I will not tolerate:
* Dishonesty. I will not stand for a hint of it.
* Out of control ego. You have no reason for it.
* Emotional instability. Wrong line of work for you.
* Lazy people looking for to make their life easy. I work hard, and you will, too.
* Spoiled children of privilege – you may be the apple of your parent’s eye, but here, it is about production.
* Drama. It affects your ability to earn money.
* People who cannot follow instructions. I only like to repeat myself during closing argument.
* People who cannot manage their time. Do I have to explain why?
* Anyone who ever is smart or mean with a client. They are our present and future.
* Disloyal or passive-aggressive personality types. I am direct. You should be, too.
* Anyone prone to forgetting who the boss is. My way or highway.
* People who stew over not being paid “what they are worth.” You are worth what you can find a job to pay you.
* People who only ever see problems, not solutions. This business is about solving problems. I will show you how.
* Sissies. You are going to be in front of scowling Judges, mean Defense attorneys, weeping clients. I will be nice to you, but that’s about it.
Many will read this and react, I would never work for this jerk. No sweat. This jerk would never hire you. But whoever would work for him, whoever he would hire, will not only get a job, but this:
You will learn how to do everything I ask you to do directly from me. I will make you a great, skilled attorney.
You see, right now you aren’t a “great, skilled attorney.” I know, you think you are. You “feel” like a great, skilled attorney. Your mommy says you are. But you’re not. You may have a license, but you’re not really an attorney at all. You can’t do the things attorneys are expected to do. You don’t know how.
Don’t feel bad about it. Nobody leaves law school capable of practicing law, and those who profess that any yutz straight out of law school can be a successful solo are blowing smoke. Even the ones who do it may come to realize that, after a few years, they stunk in the beginning. Of course, they don’t realize until after they stop stinking up the courtroom, if they ever realize it at all.
But for so many of the Slackoisie, they will never make the grade because they can’t get through the list without crying. No one can teach you to be un-stupid.
You can run away from these harsh assessments into the loving, caring, comforting arms of the cadre of consultants who will take your meager funds to tell you what you want to hear. But that won’t make you un-stupid. You can tell me that some day, you will rule the world and then it will be wonderful, where you can get your BMW without ever having to take off your bathrobe and jammies.
Or you can be un-stupid. Your choice.
Don’t feel bad about it. Nobody leaves law school capable of practicing law, and those who profess that any yutz straight out of law school can be a successful solo are blowing smoke. Even the ones who do it may come to realize that, after a few years, they stunk in the beginning. Of course, they don’t realize until after they stop stinking up the courtroom, if they ever realize it at all.
But for so many of the Slackoisie, they will never make the grade because they can’t get through the list without crying. No one can teach you to be un-stupid.
The individuals whom I’ve met or heard about over the last couple of years that have formed the basis of this opinion are smart people, and in some cases, exceptionally smart people. At least, that’s what I can tell from the importance of their jobs or the successes recounted on their resumes. These were people vetted through multiple interviews, and determined to be well-suited to their legal jobs. In short, they weren’t just the “man off the street.” And yet, their attitude suggested they were stupid. This is something I clearly cannot teach you how not to be. No lawyer can. To be un-stupid you have to feel embarrassment, or fear, like the fear of losing, the fear of making a mistake, or the fear of looking like a complete ass.To those who believe that they are absolutely entitled to be any darn way they want to be, that the legal profession should remold itself around them, accommodate them, change for them, this is heresy. To those who teach them, hold conferences for them, consult with them about how to make millions while working only three hours a week, this is a lie. To those who blame see the problems, but dismiss them because they aren’t their fault and instead blame their parents, their employer, the political party with which they disagree, this is offensive. But all your arguments won’t help you. They won’t make you un-stupid.
You can run away from these harsh assessments into the loving, caring, comforting arms of the cadre of consultants who will take your meager funds to tell you what you want to hear. But that won’t make you un-stupid. You can tell me that some day, you will rule the world and then it will be wonderful, where you can get your BMW without ever having to take off your bathrobe and jammies.
Or you can be un-stupid. Your choice.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds like he is looking for the Son or Daughter he never had (or failed to raise). But, you got to admire someone that comes right out and says “I’m an ass to work for, but if you can put up with me, do as I say, and work like a dog… soon, you’ll be the ass in charge of your own place.”
