He can't actually be as incapable as he seems, and I don't want to stress him out to the point where he becomes even less useful.
Does he seem stressed now? Stressed but incompetent? Or just lazy?
Hard to read. He's kind of twitchy, but I think he may just be someone who presents as nervous, rather than seriously stressed.
"I believe you can do better work" might be a good lead.
Appeal to his self-interest. Yes, you need better work from him; but he'll enjoy being a better lawyer than the guy who did the last one, and he'll be less defensive if he thinks you can show him how.
Use carrots. And not metaphorical ones.
"Every typo will result in a carrot of approximately this size and shape inserted into your rectum."
I don't know if LB is into that, frankly.
"Your bonus depends on choosing the font for the next memo correctly. No hints."
As a new lawyer who frequently embarrassed myself by completely missing the point in the beginning of my practice, I have to say that I think blunt is best, however painful in the short term. I've learned the most when my boss has given me direct feedback (e.g. but these cases don't address the question I asked you, do you understand why?). Tough to swallow, at first, since I thought I was such a smartypants, but I'm a better lawyer and a much more careful researcher because of it. Young associates are more preoccupied with getting something done fast than getting it right, imho. Maybe just say -- what were you thinking?
I'd lean towards clear and firm. This is what was wrong, this is what needs to be fixed, I believe you're a better lawyer than your work, and I expect to see improvement in the future.
Yeah. I guess I'm getting stuck on the character of the errors. When I say "Wire fraud", and give him the USC cite for the statute, getting back cases that don't mention it is flummoxing -- I'm having trouble figuring out how to address it directly without hitting the fact that it's a kind of extreme missing of the point. Likewise with the ransom note memo -- I'm really not fussy about formatting, but giving someone work product in multiple fonts is just weird. I suppose I just have to suck it up, and keep on sending stuff back.
I agree with 9. The idea that you are, first of all, explaining that you would prefer being scrupulous to being speedy is a useful one.
For the memo, I might say something like, "Next time, I need you to spend more time making this clear and easy to read. Tidy up the formatting and [do X, Y, and Z to improve the substance], even if it means it takes you longer to get it back to me."
But I'm still delighted with my shiny new secretary, who is clever, efficient, and helpful. Maybe I should give her my Westlaw ID and see how she does with the research.
I'm having trouble figuring out how to address it directly without hitting the fact that it's a kind of extreme missing of the point.
Is there a reason that mentioning he's completely missing the point is a bad idea?
I'm having trouble figuring out how to address it directly without hitting the fact that it's a kind of extreme missing of the point.
"What happened here? I gave you the USC cite for the statute."
Well, that's pretty much what I did say -- I just hit a "Not a problem, that sort of thing could have happened to anyone" tone which wasn't actually appropriate given the facts.
Eh, the next time he screws something up, I'll give him the talk about care rather than speed.
Mostly, what I'm stuck with is a belief that generally being positive and encouraging gets better work out of people than negativity (it works great on paralegals), but looking at work that there's nothing actually positive to say about.
With so many new lawyers who already think they're the greatest thing to happen to the practice, I think the positive approach (while commendable!! and all too rare!!) has limits; they're (we're) just not going to hear the criticism if there's an excuse to fixate on something else.
"You did get the paper size correct..."
And I may be making a mountain out of a molehill. I've asked him to do two things, and they've both been done badly, but that's still only two things. We'll see how he does next week.
Why so much sympathy and concern? He's got a J.D., makes good money, and can't be too stressed or he'd have done it right the first time.
In school, if you write a half-decent paper that's way off the required topic, you either fail or are sternly told to rewrite (at least that's how I grade). And work is supposed to be, you know, the real world, so why not set the bar a little higher than it's set in sophomore ethics?
Pure self interest. I'm writing three other briefs right now, and can't focus on the stuff I have him doing -- I need him to do useful work responsively and cooperatively. I'm worried that if I get overly negative, I'll shut him down and I won't get anything productive out of him.
I'm not trying to be kind, I'm trying to figure out the best way to extract usable work-product.
A year and a half ago, I was asked to sit with a new employee who had just screwed up a HUGE transaction (to the point where the client was talking to executives about taking their extremely lucrative business elsewhere). It should have been pretty obvious from the fact that he had gotten called on the carpet a few days before, and now here I was looking over his shoulder for an hour, that he was on pretty thin ice. I gave him some fairly mild feedback about a small imperfection in his process, and followed it up with "we'd rather have 100% accuracy and 90% speed than the reverse". Boy, did that get a sullen response! Kids today, I don't know.
This guy is making what, around $150,000? Just wanted to note that.
I think of my workplace as very laid-back, but when I hear about what people in other places put up with, I realize it's not. If you screw up anything here, you'll hear about. Not in a nasty way, but someone will talk to you. That's why it's so important to blog all day and not do anything.
Is it possible he needs more direction. "I need cases that invoke law A as a predicate offense for crime B." If he's new he might need more supervision to make sure he's looking in the right place. (of course this takes more time, but my guess is he isn't coming back with the wrong stuff on purpose, so I'm guessing communication is breaking down somewhere)
Wow, this brings back some memories. If I were you, next time he does something like this, I would be direct. Tell him what he did wrong, or he'll never get it right. All of my friends who are lawyers - and they are legion - can all remember that one senior associate or partner who was the first to really tell them that their shit didn't smell like roses. And to a person, they became better attorneys because of it.
At the risk of exploding the thread into gender issues, but be careful on tone, as the male junior associates I worked with often sounded resentful of senior female associates and their criticism, even if it was completely warranted.
I was lucky in that the only attorneys I supervised were women and so I was pretty free in telling them that what they turned in didn't resemble anything that someone paying $400/hr would want to read.
At the risk of exploding the thread into gender issues, but be careful on tone, as the male junior associates I worked with often sounded resentful of senior female associates and their criticism, even if it was completely warranted.
I think young men feel much more shamed by being criticized by female superiors in public than by being criticized by male superiors in public - not because of resentment but because it leads to losing status in the eyes of others. This could lead to resenting the woman for humiliating him but not for the criticism itself.
In private, it shouldn't cause resentment, unless of course the guy is a douchebag.
This guy is making what, around $150,000? Just wanted to note that.
Wha? Is this guy straight out of law school? What does "Junior Associate" mean?
I'm pretty sure that's around what fresh out of law school at a big firm in NY will get you.
Someone who makes around 150K these days. Grotesque, isn't it?
And yeah, I'm a little skittish about the gender stuff. I get a lot of people telling me I'm scary when I'm negative at all, which leaves me nervous about saying anything that's not buried under roses and puppydogs.
I get a lot of people telling me I'm scary when I'm negative at all, which leaves me nervous about saying anything that's not buried under roses and puppydogs.
Even with the puppydogs it can come across as scary if someone can tell you're being insincere. Just say what you need to say.
