Anonymous wrote:Lots of good advice here. But contrary to some I thought the advice about seeing the big picture is good. Not in a bossy way, no. But one of the big problems I found as an associate -- at least in litigation -- was that most assignments were discrete tasks and sometimes I couldn't see how they fit into the whole. No one told me and I did not know how to ask. As I progressed it became more obvious -- ok, I am doing this research which you will incorporate into a motion for summary judgment, and we're going to need to know the law in order to figure out what kind of facts to present and what kind of expert witness we will need -- but I was always the go-to research or writing person, never the go-to strategy person, and I think this would have hurt in the long run had I stayed. (I left after 3 years.) The partner I did most of my work for used to tell me I needed to take "ownership" of the case. I felt very resentful at the time, thinking to myself "how the hell am I supposed to do that when you constantly change your mind and second guess and I have no experience in this area?" But when I left for the government and was suddenly handed my own cases, which I did entirely on my own, I realized what he was talking about. When you are responsible for every aspect of the case, you strategize from the beginning and take the long view, the big picture view. Could I have really done this is a junior or low midlevel associate at the firm? Of course not. Should I have invested in my cases as though I owned them and asked what was going through the minds of the senior lawyers in charge? Yes.
I will also second the advice about living as though it's a temp job. Sock away as much money as you can, pay off your loans as fast as possible, etc. That way you have the option to leave if you want to. And if you don't want to, you'll just make that much more money!
And I will second the advice about doing a stint in government. Put in 2-4 years at the firm -- enough to inculcate a real work ethic and perfectionism -- and then do another 4 years at your agency of choice (whatever makes sense for your practice) to really learn the nuts and bolts and to learn what it's like to practice without firm resources. Then, if you go back to the firm, you will be a much better lawyer. I was a very good junior associate when I left, but had doubts about my ability to be a good midlevel. If I went back today, after 4 years with the government, I believe I would be an outstanding senior associate.
Finally -- I will disagree with the advice to have kids while at the firm, at least if you are a woman. For a man that would probably be fine. I saw a lot of women get dinged for this, despite wonderful paper policies. And I could not have made it work with the hours I was working. I am a woman and waited to have kids until I was with the government. I forfeited the wonderful maternity leave benefits the firm would have provided. In return, I get actual time with my husband and child. I rarely saw my husband when I was at the firm, and I wasn't even billing nearly as many hours as the top associates. You literally could not pay me to have a child under those conditions.
Not OP, but this is exactly what I needed to hear. I'm 2-3 years in and considering moving to the government, but I'm worried about 1) not having kids while I can take advantage of the good leave, and 2) sticking around here waiting for more responsibility that won't come. I think your post just confirmed that I need to jump sooner rather than later.
And I also really resonate with the bolded. I've heard the same thing and it's frustrating because senior associates never let the juniors in on the long-term case plan/strategy and provide information in bits and pieces when necessary. This is another reason I want to move to the government.
|
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}