The people who make the most money in law firms are not necessarily the smartest lawyers, or the most strategic lawyers, or even the highest billing lawyers. It’s the lawyers who bring in clients who rake in the largest slice of the profit pie. We call these people the “client lawyers.”
Back in the old days when law school cost very little and you could rent an apartment in Toronto for a reasonable amount, law firms hired newly qualified lawyers at modest salaries and gave them simple assignments. The firms also provided mentoring and training, so that the juniors could learn to do more challenging work. Firms neither made much money on the newbies, nor did they pay the newbies much. The pay-off came after a few years as the lawyers gained experience and could bill enough to earn their keep.
Unsuccessful people are the ones who are impressed by celebrity, by people’s names and titles.
~ Robin S. Sharma
In the old days, there were Associates and Partners. Every lawyer planned to work ridiculously hard as an Associate for about seven years, after which the firm would invite them to become a partner. Or not.
If you were not invited to become a partner, you were expected to hang your head in shame and slink out of the firm. The system was called “Up or Out.”
I am willing to bet that you did not expect that headline from me! And to be fair, I do not intend it as a general statement. What I am going to talk about is legal research, and it is a fact that Big Law does that better than the rest of us. While Big Law (and occasionally Medium Law) employs specialists to do their research, the rest of us either do it ourselves or give the job to articling students, summer students, or junior lawyers.
Lawyers struggle to attract talent who are both capable and a good fit for a firm’s culture.
If only there were consultants who firms could retain and candidates could work with, who understand the market, the culture in different firms and practice groups, the current salaries being paid by firms of all sizes, and the expectations of law firms and candidates on a multitude of issues, including work from home, vacation entitlement, bonuses, and billable hour requirements.
I was speaking to a recent retiree from a Canadian Big Law firm the other day, and she introduced a new law firm concept to me, being that of the “Practice Assistant.” Apparently at her firm they did away with the concept of Legal Assistants (formerly, a “secretary” for you very old folks) and replaced it with a Practice Assistant, or “PA.”
A junior Associate at a law firm called me the other day to complain. There is nothing unusual about that. Associates complain a lot, often with good reason.
Her complaint this time was that she told H.R. that she needed to take a day off for a personal reason and was informed that she had only two choices. She could take the day as vacation or unpaid.
Tali Green recently (sarcastically)asked the following question on LinkedIn: “Are lazy and sub-par juniors contributing to the mental health crisis in the legal profession?”
With a nod to the danger of generalizing, I would have to say that as a group, I like non-equity partners (“NEPs”) just as much, if not better, than I like equity partners. They are often people who are primarily interested in practicing law and doing well by their clients, as opposed to promoting themselves and reaching the top of the earnings heap.
On the other hand, I don’t think much of the whole concept of non-equity partnership.
“Write what you know.”
Mark Twain
I know absolutely nothing about the collapse of Minden Gross LLP beyond what I have read in the Globe & Mail. However, I did hang around the legal profession for a long time, and I figure that qualifies me to comment.