I agree with Ned. Angry is much better than insincere or uncomfortable. Say it with exactly as much malice as you feel (which seems to be not much). He can deal.
32: <chipper-n-perky>Hey there! I just called you in here to tell you that this product is shit! Get it together if you want to keep working here! Don't you just love puppies?
Junior associate is usually first through 3rd year and then from 4th and 5th are midlevels and upwards of there you got your senior associates and junior partners... Depending on the firm, you might have a distinction between equity and non-equity partners, the equity-having partners which are often those non-equity partners who sucked up the non-equity-ness for a year or two and managed to bring in enough business/dazzle enough people/win a war of attrition to deserve having a piece of the profit-generating machine.
As for pay at the big firms, here's a snapshot.
Hee hee! I left the chipper-n-perky tag open! Look at the butterflies! I should just leave it open for the rest of the thread! Wouldn't that be just wonderful?
Constructively, you might try what people in this industry do - praise initially, and THEN discuss the problems.
"First of all, I really like your doodling in the margins. However, I feel like they would be better served if they weren't included in this motion in limine..."
That sort of thing.
BTW, Rob Thomas is in the house. And that's all I'll say about that.
You're going to give Catherine an aneurysm.
Maybe just say -- what were you thinking?
I think that this could be a good way to go, but you have to be careful about the tone. (I'm not sure how this guy made it through a summer clerkship, if his work is as bad as you say it is.)
I speak as someone with no management experience but who does tend to shut down when under extreme stress. Obviollsy, you should tell him that his work is not what it should be, but don't let your tone imply that you're finishing all of your sentences with, "you idiot."
(My current boss is crazy, has somewhat unreasonable expectations and finds fault with perfectly innocent things--so I'm working on getting transferred to another department because of her-- but my work has started to suffer and is not as good as it could or should be because of the atmosphere she creates. (I'm also not really good at the portion of my job which requires visual-spatial skills and should probably be doing something else) Her management style leaves us all feeling that we can't breathe. One of my co-workers was horrified when she learned that our boss was on vacation for only one week and not two. The day before our boss was due to return, she said, "BG, I'm starting to feel sick, becasue S is coming back tomorrow.")
Be firm but don't terrify him or you won't get decent work.
Yep. Put 33, 34, and 40 together, and that's exactly what I'm worried about.
This guy's making $150,000? Fire him, and if he has a wife and kids, tell him you hope they starve or are sold into sex slavery.
I don't get to fire people. I'm a very small cog around here.
You could try writing a scathing memo to whoever has the authority to fire him.
At least take steps to increase the possibility of his being fired. Sorry, but no one is "labor" at $150,000.
I'd be blunt about the fact that the cases weren't correct. As in: "I asked you for wire fraud and you gave me securities fraud." But I'd immediately go on to what I saw as the goal -- "My goal here is to make sure that we write a brief that is accurate. To do that, I need to trust that when I ask you to do something, you'll check with me if you don't fully understand, rather than bringing me a result I can't use. Can you walk me through your thought process/search process?"
This is a softer version of Devo's "What were you thinking?". I find it gets good results in the 40% of instances where the person is making a technical error. I sit and watch them type in the search parameters and I say "Ah, you're selecting the CITY of NY rather than the state." Oops, they say guiltily, and then I have my opening for the little "Quality over speed" talk.
It gets middling results in the 40% of cases where the person was being fast and sloppy. When I'm sitting there, they're more careful and catch their own errors, but underneath they're resentful and they let that translate into going back to sloppy work when I'm not watching.
And in 20% of the time I fail completely to solve or even understand the problem.
I'd fire people making $11/hour for mistakes like that, btw. If they were habitual, and the person wasn't learning. For $150K? You want a hired gun, LB? Travel costs only!
Witt hits on what I suspect is often the main problem in these situations, which is that people are embarrassed to admit that they don't fully understand the task so they just guess (wrongly) what they are supposed to do instead of asking for clarification. The only solution I can think of is very, very detailed instructions.
How long has this guy been with the firm?
49: Sometimes, if you ask for clarification, you get yelled at too.
I'd be more concerned about the sloppy typefaces in the cut-and-paste document than the RICO cases; while the latter is a bad mistake, the former suggests that the guy truly doesn't give a shit. Maybe he's depressed and knows he's messing up but can't bring himself to fix it. I've been there too, although it's hard to feel sorry for the guy at 150K annual.
I agree with commenters above that you should err on the side of mean over nice. No one likes a passive aggressive supervisor. He's not going to like being dressed-down in any event; you may as well be feared and respected rather than despised.
I'd be more concerned about the sloppy typefaces in the cut-and-paste document than the RICO cases; while the latter is a bad mistake, the former suggests that the guy truly doesn't give a shit.
My thinking exactly. On the research, while I'm pretty sure I wasn't unclear, I've been wrong before. The memo, while petty, suggests that there's something odd going on here.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm that junior guy, especially compared to my supervisor.
I don't think I'm slipshod, but I do feel like I'm underperforming. I came from a boss who would pull you up short and now I have one that's either passive-aggressive or overly nice. I prefer blunt and straight up.
This is all complicated by the fact that I'm disgruntled and doing a moderately shitty job myself these days, of course. Not like this kid, but I'm not turning out work with the efficiency I should be.
Sometimes, if you ask for clarification, you get yelled at too.
That's true, which is why it helps to be explicit (and to model!) that asking for clarification does not get you yelled at by this boss.
Teo is resoundingly right on issue of people being embarrassed, too. It often gets worse the more education/status people have. My tendency is to be practical: "Well, let's talk through how we would find that out." If they seem very nervous, I might disarmingly mention an example of something I didn't know.
Worldview is pretty important. Working for a boss who thinks the world is zero-sum, and any point they score is a point you lose, is misery. Working for a boss who cares intensely about producing good work, and wants every ounce of collegial effort to go toward that, is pure joy. In between is a long continuum.
Mmm. I did give him the talk about coming to me if he got stuck up front, before he brought back the weird results. (And talked to him about the results he was getting halfway through the day, and told him that it sounded odd -- was he sure he was on the right track?) But I guess I'll keep harping on that.
And talked to him about the results he was getting halfway through the day
I'm losing sympathy for this guy.
Giving the secretary your login is not a bad idea.
Have you talked to other people who have worked with him?
That's not a bad idea -- I should ask around.
They might have some ideas about what, if anything, would get him to produce decent work.
Is there a way to test into law school? If so, I may be able to do something for you.
Is there a way to test into law school?
Actually, I think there's still a state or two where you can take the bar, and become a lawyer, without going to law school. (Louisiana, maybe?) So, yes.
New York and California too, it seems. At least as of 2004.
Not "too" so much as "instead," I guess.
I've read up to 13 and will read the rest after this comment.
