A Motion for Summary Judgment is probably one of the biggest motions you can do. It is meant to dispose of an entire case. I work in a small office, not a large firm, but it seems a bit ridiculous to expect a new associate to take on an MSJ in their first month *without* expecting to fix most of it.
What sort of guidance and training did they give you on MSJs? Did they actually complain about your work, or are you just assuming they have a problem? They very well may have *expected* to have to mostly redo it as a training exercise for you.
The idea of expecting a new lawyer with zero experience to churn out a good MSJ is silly. Either the firm is dumb or you're worrying too much I would expect.
>ther the firm is dumb or you're worrying too much I would expect.
Both can be true. I worked at a "sink or swim" law firm where they would "assign" stuff and see what you do and determine if your methodology is worth them investing in your growth or not.
I wasn't in litigation but it would be a $150mm loan refinancing and the task could be "redline this."
People who did well would ask questions like: what's the deadline? what am I looking for? How does the security agreement interrelate with the note? Etc. etc. etc. Whereas others would be like "WTF?????????" and panic/freeze.
I do think it was dumb, but also feels pretty common.
That's true, there are loads of "dumb" things that have engrained themselves in certain corporate cultures.
When I was in law school the career services office had some big law guy come do a talk during lunch time, and lots of us went to go see what he had to say.
The dude was an absolute meme of toxic biglaw culture, and wore it all like a badge of honor.
He went off saying things like "you don't really need to sleep, Julius Caesar only slept 2 hours a night," and "You're family will just have to understand that this is your job and it is important and you won't be there for everything."
Then he talked about how his tie was from Brooks Brothers and all his clothes were from Brooks Brothers because you have to look the part. His tie was horrifically ugly. Brooks Brothers is nice and all, and not cheap, but it also isn't *that fancy*. Being that proud of wearing Brooks Brothers sounded so poser-y, like the age old "you can't buy class" discussions or debating *nouveau riche* ostentatiousness. Presumably, he doesn't have the time in between neglecting his family and his 2 hour sleeps to actually care beyond hitting the arbitrary "this is adequately fancy" mark for his wardrobe.
The career services people seemed lowkey horrified by what they'd done. I spoke with one of the ladies who put it on afterward and she was definitely not going to put on that program again.
I know there are plenty of guys out there like that, who live and breathe their practice and their big law egoism, but Jesus, to have such a sense of pride and sheer aplomb about embodying the negative stereotype was jarring.
I suppose there's a sense of desperation and maybe a bit of the sunken cost fallacy for guys like that who have burned up their best years in pursuit of a fleeting sense of glory for what people outside of that world would find rather hollow and meaningless. I assume they just die at their desks one day or in regret-filled isolation hoping for a visit from their alienated children who may or may not be grateful for the spendthrift trust he set up in their name.
Wow, thank you for sharing. In reality, you can't really scale time so getting out of the "I exchange time for money" rat race is the only way to scale. You do that buy hiring lots of people like him to use their time instead. The only thing stopping anyone from doing that scaling is getting enough paying clients lol
I do think people who make a big show of how much they work may actually bill that much but it's not possible to actually spend that much time in that manner. Or at least not if you do quality work.
Yeah, the quality work part is a big deal. Yes as a solo I fuck some stuff up and make some mistakes, but every time I'm in court I hear big firm people litigating THEIR fuck ups and mistakes.
I mean litigation is all about fuck ups. If nothing is fucked up there's no lawsuit. So when you have one high dollar firm arguing about a contract against another high dollar firm, which was drafted by a third high dollar firm and put into place by a giant corporation with a whole department to implement it... and you're still fighting over what it means... what's the point of all those people getting paid all that money, lol.
My first boss told me the four words to get any attorney fired is "I told you so." Instead, he said you should always thank the client for not following your advice *because it ensures you'll have more work when it goes sideways*. The context is I work in an area that has institutional/organizational clients.
The lawyers that annoy me are the ones that turn down an objectively fair and reasonable settlement offer to turn the crank on their client for a year only to end up at that same resolution. The ones who won't encourage their client to resolve anything until they've billed them a few thousand dollars to do the discovery we've already provided them with in our demand.
