Some big law firms are like the mob. They do ugly things, but prefer to avoid “ugliness.” The partners, like the capos of major crime families, have delicate constitutions.
Ugliness could result from ill-considered communication. For that reason, a capo – or a partner – isn’t going to tell you what he really thinks. That would be indelicate. It could lead to misunderstandings.
You, in turn, shouldn’t tell a partner what you really think. That could lead to sleeping with the fishes.
My client recently received a lesson in partner communication.
The firm was dead slow, and she was dedicating her time to a big pro bono case. An email suddenly arrived announcing a new policy: you now needed special permission to bill over 250 pro bono hours annually. In two months, she’d billed 220, and the case was coming to trial.
She called the pro bono partner.
“You’re close to the limit,” he noted.
Last week, there was no limit, she explained. This is an important case, coming to trial.
“You’ve nearly exceeded the cap on hours,” he helpfully re-noted.
She inhaled deeply, and re-explained the situation.
He ingeniously pointed out that the 250 hours cap was the firm’s new policy…
…at which point she snapped, and did the unthinkable: she said what she really thought.
“I didn’t know there was a new policy. No one communicates at this place. And what is the point of this crap? Look at my hours – it’s not like I have anything else to do!”
There was a lengthy pause.
“I’m sorry to hear that,” said the partner.
He hung up – and she began to harbor second thoughts.
I’m sorry to hear that.
Behold, a singularly dreaded phrase. It is not good news, at a law firm, when you hear “I’m sorry to hear that.”
Generally speaking, when you hear “I’m sorry to hear that,” at a law firm, it means “you will soon be fired.”
There is something worse you could hear – worse than “I’m sorry to hear that.”
There’s “I think we should talk about…”
At a law firm, when you hear “I think we should talk about…” you’ve already been fired.
Partners don’t toss around “I’m sorry to hear that” in casual conversation. It is reserved for serious situations. If a major earthquake strikes, and the floors of the firm pancake, squashing attorneys into paste, it would likely trigger “I’m sorry to hear that…” It could escalate all the way to “I think we should talk about…”
For the most part, “I think we should talk about” is reserved for the single most crucial conversation in the entire law firm conversational repertoire, the ne plus ultra of conversations – to wit: “I think we should talk about your billable hours.”
This exchange, undertaken under secrecy at the highest levels of power, plays out something like this:
“I think we should talk about your billable hours.”
“Well, it has been slow. Work doesn’t seem to be coming in.”
“I’m sorry to hear that.”
This conversation, which fuses the twin forces of “I think we should talk about” and “I’m sorry to hear that” into one redoubtable melange, roughly parallels the situation of being called into Don Corleone’s office – well, let’s say tied up, packed into the truck of a Chrysler, and delivered to his office for a little chat.
The Don gazes at you with tender concern, then shakes his head sadly.
“I think we should talk about the fact that the money from the First National Bank job has been…misplaced.”
“Honestly, Godfather, I have no idea. I promise you – I swear on my mother’s life – I didn’t take the money. I don’t know where it is. I would never steal from the family. I swear to God…”
“I’m sorry to hear that.”
At this point in time, it’s fair to say, your days are numbered.
Same thing at a law firm. On one single occasion during my entire tenure at Sullivan & Cromwell, I encountered “I think we should talk about…” That’s all it took.
It was delivered to me by the partner in charge of associates. He’d already fired me, gently – or, at least, I think that’s what he did. At my review, there was mention of some ugliness with an of-counsel who questioned my commitment to our work together. The partner was sorry to hear that. It was suggested I might find myself somewhere else within, say, six months.
Six months later, to the day, I received a call from that same partner.
“I think we should talk about…”
Twelve years have passed since that call. I remain profoundly grateful for a job offer I received – in a non-legal position – the day before.
I didn’t need to wake up next to a horse’s head.
He’d made himself understood.
========
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, Way Worse Than Being A Dentist: The Lawyer’s Quest for Meaning
I also heartily recommend my first book, an introduction to the concepts behind psychotherapy, Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy
(Both books are also available on bn.com and the Apple iBookstore.)
The People's Therapist 
Truth to power. This is how it is.
