Advice for class of ‘19, ‘20, ‘21 re lack of training Forum

[Anonymous User]

For the person who mentioned a 600 page document - I wouldn't expect a full defined terms check of the entire document because I wouldn't expect a junior to be editing the whole document. I would expect the junior to be given one particular section of the document, and that particular section should have the correct defined terms, spelling, etc. When I was a first year, I was told that everything I send to someone above me should be as perfect as possible, and that I should treat it as if it was going straight to the client without any further editing for more senior associates or partners. In other words, the work should be taken seriously and there shouldn't be incorrect defined terms or typos because you assume that someone above you will correct it or that it's not worth your precious billable time to fix it. If you, as a junior associate, don't fix it, someone else has to, and your time is worth the least, so it should be you. Clients pay top dollar for us and form is just as important as substance.

Also, maybe your paralegals are better than mine but most of mine could never handle a defined terms check on a 600 page document.

To me, someone who does all of this correctly is someone who has that great "attention to detail" trait that everyone is always looking for. The more you do it, the more automatic it will become to you and the faster and better you'll be at it as you become familiar with typical defined terms, your client's entity names, typical typos, etc. For senior associates, this is all second nature.

If your paralegals can't do a defined terms check then you either have bad paralegals or just...have never asked them to do it so they haven't built up the understanding of how to do it. At my previous firm we pretty much always pushed defined terms and cross-reference checks down to paralegals...they wouldn't actually fix the document but they would flag what was broken (which is most of the time involved in that task). Seriously what are your paralegals even doing if they can't run a defined terms check?

Also stuff like "it should be as perfect as possible" and "form is as important as substance" seems pretty ridiculous/impractical to me. At the end of the day we have to actually get the deal done. The vast majority of clients care way, way more about hitting their desired pricing window than if the doc has a few typos in it. No 600 page offering doc is ever going to be perfect, and we only have so long to draft and review it before print.

I honestly think a lot of this advice is a recipe for burning out in 9 months.

[Anonymous User]

For the person who mentioned a 600 page document - I wouldn't expect a full defined terms check of the entire document because I wouldn't expect a junior to be editing the whole document. I would expect the junior to be given one particular section of the document, and that particular section should have the correct defined terms, spelling, etc. When I was a first year, I was told that everything I send to someone above me should be as perfect as possible, and that I should treat it as if it was going straight to the client without any further editing for more senior associates or partners. In other words, the work should be taken seriously and there shouldn't be incorrect defined terms or typos because you assume that someone above you will correct it or that it's not worth your precious billable time to fix it. If you, as a junior associate, don't fix it, someone else has to, and your time is worth the least, so it should be you. Clients pay top dollar for us and form is just as important as substance.

Also, maybe your paralegals are better than mine but most of mine could never handle a defined terms check on a 600 page document.

To me, someone who does all of this correctly is someone who has that great "attention to detail" trait that everyone is always looking for. The more you do it, the more automatic it will become to you and the faster and better you'll be at it as you become familiar with typical defined terms, your client's entity names, typical typos, etc. For senior associates, this is all second nature.

If your paralegals can't do a defined terms check then you either have bad paralegals or just...have never asked them to do it so they haven't built up the understanding of how to do it. At my previous firm we pretty much always pushed defined terms and cross-reference checks down to paralegals...they wouldn't actually fix the document but they would flag what was broken (which is most of the time involved in that task). Seriously what are your paralegals even doing if they can't run a defined terms check?

Also stuff like "it should be as perfect as possible" and "form is as important as substance" seems pretty ridiculous/impractical to me. At the end of the day we have to actually get the deal done. The vast majority of clients care way, way more about hitting their desired pricing window than if the doc has a few typos in it. No 600 page offering doc is ever going to be perfect, and we only have so long to draft and review it before print.

I honestly think a lot of this advice is a recipe for burning out in 9 months.

