You don't have to be cuddly, but you better play it straight
What makes staff feel satisfied? For law firms, as people businesses, that is the proverbial $64,000 question. Legal Week's research arm, Legal Week Intelligence (LWI) provides some answers with its annual Employee Satisfaction Survey, some headline findings of which we published this week.
June 18, 2009 at 08:03 PM
3 minute read
What makes staff feel satisfied? For law firms, as people businesses, that is the proverbial $64,000 question. Legal Week's research arm, Legal Week Intelligence (LWI) provides some answers with its annual Employee Satisfaction Survey, some headline findings of which we published this week.
The report, which attracted 4,020 responses, asked qualified solicitors to rate their own firms on a range of criteria. From this, LWI produced a 'core' ranking based on 11 criteria judged the most important by respondents.
To be included in the results of the research, at least 10% of a firm's associates were required to respond – and at some firms, nearly 20% of their associates took part. The theoretical maximum a firm could get if every responding associate gave it top marks for every category would be 874. In reality, any firm to score above 650 - as five firms managed – has done very well, while over 600 is OK. Scoring much below 550, however, suggests there is a problem.
What the report is not is one of those 'cuddly company to work for' surveys, which seem to proliferate these days. Though there are 'softer' criteria in the core 11 - such as work/life balance, being valued as an employee and culture – these are balanced by 'hard' factors like salary, bonus and billable hour expectations. Others are ambition-orientated, like quality of work and prestige.
That is as it should be. Commercial law firms are places for the motivated and hard-working – there's no point in grading them like summer camp. A firm that is seen as hard-nosed can score well providing it is regarded by its own assistants as delivering quality work while also keeping to its career promises. Assistants understand if firms are tough, as long as they are consistent and fair. People do not like to sign up to a false prospectus. Reality not matching the lifestyle sales pitch is, I suspect, the main reason national and regional firms have generally not excelled.
Talking to managing partners at the individual firms brings out other themes as to what can quickly turn your assistants against you. By common consent, trainee deferrals go down like a lead balloon – not just with the deferred, but the junior ranks in general. And that goes double if you don't offer decent compensation.
The LWI findings do strongly suggest that solicitors are largely reconciled to the realities of redundancies. But what they don't like is a sense that the juniors are being disproportionately targeted, and they certainly don't like firms trying to get away with statutory payoffs. While many firms will probably get away with having averagely disgruntled and fearful workforces during the slump, it can be a risky game to play if your firm suddenly becomes an outlier. As one senior partner put it to me: "Once the perception of your law firm as a bad employer becomes student folklore, it's very hard to shift."
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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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