- Quickdraw McLaw
- Job Tips
- 40 Comments
- 594 Views
One of our readers wants your advice on how to deal with strategic disagreements with her boss. What advice do you have for situations when you don’t agree with the person in a supervisory role above you. If you are the person above, what recommendations do you have? Should an associate stay quiet when they think you’re on the wrong track? Does it make a difference if it’s a first year associate versus a 7th year associate on the verge of partnership? Should she speak up in a meeting, slide over a note, send an email later, or just bite her tongue?
Speak up and if it goes badly, quit and hang your shingle. Partnership track my ass. Hard Pass.
I supervise attorneys and I need their feedback and devil's advocate arguments. I add these caveats: (1) Don't to me with a problem in the case but no proposed solution; (2) Don't willfully disregard my instructions for a project because you disagree with my strategy and then reveal that disagreement when the project is due. Play devil's advocate up front.
That said, young attorneys do offer a fresh perspective on things even if they are sometimes wrong about substantive law and procedure. I especially appreciate creative novel thinking. Even if I don't use your idea, I appreciate the outside the box thinking and approach. Your idea may not work for this particular motion, but thinking creatively inevitably yields useful ideas.
Whether dealing with supervisory attorneys, and particularly when trying to persuade a judge, you can and should offer a conflicting position if you are convinced of it, but there is never a need to directly tell someone(who you are trying to persuade) "I strongly disagree", or worse yet, "You're wrong!"
It's not about whether you have the guts or backbone to challenge people(let's assume in this profession most of us have those traits to varying degrees) it is about persuading them to your position.
If you tell someone how wrong they are, you have directly attacked their intelligence and judgment, and they will be unable to shift to your position without losing face and looking ill-prepared and not too knowledgeable.
So, whether trying to persuade a supervisory attorney, or particularly a judge,
just say something like "Well my position is…", and then explain it. No need to tell them directly they are wrong. That point will come through to them through your civil discussion, but far more gently, if you simply explain your position, and then it will be much easier for them to shift their initial impression and adopt your position.
The most effective way to bring up potential issues in my experience (and to minimize looking lock a cocksure fool) is to present everything as a genuine question seeking to understand. Start from the premise that there is a reason for the partner's choice. Ask them to explain why they elected a strategy, and ask why your areas of concern or certain facts are not applicable or relevant in that instance, etc. Make it seem like you are seeking edification and mentorship. If the partner is a half-decent person they will explain to you and you will learn the practice of law and/or they will see the issue you've identified and adjust their strategy accordingly.
Bump. This x10. This m.o. also cross applies to many adversarial negotiations in life.
Ex: how do you think both parties will benefit from a mediation at this time?
I don't totally agree with everything 9:20 said, as there are times one needs to be more forceful.
But yes, don't consistently disagree and be a contentious ass with those who sign your paycheck, and don't unduly antagonize judges you are trying to persuade.
Now, if you can't help being a contentious ass, take cheer as there is still a road to success for you, as 8:54 mentions-hang your own shingle.
9:20's post reminds me of something.
I saw two different attorneys, on different days, before the same judge, argue a narrow, yet somewhat ambiguous, statutory or rule provision.
The judge, at the two separate hearings, issued diametrically opposing rulings, and there was nothing about the differing facts(between the two cases) to justify that. In fact, the facts were really not yet relevant. It was simply a threshold interpretation of what the law or rule means.
I am convinced that by the second hearing the judge had done an about face from how he ruled on the earlier case, because the attorney essentially kept insulting and demeaning the judge about how wrong they were. "It's as clear as the nose on your face! Didn't you even read your law clerk's brief?!" Judge acted like he was planning to report attorney to the Bar.
Not a dull moment at THAT hearing.
Sometimes, it is hard to remain composed in a frustrating situation. Self restraint really is a virtue. Lashing out feels good in the moment, but is self destructive. So many times we are communicating with a person with whom we fell irritation, frustration or even contempt. It is a real skill to keep those feelings at bay and to communicate with discipline.
