The Workplace as Highschool; or We Never Grow Up

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Sperry - BigLaw hiring practices are, in fact, illogical.  I had some hope that the last recession would break them.  However, all it did was to push recruiting even earlier.  I'm basically waiting for the day when we hire based on LSAT scores and some kind of American Ninja Warrior endurance test.

 

Intelligence (in the sense of being able to fill out the right boxes on a piece of paper) and physical endurance? I could think of less relevant criteria for being a Big Law associate.

[Tempra]

12 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Sperry - BigLaw hiring practices are, in fact, illogical.  I had some hope that the last recession would break them.  However, all it did was to push recruiting even earlier.  I'm basically waiting for the day when we hire based on LSAT scores and some kind of American Ninja Warrior endurance test.

 

I don't think Biglaw hiring practices are that illogical.  By the end of 1L, prospective candidates are pretty well filtered by intelligence (law school / LSAT) and work ethic (grades).  Moreover, most prospective applicants know whether they are on law review (writing ability) or moot court (oral advocacy).  Finally, they have had at least one law related job from which they could provide a reference and writing sample.  Do you really need to know their grade on Admin Law or other 2L/3L class before hiring them?  I don't get the sense that there are drastic shifts in class rank between the end of 1L and 3L.

The illogical part seems to be offering law students a summer associate position instead of just a full time offer. Most top law firms give offers to all or nearly all summer associates, so what's to be gained by paying law students 40k for 12 weeks worth of work?  The answer, of course, is that other BigLaw firms have summer associate programs, which force conservative-minded attorneys (and their firms) to move in lockstep with their peers.  The money spent on summer associates would, almost certainly, be better spent on larger signing bonuses for clerks or enticements to lure away key regulators from cushy government jobs.

[DreamSongs]

We've got a couple of toxic nurses that were hired a couple of years ago that have nurtured a 'mean girls' environment.  I'll be glad when a couple of these (or me) move on.  

[TrackerNeil]

On 8/25/2016 at 1:43 PM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 So anyhow, this is a thread discuss how grade school/highschool type shenanigans continue to infect your professional/social/volunteer/sacred/whatever lives.

Way back when I was an administrator in a medium-to-large law office, and during a management meeting the discussion turned to dress code. A secretary was frequently flouting that code, wearing tube tops and miniskirts, and there were complaints about it. I didn't understand why we were devoting time to this topic--just tell her to knock it off and move on, right?--but was shocked when one of those present said, "I mean, if she were young and thin she could get away with it, but come on." My shock turned to dismay when many others, men and women alike, agreed with this sentiment. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

11 hours ago, Tempra said:

I don't think Biglaw hiring practices are that illogical.  By the end of 1L, prospective candidates are pretty well filtered by intelligence (law school / LSAT) and work ethic (grades).  Moreover, most prospective applicants know whether they are on law review (writing ability) or moot court (oral advocacy).  Finally, they have had at least one law related job from which they could provide a reference and writing sample.  Do you really need to know their grade on Admin Law or other 2L/3L class before hiring them?  I don't get the sense that there are drastic shifts in class rank between the end of 1L and 3L.

The illogical part seems to be offering law students a summer associate position instead of just a full time offer. Most top law firms give offers to all or nearly all summer associates, so what's to be gained by paying law students 40k for 12 weeks worth of work?  The answer, of course, is that other BigLaw firms have summer associate programs, which force conservative-minded attorneys (and their firms) to move in lockstep with their peers.  The money spent on summer associates would, almost certainly, be better spent on larger signing bonuses for clerks or enticements to lure away key regulators from cushy government jobs.

