Survey resultsLegal Week’s in-depth survey of the country’s top law firms offers the big picture on just what law firms offer their assistants and associates — from salary, to soft benefits, to career progression. Read on to find out how your law firm fares and how the competition stacks up. Derek Bedlow and Sophie Evans report
“People increasingly ask employers ‘what can you do for me?’” says Clare Roberts, a human resources (HR) consultant with PA Consulting. “Ten years ago, that would have been unheard of. They have a different attitude to work and employers are having to rethink their proposition to potential recruits.”
The economic boom enjoyed since the turn of the millennium has had a profound effect on the
From a standing start, the
Legal Week’s assistants’ survey, carried out in association with Hays Legal, reveals a leading pack of firms that have worked hard to improve life for their fee earners; it also shows that many firms have a long way to go in changing attitudes to flexible working, and in improving the way they communicate with their assistants. Generation Y and the generation behind them, the so-called millennials, are more focused on the here and now — but is it fair to criticise their apparent unwillingness to make heavy personal sacrifices for their careers?
As the prospects of partnership diminish, it is only natural that most lawyers are not going to waste time chasing an unrealistic goal. Fewer than half of the 2,956 respondents to this year’s Employee Satisfaction Survey (ESS) of assistants and associates at the UK’s largest firms, carried out by Legal Week Intelligence in February, say they aspire to become a partner at their current firm. Fewer partnership opportunities will eventually force law firms to radically restructure; the picture unveiled by Legal Week’s research for its assistants’ survey is only the beginning of this paradigm shift.
The war of attrition
As the cliche goes, law firms’ greatest assets are their people. But their staff, especially the fee earning ones, have become one of their biggest problems. Some level of staff turnover is healthy, but some of the attrition rates reported by the leading law firms that responded to the survey are high. Of the 59 law firms which took part in Legal Week’s survey, 53 were prepared to divulge their assistant and associate attrition rates, leaving six who were not. Four of these were among the top 10 respondents by turnover — these firms’ collective silence arguably speaks volumes. For while they are now among the best firms in terms of accommodating Generation Y’s career needs, they are clearly still losing a lot of lawyers.
Sixteen percent of all respondents admitted to losing between 20%-30% of their qualified staff in the past year — surely serious cause for concern. The financial cost of high staff turnover is difficult to calculate to the penny, but the combination of recruiters’ fees, lost partner time, the reduced productivity of lawyers while serving their notice and the gap in the ranks while the vacancy is waiting to be filled is commonly estimated to be in the region of a year’s salary.
What engenders loyalty?
The traditional response of the legal profession to staff turnover problems has been to throw money at it, but there is increasing evidence that money alone is becoming a less and less effective tool. The ESS has long established that the most important aspects of job satisfaction for lawyers are work-life balance and ‘softer’ factors such as culture, management style and communication. And the other traditional motivational tool — the prospect of partnership — is also losing its edge.
“In my generation, if you worked hard and kept your nose clean you would usually become an equity partner,” says Tony Williams, management consultant at Jomati and the former managing partner of magic circle giant Clifford Chance. “Now the statistics would suggest that only around 10% of those starting training contracts will become partners. Consequently, there is more mobility now.”
Although there remain many assistants and associates at law firms who are committed to the traditional career path and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, law firms are now catering for two disparate groups of employees — those who still buy into the traditional career path and those who do not.
For the latter camp (and many of the former), the main drivers of loyalty and ‘discretionary effort’ (going the extra mile) are much the same as those found in the wider business world which, according to PA Consulting’s Roberts, are the provision of skills development, providing career development opportunities and, importantly, being able to demonstrate a link between employees’ efforts and the performance of the organisation and effective team and line management.
As a way of gauging the importance law firms ascribe to management skills, Legal Week asked law firms if assistants’ line managers are made to go on compulsory management courses. Only 29% said yes, which leaves 71% of the top law firms in the
Lawyers have never claimed to be good at the touchy-feely stuff, typically being more adept at spotting flaws and weaknesses than giving praise. In a Legal Week Big Question survey published on 5 April, only 11% of partners claimed that they were good at communicating with rank-and-file lawyers — proof if it was needed, that management training should be compulsory for all lawyer-managers.
According to the assistants’ survey, the vast majority of firms say they consult partners and line managers when giving assistants and associates feedback on their work, but only one in two do 360-degree appraisals for partners (see Stephenson Harwood case study, page 5). So assistants’ grievances about their supervising partners may be going unheard at the 42% of firms that do not offer 360-degree appraisals for partners. Only one law firm, Baker & McKenzie, says it is set to introduce such appraisals — Bakers says a pilot is being introduced later this year.
Other notable initiatives to address these issues include Berwin Leighton Paisner’s (BLP’s) ‘Lawyers Leading People’ internal training campaign for partners.
