New York Lawyer
September 20, 2001

Q:
Recently I was passed over for making partner, while someone who started with me at our firm made partner. I know I sound like I�m suffering from a bad case of sour grapes, but I�m at a loss as to why he made it and I didn�t.

His work is mediocre and his judgment isn�t very sound. What he does do is rack up a ridiculous number of hours (due to dedication or incompetence, it�s not clear) and he works closely with one of the heavy hitters of the firm. They schmooze together all the time, take off to play golf, have the same practical-joking, jock-type mentality. (I don�t play golf.)

I can�t help feeling extremely resentful that the criteria for making partner seems so personal and political rather than based on smarts.

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:
I�d put this issue at the top of my �life isn�t fair� list. As you may know, most young attorneys these days start their professional lives in law firms assuming they won�t make partner (and also saying they don�t care). This is in part due to less loyalty to institutions, but also because of the scenario you�ve observed in your firm � unclear or perhaps unfair criteria for making partner.

Ideally there should be a set of clear standards fairly applied across the board, including a judicious blend of competence, dedication to firm (hours worked, willingness to market your practice, help with administrative duties, etc.), style, etc.

The reality is complicated by the billable hour, luck and sheer politics. I think firms rely way too much on billable hours as a criteria. Those who keep sleeping bags in their offices so they can log all those hours are to be admired -- or pitied -- but if their basic legal skills and judgment are lacking partners should think long and hard before bringing them into the fold. Lackluster lawyers will rise to their level of incompetence all too quickly, bringing added risk to the firm.

Luck is another factor that you can�t do much about. If your colleague was in a higher-grossing practice area, that�s the luck of the draw, and it�s fair enough for the partnership to expand practice areas where it�s making money.

Finally, partners should be wary of the strength of politics and loyalty as informal criteria and seek to reduce their impact. Obviously, these measurements will not appear on any evaluation form, but often they are the reasons that unimpressive people are promoted. Those wanting to bring along �their� guy or gal should keep in mind the long-term best interests of the firm and your clients. Loyalty and simpatico personalities are dubious reasons to promote someone.

While the senior partner you�re talking about may enjoy his towel-snapping relationship with his new partner, and that may translate into a smooth working relationship, it doesn�t necessarily translate into a stronger firm or better service for clients -- except to the extent that the two give sound legal advice and draft superb documents.

You could try to start a dialogue with approachable partners about refining the evaluation system. However, if it�s �who you know� that determines who makes partner in your firm, you�ll have little choice but to hook up with a politically powerful partner in order to advance � perhaps someone who thinks golf is a foolish waste of time.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work