Practice Management

How much a law firm should pay an associate attorney is an age-old question that many law firms consider. Many law firms debate this question, making it difficult for them to develop a workable formula that works within their budget. Law firms often gravitate to one of two extremes. One extreme is that law firms overpay associates to lure them to work for their firm. However, if a law firm overpays for talent, the law firm owner often makes no money themselves. It may also be challenging to meet other firm financial obligations if the payroll is too high. Law firms that pay associates too much money ultimately get overextended, have to let employees go, and implode. To a lesser extent, some law firms may not offer enough in salary. If that is the case, it is hard to attract top talent to the law firm. When that occurs, it is hard for a law firm to hire lawyers. Law firms do need to consider average salary data to determine a reasonable pay range. Yet, the salary data is not the be-all and end-all. The numbers still have to work financially, based on the law firm’s budget and forecasts. What Is a Reasonable Way to Pay Associate Attorneys? Every law firm is a little different. Depending on the practice area, how a law firm pays associates can change. However, many prognosticators argue that a law firm associate should receive about one-third of the revenue generated by them. Many would refer to this system as the “old rule of thirds” for paying lawyers. Under this system, one-third goes to the lawyer, one-third to overhead, and one-third to the law firm. Thus, if a lawyer brings in $300,000 in actual revenue, many would argue the lawyer should make a base salary of about $100,000 per year. Of course, the analysis gets complicated when the lawyer did not bring any of the business into the law firm, but instead, all their revenue comes from cases generated by the law firm’s marketing efforts, given that marketing is often expensive. With increasing overhead costs, including rising health care costs, the formula can also be more complex. Collection rates can muddy the water, too. If a lawyer bills $300,000 in billable hours per year but collects only $200,000 of that amount, the associate would not receive $100,000 under the rule of thirds. Instead, to the chagrin of many associate attorneys, they would receive a salary of $66,666.66. One lawyer argues today that the new norm for paying an associate is 20 percent of the revenue they generate for the law firm. The rationale for the 20 percent argument is challenging economic conditions and rising benefit costs, including health care costs. Such a position also makes sense when considering inflationary factors, including the cost of advertising to bring in potential clients when an associate does not have their own book of business. While many law firm associates may not like hearing that their base salary should be somewhere between 20 and 33 percent of the revenue they can reasonably be expected to earn, the reality is that law firm owners would be wise to heed this guidance. If they pay more than this amount to attract or retain talent, they will likely put themselves and their firm in financial trouble. Many law firms specifically get themselves into trouble by offering a base salary that is not within the 20 to 33 percent range of the revenue the lawyer can reasonably generate. Instead, many law firms set salary ranges solely on online salary data or what it takes to hire lawyers away from their competitors. When that happens, many law firm owners become frustrated when their lawyers do not meet their billable-hour or revenue requirements. They also suffer financially, and the firm’s viability can be jeopardized. Thus, law firm owners need to follow the metrics of their lawyers and law firm to ensure that the salaries they are paying make financial sense. What About Incentives on Top of Base Salary? Many law firm owners also wonder whether incentives, in addition to the base salary, will motivate lawyers to meet their productivity metrics. Paying lawyers incentives probably makes sense for many law firms. By doing so, lawyers have an incentive to exceed their goals because they will make extra money. Law firms can set up incentives in many different ways. A law firm may: Pay a set discretionary bonus to an associate lawyer who met the billable hour and accounts receivable goals; Pay lawyers a discretionary bonus if they bring in a case outside of the law firm’s marketing efforts; and/or Come up with a formula-driven bonus system that pays associates a portion of any profit they make for the firm, although complicated formulas can lead to computation disputes with associates. Truth be told, many associate attorneys are not impressed by incentive-based pay. Most are merely looking for guaranteed money—and they will jump ship if a competitor offers more. In their defense, the desire to make the highest guaranteed salary possible makes sense when you consider that many lawyers are coming out of law school with significant student loan debt. It is also challenging to buy a home and have a family in this day and age with rising prices. Yet what many associate attorneys fail to realize is that, if they ever become partners, there is no guaranteed salary. If the firm is not making money, they do not get paid. In the end, law firms that want to be fiscally responsible need to follow the guidance above. Suppose an associate intends to depart for a higher guaranteed salary. If they are asking for more than 20-33% of the revenue they actually generate, most law firms should let them go. While it is often sad when an associate departs, the law firm is usually better off not to over-extend to keep them. If they do it often, the firm can struggle to succeed. The law firm should instead hire another lawyer with a reasonable salary expectation and move forward.