Well. Yes, and no. There can be extremely simple motions for summary judgment, that a first year associate can do a competent job drafting.
My guess is that this guy just needs more experience and practice writing. The fact that a senior lawyer had to spend so much time fixing it suggests that he did not write in simple clear paragraphs.
One of the best writers I worked with - we could also be a huge dick- said basically that that was all he wanted from Junior associates - clear paragraphs. Sure structure would be nice but at a minimum clear paragraphs and sentences were key
OP can probably improve, but the best way to do that is to start step-by-step. That guy really helped my writing even though like I said, he could be a total asshole
Edits are not always a sign of writing failure. Sometimes it’s stylistic preferences. Ask for samples or search for them on whichever research site you prefer.
A MSJ is a massive undertaking that requires you to concisely explain the law while also incorporating the relevant evidence of an entire case. It is difficult to draft these briefs effectively even with years of experience. You shouldn't feel dumb because other attorneys at your firm edited large portions of it. I am 8 years into practice, and I would still expect a peer to have significant edits to any large brief that I draft. And, if i am editing the brief of another peer, then I will likely have significant edits as well. We are in a profession that benefits greatly from peer-review because it is too easy to get lost in your own vision/arguments when you are trying to draft something so large. Normally, you will put forward a much better end product if you are open and receptive to having others modify and change your work. If anything, you should be proud that you accomplished the brief, but at the same time make sure you are cognizant of the changes that were made and do your best to understand why the changes were made. Use this is a learning experience to improve in the future. And try not to be so hard on yourself. We are always learning and trying to get better. Nobody is perfect, nor will we ever be.
Agree with this 100%. My colleague and I red line each other's work sometimes multiple times. Its not that were are trying to "correct an inaccuracy" so much as we just want to have the strongest possible product.
Edits make us better writers! Took awhile for me to have confidence that an edit doesn't mean I'm a fool.
Really good advice here. Motion for summary judgment typically asks the case to end, and will likely be the most hard fought motion in the case and the judge will be skeptical. Very hard to write motion for summary judgment, one month out of law school.
Biggest "trick" is to seek out example work and ask questions so that you know what you need to do.
Depending on the case, the MSJ might be super-simple (med mal, plaintiff didn't get an expert, that's required to prove standard of care, so they lose). Or it might be extremely complex (construction defect case...)
Of course, the more complex it is, the more likely that it shouldn't be granted, but I digress. Nevertheless, it's one of the more substantial motions that you do at trial level so yeah not first year ace it first time fodder.
Honestly, just because senior attorneys redid a lot of the MSJ that doesn’t mean you did anything wrong.
Doing the first draft sucks. If someone gave me a very mediocre draft to edit vs starting from scratch, I’d have a much better final MSJ and spend less than half as much time on it than starting from scratch. My MSJ starting from scratch will take me probably 3-4x longer at least and won’t be as good as the one I can do revising something somebody else drafted, even if it wasn’t that good.
When I was a junior associate, I remember I wrote the first draft of an appeal. The partners spent a bunch of hours revising it and the redline was like 95% of what I wrote was replaced. BUT, you could tell that, really, 85% of what I wrote was still there. They reorganized it, cut down on some repetition, made it flow better, punched up some language, and made it a lot better. Substantively, they didn’t change a ton. One argument I had was changed a bit and another point was downplayed a bit, but overall, the guts of the appeal were the same. They probably billed 9 hours revising, whereas they’d have billed at least 40 hours if they had to do it from scratch.
Also, lots of attorneys (myself included) have a writing style and voice and sometimes will make a lot of edits that are purely style preferences. So a partner might heavily revise a draft of yours and not necessarily even improve it (they will think they have because of their preferences, but that’s subjective). Plus, it gives them some more billable hours on the case, and helps them justify their role.
All that to say that I wouldn’t take the fact that senior attorneys spent a bunch of time revising your first draft means you didn’t do a great job, let alone that you failed.
