Biglaw, Boutique Law Firms, Small Law Firms

Beyond Biglaw: 3 Phrases Associates Should Avoid

Law firm life is challenging enough for associates; there is no need to make it worse by using language that paints the speaker as unfit for duty.

By  
on

Beyond BiglawLaw firms uniformly have high expectations for their associates. The size of the firm does not matter. Associates are expected to be dedicated to their work, helpful to partners and clients, and profit-generating for the firm. The associate experience can vary from firm to firm, but there are certain things that associates should almost never say in the presence of partners — especially when things are stressful, which for some firms is all the time. Associates are generally expected to contribute towards helping the partners navigate through stressful periods, not contribute additional stress.

For purposes of this column, I am not discussing personal interactions between partners and associates. There are rules and boundaries for both sides to keep in mind for those interactions, of course. But the focus of this column is on professional speech, and in particular situations where the associate is facing a request from a partner for more information of some kind. Whether the requested information centers on some aspect of legal research or client management does not matter. Our working assumption will be that the partner expects that the associate will deliver something of value in response to the inquiry at hand. (Of course, a good general rule that associates should follow — with all communications to both partners and clients — is to try and respond only when the associate’s response will contribute something of value to the questioner.)

Anyone who has worked in a law firm, however, knows that associates are sometimes presented with questions that demand an immediate response. Especially in times of heavy activity or intensity, there may not be an opportunity for an associate to formulate a perfect, or even a considered, response. At the same time, associates should always be careful not to call into question their own fitness for their position, by using language that is apt to generate concern in the audience as to the associate’s judgment.

We all know that law schools continue to pump out graduates irrespective of the market demand for them, and that law firms are well-stocked with experienced associates who are dissatisfied in some measure and looking to lateral. There is no reason to give a partner a reason to consider soliciting résumés from other associate candidates, whether via a call to the recruiting department or some form of external advertisement. It may seem harsh that a bad answer could even potentially lead to such drastic consequences, but such is the unforgiving nature of law firm life.

There are plenty of ill-advised things that I personally have heard associates say in the presence of partners or clients. While the vast majority of such verbal missteps have passed without incident, there is no way of calculating just how harmful those statements were for the associate who made them. For whatever reason, law is not a business where if you can make a good first impression you are golden. Associates must always make a good impression, and a single instance of creating a negative impression can be fatal to a career. Yes, an otherwise strong and productive associate can build equity that can shield them from some harsh consequences. But there is no sense in causing self-harm through lax attention to what comes out of one’s mouth either.

If comments were still open, I have no doubt that the commentariat would be able to supply a long list of phrases that an associate should never utter, or at least use with extreme caution. My idiosyncratic list of three phrases for associates to avoid is as follows: 1) “I guess,” 2) “It’s not fair,” and 3) “It was ____’s fault.” In the history of law firms, I have to believe that each of those independently have resulted in associate dismissals — with a quicker axe for the poor associate who may have used them in some sort of career-killing combination. Sure, there is an argument that all of these phrases are actually a bit innocuous, and part of workplace conversation between superiors and subordinates throughout the corporate world. But what works in the halls of a typical office park does not necessarily correspond to what law firms consider acceptable discourse by associates.

First, the phrase “I guess” generates all kind of uncomfortable feelings when spoken by an associate to a partner or client. The associate thinks that they are hedging, or demonstrating common sense when they use their brilliant mind to venture a guess at an answer being sought. But what the superior hears is that the associate is a bit intellectually reckless, and perhaps unprepared to contribute to the matter at hand in a productive way. Associates are paid to know, and if they do not know, to research and educate themselves. Better to say nothing than to guess when a substantive response is called for.

Sponsored

Second, an associate claiming that something is “not fair” is basically advertising that they do not have the fortitude for true success as a lawyer. Litigation is not fair. Many things that lawyers are called on to do are not fair. Legal practice demands a resiliency that precludes the lawyer from sinking to the level of lamenting their situation. Clients pay lawyers for solutions to problems. Likewise, partners pay associates for help solving those client problems. Lamenting the unfairness of it all is an indulgence that partners can’t afford. Which means that associates don’t get to complain either — at least in the presence of clients or partners. Save it for your office’s Thursday or Friday night associate bar crawl.

Third, partners and clients have little to no tolerance for associates who look to blame others. Better to take responsibility for your role in whatever needs fixing, rather than attempt to shift the blame onto others. Again, the expectation is that you are competent to perform your job, and will be part of the solution to the partner or client’s problem. Associates who are known to view themselves as above reproach, while ascribing responsibility for problems onto others, are not held in good repute. This is not to say that an associate must bear responsibility for problems not of their making. But the better approach is to be proactive about discussing your role in the solution, and to let the partner or client decide who gets blamed, rather than reflexively blaming others as a starting point.

Ultimately, associates need to understand that while their actions go the furthest in determining their career trajectory, their words matter as well. Part of the expectation of a professional is that they avoid guessing, avoid complaining about circumstances outside of their control, and avoid blaming others. Law firm life is challenging enough for associates. There is no need to make it worse by using language that paints the speaker as unfit for duty.

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique. The firm’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , ,