By Emma Ziercke and Markus Hartung.
Abstract: Many publications socialise the idea that intergenerational differences are a source of conflict in legal practice. The use of classifications (“Generation Y”) and stereotypes (“Generation Y is lazy and entitled”) leads to the perception that the generations have different values and work attitudes and that these differences are a source of inter-personal conflict in the workplace. Regardless of whether the differences between the generations are real or perceived, we argue that the conflicts are not attributable to generational differences per se, but to the fact that the older generation of lawyer is being confronted with change. The changes being heralded by “Millennial Lawyers” call into question many of the values and beliefs that older lawyers have grown up with and which form the bedrock of law firm organisational culture.
Law Firms as Multi-Generational Organisations
Law firms are home to at least three generations of lawyer: (1) Millennials (also referred to as Generation Y), currently aged between 25 and 38 years’ old; (2) Generation X, currently aged between 39 and 59 years’ old; and (3) Baby Boomers, currently aged between 60 and 77 years’ old. There is no universal birth year classification, so we have chosen the classifications established by Howe and Strauss (2007), the authors who originally coined the term “Millennial”. In terms of how these generations are distributed within a law firm, an analysis by ALM found that 88% of associates in the top 400 American law firms are from the Millennial Generation, with Generation X making up 52% of all partners and Baby Boomers making up 40% (McLellan (2017)). This does not mean that the percentage of female partners in these generations is 50% or even 40%: In fact, in American law firms, this figure is only 20% (see for example, Bachman (2019)). Given that conflict is considered a natural part of human interaction, in such a multi-generational organisation, intergenerational conflict may be regarded as inevitable.
Practitioner-directed publications often discuss how law firms can deal with the “challenge” of Millennial Lawyers. It is not our intention to prove or disprove whether intergenerational conflict in law firms is wholly attributable to “generational differences”. However, we can share the observations from our studies on the characteristics and career expectations of Millennial Lawyers (Hartung/Ziercke (2019) and Ziercke/Knipping (2020)), as well as the insights we have gained from working closely with Millennial Lawyers on our annual Law Firms of Tomorrow course (part of the Bucerius Center on the Legal Profession’s Certificate in Management and Leadership). We ask Millennials: (i) what they would do if they were managing partner; (ii) how they would attract and retain Tomorrow’s Lawyers; and (iii) if they were in charge, what would the law firm of the future look like? Through their essays and business plans for the “law firm of the future”, we are able to gather rich, qualitative data about Millennial Lawyers.
The War of the Worlds?
“I had one guy who came in and he was…he did a blog for us, absolutely atrocious, called him in [and] told him to go back and do it again. He said, ‘I’m not doing it again’, you know, and I was sort of sitting there absolutely flabbergasted thinking ‘this is an opportunity for you to learn, etc’, how he’d got so far in the process of becoming a solicitor to have that attitude, I was a bit ‘like hang on a second.’” (Quote from a male partner, as cited by Bleasdale/Francis (2017))
The citation describes, by way of anecdotal evidence, a common situation in which a partner has given an associate a task, which the associate has not completed in the way the partner expects him to. The partner tells the associate to do the task again. Instead of doing so, the associate refuses. The situation encapsulates the feeling of shock and also helplessness that the partner experiences when the associate fails to respond according to what the partner perceives to be cultural norms. It was the partner’s prerogative to tell the associate what to do, and the associate’s role to do it. The partner’s world is being undermined by the associate’s refusal to do what he is told. In a fictious sense, this conflict could be portrayed as “The War of the Worlds”: A conflict between the world in which Baby Boomers, and to some extent Generation X partners, live, and the “alien” world from which the Millennial Lawyer comes.
