Article Archive

Advancing Women In The Law

About Us

Article Archive

Can't We Just Do Lunch?

Attorney At Work

Daily Dispatch

January 3, 2012

You don’t need a coach to tell you that taking a partner or client to lunch is a good idea. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a success strategies or business development book that doesn’t recommend lunch as a great way to forge and further business relationships

But a recent—and for me, jaw-dropping—conversation with some women associates got me thinking there may be some not-so-obvious obstacles to following this age-old advice. One ambitious and intrepid young woman extended to the male head of her practice group what she assumed was an innocent invitation to lunch. She was immediately rebuffed with his assertion that he never joins women associates for lunch (or any other “social” activity). Why? Because his wife objects.

I assumed he’d been joking, but the other women in the practice group confirmed her story: The head of the practice group routinely goes to lunch with the male associates in the group but eschews all mingling with young women attorneys to avoid even a hint of impropriety. In fact, he even declines to lunch with a party of several women.

No doubt, many male partners can identify with his concerns. Even those most committed to women’s advancement have confided to me their concerns about the potential liability of meeting with a woman associate in their office behind closed doors. Some admit having to reassure suspicious spouses, too. This is the first time I’ve heard of anyone going to this extreme, but where there’s one, there could be more. Who knows?

Although their trepidations may be understandable, my guess is these male partners have not considered the repercussions of their decision to demure. Even in a purported meritocracy, the way to the top is through relationships. We all know that good work is never enough. Under the best of circumstances, male associates have greater access to important internal and external relationships simply because people feel most comfortable with those who are most like themselves.

Conversations over lunch invariably provide the opportunity to share insights about the firm, cases, advancement strategies and client contacts. These informal meetings allow the exchange of the small stuff of which big careers are made. Lunch is a way to connect, learn about your companion’s values and what you share in common. Sitting across from each other, people can smooth ruffled feathers and clarify communication differences.

The conclusion is obvious: Lunching with the boys and not the girls creates unequal opportunities. I doubt this is the intention of the practice group leader in this example, but, nevertheless, that is the outcome.

Avoiding Grist for the Rumor Mill: Advice for Senior Attorneys

Cross-gender relations in the workplace are, indeed, complicated. When strong professional bonds form between opposite-sex colleagues, particularly of differing seniority, people will talk. What, then, is a senior attorney to do if he wishes to maintain marital harmony and avoid accusations of harassment, while at the same time abstaining from committing those micro-aggressions that create an unequal playing field?

First, ask yourself whether your alleged reasons are really what are keeping you from extending or accepting invitations. It’s easy to rationalize discomfort by exaggerating the probability of unlikely risks. Then consider these options.

The usual advice is to spend social time in public places and before dark. This may not soothe very jealous spouses, but it reduces some risks.
Have both male and female attorneys present at the dining table.
Include another partner whom your spouse trusts.
Invite women associates to your home for dinner so your worried spouse can witness the professionalism of the relationships.

What If You’re the Snubbed Woman Associate?

Don’t take “no” for an answer. Micro-inequities are subtle and difficult to challenge, so do what’s hard. Empathize with the partner’s concerns but point out the uneven playing field this creates. Invite the partner to think with you about alternatives that will provide you with the same opportunities afforded to his male lunch companions. Perhaps the two of you will be able to generate some solutions. Maybe he’ll realize the consequences of his choices and revise his decision. Regardless, you’ll feel empowered by refusing to accept unfair treatment.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Wayne State University Law School
July 2010

However, you have the fortune to be beginning your career during a period of unprecedented change in the legal industry. Whatever your prior relationship with change, be prepared to befriend it because it is likely to be your constant companion.

Law firms are changing the way they recruit, hire, develop, evaluate and compensate their associates. Prior associate classes may not necessarily have been able to count on advancing to partner, but they did take for granted several years of annual lockstep promotions and salary increases. Today there is little a new associate can afford to take for granted. The legal industry has undergone dramatic changes during the past 18 months. What law firm economics expert Bruce MacEwen of the Adam Smith Esq. blog calls "The Great Reset"1 is far from over, and outcomes are still unclear and being hotly debated.2

Working in your job but not on your career has never been a wise approach, although many lawyers did just this. Today a strategy like this would be career suicide.

