19. An Associate Lost In Space Will Be An Associate Lost Forever
If the focus is on what the firm wants from the associate, never what they want for the associate, this associate doesn't have the toolset, or the mindset to do the best work, or to turn away a call from a recruiter. This associate is lost in space.
April 08, 2022 at 12:15 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
Just as Lean Adviser starts with planning, our short series on talent retention and 'working wellness' started with planning. The previous lesson looked at how attorneys who feel good, physically and mentally, won't just perform well, they'll also stick. Meanwhile, for others, the daily prospect is daunting and demoralizing. We concluded that real working wellness isn't about the setting, it's about how we do the work itself, starting with planning. So, just as in Lean Adviser, after planning comes execution.
If you want to understand the direct link between working methods and associate retention, just consider how an attorney executes a task, any task. Let's imagine a millennial associate in law firm A, maybe earning the big bucks, but living an unplanned work life. The firm has no career path or development plan. In just the same unstructured way, partners give work to the associate in a vacuum. No context, no project plan, just deliver the task and record the time. The entire focus is on what the firm wants from the associate, never what they want for the associate. This associate doesn't have the toolset, or the mindset to do the best work, or to turn away a call from a recruiter. This associate is lost in space.
Now consider the situation of another millennial associate, working across the street at law firm B. Everything about this associate's work life is planned and structured. Law firm B invests in more than the salary, they invest in the individual. They know their associates need to feel valued, which means being mentored, developed and being part of a career plan. They want to make their attorneys feel confident and secure, knowing they're on plan, and that the resources will always be made available.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250