Articling: already fucked up stuff at Week 2

[Garfield]

It is week 2 of articling and I feel like I’ve already fucked up a few things.

I sent in some things later than I should have (by hours, not days) because I underestimated the time it would take. As an example, I was told by a senior partner that x task would take 3 hours. Like the idiot I am, i actually thought that the task would take me 3 hours to maybe 5 hours. It took me around 9. (As an aside, I now know, at least at the beginning of one’s articles, to never trust a lawyer, especially the more senior they are, when they say that a task only takes a few hours or that it’s very easy.) Underestimating this one task made me slower to get to other ones and it had a cascading effect.

I didn’t cause any lawyer to blow through any court deadlines or anything, but I definitely made things more difficult for them and created more work for them. Also, a few days ago, the work I did for one file became moot because I gave it too close to the deadline (which wasn’t clear to me, but that was my fault because I should have sought clarification) and the lawyer didn’t see it. I am sure they dislike me now or are, at minimum, annoyed at me.

You can be honest with me. Will this be held against me for a while? I don’t mean to freak out, but I know how important deadlines are when it comes to litigation and how stressed lawyers can get. For that reason I can’t help but feel that they might (reasonably) not want to work with me for a while.

[ramoj]

In my view (and this is my view - it may not be true at all), it depends on who the lawyers are, what their personalities are like, and working style. If they are someone who will hold this against you, expect to see less work from them (or less trust, which will result in less work).

However, this can also play to your favour. So here is what I would advise:

(1) figure out how to bounce back by using this as a teaching moment - ie. I did this, but I can learn from it and it can become an asset, not a liability 

(2) acknowledge it at an appropriate time during a performance check in - ie. "the above happened," here is what I learned from it, here is how I would approach this situation next time. 

(3) create a plan so that you do not do it again and make sure those lawyers or other important people in the firm know you won't fuck up again - ie. "Hi Lawyer, I wanted to sit down for 10 mins to discuss what happened on X file. I recognize I should have been more diligent on A, B, and C. Moving forward, here is my plan to ensure this does not happen again by doing: __, __, __."

DM me if you wanna talk through this. I am an incoming 1L, working at a large international organization this summer in policy, and the above helped me bounce back on a task. Hope this helps. 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by jomar

[OntheVerge]

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself, it is only week 2. The important thing is that you learn from your mistakes so they don't continue happening, which it sounds like you have because you're not making excuses for why these things happened except for stating that you didn't know any better. It seems like you've already learned a huge lesson, which is "always ask the lawyer when they need the work by", especially if the lawyer doesn't specify. This will not only prevent the same thing from happening again, but also help you manage your time going forward. When you get assigned multiple assignments/tasks, you won't know which ones need to be prioritized unless you know when they're all due. I used to keep a pen and notepad on me all the time, so every time I was assigned a task, I could put the deadline for it right next to it. Any task that didn't have a deadline next to it by the end of the day, I followed up on.

Were the lawyers annoyed? Probably, yes. I know when I've asked someone to help me with something I need and then when it's not done, I end up doing it myself to get it done in time for the deadline, I get annoyed. And it is frustrating, because it affects my time management in turn. BUT you are a new articling student. Lawyers should be more forgiving on new articling students, so I don't think you need to worry about it being held against you. Making these errors in week 2 is a lot different than making them in week 10 or 12. And I'm sure it doesn't fall into disliking you on a personal level. It was probably more frustration/annoyance but not directed at you personally. I would apologize if you haven't already done so, then move on and learn from the mistakes to prevent them from happening again.

[123]

16 minutes ago, jomar said:

In my view (and this is my view - it may not be true at all), it depends on who the lawyers are, what their personalities are like, and working style.

I agree with this. 

