Getting Juniors to be responsive Forum

[RedNewJersey]

I'm fine to go with the consensus on Señor Redline--he does have some issues. I was distinguishing between things he said he does (redline to junior), versus unhinged things he said on this thread in the abstract. But sure, if he actually acts on these views, that's bad. He also seems melodramatic, and probably likes the flame war.

Also, people keep saying "you should treat juniors like 'x' to get the best results." That's certainly true, but that's not inconsistent with saying a junior sucks. I.e., if a junior had some truly absurd problem--say, failing to use punctuation--it would still be true that setting clear expectations, talking to them, giving deadlines, being nice, etc. would be the best thing to do. But it would separately be fair to say "that sucks, what's wrong with these people." Complaining doesn't mean you don't understand what you should do in response.

[Anonymous User]

Spent my junior years at Davis Polk and now a 6th year at a different V10.

My approach with juniors is largely informed by my own junior experience. I did far better work--higher quality, faster response times, more engaged, more likely to volunteer to do more--when I liked the senior or midlevel. Better yet if i saw them as a mentor or friend. It also gave me more confidence and stamina when dealing with shittier seniors. So I try to instill that in my juniors whenever I can.

DPW is one of those places where you're expected to review the senior's redline and glean your own lessons from it. Ofc seniors are expected to take the time to sit you down and go through the markup/issues, but if they didn't, the onus was still on you as a junior to "proactively engage" with their comments. Obviously if you're a senior, you can adopt this approach but it's very inefficient. Having my senior sit down with me for 15 minutes was usually more effective than me staring at pages of red and blue for 1-2 hours. I could obviously read the words but I didn't have the context or experience to understand the why, when, and how. Now that I'm a senior, I force myself to carve out the time to explain things. It's better for their development and makes MY life easier later. Investing in a junior in the early innings is what enables me to just forward things to them later with simple directions and have them run with it.

Anyway here are some things that might help.

1. When giving an assignment, tell them what the timing is upfront. I always tell them (a) how quickly the partner needs to review it in order to deliver to client and (b) when I'll actually have the time to review it. If it's after 8pm then I let them know if it's a tonight thing or can wait till tomorrow.

2. I tell every junior on our first deal together that it makes my life easier if they reply with a "will do" or some acknowledgment. Don't worry about filling up my inbox and it doesn't mean that the clock starts ticking once you reply (see #1). It just gives me peace of mind that you're on it

3. On Fridays I give them an update on where we are with the deal--they're not on copied on everything i am. And I let them know if I'll have any blackout periods and invite them to tell me the same. Always better if we can live our lives on the weekend. If we need to cancel stuff, well that's just the job sometimes but it's stupid to let simple bad communication be the cause.

4. I'll do "junior" work if my junior is away from a computer and I need something quickly. I've done signature pages on a weekend because I was at my desk anyway and my junior happened to be out. Why would I drag them back to their desk for that? Takes like 10 minutes.

5. Explain why things are happening and let them into the deal dynamics. I also try to introduce them to the junior folks at the client--or at least the investment bankers that are co-advising with us. That's actually the fun part of the job and i'm paid very well to keep our juniors engaged - also, again, makes my own life easier when they're not miserable.

At the end of the day, there's only a few years between me and my juniors. Those gaps don't mean much later. There are partners with 10-to-20-year gaps between them and they're all colleagues and know things that others don't. Everyone's life is a lot better if you view them as colleagues and less like doc grunts.

one of the best posts I've seen on tls.

[Anonymous User]

I'm fine to go with the consensus on Señor Redline--he does have some issues. I was distinguishing between things he said he does (redline to junior), versus unhinged things he said on this thread in the abstract. But sure, if he actually acts on these views, that's bad. He also seems melodramatic, and probably likes the flame war.

Also, people keep saying "you should treat juniors like 'x' to get the best results." That's certainly true, but that's not inconsistent with saying a junior sucks. I.e., if a junior had some truly absurd problem--say, failing to use punctuation--it would still be true that setting clear expectations, talking to them, giving deadlines, being nice, etc. would be the best thing to do. But it would separately be fair to say "that sucks, what's wrong with these people." Complaining doesn't mean you don't understand what you should do in response.

Right, but that's a distinction without a difference here because Redline fetishist's complaints were inherently tied their piss poor method of feedback/management. You don't get to complain here about people not responding to shit management. Fool me once with a junior ignoring my redline, shame on the junior. Fool me twice with another junior ignoring my redline, shame on me for not putting the man in managing. Post on TLS as if this some admittedly bad behavior excuses treating all juniors poorly, enter social shaming by the masses.

