Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on lateral moves from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Ed Wisneski is a Director with Lateral Link, a full-service, multinational legal recruiting firm. Ed’s practice focuses on: (1) working with law firm partners who wish to make successful lateral moves that are personally beneficial, maximizes their profitability and best meets the needs of their existing clients; (2) working with law firm associates who wish to make lateral moves that will enable them to meet their career goals; (3) working with top-level government attorneys who wish to make successful transitions into (or back to) private practice; and (4) working with corporate general counsel to attract and acquire top tier attorneys for important in-house positions. Prior to joining Lateral Link, Ed was a partner and an associate at Patton Boggs LLP, a premier international law firm. Over a 20 year career, Ed developed an ability to work closely with colleagues and clients to successfully navigate complex civil litigation matters. Ed strongly believes that his many years on the “inside” of a top law firm provided him with unique perspectives into the legal marketplace and what it takes to make a successful lateral move. Ed holds a B.S. in Communications from the University of Delaware, and a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law, where he graduated cum laude.
If you are a partner in a medium to large law firm, part of your week involves fielding multiple calls from legal recruiters. I know this because for many years prior becoming a Director at Lateral Link, I was a partner at a large international law firm. Towards the end of my tenure, I would receive calls from as many as six legal recruiters in a week, each with an earnest promise that they would find me the perfect job.
Did I take every call? No. But I did take many. Why? Because in today’s highly competitive legal market, it makes sense to know your options.
In a sea of legal recruiters, how can you determine which recruiter is right for you? How can that recruiter help you make a prudent lateral move? How can that recruiter help you test your marketability without causing a distraction to your busy work schedule?
There’s evidence to suggest that lateral partner hiring doesn’t always turn out well for the law firms that engage in it. Sometimes firms overpay for talent. Sometimes the talent isn’t as talented as they claimed. Sometimes firms fail to integrate lateral partners well. There are many ways for the process to go wrong.
But what about for the lateral partners themselves? Are they more satisfied with the process and their new professional homes?
April Fools’ Day is a terrible day to be in this business. Every tip that comes in requires an extra layer of scrutiny because even longstanding, trusted sources are trying to troll. It’s really not all that funny to make up false but entirely believable stories and pass them off as real. That’s why the Daily Currant isn’t funny.
Which is why when Citi Private Bank issued its First Quarter report on the confidence of managing partners across the legal landscape and declared that managing partners have a rosy outlook, it earned a double take on this end. After all, wasn’t it just a few months ago that managing partners were telling the American Lawyer that it was all gloom and doom on the horizon?
So is this result real? It is, but the headline isn’t the end of the story….
* Maybe things are getting better. Per the latest Law Watch Managing Partner Confidence Index, Biglaw partners have shown an uptick in confidence in the first quarter of 2014. [Am Law Daily]
* Thanks to this ruling, Chevron can sue Patton Boggs over claims it engaged in fraud during the Ecuador case. Don’t worry, we’re sure the merger with Squire Sanders will be just fine. [Reuters]
* Dewey know how much the latest clawback suit seeks from this failed firm’s ex-COO? About $9.3 million, for his “astronomically generous” employment contract. [WSJ Law Blog (sub. req.)]
* No more “unfounded” filings for this unfound plane: A firm’s attempts to get documents from Malaysian Air to file a possible lawsuit have been thwarted by a judge, with the possibility of sanctions. [Bloomberg]
* When your “concerned uncle” is writing to a pre-law adviser about your future when you haven’t even gone to college yet, you know you’re probably destined to be a gunner. [Law Admissions Lowdown / U.S. News]
I didn’t appreciate it before I moved in-house, but law firms are remarkably meeting-free. I suspect this is for three reasons: First, law firms are not public companies, so they aren’t obligated to perform many bureaucratic tasks the law imposes on public companies. Second, most law firms bill by the hour; when time is literally money, few people tolerate non-productive meetings. Finally, law firms have flat organizational structures. Although partners cooperate to varying degrees within firms, partners (or, at a minimum, partners who generate business) are largely independent actors. A partner is retained for a new piece of business, assembles a team to handle the work, and starts working. The team is typically fairly small (two or three lawyers are plenty to handle most legal matters; a team of 25 lawyers is large, even at a big firm; a team of 100 means you’re defending the largest of the mass torts). There’s no real organizational structure within the firm. A partner in charge of a practice or an office may technically oversee another partner’s work, but “oversight” in that sense means only making sure the partner’s bringing in enough business and billing enough hours. “Oversight” does not mean, for example, having weekly one-on-one meetings with the partner to manage his performance; no senior partner would stand for that nonsense (and waste of time).
Corporations are different. They’re publicly traded. They’re often much larger than law firms. They’re divided into operational divisions with pyramidal structures, with many people reporting to fewer people who report to fewer people still who report to someone near the top. Put that all together, and it means meetings. And meetings. And meetings. And meetings. In fact, to my eye, there are four types of corporate meetings . . . .
Some former partners of the dearly departed Dewey & LeBoeuf claim that the firm could have survived if not so many partners had defected in the final months. The wishful thinking theory of these Dewey defenders is that if the firm could have held on to more of its top rainmakers, the plan of paying everyone back (slowly) and waiting for work to pick up might have succeeded.
