Related Posts
Community Builder
More Posts
Do you have a weekend getaway?
What to wear for the EY holiday party tomorrow?
Additional Posts in Law
Chief
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Ok boomer.
No where in any of this has anyone taken into account the ‘why’ of juniors leaving after a few years. Horrible work environments and horrible bosses have a great impact on that. If those could be improved, I can guarantee that no one will leave such a well paying and intellectually rewarding job to go in house for half the money. Today’s youth simply does not want to spend a better part of their lives working for a firm that will grind them out but not appreciate their work, and bosses that will make you do 20 hours of work only to then treat you like shit. For as long as firms don’t take these massive factors into account, they will keep losing juniors. In fact, I’ve seen many firms make this exact mistake - pretend like whatever they’re providing is faultless and blame the turnover on external factors.
This is such a good question.
I think we try really, really hard to identify people who have the qualities that we want in a partner - brains, demonstrated work ethic, an interesting life story that suggests intellectual depth, not being an a hole, etc. but it’s really hard for applicants or hiring people to project how someone will develop - will they like the work enough to work at it really hard; will they accept the tons of correction and feedback that it takes to train somebody well, Will the spend a lot of their own time developing skills and a professional network, will they find firm life compatible with whatever family life they desire, Will they need to move for personal reasons, etc. and the biggest question of all, will they want to do what it takes to be a successful partner. None of this is a negative comment on them or the firm. It’s just hard to know where someone’s head will be 7 or 8 years from now. And the people who talk about generational differences are right. I am a boomer and was raised to take whatever was dished out and keep coming back. People who complain about working environments today have no idea what it’s like to literally have staplers thrown at them, be screamed at weekly, and being told, seriously, they are going to be fired for minor mistakes. That used to me pretty common. That’s not the millennial way. Nor should it be.
So the short version is we try really hard to hire people who are capable of becoming partner. But we also know that few if any of them will make it. And so do they.
I imagine you can hire Kim K if you're looking for a non law school future associate
Lol this post explains why all entry level positions require you to have 5 years of experience!
I think what it should signal is that firms/partners don't care as much anymore about teaching and mentoring. If everyone only highers laterals then how exactly is an attorney supposed to get experience?
AA2 — You know why typos drive partners crazy? Because it’s the first thing clients notice. And when you’re in a position to review a junior associate’s work, it will be the first thing you notice too.
As far as substance — I disagree but am too tired from not only analyzing associates’ work, but also proofreading for them, to engage. All I will say is that most of the partners I know are willing to put in the time and effort to train an associate who is eager to learn and works hard.
The motivation for this approach is all over this app - associates who take biglaw jobs intending to stay only a few years no matter what the firm does and who start talking about exist within months after they start. That situation combined with the fact that firms lose money on first and second year lawyers means that firms that invest a lot in hiring and training new lawyers only to see them leave are pursuing a money losing strategy. One perspective is that it’s better to let other firms hire the new lawyers and weed out the short-timers while providing initial training. The lateral third years coming out of those firms would be better trained and more profitable than first years, and less likely to leave. This notion obviously only works if some firms continue to hire first years. But at this point it’s a viable and rational alternative to pouring resources into associates who have no intention of staying and leave right about when their firms are breaking even in them.
Concerning the question about cost control how exactly are law firms supposed to control law school tuition?
And concerning rates and associate salaries, we have to pay what we pay to attract and keep top talent. And we have to charge the rates we charge to pay the salaries and provide the benefits we do
Lastly, concerning what’s fair, I would actually greatly prefer that first saw less lateral hiring, more stability, lower hours requirements, and lower rates. But that’s not the market that developed and it’s not the market I like and work in.
I just replied on another string to this same question. The cite of any biglaw firm’s detailed financials. Two big oversights on your part. First you aren’t remembering most of a firm’s operating expenses, which are dramatically higher than you think. Second, even with second years we realize a lower percentage of their rates*hours because of writes offs and necessary rework. They are less unprofitable than first years but they don’t make money.
For every partner like the original poster there is one like me who only hires new attorneys out of law school. Maybe because I’m a millennial partner or maybe because I have great referral sources inside the law school that pass me great candidates. Either way, keep skipping on these great attorneys and I’ll keep hiring them and stealing your clients. 😂
Only the law schools would be hurt. Not sure that matters much but the idea is exactly where we should go. Less debt and better training. What’s not to love?
How exactly are attorneys supposed to get experience upon graduating from law school if you don’t hire them?
It might be a better idea to judge your past hiring decisions on how those candidates panned out for your firm - not from what strangers are saying on the internet.
But I am just recently out of law school. What do I know?