The Partner’s World
The world of the large international law firm partner is underpinned by three key features: hierarchy, “busyness” and profit. Whilst the concept of a partnership suggests a collegiate, long-term institution, in the opinion of some critics it is “an environment where personal and local interests are usually pursued in preference to the firm’s objectives” (Mayson (2012)). In contrast to the original partnership concept, large law firms have a strong hierarchy which is visible both inside and outside of the organisation. A lawyer progresses along a clear career ladder: trainee, junior associate, senior associate, managing associate, junior partner, senior partner, group practice leader and eventually managing partner. At each rung of the ladder the wheat is sorted from the chaff, so that only the very best lawyers reach the top of the organisation. Lawyers inevitably compete with each other at each level to have the highest number of billable hours, to win the best work, and ultimately the best clients. This competition between lawyers is part of the “quality control” in law firms, such that only the strongest (and therefore the best) lawyers survive. In this so-called “pyramid structure”, all decision-making, whether related to the strategic direction of the firm, partnership elections, or day-to-day management, takes place behind closed doors: Top-down management is the norm. Currently the top echelons of this pyramid are homogenous, with an average of 90% of partners in the top 10 German law firms being white males (see for example, Hall (2019))
In the partner’s world, the more hours you work, the better. The law firm model focuses on input, rather than output, rewarding those who work the longest hours. Hard work is a key value in law firm culture, evident from war stories about the number of all-nighters worked and partners bragging about missing family events to clinch the deal for their client. However, “Busyness” is more than just a cultural value for lawyers: it is a basic assumption which defines a lawyer’s relationship to the workplace and to other people. Long hours equal respect and are part of a lawyer’s estimation of his or her own self-worth.
Finally, money counts. PPP (profit per equity partner) is the raison d’être for many large international law firms. “PPP is the currency firms use to attract laterals, retain their own stars, and burnish their brands” (Cohen (2019)). The focus on PPP and individual earnings means that, in the words of Stephen Mayson, “the sense of stewardship or custodianship for future generations that used to characterise the more collegiate of firms has been sacrificed on the daily altar of chargeable time and client billings.” (Mayson 2012). Furthermore, law firm partners share in the profits only for so long as they are partner and generate sufficient revenue to meet their targets. Partners who leave the firm may receive a small entitlement, but their equity interest vanishes. In order to provide for their retirement, they must ensure that they have sufficiently high earnings during their time as partner. Thus, their interest in the long-term future of the firm is diminished by the short-term nature of their partnership holding (Molot 2014).
The Millennial’s World
From our research (see for example Ziercke/Knipping 2020, Hartung/Ziercke 2019) and from working closely with Millennial Lawyers on our “Law Firms of Tomorrow” courses, we have learnt that equality, work-life balance and purposeare the cornerstones of the Millennial World. In the Millennial World, everyone is equal and there is no place for hierarchy. Instead of being told what to do, Millennial Lawyers want to be involved in decision-making. Our research has shown that Millennial Lawyers want “a voice” and to be represented in management decisions such as partner and associate compensation, promotion to partner, and firm strategy. Furthermore, Millennial Lawyers want to see transparent leadership, which even goes as far as being represented at the executive level of law firm management. Millennial Lawyers seek a collegial working environment with feedback, mentoring and teamwork. They want an independent committee to allocate work in order to reduce bias and internal competition, including inter-partner competition. Finally, in a world of equals, diversity is a given. For Millennial Lawyers, diversity is not just about gender but encompasses different perspectives, cultures, and backgrounds. Diversity is an inherent value for Millennial Lawyers, and they expect to see a diverse leadership.
For Millennial Lawyers, hard work (in other words, long hours in the office) does not automatically equate to respect. In fact, Millennials consider those who work long hours to the detriment of their families as bad role models. When asked to name their career goals, many Millennial Lawyers choose “work-life balance” or “not a 90-hour-week”. Millennial Lawyers would rather work smarter and believe that technology holds the key to increasing efficiency. Boring work, such as sifting through documents, should be performed by computer programs. Technology is the necessary key to flexible working conditions, which will improve work-life balance. Furthermore, many believe that large international law firms are overly focussed on the billable hour, rather than the outcome of legal work.