The legal profession has traditionally been a slow adopter of new management ideas, but many firms have begun to implement new HR policies to cope with the new paradigm. As the survey shows, these range from firm-wide consultation exercises and associate representation on firm management boards through to on-site dry cleaning and free ice cream in the office. Many of these initiatives, mentoring schemes for example, represent the formalisation of what used to happen naturally when law firms were smaller and the number of assistants and associates per partner was much lower than it is today.
However, HR initiatives are useless without partner buy-in. A Legal Week Big Question survey in June this year found that the majority of
This is not a problem exclusive to law firms. “There is an issue generally about the influence of HR departments,” says Roberts. “HR supports the business most effectively when there is a senior HR person on the management board who is engaged at strategic business decision-making level. Otherwise, there is a risk that some HR processes are just seen as a bureaucratic nuisance.”
This issue is increasingly being addressed by the leading accounting firms, which have generally made people retention a key part of their business plans and where, most importantly, partners are remunerated for more than just fee earning. One-third of the partner ‘scorecard’ at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, for example, is related to staff issues.
“In the accounting profession, there has been a shift in the culture and the value that is placed on people management,” Roberts says. “The way that partners are remunerated is not just based on fee income. It is about encouraging good behaviour and penalising bad behaviour, even if those partners generate a lot of fees. They are giving more training on management and leadership skills and reinforcing this through remuneration.”
Frances Cullen, manager in Deloitte’s human capital consulting practice, says the professional services giant has a dedicated training team to make sure they have the right training curriculum in place, from people management to academic courses.
“As we are a large organisation, we have systems and processes in place to facilitate career management,” she says. “The firm provides the infrastructure and processes but the individual has a key role to play in managing his/her career. We have a very holistic talent model. A talent management strategy needs to be grounded in the overall business strategy.”
Moves in a similar direction at many practices are still at an embryonic stage, but some believe that the recruitment and retention crisis being experienced by many law firms will prove to be a powerful catalyst. One such person is Jeff Marlow, director of HR and training at Stephenson Harwood.
“Recruitment and retention problems have made law firms realise that they cannot afford to ignore these issues,” he says. “The attitudes of Generations X and Y have been a big push for that. People are still prepared to be loyal, but it is no longer blind loyalty. They want a grown-up relationship with their employers. It is a two-way process and they have to feel they are getting something from the relationship.
“Just offering partnership does not cut it anymore — that is why there is suddenly such a big HR agenda. Law firms ignore these things at their peril.”
Communication and feedback
Communication in all its forms is key to job satisfaction, but unfortunately in recent years, good ongoing communication, feedback and guidance has been one of the significant casualties of rising leverage and growing demands on partners. Communication and creativity is acknowledged to be superior in open plan offices but Legal Week’s survey shows only 30% of the 59 respondents house fee earners in an open plan environment. This may not be a vital statistic, but it reflects nicely the state of communications in the largest law firms in the
The survey looked at communication from two perspectives: feedback on a fee earner’s work and career progression, and the chance for assistants and associates to communicate their opinions on the firm and the way it is managed.
Uncommon praise
Being recognised and praised for good work, coupled with the communication skills of immediate management have been consistently cited by assistants and associates as two of the most important aspects of their working lives. This is perhaps why law firms have recently been paying so much attention to the issue; the range of communication and feedback initiatives generated some of the most interesting, detailed and broad-ranging of responses given for the Legal Week assistants’ survey.
However, only one firm actually used the word “praise” when articulating its communications initiatives — Linklaters. The magic circle giant said in part of its response to the question ‘how do you recognise the achievements of the firm’s assistants, other than financially?’, that it gives “praise notes from the senior partner based on client feedback”.
David Cheyne, Linklaters’ senior partner explains: “We think it is incredibly important to pass on client feedback to our associates, to let them know that we recognise that they are doing a great job and that their contribution is highly valued. I do not have a standard form of praise note and I write them myself.”
While praise will not pay the mortgage, it does contribute to a fee earner’s general job satisfaction and willingness to work hard.
Other responses that deserve a mention include BLP, which makes sure that individual achievement is “lauded” throughout the firm while Shoosmiths runs an employee of the month scheme.
All in all, a little more praise from partners would go a long way.
More innovative (or gimmicky, depending on your point of view) schemes include recognition of achievements via staff intranet sites (Clifford Chance, Withers), regular email updates on what is going on at the firm including individual successes (LeBoeuf Lamb Greene & Macrae) and ‘roadshows’ (Beachcroft, Hammonds, Hill Dickinson, McGrigors and Shoosmiths) which see a firm’s management visiting staff — this method of communication is understandably popular at the national firms, as the named firms illustrate.
A large number of firms reward assistants’ hard work and success with lunch or dinner with the partners — which may be a mixed blessing for some who spend several weeks on a deal with the same partners. Macfarlanes wins glamour plaudits for the skiing trips it offers assistants.
Management involvement
Law firms seem to be getting better at involving assistants in management issues, which may in turn help lower attrition rates as firms gradually accept that their assistants and associates are also stakeholders in the firm.
