header-logo header-logo

Associates show loyalty, like money and don’t yearn to be partner

09 April 2024
Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
Partnership is no longer the driving ambition of the majority of solicitors, according to research by legal information provider LexisNexis Legal & Professional

Moreover, associates are both more loyal and more money-driven than law firm leaders assume.

Only one in four current associates want to make partner at their current firm in the next five years, and only 3% aspire to partnership at another firm, in a reversal of traditional law career goals.

This comes as no surprise to almost half of law firm leaders (rising to 63% of leaders at large law firms), who say they have noticed a decline in partnership ambitions among associates. Most of those leaders (71%) attributed the shift to a desire for a better work-life balance.

However, the report, ‘Disloyal lawyers: has the partnership model lost its lustre?’, published this week, also found associates have a strong sense of loyalty to their firm. More than half plan to be at the same firm in five years’ time, with only 12% planning to exit private practice for in-house roles, academia or other career opportunities. This contrasts with the perception of law firm leaders, 72% of whom believe associates are less loyal than previous generations. In fact, some 69% of large law firm leaders cite attracting and retaining talent as one of their biggest challenges.

So, what makes associates stay put? About seven in ten associates would be encouraged to stay by an offer of more money, whereas only 36% would stay for a better work-life balance.

Stuart Greenhill, senior director of segment strategy at LexisNexis, said: ‘The current generation of workers are disruptors, not conformers.

‘If they see something they don't like, they'll push back. To meet growth goals and retain a feasible talent pipeline, law firms will need to find a middle-ground. They cannot rely on what has worked well in the past, especially with the AI revolution well on its way.’

The report, which is based on a survey of more than 500 associates and senior leaders, can be viewed here

Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll