I remember the first day I showed up for work as a first year associate. A junior partner showed me to my office, and left me with a bunch of office manuals and forms to fill out. I distinctly remember filling out health care and tax forms, setting up the welcoming message on my office phone, and then wondering to myself: “Now what? Do I just go ahead and practice law?”
There was no official training or mentoring program in place when I first started working. Instead, on my third day of work, I was staffed on my first case: a family dispute between two brothers over a company that they jointly owned. A senior associate wanted me to prepare a draft complaint. With no one telling me how to prepare a complaint, I turned to the Rutter Guides as well as some exemplars–prior complaints drafted by other attorneys at the firm for different cases. I pulled my first all-nighter on my fourth day at work, and filed the complaint that Friday in court. This is what the firm means when, during recruiting interviews, it tells law students that the training is “hands on.”
Training or mentoring entry-level associates has been a hot button issue for law firms. Most firms offer some kind of training for first year associates, whether it’s a mentoring circle, a “buddy” system, or at the very least, an “open door” policy that supposedly represents the ability of a first year to simply walk into any partner’s office and ask for advice. I’ll talk briefly about each of these.
In my experience, the mentoring circle is generally ineffective. The circle usually consists of a partner paired up with a group of associates, varying in class and age. The idea is for the mentoring circle to meet on a regular basis to discuss firm issues using “Vegas rules”, i.e., what is said within the circle stays within the circle. Many groups don’t have the proper dynamics because the personalities simply don’t jive. These circles, instead of serving as a forum for mentoring, tend to be reduced to free lunches with the partner, but not much else. Even the groups that get along well end up being social gatherings. The main problem appears to stem from the artificial nature of the environment itself. Partners are paired randomly with associates of different levels. Sometimes, the partner’s practice area may differ from that of some of the associates in his or her circle. Moreover, a group environment is usually not the occasion to approach someone about a delicate work issue. Even with “Vegas rules,” most associates don’t believe there won’t be a leak, and they probably don’t trust the partner either.
The “buddy” system is similar, except that it matches individual entry-level associates with a more senior associate or a partner. Again, this system is subject to the whims of differing personalites, but it has worked with some success. The reality is that most buddy systems are only effective for first years just starting out. Once they start working with other attorneys in the office, natural alliances will form.
The “open door” policy is the most deceptive. It sounds great in theory, and as a first year, any reassurance that there are other, more experienced attorneys available to help you is encouraging. The reality is quite different. Big name partners who tell you that you can walk in anytime to ask a question are, to put it frankly, unrealistic. The intentions may be there, but those partners are generally so busy juggling 20 or more cases, they have no time to mentor a first year. These big partners have lines of associates (and sometimes junior partners) waiting outside their doors, and are the ones attempting to hold intra-office meetings in their offices while their phones are ringing off the hook. Forget it. Even if you happened to catch them on a slow day, they likely won’t have the patience to answer your basic questions. Generally, the lawyers who have the true “open door” policies are not the ones who advertise them: the associate who is just one or two years above you. Those are the people who are most likely to help you in your time of need.