A firm’s client base should be a crystal-clear reflection of its strategy. Here’s how leadership can help ensure that business development professionals bring that part of law firm strategy to life. Setting the Stage: Strategy and the Client Base of the Future In a previous post, we explored how even the busiest firm leaders can personally contribute to sales success. This follow-on focuses on one small but powerful—and too often overlooked—step in the strategic planning process: targeting. When a firm plans for its next three to five years, it envisions its future market positioning, geographic footprint, brand, buyer awareness, services, people, and other key factors. Even if only implicitly, the strategy also illuminates the client base of the future. Most new law firm strategies define an ideal client profile. That’s a start, but as Tony Robbins said, “You can’t hit a target if you don’t know what it is.” A profile alone is too abstract to drive consistent action. What’s needed is a specific, strategy-driven target list—by name—of clients to retain and nurture, and prospects to pursue. The questions, then, are: Which current clients deserve continued investment, and which have run their course? Which prospective clients align with the firm’s future direction and need to experience direct and energetic sales efforts? The Leadership Imperative Today’s client development teams, now equipped with sophisticated tools, including generative AI, can generate remarkably precise target lists. But without visible and ongoing leadership sponsorship, those lists rarely take hold. Leaders are well-advised to make clear that targeting is a strategic, sanctioned, monitored, and rewarded activity. Otherwise, even the best-intentioned efforts will fade into “business as usual,” and strategic plans will gather dust on a metaphorical shelf. Two contrasting examples illustrate the points made in this blog post: The cautionary tale. A mid-sized firm we advised generated a strategy to become a leading advisor to middle-market businesses across all the firm’s limited geographies. With this guidance, the client development team built a list of 3,000 companies, identified key buyers, mapped relationships, and generated preliminary action plans. It was a promising approach, but leadership did little more than acknowledge the existence of a list. Without leaders reviewing, refining, endorsing, and enforcing accountability, enthusiasm waned. Within two years, the middle-market strategy had been replaced by the de facto goal of opportunistic expansion, including “growing globally.” The success story. A then-Big Six accounting firm embraced a strategy “to serve global companies globally” (my words). Leadership made it clear: “Your job is to serve or pursue Global 1000 clients. Other work is your choice, but we will not invest in it, and it will not drive recognition or compensation.” Within two years, the firm’s annual growth rate rose from single digits to 16%+, it expanded into previously unserved markets where its clients and targets operated, and its workforce expanded by an estimated 20%. What Firm Leaders Should Consider Doing Client development teams can deftly perform most of the back-office work required to develop great, strategically guided target lists. But to ensure that names on target lists become names on client lists, leadership might take some or all of the following actions: Publicly charter the effort. Empower client development leaders to craft and maintain target lists that reflect firm strategy. Know the lists. Be conversant with their composition and alignment with firm priorities. Communicate relentlessly. Reinforce who the firm serves now, who we will serve next, and how each lawyer’s work contributes. Monitor the pipeline. Track traction against target lists and step in when progress stalls. Provide resources and alignment. Support the effort through budget, technology, incentives, and lateral hiring. Recognize performance. Celebrate wins that reflect strategy and quietly correct those who are off course. Help lawyers and staff learn to say “no” to proposed off-strategy actions and investments. The Payoff When leadership and client development teams align around specific targets, the results are transformative. Accountability. Progress can be tracked, and success measured, against named targets. Clarity. Everyone knows the firm’s priorities and what’s expected of them. Focus. Effort and investment concentrate where they yield the highest return. Collaboration. Lawyers coordinate around shared priorities, enhancing the client experience. Efficiency. Time, attention, and resources flow toward what matters most. Cultural alignment. The firm speaks with one voice about growth and purpose. Why This Matters A firm’s client base should be a direct function of its strategy. When leadership sets clear boundaries and expectations, client development becomes not just a clerical exercise but a manifestation of strategic intent. Turning a strategy into a defined client base requires more than capable business developers; it requires leadership resolve. Ask yourself: Does everyone in your firm know exactly which clients define your future? If not, now is a propitious time to make that clear.

