At least according to the Financial Times, in an article about
the difficulty of crossing the chasm from senior associate
to rain-making partner. In part the difficulty is a familiar one
and one we’ve rehearsed before: Lawyers are simply not trained
in client development. Certainly not associates (quelle horreur!)
and not, with the rarest of exceptions, partners either. Not-training
associates in rainmaking actually has a strong economic logic to it,
so I will eschew the temptation merely to chalk it up to the aristocratic
world-view of the partnership or other pseudo sociocultural rationalizations.
The economic logic is simple: Senior associates who develop a
loyal book of business are in a vastly superior bargaining position vis-a-vis
their firm than their client-less peers. They can, without boasting,
let it be known they could take their business elsewhere if they aren’t
anointed partners. (In the immortal words of Shoeless Joe Jackson,
"it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.") No rational firm
would encourage this, so expect the quo to be status in terms of associate
training.
On the other hand, not-training partners is simply self-defeating, and
at last some baby steps are being taken to offer coaching and guidance. This
is, indeed, a cultural question ("real lawyers aren’t touts"), as evidenced
by US firms being markedly better at it than UK firms. But when
one’s rank of full-equity partner depends in the long run on client development,
the motivation to learn is sharp.
