Why do junior lawyers fear winning business?

Greenberg Traurig Maher.... What have they done so far? Good PR though.

Anonymous -19 Oct 2009 | 13:53

By the time the poor flowers qualify they've been on the exam treadmill for so long it's no wonder they've got no sense of enterprise, plus nobody's responsible for themselves these days... but the times they are a 'changin and the market will decide it's not paying for Robot & Robot LLP.

Anonymous -19 Oct 2009 | 16:32

Cynic

Maybe an incentive scheme would encourage the junior lawyers to bring in new business? Depends on the firm policy of course, and the law of the land, but I guess giving some percentage of fees the new client brings in to the junior associates would make them think in terms of generating business instead of just being a cog in the wheel? Just a thought.

PB -19 Oct 2009 | 17:12

Seems obvious to me

I agree with Cynic. Quite simply there is nothing in it for junior lawyers to bring work in. In the majority of shops where lockstep still rules, bringing business in, at least at a junior level, produces no tangible career benefits.

If there were financial incentives to bring clients in, fine, but when you're already working 60 hours a week, why would you do more work for free?

Anon -20 Oct 2009 | 05:55

To Anonymous: what have GTM done? They've set up a new law firm, mate. What have you done this month?

Mutton Jeff -20 Oct 2009 | 10:07

Financial incentives? Isn't making partner and getting paid £500,000 a year an incentive?

Anonymous -20 Oct 2009 | 10:10

Food for thought

An interesting article Alex. A couple of points I'd add:

1) Being a first-rate lawyer does not equal being a first-rate salesman. The legal profession still hasn't really come to terms with the fact that there are swathes of lawyers who are technically excellent but do not have the skillset (or even the wish) to be partners, so get 'managed out' at around 10PQE, which is a ridiculous waste of talent. Roles such as 'of counsel' usually come with a huge business development responsibility, so do not address the issue.

2) I don't follow your point about Maher's firm I'm afraid, perhaps you could clarify.

Anonymous -20 Oct 2009 | 10:55

If that was to me and if you are the same Anonymous as I was responding to, my point is simply that what GTM has done so far is launch a new firm, or at least a new London presence under a new brand, and quickly built strong market awareness and created a buzz. I'd call that good going considering GTM has been in existence a couple of months. That you think it doesn't amount to "doing anything" probably indicates that lawyers, or you anyway, have a disdain for business development. There's nothing wrong with not being interested in BD and marketing - not everyone is or wants to be a salesman - but it does amount to doing something, something that all law firms need to do and most need to do better.

Mutton Jeff -20 Oct 2009 | 11:47

Responding to 10.55, the reference to GTM is in the context that the venture will rise or fall on the ability of its lawyers to bring in - and then effectively manage - clients. There is no brand to fall back on or blame - the individuals involved are putting it personally on the line. I was asking if other kinds of law firms servicing the corporate world can thrive on that basis.

Alex Novarese -20 Oct 2009 | 14:23

Food for thought II

Thanks for the clarification Alex, that makes a lot of sense. Mutton Jeff, I'm not the same anonymous and wasn't responding to you (hence my message being addressed to Alex).

Anonymous -20 Oct 2009 | 15:28

No surprise

I'm not surprised at all that young lawyers are not particularly focused on sales/bringing in new business. In today's world, people who are entrepreneurial or sales-oriented are pushed into graduate schemes in business. Law is seen as the career for academically-minded people who want to earn more than teachers/university lecturers/public sector workers but don't want to "sell out". I'm sure it comes as a rude awakening when lawyers are expected to sell themselves/their firms to get ahead. Young lawyers go into law to exercise their brains, not their people skills.

I'm sure the lack of direct financial incentives cited by other posters don't help either. The distant prospect of partnership is probably not enough, particularly if there is not an explicit link seen by junior lawyers between bringing in new business and partnership down the road.

Beth -20 Oct 2009 | 17:10

I find this idea of the 'distance' of partnership a little strange. Surely your chances are about one in four to make partner at a major UK practice, higher if you're prepared to be flexible about the firm. That doesn't seem bad considering the remuneration that comes with it - it's hardly like the odds the kid who dreams of being a Premiership footballer faces. Shouldn't lawyers want to win business? Doesn't that prove that they are an all-round professional? Perhaps I'm naive and it's the failure of law firms to foster a commercial mentality.

Alex Novarese -20 Oct 2009 | 17:52

Junior lawyers don't 'fear' winning business: it just takes 3-4 years PQE before they can make a convincing pitch for it based on their own abilities and experience. Prior to that point, the work is won on the basis of what their firm does, not them.

Moley -20 Oct 2009 | 18:05

I am a junior lawyer who loves the challenge of networking and has actually introduced a couple of new clients to the international firm for which I work as well as securing additional work for other departments from clients I have worked with since joining the firm.

