Musings after one year of Biglaw: is it supposed to be this inefficient? Forum

[Anonymous User]

So, recently tied up my first year at a V50 biglaw firm. Some months were very quiet, some were hell on earth. That being said, one thing I noticed, and maybe I'm still just missing the bigger picture: but aren't we hella inefficient?

Just a couple examples I've seen over the past year:
- Fake deadlines: Partner asks for outline of a large document by end of day. Junior does it, sends it in. Partner says it requires a lot more content. Junior works until end of day adding as much language as possible. Sends it in to partner who replies: "Thanks, but I just wanted an outline. But this is a good start for the document we aim to share later in the month, so let's keep progressing this! But please remove all other language." And, as per usual under Parkinson's Law, it went to the wire to finish the draft with all the content as well, because there is no such thing as finishing things early in biglaw.

- Needless work: Crunchtime on a deal, all hands on deck and people have been going on a few hours of sleep. Senior Associate asks a few juniors to do a formatting and spellchecking on a couple enormous documents that have already been approved. What? They have been approved already! Why are we billing even more time on this, would the client want us to do that?

- Overstaffing: Waiting for comments to come back, late at night. Instead of one one of us being awake, the entire team stays up, even though only one needs to be awake to incorporate these. Or times where multiple associates are on a weekend call, to deal with something inane that only one person is actually working on. And don't get me started on that many of these comments are pedantic stuff like "please add a comma here." Is that really important? Does the client want to pay for this?

I knew there would be stupid stuff going on in law firms, but a solid 20% can just easily be done away with. But it seems people just want to bill/work as much as possible. Is that just what it is? I'm just trying to gather if this is just some unspoken secret, that we are just supposed to bill as much/waste time, or that there is actually some grand importance I'm missing? Happy either way, but just wondering.

[Joachim2017]

Everything you write is true and accurate across most firms in Big Law, but it's not a secret at all. It's built into the system which is profitable in many ways directly because of it. And Big Law associates are given the salaries and bonuses they are in large part because of this.

[nixy]

^ this is absolutely correct.

But while there are absolutely fake deadlines, some of them may be based on the partner’s overall schedule with other responsibilities, not just that particular document/matter. While a client might approve a document’s content, they may not know the court/firm’s preferred format or drill down for spelling errors, so those things would need to be checked again before the document goes to whatever final resting place. Some commas actually *do* matter.

Inefficiency is absolutely designed into the system, in part because the point of biglaw is to pay big bucks for ostensible perfection, which is always less efficient than good enough. But I’m not sure every example you’ve given is a hill to die on. Big fancy corporate clients are paying for documents to be perfect and if they wanted to save money they probably wouldn’t be using your firm to begin with.

[Sad248]

Everything you write is true and accurate across most firms in Big Law, but it's not a secret at all. It's built into the system which is profitable in many ways directly because of it. And Big Law associates are given the salaries and bonuses they are in large part because of this.

Actually have a question on this, ever since I started. My firm mostly works on a "pre-arranged set fee" basis, which I always understood that the fee was determined regardless of billables. So, I figured this would entail associates being expected to bill as efficiently as possible. And sometimes I do see this (associates being asked to drop from calls, pressure to use paralegals, etc.). But I, at times, do see what OP is talking about as well, which then confuses the hell out of me. So what is the case here?

I never understood the pressure to bill as much as possible, and the need for billable requirements, if a set fee system makes it so you're not going to get paid for the extra hours anyway. Or am I misunderstanding this set fee stuff? Anyone else have a firm like this?

[Anonymous User]

I've worked in other fields before law school and I can assure you that most industries are far more inefficient. One entire department at a previous job used to play online board games all day.

[Anonymous User]

Not in corporate, but there are similar issues in lit. Most of the issues I see come from the fact that lawyers aren't promoted for being good managers. Sometimes it's the exact opposite. There are some brilliant litigators at my firm that are hell to work for.

[papercutter]

I'm also lit, and I'd agree that some of this is just poor management, but there also potentially reasonable explanations for some for some this:

Fake deadlines: Sometimes fake deadlines are because the partner/senior associate's availability to review is going to be limited by other cases. Sometimes it's because you're building in a buffer in case the draft you get back needs work, which I admit to doing when working with new people. From the partner's perspective I can see the example below as: the first draft needs a lot of work, so I sent it back; the second draft went overboard and isn't what the client/recipient is expecting, but OK, I can cut it back to what I want, and then keep the rest for future work product.

