Associate billing 200+ hours a month, railroaded and lost job Forum

[Anonymous User]

As stated in title. I was an associate at an L&E firm branch office. Was given a lot of great feedback and pulled in on a huge number of projects. Within 6 months I was billing more than almost any other associate at the firm, and even after write-offs as a first-year my receipts were still in the top 20%.

I got pulled in on a case with a partner at another office who put me on not one, but two labor trials, and things quickly started to get a bit overwhelming, as this was piled on top of an already full caseload. The partner quickly became abusive, a screamer, and was clearly frustrated that I did not have the level of experience on these cases he may have been used to working with. Another partner pushing me to prepare a separate motion for summary judgment offered to take me off all other matters, but I declined as I didn't want to get the reputation of being not capable. This felt like a double-edged sword. Nonetheless, it came back to bite me.

The partner who had me on the labor cases mixed up a deadline on a brief I was to prepare to appeal a particular issue, which I was unable to even get started on until about two days before this deadline given all else that was going on in these trials and other matters, including at my branch office. I discovered the partner's error and alerted him, and also researched the procedures to proceed with the late-filing under the appropriate rules.

This did nothing to appease the partner, who went on an absolute tirade against me, pulled in my branch manager, and then basically fired off a series of e-mails accusing me of botching the case. Against my better judgment probably, I politely explained that I had done my best to get around it, and that I might not be the right person to work with him. My branch office manager, who I'd done quite a bit to help but avoided as of late for for similar reasons -- impatient, abusive, error-prone and careless and tends to throw associates under the boss -- quickly stepped in to back up this partner and push to get me fired -- which is what happened. (Side note: I completed the brief, which was reviewed, approved, and filed by the partners with minimal feedback.)

So basically this recent experience has been pretty much a nightmare. My "star" shone brightly and dimmed out quickly, and I ran into some trouble. I also previously had a pretty shitty experience at a small law firm that I left before joining this one, and now I'm looking for work again. I graduated from a pretty well-respected law school but am having trouble getting my career off the ground. The kicker at this last firm: zero severance, zero notice, zero opportunity to look for a new job. I spoke with my branch manager about the issue on Friday and by early the next week they were shoving me out the door.

Anyone have feedback on my actions/what happened here, similar stories and how they handled it, or thoughts on how to move forward?

[Anonymous User]

The lesson here is to not get into a situation where you’re billing so much that you’re making errors. I’ve seen lots of associates let go for being “sloppy,” and I think all of them were also very busy. You need to learn how to say no. Good work at a constant 166.6 hours per month looks way better than big hours but shitty work. It sounds like a partner tried to flag that to you.

[Anonymous User]

The lesson here is to not get into a situation where you’re billing so much that you’re making errors. I’ve seen lots of associates let go for being “sloppy,” and I think all of them were also very busy. You need to learn how to say no. Good work at a constant 166.6 hours per month looks way better than big hours but shitty work. It sounds like a partner tried to flag that to you.

I agree. Work quality had not been an issue for me, save for this one instance -- a partner provided me a deadline, and I discovered belatedly the partner was incorrect. At this point, I was also dealing with this partner's blowout, which consumed an lot of time.

I feel that my mistake here was more political than about the work, which I had universally been told was very strong. This whole situation became much more dramatic than I think it should have, but I think the fact that this spiraled into me losing my job was more about political mistakes I had perhaps made along the way. That my branch manager chose to step in and stick the knife in, rather than defend me, which was a big surprise.

To your point, though, I find it's pretty hard to say no to partners. Honestly, I more read what that partner was saying to me as he wants his work prioritized over other work -- which was the same message I would get from the other partner demanding work. Partners do not like "no," and that feels almost like it's just as damaging.

[Anonymous User]

Let me first say that being abusive, etc. is never appropriate and that fact certainly makes me skeptical of these two partners' motives/rationality. The workplace is no place for emotions like that, which cloud judgment and are bad for morale and the client.

Let me also say that I don't know all the facts of OP's situation, so this is more of a warning for others based on another anecdote (as is OP's post) than a comment on what's actually happening to OP.

