Junior Associate Reputation Forum

[Anonymous User]

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

[NoLongerALurker]

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

[Anonymous User]

At what point do they start talking about good v. bad?

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

[collegewriter]

By end of your first year, the seniors expect some level of substantive knowledge. Not that you’ll be able to turn out a doc perfectly, but more so that you can spot some issues, have a general understanding of the deal, and can ask some good questions.

You’ll have a longer leash if you are visibly trying, positive, and responsive. Also if you do all those things people will put the time in to train you and you’ll be able to get the substantive knowledge you need.

[Buglaw]

At what point do they start talking about good v. bad?

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

Right away. But, you are all bad, so don't worry about it. It's generally tough to tell if people are going to be any good for at least 1 year (and sometimes 2-3). If you have a good additude, try hard and are available most people are willing to overlook very bad legal work for 1-2 years.

If you are interested about being considered a "good " junior (and I would be very careful about doing this as it can be very bad for your sanity, you will get crushed with work and I am not really sure what the payoff is) try to figure out how you can add value and do so. Your legal work is trash, so you don't add value there. But, there is other stuff you can do. Think about what your senior associates are doing all day long and what are things you can do that can make their lives incrementally better. When new drafts come in from the other side, immediately save them to the system, and run redlines to make sure the other side didn't make a mistake on those (also be sure to send the senior a quick email saying you are doing this). Flag emails that seem like they need responses, but no one has responded to in 1-2 days. Offer to send out dial-ins for conference calls once people have agreed on times without waiting for people to tell you to send them. When a senior asks you to run redlines, think for a few minutes about what redlines will be most helpful for them to review and run those. Check in simple documents when they come in (like goodstandings or signature pages) and let the senior know you are doing it. Be respectful of the Senior Associates time and only call once per document/task to ask the 800 questions you have. Think about who the appropriate person to ask questions to is and ask them. Don't ask senior associates questions about how some piece of tech works. They HATE that. Ask tech, or your secretary, or a junior or some second year.

Again, being a good associate is essentially about making the people you work for's jobs/lives easier. Your legal work is trash, so your drafting/analysis is not going to do that. But you can do that in other much smaller and more boring ways.

[Anonymous User]

At what point do they start talking about good v. bad?

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

Different poster, but the answer is the moment that it becomes clear you're not trying. Not trying could mean (1) doing the same thing wrong five times in a row (not once or even twice), (2) missing a deadline without communicating proactively, (3) aggressively checking out when the rest of the team's firing on all cylinders, and so on.

It's perfectly OK to not understand what a document does or how to do something.

It's not OK to call the senior on the day of the prescribed deadline with a million questions (for a task you were given two weeks prior), then turn in sloppy and half-complete work product.

If it becomes known that you just don't care, your reputation can be shot for a long time.

[Anonymous User]

I am no longer in biglaw, but when I was I was often (as a senior associate) put in position to draft juniors onto cases and talked with partners about these types of things. I worked in medium sized offices, not massive ones (think summer sizes 5-20). Reputations developed very quickly throughout the first year. What happened IME was that the really bad and really good separated themselves early on, with everyone seeking to work with the “best” (being super available and ultra responsive was a large part of it, but being competent beyond their experience level was, too) and people would actively avoid the worst (late with everything, work was unusable even by first year standards, etc.). Then there was this big mass in the middle that would best be described as average - which in biglaw, still meant being highly responsive and producing quality, experience-appropriate work - whose reputations developed more slowly. Those people had to work a bit harder to establish themselves in practice groups and to find steady work streams, at least before the present industry wide deluge of work started.

[NoLongerALurker]

I think all of the above is bang-on. I would also add that the worst thing about getting a bad reputation (deserved or not) is that ambiguities would be resolved against you.

Imagine something kind of big -- you've pulled an all nighter and you CC'ed opposing counsel accidentally on an internal draft. Or left an internal footnote in a draft that went across. If you have a good reputation, this is going to result in a "Geeze, buddy, that's a real fuck up. Get some sleep" and maybe it becomes a bit of a joke for a bit or honestly maybe people forget about it two deals later. But if you already had a bad reputation? Everyone will talk about it, even behind your back, the senior will be like "honestly I never want to work with this person again" and you'll never fully escape that one exhausted mistake.

In that sense, the benefits of a good reputation is that it can be your saving grace when you do a real fuckup. Not to scare any juniors reading this, but IME this is where it really starts to matter (I've seen some juniors really hung out to dry and heard a lot of partners talk complete shit about second years behind their back for things like the above while still having second/third years who have made similar mistakes in their stable of favourites).