Needless work: I don't pretend to know the corporate world, but if you're filing a brief or sending a final version to the client, yes, spellcheck it and proof it again, assuming there have been edits since the last proofed version. Having the client point out a spelling error (which yes, has happened to me) is embarrassing. If you're in Biglaw, the client is paying for top-tier work product. You don't want to look sloppy, and it doesn't (or shouldn't) take that much time.

Overstaffing: this sounds like just bad management, and depends more on what exactly is going on in the case/brief/filing, but I've also had situations where something new came up, we needed more people ASAP, and I was glad we had some extra bandwidth. On the other hand I've had situations where a problem came up, the person most knowledgeable about it was offline, and we had to either go chase them down at odd hours or rush to re-learn something. There's a fine line here, but most partners and senior associates probably remember situations where thing went bad, and are trying to avoid a worst-case scenario, especially since the cost to them of doing that is low and the risk is significant.

Finally, about the missing comma, sometimes it doesn't matter. Sometimes it does. If there's enough money involved, someone may fight over it. E.g.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business- ... or-in-sale

https://financialpost.com/legal-post/bp ... 50-million

[Anonymous User]

Piggybacking - Is it the norm for Big law litigation to be just bits and pieces? Meaning the associates just work on bits and pieces as opposed to at smaller or midsize or even insurance shops where associates get to run the case from start to finish with guidance from a partner?

[The Lsat Airbender]

An underrated aspect not mentioned yet is that biglaw juniors (especially stub/first-years) are apprenticing to some degree. A lot of their WP needs to be completely redone, or they take notes on the conference call that nobody wants, etc., which seems pointless up-close but is necessary to maintain the supply of experienced midlevel/senior associates. Historically most skilled trades worked like this.

[Anonymous User]

I am not sure why nobody has mentioned this yet which I think is the biggest inefficiency bs in this industry more so than anything mentioned above - processing hand markups. I get that some older partners have been doing it for so long and/or are too old to learn how to use track changes but I see folks in 20/30s doing it (especially those in NYC) as they become more senior as if its some sort of ritual that needs to be passed on into the next generations. I’ve lost hundreds of hours doing this bs. I know the argument is processing hand markups is the best way to learn, this is part of the apprenticeship, sometimes (short document) its actually quicker etc. but for god’s sake it is so inefficient and requires multiple levels of admin work just to confirm hand markups have been reflected correctly or even to understand what that scribble means. Even the “best way to learn” argument, I don’t think really is true since most of the time you are under time pressure to turn asap so you only have time to stress over whether all markups have been incorporated. And juniors who are good and are interested in getting better will get better whether they had to grind away processing hand markups or just had to accept track changes. Now that Ive been out of NYC for some time now, I just dont see any reason to do hand markups other than to just create more billables.

[Anonymous User]

I am not sure why nobody has mentioned this yet which I think is the biggest inefficiency bs in this industry more so than anything mentioned above - processing hand markups. I get that some older partners have been doing it for so long and/or are too old to learn how to use track changes but I see folks in 20/30s doing it (especially those in NYC) as they become more senior as if its some sort of ritual that needs to be passed on into the next generations. I’ve lost hundreds of hours doing this bs. I know the argument is processing hand markups is the best way to learn, this is part of the apprenticeship, sometimes (short document) its actually quicker etc. but for god’s sake it is so inefficient and requires multiple levels of admin work just to confirm hand markups have been reflected correctly or even to understand what that scribble means. Even the “best way to learn” argument, I don’t think really is true since most of the time you are under time pressure to turn asap so you only have time to stress over whether all markups have been incorporated. And juniors who are good and are interested in getting better will get better whether they had to grind away processing hand markups or just had to accept track changes. Now that Ive been out of NYC for some time now, I just dont see any reason to do hand markups other than to just create more billables.