With those caveats, I also want chime in to say that I'm working with a more senior associate (4-5th year) who actually deserves to get fired, but would probably see the situation the same way as you. Associate came in as a lateral from a different practice group and immediately got staffed on stretch assignments on big cases. As such, associate finished the year with an average around 2000 hours a month - not the top hours but definitely up there for someone so new. I know firsthand that associate got some positive feedback, but that's mostly because folks at our firm are incredibly nice and tend to do the whole compliment sandwich thing. We avoid giving bad reviews to more junior associates (they're still making money, scare them away?), which means everybody gets a pat on the back.

But despite the positive feedback, staffing on big cases, stretch assignments, and high hours, associate is truly horrendous. Associate makes the same mistake twice, doesn't listen, is a terrible writer, doesn't understand the assignment, misrepresents facts/record, gets things flat wrong (cases/facts), has no litigation judgment, can only think in one dimension, makes sloppy mistakes, doesn't proofread, etc. The list goes on. I have to significantly meter my response to avoid showing how frustrated I am when I give feedback, and I know one partner has already kicked associate off a case (which came as a surprise to associate, who blames the partner). That partner is known for being harsh, but that doesn't mean the partner is always wrong.

When I gave associate a lot of constructive feedback on a big assignment and basically asked for it to be completely redone, associate got very defensive and implied that others hadn't been so critical of associate's work. Our firm is pretty terrible at pushing bad associates out, but there is an unspoken cutoff year that the associate is approaching that I'm nearly certain associate won't surpass. And that's going to come as a surprise to associate.

The lessons are (1) at will employment is just that and (2) law firms are notoriously bad at telling you how good/bad you're really doing. As with OP, sometimes firms say you're bad when you're good. And as with this associate, sometimes firms say you're good when you're bad. And don't piss people off. Saying no has hard, but as another poster pointed out being underwater and failing to meet expectations is worse.

[CanadianWolf]

A partner, your branch manager, and your prior firm all had a problem with you. This is what comes through most loudly in your version. Doesn't mean that you are wrong--just that you need to rewrite & refine your version when job hunting.

[Anonymous User]

an average around 2000 hours a month

holy f***

[Anonymous User]

an average around 2000 hours a month

holy f***

[Anonymous User]

Let me first say that being abusive, etc. is never appropriate and that fact certainly makes me skeptical of these two partners' motives/rationality. The workplace is no place for emotions like that, which cloud judgment and are bad for morale and the client.

Let me also say that I don't know all the facts of OP's situation, so this is more of a warning for others based on another anecdote (as is OP's post) than a comment on what's actually happening to OP.

With those caveats, I also want chime in to say that I'm working with a more senior associate (4-5th year) who actually deserves to get fired, but would probably see the situation the same way as you. Associate came in as a lateral from a different practice group and immediately got staffed on stretch assignments on big cases. As such, associate finished the year with an average around 2000 hours a month - not the top hours but definitely up there for someone so new. I know firsthand that associate got some positive feedback, but that's mostly because folks at our firm are incredibly nice and tend to do the whole compliment sandwich thing. We avoid giving bad reviews to more junior associates (they're still making money, scare them away?), which means everybody gets a pat on the back.

But despite the positive feedback, staffing on big cases, stretch assignments, and high hours, associate is truly horrendous. Associate makes the same mistake twice, doesn't listen, is a terrible writer, doesn't understand the assignment, misrepresents facts/record, gets things flat wrong (cases/facts), has no litigation judgment, can only think in one dimension, makes sloppy mistakes, doesn't proofread, etc. The list goes on. I have to significantly meter my response to avoid showing how frustrated I am when I give feedback, and I know one partner has already kicked associate off a case (which came as a surprise to associate, who blames the partner). That partner is known for being harsh, but that doesn't mean the partner is always wrong.

When I gave associate a lot of constructive feedback on a big assignment and basically asked for it to be completely redone, associate got very defensive and implied that others hadn't been so critical of associate's work. Our firm is pretty terrible at pushing bad associates out, but there is an unspoken cutoff year that the associate is approaching that I'm nearly certain associate won't surpass. And that's going to come as a surprise to associate.

The lessons are (1) at will employment is just that and (2) law firms are notoriously bad at telling you how good/bad you're really doing. As with OP, sometimes firms say you're bad when you're good. And as with this associate, sometimes firms say you're good when you're bad. And don't piss people off. Saying no has hard, but as another poster pointed out being underwater and failing to meet expectations is worse.

