My client was a hard-boiled commercial litigator, a junior partner. “When you want a street fight, call me in,” was one of her mottos. She won cases. She made a lot of money. She kicked ass.
She was having issues with a second year associate.
At first, they got along. The associate was bright, and wanted to impress. The problem was deeper. As the partner put it bluntly: “She just isn’t cut out for this place.”
Yeah. That old line. But now I was sitting with the partner who was saying it, nodding my head in agreement.
Here was the situation:
The associate grew up working class – a smart big fish in a small pond. She expected to compete and win, like she always had. Her aim at the firm was to show everyone she was the smartest one there. So she worked endless hours, volunteered advice before she was asked, and chatted about French films at lunch.
The partner hated her. It felt like a competition instead of a working relationship. She complained the associate didn’t “understand her place in the pecking order” and failed to show respect by deferring to the partner’s experience. A street fighter didn’t waste time competing with a kid to write an erudite brief – she could mop the floor with her in a courtroom.
Things came to a head when the partner reviewed a document with obvious typos and sent an email to the associate, saying – hey, did anyone check this thing before it went out?
She got back a half dozen outraged paragraphs: The partner never appreciated the associate’s work or the long hours she was putting in; she was arrogant and inconsiderate; she had no idea how to manage others; she didn’t know as much law as she thought. It concluded with a threat: if the partner didn’t want to work with her, she’d be happy to work with someone else.
The partner wasn’t sure what to do. The email was inappropriate and if anyone else saw it, would go over (as they say in Mississippi) like a fart in church. This wasn’t how things were done. Not at her firm.
The partner asked me what I thought.
The best plan seemed to be a gentle but firm nudge. Remind the associate she’d done good work, and that her abilities and dedication were appreciated, but make it clear the email was inappropriate. We talked over various approaches, and what needed to be said.
The partner kept reminding me it didn’t matter how many hours you worked, if you were sending stuff out to clients with obvious typos. She had a point. The associate needed to understand that wasn’t acceptable. The big message, in her mind, was make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Something else itched at her, too – the associate needed to stop taking this kind of thing personally – to buck up, and get on with the job.
Even as we talked over the partner’s response, I realized there was a bigger problem: these two people don’t like one another, and that associate doesn’t belong at that firm.
I know my client – we’ve worked together for months. I understand her side of things. But I see a lot of myself in the associate, too, and her predicament feels all too familiar.
Sometimes I feel like I’m standing in the middle, seeing both sides.
The partner is a pro. She grew up with a father who was a wealthy Big Law managing partner, and she thrives on the slightly frat boy-ish, hazing aspect of the commercial litigation world. She suffered through being a junior associate herself, but caught another partner’s eye early on, and earned her stripes. In her view, if you don’t like going for the jugular – a good dirty brawl – then you don’t belong there. The firm is a club, and she’s in that club, and she likes it that way.
Is she perfectly happy in her career? No. The grueling hours mean her personal life is, as she puts it, “a work in progress.” That mostly translates into abortive flings with other attorneys (some at her firm) and drunken hook-ups she typically regrets. She isn’t thrilled about being single, has mostly given up on kids and isn’t even sure she wants a family. But she loves her work, and if she has to spend too much time at a job, this is where she wants to do it. She has her Upper West Side two-bedroom, and her cat, and she takes nice vacations – active stuff, like skiing or horseback riding with tour groups of other wealthy, single women. She dotes on her nieces.
I never met the associate, but I could fill in the blanks from what the partner told me. She lives with her unemployed PhD boyfriend in a tiny apartment in Brooklyn, and is carrying both their school loans. He seems resentful that she’s never around, and they hardly ever have sex anymore. She hates the firm, but has no choice since jobs are hard to come by and they both have debt. She tells herself she has to succeed at this job, and she does everything they ask, including putting in brutal hours – but nothing seems to work. She does a lot that’s right, and never hears a kind word – but if she makes a stupid mistake from sheer exhaustion, she never hears the end of it. Lately, after arriving home at 11 pm feeling like a zombie, she wonders if she can force herself to return the next morning for another round of abuse.
