Question of the Week
Who’s to Blame When Turnover Is High?
Posted Apr 1, 2009 3:51 PM CST
By Molly McDonough
This week, readers and commenters were intrigued by a purported small law firm middle manager at a firm that usually fires two of the three associates it hires each year. The manager was so frustrated that he or she wrote to the Washington Post for advice. "Is firing people just the way it is?" the manager asked.
But the Post's columnist put the onus on the manager and the firm to find out why turnover is so high and resolve the problem.
And this made us wonder about your experiences.
So tell us ...
When you hear that turnover at a law firm is high, who do you blame? Is it always the fault of management, or are incoming classes of workers not as prepared for the jobs as they think they are?
Answer in the comments below. Bonus points if you can offer tips for how to determine if a firm has high turnover before accepting an offer.
Read last week's answers to this question: "How Are You Keeping Yourself and Others From Despairing?"
Featured Answer:
Posted by A. Cerra: "I work in the public interest field, and I try to follow my clients' example. Nearly all of them faced cutbacks, joblessness, and poverty long before the recession started. Yet they continue to raise families, to fight for better conditions, to stand up for their rights. They know how to survive when the chips are down. If they aren't despairing, why should I?
I am also hopeful that the extreme cutbacks to public defenders' offices and other public interest agencies will highlight both how necessary and how underfunded such agencies are. If something good comes out of these tough times, perhaps it will be a greater awareness of poverty issues and the important service poverty law professionals provide."
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in Web Comment Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Apr 1, 2009 5:55 PM CST
“High” is a relative term. Many law firms intentionally maintain a routine of overhiring, and then using attrition to shake out half or two-thirds of each “class” over a 3-5 year period. I think it is accepted today that over half of the people who go to BigLaw as “associates” will not be there ten years later. On the other hand, having to fire two-thirds of “associates” within one year of hire is “high” by any normal law firm standard. That attrition rate (in my opinion) can only be the firm’s fault, because it is a sign that they either made incompetent hiring decisions or they are incompetent as trainers (perhaps both).
For the bonus question, in the old days, it was very difficult to spot firms with exceptional turnover. Some smaller firms used to list the attorneys at each office on the letterhead (Partners left, Associates right) and turnover could be detected by comparing the cover letters on annual submissions to placement offices. In the 1990s, most firms that were doing this figured it out, and stopped listing attorneys on the letterhead. You could still compare old Martindale listings or old bar books (but only if you had access to archives). Otherwise, recruits would only find out if they knew someone in the local bar who warned them to avoid a particular firm.
Nowadays, law students ought to be following the blogs. Sources like “Above the Law” will unabashedly post the identities of the firms that are sweatshops with revolving doors. It is much, much easier today to scope out the firms with reputations that scream “avoid me.”
Steve
Apr 1, 2009 11:06 PM CST
Similar to the suggestion to check out Martindale, one could also compare the current attorneys listed on a firm’s website with those listed at Martindale or with older versions of that firms’ website indexed at www.archive.org
Sue
Apr 3, 2009 3:18 AM CST
I have hired and/or interviewed a few law school graduates and interns, and most of them are big babies: immature, irresponsible, and wholly self-centered. My best employee is a paralegal, who is the same age as the law students, but who has worked hard to pay her own bills in other service jobs (such as managing a fast food restaurant). I think the problem is two-fold: myopic hiring policies that focus too much on stellar grades, “top tier” schools and family connections, coupled with the law school environment that, unfortunately, focuses on those same attributes. What is really important as a practicing attorney are traits like diligence, responsibility, analytical thinking, patience, and “people skills” like listening to and understanding people.
Rebecca
Apr 3, 2009 7:02 AM CST
Turnover is not necessarily caused by management or unprepared associates. Out of my group of friends who graduated together in the late 90’s, only 1 of 6 stayed with the law firm that initally hired her. The rest were subject to natural attrition - leaving for different firms or leaving the law practice all together.
237
Apr 3, 2009 7:26 AM CST
Unfortunately, responsibility and people skills, the very traits for which young lawyers are criticized, are also not shared by partners. A young associate needs a point of contact to go to for workload management and inevitable problems caused by firm politics. Instead, we often get work thrown at us from various partners who don’t know what else we’re working on or who we’re working with. And there’s no one to go to for personal development—I’ve had partners leer at me or hop Jerry-from-Boston-Legal-like down the hallway to get away from any kind of personal interaction. Law is still an apprenticeship-based occupation. Partners—take responsibility for a new generation of associates and try to get over your own social awkwardness.