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

[Anonymous User]

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

To be fair, even if you're technically right, these "idiots" are right in practice. There are some attorneys out there who treat good litigation judgment as the law. In general, if you find yourself saying that disputed facts aren't genuine you're probably not in a good case for an MSJ.

[Anonymous User]

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

To be fair, even if you're technically right, these "idiots" are right in practice. There are some attorneys out there who treat good litigation judgment as the law. In general, if you find yourself saying that disputed facts aren't genuine you're probably not in a good case for an MSJ.

Who do you think thought the MSJ was a good idea/pushed for it in the first place? The partner or the associate? I just did my best to execute it properly. I'd agree with you that leaning into factual disputes on an MSJ is a poor idea. But what you can shove into a pleading is different from what you can convince a reasonable trier of fact on, no?

Anyway, I think the general point -- don't question partners, right or wrong -- was where I probably got off track with this person. This was an office with extraordinarily high turnover, so I probably wasn't the first, but I appreciate the importance of the lesson for my next position.

[Anonymous User]

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

To be fair, even if you're technically right, these "idiots" are right in practice. There are some attorneys out there who treat good litigation judgment as the law. In general, if you find yourself saying that disputed facts aren't genuine you're probably not in a good case for an MSJ.

Who do you think thought the MSJ was a good idea/pushed for it in the first place? The partner or the associate? I just did my best to execute it properly. I'd agree with you that leaning into factual disputes on an MSJ is a poor idea. But what you can shove into a pleading is different from what you can convince a reasonable trier of fact on, no?

Anyway, I think the general point -- don't question partners, right or wrong -- was where I probably got off track with this person. This was an office with extraordinarily high turnover, so I probably wasn't the first, but I appreciate the importance of the lesson for my next position.

For the future, perhaps you can raise the same issues differently. I find that phrasing thigs as a request for advice/consultation with the partner for their eminent experience works much better than raising a problem or disagreeing. "Thanks for the opportunity to work on this MSJ - I'm running into some questions and could use your advice. X is a bad fact for us but I don't think it's credible. If we can't/won't challenge that at MSJ how do you have any other thoughts on how we can handle Y element of the claim/defense we need to prove?" Works much better than causing a scene about whether you technically can or can't challenge a "fact" at MSJ.

Put differently, my bar for telling a partner they are WRONG is almost infinitely high - it basically has to be sanctionable, and even then I'd just say I won't put my name on it. My bar for raising a drafting challenge, a request for how to handle something, or whether they have "considered" or know how to deal with X/Y/Z (which actually shows them they are wrong) is incredibly low.

FWIW I'm the poster about that other terrible associate and they do same confrontational thing. I'm a (much) more senior associate, and have asked them numerous times to take things out of briefs because it's not compelling, and they continued to try to sneak it in or tell me I'm wrong after the first go. Raise it once, fine, but for better or worse the practice of law relies on a hierarchy to make decisions and it does not sit well to press an issue I clearly disagree on. The more you hitch your wagon to something I think reflects poor judgment, the worse my opinion is of you.

[Anonymous User]

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

To be fair, even if you're technically right, these "idiots" are right in practice. There are some attorneys out there who treat good litigation judgment as the law. In general, if you find yourself saying that disputed facts aren't genuine you're probably not in a good case for an MSJ.

Who do you think thought the MSJ was a good idea/pushed for it in the first place? The partner or the associate? I just did my best to execute it properly. I'd agree with you that leaning into factual disputes on an MSJ is a poor idea. But what you can shove into a pleading is different from what you can convince a reasonable trier of fact on, no?

Anyway, I think the general point -- don't question partners, right or wrong -- was where I probably got off track with this person. This was an office with extraordinarily high turnover, so I probably wasn't the first, but I appreciate the importance of the lesson for my next position.

For the future, perhaps you can raise the same issues differently. I find that phrasing thigs as a request for advice/consultation with the partner for their eminent experience works much better than raising a problem or disagreeing. "Thanks for the opportunity to work on this MSJ - I'm running into some questions and could use your advice. X is a bad fact for us but I don't think it's credible. If we can't/won't challenge that at MSJ how do you have any other thoughts on how we can handle Y element of the claim/defense we need to prove?" Works much better than causing a scene about whether you technically can or can't challenge a "fact" at MSJ.