Tempra - How are we supposed to know our hiring needs that far in advance? It's completely illogical.  I would also rather have more information on the candidate.  Having seen lots of laterals come through, there are definitely candidates who figure it out gradually and start to really "get it" after first year.  There are also those who clearly got their job and then coasted for the rest of law school.  So, look, while I think you are generally correct (though I promise you there are many idiots at Harvard, where there aren't really grades anyway - it's either H or P, and very few Hs), more information is always better.  Also, we have definitely no offerred people before, and there are definitely "cold" offers as well.  The no offers have done something that makes us think the person would be a liability.  Cold offers usually have done something less egregious but it's clear it isn't working out.  It's much easier to do that than to fire someone later.  

[Astromech]

I've always likened recruiting at large law firms to an arms race. These firms often times hire candidates to prevent other large firms from doing so, an attempt to retain potential.

Dovetailing off that, what are your experiences with retaining these candidates, i.e. how many stick around on the partnership track? I assume many put in a few years for the money and experience then move on to other firms or positions.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Astromech said:

I've always likened recruiting at large law firms to an arms race. These firms often times hire candidates to prevent other large firms from doing so, an attempt to retain potential.

Dovetailing off that, what are your experiences with retaining these candidates, i.e. how many stick around on the partnership track? I assume many put in a few years for the money and experience then move on to other firms or positions.

Based on my college friends' facebook activity and sometimes just talking to them in person,  I estimate that BigLaw associates spend approximately 90% of their free time complaining about their jobs. But they're mostly still there, so, you know.

[Astromech]

4 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Based on my college friends' facebook activity and sometimes just talking to them in person,  I estimate that BigLaw associates spend approximately 90% of their free time complaining about their jobs. But they're mostly still there, so, you know.

That's not exclusive to large law firms. Rather, it's the case for most attorneys  But I am halfheartedly joking. Of my classmates and other attorneys I know who have taken such positions, probably about 1/2 have stayed and the others moved on after several years for various reasons.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

The model at Big Law is that most people will move on.  And it's not always the people you want to move on.  And some of the people that look good on paper and after a summer of semi debauchery don't look so good after they start for good....

[Tempra]

11 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Tempra - How are we supposed to know our hiring needs that far in advance? It's completely illogical.  I would also rather have more information on the candidate.  Having seen lots of laterals come through, there are definitely candidates who figure it out gradually and start to really "get it" after first year.  There are also those who clearly got their job and then coasted for the rest of law school.  So, look, while I think you are generally correct (though I promise you there are many idiots at Harvard, where there aren't really grades anyway - it's either H or P, and very few Hs), more information is always better.  Also, we have definitely no offerred people before, and there are definitely "cold" offers as well.  The no offers have done something that makes us think the person would be a liability.  Cold offers usually have done something less egregious but it's clear it isn't working out.  It's much easier to do that than to fire someone later.  

Isn't the inefficiency part of the BigLaw model?  BigLaw firms often way overstaff cases to maximize billable hours to support lavish salaries.  Still, I see your point about hiring for positions two years out from actual employment.  

Hiring laterals makes a ton more sense than paying first year associates 180k. But where do you hire your laterals from? Most likely from peer law firms or a few government agencies.  The law firm laterals most likely came in through the other firm's summer associate program.  So that doesn't really solve the problem because the lateral market crashes if all firms abandon their entry level program.  Moreover, there is just not enough people leaving DOJ / SEC / FDIC / FTC to fill the Big Law ranks.  So, ultimately, entry level hiring is likely a necessary evil for BigLaw.

I don't mean to be a sound like a defender for BigLaw hiring.  It's generally a shit process and often undeniably discriminatory, particularly towards women. Still, I am not sure the data the law firms rely on is any less logical than what most other legal (and non-legal) employers rely upon as part of their hiring process.  Hiring is often more of an art than a science.

Federal government hiring is quite illogical, too  Since all jobs generally must be funded by a Congressional appropriation, agencies hire when there is money irrespective of need.  The thought process being that agencies hire when they can hire employees because there may be no money to hire when they need additional employees.  In practice, I suspect agencies are overstaffed about 10% of the time, appropriately staffed 5% of the time, and understaffed the other 85% of the time.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

28 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Isn't the inefficiency part of the BigLaw model?  BigLaw firms often way overstaff cases to maximize billable hours to support lavish salaries.  Still, I see your point about hiring for positions two years out from actual employment.  