There’s a moment every ambitious founder eventually faces—one that separates the leaders who rise from seven figures into eight … and those who stall out despite their brilliance. I see it every week with the managing partners, founders, and high-achieving lawyers I coach. But the clearest example came recently, during a conversation I had in Berlin with a managing partner who runs a highly successful seven-figure firm. He’s sharp. Strategic. Respected. The exact profile of someone you expect to see at an international legal conference. Over lunch, he shared his plan to scale to eight figures—a smart move in his market. So, I asked him the most natural question in the world: “Who’s your coach?” He paused. Smiled. And said, confidently: “I don’t need a coach.” And in that instant, he revealed the most dangerous blind spot every high performer has—the myth of more. The Myth of More: When What Got You Here Stops Working High performers tend to trust the formula that rewarded them in the past: More effort More hours More control More personal execution More of you holding everything together This founder had built a seven-figure firm by being a world-class problem solver. That strength had served him extraordinarily well. But it had also quietly become a ceiling. Many founders mistakenly believe that the path to eight figures is simply a continuation of the path that got them to seven. They assume linear effort will keep creating exponential results. It won’t. At a certain point—often right around the seven-figure mark—the model collapses under its own weight. More hours begin to burn out the leader and the leadership team. More control creates bottlenecks instead of momentum. More involvement forces everything to route through a single person. The strengths that once produced success become liabilities. Eight Figures Is Not an Operational Challenge—It’s an Identity Shift Scaling to eight figures isn’t about optimizing your schedule or hiring more support staff. It requires something far more uncomfortable: It requires you to change. Not as a technician. Not as a lawyer. Not even as a CEO. You must evolve into something that many high-performing attorneys have never been taught to be: A leader of leaders. This requires a complete internal shift—from elite doer to builder of other elite doers. A doer controls and executes. A leader delegates and inspires. A doer solves problems. A leader asks better questions. The founder in Berlin had elevated himself into the CEO seat, but he was still operating like the most elite technician on the team. He was leading with the same instincts that once earned him success in the courtroom. And that’s why he was stuck. The Invisible Ceiling: The Belief You Don’t Know You Have Every founder carries a belief that helped them win early in their career. For many lawyers, the belief sounds like this: “If you want it done right, do it yourself.” That belief absolutely builds a seven-figure law firm. It absolutely destroys an eight-figure one. Because scaling requires you to let go. Let go of control. Let go of being the answer. Let go of being the bottleneck your entire team unconsciously depends on. But here’s the catch: You can’t see your own limiting beliefs. You’re standing inside the frame. You cannot read the ingredients on the cereal box from the inside. That’s why an invisible ceiling is so dangerous—it’s built from patterns you’ve repeated for decades, patterns that feel like strengths but function like restraints. Why You Cannot Break the Invisible Ceiling Alone Let me give you the blunt truth: There is no high-performing founder in the world who breaks through their invisible ceiling alone. Not because they lack intelligence. Not because they lack discipline. Not because they lack courage. But because no one in their life is positioned to tell them the unfiltered truth. Partners have their own political interests. Employees are influenced by power dynamics. Spouses want to protect you from discomfort. Friends want to support you, not challenge you. Only one person has no agenda other than your success: A coach. Someone who reflects the patterns you can’t see, asks the questions no one else asks, and challenges beliefs no one else would dare confront. This is why the founder in Berlin will not scale to eight figures until he stops trying to do it alone. And this is why my highest-performing clients scale faster than their peers—because they have a mirror, an accountability engine, and a strategic sparring partner all in one. Real-World Evidence: What Happens After the Identity Shift Let me make this real: A client of mine—also a seven-figure founder—was stuck. She had the team. She had the systems. She even had a leadership layer in place. But she still felt guilt about stepping back. She still believed she “needed to be in the weeds” to justify her value to the firm. She couldn’t imagine allowing her leaders to fail, even though failure is the only path to growth. Within six months of shifting from managing people to leading leaders: She worked fewer hours. Her firm’s revenue increased. Her leaders finally stepped into their full roles. She reclaimed her strategic headspace. The client experience improved. She became the CEO the business needed. She stopped being the operator and grew into the visionary. That is the identity shift required to go from seven figures to eight. The Question That Separates Leaders Who Scale From Leaders Who Stall If I could go back to that moment in Berlin, I still wouldn’t try to convince that founder he needed a coach. High performers shut down when you try to “fix” them. Instead, I’d ask him a simple question—the same one I’m going to ask you now: Are you willing to bet your eight-figure dream on the belief that you have zero blind spots? Sit with that. Now ask yourself a second question: What is the one belief that has always served you—but may now be the invisible ceiling holding you back? Every founder has one. The ones who scale are the ones brave enough to examine it. Your Next Level Requires a New You Scaling isn’t about doing more. It’s about becoming more: More aware. More intentional. More visionary. More willing to be challenged. More willing to see what you cannot see alone. The leaders who reach eight figures are never the ones who go alone. They’re the ones who choose to evolve.