Exactly. As a junior, I still delegate quite a bit of menial tasks to paralegals and secretaries...proofing, defined terms, closing sets, signature pages, etc. The external doc review also does my formatting for pp and word if I need them, too. The key is to get this delegated out as soon as you can so I can review it and get it back up the chain. Seems to work fine for me.

[Anonymous User]

In-house lawyer chiming in on this thread.

I think it's great that junior associates are pushing back / establishing boundaries. When I was a BigLaw junior, I'll never forget the time the partner & senior associate asked me to come into the office a Saturday morning at 9 am, so I was there at that time. Senior associate strolls in at 11 am with a smirk on his face, and the partner came in around noon. Work went on until 10 pm that night. It wasn't the late night that bugged me, it was the "be in the office by 9 am" direction from the senior associate.

So I applaud all the juniors on this thread who are pushing back on a lack of direction/"we can't read your mind" to the senior associates.

The flip side of that is, BigLaw trained me on how to quickly respond to email even if it's just "Got it. My initial feedback is X but I'll schedule time with you to go over in more detail." In-house, I've found the trait of responsiveness to be a good one to have when responding to internal business clients.

[Anonymous User]

Litigation sixth year here, and a few things for litigation juniors to keep in mind:

- if you are tasked with the first draft of something, use examples of previous filings from that case for things like the caption, signature block, and formatting. If there are two spaces between the periods in the previous submission, for example, put two spaces between the periods in your draft, etc. Use your firms internal systems or a third party vendor to find examples of the TYPE of filing that are (1) from the same court, (2) not too old, and (3) ideally from your firm (even better if it's the same partners). Put the "meat" from the example into your draft with the caption and sig block pulled from the filing from that case. It's good to find multiple examples of that type of filing to compare and make sure you have included everything that needs to be included. This should be obvious, but I am constantly changing things to be correct or consistent when there are a ton of examples on the system of the type of filing and a bunch of filings from this case. If you need help figuring out how to find examples, ask a slightly more senior associate.

- if you are asked to research something, make sure there is a very short summary with a conclusion at the top of the memo (even if it isn't a formal memo). Also send a zip of the cases you cite.

- similar to what was said for transactional, always circulate a redline along with the new draft. Some partners want it in Word, some in PDF, so ask a more senior associate for the Partner's preference.

- keep track of deadlines. Your firm probably has some docketing system, but for important deadlines (answer, opening brief, hearing), and deadlines that might not get picked up (public version, deadline to submit names to the court of Zoom attendees before the hearing) put them manually in your calendar. It might be redundant, but a junior that reminds the midlevel associate of important stuff is gold, imo, even if 90% of the time someone else would have remembered.

- fact check substantive submissions if a ton of cooks have been in the kitchen on a brief. Gather up the documents that will become the exhibits in one place while it is being drafted.

- take notes during calls, especially with opposing counsel

- if someone senior takes the time to explain to you how to do something in the future, corrects you, or gives you advice, don't argue with them. You are free to privately think they are an idiot, but even if they are, it won't get you anywhere to let them know that. And they might actually know what they are talking about.

- don't try to gives assignments to someone senior to you

- don't cut midlevels and senior associates out. If they tell you to send it to them before sending it to a partner or the other side, send it to them. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, you can still send it to the partner since you did most of the work, but I WILL catch things because I have been doing my area of law for six years and I know the obvious mistakes that lawyers who don't practice in my area will make. Best case scenario, it's already perfect. Worst case scenario, we have to spend time cleaning up a mistake I would have caught.

[Anonymous User]

- don't cut midlevels and senior associates out. If they tell you to send it to them before sending it to a partner or the other side, send it to them. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, you can still send it to the partner since you did most of the work, but I WILL catch things because I have been doing my area of law for six years and I know the obvious mistakes that lawyers who don't practice in my area will make. Best case scenario, it's already perfect. Worst case scenario, we have to spend time cleaning up a mistake I would have caught.

