ILNews

DTCI: New associates and their different work ethic

From DTCI
July 3, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-mortimer-reneeOnce again, I have been asked to write an article on “any topic.” Last year, I told you the story of a plaintiff’s lawyer who gave me the inspiration to encourage all of you to treat each other with respect as opposed to roughness. How is that going? I hope well.

This year, I have to say, I was having trouble with the “any topic” thing again. Then, I was sitting with a group of plaintiff and defense lawyers during a break in a deposition in a particularly big case (so there were a lot of us), and the topic was new associates. One of the lawyers was complaining about “the work ethic” of associates these days, and how “no one stays late anymore.” Another lawyer was complaining about the “work product” and “Is it really that hard to get the client’s name spelled correctly when she gives me the draft of a letter to the client?” And finally another lawyer was talking about “this whole Millennial thing.” As the break ended, everyone agreed that today’s associates are far different from us “back in the day.”

Let me go on record as saying that I do not think that is such a bad thing. When I left the discussion, I was conflicted. I understood the frustration of my colleagues, but I also truly respected the choices of the new associates with whom I have dealt.

Look, I am not going to lie. When I was a new associate, I made damn sure that I was at the office before the partner. I left after he left. I gave up vacations, family events and many, many of my kids’ activities to make sure the brief was done on time and done well. The other lawyers in the break during the deposition did the same thing. I think that part of the frustration in the room was that we “older lawyers” are jealous – at least I am – of the ability of the new associate to do all the things we missed, and with lap tops, Blackberrys and so forth, still get the work done. I know our firm encourages it.

However, to the new associate, if we promise to not freak out when you are listening to your headphones when we walk in your office, and if we promise to not raise our eyebrows when you work from home, there are things we do expect from you. We have all spent a great deal of time away from our families building client relationships and attempting to separate ourselves from the stiff competition we have in other law firms, plaintiff and defense. While we get that you do not want to be at the office 24/7 (we don’t either), we do expect that when you are doing the work, you will pay attention to detail and get the client’s name spelled right. We expect that you will think things through and not do something on a case just for the sake of doing it. We promise to spend time teaching you how to work through your first year of practice, which we all know can be truly rough, if you promise to spend time trying to learn from us.

I am glad that the new associates of this generation are different. However, I challenge all associates to still get the brief done on time and well – only it is now OK to do it from the stands while you watch your kids play ball.•

__________

Ms. Mortimer is a partner in Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT