Biglaw lateral associates

[Anonymous]

Our lateral hires are 15% fantastic and otherwise clearly left their previous firm because their work was subpar, they were and are unwilling to put in hours (and I am talking about just hitting the 2000 hours a year), or they have a bad attitude or don’t fit into our firm culture (including by being rude to our juniors and always assigning “emergency work” that should not have been an emergency) and all of those things became clear once they started. It’s turned me off quite a bit to laterals. You never know what you’re going to get, but I expect it to be negative unless they’ve proven otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a half baked theory that people are really only open to feedback on how to do their jobs the first 3 years or so they are doing it.

Hiring a lateral is basically a crapshoot because you have no idea how someone else trained them and the odds they trained them the way you would have are pretty low since organizational cultures vary more than you’d think. And getting them to switch to your culture/expectations is going to be pretty hard.

+ 1 and think about why they are lateraling. Firms all expect the same work product, hours etc. If they’re trying to get away from a bad partner or moved cities, ok. Otherwise, why are they leaving just to go to another place with the same job? If they hate the job they should leave Biglaw altogether (that’s what I and many others I know did). My guess is you’re getting the bottom of the barrel folks. Why aren’t you training up your own? If the culture is as gentle as you say, you shouldn’t have the retention issues that lead to needing lateral hires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a half baked theory that people are really only open to feedback on how to do their jobs the first 3 years or so they are doing it.

Hiring a lateral is basically a crapshoot because you have no idea how someone else trained them and the odds they trained them the way you would have are pretty low since organizational cultures vary more than you’d think. And getting them to switch to your culture/expectations is going to be pretty hard.

+ 1 and think about why they are lateraling. Firms all expect the same work product, hours etc. If they’re trying to get away from a bad partner or moved cities, ok. Otherwise, why are they leaving just to go to another place with the same job? If they hate the job they should leave Biglaw altogether (that’s what I and many others I know did). My guess is you’re getting the bottom of the barrel folks. Why aren’t you training up your own? If the culture is as gentle as you say, you shouldn’t have the retention issues that lead to needing lateral hires.

OP here, and these responses are very helpful. As to your last question about why we aren't training up on our own.... I have a somewhat niche practice, where associates are often not interested in committing because it pulls them off the more traditional client work. So i don't have anyone in the senior associate ranks. But in the last few years it's become a very hot area (both the quantity of work, and associate interest) and I have a couple very junior homegrown associates we've been training up and they're fantastic. But the quantity of work we have is completely overwhelming, and there aren't enough internal associates to handle it, and so we have looked outside the firm too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a half baked theory that people are really only open to feedback on how to do their jobs the first 3 years or so they are doing it.

Hiring a lateral is basically a crapshoot because you have no idea how someone else trained them and the odds they trained them the way you would have are pretty low since organizational cultures vary more than you’d think. And getting them to switch to your culture/expectations is going to be pretty hard.

+ 1 and think about why they are lateraling. Firms all expect the same work product, hours etc. If they’re trying to get away from a bad partner or moved cities, ok. Otherwise, why are they leaving just to go to another place with the same job? If they hate the job they should leave Biglaw altogether (that’s what I and many others I know did). My guess is you’re getting the bottom of the barrel folks. Why aren’t you training up your own? If the culture is as gentle as you say, you shouldn’t have the retention issues that lead to needing lateral hires.

OP here, and these responses are very helpful. As to your last question about why we aren't training up on our own.... I have a somewhat niche practice, where associates are often not interested in committing because it pulls them off the more traditional client work. So i don't have anyone in the senior associate ranks. But in the last few years it's become a very hot area (both the quantity of work, and associate interest) and I have a couple very junior homegrown associates we've been training up and they're fantastic. But the quantity of work we have is completely overwhelming, and there aren't enough internal associates to handle it, and so we have looked outside the firm too.

NP here. I am former big law, now in house. My DH is a big law partner. I would be concerned that you don’t have mid and senior level associates that stay in your group and that you have a need to hire laterals. I know you explained you have a niche, but are you taking the time to really train and mentor good talent so that a junior level wants to stay in your practice group? Are you grooming talent to elevate her/him one day to be elected partner?

My DH had to change his mindset because he kept having people who he really wanted to stay leave. They were leaving because the hours were too demanding, or their family life was suffering or they thought he was too difficult. He is very particular about who he gives work but how he takes so much time with them to mentor and listen to them, support them and he’s had several associates (including a few laterals) make partner that he nominated. Now he has a very good reputation as a partner who will have your back and associates want to work for him.