The partners you are trying to please and whose model you are attempting to follow have a great deal more technical expertise than do you. But, with rare exceptions, they are almost as confused as you about where things are headed. What this means for you is that you must be regularly assessing the legal industry, your market, your firm and your career from a big-picture perspective.

As necessary as it is to focus on the task at hand in order to develop your technical skills, ifthat's all you do, you'll be back on the unemployment rolls before you've learned how to create a new matter number at your firm. Just as mammals (humans included) look up periodically while eating to survey the landscape for the presence of predators, you need to regularly check the backdrop for opportunities for, and threats to, your career as well as where your current position fits within the big picture of a constantly changing map of the legal industry.

Taking proactive responsibility for your own career is essential, not only due to the ongoing upheaval in the legal world, but also because the work of new associates has never had less market value. Tasks that may have filled an associate's billable requirements in years past may now be outsourced to lower-cost service providers. With their own budgets and staffs slashed, corporate legal departments are less than sanguine about paying $400 per hour for an associate's "tooling up" time.

Under pressure from clients for lower fees and greater efficiency, law firms too are dissatisfied with the capabilities of graduating law students. Having been a hard-working and successful law student who did all your alma mater required, it may seem terribly unfair to you to be called "worthless," as one outspoken general counsel put it. Just or not, you are caught in the middle of the struggles between law firms and law schools as well as law firms and their clients. Although it's not your fault, it is a reality with which you must grapple.

Don't Get Lulled Into Complacency

Faced with your relative lack of preparation to practice law and client dissatisfaction with the value you provide, many firms are now putting greater emphasis on training junior associates.

Of course, you stand to benefit enormously from this. But don't allow your firm's focus on training you in "core competencies" to allow you to become complacent and believe that you can rely upon your firm to benevolently take care of your professional development.

Competency models are intended to identify the attitudes, behaviors and skills an associate needs to master at each level along the path to (unguaranteed) partnership. Specified core competencies provide direction for the firm's talent management as well as for your own professional development planning.

However, firms have just begun using these models. The degree to which competencies have been validly and reliably operationalized is largely untested. Simply labeling a competency does not mean that partners are able to accurately assess the degree to which you have mastered it. Firms frequently confuse the presence of a metric with objectivity.

Thus far there is little evidence that assessments of degrees of mastery of competencies are free of the various influences that typically bias associate evaluations.4 Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that every cat has been herded in the direction of buying into a firm's core competencies model. Resistant partners will insist on doing what they've always done, and you have to surf the waves as they come, adapting to the exigencies of whoever supervises you.

Not every firm has transitioned from lockstep to levels. If you work at a firm that retains its lockstep model, you might wrongly conclude that you can take advancement for granted.

Even within lockstep models, firms will be scrutinizing associate performance more closely, if for no other reason than the fact that the firm's performance is being examined more diligently by clients. In fact, if you work at a firm with a lockstep advancement process for associates, you would do well to take a look at some core competency models, in order to have a template for directing your own proactive career development plans.

Of course, you need to have opportunities to develop these core competencies.

Theoretically, a firm that has shifted from lockstep to levels of core competencies will also have a work-assignment process that provides all associates with equitable shots at the kinds of assignments that will enable them to master the skills in question. Unfortunately, the distance between theory and practice within law firm reality can be vast.

While some practice groups are currently flush with work and ripe with matters on which associates can acquire skills, partners in other practices struggle to fill their hours and hoard whatever work they have. Coordinated assignment systems are frequently thwarted by partners who have already selected their "favorite" associates to complete delegated work. Prepare yourself to proactively seek out the kinds of stretch assignments that will enable you to master core skills, regardless of your firm's "official" assignment system.

In order to do this effectively, you'll need to get to know partners and their practices.

Background research as well as in-person conversations can apprise you of practice goals. Track partner successes through google.com alerts and send appropriate congratulations. Allow your curiosity to lead you. Find out how an assignment fits within a big picture. Follow up after completing the assignment to learn how the case worked out. Take risks and show "fire in your belly."

