Fully Human Lawyer™: The Secret Thoughts of Lateral Partner Hires

“Jake” had joined a highly regarded practice as a lateral contract partner, after years at a government agency where he’d advanced to a leadership role. The mutual understanding was that Jake would be promoted to equity partner after the firm’s required two-year look period.

The firm anticipated a great success story: Jake had unsurpassed subject matter expertise, technical skills, proven leadership chops, a business plan, and an enviable virtual Rolodex of blue chip contacts.

What Jake, unfortunately, didn’t have was a clear grasp of the unwritten rules of success at a large law firm.

Jake was not made an equity partner. Eventually, the firm gave him a genteel “message” to seek employment elsewhere, and Jake was out the door. The firm’s internal post-mortem discussions focused on “improving our due diligence” and “doing a better job to vet candidates.”

I see variants of Jake’s story regularly, even when the lateral comes directly from another large firm (and thus is assumed to be more steeped in the nuances of “Big Law”).

While firms often believe they’re doing everything they can to ensure their lateral partners’ success, I observe that the two to three years in which it takes most firms to write off new laterals as “underperforming” is the same two to three years in which laterals fester with concerns that they are (rationally) afraid to voice.

That’s because, no matter what the lateral brings with them to their new firm—clients, matters, expertise, prestige, relationships, etc.—in many cases the lateral is (at least initially) dependent on their colleagues for lots of crucial success-determining things: introductions to firm clients who might need their expertise, promotion to leadership roles, determination of their compensation/units/points once their contractual guarantee ends, and sometimes (depending on firm policy) invitation to join the equity partnership.

The problem is that firms often fail to appreciate both the existence and the impact of this (actual or perceived) power imbalance. I observe this tends to be even more pronounced when the lateral is a member of an underrepresented group.

Backdrop: The 30,000-Foot View

Every Big Law firm lands somewhere on the spectrum of “We” versus “I” ethos. “We” is the (nearly obsolete) lockstep compensation system; “I” is the pure “eat what you kill” formula. Most big firms today fall somewhere in the middle.

The leaders of these firms walk a tightrope: they must promote a “we” culture so the firm’s valued institutional clients will be bona fide “firm clients” as opposed to (portable) clients of a single partner. At the same time, leaders must proactively mitigate the existential risk of losing rainmaking partners who feel undervalued. And this tightrope moves along with changing market conditions and the resulting shifts in internal and external power dynamics. Doing this highwire act well requires leaders to overcommunicate about how firm culture translates into individuals’ practice.

Many lateral partners “don’t work out” because they lack not only an understanding of the firm’s intrinsic “We vs. I” dance, but also a psychologically safe way to gain that understanding.

What Laterals Tell Me in Private

1) Disappointing compensation: ”I’ve over-delivered. I’ve even used the firm’s otherwise-underutilized associates. Yet now that my comp guarantee is over, I just learned that less productive partners are being paid more than I am.”

To decision-makers, compensation is usually a pragmatic division of finite resources: time-strapped members of compensation committees and senior leadership teams are tasked with divvying up the firm’s profits and engaging in requisite horse-trading. (We need to pay Joe Schmo more because … “he’s a loyal, long-term contributor who had a misfortune in his personal life”; “current market conditions/other departures make him a flight risk”; “he took a goodwill voluntary hit last year”; ”he’s made unquantifiable but huge contributions toward the firm’s future.”)

But to the person uninvolved in but affected by the decision, it often feels deeply personal; the only data they get (at most) are a bunch of numbers on a (usually publicly circulated) spreadsheet, where their own number is disappointing or embarrassing.

Now consider a lateral partner who thinks, “I have no clue why I got dissed on my comp.” They don’t yet have trusted confidantes at the new firm to give them data points that would allow them to get a sense of this. Or, even if they do have trusted confidantes, those individuals might be ignorant about the real reasons for the decision—or, worse, themselves disgruntled.

What happens next? The lateral starts wondering if perhaps they made a mistake. They think that maybe the “Devil They Know” (their former firm) wasn’t so bad after all. They start experiencing cognitive dissonance over how much to trust their new colleagues and firm. Maybe they answer calls from recruiters, or maybe not. But the honeymoon is over.

Of course, none of this is said aloud. Publicly, the lateral continues to show up and do what’s expected—but their heart isn’t in it. Maybe they (consciously or unconsciously) resist introducing their long-cultivated contacts to the firm they believe just screwed them over. As this internal dance continues, their visible contributions decrease. Eventually the lateral separates from the firm, feeling lousy about themselves and/or the firm.

The firm, for its part, has yet another post-mortem consisting of “we must improve our due diligence on lateral candidates” discussions. Sigh.

Solution: Overcommunicate with the lateral partner about the compensation process. Invite questions and then be as transparent as possible about the reasons for the decision. (Ideally this will be done by the firm leader in whom the lateral has the most trust.) At a minimum, tell them explicitly what you value about their contributions, even if you can’t compensate them now at the level they wish. Consider offering advice or specific guidance for next year.

2) Fuzziness (or even mystery) about credit: ”How do I make sure I get credit for bringing in new business without looking like a greedy jerk? (And why is Partner X being rewarded with credit for this matter even though it looks to me like they’ve done nothing to warrant that?)”

