Making Millennial Lawyers Happy: How to Attract, Retain This Group
Some firms are even embracing other facets of the new economy to keep attorneys happy: telecommuting, alternative fee structures and flex time, among others.
March 04, 2019 at 10:15 AM
6 minute read
There has been an increased focus in recent years on making the law a happier profession. Step into most offices of Big Law in South Florida and you will likely see the fruits of these efforts: a more inviting and open office design, a relaxed dress code and art adorning expansive white wall spaces. Some firms are even embracing other facets of the new economy to keep attorneys happy: telecommuting, alternative fee structures and flex time, among others.
While these are all important developments and should not be discounted, they do not, in and of themselves, solve the fundamental problem as it relates to attracting and retaining millennials. Given that this generation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, currently makes up nearly 50 percent of the workforce and will increase to 75 percent by 2030, maximizing their happiness is an essential planning tool.
Hopefully, the myth that millennials are lazy has been debunked by now. Research shows that this simply is not the case and that in fact they are as hard working as their Gen-X and Baby Boomer peers. While the promise of financial gain will always matter to some degree to millennials, so do other qualities: connectedness, personal equity and autonomy.
The notion that a more connected workplace can increase happiness and productivity has long been borne out by social science. Millennials, however, disproportionately crave social cohesion in the workplace. The traditional layout of a law office offers a stark antithesis to this need. In that sense, it is essential to change the physical layout of a law office by incorporating more communal working space, deemphasize the importance of the corner office (or any office at all), and encourage attorneys to change work spaces when desired to foster collaboration and creativity.
That being said, connectedness requires more than implementing a Palo Alto floorplan and being located in an interesting neighborhood. What really matters is the quality of interaction that is emphasized in the office. While these dynamics cannot be manufactured, there are ways that a firm's leadership can attempt to foster them. Primarily, this can be achieved by discarding the traditional notion of the young attorney as the individual waiting at the office for the senior attorney's instruction, and instead including that attorney in your meetings, calls and interactions with clients as well as providing them opportunities to participate in the development of strategy. While there is no easy fix to achieve connectedness, changing the way we view the young attorney is a great start.
The concept of personal equity should not be confused with that of equity ownership (although we provide participating attorneys with an ownership stake in alternative fee arrangements such as contingency, equity and success fee arrangements).
Personal equity refers to the building of an attorney's personal brand in a manner that will survive the attorney's tenure with the firm. At first blush, this might seem inconsistent with the dated notion of engendering (or even demanding) loyalty. And in fact, it is. As a result of the economic reality they grew up in, millennials tend to be cynical about their employer's long-term motivations and believe that they are fungible. The millennial lawyer's social contract therefore goes something like this: I will give you all I have for as long as I'm with you, as long as you give me all you can give me until the time arrives when one of us decides to move on.
This also requires a shift in thinking and approach. And perhaps not ironically, it is by adhering to this social contract that a law firm has the best shot at retaining millennial lawyers. By doing so, the law firm should empower the younger attorneys by reemphasizing to them that they are as valuable as any other person in the firm, and that the firm is there to improve and maximize their abilities, providing constant feedback and honest assessments.
Finally, millennials crave a sense of autonomy. This does not necessarily mean that millennials want to be left alone without support, but it does require that employers discard the condescending “face-time” culture that was a hallmark of past generations. Moreover, millennials generally want to be trusted to do the job they are required to do.
At its core, firms are (or perhaps should be) concerned with three specific questions concerning an attorney's work product: Do you complete your work? Do you complete your work on time?Do you complete your work well (i.e., excellent work product)? If the answer is yes across the board, then where and how an attorney completes their work should be inconsequential. By dismissing the requirement of physical presence in the office for 10-plus hours a day, millennial attorneys would have the flexibility and autonomy they crave. Not to mention, if millennial attorneys opt to work from home or elsewhere, the firm may reap the financial benefits of avoiding the significant costs of maintaining expensive multi-floor office spaces. Instead firms could better utilize the technology they may already provide to their attorneys.
Similarly, millennials are less likely to want to wholly identify with their professional credentials or affiliation. I may work at AXS Law, but why can't I also identify as an artist, a marathon runner or a community activist, or all of them? In a world dominated by social media, millennials carry the generational torch of self-expression and want to represent themselves as a sum of their parts rather than as a monolith. In other words, to cross-brand themselves, which in turn places the millennial attorney in their community more frequently, and optimizes their chances to obtain business.
For those of an older vintage, there is a temptation to ask the threshold question of why any of this happiness stuff even matters. If the bottom line for you is the bottom line, then here's a sobering thought: unhappiness in your millennial workforce will cost you dearly. Better to embrace the new social contract!
Benjamin Wolkov and Brandon Rose are attorneys with AXS Law Group in Miami. Contact Walkov at [email protected] and Rose at [email protected]
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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