Of doctors, lawyers and ownership

Listen to this article

For insight into the legal profession’s current troubles, compare the career experience of lawyers with that of doctors. In the medical profession, interns work with older practitioners, learning both practice and client/patient communication skills. Eventually, the young physician takes over the practice as the old doctor progresses to retirement.

Now cut to the lawyers. In Big Law, a young associate works as part of the associate ranks for as many as 10 years, and is then either invited to become one of the partners, or is asked to find employment elsewhere. In a small firm, a young associate works for a few years, and feels entitled to become a partner. While a good lawyer, this person has yet to develop rainmaking skills and still has no personal client following, or book of business. The result is a classic “Catch-22” — the associate wants to become a partner, but has no ownership stake in the firm without having a book of clients.

Consider the contrasting perspectives of the folks involved in each of these scenarios. In the medical example, there generally is no discussion of money; the young doctor is happy to have a job, likes and respects the older doctor and is eager to learn as much as possible from the experienced doctor. The older doctor, on the other hand, is happy to have a younger person to help out and to mentor so that his patients will receive both his experience and the new learning coming out of a recent medical graduate.

In the big-law scenario, there is no mutual benefit dynamic. If the associate does become a partner, that status likely means lacking a voice in corporate-style firm governance that is in the hands of the Management Committee. And, of course, the risk exists that the associate could be laid off or asked to leave long before becoming a partner. Either way, the situation does not encourage a sense of ownership and commitment.

In the small-firm scenario, the young associate may be thrilled to be considered for the partnership, but having never developed clients, the associate has no real idea of what “ownership” as a partner means. Often associates believe that their time and effort, working at partner direction, are substantially responsible for creating value in the firm and that they should be given credit for that. Undoubtedly everyone in a firm creates value in this way, including staff. Yet, one would never hear a staff person ask for a partnership interest.

The difference comes down to ownership versus entitlement. The concept of ownership and the ownership responsibility is the only way to build a meaningful professional service career, getting away from the “broken model” in which people are chewed up and spit out, whether through layoffs or failing to make partner.

Ownership expectations make the difference between young Dr. Kildare and young Perry Mason. Without having responsibility for business development that contributes to the success of the firm, the associate feels entitlement rather than ownership, and may well end up with neither. The doctor ends up with patients, a practice — and professional satisfaction.