I will say that I don’t think the problem you’re having is terribly unusual. When you’re doing a lot of things for the first time, you tend to be (a) slow and (b) inaccurate at estimating how long things take. That’s normal. The bad news is that if you’re not careful early on to  make you leave yourself extra time, you’ll frequently be late or working late. The good news is that you’ll improve on both these things as you get a little more familiar with the work. Until then, budget time accordingly. But also be kind to yourself. You’re new at this. It’s normal to have bumps in the road.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by realpseudonym

[WhoKnows]

The main fuck up I see here is a lack of communication. If something is taking longer than expected, and you're 3 hours out from a deadline, you should be communicating that to the assigning lawyer. They can then address it, either by taking over, giving you more time, managing the client, etc. 

[OntheVerge]

@WhoKnows That's a great point, too.

A heads up to the lawyer who assigned the work gives them the opportunity to rectify the situation before it goes off the rails entirely. Communication is key. If you're not sure about a deadline, an assignment, or you think you've lost the point of the assignment, do a quick check in with the lawyer. Do not just keep your head down and push through. Speaking up is, however, easier said than done. There can be reluctance to check in, since sometimes people think that it makes them look like they failed, or will look dumb, or the lawyer might be a jerk, whatever. But you're learning! You're not expected to know everything (no one is) and wanting to get feedback is a good thing. 

[epeeist]

5 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

The main fuck up I see here is a lack of communication. If something is taking longer than expected, and you're 3 hours out from a deadline, you should be communicating that to the assigning lawyer. They can then address it, either by taking over, giving you more time, managing the client, etc. 

And @Garfield

My experience NOT recent, pay more attention to others like @realpseudonym and @OntheVerge . While OP didn't realize deadline, if they had, notifying lawyer with 3 hours until deadline is leaving it too late (though of course better than not notifying!).

More generally, sometimes you will have to tell lawyers that you can't do something or can't do it by the stated deadline and why (e.g. most obviously but an extreme example when I had a small claims court trial beginning the next day, I couldn't do what a different lawyer wanted on that same day, and having prepared for trial it was not something that someone else could do it was easier for lawyer to find someone else for their task if my offer "I have a small claims court trial so can't do it tomorrow, will the day after be acceptable?" or whatever). It may be that if what they want you for is in their opinion more urgent/important they'll discuss with the lawyer who gave you the other task(s) to free you up.

Of course, it's preferable to do all tasks in a timely fashion, but far better to alert lawyer well in advance that you can't do the task by the expected deadline (even if you originally thought you could when given the task) than to think you'll somehow manage and then not, either not meeting the deadline or not delivering a satisfactory work product.

[OntheVerge]

@epeeist That's a great time-management tip. And a great way to say "no" without saying no to the lawyer when you're overwhelmed with other assignments.

This is another reason why asking for deadlines on all assignments is so important; so you don't accidentally take too much on and then end up dropping deadlines or submitting sub-standard work. Using @epeeist's advice is a good way to keep your workload manageable without making people think you're turning down work. 

Never, ever say, "I'm too busy." I always thought this was just a general pet peeve of mine, and it can be a hard one to break after coming out of law school where - depending on the people around you - the phrase "I'm too busy" was wielded like a badge of honour (right next to, "I'm tired"). Turns out, lots of lawyers hate this phrase too, particulalry when it's coming out of an articling student's mouth. I was witness to an articling student who used that phrase when a senior partner asked for her assistance in something...he only said "that's unfortunate" before assigning it to someone else and walking away. But the associate lawyers who were in the room didn't stop talking about it for over a month and it became a punchline in the office 😕 No one in your workplace wants to hear that you're too busy to take on work, because that is the reality of the legal profession. 

[WhoKnows]

8 minutes ago, epeeist said:

My experience NOT recent, pay more attention to others like @realpseudonym and @OntheVerge . While OP didn't realize deadline, if they had, notifying lawyer with 3 hours until deadline is leaving it too late (though of course better than not notifying!).

Pretty sure the late assignment had a clear deadline. The other one that was made moot didn't. I got the sense from OP that this was a "get it to me tomorrow, it shouldn't take more than a couple hours" thing, which when I say that to a student, if they told me 3 hours prior to it being due the next day that they were struggling, id generally be pretty fine with it and ask them to send me what they had. Of course, I'm also fairly junior so that makes a difference in how close is too close. 

