<p>
[quote]
What exactly does that mean? Are you saying that they eagerly followed the expectations of the firm, or that they protested being "treated like dirt"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>what i mean is that the partners got where they are by willing to work exceeding hard, and by willing to put work ahead of their personal lives -- and that they are therefore going to expect that same level of dedication from associates.</p>
<p>now if in an interview, you asked partners or even associates the simple question of whether they had time for a pesonal life, many would probably say "yes." you would really need to ask them a lot more follow up questions -- how often are you called when you are on vacation? how often have you had to change vacation plans? how regularly are you able to attend school events for your kids? how many times a week do you eat dinner with you spouse? how many times a week do you see your kids before bedtime? after how many years here were you able to have that level of freedom in your personal life (whatever level they say they have)?</p>
<p>Many attorneys who survive at firms actually end up doing so by believing that they have achieved a balance -- the issue is whether where they've struck that balance is one you really think would be right for you.</p>
<p>when i was a summer associate, i think i learned more about what the lawyers' at the firms lifestyles were really like by listening to their spouses talking at a firm dinner than from what the lawyers actually said.</p>
<p>the partners were generally people who had thrived on the pressure, the hours, the "importance" of the work -- they weren't the people who would have perceived themselves as having been treated like dirt. (and by the way, the "treat like dirt", wasn't my expression and i'm not sure i like it -- it carries a lot of connotations that aren't necessary for describing life as a new associate -- it implies more about the viewpoint of the firm, whereas what i think is relevant is the viewpoint of the associate.)</p>
<p>i used to work with a partner who was fond of telling recruits how he was able to go away on vacation for the entire month of July every year with his wife and kids. the part of the story he left out was that during the month of july, he was typically on the phone many hours EVERY day both with associates and clients and that he rarely ended up down at the beach with the kids -- and that he often had papers fed exed to his vacation home for his review (this was back before e-mailing documents was possible -- yes, in ancient times ;) ). in his mind he was on vacation since even those hours were less than what he would put in at the office -- and he probably did get to see more of his kids than during rest of the year.</p>
<p>I have to take responsibility for the "treat like dirt" expression, and it is more ambiguous than I intended. I didn't mean it to refer to how much work or personal sacrifice was demanded of associates (though I'm thankful for the experience that you all have relayed on that). It came out of some of the complaints I heard from new employees about verbally abusive superiors, condescending attitudes, and a generally hostile work environment.</p>
<p>I'm certain that you will potentially find verbally abusive superiors, condescending attitudes, and a generally hostile work environment in many fields, and law is no exception. You can find more supportive working environments, though your experience on any given matter/deal is typically dependeng on the partner in charge of the matter/deal. Even the kindest, most understanding person may snap (hopefully for just a moment ... or even an evening) under the intense pressure of a matter/deal and with little sleep for many moons.</p>
<p>I understand if someone were to be rude and impatient every now and then just under matters of stress, but I personally think it is unprofessional for partners to conduct themselves in condescending and generally abusive manners...I guess people want the job so bad that they put up with that kind of treatment.</p>
<p>oh, of course - we all have our moments. I was just concerned that this hostility was pervasive and routine, a daily fact of associate experience. Fortunately, this seems not to have been your experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I understand if someone were to be rude and impatient every now and then just under matters of stress
[/quote]
</p>
<p>realize that stress is a common situation at many big firms -- its part of the nature of the practice -- so if someone gets rude under stress, that doesn't mean its an isolated occurance.</p>
<p>i will have to say from my experience at least, that many people who are attracted to the field of law are those with very strong personalities -- people who like to "debate," people who can be very assertive in expressing their views, people who can be somewhat intense. these characteristics of course range on a spectrum -- at one end of that spectrum there are many lawyers out there who are just plain difficult to work for -- but even further down that spectrum, i think it does make it easy for these type of people to come across as harsh, critical, perhaps even disrespectful, when that may not always be their intent -- sometimes the same drive that makes them good attorneys makes them harsh on those who aren't completely in step with them - and it is not easy for a new associate to be in step simply because he/she is a new associate. </p>
<p>whether this makes someone feel like they are being treated "like dirt" or pushes someone to step up to the challenge depends on the fortitude of the associate -- it can be VERY difficult -- its not simply a matter of how bright you are or how willing you are to put in long hours. and that i think is something important for any prospective attorney to understand -- it is not merely a question of putting in a lot of long hours that require a lot of brain work -- there can be a lot of stress simply resulting from dealing with everyone else's personality types for those long hours. </p>
<p>at both of the firms i worked at there were partners who were harder to work for than others -- but associates didn't get to choose -- someone called you or knocked on your door and you had an assignment -- and at least at the offices where i worked, they didn't always care about what else was on your plate at the time. even though both firms supposedly had systems to monitor assignment distribution and associate workload, associates often found themselves negotiating the politices of one partner's priorities vs. anothers.</p>
<p>ok - i have been giving a lot of thought to the issue of are firms just a lot of pressure and work or do they treat associates "like dirt" and trying to explain this without minimizing just how emotionally tough firm work can be and also without demonizing the firms. so if the following helps, great, if not, sorry.</p>