Incidentally, I know a “godfather” like this in the nonprofit sector. He basically does nothing substantive all day (while collecting a big salary), but has perfected the art of organizational politics. When employees cross him, sometimes by being a bit too honest or incisive, or when the budget needs to be reduced (all the while keeping the godfather’s outsized salary on the books), they “disappear”…
While normally I like your postings on ATL, one can speak truth to power SMARTLY – unlike this example. And I think losing her temper was a problem. If I were the partner, even if I agreed the lawyer was correct, I’d be worried that if she lost her temper with me she would have problems dealing with difficult clients.
Just off the top of my head (unconsidered, unedited, do not rely on this it’s not legal advice anyway but interpersonal skills), I might have sent a brief e-mail rather than called:
“Pro bono – special permission required – upcoming trial
Hello Partner,
Under the new policy, I need permission to continue to prepare for and appear at the upcoming trial on [DATE] in pro bono matter [WHATEVER].
If this presents a problem, or you would like to discuss the details, please let me know.”
I mean there could be other issues like the court might refuse to allow withdrawal at a late date anyway, assert that one had made a commitment to the pro bono client and felt obliged, whatever, but no point going into that unless necessary. Make it simple for the partner.
agreed. Also, make it a question/request for permission. Like: “this is what is happening. I believe I have the time to deal with it, but in light of the new policy, would you like me to get court permission to hand it off to another associate?”
I would have told the partner, “Okaaaay. But I’ll have to submit a motion to the judge explaining exactly why I’m going to have to suddenly terminate my representation of X.”
I’ll just bet the partnership would have worked something out, rather than have something like that get out.
[…] People’s Therapist – a corporate lawyer turned psychotherapist – who analogized mafia norms of communication to “concerns” over billable hours in Biglaw. That is, in large corporate law firms, associates’ fates are often determined by how many […]
This post cracked me up. People in power say they pay you to think, that they want your opinion on things. They do not. They want to be told how great they are, how grateful you are for the work, how much you are learning from the particularly artful way they practice law. As long as you agree with them, you might be ok. If you don’t, or if they figure out you don’t think they’ll all that, you’re done.
One can’t speak truth to power if power isn’t going to listen, and three repetitions of, “This is the new policy,” is a pretty strong message. The friend’s days were numbered before she ever picked up the phone.
The firm is forcing the lawyer into an ethical violation and thereby committing one itself.
It’s not enough for a mindless bureaucrat say “this is the new policy” if the “policy” runs up against the ethical rule.
No litigator with any integrity would effectively discontinue representing a client on the eve of trial.
It’s a gross violation of the rules of competence and care. It has real consequences for the client. It’s also just scummy.
I’m sure the firm didn’t care – pro bono looks good on paper but management doesn’t really want to be bothered with it unless it leads to a nice paying project. If they could have left the PB client in the lurch and not be grieved/sued they would have done it.
Now your tirade against Biglaw makes sense. I normally look to this column to be a selection from the same group of rehashed themes: Biglaw is a rat race for the soulless, no time is too early to quit if you’re doing Biglaw, the golden handcuffs of Biglaw are worse than the hangman’s noose, etc. All this from someone who, like a peacock, proudly strings together his degrees from “Harvard, NYU Law, and Hunter College” and as a “former associate of SullCrom” in every post for the world to see. I mean what could possess someone who left the profession of law twelve years ago to continue having such bitter animosity towards it yet still be drawn so inextricably to it?
Today though, I’ve read what I felt was the first honest post in the last series of seven or eight that I’ve followed. You didn’t leave Biglaw because you rose above it, you left because it dumped you.
Brilliant. Could not agree more.
Okay, I’ll try to reply to this as best I can.
I list my education, and where I worked because that’s my education, and that’s where I worked. I’m not sure how I could avoid doing that. Sorry if it comes off as peacock-ish, but those are simply the facts.
Yes, Biglaw dumped me, and yes I have bitter animosity towards it – that’s all public knowledge. But there’s a little bit more to it than simply anger that they didn’t celebrate me and make me partner.
S&C was right to get rid of me – I didn’t belong there – I sucked at law (I was only good at law school.) I’ve never held it against them, and they were gentlemen to give me 6 months to find another job.
