Originally published on January 31, 2011 in our free BigLaw newsletter. Instead of reading BigLaw here after the fact, sign up now to receive future issues in realtime.
A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published a provocative essay by Yale Law School professor Amy Chua entitled Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior. Based on her new book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Chua's essay shocked readers with her unapologetic espousal of the "Chinese way" of child-rearing. Among other things, "Chinese" mothering employs a combination of discipline, tough love, and tactics "that would seem unimaginable — even legally actionable — to Westerners." A similar schism exists between the large law firms that once roamed corporate America and their decidedly less imposing successors today.
The senior partners in your firm secretly bemoan this lost world. These cagey, grizzled veterans were raised in a professional environment in which, for example, associates never would have complained about whether the firm respected "work-life balance." Why? Because associates weren't women, or attempting to balance work and life, and would have known that any whining about "balance" (or even "life") would have prompted a look that could kill from their superiors. Get a few drinks in these guys and they'll sum up what they think of Generation X and Y partners with one word — wimps.
If it didn't violate the firm's policies pertaining to sensitivity, diversity, and non-discrimination, they would still train associates in the same glorious tradition. They will tell you this with the leg of an adversary, whom they have nearly finished chewing into digestible pieces, dangling from one corner of their mouth. They'd also tell you …
True Partners Versus Wimpy Partners
A lot of people wonder how large law firms used to raise such stereotypically successful lawyers. They wonder how we produced so many document review whizzes and motion practice prodigies. Well, as associates we were never allowed to:
• Attend a sleepover with non-cohabitating partners on a weeknight.
• Have a "playdate," if "playdate" is defined as "non-billable activity."
• Go to our kids' school plays.
• Complain about not being able to go to their kids' school plays.
• Watch TV or, heaven forbid, play computer games (although, in my day, computers were the size of a two-car garage).
• Obtain a verdict, reach a settlement, or arrive at any other disposition in a matter that was unsatisfactory to the client.
• Not become the top lawyer in every subject except admiralty or anything related to international human rights.
• Play any instrument as it might distract from the work of the firm.
Conversely, I know many biglaw partners, almost always born after 1960, who are not cut from the same sturdy cloth from which I and my generation were hewn, by choice or otherwise. These partners — "Wimpy Partners" or "WPs," stand in sharp contrast to us — the Greatest Generation of Law Firm Warriors. That's right! We viewed litigation as battle. We knew how to hunker down in a foxhole. And we definitely knew how to carry a heavy load 26 miles, uphill, in the driving snow. Because we were men of true grit, I shall call us "True Partners."
Look at the list above. It would make most WPs blanch. Even when WPs think they're being strict, they usually don't come close to being like True Partners. For example, my WP colleagues who consider themselves strict make their associates work for at least a few hours on Saturdays. That's easy. It's the overnight shift, and the wee hours of Sunday morning, that separate the men from the boys.
I can't entirely blame WPs though as they're a product of their times. True Partners could get away with things that WPs can't. Once when I was young, I was less-than-reverential to a senior partner, who angrily called me "garbage." It worked. I felt deep regret. But it didn't damage my self-esteem. I knew exactly how highly he really thought of me, since I had billed 4,700 hours the previous year.
True Partners could do things that would seem unimaginable — even legally actionable — to WPs. True Partners could say to an associate, "Hey fatty — lose some weight." By contrast, WPs have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of "health" lest they hurt someone's "feelings" and incur liability. These fat associates then end up in therapy for eating disorders and a negative self-image, and require both time off and the expenditure of health benefits.
True Partners could order associates to win. WPs can only ask their associates to try their best. True Partners could say, "You're lazy. Your adversaries are getting ahead of you." By contrast, WPs have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're not disappointed about how the young lawyers they hired, and rewarded with oversized salaries, turned out.
When it comes to training associates, True Partners produced lawyers who displayed excellence in their written work, mastery as oral advocates, and professional rainmaking success. True Partners understood that nothing was fun. If you were good at a task, it might have more enjoyable aspects, but that wasn't the point. The point was simply to be good, and to get good at anything you have to work hard.
Three Key Differentiators
I've thought about how True Partners could get away with what we did. I see three big differences between the True Partner and WP mind-sets.
First, I've noticed that WPs are extremely anxious about their associates' self-esteem. They worry about how their associates will feel if they fail so they constantly try to reassure their associates about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance at an oral argument or in a settlement negotiation. True Partners assumed strength, not fragility, and as a result we behaved differently.
Second, True Partners believed that associates owed them everything. It probably had something to do with the favor extended to these associates when they were hired in exchange for a biweekly paycheck and a chance to work at our venerable institution. Associates would spend their lives repaying this favor by working tirelessly. By contrast, I don't think most WPs have the same view of associates being permanently indebted to their employers. This attitude strikes me as a terrible deal for the WP.
Third, True Partners believed that they knew what was best for associates and, therefore, could override the associates' own desires and preferences. WPs worry a lot about their associates. But as a partner, one of the worst things you can do for your associates is to let them give up. On the flip side, there's nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn't.
WPs try to respect their associates' individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, True Partners believed that the best way to protect associates was by preparing them for the future, which, unless your work was stellar and your hours considerable, was destined to be brutish, nasty, and short.
Once you obtain these skills, work habits, and inner confidence of a True Partner, no one can ever take them away from you. Should they attempt to do so, you will have the tools with which to tear them a new one.
How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Answering this question requires digging up some dirt, but we do with the best of intentions. Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw analyzes the business practices, marketing strategies, and technologies used by the country's biggest law firms in an effort to unearth best and worst practices. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