[Anonymous User]

Spent my junior years at Davis Polk and now a 6th year at a different V10.

Thanks for the good effortpost.

Based on your experience, is it possible to make broad-stroke generalizations about the culture at DPW vs. your current firm? (specifically w/r/t investment in juniors' development & training) Or is any firm-to-firm difference swallowed by the differences and variation among individual seniors/partners within the firms you've worked at?

[Anonymous User]

Spent my junior years at Davis Polk and now a 6th year at a different V10.

Thanks for the good effortpost.

Based on your experience, is it possible to make broad-stroke generalizations about the culture at DPW vs. your current firm? (specifically w/r/t investment in juniors' development & training) Or is any firm-to-firm difference swallowed by the differences and variation among individual seniors/partners within the firms you've worked at?

Np. Based on my cumulative BigLaw experience I think I could generalize between some firms but i think those differences are driven by more concrete things than an expression of "culture" - mainly that deals are staffed differently depending on clients and how the firm is organized

It's harder to manage juniors if there are more of them and/or you and the juniors don't have easy access to each other. If I have to schedule a Zoom for every interaction, that creates more friction for everyone (multiplied by number of juniors to oversee). I'm human too, so the less "work" it requires, the easier it is for me to invest in a junior. It was a little easier to train individual juniors at my prior firms because there was only 1-2 of them per deal and they were in the same time zone. The typical deals at my current firm usually require bigger teams.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw income partner. Although I am all for being nice and respectful, the partners who have gotten the best work out of me over the course of my career are not the "nice" partners, but those who have been critical, demanding, and intolerant of mistakes. The difference between them and Senor Redline is that they took the time to explain why they made the changes they made, why whatever I had done hadn't worked, and what I needed to do differently the next time. They also expressed genuine appreciation for good work, gave me substantive and impactful work, and made sure I was getting the kind of assignments that would help me get better at my job and hit all the benchmarks I needed to make a partnership case.

All of this is to say that it's absolutely OK to have high expectations and to get pissed off when juniors are phoning it in. It's also OK to cut bait when you've given a junior constructive feedback and multiple opportunities to improve and the junior just doesn't seem interested in putting in the work. But if you aren't willing to invest the time to mentor and train the juniors you work with, don't be surprised when their work doesn't get any better.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw income partner. Although I am all for being nice and respectful, the partners who have gotten the best work out of me over the course of my career are not the "nice" partners, but those who have been critical, demanding, and intolerant of mistakes. The difference between them and Senor Redline is that they took the time to explain why they made the changes they made, why whatever I had done hadn't worked, and what I needed to do differently the next time. They also expressed genuine appreciation for good work, gave me substantive and impactful work, and made sure I was getting the kind of assignments that would help me get better at my job and hit all the benchmarks I needed to make a partnership case.

All of this is to say that it's absolutely OK to have high expectations and to get pissed off when juniors are phoning it in. It's also OK to cut bait when you've given a junior constructive feedback and multiple opportunities to improve and the junior just doesn't seem interested in putting in the work. But if you aren't willing to invest the time to mentor and train the juniors you work with, don't be surprised when their work doesn't get any better.

Why is this your problem though? Who made it your mission in life to try and make mediocre juniors into something passable instead of just finding juniors who are naturally good at the job and pick things up on their own from their redlines?

Equity partners at STB/DPW/CSM are some of the most toxic and miserable people you will ever have the misfortune to meet, but one thing they don't waste their time with is trying to "train" juniors. They realize that 80% will be gone in 4 years and the other 20% will pick it up on their own or get shown the door. They give a junior a couple of chances, and if they don't "get it" then that junior no longer exists to them. Junior does that to a few partners and suddenly work is scarce, hours are low and the exit process is underway.

[nixy]

Biglaw income partner. Although I am all for being nice and respectful, the partners who have gotten the best work out of me over the course of my career are not the "nice" partners, but those who have been critical, demanding, and intolerant of mistakes. The difference between them and Senor Redline is that they took the time to explain why they made the changes they made, why whatever I had done hadn't worked, and what I needed to do differently the next time. They also expressed genuine appreciation for good work, gave me substantive and impactful work, and made sure I was getting the kind of assignments that would help me get better at my job and hit all the benchmarks I needed to make a partnership case.

