I've been working with this guy for about a year now. I can guarantee that he considered both of those possibilities before deciding that 'A subset' would be slightly, but perceptibly, more irritating. I can see the feline little smirk on his face with perfect clarity.
I am simply not going to respond. He'll have copies of the documents I think are interesting -- if Subset Boy has a different idea, he had his chance to have input into the process.
7's right. He's testing you to make sure you know what's relevant/important for prep. (Though to the larger point, I never got why partners insisted on hiding the ball, especially from junior associates who need some clear guidance before they decide to go to another firm with a better pro bono policy. E.g.)
10: That would be a reasonable guess, but no, he's just a sadist. I've already given him an outline (a month ago) with a number of the documents referenced, and suggested the documents referenced in the outline as a possible subset in my initial email.
What about the "10 copies" thingy? That makes it seem like these documents are required for some formal bit of ceremony and it ought to be pretty clearly laid out which ones are required. I don't understand thing one about courtrooms.
That makes it seem like these documents are required for some formal bit of ceremony and it ought to be pretty clearly laid out which ones are required.
It's a deposition, where you ask questions about documents, and if he wanted to ask questions about a document, he'd need to have copies to give everyone. If he wants to go into anything I haven't made copies of, there's going to be some panic stricken Xeroxing that holds up the deposition.
I had a boss who never, ever gave anyone clear instructions, even if you asked him point-blank before beginning the work. He always asked you to redo part of the work afterwards. He may have been borderline mentally ill; I think that his own boss (a vain, silly, society person) kept him on because he was willing to accept abuse, as long as he was able to pass the abuse on.
I worked for him for 3 years and retired early for mental health reasons. I came close to felony assault a few times.
I find partners here who insist on editing their own writing that had previously gone out to the client in final form when the same writing is used for a different purpose for the same client (and the edits have nothing to do with the different purpose).
I always want to ask, "What? Are you a better writer now having been a lawyer for 18 years and 6 month than you were when you had been a lawyer for 18 years and 3 months?"
18: We're nervously afraid that if we let up on the posting, everyone will go away and we'll have killed this lovely blog ogged left us. (This is also how all my houseplants get root-rot).
whoops - sorry for the way-late response to LB's question (#13). Yep, a recovering attorney. Did the law firm thing in SF for a while before moving in-house (which I highly recommend) in Palo Alto and then quit a few years ago when I realized I had to focus on a writing career or end up rich, haggard and unhappy as a lawyer somewhere. (I prefer to be poor-ish, purdy and ridiculously happy as a writer.)
C'mon LB. His initial response was probably "Yes."
Posted by TJ | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:05 AM
His answer could have been, "Copies."
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:07 AM
I've been working with this guy for about a year now. I can guarantee that he considered both of those possibilities before deciding that 'A subset' would be slightly, but perceptibly, more irritating. I can see the feline little smirk on his face with perfect clarity.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:11 AM
Give him 10 copies of each anyway, when he says he asked for a subset tell him you gave him a complete subset.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:15 AM
LB, you got totally pwnz0red by the partner. You should tell him that.
Dear Partner,
You totally pwnz0red me. What subset would you like. Please list the documents you would like.
Thanks,
13
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:16 AM
Give him no documents, since he didn't specify that he wanted a proper subset.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:18 AM
I am simply not going to respond. He'll have copies of the documents I think are interesting -- if Subset Boy has a different idea, he had his chance to have input into the process.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:19 AM
#7
That's right.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:22 AM
No documents would be a proper subset. Which would be why it was funny.
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:24 AM
7's right. He's testing you to make sure you know what's relevant/important for prep. (Though to the larger point, I never got why partners insisted on hiding the ball, especially from junior associates who need some clear guidance before they decide to go to another firm with a better pro bono policy. E.g.)
Posted by Moira | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:29 AM
LOL, passive-aggressive workplace behavior! LB, I'm both surprised and thrilled! (I do the same kind of thing at work.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:31 AM
10: That would be a reasonable guess, but no, he's just a sadist. I've already given him an outline (a month ago) with a number of the documents referenced, and suggested the documents referenced in the outline as a possible subset in my initial email.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:33 AM
And Moira, you're a lawyer? I've been reading your blog (which, you know, is way funny) for about a year and hadn't realized.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:35 AM
What about the "10 copies" thingy? That makes it seem like these documents are required for some formal bit of ceremony and it ought to be pretty clearly laid out which ones are required. I don't understand thing one about courtrooms.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:42 AM
He's obviously Ben Wolfson. Or me.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:53 AM
That makes it seem like these documents are required for some formal bit of ceremony and it ought to be pretty clearly laid out which ones are required.
It's a deposition, where you ask questions about documents, and if he wanted to ask questions about a document, he'd need to have copies to give everyone. If he wants to go into anything I haven't made copies of, there's going to be some panic stricken Xeroxing that holds up the deposition.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:00 PM
I had a boss who never, ever gave anyone clear instructions, even if you asked him point-blank before beginning the work. He always asked you to redo part of the work afterwards. He may have been borderline mentally ill; I think that his own boss (a vain, silly, society person) kept him on because he was willing to accept abuse, as long as he was able to pass the abuse on.
I worked for him for 3 years and retired early for mental health reasons. I came close to felony assault a few times.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:03 PM
You guys post too much. Can't you like, take turns or something?
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:07 PM
I find partners here who insist on editing their own writing that had previously gone out to the client in final form when the same writing is used for a different purpose for the same client (and the edits have nothing to do with the different purpose).
I always want to ask, "What? Are you a better writer now having been a lawyer for 18 years and 6 month than you were when you had been a lawyer for 18 years and 3 months?"
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:10 PM
18: We're nervously afraid that if we let up on the posting, everyone will go away and we'll have killed this lovely blog ogged left us. (This is also how all my houseplants get root-rot).
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:11 PM
20 -- T(itan)ia at least seems to have moved past the "nervous about killing the lovely blog -gg-d left her" stage and entered the "Back when I started blogging at Unfogged, things were different" stage.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:16 PM
Original Gangster Management of the Budget is suggesting that we don't have lives, as if there were something wrong with that.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:17 PM
???
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:20 PM
So that's what ogmb means. A little-known branch of the government.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:26 PM
Googling for myself tells me I'm really the Office of Governor Matt Blunt.
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:29 PM
Oh God, my butt!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:35 PM
apo, I know it feels good, but please try to keep it down, or we'll have to stop.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:54 PM
please try to keep it down
I give the same answer as before.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:00 PM
So that's what ogmb means.
Close.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:43 PM
Original Gangster Management of the Budget (JE)
Office of Gay Management and Budget (SB)
Spotty memory on Emerson's part or Standjohnpipe Bridgeemersonplate Mindlink™?
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:55 PM
MB is just so obvious. So is OG, in my opinion. I hadn't seen the earlier one at all.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 4:02 AM
MB is just so obvious. So is OG, in my opinion.
If it helps to move the hilarity in another direction, the -GM- stands for Georg Michael.
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 1:31 PM
By the way, LB, is this deposition in some way regarding pirates? (cf. title)
Posted by TJ | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:03 PM
whoops - sorry for the way-late response to LB's question (#13). Yep, a recovering attorney. Did the law firm thing in SF for a while before moving in-house (which I highly recommend) in Palo Alto and then quit a few years ago when I realized I had to focus on a writing career or end up rich, haggard and unhappy as a lawyer somewhere. (I prefer to be poor-ish, purdy and ridiculously happy as a writer.)
Posted by Moira | Link to this comment | 02- 5-06 11:10 AM