Have you ever noticed how hard lawyers work at being "relevant" within their firms? It's almost part of some unwritten handbook on survival as a lawyer: be relevant or be gone. There are multiple drivers and reinforcers for this, and many law firms encourage it. They do a good job spelling out what the firm needs, what it expects, and who sits in leadership positions. As a result, lawyers get pretty adept at understanding how to be relevant within the firm.

Human nature, being what it is, we shouldn't be surprised to see lawyers using this information to compete, tussle for attention and try to outshine each other. If somebody, somewhere in the law firm is setting your compensation and handing out assignments and leadership positions, you're going to want to know who that person is, what they need, and how to be relevant to them.  

In turn, law firm leadership sees an entire community of lawyers across the firm all trying to be relevant. The being relevant season is almost upon us. This is when leaders get to review all the annual business plans and self-evaluation memos. This isn't a totally flawed system, and it's true that each of these lawyers is relevant in their own way. Maybe that's what a law firm is. But it's not collaborative, nor is it client facing, and for these reasons it entirely misses the point of relevance.