Put differently, my bar for telling a partner they are WRONG is almost infinitely high - it basically has to be sanctionable, and even then I'd just say I won't put my name on it. My bar for raising a drafting challenge, a request for how to handle something, or whether they have "considered" or know how to deal with X/Y/Z (which actually shows them they are wrong) is incredibly low.

FWIW I'm the poster about that other terrible associate and they do same confrontational thing. I'm a (much) more senior associate, and have asked them numerous times to take things out of briefs because it's not compelling, and they continued to try to sneak it in or tell me I'm wrong after the first go. Raise it once, fine, but for better or worse the practice of law relies on a hierarchy to make decisions and it does not sit well to press an issue I clearly disagree on. The more you hitch your wagon to something I think reflects poor judgment, the worse my opinion is of you.

Yeah, I've struggled with how to be strategic about raising things, but what you described makes a lot of sense. I did not raise issues as tactfully as you described ("I think we would lose on this point.") and paid the price for it.

Another example: This partner asked me to research an issue for a large client, which she had already reached a conclusion on without any research or, I suspect, reading the complaint. The issue was GOOD for us -- a reason to have it dismissed. And, to her horror, the case law was exactly on point for us to do that -- after she told the client we couldn't have it dismissed. I raised it with her, and she flipped her lid, but I insisted the law was accurate. She reviewed it and complimented me for my work profusely and was forced to agree. When I got laid off, she came back and turned this into a reason to say I was "difficult."

In short, I think that, as you pointed out, wrong or right doesn't seem to matter. Partners need to "feel" good and not like you're going to point out their mistakes. There's a book called "48 Rules of Power," and Rule #1 is "Don't Outshine the Master as the Apprentice." It basically says if you do something to make the "master" feel insecure, the "master" will come after the "apprentice" and ruin them.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I've struggled with how to be strategic about raising things, but what you described makes a lot of sense. I did not raise issues as tactfully as you described ("I think we would lose on this point.") and paid the price for it.

Another example: This partner asked me to research an issue for a large client, which she had already reached a conclusion on without any research or, I suspect, reading the complaint. The issue was GOOD for us -- a reason to have it dismissed. And, to her horror, the case law was exactly on point for us to do that -- after she told the client we couldn't have it dismissed. I raised it with her, and she flipped her lid, but I insisted the law was accurate. She reviewed it and complimented me for my work profusely and was forced to agree. When I got laid off, she came back and turned this into a reason to say I was "difficult."

In short, I think that, as you pointed out, wrong or right doesn't seem to matter. Partners need to "feel" good and not like you're going to point out their mistakes. There's a book called "48 Rules of Power," and Rule #1 is "Don't Outshine the Master as the Apprentice." It basically says if you do something to make the "master" feel insecure, the "master" will come after the "apprentice" and ruin them.

Sounds like you're learning. To be clear - all these behaviors are toxic. But if you want to keep your job/play the game it's pretty easy to take a soft hand with partners (even if you shouldn't have to). It's no justification, but I think partners often act this way because they in turn have to do the same thing for clients. But shit flows downhill, so associates get it twofold.

A few more suggestions:
(1) If I truly disagree with a partner, I'll often times just expressly defer to them. "I see your point and if that's how you think we should proceed I'm happy to defer to you on that." Sometimes partners flip when they realize all their are getting is deference, rather than changing minds.
(2) I often try to suggest my (controversial) ideas are actually based on the partner's thoughts. I don't need credit for everything I do, and I'm more likely to get my way when the partner thinks it's their way. You can often times phrase something as a question but lead their advice into what you want with a few clever follow-ups ("so what I hear you saying is X?").
(3) Be prepared for cognitive dissonance. You can convince a partner you are right without convincing them they are wrong, even if your views are mutually exclusive. Once a partner said something completely incorrect on a client call and asked if I had anything to add. I said "Great points, just one additional one" and proceeded to contradict everything they just said. The client listened to me. Be careful with using this one, but it can be an effective way to lodge your dissent without offending.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I've struggled with how to be strategic about raising things, but what you described makes a lot of sense. I did not raise issues as tactfully as you described ("I think we would lose on this point.") and paid the price for it.