The annoying thing is that although you are expected to nurture the client relationship and indeed win new work, at every opportunity any credit is immediately taken away from you and handed to a partner or other member of senior staff. For example, you spend two years building a client relationship, have been instructed direct by said client on a few occasions then client happens to visit office on another matter and gets introduced only to senior members of staff (some of whom have nothing to to with said client) leaving junior lawyer who has won the work and worked with the client previously ignored and out of the loop ... what a joke!!

I know this is big firm mentality but so much for encouraging you to build relationships and win work. It's really no wonder that junior lawyers aren't interested - it's hard work with no encouragement/support and little, if any, thanks!!!

demotivated -20 Oct 2009 | 20:51

Winning business

Comments like "isn't the prospect of partnership enough" assume that all assistants want to become partners at their current firms, which is plainly false. It's not just that the prospect of partnership is distant. It's that plenty of assistants only see their firms as a stepping stone and don't intend to stay there long-term. In those circumstances, if you have enough to do, there really isn't any point trying to bring in more.

Anon -20 Oct 2009 | 21:37

That's me told, then.

Mutton Jeff -20 Oct 2009 | 23:23

Alex, my comment about the "distant prospect of partnership" was meant purely in terms of time. It's hard for people working stupid hours to think further than the next weekend, let alone 8-10 years into the future.

Beth -21 Oct 2009 | 09:41

Stepping stone to what? Going in-house? Law's an awful stepping stone. Banking or accountancy open doors for a business career but what use is law as a stepping stone? If thousands of junior lawyers are convincing themselves that law, with all the hassle of qualifying, is a stepping stone, they're deluding themselves when they could be going into jobs with lower barriers to entry and more flexible career paths. What 21.37 seems to be saying is that lots of junior lawyers are wasting time - their own and the firms employing them.

You're kidding -21 Oct 2009 | 09:54

I’m not singling you out, Beth - I’ve heard those sentiments before about how partnership is losing its power to motivate because it’s so distant. I’m just saying that it’s not surprising it is hard to make partner given the financial rewards. And assistants are paid pretty well in the meantime.
To Moley: I’d have to disagree. I know how the partnership track works and I didn’t write this article just on the basis of that one event. From my experience, junior lawyers (obviously this is a very broad generalisation) seem more anxious than motivated by the idea of winning clients. If this is what law firms want them to do, then something is going wrong in their training.

Alex -21 Oct 2009 | 10:57

Alex - good article, thanks. I too find it odd that people do not try to bring in more work (though to an extent recognise the poster who suggests that others may seek to take the credit). The idea that when you're in your late twenties (and a couple of years qualified) an additional six years seems like "a long time" seems pretty odd and more than a little short-sighted. The idea that business-winning skills (and possibly clients themselves) are not transferable to a new place of work is also manifestly false, as is the idea that bringing in clients would not result in any bonus/ recognition there and then.

Sic Transit Gloria Legis -21 Oct 2009 | 16:46

Alex - I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I was suggesting that what you're describing as "fear" by junior lawyers is in fact an awareness of their own inability to win work because of their own skills. What law firms should be doing (which I imagine we agree on) is teaching NQs how to sell the firm, what it does, what it can offer, rather than the NQ relying on their own experience.

Moley -21 Oct 2009 | 17:22

is it worth it?

I would agree with the post of demotivated. It would take an understanding partner/group for entrepreneurial junior lawyers to thrive. I had my own clients since I was a fourth seat trainee in a MC firm. Did it raise my profile in the department? Yes, but only thanks to the partner who appreciated and nurtured it although it is very easy to see others taking credit for it and sidelining the junior lawyer. Did it translate into monetary rewards? Not really (my salary is frozen and there are no bonuses to speak of) although it brought other benefits such as more flexibility and travel opportunities. On balance I would say that the position would very much depend on the given team and the area being developed less so on the overall culture of the firm. The more niche the area the easier it would be to find a group or a partner that would encourage everyone to play a role and value the contribution properly. I like the approach of some US firms that offer a percentage of fees generated from work brought in by associates although I must say this is more common at the mid- to senior level and is more applicable to specific areas. This is a decent alternative to partnership which these days has become more of a moving target. Also seeing as their business development efforts pay off (literally) in form of "referral fees" can be a good incentive for lawyers at any level to contribute more to the business and may even give them a taste of the partnership profits that may potentially lie ahead.

westbound -21 Oct 2009 | 18:45

Cynic2

In response to Anonymous 10:10, I'd like to say that making partner after 8-12 years is just not incentive enough to bring in business. As Beth and some others have mentioned, not everyone might want to stick on in the same firm till he/she becomes a partner.