(Junior here) I absolutely agree with this and try to work with this in mind. But since we're all gathered here I wanna say that if you're doing this, then

1. you gotta be responsive -- if the partner is expecting work product and you one-off me to to hold off for your review, and then you don't give me the all clear, the partner doesn't know that and thinks I'm slow.

2. speaking of one-offs, why? Just stick to the main email chain.

3. I once had a senior say "please send this to partner and say it includes my comments". I did a redline and it was the exact same as what I'd sent. If my product was good then why say that? Feels like you're trying to get credit for my work.

[The Lsat Airbender]

3. I once had a senior say "please send this to partner and say it includes my comments". I did a redline and it was the exact same as what I'd sent. If my product was good then why say that? Feels like you're trying to get credit for my work.

It's to ensure that pathern doesn't redundantly ask the senior to review and therefore keep things moving along. Bear in mind that they don't want to waste time on something that the senior hasn't already reviewed. If anyone somehow cares about authorship of individual changes they can see that in Word anyway.

[LBJ's Hair]

- don't cut midlevels and senior associates out. If they tell you to send it to them before sending it to a partner or the other side, send it to them. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, you can still send it to the partner since you did most of the work, but I WILL catch things because I have been doing my area of law for six years and I know the obvious mistakes that lawyers who don't practice in my area will make. Best case scenario, it's already perfect. Worst case scenario, we have to spend time cleaning up a mistake I would have caught.

(Junior here) I absolutely agree with this and try to work with this in mind. But since we're all gathered here I wanna say that if you're doing this, then

3. I once had a senior say "please send this to partner and say it includes my comments". I did a redline and it was the exact same as what I'd sent. If my product was good then why say that? Feels like you're trying to get credit for my work.

so the partner knows someone checked it

[Anonymous User]

What's wrong with "I reviewed and signed off" or just "reviewed"?

[Anonymous User]

- don't cut midlevels and senior associates out. If they tell you to send it to them before sending it to a partner or the other side, send it to them. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, you can still send it to the partner since you did most of the work, but I WILL catch things because I have been doing my area of law for six years and I know the obvious mistakes that lawyers who don't practice in my area will make. Best case scenario, it's already perfect. Worst case scenario, we have to spend time cleaning up a mistake I would have caught.

(Junior here) I absolutely agree with this and try to work with this in mind. But since we're all gathered here I wanna say that if you're doing this, then

1. you gotta be responsive -- if the partner is expecting work product and you one-off me to to hold off for your review, and then you don't give me the all clear, the partner doesn't know that and thinks I'm slow.

2. speaking of one-offs, why? Just stick to the main email chain.

3. I once had a senior say "please send this to partner and say it includes my comments". I did a redline and it was the exact same as what I'd sent. If my product was good then why say that? Feels like you're trying to get credit for my work.

If you're sending things to a senior associate and the partner asks where it is, it's fair at that point to let them know that the other associate has it. What's not O.K. is to just not send it to the senior associate when they told you to send it to them. We both look better if your work is reviewed by me before it goes to the partner or goes out. Also, there are things that the partner might not think about or notice, because they are a partner that an experienced associate will catch. (this might be specific but in my case, I am specialized in a certain area of lit that sometimes the partner doesn't normally practice in, so I get staffed on matters so someone knows the niche-specific stuff, so it drives me up a wall when stuff bypasses me when if I'd seen it before it went out I would have caught something because it makes me look bad.)

But basically you'll have a better time in biglaw if you realize that your job is to make the people above you look good, including more senior associates.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stick to the main email chain" but if you are suggesting that a more senior associate shouldn't side email you about an issue, IDK what to say, other than the advice I gave above:

if someone senior takes the time to explain to you how to do something in the future, corrects you, or gives you advice, don't argue with them. You are free to privately think they are an idiot, but even if they are, it won't get you anywhere to let them know that. And they might actually know what they are talking about.

