Anonymous wrote:I don't know why people should apologize. It's good for the OP to know it may be a different milieu - maybe more collegial, but also perhaps not up to the same professional standards.
Anonymous wrote:I don't know why people should apologize. It's good for the OP to know it may be a different milieu - maybe more collegial, but also perhaps not up to the same professional standards.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
For me, it has to do with resources. As a government attorney, I've frequently worked in offices that are understaffed. Some attorneys want to spend all their time writing a few briefs. The case log gets jammed up, and the rest of the office picks up the work. I've said to a few of my subordinates that they don't need to be turning out law review quality work. They need to write briefs that advocate our position. A typo isn't going to change the outcome of a case. Some attorneys need to check their egos and learn to turn out more work, even if the work product isn't perfect.
22:20 here. We're always understaffed. And I agree with you that perfect can become the enemy of good, whether it's crafting the perfect sentence or spending hours confirming your initial, probably-correct analysis. But we're talking -- or at least I am talking -- about things that should be ingrained: correct comma usage, basic citation format, correct use of homonyms and possessives, etc. We all make errors in haste, but a single proofread would catch most of those.
Also, apologies to OP for where this thread has gone.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't know. Obviously experience varies, but I have found at my agency that many, many lawyers do not seem to care about typos, bluebooking, etc even in briefs that are submitted to court. Ditto for opposing counsel and for the lawyers who practice before us. I care intensely, which I assume is my clerkship/biglaw training; I would've gotten reamed out for the mistakes that routinely are submitted in my colleagues' briefs. My supervisor also cares and my colleagues label him a micromanaging freak because of it.
Interesting, this is my experience too (including the resentment of people who care). Many are very careful, meticulous lawyers in other respects but it just doesn't carry through to their writing. I see a correlation between people who care and people who attended "top" schools; not sure if there is a biglaw correlation as there are few of us with that background.
For me, it has to do with resources. As a government attorney, I've frequently worked in offices that are understaffed. Some attorneys want to spend all their time writing a few briefs. The case log gets jammed up, and the rest of the office picks up the work. I've said to a few of my subordinates that they don't need to be turning out law review quality work. They need to write briefs that advocate our position. A typo isn't going to change the outcome of a case. Some attorneys need to check their egos and learn to turn out more work, even if the work product isn't perfect.
21:24 here. Of course I understand there is a resource issue; we don't have paralegals to check the document 15 times like I did at the firm. In my office, however, we all do the same work. In fact my workload is about 30% heavier than most of my colleagues because I work very fast and request more work on a frequent basis. Again, the ingrained Biglaw mentality, I guess -- churn it out, work as fast as you can in the hours you have, etc. I am not saying I don't have typos sometimes -- of course I do. Everyone does. But the thing is, I care about them. My colleagues don't. It's not primarily a resource issue where I am, or else it would impact me the way it does others. It's an attitude issue. It is probably the only thing that really annoys me in government practice, which I otherwise love. And, of course, it may well be that my colleagues' briefs are substantively far better than mine. Though having reviewed a bunch -- we have a peer review system -- I would say we are all pretty consistent.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't know. Obviously experience varies, but I have found at my agency that many, many lawyers do not seem to care about typos, bluebooking, etc even in briefs that are submitted to court. Ditto for opposing counsel and for the lawyers who practice before us. I care intensely, which I assume is my clerkship/biglaw training; I would've gotten reamed out for the mistakes that routinely are submitted in my colleagues' briefs. My supervisor also cares and my colleagues label him a micromanaging freak because of it.
Interesting, this is my experience too (including the resentment of people who care). Many are very careful, meticulous lawyers in other respects but it just doesn't carry through to their writing. I see a correlation between people who care and people who attended "top" schools; not sure if there is a biglaw correlation as there are few of us with that background.
For me, it has to do with resources. As a government attorney, I've frequently worked in offices that are understaffed. Some attorneys want to spend all their time writing a few briefs. The case log gets jammed up, and the rest of the office picks up the work. I've said to a few of my subordinates that they don't need to be turning out law review quality work. They need to write briefs that advocate our position. A typo isn't going to change the outcome of a case. Some attorneys need to check their egos and learn to turn out more work, even if the work product isn't perfect.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I had much more real world courtroom experience than the BigLaw types, though I'm sure they'd write a better law review article than mine.
the really important thing here, and what makes biglaw attys such attractive candidates, is that their briefs have ZERO TYPOS. and they really adhere to that bluebook style.
