Editor's Comment: A new mindset
Partners hold key in battle for next generation of legal talent
September 20, 2006 at 08:03 PM
3 minute read
There was an interesting posting by an Allen & Overy partner on legalweek.com's Career Clinic section the other day. The partner was responding to a question from an assistant who was wondering what to do about the fact that she had been asked to cancel her holiday five times in a row. The partner accompanied his advice with the following remark: "If the magic circle firm you are at is my firm… this [advice] applies just as much if not more. This sort of practice is completely against everything we stand for, so please help us put a stop to it."
Presumably, this is just the type of partner Linklaters managing partner Tony Angel had in mind when he penned a thought-provoking article on the recruitment and retention challenges facing law firms that appeared in last week's issue of Legal Week. While acknowledging that there were structural factors making it harder for solicitors to follow the traditional trainee-solicitor-partner career path, Angel claimed these were somewhat over-egged. He placed greater emphasis on the different expectations and motivations of a new generation of lawyers who are more savvy about what they want from their employers and who will not stick around if firms are failing to meet their needs.
Angel's solution was for law firms to reinvent the old apprenticeship model by placing partners back at the centre of training. His analysis of the problem facing law firms is backed up by an employee satisfaction survey that was conducted by Legal Week's research arm, Legal Week Intelligence, earlier this year. It found that law firms were good at satisfying their assistants' professional needs in terms of the quality of work on offer, but were falling well short in the pastoral care department.
When they were asked to rank various aspects of their working lives in order of importance, the assistants who took part in the survey placed 'work/life balance' first, followed by 'treatment by partners', 'firm culture' and the extent to which they were valued by their firms. Unsurprisingly, 'treatment by partners' also crops up as one of the main reasons assistants want to leave their firms.
During the past year or so, a host of firms have launched welcome initiatives to explore ways of providing their assistants and associates with alternative career paths.
But this is only one part of what is a very large problem for law firms. Until now at least, there has been far less debate about the need to secure a fundamental change of approach from the people who not only have it in their power to require assistants to repeatedly cancel their holidays, but who are actually stupid enough to exercise that power.
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
© 2025 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 AllWill a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to This Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Big Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Dominated by Small Cap Listings
X-odus: Why Germany’s Federal Court of Justice and Others Are Leaving X
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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