Being blunt is the way to go. I've supervised a lot of young lawyers, and sitting him down privately and saying to him: Look, I asked for cases about RICO here, and you've given me cases that didn't even cite RICO. What were you trying to do? Then send him to do it again. It is very important to do this ASAP-- he needs to have what he did fresh in his mind for maximum impact.
This is going to be a test of his attitude-- if he'll take direction you have a chance to make progress.
More after I've read the thread....
have you thought about giving him the url for this thread?
This site says there are at least eight.
69: That's from 1996, though. Some may have stopped allowing it since then.
My advice stands after reading the thread.
You're at a big firm - just tell him to stop being such a fucking moron.
Please forgive the one shot driveby, but you might consider approaching this from a different viewpoint. Try viewing your job as being a teacher and a coach. Your associate may be screwing up because no one has taken the time to show him what to do and what the standards of practice are there at Big McFirm. That is a common problem at big firms, and of course law school does little to prepare you for your job as an associate. Properly said--that is, as a genuine and serious question--"what were you thinking" is not a bad approach. Why did he think it it did not matter that he gave you a memo that was not properly formatted? Maybe he does not understand that there are good reasons, like you need stuff properly formatted, cite checked and Blue Booked so that you can paste them into your brief, or that he needs to develop the habit of presenting things properly. Maybe no one has made clear that professional presentation needs to be a habit if things that go out of the office are going to look right, and for better or worse, the firm's reputation and the view courts take of your submissions rest, in some small but real way, on how they look. In short, explain what he did wrong, what he needs to do to do things right, and why it matters--a lot--that they be done right. And then check him. And give him feedback.
Now, this does not mean that you have to hold back or be less than candid about what needs to be fixed. It may mean, however, that there is no reason to be angry. The only reason to be angry is once you know that he knows what to do and why it is important and he still does not try to do it right. At that point, feel free to yell.
I know that this is a lot of work, but teaching junior lawyers is part of a more senior lawyer's job, and my experience both in the law and elsewhere is that it makes a big difference to the work lives of both the junior and senior lawyers are better if everyone approaches it that way.
Look at the times you learned the most about being a lawyer. Were they when someone was yelling at you for not being as a good a lawyer as they wanted or was it when someone worked with you to teach you how to be a better lawyer?
[returning to permanent lurkerhood]
Phooey. I see on preview that Idealist rendered my thoughts largely redundant, but I'm going to throw this out there anyway:
You made a request, the work product didn't meet that request. So you ask again, explaining where the product you received diverged from the product you wanted. You don't need to be "blunt," but you do need to be direct and factual.
Blame is often a bad idea, but if the issue of blame seems to be getting in the way of conveying your message, then you can always take a piece of the blame yourself. "I don't know if I explained this well enough, but here's what I need."
Things like fonts are easily fixed, and if that problem were part of the current situation, one option is simply to not bring it up this time. Rather than focusing on what crappy fonts say about his attitude, focus on how crappy fonts impede your work - not much, I assume, and therefore you can just fix it yourself.
All this changes as you get more experience with this person - the third or fourth time you confront something like this, the more stern you have to be. And this advice also changes the closer you are to being in a boss-employee relationship. But this person seems to be almost as much a colleague as a subordinate.
I feel more qulified to speak on this than just about any other topic we've ever had. As somone who comes off as charming but is in fact incompotent, i would appreciate real advice, not sidestepping. I would also like to know the address of firms that are hiring lazy, incompotent, unfogged posters.
And as to answering the wrong questions: maybe he just realized he had no idea how to research teh right thing, but knew something about RICO, and felt like he should write something about that, because he was in too deep to go back and admit he had wasted a day on something and had nothihng to show, and by confusing you he'd get less shit. Witt has a good point. You need to explain thoroughly, beyond the point of redundancy, what he fucked up on. You don't have to make it scolding. Just a bit professorial.
i'm not sure you have to be positive about the work. just be positive about him. you fucked up some brief too. part of the learning curve. make sure you explain why its shitty work though, in case he's extra dense. its notn always easy to process information in a high-stress situation like getting reprimanded by you boss. You do need to engage him for a bit more to get a better chance to read him. i think positivity is useful not so much to avoid stress, as to ensure good communication.
Once posted, i realize that most of what i said, was said already.
Oh, 63, you know you know what I mean. The last thing I graduated from was elementary school, but that doesn't mean I don't like petty arguments about words and writing long and tedious bitchings. Surely there must be a market for pedantry?
legal work seems to have quite an overlap with pedantry
Surely there must be a market for pedantry?
You're soaking in it.
If someone were to force me to give actual advice, I'd require some brief description of observed personality traits. I know people who, if presented with a direct description of the flaws in their work, would immediately enter work-to-order mode, but if presented with the goal in the right way, perform it brilliantly. I know others who would pretend to understand all non-yelled directions, yet follow their intution unless yelled at. There isn't a one-size solution.
Frankly I'm doubtful that this is more interesting than carp jokes.
My little brother is going to law school, and refuses to take my sage advice: graduate, then fuck off to Alaska, where the practicing lawyers/G[State]P ratio is lower than anywhere else. Also, moose. Is there any flaw in my reasoning?
84:
Nobody's holding a gun to your head. Let loose.
Idealist is right about the teaching and the thing.
Alternatively, ferret out the smart paralegal in your firm who's just killing time deciding whether to go to law school or grad school, and is trying to stay quiet in the meantime. S/he'll do good work, and when word gets around about the awesome paralegal in Basement2, all the first-year associates will get jealous and start doing real work.
84: Will you ever quit carping?
That $150,000 motherfucker must be fired.
Or seduced into a harassment suit.
then fuck off to Alaska, where the practicing lawyers/G[State]P ratio is lower than anywhere else. Also, moose. Is there any flaw in my reasoning?
Doesn't Alaska also have the lowest ratio of single women to single men or something?
That ratio could be a feature, not a bug, depending on his orientation.
I'm pretty sure most of alaska's goods are mail order of one sort or another.
My wife had a boss years ago who would theatrically rip the memo in half, over a wastebasket, and announce that it's not high school.
I don't recommend the approach.
I like Idealist's approach as an ideal, but your time is limited, and the screw up is pretty big, wire fraud is so distinct from securities fraud, and your efforts to get him on track weren't successful. He's either a moron, or thinks he doesn't have to do good work for you (in which case he's a moron -- who does he think is paying the bill, you?). I'd be very tempted to call him in, tell you want the memo on wire fraud you asked for, and that you're going to tell the partner to write off his time.
Paying attention to what you're telling him, especially when you give guidance through the day, isn't something you have to teach him.
first years at big ny law firms make 160k. plus bonus of around 30. he should be able to perform. and let's remember what rates your clients are paying for his time in order to fund that salary (and the partner profits he subsidizes). how many redo's should they be paying for? citing securities fraud cases rather than wire fraud cases is pretty egregious. i say straighten him out, even it requires being tough. trying to preserve his feelings is just going to extend the ordeal.