She doesn’t like them, and they don’t seem to like her. When she tries to raise the tone once in a while, and talk about film or literature – anything beyond civil procedure and televised sports – it falls flat. The partners are a bunch of frat boys – even the women – caught up in winning pointless commercial litigation cases so they can get drunk on bottle service in TriBeCa and wind up in bed with each other. The cases are all about making money for millionaires, and she isn’t seeing any of it, so why should she care?
One interesting aspect of my job is that I hear both sides of the story.
I have several patients like that partner – and many in the same position as that associate.
There is no right or wrong here – no good guy or bad guy. At the end of the day, the partner belongs in that job, and the associate doesn’t.
When the partner asked a more senior partner at the firm for advice about how to handle the associate, he cut to the chase: “it doesn’t matter what you tell her – she won’t last long anyway.”
That’s probably true – at least the second part. But the partner wanted to do the right thing. One half of her ached to tell this kid to wise up, to snap out of it and “grow a pair.” It was the kind of thing she was used to hearing – all in fun, and the spirit of the firm. But something told her it wouldn’t work. To this associate, it would only sound cruel. She eventually toned it down instead, trying to sound supportive, but even she could hear the impatience in her voice – and see the anger etched on the associate’s face.
They came from different worlds. Maybe it didn’t matter what the partner said to the associate. It wouldn’t make much difference.
She wasn’t going to last long, anyway.
[This piece is part of a series of columns presented by The People’s Therapist in cooperation with AboveTheLaw.com. My thanks to ATL for their help with the creation of this series. If you enjoy these columns, please check out The People’s Therapist’s new book.]
The People's Therapist 
Sounds like your junior partner client/patient needs a course (or two or three) in how to manage people. According to your narrative, she caught another partner’s eye early on and earned her stripes, presumably by learning the ropes from that partner (and perhaps more if the partner was male, but we’ll leave that aside for the moment). She needs to extend the same courtesy to the associate, or at least give the associate the choice – learn how to survive at the firm, or find another job. The firm isn’t going to cater to the associate’s fragile ego.
Likewise, the associate needs to learn not to take things personally. You’re not always going to be praised for your hard work. This may be a Gen Y trend, namely, needing positive reinforcement (everyone gets a prize, etc…) In the real world, people expect you to do your job. Your clients aren’t going to praise you; that’s why they’re paying your high hourly rate. Do consistently good (or great) work and the praise will come in the form of raises, bonuses, more clients and perhaps even partnership some day. It’s not simply about quantity of hours, but quality of work (AND the hours, since we are talking about a billable hour model). Poor work quality means hours get written off, which means the associate is just wasting her time. You have to know your limits. Personally, I found that after a 12 hour day, my work quality dropped dramatically.
I don’t think I agree with you. Positive reinforcement is necessary, and it isn’t a Gen Y thing. My bosses, who worked way fewer hours as young lawyers than I work, have positive things to say about the mentoring they got when they were associates.
The ones that do find time to say a kind word are the ones that manage to let me know when something I did was excellent as opposed to adequate. Or just that they care. And that kind of communication improves my morale and teamwork for the entire team. Of course, I am a professional, and always strive to do the best I can no matter what sort of leader I’m contending with, but some leaders create an environment that makes it easier for me to do that.
I didn’t say that the associate should NEVER receive praise, only that she shouldn’t expect to ALWAYS be praised for her hard work. If you’re getting raises and bonuses, you’re not going to care if the partner(s) for whom you work say “nice job” – they’re already saying it through money.
For the record, I also stated that the junior partner in this scenario needs to learn how to manage associates better, since someone obviously took the time to mentor her.
With what exactly do you disagree?
Jay–I disagree with your comment that bonuses and raises are positive reinforcement enough. They simply are not. You get those whether or not you are doing good work, or whether or not you are partner track, or whether or not you worked on the weekend. Specific, personalized positive feedback is the way to let associates know where their strengths are, and let them know that it is worthwhile to stick around instead of looking for a new job.