So you think he sounds like an ass, do ya
MaryGreg? Interesting.I think it’s interesting that his ad doesn’t identify who he is. There would probably be some mutual benefit in letting potential applicants google him or look at his website. For all we know, he could be a suspended attorney facing sentencing for real estate fraud or something like that.
He could be, though odds are against it since he isn’t hiring staff for his social media guru virtual operation.
I gotta disagree with some of the things in this post. Yes, my reaction is that I would never work for this jerk. Not because I think I’m entitled to anything like a 3 day workweek or a bmw, but because the ad suggests that his practice and the learning experience he offers are lousy, as is his leadership and management style. While leadership and management style may well be irrelevant to being a lawyer, they are relevant to being an employer.
The ad suggests that this guy has encountered all of these things in people he’s hired previously and he’s looking to avoid that. The thing is, for every self-entitled brat who thinks they’re too good for grunt work, there is another talented, hard-working recent grad who isn’t any of those things he’s looking to avoid, and hasn’t been since they were in diapers. Yet, this guy’s exasperated sounding concern over winding up with a brat suggests that he’s been unable to attract anyone else. And I’m guessing that’s because the experience he offers is crappy. Good people know how to find good opportunities.
This guy may well be a lawyer who serves his clients fantastically well. That doesn’t mean being his associate will be a good experience.
One for one? I think you would find that number highly debatable. In fact, I suspect that most employers would tell you that it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, which is why, I suspect, the lawyer included these many points in his help wanted ad. Only someone who realizes why he’s included such negatives will appreciate what he’s trying to accomplish. He wants to scare most applicants away.
It definitely isn’t one for one. I’ve employed hundreds of law students and attorneys over the last 16 years and have had a front-row seat to changing values. I used to chalk it up to problems with kids matriculating from college to law school without stopping to work for a bit, but now I don’t know. I do agree with a theme in Dan’s comment, however, and that’s just because you don’t want these kinds of kids does not absolve you of trying to be a good leader, manager, or teacher. The most dedicated, talented, hard-working grad you hire deserves the chance to learn from you. I’m not talking hand-holding, pretty pleases; I’m just suggesting a good training program with clear instructions is in order. And it’s been my experience that when you hire that person, you actually enjoy leading and teaching them because you know they want to learn.
My impression from the ad was that this was precisely the point, that he had every intention of being an excellent teacher and mentor, which was why he wouldn’t waste it on a slacker. Did you see something in there to the contrary?
It’s a tough ad, and there are a few warning signs—the concerns over disloyalty and disobedience, the attempt to preempt salary negotiations, and the desire not to be told about problems—but he sure does lay out what he’s looking for.
On the other hand, he promises to train you to do the job, which is a good thing to make explicit when advertising for a “self-starter”.
I don’t know how much teamwork matters in a law firm, but in my line of work, the most attractive thing about this job is that if everyone else is hired the same way, you’ll probably be working with a team that doesn’t have many slackers.
I’m sure some law firms model themselves after software developers. Not.
“Would I let you on my team? No, I don’t think I would.”
I think the ad gets a knock for this part:
“People who cannot follow instructions. I only like to repeat myself during closing argument.”
There is a reason Apple and Ikea products come with instruction manuals with no words. There will be times when this lawyer gives instructions to his or her otherwise well-qualified, hard-working associate and something gets messed up. This line of the ad would suggest the lawyer believes it is the associate’s fault. And for the true hard-liners, I believe they would say “yes, it is.” After all, that’s how I learned to write; it was always my fault. But I never liked learning that way, so it is the one thing I’ve changed about my teaching style. Now, I look at the situation and consider, quickly, whether my instructions were clear. If I feel they were, then admonishment is in order. If I feel I could have been clearer, I take another run at it and wait for the result. If same result, then I’ve got a different problem on my hands.
Picking nits now?
Sounds like he’s looking for a secretary.
Besides, he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy that would let me blog or be on Twitter, so screw it.
Wait. He sounds like Scott…hmmm….has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same place? The plot thickens.
Finally, I really enjoyed this post and I will bookmark it for later use.
