The first thing that lateral partner candidates need to remember is that lawyer salary discussions usually happen at the end of the lateral recruiting process, once all the parties have gotten comfortable that a deal may be possible. While it may seem efficient to “cut to the chase” and discuss lawyer compensation early in the recruiting process, such haste on the part of candidates may sour the firm on further discussions. On one level, it’s a matter of tradition and taste: lawyer salary discussions happen at the end of the process; that’s simply the way it’s done. But on a deeper level, attorney compensation discussions represent the end of a process by which the lateral partner and the firm have already come to a meeting of minds on the issue of whether the lateral partner would be a good fit for the firm, and vice versa. Obviously, compensation is an important part of the equation, but it’s a variable that’s solved for relatively easily; the hard part is determining whether the lateral partner and his or her law practice belong at the firm in the first place.

The best way for a lateral partner to assure that he or she will receive a firm’s highest and best compensation offer is to create a market whereby firms compete. Doing this requires skill and finesse—one wishes to avoid seeming heavy-handed about the approach. An astute legal recruiter will therefore reveal to the firm gently, but candidly, that other firms are also in discussions with the lateral partner.

The Lateral Lawyer, a first-of-its-kind primer on the partner-level lateral recruiting process, is a resource for law partners, aspiring partners, managing partners, HR staff and professional recruiters alike. The book includes sample forms, interview questions and answers, and tips on the recruiting process.

As Weiss explains, even the most attractive lateral candidates should work with an experienced legal recruiter. “The successful lateral partner candidate maintains his or her posture as someone who, while not ‘looking’, is nevertheless amenable to engaging in a dialogue with other firms. That’s something partners simply cannot do if they approach firms on their own,” he says.

“Even the best lateral candidates make avoidable mistakes that cost them offers,” says Weiss.  Asked to name the most common faux pas, he answers unhesitatingly: “Talking about money too soon in the process—that’s a huge turn-off to firms, which are much more concerned about ‘fit’ than compensation.” Other mistakes include presuming that the only firms worth looking at are those scoring higher in the Am Law profits-per-partner rankings than one’s own, and playing hard-to-get.

“The key to receiving compelling offers,” says Weiss, “is to create a market for your practice by approaching multiple firms at once rather than one at a time.  Astute recruiters do this the same way that literary agents create a market for their clients’ manuscripts.” He therefore advises every law firm partner to cultivate relationships with the legal recruiters of their choice. “Our job is to make good matches between lawyers and firms, and our service is free to the candidate,” Weiss says.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Author Adam S. Weiss is an attorney and legal recruiter based in the New York area. He is a founder and principal of Charles River Recruiting LLC, a boutique legal search firm that places partners with major national, international and regional law firms. Formerly an attorney with Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and a management consultant at McKinsey & Co., Inc., Weiss is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University, holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and is admitted to the bar in New York, New Jersey and Texas.

The Lateral Lawyer: Opportunities & Pitfalls for the Law Firm Partner

• Publisher:  Lateral Lawyer Publications LLC
• ISBN:  978-1461079088; 146107908X
• Price:  $21.95 paperback; $9.95 on Kindle and Nook
• Pages:  60 pages, paperback 5.5 x 8.5 (13.97 cm. x 21.59 cm.)
• Pub Date:  June 2011
• www.LateralLawyer.com

#   #   #

“With the economy picking up after then 2008-9 crash, partners are more comfortable that their books of business are solid, and law firms are more willing to take risks on lateral partners,” says Adam S. Weiss, principal at Charles River Recruiting, a partner-level legal recruiting boutique.

Total Am Law 200 partner-level lateral moves have been in the 2,000 range for around a decade, representing approximately 4-5% annual turnover among partnership ranks in AmLaw200 firms.

Associates and Partners Have Different Track Records to be Assessed

In the first place, lateral partners are being assessed on a longer and different track record than are lateral associates.  Whereas the track records associates are assessed on consist primarily of their grades and experience at their current firms, partners are assessed on a wholly different measure:  their history of bringing in business.  At the partner level, legal acumen and experience are taken for granted—after all, most partners have already been in practice for at least a decade.  Rather, firms wish to probe partners’ business and marketing skills, as evidenced by their ability to generate a book of business.  These days, one million dollars in annual collections is about the rock-bottom minimum book that interests most firms.