I think my partner does hand markups while on the train on iPad or something. Def struck me as weird the first time, had to look up the notations from write on that I'd forgotten about. But I think it's faster/easier for partners bc they don't have to save new word doc, can just work off the redline pdf. Also cultural, they want us to update the doc, they don't want to do it. Is it efficient? Probably not but from their perspective it's not just to create billables.

Can maybe even argue that from client perspective, saving 20 min partner time is worth an extra hour associate time.

[Anonymous User]

I am not sure why nobody has mentioned this yet which I think is the biggest inefficiency bs in this industry more so than anything mentioned above - processing hand markups. I get that some older partners have been doing it for so long and/or are too old to learn how to use track changes but I see folks in 20/30s doing it (especially those in NYC) as they become more senior as if its some sort of ritual that needs to be passed on into the next generations. I’ve lost hundreds of hours doing this bs. I know the argument is processing hand markups is the best way to learn, this is part of the apprenticeship, sometimes (short document) its actually quicker etc. but for god’s sake it is so inefficient and requires multiple levels of admin work just to confirm hand markups have been reflected correctly or even to understand what that scribble means. Even the “best way to learn” argument, I don’t think really is true since most of the time you are under time pressure to turn asap so you only have time to stress over whether all markups have been incorporated. And juniors who are good and are interested in getting better will get better whether they had to grind away processing hand markups or just had to accept track changes. Now that Ive been out of NYC for some time now, I just dont see any reason to do hand markups other than to just create more billables.

I think my partner does hand markups while on the train on iPad or something. Def struck me as weird the first time, had to look up the notations from write on that I'd forgotten about. But I think it's faster/easier for partners bc they don't have to save new word doc, can just work off the redline pdf. Also cultural, they want us to update the doc, they don't want to do it. Is it efficient? Probably not but from their perspective it's not just to create billables.

Can maybe even argue that from client perspective, saving 20 min partner time is worth an extra hour associate time.

Yes, I get that and I specifically mentioned that for some partners and on certain shorter doc, It makes sense. Better examples of what i am talking about are long docs (think ppm, credit agreement etc) that some mid level marks up in hand so that juniors would need to spend 3, 5 or more hours just to process the hand markups only to have it reviewed by the mid level who sends more hand makrups to fix and the process repeats. I get hand markups can be easier depending on the circumstance. It just prevailing attitude in biglaw that hand markup is the way to go.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, I get that and I specifically mentioned that for some partners and on certain shorter doc, It makes sense. Better examples of what i am talking about are long docs (think ppm, credit agreement etc) that some mid level marks up in hand so that juniors would need to spend 3, 5 or more hours just to process the hand markups only to have it reviewed by the mid level who sends more hand makrups to fix and the process repeats. I get hand markups can be easier depending on the circumstance. It just prevailing attitude in biglaw that hand markup is the way to go.

Forgive me because I'm in lit, but can't you just ask your assistant to put the markups in for you in track changes and then go from there? Or is there normally more of a timing crunch here?

[Anonymous User]

Yes, I get that and I specifically mentioned that for some partners and on certain shorter doc, It makes sense. Better examples of what i am talking about are long docs (think ppm, credit agreement etc) that some mid level marks up in hand so that juniors would need to spend 3, 5 or more hours just to process the hand markups only to have it reviewed by the mid level who sends more hand makrups to fix and the process repeats. I get hand markups can be easier depending on the circumstance. It just prevailing attitude in biglaw that hand markup is the way to go.

A few points:

1. Track changes sucks. I'll admit it's better than it was a few years ago, but it still sucks: unsafe from a MetaData perspective, gives away information like the name of someone editing when you might not want it to, various iterations aren't always visible, and someone might forget to accept all edits before the document leaves the firm. It particularly sucks if someone tries to run track changes on a redline Word document - yes, you can find next all the way through, but I've seen multiple errors when people have tried to make this work.

2. Document integrity and version control. Multiple users and versions using track changes can screw up formatting - if you're a junior tasked with running a document (and in some groups/firms you won't be, since the midlevel/senior is very possessive about the document), a big part of the job is to make sure that the document works - cross-references, headings, etc. It's not "just accepting changes" in any edit you get, but figuring out what those mean for the broader document.