You have to make yourself memorable. You don't have to be extroverted; even shy associates can demonstrate interest. But you can't just keep your nose to the grindstone and maintain a low profile. The partners for whom you work are dealing with this reality and so must you.

Develop the 'Soft' Skills Too

Another aspect of "core competencies" that warrants your attention is the fact that they extend well beyond what you are used to considering as lawyering skills. These days successful lawyers must be multi-disciplinary.

Developing a working knowledge of business, economics, your clients' market and organizational psychology are prerequisites for a successful legal career. Client demands are increasing the value of what used to be considered "soft" skills.

Do you know how to manage projects (read people)? How are your team-leading skills? Can you effectively manage client expectations? How about collaborating across practice groups and even firms? Do you know how to form a strategic alliance with a client and share risk? Of course you don't, and it would be unrealistic for anyone to expect that of you right out of law school. But you need a plan to develop these skills. Your interpersonal, management and leadership abilities will be evaluated, just as clients are evaluating these competencies in the partners they consider hiring as outside counsel.

So Wait, Whose Model Do I Follow?

Prior to today, these "soft" skills were devalued in big firms. "Just be a great lawyer" was the typical advice most associates received. Many of the partners for whom you will work persist in believing this fallacy which leaves you wondering, "What model should I follow?" Herein lies the greatest challenge to you as a new associate. The partners for whom you work are trying to understand and respond to ever-changing client demands in a buyers' market. You are engaged in a parallel process with your clients: the partners at your firm.

They must figure things out as they go along, and so must you.

Potential models who insist that everything will return to 2007 norms once employment picks up are probably not the best people to emulate, although you're likely to need to perform effectively for some of these. Instead, look for better success models: lawyers who are working to understand the industry they serve and to adapt their business practices to their clients' changing needs.

Look for success profiles among associates as well. Often your first clients will be senior associates at your firm. Try to analyze the competencies you observe them demonstrating. The ways in which their skills match or differ from your firm's explicit core competencies can be very telling.

Their behavior may provide specific examples of competencies that you can work to acquire. Differences between their behavior and stated competencies may suggest recent changes in success criteria or discrepancies between ostensibly desired competencies and those the firm actually rewards.

Advisors, Mentors, Connections

Construct your own personal board of advisors. Your firm probably offers formal training in

its desired competencies but this is not primarily how you will learn them. Immediate task related feedback, mentoring and coaching are necessary for the acquisition of these often subtle skills.

Rather than attempting to find one impossibly busy partner to take you on as a protégé, develop relationships with several people who can help you succeed. And, with the pace of lateral movement these days, you can't count on any one mentor to stick around. Senior associates, colleagues outside your firm, external coaches as well as firm partners are all potential candidates.

In order to reap the benefits of a personal board of advisors you have to craft a career development plan that articulates where you are, where you'd like to be headed and the gaps you need to fill. Beyond that, you have to invest in building meaningful relationships with potential mentors and coaches.

Junior associates invariably neglect this part of their careers. Building a network of connections both within and outside of your firm is as essential to your career success as is acquiring technical expertise. Genuine relationships built upon generosity, shared interests and basic humanity will provide you with ongoing career guidance, information when you need it, future business development opportunities and job leads when and if you're ready to move on from your firm.

Don't tell yourself that you don't have time to build these relationships. You simply cannot

succeed without them.

Developing these relationships requires many of the "soft" skills now being incorporated into competency models. Leadership, client development, project management, motivating others, and enlisting cooperation all require sophisticated interpersonal skills deemed irrelevant in most law school curricula. Among the most fundamental of these is earning trust.

Earn Their Trust

At a recent conference hosted by the Georgetown Center for the Study of the Legal Profession,6 Patricia Gillette, partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, called for renewed trust between partners and associates.

Partners are more apt to be preoccupied with trying to earn the trust of clients who have come to view outside counsel as friendly adversaries hoping to profit at their expense. Therefore, the burden of responsibility for building associate-partner trust is likely to fall on you.

