Email conventions on seniority when messaging multiple people Forum

[Anonymous User]

I met with my supervising attorneys today and need to give them some basic information (nothing related to any legal matter) via email. Is the convention to address the email to the most senior person from the call and put everyone else as CC, or should I address everyone (either by name if two people, or as "everyone") and have everyone as actual recipients (i.e., "To" instead of "CC")?

My gut says address to the most senior person and CC everyone else, but I'm wondering if this will look like I'm dismissing everyone else.

[lolwutpar]

I met with my supervising attorneys today and need to give them some basic information (nothing related to any legal matter) via email. Is the convention to address the email to the most senior person from the call and put everyone else as CC, or should I address everyone (either by name if two people, or as "everyone") and have everyone as actual recipients (i.e., "To" instead of "CC")?

My gut says address to the most senior person and CC everyone else, but I'm wondering if this will look like I'm dismissing everyone else.

In this situation, you're addressing it to multiple people, right? So,

"All,

Blah blah blah"

Or

"Jim, Bob,

Blah blah blah"

If you were just meeting/addressing with one attorney, then just use their name. But addressing something only to the most senior person makes no sense if you met/discussed with more than one attorney.

[Anonymous User]

I met with my supervising attorneys today and need to give them some basic information (nothing related to any legal matter) via email. Is the convention to address the email to the most senior person from the call and put everyone else as CC, or should I address everyone (either by name if two people, or as "everyone") and have everyone as actual recipients (i.e., "To" instead of "CC")?

My gut says address to the most senior person and CC everyone else, but I'm wondering if this will look like I'm dismissing everyone else.

In this situation, you're addressing it to multiple people, right? So,

"All,

Blah blah blah"

Or

"Jim, Bob,

Blah blah blah"

If you were just meeting/addressing with one attorney, then just use their name. But addressing something only to the most senior person makes no sense if you met/discussed with more than one attorney.

Oh... I already went with the most senior + CC but now I know better. Hopefully this isn't an unexpectedly huge deal instead of a minor mistake that a lot of people make...

[cavalier1138]

Oh... I already went with the most senior + CC but now I know better. Hopefully this isn't an unexpectedly huge deal instead of a minor mistake that a lot of people make...

It's not going to be a huge deal. But I'm also not 100% sure that there was any mistake. If you had a call with a team of 5, but Partner Jim specifically said "Associate, I want to know about [factual issue], so send an email around refreshing us on that," then it would be perfectly reasonable to address the email to Jim (cc'ing the team), since he was the one who asked for the information.

But as already said, you generally address emails to the primary intended recipients. If that's the whole team, then it's "All" or "Team."

[2013]

I don’t think most people care if they’re in the to or cc line. They get the email anyway and are going to read it if it applies to them.

[TigerIsBack]

I don’t think most people care if they’re in the to or cc line. They get the email anyway and are going to read it if it applies to them.

I had a partner within the last year ask me to make sure within both the To and CC lines people were listed in order of seniority...

Example of an email I sent:
To: [Client VP], [Client MD], [Client Analyst]
CC: [Senior Partner], [Junior Partner], [Junior Associate]

The senior partner basically said next time just always make sure to list the MD, then VP, then Analyst for all emails. So some people definitely care.

[AntipodeanPhil]

I don’t think most people care if they’re in the to or cc line. They get the email anyway and are going to read it if it applies to them.

I had a partner within the last year ask me to make sure within both the To and CC lines people were listed in order of seniority...

Example of an email I sent:
To: [Client VP], [Client MD], [Client Analyst]
CC: [Senior Partner], [Junior Partner], [Junior Associate]

The senior partner basically said next time just always make sure to list the MD, then VP, then Analyst for all emails. So some people definitely care.

I think this is fairly standard biglaw advice. I'm not sure that To: vs. CC: matters that much, but definitely make sure that every person on each line is listed in order of seniority.