What leaves me angry and bitter is the fact that the culture of S&C caused me enormous emotional harm while I was there. It was only years later that I started to open up and come out of the closet about how painful that experience was – not their rejection, but the actual life at the firm before I ever got pushed out.
And there’s more than that – now that I’m a therapist, and work with hundreds of lawyers, I see that what I went through is in fact commonplace, and that things are, if anything, far worse now than they were then. It sickens me that the law schools are charging outrageous tuitions, then funneling naive kids into hellish firms where they are literally being traumatized as well as exploited. That makes me very anger, and very bitter.
I don’t hold it against S&C that they figured out I didn’t belong there. I hold it against them – and the entire big law machine – that they brutalize innocent people unnecessarily via a toxic culture of abuse. That might sound over-dramatic, but it’s what I saw – and what I continue to see. And I work with a great many lawyers from all over the country and the world, from partners down to law students, at all sorts of firms.
I know – you want this to be simple: Meyerhofer is a whiner who failed at biglaw and now he’s bitter and angry. But I’m sorry – you’re only partly right. I’m a whiner who failed at biglaw – true. And I’m bitter and angry – true. But not about failing – that was a blessing. I’m glad I got out. I’m bitter and angry because what I saw makes me sick – and it’s only gotten worse, and continues to ruin lives. I write what I saw – and what I continue to see. I do my very best to communicate the truth that I witness and have witnessed. That’s the best I can do.
Couldn’t agree more Will – a “toxic culture” that “brutalizes” sums it up well. Screaming, disrespectful partners, backstabbing, falsified reviews, misrepresentations in communications with associates, unethical behavior, an utter lack of basic human decency, these are everyday things at the two v20 firms I worked at.
And the law schools that help to hide this while routing many of our nation’s best and brightest into these abattoirs are doing their students a grave, grave disservice.
I’m ex-S&C too. I worked at S&C, then at a more-liberal V25 firm, before tiring of Biglaw and leaving. I took the the concept of “pro bono = billable” to an extreme extent even by my second firm’s liberal standards. In leaving, my objection was clearcut: I wanted to focus on social justice, I wanted to do 100% “pro bono”-style work, and I didn’t want to care about the profit-driven concerns of corporations. I encountered the rest of it – the aggressive (“abusive”) partners who “mistreated” their associates; the loss of free time/handcuffing to Blackberries; the lack of (positive) feedback/encouragement on many case teams; etc. To be blunt: I didn’t think those things were a very big deal. You’re paid a lot of money, and you’re expected to toughen up, work independently, deal with criticism, prioritize corporations’ interests, give large chunks of your life to the firm, and quite honestly, have a good attitude about it or leave. I chose the latter, and I’ve not remotely regretted that choice.
The one thing I find far more alienating than Biglaw culture, though, is when ex-Biglaw associates talk about their experience using vocabulary that strikes me as over-the-top hyperbole. My post-Biglaw work has addressed refugees’ rights, domestic violence, and human rights advocacy. It deals with socioeconomically underprivileged people who have had to contend with a good deal of abuse and misery. So, through that lens, when I see someone describe white-shoe, white-collar, six-figure-income work (which featured, at worst, screamer partners, onerous hours, and verbal insults) as “hellish,” exploitative, traumatic, life-ruining, brutalizing, toxic, and abusive, it’s quite alienating. I look at those adjectives and I think of my clients. You, in contrast, come off as overprivileged and prone to abusing adjectives that you don’t know anything about (or, if you do, it’s based on other life experiences than biglaw). Either that, or the NYC office of S&C (which is not the office I was at) must truly be operating like a sub-Saharan refugee camp. I know which possibility I’d bet on.
Yeah, I suppose working at S&C New York wasn’t as bad as starving to death in famine and war-ridden Sudan…so that must mean it’s a terrific place to work! I admire your logic.
No, Will, the problem is your lack of logic. I certainly didn’t say that if S&C is better than war-torn Sudan, it’s a terrific place to work. I said that the following adjectives (each of which you used in various forms in your long comment in this thread):
“hellish,” exploitative, traumatic, life-ruining, brutalizing, toxic, and abusive
… are absolute hyperbole when applied to Biglaw, and are both evidence of an excess of privilege and a lack of perspective.