It is hypocritical for senior partners to complain about new lawyers wanting positive feedback, because they worked far fewer hours with far more mentoring (which goes beyond positive feedback and actually helps people develop skills) and thus had a greater opportunity to develop their skill sets.
Wait, a second year associate sent a document to a client? Unlikely. And even more unlikely that if this happened the associate didn’t proof read. Far more likely, the partner never told anyone to proof read the document before she sent it out – which she should have. Partner told associate to do x, y and z, the associate did that, partner assumed k = proofread was also done, it was not.
Also why exactly a nice sentence once a week an unreasonable burden on people who are managing other people. It is effective in getting better results so why is it that partners are so resistant to this super easy thing to do?
I think the therapist’s advice/conclusion is wrong, and it is annoying because the therapist does a great job of laying out the background in the confrontation between these two people
Here would be my advice: Why not a little humannity in this situation. Maybe the partner could try and understand where the associate is coming from, and viceversa. A little understanding, even among individuals from different backgrounds, usually breeds respect. Letting the problem sit any further does nothing to help.
These people might actually find that they have more incommon than they think they do.
Let’s act like adults now.
If the associate doesn’t understand the culture of the firm, but is willing to work hard, why can’t the partner help her understand the politics and what is important? The Partner notes that she comes from a family of lawyers and therefore has an implicit understanding of what it means to work in a firm. She then claims that the associate comes from a “working class background,” which she presumes to be the cause of her cluelessness. The article indicates that the associate is smart and works hard. Her errors are related to the social hierarchy of the firm and typos. Am I missing something or shouldn’t the Partner provide her guidance? It’s okay to point out that certain comments and communications are inappropriate/not appreciated. It’s 100% ok to point out that silly mistake cannot be tolerated no matter how hard one works. With so much emphasis on hours, this is something that a junior associate can forget.
If the Partner cannot invoke the humanity to take this path, shouldn’t she do it because the firm has invested time/money in this associate? Also, isn’t it a bit odd that the partner “hates” the associate? It seems to me that if a person is happy with themselves they don’t have the need to “hate” people who are very very junior to them and are of little consequence to their overall happiness. But I’m an associate and a person who tries to treat others equally, kindly, and respectfully, so I suppose I’m biased.
Dismissing the need for positive feedback as a “Gen Y” thing or equating it to the phenomenon of every child getting a trophy, even those in last place, is an oversimplification, I think.
The Baby Boomers-turned-partners did not work anywhere near the hours that Big Law attorneys currently work when they were associates. Before telecommunications sped up exponentially in the 90s, Gen X-ers didn’t work those hours either. “Coming home late” meant 8:30, not 11:30.
I think this is a relevant point because it is one thing to work your heart out from 9-6 and receive no “atta boys” and it is a wholly different thing to come home only to sleep and never know whether what you are doing is well-received or not.
Also a simple, “good job on the memo” or “thanks for your hard work these past few months” is different from being showered with praise.
You are right that being “in” at Big Law is like a fraternity, and the fact that those who are partners now never received positive feedback when they were associates, is something they treat like hazing, meant to be passed down and inflicted on new associates, otherwise how will they earn it?
While not everyone is cut out to stay at a Big Law firm, you might get more productivity out of someone who is at least mildly aware of when they are doing a good job and when they aren’t. With out that guidance, and a modicum of positive reinforcement you’ll get lazier work product from your associates.
What is the point of doing it right when you never know if it is?
(However, yes, of course, you can’t be sending typo-ridden documents to clients. But a little bit of good with the bad goes a long way.)
What I don’t understand about this whole story is why Partner is the one seeking a therapist’s advice on this interaction and not Associate. I feel bad for Associate- she picked the wrong job, she’s stressed out and overwrought, she’s bottling up her anger so much that it comes out at totally inappropriate moments. She’s not long for this world, and on some level she probably even knows it. She definitely needs therapy.
Partner, on the other hand, chose the right job for her personality, has a position of power that can’t easily be taken away, makes plenty of money and goes on $10,000 elephant-viewing safaris. So why is she wasting her time on the therapist’s couch talking about this piss-ant Associate? Do you think a 65 year-old male Partner Emeritus would worry about such a thing? Didn’t think so either.
