How you look at it - partners and associates see the future differently
There's much talk of the future of the legal profession these days, but it seems that the majority of lawyers working in the commercial sector - meaning the associates - see things rather differently to partners whose views are better-aired. That seems to be the central finding of a new report from Legal Week Intelligence on the future of the profession, which suggests that associates in some cases have grappled more fundamentally with what seismic changes to the profession would mean. In contrast, there is a trend for partners to view what law may look like in 2015 or 2020 through the prism of partner profits - meaning how the business can be reshaped so they'll still get to earn as much and have as much control.
April 21, 2010 at 07:04 PM
3 minute read
There's much talk of the future of the legal profession these days, but it seems that the majority of lawyers working in the commercial sector – meaning the associates – see things rather differently to partners whose views are better-aired.
That seems to be the central finding of a new report from Legal Week Intelligence on the future of the profession, which suggests that associates in some cases have grappled more fundamentally with what seismic changes to the profession would mean.
In contrast, there is a trend for partners to view what law may look like in 2015 or 2020 through the prism of partner profits – meaning how the business can be reshaped so they'll still get to earn as much and have as much control.
The survey also picks up a clear theme from associates that, in a world where partnership is more scarce (admittedly an unproven assumption but one that many are making), then partners should be handing more management and client duties to the senior associates.
Separately, the research finds that associates have fallen out of love with the idea of specialisation, understanding after the last two years how vulnerable it can make them to violent moves in the market that can render skill sets and years of training redundant almost overnight. Forty-two percent of associate respondents said it was better to work as a generalist, while only 24% said they wanted to specialise in one practice area. In contrast, partners still view commercial law as a game for specialists, a stance which is easier to adopt when you're not surplus to requirements if things go wrong.
There is common ground from the 900 respondents. Everyone agrees that the assistant lockstep model is toast, with three out of four of the 400-odd participating partners saying associates should be paid on a 'performance-specific model', against only 7% favouring paying the juniors on a model based on strict post-qualification experience. Distrustful associates aren't quite as gung ho, seeing this as a Trojan horse to cut associate pay, but they generally believe the industry should and will move in that direction.
There is also agreement from both camps about the key skills that modern associates need, with that old favourite, commercial awareness, the top-ranked out of eight categories by partners and associates. This put it well ahead of technical legal skills. It is obviously important, but if it means instilling some industry nous and feel for business into the troops, it's not clear why law firms don't do better at something that is largely about common sense and taking an interest in the client. In client terms, partners still think outward and associates more about their own firm.
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 AllMcDermott Hits Paul Hastings In London Again As Macfarlanes Also Swoops For Talent
2 minute readRe-Examining Values: Greenberg Traurig's Executive Chairman on the Lessons of the Pandemic
4 minute readDiversity Commitments Feel Hollow When Firms Cosy Up to Oppressive Regimes
Trending Stories
- 1Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
- 2Courts Beginning to Set Standards for Evidence Relying upon Artificial Intelligence
- 3First-Degree Murder Charge May Not Fit Mangione Case
- 4Legal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
- 5SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
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