Articles
Them that’s got, git
Anonymous
In his latest bestseller Outliers: The Story of Success (Little, Brown and Company, 2008), Malcolm Gladwell leans on the Biblical verse, “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath” (Matthew 25:29). Malcolm calls this the “Matthew Effect.”
During these difficult economic times, law firms need to wrap their minds around this concept if they are to retain quality associates who want to become successful partners. Unfortunately, firms do not seem to have a clue.
Mentoring Is An Essential Function
One of the most significant reasons why associates leave firms is lack of mentoring. This is especially true of women and minority associates. By failing to provide mentoring, law firms fail to fulfill one of the quintessential purposes of their existence. Besides providing quality service to their clients, law firms exist to educate and train or mentor their junior and senior associates and junior partners; and to be of service to the community: only after fulfilling these functions should they worry about their net profits per partner. Yet today, we read and hear about law firms cutting costs to save their profits. Associate development, diversity and other non-revenue generating activities are being shredded for the sake of greed.
Economic Downturns Are Times For Reevaluation
Given these unprecedented economic conditions, law firms cannot put mentoring, diversity and inclusion on the back burner. If law firms were ever serious about retention, now is the time to prove it. Instead of hoarding billables for themselves, partners with time on their hands should use this period to boost their individual mentoring skills and help develop different associates who may be the future client base of tomorrow. There really is no substitute for intergenerational legacy transference. Nurturing and honing the skills of new and young associates is the best investment a law firm can make in tough financial times.
Smart law firms know the economic stimulus being rolled out will assure that women and minorities are not left out of this bailout bonanza. During the failed S&L debacle of the 1990’s, explicit provision was made so that a broad cross section of the legal profession could get a piece of the action. Given the disposition of President Obama and Congress, I don’t doubt that law firms will find that it makes good business sense to invest in the training and development of women and minorities.
Law firms that are still in the process of becoming more diverse and inclusive (this includes almost all of them) need to bring women and minority lateral partners on board at this time so that they can attract women and minority associates in the future. Diverse associates don’t stay because there are no diverse partners with any clout, or significant business at these law firms. Women associates leave because they see few if any women partners who reflect a “balance of life” success story. Instead, they see variations of the theme—the male model with lipstick. What they need to see is a sea change in attitude about part-time partnership opportunities. Cultural change has to occur at those law firms that wish to retain talent, and this cultural change has to be preceded by a discussion of managing differences in the workplace, discussions which are simply just not happening at most of these firms.
This is the best of times for mentoring. It’s also a great time for law firms to rethink billable hours and its implications, especially as these concepts impact minorities. The less work there is to divide up, the greater the chance that unconscious bias rather than merit is the determining factor. I’m not suggesting that we discard the entire notion of the billable hour, rather that we assess it for its fairness in the workplace and institute changes accordingly.
This is the worst of times to be concerned about increasing profits, when most people and businesses can’t even stay afloat. Corporate greed caused the present predicament and law firm greed will cause many law firms to fold or merge. Beware, however, of mergers; they can be contagious and/or costly.
No doubt law firms will survive, but the question is whether they will be successful at retaining talented professionals who aspire to become members of their peer group, or whether the attempt to curb attrition and maintain retention will fall by the wayside. This is not a question of money; it’s a question of integrity and commitment to a profession, which by definition is not merely a trade association.