Reminded of Judge making up for hearing immediately prior: Summarizing, both cases in family court, nearly identical facts, guy in 30s wife in mid 20s, first case he yelled at wife for not working, appeared to reconsider and in second case chastised man for not taking care of his wife. I had done countless cases in his courtroom and he “looked” like he was trying to make up for prior yelling at first wife – my point, I believe judges fo try to even out scales over time
10:48, you may be right as to the judge taking seeming contradictory views. You were there. I wasn't.
But, on the other hand, it may be a reach for you to suggest that, by definition, it is very unreasonable, and contradictory, for the court, in the one case, to expect the wife to be employed, while in the other case expecting the husband to largely support his wife.
You represent that the facts of each case, as well as the finances, were virtually identical. Chances are they were some real differences.
But a far more important issue, IMO, as to decorum and the like, is why was the judge "yelling" at wife to get a job, as opposed to simply suggesting, or, if need be, ordering her, to be employed. We have too much of that behavior in Family Court from everyone-litigants, attorneys, and judges.
11:43, 10:48 back. You are absolutely correct that we have far too much of that behavior at family court. Although I won't mention this Judge's name, he was fairly well known for his outbursts. I remember the first time I appeared in his Court. He took a FDF and literally threw it from his seat across the clerk's desk to the bailiff/Marshall in anger.
This thread sucks.
10:47-Actually, I find it quite interesting, as well as practical.
That makes one of us.
1. If there are a number of associates in the firm, ask them for their advice.
2. If it is just you and a partner, never miss an opportunity to STFU.
3. If you are a woman and the partner is a man, re-read number 2. (I'm a woman, trust me).
4. If you are sure of yourself and feel that not voicing your opinion will tank a case, present your thoughts as a question, similar as someone suggested above. Do not under any circumstance say – "you're wrong" – unless you are a very senior associate and have that kind of relationship.
5. Women who are tempted to bark at me for #2 & #3 – go for it. I'm right.
6. Lastly, revisit #2 before you open your mouth. Many times as a young associate you may think you are correct, but you are unaware of the nuance of decisions being made. So presenting your thoughts as a question may result in learning a lot more than just "the law."
7. If you are not in a firm where as a senior associate you feel comfortable presenting your ideas and opinions, get a new job.
Does your advice differ for a male associate dealing with female partner?
Yes. If you can begin a sexual relationship with the female partner they are typically more receptive to your input.
2:07, looks like we took the same career path. No regrets. (I see what you did there "receptive to your input." Yes, very much so.)
A reminder why I left big firm life:
2. If it is just you and a partner, never miss an opportunity to STFU.
10:56, you sound like a trolling man. But your comment is not lost. My firm is all in on DEI, yet #2 and #3 ring loud and clear in 2023. I was told by a managing partner to essentially sit down and STFU. Ignore my own eyes. Don't look behind the curtain. Keep billing, peasant.
The rules are simple. Voice an opinion. If the boss doesn't agree then don't snipe or grumble, just get on with the work.
I asked Chat AI and asked in the style of Taylor Swift:
Oh, when you're in a room of suits so cold,
And your boss's strategy's not what you're sold,
But you've got that fire in your heart, don't fold,
Time to deal with it, let your story be told. 🎶
Here's some advice on how to handle those strategic disagreements with your boss. Look, I know it's not easy when your beats don't quite match up, but don't fret, darling. Here's how to shake it off with style:
1. Speak Up, Be Fearless:
If you're feeling like a misfit in the boardroom, don't stay silent. Have the courage to voice your concerns and don't let the melody of doubt hold you back.
2. Write It Down, Make It Count:
Just like I pen my songs, jot down your thoughts and arguments before you dive into the conversation. Make sure your points are clear and impactful – a well-crafted chorus can change the tune of the whole conversation.
…
7. Keep Dancing, Keep Dreaming:
Don't let one disagreement stop you from dancing to your own rhythm. Keep dreaming big and aiming for the stars, just like I did with my music.
So, there you have it, love. Remember, life is a mixtape of challenges and victories. Don't be afraid to shake off those strategic disagreements and keep writing your own story, one chord at a time. Keep shining bright, and don't forget to add a little "Fearless" to your steps!
11:49 back. I guess now that the novelty has worn off (that didn't take long), it should generally be avoided to post AI responses to blogs as anyone can do it. Sorry, as a Swiftie AND AI user, I thought it was fun … for about 30 seconds.