[jc9812]

I don’t think most people care if they’re in the to or cc line. They get the email anyway and are going to read it if it applies to them.

I had a partner within the last year ask me to make sure within both the To and CC lines people were listed in order of seniority...

Example of an email I sent:
To: [Client VP], [Client MD], [Client Analyst]
CC: [Senior Partner], [Junior Partner], [Junior Associate]

The senior partner basically said next time just always make sure to list the MD, then VP, then Analyst for all emails. So some people definitely care.

I think this is fairly standard biglaw advice. I'm not sure that To: vs. CC: matters that much, but definitely make sure that every person on each line is listed in order of seniority.

Seems like a straight up insane thing to care about or even notice, but c'est la vie in biglaw.

[replevin123]

Seems like a straight up insane thing to care about or even notice, but c'est la vie in biglaw.

Agree. Laughable.

[lolwutpar]

I don’t think most people care if they’re in the to or cc line. They get the email anyway and are going to read it if it applies to them.

I had a partner within the last year ask me to make sure within both the To and CC lines people were listed in order of seniority...

Example of an email I sent:
To: [Client VP], [Client MD], [Client Analyst]
CC: [Senior Partner], [Junior Partner], [Junior Associate]

The senior partner basically said next time just always make sure to list the MD, then VP, then Analyst for all emails. So some people definitely care.

I think this is fairly standard biglaw advice. I'm not sure that To: vs. CC: matters that much, but definitely make sure that every person on each line is listed in order of seniority.

Seems like a straight up insane thing to care about or even notice, but c'est la vie in biglaw.

It is, and only one partner has ever told me to do that (mad that she wasn't listed first) so I made it a point to never list her first. People that care about shit like that can go fuck themselves.

[Yea All Right]

I don’t think most people care if they’re in the to or cc line. They get the email anyway and are going to read it if it applies to them.

I had a partner within the last year ask me to make sure within both the To and CC lines people were listed in order of seniority...

Example of an email I sent:
To: [Client VP], [Client MD], [Client Analyst]
CC: [Senior Partner], [Junior Partner], [Junior Associate]

The senior partner basically said next time just always make sure to list the MD, then VP, then Analyst for all emails. So some people definitely care.

I think this is fairly standard biglaw advice. I'm not sure that To: vs. CC: matters that much, but definitely make sure that every person on each line is listed in order of seniority.

Seems like a straight up insane thing to care about or even notice, but c'est la vie in biglaw.

It is, and only one partner has ever told me to do that (mad that she wasn't listed first) so I made it a point to never list her first. People that care about shit like that can go fuck themselves.

I respect the pettiness!

[Sackboy]

I think this is fairly standard biglaw advice. I'm not sure that To: vs. CC: matters that much, but definitely make sure that every person on each line is listed in order of seniority.

Others have said it but haven't quoted you. This is insane. I've never done this and never will. This is a waste of time and nobody cares. I'd only every do this if I had a neurotic partner who specifically asked for it. I'd never make this a standard operating procedure.

[Idontwanttomakeaname]

I think this is fairly standard biglaw advice. I'm not sure that To: vs. CC: matters that much, but definitely make sure that every person on each line is listed in order of seniority.

Others have said it but haven't quoted you. This is insane. I've never done this and never will. This is a waste of time and nobody cares. I'd only every do this if I had a neurotic partner who specifically asked for it. I'd never make this a standard operating procedure.

Maybe I’m crazy but I always default to seniority ranking people on new emails but if an replying to an existing chain, I’ll just leave as is.

[TLSReturntoWork]

I think this is fairly standard biglaw advice. I'm not sure that To: vs. CC: matters that much, but definitely make sure that every person on each line is listed in order of seniority.

Others have said it but haven't quoted you. This is insane. I've never done this and never will. This is a waste of time and nobody cares. I'd only every do this if I had a neurotic partner who specifically asked for it. I'd never make this a standard operating procedure.