Allen & Overy (A&O) announced in February this year that it was to appoint an associate to attend its weekly management meetings — the move was the outcome of a senior associate conference (see article, page 46). Fellow magic circle firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer held an away-day in March this year to hear their assistants and associates’ concerns (see article, page 42), with partner Hugh Crisp admitting it was “important to make sure there was a better system for communication between associates and partners”.
Going a step further, Latham & Watkins claims to be one of the first firms in the world to include associates alongside partners in its business decision-making process, through its associates committee — made up of roughly equal numbers of associates and partners.
This determines policy on career progress and the bonus structure and is described as “one of the nerve centres of the firm”.
Fellow US firm White & Case also fosters an open communication culture, through associates committees and its ‘Ask Jim’ sessions — which the firm says is “a chance to raise anything the associate wishes, with the firm’s chief operating officer”.
White & Case says it has an open-door policy for assistants wanting to raise management-themed issues with the partnership, as does Clifford Chance which hosts “open door’ breakfasts/lunches between management and junior staff.”
Continuing the communications drive, A&O has set up its own wiki (while this is intended to make sure lawyers are working cohesively for a client, it does encourage greater communication and collaboration in the firm) while a number, including BLP, Eversheds and Lovells have regular Q&A or ‘have your say’ sessions between assistants and the firm’s management. Olswang is a bit more grandiose, putting on a ‘State of the Nation’ talk where associates are invited to ask questions and give their input.
Perhaps sensibly, Lovells addresses the issue of employees not being keen to upset the apple cart by asking tough questions of senior management, by combining such sessions with drinks: “Drinks sessions are formatted to invite questions and views from associates and other employee groups,” the firm said in its reponse.
Many of these initiatives are in their infancy and Legal Week has yet to record any improvement in the rather lukewarm satisfaction scores given in the ESS for the communication and feedback skills of their employers.
And there are signs that the magic circle’s efforts to listen more to their associates have precipitated similar moves at other top 20 firms — Norton Rose for example says it is soon to launch ‘employee forums’ to address assistant involvement in the management of the firm.
Worth the wait or wasting time?
For many, perhaps the majority of assistants and associates, partnership is no longer attainable or desirable; statistics now suggest that just 10% of those currently starting training contracts at top City firms are likely to make it to the summit.
For those who do want to go the distance, the time and effort required to make partner has increased, as indeed have the demands on the workload of the lucky few that do make it through to the partnership. In May this year Legal Week revealed that the wait for partnership is getting longer at the
This lengthening of the odds of making partner is undoubtedly changing the received wisdom at law firms — it is becoming okay to admit you do not aspire to becoming a partner. And law firms are gradually learning to adapt to this new reality and are creating roles which will keep the good people who have no ambition to become a partner. Those firms that are not introducing alternative career paths for talented lawyers risk sending out the message that they have no long-term future at their firm. The problem this creates is a large, disillusioned workforce which has no obvious stake in the future of the firm and the consequences for morale, productivity and retention are clear.
The alternatives to partnership that are now being introduced have a variety of titles — ‘of counsel’, ‘counsel’, ‘senior associate’ and ‘director’ being the most popular — according to Legal Week research, but they all offer a long- term, senior-level option for those who do not want to make the personal sacrifices required to make partnership.
Legal Week’s assistants survey shows 59% of the leading law firms now offer one of these roles, while a further 3% are in the process of introducing them. Cobbetts is set to introduce a directorship role by autumn, and Denton Wilde Sapte’s new career structure comes into effect this autumn. Reed Smith Richards Butler says it is introducing such positions “by the end of the year” and Osborne Clarke says alternatives to partnership “are being looked at”.
While most of the 34 firms that already have alternative career structures in place introduced them more than two years ago (55%), a significant minority have made the changes in the past year; 15% say they introduced them six to 12 months ago, and a further 1% rang the changes in the past six months.
‘Of counsel’ is the role law firms are most likely to have created, followed by plain ‘counsel’ and ‘director’, although job titles varied quite widely (see chart, page 13).
In most cases, firms say it is a joint decision between the assistants and their supervising partner as to whether they should put themselves forward for promotion to these positions, although there are a number of instances where the decision to apply lies solely with either the partner or the potential candidate. At McGrigors, the process involves drawing up a departmental business plan to support such an application — the Scottish firm is not alone in doing this but it must be difficult to garner support from across the department to submit the case for an of counsel, for example, and would require committed managers to steer the process.
At face value, these roles offer a good deal for solicitors — at their best providing a six-figure salary without the commitment, pressure and hours required of being a partner, especially as the traditional refuges of harassed City solicitors — the regions and in-house practice — do not always offer the more relaxed lifestyles they once did. Nor are these alternatives necessarily a career cul-de-sac. In many cases, such as the scheme introduced by Ashurst this year, promotion to a permanent non-partner position does not preclude incumbents from becoming partners later on. Unsurprisingly, they are proving popular. According to this year’s ESS, one-in-10 assistants and associates see acquiring one of these roles as their primary career aim, a figure which rises to one-in-eight among female solicitors.