Jamie
Apr 3, 2009 9:08 AM CST
Too often, the whole structure of the firm is not taken into account. While attending law school, I worked at an engineering firm. During the initial interview, I was asked how I had dealt with a “difficult boss” in the past. This should have been a clue that something wasn’t right. It turns out I was one of the longest lasting employees at 9 months. In my 9 months of employment, in an office of 45 people, only 5 people (including the owner and his wife) outlasted me. Why? The boss. He would regularly change the assignment/objective of the project mid-stream, only to relay this information to the employees by yelling at them (yes, raising his voice so the whole office could hear) after the project was nearly completed. He would start new projects without informing anyone, and then yell at the employees when we were not aware of the new project. All salaried employees were expected to be available 24/7. Even though the boss was aware I was in law school, and taking classes at night, I was often scheduled for planning meetings during class time.
The boss, however, remains completely clueless as to why there is a high turnover rate at his business. He claims that everyone who has been laid off, fired, or quit was to blame. It is bosses like this which make retaining employees impossible. It’s not always the employee, it is how the employee is treated and respected.
Sprout23
Apr 3, 2009 9:22 AM CST
I think one has to apply “Occam’s Razor” in situations like this—the simplest explanation is usually the right one. What do all those unsuccessful associates have in common? They worked at the same law firm—not the same law school, the same college, the same pre-law school work experience, etc., etc. The most parsimonious explanation is that the law firm does not provide them with the support, training, mentoring, or guidance necessary for them to succeed. Either that, or the manager is a terrible judge of people.
Associates rarely can intuit how to be successful in private practice—their success typically requires significant effort on the part of their colleagues, not only in helping them learn the law and how to exercise their judgment wisely, but also in teaching them how to work with staff, how to develop junior colleagues, how to develop new business, etc., etc. But that sort of guidance is rarely offered at law firms of any size—typically, they are just “sink or swim.” It’s a shame, and one of the reasons why private practice typically has such ridiculously high turnover in the associate ranks.
RCF
Apr 3, 2009 9:40 AM CST
I don’t believe high turnover is really a blame game. There are so many factors that figure in to the length of stay for associates. For example, many associates take a position with certain ideals in mind, and find out practicing law is an entirely different vocation than what they started law school believing was the practice of law, especially at larger firms. Associates today grew up on Boston Legal and Ally McBeal. TV has glamorized our practice, when in reality there isn’t too much glamorous about it.
Another factor is economics. Depending on the firm’s different practice areas, one section may be thriving and have need of new associates. If that section should drop off, however, some associates are not flexible enough to change to a different area of practice, and some firms just don’t have the need for an associate at all once that particular business drops off. A simple failure to anticipate changes in client needs and developing a contingency plan often account for this. The firms I’m familiar with typically interviewed for that, and didn’t hire associates that came across as inflexible or focused on one particular area. A willingness to diversify was the big attraction to firms in my area.
Another reason is expectations: associates have one idea and the firm has another as far as commitment, hours, performance, and related matters are concerned, and there is just no meeting of the minds.
Very rarely have I come across a firm that truly has a “revolving door”...where practicing there is just so unbearable that no associate is willing to stick it out for the long haul and the firm is willing to keep them on. That might be due to my geographic area, but it seems most firms have their own individual cultures, and it just takes the right associate to make that culture home. Often that is cured simply by honing the interview process and really getting to know one another.
Firing is definitely not the norm here.
DJR
Apr 3, 2009 10:53 AM CST
Turnover is natural. People leave for many reasons. But the Post letter complains about:
Initally: problem billing enough hours
Mid-year: not keeping in contact with clients and missing deadlines.
End: associate stops working, becomes liability
If the associate has lots to do (client contact/deadlines), there should be no problem with hours. The work is there. If you hire an associate who misses deadliens and can’t maintain hours, that person is just terrible. If what he’s saying is true, these associates he hires are barely functional and malpractice machines. And if you can only attract bad talent, it’s time to think about a pay raise. I’d be curious to know what his associate salary is, compared to the area. There’s a lot of overcompensation of new associates out there, but it sounds like he’s guilty of the reverse.
