The large corporate law firm is a relatively new institutional type, born in the Twentieth Century it may possibly be headed toward extinction early in the Twenty First Century. Why? The complete answer lies outside the scope of this article. However, we can talk about one small element of the human resource practices which, if not managed better in the near future, may contribute greatly to the end of the legal behemoths known as the large corporate law firm. The problem about which I speak is the way large law firms manage associates in general and minority associates in particular; not to mention the fact that large law firms tend to waste human resources of all kinds, especially associates and staff. The possible exception maybe the partners, themselves.

On the one hand, the firm pressures partners (and in some cases associates) to bring in clients and to bill hours to the max, while gleefully losing money out the backdoor in the form of associate turnover and low associate and staff morale.

First, let it be said that for the most part law firms do not manage associates, at least in the usual sense of the term manage -- e.g., as the term might be used in a du Pont or a Proctor and Gamble -- partners manage associates. This is unfortunate because the vast majority of large law firm partners have not been trained -- again, in the usual meaning of the term trained -- to manage anyone; in some cases, including themselves. Their only training in managing other people, is the experience of being associates themselves. The problem with this approach is that they will, in most cases, continue the bad management habits they experienced or observed when they were associates. (I am speaking in general here. Not all partners had primarily bad role models when they were associates.)

Also, they are at the mercy of the firm’s culture when it comes to the treatment of associates. That is, most firms have what’s known as a "sink or swim" culture; i.e., in such environments, there are few firm wide or practice group supports for new associates. The associate is expected to find his/her own way: e.g., to figure out how to use the firm’s resources and what they are; to figure out what constitutes a job well done and what does not; to figure out what are the firm’s or practice group’s unwritten norms regarding timeliness, billable vs. non-billable hours and what constitutes either, etc. This type of culture tends to favor a few associates over most associates. It also tends to eschew any attempts at "special treatment," or developmental programs, whether for minority associates or majority associates.

For the past nine years I have worked with some of the largest and most prestigious law firms in this country. My client base is national: I have clients on the East Coast, the West Coast, the Mid West and the South. No management consultant, or firm, who focuses on issues of racial, gender and cultural diversity in law firms has had more experience with this nation’s premiere law firms than I or my firm, Creative Cultural Changes, Inc. has had. And, it is my opinion and the opinion of the people who work with me that in many ways the minority associates are like canaries in the mines -- i.e., minority associate problems today, become associate problems tomorrow. Most, if not all, of the minority associate problems, which we faced a few years ago have become majority problems today. The primary and most obvious one is turn-over. And, for the most part, the turnover of the majority associates is for the same general reasons that minority associates leave -- one, they don’t feel cared about or for and, two, they have many other opportunities elsewhere. The other major problem is that the partners either misjudge the value an associate adds to the team or the firm and/or the associate isn’t motivated to do his/her best.

I’ve never studied the cost of replacing a third year associate, but my experience in corporations suggest that the cost is somewhere between three quarters of a million dollars and one and a half million dollars or more. This is why I say that law firms are losing a considerable sum of money "out the backdoor" while pressuring lawyers to bring money "in the front door" and staff to hold down expenditures by doing more with less. Some of this pressure could be relaxed, if partners better understood how to manage associates and staff (firm assets) and/or partners were willing to accept a more "Corporate management" style for their firm. I believe few firms will accept a more corporate management approach, in the near future, because it would require partners to give up considerable autonomy and power -- two factors which figure most highly in their motivation for choosing the law as a profession and law firm life in the first place. Therefore, the best bet is for partners to learn how to manage associates and staff, much better than they presently do.

Because I believe that the problems of minority associates are harbingers of general associate problems, let me focus on just one of their concerns and how it might be better managed in the hope that the skills necessary to manage this problem better are transferable to associates overall.

