Mixed messages – what clients mean, and what law firms think they mean
What do clients want? As a lawyer, you are doing something wrong if you can't go a long way towards answering this question. But standing in a room full of senior City partners and general counsel debating the lack of diversity in the legal profession last week, it became apparent quite how nuanced the answer can be. The event – organised by Obelisk, a commercial venture aimed at getting senior City lawyers back into work, particularly after motherhood – looked to address the main issues hindering the rise of women to the top of leading law firms. For as much as the in-house community was quick to denigrate their less diverse private practice colleagues, law firm representatives countered that clients are doing little to help the situation: what clients say they want and what clients actually want are two different things.
July 18, 2013 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
What do clients want? As a lawyer, you are doing something wrong if you can't go a long way towards answering this question. But standing in a room full of senior City partners and general counsel debating the lack of diversity in the legal profession last week, it became apparent quite how nuanced the answer can be.
The event – organised by Obelisk, a commercial venture aimed at getting senior City lawyers back into work, particularly after motherhood – looked to address the main issues hindering the rise of women to the top of leading law firms.
For as much as the in-house community was quick to denigrate their less diverse private practice colleagues, law firm representatives countered that clients are doing little to help the situation: what clients say they want and what clients actually want are two different things.
GCs – accustomed to the working environment of large corporates – say they are all in favour of flexible working if it helps retain female lawyers. And they add that there are few occasions where it actually makes a difference which particular lawyer is handling a matter, or whether they are even in the office. Or so they say.
Yet partners – particularly those in transactional practices – believe that, despite the rhetoric, this is just not true. When push comes to shove, companies want their regular adviser, and they want them now. Indeed, senior female corporate lawyers were among the loudest critics at the event, arguing that flexible working on the terms in-house teams impose just doesn't work.
But while each side is quick to blame the other, many of the problems boil down to the fundamental dynamics of the legal profession. While there is so much emphasis placed on chargeable hours and an 'up or out' culture to make partnership, it is unsurprising there is so little take-up of flexible working practices. There remains too much focus on input rather than outcomes. And clients have to take some of the blame too. Although we have seen some rare examples of law firms choosing not to pitch for panels because the terms are too arduous and the rates too low, it is still clients who call the shots – and, especially in the wake of the downturn, they are becoming more demanding still.
It is increasingly common for in-house legal teams – particularly at financial institutions; JPMorgan being one of the first – to ask law firms for diversity data as part of panel pitches. But speaking to a lawyer at one large bank, it is clear this commitment doesn't run deep. If the price was right, he said, the firm would win a place – no matter their diversity record.
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 AllUK Black History Month: Four A&O Shearman Staffers Honour Their Unsung Heroes
6 minute read'But We Exist': The Stigma Around Disability and Neurodivergence in Law Firms Persists
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
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