Could all of the details (RICO, etc.) be an indiscretion error?
"Blame is often a bad idea, but if the issue of blame seems to be getting in the way of conveying your message, then you can always take a piece of the blame yourself. "I don't know if I explained this well enough, but here's what I need."
This is a crucial point.
By using formulations like this, you gain amazing lattitude.
If they give you bad work in the future, immediately take full responsibility for the situation, and then tell them that everything they're doing is massively wrong.
It really works bizarrely well in a wide range of situations when you need to tell someone that they're an idiot without losing them.
94. I don't recommend the approach.
It is however better than making inappropriate efforts to be kind which may simply be interpreted as passive-aggressive.
Be direct, he may not be good at nuance. If he isn't a total wuss he can take it; if he is, he's in the wrong job. OTOH, pf and Petey are spot on about how to present the direct criticism.
I like TomF and Idealist's advice. Ignore CharleyCarp's lack of patience. What does he know about supervising lawyers?!?!!
This associate should know better. The screwup is fairly basic.
But, give him the benefit of the doubt. Show him an example of what you want. Explain why his work did not cut it. Give him another shot. Be clear. Be compassionate. Be firm.
Your firm can afford to write off a little time. But you have spent money on this associate and you need to see if that money is being wasted or if nobody has bothered to help him learn how to do it.
If he cannot do the work to stay at the firm, perhaps you will have helped him learn a little.
I don't understand why people are suggesting that LB be nice or reasonable. The problems she describes seem pretty fundamental.
Maybe LB should check his credentials. Did he really attend law school and pass the bar?
I think the flip side of the gender thing is that if you're too concerned about his feelings, he may simply not respect you. I'm sure you can do the firm no-nonsense thing, LB. Just do the same thing you do when it's time to tell Newt or Sally that you understand that yes, they were angry at their sibling, but no, it is Not Okay to Hit, and you want that Very Clear and expect no more nonsense of that sort, you hear me?
I attended a talk once that specifically dealt with subtexts that women understand between each other, but men percieve differently, at the workplace. The example given was:
Employee turns in a crap report to a woman boss. The boss feels that she gave very clear instructions.
In the first scenario, the employee is female:
Woman Boss A: I'm afraid my instructions weren't clear. You'll need to re-do this report to accomplish X, Y, and Z.
Female Employee: No, no, your instructions were fine. I was the one who misunderstood you. I'll redo it.
Whereas, with a male employee:
Woman Boss A: I'm afraid my instructions weren't clear. You'll need to re-do this report to accomplish X, Y, and Z.
Male Employee: Oh, okay. I'll redo it, then.
The point being that the male employee takes the statement "I'm afraid my instructions weren't clear" at face-value, and assumes the boss means it. The female employee understands it to be part of a camraderie face-saving gesture, and responds by taking blame herself, whether or not she believes it was her fault.
It resonated with my personal style, at least. I would be very clear and direct with a male employee, and not say, "I wasn't clear" unless you believe that to be true.
I'm afraid 102 wasnt very clear to me.
The idea is that women talking to women will recognize self-blaming from the superior as a polite means of letting the supervisee who screwed up off the hook. "I asked you to get me lunch, and you brought back an irate weasel in a cage. I must have been unclear." And the female employee will hear that as "You fucked up, don't do it again, but I'm not going to be a jerk about it -- if you don't screw up again, you're not in trouble." A male employee will hear "I must have been unclear" from a female supervisor as "I, the supervisor, screwed up. You are completely in the right, and I apologize to you." If you want to get across the "You fucked up" message to a man, you can't do the polite self-blaming.
I'm not sure if it's true (either that women generally get the message, or that men don't), but that's what 102 means.
The female employee understands it to be part of a camraderie face-saving gesture, and responds by taking blame herself, whether or not she believes it was her fault.
Wait, does she so understand it and consciously respond in a diplomatic fashion, or is she socially conditioned for self-deprecation?
Wait, does she so understand it and consciously respond in a diplomatic fashion, or is she socially conditioned for self-deprecation?
I personally would say to the boss, "No, no, it was my fault." In my case, it would be diplomatic savvy, not actual self-deprecation.
I'm not sure if it's true (either that women generally get the message, or that men don't), but that's what 102 means.
I'm not sure if it's true in general, either, but LB - would you personally respond that way to a female boss?
Conscious. I'd consciously hear 'I must have been unclear' from a female supervisor, unless the delivery were really effusively apologetic, as 'I wasn't unclear, the problem was that you weren't listening. Get it right next time,' delivered politely, and would respond to the underlying message by apologizing for my error.
Of course, whenever I screw up, I usually bring it up before my boss does, and say "it was my fault, I should have caught it" no matter what. But that's because I'm a pathetic little worm.
Um, LB, 104 was a joke.
106: Why can't it be both? (I think it's more social conditioning, but the point is that that sort of non-blame-laying criticism is a form of social conditioning that women understand without thinking about it, and they know how to respond to it automatically. That's how communication works.)
108 crossed with 107. The message is perfectly comprehensible, I'm just not sure that men are consistently unable to pick it up more than women are.
110: It was? Sorry, will. I missed it.
Male commenters - Would you personally respond like the male employee or the female employee?
(Note to will: she doesn't really mean that apology. What she means is that your joke wasn't very funny. Try harder next time, mmkay?)
105 gets it right.
I think that it applies equally when the superior is a man, though. Women are just better than men at receiving signals that are sent in a passive-aggressive way.
The point being that the male employee takes the statement "I'm afraid my instructions weren't clear" at face-value, and assumes the boss means it.
I'd assume the boss meant it. Then maybe after 5 such instructions I'd think "Wait, has she actually been mad at me and thought I was a fuckup all this time? God, how humiliating. Why doesn't she say what she means?"
Why did I make 116 a hypothetical situation? It's a real situation from the lab I was in two years ago.
113: "No, I should have asked for more clarification. I'll redo it right now."
Note the implicit rather than explicit blame-taking, and the explicit suggestion of how this failure mode can be avoided in future.
(Though my relationship with my current boss is nearly one of peers, and he and I have worked together on and off for fifteen years, so this scenario isn't really applicable.)
Do you have to call it passive aggressive? I'd talk like that to someone I trusted to understand me (note on the post; I didn't to this guy), and the intent would be to communicate that I wasn't going to hold the error against them, not to fuck with them in a way that they couldn't openly object to. It doesn't seem passive-aggressive to me at all.
(Now, giving genuinely unclear instructions, and responding to work product you didn't like with an aggrieved sigh and "I suppose I must have been unclear. Let me try and explain it again for you...," that would be passive-aggressive.)
