denotes premium content | Oct 16 2008 
Feature
posted 15 Mar 2005 in Volume 7 Issue 9
Is partnership their goal?
Aspirations of the next generation of professionals
In the February issue of Managing Partner, KAREN MACKAY, a consultant at Edge International, described how the varying attitudes of different generations of lawyers could impact the development of a firm. In this issue, MacKay goes further to research the makings of the next generation of professionals and, in particular, their views on partnership in the modern law firm.
Just about every managing partner or law-firm chief-operating officer I speak with can cite an experience where they have discussed partnership opportunities with a top-performing associate who has either decided against the opportunity or, at the very least, has asked for more time to consider the proposal.
Asking what partnership really means to an aspiring or existing partner in a firm can prove a tough question, but we asked this, along with 37 other questions, as part of our global survey of partners and associates in 2004 (see February issue of Managing Partner for more details of the survey criteria). We gave respondents a list of possible answers and asked them to identify all those that applied to them. (See figure one)
Interestingly, one partner said: “None of the above really describes what being a member of the firm means to me. Primarily, it means that I am an owner and this is my business. It means that I have a stake, both professionally and financially, in making certain my firm is the best that it can be, in every respect…”
As you can see from figure one, of the multiple choice answers, there was significant alignment among partners and associates around the world in all but two areas. The next generation does not see the prestige and status of partnership at the same level as the current partners either did, when they aspired to partnership, or do now. Note that only two per cent of partners who responded saw partnership as “more of the same” compared to six per cent of associates worldwide and eight per cent of associates in the
On the other hand, partners from around the world used words like owner, contributor, reputation, responsibility, accountability, pride and commitment in describing partnership status in a firm.
Is partnership attainable?
The associates were split into three distinct groups: first, the associates who clearly aspire to partnership; second, the associates who have no interest in partnership; and third, the women who feel they have to choose between partnership and having a family.
Law firms need to demystify the concept of partnership. After all, an associate’s perception of partnership may not be realistic. Let’s look at a spectrum of comments.
For associates who truly aspire to partnership, it was described as: “…an opportunity to build an institution; to increase the quality of work and clients; to contribute meaningfully to the profession through participation in bar and community service; to develop long-term professional and personal relationships; to learn, grow and go new places intellectually via a diverse group of colleagues.”
Partnership was also described as: “The natural consequence of doing your best (dedication, effort, competence etc.).”
For the group that may not aspire to partnership, some described partnership as “a goal that most young lawyers seem to pursue without any real idea of what it means; and a status that most older lawyers seek to maintain without every thinking why”.
Reflective of the hearts and minds of many women in the practice of law, partnership “may no longer be an option that is workable. I have come to recognise that as a woman I have to choose between a career at a firm and a family”.
While 97.3 per cent of partners said that partnership was attainable in their firms, a lower score of 89.3 per cent of associates felt the same way.
It seems logical that for a new equity partner to join the club, he or she must add enough to the pie so that the slices available to each partner do not diminish. Unfortunately, to generate a sizable practice, one needs to be a partner first.
In some firms: “Only non-equity partnership is attainable. Equity partnership appears to be nearly unattainable at this time.”
Some respondents said that for many years: “Partnership was too attainable…the policy seemed to be that if you stuck it for seven years and did not screw up too bad, you became partner... Result: too many partners and little meaning to the term partnership. The firm’s leadership is trying to change this, but it will be difficult.” The rules changed in most firms through the 1990s and indeed, for many lawyers, the rules changed well after they had begun their legal career. Making equity partner is “becoming much more difficult” and “practically speaking only a few will make partner”.
As leaders of your firm, you can only hope that the individuals you want to invite into the partnership are still in the firm when their time comes. One firm I met indicated that there is a dearth of equity-partnership candidates. And why? Because the good ones have been recruited by competitors.
Partnership may be attainable but, as one respondent said, it is not easy: “You must have the right academic credentials and the right legal experience; you must prove yourself over and over again and basically commit your whole life to the firm for a considerable period.”
Partnership is not attainable, respondents said, if they were to work a reduced work schedule to accommodate parenthood.
On the other hand, it was agreed that partnership is probably attainable, but just not desirable for those who would rather earn less money and have a life.
Others said that the time and energy required to make partnership, beyond the normal workload, makes it impossible to balance with personal and family life.
Is partnership desirable?
The desirability of partnership depends on where you are. For example, 68 per cent of the respondents in Asia Pacific to 89 per cent of the respondents in South America desired partnership, while 77 per cent of the associates in Europe and the UK, and 80 per cent of those in the US claimed that they desired partnership in their current firm (see figure two).
The rise in associate salaries, particularly from 1998 to 2002 in the
Does partnership provide job security?
