Developing New Attorneys

by Jerri Johnson

Teaching a Pig to Sing

“It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.” Thankfully, these attorneys are even rarer than the Eves, and usually, you can spot and avoid hiring the attorney who has no interest in learning how to be a litigator. One clue may be an attorney who asks in the interview if late hours or weekend work are required because he “has a life and does not want to spend too much of his life at the office.” There is a good chance this person is looking to trade some hours for a paycheck, but learning the practice of law and becoming an effective litigator are not his goals. Your training hours and energy are better expended elsewhere.

Tell me and I’ll forget; Show me and I may remember; Involve me and I’ll understand

You’ve just hired a brand new associate, fresh out of law school. She’s excited to be there, and you’re thrilled to have her on your team. Now what? I can tell you from experience what not to do. Do not assume that your bright new associate, because she is new to the practice, has nothing insightful or useful to add to the matters you are handling. Do not isolate her in a carrel in the corner of your law library preparing summary after summary without telling her how and why the summaries will be used. But on the other hand, remember that she has never actually practiced law before. Do not show her to her office with a file of her own with instructions to “handle the case,” and then check back in with her just before trial. Your new attorney is smart, capable and eager to learn, but she has never tried a case, and chances are, she’s never seen the course of a litigated matter from beginning to end. She doesn’t know how interrogatories will be used at trial, or how to ask a question in deposition so that when read to the jury at trial, the exact meaning will be apparent, without culling back through the transcript. It is up to you to teach her why we propound and respond to discovery as well as how.

Involve your new associate in each part of the litigation, from the complaint to entering the judgment. Sometimes this will mean spending your time, which is always short, calling her into your office to listen in on a phone call with the client or opposing counsel. It is time well spent. Sometimes it will require your spending three hours on Saturday morning with a giant red pen. She will hate your red pen, but if you’ve hired the right associate, she will review your changes, make a mental note of them, and ask you, if necessary, why they were made. (or in Eve’s case, she will explain an alternative way to make your point or accomplish your goal. Do not be irritated with Eve. Thank her and learn from her!) Present the associate with fact situations or issues you presently have in the office, ask her opinion and analysis, and discuss the matters with her. This will accomplish two things; she will learn what to look for and how to respond to situations, and you and your client will be pleased when she spots a previously unseen or unconsidered fact or aspect of your case.

Bring your new attorney with you, whenever possible, to mediations, depositions, motion hearings, and trial. If the case is significant enough to justify a second attorney, discuss this with your client and get authority to have your associate help you organize and present documents, communicate with witnesses and clients during trial, and perform other necessary tasks that will save you time, benefit the client and give your associate an opportunity to watch you, watch the witness testify and get a better understanding of the case and issues. In a smaller case, which doesn’t justify two attorneys present, bring her only to the closest, shortest hearings, at your expense. If you’ve selected the right attorney, it will pay off. Do not, however, lament spending time training the associate who eventually leaves. Remember, you are learning too, and the time and effort is not wasted if you have learned something about hiring and training.

Hire Slowly. Fire Quickly.

This is the CW, but in practice, almost impossible to do. First, when we’re looking to hire a new associate, the reason tends to be, well, because we need a new associate. I have so much work stacking up on my desk, I cannot bear the thought of sorting through resumes, setting up interviews, and turning away “almost match” candidates. It is SO tempting to hire the first “almost match,” I have to force myself to sleep on it for at least a couple of days, and have the candidate meet at least two other people in the firm before extending the offer.

A colleague once told me he never hires an associate without taking the candidate to lunch or dinner. My first thought was, “Right! As though I have time to be wining and dining attorney candidates when the work is piling up on my desk! I need an attorney – now!” Yes, this adds time and expense to your hiring process, and I realize, no one has time. But after a couple of regrettably disappointing decisions, I decided to absorb the time and money and take my colleague’s advice. We have taken the past several candidates to lunch, usually with one or two other attorneys from my firm. This new process had a couple of interesting results. First, we hired an attorney who, in the office interview was soft spoken and seemingly hesitant, leaving us with an initial impression that she may be too timid and shy to be an effective litigator. We’re a litigation firm, and by its nature, litigation is often contentious, and a bold, assertive, but not overly so, personality is a helpful if not indispensable, asset. Over lunch with three attorneys from the firm, our new associate grew more comfortable talking with us, and we were able to learn more about her and her career goals, and vice versa, she had an opportunity to ask questions and learn about the firm and our practice. We hired her immediately. Conversely, we also considered an attorney candidate who in the office interview displayed the perfect amount of assertiveness and confidence, but who at lunch, revealed his personality and career goals to be what we determined were probably better suited to another firm or type of practice.