Spectating upon the atom bomb ignition at the Trinity test site in New Mexico, Robert Oppenheimer was reminded of a scene from the Bhagavad-Gita – an encounter between the prince and Vishnu, the latter apparently in a cranky frame of mind. The scene culminates in Vishnu, who is attempting to persuade the prince to do his duty, assuming a multi-armed form and intoning:
I have become death, destroyer of worlds.
There are lawyers out there who remind me of Vishnu in his multi-armed form. No, they don’t sprout extra limbs, or destroy entire worlds. These Biglaw-inspired incarnations of Vishnu merely assume the form of senior female attorneys to become career-death, destroyer of junior associates.
Behold the Biglaw Vishnus! (And trust me, within their personal sphere of destruction they give the real thing a run for his money.)
One of my clients fell victim to a Biglaw Vishnu – and his story is, as they say, far from atypical and so merits recounting.
He went, if not to a first-tier school, then to a first-and-a-half tier school, and by some rare stroke of fortune managed to locate a job, (if not at a first-tier firm, then at a first-and-a-half tier firm.)
It’s fair to say this guy was riding high – and gloating appropriately – when he happened to notice a problem: The firm had no work. His response was the same as everyone else’s around him – he twiddled his thumbs, wondering if he somehow smelled funny, or if, in fact (as it appeared) everyone else was twiddling their thumbs too (all while studiously pretending to be busy busy busy.) That situation endured for a year and a half, until my client was rudely stirred from this idyll by a partner, who delivered to him an awful review of the obviously-staged variety. (My client can’t remember if the problem they identified was that he asked for help too often instead of showing initiative or asked for help too rarely and wasted time by being too independent. He hadn’t billed an hour for months so he could hardly blame them for making something up.) As they say in California, “whatevers.” There was, however, a modicum of “fall-out.” Icarus-like, my client found himself plummeting in the unmistakable direction of every lawyer’s ultimate nightmare (at least officially): Unemployment. We all know the rules of this profession – five minutes of unaccounted-for time on your resume and it’s game over; you’ll never work as a lawyer again (well, maybe a staff attorney or doc reviewer but that hardly counts, does it?)
My client had three months to drum up a miracle. Following the world’s most intense job hunt, something came through at the eleventh hour. But there was a catch: He had to work for Vishnu.
In fairness, the job itself was a nightmare – one of those high-volume, low-pay law gigs along the lines of insurance defense, the kind you take purely because, first, you’re desperate, and second, it (at least on paper) appears to be a “real job” instead of hourly temp work, like staff attorney drudgery or doc review.
My client signed on the dotted line and was at once assigned to foreclosing on the homes of those recalcitrant little people – typically defending themselves pro se – who flail like half-crushed bugs beneath the heels of faceless mega-banks (his clients.) The goal was to kick the hoi polloi out of their homes and into the street. It did not warm his cockles, but my client had loans and so, “thinking like a lawyer,” he set his nose to the grindstone.
The twist – the reason this job super-duper sucked, instead of merely sucking – and the reason he lasted a couple months at it instead a year or two – was Madame Vishnu. He knew right away he was doomed – because she told him so.
“I should warn you,” she intoned, “I go through a lot of associates.” This was during his interview, no less. Then she added: “You’re number seven.”
I have become death, destroyer of worlds.
Just like Vishnu, this chick sounded like she was bragging. And – as I’m forever reminding people when I write about Biglaw…I’m not making this up. I would be embellishing if I were to add that she keeps her victims’ shrunken heads on a shelf in her office, but then, who knows, perhaps she does…
The real point here is that Vishnus – like her – who brag about “going through a lot of associates” aren’t unusual in Biglaw. Junior associate kill-trophies might follow as a logical next step.
Even without grisly embellishments mounted on a credenza, this not-atypical anecdote demands attention. Why? Because in other fields they talk about “management training” and “human capital” and “creating success.” In Biglaw, they brag about derailing careers and firing people – as in, brag to the victims themselves about derailing their careers and firing them. That’s…uh…gumption for you.