All of this is to say that it's absolutely OK to have high expectations and to get pissed off when juniors are phoning it in. It's also OK to cut bait when you've given a junior constructive feedback and multiple opportunities to improve and the junior just doesn't seem interested in putting in the work. But if you aren't willing to invest the time to mentor and train the juniors you work with, don't be surprised when their work doesn't get any better.

Why is this your problem though? Who made it your mission in life to try and make mediocre juniors into something passable instead of just finding juniors who are naturally good at the job and pick things up on their own from their redlines?

Equity partners at STB/DPW/CSM are some of the most toxic and miserable people you will ever have the misfortune to meet, but one thing they don't waste their time with is trying to "train" juniors. They realize that 80% will be gone in 4 years and the other 20% will pick it up on their own or get shown the door. They give a junior a couple of chances, and if they don't "get it" then that junior no longer exists to them. Junior does that to a few partners and suddenly work is scarce, hours are low and the exit process is underway.

I mean, given the amount of energy you've spent venting about how terrible all these unmotivated juniors are, your method of just picking the "naturally" good ones doesn't seem to be working out very well for you. (I put "naturally" in quotes b/c it's entirely possible that other people are in fact training the people you think are "naturally" good at the job. I'm also not sure what it means, because no one is born knowing how to be a biglaw associate.)

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw income partner. Although I am all for being nice and respectful, the partners who have gotten the best work out of me over the course of my career are not the "nice" partners, but those who have been critical, demanding, and intolerant of mistakes. The difference between them and Senor Redline is that they took the time to explain why they made the changes they made, why whatever I had done hadn't worked, and what I needed to do differently the next time. They also expressed genuine appreciation for good work, gave me substantive and impactful work, and made sure I was getting the kind of assignments that would help me get better at my job and hit all the benchmarks I needed to make a partnership case.

All of this is to say that it's absolutely OK to have high expectations and to get pissed off when juniors are phoning it in. It's also OK to cut bait when you've given a junior constructive feedback and multiple opportunities to improve and the junior just doesn't seem interested in putting in the work. But if you aren't willing to invest the time to mentor and train the juniors you work with, don't be surprised when their work doesn't get any better.

Why is this your problem though? Who made it your mission in life to try and make mediocre juniors into something passable instead of just finding juniors who are naturally good at the job and pick things up on their own from their redlines?

Equity partners at STB/DPW/CSM are some of the most toxic and miserable people you will ever have the misfortune to meet, but one thing they don't waste their time with is trying to "train" juniors. They realize that 80% will be gone in 4 years and the other 20% will pick it up on their own or get shown the door. They give a junior a couple of chances, and if they don't "get it" then that junior no longer exists to them. Junior does that to a few partners and suddenly work is scarce, hours are low and the exit process is underway.

I mean, given the amount of energy you've spent venting about how terrible all these unmotivated juniors are, your method of just picking the "naturally" good ones doesn't seem to be working out very well for you. (I put "naturally" in quotes b/c it's entirely possible that other people are in fact training the people you think are "naturally" good at the job. I'm also not sure what it means, because no one is born knowing how to be a biglaw associate.)

Mostly what I do is just do the work myself without juniors at this point, unless they prove demonstrable competence.

From having seen the people who make equity partner at STB/DPW/CSM they were already superstars as 2nd years, training and handholding were not necessary. It is a very simple job if you have a high IQ and can actually be bothered to try. A trained monkey could do it.

[aegor]

Mostly what I do is just do the work myself without juniors at this point, unless they prove demonstrable competence.

Sure. But this thread is evidently geared toward potentially competent managers who have an interest in life outside their job, so clearly your perspective is not really useful. Perhaps make a thread for sociopathic mids who are incapable of interacting with others and dispense your "advice" there?

More broadly, many partners are miserable, riddled with addiction and compulsion issues, and are themselves not effective managers or good leaders. Why would they be models in any way?

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw income partner. Although I am all for being nice and respectful, the partners who have gotten the best work out of me over the course of my career are not the "nice" partners, but those who have been critical, demanding, and intolerant of mistakes. The difference between them and Senor Redline is that they took the time to explain why they made the changes they made, why whatever I had done hadn't worked, and what I needed to do differently the next time. They also expressed genuine appreciation for good work, gave me substantive and impactful work, and made sure I was getting the kind of assignments that would help me get better at my job and hit all the benchmarks I needed to make a partnership case.