But, my dear Anon…life at these firms IS “hellish,” exploitative, traumatic, life-ruining, brutalizing, toxic, and abusive.
I haven’t experienced starving in a war-torn land of famine…perhaps you have other words to describe that experience? Or are these words solely reserved for that particular experience?
For months, I went home from a big law firm every day and wept. I couldn’t sleep, and when I did, I had nightmares. I felt abused, and the atmosphere there was toxic to my mental health. I’m sorry, I wasn’t starving or raped or shot at. But what, exactly, is your point? Is it dichotomous – utterly beyond description horrible or quit complaining? Really?
I am with Will on this one. I have seen biglaw exacerbate PTSD. I do not doubt that it can cause it. I have seen people develop all kinds of medical issues that are atypical for people of their age and health. I have actually been one of those people, developing chest pains, sudden unexplained allergic reactions, and another medical issue usually found in men approximately twice my age, which I most likely developed because I was pressured back to work too soon post-surgery.
And before you call me some kind of wimp, I am ex-military as well. Although I didn’t find being at a military school all that pleasant, aside from the sexual harassment, it was way less stressful than biglaw. And I didn’t develop any odd physical symptoms, just lots of sinus infections and being in a persistent shitty mood. And it is odd that it affected me so much less than biglaw, because people did occasionally die in our training exercises. Not all the time, but a squadron mate’s girlfriend did, at the age of 19-20. I had to get a colleague treatment once when he began developing the symptoms of hypothermia, and another treatment when he started uncontrollably vomiting in the middle of the woods. Plus we got told we were worthless all the time, but still. Not as bad as biglaw. Because it was a game that had clear rules, and if we followed our training, no one expected much cognition out of us. Being treated badly and sleep deprived isn’t so bad if they don’t require you to think, trust me.
My colleagues are pretty amazing, and still, the demands of biglaw can be really awful. I can’t even imagine how much worse it would be if I had to deal with more of the assholes.
Exbiglaw,
I think you are underestimating the importance of the subjective nature of how people experience these things. Well before biglaw showed me the door back in 2008, I was, quite literally, suicidal based solely on my experience at my v10 firm. As Will says, terms like “hellish, exploitative, traumatic, life-ruining, brutalizing, toxic, and abusive” were, to me, apt descriptions of what I was going through.
You and others are well within your rights to think me weak or suffering from a lack of perspective, but I’d also be well within my rights for labeling you (and others) douches for judging me and attempting to minimize what I was going through solely based on your subjective evaluation of what it must of been like in comparison to something else.
“Douches” would seem apt.
Let’s just all agree that there are circles of hell.
And that generally, when you actually encounter war torn areas, it’s a lower circle of hell.
That doesn’t mean that some of these law firms aren’t in a circle of hell, just that war torn areas are more hellish than the law firms.
If you have to go into BigLaw, often the best approach is to determine to do it for 2-3 years max, then move on to some other, saner, type of job. This could be in-house counsel (the conventional move), but also any number of things – small/medium-firm, government or public interest lawyer, public or private sector management, NGO staffer, international development/diplomacy, teacher/professor, writer, etc. There are a lot of possibilities. Of course, the challenge is to find the time and energy to pursue them.
I feel for any associate who gets suckered into a big pro bono case, believing that the law firm supports her effort. It would be terribly unusual, in my experience, if that were the case. The rock-bottom minimum procedure for an associate who takes on a pro bono case of any size would be constant contact with a trusted mentor who could give early warnings. If a powerful partner is not personally interested in the case, look out.
If there’s not enough billable work in the firm to keep you busy without pro bono hours, you should be hearing a constant, loud, clanging alarm. Either the firm is slack and will have to lay off associates (and partners), or people are sending their work to someone other than you. Time to make a change before they force you to do it.
Hi Will, thanks for your insightful posts, I almost always find them interesting and don’t understand people flaming them. Unlike you, I had a pretty good experience in biglaw, particularly at Cahill which is known for being a tough place and it is but the level of legal practice is very high and I basically learned how to practice law there, something law schools are very negligent in not even TRYING to teach. So, biglaw was a useful experience for me even though I was not really cut out for it and didn’t particularly see myself there.