I’m sorry, but your point is too subtle for my understanding. Are you saying that teamwork is not an issue, so the fact that you’re working with other hard workers is a bad thing? Are hard-working lawyers better off at firms full of slackers because they stand out more?
Not at all. I’m saying that lawyers, except in Biglaw, don’t work in teams, so collaborative models don’t apply either way. I’m also saying that I love that pic of you, you stern yet handsome fella, you.
I write for a living, what do you expect!
Are you saying they pay people just to write? Wow.
Aw, shucks.
Sounds like a dream job. Worst bosses are passive aggressive and fail to manage expectations. Working for someone who doesn’t know what he wants is a nightmare.
Plus, sounds like he’ll pay well…if you’re willing to work for it.
He did promise to be nice.
That he chooses to emphasize that he will be an excellent teacher and mentor, suggests to me that he is not an excellent teacher and mentor. If he were, it would be known, and he’d attract people who know how to research his reputation. The emphasis on his teaching and mentoring, combined with the caveat that you are worth what you can get someone to pay you suggests that his attitude is, I’m going to pay you squat and you should be damn happy to have it. Not that I disagree that anyone deserves anything more, its just that the points this guy chooses to emphasize reveal what’s on his mind, and they don’t suggest that this is a good opportunity in any way.
Same goes for the caveat about wanting someone who can follow instructions. Many young lawyers want to follow instructions- some are good at it, and some are not, but giving instructions is also a skill. If this lawyer were to tell me that he’s never been able to find an associate who could follow instructions, I’d wonder if he’s capable of giving clear instructions.
Not clear that your first point follows. Not sure that your second point is true, though that’s a matter of prespective. I hear it a lot from us “old” lawyers that new ones can’t follow instructions (or more to the point, as in Jason’s Un-Stupid post, can’t do something unless they are told what to do with such precision and in such detail as it would be less work to do it themselves).
Fair enough that my first point may not follow. Its just that in my vast experience looking for jobs in a lots of different segments of the legal field, the assertion that someone will be a good teacher is usually hollow and is just what is stated when they know that they won’t attract good candidates based on the pay their offering. Why work here if the pay stinks? Well, I’m a great teacher. I swear.
It sounds like a dream job to me.
The secret to my success has lied in going out of my way to find jobs like this with employers like this: high standards, clear expectations, willing to mentor.
But what I want to know is, why didn’t Dan Hull just go ahead and put his name on the ad?
I sent a copy of this to Dan Hull yesterday, when I first saw it. He immediately sent an email to the employer saying, “You are my hero.”
Nice to see you around, Shaula. Happy holidays!
The honesty in the add is refreshing. Nothing is worse that big law wining and dinning summer associates and then having them all quit when the real work starts. I see too many people going into law and then (astonishingly) beginning stunned that it takes hard work, long hours and self-motivation. This is especially true of the kids today that go straight through and never had a “real job” until after they graduate law school.
Thank you, once again, for a fantastic post.
I honestly don’t know where you find these people. I can’t recall a single classmate of mine from law school, or a fellow lawyer, who thought law was some kind of fast track to easy riches, particularly in biglaw. Biglaw rules the roost in law school culture and everyone knows that means hours upon hours upon hours- giving up your social life, personal life, etc. If you’re wining and dining people who don’t know this, they’re not worth being wined and dined. Sure, people may decide that a certain path is not for them once they’ve experienced, and that’s the risk you take when you wine and day and pay exorbitant salaries for dime a dozen credentials, but I don’t actually think there are any biglaw associates who think they’re in for an easy time. They may be mistaken as to whether they can handle it, but nobody’s surprised that big law involves long hours.
Surprised? No. But very unhappy about it, and desperately trying to change Biglaw culture by arguing for and complaining about work/life balane? You bet. It’s a major problem with Biglaw associates.
I gather that those people used to just walk away from biglaw. I suspect that part of the reason they no longer do that, and instead stay and complained as if they are somehow being wronged, is that biglaw now simply pays them too much to walk away from, relative to other opportunities within the profession.
“Management style”? “Management style”?
Did someone actually say that a few comments up?
Scott, I know your traffic is more than mine–but I had no idea that Tuck and Wharton profs or A.G. Lafley and Warren Bennis were frequenting your blog. Am very impressed. You’ve arrived.
The person who wrote that ad?