Perhaps learning from Dewey, the leaders of embattled Patton Boggs have been trying to get partners to commit to staying as the firm restructures. Not long ago, managing partner Edward Newberry declared that about 90 percent of the firm’s partners agreed to stick around.
But 90 percent is not 100 percent. Today brings word of more Patton partners headed for the exits. How many? Who are they? And where are they going?
* The federal judiciary is hiring for staff and public defender positions lost during the government’s sequestration throughout the better part of last year. Ready, aim, fire those résumés! [Legal Times]
* New York Biglaw firms always manage to find their way to the top of the Am Law 100 rankings. When all’s said and done, being so close to Wall Street definitely has its perks. [Bloomberg Businessweek]
* Absolutely no one should be alarmed about the fact that Kasowitz Benson’s profits per partner have dropped by 15 percent — well, no one but the equity partners, that is. Have fun with that. [Am Law Daily]
* The managing partner of Jacoby & Meyers is worried people will think his personal injury firm is going under, not Jacoby & Meyers Bankruptcy. Either way, those commercials won’t die. [New York Law Journal]
* A professor at George Mason University Law was pepper sprayed IN THE FAAAAAACE by an unknown assailant in his classroom yesterday afternoon. We’ll obvious have more on this story later. [ARLNow]
* La Verne is the first law school to offer flat-rate tuition. There will be no scholarships and no discounts. Students will pay $25K/year, nothing more, nothing less. This is, dare we say, wise. [National Law Journal]
* “Passion over pension.” Mekka Don, the Weil Gotshal corporate lit attorney turned rapper, just released his first CD, and it’s all about leaving Biglaw to follow his dreams. Go buy it here (affiliate link). [MTV]
As we noted in Morning Docket, there’s a new survey out about corporate America’s legal spending in 2013. As noted by Am Law Daily, the LegalView Index “is based on actual dollars paid by clients, not on surveys of law firms” — so perhaps it’s more reliable than many of the other studies.
What does the survey say? Here are some highlights:
When we last checked in with the beleaguered law firm of Patton Boggs, things were looking… dicey. The firm was losing more partners — some due to layoffs, some due to defections — and firm leaders were suspending their partnership draws (and asking their fellow partners to do the same; yikes).
But today we actually have some positive news to share about Patton Boggs. Here comes the cavalry!
Which major law firm just signed a letter of intent with Patton Boggs regarding a possible merger?
* Congratulations to WilmerHale on landing former FBI director Robert Mueller, and congratulations to Mueller on his move (a homecoming of sorts; he was once a partner at Hale & Dorr, the “Hale” in “WilmerHale”). [DealBook / New York Times]
* “Have a Better Legal Career by Being Less of a Lawyer.” [Medium]
* This story of losing a client might contain lessons for lawyers. [BigLawRebel]
* As we previously mentioned, the SCOTUS-themed play Arguendo is coming to D.C., and there’s a discount code for ATL readers: WMATL, good for 15% off on previews, Friday nights, Saturday matinees, and Sunday evenings. Enjoy! [Woolly Mammoth]
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
Please note that Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney are still in Hong Kong and will stay FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS WEEK. We still have a handful of available slots for meetings with our Asia Chronicles fans. If we have not been in touch lately, reach out and let us know when we could meet! There is no need for an agenda at all. Most of our in-person meetings on these trips are with folks who understand that improving a legal practice through lateral hiring is an information-driven process that takes time to handle correctly.
Regarding trends in lateral US associate hiring in Hong Kong, we of course keep much of what we know off of this blog. Based on placement revenue, though, Kinney is having one of our most successful years ever in Asia. We are helping a number of our law firm clients with M&A, fund formation, cap markets, project finance, FCPA and disputes openings. These are very specific needs in many cases, so a conversation with us before jumping in may be helpful. As always, we like to be sure to get the maximum number of interviews per submission, using a well-informed, highly targeted, and selective approach, taking into account short, medium and long-term career aims.
Making a well informed decision during a job search is easier said than done – the information we provide comes from 10 years of being the market leader in US attorney placements at the top tier firms in Asia. There is no substitute for having known a hiring partner since he/she was an associate or for having helped a partner grow his or her practice from zip to zooming, and this is happily where we stand today – with years of background information on just about every relevant person in all the markets we serve, and most especially in Hong Kong/China/Greater Asia. So get in touch and get a download from us this week if we can fit it in, or soon in any case!
The legal industry is being disrupted at every level by technological advances. While legal tech entrepreneurs and innovators are racing to create a more efficient and productive future, there is widespread indifference on the part of attorneys toward these emerging technologies.
When the LexisNexis Cloud Technology Survey results were reported earlier this year, it showed that attorneys were starting to peer less skeptically into the future, and slowly but surely leaning more toward all the benefits the law cloud has to offer.
Because let’s face it, plenty of attorneys are perhaps a bit too comfortable with their “system” of practice management, which may or may not include neon highlighters, sticky notes, dog-eared file folders, and a word processing program that was last updated when the term “raise the roof” was still de rigueur.