Millennials feel strongly about the social and environmental impact of their work. When designing the law firm of the future, almost all Millennials on our courses choose to establish law firms for “good causes”: environmental impact, finding new medicines, helping people without access to justice. This is something which continues in practice, as some Millennials refuse to work for clients who fall short of corporate social responsibility standards. Furthermore, they feel that partnership profits should be retained for long-term investment in the firm.
Tension?
The tension between these three cornerstones manifests itself in intergenerational conflict. The tensions are both values-based, i.e. arising from the perception that each generation weighs the importance of values differently (hierarchy vs. equality, profit vs. purpose), as well as identity-based, i.e. arising from the way that people define themselves, or how they perceive that others define them (busyness vs. work-life balance) (see Urick/Hollensbe/Masterton/Lyons (2017)). The conflict between the two worlds can be visualised in Figure 1 below and illustrated by the following three examples.
“When picturing a law firm, many people imagine a very hierarchical workplace with an old cigar smoking, aggressive male boss, whipping his associates through long hours of hard, even unrewarding work.” (Quote from an essay written by a Millennial, attending one of the Bucerius Center on the Legal Profession’s law firm management courses). In the student’s description, the partner is like a 19th century factory owner, shouting instructions to the workers on the factory floor. The worker has no say in the matter, he (or she) just does what they are told. The citation highlights the “them and us, worker vs owner” discourse that is present in many law firms and underlines the direct values-based conflict between the generations: The Millennial Lawyer believes in equality, a voice for everyone, whereas the Baby Boomer, and to some extent Generation X, partners believe in hierarchies and doing what you are told. The partners’ deep-rooted beliefs, that the number of billable hours defines us as “good lawyers”, conflict with the Millennial’s belief that work is only one part of “self”. This identity-based tension leads to conflict as each generation resents the way the other feels about them: “Lazy” Millennials and “work-obsessed” Baby Boomers and Generation Xers.
Millennials have a different idea of what law firms should be like: “The purpose of EcoLaw is to foster and facilitate the development and enforcement of environmental law in a world which is calling more and more for environmental conscience. EcoLaw works in the environmental market not by giving the example, but by being the example, helping both governmental organizations as well as private individuals and companies in their structural developments to leave a better world for the future generations.” (Quote from an essay written by a Millennial, who attended one of the Bucerius Center on the Legal Profession’s law firm management courses, and designed the “Law Firm of the Future”, 2017). Many of the mission statements written by Millennials focussed on purpose and social impact. In our Next Generation Study (Ziercke/Knipping 2020), we asked participants to choose words which they associated with large international law firms: The most popular word was “profit-orientated”. This tension leads to values-based conflict as Millennials feel that law firms place profit ahead of purpose.
The Paradox
The tension between the two worlds is further compounded by the paradoxical nature of Millennial Lawyers. In our Next Generation Study (Ziercke/Knipping 2020), we found that Millennial Lawyers want to work for a law firm that offers, amongst other factors, a collegial working environment, flexible-working and good career opportunities. According the Millennials, the law firm of the future should be “innovative, family friendly, have a flat hierarchy, pro bono work, work-life balance, personal development opportunities and equal career opportunities”. However, a majority did not believe that large international law firms could fulfil these wishes. Intead, such law firms were associated with antonyms such as profit-orientated, hierarchical, in-transparent, and “workhouse”. In fact, only 7% of participants thought that large international law firms provided a collegial working environment, and only 1% thought that large international law firms could offer flexible working. Despite these beliefs, such firms were the most preferred legal market employer by a strong margin. In other words, the Millennial Lawyer wants work-life balance, equality, and puts purpose before profit however, he or she deliberately chooses to work in an environment which he or she believes to be hierarchical, profit-orientated and where long-hours are the norm. These contradictions potentially lead to the frustration that the older generations feel when dealing with Millennials, as they cannot “compartmentalise” the Millennials according to the widely socialised generalisations.
