In its neverending commitment to keeping every associate on edge as many times a year as possible, our firm conducted midyear reviews recently.  For two weeks before, every associate bills as many hours as possible and kisses every partner for whom they have worked in the past few months’ backside (more than normal.)  Very rarely does anyone gets fired after these evaluations, but it puts the fear of the Almighty in everyone that they could have been fired, but for the generosity of the firm in giving them a six month reprive.  It’s highly entertaining to see the first years sweat that week…sort of a right of passage.

Of course, I have the most hours of any associate at this point, and should have my yearly minimum wrapped up in the next few weeks.  However, I was told that I need to see “the big picture” of the cases on which I work.  I have questions about how I am supposed to see the big picture on a case when I am given one discreet project, but I am sure I am wrong.  When I am asked to do the body of a motion for sanctions in a case on which I have never worked, and told not to worry about the details, I should have a better understanding of what is happening in a case.  When I review the deposition of an expert to find potential Daubert/Frye challenges, I absolutely should also note how his testimony fits into the “big picture” of the case, even though I have no idea what the case is about.  As I say on my doll, the partners always provide me with sufficient information.  Any error is due to my fault, inexperience, and inattention to details.

So now I must go and become intimately familiar with a case on which I have been asked to research an issue regarding recusal of a judge for being best friends with plaintiff’s counsel.  Obviously, it is important that I learn all facts and issues of the case so I can effectively move to recuse the judge.  I don’t know why I need to know more than enough to recuse the judge, but that’s why the partners are so much smarter than me.