But note that a lot of lateral partners leave not because they got better offers, but because they didn’t deliver the book of business they promised. There’s a lot of over-promising and under-delivering in the lateral market (or so say the news reports).
My sense is that firms have gotten smarter about lateral partner hiring since Dewey. There is a lot of skepticism of what laterals promise and a lot of tire kicking during the process (because firms have been burned before).
Agreed. And firms are much more strategic. One thing I noticed as a recruiter is that firms didn’t hire someone just because that partner had (or promised) a big book of business. The firms also wanted to be sure that the prospective hire was a good fit for the firm’s overall strategy (e.g., practice area or industry or geographic focus).
There are many firms who want to grow in smaller markets and are woefully out of touch with what that market actually looks like for lateral partners. A 2M book expectation is not reasonable in many smaller markets even if that is standard in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.
As a partner recruiter, I always advise my candidates to be a bit conservative in estimating their book of business, and knowing my clients I expect they will discount whatever book is promised by at least 20%. This way both sides are less likely to be disappointed if things don’t go as well, or as quickly, as planned.
In my experience, the most significant reason lateral hires often don’t work out is that many/most(?) firms still struggle with successfully onboarding senior talent. Lateral partners are often not shown the “love” or attention they require during the transition, which in many cases can take years. Because of this, small problems can quickly become bigger ones, leading to an disappointing exit. And then the firms blame it on the lawyer and bemoan having to hire lateral partners.
The legal press does a disservice by reporting Firm A "nabs" partner from Firm B, or Firm B "lures" partner from Firm A, as if moving firms is a zero sum game with a winner and a loser. I think in many lateral moves lawyers are looking for a better professional fit. There can be win-win lateral moves--Firm A is strengthened by the departure and Firm B is strengthened by the arrival. "Nabs" seems most popular with headline writers, as if there has been a theft.
Despite being a recruiter, I have mixed feelings. Sometimes challenges can “follow the people” so it’s key to know if the problems have a likelihood of repeating at a new firm. I’ve written on this topic with checklists, etc., since it can require scratching beyond the obvious. (David - I was thinking about linking to my articles but don’t want to be “that guy” - but if you think it would add to the discussion, let me know.)
Thank you, Dan! These are great. I especially liked "Four Main Frustrations Causing Lateral Partners to Move" and "Potentially 'Questionable' Reasons to Make a Lateral Partner Move."
The partners with whom I have worked left for client reasons and lack of firm support in some manner including: Need more rate flexibility, firm wasn't supporting the practice group from a marketing perspective, client or clients only want select firms, management changes (law firm is merging), no clear path to equity partnership. Compensation was rarely mentioned and was never the driving force. All are perfectly good reasons to make a change from a partnership perspective. Like BDG, I have also seen over-promising, under-delivering or maybe the client was more institutional to the previous firm than anticipated.
But note that a lot of lateral partners leave not because they got better offers, but because they didn’t deliver the book of business they promised. There’s a lot of over-promising and under-delivering in the lateral market (or so say the news reports).
My sense is that firms have gotten smarter about lateral partner hiring since Dewey. There is a lot of skepticism of what laterals promise and a lot of tire kicking during the process (because firms have been burned before).
Agreed. And firms are much more strategic. One thing I noticed as a recruiter is that firms didn’t hire someone just because that partner had (or promised) a big book of business. The firms also wanted to be sure that the prospective hire was a good fit for the firm’s overall strategy (e.g., practice area or industry or geographic focus).
There are many firms who want to grow in smaller markets and are woefully out of touch with what that market actually looks like for lateral partners. A 2M book expectation is not reasonable in many smaller markets even if that is standard in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.
As a partner recruiter, I always advise my candidates to be a bit conservative in estimating their book of business, and knowing my clients I expect they will discount whatever book is promised by at least 20%. This way both sides are less likely to be disappointed if things don’t go as well, or as quickly, as planned.
In my experience, the most significant reason lateral hires often don’t work out is that many/most(?) firms still struggle with successfully onboarding senior talent. Lateral partners are often not shown the “love” or attention they require during the transition, which in many cases can take years. Because of this, small problems can quickly become bigger ones, leading to an disappointing exit. And then the firms blame it on the lawyer and bemoan having to hire lateral partners.
The legal press does a disservice by reporting Firm A "nabs" partner from Firm B, or Firm B "lures" partner from Firm A, as if moving firms is a zero sum game with a winner and a loser. I think in many lateral moves lawyers are looking for a better professional fit. There can be win-win lateral moves--Firm A is strengthened by the departure and Firm B is strengthened by the arrival. "Nabs" seems most popular with headline writers, as if there has been a theft.
Despite being a recruiter, I have mixed feelings. Sometimes challenges can “follow the people” so it’s key to know if the problems have a likelihood of repeating at a new firm. I’ve written on this topic with checklists, etc., since it can require scratching beyond the obvious. (David - I was thinking about linking to my articles but don’t want to be “that guy” - but if you think it would add to the discussion, let me know.)
Please do drop some links here, Dan! Your insights as a veteran recruiter are very welcome!
Thanks, David. Here's the link: https://lateralpartners.com/category/the-guide/considering-a-lateral-partner-move/
Thank you, Dan! These are great. I especially liked "Four Main Frustrations Causing Lateral Partners to Move" and "Potentially 'Questionable' Reasons to Make a Lateral Partner Move."
The partners with whom I have worked left for client reasons and lack of firm support in some manner including: Need more rate flexibility, firm wasn't supporting the practice group from a marketing perspective, client or clients only want select firms, management changes (law firm is merging), no clear path to equity partnership. Compensation was rarely mentioned and was never the driving force. All are perfectly good reasons to make a change from a partnership perspective. Like BDG, I have also seen over-promising, under-delivering or maybe the client was more institutional to the previous firm than anticipated.