Firms Request Different Information from Associates and Partners

Accordingly, the information partners are required to supply is quite different from the information that associates furnish.  Whereas a primary item that lateral associates give to prospective law firms is their law school transcript, partners are rarely even asked for records of their academic performance.  Rather, partners furnish summaries of their client relationships, typically in the form of lateral partner questionnaires (LPQs), which break down billings and collections by client for the preceding two- to three-year period.  Examples of LPQs are available in both the print- and electronic versions of The Lateral Lawyer:  Opportunities & Pitfalls for the Law Firm Partner.

Offers to Partners are Typically Negotiated; Not So Those to Associates

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the difference between associate- and partner-level recruiting is that partners usually have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate their offers—whereas associates are typically slotted into their new firms’ compensation structures in accordance with a lockstep system that depends on their class year.  Opportunities to negotiate vary by firm, and depend on the details of each situation.  However, it is generally understood that such components as base salary, bonus (if any), timing of a decision on equity partnership, profit-sharing, and, from time to time, details like dedicated marketing support and whether offers will be extended to associates on a partner’s team constitute bases for negotiation.

Thus, lateral recruitment at the partner level, while bearing some similarities to lateral recruitment at the associate level, represents a more complex—and usually more time-consuming—transaction.

Despite the lingering effects of the 2008-2009 recession, some law firms are benefitting from strong countercyclical practices.  Such may be the case at Cadwalader, where government investigations and antitrust- and financial services litigation have reportedly been strong.  And Curtis Mallet reports a 24% rise in profits per partner, to $1.41 million, on strong arbitration and bankruptcy results—e.g., the million dollars per month that the firm is reported to be billing in connection with the Lehman Brothers matter.  There are several implications of this for lateral law firm partner recruiting.  In the first place, diversified firms with countercyclical practices are likely to be attractive destinations for lateral partners challenged by their current firms’ concentration in disfavored sectors.  In addition, firms with booming countercyclical practices—e.g., bankruptcy—are likely to be hungry for even more talent in those areas, even as practitioners are in greater demand both at their own firms and elsewhere.

The year 2010 furnished more evidence that US-based firms are seeking international legal recruitment, with a continuing trend toward expanding their geographic footprints.  For example, demonstrating that European legal recruitment is quite active, K&L Gates opened two new offices in 2010 (Tokyo and Moscow), with Brussels slated to open in 2011.  These moves follow on the heels of K&L Gates’s expansion to Frankfurt, Singapore and Dubai in 2009.  Other firms opening opportunistically include Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, which just announced the establishment of a Tapei, Taiwan office with a team of four from Howrey.  New York-based Curtis Mallet recently opened in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan and indicates it is considering an outpost in Baku.  Bingham opened its second European office (Frankfurt); the firm’s first is in London.  Dechert opened an office in Dublin, Ireland while expanding its presence in Moscow.

UK firms have also expanded their international legal recruiting efforts, with four of the major London-based firms establishing or strengthening their Australia connections:  Morton Rose, Allen & Overy, DLA, and most recently Clifford Chance.

Domestic US firms have also been searching for legal talent while expanding their geographical footprint.  For example, Gordon & Rees recently recruited 2 partners in Atlanta from Epstein Becker & Green, including C. Anthony Mulrain, who will head his new firm’s sports, media and entertainment law practice.  Akin Gump picked up several IP (intellectual property) partners from Woodcock Washburn in Philadelphia.  And Bingham expanded its Washington, DC presence with the acquisition of McKee Nelson and its 120 tax and structured finance specialists.

San Diego recruitment Fitzgerald hailed his former firm as top-notch, but said that his practice will be better suited to San Diego litigation boutique Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan (CFS).  That practice includes plaintiffs work, which few large firms are able to accommodate.

However, there has been a trend of Am Law 200 IP litigation partners moving to smaller firms due to price pressure from clients.

The American Lawyer quoted Fitzgerald as saying he had once called up former Latham mentor and CFS founder Joseph “Jay” Wheeler and “hearing him scream across the office to [longtime friend] Ed [Chapin] about a conflicts check.  And he [quickly] had his answer."  (Latham, on the other hand, has 2100 lawyers).

Schwartzbaum will land at Greenberg Traurig’’s New York office. Revenue at the 1,730-lawyer firm in 2008 was $1.2 billion, while profits per partner increased slightly to $1.3 million.

Jones Day in Paris recruited Baud and Latham associates Aurélie Verdier and Nathalie Marchand.

And Allen & Overy recruited Baud’s former partner Jean-Christophe Tristant, an IP licensing and litigation lawyer.

According to Am Law 100 data, Latham’s profits dropped over 20 percent in 2008, and profits per partner fell from nearly $2.3 million to $1.8 million.  Latham laid off 90 associates and 250 staff members early last year, but recently opened an office in Beijing.

Read more.