Biglaw, In-House Counsel

A Typical Way Associates Screw Up

And partners will notice, according to Biglaw partner turned in-house counsel Mark Herrmann.

By  
on

dartboard pen inside straightHave you ever noticed that there are two ways of reading things?

You can really read things.

You’re primarily responsible for having prepared the brief. The opposition brief arrives. You read it.

You really read it.

You take out a knife and fork, and you go through the thing. You think hard about every argument; you consider ways in which the other side has cheated; you plot out what your responsive arguments will be.

You have a visceral reaction to every word that you read: “How could the lying bastards have said that? That completely misrepresents the law; Smith holds exactly the opposite! I’m gonna kill ’em!”

In short, you read the thing as though you care.

Sponsored

And then there’s reading for the purpose of having passed your eyes over something.

A brief is going out the door on something you don’t really care about. You’re not primarily responsible for defending the case. Maybe you’re just obligated to look at the arguments that one of your co-defendants is making, to be generally aware of what’s happening in the case.

You read the brief.

But you don’t really read it.

It’s more like flipping through the pages for no particular reason; you did what was required.

Sponsored

There’s reading, and then there’s reading. They’re two different things.

Sometimes, you can do the weak kind of reading and be shamed into going back and doing the strong kind: You flip through a brief and are about to type that it’s good to go. And then a smart person, who read aggressively, sends around an email noting two substantive points that the brief should make, and making several worthwhile stylistic improvements, and noting a typo or two along the way.

You’re embarrassed: “If the other guy had real comments, I can’t just say the brief is okay.”

So now you go back and really read the brief. As though it matters. And darned if you don’t find some ways in which the draft can be improved.

I’m not saying that you should read everything as though you really care.

There are some things that you actually don’t care about. And some things that don’t justify the effort. And reading aggressively is pretty hard and tiring; you can’t put that much effort into every document you pick up.

But at least be aware of the difference between passing your eyes over something and really reading the same thing.

And, at least early in your career, read many things aggressively.

If something matters, then act like it does. Step away from your computer. Put away your iPhone. Eliminate distractions. Go to a quiet space and pore over what you’re reading.

Average associates skim through briefs and say they look good.

Exceptional associates read things as though they matter, and send back intelligent comments on what they’ve read.

Partners notice.

And who do you think partners would rather have help them on the next case?

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now responsible for litigation and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Topics

, , , , , , ,