The number of people who presently hold these positions varies quite markedly between firms, even between those of a similar size. A&O, for example, has 11 ‘counsel’ whereas CC has only appointed five ‘directors’ so far. Of the respondents from US firms in
Gender reversal
Interestingly, while such non-partner roles have traditionally been coveted by female lawyers, the newly-created roles have been filled by male lawyers at many firms. For example, Ashurst has brought in a counsel role in the past six months; 60% of counsel at the firm are male. Barlow Lyde & Gilbert also introduced an associate director role in the past six months and it reports a 67% male, 33% female split.
Overall, firms gave a gender breakdown for 36 different types of alternative career paths; 61% of these categories are male-dominated, 33% are female-dominated and 6% report an even split. Is this a sign that the desire for a better work-life balance really has spread throughout the profession, rather than being confined to working mothers? Or do male lawyers see promotion to a ‘counsel’ role as a way of enhancing their partnership prospects? Or does the promotion procedure play a role, with more male candidates typically being more comfortable putting themselves forward for these roles?
Mills & Reeve provides an interesting case study — they introduced an overhauled associate role at the beginning of this month, revising the role profile, the selection and review process with the onus on individuals to put themselves forward for the position — with the backing of their team.
The gender breakdown under the old system was 39% male, 61% female while the new batch of associates is 70% male and 30% female. The firm’s human resources director Sandy Boyle says the firm is conscious of the stereotype of men being more forthright in promoting their abilities for more senior roles, and will monitor the gender split of applicants compared with successful applicants.
He says the new associate role — one below becoming partner — is a conscious decision not to introduce alternative career paths at the firm, in the belief that such alternatives can delay the crunch decision on whether a lawyer is going to make partner.
Whatever the job title, how sustainable non-partner positions will be is the topic of some debate. A recent snap poll on the Legal Week website found that more than 75% of respondents regarded them as a temporary retention tool rather than a serious career path. The last economic boom saw the growth of the professional support lawyer (PSL) role, many of whom proved to be the most vulnerable to redundancy when the post dotcom boom cut into law firm profits.
For law firms, there are risks too. As well as having to grapple with the economics of having a top-heavy fee earner structure, they may also find that keeping on too many senior lawyers has an adverse affect on retention further down the line. “Partners like having senior associates around who can work without supervision,” says Tony Williams at Jomati. “But it can block the progress of mid-level lawyers, stopping them getting good experience and eventually cause them to look elsewhere.”
Another veteran of the legal scene, management consultant Alan Hodgart of Kerma Partners, has similar doubts. As with salaried partners in the 1990s, the introduction of alternative career paths, he says, is being used by some firms as a way to avoid difficult decisions about letting people go. As with PSLs, the result was a period of blood-letting when profits dropped following the dotcom crash. “If you are restricting equity partnerships to protect profits, then building up a layer of expensive lawyers just beneath the partnership is the worst thing you can do,” he says. “The consequence is a night of the long knives every few years.”
The evidence from other professions which have introduced similar career paths is that even those who take on permanent non-partner roles willingly, eventually become disillusioned and less productive. In Hodgart’s view, the only way for experienced lawyers to have a viable long-term career at their desired level is for the status of partnership itself to disappear. “As long as partnership remains the perceived pinnacle of the legal profession, then anything below that is going to ultimately be perceived as a negative thing, Hodgart says. “We have to change the structure of the business and take away this thing called partnership.”
An interesting approach to alternative career paths is offered by Latham & Watkins, which introduced its “in-house career initiative” last year. The idea is to help associates who are interested, to find “prestigious and interesting in-house opportunities”. The firm’s lawyers, alumni and clients meet via a website, and was designed to meet the needs of clients looking for top notch lawyers, and fee earners ex‑ploring a career in house.
Rewards for hard work — the bonus breakdown
Bonus schemes are a fairly recent concept for the legal profession. Most have their genesis in the dotcom-propelled boom of the late 1990s, when many firms attempted to offset the long-term effect of rampant salary inflation by giving pay rises in bonus form, thereby avoiding the ‘compoun- ding’ effect of permanent salary rises.
It was a strategy that served them well in the subsequent downturn in the early years of the century and arguably saved many assistants’ and associates’ jobs as partner profits came under extreme pressure.
However, the relative immaturity of law firms’ bonus schemes is proving to be their Achilles’ heel — many appear to cause more trouble than they are worth. The ESS has consistently recorded satisfaction scores for firms’ bonus schemes of less than five-out-of-10 and, in some cases, dissatisfaction with the perceived fairness of a bonus scheme has provoked some very public revolts among assistants and associates.