Another example: This partner asked me to research an issue for a large client, which she had already reached a conclusion on without any research or, I suspect, reading the complaint. The issue was GOOD for us -- a reason to have it dismissed. And, to her horror, the case law was exactly on point for us to do that -- after she told the client we couldn't have it dismissed. I raised it with her, and she flipped her lid, but I insisted the law was accurate. She reviewed it and complimented me for my work profusely and was forced to agree. When I got laid off, she came back and turned this into a reason to say I was "difficult."

In short, I think that, as you pointed out, wrong or right doesn't seem to matter. Partners need to "feel" good and not like you're going to point out their mistakes. There's a book called "48 Rules of Power," and Rule #1 is "Don't Outshine the Master as the Apprentice." It basically says if you do something to make the "master" feel insecure, the "master" will come after the "apprentice" and ruin them.

Sounds like you're learning. To be clear - all these behaviors are toxic. But if you want to keep your job/play the game it's pretty easy to take a soft hand with partners (even if you shouldn't have to). It's no justification, but I think partners often act this way because they in turn have to do the same thing for clients. But shit flows downhill, so associates get it twofold.

A few more suggestions:
(1) If I truly disagree with a partner, I'll often times just expressly defer to them. "I see your point and if that's how you think we should proceed I'm happy to defer to you on that." Sometimes partners flip when they realize all their are getting is deference, rather than changing minds.
(2) I often try to suggest my (controversial) ideas are actually based on the partner's thoughts. I don't need credit for everything I do, and I'm more likely to get my way when the partner thinks it's their way. You can often times phrase something as a question but lead their advice into what you want with a few clever follow-ups ("so what I hear you saying is X?").
(3) Be prepared for cognitive dissonance. You can convince a partner you are right without convincing them they are wrong, even if your views are mutually exclusive. Once a partner said something completely incorrect on a client call and asked if I had anything to add. I said "Great points, just one additional one" and proceeded to contradict everything they just said. The client listened to me. Be careful with using this one, but it can be an effective way to lodge your dissent without offending.

All good advice. Thank you.

[mardash]

Oh god the 48 Laws of Power… I hope you quoted those to the imbecile partners you encounter at every turn.

[GFox345]

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

To be fair, even if you're technically right, these "idiots" are right in practice. There are some attorneys out there who treat good litigation judgment as the law. In general, if you find yourself saying that disputed facts aren't genuine you're probably not in a good case for an MSJ.

I don't disagree with your implicit practice point that calling partners idiots when you make a mistake, or really at all outside the rare cases, is cringe. But, substantively, your MSJ point is very wrong. Most judges (at least federal) are not gullible enough to reserve summary judgment for cases where the other side can't even point to an ostensible factual dispute on a material issue, which is almost 0% of cases, and definitively 0% of cases with lawyers who are worth their fees.

[Anonymous User]

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

To be fair, even if you're technically right, these "idiots" are right in practice. There are some attorneys out there who treat good litigation judgment as the law. In general, if you find yourself saying that disputed facts aren't genuine you're probably not in a good case for an MSJ.

I don't disagree with your implicit practice point that calling partners idiots when you make a mistake, or really at all outside the rare cases, is cringe. But, substantively, your MSJ point is very wrong. Most judges (at least federal) are not gullible enough to reserve summary judgment for cases where the other side can't even point to an ostensible factual dispute on a material issue, which is almost 0% of cases, and definitively 0% of cases with lawyers who are worth their fees.

You're half right - yes, judges don't see one piece of evidence on the other side and throw their hands up for SJ. But they rarely write an opinion that says "X isn't credible" or "no reasonable jury would trust that evidence." Instead they wink/nudge and find some distinction that either makes the fact immaterial or that the fact still can't prove, even if true. So as a practice tip, it's always better give the judge that argument rather than saying you can't believe the other side.

[GFox345]

This guy sounds more like the idiots I was working for. The branch manager didn't know the difference between the standard for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. She told me that "everything they allege is assumed as true to win on summary judgment." I tried, in vain, to point out that didn't have to concede disputes of fact that weren't "genuine," which aroused anger and resentment, so I quickly abandoned that.