Laterals’ questions about credit raise many of the same concerns as compensation, plus more. When a lawyer joins a firm as a new partner, it’s common to have unacknowledged gaps in understanding about that firm’s application of origination and proliferation credit. Sometimes the lateral doesn’t understand how the firm in real life (IRL) expects credit to be allocated. This is especially common when the lawyer has not yet been an equity partner (such as when coming from government or in-house, or from another firm at which they were a senior associate/counsel/income partner). Or, if the lateral was an equity partner, they were part of the team under a more senior rainmaker and played a relatively passive role in credit determinations.

Often such knowledge gaps aren’t apparent right away: they’re masked by the lateral’s initial contractual guarantee or by the Catch-22 of being a lateral (trying to prove yourself as a team player and not wanting to seem self-oriented).

The resulting disappointment can manifest as diminished engagement and loyalty, and ultimately even as withheld or reduced contributions. This feeds into the firm’s post-mortem narrative that the lateral’s deficiencies are the reason their promised contact introductions or business didn’t materialize.

Solution: Overcommunicate with the lateral partner about credit formulas, no matter how sophisticated the lateral seems. Make a joke about it if you want, but do spell out—ideally in a 1:1 conversation—how every aspect of credit works (the written and the unwritten rules), with real-life examples and a walk-through of the firm’s CRM software. Also list (with a FAQ or flow chart) the specific firm representative(s) the lateral can approach with questions; this list should include the person who had the most candid and trust-building conversations with the lateral during the recruiting process. Also encourage regular 1:1 meetings; this maximizes the firm’s chances of addressing laterals’ concerns as they (inevitably) arise, and avoids the deterrent of intimidating thresholds.

3) Succession planning bait-and-switch: ”The leadership role they wooed me with is not materializing.”

When a lateral is hired with promises of a more prestigious role, and then learns that no one else in their practice group—including current leadership—knows about it, they’re forced to walk on eggshells. Alone.

Solution: Overcommunicate with both the lateral partner and, to the extent possible, the partner(s) being toppled—and ensure face-saving for folks being replaced. If total candor is not possible, the firm should give the lateral a clear date by which the topple-ee and others will be told. This is where strong versus weak leadership at the top tends to be dispositive: strong leaders are clear and honest, yet kind, and they’re willing to accept—and are able to deal with—the consequences when people feel upset. Check in often with the affected individuals.

4) Poor firm communication with the practice group: ”The super-elite practice group I was wooed to join is apparently so elite that they don’t even want me here. What the %#@&?” Most highly ranked practice groups, safeguarding their hard-earned reputation and used to being on the short-list for clients seeking their specialized expertise, are discerning about who they let be associated with them. That’s smart.

Where I see problems arise, though, is when “intelligently discerning” becomes (or is perceived as) “obnoxiously exclusive.” I see this most often with opportunistic hires: a well-meaning rainmaker or member of firm leadership has a friend/contact/client “who’s thinking about making a move and could be perfect at our firm, so would you mind having a chat with him/her.” And just like that, choo choo, the lateral candidacy train has left its station without full buy-in or intentionality from their putative practice group colleagues. By making that lateral’s proper integration a nonstarter, the firm sets them up for failure—or, at best, for a duplicative or awkwardly siloed group within their practice area.

Solution: Overcommunicate with your existing partners every step of the way if you’re thinking about bringing on a lateral. And listen carefully for what’s not being said aloud; many professionals will avoid disparaging a peer, no matter how justified the criticism. Ask yourself, who needs to know what in order for this lateral to succeed? Who might feel threatened? Is this for good reason? (Consider the “retiring partner” who never seems to retire.) Crucially, tell the lateral what you have/have not shared with their new practice group, and vice versa. Articulate the mutually understood timeline for their integration.

Putting It All Together

Assume (as with any new client, until proven otherwise) that new laterals know nothing about your firm. Also assume (unlike as with a new client) that a new lateral doesn’t yet feel safe asking their specific questions. Start during the interview process: “When we hire laterals from smaller/bigger firms, government, etc., they often struggle with X. How can we address any concerns?”

Leverage your seasoned laterals and onboarding processes to further create safety and build trust (e.g., a regularly updated orientation video with level-setting information: “We’ve asked our partners who lateraled here what they consider the ‘must-knows’ of our firm’s culture, priorities, values, and policies. We hope this helps you feel welcome and sets you up to succeed. We’re thrilled you’re here.”) Connect your new lateral hires with two or three seasoned ones with varied backgrounds—and let the new person gravitate to the person they trust the most, not just the obvious match on paper.

Consider providing an external coach (one with the respect/trust of senior leaders) and/or an ombudsman. These third parties can help preempt or resolve conflicts by getting sensitive questions answered (e.g., “What are the politics/processes around hiring an associate from my old firm?”).

Most importantly: make sure that what you communicate to laterals bears itself out in daily reality. Leaders, it’s about tradeoffs. If you want your laterals to dazzle you and stay with your firm, you must be transparent enough about culture and expectations (and everything else) to give them a chance to succeed.