Why Law Firms Play "Hide the Associate"

Most law firms of any size these days have a website. Basic websites are easy and inexpensive to set up, and the potential exposure for firms is enormous. (Check out my related post on the merits of blogging as business development.)

One problem with firm websites, of course, is that they are replete with spin. Every firm does "cutting edge" work, has a "strong" stable of clients, and boasts lawyers who are "leading experts" in their fields. OK, fine. You don't need me to help filter this spin. Everyone knows there are a lot of worker bees out there engaged in monotonous drudgery.

No, what I want to focus on is what information is NOT on firm websites. Take a look at a few blue chip firm websites in New York, or Chicago, or D.C., or elsewhere. (I don't want to pick on particular firms, so it's up to you to choose what firms to examine.) What do you notice--in addition to the spin, that is? Here's the answer: many firms do not list detailed information about their associates! Firm sites brag on and on about their partners' areas of expertise, client bases, and publications--but for associates you often only see a name, phone number and e-mail address.

Why would this be? Are firms not proud of their associates? No, they are proud (and if not, they "encourage" associates to leave). Do they think associates cannot engage in business development, so that it is not necessary to tout them to the world? Again, the answer is "no." Associates bring in large and small clients all the time.

So what's going on?

What's going on is that firms are playing "hide the ball." Or rather, "hide the associate." Firms often try to keep information about their associates from other firms and headhunters (legal recruiters), to make it harder for their associates to be poached by other firms. And make no mistake: poaching is the name of the game at big firms. Salaries for junior associates are so high these days that most associates generate a loss until their third year of practice. So it is more cost-effective to let someone else train the junior associate newby (and take the loss) and then poach them away.

Here's the irony. This system does not work. Everyone is playing this game. So while a firm might keep information about its associates off the web, it is also harder for that firm to find out about attractive potential hires from other firms. It would seem far more efficient (and moral) for firms to treat associates better as a way to disincentize them from leaving. But no. It is easier (albeit sillier) to simply block others from seeing what your associates do.

I have seen this happen: one day a firm website contains associate biographical information, and the next day it is gone. One explanation I have heard is that associates are not partners, and only partner information should be posted. This is specious, in my view. If you have an equity stake in a firm as partner, wouldn't you want to maximize the firm's potential by promoting your greatest assets--namely, all your lawyers? (Hint: that is a rhetorical question.)

The truly ironic part is that instead of preventing people from leaving practice, this approach gives associates one less reason to stay. I myself am off the firm treadmill and happily employed as a law professor. And my school does not hesitate to post my information online, even though I do not yet have tenure. To do otherwise would make no sense.

How Law Professors Write Exams

I am admittedly a bit behind the curve here, but now that most law students have finished exams, perhaps they can joyfully relive a bit of exam week by reading about how law professors write their essay exams. In my experience, it takes a bit of time to write a fair exam.

So check out the conversation that took place recently on the law professor blog Prawfsblawg. It is worth reading in no small part because the professors involved inevitably got sidetracked and discussed what they think is wrong with the current law school exam system. Comments from any students still reeling from exams are welcome!

After I finish grading my exams I may post some thoughts on how to avoid common study-related and exam-taking mistakes next semester.

Vote for Sports Law Blog!

Some of you know about Professor Michael McCann and Greg Skidmore's Sports Law Blog, which provides superb coverage of sports matters from the legal side of the fence. Sports are a significant part of our society and culture, and they are an enormous business too. Lots of money is made in the sports world, and the sums paid--to players, for stadiums, for coaches, and so on--just continues to increase. And the foundation for any business (including sports) is the law. So for my money, a sports blog is great, but a sports LAW blog is even better.

Fortunately, I am not the only person who thinks so. Sports Law Blog has been nominated for the Best General Sports Blog of 2005 in the Red Reporter Awards, and personally it is my favorite of the nominees. I highly recommend that you check out Sports Law Blog for yourself. If you'd like to cast your vote for the blog (or any of the other nominees), please click here.

"Business Casual" Woes

Here's a more "law career"-type post to follow my last one on national security and terrorism. This time, the topic is the all-important subject of business casual dress.

This is admittedly a silly topic, and yet we keep talking about it, so it must matter. The December 2005 issue of the ABA Journal weighs in on the matter, and I recommend reading that article. Issues involved include questions such as: should you err on the side of caution and overdress? Or underdress? How do you pack for a business trip?

