Starting my third year in biglaw and feeling way behind Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a second year at a biglaw firm and do transactional law. The first few months were fine, and I had a lot of responsibility from the getgo. I loved the client interaction and learnt a lot as I had so many questions which were all handily answered. Then lockdowns hit after about six months. It was a welcome reprieve, as I was able to manage my time more, being removed from the auspices of the partnership. However, 1.5 years have passed now, and I feel that I might have been been left behind in terms of experience and knowledge, permanently.

I never really noticed this in my previous deals, but now I'm on a new one, and for the past few weeks the Senior Associate on it has been basically asking me to develop views on certain legal points. However, I have no idea where to even start with developing a legal view on it. In the past, on the off-chance I received any legal point, I just asked the Senior Associate who would then ask the partner on the deal if they didn't know themselves or tell me where to look to find the answer. Now I feel like I'm being told to just figure it out. I've asked him questions on them sometimes, but the response is generally a convoluted mess which doesn't help at all and just creates more questions. Ultimately, the Senior Associate just figures it out himself after he's done with me struggling on the point for a few days. Every time I feel like I've failed.

I'm not sure if this Senior Associate is basically on his way out and has just given up on training juniors, or if I'm really so far behind that I apparently don't know basic things. I wanted to check if others have run into this and what they did to address it (whether that's studying themselves, or whatever).

[Anonymous User]

What kind of points is your senior asking for your view on? Without knowing more, I think it’s hard to say whether or not it’s the kind of thing you should reasonably be able to know.

[Anonymous User]

You don't need to have the correct answer all the time, but you're presenting what you think the answer is and why each time, right? Versus spinning your wheels for a few days and not sending anything back/contributing to solving it?

[Anonymous User]

You don't need to have the correct answer all the time, but you're presenting what you think the answer is and why each time, right? Versus spinning your wheels for a few days and not sending anything back/contributing to solving it?

Also just spitballing here (as a new fourth year, so in your situation a year ago), some seniors just want some backup on what they're planing to do and their thinking, especially now with everyone overworked and things liable to fall through the cracks. When you're a junior it makes sense that seniors want you to keep them honest on the facts, which you can check, and when you're more mid-level, it's helpful to keep them honest on the thinking/rationale.

[Anonymous User]

You don't need to have the correct answer all the time, but you're presenting what you think the answer is and why each time, right? Versus spinning your wheels for a few days and not sending anything back/contributing to solving it?

Also just spitballing here (as a new fourth year, so in your situation a year ago), some seniors just want some backup on what they're planing to do and their thinking, especially now with everyone overworked and things liable to fall through the cracks. When you're a junior it makes sense that seniors want you to keep them honest on the facts, which you can check, and when you're more mid-level, it's helpful to keep them honest on the thinking/rationale.

Also a new 4th year, and I'll just add that the jump between 2nd year and 3rd year was pretty huge for me. Especially if your firm has a rotation program like mine where you're not really in your group until a year or more later.

My 1st year was spent jumping around from group to group and learning about the firm, people and trying to figure out my own interests and which practice area I wanted to join.

My 2nd year was the first time I was introduced to substantive legal points at the end of the year, but I still knew nothing and felt not all that better positioned than a 1st year.

Then this 3rd year has been intense in a bad and good way. I got to take on significant/substantive roles which was stressful and killed all my free time, but I learned a lot and feel significantly more comfortable now.

So, I think if you're still trying your best and trying to learn, you're probably better off than you think. Just give it time and know that people are extremely busy and may not be investing as much time in training as they'd like, but that's okay. There's going to be a lot of learning by trial and error for everyone right now.

[Wanderingdrock]

I'm a second year at a biglaw firm and do transactional law. The first few months were fine, and I had a lot of responsibility from the getgo. I loved the client interaction and learnt a lot as I had so many questions which were all handily answered. Then lockdowns hit after about six months. It was a welcome reprieve, as I was able to manage my time more, being removed from the auspices of the partnership. However, 1.5 years have passed now, and I feel that I might have been been left behind in terms of experience and knowledge, permanently.

