Clareified

I KNOW WHY!

Because it SUCKED.

THIS REVIEW NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (by guest blogger DROBBSKI)

I come from a business background, so there are times in my law firm existence where I feel like a fish out of water. Attempting to understand a law firm’s organizational and decision making structure boggles my mind. Straining my eyes to see behind the smokescreens and learn the real reason partners prefer different business models and associate support patterns has caused more tension headaches than I care to admit. But, from my perspective, nothing — and I do mean nothing — is more confusing, frustrating, demoralizing and nonsensical than an associate’s performance review given by partners at a big law firm.

In theory, a performance review is supposed to cover the incumbent’s history of completing tasks within the core competencies for a particular position and set goals for the future. From my experience in the business world, reviews generally followed that pattern. From my experience in the legal world, however, law firm performance reviews are completely different. Law firm performance reviews are all about vindictiveness, passive-aggressive behavior, and sniping from the bushes under cover of anonymity. And this happens whether or not the partners like the associate and whether or not the partners want to keep the associate around.

Here are some gems of comments from my recent associate performance review:

1) What was said: “You should leave matter staffing decisions to partners.” What was meant: “Shut up and do the work, we don’t care that you’ve worked 20 hour days for 6 weeks in a row. Although we just finished lecturing you for working too hard, we are now going to lecture you about asking for help when we work you too hard.” My takeaway: “I can’t win, so I’m not going to try.”

2) What was said: “One of your evaluators would not seek you out for work in the future.” What was meant: I’m not really sure. Everything I did for that evaluator drew strong, public praise during the year. When I asked the evaluator what I should do to fix the working relationship he told me he checked the wrong box by mistake. But, he realized too late to change the rating, so he just let it stand. My takeaway: “I just got lectured for 10 minutes about how important it is to keep the confidence of partners based on a mistaken check mark that could have been corrected, but was not. Oh yeah, and my bonus just went down $5,000 because of that mistaken checkmark. Thanks a lot.”

3) What was said: “You need to spend more time on writing assignments.” What was meant: “You gave short-shrift to a particularly vindictive partner’s request to write a textbook for him. Mind you, we all know this textbook would have been in his name, and you would have received no credit for it whatsoever. You also would not have hit your billable hour target if you accepted it. So, now we’re going to criticize your lack of dedication for not writing textbook.” My takeaway: “So, let me get this straight. So far I’ve been lectured for working too hard, for not working hard enough, for being one of the most productive associates in the office, for being a slacker, and for a mistaken check box. Yeah, this is going well so far. I wonder if my recruiter will be around to talk a little later.”

This went on for what seemed like hours. I took notes, nodded, asked questions as appropriate. All the while, though, I was trying to figure out what on earth I was supposed to take away from the review. As far as I knew, I was a horrible associate who was failing miserably, and doing so in ways that could not be corrected. Do I work more, or less? Do I write textbooks, or focus on billable work? I could not figure it out. None of it made sense. We were not breathing the same air. I was flopping around on the deck after being hauled in from the sea.

And when I had concluded that, in short, I am a crappy lawyer with no future prospects, the review draws to a close with the following message. “We want this to be a message of success. You are on the right path and doing exactly what we expect.” And they hand me a generous bonus check and say they look forward to reviewing me next year.

Yeah, sure. Me too. If I don’t suffocate first.

HOE LEE SHITE

Transit Union workers REJECT contract negotiated by union leaders.

The workers opted to ignore Transport Workers Union local president Roger Toussaint’s call for ratification and follow the lead of a dissident group urging rejection. The voting ended at noon Friday, and Toussaint said the final tally was 11,234 against and 11,227 in favor.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which oversees the city’s mass transit system, had no immediate comment. Toussaint said his union was ready to “go back to the drawing board” and meet with the MTA as soon as possible.

TIED-FOR-QUOTE OF THE DAY

When life gave Jack Bauer lemons, he used them to kill terrorists. Jack Bauer fucking hates lemonade.

Jack Bauer was never addicted to heroin. Heroin was addicted to Jack Bauer.

More fun with Jack Bauer here.

Notice, I said ‘with,’ not ‘of’…please don’t kill me Jack.

KNOW THY AUDIENCE

Of all the snarky catchphrases I’ve got going, “have we met?” is probably my favorite.

Like:

Foil: “You’ve got a layover in Chicago? You do know that for thirty dollars more you could probably have gotten a direct flight?”

Me: Have we met? If you were thirty dollars, I’d put you in my ing account right now.

And when I read this article, that catchphrase seemed all too apt.

After years of silence, the father of American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh asked President Bush on Thursday to grant clemency to his son, who he says was wrongly maligned as a traitor and murderer.

Dude.

You’re asking Bush to *pardon* someone known as “the American Taliban”?

Forget met Bush…Ever heard of him? Maybe seen pictures in magazines? Heard him on the radio?

Does he seem like the pardoning kind of guy?

Are you crazy? You’re lucky Bush doesn’t get Gonzalez to write him a letter saying the President can unilaterally impose death sentences.

WHO YOU CALLING CHICKEN?

U.S. Grants Cuba License to Play in Baseball Classic.

THAT’S POKER

With KJc I make the standard raise to three times the big blind UTG.

Guy to my left reraises me to eight times the big blind.

Crap.

I know, I should have folded.

I know.

But.

I call.

The flop comes:

A 5 10 ALL CLUBS.

I check my nut flush.

He goes all-in.

I beat him to the pot.

The turn is the 9 of hearts.

The river is a 9 of diamonds.

He makes his aces full of nines fullhouse with runner nines and that’s all she wrote.

I busted out on my first hand.

Yeah, That’s About Right

Via the Birthday Boy

LOST BLOGGING

I don’t know if it’s because 24 was soo freaking great, but Lost was unfreakingwatchable this week.

“You told me what to do and I didn’t like it”
“Well, you told me what to do first”
“Yeah”
“Ok”

“Nooo.”

Oooh, I’ve got guns

ooo, I’m a boogeyman. I have a magic invisible shield. I bet the freaking button recharges them.

“Get your feet off my coffee table and put your shoes on.”

Heaven help me I MISS SHANNON!

ok…I don’t really. But no more of this pod/smoke monster/lord of the flies children all grown up.

Or else.

WHERE’S PEARATTY WHEN YOU NEED HER…

So when you’re going to a weekend wedding, on an island in the Pacific, where the only hotel is $200/night, no gift is required…right?