<p>are you familiar with the book The Giving Tree? It's about a boy (who grows up to be a man during the course of the story) and a tree -- and about how much the tree gives the boy -- the tree just keeps giving and giving until ultimately it allows the boy/man to chop him down for his wood. As a parent I often heard this book referred to as a wonderful story about our relationship with nature and the importance of appreciating nature and wasn't it a lovely story about the relationship between this boy and the tree over the boy's lifetime. Personally - I just never could stand the book - and the reason why -- it reminded me of what I felt it was like to be an associate at a firm (and mind you, I did not work at large NYC firms either). The firm was the boy and I was the tree -- and no matter how much I was willing to give, it just never seemed enough -- and it wasn't a matter of my work not being good enough -- just the opposite -- I was the victim (at both firms I worked at) of a meritocracy in which good work was rewarded by ... MORE WORK!! </p>
<p>The boy in the story just always assumes the tree will readily give up whatever it has for the sake of the boy -- even to the end when the stump provides the then old man with a place to rest -- the boy never seems to realize that he is destroying the tree in the name of taking what it has to offer him.</p>
<p>How a firm treats its associates is largely in the eye of the associate -- its subjective, even though objectively one can look at the situation and say, hey all they expect is a lot of work for the high pay. (Hey, what's wrong with the boy getting fruit and wood from a tree, its what trees are there for!) If people are describing situations that to you make it sound like they are being treated like dirt -- don't discount it -- how they feel in that situation is something important for you to consider. But if you also hear people describe how the situation offers incredible professional opportunity, listen to that as well. Just be very aware of what will make all the hours and personal sacrifice worth it FOR YOU. And just don't fall into the trap of thinking that if you can't take it, it means that there is something wrong with you -- some people really do thrive in these work environments, but not everyone does. And many very bright capable people end up feeling they are being treated like the tree, when the firm and other associates sees nothing wrong with the firm acting like the boy. (and to carry on with the analogy, some people feel that at the end, they aren't left as a stump, but rather a blossoming tree that the firm helped thrive)</p>
<p>unbelievablem, once again, an excellent illustration and analogy. I hope that this will help some of the aspiring young lawyers reading this thread a lot.</p>
<p>There were definitely times during my big law firm experience that I questioned my choice to become a lawyer, my decision to practice corporate law and sometimes even my sanity. Now, looking back, I wouldn't trade it for anything because those experiences are what put me in the position I'm in today. I couldn't agree with you more that the law firm road is a tough one, mentally and physically.</p>
<p>yeah, thanks unbelievablem. That is very useful - well balanced and insightful. Thanks so much.</p>
<p>There should be a "Best of" CC that compiles the best responses to questions that are frequently asked and questions that should be more frequently asked. How does that sound?</p>
<p>In my engineering work, the same problem seems to occur: if you are not way behind, you should be assigned more work. It seems to be worst for those (like me) with enough experience to be held responsible, but not enough experience to have a staff at their disposal. The guys a little more up the ladder seem to more successfully manage the workload by either arguing that their personnel are being overworked, thus limiting the workload, or by overworking their personnel. Did you find it to be true in legal practice that the workload was more manageable as you gained more experience? If so, what were the reasons?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did you find it to be true in legal practice that the workload was more manageable as you gained more experience? If so, what were the reasons?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>in my personal experience -- no. the more experience i gained, the more work i was given. i was never in a situation where i had underlings to pass the work off to. as for those who were partners in my firms, from what i saw, some partners seemed better able to manage their workloads, but as i've said previously, most got to be partner because of their incredible drive and work ethic -- no one in my experience seemed to really slack off once they made partner. the nature of the work changed as one rose up the ranks, but the amount did not diminish.</p>
<p>i know nothing about engineering firms to draw any comparisons in terms of how work flow arises. but at least in my experience, another factor was that as I gained more experience I was dealing with the clients directly more -- and you just didn't tell a client, "Sorry, i'm too busy to get your work done." I will add though, that to the extent that i was dealing directly with the client, I might have a better idea of what their real time frame was and plan my work accordingly, whereas if the work came from a partner, the partner dictated the timeframe -- so it may have been more "manageable" in the sense that i had more responsibility for managing my workload, but the volume of work did not diminish.</p>
<p>i don't think i can ever recall a partner arguing to protect the associates working under him/her from being overworked -- they might try to protect their "turf" from having other partners assign work to the associates they wanted working for them -- but it was not to ease those associates' workload , but rather to make sure that their work was what was filling the associates' plate.</p>
<p>now again - my personal experience is limited to the two firms i actually worked for. i also know a number of lawyers and former lawyers. of those who stuck with law firms, some continue to complain about their workload, while some ended up concluding that their workload is "manageable" -- but it really depends how you define what is manageable. i personally can think of maybe one or two who after many many years of practice were in positions with respect to the number of clients they brought in versus their ability to delegate those clients' work that they were able to "ease off" a little and their firms accepted it because of the billings those clients generated for the firm (ie they brought in the clients, but had others do much of the work for them -- something that is NOT easy to achieve.)</p>
<p>but i would certainly welcome others with different experiences to describe them since obviously my observations are limited.</p>