Actually, my experience in a small firm in the suburbs was pretty traumatic and the partners there were psychos who couldn’t make it in biglaw and then engaged in weird hazing and abuse. Far worse than anything I saw at Cahill Gordon!! So I too am always amused when I hear people criticize biglaw with over the top language–for me it was a fair deal–high pay, intense work and great experience but ultimately a brutal environment in terms of hours and personalities the further along you went.
Well, like you though I was ultimately pushed out and landed in a much better place–am now teaching law in a business school which is a really fascinating job and the kind of thing I hoped to do all along with the law degree and Wall St experience. The road from there to here however was traumatic at times.
Thanks for the posts and applying some real psychological insight to the social world of the law firms.
Thank you, Exbiglaw, for putting it all in perspective. Will – you were miserable in biglaw because you are a navel-gazing whiner who has an over-inflated vision of the “terrible problems” you face, when in reality your life is not and has not really been that bad. I would fire you with pleasure. As it is, I’ve finally learned that when I follow a link and it ends up with your name on it, it’s best just to click it down. My life in biglaw leaves me time to explore interests . . . but I’m not that interested in you.
Well, thanks for reading my column and writing in to let me know. I appreciate your disinterest and hope you’ll keep reading.
While I’m at it, I appreciate each of the half million disinterested reads I’ve received during the past year. Your disinterest – perhaps it rises to the level of un-interest – keeps me going. My hearty, interested thanks to you all. If you are sufficiently dis- or un-interested, I hope you’ll give my book a try: http://aquietroom.com/book.html
I love these angry anonymous posters who attack Will for saying large law firms are “hellish” and “abusive” to many lawyers.
They remind me of the insecure assholes that I deal with everyday in biglaw. The clownish, macho litigators whose testosterone drips onto every page of their silly briefs.
I beat them often than not with a well-reasoned, well-cited brief. Here’s some statistics:
Depression: Surveys consistently show that lawyers generally rank near the top for incidences of depression. For example, a study from Johns Hopkins University found that of 104 occupations studied, lawyers ranked #1 in prevalence of depression– 3.6 times higher than average. See W.W. Eaton, Occupations and the Prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder, 32 J. Occupational Med. 1079 (1990).
Alcoholism: A Washington State estimated that 18% were “problem drinkers”– aomost twice the rate of the general adult population. See G. Andrew Benjamin, The Prevalence of Depression, Alcohol Abuse and Cocaine Abuse Among United States Lawyers, 13 Int’l J.L. Psychiatry 233, 240 (1990).
Suicide: Perhaps most sadly, lawyers contemplated suicide (ideation) at rates far higher than average, and commit suicide at rates twice the national average. See Deborah K. Holmes, Learning from Corporate America: Addressing Dysfunction in the Large Law Firm, 31 Gonz. L. Rev. 373, 377 (1995-96).
Finally, the proof is in the pudding. Why do so many associates drop like flies within 2-5 years after starting at a large law firm? Why do less than 1 in 20 now make it to partner?
ExBigLaw:
Yes, we get it…. You could hack it in big law and chose to leave to serve a higher purpose. You are better than us because you have devoted yourself to “social justice” and because you “could have stayed if you wanted to.” You must have larger gonads than the rest of us. Sounds like you would have made a perfect BigLawPartner.
….
While some of these articles can be repetitive, many here appreicate them and agree with the language used because it accurately articulates the way we feel. I too have experienced the adverse mental and physical health effects of prolonged work in BigLaw. Anxiety disorder, chest pains, depression, etc..
The truth is, there are scores of attorneys who were brainwashed as students into believing that their intellect, attention to detail, persisitence, research skills, love of writing, and perfectionism would make them great attorneys. We sacrificed 3 years of our life and graduated feeling confident that since we ace’d law school, we’d have a better than decent chance at being successful professionals. We quickly found out that it takes a particular personality to suceed in this business…..namely, being a selfish type-A a$$hole and that you can only succeed at someone else’s expense. We can all handle managing lots of work, tight deadlines, and working under stress. What we can’t handle is the toxic environment, constant belittling and criticism, lying, irrational demands, backstabbing, and utter hopelessness of any escape.
We are faced with the choice of staying and hoping we can last long enough to pay off our loans before we crack or are fired, or leaving and finding ouselves without any marketable skills or means to support our family.