All of this is to say that it's absolutely OK to have high expectations and to get pissed off when juniors are phoning it in. It's also OK to cut bait when you've given a junior constructive feedback and multiple opportunities to improve and the junior just doesn't seem interested in putting in the work. But if you aren't willing to invest the time to mentor and train the juniors you work with, don't be surprised when their work doesn't get any better.

Why is this your problem though? Who made it your mission in life to try and make mediocre juniors into something passable instead of just finding juniors who are naturally good at the job and pick things up on their own from their redlines?

Equity partners at STB/DPW/CSM are some of the most toxic and miserable people you will ever have the misfortune to meet, but one thing they don't waste their time with is trying to "train" juniors. They realize that 80% will be gone in 4 years and the other 20% will pick it up on their own or get shown the door. They give a junior a couple of chances, and if they don't "get it" then that junior no longer exists to them. Junior does that to a few partners and suddenly work is scarce, hours are low and the exit process is underway.

Idk how the lesson you took away from people you describe as some of the most toxic and miserable was to emulate them

[Anonymous User]

Mostly what I do is just do the work myself without juniors at this point, unless they prove demonstrable competence.

Sure. But this thread is evidently geared toward potentially competent managers who have an interest in life outside their job, so clearly your perspective is not really useful. Perhaps make a thread for sociopathic mids who are incapable of interacting with others and dispense your "advice" there?

Reading skills much? The title of the thread is "getting juniors to be responsive."

But what if their lack of responsiveness is because they don't care about the job, are too lazy to review redlines and learn from their errors, make zero effort to understand the business of their clients and how they can help the clients grow it, would rather whine about the lack of training than sit down and develop skills on their own, and are really just in it to cruise for a couple of years, pay back loans, and move on in life?

Then, of course, no amount of handholding is really going to help, and you just need to accept that the combination of ADD/texting/decline in legal education has produced a cohort of people who by and large lack the skills and motivation to adequately do the job, and no amount of brilliant strategizing is going to get them to be responsive. They aren't responsive because, fundamentally, they just don't care.

And look, let's not pretend that biglaw lawyers were ever good managers. Partners routinely dole out assignments at 6pm rather than 10am and cause pointless all-nighter after all-nighter. The degree of risk aversion and fear of getting fired is ever-present at the partner level, leading to massive amounts of CYA busywork that is its own form of torture.

But, at the end of the day, it is very much a sink-or-swim industry, and the juniors who want to be good at the job will figure out how to be good at the job, and the rest will not be good at the job, irrespective of the vaunted "management skills" of the seniors.

[Anonymous User]

But what if their lack of responsiveness is because they don't care about the job, are too lazy to review redlines and learn from their errors, make zero effort to understand the business of their clients and how they can help the clients grow it, would rather whine about the lack of training than sit down and develop skills on their own, and are really just in it to cruise for a couple of years, pay back loans, and move on in life?

Not caring about the job is the only thing that is their fault in this list. Returning comments without explanation or discussion is bad management, period. Expecting employees to do their own research into their clients without guidance is bad management, period. Not providing training is bad management, period. Not providing clear and express low- to no-risk opportunities to improve skills is bad management, period.

Unless you have individually met with the juniors in question and had a conversation with them about your expectations, what they did well, what they did not do well, and concrete steps for improvement, then you have no basis for complaining about their performance. Why? Because all of those things are the bare minimum in terms of management and professional development.

Then, of course, no amount of handholding is really going to help, and you just need to accept that the combination of ADD/texting/decline in legal education

What the fuck are you talking about? This reads like an unhinged boomer rant working backwards from the conclusion that "they just don't make them like they used to." You have not provided any actual reason to believe that ADD/texting (the fuck?)/bad education are relevant at all. Why don't you go off and tell SCOTUS that the schools they take clerks from are now somehow incapable of producing BL attorneys?

And look, let's not pretend that biglaw lawyers were ever good managers.

"I get to be human garbage because my predecessors were human garbage."

Sure, Jan.

But, at the end of the day, it is very much a sink-or-swim industry, and the juniors who want to be good at the job will figure out how to be good at the job, and the rest will not be good at the job, irrespective of the vaunted "management skills" of the seniors.

This is demonstrably false, as the many productive posts in this thread have indicated.

[Anonymous User]

But what if their lack of responsiveness is because they don't care about the job, are too lazy to review redlines and learn from their errors, make zero effort to understand the business of their clients and how they can help the clients grow it, would rather whine about the lack of training than sit down and develop skills on their own, and are really just in it to cruise for a couple of years, pay back loans, and move on in life?

