For new(ish) associates: Speak up!

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Dan Hull, of What About Clients? blog fame, posted a key question that associates (really, all lawyers) must be able to answer at a moment’s notice: What are you thinking?  As Dan put it, “If a neuron fires in a brilliant young lawyer’s head, and no one hears it go off, did it even happen?”  Dan writes to encourage more senior lawyers to ask junior associates what they’re thinking and to teach those lawyers to volunteer their thoughts, and I couldn’t agree more.

But new(ish) lawyers are often uncomfortable volunteering their ideas, feeling that because they’re new and have a lot to learn about practice, it’s better (as Abraham Lincoln advised) to “remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”  This fallacious belief is what Mark Herrmann, author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law, refers to as the “potted plant” mistake.  That “wisdom” backfires in the law firm setting, though.  A new lawyer must add value immediately, and sharing questions or insights is the quickest way to do that.  (It goes without saying that these insights must be well-considered, right?)

What I like about Dan’s advice is that the simple question, “What are you thinking?” creates an atmosphere of collegial inquiry.  It not only allows more senior lawyers to get an insight into a newer lawyer’s thinking process, whether to reap the benefit of brilliance or to dispel a mistaken assumption before it causes harm, but also it open the opportunity for the newer lawyer to learn how the more senior attorneys are analyzing the issue at hand, sifting the important from the irrelevant, and cooking up an approach most likely to meet the client’s goals.

So, new(ish) lawyers, volunteer your thoughts, and ask what others working on your cases are thinking.  (Don’t forget to ask paralegals and secretaries, too.  You might be surprised at the insight that these people can have, and it’s a painless way to remind yourself that non-attorney legal professionals can make a variety of valuable contributions if provided the opportunity.)

Another take on associate retention rates

/6 Comments/in , /by

Most of the news about associate retention is cast in negatives — quoting, for example, that 60-62% of entry-level associates will have left their firms by the end of their fourth year in practice.  What if changing jobs more frequently is simply a fact of modern life? Or the result of dual career couples, the consequence of frequent moves from one city to another, or an indication of refusal to settle for a career or lifestyle?

Although the thoughts don’t transfer entirely to law, Penelope Trunk, the Brazen Careerist, has an interesting post today titled  Make Life More Stable With Frequent Job Changes.  The thrust of the post is that most new employees today will change jobs every two years (that’s what I find difficult to apply to a legal practice), will start adult life by moving back into their parents’ homes, and “will say that money is not their number one concern in evaluating a job.”   Trunk argues that the old paths to stability no longer work and that job-hopping is the new way to be stable, which she defines as “knowing you have a life where you can do what you love, during your whole life, not just at the end.”

Trunk identifies 5 ways to use frequent job changes to build stability.  Whether you change jobs once or repeatedly, most of these are excellent suggestions:

1.  Build up a strong skill set quickly.

2.  Get good at making transitions.

3. Make the most of the in-between-jobs time.

4.  Get out of paying your dues.  (If you find a way to do this in law, forget practice and write up your methodology instead.  If it really works, you’ll be a prize-winning author.  I’ll remain skeptical.)

5.  Keep your finances in order.

Watch for upcoming posts that will wrestle with the question of whether it’s possible to find career stability — meaning, satisfaction, rewards in whatever metric(s) apply to you — without changing jobs so frequently.  Perhaps it will surprise no one that I think the answer is unreservedly, yes!

Taking a short break

/3 Comments/in , /by

I suppose the flu is going around everywhere now — part of the last gasp of winter.  And, I’ve got it, and it’s hideous.

I’m going to get some rest and get well.  I’ll be back by Monday.

Until then, here’s a quote for your reflection:

“As a leader, you have to not only do the right thing, but be perceived to be doing the right thing. A consequence of seeking a leadership position is being put under intense public scrutiny, being held to high standards, and enhancing a reputation that is constantly under threat.”

— Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Andrew Ward
Firing Back

Escape the trap

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Most of the lawyers I talk with enjoy practicing law, at least to some degree.  They may not love it, but there’s some part of practice that works for them, whether it’s the intellectual challenge, the stand-up work that can harness the acting bug, or even the money.  I don’t think I’ve ever met a lawyer who thinks her practice is just perfect, with no need for growth or adjustment, but the majority of lawyers aren’t desperately searching for a way out of the profession.

