A major article appears in this month’s American Lawyer, penned by Ben Heineman, most famously ex-GC of GE, and David Wilkins, Harvard Law professor. Both are now deeply involved in HLS’s Program on the Legal Profession, whose stated mission is "to build bridges between the academy and the profession."
The article, "The Lost Generation?", subtitled "demoralized and dispirited, big-firm associates are defecting in droves. Here’s what firms, and their clients, can do about it," is one of which it might be said, "Attention must be paid." Between them, Heineman and Wilkins contribute more diverse experience of the world and more IQ points per paragraph than has graced any other article yet published this year.
First, permit me to summarize their arguments, and then I’ll offer my own humble coda.
The problem, in a nutshell, is attrition. Despite increased salaries and bonuses, more (professed) attention to work/life balance and associate development, more indisputable investments in stress management, concierge services, and day-care, by years three to four anywhere from 30 to 50% and more of associates are out the door.
The reasons are well-known:
- Having paid off law school debts, they’re done.
- Private equity and investment banking pay better and are sexier.
- They figure they won’t make partner—and aren’t sure they’d like to, based on what they see of partners’ lifestyles.
- Other obvious reasons like following a spouse to a different city or deciding to become the "at home" spouse.
But then David and Ben delve deeper into the associate/partner disconnect within large firms and unearth more subtle, cultural, professional, and personal reasons for the appalling rates of attrition:
- A depressingly high ratio of drudge-work to interesting work. (As one commenter to the WSJ Law Blog piece on the article put it, "One word: e-discovery!")
- Large matters staffed by large teams where junior associates feel peripheral and marginalized.
- Partners’ inability to communicate (junior partners are especially singled out for this critique).
- Utter opacity about:
- firms’ finances
- associates’ chances for partnership
- the criteria for partnership
- Corporate clients who, as the authors put it, "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." [We’ll come back to this.]
And they claim that this has all changed markedly for the worse in the past 20 to 30 years. This one sentence may summarize the article:
"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."
Here they may have put their fingers on what I think could be one of the defining challenges to the profession in the near future: Climbing the mountain of finding the next generation of committed professionals. Ben and David proceed to enumerate some suggested reforms attempting to ameliorate the barriers that young associates seem to feel stand in their way. Most are conventional extrapolations of things a few firms are already doing, and perhaps the question is whether the cumulative impact of all of them would really change the proportion of associates who feel inspired.
Their core recommendation is surely sound: Expose associates early on to real work even if they’re bystanders and not participants. Only if junior associates have a sense of the drama of high-stakes litigation or deal-making will there be a prayer of their staying enough years to begin doing it themselves.
Ben and David’s prescription thus includes these elements:
- Having junior associates attend key meetings, albeit "off the meter;"
- "Seconding" third or fourth-year associates to corporate clients to get a more textured sense of what companies actually do with legal advice and how lawyers fit into the overall corporate hierarchy;
- Somewhat obviously, expanding pro bono commitments;
- And equally obviously, expanding opportunities to "lend" associates to governmental agencies; but most important of all
- Really and truly demanding that partners devote time and emotional commitment to professional development, including competency benchmarks and internal career counseling.
Do we, then, have a credible response to the dilemma of ever-higher compensation and ever-higher attrition?
Almost. The authors are far too generous to corporate clients and put essentially the entire burden of associate development on law firms. Yes, I understand the financial pressures on GC’s to cut costs just as their other C-suite comrades are doing, but I’ll bet you that the CFO is not second-guessing junior trainees being on the outside auditor’s team and the CMO is not telling the ad agency to leave the assistant account executives back at the office.
It’s actually worse than that, because the same GC who (for example) instructs outside counsel not even to bother putting first-year’s on the bill because their time will only be zero’ed out is going to go right back to those same firms to poach mid-level’s when the inhouse department needs to staff up. Economists call this free-riding, but it doesn’t take an economics background to label it for what it is: Patently hypocritical, exploitative, and plain old unfair.
Corporate America, which presumably benefits first and foremost from the services of BigLaw, needs to behave more as a business partner and less as a distant third-party willing to exploit the reality that right now there’s a lot of sand in the gears when the interests of law firms and the interests of young associates try to mesh.
Nevertheless, many components of what Ben and David have laid out are, as I said, inarguable.
But even if we could get corporate America to help the situation rather than throw fuel on the fire, one other thing is missing, and that is passion for the profession: Inspiring it, cultivating it, sustaining it. These are the among the missions of law firms (and yes, clients), because it’s passion and only passion for the intellectual challenges and the creative possibilities of the profession that can sustain a lifetime of engagement and performance at the highest levels. Understandably, we’re more comfortable talking about processes and procedures and techniques; but let’s not lose sight of what we’re trying to achieve. Lifetime commitment to the practice.