[Anonymous User]

I got asked to do a project for a matter I wasn’t officially staffed on instead of the other junior who was staffed on that matter. Does this happen often? Is it possibly because I have a reputation for not saying no?

[Anonymous User]

I think all of the above is bang-on. I would also add that the worst thing about getting a bad reputation (deserved or not) is that ambiguities would be resolved against you.
...
In that sense, the benefits of a good reputation is that it can be your saving grace when you do a real fuckup. Not to scare any juniors reading this, but IME this is where it really starts to matter (I've seen some juniors really hung out to dry and heard a lot of partners talk complete shit about second years behind their back for things like the above while still having second/third years who have made similar mistakes in their stable of favourites).

This is a great point. Whenever a screw-up happens in biglaw there are usually multiple people who could've potentially prevented it, and when a partner is assigning blame for an issue (which, for better or worse, many make a priority of doing) it often becomes an exercise in confirmation bias. The document is late because the junior gave it to you late - but this is really your fault for not assigning it earlier and checking in regularly. The document needs to be rewritten because the senior didn't explain it to you correctly - but this is really your fault for not starting earlier so that you'd have time to seek guidance on interim drafts. Just spitballing here, but you get the point. It is almost always possible to excuse one person's screwup by saying that someone else should have done X, Y, and Z to prevent it, so it's really on the second person. This also often happens when a partner screws up and is looking to blame a subordinate: it's not the partner's fault that the brief was submitted with a typo because they only looked at it the day before, it's the associate's fault because instead of giving a draft one week early they should've sent it 3 weeks early, and, well, that associate has a reputation for being the late guy so it must be true.

[Anonymous User]

to the midlevels and seniors, can I query a question that kind of rides on OP's

assuming (1) you are in a busy group that has more work to go around than there are associates of all levels, (2) you know you are absolutely not built to even try to gun for partnership (and have no desire to), (3) you never make a mistake as egregious as sending across internal markups and (4) the partners you work with are generally fine enough that you don't feel like you need someone that isn't insane to trust you and feed you consistent work...

is it actually worth gunning to your limits and giving the extra mile? I feel like it's not because you just get drowned in more work. you need to at least be decent/good, without a doubt, but trying to go above and beyond that threshold of grinding away just doesn't seem worth it to me unless you're seeking partnership.

[Anonymous User]

to the midlevels and seniors, can I query a question that kind of rides on OP's

assuming (1) you are in a busy group that has more work to go around than there are associates of all levels, (2) you know you are absolutely not built to even try to gun for partnership (and have no desire to), (3) you never make a mistake as egregious as sending across internal markups and (4) the partners you work with are generally fine enough that you don't feel like you need someone that isn't insane to trust you and feed you consistent work...

is it actually worth gunning to your limits and giving the extra mile? I feel like it's not because you just get drowned in more work. you need to at least be decent/good, without a doubt, but trying to go above and beyond that threshold of grinding away just doesn't seem worth it to me unless you're seeking partnership.

No, of course not. Work about 2100 hours and turn in good work product, which if you are working anyways, really just means put some effort in sometimes.

Trying to bill the most hours is stupid. I've done it a year in my group and the only thing I felt was that I was a sucker. The silver lining is turn in a busy year and you can coast on the perception that you are always busy so when you say no to work, no one will question you.

Partners care how many hours you bill, associates only care about your work quality and responsiveness on their deals.

[existentialcrisis]

I think all of the above is bang-on. I would also add that the worst thing about getting a bad reputation (deserved or not) is that ambiguities would be resolved against you.

Imagine something kind of big -- you've pulled an all nighter and you CC'ed opposing counsel accidentally on an internal draft. Or left an internal footnote in a draft that went across. If you have a good reputation, this is going to result in a "Geeze, buddy, that's a real fuck up. Get some sleep" and maybe it becomes a bit of a joke for a bit or honestly maybe people forget about it two deals later. But if you already had a bad reputation? Everyone will talk about it, even behind your back, the senior will be like "honestly I never want to work with this person again" and you'll never fully escape that one exhausted mistake.

In that sense, the benefits of a good reputation is that it can be your saving grace when you do a real fuckup. Not to scare any juniors reading this, but IME this is where it really starts to matter (I've seen some juniors really hung out to dry and heard a lot of partners talk complete shit about second years behind their back for things like the above while still having second/third years who have made similar mistakes in their stable of favourites).

This is right on the money.

[Anonymous User]

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

Anon because this is slightly identifying information, but do you think "owning mistakes / staying positive and responsive" could be enough to keep an associate in good regard even if their personality is a bit awkward? I'm on the autism spectrum and despite my best efforts, sometimes something I say might come across as a bit weird, but I'm constantly aware of my shortcomings and find everything else in your post absolutely doable. I'm just worried that my inability to really "click" personality-wise will give me a poor reputation even if I try my hardest to do everything else right.