I guess it's just passive, rather than passive-aggressive. Passive-aggressive would be intentionally making the employee feel humiliated. Sorry.
the intent would be to communicate that I wasn't going to hold the error against them, not to fuck with them in a way that they couldn't openly object to.
As long as you make it clear that THEY made the error and YOU did not make any error except for thinking they understood something they didn't.
116: This is bizarre to me. Wouldn't you have had a freestanding opinion, regardless of what she said, about whether her instructions had been clear? If they were clear, and you realized in retrospect that it was your fuckup, why would what she said about it change that opinion?
Yeah re. 119. The problem with 116 is that you're getting angry at your boss for being polite; I mean, isn't the working presumption in a boss/subordinate relationship that if you screw something up, well, *you're* the one who screwed up?
Though I'm sure I wouldn't say "I must have been unclear." I'd say, probably, "Maybe this wasn't clear." And when I teach, I explain things and stop, frequently, to ask, "is that clear?" precisely because I've grown tired of people saying they "don't understand what I want" and because I've learned, consciously, that the more direct "this is the assignment, let me know if you have any questions" approach makes students think I'm mean.
Little wusses.
In Ned's defense, sometimes you don't understand the boss's instructions, and you don't know enough to be able to tell if the boss's instructions would have been clear to someone else or not.
I guess, but that should happen only if you're really over your head, which you should be able to figure out.
Politeness is one thing, but 'Maybe I was unclear' when it's a safe bet that you weren't might not get the results you want. ("I am teh uberlawyer, I just have a dumb boss who is never clear and then I have to redo it" vs. "Whoops, I screwed up.")
I mean, isn't the working presumption in a boss/subordinate relationship that if you screw something up, well, *you're* the one who screwed up?
As long as the boss makes it clear that the boss didn't actually make a mistake.
Here's the thing - I want to know when someone is mad at me. If someone pretends not to be mad at me and then later on I find out that she was mad enough that other people knew about it but I didn't, it's embarrassing.
And I want to know when I've made a mistake that was serious enough that someone got mad about it. It seems almost like a qualitative difference - a mistake that someone gets mad about is worse than a mistake that the same person passes off without getting mad. So if you downplay the importance of the mistake, the employee will consider "doing better next time" to be less urgent.
126: This is one of those things where sure, if you pick it apart it looks like an invitation to miscommunication, but it's really a very ordinary, and not particularly difficult to understand, manner of speaking. I'm genuinely unsure of how often I say things like this, but I know they sound perfectly conventionally comprehensible to me, and I'm very much not Ms. Sensitive Nuance Comprehension 2007; I'm kind of a clod, nuancewise.
And I want to know when I've made a mistake that was serious enough that someone got mad about it. It seems almost like a qualitative difference - a mistake that someone gets mad about is worse than a mistake that the same person passes off without getting mad.
If I'm getting you, the real problem isn't that you wouldn't understand that you had made a mistake, it's that being 'let off the hook' communicates 'this is acceptable, no need to do better next time'. You need actual anger rather than simple identification of shoddy work to provide an incentive to improve. (This sounds like I'm being hostile to you, which I'm not trying to be. Just trying to pick it apart.)
You need actual anger rather than simple identification of shoddy work to provide an incentive to improve. (This sounds like I'm being hostile to you, which I'm not trying to be. Just trying to pick it apart.)
Work can be shoddy but also acceptable sometimes if the person is in a rush or something. It may be unclear to a new employee whether it's one of those situations, or whether it's a situation in which This is Never Acceptable and should Never Be Done Again, No Excuses. Something cut-and-pasted in different fonts? It sounds unacceptable to me, but maybe he's used to that being OK as long as the information gets across.
130: Yeah, I'd take the clear breakline between acceptable and unacceptable to be whether the work gets accepted, or whether you get asked to fix it. I'd say that if the "I must have been unclear" is accompanied with "but this will do fine," then we're into real unclarity if the work product really isn't okay.
Something cut-and-pasted in different fonts? It sounds unacceptable to me
I can't think of ANY circumstances in which it would be acceptable. FFS, I'd not even write a set of notes for myself( that'd not been seen by anyone else) in that way.
133: How about when it's just going to go straight to the tech writer, who's going to rewrite and reformat the hell out of it anyway? My own OCD wouldn't let me do it, but I wouldn't care too much if someone else did.
re: 134
Nah, I just couldn't do it.
I'd say that if the "I must have been unclear" is accompanied with "but this will do fine," then we're into real unclarity if the work product really isn't okay.
Sometimes people say "Do it right next time". But they should actually say "Do it again, right now, and this time do it right." Because otherwise, the employee leaves thinking "I may have screwed this thing up, but she isn't making me do it again, so it must have some value."
Well, the problem is if you say, perhaps, "Maybe you didn't understand what I wanted" then there are some people who will think you're being p-a and bitchy.
It would be nice if irl people sat down and said, okay, how do you prefer to be communicated with? And definitely if you get to the point where your boss is saying "maybe I was unclear" and you finally twig that they don't really mean that, it's probably worth going to them and saying, look, I appreciate that you're trying not to be blunt, but I can handle blunt. That and, of course, realizing that for whatever reason, they feel more comfortable softening criticism, and taking that into account in the future.
This as opposed to genuinely p-a coworkers, who are a total pain in the ass.
136: Wouldn't you, if you fucked something up and your boss said "do it right the next time," say, "I'm sorry. Would you like me to do this over"?
Do you get to bill for all the re-write hours and mentoring too ?
My impression of post law school life is outside of the top
tier big firms paying $175/yr, there are hoards of fresh young
things doing document review for $22/hr.
I'm taking xoxo, autoadmit and the former jdjive as evidence.
Well, the problem is if you say, perhaps, "Maybe you didn't understand what I wanted" then there are some people who will think you're being p-a and bitchy.
You know, the lack of clarity argument we're having makes some sense to me -- while I've been arguing that it shouldn't be that hard to understand, there are certainly circumstances where there would be potential for confusion. But this I don't get -- I can't see anyone who understood "Maybe you didn't understand what I wanted," but thought it was p-a and bitchy, who'd be happier with "This is wrong. Go fix it." Wouldn't anyone who got hostile about the first be getting hostile about being corrected, and be just as pissy about the second?
139: Kind of. You don't explicitly take time off the bill because it was wasted; if the total bill gets unreasonable, the partner with a relationship may write some off, but it's not usually closely tied to "Well, I know these three hours were useless."
137: Yeah, it would be nice, but people don't work like that. What you do as a peon irl is guide your boss into giving you properly formatted instructions with modulated groveling. For instance, if the boss says "I'd like an angry weasel in a cage" and then becomes upset when her lunch is not delivered, I might say something along the lines of "I'm sorry, I tend to take these things too literally. I'll just assume lunch then?"