I find that one trait is almost universal among those who are unhappy in practice, though: a sense of being trapped, with no alternatives, no escape, just a decades-long future in the same miserable position.

The source of the misery varies, of course.  Sometimes it’s working too many hours, with the accompanying pain of a distant or angry spouse/family, no time to develop a relationship, or feelings of burnout from trying to please clients, employers/partners, family, friends, etc., but lacking time to enjoy personal pursuits.  Sometimes it’s feeling trapped in a job that doesn’t fit, because of the practice type, clients, colleagues, the way the firm (or company) operates, or because the money is an insufficient reward for the effort required and there’s no passion to balance it.  And sometimes, it’s the result of years of academic competition without any particular direction, yielding a terrific but unwanted legal career.

Lawyers talk about golden handcuffs, and especially in view of law school debt, that’s a real phenomenon.  However, I stand for the believe that no one is ever truly trapped.  There’s always an option, usually a variety of them, though it may take the help of someone else to see what those options are.

Sometimes the choices only require an adjustment.  For instance, burnout can often be countered with rigorous energy management.  (If that intrigues you, read The Power of Full Engagementby Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz.)  Sometimes, the choices are much more difficult — a new job or practice, perhaps with a pay cut.  And sometimes, the path is undefined and the first steps of moving into it are exhilarating and also terrifying.

So, for anyone who’s wondering: the trap, though it looks real, is an illusion.  In Einstein’s words: “The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them,” and One cannot alter a condition with the same mind set that created it in the first place.

Book Review: The No Asshole Rule

/2 Comments/in , , /by

I’ve been intending to write this review for months.  What can I say about a book that so clearly describes the consequences of working with nasty people?  Or of being a nasty person?  It isn’t often that I feel gut-level resonance with a business book.  My best advice here: stop reading, now, and go order The No Asshole Rule.  Then, come back and keep reading.

Dr. Robert I. Sutton is a champion of the civilized workplace, created and maintained through careful enforcement of the “no asshole rule.”  Expanding and deepening his 2004 Harvard Business Review article entitled “More Trouble Than They’re Worth,” Sutton’s forthcoming book The No Asshole Rule (to be published on February 22, 2007, by Warner Business Books, but apparently shipping now through Amazon) offers valuable tips for eliminating or avoiding nasty people in business.  In less than 200 pages, Bob explains how to identify a workplace asshole (even how to tell if you’re the asshole) and describes the damage these assholes wreak on the organizations in which they work and the clients and colleagues with whom they come into contact.  He even addresses how to handle a workplace asshole, while warning of the dangers of “asshole poisoning.”  This is a must-read.  Seriously.

According to Bob, an asshole is one who oppresses, humiliates, de-energizes, or belittles his target (generally someone less powerful then himself), causing the target to feel worse about herself following an interaction with the asshole.  (And, as his examples prove, this behavior is not by any means limited to male perpetrators or female victims.)  These jerks use tactics such as personal insults, sarcasm and teasing as vehicles for insults, shaming, and treating people as if they’re invisible to demean others.  Sutton distinguishes temporary assholes (because, as he notes, we all have the potential to act like jerks at times, particularly when we’re stressed) from certified assholes, who routinely show themselves to be nasty people.  The latter, he argues, must go.

Having diagnosed the problem, he then recommends how to implement and enforce a “no asshole rule,” how an asshole may reform himself/herself, and how to survive working in nasty environments or with nasty people.  Finally, Bob discusses the dangerous topic of the benefits of assholes (such as motivating fear-driven performance and perfectionism), describing his trepidation in doing so as a concern that an asshole might seize on the benefits to justify her behavior.

Wondering whether you’re an asshole?  Take the self-test on Guy Kawasaki’s blog. Have a few co-workers (lawyers and staff) take the test for you.The American Lawyer has, according to Bob, published an article on The No Asshole Rule, but it isn’t available online.  Check your library.

