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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.