Obsession with Responsiveness/Availability? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

[Anonymous User]

This is probably my biggest gripe in Biglaw considering I somewhat enjoy the work. No one can submit quality work product billing 12 hours a day or crunching a week-long project into two days. I think the short answer is clients will just go elsewhere. If a Partner tells their client the turnaround expectation is unreasonable...well there is another insane lawyer out there who will tell that same client "no problem will do...you'll see a draft Sunday morning."

[Anonymous User]

This is probably my biggest gripe in Biglaw considering I somewhat enjoy the work. No one can submit quality work product billing 12 hours a day or crunching a week-long project into two days. I think the short answer is clients will just go elsewhere. If a Partner tells their client the turnaround expectation is unreasonable...well there is another insane lawyer out there who will tell that same client "no problem will do...you'll see a draft Sunday morning."

I understand that, but I’m seeing more and more silly typos and sloppy work now (both mine and other people’s). I feel like it doesn’t look good.

[Anonymous User]

Some firms are more extreme than others. I can think of one where the unspoken expectation is their lawyers respond to every email within a minute (including sign off on documents), which from my perspective amounts to professional negligence.

[Anonymous User]

This is probably my biggest gripe in Biglaw considering I somewhat enjoy the work. No one can submit quality work product billing 12 hours a day or crunching a week-long project into two days. I think the short answer is clients will just go elsewhere. If a Partner tells their client the turnaround expectation is unreasonable...well there is another insane lawyer out there who will tell that same client "no problem will do...you'll see a draft Sunday morning."

I understand that, but I’m seeing more and more silly typos and sloppy work now (both mine and other people’s). I feel like it doesn’t look good.

Weighing in from a client perspective. Our outside counsel sends us drafts to review that typically have typos. If I see the typo, I'll call it out, but ultimately, I don't really care if drafts have typos -- that's why they are DRAFTS. As long as it's fixed before it gets finalized and filed, I prefer responsiveness on where things stand (with typos) over radio silence until the filing day.

[RedNewJersey]

For what it's worth, I question the premise here. Responsiveness and availability are helpful because it guarantees things get done rather than forgotten. You're saying law firms routinely don't give you enough time to do good, typo-free work--that just isn't my experience. Law firms are among the most typo-terrified professions out there, and have a strong incentive to give associates as much time as they need, because everything is billed by the hour. Perhaps your group is unusual. My perspective is that biglaw takes too much time on things, and is perfectionist to a fault (even when it doesn't matter).

[almostperfectt]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

I imagine they want C level work in hand rather than B+ level work that may not show up or may be late if a timeline is rushed/advanced. The whole bird in the hand thing.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

You need to work on A level work on a fast timeline. There is no reason you can’t have both.

[Anonymous User]

I worked in a group closely with a partner like OP's, the reasoning seemed to be that a quick response/turnaround was more important in terms of hustling future business from a given client because it demonstrates general capacity and responsiveness which might be a priority for the client on other matters down the line where timing actually is tight. Also plays into perceptions of expertise and cost - quick turnarounds imply an efficiency from expertise, and, more importantly for the client, less hours billed.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Not in litigation. Transactional practice. Everything needs to be turned around by COB the next day. Idk where everyone else is working, but I don’t have the luxury of spending days on tasks currently. Maybe it’s unreasonable client expectations.

I would love to do A level work in a short timeframe, but when I have 3 deals that all need things “now,” it gets harder to spend as much time on a specific task. I’m not saying my work is bad by any means, btw. I’d a document has like 2 typos and has questionable punctuation, I consider that C level work.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Not in litigation. Transactional practice. Everything needs to be turned around by COB the next day. Idk where everyone else is working, but I don’t have the luxury of spending days on tasks currently. Maybe it’s unreasonable client expectations.

I would love to do A level work in a short timeframe, but when I have 3 deals that all need things “now,” it gets harder to spend as much time on a specific task. I’m not saying my work is bad by any means, btw. I’d a document has like 2 typos and has questionable punctuation, I consider that C level work.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe start running more blacklines? When I’m under the pump, I’ll run a comparison of my changes against the old version sometimes up to five times before I send it out, so as to ensure that I’ve caught all of the key points and fixed any typos. It adds another half hour or so but it’s time usually well spent.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

I'm a midlevel, but I also prefer responsiveness over perfection. No matter how good a junior associate is, there's always some level of editing I need to do. It's not always their fault - sometimes I'll forget to mention something, or there's been a change that wasn't communicated all the way down etc.

If I get work product later than I was expecting, it jams me up and could delay the timeline. Not only that, if you delay me on this deal, I may get delayed on another deal while I'm marking up your work.

I'm okay with getting less than perfect work provided that I have ample time to fix it up. I imagine partners feel the same way about my work that comes up to them.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Why on earth would you bill so many hours? Just say no to new projects.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Why on earth would you bill so many hours? Just say no to new projects.