At this point you might be attempting to imagine what it’s like to work for a Vishnu. For starters, there is no pleasing her. If you do your best, she will feel threatened and tear you down. If you mentally check out and turn in the bare minimum, she will excoriate you, obliterating not merely your confidence in your abilities as a lawyer – oh, little grasshopper, you knew enough to kiss that goodbye as you passed through the gate, didn’t you? – but your confidence in your own good faith as well. Vishnu will inform you your work is sub-par and disappointing – then she’ll confidently assert that you don’t care, aren’t putting in an effort, and hence rightly merit dire moral obloquy. At which point, choking down your indignation, you’ll realize she’s correct, at least with regard to the “no longer giving a shit” part. How’s that for “creating success?”
Go ahead and try all the familiar tricks. Ask around, scramble to find work with someone else – anyone else – any other department, any other partner, any other lawyer, anything. It won’t work. All roads lead back to Vishnu. That other partner who mumbles sympathetically about “speaking to her on your behalf” might detest Vishnu just as much as you do, but that doesn’t matter. Money does. Every law student wants to be an international human rights attorney, and every actual lawyer in the real world wants to make money. These are eternal immutable truths. And Vishnu makes money (that’s why she’s senior) – so she stays, and you go.
Why do you think you got that job in less than three months when every lawyer on the face of the Earth is looking for work? Not just because the work sucks and it’s evil and the hours are hideous. Vishnu’s also a factor. She “goes through a lot of associates.” That’s why she’s always hiring. That’s why you got this job – and why you won’t last long at it. You’re not supposed to last long at it.
You’re probably noticing my repeated use of the female pronoun in reference to Biglaw Vishnus. Why am I implying that these fearsome lawyer destroyers are all women?
Because it rather seems like they all are. Or at least a hell of a lot of them.
Why should that be?
Short answer: I don’t know, and I’m not sure it matters.
They don’t look like stereotypes – haggard crones, or harridans or termagants or viragos or whatever. And no, I’m not a runaway misogynist. I’m naming these creatures after Vishnu (who isn’t even female) rather than, say “the black widow” or “the medusa” or “the gorgon” or “the harpy” as a way to steer clear of misogynist stereotypes. And many of the Vishnus’ victims are other women – it isn’t all men complaining about women in these stories. And every senior woman in Biglaw isn’t a Vishnu. There are plenty of nice ones out there (well… a few.) But there’s something about a Vishnu. The senior men can be awful, but it’s more likely to arrive in an “I don’t even notice you exist” or “I’m yelling at you because you’re someone to yell at” sort of way – absent the tender frisson of gleeful sadism distinguishing the echt vengeful Hindu deity var. Biglawiensis.
I can float all sorts of theories to explain the creation myth of a Vishnu – maybe as a woman you just give up a little something extra to get senior in Biglaw – dealing with sexism, dealing with trying to raise kids or giving up on having kids or trying to maintain a relationship or giving up on having a relationship – I don’t know. Maybe sitting at your desk seven months pregnant, pulling all-nighters can do, well, something to a person. But, as they say in AA – those are excuses. Whatever it is that happens to these women, the important thing is that they start growing extra arms and talking about “going through a lot of associates.” They turn into Vishnus – lawyer-destroyers – and destroy a lot of lawyers in the process.
Lately it seems there’s a Vishnu pandemic. The economy makes it easy since – do I have to say it again? – you are expendable, setting the Vishnus free to play with no real consequences. There are too many lawyers anyway. You can be fed to Vishnu. There are others lining up to take your place.
The evidence for the existence of an outbreak of lawyer-destroying senior female attorneys in Biglaw? My conclusion rests entirely on anecdote from a self-selecting sample and is, furthermore, heavily based on stereotypes. But let me tell you… hear enough of these anecdotes and you start to see a pattern, even if it only exists in one psychotherapist’s practice (well, okay, a psychotherapist who works with dozens of lawyers each and every week, but still.) And there’s usually a nugget of truth in stereotypes.
If you don’t believe me, ask around. You’ll hear some Vishnu stories.
Here’s another wrinkle – a juicy one: I have an axe of my own to grind. I fell victim to a Vishnu, in full destroyer-of-lawyers mode, way back in the day. It was 1999, and I was in my second year at Sullivan & Cromwell, when I got assigned to work with a recently-divorced senior attorney. The rumor (I never found out if it was true) was that she’d actually been a partner at another top Biglaw firm, but resigned rather than let her husband receive any money in their divorce. That sounds crazy, but then we’re talking about a Vishnu…
The long and short of it was that she was smart and attractive and initially we seemed to get along. I’m a natural therapist and I’ve always been the sort of person people open up to, so we spent long hours in her office together late at night, and she opened up to me about her dating frustrations and struggles raising her children, etc. Nothing dramatic, just talking. And then she turned on me and the relationship headed south – nothing I did was ever good enough again – and she gave me a review so bad her secretary took me aside to confide she’d never seen anything like it. “Brace yourself,” were the words she employed. And then I was out.