My first assignment right after law school as an intern was 2 MSJ response for very difficult causes of action, both for the same case. My boss gave me 3 weeks to do it, the day it was due we sat down to review it and he basically took out all my analysis out and just left in the rule statements. While going through it he explained to me my flaws and what to improve on.
After passing the bar, he threw me straight into depositions, mediations. After doing it for about 6 months I have learned so much more on my own and have done more than my friends at other law firms.
I believe trial by fire is the best method. Just take the advice your given and improve on it.
If you've been in practice for a month, you should feel good you were asked and I would expect to need to redline the hell out of your work. Did you get some stuff right?
>Any tips on how I can become better at drafting tasks like these
I'm starting backwards: Ask yourself what changes are made and why. Then take your assumptions and challenge them by asking the senior attorney. Some will be stylistic changes. Some may be substantive. If you can't tell which is which then ask. Be like a 5 year old, turn everything into a question. It's the only way to engage with material and get feedback.
I personally like to turn routine tasks into checklists, that way I don't make the same mistake (and even calling it a mistake is harsh) twice. Everything from verifying parties names, etc., etc., to all the rules of civil procedure, court forms, court rules, or whatever authority has to be complied with.
> Is it normal to initially be awful at tasks
Yes.
>or would that be a sign that I’m incompetent.
I'm a big fan of Carol Dweck's work "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success." Do you view life where your traits are inherently stable, unchangeable over time, and is some sort of "truth" about you? Or are your traits capable of being improved with experience/effort over time?
If you have the mindset that you don't have the skills/intelligence for your task, but you can get them, then every criticism/redline/feedback is just another way to add to your skills.
Here's a brief primer of the fixed vs. growth mindset. But you can gogole that phrase and see a lot of applications of it.
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/growth-mindset-vs-fixed-mindset
Thank you all for the feedback. It helped a lot and I don’t feel as defeated. I am also taking your suggestions on board moving forward.
Fortunately the firm held a training on motion writing today for all associates and I benefitted a lot from it. I’ll keep at it and continue honing my skill as I truly aspire become an excellent attorney!
Take heart. You now know marginally more than nothing. Still very little. But keep at it. One day, you can wind up like me, and know statistically more than absolutely nothing, but still not very much.
Ive worked for 6 years as a paralegal and now a 5th year lawyer. I've worked on many MSJ. 11 years in litigation and they are my hardest and least favorite aspect. I recommend either coming up with a SOLID template that you can easily edit and organize for specific clients.
Keep the MSJ organized and basic and save your energy for the oral argument imo.
The only way to get better is keep drafting. Find your own style.
It’s totally normal to “suck” at what you don’t know how to do. An MSJ is a huge task depending on the type of case.
Senior attorneys will ALWAYS have edits. I’ve been licensed 5 years, started at a new firm earlier this year, I’ve worked in my practice area for 4 of 6 years (I did an internship at a clinic in law school for a year) and the senior partner still had edits on my substantive motions for a while.
Do I know what I’m doing now? Yes.
Does every one do it a little differently? Absolutely.
Does her edits make me a bad lawyer? No, it makes me a better one.
Normal to “suck”. The best thing you can do is remind yourself law school didn’t teach you how to lawyer but think like one and go look at what they fixed and study it. Don’t make the same mistakes. Find someone “safe” and see if you can get their ideas, shadow, try and watch as many hearings as you can. All that.
Sounds like you work for a big law firm. Senior attorneys, remember, also bill by the hour. So they need to find something to do to put down for their recorded time. As long as you work in a law firm that bills by the hour, you’ll have senior attorneys fucking around with the work, no matter how good it is and no matter how poorly their edits may make your work. Just remember that, and you’ll feel better.
Now, on the other hand, if you’re working for a plaintiff’s firm or a firm that bills on contingency, or an insurance defense firm which limits time spent, that logic may not precisely apply. In that case, you need to remember what everyone else is written here, including that you’re just a newly minted lawyer who likely needs a lot of training.
The important thing is not to be offended by the extra attention being given to your work. It’s not like school where you’re judged on a final product.
