The next generation

An insider’s perspective of the generation X lawyer

For the past decade many firms have been battling the ‘brain drain’ of junior lawyers taking advantage of the opportunities of a vibrant domestic and international market for legal talent. This has had a significant impact on many firms with fairly high levels of staff turnover. Given that the legal profession is a ‘people business’ and that clients are won and kept (more often than not) through personal relationships, a high turnover of legal staff can impact upon a practices ability to fully develop client relationships. James Bremen, a twenty-something construction lawyer with a major Queensland law firm, comments upon the trend and offers an ‘insiders perspective’ on ways in which firms may endeavour to combat this trend.

The legal market has never been so good for young lawyers. Hardly a month goes by without a legal recruiter ‘cold calling’ to enquire as to whether you are interested in discussing ‘opportunities’ both interstate and internationally. The temptation being fantastic salaries, an international lifestyle and premium work. Having worked with my current law firm for three years I have observed first hand the massive turnover of staff in major law firms (both in my firm and in other major firms). Many of my friends and colleagues have elected to pursue other opportunities rather than work in Brisbane (which is hardly a cosmopolitan mecca in any respect).

When asked how are they responding to the trend many senior (not at my firm) lawyers say that there is little if nothing that they can do to combat the trend. Australian firms cannot traditionally compete with the sort of salaries and opportunities offered by the international firms and even within Australia there is very much a ‘pecking order’ of firms and packages that is essentially Sydney and Melbourne-centric. That said, firms can maximise the retention of staff, in my view, through undertaking a few simple steps which (although many firms pay lipservice to) few actually adopt.

Why do junior staff leave?

From my own observations it seems that there are three categories of reasons for leaving. The first of these is the junior lawyer who has a preconceived intention to leave the firm after obtaining the requisite amount of experience and ‘trade up’ to a bigger firm, or an international firm. These people generally have little intention of building a career with a firm and (while they play an important role in providing ‘workers’ for a firm) do not see themselves as part of the furniture in the long term. While one’s experiences at a firm may serve to alter this initial intention, it seems to me that these people who (for very valid lifestyle reasons) simply have no intention of staying at a firm very long. These are the sorts of people that firms cannot keep no matter what opportunities they afford the junior lawyer (although they may return after a few years overseas – until that time they are not looking for a career). In my view (which is strictly anecdotal and limited to my own experiences) these people make up around one-third of people who leave.

The second category of people seems to include the opportunists. It is these people that firms simply lose for no good reason. With the growth of a significant and lucrative recruitment consulting industry many young lawyers get approached by consultants and are offered better packages and conditions to work elsewhere. Often the consultant and the recruiting firm go to considerable lengths to sell a candidate. Thus these lawyers, who were not actively seeking employment, suddenly became at risk. Often once they become alive to other opportunities they reach the conclusion that the ‘grass is greener’ somewhere else. It is this group that firms should be fighting to retain.

A third category is the disgruntled employee. Often (usually just after salary reviews or promotions are announced) very competent young lawyers, who feel that they have been hard done by by their firm, take their skills to market. These are often people that firms should also be fighting to keep and include the higher performers of employee solicitors. Once a good candidate approaches a recruiter there tends to be little difficultly in placing the candidate with a bigger (although not necessary better) firm for a higher salary (often interstate or overseas). Many times it seems to me that these people leave for reasons that are entirely avoidable if the firm communicated with them as to reasons for the decision and if the firm was aware that the employee was considering leaving.

Others (perhaps more sane) lawyers elect to leave the profession all together for the more lucrative fields of business or investment banking.

The death of loyalty

Many firms seem to view their employed lawyers as ‘human capital’. To some extent this is a correct description, but one that lacks a longer-term view. Lawyers are intelligent people who need to feel that they are part of a firm and have some sense of ownership of the firm (or at least their career). To take the view that employee lawyers exist simply to service a firm’s need for fee earners without recognising that each of those lawyers is an individual who may have something to contribute to the growth of the firm does not maximise the benefits the firm can obtain from the employee and, further, leads to the employee lawyer feeling unvalued and much like a cog in a machine.

This is exacerbated through the use of systems to evaluate the performance of lawyers at each level. Many very large firms endeavour to ‘pigeon-hole’ different levels of lawyer and assess them according to a system. That, in my view, suffocates junior lawyers and alienates them from the firm. This leads to the syndrome that I have called the death of loyalty. It makes lawyers think of their work as jobs and not careers, or more correctly, their role at a firm as part of a career within which that firm does nor have a long-term role to play.

The use of managers who do not understand the way in which the profession operates may lead to misunderstandings between management and the lawyers who often feel that management views them as replaceable and like any other worker in a factory. I am pleased to say that this has not been my experience with my current employer – but I have observed it at other firms that pride themselves on having sophisticated management systems such as that described above.

A simple cure

I have observed one management style which has served to counter the trend of staff turnover. In my view it is the only way for firms to respond to the trend (and I have stated above my view that a stable workforce has tangible economic benefits for a firm) is for partners to take responsibility for the people that work for them. What do I mean by such a statement?

In short, by adopting a strategy where the partners responsible for fee earners work with the fee earners to manage their careers, very real employee loyalty can be generated by lawyers who feel included, valued and listened to. This obviously links in with the notion that firms should be more rigorous with their recruiting policies to ensure the best fit for each practice group, but this approach has, in my view, significant benefits for firms bold enough to take responsibility.

Of course, by getting to know the lawyers that work for them, and engendering a sense of communication that can be full and frank, partners can ensure that the lawyers that work for them are realistic about their goals and that appropriate opportunities can be presented to lawyers within the groups. The return on this is loyalty and that, frankly, is priceless. Loyalty results in increased productivity and a more harmonious workplace. Perhaps most importantly, turnover can be reduced where it is due to misunderstanding and miscommunication.

The future

With the market for legal services becoming more competitive, real competitive advantage can be had by firms that have a loyal staff who have a sense of being ‘part’ of the firm. This cannot be created by ‘systems’; it is a matter of leadership of partners and the adoption of a hands-on management strategy. The flipside of this is that partners of firms that will be successful in the future will be active in recruitment of the people that work for them and view each member of their team as their responsibility.

While this represents a radical move away from the way in which many firms approach HR issues, it does work and, in my experience, it has tangible outcomes for firms bold enough to realise that their human capital is precisely that, the individuals that make the firm what it is.

James Bremen can be contacted at jbremen@mccullough.com.au, or (07) 3233 8835.