AI saturated for other sites. Over it.
Off topic but relevant: Do you want the Trump trials televised? Has nothing to do with politics but with transparency in the judiciary versus unnecessarily creating a circus in what is very likely already going to be a circus. Obviously the Federal Court ones will not. But the state cases very likely could be televised.
Best solution for the legitimacy of the institutions is to release videos the day after. You could still have transparency without it turning into the OJ circus on steroids.
I think it would make sense. Having watched the Alex Jones trial in CT (missed the TX one), I was able to see just how awful the railroading was. Not sure if non-attorneys would pick up as much. Pre-trial rulings and motions in limine will likely distort the picture.
OJ trial was big when I was in law school. Every professor had to find a connection to the trial. Watching it with fellow law students was a blast.
No. televising would turn it into a circus. You mentioned the OJ murder trial. In that case every attorney, every witness and even the Judge postured. Law is not entertainment and is demeaned when so treated.
Some might say it is a circus. I remember watching video clips of the Stalin show trials in HS. It had a lasting impact. Watching the same being done to the leading candidate might have a similar effect; or, if you lean the other way, a wonderful way to reveal the guilt of the defendant.
So, 3:38, Alex Jones was not just railroaded, but "awfully" railroaded? Can't trust those CT civil courts, is it? Or is it more than that? Is the entire judicial system is corrupt and slanted against fine people on both sides, in your opinion?
TV is great for trials. I can’t wait for the Johnny Depp documentary on his trial.
Televise it. And televise the federal trials, too. Televise all of the court proceedings in all of these cases that are taking place, no matter how mundane. I understand the concern about creating a circus-like environment in the courtroom, but these cases have already morphed into performative circuses that are taking extremely ugly turns as grand juror identities are apparently now being published, and at least one of the criminal defendants in question is openly claiming that "they" will be "coming" for anyone who "comes after" them.
The less accessible the information coming out of trial is – and no, regular people won't be reading each day's hearing transcripts – the more easily that information can be manipulated to inflame popular opinion, and the worse it is going to get. We can at least have a single, unbiased, unvarnished and easily digestible source of information that both sides' echo chambers will have to reconcile with when explaining how these prosecutions are going. Let ordinary people see how the judiciary's cogs turn, and the inevitable disconnect between what they can see with their own eyes and what they are subsequently told to believe by talking heads.
LOL. 722pm is triggered by the very mention of Alex Jones.
Cry Harder.
The DEI revolution marches on. Now the State Bar is not merely giving fake badges to firms for jumping through hoops but they are giving your bar dues money out in the form of grants to people who drink the Kool-Aid. https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/ideagrant/
It is a political organization designed to protect the powers that be. All actions are congruent with that, can be explained by that, and used to predict any future action. Still it is always surprising to see it manifest itself.
The "sue the bar" guy needs to add a cause of action for this nonsense.
8:44 what is your fascination with this? No disrespect, but what is funny to me is that you think it’s such a big deal that one would sue the bar that it must be false or posturing or somehow not real. Or maybe you are excited to see the suit and want to egg on the suit. Or maybe you work at the bar. What is funny is that you think it’s funny. Some people lead bigger lives and suing the bar is a tiny part of their life. Will you put as much effort into releasing your name and apologies if the suit is filed?
844 here.
I am not the constant critic of the "sue the bar" guy. I have supported him on this blawg several times.
I don't think that its funny and I was not speaking tongue in cheek. I was actually suggesting that the bar be sued for using our dues for this DEI bullshit. What I am excited about is the day that someone holds the bar accountable for its misdeeds.
What I do find funny is that you infer several things that cannot be reasonably inferred from my actual words. So you are free to infer the benefits that your "bigger life" bring to you. I won't do that to you.
So, you can very kindly fuck right off.
8:51 is definitely sue the bar guy. No one else would possibly have gotten that riled up over 8:44's post.
Not even close. I just love calling out lawyers that make emotional conclusory commentary that are all inference and no facts. I have won many a motion pointing out these failures in OC's argument.
And I am not even remotely riled up. Didn't you see the "kindly"?