TechnoLawyer: BiglawWorld

Originally published on September 29, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

From layoffs to salary freezes to dissolutions to deferrals, the landscape of large firms has changed significantly over the past year. While many large firms struggled in the downturn, Above the Law, the legal blog that reports the bad (and sometimes good) news to the associate masses, has positively thrived, with 8,000,000 page views and over half a million unique visitors every month.

Large firm veteran Elie Mystal has served as Above the Law's editor for more than a year. Given his unique vantage point, we recently cornered him for an interview.

Do you think firms have cut associate jobs to maintain profits per partner (PPP)?

Yes, of course. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Law firms are for-profit businesses, and if associates didn't know that in 2007, they know that now.

The firms need to attract partners able to bring in business, and partners who bring in business want to make as much money as possible. By maintaining a profitable partnership, firms are, in a sense, saving more associate jobs in the long run. When a group of partners bolts because PPP is too low, that can kill a firm's business. So there are sound business reasons to maintain PPP beyond the greedy love of succulent money. However, some firms and partnerships have enough solidarity to take small reduction in their PPPs to save associate and staff jobs, and those firms should be applauded.

Bankruptcy is a hot practice area right now, for obvious reasons. Are there other departments that you think are and will continue to be "safe"?

If I knew that, I'd be Biff from "Back to the Future." Many of the old rules have been broken. We always thought that litigation was countercyclical and that IP was indestructible, but that's not the case anymore. So who can say what will truly come back fastest. It seems that any practice area that deals with government regulation will be important. The safe bet practice areas are ones that help clients navigate the new regulatory scheme.

Before 2008, "work/life balance" and "lifestyle" were selling points for firms. Does "work/life balance" exist anymore?

The balance of power has shifted and firm managers know it. Now is not the time when associates should complain of cancelled vacations or lack of quality time with the kids. Will the "lifestyle" concept return? Absolutely. Once the economy turns, associates will wonder how reasonable it is to bill 3,200 hours a year and remain a functioning member of society. Right now, "lifestyle" means "having a job." Jones Day touts that the fact that they haven't had layoffs — that's their definition of lifestyle. When people don't expect to be fired on a daily basis, we'll get back to some of these other lifestyle concerns.

Fox News and MSNBC interviewed you about trends in law firms and law schools. Is there a question about the legal field that you weren't asked by those outlets, but wish you had been while you had such a large audience?

The media has focused on the layoffs and the unemployed graduates, and pays little attention to the role of the law schools. How are we preparing young lawyers? What skills are law schools teaching to make them competent?

First year attorneys show up at work and they have no idea how to actually practice law. Law school needs to be completely reformed. We need something akin to a medical school residency, in which law students can practice law under the tutelage of practitioners. Every lawyer should be able to handle a case or a deal upon graduation, or law schools aren't doing their job. They shoulder some of the responsibility for large firm layoffs. If schools prepared students to hit the ground running, firms may not have had to lay off so many first- and second-years.

Has Above the Law's reporting changed the way law firms handle their internal affairs?

That's what the firms tell us. Our goal isn't to change the ways that they do businesses. Our goal is to bring transparency to the profession, and I think we're doing that. Law firms no longer try to hide the ball from their own people. Of course, a minority of firms still try to conceal information from their own people and from the legal community at large.

For example, one firm sent an email to its associates announcing layoffs. You couldn't forward the email, copy it, download it, print it or print screen, so our tipster ingeniously took a camera phone picture of his computer screen and sent us the JPG. The point is, if it's firm news someone can hear or see, it's going to make its way to Above the Law.

The vast majority of firms are trying to find ways to work with media outlets and work with their own people so that information is presented correctly when it inevitably becomes public. We know of instances in which firms send internal email written by press people, not partners, and I think that's the right way to do it, from a PR perspective.

Over 5,000 large firm attorneys have been laid off since January 1, 2008. Do you think most of them will eventually rejoin the large firm world? If not, will they seek other positions within the law or do you see a forced exodus from the legal profession?

That's a lot to contemplate. If you primarily focus on the associates let go, many of them will find their way back in to big law — if they want to. That being said, "want to" is a high bar. They can't sit on the couch playing Xbox for the next few months and expect that employers will come knocking on the door. They have to be proactive in their job search and in filling their resumes with relevant experience during their time off. But if they liked their job, they were good at it, and they want back in, jobs will exist.

That being said, many associates don't want back in if that would entail working in a secondary market or for a less prestigious firm. Others will discover that there's more to life than being a large firm lawyer and will pursue other careers. Many associates have been on partner track their entire lives and now that they've been kicked off, they may find that it's a great time to stand in the terminal and see that there are many other trains available. To quote Yoda, "You must unlearn what you have learned."

I don't see a "forced exodus" from the profession, however. Laid-off attorneys may not want to return to the firm, but they'll be reluctant to lose the investment of their JDs. Many of them may go in-house or to government jobs.

One thing is for sure — there is a class of young associates, recent graduates and law students who have been laid off or blocked from firm jobs before they even had a chance to build their skill sets. They are not in a good position.

In 2008 and 2009, large firms froze and even slashed salaries. Will starting salaries fall below current levels?

The vast majority of top firms are still at $160,000 and the salary cuts that happened were at firms that weren't at that level to begin with and probably should never have been there, anyway. I don't think the Cravath's and Skadden's will come down from $160,000. They'll try to hold the line there, and bonuses will continue to be low. Last year's bonus was $17,500 at top-shelf firms, and bonuses will decrease this year. Perhaps in 2010 bonuses will rise to 2008 levels, but bonuses won't go back up to 2007 levels until the next decade.

Do you think all the bad news — the layoffs, salary cuts, deferred offers, etc. — will have a chilling effect on the number of law school applications over the next few years?

God I hope so. There would be nothing better for the legal profession and for society at large if there were fewer lawyers. Unfortunately, I think the concept of going to school for three years, not worrying about finding a job, and emerging with a prestigious degree remains enticing. So no, there won't be a chilling effect. I don't know what one would have to do to slow the influx of new law students, as universities have already raised tuitions and people still enroll. That's another reason why we won't have real structural changes to the large firm business model — because the pressure from below won't stop. We can't turn off the spigot.

At the height of the recession, pundits warned that the good old days had ended forever. As the economy has turned around, that sentiment seems to have lessened. In a few years' time, will we return to business as usual?