PP here... sorry to disappoint you, but I learned that in law school (T20 if you care) and my first year or 2 of practice, and didn't need BigLaw to teach me that aspect of being a professional.![]()
I don't know. Obviously experience varies, but I have found at my agency that many, many lawyers do not seem to care about typos, bluebooking, etc even in briefs that are submitted to court. Ditto for opposing counsel and for the lawyers who practice before us. I care intensely, which I assume is my clerkship/biglaw training; I would've gotten reamed out for the mistakes that routinely are submitted in my colleagues' briefs. My supervisor also cares and my colleagues label him a micromanaging freak because of it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't know. Obviously experience varies, but I have found at my agency that many, many lawyers do not seem to care about typos, bluebooking, etc even in briefs that are submitted to court. Ditto for opposing counsel and for the lawyers who practice before us. I care intensely, which I assume is my clerkship/biglaw training; I would've gotten reamed out for the mistakes that routinely are submitted in my colleagues' briefs. My supervisor also cares and my colleagues label him a micromanaging freak because of it.
Interesting, this is my experience too (including the resentment of people who care). Many are very careful, meticulous lawyers in other respects but it just doesn't carry through to their writing. I see a correlation between people who care and people who attended "top" schools; not sure if there is a biglaw correlation as there are few of us with that background.
For me, it has to do with resources. As a government attorney, I've frequently worked in offices that are understaffed. Some attorneys want to spend all their time writing a few briefs. The case log gets jammed up, and the rest of the office picks up the work. I've said to a few of my subordinates that they don't need to be turning out law review quality work. They need to write briefs that advocate our position. A typo isn't going to change the outcome of a case. Some attorneys need to check their egos and learn to turn out more work, even if the work product isn't perfect.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't know. Obviously experience varies, but I have found at my agency that many, many lawyers do not seem to care about typos, bluebooking, etc even in briefs that are submitted to court. Ditto for opposing counsel and for the lawyers who practice before us. I care intensely, which I assume is my clerkship/biglaw training; I would've gotten reamed out for the mistakes that routinely are submitted in my colleagues' briefs. My supervisor also cares and my colleagues label him a micromanaging freak because of it.
Interesting, this is my experience too (including the resentment of people who care). Many are very careful, meticulous lawyers in other respects but it just doesn't carry through to their writing. I see a correlation between people who care and people who attended "top" schools; not sure if there is a biglaw correlation as there are few of us with that background.
Anonymous wrote:
I don't know. Obviously experience varies, but I have found at my agency that many, many lawyers do not seem to care about typos, bluebooking, etc even in briefs that are submitted to court. Ditto for opposing counsel and for the lawyers who practice before us. I care intensely, which I assume is my clerkship/biglaw training; I would've gotten reamed out for the mistakes that routinely are submitted in my colleagues' briefs. My supervisor also cares and my colleagues label him a micromanaging freak because of it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I had much more real world courtroom experience than the BigLaw types, though I'm sure they'd write a better law review article than mine.
the really important thing here, and what makes biglaw attys such attractive candidates, is that their briefs have ZERO TYPOS. and they really adhere to that bluebook style.
PP here... sorry to disappoint you, but I learned that in law school (T20 if you care) and my first year or 2 of practice, and didn't need BigLaw to teach me that aspect of being a professional.![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I had much more real world courtroom experience than the BigLaw types, though I'm sure they'd write a better law review article than mine.
the really important thing here, and what makes biglaw attys such attractive candidates, is that their briefs have ZERO TYPOS. and they really adhere to that bluebook style.
PP here... sorry to disappoint you, but I learned that in law school (T20 if you care) and my first year or 2 of practice, and didn't need BigLaw to teach me that aspect of being a professional.![]()
I do. I really do care to know that you went to GW. (Thank goodness for you this was before the economic meltdown. GW grads are probably populating the doc review mills and trip and fall shitshops. This is how bad the legal job market is.) Anyway, thanks for bragging that you went to a fairly decent law school.