3. Having more eyes on a document - especially well-qualified, well-read eyes - on a clean document (rather than just accepting changes) usually makes it better and shorter on errors. This is what clients are paying for, not just checking and accepting changes. You tend to see more errors, whatever your level, if reading something clean (especially for the first time) than if you're looking at something with tracking that may have gone awry. If you see multiple cleans as a partner, you see the final work product (or just short of it) that goes to clients. Probably safer than a document where you're not sure what's been accepted, rejected, or which conceptual comments may have been left in caps or comment bubbles for the other side to see.

4. Ease of subsequent review. Redlines and a clean document are easier to read than just track changes, especially if you're pushed for time - you can handmark or write with a stylus on a redline (as a more senior lawyer) much more easily than going through and typing stuff, particularly if you only have four edits. And sometimes it helps to see how something reads both marked up and clean, which the clean/markup method does.

5. There probably is a financial aspect to this, but I think more than that there is a learning element for juniors, to see how and why changes are made, what consequential edits ought to be made, and what they didn't understand/screwed up on the first go round.

[Anonymous User]

So I read the above multiple times, so? I don't see how hand markup is superior? You can clean up track changes and do doc control so only some people can save docs in the system, run redlines against acceted changes again to see changes, still have multiple levels of review before doc goes out? Whats the point here?

[Anonymous User]

Truly there is a special place in hell for the people who send out hand markups to the attorneys on the other side of the deal. Like I don’t even know you, Jake from Paul, Weiss, why would you think I can decipher your chicken scratch poorly-scanned markup you sent me at 3 am? Just run a redline like the rest of us!!!

[Anonymous User]

So I read the above multiple times, so? I don't see how hand markup is superior? You can clean up track changes and do doc control so only some people can save docs in the system, run redlines against acceted changes again to see changes, still have multiple levels of review before doc goes out? Whats the point here?

There’s more chance of screw ups and poor work product (comments just being accepted and not addressed, tracking not being removed fully, document formatting going to hell) with track changes than hand markups. What you think saves time may end up adding it.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I knew there would be stupid stuff going on in law firms, but a solid 20% can just easily be done away with. But it seems people just want to bill/work as much as possible. Is that just what it is? I'm just trying to gather if this is just some unspoken secret, that we are just supposed to bill as much/waste time, or that there is actually some grand importance I'm missing? Happy either way, but just wondering.

Congrats on learning how law firms make a lot of money.

There is no grand importance for anyone who isn't a smoothbrained caveman (some of whom appeared ITT). It's also not any more ethical to make up fake nonsense you know full well the client doesn't care about to pad the bill than actually just making up more hours, but it's like 1% safer from a CYA perspective for the firm to have a paper trail of various semicolon-italicizing it can *claim* is crucial than to have you sitting around enjoying your nights and weekends, so that's why it happens.

Work on your first deal with a tight fee cap and watch how quickly all the things that were "so critical" immediately fall by the wayside.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, I get that and I specifically mentioned that for some partners and on certain shorter doc, It makes sense. Better examples of what i am talking about are long docs (think ppm, credit agreement etc) that some mid level marks up in hand so that juniors would need to spend 3, 5 or more hours just to process the hand markups only to have it reviewed by the mid level who sends more hand makrups to fix and the process repeats. I get hand markups can be easier depending on the circumstance. It just prevailing attitude in biglaw that hand markup is the way to go.

Forgive me because I'm in lit, but can't you just ask your assistant to put the markups in for you in track changes and then go from there? Or is there normally more of a timing crunch here?

Doesn't quite work -- if I circle an indemnity provision and say something like "put usual carveouts", the assistant has no idea what I'm asking. The 3rd year will know and will incorporate accordingly. Same goes if I circle something and write "check against term sheet" or "please check against [random precedent that addresses this issue well]".

Personally, I hand mark shit because the print out is genuinely easier for me to read and I process it better. I've tried to make my handwriting closer to just straight up printing so that it's not some BS chickenscratch.

[Anonymous User]

I knew there would be stupid stuff going on in law firms, but a solid 20% can just easily be done away with. But it seems people just want to bill/work as much as possible. Is that just what it is? I'm just trying to gather if this is just some unspoken secret, that we are just supposed to bill as much/waste time, or that there is actually some grand importance I'm missing? Happy either way, but just wondering.

Congrats on learning how law firms make a lot of money.