Legal Week’s assistants’ survey results show the overwhelming majority of law firms, 93%, have a bonus scheme in place but the way the bonus is calculated varies hugely. Bonus schemes are most likely to be performance-based, with 39% of firms opting to describe their scheme as “performance-based, in which the level of chargeable hours recorded is one of a number of performance measures”. One-fifth of respondents say their bonus scheme has either a “strong or exclusive” focus on chargeable hours recorded, while 18% calculate their bonus on the financial performance of the firm. A significant minority (13%) of firms consider both the firm’s performance and individuals’ performances.
Perhaps the most detail given on a bonus scheme is from Denton Wilde Sapte, which has four separate schemes, one based on chargeable hours, one rewards “added-value” through business development and pro bono, and a discretionary scheme to reward exceptional contributions. For senior solicitors, the firm offers a profit share scheme based on firm performance — an idea that could be well suited to rewarding senior lawyers who are not on the partnership track.
While basing bonuses solely on individual rather than firm-wide performance may seem fairer, and may be more effective at persuading the best performers to stay, it also creates a raft of problems around questions of transparency and objectivity. Measuring individual performance through meeting chargeable hours targets has the advantage of some objectivity, but the increases in chargeable hour targets that have accompanied recent salary rises have arguably made meeting the criteria more difficult. And at a time when work-life balance issues have come to the fore, it also sends out a contradictory message if firms are claiming on one hand to be concerned about their employees’ work-life balance while on the other, financially rewarding those who put in the most hours. One notable effort in this respect is the scheme at CMS Cameron McKenna, where a bonus can be taken as additional holiday rather than in cash.
Some of these problems are avoided if a bonus is based on more subjective criteria such as business development, for instance via an annual appraisal, but schemes can suffer from a lack of transparency and the outcomes can be highly subjective.
“Firms are struggling with bonuses,” says Jomati’s Williams. “The profit pools of investment banks are long-established and well-understood, but law firms still try to engineer bonuses to the nth degree. That can have a seriously de-motivating effect in staff if it leads to one associate getting £500 less than another — is it worth the effort for £500?”
This illustrates the other big problem of most law firms’ bonus schemes — their size. Typically, these equate to between 10% and 25% of salary — too small to make people feel really happy, but enough to seriously demoralise those that do not get good bonuses. Of the 29
The softer benefits
Although in the relatively recent past, lawyers were lucky if they got a pension on top of their salary, almost all law firms have standard packages of pension, health insurance, enhanced maternity pay and season ticket loan, which according to Katherine Gower, senior consultant at recruiters Hays Legal, is increasingly expected by lawyers rather than appreciated. A growing number also offer life insurance and critical illness cover, free or discounted gym membership, childcare vouchers and health check-ups.
Beyond these more conventional perks, some of the additional benefits provided by law firms range from the sublime to the strange. The most successful are likely to be those that demonstrate a degree of concern by the firm towards the well-being of its staff — and an acknowledgement of their efforts.
In recent years, work-life balance has emerged as the single most important issue for assistant and associate lawyers and Gower says that schemes that can alleviate the pressure of a busy lifestyle such as concierge services and an on-site GP, are genuinely appreciated by lawyers — as long as care is taken that they are not in place purely to discourage lawyers from leaving the office. Providing sleeping pods for staff, as some firms do (Ashurst, Lovells) risks giving the wrong impression but are undoubtedly appreciated by many — the reality is, while closing a deal many assistants barely have time to go home before they are due in work again.
Increasingly common, and popular, are holiday purchase schemes in which lawyers can sacrifice salary for additional days off. Dentons, Dickinson Dees, Eversheds, McGrigors, Mills & Reeve, White & Case and Wragges are among the firms to offer holiday trading. For those thinking of getting hitched and who are looking for a new job, Wragges offers two days’ extra holiday for soon-to-be weds (as well as a day off for ‘birthday milestones’) and Withers gives John Lewis vouchers as wedding gifts. Weil Gotshal gives gifts for both weddings and civil partnership ceremonies — suitably politically correct for a
Williams suggests that giving staff additional ad hoc time off might also have an appreciable effect on morale. “A couple of days off after a big deal says a lot more about how firms appreciate their efforts than another couple of thousand on the bonus,” he says.
Meanwhile, some of the apparently more gimmicky soft benefits include massages at Ashurst, Cadwalader, Olswang, Weil Gotshal and Wragges and free circuit training for the apparently pumped-up foot soldiers at Ince & Co. Schemes to help staff cycle to work are popular, offered by Addleshaws, BLP, DLA Piper, Field Fisher Waterhouse, Ince & Co, Linklaters and Lovells among others. A&O offers a psychologist, clearly taking its staff’s mental health seriously, although what readers will draw from the psychologist provided by A&O can only be imagined.
Joking aside, one of the most important aspects of lawyers’ working lives is the culture of the firm they are at. Perhaps the most important role a firm’s benefits package plays is in helping to create a picture of the kind of firm they are — soft benefits are not to be scoffed at. “Law firms benefits packages are rarely dealbreakers, but they give candidates a good insight into a firm’s culture and ethos,” says Gower. And they might help you reach your five portions of fruit and veg a day — Dechert and Latham & Watkins say they offer fruit for staff.
