLaw is like doing well on a final in law school. The above is right. You don't shoot for an A+, you shoot for keeping the partners and the clients happy which often happens to be more mediocre than you think.

[target_corp]

I get where people are coming from, but it's also true that associates aren't great at determining how mediocre they should be and with whom--then something like COVID hits, your firm cans you, and your exit "strategy" has to be reworked.

Obviously, there's a lot of nuance, but I've seen a number of people take pretty sub-optimal paths in the quest to just coast.

[jotarokujo]

if your goal is to coast: it's a lot easier to do too much than it is to do to little

i see too many people who say they dont want to be partner at all yet are putting way too much in. i can't tell if they just didn't learn how to say no in law school or if they actually do want to be partner/want to keep the option open

[hdr]

If you're trying to last, you will eventually need at least one person to like you.

That's the key. And it needs to be a rainmaker or, at the very least, a service partner with a ton of work to give out. Doing good work is the best way to make that happen. Once you've reached the point where you can get your 2000 hours from a key partner then you can avoid (or do subpar work for) the terrible attorneys.

My advice to anyone starting biglaw would be to do your best to develop a reputation of doing good work until you're attached to a rainmaker who's tolerable to work for, then stay in his good graces and don't worry as much about anyone else. You can last several years unless he leaves or his client relationships evaporate (neither of which is uncommon, unfortunately).

[Anonymous User]

Not too senior but have a few years under my belt, in my opinion there is no such thing as a perfect document and in many cases (at least in the transactional practice) the documents are deeply imperfect through generations of fuck ups in the precedent.

Having said that, being “good” at Biglaw is largely just managing perception which comes down to: (1) demonstrating an increasing level of substantive competence every year - which is easier than you think; (2) not costing anyone money and if you do owning it completely; (3) minimizing self-inflicted embarrassment to the highest possible degree; and (4) just having a good attitude which basically comes down to giving a shit in situations where you don’t want to give any shits.

I could be wrong and this forum presents a wide array of opinions but that’s what I’ve taken away so far in my practice.

[Anonymous User]

Not too senior but have a few years under my belt, in my opinion there is no such thing as a perfect document and in many cases (at least in the transactional practice) the documents are deeply imperfect through generations of fuck ups in the precedent.

Having said that, being “good” at Biglaw is largely just managing perception which comes down to: (1) demonstrating an increasing level of substantive competence every year - which is easier than you think; (2) not costing anyone money and if you do owning it completely; (3) minimizing self-inflicted embarrassment to the highest possible degree; and (4) just having a good attitude which basically comes down to giving a shit in situations where you don’t want to give any shits.

I could be wrong and this forum presents a wide array of opinions but that’s what I’ve taken away so far in my practice.

In reality, in corporate, if it's not caught, 99% of screw-ups don't matter. As long as the transaction goes smoothly, the legal documents don't matter. It's when the deal goes sour, and firms start litigating, that's when the quality of the transactional work matters. Even then, the litigation rarely results in complaints to the firm that did the transaction, and, even if it did, it's probably years and years later, when the person who screwed up is long-gone (counseled out, lateraled, whatever).

So yeah, once partners are no longer checking your work, being mediocre at transactional work doesn't harm the associate.

[lolwutpar]

The secret to lasting or not being miserable in biglaw is to be okay with mediocre work. Who cares if something you drafted gets marked up if it ends up substantively in the same place? Can't stress over it. You'll be a miserable person.

[NoLongerALurker]

Be overbearingly positive and responsive for 2 years. In that time find one partner (literally one, not two) and glom onto them. Refuse to work with anyone else by asking said partner to always vouch you’re busy. If this doesn’t work, leave. If it does work, hold on for dear life and do perfect work for the good partner and be totally fine with shitty substandard work for others.

[Anonymous User]

Be overbearingly positive and responsive for 2 years. In that time find one partner (literally one, not two) and glom onto them. Refuse to work with anyone else by asking said partner to always vouch you’re busy. If this doesn’t work, leave. If it does work, hold on for dear life and do perfect work for the good partner and be totally fine with shitty substandard work for others.

This. I do 90% of my hours with the same partner. I've worked with him for 3 years (I'm a senior now). We might as well be at a two-man shop, except that I have firm resources and junior associates when needed. I don't have to deal with most of the BS, internal politics, etc. of a big firm. He treats me like a human being, probably in large part because our relationship is mutually beneficial (I do good work and make his life easier). Other partners stopped reaching out long ago because I said "no" too many times or did mediocre work for them. I'll probably never make partner this way--my guy isn't influential enough--but this has let me have a pretty good ride on the gravy train (the hours still suck, but that can't be helped).

[Anonymous User]

Completely agree. If we accept that being good at big law means being able to last into at least the mid level years in the least painful manner possible (it will be painful regardless), then the key is getting into a groove with the right people. Obviously what is possible differs based on how your firm staffs. I've had coworkers in my class flame out after 1-2 years because they said yes to shit deals with shit people whereas I see others make it well into senior associate years primarily working for 2-3 good partners. It's pretty interesting how experiences can differ so much in the same group at the same office.