Why Do Laterals So Often Fail? Poor Due Diligence, Researchers Say
It's costly to hire laterals, and yet nearly half leave after five years. Researchers from ALM Intelligence and consultancy Decipher asked why the process was so flawed.
March 05, 2019 at 03:42 PM
4 minute read
Over a four-year span between 2014 and 2017, the lateral moves between firms in the Am Law 200 brought with them a total book of business valued at over $17 billion, according to ALM Intelligence.
And yet, the number of laterals who leave their new firm within five years has been estimated at nearly 50 percent. Putting the two numbers together illustrates the serious consequences for firms that enter, and fail, in the lateral market.
Applying the upper estimate of a 47 percent failure rate from The American Lawyer contributor Hugh Simons, firms lose over $2 billion a year in revenue from failed laterals.
“That's an astounding amount,” said Howard Rosenberg, co-founder and CEO of legal intelligence provider Decipher. And this inefficiency was the starting point for a report released in February by Decipher and ALM Intelligence exploring why so many lateral acquisitions come up short.
The issue is also exacerbated by the ubiquity of lateral hiring. According to the report, between 2014 and 2018, there were almost 9,000 lateral partner moves within the Am Law 200. And almost no firms are on the outside looking in: ALM Intelligence data shows that 97 percent of these firms made a lateral partner hire in that interval.
Put simply, law firms count on lateral hiring to solve all sorts of problems and create just as many opportunities: from boosting sagging revenue to delivering an entry to new markets. Report co-author Nicholas Bruch of ALM Intelligence calls it a “golden egg.”
But beyond the lost revenue, these hires don't come cheap. According to the report, the average cost of acquiring a lateral partner was $2.3 million in 2018, including one year of compensation, recruiter fees and other internal costs. Most laterals ultimately receive two years of compensation, driving the average up to $4.2 million.
With the stakes so high, one would think that law firms would put significant resources into feeling out potential partners with due diligence and integrating them soundly. Not so, according to Rosenberg.
“Getting partners to work seamlessly within an existing partnership is a real challenge,” he said.
Bruch draws a direct link between the lack of due diligence and the failure to integrate. Over 50 interviews with law firm leaders and other experts with experience in lateral hiring revealed stories about new arrivals not fitting in. Sometimes this manifested in fights with other partners, other times by not treating associates in the way that the existing partnership believed they should be treated.
“The group didn't think about how these people would fit,” he said.
Decipher co-founder and general counsel Michael Ellenhorn added that the new partner's promised business too often doesn't come along.
“A lot of that simply goes down to poor due diligence on part of the hiring firm,” he said. “You didn't do what you were supposed to do.”
For Bruch, the problem is, paradoxically, a culture of collegiality among lawyers. They're uncomfortable asking hard questions of their future colleagues.
“Nobody wants to be mean to their partner,” he said. “What happens if, down the road, something happens to them, and their practice isn't that profitable.”
A move to more professional management might be part of the solution, but it's not an overnight answer. Rosenberg was formerly the chief operating officer of Baker McKenzie in Washington, D.C. ”I think the intention is right: Bring people in from a different background and with different a skill base,” he said. But the partnership structure still resists change.
“It's a whole education process that's playing out in real time as we speak,” he added.
Some firms are making strides in improving the vetting process. Bruch said he spoke to a managing partner who shared that the one drawback with having a team designed to chase a partner was that it it's particularly difficult for that team to say no.
“We separated the due diligence function from hiring function,” the managing partner told Bruch. “We have a team to say no and a team to say yes, and it's our job as management to decide between the two.”
|Read More
Integrating Lateral Hires: The Key to Retention and Productivity
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllQuinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
Trending Stories
- 1Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 2Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 3Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 4'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
- 5Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams Announces Resignation from Office
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