Study: Millennials want to make partner on own track

Olivia Covington
May 3, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
millennials-1-15col.jpg At Lewis Wagner LLP, Laura Walker and John Trimble say millennials and boomers are encouraged to share ideas and experiences. (IL Photo/Olivia Covington)

Across the U.S. workforce, millennial workers now make up the largest pool of available employees, outpacing the retiring baby boom generation that had dominated the market. Though baby boomers and millennials have grown up in different decades, a common thread runs through both generations: the goal of becoming partner.

According to a study recently released by Major Lindsey & Africa and Above the Law, roughly 44 percent of millennial law firm attorneys surveyed said they hope to someday make partner, either at the firm they’re currently with or at another firm. That result came as a surprise to Major Lindsey & Africa partners who, like many older attorneys, bought into the assumption that the law’s youngest employees were exploring options off the traditional partner track.

Ru Bhatt, managing director of Major Lindsey & Africa’s Associate Practice Group, said the perception in recent years has been that millennials pursuing a career in the law prefer to become in-house counsel, a position that is often desirable because of its more flexible hours. John Trimble, a partner at Lewis Wagner LLP in Indianapolis, agreed, and noted that because of the flexibility in-house counsel positions offer, law firms are no longer competing with each other for associates, but rather with in-house opportunities.

But according to the survey, just 18.75 percent of respondents indicated they saw themselves working as in-house counsel 10 years down the road, compared to the 43.64 percent who want to make partner.

“(The results) are the opposite of what the perception is out there,” said Michelle Fivel, a partner in the Major Lindsey & Africa’s Associate Practice Group. “It’s very eye-opening.”

However, attorneys who are members of the millennial generation — which is roughly defined as those 18 to 35 years old — say the results of the survey are not that surprising.

Laura Walker, a 27-year-old associate at Lewis Wagner LLP, said the partner track has been her career goal since she first stepped on the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law campus in 2012. The allure of becoming a partner today is the same as it would have been for baby boomers when they began their law careers, Walker said — the satisfaction of knowing your firm has enough confidence in your legal abilities to promote you to a supervisory, rather than a supervised, position.

coleman-kristina-mug.jpg Coleman

Similarly, 28-year-old Kristina Coleman, a 3L at IU McKinney who plans to join Faegre Baker Daniels LLP as an associate after graduation, said becoming a law firm partner is still perceived as the traditional trajectory for a law career, even among millennial attorneys.

“I think, for me, it’s that you’ve kind of made it to the next level,” Coleman said. “You’ve put in the time and you’ve accumulated a wealth of knowledge, you’ve served your clients well so that you’ve been able to achieve this honor of being partner.”

But Walker and Coleman acknowledge members of their generation are redefining what it means to be on the “partner path.” While members of the baby boom generation were more inclined to take a job at a firm out of law school and stay with the firm for the span of their career, the results of the survey show roughly one-quarter of millennial associates intend to work at their current firm for two years or less. That number rises to one-third when discussing junior associates.

millenials-chart.gifTrimble, who identifies as a member of the baby boom generation, said those results don’t come as a surprise to him, especially when discussing big law firms. When associates leave a firm, they are likely going in search of in-house or government work or judicial clerkships that will pay more money to help pay down their student loans, he said.

Coleman agreed that economic considerations are a driving force behind millennials’ tendency to move from job to job. Though the legal market has recovered significantly since the Great Recession, it never recovered fully, Coleman said, forcing young attorneys to think creatively when considering their career paths.

The abundance of positions once open to associates is no longer there, so millennials must consider all options and stay alert for the next opportunity that might provide more security, the 3L said. Outside of partner or in-house counsel, survey respondents indicated they were interested in pursuing careers in government or nonprofit work, working at a solo or small firm or choosing a non-legal career such as real estate.

Despite their tendency to leave firms after only a few years, roughly 70 percent of millennial attorneys surveyed indicated they consider themselves either highly or moderately loyal to their current firm.

Though that result might seem to contradict the data showing millennials frequently leaving their jobs, Fivel said the discrepancy actually might represent a changing definition of “loyalty.”

“They’re defining ‘loyalty’ as meaning they’re going to be a good associate and do good work for partners and not bad-mouth the firm,” Fivel said. “It’s not loyalty meaning they’re going to stay and make partner.”

Coleman and Walker, however, said from their perception, “loyalty” still means staying at a firm, even if their fellow millennials might define the term differently. But Walker also noted that even though she has no plans to leave Lewis Wagner, she would be willing to at least consider other offers that arise.

That consideration is another key difference between baby boomer and millennial attorneys, Walker said. Whereas partners, when they were just starting out, were not inclined to entertain other job offers if they were not ready to leave their firm, Walker said her generation is always willing to hear what the offer is before turning it down.

“But I don’t think that means we’re going to bounce, which I think is what the older generation thinks — because we’re open to hearing it, that means we might bounce — but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case,” Walker said.

Understanding millennial attorneys and their perceptions of their work is key to retaining those attorneys and grooming them to one day take over a firm’s leadership, Trimble said. But at the same time, associates who are beginning to build their careers must also recognize there is a lot they can learn from generations before them, he said.

“The younger lawyers who will be the most successful will be the ones who realize it’s a two-way street,” he said.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.