I never really noticed this in my previous deals, but now I'm on a new one, and for the past few weeks the Senior Associate on it has been basically asking me to develop views on certain legal points. However, I have no idea where to even start with developing a legal view on it. In the past, on the off-chance I received any legal point, I just asked the Senior Associate who would then ask the partner on the deal if they didn't know themselves or tell me where to look to find the answer. Now I feel like I'm being told to just figure it out. I've asked him questions on them sometimes, but the response is generally a convoluted mess which doesn't help at all and just creates more questions. Ultimately, the Senior Associate just figures it out himself after he's done with me struggling on the point for a few days. Every time I feel like I've failed.

I'm not sure if this Senior Associate is basically on his way out and has just given up on training juniors, or if I'm really so far behind that I apparently don't know basic things. I wanted to check if others have run into this and what they did to address it (whether that's studying themselves, or whatever).

I'm lit, not transactional, but it sounds to me like what you're describing is just normal Imposter Syndrome (with, okay, yes, a dash of Covid isolation issues and training disruptions). I'm a mid-level and I'm still asked to draft client emails which get completely re-written before they're sent. Plenty of times I'm asked to propose risk mitigation measures in areas where my first thought is "How the hell should I know?" but I do my best, take some time to brainstorm ("Okay, I've never seen exactly this situation, but what have we said on past cases that could be adapted to this? If I can't think of anything, what would a smart person like me starting from scratch think made sense?") and see what the senior thinks. As always, my training comes primarily from seeing what the differences are between what I wrote and what ultimately gets sent to the client. Fewer and fewer revisions get made as I get more senior, gaining experience and trust.

I still often feel like I'm wearing my dad's clothes and pretending to know what I'm talking about, but I'm increasingly comfortable in the knowledge that that's normal and my contributions are still helpful.

[texas1100]

Sorry if I’m repeating anything, only read the OP.

Seniors (myself included) are crazy busy like everyone else right now in transactional. In an ideal world, we could take the time to think things through with you and give you better direction, but sometimes it’s just helpful to push things down and hope you figure it out while we juggle other pressing things—I know, not great management, sorry.

When you’re looking at a difficult problem in transactional, first you should look at precedent examples on your firm system or on EDGAR if it’s something public docs would be helpful for. Even if you don’t know if something is right or wrong, you show you took the time to dig around and found some examples. Second, I would try to understand why this question matters in the broader context of the deal, which is admittedly difficult without the experience. But try to get back to your bread and butter: are you buy or sell side? Underwriter or issuer? Why would you saying one thing over the other hurt or benefit the client, and can you craft a view that benefits the client and doesn’t feel like you are going down multiple logical leaps to get there (ie if it feels like your view is a major stretch, it probably is). And if you really just don’t know where to begin, just annoy the senior until you get a response, that’s all you can do after you’ve exhausted the above. I find asking similarly very busy peer associates for their thoughts isn’t that helpful, but YMMV

[Anonymous User]

Sorry if I’m repeating anything, only read the OP.

Seniors (myself included) are crazy busy like everyone else right now in transactional. In an ideal world, we could take the time to think things through with you and give you better direction, but sometimes it’s just helpful to push things down and hope you figure it out while we juggle other pressing things—I know, not great management, sorry.

When you’re looking at a difficult problem in transactional, first you should look at precedent examples on your firm system or on EDGAR if it’s something public docs would be helpful for. Even if you don’t know if something is right or wrong, you show you took the time to dig around and found some examples. Second, I would try to understand why this question matters in the broader context of the deal, which is admittedly difficult without the experience. But try to get back to your bread and butter: are you buy or sell side? Underwriter or issuer? Why would you saying one thing over the other hurt or benefit the client, and can you craft a view that benefits the client and doesn’t feel like you are going down multiple logical leaps to get there (ie if it feels like your view is a major stretch, it probably is). And if you really just don’t know where to begin, just annoy the senior until you get a response, that’s all you can do after you’ve exhausted the above. I find asking similarly very busy peer associates for their thoughts isn’t that helpful, but YMMV

[Anonymous User]

Sorry if I’m repeating anything, only read the OP.

