Thank the Occulted Twelfth Imam and his right-hand man at the Apocalypse Jesus Christ for tenure!
You're not the first to have noticed the phenomenon, Carl Von C. wrote about it after seeing my department's ordering of two *different* kinds of pizza.
"Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction. . . . This tremendous friction . . . is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance. . . . Moreover, every war is rich in unique episodes."
"The good general must know friction in order to overcome it whenever possible, and in order not to expect a standard of achievement in his operations which this very friction makes impossible."
"Is there any lubricant that will reduce this abrasion? Only one . . . combat experience."
Yes. Fistfights are common in the halls of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.
No, I smiled and remained polite while the other associate mused about maybe calling an accounting firm? Because they'd know.
"Fistfights" s/b "Fisticuffs"
Just think of the hours you can bill trying to find a statute that doesn't exist...
(getting the client to pay for said research might require some creativity, however)
Doing research to prove a negative is always so much fun.
You know, in case law, sure, proving a negative is hard. This is a freaking statute. It's there or it isn't. And I'm looking at a case saying 'There's no such statute' (which, she was correct that it was phrased as an assertion of one side's, but the court went on to reason from it, and didn't note any correction from the other side. The odds that (a) I'm going to miss the statute, and (b) someone's going to submit a brief in a federal case claiming that there is no such statute, and (c) the court is going to inexplicably overlook the party's error in (b), but really there is such a statute despite all that? Low).
I'm just grumpy, though.
OK, sometimes proving a negative isn't so hard.
Also: when we, mere pixels on a screen, generally understand that it's a bad idea to argue with LB when she's done the work and knows what she's talking about, what the fuck is wrong with an actual colleague who doesn't get that?
I haven't worked with her much at all before. And I'm really not frightening in person. Gentle and harmless -- lamblike, in most respects. That's me.
I'm guessing that the mineshaft gives more due credit to each other than do the average associates at any given law firm. From what I've gathered, LB's firm seems to be somewhat zero-sum as far as associate success and advancement are concerned.
LB, if your experience match mine at all, she might be the type who masks insecurity over her own abilities with outward expressions of hyper-confidence, right?
13: It's not that you're scary. It's just that when you think you're right, you usually are, which means that setting out to tell you you're wrong generally ends up being embarrassing. OTOH, an inability to feel embarrassment or shame is a survival trait in law firms, so perhaps your colleague will go far.
15: Eh, I'm not theorizing, just griping. What's a blog for if not to give onesided accounts of annoying moments in your day?
(1) You have the right to tell her to go fuck herself (and not in a good way). Or at least, to say "Huh. I didn't see anything like that. If you find a cite for the statute you think might apply I would be pleased to take a look at it."
And I'm really not frightening in person. Gentle and harmless -- lamblike, in most respects. That's me.
(2) You forget that there are people who know you who read this blog.
Gentle and harmless -- lamblike, in most respects. That's me.
I can see I need to revise my mental image: muttering "baa" not "bah!". And I suppose that even in law firms 'fleece' can be a noun, not a verb.
masks insecurity over her own abilities with outward expressions of hyper-confidence
Oh, god. This is nearly everyone I interact with at school. It's one of the most maddening things in the world.
lamblike, in most respects
LB's rack is often the most expensive entrée on the menu.
Especially when properly Frenched.
(1) You have the right to tell her to go fuck herself (and not in a good way). Or at least, to say "Huh. I didn't see anything like that. If you find a cite for the statute you think might apply I would be pleased to take a look at it."
I essentially did the latter.
You forget Moroni.
Each time I see this as the thread loads, I hear it in my head in the voice of Wakko from Animaniacs saying, "You forgot Uranus!" Goooood night, everybody.
11: (a) is clearly the important part of this trifecta, though. The likelihood of (b) and (c) occurring is reasonably high, in my experience.
You are a bigger person than I. I generally want to slap the partners who do that, too. Perhaps the partners even more so, as at least there's a chance your fellow associate has actually attempted to do some legal research in the last decade.
Smile sweetly and bill the hours...
You seem a bit touchy to me. People in general are arrogant and reluctant to admit error, lawyers by reputation even more so. So you should be use to it by now.
No, no. That's not being generally touchy. What you're picking up there is that I find you specifically annoying.
It's an understandable mistake.
30: LB, and I say this in a safe, non-threatening way, but I love you a little bit.
30: understandable s/b unavoidable
30
Actually I was talking about your interaction with the other lawyer.
15, 20: C'mon, aren't we all like that?
34: How nice of you, James. I'm sure LB deeply appreciates your concern for her mental health.
LB handled it just right - sometimes the only aggression is passive aggression.
36: No, some of us are annoyingly diffident.
aren't we all like that?
No, my hyper-confidence results from my essential fabulousness.
aren't we all like that?
This is a joke, right?
my essential fabulousness.
This is the same thing as your claim to be gay where it counts, right?
aren't we all like that
No. I'm hyper-confident in areas that I have cause to be, and candid when I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, which is most of the time.
Also, what apo said.
Did the associate ask you to help? Is he/she senior to you, and by how much? Maybe you can just say, "Hey, buddy, I guess my research skillz aren't good enough for you. Go find someone else."
I feel your pain, LB. My own pet peeve is the semi-daily e-mail message, "does anyone know the answer to X," where X = question-answerable-by-obvious-use-of-Westlaw.
It's like, damn, I thought the firm was paying for *everyone* to use Westlaw, not just me.
Gentle and harmless -- lamblike, in most respects. That's me.
Perhaps the associate was nonplussed by the vision of the Zombie Shari Lewis's hand up your ass.
45 -- A former partner of mine would often respond with 'Crack a book.'
LB, back in the day, I asked a few people from time to time if they wanted to bet lunch. They either slink away, or you get to lord it over them -- tastefully, of course -- not only during lunch, but in the run-up as it's arranged, and as you have to decline other invitations.
I'm still owed lunch from a former colleague who would have bet yet more on the proposition that Arlington, Virginia was never part of the District of Columbia. I was too embarrassed for him to collect.
My own pet peeve is the semi-daily e-mail message, "does anyone know the answer to X," where X = question-answerable-by-obvious-use-of-Westlaw.
This does not seem so bad. I take questions of this sort as meannig "Does anyone have an answer immediately at hand (for example, a brief, model submission, etc.). Why should a client have to pay for associate B to research the proper procedure to do X when associate A has the answer immediately at hand?
Do you research anew the basic standard for a motion to dismiss every time you make one? Me, I copy the basic stuff from an old brief and then research the stuff (if any) that is unique about my case, charging only for the new work I actually do.
43, 40: Well, aren't you two just superior.
I'm really hoping the irony of the whole no-I-don't-mask-*my*-insecurities thing isn't lost on everyone.
That sort of thing really worries you, huh?
It drives me batshit. No one ever gets my jokes.
36: To a degree yes, but some people are pretty extreme about it.
49: I take questions of this sort as meannig "Does anyone have an answer immediately at hand (for example, a brief, model submission, etc.).
I think you have to see the kinds of questions I'm talking about. The kind for ex that a mere search on he("12(b)(6)") would answer. If I hadn't just archived all my e-mail into practical inaccessibilty, I would provide real-life examples for your amusement.
re: 57
I see what you mean. That can be annoying. I have a colleague who is all the time coming in to my office to ask me questions about New York procedure. I guess it's nice that he thinks I am a great expert on New York practice, but it would be nice if he looked at the rules himself, for once (although in fairness, in New York, the rules are not all written in one place, and some are not written at all).