The Legal Apprentice: Revisiting Old Truths about Talent

In my recent trip to Washington for the IBA I visited the museum of the Supreme Court. In the far end of one of the corridors there is a picture titled “The Legal Apprentice” which briefly tells the story of how this institution began in the early days of legal practice in the US. I was surprised –and amused- to find that young apprentices in those days actually payed attorneys to receive them, and allowing them to do some basic tasks and observe the work they did, while providing lessons and explanations as to how the legal profession should be practiced. If after some time apprentices evidenced quality and commitment, they could stay as partners of the senior attorney. In some cases, they even became part of the attorney´s family by marrying his daughter.

From a modern perspective this looks quite bizarre –and certainly not a successful strategy to attract young lawyers- but if you think about it, there could be some underlying truths that we may have forsaken. Practicing law, like other professions, requires not just the technical knowledge that is acquired in the university, but the practical knowledge of how a general set of principles and rules should be applied to the specific situation of a client or a case. That specificity is a craft that only comes with practice along side other more experienced professionals that have done it before and learned the secrets of failure and success. Before receiving that practice, young lawyers are quite useless for clients´ purposes. Medical doctors are actually required to spend a few years of practice –resident doctors- before they can work independently.

Since law firms became business ventures billing hours to clients, some of that basic concept was lost by many law firms. The preeminent idea that law firms develop good lawyers and train them to provide quality service to clients was replaced by the need to bill hours to clients. Not that the first concept was forgotten, but the priority and focus was directed towards the economic goal of billing hours. The pyramid model created that urgent need and most firms just followed that path.

The apprenticeship model, as the basis for creating and developing a great firm, was somehow relegated by the billing hour obsession and, in that process, many firms lost quality and focus. Most good firms in Latin America spend important amounts of money in marketing and business development, by participating in congresses, publications, travel to visit clients, sponsorships, etc. But very few actually invest in in-house training of lawyers. Most of them do not even have an institutionalized system of coaching and mentoring, which would provide the basis for an operational apprenticeship model.

One of the reasons why law firms are resistant to that kind of systems is that partners do not like to assume the formal obligation to train lawyers, let alone be evaluated for that role. As a consequence, law firms tend to have a very erratic performance in lawyers´ training, depending on the personality and inclinations of each partner. Many partners simplify the matter by stating that good lawyers do not need special attention, since they learn on their own. This “sink-or-swim” strategy is partially valid since it is true that some excellent lawyers actually learned by surviving difficult bosses and learning conditions; but in an age that depends so much on talent and knowledge it sounds like an inefficient and ancient strategy.

Assuming that good grades in law school and a nice LLM is enough to have a good lawyer is simply not true. Those firms that introduced talent development as part of their core strategy have inevitably excelled above the others, and will continue to do so in the future. Those firms not only create strong systems to formalize coaching and mentoring, but also invest heavily to create a culture that believes in talent development as a surviving tool and not just a retention policy.

The Apprenticeship Model is at the heart of any successful profesional service firm, since it is the only channel that can transmit “tacit knowledge” which includes (1) technical expertize applied at specific client´s needs; (2) lawyering –which includes the art of understanding and communicating effectively with clients-; and (3) the cultural elements of the firm, which vary from case to case. This should be treated like a necessary investment, not subject to hourly billing requirements, just like other areas of the firm. Partners should support heartely this initiative and be ready to be evaluated in order to improve their performance. Law firms should invest in training, not just for the young lawyers but also the more senior in their coaching role. Remember that lawyers are not comfortable with communication, and coaching is essentially good communication.

There is a lot of discussion in the legal industry about how a modern professional career should look like, and a need for flexibility and innovation is certainly required, but some of that innovation should be about revisiting old truths about talent and how lawyers are effectively trained as valuable professionals. Law firms should be first about serving clients and raising talent, and secondly about making money. Great firms can give evidence that success follows that path, and not the other way round.

It might be unrealistic to expect young associates to pay for their training in law firms (or marry your sons and daughters, for that matter), but regaining the sense of what a legal apprentice should be in the firm seems to be a necessary condition for an effective talent development and success.