WHY SOME SUMMER ASSOCIATES FAIL

This section outlines the most common causes of failure in summer programs. Failure in a summer program has substantial short and long-term implications for law students. Your options next Fall will be far more limited. Subsequent employers will inquire about your summer experience for years. If the mid-term reviews are weak, or if you believe

that your performance has been less than perfect the burden is on you to finish strong and doing excellent work for demanding lawyers. This will be particularly important next Summer because the market for 3L’s this Fall will be tissue-thin at best.

DEMANDING, HIGH MAINTENANCE JERKS

Welcome to Tough Love 101. Most summer associates who fail exhibit conspicuous behavioral flaws. Yes, some firms make mistakes, make poor decisions, and mis-treat summer associates. But in most cases, the fault lies with the summer associate. Some of my favorites (regrettably true stories, names omitted to protect the guilty) are the

summer associates who

  * Said he had trouble keeping track of time and wondered if the firm could buy him a watch ---- on his then healthy salary of $1,200 a week (perhaps a talking watch that says “time to get a new job” would have been better?);

  * Wondered why the firm would not charter a bus to visit a local amusement park — (why not just go on your own on the weekend?);

  * Would not carry books from the library to her own office and insisted that it be done by the messenger staff (her office was 100 feet away on the same floor as the library);

*   Declined an assignment to work on a cutting edge injunction matter because “he would have to cancel his tennis lesson;”

*   Decided he did not like what was offered at a firm sponsored informal cocktail party at a local restaurant and proceeded to order platters of shrimp (his nickname became

shrimp boat);

* Wore a concealed tape recorder to keep track of assignments and was offended when a senior partner was troubled by being taped without his consent;

* Cried because of her perception that there was a “secret lunch program” when in fact her peers had snubbed her because she was “difficult;”

* Did not complete her time records by the end of each month but found time throughout the summer to complain about compensation, office size, dress code and other requirements

*   Sent repeated e-mails to a partner and was cranky that this partner did not live in the eworld- and thought it was ‘unreasonable’ that the partner wanted to meet in person rather than engage in an e-mail dialogue;

  * Complained about sharing an office with another summer associate - even though the complainer arrived in the middle of the summer when space was very tight and there was no other practical way to accommodate her ‘needs’;

  * Complained bitterly that the firm’s computer system was not as ‘fast,’ ‘versatile’ etc. as the firm where he had spent the first half of his summer;

  * Argued that the firm was ‘out of line’ to discipline associates for conducting alcohol fueled chair-races in the hallways of a building with floor to ceiling windows at the end of all the hallways;

  * Had sex with their S.O. on the floor of the conference center after the weekly firm cocktail party - or in the back of the chartered bus on the way home from a firm event;

  * Drove a golf cart into a swimming pool at the firm summer outing;

*  Dressed in a 3 piece suit and jumped off the high dive board at the firm summer outing - and went to the bottom of the pool at which point he had to be dragged out by a woman

partner because the jumper was drunk and could not swim.

* Got in a fist fight with a woman at a bar after a firm event (he lost - she was a hockey player who definitely had game).

  * Complained that the custom, monogrammed, leather portfolios given to all summer associates were available only in black and not other ‘more fashionable’ colors;

The signals sent by such behavior are powerful indicators of how a summer associate will act in practice when they are working with clients. As a hiring partner, I viewed people like this as a substantial risk. It makes no sense to hire someone who will become an over-arching, demanding, needy jerk. One of the tragic ironies here is that those who behave like this – usually 5-10 percent of a given summer program don’t realize that what they are doing is wrong. In fact, many are proud of it and probably behave this way outside the office and expect the world to cater to their unusual needs.

When a hiring committee decides who receives an offer, it is rare that the question on the table is whether the student is ‘smart enough.’ Law firms do a good job of screening for raw brainpower. When a student’s future is decided the themes tossed around the table are more intangible – and bear on attitude, commitment, dedication, selflessness, team-spirit, intensity, etc.

To be sure, writing ability and analytical skills play a large role in a firm’s decision. But since most summer associates’ performance meet a firm’s standard - the question comes down to intangible factors. Is that fair? I believe it is — because clients evaluate lawyers every day - and their judgments reflect not only the advice delivered but the overall quality of the service provided.