For those who missed the show in last week’s BRW, Mallesons Chief Executive Partner Robert Milliner featured in an article entitled Like Conducting an Orchestra. In that article, Milliner likened his role as head of one of Australia’s most profitable law firms to that of a penguin-suited musical leader, standing in front of a group of people from “band camp”, who frenetically waves a wand.
This year marks [Milliner's] 30th with Mallesons – the past 28 of which have been as partner and the past 6 have been “conducting the orchestra”.
The Milliner philharmonic roadshow appears to have hit a few favourable notes in the concerto interview, with BRW reporter Judith Tydd making the following opening comments in her Mallesons composition:
The reputation of Mallesons Stephen Jaques speaks volumes, from attracting some of the brightest law graduates to securing the most complex legal work for Australia’s leading corporations. But just what – or who – keeps the company ticking over?
Is it, perhaps, the harmonics? Apparently not. The article goes on:
It’s not just the prestige, the firm’s chief executive partner Robert Milliner, says. “It’s about the best work for the best clients with the best people,” he says.
While it is true that Mallesons has until now made a habit of attracting the “best people”, thanks mainly to a pipeline of elite graduates, we believe that the firm is slowly but surely beginning to lose some of its lustre for those dreaming of a corporate legal future. The double-bass is losing some of its strings, so to speak.
And the reasons why (we think) that graduates should be cautious about an early career at Mallesons were recently laid bare by the firm’s head of P&D, Kate Rimer. Yes, in an ensemble interview entitled Fast -Track Your Promotion with ALB TV, Mallesons‘ Rimer produced a series of bad notes indeed!
A voiceover to the interview opens with the following prefatory words:
Kate Rimer says being an excellent lawyer in today’s environment is simply not enough.
Rimer continues:
“I think more and more that legal excellence or technical legal skills are a given… What our clients are telling us is valued is the ability to work with them, so it’s the client relaitonship skills, the business development skills, it’s the ability to work in and lead a team. So if you want to climb the ladder, if you are going to have a team of five or six lawyers working for you, how do you do that?… I hate them being called the “soft skills”, i think the client and people skills are really going to stand out the stars from the ordinary performers and that’s what we look for when we’re promoting people.”
But why would the best graduates in the country want to dust off their instruments in an environment where being an excellent lawyer “is simply not enough”? Did they attend university and orchestrate class-topping grades … all so they could fast-track their promotion with “soft skills”?
Or did they hope that they could forge a career in a firm where actually being a great technical lawyer, and not something of a marketing guru, would see them rewarded with promotions and the like?
And what about that rhapsody over underpay? Don’t the best graduates deserve the best pay and best working conditions? Not harder and longer hours than at competitor firms?
We think it is time that graduates paid closer attention to the notes being produced by the firm.
And perhaps it is also time Robert Milliner listened to the orchestra he is conducting. After all, we think their lead opus – which they are currently playing with considerable gusto – is Megadeth’s 1992 heavy metal power-ballad Symphony of Destruction…
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
This is pretty naive. If law grads don’t realise their jobs involve a lot of “business”, and sometimes more business and PR than law, then they’re kidding themselves.
Mallesons will still attract grads…. because the other firms can’t take them all. All you have to do is look at the Big 4 accounting firms to see where this is headed… the top 6 law firms are in danger of becoming a “training ground” with speedy exits at the 2-3 year mark if they are not careful.
By “soft skills” do they mean having a bit of personality, and perhaps being able to talk to clients and colleagues like a human, and not just some toff nosed little swot who worked too hard at uni to have a life and develop some people skills?
Oh come on, Firm Spy. There is nothing remarkable about what Mallesons said. ALL the top tiers say that their clients expect them to get the work right and be technically excellent. That is what clients pay $700/hr for – to get the right answers. But if that is the case, what differentiates the firm? Of course it has to be soft skills.
That’s a dumb article, Firm Spy. You can do better than that. Surely you realise that by promoting lawyers with good ‘soft skills’, it will make for a better future for us law grads. Better partners with better people and project management skills make happier law grads and solicitors. The worst partners are the top lawyers with poor people and management skills.
its always a mystery to me that top grads seem to prefer mallesons. allens and freehills are chock a block with wankers too but they seem fewer (thats my impression anyway).
Some (most) law students need to spend a few semesters at the university of life. Maybe then they would be less depressed: http://www.mulss.com/depression-australian-law-schools-alsa-handbook
When interviewing grads, law firms look not only at their marks, but pay great attention to their soft skills – examples of working with and for other people etc. Grads know this and know that hard work and good grades are merely what you need to get an interview. Once there, it’s all about persuasion, negotiation and engagement.