In my brief but traumatic time at BigLaw I would do absolutely anything to avoid working for any woman above 7th year associate and under the age of 45. I had a terrible rebellious streak, but the only people who ever called me “insubordinate” or said things like “you should never speak that way to a partner!” were women in their 30’s who made partner ….oh, sometime last week.
Unfortunately it seems like when women want to take out their insecurities about their newfound authority, they choose other women as their targets. Maybe growing a pair of testicles wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all…
I love your comment. I had a very stuffy older woman partner tell me once, OUTRAGED, that I should not stand up to a whackjob male income partner because “he is a partner of the firm” (read that phrase in your most uptight voice – “a paaahtner of the fiiiiiim”). To my lasting credit I replied “so what?”
Stand up or be bowled down, kiddies.
I agree with the last South Park-like commenter; Meyerhofer under-analyzed the female-female dynamic. The mature female partner is offended that the young female is giving indications that she wants to maintain her femininity and develop along those lines rather than imitate the partner. Meanwhile the young female is bristling at the dilemma that she is in.
There is an additional problem here – the naivete of the associate. Clearly she is frustrated, but no one, and I mean NO ONE, who wants to avoid career suicide should put anything remotely near what she did in writing to her boss. This was an enormous mistake and is a demonstrable lack of judgment. What is the associate going to do when a client, or worse a judge, gives her a lecture about work quality, professionalism, etc…? Whining about not being appreciated for her hard work will give the client good reason to walk and the judge a reason to sanction or hold her in contempt. If she gets this frustrated about being told – honestly and for good reason – that her work product needs improvement, then she should find another line of work.
Early in my career I used to get annoyed when a judge would rule against me after all of the hard work I had put in on a brief. I used to say “but the law is clear! Did he even read my brief?” My boss at the time, who had been practicing for 15 years or so, pulled me aside and said quite plainly “F*ck the law! The judge did what he wanted to do. Get used to it.” This is why you can’t take cases personally. You’re not the one suing or being sued – your client is – and your client is paying you to provide sound legal advice/representation. You can’t do this if you put your own ego in the mix. When you lose a motion, don’t take it personally unless you screwed up something. If you did, make sure you don’t screw it up again and hope your client doesn’t sue you for malpractice.
Litigation is a hard business. Unfortunately, the vast majority of associates who go into it do so by default. They have no idea what it is like, since they were most likely only exposed to the most intellectual aspects of it by reviewing Supreme Court and appellate decisions. At those “heights,” legal reasoning is the order of the day and the law takes on far more importance than the facts. The trial level is far different. Trial courts want to get cases off their dockets as quickly as possible. Discovery motions are denied all the time and can’t be appealed (“judicial discretion”). Granting summary judgment for a defendant after denying a plaintiff’s discovery motion(s) is a common tactic for clearing a docket.
In sum, as an associate it’s your job to do what the firm wants you to do. If you don’t like how the firm treats you, then leave for another firm or start your own. The firm isn’t going to change itself to suit your fragile ego. There are plenty of associates who will gladly take your place, some of whom might actual thrive.
I’ve been a judicial law clerk, a BigLaw associate, a government lawyer, a BigLaw partner, and a partner in a non-BigLaw firm. Based on those experiences, this is what I think.
Dr. Meyerhofer is exactly right to see both sides of this particular conflict. The associate has legitimate needs that the partner is having trouble seeing because the partner both grew up and learned her profession in different circumstances than the associate did. And the partner has legitimate needs that the associate is having trouble seeing because the associate’s personality causes her to take everything personally and to see every criticism as a threat, never as constructive guidance.
Two things bother me about some of the comments. One is that they often take sides as if one had to render a judgment in favor of the “plaintiff” or the “defendant” here. The other is that some of them speak in broad generalizations, which — in my experience at least — tend to breed anger.
