QI’m a fairly new associate at a large firm. Recently, a partner made the rounds at the firm—at least on my floor in my practice group—telling us that his daughter is a Girl Scout and is selling Girl Scout cookies. Would I be interested, he asked. Honestly—and I know I’m in the minority on this—I don’t like Girl Scout cookies and get royally annoyed every year by the hypercompetitive industrial oversell of them. But that’s another story, and I didn’t launch into that story when I answered the partner.
Keep Reading ⇒
QHi, Ex-Bitter. I’m a third-year associate at a mid-size Midwestern firm. I do mostly transactional work but occasionally pitch in on pro bono litigation, which I like. While the firm I work for was not my first choice, I’m thankful to have the job and generally enjoy the work, which these days involves more and more client interaction.
Here’s my problem. When I took the job I didn’t do what us lawyers call “due diligence.” I saw a job opening, the work fit what I wanted to do, and I applied. I’ve now learned in the last three years that the managing partners are very conservative and somewhat connected politically. Actually, it took me about the first few months to realize how conservative, though politics are not really an issue in the office. The other day, though, I was with three other attorneys and told them where I worked. One of the lawyers said “Oh, you work for the pro-life firm.” I said I hadn’t heard that before. Internally, though, I knew it was pretty true.
Keep Reading ⇒
QI’m a 2L at a pretty good second-tier school in the New York area. I’m in the top half of my class and do very well in moot court and trial skills. I’m hoping my New York connections will help in finding a job at a big New York firm. What do you think are my chances of getting a job at a New York firm like Wachtell or White and Case? Honestly.
Keep Reading ⇒
QI’m a mid-ranked grad from a T14 school who found a job with a small firm in 2008 before the profession started to tank. I stuck it out, missed the layoffs and was somewhat thankful I did. But, to be honest, I also would have been pretty relieved if the firm I worked for—a low-grade firm that basically pays me on what I bring in—had started to go under and asked me to move on.
Keep Reading ⇒
QI’m a recent grad from a decent law school but obviously not a decent enough school to catch a break and get a job. I’ve been doing some temp work and non-legal work to pay the bills and am now considering document review, as the fun but non-legal stuff is drying up. I’ve never done doc review and don’t know much about it other than it sounds like you just review documents for certain phrases or words. Sounds easy enough. My question: is there a tiered system of document review, like law school or being on law review? I don’t want to end up in the wrong place, wasting my time and working again toward nothing.
Keep Reading ⇒
QI’m a fairly new attorney. I graduated in 2009, did my time in document review, and am now working relatively happily at a mid-size firm in the Midwest. Unfortunately, since I’ve been licensed since 2009 I have to report CLE credits next year and I’m about 25 credits short. I also don’t have time to attend 25 credits worth of CLEs and bill for what’s expected of me in the next six months.
When I talked to a more senior associate about my problem, she told me to get the firm to pay for the courses, show up to pick up the books and sign whatever you need to sign, and then head back to the office to work. Easy peasy, she said. I told her that’s probably unethical and she said that, “well, every attorney I know has been doing it for years.”
True? Does everybody lie about their CLE credits? Should I just do whatever everyone else does and lie about mine?
Keep Reading ⇒
I don’t get to write real posts. Bitter Lawyer editors instead forward letters and emails to me, typically with the notation “here ya go”—at which point I’m expected to answer them. I don’t answer them all. In fact, I answer a few. Those that get tossed or go unanswered have one of three general attributes, sometimes all three attributes simultaneously:
Keep Reading ⇒
QI’m a partner in a small firm. We just hired two new associates after a long hiring process. We vetted the hires, checked references, did a good job. We made good decisions. And yet, I just don’t get these kids. Smart, talented, and committed—and yet so inscrutable. Seriously. When discussing legal matters, the new associates—a man and a young woman—are fine, though very green. When discussing anything else outside of the law, and especially when around each other or other new lawyers, it’s as if I’m a lawyer from another planet. I don’t get them. At all. There’s no positives, no happiness, no future really—they seem to revel in watching others fail. It’s all about FAIL. Everything is about FAIL. They revel in FAIL. Honestly, their humor and approach—and they’ve passed around emails to me on occasion proving this—is about the latest FAIL. It’s obnoxious. It drives me nuts.
Keep Reading ⇒
QI work at a prominent white-shoe firm in New York. Unlike most people, I actually like being a lawyer. I work long hours, but really enjoy it. Crazy, I know.
The thing that’s driving me crazy, however, is the intra-firm snobbery. In particular, there’s one Harvard/Harvard partner (Robert) who always refers to me as his “second-tier project.” It was kind of cute the first time he said it. Not so cute the second time. And really f#@king annoying the tenth, eleventh, fifteenth time.
I don’t mind working for Robert, but I can’t stand his constant, not-so-funny shtick. So, my question is: Should I tell him I don’t like being referred to as his “second-tier project?” If I do, will he still work with me? Will he ruin my reputation? Please advise. For the record, I went to George Washington, graduated top 5% and was on law review.
Keep Reading ⇒
QI’m a fairly new associate at a large firm. For now I do a decent amount of motion and litigation work, which I like. I’m not a natural litigator but I find it interesting, engaging, and challenging. The problem is with a much more senior associate who cannot stop cursing, calling people names, and going out of his way to insult opposing counsel (though not to counsel personally). I’m talking pretty bad stuff, and frequently said. I’m not a prude, but I generally don’t like off-color language in the office or even at home. Should I say something to him and risk being labeled the office prude? Should I address it to a partner? I can deal with the whole macho atmosphere that pervades a lot of litigation, but the incessant cursing and bad-mouthing of others is a complete downer. Advice?
Keep Reading ⇒
