Most
law
firms
typically
have
vast
portfolios
of
work
that
keep
associates
and
staff
busy. This
can
include
matters
that
extend
across
different
practice
areas
as
well
as
various
state
and
federal
courts. Sometimes,
associates
can
choose
the
types
of
matters
they
work
on,
but
most
of
the
time,
associates
are
assigned
matters
and
practice
areas
depending
on
the
needs
of
a
law
firm. In
some
circumstances,
law
firms
may
assign
unpleasant
work
assignments
to
associates
to
get
them
to
leave
a
law
firm
or
to
punish
them
for
not
meeting
expectations.
Pretty
much
every
law
firm
has
unpleasant
matter
that
the
firm
accepts
to
generate
revenue
and
keep
the
lights
on
at
a
shop. For
instance,
there
are
often
sexual
assault
cases
on
which
law
firms
work
involving
religious
organizations,
civic
groups,
and
other
types
of
defendants. These
types
of
matters
are
often
filed
in
waves,
so
at
any
given
time,
a
law
firm
hired
to
defend
these
types
of
cases
might
have
numerous
matters
connected
with
a
tragic
subject
matter. As
everyone
deserves
a
defense,
a
law
firm
usually
should
not
be
faulted
for
accepting
such
work.
However,
working
on
such
matters
might
be
much
more
unpleasant
than
working
on
other
types
of
cases. Sexual
abuse
cases
or
other
types
of
unappealing
matters
might
involve
difficult
topics,
uncomfortable
questions,
and
may
be
more
emotionally
draining
than
other
kinds
of
work.
One
way
law
firms
can
handle
the
emotional
load
of
such
matters
is
to
evenly
distribute
such
cases
so
that
no
one
associate
needs
to
spend
an
inordinate
time
on
such
matters.
However,
I
have
heard
stories
of
some
associates
being
assigned
to
handle
such
unpleasant
matters
as
their
primary
source
of
work. Since
associates
typically
have
billable
hour
requirements,
they
might
not
be
in
a
position
to
reject
such
matters
and
request
other
assignments
since
such
matters
might
be
the
only
way
they
can
meet
expectations. I
have
heard
several
stories
about
associates
who
were
assigned
such
unpleasant
matters
since
partners
hoped
this
would
compel
an
associate
to
depart
a
firm. Of
course,
this
is
difficult
to
confirm,
but
anyone
who
watches
“Seinfeld”
should
know
that
employers
might
make
life
difficult
for
employees
they
want
to
quit.
This
strategy
seems
crass
and
irresponsible. Lawyers
often
have
mental
health
issues
at
baseline
since
the
conflict,
stress,
and
emotions
already
make
it
difficult
to
handle
legal
work. Adding
in
difficult
assignments
that
touch
upon
emotional
issues
might
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
mental
health
of
associates. Also,
not
giving
associates
a
choice
about
whether
they
will
have
to
work
on
unappealing
matters
can
eliminate
agency
of
associates
and
negatively
impact
morale.
Law
firms
also
typically
assign
better
matters
to
associates
who
are
more
favored
by
management
of
a
shop. For
instance,
I
once
worked
at
a
law
firm
that
did
not
pay
as
much
as
other
shops,
but
partners
at
the
firm
liked
me
and
seemingly
wanted
me
to
stay. They
assigned
more
interesting
assignments
to
me
than
the
average
associate
was
given.
I
also
argued
appeals,
handled
interesting
matters
in
federal
court,
and
completed
additional
tasks
that
other
associates
did
not. This
practice
might
also
be
pernicious
since
associates
might
not
be
happy
that
other
associates
are
being
given
privileges
that
are
not
available
to
everyone
at
a
shop.
All
told,
most
law
firms
have
unpleasant
matters
that
need
to
be
handled
so
that
the
firm
can
generate
money. However,
it
is
not
fair
in
most
circumstances
to
assign
such
matters
disproportionately
to
one
group
of
associates,
especially
if
it
is
being
done
to
punish
associates
or
get
them
to
quit. Law
firms
should
implement
safeguards
to
ensure
work
is
doled
out
equitably
to
all
associates.
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.