I am a four-years' PQE corporate lawyer at a magic circle firm. I am respected by my partners and more or less given a free rein to get on with my work. A lot of the deals I work on have partners on the other side, which is beginning to worry me - I enjoy the responsibility and challenge of the work but think I may sometimes be in over my head - I'm still in my 20s, after all.
Will I learn more by asking partners for help or struggling through, no questions asked?
Click 'Comment on this article' to post your advice in confidence. And remember, Career Clinic is only as good as the questions we receive, so email your career conundrums to community@legalweek.com.
Don't forget to join in with the Legal Week Wiki. Click here to help build our insider's guide to the UK top 50 and the leading US and international firms in London.
I'm surprised you really have to ask. Whether you have 4 or 14 years' PQE, you will always learn more (and ultimately give better advice) if you discuss key points with other colleagues (whether they are partners or not). Two heads are better than one.
hi there - i think it's worth mentioning that you have your partners' trust, and there must be a reason for that. but if in doubt, bounce the issue off the partner. if you're left on your own because you are handling low grade work that the partner is not interested in, that's a different matter ....
I would assume that you are trusted to get on with running deals because you are competent. One mark of competence is knowing when to ask for advice (whether from more senior people, specialist lawyers or other advisers). You will inspire more trust from the partners whom you ask or who entrust you with deals if you show that you know where the boundaries of your knowledge and experience lie. Partners ask each other advice all the time in any case. One issue you will find is that unless and until you have the "pips on your shoulder" of partnership, the partner on the other side of a negotiation will always have a certain moral weight in meetings. If he is a known M&A guru he will be able to state as fact things which may or may not be legally correct - there is nothing you can do about this (unless you happen to have just read all the cases on the subject) - it's part of being made up that you get treated with more respect than an associate. Don't take it to heart though. It's the way of the world.
I found myself in a similar position at about your level of qualification as did many of my colleagues. In fact, it was a running joke in our group that we were only likely to find out what the partners thought about things by reading the legal press.
You are right to be wary of asking for more input. One of the things that makes you popular with the parters you work for is doubtless the fact that you are able to get on with things by yourself and don't constantly badger them with tedious questions.
Don't be too concerned. The fact that you are doing it for yourself probably also means that you are learning more than you think because you are having to work things out from first principles. This self-reliance is something you, and your firm, will value more as time goes on. Think twice before abandoning that.
Obviously you must ask for input if you are in doubt about the advice you are giving but that does not seem to be your concern so I would carry on as you are in relation to the particular deals you are working on.
However, there are two practical things you could do that might increase your chances of benefiting from the expertise of the partners around you more generally.
First, if you come across an answer to a genuinely interesting question, share it. You never know, it could lead to an interesting debate.
Secondly, if there is a partner in your group that enjoys discussing juicy legal questions, cultivate the relationship you have with them. If they know you share their interest, you will probably find they start coming to you.
One thing to be careful of in this scenario is that the partners in your group begin to take you for granted, or do not let you get the breadth of experience that you need in order to be able to join them at the partnership. Overworked partners like nothing mroe than to be able to delegate signficant amounts of work to smart, hard-working associates--and then when they are up for partnership to criticize same associates for having spent their entire time working on a narrow range of transactions. Relish the experience and responsibility, but keep your eyes open and don't be afraid to speak up for yourself and your own best interests, both long-term and short-term (and the two may be radically opposed).
My advice would be to get involved in business development as soon as possible. If you are not invited to these particular functions, why not initiate something on your own/with other partners and associates (no doubt you, as a 4 PQE you have budget for such efforts)? Another word of advice - try not to compare yourself with others on the business development front. It is a skill not taught at law school and you need to work on it daily (it applies equally to NQs, 4+ PQE or partners!). If you can bill, good. If you can bill and get business, even better. I develop client relationships daily and I have been doing so even before I qualified. People often assumed that I was invited because I could entertain well - the truth is, I organised functions or invited myself for 90% of the time. So do not assume that those associates are simply invited along. Initiate and get results.
It's good you're thinking about your situation.
Unfortunately, your being left to "get on with it" may not be based solely on your ability to do so (though I'm not questioning your ability to do so) as others have suggested. Are you doing work the partners don't want to do/aren't interested in? Is it pretty low-level/value work that really doesn't warrant partner involvement, or a sector/industry with which you are extremely familiar?
Although you are most definitely being provided with an opportunity to shine, think about whether you have also been given the rope with which to hang yourself. How do you think partners would react if you were to make a significant lack of experience/exposure type mistake? Would they support you or would you be blamed internally and externally (i.e. to the client) for the mistake? (Leaving aside all questions of inadequate supervision of course!!)
How do the clients you work for feel? Are they happy with you working with minimal partner involvement, or do they see it as an 'AWOL partner' type situation?
On this last point, you may want to read the following case from 1999:
Summit Financial Group Ltd v Slaughter & [sic] May (A Firm)
To summarise the case...
A law firm dividing the drafting of substantial documentation between different sections of the firm must be liable in negligence, if no one senior person has overall responsibility and an error ensues. No need to seek rectification first.
Though of course what makes the case relevant in the circumstances described here, and the reason I referred to it, is not the point of legal principle it decides but the fact that it is a cautionary tale for golden boys (and their supervisors).
Latest Jobs
