Do you work with any dumb partners? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’ve seen posts lately describing the partners they work for as brilliant and whatnot, I was curious if people work for dumb partners. I’m at a v10 and I’m consistently asking myself how some of the partners got where they are. All are hard working but a few just don’t get it. Any advice on working with dumb partners? (Ex you have to explain the law to them fifty times and they still don’t get it).

[Anonymous User]

Yes. The vast majority of the partners I work with are brilliant (I'm fortunate for that), but there's one in particular who has absolutely no business doing any legal work whatsoever. I have no idea how this partner got to where they are. They constantly mix up what side of the v we are on, misstate the law to clients, misunderstand emails, and generally drop the ball on pretty much everything in their court. That partner is really possessive of associates and paranoid about what others think, and I suspect that's because this partner knows they are completely useless. Nobody likes working with them.

The shocking part is this partner keeps winning awards and getting elected to important industry group leadership roles. Literally just a lawyer in name only, but gets all this praise as a result of associates saving their ass.

[Anonymous User]

Yes. The vast majority of the partners I work with are brilliant (I'm fortunate for that), but there's one in particular who has absolutely no business doing any legal work whatsoever. I have no idea how this partner got to where they are. They constantly mix up what side of the v we are on, misstate the law to clients, misunderstand emails, and generally drop the ball on pretty much everything in their court. That partner is really possessive of associates and paranoid about what others think, and I suspect that's because this partner knows they are completely useless. Nobody likes working with them.

The shocking part is this partner keeps winning awards and getting elected to important industry group leadership roles. Literally just a lawyer in name only, but gets all this praise as a result of associates saving their ass.

How do you manage working for this partner and get through it? Any tips?

It sounds exactly like my experience to a tee. I just feel like I’m doing double the work to try to save this case and I’m only a mid level. I’m fine working with rude partners but dumb….

[Anonymous User]

Yes. The vast majority of the partners I work with are brilliant (I'm fortunate for that), but there's one in particular who has absolutely no business doing any legal work whatsoever. I have no idea how this partner got to where they are. They constantly mix up what side of the v we are on, misstate the law to clients, misunderstand emails, and generally drop the ball on pretty much everything in their court. That partner is really possessive of associates and paranoid about what others think, and I suspect that's because this partner knows they are completely useless. Nobody likes working with them.

The shocking part is this partner keeps winning awards and getting elected to important industry group leadership roles. Literally just a lawyer in name only, but gets all this praise as a result of associates saving their ass.

How do you manage working for this partner and get through it? Any tips?

It sounds exactly like my experience to a tee. I just feel like I’m doing double the work to try to save this case and I’m only a mid level. I’m fine working with rude partners but dumb….

TBH you kind of just have to do the work for them unless you want to flag it up the chain. That or get work from someone else. This particular partner pretty much exclusively works with juniors because no mids/seniors want to be on their team.

FWIW I did rally some support from others to give honest (read: shit) upward evals. TBD if that has an impact.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't say dumb, but I've seen some truly incompetent ones. Terrible directions and complete lack of oversight, grabbing an outdating document and commenting on it, expecting these to be put in verbatim (which is impossible, as they're commenting on a days' old version), e-mails at the oddest hours that are supposedly meant to push things forward but just ends up creating more work as you have to get on a call with team to explain what is happening as they're not paying attention. I think it might also be that they're just too stretched thin and just cannot keep up, but it might also be that they know they "made it," and after landing a client they don't care anymore about actually servicing them, until the feeling arises in him to add some random value.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't say dumb, but I've seen some truly incompetent ones. Terrible directions and complete lack of oversight, grabbing an outdating document and commenting on it, expecting these to be put in verbatim (which is impossible, as they're commenting on a days' old version), e-mails at the oddest hours that are supposedly meant to push things forward but just ends up creating more work as you have to get on a call with team to explain what is happening as they're not paying attention. I think it might also be that they're just too stretched thin and just cannot keep up, but it might also be that they know they "made it," and after landing a client they don't care anymore about actually servicing them, until the feeling arises in him to add some random value.

This. I can deal with an absentee partner, but it's so much worse dealing with a partner that thinks they can add value at random points but actually just makes things worse because they no longer know what's going on.

[Prudent_Jurist]

There is a partner at my firm in litigation who is just super swamped all the time. He’s not dumb, but he does not have the capacity to keep all his cases straight. So, he often forgets what’s going on in cases when there isn’t something immediately pressing grabbing his attention. He’s also low enough in the ranks such that there’s also not a lot of mid level/senior help he can rely on.

I like getting work from him as a junior because I find it’s a great learning experience. Because he needs someone to help him manage cases, I’m able to take a more hands-on role: suggesting motions to file, drafting discovery plans, keeping track of deadlines, contacting the clients to discuss. I run it all by him first, and he yays or nays it.

But he’s super appreciative for the help, I bill a lot of hours on his clients, and I get great substantive experience. In all, not dumb, just underwater.