At least we can find some comfort in the fact in knowing that we are not alone, that there is not something “wrong” with us because we cannot succeed in big law, and that there is life outside of law.
Disgruntled Senior Associate says:
“The truth is, there are scores of attorneys who were brainwashed as students into believing that their intellect, attention to detail, persisitence, research skills, love of writing, and perfectionism would make them great attorneys.”
I don’t have the attention to detail and love of writing thingies.
I had to do *something*. And law school was just sitting there…
And I’ve learned that trying to manage managing lots of work, tight deadlines, and working under stress is what causes me to have panic attacks.
I didn’t really find that the problems were the toxic environment, constant belittling and criticism, lying, irrational demands, backstabbing. I didn’t see much of that when I was practicing. I would probably have been fine if I stayed where I was.
I was just never going to be able to market properly or bring in business because I didn’t actually have any interest in law. It’s hard to sell something in which you have no interest whatsoever.
And I’ve found that the utter hopelessness of any escape applies more to life in general than legal work in particular. I felt much more hopeless when I was in college (really bad) and law school than I do practicing law.
Well said.
Every single thing about Will Meyerhofer’s blog has already been said:
“Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m awfully glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I’m so glad I’m a Beta.”
– Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 2
If you are clever enough to understand this: please see through Will.
By all means, see through me. Does anyone have a clue what this guy’s getting at with the Huxley quote? Is it simply that lawyers are competitive and the biglaw world is rigidly hierarchical, based on the sorting process of exams and school and firm prestige? I thought it was clear from my posts: I’ve absorbed that information. And I wasn’t Alpha – I was only Beta. I went to NYU and S&C, not Yale and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Rather than thinking in Huxley-an terms of rigid rankings of ability, how about my broader message: find the job that suits who you are in a greater sense: what you love, what speaks to your soul, what lets you communicate to yourself and others the person you truly are, not simply as a competitor against the crowd, but as a nurturer of your own spirit.
I guess, when push comes to shove, I lean more to Emerson than Huxley.
I thought his point was that you tried to be Alpha (BigLaw), but failed, and you are trying to justify your failure by talking about how wonderful it is to not be in BigLaw anymore.
Therefore, you are taking the position that it’s good to be Beta (something lower than BigLaw) because Alpha (BigLaw) people work harder and are different than Betas (therapists).
That’s my guess.
Why would I have to “justify” my “failure”? That’s sooooo lawyer-y. The way I see it, I wasn’t one of those people, so I figured out who I am and now I’m a lot happier and doing something equally – or more – worthwhile.
Being a partner at a big law firm isn’t ascending to heaven – ask some of the partners I see as clients.
And by that thinking, the law partners are all Gammas and Deltas anyway, because the bankers – who earn 10x their salary and have more fun – would be the Alphas, right? It never stops.
How do you get a pleaser to stop competing? There must be a circuit in there someplace that you can cut off so they wake up, dazed and blinking – and realize they can lead their own life, not someone else’s.
We get it, Will. You’re glad you’re a beta. Loudly.
And you, honest to god, have drunk the Kool-Ade to the point where you sort human beings into Alphas and Betas? Isn’t there a more profound message in Huxley’s vision of a dystopian future? Like, maybe…people shouldn’t sort one another – or themselves – into arbitrary categories based on their perceived social utility?
Will, I see I need to remind you of lesson #1 for internet forums and blogs – DON’T FEED THE TROLLS. 😉
OMG this is so hysterical! The blog made me laugh out loud. Truly. Laugh.
Then the comments… oh the comments….. Was it planned? Was it planted? Nothing could have affirmed the original blog’s perspective than the cock walk of some of the commentary. Good job!
The best part of this stream of commentary is this… all of you who are telling the author to stop whining are just proving his point. Express a feeling contrary to your own, and ATTACK!
Big law, little law, whatevs…. most law practice outside of the public interest practice is a money sham. A pyramid scheme where you all fight to get to the top of the pyramid and the riches therein. It is mafia, and “I am sorry to hear that” is the associates death knell!
Yeah that young woman lost it inappropriately. Is it worth being fired over… naw. But b/c it is so, so, so typical… They hire you and then look for any reason to fire you. You only survive if they strip your soul! You sell your soul in exchange for the top of the pyramid! While you suck their dicks, they suck your souls.
