Thursday, September 23, 2004

I'm swamped with a deal closing this week, but to address some of the concerns in the comments on the last post:

1. Some associates do it to pad their hours. And I'm sure it's easier for them to write a memo from scratch than to worry about whatever their next assignment will be. Due diligence, perhaps? Reading the fine print on insurance contracts?

2. Partners need memos about the applicable case law because we don't want to tell our clients something that's wrong just because an associate is too stupid to get it right. I read most of the cases from Lexis that my associates cite in drafts they write. Because it's my name on the document and my reputation with the client. So maybe we don't do all the groundwork. But we need the supporting documentation so we can be sure we're not committing malpractice and screwing up the business.

3. Sometimes, even if they come from top schools and did great on the LSAT, associates are just inexperienced and stupid and don't know what they're supposed to be doing. I've gotten documents that make no sense. Drafts of memos that focus on every court in the country when we're just talking about a specific circuit. Citations to secondary source materials cited as precedent. Not necessarily maliciously bad work product but inexperienced work product signifying things that they need to be taught not to do. And if I'm harsh to them, they get the message better than if I write them a fancy note on a pretty card. It's just business.

how favorably would you look upon three years of public accounting experience with a big four accounting firm? we work side by side, esp. on IPO's at the printers, with lawyers and bankers. we have our client issues and share of "meaningless" work. we stress out and work what seems like 25 hours a day (through out the year esp. due to sox 404 impacts these days), multi-tasking between clients. and although the work is not entirely related to law, there would not be a shockingly lack of "work experience".
This is absolute, self-serving indulgent BS.

I work at a big corporate firm. We have a number of partners that are passive/aggressive. Junior staff think they are wonderful because they are great, until they rip your head off. In the end, the teams that work with these partners don't know where they stand, are constantly on edge and dislike, or hate their job, and the firm.

On the other hand, there are some partners who are less outgoing, quiet etc. These partners still make the point when you screw up, but do it in a more subtle fashion. The teams that work for these partners are very loyal, like their jobs, and therefore the firm.

I wonder which approach is more succesful?
Dear 5:20,

I hear you work at a big corporate firm. You are a living examplye of why big corporate lawyers are useless. A passive agressive person is not nice until he rips your head off.

If you can't understand a simple concept like passive agression, how could you ever represent a client in court. Oh, that's right, you work in a big corporate firm. You don't practice law. Nevermind.
Last commenter: please learn to spell. You write at a 5th grade level. That's why you were in the bottom 1/3 of your class and were rejected from major law firms. Your jealousy is like red wine--it turns your teeth pink. Tazaaaho.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?