One of the things that we report on ATL that has the potential to have a long term effect is outsourcing. About a year ago, the ABA changed its rules to allow American legal work to be done off-shore. At some point, hours-intensive legal work that used to be done by juniors will go to India and that will be a game-changer.

Of all the law firms we cover every day — two, three, maybe four have failed. I'm not saying that firms aren't still hurting, but if you look at it from the perspective of December 2008 or March 2009, people thought it was the beginning of the end of big law. When Thelen collapsed, there was a sense that other firms would follow suit, but for the most part, firms have hung on without fundamentally changing their business plans. And if it's not completely broken, they won't fix it.

Have we seen structural damage to the model of top-end lawyers working for Fortune 500 clients? It doesn't look like it. Will we see structural changes to the big law business model? That's an open question. I think big law will go back to the way it was once the clients go back to the way they were. If clients have learned a lasting lesson, then no — the profession won't rebound to its previous heights.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on August 31, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter. TechnoLawyer publisher Neil J. Squillante contributed to this article.

The challenges posed by paper discovery seem quaint by comparison to the electronically stored information (ESI) we face today. The ascendancy of electronic discovery (eDiscovery) reflects the social shift from the written word to the computerized one. To provide a framework for these new challenges, consultants George Socha of Socha Consulting and Thomas Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) in May 2005.

The Model That Now Guides the Industry

The 2003 and 2004 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Surveys found that general counsel and their outside counsel were unable to compare vendors or distinguish quality providers from wannabes. This frustration lead Socha and Gelbmann to launch EDRM in May 2005 "to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market."

EDRM's most significant accomplishment to date is the formulation of its nine part model (see above), placed in the public domain in May 2006. The model is a diagrammed flowchart of eDiscovery tasks that provides a workable paradigm for the management of ESI throughout the discovery process. Recognized in court decisions and treatises, the model has achieved near universal acceptance among lawyers and vendors.

Universal Standards for Load Files and Metrics

While this model has helped both litigators and vendors better visualize the steps involved in eDiscovery, Socha and Gelbmann encountered an even bigger problem — transforming the model into actual litigation workflows and measuring the return on investment of the human and technical resources employed.

For example, you may have encountered the debate over whether to review ESI in its "native" format or convert it into PDF or TIFF format. But beneath this geeky debate lies an even geekier one — how to import these files into the growing number of eDiscovery tools, and ensure interoperability so that ESI does not become trapped.

Socha and Gelbmann believe the ideal "load file" consists of an XML-based standard (XML is a document format). As a result, the EDRM XML Project launched in May 2006. Although the EDRM site contains scant information on this project, Socha reports that significant progress has occurred. He describes the goal as "[providing] a standard, generally accepted XML schema to facilitate the movement of [data] from one step of the electronic discovery process to the next, from one software program to the next, and from one organization to the next."

EDRM released version 1.1 of the XML schema in February with version 2.0 in the works. To date, "18 software providers have self-certified import, export, or import and export compliance with the schema," Socha noted.

In conjunction with the EDRM XML Project, Socha and Gelbmann also launched the EDRM Metrics Project "to provide an effective means of measuring the time, money, and volumes associated with eDiscovery activities." In other words, it's designed to help you better manage your eDiscovery projects and the people assigned to work on them.

Near-Universal Support for EDRM

An electronic discovery professional who contacted us and requested anonymity feels these initiatives have taken too long. "It's reasonable to expect standards organizations to create and communicate timelines and be accountable for milestones for technical projects," he said. "So why is it apparently unreasonable for legal professionals to expect the same from the EDRM?"

However, this professional could not point us to anyone else in the industry willing to criticize EDRM on or off the record, even anonymously. Instead, support for EDRM and its pursuit of technical standards seems to run deep.

Tom O'Connor, an eDiscovery consultant and founder of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center, is one such supporter. "Vendors don't have interest in open standards," he said. "It's very difficult to promulgate technical standards, and when you're doing it in a volunteer group, it's even harder."

For his part, Socha feels the critique is not fair, and "appears to be based at least in part on a desire for instant gratification." "Standards take time to develop, even more [time] to deploy by early adopters, and yet more time to be more broadly accepted," he countered.

What's Next?

For the remainder of this year, EDRM working groups will continue to fine-tune the model and tackle a number of other projects, including a Model Code of Conduct for eDiscovery. EDRM also launched two new projects at its May 2009 Kick-Off Meeting — EDRM Jobs and the Information Management Reference Model (IMRM). EDRM Jobs will focus on developing a framework for evaluating eDiscovery personnel and technology issues while IMRM will focus on developing a framework for information management within organizations.

"The initiatives we undertake are challenging ones that, as far as we know, others have not undertaken," Socha observed at the end of our interview. He may have some company soon, however.

On June 4, 2009, the International Law Discovery & Disclosure Group (ILDD) announced its existence. It seeks to help its members and the legal world at large get a better handle on international eDiscovery. The ILDD's first Annual Conference takes place in London this month.

Socha doesn't know the people behind the ILDD, but welcomes collaborating with them. "Our hope is that the various organizations attempting to provide guidance and set standards will be able to work together as we move forward, sharing results and avoiding unnecessary overlap," he said.

How to Get Involved in EDRM

EDRM welcomes both individuals and organizations as members. Membership fees depend on whether you want to participate in only one project such as the EDRM XML Project or several. The annual fees range from range from $150 to $200 for individuals, and $750 to $7,500 for organizations (depending on the number of employees). If you lost your job this year, you may qualify for free membership.

EDRM's membership has steadily risen over the years though it may decline this year thanks no doubt to the recession.

• 2009-2010: 79 member organizations (to date)
• 2008-2009: 96 member organizations
• 2007-2008: 79 member organizations
• 2006-2007: 68 member organizations

You can also participate for free in the sense that EDRM makes all of its materials available on its Web site. "Many who have benefited from the EDRM materials have made no investment in the creation of those materials," said Socha. "We do not see this as a problem but rather as a sign of success."

That's apparently how Sir Timothy Berners-Lee feels about a well-known standard he invented — the Web. While EDRM will never become an English word, it has already done for eDiscovery what the Bluebook did for legal citations, and it may eventually make document production as seamless as it was when the legal profession rallied around another standard — paper.

