Top Law Schools

Looking for the bright side of the other post

So sad no one has chimed in on this

If I recall, the other post similar to this had someone call OP a bootlicker for even insinuating that a partner might be pleasant to work with...I'd bet it was a law school student too.

Lawyers are pessimistic masochists, so we find the most terrible partners to work for the most interesting.

Illustrations of good partners to look for are useful. Why wouldn’t you want to flag qualities that make a grueling job more tolerable?

There are two lit partners at my firm I consistently try to get work from. They’re great at managing my time and impending deadlines, which makes my life much easier. They’re also super responsive to questions, as long as you’ve tried to answer the questions yourself first. They also actively try to mentor me by giving me substantive work and decisions to make (i.e., writing a dispositive motion, an appellate brief, weighing in on what pre-trial motions to file), which they backstop.

Figuring out which partners are best to work for isn’t bootlicking. Martin Luther once said that the will is like a donkey that either the God or the Devil will ride. An associate is also like a donkey that either a good partner or a bad partner will ride.

Junior at a V10. The partners are so far removed that I can’t comment on them yet, but I can describe some things that midlevels and seniors do that are good. For example, giving the juniors warnings when they sense a bunch of work coming in (got an email like “hey there’s nothing to do yet, but I thought you should know that it’s looking like the next few days might get fucked up so be on the lookout”).

Also, explaining why fake deadlines or other weird timing things exist. For example, starting off the conversation by saying “the client needs this by Monday morning, which means the share partner needs to see it by Sunday afternoon. This means the NSP needs to have it no later than Saturday night and preferably Saturday morning, which means that the midlevels need everything by Friday morning. Which is why unfortunately we need you guys to complete the diligence by tomorrow night (Thursday).” Such deadlines still suck, but it feels less arbitrary this way.

Another thing is changing late night deadlines to early morning. One senior always tries to give deadlines as 8am Wednesday instead of 1am Tuesday, for example, because nobody is actually going to review it in the middle of the night (unless this a closing or something), and it gives the junior more flexibility with their timing and sleep.

Finally, there’s a real subtle difference in tone where the person above you can either come across like they’re entitled to your time and effort in a demanding way (because you’re just some shitty junior who has to jump at their command), or instead like they’re requesting your help as a member of the team. In both cases, the junior is indeed required to help, and the implication that you must do so is equally powerful. But one style makes the junior feel shitty and the other makes them feel good. When I get demands from the first type of person, I think “man fuck this guy” and do it begrudgingly (and start to figure out how I can avoid working with them). When I get requests from the second type, I think “hey at least they asked nicely, let me give them a hand” and look forward to working with them again. It costs nothing for a senior to take the second approach, and in the long run breeds more loyal juniors.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:12 am

If I recall, the other post similar to this had someone call OP a bootlicker for even insinuating that a partner might be pleasant to work with...I'd bet it was a law school student too.

It was me and I like that you think I am a student. As everyone knows, students (not associates), notoriously hate law firm partners. Why aren’t you chiming in with your favorite partners to spend the day with, along with suggestions for fun informal lunch spots to bring them?

The premise is a bit off for me. There are partners I respect with regard to how they carry themselves and their processes, but I don’t find any of them “notoriously great” to work for. This job still sucks with a decent boss. It just sucks less.

Prudent_Jurist wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 28, 2021 11:15 am

Lawyers are pessimistic masochists, so we find the most terrible partners to work for the most interesting.

Illustrations of good partners to look for are useful. Why wouldn’t you want to flag qualities that make a grueling job more tolerable?

There are two lit partners at my firm I consistently try to get work from. They’re great at managing my time and impending deadlines, which makes my life much easier. They’re also super responsive to questions, as long as you’ve tried to answer the questions yourself first. They also actively try to mentor me by giving me substantive work and decisions to make (i.e., writing a dispositive motion, an appellate brief, weighing in on what pre-trial motions to file), which they backstop.

Figuring out which partners are best to work for isn’t bootlicking. Martin Luther once said that the will is like a donkey that either the God or the Devil will ride. An associate is also like a donkey that either a good partner or a bad partner will ride.

100% agree—not bootlicking, just smart thinking. But compiling a list of names of “great” law firm partners is bootlicking, at least in my book (and I noticed you didn’t name names either).

Also if they’re so “notorious” that reputation should speak for itself within your firm. That’s kind of what that word means.

In the interest of further derailing this thread, "notoriously great" isn't technically incorrect but doesn't make logical sense. Should be famously great, or notably great. Hope that helps answer your question.

Kelly DiBlasi @ Weil BFR

Andrew Michaelson at King & Spalding is great to work for.

There are things that are obviously bad (mean! yelled at me! unreasonable demands without acknowledging they're unreasonable!) and obviously good (nice! told me good job! acknowledged the unreasonable demands were unreasonable and even tried to mitigate them!) but a lot of this depends on who the associate is too. Some people like hands-off partners, others hate having to chase them / resent not being actively mentored, for example. You should think as much about who you like learning from and working under as who is good to work for in some platonic sense.

There are certainly downsides to working at HH (mainly, the hours) but the upside is that even juniors work directly with the partners and they are all great (or at least, well above what I would imagine the average BigLaw partner to be)

Chris Austin @ Paul Hastings

This is a generalization, but in my experience the partners that came from govt (especially AUSAs but probably true of regulators too) are much better to work for in large part because they are more self-sufficient and more interested in telling you the why as opposed to just the what.

double post - sorry.

Alan Kornberg & Brian Hermann @ Paul Weiss

mardash wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:58 pm

100% agree—not bootlicking, just smart thinking. But compiling a list of names of “great” law firm partners is bootlicking, at least in my book (and I noticed you didn’t name names either).

Also if they’re so “notorious” that reputation should speak for itself within your firm. That’s kind of what that word means.

I didn’t name names because I’m in midlaw, so (1) no one knows them here anyway, and (2) it would be pretty easy to figure out who I am.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:23 am

Alan Kornberg & Brian Hermann @ Paul Weiss

Would also add Jeff Saferstein; bummed that he left.

Thomas Lauria

Brian Lavin at PW

Peter Eyre, gov con, Crowell

Brilliant practitioner, even better human

Any great partners at DPW?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:48 am

Any great partners at DPW?

Mark Mendez in SEG. John Brandow too (though I had less interaction with him, kinda way above my pay grade).

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:48 am

Any great partners at DPW?

Neil Barr. He sent a memo raising market.