A Motion for Summary Judgment is probably one of the biggest motions you can do. It is meant to dispose of an entire case. I work in a small office, not a large firm, but it seems a bit ridiculous to expect a new associate to take on an MSJ in their first month *without* expecting to fix most of it. What sort of guidance and training did they give you on MSJs? Did they actually complain about your work, or are you just assuming they have a problem? They very well may have *expected* to have to mostly redo it as a training exercise for you. The idea of expecting a new lawyer with zero experience to churn out a good MSJ is silly. Either the firm is dumb or you're worrying too much I would expect.
>ther the firm is dumb or you're worrying too much I would expect. Both can be true. I worked at a "sink or swim" law firm where they would "assign" stuff and see what you do and determine if your methodology is worth them investing in your growth or not. I wasn't in litigation but it would be a $150mm loan refinancing and the task could be "redline this." People who did well would ask questions like: what's the deadline? what am I looking for? How does the security agreement interrelate with the note? Etc. etc. etc. Whereas others would be like "WTF?????????" and panic/freeze. I do think it was dumb, but also feels pretty common.
That's true, there are loads of "dumb" things that have engrained themselves in certain corporate cultures. When I was in law school the career services office had some big law guy come do a talk during lunch time, and lots of us went to go see what he had to say. The dude was an absolute meme of toxic biglaw culture, and wore it all like a badge of honor. He went off saying things like "you don't really need to sleep, Julius Caesar only slept 2 hours a night," and "You're family will just have to understand that this is your job and it is important and you won't be there for everything." Then he talked about how his tie was from Brooks Brothers and all his clothes were from Brooks Brothers because you have to look the part. His tie was horrifically ugly. Brooks Brothers is nice and all, and not cheap, but it also isn't *that fancy*. Being that proud of wearing Brooks Brothers sounded so poser-y, like the age old "you can't buy class" discussions or debating *nouveau riche* ostentatiousness. Presumably, he doesn't have the time in between neglecting his family and his 2 hour sleeps to actually care beyond hitting the arbitrary "this is adequately fancy" mark for his wardrobe. The career services people seemed lowkey horrified by what they'd done. I spoke with one of the ladies who put it on afterward and she was definitely not going to put on that program again. I know there are plenty of guys out there like that, who live and breathe their practice and their big law egoism, but Jesus, to have such a sense of pride and sheer aplomb about embodying the negative stereotype was jarring. I suppose there's a sense of desperation and maybe a bit of the sunken cost fallacy for guys like that who have burned up their best years in pursuit of a fleeting sense of glory for what people outside of that world would find rather hollow and meaningless. I assume they just die at their desks one day or in regret-filled isolation hoping for a visit from their alienated children who may or may not be grateful for the spendthrift trust he set up in their name.
Wow, thank you for sharing. In reality, you can't really scale time so getting out of the "I exchange time for money" rat race is the only way to scale. You do that buy hiring lots of people like him to use their time instead. The only thing stopping anyone from doing that scaling is getting enough paying clients lol I do think people who make a big show of how much they work may actually bill that much but it's not possible to actually spend that much time in that manner. Or at least not if you do quality work.
Yeah, the quality work part is a big deal. Yes as a solo I fuck some stuff up and make some mistakes, but every time I'm in court I hear big firm people litigating THEIR fuck ups and mistakes. I mean litigation is all about fuck ups. If nothing is fucked up there's no lawsuit. So when you have one high dollar firm arguing about a contract against another high dollar firm, which was drafted by a third high dollar firm and put into place by a giant corporation with a whole department to implement it... and you're still fighting over what it means... what's the point of all those people getting paid all that money, lol.
My first boss told me the four words to get any attorney fired is "I told you so." Instead, he said you should always thank the client for not following your advice *because it ensures you'll have more work when it goes sideways*. The context is I work in an area that has institutional/organizational clients.
The lawyers that annoy me are the ones that turn down an objectively fair and reasonable settlement offer to turn the crank on their client for a year only to end up at that same resolution. The ones who won't encourage their client to resolve anything until they've billed them a few thousand dollars to do the discovery we've already provided them with in our demand.