Figure 1 War of the Worlds?
Generation Y and Z Generation X and Baby Boomer
“The War of the Worlds”, written by H.G. Wells in 1898, drew on a common fear: the end of an age. Could it be that the conflict between the Partner’s World and the Millennial World is heralding the end of an age? The conflict between the two worlds, does not manifest itself in an “invasion” on the part of the Millennials: They simply shrug their shoulders, and say “OK, Boomer” - in law firms, maybe they only think it. Millennials have not been taking to the streets in protest because they believe that law firms should include all employees in the decision-making process or put purpose before profit. Instead, it seems that the Baby Boomers, and to some extent Generation Xers, who, feeling threatened by the changes being brought in by the Millennial World, escalate the conflict.
Are Generational Differences Inevitable?
The simple fact that people are born and grow up at different times in the evolution of society means, for authors like Howe/Strauss (2007), that each generation of people has different characteristics: “Generations shaped by similar early-life experiences often develop similar collective personae and follow similar life trajectories. The patterns are strong enough to support a measure of predictability.” (Howe/Strauss (2007) at page 2). The predictability of these patterns encourages sweeping statements about the characteristics of Millennials. For example, the legal market press is rich with articles purporting to define the traits of Millennial Lawyers: Millennials are said to put work-life balance above all else, be tech savvy, “job hop”, be “entitled”, be social-media addicts and need mentoring (see for example, KPMG (2017)).
In our “Herding Cats” Study (Hartung/Ziercke (2019)), we examined the personality traits of Millennials based on the five traits from Larry Richard’s original study (Richard (2002)): scepticism, sociability, resilience, autonomy and inner-drive. We found Millennial Lawyers to be significantly more sociable, more resilient, have more inner-drive, and to be less sceptical and less autonomous than lawyers in the original study which began in the late 1990s. This concurs with the generalisation that Millennial Lawyers are more sociable than other generations, but not with the idea that Millennials lack resilience and are overly-dependent on their mentors.
In our Next Generation Study (Ziercke/Knipping (2020)), we discovered that Millennial Lawyers were not “disloyal job hoppers”. Instead, our participants saw themselves working an average of 6.9 years’ at a law firm and waiting an average of 6.6 years to become partner. Furthermore, our participants were ambitious and prepared to work more than 50 hours a week for the same pay, if it would improve their career chances. Other studies had similar results: Thomson Reuters (2019)) found that around half of their participants planned to stay more than 5 years. In fact, it could be argued that job switching is not specific to Millennial Lawyers but is actually a general trend affecting the employment market, as the gig economy takes hold (small short-term jobs given to independent workers, who go from “gig to gig” like musicians). In the UK alone, the gig economy has more than doubled in size over the last three years, with one in ten working adults now working on a gig economy platform (Partington (2019)).
Thus, despite extensive empirical research on generational differences in the workplace, there is little consensus on whether the traits attributable to a particular generation hold true independent from the categorisation of the generation. In other words: We often categorise ourselves as belonging to a particular generation because we want to be part of the collective. We feel this ourselves when a colleague describes the way in which a Millennial Lawyer refuses to take on some boring work. We are quick to concur, adding our own stereotypical statements, such as “When I was an associate, I would never have turned down work like that” or “Millennial Lawyers are lazy and entitled”. Our consensus demonstrates the strength of our need to belong to a group, in this case, the “non-Millennial Lawyer” group.