Diana
Apr 3, 2009 11:24 AM CST
The entity to blame for high turneover is the same group should get the blame for creating more lawyers than there are lawyer jobs—it the the greedy law schools.
When the number of jobs in the legal profession drops the law schools do not cut back on the number of students they accept and they do not warn the students that there may not be a job for them when they graduate. The law school do not take responsibility for the numbers of lawyers without jobs, for the problems that new lawyers have getting that first job, or for the overcrowding in the legal profession. The law schools merely sit back, LIE to potential students about their potential salary, and rake in the ever increasing tuition.
Then when the ABA asks the law school to report how many in the graduating class are employed, the law school uses fudged math by including non-attorney jobs in their count.
The law firms presented with this huge number of qualified graduates twice a year, every year, cannot be blamed for putting up a revolving door.
Bruce Clement
Apr 3, 2009 12:07 PM CST
I have been a manager of attorneys and paralegals for many years. The suggestions of the Washington Post’s Lily Garcia are well meaning, and seem reasonable, but are not realistic in the real world. She suggests things like .• Give potential associates a good assessment of what the job entails. • Ask good interview questiions. • Create a scoring system with points for each key factor. • Evaluate training programs. • Assign mentors. All these ideas are good, and better than nothing. But the reality is that applicants all know that these procedures are used by employers to screen applicants. They therefore diligently work to satisfy these hiring concerns during the interview and selection process. They edit and scrub their resumes; they hire coaches to help them practice answering the employer questions. For this reason, the entire interview process becomes somewhat of a game. The empoyer’s impression is necessarily warped by the skill and preparation of the interviewee. Bottom line: hiring an associate is like getting married. You never know what you’ve got until well after you have tied the knot. I have reluctantly concluded that you must go through the formal hiring process doing the best you can, relying heavily on gut impressions and references. Byt you must ultimately hire understanding that 60% of your hires will not work out. You then need to steel yourself to the brutal reality that you should terminate 60% of your new hires sooner rather than later. Nine times out of ten, after a termination I learn many more reasons why termination was necessary. Unhappy clients feel free to vent their frustrations; client files are discovered to be poorly organized; goals and deadlines have been missed. Managers simply need to recognize the brutal fact that 2/3 of the employees hired will not work out, no matter how careful you are in the initial selection process.
Franco
Apr 3, 2009 12:38 PM CST
The conclusion reached in comment No. 7 would be valid if the syndrome described was limited to one or a few law firms, but it is not. I have practiced law for 30 years in three different firms, in three different states, in different parts of the country, and most lawyers approximately age 50 or older will confirm that the quality of recently graduated associates began declining about 20 years ago, and that such decline continues to this day.
The problem is that at some point during that time, law graduates began believing that their graduation and first job meant that they had “crossed the finish line,” rather than that they were just stepping up to the starting line. During this period many law grads have failed to recognize—indeed have rejected—the need for a further learning process over a period of three to eight years of practice. This premature sense of readiness and entitlement is manifest not only in an expectation of high salaries and plenty of leisure, but the further expectation that key work affecting the fate and fortunes of a firm’s clients should be left in their inexperienced hands.
The associates who continue to succeed are those—and one out of three would be a ratio most firms could live with—tend to be the adults who recognize that they have joined a profession rather than merely taken a job, and that becoming an experienced and reliable lawyer requires hard work and long hours over a period of years. Such associates apply themselves dligently to the “pick and shovel” work that associates have immemeorially been expected to do.
Those who produce good, efficient work, regard a substantial workload as an opportunity to hasten their seasoning, are loyal to their employers (blog-watchers beware!), and see the practice of law from the perspective of a partner, generally become partners and successful lawyers.
Those who have better things to do can often find less demanding circumstances in some government agencies or small town practices.
The great civil rights lawyer, Charles Morgan, Jr., who recently passed away, used to say that a lawyer is someone who takes another’s problems and makes them his (or her) own. The practice of law is serious and demanding. High regard and compensation comes to those for whom professional satisfactions are among their highest satisfactions, not to dilettantes who want to “be” lawyers, but don’t want to do what it takes to “become” a lawyer.