Chargeable hours — striking the right balance
One corollary of the significant salary rises awarded to assistant and associate solicitors in recent times has been a parallel increase in the number of chargeable hours that lawyers are expected to contribute in order to pay for it — some costs can be passed on to clients, but this is being resisted more and more.
Three-quarters of firms say they have formal chargeable hours targets for assistants. Of this group, just under half (48%) of the survey’s respondents set formal targets of more than 1,500 chargeable hours a year for assistants, 14% expect 1,400 or more a year and 19% expect 1,100 hours or more. Only four firms say they expect hours to hit 1,750 or more, while a further four would not disclose targets.
A quarter of the top 50 firms do not set formal targets but, in candidates’ eyes, perhaps the only thing worse than a daunting billables target is no target at all, says Gower. “Firms that say they do not have targets are sometimes viewed with suspicion,” she says. “Candidates do not know how they will be appraised — they like to know what is expected of them.”
Divided into 235 working days per year, this equates to between 6.4 (based on 1,500 hours per year) and 7.6 chargeable hours per day (1,800 per year) and given that the majority of firms still do not count time spent on business development towards their billable hours targets — this adds up to a lot of time at the office.
This goes against the grain of employers being more open to staff working remotely, where possible.
In response, law firms are at least trying to make the assistants’ working lives more manageable through introducing flexible working schemes. Although flexible working is relatively new to most of the legal profession, all of the firms that responded to the survey say that they offer flexible working for their staff; of the 54 firms that disclosed details of their flexible working schemes, an average 7.4% of the assistant workforce is working flexibly.
Many of these initiatives are, however, still works in progress. Some of the more developed examples include White & Case, which allows its lawyers to work from home, work part-time or work non-standard hours. For example, the firm has an arrangement for a lawyer to work a 10-month year, taking two months off in the summer — surely a dealbreaker for parents who wish to spend the summer holidays with their children.
Simmons is rolling out a flexi-working scheme next year in which lawyers will be able to request different work arrangements, such as term-time working, a sabbatical, or working on a set number of deals. So far, the proportion of lawyers availing themselves of these opportunities is fairly low — the
In part, this would appear to be down to the fact that many flexible schemes are quite new; but there also appear to be some cultural hurdles to overcome. One common concern is whether making a flexible working request will be seen as detrimental to a solicitor’s career prospects.
Some firms have addressed these cultural issues — Charles Russell has more than a fifth of its staff working flexibly and Cobbetts and Mills & Reeve are at 16% and 17% respectively. Dickinson Dees, Hill Dickinson, Irwin Mitchell, Pinsent Masons and Wragge & Co all have more than one in eight staff on flexible hours; this roll of honour reveals a clear regional bias — of the City firms, only CC has more than 10% working on a flexible basis.
Making senior managers appreciate the benefits of flexible working is a not a problem that is unique to the legal profession. A survey earlier this year by City & Guilds and the
The importance to law firms and their staff of getting flexible working right is obvious, especially if they are to successfully utilise the large number of women in and about to join the profession for whom an inflexible career path and working lives are a serious disincentive.
Turning the tables: Stephenson Harwood
This year City firm Stephenson Harwood ran a 360-degree feedback process for its partners, as part of the introduction of a ‘behaviours’ programme for partners which is trying to move the emphasis away from only fee generation towards three main goals — developing people, developing business and servicing clients. “There is a desire at the firm to look at the role of partners,” says the firm’s director of human resources and training Jeff Marlow.
The appraisals were conducted online. Partners selected other partners, assistants and support staff who they considered would be most relevant to give feedback on their performance, subject to the approval of their practice group leader. Respondents were then presented with a series of statements and asked to what extent they agree, and then given an area of free text to add any other observations. Once the process is complete, the partner was sent an edited summary of what has been said to prevent respondents being individually identified.
Marlow admits he was unsure how willing staff would be to fill in the forms, but says that many respondents had clearly given the process some serious thought. “We were a bit worried that people might be negative and partners would not get any value from the process, but nobody abused the system,” he says. “Most people seemed happy to have been asked, although there was some nervousness from assistants. Hopefully, next year people will be even more frank when they realise there are consequences to the process.”
The results are fed into the firm’s partner development programme at which partners were asked to complete a psychometric test, which was then compared with the results of the 360-degree appraisal by an occupational psychologist. This led to recommendations being made as to which sessions would be most useful for partners to attend at the firm’s three-day partner development programme at the
Themes that arose from the process included the desire for associates to get more feedback and guidance on their efforts, as well as a greater degree of constructive delegation of work — some of which came as a bit of a surprise for some partners.
“What emerged for most people was a consistent pattern of comments, both positive and negative,” Marlow says. “That is what had a real impact on partners — you can ignore one person’s view, but you cannot ignore the consistency provided by so a range of people all saying the same thing.”