Addendum: Though perhaps not in quite as dramatic fashion as Mark Felt, our anonymous source, Rob Robinson, unmasked himself today on his blog, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, to respond to the above column. Please read his response, EDD and EDRM — Standards Acceptance and Use. — Neil J. Squillante, Publisher

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on August 24, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

A chilly breeze has blown over the legal profession for the last year. Did I say "chilly breeze"? Make that a hurricane, with gale-force winds. But recent reports indicate that, while the storm is far from over, the winds may have slowed. The hurricane, it seems, is now a tropical storm.

The prospect of a meteorological shift raises countless questions about what large law firms will look like when we emerge from our storm cellars. Will the leveraged business model survive? Is the billable hour dead? And what will become of the famously — or infamously — generous associate salaries?

Salaries Stand Still …

According to the National Association for Legal Career Professionals ("NALP"), its recently released 2009 Associate Salary Survey "reflects what is likely to be the apogee of large firm salaries, and represents the culmination of increases since 2006." In large markets, NALP announced in a press release, the prevailing salary stood at $160,000 — a figure that, two years ago, had been reached only by firms in the New York market. But, NALP warns, "the fact that during the period following April 1, 2009, some large firms were cutting salaries means that the $160,000 figure may not be sustained in many markets."

Indeed, for firms nationwide the "overall median starting salary was $130,000, and ranged from $70,000 in firms of 2-25 lawyers to $135,000 in firms of 501-1,000 lawyers, and $160,000 in firms of more than 1,000 lawyers."

While some in the legal profession (i.e., associates) view pay cuts and freezes as yet another piece of bad news, a degree of salary depression may be just what the doctor ordered. According to some consultants, inflated salaries and the traditional lockstep system lie at the root of the economic problems experienced by large firms this year.

It's All Good (Macroeconomically at Least) …

"What has hampered the legal profession is the competitive constraint on recruiting," says Tim Leishman, who advises law firms on issues such as strategic planning, compensation, and professional development strategy. "When firms are competing for top talent, they don't want to do anything that sets them apart from their competitors. But this kind of thinking leads many firms to follow the market, in terms of starting pay and lockstep increases, when they really shouldn't be offering such high salaries."

"The legal community tends to judge a firm by its salaries," says Leishman. "The top students from law schools tend to apply to the firms with the highest salaries. Regrettably, there is a misconception that if a firm lowers salaries, in-house clients and others will assume that their hires are of lower quality." In response to that perception, Leishman explains, lower-tier firms began offering higher salaries to appear "competitive" and to attract talent, even when doing so was ill-advised.

According to Leishman, "this dynamic made no economic sense for a lot of firms, but they followed it anyway. Of course, it might be the right approach for some firms which, prior to the recession, were highly leveraged and had a lot of business. But many others simply didn't have enough work to sustain their associates. Thus, the firms were paying big market salaries for associates to do a fraction of the billable work generated at a big market firm."

Firms in the second and third tiers, says Leishman, need to be realistic about how many hours their associates can bill, and adjust salaries accordingly. If associates are not "working New York hours" for New York billables, Leishman asserts, the firm needs to reevaluate its pay structure.

But, while stagnating (or declining) salaries may seem like bad news, they may leave firms — and associates — better off in the long run. If a firm is paying its associates too much, Leishman explains, there is no buffer if business slows down. If, however, "salaries are leaner, and reflect a firm's projected business — rather than a somewhat arbitrary market rate — an economic downturn wouldn't necessarily result in widespread layoffs."

In other words, the massive layoffs and lower salaries offer a valuable lesson, and may provide a roadmap for firms in the new, post-Great Recession era.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on August 17, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

For every large firm attorney recently laid off, another exists who probably relishes a pink slip. A layoff would provide the kick in the pants needed to leave the large firm world forever and pursue a more personally satisfying career. But with the economy (supposedly) turning around, that hoped-for layoff may never happen. But that doesn't mean you've lost your only valid excuse to leave.

With prospective employers more sympathetic to career changes and more open to applicants with divergent skill sets than in recent memory, now may be the perfect time for you to depart — voluntarily. If you're considering breaking away, note the following do's and don't's courtesy of someone who herself voluntarily made this transition — yours truly.

Don't Listen to Legal Recruiters

If your experience was anything like mine, you've probably heard from legal recruiters that you have two career options: lateral from your current firm to another similar firm where you would practice the exact same type law you've been practicing for the past few years, or go in-house.

None of the recruiters with whom I spoke placed lawyers in non-legal jobs or even knew of agencies that did so. I was told repeatedly that given the economy, my resume, and skill set, it would be extremely difficult to transition out of law. One recruiter even recommended that I call up my old firm and ask nicely to be reinstated in the job I had just quit.

Legal recruiters, of course, have a great financial interest in keeping you in the large firm world, and, therefore, little interest in recommending resources that might help you find your way out. Don't rely on them for guidance.

Do Take Classes

If prospective employers (and legal recruiters) tell you that you don't have the skill set they seek, don't lose hope. You can build a new skill set almost immediately by enrolling in business-specific continuing education classes or non-matriculating certificate programs.

Another easy way to boost your marketability is to take one or two day courses in Web design and graphic design from computer training companies. Listing "proficiency in Microsoft Office suite, HTML and inDesign" on your resume is more eye-catching than plain old "mastery of Microsoft Word." Employers often pay a premium for candidates with computer skills, even if such skills are only tangentially related to the job you seek.

Do Set Realistic Expectations

Unless you want to pursue a career in finance (specifically, investment banking or hedge fund management), you'll likely have to take a salary cut, at least initially. You may also have to enter a new career on the ground floor to get the experience needed to eventually command a higher salary. Don't waste time searching for an entry-level job that pays a large firm salary sans the hours and drudgery — it doesn't exist. Before you leave your cushy (financially speaking) law firm gig, understand that you may have to adjust your standard of living. What you lose in salary you'll (hopefully) make up for with better hours and/or more fulfilling work.

Do Keep Your License Current

In addition to having computer skills, another way to obtain a higher starting salary in your new career is to keep your legal license current. Even if a new position doesn't require you to practice law, most prospective employers (especially small businesses) prefer an attorney who can assist in a legal pinch, all else being equal. A current license also enables you to perform contract attorney work if you're between jobs or otherwise want to earn cash on the side.