Not caring about the job is the only thing that is their fault in this list. Returning comments without explanation or discussion is bad management, period. Expecting employees to do their own research into their clients without guidance is bad management, period. Not providing training is bad management, period. Not providing clear and express low- to no-risk opportunities to improve skills is bad management, period.

Unless you have individually met with the juniors in question and had a conversation with them about your expectations, what they did well, what they did not do well, and concrete steps for improvement, then you have no basis for complaining about their performance. Why? Because all of those things are the bare minimum in terms of management and professional development.

Then, of course, no amount of handholding is really going to help, and you just need to accept that the combination of ADD/texting/decline in legal education

What the fuck are you talking about? This reads like an unhinged boomer rant working backwards from the conclusion that "they just don't make them like they used to." You have not provided any actual reason to believe that ADD/texting (the fuck?)/bad education are relevant at all. Why don't you go off and tell SCOTUS that the schools they take clerks from are now somehow incapable of producing BL attorneys?

And look, let's not pretend that biglaw lawyers were ever good managers.

"I get to be human garbage because my predecessors were human garbage."

Sure, Jan.

But, at the end of the day, it is very much a sink-or-swim industry, and the juniors who want to be good at the job will figure out how to be good at the job, and the rest will not be good at the job, irrespective of the vaunted "management skills" of the seniors.

This is demonstrably false, as the many productive posts in this thread have indicated.

Treat your fellow man well and life is so much better for all parties. The toxicity of this scandalous (likely troll) poster here is a warning to the firm chairs reading this post.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

But what if their lack of responsiveness is because they don't care about the job, are too lazy to review redlines and learn from their errors, make zero effort to understand the business of their clients and how they can help the clients grow it, would rather whine about the lack of training than sit down and develop skills on their own, and are really just in it to cruise for a couple of years, pay back loans, and move on in life?

Then, of course, no amount of handholding is really going to help, and you just need to accept that the combination of ADD/texting/decline in legal education has produced a cohort of people who by and large lack the skills and motivation to adequately do the job, and no amount of brilliant strategizing is going to get them to be responsive. They aren't responsive because, fundamentally, they just don't care.

Yeah sure dawg, the industry's been on an almost-unbroken upward trajectory of tech use, billable hours and profits over the past 60 years, but NOW, surely, there's finally a critical mass of lazy unmotivated Gen Z juniors because they all something something TikTok something something Olivia Rodrigo. Guess that means the whole industry's gonna collapse in a decade! Who's gonna help FedEx pay no income tax, or BlackRock buying up entire suburbs, or Credit Suisse issue some dogshit portfolio of subprime loans?!?

I'm starting to wonder why you can't get anyone to listen to you. I mean, *I* want to further deepthroat a shotgun every time you post, but that's just on a forum. Surely, when you actually email them at 10 PM, your enthusiasm for the deal will be more infectious!

Keep it up though; you're easily the worst poster of the past week and thus, by default, my favorite.

[Anonymous User]

But what if their lack of responsiveness is because they don't care about the job, are too lazy to review redlines and learn from their errors, make zero effort to understand the business of their clients and how they can help the clients grow it, would rather whine about the lack of training than sit down and develop skills on their own, and are really just in it to cruise for a couple of years, pay back loans, and move on in life?

Then, of course, no amount of handholding is really going to help, and you just need to accept that the combination of ADD/texting/decline in legal education has produced a cohort of people who by and large lack the skills and motivation to adequately do the job, and no amount of brilliant strategizing is going to get them to be responsive. They aren't responsive because, fundamentally, they just don't care.

Yeah sure dawg, the industry's been on an almost-unbroken upward trajectory of tech use, billable hours and profits over the past 60 years, but NOW, surely, there's finally a critical mass of lazy unmotivated Gen Z juniors because they all something something TikTok something something Olivia Rodrigo. Guess that means the whole industry's gonna collapse in a decade! Who's gonna help FedEx pay no income tax, or BlackRock buying up entire suburbs, or Credit Suisse issue some dogshit portfolio of subprime loans?!?

I'm starting to wonder why you can't get anyone to listen to you. I mean, *I* want to further deepthroat a shotgun every time you post, but that's just on a forum. Surely, when you actually email them at 10 PM, your enthusiasm for the deal will be more infectious!

Keep it up though; you're easily the worst poster of the past week and thus, by default, my favorite.

