« DLA Piper has reached the limits of style | There is a process for partner hiring. It just doesn’t work all that often | In constructive defence of ‘nonsense and spin’ »
Posted 16/06/2008 by Alex Novarese
A recent blog I penned on the shortcomings of senior recruitment at law firms sparked a few responses, largely from consultants that felt I was underestimating the sophistication of the market. Some readers also thought that I was highlighting an absence of process.
Actually, what the blog was intended to convey is that there is, if anything, an excess of process - it's simply that in a significant number of cases it fails to produce a common-sense result.
In many cases this is because law firms have been guilty of over-dosing on the letter of HR good practice while totally neglecting the spirit. Having 15 separate interviews that dance around the core issues not only tells you very little, it can be downright counter-productive because it becomes harder to maintain focus on the key issues. Yes, lengthy business plans get produced - but so what if there is a lack of intellectual rigour in their creation or assessment?
And, as one senior consultant recently remarked to me, does anyone know a prospective partner-hire that has actually been terminated due to a psychometric test? So in a considerable number of cases you have a lengthy process that fails to deliver on turnaround or rigour. A case of the worst of both worlds.
And still too often law firms fail to keep in mind that the partners who want to move are in a fair number of cases not the ones that are right for your business. It was the realisation of the limitations of the lateral hire market that several years ago led some shrewd law firms and consultants to develop the upward-partner market, where promising senior associates were offered partnership at a new firm.
Perhaps some of the consultants took the original piece as a personal crack at their profession, though the criticisms in the piece were aimed at the law firms themselves, not the retcons. Indeed, the challenge for consultants is that law firms too often incentivise them on movement rather than quality.
This makes it much harder for those astute consultants that would like to add value by making sure they bring in the kind of partner that will fit in with, and build the business of, a law firm client.
Comments
I am in violent agreement with Alex's incisive post.
Having spent most of my life in the business world, while always maintaining a close association with the law firm world, I observe that firms often adopt the shadows (in Plato's sense) of company best practice, but without the substance, and usually at dramatically higher cost.
Psychometric testing of laterals (which of course makes very little sense in a law firm world which is still dominantly about individual partner autonomy and the only focused metric is financial performance) is an amusing, if not unique, example.
Many of the internal operations of law firms exhibit a similar pattern -- all of which are sustainable as long as Law remains in an economic boom.
Posted by Paul Lippe | 17/06/2008