Why Do Laterals So Often Fail? Poor Due Diligence, Researchers Say
It's costly to hire laterals, and yet nearly half leave after five years. Researchers from ALM Intelligence and consultancy Decipher asked why the process was so flawed.
March 05, 2019 at 03:42 PM
4 minute read
Over a four-year span between 2014 and 2017, the lateral moves between firms in the Am Law 200 brought with them a total book of business valued at over $17 billion, according to ALM Intelligence.
And yet, the number of laterals who leave their new firm within five years has been estimated at nearly 50 percent. Putting the two numbers together illustrates the serious consequences for firms that enter, and fail, in the lateral market.
Applying the upper estimate of a 47 percent failure rate from The American Lawyer contributor Hugh Simons, firms lose over $2 billion a year in revenue from failed laterals.
“That's an astounding amount,” said Howard Rosenberg, co-founder and CEO of legal intelligence provider Decipher. And this inefficiency was the starting point for a report released in February by Decipher and ALM Intelligence exploring why so many lateral acquisitions come up short.
The issue is also exacerbated by the ubiquity of lateral hiring. According to the report, between 2014 and 2018, there were almost 9,000 lateral partner moves within the Am Law 200. And almost no firms are on the outside looking in: ALM Intelligence data shows that 97 percent of these firms made a lateral partner hire in that interval.
Put simply, law firms count on lateral hiring to solve all sorts of problems and create just as many opportunities: from boosting sagging revenue to delivering an entry to new markets. Report co-author Nicholas Bruch of ALM Intelligence calls it a “golden egg.”
But beyond the lost revenue, these hires don't come cheap. According to the report, the average cost of acquiring a lateral partner was $2.3 million in 2018, including one year of compensation, recruiter fees and other internal costs. Most laterals ultimately receive two years of compensation, driving the average up to $4.2 million.
With the stakes so high, one would think that law firms would put significant resources into feeling out potential partners with due diligence and integrating them soundly. Not so, according to Rosenberg.
“Getting partners to work seamlessly within an existing partnership is a real challenge,” he said.
Bruch draws a direct link between the lack of due diligence and the failure to integrate. Over 50 interviews with law firm leaders and other experts with experience in lateral hiring revealed stories about new arrivals not fitting in. Sometimes this manifested in fights with other partners, other times by not treating associates in the way that the existing partnership believed they should be treated.
“The group didn't think about how these people would fit,” he said.
Decipher co-founder and general counsel Michael Ellenhorn added that the new partner's promised business too often doesn't come along.
“A lot of that simply goes down to poor due diligence on part of the hiring firm,” he said. “You didn't do what you were supposed to do.”
For Bruch, the problem is, paradoxically, a culture of collegiality among lawyers. They're uncomfortable asking hard questions of their future colleagues.
“Nobody wants to be mean to their partner,” he said. “What happens if, down the road, something happens to them, and their practice isn't that profitable.”
A move to more professional management might be part of the solution, but it's not an overnight answer. Rosenberg was formerly the chief operating officer of Baker McKenzie in Washington, D.C. ”I think the intention is right: Bring people in from a different background and with different a skill base,” he said. But the partnership structure still resists change.
“It's a whole education process that's playing out in real time as we speak,” he added.
Some firms are making strides in improving the vetting process. Bruch said he spoke to a managing partner who shared that the one drawback with having a team designed to chase a partner was that it it's particularly difficult for that team to say no.
“We separated the due diligence function from hiring function,” the managing partner told Bruch. “We have a team to say no and a team to say yes, and it's our job as management to decide between the two.”
|Read More
Integrating Lateral Hires: The Key to Retention and Productivity
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Sue Clients for Unpaid Legal Fees as Big Law Collection Goals Ramp Up
Kirkland Litigation Partner Heads to Paul Hastings as Firm Seeks to 'Gain Market Share' in Practice
3 minute readWhite & Case Adds O'Melveny Energy Project Development Partner in Houston
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Partner Cuts: The Grim Reality of Post-Merger Integration
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250