What a bizarre post. Sure - the industry is doing great. But associate attrition and misery is at an all time high, especially at the junior levels. My point is just not to bother worrying about why your juniors are not responsive - it is because they don't care and are bad at the job, and will soon be swept away like yesterday's trash. Do what the equity partners do and focus on the 10% of juniors who "get it," and don't waste your time in a vain effort to help the others, who will inevitably be gone soon anyway.

[Anonymous User]

But what if their lack of responsiveness is because they don't care about the job, are too lazy to review redlines and learn from their errors, make zero effort to understand the business of their clients and how they can help the clients grow it, would rather whine about the lack of training than sit down and develop skills on their own, and are really just in it to cruise for a couple of years, pay back loans, and move on in life?

Then, of course, no amount of handholding is really going to help, and you just need to accept that the combination of ADD/texting/decline in legal education has produced a cohort of people who by and large lack the skills and motivation to adequately do the job, and no amount of brilliant strategizing is going to get them to be responsive. They aren't responsive because, fundamentally, they just don't care.

Yeah sure dawg, the industry's been on an almost-unbroken upward trajectory of tech use, billable hours and profits over the past 60 years, but NOW, surely, there's finally a critical mass of lazy unmotivated Gen Z juniors because they all something something TikTok something something Olivia Rodrigo. Guess that means the whole industry's gonna collapse in a decade! Who's gonna help FedEx pay no income tax, or BlackRock buying up entire suburbs, or Credit Suisse issue some dogshit portfolio of subprime loans?!?

I'm starting to wonder why you can't get anyone to listen to you. I mean, *I* want to further deepthroat a shotgun every time you post, but that's just on a forum. Surely, when you actually email them at 10 PM, your enthusiasm for the deal will be more infectious!

Keep it up though; you're easily the worst poster of the past week and thus, by default, my favorite.

What a bizarre post. Sure - the industry is doing great. But associate attrition and misery is at an all time high, especially at the junior levels. My point is just not to bother worrying about why your juniors are not responsive - it is because they don't care and are bad at the job, and will soon be swept away like yesterday's trash. Do what the equity partners do and focus on the 10% of juniors who "get it," and don't waste your time in a vain effort to help the others, who will inevitably be gone soon anyway.

Even if we take what you say as true, that means you’re inevitably going to work with juniors that you deem those who don’t “get it” or don’t care. You’re really picking up all their slack yourself? Are you not respected or viewed favorably by the partnership? How do you have so much time in between actual substantive work? You’re going to charge your client an exorbitant rate for junior-level work and make the whole process more inefficient because you’ve decided the managerial aspect of your job is too hard?

Partners, even the ones that are truly awful people, have a completely different set of responsibilities. Don’t compare yourself to them unless you have actually reached that point, because you play a different role in the process, no matter how much you may want to pretend otherwise. And you are actually the bigger problem on the deal team if you just blame the inevitability of 90% of this generation of juniors instead of trying to manage properly.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

What a bizarre post. Sure - the industry is doing great. But associate attrition and misery is at an all time high, especially at the junior levels. My point is just not to bother worrying about why your juniors are not responsive - it is because they don't care and are bad at the job, and will soon be swept away like yesterday's trash. Do what the equity partners do and focus on the 10% of juniors who "get it," and don't waste your time in a vain effort to help the others, who will inevitably be gone soon anyway.

Uh, well, yes, I agree "associate attrition and misery is at an all-time high." So, given that, and given that associates are billing more than they ever have in the history of this profession...where is the idea that they're lazy and should work harder coming from?

You have these seniors all complaining that juniors are behind on their work and doing it quickly/sloppily, and you have all these juniors tell you about how slammed they are and how they don't have time for anything either. Who exactly is not putting two and two together here?

[Anonymous User]

How has nobody noticed that Psycho Partner is self-identified as an "income partner." Seems to be espousing the sentiment of someone who thinks they made it, but really hasn't. Enjoy standing on your almighty income soapbox while your equity overlords profit on you doing associate-level work for the rest of your life.

