Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
Point 1: Big law can't help.
|
Can't
help? No, they're not interested in
changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
My first biglaw, my entire class got turned down for partner at the last minute because "the firm wasn't doing well, and they needed to ensure that each current partner could expect a certain income." So they added a year to the track.
A bit after that a young partner gave me a list of billings from the "current partners." It was full of deadwood. Guys who once had a promising practice but now had no work and did very little. there was the problem- people who wanted "assurance" they'd be paid, when their anemic practices were the problem.
Meanwhile, my class? there were 7 of us. At first we'd been 50. Across 8 years they'd weeded us out. the associates who made it to the vote were 100% skilled and hard working. Yet they passed us over, rather than cut the comp for the real problem. BECAUSE the real problem had equity. The very clear business reality didn't matter.
I'm not looking for a boo-hoo for me- just making the point Big Law cannot change, not to keep me, and likely not to adjust to a diverse culture.
|
?
Yes. They are not interested in changing because they built a business model that rewards greed and selfishness and is based on maintaining the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
the answer may be for in-house counsel to be willing to move away from big law and look to mid-size firms that have more ability to adjust to realities, and to look to build a firm that looks more like the clients they represent?
|
This is happening. But in house legal departments are also starting to move business away from firms who don't give a shit about changing. But it is a major uphill climb because, as we both said, firms aren't going to change on their own.
TM
