Anyone who has worked in a large law firm knows there is a wide range of writing ability among associates, and that junior associates’ work product is usually reviewed and edited by senior associates or counsel. The hope and expectation is that as associates receive feedback, their writing will improve. But what happens when a junior associate is already an exceptionally good writer, better than most or all of those who have been at the firm for many years?
In many of the larger law firms, many people “higher” up in the hierarchy of attorneys at the firm review and revise the work of junior associates. For example, a third-year associate, a senior associate, a counsel, and multiple partners at the firm all may review a first-year associate’s brief. Each time an attorney reviews the brief, it is revised according to what that particular attorney believes is strong and persuasive writing. One would hope that each successive attorney reviewing the brief is a stronger writer than the last and that the revision process therefore is efficient and results in a better work product. But that is not always the case. The hierarchical system of reviewing writing in many large firms should be altered when there are gifted writers among the junior associates so that weaker but senior writers do not end up reviewing the work.