[Anonymous User]

[/quote]


Anon because this is slightly identifying information, but do you think "owning mistakes / staying positive and responsive" could be enough to keep an associate in good regard even if their personality is a bit awkward? I'm on the autism spectrum and despite my best efforts, sometimes something I say might come across as a bit weird, but I'm constantly aware of my shortcomings and find everything else in your post absolutely doable. I'm just worried that my inability to really "click" personality-wise will give me a poor reputation even if I try my hardest to do everything else right.
[/quote]



When you are in the trenches on a deal, you want (in order of priority) (1) the associate who will get shit done, produce high quality work product, and do it on time/is reliable, then (2) the associate who is generally easy to get along with or that you click with -- the second prong is a luxury and definitely not a "need". I think you are underestimating the likelihood that there will be attorneys you get along with at your firm. Lawyers are all kinds of creatures and within my small subgroup of corporate we have extremely different personalities, styles, etc. and what we've bonded over actually is our shared hatred for difficult or stupid opposing counsel, shitty late nights, shitty/or good take out food, and crazy clients. Those are things you will share with many of your colleagues. Be yourself and enjoy it!

[Buglaw]

to the midlevels and seniors, can I query a question that kind of rides on OP's

assuming (1) you are in a busy group that has more work to go around than there are associates of all levels, (2) you know you are absolutely not built to even try to gun for partnership (and have no desire to), (3) you never make a mistake as egregious as sending across internal markups and (4) the partners you work with are generally fine enough that you don't feel like you need someone that isn't insane to trust you and feed you consistent work...

is it actually worth gunning to your limits and giving the extra mile? I feel like it's not because you just get drowned in more work. you need to at least be decent/good, without a doubt, but trying to go above and beyond that threshold of grinding away just doesn't seem worth it to me unless you're seeking partnership.

No, of course not. Work about 2100 hours and turn in good work product, which if you are working anyways, really just means put some effort in sometimes.

Trying to bill the most hours is stupid. I've done it a year in my group and the only thing I felt was that I was a sucker. The silver lining is turn in a busy year and you can coast on the perception that you are always busy so when you say no to work, no one will question you.

Partners care how many hours you bill, associates only care about your work quality and responsiveness on their deals.

What happened that 2100 is considered a low amount of hours. Just 2-3 years ago that was certainly higher than average.

[Anonymous User]

I think you are underestimating the likelihood that there will be attorneys you get along with at your firm. Lawyers are all kinds of creatures and within my small subgroup of corporate we have extremely different personalities, styles, etc. and what we've bonded over actually is our shared hatred for difficult or stupid opposing counsel, shitty late nights, shitty/or good take out food, and crazy clients. Those are things you will share with many of your colleagues. Be yourself and enjoy it!

Unfortunately, my pessimism about getting along well with my colleagues stems from my absolute inability to make any real friends during my time at law school -- I'd say I'm a decent acquaintance to a lot of my class year, but the shared trauma of LS was never enough to help me bond with any of them. I do hope you're correct though, especially since my LS was extremely bro-y and I actively sought out a firm that wasn't.

When you are in the trenches on a deal, you want (in order of priority) (1) the associate who will get shit done, produce high quality work product, and do it on time/is reliable, then (2) the associate who is generally easy to get along with or that you click with -- the second prong is a luxury and definitely not a "need".

This does make me feel a lot better though, and I will work to fulfill the first prong to the best of my ability if the second prong just won't come naturally.

[Goceltics25]

At what point do they start talking about good v. bad?

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

Right away. But, you are all bad, so don't worry about it. It's generally tough to tell if people are going to be any good for at least 1 year (and sometimes 2-3). If you have a good additude, try hard and are available most people are willing to overlook very bad legal work for 1-2 years.

If you are interested about being considered a "good " junior (and I would be very careful about doing this as it can be very bad for your sanity, you will get crushed with work and I am not really sure what the payoff is) try to figure out how you can add value and do so. Your legal work is trash, so you don't add value there. But, there is other stuff you can do. Think about what your senior associates are doing all day long and what are things you can do that can make their lives incrementally better. When new drafts come in from the other side, immediately save them to the system, and run redlines to make sure the other side didn't make a mistake on those (also be sure to send the senior a quick email saying you are doing this). Flag emails that seem like they need responses, but no one has responded to in 1-2 days. Offer to send out dial-ins for conference calls once people have agreed on times without waiting for people to tell you to send them. When a senior asks you to run redlines, think for a few minutes about what redlines will be most helpful for them to review and run those. Check in simple documents when they come in (like goodstandings or signature pages) and let the senior know you are doing it. Be respectful of the Senior Associates time and only call once per document/task to ask the 800 questions you have. Think about who the appropriate person to ask questions to is and ask them. Don't ask senior associates questions about how some piece of tech works. They HATE that. Ask tech, or your secretary, or a junior or some second year.