Most Importantly, Don't Live With Regret

It took me a year and a month to find a full-time employment in a new career following my departure from a large firm. At times I thought no employer would ever give me the chance to prove that I had skills beyond analyzing ERISA clauses, but even as months of unemployment dragged on, I never regretted my decision to pursue more fulfilling opportunities. Leaving the large firm world is a major decision that involves being proactive and readjusting you financial expectations, but if you're unhappy in your career, you may find it worth the effort and sacrifice.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on August 3, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

They say death and taxes are life's only certainties, but large firm lawyers like you can also count on long hours. Many associates and even partners spend at least ten hours a day at their desks — even more in the heat of a deal or an expedited lawsuit. While stories abound of associates who add aquariums, stereos, and other comforts to their office, many work in total ignorance of proper ergonomics, increasing the risk of injuries. With the right knowledge and equipment, you can bill 3,000 hours/year pain free (physically, at least).

If you rub your shoulders, squirm in your chair, or crack your neck while reading this week's issue of BigLaw, help is on the way. I recently met with certified professional ergonomist Hayley Kaye, president of HLK Consulting, a New York City-based ergonomics and biomechanics consulting company, to bring you the top five ergonomic problems she encounters at large law firms and other organizations. (Disclosure: TechnoLawyer recently hired Ms. Kaye for an ergonomic assessment of its office.)

1. Blaming the Chair

When attorneys experience back, neck or shoulder pain from sitting, they'll often request a new chair, thinking that it'll be a cure-all. "One of the biggest misconceptions about ergonomics is that the chair is always to blame," says Kaye. "While a good chair is important, quite often the cause of back pain is the way they're typing and not the chair."

Kaye recommends placing your keyboard at or slightly below elbow height, and your monitor slightly below eye level no closer than an arm's reach away — but not so far that it requires you to lean forward to read it. For many, the best way to achieve this position is with a keyboard tray (not a keyboard drawer) that offers an adjustable height and tilt and comes equipped with a palm support and mouse platform.

Highly adjustable chairs are great, but if you're hunched over your keyboard or slumped back in your chair, you may still experience pain. Your back should always be in contact with the chair backrest, and you should be slightly reclined (100-110 degree angle).

2. Adding Flair to Your Chair

If you're in pain and the culprit really is the non-adjustable chair your firm's office manager bought in bulk from Staples, don't bother purchasing fancy lumbar pillows or gel thigh supports. "Having a pillow or an add-on in the wrong area is worse than not having one at all," says Kaye.

Instead of stuffing your seat, Kaye recommends purchasing your own highly adjustable chair that you can take with you when you leave the job. "Everyone who worked for the companies that recently went under sat in a chair, so it's easier than ever to get good prices on some excellent used chairs."

Look for chairs with adjustable height seats, backrests, armrests and recline tension (the back of your chair should move with you; it should not be stationary). The seat pans should adjust as well and consist of foam or gel to help distribute body weight. "The textile you choose is irrelevant with regard to ergonomics," adds Kaye. Thus, your firm can save big bucks by ordering chairs with the cheapest grade fabric. By contrast, if you're buying your own chair and you prefer leather go for it.

3. Making Your Laptop Your Primary Computer

Firm-issued laptops are great for portability, but attorneys increasingly dock their laptops at their office desks and use them as their primary computers. Bad idea, says Kaye. "People lean in to see the keys or the screen on laptops, and hunching causes pain over time. It's critical to plug in your laptop and use an external monitor, keyboard and mouse for long-term office use, so that you can adjust each of the individual elements for maximum ergonomic benefit."

4. Using a Lamp as Your Primary Lighting

Some attorneys approach the pervasive problem of law firm fluorescent lighting by keeping the overhead lights off and use only a lamp. Kaye agrees that law firms tend to over-light, but suggests that attorneys ask for lower wattage bulbs or request removal of a bulb rather than forgo overhead lighting altogether.

"Lamp lighting alone is often insufficient and can strain your eyes," notes Kaye. "However, attorneys who do a lot of paper reading require a little more light, so a desk lamp coupled with overhead lighting is helpful if shined directly onto the paper."

5. Using Expensive Equipment Without Training

One of the biggest problems that Kaye sees occurs when firms invest in expensive office equipment and think they've done their part. "I've seen law firms spend $600-$900 per chair but nobody understands how to adjust them, so they're not getting much benefit."

Also, many lawyers rarely get up from their pricey chair throughout the day. However, according to Kaye, movement is one of the key principles of ergonomics. She recommends taking a short break for about 20 seconds every 20 minutes. Doing so reduces the impact of sedentary postures on the spine and other areas. "These short breaks need not interrupt the work flow," says Kaye. For example, she suggests periodically standing up during long teleconferences.

To maximize their purchases, Kaye recommends that law firms offer ergonomic training sessions to demonstrate how to use the equipment, better organize work areas, and take breaks. Ergonomics training may mean a small expenditure today, but Kaye contends that such training is cost effective. "Ergonomics training has a very high return on investment because the cost of training is low compared with the cost of handling injuries."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on July 17, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

If you've worked in a large firm, you probably think of "business development" as the Holy Grail. Play your cards right, and it's your ticket to job security, a valuable book of business, and eventual partnership (just to name a few perks). Of course, business development is also full of challenges, like finding potential clients, making an effective pitch, and actually landing the big case. Or worse.

Here's the Pitch …

As an associate, "Chip," now a junior partner at a large firm in Texas, encountered the seamier side of business development. "If you're having a difficult time reconciling the concepts of 'sordid' and 'client relations,' you're not alone," Chip says. "Believe me, it was the last thing on my mind during my early forays into client development."

The foray in question involved an in-house attorney, Cassie, with whom Chip had become acquainted through a local bar association. Eager to cultivate her as a client, he eventually invited Cassie to a gathering that he describes as "a fancy cocktail party." "The attendees were lawyers and other high-powered types," he explains, "but its vibe was slightly more ... 'festive' than the average professional conclave." Chip was soon to learn just how festive it was.

Chip knew that an important senior partner from his firm would be at the party, and he was eager to introduce his putative client. "In terms of her business generation potential," he says, "she was the equivalent of a hot date." So, shortly after arriving, he made his way through the impeccably dressed crowd, with Cassie in tow, to where the senior partner, Todd, and his wife were deftly feigning interest in a colleague's animated war story. He introduced her, they exchanged pleasantries, and the evening passed without incident.

Chip's hard work and chivalry paid off, and, not long after the party, he found himself at a meeting with Cassie, pitching his services. As his presentation to her progressed, he became increasingly confident that she would, in fact, hire him to handle her case. Aware that he was still an associate — and that she might be encouraged by the promise of a more senior attorney's oversight, Chip mentioned that Todd, the senior partner, would be involved in the case as necessary. Instead of the moderately positive response he expected — something like, "Oh, great!" or "That's good to know!" — an expression of distaste crossed Cassie's features. "Ohhh," she said, looking as though she had bitten a lemon.