Hiring laterals makes a ton more sense than paying first year associates 180k. But where do you hire your laterals from? Most likely from peer law firms or a few government agencies.  The law firm laterals most likely came in through the other firm's summer associate program.  So that doesn't really solve the problem because the lateral market crashes if all firms abandon their entry level program.  Moreover, there is just not enough people leaving DOJ / SEC / FDIC / FTC to fill the Big Law ranks.  So, ultimately, entry level hiring is likely a necessary evil for BigLaw.

I don't mean to be a sound like a defender for BigLaw hiring.  It's generally a shit process and often undeniably discriminatory, particularly towards women. Still, I am not sure the data the law firms rely on is any less logical than what most other legal (and non-legal) employers rely upon as part of their hiring process.  Hiring is often more of an art than a science.

Federal government hiring is quite illogical, too  Since all jobs generally must be funded by a Congressional appropriation, agencies hire when there is money irrespective of need.  The thought process being that agencies hire when they can hire employees because there may be no money to hire when they need additional employees.  In practice, I suspect agencies are overstaffed about 10% of the time, appropriately staffed 5% of the time, and understaffed the other 85% of the time.

BigLaw manages to over staff cases but overwork associates at the same time? That's quite some inefficiency.

not trying be snarky. I'm genuinely curious. Is it kinda like ibanking analysts? They sit around readings news and gossiping from 9 to 5, until they'rechanded work by a Director, and then they stay until they get said work done around 2 or 3 am.

[Tempra]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

BigLaw manages to over staff cases but overwork associates at the same time? That's quite some inefficiency.

not trying be snarky. I'm genuinely curious. Is it kinda like ibanking analysts? They sit around readings news and gossiping from 9 to 5, until they'rechanded work by a Director, and then they stay until they get said work done around 2 or 3 am.

 

In my experience, yes, many big law firms wildly overstaff cases.  I just recently had a settlement conference in a small case that was attended by 4 BigLaw attorneys (2 partners).  I was the only attorney present on the other side. During the three hour conference, only the senior partner spoke.  If we litigate the case, there is a very real possibility that their attorney fees would exceed the amount in controversy.  

That's a pretty common scenario. It's also pretty evident in discovery where well-heeled law firms just go crazy deposing everyone and searching every irrelelvant document, which is only a viable strategy if you can throw bodies at a case. 

I guess if you can get clients to pay for it all, why not?

 

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

You know, that does sound egregious and they broke the first rule of a meeting - don't bring someone who doesn't talk.  Surprised their client was willing to pay for that.  Maybe they are writing off the associate time?  In my experience here (which is all I have), we tend to staff by the size and complexity of a matter.  So, a huge spin-off where we are putting in an IRS ruling request and giving a tax opinion will have at least two partners and two associates, and more partners will read and sign off on the opinion.  But there is a LOT to do in a deal like that.  A standard mid-market private equity deal is going to have a partner and an associate.  A complicated JV might have two associates, etc. etc. etc.  

 

But anyhow, more topical for this thread, there was a putative class action filed by a woman partner at a large Biglaw firm yesterday alleging on behalf of herself and a class huge gender discrimination.  Will be interesting to see where that goes.

[sologdin]

On 8/31/2016 at 9:21 PM, Tempra said:

In my experience, yes, many big law firms wildly overstaff cases.  I just recently had a settlement conference in a small case that was attended by 4 BigLaw attorneys (2 partners).  I was the only attorney present on the other side. During the three hour conference, only the senior partner spoke.  If we litigate the case, there is a very real possibility that their attorney fees would exceed the amount in controversy.  

love that.  you = four of them.