But this I don't get -- I can't see anyone who understood "Maybe you didn't understand what I wanted," but thought it was p-a and bitchy, who'd be happier with "This is wrong. Go fix it." Wouldn't anyone who got hostile about the first be getting hostile about being corrected, and be just as pissy about the second?
Yeah, if someone gets hostile about any criticism.
In that case the person is a weasel and must be forced to confront his failings straightfowardly instead of being able to make excuses to weasel out of them.
But is he an irate weasel in a cage?
I can totally see why you'd want to avoid the 'she's a bitch' mumbling behind your back, but I'm not seeing the redeeming value in the guy. He came to you with what seemed like the wrong answer, you told him he was on the wrong path, told him what the right path was, and still he didn't go the right way. No lawyer qualified for a position at your firm should be confusing wire fraud with securities fraud.
I'm not saying you humiliate him. Just: 'I need a new memo, I need it to address wire fraud, and I need it now.' Again, I'm sympathetic to the need to teach the guy, but the lessons that he has to pay attention, that he has to treat an assignment from you as seriously as one he gets from anyone (I suspect -- without evidence -- this an an element) aren't going to be learned by your giving him any way on earth to think that his responsibility is less than 100% for his screw-up. It's not your fault for being unclear, or unfairly demanding, it's not his school's fault for never testing whether he could listen to instructions, and it's not his mother's fault for weening him too early and/or letting him play too many video games as a teenager.
You're going to have to write an evaluation of him when the regular cycle comes around, aren't you? Are you going to sugarcoat it? Are you going to seek this guy out for other projects in the future? If a similarly situated (or slightly junior to you) colleague asks you what you think of the guy's work, are you going to say he writes a great memo, and just omit that it's about the wrong thing?
145 gets it right. I wasn't specifically talking about this guy anymore, but CHarleyCarp brings it back to getsitrightville.
I'm not saying you humiliate him. Just: 'I need a new memo, I need it to address wire fraud, and I need it now.'
This I did immediately -- what he's doing this weekend is finding me wire fraud cases. The post was asking for advice on how to fix him going forward, because I'm not going to get a different junior associate for this matter. And yeah, if he doesn't get fixed, it'll go on his review.
I can't see anyone who understood "Maybe you didn't understand what I wanted," but thought it was p-a and bitchy, who'd be happier with "This is wrong. Go fix it." Wouldn't anyone who got hostile about the first be getting hostile about being corrected, and be just as pissy about the second?
Maybe you didn't understand insults his comprehension skills. Maybe I was unclear insults your explanation skills, and sets you up as an unsure and inconstant woman, and thus not to be taken seriously. 'This isn't what we need to win this case; to win this case we need a memo addressing wire fraud' is about what his job is actually about, which, as you know, isn't your relationships with each other, or personal development, or whatever. After you get the new memo, then you can tell him that for the money the clients are shelling out, they have a reasonable expectation that all of you will get things right the first time.
I guess I shouldn't be such a hard-ass, given my evident failure to preview -- a reasonable step.
Yeah, going forward: did he get the message that the old memo didn't correspond at all to your expectations? If he's already got it, you may not need to do anything more.
Maybe I was unclear insults your explanation skills, and sets you up as an unsure and inconstant woman, and thus not to be taken seriously.
Oh, nonsense, or at least nonsense if you're stating it as an objective fact about interpersonal communication generally. I would interpret 'maybe I was unclear' as a mild correction from someone who wanted better work but didn't want to rub my nose in it, and I think most people who said something like that would mean it that way. Directed to me it wouldn't convey that the speaker was 'unsure or inconstant' at all, and I think it wouldn't be true of most people who spoke that way.
If you mean "It's an insufficiently dominant way of putting it, and if your subordinates perceive you as insufficiently dominant they'll fuck with you," then fine, and that's a reason not to use it, but that's about nitwits who need to make everything a power struggle, not anything intrinsically screwed up about being polite. (And for the record, again, I didn't say anything politely indirect to this guy. He handed me the highlighted cases, I looked at them and said "These are securities fraud cases. I need to know about wire fraud. Go back and look for some cases that answer the question I asked about wire fraud.")
145 and 148 pretty clearly demonstrate why I have always liked having male mentors. God knows you need women who will understand all the gender shit, but there's really something very helpful about guys (it's not always guys, but ime most of the time it is) who will just lay it right out there and say, more or less, "you know what you're doing, so act like it."
(Not in any way meant to imply that LB doesn't know what she's doing and act like it, just a more general comment on the particular tone of CC's comments there.)
Huh. That has not generally been my experience of working for men. The experience I've had of working in lawfirms has almost all been working for men (one female senior associate when I was very junior, who was great), and it's been eight years of little or no comprehensible feedback, positive or negative. (Oh, what there's been has largely been positive, but rarely anything specific or useful.)
I don't mean to damn all the men I've worked for and with - there have been one or two who I've learned an awful lot from. I just wouldn't generalize about male superiors as a force for clear communication.
Well, not all the men I've worked with have been like that, certainly. But once in a while you get a good one.
150 -- You're responding to a generalized comment, rather than one about this situation, because, as you said (and I understood), you didn't tell the guy 'maybe I misunderstood.'
Put on a pair of male ears, for a minute, and buy into 10,000 years of accumulated folk wisdom about 'how women are.' You went to a top law school, did very well, and are at a big deal law firm, because you deserve to be there. No one has ever complained about your work before, and, so far as you know, you're headed on a well trodden path to fame and fortune. You're assigned to do a project for a woman, about whom it's said that she doesn't supervise much. (Among whatever else -- you know how law firms are snake pits of gossip). You go in to her office, listen carefully to her assignment (just like always), and write a damn good memo. She takes one look at it and says 'I guess I didn't explain very well what I wanted you to do' [note, I mean what's heard, not what's said] and 'I need you to spend the weekend giving me what I have now decided I want' without reference to whatever you'd planned. Bitch.
OK, it's entirely possible that the response to 'I must not have been clear' would be 'no, I've misunderstood.' I'd like to think I'd go that way. Unless I'd been sure that I'd understood the instructions at the outset.
I just wouldn't generalize about male superiors as a force for clear communication.
I'm not; I'm more generalizing about the ways that good men lay down a bottom line. Good women tend to do that as well, but ime there's a little more of the turning things over, looking at other angles approach with women, which can also be useful of course, but there's something about how (some) guys will sort of just go straight to the heart of the matter that's really refreshing and helpful. It somehow cuts short all the second-guessing I tend to do otherwise. (It's also something I kind of like about the olde Mineshafty way of doing things, fwiw.)
Sure, of the people I've worked for/with, the best manager, and the one I learned the most about lawyering from, was a male associate a few years senior to me. But that's out of a group of supervisors that was overwhelmingly male; in my career I've had one longish period working with a female senior associate, and a couple of isolated assignments from female partners, that's it. If there were going to be any good managers at all in there, the odds were overwhelming that they'd be men. But there haven't been a lot.
