Nearly two-thirds of major City firms have introduced partnership alternatives, according to Legal Week research, which shows many law firms are still wrestling with 20%-plus associate attrition rates.
The upcoming Legal Week Assistant Report has found that 59% of the top law firms operating in the UK have already introduced partnership alternatives.
Denton Wilde Sapte and Cobbetts are among the firms moving to implement new career paths this autumn while Reed Smith Richards Butler is set to introduce senior non-partner roles by the end of the year. In addition, SJ Berwin and Osborne Clarke are in the early stages of similar initiatives.
The research illustrates the rapid acceptance of partner alternatives as City firms struggle to reconcile high demand for experienced lawyers with the squeeze on partner promotions. Of those that have introduced such roles, 30% have done so within the last 12 months.
A Legal Week Intelligence survey of nearly 3,000 assistants this year found that one in 10 lawyers already see such roles as their favoured career goal.
SJ Berwin senior partner Jonathan Blake said: “There are various needs these roles respond to. On one hand you have the motivation of associates who do not want to make the commitment to make partner, but are skilled and happy in their job. On the other, you have the motivations of a partnership that wants to retain its best talent, but for various reasons does not want to make them partner.”
However, some City lawyers are sceptical of the concept with Slaughter and May partner Nigel Boardman saying: “I do not think that these structures are very helpful and could mean people make the wrong career decision. It is difficult to keep up commitment to client service without the motivation of partnership.”
The report, which is based on detailed responses from 59 leading law firms, also finds that many firms are struggling to control high attrition rates.
Sixteen percent of respondents admitted to losing 20% to 30% of their qualified staff in the past year, while at firms including Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Ashurst and Herbert Smith this stands at 15%-20%.
See Editors' Blog
Talkback: Are you backing Boardman? Click here to have your say.
Who is accepting the alternative - the partners or the associates? I don't get the sense many good junior lawyers have accepted the slog and brown nosing is worth it if partnership isn't available later.
Boardman is right: if you want to motivate bright young people, offer a reward worth having. Otherwise you get the staff you deserve.
Boardman is right, but does speak from a position of strength. He can recruit the brightest and the best and motivate them with equity partnership in the most profitable firm by far to be a junior partner in.
At lesser firms, the issue is still 'why work so hard unless you are paid well and get responsibility?'. No matter what the title is, the reality is that as a non-partner you are not in the club and no matter what committee structure is put in place the most junior partner can override it with the simple words "I am a partner, you work for me". Senior associates will have a tough time seeing those who are now running the show in their mid and late 40s who wouldn't stand a chance of getting in now and will leave for partnerships at smaller firms or go in-house. Market forces will continue to work and associates (especially those in transactional roles) will get paid more and more money.
If lawyers are motivated by partnership they are not serving their clients but themselves. In this age of hours-building, the client is left facing minimum billing periods that can be as large as 15 minutes and inefficient and exhausted assistants desperately seeking a partnership. Anything that provides a career route that does not involve partnership must be welcomed, particularly by clients.
Anthony, perhaps you will forgive us for putting our own livelihoods ahead of client service - assuming, which I don't, the two are in conflict.
As for welcoming a profession which squeezes very bright and motivated people without the reward of partnership being offered, well, that may well suit whoever is in charge of the legal budget at the client. But working lawyers will tell you what they think of the idea, and I suspect farmyard smells may come into it.
Please return to Earth.
Associates DO want an alternative to partnership - if it also means an alternative to the lifestyle partner-aspirants have to deal with. If it's just a way to give out less partnerships for the same level of work, associates don't want it.
Let's be honest and stop talking about partnership as a 'reward'. It is not. Years ago, associates were made up to partner because they were excellent legal minds and had worked long hours as an associate. Times have changed, however. Now, when making up partners, firms are looking for 'the next generation of rainmakers i.e. persons with excellent commercial skills but (unfortunately) not always good legal skills. But hey, that's why there are associates, isn't it! It is sad to see that a profession that was once composed of the most erudite yet unpretending man and woman is now more and more being populated by ordinary and cash-hungry salesmen/women.
Isn't the fundamental problem here that firms are judged (wholly incorrectly) on PEP. Eradicate that and firms are left with more options as to how to divide up profit and still look strong in the legal press. My thoughts are that market image, driven by the press as usual, is moving the carrot further and further away for us associates, whilst the pre occupation with billing beats us harder with the stick.
Related Articles
Latest Jobs
