Wage Scale: Staff Values in the Age of Millennials
A reckoning is coming. Either law firms will end up revising their policies to accommodate millennial workplace preferences, or millennials will leave the profession for other jobs—at least until they can wrest control over traditional law firms, and make the changes themselves.
July 15, 2019 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
Law practice has, more often than not, been defined by generational gaps, and their navigation. In part, that's because old lawyers tend not to retire, but to just fade away. That means that the generation gulf can be wider in law firms than in most other professions. It's definitely not unheard of for a nonagenarian lawyer to be sharing an office with a 20-something fresh out of law school. Because that's the case, issues related to generational preferences are more advanced in the legal industry than elsewhere.
And, things are about to get weird.
Millennial attorneys are the next greatest generation; and, they're about to swamp traditional law firms with their presence. Just by sheer numbers, millennial attorneys will have a significant effect on law practice deep into the 21st century. Given that fact, there will be two difficult transition periods during which traditional law firms will begin to onboard and manage millennial attorneys in new ways, and eventually transition those same attorneys into management roles in law firms. But, that first epoch is where our concern mostly lies in this piece.
Google 'what millennials want', and prepare to be overwhelmed by the results. Of course, that's not exactly the same question as 'what do millennials want at work'—even if the volume of search results is similar. Generally speaking, though, some conclusions can be drawn about how millennial employees, including associate attorneys, are different from prior generations of law firm employees. Whereas employees have traditionally felt more comfortable working a 9-5ish schedule, millennials seek out flexible work schedules. This is in part due to their desire to access modern technologies. Cloud-based software, which most companies run on now, allows for a 'work anywhere, work anytime'-level of professional freedom. Perhaps because of this, millennials tend to be generally more results-driven than employees of prior generations. If the idea is that you can work more or less when you see fit, so long as you get the job done, the result begins to matter far more than the hours worked. Millennials also seek out more feedback from their bosses, which also makes sense in light of a results-driven culture—following a result, the delivery of a postmortem is important to enlighten steps for the next such project. But, millennials also desire continuing feedback on their work—not annual reviews. As part of this, more millennials seek out a collaborative environment, in which everyone is working together (more or less), and sharing ideas—even when that collaboration takes place online. They're also looking for a social-forward workplace, where colleagues can become friends, even outside of work 'hours'. Finally, millennials prefer faster career progression than employees of prior generations have been willing to accept.
Okay now, raise your hand if you know of any currently-existing law firm that would suit those requirements? Didn't think so. As we all know, law firms value tradition over all else. Law firm managers and managing partners want regular work hours, could be described as Luddites, slavishly adhere to the billable hour model, value process over results, deliver irregular feedback (if they deliver feedback at all), work in silos and are wedded to a dues-paying structure, that is not conducive to rapid advancement. Those are problems, because each of those strongly-held law firm management tenets chafes against millennial workplace preferences. And, that means that a reckoning is coming. Either law firms will end up revising their policies to accommodate millennial workplace preferences, or millennials will leave the profession for other jobs—at least until they can wrest control over traditional law firms, and make the changes themselves.
So, if you're not prepared for the millennial lawyer, best get to steppin'.
Jared D. Correia is CEO of Red Cave Law Firm Consulting.
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 AllAs AI Transforms Drug Development, FDA Is Scrambling to Figure Out Guardrails
5 minute readInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
CLOs Still Jazzed About Gen Al, Even as They Realize Successfully Implementing It Is Harder Than It Looks
2 minute readTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'I've Worked Until 2 in the Morning': Lawyers Brace for Trump Policy
- 2Trial Begins for Man Accused of Killing Ga. Nursing Student Laken Riley
- 3'It's Not About Speed': Forging Strong Legal Department-Law Firm Relationships Starts With Humility, Trust
- 4Benworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
- 5Tom Girardi's Lawyers Want Next Month's Sentencing Delayed
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