Profit margins rise when you don’t have associate churn. An investment and big picture partner would have handled that differently (unless there were other problems).
IMHO, FWIW,
*MOST* lawyers are judgmental assholes, who think it is ok to disrespect and abuse other people’s perspectives.
*MOST* lawyers live in fear that someone will discover that they are human. (After all, isn’t torts just punishing someone for being human and making a mistake??)
*MOST* lawyers are really insecure, especially when they run across that occasionally truly brilliant associate who threatens the self defined intellectual level.
*MOST* lawyers hate that other people think they are the smartest person in the room, and don’t understand why those people don’t recognize that lawyer’s superior brilliance. (Even in a room full of lawyers that are thinking the exact same thing.)
And before you all attack me like you are partners in big law… remember…. I said IMHO, FWIW (which admittedly isn’t much as it is only one person’s opinion.)
I hear you and all of this, but doesn’t make sense to try to analyze the systemic pressures that form an individual like the kind you’re describing? I know everyone’s different and every person has the potential to transcend the limitations of their surroundings, etc . . . but, with lawyers (as with most people), unless you’re particularly introspective/self-aware/committed to critical thinking, it’s all too easy to adopt these damaging postures and sensibilities. So, what is it about law school and law firms that, as institutions, breed all of these nasty qualities? I happen to think that it’s the pressure of having to “know it all” that can make one into an insufferable know-it-all. Especially in the age where economic drivers are cramming everyone into these tiny specialty areas, and you get a whole lot of folks who know a lot about very little and will defend their little niche kingdoms to the pain.
I happen to think that it’s the pressure of having to “know it all” that can make one into an insufferable know-it-all. Especially in the age where economic drivers are cramming everyone into these tiny specialty areas, and you get a whole lot of folks who know a lot about very little and will defend their little niche kingdoms to the pain.
TOTALLY AGREE! 🙂
Specilization is for insects, not people.
TPT says:
“And by that thinking, the law partners are all Gammas and Deltas anyway, because the bankers – who earn 10x their salary and have more fun – would be the Alphas, right? It never stops.
How do you get a pleaser to stop competing? There must be a circuit in there someplace that you can cut off so they wake up, dazed and blinking – and realize they can lead their own life, not someone else’s.”
The competitng thing comes early in life, when people are comparing GPAs, IQs, etc. That was pretty much my life from middle school to high school. Who is inherently worth more because of inherent superiority (i.e. more intelligent, better grades, etc.)? How do you raise your class rank from 2 to 1 to win the game?
I would enjoy banking much more than law. Plus, it involves complex math and derivatives, which is much easier than legal writing and analysis. Of course, it also involves fraud these days.
The problem is that by the time you figure out how life works, the career tracks to the upper levels of success are closed, so you’re pretty much stuck in the mud until you age out of life and die.
JP, on one level this is true, but there are a lot of people who successfully change careers in their 40s or even 50s. It’s trite to say that it’s all about attitude, but if you have your health, are in reasonable financial shape, have loved ones, and intellect and imagination…well, there is a lot you can still do. Even if you don’t change careers altogether, but find other ways to contribute, to love life, to live a good life.
A family member died from ALS in her 50s. There are things she wished she had had a chance to do – she was still dreaming of big things. She knew how precious life is, even in middle age and old age.
I don’t really have anything I want to do with myself.
Life was pretty easy growing up, since all I had to do was be significantly more intelligent than everyone who surrounded me (including my own family) and it was pretty easy to win everything and succeed.
These days, I suffer from pretty much a complete lack of purpose, which is how I ended up in law billing hours in the first place.
Fortunately, I’m avoid billing hours.
I got the general gist of life down, make sure that you increase your family’s social class (as close to the top of the upper class as possible) and overall wealth through stragety, expand your political base, positioning your children for future economic and geopolitical success, breed for intelligence, etc.
Pretty much the Joe Kennedy or Cosimo de’ Medeci approach to strategic family goals.
I don’t have any personal goals. Except for suffering as little as possible before dying. I want to limit my eventual decay before death to six months, if possible.