It is certainly true that this situation has a predictable “winner” and a predictable “loser”: the partner has tenure and has allies in the partnership, while the associate has neither. That fact does not make the partner right, only powerful. To the extent there is a question of “right” and “wrong” here, it’s not a question of picking a winner and loser, but a question of good versus bad management, good versus bad performance as an employee, and — on both sides — self-enhancing versus self-defeating behavior. I think reasonable people can differ as to the degree to which the partner is a bad manager, though no one would hold her up as a model manager. And I think reasonable people can differ as to the degree to which the associate is a bad employee, though no one would hold her up as a model employee. The only thing I think almost everyone ought to agree on here is that the partner and the employee are both hurting themselves (as well as each other) by failing to empathize sufficiently with each other — which I think is a different way of phrasing Dr. Meyerhofer’s basic point.
The other thing I think is worth pointing out is that generalizations about “Gen Y” and about “Baby Boomers-turned partners” is not only prone to inaccuracy, but also nearly certain to cause anger. The inaccuracy is simply the inaccuracy inherent in generalizations. I know lots of 50-somethings who worked harder in their 20s, and work harder now, than virtually anyone I know now who was born in the 1980s. And I know lots of people born in the 1980s who work harder than I ever did. There’s just no way to make this kind of generalization without ignoring multitudes of counter-examples.
As for the anger, although making this point requires me myself to result to generalization, I think I can safely say — from experience — that most members of any particular generation believe that an earlier or later generation has or had a much easier time of it and doesn’t understand the challenges one’s own generation faced or faces. Therefore, generalizations about “Gen Y” or “Gen X” or “Baby Boomers” or “Tweeners” or “products of the Depression” — or even about the so-called “Greatest Generation” — have a strong tendency to offend.
Some — I daresay most — people of every generation need positive feedback. The form the needed positive feedback takes varies to some extent across generations, but it varies even more greatly — in my experience, at least — from individual to individual. I have supervised associates who seem to care about nothing but the size of their paychecks, and who will try harder or less hard entirely depending on the perceived financial reward. But I have worked alongside EVEN MORE partners who are money-motivated. I have supervised associates who seem indifferent to the size of their paychecks, EXCEPT to the extent that the size of the paycheck seems to correlate with partnership chances. I have supervised emotionally needy associates who crave praise and don’t care much about the level of pay as long as they get positive verbal feedback — and, perhaps surprisingly, I have worked alongside partners who are essentially the same way.
My advice to anyone who wants to be a good manager is to forget about generalizations and try to learn what motivates each individual. That doesn’t mean that (for example) the associate who is emotionally needy is entitled to praise whether it’s deserved or not. It does mean, however, that praise to that associate when it IS deserved will go a long way toward motivating that associate, with the result that the partner gets better work from that person.
My two cents’ worth, expressed at considerably greater than two cents’ length.
Where’s a “like” button when you need it? Very well said and I completely agree with you. And this coming from a “Millennial” 😉
“The grueling hours mean her personal life is, as she puts it, “a work in progress.” That mostly translates into abortive flings with other attorneys (some at her firm) and drunken hook-ups she typically regrets.”
What a fine F-ing role model. Jesus, people like this make me hate lawyers even more than I already do (and, like that associate, I am one and not with warm fuzzy feelings about the shithead factor, either).
I have been “that associate” before in terms of not fitting in – got along fine, but the chair of the department liked his frat brothers better (and I’m a chick), or only wanted to work with Jewish or Catholic guys from his old private school (and I’m a chick)….never saw many female partners to have experience with them. I think the “fit” situation is generally hopeless. Partners and firms think they are right 100% of the time and have no incentive to change – unless you can reverse your gender/race/religion and make yourself into one of them, you are out of luck. This profession is nuts.
The profession isn’t nuts. It’s no different than any other field. Most people overlook the culture of a place when looking for a job. People who do so shouldn’t blame their workplace for not welcoming them with open arms if they are markedly different than the founders, owners or executives running things. Under such circumstances, people should accept their job for what it is, namely, a job NOT a place to put down roots for more than a few years. Besides, who would want to put in more than a few years in a pressure-cooker situation like BIGLAW? Better to learn what you can, save some money and then go somewhere else where your uniqueness is appreciated (or where there are people more like you).