Clients want their outside lawyers to understand what keeps them up at night and then provide whatever is needed to help them sleep. That's what partners want from you. Keep in mind that partner insomnia has worsened during this time of uncertainty about what law firm business model will survive

How can you, fresh out of law school, shaken by layoffs and deferments, with little practical legal knowledge, earn the trust of a partner?

Be reliable: do what you say you will do. Understand what is important to a partner, not just for a particular assignment, but in that partner's practice.

This is not the time to try to hide your ignorance by avoiding asking questions. You're not revealing anything that isn't already assumed. Far better to find out what is expected of you than to return an inferior product because you didn't understand what the partner had in mind.

Follow up. Request performance feedback and use it. Ask what happened to the project after you completed your assignment. Don't allow working 24/7 to serve as a proxy for commitment.

Genuine commitment means thinking like a partner from day one. Stay on top of this constantly changing market by reading the Wall Street Journal and industry publications. Understand the firm's business model, your client's business (not just its legal issues) and partners' practices and align your contributions with partners' and firm goals.

Whether or not you tend to be naturally risk averse, you have to take risks to stand out. Inaction and passivity are far riskier. And leave any semblance of arrogance outside the firm's door.

Yes, this is a hazardous and anxiety-ridden time. But it's also a time of great opportunity for new associates. Your choices and actions will determine the rewards you reap. Grab your surfboard. It's time to create your own future.

Ellen Ostrow is a psychologist, certified coach and founding principal of Lawyers Life Coach, a firm providing professional development, career and executive coaching to attorneys and consultation to legal employers. Naomi Beard, a former practicing lawyer, is also a certified coach, and co-principal of Lawyers Life Coach.

Endnotes:

1. http://www.adamsmithesq.com.

2. "Law Firm Evolution: Brave New World or Business as Usual?" A conference sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Legal Profession. Georgetown University Law Center, March 21-23, 2010.

3. Chester Paul Beach, general counsel, United Technologies, quoted on Above the Law at http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/corporate-general-counsel-puts-fear-of-god-into-legaleducators-and-you-should-be-worried-too/.

4. "Fair Measure: Toward Effective Attorney Evaluations," 2nd ed. (American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession, 2008).

5. For example, Heather Bock and Robert Ruyak, "Constructing Core Competencies: Using Competency Models to Manage Firm Talent" (American Bar Association, 2006).

6. Rachel M. Zahorsky, "Warnings Toll for BigLaw Firms Resistant to Change," ABA Journal, posted March 23, 2010, available at

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/warnings_toll_for_biglaw_firms_resistant_to_change/.

7. Leigh Jones, "With deferrals, a class collision," The National Law Journal, May 11, 2009, available at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202430593599&With_deferrals_a_class_collision&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1.

Help! I’m Trapped in the Law

Lawyer Avenue
May 20, 2010
By Ellen Ostrow, Ph.D., CMC

An extremely bright and accomplished woman attorney explained to me why it was impossible for her to do anything but practice law at this point in her life. Having worked in both government and private settings, she was certain she had a clear idea of what her chosen profession entailed, and concluded that no area of the law would hold her interest.

She had a very clear sense of personal priorities and knew she wanted family to come before work. She did not apologize for her unwillingness to work a 60-80 hour week. But her remaining law school debt loomed largely before her. And furthermore, she just couldn’t imagine NOT being a lawyer; not after having invested so much time, money and hard work in her field.

Essentially, she believed she was trapped; that she had no options except to continue doing the work she was trained to do and to remain forever dissatisfied.

In my counseling experience, this is a fate to which many lawyers believe they are doomed.

The fact is, dissatisfied attorneys can find rewarding work both within and outside of the legal world. I’ve worked with lawyers who are now teachers, writers, marketing executives, entrepreneurs, lobbyists, private investigators, legal career counselors, mediators, and psychologists, to name only a few. I’ve also seen attorneys transform their lives by changing practice areas, moving from a large to a small firm, transition into academics, or by choosing alternative work arrangements.