Seniors (myself included) are crazy busy like everyone else right now in transactional. In an ideal world, we could take the time to think things through with you and give you better direction, but sometimes it’s just helpful to push things down and hope you figure it out while we juggle other pressing things—I know, not great management, sorry.

When you’re looking at a difficult problem in transactional, first you should look at precedent examples on your firm system or on EDGAR if it’s something public docs would be helpful for. Even if you don’t know if something is right or wrong, you show you took the time to dig around and found some examples. Second, I would try to understand why this question matters in the broader context of the deal, which is admittedly difficult without the experience. But try to get back to your bread and butter: are you buy or sell side? Underwriter or issuer? Why would you saying one thing over the other hurt or benefit the client, and can you craft a view that benefits the client and doesn’t feel like you are going down multiple logical leaps to get there (ie if it feels like your view is a major stretch, it probably is). And if you really just don’t know where to begin, just annoy the senior until you get a response, that’s all you can do after you’ve exhausted the above. I find asking similarly very busy peer associates for their thoughts isn’t that helpful, but YMMV

Spot on. I'm a recent lateral and had to pivot a little bit in a somewhat different (albeit similar) practice group, and I find that transactional practices (and others please correct me if I'm wrong) is a lot of project management, being pragmatic, managing those below (and above you) and just being responsive. A few good rules of thumb I've developed are that unless there's a compelling reason, the most practical/elegant solution is often the right one. You should have a clear cut answer for why you're doing x over y and you should think through what is easiest for me, for the team and for the client. Occam's razor. Unnecessary complexity is inherently bad (maybe a tautology there).

If I'm in a situation where I start to concoct a really weird solution that is so complicated, so out there, where all the steps begin to even confuse myself, I'll pause, think am I being stupid, and often times the answer is yes, there's an easier solution and to go with that. I find that even complicated legal problems can be broken down to simple points that all (should) connect logically.

There are times where you don't know something and that's fine. I think the best thing in learning is understanding the mechanics, why things are done a certain way and to just start with the assumption that much of what's developed to be "best practices" in your group is just the amalgamation of common sense, pragmatic approach. Sure, there's times where there's a complicated legal question concerning some stupid securities rule (e.g., do we need to include x financials, who needs to receive form, etc.) but I do think a lot of it is just process, chasing ppl, being super organized and responsive bullshit, and detail oriented.

Lastly, sometimes there's stuff that is just process shit that you can't "figure" out unless someone has done it before. There don't feel bad to ask and then try to retain and move on with your life. At the end of the day, this really is just a job and you have to have a larger perspective on what you want out of it (e.g., paid off house, paid off loans, in house gig).

Also always good to fallback on "We should get the partner's input on this" heheh.

[Bosque]

I am not transactional, but this sounds a lot like normal mid-level growing pains for all practices, not pandemic related. Sometime between years 2 and 5, pretty much everyone shifts from doing clear tasks with simple instructions to more nebulous "here is the problem, please handle it" tasks. Those require a lot more judgement, and are different in kind to most of what you get asked to do as a first year associate.

I'll tell you the same thing I wish someone had beat into me more at that seniority level, and the same thing I tell junior and midlevel attorneys at my firm: don't be afraid to ask for help or clarification. It doesn't need to be from the person who assigned the task if they are unable or unwilling to help. But having the experience of other attorneys at your disposal is precisely why a law firm exists. None of the partners, unless they are bad at their job, assume they know everything. They know their limits and ask other partners for advice all the time. Don't feel like using the resources available to you is somehow cheating or admitting you cannot do it.