[Anonymous User]

Litigation sixth year here, and a few things for litigation juniors to keep in mind:

- if you are tasked with the first draft of something, use examples of previous filings from that case for things like the caption, signature block, and formatting. If there are two spaces between the periods in the previous submission, for example, put two spaces between the periods in your draft, etc. Use your firms internal systems or a third party vendor to find examples of the TYPE of filing that are (1) from the same court, (2) not too old, and (3) ideally from your firm (even better if it's the same partners). Put the "meat" from the example into your draft with the caption and sig block pulled from the filing from that case. It's good to find multiple examples of that type of filing to compare and make sure you have included everything that needs to be included. This should be obvious, but I am constantly changing things to be correct or consistent when there are a ton of examples on the system of the type of filing and a bunch of filings from this case. If you need help figuring out how to find examples, ask a slightly more senior associate.

- if you are asked to research something, make sure there is a very short summary with a conclusion at the top of the memo (even if it isn't a formal memo). Also send a zip of the cases you cite.

- similar to what was said for transactional, always circulate a redline along with the new draft. Some partners want it in Word, some in PDF, so ask a more senior associate for the Partner's preference.

- keep track of deadlines. Your firm probably has some docketing system, but for important deadlines (answer, opening brief, hearing), and deadlines that might not get picked up (public version, deadline to submit names to the court of Zoom attendees before the hearing) put them manually in your calendar. It might be redundant, but a junior that reminds the midlevel associate of important stuff is gold, imo, even if 90% of the time someone else would have remembered.

- fact check substantive submissions if a ton of cooks have been in the kitchen on a brief. Gather up the documents that will become the exhibits in one place while it is being drafted.

- take notes during calls, especially with opposing counsel

- if someone senior takes the time to explain to you how to do something in the future, corrects you, or gives you advice, don't argue with them. You are free to privately think they are an idiot, but even if they are, it won't get you anywhere to let them know that. And they might actually know what they are talking about.

- don't try to gives assignments to someone senior to you

- don't cut midlevels and senior associates out. If they tell you to send it to them before sending it to a partner or the other side, send it to them. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, you can still send it to the partner since you did most of the work, but I WILL catch things because I have been doing my area of law for six years and I know the obvious mistakes that lawyers who don't practice in my area will make. Best case scenario, it's already perfect. Worst case scenario, we have to spend time cleaning up a mistake I would have caught.

This is all really useful; it seems like so much of this type of stuff is geared towards corporate, so the lit perspective is much appreciated.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Now, I'm sure some of that is the naive worldview of a group of associates who have only ever known an extremely hot corporate legal market, but I wonder if associate classes are entering biglaw with less desire to stick it out long-term than the classes before them (and thus feel less of an impetus to be a good junior associate). I also wonder if midlevels/seniors/partners have always felt this way about juniors (i.e. "we were better when we were juniors"), since its sort of a self-selecting group of good ones who make it to that level anyway.

I thought it was this when I was a junior. Then I watched amiable, relatable juniors become these people. That's like, 1% of it. 59% is that they became bitter, miserable and desperate that someone would solve their problems. The other 40% is that, yes, they simply forgot what it was like not to know something.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Oh yeah, also, you see all these seniors talking about how they fight to staff good juniors? If it's not getting you the latitude to choose who you're working with (and you probably won't really get to as a junior, no matter how good you are), then the reward for being good is more work for a comically small increase in pay even at firms that reward high billers. I am taking advantage of your compulsion to please, and so is every senior blowing smoke up your ass ITT about how much easier your life will be if you're good. It won't (but theirs will be).

[Anonymous User]

- if you are asked to research something, make sure there is a very short summary with a conclusion at the top of the memo (even if it isn't a formal memo). Also send a zip of the cases you cite.

I'm an IP lit midlevel and this is huge here. One of the things I see juniors missing all the time is the big picture. When you do complete a big assignment (be it researching the law, facts, etc.), there are at least three things going, and juniors often miss the third.

First, you need to get it right. That goes without saying.