But before you can make a change, you have to believe that you can. Here are four common myths keeping lawyers feeling trapped in their jobs:

MYTH #1. It is irrational and wasteful to choose not to practice law after completing a legal education.
REALITY. Many professionals consider a legal education to be the best type of overall training a person can have. Your legal education will never be wasted, regardless of the work you choose to do.

MYTH #2. Your work experience gives you a thorough and realistic picture of the universe of legal practice.
REALITY: Most lawyers are aware of only a small percentage of work options available to them. In reality, you have a large menu of job opportunities from which to choose. To fully educate yourself, investigate every practice area; the advantages and disadvantages of work in large, medium, small, and solo practices, as well as opportunities in all levels of government, law schools, the judiciary, public interest, bar associations, business and education.

Alternative work arrangements also exist in some work settings. Surveys indicate that many women attorneys neither know about, nor take advantage of flexible schedules or part-time arrangements that may be offered by their firms. In fact, many women lawyers are not even aware of their firm’s maternity leave policies.

Some women do not choose to use alternative arrangements for fear of being permanently “mommy-tracked.” This concern is often well-grounded. But as shown in the book, Presumed Equal, there are vast differences among law firms in the flexibility of work arrangements and opportunities for advancement and partnership they offer women who choose thee options. To find out about alternative practice areas, check the ABA Web site and follow the links to every section and practice area. Attend your local Women’s Bar Association meetings and network with lawyers from different work settings. Certainly, if you decide to change practice area, you’ll have to make yourself marketable. But there are steps to follow and role models to inspire you; many women lawyers have already paved the way to success.

MYTH #3. There is no other way to produce sufficient income to pay down law school debt besides continuing to work as a lawyer.
REALITY: There’s no question that law school debt can be daunting. But so is the prospect of spending your life feeling trapped. There are many ways of generating income once you leave the law behind. By pursuing your “right livelihood,” you’ll put yourself in a better position to pay off your debt in the long run simply because you’ll be more effective and successful in your new field.

MYTH #4. You’ll need another degree to find a job outside of legal practice.
REALITY: Consider the skills you’ve acquired through law school and your legal experience: the ability to write clearly and persuasively, to think on your feet, to think analytically, and to communicate effectively, to synthesize ideas, problem-solve, advocate and advise. Although certain professions (like medicine) require a degree for licensure, many of the careers you’re likely to consider will value the skills and training you’ve already acquired. Most will require experiential training (internships, for example) rather than degrees. Though some schooling may be required, it probably won’t be as rigorous (or expensive) as law school was.

Finding career satisfaction is never impossible. The key to finding career satisfaction either within, or outside of, the law is to:

Do a thorough self-assessment of your interests, talents, values and passions.
Carefully and thoroughly research all the possible options available to you — including many possibilities you’ve never before considered.
Conduct extensive informational interviews to ensure that the work you’re considering fits with your life, not just your interests.
Make a long-term, step-by-step plan which includes strategies for addressing financial needs.

Many attorneys find it easier to accomplish the above steps and ultimately reach their new career objectives by establishing an ongoing relationship with a professional coach. Coaching is convenient. Since it is conducted via telephone (with email and fax backup), you don’t need to add travel time to your busy schedule. And the structured, task-focused nature of coaching can allow you to accomplish your objectives more efficiently.

Ellen Ostrow, Ph.D. established www.LawyersLifeCoach.com to coach busy lawyers who might benefit from the insights gained from her 20 years as a psychologist combined with her experience and familiarity with the legal profession. LawyersLifeCoach is a professional and personal coaching firm specializing in working virtually (by phone with email and fax backup) with women attorneys interested in developing strategies to find greater satisfaction in their careers within the law or in exploring career alternatives for lawyers.

Great Expectations: Lateral Integration

New York Law Journal
By Ellen Ostrow, Ph.D., CMC
February 1, 2010

It looked like a match made in heaven to Steve and the firm that brought him aboard as a lateral to grow its transactional practice. The firm was attracted by Steve's $2 million book of business, and the firm's deep and broad bench of talent across practice areas that could serve his clients made the appeal mutual. In order to bump his practice up to the next level, he needed the kind of prestige, visibility and reach that this firm could provide.