A systematic approach to BD doesn’t kill creativity. It enables it. Most firms treat business development like an instinct. You either have it or you don’t. But relying on natural rainmakers is risky. What happens when they retire, leave, or burn out? It also creates ego-driven cultures where the firm’s best interests take a back seat to the rainmakers. For most people, business development isn’t magic. It’s a process. And when you build it systematically, it can scale beyond personality and luck. 1. Start with a Method Charisma may win the first meeting, but structure builds the pipeline. Every firm needs a defined process for relationship development that clarifies expectations, focus, and follow-through. If you don’t already have one in place, try The Short List Method. (It’s simple, repeatable, and turns BD from guesswork into discipline): Identify your SMART goal. What are you trying to accomplish this quarter—more referrals, new logos, or upmarket traction? Make sure your goal is specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time-bound. Create your Short List. Choose 9–35 key relationships that are critical to achieving your SMART goal. They should include key Clients, Prospects, and Connectors (both internal and external). Nurture your Short List through helpful, personalized outreach: introductions, insights, invitations, and relevant check-ins. “Spray and pray” email sequences don’t build trust. Play the long game. Our research shows it takes an average of fourteen interactions from first contact to first contract, but most people stop after just a few. Track your activity. Use a CRM or pipeline management system to keep your outreach consistent and visible. When your team follows this framework, BD stops being random. It becomes intentional, measurable, and manageable. 2. Build Momentum into Firm Culture The best BD systems don’t rely on motivation. They rely on momentum. Too many professionals say they’ll “get to BD when things slow down.” But they never do. Firms that win make BD part of firm culture: Incentivize business development properly. Your compensation structure communicates priorities. If the reward for BD is minimal, expect minimal effort. Create accountability that inspires. Regular coaching and mentoring are key. To make it scalable, introduce peer coaching or BD pods that make growth a shared responsibility. Professionals stay engaged when they see others doing the same work. Schedule regular outreach blocks. Even a 30-minute block each week can move the needle. Consistency matters more than intensity. When BD becomes part of how your team evaluates success, it shifts from a “nice to have” to a cultural expectation. 3. Measure What Matters If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it. Most firms still rely on lagging metrics like new matters, new revenue, and hours billed. Those are important, but they only tell you what already happened. A systematic BD process also tracks leading indicators: Number of proactive outreach actions Relationship engagement consistency New introductions or opportunities generated These metrics reveal what’s working early, so you can course-correct before the quarter slips away. 4. Build Feedback Loops that Reinforce Progress A system without feedback is just a checklist. People need to see that their efforts are paying off. You can strengthen feedback loops by: Inviting your team to shadow you on pitch calls and meetings. Give them a defined role, then debrief afterward so they can learn from what worked and what didn’t. Acknowledging and encouraging effort, even small wins. Many of your rising stars are still developing their BD skills, and encouragement from leadership goes a long way. Sharing wins firmwide, even if it’s just a reconnection that led to a referral or proposal. Celebrating effort metrics (number of meaningful touchpoints) alongside revenue metrics. Leading indicators like interactions are as critical as lagging ones like new engagements. Using your CRM or relationship tracker to spotlight what’s working and where the pipeline is leaking. Visible progress sustains engagement. When professionals see cause and effect, they double down. 5. Coach the System, Not Just the People Firm leaders should reinforce The Short List Method at every level—from onboarding to partner development. That means: Embedding BD goals into performance plans Training new professionals to build their own Short List Rewarding consistency and collaboration, not just big wins Recognizing when internal resources aren’t producing the results you want, and outsourcing to professional BD coaches who can accelerate progress When the system is institutionalized, BD becomes part of how the firm operates, not an afterthought. Final Thoughts A systematic approach to BD doesn’t kill creativity. It enables it. When professionals have structure, they’re freed from the guesswork and can focus on what they do best: building trust with clients, current and future. With The Short List Method as your foundation, BD stops depending on luck, personality, or “natural rainmakers.” It becomes a reliable, firmwide growth engine. 

As attorneys, we are trained to anticipate risk and protect our clients from uncertainty. Yet many of us fail to apply that same diligence to our own practices. Succession planning is not just a professional courtesy—it’s a legal and ethical necessity. A Cautionary Tale The sudden death of a law firm’s founder or managing partner can trigger a cascade of problems—especially when no succession plan exists. One real-world example involved a 30-attorney firm with multiple offices in the Mid-Atlantic. After the unexpected passing of its managing partner, the firm unraveled within a year. Without a designated successor or leadership structure, attorneys began leaving, clients lost confidence, and operations ground to a halt. Eventually, the remaining lawyers voted to close the firm. Solo practitioners are particularly vulnerable. Many work until they pass away, leaving family members or colleagues to sort out the aftermath. In sole proprietorships, the firm legally ceases to exist upon the owner’s death. Without a plan, client matters may be left unresolved, and the firm’s assets are liquidated to pay debts. Even partnerships and LLCs can face dissolution or legal disputes if succession provisions are missing. Whether through internal leadership development, merger strategies, or buy-sell agreements, law firms must prepare for the unexpected. Succession planning isn’t just about continuity, it’s about protecting clients, staff, and the legacy of the firm. Ethical Duties Require More Than Good Intentions California attorneys are bound by fiduciary duties of