Second, you need to document what you find. That's why you write a memo (or email summary). Whatever you did will be used in the future, so the team needs to be able to go back to it and know why you (and the team) came to a conclusion. It's like "showing your work" on a math test. If the team doesn't trust you yet, they'll be able to check your analysis to see if you're right.

Third, you need to recognize who your audience is and what they want. The above quote gets at that. The senior partner isn't going to read your full memo and check all your cites. They want the big picture. Make sure your memo answers that clearly AND concisely.

But there's more to that than just writing a clear summary. Why does the team want you do to this research? Is it a question from the client? If so, maybe propose an email to the client explaining your conclusion and what that means for the case. How is the client going to react? Definitely take that into account. Are there outstanding issues that need to be resolved? Propose a plan to resolve those. Is there a strategic implication to what you found? Spell it out. I see so many juniors doing their assignments perfectly to the word, but completely missing out on the point. The more you think "X partner / the client is going to want ____," the better.

Here's a good example. I'm on a patent case where we asked a junior to do some research on a large list of inventors. The junior did a superb job summarizing their employment history, what they did at the original company, what they are doing now, and even found some nuanced details about them that I can't go into here. And it was all well-organized into an easy to use spreadsheet. Top notch work. But the junior completely missed the point - it was clear from the research that there were one or two that would be the best candidates to depose (it was clear we could plausibly get some key admissions from them, or at least some helpful facts). When we talked about it the junior totally got it, but they didn't say anything in the initial work product. When we sent it to the partners we added that info, and the partners greatly appreciated the recommendation.

I could go on and on about things to do here. Find some good new evidence -> how will you get it in under FRE? Find an answer to a legal issue -> how does it apply to our facts, does this change the case strategy / outlook, does the client need to know, and is there something else we need to prove up that will improve our case? Do we lack evidence on a particular issue -> who would have that info and how do we get it from them? Is there a gap in the case -> how could we fill it?

You'll get it wrong a lot in the beginning, but everyone will appreciate that you're thinking about these things.

[Anonymous User]

Oh yeah, also, you see all these seniors talking about how they fight to staff good juniors? If it's not getting you the latitude to choose who you're working with (and you probably won't really get to as a junior, no matter how good you are), then the reward for being good is more work for a comically small increase in pay even at firms that reward high billers. I am taking advantage of your compulsion to please, and so is every senior blowing smoke up your ass ITT about how much easier your life will be if you're good. It won't (but theirs will be).

This is spot on. If you want the easier road in biglaw, you gotta be kinda bad at your job. Most law students probably aren’t programmed to allow themselves to do this (I’m not). But the reward for being good is just working harder.

I’m convinced one associate could bill 1650/year for 5 years with slightly below average reviews while another bills 2500/year with great reviews, and they’d both still be within a few feet of the starting line for making partner going into their 6th year. Think about that, over 10,000 billable hours could mean nothing other than vaguely “developing” or “acquiring more refined skills.”

[Anonymous User]

if someone decides that getting fired or pushed out due to X hours isn't the worst thing in the world, then you have no leverage if your only arguments are "this is the way biglaw is and should be, deal with it or get kicked to the curb when the market slows". once more and more people start thinking that way, maybe you should adjust your approach if you keep getting stonewalled or having issues.

the only way to reliably get someone to work harder despite them not being committed to the biglaw grind is to have them actually like you as a person and care about not making your life harder than it needs to be. seems obvious from a managerial perspective, but the venom in some of these posts makes me doubt it.

[Anonymous User]

if someone decides that getting fired or pushed out due to X hours isn't the worst thing in the world, then you have no leverage if your only arguments are "this is the way biglaw is and should be, deal with it or get kicked to the curb when the market slows". once more and more people start thinking that way, maybe you should adjust your approach if you keep getting stonewalled or having issues.

the only way to reliably get someone to work harder despite them not being committed to the biglaw grind is to have them actually like you as a person and care about not making your life harder than it needs to be. seems obvious from a managerial perspective, but the venom in some of these posts makes me doubt it.