Generational Bias
Popular generalizations around “Millennial Lawyers” and “Baby Boomer/Generation Xers” tend be harmful to intergenerational harmony in a law firm. Regardless of whether the stereotypes are true, the perceived differences may lead to conflict. Urick et al (2017) argue that whilst research is dedicated to establishing whether the generational patterns hold true, it is the fact that discourses in practitioner-directed media continue to generalise in a negative way about generational differences, which actually leads to conflict. Furthermore, stereotyping can lead to bias. “Age” is both a visible and non-visible characteristic which forms the basis for categorisation. Whilst “ageism” is a form of discrimination we associate with older people, research shows that it is common for both old and young people to have experienced discrimination based on age (Abrams/Swift (2012)).
Practitioner-directed publications in the legal market are rich in anecodotal evidence on Millennial Lawyers (“Generation Y is entitled, lazy, selfish, tech savvy, and incompetent” : A citation by New York criminal defence lawyer Scott Greenfield, appearing on a Panel at InsideCounsel Super Conference in Chicago, May 2009, Dayton (2009)) and focus on how law firms can deal with the “problem” of millennial lawyers (see for example, “Law Firm Management Struggles with Multi-Generational Issues” Buchdal (2015), “The Challenge of Generational Diversity” Laud (2019), “Why Partners don’t understand Generation Y” Dayton (2009), “What in the world can be done about Millennial Lawyers?” Black (2018)).
Change As A Threat
Regardless of whether it can be statistically proven that Millennial Lawyers are different from other generations, our insights into what this generation expect from their employer, as well as examples of conflict in law firms, have led us to believe that the conflict is largely change-driven. The Baby Boomer generation, and to some extent Generation X, see themselves confronted with a “brave new world” to which they must adapt. This difficult situation leads to conflict with the Millennial Generation who bring forward the changes which strike at the foundations of law firm culture.
The cornerstones of the Millennial World are not unreasonable: Surely law firms want to be more socially responsible? Surely the client wants a new billing model, away from the purely time-based, intransparent and inefficient billable-hour model? Surely the senior partner wants to see more of his or her family? Furthermore, the legal market is in a state of change. Law firms are forced to work more efficiently, to leverage technology, to create a new “value added” service for clients, to be more diverse. The demise of the billable hour has been a thorn in the side of law firms for many years. By questioning its usefulness, Millennial Lawyers are merely drawing attention to an underlying problem. Whilst change is a part of life, it is unsettling and can easily give rise to conflict within an organisation. Law firm strategies for dealing with the “Millennial Lawyer problem” revolve around recruiting and retaining Millennial Lawyers, rather than helping the Generation X or Baby Boomer lawyers to manage the dramatic change that law firms are going through: How will the Baby Boomer or Generation X lawyer measure his or her success if there is no billable hour?
Building A Multi-Generational Law Firm
Generational diversity can have a positive impact, by provoking change, or a negative impact, if firms continue to focus on stereotypical differences. Firms that concentrate on inclusion, rather than reinforcing the differences, can leverage generational diversity to their advantage. Firstly, firms need to acknowledge that there might be differences between the generations, in particular with regard to work processes and goals. For example, an older lawyer may come in early and leave early to spend time with his or her family in the evening, whilst the junior lawyer may come in late and stay late to do sport in the morning. These two different working processes can easily lead to tension if the older lawyer insists that the junior lawyer is in the office at the same time. If, however, each acknowledges the other’s work preference and understands that they actually have the same goal of getting the work done, whilst carving out some personal time, then the conflict can be alleviated. Furthermore, by having a team member available both early in the morning and late in the evening, the two lawyers might even be able to provide a better service to their client.
Part of acknowledging differences, is accepting and valuing those differences and working towards common ground. By involving each generation in the common goals of the firm, similarities, rather than differences, can be highlighted. Tools such as reverse mentoring (associates mentor partners) and “generational speed dating” (to gain new perspectives on old problems) are useful for helping each generation gain perspective on their differences and find common goals and solutions.