Now of course, if this was a "fit it into your schedule in the next week" thing and you left notice that late, yea you gotta be giving more advance notice.

[Rashabon]

I agree with having better communication but I will stress that this is an issue to get on top of ASAP. It is probably my number one pet peeve with juniors and the negative quality that sticks out to me the most, and I don't think I am alone in that. I often have lower or realistic expectations for final work product because I know the limitations students and juniors have. But blowing deadlines without advance notice is a huge pain. Sometimes those deadlines are arbitrary because I'm trying to figure out when I want to review it or get to it, and sometimes they are hard deadlines. By communicating, a lawyer can assess whether they really do need it by X time on Y date. But without that communication, there is nothing to go by. Also I can fix a mediocre work product, but if I have to do the entire thing myself when I budgeted energy to just fix and improve, it can be a big issue and a major pain.

[Aureliuse]

I agree with many of the incisive comments and suggestions above.

I would just add that if you are taking too long to complete something, perhaps ask your principal or a lawyer for a "work sample" - something similar to your assigned task you can emulate to.

You are not there to "re-invent the wheel." You are there to learn and help associates/partners free up time for other important tasks. 

It would save you a lot of time, and help you learn, if you can emulate a good work product.

Don't know how to prepare a factum? See an existing factum!

Finally, remember that perfection is the enemy of good. What you think is perfect will likely be edited further by a lawyer. So go for the "good job" standard not the "perfect" standard of work quality.

[Rashabon]

1 hour ago, Aureliuse said:

Finally, remember that perfection is the enemy of good. What you think is perfect will likely be edited further by a lawyer. So go for the "good job" standard not the "perfect" standard of work quality.

Yes this very important. My rough guidance for juniors (of course it depends on the individual facts and circumstances) is that the effort to get to 95% quality is equal to the effort to get from 95% to 99% and from 99% to 99.9%. Sometimes you have to shoot for one of the higher standards but often you are not being asked to get there.

[SNAILS]

On 8/12/2022 at 11:55 AM, epeeist said:

More generally, sometimes you will have to tell lawyers that you can't do something or can't do it by the stated deadline and why

This.

It was hard for me to do this at first to tell a boss "no," but it is better than saying yes and not doing it.

• I don't know how to do that
• I am working on task x right now and I cannot do task y and task x and have them both done on time.
• Person A has always done that task, and they are fast and good at it

[OzLaw16]

On 8/21/2022 at 8:39 AM, SNAILS said:

This.

It was hard for me to do this at first to tell a boss "no," but it is better than saying yes and not doing it.

• I don't know how to do that
• I am working on task x right now and I cannot do task y and task x and have them both done on time.
• Person A has always done that task, and they are fast and good at it

Maybe this differs depending on the type of firm (OP didn't mention what size firm they're at or where), but I articled at a large full service Bay firm, and I would never recommend using the first bullet point (and I'd be very careful about when and how to use the third one).

Lawyers know that articling students are new to this and don't magically know how to do every legal task presented to them. When an assigning lawyer gives you a task to do, the implied expectation is that if you don't know how to do it, you'll do your best to figure out how to do it, ask questions along the way if needed, and then present the lawyer with a work product that at least shows you put the effort in to try to learn it.

Telling a lawyer you can't take on their assignment because you "don't know how to do it" will almost certainly be interpreted as you saying no because you don't feel like dedicating the time/effort to trying to figure out how to do it. And considering the entire premise of articling (from the student perspective, at least) is to be a learning experience, I imagine most lawyers would not have a favourable impression of a student who showed no interest in learning how to do something unfamiliar to them.