I once again come back to my point of offering financial incentives to bring in new business. That would be the biggest motivation for a junior lawyer working 60-100 hour weeks to put in extra effort at bringing in business. In addition it might also help retain talent because there is an element of profit-sharing involved right from the beginning. Not everyone makes partner but this way you at least have some chance of retaining talent even if they have no partnership possibilities.

Someone mentioned that it needs experience to convince the client to come to that firm. I would respond to that by saying that if you have a team of experienced persons who can do the work, then using your personal sources to get clients something that can be explored. It's only difficult to bring in clients if you don't have the bandwidth to do their work properly. Junior lawyers would be able to mobilise their personal contacts and connections to bring in business to the firm especially if the firm has a good reputation in the market. But you need to motivate them enough.

PB -21 Oct 2009 | 19:30

Most junior lawyers live on the outskirts of London in modest one - maybe two - bedroom flats. They commute to work on the tube. Their friends tend to be other people their own age. Meanwhile, the firms they work for cater to large institutional clients such as banks and big corporations. How on earth are these 20-somethings meant to (1) find, and (2) convince such clients to hire them (or at least the partners they work for)? These firms are not interested in handling junior lawyer's mum's will, his sister's divorce, or his mate's start-up. Rainmaking happens when said junior lawyer has 7-10+ years experience - which is when he is just beginning to know his stuff - and when he has moved firm a few times. In other words, he finds clients through prior firms he worked at, not outside of the office in the evenings or at the weekends (unless he's a high street lawyer who does crime and divorce etc).

JV -22 Oct 2009 | 00:00

The comments on this thread sum up much of what is wrong with the mentality of junior lawyers in the City. How on earth can you believe you're worth a six-figure salary by your late 20s without proving you can bring in business - both new clients and improving market share with existing clients? Say what you like about bankers and traders, but they at least know they will be judged on their ability to bring in work and they accept the risks of the game. Commercial lawyers have become this bizarre hybrid - most of the greed of bankers but unwilling to accept either that they're gonna have bring in work or to understand that high career returns come with higher risks. You're not motivated by the prospect of partnership? A lonely tear roles down my cheek - clear off and do something else.

Amazing -22 Oct 2009 | 10:26

Cynic 3

@JV: You'd be surprised at the network some of the junior lawyers have despite living in one or two bedroom flats on the outskirts of the city. To bring in the business it's not only what you know but whom you know and you can't underestimate a junior lawyer. Just because they hang out with people their age, does not mean they do not have connections in the right places. Yes, a lot might not have those connections, but a lot of them might be well connected too. So why not try and tap the network of those junior lawyers by offering some extra invective to them? Besides, what does travelling by tube and living in one or two bedroom flats have to do with bringing in business? I don't see the connection there. Are you trying to put down the junior lawyers just because they travel by tube or don't live in a mansion? LOL. Clients can be found in the evening or over the weekend too not just from the previous firms. Otherwise why would the law firms host dinners and parties? In addition you never know when a small client can also get in big-ticket work. I do agree that marketing skills are necessary to convince the client to give work to the junior lawyer's firm but even if he/she has less experience, what prevents the junior lawyer from fixing a meeting with the partner, who would have the requisite skills to convince the client? Moley above has rightly pointed out that law firms should teach the junior lawyers to market the firm too.

@Amazing, 10.26: First let me wipe that lonely tear off your cheek. hahaha. Can you guarantee a partnership to a junior lawyer who brings in business? And at what level/amount of business generation does he/she become a partner? If he/she brings in £50m of business, would you make him/her a partner immediately or maybe within 2-4 years? So what's the ceiling of business generation to become a partner? Unless that is a definite figure guaranteeing partnership, why would a junior lawyer work extra to bring in business when he/she is not even sure of becoming a partner? Isn't the six-figure salary also paid for the quality of work of the person, not just for bringing in business? Are you trying to say that the salary is only paid because of the business the lawyer brings in and not for all the billing and the hard work he/she does? If quality of work had nothing to do with the salary, then everyone would just be working on bringing in the business and the work quality would suffer. Bankers and traders get huge bonuses for bringing in business. I'm not sure how it works in the law firms, but is the bonus decided on how much business the junior lawyer brings in or on his/her billing? How exactly does the bonus work? Partnership is of course a motivating factor for many, but not every junior lawyer makes partner. Wouldn't the firm benefit if every junior lawyer got an incentive to bring in business, either an increased bonus at the end of the year or a percentage of the business the junior lawyer brings in? My point is this: it's not just a question of bringing in business to become a partner but also a question of retaining a junior lawyer who might move elsewhere and of the growth of the firm itself. Let me give you an example: if out of 300 lawyers in a firm only 100 will make partner, wouldn't an incentive scheme across the board motivate the remaining 200 to bring in whatever business they can? This way both the firm and the lawyers would benefit even if they don't become partners.

