Sometimes people leave because the teams can be Sadistic And Rude As F. It is a general observation about law firms. I don't work there and have nothing against them
And why would they stay? Neither their bonus nor increment policy is in place! They actively remove the name of the associates from their deal announcements, they make bad hiring policies, they are too rude and adamant in trying to retain their resources, they don’t offer a proper retreat (party at his farmhouse is stupid)!
There are many reasons why people leave a law firm. Not trying to pull anyone down, but with S&P the biggest issue is the Managing Partner.
1) It started off as a professional firm- and is now worse than a family run Lala shop, with relatives of MP in partnership, associate pool and admin staff. It’s crazy.
2) The executive committee are a bunch of yes men with no say and don’t have the spine to spit out facts. They do not care about the Firm or its retainers and only care about their paisa… bowing down to almighty at every opportunity.
3) The salaries continue to lag behind market standards generally. While people were willing to cut some slack as a new outfit, without any clear pathway of it increasing, there is no reason for people to stay!
4) The work is not less by any means and compared to other firms, so why should we work for less. I have personally heard partners complain that even they are not being paid fair market remuneration. Why should people say.
5) The firm policies are ad hoc and are regularly changed to suit whatever is the colour of the sky that morning.
There needs to be a hard introspection by everyone as to why a promising firm is being frittered away by the randomness of the senior management.
1) As already mentioned in another comment, the MANAGING PARTNER. Very volatile, changes wfh policies at whim and fancies, unnecessarily pressurising grown adults to attend regulatory update sessions, conferences, seminars, even office parties (yes, will get annoyed at people for showing up late even). ▮▮▮tries to convince everyone that work-life balance is a myth. ▮▮▮
2) The salary is not at par with Tier 1 firms (as the firm generally likes to consider itself one). Bonuses and increments are not paid on time with the administration/MP shamelessly making childish and flimsy excuses for the delay to grown adults.
3) Quality of work and clients is okay- nothing particularly spectacular.
4) No good brand image as such 2 years into its existence.
Some positives:
1) Some of the partners are quite nice and deserve credit for that (of course there are exceptions, but speaking generally). Apart from the Managing Partner, I see myself defending the behaviour of quite a few other partners (again, with exceptions)
2) Much to the managing partners dislike I assume, there is a pretty decent semblance of work-life balance (as compared to other T-1s) for quite a few teams.
It does not mean there is a problem
Average attrition in every big law firm is about 50% per year
1) It started off as a professional firm- and is now worse than a family run Lala shop, with relatives of MP in partnership, associate pool and admin staff. It’s crazy.
2) The executive committee are a bunch of yes men with no say and don’t have the spine to spit out facts. They do not care about the Firm or its retainers and only care about their paisa… bowing down to almighty at every opportunity.
3) The salaries continue to lag behind market standards generally. While people were willing to cut some slack as a new outfit, without any clear pathway of it increasing, there is no reason for people to stay!
4) The work is not less by any means and compared to other firms, so why should we work for less. I have personally heard partners complain that even they are not being paid fair market remuneration. Why should people say.
5) The firm policies are ad hoc and are regularly changed to suit whatever is the colour of the sky that morning.
There needs to be a hard introspection by everyone as to why a promising firm is being frittered away by the randomness of the senior management.
1) As already mentioned in another comment, the MANAGING PARTNER. Very volatile, changes wfh policies at whim and fancies, unnecessarily pressurising grown adults to attend regulatory update sessions, conferences, seminars, even office parties (yes, will get annoyed at people for showing up late even). ▮▮▮tries to convince everyone that work-life balance is a myth. ▮▮▮
2) The salary is not at par with Tier 1 firms (as the firm generally likes to consider itself one). Bonuses and increments are not paid on time with the administration/MP shamelessly making childish and flimsy excuses for the delay to grown adults.
3) Quality of work and clients is okay- nothing particularly spectacular.
4) No good brand image as such 2 years into its existence.
Some positives:
1) Some of the partners are quite nice and deserve credit for that (of course there are exceptions, but speaking generally). Apart from the Managing Partner, I see myself defending the behaviour of quite a few other partners (again, with exceptions)
2) Much to the managing partners dislike I assume, there is a pretty decent semblance of work-life balance (as compared to other T-1s) for quite a few teams.