Anyway, just focusing on the 10% who actually "get it" is a selfish shortcut for lazy income partners who don't understand how the business works. Take two firms that are otherwise equal, but one has adequate training/mentoring and the other doesn't. The firm with adequate training gets more work product out of their leverage, leaving midlevels, seniors, and partners to do more interesting tasks and bring in more work (and generally have a better, less stressful life, since more of the juniors now "get it" cause you literally told them "it"). The other firm ends up having midlevels, seniors, and partners doing junior work (causing them to rant about "ADD/texting" juniors ITT), takes on fewer matters since the mids/seniors/partners are all bogged down doing junior work, and ends up making less in profits. Even if firm 1 doesn't get all of the associates to "get it," as many have pointed out ITT, you'll still save time and energy by having a bench of more capable juniors. Not to mention, if the 10% who "get it" are the only ones doing actual work, you're going to burn the shit out of them before they even have a chance to move up the ranks. I believe that's the point MO is making. Anyway, since Psycho Partner is an income partner, they presumably have no incentive to make the business more profitable (or worse, maybe this is why they didn't get equity). Hence the shortsighted focus on the 10%.

TL;DR: you're going to have to pay juniors anyway, so why not take like an hour out of your week to make more than 10% of them profit centers rather than cost centers.

[Anonymous User]

How has nobody noticed that Psycho Partner is self-identified as an "income partner." Seems to be espousing the sentiment of someone who thinks they made it, but really hasn't. Enjoy standing on your almighty income soapbox while your equity overlords profit on you doing associate-level work for the rest of your life.

Anyway, just focusing on the 10% who actually "get it" is a selfish shortcut for lazy income partners who don't understand how the business works. Take two firms that are otherwise equal, but one has adequate training/mentoring and the other doesn't. The firm with adequate training gets more work product out of their leverage, leaving midlevels, seniors, and partners to do more interesting tasks and bring in more work (and generally have a better, less stressful life, since more of the juniors now "get it" cause you literally told them "it"). The other firm ends up having midlevels, seniors, and partners doing junior work (causing them to rant about "ADD/texting" juniors ITT), takes on fewer matters since the mids/seniors/partners are all bogged down doing junior work, and ends up making less in profits. Even if firm 1 doesn't get all of the associates to "get it," as many have pointed out ITT, you'll still save time and energy by having a bench of more capable juniors. Not to mention, if the 10% who "get it" are the only ones doing actual work, you're going to burn the shit out of them before they even have a chance to move up the ranks. I believe that's the point MO is making. Anyway, since Psycho Partner is an income partner, they presumably have no incentive to make the business more profitable (or worse, maybe this is why they didn't get equity). Hence the shortsighted focus on the 10%.

TL;DR: you're going to have to pay juniors anyway, so why not take like an hour out of your week to make more than 10% of them profit centers rather than cost centers.

"Psycho" income partner here. I was actually advocating sitting down with associates, trying to mentor them, and taking the time to explain why you are doing what you are doing and how their work fits into the bigger picture, while still holding them to high expectations and pushing them to do better work. It is actually another poster (who identifies as a senior associate) who is advocating the time-tested training method of sending juniors a redline and letting them sink or swim.

[Anonymous User]

How has nobody noticed that Psycho Partner is self-identified as an "income partner." Seems to be espousing the sentiment of someone who thinks they made it, but really hasn't. Enjoy standing on your almighty income soapbox while your equity overlords profit on you doing associate-level work for the rest of your life.

Anyway, just focusing on the 10% who actually "get it" is a selfish shortcut for lazy income partners who don't understand how the business works. Take two firms that are otherwise equal, but one has adequate training/mentoring and the other doesn't. The firm with adequate training gets more work product out of their leverage, leaving midlevels, seniors, and partners to do more interesting tasks and bring in more work (and generally have a better, less stressful life, since more of the juniors now "get it" cause you literally told them "it"). The other firm ends up having midlevels, seniors, and partners doing junior work (causing them to rant about "ADD/texting" juniors ITT), takes on fewer matters since the mids/seniors/partners are all bogged down doing junior work, and ends up making less in profits. Even if firm 1 doesn't get all of the associates to "get it," as many have pointed out ITT, you'll still save time and energy by having a bench of more capable juniors. Not to mention, if the 10% who "get it" are the only ones doing actual work, you're going to burn the shit out of them before they even have a chance to move up the ranks. I believe that's the point MO is making. Anyway, since Psycho Partner is an income partner, they presumably have no incentive to make the business more profitable (or worse, maybe this is why they didn't get equity). Hence the shortsighted focus on the 10%.

TL;DR: you're going to have to pay juniors anyway, so why not take like an hour out of your week to make more than 10% of them profit centers rather than cost centers.

"Psycho" income partner here. I was actually advocating sitting down with associates, trying to mentor them, and taking the time to explain why you are doing what you are doing and how their work fits into the bigger picture, while still holding them to high expectations and pushing them to do better work. It is actually another poster (who identifies as a senior associate) who is advocating the time-tested training method of sending juniors a redline and letting them sink or swim.