The third bullet point could make sense in very limited circumstances (mainly if a lawyer has come to you with an extremely tight deadline), but I would be very careful in how I word my response. Declining work because Student A is "fast and good at it" will be interpreted as you saying you don't feel like doing it yourself and would rather pass off the work to someone else. The only way I think this type of sentiment could work is if the main reason you communicate for declining the work is you're at your capacity (i.e. your second bullet point), but then you suggest another student the lawyer could look for instead. For example, "Thanks for reaching out with this. I'd love to help, but Task X is taking up all my capacity at the moment and so I don't think I'd be able to get your task done by the deadline. That said, I'd be happy to help you find another student to take my place on this - Student A has shown an interest in this type of work and has worked on similar tasks before, so I can ask them if they're able to take this on." Of course, I would make sure to actually talk to Student A myself before namedropping them to a lawyer, since randomly volunteering your fellow students for work without warning them in advance will leave you with a much different reputation problem.

To be clear: I 100% agree with the original point that articling students need to learn how to say no to lawyers. I declined work on multiple occasions throughout my articling, and my mental health was significantly better because of it. But students also need to be mindful about the importance of their reputation within the firm when figuring out how to decline work. Telling a lawyer you can't do something because you're genuinely too busy to do it shouldn't harm your reputation if you're at a decent firm with reasonable people; telling a lawyer you can't do something because you it would be new to you and/or because someone else usually does that type of task can definitely leave a bad taste in lawyers' mouths when it comes time to decide who to hire back.

[OntheVerge]

Not to pile on @SNAILS's post, but I can't imagine a lawyer reacting well to any of those ways of saying no, unless there's a follow up like "I don't know how to do that....so it'll take me longer than your proposed deadline, is that a problem or is the deadline flexible?" No one knows how to do anything as an articling student and it's only by doing tasks that you learn how. If you say "I don't know how" as a reason to not do something, then you'll be showing that you're not willing to learn. The third phrase looks like you're trying to delegate, which maybe you can in some articling placements, but not in others. Plus, I don't see that going over well by either the lawyer assigning the work or the person you're trying to delegate it to, as you've essentially just given them more work. So again, unless you're following up that phrase with, "Person A has always done that task, and they are fast and good at it...would it be okay if we worked together on it so I learn how to do it properly and can have it done at the proposed deadline", I wouldn't be saying it. Especially since it's just another way of saying "I don't know how to do it and don't want to learn how to do fast or properly, since Person A always does it."  Articling is not the time to be saying "no" to things assigned to you, unless you do it in a very tactful way that essentially seems like you're saying yes - which is why I would go with @epeeist's way of saying no, as that's the perfect way of saying "no" without actually saying it. You're saying yes, you can do the work but not in the timeline given you and then asking for flexibility to make it work. That is a much different strategy than saying no, i don't know or no, someone else always does that. Saying those phrases to your articling principal or a lawyer assigning work is not going to give you a good reputation.

 

 

[epeeist]

@SNAILS @OntheVerge

Yeah, again with the caveat my experience not recent, unless it's like "I need you to go right now to [place you've never heard of] to do [thing you've never heard of], it's an urgent rush go now" and you'll need to ask questions, you figure out what needs to be done. Which may include and be more efficient to get some details/help from the lawyer's assistant, a law clerk, etc., asking for a sample/precedent from someone other than the lawyer.

[PzabbytheLawyer]

On 8/13/2022 at 4:02 PM, Rashabon said:

Yes this very important. My rough guidance for juniors (of course it depends on the individual facts and circumstances) is that the effort to get to 95% quality is equal to the effort to get from 95% to 99% and from 99% to 99.9%. Sometimes you have to shoot for one of the higher standards but often you are not being asked to get there.

This has been the opposite of my experience at my current firm. And this strategy always made more sense to me. It's interesting to see the different expectations and styles.

[Rashabon]

On 8/25/2022 at 9:33 PM, PzabbytheLawyer said:

This has been the opposite of my experience at my current firm. And this strategy always made more sense to me. It's interesting to see the different expectations and styles.

It depends on your client and who you work with. There’s one lawyer I sometimes work with that targets that 99.9% part and so files can be a drag as you spend an hour on a phone call drafting an email together that’s overly detailed.

I have other clients that just want stuff done at a good level without obvious mistakes.

The same work principle applies to negotiations and drafting agreements as well. Sometimes you can’t go for the Cadillac depending on the context and you have to get comfortable with something acceptable instead of perfect.