Mentoring: Wragge & Co
The days when assistants sat at their partner’s feet and acquired the benefit of their wisdom by osmosis are long gone. Now, additional pressures on partners — combined with the extension of leverage — makes the organic development of mentoring a very hit and miss affair. As a result, more and more firms have established organised schemes to ensure younger lawyers benefit from their more senior colleagues’ experience; more than half (51%) of the survey’s respondents say they have a formal mentoring scheme in place.
One of the longer-standing examples is the scheme at Wragge & Co, which began at the end of 2000, following a pilot scheme launched among those with one-year’s post-qualification experience (PQE). This matches partners and associates and, in turn, associates with assistants to enable crucial experience to cascade down to
the junior ranks.
One of the key features of Wragges’ scheme is that it is voluntary. About one-third of solicitors regularly use the scheme, a further third have tried it but decided it was not for them and the remaining 33% decided they did not need it.
“The pilot scheme was compulsory, but the feedback we got from mentees was that some of those who had good relationships within their own teams felt they were already getting enough support,” says Alex Jenkinson, training and development manager in the professional development team at Wragges.
On being paired by the HR department, both mentor and mentee are briefed as to what to expect from the relationship and how best to make it work. The human resources team also provides skills training for mentors which includes role-playing and theory, with a particular emphasis on how to listen and help mentees find solutions for themselves rather than simply giving them advice. The initial recommendation is to meet at least once a month to ensure that they get to know each other well — meetings take place on the golf course, in the office or even by email — with the mentee setting the pace.
One refinement to the scheme since its introduction has been the subtle realignment of its stated aim from ‘support’ for the mentee to the more positive ‘opportunity to learn from the mentor’s experience’.
“Some people were saying ‘I don’t need this — I don’t have any problems’,” Jenkinson says. “Now we sell it as an opportunity for mentees to test out their ideas and thoughts, as well as providing somebody to turn to for help with issues that may arise.”
Canvassing opinion: Herbert Smith
‘What gets measured gets done’ is a longstanding business maxim. One of the reactions to the recruitment and retention problems of recent years has been the sharp growth in the number of firms that conduct regular surveys of their own staff — only 19% of firms say they never carry out such polls.
Legal Week’s survey showed that 41% of firms survey their staff at least once a year (DLA Piper is the only firm to gauge the happiness of its staff twice a year), while a further 32% do it on an ad hoc basis. In the vast majority of cases (81%), surveys are conducted by external researchers to ensure that the answers received are as frank and honest as possible.
One recent convert to this approach is Herbert Smith, which, following the success of a shorter survey on diversity and work-life balance issues in 2005, conducted its first firm-wide job satisfaction survey of assistants and associates at the beginning of the year.
The firm used employee research firm ISR (now part of consultancy Towers Perrin) to conduct the survey. Phase one was for ISR to set up focus groups of staff to ascertain what the main issues were likely to be and keep the survey as relevant as possible before the questionnaire was rolled out online to all qualified staff, which included partners and those on maternity leave.
Topics covered a range of areas including internal communications, diversity, employee engagement, career development, management strategy and corporate social responsibility. Anonymity was assured and the survey attracted a response rate of 63%.
The ‘key drivers of engagement’ identified by the survey were career development, working environment and compensation. Herbert Smith is inevitably keeping the detailed results close to its chest, but the firm is planning a number
of initiatives as a result of the survey. The next stage, which is currently underway, is for project groups to examine the findings in more detail and come up with plans to address them.
Future surveys will take place every other year, although smaller polls — both firm-wide and within individual departments or offices — on specific issues that emerge from the main survey will be conducted in-between times.
“Staff will only take the surveys seriously if the firm takes their answers seriously,” says Herbert Smith’s head of communications Tom Rose. “It is crucial that we are seen to be taking action on the issues that arise.”
Alternative career paths: Taylor Wessing
Carolyn Dean was on the partnership track when she decided to take an alternative route. As a senior associate at Taylor Wessing, Dean opted for the role of special counsel.
The special counsel role is designed to recognise and reward senior associates who bring particularly valuable skills to the firm, yet do not see the role of partner on their career track.
“Special counsel is for those who do not want the lifestyle commitments of partner, yet who are still ambitious enough that they want to have career progression,” Dean says.
Dean practises in real estate and was one of three people promoted to the role of special counsel last May. She says her new role has less of the management responsibilities that partners typically oversee, while still being partner-like in terms of client relationships.
“I wanted to work slightly limited hours. I enjoy getting involved with clients, but I did not want to embrace everything that would involve being a partner,” she explains.
Dean has been with Taylor Wessing since the start of her career 11 years ago. She made the decision not to go for partnership just over three years ago, yet did not want fewer career opportunities because of her decision.
As the role of senior counsel has recently been introduced to the firm, Dean said there is room for the position to expand and that it is flexible depending on an individual’s strengths.
“Special counsel is another avenue for people to explore. Not everyone wants to be a partner these days,” she says.
