<p>The following are some exerpts from this article, which provides one perspective on some of the reasons why associates may not stay at the bigger law firms (I think that there are other factors at play, too):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>n.b. Ben Heineman was the general counsel of GE and is now a senior fellow at the HLS program on the legal profession. David Wilkins is a professor at HLS.</p>
<p>
At the 250 largest law firms, the arrows are pointing up for many associate indicators. Summer internships are up. Incoming associate classes are up. Recruiting costs for both summer and first-year associates, in dollars and in partner time, are up. Salaries are up ($160,000!). Bonuses are up ($50,000!).
</p>
<p>
But for all this effort, one critical indicator is down. The larger law firms are reported to be losing 30, 40, 50 percent of associates after three to four years – with half to two-thirds of the defections due to associate, not firm, choice. Where do they go? Smaller firms, more competitive firms in the same city, firms in other cities, in-house, government, teaching, nonlegal jobs.
</p>
<p>
The more important question is: Why do they go? Some associates just wanted to pay off law school debts and had no intention of staying. Others are balancing two careers and need to follow a spouse. Some are lured away by higher-paying jobs in banking, private equity or hedge funds. Or they don’t want the Faustian bargain of higher pay for more billable hours and a job that skews the work-life balance too far toward work. Finally, some do not want to stay for the likely “no” four or five years hence at the entrance to equity partner Valhalla – or don’t view it as Valhalla at all.
</p>
<p>
Here are some of the problems: </p>
<p>Early in their careers, far too many associates are given a steady diet of drudge work: reviewing documents; reading e-mails; organizing schedules for transactions; researching small, tangential issues. </p>
<p>Associates work on large teams and are not given individual responsibility of any consequence. </p>
<p>Partners may not take time to communicate the overall issues and strategy in a large matter, but just send younger associates off to till a small part of the North 40. Too often the junior associates have to work for senior associates whose goal in life is their own advancement, not the well-being of their younger colleagues.</p>
<p>Partners, who have huge workloads and unceasing pressures to produce, do not spend much time worrying about the professional development of young lawyers nor provide adequate mentoring, education and training. </p>
<p>Firms may not communicate candidly about their finances, their business strategy and the partnership prospects for young lawyers, who are not treated as young professionals but viewed as generators of “rates x hours” for annual revenue models. </p>
<p>Corporate clients are unwilling to take risks on young associates and unwilling to pay their rates, so associates may not have interesting opportunities such as doing important work, meeting with businesspeople, or traveling to depositions, hearings or arguments.
</p>
<p>
Big-firm associates, then, may be a lost generation: a cohort of junior lawyers whose initial professional experience is extremely unsatisfying, who are turned off by the traditional rite of passage in a large firm, and who are not developing as legal professionals in the broadest sense of that phrase.
</p>
<p>
One cause of this trend, of course, is the inexorable transformation of larger law firms from collegial professional associations to huge business enterprises. Successful partners have to juggle many demands: handling big matters, wooing clients, cross-selling the firm, marketing their efforts through speeches and articles and international travel. With the free agency system that has evolved at the big firms, those partners who are focused on earning top dollar want to boost their billings to increase their compensation. To keep high performers, firms are driven to a preoccupation with profits per partner and leverage. (There is also the catch-22 of firms not investing in young people who they don’t think will stay anyway.)
</p>
<p>
With multicity “partnerships,” a sense of firm identity and community is difficult to develop and associates must depend on a strong identification with, and personal relationships within, a particular practice group. But this specialization may also narrow the vision and experience of young lawyers. Moreover, technology distances partners from young lawyers, due to the ubiquity of electronic communication, yet at the same time allows them to be in associates’ faces 24/7.
</p>
<p>
Corporate clients also contribute to the problem. With internal pressures to stay on budget, they seek to minimize the billings by, and experiences of, young associates who, whatever their potential, have not yet demonstrated practical skills. This is especially so as associate salaries – and hourly rates to recover those costs – escalate to absurd heights, at least in Am Law 200 firms in big cities.
</p>
<p>
Senior corporate counsel are also so preoccupied with integrity education and training for the business executives, and business training for the young lawyers inside the company, that they have little sense of obligation to the professional development of young lawyers in their outside firms.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The article then posits a number of solutions, including secunding law firm associates to their corporate clients, doing pro bono work that will give associates more experience, internal professional development (which many of the very top firms already do on a consistent basis), and better communication between partners and associates on firm finances and partnership prospects (I’ve heard this one suggested every year since I’ve been practicing, and I have seen little progress). One of the overriding suggestions is that there needs to be more cooperation between corporate law departments and law firms to enhance the development of young associates (personally, I don’t see this one every happening either – corporate law departments will continue to cherry-pick the best and the brightest from law firms for their own practices).</p>
<p>
In the end, the answer is coherent, systematic, up-front law firm investment in young lawyer development programs within the firm, not fancier recruiting restaurants, to develop skilled, energized lawyers who can, and will, provide longer-term value to the firm – and to the profession.
</p>