[BrowsingTLS]

There is a partner at my firm in litigation who is just super swamped all the time. He’s not dumb, but he does not have the capacity to keep all his cases straight. So, he often forgets what’s going on in cases when there isn’t something immediately pressing grabbing his attention. He’s also low enough in the ranks such that there’s also not a lot of mid level/senior help he can rely on.

I like getting work from him as a junior because I find it’s a great learning experience. Because he needs someone to help him manage cases, I’m able to take a more hands-on role: suggesting motions to file, drafting discovery plans, keeping track of deadlines, contacting the clients to discuss. I run it all by him first, and he yays or nays it.

But he’s super appreciative for the help, I bill a lot of hours on his clients, and I get great substantive experience. In all, not dumb, just underwater.

You probably captured what the concerns in this thread boil down to. Partners who are busy/not paying much attention to a given case, not who are stupid or dumb. Not bootlicking, either. It's a stretch to assume someone who makes partner is dumb simply because they're not as in tune with a matter as you need to be given your role.

On an unrelated note, until I read in your post that you're "junior," I would have thought you were a senior associate. False and misleading profile photo. It's like the time I found out the real monocromatic isn't like Patrick Bateman.

[Prudent_Jurist]

Gotta be the change you want to see in the world, or some shit like that…

[Anonymous User]

There is a partner at my firm in litigation who is just super swamped all the time. He’s not dumb, but he does not have the capacity to keep all his cases straight. So, he often forgets what’s going on in cases when there isn’t something immediately pressing grabbing his attention. He’s also low enough in the ranks such that there’s also not a lot of mid level/senior help he can rely on.

I like getting work from him as a junior because I find it’s a great learning experience. Because he needs someone to help him manage cases, I’m able to take a more hands-on role: suggesting motions to file, drafting discovery plans, keeping track of deadlines, contacting the clients to discuss. I run it all by him first, and he yays or nays it.

But he’s super appreciative for the help, I bill a lot of hours on his clients, and I get great substantive experience. In all, not dumb, just underwater.

You probably captured what the concerns in this thread boil down to. Partners who are busy/not paying much attention to a given case, not who are stupid or dumb. Not bootlicking, either. It's a stretch to assume someone who makes partner is dumb simply because they're not as in tune with a matter as you need to be given your role.

On an unrelated note, until I read in your post that you're "junior," I would have thought you were a senior associate. False and misleading profile photo. It's like the time I found out the real monocromatic isn't like Patrick Bateman.

Agreed. But I'm one of the previous posters and stand by my statement that this particular partner is objectively a dumbass. They can't even get it when I explain things 3x. I'm met with a blank stare, a question that's way off base, or a misstatement of what I just told them. And to pretermit some follow-up questions: no, it's not just me. I've received numerous compliments from other (smarter) partners about my ability to explain complicated topics (I'm in IP). And I've explained the same thing to this partner and others at the same time. The others get it, this partner doesn't.

TL;DR: there are actually dumb partners, even if most are just spread thin.

[Anonymous User]

There are definitely dumb partners. In my experience, it's in litigation, broadly speaking. I say "broadly speaking" because these are partners who typically work on investigations, monitorships, or other more politics/current events-adjacent cases rather than complex or even standard-fare technical litigation (and then they bring in other junior partners/senior associates to do the actual work in those cases). These partners sometimes get these cases due to factors other than their intelligence, prowess, or technical competence as lawyers. It's a noticeable connection. Speaking from experience; YMMV.

[Anonymous User]

Worked with a partner who had a mixed reputation for being both not that bright and terribly disorganized. (Similar to another poster, a more junior partner who was really underwater.) Seemd to have random thoughts, ask for work that seemed inefficient or went down rabbit holes that seemed be useless. Lots of "I just researched x (read: Googled x) and think we should now look at or do y"). Also had credentials that I think a lot of other lawyers looked down on a bit.

But he was also always extremely successful in his litigation, won on motions that everyone assumed were doomed, got great precedent for our practice in decisions, suceeded in cases that were novel for the firm, and achieved better than expected settlements for clients.

Anyway, I gave up on trying to guess what "good" really means in practice and overall I did enjoy working with him because as the other posters mentioned you can really get some good hands on experience with disorganized partners by becoming master of the case facts. (He was also pretty fun to just chat with even though he drove other associates mad.)

All the being said, his organizational skills were just absolutely shit-tier and I think that is more common than partners actually being dumb.

[Anonymous User]

There was one dumb partner who mostly worked on client development and everyone knew was relatively dumb.

There was another dumb one who was a former AUSA, and therefore got hired as a litigation partner, and was just kind of blustery and said things, but never dug into or understood the details. He was kind of like Joe Biden, I guess.

There was one who was an intelligent person but so terrible at managing his time that it seemed every filing was only reviewed the day of the filing, and we'd revise up to midnight. The work product was lower quality with him because of this stupid schedule.