The Ties That Bind: The Relationship Between Law Firm Growth and Law Firm Survival
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
For the better part of the twentieth century, law firms hired, trained, and grew through a stable and predictable pattern: hire new law school graduates, monitor and evaluate their work, and pick promising attorneys from among their ranks and elevate them to partner. Rinse, lather, repeat. A combination of professional norms and organizational inertia made this approach the dominant method of growth among large corporate law firms until changes in legal market broke down these customary practices, ushering in a new era of lawyer mobility. Now, it has become commonplace for lawyers to leave for greener pastures as more law firms seek to grow their practices through lateral hiring. The question that this Article seeks to answer is: what (if any) effect has this change had on the stability of these law firms? Conventional wisdom holds that law firms that grow through entry-level hiring and training young attorneys (a practice long associated with the most prestigious “white shoe” firms) are more stable in the long run than law firms that poach attorneys from other firms via lateral acquisition. But why should hiring inexperienced and untested lawyers result in greater success for the firm than hiring lawyers that are proven to be competent and successful? This Article presents a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between law firm profits, firm growth strategy, and the life course of large American corporate law firms. I draw on an original longitudinal dataset to provide new insights on the determinants and effects of firm growth over a quarter of a century, from 1985 to 2011. I hypothesize that (1) “organic” growth, which relies on entry-level hiring and internal promotion, helps successful firms protect their positions by creating dense firm networks that allow the firm to survive threats to the organization, while (2) “mimetic” growth, which relies on firm merger or mass lateral hiring fails to create these dense networks and thus fails to provide long-term benefit to these firms. Ultimately, my findings both corroborate and complicate the conventional wisdom, with special resonances for what predicts the longevity of corporate law firms. I find that less profitable firms pursued mimetic growth in response to the organic growth of their more successful peers. In addition, controlling for observed potential confounders, those firms that grew organically in response to organizational need were at lower risk for dissolution than firms that intentionally pursued a growth strategy involving mergers and acquisitions. Furthermore, the increase in risk associated with this mimetic growth strategy hits low-status law firms the hardest. I conclude that mimetic growth has the potential to damage firm cohesion and upset the unique internal dynamics of law firms, thus fraying the professional ties that bind clients and lawyers alike to the firm.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».