Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m J u n e 2 0 1 4 17 lens of efficiency and evaluate who makes sense as an employee and who doesn't. Partners, regardless of how and where they grew up, are being told there simply isn't room for them at the table anymore because law firms are working hard to keep their head above water." If you're going to get the boot, how will it happen? First off, there may be little if any warning. The ALM study reported 77 per cent of partners pushed out heard about their performance problems for the first time when they were asked to leave; 92 per cent were offered no help. "They're given the message to go elsewhere but they are not effectively or productively or compassionately transitioned out of their firms. Add to that the reality that the vol- ume of partners that need to go elsewhere is surging and you're left with a mar- ket that is saturated with disappointed, frustrated, and resentful lateral partner candidates who are making hasty and ill- conceived moves borne from panic and financial need," says the report. But that's in the United States, a mean, market-driven country. Surely it's differ- ent in kinder, gentler Canada? Maybe it is, at least a little bit. I think most times, in Canada, a partner has considerable warn- ing he's slated for the axe. He has lots of time to get into a funk, feel embarrassed, hide from his colleagues (who, he is cer- tain, stabbed him in the back — they'll be sorry), get angry, think of a plausible explanation to give the outside world for leaving the firm where he's worked for a long time, polish his résumé, and — yes — look for another job. Sometimes there's an alternative to outright dismissal. Remember de-equi- tization? (It was the subject of Canadian Lawyer's July 2012 cover story, "The new subclass.") De-equitization puts a partner back into the ranks of employees, takes away his equity stake, pays a fixed salary rather than a share of partnership profits, and strips him of his vote on partner- ship matters. A few years ago The Wall Street Journal described de-equitization as a "buzz word sweeping Big Law Nation." One blog commented: "Most lawyers set on pursuing careers in elite firms have long focused on one goal: making partner. Now they are adding a second one: staying partner." In the U.S., seven or eight years ago, de-equitization was the flavour of the day, but it has waned as a technique. In increasingly brutal times, turning a part- ner into an employee has been replaced by simply kicking her out. But in polite Canada, de-equitization still has a place. It all seems nasty and brutish. Why are once-valued employees being treated in this callous fashion? It's because the loyalty bargain has been broken. Once partners feel free to cross the street if they think it is in their interest to do so, then firms will fire them if they feel like it. Tit for tat. You can't have your cake and eat it too. What else would you expect? They used to say in law firms, "all our assets go down in the elevator at the end of the day." That's still true. But, these days, not all of them come back up in the elevator the next morning. Philip Slayton's latest book is Bay Street: A Novel. It's about a big law firm in big trouble. Yes, partners are pushed out. You can read the first chapter at baystreetanovel.com. O P I N I O N REACH ONE OF THE LARGEST LEGAL AND BUSINESS MARKETS IN CANADA! With more than 264,000 page views and 60,000 unique visitors monthly canadianlawlist.com captures your market. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Colleen Austin T: 416.649.9327 | E: colleen.austin@thomsonreuters.com www.canadianlawlist.com AVAILABLE ONLINE AND IN PRINT Get noticed by the lawyers, judges, corporate counsel, finance professionals and other blue chip cilents and prospects who find the contacts they need for Canadian legal expertise at canadianlawlist.com with an annual Gold or Silver Enhanced listing package. ENCHANCE YOUR LISTING TODAY! ntitled-2 1 14-01-13 6:55 PM

• Cover