PB -23 Oct 2009 | 21:19

If firms give juniors a full and honest account of how clients are won over time, and if they make it mandatory for new clients to be won before juniors can move up the ladder, then juniors won't be afraid to win new clients if they know it is the only way to move up the professional ladder. In our firm, from day one we instill rainmaking skills and juniors are encouraged to leave the firm if they fall within our definition of a failed lawyer. No one wants to be a failure, so the firm is full of rainmakers.

segun ojemuyiwa esq.LL.M -24 Oct 2009 | 07:58

Lawyers are scared because we have all seen the 10 year qualified guy who hasn't been made up and is a bit sad. Then one day he isn't there anymore. In the meantime, we all spend 50-60 hours a week working for the firm's big institutional established clients. Of course the job we do for them is actually 'marketing'. If you don't satisfy them they will ultimately dump the firm. The problem is that suddenly you're the ten year qualified guy and you don't have a big institutional established client of your own. Quite where you are supposed to have got one is a moot point. Most of the successful partners I know were talented assistants who inherited a client in one way or another from the firm. Once you have one it is then much easier to build, but the crude way in which law firms measure business development means that unless you get lucky you are in a weak position.

Chrissie -24 Oct 2009 | 20:29

Not kidding, I'm afraid

'You’re kidding' – I said that a number of junior lawyers saw "their current firms" as a stepping stone, not that they saw "law" as a stepping stone. This is an easily proven fact: see Legal Week’s own survey at http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1469162/lw-research-stark-gender-divide-female-lawyers-ditch-partner-goals. 55% of assistants did not see partnership with their own firm as their primary career goal.
For that 55%, the motivation to bring in business is somewhere between zero and sod all. Expecting an assistant who is already putting in the hours to try and go the extra mile to line the partners’ pockets, when there is nothing in it for him or her, is just wishful thinking.

'Amazing' – Bankers and traders are paid extra for bringing in extra work, so your point is a bit hollow.

Anyway, let’s not carried away. The market being what it is, we aren’t going to see 1PQEs bringing in work by the truckload, no matter how much love and encouragement they are given by the partners.

Anon -25 Oct 2009 | 12:21

Great comment above about assistants not so much fearing selling but rather not knowing how to sell their firm.

So many firms are too similar to each other. Knowledge of the law is taken as a given. Many firms claim to differentiate themselves by relationships, clarity, down-to-earthness, approachability and commercialness etc, but the trouble is that there's no real differentiating substance to these comments and the assistants trying to sell a particular firm on this basis know that.

Bone -27 Oct 2009 | 17:09

Partners fear associates that sell, because it is a challenge to their power base. Ridiculous? Yes. But how many of us have encountered neurotic partners, who maybe haven't quite got over being bullied at school, and who enjoy pretending they are like iBank traders (in the sense that they bring in the money that pays for the team). Totally agree with "demotivated"'s comment, and it didn't surprise me one jot.

As for law being a stepping stone, well, if you pick the right in-house role and move early enough, it is a very good stepping stone to directorships. There is more to a board than its CFO.

Stupot -28 Oct 2009 | 11:45

This is a really interesting debate!

Law as a profession vs Law as a business - or why not both?

For me, it is the intellectual challenge combined with the personalities of the various clients I come into contact with that drives me to be a lawyer.

However I see my career as a means to an end - economic survival (as opposed to financial gain) as it were. I count myself lucky that this means to an end is one I happen to love!

However I do not see legal practice as inseparable from business development. Without the latter, I would not get to do the former and my economic survival depends on my employer getting clients who are willing to pay good money for what I do!

Ed -29 Oct 2009 | 10:46

Selling

I am just starting as a partner in a small City firm and bringing in new business is fundamental to the success of my role.

I am stunned by the comments to this piece and the associated poll (where 67% responded "selling is for salesmen" rather than for associates).

If you want to succeed in any consultancy industry, including law, you have to be able to sell your services. If you won't, then you won't have a long-term career.

It's no good explaining that academically inclined people can't sell. That's rubbish - selling legal services is a matter of learning and practice.

There's nothing to be scared of either. Nobody's talking about cold calling multiple clients in a call centre manner. It's a matter of developing relationships over time, establishing trust and reliance.

If you make contact with a potential client at a seminar, or through another client or at networking event, you should look to develop the relationship over time before looking to sell. Over 80% of purchasers of legal services probably don't have an immediate need (they are already provided for or simply don't need the service). Develop that contact over time though and when they do have a need over the next two to three years, you will be one of the people that comes to mind. That's when you close the deal.

The problem I think is that there is insufficient emphasis on training these things in law firms. Everyone can and should do it, with learning.

JJ -29 Oct 2009 | 12:04