All went well initially. Steve found a well-located office, an experienced assistant and full IT support awaiting him on his first day. He spent his first few months transitioning clients and marketing his practice in ways he had done successfully before: chairing industry groups, speaking across the country and maintaining his high profile as the go-to attorney in his field.

So Steve was stunned when he tried to open a matter for the first new client he brought to the firm. No sooner did he get the paperwork going than he got a call from a member of the management committee informing him that this was not how the firm operated. The potential matter would have to be evaluated by the MC first, and he didn't mean conflicts checks. He meant that the matter would need to be valued above a threshold for the firm to agree to take it on.
Steve was dumbfounded.

First of all, his practice consisted of many small matters. He functioned as the de facto outside counsel to many clients that ran every decision past him before taking action. But in a fast-paced industry, waiting several days for the MC to decide was completely incompatible with the needs of his clients. Also, while many of these matters were relatively small, in aggregate they created the book that Steve had been courted to bring to the firm.

Steve met with the MC at his request, explaining the needs of his practice about which he thought there'd been a pre-nuptial understanding. Members of the MC agreed that they'd understood this before bringing him aboard. But according to their vision for his practice, now that Steve had newly expanded resources available to him, he would more aggressively market to the large corporate clients the firm preferred to serve.

A funny thing happened when Steve brought in the first matter that fit the MC's criteria: An older partner insisted on the origination credit because he had done corporate work for the client 10 years ago.

Not a Unique Story

Although the details vary, Steve's story is anything but unique.

The recruiting firm Major, Lindsey and Africa published two surveys of lateral partner satisfaction, one in 1996 and one 10 years later.1 The firm found significant improvement in satisfaction over the 10 years. However, it also found that considerable numbers of lateral partners were dissatisfied with their firms' integration efforts.
In particular, the average lateral partner responding to the survey was least satisfied with the support provided by the new firm to take his or her practice to the next level, the primary motivation for lateral moves. Similarly, The American Lawyer magazine's February 2009 Lateral Report found that lateral partner turnover varied widely from one firm to another during the first two years post-transition. In these days of legal industry readjustment, given estimates that a firm invests at least $600,000 in hiring one lateral partner, this is hardly chump change.2

There is no paucity of "best practices" in lateral partner integration available to interested firms. But the poor economy and downsizing of the industry have not left firms predisposed to invest in human resources budgets. Even in firms that follow best practices, including having one or more powerful partners who take ownership of the lateral's success (making introductions to firm clients, giving the lateral platforms for informing the current partnership about her or his practice, and creating opportunities for partners to socialize with their new potential collaborator), too much falls between the cracks.

Real integration requires much more than providing current firm partners and clients information about a lateral partner's practice skills and value proposition. As much as attorneys and firms might like to believe that this is a rational, cognitive process, it is far more determined by irrational and emotional factors. Bookstore shelves are now filled with volumes about how our business and political decisions are driven by our emotional reactions.

Despite the enthusiasm of partners invested in recruiting a lateral lawyer, there are always others who perceive their new colleague as an opportunity to lose far more than gain. After all, a lateral partner has just divorced his old firm and taken valuable assets with him. Who's to say that won't happen again?

These concerns have only become intensified during the economic slowdown. Partners worried about filling their own plates are even more reluctant to share their client contacts with someone they have no particular reason to trust.

As one lateral partner and rainmaker recently told me, "I keep on bringing in new matters and inviting other partners to work on these with me, but after six months I have yet to have another lawyer here ask me to work with a client of theirs."

Because I happened to know another partner at her firm whose practice had many potential synergies with that of this lateral, I asked if she'd had an opportunity to connect with him. As it turned out, neither partner was aware of the other's practice. Since I introduced them to one another, they have planned several joint client pitches together.

Did Anybody Hear Me?

The point is that firm leaders often make the mistake of believing that just because a message is sent, it is actually heard.

The arrival of a new lateral partner is typically heralded with much fanfare. Press releases are sent, marketing staff get busy creating buzz, and the new partner presents an overview of her practice at the firm's retreat.

Was everyone at the retreat, though? Was everyone there actually listening?