competence, communication, loyalty, and confidentiality. These duties don’t end when we retire, become incapacitated, or pass away. If we fail to plan for the transition or closure of our practice, we risk breaching these obligations and exposing our clients to harm. The California Rules of Professional Conduct—particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality), 1.15 (Safeguarding Client Property), and 1.17 (Sale of Law Practice)—set clear expectations for attorneys to act with diligence and care in managing their practices, even in transition. California’s Default Rules: Reactive and Risky If an attorney becomes incapacitated or dies without a succession plan, California law provides a framework—but it’s far from ideal. Under Business & Professions Code Sections 6180 and 6190, the Superior Court may assume jurisdiction over the law practice and appoint an attorney to wind it down. This process is designed to protect clients, but it can be slow, disruptive, and costly. The court-appointed attorney may not be familiar with the practice, the clients, or the systems in place. Without prior arrangements, even basic tasks—like accessing trust accounts, retrieving files, or notifying clients—can become complicated. Confidentiality concerns, malpractice risks, and administrative burdens often fall on grieving family members or unprepared colleagues. When There is No Plan If the court steps in, the appointed attorney or representative must: Secure the office, files, and trust accounts Notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel Review calendars for deadlines and court appearances Handle payroll, insurance, leases, and vendor contracts Reconcile trust accounts and finalize billing Safely destroy or return client files Notify the State Bar and other agencies of the closure This process can take months and may result in lost goodwill, client dissatisfaction, and even litigation. Proactive Planning: A Professional Imperative To avoid this scenario, I recommend the following steps: Designate a successor attorney: Choose someone you trust and formalize the arrangement in writing. This person should be prepared to step in immediately if needed. Create an emergency protocol: Include passwords, client lists, trust account details, and instructions for transferring or closing cases. Keep this updated and accessible. Consider selling or transferring your practice: If retirement or declining health is foreseeable, explore options for selling or transitioning your practice while you’re still able to oversee the process. Rule 1.17 governs the ethical sale of a law practice and requires client notification and consent. Communicate with clients and staff: Let them know you have a plan. This builds trust and ensures a smoother transition. Maintain insurance and records: Consider “tail” malpractice coverage and keep detailed records of client communications, billing, and file dispositions. Planning Is an Act of Compassion Succession planning is not just about protecting your business—it’s about protecting your clients, your colleagues, and your legacy. It’s a reflection of your professionalism and your compassion. 

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every activity under the heaven.” Many cases can benefit from early mediation. Parties often reject the notion of early mediation because they believe they need more information to resolve the dispute. In some cases, more information is necessary. In other cases, however, parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and are willing to exchange in connection with the mediation—and meaningfully value the case without further litigation. Benefits of Early Mediation It can set the tone. Early mediation can help set a productive tone for the litigation. Early in my career, a senior attorney instructed me never to bring up settlement with the other side, believing it would be taken as a sign of weakness. When I later became responsible for cases, I began to raise settlement options early, expressing this premise: “We are on two parallel tracks, one to settle the case, one to try it.” And I proposed not letting one interfere with the other. It lets you learn about the case. Whether representing plaintiffs or defendants, busy litigation counsel tend to advance their preparation of a case for the next deadline. In some firms, lead counsel may rely upon others initially to analyze and prepare a case. In these instances, early mediation can be a catalyst to prompt a more comprehensive and candid consideration of a party’s claims or defenses. Exchanged briefs may clarify or provide additional information about the other side’s position. And early mediation offers an opportunity to learn about the opposing party and their counsel. It gives you a chance to settle the case. The benefits of an early resolution can be significant. Of course, ongoing litigation efforts cease and resources are preserved. Removing the stress (or at least the distraction) of a case allows parties to move on and turn their attention to other matters. An early mediation provides a forum for parties with intensely personal connections to a dispute to “have their day in court” sooner rather than later. For a defendant, risk becomes certain. And for a plaintiff, funds become available immediately. It provides information. Without settlement, one primary value of early mediation is information—about both the other side’s case and yours. Early mediation is an opportunity to develop your narrative and analyze how it will play out with a competing narrative. It requires a focus on damages and clarity about the range of potential recovery or risk. It may prompt you to revisit your expectations about case outcome (and thus case value)—whether because of new information or perhaps a mediator’s reaction to your case. When you properly prepare, early mediation should prompt parties and their counsel to consider litigation objectives—both in terms of what a litigant wants from the case and the associated costs (whether personal or financial). For a party funding their own legal expenses, a litigation budget delivered in advance of mediation will allow the party and their counsel to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of further litigation. Finally, early mediation—when approached with transparency, with reciprocity and in good faith—can create a path forward to revisit settlement as the litigation progresses. Downsides of Early Mediation It can be frustrating. A mediation that does not result in settlement often results in frustration or annoyance, usually directed at the other side: “This was just a waste of time and money.” “They just wanted free discovery.” “They didn’t come here in good faith.” Some frustration