Last week's Ask Julie posed this question:
 
I've been working for a partner for two years now (since I started with the firm) and I still have no idea what he wants.  He assigns something to me and tells me what he wants, but when I deliver it, he tells me he wanted something different.  Last week is a perfect example.  He asked me to prepare an outline for a deposition he'd be taking, and he told me that all he wanted was a topic outline with reference to the key documents.  He specifically said he didn't want any questions.  So I prepared the outline and left it in his office, and about an hour later, he stormed into my office, furious that I hadn't given him questions!  I ended up working all night.  I'm at my wit's end with this partner.  What do I do?
 
I provided some suggestions, and several readers wrote in either to express sympathy for the questioner or to provide some additional thoughts.  Some of the feedback I received included excellent points that I want to share with readers, especially the questioner.  Those comments follow (with the authors' permission):
 
Reader #1
Excellent suggestions.   
 
Only one additional thought for you.  More senior (than the trapped lawyer) supervisors sometimes operate on the afterthought level.  They may not have said what they meant to or the lawyer may not have understood.  It could be helpful for the lawyer to give the senior a copy of the notes.  Or even better to outline briefly what the senior said is wanted and give that to the senior.  And include a request for any suggestions the senior might have about the work outlined in the notes.  In some cases, it may help to send short work in progress reports to be sure there is a record of what the lawyer understood the senior wanted.  
 
Of course, nothing is simple or perfect.  The senior always may say at the end that's not what was wanted, but going through an iteration process sometimes does help.  Even with the most inept senior.  And as a last resort could help with the review committee if the firm (wisely) sets that process up. 

Reader #2 (edited for length and emphasis; the full comment is available on the Life at the Bar blog)
 
I read your response to the young associate's question of how to keep the partner happy if he changes the assignment all the time and felt compelled to respond even though comments were not invited.  Frankly, I think the point of view of the partner should be considered by the associate as it highlights the inexperience of the associate in understanding the nature and purpose of the assignment.  If the associate wants to take the partner literally and do "no questions" and a "topic outline" then she will never understand an assignment from any other lawyer.  I think for the benefit of your readers, particularly young female associates who I have seen over 25 years not "get it" when they receive an assignment, that you ought to give the other point of view.  
 
Here's my two cents which comes from being a partner during the past 19 years as well as the owner of two law firms and getting my battle scars in a third large firm where I was an associate and worked with a number of partners.  A partner is bombarded with more work and demands than can be met in the available time.  He/she relies on associates knowing a file, knowing what information must be extracted from discovery to put together a winning strategy, and having the ability to put the facts and theory in a single lucid and useful document that a partner can literally pick up the day before the deposition, review quickly and take to the deposition with the necessary documents to ask questions. 
 
If the partner asked for questions, the associate (as I have seen on too many occasions) would fill the paper with meaningless questions about background and other formulaic material that a partner already knows how to cover (e.g.. what is your name, how long have you worked at the abc co., what positions have you held?)  So as a partner I too would say, I don't want questions from the associate.  What I want and need is an outline, by topic, with a listing of issues and subtopics that get to the heart of the matter, annotated with documents that pin the witness down on key admissions that help the case, with the documents attached to the outline in a useable format . . . . 
 
But in all my years of practice, the associates focus on the boilerplate meaningless questions that everyone learns in law school or can find in any deposition text.  The associates fail to think through why they have been given the particular assignment, how it will be used by the partner, and what is the level of detail that would make it a meaningful document for the partner.  After all, the partner thought highly enough of the associate to give the assignment to her, and to charge the client for the time, so this strongly suggests the partner wanted something meaningful and useful that he did not have the time to put together himself. . . .
 
Your suggestions to the associate make sense but again, taken literally will cause the partner to not want to deal with that associate because it looks more like she is trying to paper a file than do the task at hand.  I cannot imagine walking around a law firm without always having a pen and paper with me.  One never knows if they will be stopped in the hallway with an assignment, caught offhand with a telephone call while out of one's own office, or given an assignment simply because they were the first associate in sight and something needed to be done immediately.  In any scenario, few things were more frustrating to me than an associate that walked around the busy law firm empty-handed or worse yet, came into my office without pen and paper. . . . 
 
So what is an associate to do?  Think.  Think about how the document will be used and what will save the partner time such that he has asked the associate to prepare it rather than do it himself.  Ask how the partner thinks he will use the document so its format fits the intended use.  Ask if it would be helpful to attach a copy of relevant documents and if the partner wants enough copies for all attorneys attending and for the witness and court reporter; don't just assume.  Consider if the partner is senior or junior and whether he/she knows the file or how to do the upcoming task.  (e.g. In one case, a junior partner did not know how to prepare jury instructions and asked an associate to do the project, who also had no clue how to prepare the instructions for a state court case.  Regardless of rewrites and sleepless nights, neither one was going to get it right until they asked an experienced attorney what the final work product should look like.)  
 
I have seen too many smart associates dig a hole and ruin their career at a law firm by not thinking through their assignments and then blaming it on the messenger.  Inevitably, word travels that the associate doesn't turn in what was asked for, and the assignments to the associate start to dwindle until the associate gets the message that her services are no longer desired at the law firm.  Changing law firms will not solve the problem for the associate if she is not applying her own analysis to the assignment and its purpose and case goals because the same problem will occur at the next law firm. . . . 
 
Feel free to reprint, ignore or use my comments, in whole or part, if you wish Julie.  I would very much appreciate it if the message could get out to the inexperienced associates that as licensed attorneys they have an obligation to think, initiate and improve a case assigned to them rather than work as an automaton whose every move is micromanaged.  Associates need to remember that they are valued by the law firm and partner or else they would not have been hired and given the assignment.  Too many good attorneys get discouraged early in their career because they do not understand their role in a case and as part of a team with the partner.   As a result, the profession is losing good attorneys who get disillusioned early about the practice.  The members of the bar need to be proactive and try to reverse this trend whenever possible.

--------------------------------------------
Julie responds...
 

Excellent points, particularly in the second author's last paragraph. 
 
I'll also share that, when I was a second- or third-year associate, I was asked for a deposition outline, with no questions and only topics.  (My experience is one of the reasons I chose this question, as a matter of fact.)  I asked the assigning lawyer whether he wanted any questions at all, or whether he wanted an outline that tied together the facts, documents, and legal positions so he could formulate his own questions, and he said that's what he wanted.  That's what I prepared and (you guessed it) he was not happy when I provided him the outline, because he wanted questions.  I'm not saying that I clarified perfectly, but I do hold that the miscommunication, if there was one, wasn't attributable solely to my inexperience. 
 
So, the original questioner must inquire which of the suggestions is most on target for his situation.  Does he need to clarify, to think more strategically about the assignment, to seek assistance, or something else?  Original questioner, please feel free to write in with any follow-up.