A year or so later I bumped into another lawyer – a woman who’d worked as a mid-level associate at S&C. She ushered me aside to offer an apology. I asked why. She explained that she’d worked with my Vishnu and went so far as to side with her against me, snickering at my incompetence. Then her turn came – complete with the icy treatment followed by the whispering secretary. From what she’d heard, we weren’t the first and we wouldn’t be the last, either. This lady “went through a lot of associates.” And she went through us.
Back in my day, Vishnus sailed slightly under the radar. It wasn’t yet comme il faut to brag about destroying the careers of young attorneys.
I don’t understand Vishnus any more than I understand sociopaths. The real issues, so far as you, the reader of this column, are concerned, are binary:
First, keep an eye out for Vishnus, so you can minimize the harm to you and your career; and
Second, don’t wake up one morning and realize you’ve turned into one.
Look, I get it: Biglaw is a tough place to be a woman. It’s a tough place to be anyone, frankly, but everything’s a little tougher in most places on this sexist planet without a Y chromosome. That’s still no reason, if you are a woman in Biglaw and starting to realize you might be sticking around past your sixth or seventh year – to start growing extra arms and unleashing thermonuclear destruction onto other people’s careers.
==========
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.
My new book is a comic novel about a psychotherapist who falls in love with a blue alien from outer space. I guarantee pure reading pleasure: Bad Therapist: A Romance
Please also check out The People’s Therapist’s legendary best-seller about the sad state of the legal profession: Way Worse Than Being a Dentist: The Lawyer’s Quest for Meaning
My first book is an unusual (and useful) introduction to the concepts underlying psychotherapy: Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy
(In addition to Amazon.com, my books are also available on bn.com and the Apple iBookstore.)
Spot-on. The angry woman with the “I’ll out man the men” syndrome is simply the worst person to encounter in BigLaw. An explosive guy? You can get in his grill, bust his balls, fight back, have a beer a day later and laugh about it. Can’t do that with women. Ever.
Will, you can say you’re not a misogynist all you want, but this article still has misogynistic stereotypes, even if you went with “Vishnu” and not “Medusa.” You admit yourself that it “seems” like “most” of these people are women, and that this is all anecdotal, yet you still decide it is pretty much only women. It may be true that men behave differently when they are being awful partners, but it may also just be that people interpret it differently when men do it due to internalized misogyny. Either way, it doesn’t seem like you to just start talking about all these women turning into Vishnus. You might want to be a bit more careful when writing these articles.
Seems like you’re scraping for an excuse to criticize. As a longtime practicing attorney who currently has two nightmares (one male and one female) in my group I can tell you that they are completely different matters.
The male nightmare is just that. Outrageous expectations, minimal information sharing and explosive in temper. If I do what he wants he’s “happy” and leaves me alone to attend to other matters. The concern with him is not dissapointing. He’s well established and doesn’t feel threatened when I perform up to or beyond expectations.
The female nightmare, on the other hand, fits the classification of Vishnu to a T. She and the male nightmare have been through countless associates over the years; however, whereas he acknowledges it as a situation that merely exists she treats it with a certain degree of delight. Within my first week of working with her she said, verbatim, “People tend to start working with me and [male nightmare] when they join the group and for some reason never come back to us after they get established.” For good reason too. They had been through more than 1 associate a year, with several leaving for mental health reasons afterwards. If I didn’t perform up to her expectations I was degraded and chastised, in front of my peers and other partners. If I performed really well she found reasons to criticize me anyway (for example, I was yelled at for knowing how to get something done the correct way rather than the incorrect way she requested). If I was working nonstop on a major transaction and couldn’t help out on something she would tell the group leader that I was lazy and refusing work (even though there were other, less busy attorneys available).
