One of the biggest misconceptions in the legal profession is that wisdom flows in only one direction. Some believe that associates learn from partners, and junior lawyers absorb the judgment and experience of those who have spent decades practicing law. That dynamic exists for a reason, and most of the time it works exactly as intended. However, sometimes the lawyer with the most useful information is the one with the least impressive title. Senior partners should never be embarrassed to take advice from junior associates when those associates have something meaningful to contribute.
I learned this lesson very early in my career. Shortly after I began working as a litigation associate, I worked on an enormous matter where I became deeply immersed in the facts and strategy of the case. After months of reviewing documents, tracking developments, and understanding how the pieces fit together, I became convinced that the litigation team was making a significant strategic mistake. Unfortunately, none of the more senior lawyers could see the issue, and I think everyone wanted to get on the bandwagon of the senior partner who thought we were pursuing a creative strategy. This eventually resulted in an extremely negative outcome I predicted from the beginning, and the entire episode could have been avoided if the senior partners listened to me in the first instance.
To be clear, I wasn’t upset because I wanted credit for being right. I was frustrated because the outcome seemed avoidable. Looking back, I also recognize that the partners were operating with information and pressures I couldn’t fully appreciate at the time. Even so, I couldn’t shake the feeling that my perspective had been discounted largely because it came from a junior lawyer rather than because it lacked merit.
That experience taught me something that has become even more obvious as I’ve become more senior. Associates often know things that partners don’t, not because they’re better lawyers, but because they’re closer to the work and have a fresh perspective about a file. Associates are the ones reviewing every production, organizing every exhibit, reading every deposition transcript, and living with the factual record for weeks or months at a time. While partners are appropriately juggling clients, business development, staffing, and other matters, associates frequently develop an understanding of the details that no one else on the team possesses. Ignoring that perspective simply because of the organizational chart is a mistake.
I wrote recently that partners should sometimes do work themselves instead of reflexively delegating every assignment. My point wasn’t that delegation is bad. It was that delegation has costs that lawyers often ignore. Every assignment requires time to explain, supervise, revise, and review, and sometimes it is simply more efficient to spend 20 minutes handling the task personally. I think listening to associates presents the opposite dynamic. It takes very little time to hear out a thoughtful concern, yet the potential benefit can be enormous if that concern exposes a flaw in the team’s strategy.
The legal profession rightly celebrates mentorship, and it should. Experienced lawyers have an obligation to teach younger attorneys how to exercise judgment, develop clients, and navigate difficult cases. But mentorship doesn’t require pretending that good ideas originate only from the top of the organizational chart. The best partners understand that while experience is accumulated over decades, insight can emerge from anywhere. Every now and then, the smartest voice in the room belongs to the associate who has spent the last month immersed in the very issue everyone else thinks they already understand.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.
