Despite the continued transformation of the private practice sector of law, some traditional aspects of the industry have remained relatively unchanged over the years, including the way new lawyers secure positions early in their career. A different approach taken by candidates may be on the horizon.
Recent trends show that firms are facing a new wave of lawyers doing more due diligence of firms prior to accepting (and even rejecting) offers. Specifically, no longer content with simply accepting what they have been told by law firm recruiters, many new lawyers are assessing the inner workings of the business of law and the business reality of specific law firms, before they accept an offer.
These new lawyers have found some inspiration by listening to the chorus of senior attorneys who failed to become partner or from those who reached the level of nonequity partner only to learn during hard times that the position did not guarantee the level of protection and security they expected. Historically, the voices of the dissatisfied have been drowned out by the louder voices of a content profession. Then came Covid.
Broad, traumatic events can cause those impacted to pause and reassess their priorities. The legal industry was not immune to this. The pandemic produced some obvious changes in what was expected by law firms — also what was needed by lawyers. The rebound to the traditional work environment brought some employers and employees to an entirely new place. Despite the reboot, some questions lingered.
It’s not youthful naivety. These graduates aren’t going to refuse a first-time offer based on some lofty goal or theoretical concepts on career optimization. But how long they stay put is largely contingent on whether they are treated like a cog in the machine or as future owners. These new lawyers know the first critical years of their legal practice will set the foundation for their careers for decades to follow. Many wish to become an equity partner, but they are less confident on the traditional standards for consideration or the timeline for promotion. If left unsatisfied with the conditions necessary for success, they’ll make strategic decisions on which firm to join and how long they’ll stay there.
Some feel inconsistencies in the industry have justified the need for more thorough due diligence. For example, the experiences of lawyers in a branch office can be noticeably different from those in the home office. Law firms often focus more on their own intent than the actual impact of their actions. Providing a mentor is done with good intentions, but the quality of the mentorship can be left to the luck of the draw. Some associates may land an excellent mentor while their peers in other sections aren’t so lucky. Any inconsistency can become a dissatisfier.
Even something as standard as an annual evaluation can produce different results based on which person interpreted or delivered the message. The disconnect can be seen during evaluations, especially if the feedback is delivered by an evaluator who has never actually worked with the attorney being evaluated.
While law firms scrutinize resumes of potential candidates, they may themselves be subject to deeper review. In the past candidates might have simply perused attorney bios to get an overall sense of a firm’s strength. Now they dig deeper to better define the resources a potential firm may offer. A few examples are now on their list:
Practice strength. New lawyers know how valuable experience is so they often seek out firms with specific practice area strength. By digging deeper into a firm’s practice descriptions and biographies, candidates may find that some practice area claims are aspirational. Sorting bios by a practice group may present a 40-member team; however, drilling down deeper into each individual attorney profile may reveal that many listed attorneys have a practice emphasis in another section, and this is made more obvious by those bios which list representative cases or matters. Candidates want to know how many people will really provide work and guidance.
Leverage. Equally important is an understanding of the power of leverage. With a simple title search, candidates can determine if a firm is top heavy. If a 20-attorney practice has only one associate, a potential new associate candidate may assume the majority of the partners are operating in self-sufficient silos. Being the only associate in a section or being an associate within a firm that is grossly over-staffed may not provide the optimal level of experience at a manageable pace. Savvy candidates want an idea of the ratios before they join the team.
Experience stack. Leverage is great but leverage with varying experience levels is optimal. Smart candidates will examine the JD ranges of the attorneys listed in a practice. If JD years aren’t provided, they seek that information on state bar websites. Many young lawyers find it easier to learn when they have midlevel and senior associates to learn from. Large experience gaps between the average partner and the average associate may appear problematic. A lack of midyear associates may indicate a firm has retention issues or perhaps roadblocks to midlevel advancement.
Partnership potential. Transparency on the requirements to become partner is important, even at an early stage. While focusing on work is critical to young lawyers, it’s never too early to have honest discussions about the requirements. Putting off discussions about partnership criteria is a red flag for young lawyers.
Incentives. New lawyers understand compensation systems, but for many the old carrots and sticks of the past are no longer sufficient. Some young lawyers are enticed by the Cravath scale and its promises of huge financial rewards. Others realize that the scale stops at year eight, and beyond that lie no guarantees. Some will forgo a position promising immediate financial rewards and instead accept an opportunity that increases the likelihood of developing strong legal and business development skills. They are incentivized by developing a career that will sustain them for 40 or more years.
Law firms seeking the next generation of leaders are wise to remember that a vacuum of knowledge is filled with assumptions. The best way to reach the partners of tomorrow is to connect with them today. Firms need to be fully prepared to answer the tough questions with honesty, detailing the true risks and rewards ahead, and the requirements for success. The next generation of law firm leaders will accept nothing less.
Charles Gillis is the executive director at Dallas-based Platt Richmond.
