Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on lateral partner moves from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Jonathan Birenbaum is a Senior Director at Lateral Link, where he specializes in the recruitment of partners, counsel, associates and groups for law firms and attorneys for in-house counsel roles with corporate law departments in the New York area, the U.S., Canada and internationally.
As a Senior Director with Lateral Link, I have assisted many partners in career choices and in lateral moves. I like to think of my role as an objective consultant and advisor, with a cache of experience and lessons learned to share with my candidates. I’d like to discuss one recent lateral move that took place last year, as it was unique and challenging and may provide useful teachings for others contemplating a similar move.
In April 2015, I started a professional relationship with an up-and-coming, bright commercial litigation partner with a boutique firm in Manhattan. He had an impressive background, cutting his teeth with an Am Law 50 firm, and had a diverse set of cases under his belt. The partner had a solid book of portable business, and represented a key international entertainment company, along with a number of other clients that had given him repeat litigation business over the years. Although the boutique had been a great experience, the time was right to start exploring other options. We worked together for several months to map the market of AmL aw and boutique firms in New York, assess the relative pros and cons of potential suitors, and finalize his business plan. Then he was ready to pull the trigger. He authorized me to present him to firms that we thought would see him as an attractive candidate and offer synergies.
By May 2016, the candidate had received comparable partner offers from a bi-coastal full-service firm known for its top-shelf entertainment practice (“Firm A”) and an Am Law 100 firm (“Firm B”) to which we had moved a litigation group earlier in the year. The candidate felt that his practice fit better with Firm A and he was inclined to accept their offer. Then a wrinkle appeared: Firm A proposed a potential merger with the partner candidate’s entire boutique firm, and assured the candidate that the firm was still interested in hiring him individually if the merger did not come to fruition.
We were feeling good about his situation and strategized about whether the candidate should accept the individual offer, which was his preference, or enter the merger talks, which he understood would create a new issues and would likely prolong his transition to a new firm. He agreed that it made sense to explore the merger but was concerned about how long it would take for Firm A and his firm to share financial information and perform the kind of due diligence it takes to conclude that there was a business case for the combination. My experience has taught me that momentum can be key, so we wanted to make sure both parties stayed focused.
The merger talks ended unsuccessfully in August 2016. While the candidate still had two pending offers, he was not happy about the amount of time that had elapsed and decided that we should explore if there might be an additional firm that we could approach and that might provide him with an even more sensible option for him and his clients. We agreed that I should inform Firm B that he was not going to accept their offer, but we would continue the friendly conversation with Firm A as we forged ahead with new possibilities.
We identified a West Coast-based Am Law 200 firm (“Firm C”) that was looking to grow its litigation group in New York. Firm C also has an office in Asia and would provide the partner with a very strong IP and entertainment platform. Furthermore, one of the partner’s law school friends was a partner with the firm’s key West Coast office. To that end, we were able to cobble together my market intelligence and experience along with his friend’s view from “inside the fort.” After several meetings, including a fly out to the West Coast headquarters, we told Firm A that the partner had an offer on the table but that, based on the relative strengths of the latest firm to the table, he preferred to join Firm C.
By having thoroughly explored three different individual options and a merger opportunity, the partner candidate felt comfortable with the information he received as well as the comparison between the firms. This is a key point—when testing the waters, one should explore a few options within the desired space. As much of this process is subjective, meetings with key partners and decision makers go a long way.
The partner made another strong case to Firm C and, after clearing conflicts, they responded with an offer. After a brief period of communicating with his clients about his intention to move his practice to a larger international firm, as well as the negotiation of compensation and bonus, the partner accepted the offer and started with the firm just after the new year.
There were brief periods of trepidation for both the candidate and myself during the exploration process, particularly when he and his partners were in merger talks. To both of our credit, we never stopped communicating about what the partner wanted to achieve in his next move. While there were some sticky moments, I was very confident that the candidate was going to find the right firm and the right fit for him, his family and his practice. I believe that we accomplished this goal.
During the past two years, we have seen strong demand for commercial and specialty litigation practices from Am Law mid-market law firms, as well as from multi-practice national and New York City area full-service boutique firms. Many of these firms have their sights set on adding:
- up-and-coming litigation partners or counsel with solid levels of portable business in the $500,000 to $1M range, and
- groups of litigators with strong cumulative revenues to bolster their litigation practices or to better compete against firms with comparable litigation practice mixes.
Making a move from a smaller firm to a larger one can provide you with the opportunity to exponentially grow your current practice via cross-selling, introductions, and brand name. Such a move may involve exploring parallel opportunities with multiple firms until you find the one that works best for you. The lateral partner hiring process can involve intricacies and challenges that require patience, persistence and creative solutions. A trusted and experienced recruiter can provide guidance as well as creative solutions throughout the experience.
Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click ::here:: to find out more about us.