It's insane how delusional some of these seniors are. Taking out the human side of it, look at it from a rational actor perspective. At most firms, I don't make a dime after xxxx hours (whatever my bonus is), and no one is going to fire me because of how pressed for labor everyone is and because my work product is still good. Most of us are not here to make partner. Accordingly, I have no incentive to work more than xxxx hours per year. The only time I'm going to break that pattern is for a partner/counsel/senior that I really like and respect, who I don't want to get screwed totally over the weekend/late night.

Just be kind to people and they'll do work for you. It's not that deep.

[Anonymous User]

Oh yeah, also, you see all these seniors talking about how they fight to staff good juniors? If it's not getting you the latitude to choose who you're working with (and you probably won't really get to as a junior, no matter how good you are), then the reward for being good is more work for a comically small increase in pay even at firms that reward high billers. I am taking advantage of your compulsion to please, and so is every senior blowing smoke up your ass ITT about how much easier your life will be if you're good. It won't (but theirs will be).

At my firm, having one or two special counsels/partners actively want me on their deals made it so that I had the leverage to turn down work from people I didn't want to work with. I'm sure that varies by firm but there certainly can be perks to being a well-regarded junior.

Also trying to go in-house after 2 or 3 years of being a shit junior can be tough. In-house interviewers want to hear about your substantive experience. If you're a good enough bullshitter you can probably get around this, but it definitely makes the process of going in-house easier if you were a good junior who was given substantive things to do, rather than someone who spent their whole time in biglaw doing diligence and changing names and dates in docs.

On the flip side - I think it is always worth bearing in mind that you are far, far more likely to quit than be fired from this job. So being a little more proactive about setting boundaries, turning down work a little more often, and having a bit less perfectionist of a mindset will probably net you more time in the job than less.

[Anonymous User]

Oh yeah, also, you see all these seniors talking about how they fight to staff good juniors? If it's not getting you the latitude to choose who you're working with (and you probably won't really get to as a junior, no matter how good you are), then the reward for being good is more work for a comically small increase in pay even at firms that reward high billers. I am taking advantage of your compulsion to please, and so is every senior blowing smoke up your ass ITT about how much easier your life will be if you're good. It won't (but theirs will be).

At my firm, having one or two special counsels/partners actively want me on their deals made it so that I had the leverage to turn down work from people I didn't want to work with. I'm sure that varies by firm but there certainly can be perks to being a well-regarded junior.

Also trying to go in-house after 2 or 3 years of being a shit junior can be tough. In-house interviewers want to hear about your substantive experience. If you're a good enough bullshitter you can probably get around this, but it definitely makes the process of going in-house easier if you were a good junior who was given substantive things to do, rather than someone who spent their whole time in biglaw doing diligence and changing names and dates in docs.

On the flip side - I think it is always worth bearing in mind that you are far, far more likely to quit than be fired from this job. So being a little more proactive about setting boundaries, turning down work a little more often, and having a bit less perfectionist of a mindset will probably net you more time in the job than less.

I also think we need to separate "being a good junior" from "not setting boundaries." In my experience, the best work-product is coming from the second year who only bills 1900-1950 and not the second year billing 2400+ because the former is able to focus their efforts better and is less burnt out. Sure, they can't take on all the meaningless work in the world, but they end up becoming the favorite of certain people because the work they do is always so good, so they have all the ability they want to turn down the scut work.

[The Lsat Airbender]

What's wrong with "I reviewed and signed off" or just "reviewed"?

At least in my practice those phrases are synonymous with "includes my comments" so this is a distinction without a difference. You could rephrase it like that if you think it matters but IMO would just risk antagonizing the senior for literally no upside.

I think you're also missing that shared responsibility for a doc protects you if something is wrong—partner will (correctly) blame the senior for any material mistakes because the latter reviewed it.

