For many years there has been a quiet and uneasy controversy within firms on whether to limit the tenure of the firm leader. In fact, a decision to restrict the firm chairman’s length of service to no more than two three-year terms is regarded as one of the reasons for Heller Ehrman’s collapse.
For me this has been an amusing debate, given the lack of internal adulation accorded most managing partners. After all, working in management is what smart lawyers are said to disparage. So here we have an important leadership role that people aren’t exactly chasing after (and one that isn’t always accorded the respect that it deserves), and then we impose artificial limits on the tenure of the incumbent. Does that make any sense?
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
