Successfully Navigating Lateral Hiring
Lateral hiring is a necessary part of the changing legal landscape, and it can yield mutually beneficial results for both attorney and law firm. For the attorney, a lateral move can improve advancement possibilities, while also potentially providing a greater platform for clients, different work-life balance and better compensation. For the law firm, lateral additions can increase revenue, expand or deepen the bench in certain practice areas and achieve growth objectives.
August 09, 2017 at 07:17 AM
5 minute read
Lateral hiring is a necessary part of the changing legal landscape, and it can yield mutually beneficial results for both attorney and law firm. For the attorney, a lateral move can improve advancement possibilities, while also potentially providing a greater platform for clients, different work-life balance and better compensation. For the law firm, lateral additions can increase revenue, expand or deepen the bench in certain practice areas and achieve growth objectives.
Of course, lateral hiring brings with it risks. In some situations, firms acquire other firms' problems without the reward, or with unforeseen conflicts. Many law firms try to prevent unnecessary risk in hiring lateral attorneys by adopting practices, protocols and procedures.
One critical aspect of the lateral hiring process is to clearly define the moment that the candidate moves from being prospective to actual. When a partner joins a partnership or a nonpartner becomes an employee, typically the conflict of interest rules under Rule 3-310 of the California Rules of Professional Responsibility attach and could impute an existing conflict to the hiring law firm (or create a new one).
This content has been archived.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 AllFreshfields, Paul Hastings, McDermott, Alston Hire in Core Practices, Amid Flurry of Q4 Lateral Moves
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Burns White Names Conshohocken Litigator as New CEO
- 2Mattel Sued Over 'Wicked' Dolls With Pornographic Website
- 3Brown Rudnick’s Brand and Reputation Group Unfazed After Loss of 6 Prominent Partners and Their Big-Name Clients
- 4Fulton Judge Weighs Whether to Order Fani Willis to Comply With Lawmakers' Subpoenas Over Trump Case
- 5Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
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