Alternative career paths: Lovells
Professional support lawyers (PSL) are proving a popular alternative to the traditional assistant-partner career path. The role has historically been perceived as ideal for working mothers and those who want more manageable working hours. But Lovells’ Helen Sidaway says the role of a PSL is changing.
“The skillset is broader today. Of course they still have to have excellent technical skills, but to gain the respect of partners they have to be able to support people in the team so have to have good people skills too. Many are also involved in coaching junior lawyers, and are a very useful resource for developing the technical skills of junior lawyers.”
Lovells PSL Adam Turner says he chose the career because of an interest in getting closer to the law itself and the varied responsibilities within the role. Turner explains: “Of course there are times when I have to put in considerable hours, but I can manage my workload with more control than an ordinary fee earner.”
A PSL typically works average hours, supporting the fee earners and practice groups with legal developments, training, mentoring and drafting documents. PSLs have usually practised as a fee earning solicitor prior to the role, specialising in a specific field so they can act as a point of reference for fee earners within the group.
“A PSL’s clients are the other lawyers in their group. Their role depends on what the group needs,” Turner says. “They are less client-facing — that is, there is less actual dealing with external clients on a day to day basis.”
Turner had reached five years PQE when he decided to opt for the PSL route. “I realised I was most interested in what the law is and in analysing it. You have more opportunity to do this as a PSL because you do not have the same client pressures as an ordinary fee earner,” he says. In May, he was awarded the title ‘of counsel’, which recognises senior lawyers with more responsibilities including a greater business development focus.
Lovells’ Helen Sidaway says the firm is opening up the path to PSL and other alternative careers much earlier than before. In the last 12 months, the firm appointed a PSL who was 1½-two years’ PQE who decided she wanted something different from life. “We have encouraged her to keep a route back into the fee earning community as well.”
The firm has 25 PSLs, four of whom are ‘of counsel’ — the more senior PSL title being part of the drive to respond to different career needs.
Work-life balance: Addleshaw Goddard
Forty-two percent of respondents to Legal Week’s assistants survey say their chargeable hours targets include business development and pro bono, an idea that is catching on among law firms.
Since May, Addleshaws’ associates have counted all legal pro bono work towards their annual chargeable hours targets, following a vote by the firm’s management. Once the 1,450 hours target is met, they can count community work, known as “value hours”, towards their bonus payment. The firm grants 14 hours of time for community service, but assistants can go beyond this figure.
Karen Phillips, an assistant at Addleshaws, has been a frontrunner among community service in the
“It was tough and challenging because there are 240 kids in a year group. It’s different to what we do. The noise levels alone were remarkably different, but by the end of the day we felt rewarded and felt like the students got quite a lot out of it,” Phillips says.
Beyond legal training: Norton Rose and Shoosmiths
For most firms, non-legal training programmes consist of programmes in business development, management and presentation skills, according to the results of the survey. Some firms take the development of non-legal skills some way further. National firm Shoosmiths offers assertiveness training and courses in public speaking, time management and team development as well as offering personal development days with business psychologists Kaisen for staff to take some time out to consider their careers.
Much of this training programme, says Shoosmiths’ head of human resources Louise Hadland, has been designed to meet the specific priorities of the firm. “As a firm, the differentiator for us is how we do business rather than what we do,” she says.
Hadland says that many of the courses run by the firm are not targeted at meeting the immediate training needs of lawyers, but are aimed at developing business skills that will benefit lawyers throughout their careers.
All this takes time and the key to overcoming natural reluctance to sacrifice fee earning time is to ensure staff are put through the training programmes that are most suited to their needs.
“We do not just ‘sheep dip’ people through our training programmes,” Hadland says. “We identify people’s requirements through the performance development review. Many of our training programmes, and the day with Kaisen, are focused on what our staff want rather than just on what the firm needs. If you are happy and fulfilled, we as a firm cannot fail to benefit.”
Norton Rose has a dedicated in-house training team of six, offering a ‘cradle to grave’ programme to support associates from the moment they qualify, all the way to partnership. The firm hosts ‘international academies’ for different levels of lawyer, the first focusing on the transition from being a trainee to an associate —
a huge leap. “The kind of needs we address at this stage are around how to make an impact, things like presentation skills, effective ‘sales drafting’, networking, and thinking about how to build an internal network of contacts,” says the firm’s Ann Halpern, director of practice and organisational management.
Academy two focuses on taking on responsibility for managing work, while the third academy is for lawyers with more than four years’ PQE.
“At this stage, we get people to think broadly about their business plan for becoming a partner. We get them to work together on a stressful beauty parade and pitch, working with people they do not know. We also spend a lot of time getting them to think about law firm economics — at the end, they produce a report showing their strengths and weaknesses, and have individual sessions to work out a plan for their development,” explains Halpern.
For those firmly on the partner-ship track, further management programmes and a partnership academy are run, with the aim of get- ting candidates to understand the strategy of the firm and its clients. “We use
More Legal Week Assistant articles
LWAssistantSept2007