The problem will be recruiting the mid levels. I know alot of great associates in their 3rd -6th year who started at firms that they don’t love, do great work but just for the general fear of change are scared to leave. They also have fed clerkships on their resume and real trial experience. What the big firms that can afford to hire first years straight out law school realize is that although it is an expense and a gamble, the gamble pays off on the people who generally are afraid of taking risk and changing jobs. Although the whole class may not stay, there will be some that will. Also it may be harder to recruit others in the future. I know that I am bombarded with recruiter emails everyday. The firms build the loyalty from the 30 or 40 percent who stay because they are staying no matter the crappy conditions and that my friends is priceless.
This hasn’t been our experience. We consistently get a flow of great 3rd-5th year applicants. It may be that they hear great things about the work, training, and advancement opportunities. 😉. That isn’t to say it will always be that way, but virtually every time we go to market we end up with someone great.
We lose money on the vast majority of first and second years due to a combination of factors, including writes offs and the need to spend so much time training them because they come to us with few relevant skills. The newest partner in our group was hired as a 4th year lateral. And our next two serious partner candidates were also 4th or 5th year laterals.
I smiled at “today’s youth” explaining how it is and the reference to law firm life as “dating”. There are no doubt big generational disconnects in all of this. It will be fascinating to see whether the law firms created or run by people with those beliefs are able to overcome those divides.
It depends. Clearly, you cannot charge clients for all of the time 1st year associates put into a matter. A lot of that time is educational or, less generously, wasted from a client perspective. But, part of what makes it a profession is the opportunity to mentor young associates and that is both a pleasure and an obligation. So, if your firm understands that and let’s you write off time without penalty to the associate or yourself, there is no need for excluding first years. If your firm’s business model doesn’t recognize that, then you have no choice but to limit yourself to hiring laterals others have trained first. But, then understand you are purely a business and you will be stuck with people trained to someone else’s perspective
You make this statement with no explanation. It’s like an out-of-the-blue a stab at junior associates. But what about the other way around. Do junior associates regret working for you?
They seem to love it. I remain close with almost all of the associates I’ve ever worked with and they routinely hire me to represent their companies. I am speaking generally about the firms I’ve been with for 25 years, all of whom have always lost money on most juniors. And if you spend any time reading posts on this app you’ll find many many many posts in which juniors are asking when they can leave their first jobs within weeks or months of starting. You can also find a lot of studies discussing why people now in their 20s and 30s change jobs much more frequently than people the same age did even 20 years ago. In other words I’m not slapping at anyone. I’m stating facts that I actually wish were different. I would love to be able to build a model in which folks were all in it for the long haul, including all of my partners. That’s just not the model that exists today. And with respect to the cradle to grave partner posting below good for you for the time being. I predict that you will be looking for a merger partner before your career is over probably much before. Because you will find it very difficult to build a self sustaining form that lasts longer than the founding generation. Again I’m not gloating or even stating things are as they should be. I’m just explaining what I’ve seen to be universally true over a long career.
My guess is that he or she is regretting hiring folks without substantial prior law firm experience. Believe it or not this is a pretty common partner position. Many of us have contemplated or advocating eliminating summer programs and hiring only lateral associates with 3 years of firm experience.
Same. We prefer clerkships or associates who start at other firms.
Isn’t biglaw’s model to pay associates x per hour, bill at 3x, and require y hours? If that’s right, how much does it matter that the whole incoming class isn’t staying longer than a few years? I don’t have biglaw experience, but I always assumed associates were there to bill time and turn a profit, and when they leave the new class will take their place in the machine.
That leaves a question of where those firms get new partners from — but are they suffering from a dearth of partners? Plus I figure they can get partners laterally, and keep churning the associate machine.
I love newbies. I train them and turn them into awesome lawyers- then they leave, go in-house, make more than me and take the business away. Fucking awesome.
I don’t know of a single in-house lawyer that earns more than a biglaw partner, with the exception of top GCs at companies like Coca Cola.
With regard to taking away business, how on earth would that happen? They instruct you, not the other way around.
Finally, just from the tone of the way you’ve talked about them suggests that you should be looking internally to see why you can’t retain your staff. I would work worse hours and for worse pay if I loved my team and got on with them. Show some humility and introspection.
Interesting reaction. what traits are you seeing that surprise you?
Wouldn’t laugh, friend. If you read this site thoughtful you would understand why it would make sense for a firm to switch to the model of hiring only 3rd years. I think this is the future for firms willing to break tradition.
I have 30 years of incoming classes worth of experience. And our retention rates are way better for lateral mid level and senior associates than for entry level associates. That’s unfortunate, but quite true.
I don’t know what fantasy world you live in, but this is true for juniors in every industry. That’s how the world works. People finish school, work somewhere for a few years, and then move on once or twice before they settle. It’s not unfortunate, it makes total sense. It’s like dating- you have to find the right match and that rarely happens right away.
Also, Partner, did you have open-book exams in law school? If not, when did you find out law exams were open-book? Asking because in the case of my boss the answers are (1) no and (2) a month ago.
Wow. I just actually typed “My books are open exam.” I should have spent more time memorizing the order of the words I wanted to use before typing.