There is no grand importance for anyone who isn't a smoothbrained caveman (some of whom appeared ITT). It's also not any more ethical to make up fake nonsense you know full well the client doesn't care about to pad the bill than actually just making up more hours, but it's like 1% safer from a CYA perspective for the firm to have a paper trail of various semicolon-italicizing it can *claim* is crucial than to have you sitting around enjoying your nights and weekends, so that's why it happens.

Work on your first deal with a tight fee cap and watch how quickly all the things that were "so critical" immediately fall by the wayside.

Wow, the number of people defending hand markups here. I guess no amount of logic and reasoning will work. It’s too late. Just to fire off responses to them one last time - if the concern is that track changes will cause more screw ups and folks will just “accept” and won’t actually look at the comments (including conceptual comments), just review the clean accepted/revised doc one more time before it goes out, which you are going do anyways even if you gave hand markups to confirm all hand markups have been inputted correctly and its not as if hand markups get processed accurately, folks are bound to miss things/read handwriting incorrectly/ don’t input high level comments etc. If anything its easier to review if initial comment is in track changes because you can ask the processor to just send you redline against your markup. And again if you are worried about formatting, just scroll the clean. If you want to give high level comment? Just use comment bubble. And to point out the obvious, track isn’t perfect just how hand markup isnt. It about weighing cost and benefit and picking a method that is “better” on balance. My point is that a major reason why hand markup is “better” and still is the preferred method without any pushback is because it creates more billable even if it’s inefficient. I’ve been at a group where 90% of the work is done in track and I am not seeing any increase in screwups and fuckups that people here seem to be obsessed with.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, the number of people defending hand markups here. I guess no amount of logic and reasoning will work. It’s too late. Just to fire off responses to them one last time - if the concern is that track changes will cause more screw ups and folks will just “accept” and won’t actually look at the comments (including conceptual comments), just review the clean accepted/revised doc one more time before it goes out, which you are going do anyways even if you gave hand markups to confirm all hand markups have been inputted correctly and its not as if hand markups get processed accurately, folks are bound to miss things/read handwriting incorrectly/ don’t input high level comments etc. If anything its easier to review if initial comment is in track changes because you can ask the processor to just send you redline against your markup. And again if you are worried about formatting, just scroll the clean. If you want to give high level comment? Just use comment bubble. And to point out the obvious, track isn’t perfect just how hand markup isnt. It about weighing cost and benefit and picking a method that is “better” on balance. My point is that a major reason why hand markup is “better” and still is the preferred method without any pushback is because it creates more billable even if it’s inefficient. I’ve been at a group where 90% of the work is done in track and I am not seeing any increase in screwups and fuckups that people here seem to be obsessed with.

Ok, I understand your trouble: you think the people doing the markup will be as quick/quicker typing things in (including with comment bubbles, and given the perfectionism of most lawyers at that level, putting in cross references) as they are marking things up by hand.

They're not - if they were, they'd probably use track themselves. And from a cost perspective, their time is more valuable than the junior's (their 3 hrs reviewing a 150 page document will probably be as expensive as the third year's 10), and they're most profitable when they're working on multiple deals. (Even when they aren't, they've become habituated to hand markups being quicker from the times when they're crunched and need to turn eight documents in two hours.) From the client's perspective, if there's *any* messing around required it's more efficient for the junior to do it. As an example, for most people it's much quicker to circle and draw arrows from the same proviso to the eight places it needs to be replicated than it is to copy and paste the thing/put in a comment bubble.

This isn't about laziness/not wanting to do the work. It's about the person whose time is more expensive to the client doing things more quickly *for themselves*. Your comment bubbles, toggling between clean and markup, etc., might work for you - and when you're in a position to give markups, do it - but in my experience even relatively young partners (late 30s/early 40s) get to a point where it's quicker to give hand markups than it is to make edits themselves.

[Anonymous User]

Spent several years in BigLaw and can confirm that, indeed, the system is built to be inefficient. As others have mentioned, this is due to both the need for perfection (which gets exhausting), as well as the need to bill into oblivion to make money.