It’s easy to identify the asshole partner in a law firm – the kind of lawyer who berates less senior lawyers and staff, the kind who’s prone to throwing things, the kind who goes red in the face, the kind who makes cutting comments thinly disguised as “humor.”  Those are the partners (or occasionally associates, but quite rarely so) who are labeled difficult, possibly aren’t permitted to interact with summer associates, and are tolerated only to the extent they bring in the business or the money.  Lest anyone think the choice is between being an overly polite wimp or a raving jerk, Bob specifically addresses the value of healthy, even noisy, conflict that is constructive for all involved.

Although the asshole partner is, unfortunately, almost an archetype in law firm life, it’s just as important to identify asshole clients – or better yet, asshole potential clients.  Those are the clients who will demand and demean, who will push good lawyers to make bad arguments, who will cause their lawyers untold stress.  Lawyers must know when to refuse a case, and evaluating the cost of representing an asshole is a critical underlying skill.

Predictions following the salary bump

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Has anyone missed the news about the recent salary bump?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Plenty of questions remain, such as to what extent salaries increases will spread to other parts of the country and what increased expectations, if any, will be imposed on the anointed associates.  I’d like to make several predictions about what’s likely to happen following the raises:

1. In-house hiring will go up.  I’ve talked with several in-house lawyers who’ve been a part of strategy meetings on how to cope with the trickle-down effect (or the anticipated trickle-down) of the bump.  The consensus seems to be that it’s time to bulk up in-house, since it may be cheaper for corporations to keep their routine legal work rather than sending it to highly priced outside counsel.

2. Midsized and smaller firms will be even more competitive with large firms.  Again, clients will expect (with good reason) to see higher legal bills from large firms following the salary increase.  Associates will likely need to bill more hours, hourly fees will likely go up, and so on.  Midsized and smaller firms may feel a need to raise salaries a bit, but the chance of starting salaries coming even close to $160K in these firms is remote.  Accordingly, clients may be interested in retaining these firms for the same reasons that they will be bringing more work in-house: to reduce legal bills.  This is a real opportunity for midsized and smaller firms.  Those firms can capture additional work, and they’ll have a chance to wow the client and perhaps increase the range of services to the client.

3. More senior lawyers (i.e. partners, especially those who experienced the market bubble and burst of the 1980s and late 1990s/early 2000s) may brace for a market drop.  What that tendency may mean is anybody’s guess, but it’s reasonable to expect that this will happen.  They may also resent the associates making these stratospheric salaries, making office camaraderie somewhat dicey.

4. Significant increases in lateral moves.  Given these huge salary increases, associates may be more easily tempted to jump ship.  Will the bumps stem associate attrition?  Doubtful, since the increases have been fairly well-matched within markets.

So, those are my predictions.  What do you foresee?  Comments welcome, as always.

WSJ Blog takes on work/life balance; will salary bump stem associate attrition?

/2 Comments/in , , /by

In early December, the Wall Street Journal started a new blog, The Juggle, dedicated to work/life balance issues.  The tag line limits the discussion to “choices and tradeoffs people make as they juggle work and family,” and I’ll be curious to see whether the posts will continue on that line or whether they’ll broaden out to entertain other reasons for a juggling act.

One of the most interesting posts so far is More Money, Fewer Problems.  A first-year associate at a New York firm, who’s also the mother of a 16-month old child, apparently wrote the blog recently to share the effects of the recent bump in her salary to $160K: “That salary bump has significantly affected my thinking as to how long I will really stay at this job. It also, interestingly, for better or worse, made me feel better about getting home late last night. I felt that at least I was getting paid for it. And when I heard the news of the raise, my first thought was, OK — now preschool won’t be such a struggle to pay for.”  At the time of this writing, the post had generated 82 comments, many of which (not too surprisingly) criticize the “greedy associate” mentality.  Put on your seatbelt for this read.

The news about the salary escalation prompted me to wonder about its effect on associate retention.  No question that salary increases are necessary to keep large firms on a level playing field, and no question that associates benefit in some ways from those increases.  (I still remember my delight in making X in June 1999, X+11K in early January 2000, and X+11K+20K in mid-January!)  But I question whether money alone is sufficient to keep associates.