Laterals are tricky. He has had more success with hiring laterals who are moving to the DMV for their spouse’s job vs someone who is already local or laterals who came with a new partner.

As in house, I don’t like seeing on the bill an associate charging me for redlining and attaching emails. We go over that stuff; I would ask you to write that off. And you need to be training all new hires on how to do this stuff (turn into pdf, how redline works, how to scan, etc). Even in house has to do that with our hires. Just go over it with every single new hire. I am amazed at what younger people in my office do know how to do and then don’t know. I’m 50, I am not tech savvy but at least once a week I discover some 20-30 something doesnt know how to edit a PDF (for example). Just have a system for all new hires, it should be taught or reinforced on their first or second day. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a half baked theory that people are really only open to feedback on how to do their jobs the first 3 years or so they are doing it.

Hiring a lateral is basically a crapshoot because you have no idea how someone else trained them and the odds they trained them the way you would have are pretty low since organizational cultures vary more than you’d think. And getting them to switch to your culture/expectations is going to be pretty hard.

+ 1 and think about why they are lateraling. Firms all expect the same work product, hours etc. If they’re trying to get away from a bad partner or moved cities, ok. Otherwise, why are they leaving just to go to another place with the same job? If they hate the job they should leave Biglaw altogether (that’s what I and many others I know did). My guess is you’re getting the bottom of the barrel folks. Why aren’t you training up your own? If the culture is as gentle as you say, you shouldn’t have the retention issues that lead to needing lateral hires.

OP here, and these responses are very helpful. As to your last question about why we aren't training up on our own.... I have a somewhat niche practice, where associates are often not interested in committing because it pulls them off the more traditional client work. So i don't have anyone in the senior associate ranks. But in the last few years it's become a very hot area (both the quantity of work, and associate interest) and I have a couple very junior homegrown associates we've been training up and they're fantastic. But the quantity of work we have is completely overwhelming, and there aren't enough internal associates to handle it, and so we have looked outside the firm too.

NP here. I am former big law, now in house. My DH is a big law partner. I would be concerned that you don’t have mid and senior level associates that stay in your group and that you have a need to hire laterals. I know you explained you have a niche, but are you taking the time to really train and mentor good talent so that a junior level wants to stay in your practice group? Are you grooming talent to elevate her/him one day to be elected partner?

My DH had to change his mindset because he kept having people who he really wanted to stay leave. They were leaving because the hours were too demanding, or their family life was suffering or they thought he was too difficult. He is very particular about who he gives work but how he takes so much time with them to mentor and listen to them, support them and he’s had several associates (including a few laterals) make partner that he nominated. Now he has a very good reputation as a partner who will have your back and associates want to work for him.

Laterals are tricky. He has had more success with hiring laterals who are moving to the DMV for their spouse’s job vs someone who is already local or laterals who came with a new partner.

As in house, I don’t like seeing on the bill an associate charging me for redlining and attaching emails. We go over that stuff; I would ask you to write that off. And you need to be training all new hires on how to do this stuff (turn into pdf, how redline works, how to scan, etc). Even in house has to do that with our hires. Just go over it with every single new hire. I am amazed at what younger people in my office do know how to do and then don’t know. I’m 50, I am not tech savvy but at least once a week I discover some 20-30 something doesnt know how to edit a PDF (for example). Just have a system for all new hires, it should be taught or reinforced on their first or second day. Seriously.

Thanks for this response. I agree I don't like the fact that we don't have senior associates, but it really is a niche industry with only a handful of lawyers across the US doing this work, and very few well trained senior associates. So this is a problem consistent across firms. It actually makes sense to me, because until a few years ago when this area got hot, associates liked worked with us a lot but by year 3 or 4, start gravitating towards more traditional subject matters - and tell us as much. So that was less about training/not supporting them, and more about their non desire to do this type of work in the long term. With all that said, I know we don't train enough - there's just no time (as i write on dcum lol).

As I've been on this thread this morning, I was emailing with another mid year associate lateral at another (even higher ranked) firm. He was just hired last year from one of our clients. And when i worked with him at our client, he was a total weirdo and the client had gently pushed him out without firing him. And now he's a 3rd year at another stellar firm, doing this same work. I highly doubt this other firm is enjoying working with him. I have another client who used to be a big law associate doing this work, and he says his (also top ranked firm) has had the job posting up for 2+ years since he left; they still haven't found a replacement. So maybe that's evidence that this problem is pretty universal for our subject matter.