Richard
Apr 3, 2009 12:45 PM CST
I blame the hiring process at most firms. Too much priority is placed on academics. Graduating at the top of your class, or from a good school, means nothing when it comes to whether or not you can manage yourself in the real world. Instead of hiring people who work well, firms end up with the professional students who have never really worked on anything outside of an educational setting. You don’t want someone who is good at working to deadlines. You want someone who can set their own deadlines. You want someone who can develop their own routine and stick to it.
(1) Firms also put too little emphasis on technology skills. A biglaw associate is going to spend 6+hours a day at some sort of computer screen. Would you hire a truck driver that couldn’t change a tire? Why then would you hire an associate that cannot maintain a computer? Lost emails, poorly organized files, failure backup key data, all these lead to associates spending too much time dealing with their own technology problems and not enough time with clients.
(2) Ever notice that the associates that do well are also the ones that are in good physical shape? The discipline needed to maintain an exercise routine during law school translates directly into maintaining an independent working routine.
My 2c
-Richard
Jenny
Apr 3, 2009 12:53 PM CST
I read the comment by the middle manager at the small firm and immediately thought the problem must be with the hiring process at the firm. I am a senior lawyer at a big lawfirm in Seattle and am extremely impressed by the quality of new associates we get—hard working, responsible, organized, intelligent, mature—beyond the level I woudl expect of people in their mid-twenties. You can train people forever, but if you’re not hiring people who are up to the pressure and demands of work in a law firm, there’s going to be turnover. 2 out of 3 is high fail rate if you ask me!
Philip Marcus
Apr 3, 2009 1:35 PM CST
Of course the firms can be blamed for taking on 3 or 4 times as many associates as they need. That is not the attitude of a profession, seeking to mold green professionals into mature and capable workers. It is the attitude of sales offices. “Take them in, work them to death”
No one can do a good job 60, 80 or more hr/wk, and those firms provide, thus, lousy service to the clients, engendering distrust, all to serve the craving of partners for take home big dollars.
Contra the views of some of the managers posted here, good lawyering is not measured by long hours but by good outcomes. Long hours just produce big billables. That is not the mark of a profession but of, frankly, a kind of whorehouse pimped by the senior partners.
To do a more professional job one should work smarter, not harder. But that is not the mantra of big law, and medium law slavishly and ignorantly follows big law.
Management sets the rules, the culture, the values and ethics, and is responsible for what they reap. To blame associates or law schools is bullshit. Clean thine own stables.
BTW, I am no semi-green associate, but an attorney with 35 years in the profession.
JG
Apr 3, 2009 2:04 PM CST
Number 12 presents an interesting perspective but I think it reveals itself to be highly biased. As someone who has practiced for over 30 years, this person presents the “worthless whipper-snappers” opinion that anyone who joined the profession beyond his generation doesn’t understand how the world works. That said, based on conversations and relationships I have had with many people who have practiced even longer than 30 years (I admittedly have a small fraction of that experience), I believe the practice of law has changed dramatically over the last few decades in ways that contribute to high turnover.
For one thing, the sheer amount of law that a law student needs to learn has grown exponentially in the last half century or so (this is due to many factors; the proliferation of new constitutional law doctrines, the change in the business climate, and the ever more complex nature of corporate and finance structures, to name a few). Thus, students go through law school being taught huge volumes of law that most will never need unless they go into very specific practice areas, yet which are still required to pass many states’ bar exams (I am from New York, which has one of the most nonsensical collections of law on its exam). Upon graduation, students must then cram all this material within 3 months to re-learn or simply learn all of this law in order to get a license. Being exposed to this scatter-shot approach to teaching law, it is no wonder many recent and current students never develop the deep patience and skills for in-depth analysis of whatever work is put before them. The same goes for their inability to perhaps manage ministerial tasks on a larger scale. Law school presents an environment of ceaseless competition for top law jobs, which requires students to constantly scramble to stay on top of a widely divergent workload in order to succeed. This environment encourages the development of “quantity over quality” work habits, which follow these students into firms. Coming from a framework in which the stated goal is simply to know exactly enough about myriad unrelated subjects to do well on the exams, and then forget it all to simply move onto the next set of topics does not foster lawyering skills. This, I believe may be one of the causes of employer frustration at law firms. Students are accustomed to acquiring somewhat superficial knowledge that it quickly either rewarded or punished by grades and the subsequent search for employment. However, the notion that as a lawyer they are actually responsible for understanding and following through on their clients needs and the attendant law is never introduced into their training.
