Boutique Law Firms, Small Law Firms

Beyond Biglaw: Lessons For Law Firms As ESPN Loses A Rainmaker

What can lawyers and law firms learn from ESPN and Bill Simmons parting ways? Some thoughts from columnist Gaston Kroub.

By  
on

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Bill Simmons. In particular, I discussed some lessons on perseverance I felt his life story conveyed, and how those lessons were relevant to attorneys.

And now Bill Simmons is in the news — in a big way. ESPN has decided not to renew his contract, and also decided to publicly break that news about four months before it was set to expire. I would imagine that neither decision was an easy one for ESPN to make — especially since there is now an awkward lame duck situation with one of their most public talents for some period of time. It will be interesting to see what develops, but one thing that seems pretty clear is that there is a market for Simmons’s talents. Whether he lands at a competing media company, or decides to launch his own “firm,” his upcoming departure from ESPN will not be the end of his career by any means.

This recent and unexpected bit of news got me thinking about the legal equivalent of Simmons’s quasi-termination from ESPN. Having practiced at Biglaw firms for over a decade (including a Biglaw firm that was a perennial entrant on the “turnover” rankings of various legal media publications), I have seen my share of colleagues come and go. When it comes to Simmons, however, I don’t think the proper analogy is to a fellow associate making the jump to a coveted in-house position, or even a service partner being “transitioned” out of the firm for non-performance or other less quantifiable reasons — a more common sight at many firms nowadays (especially since the 2008 economic crisis gave management committees leeway to increase equity-partner profits through mechanisms that were previously considered too barbaric for genteel law firms). Instead, I think Simmons’s situation is more accurately analogized to what happens on the rare occasion that a rainmaker leaves a firm — with some industry-specific adjustments, of course.

One big difference between rainmakers leaving law firms and what ESPN looks set to experience relates to the timing of the departure announcement. In the law firm world, important partners do not give much notice when they have committed to moving firms. Nor do firms give much notice when management has made a decision that a partner is no longer welcome — especially when the departure is due to some partner misconduct that has become public. If a rainmaker embarrasses a firm publicly, they may be able to survive the fallout once or twice, but eventually management will tire of that partner’s shenanigans and ask them to leave. I am not suggesting that the speculation surrounding ESPN’s divorce from Simmons is true. I do not know. What I do know is that I can’t recall a situation where a firm publicly parted ways with a rainmaker, or vice versa, and that partner stuck around the firm for a period of months thereafter. It just does not happen, in my experience.

Yet even though the precise circumstances of Simmons and ESPN are unlikely to arise in a law firm context for the reason above, I do think this story raises some issues worth considering — for current and aspiring rainmakers, as well as everyone else that works at law firms. At minimum, I think this story reinforces the notion that modern career realities have created a dynamic where even high performers’ continued employment is always subject to “negotiation,” no matter what industry (other than judges with lifetime tenure, maybe, or partners at lockstep firms — but even at those places the specter of de-equitization has become a reality). Even rainmakers must be prepared to justify their worth on a continuing basis, and calibrate their demands on the rest of the firm accordingly. Just like with Simmons, however, rainmakers have a huge advantage over their compatriots: namely, there is almost always a market for their services. And they often have the choice of being a “big fish in a small pond” or being a cog in an even larger machine. Either way, the expectation is that as long as they perform, and avoid publicly embarrassing their firms, there will be willing takers for their services.

At the same time, there is no doubt that when a rainmaker departs there is a vacuum created at the firm they leave behind. I imagine this will be true at ESPN when Simmons takes his leave, especially at the offices of his biggest contribution to the company in my opinion, Grantland.com. I am sure it will be an adjustment for the staff that stays behind, just as everyone needs to adjust at a law firm when a rainmaker moves on. Even something as superficial as having an empty corner office can have an impact on the colleagues left behind, and create a sense of disquiet about the firm ever being able to fill the gap created by the rainmaker’s departure. In fact, after the departure of a rainmaker, it can take months for the office to adjust to a new normalcy — especially if the rainmaker departs with other members of a larger team. It almost creates a situation where everyone left behind needs to question why they are remaining with the firm, even if they have no other apparent reason to want to leave. In short, when a rainmaker leaves, there is a risk that others will follow — which can create a disruptive cycle that firms would normally do anything to avoid.

Ultimately, when a rainmaker leaves, there are often unintended consequences for the companies they leave behind. Accordingly, it is no surprise that the decision whether or not to move on from a rainmaker is often one of the most difficult that management ever needs to make. But sometimes those decisions need to be made. And when they are, all everyone can hope is that it works out for all sides, with minimal collateral damage — especially to the lower-level employees that must move on or are left behind, since it is actually their lives that are most vulnerable to disruption. As for Simmons and ESPN? Even if the next few months are not the most comfortable, especially as the situation plays out in the public eye, they will both be just fine in the end. Sports are popular, after all.

Sponsored

Please send any comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome. For those interested in the intersection of intellectual property litigation and investing, I have also started a new blog/newsletter/video series, “The Markman Note,” which is being hosted at Mimesis Law. Feel free to check it out and let me know of any thoughts or suggestions.

Earlier: Beyond Biglaw: When To Never Give Up (Or, What Lawyers Can Learn From Bill Simmons)

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique. The firm’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,