In more evidence of what it’s nice to have more evidence of, The Legal Intelligencer reports that the marketplace for lateral moves is twice as active in Philadelphia so far this year vs. last year. Various hypotheses are trotted out, from headhunters and firm partners willing to speak for attribution, which all have one thing in common although they sound as though they don’t:
- Associates nearing the partnership moment of truth who seek a move in-house before they’re either "damaged goods" (they’re dinged), or, conversely, they win The Tournament and discover they have 40 more years of something they don’t really like to look forward to. In terms of supplying recruits to the lateral market, this is as hardy a perennial as you’re going to find.
- Partners with practices that have become marginalized in their firms as strategic directions shift, or who are being expected to bill more hours than they’d care to. The move here is to a firm more aligned with their expertise, or a smaller, quieter shop.
- Partners (primarily, although there’s no reason astute associates shouldn’t be part of this pool as well) who feel their firm has weak or indecisive management, or who disagree with the firm’s direction or fear it’s simply adrift. What distinguishes this group from the second one is that the lawyer, not the firm, is the primary motivator behind the move.
The common denominator of these seemingly disparate motivations? A more liquid and better-functioning market for talent.
Barrels of ink have been spilled counseling the wisdom of individuals—especially highly educated, expensive professionals—finding true "alignment" between their personal skills and aspirations and the culture and values of the firm they work for. (Start how-many-decades-ago? with What Color Is Your Parachute; it’s a long and polyglot lineage.)
In practice, this is notoriously easier said than done, but the good news is that the Philadelphia story is evidence that people are trying. A 2,400 hour/year partnership slot is, to state the obvious, not for everyone. More pointedly, it is just the thing for a lot of ambitious, competitive, Type A people—and when someone who’s only motivated to give 90% on a long-term basis is put down the hall from those pure Type A’s, guess who loses? This is actually to be celebrated, not lamented.
Why? We’ll give Adam Smith the last word:
"As it is this disposition which forms that difference of talents, so remarkable among men of different professions, so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful. […] Among men, the most dissimilar geniuses are of use to one another."*
*The Wealth of Nations,Book I, Chapter 2 ("Origin of Division of Labour"), at 17-18 (Modern Library Edition: New York 1994).