when early mediation leaves the parties far apart is certainly understandable. But a disappointing outcome does not negate the value of early mediation, especially when counsel work together to ensure the process is designed to be productive. It can be counterproductive. An early mediation can be proposed to send a message. It may be a defendant who wants to make sure the plaintiff personally understands the strength of the defense—not just plaintiff’s counsel. It may be a plaintiff who wants the defendant and their insurer to know the demand exceeds the deductible or self-insured retention. Or it may be a party that wants to show their resolve, perhaps refusing to negotiate or moving very little, and letting the other side know they intend to try the case in order to obtain a better settlement. In my experience, these tactics rarely have the intended effect; they instead just prolong the process of getting parties back to the table to focus on a reasonable settlement value. What Kinds of Cases Might Be Suited To Early Mediation? Those involving ongoing relationships. Early mediation can be crucial where preserving business or family relationships is a priority, despite the dispute. It can also be helpful to preserve a business operation or other asset that provides resources to parties, despite their conflict. Those involving pre-filing mediation requirements. Some contracts, such as real property leases or purchases, often include a pre-filing mediation requirement. Failing to fulfill a mediation requirement before heading to court can strip a party of the right to recover attorneys’ fees if they prevail. In other instances, breaching this contractual obligation can result in a motion to dismiss or stay pending mediation. Those for which early case valuation is possible. Early mediation is a good option in any case where the parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and can obtain by right or in connection with the mediation. For instance, For early mediation in an intellectual property case, the defendant typically discloses revenue and units sold for accused products, together with financial statements covering the relevant period. For early mediation in a class or representative wage and hour case, the parties usually work from a common dataset covering the relevant period of time, including the number of current and former employees involved, the total number of workweeks (in a class action) or total number of wage statements (in a PAGA case) and where relevant company policies, samples of time records or wage statements, and time clock data. Could early mediation be effective for your case? Consider the following questions: What do you know about the potential recovery or risk in the case? What more would you like to know about the case to more confidently or accurately assess its value? Is the information available by right (e.g., Cal. Labor Code, 1198.5; Cal. Corp. Code, § 1601) or in a voluntary pre-mediation exchange between the parties? If not, what sources of information exist besides formal discovery or expert opinions? What range of uncertainty exists without that information? Can you meaningfully assess the case’s value by analyzing that range of uncertainty instead of waiting for certainty? Do you know enough about the case to explain your position, with at least some degree of detail, in an exchanged brief? Balanced against the cost of litigation, both personal and financial, clients and their lawyers should make sure they are not overlooking an opportunity to mediate early.

Walk into any large law firm today, and you’re likely to find attorneys from four different generations working alongside each other: Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials, and, increasingly, Gen Z. Each group brings its own set of values, priorities, and approaches to the profession, and though these generational differences can sometimes create friction, they also offer an opportunity for growth, collaboration, and reinvention. As an associate, I’ve often felt the subtle tension between tradition and transformation. There’s the senior partner who expects in-office face time and thrives on the structure of long-established routines (most beginning before 7 a.m. and wrapping up at midnight). Then there’s the associate one office over who takes Zoom depositions from her home office, blocks off time on her calendar for therapy, and speaks openly about setting boundaries. These aren’t just different work styles; they’re different worldviews shaped by the eras in which we all came of age. Both can be, and are, versions of success in the modern workplace, and recognizing that success is no longer defined by a singular path is crucial to fostering intergenerational connection in the workplace. To better understand these contrasts, I recently had a conversation with Mark Frilot, a shareholder in the New Orleans office. A veteran construction litigator who joined the Firm in 2001, Mark has witnessed the evolution of Big Law throughout the Southeast, and in New Orleans specifically, over the last two decades. Throughout our discussion, Mark offered a perspective that was as thoughtful as it was candid. “When I was an associate,” he told me, “Most folks didn’t talk about work/life balance. You worked until the job was done, with few questions and no complaints. That was the culture for most law firms because that was what success looked like.” Today, he admits, success looks different. Many younger attorneys, especially Millennials and Gen Z, value flexibility, purpose-driven work, and personal well-being just as much as professional advancement. They’re more likely to ask, “What kind of life do I want to have?” rather than simply, “How fast can I make partner?” Mark doesn’t see this shift as a threat. In fact, he has been one of the most willing to adapt to a more modern approach to legal practice (Mark loves Microsoft Copilot), but he admits it took some adjustment for many others. He noted that many attorneys in his same generation used to think younger associates were disengaged if they didn’t respond to emails at midnight. What must be acknowledged, however, is that commitment requires a certain level of mindfulness. Mark highlighted throughout our conversation that younger attorneys aspire to be excellent lawyers and whole individuals. We both agreed that this is a generational evolution, and it’s a healthy one. As clients embrace this mindset in their own offices, many firms are beginning to change their views on what it means to bring your full self into the workplace, and most clients even expect our teams to be fulfilled in their personal lives in order to accomplish excellence in client service. Still, differences