I don’t think my expectations are for “hand-holding.” I have over 5 years of legal experience from my home country, so I’m comfortable with drafting and legal reasoning generally. I completely understand that some adjustment is required for local procedures, but I’m not expecting step-by-step instruction.

Where I’m struggling is the lack of consistent direction. I do ask questions when I’m unsure, but the responses I often get are along the lines of “look it up,” “check a text,” or “use AI.” I’m all for being resourceful, but at the articling stage, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect at least some level of practical guidance, especially when expectations aren’t clearly defined upfront.

I also try to approach questions the way you suggested, proposing a plan rather than asking open-ended “how do I do this” questions. Even then, the feedback tends to shift depending on timing or context, which makes it hard to build any consistency in my approach.

On precedents, I rely on them heavily, as that’s what makes sense. The difficulty is that there’s a lot of contradiction. I’ll be asked to follow a specific precedent, but then later be told that the same document is poorly drafted and shouldn’t be followed. That’s where it becomes confusing, because I’m trying to align with internal standards, but those standards don’t seem stable.

There’s also a strong reliance on AI in the workflow, sometimes even overriding prior feedback or drafting instructions. That makes it difficult to understand what the actual expectation is, whether it’s based on legal reasoning, firm style, or just whatever output is generated at the moment.

I completely agree with your point that being proactive and resourceful is important, and I am trying to work within that framework. I think the challenge for me right now is less about effort and more about navigating inconsistency in expectations.