Suddenly confused, Chip managed a fumbled, "Oh, um, I, um ... what the ...?" With some tactful, though persistent, questioning, he was able to get to the bottom of Cassie's reaction: Todd, it seemed, was a dog.

Strike One…

Some time after Chip had introduced Cassie to Todd and his wife at the party, Cassie had gone off to find the ladies room. She had gotten lost, and wandered down a few hallways and past some dark corners. In one such corner, she saw Todd, locked in a passionate embrace with ... someone other than his wife. Cassie admitted that, before retreating discreetly, she had observed for long enough to confirm that the receiver of Todd's affection was not, in fact, his lovely bride. "I'm happy to give you this case," Cassie told Chip, "which you've worked hard for ... but I'm not too thrilled about Todd."

"My first thought," Chip recalls, "was a heartfelt 'yuck.' My second thought was, 'Will Cassie's poor opinion of Todd be a problem in the future? That was followed by, 'Will Cassie say something to Todd if their paths cross again?' You never know how people will handle an awkward situation like that. Would she conclude that it was none of her business, and leave it alone? If she was really offended by it, would she let Todd know that she had witnessed his indiscretion the next time their paths crossed? Even more awkward, what if she met Todd's wife in another social situation? Would she feel compelled to let her know?"

The problem, says Chip (other than Todd's extracurricular canoodling), was that he didn't know Cassie that well. "We were barely acquainted at that point," he explains. "And she was a brand new client. I didn't feel comfortable delving into how — if at all — she intended to handle my boss', um ... raunchiness. I didn't want to risk offending her by asking the wrong questions or saying the wrong thing." On the other hand, Cassie seemed distinctly unenthusiastic about Todd. And Chip was, of course, eager not to be part of an awkward situation himself.

If It Stays Fair …

So, what did Chip do? "Well," he says, "I decided, in this situation, that discretion was the better part of valor. It wasn't that I wanted to protect Todd; it wasn't that I wanted to make or for that matter withhold any sort of judgment. But I concluded that nothing good could come of me addressing the situation with Todd directly. Todd made a decision to do something that was wrong — and in poor taste. If that had consequences, then so be it."

On the other hand, Chip decided that it was important for him to take a position with Cassie that made his feelings about the situation clear. "I told Cassie that I thought Todd's behavior was unacceptable, and that I hoped she wouldn't judge me, or the firm, by his conduct. It was incredibly awkward to touch on matters like sex and marital infidelity with a client, but those were my feelings. I wanted it to be clear that I didn't condone Todd's behavior."

And, Chip adds, Cassie seemed to appreciate his openness. "I'm happy to report that she is still an excellent client," he says, "and we laugh about the whole thing now. But I think that it was essential for us to address it up front and get it out there. After that, we could move on." As for Todd, Chip says, Cassie still views him with a certain level of disdain. No word on whether Todd's wife feels the same way.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on July 6, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

You probably know one or more casualties of the recession. Reports in the legal — and non-legal — press have described the dramatic toll the economy has taken on the legal profession, and many of us have experienced (or at least witnessed) hard times. As reported on Lawshucks.com's notorious "Layoff tracker," 10,550 people have lost their jobs at major law firms in calendar year 2009 alone.

Where do these lawyers go when their big firm jobs die? Some of them, of course, go straight to the ranks of the unemployed, where they remain for varying durations. Others are fortunate enough to benefit from tidy severance packages or firm-wide initiatives, such as the much-publicized "Sidebar" program instituted at megafirm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which essentially pay attorneys to find their bliss elsewhere. And many graduating law students have found their start dates "deferred," with or without the benefit of a stipend (which probably comes in handy on that prolonged post-bar exam travel spree).

Still other refugees from Big Law soldier on, and eventually find another position at a smaller firm. But, while these opportunities are welcome, they often represent a stark departure from life — and practice — as it existed. The shift from a large law firm to a small or midsize shop can be an awkward, humbling, and somewhat anxiety-provoking experience … sort of like being a new associate.

Deposition? What's a Deposition?

"Dawn," a practitioner in New York, is one such attorney. After a clerkship, Dawn worked for six years as an associate in the products liability group at a large law firm. She spent her last three years at the firm managing a significant pharmaceutical case, which went to trial several months before the worst of the economic downturn. When the case ended and months passed without another (similarly sizeable) matter to take its place, Dawn was laid off.

When Dawn hit the job market, she believed that she was well-situated to find another position in litigation — a cagey veteran, with years of experience under her belt. Of course, she had been one of many attorneys staffed on the last big case she worked on, but she had significant responsibilities — or so she thought.

"I ran a huge document review and production," she says. "I prepared countless binders. I wrote memos. I worked really, really long hours. And I was a sixth year, not some wet-behind-the-ears kid out of law school. I thought I knew my stuff inside and out."

Fast forward to Dawn's new position, at a midsize firm where matters are staffed leanly and even brand new associates are expected to run their own cases, appear in court on their own matters, and handle client contact without a partner as acting as intermediary.

In her first week of work, Dawn was asked to meet with a client to go over an affidavit. "I was preparing both the affidavit and the set of forms to which it would be appended, and I knew very little about the underlying matter," she recalls. But, while she knew that she could "review the forms, look on our document management system for ideas about how to write the affidavit, and probably find a colleague to ply with questions," she found herself feeling incredibly daunted by the meeting.

The challenging part, Dawn explains, was "representing to the client that I knew what I was doing. During all those years in practice, I provided back-up. I was really good at it, but I didn't have to think about the impression I was making on the client, and whether I could inspire confidence … especially when I didn't feel certain of myself."

Dawn's sudden sense of being immersed in a brave new world wasn't limited to client contact. Shortly after her arrival, a partner asked her to handle a commercial matter, and then told her that she ought to prepare a motion to dismiss. "Go ahead and write the brief," Dawn remembers him saying. She also remembers the emotional rollercoaster ride that ensued.

"I was thrilled that he trusted me to do it," Dawn says. "Then I panicked. It was the first time I had been given a brief to write without being told what arguments to make." She fought the urge to ask, "Motion to dismiss? On what grounds?" and immediately retreated to the library to hit the books.