Beyond that, I also believe that higher-ups at these firms must stop dismissing these problems as intrinsic to what they perceive as inept law grads. Indeed, the partners and firm managers of today are the generation that has helped craft (or has decided at least to perpetuate) a profession in which pedigree (“non top 10 grads need not apply”) and numeric performance trump any other indicator of professional ability and responsibility. No doubt, the law schools have crafted their curricula around this understanding and so have developed an environment where the product is impressive resumes, rather than prepared graduates. Indeed, the primary goal of the whole legal education establishment (starting with the LSAT) appears to be sorting the wheat from the chaff rather than actually preparing graduates for the career ahead. It also seems fair to say (as did a prior post) that many schools are routinely admitting far more students than is prudent for the profession largely because educations institutions (like everything today), have gone from a civic service model to a business model.
JG
Apr 3, 2009 2:05 PM CST
CONTINUED FROM No. 16 Partners and managers also need to understand that, just as the pace of everything business-related in America has become practically untenable in the last several years (just look at the state of our economy), so are the demands placed on new associates probably much greater now than ever. Law firms, like law schools, have largely transformed from professional service organizations into profit-making machines akin more to corporations. Indeed, many partners fault associates for expecting big pay checks without appreciating where that money has to come from, while most associates indicate that they would sacrifice a great proportion of their salaries if it meant they could recapture some of the ridiculous hours that firms demand. However, it is not quite the chicken and egg question it appears, since the partners are in charge and the buck stops there. Many firms have adopted the gigantic paper-mill model designed to generate as much money as possible at any cost. When the only reward you offer is money, you are more likely to attract people (in this case recent grads) whose only interest is money and lifestyle, and not the genuine dedication to the profession that Number 12 complains is lacking. Likewise, those who are more dedicated to being excellent and fastidious attorneys and who understand that this is a long road to travel will largely be turned off by firm cultures that emphasize high output and great profit over all else. Indeed, many lawyers out a few years report that smaller, less “prestigious” firms often provide more meaningful legal experience than biglaw. After all, there are only so many hours in a day, and in the end an interminable stack of work will breed resentment rather than enthusiasm over the experience. This is simply human nature.
Finally, the people at the top of the firm structure are also the same people who have thrived in that environment. Thus, it may just be impossible for them to realize why it is not a comfortable place for everyone.
As for the poster of the original question, I suspect, as did a prior poster, that his firm is attracting the bottom of the barrel for some reason (the problems described sound like truly feckless individuals have been hired). Thus, the fault is mutual, but the solution will be to figure out how to attract better candidates.
ML
Apr 3, 2009 2:34 PM CST
I agree with #12 - today’s young graduates think they have arrived once they pass the bar, and don’t realize that a law school education does not actually prepare them to practice law. I just had a young associate leave (I am an in-house attorney, he was the most junior person on our team) complaining that he did not get to do anything interesting and he felt the senior attorneys did not “share” important deals with him. However, his work product was shoddy, he didn’t appear to be engaged in meetings, and he simply didn’t understand that the majority of what we do are grindingly dull documents. He made no effort to take responsibilities, and complained that I did not give him the responsibilities that he wanted. When he left, in clearing out his desk area, we found many files and documents that he told us were “old” and “unimportant” that directly relate to active projects. He also took it upon himself to throw out a number of his current files that he deemed “no longer imporant” even though I had been asking him to transfer them to someone else. It was clear that he felt that he was on a par with attorneys who had been practicing fifteen or twenty years, when he lacked the judgment and skills that they posses.
I’ve spoken to other people who say the same thing. Newly-minted associates don’t want to take the time to learn, so they jump to a new job if they think their old job doesn’t meet their expectations. At times, it could really be that they don’t meet the requirements or expectations of the job.