Again, being a good associate is essentially about making the people you work for's jobs/lives easier. Your legal work is trash, so your drafting/analysis is not going to do that. But you can do that in other much smaller and more boring ways.

What exactly does "run redlines" mean. I hear it often, but not exactly sure what it entails.

[Anonymous User]

Anon who posted earlier about getting asked to do another junior’s work for something I wasn’t staffed on. Do you think it’s because it is my reputation that I do not say no? I am a bit worried because I do not want people to walk all over me

[Anonymous User]

to the midlevels and seniors, can I query a question that kind of rides on OP's

assuming (1) you are in a busy group that has more work to go around than there are associates of all levels, (2) you know you are absolutely not built to even try to gun for partnership (and have no desire to), (3) you never make a mistake as egregious as sending across internal markups and (4) the partners you work with are generally fine enough that you don't feel like you need someone that isn't insane to trust you and feed you consistent work...

is it actually worth gunning to your limits and giving the extra mile? I feel like it's not because you just get drowned in more work. you need to at least be decent/good, without a doubt, but trying to go above and beyond that threshold of grinding away just doesn't seem worth it to me unless you're seeking partnership.

You’re 100% right. I’m a midlevel with a decent reputation and absolutely no intention of making partner. I have intentionally started ramping down my responsiveness in evenings/weekends, I’m saying no more often, I’m aggressively pushing work to juniors when they’re capable (even if I’m not at or near capacity).

It’s kinda hard to do this because, for basically my whole life, I’ve been a go-getter and I have been one of the best of the bunch. I imagine that’s common for biglaw associates - back in high school or whatever, you were one of the smartest, and you liked that reputation. Now you’re in a biglaw class where - to protect your own sanity - you have to be comfortable with being below average. I want to aim for 30th percentile performance. I’ve never done that before. But you get used to it and you get very good at applying the 80/20 rule as often as possible.

[NoLongerALurker]

At what point do they start talking about good v. bad?

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

Right away. But, you are all bad, so don't worry about it. It's generally tough to tell if people are going to be any good for at least 1 year (and sometimes 2-3). If you have a good additude, try hard and are available most people are willing to overlook very bad legal work for 1-2 years.

If you are interested about being considered a "good " junior (and I would be very careful about doing this as it can be very bad for your sanity, you will get crushed with work and I am not really sure what the payoff is) try to figure out how you can add value and do so. Your legal work is trash, so you don't add value there. But, there is other stuff you can do. Think about what your senior associates are doing all day long and what are things you can do that can make their lives incrementally better. When new drafts come in from the other side, immediately save them to the system, and run redlines to make sure the other side didn't make a mistake on those (also be sure to send the senior a quick email saying you are doing this). Flag emails that seem like they need responses, but no one has responded to in 1-2 days. Offer to send out dial-ins for conference calls once people have agreed on times without waiting for people to tell you to send them. When a senior asks you to run redlines, think for a few minutes about what redlines will be most helpful for them to review and run those. Check in simple documents when they come in (like goodstandings or signature pages) and let the senior know you are doing it. Be respectful of the Senior Associates time and only call once per document/task to ask the 800 questions you have. Think about who the appropriate person to ask questions to is and ask them. Don't ask senior associates questions about how some piece of tech works. They HATE that. Ask tech, or your secretary, or a junior or some second year.

Again, being a good associate is essentially about making the people you work for's jobs/lives easier. Your legal work is trash, so your drafting/analysis is not going to do that. But you can do that in other much smaller and more boring ways.

What exactly does "run redlines" mean. I hear it often, but not exactly sure what it entails.