Not positive–but I think he/she would be a great teacher and a lot of fun. Too many wimpy people of all ages in the profession and, the lawyer who wrote that ad, no matter what the “leadership” and “management style” (someone please kill me–or at least gag me with a Bates Stamp) has lots to teach. The writer is CLEAR about what he/she wants. Not a Weenie. Kudos.
Two reasons the ad is a VERY good one:
1. It makes the Slack, Gen-Y Garbage and TeleTubbies think twice before they apply. People who want to wear cool suits, get paid and please the family–but not do the work and ever become lawyers–will likely not answer it. They will be afraid to work for anyone who will tell them the truth about themselves. They will simply tap into blogs like this one and call the writer a jerk–but they will not waste the “jerk’s” time and money. They will never dishonor the ad writer’s clients or world.
2. It attracts people who are confident, really want to be lawyers AND will go all out to train themselves.
Finally: “Good people know how to find good opportunities.” Compared to even 5 years ago, “good people” are getting harder to find. A fact.
The really “good people”? They are the ones who will not compromise their standards to achieve a workplace that is PC, undemanding, “sweet”, never threatening, lame, ineffective and bad for their clients. The person who wrote that ad will not settle. Bravo.
I thought “management style” referred to cuffs or no cuffs on one’s slacks. I gather I may have misunderstood.
As the commenter who first used “management style” I can tell you you’re way off. It refers to button-down vs. straight collar.
The dividing line in my circles: 3-piece suits versus spats and capes.
Spats are one thing. Personally, I think a cape is over the top.
Yes it is a very good ad. A very refreshing change from the typical tepid wimpy ad that one see on so many lawyer websites. You know Dan the type of ad that requires “Upper 10-15% of law school class only.”
I’m familiar with that ad too. More often than not, the advertiser who explicitly specifies top 10% only, or law review only, etc., was not in the top 10% of his class or on law review.
I disagree. But how about white sharkskin suits instead? In case they invite you down to Santa Rosa for the races.
For someone who says he is adverse to drama, his advertisement stinks of it.
Look, I’m all in favor of a good old-fashioned rant about some subject one cares about. If, for stylistic reasons, you want to make that rant look like something else — like a job advertisement, for example — well, that’s between you and your muse.
But if this is intended as a genuine advertisement, it strikes me as a huge, neon warning sign. It’s spectacularly self-indulgent, announces a redwood-sized chip on the author’s shoulder, and strongly suggests that applicants will be judged based upon characteristics that the author will project upon them.
It reminded me very strongly of the infamous Wifely Expectations Contract in tone and dysfunction-level.
The stench of Slackoisie fear permeates your comment. Run from the bad man. Run.
Perhaps. On the other hand, I co-run a law firm now, and have hired and fired people. I don’t feel the need to indulge in this sort of display. It strikes me as more about the author’s self-image than about the actual employees.
Give it time. You might eventually find yourself sick and tired enough of dealing with the Slackoisie that you see this differently.
I am a brand new, inexperienced lawyer. I responded to an ad that was somewhat similar. I got the job and it turned out to be the biggest BS POS law firm on the face of the planet. A total sweatshop. I left after 4 days. I like reading ads like these. It’s refreshing. But there definitely are shady little firms out there that promise to “teach you how to become a lawyer” but do nothing more than milk vulnerable people for all the BS work they’re able to get out of them.
This outfit may well be legit. If that’s so, a novice lawyer working for such a firm would gain vastly more experience than s/he would working for a Biglaw firm.
But there definitely are seedy little sweatshops out there that will teach you nothing about the practice of law.
That’s an interesting assessment. Is it “a total sweatshop” because you’re a slackoisie, or because it is “a total sweatshop.” Without knowing more, either about you or the sweatshop, it’s impossible to know.
I don’t think of “seedy little sweatshops” as a specific catoegory of employer. There are firms that pay poorly because a) they want to and/or b) that’s what they can afford. There are firms that expect people to work hard within a range of reason or beyond what is reasonable. That’s in part, a matter of perception, and also something you are always free to walk away from. As for teaching, some lawyers don’t teach young lawyers because they don’t have the ability and others because they don’t care to. Some people think they are good teachers even though they’re not. Like lots of things in life, its hit or miss.