After all, if the pay is competitive among firms, wouldn’t an economically rational lawyer jump from one firm to another to retain the same pay (or to get the bump that often comes with a new position) and to search for a good fit?  (This assumes that the attrition stats, such as NALP’s report that 37% of BigLaw associates leave a firm by the end of the third year in practice, are valid and that the attrition isn’t driven solely by associates seeking more money.)  That leaves the associate in the same economic position (or, depending on perspective, with a new pair of golden handcuffs)  and the firms with significant attrition and the attendant costs.  I’ll be curious to see how this plays out, but I don’t think increasing salaries will promote retention, particularly given the increased expectations that firms will place on associates to fund the pay bump.

On this point, visit the Up to PAR blog for commentary about a recent ABA Journal article that reported “overwhelming” associate feedback that they’d take a pay cut to work fewer hours.  The post, titled Associates v. Partners v. Clients, effectively skewers those who argue that associates who bill fewer hours are less committed than those who work more.  (PAR’s rebuttal: “You have to be extremely committed to the law to try to be a lawyer while also meeting obligations outside the office.”)  Interesting ABA article, and PAR’s examination is even more interesting.

I have to note, though, that I don’t believe any one initiative will promote associate retention.  After all, not all lawyers do want to work fewer hours — and there’s certainly a tension even among those who’d prefer fewer hours when considering how much pay is necessary to maintain the desired standard of living.  So if the solution isn’t money or reduced hours, what is it?  Practicing law is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all endeavor, and law firms may be hard-pressed to find ways to focus on client service and remain profitable while retaining associate “talent.”  Perhaps the future will allow firms and associates to cut individually-based deals that benefit both sides.  This is a trend that seems to be bubbling up now; if it’s successful, it could change the way firms operate.   More on this another day.

One final thought about The Juggle: I’m surprised that a couple of posts describing the experience of a professional caring for a parent (blog author Sara Schaefer Muñoz’s grandfather) attracted no comments.  I find it hard to believe that blog readers aren’t members of the sandwich generation, and I’m curious that this post, at least, didn’t stir up some reaction.

The Cheat Sheet for women lawyers

/5 Comments/in , , /by

The New York City Bar Women Lawyers Committee has put together a “Cheat Sheet”for women lawyers (or law students) interviewing legal employers or seeking to evaluate a current employer’s commitment to women.

Geared toward gender issues, obviously, the Cheat Sheet is largely applicable for evaluating any diversity issue.  It’s an interesting document, not least because of its comprehensiveness.  The 9-page document includes questions on the “six key indicia of an employer’s commitment to women’s retention and advancement,” including “(a) statistical and background information, (b) partnership and advancement, (c) leadership and accountability, (d) business development and networking, (e) workplace flexibility (including time management and work/life balance), and (f) mentoring,” and also includes recommendations for law firms and law schools.

In addition to the Cheat Sheet, the Committee’s website includes an interesting video documentary entitled Changing Lives: Pioneering New York Women Attorneys and a report on the Best Practices for the Hiring, Training, Retention and Advancement of Women Attorneys.

It’s been about a year now since the New York Times published its article “Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms,” citing a NALP study showing that only 17% of big law partners were women in 2005, a small gain from 1995, when 13% of partners were women.  (For a somewhat depressing follow-up, visit this page, which offers subscriber-only links to articles that address mandatory retirement for older lawyers, ask why African-American lawyers are less successful at major firms than their white counterparts, and tout a client-initiated diversity push.  The abstracts give the flavor.)

I appreciate the Cheat Sheet because it provides questions that any lawyers/law student can ask, perhaps at carefully-selected times, or to which they may determine answers through observation.  Although having the questions doesn’t by any means guarantee a smooth path for women or any other group (middle-aged or younger white men included), it does level the playing field by granting some information about the likely expectations and biases of the employer as exhibited through current behavior.  And, really, I’m not sure it’s possible to ask for much more than that under current circumstances.  Perhaps the knowledge gained will assist individuals in creating change in law firm partnership ranks.

Client-centric marketing

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Do you ever feel uncomfortable talking about yourself and your practice when you’re networking in hopes of developing new business?  Many lawyers do.  (And some lawyers who don’t feel that way perhaps should — but that’s another post.)  But there’s good news: talking about what you do isn’t the way to generate interest from a potential client.  Of course, clients care that you (and, if applicable, other lawyers in your firm) have strong experience and good skills in the practice area that matches their needs, but chances are, something else sets you apart.

