In a recent column for Above the Law, Michael Allen of Lateral Link enumerated the top five reasons that attorneys move from one firm to another. Here’s the list he came up with:

1) Management: “A popular complaint I hear from lateral partners,” Allen writes, “is that they do not have confidence in their department chair or chairman.”

2) Prestige: A self-explanatory motivation (with great appeal in the legal profession).

3) Platform: The term “platform” means different things to different people, which is one reason why we try to avoid jargon like this. We’ve most often heard “platform” used by large firms with numerous offices and practice areas to refer to the opportunities they offer to cross-sell a given lateral’s services. Allen uses the term in a different way, referring instead to the infrastructure that a firm has in place (including its bench of talent) to service its clients. When a firm like Bingham McCutchen starts losing partners, Allen suggests, that harms its “platform.” What he really seems to be talking about, then, is the degree of confidence that a firm’s clients and attorneys have in the firm’s ability to serve its clients.

4) Compensation: Everyone can understand this one.

5) My Client Said So: This refers to conflicts of interest, as well as other reasons why a client may require that its work be taken to a different firm.

Good communication is paramount when it comes to lateral movement.

We might quibble at the edges here, but overall the list looks accurate to us. And for law firms seeking to avoid losing laterals (that’s everybody), the list offers some important insights. Let’s reorder the list in terms of the factors firms can control, which will point to specific action they can take to avoid lateral losses.

1. Compensation: Unless a firm has been unfair in its allocation to a specific partner, this is largely outside of a firm’s very-short-term control.
2. Client Said So: If a client (and, by consequence, the partner attached to that client) has to leave for conflict reasons, there is little a firm can do beyond separating itself from the conflicting client. The decision on that point will probably be a relatively easy one, dictated by how much business each client is giving the firm.
3. Prestige: This is difficult to impact in the very short-term as well. However, media relations campaigns, successful awards nominations, and other public relations initiatives can have a meaningful impact on a firm’s prestige factor over time, and thus are worthy of attention for firms that believe they are losing laterals for this reason.
4. Platform: This is the most nebulous reason, but of the four thus discussed, the most capable of being addressed immediately. Aggressive communication to attorneys and clients about the firm’s resources can do much to ameliorate concern that it is not equipped to handle a given client’s legal needs. And to the extent that “platform” means the resources in place to support the growth of a partner’s practice, firms can address that through enhanced marketing support.
5. Management: This is Allen’s number one reason, and also the one within the greatest control of the law firm seeking to prevent lateral losses. Strong internal communication from firm and practice-group leaders can give partners confidence in the direction of the firm, and thus pay huge dividends in keeping them around.

This analysis confirms a point we’ve made before: that good communication is paramount when it comes to lateral movement. That’s the reason HC has become a leader in this area, and why we have, for instance, partnered with ALM to develop LATERAL proMOTION, a new service that allows firms to maximize the value of their new lateral hires.

Indeed, it’s clear to us that the firms that communicate best around issues of concern to laterals are far more likely to see their numbers increasing, and seeing themselves winning the ongoing war for talent.