Only a few short years ago it was easy to pack for a business trip: you took suits. And casual Friday was a brand-new phenomenon. But today most workplaces are business casual every day. This is, I believe, just another manifestation of our societal shift toward informality. It is an egalitarian and enormously positive development, and it means that the lack of a well-tailored suit is no longer a barrier to entry into the legal profession. That is a good thing.

In other words, I disagree with Mr. Ben Stein, who in the New York Times in August argued that today men dress like "total slobs," and that their casual dress (read: not coat and tie) adversely affects their professionalism. I myself regularly billed more than 2,000 productive hours a year in casual clothes. The pressure was no less great just because I was wearing khakis.

So who is right--Ben or me? For lawyers, the answer is easy: YOUR CLIENT IS RIGHT.

The cardinal rule of legal writing is that you write to your audience. If the judge does not like split infinitives, then do not use them in your brief. If your client wants e-mail and not hardcopy mail, then you oblige her. The same goes for the way you dress. It is no accident that business casual dress started on the West Coast, with its software and high-tech firms and their informal culture. To them, the lawyer in a suit was essentially saying, "I am not on board with your business vision or mindset," while the lawyer in the golf shirt was saying, "I get it. Hire me."

So if you have clients that do not care how you dress, then dress informally to suit your taste. If they do care, then dress to their culture. That of course requires you to know what their culture is, and you may need to ask at first. But once you know, then dress to it.

One final point: do not for a minute think that your "clients" are limited just to your actual clients. Smart junior associates always dress in a manner acceptable to their most important "client": THEIR EMPLOYER. The senior partner can make or break you; don't let it be over a ratty pair of pants and scuffed shoes.

Crazy Law News

Sorry I haven't posted in a few days. My mother had a stroke last week. Pretty devastating! It sure makes me appreciate my own freedom and agency.

So, I read a story this morning about the founder of Vermont Law School, who also ran for the Senate. He has been charged, convicted and sentenced to jail for defrauding a woman of $115,000. What a creep! What a hypocrite. Imagine spending years teaching students about the integrity of the profession, of the law, and then ending your career like this.

Here's a good idea - suspend or take away licenses for high school students who drop out or have failing grades. Now, that would be motivating. Anyone know if any provinces are considering this tactic?

I liked law school, but maybe not this much - A generous millionaire thanks his law school - Donates $2.5 million to University of Alberta Faculty of Law. Wow! Cool story. Glad to see alumni giving back when they can. This is another good example of how diverse your career can be with a law degree.

Professor William Bradford's Resignation Offers a Cautionary Tale

I have been thinking a lot in recent days about the resignation of Associate Professor William Bradford from the faculty of Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. (This has been big news in law school circles.) On the one hand, it sounds a lot like the sort of academic infighting that is of limited relevance to the larger world. On the other hand, it’s a perfect cautionary tale for anyone planning or already embarked on a career in law teaching or practice. For more details on the matter, check out the December 6, 2005 posting on the Volokh Conspiracy (a great blog).

For starters, let me clearly state what this posting is NOT about. I am not bashing Professor Bradford. Nor am I defending him. Others are doing a fine job of that. I am just looking for the lessons to be learned.

By way of background, I met Bradford at a conference last year, where he spoke on national security law matters (his area of specialty). He was smart, well-spoken, and even more convinced of the rightness of his (somewhat extreme) views on national security law than most law professors are about their beliefs—which frankly is saying a lot. Bradford seemed like the kind of person who did not mind shaking things up a bit.

That is not a bad thing in law teaching, of course. It in fact can be a good thing, since it generates debate and discourse. And after all, the role of law professors is to advance knowledge, not just reach consensus and play nice. Yet the Bradford tale provides three lessons on ways to avoid trouble in your law career.

First, did Bradford ruffle feathers on the Indy faculty? I do not know, but clearly certain tenured faculty members there were opposed to him. Whether he justly deserved their opposition or not is wholly irrelevant for my purposes. Rather, the lesson for any professor seeking the holy grail of tenure or any law firm associate seeking the brass ring of partnership is to tread softly if possible and not antagonize people. The old saying is that “friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.” If someone has a vote over your future, they have a vote, and that is that. Whether that person is opposed to you for valid or invalid reasons is quite beside the point: you either win her over (either through the merit of your work, your interpersonal skills, or preferably both), neutralize his opposition by having other people in your corner, or find another job.

