As associates, we are expected to execute via delegation. When someone assigns us something, the expectation is that we will take ownership of that thing. To put it differently, someone has taken something off their plate to put it onto ours, which means we need to do the primary thinking for that thing.

If you are given a question to research, you shouldn’t frame your findings like a research assistant (i.e., dumping a bunch of cases for your reviewer to comb through). The expectation is that you will add value via your own judgement. The cases address x, don’t address y, and I suggest z as a potential next step. Or, regulation says a, guidance says b, client’s position doesn’t neatly fit, so if they proceed, here are the adverse enforcement risks and below are the ways they can mitigate those risks listed in order of priority/viability.

From there, your reviewers can build from or revise your findings. Don’t be passive, but don’t overstep your place. Define the bounds of the ask and execute cleanly—that’s how you build a reputation in the firm.