Similarly, a few weeks later, Dawn was told to go to a deposition with instructions to "avoid summary judgment." "I spent hours and hours preparing for what was, in fact, a very simple deposition," Dawn recalls. "I was so afraid of appearing incompetent that I probably ended up being the most prepared person in the room."

From Second Chair to Only Chair …

Having spent her career working on large, sophisticated matters (at a large, sophisticated firm), Dawn was shocked by how few practical skills she had managed to develop along the way.

"Even the most elementary tasks are challenging if you've never done them before," Dawn notes. "And there were certainly things that I had no exposure to when I worked at a big law firm, like taking depositions or arguing my own motions. But more than that, I had become accustomed to not thinking for myself."

The inability to approach cases as the decision-maker, Dawn believes, may be the biggest hurdle faced by large firm refugees who find themselves in a different practice setting, in which they are not heavily supervised by hovering partners. "As a big firm lawyer," she says, "you know that your work will be reviewed by someone else before it goes out the door. When you don't have that safety net, your ability to make judgment calls is really tested."

Similarly, she explains, being the "wing man" — even on complex matters — is a far cry from managing a case on your own. "I can't tell you how many memos and binders I prepared over the years," Dawn laments. "But I was never the one asking questions at the deposition, making the argument before the judge, or questioning the witness at a hearing. Doing those things changed my sense of what was important — radically."

According to Dawn, the most important skill to develop — or rediscover — is the ability to trust one's instincts. "As I handled more matters on my own," she says, "I was struck by how often I could spot the strengths and weaknesses in an argument, and how frequently the approach I was comfortable with was actually right. But after years of having your hand held, and never being called upon to act on those instincts, they had definitely atrophied. I've had to develop the confidence to say 'I'm right,' even when other attorneys are beating me up … and I've been surprised by how far confidence goes when you're at odds with an adversary."

The Curse of Being Perceived as "Experienced"…

"Unfortunately, as a senior associate, you don't really have the luxury of being inexperienced," she says. "If you're in your first or second year of practice, people don't expect you to have skills. They know it will take you longer to finish assignments, and that you'll ask a lot of questions."

As a more senior lateral, however, Dawn warns, "you have to be careful. Whether intentionally or not, you've sold yourself as someone with a lot of experience who will be able to do the work with significantly less oversight. There's a very fine line between asking smart questions and displaying total ignorance. It's not good, as a sixth or seventh year, when a second year is litigating circles around you."

"My advice," Dawn says bluntly, "is to suck it up and be prepared to eat some time. You can't bill all the time it takes you to prepare for something fairly basic, or to brush up on the fundamental skills that have been languishing since law school, so you need to go into it assuming that you'll take a hit for some of those hours." But, she insists, "you have to just do it. It's a worthwhile investment."

It also doesn't hurt to learn a few tricks. In addition to the traditional forms of research, Dawn says, "you have other resources." Among the most important, she found, was the "cool associate," who can be a lifesaver.

"You need to find the senior associate — and there's one in every office — who's done it all, and has nothing to prove," she advises. "They'll be a wealth of information, and if they don't view you as competition, the whole 'ego' thing won't get in the way. Or find the partner who loves to talk about his accomplishments and tell war stories. He might be a blowhard, but he's probably a great teacher, too."

And, of course, there are the basics.

"Don't be afraid to pull out your CLE books," Dawn says, "and to rely heavily on the documents in your firm's system. Chances are, the wheel has already been invented." Finally, she adds, watch and learn.

"When I went to depositions on cases I felt somewhat shaky about," she recalls, "I insisted on going last so I could watch how everyone else did things." This experience also allowed Dawn to observe the personalities of the other attorneys involved. "Sort of like a poker game," she adds.

"When I went through my list of questions," she says, "I had the benefit of everyone who had gone before me. But I also had a sense of their personalities, and I could watch the way they reacted. Even when I wasn't entirely sure of the questions I was asking, I could tell a lot from what the attorneys gave away with their body language. They had me figured for someone inexperienced, so they didn't think I'd pick up on the subtleties."

"What it comes down to," Dawn concludes, "is the ability to project confidence, go with your instincts, and be really, really observant. You're never too old to learn those tricks."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on June 15, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

Back in the days when lawyers still had jobs, you could listen in on virtually any group of summer associates, law students, or recently minted attorneys, and hear them chattering excitedly about the great aspects of the position they had (or hoped to have) landed at a law firm. "Free dinner if you're there after 7!" "Car service if you stay past 8!" "Tons of client contact!"

Ask a second or third year associate about these "perks," and they'll tell you that they are, as a general matter, euphemisms for much less glamorous circumstances, like working really, really late. Or at least that's what they would tell you if you could find them: they are probably too busy hiding from clients. In other words, beware: as a young lawyer, having "lots" of client contact may look like a gift when it is, in fact, a Trojan horse.

A Sharp Pain in the …

"Heather," now a senior associate, experienced the joys of client contact in her first year of practice, when she was assigned to work on (what seemed to be) a small, straightforward case. Mr. Sharp, the client, was a wealthy man who had brought a fair amount of business to the firm over the years, including several large, complicated matters. Although the current matter had arisen from a personal dispute between Mr. Sharp and his neighbors (and was tiny by comparison), she saw it as a great opportunity and was thrilled when she was given a fair amount of responsibility. She dove in, embracing the task at hand and familiarizing herself with everything about the case … except the client. Although the partner seemed pleased with her work, he was reluctant to allow her to communicate with Mr. Sharp.

"In hindsight," Heather recalls, "I was warned. Although I was basically handling the case, the partner didn't want me to talk to the client directly." His explanation? "He kept making vague statements about how the client could be 'somewhat difficult,' and 'a lot to handle,'" Heather says. "I should have listened."

For a while, the partner acted as an intermediary: Heather wrote down anything she would have asked the client, emailed it to the partner, and waited for a response. Not surprisingly, this approach quickly became unworkable, running up billables and adding a cumbersome time delay at every turn — especially when the partner was traveling or preoccupied with other matters. Finally, with a sigh, the partner handed Heather Mr. Sharp's number and wished her luck.

During their first telephone conversation, Heather found Mr. Sharp crusty, but charming. "He was a little gruff," she remembers, "but it was sort of endearing." The next time they spoke, Heather was prepared for some mild grumpiness and light carping, but nothing too weighty. But, she says, "he started with a long-winded tirade about something irrelevant. About 20 minutes into it, he asked me if I was married or in a monogamous relationship." Caught off guard, she stammered that she was not. "It was as if I had pulled a lever and opened the floodgates," she laments. "Mr. Sharp spent the next ten minutes lecturing me about the moral failures of loose women who do things like 'date' and 'work.' I didn't know what to say, so I think I just sat there, openmouthed, and waited for him to finish."