Another reason for turnover is that associates find out that they really would rather do a different type of law. When I was in private practice about fifteen years ago, we had an associate join us who said he wanted to do corporate law. When we shared him with another firm as part of a larger project, he decided he wanted to do corporate real estate and finance work, not plain corporate work. So with our blessing he left for the other firm once the joint project resolved.
Alger Hiss
Apr 3, 2009 2:37 PM CST
Post No. 10 is the closest to the pin.
Law Schools treat Law Students like Consumers, catering to their whims, never really requiring the newbies to become personally responsible. Don’t like the grade? Appeal it! Didn’t get the Seminar Paper in on time? Whine about not getting an extension, whether or not justified.
Recent Law Graduates arrive at BigLaw after being coddled as Summer Associates and protected as womb-to-tomb cases of arrested development, emerge as self-centered graduates or as spoiled brats.
The new lawyers are shocked—shocked!!—when they find out that the world’s axis does not include their measurements.
Blame is appropriate because the Law Schools falsely tell these neonates that the Law is their Oyster and when the ugly realities set in, they vamoose for another Valhalla where their exaggerated sense of self worth is satisfied.
No wonder the Private Practice of Law is in seriously in jeopardy.
Associate Anonymous
Apr 3, 2009 2:45 PM CST
My mid-sized firm has a fairly abysmal turnover rate. I’m a third-year associate, and I’m considered “mid-level” here because no one makes it past year six. I’m one of those paralyzed associates who has fallen behind on hours. Why? Because I got thrown into a practice area that no one else in our firm practices in (the other lawyer who did this was a sixth-year associate who left shortly after I was hired). Left to sink or swim, and I’m sinking. I am given work that would be handled by much senior associates at other firms and given absolutely no guidance in doing the work. As a result, I put in a 60 hour work week and I’m still underbilling. I know I share the blame here - I could work even harder and try even more - but after a while you kind of give up. The response is Pavlovian.
My firm thinks everyone who leaves here does it because they want more money or just don’t want to do the work. Truth is we’re burned out and frustrated. I would take a lower-paying job that requires me to work just as hard or harder if I thought there was a chance at actually learning something. Law school does not teach lawyering, and until it does law firms have to actually train and mentor new associates.
Bruce Houston
Apr 3, 2009 3:09 PM CST
The economics of the partner-associate system are more often to blame than the parties themselves, I believe. The venerable system whereby an associate gives away two-thirds of billings may not be a sustainable model in today’s world, particularly as regards transactional law practice by experienced associates. Digital communication technologies, including email and document creation, storage, retrieval, and transfer, may preclude the need for the vast resources of the mega law firm. This environment, combined with the dynamic of ever-increasing pressure from corporate clients to reduce costs, sets the stage for a step-change in the practice of transactional law, whereby associate-level attorneys need not drive themselves to burn-out to make a living. Those who have scratched and clawed their way to partnership may not want to hear this, of course. And, these thoughts may not apply to resource-intensive litigation practices.
Jenny
Apr 3, 2009 4:14 PM CST
Law firms definitely are to blame for high attrition rates. Sugar-coated summer programs are like venus fly traps for the new crop of best and brightest, and some lawyers (like some of every profession) are not good people managers. Without guidance and a show of appreciation for their hard work, it’s no wonder some associates fail or decide to leave.
Associates are people too!
Apr 3, 2009 4:31 PM CST
In my three years of practicing law, I’ve worked for two great places (one that I left only because family committments forced me to move) and one completely horrible place in between, from which I was fired, ostenibly for many of the reasons listed in the post. Given the fact that I’ve done well in school, worked since I was very young, and never had anything but good reviews from previous employers, I do rather believe that it was in fact them, not me. For example, the problem with my hours was that I was not allowed to do anything indepedently. Thus, my day was a “hurry up and wait” game, where I’d sit, waiting for somebody to review my work before I would be allowed to do anything else. In contrast, at my new firm, where I have multiple things to do and the authority to be proactive, I bill about 40 more hours a month because I don’t have any waiting time. At both of the good places, they respect(ed) my ideas- at the horrible place, it was all “oh, little associate, I’ve been practicing law longer than you…”- even when the partner was wrong about something because he hadn’t kept up to date.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that everybody will get a few bad associates now and then. However, if it keeps happening over and over, then you have to start wondering if it really is you and not them. And if you expect it to happen and accept it, as the so-called “manager” seems to, then it is most definitely you.