I think some of the replies made good points about the mistakes I made. I think saying no would have saved me a lot of grief and trouble.

To be fair, even if you're technically right, these "idiots" are right in practice. There are some attorneys out there who treat good litigation judgment as the law. In general, if you find yourself saying that disputed facts aren't genuine you're probably not in a good case for an MSJ.

I don't disagree with your implicit practice point that calling partners idiots when you make a mistake, or really at all outside the rare cases, is cringe. But, substantively, your MSJ point is very wrong. Most judges (at least federal) are not gullible enough to reserve summary judgment for cases where the other side can't even point to an ostensible factual dispute on a material issue, which is almost 0% of cases, and definitively 0% of cases with lawyers who are worth their fees.

You're half right - yes, judges don't see one piece of evidence on the other side and throw their hands up for SJ. But they rarely write an opinion that says "X isn't credible" or "no reasonable jury would trust that evidence." Instead they wink/nudge and find some distinction that either makes the fact immaterial or that the fact still can't prove, even if true. So as a practice tip, it's always better give the judge that argument rather than saying you can't believe the other side.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but it ultimately didn't address what I actually said and just moves the goal post from your initial point. Either that, or you're not using "genuine" in the right way for MSJ purposes. "Genuine" doesn't mean "truthful" or "credible"; it means "supported by the factual record." And this is precisely what OP was saying before you disagreed with him.

[Anonymous User]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but it ultimately didn't address what I actually said and just moves the goal post from your initial point. Either that, or you're not using "genuine" in the right way for MSJ purposes. "Genuine" doesn't mean "truthful" or "credible"; it means "supported by the factual record." And this is precisely what OP was saying before you disagreed with him.

No. What I'm saying is never push on "genuine," only push on "material," which translates to just assumes all that they say they have evidence for is true.

As has already been raised, someone can always find "evidence" to support whatever fact they want. Rather than disputing that, just say it's not material.

I will concede, though, if there's literally nothing that the other side can point to for an essential part of their claim/defense, then the two standards are different in practice.

[Anonymous User]

Very sorry to hear.

This is why I'm so impressed by those who make it a few years in private practice. You need a combination of competence and luck. Gen Xers who insist that all you have to do is bill hours and keep your head down are totally out of the loop.

If it's any consolation to you, it sounds as if you have actual skills. Five years after graduating from law school, I believe I still have none.

So you should hold your head up high and walk forward with confidence. Wicked people can rob you of your livelihood, but they can never take away your dignity. You have a lot to be proud of. Good luck on finding an even better opportunity.

[Anonymous User]

As stated in title. I was an associate at an L&E firm branch office. Was given a lot of great feedback and pulled in on a huge number of projects. Within 6 months I was billing more than almost any other associate at the firm, and even after write-offs as a first-year my receipts were still in the top 20%.

I got pulled in on a case with a partner at another office who put me on not one, but two labor trials, and things quickly started to get a bit overwhelming, as this was piled on top of an already full caseload. The partner quickly became abusive, a screamer, and was clearly frustrated that I did not have the level of experience on these cases he may have been used to working with. Another partner pushing me to prepare a separate motion for summary judgment offered to take me off all other matters, but I declined as I didn't want to get the reputation of being not capable. This felt like a double-edged sword. Nonetheless, it came back to bite me.

The partner who had me on the labor cases mixed up a deadline on a brief I was to prepare to appeal a particular issue, which I was unable to even get started on until about two days before this deadline given all else that was going on in these trials and other matters, including at my branch office. I discovered the partner's error and alerted him, and also researched the procedures to proceed with the late-filing under the appropriate rules.

This did nothing to appease the partner, who went on an absolute tirade against me, pulled in my branch manager, and then basically fired off a series of e-mails accusing me of botching the case. Against my better judgment probably, I politely explained that I had done my best to get around it, and that I might not be the right person to work with him. My branch office manager, who I'd done quite a bit to help but avoided as of late for for similar reasons -- impatient, abusive, error-prone and careless and tends to throw associates under the boss -- quickly stepped in to back up this partner and push to get me fired -- which is what happened. (Side note: I completed the brief, which was reviewed, approved, and filed by the partners with minimal feedback.)

