Am I Being Baited?

I don't know if the And What Thanks lawyers are trying to get my attention, or if it's just a coincidence that my referrer log is showing a number of hits from them. But either way, it's working. Yesterday's rant directed at the associate who screwed up deserves a response. Which today I'm too busy to write. I guess I'll just say this, for now. If you've hired good people, and you treat them well, there's nothing we want to do more than do a good job for you. And there's no worse feeling than screwing up. And daily, hourly, every minute, we are faced with an acute and overwhelming sense of all that we don't know, and how likely it is that we're going to miss something or get something wrong. It's not the stuff we already know that we're ignorant about, it's the things we don't even realize we don't know until we've made an assumption that turns out to be wrong, that makes us wake up in the middle of the night, sweating. And it's not sweating about getting fired. It's sweating about letting you down. Because we look up to you.

And if we knew you were saying this kind of thing about us, in public, in a forum that is FAR FROM ANONYMOUS, we'd be deservedly hurt and angry.

I'm not an apologist for sloppy work, or laziness. Perhaps that's what this is. I'm sure that's frustrating to have around. But, geez, man, this kind of vitriol directed at people who probably look up to you is ugly.

Comments

[mad]

Hear, hear. And it is the often-adversarial relationship between partners and associates that makes law firm life often unbearable. If partners want young associates to succeed (a premise that, in my own experience, is subject to questionable at best), then they should be willing to guide and shape and mentor, not simply to criticize and teach through fear. Associates will become better lawyers, better business-people, and better assets to their firms if they are rewarded for efficiency, creativity, and dedication, not simply for coloring within the lines and doing so for as many hours as the client is willing to pay. And if the associate knows that small mistakes will be forgiven and used as learning experiences, he or she will be more comfortable trying to think creatively and independently, AND to ask the questions that will prevent big mistakes. I hear echos of partners past in almost every post on And What Thanks, and I feel for the associates who work for those partners and the legions like them.

[moresilent]

Well Ms. S, since you're a tad swamped let me step in for you on this one...

Note some of the things that this partner (hereinafter, the ranter) did not mention in the rant -- I'm guessing that is indicative of the information that was and was not conveyed to said associate. (I recognize that in jerky rant mode on might not be fully precise, but I suspect the assumption I make above is appropriately assumable ... so there...)

1. ranter did not say that said associate knew of ranter's schedule (and thus knew that the second trial date would conflict with the first)

2. ranter did not say that said associate, him or herself, felt unable to handle the second case (ranter merely ranted about said associate's lack of qualification, and speculated that said associate would not want to try the case).

3. ranter said nothing about said associate's explanation for the double-booking (instead, ranter merely notes that the fact of the double booking makes ranter assume that said associate was just being a spineless wimp/suck up) -- and I cannot believe ranter didn't say to said associate "why the dickens did you do that".

it seems to me that these are important pieces of information to know before deciding how much of a rant said associate deserves. again, something makes me think that these omissions say quite a bit about how well ranter actually communicates information, and how reasonable are the expectations that ranter has.

in any event, it seems likely that said associate committed this oh so grievous error because:

1. said associate was unaware of the scheduling conflict;
2. said associate thought he or she could handle one of the cases; or
3. said associate was aware of conflict and own lack of competence but just froze/freaked/bonked in the glare of time alone with a judge and opposing counsel.

it seems far less likely that said associated committed said boo boo because of scenario # 4:

4. said associate was aware of conflict and own lack of competence but double booked nonetheless in order to make ranter look bad and/or curry favor with opposing counsel or judge at ranter's expense.

in the absence of any actual details in ranter's rant to support the notion that #4 was the situation, why the heck did ranter jump to that conclusion?

not to mention, all of these are boo boos on said associate's part (to a greater or lesser degree), but all (even #4) are the types of boo boos that ranter should (if he or she has a reasonable reputation around the courthouse) be able to fix with a simple, and non-face-losing phone call

anyway,
i'm sure there's more to the story (and perhaps ranter is really the victim here), but it just seems to me that the details (or lack thereof) in ranter's version are a tad telling.

tp

[WAB]

Many law firm partners like many managers in organizations of professionals have little serious training in and no neccessary aptitude in mentoring or supervising. They primarily get where they are by "technical" performance. Consequently, in such organizations one frequently finds instances of criticism which actually serves no positive value. Indeed, the employee who has screwed up and often does feel badly, receives i) a disincentive to be open to coaching, ii) a disincentive to work tirelessly for the organization, and iii)an incentive to lose respect for the supervisor both as a supervisor and as a person. Rants in front of third parties are not only unprofessional and unproductive, they only serve to diminish the character repute of the ranter and create seeds of distrust in all who hear.

This behavior has nothing to do with law firms per se. It has a lot to do with the climate of disrespect toward lower status employees that pervades many professional organizations and instituions.

Expecting respectful and professional behavior is not making excuses for what was undesirable (or worse) performance.