The point is that it’s not a matter of perception or internalized misogyny. There is an archetype that is being discussed and it’s based in style. It is irrefutable that men and women are different in terms of their thought process and prevailing perception. It’s not a bad thing at all and is what necessitates a well distributed mix of men and women in any given workplace. But to dispute a phenomenon based on the spectre of misogyny is misguided.
How in the world do you reconcile this misogynistic post (you can say “I’m not misogynistic” all you want, but when you post misogynistic things, you are, in fact, misogynistic) with your last ATL post in which you purport to be a champion for women in BigLaw? You were right the first time–women in BigLaw are treated unfairly, and you contributed to it with this post. I work with plenty of BigLaw women and they are, nearly without exception, tireless champions of junior associates, male and female, and excellent mentors. Thanks to you though, if I have a legitimate client need that requires me to ask an associate to pitch in one evening or on a weekend, I’m going to have my face photoshopped onto Vishnu’s body and emailed around the office. People like you are the reason why we’re treated unfairly. Shame on you.
Saying that an archetype exists does not imply that it applies to all or even most BigLaw women. Suggesting that people reflect on their actions outside a vacuum in a tough atmosphere is never a bad thing. I’m a man and I’m constantly mindful of my perception among junior attorneys and support staff. Not everything about a woman is intended to be taken personally by every woman.
I appreciate your comment that the Vishnu archetype doesn’t apply to all or even most BigLaw women, but that’s not what Will is saying. Will actually says it applies to all but a few, (“There are plenty of nice ones out there (well… a few.)”), and refers to “an outbreak of lawyer-destroying senior female attorneys in Biglaw.” He is saying that it applies to most BigLaw women, which is grossly unfair and should be beneath him as a mental health professional.
Yes, it’s a bit of an overstatement to say that the Vishnu label applies to all or most women in big law. But that’s the only fair criticism of Will’s article (and a minor one at that when read in context). Rather, Will’s post makes a valid point. This is a blog about personal experiences and advice. Its an intellectual cop out to label Will’s piece as “misogynistic” just because you disagree with the premise. Will gave some interesting anecdotes based on his own experiences and his clients’ experiences in big law. Will should not be criticized for speaking out about his observations, even if they offer a critique of an issue that he argues divides down gender lines.
100% agree. Not happy about this article. Just more of the double standard. Men in senior positions can be just as awful. The difference is that male associates find it easier to relate (the comment by “2many” exemplifies this). As a woman I find it hard to relate to the “bro” version of the Vishnu.
What an abominable article. The author should stick to writing fiction that announces itself as such instead of this drivel masquerading as scientific evidence.
The author didn’t say all (or most) women were Biglaw Vishnus. He said all (or most) Biglaw Vishnus were women. “You’re probably noticing my repeated use of the female pronoun in reference to Biglaw Vishnus. Why am I implying that these fearsome lawyer destroyers are all women? Because it rather seems like they all are. Or at least a hell of a lot of them.”
Every once in awhile I check back on this blog to humor myself. Will lives in an echo chamber of people who had a bad experience in big law and have a burning need to see themselves as victims.
There are a few truly awful people in big law, and there are really great people as well. Most are somewhere in between, even if they struggle with a tendency towards being type-a workaholics.
Law is not the only profession where people work hard and where there are assholes. Life and law are both more nuanced then some people portray them to be.
Big law definitely isn’t for everyone. It also isn’t something you have to do for the rest of your life. Paying off your debt isn’t selling your soul to the devil. Working hard for a period of time to learn a trade isn’t either. When you work for a law firm you don’t enter into a black hole where you lose your humanity.
Kudos to all those who find something right off the bat that they are passionate about. But for all you pre-law and law schoolers out there, be wary of the hyperbole in Will’s anecdotes.
It must be a very big echo chamber if it has room for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/business/partner-in-a-prestigious-law-firm-and-bankrupt.html?src=me&ref=general
I am well acquainted with the horrific beings parading as humans that populate the highest ranks of law firms. But there is no excuse for this article. It is misogyny of the purest and highest (lowest) order. Disgusting masturbation by a person clearly titillated by his own writing prowess and hatred of women. And FYI, the correct god(dess) you wanted was Kali.
You’re wrong, on at least one count – http://youtu.be/26YLehuMydo
I love your blog and articles, but get it right, man, “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” Details matter; didn’t they teach you that at S&C?!?
You are wrong. Check the video.