persist—not just in values, but in how we work. More seasoned attorneys often value the organic mentorship that happens in an office setting: such as quick hallway questions and impromptu brainstorms in a colleague’s doorway. For younger attorneys, especially those who entered the profession during or after the pandemic, hybrid and remote work aren’t accommodations—they’re the baseline. This has led to a common debate: Does remote work hinder mentorship and firm culture, or does it empower attorneys to thrive on their own terms? The answer, it turns out, is both. “There is something lost when we’re not physically together,” Mark explains. Law is ultimately a human profession. Relationships matter. But, as a profession, we must also recognize that productivity and physical presence aren’t always the same thing. We’re all learning how to trust each other in new ways, and trust may be the key to navigating these generational divides. Too often, we default to stereotypes (Boomers are rigid, Millennials are entitled, Gen Z is fragile), but those labels ignore a required nuance. Many senior attorneys are actually eager to mentor and adapt, while many younger attorneys are more ambitious and driven than their senior counterparts may admit. When attorneys take the time to understand one another across generations, they often discover more common ground than conflict. At its best, a multi-generational workplace blends wisdom with innovation. Senior lawyers bring institutional knowledge, judgment honed by decades of experience, and a long view of the law’s evolution. Younger attorneys bring technological fluency, fresh perspectives on justice, and a deeper understanding of the world outside the boardroom. At Baker Donelson, the most successful teams are the ones that learn from each other. When we resist the urge to cling to “the way it’s always been” or dismiss the new as naïve, we create a culture that is not only more inclusive, but more resilient. We’re not just building careers; we’re building a profession that reflects the complexity of the world and the clients we serve. That means bridging generations, embracing differences, and recognizing that growth doesn’t always come from looking down the ladder, but sometimes from looking across it. 

Are opening statements in mediation beneficial toward reaching a settlement? There is an ongoing debate by both advocates and neutrals concerning the advantages and disadvantages of including opening statements in mediations. Supporters contend that opening statements, when handled properly, permit each side the unique opportunity, perhaps for the first time, to personally present their stories and to hear relevant facts and law that may help to guide the parties toward the needed resolution. Opponents claim that opening statements can unnecessarily derail the settlement process at the outset, especially if the presentations are negative or overly argumentative. Here’s a closer look at the pros and cons of using opening statements in mediation and how to determine whether an opening statement is appropriate for your case. The Case for Opening Statements One of the strongest advantages of permitting opening statements is the opportunity for the parties, who may have simply been passive observers in the proceedings thus far, to directly participate in the process. Further, a party’s participation in opening statements allows the individuals involved to share their perspectives and feelings about the dispute, which may itself be a significant component in the settlement process. Often parties want “to be heard” or to “have their day in court”. Having the party participate in opening statements helps meet this need and may facilitate opportunities for settlement. If handled correctly, opening statements can create a constructive and positive tone for the rest of the mediation session. If the parties establish a respectful and solution-oriented approach to the opening statements, they may restore the intended civility that should be part of such a process. If the statements are cordial and the parties can meet face to face, it may help diffuse any hostility that existed as a cause of the original dispute, as well as to ease acrimony that may have developed during the preceding litigation. Opening statements may allow the parties to share their positions in a confidential environment and convey the evidence that may help the parties understand their respective risks of litigation. Conducting opening statements may help encourage transparency in the parties’ claims, help to resolve previously misunderstood facts, and clarify each party’s motivations and goals. Such clarity and insight can demonstrate the mutual good faith needed to reach a resolution of the parties’ conflict. Finally, opening statements can help educate the mediator. Listening to opening statements and the recitation of the main factual and legal issues in the dispute can provide needed insight for the mediator who is charged with helping the parties reach a resolution. Equally, opening statements may educate the participants on some of the intangibles of the case, including the quality of the lawyers involved and the effectiveness of the parties as potential witnesses at trial. The Case Against Opening Statements Of course, there is the other side of the coin. If the opening statements are argumentative, rather than conciliatory, they may create further animosity and distance between the parties, taking what would otherwise be an opportunity for discourse and dialogue and replacing it with a situation where scorched earth becomes the goal. Aggressive opening statements can directly derail potentially successful mediations. In certain cases, opening statements can trigger pain or distress by forcing the parties to relive or reexamine the event. This is true in certain emotionally charged or sensitive cases (such as those involving sexual harassment and sexual assault) where the impacted party could be retraumatized by presenting the case again during the opening session. Comments that address blame can lead to entrenchment and unnecessary tension in the mediation which will discourage open dialogue and negotiation. Lastly, sometimes it’s just a matter of time. Opening statements can be time-consuming, which may reduce the remaining time otherwise available for problem-solving and negotiation within the separate caucus sessions. Moreover, sometimes, depending on the status of the case, opening statements are simply unnecessary, especially if the parties have already participated in lengthy discovery or motion practice. In such cases, opening statements may be redundant and even counter-productive to the settlement process. Deciding Whether to Have