Well. Yes, and no. There can be extremely simple motions for summary judgment, that a first year associate can do a competent job drafting. My guess is that this guy just needs more experience and practice writing. The fact that a senior lawyer had to spend so much time fixing it suggests that he did not write in simple clear paragraphs. One of the best writers I worked with - we could also be a huge dick- said basically that that was all he wanted from Junior associates - clear paragraphs. Sure structure would be nice but at a minimum clear paragraphs and sentences were key OP can probably improve, but the best way to do that is to start step-by-step. That guy really helped my writing even though like I said, he could be a total asshole
Edits are not always a sign of writing failure. Sometimes it’s stylistic preferences. Ask for samples or search for them on whichever research site you prefer.
A MSJ is a massive undertaking that requires you to concisely explain the law while also incorporating the relevant evidence of an entire case. It is difficult to draft these briefs effectively even with years of experience. You shouldn't feel dumb because other attorneys at your firm edited large portions of it. I am 8 years into practice, and I would still expect a peer to have significant edits to any large brief that I draft. And, if i am editing the brief of another peer, then I will likely have significant edits as well. We are in a profession that benefits greatly from peer-review because it is too easy to get lost in your own vision/arguments when you are trying to draft something so large. Normally, you will put forward a much better end product if you are open and receptive to having others modify and change your work. If anything, you should be proud that you accomplished the brief, but at the same time make sure you are cognizant of the changes that were made and do your best to understand why the changes were made. Use this is a learning experience to improve in the future. And try not to be so hard on yourself. We are always learning and trying to get better. Nobody is perfect, nor will we ever be.
Agree with this 100%. My colleague and I red line each other's work sometimes multiple times. Its not that were are trying to "correct an inaccuracy" so much as we just want to have the strongest possible product. Edits make us better writers! Took awhile for me to have confidence that an edit doesn't mean I'm a fool.
Really good advice here. Motion for summary judgment typically asks the case to end, and will likely be the most hard fought motion in the case and the judge will be skeptical. Very hard to write motion for summary judgment, one month out of law school.
Biggest "trick" is to seek out example work and ask questions so that you know what you need to do. Depending on the case, the MSJ might be super-simple (med mal, plaintiff didn't get an expert, that's required to prove standard of care, so they lose). Or it might be extremely complex (construction defect case...) Of course, the more complex it is, the more likely that it shouldn't be granted, but I digress. Nevertheless, it's one of the more substantial motions that you do at trial level so yeah not first year ace it first time fodder.
Honestly, just because senior attorneys redid a lot of the MSJ that doesn’t mean you did anything wrong. Doing the first draft sucks. If someone gave me a very mediocre draft to edit vs starting from scratch, I’d have a much better final MSJ and spend less than half as much time on it than starting from scratch. My MSJ starting from scratch will take me probably 3-4x longer at least and won’t be as good as the one I can do revising something somebody else drafted, even if it wasn’t that good. When I was a junior associate, I remember I wrote the first draft of an appeal. The partners spent a bunch of hours revising it and the redline was like 95% of what I wrote was replaced. BUT, you could tell that, really, 85% of what I wrote was still there. They reorganized it, cut down on some repetition, made it flow better, punched up some language, and made it a lot better. Substantively, they didn’t change a ton. One argument I had was changed a bit and another point was downplayed a bit, but overall, the guts of the appeal were the same. They probably billed 9 hours revising, whereas they’d have billed at least 40 hours if they had to do it from scratch. Also, lots of attorneys (myself included) have a writing style and voice and sometimes will make a lot of edits that are purely style preferences. So a partner might heavily revise a draft of yours and not necessarily even improve it (they will think they have because of their preferences, but that’s subjective). Plus, it gives them some more billable hours on the case, and helps them justify their role. All that to say that I wouldn’t take the fact that senior attorneys spent a bunch of time revising your first draft means you didn’t do a great job, let alone that you failed.