Brian J. Coffey
Apr 3, 2009 5:02 PM CST
A tip for ferreting out “revolving doors” based solely on publicly available information is to look up the bar numbers of the attorneys presently at a firm. If there are groups of similar numbers and large gaps between the groups, watch out. A firm that keeps its associates ought to have a good spread of bar numbers. The system is not perfect because it won’t account for out-of-state transfers.
Another clue is if you tell a group of lawyers at a state or local bar function where you work and half of them have worked there before, you know you’re at a stepping stone firm.
As for who’s to blame, it seems to me the law firm is intrinsically a bad business model. Senior partners have little or no incentive to do anything but ride the firm into the grave (theirs or its) because there’s really no residual income to be had. That puts a lot of downward pressure on the machine. Most small firms, probably most firms in general, are pretty top heavy because the baby boomers are in their prime as lawyers. They occupy the corner offices and they aren’t going to die or retire anytime soon.
In the (good ?) old days, when the baby boomers were starting out, there weren’t really any other options. So newbies carried water for years. Why would any new associate starting out today want to carry water for 5-7 years just so they can keep carrying the same water for another 10 years?
I would agree, however, that there are too many law schools and that law schools and bar exams are too easy. If the legal profession is really still an apprentice based system, as one commentator pointed out, then apprenticeships ought to start long before a student has graduated from law school and is awaiting bar exam results.
JDirk
Apr 3, 2009 6:18 PM CST
The employees.
More often than not, it’s a conspiracy to make the firm look bad. People make coalitions to sign on to a firm, then quit prematurely in order to tank that firm’s reputation.
It’s a cold, cold world.
Dick Buttkiss
Apr 4, 2009 1:09 AM CST
Young Associate Attorneys coming out of law schools today can’t handle constructive criticism or being challenged to do better. They generally don’t recognize when they are being pushed so they can improve - rather, their impression is that the Firm Manager is being abusive, oppressive, mean-spirited, or whatever.
This mentality is destroying this country, and that is why our nation is plunged into one of the worst economies ever seen.
My advice to young associate attorneys - get tougher, stop being a bitch, don’t expect or feel the need to be coddled, stay the course, accept the “abuse,” and grow a pair of balls.
This is the USA - not “Touchy Feely Land.”
Our grandparents would spin in their graves if they knew what utterly fickle, weak-kneed, attention whorish, self-centered, prima donnas dominate the newest crop of new Attorneys (late 20s to early 30s).
You reap what you sow, and if you are unemployed or have recently been fired - its probably because you suck.
Jane
Apr 4, 2009 12:10 PM CST
A high rate of turnover is almost always the fault of the firm/employer. Making resources “available” is not enough, as I have learned from teaching advanced law school classes and from working with law clerks and other attorneys. This is particularly with this generation of grads. You can’t just give them the resources, you have to work with them. They have been raised by helicopter parents and not allowed to failed. They need to see examples and have one on one time with a mentor.
The firm needs to spend more time at interviews getting to know the candidate, draw them into conversation about what they really want and expect, and also make its expectations crystal clear. Once hired, have an orientation program for the new lawyer to introduce them to the firm and the practice and. importantly, assign a mentor to work with them one on one. Firms can’t just hire these new grads, give them a desk and turn them loose. This is true for law firms and all other employers. Every new hire will not work out but failure can be minimized by planning, clear expectations on all sides and personal attention to the new employee.
George
Apr 4, 2009 2:31 PM CST
Post No. 27 sounds like a Communist Plot. If someone has a job and they offer it to someone who needs a job, then its the employee’s responsibility to keep and maintain that job.
Its not the responsibility of the employer to make the working environment a virtual utopia.
Businesses should mirror the principles of what this country was founded on, ie Capitalism and Democracy, not a Socialist or Communist model.
Peter Laird
Apr 5, 2009 1:29 AM CST
My great-great grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War to help free this country from the British. He stood in 3 feet of snow for years and lost his fingers and toes doing so.
My great-grandfather farmed the land in Virginia his whole life, sometimes nearly dying from the stress of tilling out a living from this hapless rock we call the earth.