Maybe I’m crazy but I always default to seniority ranking people on new emails but if an replying to an existing chain, I’ll just leave as is.

This seems completely normal to me too. I'm assuming you also work in a white shoe firm. Even summer associates are taught to email people in order of seniority.

It is funny to think that most (or even a large portion) of biglaw doesn't do this even though we've been conditioned to do it like breathing. But I admit when I'm just joining a team it does waste time the first email or two to have to learn and then remember who is more or less senior.

[AntipodeanPhil]

Maybe I’m crazy but I always default to seniority ranking people on new emails but if an replying to an existing chain, I’ll just leave as is.

This seems completely normal to me too. I'm assuming you also work in a white shoe firm. Even summer associates are taught to email people in order of seniority.

It is funny to think that most (or even a large portion) of biglaw doesn't do this even though we've been conditioned to do it like breathing. But I admit when I'm just joining a team it does waste time the first email or two to have to learn and then remember who is more or less senior.

Exactly - I started at a V10, where all the associates in my group did this. I think I was only told to do it once, but when you notice that everyone else is doing it, it's hard to ignore. And I agree with the above - it's optional when you reply all to an existing email.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Have literally never thought of this until I saw a meme about it recently from one of those biglaw social media accounts.

[lolwutpar]

I was trained at a white shoe and always thought the seniority thing was dumb, never did it, still don't do it. If you think it's a normal thing and you make an effort to do it, you're wayyy in too deep.

[bwh8813]

As a power move, I address my vacation notice emails in the reverse order of seniority.

[lolwutpar]

As a power move, I address my vacation notice emails in the reverse order of seniority.

I thought the secret is to bcc everyone so nobody else sees you just emailed two people because you've been winding down work for weeks.

[Sackboy]

Maybe there is some confusion going on here. If we're talking in the body of the email, like "Hi Sue, Bob", then I use seniority. If we're talking actual To and CC lines, that's stupid, and it doesn't make it any less stupid coming from a white shoe V5.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think using seniority as a default rule when starting a new thread is anywhere close to a bad thing. If anything, it's helpful because it lets you see where people stand at a glance. you'd want at least some kind of default rule, no? and you break from it as the situation demands (i.e. some clients don't have the head in house counsel respond to almost all of the email traffic, so sometimes you end up putting whoever is actually responding from their side first)

that said, doing it when replying to an ongoing thread is insane and anyone that expects you to rearrange in that context is a psycho.

[TigerIsBack]

Maybe there is some confusion going on here. If we're talking in the body of the email, like "Hi Sue, Bob", then I use seniority. If we're talking actual To and CC lines, that's stupid, and it doesn't make it any less stupid coming from a white shoe V5.

Nope, we're literally talking about the To: and Cc: lines above the body of the message.

So I have to put Client MD ahead of Client VP up there, even though I haven't heard from the MD in weeks because he's focused on other deals and the VP is really running the show. Whatever, it is what it is.

[TLSReturntoWork]

Maybe there is some confusion going on here. If we're talking in the body of the email, like "Hi Sue, Bob", then I use seniority. If we're talking actual To and CC lines, that's stupid, and it doesn't make it any less stupid coming from a white shoe V5.

Nope, we're literally talking about the To: and Cc: lines above the body of the message.

So I have to put Client MD ahead of Client VP up there, even though I haven't heard from the MD in weeks because he's focused on other deals and the VP is really running the show. Whatever, it is what it is.

Correct.

Also lol at the suggestion that it's stupid to do this in the to/cc lines, but somehow not stupid to do it in the body of the email. When you do it in the to/cc lines, you can skip that game by starting with a greeting instead of writing out their names.

To: Senior client, less senior client, junior client, who they fuck are you even client - were you just hired?
CC: Senior partner, senior associates, midlevels, juniors, summer associates

Body:
Top of the morning,

Filing attached. thx.

signed,
associate