As anyone who works in lateral partner recruiting can attest, the information disclosed in the Lateral Partner Questionnaire (LPQ) has become a main determinant of whether candidates move forward. While we believe that these LPQs are an important part of the process, there are particular questions that some firms include that continue to baffle us. Here is our list of the Five LPQ Questions We Love to Hate.
1) Asking for portable business beyond 12 months. Everyone involved in the process is already highly skeptical of the projections lawyers make with regard to portable business, even in a more limited one-year period. Much of that skepticism isn’t based on the veracity of the candidate, but on the increasing complexity (and perhaps fallacy) of portable business itself. So why would a firm ask a candidate to go to the year 2020 and beyond for projections? Not only is the question pointless, but it will turn off desirable candidates who wonder whether the firm is interested only in their clients rather in what they could accomplish with the firm’s platform and client base.
2) Billings and collections questions which includes the assumption that the categories used by that firm are used by their competitors. In addition to origination and working attorney billings (which are pretty universally accepted), individual firms use terms like managed billings, billing partner billings, responsible party billings, and even the odd “proliferating attorney” billings. Other firms have a “double-credit” system where originations themselves get split based on the participation of different parties. It’s critical for firms to define exactly what they are looking for when asking these questions.
3) Along the same lines, asking for “realization rate” without explaining what that means. Does it include the percentage of the actual amount billed that was collected, or does it encompass the situation where a client asked for a write-down before the bill is even sent? And what about client-requested discounts generally? Firms do themselves a disservice by only asking for a “realization rate,” because candidates will naturally answer it in the most favorable way.
4) Asking for a complete conflict disclosure early in the process. Is this a trick question to see if the attorney has any common sense? I would question the judgment of any lawyer who would spend substantial billable hours filling out a voluminous conflict disclosure form before he or she has decided that they are likely to go to this firm. Obviously, it makes sense to determine if there are any substantial “show-stopper” conflict issues at the beginning of the process, but that can be done in a much more expedited manner.
5) Similarly, asking for references, particularly client references, early in the process. In addition to raising potential ethical issues—firms need to be careful about contacting the clients of another firm– the question is likely to bring a negative reaction from candidates they really want: those who have the most and deepest client relationships. Again, we’re not disputing that this is an appropriate avenue of inquiry, but rather the timing of the requested disclosure.
These last two points argue for a two-tiered process, with a shorter, more limited LPQ early in the process (see our earlier TMG’s Take calling for the uniform LPQ), with a more extensive supplemental form, asking for the more sensitive information, closer to decision time.