[Anonymous User]

The whole "your job is to make me look good" is a load of BS. That's what's good for you, not for me. Of course I know I'm the subordinate and I won't try to undercut you, ever. But if I feel like you only care about what makes you look good and are willing to throw me under the bus, I won't want to work with you. Even if I'm wrong and paranoid, a relationship goes both ways and you have to build trust too.

[Anonymous User]

What's wrong with "I reviewed and signed off" or just "reviewed"?

At least in my practice those phrases are synonymous with "includes my comments" so this is a distinction without a difference. You could rephrase it like that if you think it matters but IMO would just risk antagonizing the senior for literally no upside.

I think you're also missing that shared responsibility for a doc protects you if something is wrong—partner will (correctly) blame the senior for any material mistakes because the latter reviewed it.

Thanks for the explanation, seems like just a bit of lost in translation. I emailed exactly what the senior said to, I know how to eat shit.

[The Lsat Airbender]

The whole "your job is to make me look good" is a load of BS. That's what's good for you, not for me. Of course I know I'm the subordinate and I won't try to undercut you, ever. But if I feel like you only care about what makes you look good and are willing to throw me under the bus, I won't want to work with you. Even if I'm wrong and paranoid, a relationship goes both ways and you have to build trust too.

The theory (which I realize is a bit idealistic and gets ruined IRL by sociopaths) is that one would make sure never to throw a good junior under the bus and even go out of the way to protect them. But if you're consistently making people look bad then they'll be actively trying to get rid of you.

It's a "don't need to outrun the bear, just outrun your friends" situation. I'm not going to recommend that anyone obsequiously toil away for the benefit of senior associates as an end in itself. But it is important to be regarded one of the better juniors unless you're truly okay with getting let go on 6 months' notice (perhaps faster, during a recession). And the main metric for that contest is: making the people above you look good. IMO it's more important than raw billables on the margins.

[legalpotato]

if someone decides that getting fired or pushed out due to X hours isn't the worst thing in the world, then you have no leverage if your only arguments are "this is the way biglaw is and should be, deal with it or get kicked to the curb when the market slows". once more and more people start thinking that way, maybe you should adjust your approach if you keep getting stonewalled or having issues.

the only way to reliably get someone to work harder despite them not being committed to the biglaw grind is to have them actually like you as a person and care about not making your life harder than it needs to be. seems obvious from a managerial perspective, but the venom in some of these posts makes me doubt it.

It's insane how delusional some of these seniors are. Taking out the human side of it, look at it from a rational actor perspective. At most firms, I don't make a dime after xxxx hours (whatever my bonus is), and no one is going to fire me because of how pressed for labor everyone is and because my work product is still good. Most of us are not here to make partner. Accordingly, I have no incentive to work more than xxxx hours per year. The only time I'm going to break that pattern is for a partner/counsel/senior that I really like and respect, who I don't want to get screwed totally over the weekend/late night.

Just be kind to people and they'll do work for you. It's not that deep.

But it is a two way street. What do you expect of a senior if a partner says "hey sorry for weekend email, can you and x do this by sunday". So you email x to give him/her a piece of the overall assignment, let him/her know of time sensitivity, and he/her doesn't respond until sat evening with "ok, I will do this on Monday"? So then senior just has to stay up later saturday night doing the whole thing.

Seniors have no recourse if a junior screws them, seniors just have to pick up the slack. The associate system runs on mutual respect, not just seniors having respect.

What juniors here seem to be proposing is that they should be able to do what they want, seniors get screwed, and seniors should be overly nice to them anyways and then maybe, just maybe, juniors will try and help out a bit more.

[Anonymous User]

if someone decides that getting fired or pushed out due to X hours isn't the worst thing in the world, then you have no leverage if your only arguments are "this is the way biglaw is and should be, deal with it or get kicked to the curb when the market slows". once more and more people start thinking that way, maybe you should adjust your approach if you keep getting stonewalled or having issues.

the only way to reliably get someone to work harder despite them not being committed to the biglaw grind is to have them actually like you as a person and care about not making your life harder than it needs to be. seems obvious from a managerial perspective, but the venom in some of these posts makes me doubt it.

