Proof of the Profession's Crisis

, The Am Law Daily


The leadership crisis that pervades much of big law is evident from many leaders' own words.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • S Caroline Schroder / In Mem. Paul Strohl

    Law must be either a profession or a business; it cannot be both. Re-missioning of the law firm as a business pursuing profits and growth over clients' interests and collegiality has destroyed the profession over the past 30 years. Pursuit of growth is ever only realized by short-termism, by definition. The law firm as a professional entity never was a "collection of self-interested professionals" but a cooperative of professionals working together for the good of their clients and struggling to suppress the natural personal greed, envy, and competition destructive of the common bonds. It is no accident that the U.S. firms that grew in size to pre-dominate the profession derived the lock-step compensation formula, reviled by the ‘Me Generation’ of the 1980’s. The rot in law does lie in the compensation, but in the “eat what I kill or I leave” structure forced by the ‘young turks’, not recognizing that personal productivity comes and goes with economic cycles, business fad, and personal exigencies. More than one ‘young turk’ took a ‘sabbatical’ in the wake of family tragedy, personal burnout, or demise of area of specialization.

    Characterizing partners or shareholders, native or lateral, as "unproductive" simply feeds the internecine competition that is born of short-termism. Laterals more often are "unproductive" because their new partners were only interested in acquiring their clients and not the lawyers and thus never bring them into the fold, working cooperatively and logistically supporting the newcomers. And of course, in the ‘eat what I kill or I leave’ structure, every partner, every shareholder, and every associate is motivated not only to isolate but steal clients, doing so by undermining colleagues, forming piratical and predatory fiefdoms, and always having one foot poised at the door. Why should senior partners leave? Yesterday’s ‘young turks’, they built the rotting corpse—and never funded their firms’ pension liabilities.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202603345907

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.