Proof That Law Firms Don't Really Care About Associate Development

A federal judge told the parties they had to let their associates speak or neither side would get oral argument. The firms said they'd rather take option B.

courtroom-of-styleUPDATE: Judge Grewal has responded to the firms’ decision here.

Some firms do a better job of pushing their associates out of the nest, but by and large firms talk a much better game about lawyer development than they really practice. That reality was on full display last week when a pair of firms waived oral argument rather than comply with a judge’s order that the firms allow their associates to flex some courtroom muscles.

The double-edged sword of Biglaw (or high-stakes Small Law) litigation experience is that for all the wealth of high-profile disputes and complex legal issues young lawyers get to delve into, associates tend to be overlooked when it comes to actual courtroom work. If one is really lucky, maybe a senior associate will get tossed the direct examination of a meaningless witness as a bone, but generally the mantra of complex litigation is that associates are better seen in front of a word processor than heard.

Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal considered this decline in tangible courtroom experience granted to the next generation of lawyers in an order entered last week in GSI Technology v. United Memories:

In a technology community like ours that prizes youth—at times unfairly—there is one place where youth and inexperience seemingly comes with a cost: the courtroom. In intellectual property case after intellectual property case in this courthouse, legions of senior lawyers with decades of trial experience regularly appear. Nothing surprises about this. When trade secret or patent claims call for millions in damages and substantial injunctive relief, who else should a company call but a seasoned trial hand? But in even the brief tenure of the undersigned, a curious trend has emerged: the seasoned trial hand appears for far more than trial itself. What once might have been left to a less experienced associate is now also claimed by senior counsel. Motion to compel discovery? Can’t risk losing that. Motion to exclude expert testimony? Can’t risk losing that, either. Motion to exclude Exhibit 20356 as prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403? Same thing.

Faced with this conundrum, Judge Grewal proposed a novel solution:

But with no fewer than six post-trial motions set for argument next week, surely an opportunity can be made to give those associates that contributed mightily to this difficult case a chance to step out of the shadows and into the light. To that end, the court expects that each party will allow associates to present its arguments on at least two of the six motions to be heard. If any party elects not to do this, the court will take its positions on all six motions on the papers and without oral argument.

Sponsored

That seems entirely reasonable. Therefore, it should surprise no one that the senior lawyers in the case responded two days later by jointly agreeing that all the motions should be decided based on the filings.

United Memories is represented by Ruyak Cherian, so they probably get a pass here because the tech-focused litigation boutique might not have an army of associates on this matter to unleash. But GSI is represented by Biglaw behemoth DLA Piper, so we know they aren’t hurting for associates itching to get some time in front of a judge.

There’s no good way to spin this from the partners’ perspective. If the briefs researched and drafted by associates are so strong, then what possible harm could that associate do in arguing them? And why was oral argument so important when a seasoned *cough* higher billing *cough* lawyer was going to do it, and so unnecessary now? Plus, when Judge Grewal specifically asked to hear from less-experienced attorneys, he signaled himself as a sympathetic ear — he didn’t make this unusual request without planning to grade on a curve.

Think of this episode the next time a firm tells you how much they value their young lawyers: one of the biggest firms in the world would rather stay silent than let one of its legion of associates talk to a judge for 10 minutes… and still publicly crows about its commitment to “help our lawyers reach their highest potential as professionals.”

(If you’d like to decide the matter purely on the filings, both the order and response are available on the next page…)

Sponsored