As someone currently billing those hours (but w/o the review issues of the previous poster), it's for 2 clients, after saying "no" to all other work, who alone would qualify me for partnership, whether I stay or go elsewhere for that. "Go" is a real possibility, because I am not feeling like I'm getting the support needed to maintain these clients (continuing to bill that much is not an option).

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Why on earth would you bill so many hours? Just say no to new projects.

OP; poor project management on my behalf coupled with attrition leading to less support. Was relying on some partners/assigning attorneys to also realize I needed to have work offloaded but I never spoke up. Lesson Learned.

[Anonymous User]

It’s sad to read about folks killing it but then being told to be more responsive.

What a joke of a system.

Go in-house and leave Biglaw behind.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Why on earth would you bill so many hours? Just say no to new projects.

OP; poor project management on my behalf coupled with attrition leading to less support. Was relying on some partners/assigning attorneys to also realize I needed to have work offloaded but I never spoke up. Lesson Learned.

Just remember, in biglaw billing 2000 hours a year and doing great work is far more valuable to you, and to the firm, than 2400 mediocre hours requiring other to fix your mistakes. Quality trumps quantity.

[Mullens]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Why on earth would you bill so many hours? Just say no to new projects.

OP; poor project management on my behalf coupled with attrition leading to less support. Was relying on some partners/assigning attorneys to also realize I needed to have work offloaded but I never spoke up. Lesson Learned.

Just remember, in biglaw billing 2000 hours a year and doing great work is far more valuable to you, and to the firm, than 2400 mediocre hours requiring other to fix your mistakes. Quality trumps quantity.

This is, quite literally, 100% wrong. The firm gets paid by the hour and so the associate putting in 2400 hours is like 33% more valuable (factoring in the additional hours billed by seniors to fix the mediocre work). It may be broken but that’s the way it works.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Maybe you were not responsive and should take on less work? Plenty of high billers that are basically AFK because they are so busy. I bill more than you at my V10 and am at a similar year. My mentor told me that everyone gunning for partner has at least one thing to improve on. Maybe yours actually is responsiveness.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Maybe you were not responsive and should take on less work? Plenty of high billers that are basically AFK because they are so busy. I bill more than you at my V10 and am at a similar year. My mentor told me that everyone gunning for partner has at least one thing to improve on. Maybe yours actually is responsiveness.

More than 2800? Do you guys have any sense of self worth? At 2800 I am just walking over to the head of the group and handing in my resignation. Rather sit at home and play video games than destroy my health and life.

[Anonymous User]

Why are some (most?) partners obsessed with responsiveness and availability to the point that they’d rather have C level work within 1 day than B+ level (or even A level) work within 2-3 days? Is working faster/more “efficiently” really seen as better than doing good work? I’m a midlevel who does good work when there’s enough time, but some of my work has been sloppy because of these insane timelines partners are placing on us.

It’s just crazy because we are taught that perfection is something to strive for in law school, and that doesn’t seem to be the case in practice.

Last year I billed the most number of hours in my firm in the Business Law department; including non billable time I was at 2800+ hours. Total collections on me were over 1m (I'm a 4-7th year, secondary market, non-national rates) so it was a shit ton of collections for my vintage/rate. My review said I need to be more responsive. Tone deaf in my opinion to say that given my workload and all other stuff being done. Reason I'm looking to go in house, plus the fact my merit based bonus didn't reflect what I did performance wise.

Why on earth would you bill so many hours? Just say no to new projects.

OP; poor project management on my behalf coupled with attrition leading to less support. Was relying on some partners/assigning attorneys to also realize I needed to have work offloaded but I never spoke up. Lesson Learned.

Just remember, in biglaw billing 2000 hours a year and doing great work is far more valuable to you, and to the firm, than 2400 mediocre hours requiring other to fix your mistakes. Quality trumps quantity.

This is, quite literally, 100% wrong. The firm gets paid by the hour and so the associate putting in 2400 hours is like 33% more valuable (factoring in the additional hours billed by seniors to fix the mediocre work). It may be broken but that’s the way it works.

Ahh...they myopia of someone who never worked in biglaw. The nature of a partnership is that no one partner actually cares if you, as an individual associate, billed 2400 v. 2000. All they care about is how much they can trust your work product, and whether you made their life easier. This is reflected in reviews, where good associates billing 2000 are told they are doing a great job, and associates billing 2400 but with errors or other issues are told to improve their game.

[nixy]

Why do you think they’ve never worked in biglaw? I’m pretty sure from their other posts that they have.

[Anonymous User]

Why do you think they’ve never worked in biglaw? I’m pretty sure from their other posts that they have.

Because no one who worked in biglaw would actually think that the partners care whether an individual associate billed 2400 hours v. 2000 hours. That is what people who never worked in biglaw think, but when you are actually there you realize that the partners don't focus on that level of granularity. Rather, the focus is on having associates that produce quality work product that allow the partners to do their jobs well.