When I was a junior associate I routinely received ASAP secretarial assignments on the weekend that related to going to FedEx, printing various documents that could easily be accessed on a computer, making binders, and either driving them or arranging a courier to deliver them to a partner’s house. These assignments never had a reason to be ASAP — these binders were requested often weeks in advance of a hearing or deposition, and they could easily be handled Monday morning by administrative staff at no cost to the client. However, assigning it on the weekend meant billing over $600 an hour for work that a middle school intern could do. If it feels like madness, it’s because it is.

I transitioned to a government role a while back and it was the best decision I ever made. I love my job, I don’t bill, and there is zero incentive to be inefficient.

[inter-associate]

Wow, the number of people defending hand markups here. I guess no amount of logic and reasoning will work. It’s too late. Just to fire off responses to them one last time - if the concern is that track changes will cause more screw ups and folks will just “accept” and won’t actually look at the comments (including conceptual comments), just review the clean accepted/revised doc one more time before it goes out, which you are going do anyways even if you gave hand markups to confirm all hand markups have been inputted correctly and its not as if hand markups get processed accurately, folks are bound to miss things/read handwriting incorrectly/ don’t input high level comments etc. If anything its easier to review if initial comment is in track changes because you can ask the processor to just send you redline against your markup. And again if you are worried about formatting, just scroll the clean. If you want to give high level comment? Just use comment bubble. And to point out the obvious, track isn’t perfect just how hand markup isnt. It about weighing cost and benefit and picking a method that is “better” on balance. My point is that a major reason why hand markup is “better” and still is the preferred method without any pushback is because it creates more billable even if it’s inefficient. I’ve been at a group where 90% of the work is done in track and I am not seeing any increase in screwups and fuckups that people here seem to be obsessed with.

Ok, I understand your trouble: you think the people doing the markup will be as quick/quicker typing things in (including with comment bubbles, and given the perfectionism of most lawyers at that level, putting in cross references) as they are marking things up by hand.

They're not - if they were, they'd probably use track themselves. And from a cost perspective, their time is more valuable than the junior's (their 3 hrs reviewing a 150 page document will probably be as expensive as the third year's 10), and they're most profitable when they're working on multiple deals. (Even when they aren't, they've become habituated to hand markups being quicker from the times when they're crunched and need to turn eight documents in two hours.) From the client's perspective, if there's *any* messing around required it's more efficient for the junior to do it. As an example, for most people it's much quicker to circle and draw arrows from the same proviso to the eight places it needs to be replicated than it is to copy and paste the thing/put in a comment bubble.

This isn't about laziness/not wanting to do the work. It's about the person whose time is more expensive to the client doing things more quickly *for themselves*. Your comment bubbles, toggling between clean and markup, etc., might work for you - and when you're in a position to give markups, do it - but in my experience even relatively young partners (late 30s/early 40s) get to a point where it's quicker to give hand markups than it is to make edits themselves.

I’ve gotten into one of these back and forth a on hand markups on TLS before, and I have concluded it is 100% dependent on the person doing the marking up. For me, printing a physical doc and marking as I read is so much quicker (and more accurate) than working on a screen or redoing comments in track. Others at my level are pretty good with track changes. I know juniors don’t like the hand markups and scan jobs, but trying to teach an old dog new tricks in this business when we have so much going on is darn near impossible. Every time I try to make life easier for them by doing track I end up hating my life.

FWIW, agree our system is generally inefficient. I don’t think it is intentionally running up bills though (no one in corporate in 2021 is wanting for hours). It’s a product of a system where the most senior person on the team tops out in level of responsibility upon making partner at 8-10 years in, and then does the same tasks for 20-30 years. There’s no time or incentive to change what worked.

[Anonymous User]

I transitioned to a government role a while back and it was the best decision I ever made. I love my job, I don’t bill, and there is zero incentive to be inefficient.

Ah, the famous paragon of efficiency: the government.

[Anonymous User]

I transitioned to a government role a while back and it was the best decision I ever made. I love my job, I don’t bill, and there is zero incentive to be inefficient.

Ah, the famous paragon of efficiency: the government.

It's sure better than biglaw. You're spending taxpayer money (so burning it needlessly is bad) and there's no reason at all to take longer with something than it needs, since what's at stake is your time, not your compensation. The bureaucracy is a bitch but the individual incentives are much more efficient.