We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Could you tell me what ultimately happened?
My contact link - https://t.me/aj_him
Sorry to be brutal.
We fired an associate recently.
She was given similar warnings about a year ago. She did not improve. We did not fire her immediately because we wanted to give her benefit of doubt on grounds like health, cultural integration, family issues, etc
No one wants to fire people with whom once had worked. The partners were trying to find out one more reason not to fire her. She did not improve even a bit. But it had started affecting other associates, timelines and quality, we had to ask her to leave.
If you posted which team or nature of work, the sleuths here would deduce your identity in minutes. So, with limited information, be careful.
I don't want to increase the pressure you must already be under; but the threshold at which a person is warned that they may be fired is really high. This isn't the IT industry where lay-offs are common - traditionally, law firms have never done large scale lay-offs in India (or, for that matter, globally). So long as you put in the hours and show earnestness, I have seen absolute bumbling idiots hack it out in good law firms and climb the ladder, albeit, at a slower pace.
So, I would take this warning seriously and buck-up if I were you. The "management" will not listen to a fourth month A0. Speak with your senior or the partner and ask them how you can improve your work product and your attitude, if that's what they think is wrong, and then make a concerted effort to improve and ask for regular feedback. Separately, also speak with someone from your college in the firm who you know personally and see what you can do to improve. If you aren't willing to give it your 100% then you should really consider leave a law firm and doing something else, unfortunately, this line of work requires a strong work ethic and longer hours for the first few years. Things do relax a little bit after 4/5 years of work ex.
I remember a senior telling me a while back that the new bunch of associates who joined are much more enthusiastic about work and have a much better attitude than me. Four months since, half of them have quit.
So, the ones who were super enthusiastic about work have burnout/ quit, and the one who doesn’t have a good attitude has stayed on? Bit of a paradox, innit? Something seems off.
Reminds me of the story when during WWII, the Royal Air Force was looking to increase the armour of their airplanes to prevent them from getting shot down. These airplanes had to fly over enemy territory and would often return with bullet holes. The RAF team analysed several airplanes which had returned from war and noticed that most of the bullet holes were near the wings and nose of the airplane, while the engine was mostly unharmed. So, they concluded that they had to reinforce these portions of the plane.
But there was mathematician in the team, who proposed the complete opposite. He said it was more important to armour the engine of the aircraft - which hardly had any bullet holes. It sounded counterintuitive, but he had realised something others had missed - the RAF team was only analysing the bullet holes of aircraft’s that had returned from war. The pilots of aircraft with bullet holes in their engines never managed to returned.
Hope management is listening.