an Opening Statement The final choice, as to whether to allow opening statements or not, can be found in the ultimate flexibility that is inherent in the alternative dispute resolution process. Before the mediation starts, the mediator can review the type of case involved, as well as the nature and demeanor of the parties and their counsel. Because every case is different, the mediator’s analysis of that case, including the respective expectations of the parties and counsel involved, can be helpful in leading the parties to decide whether the mediation should begin with opening statements or in separate caucuses. Giving opening statements, just because they are a common part of the mediation process, without specific consideration as to the nature of the case and the parties involved, may squander the goodwill and credibility of the negotiation process. If the parties agree to participate in joint opening statements, consider these guidelines: Brevity is important. Mediation can be stressful, and parties have limited attention spans. Shorter presentations may be more effective. Each party should express appreciation to the other party for participating in the mediation, especially if the session is voluntary. Visuals can often add value to a presentation, and PowerPoint slides can highlight key facts and issues. Avoid negative assertions in the presentation. Remember that tone is important and the purpose of the mediation is to find consensus. Often parties stop listening if they are being criticized. As important as this debate might be, there remains no clear answer as to whether opening statements should or should not be used as part of the mediation process. Every case is different, as are the parties, lawyers and mediators involved. The best approach is to consider the matter as a whole and make the decision that the parties mutually agree would be the best for that case. The mediation process is also fluid, so a mediation session that does not start with opening statements may reconsider their use during the mediation itself. Flexibility is the key. *Originally published in the Daily Report and reprinted with permission.

Employee performance is central to many human resource decisions. When determining compensation changes, incentives, promotions, demotions, reductions-in-force, and while also explaining pay differences, organizations lean on employee performance as the deciding factor. Given its importance, employee performance needs to be carefully documented, managed, and utilized in decision-making. However, recent research suggests many organizations are falling short on performance management. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP) have performed decades of research related to the effectiveness and validity of performance management processes. A summary of the last five years of selected research is below: Most employees feel that their managers need more training in people management skills, communication, team development, time management, performance management, and leadership skills; and that employee performance is greatly impacted by managers being in leadership roles that they are unqualified for as a leader. Too many organizations are relying on traditional systems of subjective ratings that are done just once or twice per year even though there is extensive evidence that a focus on development and performance discussions throughout the year are much more effective in developing the workforce. SIOP surveys over the past three years have shown that employees see little value in performance management processes that are infrequently done; employees are not inspired by processes that are seen as biased or performed as a checkmark. Growing evidence shows that organizations need to adopt more frequent, real-time feedback and coaching with level-setting/calibration and incentives for seeking and completing current- and next-level development. Current people analytics research by SHRM reveals that traditional performance management processes frequently misjudge performance, with ratings often based more on organizational relationships than actual performance. This research also suggests that manager bias in performance leads to a higher turnover of high-performing employees. What can organizations do to improve their performance management process? Some recommendations are below: Split the what and the how. a. Have one process based on organizational objectives that measures employee success in completing job duties and tasks (the What) b. Have a second process based on the processes and manners used by that employee to be successful (professionalism, attention to detail, time management, etc.) at completing the objectives (the How). Incorporate talent management into performance management— For employees who have stated they want to seek promotion, also provide ratings on next-level skills and readiness to assist with succession planning. Performance management should be documented year-round and be between more than just the employee and their manager. Comments and feedback should be gathered from anyone at the organization, as well as clients and customers, to create a clearer picture of employee performance. Performance management should include level-setting/calibration meetings where a neutral facilitator helps managers recognize any potential biases they have (such as recency, halo, similar-to-me, leniency, severity, etc.) and adjust their ratings and documentation to ensure consistency in the application of the rating scale. Performance management processes should be based on the results of job analysis, so employees are being rated only on aspects that are valid for their position instead of subjective feelings or feedback. This is a fundamental part of any merit-based performance management system. To effectively evaluate and improve performance based on the merits of what the employee brings to the work, the organization must first understand what the performance domain looks like in terms of essential duties and competencies needed for success. Ultimately, implementing an effective performance management process is more complex than many organizations recognize. And getting it right is critical to ensure the process is an effective management tool. With the current focus on making merit-based decisions, performance management should be tied to specific job requirements. To advance a skills-based hiring process, the process should also be focused on learning and development, rather than simply completing a requirement. For a performance management process to be successful, it requires organizational commitment from all levels to spend the time necessary to yield actionable information for employees.