So says Marty Lipton in some of the more memorable passages in his celebrated mission statement for Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, the world’s most commercially-successful law firm. As James Illman reports on pages 24-25,
The sentiments and ethos that Lipton articulates are in striking contrast to the utter lack of collegiality on
display at the start of London’s assistant pay round, following Clifford Chance’s surprising decision to reveal its hand early — and at the lower end of expectations.
You only have to glance at the majority of posts on legalweek.com to appreciate the prevailing atmosphere. Aspiring and junior lawyers believe they are being short-changed by partners, that their pay is falling behind
The fact that associate pay has at least kept pace with partner profits and has, by most measures, outpaced house price inflation does not seem to matter.
The same goes for the investment banks’ supposed desire to recruit lawyers to business roles en masse, evidence of which is scant at best. What is important, in the context of this debate, is what assistants believe — and it is far removed from the ‘one-for-all’ ethos that Wachtell built its business on.
It is time for City firms to recognise that something has gone badly wrong, both with their relationships with assistants and their ability to communicate effectively with them. For a start, law firm leaders might want to reassess the impact slashing equity partner ranks has had on both the career track and the relationship between partners and their assistants. In hard business terms, it is becoming clear that young lawyers now expect far higher pay to replace their lost partnership prospects.
The communication problem should not be difficult to address. But attempts to win hearts and minds have been so ineffective you would think George Bush and Dick Cheney were on retainer for half the human resources teams in the City. So far only a few firms — including Allen & Overy — have grasped the notion that a bit of trust goes a long way.
Firms that cannot deal with this rapidly-shifting dynamic will put themselves at a severe competitive
disadvantage. Indeed, if they fail to turn the competitive instincts of their staff outwards, they risk tearing themselves apart.