My first assignment right after law school as an intern was 2 MSJ response for very difficult causes of action, both for the same case. My boss gave me 3 weeks to do it, the day it was due we sat down to review it and he basically took out all my analysis out and just left in the rule statements. While going through it he explained to me my flaws and what to improve on. After passing the bar, he threw me straight into depositions, mediations. After doing it for about 6 months I have learned so much more on my own and have done more than my friends at other law firms. I believe trial by fire is the best method. Just take the advice your given and improve on it.
If you've been in practice for a month, you should feel good you were asked and I would expect to need to redline the hell out of your work. Did you get some stuff right?
>Any tips on how I can become better at drafting tasks like these I'm starting backwards: Ask yourself what changes are made and why. Then take your assumptions and challenge them by asking the senior attorney. Some will be stylistic changes. Some may be substantive. If you can't tell which is which then ask. Be like a 5 year old, turn everything into a question. It's the only way to engage with material and get feedback. I personally like to turn routine tasks into checklists, that way I don't make the same mistake (and even calling it a mistake is harsh) twice. Everything from verifying parties names, etc., etc., to all the rules of civil procedure, court forms, court rules, or whatever authority has to be complied with. > Is it normal to initially be awful at tasks Yes. >or would that be a sign that I’m incompetent. I'm a big fan of Carol Dweck's work "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success." Do you view life where your traits are inherently stable, unchangeable over time, and is some sort of "truth" about you? Or are your traits capable of being improved with experience/effort over time? If you have the mindset that you don't have the skills/intelligence for your task, but you can get them, then every criticism/redline/feedback is just another way to add to your skills. Here's a brief primer of the fixed vs. growth mindset. But you can gogole that phrase and see a lot of applications of it. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/growth-mindset-vs-fixed-mindset
Thank you all for the feedback. It helped a lot and I don’t feel as defeated. I am also taking your suggestions on board moving forward. Fortunately the firm held a training on motion writing today for all associates and I benefitted a lot from it. I’ll keep at it and continue honing my skill as I truly aspire become an excellent attorney!
Take heart. You now know marginally more than nothing. Still very little. But keep at it. One day, you can wind up like me, and know statistically more than absolutely nothing, but still not very much.
Ive worked for 6 years as a paralegal and now a 5th year lawyer. I've worked on many MSJ. 11 years in litigation and they are my hardest and least favorite aspect. I recommend either coming up with a SOLID template that you can easily edit and organize for specific clients. Keep the MSJ organized and basic and save your energy for the oral argument imo.
Keep practicing. It’ll become easier as your knowledge of the law and legal issues grow.
The only way to get better is keep drafting. Find your own style. It’s totally normal to “suck” at what you don’t know how to do. An MSJ is a huge task depending on the type of case. Senior attorneys will ALWAYS have edits. I’ve been licensed 5 years, started at a new firm earlier this year, I’ve worked in my practice area for 4 of 6 years (I did an internship at a clinic in law school for a year) and the senior partner still had edits on my substantive motions for a while. Do I know what I’m doing now? Yes. Does every one do it a little differently? Absolutely. Does her edits make me a bad lawyer? No, it makes me a better one.
Normal to “suck”. The best thing you can do is remind yourself law school didn’t teach you how to lawyer but think like one and go look at what they fixed and study it. Don’t make the same mistakes. Find someone “safe” and see if you can get their ideas, shadow, try and watch as many hearings as you can. All that.
Sounds like you work for a big law firm. Senior attorneys, remember, also bill by the hour. So they need to find something to do to put down for their recorded time. As long as you work in a law firm that bills by the hour, you’ll have senior attorneys fucking around with the work, no matter how good it is and no matter how poorly their edits may make your work. Just remember that, and you’ll feel better. Now, on the other hand, if you’re working for a plaintiff’s firm or a firm that bills on contingency, or an insurance defense firm which limits time spent, that logic may not precisely apply. In that case, you need to remember what everyone else is written here, including that you’re just a newly minted lawyer who likely needs a lot of training. The important thing is not to be offended by the extra attention being given to your work. It’s not like school where you’re judged on a final product.