Successful Partner Onboarding: How to Get it Right

‍Antony: Why do firms keep on lateral partners who don’t immediately bring in their full book of business?

Chuck: Integration takes time—in my experience as much as 18 to 36 months—before a partner’s full book of business comes over from a prior firm. Firms need patience in integration, although it's important to monitor the progress of the lateral partner's pace in bringing clients to their new firm. In the majority of cases it's a matter of helping to fan the flames, really working with your new lateral partners, and getting them connected to clients and work at your firm that can supplement their immediate client hours until work from their own clients fully materializes. Client and matter transitions for the new partner’s clients frequently take more time than anticipated and can be impacted by a variety of factors, including the time it takes to open new clients and matters internally, final conflicts clearance, inertia on the part of the new client in transferring files, and coordination of billing (shared credits etc.) at a new firm.

Antony: Do firms vary in how they integrate partners?

Chuck: Yes. Some firms emphasize collaboration and teamwork, rewarding partners accordingly and having a long runway for integration. Others focus on individual metrics and business generation with more of an “eat what you kill” compensation approach for new partners. 

For firms driven more strictly by financial metrics, perhaps they monitor progress more closely and expect quicker results.

Antony: For firms with an “eat what you kill” model, which tend to be more territorial about credit for work, what would the timeline typically be for follow up if a partner isn’t meeting revenue expectations?

Chuck: Great question. At my former firm, I believed and advocated for giving partners that 18 to 36-month period. That was not a universal belief at the firm, but there was a general consensus that lateral partners required an appropriate runway to be successful. Every firm—and partner—has different views on this. In my experience, it often takes longer to fully integrate a partner, in part due to the details mentioned above. We had many partners who didn’t hit expectations in their first 6-12 months but saw their business generation increase significantly over time as their clients opened new matters.

For firms driven more strictly by financial metrics, perhaps they monitor progress more closely and expect quicker results. If a partner isn’t hitting their numbers, those firms may be more likely to give clear messages to their lateral partners to improve or move on. It’s kind of a clinical decision—not a personal one, and I’m sure those financial expectations are clearly laid out in the hiring process.

Some firms hire lots of lateral partners but also see many departures. From my perspective they are more comfortable with a higher number of arrivals and departures, and rely on making enough successful hires to balance out those who don’t work out and leave sooner.

Antony: When you analyze the legal market, so much depends on firms’ commercial structures—their culture, client base, revenue, and recognition systems. Have you noticed any patterns? For example, do litigation-focused firms versus corporate firms, or big city firms versus regional ones, differ in their expectations around revenue realization for partners?

Chuck: I think that the approach to hiring lateral partners does vary significantly from firm to firm, although it's hard for me to point to specific industry trends based on predominant practices or locations. I think it's key for each firm to be very strategic in who they want to hire, have a good self-awareness in how they are positioned in the marketplace (which can vary by location), and have the ability to tell a compelling enough story about the opportunity to generate interest among legal search firms and candidates.

At Pillsbury, we looked for partners who valued culture in addition to financial success, as we felt that played to our strengths. We’d pitch that we could take your $2 million practice and make it a $4 or $5 million dollar practice. And at the same time you could work with people who are very smart with a high percentage of Chambers rankings, but also very nice and collaborative. Candidates who came our way usually knew we had a great culture and a friendly environment. If they prioritized purely maximizing financial opportunity over culture, they might look elsewhere.

So it really depends on what the firm wants and what the candidate is after. For us, culture was a big selling point alongside growth opportunities—significantly increasing a partner’s practice was a major sell for us. Plus, we had strong supporting practices to help partners broaden their offerings, and build their practices.

Other firms, especially transactional ones, probably pitch similar growth models, but each firm has its own way of balancing culture and financial expectations.

From my perspective, changing the lateral culture was our biggest challenge and achievement.

Antony: We’ve talked about the risks of lateral partners underperforming. I imagine firm leadership can get nervous about this. How do you help leadership build confidence in a lateral partner who seems to be underperforming?

Chuck: When I joined Pillsbury in 2007, the firm had just gone through mergers, and there was skepticism about hiring laterals—partners at that time were not convinced the firm could do it successfully. Early on, as a team we were developing a firm-wide hiring plan and integration process, and honestly, some of our early partner hires did not turn out to be our most successful. The 2008 financial crisis didn’t help either.

Our focus, as outlined by the firm Chair and the Partner Hiring & Integration Committee and its Chair and Vice Chair, was not just growth for growth’s sake, but to grow strategically into the firm’s existing areas of practice strength by hiring partners that could improve the firm’s metrics but also fit the firm’s culture of cooperation and collaboration. Our macro goal was to build a culture that could successfully integrate partners. It took a number years, but through trial, error, and evolving integration programs, we started to see partners succeed financially and culturally.

By the time I retired in 2023, the culture around partner integration had changed; the firm chair was a lateral partner, half the firm’s board were lateral partners, and a significant portion of the firm's top business generators and earners were lateral partners. That cultural shift made other firm practice section leaders and partners more willing to hire and support lateral partners. Through focused effort by Firm and Practice Group Leadership, the support of a majority of partners and the dedication of the partner hiring and integration team, we were able to build a culture that was supportive of lateral partners.

From my perspective, changing the lateral culture was our biggest challenge and achievement.

Antony: That must have required a lot of internal communication and advocacy. Did you have to constantly build support?

Chuck: Absolutely. Our culture valued transparency, so partners could easily track how laterals were performing. Early results often didn’t look great—billing wasn’t timely, numbers seemed low—so we had to encourage patience and context. Our role was to address skepticism and advocate that the firm “Give them time; let the process work.”

Fortunately, for the most part, it paid off. The key was hiring the right people, and blending that with consistent support and clear communication.

Antony: You’ve likely seen cases where embedding a partner doesn’t work out. What signals do you watch for, and when do you decide it’s time to part ways?

Chuck: Typically, we gave partners a couple of years to show progress. If their business plateaued, client relationships didn’t materialize, or promised work never came, it required we reconsider. Sometimes partners contribute by collaborating on existing partners' matters, but if that didn’t happen either, it could be a signal that it was time to move on. 

Antony: Sometimes partners don’t hit revenue targets but make cultural contributions. When do those contributions fail to justify keeping someone?

Chuck: If a partner can find alternative work within the firm or build strong internal relationships, that can compensate. For example, we had a litigator who couldn’t bring a key client due to previously undetected conflicts but became a valuable team player and firm board member through specialized work and collaboration. However, if nothing positive develops, then it could be time to part ways, handled quietly and respectfully, in line with the firm culture.

Antony: Have you seen clear cultural clashes? What traits cause problems?

Chuck: Yes. Some partners don’t play well with others or refuse reasonable accommodations. Even high performers can be challenging if they lack firm citizenship. But revenue generation often gives more leeway. With 300+ partners, some friction is expected, but good revenue generation gave all involved more to work with in assessing success.

Further reading: Partner Recruiting: Pro Tips for Getting it Right