It's an informal rule of thumb in the corporate world that if you want employees to hear a message, particularly one involving change, then you must repeat it multiple times and across multiple channels. How many e-mail announcements does it take to ensure that people are informed? There will never be enough, since so many partners will not read past the third line.

Furthermore, people listen only to information they perceive to be relevant to them. Fundamentally, it is up to the lateral partner to help his partners understand the relevance of his practice to them, to assuage the concerns of cynical colleagues and learn the unspoken assumptions and rules of the firm, all while learning to open files, record time, send out invoices, operate the computer and the phone, and of course, make rain.

Planning and executing an internal marketing campaign is no small feat under the pressure of the great expectations of managers who have invested so much time and money to bring a lateral partner aboard. Research in psychology demonstrates that a person's efforts to prove herself can backfire.3 Heightened vigilance about others' perceptions can narrow focus, block creativity and impair problem-solving ability. Since we tend to perceive what we expect, it's easy to take others' negativity personally. Even worse, others can pick up on our efforts to manage impressions and feel manipulated.

Being oblivious or insensitive to the reactions of new colleagues is also unlikely to help the integration process. A coaching client of mine recently offered to introduce a new lateral partner at her firm to a client of hers. After the introductions, and unbeknownst to my client, the lateral opened the matter the three of them had discussed under his own name. My client was understandably furious. She's been at the firm for a long time and has a broad and strong network. She's not the only partner who won't be cross-selling his expertise.

Cognitive neuroscience and social psychology teach us that we cannot effectively communicate our message to anyone who doubts our honesty.4 Our brains have an internal security guard that snaps to attention immediately upon encountering any new person or situation. The job of this mental gatekeeper is to detect safety or danger, friend or foe. If a new lateral can't get past this gatekeeper, he'll have no chance of demonstrating to his partners the value of cross-selling him to their clients. There's also no faking our way past the gatekeeper: It is highly sensitive to inauthenticity.

Real Relationships Required

In order for a lateral partner to successfully become integrated into a firm, she needs to build real relationships, one person at a time.

Certainly, firm support makes a huge difference. Probably the most effective thing a firm can do is to have a compensation system that rewards partners for collaborating. A system that tracks efforts to cross-sell, bring a lateral onto matters and plan joint pitches, and which holds partners accountable is far more potent than simply touting the new lateral's rainmaking record.

But no firm can build relationships that create glue among strangers. A new lateral must treat every incumbent partner as she would a prospective client. Efforts to convince others of the value of our contributions tend to be thwarted by the other person's guardedness or lack of interest in taking us seriously. So, a new partner who leads with a sales pitch is unlikely to build an alliance. Self-advocacy tends to be ineffective until the lateral has really taken the time to get to know her partners.

A wise lateral partner will stand in his colleagues' shoes and look at things from their perspective. Perspective-taking is vital for enabling a new partner to develop the genuine respect and positive feelings for others that might otherwise be inhibited by distracting concerns about success.

Active listening is crucial. A lateral partner would do well to let his colleagues regale him with their war stories and to inquire about their families. Understanding the successes they have achieved and the concerns and goals that now preoccupy them will go a long way toward helping them take the risk of sharing information and opportunities. Developing a sincere appreciation for another's perspective and contributions helps clarify expectations, and puts you in a position to both influence and benefit from collaboration.

Certainly all of this takes time and a long time frame, which is difficult to maintain in the face of short-term scrutiny and great expectations. But thinking this way can make the difference between becoming happily integrated into the firm or needing to go back to the recruiter.

Obstacles Can Be Overcome

The process of integration is rarely smooth. I had the pleasure of successfully coaching a lateral partner who overcame what threatened to be an overwhelming obstacle.
Soon after starting at her new firm, she ran into the problem of client incompatibilities. Although both she and the firm had cleared all conflicts during the due diligence process, some had not risen to the surface. She found herself conflicted out of the majority of her business after coming on board.

A senior partner in her practice group insisted that an important client would protest the firm representing potential competitors. No work-around satisfied the senior attorney; he was not interested in any solution other than having the lateral partner relinquish her business.