Have you ever considered what makes you different from other lawyers who serve similar clients?  I hope at least one response is that you care even more deeply about your clients than other lawyers do, and that your practice is all about client service.  Assuming that to be the case, shouldn’t you market in the same way?

When you have the experiences and credentials to back you up, the best marketing is client-centric.  It’s all about being interested in the client’s needs, the client’s concerns, and how you can meet those needs and concerns to accomplish the client’s objective.  (In some instances, of course, it may be that the client’s objectives shouldn’t be accomplished — if a parent wants to use child custody to punish the other parent in a bitter divorce, for example — but that, too, is another post.)

Of course, you won’t often be presented with an opportunity to demonstrate this to a potential client, but you can do the next best thing: show interest in each person you meet.  Demonstrate your attitude of service in each networking encounter.  Rather than approaching networking as an opportunity to let people know about you and what you’ve accomplished, focus your attention on finding out about the people you meet and their interests.  Give it a try, and notice how people respond.  You’ll almost certainly be pleased.

Side benefit: this is a terrific strategy for introverts.  The conversation is likely to flow easily and to require little of you (at least initially) other than your genuine interest.

Sustainability

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I burn my candle at both ends
It will not last the night.
But ah my foes and oh my friends
It gives a lovely light.
       Edna St. Vincent Millay

What do you think when you read this?  If you’re like many lawyers, you felt a flutter of recognition — perhaps just before you recoiled at the idea that, perhaps, your candle won’t “last the night.”  It’s just the weak who can’t burn and burn and burn, right?

Sustainability isn’t a sexy word, and most of us don’t see it as something to aim for.  After all, we tend to want bigger and better and more, not homeostasis.  What does it mean, though, to have a “sustainable practice”?

According to Merriam-Webster, “to sustain” means (among other things) “to supply with sustenance: nourish” and “to keep up, prolong.”   And sustainable means, of course, “capable of being sustained” or “of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods.”

How do you nourish your practice?  How does your lifestyle support you in keeping up and prolonging your practice?  Ideas that occur to me (aside from the standard work less and play more, which is easy to say and very difficult to do):

1.  Discover what’s meaningful to you and focus your attention and practice on that.  If it’s client service, you will draw a strength and energy from serving your clients that someone who’s in practice because of the intellectual stimulation won’t experience.  Connecting to what matters to you illuminates your purpose.  Having a purpose nourishes your practice.

2.  Delegate.  If you can identify aspects of practice that you personally don’t have to fulfill, you’ll increase your energy by passing it along to someone who can handle it.  If you find yourself thinking that you’ll spend less time doing it (whatever it is) than teaching someone else to do it, consider whether you’ll save time over the long run if you turn it over, even if it requires an investment of time now.

3.  Connect.  If you enjoy socializing, make sure you have a group of lawyers you join for lunch or drinks or a volleyball game on a regular basis.  You’ll increase social contact, have a group of colleagues to use as sounding boards, build a resource for giving and getting referrals, and more.  You can even do this online, but consider whether you’d get more out of interacting with flesh and blood colleagues.

4.  Notice how your body feels when you have adequate sleep, nutrition, and exercise.  Just notice.  If your noticing convinces you that you feel better and have more energy, consider what to do with that knowledge.

5.  Develop discipline.  You can put a schedule in place that will support you.  Plan time when you put your calls on hold and get concentrated work done.  Set time aside for meeting with your support staff, the lawyers you supervise, and those who supervise you.

6.  Take time for outside interests.  Hike, read, act, whatever… But don’t allow yourself to be one-dimensional.

7.  Do you live on adrenaline and caffeine?  If so, chances are that you’re running from crisis to crisis.  Ask yourself whether there’s a way to limit the crunches to times when there’s really a crisis.  What feels good about putting out fires?  Spending some time resolving this will provide support for making changes that leave you working on a non-emergency basis, which facilitates having more energy.  Adrenaline and caffeine are great, but they’re hardly the key to a sustainable practice or life.

8.  Set aside time to check your progress on these and other habits that support you and your practice.  Because it’s easy to get sucked into a hectic schedule (with your candle burning not only at both ends but in the middle, too), arrange a relationship that will hold you accountable to whatever adjustments you may decide to make.  Consider whether coaching might be the appropriate relationship.