Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is something my jerk of a Big Law Partner uncle would say… about everything.

I come from an entire family of lawyers (big law partners and in-house) and every holiday meal for my decades of life have all revolved around the law.

More and more people I know are leaving big law due to hours or move laterally like the above for better work/ life balance. It is happening in many industries.

Some also leave because they aren’t trained properly and don’t see themselves getting (or want) partnership. Maybe you need that as your sales pitch? Do equity partners have good work life balance?

Is there a way you could mentor some of these lateral associates? Are they bored? Do they see this niche field as not being long- term? Can they pivot if they need in future? Have you spoken to any of them to see their thoughts on leaving? Is there a partner that makes them uncomfortable?
These are for you to think about.

Or don’t read my post since I’m not a lawyer and don’t know anything!

Everyone stop and read this incredible insight—they know all about this because they have relatives who are lawyers who talk about it at Thanksgiving.

Thanks pp. This gave me a good laugh.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have read the entire thread. My initial thoughts focus on the OP biglaw partner, not on the lateral associates.

First: Thank you for posting and for exposing yourself to criticism and suggestions.

Second: My impression is that OP is one who is seeking advice, but refuses to listen.

Third: I suspect that OP is the problem and that associates do not like working with him or her even though the compensation is at market level. Because your niche practice area is currently in high demand, associates have options. But, even when your specialty area was not hot, your firm's home-grown associates switched practice areas.

Regarding the bolded portions above: OP, you miss the point of your own thread.

In short, yes, lateral hires come with some baggage, but your practice area lacks partners who are effective at developing and maintaining good relationships with associates.

The key is to properly identify the issue.

Keep in mind that you are buying something like a used car. Some will be lemons dumped by the prior owner. Some will be coming off a three year lease and are in great shape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So ask them to do that? Should take one time to tell them. And to the in-house poster saying she doesn't like to pay for redlining -- should the editing just be free, then?

Stop hiring laterally and start hiring "up." Meaning, hire people from lower tier firms or government who are hungry and want to make more money. Ask for multiple writing samples, and try to determine if they were co-written or edited by someone else.

Firstly, you shouldn’t have to ask any associate more senior than 2 weeks into their first year to include a redline. This is really basic stuff. This isn’t an OP issue, this is a crappy associate issue. It doesn’t require even 0.1 hours of time to do and would be covered under the time to review and revise.

Secondly, laterals are generally moving tiers already — either moving up from a lower tier or down from a top tier firm. Government lawyers aren’t ‘hungry’, they’re all former big law lawyers.

Yes, redlining is reviewing and revising, and it's not free. No one is saying to bill for attaching the document to an email.

Government lawyers are not all former big law of lawyers. Some of them are lawyers who couldn't get higher paying jobs or didn't think they needed more money at the time.

Anonymous wrote:Two people isn't a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions.

ding, ding, ding. This is the correct answer.

Yeah I was laughing at the idea anyone is putting on their time sheet “.2 hrs— tried to figure out how to attach PDF”.

I mean maybe you are getting billed for it and maybe you aren’t but no one is reporting that on their timesheet so you aren’t going to be having a conversation with anyone about it

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So ask them to do that? Should take one time to tell them. And to the in-house poster saying she doesn't like to pay for redlining -- should the editing just be free, then?

Stop hiring laterally and start hiring "up." Meaning, hire people from lower tier firms or government who are hungry and want to make more money. Ask for multiple writing samples, and try to determine if they were co-written or edited by someone else.

Firstly, you shouldn’t have to ask any associate more senior than 2 weeks into their first year to include a redline. This is really basic stuff. This isn’t an OP issue, this is a crappy associate issue. It doesn’t require even 0.1 hours of time to do and would be covered under the time to review and revise.

Secondly, laterals are generally moving tiers already — either moving up from a lower tier or down from a top tier firm. Government lawyers aren’t ‘hungry’, they’re all former big law lawyers.

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.

So ask them to do that? Should take one time to tell them. And to the in-house poster saying she doesn't like to pay for redlining -- should the editing just be free, then?

Stop hiring laterally and start hiring "up." Meaning, hire people from lower tier firms or government who are hungry and want to make more money. Ask for multiple writing samples, and try to determine if they were co-written or edited by someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is something my jerk of a Big Law Partner uncle would say… about everything.

I come from an entire family of lawyers (big law partners and in-house) and every holiday meal for my decades of life have all revolved around the law.

More and more people I know are leaving big law due to hours or move laterally like the above for better work/ life balance. It is happening in many industries.

Some also leave because they aren’t trained properly and don’t see themselves getting (or want) partnership. Maybe you need that as your sales pitch? Do equity partners have good work life balance?

Is there a way you could mentor some of these lateral associates? Are they bored? Do they see this niche field as not being long- term? Can they pivot if they need in future? Have you spoken to any of them to see their thoughts on leaving? Is there a partner that makes them uncomfortable?
These are for you to think about.

Or don’t read my post since I’m not a lawyer and don’t know anything!

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.

Not sure why you’re commenting when you’re not a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:Methinks part of the problem is that OP spends half of his time on DCUM writing treatises about why his associates suck instead of mentoring them and explaining his expectations.

Get over yourself. And maybe comment on threads you actually know something about.

TLDR all other posts (only the original). Laterals are mostly subpar. They left the old firm for a reason and 90% of the time it’s bc they aren’t high performers.

If you have the mandate for your own associates, hire slowly. We put laterals through a battery of substantive tests to make sure they have what we need and what it takes (I also work in a niche practice that is highly substantive). Most never come back after that round but the ones with the juice end up doing very well because they know exactly what we expect. That doesn’t mean they all have the substantive knowledge on day 1, but they understand the expectations and want to learn.

Once they’re onboarded, you need to spend personal time with them. Face time. In the office. Meaning you both have to be there. I have one of 3 associates in my office all day long (ie, any time they’re working with me they’re sitting on calls with me taking notes or getting the Socratic treatment in person. And we go over my comments to their written work in person, comment by comment.). That’s just training time.

Then give real time feedback, good and bad. Then they know you’re invested.

And if they don’t cut it, fire them quickly. If you’ve done all of the above you’ll have a great record to defend your decision.

Methinks part of the problem is that OP spends half of his time on DCUM writing treatises about why his associates suck instead of mentoring them and explaining his expectations.

You may have issues that are you issues.

But without a doubt associates now are not as interested, no as hardworking, know way less than they should have law and life, and frankly are not as smart.

Years ago if you had 10 new associates, 8 would be great and 2 would turn out to be morons. Now you are lucky with 1 great and 4 good to decent. The other five are not worth keeping.

The great associate will leave.

The world has in fact changed and not for the better. We have done a good job though in getting kids and seniors that are at least in the good range if not great.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah ... that is not promoting EVERYONE to partner, lol. Let's stop pretending this "non equity partner" stuff is anything much beyond senior associate.