You go in to her office, listen carefully to her assignment (just like always), and write a damn good memo. She takes one look at it and says 'I guess I didn't explain very well what I wanted you to do' [note, I mean what's heard, not what's said] and 'I need you to spend the weekend giving me what I have now decided I want' without reference to whatever you'd planned. Bitch.
Right. What I hear you saying is that "To protect against sexist responses, you can't look anything but firmly dominant at all times." Which is probably good advice, and it's advice I'll take. But it's awfully different from saying "Maybe I was unclear" is intrinsically insulting either to the speaker or the listener.
about whom it's said that she doesn't supervise much
So, so key. Both because that's going to feed right into the sloppy work and inevitable "bitch" response *and* because it means that if anyone ever tried to point out that the woman supervisor's gender might have been an issue for male subordinate, he's going to say "no, she just didn't know what she was doing."
And I should say that I'm not getting a power-struggle vibe off this guy at all -- except for the fact that the screwups are so weird, I'd think he were trying, but honestly clueless.
151 -- Tone doesn't always come out right on these things. In case it's not clear (especially without violating the sanctity of off-blog communication), I think the absolute world of LB. This is always in my mind as a subtext to what I write on these topics, but, well, it'd probably just embarrass her if I kept writing it.
it's awfully different from saying "Maybe I was unclear" is intrinsically insulting either to the speaker or the listener.
Eh, I dunno. It saves face, as Heebie said, and generally women do that sort of thing and I think that it's perfectly fine to do so and I do it all the time. But it *does* communicate a concern for the subordinate's feelings when the bottom line issue is how they do the job. It's a potential distraction from the real message.
161: Oh, me too. I doubt she comes across as waffly, like, ever. I was more talking about my own response to your comments.
Aw, shucks, and thanks.
I'm getting a little testy about the conversation generally because I'm putting Ned's and Charley's comments into a larger pattern of looking at communication styles that are gendered feminine, and that provoke hostility, and explaining the hostility as a response to the fact that feminine styles of communication are genuinely inferior and incomphrensible. (Not that I think either Ned or Charley is consciously endorsing that position; I really don't.)
And because I'm generally testy because I'm trying to write a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction in a case where we're trying to enforce a non-compete, except that we don't have a non-compete, we'd just like the ex-employee not to compete with us, please. And trying to elide the fact that there's no non-compete, and there's nothing really concrete in the way of trade secrets, but we'd really like the court to enjoin her from taking our clients, is driving me nuts.
I have always liked having male mentors. ...there's really something very helpful about guys (it's not always guys, but ime most of the time it is) who will just lay it right out there and say, more or less, "you know what you're doing, so act like it."
It's interesting. I am extremely familiar with the ritualized maybe-I-wasn't-clear, no-I-should-have-clarified boss/employee dance. I would even say that it has made up the majority of my working relationships. Most people don't seem to perceive it as passive or passive-aggressive -- just a kind of social lubricant.
I supervised one woman, though, whose response to my gracious "Maybe I didn't explain it clearly" was invariably some variation on "It's OK; don't feel bad." Um, I don't feel bad. You screwed up.
That said, one of the best bosses I ever had was not just blunt but a cussaholic. "What the f*** were you thinking? This doesn't have s*** to do with the question I asked!" was not an unusual response from him. It was terrific, because he never made it a personal attack and you could always tell that he sincerely cared about getting a good product. I was completely comfortable with it and I learned a ton. No ritualized apologies at all.
I think the absolute world of LB. This is always in my mind as a subtext to what I write on these topics, but, well, it'd probably just embarrass her if I kept writing it.
Yeah, but the rest of us would find it entertaining.
Oh, yeah, I love shouty people when it's clear that they're shouting about the work rather than at you. And I don't remember ever having trouble with anyone shouting at me.
My first firm was the whitest of white shoe firms, very much the gentle, polite, non-hostile law firm. This one guy, though -- the first assignment I ever got from him, the senior associate who was telling me to go talk to him said "Mark's a really, really nice guy, but" and dropped her voice "he swears a lot." Which he did, but in an entirely reasonable and non-abusive fashion. Just very excited.
And further to 161, the esteem is absolutely mutual. I'm just hating life right now.
And yeah, if he doesn't get fixed, it'll go on his review
The Barker images make this funny, since the thought is never far away in these encounters, although we know what you mean.
So, are threats of castration good, direct, management, or bad, indirect, management?
I'm just trying to figure out whether the way I grabbed him by the tie and cut it off with my desk scissors was a good idea or not.
Threatening castration is always good.
171:Whatever else it is, it isn't indirect.
It may have been direct, but I'll contend to the death that it was metaphorical, rather than literal, and that Junior preferred it that way.
LB, you could own that house in Elgin free and clear in the snap of a finger. Raise your kids in a wholesome middle American environment. Get in touch with the Old West.
John has a very idiosyncratic definition of "the West."
It comes from his childhood in Minnesota, back before statehood.
Elgin, N.D. B wouldn't recognize "The West" if it bit her on the ass.
B wouldn't recognize "The West" if it bit her on the ass.
Be that as it may, Elgin, ND is still not part of the West.
The Badlands, Deadwood, cowboys, Indians, the lone prairie, buffalo, Wounded Knee.
West.
N. D. is now settled mostly by Germans, Scandinavians, and Ukrainians, but historically it's part of the West.
That stuff's mostly in South Dakota.
Which must therefore be the southwest.
Historically maybe but now it's the fucking middle!
Actually, looking at a map I see that Elgin's pretty far west within ND, so I suppose you could make a reasonable case that it's part of the West. The state as a whole, no.
Wounded Knee and the Badlands are in ND. SD is close by, and identically West or not-West.
Most people in the Dakotas live on the Minnesota line, but the whole thing about the West is that nobody lives there. Geographically, ND is Western even if most of the ND population is Minnesotan.
My Congressional district has no city larger than 30,000 people, but just over the Dakota borders there are moderate-sized cities (Sioux Falls, Fargo, Grand Forks). It may be the most rural district in the US. You could call it gerrymandered, but its borders are straight lines.
B wouldn't recognize "The West" if it bit her on the ass.
Among other things, I recognize that the real west ain't all about names and mythical associations, Mr. Badlands.
I suppose you think that the real West is Hawaii, Ms. Literalist.
The West begins where the trees stop, and that's the North Dakota line, approximately. It ends where it starts to rain again, which is the West Coast.
No, Hawaii's the Pacific islands, obviously.
Where you've got long flat stretches of cornfields or grassland, that's the midwest. Don't give me this shit about how it doesn't rain in the Dakotas or Kansas or whatever. The west is desert, mostly. And mountains.