Apologies for drawing you in, then. 100% agree it's better to sit people down, assuming the bolded is sarcasm.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah psycho partner is OK, I don't mind being held to high standards as long as expectations are communicated clearly.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah psycho partner is OK, I don't mind being held to high standards as long as expectations are communicated clearly.

You shouldn't need for "expectations to be communicated clearly." You should be taking the initiative on your own to learn about your clients, your practice area, the role each document plays, the key commercial considerations, what makes or breaks a deal and how you fit into all of that. Assume that your equity partner boss is a risk-averse toxic horrible person, and is going to do everything they can to make your life as miserable as theirs is. You should, on your own accord, be reviewing every single change in every document that goes out and asking yourself why each such change was made, and what you can learn from it.

Don't be some passive paper pusher who just waits for assignments to come in, and looks to flip them with the bare minimum amount of work so that they don't fire you. Show some passion about the work, about the clients, about your role in helping companies in a free market economy operate successfully. Take some pride in what you do, and demonstrate that you actually care.

If you take that approach, it doesn't really matter how terrible your bosses are, as you will succeed despite them.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah psycho partner is OK, I don't mind being held to high standards as long as expectations are communicated clearly.

You shouldn't need for "expectations to be communicated clearly." You should be taking the initiative on your own to learn about your clients, your practice area, the role each document plays, the key commercial considerations, what makes or breaks a deal and how you fit into all of that. Assume that your equity partner boss is a risk-averse toxic horrible person, and is going to do everything they can to make your life as miserable as theirs is. You should, on your own accord, be reviewing every single change in every document that goes out and asking yourself why each such change was made, and what you can learn from it.

Don't be some passive paper pusher who just waits for assignments to come in, and looks to flip them with the bare minimum amount of work so that they don't fire you. Show some passion about the work, about the clients, about your role in helping companies in a free market economy operate successfully. Take some pride in what you do, and demonstrate that you actually care.

If you take that approach, it doesn't really matter how terrible your bosses are, as you will succeed despite them.

You're still here?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a sixth year lit associate, and at my first firm, we were told as a general rule to run redlines for our own edification/improvement. As in, I drafted the first draft of a motion and sent it to a midlevel, and he spent some time with it and then sent to the partner. I would usually run a redline at that stage just for my own use, and then again to see the changes the partner made. I would not affirmatively apologize for "mistakes" but I would note them to myself, and I would also pay attention to style changes. Eventually, you get to the point that you can write in the "style" of a partner if you work with him enough. Basically any of the half-way with it juniors in my lit department did that too.

I don't think it's crazy to expect juniors to be proactive about improving (in addition to direct feedback from seniors and partners). You're an adult. Before I was a lawyer I was a classroom teacher and you're in there by yourself and should be figuring out what worked and what didn't by looking at your student's assessments and behavior without your principal telling you how to improve. As a lawyer, you should likewise be thinking about what skills you need to improve on and figuring out what good lawyers do and trying to imitate that.

Another example. I took a deposition and my partner gave me some (positive) feedback right afterwards on a phonecall, but when I reviewed the transcript, I noticed a couple places where I should have asked questions differently and places where I should have asked a follow-up question. So I took away from it that I needed to (1) be more careful about compound questions and (2) get better at asking follow-up questions on the fly instead of just moving on to the next question in my script.

It's not a one or the other thing. Obviously in an ideal world, you would get frequent direct feedback. But that's not always possible (or you may be on a matter with people who don't care about your development as an attorney). Checking out redlines is one of many tricks to see how you can improve, and at the end of the day it's your career. If you don't care about your development, why should anyone else?

ETA: I have been working with a junior who I had to ask multiple times to follow the formatting of previously filed documents in the action. It took months for her to start double spacing between sentences, among other things, even thoughI explicitly said to look at the redlines to see how we had to make formatting changes. I guess I could have spelled out each formatting issue, but I don't think it's my job to do that. Pointing to the redline should be enough. If I am preparing something for a partner/court I'm not used to, I look at a previous filing and copy how record citations are done, font size, number of spaces between periods etc. I might miss something, but I want to be as close as possible in my original draft. Anyways, I eventually started sending things back to her to fix instead even though it was less efficient because that seemed to be the only way to fix the issue going forward. If you are are a junior, try not to be like that.