[Anonymous]

Strongly disagree that the job is the same at all firms. I often see someone labeled bad at their first firm but then they knock out of the park at their next firm because fit matters so much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The examples you give used to be secretarial tasks. If you have people who don’t know how to redline a document or attach things to emails, have somebody show them how.

No, those aren’t secretarial tasks. An associate who’s been at any firm for more than a week should know how to run a redline and attach a document. If you can’t handle those tasks for $300k/year, how can you be trusted to do more substantive work?

Um they are secretarial tasks. The fact that no one has secretaries anymore doesn’t change that this isn’t evidence of their legal skills or lack thereof— it’s a basic tech tip that someone could explain in 5 minutes.

The standard practice when an associate turns a draft is for them to attach the doc and a redline. This is part of the associate’s job. Calling it secretarial makes an excuse for the associate’s incompetence.

Those skills are not taught at law school, ffs. Yes, it's part of their job. But it doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of their legal work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to communicate with the associates or have someone else do it and say they need to be on the office more and have more billable hours. If they aren’t in the office more during the on office days what do you think they are doing when they are WFH. If they can’t meet targets or billable don’t let them WFH.

I don’t work in law (my husband was an associate at Cravath 20 years ago but isn’t in big law anymore) but in most other fields if people aren’t getting what needs to get done the WFH benefit gets stopped. Making $300k and working only 10-6 is ridiculous for an associate. My husband worked night and day and weekends when he was an associate at Cravath.

So you have nothing relevant to contribute here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey op here. Just to clarify, because this thread has dialed in on a few points that aren’t really key to my question. Yes, these associates only come in the office on short days a few days a week. But their short days aren’t what’s bothering me; I was just citing those short days as examples of how we’re not treating them like crap. The associates work outside those hours too- just not a lot. We have spoken to this associate several times about their billable hours, mostly from a concern perspective (ie you won’t get bonus) but have recently gotten more specific about how many hours they should target daily and monthly. But if this associate only wants to work 1700 a year, I’m fine with that if it’s taking 1700 hours of work off my plate. So the hours aren’t a huge problem for me - so long as the work quality is good. Which it’s not.

The email attachment was a bit hyperbole (though the first associate we fired had trouble under even minor pressure with those tasks). Our current associate can handle those types of tasks, but this week dropped the ball majorly on two big things: the first, a client deadline that had been very clearly conveyed, months and months ago, and the second, a substantive research and writing assignment that was just not well done.

To clarify, our firm has extremely high retention for “home grown” associates. Our group is just having this problem with laterals. I don’t know if other groups in our firm have the same problem with laterals. No one really talks about laterals much.

To the comments above about screening, I guess I don’t know how one does that for biglaw laterals? Resume shows top law school and previous law firm. We’re hiring them as first and second years, so not sure what else can be screened? Theres not a standard work product that we can test them on, and in any event, that’s not a standard biglaw interview screening tool. How are other biglaw attorneys on here screening for lateral associates?
Ultimately I’m pretty sure this is just because the quality of lateral applicants is horrendous these days, and that anyone looking to jump within a couple years of joining another firm is more likely than not a flawed candidate to start with. But again, just curious for experiences of others in big law.

Ok. Thanks for the extra info.

I do have a thought -- the fact that the research and writing work wasn't good, and comparable work of your "homegrown associates" is good, leads me to think that this particular issue is likely skills related. Legal writing is my passion, and so I'm aware of how difficult it is for many. You are most likely training and supporting the folks you bring on board right after law school in a way that allows them to grow this skill. The lateral may simply not have had the support necessary early in their career to become a good writer and either didn't want to tackle it themselves, or didn't even know to do so. Some are natural writers, most are not. As far as what you can do -- always ask for writing samples from applicants. It tells you so much. You are most likely doing this already though, so perhaps it wasn't prioritized in the hiring process, or her sample wasn't truly representative (for whatever reason). And then of course I suppose it is possible that the project she turned in was terrible because she literally doesn't give a damn anymore and put no effort in; but that is an attitude problem and I feel like you would have been onto that and she'd be gone by now.