B., what you fail to realize is that everything you think is wrong. ND is more like Montana or Wyoming than it's like Minnesota, much less Indiana, and there are no cornfields.
I've driven through ND and it's grassland. Parts of it are indeed westerly, but Montana and Wyoming are not grassland.
Grassland is Western, regardless of what your demented opinion is. 2/3 of Montana is grassland. Oklahoma and most of texas are grassland.
Powell put it at the 100th Meridian, which runs down the middle of those states. From Illinois it keeps changing as you drive West, but the change I've observed is dramatic at a certain point. Driving out of Sioux Falls, in Eastern S.D. it's much dryer and and more open, with vastly fewer trees, but after crossing the Missouri, the change is still the most startling of the whole sequence. That's the dry zone that is the core idea of the West.
The Badlands and Wounded Knee are both in South Dakota, not North Dakota.
Both Dakotas have Badlands, but yeah, Wounded Knee is SD.
195: Elgin is in western ND.
Yeah, I know. All you people are off having "fun" somewhere or another, whether within your toxic "relationships", or in search of a new "relationship" which will make your life a living hell.
Well, no thanks! I'll continue my joyful, life-affirming, blog-comment related activities -- without you!
I blame teo. I think he is thinking about sex again.
Bah humbug to all this categorical thinking. ND is definitely not similar to Iowa or Indiana, B. But Emerson - ND is grasslands, as B says - it is the prairie. Obviously ND is some kind of weird transition area between the Midwest and the West and falls into both and neither categories.
I have relatives who are professionally employed as park rangers around the MN/ND borders and a ND professor of crop science in the family, so I have heard ad infinitum about the prairie character, soil composition, etc etc of ND and have even weeded ND gardens myself including some very long rows of sweet peas, so my opinion is rooted in the soil as they say (er, um).
Sure, but the treeless prairie is Western. E.G. Oklahoma and Texas.
It's definitely not a tourist destination, if that's what you entertainment-consumers mean -- no mountains, no trees. But cowboys, Indians, buffalo, shit like that.
Ya see, what some of you think of as "Westernness" is really just the cracker influence, which is as low in ND as it is anywhere in the US. But ND is still Western.
A lot of the shittiness of the Old West comes from the proportion of Rebs who settled there.
I think the great book about water and the culture of the West is Wallace Stegner's Beyond The Hundredth Meridian, first published in 1953. Ever read that John?
For water and the West, also read Cadillac Desert.
Minnesota and North Dakota are completely different. Minnesota is comfy and bright green and filled with lakes. It has Emerson. ND is awesome and expansive and filled with wheat and other golden-colored grasses. No Emerson, but oil.
From a cross-country trip a week or so ago, near the Montana/ND border:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8040218@N04/1109600464/
ND has more of these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8040218@N04/1109732312/
Lewis and Clark slept here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8040218@N04/1108828357/
If analogies get you banned, posting your boring vacation photos will probably get you terminated with extreme prejudice, but whatever.
I agree with Powell's definition, more or less, but Emerson is right that the important thing about the West is that it's dry and sparsely populated, and mmf! is right that the Great Plains (not just the Dakotas, but Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas too) form a sort of weird liminal zone between the Midwest/South and West.
Emerson's congressional district has had 10 representatives in 110 years. Including people named Haldor, Ole, Odin and Arlan.
Okay, I'm way late to the game and I haven't gotten through the thread, but I can't help but wonder if it's not a matter of this kid thinking you are not a big enough fish (as you indicated around 42 or so... ) to be worth trying to impress. Poor research and weak analysis can happen to all of us -- submitting a memo that's cut and pasted in multiple typefaces screams, "I'm not taking this seriously."
If I were in your shoes, I might take the approach of reminding him, in a mentorly tone, that this is a biggish case and that biggish cases are a good opportunity for junior associates to distinguish themselves. A memo that is thrown together doesn't make a good impression on anyone, and bigger fish than you are ultimately relying on his work.
Not sure if anyone's still reading this thread, but as a junior associate I'd say say it in person, _not_ in an email - no matter how nice you are in your email you will sound more critical than in person, and the junior will have time to brood on it and think "what an asshole."
Arrrgh! He found me a case on wire fraud -- so far so good. I told him to follow it up and see if there was something else on point, and if not, write it up. He sent me a memo that looked almost reasonable, except that he apparently doesn't know to indent block quotes. I told him to fix the formatting, then send it off to the partner. So far, so good.
Then the partner emailed him back with a followup question, and got a bullshitty response including saying that there's a circuit split on whether there is jurisdiction over wire fraud when one end of the communication is outside the US. (A) that fact was unnecessary to answer the question, and (B) it's flat wrong -- the freaking statute was amended to deal withthe fact that courts were holding that they did not have jurisdiction under those circumstances, and now it unambiguously says that they do. I called him and told him that being careful and precise was very important, and when he doesn't know something to say that he doesn't know it. But jesus, I don't know what I'm going to do with him.
And justjenny: still reading the thread, and thanks for the junior associate perspective. That's still fairly vivid for me -- it doesn't seem like that long ago at all -- but you're right that verbal correction seems gentler than written.
For water and the West, also read Cadillac Desert.
I tried, got about halfway through, but am now tempted to put it down. There's something about the writing style that reminds me far too much of the SF Bay Guardian; too much blandly asserting malign motives and hopping from one bureaucratic perspective to another.
For instance, as near as I can tell the whole LA/Owens Valley thing consisted of some slick city salesmen making the country boys ridiculously good offers for their water rights because the water was worth a hell of a lot more to LA than it was to farmers, and the farmers ending up pissed that they didn't get even more money.
I realize not everyone can be John McPhee, but the contrast between the part in Control of Nature about the Corps of Engineers on the lower Mississippi and Cadillac Desert was really jarring.
For water and the West, also read Cadillac Desert.
I tried, got about halfway through, but am now tempted to put it down. There's something about the writing style that reminds me far too much of the SF Bay Guardian; too much blandly asserting malign motives and hopping from one bureaucratic perspective to another.
For instance, as near as I can tell the whole LA/Owens Valley thing consisted of some slick city salesmen making the country boys ridiculously good offers for their water rights because the water was worth a hell of a lot more to LA than it was to farmers, and the farmers ending up pissed that they didn't get even more money.
I realize not everyone can be John McPhee, but the contrast between the part in Control of Nature about the Corps of Engineers on the lower Mississippi and Cadillac Desert was really jarring.
Aw, geez, and now the partner is emailing him and asking him to explain the non-existent circuit split. I am curdled with vicarious embarrassment.
Why are you being so nice the the SOB?
If you want to be proactive, send him to a WORD class.
I'm not being nice. I don't have the power to throw him back and get a fresh junior associate --I've got him or no one. And I need someone. So I need him to do useful work somehow.
I'm just trying to figure out how to make that happen. Anyone have a cattle prod I can borrow?