1. Open software that compares two word documents
2. Drag yesterday's version of a file into a pane that says "original"
3. Drag today's version of a file into a pane that says "modified"
4. Click "Run Comparison"
5. Wait 10-30 seconds
6. Click "Save as PDF"
7. Email to partner saying "Redline attached"
8. Charge client $150 for doing so
9. Wait for partner to circle an extra comma on their ipad and write a question mark on it, then send back to you
10. Open word document, delete the extra comma
11. Repeat steps 1 to 8 above, but now make two PDFs: one showing yesterday's draft vs today's, and also one showing the draft of 10 minutes ago vs the draft you just fixed.
12. Rinse & repeat for every draft of every document you ever work on.
13. Somehow if you wait around long enough and do it with the right amount of enthusiasm, turn it into a career that pays you well over a million dollars over a 10 year span before you get shitcanned for not having any client relationships

[Anonymous User]

What do you mean another person was staffed? Are you in a large group? Are you central staffing? It depends, but at my firm (not central staffing) your concern may be the case

Anon who posted earlier about getting asked to do another junior’s work for something I wasn’t staffed on. Do you think it’s because it is my reputation that I do not say no? I am a bit worried because I do not want people to walk all over me

[lolwutpar]

At what point do they start talking about good v. bad?

I feel like I am doing a horrible job as a junior associate. I constantly seem to screw up even, even with easy tasks. I understand that every junior isn’t going to be great and there’s an expectation that we won’t be great, but how much does this period impact your reputation going forward (as we will soon be expected to know how to do these things better).

midlevels definitely talk, so the reputation solidifies quickly, but it's really more of a "is this person trying / responding to emails / generally a pleasant person to work with" rather than just a "does this person make typos / get things wrong" thing, especially for first years. I know it's not extremely helpful advice, but my advice would be "own mistakes / stay positive / stay super responsive" and it should sort itself out. The sorts of seniors who actually write you off entirely based on stupid junior mistakes are incidentally the sorts of seniors you don't want to work closely with anyway, imo.

Right away. But, you are all bad, so don't worry about it. It's generally tough to tell if people are going to be any good for at least 1 year (and sometimes 2-3). If you have a good additude, try hard and are available most people are willing to overlook very bad legal work for 1-2 years.

If you are interested about being considered a "good " junior (and I would be very careful about doing this as it can be very bad for your sanity, you will get crushed with work and I am not really sure what the payoff is) try to figure out how you can add value and do so. Your legal work is trash, so you don't add value there. But, there is other stuff you can do. Think about what your senior associates are doing all day long and what are things you can do that can make their lives incrementally better. When new drafts come in from the other side, immediately save them to the system, and run redlines to make sure the other side didn't make a mistake on those (also be sure to send the senior a quick email saying you are doing this). Flag emails that seem like they need responses, but no one has responded to in 1-2 days. Offer to send out dial-ins for conference calls once people have agreed on times without waiting for people to tell you to send them. When a senior asks you to run redlines, think for a few minutes about what redlines will be most helpful for them to review and run those. Check in simple documents when they come in (like goodstandings or signature pages) and let the senior know you are doing it. Be respectful of the Senior Associates time and only call once per document/task to ask the 800 questions you have. Think about who the appropriate person to ask questions to is and ask them. Don't ask senior associates questions about how some piece of tech works. They HATE that. Ask tech, or your secretary, or a junior or some second year.

Again, being a good associate is essentially about making the people you work for's jobs/lives easier. Your legal work is trash, so your drafting/analysis is not going to do that. But you can do that in other much smaller and more boring ways.

What exactly does "run redlines" mean. I hear it often, but not exactly sure what it entails.

1. Open software that compares two word documents
2. Drag yesterday's version of a file into a pane that says "original"
3. Drag today's version of a file into a pane that says "modified"
4. Click "Run Comparison"
5. Wait 10-30 seconds
6. Click "Save as PDF"
7. Email to partner saying "Redline attached"
8. Charge client $150 for doing so
9. Wait for partner to circle an extra comma on their ipad and write a question mark on it, then send back to you
10. Open word document, delete the extra comma
11. Repeat steps 1 to 8 above, but now make two PDFs: one showing yesterday's draft vs today's, and also one showing the draft of 10 minutes ago vs the draft you just fixed.
12. Rinse & repeat for every draft of every document you ever work on.
13. Somehow if you wait around long enough and do it with the right amount of enthusiasm, turn it into a career that pays you well over a million dollars over a 10 year span before you get shitcanned for not having any client relationships

This reminds me I need to add "partner that can run their own goddamn redlines" to the partners who are good to work for thread.

[Prudent_Jurist]

This reminds me I need to add "partner that can run their own goddamn redlines" to the partners who are good to work for thread.

Please do.

[mylovemiyoung]

What do you mean another person was staffed? Are you in a large group? Are you central staffing? It depends, but at my firm (not central staffing) your concern may be the case

Anon who posted earlier about getting asked to do another junior’s work for something I wasn’t staffed on. Do you think it’s because it is my reputation that I do not say no? I am a bit worried because I do not want people to walk all over me

Not free market. Central assignment system. I wasn't staffed on the ongoing matter (think case, deal, etc.) but I got asked to do stuff for it instead of another associate who was.