If lockstep compensation isn’t on life support than it must be a death row inmate who’s been served its last meal and is waiting on a reprieve from the governor. And news today makes it sound like up-or-out promotion (not the same thing) might be next. Biglaw firm Orrick has announced that what once was one partner track might become two.
The firm announced today it will no longer promote associates in lockstep fashion, according to their start date. Instead, junior lawyers will now be fitted into one of three slots: the “partner” track for gunners; the “custom” track for lifestyle-minded associates who plan to make partner in their own sweet time, or not at all, and finally the “career attorney” track for those who will focus on more mundane work, such as document review.
That’s a good start. But there’s a couple huge holes between this idea and a real revolution in how associates move through their legal career and how law firms manage the delivery of their services. One, there’s the little issue of starting on these tracks:
The way it would work is this: Most law grads will begin in the “partner” track, where they will toil for some period of time. Later, some percentage will either choose or be encouraged by the firm to move to the “custom” track. Many “career attorney” track lawyers will be hired into that role.
This is still a form of up-or-out promotion. Except “out” in this case means just out of the fast lane. It could be years before we find out if the custom track actually leads anywhere near partnership. Not to mention the potential for minorities, women, and older starting attorneys (who were recent nontraditional law students) to get shuffled onto the shoulder, while the firm argues that they’re still on the road.
Why not hire people into the custom track (or even staff attorney track) straight out of law school? That puts the onus on the firm to make the custom track a real, viable career option, not just a pretend partner track. It also allows the firm to attract a wider range of personalities (and skills) rather than just adding “people who might burn out” to the candidate pool?
Two, Orrick might seem like its innovating, but in reality these changes are more in degree rather than kind. Firms have always shuffled unproductive associates and partners to staff attorney or Of Counsel positions. This just claims to give them a choice that still leads to partnership (if you trust the firm that it does).
Instead, how about thinking hard about what partners do and what associates do and split people up based on that? How about two partner tracks: one emphasizing productivity, lawyering skills, and sheer legal talent, and one emphasizing rainmaking, client relations, and case management? Some partners bring in business, some partners churn through it.
Or if that’s too radical for you, how about setting clearer goals for partner, where partner means more about getting a slice of the equity pie (like earning profit sharing or stock options with a company) and less about management. What if a firm made everyone who billed 13,000 hours a partner of some form? Doesn’t matter if it takes you six years or 15, you’ll get the slice of the pie you earn. The politics and subjective factors mean more about who manages and brings in business rather than who gets paid.
Orrick’s move is a good idea. The cargo ship that is the legal industry is not going to stop and change course on a dime. Changes like these are course corrections that need to be planned, thought out in advance, and executed smoothy and steadily. But hopefully a system like Orrick’s is a transitionary measure rather than “The New and Improved Biglaw.” Because if that’s what Biglaw calls radical change, a lot of people will be really shocked at the changes that get imposed on Biglaw.