Bottom line: Expecting people to change to accommodate you or to change their preferences is a losing battle (unless you have a large book of business, then you get to make the rules).
I don’t expect anyone to change for me, but I did expect that the culture of the profession in general would be more, shall we say, professional – and less based on MY TOWERING EGO (as voiced by so many). Geez, with the poor management and incredibly high self regard you see in law firms, you’d think that we actually “did” something – like make things, invent things, create jobs – instead of pushing paper and creating billable controversies…
““The grueling hours mean her personal life is, as she puts it, “a work in progress.” That mostly translates into abortive flings with other attorneys (some at her firm) and drunken hook-ups she typically regrets.”
“What a fine F-ing role model….”
This is a good comment. The attitude of “there is no right or wrong here – no good guy or bad guy,” while possibly useful for temporarily calming a troubled mind and isolating issues, is ultimately bogus.
been there done that’s comment was also excellent, though I think it too ignores the importance of the female element to all this.
Try to imagine the junior partner as male, or the associate as male, or both.
Sorry MJ, that’s not going to happen. You don’t rise to the vaunted heights of any “profession” by relegating your ego to the back of the bus. Your ego is what drives your ambition. You can’t just turn it off.
On the other hand, you may be asking BIGLAW partners to turn down their egos. This is possible, but it depends on one key ingredient – TRUST. First, second and even third year BIGLAW associates must earn the trust of the BIGLAW partners for whom they work in order to be treated like worthy subordinates. This has been the model in our profession for hundreds of years. Put simply, no BIGLAW partner is going to waste time imparting significant legal wisdom without first knowing that s/he can trust you. If you do consistently good work over a period of years, you’ll be trusted more and be groomed for bigger things than document review, legal research and basic motion drafting. However, if you expect trust from the beginning, you’ll find yourself sorely disappointed and disillusioned. In fact, you might perceive such unwillingness to trust you immediately as not liking you (or even hating you). There is a big difference between not trusting you and not liking you.
Think back to your days in elementary school. If your teacher caught you not paying attention, turning in poor work (or not turning it in at all), being disruptive, etc…. you probably told your parents that your teacher didn’t like you (or even hated you) to excuse your poor behavior and spare your own ego. Your parents probably knew that your teacher harbored no such feelings, and that there was a better explanation for the teacher not treating you the way you would like to be treated (i.e., as a star pupil). I’m sure you experienced the same feelings when you arrived at law school and were on the receiving end of the Socratic Method. Ever heard (or used the expression) “Professor So-and-So is a hard ass”? “Hard asses” (both in the form of professors and BIGLAW partners) often make the best teachers. A superior isn’t going to waste his or her time on you (by busting your chops) if s/he didn’t see significant potential; s/he has better things to do.
General advice to every associate reading this reply. Put aside your own ego for a moment and as yourself why your work is being criticized. If the partner for whom you work didn’t care about your work quality, why would s/he waste his or her time correcting it? It takes far more time to show you your mistakes than to correct them outside your presence without feedback. In fact, I’d say that it takes twice as long. Keep your mind open and be a student throughout your career. You’ll learn a heck of a lot more.
Don’t make assumptions – I’m not an associate, and was young long ago.
This is just a job to me, and I’m honest about it – I’ll call an asshole an asshole. Too much ego and self-regard in this profession by people who aren’t actually “doing” anything. DO something with your life and get back to me about ambition and success, folks.
Sorry, but that’s how you came off. Besides, I was writing more for the associates who may be reading this and expecting BIGLAW partners with 20+ years of hard-boiled experience suddenly becoming soft and cuddly when it comes to mentoring. Sometimes the most painful lessons are the ones you remember the best (and from which you learn the most).
The profession IS nuts. This is my second career (what a great idea that was), and I have never, ever, EVER experienced anything near the batsh*t crazy of the people in my office.
Yes, other professions have their nuts. But those are occasional charming eccentrics compared to the multiple entire floors of guaranteed whackjobs in law.