After going through the difficult process of detaching from her old firm and entering a new one in order to leverage the latter's capabilities and expertise, she found herself unable to retain the clients she'd hoped to better serve. Instead, she essentially had to start from scratch to re-define herself in the market and build a new book of business. Perhaps the firm could have intervened, but this would have alienated an influential partner, a move that would likely not have facilitated this lateral's integration.
Recognizing that this senior lawyer felt threatened by her, she went to great lengths to try to build a collaborative relationship with him, but to no avail. His chilly reception combined with the need to relinquish much of her book of business could easily have sent her packing, but she was not to be deterred.

She took the initiative to develop the internal network she needed to get the information and support necessary for her success, one relationship at a time. She cemented her bonds with those key players who had brought her into the firm and reminded them of the need to reinforce the strategic case for her success, not only immediately after she came to the firm but repeatedly over time. The initial expectations of her productivity clearly had to be re-negotiated given the recently surfaced conflicts without her making apologies. The strong support of a very influential senior partner enabled her to shift firm expectations and redefine the criteria for her successful integration more realistically.

With this support, she began to demonstrate her value and earn trust. She wrote and began implementing a new business plan, consistent with the firm's strategic goals. Traveling from each office to the next, she spent time listening to her colleagues' business goals and understanding their strengths. She recognized that no amount of information about the value she could bring would substitute for her demonstrating her genuine interest in the firm.

Through repeated personal discussions she came to fully understand the interests resistant partners were protecting. She then collaborated with them to write articles and make firm pitches. She created opportunities for others with each new matter she brought to the firm. She went out of her way to make sure that management was well aware of the contributions of partners to her achievements, whether they referred work to her, pitched in to help her deliver service or to bring in a new client.
Only after earning their trust were her colleagues willing to introduce her to their clients. And only after she had built broad support did she begin to push hard for the resources and structural changes necessary for the firm to be a great platform for her practice.

Most fundamentally, she stopped relying on the firm to integrate her and integrated herself. Although the firm had much to gain from her success, she decided that no one would be more invested in it than she was.

The firm has indeed benefited from her achievements. Her practice has been extremely profitable for it, but she has added value in other ways. Having experienced the challenges she faced as a lateral partner, she has become a resource for all of the firm's women hoping to develop their own practices. Firm members were so taken with her business development success that they asked her to sit on several powerful firm committees.

If the measure of successful lateral integration is that other partners can't recall when the lateral was not part of the firm, then she has been enormously successful. In her particular case, the commitment of a few key players provided the lateral partner with enough support and sense of belonging to cultivate her determination and loyalty.
Ellen Ostrow is a psychologist, certified coach and founding principal of Lawyers Life Coach, a firm providing professional development, career and executive coaching to attorneys and consultation to legal employers.

Endnotes:
1. Lindsey, Jonathan, "Lateral Partner Satisfaction: A Decade of Perspective" (Major, Lindsey & Africa, 2007).
2. Hellerman, John, "'Lateral' Should Mean Up Not Sideways" (Law Practice Today, American Bar Association, 2008), available at: http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/mkt05083.shtml.
3. Dutton, Jane E. & Ragins, Belle R., "Exploring Positive Relationships at Work" (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007).
4. Goleman, Daniel, "Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships" (Bantam, 2006); Rock, David, "Your Brain at Work" (HarperBusiness, 2009).

The One Activity You Can’t Afford to Pass Up: Building Social Capital

Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 82, No. 4
April 2009

“Especially in a slow economy, staying connected with people
and building social capital is a low-cost way to invest
in your future by contributing to the success of other people.”

Changes in the legal industry combined with widespread uncertainty about our economic future make developing effective solutions to keeping jobs, getting enough work, or finding new employment difficult. Although paralysis is the least effective way to cope, you’d be in good company if you found yourself responding this way. So many lawyers feel like they just don’t know what to do. The old rules don’t seem to apply. Recruiters have little to offer associates. Partners struggle to get work from businesses that are loathe to spend money or have declared bankruptcy. In the absence of a clear path, it’s easy to freeze in place.

More Articles...