 

MZ, not just the workplace as high school, but lawyer school was highschooly, which is almost a guarantee that y'all will interview an inexhaustible stream of trifling, shiftless, entitled, prevaricating thugs. i.e., it's almost as though lawyer school produces by virtue of its structuration lumpenized antisocial nihilists.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Huh - my lawyer school wasn't like that, at least when I was there.  But I do see a fair number of the shiftless and entitled rotating through.  I just hope we aren't hiring TOO many of them.  Because they bring their poison with them.

[Ormond]

Gosh, I wish my organization only had to deal with idiocy at this level.

At the moment the place (a higher education institution) where I work is gravely damaged -- the biggest problem (though not the only one, unfortunately) being the behavior of the man I call Vice President Sociopath. VPS is an incompetent bully who makes horrible decisions but keeps his job by being his charming sociopathic self when he's around the President. Programs he has started several years ago have only one or two students per class but are still touted as future "big money makers." The head of one of the few programs he started that has a reasonable number of students made some small but very necessary tweaks to how VPS had set it up recently, and was rewarded with having VPS come to his office and be subject to an outrageous tirade for daring to make these minor modifications (including a threat to close down the program). People who work directly in VPS's office report that whenever he has a meeting with someone below or at his level in the organization he starts making insulting belittling comments about them immediately when they walk out the door after the meeting. A friend recently told me that a former employee who was the chief assistant to the woman who was running the Assessment program at our university and is now working for another local college refused to work with him on a project that would involve coming to our campus because of the horrible experience she'd had working here -- largely involving having to deal with what she described as VPS's assessments of the programs he's founded as being "educational fraud."  That's only a small sample of what he's done -- and whenever someone complains to the President about this, the response is "Oh, that's just VPS being VPS."  She never gets the point that his continuing to be his horrible self is precisely why she should fire him. 

I am so happy I will probably be retiring in two years -- though if things get any worse I may bail sooner.

[Larry of the Lawn]

My industry is super cliquey, and it mostly really sucks but once in awhile it's at least entertaining.  

 

So here I will reach to find a positive story about nepotism and cliques in the work place.  To celebrate that moment where only someone employed by incrowd favoritism is really capable of delivering the goods.

About five years ago, I was working for a guy who had a contract to do all the masonry on this circa 1840s  colonial New England style home. 

 

Anyway, the builder and designer of this house specialized in post and beam construction and had a very talented and skilled group of carpenters working for him.  He also had his cousin, who is basically a 14 year old in a 50 year olds body working for him.  The guy was useless, but no matter how much he fucked up, would always have a job.

I'd heard stories about the guy, so I was stoked to finally see him in action.  

 

It happened during a summer day not unlike today, sunny with a brutal afternoon heat, which was mercifully countered with pleasant cool breeze.

  I was finishing the top of this massive stone chimney while they were shingling the roof with cedar shake shingles.  Around mid afternoon, I notice that the sounds of the roofers hammers are extremely regular.  Like about 75 BPM.  

I walk up to the peak of the roof and look down the other side and this guy, is lying down on his back with his eyes closed, rhythmically hitting his hammer on the roof so it sounds like hes working.

 

We're it not for the gross cliquishness that permeates the industry, he would have likely been supplanted with a competent carpenter, and never would I have had the privilege of watching a dude mindlessly whacking the roof in imitation of actual labor 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

On 9/3/2016 at 5:36 PM, larrytheimp said:

 

I walk up to the peak of the roof and look down the other side and this guy, is lying down on his back with his eyes closed, rhythmically hitting his hammer on the roof so it sounds like hes working.

 

We're it not for the gross cliquishness that permeates the industry, he would have likely been supplanted with a competent carpenter, and never would I have had the privilege of watching a dude mindlessly whacking the roof in imitation of actual labor 

Amazing.....that is so wonderfully amazing.....I just can't even.  

[Lily Valley]

Larry, I am completely speechless.  

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Liffguard]

I love it when people put almost as much effort into avoiding work as it would take to actually work. It's actually kind of impressive.