“its always a mystery to me that top grads seem to prefer mallesons.”
Me too. In a choice between Freehills, Mallies and Allens, Mallies would be fourth on my list (daylight third). The other two just aren’t as smug.
H1 hit the nail on the head. I did my clerkship applicaitons this year and received offers from the three top tier firms that I applied to (Allens, Corrs, Mallies).
My grades are good, but not even close to ‘top of the class.’ I know that I got both interviews and offers based on the plethora of ‘soft skills’ evident in my CV; and the fact that I can communicate orally and have and have an engaging personality, which obviously impressed the interviewing partners.
I think that’s how it should be. Anyone with half a brain can be tought to be technically brilliant with proper training and sufficient resources. Firms know that. Legal profficiency is not difficult, nor is it rare in law grads. It’s grads who are technically brilliant AND have the ‘soft skills’ that will excell – so how is it unreasonable that this is the standard that top tier firms demand?
The grad pay is on par with all of the top tier firms and in fact exceeds the Freehills pay. Also, the hours as a grad are very reasonable.
Whoever wrote this article is clearly ignorant of how professional services firms in general, operate.
The ‘soft skills’ (client management, BD etc.) are the skills that bring in the work and pay the salaries. Technically excellent lawyers who don’t have people skills may do the work but they’re never going to rise much past a certain level.
H1 hit the nail on the head. I did my clerkship applicaitons this year and received offers from the three top tier firms that I applied to (Middletons, Harmers and TressCox).
My grades are good, but not even close to ‘top of the class.’ I know that I got both interviews and offers based on the plethora of ‘soft skills’ evident in my sexual repertoire; and the fact that I can communicate orally and have and have an engaging personality, which obviously impressed the interviewing partners.
I think that’s how it should be. Anyone with half a brain can be tought to be technically brilliant with proper training and sufficient resources. Firms know that. Legal profficiency is not difficult, nor is it rare in law grads. It’s grads who are technically brilliant AND have the ‘soft skills’ that will excell – so how is it unreasonable that this is the standard that top tier firms demand?
i personally have always found it intruguing why good graduates want to go to Mallesons.
There can be little doubt for the first few years at the firm they will do very little legal work. More like, photocopying, paper shredding and just general admin work for partners.
Sure, this might be the same at rivel top tier firms, but chances are they will be treated with more dignity and respect, rather than just as a commodity.
If you want to develop as a good lawyer and work in an environment where you;ll receive respect as a junior lawyer, dont go to mallesons
I have never worked at MSJ but tend to agree with the comment above. There is no good reason for top graduates to work at the firm, at least for their first few years out of univiersity.
The only genuine opportunities that these lawyers will get to develop their skills will come from pro bono tasks which right-wing partners will criticize them for undertaking on the basis that they are not billable
@ not ex mallesons – too true!!!
Grads at Mallesons don’t do photocopying, shredding or admin work for partners lol. If you had actually worked at Mallesons you would know that (in fact, no one at Mallesons does shredding – items to be shredded are placed in secure bins and shredded by persons/companies unknown).
Sure, not all tasks given to grads are exciting or cutting-edge legal work, but plenty of legal work is done. And I’ve certainly never heard of any partner criticizing anyone for doing pro bono work. You guys are hilarious. Talk about buying into stereotypes.
As with so many posts on this site, spelling and punctuation make it hard to believe that you have ever worked as a solicitor anywhere. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but there’s no need to pretend you’ve worked at Mallesons to give yours…
Although I am not part of the firm, I would say that there can be little doubt that the success of Mallesons in the market is very much wedded to the technical excellence of its lawyers. At least until recently (Freehills in particular has made a habit in the last few years of snaring the best graduates), Mallesons has been notorious for claiming the best and brightest graduates freshly out of university. And it is this pipeline which eventually leads into its partnership, with a market-perception that the lawyers populating the place, given their university excellence, are able to provide the very best technical advice to clients. How else can Mallesons justify such exorbitant charge-out rates? How else is Mallesons able to consistently claim hihger revenue than its competitors?
It therefore comes as a surprise that Mallesons has in recent times shown such an apparent willingness (if this site is anything to go by) to disenfranchise its most important asset – bright junior lawyers and bright graduates thinking of joining the firm – with low pay and staggering work hours.
The above article could therefore scarcely be more accurate. The Mallesons partnership is methodically plotting its own demise and it is purely a product of greed.
@ Anonymous
Well done on having such a great “sexual repertoire” …
I have apparently totally misjudged the entry criteria for top-tier law firm positions.