Heather was offended by Mr. Sharp's outburst, but not quite sure what to do about it. Would she look like a crybaby if she mentioned it to the partner? She wanted to show him that she could handle anything, even a cranky client. She wanted to remain resolute in the face of adversity. She wanted to slay the dragon.

Heather said nothing, and continued to talk to Mr. Sharp regularly, though with increasing dread. As Mr. Sharp became more comfortable with her, he also became more comfortable sharing his outspoken opinions, many of which were sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or distinguished by a unique combination of multiple bigoted ideas. "In some ways," Heather says, "he was very egalitarian."

In addition to his offensive views, Mr. Sharp was also an unforgiving boss. He demanded that Heather research issues that he considered crucial, and was brutally critical when she could not come up the answers he wanted. He wanted unimportant tasks done immediately, and would often call her multiple times in a day to check her progress. In short, Mr. Sharp was driving her insane.

Heather finally told the partner that she found Mr. Sharp, um, … incredibly difficult. An unmistakably weary look crossed his face. "Well, I don't really have time to referee any personal conflicts between you and Mr. Sharp," he told her. "He's an important client, so do your best, and don't antagonize him." Before fleeing, the partner added "besides, he's just a grumpy old coot! How bad could it be?" As the partner's words floated from his retreating form, Heather tried to steel herself. Maybe it wasn't all that bad … right?

So Long and Thanks for All the Billables

A few weeks later, Heather participated in a conference call with the partner, Mr. Sharp, and local counsel, who was being used for an out-of-state filing. Mr. Sharp's usual tirade began around the fifteen-minute mark, growing more vituperative as the seconds ticked by. Thinking of the closeness she had developed with Sharp during the many, similar tirades she had endured recently, she decided that she might be just the person to redirect things. When he paused for breath, she gently suggested that they talk about some upcoming filing deadlines.

The pause turned into an awkward silence. Then Mr. Sharp spoke, his voice dripping with contempt. "Don't you ever interrupt me," he snarled at her. "Do you hear me?"

"I apologize," Heather said, "but I think we need to address the …"

Mr. Sharp would have none of it. He demanded an answer to his question. Heather, frozen, waited for someone to interject. The line was eerily silent. Finally, after a few more epithets, Mr. Sharp announced that he did not want her on the conference call. Unsure what else to do, Heather said a quick goodbye and clicked off. As she sat in her office waiting to hear from the partner, she had the distinct feeling that she had been sent to bed without supper.

When the partner finally stopped by her office to chat, she knew instantly that Mr. Sharp had gotten the best of her. The partner explained that, while he was aware of how difficult Sharp could be, he was also The Client, and, well … The Client is always right. Heather was taken off the case.

Know When to Hold 'Em and When to Fold 'Em

So: what can an associate do, when faced by a client as difficult as Mr. Sharp? Heather points out that, as a preliminary matter, the notion of "success" may prove impossible when it comes to dealing with a Mr. Sharp.

"Sometimes," she says, "the best you hope for is damage control." More importantly, she says, you need to be aware of how dangerous a client like Mr. Sharp can be for the associate involved.

"If you have an incredibly difficult client, you will probably work your butt off, and still end up looking bad," Heather posits. "You don't want to run crying to a partner every time the client ruffles your feathers. But you do want to make sure that you keep memos to file, so that you can contemporaneously document what's going on."

And, she says, sometimes you have to know when to walk away. "If you really feel that your difficult relationship with a client is hindering your ability to work on a case, or if your role as a figurative punching bag has precluded the possibility of a productive lawyer-client relationship, you need to go to a partner or mentor and explain your situation. No associate wants to turn down work, or admit defeat, or suggest he is incapable of rising to the task at hand, so there is a natural impulse to keep drilling away at it, and not to give up. But when you're dealing with a Mr. Sharp, you it may be better to jump off an impending train wreck before the moment of impact."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on June 8, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

McCarthy Tétrault had a problem. Many of its lawyers rely on dictation devices, but with analog technology quickly becoming obsolete, McCarthy's IT department sought a product designed for this century rather than the last one. The 600+ lawyer firm first tried standalone digital software, but found it slow and inadequate to meet its administrative and workflow needs. Thom Oakes, McCarthy's Director of Information Technology, explains, "We were also restructuring the legal assistants into teams. We had been trying to use a standalone product to scale up to manage workflow, but we found that we had to move up to a more robust product."

Workflow Management Drives Bighand Past Its Rivals

Enter BigHand Digital Dictation. Developed by BigHand, a voice productivity software company with offices in Chicago, Toronto, London, and Sydney, BigHand essentially works by transferring encrypted .wav and .dss files to an internal firm server, and routing them to the appropriate source such as an available transcriptionist. Eight hundred firms worldwide currently use BigHand, including 100 in the United States.

McCarthy chose BigHand over digital dictation competitors such as Crescendo and WinScribe because it found the interface more functional from a transcription perspective and preferred the robust administrative features. It also felt BigHand better addressed the primary problem — workflow management.

McCarthy first rolled out the new technology in March 2008 and implemented an upgrade in November 2008. For remote access, the firm uses BigHand's telephony module rather than its Blackberry app. Lawyers simply call a number and dictate via telephone. The rollouts, according to Oakes, "went very smoothly" and required minimal training for attorneys and secretaries.

Bighand Gets Thumbs Up From Dictation Veterans

More than a year after the initial rollout, Oakes reports that BigHand is "heavily used" by McCarthy personnel. The application provides a level of workflow visibility that many in the firm find helpful.

The lawyers like it because they can send dictation files directly to their secretaries for transcription and can see their files' positions in the network queue. Deal and litigation team leaders like it because they can evaluate team member performance and monitor workload. And administrative managers have restructured deployment of their staff to optimize practice groups, per the firm's original objective.

But BigHand has not converted keyboard jockeys. McCarthy has not seen a general uptick in use of dictation since BigHand arrived. Also, Oakes says that it is hard to tell whether attorneys use BigHand's remote capabilities, which is one of the benefits over standalone digital recorders.

