C&G Hot Issue #2

[CrossandGavel.org]

The ABA Journal recently ran an article about a "Reply All"-happy first year associate at L.A. firm Quinn Emanuel who felt it necessary to decry that firm's victory in the recent Redskins mascot case.

Above the Law commented on the kerfluffle and then, several days later, followed up with news of the associate's ouster (apparently due to failing the CA bar a second time). Should the associate be entitled to some measure of privacy after all of this?

Michael Silver, a Yahoo! Sports columnist, received some impassioned emails related to this topic.

Any comments on the appropriate use of the "Reply All" function? Was this associate correct? How should a Christian analyze this issue?

[Mike Schutt]

Here's the most interesting issue, as far as I'm concerned: What role should an inexperienced associate have in providing "conscience" to a large law firm where he are she serves? How does a young lawyer communicate opposition to the firm's representation of a client?

The quoted partner says, basically:

"We represent clients, not causes, and we would have gladly won the case for opposing party, had Quinn Emanuel been hired to do so."

What do you think of the partner's comments? Is he or she right?

[Bruce N. Cameron]

The young associate was not using emotional intelligence. After the victory was won, he knew he could not alter the position of the firm in that case. Thus, the only thing he was doing was to "reprimand" his employers (the partners). Bible-based emotional intelligence counsels that it is almost always foolish to correct a supervisor. The associate was correcting the partners because he felt superior to them. This is pride. "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom." Prov. 11:2 "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." Prov. 18:2.

Mike Schutt said:

Here's the most interesting issue, as far as I'm concerned: What role should an inexperienced associate have in providing "conscience" to a large law firm where he are she serves? How does a young lawyer communicate opposition to the firm's representation of a client?

The quoted partner says, basically:

"We represent clients, not causes, and we would have gladly won the case for opposing party, had Quinn Emanuel been hired to do so."

What do you think of the partner's comments? Is he or she right?

[Robert K Naumann]

I concur about the lack of emotional intelligence on two counts. First, of course, using the "Reply All," which to augment Mr. Cameron's comment, is clearly contrary to a Biblical, "Matthew 18" model of correction, where correction is warranted. Second, for someone trained in the art of persuasion, his e-mail did a remarkably poor job of addressing his audience. All lower case may be fine for someone born in 1981, but for someone working on the case more than half as long as that associate had been alive, it was a poor choice, as were the parentheses, the digressions, etc.

However, I might disagree with Mr. Cameron on a finer point. Namely, I am not certain that it was the associate's intent to correct the partner, per se. If the same message had been delivered without "Reply All," and perhaps after allowing the partner due time to bask in his victory, the victorious partner himself may have responded in an open manner. Upon reflection, though, I doubt that any level of properly conveyed humility on the associate's part would have allowed the associate to start anything more than a superficial discussion of the perceived issue with the victorious partner, inasmuch as he was in the case for 17 years.

Having only had cursory exposure to BigLaw, I can only conjecture about the appropriate way to address such an objection in that context, but I would suggest that it is always best to start by having such a discussion with your own "direct" or "local" authority first, e.g., your supervising partner, and then see where that leads. In the smaller firms where I have worked, I would even observe this rule to a certain degree--despite having an open line of communication to the senior partner--because I believe that authority is delegated for a reason and I show respect for authority by following the chain of command.

Bruce N. Cameron said:

The young associate was not using emotional intelligence. After the victory was won, he knew he could not alter the position of the firm in that case. Thus, the only thing he was doing was to "reprimand" his employers (the partners). Bible-based emotional intelligence counsels that it is almost always foolish to correct a supervisor. The associate was correcting the partners because he felt superior to them. This is pride. "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom." Prov. 11:2 "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." Prov. 18:2.

Mike Schutt said:

Here's the most interesting issue, as far as I'm concerned: What role should an inexperienced associate have in providing "conscience" to a large law firm where he are she serves? How does a young lawyer communicate opposition to the firm's representation of a client?

The quoted partner says, basically:

"We represent clients, not causes, and we would have gladly won the case for opposing party, had Quinn Emanuel been hired to do so."

What do you think of the partner's comments? Is he or she right?