It's insane how delusional some of these seniors are. Taking out the human side of it, look at it from a rational actor perspective. At most firms, I don't make a dime after xxxx hours (whatever my bonus is), and no one is going to fire me because of how pressed for labor everyone is and because my work product is still good. Most of us are not here to make partner. Accordingly, I have no incentive to work more than xxxx hours per year. The only time I'm going to break that pattern is for a partner/counsel/senior that I really like and respect, who I don't want to get screwed totally over the weekend/late night.

Just be kind to people and they'll do work for you. It's not that deep.

But it is a two way street. What do you expect of a senior if a partner says "hey sorry for weekend email, can you and x do this by sunday". So you email x to give him/her a piece of the overall assignment, let him/her know of time sensitivity, and he/her doesn't respond until sat evening with "ok, I will do this on Monday"? So then senior just has to stay up later saturday night doing the whole thing.

Seniors have no recourse if a junior screws them, seniors just have to pick up the slack. The associate system runs on mutual respect, not just seniors having respect.

What juniors here seem to be proposing is that they should be able to do what they want, seniors get screwed, and seniors should be overly nice to them anyways and then maybe, just maybe, juniors will try and help out a bit more.

This is exactly what many juniors at my firm do all the time now. It’s been very shitty to have entered biglaw at a time where I did the night and weekend work as a junior and now have to do it as a senior because the juniors just won’t respond. If I don’t respond, I get ??????? followed by phone calls. I would never drop the work on the junior and go hit a brewery. The way this should work is the associates team up, but for most it’s every person for themselves now.

[Anonymous User]

if someone decides that getting fired or pushed out due to X hours isn't the worst thing in the world, then you have no leverage if your only arguments are "this is the way biglaw is and should be, deal with it or get kicked to the curb when the market slows". once more and more people start thinking that way, maybe you should adjust your approach if you keep getting stonewalled or having issues.

the only way to reliably get someone to work harder despite them not being committed to the biglaw grind is to have them actually like you as a person and care about not making your life harder than it needs to be. seems obvious from a managerial perspective, but the venom in some of these posts makes me doubt it.

It's insane how delusional some of these seniors are. Taking out the human side of it, look at it from a rational actor perspective. At most firms, I don't make a dime after xxxx hours (whatever my bonus is), and no one is going to fire me because of how pressed for labor everyone is and because my work product is still good. Most of us are not here to make partner. Accordingly, I have no incentive to work more than xxxx hours per year. The only time I'm going to break that pattern is for a partner/counsel/senior that I really like and respect, who I don't want to get screwed totally over the weekend/late night.

Just be kind to people and they'll do work for you. It's not that deep.

But it is a two way street. What do you expect of a senior if a partner says "hey sorry for weekend email, can you and x do this by sunday". So you email x to give him/her a piece of the overall assignment, let him/her know of time sensitivity, and he/her doesn't respond until sat evening with "ok, I will do this on Monday"? So then senior just has to stay up later saturday night doing the whole thing.

Seniors have no recourse if a junior screws them, seniors just have to pick up the slack. The associate system runs on mutual respect, not just seniors having respect.

What juniors here seem to be proposing is that they should be able to do what they want, seniors get screwed, and seniors should be overly nice to them anyways and then maybe, just maybe, juniors will try and help out a bit more.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a junior sure I'll do the weekend work if you give me the deadline. Mutual respect is great. I'm all for mutual respect, as long at it's actually mutual ya know? And the comments from some of the seniors here don't show that they're willing to reciprocate.

But also this dynamic is very weird. As a senior in this market you have leverage to say "hey partner, I don't have the staffing to get this done, sorry". Also taking it personally and blaming the junior (not the partner) is weird. You're a manager. We're not buddies. (But again, I personally would take the assignment, just think the attitude is weird)