Oakes does not characterize BigHand as a cost savings initiative for McCarthy given BigHand's price, which can range from $300-$500 per user, depending on firm size. Still, Oakes is more than satisfied with his firm's choice of BigHand. "As far as other deployment projects have gone, BigHand went smoothly, quickly, and with overall user acceptance. I can rate it a 10 out of 10. No real complaints from anyone. We're very happy with the entire project."

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.

Originally published on May 18, 2009 in our free BigLaw newsletter.

We can all think of trends and innovations that initially seem like the Next Big Thing only to fizzle or quickly become outdated. A few come to mind, such Betamax, AOL … and law firm mentoring programs.

While mentoring programs may not have been widespread years ago, today they are ubiquitous. But are they a true innovation or more like fad diets? If Oprah can't stay on track, who can?

Like those diets, mentoring programs are well-intentioned and carefully planned, but ultimately difficult — and perhaps too difficult — to fit to the needs of all involved. As a mid-level associate, "Christina" experienced just such a program.

My Boss, My Mentor?

Christina worked exclusively for "Ted," a very intense and very busy partner who had something of a niche practice at their mid-sized Connecticut firm. Though Ted had an impressive book of business and an enviable roster of clients, he was not, Christina says diplomatically, particularly "nurturing." He often threw her head-first into assignments with minimal explanation and even less ongoing supervision. And because he traveled frequently, and struggled to meet the needs of his many clients, Ted was often unavailable to field questions or provide guidance.

When Christina's firm announced a comprehensive new mentoring program, she was delighted. "I thought it would be an opportunity to really connect with a more experienced lawyer at the firm," she recalls. "I loved the idea of having a professional role model, who I could turn to when I had questions about judgment calls in certain situations, or needed help with substantive skills, like writing." In addition, she says, "I felt that Ted was often critical of my work, but didn't offer much feedback. I thought that if I could talk openly to a more experienced attorney and maybe get some constructive criticism, I might be able to actually improve, instead of just feeling chastised."

When the mentor-mentee pairings were announced, however, Christina's hopes sank: they paired her with Ted. "Ted barely had the time or inclination to deal with me when cases required him to," she explains. "It seemed unlikely that he would put any effort into an 'extracurricular' effort to help me develop professionally."

Unfortunately, Christina's hunch was correct. Months went by, and Ted made no effort to fulfill his "duties" as a mentor. Christina tried gently to remind him that she was available for a mentor-mentee lunch or meeting. Nothing happened. Finally, after some less gentle nudging by the firm's Mentoring Program Committee, Ted took her out for an awkward lunch, where they ended up discussing a rolling document production. "The level of mentoring," she says, "was basically imperceptible."

In short, says Christina, she did not feel that she benefited from the mentoring program. "I thought that the firm was wrong to pair me with Ted," she says. "First of all, we didn't have a great relationship to begin with. But I also worked for him, so it didn't make sense for him to be designated as the person I would go to when I was having problems with the person I worked for … or even just with general issues, like my workload or skills. Rather than feeling like he would listen and try to advise me, I worried that he would write me a bad performance review — based on my own admissions about areas in which I thought I was lacking."

But was the failure of this mentoring relationship as simple as bad matchmaking? Christina thinks it was more complicated. Another critical problem, she explains, was that Ted was not interested in being a mentor. Although the firm pushed him to be more involved, and even provided him with ideas and suggestions for how to be a better mentor, he did not have the time — or the skills — to function in that role.

Mentoring Done Right

Sadly, Christina's experience is not unique. Where, then, does that leave the well-intentioned law firm? Is the effort of trying to design — and implement — a successful mentoring program an exercise in futility? "Jeff," a partner at a large firm in the New York area, thinks not.

Admittedly, he says, mentoring programs present significant challenges, and require a great deal of effort. Part of the difficulty, he says, is illustrated by a story like Christina's: mentoring involves an organic relationship, and relationships are as difficult to initiate and grow in the professional environment as they are anywhere else.

Jeff uses a litigation analogy to explain. "You prepare for trial, but the case settles. In other words, a good lawyer doesn't litigate to settle; he or she litigates to win. For that reason, you always conduct yourself as though you will try the case … but if settlement happens along the way, so be it. Similarly," he continues, "mentoring happens. You can't necessarily force people together into a mentoring relationship and expect that it will always work, irrespective of your best intentions and all the planning you do, like looking into people's backgrounds for shared interests, common experiences, and that sort of thing."

Notwithstanding the significant challenges, says Jeff, "they don't mean you can't have a formal, organized mentoring program that works." But, Jeff warns, if you want your mentoring program to succeed, you should be prepared to put in a lot of effort — and to keep it coming.

"Our experience," he explains, "is that a good mentoring program requires almost constant vigilance. Someone needs to follow up, fairly regularly, with the people on both sides of each mentoring relationship to find out if it's working." He concedes that "this is an imperfect system, because not everyone trusts that their response to such inquiries will be kept in confidence, but, with time, hopefully people can learn that they can speak freely about their feelings."

Success also requires flexibility, says Jeff, and the willingness to find creative ways to respond to the many, and variable, needs of individuals. Although it can be incredibly difficult, he says, "you need to be capable of implementing changes, even when some people may suffer from hurt feelings. It doesn't make any sense to continue to force a broken mentoring relationship on two people, even if only one of them is aware that it's broken."

Back to the Future

It may be attorneys like Jeff (who believe in the tradition — and value — of mentoring) who keep the legal profession true to its roots. Historically, the profession relied on a system of apprenticeship to train its young inductees, and younger lawyers were expected to watch and learn from their elders. Working relationships could be structured to facilitate this kind of close supervision.

Law firm practice today — and big firm practice in particular — is not generally conducive to patient instruction (by the partner) and dedicated learning (by the associate), neither of which translate into billable hours. For these reasons, both formal and informal mentoring fills a significant void in the professional development of new lawyers.

"When it is done properly," Jeff posits, "mentoring can really work well." He believes that both younger attorneys and those who are more senior "can always benefit greatly from the experiences of their more seasoned colleagues. And the benefit can occur in a variety of areas, ranging from substantive legal work to more personal issues (like career decisions) to firm political issues."

Jeff concludes that, overall, mentoring programs may be a challenge to administer, but "they are both good and necessary." After all, today's mentees are tomorrow's partners.

Photo by Tomas N. Romero. All rights reserved.

How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw goes deep undercover inside some of the country's biggest law firms. But we don't just dish up the dirt. We also mine it for best and worst practices and other nuggets of knowledge. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.