Second, Bradford padded his resume by exaggerating his military service record. The lesson is that you simply cannot lie or fudge about your professional and personal background. At all. Ever. The point is that we are lawyers, and lawyers are—and should be—held to a higher standard than the general public. Intentionally misrepresenting your background and credentials can derail your career. And in this digital age falsehoods are uncovered easier than ever.

Third, while the current ABA Model Rules for Professional Conduct do not use the phrase “Appearance of Professional Impropriety” (it appeared in the header for Canon 9 of the now-superseded Model Code of Professional Responsibility), this phrase should always be foremost in the mind of anyone considering a career in law. Bradford apparently posted “cheap shot” comments to a law school blog under names other than his own. He was caught by an Indy law student running the blog who noticed that different “commentators” on the blog had IP addresses matching Bradford’s. This just smells bad. Even if it did not technically violate any rules (which it may have), it just seems improper. The lesson in practice (and teaching) is that if something smells fishy it probably is, and just to be safe you shouldn’t do it. And any potential payoff does not match the fallout if caught.

Law Movies

One really cool, yet not very accurate, way of finding out what the law and what lawyers do is to watch law-related movies. Like I said above, law movies do not always very accurately portray legal procedure or true legal theory or doctrines. However, I know that for myself, watching law movies and law-related t.v. played a large role in inspiring me to go to law school. I still like to collect law movies and to watch them on occassion. Sometimes they serve to inspire me to continue on in the legal field. Sometimes, they are just plain entertaining. Sometimes, it can be really fun to find all of the legal flaws in a given movie. Sometimes, it's fun to analyze a movie lawyer and imagine emulating some of their personality, especially the confidence aspect.

Here are some of my favourite law movies:

To Kill a Mockingbird - Atticus Finch, a lawyer in the Depression-era South, defends a black man against an undeserved rape charge. Starring Gregory Peck. Excellent courtroom drama, and some fine acting for its time. The book is also definitely worth reading.
Philadelphia - When a man with AIDS is fired by a conservative law firm because of his condition, he hires a homophobic small time lawyer as the only willing advocate for a wrongful dismissal suit. Starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. Cool movie, but very sad!
My Cousin Vinny - this is just plain fun watching. Danny Devito is absolutely hilarious in this film!
The Firm - I love the beginning of this movie. It glamourizes the idea of being a hot-shot law student, and a resulting hot-shot lawyer. I love how he gets wined-and-dined. Cool.
Runaway Jury - one of my favourite movies and books - I liked the acting in this movie. Of course, the book is better because the reader gets to infiltrate the minds of the characters more.
A Civil Action - one of the most realistic law movies that I have seen, although many of my friends go nuts when we discuss whether the main character should have taken the offer.
The Paper Chase - a very entertaining view into Harvard Law School in the 70's. An accurate portrayal of 1L, I thought. I loved the ending of this movie.
The Pelican Brief - not my favourite as I don't really think that Julia Roberts can act very well. But a feel-good popcorn chewing movie.

Movies I plan to see in the next year or two:

12 Angry Men - A jury has to decide a seemingly open and shut case of a young man (who, as with most of the jurors, remains nameless throughout the film) who has been accused of murdering his father in a fit of anger. The evidence couldn't be clearer that this guy did it. Murder weapon, motive, eyewitness testimony all in place. One juror (Fonda) however, wants to talk the case out. He's not 100% convinced that the guy is guilty. And so it begins.
Anatomy of a Murder - James Stewart, a Michigan attorney, and his colleague defend an Army officer for murdering his wife's rapist. Directed by Otto Preminger.
...And Justice For All - "In this scathing, deadly serious satire, Al Pacino is brilliant as a public defender battling injustice in a legal system gone mad. The insanity, corruption, and infuriating blunders will conspire to make most viewers enraged, and rightly so."
The Verdict - A lawyer sees the chance to salvage his career and self-respect by taking a medical malpractice case to trial rather than settling. Starring Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling. Director: Sidney Lumet.
A Man for All Seasons - "A highly honored film (winner of six Academy Awards in 1966, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor)"; account of the life of one of the great men in English history: Sir Thomas More, English lawyer, scholar, statesman' and a victim of the wrath of King Henry VIII; "Robert Bolt's beautiful screen adaptation of his own highly successful and award winning stage play of the same name. It's a reasonably accurate accounting of the events of the last years of Sir Thomas More's life."
The Jury
The Hurricane
The Chamber
The Juror
Judgment at Nuremberg
Adam's Rib

Have a legal-related movie that you love, or maybe hate? Let me know in the comments section. I'm always looking for new films to view.