@Aldous Huxley. I do see what you are getting at, and I think it relates to Disgruntled Senior Associate said. I think a lot of us were told as kid/kidults that since we were so clever and accomplished (Alphas) we should go into law because it’s a profession for smart people. But law is a Beta world- it’s for people who are smarter than average and are very pleased with themselves for it. Alphas may go into law, but they are the ones who end up miserable and sleeping with the fishes, or just whining on blogs, as the case may be.
The people who need to understand my post will understand it. You . . . do not.
Aren’t you frightfully clever? I actually don’t think what you said is a reason to “see through” anything Will says. If your quote was meant to say that you can make people who are actually a notch down from the top of the hierarchy feel really good about themselves if you give them enough shiny things and affirmation, then you might have something. Otherwise you may just be a pretentious a@@.
Law is a Beta profession – 1) so true and 2) exactly what your working class family can’t believe (to someone who was the first generation to go to college and got Cs, or hasn’t gone at all, Law = Million Dollar Salary and Glory and Medicine = Two Million Dollar Salary and Greater Glory).
Parents need to get smarter and, you know, understand something about the world before they start telling children what to do. Teachers too – too many teachers have been isolated from the business world, and probably also still hold onto the focus on MD and JD when the real wealth and excitement is in science, math, innovation, dropping out and founding Microsoft, etc.
Too much goodness and pleasing makes us all suckas.
My father was actually opposed to me going to law school, basically because he saw it as a way for me to avoid the working world.
Which was true at the time.
I was terrified about the prospect of having to get a real job, being that the only thing I understood in life was how to get good grades. And that was by relying on my intelligence, rather than any actual application of skills or hard work.
My method of success? Take the standardized test, score really well, and the academic institutions just throw money at you.
The most painful thing about law, to me, at least in the world of billing hours was that I had to be *productive* and engage in *time management*, two things that I had never, ever had to do before in my entire life, which, to that point, consisted of a whole lot of computer games, TV, pizza, and sleeping.
I think a lot of the problems some people have with law practice is that it’s the first time in their lives they had to *do* anything.
Thank you for getting what I was trying to say! I think the problem with law and especially the whole law school scam is that a lot of very bright people are misdirected into the law for the JD degree and the ‘prestige.’ But people who are smart and ambitious enough to go to graduate school for three years are exactly the type of people who are going to be bored with the repetitive tasks and paperwork involved in legal work. I really think that JD programs should just be flat out abolished and if people want to be lawyers they can work as apprentice scriveners for a few years, like in the old days. Then maybe people who are more tempermentally suited to law could self-select into the profession. That should happen real soon, right?
Well said, once again! I can totally relate to this. One of the worst aspects of working at a law firm is that no one is free to speak their mind. It’s all self-congratulatory ego-stroking by outward appearances, masking the true misery of everyday reality. Oppression. I love the Godfather analogy. You inspired me to write a piece on my experience: http://careared.com/linked/law-firm-code-speak.
The phrase I always heard was “It is what it is.” I still cringe when I hear that phrase.
JP’s posts made me think a lot.
Back in my own country, everything is about competition, and about grades. I think one of the best things of living in US is that you can do what you are really passionate about. American kids have the luxury to choose, and find real meaning in their life.
After reading these posts, it leads me to feel that competition and excellent grades and so call “intelligence” can only lead one to an unsatisfied life–or at least unsatisfied in the core level. It seems all the competition and grades and superiority sense only distract people from finding the real self. And in the end all they can be satisfied and be peaceful with is that “they are better, in intelligence and life style.”
How does this happen? Why, in the whole word, the only thing that fulfills us is that ” I am better than you”. That is kind of scary. Maybe this is where all that lies, backstabbing and oppression stem from. Because people are not trying to make things better, but instead do everything in their power to keep everyone else behind.
I don’t know if that’s where all the “lies, backstabbing, and opression stem from.”
Because the “I am better than you” also occurs and can coexist within the moral sphere as well as the intellectual sphere.
So, if you have someone who is dedicated to not lying, not cheating, not backstabbing, etc. to be better (meaning morally superior) than everyone else as well as trying to prove that they are more intelligent (meaning intellectually superior), then you don’t get the result that you are keeping everone else behind because that would work against the moral superioirty aspect.