Finally, firms need to move away from stereotypes and inequality based purely on age: We might assume that the older partner knows nothing about technology, but by only offering IT training to older lawyers, we are reinforcing the stereotypes. If it isn’t the case already, then firms need to ensure that benefits, such as Home Office, are available to all lawyers, not just working parents. Firms that focus on improving the system for everyone underline the inclusive, collegial nature of the firm, rather than the exclusive “them vs us” narrative.
The changes being heralded by Millennial Lawyers (or even just the highlighting of changes which have already begun) as are part and parcel of law firm transformation. By viewing this change in a positive, non-confrontational light, then intergenerational tensions can be alleviated. The “Law Firm of Tomorrow” is one in which Millennials, Generation X and Baby Boomers "work on a peer-to-peer basis with the firm management and have a team spirit with their firm. They should feel important and assured that their work matters. Together the partners and associates of the firm should have a clear, joint vision of the future and a way of working towards achieving that goal.” (Quote from an essay written by a Millennial, who attended one of our courses on “Law Firms of the Future” in 2017).
Bibliography
Abrams, D., Swift, H.J. (2012) Experiences and Expressions of Ageism. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS4_gb_toplines_experiences_and_expressions_of_ageism.pdf [2020/3/30]
Bachman, E. 2019. Why Women Lawyers at Big Law Firms Are Walking Out The Door. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericbachman/2019/11/14/brand-new-aba-report-digs-into-biglaw-glass-ceiling-discrimination/#5f1cb82044d2 [2020/07/04]
Black, N. (2018). What in the world can be done about Millennial Lawyers? https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/what-in-the-world-can-be-done-about-millennial-lawyers/ [2020/3/30]
Bleasdale, L. Francis, A. (2017). Millennial Lawyers: Challenges and Opportunities for Law Firms in Leeds. https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/law/news/article/919/report-on-millennial-lawyers-launched-at-the-leeds-law-society [2020/3/30]
Buchdal, M. (2015). Law Firm Management Struggles with Multi-Generational Issues. https://www.lawpracticetoday.org/article/law-firm-management-multigenerational/ [2020/3/30]
Cohen, M.A. (2019). The Paul Weiss Class Of 2018: A Broader View Of Big Law Partnership And Priorities. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2019/02/07/the-paul-weiss-class-of-2018-a-broader-view-of-big-law-partnership-and-priorities/ [2020/2/3]
Dayton, A. (2009). Why Partners don’t understand Generation Y. https://adriandayton.com/2009/05/why-partners-dont-understand-generation-y/ [2020/3/30]
Hall, A., (2019). 6 aus 50. Legal Tribune Online https://www.lto.de/recht/kanzleien-unternehmen/k/partnerernennungen-kanzleien-2019-frauenquote-equity-partner-sechs-aus-neunundvierzig/[2020/2/7]
Hartung, M., Ziercke, E. (2019). Managing Lawyers is like Herding Cats – or is it? Legal Business World (2/2019) S. 90-96 https://f3cca18a-0d7b-426b-9404-86b930d9e63a.filesusr.com/ugd/b30d31_8dde0e279f0f4551b1d4127b366fa530.pdf [2020/2/3]
Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2007). The Next 20 Years: How Customer and Workforce Attitudes Will Evolve. Harvard Business Review (July-August 2007) S. 1-12
KPMG (2017). Meet the Millennials. https://home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/uk/pdf/2017/04/Meet-the-Millennials-Secured.pdf [2020/2/3 ]
Laud, D. (2019). The Challenge of Generational Diversity. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/the-challenge-of-generational-diversity/5071217.article [2020/3/30]
Mayson, S. (2012). The Law Firm Partnership: The Grand Delusion. https://stephenmayson.com/2012/10/09/law-firm-partnership-the-grand-delusion/ [2020/2/3]
McLellan, L. (2017). Where the Millennials Are: Tracking the Generations in Big Law. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/sites/americanlawyer/2017/11/06/where-the-millennials-are-tracking-the-generations-in-big-law/ [2020/3/30]
Molot, J.T. (2014). What’s wrong with law firms? A corporate finance solution to law firm short termism. Southern California Law Review Vol. 88:1, November