My grandfather was a coal miner and lived his entire working life under 1000 feet of rock to carve out his existence from the walls of coal.
My father was a career military officer before becoming a Senator and working his tail off to keep this country free and prosperous.
I am an Attorney in Manhattan.
I also work very hard and do the best that I can every single day.
I know that my life is a whole hell of a lot easier than theirs ever was, but I like to believe that I have inherited the same level of not complaining, stoicism, hard work, desire to earn what I receive, biting the bullet, displaying loyalty and honor, getting going when the going gets tough, and by and large, exemplifying the traits and qualities that made this nation great.
Judging from the majority of the posts on this page, if our country was founded and fought for by these people, we would all still be British subjects.
What a sorry collection of complainers.
Do your job, do it well, and shut the hell up.
Lin Fu
Apr 5, 2009 5:00 AM CST
This guy above (Mr. Laird) is grandstanding. I don’t know what my great grandfather did for a living. But he made my grandfather, who made my father who made me. That’s all the accomplishments I need.
MS
Apr 5, 2009 5:05 AM CST
No. 29, with that attitude the USA would still be a colony of the British! Shut up and pay your taxes! How can you tell if complaints regarding turnover are legitimate or whining?
hrf
Apr 6, 2009 11:34 AM CST
Amen to No. 26 - we need more people like that in this business!
J.D.
Apr 7, 2009 3:32 PM CST
Mass firings are happening in ALL industries right now. The gov’t is responsible for our current economic mess. It’s controlled by the Democrats.
Clearly, we have to blame the powers that be.
Fired? Thank Obama and Pelosi!
DKH
Apr 10, 2009 7:30 AM CST
How did the Democrats, esp. Obama, contribute to the past 20+ years of easy credit and deregulation that allowed the current situation to develop?
SW
Apr 10, 2009 8:29 AM CST
#12 makes good points but worked a t afirm with over 300 attorneys for one year. I did all the good things that he mentions including understandign my role and desiring the monotonous work that would advance my knowledge and judgment. However, what his assessment lacks is the reality—I watched associates who were mediocre, worked less, and could care less about their career advance because of who their father was or because they went to the right preparatory highschool (i.e. country day school). I left after one year, it is my impression/opinion that these firms will die out as they promote associates because of superficial reasons. What #12 is complainign of is his own natural selection. Perhaps if he and his cohorts selected and promoted based ontalent and work ethic instead of connections and country clubs they wouldn’t be in the quandry they are in. Meanwhile I am now in a small firm making less money but happier than ever—and learning a great deal about how to “become” a lawyer. Big law is no place for those who want to be in this “profession.” One day these elder statesman attorneys will wake up and realize the so-called brat/entitlement generation are their own children—I laugh thinking how much they detest the offspring they have created. They will drown in their own superficial shortsightedness until they go under last but not least.
Ready To Retire
Apr 10, 2009 8:44 AM CST
I am just about to pack it in after 44 years of a pressure practice. I have seen and worked in every setting from solo to ten person firm to a corporate monolith of 220 lawyers.
Here it is, without sugar coating.
Today’s young lawyers are heavily spoiled brats, pure and simple. Don’t want to work and don’t see any activity as useful if the tasks doesn’t get them paid, honored, fed, entertained or laid. Anything that does not worship them and their needs are seen as inimical to their life style and their grossly overstated self-images.
Pro Bono work? What’s in it for me? Bar Activity? Well, OK, if it aggrandizes me, not the firm I work for. Long hours? HEY MAN, I GOT A LIFE!
Want proof? That brat-poseur that posted the defense of brats in Posts 16 and 17 is a disillusioned newby, masquerading as a 30 year lawyer to enhance his street creds. How do I know? IT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE’S FAULT THAT THEY ARE UNHAPPY! That whine is served at every meal with new associates at our big firm lunches. Grow up, Brats!
Kalifornia Arnold
Apr 10, 2009 9:28 AM CST
Who’s responsible for high turnovers? The apple industry
Marcia Pinheiro
Apr 12, 2009 7:00 PM CST
I have no idea, but suppose that that is why the most spectacularly profitable cases of all, which would have to be mines, are not being accepted by lawyers who live for profiting…see www.geocities.com/carlapaca, please, and if you are not one of those, write to me.
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.