One of the odder features of the current market is the sight of law firms that historically billed themselves as “lifestyle” firms now going out of their way, during associate interviews, to insist and absolutely
insist, that they are most definitely
not a lifestyle firm. From one perspective, this is perfectly understandable since those law firms that have not yet re-jigged their economic models to allow for variable associate profitability targets (read: the AMLAW 200) need every new hire to be billing at maximum capacity – and thus have no need for associates who want to spend weekends with their families.
On the other hand, as matters of branding and reality – it borders on the ludicrous to say that a top regional firm with global aspirations is “not a lifestyle firm” in the exact same way as Cravath is “not a lifestyle” firm. Forgive me – but when wonderful firms that just happen not to be in the Top 20 start going out of their way to scare off potential associate hires by telling them that they will be working just as hard as they are at Cravath “because we mean to become the next Cravath/Sullivan/Simpson” (and nothing but!) – I start wondering what it is that they are so ashamed of. Particularly if it is actually
true (as is sometimes the case) that their associates do not work as hard as at Cravath!
The fact of the matter is that, for the sake of achieving profitability targets that will take them higher up the AMLAW 100 charts, these firms are sacrificing one of the few things that associates fleeing the Cravath-tier look for in a new home – and that is an expectation that they will no longer be in a Cravath-tier firm – or in a firm with Cravath-like aspirations. By shedding a significant distinguishing characteristic – these firms thereby place themselves at a significant recruiting disadvantage to better-known firms since associates will decide that there is no point in working 2500 hours at a “no-name” firm when they can be working those same hours at a more established brand. This creates a significant disincentive for associates to move on – and could potentially affect how successfully up-and-coming Cravath wannabees achieve their recruitment targets. Moreover, given that these firms will be expected to match the ever rising associate salary expectations – this reduced ability to attract associates carries a significant risk to their bottom line, in part because it will be harder for wannabe firms to attract premium business.
Finally, these firms may need to relax their recruitment criteria by accessing a much broader talent pool – well outside the New York market – to find qualified associates willing to work top-tier hours at firms that have little or no name recognition in the New York or global market. The broader candidate base will necessarily need to include attorneys with credentials that, 10 years ago, would hardly get a second look at premiere New York firms. This will require some significant institutional courage since law firms have historically touted their highly-credentialed attorneys to their clients as evidence of their competence in highly sophisticated matters. And yet, how many top New York law firms have the courage to allow their chairman be quoted as to his disdain for Yale Law School graduates? Cadwalader let Robert O. Link do this – with no ill effects to their recruiting or to their profitability. Then again, Cadwalader, which Link described as a meritocracy, has never pretended to be a “lifestyle firm” - only a very profitable one. Not every firm can be, or wants to be a Cadwalader. Where are our lifestyle firms when we need them?