Partington, R. (2019). Gig economy in Britain doubles, accounting for 4.7 million workers. The Guardian. (2019 June). https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/28/gig-economy-in-britain-doubles-accounting-for-47-million-workers [2020/3/30]
Richard, L. (2002). Herding Cats: The Lawyer Personality Revealed. Altman Weil Report to Legal Management, Volume 29, 11 (August)
Thomson Reuters (2019). Legal Department 2025: The Generational Shift in Legal Departments. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/ewp-m/documents/legal/en/pdf/reports/s039305_0915.pdf [2020/3/31]
Urick, M., Hollensbe, E.C., Masterson, S., and Lyons, S.T. (2017). Understanding and Managing Intergenerational Conflict: An Examination of Influences and Strategies. Work, Ageing and Retirement, Vol. 3, No. 2,S. 168-185
Ziercke, E., Knipping, C. (2020). Next Generation Study. https://www.law-school.de/fileadmin/content/law-school.de/de/units/abt_education/pdf/Next_Generation_Article_Deutsch_EZ_CK_Final.pdf [2020/4/8]
About the Authors Emma Ziercke, is a non-practising solicitor (England & Wales) and senior research associate at the Bucerius Center on the Legal Profession (CLP) at the Bucerius Law School, Hamburg. Following her studies in Law and French Law and Language at the Universities of East Anglia (Norwich, England) and Jean Moulin Lyon III (France), Emma Ziercke worked as a Corporate Solicitor for Linklaters in London from 2002 until 2009. As a Managing Associate she was primarily involved in private international mergers and acquisitions, reorganisations, public takeovers by scheme of arrangement and general company law.
After moving to Hamburg, Emma studied part-time for an Executive MBA at Nottingham University Business School, focussing on law firm management and organisational behaviour. In 2014 she completed her studies with distinction and won an award for best overall performance together with an award for her dissertation on Gender Diversity in Law Firms. The dissertation was carried out as a case study, the purpose of which was to understand the underlying reasons for the high attrition rate of talented female lawyers in the
United Kingdom and Germany.
Emma currently works at the Bucerius Center on the Legal Profession as a senior research associate in the fields of Law Firm Management, Gender Diversity and Organisational Behaviour. Her main interest is in gender and generational diversity in the profession, and she has spoken on this topic at a number of events. A list of her publications can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmaziercke/. Furthermore, Emma teaches Law Firms of Tomorrow, a course on law firm management, for the International Exchange Students at the Bucerius Law School.
Markus Hartung Markus Hartung is a lawyer and mediator (www.markushartung.com). He is founder of the Bucerius Center on the Legal Profession (CLP) at Bucerius Law School, Hamburg. From 2010 to 2019, he was managing director of the Center. Today, as Senior Fellow, he continues his research focusing on market development and trends, management and strategic leadership as well as corporate governance of law firms and business models of law firms with regard to digitalisation of the legal market.
Since 2006, he is member of the Committee on Professional Regulation of the German Bar Association (DAV, chairing the Committee from 2011 through to 2019) and Co-Founder of ELTA – The European Legal Technology Association.
He is a regular lecturer and conference-speaker on leadership, management topics and professional ethics and has written numerous articles and book chapters on these topics. He is i.a. co-editor and author of “Wegerich/Hartung: Der Rechtsmarkt in Deutschland” (“The Legal Market in Germany”) which came to the market in 2014 and has developed into a standard reference for the German legal market. He is also Co-author of “How Legal Technology Will Change the Business of Law”, a joint study of The Boston Consulting Group and the Bucerius Law School. In autumn 2018, he co-published and co-authored the book “Legal Tech. How Technology is Changing the Legal World. A Practitioner’s Guide” which is the first comprehensive analysis of the impact of Legal Technology on the legal profession
Comments