Missing the deadline is different though. I remember on my first day of work right out of law school one of the first things I was told was to keep a very careful calendar so that I would never miss a deadline. I did screw one up once. Once. Never again, lol.

[Anonymous]

That you are hiring lateral first years suggests your firm isn't doing a good job projecting it's business needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That you are hiring lateral first years suggests your firm isn't doing a good job projecting it's business needs.

Wait, I missed that. The laterals OP is talking about are first years? I suppose I should have gathered that from an inability to attach a doc to an email. But yeah ... any first year associates already looking to move? Almost inevitable trouble.

[Anonymous]

In my experience, first and second years usually leave because they do not get enough training or don't develop enough skills at the firms where they started. I know that is what I did 20+ years ago. That is why they are the way they are when you get them and why your homegrown associates don't have these problems.

[Anonymous]

The quality of biglaw associates declining is a reaction to the job conditions.

40 years ago, biglaw wanted your heart and soul and if you gave it you usually made equity partner and your life improved.

15 years ago when I was an associate they still wanted my heart and soul but the reward at the end of the rainbow was a mirage at most. So I left for a pay cut as a mid level even though I had great reviews and was getting above market bonuses because it wasn’t worth it.

I don’t understand why you would expect to get superb senior associates. Would YOU want that job and all the stress and monotony and needing to deal with you as boss 60 hours per week? For what? A bonus for a few years. May ask well just figure out your next step early and spend too much time on the wrong path.

If you want things to change you need to change the experience. More interesting work. Fewer billables. Better partnership prospects. Whatever. Or do nothing and you’ll mostly be left with people not creative or courageous enough to line up a good exit already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The quality of biglaw associates declining is a reaction to the job conditions.

40 years ago, biglaw wanted your heart and soul and if you gave it you usually made equity partner and your life improved.

15 years ago when I was an associate they still wanted my heart and soul but the reward at the end of the rainbow was a mirage at most. So I left for a pay cut as a mid level even though I had great reviews and was getting above market bonuses because it wasn’t worth it.

I don’t understand why you would expect to get superb senior associates. Would YOU want that job and all the stress and monotony and needing to deal with you as boss 60 hours per week? For what? A bonus for a few years. May ask well just figure out your next step early and spend too much time on the wrong path.

If you want things to change you need to change the experience. More interesting work. Fewer billables. Better partnership prospects. Whatever. Or do nothing and you’ll mostly be left with people not creative or courageous enough to line up a good exit already.

OP here - and i'm going to challenge this last post.

We hired this associate when they were 1.5 years out of law school. Currently, they make $260k base; Jan 1 they jump to $310k base. Bonus for hitting base hours of 2000 hours is almost another $100k. So.... the comp is extremely good.

You say "more interesting work" and i say that we're an extremely hot, high profile area of work that people typically find rewarding. My homegrown associates are getting really high level work compared to other practice groups.

You say "fewer billables" and i've previously noted that this associate is hitting around 1600 hours and easy office hours, and I'm not giving them any trouble for it (as a separate matter, the firm may ax associates at these numbers).

You say "better partnership prospects". I haven't mentioned it already, but my firm promotes EVERYONE at year 7 to partner (non equity). Very few firms are still doing that.

Our workplace is actually pretty great. Extremely highly rated on culture. Partners on our team are very happy.

The only things i can think of to explain the low caliber associates I'm seeing is (i) lack of training or (ii) laterals just suck. Or a combo. Because the homegrown associates are strong and don't seem to have the same training issues.

[Anonymous]

Non-attorney response here, although I spend a lot of legal dollars on various practice groups, some of which could certainly be considered niche.

Two thoughts:

- Are you getting mid-quality associates because they don't love your practice group and/or don't see a future in it? I ask this because I work with attorneys who are aging and do this one little thing that would bore me to tears but is necessary. And I think they have a hard time keeping associates for that reason.
- Is your current lateral's issue (trust your gut here) a matter of intelligence or motivation? If it is the former, nothing you can do. If it is the latter, maybe a CTJ on why he's about to get fired might light a spark. Maybe not. My younger employees (<30) either get what it takes, or they don't. No amount of mentoring seems to matter.

I agree with the PPs, there is usually a reason someone is lateralling. If you can't immediately identify it as positive (like you're a well-known rock star in your niche and who wouldn't want to work with you - i.e. David Boies or something), then it's probably not positive.