Some associates indicated that partnership was desirable as a way of securing their future. However, once attained, does partnership really mean security? “Partnership is only important in that, for an up-or-out system, it is job security once you reach a certain level of seniority,” said one respondent. How you see it, though, depends very much on where you sit. One partner, who lived through the dissolution of his former firm, said: “I have learned that being a partner does not bring security. Being a partner generally means working harder, not working less.”
One partner we spoke to, subsequent to the survey, was quite emphatic that partnership does not mean security at all: “Individuals worry about making partner every day. Every morning I get up and here’s what I have to do:
- Bring in new clients with immediate billable work;
- Nurture new clients - leads for future work;
- Service existing clients and a very high level of quality and service;
- Contribute to my firm in terms of hours…billable hours;
- Bill the work I do;
- Collect the cash, for the bills I’ve sent, for the work I do.
If all of this is in sync I will continue to be a partner,” he said.
Is partnership equally available?
The short answer is no. Some of the partners who responded to our survey appeared blissfully unaware of the criteria for partnership. Some said ‘yes’, partnership is equally available - assuming equal abilities and attitudes, or a real desire for partnership and consequent contribution exists. This got complicated when we attempted to define ‘attitude’ and ‘contribution’.
Other partners recognised that in some firms there is no clear way to become a partner. Economics dictate that it can very much depend on the area of practice that an associate has chosen. If a practice area is top heavy, chances of making partner may be slim to none.
Of the twenty-nine respondents who provided comments, only three openly recognised that partnership and raising a family is extremely tough, stressful and, in many cases, just not workable.
Associates recognise that the rules have indeed changed from how the game was played by the generation before them. They know that to make partner, their practice must be economically viable and in some areas of practice, and with some institutional clients, it is near to impossible. Associates recognise that: “Partnership is only available to those whose achievement, success, and contributions to the firm as a lawyer merit that partnership. In other words, partnership isn’t automatic” as it was for many who came before them.
Associates also realise that those who take time for families “do not make it”. On the other hand, associates who hire a nanny and outsource the raising of their kids have a shot. As law firms struggle with strategy and models that are economically viable they are going to have to figure out the baby factor. If 45-50 per cent of all young lawyers are women, the loss of talent and the loss of the firm’s investment in every woman that leaves the practice can be considerable.
Is there a clear path to partnership and do associates understand it?
Again, the short answer is no. That said, 60 per cent of associates who responded said ‘yes’ as compared to 76 per cent of partners. As one associate put it: “The opportunity to become a partner at my firm is reasonably attainable, but poorly defined.” Indeed, many firms have recently clarified the path to partnership in a published format that is made available to all associates. Others indicated that the project was underway, having recognised that associates crave achievement and a clear understanding of how to succeed within the framework of their firm.
Smaller firms in many jurisdictions are still a ‘club’ and membership can be elusive. One would think that the bigger the firm, the clearer the criteria. Indeed, in many large firms, partnership is just as elusive. One partner indicated that his firm had three distinct categories of criteria:
-
The super lawyer and rainmaker who generates a practice of $2m or more;
-
The self-sufficient lawyer who generates enough for himself and delegates some work to juniors;
-
The recognised expert in a particular field.
Recognising that few partnership candidates actually fit any of those categories, the firm looks for technical competence, a minimum of 1,800 billable hours and ‘something extra’, which, of course, could be hard to define. It could mean that a candidate has the potential to fall into categories one, two or three at some point in their career or that the individual has other unique values to the firm.
Partnership compensation plans that reward hours worked are a disincentive to meaningful delegation and to pushing work down to associates who are trying to achieve targets set by those same partners.
Another problem is access to resources. For example, one respondent said: “Only partners who have already demonstrated an ability to bring in clients are permitted to utilise the resources of the marketing department. Therefore, those trying to develop their own clientele, who have not yet done so, are shut out entirely from these firm resources.”
The good news
It is a positive sign that the vast majority of associates (80 per cent) see partnership as desirable. The good news for firms is that the rules are changing so only those who combine technical and business-development skills, and desirable behaviours will actually make partner in the future. Firms simply must figure out how to create an environment where women can achieve those lofty goals and procreate.
Partnership does mean ownership, influence, contribution, responsibility, accountability, financial opportunity and success. Associates crave achievement but they do see the world a bit differently to the generation before them. As firms change partnership criteria to meet the new economics of sustainability, they might also seek a greater understanding of the values of the next generation. After all, your retirement may depend on the future success of your firm.
Just last week, a young lawyer asked me why he would want to be a partner in any firm. I got the best answer to that question in a conversation today: “Because it’s better than not being a partner. Partnership gives the perception that you are successful. Without being a partner, you can’t build a practice.” In short, if you’re going to work in a private-practice firm, it’s better to be a member of the club.
Karen MacKay, MBA, is a partner at Edge International. She can be contacted at mackay@edge.ai.