So basically this recent experience has been pretty much a nightmare. My "star" shone brightly and dimmed out quickly, and I ran into some trouble. I also previously had a pretty shitty experience at a small law firm that I left before joining this one, and now I'm looking for work again. I graduated from a pretty well-respected law school but am having trouble getting my career off the ground. The kicker at this last firm: zero severance, zero notice, zero opportunity to look for a new job. I spoke with my branch manager about the issue on Friday and by early the next week they were shoving me out the door.

Anyone have feedback on my actions/what happened here, similar stories and how they handled it, or thoughts on how to move forward?

Idk man. The degree of self-righteousness and dismissiveness of more senior lawyers gives this a lot of color for me - makes me a bit unsurprised that no one went to bat for you and also might color the decision to let you go on a screw up

[GFox345]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but it ultimately didn't address what I actually said and just moves the goal post from your initial point. Either that, or you're not using "genuine" in the right way for MSJ purposes. "Genuine" doesn't mean "truthful" or "credible"; it means "supported by the factual record." And this is precisely what OP was saying before you disagreed with him.

No. What I'm saying is never push on "genuine," only push on "material," which translates to just assumes all that they say they have evidence for is true.

As has already been raised, someone can always find "evidence" to support whatever fact they want. Rather than disputing that, just say it's not material.

I will concede, though, if there's literally nothing that the other side can point to for an essential part of their claim/defense, then the two standards are different in practice.

No. lol

[Anonymous User]

As stated in title. I was an associate at an L&E firm branch office. Was given a lot of great feedback and pulled in on a huge number of projects. Within 6 months I was billing more than almost any other associate at the firm, and even after write-offs as a first-year my receipts were still in the top 20%.

I got pulled in on a case with a partner at another office who put me on not one, but two labor trials, and things quickly started to get a bit overwhelming, as this was piled on top of an already full caseload. The partner quickly became abusive, a screamer, and was clearly frustrated that I did not have the level of experience on these cases he may have been used to working with. Another partner pushing me to prepare a separate motion for summary judgment offered to take me off all other matters, but I declined as I didn't want to get the reputation of being not capable. This felt like a double-edged sword. Nonetheless, it came back to bite me.

The partner who had me on the labor cases mixed up a deadline on a brief I was to prepare to appeal a particular issue, which I was unable to even get started on until about two days before this deadline given all else that was going on in these trials and other matters, including at my branch office. I discovered the partner's error and alerted him, and also researched the procedures to proceed with the late-filing under the appropriate rules.

This did nothing to appease the partner, who went on an absolute tirade against me, pulled in my branch manager, and then basically fired off a series of e-mails accusing me of botching the case. Against my better judgment probably, I politely explained that I had done my best to get around it, and that I might not be the right person to work with him. My branch office manager, who I'd done quite a bit to help but avoided as of late for for similar reasons -- impatient, abusive, error-prone and careless and tends to throw associates under the boss -- quickly stepped in to back up this partner and push to get me fired -- which is what happened. (Side note: I completed the brief, which was reviewed, approved, and filed by the partners with minimal feedback.)

So basically this recent experience has been pretty much a nightmare. My "star" shone brightly and dimmed out quickly, and I ran into some trouble. I also previously had a pretty shitty experience at a small law firm that I left before joining this one, and now I'm looking for work again. I graduated from a pretty well-respected law school but am having trouble getting my career off the ground. The kicker at this last firm: zero severance, zero notice, zero opportunity to look for a new job. I spoke with my branch manager about the issue on Friday and by early the next week they were shoving me out the door.

Anyone have feedback on my actions/what happened here, similar stories and how they handled it, or thoughts on how to move forward?

Idk man. The degree of self-righteousness and dismissiveness of more senior lawyers gives this a lot of color for me - makes me a bit unsurprised that no one went to bat for you and also might color the decision to let you go on a screw up

OP - you probably make a fair point. I think it'd also be reasonable that I point out you have no idea what or who I was dealing with, and it's probably also not a stretch to say there are some extraordinarily shitty and incompetent bosses out there who mistreat associates and cycle through them like toilet paper. I hope if/when you end up working for someone like that, people listening don't rush to conclusions either!