A major problem for associates overall and minority associates, in particular, is what I’ll call the "Star System." That is, law firms, in general, are all looking for the star -- that associate who requires little mentoring or developmental attention. The associate who "hits the ground running," so to speak. Associates who need a lot of developmental feedback and or "hand holding" are considered undesirable and consequently get very negative reviews, comparatively few assignments or more poor assignments, like document production or research. The interesting paradox I have discovered is that the associates who appear to need developmental feedback the least, get it the most; not just positive feedback, but negative feedback as well. That is, the associates who are assessed to be the stars are also the associates who get the most response opportunities -- i.e., the best work, the most developmentally broadening assignments -- and in that process, they get lots of partner attention. They are the associates with whom the partners are most likely to have lunch -- a mentoring opportunity. They tend to be the associates who are most likely to be encouraged, overtly or covertly, to challenge the partners’ thinking. And it should be noted that while I have met a few minority stars, the vast majority, tend to be white and male.

What’s not clear to me, yet, is what are the overt and covert or subtle characteristics of stars, which initially alert partners to their future status. What is it that they do? I already know that some come to the firm with a positive halo; i.e., they graduated from a top law school with great grades. The associate played by Tom Cruise in the movie, The Firm, is such an example. Or, they had a great Clerkship -- e.g., the Supreme Court. Or, regardless of what law school they attended they came highly recommended by a renowned professor or two, sometimes a former respected partner in the firm.

But many had no such starts. They did some thing on their first assignment, which conveyed to the partner(s) in question that they were "a-comer." Then the Pygmalion affect took over (see "Pygmalion in Management," by J. Sterling Livingston, Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1988). The partners began to expect that they would do great things and sure enough they did, for the most part. And when they did make mistakes they were overlooked or corrected without note.

Since true stars are few and far between, almost by definition, I recommend that partners treat all associates as though they were stars. This utilizes the concept expressed in My Fair Lady -- namely, "treat a woman like a princess and she will act as one." To accomplish this, do the following:

1. Create a warm climate. That is, treat all associates with respect and convey to them that you expect them to do well. Take them to lunch, often. Or, invite them to your home or to play golf or racket ball or some other activity that you enjoy -- e.g., shopping. It doesn’t hurt if you try to interview the associate at the beginning to find out what her/his professional goals are and to see how your work may or may not fit in with their long-term or short-term goals. And, of course, how much time do you expect them to take to complete this assignment and when you need it handed in to you. What resources does the firm have which the associate might avail her/himself of in completing their assignment.

2. Take every opportunity to teach the associate. First by doing what I’ve suggested above. And, when giving an assignment tell the associate how her/his assignment fits into the whole of the case or the deal. Make sure they see that what they’re doing is important. Also, tell them what a good finished product looks like. Give them examples, if possible. But, also, recognize what your assumptions are about this assignment (and, possibly about the associate, as well) and be sure to vocalize them to the associate so that both of you are operating from the same assumptive base. By vocalizing your assumptions you give the associate and yourself the opportunity to check the validity of those assumptions. This may sound like a time consuming process, but time spent on the front end may save you from having to redo an assignment yourself or giving it to another associate, later. Also, time spent teaching the associate is an investment in the associate (a firm asset) and yourself, since a well trained associate who feels apart of the firm is a much more productive person and you increase your own skills at developing associates.

3. Be sure to give the associate assignments that meet or exceed his/her capabilities. Don’t just give him or her the lowest level assignments. If you’re convinced that the associate can’t do anything but the lowest level assignments, then tell him or her so and suggest how they may improve and/or how they can utilize the firm’s out-placement services.

4. Implicit in all I’ve said above is the necessity of frequent and specific, differential feedback; that is, feedback that is both positive and negative. When you give associates feedback, you motivate them and make them feel a part of the team. If associates don’t know how their input affected the outcome of a case or a deal, what motivation is there for them to care about the outcome?

Jacob Herring is president of Creative Cultural Changes, Inc., a management development, training and consulting firm which works with Fortune 100 Companies and large corporate law firms across the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. CCC specializes in the management of issues and concerns of large institutions regarding race, gender and cultural diversity in the work place.

© 1998 Jacob H. Herring. All Rights Reserved

This article was published in the November, 1998, issue of the NALP Journal.