Unrealistic Expectations, Poor Hiring, Bad Management = High Associate Attrition

Steve Perkins
Nov 16, 2007 6:25 AM CST

I’m still a law student, so pardon what is perhaps a naive question… but do law firms REALLY care about high attrition rates in the first place?  I’m coming to the legal field from a background in I.T…. and in the software field, high attrition rates are simply part of the business model.  Even though the work done for a project team by most rookie programmers is useless at best (and counterproductive in most cases)... managers have no incentive to care when the cost difference is high, and their clients are too unsophisticated to know that they’re getting screwed anyway.  (and ironically, the larger the client the more likely they are to be unsophisticated)

I.T. managers often WANT high attrition as a means to deliberately lower costs.  From what I read about big law firms hiring large crops of rookies, with the expectation that 80% of them will be out the door in a few years, it sounds like the paradigm is similar.  Can anyone having more experience in the fleld weigh in on the issue either way?

Flag this comment

MDM
Nov 16, 2007 6:54 AM CST

Yes they care, because the firms have to produce a certain amount of product in the form of billable hours to make budget.  A lost associate means a loss of $300,000 to $450,000 cash flow for the firm (depending on hours and hourly rate).  You cannot make up for that lost cash flow without a body to bill those hours.  And you cannot just replace that associate overnight; can take 60-120 days to find a suitable candidate, recruit them, and hire them.

Flag this comment

The Big Pill
Nov 16, 2007 7:28 AM CST

In goes the chuck, out comes the hamburger.

The big firm where I used to work was absolutely foolish, placing all the emphasis on attracting employees with high salaries but none on training or retention.  How do corporations trust such poorly run businesses to handle their important legal work?

Flag this comment

Xander7
Nov 16, 2007 8:03 AM CST

The Baby Boomers that now run large firms have always been about themselves first; do not expect to be trained by a bunch of sell out BMW hippies.  Just do the work, make them money, and move on.

Flag this comment

DM
Nov 16, 2007 8:18 AM CST

I am not surprised at all to hear this.  As a law student who also came from a previous career, I was shocked by the hiring practices that went on.  As stated, everything revolved around grades, and to a lesser extent personality.  Interviewers at OCI are generally low level associates with little understanding of how to interview, what to look for in a candidate, and why.  In at least one instance I was told my prior work experience in the business world was considered a detriment because the firm “wanted me to sit down and do the work, not think”.  Even simple interview techniques like logic games where not used.

As for the complaints about focusing on business development, training, etc.  I think this is simply the firms following the same patterns they always followed.  Senior partners didn’t get that training, and they managed to succeed, so perhaps unconsciously they expect the cream to rise to the top.  It will take a very daring firm to take the risk and implement training without guarantees of a payoff at the end, especially when the system seems to work as it is…

On the IT side, I don’t agree with the attrition comment.  Even during the bubble I’d interview about 50 candidates before I hired one.  The only time I lost people was when I made a rushed hire, and that was also the only time I was let down by the quality of work.

Flag this comment

RT
Nov 16, 2007 8:59 AM CST

Law is a second career for me - I spent nearly 15 years in a different, slightly related, field before going to law school.  I have a lot of experience in designing, developing and delivering training, and also in hiring and developing employees. I now work at a large international firm.  This article is dead on.  Training?  They wouldn’t know what this is if it bit them in the a$$.  Delegation?  They think they know how to do it, but they so badly do not.  Their idea of delegation is to hand you some 200-page document that you have no idea what it is, what the overall deal is, let alone who we even represent in the deal, and say “here, figure this out and give me your comments.”  Alot of the partners are really nice people and know their stuff, but are simply totally untrained and uneducated in being a manager - most of the lawyers come straight from undergrad into law school and have spent their entire careers in law.  They therefore have no experience in actual *business*.  They are all so busy generating new clients and serving existing ones, they do not make the time to learn about proven management techniques, what motivates people, how to communicate to subordinates, how to train and develop employees, etc.  As someone from that field, it has been very frustrating.  You law students - don’t expect them to take you under their wing and show you the ropes.  You largely must figure them out on your own.  The main advantage of a big firm is the infrastrcture and internal services - plus the big fat paycheck.  It is the old “golden handcuffs”.  Several of my friends here and at other similar firms would leave in a heartbeat if we could find something more satisfying that paid as well.

Flag this comment

B Shefrin
Nov 16, 2007 9:11 AM CST

Heck, yes!  Partners care about associate attrition.  It’s disruptive to a law firm’s practice to train associates only to have them leave to work for the competitor.  I’ve had several associates leave for larger firms and more money, only to express regret and dissatisfaction within the first year.

Flag this comment

CVH-L
Nov 16, 2007 9:32 AM CST

Whether they care or not depends on the firm. Large law firms count on associate attrition in the midlevel years.  They bring a large young class to do the crap work and bill hours; then when the need “lawyer” minds they cut the fat to a small midlevel class; then when they need people to run deals and cases—which they need fewer people to do—they cut the class even further; then when they need people who can really do great mental and business dev. work, they cut it down even further.  Associates who leave tend to be the ones who either don’t find the prospect rewarding or who don’t think it is worth the committment (which it indeed may not be).  So when they leave, it saves the firm from having to let them go.

Flag this comment

AG
Nov 16, 2007 10:13 AM CST

MJ wrote:  “- the 30 year olds are expected to be perfect and are evaluated by 50 year olds who might be dysfunctional, nutty, addicted, or just plain loonie. “
HOW TRUE!

Flag this comment

lawdomains-us.com
Nov 16, 2007 11:55 AM CST

I join in the many comments posted expressing the incredulity at the lack of forsight of law firms with regard to appropriately training associates.

My experience in Big Law has taught me that lawyers, even the founding and managing partners of extremely successful and rapidly growing firms, have NOT A CLUE regarding management and resource develpment.  The firm I worked for wasted a huge salary on me without expending an ounce of energy on providing ANY practice training or advice.  Sincere inquiries as to strategy and substantive practices were met with such sage wisdom as “you will spend the rest of your law career trying to determine that.” 

The problem is these people are lawyers, practicing law, billing by the minute, and they don’t have a mentality capable of envisioning anything outside of that billable time.

“Son, you’re on your own with that, win or lose, just make sure you keep track of your TIME.”

Flag this comment

Jack Sparks
Nov 19, 2007 9:21 AM CST

My experience has been that an associate will get little or no training at all.  Over and over again, I’ve received assignments involving areas of the law I know NOTHING about and have been expected not to just complete the work but have it be perfect.  It’s completely unrealistic.  Furthermore, I’ve watched those expert partner/managers lose client after client because of what they characterize as “personality conflicts” about which they could’ve done nothing.  “Personality conflicts?”  That’s partner-speak for undeniable incompetence.

Flag this comment